# E XHIBIT 

# 1

B ASIN 

# M ANAGEMENT 

# A CTION 

# P LAN

For the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Nutrients Adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

for the



## Lower St. Johns River Basin

Main Stem

Developed by the

Lower St. Johns River TMDL Executive Committee In Cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

Bureau of Watershed Restoration Bureau of Assessment and Restoration Support

October 2008

### A CKNOWLEDGMENTS 

### : The Lower St. Johns River Basin Management Action Plan was prepared as part of a statewide watershed management approach to restore and protect Florida’s water quality. It was developed by the Lower St. Johns River TMDL Executive Committee, identified below, with participation from affected local, regional, and state governmental interests; elected officials and citizens; and private interests.

TMDL E XECUTIVE 

### C OMMITTEE 

### M EMBERS

Organization/ Interest Group Executive Committee Representative

Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection- Northeast District Office Greg Strong (Chair)
Builders/Developers Neil Aikenhead
Local Governments/Clay County Utility Authority Ray Avery
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mike Fulford
Forestry/Shadow Lawn Farms Jim Kuhn
Agriculture/Florida Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services Jody Lee

Environmental Interests/Stewar ds of the St Johns Don Loop
St Johns River Water Management District Kirby Green
Municipal Stormwater-Public Works/City of Jacksonville Ed Hall
Utility Authorities/ JEA Athena Mann

Environmental Interests/Univer sity of North Florida Env. Center Courtney Hackney
Military/U.S. Navy Mary Oxendine
Local Government Utilities/St. Johns County Utilities Neal Shinkre
Agriculture/North Florida Growers Exchange Wayne Smith
Regional Planning Councils/Northeast Florida Regional Council Brian Teeple

Local Governments/MS4 Permittees Harold Rutledge
Industry/Atlantic Marine Holding Company Herschel Vinyard

Ex Officio Members
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council Phil Laurien
Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection-Central District Vivian Garfein



### O THER 

### P ARTICIPANTS



### Past Executive Committee Members: Ernie Frey, Mario Taylor, Comm. Glen Lassiter, Richard Bonner, Bill Bartnick, Susan Hughes, Stephen Nix, Roger Bass, Diane Shider, Mike Burch, Jeff Jones, Sandra Glenn, and Comm. Rob Bradley.

Current Official Alternates: Bill Green, David Bolam, Michael Hollingsworth, Doris Marlin, Bill Bartnick, Casey Fitzgerald, Kraig McLane, Lynn Westbrook, Vince Seibold, Ebenezer Gujjarlapudi, Paul Steinbrecher, Ray Bowman, Jay Caddy, Mickhael Sulayman, Phil Leary, Michele Rundlett, Roger Chubin, Debbie Warr en, Ken Wilkey, Kimberly Loewen, and

Christianne Ferraro.

Key Staff:

FDEP Northeast District: Melissa Long, Khalid Al-Nahdy, Jeff Martin, Joe Emery, Jim Maher, and Jodi Conway.

FDEP-Tallahassee: Daryll Joyner, Wayne Magley, Fred Calder, Gail Sloane, Amy Tracy and Latrincy Whitehurst. St. Johns River Water Management District: John Hendrickson, Peter Sucsy, Kraig McLane, Ed Lowe, Dean Campbell, Pam Livingston-Way, and Courtney Hart.

FDACS : Terry Pride. Wildwood Consulting, Inc.: Tiffany Busby and Marcy Policastro.

i

### For additional information on Total Maximum Daily Loads and the watershed management approach in the Lower St. Johns River Basin, contact :

Amy Tracy Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Watershed Restoration, Watershed Planning and Coordination Section 2600 Blair Stone Road, Stop 3565
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Email: Amy.Tracy@dep.state.fl.us Phone: (850) 245-8506

ii

# T ABLE OF 

# C ONTENTS

E XECUTIVE 

### S UMMARY



### ....................................................................................................... IX 

### CHAPTER 1 : C ONTEXT



### , P URPOSE



### , AND 

### S COPE OF THE 

### P LAN 

### ............................................. 1

1.1 Water Quality Standards and Total Maximum Daily Loads ................................ 1

1.2 TMDL Implementation ........................................................................................ 2

1.3 The Lower St. Johns River Basin Management Action Plan .............................. 2

1.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement ............................................................................. 2

1.3.2 Plan Purpose ............................................................................................... 3

1.3.3 Geographic Scope ....................................................................................... 3

1.3.4 Plan Scope .................................................................................................. 6

1.3.5 TMDLs within the Lower St. Johns River Basin ........................................... 6

1.3.6 Pollutant Reduction and Discharge Allocations ........................................... 8

1.4 Assumptions and Considerations Regarding TMDL Implementation ................. 8

1.4.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................ 9

1.4.2 Considerations ........................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 2 : L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN 

### S ETTING 

### ................................................... 13

2.1 Basin Hydrology and Water Management ........................................................ 13

2.1.1 Hydrology .................................................................................................. 13

2.1.2 Water Management ................................................................................... 13

2.2 Land Use Coverage ......................................................................................... 16

2.3 Statement of Wate r Quality Problem ................................................................ 19

2.3.1 Verified Nutrient Impairment of the LSJR .................................................. 19

2.3.2 Other Indications of Nutrient Impairment ................................................... 20

2.4 Water Quality Trends ....................................................................................... 20

CHAPTER 3 : P OLLUTANT 

### S OURCES AND 

### D ETAILED 

### A LLOCATIONS 

### .................................... 22

3.1 Pollutant Sources ............................................................................................. 22

3.1.1 Freshwater Reach ..................................................................................... 22

3.1.2 Marine Reach ............................................................................................ 25

3.1.3 Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Sources .......................................... 28

3.1.4 Determination of Nitrogen and Phosphor us Loads for Urban Stormwater . 31

3.2 Detailed Allocations .......................................................................................... 32

3.2.1 Detailed Allocations for Point Sources ....................................................... 32

3.2.2 Detailed Allocations for Nonpoint Sources ................................................. 35

3.3 Allocations for New and Expand ing APRICOT and RO Facilities ..................... 36

3.4 Existing Facilities without an Allocation ............................................................ 37

3.4.1 De Minimus Facilities ................................................................................. 37

3.4.2 Plants Above Head of Tide ........................................................................ 38

3.5 Seminole Electric Atmos pheric Deposition Reductions .................................... 39

3.5.1 Description of Atmospheric Sources of Nitrogen ....................................... 39

3.5.2 Seminole Electric’s Planned Reductions to Atmospheric Deposition ......... 39

3.5.3 Reductions Applied to Seminole El ectric and Urban Stormwater Sources 39

3.5.4 Consideration of Other Atmo spheric Deposition Reductions ..................... 40

CHAPTER 4 : P OLLUTANT 

### R EDUCTION 

### F RAMEWORK AND 

### A NTICIPATED 

### O UTCOMES 

### ............ 41

4.1 Permitting Links to TMDL Implementation ....................................................... 41

4.1.1 Point Source Permitting ............................................................................. 41

4.1.2 The NPDES Stormwater Program ............................................................. 42

iii

### 4.1.3 St. Johns River Water Management District .............................................. 43

4.2 Other Programs that Contribute Toward Achievement of TMDLs .................... 43

4.2.1 St. Johns River Water Managem ent District SWIM Program ..................... 43

4.2.2 SJRWMD Watershed Action Volunteers .................................................... 44

4.2.3 SJRWMD Algal Initiative ............................................................................ 44

4.3 Water Quality Credit Trading Framework for the LSJR Basin .......................... 44

4.4 Anticipated Resource Responses from BMAP Implementation ........................ 45

CHAPTER 5 : P OINT 

### S OURCE 

### TMDL I MPLEMENTATION 

### .................................................... 46

5.1 Wastewater Permitting ..................................................................................... 46

5.1.1 Aggregate Permits ..................................................................................... 46

5.1.2 Projects to Meet TMDL Allocations ............................................................ 47

5.2 MS4 Permitting ................................................................................................. 47

5.2.1 NPDES MS4 Phase I Stormwater Permit Requirements ........................... 47

5.2.2 NPDES MS4 Phase II Stormwater Permit Requirements .......................... 47

5.2.3 Projects to Meet TMDL Allocations ............................................................ 48

5.3 Non-MS4 Stormwater Source Regulation ........................................................ 49

5.4 Water Quality Credit Trading ............................................................................ 50

5.4.1 Fundamental Principles of Water Quality Credit Trading ........................... 50

5.4.2 “Pre-BMAP” Trading During BMAP Development ..................................... 50

5.4.3 “Formal Trading” Post-BMAP Adoption ..................................................... 52

5.4.4 Procedures for Formal Trading .................................................................. 53

5.4.5 Trading Factors ......................................................................................... 54

5.4.6 Trades Involving Two Point Sources ......................................................... 56

5.4.7 Trades Involving a Point Source Buyer and Nonpoint Source Seller ......... 58

5.4.8 Trade Tracking .......................................................................................... 59

5.4.9 Watershed-Based and Aggregate Permitting ............................................ 60

CHAPTER 6 : N ONPOINT 

### S OURCE 

### TMDL I MPLEMENTATION 

### .............................................. 62

6.1 Agricultural Industry Strategi es to Reduce TN and TP Loadings ..................... 62

6.1.1 Agricultural Loadings and Allocations in the LSJR Basin .......................... 63

6.1.2 Efforts to Address Agricultural Nonpoint Pollutant Discharges .................. 64

6.1.3 Project Tables and Schedules to Ac hieve Agricultural Load Reductions ... 72

CHAPTER 7 : A SSESSING 

### P ROGRESS AND 

### M AKING 

### C HANGES 

### ........................................... 76

7.1 Tracking Implementation .................................................................................. 76

7.2 Water Quality Monitoring .................................................................................. 80

7.2.1 Lower St. Johns River Target Compliance Monitoring ............................... 80

7.2.2 Source Monitoring ..................................................................................... 84

7.2.3 Monitoring Responsibilities ........................................................................ 90

7.2.4 Maintenance of Data ................................................................................. 90

7.3 Adaptive Management Measures ..................................................................... 90

7.4 Revisions to the BMAP .................................................................................... 91

CHAPTER 8 : C OMMITMENT TO 

### P LAN 

### I MPLEMENTATION 

### .................................................... 92

A PPENDIX 

### A : TMDL B ASIN 

### R OTATION 

### S CHEDULE 

### ............................................................. 93

A PPENDIX 

### B : S UMMARY OF 

### S TATUTORY 

### P ROVISIONS 

### G UIDING 

### BMAP D EVELOPMENT AND


### I MPLEMENTATION 

### ............................................................................................................. 94

A PPENDIX 

### C : S TAKEHOLDER 

### I NVOLVEMENT IN 

### BMAP D EVELOPMENT 

### ................................. 97

iv

### A PPENDIX 

### D : S UMMARY OF 

### EPA-R ECOMMENDED 

### E LEMENTS OF A 

### C OMPREHENSIVE


### W ATERSHED 

### P LAN 

### ........................................................................................................... 99

A PPENDIX 

### E : N ET 

### E STIMATED 

### T OTAL 

### N ITROGEN AND 

### T OTAL 

### P HOSPHORUS 

### L OADS 

### A FTER


### BMAP I MPLEMENTATION 

### ................................................................................................ 102

A PPENDIX 

### F : D ESCRIPTION OF 

### M ODELS 

### U SED TO 

### E STIMATE 

### T OTAL 

### N ITROGEN AND 

### T OTAL


### P HOSPHORUS 

### L OADINGS AND 

### D ETERMINE THE 

### TMDL ...................................................... 105

A PPENDIX 

### G : T ARGET 

### P OLLUTANTS 

### A CROSS 

### F LORIDA 

### ..................................................... 108

A PPENDIX 

### H : P ROJECTS TO 

### A CHIEVE THE 

### TMDL ............................................................ 109

A PPENDIX 

### I : E STIMATED 

### P ROJECT 

### C OSTS 

### ....................................................................... 162

A PPENDIX 

### J : G LOSSARY OF 

### T ERMS 

### ................................................................................ 170

A PPENDIX 

### K : B IBLIOGRAPHY OF 

### K EY 

### R EFERENCES AND 

### W EBSITES 

### ................................... 179



# L IST OF 

# F IGURES

F IGURE 

### 1: L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN 

### ......................................................................... 4

F IGURE 

### 2: M ARINE AND 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACHES IN THE 

### L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### .................. 5

F IGURE 

### 3: 2004 L AND 

### U SES IN THE 

### L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN 

### ................................... 18

F IGURE 

### 4: P OINT 

### S OURCE 

### F ACILITIES IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACH 

### ..................................... 23

F IGURE 

### 5: U RBAN 

### S TORMWATER 

### J URISDICTIONS 

### I N THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACH 

### ..................... 24

F IGURE 

### 6: P OINT 

### S OURCE 

### F ACILITIES IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### R EACH 

### .............................................. 27

F IGURE 

### 7: U RBAN 

### S TORMWATER 

### J URISDICTIONS 

### I N THE 

### M ARINE 

### R EACH 

### .............................. 28

F IGURE 

### 8: S AMPLING 

### P RIORITY 

### A REA IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACH OF THE 

### LSJR ................. 82

F IGURE 

### 9: L ONG 

### -T ERM 

### A MBIENT AND 

### P ROPOSED 

### A UTOMATED 

### C ONTINUOUS 

### S AMPLING


### L OCATIONS IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### R EACH 

### (WBID 2213B) OF THE 

### LSJR ....................................... 83

F IGURE 

### 10: W ATERSHED 

### A REAS 

### A SSESSED IN THE 

### T RIBUTARY 

### M ONITORING 

### P ROGRAM 

### ....... 89



# L IST OF 

# T ABLES

T ABLE 

### 1: D ESIGNATED 

### U SE 

### A TTAINMENT 

### C ATEGORIES FOR 

### F LORIDA 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS 

### ........ 1

T ABLE 

### 2: P HASES OF THE 

### W ATERSHED 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### C YCLE 

### ............................................... 2

T ABLE 

### 3: TMDL S IN THE 

### L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN 

### ..................................................... 8

T ABLE 

### 4: V ERIFIED 

### I MPAIRED 

### S EGMENTS OF THE 

### M AIN 

### S TEM OF THE 

### LSJR ......................... 19

T ABLE 

### 5: W ASTEWATER 

### T REATMENT 

### F ACILITIES IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### S ECTION 

### ............................ 25

T ABLE 

### 6: I NITIAL AND 

### S TARTING 

### P OINT 

### TN L OADS IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### S ECTION 

### ......................... 29

T ABLE 

### 7: I NITIAL AND 

### S TARTING 

### P OINT 

### TN L OADS IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### S ECTION 

### ................. 30

T ABLE 

### 8: I NITIAL AND 

### S TARTING 

### P OINT 

### TP L OADS IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### S ECTION 

### ................. 31

T ABLE 

### 9: P OINT 

### S OURCES 

### -M ARINE 

### N ITROGEN 

### W ASTELOAD 

### A LLOCATIONS 

### .......................... 33

T ABLE 

### 10: P OINT 

### S OURCES 

### -F RESHWATER 

### N ITROGEN 

### W ASTELOAD 

### A LLOCATIONS 

### ............... 34

T ABLE 

### 11: P OINT 

### S OURCES 

### -F RESHWATER 

### P HOSPHORUS 

### W ASTELOAD 

### A LLOCATIONS 

### .......... 34

T ABLE 

### 12: N ONPOINT 

### S OURCES 

### -M ARINE 

### N ITROGEN 

### L OAD 

### A LLOCATIONS 

### ............................ 35

T ABLE 

### 13: N ONPOINT 

### S OURCES 

### -F RESHWATER 

### N ITROGEN 

### L OAD 

### A LLOCATIONS 

### ................... 35

T ABLE 

### 14: N ONPOINT 

### S OURCES 

### -F RESHWATER 

### P HOSPHORUS 

### L OAD 

### A LLOCATIONS 

### .............. 36

T ABLE 

### 15: U PSTREAM 

### S OURCES 

### -N ITROGEN AND 

### P HOSPHORUS 

### L OAD 

### A LLOCATIONS 

### ........... 36

T ABLE 

### 16: F UTURE 

### APRICOT AND 

### RO A LLOCATIONS 

### ........................................................ 37

T ABLE 

### 17: D E 

### M INIMUS 

### F ACILITIES IN THE 

### LSJR B ASIN 

### ...................................................... 37

T ABLE 

### 18: P LANTS 

### A BOVE 

### H EAD OF 

### T IDE IN THE 

### LSJR B ASIN 

### ............................................. 38

v

### T ABLE 

### 19: W ASTEWATER 

### F ACILITIES IN THE 

### LSJR B ASIN 

### .................................................... 41

T ABLE 

### 20: L OCAL 

### G OVERNMENTS IN THE 

### LSJR B ASIN 

### D ESIGNATED AS 

### R EGULATED 

### MS4 S 

### ... 43

T ABLE 

### 21: P RE 

### -BMAP T RADES AND 

### R EVISED 

### A LLOCATIONS 

### .............................................. 51

T ABLE 

### 22: L OCATION 

### F ACTORS FOR 

### T RADES 

### W HEN 

### B UYER IS IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### R EACH 

### ........... 54

T ABLE 

### 23: L OCATION 

### F ACTORS FOR 

### T RADES 

### W HEN 

### B UYER IS IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACH 

### .. 55

T ABLE 

### 24: W ASTELOAD 

### A LLOCATIONS FOR 

### A GGREGATE 

### P ERMITS 

### ....................................... 61

T ABLE 

### 25: SJRWMD 2004 A GRICULTURAL 

### L AND 

### U SE 

### A CRES IN THE 

### L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER


### B ASIN 

### (E XCLUDING 

### A QUACULTURE AND 

### S ILVICULTURE 

### ) ...................................................... 62

T ABLE 

### 26: LSJR M AIN 

### S TEM 

### BMAP A GRICULTURE 

### A LLOCATIONS 

### ...................................... 63

T ABLE 

### 27: M ITIGATING 

### BMP S 

### B ASED ON 

### A MOUNT OF 

### F ERTILIZER 

### G REATER THAN THE 

### IFASR ECOMMENDED 

### R ATE 

### ...................................................................................................... 69

T ABLE 

### 28: R ESULTS OF 

### F ORESTRY 

### BMP S URVEYS 

### 1999

– 2007 ........................................ 70

T ABLE 

### 29: A GRICULTURE 

### P ROJECTS TO 

### M EET THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### N ITROGEN 

### A LLOCATION 

### .... 72

T ABLE 

### 30: A GRICULTURE 

### P ROJECTS TO 

### M EET THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### P HOSPHORUS 

### A LLOCATION 

### 73

T ABLE 

### 31: A GRICULTURE 

### P ROJECTS TO 

### M EET THE 

### M ARINE 

### N ITROGEN 

### A LLOCATION 

### ............. 74

T ABLE 

### 32: P ROPOSED 

### BMAP A NNUAL 

### R EPORTING 

### F ORMAT 

### ............................................... 78

T ABLE 

### 33: L ONG 

### -T ERM 

### A MBIENT 

### S AMPLING 

### S TATIONS IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACH AND


### R ESPONSIBLE 

### E NTITIES 

### .................................................................................................... 81

T ABLE 

### 34: C ONTINUOUS 

### M ONITORING 

### S TATIONS IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### R EACH AND 

### R ESPONSIBLE


### E NTITIES 

### ......................................................................................................................... 84

T ABLE 

### 35: I NDICATORS FOR 

### P OINT AND 

### N ONPOINT 

### S OURCE 

### M ONITORING TO 

### A SSESS 

### C OMPLIANCE WITH 

### A LLOCATIONS 

### ...................................................................................... 84

T ABLE 

### 36: E XISTING AND 

### R ECOMMENDED 

### L ONG 

### -T ERM 

### A MBIENT 

### M ONITORING 

### S TATIONS FOR

THE 

### TMDL ...................................................................................................................... 86

T ABLE 

### 37: S TORMFLOW 

### S AMPLING FOR 

### TMDL M ODEL 

### R EFINEMENT 

### ................................... 87

vi

# L IST OF 

# A CRONYMS

AO Administrative Order

APRICOT A Prototype Realistic Innov ative Community of Today

ATAC Allocation Technical Advisory Committee

AWT Advanced Waste Treatment

BAT Best Available Technology Economically Achievable

BMAP Basin Management Action Plan

BMP Best Management Practice

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CCUA

CDS Clay County Utility Authority Continuous Deflective Separation

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations

DMR Discharge Monitoring Report

DO Dissolved Oxygen

EF Equivalency Factors

EFDC Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code

EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERP Environmental Resource Permit

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code

FDACS Florida Department of Agricu lture and Consumer Services

FDEP Florida Department of En vironmental Protection

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

FLUCS Florida Land Use Land Co ver Classification System

F.S. Florida Statutes

FWRA Florida Watershed Restoration Act

GIS Geographic Information System

GP General Permit

LF Location Factor

LSJR Lower St. Johns River

MEP Maximum Extent Practicable

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

NAS Naval Air Station

NOI Notice of Intent

NPDES National Pollutant Dischar ge Elimination System

NPS Nonpoint Source

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NS Naval Station

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OAWP Office of Agricult ural Water Policy

PLRG Pollutant Load Reduction Goal

PLSM Pollution Load Sc reening Model

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works

PTPAC Pollutant Trading Policy Advisory Committee

QA Quality Assurance

vii

# L IST OF 

# A CRONYMS

RA Reasonable Assurance

RO Reverse Osmosis

RST Regional Stormwater Treatment

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District

SSAC Site-Specific Alternative Criterion

SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management

STORET STOrage and RETrieval (Database)

SWMP Stormwater Management Program

TAC Technical Advisory Committee

TBEL Technology Based Effluent Limitations

TCAA Tri-County Agricultural Area

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TN Total Nitrogen

TP Total Phosphorus

TSI Trophic State Index

TWG Technical Working Group

UA Urbanized Area

UF Uncertainty Factor

UF–IFAS University of Florida–Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WAV Watershed Action Volunteers

WBID Waterbody Identification

WLA Wasteload Allocation

WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

viii

# E XECUTIVE 

# S UMMARY

T HE 

### L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN 

### The area addressed by the Lower St. Johns River (LSJR) Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) is that portion of the St. Johns River that flows between the mouth of the Ocklawaha River, its largest tributary, and the Atlantic Ocean, encompassing a 2,750-square-mile drainage area. Within this reach, the St. Johns River is 101 miles long and has a water surface area of approximately 115 square miles. Major centers of population within the Lower St. Johns include Palatka, a city of 10,700 at the southern entrance to the basin; Green Cove Springs, a city of 4,700 at the midpoint; and the Orange Park, Middleburg, and Jacksonville metropolitan area,with a population of over one million, in the northern portion of the basin. The LSJR is a sixthorder, darkwater river estuary, and, along its length, it exhibits characteristics associated with riverine, lake, and estuarine aquatic environments.

T OTAL 

### M AXIMUM 

### D AILY 

### L OADS 

### Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are water quality targets, based on state water quality standards, for specific pollutants (such as nitrogen, phosphorus, mercury, and others). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) identified several segments of the main stem of the LSJR Basin to be impaired by nutrients, and has adopted TMDLs for Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) in the freshwater section and for TN in the marine section, as

shown in the table below.

WBID(s) TMDL TMDL

Baseline

Load Wasteload

Allocation* Load

Allocation (nonpoint) Overall

Needed

Reduction
(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Freshwate r

2213I to 2213N 500,325 TP 599,61 0 46,357 TP 453,968 TP 99,285

2213I to 2213N 8,571,563 TN 10,115,5 52 236,695 TN 8,334,868 TN 1,543,989

Marine

2213A to 2213H 1,376,855 TN 2,453, 258 1,027,590 TN 349,265 1,076,403
* Includes a percent reduction fr om NPDES stormwater sources



### .

The freshwater section starts at Buffalo Bluff, south of Palatka, and continues downstream to Black Creek. The nutrient reductions (TMDLs) for the freshwater section are set to reduce algal blooms (measured by the amount of chlorophyll a in the water column) so that the river can support healthy fish and wildlife populations.

The marine section begins at Black Creek and continues downstream to the mouth of the river and the Atlantic Ocean near Mayport. The overabundance of nitrogen in the marine section causes low dissolved oxygen that does not meet the State standards. The reductions for the marine section are designed to meet the site-specific alternative dissolved oxygen standard for the LSJR, which supports the fish and wildlife populations in this portion of the river.

T HE 

### L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### A CTION 

### P LAN 

### A Stakeholders Group was formed in 1999 to discuss technical issues related to the TMDL model development. The scientists at FDEP and the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) developing the model and the TMDL reviewed technical details with this group. FDEP and SJRWMD also consulted stakeholders during the preparation of a plan of study for the TMDL ( Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads and Pollution Load Reduction

ix

### Goals for the Lower St. Johns River Basin: Plan of Study) , which was first drafted in 2000 and published in September 2001. In July 2002, FDEP convened the LSJR TMDL Executive Committee to provide input to the development of a TMDL for the basin and to assist in developing a BMAP to achieve the TMDL.

The required reductions in the BMAP were developed through an extensive allocation process that follows the three-step process recommended in the Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) Report to the Governor and Legislature (February 2001). “Step 1” and “Step 2” reductions were only applied to nonpoint sources (urban, agriculture, and forestry areas) to provide treatment effort approximately equivalent to the treatment required for domestic and industrial wastewater facilities. The Step 2 reductions were based on the reduction from nonpoint sources expected from implementation of their respective best management practices (BMPs). Since Step 2 reductions did not result in meeting the assimilative capacity of the river, additional “Step 3” reductions were necessary, which required the same overall percentage reduction from point and nonpoint sources.

The LSJR BMAP represents the collaborative effort of local stakeholders in the basin to identify current and planned management strategies to reduce discharges of TN and TP to the basin to

achieve the allocations shown in this BMAP. It contains both structural and non-structural strategies, including:

• Wastewater treatment plant upgrades;

• Redirecting wastewater discharges to beneficial reuse for irrigation and other purposes;

• Stormwater retrofits;

• Urban structural BMPs;

• Urban nonstructural BMPs such as cleaning and maintenance activities;

• Agricultural BMPs;

• Environmental education; and

• Water quality credit trading.

A NTICIPATED 

### O UTCOMES OF 

### BMAP I MPLEMENTATION 

### With implementation of the projects outlined in this BMAP, reductions in the nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the river are expected to improve the conditions of the river so that it meets water quality standards. The following outcomes are anticipated from BMAP implementation:

• Improved water quality in both the marine and freshwater portions of the LSJR;

• Decreased loading of target nutrients (TN and TP) in the water column, which leads to improvement in dissolved oxygen conditions and other secondary water quality characteristics, such as decreased turbidity and organic carbon;

• Lowered concentrations of chlorophyll a , which indicates that there are fewer algae in the water column and, therefore, fewer algal blooms;

• Decreased number of toxic algal blooms and the associated health risks;

• Fewer fish kills;

• Increased native aquatic vegetation;

• Enhanced understanding of basin hydrology, water quality, and pollutant sources; and

• Enhanced public awareness of pollutant sources, impacts, and management actions.

A GGREGATE 

### P ERMITS AND 

### W ATER 

### Q UALITY 

### C REDIT 

### T RADING 

### To provide entities an opportunity to meet thei r allocations more efficiently, options were provided to create aggregate permits or to conduct water quality credit trades. The aggregate

xxi 

### permit allows entities with multiple wastewater facilities to group their wasteload allocations to provide for more flexibility in meeting the TMDL load allocations. The individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for each facility will remain in effect, and an aggregate permit will be added to link the maximum allowed nutrient discharges to one total allocated nutrient TMDL load. This linkage to the NPDES permits provides assurance that

the nutrient reductions will be achieved.

Entities with wasteload allocations for both a wastewater facility and a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) were given the option of transferring some of their allocations from one source to the other (called “Pre-BMAP trades”). Since stormwater improvements are usually more expensive than wastewater upgrades, some entities decided to make additional improvements to their wastewater plants in place of stormwater reductions, and then moved some of their wasteload allocation for their wastewater facility to their MS4 permit.

Post-BMAP water quality trades will also be allowed to provide opportunities to find the lowest cost solutions and to promote greater levels of reductions than would otherwise occur. To prevent “hotspots” (areas where water quality standards are not met), location factors and other trading factors will be applied, adjusting the amount traded to ensure that all waterbody identification numbers (WBIDs) will meet water quality standards.

BMAP C OST AND 

### T IMEFRAME 

### Costs were provided for one-third of the management strategies identified in the BMAP, with an estimated total cost of more than $620 million. Funding sources range from local stormwater fees to regional, state cost-share grants, and l egislative appropriations. Executive Committee and Stakeholder Group members will continue to explore new opportunities for funding assistance. Securing funding is critical as the projects listed in this BMAP must occur in a timely manner. This BMAP outlines reductions from all significant sources of nutrients to the LSJR

Basin.

BMAP F OLLOW



### - UP 

### As a part of BMAP follow-up, FDEP and SJRWMD will track implementation efforts and monitor water quality trends in the marine and freshwater sections of the river and major tributaries. The results will be used to evaluate whether the plan is effective in reducing algal blooms and increasing dissolved oxygen, and that the river is responding as the water quality model predicted. The Executive Committee will meet at least once every 12 months to discuss implementation issues, consider new info rmation, and determine what other management strategies are needed if monitoring indicates that the river is not responding to the nutrient reductions as expected or if control meas ures are not being implemented on schedule.

C OMMITMENT TO 

### BMAP I MPLEMENTATION 

### The Executive Committee has provided endorsement of the BMAP on behalf of the entities they represent and is committed to ensuring the plan is implemented to achieve reductions in the nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the river. The estimated nutrient reductions are expected to improve the conditions of the river such that it meets applicable water quality standards, which will improve dissolved oxygen conditions and ot her secondary water quality characteristics, lower concentrations of chlorophyll a , decrease the number of toxic algal blooms, and increase native aquatic vegetation. While BMAP implementat ion will be long term, the plan will ultimately achieve many benefits for the Lower St. Johns River Basin.

# CHAPTER 1 : C ONTEXT


# , P URPOSE



# , AND 

# S COPE OF THE 

# P LAN



## 1.1 W ATER 

## Q UALITY 

## S TANDARDS AND 

## T OTAL 

## M AXIMUM 

## D AILY 

## L OADS

Florida's water quality standards are designed to ensure that surface waters can be used for their designated purposes, such as drinking water, recreation, and shellfish harvesting. Currently, most surface waters in Florida, including those in the Lower St. Johns River (LSJR) Basin, are categorized as Class III waters, which mean they must be suitable for recreation and must support the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish

and wildlife. Table 1 shows other designated use categories.

Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, every two years each state must identify its “impaired” waters, including estuaries, lakes, rivers, and streams, that do not meet their designated uses and are not expected to meet applicable water quality standards within the subsequent two years. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is responsible for developing this “303(d) list” of impaired waters.

T ABLE 

### 1: D ESIGNATED 

### U SE 

### A TTAINMENT 

### C ATEGORIES FOR 

### F LORIDA 

### S URFACE 

### W ATERS 

### Category Description

Class I * Potable water supplies

Class II * Shellfish propagation or harvesting

Class III Recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy, wellbalanced population of fish and wildlife

Class IV Agricultural water supplies

Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use ( no current Class V designations )

* Class I and II waters include the uses of the classifications listed below them.

Florida's 303(d) list identifies hundreds of water segments that fall short of water quality standards. The three most common water quality concerns are coliforms, nutrients, and oxygen-demanding substances (see Appendix G for a list of target pollutants across Florida). FDEP develops and adopts Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the waterbody segments it identifies as impaired. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a specific pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate while maintaining its designated uses.

The administrative process for listing impaired waters and establishing TMDLs are authorized by Section 403.067, Florida Statutes (F.S.), known as the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA), and the listing methodology is contained in Florida’s Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule, Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Nutrient TMDLs have been established for the impaired segments of the LSJR, and these TMDLs identify the amount of Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Nitrogen (TN) they can receive and still maintain their Class III designated uses.

TMDLs are developed and implemented as part of a watershed management cycle, based on the state’s 52 river basins. This approach uses a schedule that rotates through the river basins over a five-year repeated cycle (see Appendix A ) to evaluate waters, determine impairments, and develop and implement management strategies to restore impaired waters to their designated uses. The five phases of the watershed management cycle are summarized in

Table 2

.

1

### T ABLE 

### 2: P HASES OF THE 

### W ATERSHED 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### C YCLE



### Phase 1 Preliminary evaluation of water quality

Phase 2 Strategic monitoring and assessment to verify water quality impairments

Phase 3 Development and adoption of TMDLs for waters verified as impaired

Phase 4 Development of management strategies to achieve the TMDL(s)

Phase 5 Implementation of TMDL(s), including monitoring and assessment



## 1.2 TMDL I MPLEMENTATION

Rule-adopted TMDLs may be implemented through basin management action plans (BMAPs),which contain strategies to reduce and prevent pollutant discharges through various costeffective means. During Phase 4 of the TMDL process, BMAPs or other implementation approaches are developed jointly by the FDEP and the affected stakeholders in the various basins. A basin may have more than one BMAP, based on practical considerations, such as the number of impaired waters and types of impai rment. The FWRA contains provisions that guide the development of BMAPs and other TMDL implementation approaches. Appendix B contains a summary of the statutory provisions related to BMAP development.

Stakeholder involvement is critical to the success of the TMDL Program, and varies with each phase of implementation to achieve different purposes. The BMAP development process is structured to achieve cooperation and consensus among a broad range of interested parties. Pursuant to statute, FDEP invites stakeholders to participate in the BMAP development process, and encourages public participation to the greatest practicable extent. FDEP must hold at least one noticed public meeting in the basin to discuss and receive comments during the planning process. Stakeholder involvement is essential to develop, gain support for, and secure commitments to implement the BMAP.



## 1.3 T HE 

## L OWER 

## S T



## . J OHNS 

## R IVER 

## B ASIN 

## M ANAGEMENT 

## A CTION 

## P LAN



### 1.3.1 S TAKEHOLDER 

### I NVOLVEMENT


### The TMDLs and the BMAP were developed in the Lower St. Johns River Basin through extensive stakeholder involvement. In 1999, Stakeholder Group meetings began to review the water quality model development, the assumptions within the model, and the key aspects of the model approach. The scientists developing t he model and the TMDL development criteria reviewed technical details with this group. Stakeholders were also consulted during the preparation of the Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads and Pollution Load Reduction Goals for the Lower St. Johns River Basin: Plan of Study , first drafted in 2000 and published in September 2001.

In addition to these discussions on the tech nical issues of TMDL development, the FDEP solicited further input from key stakeholder groups at the management level by appointing the Lower St. Johns River TMDL Executive Committee in July 2002. The Committee, which is chaired by FDEP, developed the following mission statement:

The Lower St. Johns River TMDL Executive Committee advises the Department of Environmental Protection on the development and implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the basin. The Committee represents and communicates with key stakeholders to secure local input and consensus on pollutant reductions. The Committee is charged with recommending a “reasonable and equitable” allocation of pollutant load reductions for achieving TMDLs in the lower basin and, in conjunction with

2

### the Department, developing a basin management action plan to implement those load

reductions.

The Executive Committee and Stakeholders Group met regularly, and reviewed the major issues regarding the development of the TMDLs and detailed allocations. Except as specifically noted in subsequent sections, this BMAP document reflects the input of these committees, along with public input from workshops and meetings held to discuss key aspects of the TMDL and BMAP development. Further details are provided in Appendix C

.

Stakeholders also played a key role in providing project information for the BMAP to show how they would achieve their allocations (refer to Appendix H) . It was the responsibility of each entity to review their project list, associated reductions, and implementation schedules included

in this BMAP to ensure the information was correct.



### 1.3.2 P LAN 

### P URPOSE



### As reflected in the mission statement of the TMDL Executive Committee, the purpose of this BMAP is to implement load reductions to achi eve the nutrient TMDLs for the Lower St. Johns River Basin. This plan also outlines specific projects that will achieve load reductions and a schedule for implementation. The document details a monitoring approach to measure progress toward meeting load reductions and to report on how the TMDL is being accomplished.



### 1.3.3 G EOGRAPHIC 

### S COPE


### The physical area addressed by the Lower St. Johns River BMAP is that portion of the St. Johns River that flows between the mouth of the Ocklawaha River, its largest tributary, and the Atlantic Ocean, encompassing a 2,750-square-mile drainage area (see Figure 1 ). Within this reach, the St. Johns River is 101 miles long and has a water surface area of approximately 115 square miles. Major centers of population within the Lower St. Johns include Palatka, a city of 10,700 at the southern entrance to the basin; Green Cove Springs, a city of 4,700 at the midpoint; and the Orange Park, Middleburg, and Jacksonville metropolitan area, with a population of over one million, in the northern portion of the basin (Floyd et al., 1997). The Lower St. Johns River is a sixth-order, darkwater river estuary, and, along its length, it exhibits characteristics associated with riverine, lake, and estuarine aquatic environments (Phlips et al., June 2000). Additional information about the river’s hydrology and geology are available in the Basin Status Report for the LSJR Basin (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2002).

For assessment purposes, the Department has divided the Lower St. Johns River Basin into water assessment polygons with a unique waterbody identification (WBID) number for each watershed or stream reach. The main stem of the LSJR is divided into fifteen WBID segments (see Figure 1 ). The LSJR is also divided into two reaches based on salinity: the marine reach and the freshwater reach ( Figure 2 ).

3

### F IGURE 

### 1: L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN

4

### F IGURE 

### 2: M ARINE AND 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACHES IN THE 

### L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER

5

### 1.3.4 P LAN 

### S COPE


### The Lower St. Johns River BMAP addresses the nutrient TMDLs adopted by FDEP. There are other water quality concerns that will benefit from the actions that address nutrient loading. However, this BMAP does not attempt to address all the important water quality issues in the basin. The BMAP addresses sources of nutrients that discharge both directly and indirectly (stormwater discharges) into the main stem of the Lower St. Johns River. This document does not incorporate additional TMDLs for other pollutants.

Point sources such as domestic wastewater plants that discharge to tributaries above the head of tide were not separated as individual loads to the main stem. Those point sources are considered as part of the total load of the tributaries that enter the main stem. Loads associated

with land uses that drain to the tributaries and then to the main stem are addressed in this BMAP as well as permitted stormwater operations and nonpoint sources that drain directly to the main stem. Specific load reduction require ments have been assigned to municipalities with urban lands. The responsibilities for load reductions from urban areas were assigned to the county where the urban area was located or to the associated city or town with an incorporated area. The Florida Department of Transportation (F DOT) is responsible for loads from state roads and highways and from the stormwater treatment areas they manage.

Agriculture and silviculture operations were assigned load reduction responsibilities as a general land use category, with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) as the lead entity to oversee those reductions on private property; individual load reductions have not been assigned to each property owner engaged in agricultural and silvicultural operations. Florida law requires these operat ions to implement best management practices (BMPs) or monitor runoff water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met. When BMP implementation does not achieve the requir ed load reductions to meet the TMDL, regional treatment projects are needed to remove additional loads before the water is discharged to the

tributaries or main stem.

This BMAP considers loads from the Ocklawaha River, Crescent Lake, and Lake George and their related watersheds as “upstream sources.” Upstream sources are assigned responsibility for load reductions but those reductions are not assigned to individual entities. It is envisioned that specific allocations to the upstream loads will be made in the BMAPs related to the TMDLs for those areas. Those efforts will give additional opportunity for technical review of the load information specific to those watersheds and for discussions with those stakeholders about the best way to approach specific allocations and reduction responsibilities.



### 1.3.5 TMDL S WITHIN THE 

### L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN


### The St. Johns River was verified as impaired by nutrients based on elevated chlorophyll a and Trophic State Index (TSI) levels in the freshwater and marine portions of the river, and was included on the verified list of impaired waters for the Lower St. Johns River Basin that was adopted by Secretarial Order on September 4, 2003. The TMDLs establish the allowable loadings of TN and TP to the marine and freshwater portions of the LSJR that would restore the river so that it meets its applicable water quality criteria for nutrients.

A nutrient TMDL for the LSJR was originally adopted by the state of Florida on December 3, 2003 (Rule 62-304.415, F.A.C.) and formally submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 on March 15, 2004. While the TMDL was initially approved by EPA on April 27, 2004, EPA was challenged on the basis that the Class III marine daily average dissolved oxygen (DO) criterion would not be met at all times under the TMDL. EPA then

6

### rescinded its April 27, 2004 approval, and subsequently established a nutrient TMDL for the Lower St. Johns River that would meet the DO criteria on January 23, 2006.

At the time EPA disapproved the State’s TMDL, EPA recognized that a) the TMDL for the marine portion of the river was based on meeting DO levels that were protective of aquatic life use support as an indirect way to evaluate the State’s narrative nutrient criterion (shall not cause an imbalance in flora or fauna); b) the appropriate DO levels were based on an EPA methodology for development of DO criteria; and c) the State intended to develop a site-specific alternative criterion (SSAC) based on the EPA methodology. This acknowledgement was specifically mentioned in the introduction sect ion of the EPA TMDL document, which stated:

EPA is aware that FDEP is continuing to pursue development of a site specific criterion for dissolved oxygen for the River that would be both protective of aquatic life and consistent with the previously submitted TM DL. While EPA’s disapproval action triggers EPA’s duty to establish a replacement TMDL, EPA recognizes that the FDEP TMDL could be considered for approval in the future should the State adopt and EPA approve a site specific criterion.

FDEP’s application of the EPA methodology to develop a SSAC for DO for the marine portion of the river between Julington Creek and the mouth of the river is detailed in the April 2006 report, Site Specific Alternative Dissolved Oxygen Criterion to Protect Aquatic Life in the Marine Portions of the Lower St. Johns River Technical Support Document . The SSAC for DO was adopted by the State and approved by EPA.

After the SSAC was approved by EPA, the Department worked with SJRWMD to remodel the river to determine the allowable nutrient load that would maintain dissolved oxygen levels above the levels established in the SSAC, and a revised TMDL was developed based on the results of that re-assessment. On September 30, 2007, EPA proposed a new TMDL based on the SSAC for DO in the marine portion of the Lower St. Johns River. After public review and comment, this TMDL was finalized by EPA on January 17, 2008. The FDEP then adopted the revised
TMDL on June 3, 2008.



### 1.3.5.1 Freshwater Section TMDLs and General Allocations

As adopted by the EPA in January 2008 and by FDEP in June 2008, the TMDL for the freshwater segment of the Lower St. Johns River, from Buffalo Bluff to Black Creek, is 500,325 kilograms per year (kg/yr) for TP and 8,571,563 kg/yr for TN.

The Freshwater TMDL was allocated by rule as follows:

• The Wasteload Allocation for point sources discharging wastewater to the freshwater portion of the river is 46,357 kilograms/year (kg/yr) of TP and 236,695 kg/yr of TN.

• The Load Allocation for nonpoint sources is 453,968 kg/yr of TP and 8,334,868 kg/yr of

TN.



### 1.3.5.2 Marine Section TMDL and General Allocations

As adopted by the EPA in January 2008 and by FDEP in June 2008, the TMDL for the marine segment of the Lower St. Johns River, from Black Creek to the mouth, is 1,376,855 kg/yr for TN. The Wasteload Allocation for point sources discharging wastewater or stormwater to the estuarine portion of the river is 1,027,590 kg/yr of TN. The Load Allocation for nonpoint sources is 349,265 kg/yr of TN.

7

### Table 3 lists the TMDLs and pollutant load allocations adopted by rule for the LSJR

.

T ABLE 

### 3: TMDL S IN THE 

### L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN

WBID(s) TMDL TMDL

Baseline

Load Wasteload

Allocation* Load

Allocation (nonpoint) Overall

Needed

Reduction
(kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

Freshwate r

2213I to 2213N 500,325 TP 599,61 0 46,357 TP 453,968 TP 99,285

2213I to 2213N 8,571,563 TN 10,115,5 52 236,695 TN 8,334,868 TN 1,543,989

Marine

2213A to 2213H 1,376,855 TN 2,453, 258 1,027,590 TN 349,265 1,076,403
* Includes a percent reduction fr om NPDES stormwater sources



### .



### 1.3.6 P OLLUTANT 

### R EDUCTION AND 

### D ISCHARGE 

### A LLOCATIONS



### 1.3.6.1 Categories for TMDL Allocations

TMDLs must establish reasonable and equitable allocations that will alone, or in conjunction with other management and restoration activities, attain the TMDL. Allocations may be to individual sources, source categories, or basins that discharge to the impaired waterbody. The allocations identify either how much pollutant discharge in kg/yr each source may continue to contribute (discharge allocation), or the kg/yr or percent of its loading the source designation must reduce (reduction allocation). Currently, the TMDL allocation categories are as follows:

• Wasteload Allocations - The allocations to point sources permitted under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, which includes:

o Wastewater Allocation – Allocation to industrial and domestic wastewater

facilities.

o NPDES Stormwater Allocation
– Allocation to NPDES stormwater permittees that operate municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) (see the

discussion on MS4s in Section 4.1.2 ). These permittees are treated as point sources under the TMDL Program.

• Load Allocation - The allocation to nonpoint sources, which includes agricultural runoff and stormwater from areas that are not covered by an MS4.



### 1.3.6.2 Initial and Detailed Allocations

Under the FWRA, the TMDL allocation adopted by rule may be an “initial” allocation among point and nonpoint sources. In such cases, the “detailed” allocation to specific point sources and specific categories of nonpoint sources is established in the BMAP. Both initial and detailed allocations must be determined based on a number of factors listed in the FWRA, including cost-benefit, technical and environmental feasibility, implementation timeframes, and others (see Appendix B ). The detailed allocations for the Lower St. Johns River Basin are presented

in Chapter 3 , along with a discussion of how they were determined.



## 1.4 A SSUMPTIONS AND 

## C ONSIDERATIONS 

## R EGARDING 

## TMDL I MPLEMENTATION

The water quality impacts of BMAP implementation are based on several fundamental assumptions about the pollutants targeted by the TMDLs, modeling approaches, waterbody response, and natural processes. In addition, there are important considerations to keep in mind about the nature of the BMAP and its long-term implementation. These assumptions and

considerations are discussed below.

8

### 1.4.1 A SSUMPTIONS


### The following assumptions were used when determining starting point loads and allocations for all domestic and industrial wastewater facilities, MS4s, and nonpoint sources in the basin:

• Water quality targets were established based on ecological health as it related to cultural eutrophication because there are no numeric criteria for nutrients. In the freshwater section, the target was based on chlorophyll a concentrations. In the marine section, the target was based on dissolved oxygen conditions.

• The initial loads for point sources are based on the loads from 1997-1998. For those facilities that were operating at or near capacity during that time, the permitted load was used as the starting point load. In areas where growth was expected, the starting point load was the load that would be needed by the facility through 2008.

• Future growth is addressed as part of the allocation process by increasing the “starting point” loads before reductions are applied. Point source starting point loads project out for five years beyond the initial loads from 1997-1998. MS4s and nonpoint source starting point loads utilize loadings from projected 2008 land uses.

• The allocations do not include any required reductions in the load from atmospheric deposition or natural background.

• Achieving the TMDL in the LSJR Basin is contingent on reductions from the Middle St. Johns River Basin. The Middle St. Johns and Ocklawaha basins are provided a single

allocation in the freshwater reach of the LSJR.

• Wastewater plants below the head of tide were considered to have a share in the responsibility for the overall load to the river. The water quality model was not designed to partition the near-field impacts of individual facilities and was therefore not a good way

to measure the influence of individual sources.

• The wasteload allocations for all domestic wastewater facilities in the marine portion are based on the facilities meeting an equivalent TN concentration of approximately 5 mg/L.

• Most of the point source reductions in the freshwater portion reflect a “committed” level of reductions offered by the individual domestic and industrial waste facilities prior to development of the LSJR TMDL. These committed reductions were sufficient to meet the TMDL requirement, and additional Step 3 reductions were not required from those point sources.

• The wasteload allocations to all industrial wastewater facilities in the marine portion are based on the facilities making a reduction equivalent to the average percent reduction of domestic facilities (approximately 49 percent), rather than industry-specific best available technology economically achievable (BAT) levels because BAT for nutrients was not

defined for these industries.

• The wasteload allocation originally attributed to the closed Smurfit-Jacksonville facility

was redistributed to the other industrial wastewater facilities in the marine section (Smurfit-Stone Container and Anheuser Busch).

• For facilities with effluent TN concentrations below 5 mg/L, an adjusted load was determined that was based on the target TN concentration and their 2008-adjusted flow, thereby generating a load higher than their starting loads (a “credit”). These facilities are allowed to trade these credits, either within their jurisdiction or with other entities, as

described in Section 5.4

.

• Nonpoint source reductions followed the three-step recommendation of the Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) Report to the Governor and Legislature (February 2001) (refer to Section 3.2 for details on the ATAC approach). “Step 2” reductions were only applied to nonpoint sources as they were considered to provide treatment approximately equivalent to the treatment required for domestic and industrial

9

### wastewater facilities. The Step 2 reductions were based on the reduction from nonpoint sources expected from implementation of BMPs. Applicable urban area for Step 2 reductions was hindcast to 1984 from Geogra phic Information System (GIS) land use data. Step 2 reductions did not result in meeting the assimilative capacity, and additional (Step 3) reductions were necessary. The same overall percentage reduction was required from point and nonpoint sources for Step 3 reductions.

• Counting load reductions associated with phase out of failing septic tank systems will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine the amount of load that can be attributed to the removal, taking into account the uncertainty associated with the estimate.

• While it is recognized that nitrogen and phosphorus are present in the environment in different forms of variable bioavailability, reductions do not specify these specific forms and the final TMDL is expressed only in terms of TN and TP. Because TMDL reductions were only determined for anthropogenic sources, which are high in bioavailable nutrient forms (for example, nitrogen and phosphorus in domestic waste are 98 percent bioavailable), it was felt that it was not necessary to make this distinction.

• The LSJR TMDL is expressed as an annual load. While daily loads can be computed by the method defined in the adopted TMDL, expression of the TMDL on a mass per day basis is for information purposes only. The TMDLs to be implemented are those expressed on a mass per year basis, and effluent limits for wastewater discharges to the river will be based on the annual expression. While the loads for the individual MS4s were calculated, the allocations to the MS4s are expressed as a percent reduction rather

than loads.

• TMDLs will also be developed for several of the tributaries to the LSJR, which were independently verified as impaired for nutrients. While implementation of these TMDLs will be addressed in a separate BMAP, it should be noted that these subsequent TMDLs may require additional reductions in nutrient loading to achieve applicable water quality

standards in these tributaries.

• Certain non-structural BMPs and environmental education efforts were given provisional credit for load reductions in this BMAP while additional research is being conducted to quantify their effectiveness. These reduction estimates may change as the additional research results are available. Activities that qualified for provisional credit included street sweeping, continuous deflective separation (CDS) units, and second generation

baffle boxes.



### 1.4.2 C ONSIDERATIONS



### This BMAP requires that all sources receiving an allocation achieve their reductions as soon as practicable. However, full implementation of this BMAP will be a long-term process. While some of the projects and activities contained in the BMAP are recently completed or currently ongoing, there are many wastewater treatment plant upgrade and reuse projects, with significant estimated load reductions, that will take several years to design, secure funding, and construct. Some of the stormwater-related projects are estimated to take even longer. While funding the projects could be an issue, funding limitations do not impact the ultimate requirement for each entity to meet their allocation. However, funding was considered, to the extent practicable, when determining the compliance schedule for meeting BMAP requirements.

Since BMAP implementation is a long term process, the TMDLs established for this basin will not be achieved for several years. Given that it may take even longer for the river to respond to the reduced loading and fully meet applicable water quality standards, regular follow-up and continued coordination and communication by the Executive Committee will be essential to ensuring that management strategies are being carried out and that their incremental effects are

10

### assessed. Any additional management actions required to achieve TMDLs, if the TMDL is not met, will be developed as part of BMAP follow-up.

Some of the projects and activities contained in the BMAP cannot be precisely quantified with regard to the reductions in TP and TN they might achieve (for example, street sweeping and environmental education, among others). While the nutrient reductions from these activities are not included in the total reductions anticipated under this BMAP, it is assumed that thesestrategies will have varying degrees of effect on reducing TP and TN loads. As such, the nonquantifiable reductions from these activities should help compensate for uncertainties

associated with the estimated reductions from other activities.

During the TMDL process, several items were identified that should be addressed in future watershed management cycles to ensure the most accurate information is utilized for future

TMDL allocations:

• Channel profile changes – The river channel in the hydrodynamic model is based on the 1997 profile and, since that time, several modifications have been made to the channel. Because the differences in the channel profile could affect the assimilative capacity and water quality data, the channel profile in the model should be updated to match the current profile to ensure greater accuracy of the model results.

• Ocean boundary – The ocean boundary in the model should be expanded to better simulate processes on the Atlantic inner shelf in the vicinity of the mouth of the river, which impact water quality in the river. Improved monitoring must also occur in this region to verify assumptions upon which the current TMDL is based.

• APRICOT/Reverse Osmosis (RO) – To meet future demands, existing and new wastewater treatment facilities will most likely require APRICOT discharges. APRICOT discharges occur when advanced waste treatm ent (AWT) facilities that provide reclaimed water are allowed to discharge 30 percent of their highly treated effluent during periods of low demand. In addition, there are proposed RO water treatment facilities in the basin, which will generate concentrate as a byproduct of the filtration process that will have to be disposed. These sources have been provided allocations, but the allocations may need to be revised during future TMDL cycles once more information is available on the number of proposed facilities in the basin and their capacities.

• Wastewater facilities above head of tide – Currently, the facilities above head of tide have not been provided with allocations. These fa cilities will not be allowed to increase their current loading without purchasing credits (or transferring allocations) from facilities that discharge directly to the main stem of the river. These facilities may need to be assigned load allocations in future cycles.

• Future development – While increased loads from future growth are included by adjusting the starting point loads for projected growth (five years for point sources and projected 2008 land use for MS4s and nonpoint sources), it may be necessary in future cycles to project out further (i.e., 10 years instead of five), provide a separate allocation to future development, or implement a “no-net increase” policy for future development. During future TMDL cycles, it will need to be decided how any additional allocations to future sources will be accomplished.

• Wetlands – There are several facilities in the basin that discharge to wetlands (e.g. Blacksford and Spencer’s Crossing wastewater treatment facilities). While considerable nutrient removal is expected with the wetlands, the loads associated with these facilities will be evaluated in the next TMDL cycle because they are expected to increase.

11

### • Failing Septic Tanks – Additional research specific to the conditions in the Lower St. Johns River Basin is needed to quantify the loads associated with failing septic tanks in the watershed. Considerations such as water table elevation, soils and system design could be important to the amount of nutrient load contributed to surface waters by a failing system. Improved estimates would document the benefits of removing these systems, which would influence management and funding decisions.

• Upstream Loads – The current TMDL includes approximately a 30 percent reduction in upstream anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus loads. The achievability of this reduction has not been assessed; therefore, the upstream nutrient load should be studied and modeling should be conducted to examine eutrophication in the major upstream lakes, including Crescent Lake, Lake George, Lake Monroe, and Lake Jesup. The modeling effort for future TMDL cycles should expand upstream to include Lake George.

• Alterations in Hydrology – Proposed surface water withdrawals from the river for consumptive uses will alter the hydrology by increasing residence time and the upstream intrusion of salinity. These changes could affect the water quality relationships that are the basis for the TMDL targets and increase the effect of discharges to the river. The potential impacts of surface water withdrawals should be studied as part of the consumptive use permitting process and any necessary modifications made to the TMDL in future cycles.

• Model Enhancements – Future enhancements to the model will incorporate interactions with wetland areas in the marine portion of the Lower St. Johns River.

• Agricultural Acreages – The starting point load for agriculture is based on 2000 land use, which includes several dairies that are no longer in operation. This land use may result in higher nutrient reductions than are actually needed for agricultural areas. However, the region is predicted to have continuing shifts from agricultural to residential land uses, which will reduce the agricultural loading, but will also reduce the amount of land available for future agriculture and potentially increase urban nonpoint source loading. Updated agricultural loading estimates will be developed for the next cycle.

• MS4 Boundaries – The allocations to MS4 areas were determined based on the predicted nonpoint source nitrogen and phosphorus loads from urbanized land uses within the boundary of the MS4 area. These predictions are based on the runoff volumes and nutrient concentrations that have been observed for generalized land development types, on the placement of MS4 area boundary lines, and on the generalized urban land uses. While these predicted loads have been calibrated for the specific conditions of the LSJR Basin, the loading estimates may be less accurate for some MS4s due to a variety of factors specific to the MS4. Entities responsible for MS4 area stormwater quality were provided an opportunity to petition for a change to the BMAP loads with updated information, including corrections to the MS4 area boundary, corrections to the types of urban land use upon which the original estimate was based, or water quality data that reflects the actual urban stormwater load. It was the MS4 entity’s responsibility to provide justification for changes to the basis for their MS4 loading estimate and GIS data that provided adequate information for the loads to be recomputed in a scientifically defensible and timely manner. St. Johns County provided this type of information, and corrections to the MS4 area boundary and load were made. However, the load removed from St. Johns County’s MS4 wasteload allocation was allocated to the County’s nonpoint source load (load allocation). Any future requests to adjust MS4 boundaries and the associated loads, that meet the above criteria, will be included as part of the analyses in the next TMDL cycle.

12

# CHAPTER 2 : L OWER 

# S T



# . J OHNS 

# R IVER 

# B ASIN 

# S ETTING



## 2.1 B ASIN 

## H YDROLOGY AND 

## W ATER 

## M ANAGEMENT



### 2.1.1 H YDROLOGY


### A number of hydrologic characteristics of the St. Johns River influence water quality and how it is interpreted. The hydrology of the Lower St. Johns River Basin is highly varied and influenced predominately by the interaction of tide, wind, freshwater inflows, and the confines of the river banks and bottom (Campbell et al., 1993; Morris, 1995). Tidal currents and circulation patterns are important in understanding surface water conditions in the basin because the entire reach of the main stem of the Lower St. Johns River, as well as large sections of many of the major tributaries, is tidal. The effects of tides should be considered in interpreting water quality in individual waterbody segments. Wind-driven circulation and variations in rainfall in the middle and upper basins of the St. Johns River system may modify tidal period and amplitude throughout the basin (Brody, 1994).

Local weather patterns cause the St. Johns River to have a pronounced seasonal flow. High flows predominate during the rainy season, which is late summer to early fall. Low flows, probably augmented by contributions from groundwater, are normal during the dry season in winter (Morris, 1995). The amount of water influences the river’s salinity and range of tidal

fluctuation.

The marine reach lies almost entirely in Duval County and includes the main stem of the St.

Johns River from the mouth of Black Creek downstream to the mouth at the Atlantic Ocean. It also includes the Arlington River, Broward River, and Dunn Creek tributary watersheds. In addition, many of the urbanized streams and ditches in downtown Jacksonville, such as McCoy Creek, Hogan Creek, Long Branch, Deer Creek, Goodbys Creek, Pottsburg Creek, Christopher Creek, Craig Creek, and Miller Creek (Bergman, 1992), are in this reach.

The freshwater reach includes the main stem of the St. Johns River from the mouth of Black Creek to Little Lake George. Small streams in the watershed that discharge directly into the St. Johns River include Governors Creek, Clarkes Creek, Cedar Creek, Camp Branch, Mill Branch, and Dog Branch (Bergman, 1992).

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) measures str eamflow data at 16 long-term stations in the tributary watersheds, including Black Creek, Crescent Lake, Deep Creek, Etonia Creek, Big Davis Creek, and the Ortega River. However, some of the records are incomplete and data collection has been discontinued at other stations (Bergman, 1992). The City of Jacksonville established temporary gauging stations in key basins as part of the development of the Phase II Master Stormwater Management Plan.



### 2.1.2 W ATER 

### M ANAGEMENT


### Over the years, management plans and activi ties in the basin have been implemented to eliminate wastewater discharges; reduce discharges of polluted stormwater from urban and agricultural areas; and protect, preserve, and restore special areas. Some examples of management plans and activities include the following:

1. Lower St. Johns SWIM (Surface Wa ter Improvement and Management) Designation and SWIM Plan Updates;

13

### 2. River Summits and River Report Cards;

3. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Coordination;

4. American Heritage River Designation

5. St. Johns River Alliance;

6. River Accord; and

7. Northeast Florida Utility Managers Reuse Initiative/Integrated Water Supply Plan

Short summaries of these efforts which involve local stakeholders, municipalities, and agencies are provided below.



### 2.1.2.1 Lower St. Johns SWIM Designation and SWIM Plan Updates

In 1987, the Lower St. Johns River was designated as a SWIM waterbody by the State of Florida. Based on this special designation, a SWIM plan was developed and completed in 1989 that outlined water quality issues related to the river and management efforts needed to improve water quality. Topics included water quality, biological health, toxic contaminants, public education, and intergovernmental coordination. The SWIM plan was updated in 1993 and considerable state funding was received to investigate issues and promote water quality improvements. When the River Summit was held (see below) in 1997, the subsequent actions and report cards provided new mechanisms to discuss projects and report water quality improvements. In 2006, when the River Accord was signed (see below) it was also determined that the SWIM plan should again be updated and support TMDL implementation efforts. The SWIM plan was updated in 2007 and is expected to be adopted by the SJRWMD Governing Board in 2008. The update will also include a new section on the Lake George watershed and the area between the Middle Basin and the Lower St. Johns. This area is an important source of nutrients (and needed load reductions) to the Lower Basin. Designating this area as a SWIM priority waterbody will promote scientific efforts and funding to understand the influence of the Lake George watershed on the Lower St. Johns and to provide funding for projects to improve the water quality within and leaving the lake for the Lower St. Johns.



### 2.1.2.2 River Summits and Report Cards

In December 1997, the St. Johns River Strategic Planning Session was held, now known as the River Summit. This Summit brought together the local, state and federal leaders who made commitments to preserving and restoring the Lower St. Johns River. Six focus areas were identified as a result of the discussions at the Summit. The focus areas included: point source pollution; nonpoint source pollution; bacteria in the river’s tributaries; aquatic habitat; water quality compliance and enforcement; and public awareness of river issues. Over the subsequent five years, an Executive Committee met regularly to solicit pledges of funding for river projects from appropriate sources, discuss the projects needed to address the focus areas, and review the progress of the projects being implemented. Annual report cards were published that documented the projects and progress to date. This process was a major effort to coordinate all the agencies working on the Lower St. Johns River and to prioritize funding and

restoration efforts.

In January 2003, a second River Summit was held in Jacksonville, Florida. This summit invited participation from the local, state and federal leaders from the Upper, Middle, and Lower St. Johns River Basins. Thousands of people attended the 2003 Summit and provided input into the problems and possible solutions to river restoration. As a result of the 2003 River Summit, a St. Johns River Working Group was formed. The Working Group developed a management strategy, based on the input from the Summit, to enhance work on river-wide restoration and improve public access and awareness of the river and nearby communities. The management

14

### strategy recommended continued coordination of local governments and agencies and the creation of a nonprofit organization called, “The St. Johns River Alliance.”



### 2.1.2.3 Lower St. Johns River Technical Advisory Committee

The City of Jacksonville, FDEP, and SJRWMD hav e supported the meetings of the Lower St. Johns TAC since the late 1980s when the SWIM program was initiated. The TAC has served as a scientific and management forum throughout this time. The TAC worked on the original SWIM plan and the 1993 update. The committee has provided input into nomination packages for National Estuary Program status and American Heritage River designation. It has reviewed and prioritized projects for funding through the Special Legislative Initiative each year. As of 2007, more than 150 people are considered members of the TAC and the group continues to meet quarterly. The TAC is also the Lower Basin’s technical advisory committee for the St.

Johns River Alliance.



### 2.1.2.4 American Heritage River Designation

The entire St. Johns River, including the LSJR Basin, was officially designated an American Heritage River by the President of the United States on July 30, 1998 in recognition of its ecological, historic, economic, and cultural significance. This designation resulted in a formal agreement that the signatory partners (federal agencies, state agencies, and the river community) would work together to preserve and enhance the water quality, and ecological and cultural resources along the St. Johns River, to stimulate economic revitalization, and to cooperate with other state, local, and federal agencies to serve their common interest in the St. Johns River. Federal agencies entered into this agreement for all the purposes stated above, to the extent allowed by law and agency policy, including staffing and funding.



### 2.1.2.5 St. Johns River Alliance

The St. Johns River Alliance was created after the 2003 River Summit and subsequent Working Group recommendation that a river-wide organization was needed to focus on restoration and education efforts. The Alliance was established as a non-profit organization with a Board of Directors who represents citizens, local governments, and key agencies along the river. The organization is supported by contributions from local governments, agencies, and private groups. The Alliance serves as a forum for all the key organizations in the entire basin to learn about efforts and develop projects and funding priorities that support restoration activities. In the future, the Alliance is expected to expand its role in educating those outside the region about restoration needs in the basin, developing a research consortium of universities in the watershed, and increasing public education and public access efforts.



### 2.1.2.6 River Accord

In July 2006, a 10-year river restoration effort was announced titled the “River Accord.” The program included identification of $700 million in projects that are needed to restore the river. These include efforts to remove wastewater discharges, improve wastewater effluent and increase the use of reuse water for irrigation, eliminate failing septic tanks, improve stormwater, and produce an annual “State of the River” report. Key members of the River Accord include the City of Jacksonville, JEA, Water and Sewer Expansion Authority, SJRWMD, and FDEP. These organizations are expected to coordinate t heir efforts for prioritizing projects and funding based on the priorities in the River Accord. Continued coordination of the River Accord efforts is expected to occur through the St. Johns River Alliance.

15

### 2.1.2.7 Northeast Florida Utility Managers Reuse Initiative/Integrated Water Supply Plan

In 2006, the results of the optimization model to integrate wastewater and water supply/reuse options were forwarded to the long-standing Northeast Florida Utility Managers Group which includes utilities from the Lower St. Johns and Nassau River basins. This group is supported by the SJRWMD and became the forum to develop regional water reuse and wastewater improvement projects among local utilities. Th e group met approximately every two months to share information and work on opportunities for sending wastewater to reuse systems. This coordination and information sharing function is expected to continue in the future.

Much of the progress in the LSJR Basin for developing water quality restoration plans and implementing watershed and water quality improvements is attributable to coordinated local, state, and regional efforts. Many plans share common goals, and their implementation is based on various groups playing critical roles in planning, funding, managing, and executing projects. The FDEP continues to coordinate its efforts with these entities to obtain data, strengthen monitoring activities, and exchange in formation through periodic meetings.



## 2.2 L AND 

## U SE 

## C OVERAGE

Prominent types of land use in the basin are urban and built-up, upland forest, wetlands, and agriculture (see Figure 3 ). Most urban and built-up land is concentrated in Duval County/Jacksonville and Palatka. Continued residential expansion is projected in southeast Duval, northern St. Johns, and Clay counties (SJRWMD, 2000). With the widening of State
Road 206 and the addition of central sewer and water, increased residential and commercial development is expected in East Palatka (SJRWMD, 2000). Most upland forest consists of pine plantation or silviculture (23 percent) and is distributed fairly evenly throughout the basin.

Agriculture is concentrated in Flagler, St. Johns, and Putnam counties, known as the Tri-County Agricultural Area (TCAA). This 376,000-acre region is located along the eastern shoreline of the Lower St. Johns River and is comprised of 32,000 acres of irrigated row cropland, primarily potatoes, cabbage, sod, and an estimated 8,200 acres of pastureland. Ferneries and other nurseries are concentrated just south of Crescent Lake and are largely outside the basin.

Various types of publicly owned lands in the bas in include state parks, preserves, wildlife management areas, and state forests. The better known areas include Haw Creek State Preserve, Gold Head Branch State Park, Ravine State Gardens, Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Jennings State Forest, Fort Caroline National Memorial, Camp Blanding Military Reservation, and Camp Blanding Wildlife Management Area.

Land use in the freshwater reach is predominately upland forest (29.0 percent), followed by water (25.2 percent) and wetlands (19.8 percent). Although agriculture covers a relatively small percentage of the area (7 percent), it can significantly affect surface water quality in the Lower St. Johns River. Activities include vegetable and row crops, sod production, silviculture, some cow/calf, and a growing equine industry. Vegetable and row crop production is concentrated in the TCAA. Natural nonpoint source loads in the freshwater portion include background and augmented upstream loads from the Middle St. Johns River basin and Dunns Creek.

Land use in the marine reach is predominantly urban and built-up (36.2 percent), followed by water (22.3 percent) and wetlands (26.2 percent). The majority of the watershed is residential, commercial, and industrial. Based on 2005 land use information, agriculture in the marine section includes, in order of intensity, silviculture, nurseries, cow/calf operations, and some

16

### small dairies. Agricultural acreage in the marine section has steadily decreased over the past five to 10 years, resulting in reduced pollutant discharges from agriculture. While the recent trend in agricultural land is downward, this trend could reverse due to market forces. Natural nonpoint source loads in the marine portion include background and augmented loads from

within the basin.

17

### F IGURE 

### 3: 2004 L AND 

### U SES IN THE 

### L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### B ASIN

18

## 2.3 S TATEMENT OF 

## W ATER 

## Q UALITY 

## P ROBLEM



### 2.3.1 V ERIFIED 

### N UTRIENT 

### I MPAIRMENT OF THE 

### LSJR

The Department assessed the water quality of the main stem of the LSJR in 2003 and verified that the majority of the freshwater and estuarine segments of the river were impaired by

nutrients. As noted in Table 4 , eleven of the fifteen LSJR segments were verified as impaired by nutrients based on increased levels of algal growth (annual mean chlorophyll a concentrations).

T ABLE 

### 4: V ERIFIED 

### I MPAIRED 

### S EGMENTS OF THE 

### M AIN 

### S TEM OF THE 

### LSJR

WBID Waterbody Segment Parameters of

Concern Priority for TMDL Development Projected Year

for TMDL Development

2213A STJ RIV AB MOUTH Nutrients (historical chlorophyll a ) Low 2008

2213A STJ RIV AB MOUTH Iron Medium 2008

2213B STJ RIV AB ICWW Nutrients (historical chlorophyll a ) Medium 2008

2213B STJ RIV AB ICWW Lead Medium 2008

2213B STJ RIV AB ICWW Copper Medium 2008

2213B STJ RIV AB ICWW Iron Medium 2008

2213B STJ RIV AB ICWW Nickel Medium 2008

2213C STJ RIV AB DAMES PT Nutrients (historical chlorophyll a ) (High) (2002)

2213C STJ RIV AB DAMES PT Copper Medium 2008

2213C STJ RIV AB DAMES PT Iron Medium 2008

2213C STJ RIV AB DAMES PT Nickel Medium 2008

2213D STJ RIV AB TROUT RIV Copper Medium 2008

2213D STJ RIV AB TROUT RIV Iron Medium 2008

2213D STJ RIV AB TROUT RIV Nickel Medium 2008

2213E STJ RIV AB WARREN BRG Nutrients (chlorophyll a ) (High) (2002)

2213E STJ RIV AB WARREN BRG Copper Medium 2008

2213E STJ RIV AB WARREN BRG Iron Medium 2008

2213F STJ RIV AB PINEY PT Nutrients (chlorophyll a ) (High) (2002)

2213G STJ RIV AB DOCTOR LAKE Cadmium Medium 2008

2213I STJ RIV AB BLACK CK Nutrients (TSI) Medium 2008

2213I STJ RIV AB BLACK CK Silver Medium 2008

2213J STJ RIV AB PALMO CK Nutrients (TSI) Medium 2008

2213K STJ RIV AB TOCIO Nutrients (TSI) High 2002

2213L STJ RIV AB FEDERAL PT Nutrients (TSI) High 2002

2213M STJ RIV AB RICE CK Nutrients (chlorophyll a ) Medium 2008

2213N STJ RIV AB DUNNS CK Nutrients (chlorophyll a ) Medium 2008

Note: Segments impaired by parameters other than nutrient s (certain metals) are also included. These parameters are shown to provide a complete picture of the impairment in the river, but the nutrient TMDL and this BMAP only address the nutrient impairment. * Nutrients based on chlorophyll a are for impairments during the period of 1996-2001. Impairments for historical chlorophyll a are based on the period of 1992-1996.

19

### 2.3.2 O THER 

### I NDICATIONS OF 

### N UTRIENT 

### I MPAIRMENT



### In addition to the elevated chlorophyll a values (algal blooms), a number of widespread water quality problems have been identified throughout the river that are indicative of an imbalance in the flora and fauna of the LSJR (FDEP, 2002). These problems include the following:

a) Low dissolved oxygen levels and fish kills; b) Submersed aquatic shoreline vegetation covered in algal mats; c) Excessive epiphyte growth further blocki ng light from submerged aquatic vegetation; d) Anecdotal accounts of shoreline vegetation losses and reduced recreational fishing quality; e) River sediment conditions indicative of low benthic animal diversity; f) Excessive organic matter sedimentation and prolonged anoxia; and g) The presence of potentially toxic dinoflagellates such as the Pfiesteria -like Crytoperidiniopsoids (Burkholder and Glasgow, 1997a, 1997b) and Prorocentrum

minimum (Phlips et al., 2000), often co-occurring with fish kills or ulcerative disease syndrome in fish.

All of these problems are connected by a common thread – they indicate accelerated eutrophication in an estuarine environment.

Numerous other studies have identified either high nutrient concentrations or eutrophic conditions (Bricker et al., 1999; EPA, 2001; Janicki, 2000) in the LSJR. In their assessment of nutrient loads to the LSJR and their potential effects, Hendrickson and Konwinski (1998) determined the following:

1. A combination of point and nonpoint source discharges has increased the within-basin nutrient load to the LSJR 2.4 times over natural background for TN and 6 times for TP;

2. Areal nutrient loading in the LSJR Basin, at 9.7 and 2.1 kilograms per hectare of watershed contributing area per year for nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively, is one of the highest reported from studies in the southeastern United States;

3. Point sources were the greatest contributor of anthropogenic nutrient load from within the basin. However, due to the entry of this load nearer to the mouth of the river, its incremental effect is presumed to be less than that caused by nonpoint sources and Upper and Middle St. Johns River loads that enter upstream; and

4. Changes in the amounts of river algae appear to correlate significantly with changes in inorganic nitrogen and DO, suggesting that algae use much of the nitrogen supplied to them for growth. During this cycle of growth and ultimate death, the algae exert a dominant influence over river dissolved oxygen content.

Based on these findings, it is clear that the LSJR receives high nutrient loads and is nutrient enriched, and that it exhibits the symptoms of estuarine eutrophication. While nutrient enrichment is not the only problem leading to im paired water quality in the LSJR, it is probably the most widespread and multifaceted.



## 2.4 W ATER 

## Q UALITY 

## T RENDS

Numerous factors have negatively affected the water quality of the Lower St. Johns River, including residential, commercial, and industrial development; agricultural activities; and domestic wastewater and industrial discharges (SJRWMD, 1999). Nonpoint sources of pollution generated by human activities may account for as much as 36 percent of the Lower St. Johns Basin’s total pollutant load.

20

### In the northern portion of the basin, stormwater, on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (septic tanks), and point source discharges are the primary factors that have led to degraded water quality. Nutrient water quality problems are most notable at the mouths of tributaries. Water quality in the St. Johns River improves near its mouth due to the flushing effects of tides. However, a degrading trend in water quality has been noted in a number of watersheds near the coast, including the Intracoastal Waterway (SJRWMD, 1999).

In the southern portion of the basin, agriculture , development, and point source discharges from domestic and industrial wastewater facilities have affected water quality (SJRWMD, 1999). Of particular concern is nonpoint source pollution from the TCAA, which is spread over both the middle and southern portions of the Lower St. Johns Basin. Degraded water quality is largely attributed to the discharge of nutrients and sediments from agricultural operations in this area (FDEP and SJRWMD, 2001).

The SJRWMD has an extensive monitoring network in the LSJR Basin. Based on data collected at these sites through 2004, the SJRWMD examined the water quality trends in the basin. They found that the river at Buffalo Bluff had good water quality, Dunns Creek had fair water quality, Palatka north to Picolata had variable water quality, Palatka and Rice Creek had good water quality, channel marker 37 and off Racy Point had fair water quality, and north of this area the river had good quality. These areas either had no significant trends or insufficient data for trends (Winkler and Ceric, 2006).

For the estuarine portion of the river north of Green Cove Springs, water quality was analyzed using TSI. The sites in the river from Green Cove to Piney Point had fair water quality, with no significant trend at Green Cove. Hallowes Cove and Hibernia Point had improving trends due to decreasing nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations. Julington Creek at its mouth had an insignificant trend and both Mandarin Point and Piney Point had an improving trend. The river near the Jefferson Smurfit plant had good water quality and an insignificant trend. Moncrief Creek had fair but declining water quality due to increasing concentrations of chlorophyll a and phosphorus. The river at marker 34 and at marker 1 had good water quality, but had insignificant and insufficient data for trends, respectively (Winkler and Ceric, 2006).

Overall, the water quality at 28 percent of stream sites sampled in the basin was good, 17 percent was poor, and 56 percent was fair. Six percent of the stream sites had a degrading trend, while 11 percent were improving. The majority of streams (72 percent) had an insignificant trend, while 11 percent lacked sufficient data for a trend analysis. The water quality of the majority of estuarine sites in the basin was fair (60 percent), while 20 percent was good and 20 percent was poor. Seven percent had degrading trends, while 33 percent had improving trends. The majority of sites had either an insignificant trend (27 percent) or did not have sufficient data (33 percent) for trend analysis (Winkler and Ceric, 2006).

21

# CHAPTER 3 : P OLLUTANT 

# S OURCES AND 

# D ETAILED 

# A LLOCATIONS



## 3.1 P OLLUTANT 

## S OURCES



### 3.1.1 F RESHWATER 

### R EACH


### Domestic wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) located in this reach include Palatka WWTF (3 mgd), Green Cove Springs – Harbor Road WWTF (0.75 mgd), and Green Cove Springs – South WWTF (0.5 mgd). Industrial facilities include Georgia-Pacific, which produces bleached and unbleached pulp and paper and discharges up to 40 mgd of industrial wastewater, and Seminole Electric, which has a permitted capacity of 7.46 mgd. In addition, Clay County and Green Cove Springs have MS4s in the freshwater section.

Nonpoint sources that contribute loads to the freshwater reach include the non-MS4 areas of Clay County, Hastings, Palatka, Putnam County, St. Johns County, and Welaka. In addition, Alachua County, Flagler County, and Pomona Park have non-MS4 areas that contribute loads to the freshwater section but were not given allocations because of their de minimus loadings. Natural background and atmospheric deposition also contribute loads to this area but were not given a required load reduction.

Figure 4 shows the point source facilities in the freshwater reach.

Figure 5 illustrates the urban stormwater jurisdictions, both MS4s and nonpoint sources, which

contribute nutrient loads to the freshwater reach. MS4s are limited to “urbanized areas” (UA) as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Non-UA areas are areas with urban land uses but are outside the “urbanized” zones defined by the Census Bureau. Loads from UAs are considered to be point sources and are permitted through the NPDES program. Non-UA areas are considered to be nonpoint sources and their load reductions are required through the legal requirement established by the adoption of this BMAP.

22

### F IGURE 

### 4: P OINT 

### S OURCE 

### F ACILITIES IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACH

23

### F IGURE 

### 5: U RBAN 

### S TORMWATER 

### J URISDICTIONS 

### I N THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACH

24

### 3.1.2 M ARINE 

### R EACH


### The largest domestic wastewater dischargers in the marine reach are the facilities associated with the City of Jacksonville/JEA including the Buckman Street, Arlington East, District II, Southwest District, and Mandarin wastewater treatment facilities. Several of these facilities participate in reuse programs, and most are seeking ways to either include or improve nutrient removal treatment. The facilities located in the marine section, and their starting point flows, are

listed in Table 5

.

Large industrial dischargers in the basin include power plants, pulp and paper mills, chemical plants, and manufacturing plants. The majority of industrial plants send their process wastewater through pretreatment facilities to publicly owned treatment works, such as the Buckman WWTF. Facilities with significant nutrient discharges to the marine reach of the LSJR include Smurfit-Stone Container (which changed from a pulp and paper mill to a recycling mill in the 1990s, reducing the volume of discharge) and Anheuser-Busch (a brewery).

T ABLE 

### 5: W ASTEWATER 

### T REATMENT 

### F ACILITIES IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### S ECTION



### Facility Starting Point

Flow (mgd)

Anheuser Busch – Main Street 2.60

Atlantic Beach – Buccaneer 1.90

Atlantic Beach – Main 3.00 Clay County Utility Authority (CCUA) – Fleming Island 6.37 CCUA – Fleming Oaks 0.49

CCUA – Miller Street 4.99

Jacksonville Beac h WWTF 4.50 JEA – Arlington 20.00

JEA – Beacon Hills 1.30

JEA – Brierwood SD 0.00

JEA – Buckman 52.50

JEA – District II 10.00 JEA – Holly Oaks 1.00 JEA – Jax Heights 2.50 JEA – Julington Creek 0.48

JEA – Mandarin 7.50 JEA – Monterey 3.60 JEA – Ortega Hills 0.22 JEA – Royal Lakes 3.25

JEA – St. Johns North 0.00

JEA – San Jose 2.25

JEA – San Pablo 0.75

JEA – Southwest 10.00

JEA – Woodmere 0.70 Naval Air Station (NAS) – Jax WWTF 3.00 Naval Station (NS) – Mayport WWTF 2.00 Neptune Beach WWTF 1.50 Orange Park WWTF 2.50 Smurfit – Jax (closed facility) 6.00

Smurfit-Stone Container 20.00

Westminster Woods 0.09

25

### In addition to these wastewater facilities, MS4s located in this reach include Clay County; Jacksonville, Atlantic Beach, Neptune Beach, and FDOT; Jacksonville Beach; NAS – Jacksonville; NS – Mayport; Orange Park; and St. Johns County.

Nonpoint sources that contribute loads to the marine reach include the non-MS4 areas of Camp Blanding, Clay County, and St. Johns County. In addition, the Penney Farms non-MS4 area contributes loads to the marine section but was not given an allocation because of its de

minimus loadings. Natural background and atmospheric deposition also contribute loads to this area but were not given a required load reduction.

Figure 6 shows the point source facilities in the marine reach.

Note: The Duval County Marine MS4 includes the City of Jacks onville, FDOT, City of Atl antic Beach, and City of Neptune Beach. 

### Figure 7 illustrates the urban stormwater jurisdictions, both MS4s and nonpoint sources, which

contribute nutrient loads to the marine reach.

26

### F IGURE 

### 6: P OINT 

### S OURCE 

### F ACILITIES IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### R EACH

27Note: The Duval County Marine MS4 includes the City of Jacksonville, FDOT, City of Atlantic Beach, and City of Neptune Beach.


### F IGURE 

### 7: U RBAN 

### S TORMWATER 

### J URISDICTIONS 

### I N THE 

### M ARINE 

### R EACH



### 3.1.3 T OTAL 

### N ITROGEN AND 

### T OTAL 

### P HOSPHORUS 

### S OURCES


### As part of the TMDL development process, the TN and TP contributed by different sources were

estimated. Table 6

, Table 7 , and Table 8 present the initial loads and starting point loads for

28

### the major dischargers in the basin. The initial loads are the 1997-1998 load provided by each entity. For point sources, the starting point load takes this initial load and incorporates growth estimates for the subsequent five years. In areas where growth is not projected to occur, the starting point load is equal to the initial load. For MS4s and nonpoint sources, the starting point load is based on loading estimates associated with projected 2008 land uses. The starting point load was used to determine the reductions required by each discharger to meet the TMDL.

T ABLE 

### 6: I NITIAL AND 

### S TARTING 

### P OINT 

### TN L OADS IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### S ECTION



### Source 1997-1998

Initial Load (kg/yr) Starting Point

Load (kg/yr)

Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs)

Anheuser Busch – Main Street 13,323 24,399

Atlantic Beach – Buccaneer 18,582 21,070

Atlantic Beach – Main 26,877 28,205 CCUA – Fleming Island 979 28,536 CCUA – Fleming Oaks 1,244 1,676

CCUA – Miller St reet 21,236 31,357

Jacksonville Beach WWTF 38,657 40,150 JEA – Arlington 214,686 355,543

JEA – Beacon Hills 12,277 16,425

JEA – Brierwood SD 0 0

JEA – Buckman 480,307 492,086

JEA – District II 135,714 168,564 JEA – Holly Oaks 11,448 0 JEA – Jax Heights 16,591 22,564 JEA – Julington Creek 6,968 7,964

JEA – Mandarin 34,343 51,764 JEA – Monterey 47,284 56,575 JEA – Ortega Hills 3,252 0 JEA – Royal Lakes 25,218 32,020

JEA – St. Johns North 2,074 0

JEA – San Jose 28,868 31,191

JEA – San Pablo 4,148 6,636

JEA – Southwest 85,111 145,170

JEA – Woodmere 5,641 10,120

NAS – Jax WWTF 12,775 13,273 NS - Mayport WWTF 4,347 13,952 Neptune Beach WWTF 11,448 11,448 Orange Park WWTF 22,066 24,886 Smurfit – Jax (closed facility) 70,511 0

Smurfit-Stone Container 83,286 145,989

Westminster Woods 315 0 Future APRICOT/RO Dischargers 0 4,979

MS4s

Atlantic Beach 2,229 2,474 Clay County Marine Urbanized Area 20,769 25,249

Jacksonville/FDOT 219,332 243,438

Jacksonville B each 4,549 4,974

NAS – Jacksonville 4,763 4,763 NS – Mayport Urbanized Area 2,769 2,767 Neptune Beach 1,337 1,484 Orange Park 3,400 3,451

29

### Source 1997-1998 Starting Point

Initial Load Load (kg/yr) (kg/yr)

St. Johns County 7,531 3,057

Non-MS4 Stormwater Camp Blanding – State of Florida 2,625 2,870 Clay County Marine Non-Urbanized Area 9,500 12,051 Penney Farms 122 163 St. Johns County Marine Non-Urbanized Area 1,746 9,846 Nonpoint Sources Agriculture 12,800 12,800

Other Sources Atmospheric Deposition - Marine 95,028 95,028 Natural Background 242,300 242,300

Total

Total – Marine TN Loads 2,070,378 2,453,258



### T ABLE 

### 7: I NITIAL AND 

### S TARTING 

### P OINT 

### TN L OADS IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### S ECTION



### Source 1997-1998

Initial Load (kg/yr) Starting Point

Load (kg/yr)

Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) Georgia-Pacific 258,155 258,155 Green Cove Springs – Harbor 5,857 9,457 Green Cove Springs – South 5,077 5,143

Palatka WWTF 56,077 60,889

Seminole Electric 0 21,045 Future APRICOT/RO Dischargers 0 9,961

MS4s Clay County 2,770 2,770 Green Cove Springs 6,961 6,961

Non-MS4 Stormwater Alachua County Non-Urbanized Area 590 636 Clay County Non-Urbanized Area 5,681 5,579 Flagler County Non-Urbanized Area 2 7 Hastings 641 624

Palatka 9,683 9,683

Pomona Park 130 108 Putnam County 37,045 43,616 St. Johns County Non-Urbanized Area 11,517 27,277

Welaka 1,175 1,175 Nonpoint Sources Agriculture 310,700 310,700

Other Sources Anthropogenic Load 4,128,300 4,148,223 Atmospheric Deposition 105,688 105,688 Natural Background 5,087,856 5,087,856

Total

Total – Freshwater TN Loads 10,033,904 10,115,552

30

### T ABLE 

### 8: I NITIAL AND 

### S TARTING 

### P OINT 

### TP L OADS IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### S ECTION



### Source 1997-1998

Initial Load (kg/yr) Starting Point

Load (kg/yr)

Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) Georgia-Pacific 63,875 63,875 Green Cove Springs – Harbor 1,842 2,986 Green Cove Springs – South 863 879

Palatka WWTF 9,125 9,955 Future APRICOT/RO Dischargers 0 3,320

MS4s Clay County 404.6 404.6 Green Cove Springs 1,095.7 1,095.7

Non-MS4 Stormwater Alachua County Non-Urbanized Area 77.4 83.8 Clay County Non-Urbanized Area 782.1 767.3 Flagler County Non-Urbanized Area 0.0 0.9 Hastings 95.1 92.9

Palatka 1,507.8 1,507.8

Pomona Park 18.9 15.8 Putnam County 5,081.1 5,990.4 St. Johns County Non-Urbanized Area 1,535.6 3,727.4

Welaka 172.0 172.0 Nonpoint Sources Agriculture 83,455 83,455

Other Sources Anthropogenic Load 136,781 137,157 Atmospheric Deposition 1,356 1,356 Natural Background 282,768 282,768

Total

Total – Freshwater TP Loads 590,835 599,610



### 3.1.4 D ETERMINATION OF 

### N ITROGEN AND 

### P HOSPHORUS 

### L OADS FOR 

### U RBAN 

### S TORMWATER


### The urban stormwater loads were assigned to the responsible entities based on GIS land use/land cover data for the different government jurisdictions in the basin. The GIS coverage
that was created from this information showed 37 areas, which were recombined into 21 jurisdictional areas with reduction allocations that were designated as NDPES Phase I MS4, NPDES Phase II MS4, or non-NPDES stormwater. Allocated loads were set at future (2008) urban nonpoint source loads that were projected using a regression model that estimated future growth based on the four most recent land cover data sets (from 1989 through 2004).

The nitrogen and phosphorus loads for these areas were calculated based on estimates of concentration and runoff associated with the land uses in the area. These land development types are derived from the Florida Land Use Land Cover Classification System (FLUCS), which were grouped into six major land use categories: low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, low intensity commercial, high intensity commercial, and industrial. These stormwater loads were calculated for two categories of urban development: 1) areas without stormwater treatment, presumed to be all urban development that occurred prior to the enactment of Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. (Management and Storage of Surface Waters), and later, the general Environmental Resource Permit (F.A.C. 40C-42); and 2) areas with stormwater BMPs, presumed to be new developm ent (development that has occurred since 1984).

31

### Additional details on the process to determine urban stormwater loads can be found in the

SJRWMD document Determination of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Nonpoint Source Loads for

Urban Stormwater Jurisdictions of the Lower St. Johns River Basin (Hendrickson and Hart, 2007).



## 3.2 D ETAILED 

## A LLOCATIONS

In recognition of the importance of the allocation process, the 1999 FWRA required the FDEP to form an ATAC made up of representatives of key stakeholder groups, and prepare a report to the Legislature and Governor by February 1, 2001, on a recommended allocation process. The resultant “ATAC Report,” which was based on the consensus of the ATAC membership, included a recommended allocation process that was designed to result in a “reasonable and equitable” allocation as directed in the FWRA [Section 403.067(6)(b)1.-8.].

The ATAC recommended that the first step to achieve equity was to “level the playing field” in treatment effort between point and nonpoint sources. The ATAC recognized that traditional point sources are required to provide, at a minimum, technology-based treatment levels, and concluded that nonpoint sources should be expected to provide comparable minimum levels of treatment before any additional reductions or in creased treatment are required for traditional point sources. The ATAC subsequently decided that the comparable minimum treatment for nonpoint sources should be the BMPs developed and adopted for that activity.

The following process was used to determine the allocations:

Step 1: The first recommended step for the initial allocation is to calculate the amount of pollutant reductions that would be achieved if a) 45 percent of all agricultural and silviculture operations in the basin and in upstream watersheds implemented the appropriate BMPs for their specific type of operation, b) 45 percent of all urban areas met stormwater treatment requirements for new construction, and c) 45 percent of the homes with septic tanks within the 100-year floodplain or that were documented to be contributing to the impairment were hooked up to a regional sewer system.

Step 2: If the reductions projected for Step 1 were not sufficient to meet the TMDL, the second recommended step is to calculate the amount of additional reduction in pollutant loading that would be achieved if a) 90 percent of all agricultural and silviculture operations in the basin and in upstream watersheds implemented the BMPs for their specific type of operation, b) 90 percent of all urban areas met stormwater treatment requirements for new construction, and c) 90 percent of the homes with septic tanks within the 100-year floodplain or that were documented to be contributing to the impairment were hooked up to a regional sewer system.

Step 3: If the reductions for Step 2 were not sufficient to meet the TMDL, the third recommended step is to allocate reductions to all sources, except those where loading is at background levels or those that have provided treatment beyond BAT levels, in increments of 10 percent until the TMDL is met.



### 3.2.1 D ETAILED 

### A LLOCATIONS FOR 

### P OINT 

### S OURCES



### It is important to note that many point sources provide, either voluntarily or as required by permit, treatment levels that are well beyond the minimum treatment levels established by BAT. The ATAC agreed that prior investments in treatment technologies or reuse infrastructure should be taken into account in the allocation process. In cases where the additional treatment

32

### provided is voluntary and not contained in a permit, it can very difficult for the FDEP to independently determine how much treatment a gi ven source provides beyond BAT because 1) the BAT guidelines for the particular activity may not address the pollutant of concern, and 2)

much of the information needed to evaluate the additional treatment provided is only readily available to the permittee. As such, the ATAC concluded that the individual sources should be responsible for demonstrating specifically how much additional treatment they provide beyond BAT, expressed in terms of additional percent reduction in loading of the pollutant of concern. The FDEP should solicit this information from point sources in the basin prior to TMDL development (some time during the first two phases of the basin management cycle) so that it can review the submittals before developing the initial allocation.

The loads from MS4 permitted areas are considered part of the wasteload allocation as they are NPDES permitted sources of nutrients. MS4 loads were estimated using the following

considerations:

1. Urban land uses as defined by the SJRWMD FLUCS land use maps from 1995 as the starting point for the loads used in the TMDL;

2. Urban growth projected in the LSJR Basin through 2008 using growth trends derived from land uses changes between 1989 and 2004;

3. Separating the load estimates from “old” and “new” urban areas where old urban areas

were built before the current stormwater rules went into effect in 1984. New urban areas are areas developed under the current requirements and are therefore estimated to contribute fewer loads than pre-stormwater rule development.

4. Applying the U.S. Census Bureau “urbanized area” boundaries to the urban land uses. Only areas designated as urbanized area were attributed as MS4 area in Phase II MS4s.

5. For the freshwater section, the average annual rainfall conditions were used to estimate loads from stormwater as the TMDL was based on chlorophyll a conditions produced by long-term, average rainfall.

6. For the marine section, the dry year rainfall conditions (1999) were used to estimate loads as low rainfall produced the worse-case scenario for dissolved oxygen and were

the conditions on which the TMDL was based.

Table 9 shows the detailed TN allocations for the WWTFs, MS4s, and requested aggregated

loads in the marine section. Table 10 and Table 11 show the detailed point source allocations

for the both the TN and TP TMDLs in the freshwater section. The loads shown in these tables for MS4s and non-MS4s are provided only for purposes of trading and aggregation of loads. The allocations for MS4s and non-MS4s are expressed as percent reduction.

T ABLE 

### 9: P OINT 

### S OURCES 

### -M ARINE 

### N ITROGEN 

### W ASTELOAD 

### A LLOCATIONS

Source Category or Name of Facility Wasteload Allocation Net Reduction from Starting Point kg/yr lbs/yr
Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) and Aggregated Loads

Anheuser Busch – Main Street 12,418 27,320 49.10% Atlantic Beach (WWTFs) 21,863 48,099 55.63% Clay County Utility Authorit y (WWTFs) 84,058 184,928 -36.53%

Jacksonville Beach WW TF 23,878 52,532 40.53% JEA (WWTFs) 654,672 1,440,278 53.12% Neptune Beach WWTF 7,014 15,431 38.73% Orange Park WWTF 9,999 21,998 59.82% Smurfit – Jax (closed facility) 0 0 0.00%

Smurfit-Stone Container 74,305 163,471 49.10%

33Source Category or Name of Facility Wasteload Allocation Net Reduction from Starting Point kg/yr lbs/yr
U.S. Navy (WWTFs) 16,118 35,460 40.80% Future APRICOT/RO Dischargers 4,979 10,954 0.00%

Point Sources-MS4s

Atlantic Beach MS4 976 2,147 60.56% Clay County Marine Urban ized Area 10,556 23,223 58.19% City of Jacksonville/FDOT 96,016 211,235 60.56%

Jacksonville Beach MS4 1,941 4,270 60.98% Neptune Beach MS4 585 1,287 60.56% Orange Park MS4 1,289 2,836 62.64% St. Johns County 746 1,641 75.59% U.S. Navy MS4s 2,798 6,156 62.84%



### T ABLE 

### 10: P OINT 

### S OURCES 

### -F RESHWATER 

### N ITROGEN 

### W ASTELOAD 

### A LLOCATIONS

Source Category or Name of Facility Wasteload Allocation Net Reduction from Starting Point kg/yr lbs/yr
Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) and Aggregated Loads Georgia-Pacific 165,909 365,000 35.7% Green Cove Springs (WWTFs) 9,052 19,914 38.0%

Palatka WWTF 40,795 89,749 33.0%

Seminole Electric 14,732 32,410 30.0% Future APRICOT/RO Dischargers 9,961 21,914 0.0%

Point Sources-MS4s Clay County 1,976 4,347 28.7% Green Cove Springs MS4 4,967 10,927 28.7%



### T ABLE 

### 11: P OINT 

### S OURCES 

### -F RESHWATER 

### P HOSPHORUS 

### W ASTELOAD 

### A LLOCATIONS

Source Category or Name of Facility Wasteload Allocation Net Reduction from Starting Point kg/yr lbs/yr
Wastewater Treatment Facilities (WWTFs) and Aggregated Loads Georgia-Pacific 33,182 73,000 48.05% Green Cove Springs (WWTFs) 2,397 5,273 38.00%

Palatka WWTF 6,670 14,674 33.00% Future APRICOT/RO Dischargers 3,320 7,304 0.00%

Point Sources-MS4s Clay County 212.6 467.7 47.44% Green Cove Springs MS4 575.9 1,267.0 47.44%



### Since MS4 areas discharge from diffuse locations, the actual discharge and concentration of nutrients in all locations at all times is not known. Actual discharge volume and concentration is highly dependent on rainfall and the amount of rainfall in preceding days and weeks. Because of this technical challenge, the load reductions from BMPs designed to improve stormwater quality are often characterized as percent reductions (on average) of a load instead of a precise number of kilograms or pounds reduced. For th is BMAP, actual MS4 loads from individual entities will be estimated based on the design specifications of the projects that are conducted, estimates of the effectiveness of non-structural management practices such as street sweeping, and the measured reductions found in the water quality data collected in the river over time. Chapter 7 provides additional details about the monitoring approach for MS4s and nonpoint

sources.

34

### 3.2.2 D ETAILED 

### A LLOCATIONS FOR 

### N ONPOINT 

### S OURCES


### For the purposes of the TMDL program, stormwater loads permitted through the NPDES MS4 program are considered to be point sources. Stormwater loads from all urbanized areas within Phase I MS4s are assigned to the MS4. Howeve r, stormwater loads for Phase II MS4s are only considered to be MS4 responsibility if they originate from land areas defined by the 2000 U.S. Census as “urbanized areas.” Nonpoint source loads from urban land uses outside areas with MS4 permits are given a separate load allocation and reduction requirements. Other land uses such as agriculture and silviculture are also given load allocations and expected reductions.

Nonpoint source loads from urban areas outside the Phase I MS4 urbanized areas were computed in the same manner as the MS4 loads. Considerations included land uses, rainfall conditions, old versus new stormwater controls, and other factors. Agricultural loads were computed using information on BMPs availabl e from the FDACS and from the SJRWMD. The SJRWMD in cooperation with the University of Florida-Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS) has conducted research on the loads from fields in the Lower Basin TCAA as well as new research on load reduction techniques such as controlled release fertilizers and “fertigation.” Both FDACS and the SJRWMD are expected to be partners with the agriculture community to assist in implementation of the reductions required from agricultural land uses.

Table 12

, Table 13 , and Table 14 outline the detailed allocations for the nonpoint sources. The loads shown in these tables for the non-MS4s are provided only for purposes of trading and aggregation of loads. The allocations are expressed in terms of percent reduction.

T ABLE 

### 12: N ONPOINT 

### S OURCES 

### -M ARINE 

### N ITROGEN 

### L OAD 

### A LLOCATIONS

Source Category or Name of Facility Load Allocation Net Reduction from Starting Point kg/yr lbs/yr

Non-MS4 Stormwater Camp Blanding – State of Florida 1,220 2,684 57.48% Clay County Marine Non-Ur banized Area 4,898 10,776 59.35% Penney Farms 163 359 0.00% St. Johns County Marine Non-Urbanized Area 4,865 10,703 50.59%

Other Sources Agriculture 4,170 9,174 67.43% Atmospheric Deposition 95,028 209,062 0.00%



### T ABLE 

### 13: N ONPOINT 

### S OURCES 

### -F RESHWATER 

### N ITROGEN 

### L OAD 

### A LLOCATIONS

Source Category or Name of Facility Load Allocation Net Reduction from Starting Point kg/yr lbs/yr

Non-MS4 Stormwater Alachua County Non-Urbanized Area 0.0 0.0 0.0% Clay County Non-Urbanized Area 4,401 9,682 21.1% Flagler County Non-Urbanized Area 7 15 0.0% Hastings 448 986 28.3%

Palatka 6,908 15,198 28.7%

Pomona Park 108 238 0.00% Putnam County 33,976 74,747 22.1% St. Johns County Non-Urbanized Area 25,340 55,748 7.1%

Welaka 838 1,845 28.7%

Other Sources Agriculture 194,336 427,539 37.5% Atmospheric Deposition 105,688 232,514 0.00%

35

### T ABLE 

### 14: N ONPOINT 

### S OURCES 

### -F RESHWATER 

### P HOSPHORUS 

### L OAD 

### A LLOCATIONS

Source Category or Name of Facility Load Allocation Net Reduction from Starting Point kg/yr lbs/yr

Non-MS4 Stormwater Alachua County Non-Urbanized Area 83.8 184.4 0.00% Clay County Non-Urbanized Area 499.4 1,098.7 34.92% Flagler County Non-Urbanized Area 0.9 2.0 0.00% Hastings 49.3 108.5 46.93%

Palatka 792.5 1,743.5 47.44%

Pomona Park 15.8 34.8 0.00% Putnam County 3,964.9 8,722.8 33.81% St. Johns County Non-Urbani zed Area 3,296.6 7,252.5 11.56%

Welaka 90.4 198.9 47.44%

Other Sources Agriculture 70,974 156,143 14.96% Atmospheric Deposition 1,356 2,983 0.00%



### For most sources, the reductions in nonpoint source loadings required by Step 3 reductions cannot be achieved by the implementation of standard BMPs alone. However, the reductions can be met over time through a combination of stormwater BMPs, other control measures (septic tank phase-out, for example), and water quality credit trading. Because agricultural
BMPs take economic constraints into account, further reductions by individual landowners are likely not practical. As such, the ATAC recommended that public funds be used to provide any needed reductions from agricultural sources bey ond that achieved by implementation of approved BMPs. However, if public funding is not available, the sources are still ultimately responsible for meeting their allocation.

It is important to note that upstream reductions from the Middle Basin, Crescent Lake, and the Ocklawaha are needed to meet the total load reductions. These upstream loads are described

below in Table 15

.

T ABLE 

### 15: U PSTREAM 

### S OURCES 

### -N ITROGEN AND 

### P HOSPHORUS 

### L OAD 

### A LLOCATIONS

Source Category or Name of Facility Load Allocation Net Reduction from Starting Point kg/yr lbs/yr
Upstream Reductions – Nitrogen 2,693,852 5,926,474 31.60% Upstream Reductions – Phosphorus 76,502 168,304 35.98%



### These reductions are expected to be met thr ough the TMDLs and BMAPs that will be developed

for these watersheds.



## 3.3 A LLOCATIONS FOR 

## N EW AND 

## E XPANDING 

## APRICOT AND 

## RO F ACILITIES

All new or expanding discharges require an allocation to receive a permit to increase their discharge of nitrogen (in the marine section) or nitrogen and phosphorus (in the freshwater section). In order to account for growth, an allocation has been set aside for existing domestic wastewater plants as well as RO water plants that are planned in the next five years.

The table below describes the utilities that have anticipated plans for new or expanded discharges. For the anticipated domestic wastewat er discharges, it was presumed that any new facilities will be required to, at a minimum, meet APRICOT Act requirements. Under the APRICOT, wastewater plants must have AWT with low nutrient concentrations and they are only authorized to discharge during wet weather conditions (up to 30 percent of their effluent).

36

### During much of the year, the effluent from these plants is reused water for irrigation and other uses and is not directly discharged to surface waters.

The new RO plants will provide additional water supply to the region that is expected to have significant population growth and that anticipated demand was the reason the utilities were given an allocation.

The allocations for planned construction or expansion of APRICOT and RO facilities are shown

above in Table 9

, Table 10 , and Table 11 . These allocations will be distributed to the entities

shown in Table 16

.

T ABLE 

### 16: F UTURE 

### APRICOT AND 

### RO A LLOCATIONS

Utility Nitrogen Allocation Phosphorus Allocation (kg/yr) (lbs/yr) (kg/yr) (lbs/yr)

Freshwater Section St. Johns County Utilities 5,883 12,943 1,727 3,799

JEA 3,728 8,202 1,243 2,735

East Putnam 350 770 350 770

Total Allocation 9,961 21,915 3,320 7,304

Marine Section

JEA 2,401 5,282 N/A N/A CCUA Spencer’s WWTF Expansion 2,441 5,370 N/A N/A

CCUA Future 137 302

Total Allocation 4,979 10,954 N/A N/A



### New or expanded plants from these entities will need to apply for the appropriate permits and/or permit modifications to the Department. Those permit requests will be evaluated based on all the applicable requirements and to ensure that the application fits within these allocations. Any additional loading will require adequate reductions by that entity’s other facilities with an allocation through an aggregate permit (or appropriate legal permit mechanism) or through a water quality credit trade with another entity with an allocation.

Other new plants, whether built by new or existing entities, also require a permit and an allocation if they are designed with a nutrient discharge.



## 3.4 E XISTING 

## F ACILITIES WITHOUT AN 

## A LLOCATION



### 3.4.1 D E 

### M INIMUS 

### F ACILITIES



### Table 17 lists the wastewater treatment facilities that did not receive a wasteload allocation. These facilities were not given an allocation because of their relatively small load (less than 15 pounds per day) associated with the discharge. While reductions are not required of these facilities in this BMAP, they will not be allowed to increase their current loading. In order to expand or increase the load, these facilities would need to find an appropriate offset such as through an aggregate permit or a water quality credit trade. These facilities may be considered for an allocation in future TMDL cycles, if necessary.

T ABLE 

### 17: D E 

### M INIMUS 

### F ACILITIES IN THE 

### LSJR B ASIN
Facility ID Facility Name County

FL0001295 Amerada Hess Duval

FL0001287 BP Products North America Duval

FL0061204 Cedar Bay Generating Plant Duval

37Facility ID Facility Name County

FL0001023 JEA – Kennedy Duval

FL0001031 JEA – Northside Duval

FL0037869 JEA-FP&L – St. Johns River Power Park Duval

FL0039691 Riverside Plaza (Haskell) Duval

FL0037761 St Services Duval

FL0032492 USN – Supply Center Fuel Depot Duval

FL0043389 Hiawatha Condos WWTP Putnam

FL0041319 Price Brothers Putnam

FL0043842 Cypress Landing WWTF St. Johns



### 3.4.2 P LANTS 

### A BOVE 

### H EAD OF 

### T IDE


### Domestic wastewater treatment plants that discharge to tributaries above the head of tide were not separated as individual loads to the main stem. These point sources are considered as part of the total nonpoint source load entering the main stem of the river from the tributaries; therefore, they were not given an allocation as part of this BMAP. The facilities in the LSJR Basin above head of tide ( Table 18 ) will not be allowed to increase their current loading, which is based on the facility’s permitted flow and the current nutrient limit. In the absence of a
nutrient concentration limit, the 95 th 

### percentile over a representative time frame will be used (up to but not to exceed 10 years). Expansions of these facilities or new facilities constructed above head of tide will need to purchase credits or use an allocation from another facility. Facilities above head of tide can purchase credits from facilities that discharge directly to the main stem of the river. These facilities can be given an allo cation in future TMDL cycles, if necessary.

T ABLE 

### 18: P LANTS 

### A BOVE 

### H EAD OF 

### T IDE IN THE 

### LSJR B ASIN
Facility ID Facility Name County

FL0022853 Camp Blanding WWTP Clay

FL0000035 Dupont – Highland Mine Clay

FL0040274 Dupont – Maxville Mine Clay

FL0002119 Iluka Resources Clay

FL0113743 Middleburg Bluffs WWTP Clay

FL0032557 Penney Farms WWTP Clay

FL0039721 Ridaught Landing WWTP Clay

FL0173371 Spencer WWTP Clay

FL0041556 Anheuser-Busch – Lem Turner Sod Farm Duval

FL0178845 Aramark Uniform Services Duval

FL0115231 Bailey’s MHP WWTP Duval

FL0001350 Coastal Fuels Marketing (Transmontagine) Duval

FL0176877 CSX – Moncrief Rail Yard Duval

FL0023426 Ideal TP WWTP Duval

FL0001040 IFF Chemical Holding FKA – Bush Boake Allen Duval

FL0000884 Millennium Specialty Chemicals Duval

FL0043150 Napoli’s MHP WWTP Duval

FL0000221 Southern Wood Piedmont – Baldwin Duval

FL0043419 Study Estates MHP WWTP Duval

FL0021610 Crescent City WWTP Putnam

FL0028525 Feldspar Corp – EPK Clay Division Putnam

FL0037800 Montco Research Products Putnam

FL0043176 Paradise Point SD WWTP Putnam

FL0041319 Price Brothers Putnam

FL0169226 Hastings Water Treatment Plant – RO Reject St. Johns

FL0042315 Hastings WWTP St. Johns

38

## 3.5 S EMINOLE 

## E LECTRIC 

## A TMOSPHERIC 

## D EPOSITION 

## R EDUCTIONS



### 3.5.1 D ESCRIPTION OF 

### A TMOSPHERIC 

### S OURCES OF 

### N ITROGEN


### Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is an important source in the LSJR Basin, and the modeling used to develop the TMDL included estimates of the nitrogen load from atmospheric sources based on regional deposition rate data. However, the specific sources of atmospheric nitrogen to the basin are not well known and can originate from local, regional and international sources, including automobiles, power plants, volcanoes and industrial air emissions. Since the scientific understanding of the atmospheric sources is no t well developed and there is currently limited regulatory authority to require TMDL-related reductions in air permits, the allocations did not require specific load reductions from atmospheric deposition.



### 3.5.2 S EMINOLE 

### E LECTRIC 

### ’ S 

### P LANNED 

### R EDUCTIONS TO 

### A TMOSPHERIC 

### D EPOSITION


### The Seminole Electric Power Plant (Palatka, Florida) plans to install additional air pollution controls (SCR – Selective Catalytic Reduction) that would significantly reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxides, a portion of which would otherwise have been expected to deposit in the basin. Seminole Electric modeled the projected reductions in atmospheric deposition after SCR installation, and quantified the reductions in nitrogen load to specific WBIDs of the LSJR. The Department reviewed the modeling information and determined that it would result in “offsets” that could be applied toward their surface water discharge. However, as noted in the next section, the Department did not assign all of the projected reductions to Seminole Electric, and some of load reductions provide an additional quantifiable nitrogen load reduction to the surface waters in the basin that can be assigned to other sources.

Seminole Electric’s modeling computed load reductions to both direct (atmospheric deposition that falls directly on surface waters) and indirect deposition (atmospheric deposition onto the land that is then carried by rainfall to surface waters) by WBID. For their estimates of indirect deposition, Seminole Electric applied conservative attenuation factors to represent the natural processes that prevent some of the nitrogen deposited on the land from reaching surface waters. In addition to these conservative attenuation factors, a “safety factor” of 50 percent was applied to the estimated reduction in indirect deposition to ensure that the predicted reduction was within any modeling or measurement errors.



### 3.5.3 R EDUCTIONS 

### A PPLIED TO 

### S EMINOLE 

### E LECTRIC AND 

### U RBAN 

### S TORMWATER 

### S OURCES


### Seminole Electric’s load reduction project listed in their project table ( Appendix H ) shows that they will meet their load reduction obligations through the SCR treatment project. The project was considered to generate offsets totaling 15,151 kg/yr, which was calculated based on the Seminole Electric receiving the following:

1. The estimated reduction in direct deposition in the Middle St. Johns and the freshwater section of the LSJR, but the loads were reduced using location factors (see Section

5.4.5.2 ) that were developed for water quality credit trading purposes.

2. 10 percent of the estimated reduction in indirect deposition in the freshwater section, with the loads being reduced using location factors.

By mutual agreement between Seminole Electric and the Department, and subsequently supported by the TMDL Executive Committee, the remaining estimated reductions in load due to reduced deposition were split among the urban stormwater sources in the freshwater and marine sections. The project credits from the Seminole Electric SCR were distributed as follows: 1) 40 percent of the indirect deposition in the freshwater section was credited to the

3940 

### urban nonpoint sources based on their relative loads to the freshwater section (50 percent was set aside for a margin of safety and 10 percent was assigned to Seminole Electric); 2) 50 percent of the indirect deposition in the marine section and 100 percent of the direct deposition was credited to the urban nonpoint sources in the marine section based on their relative loads.

It should be noted that Seminole Electric is in the process of seeking approval to add a third generating unit at the Palatka Site that could become operational sometime after 2012; therefore, the distribution of project credits described herein may be subject to change in the

future.



### 3.5.4 C ONSIDERATION OF 

### O THER 

### A TMOSPHERIC 

### D EPOSITION 

### R EDUCTIONS 

### Other power plants, such as those operated by JEA, are also expected to install similar SCR systems that will reduce atmospheric deposition in the region but have not quantified the expected atmospheric reductions at this time. While these reductions are not reflected in this BMAP, these entities have not waived their opportunity to request offsets in future BMAP cycles. JEA and other similar projects will have th e opportunity to quantify reductions that have occurred since the 1997-98 TMDL starting point measurements and present them to the FDEP for consideration as a measurable load reduction to the LSJR surface waters. In addition, the approval of nitrogen offsets associated with Seminole Electric’s SCR retrofits does not preclude Seminole Electric from seeking offsets or credits for other parameters that the SCR system will reduce (e.g., mercury) for which TMDLS might become applicable to Seminole Electric in the

future.

# CHAPTER 4 : P OLLUTANT 

# R EDUCTION 

# F RAMEWORK AND


# A NTICIPATED 

# O UTCOMES

This chapter outlines the regulatory and non-regulatory programs that will be used to reduce discharges of TN and TP to the LSJR Basin. More detailed discussions of point and nonpoint

source efforts are contained in Chapters 5 and Chapter 6 , respectively.



## 4.1 P ERMITTING 

## L INKS TO 

## TMDL I MPLEMENTATION



### 4.1.1 P OINT 

### S OURCE 

### P ERMITTING


### Point sources include both domestic and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. Chapter 62- 620, F.A.C., defines domestic wastewater facilities as those facilities that are principally designed “to collect and treat sanitary wastewater or sewage from dwellings or homes, business buildings, institutions, and the like.” This rule defines industrial wastewater as “process and non-process wastewater from manufacturing, comme rcial, mining, and silvicultural facilities or activities, including the runoff and leachate from areas that receive pollutants associated with industrial or commercial storage, handling or processing, and all other wastewater not otherwise

defined as domestic wastewater.”

In 1995, the EPA authorized the FDEP to implement the NPDES Program to permit wastewater discharges to state surface water, including industrial and domestic wastewater facilities. Permits are issued under the applicable provisions of Chapter 403, F.S., and appropriate rules in Chapter 62-600, F.A.C., with applicable sections of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) incorporated by reference. These regulations, rules, and statutes give FDEP the authority to regulate domestic and industrial wastewater facilities.

The point sources located in the LSJR Basin are listed in Table 19 . The permits for these facilities must be revised to include permit limits consistent with their allocations, as described in

Section 5.1

.

T ABLE 

### 19: W ASTEWATER 

### F ACILITIES IN THE 

### LSJR B ASIN



### Permittee Permit Coverage Dates Permit #

Anheuser Busch – Main Street 07/29/2003 – 07/28/2008 FL0041530

Atlantic Beach – Buccaneer 06/06/2003 – 06/05/2008 FL0023248

Atlantic Beach – Main 02/ 14/2002 – 02/13/2007 FL0038776 CCUA – Fleming Island 12/21/2001 – 12/20/2006 FL0043834 CCUA – Fleming Oaks 05/01/ 2002 – 04/30/2007 FL0032875

CCUA – Miller Street 09/27/2002 – 09/26/2007 FL0025151 Georgia-Pacific 08/06/2002
– 08/05/2007 FL0002763 Green Cove Springs – Harbor 08/22/2006 – 08/21/2007 FL0020915 Green Cove Springs – South 07/19/2000 – 04/18/2005 FL0030210

Jacksonville Beach WWTF 03/10/1999 – 03/09/2004 FL0020231 JEA – Arlington 10/07/2002 – 10/06/2007 FL0026441

JEA – Beacon Hills 12/02/2002 – 12/01/2007 FL0026778

JEA – Brierwood SD Inactive FL0023370

JEA – Buckman 02/18/2000 – 02/17/2005 FL0026000

JEA – District II 08/29/2000 – 08/28/2005 FL0026450 JEA – Holly Oaks Inactive FL0023621 JEA – Jax Heights 03/14/2000 – 03/13/2005 FL0023671

41

### Permittee Permit Coverage Dates Permit #
JEA – Julington Creek 10/17/2003 – 10/16/2008 FL0043591

JEA – Mandarin 06/04/2002 – 06/03/2007 FL0023493 JEA – Monterey 06/12/2002 – 06/11/2007 FL0023604 JEA – Ortega Hills Inactive FL0025828 JEA – Royal Lakes 04/05/2000 – 04/04/2005 FL0026751

JEA – St. Johns North Inactive FL0117668

JEA – San Jose 01/13/2003 – 01/12/2008 FL0023663

JEA – San Pablo 06/30/2003 – 06/29/2008 FL0024767

JEA – Southwest 04/30/2003 – 04/29/2008 FL0026468

JEA – Woodmere Inactive FL0026786

NAS – Jax WWTF 12/20/2002 – 02/19/2007 FL0000957 NS – Mayport WWTF 07/18/2001 – 07/17/2006 FL0000922 Neptune Beach WWTF 02/11/2002 – 02/10/2007 FL0020427 Orange Park WWTF 06/13/2001 – 06/12/2006 FL0023922

Palatka WWTF 07/08/2004 – 07/07/2009 FL0040061

Seminole Electric 12/22/2006 – 12/21/2011 FL0036498 Smurfit – Jax (closed facility) Closed FL0000892

Smurfit-Stone Container 07/21/1999 – 07/20/2004 FL0000400

Westminster Woods Inactive FL0022489



### 4.1.2 T HE 

### NPDES S TORMWATER 

### P ROGRAM


### Many of the municipalities across the basin ar e regulated by the Florida NPDES Stormwater Program because they discharge stormwater and qualify as “municipal separate storm sewer system” (MS4). MS4 means a conveyance or system of conv eyances such as roads with stormwater systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, constructed
channels, or storm drains:

a) Owned or operated by a State, city, town, county, special district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to Stat e Law) having jurisdiction over management and discharge of stormwater and which discharges to surface waters of the state; b) Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater; c) Which is not a combined sewer; and d) Which is not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). POTW means any device or system used in the treatment of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature which is owned by a “State” or “municipality.” This definition includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW providing treatment.

The basic requirements of this program serve as a foundation for the stormwater management efforts of these communities. The EPA developed the federal NPDES stormwater permitting program in two phases. Phase I, which began in 1990, addresses large and medium MS4s located in incorporated areas and counties with populations of 100,000 or more, as well as specific industrial activities. Phase II, which started in 1999, addresses small MS4s that are designated according to population and other criteria established in Federal and state rules. Small MS4s include MS4s that serve a population of 1,000 or more and are located within an

urbanized area.

In October 2000, the EPA authorized FDEP to implement the NPDES stormwater permitting program in the state. This permitting has remained separate from state stormwater/ environmental resource permitting programs and local stormwater/water quality programs,

42

### which have their own regulations and permitting requirements. Florida's rules for MS4s can be found in Chapters 62-4, 62-620, 62-621 and 62-624, F.A.C.

Governmental entities currently designated as MS4s that are part of the LSJR Basin are listed in

Table 20 . Other municipalities in the basin may be designated as regulated MS4s in the next few years. Designation is based on a combination of factors, including population, operation of a storm sewer system, discharge impaired waters with a TMDL, interconnection to another jurisdiction’s system, and others.

T ABLE 

### 20: L OCAL 

### G OVERNMENTS IN THE 

### LSJR B ASIN 

### D ESIGNATED AS 

### R EGULATED 

### MS4 S



### Permittee Permit Coverage

Dates Report Due

Date 1 

### Permit # 2

Clay County 07/17/2003 – 07/16/2008 January 16 th FLR04E045 Green Cove Springs 09/15/2004 – 09/14/2009 March 14 th FLR04E103
Jacksonville, Atl antic Beach, Neptune Beach, FDOT 10/08/2002 – 10/08/2007 3 Unknown 3 FLS000012

Jacksonville Beach 05/04/2004 – 05/03/20 09 November 3 r d FLS000013

Naval Air Station – Jacksonville 05/20/2004 – 05/19/20 09 November 19 th FLR04E091 Naval Station – Mayport 08/ 21/2003 – 08/20/2008 February 20 th FLR04E056 Orange Park 10/23/2003 – 10/22/2008 April 22 n d FLR04E075 St. Johns County 06/23/2003 – 06/22/2008 December 22 n d FLR04E025

1 Phase I – Reports are due annually. Phase II – Reports are due annually during the first permit term. In subsequent permit terms, the reports are due for years 2 and 4 only, unless otherwise specified by FDEP.

2 Phase 1 permits are designated by “FLS” while Phase II permits are designated by “FLR.”

3 The Jacksonville MS4 Permit recently expired but has been administratively continued until the permit is reissued (which will likely not happen before spring 2008). The new annual report due date will be based on the issuance date of the new permit.



### 4.1.3 S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### W ATER 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### D ISTRICT


### Activities proposed within the area of the BMAP that exceed the District’s permitting thresholds must be authorized by an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP). In order to obtain an ERP, the activity must meet the applicable criteria for issuance in the District’s rules. In instances where an applicant seeking an ERP is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, current permitting criteria require that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation by demonstrating that the activity will result in a net improvement for the parameters that do not meet water quality standards.



## 4.2 O THER 

## P ROGRAMS THAT 

## C ONTRIBUTE 

## T OWARD 

## A CHIEVEMENT OF 

## TMDL S



### 4.2.1 S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### W ATER 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### D ISTRICT 

### SWIM P ROGRAM


### The TMDL effort in the Lower St. Johns River Basin benefits from the previous designation of the Lower St. Johns River as a SWIM waterbody by the 1987 Florida Legislature. SWIM waters receive water restoration and protection, and in 1988, the SJRWMD established a program dedicated to this end, which is guided by the LSJRB SWIM Plan (refer to Section 2.1.2.1 ).

As the SJRWMD implements its water resource restoration, land acquisition, and regulatory programs, the activities described in this pl an to achieve TMDLs will enhance and help sustain the improvements in water quality and habitat observed in the basin. The SJRWMD expects to continue its SWIM efforts, including water quality monitoring, additional restoration projects, and continued support of the Pollutant Load Reduction Goal (PLRG) and TMDL programs.

43

### 4.2.2 SJRWMD W ATERSHED 

### A CTION 

### V OLUNTEERS


### The SJRWMD sponsors the Watershed Action Volunt eer (WAV) Program to enlist volunteers to help monitor and protect north Florida’s water resources. Volunteers have assisted in the basin with water quality and stormwater monitoring, storm drain stenciling, river cleanups, and monitoring and planting of submerged aquatic v egetation (FDEP Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns, 2004). Volunteers are also trained to prepare and give educational presentations to various groups and organizations. Portions of the WAV Program are linked to MS4 permit requirements. For additional information on this program refer to: http://www.sjrwmd.com/programs/outreach/education/wav/

.



### 4.2.3 SJRWMD A LGAL 

### I NITIATIVE


### The SJRWMD, through its existing St. Johns Ri ver Nutrient Discharge Reduction Initiative (“Algal Initiative”), has offered nutrient reduction project opportunities to the entities in the LSJR Basin. The main focus of this initiative is to achieve phosphorus reductions in the freshwater reach of the river to reduce the frequency of algal blooms; however, many of the proposed projects will also reduce nitrogen. Entities that needed additional nutrient reductions in order to meet their allocations were able to list the Algal Initiative as a project in their BMAP table (refer

to Appendix H ). These entities will be responsible for achieving the reductions in a set timeframe and for funding project implementation. This approach provides a cost-effective and regional pool of phosphorus and nitrogen reductions that the entities may have had difficulty identifying and funding themselves.

By adding the Algal Initiative to their project tables, the entities are committing to work with SJRWMD to identify and develop projects and to pr ovide funding for the projects to meet their allocations. The SJRWMD will help determine costs and load reduction estimates for the potential projects to identify the most efficient projects; however, the SJRWMD is not committing to funding the projects. The SJRWMD will include the Algal Initiative in future legislative requests to help subsidize the costs. Once the most cost efficient projects are identified, the specific project details can replace the generic project description and schedule outlined in the project tables ( Appendix H ). The entities also have the option of developing their own projects to meet a portion of the reduction attributed to the Algal Initiative.



## 4.3 W ATER 

## Q UALITY 

## C REDIT 

## T RADING 

## F RAMEWORK FOR THE 

## LSJR B ASIN

Water quality credit trading is an innovative, vo luntary approach to achieve water quality goals more efficiently. Trading is based on the fact that different sources in a watershed can face very different costs to control the same pollutant. Trading programs allow facilities facing higher pollution control costs to meet the reductions required by a TMDL by purchasing environmentally equivalent (or superior) pollution reductions (i.e., a water quality credit) from another source, thus achieving the same water qua lity improvement at a lower overall cost.

The economic savings from pollutant trading can be substantial. The National Costs of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program - Draft Report estimates that flexible approaches to improving water quality, like water quality credit trading, could save $900 million annually compared to the least flexible approach (EPA, August 2001). Within the LSJR Basin alone, nitrogen trading between POTWs and local governments with MS4s could result in savings of

hundreds of millions of dollars because the cost s of upgrading domestic wastewater treatment

4445 

### facilities, while expensive, is much more cost-effective than retrofitting urbanized drainage systems in Jacksonville to meet the load reductions required by the TMDL 1



### .

Trading capitalizes on the control cost differentials among and between sources and on economies of scale. Market-based approaches can also create economic incentives for innovative and emerging technologies to restore Florida’s waters.

Water quality credit trading has the potential to achieve water quality and environmental benefits

as well because it can accelerate the restoration process. Given the finite financial resources available to all sources, including industrial facilities and local governments, reduced costs will help expedite the restoration of Florida’s impaired waters. In fact, the high costs of restoration could otherwise preclude restoration of some waters, and the flexibility provided by trading may be the only way pollutants can be reduced sufficiently to meet restoration goals.

Trading also provides an important mechanism to accommodate the increase in pollutant load from new growth, including increased stormwat er loading from urban areas and increased wastewater discharges, while still meeting the TMDL reductions. While Florida has one of the strongest stormwater programs in the nation (Florida was the first state, and today is one of only nine states, to require stormwater from all new development and redevelopment to be treated), new development increases pollutant loadings in most basins. While TMDL allocations may be adjusted to address growth, water quality credit trading provides a way for new discharges to purchase credits from existing sources, while st ill meeting the loading established by the TMDL.

For more detailed information on the water quality credit trading approach, refer to Section 5.4

.



## 4.4 A NTICIPATED 

## R ESOURCE 

## R ESPONSES FROM 

## BMAP I MPLEMENTATION

With implementation of the projects outlined in this BMAP, reductions in the nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the river are expected to improve the conditions of the river such that it meets applicable water quality standards. The following outlines the resource responses that are anticipated from BMAP implementation:

• Reduced concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in the water column, which leads to improvement in dissolved oxygen conditions and other secondary water quality characteristics, such as decreased turbidity and organic carbon.

• Lowered concentrations of chlorophyll a , which indicates that there are fewer algae in the water column and, therefore, fewer algal blooms.

• A decrease in the number of toxic algal blooms and the associated health risks.

• Fewer fish kills.

• Increased native aquatic vegetation.

1 For example, a collaborative optimiz ation study conducted by wastewater tr eatment providers and cities in the

LSJR Basin showed that stormwater projects are a full order of magnitude more expensive per pound of nitrogen removed than projects that can be conducted at municipal WWTFs.

# CHAPTER 5 : P OINT 

# S OURCE 

# TMDL I MPLEMENTATION



## 5.1 W ASTEWATER 

## P ERMITTING

The Department’s general approach for implementi ng wasteload allocations is to implement required reductions through NPDES permits. The new discharge limits will, at a minimum, be added to each individual permit (or aggregate permit, see Section 5.2 ) the first time the permit is renewed after the date of TMDL adoption. If the permit will not be renewed within two years of the TMDL adoption date, then it will be re-opened subsequent to BMAP adoption and revised to include the appropriate permit limits for that facility. Pursuant to state and federal regulations, these renewed or revised permits will include applicable effluent limits that are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the adopted BMAP.

For those entities that are not currently achieving their allocations, the renewed wastewater permits will be accompanied with an Administrative Order (AO) as authorized in Section 403.088(2)(f), F.S. The AO will include a schedule for achieving compliance with the new effluent limits, consistent with 40 C.F.R. 122.47 and the BMAP implementation schedule, and will include interim limits that, at a minimum, will maintain the current loading from the facility. The permit revisions to incorporate the new effluent limits will be “substantial revisions” and will be publicly noticed.

The AO will outline the reporting requirements for each entity to ensure that the projects are being implemented according to schedule. Repor ts containing information about the progress and/or status of projects incorporated in the AO will occur no less frequently than semi-annually and could occur more often on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the Department. Loads discharged by wastewater facilities will be reported on a monthly basis and annual loads will be computed using a rolling 12-month average. The permit will outline the required water quality monitoring to ensure compliance with the TMDL. For any MS4s, compliance with the BMAP will be based on meeting schedules and milestones fo r implementing their specified projects.



### 5.1.1 A GGREGATE 

### P ERMITS


### Some entities with multiple wastewater facilities or a wastewater facility and an MS4 requested that their wasteload allocations (WLA) be aggregated. For entities that requested their MS4 WLA be aggregated with their wastewater WLA, the Department transferred some of the wastewater WLA to the MS4 to reduce the required reduction for the MS4. For those entities with multiple wastewater treatment facilities that requested the wasteload allocations for their facilities be combined into an aggregate TMDL load, an aggregate permit will be issued that will include permits to implement the aggregate wasteload allocation. The individual NPDES permits for each facility will remain in effect, and the aggregate permit will be added to link the maximum allowed discharges to one total allocated TMDL load. This approach gives the entity the opportunity for more flexibility in meeting their TMDL load allocations among their facilities.

To establish an aggregate permit, each entity is responsible for submitting the required application form and fee as outlined in Rule 62-4.050, F.A.C. These permits include specific monitoring requirements for only the TMDL wasteload allocation while all other requirements for the individual facilities will be addressed in the individual permits. The aggregated loads are

included in the tables in Appendix H

.

46

### 5.1.2 P ROJECTS TO 

### M EET 

### TMDL A LLOCATIONS


### The projects and timeframes for implementation submitted by entities to achieve their TMDL

allocations are summarized in the tables in Appendix H . These projects were submitted to provide reasonable assurance to the Department that the facility has a plan on how they will meet their allocation; however, this list of projects is meant to be flexible enough to allow for changes that may occur over time, provided that the required reduction is still met within the specified timeframe. Any changes to the project(s) must be done with a permit revision. The load reductions and schedules included in this BMAP are binding and a failure to comply will lead to the appropriate enforcement actions as outlined in 40 C.F.R. 123.45 as well as Sections 403.061, 403.121, and 403.161, F.S., and Rule 62-650.300(4), F.A.C.



## 5.2 MS4 P ERMITTING



### 5.2.1 NPDES MS4 P HASE 

### I S TORMWATER 

### P ERMIT 

### R EQUIREMENTS


### Phase I MS4s were subject to a two-part permit application process requiring the development of a proposed stormwater management program (SWMP) that would meet the standard of reducing (discharged) pollutants to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP), and incorporation of the SWMP into an individual permit issued to the MS4 operator. The SWMPs for Phase I MS4s
include, but are not limited to, measures to:

• Identify major outfalls and pollutant loadings.

• Detect and eliminate non-stormwater dischar ges (illicit discharges) to the system.

• Reduce pollutants in runoff from industrial, commercial, and residential areas.

• Control stormwater discharges from new development and redevelopment areas.

• Implement a monitoring program.

To avoid the need for re-opening MS4 permits each time a TMDL or BMAP is adopted, the following language is being added to Phase I MS4 permits that automatically require the implementation of any stormwater requirem ents in an adopted BMAP. This “TMDL clause”

states: “ In accordance with Section 403.067, F.S., NPDES permits must be consistent with the requirements of adopted Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Therefore, when a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) and/or implementation plan for a TMDL for a water body into which the permitted MS4 discharges the pollutant of concern is adopted pursuant to Section 403.067(7), F.S., the MS4 operator(s) must comply with the adopted provisions of the BMAP and/or implementation plan that specify activities to be undertaken by the permittee(s) that are for the purpose of addressing discharges from the MS4 to meet the TMDL allocation.”



### 5.2.2 NPDES MS4 P HASE 

### II S TORMWATER 

### P ERMIT 

### R EQUIREMENTS


### Most Phase II MS4s are regulated under a generic permit. Operators of regulated Phase II MS4s must develop a SWMP that includes BMPs, with measurable goals, to effectively implement the following six minimum control measures:

1. Public Education and Outreach : Perform educational outreach regarding the harmful impacts of polluted stormwater runoff.

2. Public Participation/Involvement : Comply with state and local public notice requirements and encourage other avenues for citizen involvement.

3. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination : Implement a plan to detect and eliminate any non-stormwater discharges to the MS4, and create a system map showing outfall locations. Section 62-624.200(2), F.A.C., def ines an illicit discharge as “...any discharge

47

### to an MS4 that is not composed entirely of stormwater...,” except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit, or those listed in rule that do not cause a violation of water quality standards. Illicit discharges can include septic/sanitary sewer discharge, car wash wastewater, laundry wastewater, improper disposal of auto and household toxics, and spills from roadway accidents.

4. Construction Site Runoff Control : Implement and enforce an erosion and sediment control program for construction activities.

5. Post-construction Runoff Control : Implement and enforce a program to address discharges of post-construction stormw ater runoff from new development and redevelopment areas. (Note: This minimum control is generally met through state stormwater permitting requirements under Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., as a qualifying alternative program.)

6. Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping : Implement a program to reduce pollutant runoff from municipal operations and properly and perform staff pollution prevention training.

The generic permit [Section 62-621.300(7)(a), F.A.C.] also has a self implementing clause that compels a permittee to implement its stormwater pollutant load responsibilities within an adopted BMAP. It states: “ If a TMDL is approved for any water body into which the Phase II MS4 discharges, and the TMDL includes requirements for control of stormwater discharges, the operator must review its stormwater management program for consistency with the TMDL allocation. If the Phase II MS4 is not meeting its TMDL allocation, the operator must modify its stormwater management program to comply with the provisions of the TMDL Implementation Plan applicable to the operator in accordance with the schedule in the Implementation Plan.”



### 5.2.3 P ROJECTS TO 

### M EET 

### TMDL A LLOCATIONS


### All NPDES permits, including MS4 permits, must be consistent with the requirements of adopted TMDLs. Section 403.067 (7)(b), F.S., prescribes the criteria for TMDL implementation. In accordance with this section, implementation of a TMDL or BMAP for holders of NPDES MS4 permits shall be achieved to the MEP, through the use of BMPs or other management measures. These management measures include, but are not limited to:

• Non-regulatory and incentive based programs including best management practices, cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, public education

• Non-structural best management practices

• Water quality management and restoration activities

• Water quality credit trading

• Public works including capital facilities

• Land acquisition

• Local ordinances

• Regulatory incentive programs

To comply with the MEP standard, the SWMP must be designed and implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to surface waters of the State. Implementation of BMPs consistent with the provisions of the SWMP required pursuant to a MS4 permit constitutes compliance with the standard of reducing pollutants to the MEP for discharges to unimpaired waters. However, MS4s must also continue to assess and adjust their list of approved projects ( Appendix H ) to achieve the greatest reduction of pollutants practicable to protect receiving waters in accordance with an adopted TMDL or BMAP.

48

### Entities that fail to implement their list of approved projects in order to reduce pollutants to the MEP standard will be subject to enforcement action in accordance with Sections 403.061, 403.121, and 403.161, F.S., and Rule 62-650.300(4), F.A.C. In addition, both MS4 Phase I and Phase II permits include provisions for revising the effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and stormwater management programs to meet applic able TMDL allocations that are consistent with the assumptions and requirements of the adopted BMAP.

The projects and timeframes for implementation subm itted by the entities to achieve their TMDL

allocations are summarized in the tables in Appendix H . These projects were submitted to provide reasonable assurance to the Department that the MS4 permittee has a plan on how they will meet their allocation; however, this li st of projects is meant to be flexible enough to allow for changes that may occur over time, provi ded that the reduction is still met within the specified timeframe. The load reductions and schedules for project implementation included in this BMAP are binding and a failure to comply will lead to the appropriate enforcement actions as outlined in 40 C.F.R. 123.45, as well as Sections 403.061, 403.067, 403.121, and 403.161, F.S., and Rule 62-650.300(4), F.A.C.

Several entities requested that their MS4 and wastewater load allocations be combined into an aggregate load. The Department transferred a portion of the wastewater WLA to the MS4 to reduce the required reduction for the MS4, rather than issue an aggregate permit addressing

both the MS4 and wastewater facilities.



## 5.3 N ON 

## -MS4 S TORMWATER 

## S OURCE 

## R EGULATION

Section 403.067 (7)(b)2.f, F.S., prescribes the pollutant reduction actions required for nonagricultural pollutant sources that are not subject to NPDES permitting. These “non-MS4 sources” must also implement the pollutant r eduction requirements detailed in a BMAP and are subject to enforcement action by the Department or a water management district based upon a failure to implement their responsibilities under the BMAP.

FDEP can seek to designate an area as a regulated Phase II MS4 in accordance with Rule 62- 624.800, F.A.C. One of the primary designations applies when a TMDL is adopted. FDEP can designate an area as a regulated Phase II MS4 if the discharges are determined to be a significant contributor of pollutants to surface waters of the State, which can occur when a TMDL has been adopted by the Department for a waterbody or segment into which the Phase II MS4 discharges the pollutant(s) of concern. If an area is designated as a regulated Phase II MS4, it will be subject to the conditions of the Phase II MS4 Generic Permit.

Compliance with the BMAP will be based on each municipality or military installation meeting the schedules and milestones for implementing their specified projects. These projects and timeframes were submitted by the entities to achieve their TMDL allocations and are

summarized in the tables in Appendix H

.

It should be noted that urban stormwater load reductions that are not being discharged by a permitted MS4 were established in the “Load Allocation” component of a TMDL. These allocations, and the responsibility for meeting them, were assigned to either the city or the county within which the lands served by such stormwater systems are located. The city or county will have to evaluate the loadings from such areas and then develop and implement projects or programs to reduce stormwater pollutant loads. Failure to reduce these loadings can result in enforcement action by the Department pursuant to Section 403.067(7)(b)2(h).

49

## 5.4 W ATER 

## Q UALITY 

## C REDIT 

## T RADING



### 5.4.1 F UNDAMENTAL 

### P RINCIPLES OF 

### W ATER 

### Q UALITY 

### C REDIT 

### T RADING


### Water quality credit trading is an innovative, vo luntary approach to achieve water quality goals more efficiently. Trading is based on the fact that different sources in a watershed can face very different costs to control the same pollutant. Fundamental principles of water quality credit trading in Florida include:

• Trading partners must discharge within the same watershed, a defined area for which a TMDL has been adopted, or other Department-approved area defined in a BMAP.

• Trading Programs must meet all Clean Water Act requirements, including applicable water quality criteria, which means that trades cannot result in localized “hot spots”

where criteria are not met. Most tradi ng programs will address nutrients [and perhaps biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)], which may cause impairment through cumulative impacts, rather than pollutants with numeric criteria that are toxic to aquatic life if they exceed a given concentration. To prevent “hot spots” for nutrients or oxygen-demanding pollutants, trading between sources discharging at different locations in the watershed need to include a “location” or “environmental equivalency” factor that adjusts for the location of the discharge.

• Also, as part of Clean Water Act requirements, all wastewater facilities must meet the applicable Technology Based Effluent Limitations (TBEL) or BAT requirements, which means that facilities cannot purchase credits to meet their TBEL requirement.

• Trades must be enforceable if a point source is involved.

• An organizational structure/marketplace is needed to process trades, track implementation, and monitor effectiveness.

• Tradable “credits” are only created when entities reduce their loading beyond their allocation, which means that nonpoint sources will not typically generate credits for simply implementing the adopted BMP for their activity.

• Trading parties must be able to somehow quantify or estimate (measure directly or estimate using Department-accepted methods) the expected reduction in loadings to determine the amount of credits generated and available for trade.



### 5.4.2 “P RE 

### -BMAP” T RADING 

### D URING 

### BMAP D EVELOPMENT


### The initial source-specific allocation was a result of the Department’s and stakeholder’s attempts to determine a “reasonable and equitable” allocation. This allocation process strove to address fairness issues (by trying to ensure that assigned reductions reflect the prior treatment effort and overall load of each source) and only indirectly addressed economic considerations (the allocation process uses BAT as a way to “level the playing field”).

The allocation process did not attempt to find the lowest cost solution. This would be very difficult for the Department or stakeholders to determine, and it would not, in fact, be fair to require a facility to reduce its load simply because it represented the least cost solution. However, after the Department established a fair source-specific allocation, sources were provided the option of trading allocations before the BMAP was adopted. This “Pre-BMAP” trading was used to evolve towards the lowest cost alternatives, which could be reflected in the final allocation adopted in the BMAP.

Documentation was required for a Pre-BMAP trade in the form of a letter to the Department signed by both parties, which includes: 1) the term of the acquisition, 2) number of credits

50

### traded, 3) unit price paid, 4) any state funding received for the facilities or activities, and 5) the discharge location for each trading party. For trades involving nonpoint sources, the letter will also need to describe how the reduction in loading was calculated, noting the range in expected removal efficiencies for any BMP that will be used to reduce loading beyond that alreadyrequired for the nonpoint source to meets its TMDL obligations. In addition, as part of the PreBMAP trade process, the Department evaluated whether location factors were needed to account for the difference in discharge location of the trading parties.

The entities that requested a Pre-BMAP trade are listed in Table 21 . In future BMAP cycles, the initial allocations for each entity (shown in Chapter 3 ) may be used as a starting point for determining what, if any, additional reductions will be needed; not the revised allocations shown

in the table below.

T ABLE 

### 21: P RE 

### -BMAP T RADES AND 

### R EVISED 

### A LLOCATIONS



### Credit Recipient Credit Source Trade Recipient’s

Revised

Allocation Source’s

Revised

Allocation (kg/yr) (lbs/yr) (kg/yr) (lbs/yr) (kg/yr) (lbs/yr)

City of Green Cove Springs MS4 (TP) City of Green Cove Springs WWTFs (TP) 467.8 1,029.2 1,043. 7 2,296.1 1,929.2 4,244.2City of Palatka nonMS4 (TP) City of Palatka WWTF (TP) 715.3 1,573.7 1, 507.8 3,317.2 5,954.7 13,100.3 City of Green Cove Springs MS4 (TN) City of Green Cove Springs WWTFs (TN) 1,299.5 2,858.9 6,266. 5 13,786.3 7,752.5 17,055.5City of Palatka nonMS4 (TN) City of Palatka WWTF (TN) 1,950 4,290 8,858 19,488 38,845 85,459 City of Atlantic Beach

MS4 City of Atlantic

Beach WWTFs 675 1,485 1,651 3,632 21,188 46,614 City of Jacksonville

Beach MS4 City of Jacksonville

Beach WWTF 2,863 6,299 4,804 10,569 21,015 46,233 City of Neptune Beach

MS4 City of Neptune

Beach WWTF 852 1,874 1,437 3,161 6,162 13,556 Clay County (marine MS4 and non-MS4) CCUA (aggregate)
16,841 37,050 32,295 71,049 67,217 147,877 Clay County (freshwater MS4 and non-MS4) CCUA (aggregate)

3,254* 7,159 7,077 15,569 63,963 140,719 Town of Orange Park

MS4 Town of Orange

Park WWTF 2,059 4,530 3,348 7,366 7,940 17,468 US Navy MS4s US Navy WWTFs 4,434 9,755 7,232 15,910 11,684 25,705

* Since this trade is for an entity in the freshwater sectio n buying credits from an entity in the marine section, the trading factors shown in Table 23 were used. A 4.3:1 trading ratio was us ed for the portion of the trade from WBID I to WBID H and a 5.4:1 trading ratio was used for t he portion of the trade from WBID J to WBID H.



### In some cases, sources identified trading partners prior to BMAP adoption but did not want to revise their source-specific allocations; instead, they plan to establish trading agreements that would apply after the BMAP is adopted. These trading agreements would, of course, be subject to the same requirements as other “formal” trades completed after BMAP adoption.

51

### 5.4.3 “F ORMAL 

### T RADING 

### ” P OST 

### -BMAP A DOPTION


### Once the allocations are adopted as part of this BMAP, there will be opportunities for pollutant trading to continue to find the lowest cost restoration solutions and to promote greater levels of reductions than would otherwise occur if each entity were independently required to implement reduction activities at their own facility to meet their pollutant removal goals. Two components of this BMAP provide critical elements for the subsequent formal trading: the allocation and implementation schedule.

The allocation is critical because it establishes, eit her explicitly (point sources) or implicitly (nonpoint sources) the allowable loading for specific sources. Once this loading is authorized in a permit, it establishes the sources’ “right” to a water quality credit that can be traded; however, all permits are designed to ensure that the operation does not cause or contribute to violationsof water quality criteria. Any “right” associated with the authorization to discharge is a shortterm right (typically five years) that can be revoked with cause. However, given the high costs of treatment facilities, sources need some level of certainty that their authorization will continue if they meet their permit limits. Similarly, trading parties need some level of certainty that their credits will have some life-span in order for the credits to have value. The expectation is that the allocation will not be revised before the next watershed management cycle, and as such, they should have a minimum duration of five years. However, trading parties should be aware that TMDLs could be revised during subsequent watershed management cycles as new

information becomes available and that these revisions could lead to revision of the allocations.

The implementation schedule will also be critical because it establishes the time by which sources are required to meet their allocations, whether through increased treatment, revised production or effluent management practices such as pollution prevention activities or increasing reuse, or water quality credit trading. The time allowed will be source-specific, but any compliance schedule must meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 122.47, which requirecompliance “as soon as possible.” If the facility plans to provide increased treatment, sourcespecific schedules would take into account the time needed for the source to design, finance, and build its management activities. Under this approach, each permitted facility would be required to demonstrate to the Department why they need the amount of time requested.

Facilities planning to meet their allocation via water quality credit trading will be required to identify the source from which they plan to purchase credits and will be subject to a compliance schedule in order to allow time for the generation of the credits by the seller. In the case of source-specific schedules, the facility will be required to provide information about both the amount of time needed for the source to design, finance, and build the treatment upgrades to meet its allocation, and information about the time needed for its source of credits to generate the necessary credits. The Department will make case-by-case determinations whether the time needed to obtain generated credits is reasonable. In all cases where compliance schedules are authorized, the Department will ens ure that the schedule complies with the requirements in 40 C.F.R. 122.47. Documentation for a Post-BMAP trade will need to be provided to the Department as a formal “affidavit.” The affidavit will be signed by the buyer and the credit generator ("seller"), disclosing the term of acquisition, number of credits, unit credit price paid, and any state funding received for the facilities or activities that generate the credits.

52

### 5.4.4 P ROCEDURES FOR 

### F ORMAL 

### T RADING



### 5.4.4.1 Generation of Credits

Water quality credits can only be generated when a source reduces its loading of a given pollutant below the load allowable for the source under the TMDL or BMAP. For point sources, the allowable load is provided in the WLA for the facility, and credit generation is initiated when the point source prospectively agrees to reduce its permitted load below its WLA. Credit generation for nonpoint sources will also be based on whether the source reduces its loading below the allocation. To generate credits, the nonpoint source must also apply for, and receive, a permit or other Department authorization that provides reasonable assurance that the entity will reduce its loading below its load allocation or the nonpoint source control activity must be incorporated into the buyer’s permit.



### 5.4.4.2 Credit Use and Expiration

While the initiation of credit generation is described as prospective, it should be noted that credits are not actually generated (and cannot be used to meet the buyers permit limit) until the management actions that will create the reductions are actually implemented. A credit will only be generated once a facility provides reasonable assu rance that treatment will be provided that will reduce the discharged load below the allocation and agrees to a permit revision that reflects the lower permit limit. Furthermore, credits cannot be “banked” or accumulated for a period extending beyond the expression for the TMDL – t hey must be applied to cover the same time frame as they are generated. As the LSJR TMDL is expressed as annual loads, the credits can be applied to cover loadings for any time within the same year.

The “credit life” is limited to the life of the permit, but the buyer and seller should have a reasonable expectation that the credit will be valid for the duration of the existing TMDL/BMAP. A buyer may want to “lock in” their trade for a period longer than the permit life; however, both trading partners should be aware that the TMDL and/or its allocation are subject to be revised during subsequent permit cycles if it is determined to be necessary.



### 5.4.4.3 Establishing the Cost of Credits for Externally Funded Projects

The Department does not plan to participate in negotiations between trading partners but does plan to require financial information about the cost of credits in order to provide cost information to the public. When external public funds from legislative appropriations are used to cover some percentage of the costs for projects that generate credits, the Department, SJRWMD, and TMDL Executive Committee agreed that the participating entity (the owner of the wastewater facility being upgraded) should receive all of the credits generated by the project to help offset some of the increased operating costs. However, as part of the agreement to receive the public funding, the participating entity will have to agree that:

a. Any credits sold would be sold at the actual cost of the credits to that entity, adjusted for the amount contributed by the State or SJRWMD. The adjusted cost would be calculated by totaling all of the estimated incremental costs (the additional cost of the project relative to the cost of a project designed to only meet the allocation) associated with the project, including design, permi tting, construction, project management, and operation and management (O&M), minus the amount contributed by the State or SJRWMD. The actual cost per pound would then be calculated by dividing the adjusted cost by the number of pounds of credits generated (credits would only be generated for the amount of reduction below the allocation for the facility).

53

### 5.4.5 T RADING 

### F ACTORS



### 5.4.5.1 Uncertainty Factors for Estimated Credits

A potential source of uncertainty in trading program s relates to the fact that reductions in loading from many nonpoint sources of pollution, especially agricultural dischargers, must be estimated because the diffuse nature of their discharges makes it difficult to directly measure loading or BMP efficiency. To ensure that trades do not result in additional loading to the river due to errors in the estimated reduction, the Department plans to apply an Uncertainty Factor (UF) for credits generated by nonpoint sources. The Department plans to use a default UF of 3:1 (if 3 pounds of removal are projected, one pound of credit will be created) for agricultural-based credits and 2:1 for urban stormwater BMP-based credits. However, the Department will also allow for site specific adjustments to the UF depending on the amount and quality of literature data available, the range seen in removal efficiencies, and the similarity of the proposed project to the operations studied in the literature.

Wastewater sources will not have the option to provide estimated credits. They will be required to revise their permit and monitor their effluent throughout the effective period of the trade to ensure that the treatment system is achieving the estimated reductions and generating, at minimum, the credit amount. Some nonpoint sources however, will have the option of using
either measured or estimated credits, and the Unce rtainty Factors provide an incentive for these operations to actually measure their effluent because the seller will then generate more credits.



### 5.4.5.2 Location Factors

One of the fundamental principles of trading programs is that trades cannot lead to “hot spots” (areas where water quality standards are not met). Since the location of a given discharge affects the magnitude of the effect on the receiving water and given that some potential trading partners will discharge at different locations, Location Factors (LF) will be used to adjust the trades to ensure that trades will not result in a larger than projected impact at some critical location in the waterbody.

For the LSJR nutrient TMDLs, LFs were calculated by the SJRWMD using the water quality model that was utilized to develop the TMDL. Table 22 provides LFs that were calculated for each WBID of the LSJR based on the estimated impact on the water quality target for the marine portion of the river (dissolved oxygen levels). This table should be used whenever the buyer is in the marine portion of the river, regardless of the location of the seller. Table 23 provides the LFs for trades based on the estimated impact on the water quality target for the freshwater portion of the river (chlorophyll a ), and this table should be used whenever the buyer is in the freshwater portion of the river. While LFs were calculated for every WBID of the river (refer to Figure 1 ) and allow for trades between the marine and freshwater portions of the river,

LFs are not shown for all of the WBIDs in Table 23 because they are too small (since the predominant flow is from freshwater to marine, th e factors in this table get progressively smaller moving downstream).

T ABLE 

### 22: L OCATION 

### F ACTORS FOR 

### T RADES 

### W HEN 

### B UYER IS IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### R EACH 

### Entry WBID of

Pollutant Section of the

River Location

Factor

A Marine 1.0

B Marine 1.0

C Marine 1.0

D Marine 1.0

54

### Entry WBID of

Pollutant Section of the Location

River Factor

E Marine 1.1

F Marine 1.2

G Marine 1.2

H Marine 1.3

I Freshwater 1.3

J Freshwater 1.4

K Freshwater 1.7

L Freshwater 1.6

M Freshwater 1.4

N Freshwater 1.4

T ABLE 

### 23: L OCATION 

### F ACTORS FOR 

### T RADES 

### W HEN 

### B UYER IS IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACH 

### Entry WBID

of Pollutant Section of the

River Location Factor

E Marine 0.01

F Marine 0.03

G Marine 0.04

H Marine 0.12

I Freshwater 0.52

J Freshwater 0.65

K Freshwater 1.00

L Freshwater 0.90

M Freshwater 0.90

N Freshwater 0.90

Once calculated, the LFs can be readily used to adjust the amount needed for a given trade. For example, if a point source discharging to WBID J wanted to offset 100 units of TN and found a willing trading partner who discharged to WBID I, the amount of credits the discharger in WBID J would have to purchase would actually be:

Number of Credits Needed = Number of TN Pounds to Offset x [Buyer’s LF (WBID J)/Seller’s LF (WBID I)] = 100 x [0.65/0.52]

= 125 units of TN

This same formula works for trading parties in any pair of WBIDs. For example, if a point source discharging to WBID L wanted to offset 100 units of TN and found a willing trader who discharged to WBID I, the amount of credits the discharger in WBID L would have to purchase

would be:

Number of Credits Needed = Number of TN Pounds to Offset x [Buyer’s LF (WBID L)/Seller’s LF (WBID I)] = 100 x [0.90/0.52]

= 173 units of TN

In both of these examples, a unit discharge at the location of the source purchasing credits had more of an impact on the waterbody than the sa me unit load would have if discharged at the

55

### location of the source selling the credits, and the result was that the buyer had to purchase extra credits. These trades could just as easily have been reversed. However, LF ratios less than one will not be allowed because they could result in an increased load to the impaired water, which would not be consistent with the current statutory definition of a TMDL.

This position on LFs does not preclude trading wher e the seller’s location has more of an impact on the river than the buyer’s location. For example, if the reverse of the first trade was proposed (source in WBID I wanted to purchase loads from the source in WBID J), then the trading ratio would default to 1.0 rather than 0.8. In this case, the source in WBID I would purchase 100 units (100 x 1.0) of TN from the source in WBID J, rather than purchasing only 80 units. This default trading ratio of 1.0 also applies in the case of a marine entity purchasing credits from an entity or project in the freshwater section.

For Pre-BMAP aggregates, the Department does not plan to apply LFs in the entity’s aggregate permit because the loads from individual facilities were from the same geographic area and/or areas of the river that are well-mixed. In addition, LFs were not applied to Pre-BMAP trades in the marine section because the marine factors are all close to one. However, the Department may apply LFs to individual trades, on a case-by-case basis, in Post-BMAP trading.



### 5.4.5.3 Equivalency Factors

A final type of trading ratio that the Department may use in other trading programs in Florida is Equivalency Factors (EFs). EFs are used to adjust trades for different forms of the same pollutant or to allow trading between different pollutants (nutrients and BOD) that have quantifiable impacts on the same parameter such as DO. However, EFs are not needed for the LSJR because the LSJR TMDLs were expressed as TN and TP, rather than the individual species of nitrogen (ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, and organic nitrogen) and phosphorus (orthophosphorus and organic phosphorus).



### 5.4.6 T RADES 

### I NVOLVING 

### T WO 

### P OINT 

### S OURCES


### Point source facilities can only generate credits by agreeing to revise their permit to be consistent with a reduced allocation, or for the case of restoration project, by applying for a permit that provides reasonable assurance that load to the impaired water will be reduced. Point sources that plan to purchase credits to meet their permit limits will also be required to revise their permit to allow for credit trading. While permits will be revised to accommodate trading, it is important to note that water quality credit trading will not affect any fundamental permitting requirements, and all facilities must meet anti-degradation requirements and demonstrate that their discharge will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality

standards.



### 5.4.6.1 Permit Requirements for Credit Generators/Sellers

Facilities with an individual permit will have two options to revise their permit so as to generate water quality credits. They can either wait for their permit renewal and request the credits as part of the renewal application, or request a revision, which would serve to re-open the permit. Very similar information would be required for both scenarios, but the permittee would be allowed to select the administrative process that best fits its needs and permit cycle. The key objective is that the permit action allows the Department to review and authorize the credit generation; enter information about the generated credits into a credit tracking database; establish a new, lower permit load limitation reflecting the trade; establish monitoring requirements to confirm the achievement of the load reduction generating the credit; and provide enforcement authority if needed.

56

### 5.4.6.2 Permit Requirements for Credit Purchasers

Facilities that plan to meet their permit requirements, at least partially, through the purchase of credits will be required to apply for a permit revision (either as part of the permit renewal or as a revision) to incorporate the trade. When the source of credits is a point source, the permit would include a revised permit limit that takes the amount of purchased credits into account, providing for any needed adjustments for location or equivalency factors. Because facilities must provide Reasonable Assurance (RA) they w ill meet their permit limits, the buyer’s permit will have to be issued after or simultaneously with the seller’s permit and the buyer will need to provide signed contracts with the seller(s) indicating that they have purchased adequate credits.

In this scenario, the permit does not need to include a specific condition for the trade, but the Fact Sheet or Statement of Basis for the permit would include information about the trade, including the proposed source(s) of credits and any LF or EF adjustments.

The permit may include an AO or compliance schedule that provides the permittee with time before they are required to meet their wasteload allocation. In this case, the compliance schedule should include an interim limit that holds the line on current loading of the facility.



### 5.4.6.3 Anti-backsliding

Anti-backsliding, a statutory provision that prohibits the renewal, reissuance, or revision of an existing NPDES permit that contains permit limits that are less stringent than those in the previous permit, was raised as a potential concern during the discussion about permitting for credit buyers. Anti-backsliding is clearly not an issue the first time a more stringent wasteload allocation is incorporated into a permit for a credit buyer, but it could be if the permit is subsequently revised to allow the purchase of credits. However, EPA has consistently interpreted the federal anti-backsliding provision [Section 402(o)(1)] to include severalexceptions (including “new information”), and EPA’s Trading Policy concluded that the antibacksliding provision “will generally be satisfied w here a point source increases its discharge through the use of credits...in a manner consistent with provisions for trading under a TMDL.“ While not specifically described in the trading policy, this conclusion should also be valid for credit sellers who decide to stop selling credits and request an increase in their permit limit.



### 5.4.6.4 Required Permit Revision if Buyer Elect s to Change Source of Credits

While the Department envisions that buyers and se llers will develop long-term contracts, there may be cases where a buyer wants to change the source of their credits during their 5-year permit cycle. In this case, the buyer will be required to notify the Department and may need to apply for a permit revision so that the Department can evaluate the new source (whether there is reasonable assurance that the source has credits available) and to revise the Fact Sheet or Statement of Basis for the permit. This permit action could be a “minor revision” as long as the permitted effluent limits are not changed (or other significant change or modification), which would provide for a smaller permit fee and would not require public notice. Significant permit changes or modification would require a greater permit fee and may require public notice. As there would be costs associated with the permit action, the buyer will need to make a financial decision whether the costs of applying for and obtaining the permit revision are offset by the cost savings resulting from the change in the source of their credits.

57

### 5.4.7 T RADES 

### I NVOLVING A 

### P OINT 

### S OURCE 

### B UYER AND 

### N ONPOINT 

### S OURCE 

### S ELLER



### 5.4.7.1 Basic Permitting Approach and Application Review

This section describes the permitting requirements for point sources that want to buy credits from a nonpoint source. As noted previously , nonpoint sources can only generate credits by documenting that they have reduced their loading below the baseline expectation for the type of nonpoint source operation. However, unless the nonpoint source applies for, and receives, a permit or other Department authorization to generate the credits, the buyer will have to request a permit revision to include a specific condition that would serve to incorporate the nonpoint source control activities in the permit. This approach would provide a mechanism to review documentation supporting the generation of credits, require appropriate monitoring or recordkeeping to verify credit generation, and allow the Department to take enforcement against the buyer in the event the seller failed to generate the necessary credits.

As part of the application for the permit revision, the buyer will be required to provide information about the nonpoint source activity that will generate the trade, including the baseline loading for the type of operation, a description of the management activities that will generate the reduction (which could include advanced BMPs, taking land out of production 2 

### , or changing to a crop type with lower nutrient loading), and calculati ons, signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer, supporting the amount of credit generation.

If the trade is based on measured credits, the applicant will include a description of the proposed monitoring locations. Given that the amount of credit is relative to a baseline condition, the applicant must also provide monitoring data for the pre-BMP condition for at least one year, or alternatively provide influent monitoring for treatment facilities.

If the applicant plans to use estimated credits, the applicant must provide information describing the basis for the estimates (whether they were based on literature values, watershed modeling output, or site-specific monitoring results), and provide calculations for the amount of credits generated, taking into account LFs, if needed, and either the default UF or the applicant’s requested UF. The applicant will also need to provide information about whether the efficiency of the BMP will vary over time.

The Department will review the credit calculations, including any proposed UFs, and inform the applicant whether the Department agrees or disagrees that a credit will be generated, and confirm or amend the amount of credit that would be generated based on the Department’s approved UF. The Department will then enter the credit information into a Credit Tracking

database.



### 5.4.7.2 Reporting Requirements and Recordkeeping

As described above, buyers requesting measur ed credits will be required to submit monthly discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) demonstrating the reduction in loading that was projected in the application. Buyers requesting estimated credits will not be required to provide DMR data, but will be required to keep records demonstrating that they are meeting any applicable BMP requirements and, as part of their permit, must agree to be subject to inspections by the

2 Credits for taking land out of production or crop changes will only be valid for one GP cycle. While the Pollutant Trading Policy Advisory Committee (PTPAC) concluded that credits could be given for crop changes and taking land out of production, regardless of whether the Department has regulatory authority to limit the reversal of the change, the Department’s position is that the permit condition woul d specifically prevent land ow ners from selling credits and then selling their land to someone who changes to a more intensive land use.

58

### Department. The Department may also require dow nstream monitoring to evaluate the effects of BMPs on downstream water quality and overall loading to the waterbody.



### 5.4.7.3 Enforcement Authority

Integrating the nonpoint source control activity into the buyer’s permit provides the Department with the needed enforcement authority in the event that the credit seller does not complete the management activities that were the basis for their generated credits. The buyer will be fully liable for any trade failures, and the buyer will be expected to come back into compliance with its original wasteload allocation as soon as possible, in addition to paying appropriate penalties.

It should be noted that the 2005 revisions to the FWRA also provided the Department with enforcement authority for nonpoint source dischargers that do not complete the management actions stipulated for the nonpoint source in a duly adopted BMAP. This provides important enforcement authority to ensure implementati on of BMPs that will provide the baseline expectation for nonpoint sources, but the BMAPs will likely not be sufficiently detailed to describe individual trades and that is why the permit condition is needed.



### 5.4.8 T RADE 

### T RACKING


### While the required permitting information for point and nonpoint sources provide important information about the amount of credits generated and about planned trades, the Department will also need to track detailed information about individual trades to ensure that generated credits are not sold to multiple parties. Information tracked related to credit sellers would

include:

1. Seller’s name, location, permit number, and receiving water (WBID)

2. The pollutant being traded, and the expression of the TMDL (annual, monthly, or seasonal)

3. The seller’s WLA 3 

### , which constitutes the baseline, the new permit limit authorizing a reduced discharge level, and the amount of credits generated

4. A brief description of the actions that generated the credits

5. Effective date of the permit, and the date when credits will start to be generated

6. The amount of credits traded to date and any adjustments for location

Information tracked related to credit buyers would include:

1. Buyer’s name, location, permit number, and receiving water (WBID)

2. The pollutant being traded, and the expression of the TMDL (annual, monthly, or seasonal)

3. The buyer’s WLA, which constitutes the baseline, the new permit limit authorizing an increased discharge level, and the amount of credits purchased

4. A brief description of the source of credits, including the permit number of the seller (if permitted) or the name of the nonpoint source that generated the credits

5. When the source of credits is a nonpoint source, the Uncertainty Factor used

6. Effective date of the permit, and the date when credits will be available for use

7. The amount of credits purchased to date and the unit price of the credits

3 If the seller is a restoration project, then the permittee w ould not have a WLA. For these facilities, the amount of credit generated would be based on the amount of load reduction the project will produce.

59

### The tracking database will be made available on the Department’s website to provide public access to information on the trading program. This information should help alleviate concerns about the program by the public and will also serve as an important source of information to prospective buyers. In fact, facilities that generate credits through permitting actions would be entered in the database even if they did not already have buyers, and these pre-approved (“certified”) credits should be highly valued in the marketplace.



### 5.4.9 W ATERSHED 

### -B ASED AND 

### A GGREGATE 

### P ERMITTING


### Watershed-based permitting is another form of water quality credit trading that is supported by EPA and allowed under this BMAP. While there are many different potential forms of watershed-based trading, the fundamental tenet of watershed-based trading is that there is some sort of aggregate cap (allocation) that is shared by either one permittee with multiple facilities/permits or by multiple co-permittees. The co-permittees can establish a variety of arrangements that stipulate how to deal with individual permittees that exceed their specific allocation, but formal enforcement action is ty pically not taken by regulatory authorities unless the aggregate load is exceeded.

EPA expressed their support for watershed-based permitting in a 2003 Watershed-Based NPDES Permitting Policy. In the document, EPA noted their plan to “actively support and promote” watershed-based permitting, and listed a variety of watershed-based permitting examples.

The Department concluded that key types of watershed-based permitting could be done without statutory or rule revisions, including:

a) Individual permits for a facility with multiple outfalls (“intra-plant permitting”), which can be readily addressed by providing an aggregate wasteload allocation for the entire facility. b) Aggregate permits for a single permittee, usually a municipality, with multiple wastewater facilities (each with an individual permit and wasteload allocation) within a watershed, which could be done by providing a wasteload allocation for all of the facilities and developing an additional aggregate permit (processed as an individual wastewater permit) that would address compliance with the aggregate wasteload allocation. The existing individual permits would remain in effect, but each would be re-opened and revised to note the aggregate TMDL permit. Location Factors (see Section 5.4.5.2 )

would be needed if the outfalls for the different facilities were in different sections (marine versus freshwater) in the waterbody. c) Aggregate permits for a single permittee with both wastewater and NPDES stormwater permits. Permitting would be very similar to b), but the wasteload allocation for the MS4 must be translated from a percent reduction to loading so that the Department could establish an aggregate load limitation in the aggregate permit.

Several entities requested that their wasteload allocations be combined into an aggregate allocation. Entities with multiple wastewater treatment facilities will be issued an aggregate permit that includes permit limits to implement the aggregate allocation. For those entities that requested aggregation of the wastewater and MS4 wasteload allocations, some of the wastewater allocation was transferred to the MS4 to reduce the required reduction for the MS4, rather than issuing an aggregate permit. A summary of the requested aggregations is provided

in Table 24

.

6061 

### T ABLE 

### 24: W ASTELOAD 

### A LLOCATIONS FOR 

### A GGREGATE 

### P ERMITS

Source Category or Name of Facility Wasteload Allocation (kg/yr) Net Reduction from Starting Point Marine Nitrogen Wasteload Aggregations

Atlantic Beach – Buccaneer WWTF 8,432 59.98%

Atlantic Beach – Main WWTF 13,431 52.38%

Portion for Atlantic Beach MS4 -675 Atlantic Beach Aggregate 21,188 57.00% CCUA – Fleming Island WWTF 43,838 -53.62% CCUA – Fleming Oaks WWTF 2,985 -78.12%

CCUA – Miller St WWTF 37,235 -18.75% Portion for Clay County marine MS4 and

Non-MS4 -20,095 CCUA Aggregate 63,963 -3.89% JEA – Arlington WWTF 134,313 62.22%

JEA – Beacon Hills WWTF 7,387 55.02%

JEA – Brierwood SD WWTF 0 0.00%

JEA – Buckman WWTF 253,852 48.41%

JEA – District II WWTF 40,294 76.10% JEA – Holly Oaks WWTF 0 0.00% JEA – Jax Heights WWTF 12,088 46.43% JEA – Julington Creek WWTF 3,552 55.40%

JEA – Mandarin WWTF 52,233 -0.91% JEA – Monterey WWTF 26,863 52.52% JEA – Ortega Hills WWTF 0 0.00% JEA – Royal Lakes WWTF 22,311 30.32%

JEA – San Jose WWTF 16,789 46.17%

JEA – San Pablo WWTF 5,596 15.67%

JEA – St. Johns North WWTF 0 0.00%

JEA – SW WWTF 74,618 48.60%

JEA – Woodmere WWTF 4,776 52.81% JEA Aggregate 654,672 53.12%

NAS – Jax WWTF 8,432 36.47% NS – Mayport WWTF 7,686 44.91% Portion for NAS – Jax and NS – Mayport

MS4s -4,434 U.S. Navy Aggregate 11,684 57.08% Freshwater Nitrogen Wasteload Aggregations Green Cove Springs – Harbor WWTF 5,863 38.0% Green Cove Springs – South WWTF 3,189 38.0% Portion for Green Cove Springs MS4 -1,299.5 Green Cove Springs Aggregate 7,752.5 46.90% Freshwater Phosphorus Wasteload Aggregations Green Cove Springs – Harbor WWTF 1,852 38.0% Green Cove Springs – South WWTF 545 38.0% Portion for Green Cove Springs MS4 -467.8 Green Cove Springs Aggregate 1,929.2 50.01%

# CHAPTER 6 : N ONPOINT 

# S OURCE 

# TMDL I MPLEMENTATION



## 6.1 A GRICULTURAL 

## I NDUSTRY 

## S TRATEGIES TO 

## R EDUCE 

## TN AND 

## TP L OADINGS

Agriculture in the freshwater section of the LSJR Basin includes vegetable and row crops, sod production, silviculture, some cow/calf, and a growing equine industry. According to SJRWMD 2004 land use data for the LSJR Basin (all or part of Clay, Duval, Flagler, Putnam, and St. Johns counties), agricultural lands, excluding aquaculture and silviculture, cover about 113,500

acres. Table 25 provides a summary of these agricultural lands within the entire basin (freshwater and marine), based on SJRWMD 2004 land use coverage figures. The District’s 2004 data also shows a small amount of aquaculture in the basin, about 120 acres. According to the FDACS Division of Forestry, silviculture operations within the five counties cover about 1,348,559 acres, a portion of which are located outside of the LSJR Basin. All of these acreage figures are currently inaccurate, but are the best available data.

Vegetable, row crop, and sod production is concentrated in the freshwater section, in the TCAA. According to 2005 land use figures from the SJRWMD, collected specifically to document land use conversion and BMP implementation, these uses comprise about 32,000 acres within the TCAA (Flagler, Putnam, and St. Johns counties). The primary difference between this figure and the TCAA, three-county total that would be derived from Table 25 is that the 2004 SJRWMD data is based a broad, spatial approach to documenting land use. The 2005 figure is more specific to the TCAA, and the crop field definitions are more precise. For instance, it does not include farm roads. Also, the more precise figure accounts for 2005 land use conversions from agriculture to residential.

Since 1995, sod acreage in the TCAA has increased significantly, acreage in potatoes and cabbage has decreased significantly, and other vegetable acreage has increased moderately. Agricultural acreage in the marine section has steadily decreased over the past five to ten years, resulting in reduced pollutant discharges from agriculture. This acreage trend could

reverse due to market forces.

T ABLE 

### 25: SJRWMD 2004 A GRICULTURAL 

### L AND 

### U SE 

### A CRES IN THE 

### L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER


### B ASIN 

### (E XCLUDING 

### A QUACULTURE AND 

### S ILVICULTURE 

### )

Commodity 2004 Acreage Commodity 2004 Acreage Cattle Feeding Operations* 475 Horse Farms 2 

### 3,145

Citrus Groves 1 

### 375 Nurseries/Vineyards 1 

### 56 Crops – Field 1 

### 6,132 Ornamentals 1 

### 964 Crops – Mixed 1 

### 11 Other Open Lands – Rural 854 Crops – Row 1 

### 833 Pastures – Improved 2 

### 43,269 Crops – Potatoes/Cabbage 1 

### 35,570 Pastures – Unimproved 2 

### 7,711 Crops – Tree 1 

### 298 Pastures – Woodland 2 

### 4,477 Crops – Tree/Abandoned 30 Poultry Feeding* 196

Dairies* 1,070 Specialty Farms 2 

### 26 Fallow Cropland 1 

### 1,446 Sod 2 

### 4,678

Ferns – Hammock 1 

### 362 Tree Nursery 2 

### 1,207

Ferns – Shade 1 

### 336 Total Acres 113,521

*Activity regulated by FD EP (covering 1,741 acres)

1 BMP manual has been adopted by FDACS/OAWP (covering 46,383 acres).

2 BMP manual will be adopted by FDACS/OAWP (covering 64,513 acres).

62

### 6.1.1 A GRICULTURAL 

### L OADINGS AND 

### A LLOCATIONS IN THE 

### LSJR B ASIN



### Table 26 below contains the agricultural loading estimates for TN and TP used in establishing the TMDLs, and the reductions required of agricultural land uses in the LSJR Basin. The acreages used to calculate the starting point agricultural nutrient loads are based on SJRWMD

2000 land use information.

The required reductions are shown as steps, in order to reflect the process the Executive Committee used for allocating reductions to agricultural sources. “Step 2 Reductions” are expected to be achieved through implementation of applicable BMPs by all row crop operations. Consequently, reductions from forestry, aquacultu re, nursery, and other activities for which BMPs have been adopted are not reflected in the Step 2 Reductions. Also, as BMP manuals are adopted for additional commodities, affected operations will be expected to implement the applicable BMPs, which will further reduce agricultural pollutant loadings.

Based on the loading estimates used to develop the TMDLs, additional “Step 3 Reductions” are needed to achieve the agricultural load reduction allocation. Step 3 Reductions will require additional measures, such as construction of regional stormwater treatment (RST) facilities or other public projects that treat agricultural runoff after it leaves the field.

T ABLE 

### 26: LSJR M AIN 

### S TEM 

### BMAP A GRICULTURE 

### A LLOCATIONS

TMDL kg/yr lbs/yr
Freshwater – Total Nitrogen Agricultural Starting Load 1 310,700 683,540 Freshwater Discharge Allocation 194,336 427,539

Total Load Reduction Allocation 116,364 256,001 Step 2 Reductions 2 111,852 246,074 Step 3 Reductions 4,512 9,927 Remaining Reduction Needed 0 0 Freshwater – Total Phosphorus Agricultural Starting 1 83,455 183,601 Freshwater Discharge Allocation 70,974 156,143

Total Load Reduction Allocation 12,481 27,458 Step 2 Reductions 2 9,180 20,196 Step 3 Reductions 3,301 7,262 Remaining Reduction Needed 0 0 Marine – Total Nitrogen Agricultural Starting Load 1 12,800 28,160 Marine Discharge Allocation 4,170 9,174

Total Load Reduction Allocation 8,630 18,986 Step 2 Reductions 2 4,608 10,138 Step 3 Reductions 4,022 8,848 Remaining Reduction Needed 0 0

1 The starting point load is based on 2000 land use.

2 All Step 2 reductions are based on implementation of row crop BMPs.



### Because of the decline in agricultural acreage in the marine section, the agricultural load reduction allocation for TN may be greater than the reduction needed to achieve the agricultural discharge allocation. Thus, the TMDL marine discharge allocation for agriculture allows for future increases in agricultural acreage, as the estimated starting load is based on 2000 data that includes loadings from several dairies no longer in operation. However, the region is predicted to have continuing shifts from agricultural to residential land uses, which will reduce the agricultural loading, but also will reduce the amount of land available for future agriculture

63

### and potentially increase urban nonpoint source loading. SJRWMD and FDEP are developing updated agricultural loading estimates that will be considered during the next BMAP cycle.



### 6.1.2 E FFORTS TO 

### A DDRESS 

### A GRICULTURAL 

### N ONPOINT 

### P OLLUTANT 

### D ISCHARGES


### Nutrient reductions from agricultural land uses in both the freshwater and marine sections will be achieved through: 1) in-field BMP implemen tation (Step 2 Reductions); and 2) treatment of agricultural runoff with RSTs (Step 3 Reductions). These efforts are discussed in detail below.



### 6.1.2.1 Step 2 Reductions – Agricultural Best Management Practices

Best management practices are individual or co mbined practices determined through research, field-testing, and expert review to be the most effective and practicable means for improving water quality, taking into account economic and technological considerations. Section 403.067(7)(b), F.S., requires that nonpoint pollutant sources (such as agriculture) included in a BMAP demonstrate compliance with pollutant reductions needed to meet a TMDL, either by implementing appropriate BMPs (adopted by FDACS or FDEP, as applicable), or conducting water quality monitoring prescribed by FDEP or the applicable water management district. If these pollutant sources do not either implemen t BMPs or conduct monitoring, they may be subject to enforcement by FDEP or the applicable water management district.

Pursuant to section 403.067(7)(c), F.S., im plementation of FDACS-adopted, FDEP-verified BMPs in accordance with FDACS rule provides a presumption of compliance with state water quality standards. In addition, growers who implement BMPs may be eligible for cost share from the water management district, FDACS, or others. Through the Office of Agricultural Water Policy (OAWP), Division of Forestry, and Division of Aquaculture, FDACS develops, adopts, and assists producers in implementing agricultural BMPs to improve water quality and water conservation. Recent research initiatives conducted by the SJRWMD and other state and federal agencies have proven that BMPs can be implemented successfully, and significantly reduce loads while sustaining crop yields.

Two categories of BMPs included in FD ACS-adopted BMPs are nutrient management and irrigation management. Nutrient management is the amount, timing, placement, and type of fertilizer. University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS) recommended fertilizer applications, soil and ti ssue tests, fertigation (fertilizing through irrigation), split fertilizer applications, foliar app lications, controlled-releas e fertilizer, fertilizer spreader shut-off valves, and variable-rate fertilizer spreaders are among the nutrient management BMPs. Irrigation management is the maintenance, scheduling, and overall efficiency rating of irrigation systems. It typically includes conversion to low-volume systems; soil moisture monitoring; scheduling according to rainfall, temperature, and other climatic conditions; water placement; and plant groupings. FDACS-funded Mobile Irrigation Labs identify and demonstrate irrigation efficiency techniques to growers.

FDACS has adopted or will be adopting by rule BMPs that target the following operations in the basin. The indicated adoption dates are targets that may change due to various circumstances:

• Office of Agricultural Water Policy:

o Vegetable and agronomic crops (Rule 5M-8, F.A.C.)

o Container-grown plants (Rule 5M-6, F.A.C.)

o Sod production (2008)

o Cow/calf (2008)

o Equine (2009)

64

### o In-ground nurseries (2009/2010)

o Specialty crops (2010/2011)

• Division of Forestry: Silviculture (Rule 5I-6.002, F.A.C.)

• Division of Aquaculture: Aquaculture (Rule 5L-3, F.A.C.)

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act requires that, where water quality problems are demonstrated despite the proper implementation of adopted agricultural BMPs, FDACS must institute a re-evaluation of the practices, in consultation with FDEP, and modify them if necessary. FDACS will also include the SJRWMD and other partners in re-evaluating and modifying BMPs. Continuing water quality problems will be detected through the BMAP monitoring component and other FDEP and water management district monitoring activities.

FDACS BMP rules, adopted manuals, and staff contact information can be found at http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com . Printed BMP manuals can be obtained in the local extension office at county agricultural centers, or by contacting FDACS field staff.

Agricultural Producers’ Responsibilities for BMP Implementation Agricultural producers are responsible for implementing the applicable adopted BMPs for their commodities, consistent with FDACS rules and their submitted Notices of Intent (NOIs) or

certifications.

As of February 2008, producers within the LSJR Basin counties had submitted NOIs covering about 5,000 acres to implement FDACS-adopted BM Ps, excluding silviculture and aquaculture.This includes about 4,700 acres in St. Johns County that are enrolled under the FDACS TriCounty Agricultural Interim Measure (about 13 percent of the vegetable/row crop acres in the basin). The interim measure requires that farmers implement BMPs contained in the SJRWMD
December 17, 2002, Tri-County Agricultural Area Water Quality Protection Cost Share Program Applicant’s Handbook . FDACS rule changes and SJRWMD cost-share handbook revisions since that time make it necessary for the farmers enrolled under the interim measure to re-enroll under the FDACS 2005 manual, Water Quality/Quantity Best Management Practices for Florida Vegetable and Agronomic Crops . FDACS will be working with these farmers to do so.

There are 20 acres (about 36 percent of the 2004 reported nursery/vineyard acres in the basin) in Duval County enrolled under the Interim Measure for Container Grown Plants, which will be re-enrolled under the 2007 FDACS-adopted Water Quality/Quantity Best Management Practices

for Florida Container Nurseries . In Putnam County, 78 acres (about 11 percent of the 2004 reported fern acres in the basin) are enrolled in the Leatherleaf Fern BMP and 54 acres (about 14 percent of the 2004 reported citrus acres in the basin) in the Ridge Citrus BMP.

Forestry NOIs to implement BMPs currently cover approximately 372,025 acres (public and private) in the five counties, or about 28 percent of the estimated 1,348,559 acres of silviculture lands in the basin. However, BMPs are being conducted on many more forestry acres that are not enrolled under a NOI (see section on Division of Forestry responsibilities for more discussion). Pursuant to statute and FDACS rule, all aquaculture operations in the basin obtain annual certificates of registration from the Division of Aquaculture, and implement BMPs.

Growers not already enrolled in an applicable BMP program will be recruited to submit NOIs to implement BMPs under existing rules, and in the future to implement new manuals as they are adopted. As necessary, growers will be notified that if they choose not to implement BMPs, they are required by statute to conduct water quality monitoring prescribed by FDEP or the SJRWMD, in order to demonstrate that they ar e not having an adverse impact on water quality.

65

### In addition to implementing adopted BMPs, produc ers may choose to reduce pollutant loads through conservation easements, changes in crop type, and other measures.

More information about how FDACS will work with agricultural interests to implement BMPs is provided in the following sections.

FDACS Office of Agricultural Water Policy Responsibilities for BMP Implementation The OAWP assists agricultural producers in selecting, funding, and maintaining BMPs for commodities other than silviculture or aquaculture . It employs field staff and contracts with service providers to work with producers to subm it NOIs to implement the BMPs appropriate for their operations. Depending on the region of the state, these providers include the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, UF–IFAS, and Natural Resource Development and Conservation Councils. They also give technical assist ance to producers and help implement cost-share programs that leverage regional, state, and federal funds.

The OAWP will recruit producers within the LSJR Basin to enroll in adopted BMP programs applicable to their operations. The target will be to enroll 100 percent of operations for which there is an existing OAWP-adopted program within 3 year(s) of BMAP adoption, and to enroll 100 percent of the operations that fall under any new manuals within 3 year(s) of manual adoption. Because of continual shifts in land use, changes in crop coverage, limited agency resources, and other factors, this target is optimistic and success will be difficult to measure. In addition, the OAWP will:

• Document the submitted NOIs, which will incl ude a list of the BMPs to be implemented.

• Document the amount of total agricultural acreage covered by the NOIs.

• Assist growers in understanding and implementing BMPs properly.

• Mail written surveys to all operations in the LSJR Basin under a FDACS NOI, to update information on ownership, land use, acreage, and BMP implementation.

• As funding allows, perform 25 site visits annually on operations in the basin that are under a FDACS NOI, to ensure that the BMPs are being implemented, and will provide assistance and reasonable opportunities to producers to correct any deficiencies. FDACS will keep a record of site visit results, which will be included in its annual statewide “BMP implementation assurance” report.

In the case of continuous non-cooperation by an agricultural producer in implementing BMPs,

the OAWP will consult with FDEP and the SJRWMD to determine whether it is necessary for one of those agencies to intervene.

Integrated Approach to BMP Implementation in the Tri-County Agricultural Area As of 2005, the TCAA contains approximately 32,000 acres of irrigated cropland, predominately potato, cabbage, and sod farms. The discharge of nutrient-rich water from area farms in the TCAA contributes to the LSJR Basin nonpoint source load, and is considered the most significant agricultural pollutant source in the LSJR Basin.

Based on the programs and resources available to the TCAA, and the issues to be resolved, FDACS will work with growers, FDEP, the SJRWMD, and other affected interests to accomplish the following:

66

### 1. Repeal the FDACS TCAA Interim Measure rule (5M-4, F.A.C.), which was replaced by the 2005 FDACS manual, Water Quality/Quantity Best Management Practices for Florida Vegetable and Agronomic Crops

.

2. Enroll all TCAA growers under the 2005 FDACS manual, Water Quality/Quantity Best Management Practices for Florida Vegetable and Agronomic Crops , as applicable, with the understanding that:

• Only the BMPs in the FDACS manual apply for purposes of meeting TMDL statutory and FDACS rule requirements.

• The 2007 Tri-County Agricultural Area Water Quality Protection Cost-share Program Phase II (2007-2011) Applicant’s BMP Handbook may contain additional requirements for cost share of BMPs, and should be consulted for that purpose.

3. Provide assistance to growers in determin ing mitigating BMPs they must implement if not adhering to UF-IFAS recommended rates. Growers who have been using UF-IFAS rates will be expected to continue to do so. Table 27 provides the fertilizer application ranges within which growers will be required to implement additional BMPs, and which BMPs will apply.

4. By December 2009, revise the 2005 FDACS manual, Water Quality/Quantity Best Management Practices for Florida Vegetable and Agronomic Crops to provide more clarity and specificity to the BMPs and how they apply to the TCAA.

5. Specify in FDACS rule that the fertilization BMP in the revised FDACS Vegetable and Agronomic Crop manual will be reviewed within 3 years of the manual’s revision/ adoption and revised, if warranted, based on related research and demonstration.

6. If determined to be a cost-beneficial priority, conduct fertilizer application research and demonstration in the TCAA, with regard to sandy soils, that provides both crop yield and water quality data related to various rates of nitrogen and phosphorus application on operating farm fields. This effort will be coordinated with other similar research in the

state.

The Tri-County Agricultural Area Cost-Share Program Supporting BMP Implementation The SJRWMD established the TCAA Water Quality Protection Program in 2000 as a five-year program to encourage potato and cabbage growers to implement BMPs on a voluntary basis. This initiative demonstrates successful use of nutrient management and water table management BMPs, helps growers gain experienc e and confidence in BMP implementation, verifies the benefits of implementing BMPs in the LSJR Basin, and helps to develop and strengthen working relationships among the program cooperators and the growers.

In 2002, the SJRWMD published a handbook for the TCAA program, which identified selected cost-share BMPs, including reduced fertilization rates, for potato and cabbage growers. This first phase of the program was successful, with 52 percent of local growers participating and 70 percent of the eligible potato and cabbage acres in the TCAA enrolled. In 2007, the SJRWMD expanded the initiative into a Phase II, three-y ear program, with all vegetable and sod growers eligible for cost share. The District also revised the TCAA handbook, now titled Tri-County Agricultural Area Water Quality Protection Cost-share Program Phase II (2007-2011), Applicant’s BMP Handbook and dated June 22, 2007.

6768 

### The primary objective of the Phase II program is to provide vegetable and sod growers in the TCAA with funding assistance to reduce the financial burden of implementing specified BMPs. The TCAA cost-share program focuses on providi ng funds for agricultural practices that have potential water conservation, runoff, and water quality benefits, while sustaining profitable crop yields. The program will also assist TCAA vegetable and sod growers in their efforts to meet

the LSJR Basin TMDL allocation. Cost-share funds are available for both structural and management practices. Structural practices require a level of engineering design for proper installation and effectiveness. Management prac tices are typically a sequence of actions designed to maintain or enhance crop yields while reducing the potential for pollutants to leave the field. Notably, this cost-share program is the first in the state to provide funding assistance

for the use of controlled-release fertilizers.TABLE27:MITIGATINGBMPSBASED ONAMOUNT OFFERTILIZERGREATER THAN THEIFAS-RECOMMENDEDRATEExceedence of N FertilizerRecommendationUp to 10%11% - 20%More than 20%Exceedence of P FertilizerRecommendation1Up to 30 lbs/acre31-60 lbs/acre61 + lbs/acreBMPNo.BMP DescriptionNBMP Suite 1PNBMP Suite 2PNBMP Suite 3P14SoilSurveyx14xx14xx14x26Soil Testing/Soil pH26x26x26x27Water Table Observation Wellsx27x27x2728Precision Agriculture28xx28x29Crop Establishmentx29x29x2930Double Cropping in PlasticultureSystemsx30x30x3032Controlled-Release Fertilizersx32 @ 70% CRFx32 @ 80% CRF33Optimum Fertilization Mgt./Application2-split33 B,C,F,Ix2-split33 B,C,F,Ix3-split33 B,C,F,IxxPlasticulture -33 D, E, GxxPlasticulture -33 D, E, GxxPlasticulture -33 D, E, Gx34Chemigation/Fertigationx34x34x3435Tissue Testingx35x35x3539Irrigation SystemMaintenance/Evaluationx39A,B,Ex39 A,B,Ex39 A,B,E42Water Control Structuresx42x42x42Note: This table provides guidance for growers in the LSJR Basin to implement fertilization BMPs contained in the 2005 FDACSWater Quality/Quantity BestManagement Practices for Florida Vegetable and Agronomic Crops(VAC) manual, for mitigating impacts when exceeding IFAS-recommended fertilizer applicationrates. The table will be ground-tested and is subject to modification based on practical and technical considerations. Revisions to the 2005 VAC manual, which willcontain similar guidance, will take precedence over this table once the revisions are adopted by rule.1IFAS-recommended rates for phosphorus are based on soil test results.69

### FDACS Division of Forestry Responsibilities for BMP Implementation Forestry activities can deliver sediment and nutrients to adjacent water resources at levels that may adversely affect aquatic ecosystems chemic ally, physically, and biologically. However, Florida silviculture BMPs have been shown to be effective in protecting water quality and aquatic habitat by minimizing or eliminating the de livery of forestry-related sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants, and by maintaining or im proving both in-stream and riparian habitats. BMP effectiveness research conducted in Florida, on a variety of sites and under varying site conditions, reported no evidence of sediment deliv ery or other impacts to the aquatic ecosystem following intensive silviculture operations that use BMPs.

BMPs for silviculture were developed in the late 1970s, and BMP compliance has been

monitored statewide since 1981 via random fiel d surveys. Effective February 11, 2004, the Division of Forestry formally adopted the silviculture BMP Manual (Chapter 5I-6, F.A.C.). The rule provides for a NOI to be submitted by forest landowners who elect to participate in the program. It may not be possible to enroll all of the land owners in the BMP program because they often are not physically available. Forestr y is a low-intensity activity, and does not require the daily attention other agricultural operations do. However, most, if not all, landowners continue to implement BMPs without submi tting a NOI, and compliance monitoring includes operations that have not submitted NOIs, as the compliance results indicate. The compliance rates for forestry operations surveyed in th e LSJR Basin from 1999 through 2007 are presented

in Table 28 below. These results are assumed also to reflect the level of BMP implementation on operations that were not surveyed in a given year.

T ABLE 

### 28: R ESULTS OF 

### F ORESTRY 

### BMP S URVEYS 

### 1999

– 2007

County BMP Survey Year – Compliance Rate for Forestry Operations Surveyed

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Clay 100% 88% 100% 97% 96%

Duval 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% Flagler 98% 96% 100% 100% 100%

Putnam 96% 99% 100% 100% 100%

St. Johns 94% 95% 100% 98% 100%

To support continued BMP compliance, the Division of Forestry will:

• Send out letters soliciting landowners for the NOI program.

• Conduct landowner and logger workshops in the basin.

• Continue to conduct statewide monitoring ever y two years for BMP compliance, and will make this information available to FDEP and the SJRWMD via biennial reports. If necessary the Division of Forestry can conduct a survey specific to the LSJR Basin.

• Provide a continuously updated list of fore st landowners who have submitted NOIs, and make this list available to FDEP and the SJRWMD upon request.

• In the case of continuous non-cooperation by an agricultural producer in implementing BMPs, consult with FDEP and the SJRWMD to determine whether it is necessary for one of those agencies to conduct a site visit and/or prescribe water quality monitoring.

The FDACS Division of Aquaculture Certification/BMP Program Effective July 1, 1998, the Florida Legislature adopted a program of aquaculture BMPs to assure that aquafarms do not negatively affect the environment (s. 597.004, F.S.), and has designated FDACS as the primary agency for regulating aquaculture. Any person engaging in

70

### aquaculture must obtain an aquaculture certificat e of registration annually from FDACS, and follow all applicable aquaculture best management practices pursuant to Chapter 5L-3, F.A.C. These measures pre-empt all other state agency responsibilities related to aquaculture. Certified aquaculturists who comply with the BMPs are presumed to be in compliance with state ground water and surface water standards, and with regulations for the culture of non-native species. The Division of Aquaculture visits each certified facility at least two times a year to assist aquafarmers in complying with the BMPs.

Chapter 5L-3, F.A.C., provides that if an aquaculture producer fails to comply with the BMPs required for certification, FDACS shall take action consistent with its statutory authority to assure proper implementation and compliance under section 597.0041, F.S. Any person who violates any provision of Chapter 597, F.S., or Rule 5L-3, F.A.C., commits a first-degree misdemeanor, and is subject to a suspension or revocation of his or her certificate of registration. FDACS may, in lieu of or in addition to the suspension or revocation, impose an administrative fine of up to $1,000 per violation per day. The rule provides a schedule of actions and penalties based on occurrence of violations. Any person who fails to meet the BMPs and/or refuses to implement the BMPs must obtain a ll necessary permits/authorizations required by FDEP, the applicable water management district, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and any other appropriate regulatory authority.

FDEP and the SJRWMD Responsibilities for BMP Implementation The Florida Watershed Restoration Act (403.067, F.S.) states that nonpoint source dischargers who fail either to implement the appropriate BMPs or conduct water quality monitoring prescribed by FDEP or a water management distri ct may be subject to enforcement action by either of those agencies. FDEP and the SJRWMD will work cooperatively with FDACS to determine when site inspections, water quality monitoring, or enforcement action may be necessary. FDEP and the SJRWMD will prov ide an annual summary of the non-compliance reports they receive and any related actions they take.



### 6.1.2.2 Step 3 Reductions

As previously noted, in order to achieve the agricultural load reduction allocation, it will be necessary to supplement grower BMPs with treat ment projects, such as RSTs, to meet Step 3 Reductions. Years of agricultural production have left residual phosphorus levels in agricultural soils, which will continue to load surface waters until the levels dissipate over time. Long-term implementation of in-field agricultural BMPs will significantly lessen the offsite discharge of nutrients and the build-up of residual levels. In the meantime, the RSTs will help agriculture meet its TMDL nutrient allocations sooner than would be possible with in-field BMPs alone.

The SJRWMD initiated its regional stormwater system initiative in 1998. The purpose of the initiative is to design, construct, and operate site -specific RSTs to improve water quality in the receiving surface waters and main stem of the Lower St. Johns River. The RSTs remove nutrients, in the form of dissolved and particulate material, from the drainage waters of priority agricultural basins before they are discharged to surface waters at the basin outlet.

Two RSTs (Deep Creek West and Edgefield) have already been constructed and are in operation in the TCAA. However, in order to meet Step 3 pollutant reduction goals, an additional six RSTs would be required. The goal during this BMAP cycle is to complete two

additional RSTs to achieve sufficient reductions to meet the freshwater TN and TP allocations. Since agricultural land use has been steadily converting to urban land use in the LSJR Basin, the next BMAP allocation cycle may indicate that six new RSTs are not necessary to meet the

71

### agricultural allocation and therefore the agricultural land use contributions and total number of RSTs needed will be revaluated in the next cycle. The SJRWMD is currently in the planning phase for three of these new RSTs: Deep Creek East, Deep Creek Southwest and Sixteen Mile Creek. These proposed projects are in different stages of planning and would be completed at different times. In addition to the three RSTs in the planning stage, land for three more RSTs needs to be acquired if the agricultural allocations do not change in the next cycle. Since the majority of the marine reach of the LSJR is developed, the RSTs to achieve the needed marine reductions would most likely be located in the freshwater reach of the river where land is more available and facilities could be sized adequately. Even if located upstream, these RSTs could provide the necessary nutrient load reductions for both the freshwater and marine reaches.



### 6.1.3 P ROJECT 

### T ABLES AND 

### S CHEDULES TO 

### A CHIEVE 

### A GRICULTURAL 

### L OAD 

### R EDUCTIONS



### Table 29 summarizes the BMP implementation effort and the RST projects that are required to achieve the TN agricultural reduction allocation in the freshwater section of the LSJR Basin, and provides a proposed schedule for implementation. It includes two regional stormwater treatment areas that have already been construc ted by the SJRWMD. One additional RST is needed to meet the total TN reduction required, and would provide a greater reduction if designed similarly to the Deep Creek West RST. While the SJRWMD has taken the initiative in treating agricultural nonpoint source pollution in two priority agricultural watersheds, there is no assurance that funding will be available to construct additional facilities in the future. Therefore, the SJRWMD cannot assume responsibility for attaining the agricultural Step 3 Reductions. The District may choose to make special arrangements with local entities to subsidize the costs for maintenance and operation or seek funding from additional sources.

T ABLE 

### 29: A GRICULTURE 

### P ROJECTS TO 

### M EET THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### N ITROGEN 

### A LLOCATION

Source Project

Number Description Target Completion

Date Estimated

Reduction

(kg/yr) Estimated

Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Agriculture Reduction Required 116,364 256,001 Agriculture AG-1 BMP Implementation 1 12/31/2013 111,852 246,074 Agriculture AG-2 Deep Cr eek West (Yarborough) RST 3 Complete 687 1,511 Agriculture AG-3 Edgefield RST 4 Complete 1,815 3,993 Agriculture AG-4 New RST 1 7/1/2011 2,010 4,422 Agriculture Total Project Reductions 116,364 256,001 Agriculture Credit/(Deficit) 0 0 Agriculture Total Implementation Schedule Growers implement FDACS-adopted BMPs

a. Continue Enrollment 7/1/2008

b. 100% Enrollment 2 7/1/2011 Growers implement future FDACS-adopted BMPs

a. Start Enrollment Upon adoption

b. 100% Enrollment 2 Within 3 years of adoption

New RST 1 a. Start Date of Project 7/1/2008 b. Completion Date – Design 7/1/2009 c. Completion Date – Construction 7/1/2011 d. Completion Date – Completion of Project 7/1/2011

1 Based on implementation of BMPs by all row crop operations

2 Target enrollment; see discu ssion on page 66 (FDACS Offi ce of Agricultural Water Policy Responsibilities for BMP Implementation)

3 Total reduction of 1,000 kg/yr minus the credits fo r operation and maintenance given to St. Johns County.

4 Total reduction of 2,409 kg/yr minus the credits fo r operation and maintenance give to Putnam County.

72

### Table 30 summarizes the BMP implementation effort and the RST projects that would meet the agricultural TP reduction allocation in the freshwater section. Since many projects reduce both TN and TP, but at different efficiencies, many of the projects listed to reduce TP are the same

as those listed to reduce TN. Table 30 also describes how the completed RSTs (Deep Creek West and Edgefield) help achieve load reductions needed to meet the TMDL allocation for TP. In addition to these RSTs, two additional RSTs will be needed to achieve the TP freshwater reductions. The new RST reduction predictions are based on the estimated design efficiencies of the Deep Creek West facility, not on actual performance data. The actual number of RSTs that would be needed would be based on the size and design of the systems needed to achieve the targeted TP reduction and the concentrations of nutrients in the water being treated.

T ABLE 

### 30: A GRICULTURE 

### P ROJECTS TO 

### M EET THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### P HOSPHORUS 

### A LLOCATION

Source Project

Number Description Target Completion

Date Estimated

Reduction

(kg/yr) Estimated

Reduction

(lbs/yr)

Agriculture Reduction Required 12,481 27,458 Agriculture AG-1 BMP Implementation 1 12/31/2013 9,180 20,196 Agriculture AG-2 Deep Cr eek West (Yarborough) RST 3 Complete 562 1,236 Agriculture AG-3 Edgefield RST 4 Complete 822 1,808 Agriculture AG-4 New RST 1 7/1/2011 959 2,110 Agriculture AG-5 New RST 2 7/1/2014 959 2,110 Agriculture Total Project Reductions 12,482 27,460 Agriculture Credit/(Deficit) 0 0 Agriculture Total Implementation Schedule Growers implement FDACS-adopted BMPs

a. Continue Enrollment 7/1/2008

b. 100% Enrollment 2 7/1/2011 Growers implement future FDACS-adopted BMPs

a. Start Enrollment Upon adoption

b. 100% Enrollment 2 Within 3 years of adoption

New RST 1 a. Start Date of Project 7/1/2008 b. Completion Date – Design 7/1/2009 c. Completion Date – Construction 7/1/2011 d. Completion Date – Completion of Project 7/1/2011

New RST 2 a. Start Date of Project 7/1/2011 b. Completion Date – Design 7/1/2012 c. Completion Date – Construction 7/1/2014 d. Completion Date – Completion of Project 7/1/2014

1 Based on implementation of BMPs by all row crop operations

2 Target enrollment; see discu ssion on page 66 (FDACS Offi ce of Agricultural Water Policy Responsibilities for BMP Implementation)

3 Total reduction of 818 kg/yr minus the credits for operation and maintenance given to St. Johns County.

4 Total reduction of 1,091 kg/yr minus the credits fo r operation and maintenance give to Putnam County.



### Table 31 summarizes the efforts needed to achieve the marine TN agricultural reduction allocation, and shows the reductions expected. The schedule for BMP enrollment distinguishes between adopted BMP manuals and those that are under development. For commodities that currently have FDACS-adopted BMP programs, the target date for 100 percent enrollment is July 1, 2011. As new manuals are completed, the target date for 100 percent enrollment under each new program is 3 year(s) from the date of adoption. Because each farm enrolled in a BMP

73

### program may have a different implementation sc hedule, it is difficult to project when all applicable BMPs in the basin will be implemented. Although the target date for implementation of all applicable BMPs is July 1, 2013, the reduction estimate is based only on implementation of row crop BMPs. FDACS does not have the resources to ensure that every producer is implementing BMPs by a common deadline. Ho wever, FDACS will develop a schedule for site visits to assist growers and gage the level of BM P implementation. As necessary, FDACS will consult with FDEP and the SJRWMD on the need for those agencies to intervene.

Together with implementation of in-field BMPs, four RSTs in addition to the ones listed in Table

30 would be needed to meet the allocation. These additional RSTs could be located in either
the marine or freshwater section, since reduction s achieved in the freshwater section upstream

would benefit both the marine and freshwater sections. Because the marine section has much more urban development and generally higher costs per acre of land, it is likely that these RSTs would be located in the freshwater section. However, as mentioned previously, the marine agricultural reduction allocation is based on 2000 land use data and may be greater than needed to achieve the TMDL. This “allowance” may diminish the need for additional RSTs. Therefore, updated loading estimates should be used before pursuing the construction of RST facilities to meet the marine section agricultural load reduction allocation.

T ABLE 

### 31: A GRICULTURE 

### P ROJECTS TO 

### M EET THE 

### M ARINE 

### N ITROGEN 

### A LLOCATION

Source Project

Number Description Target Completion

Date Estimated

Reduction

(kg/yr) Estimated

Reduction

(lbs/yr)
Agriculture Reduction Required 8,630 18,986 Agriculture AG-1 BMP Implementation 12/31/2013 1 4,608 10,138 Agriculture AG-6 New RST 3 7/1/2017 1,006 2,213 Agriculture AG-7 New RST 4 7/1/2020 1,006 2,213 Agriculture AG-8 New RST 5 7/1/2023 1,006 2,213 Agriculture AG-9 New RST 6 7/1/2026 1,006 2,213 Agriculture Total Project Reductions 8,632 18,990 Agriculture Credit/(Deficit) 0 0 Agriculture Total Implementation Schedule Growers implement approved BMPs

a. Start Enrollment 7/1/2008

b. 100% Enrollment 2 7/1/2011 Growers implement future DACS adopted BMPs

a. Start Enrollment Upon adoption

b. 100% Enrollment 2 Within 3 years of adoption

New RST 3 a. Start Date of Project 7/1/2014 b. Completion Date – Design 7/1/2015 c. Completion Date – Construction 7/1/2017 d. Completion Date – Completion of Project 7/1/2017

New RST 4 a. Start Date of Project 7/1/2017 b. Completion Date – Design 7/1/2018 c. Completion Date – Construction 7/1/2020 d. Completion Date – Completion of Project 7/1/2020

New RST 5 a. Start Date of Project 7/1/2020 b. Completion Date – Design 7/1/2021 c. Completion Date – Construction 7/1/2023

7475 d. Completion Date – Completion of Project 7/1/2023

New RST 6 a. Start Date of Project 7/1/2023 b. Completion Date - Design 7/1/2024 c. Completion Date - Construction 7/1/2026 d. Completion Date – Completion of Project 7/1/2026

1 Based on implementation of BMPs by all row crop operations

2 Target enrollment; see discu ssion on page 66 (FDACS Offi ce of Agricultural Water Policy Responsibilities for BMP Implementation)



### The proposed RST construction schedule is based on first constructing the RSTs that address the freshwater allocations, as upstream reductions will benefit both the marine and freshwater sections. Once the RSTs in the freshwater portion have been constructed, the construction of additional RSTs that may be necessary to address the marine section allocation would begin.

The RST construction schedule presented in the tables above is for planning purposes only and could change considerably. It is based on the assumption that six RSTs are needed in addition to in-field BMPs to meet the agriculture reduction goals, and that it will take three years to design and construct each RST. The schedule prov ides for individual RST construction to begin as the previous RST is completed. The land acquisition component of RST facility implementation can be a long process in itself, and is not included in this schedule. Given sufficient resources, land acquisition for new facilities and RST construction on existing lands could occur concurrently.

The overall schedule represents total reliance on RSTs as the means of meeting the Step 3 Reductions, and assumes a continuous effort to acquire land, fund, and construct RSTs to meet the agricultural allocation. Although the SJRWMD does not take responsibility for meeting agricultural Step 3 Reductions, it has been the lead on the land acquisition, design, and construction of the RSTs, as well as the lead on securing funding. Since the costs for constructing these projects are high and ther e will be continuing financial demands for operation and maintenance of the sites, the challenge to secure funding for these facilities is significant. Consequently, the schedule in Table 31 is speculative, based on past funding levels and the assumption that similar funding will be available in the future. The SJRMWD will require significant funding from other sources for these projects.

# CHAPTER 7 : A SSESSING 

# P ROGRESS AND 

# M AKING 

# C HANGES

Successful BMAP implementation requires commitment and follow-up. In the Commitment to Plan Implementation ( Chapter 8 ), Executive Committee members have expressed their intention to carry out the plan, monitor its effect, and continue to coordinate within and across jurisdictions to achieve water quality targets. The FWRA requires that an assessment be conducted every five years to determine whether there is reasonable progress in implementing the BMAP and achieving pollutant load reductions. This chapter contains the water quality monitoring component sufficient to make this evaluation.



## 7.1 T RACKING 

## I MPLEMENTATION

FDEP and SJRWMD will organize the monitoring data and track project implementation and present this information to the Executive Committee in an annual report. The Executive Committee has agreed to meet at least every 12 months after the adoption of the BMAP in order to follow up on plan implementation, share new information, and continue to coordinate on TMDL-related issues. The types of activities that may occur at annual or more frequent meetings are described below.

Implementation Data and Reporting

• Collect project implementation and/or dischar ge information from point source DMRs, permits, MS4 permit reporting, agricultural NOI reporting, and other sources and compare to the BMAP schedule. An exam ple for an annual reporting format on BMAP project implementation (to be completed by the entities) is shown in Table 32

.

• Review summaries of estimated load reductions based on the data received and comparisons to the TMDL and individual allocations and any aggregated loads or water quality credit trades.

• Discuss the data collection process, incl uding any concerns and possible improvements to the process.

• Review of the monitoring plan implementation as detailed in Section 7.2

.

Sharing New Information

• Reports on results from water quality monitoring and trend information.

• Reports on hydrodynamic and water quality model refinements.

• Reports related to the status of the biological health of the river.

• Information on new technologies for reducing nutrients.

• Reports on progress with quantifying load reductions from urban stormwater and other nonpoint sources, including information on quantifying nonstructural BMPs and the effects of public education.

Coordination of TMDL-Related Issues

• Updates on water quality credit trading.

• Comments on aggregated loads and coordination between wastewater and stormwater

programs.

• Updates from FDEP and SJRWMD on the basin cycle and activities related to impairments, TMDLs and BMAP.

• Reports from other basins where tools or other information may be informative to the

LSJR TMDLs.

7677 

### Covering all of these topics is not required for periodic meetings of the Executive Committee but are examples of the types of information that should be considered for the agenda to assist with BMAP implementation and coordination among the agencies and stakeholders.TABLE32:PROPOSEDBMAPANNUALREPORTINGFORMAT2008 Lower St. Johns River Main Stem Nutrient Basin Management Action Plan___YEAR__ANNUALIMPLEMENTATIONREPORTREPORTINGENTITY:___________________________________________________DATE:__________________Note:Relevant MS4 activities, whether contained in the BMAP or not, may be included in this report.IMPLEMENTATIONSTATUS–BMAPMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIES1BMAPPROJECT #AFFECTEDAREA(WBID)2BRIEFDESCRIPTION3PROJECTEDSTART/END4PROJECT/ACTIVITYSTATUS5TN OR TPREMOVALESTIMATE(LBS/YR)6PROJECTMONITORINGRESULTS7COMMENTSTotalInterimShade ifalso an MS4activityNEWMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIES1BMAPPROJECT #AFFECTEDAREA(WBID)2BRIEFDESCRIPTION3PROJECTEDSTART/END4PROJECT/ACTIVITYSTATUS5TN OR TPREMOVALESTIMATE6PROJECTMONITORINGRESULTS7COMMENTSTotalInterimShade ifalso an MS4activity78

### Directions for BMAP Annual Reporting Format :

1 

### BMAP Projects : This includes projects and other management strategies. Use the project number assigned in the BMAP Projects/Activities Table (e.g., AB-10). Please include all management strategies for which you have lead responsibility in the BMAP, regardless of their status. New Management Strategies : Include new projects/activities that are not included in the BMAP in the New Management Strategies table. Create a project number for new management strategies by using the prefix, then -N# (e.g., AB-N1). If a management action listed in either table is part of your MS4, please shade the project number box in grey

.

2 

### Include a brief description of the management action being reported (e.g., street sweeping removing gross debris on all streets with "L curbs" - 5 miles performed each month).

3 

### If applicable, include the start and end dates for the management action. If not applicable, put “N/A” or, if it is a continuous activity, put “Continuous” and indicate how often the activity takes place (e.g., for street sweeping).

4 

### Give a clear summary of the status of the management action, in a way that makes sense for the item listed. For instance, for educational activities, list pertinent publications, events, etc., including name and/or topic for each. Include specific or general timeframes (e.g., two public workshops on lawn fertilizer in March 2009). Also, describe any significant changes to the management action that have taken place

5 

### Provide total and interim (to date) TN and TP removal estimates, if available. Include removal estimate units (e.g., lbs/yr). Note whether the estimates are different from those contained in the BMAP for the specific management action.

6 

### As applicable: If monitoring is required as part of a management action (e.g., in a costshare situation), or is conducted voluntarily (e.g., as part of an effort to collect BMAP effectiveness information) include the monitoring results to date, as practicable.

7 

### Include comments on any implementation obstacles, including weather, funding, technical difficulties, etc. Identify needs for assistance from the Executive Committee as a whole, or from individual entities represented on the Executive Committee. Include any other comments you consider important.

79

## 7.2 W ATER 

## Q UALITY 

## M ONITORING

The monitoring strategy addresses design, qua lity assurance (QA), and data management and interpretation that measure progress toward achieving the TMDLs. This approach also allows for evaluation and feedback that refines the monitoring strategy over time. The objectives of the monitoring strategy are:

• To assess the condition of the LSJR based on dissolved oxygen for the river’s marine reach and chlorophyll a for the freshwater reach;

• To determine the compliance of domestic and industrial point sources with nitrogen and phosphorus load limits allocated in this BMAP and to track implementation of projects listed in this BMAP for urban nonpoint sources;

• To establish a continuing monitoring program for major tributaries to the LSJR that provides data for performing future water quality model simulations and assessments of nonpoint source loads; and

• To identify who will be tasked with the analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of monitoring information.

As technology changes and develops and informati on is obtained from the monitoring, the sampling techniques and station locations, described below, may change. However, the objectives of the monitoring must still be achieved. A more detailed discussion on the monitoring plan is included in a report entitl ed, “Compliance Assessment and Continuing Monitoring Plan Element” (Hendrickson 2008). The monitoring efforts described in this section will be coordinated, to the extent possible, with the monitoring to be conducted as part of the

Lower St. Johns River tributaries fecal coliform TMDL.



### 7.2.1 L OWER 

### S T



### . J OHNS 

### R IVER 

### T ARGET 

### C OMPLIANCE 

### M ONITORING



### 7.2.1.1 The Freshwater Reach Chlorophyll A Target

The monitoring for the freshwater section of the river is based on chlorophyll a with a target of “not to exceed 40 μg/L, as a WBID-wide average, for more than 40 consecutive days”. The monitoring in the freshwater section will focus on the two “worst case” WBIDs: 2213L and 2213K, which are located on the reach of the river between Palatka and Tocoi ( Figure 8 ).

A statistical power analysis was conducted to determine the optimum number of samples necessary to represent the daily mean chlorophyll a concentration with acceptable confidence. This analysis showed that 29 samples are needed to represent the daily mean within a chlorophyll a concentration of 5 μg/L. To keep costs reasonable at this monitoring intensity and build on existing ambient monitoring program stat ions, additional samples in each “worst case” WBID will be measured in the field by in-vivo fluorescence, with a subset of ten calibration samples collected in each event for laboratory spectrophotometric analysis. In addition, the USGS continuous water quality monitoring station at Federal Point will be instrumented with a chlorophyll sensor to track changes between biw eekly events. Monitoring will be conducted during the peak algal bloom months of April through October. The stations listed in Table 33 will continue to be monitored as part of the SJRWMD’s long term ambient monitoring program, with a complete laboratory analytical suite, including dissolved and total nutrients, major ions, trace metals, organic carbon, BOD, chlorophyll, and field measurements.

80

### T ABLE 

### 33: L ONG 

### -T ERM 

### A MBIENT 

### S AMPLING 

### S TATIONS IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACH AND



### R ESPONSIBLE 

### E NTITIES



### Station Name Location Parameters Sampled Frequency of Sampling Responsible Entity

SJP 2213M Std. parameters Biweekly SJRWMD

SJRCC 2213L Std. paramet ers Biweekly SJRWMD

SJRCW 2213L Std. paramet ers Biweekly SJRWMD

SJM37 2213K Std. parameters Biweekly SJRWMD

SRP 2213K Std. parameters Biweekly SJRWMD

SAVSCRAO 2213K Std. parameters Biweekly SJRWMD

SJWSIL 2213J Std. parameters Biweekly SJRWMD

SJSR16 2213I Std. parameters Biweekly SJRWMD

SJRHBP 2213H Std. paramet ers Biweekly SJRWMD

River Transect 2213K Std. parameters + In

vivo fluorescence Biweekly (Apr-Oct)/At least 29 samples within WBID Georgia

Pacific

River Transect 2213L Std. parameters + In

vivo fluorescence Biweekly (Apr-Oct)/At least 29 samples within WBID Seminole

Electric

81Note: Transect points identify the intensive sampling locations that were used in the pow er analysis to determine sampling density. Water quality model grid overlain on the river will be used as the template to position monitoring

sites.



### F IGURE 

### 8: S AMPLING 

### P RIORITY 

### A REA IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### R EACH OF THE 

### LSJR

82

### 7.2.1.2 The Marine Reach Dissolved Oxygen Target

The marine reach of the LSJR exhibits chronic low dissolved oxygen concentrations. This condition is the most pronounced in the narrow, deep section of the river’s marine reach, from the Main Street Bridge in downtown Jacksonvil le to the Intracoastal Waterway. The greatest frequency of low concentrations is observed between river miles 5 to 11, corresponding to WBID 2213B. Because of the cyclical nature of dissolved oxygen (and the ancillary salinity, conductance, and temperature data), and the vertical and horizontal gradients that may be present, a fixed, multi-station, continuous m onitoring program is proposed for WBID 2213B. Long-term ambient water quality monitoring within this reach, conducted by the City of Jacksonville and SJRWMD, will continue.

The continuous monitoring station locations have been selected to characterize the zones that tend to exhibit different oxygen patterns within the WBID: 1) the waters of the main channel and 2) the out-welling water of the Timucuan tide marsh north of Heckscher Drive. These locations, along with the long-term river ambient monitoring stations, are shown in Figure 9

. Table 34

describes the sites at which the continuous monitoring will occur. FDEP will provide the monitoring equipment for the two new monitoring stations, set up these new sites, and replace the equipment when necessary. JEA has agreed to provide the operations and maintenance for

the two new stations.

St. Johns R. Meso-Polyhaline Monitoring Stations

USGS Long Term Continuous

SJRWMD Ambient

Proposed Continuous D.O.



### F IGURE 

### 9: L ONG 

### -T ERM 

### A MBIENT AND 

### P ROPOSED 

### A UTOMATED 

### C ONTINUOUS 

### S AMPLING 

### L OCATIONS

IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### R EACH 

### (WBID 2213B) OF THE 

### LSJR

83

### T ABLE 

### 34: C ONTINUOUS 

### M ONITORING 

### S TATIONS IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### R EACH AND 

### R ESPONSIBLE



### E NTITIES



### Station

Name Location Parameters Sampled Frequency

of Sampling Responsible Entity

Fulton Point In channel

between river

miles 5 to 7 Dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, salinity, and water temperature at 2 vertical positions Continuous every 15

minutes FDEP (equipment and set up) and JEA (operation and maintenance) Clapboard

Creek Heckscher Drive bridge piling Dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, salinity, and water temperature at 1 vertical positions Continuous every 15

minutes FDEP (equipment and set up) and JEA (operation and maintenance)

SJR at

Dames Point Dames Point northern bridge

fender Dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, salinity, and water temperature at 2 vertical positions, with

redundant instrumentation and real-time telemetry Continuous every 15

minutes USGS, funded by

SJRWMD



### 7.2.2 S OURCE 

### M ONITORING


### The assessment of loads to the river from point and nonpoint sources is a critical component of the BMAP monitoring initiative. Wastewater point sources have permit requirements to verify explicitly through monitoring that load allocations are achieved. MS4s and urban and agricultural nonpoint sources also have allocations and expected load reductions, with compliance presumed through a demonstration of BMP implementation, rather than direct water quality monitoring. The recommended minimum constituent suite for monitoring for point sources and nonpoint sources is listed in Table 35 . The water quality parameters are shown as core or supplemental indicators per EPA guidance for water quality monitoring plans. Core indicators can be “used routinely to assess attainment with applicable water quality standards” whereas supplemental indicators are used “to monitor when there is a reasonable expectation that a specific pollutant may be present in a watershed, when core indicators indicate impairment, or to support a special study such as screening for potential pollutants of concern (EPA 2003).”

T ABLE 

### 35: I NDICATORS FOR 

### P OINT AND 

### N ONPOINT 

### S OURCE 

### M ONITORING TO 

### A SSESS 

### C OMPLIANCE

WITH 

### A LLOCATIONS



### Indicator Required Reporting

Limit* Domestic

Effluent Industrial

Effluent Nonpoint

Source/

Tributaries

Core Indicators

Nitrate + Nitrite N 0.010 mg/L X X X



### Ammonia-N 0.010 mg/L X X X 

### Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.050 mg/L X X X 

### Orthophosphate 0.005 mg/L X X X 

### Total Phosphorus 0.010 mg/L X X X



### Color 10 pt-co X X 

### Sample Depth 0.1 m X



### TOC 0.2 mg/L X X X



### BOD 0.5 mg/L X X X

84

### Indicator Required Reporting

Limit* Domestic

Effluent Nonpoint Industrial Source/

Effluent Tributaries

Supplemental Indicators

Chlorophyll a 0.5 μg/L X Dissolved Oxygen 0.1 mg/L X X X 

### Turbidity 0.2 ntu X X X 

### Water Temperature 0.2 oC X X 

### pH 0.1 unit X X 

### Specific Conductance 10 mmho/cm X X X 

### Secchi Depth 2 cm X 

### Total Depth 0.1 m X

*In cases where the reporting unit is less than the method detecti on limit, value should be measured to these recommended level s and remarked with the STORET “T” code.

Note: Domestic waste effluents include wet-weather and APRIC OT discharges, as well as c ontinuous WWTF discharges for facilities greater than 0.2 mgd. Industrial effluents incl ude pulp and paper, power plant, and dem ineralization concentrate.



### 7.2.2.1 Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Monitoring of Tributary Inputs

Because nonpoint sources come into the LSJR through many individual entry points including small streams, large tributaries, canals, ditches, groundwater seepage, and rainfall, it is not practical to monitor each individual nonpoint source. This monitoring plan instead focuses on measuring the loads from the major tributaries, along with monitoring of the main stem water quality itself, to estimate how nonpoint sources are changing. This water quality information can then be used to confirm the effects of the nonpoint source load reduction projects listed in Appendix H that will be tracked to ensure they are completed.

To provide water quality and load information for the majority of the flow entering the LSJR, monitoring should be continued or instituted on the stations listed in Table 36 . Many of these stations are presently included in long-term ambient monitoring programs and several are associated with USGS discharge and continuous water quality monitoring. Monitoring performed at the stations listed in Table 36 will characterize 88 percent of the calculated discharge entering the Lower St. Johns River.

Monitoring of the LSJR tributaries is designed to assess stormflow (shown as high-flow event in

Table 37 ) and baseflow. Under the flow-weighted sampling protocol, baseflow and stormflow are considered as distinct water quality regimes. Because stormflow (the pulse in discharge associated with the immediate precipitation event, separated from baseflow through standard hydrologic analysis) typically represents from 60 to over 90 percent of annual runoff volume, its assessment is critical in the calculation of annual load. In the major tributary monitoring program, it is recommended that stormflow be assessed with grab sampling timed to capture runoff events, at an event frequency equivalent to that of baseflow sampling. Because baseflow is the prevailing state of tributary streamflow , it can typically be assessed with pre—scheduled, fixed interval monitoring program s. Conversely, stormflow collections must be executed during a relatively short interval following significant accumulation of precipitation. These intermittent collections should be targeted to occur within each of three predominant meteorological cycles that occur in a typical year: cool season event s from November through mid-March; warmer,dry-season events from mid-March through mid-June; and wet, hot season events from midJune through October. The goal is to collect two events per season per site, if possible. Sampling will continue on an annual basis until there are at least four data per season within a two year time period. This information on stormflow will be used to refine the loads entering the

85

### river from the tributaries in the modeling. Continuous water quality data collection is achieved with automated unattended equipment deployed in association with gauged discharge monitoring, and is typically comprised of m easurements for DO, specific conductance, pH, temperature, and turbidity, and telecommunications equipment for real-time transmission of

data. Figure 10 identifies the watershed areas that are assessed under this tributary monitoring

program.

T ABLE 

### 36: E XISTING AND 

### R ECOMMENDED 

### L ONG 

### -T ERM 

### A MBIENT 

### M ONITORING 

### S TATIONS FOR THE



### TMDL

Station Station ID Discharge Current Monitoring Recommended

Addition Responsible Entity
Lake George

Outlet LG12 By difference Biweekly sampling for chemistry; Automated Continuous for DO, WTEMP, SpCond at CM 4-

5 No change SJRWMD

Ocklawaha

River Mouth OCKLRM Yes Biweekly No Change SJRWMD

St. Johns R. at

Buffalo Bluff SRB Yes Biweekly sampling for chemistry; Automated Continuous for DO, WTEMP, SpCond No Change SJRWMD

Dunns Creek

and Crescent

Lake DUNNSCRK Yes Biweekly No Change SJRWMD

Rice Creek at Hwy 17 RCB Yes Monthly Fixed Interval See Table 37 SJRWMD

Peters Creek

at C.R. 209 PTC No Monthly Fixed Interval See Table 37 SJRWMD

Governors Cr.

At S.R. 16 GC16 No Monthly Fixed Interval See Table 37 SJRWMD

North Fork

Black Creek at Hwy. 21 Middleburg NBC Yes Monthly Fixed Interval See Table 37 SJRWMD

South Fork

Black Creek

C.R. 218 Middleburg SBC Yes Monthly Fixed Interval See Table 37 SJRWMD

Little Black Cr.

at C.R. 220 Proposed

station No None Bi-Monthly Fixed

Interval JEA

Black Creek BLC Yes Monthly Fixed Interval Automated Continuous (DO, WTEMP, Turbidity, SpCond) SJRWMD,

CCUA

Ortega River

at Collins Rd. 20030349 At Kirwin Rd. Bi-monthly Fixed Interval; Continuous for DO, WTEMP, SpCond See Table 37 SJRWMD

Cedar River Blanding Blvd. 20030083 At San Juan Bi-monthly Fixed Interval See Table 37 SJRWMD

Moncrief

Creek 20030115 No Bi-monthly fixed interval No Change SJRWMD

Ribault R. RRLTR No None Bi-Monthly Fixed

Interval JEA

86

### Station Station ID Discharge Current Monitoring Recommended Responsible

Addition Entity

Pablo Creek at

San Pablo Rd. Proposed

station No None Bi-Monthly Fixed

Interval JEA

Arlington R. at University

Blvd. ARLRM No Bi-Monthly Fixed

Interval JEA

Julington Cr.

at Old St. Augustine Proposed

station No Bi-Monthly Fixed

Interval JEA

Big Davis

Creek at U.S.

1 LSJ099 Yes Bi-monthly fixed interval No Change SJRWMD

Durbin Creek

at Racetrack

Road LSJ087 No Bi-monthly fixed interval See Table 37 SJRWMD

Sixmile Creek Proposed

station Yes Monthly Fixed Interval See Table 37 SJRWMD

Deep Creek DCR Yes Monthly Fixed Interval; Continuous for DO, WTEMP, SpCond See Table 37 SJRWMD

Dog Branch DBR No Monthly Fixed Interval See Table 37 SJRWMD Hastings Drainage

District OHD No Monthly Fixed Interval See Table 37 SJRWMD

Elkton Drainage

District OED No Monthly Fixed Interval See Table 37 SJRWMD

Tocoi Creek TOC No Monthly Fixed Interval See Table 37 SJRWMD



### T ABLE 

### 37: S TORMFLOW 

### S AMPLING FOR 

### TMDL M ODEL 

### R EFINEMENT



### Station Station ID Recommended

Addition Responsible Entity

Rice Creek at Hwy 17 RCB High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season SJRWMD

Peters Creek at C.R. 209 PTC High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season CCUA

Governors Cr. At S.R. 16 GC16 High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season CCUA

North Fork Black Creek at Hwy. 21 Middleburg NBC High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season CCUA

South Fork Black Creek C.R. 218 Middleburg SBC High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season CCUA

Little Black Cr. at C.R. 220 Proposed station High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season CCUA

Ortega River at Collins Rd. 20030349 High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season COJ

Cedar River Blanding Blvd. 20030083 High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season COJ

Ribault R. RRLTR High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season COJ

Pablo Creek at San Pablo Rd. Pr oposed station High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season COJ

87

### Station Station ID Recommended Responsible

Addition Entity

Arlington R. at University Blvd. ARLRM High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season COJ

Julington Cr. at Old St. Augustine Proposed station High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season COJ

Durbin Creek at Racetrack Road LSJ087 High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season COJ

Sixmile Creek Proposed station High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season To be

determined* Deep Creek DCR High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season To be

determined* Dog Branch DBR High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season To be

determined* Hastings Drainage District OHD High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season To be

determined* Elkton Drainage District OED High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season To be

determined*

Tocoi Creek TOC High-Flow Event Sampling, 2/season To be

determined*
* High-flow event sampling will be conduc ted at these stations, if funding is available, to provide additional

information for model refinement.

88

### F IGURE 

### 10: W ATERSHED 

### A REAS 

### A SSESSED IN THE 

### T RIBUTARY 

### M ONITORING 

### P ROGRAM

89

### 7.2.3 M ONITORING 

### R ESPONSIBILITIES


### Commitment for monitoring by the responsible entities is for two years of data collection (for both fixed interval and high-flow event monitoring) . After the two years, the datasets will be evaluated to assess if sufficient data has been collected to reasonably determine loads and trends. If the data is not deemed to be sufficient by FDEP, the monitoring will continue for another year for subsequent evaluation. Annual evaluations will continue until sufficient data

are available.



### 7.2.4 M AINTENANCE OF 

### D ATA


### Data collected by the network will be loaded into the STORET database that is maintained by FDEP. Partners must meet QA requirements set by FDEP for STORET data. Additional interagency data comparisons and QA checks will be conducted as practical.

Observations of water quality conditions and trends will be reported to the Executive Committee and the public at least annually. Water quality data will be used to support the adaptive management process, assess projects, and identify the need for new actions. A more completeanalysis of trends in progress towards achieving the water quality target will be made on a fiveyear basis, corresponding with FD EP’s watershed management cycle.



## 7.3 A DAPTIVE 

## M ANAGEMENT 

## M EASURES

Adaptive management involves creating a mechanism for making course corrections in the BMAP when circumstances change or feedback indicates a more effective strategy is needed. Adaptive management measures include:

• Procedures to determine whether additional cooperative strategies are needed.

• Criteria/process for determining whether and when plan components need to be revised due to changes in costs, environmental impacts, social effects, watershed conditions, or

other factors.

• Descriptions of what the role of the Executive Committee will be subsequent to BMAP completion.

Tracking implementation, monitoring water quality and pollutant loads, and holding periodic meetings to share information and expertise are key components of adaptive management.

BMAP implementation will be a long-term proce ss. Some key projects, with significant estimated load reductions, will extend well beyond t he first five years of BMAP implementation. TMDLs established for the basin likely will take several years to achieve. The Executive Committee will track its implementation efforts and monitor water quality to ensure that the

BMAP is carried out and to measure its effectiv eness. The Executive Committee will meet at least once every 12 months to discuss implement ation issues, consider new information, and determine what other management actions are needed if the river is not projected to meet its

TMDLs.

Project implementation and/or discharge informat ion will be collected on an annual basis from

the entities. The Executive Committee will review these reports once a year to assess progress towards meeting the BMAP’s goals. The Executive Committee will also discuss implementation milestones and will work on developing a decision-making tool that integrates implementation tracking and water quality monitoring information, to assist in determining whether plan adjustments are needed.

9091 

## 7.4 R EVISIONS TO THE 

## BMAP

The TMDLs and BMAPs are generally revised according to the statewide basin rotation
schedule, which is shown in Appendix A . The LSJR main stem is a Group 2 waterbody and will follow that schedule once the BMAP is adopted.

The phases of the cycle to update the TMDL and BM AP are repeated every five years. For this first BMAP, the document was not adopted in the anticipated year of the five year schedule. However, the Department plans to continue following the Group 2 basins watershed cycle for the LSJR, which means the LSJR TMDL will be reviewed and may be revised in 2013/2014 (Phase 3) and the BMAP may be revised in 2014/2015 (Phase 4).

In addition to the BMAP modifications that can occur in Phase 4 of the cycle, it is also possible to modify the BMAP in other phases. If the Department determines there is a substantive reason to update the BMAP, such as a major change in the understanding of the loading or river response, or there is a need to substantially change the approach to meeting the TMDL, the BMAP can be revised and readopted. Any formal revisions to the BMAP will occur through the standard process including advanced public notice, at least one public meeting, and a formal adoption by the Secretary of the FDEP. It is the usual policy of the FDEP to avoid modifying a BMAP document other than during Phase 4 unless FDEP determines there is a significant

reason to do so.

# CHAPTER 8 : C OMMITMENT TO 

# P LAN 

# I MPLEMENTATION

Section 403.067(7), F.S., lays out the mechanisms for BMAP implementation ( see Appendix

B ) . While the BMAP is linked by statute to permitting and other enforcement processes that target individual entities, successful implementation requires that local stakeholders willingly and consistently work together to achieve adopted TMDLs. This collaboration fosters the sharing of ideas, information, and resources. The members of the Lower St. Johns River TMDL Executive Committee have demonstrated their willingness to confer with and support each other in their

efforts.

During the June 2007 meeting, the Executive Co mmittee recommended that they would provide

endorsement of the BMAP on behalf of the entities they represent since they have been actively involved in the BMAP process. This endorsement would be given with the understanding that a communications plan would be implemented that would provide written notification to each local government administrator that the BMAP was being finalized and there were opportunities for meetings and local presentations. In addition, each local government agency would be informed in writing about the opportunity to receive more information about the BMAP through presentations by the FDEP. The Executiv e Committee unanimously endorsed the BMAP at their September 15, 2008 meeting.

92

# Appendix A: TMDL B ASIN 

# R OTATION 

# S CHEDULE

TMDLs are developed, allocated, and implem ented through a watershed management approach (managing water resources within their natural boundaries) that addresses the state’s 52 major hydrologic basins in five groups, on a rotating schedule. Table A-1 shows the hydrologic basins within each of the five groups, with the FDEP District office of jurisdiction. Table A-2 illustrates the repeating five-year basin rotation schedule.

T ABLE 

### A-1: M AJOR 

### H YDROLOGIC 

### B ASINS BY 

### G ROUP AND 

### DEP D ISTRICT 

### O FFICE

FDEP

District Group 1

Basins Group 2

Basins Group 3

Basins Group 4

Basins Group 5

Basins

NW OchlockoneeSt. Marks ApalachicolaChipola ChoctawhatcheeSt. Andrews Bay Pensacola Bay Perdido Bay

NE Suwannee Lower St. Johns Nassau-St. Marys Upper East Coast

Central Ocklawaha Middle St. Johns Upper St. Johns Kissimmee Indian River Lagoon

SW Tampa Bay Tampa Bay

Tributaries Sarasota BayPeace-Myakka Withlacoochee Springs Coast

S Everglades

West Coast Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee Fisheating Creek Florida Keys

SE Lake

Okeechobee St. LucieLoxahatchee Lake Worth LagoonPalm Beach Coast Southeast Coast Biscayne Bay Everglades



### Each group will undergo a cycle of five phases on a rotating schedule:

Phase 1 : Preliminary evaluation of water quality

Phase 2 : Strategic monitoring and assessment to verify water quality impairments

Phase 3 : Development and adoption of TMDLs for waters verified as impaired

Phase 4 : Development of basin management action plan (BMAP) to achieve the TMDL

Phase 5 : Implementation of the BMAP and monitoring of results

T ABLE 

### A-2: B ASIN 

### R OTATION 

### S CHEDULE 

### F OR 

### TMDL D EVELOPMENT AND 

### I MPLEMENTATION

Yea r 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/ 05 05/06 06/07 07/ 08 08/09 09/10 Phases of the Cycle Phases of the Cycle
Group 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Group 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4

G r oup 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
Group 4 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 Group 5 1 2 3 4 5 1

1 s t Five-year Cycle – High-priority Waters 2 n d Five-year Cycle – Medium-Priority Waters

* Projected years for phases 3, 4, and 5 may change due to acce lerated local activities, length of plan development, legal challenges, etc.



### TMDL development and implementation are ongoing, cyclical processes, as illustrated in Table A2 . FDEP will re-evaluate impaired waters every five years to determine whether improvements are being achieved, and to refine loading estimates and TMDL allocations using new data. If any changes in a TMDL are required, the applicable TMDL rule will be revised, thereby providing a point of legal entry for interested parties. Changes to a TMDL would prompt revisions to the applicable BMAP, which will be revisited on the basin rotation schedule and modified as necessary (refer to Section 7.4 for more information on the schedule for this BMAP).

93

# Appendix B: S UMMARY OF 

# S TATUTORY 

# P ROVISIONS 

# G UIDING 

# BMAP

D EVELOPMENT AND 

# I MPLEMENTATION

S ECTIONS 

### 403.067(6) AND 

### (7), F LORIDA 

### S TATUTES 

### - 

### Summary of Excerpts

A

LLOCATIONS

• The TMDL shall include reasonable and equitable allocations of the TMDL between or among point and nonpoint sources that will alone, or in conj unction with other management and restoration activities, provide for the attainment of pollutant reductions established pursuant to paragraph (a) to achieve applicable water quality standards.

• The allocations may establish the maximum amou nt of the pollutant that may be discharged or released in combination with other discharges or releases.

• Allocations may also be made to individual basins and sources or as a whole to all basins and sources or categories of sources of inflow to the water body or water body segments.

• An initial allocation of allowable pollutant loads may be developed as part of the TMDL; in such cases detailed allocations to specific point sour ces and categories of nonpoint sources shall be established in the basin management action plan.

• The initial and detailed allocations shall be desi gned to attain pollutant reductions established pursuant to paragraph (a) and shall be based on consideration of:

1. Existing treatment levels and management practices;

2. Best management practices established and implemented pursuant to paragraph (7)(c);

3. Enforceable treatment levels established pursuant to state or local law or permit;

4. Differing impacts pollutant s ources may have on water quality;

5. The availability of treatment technologi es, management practices, or other pollutant
reduction measures;

6. Environmental, economic, and technological feasibility of achieving the allocation;

7. The cost benefit associated with achieving the allocation;

8. Reasonable timeframes for implementation;

9. Potential applicability of any moderating prov isions such as variances, exemptions, and mixing zones; and

10. The extent to which non-attainment of wate r quality standards is caused by pollution sources outside of Florida, discharges that have ceased, or alterations to water bodies prior to the

date of this act.



### G

ENERAL 

### I MPLEMENTATION

• DEP is the lead agency in coordinating TMDL implementation, through existing water quality protection programs.

• Application of a TMDL by a water management district does not require WMD adoption

of the TMDL.

• TMDL implementation may include , but is not limited to:

o Permitting and other existing regulatory programs

o Non-regulatory and incentive-based programs

o Other water quality management and restoration activities, such as Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plans or basin management action plans

o Pollutant trading or other equitable economically based agreements

o Public works

o Land acquisition



### B

ASIN 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### A CTION 

### P LAN 

### D EVELOPMENT

• DEP may develop a basin management action plan that addresses some or all of the watersheds and basins tributary to a TMDL waterbody.

• A basin management action plan shall :

o Integrate appropriate management strategies available to the state through existing

94water quality protection programs.

o Equitably allocate pollutant reductions to individual basins, all basins, each identified point source, or category of nonpoint sources, as appropriate.

o Identify the mechanisms by which potential fu ture increases in pollutant loading will be

addressed.

o Specify that for nonpoint sources for which BMPs have been adopted, the initial requirement shall be BMPs develope d pursuant to paragraph (c).

o Establish an implementation schedule.

o Establish a basis for evaluating plan effectiveness.

o Identify feasible funding strategies.

o Identify milestones for implementation and water quality improvement, and an associated water quality monitoring compone nt to evaluate reasonable progress over

time.

o Be adopted in whole or in part by DEP Secr etarial Order, subject to chapter 120.

• A basin management action plan may :

o Give load reduction credits to dischargers that have implemented load reduction strategies (including BMPs) prior to the development of the BMAP. ( Note: this assumes the related reductions were not factored into the applicable TMDL .)

o Include regional treatment systems or other public works as management strategies.

o Provide for phased implementation to pr omote timely, cost-effective actions.

• An assessment of progress in achieving milestones shall be conducted every 5 years and the basin management action plan revised, as appropriate, in cooperation with basin stakeholders, and adopted by secretarial order.

• DEP shall assure that key stakeholders are in vited to participate in the basin management action plan development process, holding at leas t one noticed public meeting in the basin to receive comments, and otherwise encouraging public participation to the greatest practicable extent.

• A basin management action plan shall not suppl ant or alter any water quality assessment,
TMDL calculation, or initial allocation.



### B

ASIN 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### A CTION 

### P LAN 

### I MPLEMENTATION

• NPDES Permits

o Management strategies related to a discharger subject to NPDES permitting shall be included in subsequent applicable NPDES permits or permit modifications when the permit expires (is renewed), the discharge is modified (revised), or the permit is reopened pursuant to an adopted BMAP.

o Absent a detailed allocation, TMDLs shall be implemented through NPDES permit conditions that include a compliance schedule. The permit shall allow for issuance of an order adopting the BMAP within five years. ( Note : Intended to apply to individual wastewater permits – not MS4s )

o Once the BMAP is adopted, the permit shall be reopened, as necessary, and permit

conditions consistent with the BMAP shall be established.

o Upon request by a NPDES permittee, DEP may establish individual allocations prior to the adoption of a BMAP, as part of a per mit issuance, renewal, or modification (revision).

o To the maximum extent practicable, MS4s shall implement a TMDL or BMAP through the use of BMPs or other management measures.

o A BMAP does not take the place of NPDES permits or permit requirements.

o Management strategies to be implemented by a DEP permittee shall be completed according to the BMAP schedule, which may extend beyond the 5-year term of an NPDES permit.

o Management strategies are not subject to challenge under chapter 120 when they are incorporated in identical form into a NPDES permit or permit modification (revision).

• Management strategies assigned to nonagricultural, non-NPDES permittees (state, regional, or local) shall be implemented as part of the applicable permitting programs.

9596 • Nonpoint source dischargers (e.g., agriculture) included in a BMAP shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable TMDLs by either implementing appropriate BMPs established under paragraph 7(c), or conduct ing water quality monitoring prescribed by DEP

or a WMD . ( Note : this is not applicable to MS4s, as they are considered point sources under the federal Clean Water Act and TMDL Program .)

o Failure to implement BMPs or prescribed water quality monitoring may be subject to

DEP or WMD enforcement action.

• Responsible parties who are implementing applicable BMAP strategies shall not be required to implement additional pollutant load reduction strategies, and shall be deemed in compliance with this section. However, this does not limit DEP’s authority to amend a

BMAP.



### B

EST 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### P RACTICES

• DEP, in cooperation with WMDs and other interested parties, may develop interim measures, BMPs, or other measures for non-agr icultural nonpoint sources to achieve their

load reduction allocations.

o These measures may be adopted by DEP or WMD rule. If adopted, they shall be implemented by those responsible for non- agricultural nonpoint source pollution.

• DACS may develop and adopt by rule interim measures, BMPs, or other measures necessary for agricultural pollutant sources to achieve their load reduction allocations.

o These measures may be implemented by thos e responsible for agricultural pollutant

sources. DEP, the WMDs, and DACS shall assist with implementation.

o In developing and adopting these measures, DACS shall consult with DEP, DOH, the WMDs, representatives of affected fa rming groups, and environmental group representatives.

o The rules shall provide for a notice of intent to implement the practices and a system to ensure implementation, including recordkeeping.

• Verification of Effectiveness and Presumption of Compliance -

o DEP shall, at representative sites, verify the effectiveness of BMPs and other measures adopted by rule in achieving load reduction allocations.

o DEP shall use best professional judgment in ma king the initial verification of effectiveness, and shall notify DACS and the appropriate WMD of the initial verification prior to the adoption of a rule proposed pursuant to this paragraph.

o Implementation of rule-adopted BMPs or other measures initially verified by DEP to be effective, or verified to be effective by moni toring at representative sites, provides a presumption of compliance with state water qu ality standards for those pollutants addressed by the practices.

• Reevaluation –



### o Where water quality problems are demonstrat ed despite implementation, operation, and maintenance of rule-adopted BMPs and other measures, DEP, a WMD, or

DACS , in consultation with DEP, shall reevaluate the measures. If the practices require modification, the revised rule shall specify a reasonable time period for implementation.

# Appendix C: S TAKEHOLDER 

# I NVOLVEMENT IN 

# BMAP D EVELOPMENT



## L OWER 

## S T



## . J OHNS 

## R IVER 

## TMDL E XECUTIVE 

## C OMMITTEE

The LSJR TMDL Executive Committee is a broad-based stakeholder group which was convened by the FDEP-Northeast District in July 2002. The members are appointed by the Director of the Northeast District Office. The Executive Committee has advised the Department on such issues as water quality targets, TMDL model inputs, and the allocation process. The Committee played a critical role in the devel opment of the BMAP to implement TMDLs.

This mission statement of the committee is as follows: “The Committee represents and communicates with key stakeholders to secure local input and consensus on pollutant reductions. The Committee is charged with recommending a “reasonable and equitable” allocation of pollutant load reductions for achieving TMDLs in the lower basin and, in conjunction with the Department, developing a basin management action plan to implement

those load reductions.”

The Executive Committee met in Jacksonville throughout the TMDL and BMAP development on the following dates:

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 July 11 January 30 March 10 February 24 January 28 February 1 January 17 September 5 February 27 May 5 March 31 March 9 March 29 March 27

October 16 March 25 June 22 April 28 May 5 June 14 June 4

November 6 April 29 May 24 June 6 August 16 September 15

December 3 June 25 June 28 July 25 October 11 July 15 August 4 October 17 November 27 September 16 December 7

October 13

November 10

December 6



### In addition to the input from the LSJR TMDL Executive Committee, the LSJR Stakeholders Group was also important and a constant feature during the TMDL development stage as well as the BMAP process. The Stakeholders Group pre-dates the first Executive Committee meeting in 2002. The Stakeholders Group meetings were originally geared towards the model technicians to discuss data and modeling issu es. The group then expanded to include citizens and those interested in learning more about the water quality model development that would then be used to establish the TMDL. The Stakeholders Group meets regularly throughout the TMDL development process. In 2005, the Stakeholders Group started meeting concurrently with the Executive Committee to make the discussions more efficient and to provide more technical expertise at the Executive Committee meetings.

There were also several groups formed during the overall process to gather information on special issues or topics. A Funding Commi ttee was formed to discuss funding sources for projects and programs. A Technical Working Group (TWG) was formed to gather information about trading policies in other states and local administrative limitations to buying and selling water quality credits. For the monitoring plan, the Biological Health Subcommittee of the LSJR TAC was tasked with developing information about sample sites, equipment and data management options. These groups met as needed to complete their assignments and provide

information to other committees.

97

## P ROCESS FOR 

## P LAN 

## R ECOMMENDATION 

## D EVELOPMENT



### E

XECUTIVE 

### C OMMITTEE 

### M EETING 

### P ROCESS 

### The Executive Committee recommended to the Department that the BMAP be reviewed and approved through the Executive Committee for adoption by the Secretary of the FDEP. An alternate approval process was considered of asking each agency and local government to prepare and approve a resolution describing their endorsement. Because of the large numbers of entities involved and the confusion possible if an entity did not respond or approve the BMAP as recommended by the Executive Committee, individual resolutions were not pursued. To ensure that all agencies and local governments were aware of the BMAP and its ramifications, each entity with load reduction responsibilities was contacted by the Department in writing and offered an opportunity to meet with Department staff or to host a presentation about the BMAP to their local councils or boards. Several organizations accepted this offer and numerous presentations were made to affected groups. Ultimately, the Executive Committee feels responsible for discussing concerns, recommending any amendments to the BMAP or allocation approach, and recommending approval of the BMAP document to the Department, based on all the information and discussions that have taken place since 2002.



### C ONSENSUS 

### The TWG and Stakeholders Group operated on an informal basis where the purpose of the discussions in general was to provide technical input. As such, they did not use any formal voting or measures of consensus during their discussions. The Executive Committee, however, made specific recommendations about the BMAP and used a voting procedure to make recommendations. Votes were held only in circumstances when a quorum of at least fifty percent of the voting members (or their designated alternates) was present at a noticed meeting. Consensus was defined as a vote where fifty percent or greater of the voting
members concurred with the motion. In most cases, votes were unanimous, but there were several important decisions made where so me members voted against the recommendation

that carried.



### P UBLIC 

### P ARTICIPATION IN 

### E XECUTIVE 

### C OMMITTEE 

### M EETINGS 

### All Executive Committee meetings were open to the public and public comment was invited. Meetings of the TWG and Stakeholders Group were also open to anyone interested in participating in the technical discussions. In addition to the regular meetings of the Executive Committee, public meetings were held about the verified lists, the TMDL adoption, and the

BMAP document.



### P UBLIC 

### M EETINGS 

### Specific public meetings pertaining to the LSJR Main Stem nutrient TMDL and BMAP were held at the following dates and times:

• Review and seek comments on the proposed verified list of impaired waters: May 14,
2003 and June 25, 2003.

• Review and seek comments on the proposed TMDL: July 2003 and February 13, 2008.

• Review and seek comments on the BMAP: September 16, 2008.



## P LAN 

## R ECOMMENDATION 

## A PPROVAL AND 

## A DOPTION

The Executive Committee endorsed the final recommended BMAP on September 15, 2008. The final BMAP is to be adopted by FDEP secretarial order.

98

# Appendix D: S UMMARY OF 

# EPA-R ECOMMENDED 

# E LEMENTS OF A


# C OMPREHENSIVE 

# W ATERSHED 

# P LAN

The following is an excerpt on the nine elements of a watershed plan from the EPA’s “Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters.” Additional information regarding these elements can be found in the full version of the handbook located

online at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/

.



## N INE 

## M INIMUM 

## E LEMENTS TO 

## B E 

## I NCLUDED IN A 

## W ATERSHED 

## P LAN FOR


## I MPAIRED 

## W ATERS 

## F UNDED 

## U SING 

## I NCREMENTAL 

## S ECTION 

## 319 F UNDS

Although many different components may be included in a watershed plan, EPA has identified a minimum of nine elements that are critical for achieving improvements in water quality. EPA requires that these nine elements be addressed for watershed plans funded using incremental section 319 funds and strongly recommends that they be included in all other watershed plans that are intended to remediate water quality impairments.

The nine elements are provided below, listed in the order in which they appear in the guidelines. Although they are listed as a through i , they do not necessarily take place sequentially. For example, element d asks for a description of the technical and financial assistance that will be needed to implement the watershed plan, but this can be done only after you have addressed

elements e and i

.

Explanations are provided with each element to show you what to include in your watershed plan.



### N

INE 

### E LEMENTS



### a. Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar sources that need to be controlled to achieve needed load reductions, and any other goals identified in the watershed plan

. Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the significant subcategory level along with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including a rough estimate of the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing remediation)

.

What does this mean? Your watershed plan should include a map of the watershed that locates the major sources and causes of impairment. Based on these impairments, you will set goals that will include (at a minimum) meeting the appropriate water quality standards for pollutants that threaten or impair the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the watershed covered in the plan.

b. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures

.

What does this mean? You will first quantify the pollutant loads for the watershed. Based on these pollutant loads, you’ll determine the reductions needed to meet the water quality standards.

99

### You will then identify various management measures (see element c below) that will help to reduce the pollutant loads and estimate the load reductions expected as a result of these management measures to be implemented, recognizing the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time.

Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope component in paragraph a (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row crops, or eroded streambanks). For waters for which EPA has approved or established TMDLs, the plan should identify and incorporate the TMDLs.

Applicable loads for downstream waters should be included so that water delivered to a downstream or adjacent segment does not exceed the water quality standards for the pollutant of concern at the water segment boundary. The estimate should account for reductions in pollutant loads from point and nonpoint sources identified in the TMDL as necessary to attain the applicable water quality standards.

c. A description of the management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load reductions in paragraph 2, and a description of the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement this plan.

What does this mean? The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve

the load reductions estimated under element b , as well as to achieve any additional pollution prevention goals called out in the watershed plan. It should also identify the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. This can be done by using a map or a description.

d. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan.

What does this mean? You should estimate the financial and technical assistance needed to implement the entire plan. This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management measures, information and education (I/E) activiti es, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You

should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the plan. Plan sponsors should consider the use of federal, state, local, and private funds or resources that might be available to assist in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between needs and available resources should be identified and addressed in the plan.

e. An information and education (I/E) component used to enhance public understanding of the project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be implemented.

What does this mean? The plan should include an I/E component that identifies the education and outreach activities or actions that will be used to implement the plan. These I/E activities may support the adoption and long-term operation and maintenance of management practices and support stakeholder

involvement efforts.

100

### f. Schedule for implementing the management measures identified in this plan that is reasonably expeditious.

What does this mean? You need to include a schedule for implementing the management measures outlined in your watershed plan. The schedule should reflect the milestones you develop in g

.

g. A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether management measures or other control actions are being implemented

.

What does this mean? You’ll develop interim, measurable milestones to measure progress in implementing the management measures for your watershed plan. These milestones will measure the implementation of the management measures, such as whether they are being implemented on
schedule, whereas element h (see below) will measure the e ffectiveness of the management measures, for example, by documenti ng improvements in water quality.

h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality

standards.

What does this mean? Using the milestones you developed above, you’ll develop a set of criteria (or indicators) with interim target values to be used to determine whether progress is being made toward reducing pollutant loads. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal coliform concentrations) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of beach closings). You must also indicate how you’ll determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if interim targets are not met and what process will be used to revise the existing management approach. Where a nonpoint source TMDL has been established, interim targets are also

needed to determine whether the TMDL needs to be revised.

i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria established under item h immediately above.

What does this mean? The watershed plan must include a monitoring component to determine whether progress is being made toward attainment or maintenance of the applicable water quality standards. The monitoring program must be fully integrated with the established schedule and interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be designed to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress in meeting water quality standards is being made. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the effects of multiple programs, projects, and trends over time. In stream monitoring does not have to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is particularly relevant to the project.

101

# Appendix E: N ET 

# E STIMATED 

# T OTAL 

# N ITROGEN AND 

# T OTAL


# P HOSPHORUS 

# L OADS 

# A FTER 

# BMAP I MPLEMENTATION

The tables below show the estimated loads after BMAP implementation in the marine and freshwater sections of the Lower St. Johns River. The estimated load reductions (kg/yr) from the projects received for each source (summarized in Appendix H ) are subtracted from the entity’s starting point load (kg/yr) to yield the net estimated load. The net estimated loads from the sources are added together and compared to the TMDL for each section of the river to determine if the TMDLs were achieved or if additional projects will be necessary. For those entities that requested aggregations of their wasteload allocations, the aggregated starting point

load is shown in the tables.

Table E-1: Estimated Total Nitrogen Load for the Marine Section

Source TMDL Starting

Point Load (kg/yr) Estimated TN

Load Reduction (kg/yr) Net Estimated

TN Load

(kg/yr)

Wastewater Treatment Facilit ies and Aggregated Loads

Anheuser Busch 24,399 11,981 12,418 City of Atlantic Beac h Aggregate 49,275 32,104 17,171 City of Jacksonville Beach 40,150 21,555 18,595 City of Neptune Beach 11,448 7,322 4,126 Clay County Utility Authorit y Aggregate 61,569 44,739 16,830 JEA Aggregate 1,396,623 767,746 628,877

Smurfit-Stone Container 145,989 71,684 74,305 Town of Orange Park 24,886 17,059 7,827 U.S. Navy Aggregate 27,225 19,026 8,199 Future APRICOT/RO Dischargers 4,979 0 4,979

MS4s City of Atlantic B each MS4 2,474 823 1,651 City of Jacksonville/FDOT MS4 243,438 164,546 78,892 City of Jacksonville Beach MS4 4,974 170 4,804 City of Neptune Beach MS4 1,484 47 1,437 Clay County MS4 25,249 4,061 21,188 St. Johns County MS4 3,057 2,311 746 Town of Orange Park MS4 3,451 103 3,348 U.S. Navy MS4s 7,530 298 7,232

Non-MS4 Stormwater Camp Blanding Non-MS4 2,870 2,097 773 Clay County Non-MS4 12,051 944 11,107 Penney Farms Non-MS4 163 0 163 St. Johns County Non-MS4 9,846 4,981 4,865 Nonpoint Sources Agriculture 12,800 8,630 4,170 Atmospheric Deposition 95,028 0 95,028 Natural Background 242,300 0 242,300
Loading Information Baseline and Net Loading (kg/yr) 2,453,258 1,271,031 Marine TN TMDL (kg/yr) 1,376,855 1,376,855 Additional reduction needed to meet TMDL (kg/yr) 0

102

### Table E-2: Estimated Total Nitrogen Load for the Freshwater Section

Source TMDL Starting

Point Load (kg/yr) Estimated TN

Load Reduction (kg/yr) Net Estimated

TN Load

(kg/yr)

Wastewater Treatment Facilit ies and Aggregated Loads City of Green Cove Springs Aggregate 14,600 9,650 4,950 City of Palatka 60,889 60,889 0 Georgia-Pacific 258,155 92,246 165,909

Seminole Electric 21,045 6,314 14,732 Future APRICOT/RO Dischargers 9,961 0 9,961

MS4s City of Green Cove Springs MS4 6,961 694.5 6,266.5 Clay County MS4 2,770 352 2,418

Non-MS4 Stormwater Alachua County Non-MS4 636 0 636 Clay County Non-MS4 5,579 920 4,659 Flagler County Non-Ms4 7 0 7 Hastings Non-MS4 624 211 413

Pomona Park Non-MS4 108 0 108

Palatka Non-MS4 9,683 825 8,858 Putnam County Non-MS4 43,616 9,639 33,976 St. Johns County Non-MS4 27,277 3,476 23,801

Welaka Non-MS4 1,175 337 838 Nonpoint Sources Agriculture 310,700 116,364 194,336 Anthropogenic Loads 4,148,223 1,274,336 2,873,887 Atmospheric Deposition 105,688 0 105,688 Natural Background 5,087,856 0 5,087,856
Loading Information Baseline and Net Loading (kg/yr) 10,115,552 8,538,898 Freshwater TN TMDL (kg/yr) 8,571,563 8,571,563

Additional reduction needed to meet TMDL (kg/yr) 0

103

### Table E-3: Estimated Total Phosphorus Load for the Freshwater Section

Source TMDL Starting

Point Load (kg/yr) Estimated TP Load

Reduction

(kg/yr) Net Estimated

TP Load

(kg/yr)

Wastewater Treatment Facilit ies and Aggregated Loads City of Green Cove Springs Aggregate 3,865 3,209 656 City of Palatka 9,955 9,955 0 Georgia-Pacific 63,875 30,693 33,182 Future APRICOT/RO Dischargers 3,320 0 3,320

MS4s City of Green Cove Springs MS4 1,095.7 52 1,043.7 Clay County MS4 404.6 191.9 212.6

Non-MS4 Stormwater Alachua County Non-MS4 83.8 0 83.8 Clay County Non-MS4 767.3 267.9 499.4 Flagler County Non-MS4 0.9 0 0.9 Hastings Non-MS4 92.9 330.9 0

Palatka Non-MS4 1,507.8 0 1,507.8

Pomona Park Non-MS4 15.8 0 15.8 Putnam County Non-MS4 5,990.4 2,025.5 3,964.9 St. Johns County Non- MS4 3,727.4 620.5 3,106.9

Welaka Non-MS4 172 81.6 90.4 Nonpoint Sources Agriculture 83,455 12,481 70,974 Anthropogenic Load 137,157 47,080 90,077 Atmospheric Deposition 1,356 0 1,356 Natural Background 282,768 0 282,768
Loading Information Baseline and Net Loading (kg/yr) 599,610 492,859 Freshwater TP TMDL (kg/yr) 500,325 500,325 Additional reduction needed to meet TMDL (kg/yr) 0

104

# Appendix F: D ESCRIPTION OF 

# M ODELS 

# U SED TO 

# E STIMATE 

# T OTAL


# N ITROGEN AND 

# T OTAL 

# P HOSPHORUS 

# L OADINGS AND 

# D ETERMINE

THE 

# TMDL

M ODELS 

## U SED An interconnected suite of basin wide hydrol ogic, hydrodynamic, and water quality models have been assembled to develop the TMDL. The suite of models includes the following: a) a hydrologic model that calculates seasonal runoff and nutrient loads for each sub-basin within the LSJR basin; b) a hydrodynamic model of the river that simulates the mixing and transport of nutrients in the river; and c) a water quality model that simulates the transformation of nutrients and processes affecting eutrophication in the river.

The hydrologic watershed model used to estimate nonpoint source loads was the Pollution Load Screening Model (PLSM) (Adamus and Bergm an, 1995; Hendrickson and Konwinski, 1998). The PLSM uses a computer-driven GIS framewor k to develop aggregate whole basin loads of relevant water quality constituents. The PLSM calculates constituent load as the product of concentration and runoff water volume, using nonpoint source pollutant export concentrations specific to one of fifteen different land use classes, and water quantity through a hybrid of the

Soil Conservation Service curve number method.

In the LSJR application, four significant modifi cations were made to the model framework, as

follows:

1. The model time step was shortened to seasonal, rather than annual average loading rates, to account for seasonal differences in specific land use export concentrations and runoff quantity.

2. Eight additional water quality variables were added: orthophosphate; total inorganic nitrogen; labile (easily broken down) organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus; and refractory (slowly broken down) organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus.

3. Land use loading rates were adjusted to monitoring data collected in the LSJR Basin using a linear multiple regression best-fit approach based on contributing land use fractions in calibration watersheds (described below).

4. Hydrologic predictions were improved by using an adjusted water quantity based on the deviations in long-term rainfall patterns.

The river hydrodynamics and salinity of the LSJR were simulated with the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model (Hamrick, 1992; Su csy and Morris, 2002). EFDC solves finite differenced forms of the hydrostatic Navier-Stokes equations, together with a continuity equation, and transport equations for salinity, temperature, turbulent kinetic energy, and turbulent macro-scale. The equations are solved horizontally on a curvilinear, orthogonal grid and vertically on a stretched, sigma-grid. The model grid is composed of 2,210 horizontal cells and six vertical layers. The mean cell length is 492 meters, and the maximum achievable timestep for stability of the hydrodynamics simulation is approximately 30 seconds. With the EFDC application to the LSJR, remarkably precise simulations of tidal range, tidal occurrence, and river flow have been achieved (Sucsy and Morris, 2002).

The three-dimensional, time-variable water quality process model code used was the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Quality Integrated Compartment Model (CE-QUAL-ICM), Version 2 (Cerco and Cole, 1993). CE-QUAL-ICM is among the most sophisticated water quality process models in existence and was originally developed for t he Chesapeake Bay Program to examine factors

105

### leading to bay hypoxia. Version 1 of the model contained twenty-two variables that simulated oxygen dynamics and included the interaction of three phytoplankton groups, nutrients, and organic carbon. A benthic sediment diagenesis submodel was dynamically coupled with the water column to produce sediment oxygen demand and nutrient fluxes. In its current version, the model has been expanded to include compartments for benthos, zooplankton, and submerged aquatic vegetation.

New subroutines were added to the water quality model, including processes for the photochemical decomposition of colored dissolved organic matter, nitrogen fixation by one of the phytoplankton groups, and a flocculation subroutine to account for the transfer of organic carbon from the dissolved to particulate phase at the turbidity maximum. New state variables added include refractory dissolved organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus. The full sediment diagenesis submodel was utilized and three phy toplankton compartments were simulated (freshwater blue-green algae, freshwater diatoms, and marine diatoms). Both Tillman et al. (2004) and Sucsy and Hendrickson (2004) document the modifications to CE-QUAL-ICM that were made for this application of the model.



## E STIMATING 

## P OINT 

## S OURCE 

## L OADS Point source effluent loads were calculated through a combination of effluent monitoring data and statistical interpolation to fill monitoring gaps. Point source loads were estimated for only those facilities that discharge directly to the LSJR or to tributary mouths below the head of tide.

Monthly operating report data from treatment facilities were used to create a time-varying input dataset for effluent flow and nutrient, suspended solids, and biological oxygen demand concentrations. Weekly, monthly, or quarterl y monitoring data for water quality concentrations were multiplied by daily flow data to determine daily load. For facilities that lack complete chemistry data, mean values from the facility or fr om similar facilities were used to complete the missing record.

Water quality monitoring data collected for facilities during a 1993-1995 point source assessment project were also available and were combined into a GIS database that also includes outfall locations and sewer service coverage area. Outfall locations were then used to identify the appropriate model grids where these sources entered the system.



## E STIMATING 

## U RBAN 

## N ONPOINT 

## S OURCE 

## L OADS In the nonpoint source watershed model, nutrient load in runoff for an area was calculated as the product of separately determined estimates of concentration and runoff volume. The model relies upon the premise that nutrient concentrations and runoff volume tend to be similar for characteristic land development types. These land development types are derived from the Florida Land Use Land Cover Classification System, with the lowest level urban delineations in this data layer aggregated into six super-groups of land use: low density residential, medium density residential, high density residential, low in tensity commercial, high intensity commercial, and industrial. Because there are significant climactic, physiographic and developmental (mostly infrastructure related) regional aspects to the propensity for nutrient export in runoff from urban lands, regional data should be used to characterize typical land use-water quality.

The LSJR TMDL watershed model uses water quality values that were derived from water quality monitoring data from 30 well-sampled tribut aries draining large watersheds in the LSJR basin. Specific land use water quality concentrations were calculated with multiple regressions relating seasonal flow-weighted concentrations to the fractions of major watershed land use. In

106

### watersheds where only urban development was present, TN and TP coefficients were also determined by extrapolating the fraction of dev eloped area – nutrient concentration regressions to the point of 100 percent watershed land cover. The LSJR watershed model coefficients were adjusted in this manner to provide the most accurate values of watershed load to the river water quality model, as actual measured data is generally preferred over unsubstantiated literature values when such accuracy is desired (Donigian and Huber, 1991).

The LSJR TMDL typical urban area nutrient concentrations are considered to be representative of “old” urban because the data from which they are derived were collected in the early to mid 1990s from streams draining areas developed pr ior to 1984, located in the densely developed areas of Jacksonville and northern Clay County. There are several noteworthy characteristics of development subsequent to 1984 that reduce the nutrient concentrations in runoff. The addition of stormwater treatment requirements, impervious area runoff retention, wetland protection, lower overall development density, and the use of sanitary sewer collection instead of septic tanks all are believed to play a role in the lower nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations observed in post-1984 development. Monitoring from watersheds of only new development was relied upon to extrapolate to 100 per cent model coefficients. Presently, thereis a limited amount of data from watersheds dominated by new development, but several subwatersheds within the large developments of regional impact of Eagle Harbor and Julington Creek Plantation have sufficient data to make preliminary estimates. Using the procedure of extrapolating the developed area of these newly developed residential and commercial developments to 100 percent, a “new” development total bioavailable nitrogen concentration of around 0.93 mg/L, and TP concentration of around 0.13 mg/L, can be calculated.

To calculate the untreated urban area loads, the 1989 land use data was aggregated into the six urban subclasses for which typical water quality nutrient concentrations have been determined

and loads determined as:



### (NC i 

### ) ∗ (RC i 

### ) ∗ (RAIN j 

### ) ∗ (AREA k 

### )

Where:

NC i 

### = the nutrient concentration for land use i

RC i 

### = the runoff coefficient for land use i

RAIN j 

### = the rainfall amount for the year j , the average annual condition for the

freshwater reach, or the dry year total for the marine reach, and

AREA k 

### = the area of urban land use i for MS4 area k

.

The urban TN and TP loads derived from the 1989 land use data were multiplied by the ratio of the 1984 urban area to 1989 urban area, with the 1984 urban area predicted by the urban area change over time, to provide an estimate of 1984 urban area load.

To estimate the TN and TP load associated with urban development subsequent to 1984, the formula above was again applied, with the overall urban concentration values of 0.93 mg/L nitrogen and 0.13 mg/L phosphorus used to represent the aggregate of all urban development categories. Runoff volume was estimated with mean runoff coefficient values of 0.387 for the average year rain condition, or 0.293 to reflect the dry year condition, with each of these values multiplied by 0.8 to reflect the reduction in r unoff by stormwater pond hydraulic efficiency. These single values were used in this load calculation, rather than individual land use category coefficients, as data are not currently available to calculate these watershed scale “new development” rates.

107

# Appendix G : T ARGET 

# P OLLUTANTS 

# A CROSS 

# F LORIDA

Table G-1 summarizes the waters impaired by various causes for each waterbody type in the Group 1 - 4

basins 4 ( see Appendix A ) ; the principal causes of impairment are as follows:

Out of 825 river/stream segments assessed: Dissolve d oxygen (DO), fecal coliform, chlorophyll, and fish advisories for mercury. Out of 286 lake segments assessed: Nutrients based on the Trophic State Index (TSI), fish advisories for mercury, and DO. Out of 354 estuarine segments assessed: fish advisor ies for mercury, chlorophyll, DO, and fecal coliform. Out of 115 coastal segments assessed: fish advisories for mercury and dioxin.



### T ABLE 

### G-1: S UMMARY OF 

### I MPAIRMENTS IN 

### G ROUP 

### 1- 4 B ASINS

Parameter* Rivers/Streams Lakes Estuaries Coastal Waters

Number of

Waterbodies Miles Impaired Number of

Waterbodies Miles Impaired Number of

Waterbodies Miles Impaired Number of

Waterbodies Miles Impaired

DO 258 2,288 31 119,296 64 461 2 1

Fecal

Coliform 153 1,132 5 4,416 54 641 5 1 Chlorophyll 105 1,073 7 29,696 74 647 Mercury

– Fish 46 708 25 92,352 40 772 97 1,170

Historical Chlorophyll 28 503 5 1,856 23 191

Iron 30 387 5 26,752 15 168 Turbidity 16 212 2 704

Lead 15 97 9 10,048 9 137

Cadmium 1 15 1 5,248 2 67

Unionized

Ammonia 8 40 11 22,976 pH 24 311 3 5 Biology 9 211 2 57 Alkalinity 9 130

Total Suspended

Solids 10 96

Conductance 9 93 Coppe r 8 50 15 109

Dioxins-Fish 1 48 20 678 7 162

Dissolved

Solids 3 38 BOD 5-Day 2 32

TSI 169 729,216

Historical

TSI 7 30,592

Silve r 1 13,760 2 67

Selenium 2 67

Thallium 2 67

Nickel 3 29

Source : DEP 2006 305(b) Report

* Note : Minimum State surface water criteria (Chapter 62-302.5 00, F.A.C.) provide that meta ls shall be measured as total recoverable metal, with specified exceptions.

4 Verified lists of impaired waters have yet to be adopt ed for the Group 5 Basins, but similar causes of impairments are anticipated for the Group 5 basins.

108109 

# Appendix H: P ROJECTS TO 

# A CHIEVE THE 

# TMDL

The projects and timeframes for implementation subm itted by the entities to achieve their TMDL allocations are summarized in the tables below. These projects were submitted to provide reasonable assurance to the Department that the fa cility has a plan on how they will meet their allocation; however, this list of projects is meant to be flexible enough to allow for changes that may occur over time, provided that the reduction is still met within the specified timeframe.

The tables provide information on the nutrient reduction attributed to each individual project and the remaining nutrient load after each project is implemented, shown in both kilograms per year (kg/yr) and pounds per year (lbs/yr). The expect ed load reductions are subtracted from the entity’s starting point load, which was taken from the allocation spreadsheet. The remaining nutrient balance once all projects have been implemented by an entity should be equal to or exceed the allocation for that entity’s facility or facilities. The schedule to implement each of the projects is also included in the tables.110FRESHWATERPHOSPHORUSALLOCATIONWasteloadName of FacilityAllocation (kg/yr)Clay County MS4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 212.6FLR04E045FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TPReduction(kg/yr)Project TPReduction(lbs/yr)CC MS4FLR04E045Total Reduction Required191.9442.2CC MS4FLR04E045CC-1Education ProgramN/AN/AOngoing16.235.6CC MS4FLR04E045CC-2FDOT SR 21 Wideningfrom SR 215 to CR 220Dry retention(1”)12Completed2.35.1CC MS4FLR04E045CC-3Trade with CCUA1Ongoing173.4381.5CC MS4FLR04E045Total Project Reductions191.9442.2CC MS4FLR04E045Credit/(Deficit)001The generation of credits for this trade will beaccomplished through the CCUA aggregate permit.111City of Green Cove Springs Aggregate .............................................................................................................. 1,929.2FL0000000 (tbd)Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TPReduction(kg/yr)Project TPReduction(lbs/yr)Green Cove Total(Aggregate)Total Reduction Required1,935.84,258.8GCS – HarborRoad FL0020915GGS-1Reuse togolf course05/01/20112,7436,034.6GCS – SouthFL0030210GCS-2Convert to MLE and alum feed10/01/20124661,025.2Green Cove Total(Aggregate)Total Project Reductions3,2097,059.8Green Cove Total(Aggregate)Credit/(Deficit)1,273.22,801.0Green Cove Total (Aggregate)Implementation SchedulePhase One – Initial Nutrient Removal Phasea. Preliminary Plans Complete09/30/2010b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete01/30/2011c. Begin Construction04/01/2011d. End Construction04/01/2012e. Begin Operation05/01/2012f. Operational Level Attained10/01/2012112City of Green Cove Springs MS4 ........................................................................................................................ 1,043.7FLR04E103Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TPReduction(kg/yr)Project TPReduction(lbs/yr)Green Cove MS4Total ReductionRequired52114GCS MS4FLR04E103GCS-3SW Drainage SystemImprovementsWet Detention(1”, 21 day)54.6Complete1533GCS MS4FLR04E103GCS-4Cypress Baffle BoxBaffle Box125Complete613GCS MS4FLR04E103GCS-5Green Cove SpringsIndustrial ParkWet Detention(2.5”, 21 day)91.6Complete3168GCS MS4FLR04E103GCS-6Vystar Credit UnionDry Detention1.812/31/201000Green Cove MS4Total ProjectReductions52114Green Cove MS4Credit/(Deficit)00Green Cove Total MS4Implementation ScheduleVystar Credit Union and Center Streeta. Start Date of Projectb. Completion Date – Completion of Project12/31/2010113City of Palatka WWTF .......................................................................................................................................... 5,954.7FL0040061Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TPReduction(kg/yr)Project TPReduction(lbs/yr)Palatka WWTFTotal Reduction Required4,000.38,800.7Palatka WWTFFL0040061PAL-1Reuse to golf courseCompleted1,7303,806Palatka WWTFFL0040061PAL-2Reuse to ball fields10/31/20086911,520Palatka WWTFFL0040061PAL-3Reuse to cemeteries10/31/20081,2052,651Palatka WWTFFL0040061PAL-4Reuse at WTP12/31/20081,5553,421Palatka WWTFFL0040061PAL-5Zero discharge12/31/20104,77410,503Palatka WWTFTotal Project Reductions9,95521,901Palatka WWTFCredit/(Deficit)5,954.713,100.3Palatka WWTF TotalImplementation ScheduleReuse to ball fields and cemeteriesa. Final Plans and Specifications Complete11/30/2007c. Begin Construction12/01/2007d. End Construction09/30/2008e. Begin Operation09/30/2008f. Operational Level Attained10/31/2008Reuse at WTPa. Final Plans and Specifications Complete11/30/2007b. Begin Construction12/01/2007c. End Construction12/31/2008d. Begin Operation12/31/2008e. Operational Level Attained12/31/2008Zero Dischargea. Preliminary Plans Complete01/31/2008b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete10/31/2008c. Begin Construction11/01/2008d. End Construction05/30/2010e. Begin Operation05/30/2010f. Operational Level Attained12/31/2010114Georgia-Pacific ...................................................................................................................................................... 33,182FL0002763Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TPReduction(kg/yr)Project TPReduction(lbs/yr)Georgia-PacificTotal Reduction Required30,69367,525Georgia-PacificGP-1Complete Process ImprovementsCompleted30,69367,525Georgia-PacificTotal Project Reductions30,69367,525Georgia-PacificCredit/(Deficit)00115Name of Facility ......................................................................................................................... Load Allocation (kg/yr)City of Palatka Non-MS4 ...................................................................................................................................... 1,507.8Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TPReduction(kg/yr)Project TPReduction(lbs/yr)Palatka Non-MS4TotalReductionRequired0 0Palatka Non-MS4TotalProjectReductions0 0Palatka Non-MS4Credit/(Deficit)0 0116Clay County Non-MS4 ............................................................................................................................................. 499.4FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TPReduction(kg/yr)Project TPReduction(lbs/yr)CC Non-MS4Total Reduction Required267.9589.4CC Non-MS4CC-4Education ProgramN/AN/AOngoing30.767.5CC Non-MS4CC-5FDOT construction of 7new wet ponds on SR15from Putnam County line toSR16Wet pond (1”,14 days)281Completed89.5196.9CC Non-MS4CC-6Trade with CCUA1Ongoing147.7324.9CC Non-MS4Total Project Reductions267.9589.4CC Non-MS4Credit/(Deficit)001The generation of credits for this trade will beaccomplished through the CCUA aggregate permit.117Hastings Non-MS4 ................................................................................................................................................................ 49.3FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TPReduction(kg/yr)Project TPReduction(lbs/yr)HastingsNon-MS4Total Reduction Required43.695.9HastingsNon-MS4HAS-1WWTP Chemical FeedSystemsN/AN/A06/30/2008249.1548HastingsNon-MS4HAS-2FDOT 4 laning of SR 207Wet Pond (1”, 14days)12Completed3.67.9HastingsNon-MS4HAS-3FDOT 4 laning of SR207 fromCR305 to Cypress Link BlvdWet Pond (1”, 14days)106Completed33.673.9HastingsNon-MS4Total Project Reductions330.9728.0HastingsNon-MS4Credit/(Deficit)249.1548Hastings Non-MS4 TotalImplementation ScheduleWWTP Chemical Feed Systemsa. Start Date of Project10/01/2006b. Completion Date - Design10/01/2006c. Completion Date - Construction12/31/2007d. Completion Date – Completion of Project06/30/2008118Putnam County Non-MS4 .................................................................................................................................... 3,964.9Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TPReduction(kg/yr)Project TPReduction(lbs/yr)Putnam Non-MS4Total Reduction Required2,025.54,456.1Putnam Non-MS4PUT-1Trade with Putnam LanesWWTFN/AN/AComplete12.527.5Putnam Non-MS4PUT-2Trade with HiawathaWWTFN/AN/A05/31/201049.8109.6Putnam Non-MS4PUT-3Trade with Port BuenaVista WWTFN/AN/A03/01/201462.3137.1Putnam Non-MS4PUT-4Edgefield RSTO&M ValueN/AN/A01/31/2009269.1592.0Putnam Non-MS4PUT-5FDOT construction of 7new wet ponds on SR15from Clay County line tosouth of Gordon WilkinsRdWet pond (1”,14 days)1,181Completed376.8829.0Putnam non-MS4PUT-6Algal InitiativeN/AN/A10/31/20171,255.02,761.0Putnam Non-MS4Total Project Reductions2025.54,456.1Putnam Non-MS4Credit/(Deficit)00Putnam County Non-MS4 TotalImplementation ScheduleTrade with Hiawatha WWTFa. Start Date of Project04/01/2008b. Completion Date - Design02/01/2009c. Completion Date - Construction08/15/2010d. Completion Date – Completion of Project08/31/2010Trade with Port Buena Vista WWTFa. Start Date of Project04/15/2011b. Completion Date - Design02/01/2012c. Completion Date - Construction02/15/2014d. Completion Date – Completion of Project03/01/2014Algal Initiativea. Start Date of Project10/01/2008b. Completion Date – Project Assessment10/31/2010c. Completion Date – Project Fundraising10/31/2012d. Completion Date – Construction10/31/2017119St. Johns County Non-MS4 ................................................................................................................................. 3,296.6Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TPReduction(kg/yr)Project TPReduction(lbs/yr)SJC Non-MS4Total Reduction Required430.8947.8SJC Non-MS4SJC-1Implementation ofStormwater ManagementProgram - purchase a streetsweeperStreetsweeping01/01/201216.837SJC Non-MS4SJC-2Implementation streetsweepingStreetsweepingOngoing2.35.1SJC Non-MS4SJC-3Stormwater EducationEducationOngoing186.4410.1SJC Non-MS4SJC-4Low-impact developmentOngoingNot quantified0SJC Non-MS4SJC-5Slow release fertilizerordinance01/01/2011Notquantified0SJC Non-MS4SJC-6Deep Creek RST O&M value1/31/2009255.9563SJC Non-MS4SJC-7Purchase Hastings- WWTPreduction credits12/31/2010198.2436SJC Non-MS4Total Project Reductions659.61,451.1SJC Non-MS4Credit/(Deficit)228.8503.4St. Johns County Non-MS4 TotalImplementation SchedulePurchase a Street Sweepera. Start Date of Project01/01/2012b. Completion Date – Completion of Project01/01/2012Slow Release Fertilizer Ordinancea. Start Date of Project01/01/2010b. Completion Date – Completion of Project01/01/2011120Welaka Non-MS4 ....................................................................................................................................................... 90.4Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TPReduction(kg/yr)Project TPReduction(lbs/yr)Welaka Non-MS4Total Reduction Required81.6179.5Welaka Non-MS4WEL-1Algal Initiative10/31/201781.6179.5Welaka Non-MS4Total Project Reductions81.6179.5Welaka Non-MS4Credit/(Deficit)00Welaka Non-MS4 TotalImplementation ScheduleAlgal Initiativea. Start Date of Project10/01/2008b. Completion Date – Project Assessment10/31/2010c. Completion Date – Project Fundraising10/31/2012d. Completion Date – Construction10/31/2017121POINTSOURCE–FRESHWATERNITROGENALLOCATIONWasteloadName of FacilityAllocation (kg/yr)Clay County MS4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,418FLR04E045FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)CC MS4FLR04E045Total Reduction Required352774CC MS4FLR04E045CC-1Education ProgramN/AN/AOngoing111244CC MS4FLR04E045CC-2FDOT SR 21 Wideningfrom SR 215 to CR 220Dry retention(1”)12Completed511CC MS4FLR04E045CC-7Atmospheric depositionload reduction – SeminoleElectric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/2010236519CC MS4FLR04E045Total Project Reductions352774CC MS4FLR04E045Credit/(Deficit)0 0122City of Green Cove Springs Aggregate .............................................................................................................. 7,752.5FL0000000 (tbd)Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Green Cove Total(Aggregate)Total Reduction Required6,847.515,064.5GCS – HarborRoad FL0020915GCS-1Reuse togolf course05/01/20118,64719,023GCS – SouthFL0030210GCS-2Convert to MLE and alum feed10/1/20121,0032,207Green Cove Total(Aggregate)Total Project Reductions9,65021,230Green Cove Total(Aggregate)Credit/(Deficit)2,802.56,165.5Green Cove Total (Aggregate)Implementation ScheduleNutrient Removal Phasea. Preliminary Plans Complete09/30/2010b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete01/30/2011c. Begin Construction04/01/2011d. End Construction04/01/2012e. Begin Operation05/01/2012f. Operational Level Attained10/01/2012123City of Green Cove Springs MS4 ........................................................................................................................ 6,266.5FLR04E103Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Green Cove MS4Total ReductionRequired694.51,528GCS MS4FLR04E103GCS-3SW Drainage SystemImprovementsWet Detention(1”, 21 day)54.6Complete2862GCS MS4FLR04E103GCS-4Cypress Baffle BoxBaffle Box125Complete1533GCS MS4FLR04E103GCS-5Green Cove SpringsIndustrial ParkWet Detention(2.5”, 21 day)91.6Complete58128GCS MS4FLR04E103GCS-6Vystar Credit UnionDry Detention1.812/31/20100.51GCS MS4FLR04E103GCS-7Atmosphericdeposition loadreduction – SeminoleElectric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/20105931,305Green Cove MS4Total ProjectReductions694.51,528Green Cove MS4Credit/(Deficit)0 0Green Cove Total MS4Implementation ScheduleVystar Credit Union and Center Streeta. Start Date of Projectb. Completion Date – Completion of Project12/31/2010124City of Palatka WWTF ........................................................................................................................................... 38,845FL0040061FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Palatka WWTFTotal Reduction Required22,04448,497Palatka WWTFFL0040061PAL-1Reuse to golf courseCompleted13,00028,600Palatka WWTFFL0040061PAL-2Reuse to ball fields10/31/20085,22711,499Palatka WWTFFL0040061PAL-3Reuse to cemeteries10/31/20089,09120,000Palatka WWTFFL0040061PAL-4Reuse at WTP12/31/200811,72725,799Palatka WWTFFL0040061PAL-5Zero discharge12/31/201021,84448,057Palatka WWTFTotal Project Reductions60,889133,956Palatka WWTFCredit/(Deficit)38,84585,459Palatka WWTF TotalImplementation ScheduleReuse to ball fields and cemeteriesa. Final Plans and Specifications Complete11/30/2007c. Begin Construction12/01/2007d. End Construction09/30/2008e. Begin Operation09/30/2008f. Operational Level Attained10/31/2008Reuse at WTPa. Final Plans and Specifications Complete11/30/2007b. Begin Construction12/01/2007c. End Construction12/31/2008d. Begin Operation12/31/2008e. Operational Level Attained12/31/2008Zero Dischargea. Preliminary Plans Complete01/31/2008b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete10/31/2008c. Begin Construction11/01/2008d. End Construction05/30/2010e. Begin Operation05/30/2010f. Operational Level Attained12/31/2010125Georgia-Pacific WWTF ........................................................................................................................................ 165,909FL0002763Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Georgia-PacificTotal Reduction Required92,246202,941Georgia-PacificGP-1Complete Process ImprovementsCompleted92,246202,941Georgia-PacificTotal Project Reductions92,246202,941Georgia-PacificCredit/(Deficit)00126Seminole Electric .................................................................................................................................................. 14,732FL0036498Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Seminole Electric TotalTotal Reduction Required6,31413,891Seminole ElectricFL0036498SE-1SCRUpgrade01/01/20106,31413,891Seminole Electric TotalTotal Project Reductions6,31413,891Seminole Electric TotalCredit/(Deficit)00Seminole Electric TotalImplementation Schedulea. Completion Date – SCR for Unit 111/30/2009b. Completion Date – SCR for Unit 211/30/2009c. Units Fully Operational01/01/2010127Name of FacilityLoad Allocation (kg/yr)City of Palatka Non-MS4 ......................................................................................................................................... 8,858Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Palatka Non-MS4Total Reduction Required8251,815Palatka Non-MS4PAL-6Atmospheric depositionload reduction – SeminoleElectric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/20108251,815Palatka Non-MS4Total Project Reductions8251,815Palatka Non-MS4Credit/(Deficit)00128Clay County Non-MS4 ............................................................................................................................................. 4,659Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)CC Non-MS4Total Reduction Required9202,024CC Non-MS4CC-3EducationProgramN/AN/AOngoing223491CC Non-MS4CC-4FDOT Construction of 7new Wet Ponds on SR 15from Putnam County Lineto SR 16Wet pond (1”,14 days)281Completed172378CC Non-MS4CC-8Atmospheric depositionload reduction – SeminoleElectric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/20105251,155CC Non-MS4Total Project Reductions9202,024CC Non-MS4Credit/(Deficit)00129Hastings Non-MS4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 448FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)HastingsNon-MS4Total Reduction Required177389HastingsNon-MS4HAS-2FDOT 4 laning of SR 207Wet Pond (1”,14 days)12Completed715HastingsNon-MS4HAS-3FDOT 4 laning of SR207 fromCR305 to Cypress Link BlvdWet Pond (1”,14 days)106Completed65143HastingsNon-MS4HAS-4Atmospheric deposition loadreduction – Seminole ElectricSCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/201054119HastingsNon-MS4Total Project Reductions211464HastingsNon-MS4Credit/(Deficit)0 0130Putnam County Non-MS4 ..................................................................................................................................... 33,976Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Putnam Non-MS4Total Reduction Required9,63921,206Putnam Non-MS4PUT-1Trade with Putnam LanesWWTFN/AN/AComplete50110Putnam Non-MS4PUT-2Trade with Hiawatha WWTFN/AN/A05/31/2010150330Putnam Non-MS4PUT-3Trade with Port Buena VistaWWTFN/AN/A03/01/201483183Putnam Non-MS4PUT-4Edgefield RSTO&M ValueN/AN/A01/31/20095941,307Putnam Non-MS4PUT-5FDOT construction of 7 newwet ponds on SR15 fromClay County line to south ofGordon Wilkins RdWet pond (1”,14 days)1,181Completed7231,591Putnam Non-MS4PUT-6Algal InitiativeN/AN/A10/31/20173,9838,763Putnam Non-MS4PUT-7Atmospheric deposition loadreduction – SeminoleElectric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/20104,0568,923Putnam Non-MS4Total Project Reductions9,63921,206Putnam Non-MS4Credit/(Deficit)00Putnam County Non-MS4 TotalImplementation ScheduleTrade with Hiawatha WWTFa. Start Date of Project04/01/2008b. Completion Date - Design02/01/2009c. Completion Date - Construction08/15/2010d. Completion Date – Completion of Project08/31/2010Trade with Port Buena Vista WWTFa. Start Date of Project04/15/2011b. Completion Date - Design02/01/2012c. Completion Date - Construction02/15/2014d. Completion Date – Completion of Project03/01/2014Algal Initiativea. Start Date of Project10/01/2008b. Completion Date – Project Assessment10/31/2010c. Completion Date – Project Fundraising10/31/2012d. Completion Date – Construction10/31/2017131St. Johns County Non-MS4 .................................................................................................................................. 25,340FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)SJC Non-MS4Total Required Reduction1,9374,070SJC Non-MS4SJC-1Implementation ofStormwater ManagementProgram - purchase a streetsweeperStreetsweeping01/01/2012129283SJC Non-MS4SJC-2Implementation streetsweepingStreetsweepingOngoing1941SJC Non-MS4SJC-3Stormwater EducationEducationOngoing1,0782,372SJC Non-MS4SJC-4Low-impact developmentOngoingNotquantifiedNotquantifiedSJC Non-MS4SJC-5Slow release fertilizerordinance01/01/2011NotquantifiedNotquantifiedSJC Non-MS4SJC-6Deep Creek RST O&M value01/31/2009313689SJC Non-MS4SJC-8Atmospheric deposition loadreduction – Seminole ElectricSCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/20101,9374,261SJC Non-MS4Total Project Reductions3,4767,647SJC Non-MS4Credit/(Deficit)1,5393,386St. Johns County Non-MS4 TotalImplementation SchedulePurchase a Street Sweepera. Start Date of Project01/01/2012b. Completion Date – Completion of Project01/01/2012Slow Release Fertilizer Ordinancea. Start Date of Project01/01/2010b. Completion Date – Completion of Project01/01/2011132Welaka Non-MS4 ........................................................................................................................................................ 838Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Welaka Non-MS4Total Reduction Required337741Welaka Non-MS4WEL-1Algal Initiative10/31/2017237521Welaka Non-MS4WEL-2Atmospheric deposition load reduction– Seminole Electric SCR upgrade01/01/2010100220Welaka Non-MS4Total Project Reductions337741Welaka Non-MS4Credit/(Deficit)00Welaka Non-MS4 TotalImplementation ScheduleAlgal Initiativea. Start Date of Project10/01/2008b. Completion Date – Project Assessment10/31/2010c. Completion Date – Project Fundraising10/31/2012d. Completion Date – Construction10/31/2017133POINTSOURCE–MARINENITROGENALLOCATIONWasteloadName of FacilityAllocation (kg/yr)Anheuser Busch – Main Street ............................................................................................................................ 12,418FL0041530Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Anheuser Busch –Main StreetTotalReductionRequired11,98126,358Anheuser Busch –Main StreetANB-1Complete ProcessImprovements03/31/200611,98126,358Anheuser Busch –Main StreetTotal ProjectReductions11,98126,358Anheuser Busch –Main StreetCredit/(Deficit)00134City of Atlantic Beach Aggregate ........................................................................................................................ 21,188FL0000000 (tbd)Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Atlantic Bch Total(Aggregate)Total Reduction Required28,08761,791Buccaneer WWTPFL0023248AB-1Complete Upgrade to SBRComplete9,98521,967Main WWTPFL0038776AB-2Reuse water to Selva Marina Golf Course08/01/20111,2422,732Main WWTPFL0038776AB-3Upgrade to AWT10/01/201320,87745,929Atlantic Bch Total(Aggregate)Total Project Reductions32,10470,629Atlantic Bch Total(Aggregate)Credit/(Deficit)4,0178,837Atlantic Beach Total (Aggregate)Implementation SchedulePhase One – Main WWTF Reuse Project Phasea. Preliminary Plans Complete01/01/2009b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete01/31/2010c. Begin Construction04/01/2010d. End Construction11/30/2010e. Begin Operation12/15/2010f. Operational Level Attained08/01/2011Phase Two – Main WWTF Nutrient Removal Phasea. Preliminary Plans Complete05/01/2009b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete10/01/2010c. Begin Construction04/30/2011d. End Construction12/31/2012e. Begin Operation03/31/2013f. Operational Level Attained10/01/2013135City of Atlantic Beach MS4 ..................................................................................................................................... 1,651FLS000012Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Atlantic Bch MS4Total Reduction Required8231,811Atlantic Bch MS4FLS000012AB-4Core City CapitalImprovement Project:stormwater, sanitary sewerand water systemsupgradesSecondGenerationBaffle Box180Completed6591,450Atlantic Bch MS4FLS000012AB-5Hopkins Creek StormwaterTreatment SystemWet Detention5312/31/20081226Atlantic Bch MS4FLS000012AB-6FDOT Widening of SR 10(Atlantic Blvd) roadway &bridge upgradeWet Pond (1”,14 days)152Completed50110Atlantic Bch MS4FLS000012AB-7FDOT Atlantic Blvd andMayport Rd InterchangeWet Pond (1”,14 days)50Completed1840Atlantic Bch MS4FLS000012AB-8FDOT WonderwoodConnector Segment 1 –Girvin to SandcastleWet Pond (1”,14 days)70Completed613Atlantic Bch MS4FLS000012AB-9Atmospheric depositionload reduction – SeminoleElectric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/201078172Atlantic Bch MS4Total Project Reductions8231,811Atlantic Bch MS4Credit/(Deficit)00Atlantic Beach Total MS4Implementation ScheduleHopkins Creek Stormwater Treatment Systema. Start Date of Project01/01/2008b. Completion Date - Design01/31/2008c. Completion Date - Construction12/31/2008d. Completion Date – Completion of Project12/31/2008Ocean Ave 14thto 16thDrainage Improvementsa. Start Date of Project09/01/2007b. Completion Date - Design09/30/2007c. Completion Date - Construction01/31/2008d. Completion Date – Completion of Project01/31/2008136City of Jacksonville MS4 ...................................................................................................................................... 96,016FLS000012FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)COJ MS4FLS000012Total Reduction Required147,422324,328COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-1Big Fishweir Creek-MurrayHill Phase I-DrainageimprovementsSecondgeneration bafflebox219Completed80176COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-2Sixmile Creek-West 1stStreet/Melson AvenueDrainage improvementsWet detention254Completed4701,034COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-3McCoys Creek Pond A & BWet detention680Completed7501,650COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-4McCoys Creek Pond FWet detention11Completed1022COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-5Riverside Ave-baffle boxesSecondgeneration bafflebox70Completed4088COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-6St Augustine Rd (Emersonto US 1)- Regional pondfacilitiesWetdetention167Completed200440COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-7Powers Avenue/Old KingsRd-Regional pond facilitiesWet detention520Completed6201,364COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-8Fouraker Rd- from OldMiddleburg Rd. to NormandyBlvd. regional pond facilitiesWet detention32Completed4088COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-9Greenland Road-from St.Augustine Rd to CoastalLane- detention pondfacilitiesWetdetention33Completed3066COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-10Barnes Rd-from UniversityBlvd. to Parental Home Rd.-detention pond facilitiesWet detention97Completed2044COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-11Emerson St.-from EmersonSt. Expwy. to Spring GlennRd - detention pond facilityWet detention17Completed2044COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-12Bowden Rd-from U.S.# 1 toSalisbury Rd. - detentionpond facilitiesWet detention98Completed130286137FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-13Parental Home Rd Phase I(Bowden Rd from SalisburyRd to Dean Rd) - detentionpond facilityWet detention28Completed2044COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-14Parental Home Rd Phase II(Beach Blvd to Ibach Rd)detention pond facilityWet detention82Completed1022COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-15Lorretto Rd from S.R. 13 toOld St. Augustine Road -detention pond facilitiesWet detention55Completed50110COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-16Belford Rd-Pottsburg Ck. toTouchton Rd. detentionpond facilitiesWet detention20Completed1022COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-17Royal Terrace phasesA+B+C+D+E+1+2+3+4 -master pond facilityWet detention332Completed410902COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-18University Pointe regionalpond facilityWet detention102Completed150330COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-19Cleveland Road-Phase I-Bwet detention pondWet detention269Completed150330COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-20Hogans CreekWet detention48Completed50110COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-21McCoys Creek Pond DWet detention27Completed3066COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-22Upper Deer Creek RegionalStormwater FacilityWet detention537Completed8401,848COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-23Hugh Edwards CanalWet detention329Completed7601,672COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-24Cedar River OutfallImprovementsWetdetention1,452Completed5301,166COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-25Sandalwood CanalWet detention3,11812/31/20088801,936COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-26Moncrief CreekWet detention619Completed6501,430COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-27Lincoln Villas-East Sideregional pond facilityWet detention185Completed100220COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-28Old Middleburg Rd fromWilson Blvd to 103rd Stregional pond facilitiesWet detention192Completed210462138FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-29Lakeshore WoodcrestDrainage ImprovementWet detention296Completed440968COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-30Townsend Rd drainageimprovementsWetdetention151Completed60132COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-31Lenox Ave (Highway toMcDuff)Wetdetention108Completed180396COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-32Wesconnett Blvd (Blandingto Blanding)Wet detention396Completed4088COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-33Durkeeville WestWet detention106Completed160352COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-34Huffman BoulevardWet detention16Completed2044COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-35Spring Park Rd/Emerson toUniversityWetdetention36Completed50110COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-36Barnes Rd/Kennerly toUniversityWetdetention418Completed7201,584COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-37Pritchard Rd (Jones to I295)Wetdetention116Completed0 0COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-38Lenox, Lane to NormandyWet detention47Completed3066COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-39Cahoon Rd, Phase IWet detention23Completed2044COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-40Pulaski Road (Eastport Dr toNew Berlin Rd)Wet detention19Completed2044COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-41Lamoya Roadway ProjectWet detention17Completed00COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-42LSJR upstream of TroutRiverWetdetention13,14112/31/20232,5005,500COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-43Ortega RiverWet detention17,16912/31/20234,60010,120COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-44Arlington RiverWet detention13,35212/31/20232,5005,500COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-45LSJR Downstream of TroutRiverWetdetention151412/31/2023200440COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-46Intracoastal WaterwayWet detention17,64612/31/20234,60010,120COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-47Julington CreekWet detention14,40412/31/20232,6005,720COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-48Trout RiverWet detention15,32912/31/20232,1004,620139FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-49Broward RiverWet detention183712/31/20237001,540COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-50Dunn CreekWet detention11,30012/31/20236001,320COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-51Public Education ActivitiesN/AN/AOngoing9,85921,690COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-52Septic Tank Phase-OutProjects2N/AN/A12/31/20233103,619227,962COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-53Atmospheric deposition loadreduction – SeminoleElectric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/20106,92615,237COJ MS4FLS000012City of Jacksonville ProjectsSubtotal149,804329,569COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-54FDOT Urban OfficeReconstructionDry retention w/underdrain7Completed920COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-55FDOT Fort George InletBridgeWet pond (1”, 14days)18Completed613COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-56FDOT Widening of RiversideAreaWet pond (1”, 14days)14Completed511COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-57FDOT Widening of MerrillRoad between Wompi Driveand Milcoe roadWet pond (1”, 14days)58Completed2146COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-58FDOT Widening of MerrillRoad between 9A andWompi DriveWet pond (1”, 14days)69Completed2555COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-59FDOT Widening of SR 13 tosix lane divided highwayWet pond (1”, 14days)174Completed63139COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-60FDOT Bch Blvd Wideningfrom ICWW to E. of PenmanWet pond (1”, 14days)25Completed920COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-61FDOT I-295 and SR 21(Blanding) interchangeupgradeWet pond (1”, 14days)42Completed1533COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-62FDOT I-295 and SR 17(Blanding) interchangeexpansionWet pond (1”, 14days)96Completed3577COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-63FDOT JTB/Belfort RoadInterchangeWet pond (1”, 14days)155Completed56123COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-64FDOT Pine AvenueSidewalkDryretention(1”)7Completed9 20140FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-65FDOT 9A from BaymeadowsRoad to I-95Wet pond (1”, 14days)550Completed200440COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-66FDOT Widening of I-95 fromSt. Johns County line to9A/I-295Wet pond (1”, 14days)175Completed64141COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-67FDOT Widening of I-95 fromI-295 to south of JTBWet pond (1”, 14days)441Completed160352COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-68FDOT Widening of SR 10(Atlantic Blvd from St. JohnsBluff to San Pablo)Wet pond (1”, 14days)1096Completed397873COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-69FDOT Widening ofSouthside BlvdDry retention146Completed53117COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-70FDOT New JTB/9AInterchangeDetention/retention (1”)33908/30/2009442972COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-71FDOT Southside (SR 115)frontage roadWet pond (1”, 14days)8Completed37COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-72FDOT I-95 Improvement -from I-295 to Nassau CountyLine South ProjectWet pond (1”, 14days)291Completed105231COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-73FDOT I-95 Improvement - S.of Clarke rd to I-295Wet pond (1”, 14days)94Completed3475COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-74FDOT 9A Improvement -South ProjectWet pond (1”, 14days)176Completed64141COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-75FDOT 9A from South ofAtlantic to Beach BlvdWet pond (1”, 14days)124Completed4599COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-76FDOT I-295/I-95/9AInterchangeWet pond (1”, 14days)580Completed200440COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-77FDOT Branan Field Chafeeroadway projectWet pond (1”, 14days)187Completed115253COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-78FDOT WonderwoodConnector Segment 1project Girvin to SandcastleWet pond (1”, 14days)70Completed1942COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-79FDOT JIA South AccessConnector projectDry detention63Completed82180COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-80FDOT I-95 Widening fromLem Turner to I-295 projectWet pond (1”, 14days)117Completed4292COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-81FDOT 4 laning of SR 13Wet pond (1”, 14days)105Completed3884141FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-82FDOT SR21 Widening fromS. of Cedar River to E. ofCassatWet pond (1”, 14days)19Completed7 15COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-83FDOT Arlington ExpresswayProjectUnknown27Completed1022COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-84FDOT Merrill Rd SouthsideBlvd Interchange ProjectWet pond (1”, 14days)15Completed5 11COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-85FDOT Baymeadows Projectfrom East of US 1 to SR 13Wet pond (1”, 14days)35Completed9 20COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-86FDOT SR 115/8th St ProjectWet pond (1”, 14days)31Completed1124COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-87FDOT SR 115/8th St ProjectWet pond (1”, 14days)4Completed1 2COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-88FDOT JTB from I-95 to GateParkway ProjectWet pond (1”, 14days)58Completed2146COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-89FDOT I-295 from West ofDuval to Biscayne BlvdWet pond (1”, 14days)20Completed7 15COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-90FDOT Beaver Street (US90) Project from Stockton toTylerWet pond (1”, 14days)7Completed3 7COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-91FDOT 9A from Baymeadowsto JTB ProjectWet pond (1”, 14days)195Completed71156COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-92FDOT JTB/A1A InterchangeProjectWet pond (1”, 14days)20Completed3 7COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-93FDOT Southside Blvd/I-95ConnectorDryretention(1”)76Completed99218COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-94FDOT Beach Blvdimprovement from west ofFCCJ to East of San PabloWet pond (1”, 14days)1654/31/200860132COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-95FDOT Widening of SR 13Unknown227Completed82180COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-96FDOT Branan Field Chafeeroadway project (ArgyleFoprest to 103rd)Wet pond (1”, 14days)112Completed4088COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-97FDOT Branan Field Chafeeroadway project (103rd to I10)Wet pond (1”, 14days)1508/31/200955121COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-98FDOT Southside (SR115) &Bch Blvd (SR202)interchange & rd wideningWet pond (1”, 14days)33Completed1226142FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-99FDOT WonderwoodConnector Segment 2Wet pond (1”, 14days)58Completed2146COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-100FDOT JTB/Kernan projectWet pond (1”, 14days)65Completed2453COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-101FDOT I-95 from JTB toEmersonDryretention(1”)105Completed137301COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-102FDOT Heckscher Drive / 9aInterchange-1 DRSDry Retention(1")10312/31/200989196COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-103FDOT Heckscher Drive / 9aInterchange-2 WDSWet pond (1", 14days)6812/31/20092555COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-104FDOT WonderwoodSegment 3 ProjectWet pond (1", 14days)69Completed2555COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-105FDOT Collins Rd CollectorDistributorWet pond (1", 14days)142Completed51112COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-106FDOT JTB / I-95 Rampproject (40-031-18233-6)Wet pond (1", 14days)54Completed2044COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-107FDOT SR 5 US 1 Project(209516-3-52-01)Wet pond (1", 14days)27Completed1022COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-108FDOT 4 laning of SR 207Wet Pond (1”, 14days)12Completed715COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-109FDOT 4 laning of SR207from CR305 to Cypress LinkBlvdWet Pond (1”, 14days)106Completed65143COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-110FDOT 4 laning of SR207from SR15 (US 17) toCR207Wet Pond (1”, 14days)538Completed330726COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-111FDOT Six laning of I-95 fromFlagler County Line to SR16Wet pond (1”, 14days)800Completed255561COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-112FDOT I-95 Rest AreaReconstructionWet pond (1”, 14days)52Completed1737COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-113FDOT Six laning of I-95 fromWorld Golf Village to DuvalCounty lineWet pond (1”, 14days)537Completed237521COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-114FDOT Widening of SR 16Swale treatmentsystem68Completed2248COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-115FDOT SR 207 from I-95 toSR 312Wet pond (1”, 14days)102Completed3373COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-116FDOT SR 207 from SR 312to US 1Wet pond (1”, 14days)536Completed171376143FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-117FDOT StormwaterEducation Efforts in St.Johns CountyN/AN/AOngoing286629COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-118FDOT Education Efforts inCity of JacksonvilleN/AN/AOngoing9742,143COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-119Atmospheric deposition loadreduction – SeminoleElectric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/20107691,692COJ MS4FLS000012COJ-120FDOT Future Projectsand/or Trade412/31/20148,36218,396COJ MS4FLS000012FDOT Projects Subtotal14,74232,432COJ MS4FLS000012Total Project Reductions164,546362,001COJ MS4FLS000012Credit/(Deficit)17,12437,673City of Jacksonville MS4 TotalImplementation ScheduleSandalwood Canala. Start Date of Project11/01/2007b. Completion Date – Completion of Project12/31/2008Future COJ Stormwater Projectsa. Start Date of Project01/01/2009b. Completion Date – Attain 50% of required reduction07/31/2015c. Completion Date – Completion of Project12/31/2023Septic Tank Phase-Out Projectsa. Start Date of Project10/31/2008b. Completion Date - Phase-out 50% of Septic Tanks07/31/2015c. Completion Date – Completion of Project12/31/2023FDOT new JTB/9A Interchangea. Start Date of Project07/05/2005b. Completion Date - Construction08/30/2009c. Completion Date – Completion of Project08/30/2009FDOT Heckscher Drive / 9a Interchange-1 DRSa. Start Date of Project05/01/2008b. Completion Date - Construction12/31/2009c. Completion Date – Completion of Project12/31/2009FDOT Heckscher Drive / 9a Interchange-2 WDSa. Start Date of Project05/01/2008b. Completion Date - Construction12/31/2009144FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)c. Completion Date – Completion of Project12/31/2009FDOT Future Projects and/or Tradea. Submittal Date – Project List and/or Plan for Trade06/30/2009b. Completion Date – Future Project(s) and/or Trade12/31/20141While the City does not know the specificBMP that will be implemented, the estimatedreductions are based on the treatment expected for wetdetention ponds. The City has committed toprovide a detailed implementation plan and schedule for the stormwater projects by2010 as part ofthe Master Stormwater Management Plan (MSMP)update. In addition, the City has committed to accomplish, at a minimum, a 50 percentimplementation of the future stormwater projects by the mid-point of the 15-year timeline shown.2Significant reduction in nitrogen loading from septic tank phase-out projects are included. While the City estimated the amount of load that wouldbe expected to be discharged from the septictanks, there is still some uncertainty abouthow much of the load from the phased-out septic tankswould be expected to reach the LSJR. To address this uncertainty, the Department is developinga scope of services for a two year study thatwould specifically evaluate the loadings to LSJR tributaries from representative septicsystems. The City is working with theDepartment and theLSJR TAC to incorporate the best available information regarding site specific conditions for the study area. While the studywill allow the City tomore accurately quantify the reductions expected from septic tank phase-outs, the results from the septic tank study are not expected to beavailable until the end of 2010. In order to move forward withadoption of the BMAP at this time, the City commits to re-evaluating the loadreductions associated with septic tank phase-out based on the study results. In theevent that the expected reductions, which must be agreed toby the Department, are less than projected in the City’s currentsubmittal, the City commits to either submitting plans for analternative project(s),potentially including additional septic tank phase-outs, or a contract to purchase the amount of credits needed within six months of completion ofthe study or by June 30, 2011, whichever is earlier. If additional projects are required, theymust be completed by the due date for the septic tankphase-out project, which is December 31, 2023.3The schedule broadly outlines the project milestones for septictank phase outs. While the general schedule depicts implementation over a 15-year time frame, the City will continuously implement projectsthroughout the implementation period. At a minimum, the City will accomplish a 50percent implementation of the septic tankphase out projects by the mid-point of the 15-year implementation timeline shown. This schedule will bereplaced with project specific dates and milestones followingcompletion of the septic tank study or the June 30, 2011 target,whichever is earlier.4At this time, FDOT has not been able to develop sufficient projects to meet the reductions required under the TMDL. In orderto move forwardwith adoption of the BMAP at this time, FDOT has committed toevaluating additional projects and/or a water quality credit trade to meet thebalance of their allocation, and will either submit plans for an additional project(s) or a plan to purchase the amount of credits needed by June 30,2009. The plans must describe the specific activities, whetheradditional projects, credit purchase, or a combination thereof, that FDOT willimplement to meet its wasteload allocation under the TMDL by December 31, 2014.145City of Jacksonville Beach WWTF ....................................................................................................................... 21,015FL002031Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Jax Bch WWTFTotal Reduction Required19,13541,246Jax Bch WWTFFL0020231JB-1Upgrade WWTF to AWT for N removal12/31/201321,55547,421Jax Bch WWTFTotal Project Reductions21,55547,421Jax Bch WWTFCredit/(Deficit)2,4205,324Jacksonville Beach Total WWTFImplementation SchedulePhase One – Initial Nutrient Removal Phasea. Preliminary Plans Complete01/01/2008b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete01/01/2011c. Begin Construction07/01/2011d. End Construction07/01/2013e. Begin Operation08/01/2013f. Operational Level Attained12/31/2013146City of Jacksonville Beach MS4 ............................................................................................................................ 4,804FLS000013Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Jax Bch MS4Total ReductionRequired170374Jax Bch MS4FLS000013JB-2FDOT Beach Blvdwidening (Pond 2)38.8712/01/20111431Jax Bch MS4FLS000013JB-3Atmospheric depositionload reduction –Seminole Electric SCRupgradeN/AN/A01/01/2010156343Jax Bch MS4Total Project Reductions170374Jax Bch MS4Credit/(Deficit)00Jacksonville Beach Total MS4Implementation ScheduleFDOT Beach Boulevard Widening Project (Pond 2)a. Start Date of Project06/01/2006b. Completion Date - Design06/30/2006c. Completion Date - Construction12/01/2011d. Completion Date – Completion of Project12/01/2011147City of Neptune Beach WWTF ................................................................................................................................ 6,162FL0020427Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Neptune BeachWWTF FL0020427TotalReductionRequired5,28611,629Neptune BeachWWTF FL0020427NB-1Complete ProcessImprovements10/01/20127,32216,108Neptune BeachWWTF FL0020427Total ProjectReductions7,32216,108Neptune BeachWWTF FL0020427Credit/(Deficit)2,0364,479Neptune Beach Total WWTFImplementation SchedulePhase One – Initial Nutrient Removal Phasea. Preliminary Plans Complete01/01/2009b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete09/01/2010c. Begin Construction03/01/2011d. End Construction03/01/2012e. Begin Operation04/01/2012f. Operational Level Attained10/01/2012148City of Neptune Beach MS4 ................................................................................................................................... 1,437FLS000012Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Neptune Beach MS4Total Reduction Required47103Neptune Beach MS4NB-2Atmospheric deposition load reduction– Seminole Electric SCR upgrade01/01/201047103Neptune MS4Total Project Reductions47103Neptune MS4Credit/(Deficit)00149Clay County MS4 ................................................................................................................................................... 21.188FLR04E045FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)CC MS4FLR04E045Total Reduction Required4,0618,934CC MS4FLR04E045CC-9Wells Road ImprovementsWet DetentionPond120Completed920CC MS4FLR04E045CC-10County Road 224 Phase IWet DetentionPond70Completed3884CC MS4FLR04E045CC-11County Road 224 Phase IIWet DetentionPond140Completed68150CC MS4FLR04E045CC-12Education ProgramN/AN/AOngoing1,0102,222CC MS4FLR04E045CC-13FDOT Construction ofStormwater ManagementSystems for Clay CountyRecreational Trail on SR15Retention/Detention (1")69Completed90198CC MS4FLR04E045CC-14FDOT SR 15 Widening @Fleming IslandRetention/Detention (1")606Completed1,3362,939CC MS4FLR04E045CC-15FDOT SR 15 Widening @Fleming Island from VillageSq Park Rd to South ofMargarets Walk RdRetention/Detention (1")301Completed6641,461CC MS4FLR04E045CC-16Atmospheric depositionload reduction – SeminoleElectric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/20108461,861CC MS4FLR04E045Total Project Reductions4,0618,934CC MS4FLR04E045Credit/(Deficit)0 0150Clay County Utility Authority Aggregate............................................................................................................. 63,963FL0000000 (tbd)Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)CCUA Total FacilitiesTotal Reduction Required-2,394-5,267Fleming Island WWTFFL0043834CCUA-1Upgrade to APRICOTand ReuseComplete18,19540,029Miller Street WWTFFL0025151CCUA-2Reuse Water upgradesincluding Spencer WWTP12/01/201016,20935,670Miller Street WWTFFL0025151CCUA-3WWTF Improvements tomeet APRICOTstandardsComplete10,33522,737CCUA Total FacilitiesTotalProject Reductions44,73998,426CCUA Total FacilitiesCredit/(Deficit)47,133103,693CCUA Total WWTFImplementation ScheduleMiller Street WWTFReuse Upgradesa. Start Date of Project08/01/2006b. Completion Date – Design04/01/2009c. Completion Date – Construction10/01/2010d. Completion Date – Project12/01/2010151JEA Aggregate .................................................................................................................................................... 654,672FL0000000 (tbd)Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionConstructionCompleteAchieveOperationalEffectivenessProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)JEA Total FacilitiesTotal Reduction Required741,9511,632,292JEA JulingtonCreek FL0043591JEA-1Complete ProcessImprovementsCompletedN/A4,54610,001JEA Arlington EastFL0026441JEA-2Complete ProcessImprovementsCompletedN/A15,27233,598JEA District IIFL0026450JEA-3Complete ProcessImprovementsCompletedN/A140,000308,000JEA SouthwestFL0026468JEA-4Complete ProcessImprovementsCompletedN/A39,09186,000JEA BuckmanFL0026000JEA-5Complete ProcessImprovementsCompletedN/A39,09186,000JEA MontereyFL00230604JEA-6Complete ProcessImprovementsCompletedN/A26,36458,001JEA MandarinFL0023493JEA-7Complete ProcessImprovementsCompletedN/A8,18117,998JEA San PabloFL0024767JEA-8Complete Phase OutCompletedN/A6,36414,001JEA WoodmereFL0026786JEA-9Complete Phase OutCompletedN/A10,00022,000JEA Beacon HillsFL0026778JEA-10Complete Phase Out09/30/200909/30/200916,36436,001JEA Royal LakesFL0026751JEA-11Complete Phase Out09/30/201009/30/201033,00072,600JEA Jax HeightsFL0023671JEA-12Complete Phase Out09/30/201009/30/20108,30018,260JEA Arlington EastFL0026441JEA-13Complete ProcessImprovements09/30/201009/30/2011118,172259,978JEA District IIFL0026450JEA-14Complete ProcessImprovements09/30/201009/30/201121,81948,002JEA San JoseFL0023663JEA-15Complete Phase Out09/30/201009/30/201230,90968,0000JEA BuckmanFL0026000JEA-16Complete ProcessImprovements09/30/201209/30/2013191,183420,603JEA FacilitiesJEA-17Reuse expansion (approx10 mgd) at ArlingtonEast, Mandarin andDistrict II09/30/201209/30/201359,090129,998152Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionConstructionCompleteAchieveOperationalEffectivenessProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)JEA Total FacilitiesTotal Project Reductions767,7461,689,041JEA Total FacilitiesCredit/(Deficit)25,79556,749JEA WWTF TotalImplementation SchedulePhased WWTF Nutrient Removala. Preliminary Plans Complete09/30/2008b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete01/30/2009c. Begin Construction06/30/2009d. Interim Progress Report Due12/01/2009e. Interim Progress Report Due06/30/2010f. Interim Progress Report Due12/01/2010g. Interim Progress Report Due06/30/2011h. Interim Progress Report Due12/01/2011i. End Construction09/30/2012j. Begin Operations10/01/2012k. Interim Progress Report Due03/31/2013l. Operational Level Attained09/30/2013153Smurfit-Stone Container ....................................................................................................................................... 74,305FL0000400Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Smurfit-StoneTotal Reduction Required71,684157,705Smurfit-StoneSS-1Complete Process ImprovementsCompleted71,684157,705Smurfit-StoneTotal Project Reductions71,684157,705Smurfit-StoneCredit/(Deficit)00154St. Johns County MS4 ............................................................................................................................................... 746FLR04E025FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)SJC MS4FLR04E025Starting Load2,3115,084SJC MS4FLR04E025SJC-9Implementation of Stormwater ManagementProgram - purchase a street sweeperStreetsweeping1,50001/01/2012129284SJC MS4FLR04E025SJC-10Implementation street sweepingStreetsweepingOngoing1942SJC MS4FLR04E025SJC-11Stormwater EducationEducationOngoing153337SJC MS4FLR04E025SJC-12Low-impact developmentOngoingNotquantifiedNotquantifiedSJC MS4FLR04E025SJC-13Slow release fertilizer ordinance01/01/2011NotquantifiedNotquantifiedSJC MS4FLR04E025SJC-14FDOT 4 laning of SR 312Wet Pond (1”,14 days)38Completed1431SJC MS4FLR04E025SJC-15FDOT A1A Stormwater retrofit from DuvalCounty line to Thousand Oaks laneDry detention98Completed216475SJC MS4FLR04E025SJC-16Atmospheric deposition load reduction –Seminole Electric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/201060132SJC MS4FLR04E025SJC-17Algal InitiativeN/AN/A10/31/20171,7203,784SJC MS4FLR04E025Total Project Reductions2,3115,084SJC MS4FLR04E025Credit/(Deficit)0 0St. Johns County MS4 TotalImplementation SchedulePurchase a Street Sweepera. Start Date of Project01/01/2012b. Completion Date – Completion of Project01/01/2012Slow Release Fertilizer Ordinancea. Start Date of Project01/01/2010b. Completion Date – Completion of Project01/01/2011Algal Initiativea. Start Date of Project10/01/2008b. Completion Date – Project Assessment10/31/2010c. Completion Date – Project Fundraising10/31/2012d. Completion Date – Construction10/31/2017155Town of Orange Park WWTF ................................................................................................................................... 7,940FL0023922Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Orange ParkWWTFTotal Reduction Required16,94637,281Ash Street WWTFFL0023922OP-1Phase One Improvements11/01/20094,2739,401Ash Street WWTFFL0023922OP-2Phase Two Improvements11/01/20114,84110,650Ash Street WWTFFL0023922OP-3Phase Three Improvements– AWT/Reuse11/01/20137,94517,479Orange ParkWWTFTotal Project Reductions17,05937,530Orange ParkWWTFCredit/(Deficit)113249Orange Park Total WWTFImplementation SchedulePhase One – Initial Nutrient Removal Phasea. Preliminary Plans Complete09/30/2008b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete01/30/2009c. Begin Construction03/15/2008d. End Construction03/15/2009e. Begin Operation04/30/2009f. Operational Level Attained11/01/2009Phase Two – Additional nutrient removal phasea. Preliminary Plans Complete03/30/2009b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete11/01/2009c. Begin Construction03/15/2010d. End Construction03/15/2011e. Begin Operation04/30/2011f. Operational Level Attained11/01/2011Phase Three – Final expansion and improvementsa. Preliminary Plans Complete11/01/2010b. Final Plans and Specifications Complete01/30/2011c. Begin Construction03/15/2011d. End Construction03/15/2012e. Begin Operation04/30/2013f. Operational Level Attained11/01/2013156Town of Orange Park MS4 ....................................................................................................................................... 3,348FLR04E075Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Orange Park MS4Total Reduction Required103227Orange Park MS4OP-4Atmospheric deposition load reduction –Seminole Electric SCR upgrade01/01/2010103227Orange Park MS4Total Project Reductions103227Orange Park MS4Credit/(Deficit)00157US Navy Aggregate ............................................................................................................................................... 11,684FL0000000 (tbd)Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)USN Total(Aggregate)Total Reduction Required15,54134,190NAS Jax WWTFFL0000957USN-1Reuse to Timuquana Country ClubComplete7,69316,925NAS Jax WWTFFL0000957USN-2ExpandReuseSystem10/01/20132,7906,138NAS Jax WWTFFL0000957USN-3Inflow/infiltration repair projectsComplete2,7906,138NS Mayport WWTFFL0000922USN-4Inflow/infiltration repair projectsComplete5,75312,657USN Total(Aggregate)Total Project Reductions19,02641,857USN Total(Aggregate)Credit/(Deficit)3,4857,667US Navy Total (Aggregate)Implementation ScheduleExpand Reuse Systema. Start Date of Project02/07/2008b. Completion Date – Design09/30/2008c. Completion Date - Construction10/01/2013d. Completion Date – Project10/01/2013158US Navy MS4s ......................................................................................................................................................... 7,232FLR04E091 and FLR04E056Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)USN MS4sTotal Reduction Required298656USN MS4USN-6Atmospheric deposition loadreduction – Seminole ElectricSCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/2010298656USN MS4Total Project Reductions298656USN MS4Credit/(Deficit)00159Name of FacilityLoad Allocation (kg/yr)Camp Blanding Non-MS4 ....................................................................................................................................... 1,220Facility NameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)Camp BlandingTotal Reduction Required1,6503,630Camp BlandingCB-1Re-grade existing swalesystemSwales2,22012/31/20131,9994,398Camp BlandingCB-2Atmospheric depositionload reduction – SeminoleElectric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/201098216Camp BlandingTotal Project Reductions2,0974,613Camp BlandingCredit/(Deficit)447983Camp Blanding Non-MS4 TotalImplementation ScheduleRe-grade existing swale systema. Start Date of Project01/01/2009b. Completion Date – Re-grade 1stset of swales12/31/2009c. Completion Date – Re-grade 2ndset of swales12/31/2010d. Completion Date – Re-grade 3rdset of swales12/31/2011e. Completion Date – Re-grade 4thset of swales12/31/2012f. Completion Date – Re-grade 5thset of swales12/31/2013g. Completion Date – Completion of Project12/31/2013160Clay County Non-MS4 ........................................................................................................................................... 11,107FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)CC Non-MS4Total Reduction Required9442,077CC Non-MS4CC-17Education ProgramN/AN/AOngoing4821,060CC Non-MS4CC-18FDOT SR 23 improvementfrom Kindlewood Rd toDuval County line - 5systemsWet pond (1”,14 days)112Completed69152CC Non-MS4CC-19Atmospheric depositionload reduction – SeminoleElectric SCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/2010393865CC Non-MS4Total Project Reductions9442,077CC Non-MS4Credit/(Deficit)00161St. Johns County Non-MS4 .................................................................................................................................... 4,865FacilityNameProjectNumberDescriptionType(s) ofBMP(s)ImplementedAcresTreatedDeadlineProject TNReduction(kg/yr)Project TNReduction(lbs/yr)SJC NonMS4Total Reduction Required4,98110,958SJC NonMS4SJC-18Greenbriar RoadPaving/Improvements - 4Stormwater Treatment Ponds40Completed3372SJC NonMS4SJC-19Implementation of StormwaterManagement Program -purchase a street sweeperStreetsweeping01/01/2012129284SJC NonMS4SJC-20Implementation street sweepingStreetsweepingOngoing1942SJC NonMS4SJC-21Stormwater EducationEducationOngoing4921,082SJC NonMS4SJC-22Low-impact developmentOngoingNot quantifiedNotquantifiedSJC NonMS4SJC-23Slow release fertilizer ordinance01/01/2011Not quantifiedNotquantifiedSJC NonMS4SJC-24FDOT SR 312 from US 1 to SR338Completed84185SJC NonMS4SJC-25Atmospheric deposition loadreduction – Seminole ElectricSCR upgradeN/AN/A01/01/2010390858SJC NonMS4SJC-26Algal InitiativeN/AN/A10/31/20173,8348,435SJC NonMS4Total Project Reductions4,98110,958SJC NonMS4Credit/(Deficit)0 0St. Johns County Non-MS4 TotalImplementation SchedulePurchase a Street Sweepera. Start Date of Project01/01/2012b. Completion Date – Completion of Project01/01/2012Slow Release Fertilizer Ordinancea. Start Date of Project01/01/2010b. Completion Date – Completion of Project01/01/2011Algal Initiativea. Start Date of Project10/01/2008b. Completion Date – Project Assessment10/31/2010c. Completion Date – Project Fundraising10/31/2012d. Completion Date – Construction10/31/2017

# Appendix I: E STIMATED 

# P ROJECT 

# C OSTS

Each of the entities was required to submit projects to achieve their TMDL allocations. These projects are explained in detail in Appendix H . The total estimated costs of the projects, as provided by the entities, are summarized in the tables below.

T ABLE 

### I-1: E STIMATED 

### P ROJECT 

### C OSTS FOR THE 

### P OINT 

### S OURCES IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### S ECTION



### Project Name Project

Number Status Estimated Cost

City of Green Cove Springs Reuse to Magnolia Point Golf Course (Harbor Rd WWTF) GCS-1 Planned costs not provided Improvements for BNR (South WWTF) GCS-2 Designed $1,300,000

TOTAL $1,300,000 City of Palatka Reuse to golf course PAL-1 Completed $2,500,000

Reuse to ball fields PAL-2 Designed $650,000

Reuse to cemeteries PAL-3 Designed $1,250,000

Reuse at WTP PAL-4 Designed $787,000
Zero discharge PAL-5 Planned $4,000,000

TOTAL $9,187,000 Georgia-Pacific No projects needed N/A N/A N/A

Seminole Electric SCR Upgrade SE-1 Planned $176,000,000

TOTAL $176,000,000



### T ABLE 

### I-2: E STIMATED 

### P ROJECT 

### C OSTS FOR 

### MS4 S AND 

### N ONPOINT 

### S OURCES

IN THE 

### F RESHWATER 

### S ECTION



### Project Name Project

Number Status Estimated Cost

Clay County MS4 Education Program CC-1 O ngoing costs not provided FDOT SR 21 Widening from SR 215 to CR 220 CC-2 Completed costs not provided

Trade with CCUA CC-3 Ongoing costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade CC-7 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL costs not provided Clay County Non-MS4 Education Program CC-4 O ngoing costs not provided FDOT construction of 7 new wet ponds on SR15 from Putnam County line to SR16 CC-5 Completed costs not provided

Trade with CCUA CC-6 Ongoing costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade CC-8 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL costs not provided Green Cove Springs MS4 SW Drainage System Improvements GCS-3 Completed costs not provided Cypress Baffle Box GCS-4 Completed costs not provided Green Cove Springs Industrial Park GCS-5 Completed costs not provided Vystar Credit Union GCS-6 Designed costs not provided

162

### Project Project Name Number Status Estimated Cost

Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade GCS-7 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL costs not provided Hastings Non-MS4 WWTP Chemical Feed Systems HAS-1 Construction $10,000 FDOT 4 laning of SR 207 HAS-2 Completed costs not provided FDOT 4 laning of SR207 from CR305 to Cypress Link

Blvd HAS-3 Completed costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade HAS-4 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL $10,000

Palatka Non-MS4 Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade PAL-6 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL costs not provided Putnam County Non-MS4

Trade with Putnam Lanes WWTF PUT-1 Completed costs not provided

Trade with Hiawatha WWTF PUT-2 Planned $1,800,000

Trade with Port Buena Vista WWTF PUT-3 Planned $1,800,000 Edgefield RST O&M Value PUT-4 Planned $325,000* FDOT construction of 7 new wet ponds on SR15 from Clay County line to south of Gordon Wilkins Rd PUT-5 Completed costs not provided Algal Initiative PUT-6 Planned costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade PUT-7 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL $3,925,000 St. Johns County Non-MS4 Implementation of Stormwater Management Program - purchase a street sweeper SJC-1 Planned costs not provided Implementation street sweeping SJC-2 Planned costs not provided

Stormwater Education SJC-3 Ongoing $100,000*
Low-impact development SJC-4 Planned costs not provided

Slow release fertilizer ordinance SJC-5 Planned costs not provided Deep Creek RST O&M value SJC-6 Planned $325,000*
Purchase Hastings- WWTP reduction credits SJC-7 Planned $150,000* Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade SJC-8 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL $575,000

Welaka Non-MS4 Algal Initiative WEL-1 Planned costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade WEL-2 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL costs not provided

* Note: Project costs were provided as annual costs. Costs shown are the total costs for a five year period.



### T ABLE 

### I-3: E STIMATED 

### P ROJECT 

### C OSTS FOR THE 

### P OINT 

### S OURCES IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### S ECTION



### Project Name Project

Number Status Estimated Cost

Anheuser Busch No projects needed N/A N/A N/A

163

### Project Project Name Number Status Estimated Cost

City of Atlantic Beach Upgrade to SBR (Buccaneer WWTF) AB-1 Completed $1,682,000 Reclaimed to Selva Marina GC (Main WWTF) AB-2 Planned $1,234,000 Upgrade to AWT (Main WWTF) AB-3 Planned $5,100,000

TOTAL $8,016,000 City of Jacksonville Beach Upgrade WWTF to AWT for N Removal JB-1 Planned $16,000,000

TOTAL $16,000,000 City of Neptune Beach Upgrade to AWT NB-1 Planned $1,800,000

TOTAL $1,800,000 Clay County Utility Authority
Fleming Island WWTP Upgrades; reclaimed water storage

and transmission facilities. CCUA-1 Completed $8,869,248 Install RW Pumping Station at Miller St. WWTF; upgrade Heritage Hills PS; upgrade Spencer's WWTF to 4.0 MGD AWT plant. CCUA-2 Planned $20,336,226 Miller St. WWTF Improvements to meet APRICOT

standards CCUA-3 Completed $1,664,000 Spencer's reclaimed water system supply and transmission system N/A Completed $3,045,687
Developer Funded Reclaimed water distribution system (Spencer's) N/A Completed $3,609,192
Developer Funded Reclaimed water distribution system (Fleming Island) N/A Completed $3,355,153

TOTAL $40,789,506

JEA Julington Creek Improvements JEA-1 Completed $5,000,000 Arlington Completed Process Improvements JEA-2 Completed $17,500,000 District II Completed Process Impr ovements JEA-3 Completed $12,000,000 Southwest Completed Process Improvements JEA-4 Completed $16,000,000 Buckman Completed Process Improvements JEA-5 Completed $18,000,000 Monterey Completed Process Impr ovements JEA-6 Completed $500,000 Mandarin Completed Process Improvements JEA-7 Completed $4,000,000

San Pablo Phase Out JEA-8 Construction $5,000,000

Woodmere Phase Out JEA-9 Construction $3,400,000

Beacon Hills Phase Out JEA-10 Planned $3,750,000 Royal Lakes Phase Out JEA-11 Planned costs not provided Jax Heights Phase Out JEA-12 Planned costs not provided Arlington BNR JEA-13 Planned $42,000,000

District II BNR JEA-14 Planned $5,000,000

San Jose Phase Out JEA-15 Planned costs not provided

Buckman BNR JEA-16 Planned $12,000,000
Arlington East, Mandarin, and District II Reuse Expansion JEA-17 Planned $100,000,000

TOTAL $244,150,000

Smurfit-Stone Container No projects needed N/A N/A N/A Town of Orange Park Ash Street WWTP Improvements Phas e I OP-1 Planned costs not provided Ash Street WWTP Improvements Phase II OP-2 Planned costs not provided Ash Street WWTP Improvements Phase III OP-3 Planned costs not provided

164

### Project Project Name Number Status Estimated Cost

TOTAL costs not provided U.S. Navy Provides reuse water from the WWTP to the Timuquana Country Club for golf course irrigation (NAS – Jax WWTF) USN-1 Completed $500,000 Expands existing reuse system (NAS – Jax WWTF) USN-2 Planned $3,000,000 Inflow/infiltration repair projects (N AS – Jax WWTF) USN-3 Completed $2,100,000 Inflow/infiltration repair projects (NS – Mayport WWTF) USN-4 Completed $2,500,000

TOTAL $8,100,000



### T ABLE 

### I-4: E STIMATED 

### P ROJECT 

### C OSTS FOR 

### MS4 S AND 

### N ONPOINT 

### S OURCES

IN THE 

### M ARINE 

### S ECTION



### Project Name Project

Number Status Estimated Cost

Camp Blanding Non-MS4 Re-grade existing swale system CB-1 Planned $2,979,000 Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade CB-2 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL $2,979,000 City of Atlantic Beach MS4 Core City Capital Improvement Project AB-4 Completed $6,180,000 Hopkins Creek Stormwater Treatme nt System AB-5 Design $1,900,000 FDOT Widening of SR 10 (Atlantic Blvd) roadway & bridge upgrade AB-6 Completed costs not provided FDOT Atlantic Blvd and Mayport Rd Interchange AB-7 Completed costs not provided FDOT Wonderwood Connector Segment 1 – Girvin to

Sandcastle AB-8 Completed costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade AB-9 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL $8,080,000 City of Jacksonville Big Fishweir Creek-Murray Hill Phase I-Drainage improvements COJ-1 Completed $399,133

Sixmile Creek-West 1st St reet/Melson Avenue-Drainage improvements COJ-2 Completed $2,597,718 McCoys Creek Pond A & B COJ-3 Completed $563,756 McCoys Creek Pond F COJ-4 Completed $808,682

Riverside Ave-baffle boxes COJ-5 Completed $341,460 St Augustine Rd (Emerson to US 1)- Regional pond

facilities COJ-6 Completed costs not provided Powers Avenue/Old Kings Rd-Regional pond facilities COJ-7 Completed $6,654,258 Fouraker Rd- from Old Middleburg Rd. to Normandy Blvd. regional pond facilities COJ-8 Completed costs not providedGreenland Road-from St. Augustine Rd to Coastal Lanedetention pond facilities COJ-9 Completed costs not provided Barnes Rd-from University Bl vd. to Parental Home Rd.- detention pond facilities COJ-10 Completed costs not provided

Emerson St.-from Emerson S t. Expwy. to Spring Glenn Rd - detention pond facility COJ-11 Completed costs not provided Bowden Rd-from U.S.# 1 to Salisbury Rd. - detention pond facilities COJ-12 Completed costs not provided

165

### Project Project Name Number Status Estimated Cost

Parental Home Rd Phase I (Bowden Rd from Salisbury Rd to Dean Rd) - detention pond facility COJ-13 Completed costs not provided Parental Home Rd Phase II (Beach Blvd to Ibach Rd) detention pond facility COJ-14 Completed costs not provided Lorretto Rd from S.R. 13 to Old St. Augustine Road - detention pond facilities COJ-15 Completed costs not provided Belford Rd-Pottsburg Ck. to Touchton Rd. detention pond

facilities COJ-16 Completed costs not provided Royal Terrace phases A+B+C+D+E+1+2+3+4 - master pond facility COJ-17 Completed costs not provided University Pointe regional pond facility COJ-18 Completed $600,198 Cleveland Road-Phase I-B wet detention pond COJ-19 Completed $4,991,699 Hogans Creek COJ-20 Completed $500,000 McCoys Creek Pond D COJ-21 Completed $1,262,708 Upper Deer Creek Regional Stor mwater Facility COJ-22 Completed $3,432,000 Hugh Edwards Canal COJ-23 Completed $1,000,000 Cedar River Outfall Improvements COJ-24 Completed $3,525,000

Sandalwood Canal COJ-25 Construction $3,068,591

Moncrief Creek COJ-26 Completed $4,455,985 Lincoln Villas-East Side-regional pond facility COJ-27 Completed $2,000,000 Old Middleburg Rd from Wilson Blvd to 103rd St-regional pond facilities COJ-28 Completed $5,000,000
Lakeshore Woodcrest Drainage Im provement COJ-29 Completed $500,000
Townsend Rd drainage improvements COJ-30 Completed $1,500,0000 Lenox Ave (Highway to McDuff) COJ-31 Completed $3,000,000 Wesconnett Blvd (Blanding to Blanding) COJ-32 Completed $2,000,0000

Durkeeville West COJ-33 Completed $15,000,000

Huffman Boulevard COJ-34 Completed $1,000,000 Spring Park Rd/Emerson to University COJ-35 Completed costs not provided Barnes Rd/Kennerly to University COJ-36 Completed costs not provided Pritchard Rd (Jones to I-295) COJ-37 Completed costs not provided Lenox, Lane to Normandy COJ-38 Completed costs not provided
Cahoon Rd, Phase I COJ-39 Completed costs not provided Pulaski Road (Eastport Dr to New Berlin Rd) COJ-40 Completed costs not provided Lamoya Roadway Project COJ-41 Completed costs not provided LSJR upstream of Trout River COJ-42 Planned costs not provided Ortega River COJ-43 Planned costs not provided Arlington River COJ-44 Planned costs not provided

LSJR Downstream of Trout River COJ-45 Planned costs not provided Intracoastal Waterway COJ-46 Planned costs not provided Julington Creek COJ-47 Planned costs not provided

Trout River COJ-48 Planned costs not provided

Broward River COJ-49 Planned costs not provided

Dunn Creek COJ-50 Planned costs not provided

Public Education Activities COJ-51 Ongoing costs not provided Septic Tank Phase-Out Projects COJ-52 Planned costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade COJ-53 Planned costs included in SE-1

FDOT Urban Office Reconstruction COJ-54 Completed costs not provided FDOT Fort George Inlet Bridge COJ-55 Completed costs not provided FDOT Widening of Riverside Area COJ-56 Completed costs not provided

166

### Project Project Name Number Status Estimated Cost

FDOT Widening of Merrill Road between Wompi Drive

and Milcoe road COJ-57 Completed costs not provided FDOT Widening of Merrill Road between 9A and Wompi

Drive COJ-58 Completed costs not provided FDOT Widening of SR 13 to six lane divided highway COJ-59 Completed costs not provided FDOT Bch Blvd Widening from ICWW to E. of Penman COJ-60 Completed costs not provided FDOT I-295 and SR 21 (Blanding) interchange upgrade COJ-61 Completed costs not provided FDOT I-295 and SR 17 (Blanding) interchange ex pansion COJ-62 Completed costs not provided FDOT JTB/Belfort Road Interchange COJ-63 Completed costs not provided

FDOT Pine Avenue Sidewalk COJ-64 Completed costs not provided FDOT 9A from Baymeadows Road to I-95 COJ-65 Completed costs not providedFDOT Widening of I-95 from St. Johns County line to 9A/I295 COJ-66 Completed costs not provided FDOT Widening of I-95 from I-295 to south of JTB COJ-67 Completed costs not provided FDOT Widening of SR 10 (Atlantic Blvd from St. Johns Bluff to San Pablo) COJ-68 Completed costs not provided FDOT Widening of Southside Blvd COJ-69 Completed costs not provided FDOT New JTB/9A Interchange COJ-70 Construction costs not provided FDOT Southside (SR 115) frontage road COJ-71 Completed costs not provided FDOT I-95 Improvement - from I-295 to Nassau County Line South Project COJ-72 Completed costs not provided FDOT I-95 Improvement - S. of Clarke rd to I-295 COJ-73 Completed costs not provided FDOT 9A Improvement - South Project COJ-74 Completed costs not provided

FDOT 9A from South of Atlantic to Beach Blvd COJ-75 Completed costs not provided FDOT I-295/I-95/9A Interchange COJ-76 Completed costs not provided FDOT Branan Field Chafee roadway project COJ-77 Completed costs not provided FDOT Wonderwood Connector Segment 1 project Girvin

to Sandcastle COJ-78 Completed costs not provided FDOT JIA South Access Connector project COJ-79 Completed costs not provided FDOT I-95 Widening from Lem Turner to I-295 project COJ-80 Completed costs not provided FDOT 4 laning of SR 13 COJ-81 Completed costs not provided FDOT SR21 Widening from S. of Cedar River to E. of

Cassat COJ-82 Completed costs not provided FDOT Arlington Expressway Project COJ-83 Completed costs not provided FDOT Merrill Rd Southside Blvd Interchange Project COJ-84 Completed costs not provided FDOT Baymeadows Project from East of US 1 to SR 13 COJ-85 Completed costs not provided FDOT SR 115/8th St Project COJ-86 Completed costs not provided FDOT SR 115/8th St Project COJ-87 Completed costs not provided

FDOT JTB from I-95 to Gate Pa rkway Project COJ-88 Completed costs not provided FDOT I-295 from West of Duval to Biscayne Blvd COJ-89 Completed costs not provided FDOT Beaver Street (US 90) Project from Stockton to Tyler COJ-90 Completed costs not provided FDOT 9A from Baymeadows to JTB Project COJ-91 Completed costs not provided FDOT JTB/A1A Interchange Project COJ-92 Completed costs not provided

FDOT Southside Blvd/I-95 Connector COJ-93 Completed costs not provided FDOT Beach Blvd improvement from west of FCCJ to

East of San Pablo COJ-94 Construction costs not provided FDOT Widening of SR 13 COJ-95 Completed costs not provided FDOT Branan Field Chafee roadway project (Argyle Forest to 103rd) COJ-96 Completed costs not providedFDOT Branan Field Chafee roadway project (103rd to I10) COJ-97 Construction costs not provided

167

### Project Project Name Number Status Estimated Cost

FDOT Southside (SR 115) and Bch Blvd (SR 202) interchange and road widening COJ-98 Completed costs not provided FDOT Wonderwood Connector Segment 2 project COJ-99 Completed costs not provided FDOT JTB/Kernan project COJ-100 Completed costs not provided

FDOT I-95 from JTB to Emerson COJ-101 Completed costs not provided FDOT Heckscher Drive / 9a Interchange-1 DRS COJ-102 Construction costs not provided FDOT Heckscher Drive / 9a Interchange-2 WDS COJ-103 Construction costs not provided FDOT Wonderwood Segment 3 Project COJ- 104 Completed costs not provided

FDOT Collins Rd Collector Distributor COJ-105 Completed costs not provided FDOT JTB / I-95 Ramp project (40-031-18233-6) COJ-106 Completed costs not provided FDOT SR 5 US 1 Project (209516-3-52-01) COJ-107 Completed costs not provided FDOT 4 laning of SR 207 COJ-108 Completed costs not provided FDOT 4 laning of SR207 from CR305 to Cypress Link

Blvd COJ-109 Completed costs not provided FDOT 4 laning of SR207 from SR15 (US 17) to CR207 COJ-110 Completed costs not provided FDOT Six laning of I-95 from Flagler County Line to SR 16 COJ-111 Completed costs not provided

FDOT I-95 Rest Area Reconstruction CO J-112 Completed costs not provided FDOT Six laning of I-95 from World Golf Village to Duval County line COJ-113 Completed costs not provided FDOT Widening of SR 16 COJ-114 Completed costs not provided

FDOT SR 207 from I-95 to SR 312 COJ-115 Completed costs not provided

FDOT SR 207 from SR 312 to US 1 COJ-116 Completed costs not provided

FDOT Stormwater Education Efforts in St. J ohns County COJ-117 Ongoing costs not provided FDOT Education Efforts in City of Jack sonville COJ-118 Ongoing costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade COJ-119 Planned costs included in SE-1 FDOT Future Projects and/or Trade COJ-120 Planned costs not provided

TOTAL $95,701,188 City of Jacksonville Beach FDOT Beach Boulevard Widening Project (Pond 2) JB-2 Construction costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade JB-3 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL costs not provided City of Neptune Beach Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade NB-2 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL costs not provided Clay County MS4 Wells Road Improvements CC-9 Completed costs not provided County Road 224 Phase I CC-10 Completed costs not provided County Road 224 Phase II CC-11 Completed costs not provided Education Program CC-12 O ngoing costs not provided

FDOT Construction of Stor mwater Management Systems for Clay County Recreational Trail on SR 15 CC-13 Completed costs not provided FDOT SR 15 Widening @ Fleming Island CC-14 Completed costs not provided FDOT SR 15 Widening @ Fleming Island from Village Sq Park Rd to South of Margarets Walk Rd CC-15 Completed costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade CC-16 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL costs not provided Clay County Non-MS4

168

### Project Project Name Number Status Estimated Cost

Education Program CC-17 O ngoing costs not provided FDOT SR 23 improvement from Kindlewood Rd to Duval County line - 5 systems CC-18 Completed costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade CC-19 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL costs not provided St. Johns County MS4 Implementation of Stormwater Management Program - purchase a street sweeper SJC-9 Planned $180,000
Implementation street sweeping SJ C-10 Ongoing costs not provided

Stormwater Education SJC-11 Ongoing $100,000*
Low-impact development SJC-12 Planned costs not provided

Slow release fertilizer ordinance SJC-13 Planned costs not provided FDOT 4 laning of SR 312 SJC-14 Completed costs not provided FDOT A1A Stormwater retrofit from Duval County line to

Thousand Oaks lane SJC-15 Completed costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade SJC-16 Planned costs included in SE-1 Algal Initiative SJC-17 Planned costs not provided

TOTAL $280,000 St. Johns County Non-MS4 Greenbriar Road Paving/Improvements - 4 Stormwater

Treatment Ponds SJC-18 Completed $500,000 Implementation of Stormwater Management Program - purchase a street sweeper SJC-19 Planned $180,000
Implementation street sweeping SJ C-20 Ongoing costs not provided

Stormwater Education SJC-21 Ongoing $100,000*
Low-impact development SJC-22 Planned costs not provided

Slow release fertilizer ordinance SJC-23 Planned costs not provided

FDOT SR 312 from US 1 to SR 3 SJC-24 Completed costs not provided Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade SJC-25 Planned costs included in SE-1 Algal Initiative SJC-26 Planned costs not provided

TOTAL $780,000 Town of Orange Park MS4 Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade OP-4 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL costs not provided U.S. Navy Atmospheric deposition load reduction – Seminole Electric SCR upgrade USN-6 Planned costs included in SE-1

TOTAL costs not provided

* Note: Project costs were provided as annual costs. Costs shown are the total costs for a five year period.

169

# Appendix J: G LOSSARY OF 

# T ERMS

303(d) List: The list of Florida's waterbodies that do not meet or are not expected to meet applicable water quality standards with technology-based controls alone.

305(b) Report: Section 305(b) of the CWA requires states to report biennially to the USEPA on the quality of the waters in the state.

Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT): A term generally used to describe any level of wastewater treatment that provides treatm ent beyond secondary treatment. Florida Statues define one specific level of advanced wastewater treatment applicable in well-defined geographic areas, which involves treatment to meet 5 mg/L 5-day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), 5 mg/L total suspended solids (TSS), 3 mg/L total nitrogen, and 1 mg/L total phosphorus.

Algal Initiative: The SJRWMD began the St. Johns River Nutrient Discharge Reduction Initiative (“Algal Initiative”) in 2006 to reduce algal blooms in the Lower and Middle St. Johns River basins. The SJRWMD has offered the opportunity to participate in this initiative to interested entities in order to identify and implement projects to reduce phosphorus and nitrogen in the freshwater reach of the river. These entities will work with the SJRWMD to identify, develop, and fund projects to meet their allocations.

Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC): The Watershed Restoration Act of 1999 required the Department of Environmental Protection to form a Technical Advisory Committee to address issues relating to the allocation of load reductions among point source and nonpoint source contributors. The ATAC was therefore formed in order to develop recommendations for a report to the legislature on the process for allocating Total Maximum Daily Loads.

APRICOT (“A Prototype Realistic Innovative Community of Today”) Discharges: Wet weather discharges from a wastewater plant that meet certain criteria including advanced wastewater treatment standards and minimum total suspended solids levels.

Atmospheric deposition: Pollutants, from a variety of sources, which settle out of air by gravity or are deposited onto land or into lakes, rivers and other bodies of water by wind and

rain.

Background: The condition of waters in the absence of man-induced alterations.

Baffle box: An underground stormwater management device that uses barriers (or baffles) to slow the flow of untreated stormwater, allowing particulates to settle out in the box before the

stormwater is released into the environment.

Baseline period: A period of time used as a basis for later comparison.

Baseline loading: The quantity of pollutants in a waterbody, used as a basis for later comparison.

Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP): The document that describes how a specific TMDL will be implemented; the plan describes the specific load and wasteload allocations as well as the stakeholder efforts that will be undertaken to achieve an adopted TMDL.

170

### Basin Status Report: For the Lower St. Johns, this document was published in June 2002 by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The report documents the water quality issues, list of water segments under consideration for a TMDL and data needs in the Lower

Basin.

Best Available Technology (BAT) Economically Achievable: As defined by 40 CFR, §125.3, outlines technology-based treatment requirements in permits.

Best Management Practices (BMPs): Methods that have been determined to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing pollution from nonpoint sources.

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): The amount of dissolved oxygen utilized by aquatic microorganisms. 5



### Biomass: The total living biological material in a given area.

Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5): The quantity of oxygen utilized in the carbonaceous biochemical oxidation of organic matter present in a water or wastewater, reported as a five-day value determined using approved methods.

City of Jacksonville (COJ): An incorporated city in Northeast Florida, some of which lies in the

St. Johns River basin.

Clay County Utility Authority (CCUA): A utility that treats wastewater and has a reuse water system in Clay County, Florida.

Coliforms: Bacteria that live in the intestines (including the colon) of humans and other animals; used as a measure of the presence of feces in water or soil.

Clean Water Act (CWA): The Clean Water Act is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, which set the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States.

Continuous deflective separation (CDS) Unit: A patented stormwater management device

which uses the available energy of the storm flow to create a vortex to cause a separation of solids from fluids. Pollutants are captured inside the separation chamber while the water passes out through the separation screen.

5 Microorganisms such as bacteria are responsible for decomposing organic waste. When organic matter such as dead plants, leaves, grass clippings, manure, sewage, or ev en food waste is present in a water supply, the bacteria will begin the process of breaking down this waste. When this happens, much of the available DO is consumed by aerobic bacteria, robbing other aquatic organisms of the oxygen they need to live. BOD is a m easure of the oxygen used by microorganisms to decompose this waste. If there is a large quantity of organic waste in the water supply, there will also be a lot of bacteria present working to decom pose this waste. In this case, the demand for oxygen will be high (due to all the bacteria), consequently the BOD leve l will be high. As the waste is consumed or dispersed through the water, BOD levels will begin to decline.

Nitrates and phosphates in a body of water can contribute to high BOD levels. Nitrates and phosphates are plant nutrients and can cause plant life and algae to grow quickly. When plants grow quickly, they also die quickly. This contributes to the organic waste in the water, which is then decomposed by bacteria. This results in a high BOD level. When BOD levels are high, DO levels decrease, bec ause the oxygen that is available in the water is being consumed by the bacteria. Since less DO is available in t he water, fish and other aquatic organisms may not survive.

171

### Designated use: Uses specified in water quality standards for each waterbody or segment (such as drinking water, swimmable, fishable).

Detention Pond: A stormwater system that delays the downstream progress of stormwater runoff in a controlled manner, typically by us ing temporary storage areas and a metered outlet

device.

Development of Regional Impact (DRI): A large development (such as a regional transportation facility, shopping center, commerci al building, large subdivision, etc.), which generates effects that cross political jurisdictional lines.

Discharge Monthly Report (DMR): Regulatory tool; the monthly reporting requirement for wastewater plants holding a national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit.

Dissolved Oxygen (DO): The amount of oxygen gas dissolved in a given volume of water at a particular temperature and pressure, often expressed as a concentration in parts of oxygen per million parts of water.

Domestic Wastewater: Wastewater derived principally from dwellings, business buildings, institutions and the like; sanitary wastewater; sewage.

Dry Season: The dry part of the year when rainfall is low; in the Lower St. Johns basin the dry season is defined as November through May.

Effluent: Wastewater that flows into a receiving stream by way of a domestic or industrial discharge point.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The United States Environmental Protection Agency was created in December 1970 to addre ss the nation's urgent environmental problems and to protect the public health. The majority of FDEP’s regulatory programs has counterparts at the EPA or is delegated from the EPA.

Event mean concentration: The flow-weighted mean concentration of an urban runoff pollutant measured during a storm event.

Exfiltration: Loss of water from a drainage system as the result of percolation or absorption into the surrounding soil.

External loading: Pollutants originating from outside of a waterbody that contribute to the pollutant load of the waterbody.

Flocculent: A liquid which contains loosely aggregated, suspended particles.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP): The Florida Department of Environmental Protection is Florida's principal environmental and natural resources agency. The Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environmental Regulation were merged together to create the Department of Environmental Protection effective July 1, 1993.

Gallons per Day (GPD): Units used to characterize the amount of water from a particular source; commonly used to describe the amount of small wastewater discharges.

172

### Green Cove Springs (GCS): An incorporated city in Clay County, Florida.

Ground Water or Groundwater: Water below the land surface in the zone of saturation where water is at or above atmospheric pressure.

Impairment: The condition of a waterbody that does not achieve water quality standards (designated use) due to pollutants or an unknown cause.

Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA): A large electric and water utility that operates in Duval

and St. Johns counties.

Karst: An area of irregular limestone in which erosion has produced fissures, sinkholes, underground streams, and caverns.

Land Development Regulations (LDRs): Ordinances enacted by governing bodies for the regulation of any aspect of development and incl udes any local government zoning, rezoning, subdivision, land assembly or adjustment of platted or subdivided lands, building construction, or sign regulations or any other regulations controlling the development of land.

Limited Wet Weather Discharges: As defined by 62-610.860, F.A.C., these discharges occur from facilities that primarily sending their treated effluent to reuse but require an alternate discharge option when excess reclaimed waters are generated. These discharges must meet specific requirements, defined in the rule.

Load Allocations (LA): The portions of a receiving water's loading capacity that are allocated to one of its existing or future nonpoint sources of pollution.

Load Capacity: The greatest amount of loading that a waterbody can receive without violating water quality standards.

Loading: The total quantity of pollutants in stormwater runoff which contributes to the water quality.

Lower Basin: When used in Northeast Florida, commonly refers to the Lower St. Johns River

Basin.

Macrophyte: Rooted and floating aquatic plants that are large enough to be perceived or examined by the unaided eye.

Margin of safety (MOS): An explicit or implicit assumption used in the calculation of a TMDL, which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality. An explicit MOS is typically a percentage of the assimilative capacity or some other specific amount of pollutant loading (e.g., the loading from an out-of-state source). Most DEP-adopted TMDLs include an implicit MOS based on the fact that the predictive model runs incorporate a va riety of conservative assumptions (they examine worst-case ambient flow conditions, worst-case temperature, and assume that all permitted point sources discharge at their maximum permittable amount).

Million Gallons per Day (MGD): Units used to characterize the amount of water from a particular source; commonly used to describe the amount of large wastewater plant discharges.

173

### National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): The permitting process by which technology-based and water quality–based controls are implemented.

Nonpoint Sources (NPS): Diffuse runoff without a single point of origin that flows over the surface of the ground by stormwater and is then introduced to surface or ground water. NPS include atmospheric deposition and runoff or leaching from agricultural lands, urban areas, unvegetated lands, on-site sewage treatment and di sposal systems, and construction sites.

Nonpoint Source Pollution: Nonpoint source pollution is created by the flushing of pollutants from the landscape by rainfall and the resulting stormwater runoff, or by the leaching of pollutants through the soils into the ground water.

Notice of Intent (NOI): The NOI provides formal notification to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) of the commitment to implement selected practices or best management practices (BMPs) from a Best Management Practice Program adopted by DACS. It is a form of registration with FDACS of the intention to participate in a particular BMP Program. Furthermore, the submittal of the NOI is required by law if participating landowners desire eligibility for the waiver of liability, the presumption of compliance with water quality standards, and cost share funds for BMP implementation.

Organic Matter: Carbonaceous waste contained in plant or animal matter and originating from

domestic or industrial sources.

Outfall: The place where a sewer, drain, or stream discharges.

Particulate: A minute separate particle, as of a granular substance or powder.

Pollutant Load Reduction Goals (PLRGs): PLRGs are defined as estimated numeric reductions in pollutant loadings needed to preserve or restore designated uses of receiving bodies of water and maintain water quality consistent with applicable state water quality standards. PLRGs are developed by the water management districts.

Point Source: An identifiable and confined discharge point for one or more water pollutants, such as a pipe, channel, vessel, or ditch.

Pollutant: Generally any substance, such as a chemical or waste product, introduced into the environment that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.

Pollutant Trading Policy Advisory Committee (PTPAC): A panel that includes experts in the field of pollutant trading and representatives of potentially affected parties. The committee was tasked to assist the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in preparing a report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House containing recommendations on rules for pollutant trading in Florida, including the proposed basis for equitable economically-based agreements and the tr acking and accounting of pollution credits

or other such mechanisms.

Pollution: An undesirable change in the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of air, water, soil, or food that can adversely affect the health, survival, or activities of humans or other living organisms.

174

### Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): Hydrocarbon compounds with multiple benzene rings. PAHs are typical components of asphalts, fuels, oils, and greases.

Regional Planning Council (RPC): A unit of government defined by the Florida Legislature that provides planning and technical services to local governments; the Northeast Regional Planning Council (NEFRPC) represents the local governments in the Lower St. Johns River

basin.

Removal efficiency: A description of how much of a given substance (metals, sediment, etc.)

has been extracted from another substance.

Retention Pond: A stormwater management structure whose primary purpose is to permanently store a given volume of Storm Water runoff, releasing it by infiltration and /or evaporation.

Reuse: The deliberate application of reclaimed water for a beneficial purpose. Criteria used to classify projects as “reuse” or “effluent disposal” are contained in Section 62-610.810, F.A.C.

Reverse Osmosis: Water treatment process which forces water through a semi-permeable membrane, under high pressure, to remove dissolved salts and other solutes.

Rough fish: A fish that is neither a sport fish nor an important food fish.

Runoff curve: A calculated number representing the percentage of rainfall which becomes runoff for a given area.

Quality Assurance (QA): An integrated system of management activities involving planning, implementation, documentation, assessment, reporting, and quality improvement to ensure that a process, product, or service meets defined standards of quality.

Quality Control (QC): The overall system of technical activities that measures the attributes and performance of a process, product, or service against defined standards to verify that they meet the established data quality objectives.

Secondary Treatment: Wastewater treatment to a level t hat will achieve the effluent limitations specified in Rule 62-600.429(1)(a), F.A.C. This generally involves a biological treatment process such as activated sludge for the removal of organic materials. Secondary treatment facilities generally are designed to achieve 90-percent reductions in CBOD5 and TSS and are operated to meet an annual average limit of 20 mg/L of CBOD5 and TSS.

Septic Tank: A watertight receptacle constructed to promote separation of solid and liquid components of wastewater, to provide limited digestion of organic matter, to store solids, and to allow clarified liquid to discharge for further treatment and disposal in a soil absorption system.

Silviculture: The science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of forests to meet diverse needs and values of landowners and society on a sustainable

basis.

Springs protection zones: A geographical area around a spring, in which land use and activities are limited, in order to reduce the pollutant load to the spring.

175

### Starting Points: The pollutant concentrations and flows used as a basis from which nutrient

reductions must be achieved.

STORET: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's STOrage and RETrieval database, used nationally for water quality data storage.

Stormwater: Water that results from a rainfall event.

Stormwater runoff: The portion of rainfall which hits the ground and is not evaporated, percolated or transpired into vegetation, but rather flows over the ground surface seeking a receiving water body.

Submersed: Growing or remaining under water.

Sub-basin: Hydrologic units within a watershed that function as a mini-watershed, the boundaries of which are defined by topography and drainage patterns.

Surface Water: Water upon the surface of the earth, whether contained in bounds created naturally or artificially or diffused. Water from natural springs is classified as surface water when it exits from the spring onto the earth’s surface.

Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Waterbody: A waterbody designated by statute or by a water management district fo r priority management to restore and maintain water quality, habitat, and other natural features of the waterbody. The Lower Basin has this special designation.

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs): The sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point sources and the load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. Prior to determining individual wasteload allocations and load allocations, the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody or waterbody segment can assimilate from all sources while still maintaining its designated use must first be calculated. TMDLs are based on the relationship between pollutants and in-stream water quality conditions.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Executive Committee: A committee appointed by the Department of Environmental Protection in July 2002 to advise the Department on issues specific to nutrient TMDL in the main stem of the Lower St. Johns River.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Stakeholders Group: An informal assembly that began meeting in 2001 to discuss technical issues related to the development of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Lower St. Johns Ri ver. The group expanded to provide a venue for public comment and general participation in the TMDL process; this group pre-dated the TMDL

Executive Committee.

Total Nitrogen (TN): TN is the combined measurement of nitrogen in nitrate (NO 3 

### ), nitrite (NO 2 

### ), ammonia, and organic nitrogen found in water. Nitrogen compounds function as important nutrients to many aquatic organisms and ar e essential to the chemical processes that
occur between land, air, and water. The most readily bio-available forms of nitrogen are ammonia and nitrate. These compounds, in conjunction with other nutrients, serve as an important base for primary productivity.

176

### Total Phosphorus (TP): TP is the combined measurement of phosphorus in phosphate (PO 4 

### ) and organic compounds found in water. TP is one of the primary nutrients that regulates algal and macrophyte growth in natural waters, particularly in fresh water. Phosphate, the form in which almost all TP is found in the water column, can enter the aquatic environment in a number of ways. Natural processes transport phosphate to water through atmospheric deposition, ground water percolation, and terrestrial runoff. Municipal treatment plants, industries, agriculture, and domestic activities also contribute to phosphate loading through direct discharge and natural transport mechanisms. The very high levels of TP in some ofFlorida’s streams and estuaries are usually caused by phosphate-mining and fertilizerprocessing activities.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS): The measurement of TSS consists of determining the dry weight of particulates in the water column. Both organic and inorganic materials contribute to

TSS in water.

Tri-County Agricultural Area: A region of high agricultural use in Northeast Florida that includes portions of Clay, Putnam, and St. Johns Counties, designated by the St Johns River Water Management District; special management efforts and funding are underway in this region.

Trophic State Index (TSI): The TSI measures the potential for algal or aquatic weed growth, and is used to indicate the water quality of lakes and estuaries. Its components include Total Nitrogen, TP, and chlorophyll.

Turbidity: The presence of suspended material such as clay, silt, finely divided organic material, plankton, and other inorganic material in the water.

Urban Area: Any area in the urban category of the SJRWMD Florida Land Use Land Cover Classification System.

Urbanized Area: Census Bureau classification for urban areas whose core census blocks have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and the surrounding census blocks have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile. This classification was used to

determine the boundaries for the Phase II MS4s.

Wasteload Allocations (WLAs): Pollutant loads allotted to existing and future point sources, such as discharges from industry and sewage facilities.

Wastewater: The combination of liquid and pollutants from residences, commercial buildings, industrial plants, and institutions, together with any ground water, surface runoff, or leachate that may be present.

Waterbody Identification (WBID) Numbers: WBIDs are numbers assigned to hydrologically based drainage areas within a river basin.

Water column: The water within a waterbody between the surface and sediments.

Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs) (pronounced “q-bells”): An effluent limitation, which may be more stringent than a technology-based effluent limitation, that has been determined necessary by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to ensure that water quality standards n a receiving body of water will not be violated.

177

### Water Quality Index: Determines the quality of Florida's streams, black waters, and springs. Categories include: water clarity, dissolved oxygen, oxygen-demanding substances, nutrients, bacteria, and macroinvertebrate diversity.

Water Quality Standards (WQSs): (1) Standards comprised of designated most beneficial uses (classification of water), the numeric and narrative criteria applied to the specific water use or classification, the Florida Anti-degradation Po licy, and the moderating provisions contained in Chapters 62-302 and 62-4, F.A.C. (2) State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient standards for waterbodies. The standards prescribe the use of the waterbody (such as drinking, fishing and swimming, and shellfish harvesting) and establish the water quality criteria that must be met to protect designated uses.

Watershed: Topographic area that contributes or may contribute runoff to specific surface waters or an area of recharge.

Watershed management approach: The process of addressing water quality concerns within their natural boundaries, rather than political or regulatory boundaries. The process draws together all the participants and stakeholders in each basin to decide what problems affect the water quality in the basin, which are most important, and how they will be addressed.

Wet Season: The rainy part of the year; in the Lower St. Johns Basin the wet season is defined as June through October.

178

# Appendix K: B IBLIOGRAPHY OF 

# K EY 

# R EFERENCES AND 

# W EBSITES



## R EFERENCES 

## :

Adamus, C.L., and M.L. Bergman. 1995. Estimating nonpoint source pollution loads with a GIS screening model. Water Resources Bulletin 31(4):647–655. Bergman, M. J. 1992. Lower St. Johns River Basin Reconnaissance: Surface Water Hydrology. Vol. 2. St. Johns River Water Management District. Technical Publication SJ 92–1. Bricker, S.B, C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G. Farrow. September 1999. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the

Nation’s Estuaries. National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 71pp. Burkholder, J.M., and H.B. Glasgow, Jr. 1997a. Pfiesteria piscicida and other Pfiesteria -like dinoflagellates: Behavior, impacts, and environmental controls. Limnology & Oceanography 42(5, part 2):1052-1075. Brody, R. W. 1994. Lower St. Johns River Basin Reconnaissance: Biological Resources. Volume 6. Palatka, Florida: St. Johns River Water Management District. Technical

Publication SJ 94–2. Campbell, D., M. Bergman, R. Brody, A. Keller, P. Livingston-Way, F. Morris, and B. Watkins. January 1993. Lower St. Johns River Basin SWIM Plan . St. Johns River Water Management District. Cerco, C., and T. Cole. 1993. Three-dimensional eutrophication model of Chesapeake Bay

. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 119:1006-1025. Donigan, A.S. and W.C. Huber. 1991. Modeling of nonpoint source water quality in urban and non-urban areas. EPA/600/3-91/039. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. Environmental Protection Agency. August 1, 2001. The National Costs of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program - Draft Report. Environmental Protection Agency. March 2003. Elements of a State Water Monitoring and Assessment Program . EPA 841-B-03-003. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

• 2001. A Report to the Governor and the Legislature on the Allocation of Total Maximum Daily Loads in Florida

.

• 2002. Basin Status Report: Lower St. Johns

.

• 2004. Water Quality Assessment Report: Lower St. Johns

. Florida Department of Environmental Pr otection and St. Johns River Water Management

District. 2001. Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads and Pollution Load Reduction Goals for the Lower St. Johns River Basin: Plan of Study . Palatka, Florida. Floyd, S.S., E.M. Irwin, and D.A. Evans, editors. 1997. Florida statistical abstract. University of
Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Res earch. Gainesville: University Presses of

Florida.
Hamrick, J.M. 1992. A three-dimensional environmental fluid dynamics computer code: Theoretical and computational aspects . Special Report 317. College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, Virginia. Hendrickson, J. February 27, 2002. St. Johns River Water Management District. Personal

Communication. Hendrickson, J., C. Fall, J. Cox, and H. Gottgens. 1985. Surface Water Quality in Areas of Intensive Agriculture: Putnam County, Florida . Putnam Soil and Water Conservation

District.

179

### Hendrickson, J. and C. Hart. 2007. Determination of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Non-Point

Source Loads for Urban Stormwater Jurisdictions of the Lower St. Johns River Basin

. St. Johns River Water Management District.
Hendrickson, J., and J. Konwinski. 1998. Seasonal Nutrient Import-Export Budgets for the Lower St. Johns River, Florida . Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Janicki, A. and G. Morrison. 2000. Developing a Trophic State Index for Florida’s Estuaries. Submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Janicki Environmental, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida. Maher, J. February 25, 2002. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Personal

Communication.
Morris, F. W., IV. 1995. Lower St. Johns River Basin Reconnaissance: Hydrodynamics and Salinity of Surface Water . Volume 3. St. Johns River Water Management District.

Technical Publication SJ 95-9. Phlips, E.J., M. Cichra, F.J. Aldridge, J. Jembeck, J. Hendrickson, and R. Brody. June 2000. Light availability and variations in phytoplankton standing crops in a nutrient-rich

blackwater river. Limnology & Oceanography 45(4):916–929. St. Johns River Water Management District:

• 1999. District Water Management Plan (Draft) . Palatka, Florida.

• 2000. Land Acquisition and Management 2000 Five Year Plan

. Sucsy, P., and J. Hendrickson. 2004. Calculation of nutrient reduction goals for the Lower St. Johns River by application of CE-QUAL-ICM, a mechanistic water quality model

. Department of Water Resources, St. Johns River Water Management District, Palatka,

Florida. Sucsy, P.V., and F.W. Morris. 2002. Calibration of a three-dimensional circulation and mixing

model of the Lower St. Johns River . Technical Memorandum No., Draft 1.1. St. Johns River Water Management District. Tillman, D., Cerco, C., Noel, M., Martin, J., and Hamrick, J. (2004). Three-dimensional eutrophication model of the lower St. Johns River, Florida . ERDC TR-04-xx, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Winkler, S. and A. Ceric. 2006. 2004 Status and Trends in Water Quality at Selected Sites in the St. Johns River Water Management District . St. Johns River Water Management

District. Technical Publication SJ2006-6.



## W EBSITES 

## :

T ABLE 

### K-1: S TORMWATER AND 

### W ATER 

### Q UALITY 

### P ROTECTION 

### W EBSITES



### L OCAL AND 

### R EGIONAL 

### S ITES
St. Johns County http://www.co.st-johns.fl.us/BCC/Utility_Depa rtment/Water_Quality_Reports/index.aspx http://www.co.st-johns.fl.us/BCC/Public_Works /Engineering_Services/Stormwater/index.aspx City of Jacksonville http://www.coj.net/Departments/Environmental+and+Compliance/Environmental+Quality/Water +Quality.htm

St. Johns River Alliance http://stjohnsriveralliance.com/ SJRWMD Programs

Outreach information http://sjr.state.fl.us/programs/programs.html http://sjr.state.fl.us/programs/outreach/overview.html



### S TATE 

### S ITES

General Portal for Florida http://www.myflorida.com

DEP Watershed Management TMDL Program BMPs, public information, NPDES Stormwater Program NPS funding assistance http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/index.htm http://www.dep.state.fl.u s/water/tmdl/index.htm http://www.dep.state.fl.u s/water/nonpoint/pubs.htm http://www.dep.state.fl.us/wate r/stormwater/npdes/index.htm http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/319h.htm

180181 LSJR Basin Water Quality Assessment Report http://www.dep.state.fl.us/wate r/basin411/sj_lower/assessment.htm DACS Office of Agricultural Water Policy http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/ DACS Division of Forestry http://www.fl-dof.com University of Florida/

Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences http://lake.ifas.ufl.edu/



### N

ATIONAL 

### S ITES

Center for Watershed

Protection http://www.cwp.org/

National Hurricane Center: http://www.nhc.gov

US EPA Office of Wate r EPA Region 4 (SE US) Clean Water Act history http://www.epa.gov/water http://www.epa.gov/region4 http://www.epa.gov/Region5/water/cwa.htm United States Geological Survey: Florida Waters http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/reports/fl oridawaters/#options