Florida’s Total Maximum Daily Load Program: the First 5 Years 

A Report to the Legislature and Governor 

Division of Water Resource Management 

Mimi Drew, Director 

February 2005 
2

Florida’s Total Maximum Daily Load Program: The First Five Years 

A Report to the Legislature and Governor 

Executive Summary 

The Watershed Restoration Act of 1999 (s. 403.067, F. S.) directs the Department of Environmental Protection to 

scientifically evaluate the quality of Florida’s surface waters and promote the mechanisms necessary to clean up 

pollution. The Act was created specifically to implement the federal Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program, 

which is a systematic approach to establishing how much pollution water bodies can assimilate while still meeting 

water quality standards. The Act directs the DEP to report to the Governor and legislature after five years on the 

implementation of the TMDL program and recommend statutory changes necessary to improve it. 

To streamline the TMDL program, DEP adopted a five-year cycle that divides Florida into five groups of surface 

water basins in which different activities take place each year; the cycle is reiterated continuously to evaluate the 

success of clean-up efforts, refine water quality protection strategies, and account for the changes brought about by 

Florida’s rapid growth and development. Activities include preliminary basin assessments; identification of 

pollutant-impaired waters; targeted water quality monitoring and data analysis; TMDL development and adoption; 

basin planning with local stakeholders to establish the actions necessary to reduce pollution; and implementation 

through regulatory actions, funding, pollution prevention strategies, and other measures. 

Since passage of the Watershed Restoration Act, DEP has adopted an Impaired Waters Rule, which establishes the 

methods by which surface waters are evaluated and the need for TMDLs is determined. The principles established 

in that rule were endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences in 2001 after its review of the nationwide TMDL 

program. The agency has publicly adopted verified lists of impaired waters for two of the five groups of surface 

water basins in Florida and is now developing the list for Group 3. 

DEP has developed and adopted, by rule, 52 TMDLs as of December 2004; another 61 TMDLs have been proposed 

or are in draft (see Attachment 1), all of which must also be adopted by rule. More than 1,000 additional TMDLs 

are anticipated. Across the state, DEP has held 136 formal public meetings to introduce local stakeholders to the 

TMDL program, the watershed management cycle, the way water bodies are evaluated, and what they can do to help 

protect their local water resources. Another 150 basin “focus meetings” and presentations to local governments 

along with innumerable individual contacts and small-group gatherings have been conducted to broadcast the 

benefits of the TMDL program, solicit information and ideas from local stakeholders, and identify local leaders who 

will motivate others to act in cleaning up impaired waterways. 

At the same time, DEP has worked with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the 

state’s five water management districts to improve the mechanisms local governments, utilities, industries, and 

agricultural operations can use to implement pollution reductions and improve water quality. Perhaps most 

significantly, these efforts are leading to the development and adoption of a full range of agricultural and nonagricultural best management practices to prevent the pollution that historically has come from these “nonpoint” and 

generally unregulated sources. DEP has instituted verification methods by which to determine the effectiveness of 

these practices in reducing pollutant loading and protecting water quality. The Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services has invested significant resources in this effort and is making real progress in targeting best 

management practices to particular agricultural commodity groups and demonstrating why it is in their best longterm economic and social interests to implement them. 

DEP has invested approximately $17.5 million to date on research and development of non-agricultural best 

management practices and implementation of targeted monitoring expressly for the TMDL program. The bulk of 

this funding has come from Documentary Stamp revenues that DEP splits with the Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services, which uses its split to develop and implement agricultural best management practices. DEP has 

awarded another $26 million in federal section 319 grants to local governments to implement better urban 

stormwater treatment projects and practices, which can be exploited by other local governments across Florida. The 

investments DEP has made in other water quality monitoring efforts, its implementation of more traditional 

regulatory programs, and the more than $120 million the agency awards in State Revolving Fund loans to local 
3

governments each year have also fostered early successes in the TMDL program, as have the critical surface water 

restoration efforts of the regional water management districts. 

The first five years of TMDL implementation also have fleshed out issues that could not have been fully anticipated 

when the Watershed Restoration Act of 1999 was adopted. This report sets forth those issues in some detail, 

identifies the solutions DEP has implemented under existing authority, and offers for consideration a few 

modifications to the Act that would improve the TMDL program. Those considerations include: 

• Formally recognizing basin planning and making adopted basin plans enforceable to promote the 

“reasonable and equitable” allocation of pollutant load reductions among all pollutant sources that already 

is required by law.

• Authorizing the refinement of TMDLs in adopted basin plans, where necessary.

• Clearly establishing the legal relationship between basin plans and related permits.

• Modifying the best management practice verification process to make it more flexible and effective. 

• Authorizing DEP to adopt pollutant trading rules after reporting to the legislature and Governor the results 

of its evaluation of pollutant trading. 

Finally, the report reviews operational funding for the TMDL program over the last three years and recommends 

that future funding be considered to promote successful completion of the mandates and opportunities created by the 

Watershed Restoration Act of 1999. 

For more detailed information on the TMDL program, watershed management, and related activities discussed in 

this report, please visit the DEP website at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm. Specific information on best 

management practices also is available from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services at 

www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com and from DEP at www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/index.htm.
4

Florida’s Total Maximum Daily Load Program: The First Five Years 

Introduction 

The Florida legislature adopted s. 403.067, F. S., the Watershed Restoration Act of 1999, 

authorizing the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to assess the quality of Florida’s 

surface waters, identify pollutant-impaired waters, develop mechanisms to clean them up, and 

work with other agencies and local stakeholders to finance and implement those mechanisms. 

The law requires DEP to prioritize impaired waters for clean-up and develop and adopt by rule 

scientifically-based pollutant reduction objectives—Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)—

that can be accomplished in a reasonable and equitable manner. It further directs DEP to 

promote, in conjunction with Florida’s water management districts, the Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services, local governments, and other affected parties, the specific 

mechanisms to accomplish the pollutant reductions necessary to meet the TMDL. 

Each TMDL represents the capacity of a surface water body or water body segment to assimilate 

a specific pollutant or pollutants while still meeting water quality standards; it identifies how 

many pounds of that pollutant (metals, nitrogen, bacteria, etc.) can be discharged to the water 

body without impairing its designated uses, whether for fishing, swimming, shellfish harvesting, 

or as a safe source of drinking water. Each TMDL requires the gathering and analysis of a 

substantial amount of data, meeting rigorous quality assurance specifications, as well as 

extensive computer modeling. And, as noted, every TMDL must be adopted through Florida’s 

public rulemaking process and subsequently given meaning through detailed planning and 

pragmatic implementation strategies. 

Because the TMDL program was, for practical purposes, new in 1999 and the Watershed 

Restoration Act created a variety of complicated requirements and administrative processes, the 

legislature required DEP to report to the Governor and legislature after five years, as follows: 

The department, coordinating with the water management districts and the 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shall evaluate the 

effectiveness of the implementation of total maximum daily loads for a period of 5 

years from the effective date of this act. The department shall document that 

effectiveness, using all data and information at its disposal, in a report to the 

Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives by January 1, 2005. The report shall provide specific 

recommendations for statutory changes necessary to implement total maximum 

daily loads more effectively, including the development or expansion of pollution 

prevention and pollutant trading opportunities, and best management practices. 

The report shall also provide recommendations for statutory changes relating to 

pollutant sources which are not subject to permitting under chapter 403, Florida 

Statutes, or chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and which do not implement the 

nonregulatory practices or other measures outlined in the basin plan prepared 

under s. 403.067, Florida Statutes, in accordance with the schedule of the plan, or 

fail to implement them as designed. [Section 6 of Chapter 99-223, Laws of 

Florida.]
5

This report provides background information along with a summary of the fundamental actions 

taken to date to assess impaired rivers, lakes, and estuaries; develop and adopt TMDLs; and 

begin the local planning efforts and follow-through necessary to clean up polluted waterways. 

The TMDL program has been successful in fulfilling the initial objectives of the Watershed 

Restoration Act. Because of the extensive time and effort necessary to accomplish these 

objectives, however, actual on-the-ground local implementation of TMDLs lies largely in the 

future. DEP’s efforts to date have allowed the agency to identify several problems in 

implementing the law that were not apparent at the time of its adoption. The report documents 

those problems and sets forth recommendations to improve the TMDL program’s effectiveness 

at restoring Florida’s impaired surface waters and protecting them for the future. 

The Watershed Approach 

The Watershed Restoration Act and the rules DEP has subsequently adopted are intended to 

identify Florida’s surface waters impaired by pollutants; establish scientifically-based pollutant 

reduction objectives (TMDLs); develop locally-based plans to reduce pollutants as determined 

necessary by the TMDL; and promote the physical and financial mechanisms necessary to 

implement those plans. The scope of this mandate is both enormous—given 52,000 miles of 

rivers and streams, nearly 800 lakes, 4,500 square miles of estuaries, more than 700 springs, and 

17 million people and growing—and complicated. 

Given this challenge, DEP has developed a phased approach to implementing the law. DEP’s 

comprehensive “watershed management” strategy views the state based on its natural 

boundaries, like river and estuary basins, rather than political boundaries. These naturallybounded areas have been organized into five “groups” of basins (see the color-coded map 

below). In 2000, DEP began addressing the first group of basins (Group 1) and continues to 

initiate activities in a new group (Groups 2 through 5) each year over a five-year cycle to cover 

the entire state. The five-year cycle will then begin again in the Group 1 basins and continue 

through Groups 2-5 to re-evaluate the status of impaired waters, determine the successes and 

problems associated with ongoing activities, make necessary changes, and consider and address 

new circumstances associated with growth and development. The cycle will be repeated 

methodically and continuously over time. 

Dividing the state this way has allowed DEP efficiently to manage different activities in each of 

the water body groupings leading to the development and, ultimately, implementation of TMDLs 

throughout Florida. The general sequence of the five-year cycle is as follows: 

1. Preliminary basin assessment focusing on existing data. 

2. Strategic water quality monitoring to obtain additional detailed scientific evidence of 

water quality conditions and adoption of basin-specific verified lists of impaired waters. 

3. Data analysis and TMDL development and adoption where impairment exists. 

4. Development of a Basin Management Action Plan, in conjunction with local 

stakeholders, to allocate, among the local sources of pollution, reductions necessary to 

meet the TMDL. 

5. Implementation of the TMDL. 
6

As noted, the sequence illustrated below generally will take five years and will be repeated 

continuously to refine what is known about the basin and evaluate success in restoring impaired 

waters. 

DEP 

District 

Group 1 

Basins 

Group 2 

Basins 

Group 3 

Basins 

Group 4 

Basins 

Group 5 

Basins 

NW 

OchlockoneeSt. Marks Apalachicola-Chipola 

ChoctawhatcheeSt.Andrews Bay Pensacola Bay Perdido Bay 

NE Suwannee Lower St. Johns 

N/A 

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 Bay-PeaceMyakka Withlacoochee Springs Coast 

S 

Everglades West 

Coast Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee Fisheating Creek Florida Keys 

SE Lake Okeechobee St.Lucie-Loxahatchee 

Lake Worth LagoonPalm Beach Coast 

Southeast Coast 

Biscayne Bay Everglades 
7

To date, DEP has held formal public meetings in each of these basins, with the exception of 

Perdido Bay, the Florida Keys, and the Everglades, which are yet to come. There have so far 

been 136 public meetings in these basins designed to introduce local citizens and other 

stakeholders to the TMDL program, the watershed management cycle, the way water bodies are 

evaluated, and what they can do to help protect their local water resources. Some of these 

meetings, in areas where watershed activities have progressed further, have addressed the results 

of water quality monitoring and which waters appear to be impaired. Public meetings also have 

taken place when information to prepare a draft TMDL has been compiled and is ready for 

discussion. Every TMDL is subject to public hearing before it is adopted. During the long-term 

(sometimes one to two years) expected to develop the basin plan after adoption of a TMDL, 

more public meetings will be conducted to keep watershed stakeholders and interested parties 

informed and involved. 

Listing of Impaired Waters 

Water Body Classifications and Water Quality Criteria

The foundation for identifying and prioritizing impaired surface waters is Florida’s water body 

classification and water quality standards system. “Impaired waters” are those that do not meet 

standards as a result of human-created pollutants. The state’s water quality standards system was 

initiated in the early 1970s in response to passage of the federal Clean Water Act and, generally, 

was developed to safely authorize discharges from obvious “point sources” of pollution like 

domestic and industrial wastewater facilities. In the early 1970s, there was no clear 

understanding of how, comprehensively, to evaluate overall water quality or protect whole 

aquatic ecosystems from all sources of pollution, which are the exact objectives of the Watershed 

Restoration Act of 1999. This contradiction of older standards and newer mandates has led to a 

number of dilemmas, among them: 

• Most Florida waterways are identified as Class III, “fishable and swimmable.” It has 

become clear in recent years that this classification, which includes rivers, streams, lakes 

and estuaries as well as wetlands, urban drainage ditches, urban lakes, and canal systems, 

is too broad. Some of these water bodies or water body types never did and indeed 

should not be expected to provide the same quality of “swimmable or fishable” recreation 

as others. 

• Florida’s freshwater dissolved oxygen (DO) criterion requires oxygen levels in surface 

waters to be at or above five milligrams per liter (5 mg/l) at all times at all places, 

ostensibly in an effort to protect water quality. In fact, wetlands, springs, drainage 

ditches, and canals do not typically exist, whether naturally or as artificially created, with 

DO levels as high as 5 mg/l, often because of the significant inflow of low-oxygen 

ground water into surface waters. In effect, some water bodies are being required to meet 

unnatural conditions or conditions that are not otherwise caused by pollutants. 

• The state’s criteria for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous, for example) are narrative 

rather than numeric, which on occasion has led to differing interpretations by third parties 

on DEP’s determination as to whether a water body is impaired by excessive nutrients. 

• As noted in the introduction to this section, water quality standards were developed 

primarily to address regulation of point sources of pollution and they are applied, 
8

typically, at the end of the discharge pipe, to be met at all times. It is not possible to 

apply this same logic to entire rivers, lakes, streams, estuaries, and other surface waters, 

the conditions of which vary naturally over distance and time, and which simply will not 

meet every water quality criterion at every moment in every location. 

Florida’s existing surface water quality standards are the benchmark against which DEP must 

measure water body impairment and determine whether TMDLs, and subsequent clean-up 

actions, are necessary. The circumstances just outlined have required DEP to list as impaired 

some water bodies that likely are not, in fact, impaired. The result is that DEP may have to 

develop and adopt unnecessary TMDLs, which others will have to expend significant money to 

implement, wasting limited resources and diverting attention from real water quality problems. 

This dilemma is further compounded by the fact that the initial (1998) impaired waters listing for 

Florida was based on the state’s 1996 Florida Water Quality Assessment [or 305(b) Report]. 

That federally required report was prepared using the best information available at the time to 

generally characterize the quality of Florida’s waters; it was not designed to establish TMDL 

priorities and some of the older data are clearly inadequate for this purpose. Nevertheless, the 

1998 list was incorporated into a 1999 Consent Decree between the Environmental Protection 

Agency and Earthjustice—to which Florida was not a party—that imposed a 13-year schedule 

for development of more than 2,000 specific TMDLs in Florida. 

In passing the Florida Watershed Restoration Act of 1999, the legislature prohibited use of the 

1998 impaired waters list for any regulatory purpose and further required DEP to develop and 

adopt by rule a scientific methodology for developing future impaired waters lists. These were 

reasonable and defensible requirements; however, DEP must cope with the legacy of the 1998 

list and the fact that the EPA bases its review of and challenges to Florida’s subsequent impaired 

waters lists on that original list and on its posture with respect to the Consent Decree. 

Florida’s Impaired Waters Rule

On April 16, 2001 Florida’s Environmental Regulation Commission approved chapter 62-303, 

F.A.C., Identification of Impaired Surface Waters. The rule was developed after extensive 

consultation with a wide range of expert outside advisors and vetted in a variety of public 

workshops and hearings and coordinated with EPA Region 4 to assure it would be consistent 

with federal law. The rule has been under litigation since adoption, having survived intact all 

legal challenges and appeals at the state level. (These challenges have all come from the same 

entity, the Clean Water Network.) One federal case remains pending. Beyond this legal support, 

the rule’s scientific approach to identifying and listing impaired waters was conceptually 

endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences in 2001 after its review of the nationwide TMDL 

program required by Congress. [See Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality 

Management (2001), available at http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10146.html.] 

The rule provides for developing a planning list, to include those waters that may not be 

meeting water quality standards but for which sufficient scientific data are not available to judge; 

and a verified list, to include waters determined based on sufficient, reliable data to be failing 

water quality standards because of specific pollutants from human sources. The verified lists are 
9

publicly adopted, subject to administrative challenge, for each of the 29 basins into which DEP 

has divided the state as part of its watershed management cycle. TMDLs must be developed and 

adopted for each instance of impairment identified on the verified lists. DEP must submit the 

verified lists to EPA for approval. Each water body on the planning list is further monitored to 

establish whether it truly is impaired. As suggested above, the planning list includes many 

remnants of the original (1998) impaired waters list. 

The fundamental distinction between the planning and verified lists is the availability of reliable 

water quality data to determine impairment. Where data are absent or unreliable, DEP cannot, 

by law, list the water as verifiably impaired and must secure additional data. DEP works with 

Florida’s five water management districts and some 70 local governments and other entities 

throughout Florida that routinely collect ambient water quality data. It is difficult to capture and 

qualify such a massive amount of information, and DEP is continually working on database 

improvements to streamline the process and encourage more data collectors to timely upload 

their data. 

Environmental Protection Agency Oversight

As noted in the preceding section, DEP coordinated development of the Impaired Waters Rule 

with EPA and, in fact, secured EPA’s written support. However, in the more than three years of 

impaired waters list development since then, EPA has repeatedly added waters to the state’s 

verified list, for which TMDLs must then be completed. EPA has added waters to Florida’s 

verified list, among other instances, when: 

• DEP has been unable to identify a causative (man-induced) pollutant and for which the 

water quality condition may be natural; 

• When DEP has determined data to be insufficient to warrant a conclusive determination 

but EPA has concluded otherwise; and 

• Based on EPA’s interpretation of information from the federal Food and Drug 

Administration’s shellfish sanitation program that is inconsistent with Florida’s 

interpretation of the causes of impairment. 

DEP has been negotiating these complicated issues with EPA for three years, with incremental 

progress to date, but negotiations continue in good faith. On a hopeful note, Florida is evaluating 

potential changes to its water quality standards, related to the issues identified in “Water Body 

Classifications and Water Quality Criteria,” above, to better distinguish naturally occurring 

conditions from true pollution likely, which should resolve some of the disagreements. 

In the meantime, it must be acknowledged that the differences between DEP and EPA over the 

listing process will confuse the public and regulated entities because of its occasional, but not 

insignificant, inconsistency. When EPA adds waters to Florida’s list, it creates an expectation 

that specific water quality improvements will have to be financed and undertaken in those areas 

when, in fact, the data may not support that conclusion. The whole purpose of DEP’s planning 

list is to avoid this circumstance, to create contingent waters in need of further data gathering and 

investigation to resolve uncertainties, and to avoid diverting attention away from waters that are 

demonstrably impaired and in need of restoration. 
10

Development of TMDLs 

Impaired Waters Listing

DEP divided the state into 29 basins to manage the evaluation of water body impairment, the 

development and implementation of TMDLs, and the assessment of progress. To date, DEP has 

adopted Verified Lists of Impaired Waters for Groups 1 and 2, with Group 3 now in 

development. The primary pollutants that are causing the impairment of Florida’s surface waters 

include: 

• Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which promote the growth of algae and other 

aquatic plants that cause wide swings in oxygen levels and lead to fish kills and damaged 

habitat. 

• Bacteria, which may threaten public health and can close waters to swimming or shellfish 

harvesting. 

• Metals, such as iron, silver, copper, cadmium, and zinc that adversely affect the health 

and reproduction of aquatic organisms. 

• Mercury, based largely on the existence of Department of Health fish consumption 

advisories. (It generally is agreed that mercury is predominately the result of atmospheric 

deposition, but the relative contributions of local, regional and even global sources 

remains the subject of debate.) 

The table below lists the pollutants most often identified as responsible for causing water body 

impairment during the development of the Groups 1 and 2 lists. 

Pollutants Number of Water Body Segments Impaired 

Nutrients 373 segments 

Bacteria 236 segments 

Metals 61 segments 

Mercury (fish tissue) 40 segments 

There is no reason to expect a significant difference in the relative relationships among pollutants 

after DEP completes evaluation of the basins in Groups 3, 4 and 5. 

TMDLs Adopted to Date

DEP has adopted, by rule, 52 TMDLs as of December 2004. Another 61 TMDLs have been 

proposed or are in draft. The status of these TMDLs is identified in Attachment 1. As outlined 

earlier, Florida law authorizes DEP to adopt TMDLs only for waters verified as impaired based 

on specific scientific evidence. However, the Consent Decree between EPA and Earthjustice 

requires EPA to ensure timely development of all TMDLs identified in the decree, including 

many that Florida would not adopt under state law because documentation is problematic or 

inconclusive. For these waters, including any waters that EPA adds to Florida’s impaired waters 

list, the federal agency must propose (if not necessarily adopt) TMDLs. As suggested during the 

specific discussion of impaired waters listing, this complicated relationship creates confusion for 

the public and regulated entities and makes implementation of the TMDL program difficult. 
11

TMDL Development Problems

Beyond the conundrum just outlined, with EPA requiring waters to be listed as impaired that 

DEP cannot list pursuant to Florida law, several other problems have arisen associated with the 

development and adoption of TMDLs. These include: 

• The EPA-Earthjustice Consent Decree’s binding schedule for TMDL development makes 

it difficult to conduct the comprehensive watershed assessments necessary to establish 

TMDLs, even for some water bodies DEP has identified as impaired. Consequently, 

DEP must sometimes choose to adopt premature TMDLs to enable EPA to comport with 

the Consent Decree or defer to EPA to develop these TMDLs—which DEP will later 

have to redo and adopt pursuant to the requirements of Florida law.

• On a related note, even when sufficient time exists to establish the assimilative capacity 

of a water body, the timeframes in the federal Consent Decree often preclude developing 

an appropriate allocation of pollutant load reductions as part of the TMDL, as required by 

EPA. More time often is needed to accurately determine loadings from all point and 

nonpoint sources of pollution within a watershed and work with basin stakeholders to 

develop and allocate the reasonable and equitable reductions required by state law. 

• TMDLs are required only to abate pollutants from anthropogenic (man-made) activities. 

Bacteria and dissolved oxygen levels in certain Florida waterways may appear to reflect 

impairment upon superficial consideration but, in fact, represent naturally occurring 

conditions. Ideally, a water body would not be listed as impaired until after the apparent 

“pollution” has been determined to be man-made. The Consent Decree deadlines once 

again make it impossible in some instances to conduct this necessary level of evaluation 

until after a TMDL has been adopted, whether by EPA or DEP.

The State of Florida cannot, of course, change the federal Consent Decree to make its schedule 

comport with the Florida Watershed Restoration Act. However, revisions DEP is considering to 

Florida’s water quality standards, through rulemaking, should relieve some of the complications 

just identified. DEP also recommends that consideration be given to authorizing DEP to adopt 

all or part of a Basin Management Action Plan (discussed in more detail, below) to allow a final 

TMDL allocation to be developed as part of the basin plan rather than at the time of initial 

TMDL adoption, when adequate time may not be available. 

TMDL Allocations 

Once a TMDL for an impaired water body has been developed, the allowable pollutant loads and 

necessary load reductions from point and nonpoint source dischargers must be determined so that 

their implementation, in conjunction with other management and restoration activities, will 

enable attainment of water quality standards. Many factors must, by law, be considered in these 

allocations, among them: existing treatment and management practices; available treatment 

technologies and other pollution reduction measures; economic factors, including cost-benefit 

considerations; and reasonable timeframes necessary to implement pollution reductions. 
12

Pollutant Load Allocations

Because a TMDL represents the assimilative capacity of a surface water body to withstand 

pollutants, it must identify how many pounds of specific pollutants can be “discharged” while 

still allowing the water body to meet its designated uses. In concept, at least, the reasonable and 

equitable allocation of the pollutant load reductions required to meet the TMDL is part of its 

implementation phase. However, because EPA requires the initial TMDL to include such 

allocations, DEP must sometimes establish a preliminary (and often premature) allocation when 

the TMDL is first adopted, refining it later through the development of a local Basin 

Management Action Plan. 

The preliminary allocation, then, is typically broad, addressing individual point sources 

(wastewater treatment facilities, for example) but treating nonpoint sources (agriculture, urban 

stormwater, septic tanks, etc.) as a whole, with no distinction among these nonpoint sources. In 

some cases, the initial allocation will be too broad to be useful. The final allocation arrived at 

through the local Basin Management Action Planning process is necessary to establish the fair 

and equitable allocation of pollutant load reductions and must identify individual point source 

dischargers and each nonpoint source discharger or category of dischargers. 

Through this basin planning process, DEP and local stakeholders collect the additional data 

necessary to refining pollutant loading estimates. Better information allows full consideration of 

the reasonable and equitable factors for allocating pollutant load reductions specified in the 

Watershed Restoration Act. Because the final allocation developed as part of the Basin 

Management Action Plan may differ from the preliminary allocation included in the initially 

adopted TMDL, consideration should be given to modifying the Watershed Restoration Act to 

allow formal adoption of all or part of a Basin Management Action Plan in the event substantive 

changes to an initial TMDL or its allocation are necessary. 

Allocation Report to the Legislature

The approach DEP is taking in the pollutant load allocation process is based largely on the issues 

summarized in the agency’s January 2001 “Report to the Governor and Legislature on the 

Allocation of Total Maximum Daily Loads in Florida.” The report outlined several critical 

considerations that the agency has been implementing to the extent possible under current law: 

• Level the playing field between point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Point sources 

have spent billions of dollars over the past 25 years to provide high levels of treatment or 

eliminate their discharges to surface waters and reuse (reclaim) the water. There is no 

equivalent record of success with nonpoint sources. Therefore, DEP has focused initial 

pollutant load reduction strategies on nonpoint sources. 

• Pollutant sources generally should reduce in proportion to what they contribute. 

• Pollutant loadings should be reduced in the most cost-effective manner. 

In order to promote the most cost-effective opportunities to accomplish necessary pollution 

reductions in a basin, consideration must be given to pollutant trading. Trading is based on the 

fact that sources in a watershed may confront very different costs to control the same pollutant. 
13

Trading programs allow facilities facing higher pollution control costs to meet pollution 

reduction obligations by purchasing environmentally equivalent (or superior) reductions from 

other sources at lower cost, thus achieving equal or better water quality protection at a lower 

overall cost. Given the disparities between point and nonpoint sources of pollution, both in 

characteristics and resources, it is unlikely that the Watershed Restoration Act can be fully 

realized without an equitable and rational system of pollutant trading. Such trading is not 

currently authorized by Florida law although it is envisioned. DEP has engaged a Pollutant 

Trading Policy Advisory Committee to evaluate the opportunities and pitfalls of trading. 

Consideration should be given to amending the law to authorize DEP to adopt pollutant trading 

requirements, by rule, after reporting to the legislature and Governor the results of its evaluation. 

Basin Management Action Plans

A Basin Management Action Plan, like the implementation plan developed for Lake Okeechobee 

discussed below (“TMDL Implementation”), sets forth the various projects, programs, and other 

activities to be undertaken by basin stakeholders to reduce pollutant loading and restore the 

beneficial uses of an impaired water body. It refines the pollutant load allocations that may only 

generally have been addressed in the TMDL and equitably allocates the reductions among the 

maximum possible number of pollutant sources in the basin. The plan attempts to integrate 

appropriate management strategies and provide for phased implementation of these strategies to 

promote timely, cost-effective actions. 

Plans must be developed with the active participation of basin stakeholders, including affected 

point and nonpoint source dischargers, representatives from local governments, the Department 

of Agriculture and Consumer Services, agricultural commodity groups, the local water 

management district, area businesses and industries, homeowner groups, and environmental 

groups. It is this stakeholder involvement that must achieve buy-in for the often extensive, 

expensive actions that will have to be undertaken to reduce pollutant loadings and restore water 

quality. Because stakeholder involvement—and commitment to act—is essential, DEP already 

has devoted considerable staff and time and resources in conducting nearly 300 formal basin 

meetings and presentations along with hundreds of other contacts with individuals, elected 

officials, utility managers, farmers, environmental groups, and professional organizations. 

Beyond laying out specific actions that are necessary to improve water quality and agreeing on 

responsibilities, these meetings are designed to identify and energize local leaders who will 

motivate others to act. 

TMDL Implementation 

Regulated vs. Unregulated Sources of Pollution

In using the Basin Management Action Planning process to establish refined pollutant load 

allocations and identify the responsible parties for bringing about reductions, it is critical to 

distinguish between regulated and unregulated sources of those pollutants. Regulated sources, 

which are subject to permitting or other similar authorizations, typically are “point sources,” 

those discharges to surface waters typically having a continuous flow via a discrete conveyance, 

such as a pipe—domestic and industrial wastewater treatment facilities, as examples. On the 
14

other hand, “nonpoint sources” of pollutants are characterized as intermittent, rainfall driven, and 

diffuse, associated with everyday activities, including runoff from urban areas, agriculture, 

forestry, mining, septic tanks, and atmospheric deposition. Historically, these nonpoint source 

activities have not been regulated. Nonpoint sources also include pollution resulting from the 

things people do every day, often without thinking, like mismanaging household pesticides, 

fertilizers, and yard trash, and wasting water. 

More recently, some formerly nonpoint pollution sources have been redefined by Congress as 

point sources, subject to regulation under the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Program, the same federal program that regulates wastewater treatment facility 

discharges to surface waters. These sources include urban stormwater discharges from larger 

local government master drainage systems, stormwater from construction sites over one acre and 

certain industry sectors, and various animal feeding operations. 

 

Wastewater Permits

Implementation of TMDLs for wastewater facilities should be fairly straightforward, with 

specific permit effluent limits based on the pollutant loadings established in the TMDL or Basin 

Management Action Plan. Whether to impose these limits immediately or wait until the 

facility’s permit comes up for renewal will require case-by-case decisions. In general, permits 

would be “re-opened” to include these new limits if they have more than three years before 

expiration or at any time public health issues are at stake. 

Regardless of when the facility-specific load allocations are incorporated into wastewater 

permits, DEP recognizes that permittees will need reasonable amounts of time to come into 

compliance with new requirements. The time needed for design, financing, and construction will 

be negotiated with permittees as part of the permitting process and in conjunction with 

development of the Basin Management Action Plan. Compliance will be required according to a 

prescribed schedule. 

As noted above, facility-specific load allocations in a Basin Management Action Plan (or 

TMDL) likely will be incorporated directly into wastewater permits. Where the exact same 

effluent limits are imposed in the different documents (basin plan and permit, for example), it is 

inappropriate to make the limits subject to administrative challenge both times. DEP 

recommends consideration be given to clearly establishing the legal relationship between the 

basin plan and permits, specifically to prevent third party administrative challenges to permit 

revisions that implement the exact requirements set forth in a basin plan that already has been 

adopted and subject to challenge. (Neither DEP nor regulated entities should have to defend the 

exact same action twice.) All other aspects of the permit would, of course, remain subject to 

challenge under chapter 120, F.S. 

Stormwater Permits

Unlike wastewater facilities, municipal stormwater discharges do not lend themselves to effluent 

limits achievable through standard treatment processes. Instead, TMDL implementation and 

compliance with NPDES stormwater permits will depend on the use of stormwater treatment 
15

best management practices, which will be set forth in the Basin Management Action Plan. DEP 

will require in any related NPDES permit that municipal stormwater dischargers undertake the 

activities specified in the relevant basin plan. As with wastewater facilities, where the exact 

same requirements are imposed in a stormwater permit and Basin Management Action Plan, they 

should be subject to challenge only once. 

Nonpoint, Non-Regulated Sources

Nonpoint sources of pollution generally are agreed to be the largest contributor of pollutants to 

Florida’s surface and ground waters. Nonpoint source pollution is created either by rainfall 

flushing the pollutants from the landscape (stormwater runoff) or by the leaching of pollutants 

through the soil into the ground water. Typical sources include agricultural and silvicultural 

lands; erosion and sedimentation from unvegetated lands, construction sites and unpaved roads; 

onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, such as septic tanks; and uncontrolled urban 

stormwater runoff. 

Florida has been a national leader in addressing nonpoint sources of pollution for more than 20 

years, through both non-regulatory and a limited repertoire of regulatory mechanisms. As noted 

above, certain municipal stormwater systems, agricultural sites, and industry sectors now are 

subject to permitting. However, most agricultural and forestry operations, older developments, 

and many urban areas remain exempt from effective stormwater treatment regulation. 

Traditional regulation of some or all of these remaining areas is not necessarily the most 

effective approach to pollution control, which has led to the development of an ever-increasing 

catalog of best management practices and mechanisms for applying them, which are discussed in 

some detail below. 

The Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan

The Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan is the first TMDL implementation plan to be developed in 

full and where large-scale implementation is underway; it is a cooperative effort among DEP, the 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the South Florida Water Management 

District, the Natural Resources Conservation Services, and stakeholders in the Lake Okeechobee 

watershed. The Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan sets forth the myriad projects (public works, 

best management practices, and others) needed to reduce phosphorus loadings to the lake and 

addresses a watershed covering more than 3.4 million acres of citrus, sugar cane, dairy, row 

crops, pastureland, sod farms, woodlands, and urban environment. The total estimated cost of 

the plan is well over $800 million, with a little more than half that amount anticipated to be 

funded through the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. 

Development of Best Management Practices 

The Watershed Restoration Act provides authority and guidance to DEP, the Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services and the water management districts to develop and adopt, by 

rule, best management practices to address both agricultural and non-agricultural sources of 

surface water pollution. Best management practices—generally, site-specific or activity-specific 

designs, technique, or other measures that reduce runoff of specific pollutants—are essential to 
16

effective implementation of TMDLs, especially for non-point sources of pollution. There are 

many different types of best management practices, both structural and non-structural, and they 

are developed alone or in combination to deal with specific circumstances. 

The Act also requires DEP to verify the adequacy of these best management practices at 

achieving water quality standards. In exchange for appropriately implementing adopted and 

verified practices, agricultural operations are granted a “presumption of compliance” with water 

quality standards for the specific “pollutant(s) of concern” along with a limited “waiver of 

liability” for any practices that unexpectedly prove not to be effective in protecting water quality 

with respect to that pollutant(s). And, where the measures, in fact, prove ineffective, the Act 

requires the state agencies to re-evaluate and improve the best management practices. 

Agricultural Activities

The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in coordination with DEP, has 

concentrated its extensive efforts on developing agricultural best management practices in areas 

where waters are impaired and for priority agricultural sectors, like citrus, cow/calf operations, 

and containerized nurseries. It has worked with producers and experts at the University of 

Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) to identify practices or 

combinations of practices that are likely to have the biggest water quality benefit while balancing 

technological and economical feasibility. 

Working with the affected agricultural sectors to determine which measures are practical and 

economical increases the likelihood that agricultural operations will buy into the process and 

implement the practices—the nature of the water quality problems must be clear as must the fact 

that it is in operators’ best long-term interests, both economic and social, to reduce pollution. 

Federal and state cost-share assistance is also critical to defraying the significant capital costs 

associated with some measures. Buy-in is essential given that agricultural operations are largely 

unregulated at this time and success is dependent on cooperative implementation. 

This strategy to address pollution from agricultural sources has made tremendous progress over 

the last five years. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has successfully 

developed a broad range of best management practices and, working with the various commodity 

groups, is securing commitments to implement them. Funding the implementation of these 

practices—leveraging private and state resources to secure federal money—remains a significant 

challenge although, here again, progress is being made and the Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services has invested millions of dollars in these efforts. In the end, the key will be 

whether, over the long term, agricultural operators successfully operate and maintain verified 

best management established in each Basin Management Action Plan. 

Non-Agricultural Activities

DEP has been working with the water management districts, local governments, the development 

community, the landscaping and golf course communities, and the state’s universities to improve 

existing urban stormwater treatment best management practices and develop new ones. Indeed, 

over the last five years, DEP has funded nearly $26 million in stormwater treatment projects in 
17

an effort to develop better practices that can be deployed statewide; the total cost of these 

projects has been more than $65 million. Research is ongoing to improve the treatment removal 

efficiency of traditional urban stormwater practices such as wet detention ponds, especially for 

nutrients. Other research is investigating the environmental and economic benefits of “green 

roofs,” which involve more or less complicated soil and vegetation covers to reduce the volume 

and pollutant loading of runoff, particularly crucial for large footprint developments, industrial 

warehouses and other large structures. Similarly, research on pervious (permeable) concrete and 

stormwater reuse is demonstrating the potential for use in more urbanized areas to reduce 

stormwater volume and pollutants. Research by the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 

is generating critical data on optimal fertilization and irrigation to maintain turf grass and 

ornamental landscaping, which currently are major sources of nutrient pollution. 

Detailed best management practices for non-agricultural situations have been under development 

longer than they have in the agricultural arena, at least in terms of their deployment for pollution 

control. In some instances, they have been incorporated into permitting and other regulatory 

programs. 

Verifying the Effectiveness of Best Management Practices

Best management practices may be as much art as science. That is, given the complexities and 

varying character of nonpoint sources of pollution, the many different and changing land uses, 

the range of pollutants involved, and the different types of resources of owners and operators, 

one size definitely does not fit all. Furthermore, it may take multiple iterations of some measures 

to achieve success in protecting water quality. For these reasons, verifying the effectiveness of 

best management practices is critical—both to protect water quality and to avoid unwarranted 

granting of the presumptions of compliance and waivers of liability contemplated in the 

Watershed Restoration Act discussed above. Under the law, DEP is responsible for verifying 

that best management practices protect water quality. 

For agricultural best management practices, DEP’s verification process is undertaken in 

conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Because of the 

diversity of Florida’s agricultural industry, there is a wide range of available and evolving best 

management practices to account for local, regional, and watershed differences as well as 

commodity differences. Verifying each specific practice in each specific area, or on every farm, 

simply is not practical or affordable. DEP must be able to employ a generalized verification 

process using expert assistance to extrapolate from representative circumstances the 

implications, in terms of effectiveness and feasibility, for deployment of best management 

practices on a watershed scale. This approach is bolstered by water quality monitoring data 

gathered before and after implementation to validate success. Any best management practice 

that proves deficient over time will be reevaluated and modified or replaced. 

Unlike agricultural operations, many other nonpoint sources of pollution are at least partially 

regulated, with non-agricultural best management practices being an integral component of 

that regulation. Data and experience from implementing stormwater treatment regulations for 

new development over the last 20 years has led to the verification of a number of long-standing 

stormwater treatment best management practices. However, verifying the effectiveness of some 
18

non-agricultural best management practices has similar limitations to verification of agricultural 

practices, requiring a generalized rather than site-by-site approach. And, as with all best 

management practices, appropriate monitoring is critical to evaluating long-term success. 

Improving the Implementation of Best Management Practices

As just outlined, best management practices are in various stages of development. A number 

have been adopted or are nearing adoption. Verification is a complicated and sometimes 

iterative process. In order to assure that it will be as meaningful as possible, DEP believes 

changes to the Watershed Restoration Act should be considered to promote a more flexible and 

effective verification strategy. Furthermore, best management practices must meet the 

environmental objectives of the TMDL and there must be broad participation among the 

agricultural community and others to implement them or they will be worthless. For that reason, 

DEP also believes consideration should be given to making the best management practices and 

other pollutant loading reductions for non-regulated entities in adopted basin plans legally 

binding. Entities that fail to live up to commitments in the basin plan should be subject to 

appropriate sanctions. These changes would help assure that the statutorily required “reasonable 

and equitable” allocation of pollutant load reductions among all parties, point and non-point 

source alike, in a given basin has a realistic chance of being achieved. The changes also are 

necessary to assure EPA that nonpoint sources will be held accountable for their fair share of 

pollutant load reductions in a basin—without that assurance, it has become clear that EPA will 

step in and force regulated entities (public utilities, local governments, industrial facilities) to 

bear the burden of achieving all reductions, no matter how disproportionate that burden. 

Summary of Progress and Potential Statutory Changes 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act requires DEP to undertake many actions before on-theground implementation of TMDLs can occur: assessments of the state’s waterways; 

determination and documentation of impairment; adoption of priority lists of impaired waters; 

development and adoption, by rule, of TMDLs; and negotiation of basin plans to establish and 

promote the specific actions necessary to achieve the TMDL-based pollution reductions. It is 

these actions that have consumed DEP’s attention since adoption of the Act in 1999. For that 

reason, full-scale implementation of the 52 TMDLs adopted to date is just beginning. 

As noted in the report, the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan is the first TMDL implementation 

plan to be developed in full and where large-scale implementation is underway. While the Lake 

Okeechobee plan cannot be considered a “typical” TMDL, most TMDLs and their subsequent 

implementation plans will have a similar, if generally less expensive, flavor. Other large 

implementation plans that are well on their way to completion involve the Oklawaha and Lower 

St. Johns River basins. The Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan is available at 

http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/wrp/wrp_okee/projects/protection_plan.html and offers an example 

of the kinds of issues that will be addressed in basin plans throughout the state. 

It is too early, then, to evaluate in general terms the success of TMDL implementation to date. 

Demonstrable water quality improvements associated with even the simplest TMDL in the least 

complicated basin with the fewest sources of pollutants may take years to materialize—a fact 
19

that is not formally recognized in the Watershed Restoration Act. The cyclical watershed 

management process was established, in part, to account for the long-term—to set TMDL 

objectives, implement programs to meet them, and evaluate the outcomes on a continual basis. 

Statutory Changes for Consideration

This report has summarized implementation of the Watershed Restoration Act of 1999 to date, 

identifying the difficult but successful beginnings of the TMDL program along with a number of 

implementation problems encountered along the way. One specific purpose of the report, set 

forth in the law creating the Watershed Restoration Act, is to make recommendations for 

statutory changes that would improve the implementation of TMDLs. Various recommendations 

have been suggested in the report and are summarized below. Consideration should be given to 

the following: 

• Formally recognize the Basin Management Action Plan, set forth the requirements of 

such a plan, and authorize DEP to adopt all or part of the plan, when appropriate, to make 

it enforceable and afford affected parties an opportunity to challenge it.

• Authorize the development of a preliminary allocation at the time of TMDL adoption 

with its refinement in the Basin Management Action Plan, when adequate data have 

become available, and address the situation where substantive changes take place 

between the initial TMDL and the necessary final allocations.

• Formally recognize that reducing pollutant loadings to achieve water quality standards 

may require phased implementation over many years, including multiple permitting 

cycles, because of the costs and physical requirements to implement wastewater and 

stormwater treatment infrastructure projects and best management practices.

• Clearly establish the legal relationship between the basin plan and permits, specifically to 

prevent third party challenges to permit revisions that implement the exact requirements 

set forth in a basin plan that already has been adopted and subject to challenge; all other 

aspects of the permit would be subject to challenge. The objective is not to reduce public 

participation but to pre-empt frivolous challenges to actions that already have been 

documented and previously subject to challenge.

• Slightly modify the best management practice verification process to make it more 

flexible and effective. 

• Preclude a non-regulated entity that does not appropriately implement best management 

practices adopted in a basin plan from any presumption of compliance with state water 

quality standards or a waiver of liability; establish that adopted basin plans are legally 

binding and any entity that fails to implement its commitments is subject to appropriate 

sanctions. These changes would promote the “reasonable and equitable” allocation of 

pollutant load reductions among all parties in a given basin already required in the law.

• Authorize DEP to adopt pollutant trading rules after reporting to the legislature and 

Governor the results of its evaluation of pollutant trading. 

Funding

The last issue to be considered in this report is funding, including operational moneys. The 

report recommends consideration of statutory changes that would improve the TMDL program; 
20

make implementation more efficient and effective; and reduce the costs regulated entities, local 

governments, agriculture, other businesses and industries, and Florida’s citizens would have to 

bear to improve water quality in this state. At the same time, those changes would increase 

DEP’s responsibilities, workload and corresponding costs. DEP will be unable to absorb these 

additional costs within its existing budget. To date, DEP has received non-recurring 

appropriations in each of three years, as follows: 

• 2002-03 - $2.2 million (no FTE), for impaired waters listing, TMDL development, 

TDML rule adoption, basin management planning, legal assistance, etc. 

• 2003-04 - $2.2 million (no FTE), for the same responsibilities. 

• 2004-05 - $6.6 million (no FTE), for the same responsibilities plus one-time research and 

development projects to evaluate Florida’s existing water quality standards for bacteria, 

dissolved oxygen, and nutrients. 

• 2005-06 – Pending. 

In order to more successfully discharge these obligations, implement the additional 

recommendations in this report, and fulfill the overall mandates set forth in federal law and the 

Florida Watershed Restoration Act, consideration should be given to funding beyond Fiscal Year 

2005-06. DEP recommends consideration of the following: 

• Annual appropriations of $2.5 million to $4 million. This amount is substantially less 

than EPA’s estimate of the resources required to implement a Florida-equivalent program 

but would be sufficient to run a successful baseline program. In general, making such 

funding available for the program would increase the timeliness of TMDL development 

and adoption, completion of basin management planning, and implementation of on-theground projects to clean up Florida’s impaired waters. 

• Program funding could continue to come from historical sources (the Water Quality 

Assurance Trust Fund or Land Acquisition Trust Fund), when moneys are available. 

General Revenues also could be an appropriate source as this program is statewide, broad 

in scope, and is intended to achieve a public good (water quality and public health 

protection). 

o Consideration also could be given to generating new revenues through limited 

water quality protection fees on materials that lead to pollution and the increased 

use of which is driven by growth, such as fertilizers, cement, asphalt, and 

pesticides. Depending on the scope of these fees, funds could be generated not 

simply for program operation, which is relatively inexpensive, but to finance 

restoration projects across the state, supplementing the hundreds of millions of 

dollars of local government and private-sector resources that will be required over 

time to restore and protect Florida’s surface waters. 

More information on TMDL funding, including project and operational funding as well as 

information on potential revenue sources, is included in Attachment 2 
GROUP NAME BASIN LISTED IMPAIRMENT

CAUSATIVE 

POLLUTANT 

% REDUCTION O

WATER QUALIT

TARGET 

OCKLAWAHA TROUT LAKE NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 80.0% 

SUWANNEE FENHOLLOWAY RIVER AT MOUTH COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 61.0% 

LOWER ST. JOHNS LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER / FRESH NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN 8,570,260 KG/YLOWER ST. JOHNS LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER / FRESH NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 500,325 KG/YR LOWER ST. JOHNS LOWER ST. JOHNS RIVER / MARINE NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN 1,472,984 KG/Y

OCKLAWAHA HATCHET CREEK IRON IRON 30.8% OCKLAWAHA HATCHET CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 62.0% OCKLAWAHA LAKE YALE NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 10.0% OCKLAWAHA LAKE YALE CANAL NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 10.0% OCKLAWAHA NEWNANS LAKE NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN 74.0% OCKLAWAHA NEWNANS LAKE NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 59.0% OCKLAWAHA ORANGE LAKE NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 45.0% 

OCKLAWAHA PALATLAKAHA RIVER DISSOLVED OXYGEN BOD 12.8% OCKLAWAHA PALATLAKAHA RIVER DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL NITROGEN 5.2% OCKLAWAHA PALATLAKAHA RIVER DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 7.2% OCKLAWAHA SWEETWATER BRANCH COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 70.0% 

OCKLAWAHA TROUT LAKE NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN 60.0% OCKLAWAHA TUMBLING CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 74.0% OCKLAWAHA TUMBLING CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 91.0% OCKLAWAHA LAKE CARLTON NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 59.0% OCKLAWAHA OCKLAWAHA RIVER ABOVE DAISY COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 43.6% OCKLAWAHA HOGTOWN CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 51.0% OCKLAWAHA LAKE APOPKA DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 15.9 METRIC TONOCKLAWAHA LAKE APOPKA NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 15.9 METRIC TONOCKLAWAHA LAKE BEAUCLAIR NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 85.0% OCKLAWAHA LAKE DORA NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 67.0% OCKLAWAHA LAKE EUSTIS NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 43.0% 

TMDLs: Adopted and Proposed as of December 2004

Attachment 1

1
GROUP NAME BASIN LISTED IMPAIRMENT

CAUSATIVE 

POLLUTANT 

% REDUCTION O

WATER QUALIT

TARGET 

TMDLs: Adopted and Proposed as of December 2004

Attachment 1

OCKLAWAHA LAKE GRIFFIN NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 66.0% OCKLAWAHA HELENA RUN NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 32.0% OCKLAWAHA LAKE HARRIS NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 32.0% OCKLAWAHA LITTLE LAKE HARRIS NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 32.0% OCKLAWAHA LAKE WAUBERG NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN 2062 LBS/YR OCKLAWAHA LAKE WAUBERG NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 374 LBS/YR 

TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES SPARKMAN BRANCH COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 59.3% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES SPARKMAN BRANCH COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 86.1% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES HILLSBOROUGH RIVER COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 62.3% (WET) TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES HILLSBOROUGH RIVER COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 26.5% (DRY) TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES HILLSBOROUGH RIVER COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 51.2% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES HILLSBOROUGH RIVER COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 52.9% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES LAKE HUNTER NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN 80.0% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES LAKE HUNTER NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 80.0% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES BAKER CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 44.4% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES BAKER CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 41.5% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES FLINT CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 51.2% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES FLINT CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 41.5% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES BLACKWATER CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 71.6% (WET) TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES BLACKWATER CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 58.1% (DRY) TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES BLACKWATER CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 62.6% (WET) TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES BLACKWATER CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 48% (DRY) TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES CYPRESS CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 57.0% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES NEW RIVER COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 35.3% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES NEW RIVER COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 43.6% 

OCKLAWAHA ALACHUA SINK NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN NO TMDL SET OCKLAWAHA OCKLAWAHA RIVER AB LAKE OCK. DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS NO TMDL SET OCKLAWAHA OCKLAWAHA RIVER AB LAKE OCK. NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS NO TMDL SET 

2
GROUP NAME BASIN LISTED IMPAIRMENT

CAUSATIVE 

POLLUTANT 

% REDUCTION O

WATER QUALIT

TARGET 

TMDLs: Adopted and Proposed as of December 2004

Attachment 1

OCKLAWAHA OCKLAWAHA RIVER ABOVE DAISY BOD BOD NO TMDL SET OCKLAWAHA OCKLAWAHA RIVER ABOVE DAISY DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS NO TMDL SET OCKLAWAHA OCKLAWAHA RIVER ABOVE DAISY NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS NO TMDL SET OCKLAWAHA OCKLAWAHA RIVER/SUNNYHILL BOD BOD NO TMDL SET OCKLAWAHA OCKLAWAHA RIVER/SUNNYHILL DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS NO TMDL SET OCKLAWAHA OCKLAWAHA RIVER/SUNNYHILL NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS NO TMDL SET 

LAKE OKEECHOBEE CHANDLER HAMMOCK SLOUGH DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE CHANDLER HAMMOCK SLOUGH NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L 

OCKLAWAHA CROSS CREEK BOD TOTAL NITROGEN SEE LOCHLOOSOCKLAWAHA CROSS CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL NITROGEN SEE LOCHLOOSOCKLAWAHA CROSS CREEK NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN SEE LOCHLOOSOCKLAWAHA CROSS CREEK BOD TOTAL PHOSPHORUS SEE LOCHLOOSOCKLAWAHA CROSS CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS SEE LOCHLOOSOCKLAWAHA CROSS CREEK NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS SEE LOCHLOOS

TAMPA BAY DELANEY CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 56.6% TAMPA BAY DELANEY CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 60.8% TAMPA BAY DELANEY CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN BOD 72.0% TAMPA BAY DELANEY CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL NITROGEN 72.0% 

TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES GAMBLE CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 31.2% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES GAMBLE CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 29.0% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES GAP CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 43.3% 

LAKE OKEECHOBEE HENRY CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE HENRY CREEK NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L 

APALACHICOLA - CHIPOLA HUCKLEBERRY CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 68.3% 

TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES LAKE THONOTOSASSA UN-IONIZED AMMONIA TOTAL NITROGEN 65,596 KG/YEA

LAKE OKEECHOBEE LETTUCE CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE LETTUCE CREEK NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L 

OCKLAWAHA LOCHLOOSA LAKE OUTLET NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN 38.8% OCKLAWAHA LOCHLOOSA LAKE OUTLET NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 60.0% 

3
GROUP NAME BASIN LISTED IMPAIRMENT

CAUSATIVE 

POLLUTANT 

% REDUCTION O

WATER QUALIT

TARGET 

TMDLs: Adopted and Proposed as of December 2004

Attachment 1

TAMPA BAY LONG BRANCH COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 56.5% TAMPA BAY LONG BRANCH COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 44.2% TAMPA BAY LONG BRANCH DISSOLVED OXYGEN BOD 70.0% TAMPA BAY LONG BRANCH DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL NITROGEN 70.0% 

TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES LOWER SWEETWATER CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 62.3% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES LOWER SWEETWATER CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 62.4% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES LOWER SWEETWATER CREEK NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN 20.0% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES LOWER SWEETWATER CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL NITROGEN 20.0% 

TAMPA BAY MCKAY BAY DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL NITROGEN 5.7% TAMPA BAY MCKAY BAY NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN 5.7% 

LAKE OKEECHOBEE MOSQUITO CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE MOSQUITO CREEK NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE MYRTLE SLOUGH DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE MYRTLE SLOUGH NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE NUBBIN SLOUGH DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE NUBBIN SLOUGH NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE OTTER CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE OTTER CREEK NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L 

TAMPA BAY ROOSEVELT DRAIN COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 66.7% 

LAKE OKEECHOBEE S-135 DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE S-135 NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE TAYLOR CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L LAKE OKEECHOBEE TAYLOR CREEK NUTRIENTS TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 0.159MG/L 

TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES THIRTYMILE CREEK DISSOLVED OXYGEN TOTAL NITROGEN 3.0 MG/L TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES THIRTYMILE CREEK NUTRIENTS TOTAL NITROGEN 3.0 MG/L TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES WARES CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 72.3% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES WARES CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 20.0% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES WILLIAMS CREEK COLIFORMS FECAL COLIFORMS 56.8% TAMPA BAY TRIBUTARIES WILLIAMS CREEK COLIFORMS TOTAL COLIFORMS 35.0% 

4
1

Attachment 2 

TMDL Funding 

Program Operational Funding: As noted in the report, the legislature has appropriated the 

following amounts to DEP to operate the TMDL program: 

Fiscal Year Amount Funding Source 

2002-03 $2,200,000 Permit Fee Trust Fund 

2003-04 $2,200,000 Land Acquisition Trust Fund 

2004-05 $6,600,000 Land Acquisition 

2005-06 Pending Pending 

For FYs 2002-03 and 2003-04, funds were used to conduct monitoring; develop scientific water 

quality computer models and databases; assess impaired waters; develop and adopt TMDLs, by 

rule; begin basin management planning; and provide legal assistance. The bulk of the funds 

(64%) went to outside private contractors; 17% went for legal assistance and 19% for monitoring 

equipment. DEP received no FTEs to implement the program and funds no FTEs from the 

appropriations. Program FTEs have been diverted from other DEP programs.

In the current fiscal year (2004-05), the activities outlined above continue. The additional $4.4 

million appropriated for the current year is being used to fund one-time (contracted) research and 

development projects to evaluate Florida’s existing water quality standards for bacteria, dissolved 

oxygen, and nutrients. 

Historically, TMDL program operations have been funded from trust funds with available cash. 

In order to promote long-term water quality clean-up efforts, consideration should be given to 

annual appropriations of $2.5 - $4.0 million. Funding source options include: 

• Continued use of appropriate trust fund moneys, when available. 

• General Revenue. 

• Generate revenues through limited water quality protection fees on materials that lead to 

pollution and the increased use of which is driven by growth, such as fertilizers, cement, 

asphalt, and pesticides. The table below (1990 data) provides an idea of what such fees 

could generate: 

Revenue Generated at Fee per Pound 

Material Annual Production (lbs) $0.01 per pound $0.10 per pound 

Fertilizer 412,783,360 $ 4,127,833 $ 41,278,336

Cement 7,910,000,000 79,100,000 791,000,000 

Asphalt 2,336,400,000 23,364,000 233,640,000 

Pesticides 34,662,012 346,620 3,466,201 

 TOTALS 10,693,845,372 $106,938,453 $1,069,384,537

Depending on the level of fees, revenues could be generated not only for program 

operations but also to subsidize the kinds of local government projects that will be needed 

to restore water quality and protect it into the future. 
2

Project Funding: The legislature authorized DEP and the Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services each year to split 0.5% of remaining Documentary Stamp revenues (after 

multiple large distributions to other purposes) to conduct research and demonstration projects for 

urban and agricultural best management practices and to implement best management practices 

or urban stormwater projects through cost-sharing with project sponsors. DEP also has used EPA 

grants to fund supplemental water quality monitoring. Since 2000, DEP has expended nearly 

$17,500,000 on these efforts. DEP also has directed $26 million in other federal 319 grant 

funding to TMDL-related stormwater treatment projects over the last five years, including: 

• Wetland treatment processes in the Lake Okeechobee basin. 

• Evaluating the health effects of stormwater reuse. 

• Implementation of “green roof” design and installation projects. 

• Evaluating turf grass nutrient requirements. 

• Stormwater infrastructure (retrofit) projects for Sanford (River Walk), Maitland, Lake 

Worth, Seminole County, Lee County, Titusville, Ocoee, Lake County, Bayou Chico, and 

Choctawhatchee Bay. 

The total cost of the 319-funded projects, considering local contributions, is more than $65 

million. 

It also should be noted that DEP’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program 

provides financial assistance every year (in the form of low-interest loans) to local governments 

and some private entities to build water quality protection projects—wastewater and stormwater 

treatment facilities, reclaimed water projects, and structural agricultural best management 

practices. While funding for projects is not limited to impaired waters, the program prioritizes 

projects that are implemented to address TMDLs and restore impaired waters. The SRF program 

provides $120-$150 million for projects annually and, since its inception in 1988, has awarded 

more than $1.7 billion for water quality protection projects.