FINAL

BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN

for the Implementation of Total Daily Maximum Loads Adopted by the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

in the

Lake Jesup Basin

developed by the

Lake Jesup TMDL Basin Working Group

in cooperation with the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

Bureau of Watershed Restoration

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

April 2010
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The Lake Jesup 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 Lake Jesup Basin Working Group, identified below, with participation 

from affected local, regional, and state governmental interests; elected officials and citizens; and 

private interests.

TMDL B AS IN WOR K ING GR OUP ME MB E R S AND OTHE R P AR TICIP ANTS

OR G ANIZATION/

INTE R E S T GR OUP

B AS IN WOR K ING GR OUP

R E PR E S E NTATIVE

TE C HNIC AL S TAFF 

Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection ---

John Abendroth, Barbara Bess, Samantha Budd, 

Fred Calder, Christianne Ferraro, Vivian Garfein,

Jennifer Gihring, Rick Hicks, Ron Hughes, Tricia 

McClenahan, Anita Nash, Amy Tracy, Kalina 

Warren, Robert Kelly (SAIC), Tiffany Busby 

(Wildwood Consulting), Marcy Policastro (Wildwood 

Consulting), Joe Walter (PBS&J)

St. Johns River Water Management 

District Casey Fitzgerald Mary Brabham, Sherry Brandt-Williams, Regina Lovings-Morse, Erich Marzolf, Tom Ziegler

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission Dennis David Ed Hayes

Orange County Lori Cunniff Julie Bortles, Dan Homblette, Rodney Lynn, Penny 

Post

Seminole County Gary Johnson Gloria Eby, Mark Flomerfelt, Sabrina O’Bryan, Kim 

Ornberg, Shannon Wetzel, 

City of Altamonte Springs Danielle Marshall William Baer

City of Casselberry Ed Torres Kelly Brock

City of Lake Mary Bruce Paster Brian Bates, Durga Nagda

City of Longwood John Peters Chris Kintner 

City of Maitland Tim Rogers Marissa Rodriquez

City of Orlando Jim Hunt Lisa Lotti, Kevin McCann

City of Oviedo Tony Segreto Tom King, Tom Radzai

City of Sanford Tom George Migdalia Hernandez, Bilal Iftikhar

City of Winter Park Troy Attaway Tim Egan, Don Marcotte

City of Winter Springs Kipton Lockcuff Brian Fields, Zynka Perez

Town of Eatonville Cheryl Harrison-Lee Rhonda Anderson, Abu Canady, Roger Dixon

Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services Carol Johnson Jody Lee, James Clements, Holly Stone

Florida Department of Transportation –

District 5 Patrick Muench Mary Hamilton, Robert Potts (E-Sciences)

Florida Turnpike Enterprise Jeremiah Marek N/A

Friends of Lake Jesup Robert King Cecilia Height
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

ii

For additional information on Total Maximum Daily Loads and the watershed 

management approach in the Lake Jesup Basin, contact:

Samantha Budd

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Watershed Restoration, Watershed Planning and Coordination Section

2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

Email: Samantha.Budd@dep.state.fl.us

Phone: (850) 245-8418
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................... VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................VIII

CHAPTER 1 : PLAN CONTEXT, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE........................................................ 1

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

1.2 The Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan......................................... 2

1.2.1 Stakeholder Involvement........................................................................... 2

1.2.2 Plan Purpose and Scope........................................................................... 3

1.2.3 Measurable Goals and Milestones ............................................................ 5

1.2.4 Efforts that Affect the BMAP...................................................................... 5

1.3 Lake Jesup Nutrient TMDL........................................................................... 5

1.3.1 Pollutant Reduction and Discharge Allocations......................................... 6

CHAPTER 2 : TECHNICAL FOUNDATION ............................................................................. 7

2.1 Jurisdictions, Population, and Land Use ...................................................... 7

2.1.1 Overview of Agriculture in the Lake Jesup Basin ...................................... 7

2.2 Hydrology................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Spatial and Temporal Water Quality Trends .............................................. 11

2.4 Technical Uncertainties Addressed Through Modification of TMDL 

Information and BMAP Assumptions.......................................................... 12

2.5 TMDL Modifications ................................................................................... 15

2.5.1 Rationale for the TP Focus...................................................................... 15

2.5.2 TMDL Revisions During the BMAP Process ........................................... 15

CHAPTER 3 : PHOSPHORUS SOURCES AND DETAILED ALLOCATIONS................................. 18

3.1 BMAP Allocation Process........................................................................... 18

3.2 Loading Summary ...................................................................................... 18

3.2.1 Stormwater.............................................................................................. 18

3.2.2 Septic Tanks ........................................................................................... 18

3.2.3 City of Sanford “Site 10” Facility.............................................................. 18

3.2.4 Derivation of BMAP Required Reductions .............................................. 19

3.2.5 Land Use Change and Population Growth Impacts ................................ 20

3.3 Allocations.................................................................................................. 24

3.3.1 Detailed Allocations by Entity.................................................................. 24

CHAPTER 4 : MANAGEMENT ACTIONS............................................................................. 26

4.1 Related Permit Programs........................................................................... 26

4.1.1 Municipal Stormwater Permits................................................................. 26

4.1.2 City of Sanford Site 10 Wastewater Permit ............................................. 27

4.2 Management Actions ................................................................................. 28

4.2.1 Management Action Types...................................................................... 28

4.2.2 Eligibility .................................................................................................. 29

4.2.3 Regional Projects .................................................................................... 30

4.2.4 Provisional BMPs .................................................................................... 31

4.2.5 Addressing Agricultural Nonpoint Pollution ............................................. 33

4.2.6 Actions to Address Loading From Future Growth ................................... 39

4.3 Section 319 Funding Nine Elements .......................................................... 41

CHAPTER 5 : MONITORING AND EVALUATION................................................................... 43

5.1 Monitoring Strategy .................................................................................... 43
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

iv

5.1.1 Objectives ............................................................................................... 43

5.1.2 Water Quality Indicators and Resources Responses .............................. 44

5.1.3 Monitoring Network ................................................................................. 44

5.1.4 Data Management and Assessment ....................................................... 60

5.1.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control .......................................................... 60

5.1.6 Monitoring Network Sufficiency Evaluation ............................................. 61

5.2 Research Priorities..................................................................................... 61

5.3 Adaptive Management Measures............................................................... 65

5.3.1 Annual Assessment of Management Actions.......................................... 65

5.3.2 Future Revision of the TMDL and BMAP ................................................ 67

CHAPTER 6 : COMMITMENT TO PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .................................................... 70

APPENDIX A : TMDL BASIN ROTATION SCHEDULE ............................................................. 94

APPENDIX B : SUMMARY OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS GUIDING BMAP DEVELOPMENT AND 

IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................... 95

APPENDIX C : STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT IN BMAP DEVELOPMENT ................................. 98

APPENDIX D : PROJECTS TO ACHIEVE THE TMDL ............................................................ 100

APPENDIX E : LID APPLICATION IN THE LAKE JESUP BASIN................................................ 122

APPENDIX F : LAKE JESUP MONITORING PLAN SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION..................... 131

APPENDIX G : SITE 10 ANALYSES ................................................................................... 145

APPENDIX H : GLOSSARY OF TERMS ............................................................................... 226

APPENDIX I : BIBLIOGRAPHY OF KEY REFERENCES AND WEBSITES .................................... 232

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: LAKE JESUP AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT JURISDICTIONS IN THE BASIN ..................... 4

FIGURE 2: LAND USES IN THE LAKE JESUP BASIN................................................................. 9

FIGURE 3: AGRICULTURAL ACREAGE IN THE LAKE JESUP BASIN (EXCLUDING 

SILVICULTURE)................................................................................................ 10

FIGURE 4: LAKE JESUP BASIN ESTIMATED POPULATION DENSITY IN 2015............................ 21

FIGURE 5: LAKE JESUP BASIN ESTIMATED POPULATION DENSITY IN 2020............................ 22

FIGURE 6: LAKE JESUP ESTIMATED POPULATION DENSITY IN 2025...................................... 23

FIGURE 7: MONITORING STATIONS IN ORLANDO AND WINTER PARK .................................... 46

FIGURE 8: MONITORING STATIONS IN MAITLAND, CASSELBERRY, LONGWOOD, AND WINTER 

SPRINGS......................................................................................................... 47

FIGURE 9: MONITORING STATIONS IN ORANGE COUNTY ..................................................... 48

FIGURE 10: MONITORING STATIONS IN WINTER SPRINGS, SEMINOLE COUNTY, AND LAKE 

MARY ............................................................................................................. 49

FIGURE 11: MONITORING STATIONS IN SEMINOLE COUNTY, SANFORD, AND LAKE JESUP....... 50

FIGURE 12: MONITORING STATIONS IN SEMINOLE COUNTY AND LAKE JESUP........................ 51

FIGURE 13: MONITORING STATIONS IN LAKE JESUP............................................................ 52

FIGURE 14: LOCATIONS OF SITE 10 GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS............................ 57

FIGURE 15: LOCATION OF THE SITE 10 STORM EVENT SAMPLING SITE ................................ 58

FIGURE 16: LOCATIONS OF IN-LAKE SAMPLING NEAR SITE 10............................................. 59

FIGURE 17: BMAP ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE ................................................. 66
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

v

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: TMDLS IN LAKE JESUP ........................................................................................ 6

TABLE 2: LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE LAKE JESUP BASIN .......................................... 7

TABLE 3: DERIVATION OF BMAP REQUIRED TP REDUCTIONS ............................................. 19

TABLE 4: TP WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS FOR 15-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD ............... 25

TABLE 5: TP WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS FOR 2010-2014................................................... 25

TABLE 6: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE LAKE JESUP BASIN DESIGNATED AS REGULATED 

MS4S............................................................................................................. 26

TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED TP LOAD REDUCTIONS BY MANAGEMENT ACTION 

CATEGORY...................................................................................................... 29

TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF TP LOAD REDUCTIONS BY PROJECT TYPE....................................... 30

TABLE 9: STREET SWEEPING EFFICIENCY VALUES ............................................................. 32

TABLE 10: TARGETS FOR ENROLLMENT IN AGRICULTURAL BMPS ....................................... 33

TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL MANUALS AND PROGRAMS.................................... 34

TABLE 12: AGRICULTURAL ACREAGE AND BMP ENROLLMENTS FOR THE LAKE JESUP 

BMAP AREA................................................................................................... 35

TABLE 13: ESTIMATED AGRICULTURAL TP LOAD, LOAD REDUCTION ALLOCATION, AND 

REDUCTIONS................................................................................................... 36

TABLE 14: KEY NUTRIENT-RELATED BMPS ADOPTED BY THE FDACS OAWP.................... 37

TABLE 15: LAKE JESUP BASIN STAKEHOLDER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS........................ 40

TABLE 16: EPA ELEMENTS OF A WATERSHED PLAN........................................................... 42

TABLE 17: CORE AND SUPPLEMENTAL WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS FOR AMBIENT 

MONITORING ................................................................................................... 44

TABLE 18: ANTICIPATED RESOURCE RESPONSES FROM BMAP IMPLEMENTATION................. 44

TABLE 19: BMAP MONITORING NETWORK ........................................................................ 53

TABLE 20: RESEARCH PROJECTS IN THE LAKE JESUP BASIN ............................................... 61

TABLE 21: DRAFT BMAP ANNUAL REPORTING FORMAT ..................................................... 68
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

vi

L IS T OF AC R ONYMS

BMAP Basin Management Action Plan

BMP Best Management Practice

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

BWG Basin Working Group

CDM Camp Dresser and McKee

CDS Continuous Deflective Separation (Unit)

CWP Center for Watershed Protection

DO Dissolved Oxygen

EMC Event Mean Concentration

EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERP Environmental Resource Permit

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code

FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FDOH Florida Department of Health

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

F.S. Florida Statutes

FSA Florida Stormwater Association

FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

FWRA Florida Watershed Restoration Act

FYN Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program

GIS Geographic Information System

HSPF Hydrologic Simulation Program – Fortran (model)

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

LID Low Impact Development

MG Million Gallons

MGD Million Gallons Per Day

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MSJR Middle St. Johns River

MT Metric Ton

NELAC National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference

NOI Notice of Intent

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

OAWP Office of Agricultural Water Policy

OOCEA Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority

PBS&J Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan

PLRG Pollutant Load Reduction Goal

PSA Public Service Announcement

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

RSF Regional Stormwater Facility

SCI Stream Condition Index

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

STORET STOrage and RETrieval (Database)

TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

vii

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TN Total Nitrogen

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TP Total Phosphorus

TSI Trophic State Index

TSS Total Suspended Solids

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

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WAV Watershed Action Volunteers

WBID Waterbody Identification

WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

viii

E XE CUTIVE S UMMAR Y

THE LAKE JESUP BASIN

Lake Jesup is one of the largest lakes in Central Florida and is part of the St. Johns River 

system. Lake Jesup has a surface area of about 10,660 acres (16.7 square miles) and drains a 

watershed of about 86,382 acres (135 square miles), including a large portion of Seminole 

County, a small portion of Orange County, the entire City of Winter Springs, and portions of the 

following municipalities: Altamonte Springs, Casselberry, Eatonville, Lake Mary, Longwood, 

Maitland, Orlando, Oviedo, Sanford, and Winter Park. At high stage levels, Lake Jesup has 

surface area up to 16,000 acres.

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are water quality targets, based on state water quality 

standards, for specific pollutants (such as nitrogen and phosphorus). The Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) identified Lake Jesup to be impaired by nutrients, and, in 

2006, adopted TMDLs for Total Phosphorus (TP) and Total Nitrogen (TN) for the lake, as shown 

in the table below.

WB ID(S )

TMDL

(LBS /Y R )

TARGET 

C ONC E NTR ATION

(MG/L )

WAS TE LOAD 

ALL OC ATION

NPDE S S TOR MWATE R

L OAD AL LOC ATION

(NONPOINT)

2981 (Including 2981A) 41,888 TP 0.096 34% 34%

2981 (Including 2981A) 545,203 TN 1.27 50% 50%

THE LAKE JESUP BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN 

Due to the extensive role of nitrogen fixation in Lake Jesup and the current lack of information 

related to in-lake nutrient cycling, the focus of this BMAP is to achieve reductions in TP loads 

from sources external to the lake. Reducing external TP sources is necessary to achieve and 

then maintain in-lake conditions, and is therefore a crucial component of restoring Lake Jesup’s 

water quality. The total required TP reductions from stormwater runoff and septic tanks were 

allocated to the responsible entities in the basin. These entities include 11 cities and towns, two 

counties, three transportation agencies, and agriculture. Since there are several technical 

uncertainties that require additional information before they can be addressed, the required 

reductions are spread over a 15-year timeframe. This phased approach assigns one-third of the 

required reductions in each of three five-year periods. Therefore, this BMAP addresses the first 

one-third of the required reductions. 

In order to obtain information about the uncertainties to revise the TMDL and BMAP allocations 

in future iterations, a water quality monitoring plan and research studies will be implemented 

over the next five years, concurrently with projects to reduce external TP loads. FDEP

anticipates the need to recalculate the BMAP allocations upon completion of the first five-year 

implementation period at which time water quality data at a sufficient spatial and temporal 

resolution should be available to support new calculations.

KEY ELEMENTS OF THE BMAP

This BMAP addresses the key elements required by the Florida Watershed Restoration Act

(FWRA), Chapter 403.067, Florida Statutes (F.S.), including the following:
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

ix

• Document how the public and other stakeholders were encouraged to participate or 

participated in developing the BMAP (Section 1.2.1 and Appendix C);

• Equitably allocate pollutant reductions in the basin (Section 3.2.4 and Section 3.3);

• Identify the mechanisms by which potential future increases in pollutant loading will be 

addressed (Section 3.2.5 and Section 4.2.6);

• Document management actions/projects to achieve the TMDLs (Section 4.2 and 

Appendix D);

• Document the implementation schedule, funding, responsibilities, and milestones 

(Appendix D); and

• Identify monitoring, evaluation, and a reporting strategy to evaluate reasonable progress 

over time (Section 5.1).

ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES OF BMAP IMPLEMENTATION

With implementation of the projects outlined in this BMAP, reductions in the external 

phosphorus loads to Lake Jesup are expected to improve the water quality conditions of the 

lake. The following outcomes are anticipated from BMAP implementation:

• Improved water quality in Lake Jesup and its tributaries;

• Decreased concentration of TP in the water column, which leads to improvement in 

water quality characteristics of the lake;

• Greater understanding of the sources in the basin, in-lake nutrient cycling, and 

effectiveness of the management actions;

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

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

BMAP COST AND TIMEFRAME

Costs were provided for 46% of the activities identified in the BMAP, with an estimated total cost 

of more than $35 million. In addition, annual operation and maintenance costs were provided 

for 11% of the projects for a total of $2.5 million. The funding sources range from local 

contributions to legislative appropriations. Technical stakeholders and Basin Working Group 

(BWG) members will continue to explore new opportunities for funding assistance to ensure that 

the activities listed in this BMAP can be maintained at the necessary level of effort. 

BMAP FOLLOW-UP

As a part of BMAP follow-up, FDEP, the Basin Working Group, and technical stakeholders will 

track implementation efforts and monitor water quality in Lake Jesup. The results will be used 

to evaluate whether the plan is effective in reducing external TP loading and that the lake is 

responding to these reductions. The Basin Working Group will meet at least every 12 months to 

discuss implementation issues, consider new information, and determine what other 

management strategies are needed to meet the TMDLs, if necessary.

BENEFITS OF THE BMAP PROCESS

The Basin Working Group members provided endorsement of the BMAP on behalf of the 

entities they represent and are committed to ensuring the plan is implemented to achieve the 

required TP reductions. In addition to this endorsement, the entities are providing FDEP with 

letters of commitment or resolutions of support to ensure that as staff and board members 

change over time, the entity has a way to show support for the BMAP and the efforts included. 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

1

CHAPTER 1: P LAN C ONTE XT, P UR POSE , AND S COPE

Lake Jesup is one of the largest lakes in Central Florida and is part of the St. Johns River 

system. Lake Jesup has a surface area of about 10,660 acres (16.7 square miles) and drains a 

watershed of about 87,322 acres (136.4 square miles), including a large portion of Seminole 

County, a small portion of Orange County, the entire City of Winter Springs, and portions of the 

following municipalities: Altamonte Springs, Casselberry, Eatonville, Lake Mary, Longwood, 

Maitland, Orlando, Oviedo, Sanford, and Winter Park. At high stage levels, Lake Jesup has 

surface area up to 16,000 acres. This Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) represents the 

joint efforts of multiple stakeholders to prepare a restoration plan for the lake to implement the 

adopted Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). This BMAP includes prioritized projects to limit 

external phosphorus loading into the lake and concurrent research projects to guide effective 

long-term restoration efforts. The BMAP was developed as part of the State of Florida TMDL

program.

Stakeholder involvement is critical to success of the entire TMDL program. Stakeholder 

involvement is particularly essential to develop, gain support for, and secure commitments in a 

BMAP. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) invited all interested 

stakeholders to participate in Lake Jesup BMAP development, and facilitated participation to 

ensure that all voices were heard and opinions considered. This approach fostered a sense of 

cooperation among stakeholders and ultimately led to the development of a restoration plan that 

is scientifically defensible and expected to achieve real results through the use of a 15-year 

phased implementation approach.

1.1 WATER QUALITY S TANDAR DS AND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY L OADS

Florida's water quality standards are designed to ensure that surface waters can be used for 

their designated uses, such as drinking water, recreation, and shellfish harvesting. Currently, 

most surface waters in Florida, including Lake Jesup, 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. 

Under Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act, each state must identify its “impaired” 

waters, including estuaries, lakes, rivers, and streams, which do not meet their designated uses. 

FDEP is responsible for developing the state list of impaired waters. The administrative and 

technical processes 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 Identification of Impaired Surface Waters Rule, Chapter 62-303, Florida 

Administrative Code (F.A.C.). 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.

FDEP develops and adopts TMDLs for impaired waterbodies. A TMDL is the maximum amount 

of a specific pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate while maintaining its designated uses. 

TMDLs are developed and implemented as part of a watershed management cycle, based on 

the state’s 52 river basins. Lake Jesup is located within the Group 2 Middle St. Johns River

(MSJR) Basin.

A nutrient TMDL was adopted for Lake Jesup in 2006, which identifies the Total Phosphorus

(TP) and Total Nitrogen (TN) load the lake can receive and still maintain its Class III designated 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

2

uses. By establishing this assimilative capacity, the TMDL also established required reductions 

needed to meet the target. The Lake Jesup nutrient TMDL is described in more detail in 

Section 1.2.3.

The Lake Jesup BMAP contains strategies to implement the Lake Jesup nutrient TMDL through 

reduction and prevention of pollutant discharges through various means. The project types 

contained in the BMAP reflects the array of sources and stakeholder relationships that exist in 

this complex watershed. Although this is currently the only BMAP for the Lake Jesup Basin, 

other BMAPs may be developed in the future to address individual waterbody identification 

numbers (WBIDs) within the larger watershed or additional parameters.

1.2 THE L AKE J ESUP B AS IN MANAG E ME NT ACTION P LAN

The focus of this BMAP is to achieve reductions in external TP loads to the lake. The focus on 

TP and external loads in particular was driven by the significant role of nitrogen fixation in Lake 

Jesup (refer to Section 2.5.1 for additional detail) and the magnitude of unknowns regarding 

internal nutrient cycling in the lake (refer to Section 2.4).

Detailed allocations were calculated and assigned (see Section 3.3) to the responsible entities 

in the basin. These entities include 11 cities and towns, two counties, three transportation 

agencies, and agriculture. Allocations are spread over a 15-year timeframe with a phased 

approach that assigns required reductions in each of three five-year periods. Because one-third 

of the required reduction will be achieved in each five-year BMAP period, this BMAP addresses 

the first third of the TMDL reductions for TP. The BMAP outlines specific projects that will be 

implemented by local entities to achieve required external TP load reductions and a schedule 

for implementation. Concurrent with project implementation, water quality monitoring (refer to 

Section 5.1) will be used to track the reductions achieved by projects and the lake’s response 

to the reduction in external TP loading and to determine what additional actions, if any, should 

be taken to achieve the TMDLs. A research plan (see Section 5.2) is also included to provide 

additional data for the basin to help refine the TMDL and BMAP allocations in future cycles, as 

necessary. FDEP anticipates the need to recalculate the BMAP allocations upon completion of 

the first five-year implementation period at which time water quality data at a sufficient spatial 

and temporal resolution should be available to support the calculations.

1.2.1 S TAK E HOLDE R INVOLVE ME NT

Beginning prior to TMDL adoption the technical stakeholders provided input on the land uses, 

event mean concentrations (EMCs), best management practice (BMP) efficiency values, and 

other aspects of model development and restoration targets. The model used for the TMDL 

originated with Seminole County and was expanded during TMDL development for use in the 

entire Lake Jesup watershed. BMAP technical meetings began in 2006 to solicit stakeholder

input on data collection, compilation and review of the model development and approach, and 

technical aspects of the BMAP.

In addition to discussions on the technical issues of TMDL development, FDEP solicited further 

input from key stakeholder groups at the management level by convening the Lake Jesup Basin 

Working Group (BWG) in July 2007. The BWG developed the following mission statement:

The mission of the Lake Jesup Basin Working Group is to make recommendations to the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection to work toward restoring impaired 

waterbodies through development of an effective, equitable, and cost-efficient Basin 

Management Action Plan to implement the Total Maximum Daily Loads.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

3

The BWG reviewed the major issues regarding the development of the BMAP and detailed 

allocations and made formal recommendations to FDEP for adoption in the BMAP. This BMAP 

document is a compilation of input from technical stakeholders, BWG members, and the general 

public as discussed at Lake Jesup BMAP workshops and meetings. 

Florida's Government-in-the-Sunshine law (http://myfloridalegal.com/sunshine; Section 286, 

F.S.) provides a right of access to governmental proceedings at both the state and local levels. 

The Sunshine Law is intended to expose government's decision-making process to public 

scrutiny, including all of the deliberations that precede a final action. This philosophy is 

consistent with the transparent nature of the BMAP process. Basin Working Group and public 

meetings were formally publicized in accordance with Section 286, F.S., including publication of 

notices in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Informally, notification of all meetings was sent to 

a wide email distribution list and every attempt was made to meet on the same day (3rd

1.2.2 P LAN P UR POSE AND S COPE

Thursday), time (1:00 PM - 4:00 PM), and location (Lake Sylvan Park, Sanford, Florida) each 

month to facilitate attendance.

The purpose of this BMAP is to implement external load reductions to achieve the TP TMDL

adopted by FDEP for the Lake Jesup Basin and build a solid scientific foundation that will 

provide for future consideration of key lake issues about which there is insufficient 

understanding. There are other water quality concerns that will benefit from the actions that 

address this TMDL; however, this BMAP does not address all the water quality issues in the 

basin. 

This BMAP focuses on Lake Jesup (TMDL waterbody identification numbers [WBIDs] 2981 and 

2981A), which is located in central Florida (Figure 1), on the northeast side of the MSJR Basin.

The majority of the watershed lies within Seminole County, with a portion on the southwest end 

that extends into Orange County.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

4

FIGUR E 1: L AKE J ESUP AND LOCAL GOVE R NME NT J UR IS DICTIONS IN THE B AS IN 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

5

1.2.3 ME ASUR ABLE GOALS AND MILE S TONE S

With implementation of the projects outlined in this BMAP, reductions in the external 

phosphorus loads to Lake Jesup are expected to improve the water quality conditions of the 

lake. The following outcomes are anticipated from BMAP implementation:

• Improved water quality in Lake Jesup and its tributaries;

• Decreased TP concentrations in the water column, which leads to improvement in water 

quality characteristics of the lake;

• Greater understanding of the sources in the basin, in-lake nutrient cycling, and 

effectiveness of the management actions;

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

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

The projects included in this BMAP are anticipated to reduce 10,167.5 lbs/yr of TP that were or 

currently are estimated to be entering Lake Jesup and its tributaries. This estimated reduction 

is 54% of the total TMDL nonpoint source required reductions based on current information. For 

the stormwater projects submitted, information on the area treated was provided for 49% of the 

projects for a total stormwater treatment area of 14,090 acres. Costs were provided for 46% of 

the activities identified in the BMAP, with an estimated total cost of more than $35 million. In 

addition, annual operation and maintenance costs were provided for 11% of the projects for a 

total of $2.5 million.

1.2.4 E FFORTS THAT AFFE CT THE B MAP

In addition to this BMAP, there are other projects and efforts that are occurring in the Lake 

Jesup Basin and surrounding watershed, which will affect the benefits achieved by the BMAP. 

Although these projects support the goals of the BMAP, their expected impacts cannot be 

quantified at this time. Additional information about these projects will be provided in future 

iterations of the BMAP. The related efforts include: 

• Lake Jesup Interagency Restoration Strategy (see Section 4.2.3);

• TMDLs and Pollutant Load Reduction Goals (PLRGs) for upstream waterbodies;

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Lake Jesup outlet modification;

• State Road 46 bridge reconstruction; and

• Changes to the application of reuse water at Site 10.

1.3 L AKE J ESUP NUTR IE NT TMDL

TMDL development involves three primary steps: (1) establish a water quality target; (2) 

calculate existing loads; and (3) calculate load reductions needed to achieve the target. The 

Lake Jesup nutrient TMDL is based on achieving a target trophic state index (TSI) of 65 in the 

lake. Because the TSI is based on nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll concentrations, this 

translated into target concentrations for TP and TN of 0.094 mg/L and 1.32 mg/L, respectively. 

TP and TN loadings from the watershed were estimated with a pollutant loading model originally 

developed by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan (PBS&J) for Seminole County, but expanded for 

use in the Lake Jesup TMDL. This model uses runoff coefficients, soil types, and land uses to 

estimate TN and TP loading. Surface runoff loading was considered with loads from baseflow, 

septic tanks, precipitation directly onto the lake’s surface (atmospheric deposition), and inflow 

from the St. Johns River in the TMDL to develop a full picture of nutrient inputs to the system. 

These loading estimates were then input into the Bathtub Eutrophication Model to establish the 

relationship between TN and TP loadings and in-lake TN, TP, and chlorophyll a concentrations. 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

6

The model was calibrated against the measured in-lake TN, TP, and chlorophyll a

concentrations. The final step was to adjust the external loadings to the lake until the target TSI 

was achieved. The loadings that achieved the target TSI were used to calculate the required 

reductions in TP and TN in the TMDL (refer to Table 1). Additional detail about TMDL 

development can be found in the Lake Jesup TMDL report (FDEP, 2006).

1.3.1 POLLUTANT R E DUCTION AND DIS CHARGE AL LOC ATIONS

Under the FWRA, the TMDL allocation in rule may be an “initial” allocation among point and 

nonpoint sources, with a “detailed” allocation to specific sources established in the BMAP. 

Table 1 lists the TMDL and initial pollutant load allocations adopted by rule for Lake Jesup. 

These reductions were modified during the BMAP process as part of the development of 

detailed allocations. The detailed BMAP allocations are discussed in Chapter 3. 

TABLE 1: TMDL S IN L AKE J ESUP

WB ID(S ) TMDL

(LBS /Y R )

TARGET 

C ONC E NTR ATION

(MG/L )

WAS TE LOAD 

ALL OC ATION

NPDE S S TOR MWATE R

L OAD 

ALL OC ATION

(NONPOINT)

2981 (Including 2981A) 41,888 TP 0.096 34% 34%

2981 (Including 2981A) 545,203 TN 1.27 50% 50%
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

7

CHAPTER 2: TE C HNIC AL FOUNDATION

2.1 J UR IS DICTIONS , POPULATION, AND L AND USE 

The Lake Jesup watershed occupies a highly urbanized area within Seminole and Orange 

counties. Eleven municipalities are located in the watershed, including Altamonte Springs, 

Casselberry, Eatonville, Lake Mary, Longwood, Maitland, Orlando, Oviedo, Sanford, Winter 

Park, and Winter Springs. According to 2003 data from the U. S. Census Bureau, the 

population densities in Seminole and Orange counties were 1,184.9 and 987.8 person/square 

mile, respectively, which were significantly higher than the state average of 296.4 person/square 

mile. The area is also undergoing rapid population growth. From 1990 through 2000, the

population of Seminole and Orange counties increased by 27.0% and 32.3%, respectively.

The Lake Jesup Basin drains about 86,382 acres into Lake Jesup. Land use categories were 

classified as shown Table 2. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the major land uses in the 

watershed. As shown in the table, active land uses (agriculture, golf course, residential,

commercial, institutional, industrial/utility, and transportation facilities) occupy 51,273 acres

(59%) of the watershed. Over half of this area is medium-density residential. As shown in 

Figure 2, urban and built-up areas almost entirely cover the western and southern parts of the 

Lake Jesup basin. The remaining 41% of the watershed consists of natural areas, including 

undeveloped forest and rural land, open water, and wetlands.

Approximately 10% of the watershed is in public ownership. The St. Johns River Water 

Management District (SJRWMD) brought approximately 3,850 acres around the lake into public 

ownership since 1984 and has targeted additional areas for acquisition. Other government 

agencies, including local governments, have purchased an additional 4,700 acres of floodplain 

around the lake.

TABLE 2: L AND USE CLASS IFICATIONS IN THE L AKE J ESUP B AS IN

L AND US E ACREAGE P E R CE NT

Medium-Density Residential 26,194 30.3

Forest and Rural Open 11,965 13.9

Wetlands 1 (impacted) 11,359 13.1

Wetlands 2 (unimpacted) 7,917 9.2

Agriculture 5,582 6.5

Commercial 4,860 5.6

Transportation Facilities 4,044 4.7

Water 3,868 4.5

High-Density Residential 2,177 2.5

Low-Density Residential 2,598 3.0

Institutional 2,112 2.4

Site 10 1,252 1.4

Industrial/Utility 1,908 2.2

Golf Course 546 0.6

Total 86,382 100.0

2.1.1 OVE R VIE W OF AGR ICULTUR E IN THE L AKE J ESUP B AS IN

The primary agricultural land uses in the Lake Jesup watershed are cow-calf operations, citrus

groves, and field-grown palm nurseries. Other agricultural land uses include ornamental plant 

container nurseries, field crops, sod production, and equine operations. Most of the agricultural 

acreage is located within areas that drain directly to the lake (the Lake Jesup “proper” subbasin)
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

8

and within the Howell Creek subbasin. Figure 3 shows the approximate location of agricultural 

lands in the Lake Jesup BMAP area. Table 12 in Section 4.2.5 provides a summary of these 

agricultural lands within the entire basin.

Citrus and palm nursery operations are concentrated primarily on the northwest side of the lake 

near the airport, and southeast of the lake in an area known as the Black Hammock. Due to 

urban encroachment, grove health issues (freeze/disease), and recent flooding, many citrus 

operations either have been abandoned or have significantly lowered their production acreage. 

In recent years, some of this citrus acreage has been shifted to field-grown palm production. 

There are several commercial cow-calf operations in the watershed, consisting primarily of 

improved and woodland pastures. Most of the remaining land use that might be characterized 

as cow-calf operations are small, noncommercial plots scattered throughout residential areas. 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

9

FIGUR E 2: L AND US E S IN THE L AKE J ESUP B AS IN
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

10

FIGUR E 3: AGR IC ULTUR AL ACR E AGE IN THE L AKE J ESUP B AS IN (E XCLUDING S ILVICULTUR E )

2.2 HYDR OLOGY

Lake Jesup is low-lying and shallow, with an average depth of approximately four feet (FDEP, 

2006). Lake elevation follows the water surface elevations of the St. Johns River at its

confluence with Lake Jesup. Although Lake Jesup usually discharges to the St. Johns River, 

when local rainfall is lower than regional rainfall (particularly to the south) the river rises, and 

water flows from the St. Johns River into the lake (Keesecker, 1992). Estimates of mean 

hydraulic residence time in the lake range from 82-99 days (Brezonik and Fox, 1976; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1977; and Keesecker, 1992).
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

11

For the purposes of the TMDL modeling, the Lake Jesup watershed was split into five subbasins that correspond to the primary tributaries: Gee Creek, Howell Creek, Lake Jesup (the 

area immediately connected to the lake), Little Lake Howell, and Soldiers Creek (Figure 1). A 

long-term average of about 70,052 acre-feet of surface runoff is discharged into Lake Jesup 

annually, based on data from 1995 through 2002. The area directly connected to Lake Jesup 

has the highest discharge, accounting for about 45% of the total surface runoff, followed by

Howell Creek (34%), Soldiers Creek and Gee Creek sub-basins together (19%) and Little Lake 

Howell (3%) (FDEP, 2006). 

Contributions of TP loadings from the different sub-basins show a trend similar to that of surface 

runoff. The long-term annual average TP discharge through surface runoff is about 14.5 metric 

tons. The watershed immediately connected to Lake Jesup produces about 37% of the total TP

loading through surface runoff; the Howell Creek sub-basin contributes 41%; the Soldiers Creek 

and Gee Creek sub-basins contribute about 10% and 9%, respectively; and the Little Lake 

Howell sub-basin contributes the smallest amount, about 3% (FDEP, 2006).

2.3 S PATIAL AND TE MPOR AL WATER QUALITY T R E NDS

The annual average TP concentration in Lake Jesup ranged from 0.14 to 0.19 mg/L with an 

average concentration of approximately 0.16 mg/L from 1995-2002. The variation in the annual 

average TP during the period of record appeared to be relatively small. Larger variations were 

observed for annual average TN and chlorophyll a concentrations. Annual average TN and 

chlorophyll a concentrations from 1995 through 2002 ranged from 1.99 to 4.47 mg/L and from 

51.3 to 159.9 μg/L, respectively. The long-term annual average TN and chlorophyll a

concentrations were 2.93 mg/L and 93.3 μg/L, respectively. The long-term annual average TSI 

for the lake is 77.9 and equates to poor water quality.

During BMAP development, mean TP concentrations from the STORET database were 

calculated at various points in the tributaries to Lake Jesup. The purpose of these calculations 

was to determine those tributaries that had the highest concentrations of TP at their mouths and 

where concentrations increased substantially within each tributary. There were data available

for eight tributaries: Howell Creek, Gee Creek, Soldiers Creek, Little Lake Howell Creek, Salt 

Creek, Six Mile Creek, Navy Canal, and Sweetwater Creek. With the exception of Little Lake 

Howell Creek and Navy Canal, the concentrations at the stations nearest the mouths of all 

tributaries were similar to or higher than the TP concentration in Lake Jesup. This indicates that 

control of phosphorus sources in these tributaries would likely be necessary if improvements in 

the lake were to occur.

Soldiers Creek and Sweetwater Creek had concentrations more than double those of Lake 

Jesup, and Salt Creek had concentrations about 1.5 times those of Lake Jesup. Although the 

concentrations in Sweetwater Creek and Salt Creek were high, these creeks have low flow, and 

consequently, low loads. However, this is an area of Lake Jesup that frequently had fish kills, 

suggesting that the nutrient inputs may have periodically led to algal blooms and low dissolved 

oxygen. There are alternative explanations (such as toxic inputs, discharge of low dissolved 

oxygen, or high biological oxygen demand) for this phenomenon; however, only nutrient data 

were analyzed in this study.

In Howell Creek, the tributary with the most monitoring stations, TP concentrations tripled below 

Lake Maitland and doubled again below Bear Creek, indicating significant sources of 

phosphorus upstream of these areas. In Gee Creek, concentrations doubled below Lake 

Triplet/Secret and slowly increased to the discharge into Lake Jesup. Soldiers Creek 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

12

downstream of State Road 419 had concentrations more than double those at State Road 419. 

Salt Creek TP concentrations declined by about one-third from the upstream-most station to the 

other station in the creek, although data for the upstream station were limited. Other tributaries 

either had similar concentrations at all stations or there was only one station upstream of Lake 

Jesup.

2.4 TE CHNIC AL UNCE R TAINTIE S ADDR E S S E D THR OUGH MODIFICATION OF 

TMDL INFOR MATION AND B MAP AS S UMPTIONS 

The Lake Jesup TMDL and BMAP were developed with the best information available at the 

time (2004-2005 and 2006-2009, respectively). During these processes, a number of significant 

data gaps were identified, some of which were pertinent to the BMAP and others that need to be 

addressed prior to any future recalculation of the TMDL. The following text describes how each 

uncertainty was addressed. Section 5.2 contains details of the research projects mentioned 

below.

• Nitrogen-fixation

•

– At the time of the TMDL, information on the rate of nitrogen-fixation in 

Lake Jesup was not available. Instead, results from a study in Lake George were used 

to estimate nitrogen-fixation in Lake Jesup. To improve understanding of the lake 

dynamics and to obtain lake-specific data on nitrogen-fixation, several studies were 

completed and are planned in Lake Jesup. These studies will be used in future 

recalculation of the TMDL to revise the estimated rate of nitrogen-fixation and to help 

determine the relative loading from nitrogen-fixation versus external sources to the lake. 

This information will be included in the next cycle of the TMDL and will be used to revise 

the BMAP allocations, as necessary. Due to this uncertainty, this BMAP focuses on 

external TP load reductions. Upon recalculation of the TMDL, the need to modify the 

BMAP to include external TN load reductions will be evaluated.

Sediment flux 

•

– Information varies widely about sediment flux (mineralization and 

resuspension from the sediments to the water column, mass deposition from the water 

column to the sediments, and diffusion) rates in Lake Jesup and the total loading that is 

contributed to the lake from this process. Studies have been and will be conducted to 

improve estimates of this rate and relative loading. This information will be used to 

refine the TMDL and BMAP, as necessary, in the next iteration.

Water quality

•

– Because of the uncertainties associated with the in-lake processes, the 

relationship between water chemistry and biological parameters in Lake Jesup is not 

understood in detail. This makes it difficult to predict the biological response associated 

with BMAP implementation. This relationship will be further studied as information from 

the in-lake processes is collected and may result in change to the TMDL target 

concentrations and TMDLs. 

Annexations

•

– The boundaries of the cities and counties in the Lake Jesup BMAP have 

changed since the time of the TMDL due to annexation. The jurisdictional boundaries 

from the TMDL, as they existed in 2006, were used when allocating loads in this BMAP. 

However, in the next iteration of the BMAP, the revised boundaries will be considered 

and the allocations adjusted accordingly. 

Agricultural loads – Since the TMDL verified period, the total agricultural acreage and 

the distribution of acreage across the commodity types has changed. In the next 

iteration of the TMDL, updated land use information will be incorporated to reflect the 

current agricultural uses in the basin. In addition, any changes in land use from 

agriculture to development will be accounted for and the local government in which the 

development occurred will be responsible for any load reductions from that area. FDEP 

and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) will work 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

13

together to determine how to account for loads from fallow agricultural land and will 

coordinate with any local governments that will be allocated loads from previous 

agricultural lands if the land use changes.

• Legacy agricultural loads

•

– Portions of the basin had previously been used for 

agriculture and it is not known to what extent nutrients from fertilizers are still in the soils 

in these areas. In addition, the rate that these nutrients are leaching from the soils into 

the groundwater or surface runoff, and ultimately into Lake Jesup, is unknown. 

Attenuation

5.1

– An attenuation factor was not applied to the allocations in this BMAP to 

account for assimilation in the watershed. The extensive spatial monitoring data that are

necessary to determine this attenuation factor are currently not available. However, the 

primary objective of the monitoring strategy is to provide sufficient data to support 

recalculation of the allocations at a scale that incorporates natural attenuation (see 

Section ). Further, ongoing monitoring will identify emerging “hotspots” (areas with 

high phosphorus concentrations). The allocations in the next TMDL cycle may be 

revised based on this information to address natural attenuation, hotspots, and sources

not previously incorporated. 

• Watershed loads – Two of the objectives of the BMAP monitoring strategy (Section 5.1) 

are to track trends in loading from the tributaries to Lake Jesup and to track inflow and 

outflow loads from each jurisdiction in the basin. The information gathered from this 

monitoring, in addition to research study efforts, will help improve the understanding of 

loads from different areas in the Lake Jesup watershed and refine the loading estimates 

in the TMDL during the next cycle to better reflect conditions in the Lake Jesup basin, 

specifically. This information will also be considered during the reevaluation of the 

BMAP allocations to ensure the estimated loading is attributed to correct jurisdiction. 

• Noncontributing areas 

•

– Throughout the basin, there are areas that are considered to be 

“noncontributing” because the surface loads from these areas do not flow to Lake Jesup. 

For this BMAP, loads from these areas were removed from the required reduction 

calculations and load reduction efforts in these areas were not given credit. Loads 

associated with noncontributing areas are shown in a separate column of the allocation 

table. In the next iteration of the BMAP, additional information will be collected to refine 

the boundaries of the noncontributing areas and allocation recalculations will address 

the issue of noncontributing areas, both those identified currently and those that may be 

identified in the future by individual stakeholders.

Site 10

5.1.3.4

– Consistent with the facility’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit, the City of Sanford is implementing a revised monitoring plan for Site 

10. This will allow better calculation of loads from the site for refinement in the next 

iteration of the BMAP (refer to Section for details of the monitoring plan). The 

purpose of this monitoring is to obtain a better estimate of the nutrient loads in the runoff 

from the residuals and reuse applications on the site, and to determine if the measures 

implemented by the City are sufficiently reducing the loads from the site to the lake. In 

addition, FDEP and SJRWMD may study the effects of nutrient leaching from the 

residuals that have built up on the site and these residuals may need to be removed as 

part of future BMAP efforts. In this first iteration of the BMAP, a new EMC for 

stormwater from Site 10 was applied in the allocation calculations. Further, a 

groundwater study was completed to investigate the possibility of high phosphorus 

groundwater leaching from the site into the lake (FDEP, 2008; see Appendix G).

• Septic tanks – FDOH conducted a statewide inventory of septic tanks, which should 

provide better data about the number of tanks in the basin. In addition, FDEP is 

implementing a septic tank study, Preliminary Evaluation of Septic Tank Influences on 

Nutrient Loading to the Lower St. Johns River Basin and Its Tributaries. This study will 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

14

help to obtain better estimates of the concentration of nutrients from septic tanks and the 

distance from surface waters that septic tanks have a water quality impact. The 

information from these studies will be utilized in the next TMDL cycle to improve the 

estimated loading from septic tanks in the basin. The entities are also working to 

determine the locations of septic tanks within their jurisdictions in close proximity to 

surface waters to improve loading estimates in the next iteration of the TMDL. In 

addition, there are jurisdictional area issues related to placing some of the septic tanks 

on sewer. The utility boundaries do not always correspond with the jurisdictional 

boundaries and this issue will need to be resolved in order to effectively remove septic 

tanks that could be impacting surface waters. Local governments have also expressed 

concern that reductions associated with septic tanks have been allocated solely to them 

and not in part to FDOH. FDOH permitting rules are important for the control of loads 

from new septic tanks and proper maintenance of existing tanks. This will be a 

consideration in future iterations of the BMAP.

• Reclaimed water loads 

•

– Current watershed loading models do not address the loading 

associated with the use of reclaimed water for irrigation since the EMCs do not change 

in areas where it is likely that both fertilization and reclaimed irrigation occur. Available 

data from reuse studies will be considered for the next iteration of the TMDL modeling.

Groundwater loads

•

– Surficial groundwater loading is generally estimated from a limited 

number of samples, relative to surface water loads. Hot spots of nutrient loads in 

groundwater may exist in the basin. In addition to the Site 10 monitoring, SJRWMD and 

Seminole County are planning studies to determine the groundwater loading in the 

basin.

EMCs

•

– For the next iteration of the TMDL, the EMCs used in the model will be 

reevaluated and any updated information will be used to modify the EMCs, as 

necessary, for the land uses in the basin. For instance, the TMDL model included only 

one EMC for all agricultural land uses. In the next iteration of the TMDL and BMAP, 

consideration will be given to including more specific EMC values to match the 

commodity types and conditions in the Lake Jesup Basin. FDEP and FDACS will 

coordinate on appropriate values to include in the model. Monitoring work on Site 10 will 

also help to select an appropriate EMC for the site. 

Consumptive use projects

•

– The focus of this BMAP is on external sources of loading to 

Lake Jesup. Studies are being conducted on lake processes, including sediment flux 

and nitrogen fixation, to determine the contributions of internal loading and how that 

loading should be addressed, if needed. Therefore, consumptive use projects are not 

considered for pollutant removal credit in this first iteration of the BMAP. Stormwater 

reuse projects are not considered “consumptive uses.” Because these projects reduce 

external loads to the lake, stormwater reuse projects may be considered for credit at 

FDEP’s discretion. 

In-lake treatment projects

•

– There is a study underway to test a regional project that will 

draw water from the lake, clean the water, and return it to the lake. If this project, or 

something similar, is determined to be feasible, FDEP will consider providing credit for 

participation in this project. However, the main focus of this BMAP is on reducing 

external TP sources to the lake.

Provisional BMP efficiencies – Several of the BMP activities included in the project lists 

were assigned provisional TP reduction estimates for the purposes of this first iteration 

of the BMAP. These provisional estimates were based on the best available information 

at the time. However, there are studies currently being conducted across the state, 

which will provide better estimates of the BMP efficiencies and this information will be 

used in the next iteration of the BMAP to revise the project reductions. These 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

15

provisional BMPs are: (1) street sweeping, (2) Stormceptor, (3) continuous deflective 

separation (CDS) units, and (4) public education and outreach efforts (see Section 

4.2.4). If the new information on these BMPs indicates lower efficiencies than what was 

estimated for this BMAP, the entities that listed these BMPs may need to provide 

additional projects to make up for the difference in reductions. If new information shows 

a greater effectiveness than provided in the provisional values, this additional credit will 

be provided.

2.5 TMDL MODIFICATIONS

2.5.1 R ATIONALE FOR THE T P FOCUS

As noted earlier, the Lake Jesup nutrient TMDL included reductions for TN as well as TP. 

However, nitrogen-fixation appears to be a significant percentage of the TN inputs to the lake 

and this contribution has not been quantified. In order to move forward with efforts to improve 

the lake water quality, this BMAP focuses only on the TP reductions. Concurrent with the 

BMAP process and implementation, studies to determine the effects of nitrogen-fixation have 

been completed and are being conducted (refer to Section 5.2). The information from these 

studies will be utilized to refine the TMDL and BMAP, as necessary, and to guide future project 

implementation efforts. Because nitrogen-fixation typically occurs in fresh waterbodies with high 

TP concentrations it is essential to reduce TP so that the lake’s internal TN sources can be 

controlled. Also, as many management actions to reduce TP external loads will also reduce TN

external loads, the focus on the TP TMDL in this BMAP should also partially address the TN 

TMDL.

2.5.2 TMDL R E VIS IONS DUR ING THE B MAP P ROCES S

During the BMAP process, several modifications were made to the TMDL based on new 

information that was provided by the stakeholders in the basin. These changes fall into four

main categories: (1) BMPs; (2) land uses; (3) load allocations; and (4) septic tanks. The 

modifications to the TMDL in each of these categories are described in detail below.

2.5.2.1 BMPs

The TMDL model estimated the starting point load for the surface runoff based on EMCs, land 

use, soil types, and rainfall. The original model also included estimated reductions associated 

with some of the BMPs that were in place at the time of the verified period. This suite of BMPs 

was based on information provided by the stakeholders. However, because BMP 

implementation is not uniform across the watershed, the model was updated during the BMAP 

process to focus on gross starting point loads, without any BMPs in place. This allowed credit 

to be provided for these BMPs as projects, thus applying credit directly to the entity which 

implemented the BMP instead of distributing credit across the entire watershed. The model 

included BMPs on the City of Sanford’s Site 10 facility; however, these BMPs were related to 

the application of residuals on the site and not to stormwater controls. These BMPs were

removed and not considered for BMAP credit because the Site 10 BMAP allocation only 

addresses stormwater loads and, therefore, only stormwater BMPs would be counted. In 

addition, the BMPs that were assigned to wetland areas were removed because most of the 

treatment occurred in a wet or dry pond before discharge to the wetland (Walter and Kelly, 

2008).
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

16

2.5.2.2 Land Uses

Several revisions to the land use from the TMDL model were made during the BMAP process. 

It was determined that the Seminole County land use separated out internal subdivision 

roadways; whereas Orange County’s internal roads were not separated. The internal roadways

in Seminole County were converted to residential land uses because the residential land use 

types and EMCs include these roadways. This modification made the consideration of roadway 

runoff consistent throughout the basin. The model also included a land use category for 

agriculture/golf course. These two types of land use were separated out in the updated 

modeling to provide flexibility in assigning loading characteristics. However, since there are no 

EMCs specific to golf courses, the EMC remained the same as the one used for agriculture. In 

addition, after using aerial photography to compare Orange County’s high density residential 

areas to the rest of the basin, an area of single family housing units in the Lake Burkett area of 

Orange County, identified as high density residential in the TMDL, was reclassified as medium 

density residential in the watershed to be consistent with density criteria applied to other 

jurisdictions (Walter and Kelly, 2008).

In addition to the land use changes described above, the City of Sanford Site 10 facility (refer to 

Section 3.2.3 for additional information) was separated out as a distinct land use category. The 

loading estimate in the TMDL for Site 10 only accounted for the stormwater loads from the site 

and not the loads from application of reuse water and residuals. In order to recalculate the total 

TP loading from Site 10, several items were needed: (1) an updated land use map for the site; 

(2) an updated site boundary showing the portions that flow to the Lake Jesup Basin; (3) an 

updated runoff coefficient; and (4) an updated EMC. The updated land use information was 

based on the SJRWMD 2004 land use cover. The updated site boundary was provided by 

Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM), a consultant for the City of Sanford. Based on the site 

conditions from the reuse application activities, an updated runoff coefficient was calculated. An 

EMC that matched the specific conditions on Site 10 was not available; therefore, the EMC was 

calculated by extrapolating from information in two pasture runoff studies. Using the above 

information, a total TP loading for Site 10 was calculated as 4,121 lbs/yr of TP. Of this total 

load, approximately 632 lb/yr of TP is associated with surface runoff from the site while the 

remaining 3,489 lbs/yr of TP is attributed to the reuse water and residuals applications (Walter 

and Kelly, 2008). The estimate for the reuse water and residuals applications will need to be 

reevaluated in future iterations of the TMDL and BMAP because this load has been reduced by 

the City due to changes in the uses on site.

2.5.2.3 Load Allocations

When calculating the detailed allocations for the BMAP, FDEP, after discussions with the 

technical stakeholders, determined that all natural areas, including conservation areas, water, 

and wetlands, should be separated and not assigned an allocation. The loads from these areas 

are considered natural background and actions are not needed to reduce loading from these 

sites. Separating the water, wetland, and conservation areas in the allocation calculations 

benefited the jurisdictions that had taken an active role in wetland and other land conservation.

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Orlando Orange County Expressway 

Authority (OOCEA), and Turnpike Enterprise were identified as stakeholders and were assigned 

allocations. Adding these entities affected the allocations to the other stakeholders in the basin 

because loads from right-of-ways and roadways owned by these entities were allocated to the 

applicable transportation entity, not the local government in which the road exists. In addition,

FDACS and agriculture were added as stakeholders. This change affected the other 

stakeholders in a similar way as the transportation break out. Loads from agricultural areas 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

17

were assigned to the “agriculture” allocation category, not the local government in which the 

area exists. 

2.5.2.4 Septic Tanks

The TMDL included loading from functioning septic tanks that were within 200 meters of a 

surface waterbody. Information on the location and number of septic tanks in each jurisdiction 

is not consistently well known across all jurisdictions and, at the time of the TMDL, some of the

needed data on septic tanks were not available. The TMDL septic tank loading estimate did not 

include Eatonville, Orlando, or Winter Park and did not include complete information for 

Maitland and Orange County. During the BMAP process, these entities (with the exception of 

Eatonville), provided information on septic tank counts and location in the basin based on their 

wastewater billing information. Information for Eatonville was obtained from the Florida 

Department of Health (FDOH) CENTRAX database, which tracks septic tank permits. The 

additional information from these entities was included in the calculations for the starting point 

septic tank load for the BMAP allocation calculations.

Also during the BMAP process, several stakeholders raised the issue that the FDOH regulation 

for permitting septic tanks is based on a 75 foot setback from surface waters, as opposed to the 

200 meter (656 feet) distance used in the TMDL. The 75 foot setback was used in this BMAP 

while additional studies are ongoing throughout the state to determine a more appropriate septic 

tank setback distance that would be protective of water quality. The septic tank starting load for 

the BMAP allocations was revised to include septic tanks within 75 feet of surface waters 

throughout the watershed.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

18

CHAPTER 3: P HOSPHOR US S OUR CES AND DE TAILE D AL L OC ATIONS

3.1 B MAP ALLOC ATION P ROCESS

The focus of this BMAP is on reducing external sources of TP (watershed surface runoff and 

near-field septic tanks). The detailed allocations described in this chapter were calculated by 

dividing the reduction required for each source to the entities based on their relative loading. 

The septic tank load reductions were only assigned to those entities that have jurisdiction over 

the loading (i.e., the cities, towns, and counties in the basin).

3.2 LOADING S UMMAR Y

3.2.1 S TOR MWATE R

The major source of external loading in the Lake Jesup Basin is from surface runoff. During rain 

events, stormwater moves pollutants from sources such as fertilizers, pet waste, and roadways 

to the lake and its tributaries. An estimated total of 32,849 lbs/yr of TP enter the lake through 

stormwater runoff and reducing this load to the lake is a key component of the TMDL. The 

updated surface runoff starting load based on the TMDL modifications described in Section 

2.5.2 was used to allocate the 16,314 lbs/yr of TP reductions among the allocation entities. 

3.2.2 S E PTIC TANK S

The total septic tank starting load that was recalculated during the BMAP process was similar to 

the starting load estimated in the TMDL. Therefore, the total reduction required from septic 

tanks (3,307 lbs/yr of TP) in the TMDL was allocated to the local governments that have 

jurisdiction over septic tanks. This allocation was determined based on the relative proportion of 

septic tank loads by entity, based on septic tanks located within 75 feet of a surface water. 

Stormwater and septic tank loads were then consolidated to provide a single nonpoint source 

loading from each entity. 

3.2.3 CITY OF S ANFOR D “ S ITE 10” FACILITY 

The Sanford Reuse Land Application Facility (“Site 10”) is located on the northeastern shore of 

Lake Jesup. Site 10 is approximately 1,868 acres, of which 1,252 acres are in the Lake Jesup 

Basin. Agriculture (pastures and citrus groves) and wetlands are the major land uses on the 

site. The City of Sanford NPDES permit allows discharge to a permitted capacity slow-rate 

reuse system on Site 10, including reclaimed water storage on site in two holding ponds. The 

water from the ponds is used to irrigate the hay fields and citrus groves on the site. In addition, 

the previous permit identified Site 10 as an area where land application of residuals occurred

and this application began in May 1997 (CDM, 2007). Residuals application on Site 10 was 

discontinued in 2008 and the current permit prohibits land application of residuals on Site 10.

As noted above, the TMDL only accounted for the surface runoff loads from the site and did not 

estimate the TP loads associated with the reuse water and residual application activities. 

During the BMAP process, the stakeholders requested that the total loading from Site 10 be 

determined. To help accomplish this, two studies were conducted: one by CDM as a consultant

for the City of Sanford (City of Sanford Site 10 Data Evaluation) and one by the FDEP Ground 

Water Protection Section (Ground Water Assessment Report for Site 10). CDM and FDEP 

used two different models with different assumptions and EMC values, which resulted in 

different loading estimates. Details on both of these studies can be found in Appendix G. The 

purpose of the CDM analysis was to model runoff from the site with revised land use 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

19

information. This analysis estimated that the site has a stormwater loading of 883 lbs/yr of TP 

or 573 lbs/yr of TP with BMPs in place (CDM, 2007). The FDEP assessment focused on

shallow ground water conditions on Site 10. The purpose of this assessment was to provide 

current information for shallow groundwater in the hay field areas that drain to Lake Jesup. The 

TP concentrations from the monitoring wells ranged from non-detect to 5.3 mg/L, with a median 

for the four hay fields of 0.76 mg/L. A portion of the TP concentration was also attributed to 

natural conditions in the area (FDEP, 2008). 

The 632 lbs/yr of TP that was calculated as the surface runoff load (refer to Section 2.5.2.2)

was included in the allocation table as the starting point load for Site 10, which provided the 

basis for the required reduction. Since the load from the reclaimed water and residual 

applications were not originally considered in the TMDL, the 3,489 lbs/yr of TP from these 

sources was not included in the BMAP allocations. However, the City of Sanford has proposed 

projects to reduce the loading from these sources on Site 10 and also monitoring to determine 

water quality improvements. The projects to address these loads are discussed in Section 

4.1.2 and the proposed monitoring efforts are discussed in Section 5.1.3.4. In the next cycle of 

the TMDL, the monitoring data will be used to provide a better estimate of the total load from 

Site 10 and this information will be incorporated into the TMDL and allocations.

3.2.4 DE R IVATION OF B MAP R E QUIR E D R E DUCTIONS

The TMDL included estimates of TP loading from baseflow, groundwater (mainly from the 

surficial aquifer), and atmospheric deposition; however, the TMDL did not require reductions 

from any these sources. A portion of the load from these sources is considered natural 

background or is associated with upstream sources and is, therefore, an uncontrollable source 

in this BMAP. However, some of these sources originate in the basin and studies to determine 

the extent of groundwater and baseflow loading are planned (see Section 2.4 and Section 5.2). 

The TP loading from the St. Johns River into Lake Jesup (associated with a 3,968 lbs/yr

reduction identified in the TMDL) can be attributed to sources upstream of the basin. Therefore, 

the load reduction assigned to the river in the TMDL is not addressed in this BMAP. This load 

from the river should be reduced over the next five to ten years through projects in the Upper St. 

Johns River Basin and eventual projects related to other Middle Basin TMDLs. The starting 

loads, target loads, and required reductions in the TMDL are shown in Table 3, as well as the 

total reductions that will be addressed in a BMAP over the next 15 years.

TABLE 3: DE R IVATION OF B MAP R E QUIR E D TP R E DUCTIONS

S OUR CE

S TAR TING L OADS 

FR OM TMDL

(LBS /Y R )

L OADS TO MEET 

TAR GE T FR OM TMDL

(LBS /Y R )

R E QUIR E D 

R E DUC TIONS IN TMDL

(LBS /Y R )

TOTAL R E QUIR E D 

B MAP R E DUC TIONS 

(LBS /Y R )

Surface 32,849 1 16,535 16,314 16,314

Baseflow 7,275 7,275 0 0

Septic Tanks 5,953 2,646 3,307 3,307

Groundwater 1,323 1,323 0 0

Atmospheric 6,834 6,834 0 0

River 11,244 7,276 3,968 0

Total 65,478 41,889 23,589 19,621 1

2.5.2.2

The starting load from the TMDL includes the stormwater loads from urban areas, agriculture, and Site 10.

Because the Site 10 facility does not have a permitted surface water discharge, there was no allocation provided in 

the TMDL for the wastewater facility. See Sections and 3.2.3 for more information about how loads from the 

facility are addressed in this BMAP.

In addition to the sources included in the TMDL, there is the potential that in-lake processes are 

contributing TP loading. However, as noted in Section 2.4, there is currently not enough 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

20

information to quantify the loading contribution from these sources. For this reason, this BMAP 

focuses on reductions from external loads until more information is available on the in-lake 

processes. The 19,621 lbs/yr of TP reduction identified in Table 3 was divided among the 

stakeholders in accordance with the load-based allocations.

3.2.5 L AND USE C HANGE AND POPULATION GR OWTH IMPACTS

Future growth impacts from 2005 through 2025 were evaluated for the Lake Jesup Basin. In 

addition to the value of considering future growth from a resource standpoint, Paragraph 

403.067(7)(a)(2), F.S., requires that BMAPs “identify the mechanisms by which potential future 

increases in pollutant loading will be addressed.” This analysis focuses on population growth as 

a measure of the location and intensity of future growth in the basin to address the potential 

future increases in pollutant loading.

As new land is developed, less rain filters into the ground, and runoff and the pollutants carried 

in that runoff increase. Population growth also affects pollutant loading by increasing the 

intensity of activities such as traffic, lawn fertilization, pet ownership, and others. To maintain 

the load reductions gained through BMAP implementation, local governments, businesses, 

citizens, and others will need to practice pollution prevention on a continuing basis through land 

use decisions, ordinance adoption and enforcement, public education efforts, BMPs, personal 

habits, and other means. 

3.2.5.1 Analysis of Future Growth

Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) data were selected as the primary data source for 

evaluating future population projections in the Lake Jesup Basin. The TAZ data for Orange and 

Seminole counties were provided by METROPLAN ORLANDO, which is the metropolitan 

planning organization for Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties. TAZs are areas delineated 

by state and/or local transportation officials for tabulating traffic-related data; especially journeyto-work and place-of-work statistics. TAZ data are based on U.S. Census data and Bureau of 

Economic and Business Research projections, and the data are reviewed closely by local 

planners during their compilation. TAZ data include a variety of demographic and transportation 

statistics. For this analysis, only the population estimates were used. Population data were 

aggregated across all housing types (e.g., single family, multifamily). These future growth 

estimates do not include increases in commercial or industrial activities not associated with 

increases in residential population.

Population estimates for each TAZ in 2015, 2020, and 2025 were used to calculate population 

density by TAZ. To provide a more accurate estimate of anticipated population density, land 

uses incompatible with development (open-water and conservation areas) were removed from 

the total acreage of each TAZ. Population density and density change over time were then 

calculated using these revised TAZ acreages. The population density growth estimates 

provided a general sense of the location and intensity of increasing density in the basin. Figure 

4 through Figure 6 show the population density estimates in 2015, 2020, and 2025 with areas 

highlighted that have a greater than 50% increase in population density over a five-year period. 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

21

FIGUR E 4: L AKE J ESUP B AS IN E S TIMATE D POPUL ATION DE NS ITY IN 2015
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

22

F IGUR E 5: L AKE J ESUP B AS IN E S TIMATE D POPUL ATION DE NS ITY IN 2020
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

23

F IGUR E 6: L AKE J ESUP E S TIMATE D POPUL ATION DE NS ITY IN 2025

3.2.5.2 Impacts of Future Growth

As shown in the above figures, there are some areas of expected growth greater than 50%. 

The projected growth between 2010 and 2015 includes several larger areas with high growth 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

24

potential; however, the population densities in these areas is expected to be 0 – 3 people per 

acre, which is a relatively low density. From 2015 to 2020 and 2020 to 2025, changes in density 

greater than 50% occur in much smaller areas of the southernmost extent of basin, furthest from 

Lake Jesup.

While increases in population are expected over the next 15 years, major increases in 

population densities in the basin are not expected. The entities in the basin have already taken 

steps to address TP loading from future growth, as well as efforts to reduce the impacts of 

existing development through stormwater retrofits and septic tank removals. Section 4.2.6

summarizes the low impact development (LID) efforts, comprehensive plan amendments, and 

ordinances that each entity has implemented to reduce or prevent impacts from future growth. 

Appendix E provides additional detail on the LID measures in the basin. Given the extent of 

LID implementation and current build-out in the basin, the potential effect of future growth was 

not quantified nor allocated as additional reduction requirements in this BMAP. If the local and 

statewide efforts to abate the impacts of future growth are insufficient, further reduction 

requirements to address new nutrient loads could be incorporated in future BMAP allocations.

3.3 ALLOC ATIONS

The need for detailed allocations by entity became clear early in the BMAP process. 

Stakeholders in the Lake Jesup Basin agreed that a fair approach would be to determine the 

relative contribution of each entity to the surface runoff and septic tank (if applicable) loadings

and use this relative contribution to apportion the required reductions. This percentage was 

separately calculated for each entity for the surface runoff load and septic tank load. The 

percentages were then applied to the 16,314 lbs/yr (7.4 metric ton [MT]) surface reduction and 

3,307 lbs/yr (1.5 MT) septic tank reduction specified in the TMDL. While the percent reduction 

in the TMDL was not directly applied, the total load reduction required by the TMDL was 

allocated to the entities.

During the BMAP process, several areas in the jurisdictions that do not contribute loading

(“noncontributing basins”) to Lake Jesup were identified. These areas were removed and the 

loads associated with these locations (approximately 870 lbs/yr) set aside. Therefore, the total 

required reduction for the BMAP is 18,748 lbs/yr.

There are several major unknowns in the basin that could affect the TMDL calculations and 

detailed allocations in the BMAP (refer to Section 2.4). To allow time for additional monitoring 

and research studies to address these unknowns, the required reductions were split into three 

five-year time periods. This BMAP is the first of three phases that will each address one-third of 

the required reductions. When sufficient information becomes available, allocations and 

required reductions for the second and third five-year periods will be recalculated. The 

monitoring strategy outlined in Section 5.1 provides details of the planned data collection

efforts.

3.3.1 DE TAILE D ALLOCATIONS BY E NTITY

Table 4 shows the starting load and final required reduction for the responsible entities. The 

TMDL did not require reductions from atmospheric deposition, baseflow, and groundwater. As 

noted above, the TMDL did include a load reduction for inflows from the St. Johns River; 

however, that reduction is not addressed in this BMAP. In addition, when determining the 

detailed allocations, sources of natural background (water, wetlands, and conservation areas 

with no pasture lands) were not assigned load reductions. 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

25

TABLE 4: TP WAS TE LOAD ALLOCATIONS FOR 15-YEAR IMPLE ME NTATION PE R IOD

ALL OC ATION E NTITY

TOTAL T P S TAR TING 

L OAD (LBS /Y R )

NONC ONTR IB UTING AREAS 

L OAD (LBS /Y R )

TOTAL T P R E DUC TION 

R E QUIR E D (LBS /Y R )*

Agriculture 1,149 8 764

Atmospheric Deposition 6,834 0 0

Baseflow 7,275 0 0

City of Altamonte Springs 116 21 57

City of Casselberry 1,557 1 1,028

City of Lake Mary 1,229 4 793

City of Longwood 1,122 115 616

City of Maitland 906 212 374

City of Orlando 1,570 73 979

City of Oviedo 1,156 0 776

City of Sanford 2,722 22 1,807

City of Winter Park 1,771 72 1,111

City of Winter Springs 2,301 6 1,539

FDOT District 5 646 37 397

Groundwater 1,323 0 0

OOCEA 23 0 16

Orange County 2,746 1 1,707

Seminole County 10,151 239 6,411

St. Johns River Upstream 11,244 0 0

Town of Eatonville 194 60 70

Turnpike Authority 451 0 303

Water/Wetland/Conservation Areas 7,758 164 0

Total 64,244 1,035 18,748

* Reductions subject to change as new information on the noncontributing areas, natural attenuation, and lake assimilation become 

available.

This first BMAP will address one-third of the total load reductions shown in the table above. 

Table 5 shows the required reductions for the first five-year period from 2010 to 2014. 

Atmospheric deposition, baseflow, groundwater, St. Johns River, and water, wetland, and 

conservation areas do not have a required reduction, as noted above.

TABLE 5: T P WAS TE LOAD ALLOC ATIONS FOR 2010-2014

ALL OC ATION E NTITY

2010-2014 TOTAL R E QUIR E D 

R E DUCTION (LBS /Y R )*

Agriculture 254.7

Altamonte Springs 19.0

Casselberry 342.7

Eatonville 23.4

FDOT District 5 132.3

Lake Mary 264.3

Longwood 205.3

Maitland 124.8

OOCEA 5.2

Orange County 569.0

Orlando 326.3

Oviedo 258.7

Sanford 602.2

Seminole County 2,137.0

Turnpike Authority 101.1

Winter Park 370.5

Winter Springs 513.0

Total 6,249.5

* Reductions subject to change as new information on the noncontributing areas, natural attenuation, and lake assimilation become 

available.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

26

CHAPTER 4: MANAGE ME NT ACTIONS

4.1 R E L ATE D P E R MIT P R OGR AMS

4.1.1 MUNICIP AL S TOR MWATE R P E R MITS

Fifteen of the 17 allocation entities qualify as a “municipal separate storm sewer system” (MS4) 

and, as such, are regulated by the Florida NPDES MS4 Program. The majority of MS4 

permittees in this basin are Phase I MS4s, the requirements of which are outlined in Chapters 

62-4, 62-620, 62-621 and 62-624, F.A.C. The MS4s in the Lake Jesup Basin are listed in Table 

6. 

TABLE 6: LOCAL GOVE R NME NTS IN THE L AKE J ESUP B AS IN DE S IGNATE D AS R E GULATE D MS 4S

P E R MITTE E MS 4 T YP E P E R MIT #

City of Orlando Phase I FLS000014

Orange County

City of Maitland

City of Winter Park

Town of Eatonville

FDOT

Phase I FLS000011

Seminole County

City of Altamonte Springs

City of Casselberry

City of Lake Mary

City of Longwood

City of Oviedo

City of Sanford

City of Winter Springs

FDOT

Phase I FLS000038

Turnpike Authority Phase II FLR04E049

To avoid the need for re-opening MS4 permits each time a TMDL or BMAP is adopted, the 

following language is included in Phase I MS4 permits that automatically require the 

implementation of any stormwater requirements 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) during 

the permit cycle that are for the purpose of addressing discharges from the MS4 to meet the 

TMDL allocation.”

Most Phase II MS4s are regulated under a generic permit. Operators of regulated Phase II 

MS4s must develop a Stormwater Management Program 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.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

27

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., defines an illicit discharge as “...any discharge 

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 stormwater 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 Phase II 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.”

4.1.2 CITY OF S ANFOR D S ITE 10 WASTEWATER P E R MIT

Since the initiation of the BMAP process, the City of Sanford has ceased applying biosolids to 

Site 10. The last application of residuals to the site occurred in May 2008. Sanford now 

distributes its Class AA biosolids to staff and residents who can use it as fertilizer. Under the 

Sanford/North wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) permit, future biosolids application on Site 

10 will be prohibited. In emergency conditions, when the demand for the Class AA biosolids is 

not great enough, Sanford has a contract with a private processing facility that will accept the 

biosolids, which avoids the need to apply any additional residuals to Site 10 (CDM, July 2009).

Sanford has established an inter-local agreement with Volusia County to provide reclaimed 

water and the city is currently working on a pipeline design to deliver up to 1.5 million gallons 

per day (MGD) of reclaimed water to the county for irrigation purposes. Sanford also has an 

agreement with the City of Lake Mary and Seminole County to provide reclaimed water while 

they are both expanding their distribution systems. Reclaimed water sent to these other areas 

will result in less application to Site 10. Until those systems are in place and Sanford is able to 

measure the reduction in volume of reclaimed water applied to Site 10, a quantified TP load 

reduction to Lake Jesup can only be estimated at this time. From the 2007 memorandum 

prepared by CDM (refer to Appendix G), the TP loading to Site 10 from reclaimed water 

application resulted in approximately 4,202 lbs/yr. The average flow rate used in the 2007 

analysis is consistent with the limits specified in the Volusia County agreement; therefore, there 

is a potential for this entire load to be removed from Site 10 (CDM, July 2009).
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

28

In addition to the inter-local agreements, Sanford has plans to modify the long-term use of Site 

10 under the State Road 46 Alternative Water Supply Initiative, which will use the site for a 

potable alternative water supply treatment facility. Improvements may include expanding and 

lining the existing holding ponds on Site 10 to increase their capacity from 37 million gallons 

(MG) to 144 MG. The lining of these ponds may also reduce TP loadings to Lake Jesup 

through surficial groundwater. Additionally, Sanford has plans to upgrade their Mill Creek site 

with a pump station and other improvements so that they can store approximately 40 MG of 

reclaimed water during wet weather conditions (CDM, July 2009).

Sanford has also implemented Actiflo®

Appendix G

high-rate clarification into their wastewater process, which 

has the capability to reduce TP concentrations. However, only pilot studies have been performed 

to date and the Actiflo is currently in use during periods of heavy flow, when the plant capacity is 

being stressed. Sanford will be collecting data over time in order to quantify the benefits of this 

new system and its potential load reduction capabilities as it pertains to Site 10 (CDM, July 2009). 

Additional details about these changes to the Sanford WWTF and Site 10 can be found in 

.

4.2 MANAGE ME NT ACTIONS

“Management actions” refers to the suite of activities that the Lake Jesup BMAP allocation 

entities will be conducting to achieve their required TP reduction. These include structural and 

nonstructural activities. The projects and timeframes for implementation submitted by the 

entities to achieve their first five-year BMAP reductions are summarized in the tables in 

Appendix D. These projects were submitted to provide reasonable assurance to FDEP that 

each entity 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. New projects may be substituted 

for those identified in Appendix D during the annual BMAP progress report process.

4.2.1 MANAGE ME NT ACTION T YPES

The allocation entities in the Lake Jesup Basin provided information on projects and programs 

that they have in place or will be implemented to meet their BMAP reductions in the first fiveyear period. These management actions fall into one of four categories: (1) BMPs included in 

the TMDL; (2) completed and funded projects and programs; (3) planned projects and 

programs; and (4) participation in regional projects (either the Interagency Strategy projects or 

local cooperative projects) (see Section 4.2.3). A summary of the reductions each entity will 

achieve through these project categories is shown in Table 7.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

29

TABLE 7: S UMMAR Y OF E S TIMATE D TP L OAD R E DUCTIONS B Y MANAGE ME NT AC TION C ATEGORY

E NTITY

TMDL

B MP S

C OMPLE TE D/

F UNDE D

P LANNE D

INTE R AGE NCY/

L OCAL 

C OOPE R ATIVE

TOTAL 

(LBS /Y R )

CR E DIT FOR 

F UTUR E 

B MAP S 

(LBS /Y R )

Agriculture 29.9 - 206 18.8 254.7 1 0

Altamonte Springs 35 - 5.1 - 40.1 21.1

Casselberry 0 367.7 95.1 - 462.8 120.1

Eatonville 9.6 - 0.3 13.5 23.4 0

FDOT 101.9 109.4 126.9 - 338.2 205.9

Lake Mary 0 308.8 70.3 - 379.1 114.8

Longwood 58.9 24.8 45.5 69.7 198.9 -6.4

Maitland

2

0.7 36.1 85.6 - 122.4 -2.4

OOCEA

2

0 12.8 - - 12.8 7.6

Orange County 31.5 170.1 178.4 189 569.0 0

Orlando 34.8 818.2 105.2 - 958.2 631.9

Oviedo 386.5 - 416.4 - 802.9 544.2

Sanford 504.7 16.5 112.5 - 633.7 31.5

Seminole County 1,749.1 859.3 576.5 - 3,184.9 1,047.9

Turnpike Authority 0 252.3 12.2 - 264.5 163.4

Winter Park 0.4 402.6 119.9 - 522.9 152.4

Winter Springs 765.2 230 403.8 - 1399 886.0

TOTAL (lbs) 3,708.2 3,608.6 2,559.7 291.0 10,167.5 3,918.0 1 Reflects reductions that may be achieved by publicly funded projects, if needed. Refer to Section 4.2.5 for discussion. 2 Due to some project calculation adjustments done by FDEP, the remainder of the required reductions for this first BMAP will be 

met as part of the responsibilities in the second iteration of the BMAP.

The total project reductions in Table 7 are greater than the required reductions for this first 

BMAP (see Table 5). Several entities provided sufficient projects to meet their first five-year 

required reductions along with additional projects to meet their second, and in some cases third, 

five-year requirements. Table 7 and the tables in Appendix D show which entities have 

additional credits towards their obligations in future BMAPs.

4.2.2 E LIGIB ILITY

Management actions had to meet several criteria to be considered eligible for credit in the 

BMAP. All projects and programs were required to address nutrient loads (specifically TP) to 

receive credit. The BMPs that were included in the TMDL as part of the modeling process to 

determine needed load reductions were given credit. Through the BMAP process, some of the 

information on the BMPs in the TMDL was refined to more accurately estimate expected TP 

reductions. Any completed projects that were missing from the TMDL were also included in the 

BMAP project list. However, since the effectiveness of these older projects is unknown, 

additional reductions may be needed in future BMAP iterations to achieve the necessary TMDL 

reductions. In addition, future management actions were given credit for the portion of the load 

reduction that was over and above any permit requirements. This criterion was needed since 

permit conditions are established to maintain the current condition (prevent further impacts from 

the development) and do not contribute to the improvement of water quality.

Based on these eligibility requirements, the entities submitted structural and nonstructural 

projects to reduce the nonpoint source loading from stormwater and septic tanks. Table 8

summarizes the load reduction for each entity by project type (note: the total reductions shown 

in this table are the same as the total reductions in Table 7).
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

30

TABLE 8: S UMMAR Y OF T P LOAD R E DUCTIONS B Y P ROJ ECT TYPE

E NTITY

S TR UCTUR AL 

S TOR MWATE R

P UB LIC 

E DUCATION

S TREET 

S WE E PING

S E WE R ING

AGR IC ULTUR AL 

B MP S

INTE R AGE NCY/

L OCAL 

C OOPE R ATIVE

TOTAL

(LBS /Y R )

Agriculture N/A N/A N/A N/A 235.9 18.8 254.7 1

Altamonte Springs 35 4.6 0.5 N/A N/A - 40.1

Casselberry 371.9 85.6 5.3 - N/A - 462.8

Eatonville 9.6 0 0.3 - N/A 13.5 23.4

FDOT 241.4 6.5 90.3 N/A N/A - 338.2

Lake Mary 264.3 67.6 2.7 44.5 N/A - 379.1

Longwood 61 44.9 0.6 22.7 N/A 69.7 198.9

Maitland

2

74.2 40.8 7.4 - N/A - 122.4

OOCEA

2

12.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A - 12.8

Orange County 191.6 151 37.4 - N/A 189 569.0

Orlando 857.5 86.4 14.3 - N/A - 958.2

Oviedo 744.9 46.2 11.8 - N/A - 802.9

Sanford 521.2 108.9 3.6 - N/A - 633.7

Seminole County 2,613.50 558.3 13.1 - N/A - 3,184.9

Turnpike Authority 252.3 9 3.2 N/A N/A - 264.5

Winter Park 403.0 106.3 13.6 - N/A - 522.9

Winter Springs 1,299.70 92 7.3 - N/A - 1399

TOTAL (lbs) 7,953.9 1,408.1 211.4 67.2 235.9 291.0 10,167.5 1 Refer to Section 4.2.5 for additional details on the agriculture commitment to regional project participation. 2

4.2.3 R E GIONAL P ROJECTS

Due to some project calculation adjustments done by FDEP, the remainder of the required reductions for this first BMAP will be 

met as part of the responsibilities in the second BMAP.

While the majority of the projects submitted for this BMAP are jurisdictional projects, the option 

was also provided to participate in larger scale, regional projects. The regional projects are 

located in areas of the basin that have high nutrient concentrations; therefore, they can achieve 

large reductions in a cost effective manner. The regional projects include both local cooperative 

projects and the projects identified in the Lake Jesup Interagency Restoration Strategy (FDEP, 

FWC, and SJRWMD, 2008).

An example of a local cooperative project is the Solary Canal project, which is being 

implemented by SJRWMD, Seminole County, Oviedo, and Winter Springs. SJRWMD 

purchased the land for this project and helped to fund the construction. The local government 

project partners will be equally responsible for the operation and maintenance of the project and 

each will receive a portion of the TP reduction credit based on their financial contribution to the 

total project cost. The project tables for Seminole County, Oviedo, and Winter Springs in 

Appendix D include this project. Other entities also have the opportunity to develop local 

cooperative projects and Seminole County has proposed several projects and is currently 

seeking partners.

Another option is for the entities to participate in the regional projects outlined in the Lake Jesup 

Interagency Restoration Strategy (FDEP, FWC, and SJRWMD, 2008). The Interagency 

Strategy was jointly developed by FDEP, SJRWMD, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission (FWC). The strategy lays out a plan for the restoration of Lake 

Jesup that will be implemented in two phases. The first phase includes developing the BMAP, 

reducing external loads to the lake, and reducing nutrients in the lake water column. The 

second phase of the strategy will be implemented as necessary after the first phase is complete. 

The steps in the second phase include implementing additional projects to further improve water 

quality, implementing projects to increase native vegetation and control exotic species, and 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

31

implementing projects to establish healthy fish and wildlife habitat and populations. Throughout 

both phases, water quality monitoring will occur to track progress towards achieving the plan’s 

five main goals:

1. Reduced external nutrient loads (phosphorus and nitrogen).

2. Reduced water column phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations.

3. Increased water clarity through reduction in phytoplankton abundance and turbidity.

4. Increased coverage of native submerged and emergent vegetation.

5. Improvements in fish and wildlife habitats and populations.

This BMAP, which focuses on reducing external sources of phosphorus, is consistent with the 

Interagency Strategy and should help achieve the five goals of the plan. 

As part of this first iteration of the BMAP, Eatonville, Longwood, Orange County, and agriculture 

have committed to meeting part of their required reductions through participation in a regional 

project, either an Interagency Strategy project or a local cooperative project. Additional entities 

may participate in a regional project in a future BMAP to meet their reductions for 2015-2019 

and 2020-2024. 

For the five-year period of this first BMAP, the regional projects do not need to be completed by 

2014 since cooperative projects are more difficult to coordinate than single-entity projects. 

Instead, projects that are cooperatively funded by two or more local governments must have the 

permit issued, funding commitments in place, and the bid document issued for the project by the 

end of 2014 to receive credit during this BMAP implementation period.

4.2.4 P R OVIS IONAL B MP S

Several of the BMP activities included in the project lists were assigned provisional TP reduction 

estimates for the purposes of this first iteration of the BMAP. These provisional BMPs are: (1) 

street sweeping; (2) CDS and Stormceptor units; and (3) public education and outreach efforts. 

Studies to estimate the efficiencies of these BMPs are currently being conducted across the 

state, which will provide better information on the expected reductions from these BMPs for use 

in the next iteration of the BMAP to revise the project reductions. If the new BMP information 

indicates lower efficiencies than what was estimated for this BMAP, the entities that listed these 

BMPs in their project tables may need to provide additional projects to make up for the 

difference in reductions. If the new BMP information indicates higher efficiencies, the entities 

will receive additional credit if they included these BMPs on their project list.

4.2.4.1 Street Sweeping

The method for calculating nutrient reductions from street sweeping used in this BMAP is based 

on a per roadway mile swept. These calculations were based on data from the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Center for Watershed Protection, 

University of South Florida, and Orange County’s Stormwater Management Division. The 

efficiencies for different frequencies of sweeping are shown in Table 9. Allocation entities

provided the total miles swept and the frequency in the Lake Jesup Basin and this information 

was used to calculate the estimated TP load reduction, as shown in Appendix D.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

32

TABLE 9: S TREET S WE E PING E FFICIE NCY VALUES

S WE E PING F R E QUE NCY T P R E MOVAL E FFIC IE NC Y

Daily or 2 times/week 7%

Weekly 5%

2 times/month 4%

Monthly 3%

Quarterly 2%

Annually 1%

4.2.4.2 CDS Units and Stormceptor

Provisional credit was also provided for CDS units and Stormceptor. A 5% reduction was 

assigned to CDS units and a 10% reduction was assigned to Stormceptor. The entities that 

included one or both of these BMPs in their project tables are shown in Appendix D.

4.2.4.3 Public Education and Outreach

Up to a 6% reduction in the starting point load was assigned based on the education and 

outreach efforts conducted by each entity. The 6% load reduction estimate was determined 

from the EPA Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) Watershed Treatment Model. Credit was

given for the following applicable education activities:

1. Local funding to implement the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods (FYN) program within 

the city or county.

2. Local land development codes or ordinances that require Florida Friendly landscaping 

on all new developments; require commercial landscapers to obtain training and 

certification through the Green Industry BMP program; require irrigation systems per 

Sections 125.568 and 166.048, F.S. and Section 373.185, F.S.; and which specify 

fertilizer application rates and types. Local ordinances that control pet waste and require 

that residents pick up and properly dispose of pet wastes. 

3. Implementation of public service announcements (PSAs) on local cable or commercial

television and radio stations. 

4. Informational pamphlets on pollution prevention, fertilizer application, Florida Friendly 

Landscaping, water conservation, septic tank maintenance, etc. Presentations on these 

topics to civic groups, local businesses, students, and the general public.

5. Websites to provide information on reducing nutrient pollution for homeowners and 

businesses.

6. Inspection program and public call-in number to address illicit discharges.

Credit was assigned to the entities for the above efforts as follows:

• If all six types of activities are conducted by an entity, then the full 6% reduction was 

assigned.

• If an entity only has FYN, they received a 3% reduction credit.

• If an entity only has the Florida friendly ordinances (irrigation, landscaping, fertilizer, and 

pet waste management), then they received a 2% reduction.

• If an entity only has the PSAs, websites, brochures, and the inspection program, they 

received a 1% reduction credit.

• Other combinations of efforts were analyzed on a case-by-case basis for credit.

Appendix D summarizes the public education activities conducted by each entity and the 

associated load reductions.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

33

4.2.5 ADDR E S S ING AGR ICULTUR AL NONPOINT POL LUTION

Nutrient reductions from agricultural land uses will be achieved through the implementation of 

agricultural BMPs, as discussed below.

4.2.5.1 Agricultural BMPs

BMPs are individual or combined 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. Two categories included in FDACSadopted 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 tissue tests, 

fertigation (fertilizing through irrigation), split fertilizer applications, foliar applications, controlledrelease 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. In several areas of the state, 

FDACS-funded Mobile Irrigation Labs identify and demonstrate irrigation efficiency techniques 

to growers.

4.2.5.2 Agricultural Producers’ Responsibilities under the FWRA

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 implement 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., implementation 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 SJRWMD and other state and 

federal agencies have proven that BMPs can be implemented successfully, and can significantly 

reduce loads while sustaining production. The targets for enrolling agricultural acres in the 

basin are shown in Table 10.

TABLE 10: TARGETS FOR E NR OLLME NT IN AGR ICUL TUR AL B MPS

OAWP BMP PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT TARGETS* SUCCESS MEASURE

Citrus

100% of targeted agricultural operations within 5 

years of BMAP adoption

Number of targeted 

operations enrolled, with 

associated acres on which 

applicable BMPs will be 

implemented

Container Nurseries

Vegetable/ Agronomic Crops

Sod Farms 

Cow/Calf Operations 

In-Ground Nurseries 100% of targeted agricultural operations within 5 

Equine/Horse Farms years of manual adoption

* Enrollment numbers will depend on the ability of field staff to identify and locate producers, and whether producers 

choose to implement BMPs or monitor their water quality. Also, specific agricultural land uses and number of 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

34

agricultural operations may change from year to year. Progress on enrollment, based on best available information, 

will be included in the annual BMAP report. 

Based on information from county agricultural extension agents and FDACS/OAWP field staff, a 

rough estimate indicates there are between 50 and 60 agricultural operations that appropriately 

could be targeted for enrollment in the basin. As of June 30, 2009, nine producers within the 

Lake Jesup Basin counties had submitted notices of intent (NOIs) covering about 208 acres to 

implement FDACS-adopted BMPs. Table 11 and Table 12 show the adjusted estimated 

agricultural acreage in the watershed by land use, the current NOIs submitted, and the 

associated acres enrolled in related BMP programs. No producers are conducting water quality 

monitoring in lieu of implementing BMPs at this time. 

It is important to understand that even if all targeted agricultural operations are enrolled, not all 

the agricultural acres shown in Table 12 will be included. This is because land use data can 

contain non-production acres (buildings, parking lots, fallow acres, etc.) that will not be counted 

on the NOIs submitted to FDACS, and there may be some small farms (e.g., small-plot cow-calf 

owners not in commercial production) that it is not necessary to enroll. The NOIs will document 

the estimated total number of acres on which one or more of the selected BMPs are 

implemented, not the entire parcel acreage.

TABLE 11: S UMMAR Y OF AGR ICULTUR AL MANUALS AND P R OGR AMS

AREA ACRES P E R CE NT OF WATE R S HE D

Lake Jesup Basin 87,346.3 100

Agriculture 4,824.2 5.5

AGR IC ULTUR AL AREA ACRES

P E R CE NT OF 

AGR IC ULTUR AL ACREAGE

Without Adopted OAWP Manuals/Programs 92.9 1.9

With adopted OAWP Manuals/Programs* 4,731.3 98.1

Enrolled in adopted OAWP Manuals/Programs 208.5 4.3

* This figure may contain acres for which a BMP manual has not been adopted because of the aggregation of commodities within 

land use types.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

35

TABLE 12: AGR ICULTUR AL ACR E AGE AND B MP E NR OLLME NTS FOR THE L AKE J ESUP B MAP AREA

LAND 

USE 

CODE

LAND USE DESCRIPTION

TOTAL 

ACRES

RELATED 

FDACS BMP

PROGRAMS

COMMENTS

ACREAGE 

ENROLLED

NUMBER OF 

NOIS

2120 Unimproved Pasture 17.4

2130 Woodland Pasture 151.4 Cow/Calf Manual adopted (Spring 2009) N/A N/A

2110 Improved Pasture 2,256.5

Future Vegetable/Agronomic under revision (Fall 2010) 1 N/A N/A

2140 Row Crop 196.1

2150 Field Crops 16.0 Vegetable/Agronomic Manual Adopted (Winter 2006) 15.0 1

2160 Mixed Crops 0.0

2210 Citrus 1,340.8 Ridge Citrus BMP Adopted (Winter 1996) 2 100.0 2

Flatwoods Citrus Manual Adopted (Winter 2005) 2 0.0 0

2240 Abandoned Tree Crops 

(citrus) 0.0 N/A Out of production/abandoned - no enrollment needed N/A N/A

2310 Cattle Feeding Operation 0.0 Future Conservation Plan Rule under development (Spring 

2010)

N/A N/A

2330 Poultry Feeding Operation 2.5 N/A N/A

2400 Nurseries and Vineyards 384.8 Container Nursery Manual Adopted (Fall 2007) 3 See 2430 See 2430

Future Specialty Fruit & Nut under development (Fall 2010) N/A N/A

2200 Tree Crops 0.0 Future Comprehensive Nursery under development (Fall 

2010) N/A N/A

Future Specialty Fruit & Nut under development (Fall 2010) N/A N/A

2410 Tree Nurseries 0.0 Future Comprehensive Nursery under development (Fall 

2010) N/A N/A

Future Specialty Fruit & Nut under development (Fall 2010) N/A N/A

2430 Ornamentals 90.2 Container Nursery Manual adopted (Fall2007) 3 93.5 6

2431 Shade Ferns 0.0

Future Comprehensive Nursery under development (Fall 

2010) 2432 Hammock Ferns 0.0 N/A N/A

2450 Floriculture 2.3

2420 Sod Farm 278.0 Sod Manual adopted (Fall 2008) 0.0 0

2510 Horse Farm 88.2 Future Equine manual under development (Spring 2010) N/A N/A

2610 Fallow Cropland 0.0 N/A Acreage not in production as of land use survey N/A N/A

2540 Aquaculture 0.0 (FDACS Aquaculture 

Division) Aquaculture Certification Program N/A N/A

N/A TOTAL 4,824.2 N/A N/A 208.5 9

Note: Acreages based in part on SJRWMD 2004 land use level II data. 1

Acreage included in this land classification that is exclusively in hay production will be covered in a future revision of the Vegetable & Agronomic Crop manual. 2

To be included in development of comprehensive citrus manual.

3

Acreage included in this land classification that is in non-containerized nursery production will be covered in a comprehensive nursery manual, under development.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

36

4.2.5.3 Estimated Agricultural Load and Load Reduction Allocation

Table 13 contains the agricultural load estimates for nutrients used in establishing the TMDLs, 

and the reductions required of agricultural land uses in the Lake Jesup Basin. The acreage

used to calculate the starting point agricultural nutrient load is based on 2004 land use 

information from the SJRWMD. FDACS adjusted this estimate to more accurately reflect the 

current agricultural land use acreage. The FDACS adjusted acreage had approximately 2,650 

less agricultural acreage than the TMDL, which is about 42% less agricultural acreage. In 

addition, because of data limitations, all agricultural land uses were assigned the same loading 

rate (event mean concentration) in the TMDL model. 

Due to these factors, the estimated total load shown in Table 13 for agriculture is greater than 

the actual loading. In addition, the region is expected to have continuing shifts from agricultural 

to residential land uses. This will further reduce the agricultural load. More precise information 

will be incorporated into the next iteration of the TMDL, and the estimated agricultural load will 

be adjusted to reflect the updated acreage figure. In advance of that, during the first phase of 

BMAP implementation (2010-2014), FDACS will work with FDEP to determine the actual 

agricultural load and recalculate the remaining reductions needed.

4.2.5.4 Load Reduction Estimates for BMPs

The agricultural load reduction estimates, shown in Table 13, are based on commodity-specific 

methods developed for the Lake Okeechobee watershed. The Lake Okeechobee watershed 

methods were selected because the nature of the agricultural operations and the distribution of 

soil hydrologic groups share similarities with those in the Lake Jesup Basin. However, basinspecific methods with emphasis on assumed typical conditions have yet to be developed. An 

example of this is the field-grown palm acreage being assigned typical conditions associated 

with standard ornamental operations. These values may assume conditions, such as typical 

phosphorus fertilization rates, that differ from actual field conditions.

In addition, the agricultural load reduction estimates are based on updated acreage estimates, 

which total 2,650 acres less than the acreage used in the TMDL. Further ground-truthing of 

agricultural acreage, along with the potential refinement of a basin- and commodity-specific 

agricultural loading/reduction model should be considered during the first BMAP cycle. 

TABLE 13: E S TIMATE D AGR ICULTUR AL T P LOAD, LOAD R E DUCTION ALLOC ATION, AND R E DUCTIONS

E S TIMATE D L OADS TOTAL

2010-2014

EXISTING BMPS

2015-2019

NEW BMPS

2020-2024

MAINTAIN

Estimated Total Load 1,149.0 N/A N/A N/A

Load Reduction Allocation 764.0 254.7 254.7 254.7

Estimated Load Reductions via BMPs 277.9 235.9 42.0 0.0

Remaining Reductions Needed 486.1 18.8 212.7 254.7

Estimated Load Reduction Based on

Updated Acreage Adjustments N/A N/A To be determined

To be 

determined

Remaining Load Reductions Needed N/A N/A To be 

determined

To be 

determined

4.2.5.5 FDACS OAWP Role in BMP Implementation and Follow-Up

The OAWP assists agricultural producers enrolled in its programs in implementing BMPs. The 

OAWP employs field staff and contracts with service providers to work with producers to submit 

NOIs to implement the BMPs appropriate for their operations. Depending on the region of the 

BMP Implementation
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

37

state, these providers include the soil and water conservation districts, UF–IFAS, and natural 

resource development and conservation councils. They also give technical assistance to 

producers and, as funding allows, help implement cost-share programs that leverage regional, 

state, and federal funds. 

The OAWP will recruit producers within the Lake Jesup Basin to enroll in adopted BMP 

programs applicable to their operations. OAWP staff and contractors will identify existing 

growers, to the greatest extent possible, with the help of grower associations, information on 

county agricultural exemptions, field staff knowledge, and other means. Staff/contractors will 

assist producers in selecting the appropriate BMPs, with emphasis on nutrient management, 

irrigation management, sediment/erosion control, stormwater management, and record keeping.

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 SJRWMD in 

order to demonstrate compliance with the allocations in the TMDL. 

Table 14 identifies the key nutrient-related BMPs that would most likely be applicable to 

operations in the Lake Jesup Basin. By definition, BMPs are technically and economically 

feasible. However, FDACS BMP manuals contain some BMPs that may only be affordable with 

financial assistance, depending on the economic viability of the operation. The BMP checklists 

allow producers to indicate whether a BMP is not economically feasible, on a case-by-case 

basis. As BMP cost share becomes available to the basin, FDACS will work with producers to 

implement applicable key BMPs that otherwise are not affordable. 

TABLE 14: K EY NUTR IE NT-R E LATE D B MPS ADOPTE D B Y THE FDACS OAWP

KEY NUTRIENT-RELATED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Determining Nutrient Needs

Soil and Tissue Testing: Used to base fertilizer applications on plant needs and available nutrients in the soil; 

helps prevent over-application of fertilizer. 

Nutrient Budgeting: Adjustment of fertilizer regime to account for other nutrient sources, such as bio-solids, 

legumes, manure, and nutrient-laden irrigation water; helps prevent over-application of fertilizer.

Managing Nutrient Applic ation

Precision Application of Nutrients: Use of specialized equipment for precise placement of nutrients on targeted 

areas at specified rates; reduces total amount used and prevents stray applications.

Equipment Calibration/Maintenance: Ensures proper functioning of equipment; prevents misapplication or overapplication of fertilizer materials.

Split Fertilizer Applications: Multiple applications timed with optimal growth stages; allows plants to assimilate 

nutrients more efficiently; reduces nutrient loss in leaching and runoff.

Fertigation: Application of fertilizer through irrigation water; allows for direct nutrient application to the crop root 

zone and more efficient assimilation by plants, reducing nutrient loss in leaching and runoff.

Controlled-Release Fertilizer: Use of fertilizer formulations that have a controlled nutrient release curve; reduces 

nutrient loss to leaching and runoff.

Fertilizer Application Setbacks from Waterbodies (wetlands, watercourses, sinks, springs, etc.): Establishes a 

zone where no fertilizer will be applied; reduces nutrient loadings to waterbodies.

Managing Irrigation

Irrigation Scheduling: Planning when to irrigate to reduce water and nutrient losses, based on available soil 

moisture content, evapotranspiration levels, recent rainfall, and time of day.

Monitoring Soil Moisture and Water Table: Use of devices that measure the water table level and the amount of 

water in the soil; is a key component of proper irrigation scheduling.

Tailwater Recovery: Use of down-gradient catchment ponds to trap irrigation tailwater to be reused on cropland; 

reduces offsite transport of nutrients and conserves water.

T reatment and E ros ion C ontrol

Filter Strips: Vegetated strips of land designed to reduce nutrients and sediments in surface water runoff from 

fields, pastures, and livestock high-intensity areas before it reaches downstream waterbodies.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

38

KEY NUTRIENT-RELATED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Vegetative Buffers: Establishment of riparian and/or wetland buffers to attenuate and assimilate nutrient- or 

sediment-laden surface flows coming from cropped/grazed areas.

Ditch Maintenance and Retrofits: Use of rip rap, sediment traps, staging structures, and permanent vegetative 

bank cover to minimize erosion and transport of nutrient-laden sediments.

L ives toc k Management (Applic able to C ow/C alf and E quine Operations )

Alternative Water Sources: Use of upland livestock watering ponds and/or water troughs; minimizes manure 

deposition in waterbodies.

Rotational Grazing: Movement of cattle to different grazing areas on a planned basis; prevents concentrated 

waste accumulations and denuding of pasture areas. May involve fencing.

High-Intensity Areas Location: Siting of cowpens, supplemental feed areas, etc., away from waterbodies to 

minimize nutrient loadings.

Operations Management

Fertilizer Storage: Proper location/storage of bulk fertilizer products to prevent nutrient loadings.

Fertilizer Mix/Load: Use of appropriate dedicated or temporary mix/load areas located away from waterbodies to 

prevent nutrient loading.

Employee Training: Training provided to farm workers on how to implement BMPs.

Record Keeping: Proper record keeping provides accountability in the implementation of BMPs, and assists the 

producer in making nutrient and irrigation management decisions.

OAWP BMPs and staff contact information are located at http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com. 

Printed BMP manuals can be obtained in the local extension office at county agricultural 

extension centers, or by contacting OAWP field staff.

In addition to enrolling targeted operations in the relevant BMP programs, the OAWP will:

Follow-Up and Reporting on BMP Enrollment and Implementation

• Document the submitted NOIs, which will include 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.

• Through the Implementation Assurance Program: 

o On a rotating basis by program, mail written surveys to all operations in the Lake 

Jesup Basin under an active FDACS NOI, to evaluate BMP implementation and 

update information on ownership, land use, acreage, etc.

o Perform random site visits on operations in the basin that are under a FDACS NOI, 

to ensure that the BMPs are being implemented, providing assistance and 

reasonable opportunities to producers to correct any deficiencies. This will serve as 

a “spot check” for the surveys, and will not cover all operations because of resource 

limitations.

• Through regional field staff, follow up on identified areas/operations of particular concern 

(e.g., large-acreage operations, “hot spots,” etc.).

• Participate in annual BMAP reporting on enrollment efforts and results, follow-up 

activities conducted, new manuals adopted, any new efforts planned, and estimated load 

reductions.

The FWRA 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. Continuing water quality 

problems will be detected through the BMAP monitoring component and other FDEP and 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

39

SJRWMD activities. If a re-evaluation of the BMPs is needed, FDACS will also include 

SJRWMD and other partners in the process. 

4.2.5.6 FDEP and SJRWMD Roles in BMP Implementation

The FWRA 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 district 

may be subject to enforcement action by either of those agencies. In the case of continuous 

non-cooperation by an agricultural producer in implementing BMPs, FDACS will consult with 

FDEP and SJRWMD to determine whether it is necessary for one of those agencies to 

intervene.

FDEP and SJRWMD will work cooperatively with OAWP to determine the most appropriate 

action to take (site inspection, prescribed water quality monitoring, enforcement), based on the 

circumstances. FDEP and SJRWMD will provide an annual summary of the non-compliance 

reports they receive and any related actions they take.

4.2.5.7 Beyond BMPs

Under the FWRA, when FDEP adopts a BMAP that includes agriculture, it is the agricultural 

producer’s responsibility to implement water quality BMPs adopted by FDACS and verified as 

being effective by FDEP. The Lake Jesup BMAP target for BMP implementation is to enroll all 

producers in the watershed in the relevant FDACS BMP programs. As shown in Table 13, 

implementation of agricultural BMPs on all operations (based on adjusted agricultural acreage 

figures) is estimated to achieve 248 lbs/yr of TP of the 771 lbs/yr of TP reduction required of 

agricultural sources. 

As discussed previously, the agricultural loading estimate does not reflect the significant 

reduction in agricultural acreage since the period of record for the TMDL, so the load reduction 

needed may be significantly lower than calculated. However, if acreage adjustments and BMP 

implementation do not fully account for the current agricultural load reduction allocation, it will be 

necessary to develop and implement cost-assisted field- and/or regional-level treatment options 

that remove nutrients from farm discharges. As needed, FDACS will work with local, regional, 

state, and federal partners to explore opportunities and funding sources to develop and 

implement effective treatment projects. As appropriate to achieve agricultural load reductions, 

these might include Interagency Strategy projects or other cooperative initiatives in the basin.

4.2.6 ACTIONS TO ADDR E S S L OADING F R OM FUTUR E GROWTH

The future growth analysis described above identified areas of population growth. To achieve 

pollution reductions in these high growth areas, the state and EPA want developers to look to 

LID and other green infrastructure practices to reduce the hard surfaces that prevent water from 

infiltrating the ground where it can be treated naturally. Stakeholders in the basin have a variety 

of programs in place to manage the water quality impacts of future growth. Each stakeholder 

operates under a specific set of guidelines, policies, and requirements that regulate 

development within their jurisdiction, as shown in Table 15.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

40

TABLE 15: L AKE J ESUP B AS IN S TAK E HOLDE R DE VE LOPME NT R E GULATIONS

S TAK E HOLDE R DE VE LOPME NT R E GULATIONS

SJRWMD Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Regulations

Altamonte Springs

Comprehensive Plan

Code of Ordinances

Land Development Code

Casselberry Code of Ordinances

Comprehensive Plan

Eatonville Comprehensive Plan

Land Development Code

Lake Mary Comprehensive Plan

Code of Ordinances

Longwood Community Development Documents

Maitland Comprehensive Plan

Code

Orange County Comprehensive Plan

Code of Ordinances

Orlando Growth Management Plan

Code

Oviedo Comprehensive Plan

Land Development Code

Sanford

Comprehensive Plan

City Code

Land Development Regulations

Seminole County Comprehensive Plan

Land Development Code

Winter Park Comprehensive Plan

Land Development Code

Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan

Code of Ordinances

4.2.6.1 Low Impact Development

Conventional stormwater systems have typically been designed to collect, convey and 

discharge runoff away from development as efficiently as possible. The purpose of stormwater 

management was first and foremost to prevent flooding. The concept of LID in stormwater 

management was introduced in the late 1990s (U.S. EPA 2000, 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lidlit.html), and is an approach to land development that uses 

various land planning and design practices and technologies to simultaneously conserve and 

protect natural resource systems and reduce infrastructure costs. The LID approach to land 

development meets flood prevention needs while also minimizing water quality impacts 

associated with growth.

The goal of LID is to replicate the pre-development water balance of surface runoff, infiltration 

and evapotranspiration on a site-specific basis, thereby minimizing or eliminating pollutant loads 

into surface waters. Stormwater storage, infiltration, and ground water recharge, as well as the 

volume and frequency of discharges are maintained through the use of integrated and 

distributed small-scale stormwater retention and detention areas, reduction of impervious 

surfaces, and the lengthening of flow paths and runoff time (Coffman, 2000). The basic 

principle is to manage runoff at the source using decentralized techniques at the scale of 

individual lots.

The incorporation of LID techniques into future development is an innovative management 

action that the stakeholders are undertaking to maintain or improve water quality within the Lake 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

41

Jesup Basin. There are numerous creative LID techniques to treat, use, store, retain, detain 

and recharge stormwater runoff and new methods are evolving. Appendix E provides 

examples of how stakeholders in the Lake Jesup Basin are implementing LID principles and 

activities.

4.2.6.2 Other Development-Related Management Actions

Stakeholders in the basin are implementing other activities to address the impact of future

growth. One example is that Orange County planners are working on including LID strategies in 

the update of the Urban Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. They are also developing 

an infill master plan that may include LID building practices for re-development.

There are many opportunities that local governments in the basin can undertake to build on the 

current implementation of LID. Regulatory initiatives can be proposed to require increasing the 

amounts of on-site runoff retention, or to provide additional water quality treatment to remove 

suspended sediments. Orange County is considering expanding LID policies adopted as part of 

the Wekiva Parkway Protection Act to cover the entire county. Orange County Comprehensive 

Plan Policy 4.5.2 of the Future Land Use Element encompasses the full spectrum of LID 

concepts and strategies, providing a concise example that other jurisdictions can use as a 

model. 

Legislatively, local governments can pursue changes in the SJRWMD, FDOT, and Florida 

Building Code rules to promote LID practices and provide support from the State level. Local 

governments can initiate or expand incentive programs for builders and developers. Permitting 

preferences, streamlined permitting, or reductions in permit fees may be given where LID 

practices are used over traditional techniques in complying with standards. Perhaps the 

greatest impact that local governments have had with regard to LID is through education and 

outreach. This activity could be expanded to include specific training for local building officials, 

planners, engineers and reviewers on LID. Such training will serve to overcome the reluctance 

on the part of staff to review and approve innovative practices. Similar outreach should be 

provided to developers, builders, and landscape architects.

Through continued implementation of LID principles listed in Appendix E, land acquisition, and 

continued regulatory support, the water quality effects of future growth will be minimized in the 

Lake Jesup basin. Because most development occurs by private entities, public-private 

cooperation is vital if the effects of new development are to be mitigated. The foundation for this 

type of cooperation exists in the basin. Relationships between SJRWMD, local governments,

and the development community have been built through implementation of the projects noted 

in the appendix. This foundation will be important to the ongoing success of LID and similar 

efforts in the Lake Jesup Basin.

4.3 S E CTION 319 FUNDING NINE E LE ME NTS

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. This BMAP includes the 

recommended elements, as shown in Table 16, which benefits the entities applying for Section 

319 funding for the projects in the BMAP. Additional information on these elements can be 

found in the “Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our 

Waters,” located online at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/. 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

42

TABLE 16: EPA E LE ME NTS OF A WATE R S HE D PLAN

EPA

E LE ME NT

EPA E LE ME NT

S E C TION IN B MAP WHE R E 

ADDR E S S E D

1

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. Sections 1.3, 3.2, and 3.3

2 An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures.

Sections 3.3 and 4.2 and 

Appendix D

3

A description of the nonpoint source management measures that will need 

to be implemented to achieve load reductions, and a description of the 

critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement this 

plan.

Section 4.2 and Appendix 

D

4

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.

Section 1.2.3 and

Appendix D

5

An information and education 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.

Sections 1.2.1 and 4.2, 

Appendix C, and 

Appendix D

6 Schedule for implementing the nonpoint source management measures 

identified in this plan that is reasonably expeditious. Appendix D

7

A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether 

nonpoint source management measures or other control actions are being 

implemented.

Sections 1.2.3 and 5.1

and Appendix D

8

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.

Sections 1.3 and 5.1 and 

Appendix D

9

A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

implementation efforts over time, measured against the criteria established 

under item 8 immediately above. Section 5.1
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

43

CHAPTER 5: MONITOR ING AND E VAL UATION

Successful BMAP implementation requires commitment and follow-up. In the Commitment to 

Plan Implementation (Chapter 6), Basin Working Group 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 information gathered as part of this monitoring 

plan will be used to recalculate the TMDL and BMAP allocations in the next five-year cycle.

5.1 MONITOR ING S TRATEGY

The Lake Jesup BMAP was developed with the best information available regarding in-lake 

processes, water quality conditions, nutrient sources, and project effectiveness. This monitoring 

strategy is designed to enhance the understanding of basin loads, track project implementation, 

and identify long-term water quality trends. This information will measure progress toward 

achieving the TMDL and provide a foundation for continued improvement in cost-effective 

project implementation. Sampling stations, parameters, frequency, and other elements of this 

strategy may be modified as appropriate to match changing environmental conditions and 

funding resources. However, any modifications made shall not affect the ability of the 

monitoring network to fulfill the objectives noted below, including quantification of trends in TP 

that will be used to evaluate progress toward meeting the TMDL.

5.1.1 OB J E CTIVE S

Focused objectives are critical for a monitoring strategy to provide the information needed to 

evaluate implementation success. The primary and secondary objectives of the monitoring 

strategy for both Lake Jesup and its tributaries are described below. Primary objectives are 

necessary to evaluate success of the BMAP and refine the TMDL model in the next iteration. 

Secondary objectives contribute to this evaluation, can help interpret data collected, and provide 

refinements for potential future refinements of the TMDL and/or BMAP.

Primary Objectives

1. Track trends in total phosphorus load in Lake Jesup and its tributaries through the 

ambient monitoring network.

2. Determine inputs to Lake Jesup.

3. Track trends in inflow and outflow nutrient loads from each jurisdiction for model 

refinement, attenuation calculations, and determination of reductions from BMAP 

projects. 

4. Collect necessary information on nutrient loads to support future refinement of the TMDL 

(refer to Section 5.2 for research studies).

Secondary Objectives

1. Identify areas within the watershed that exhibit unusually high loadings of total 

phosphorus (“hot spots”) to better focus management efforts.

2. Monitor trends in total nitrogen in Lake Jesup and its tributaries to determine to what 

extent reductions in total phosphorus is helping to control nitrogen fixation in the lake 

(see Section 2.4 for a discussion of the relationship between TP and nitrogen-fixation).

3. Track ecological and limnological responses to BMAP implementation. 

4. Verify the BMP effectiveness values used in the Lake Jesup BMAP (see Section 2.4).
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

44

5.1.2 WATER QUALITY INDIC ATOR S AND R ESOUR CES R E S PONS E S 

To achieve the objectives above, the monitoring strategy focuses on two types of indicators to 

track water quality trends: core and supplemental (Table 17). The core indicators are directly 

related to the parameters causing impairment in the lake and its tributaries. Supplemental 

indicators are monitored primarily to support the interpretation of core water quality parameters. 

At a minimum, the core parameters will be tracked to determine progress towards meeting the 

TMDL (see Table 19). In addition, resource responses to BMAP implementation will also be 

tracked (Table 18). Changes in water chemistry are expected to occur within a relatively short 

timeframe, depending on the actual rate of project implementation and rainfall conditions. A

significant amount of time may be needed for the changes in water chemistry to be observed in 

the resource responses. However, resource responses represent improvements in the overall

ecological health of Lake Jesup.

TABLE 17: COR E AND S UPPLE ME NTAL WATER QUALITY P AR AME TE R S FOR AMB IE NT MONITOR ING

C ORE P AR AME TE R S L AKE J ESUP - ANTIC IP ATE D T R E ND T R IB UTAR IE S - ANTIC IP ATE D T R E ND

Chlorophyll-a (corrected) Decrease in concentration Decrease in concentration

Total Phosphorus (as P) Decrease in concentration Decrease in concentration

Orthophosphate as P Decrease in concentration Decrease in concentration

Ammonium as N (NH4) No trend anticipated No trend anticipated

Nitrate/nitrite as N No trend anticipated No trend anticipated

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) Possible decrease in concentration* Possible decrease in concentration*

Biological oxygen demand (BOD) Decrease in concentration Decrease in concentration

S UPPLE ME NTAL P AR AME TE R S L AKE J ESUP T R IB UTAR IE S

Specific conductance Monitored to support interpretation of 

core indicators

Monitored to support interpretation of 

core indicators

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Monitored to support interpretation of 

core indicators

Monitored to support interpretation of 

core indicators

pH Monitored to support interpretation of 

core indicators

Monitored to support interpretation of 

core indicators

Temperature Monitored to support interpretation of 

core indicators

Monitored to support interpretation of 

core indicators

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Monitored to support interpretation of 

core indicators

Monitored to support interpretation of 

core indicators

Note: Anticipated trends are only for the first 5-year BMAP implementation period.

* The focus in this BMAP is on reducing external TP loads to the lake. However, some of the projects in the BMAP to 

reduce TP may also result in a reduction in TN.

TABLE 18: ANTICIP ATE D R ESOUR CE R E S P ONS E S FR OM B MAP IMPLE ME NTATION

R ESOUR CE R E S PONS E S L AKE J ESUP T R IB UTAR IE S

Reduction in the trophic state index (TSI) X

Increase in stream condition index (SCI) score X X

Increase in Shannon-Weaver diversity index X X

Increase in key fish populations X

5.1.3 MONITOR ING NETWORK

The monitoring network for this plan builds on existing efforts in basin by:

• Orange County

• Seminole County

• Altamonte Springs

• Casselberry

• Lake Mary

• Longwood

• Maitland

• Orlando

• Oviedo

• Sanford

• Winter Park

• SJRWMD

• FDEP
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

45

Table 19 lists the stations that are included in the BMAP monitoring network. The water quality 

monitoring will be conducted on a monthly basis to assess the conditions in the watershed and 

within Lake Jesup to determine changes in water quality from the actions implemented as part 

of the BMAP. The flow stations throughout the basin will take measurements every 15 or 60 

minutes and this information will be used to calibrate the model. The storm event stations are 

described in further detail in Section 5.1.3.2. The stations in the monitoring network are also 

shown in Figure 7 through Figure 13. 

In addition to the BMAP monitoring network, the entities in the basin are also conducting 

sampling that will provide supplemental data to meet the monitoring strategy objectives. This 

additional monitoring is described in Appendix F. The research studies, as described in 

Section 5.2, will also provide information that will be utilized in the next iteration of the TMDL 

and BMAP.

5.1.3.1 FDOT Role in the Monitoring Network

Due to the fact that FDOT District Five’s jurisdiction extends across multiple MS4 boundaries, 

FDOT District Five currently relies on the lead permittees (Orange County and Seminole 

County) for compliance with the water quality monitoring component of the respective Phase I 

MS4 permit. Additionally, stormwater runoff from FDOT District Five’s right-of-way discharges 

to waterbodies monitored by the existing monitoring programs in place by Orange County and 

Seminole County. FDOT District Five has a joint-participation agreement with Seminole County 

to provide financial support for Seminole County’s Watershed Atlas and five quarterly NPDES 

monitoring sites. FDOT District Five and Seminole County are negotiating the current 

agreement for FDOT to provide additional funds to assist with the County’s monitoring program. 

FDOT District Five is also currently negotiating a similar agreement with Orange County to 

provide financial support for Orange County’s water quality monitoring program. FDOT District 

Five will not be developing an independent monitoring program for the Lake Jesup BMAP and 

will continue to rely on Orange and Seminole County’s monitoring program in support of the first 

iteration of the Lake Jesup BMAP. In the next iteration of the Lake Jesup BMAP, FDOT District 

Five will coordinate with Orange and Seminole County to evaluate proposed changes, if any, to 

the joint-participation agreements based on changes to the monitoring programs of each 

County.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

46

FIGUR E 7: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN OR LANDO AND WINTE R P ARK
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

47

FIGUR E 8: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN MAITL AND, C ASSELBERRY, LONGWOOD, AND WINTE R 

S PR INGS
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

48

F IGUR E 9: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN OR ANGE COUNTY
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

49

FIGUR E 10: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN WINTE R S PR INGS , S E MINOLE COUNTY, AND L AKE MARY
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

50

F IGUR E 11: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN S E MINOLE C OUNTY, S ANFOR D, AND L AKE J ESUP
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

51

FIGUR E 12: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN S E MINOLE C OUNTY AND L AKE J ESUP
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

52

F IGUR E 13: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN L AKE J ESUP
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

53

TABLE 19: B MAP MONITOR ING NETWORK

E NTITY S TATION ID S TATION DE S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE

S AMPL ING 

F R E QUE NCY

YEAR S ITE 

E S TAB L IS HE D

S AMPL ING P AR AME TE R S

Casselberry New station Gee Creek northeast of Lake 

Kathryn Water Quality Monthly New Core and supplemental parameters

FDEP New Station Cameron Avenue and 

Kentucky Street Water Quality Monthly New Core and supplemental parameters

Lake Mary

Longwood Lake 

Mary Rd. 

downstream of 

culvert

Soldier's Creek Upstream Water Quality Monthly 2005 Core and supplemental parameters

Lake Mary

Behind Austin 

Street upstream of 

culvert

Soldier's Creek Downstream Water Quality Monthly 2005 Core and supplemental parameters

Lake Mary New station Outlet of Big Lake Mary Water Quality Monthly New Core and supplemental parameters

Longwood New station Fairy Lake Water Quality Monthly New Core and supplemental parameters

Maitland Waumpi Lake Waumpi Water Quality Monthly 2008

Core and supplemental parameters, secchi 

depth, water depth, coliform, alkalinity, total

dissolved solids (TDS), volatile TSS

Orange County Burkett Canal 2 Lake Burkett Discharge 

Upstream of Aloma Water Quality Monthly 2007 Core and supplemental parameters, flow,discharge, bacteria

Orlando Rowena Canal In the canal that connects 

Lake Rowena to Lake Sue Water Quality Monthly 2008 Core and supplemental parameters, volatile TSS, TDS, alkalinity

Seminole 

County* HCCB Howell Creek at County Border Water Quality Monthly 2007 Core and supplemental parameters, flow, water depth, coliform

Seminole

County/Sanford NAV Naval Canal at Pineway Water Quality Quarterly/Fill 

in for monthly 2000

Core and supplemental parameters, secchi 

depth, water depth, coliform, alkalinity, TDS, 

volatile TSS, color

Seminole 

County/Oviedo SOLARY Solary Canal Water Quality Quarterly/Fill 

in for monthly 2004

Core and supplemental parameters, secchi 

depth, water depth, coliform, alkalinity, TDS, 

volatile TSS, color

Seminole 

County/Sanford CHUBB Chub Creek at E Lake Mary 

Blvd Water Quality Quarterly/Fill 

in for monthly 2007

Core and supplemental parameters, water 

depth, flow, coliform, alkalinity, TDS, color, 

volatile TSS, metals

Seminole 

County/ 

Altamonte 

Springs

PRA Prairie Lake Water Quality Quarterly/Fill 

in for monthly 1999

Core and supplemental parameters, secchi 

depth, water depth, coliform, alkalinity, TDS, 

volatile TSS, color

Seminole 

County/FDEP SALT Salt Creek at Packard Ave. Water Quality Quarterly/ Fill 

in for monthly 2003

Core and supplemental parameters, secchi 

depth, water depth, coliform, alkalinity, TDS, 

volatile TSS, color, metals
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

54

E NTITY S TATION ID S TATION DE S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE

S AMPL ING 

F R E QUE NCY

YEAR S ITE 

E S TAB L IS HE D

S AMPL ING P AR AME TE R S

Seminole 

County/FDEP SWEET Sweetwater Creek at Howard 

Ave. Water Quality Quarterly/ Fill 

in for monthly 2004

Core and supplemental parameters, water 

depth, flow, coliform, alkalinity, TDS, color, 

volatile TSS, metals

SJRWMD T-3 Six Mile Creek at Sanford Ave 

Canal NE of LJ Water Quality Monthly 1995 Core and supplemental parameters, metals

SJRWMD T-5 Howell Creek Delta on SW end 

of LJ Water Quality Monthly 1995 Core and supplemental parameters, metals

SJRWMD T-8 Gee and Soldier Creek Delta 

west of LJ Water Quality Monthly 1995 Core and supplemental parameters, metals

SJRWMD OW-2 LJ off Grassy Point Water Quality Monthly 1995 Core and supplemental parameters, metals, 

light attenuation, plankton

SJRWMD OW-4 LJ W of bridge betwn Whites 

Lndg & Bird Island Water Quality Monthly 1995 Core and supplemental parameters, metals, light attenuation, plankton

SJRWMD OW-6 LJ off center of Far W Arm Water Quality Monthly 1995 Core and supplemental parameters, metals, 

light attenuation, plankton

Winter Park Weir at Howell 

Branch Rd

10' Upstream of Weir at Howell 

Branch Road Water Quality Monthly 1995 Core parameters

Seminole County Howell Howell Creek at W SR 434 Storm Storm 2000 TSS, nitrate/nitrite as N, TN, ammonia as N, 

TKN, TP, BOD5, fecal coliform

Seminole County Solary Solary Canal at Deleon Street Storm Storm 2001 TSS, nitrate/nitrite as N, TN, ammonia as N, 

TKN, TP, BOD5, fecal coliform

Seminole County Gee Gee Creek at SR 434 Storm Storm 2000 TSS, nitrate/nitrite as N, TN, ammonia as N, 

TKN, TP, BOD5, fecal coliform

Seminole County Soldier Soldiers Creek at SR 419 Storm Storm 2000 TSS, nitrate/nitrite as N, TN, ammonia as N, 

TKN, TP, BOD5, fecal coliform

Seminole County Six Six Mile Creek at Myrtle Street Storm Storm 2000 TSS, nitrate/nitrite as N, TN, ammonia as N, 

TKN, TP, BOD5, fecal coliform

USGS 2234308 Howell Creek Near Altamonte 

Springs FL Flow 60min 1996 Gage height, discharge

USGS 2234324 Howell Creek near Slavia FL Flow 60min 1972 Gage height, discharge

USGS 2234344 Howell Creek at State HWY 

434 near Oviedo FL Flow 60min 1973 Gage height, discharge

USGS 2234384 Soldier Creek near Longwood 

FL Flow 60min 1972 Gage height, discharge

USGS 2234400 Gee Creek near Longwood FL Flow 60min 1972 Gage height, discharge

USGS 2234435 Lake Jesup outlet near 

Sanford FL Flow 15min 1941 Gage height, velocity, discharge

*Note: Casselberry will help fund some of the sampling at the Lake Howell site (see Appendix F).
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

55

5.1.3.2 Storm Event Sampling

The event-based sampling will occur after storm events to provide information on what pollutant 

loads are entering the tributaries due to high runoff conditions. This information will be 

important to help calibrate the model for the next iteration of the TMDL and BMAP. The majority 

of the storm event data will be collected by Seminole County. They have operated and 

maintained permanent storm event monitoring stations on the five major tributaries to Lake 

Jesup, which include Six Mile Creek, Soldiers Creek, Howell Creek, Gee Creek, and Solary 

(Sweetwater) Canal. Each station is located at or near the downstream end of the subbasin, as 

close to the confluence with the lake as is structurally possible. All of the storm event sites have 

been in operation since 2000, with the exception of the Gee Creek site which came online in 

2001. Seminole County will continue to monitor these stations as part of the BMAP network 

(see Table 19).

5.1.3.3 Performance-Based Monitoring

Measuring the effectiveness of specific BMPs in reducing target pollutant loads is a secondary 

objective of the monitoring strategy. Specific stations have not been identified at this time. As 

part of the BMAP implementation and follow-up process, BWG members will identify 

opportunities for BMP-specific monitoring on a project-by-project basis. This will involve 

individual entities monitoring the impacts of one of the BMPs included in their management 

actions identified in the BMAP. Although this is not feasible for every BMAP project, a few 

carefully selected monitoring efforts would provide important data on the effectiveness of 

individual BMPs. Performance-based monitoring will occur on an as-needed basis as resources 

allow, as determined by the project sponsor. The data collected through this type of targeted 

monitoring will be used during BMAP evaluations to analyze the effectiveness of specific BMPs 

and adjust the implementation strategy, as appropriate. Performance-based monitoring will 

apply the same set of core parameters identified in Table 17 and the appropriate supplemental 

parameters. In addition, the Florida Stormwater Association (FSA) has ongoing studies on the 

effectiveness of stormwater BMPs. Available information from these studies will be considered 

during the next BMAP iteration to help determine project credit.

5.1.3.4 Site 10 Monitoring

The City of Sanford has agreed to modify their existing monitoring on Site 10 to provide the 

information needed for the TMDL modeling in the next iteration. The Site 10 monitoring plan 

has been incorporated into the Sanford WWTF permit. The monitoring plan was added as a 

permit requirement to aid in enforceability because Site 10 was not included in the current 

TMDL model. However, future iterations of the TMDL will include the loading from this site

based on the results of this monitoring. It is important to note that the sampling locations 

described below are not included in the BMAP monitoring network maps in Section 5.1.3.2. 

The Site 10 monitoring plan consists of three components: (1) groundwater; (2) storm event; 

and (3) in-lake sampling. 

The City of Sanford currently has 13 groundwater monitoring stations. As part of the updated 

monitoring plan, Sanford will add two new stations on the western portion of the site and will add 

TP as a sampling parameter to the groundwater wells. In addition, FDEP has agreed to allow 

Sanford to remove several existing wells in the citrus groves where there is a large cluster of 

wells, which will help offset the cost associated with the new wells. Figure 14 shows the 

locations of the groundwater wells on Site 10 (CDM, 2009).
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

56

Sanford is also adding a storm event sampler upstream of Pond B-2 (see Figure 15). This 

location was selected because it is the only area that has continuous streamflow; therefore, a 

sampler in this area could also provide data for base flow. In addition, this location is in an area 

that can be accessed by staff to collect the samples. The city will also consider moving the 

storm event sampler after one to two years of sampling near Pond B-2 to capture events in 

other areas of the site, if needed (CDM, 2009). 

For the in-lake sampling, Sanford will rely on existing monitoring conducted by SJRWMD and 

Lakewatch. The two closest sampling locations near Site 10 are: (1) station 44055, which has 

been routinely monitored by the SJRWMD since 1995; and (2) Jesup North-Seminole, which is 

a Lakewatch station and has been routinely sampled since 2001 (see Figure 16). Both of these 

stations include nutrients in the sampled parameters. Sanford will coordinate with SJRWMD 

and Lakewatch to ensure these stations are continued to be sampled and to obtain the water 

quality data (CDM, 2009). 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

57

F IGUR E 14: LOCATIONS OF S ITE 10 GR OUNDWATE R MONITOR ING WELLS
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

58

FIGUR E 15: LOCATION OF THE S ITE 10 S TOR M E VE NT S AMPLING S ITE
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

59

F IGUR E 16: LOCATIONS OF IN-L AKE S AMPLING NEAR S ITE 10
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

60

5.1.4 DATA MANAGE ME NT AND AS S E S S ME NT

The Florida STORET database serves as the primary repository of ambient water quality data 

for the state of Florida. FDEP pulls water quality data used for impaired water evaluations and 

TMDL development directly from the STORET database. Ambient water quality data collected 

as part of the BMAP will be uploaded into STORET for long-term storage and availability. 

SJRWMD, FDEP, and local stakeholders currently upload water quality data into STORET. All 

BMAP data providers have agreed to upload ambient water quality data to STORET at least 

once every six months, upon completion of the appropriate quality assurance/quality control 

(QA/QC) checks. Local stakeholders will also use their existing water atlas platforms to store 

and disseminate data. Seminole County, Altamonte Springs, Casselberry, Lake Mary, 

Longwood, Oviedo, Sanford, Winter Springs, and SJRWMD support the Seminole County Water 

Atlas (http://www.seminole.wateratlas.usf.edu/). Orange County, Apopka, Belle Isle, Maitland, 

Orlando, Winter Garden, Winter Park, and the Valencia Water Control District support the 

Orange County Water Atlas (http://www.orange.wateratlas.usf.edu/; note that not all these 

jurisdictions are within the Jesup watershed).

Ambient flow conditions will also be monitored as part of this BMAP. Although instantaneous 

flow data can be uploaded, the STORET database is not equipped to handle high-frequency 

flow data. Flow data collected by USGS is stored in the Real-Time Water Database, accessible 

on the web (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/rt). 

Data on biological parameters (e.g. SCI, algae speciation) will be collected at the stations noted 

in Appendix F. As with high-frequency flow data, the STORET database is not equipped to 

store biological data. Stakeholders agree to provide this data to other BMAP partners upon 

request and when appropriate for inclusion in BMAP data analyses and adaptive management 

evaluations. 

Storm event data and possibly performance-based data for individual projects will be collected 

as part of this BMAP. Because these types of data are not representative of ambient water 

quality conditions, it is inappropriate to store this data in STORET. Storm event and 

performance-based data will be maintained by the entity that collected the samples. 

Stakeholders agree to provide this data to other BMAP partners upon request and when 

appropriate for inclusion in BMAP data analyses and adaptive management evaluations.

The water quality data will be analyzed after four years of BMAP implementation to determine 

trends in water quality in the lake and to assess attenuation in the basin. A wide variety of 

statistical methods are available for trend analyses. The selection of an appropriate data 

analysis method depends on the frequency, spatial distribution, and period of record available 

from existing data. Specific statistical analyses were not identified during BMAP development; 

however, the BWG will use commonly accepted methods of data analysis that are consistent 

with the TMDL model.

5.1.5 QUALITY AS S UR ANCE /QUALITY CONTR OL

Through cooperation on TMDL-related data collection, the SJRWMD, FDEP, and stakeholders 

have used similar standard operating procedures (SOPs) for field sampling and lab analyses. 

This will continue into the future to ensure that data can be used not only for tracking BMAP 

progress but also for future TMDL evaluations and other purposes. The collection of water 

quality data will be conducted in a manner consistent with FDEP’s SOPs for QA/QC. The most 

current version of these procedures can be downloaded from 

www.dep.state.fl.us/labs/qa/sops.htm. All stakeholders contributing data in support of the 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

61

BMAP agree to follow these SOPs. For BMAP-related data analyses, entities should use 

National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) certified labs or other 

labs that meet the certification and other requirements outlined in the SOPs. 

SJRWMD staff and contractors collect, process, and preserve samples according to the 

SJRWMD’s Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection of Surface Water Quality 

Samples and Field Data–Feb. 13, 2004. Where SJRWMD and FDEP SOP’s do not correspond 

to one another, SJRWMD staff and contractors defer to FDEP’s SOPs. 

5.1.6 MONITOR ING NETWORK S UFFICIE NCY E VALUATION

The data collected as part of this monitoring plan are a critical component for re-evaluating the 

TMDL in five years. For the next iteration of the TMDL, a new model, the Hydrologic Simulation 

Program – FORTRAN (HSPF) model originally developed by EPA, will be used. The HSPF 

model in the next iteration will build upon previous modeling done by SJRWMD in this basin. 

Compared to the existing model, the SJRWMD HSPF model has a more detailed watershed 

loading calculation process, which allows the model to be calibrated using data from each 

sampling event. The HSPF model also addresses the in-stream assimilation of nutrients and, 

therefore, attenuation in the watershed and receiving water. In addition, the HSPF model will 

include both the watershed loading and in-lake process components in one model.

While the HSPF model has the ability to provide more detailed basin information than the 

current TMDL model, the results are dependent on the quantity and quality of the water quality 

data. At least four years of bimonthly or monthly data will be collected for the parameters listed 

in Table 17 at each of the BMAP stations. The monitoring sites included in the BMAP 

monitoring network were selected to provide loading information for individual jurisdictions or 

subbasins (based on the preferences of the stakeholders) to determine load attenuation 

throughout the basin. Based on these considerations, the BMAP monitoring network is 

sufficient to meet the minimum data requirements for the model for the next iteration of the 

TMDL. 

5.2 R E SE AR CH P R IOR ITIE S

Several entities in the basin have completed research projects or are currently implementing 

studies that will provide information to address the current unknowns in the basin (refer to 

Section 2.4). The projects, sponsors, research objectives, and information gaps addressed are 

shown in Table 20. The status and results of each study will be discussed at the annual BMAP 

progress report meetings. In addition, these discussions will identify how the study results will 

be used in an adaptive management context for future iterations of the BMAP. The applicable 

data from these studies will also be used by FDEP in future re-evaluation of the TMDL.

TABLE 20: R E S E AR CH P R OJ E CTS IN THE L AKE J ES UP B AS IN

INFOR MATION 

GAP 

ADDR E S S E D

R ESEARCH 

OB J E C TIVE

P ROJECT DE S C R IP TION

P ROJECT 

S PONS OR (S ) L OCATION TIME LINE K EY DE LIVE R AB LE S

NitrogenfixationQuantify nitrogenfixationIn-situ nitrogenfixation study.Seminole 

County Lake Jesup Completed 

2006

Actual nitrogenfixation rates 

studied during the 

peak annual 

season (i.e. worst 

case scenario).
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

62

INFOR MATION 

GAP 

ADDR E S S E D

R ESEARCH 

OB J E C TIVE

P ROJECT DE S C R IP TION

P ROJECT 

S PONS OR (S ) L OCATION TIME LINE K EY DE LIVE R AB LE S

Nitrogenfixation

Quantification of 

nitrogen-fixation 

load and rates.

One year nitrogenfixation sampling 

using several different 

methods for 

determining rates and 

species contributing; 

included diurnal, daily 

and seasonal testing.

SJRWMD Lake Jesup Final Report 

09/30/08

Nitrogen-fixation 

rates in Lake 

Jesup and their 

relationship to 

environmental 

factors.

Sediment flux Quantify flux. In situ sediment flux 

study.

Seminole 

County Lake Jesup Completed 

2006

Actual sediment 

flux values based 

on an in situ 

study.

Sediment flux

Assessment of the 

cycling and 

compartmentalizat

ion of nitrogen 

and phosphorus in 

saturated soils, 

sediments and the 

water column in 

Lake Jesup.

One year study to 

measure and assess 

the nature of both the 

downward and 

potential upward 

sediment (including 

organic material) flux 

within the system on 

different time scales 

(from weekly quarterly 

sampling, to daily 

sampling) and link 

transport dynamics 

with external forces

and effects. 

SJRWMD Lake Jesup

Final 

Report

Expected 

05/01/10

Cycling and 

compartmentalizat

ion of nitrogen and 

phosphorus in 

saturated soils, 

sediments and the 

water column.

Groundwater 

loads

Integrated 

surfacegroundwater 

modeling Middle 

St. Johns River 

Basin.

Phase 1: collect 

additional baseflow 

and aquifer water 

quality data required 

to complete 

supportable model 

results. Phase 2: 

modeling.

SJRWMD 

and Seminole 

County

Lake Jesup 

primarily, 

rest of 

Middle 

Basin 

eventually

Phase 1 

estimate 

10/01/09 

Phase 2 

TBD

Quantification of 

groundwater 

inputs to water 

bodies along with 

nutrient 

concentrations.

Groundwater 

loads

Determine the 

actual quality and 

quantity of 

surficial 

groundwater in 

the lake.

Conduct a seepage 

study on a large 

number of sample 

points throughout the 

lake to determine 

surficial groundwater 

quality and 

quantity/flow into and 

out of Lake Jesup.

Seminole 

County Lake Jesup Anticipated 

by 12/10

Actual surficial 

groundwater data 

(quality and 

quantity) for use in 

the water quality 

models; more 

accurate 

information.

Watershed 

loads

Delineate subbasins where 

highest nutrients 

(especially TP) 

are originating, 

based on grab 

samples, in the 

Howell Creek 

tributary.

Add three storm event 

samplers to the 

Howell Creek subbasin to better define 

pollutant loading 

sources.

Seminole 

County and 

SJRWMD

Lake Jesup 

Basin 12/09

Calculate actual 

storm event 

loading along the 

creek where it 

enters Seminole 

County, 

downstream of 

Lake Howell, and 

on Bear Creek just 

upstream of its 

confluence with 

Howell Creek.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

63

INFOR MATION 

GAP 

ADDR E S S E D

R ESEARCH 

OB J E C TIVE

P ROJECT DE S C R IP TION

P ROJECT 

S PONS OR (S ) L OCATION TIME LINE K EY DE LIVE R AB LE S

Watershed 

loads

Develop a 

hydrologic and 

nutrient budget for 

Lake Howell.

Develop a detailed 

hydrologic and 

nutrient budget using 

measured data.

Seminole 

County

Lake 

Howell 10/09

A detailed 

hydrologic and 

nutrient budget for 

Lake Howell.

Watershed 

loads

Develop a 

hydrologic and 

nutrient budget for 

Bear Gully Lake.

Develop a detailed 

hydrologic and 

nutrient budget using 

measured data.

Seminole 

County

Bear Gully 

Lake 10/09

A detailed 

hydrologic and 

nutrient budget for 

Bear Gully Lake.

Watershed 

loads

Determine actual 

pollutant load 

being discharged 

from the City of 

Orlando into 

remaining Lake 

Jesup basin.

Determine pollutant 

loading using 

continuous elevation 

monitoring in 

conjunction with 

existing stagedischarge curve. 

Monthly water quality 

samples being 

collected.

City of 

Orlando

Lake 

Rowena Ongoing

Actual nutrient 

load determination 

for City of 

Orlando.

Watershed 

loads

Determine loading 

from the Lake 

Charm basin to 

the Lake Jesup 

basin.

Determine agricultural 

loads and residential 

septic tank loads 

within basin.

City of Oviedo Lake 

Charm 2010-2011

Master Study of 

Oviedo major 

stormwater 

conveyance 

systems and 

associated 

loading, and 

priority 

improvements.

Watershed 

Loads

Determine 

pollutant load 

being discharged 

from Orange 

County through 

Lake Burkett.

Determine pollutant 

load being discharged 

from Orange County 

through Lake Burkett 

from flow/discharge/

water quality data.

Orange 

County

Lake 

Burkett 2013

Actual nutrient 

load determination 

for Orange 

County.

Watershed 

Loads

Add storm event 

samplers to the 

Sweetwater Creek 

and Salt Creek 

area.

Add storm event 

samplers to the 

Sweetwater Creek 

and Salt Creek area 

to obtain load 

estimates for the 

ungauged portion of 

the basin.

To be 

determined

Sweetwater 

Creek and 

Salt Creek

To be 

determined

Storm event 

sampling will be 

added to this area 

if funding 

becomes 

available.

Noncontributing 

areas

Determine if Lake 

Killarney 

discharges into 

the Lake Jesup 

system via Howell 

Creek.

Determine if Lake 

Killarney discharges 

into the Lake Jesup 

system via Howell 

Creek via flow 

measurements and 

observations over the 

next 5 years.

Orange 

County

Lake 

Killarney 2014

Determination if 

Lake Killarney 

contributes 

loading to the 

Lake Jesup Basin.

Noncontributing 

areas

Determine if Lake 

Georgia 

discharges into 

the Bear Gulley 

sub-basin of Lake 

Jesup.

Conduct study to 

determine if Lake 

Georgia flows into 

Lake Jesup system or 

Econ River.

Orange 

County

Lake 

Georgia 2011

Determine if Lake 

Georgia 

contributes load to 

Jesup.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

64

INFOR MATION 

GAP 

ADDR E S S E D

R ESEARCH 

OB J E C TIVE

P ROJECT DE S C R IP TION

P ROJECT 

S PONS OR (S ) L OCATION TIME LINE K EY DE LIVE R AB LE S

BMP 

efficiency 

Determine 

feasibility of 

regional treatment 

projects 

suggested as first 

priorities in the

Lake Jesup 

Interagency 

Restoration 

Strategy.

Four currently funded: 

in-lake water column 

treatment, floating 

islands as a tributary 

treatment, alum as an 

external load 

reduction, and use of 

existing wetlands to 

treat high 

concentration, low 

occurrence tributary 

loads (marsh 

diversion).

SJRWMD Lake Jesup 9/30/2010

Feasibility of using 

alternative 

treatment 

processes as 

regional treatment 

projects for 

significant 

reduction of 

external loading.

BMP 

efficiency

Determine actual 

pollutant load 

removal for Navy 

Canal and 

Cameron Ditch 

regional 

stormwater 

facilities (RSFs); if 

not achieving 

anticipated 

efficiency, what 

can be done to 

improve and 

maximize the 

pollutant load 

removal rates.

Determine the actual 

pollutant load removal 

rates of two RSF that 

discharge directly into 

Lake Jesup.

Seminole 

County and 

FDEP

Lake Jesup 12/10

Actual pollutant 

load removal rates 

and ways to 

improve the rates, 

if necessary.

Septic tanks

Determine exact 

locations of tanks 

that meet the 

Orange County 

setback of 150 

feet.

Determine exact 

locations of tanks that 

meet the Orange 

County setback of 

150 feet versus the 

State Rule of 75 feet 

from surface waters.

Orange 

County

Orange 

County in 

Lake Jesup 

Basin

2013

Count of septic 

tanks in Orange

County portion of 

basin that are 

setback 150 feet.

Reuse 

nutrient 

contributions

Quantify reuse 

water runoff.

Continue to build 

spatial model of reuse 

water using available 

data; generate 

empirical data about 

end use water quality.

SJRWMD

Entire 

Middle 

Basin

Initial 

estimates 

03/2010

Empirical and 

modeling data for 

runoff of reuse 

water into Lake 

Jesup.

Model 

refinement QUAL2K model.

Development of a 

more complex water 

quality model that 

includes kinetic 

modules such as 

sediment flux, 

groundwater quality,

etc.

Seminole 

County Lake Jesup

Completed 

2006; 

updated 

model 

10/10

A more detailed 

water quality 

model with 

improved existing 

conditions and 

predictive 

capabilities. 

Update utilizing 

additional data 

and information 

from Lake Apopka 

and Seminole 

County.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

65

5.3 ADAPTIVE MANAGE ME NT ME AS UR ES

Adaptive management involves setting up 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 BWG will be subsequent to BMAP completion.

Tracking implementation, monitoring water quality and pollutant loads, and periodic BWG 

meetings to share information and expertise are key components of adaptive management. 

The information the BWG receives from implementation tracking and water quality monitoring 

will help the group decide what changes to the BMAP are needed to ensure that the TMDLs for 

the basin are achieved. 

The BWG will meet annually to review project status and water quality conditions in Lake Jesup. 

At this time, available information will be used to evaluate projects and monitoring efforts. 

Modifications from the original BMAP may occur at that time, if conditions warrant. For 

example, if a more feasible and/or effective alternative to a particular project listed in the original 

BMAP is found and proposed by a stakeholder as a substitute, such modifications to the project 

list may be made at these annual meetings. FDEP will also distribute an annual implementation 

report (refer to example in Table 21) to stakeholders for their review and input. This information

and a periodic water quality trend analysis will form the basis of the annual review meetings.

5.3.1 ANNUAL AS S E S S ME NT OF MANAGE ME NT ACTIONS

FDEP and stakeholders will organize the monitoring data and project implementation status and 

present this information to the BWG in an annual report. The BWG has agreed to meet at least 

once 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 the annual meetings are described below.

• Collect project implementation and/or discharge information from MS4 permit reporting, 

agricultural NOI reporting, and other sources and compare to the BMAP schedule.

Implementation Data and Reporting

• Review summaries of estimated load reductions based on the data received and 

comparisons to the TMDL and individual allocations.

• Discuss the data collection process, including any concerns and possible improvements 

to the process.

• Review of the monitoring plan and research plan implementation as detailed in Section 

5.1 and Section 5.2.

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

Sharing New Information

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

• Information on new technologies for reducing nutrients.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

66

• Reports of progress on quantifying load reductions from urban stormwater and other 

nonpoint sources, including information on quantifying nonstructural BMPs and the 

effects of public education.

• Updates from FDEP and SJRWMD on the basin cycle and activities related to 

impairments, TMDLs, PLRGs, and BMAPs.

Coordination of TMDL-Related Issues

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

Lake Jesup TMDLs.

It is not required that all of these topics be covered during the annual BWG meetings. These 

topics are provided as 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.

The activities planned as part of this BMAP are shown in Figure 17 and will be discussed during 

the annual progress report meetings.

F IGUR E 17: B MAP ACTIVITIE S IMPLE ME NTATION TIME LINE
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

67

5.3.2 FUTUR E R E VIS ION OF THE TMDL AND B MAP

As discussed in Section 2.4, there are several key uncertainties that were identified during the 

BMAP process that should be considered in future revisions of the TMDL and BMAP 

allocations. The information from the research studies and monitoring strategy will provide 

valuable information to better the understanding of these current issues. The appropriate data 

will be provided to FDEP for consideration in the re-evaluation of the TMDL, which will occur 

according to the watershed assessment cycle. Once the TMDL is revised, the BMAP will be 

revisited and the detailed allocations recalculated. While Table 4 shows the allocations for each

entity for the entire 15-year implementation period based on the current TMDL, these allocations 

will likely be adjusted in the future. 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

68

TABLE 21: DRAFT B MAP ANNUAL R E POR TING FOR MAT

2010 Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

___YEAR__ ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

REPORTING ENTITY: ___________________________________________________ DATE: ________________________

Note: Relevant MS4 activities, whether contained in the BMAP or not, may be included in this report.

IMPLEMENTATION STATUS – BMAP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

1

P ROJECT #

B MAP AFFECTED

AREA

2

DE S C R IPTION

B R IE F 3

S TAR T/E ND

P ROJECTED 4

S TATUS

P ROJECT/AC TIVITY

5

T P R E MOVAL

E S TIMATE 

(TOTAL )

5

T P R E MOVAL

E S TIMATE 

(INTE R IM)

6

MONITOR ING R ESULTS

P ROJECT 7 C OMME NTS

NEW MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

1

P ROJECT #

B MAP AFFECTED

AREA

2

DE S C R IPTION

B R IE F 3

S TAR T/E ND

P ROJECTED 4

S TATUS

P ROJECT/AC TIVITY

5

T P R E MOVAL

E S TIMATE 

(TOTAL )

5

T P R E MOVAL

E S TIMATE 

(INTE R IM)

6

MONITOR ING R ESULTS

P ROJECT 7 C OMME NTS
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

69

Directions for BMAP Annual Reporting Format (Draft):

1 BMAP Projects: This includes projects and other management strategies. Use the 

project number assigned in the BMAP Projects/Activities Table (e.g., A-1). 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., A-N1).

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., 2 

public workshops on lawn fertilizer in September 2010). Also, describe any significant 

changes to the management action that have taken place

5 Provide total and interim (to date) 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 BWG as a whole, or from individual 

entities represented on the BWG. Include any other comments you consider important.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

70

CHAPTER 6: C OMMITME NT TO P LAN IMP L E ME NTATION

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 Lake Jesup BWG have demonstrated 

their willingness to confer with and support each other in their efforts. 

The BWG members provided endorsement of the BMAP at their January 14, 2010 meeting on 

behalf of the entities they represent since they have been actively involved in the BMAP 

process. In addition to this endorsement, FDEP has asked for letters of commitment or 

resolutions of support for the BMAP from the entities to ensure that as staff and board members 

change over time, the entity has a way to show support for the BMAP and the efforts included. 

This process will occur concurrently with BMAP adoption. Written statements of commitment

that have been provided are included below and additional statements will be added to this 

chapter of the BMAP as they are received.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

71
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

72
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

73

Altamonte Springs

225 Newbury Avenue

Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701-3697

March 25, 2010

The Honorable Michael W. Sole

Secretary

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 49

Tallahassee, FL 32399

RE: Letter of Commitment to Support Plan Implementation

Dear Secretary Sole,

Please accept this letter as the City of Altamonte Springs’ written support of the Lake Jesup 

Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP). As an active member of the Lake Jesup Basin 

Working Group (BWG), our representative voted to endorse the BMAP on January 14, 2010. 

By endorsing this plan, the City agrees to the following actions:

• Support of the use of an equitable and cost-effective coordinated comprehensive 

watershed management approach to address and achieve total maximum daily load 

related pollutant load reductions and water quality improvements; 

• Support the necessary approvals and funding needed to implement the consensus 

management actions identified in the BMAP, and assist implementation of those actions 

as required approvals and funding are secured; 

• Track the implementation of management actions for which we are responsible to assure 

that the BMAP is carried out, pursuant to the process agreed upon by the BWG; 

• Identify and advise the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the BWG of 

any issues or concerns that could be obstacles to carrying out management actions 

identified in the BMAP, including technical, funding and legal obstacles; 

• Assist with water quality monitoring according to the BMAP monitoring strategy 

approved by the BWG, as appropriate; 

• Continue to communicate and coordinate actions and funding across community 

organizations, agencies and programs with regard to BMAP implementation.

Sincerely,

William R. Baer

Director, Public Works and Utilities

City of Altamonte Springs

225 Newburyport Avenue

Altamonte Springs, FL 32701

WRBaer@altamonte.org

407-571-8340
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

74
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010 

75
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

76

Resolution 10-2127

“A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CASSELBERRY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING SUPPORT OF 

THE LAKE JESUP BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN PROPOSED BY FLORIDA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, 

SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.”

WHEREAS, the City of Casselberry contributed pollutant loads to the Lake Jesup 

watershed via stormwater runoff and is therefore a stakeholder in its watershed planning; and

WHEREAS, in 2006, the City of Casselberry began participating in multi-jurisdictional 

efforts to create the Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP); and

WHEREAS, the proposed BMAP will address needed pollutant load reductions related 

to the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) previously established for Lake Jesup; and

WHEREAS, the BMAP acknowledges technical uncertainties, provides flexibility, and 

includes a plan to gather additional data and further refine load allocations during its next 

iteration; and 

WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the proposal BMAP and find it to be reasonable and 

consistent with the City’s adopted Stormwater, Lakes Management, and Water Quality Master 

Plan.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY 

OF CASSELBARRY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I. The city Commission of the City of Casselberry hereby approved the Lake 

Jesup Basin Management Action Plan Statement of Commitment to Support Plan 

Implementation (attached as “Exhibit A”), and authorizes the Mayor to execute said document 

on behalf of the City.

SECTION II. Conflicts. All resolutions or parts of Resolutions in conflict with any of the 

provisions of this Resolution are hereby repealed.

SECTION III. Severability. If any Section or portion of a Section of this Resolution 

proves to be invalid, unlawful, or unconstitutional, it shall not be held to validate or impair the 

validity, force, or effect of any other Section or part of this Resolution.

SECTION IV. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon 

its passage and adoption. 

PASSED and ADOPTED this 8th day of March, AD 2010

ATTEST:

Donna G. Gardner Charlene Glancy

City Clerk Mayor/Commissioner
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

77

Exhibit ‘A’

LAKE JESUP BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN 

2010

STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

The Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) was endorsed on January 14, 2010, 

by authorized representatives of the agencies and organizations listed as members of the Lake 

Jesup Basin Working Group (BWG).

The signatories of the BMAP agree that, as applicable, their organizations will:

• Support of the use of an equitable and cost-effective coordinated comprehensive 

watershed management approach to address and achieve total maximum daily (TMDL)-

related pollutant load reductions and water quality improvements; 

• Subject to available funding mechanisms and available, reasonable funding levels, 

support the necessary approvals and funding needed to implement the consensus 

management actions identified in the BMAP, and assist implementation of those actions 

as required approvals and funding are secured; 

• To the extent of available funds and pursuant to the process agreed upon by the BWG, 

track the implementation of management actions for which they are responsible to 

assure that the BMAP is carried out. 

• Identify and advise the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the BWG of 

any issues or concerns that could be obstacles to carrying out management actions 

identified in the BMAP, including technical, funding and legal obstacles; 

• As appropriate, assist with water quality monitoring according to the BMAP monitoring 

strategy approved by the BWG. 

• Continue to communicate and coordinate actions and funding across community 

organizations, agencies and programs with regard to BMAP implementation.

Organization: City of Casselberry

Authorized Name/Title: 

Charlene Glancy

Mayor/Commissioner
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

78
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

79

C ity of L ake Mary

LAKE JESUP BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN 

2010

STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

The Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) was endorsed on 

January 14, 2010, by authorized representatives of the agencies and 

organizations listed as members of the Lake Jesup Basin Working Group 

(BWG).

The signatories of the BMAP agree that, as applicable, their organizations will:

 Support the use of an equitable and cost-effective coordinated 

comprehensive watershed management approach to address and 

achieve total maximum daily load (TMDL)-related pollutant load 

reductions and water quality improvements. 

 Support the necessary approvals and funding needed to implement the 

consensus management actions identified in the BMAP, and assist 

implementation of those actions as required approvals and funding are 

secured.

 Pursuant to the process agreed upon by the BWG, track the 

implementation of management actions for which they are responsible to 

assure that the BMAP is carried out. 

 Identify and advise the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) and BWG of any issues or concerns that could be obstacles to 

carrying out management actions identified in the BMAP, including 

technical, funding, and legal obstacles.

 As appropriate, assist with water quality monitoring according to the 

BMAP monitoring strategy approved by the BWG.

 Continue to communicate and coordinate actions and funding across 

community organizations, agencies, and programs with regard to BMAP 

implementation. 

Approved by City Commission 2/18/10

John C. Litton, City Manager

City of Lake Mary
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

80
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

81
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

82
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

83

R E S OLUTION NUMB E R 2010-06

A R E S OLUTION OF THE C ITY C OMMIS S ION OF WINTE R S PR INGS , FLOR IDA, AGR E E ING 

TO IMPLE ME NTATION OF A L AK E J E S UP B AS IN MANAGE ME NT AC TION PL AN; AND 

PR OVIDING FOR AN E FFE CTIVE DATE

WHEREAS, Lake Jesup has been verified by the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP) as impaired for nutrients and unionized ammonia.

WHEREAS, FDEP formally adopted a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report for 

Lake Jesup in 2006 which identified the nutrient loading sources and required reductions to 

meet water quality standards for total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) within the Lake 

Jesup Basin.

WHEREAS, The Lake Jesup Basin Stakeholders, including the City of Winter Springs, 

have prepared a Basin Management Action Plan, or BMAP, to reduce the amount of nutrients 

that caused the verified impairment of Lake Jesup.

WHEREAS, Under the BMAP, entities within the Lake Jesup Basin are required by the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection to reduce phosphorus discharges to Lake 

Jesup from surface waters and/or septic systems by a combined total of approximately 15,000 

pounds over the next 15 years.

WHEREAS, The Lake Jesup BMAP contains strategies to implement the Lake Jesup 

nutrient TMDL through reduction and prevention of pollutant discharges through various means, 

and the project types contained in the BMAP reflects the array of sources and stakeholder 

relationships that exist in this complex watershed.

WHEREAS, the Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) was endorsed on 

January 14, 2010, by authorized representatives of the agencies and organizations listed as 

members of the Lake Jesup Basin Working Group (BWG), including the City of Winter Springs.

NOW, THE R E FOR E B E IT R E S OLVE D B Y THE CITY C OMMIS S ION OF WINTE R

S PR INGS , FLOR IDA, AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I – The City Commission of the City of Winter Springs hereby agrees that the City of 

Winter Springs will:

a. Agree to the use of an equitable and cost-effective coordinated 

comprehensive watershed management approach to address and 

achieve total maximum daily load (TMDL)-related pollutant load 

reductions and water quality improvements. 

b. Agree to pursue the necessary approvals and funding needed to 

implement the consensus management actions identified in the BMAP, 

and assist implementation of those actions as required approvals and 

funding are secured.

c. Pursuant to the process agreed upon by the Basin Working Group, track 

the implementation of management actions for which the City is 

responsible to assure that the BMAP is carried out. 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

84

d. Identify and advise the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) and Basin Working Group of any issues or concerns that could 

be obstacles to carrying out management actions identified in the BMAP, 

including technical, funding, and legal obstacles.

e. As appropriate, assist with water quality monitoring according to the 

BMAP monitoring strategy approved by the Basin Working Group.

f. Continue to communicate and coordinate actions across community 

organizations, agencies, and programs with regard to BMAP 

implementation. 

SECTION II – The City Clerk of the City of Winter Springs is hereby directed to send 

copies of this Resolution to FDEP and all other persons as directed by the Mayor and City 

Commission.

SECTION III – This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City 

Commission. 

Passed and adopted this 8th day of February, 2010.

CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA

John F. Bush, Mayor

ATTEST:

Andrea Lorenzo-Luaces, City Clerk
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010 

85
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

86
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

87
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

88

RESOLUTION

of the

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

regarding

THE LAKE JESUP BASIN

MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN

Resolution No. 2010-M-15

WHEREAS, in an effort to improve water quality, Section 303(d) of the federal Clean 

Water Act requires the adoption of total maximum daily loads (“TMDLs”) of pollutants that may 

be discharged into impaired surface water bodies in the United States; and

WHEREAS, to implement TMDLs for Florida’s impaired water bodies, the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”), along with stakeholders within the 

watersheds of impaired waters, develops Basin Management Action Plans (“BMAPs”), which 

are to specify the activities, schedule, and funding sources that pollutant discharges will 

undertake to achieve the TMDLs adopted by FDEP for each water body and thereby restore the 

water body; and

WHEREAS, FDEP has been working closely with Orange County and other 

stakeholders within the Lake Jesup watershed to develop the Lake Jesup BMAP; and

WHEREAS, on February 23, 2010, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners 

(the “Board”) was briefed by Orange County staff on the current draft of the Lake Jesup BMAP 

and recognizes that, although there may be some minor revisions to the BMAP before it is 

adopted by order of the FDEP Secretary, the revisions are not expected to significantly change 

any fiscal or policy impacts to Orange County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE COUNTY:

Section 1. The Board supports the continued development and finalization of the use 

of the Lake Jesup BMAP with the participation of representatives of Orange County.

Section 2. The Board supports the implementation of the Lake Jesup BMAP and 

intends to seek the necessary approvals and funding to implement the management actions for 

Orange County identified in the Lake Jesup BMAP.

Section 3. The Board supports Orange County’s participation in the coordinated 

tracking of BMAP implementation, continued coordination with the FDEP and other 

stakeholders, and revising the BMAP as necessary to ensure the management actions are 

effective in meeting the TMDLs.

Section 4. The Board endorses a coordinated and comprehensive watershed 

management approach to address and achieve FDEP-adopted TMDLs for the Lake Jesup 

watershed.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

89

Section 5. The Board authorizes the Mayor or his designee to represent the Board in 

reviewing and approving the BMAP preliminary to its adoption by FDEP, provided that such 

approval will not significantly change any fiscal or policy impacts to Orange County beyond 

those presented in the February 23, 2010 BMAP briefing of the Board by Orange County staff. 

In the event the Mayor, his designee, or Orange County staff determine that revisions to the 

Lake Jesup BMAP, preliminary to its adoption by FDEP, significantly change any fiscal or policy 

impacts to Orange County, they shall bring the matter to the Board and request further direction 

before approving the plan.

Section 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon the date of its 

adoption.

ADOPTED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

By: Board of County Commissioners

By: Richard T. Crotty

Orange County Mayor

ATTEST: Martha O. Haynie, County Comptroller

As Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

90
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

91
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

92

St. Johns River Water Management District

February 16, 2010

The Honorable Mr. Michael Sole, Secretary

The Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, M.S. 49

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Re: Draft Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP)

Statement of Commitment to Support Plan Implementation

Dear Secretary Sole:

FDEP has obtained endorsement of the draft BMAP for the Lake Jesup Basin. Lake Jesup, one 

of the largest lakes in Central Florida, is impaired by high levels of total nitrogen and total 

phosphorus (FDEP, Verified Impaired Waters). The focus of the Lake Jesup BMAP requires 

reductions from external TP sources. The total required reductions are allocated to the 

responsible entities in the basin.

St. Johns River Water Management District, as a member of the Lake Jesup Basin Working 

Group, supports the Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan, as indicated in the attached 

Statement of Commitment to Support Plan Implementation.

Sincerely,

Kirby B. Green III

Executive Director

Attachment

KBG/rlm

c. Casey Fitzgerald

Maurice Sterling
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

93

LAKE JESUP BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN 

2010

STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 

The Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) was endorsed on 

January 14, 2010, by authorized representatives of the agencies and 

organizations listed as members of the Lake Jesup Basin Working Group 

(BWG).

The signatories of the BMAP agree that, as applicable, St. Johns River Water 

Management District will:

 Support the use of an equitable and cost-effective coordinated 

comprehensive watershed management approach to address and 

achieve total maximum daily load (TMDL)-related pollutant load 

reductions and water quality improvements. 

 Support the necessary approvals and funding needed to implement the 

consensus management actions identified in the BMAP, and assist 

implementation of those actions as required approvals and funding are 

secured.

 Pursuant to the process agreed upon by the BWG, track the 

implementation of management actions for which they are responsible to 

assure that the BMAP is carried out. 

 Identify and advise the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(FDEP) and BWG of any issues or concerns that could be obstacles to 

carrying out management actions identified in the BMAP, including 

technical, funding, and legal obstacles.

 As appropriate, assist with water quality monitoring according to the 

BMAP monitoring strategy approved by the BWG.

 Continue to communicate and coordinate actions and funding across 

community organizations, agencies, and programs with regard to BMAP 

implementation. 

St. Johns River Water Management District

Kirby B. Green III, Executive Director 2-17-10
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

94

Appendix A: TMDL B AS IN R OTATION S CHE DULE

TMDLs are developed, allocated, and implemented 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 DEP District office of jurisdiction. 

Table A-2 illustrates the repeating five-year basin rotation schedule.

 TABLE A-1: MAJ OR HYDR OLOGIC B AS INS B Y GR OUP AND DE P DIS TR ICT OFFICE

DEP

District

Group 1

Basins

Group 2

Basins

Group 3

Basins

Group 4

Basins

Group 5

Basins

NW

OchlockoneeSt. MarksApalachicolaChipolaChoctawhatcheeSt. Andrews Bay Pensacola Bay Perdido Bay

NE Suwannee Lower St. Johns Not applicable 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. LucieLoxahatcheeLake Worth LagoonPalm Beach CoastSoutheast 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

The Middle St. Johns is a Group 2 basin. As such, the Cycle 1 list of verified impaired waters 

was developed in 2004, and the Cycle 2 update was in 2009. Subsequent TMDL and BMAP 

development is occurring on a schedule driven by the 1998 303(d) list (see 

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/ for more information) and FDEP staff resource availability. 

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 may be revised. Changes to a 

TMDL would prompt revisions to the applicable BMAP, which will be revisited at least every five 

years and modified as necessary, regardless of whether the TMDL is modified.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

95

Appendix B : S UMMAR Y OF S TATUTOR Y P R OVIS IONS GUIDING 

B MAP DE VE LOPME NT AND IMPLE ME NTATION

S E CTIONS 403.067(6) AND (7), F LOR IDA S TATUTES - Summary of Excerpts

ALLOCATIONS

• The TMDL shall include reasonable and equitable allocations of the TMDL between or among

point and nonpoint sources that will alone, or in conjunction 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 amount 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 sources and categories of nonpoint sources shall be 

established in the basin management action plan.

• The initial and detailed allocations shall be designed 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 sources may have on water quality; 

5. The availability of treatment technologies, 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 provisions such as variances, exemptions, 

and mixing zones; and 

10. The extent to which non-attainment of water 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. 

GE NE R AL IMPLE ME NTATION

 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
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

96

B AS IN MANAGE ME NT ACTION PLAN DE VE LOPME NT

 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 water 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 future 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 developed 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 component to evaluate reasonable progress 

over time.

o Be adopted in whole or in part by DEP Secretarial 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 promote 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 invited to participate in the basin 

management action plan development process, holding at least 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 supplant or alter any water quality 

assessment, TMDL calculation, or initial allocation.

B AS IN MANAGE ME NT ACTION PLAN IMPLE ME NTATION

 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 permit 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 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

97

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. 

 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 conducting 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 MANAGE ME NT P R ACTICE S

 DEP, in cooperation with WMDs and other interested parties, may develop interim 

measures, BMPs, or other measures for non-agricultural 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 measure, BMPs, or other measures necessary 

for agricultural pollutant sources to achieve their load reduction allocations. 

o These measures may be implemented by those 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 farming 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 making 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 monitoring at representative sites, provides a 

presumption of compliance with state water quality standards for those pollutants 

addressed by the practices. 

 Reevaluation –

o Where water quality problems are demonstrated 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.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

98

Appendix C : S TAK E HOLDE R INVOLVE ME NT IN B MAP DE VE L OPME NT

LAKE JESUP BASIN WORKING GROUP

The Lake Jesup Basin Working Group (BWG) is made up of responsible stakeholders in the 

watershed. The BWG was formed in July 2007 and has advised FDEP on major issues related 

to the BMAP and detailed allocations. The BWG played a critical role in the development of the 

BMAP to implement the Lake Jesup TMDL.

The BWG’s mission statement is as follows: “The mission of the Lake Jesup Basin Working 

Group is to make recommendations to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to 

work toward restoring impaired waterbodies through development of an effective, equitable, and 

cost-efficient Basin Management Action Plan to implement the Total Maximum Daily Loads.”

During BMAP development, the BWG met in Sanford on the following dates:

• July 24, 2008;

• July 30, 2009;

• September 17, 2009; and

• November 19, 2009.

In addition to the input from the BWG, the stakeholders involved in the technical meetings 

provided valuable information during the BMAP process. The technical stakeholders began 

meeting prior to TMDL adoption to provide input on the land uses, event mean concentrations 

(EMCs) used in the TMDL modeling, best management practice (BMP) efficiency values, and 

other aspects of model development and restoration targets. BMAP-related technical meetings 

began in 2006 and continued through BMAP development to provide stakeholder input with data 

collection and compilation, identification of scientific uncertainties and needs for additional 

research, as well as input on existing monitoring sites and information for the monitoring plan.

PROCESS FOR PLAN RECOMMENDATION DEVELOPMENT

BASIN WORKING GROUP MEETING PROCESS

The BWG was asked to endorse the BMAP, to reflect the local commitment to implement load 

reductions towards achievement of the TMDLs prior to the Secretarial adoption of the BMAP as 

a rule. FDEP will also ask for letters of commitment or resolutions of support for the BMAP from 

the individual entities represented on the BWG. These letters and resolutions will provide an 

additional level of support for the BMAP efforts as staff and local elected officials change over 

time. The process to submit letters and resolutions of support will occur during and after BMAP 

adoption. The written statements of commitment will be added to the BMAP as they are 

received (when received prior to adoption) or in the BMAP annual reports (when received after 

adoption).

CONSENSUS

The technical stakeholder meetings were operated on an informal basis where the purpose of 

the discussions was to provide technical input. As such, there were no official members of 

designated group of technical representatives. The BWG, however, had designated 

representatives for the major stakeholder organizations and made specific recommendations to 

FDEP on BMAP issues. A consensus-based a voting procedure was used to make these 

recommendations to FDEP. Votes were held only in circumstances when a quorum of at least 

50% of the voting members (or their designated alternates) was present at a publicly noticed 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

99

meeting. Consensus was achieved when all participants could support, agree to, or accept the

recommendation.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN BASIN WORKING GROUP MEETINGS

All BWG and technical meetings were open to the public and noticed in the Florida 

Administrative Weekly. Public comment was invited during the BWG meetings and the 

technical meetings were open to anyone interested in participating in the technical discussions. 

In addition, public meetings were held on the verified lists, the adoption of the TMDLs, and the 

BMAP document.

PUBLIC MEETINGS

Public meetings on the proposed verified list and the Lake Jesup TMDL were held before each 

was adopted. In addition, a public workshop on the BMAP was held on February 8, 2010.

PLAN RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL AND ADOPTION

The Basin Working Group approved the final recommended BMAP at its January 14, 2010

meeting. The final BMAP is to be adopted by FDEP secretarial order.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

100

Appendix D: P ROJECTS TO ACHIE VE THE TMDL

The projects and timeframes for implementation submitted by the entities to achieve their BMAP

allocations are summarized in the tables below. The tables provide information on the nutrient 

reduction attributed to each individual project, shown in pounds per year (lbs/yr). These 

projects were submitted to provide reasonable assurance to FDEP that each entity 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.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

101

CITY OF ALTAMONTE S PR INGS

ENTITY

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT NAME PROJECT DETAIL

TP REDUCTION 

(LBS/YR) STATUS

Altamonte Springs A-1 Existing BMPs

BMPs in place at the time of 

the TMDL 35.0 Completed

Altamonte Springs A-2 Street Sweeping

Street sweeping of 4.4 miles, 

two times per month 0.5 Ongoing

Altamonte Springs A-3 Education Efforts

FYN, PSAs, pamphlets, 

presentations, website, illicit 

discharge program 4.6 Ongoing

Total Projects Reduction 40.1

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 19.0

Credit for Future BMAPs 21.1
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

102

CITY OF C ASSELBERRY

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE 

E ND 

DATE 

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P R OJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Casselberry C-1

Lake Concord 

Stormwater 

Park/Anniversary 

Park - Plumosa 

Baffle Box

Redevelopment and 

retrofit of City-owned 

property into an 

educational stormwater 

park; 2nd

10/2007

generation 

baffle box 09/2009 0.5 $43,250 8.5

Stormwater

Retrofit Started

Casselberry C-2

Lake Concord 

Stormwater 

Park/Anniversary 

Park - Exfiltration 

Trench

Redevelopment and 

retrofit of City-owned 

property into an 

educational stormwater 

park; an exfiltration 

trench 10/2007 09/2009 0.4 $143,200 1.7 Exfiltration Started

Casselberry C-3

Lake Concord 

Stormwater 

Park/Anniversary 

Park - Dry 

Detention

Redevelopment and 

retrofit of City-owned 

property into an 

educational stormwater 

park; dry detention 10/2007 09/2009 0.0 $75,000 1.0

Dry 

detention 

pond Started

Casselberry C-4

Lake Concord 

Stormwater 

Park/Anniversary 

Park - Swale, 

Wetland 

Revegetation, & 

Boardwalk

Redevelopment and 

retrofit of City-owned 

property into an 

educational stormwater 

park; swale, lakeshore 

revegetation, educational 

boardwalk 10/2007 09/2009 0.1 $742,000 1.7 Swales Started

Casselberry C-5

Lake Concord 

Stormwater 

Park/Anniversary 

Park

Redevelopment and 

retrofit of City-owned 

property into an 

educational stormwater 

park; baffle box, pervious 

pavement, bioretention/

parking lot 10/2007 09/2009 0.1 $226,500 1.2

Stormwater 

Retrofit Started

Casselberry C-6

Anchor Road 

Reconstruction

Reconstruction of Anchor 

Road with drainage 

improvements including 

upgraded 

detention/retention ponds 10/2007 10/2009 2.9 $2,000,000 60.7

Wet 

detention 

pond Started
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

103

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE 

E ND 

DATE 

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P R OJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Casselberry C-7

North Lake Triplet 

Shoreline 

Revegetation

Remove existing 

nuisance vegetation from 

the north and west 

shores of North Lake 

Triplet and replace with 

beneficial species; install 

reverse berm and swale 12/2007 09/2014 0.8 $80,000 16.2 Swales

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-8

Secret Lake 

Shoreline 

Revegetation

Remove existing 

nuisance vegetation from 

the east and southwest 

shores of Secret Lake 

and replace with 

beneficial species; install 

2 reverse berms and 

swales 01/2008 05/2008 0.2 N/A 3.7 Swales Completed

Casselberry C-9

Fountain/Aeration 

and Revegetation 

for Grassy Lake

Installation of aeration

for high BOD loading to 

this waterbody; includes 

shoreline revegetation for 

aesthetics and nutrient

removal with swale 

construction as 

practicable 03/2009 07/2009 0.0 $150,000 1.7

Aeration 

System

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-10

672 & 676 San 

Pablo Avenue 

2nd generation 

Baffle Boxes

Replace existing storm 

manholes with two 2nd 

generation baffle boxes 

for removal of pollutants 03/2009 04/2010 1.3 $300,000 28.0

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-11

Madrid Drive at 

Desoto Drive 2nd 

generation Baffle 

Box

Replace existing storm 

manholes with 2nd 

generation Baffle Boxes 

for removal of pollutants 03/2009 04/2010 0.4 $150,000 5.0

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-12

Sonora Drive at 

Desoto Drive 2nd 

generation Baffle 

box

Replace existing storm 

manholes with 2nd 

generation baffle boxes 

for removal of pollutants 03/2009 04/2010 2.4 $170,000 42.7

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-13

Live Oaks Center 

2nd generation 

Baffle Box

Replace existing storm 

manholes with baffle 

boxes for removal of 

pollutant 03/2010 04/2011 1.9 $100,000 11.6

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

104

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE 

E ND 

DATE 

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P R OJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Casselberry C-14

360 South Lake 

Triplet Drive 2nd 

generation Baffle 

Box

Replace existing storm 

manholes with baffle 

boxes for removal of 

pollutants 03/2011 04/2012 1.7 $140,000 27.8

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-15

Lake Hodge Park 

2nd generation 

Baffle Box

Replace existing storm 

manholes with baffle 

boxes for removal of 

pollutants 03/2011 04/2012 3.3 $170,000 53.2

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-16

161 South Lake 

Triplet Drive 2nd 

generation Baffle 

Box

Replace existing storm 

manholes with baffle 

boxes for removal of 

pollutants 03/2011 04/2012 5.5 $170,000 89.9

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-17

530 South Lake 

Triplet Drive 2nd 

generation Baffle 

Box

Replace existing storm 

manholes with baffle 

boxes for removal of 

pollutants 03/2011 04/2012 1.3 $140,000 20.7

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-18

Carriage Hill Unit 

4 2nd

Replace existing storm 

manholes with baffle 

boxes for removal of 

pollutants

generation 

baffle boxes at 

the 3 outfalls 

north of

Violet Dell, Tulip 

Trail and

Lowndes Square 

Queens Mirror 03/2012 04/2013 3.3 $400,000 72.5

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-19

808 Osceola Trail 

2nd generation 

Baffle Box

Replace existing storm 

manholes with baffle 

boxes for removal of 

pollutants 03/2013 04/2014 1.2 $140,000 25.2

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-20

Park Drive 

Drainage/Wetland 

Improvements

Construction of 

stormwater

retention area on Lots 

10A & 11 on north side of 

Park Drive 03/2013 04/2014 4.2 $36,000 46.4

Wet 

retention 

pond

Planned & 

Funded
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

105

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE 

E ND 

DATE 

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P R OJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Casselberry C-21

Alum Injection 

System for 

Carriage Hill 

Detention Pond

Construction of a feed

system for the addition of 

alum to the influent to the 

new wet detention pond 

for removal of pollutants, 

especially phosphorus, 

from stormwater system 

influent to Queens Mirror 

and the Triplet Lake 

chain 03/2013 04/2014 16.5 $120,000 98.3 Alum

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-22

Middle Lake 

Triplet Shoreline 

Revegetation

Remove existing 

nuisance vegetation from 

the north shore of Middle 

Lake Triplet and replace 

with beneficial species; 

install reverse berm and 

swale 12/2013 06/2014 0.3 $33,000 3.4 Swales

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-23

Secret Way at 

canal 2nd 

generation Baffle 

Box

Replace existing storm 

manholes with baffle 

boxes for removal of 

pollutants 03/2014 12/2014 0.7 $170,000 16.4

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-24

51 North Lake 

Triplet Drive 2nd 

generation Baffle 

Box

Replace existing storm 

manholes with baffle 

boxes for removal of 

pollutants 03/2014 12/2014 1.2 $140,000 27.4

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Casselberry C-25

South Lake Triplet 

Swales

Replace existing storm 

manholes with baffle 

boxes for removal of 

pollutants 03/2014 12/2014 1.0 $80,000 6.3 Swales

Envisioned 

but Not 

Funded

Casselberry C-26

South Lake Triplet 

2nd generation 

Baffle Box

Replace existing storm 

manholes with Baffle 

Boxes for removal of 

pollutants (sediment and 

detritus) (4.l) 03/2014 12/2014 0.8 $140,000 18.3

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

(baffle box)

Envisioned 

but Not 

Funded

Casselberry C-27 Street Sweeping

Monthly street sweeping

of 72.5 miles N/A N/A 5.3 N/A N/A

Street 

Sweeping Ongoing
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

106

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE 

E ND 

DATE 

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P R OJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Casselberry C-28 Education Efforts

FYN, landscape and 

irrigation ordinances, 

PSAS, 

pamphlets/presentations, 

website, illicit discharge 

program N/A N/A 85.6 N/A N/A Education Ongoing

Casselberry C-29 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in place 

at the time of the TMDL N/A N/A 319.9 N/A N/A N/A Completed

Total Projects Reduction 462.8

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 342.7

Credit for Future BMAPs 120.1

TOWN OF E ATONVILLE

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE

T P R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Eatonville E-1

Street 

Sweeping

Monthly street sweeping

of 3.7 miles N/A N/A 0.3

Street 

sweeping Ongoing

Eatonville E-2 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in place 

at the time of the TMDL N/A N/A 9.6 N/A Completed

Eatonville E-3

Regional 

Project

Participate in a regional 

project 2009 2014 13.5

Regional 

Project Planned

Total Projects Reduction 23.4

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 23.4

Credit for Future BMAPs 0.0
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

107

FLOR IDA DE P AR TME NT OF TR ANS P OR TATION

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE S C R IP TION

S TAR T 

DATE 

E ND 

DATE 

T P R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P ROJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

FDOT FDOT -1 FM: 240167-1 SR434

Widen from 2 to 6 lanes from 

McCulloch Road to Mitchell 

Hammock; drainage improvements 

and treatment of existing impervious 2002 2007 3.6 83.47

Wet 

Detention Completed

FDOT FDOT -2

FM: 240196-1 SR17-

92 Basin A&B

Proposed widening of SR 15/600 

(US 17/92) from Shepard Road to 

Lake Mary Blvd; drainage 

improvements and treatment of 

existing impervious Pending 2014 21.0 57.21

Wet 

Detention Design

FDOT FDOT -3

FM: 240196-1 SR17-

92 Basin C&D

Proposed widening of SR 15/600 

(US 17/92) from Shepard Road to 

Lake Mary Blvd; drainage 

improvements and treatment of 

existing impervious Pending 2014 3.7 47.97

Dry 

Retention Design

FDOT FDOT -4 FM: 240163-1 SR 46

SR 46 Bridge Replacement over 

Lake Jesup; drainage improvements 

and treatment of existing impervious 2008 2010 5.4 50.50

Wet 

Detention Construction

FDOT FDOT -5 Street Sweeping

Monthly street sweeping of 1,232.6 

miles N/A N/A 90.3 N/A

Street 

Sweeping Ongoing

FDOT FDOT -6 Education Efforts Public Education efforts N/A N/A 6.5 N/A Education Ongoing

FDOT FDOT -7 Existing BMPs Varies N/A N/A 207.7 N/A N/A Completed

Total Projects Reduction 338.2

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 132.3

Credit for Future BMAPs 205.9
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

108

CITY OF L AKE MARY

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE 

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

ANNUAL 

O&M

C OST

FOOTPR INT 

(ACRES )

P ROJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Lake Mary LM-1 Lake Mary Woods

Eliminate 18 septic 

tanks 75 feet from

surface water, some of 

them were failing 5/2005 4/2006 44.5 $3,700,000 $2,056 6,260

Extend 

sewer line Completed

Lake Mary LM-2 Street Sweeping

Quarterly street 

sweeping of 52.3 miles N/A N/A 2.7 N/A N/A N/A

Street 

Sweeping Ongoing

Lake Mary LM-3 Education Efforts

FYN, ordinances, PSAs, 

pamphlets, 

presentations, website, 

illicit discharge program N/A N/A 67.6 N/A N/A N/A Education Ongoing

Lake Mary LM-4 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in place 

at the time of the TMDL N/A N/A 264.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed

Total Projects Reduction 379.1

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 264.3

Credit for Future BMAPs 114.8

CITY OF LONGWOOD

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE

T P R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST P ROJECT T YPE S TATUS

Longwood L-1

South Grant Street 

Drainage Project

Drainage improvements on South 

Grant Street 2008 2009 0.7 $300,000

Stormwater 

Retrofit

Planned & 

Funded

Longwood L-2

North Grant Street 

Drainage Project

Drainage improvements on North 

Grant Street 2009 2010 1.4 $300,000 

Stormwater 

Retrofit

Planned & 

Funded

Longwood L-3

Sewering projects to 

remove septic tanks

Sewering projects to remove 

tanks within 75 ft of surface 

waters (remove 20 septic tanks) 2009 2013 22.7 N/A

Wastewater 

plant 

improvements

Planned & 

Funded

Longwood L-4 Street Sweeping

Quarterly street sweeping of 11.1 

miles N/A N/A 0.6 N/A Street sweeping Ongoing

Longwood L-5 Education Efforts

FYN, pamphlets, presentations, 

website, illicit discharge program N/A N/A 44.9 N/A Education Ongoing

Longwood L-6 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in place at the 

time of the TMDL N/A N/A 58.9 N/A N/A Completed

Longwood L-7 Regional Project Participate in a regional project 2009 2014 69.7 N/A N/A Planned

Total Projects Reduction 198.9

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 205.3

Credit for Future BMAPs -6.4*

* Note: Due to some project calculation adjustments done by FDEP, the remainder of the required reductions for this first BMAP will be met as part of the 

responsibilities in the second BMAP.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

109

CITY OF MAITLAND

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE 

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

ANNUAL 

O&M

C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P ROJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Maitland M-1

Sybelia Parkway 

Regional Pond Construct wet pond 2005 2007 33.7 $4,400,000 $3,000 125.2

Wet 

detention 

pond Completed

Maitland M-2

Lake Gem/Park Lake 

COOP BMP

Construct second 

generation baffle 

box 2010 2011 0.3 $30,000 $3,000 3.4

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Maitland M-3

Lake Gem/Park Lake 

COOP BMP

Construct second 

generation baffle 

box 2010 2011 3.1 $30,000 $3,000 20.0

Stormwater 

Retrofit

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Maitland M-4

Lake Gem/Park Lake 

COOP BMP

Construct second 

generation baffle 

box 2010 2011 0.2 $60,000 $6,000 3.1

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Maitland M-5

Lake Gem/Park Lake 

COOP BMP

Construct second 

generation baffle 

box 2010 2011 18.9 $60,000 $6,000 178.9

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Maitland M-6

Lake Gem/Park Lake 

COOP BMP

Construct second 

generation baffle 

box 2010 2011 9.1 $60,000 $6,000 58.1

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Maitland M-7

Lake Maitland Basin -

Ridgewood Area 

Quality Neighborhood 

Program City Street 

Improvement Plan

Construct 

infiltration trenches 2009 2010 0.5 $60,000 $2,500 3.9

Infiltration 

trench

Planned & 

Funded

Maitland M-8

Lake Maitland Basin -

Ridgewood Area 

Quality Neighborhood 

Program City Street 

Improvement Plan

Construct 

infiltration trenches 2009 2010 1.7 $170,000 $8,500 15.0

Infiltration 

trench

Planned & 

Funded

Maitland M-9

Lake Maitland Basin -

Ridgewood Area 

Quality Neighborhood 

Program City Street 

Improvement Plan

Construct 

infiltration trenches 2009 2010 0.6 $100,000 $5,000 9.2

Infiltration 

trench

Planned & 

Funded

Maitland M-10

North Lake Maitland 

Leaf Trap Project

Install curb inlet 

leaf trap 2009 2010 0.1 $3,000 $6,000 16.8 Inlet

Planned & 

Funded
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

110

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE 

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

ANNUAL 

O&M

C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P ROJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Maitland M-11

Lake Maitland Basin -

Ridgewood Area 

Quality Neighborhood 

Program City Street 

Improvement Plan

Construct 

infiltration trenches 2009 2010 0.9 $100,000 $8,500 14.8

Infiltration 

trench

Planned & 

Funded

Maitland M-12

Dommerich Lot Baffle 

Box

Construct second 

generation baffle 

box 2010 2011 1.1 $60,000 $5,000 24.7

Stormwater 

Retrofit

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Maitland M-13

Chipewa Trail Baffle 

Box

Construct second 

generation baffle 

box 2007 2007 1.1 $60,000 $5,000 25.3

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Maitland M-14

Horatio Avenue 

Infiltration Trench

Construct 

infiltration trenches 2012 2014 0.9 $150,000 $5,000 5.0

Infiltration 

trench

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Maitland M-15

Minnehaha Park 

Stormwater 

Improvements Dry 

Stormwater Pond Construct wet pond 2007 2008 1.3 $65,000 $2,000 9.9

Dry 

detention 

pond Completed

Maitland M-16 Street Sweeping

Street sweeping 

once every 2 

weeks of 71 miles 2005 Ongoing 7.4 N/A $100,000 2898

Street 

Sweeping Ongoing

Maitland M-17 Education Efforts

Landscaping 

ordinance, PSAs, 

presentations/ 

pamphlets, 

website, illicit 

discharge program N/A N/A 40.8 N/A N/A N/A Education Ongoing

Maitland M-18 Existing BMPs

BMPs in place at 

the time of the 

TMDL N/A N/A 0.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed

Total Projects Reduction 122.4

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 124.8

Credit for Future BMAPs -2.4*

* Note: Due to some project calculation adjustments done by FDEP, the remainder of the required reductions for this first BMAP will be met as part of the 

responsibilities in the second BMAP.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

111

OR LANDO OR ANGE C OUNTY E XPRESSWAY AUTHOR ITY

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

T P R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

OOCEA OOCEA-1 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in place 

at the time of the TMDL 12.8 N/A Completed

Total Projects Reduction 12.8

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 5.2

Credit for Future BMAPs 7.6

OR ANGE C OUNTY

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE 

E ND 

DATE 

T P R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R ) P ROJECT T YPE S TATUS

Orange County OC-1

Hall Road 

Improvements

OC CIP Hall Road 

Improvements Pending 2014 0.1

Stormwater 

Retrofit Planned

Orange County OC-2

OC CIP Lake 

Wauntta OC CIP Lake Wauntta Pending 2014 3.5

Stormwater 

Retrofit Planned

Orange County OC-3

Lake Sue Inlet 

Baskets Lake Sue inlet baskets N/A N/A 0.7 Inlet Baskets Completed

Orange County OC-4

Street 

Sweeping

Street sweeping weekly of 

78 miles and monthly of 

360 miles N/A N/A 27.4

Street 

Sweeping Ongoing

Orange County OC-5

Education 

Efforts

FYN, ordinances, PSAs, 

pamphlets, presentations, 

website, illicit discharge 

program N/A N/A 151 Education Ongoing

Orange County OC-6 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in place at 

the time of the TMDL N/A N/A 197.3 N/A Completed

Orange County OC-7

Regional 

Project

Participate in a regional 

project 2009 2014 189.0

Regional 

Project Planned

Total Projects Reduction 569.0

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 569.0

Credit for Future BMAPs 0.0
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

112

CITY OF OR LANDO

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE 

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

ANNUAL 

O&M C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES P ROJECT T YPE S TATUS

Orlando ORL-1

Lake Dot Water 

Quality 

Restoration

Installation of Alum 

Treatment System, where 

aluminum sulfate (alum) is 

injected into stormline on a 

flow-proportioned basis 1988 07/1990 70.4 $569,207 N/A 276 Alum Completed

Orlando ORL-2

Hazel Street 

Outfall 

Improvements

Installation of CDS Unit at 

Lake Winyah from 96" pipe 07/2000 07/2003 8.3 $410,992 N/A 505

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Orlando ORL-3

Lake Rowena 

Screening Facility 

& Alum 

Stormwater 

Treatment

Installation of underground, 

flow-actuated rotating bar 

screen on 108" outfall pipe 

to capture debris with 

additional treatment via 

alum system 1994 1996 55.0 $596,512 N/A 470

Screening 

and Alum Completed

Orlando ORL-4

Lake Highland 

CDS Unit

Installation of CDS Unit at 

Lake Highland 1998 1999 1.0 $60,000 N/A 45

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Orlando ORL-5

Mills Avenue 

Retrofit

Construction of Storm Flo 

Litter Collection Screen on 

Mills Ave., adjacent to Lake 

Rowena to treat runoff from 

36" and 24" stormlines 01/2009 04/2009 8.4 $250,000 N/A 89 

Stormwater 

Retrofit

Planned & 

Funded

Orlando ORL-6

Overbrook 

Stormwater 

Improvements

Construct 2nd generation 

baffle box upstream of Lake 

Adair; Implement pollution 

prevention methods, 

including gravel bottom and 

check dams to settle out

pollutants 10/2007 07/2008 1.8 $400,000 N/A 236

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Planned & 

Funded

Orlando ORL-7

Guernsey Park -

Expansion of Wet 

Detention Pond

Expansion of wet detention 

pond to treat 61% of subbasin drainage N/A N/A 0.1 $425,000 N/A 80Wet detention 

pond

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Orlando ORL-8

Ivanhoe Plaza 

Park Exfiltration

Installation of exfiltration 

galleries to treat 100% of 

sub-basin drainage N/A N/A 1.3 $1,100,000 N/A 49

100% on-site 

retention

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

113

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE 

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

ANNUAL 

O&M C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES P ROJECT T YPE S TATUS

Orlando ORL-9

Don Dudley Park 

2nd Generation 

Baffle Boxes 

Construct two 2nd 

Generation Baffle Boxes 

upstream of Lake Concord 

and reroute flow to treat 30" 

and 24" outfalls from nearly 

100% of two sub-basins N/A N/A 0.8 $250,000 N/A 66

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Orlando ORL-10

Winyah 

(Westchester 

Ave/Wilkinson St) 

2nd Generation 

Baffle Box

Construct 2nd Generation 

Baffle Box upstream of Lake 

Winyah to treat 71% of subbasin N/A N/A 1.6 $72,000 N/A 30

Stormwater 

Retrofit

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Orlando ORL-11

Westmoreland 

2nd Generation 

Baffle Box

Construct 2nd Generation 

Baffle Box upstream of Lake 

Adair N/A 2006 0.1 $35,000 N/A 5.3

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Orlando ORL-12

Stormwater 

Filtration Systems 

/ Inlet Baskets

Installation of 6 inlet baskets 

around perimeter of Lake 

Adair N/A 2007 0.0 $5,400 N/A 25 Inlet Basket Completed

Orlando ORL-13

Stormwater 

Filtration Systems 

/ Inlet Baskets

Installation of 11 inlet 

baskets in Spring Lake 

basin N/A 2007 0.0 $9,900 N/A 25 Inlet Basket Completed

Orlando ORL-14

Stormwater 

Filtration Systems 

/ Inlet Baskets

Installation of 13 inlet 

baskets in Lake Formosa 

basin N/A 2007 0.1 $11,700 N/A 14 Inlet Basket Completed

Orlando ORL-15

Stormwater 

Filtration Systems 

/ Inlet Baskets

Installation of 29 inlet 

baskets in Lake Highland 

basin N/A 2007 3.5 $26,100 N/A 223 Inlet Basket Completed

Orlando ORL-16

Stormwater 

Filtration Systems 

/ Inlet Baskets

Installation of 2 inlet baskets 

in Lake Rowena basin N/A 2007 0.5 $1,800 N/A 39 Inlet Basket Completed

Orlando ORL-17

Stormwater 

Filtration Systems 

/ Inlet Baskets

Installation of 49 inlet 

baskets in Lake Ivanhoe 

basin N/A 2008 0.6 $44,100 N/A 242 Inlet Basket Completed

Orlando ORL-18

Stormwater 

Filtration Systems 

/ Inlet Baskets

Installation of 4 inlet baskets 

in Lake Druid basin N/A 2007 0.4 $1,800 N/A 39 Inlet Basket Completed

Orlando ORL-19 Street Sweeping

2 times per week of 6.4 

miles, weekly of 9.3 miles, 

and 2 times per month of 

113 miles N/A N/A 14.3 N/A $1,800,000 N/A

Street 

Sweeping Completed
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

114

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE 

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

ANNUAL 

O&M C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES P ROJECT T YPE S TATUS

Orlando ORL-20

Reading Dr (24" 

line) - 2nd 

Generation Baffle 

Box at Lake Adair

Construct 2nd Generation 

Baffle Box upstream of Lake 

Adair to treat approximately 

13% of subbasin N/A N/A 0.5 N/A N/A 26

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Orlando ORL-21

Spring Lake -2nd 

Generation Baffle 

Box at Rio 

Grande

Construct 2nd Generation 

Baffle Box upstream of 

Spring Lake to treat 100% of 

subbasin N/A N/A 0.6 $128,000 N/A 39 

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Orlando ORL-22

Spring Lake- 2nd 

Generation Baffle 

Box at Springdale 

Rd

Construct 2nd Generation 

Baffle Box upstream of 

Spring Lake to treat 100% of 

subbasin N/A N/A 0.1 N/A N/A 21 

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Orlando ORL-23

DOT Pond 

Maintenance, 

west of Spring 

Lake

Removal of muck/sediment 

and expansion of wet 

detention pond to treat 95% 

and 5% of two sub-basins, 

respectively. N/A N/A 6.1 N/A N/A 141

Wet detention 

pond

Envisioned, 

but Not 

Funded

Orlando ORL-24

Weber Dr - 2nd 

Generation Baffle 

Box at Lake Druid 

Construct 2nd Generation 

Baffle Box upstream of Lake 

Druid to treat approximately 

7% of subbasin N/A 2006 0.3 N/A N/A 6

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Orlando ORL-25

Educational 

Component 

FYN, ordinances 

(landscape, irrigation, pet 

waste), PSAs, pamphlets, 

presentations, website, illicit 

discharge program N/A N/A 94.2 N/A N/A N/A Education Ongoing

Orlando ORL-26

Hughey Avenue 

Retrofit

Divert stormwater from Lake 

Concord basin to Lake Dot 

Alum Treatment before 

discharging into chain of 

lakes 10/2010 12/2010 3.8 $500,00 N/A 90.8

Stormwater 

Retrofit and 

Alum

Planned & 

Funded

Orlando ORL-27 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in place at 

the time of the TMDL N/A N/A 684.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed

Total Projects Reduction 958.2

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 326.3

Credit for Future BMAPs 631.9
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

115

CITY OF OVIE DO

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE 

E ND 

DATE 

T P R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES P ROJECT T YPE S TATUS

Oviedo OV-1

Aulin Regional 

Stormwater Pond

Aulin Regional Stormwater 

Pond 2009 2014 13.5 N/A N/A Wet detention pond

Envisioned, but 

Not Funded

Oviedo OV-2

Lightwood Knox 

Canal Project

Lightwood Knox Canal 

Project 2009 2014 84.5 N/A N/A

Dry detention pond, 

Swales

Envisioned, but 

Not Funded

Oviedo OV-3

Sweetwater 

Creek Project Sweetwater Creek Project 2009 2014 30.4 N/A N/A

Dry detention pond, 

wet detention pond

Envisioned, but 

Not Funded

Oviedo OV-4

Solary Canal 

Stormwater 

Treatment Area

Regional Stormwater 

Treatment Facility consisting 

of an 8.0-acre wet pond and 

4.8-acre wetland 1/2010 9/2010 230.0 $1,700,000 1,471

Wet detention pond, 

Wetland treatment

Planned &

Funded

Oviedo OV-5 Street Sweeping 

Monthly street sweeping of 

160.8 miles N/A N/A 11.8 N/A N/A Street Sweeping Ongoing

Oviedo OV-6 Education Efforts

FYN, illicit discharge 

program N/A N/A 46.2 N/A N/A Education Ongoing

Oviedo OV-7 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in place at 

the time of the TMDL N/A N/A 386.5 N/A N/A N/A Completed

Total Projects Reduction 802.9

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 258.7

Credit for Future BMAPs 544.2

CITY OF S ANFOR D

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE 

E ND 

DATE 

T P R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R ) S TATUS

Sanford S-1 Street Sweeping

Weekly street sweeping of 

25.3 miles N/A N/A 3.6 Ongoing

Sanford S-2 Public Education Public Education N/A N/A 108.9 Ongoing

Sanford S-3 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in place at 

the time of the TMDL N/A N/A 521.2 Complete

Total Projects Reduction 633.7

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 602.2

Credit for Future BMAPs 31.5
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

116

S E MINOLE COUNTY

E NTITY

P ROJE CT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE E ND DATE 

T P R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

FOOTPR INT 

(ACRES )

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P ROJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Seminole 

County SC-1

Cassel Creek 

RSF

RSF to treat water 

in the sub basin 

upstream 1/2010 9/2010 156.8 $ 1,700,000 10 830

Wet 

detention 

pond

Planned & 

Funded

Seminole 

County SC-2

Lake Ann 

Outfall

Baffle box and pipe 

replacement 4/2001 10/2001 10.8 $148,000 0.1 322

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Seminole 

County SC-3

Red Bug Lake 

Road RSF

RSF to treat water 

in the sub basin 

upstream 6/2009 3/2010 93.0 $ 1,400,000 9 1050

Wet 

detention 

pond

Planned & 

Funded

Seminole 

County SC-4

Navy Canal 

RSF

RSF to treat water 

in the sub basin 

upstream 3/1/2005 10/14/2006 285.0 $ 2,112,336 7 889

Wet 

detention 

pond Completed

Seminole 

County SC-5

Cameron Ditch 

RSF

RSF to treat water 

in the sub basin 

upstream 4/17/2006 10/14/2006 71.9 $ 3,735,374 32 376

Wet 

detention 

pond, 

Wetland 

treatment Completed

Seminole 

County SC-6

Lake Howell 

Road Pond 

Retrofit

Retrofit of an old 

FDOT pond now 

under county 

jurisdiction that 

drains Howell 

Branch Road 5/2007 11/1/2007 7.1 N/A 4.0 23

Wet 

detention 

pond Completed

Seminole 

County SC-7

Solary Canal 

Stormwater 

Treatment 

Area

RST facility 

consisting of an 

8.0-acre wet pond 

and 4.8-acre 

wetland 1/2010 9/2010 230.0 $1,700,000 12.7 1471

Wet 

detention 

pond, 

Wetland 

treatment

Planned & 

Funded

Seminole 

County SC-8

Anchor Road 

Reconstruction

Reconstruction of 

Anchor Road with 

drainage 

improvements 

including upgraded 

detention/retention 

ponds 10/2007 10/2009 5.1 $2,000,000 13 60.7

Wet 

detention 

pond Started

Seminole 

County SC-9

Street 

Sweeping

Street sweeping 

monthly of 66.8 

miles and quarterly

of 160.2 miles N/A N/A 13.1 N/A N/A N/A

Street 

sweeping Ongoing
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

117

E NTITY

P ROJE CT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE E ND DATE 

T P R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

FOOTPR INT 

(ACRES )

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P ROJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Seminole 

County SC-10

Education 

Efforts

FYN, ordinances, 

PSAs, pamphlets, 

presentations, 

website, illicit 

discharge program N/A N/A 558.3 N/A N/A N/A Education Ongoing

Seminole 

County SC-11 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in 

place at the time of 

the TMDL N/A N/A 1,753.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed

Total Projects Reduction 3,184.9

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 2,137.0

Credit for Future BMAPs 1,047.9

TUR NPIK E AUTHOR ITY

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

T P R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R ) S TATUS

Turnpike Authority T-1 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in place at 

the time of the TMDL 252.3 Completed

Turnpike Authority T-2

Monthly street 

sweeping of 48 miles Monthly street sweeping 3.2 Ongoing

Turnpike Authority T-3 Education Efforts

Presentations, illicit discharge 

program 9 Ongoing

Total Projects Reduction 264.5

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 101.1

Credit for Future BMAPs 163.4
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

118

CITY OF WINTE R P ARK

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

ANNUAL 

O&M

C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P R OJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Winter 

Park WP-1

Lake Island 

Interconnect

First Flush bypass to 

Wet Retention Ponds 06/2002 09/2003 4.7 $408,009 N/A 74.5

Wet 

detention 

pond Completed

Winter 

Park WP-2

Via Lugano 

Exfiltration Off Line Exfiltration 10/1996 11/1997 1.3 $200,000 N/A 25.3

Dry 

detention 

pond Completed

Winter 

Park WP-3

N. Park Ave. 

Exfiltration Off Line Exfiltration 06/2004 10/2004 6.6 $250,000 N/A 21.44

Dry 

detention 

pond Completed

Winter 

Park WP-4 Fairway 3 Exfiltration Off Line Exfiltration 11/2006 10/2007 5.5 $1,000,000 N/A 57.39

Dry 

detention 

pond Completed

Winter 

Park WP-5 McKean Road CDS

CDS Unit on 24" 

outfall 05/2004 06/2005 0.0 N/A N/A 5.58

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-6

Pinetree Rd Outfall 

CDS

CDS unit on 42" 

outfall 05/2004 06/2005 0.6 N/A N/A 64.78

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-7 1190 Park Ave CDS

CDS unit on 30" 

outfall 08/1998 11/1999 0.2 N/A N/A 22.82

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-8

Moss/ Venetian Dry 

Capture 1st

Baffle screen on 15" 

outfall

Generation Baffle 

box 02/2000 03/2007 0.1 N/A N/A 3.02

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-9

Green Cove Road 2 

CDS Units

2 CDS units on two 

24" outfalls 05/2004 06/2006 0.1 N/A N/A 11.35

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-10

Courtland Alum 

Injection treatment

Alum injection at 

Lake Mizell outfall N/A N/A 21.2 N/A N/A 88.08 Alum Completed

Winter 

Park WP-11

Partnership/ wet 

detention/ Windsong

Developer's 

agreement to treat 

Palmer ditch basin 

run off within site 

MSSW N/A N/A 5.8 N/A N/A 84.55

Wet 

detention 

pond Completed

Winter 

Park WP-12

Lincoln Ave Alum 

Injection treatment

Alum injection at 

Lake Osceola outfall N/A N/A 37.7 N/A N/A 17.59 Alum Completed

Winter 

Park WP-13

Alexander Place 

Alum Injection 

treatment with baffle 

box

Alum injection at 

Lake Osceola outfall N/A N/A 22.6 N/A N/A 24.61 Alum Completed

Winter 

Park WP-14

Morse /Alum 

Injection treatment

Alum injection at 

Lake Osceola outfall N/A N/A 6.9 N/A N/A 57.13 Alum Completed
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

119

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

ANNUAL 

O&M

C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P R OJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Winter 

Park WP-15

Trismen and 

Lakewood Drive 

Exfiltration Off Line Exfiltration N/A N/A 0.4 N/A N/A 7.35

Dry 

detention 

pond Completed

Winter 

Park WP-16 Trismen CDS Unit

CDS Unit on 24" 

outfall N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A 0.39

Stormwater 

Retrofit 

(CDS) Completed

Winter 

Park WP-17

Trismen Dry 1st 

Generation Baffle 

Box

Baffle screen on 15" 

outfall N/A N/A 0.0 N/A N/A 1.84

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-18

Elizabeth CDS 

treating Inlet at 

Bonita and Dale CDS on 15" Pipe 05/2004 06/2006 0.0 N/A N/A 2.35

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-19

Lake Chelton Outfall 

Improvement

4 Dry Capture Baffle 

inlets and boxes 09/2003 01/2004 0.0 N/A N/A 28.65

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-20

Lakeview Road 

Bricking

CDS Installation on 

24" Outfall 03/2006 03/2006 0.1 N/A N/A 9.53

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-21

Mead Gardens 

Borrow Pit Pond 

Retrofit

Retrofit Screening 

devices (two baffle 

boxes) to existing 

MSSW 05/2006 09/2006 15.4 N/A $560,000 62.06

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-22

Glencoe Road 

Bricking

Stormwater capture 

and screening 

system (baffle box) 03/2007 06/2007 0.1 N/A N/A 3.39

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-23

Laurel Road Dry 

Retention Pond

On Line Dry retention 

Pond 05/1999 03/2001 1.7 N/A N/A 17.15

Dry 

detention 

pond Completed

Winter 

Park WP-24

Alum Injection 

Treatment/ Rollins

Alum injection At 

Outfalls to Lake 

Virginia 01/1995 1996 26.8 N/A N/A 72.99 Alum Completed

Winter 

Park WP-25

9th Grade Center 

Pond Wet Detention

Wet Detention Pond 

Retrofit

Pre 

1995

Pre 

1995 7.6 N/A N/A 110.8

Wet 

detention 

pond Completed

Winter 

Park WP-26 Lakeview Bricking

Stormwater capture 

and screening 

system (baffle box) 02/2005 11/2006 0.1 N/A N/A 6.97

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-27

Oxford Road 

Bricking

Stormwater capture 

and screening 

system (baffle box) 08/2006 11/2006 0.1 N/A N/A 5.28

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

120

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

ANNUAL 

O&M

C OST

T R E ATME NT 

ACRES

P R OJECT 

T YPE S TATUS

Winter 

Park WP-28 Lake Island Park

Created treatment 

volume in Lake 

Mednsen, construct 

control structures for 

wet detention 

treatment 06/1905 03/1996 83.8 N/A N/A 256.00

Wet 

detention 

pond Completed

Winter 

Park WP-29

950 Palmer Ave 

Retrofit

Stormwater capture 

and screening 

system (baffle box) 07/2007 07/2007 0.3 N/A N/A 18.33

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-30 Banchory Exfiltration

On-line Retention 

0.25 treatment 

volume 2008 2008 0.4 N/A N/A N/A

On-line 

Retention Completed

Winter 

Park WP-31 Bryan CDS CDS 2008 2008 0.2 N/A N/A N/A

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-32 E. Lake Sue CDS CDS 2008 2008 0.1 N/A N/A N/A

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-33

Elizabeth Drive 

baffle box Baffle box N/A N/A 1.1 N/A N/A N/A

Stormwater 

Retrofit Completed

Winter 

Park WP-34 Street Sweeping

Street sweeping two 

times per month of 

130 miles N/A Ongoing 13.6 N/A N/A N/A

Street

Sweeping Ongoing

Winter 

Park WP-35 Education Efforts

FYN, landscape and 

fertilizer ordinances, 

pamphlets, 

presentations, 

website, illicit 

discharge program N/A Ongoing 106.3 N/A N/A N/A Education Ongoing

Winter 

Park WP-36 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in

place at the time of 

the TMDL N/A N/A 151.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A Completed

Total Projects Reduction 522.9

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 370.5

Credit for Future BMAPs 152.4
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

121

WINTE R S PR INGS

E NTITY

P ROJECT 

NUMB E R P ROJECT NAME P ROJECT DE TAIL

S TAR T 

DATE

E ND 

DATE

T P

R E DUCTION 

(LBS /Y R )

P ROJECT 

C OST

ANNUAL 

O&M

C OST S TATUS

Winter 

Springs WS-1

Solary Canal 

Stormwater 

Treatment Area

Regional Stormwater Treatment 

Facility consisting of an 8.0-acre 

wet pond and 4.8-acre wetland 1/2010 9/2010 230.0 $1,700,000 N/A

Planned & 

Funded

Winter 

Springs WS-2

Winding Hollow 

Wetland 

Treatment Area

Divert No Name Creek flow into 

wetland treatment system 2020 2020 210.1 $357,000 N/A

Envisioned 

but Not 

Funded

Winter 

Springs WS-3

Winter Springs 

and Wedgewood 

Filtration Devices

Retrofit stormwater outfalls with 

flow-through filtration devices 2020 2020 24.7 $132,000 N/A

Envisioned 

but Not 

Funded

Winter 

Springs WS-4

North Orlando 

Townsite 

Filtration Devices

Retrofit eastern and western 

outfalls with flow-through 

filtration devices 2020 2020 5.2 $80,000 N/A

Envisioned 

but Not 

Funded

Winter 

Springs WS-5

Highlands 

Regional Pond 

Enhancements

Expansion of existing wet pond 

and redirection of untreated 

stormwater runoff to the pond 2020 2020 64.5 $1,385,000 N/A

Envisioned 

but Not 

Funded

Winter 

Springs WS-6

Education Efforts 

- Update Local 

Codes and 

Ordinances 

(Fertilizer Rule, 

etc.), FYN

Maximize available public 

education credits through Code 

updates, fertilizer ordinance, 

FYN, etc. N/A N/A 92.0 N/A $3,000 Ongoing

Winter 

Springs WS-7 Street Sweeping

Quarterly street sweeping of 

142.7 miles N/A N/A 7.3 N/A N/A Ongoing

Winter 

Springs WS-8 Existing BMPs

BMPs that were in place at the 

time of the TMDL N/A N/A 765.2 N/A N/A Completed

Total Projects Reduction 1,399.0

Total Required Reduction 2010-2014 513.0

Credit for Future BMAPs 886.0
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

122

Appendix E : LID AP P L IC ATION IN THE L AKE J E SUP B AS IN

The following tables summarize key LID principles (Table E-1) and activities (Table E-2) to 

provide local examples of how those principles are being put into place in the Basin. Table E-3

identifies local programs and projects that have used multiple LID principles and activities to 

achieve water quality and/or environmental benefits. Given the success achieved by local 

governments, it is reasonable to expect that these types of projects will continue to be 

developed in the basin.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

123

TABLE E -1: LOW IMPACT DE VE LOPME NT –APPLIC ATION OF K EY P R INCIPLE S IN THE L AKE J ESUP B AS IN

Key Principle Description

Preservation and protection of 

environmentally sensitive features

The preservation and protection of sensitive areas that affect the hydrology of site, including streams and 

their buffers, floodplains, wetlands, steep slopes, high-permeability soils, and woodland conservation 

zones is essential to minimizing hydrologic impacts. The goal is to preserve natural features, such as 

wetlands, woodlands, and stream buffers, and retain their natural biodiversity. Protection occurs primarily 

through land use rules established at the local government level, and through Water Management District, 

state and local land acquisition programs.

Application within the Lake Jesup Basin

• All of the communities within the Lake Jesup Basin have policies requiring minimum upland buffers from the edges of wetlands and 

Conservation Land Use categories that protect sensitive lands within their respective Comprehensive Plans.

• Orange County established GreenPLACE (Park Land Acquisition and Conservation for Environmental Protection) to preserve and manage 

environmentally sensitive lands, and protect water resource lands. The program has invested $10.2 million in purchasing 582 acres of 

environmentally sensitive lands thus far.

• Altamonte Springs has a special Conservation District zoning category and protected land use classification for environmental sensitive land 

that is considered to be a conservation area. Conservation areas are the floodways of a river or a wetland of sufficient size to host a viable 

wetland habitat.

• Orlando protects environmentally sensitive lands through the utilization of the Resource Protection Overlay Future Land Use Designation and 

the Resource Protection Overlay Zoning District, as well as environmentally sensitive lands regulations is Chapter 63 of the City’s Land 

Development Code.

• Casselberry has a special Conservation overlay that restricts both the density and intensity of construction within the boundaries of the overlay.

Incorporation of small-scale stormwater 

treatment systems integrated at the lot 

level

Lot-level and on-site treatment systems offer the best opportunities for maintaining more natural 

hydrologic functions, as well as reducing the concentration time needed to move water into larger offsite 

facilities, if necessary, and enhance community character. The excessive land requirements for largescale systems and the concomitant loss of terrestrial open space area are also avoided.

Application within the Lake Jesup Basin

• Article XI of the City of Oviedo Code recommends stormwater retention or detention in surface facilities, such as grassed swales. To minimize 

runoff, developments must maximize the infiltration of natural rainfall into the soil and minimize direct overland runoff into adjoining streets and 

water courses. The Code further encourages infiltration of runoff from driveways, roofs, or other impervious areas through diversion so as to 

flow over grassed areas whenever possible. Within recharge areas post-development rates and volumes must achieve at least 70% infiltration 

of all on-site stormwater. Further, impervious surfaces cannot exceed 50% of the total site area.

• A general requirement of the Seminole County land development code requires that runoff from driveways, roofs or other impervious areas 

should be diverted so as to flow over grassed areas prior to flowing into any drainage system whenever possible. The code also allows onsite 

wetlands for bioretention.

• The City of Sanford has specific policies in its Comprehensive Plan encouraging infiltration, roof runoff disconnects, and overland flow.

Increasing infiltration Mechanisms that can retain stormwater on-site yet still provide percolation facilitate both the protection of 

surface water quality and aquifer recharge.

Application within the Lake Jesup Basin

• The entire shorelines of Lake Lily and Long Branch Canal in Maitland have been fitted with Geo-tubes to maximize infiltration of runoff and 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

124

Key Principle Description

minimize transport of runoff into the waterbodies.

• The Casselberry stormwater Code specifically addresses and allows underground exfiltration trench systems for percolation of stormwater into 

the ground (Section 3-12.13).

• Casselberry also requires the pre-post differential volumetric retention of all stormwater runoff for the 25 year 24 hour storm event. This 

requirement is more stringent than both Seminole County and SJRWMD.

• The City Hall complex in Oviedo has no curb for parking, with runoff moving through vegetated areas into depressed grassed areas.

• The City of Sanford has both Comprehensive Plan policies and land development regulations (Schedule M) that require swales, terraces, and 

berms.

• Longwood is developing a regulation requiring that swales be used on at least one side of residential roadways.

• Winter Springs encourages filter strips and the separation of sidewalks from curbs.

• A new Winter Park ordinance allows and sets design criteria for underground stormwater systems.

Reduction of impervious surfaces

Buildings, parking lots, sidewalks and other impervious surfaces generate large amounts of stormwater 

runoff that must be disposed of to prevent flooding. Reducing impervious surfaces within a site allows for 

more on-site retention of runoff, reducing offsite impacts.

Application within the Lake Jesup Basin

• Seminole County encourages development to use joint or shared access and stormwater facilities to minimize impervious surfaces, as 

determined by the Development Review Manager. The County also has a “Conservation Village” area in the vicinity of Myrtle Street with a 

clustering of development/reduction of impervious incentive program.

• Though not an official policy, the reduction of impervious parking within the City of Longwood’s historic district is strongly encouraged during the 

site plan process. The types of impervious parking currently in use in the Historic District include crushed rock, gravel, mulch, and grass.

• The City of Orlando stormwater utility has an incentive for development to reduce impervious through fee reductions.

Site design

The consideration of LID strategies during the design phase of development is a way to minimize the 

impact of that development on water quality. Both regulatory and incentive-based approaches can be 

used to encourage development that minimizes hydrologic impacts created by the development.

Application within the Lake Jesup Basin

• The United States Green Building Council is a coalition of leaders from the building industry working to promote buildings that are 

environmentally sustainable places to live and work. The Council developed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green 

Building Rating SystemTM to recognize new construction or major renovations that meet a minimum standard. The system provides credits for 

maximizing open space, water quantity control, water quality control, the installation of water efficient landscaping, and water use reduction.

• Orange County has several LEED certified staff members within both the Environmental Protection, and Building and Planning Divisions, and 

the Orange County Coroner’s Office has been LEED accredited and certified.

• The City of Sanford Downtown Overlay District requires LEED compliance for all re-construction, with two projects potentially being designed 

with green roofs.

• Section 60.233 of the Orlando code provides landscaping requirements adjacent to lakes and wetlands that require native plantings in the 

littoral zone along at least 75% of the lake frontage.

• Article XII of the Oviedo code has specific sections on XeriscapingTM and lake edge landscaping, as well as tree planting and buffering 

requirements.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

125

TABLE E -2: LOW IMPACT DE VE LOPME NT – K EY AC TIVITIE S AND LOCAL P ROJ ECTS

Activities Description

Green roofs

Green roofs, also known as vegetated roof covers, are multi-beneficial structural building components that 

reduce roof runoff and maintain water quality by filtering, absorbing and detaining rainfall. They are 

constructed of a lightweight soil media, underlain by a drainage layer, and a high quality impermeable 

membrane that protects the building structure. The soil is planted with a specialized mix of plants that can 

thrive in the harsh, dry, high temperature conditions of the roof and tolerate short periods of inundation 

from storm events. Numerous studies have demonstrated that green roofs can provide stormwater 

management, economic benefits, improvements in air quality and moderation of the urban heat island 

effect.

Local Projects

• Longwood staff are encouraging the inclusion of green roof provisions in the update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

• A City of Maitland Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) proposal is considering five locations that may include green roof systems. 

• One of the goals of the Green Works Orlando Pillars program is to build a roof top/balcony garden at City Hall to raise awareness of green roofs 

and their benefits.

Swales and filter strips Swales and filter strips reduce runoff velocity, provide filtration and allow for infiltration and percolation of 

runoff.

Local Projects

• Altamonte Springs has swale systems throughout the Ronald Reagan subdivision and along Robin Road. A brochure titled “Save Our Swales” 

discusses the LID concept behind swales, their purpose, and maintenance requirements.

• The Casselberry North Lake Triplet West Shore Revegetation project included the removal of invasive and nuisance vegetation, the installation 

of a water quality swale, and revegetation with native trees, shoreline plants and aquatic plants.

• Chapman Road in Oviedo has curb cuts with runoff going into roadside grassed swales.

• Mitchell Hammock Road in Oviedo has a center grassed swale.

• The Town of Eatonville library has disconnected downspouts with runoff directed through vegetation and a grassed area to shallow depressed 

area. The Town Hall parking lot has runoff directed to another grassed, depressed area.

• The Maitland Center in Altamonte Springs has curb cuts with all lot runoff directed to grassed swales surrounding the complex.

• The Spring Hill Apartment Complex in Maitland has lot runoff directed to areas of overland flow, then to shallow depressed areas.

• The 7-11 convenience store at the corner of SR 434 and Chapman Road in Oviedo has depressed grassed areas that provide onsite retention.

Terraces and berms Terraces and berms surrounding surface water bodies provide a last opportunity for infiltration and 

treatment of overland flows.

Local Projects

• Schedule M of the City of Sanford LDRs requires terraces around lakes.

• The Orange County Lakeshore Protection Ordinance (OCC 34-132 requires pollution abatement swales upland of streams and canals and 

wetlands connected to lakes.

• The stormwater management section of the Casselberry Code of Ordinances (Section 3-12.3-P) requires that “waterfront properties which drain 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

126

Activities Description

directly into adjacent waterbodies shall utilize pre-berms, terracing, swales and natural vegetative buffers to divert, detain, and/or filter 

stormwater before it enters the receiving waterbody.”

Porous (permeable) pavement

Permeable paver systems are assemblies of rigid blocks that contain drainage voids for passing runoff to 

the subsurface, where the water is further conveyed through base materials to secondary stormwater 

treatment systems. They particularly help in reducing the volume of rainfall runoff where they replace 

impermeable sidewalks and parking lots.

Local Projects

• The parking area at Memorial Park in Sanford utilizes the Geogrid system as an underlayment to the grassed parking area.

• A Flexi-pave sidewalk has been installed through a Xeriscape demonstration garden located on the southwest corner of the County 

Administrative Offices in downtown Orlando. The garden also includes native vegetation and a low-volume irrigation system. Flexi-pave is a 

pour-in-place paving system made from recycled tires by Firestone. Flexi-Pave can be used in new development, replacing traditional 

hardscapes and serving as an infiltration zone for capturing or controlling runoff. 

• Seminole County is installing Flexi-pave at its Geneva Wilderness Park.

• Lake Mary is utilizing funds from its stormwater utility to pave all public dirt roads with cold-mix permeable pavement.

• The Holy Cross Lutheran Church and the Lake Mary Events Center in Lake Mary both have grassed parking with only paved thruways.

• The Aloma Baptist Church on SR 436, in Casselberry, utilizes grassed parking throughout the complex.

Bioretention

Bioretention facilities are small landscaped basins intended to provide water quality management by 

filtering stormwater runoff before release into secondary stormwater management systems. They use 

plants and soil to trap and treat petroleum products, metals, nutrients, and sediments. “Rain gardens” are 

well-known examples of bioretention areas. They are typically a depression area planted with native 

vegetation that is designed to take all, or as much as possible, of the excess rainwater run-off from 

development and its associated landscape.

Local Projects

• The Maitland Springs Commercial Building complex has all lot runoff directed to a naturally vegetated retention area.

• Orange County is designing a model rain garden at the Back to Nature Refuge in Orlando.

• The Casselberry stormwater utility code provides an on-site retention credit of up to 50% for residential or commercial properties that exceed 

minimum requirements. Bioretention facilities qualify for this credit.

• Facilities with rain gardens within Maitland are located at the end of George and Boynton Streets, along Packwood Street.

• The Hamilton Place subdivision in Winter Park has a rain garden.

Florida Friendly Landscaping

The objective of Florida friendly landscaping is to establish and maintain healthy landscapes by matching 

the right plants with existing site conditions so that the use of additional resources, such as water, 

fertilizer, pesticides and labor, is minimized. Existing native-plant communities are typically the best suited 

for the climate. By using native plants during landscaping, homeowners can reduce the amount of 

fertilizers and pesticides used, conserve water, provide habitat for native wildlife and preserve water 

quality in adjacent waterbodies.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

127

Activities Description

Local Projects

• The Orange County landscape code requires water efficient landscaping, and specifically promotes XeriscapeTM

• Policy 5.7 within the Lake Mary Conservation Element discourages fertilizers and pesticides on lakefront property, and encourages the use of 

native and xeriscape plants as landscaping on lake front property.

design and maintenance 

principles. The code also encourages water use zones and allows no irrigation where either native plant habitat is retained, or where water 

efficient landscaping and irrigation is proposed.

• Seminole County has a water conservation demonstration garden highlighting Xeriscaping and low flow irrigation methods.

• The Maitland Public Works Building has an experimental irrigation test site used for investigating mechanisms to minimize landscape irrigation.

• Winter Springs is a certified as “Tree City USA” through the National Arbor Day foundation. The City also funds a neighborhood improvement 

grant program to assist neighborhood groups within the City limits who desire to enhance landscape amenities in the community.

• FDEP maintains an interactive Web site to provide information on Florida-friendly plants and landscaping (www.floridayards.org). The site 

provides basic information on Florida-friendly landscaping, including environmental benefits and guiding principles, and includes a database of 

native Florida plants.

Buffers

The use of open space or vegetated buffers minimizes direct stormwater impacts to streams and 

wetlands. Vegetated buffers in particular, slow overland runoff velocities. SJRWMD has permit 

requirements of a minimum development buffer of 25 ft adjacent to wetlands, as well as more stringent 

requirements for properties adjacent to Outstanding Florida Waters or within special rule areas.

Local Projects

• All of the communities in the Lake Jesup Basin have open space and yard regulations to provide open space around and between structures 

that serve to provide opportunities for overland flow of runoff.

• The City of Lake Mary created an Environmental Buffer Zone adjacent to each Wetland Protection Zone that extends 25 feet landward of the 

boundaries of the Wetland Protection Zone (Chapter 160 – Resource Protection Standards). Commercial development must maintain a 200-

foot setback from this secondary zone. In the case of single-family development a 75-foot setback is established.

• Maitland is using volunteer groups to assist with the re-planting of native trees and undercanopy plants along the shoreline of Lake Nina. 

Signage along a boardwalk describes the vegetation and principles of LID.

• The Longwood development code requires a 50 foot buffer on lakefront properties with no variances allowed. The City’s Comprehensive Plan 

also requires a minimum of 50% xeric or native plantings for landscape. Article III of the Longwood Code of Ordinances encourages clustering 

development as a means of preserving open space.

Lakeshore Protection

Lakeshore protection, as an LID activity, is important in the Lake Jesup basin because of the large 

numbers of lakes within the basin boundaries. The water quality management of these lakes is a priority 

for the local communities.

Local Projects

• Maitland has a full-time Lakes Management Coordinator that implements a Lakes Management Plan. A recent project was the installation of 

swales and reverse berms around Lake Sybelia.

• Seminole County, Altamonte Springs, Casselberry and Orlando are all participants in the Florida LAKEWATCH program. Florida LAKEWATCH 

is a volunteer citizen lake monitoring program that facilitates "hands-on" citizen participation in the management of Florida lakes through 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

128

Activities Description

monthly monitoring activities

• Altamonte Springs has a brochure on lakefront living that encourages shoreline berms or swales, and discusses the importance of shoreline 

vegetation and native plants for landscaping. Article IV of the Code of Ordinances specifically addresses lakeshore protection and has 

provisions for landscaping, water quality and buffering.

• The Casselberry lakeshore protection ordinance requires that only native vegetation shall be planted and maintained within the shoreline and 

lakefront littoral zone. Further, a shoreline protection plan is required that shall include a plan that describes procedures to ensure minimal 

impacts to water quality.

• The Casselberry Stormwater, Lake Management and Water Quality Master Plan includes many LID-related best management practices, plans 

for lakeshore revegetation, swale and reverse berm guidelines, and public outreach elements. As part of this, Casselberry has developed a 

Lake Management Guide for lakefront property owners and hosts targeted lakefront workshops for City residents.

• The Winter Park Lakes Division manages and maintains all city lakes and waterways through aquatic weed control, access management, canal 

maintenance, and water quality monitoring. The Division also produces a quarterly “Waterways” newsletter. A city Ordinance requires a 

lakefront berm for all new and re-developed properties.

• Orange County has an ordinance for Lakeshore Protection located in Chapter 15 Article VII of the county code.

Education and Outreach

Public education and outreach initiatives are the most direct means of providing the public and 

development community with an awareness and understanding of LID strategies and their role in 

providing for environmentally sound development practices.

Local Projects

• The City of Longwood has produced two stormwater management guides that list numerous LID concepts. One of the guides is designed for 

homeowners while the other guide targets builders. The citizen’s guide encourages the planting and maintenance of vegetation on bare and

sloped areas; the routing of roof drainage to lawns, paved driveways, or collection (rain) barrels; and the preservation of existing vegetation.

• Orange County has a “Green Building” brochure that promotes water efficient landscaping using native plants, the use of an efficient irrigation 

system and landscaping designed to prevent water from running off property. A stormwater fact sheet promotes the installation of rain barrels 

and rain gardens to collect roof runoff.

• Orange County also held an LID workshop on February 15, 2008, designed for local governmental staff, elected officials, and building, design, 

and engineering professionals. The workshop discussed water conservation, open space preservation, native tree canopies, rain gardens, 

green roofs, permeable paved surfaces, resource efficient landscaping and irrigation, and other LID stormwater management strategies used 

for water resource protection.

• The Orange County Extension Office holds rain barrel workshops and maintains a model rain barrel at its office.

• Both Orange and Seminole County participate in the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program (FYN). FYN is an environmental educational 

program of the University of Florida Extension Service, implemented at the county level, to inform homeowners on how they can be more 

environmentally friendly with their landscape practices, helping to protect Florida's natural environment for future generations. The objectives of 

Florida Yards & Neighborhoods programs are to reduce stormwater runoff, decrease non-point source pollution, conserve water, enhance 

wildlife habitat, and create beautiful landscapes. Other partners include the cities of Sanford, Orlando, Casselberry, and Longwood.

• Seminole County operates Seminole County Television (SCTV) that shows public service announcements instructing residents that only rain 

should go down storm drains, not oil or grass clippings. The County also produces a Citizens Guide to Understanding Stormwater that 

discusses permeable pavement, rain barrels, rain gardens, grassy swales, and vegetated filter strips. They produce a DVD titled the “Citizens 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

129

Activities Description

Guide to Lake Management” that includes discussions of LID concepts. Finally, the County maintains a stormwater inlet marking program, a 

water resources atlas that discusses LID and operates a water conservation demonstration garden.

• Orange County operates Orange TV, which provides many of the same types of commercials and programs as SCTV.

• Orange County, Seminole County, and SJRWMD are sponsors of the Watershed Action Volunteer (WAV) Program that provides educational 

outreach and volunteer water quality monitoring. The WAV program implements activities that promote “Rain Gardens”, onsite management of 

stormwater quantity and quality, and Florida Friendly Landscaping methods, all LID implementation strategies.

• Maitland is a strong proponent of phosphorus-free fertilizers and has established the “Maitland for Quality” zero phosphorus program to instruct 

applicators. The City currently has a zero fertilizer or phosphorus application policy on city properties. The City also has a citizen’s guide to the 

city’s lakes, and a guide to stormwater pollution prevention.

• Casselberry has a how-to guide on designing a waterwise landscape that includes zoning of irrigation for more efficient watering.

• The Orlando Stormwater Division has school outreach programs, the stormwater drain signs project, and a yearly training program on BMPs for 

landscaping for all city contractors. The City also has a public awareness specialist to promote rain gardens and other non-structural 

approaches to stormwater management.

• SJRWMD is supportive of LID from an outreach and education perspective and developed an LID fact sheet for the public 

(http://sjrwmd.com/publications/pdfs/fs_lowimpactdevelopment.pdf). The District has provided both financial and staff support to the Orange and 

Seminole county LID workshops.

TABLE E -3: LOCAL MULTI-S TRATEGY LOW IMPACT DE VE LOPME NT P R OGR AMS AND P R OJ ECTS

Project Description

Lake Mary City Park

The Lake Mary City Park, located on the northeast corner of Rinehart Road and Lake Mary Blvd, has a 

series of vegetated swales to collect parking lot runoff. The park also has a sizable rain garden planted with 

a variety of native wetland vegetation. This rain garden receives all the drainage from this major intersection 

and is likely fully inundated during storm events.

Casselberry

The City is re-developing Anniversary Park at the City Hall complex, and construction plans include 

demonstration rain gardens, pervious pavements, a model baffle box with a plexiglas cover for viewing the 

inside, model exfiltration trenches, extensive wetland re-vegetation, swales and berms, Florida-friendly 

landscaping, stormwater harvesting for irrigation, and an educational boardwalk. Construction is expected to 

be completed in 2009. 

Section 6.7.2 of the City’s Stormwater Master Plan, which was adopted in September 2007, specifically 

addresses additional city opportunities for post-construction stormwater management. The section provides 

a partial listing and descriptions of stormwater Best Management Practices contained in EPA literature 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm) and elsewhere to reduce runoff volumes 

and improve downstream water quality. A brief description of reverse berms systems, roadway swales, 

wetland treatment systems, multi-component pollution abatement facilities, exfiltration trenches, inlets in 

grass, baffle boxes, LID, green roofs, and bioretention, among others, is given. 

Maitland Lakes Management Incentive The City of Maitland's Lakes Management Division offers following lakes management incentive programs:
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

130

Project Description

Programs • Shoreline Revegetation Program - The City will reimburse qualified residents up to 50% of the cost to 

purchase and install aquatic plants along their property shoreline. A maximum one-time reimbursement 

of $200 is being offered.

• Wetland Tree Planting Program - Bald Cypress trees are native to Florida and provide valuable wildlife 

habitat, as well as beauty to your shoreline. The City is offering lakefront homeowners up to three, 8-10 

foot tall, bald cypress trees at a cost of only $25 per tree. A City representative will work with the 

homeowner to establish the ideal location for the trees to ensure that the trees will benefit the lake and 

the shoreline. 

• Environmental Swale Program - The construction of swales helps treat stormwater runoff, as well as 

prevent sediment, debris, and petroleum-based products, such as oil and grease, from entering our 

lakes. A City representative will help establish the best location for the swale to ensure that the 

lakes/canals have maximum benefit. The City of Maitland will pay for 20% of the cost to grade and sod 

the swale, or $500 per property, whichever is less.

• Fertigation Program - Fertigation is the application of frequent, but very small doses of fertilizer 

(phosphorus-free), through a homeowner's irrigation system. The fertigation system is inexpensive; 

locally available; and helps reduce the amount of phosphorus polluting our lakes. The City is offering 

new fertigation users a gift certificate redeemable from a local supplier for up to two (2) 40- pound bags 

of phosphorous-free fertilizer.

Orlando Green Programs

• Orlando Green Business Program - The goal of the Orlando Green Business Program is to reach out 

to the local business community through incentives and education, ensuring pollution prevention and 

water quality protection of the lakes within the City of Orlando.

• Green Works Orlando - Green Works Orlando is an environmental action agenda designed to 

transform Orlando into an environmentally-conscious city. Immediate goals are to conserve natural 

resources and protect the environment and to increase the amount of trees and green spaces in the city.

Florida Green Building Coalition

Orlando, Orange County, and Seminole County are members of the Florida Green Building Coalition 

(FGBC), a nonprofit Florida corporation dedicated to improving the built environment. The mission of the 

coalition is "to provide a statewide green building program with environmental and economic benefits."The 

resources offered by the FGBC include five green building standards (listed below), the annual GreenTrends 

Conference, resources for finding green products and professionals, and education programs for industry 

professionals, consumers and government entities.

•

FGBC Certification Programs

•

Green Home Standard

•

Green Development Standard

•

Green High Rise Standard

• Green Commercial Buildings Standard

Green Local Government Standard for Green Cities and Counties
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

131

Appendix F : L AKE J ES UP MONITOR ING P LAN S UPPLE ME NTAL 

INF OR MATION

Table F-1 outlines the BMAP monitoring network stations and additional stations that the 

stakeholders currently sample that could be used to supplement the information gathered from 

the BMAP monitoring network in order to achieve the objectives of the monitoring plan. The 

column “Station Type” identifies which type of monitoring (water quality, flow, storm event, or 

biology) will occur at the station. The table also identifies the responsible entity, frequency of 

sampling, the parameters that will be monitored, and the year the site was established. The 

sub-basin that each station is located in is identified along with the local station identifier. 

Figure F-1 though Figure F-7 show the locations of the monitoring sites in the basin.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

132

FIGUR E F -1: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN OR LANDO AND WINTE R P ARK
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

133

FIGUR E F -2: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN MAITL AND, C ASSELBERRY, LONGWOOD, WINTE R S PR INGS ,

AND S E MINOLE C OUNTY 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

134

F IGUR E F -3: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN OR ANGE COUNTY, S E MINOLE COUNTY, WINTE R S PR INGS ,

AND OVIE DO
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

135

FIGUR E F -4: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN WINTE R S PR INGS , L AKE MARY, AND S ANFOR D
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

136

FIGUR E F -5: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN S E MINOLE C OUNTY, S ANFOR D, AND L AKE J ESUP
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

137

F IGUR E F -6: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN S E MINOLE C OUNTY AND L AK E J ESUP 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

138

FIGUR E F -7: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN L AKE J ESUP
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

139

TABLE F -1: MONITOR ING S TATIONS IN THE L AKE J E SUP B AS IN

S UB -

B AS IN

S AMPL ING 

E NTITY

S TATION ID S TATION DE S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE

S AMPL ING 

F R E QUE NCY

YEAR S ITE 

E S T. S AMPL ING P AR AME TE R S

Bear 

Gulley Orange County

HB4 Lake Burkett Center

Water Quality Quarterly

1967

Field parameters, water chemistry,

nutrients, bacteria, metals, chlorophyll-a

HB62 Lake Martha Center 2007

HB29 Lake Nan Center 1971

HB47 Deep Lake Center 1990

HB40 Lake Waunatta Center 1971

HB33 Lake Pearl Center 1971

HB14 Lake Georgia Center 1967

Bear 

Gulley Orange County

Burkett Canal 1 Burkett and FDOT pond 

discharge

Water Quality Monthly

2007

Field parameters, flow, discharge, nutrients,

bacteria Burkett Canal 2 Lake Burkett Discharge 

Upstream of Aloma 2007

Burkett Outfall FDOT pond discharge 2007

Burkett Canal 3 FDOT Canal 2007

Howell 

Creek Maitland

Gem Lake Gem

Water Quality Monthly

Dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, secchi depth, 

specific conductance, temp, water depth, 

chlorophyll-a, coliform, alkalinity, total 

suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved 

solids (TDS), ammonia as N, nitrate/nitrite 

as N, phosphorous, TN, volatile TSS, 

orthophosphate as P, TKN

Maitland Lake Maitland

Minnehaha Lake Minnehaha

Nina Lake Nina

Park Lake Park

Waumpi Lake Waumpi

Howell 

Creek Orange County

HB21 Lake Killarney Center

Water Quality Quarterly

1967 Field parameters, water chemistry,

nutrients, bacteria, metals, chlorophyll-a,

bathymetry HB2 Lake Bell Center 1995

Howell 

Creek Orange County HBC Howell Creek at 436 Water Quality Quarterly 1972

Field parameters, water chemistry, 

nutrients, bacteria, metals, chlorophyll-a, 

invertebrates

Howell 

Creek Orlando

Spn Spring Lake NW

Water Quality Annually

1994

Non-ultratrace metals: beryllium, cadmium, 

calcium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, 

magnesium, mercury, nickel, selenium, 

silver, zinc, hardness (calculation)

Ad Lake Adair 1994

Co Lake Concord 1994

Ie Lake Ivanhoe - East 1994

Im Lake Ivanhoe - Middle 1994

Iw Lake Ivanhoe - West 1994

Hi Lake Highland 1994

Fm Lake Formosa 1994

Wi Lake Winyah 1994

Ee Lake Estelle - East 1994

Ew Lake Estelle - West 1994

Rw Lake Rowena 1994

Su Lake Sue 2000
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

140

S UB -

B AS IN

S AMPL ING 

E NTITY

S TATION ID S TATION DE S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE

S AMPL ING 

F R E QUE NCY

YEAR S ITE 

E S T. S AMPL ING P AR AME TE R S

Dr Lake Druid 1995

Dt Lake Dot 1995

Pr Park Lake 1994

Howell 

Creek Orlando

Spn Spring Lake NW

Water Quality Quarterly

1989

Field parameters: pH, specific conductance, 

DO, DO % saturation, temperature, depth, 

secchi + alkalinity, CBOD, nutrients, TDS, 

TSS, TVSS, chlorophyll a (corrected), 

turbidity, fecal coliform

Ad Lake Adair 1989

Co Lake Concord 1988

Ie Lake Ivanhoe - East 1986

Im Lake Ivanhoe - Middle 1987

Iw Lake Ivanhoe - West 1987

Hi Lake Highland 1989

Fm Lake Formosa 1987

Wi Lake Winyah 1986

Ee Lake Estelle - East 1987

Ew Lake Estelle - West 1988

Rw Lake Rowena 1987

Su Lake Sue

1988-

1991; 

2000-

present

Dr Lake Druid 1990

Dt Lake Dot 1987

Pr Park Lake 1988

Howell 

Creek Orlando Rowena Canal In the canal that connects Lake Rowena to Lake Sue Flow Monthly 2008 Flow

Howell 

Creek Orlando Lake Rowena LCI Lake Rowena Biology Bi-annually 2008 Lake Condition Index

Howell 

Creek Winter Park

Lake Sue Lake Sue @ center of lake

Water Quality Monthly

1995

TN,TKN, NOx, TP, temp, pH, DO, 

chlorophyll-a, fecal coliform, secchi depth

Lake Virginia Lake Virginia @ center of 

lake 1995

Lake Berry Lake Berry @ center of lake 1995

Lake Mizell Lake Mizell @ center of lake 1995

Lake Osceola Lake Osceola @ center of 

lake 1995

Lake Maitland Lake Maitland @ center of 

lake 1995

Lake Bell Lake Bell @ center of lake 1995

Lake Killarney Lake Killarney @ center of 

lake 1995

Howell 

Creek Winter Park Howell Creek 10' Upstream of Weir at Howell Branch Road Water Quality Monthly 1995 TP
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

141

S UB -

B AS IN

S AMPL ING 

E NTITY

S TATION ID S TATION DE S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE

S AMPL ING 

F R E QUE NCY

YEAR S ITE 

E S T. S AMPL ING P AR AME TE R S

Soldier's 

Creek Lake Mary

Longwood Lake 

Mary Rd. 

downstream of 

culvert

Soldier's Creek Upstream

Water Quality Monthly

2005 Chlorophyll-a (corrected), TP, 

orthophosphate as P, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TKN, BOD, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, temperature, TSS

Behind Austin 

Street upstream

of culvert

Soldier's Creek Downstream 2005

New station Outlet of Big Lake Mary New

Gee 

Creek Casselberry New Station Gee Creek northeast of Lake Kathryn Water Quality Monthly New

Chlorophyll-a (corrected), TP, 

orthophosphate as P, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TKN, BOD, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, temperature, TSS

FDEP New Station Cameron Avenue and 

Kentucky Street Water Quality Monthly New

Chlorophyll-a (corrected), TP, 

orthophosphate as P, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TKN, BOD, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, temperature, TSS

Longwood New station Fairy Lake Water Quality Monthly New

Chlorophyll-a (corrected), TP, 

orthophosphate as P, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TKN, BOD, specific 

conductance, DO, pH, temperature, TSS

Seminole 

County

ANN Lake Ann

Biology Annually

2004 DO, pH, secchi depth, specific conductance, 

temp, water depth, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, TDS, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, phosphorous, TN, 

volatile TSS, Orthophosphate as P, BOD, 

color, TKN

BGU Bear Gully Lake 2005

HOW Lake Howell 2004

LOW Lake Of The Woods 2002

SEM Lake Seminary

Seminole 

County

SOL Soldiers Creek

Biology Annually

2004 DO, pH, specific conductance, temp, water 

depth, flow, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, TDS, color, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, phosphorous, TN, 

volatile TSS, orthophosphate as P, BOD, 

TKN

GEE Gee Creek 2004

Seminole 

County

HCRB Howell Creek at Red Bug 

Lake Rd

Biology Annually

2004 DO, pH, flow, specific conductance, temp, 

water depth, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

ammonia as N, nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, 

orthophosphate as P, TKN

HCTF Howell Creek 2004

HOWC Howell Creek at W SR 434 2008

BERC Bear Gully Creek at Northern 

Way 2007

Seminole 

County

J1 Jesup 1 Biology Annually 2004

J2 Jesup 2 Biology Annually 2004

J3 Jesup 3 Biology Annually 2004
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

142

S UB -

B AS IN

S AMPL ING 

E NTITY

S TATION ID S TATION DE S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE

S AMPL ING 

F R E QUE NCY

YEAR S ITE 

E S T. S AMPL ING P AR AME TE R S

Seminole 

County

BERC Bear Gully Creek at Northern 

Way

Water Quality Quarterly

2007

DO, pH, flow, specific conductance, temp, 

water depth, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

ammonia as N, nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, 

orthophosphate as P, TKN

BGC Bear Gully Creek at Bear 

Gully Rd 2007

BGSL Bear Gully Creek at Slavia Rd 2008

HCCB Howell Creek at County 

Border 2007

HCRB Howell Creek at Red Bug 

Lake Rd 2007

HCTF Howell Creek 2007

HCWS Howell Creek @ Winter 

Springs Road 2008

HOWC Howell Creek at W SR 434 1998

LKC Lightwood Knot Canal 2008

NW-N Howell Creek at Northern 

Way 2008

NW-S Howell Creek at Northern 

Way 2008

Seminole 

County

BGU Bear Gully Lake

Water Quality Quarterly

1999

DO, pH, secchi depth, specific conductance, 

temp, water depth, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, TDS, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, TN, volatile TSS, 

orthophosphate as P, BOD, color, TKN

FAR Fairy Lake 2001

FLO Lake Florence 1999

GAR Garden Lake 1999

HAY Lake Hayes 2000

KEW Kewanee 2000

LOW Lake Of The Woods 1999

RED Red Bug Lake 1999

SIL Lake Silver 2008

ANN Lake Ann 1999

Seminole 

County/ 

Casselberry

HOW Lake Howell Water Quality Bimonthly 1998

DO, pH, secchi depth, specific conductance, 

temp, water depth, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, TDS, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, TN, volatile TSS, 

orthophosphate as P, BOD, color, TKN

Seminole 

County ML01 Greenwood Lake Water Quality Quarterly 1997

DO, pH, secchi depth, specific conductance, 

temp, water depth, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, TDS, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, TN, volatile TSS, 

orthophosphate as P, BOD, color, metals, 

TKN
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

143

S UB -

B AS IN

S AMPL ING 

E NTITY

S TATION ID S TATION DE S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE

S AMPL ING 

F R E QUE NCY

YEAR S ITE 

E S T. S AMPL ING P AR AME TE R S

Seminole 

County/FDEP SALT Salt Creek at Packard Ave. Water Quality Quarterly/Fill 

in for monthly 2003

DO, pH, secchi depth, specific conductance, 

temp, water depth, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, TDS, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, TN, volatile TSS, 

orthophosphate as P, BOD, color, metals, 

TKN

Seminole 

County JES St John's/Jesup Confluence Water Quality Quarterly 1998

DO, pH, specific conductance, temp, water 

depth, flow, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, TDS, color, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, TN, volatile TSS, 

orthophosphate as P, BOD, TKN

Seminole 

County/Oviedo SOLARY Solary Canal Water Quality Quarterly/Fill 

in for monthly 2004

DO, pH, secchi depth, specific conductance, 

temp, water depth, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, Total Dissolved Solids, 

Ammonia as N, Nitrate/Nitrite as N, 

Phosphorous, TN, Volatile TSS, 

Orthophosphate as P, BOD, Color, TKN

Seminole 

County/ 

Altamonte 

Springs

PRA Prairie Lake Water Quality Quarterly/Fill 

in for monthly 1999

DO, pH, secchi depth, specific conductance, 

temp, water depth, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, total dissolved solids, 

ammonia as N, nitrate/nitrite as N, 

phosphorous, TN, volatile TSS, 

Orthophosphate as P, BOD, color, TKN

Seminole 

County/FDEP SWEET Sweetwater Creek at Howard Ave. Water Quality Quarterly/ Fill in for monthly 2004

DO, pH, specific conductance, temp, water 

depth, flow, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, TDS, color, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, TN, volatile TSS, 

orthophosphate as P, BOD, metals, TKN

Seminole 

County/Sanford NAV Naval Canal at Pineway Water Quality Quarterly/Fill 

in for monthly 2000

DO, pH, specific conductance, temp, water 

depth, flow, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, TDS, color, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, TN, volatile TSS, 

orthophosphate as P, BOD, TKN

Seminole 

County

SIX Six Mile Creek at Myrtle

Water Quality Quarterly

2000 DO, pH, specific conductance, temp, water 

depth, flow, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, TDS, color, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, TN, volatile TSS, 

orthophosphate as P, BOD, TKN

SOL Soldiers Creek 1998

GEE Gee Creek 1998
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

144

S UB -

B AS IN

S AMPL ING 

E NTITY

S TATION ID S TATION DE S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE

S AMPL ING 

F R E QUE NCY

YEAR S ITE 

E S T. S AMPL ING P AR AME TE R S

Seminole 

County/Sanford CHUBB Chub Creek at E Lake Mary 

Blvd Water Quality Quarterly/Fill 

in for monthly 2007

DO, pH, specific conductance, temp, water 

depth, flow, chlorophyll-a, coliform, 

alkalinity, TSS, TDS, color, ammonia as N, 

nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, TN, volatile TSS, 

orthophosphate as P, BOD, metals, TKN

Seminole 

County

Howell Howell Creek at W SR 434

Storm Storm

2000

TSS, nitrate/nitrite as N, TN, ammonia as N, 

TKN, TP, BOD5, fecal coliform

Solary Solary Canal at Deleon Street 2001

Gee Gee Creek at SR 434 2000

Soldier Soldiers Creek at SR 419 2000

Six Six Mile Creek at Myrtle 

Street 2000

Seminole 

County

JESUP-E Jesup East YSI Buoy

YSI Every 15 

Minutes

2003 DO, pH, specific conductance, temp, 

turbidity, chlorophyll JESUP-W Jesup West YSI Buoy 2003

HOW Howell YSI Buoy 2006

SJRWMD

T-3 Six Mile Creek at Sanford 

Ave Canal NE of Lk Jesup

Water Quality Monthly

1995

T-5 Field parameters, water chemistry, metals Howell Creek Delta on SW 

end of Lake Jesup 1995

T-8 Gee and Soldier Creek Delta 

west of Lake Jesup 1995

SJRWMD

OW-2 Lk Jesup off Grassy Point

Water Quality Monthly

1995

Field parameters, water chemistry, metals,

chlorophyll-a, light attenuation, plankton

OW-4 Lk Jesup W of bridge betwn 

Whites Lndg & Bird Island 1995

OW-6 Lk Jesup off center of Far W 

Arm 1995

Howell 

Creek USGS

2234308 Howell Creek near Altamonte 

Springs, FL

Flow 60-min

1996

gage height (recorded) --discharge 

(computed) 2234324 Howell Creek near Slavia, FL 1972

2234344 Howell Creek at State Hwy

434 near Oviedo, FL 1973

Soldier 

Creek USGS 2234384 Soldier Creek near Longwood, FL Flow 60-min 1972 gage height (recorded) --discharge (computed)

Gee 

Creek USGS 2234400 Gee Creek near Longwood, FL Flow 60-min 1972 gage height (recorded) --discharge (computed)

Lake 

Jesup USGS 2234432 Lake Jesup at State Highway 

417 near Oviedo, FL Water Quality 60-min 2008

water temperature (recorded) --specific 

conductance (recorded) --dissolved oxygen 

(recorded)

Lake 

Jesup USGS 2234435 Lake Jesup outlet near Sanford, FL Flow 15-min 1941 gage height (recorded) --velocity (recorded) --discharge (computed)
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

145

Appendix G: S ITE 10 ANALYS E S

This appendix includes the following supporting documentation:

1. CDM Memorandum “City of Sanford Site 10 Data Evaluation” dated February 27, 2007.

2. FDEP “Ground Water Assessment Report: Site 10 Lake Jesup Watershed, Sanford 

Florida” dated March 10, 2008.

3. CDM Memorandum "City of Sanford Site 10 – Lake Jesup Basin Management Action 

Plan (BMAP) Activities” dated July 24, 2009.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

226

Appendix H: GLOSSARY OF TE R MS

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.

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.

Basin status report: For the Middle St. Johns, this document was published in March 2003 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 Middle

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. 

Biomass: The total living biological material in a given area. 

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 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

227

solids from fluids. Pollutants are captured inside the separation chamber while the water passes 

out through the separation screen.

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 using temporary storage areas and a metered outlet 

device.

Development of regional impact (DRI): A large development (such as a regional 

transportation facility, shopping center, commercial building, large subdivision, etc.), which 

generates effects that cross political jurisdictional lines.

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.

Dry season: The dry part of the year when rainfall is low; in the Lake Jesup basin the dry 

season is defined as November through May.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The United States Environmental Protection 

Agency was created in December 1970 to address 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.

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.

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.

Land development regulations (LDRs): Ordinances enacted by governing bodies for the 

regulation of any aspect of development and includes 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.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

228

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.

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 variety 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).

Middle Basin: Refers to the Middle St. Johns River Basin.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): The permitting process by 

which technology-based and water quality–based controls are implemented.

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.

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 disposal 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. 

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.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

229

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

230

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 for priority management to restore and maintain 

water quality, habitat, and other natural features of the waterbody. The Middle 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 nitrogen (TN): TN is the combined measurement of nitrogen in nitrate (NO3), nitrite 

(NO2), ammonia, and organic nitrogen found in water. Nitrogen compounds function as 

important nutrients to many aquatic organisms and are 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.

Total phosphorus (TP): TP is the combined measurement of phosphorus in phosphate (PO4) 

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 of 

Florida’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.

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.

Wasteload allocations (WLAs): Pollutant loads allotted to existing and future point sources, 

such as discharges from MS4s. 
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

231

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 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 (WQS): (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 Policy, 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 Lake Jesup basin the wet season is defined as 

June through October.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

232

Appendix I: B IB LIOGR APHY OF K EY R E FE R E NCE S AND WE B S ITE S

REFERENCES:

Brezonik, P. L., and J. L. Fox. 1976. Analysis of eutrophication and water quality in the Middle 

St. Johns River Basin. Gainesville, Florida: Department of Environmental Engineering 

Sciences, University of Florida.

CDM. February 2007. City of Sanford Site 10 Data Evaluation. Prepared for the City of 

Sanford.

CDM. February 2009. Site 10 Proposed Sampling Plan. Prepared for the City of Sanford.

CDM. July 2009. City of Sanford Site 10 – Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) 

Activities. Prepared for the City of Sanford.

Coffman, L. 2000. Low-impact development design strategies: An integrated design approach. 

EPA 841-B-00-003. Prince George's County, Maryland: Department of Environmental 

Resources, Programs and Planning Division.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 

• 2003. Basin Status Report: Middle St. Johns. 

• 2005. Water Quality Assessment Report: Middle St. Johns.

• 2006. TMDL Report Nutrient and Unionized Ammonia TMDLs for Lake Jesup, WBIDs 

2981 and 2981A.

• 2008. Ground Water Assessment Report: Site 10. 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Service, 

and St. Johns River Water Management District. 2008. Lake Jesup Interagency 

Restoration Strategy. 

Frazel, Denis. May 2008. Lake Jesup BMAP Low Impact Development Summary. Prepared 

for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Keesecker, D. H. 1992. Lake Jesup restoration diagnostic evaluation, water budget and nutrient 

budget. Prepared for the St. Johns River Water Management District. File: 91-5057.

Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. 2000. Lake Jesup water and nutrient budget report. Final 

Submittal. Prepared for the St. Johns River Water Management District.

Seminole County. 1991. Sanitary Sewer Element. Seminole County 1991 Comprehensive Plan. 

Seminole County Planning Office, Sanford, Florida.

URS Corporation, P.E. 2001. Middle St. Johns River Basin Reconnaissance Report. Orlando, 

Florida.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

• 1977. Report on Lake Jesup, Seminole County, Florida. Working Paper No. 260. 

National Eutrophication Survey. Washington, D. C.

• 2000. Low impact development (LID) literature review and fact sheets. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lidlit.html.

• 2001. The National Costs of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program - Draft Report.

Walter, Joe and Bob Kelly. May 2008. Lake Jesup BMAP Surface Water Load Model 

Modification History. Prepared for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010

233

WEBSITES:

TABLE I-1: S TOR MWATE R AND WATER QUALITY P R OTE CTION WE B S ITE S

LOCAL AND REGIONAL SITES

SJRWMD Programs

Outreach information

http://www.sjrwmd.com/programs.html

http://www.sjrwmd.com/programs/outreach.html 

Orange County Water Atlas http://www.orange.wateratlas.usf.edu/ 

Seminole County Water Atlas http://www.seminole.wateratlas.usf.edu/ 

STATE SITES

General Portal for Florida http://www.myflorida.com

FDEP

Watershed Management 

TMDL Program

BMPs, public information,

NPDES Stormwater Program

NPS funding assistance

Middle St. Johns River Basin Water Quality 

Assessment Report

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/index.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/pubs.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/npdes/index.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/319h.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/sj_middle/assessment.htm

FDACS Office of Agricultural Water Policy http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/

FDACS Division of Forestry http://www.fl-dof.com

University of Florida/ Institute of Food and 

Agricultural Sciences http://lake.ifas.ufl.edu/

NATIONAL SITES

Center for Watershed Protection http://www.cwp.org/

US EPA Office of Water

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/floridawaters/#options