# FINAL



# B ASIN 

# M ANAGEMENT 

# A CTION 

# P LAN

f or the Implementation of Total Daily Maximum Loads Adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

in the 

# Lake Jesup Basin

d

eveloped by the 

# Lake Jesup **TMDL Basin Working Group** 

i n c ooperation wi th the **Florida Department of Environmental Protection**

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

Bureau of Watershed Restoration

Tallahassee, Florida 3239 9

April 2010FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### i 

## A CKNOWLEDGMENTS 

### : 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 intere sts; elected officials and citizens; and private interests.

TMDL B AS IN 

### W OR K ING 

### G R OUP 

### M E MB E R S AND 

### O THE R 

### P AR TICIP ANTS

O R G ANIZATION /

I NTE R E S T G R OUP B AS IN W OR K ING G R OUP
R E PR E S E NTATIVE T E C HNIC AL S TAFF

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection --- John A bendroth, Barbara Bess, Samantha Budd, Fred Calder, Christianne Ferraro, Vivian Garfein, Jennifer Gihring, Rick Hicks, Ron Hughes, Tr icia McClenahan, Anita Nash, Amy Tracy, Kalina Warren, Robert Kelly (SAIC), Tiffany Busby (Wildwood Consulting), Marcy Poli castro (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 Da vid 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

, K im Ornberg, Shannon Wetzel, City of Altamonte Springs Danielle Marshall William Ba er 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 O viedo 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 Har rison

- 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 HeightFINAL 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

Fl orida 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

- 8418FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### iii 

# T ABLE OF 

# C ONTENTS

L IST OF 

## A CRONYMS



## ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... VI


## E XECUTIVE 

## S UMMARY



## ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... VIII 

## CHAPTER 1 : P LA N 

## C ONTEXT



## , P URPOSE



## , AND 

## S COPE



## ................................ ........................ 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 : T ECHNICAL 

## F OUNDATION



## ................................ ................................ ............. 7

2.1 Jurisdictions, Population, and Land Use

................................ ...................... 7

2.1.1 Overview of Agriculture in the Lake Jesup Basin

................................ ...... 7

2.2 Hydr ology

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10

2.3 Spatial and Temporal Water Quality Trends

................................ .............. 11

2.4 Technical Uncertainties Addressed Through Modification of TMDL

Inf ormation 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 : P HOSPHORUS 

## S OURCES AND 

## D ETAILED 

## A LLOCATIONS



## ................................ . 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 Reductio ns

................................ .............. 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 : M ANAGEMENT 

## A CTIONS



## ................................ ................................ ............. 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 Po llution

................................ ............. 33

4.2.6 Actions to Address Loading From Future Growth

................................ ... 39

4.3 Section 319 Funding Nine Elements

................................ .......................... 41
CHAPTER 5 : M ONITORING AND 

## E VALUATION



## ................................ ................................ ... 43

5.1 Monitoring Strategy

................................ ................................ .................... 43FINAL 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 Net work 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
CHA PTER 6 : C OMMITMENT TO 

## P LAN 

## I MPLEMENTATION



## ................................ .................... 70

A PPENDIX 

## A : TMDL B ASIN 

## R OTATION 

## S CHEDULE



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

A PPENDIX 

## B : S UMMARY OF 

## S TATUTORY 

## P RO VISIONS 

## G UIDING 

## BMAP D EVELOPMENT AND


## I MPLEMENTATION



## ................................ ................................ ....................... 95

A PPENDIX 

## C : S TAKEHOLDER 

## I NVOLVEMENT IN 

## BMAP D EVELOPMENT



## ................................ . 98

A PPENDIX 

## D : P ROJECTS TO 

## A CHIEVE THE 

## TMDL

................................ ............................ 100

A PPENDIX 

## E : LID A PPLICATION IN THE 

## L AKE 

## J ESUP 

## B ASIN



## ................................ ................ 122

A PPENDIX 

## F : L AKE 

## J ESUP 

## M ONITORING 

## P LA N 

## S UPPLEMENTAL 

## I NFORMATION



## ..................... 131

A PPENDIX 

## G : S ITE 

## 10 A NALYSES



## ................................ ................................ ................... 145

A PPENDIX 

## H : G LOSSARY OF 

## T ERMS



## ................................ ................................ ............... 226

A PPENDIX 

## I : B IBLIOGRAPHY OF 

## K EY 

## R EFERENCES AND 

## W EBSITES



## ................................ .... 232



# L IST OF 

# F IGURES

F IGURE 

## 1: L AKE 

## J ESUP AND 

## L OCAL 

## G OVERNMENT 

## J URISDICT IONS IN THE 

## B ASIN



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

F IGURE 

## 2: L AND 

## U SES IN THE 

## L AKE 

## J ESUP 

## B ASIN



## ................................ ................................ . 9

F IGURE 

## 3: A GRICULTURAL 

## A CREAGE IN THE 

## L AKE 

## J ESUP 

## B ASIN 

## (E XCLUD ING 

## S ILVICULTURE 

## )

................................ ................................ ................................ 10

F IGURE 

## 4: L AKE 

## J ESUP 

## B ASIN 

## E STIMATED 

## P OPULATION 

## D ENSITY IN 

## 2015

............................ 21

F IGURE 

## 5: L AKE 

## J ESUP 

## B ASIN 

## E STIMATED 

## P OP ULATION 

## D ENSITY IN 

## 2020

............................ 22

F IGURE 

## 6: L AKE 

## J ESUP 

## E STIMATED 

## P OPULATION 

## D ENSITY IN 

## 2025

................................ ...... 23

F IGURE 

## 7: M ONITORING 

## S TATIONS 

## I N 

## O RLANDO AND 

## W INTER 

## P ARK



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

F IGURE 

## 8: M ONITORING 

## S TATIONS IN 

## M AITLAND



## , C ASSELBERRY



## , L ONGWOOD



## , AND 

## W INTER 

## S PRINGS



## ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 47

F IGURE 

## 9: M ONITORING 

## S TATIONS IN 

## O RANGE 

## C OUNTY



## ................................ ..................... 48

F IGURE 

## 10: M ONITORING 

## S TATIONS IN 

## W INTER 

## S PRINGS



## , S EMINOLE 

## C OUNTY



## , AND 

## L AKE


## M ARY



## ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 49

F IGURE 

## 11: M ON ITORING 

## S TATIONS IN 

## S EMINOLE 

## C OUNTY



## , S ANFORD



## , AND 

## L AKE 

## J ESUP



## ....... 50

F IGURE 

## 12: M ONITORING 

## S TATIONS IN 

## S EMINOLE 

## C OUNTY AND 

## L AKE 

## J ESUP



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

F IGURE 

## 13: M ONITORING 

## S TATIONS IN 

## L AKE 

## J ESUP



## ................................ ............................ 52

F IGURE 

## 14: L OCATIONS OF 

## S ITE 

## 10 G ROUNDWATER 

## M ONITORING 

## W ELLS



## ............................ 57

F IGURE 

## 15: L OCATION OF THE 

## S ITE 

## 10 S TORM 

## E VENT 

## S AMPLING 

## S ITE



## ................................ 58

F IGURE 

## 16: L OCATIONS OF 

## I N



## - L AKE 

## S AMPLING 

## N EAR 

## S ITE 

## 10

................................ ............. 59

F IGURE 

## 17: BMAP A CT IVITIES 

## I MPLEMENTATION 

## T IMELINE



## ................................ ................. 66FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### v 

# L IST OF 

# T ABLES

T ABLE 

## 1: TMDL S IN 

## L AKE 

## J ESUP



## ................................ ................................ ........................ 6

T ABLE 

## 2: L AND 

## U SE 

## C LASSIFICATIONS IN TH E 

## L AKE 

## J ESUP 

## B ASIN



## ................................ .......... 7

T ABLE 

## 3: D ERIVATION OF 

## BMAP R EQUIRED 

## TP R EDUCTIONS



## ................................ ............. 19

T ABLE 

## 4: TP W ASTELOAD 

## A LLOCATION S FOR 

## 15

- Y EAR 

## I MPLEMENTATION 

## P ERIOD



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

T ABLE 

## 5: TP W ASTELOAD 

## A LLOCATIONS FOR 

## 2010

- 2014

................................ ................... 25

T ABLE 

## 6: L OCAL 

## G OVERNMENTS IN THE 

## L AKE 

## J ESUP 

## B ASIN 

## D ESIGNATED AS 

## R EGULATED 

## MS4 S



## ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 26

T ABLE 

## 7: S UMMARY OF 

## E STIMATED 

## TP L OAD 

## R EDUCTIONS BY 

## M ANAGEMENT 

## A CTION 

## C ATEGORY



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

T ABLE 

## 8: S UMMARY OF 

## TP L OAD 

## R EDUCTIONS BY 

## P ROJECT 

## T YPE



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

T ABLE 

## 9: S TREET 

## S WEEPING 

## E FFICIENCY 

## V ALUES



## ................................ ............................. 32

T ABLE 

## 10: T ARGETS FOR 

## E N ROLLMENT IN 

## A GRICULTURAL 

## BMP S



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

T ABLE 

## 11: S UMMARY OF 

## A GRICULTURAL 

## M ANUALS AND 

## P ROGRAMS



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

T ABLE 

## 12: A GRICULTURAL 

## A CREAGE AND 

## BM P E NROLLMENTS FOR THE 

## L AKE 

## J ESUP


## BMAP A REA



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

T ABLE 

## 13: E STIMATED 

## A GRICULTURAL 

## TP L OAD



## , L OAD 

## R EDUCTION 

## A LLOCATION



## , AND


## R EDUCTIONS



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

T ABLE 

## 14: K EY 

## N UTRIENT



## - R ELATED 

## BMP S 

## A DOPTED BY THE 

## FDACS OAWP

.................... 37

T ABLE 

## 15: L AKE 

## J ESUP 

## B ASIN 

## S TAKEHOLDER 

## D EVELOPMENT 

## R EGULATIONS



## ........................ 40

T ABLE 

## 16: EPA E LEMENTS OF A 

## W ATERSHED 

## P LAN



## ................................ ........................... 42

T ABLE 

## 17: C ORE AND 

## S UPPLEMENTAL 

## W ATER 

## Q UALITY 

## P ARAMETERS FOR 

## A MBIENT


## M ONITORING



## ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 44

T ABLE 

## 18: A NTICIPATED 

## R ESOURCE 

## R ESPONSES FROM 

## BMAP I MPLEMENTATION



## ................. 44

T ABLE 

## 19: BMAP M ONITORING 

## N ETWORK



## ................................ ................................ ........ 53

T ABLE 

## 20: R E SEARCH 

## P ROJECTS IN THE 

## L AKE 

## J ESUP 

## B ASIN



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

T ABLE 

## 21: D RAFT 

## BMAP A NNUAL 

## R EPORTING 

## F ORMAT



## ................................ ..................... 68FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### vi 

# L IS T OF 

# A C R ONYMS

BMAP Basin Management Action Plan

BMP Best M anagem ent P ractice

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand

BWG Basin Working Group

CDM Camp Dresser and McKee

CDS Continuous D eflective S eparation (Unit)

CWP Center for Watershed Protection

DO Dissolved O xygen EMC Event Mean Concentration

EPA U. S. Environmental Pr otection Agency

ERP Environmental Resource Permit

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code

F DACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

F DEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FDOH Florida Department of Health

F DOT Florida Depa rtment 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 Syst em 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 S eparate S torm S ewer S ystem
MSJR Middle St. Johns Rive r 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 L oad R eduction G oal

PSA Public Service Announcement
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

RSF Regional Stormwater Facility

SCI Stream Condition Index

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management Distric t
SOP Standard Operating Procedure

STORET STOrage and RETrieval (Database)

TAZ Transportation Analysis ZoneFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### vii 

## TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TMDL Total M aximum D aily L oad

TN Total Nitrogen

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TP Total Phosphorus

TSI Trophic State I ndex

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 I dentification

WWTF Wast ewater Treatment FacilityFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### viii 

# E XE CUTIVE 

# S UMMAR Y

T HE 

### L AKE 

### J ESUP 

### B ASIN 

### 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 sq uare miles ) and drains a

w atershed of about 86,382 acres (13 5 square miles), including a large portion of Seminole County, a small portion of Orange County, the entire C ity 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.

T OTAL 

### M AXIMUM 

### D AILY 

### L OADS 

### Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are water quality targets, based on state water qu ality 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 Nitrog en (TN) for the lake, as shown

in the table below.

WB ID( S ) TMDL
( LBS / Y R ) T ARGET
C ONC E NTR ATION ( MG /L ) W AS TE LOAD

A LL OC ATION
NPDE S S TOR MWATE R L OAD A L LOC ATION ( NONPOINT ) 2981 (Including 2981A) 41,888 TP 0.096 34% 34% 2981 (Including 2981A) 545,203 TN 1.27 5 0% 50%



### T HE 

### L AKE 

### J ESUP 

### B ASIN 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### A CTION 

### P LAN 

### 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 sou rces 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 an d 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 info rmation before they can be addressed, the required

reductions are spread over a 15

- year timeframe . This p hased 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, concurrentl y with project s 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.

K EY 

### E LEMENTS 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 ( Se ction 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 m ilestones ( Appendix D ); and

**•** Identify monitoring, evaluation, and a reporting strategy to evaluate reasonable progress over time ( Section 5.1 ).

A NTICIPATED 

### O UTCOMES OF 

### BMAP I MPLEMENT ATION 

### 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 cyclin g, 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 C OST AND 

### T IMEFRAME 

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

of more than $3 5 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 t he necessary level of effort.

BMAP F OLLOW



### - 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 the se reduction s

. The Basin Working Group will meet at least every 12 months to discuss implementation issues, consider new information, and determine what other

mana gement strategies are needed to meet the TMDL s , if necessary

.

B ENEFITS OF THE 

### BMAP P ROCESS 

### The Basin Working Group members provide d endorsement of the BMAP on behalf of the entities they represent and are committed to ensuring the plan is implemented to a chieve the required TP reductions. In addition to this endorsement, the entities are provid ing 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 t he 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 sq uare miles ) and drain s 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 C ity of Winter Springs, and portions of the following municipalities: Altamonte Springs, Casselberry, Eaton ville, 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 prepa re 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 restorati on 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. S takeholder involvement is particularly essential to develop, gain support for, and secure commit ments 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 W AT ER 

# Q UALITY 

# S TANDAR DS AND 

# T OTAL 

# M AXIMUM 

# D AILY 

# L OADS

Florida's water quality standards are designed to ensure that surface waters can be used for their designated uses , such as drinking water, recreation, and shellfish harvesting . Currently,

most surface wa ters 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 F ederal Clean Water Act, each state must identify its “impaired” waters, including estuaries, lakes, rivers, and streams, which do not meet their designated uses

. F DEP is responsible for developing the state list of impaired waters. The administ rative and

technical process es 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, Cha pter 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 prov isions related to BMAP development.

F DEP 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) an d Total Nitrogen (TN) load the lake can receive and still maintain its Class III designatedFINAL 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 describ ed in more detail in
Section 1.2.3

.

The Lake Jesup BMAP contain s 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 reflect s 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 id entification numbers ( WBIDs ) within the larger watershed or additional parameters.



# 1.2 T HE 

# L AKE 

# J ESUP 

# B AS IN 

# M ANAG E ME NT 

# A CTION 

# P LAN

T he focus of this BMAP is to achieve reductions in external TP loads to the lake

. The focus on TP and external loads in partic ular 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 S ection 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 requir ed reductions in each of three five

- year periods. Because one

- third of the required reduction will be achieved in e ach 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 TMDL s . A research plan (see Section 5.2 ) is also included to provide additional data for the basin to help refine the TMDL and B MAP 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 sho uld be available to support the calculations.



## 1.2.1 S TAK E HOLDE R 

## I NVOLVE 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 stake holder 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 gro ups 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 E nvironmental 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 r eviewed the major issues regarding t he development of the BMAP and detailed

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

docu ment 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 an d 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 (3 rd



## 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.

T he purpose of this BMAP is to implement externa l load reductions to achieve the TP TMDL adopted by FDEP for the Lake Jesup B asin 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)

, wh ich 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 

### F IGUR E 

### 1 : L AKE 

### J ESUP AND 

### L OCAL 

### G OVE R NME NT 

### J UR IS DICTIONS IN THE 

### B AS INFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 5 

## 1.2.3 M E ASUR ABLE 

## G OALS AND 

## M ILE S TONE S


### With implementation of the projects outlined in this BMAP, reductions in the external phosphorus loads to Lake Jesup are e xpected 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 improv ement 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 b asin hydrology, water quality, and pollutant sources; a nd

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

The project s included in this BMAP are anticipated to reduce 10, 1 67.5 lbs/yr of TP that were or currently are estimated to be entering Lake Jesup and its tributaries. Th is 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 $3 5 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 

## A FFE 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 t hese projects supp ort the goals of the BMAP

, the ir 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 Strate gy (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 app lication of reuse water at Site 10

.



# 1.3 L AKE 

# J ESUP 

# N UTR 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 Ri ver 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 concen trations.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 us ed 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 P OLLUTANT 

## R E DUCTION AND 

## D IS CHA RGE 

## A L 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

.

T ABLE 

### 1 : TMDL S IN 

### L AKE 

### J ESUP

WB ID( S ) TMDL
( LBS / Y R ) T ARGET
C ONC E NTR ATION ( MG /L ) W AS TE LOAD

A LL OC ATION
NPDE S S TOR MWATE R L OAD

A LL 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 : T E C HNIC AL 

# F OUNDATION



# 2.1 J UR IS DICTIONS



# , P OPULATION



# , AND 

# L AND 

# U SE

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

counties

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

Casselberr y, 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 de nsities in Seminole and Orange c ounties were 1,184.9 and 987.8 person/ square mil e , 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

pop ulation of Seminole and Orange counties increased by 27.0 % and 32.3 %

, respectively.

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

classified as shown Table 2

. Figure 2 shows the distribution of t he major land uses in the

watershed. As shown in the table, active land use s ( agriculture

, golf course, residential, commercial, institutional, industrial/utility , and transportation facilities ) occupy 51,273 acres (59%) of the watershed. Over half of th is 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 n atural 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 ) b r ought 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.

T ABLE 

### 2 : L AND 

### U SE 

### C LASS IFICATIONS IN THE 

### L AKE 

### J ESUP 

### B AS IN

L AND U S E A CREAGE 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

Trans portation 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 O VE R VIE W OF 

## A GR ICULTU R 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 p roduction, and equine operations. Most of the agricultural acreage is located within areas that drain directly to the lake (the Lake Je s up “proper” subbasin)FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 8 

### and within the Howell Creek subbasin

. Figure 3 shows t he 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 ba sin.

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 r ecent 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

- ca lf 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 

### F IGUR E 

### 2 : L AND 

### U S E S IN THE 

### L AKE 

### J ESUP 

### B AS INFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 10 

### F IGUR E 

### 3 : A GR IC ULTUR AL 

### A CR E AGE IN THE 

### L AKE 

### J ESUP 

### B AS IN 

### (E XCLUDING 

### S ILVICULTUR E 

### )



# 2.2 H YDR OLOGY

Lake Jesup is low

- lying and shallow , with an average depth of approximately fo ur feet ( FDEP, 2006)

. Lake elevation follow s 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,

w hen local rainfall is lower than regional rainfall (partic ularly 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, 197 7 ; 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 sub

basins that correspond to the primary tributaries : Gee Creek, Howell Creek, Lake Jesup (the area immediately connected to the lake ), Little La ke 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 

# T E MPOR AL 

# W ATER 

# Q UALITY 

# 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

- 2 0 02 . The variation in the annual average TP during the period o f 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 concentra tions 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 L ittle 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 woul d 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

concentratio ns 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 t ributary 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/Sec ret and slowly increased to the discharge into Lake Jesup. Soldiers CreekFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 12 

### downstream of S tate R oad 419 had concentrations more than double those at S tate R oad 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 w ere limited. Other tributaries either had similar concentrations at all stations or there was only one station upstream of Lake Jesup.



# 2.4 T E CHNIC AL 

# U NCE R TAINTIE S 

# A DDR E S S E D 

# T HR OUGH 

# M ODIF ICATION OF


# TMDL I NFOR MATION AND 

# B MAP A S S UMPTIONS

The Lake Jesup TMDL and BMAP were developed with the best information available at the time (2004

- 2005 and 2006

- 200 9 , respectively). During these processes, a number of significant data gaps were identifi ed , 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 con tains 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 alloc ations, 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

**•** – I nformation varies wide ly 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 proce ss. 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 wi th 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 adj usted 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 incorp orated to reflect the current agricultural uses in the basin. In addition, any changes in land use from agricultur e 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 workFINAL 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 load s 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 know n 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 a pplied to the allocations in this BMAP to

account for ass imilation in the watershed. The extensive spatial monitoring data that are necessary to de termine this attenuation factor are currently not available . H owever, the primary objective of the monitoring strategy is to provide sufficie nt data to support

reca lculatio n 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 al locations in the next TMDL cycle may be

revised based on this information to address natural attenuation, hotspots

, and sources not previously incorporated

.

**•** Watershed loads 5.1

– Two of the objectives of the BMAP monitoring strategy ( Section ) 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 eff orts, 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 wil l 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 the se areas were not given credit . Loads

associated with noncontributi ng 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 nonc ontributing 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 im plementing 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 monitori ng 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 C ity 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 th e 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 conduct ed 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

, Prelim inary Evaluation of Septic Tank Influences on Nutrient Loading to the Lower St. Johns River Basin and Its Tributaries

. This study willFINAL 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, t here are jurisdictional area issues related to placing some of the septic tanks on sewer. The utility boun daries 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 as sociated with septic tanks have been allocated solely to them and not in part to FDOH. FDOH permitting rule s are important for the control of loads from new septic tanks and proper maintenance of existing tanks. This will be a

consideration in future ite rations 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 reclaime d irrigation occur. Available data from reuse studies will be considered for the next iteration of the TMDL modeling.

Groundwater loads

**•** – Surficial g roundwater loading is generally estimated from a limited number of samples, relative to surface water load s. 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

reevaluate d and any updated information will be used to modify the EMCs, as necessary, for the land uses in the basin. For instance, t he TMDL model included only one EMC for all agricultural land uses. In the next iteratio n 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 o n 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 fi xation, to determine the contributions of internal loading and how that loading should be addressed, if needed. Therefore, c onsumptive use projects are not considered for pollutant removal credit in this first iteration of the BMAP. Stormwater reuse proj ects are not considered “ consumptive use s.” B ecause 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 t his 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. Th ese 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. TheseFINAL 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 reduct ions. If new information shows a greater effectiveness than provided in the provisional values, this additional credit will be provided.



# 2.5 TMDL M ODIFICATIONS



## 2.5.1 R ATIONALE FOR THE 

## T P F OCUS


### As noted earlier, the Lake Jesup nutrient TMDL included reductions for T N as well as TP. However, nitrogen

- fixation appears to be a significant percenta ge 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, s tudies to de termine the effects of nitrogen

- fixation have been completed and are being conducted (refer to Section 5.2 ). The informa tion 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 water bodies with high

TP concentrations it is essential to reduce T P 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 

## D U

R 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 allocat ions ; 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 origi nal 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 unif orm 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 imp lemented 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 . T hese 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 bec ause 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 Count y land use separated out internal subdivision roadways ; whereas Orange County’s internal roads were not separated . T he internal roadways in Seminole County were converted to residential land uses because the residential land use type s and EMC s include the se 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 p rovide 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 den sity 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 h igh d ensity r esidential in the TMDL, was reclassified as m edium

d ensity r esidential in the watershed to be con sistent with density criteria applied to other jurisdictions (Walter and Kelly, 2008).

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

Section 3.2.3 for addit ional information) was separated out as a distinct land use category. The loading estimate i n 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 recalcul ate 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, a n 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 applicati ons (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 Alloc ations

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 thes e entities affected the allocations to the other stakeholders in the basin

because loads from right

- of

- way s and road ways 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 areasFINAL 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 consistent ly 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 informa tion 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 Eatonvill e 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. T he 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 allocatio ns 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 

# D E TAILE D 

# A L L OC ATIONS



# 3.1 B MAP A LLOC 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 tho se entities that have jurisdiction over the loading (i.e., the cities, towns, and counties in the basin).



# 3.2 L OADING 

# 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

. A n 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. Th e updated surface run off 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 

## T ANK S



### The total s eptic 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 government s 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 consol idated to provide a single nonpoint source loading from each entity.



## 3.2.3 C ITY OF 

## S ANFOR D 

## “ S ITE 

## 10 ” F ACILITY 

### 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 , incl uding r eclaimed 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 identifie d Site 10 as an area where land application of residuals occu r red and this application began in May 1997 ( CDM , 2007)

. Residuals application on Site 10 was

discontinued in 200 8 and the current permit prohibits land application of residuals on Site 10.

As noted above, the TMDL only accounted for the s urface runoff l oads 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 w ith 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 th e site with revised land useFINAL 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. T he purpose of this assessment was to provide

current information for shallow ground water 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 fi elds 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 su rface runoff load (refer to Section 2.5.2.2 )

was incl uded 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 provid e a better estimate of the total load from

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



## 3.2.4 D E 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

surfic ial 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 uncontrol lable 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 in to Lake Jesup (associated with a 3,968 lb s/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. T his 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.

T ABLE 

### 3 : D E R IVATION OF 

### B M AP 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 M EET
T AR GE T FR OM TMDL
( LBS / Y R ) R E QUIR E D
R E DUC TIONS IN TMDL
( LBS / Y R ) T OTAL 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 mo re 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 process es are contributing TP loading. However, as noted in Section 2.4 , there is currently not enoughFINAL 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 lb s/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 

## U SE 

## C HANGE AND 

## P OPULATION 

## G R OWTH 

## I MPACTS


### Future growth impacts from 2005 through 20 25 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 r ain 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 main tain 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 educati on 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 d ata; especially journey

to

- 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 20 1 5 , 2020, and 20 25 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 acrea ges. 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 

### F IGUR E 

### 4 : L AKE 

### J ESUP 

### B AS IN 

### E S TIMATE D 

### P OPUL ATION 

### D E NS ITY IN 

### 20 15FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 22 

### F IGUR E 

### 5 : L AKE 

### J ESUP 

### B AS IN 

### E S TIMATE D 

### P OPUL ATION 

### D E NS ITY IN 

### 2020FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 23 

### F IGUR E 

### 6 : L AKE 

### J ESUP 

### E S TIMATE D 

### P OPUL ATION 

### D E NS ITY IN 

### 2025



## 3.2.5.2 Impacts of Future Growth

As shown in the above figures, there are some areas of e xpected growth greater than 50%. The projected growth between 2010 and 2015 includes several larger areas with high growthFINAL 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 densi ty. 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

p opulation 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 r emovals

. 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 allocat ed 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 A LLOC 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 sept ic tank (if applicable) loading s 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 TMD L 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 l bs/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 requir ed 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 D E TAILE D 

## A LLOCATIONS BY 

## E NTITY



### Table 4 shows the starting load and final required reduction for the responsible entities . The TMDL did not require reducti ons 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 allo cations, 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 

### T ABLE 

### 4 : TP W AS TE LOAD 

### A LLOCATIONS FOR 

### 15

- Y EAR 

### I MPLE ME NTATION 

### P E R IOD

A LL OC ATION E NTITY T OT AL T P S TAR TING
L OAD ( LBS / Y R ) N ONC ONTR IB UTING A REAS
L OAD ( LBS / Y R ) T OTAL 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

C ity of Lake Mary 1,229 4 793 City of Longwood 1,122 115 61 6 City of Maitland 906 212 374 City of Orlando 1,570 73 97 9 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 1,70 7 Seminole County 10,151 239 6,41 1 St. Johns River Upstream 11,244 0 0

Town of Eatonville 194 60 70 Turnpike Authority 451 0 303

Water/Wetland/Conservation Are as 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 beco me available.



### This first BMAP will address one

- third of the total load reductions sho wn in the table above.

Table 5 show s 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.

T ABLE 

### 5 : T P W AS TE LOAD 

### A LLOC ATIONS FOR 

### 2010

- 2014

A LL OC ATION E NTITY 2010

- 2014 T OTAL 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 be come available.FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 26 

# CHAPTER 4 : M ANAGE ME NT 

# A CTIONS



# 4.1 R E L ATE D 

# P E R MIT 

# P R OGR AMS



## 4.1.1 M UNICIP AL 

## S TOR MWATE R 

## P E R MITS



### Fifteen of the 17 alloca tion entities qualify as a “ m unicipal separate s torm s ewer system” (MS4) and, as such, are reg ulated 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 MS4 s in the Lake Jesup B asin are listed in Table

6

.

T ABLE 

### 6 : L OCAL 

### G OVE R NME NTS IN THE 

### L AKE 

### J ESUP 

### B AS IN 

### D E S IGNATE D AS 

### R E GULATE D 

### MS 4 S

P E R MITTE E MS 4 T Y P 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

Ci ty 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 automatica lly 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). T herefore, 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 wi th 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 I I MS4s are regulated under a generic permit

. O perators 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 Educati on and Outreach**  : Perform educational outreach regarding the harmful impacts of polluted stormwater runoff.

2. **Public Participation/Involvement** : Comply with s tate 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., define s an illicit discharge as “...any discharge

to a n 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

w astewater , laundry wastewater, improper disposal of auto and household toxics, and

sp ills 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 developmen t and redevelopment areas. (Note : Thi s minimum control is generally met through s tate 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 g eneric 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 whi ch 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 alloc ation, 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 C ITY OF 

## S ANFOR D 

## S ITE 

## 10 W ASTEWATER 

## P E R MI T 

### 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 us e it as fertilizer. Under the

Sanford/North wastewater treatment facility ( WWTF ) p ermit, 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 co ntract 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 agreem ent 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 c ounty for irrigation purposes. Sanford also has an agreement with the City of Lake Mary and Seminole County to provide rec laimed 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 reclai med 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 recl aimed 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 fro m 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 S tate R oad 46 Alternative Water Supply I nitiative

, which will use the site for a potable alternative water supply tre atment 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 implem ented 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 chan ges to the Sanford WWTF and Site 10 can be found in

.



# 4.2 M ANAGE ME NT 

# A CTIONS

“Management actions” refers to the suite of activities that the Lake Jesup BMAP allocation entities will be conducting to achiev e 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 th ey will meet their allocation. H owever, this list of projects is meant to be flexible enough to allow fo r 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 pr ogress report process

.



## 4.2.1 M ANAGE ME NT 

## A CTION 

## 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 five

year 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 

### T ABLE 

### 7 : S UMMAR Y OF 

### E S TIMATE D 

### TP L OAD 

### R E DUCTIONS B Y 

### M ANAGE ME NT 

### A C TION 

### C ATEGORY

E NTITY TMDL

B MP S C OMPLE TE D /

F UNDE D P LANNE D I NTE R AGE NCY /

L OCAL
C OOPE R ATIVE T OTAL ( LBS / Y R ) C R E DIT FOR

F UTUR E
B MAP S ( LBS / Y R )
Agriculture 29.9

- 206 18.8 254.7 1 0 Altamonte Springs 3 5

- 5.1

- 40.1 21.1 Casselberry 0 367.7 95.1

- 462.8 1 20.1

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 16 3 .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 2,5 59.7 291.0 10, 167.5 3, 918.0

1 4.2.5

Reflects reductions that may be achieved by publicly funded projects, if needed

. Refer to Section for discussion

. 2 Due to s ome project calculation adjustments done by FDEP, t he remainder of the required reductions for this first BMAP will be met as part of the responsibilities in t he 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 prov ided 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 t he 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 th e 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 proj ects 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 requ irements. 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 requirement s, 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 

### T ABLE 

### 8 : S UMMAR Y OF 

### T P L OAD 

### R E DUCTIONS B Y 

### P ROJ ECT 

### T YPE

E NTITY S TR UCTUR AL
S TOR MWATE R P UB LIC
E DUCATI ON S TREET
S WE E PING S E WE R ING A GR IC ULTUR AL
B MP S I NTE 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

Orla ndo 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 4.2.5

Refer to Section for additional details on the agriculture commitment to regional project partic ipation.

2



## 4.2.3 R E GIONAL 

## P ROJECTS

Due to s ome project calculation adjustments done by FDEP, t he 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 r eductions 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 responsibl e 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 t he 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 vegetati on and control exotic species , andFINAL 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 e xternal 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 vegetatio n.
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 it eration 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. Addit ional 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 project s 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 th is 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 informat ion 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 i n 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 A gency ( EPA ) Center for Watershed Protection, University of South Florida, and Orange County’s Stormwater Management Division. T he efficiencies for different frequencies of sweeping are shown in Table 9

. Allocatio n entities provide d the total miles swept and the frequency in the Lake Jesup B asin 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 

### T ABLE 

### 9 : S TREET 

### S WE E PING 

### E FFICIE NCY 

### V ALUES

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 a nd 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 P ublic Education and Outreach

Up to a 6 % reduction in the starting point load was assigned based on the e ducation 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 requi re 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, stu dents, 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 effo rts 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, landscap ing, 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

receive d a 1 % reduction credit.

**•** Other combinations of efforts were analyzed on a case

- by

- ca se 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 A DDR E S S ING 

## A GR ICULTUR AL 

## N ONPOINT 

## P OL 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, f ield

- 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 F DACS

adopted BMPs are nutrient management and irrigation management. Nutrient management is the amount, timin g, placement, and type of fertilizer. University of Florida I nstitute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF

- I FAS ) recommended fertilizer applications, soil and tissue tests, fertigation (fertilizing through irrigation), split fertilizer applications, foliar applications, controll ed

release 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 typic ally 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 Lab s 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 compl iance 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 pollu tant 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 accord ance 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 ot her 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

.

T ABLE 

### 10 : T ARGETS FOR 

### E NR OLLME NT IN 

### A GR ICUL TUR AL 

### B MP S

OAWP BMP P ROGRAMS E NROLLMENT T ARGETS * S UCCESS M EASURE

Citrus

100% of targeted agricultural operations within 5 years of BMAP adoption Number of targeted

op erations 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 agric ultural operations within 5 years of manual adoption Equine/Horse Farms
* 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 ofFINAL 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.



### B ased on information from county agricult ural extension agents and FDACS/ OAWP f ield 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 agricultura l 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.

T ABLE 

### 11 : S UMMAR Y OF 

### A GR ICULTUR AL 

### M ANUALS AND 

### P R OGR AMS

A REA A CRES P E R CE NT OF W ATE R S HE D Lake Jesup Basin 87,346.3 100 Ag riculture 4,824.2 5.5

A GR IC ULTUR A L A REA A CRES P E R CE NT OF

A GR IC ULTUR AL A CREAGE

Without A dopted 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 

### T ABLE 

### 12 : A GR ICULTUR AL 

### A CR E AGE AND 

### B MP E NR OLLME NTS FOR THE 

### L AKE 

### J ESUP 

### B MAP A REA

L AND U SE C ODE L AND U SE D ESCRIPTION T OTAL
A CRES R ELATED FDACS BMP

P RO GRAMS C OMMENTS A CREAGE
E NROLLED N UMBER OF NOI S

2120 Unimproved Pasture 17.4

Cow/Calf Manual adopted (Spring 2009) N/A N/A 2130 Woodland Pasture 151.4

2110 Improved Pasture 2,256.5 Future Vegetable/Agronomic under revision (Fall 2010) 1 N/A N/ A

2140 Row Crop 196.1 Vegetable/Agronomic Manual Adopted (Winter 2006) 15.0 1 2150 Field Crops 16.0

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 9 0.2 Container Nursery Manual adopted (Fall2007) 3 93.5 6

2431 Shade Ferns 0.0

Future Comprehensive Nursery under development (Fall 2010) N/A N/A 2432 Hammock Ferns 0.0

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 leve l II data.

1 Acreage included in this land classification that is exclusively in hay production will be covered in a future revision of th e Vegetable & Agro nomic 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 c ontains the agricultural load estimates for nutrients used in establishing the TMDLs, and the reductions required of agricultural land uses in the Lake Jes up Basin. The acreage used to calculate the starting p oint 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 ad justed 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 concentratio n) 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, t he region is expec ted to have continuing shifts from agri cultural

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 figu re . In advance of that, during the first ph ase 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 agricultu ral operations and the distribution of

soil hydrologic groups share similarities with those in the Lake Jesup Basin. However, basin

specific methods with emphasis on assumed typical conditions have yet to be developed. An example of this is the field

- gro wn 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 agricu ltural loading/reduction model should be considered during the first BMAP cycle.

T ABLE 

### 13 : E S TIMATE D 

### A GR ICULTUR AL 

### T P L OAD



### , L OAD 

### R E DUCTION 

### A LLOC ATION



### , AND 

### R E DUCTION S

E S TIMATE D L OADS T OTAL 2010

- 2014

E XISTING BMP S 2015

- 2019

N EW BMP S 2020

- 2024

M AINTAIN

Estimated Total Load 1, 1 49 .0 N/A N/A N/A

Load Reduction Allocation 7 64

. 0 25 4

. 7 25 4

. 7 25 4

. 7

Estimated Load Reductions via BMPs 2 77 .9 235.9 42.0 0.0 Remaining Reductions Needed 486 .1 18 .8 21 2

. 7 25 4

. 7

Estimated Load Reduction B ased on

U pdated A creage A djustments 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

T he OAWP assists agricultural produce rs enrolled in its programs in implementing BMPs

. The
OAWP employs field staff and contracts with service providers to work with producers to su bmit NOIs to implement the BMPs appropriate for their operations. Depending on the region of the BMP ImplementationFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 37 

### state, t hese providers include the s oil and w ater c onservation d istricts, UF

– IFAS, and n atural

r esource d evelopment and c onservation c ouncils. They also give technical assistance to producers and , as funding allows, help implement cost

- share programs that leverage reg ional, 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 manag ement, 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 demonst rate 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, BMP s 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.

T ABLE 

### 14 : K EY 

### N UTR IE NT



### - R E LATE D 

### B MP S 

### A DOPTE D B Y THE 

### FDACS OAWP

K EY N UTRIENT

- R ELATED B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES Determining Nutrient Needs **Soil and Tissue Testing** : Used to base fertilizer applications on plant needs and available nutrients in the soil; helps prevent over

- ap plication 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 Nutrie nt 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** : Ensur es proper functioning of equipment; prevents misapplication or over

application of fertilizer materials. **Split Fertilizer Applications** : Multiple applications timed with optimal growth stages; allows plants to assimilate nutrients more efficiently; reduce s 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, evapo transpiration 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 Recove ry**  : 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 nutrien ts 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 K EY N UTRIENT

- R ELATED B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES **Vegetative Buffers** : Establishment of riparian and/or wetland buffers to attenuate and assimilate nutrient

- or sed iment

- 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 ar eas 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/ s torage 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 d ecisions.



### 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 t he 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 e n sure 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.

**•** Thr ough 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 manua ls 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, F DACS must institute a re

- evaluation of the practices , in consultation with F DEP , and modify them if necessary. Continuing water quality problems will be detected through the BMAP monitoring component and other FDEP andFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 39 

### SJRWMD activities. If a re

- evaluation of the BMPs is needed, FDACS will also include

SJ RWMD 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 manag ement 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 o ne 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 n on

- 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 quali ty 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 agricu ltural 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 implementa tion 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 pro jects or other cooperative initiatives in the basin.



## 4.2.6 A CTIONS TO 

## A DDR E S S 

## L OADING 

## F R OM 

## F UTUR E 

## G ROWTH


### 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 b asin have a variety of programs in place to man age 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 

### T ABLE 

### 15 : L AKE 

### J ESUP 

### B AS IN 

### S TAK E HOLDE R 

### D E VE LOPME NT 

### R E GULATIONS

S TAK E HOLDE R D E VE LOPME NT R E GULATIONS

SJRWMD Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Regulations

Altamonte Springs Comprehensive Plan

Code of Ordinances Land Developmen t 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 Coun ty 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 Developme nt 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 d evelopment 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 1990 s ( 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 infras tructure 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 ev apotranspiration 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 a nd runoff time (Coffman, 2000). The basic principle is to manage runoff at the source using decentral ized 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 LakeFINAL 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 ar e 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 includ ing 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. Orang e 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 leve l. 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 wi th 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 o n 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 pr inciples listed in Appendix E , land acquisition, and continued regulatory support, the water quality effects of future growth will be minimized in the Lake Jesup b asin. Because most development occurs by privat e 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 b asin. Relationships between SJRWMD , local governments, and the development community have be en built through implementation of the projects noted in the appendix

. This foundation wil l be important to the ongoing success of LID and similar efforts in the Lake Jesup Basin.



# 4.3 S E CTION 

# 319 F UNDING 

# N INE 

# 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

S ection 319 funds a nd 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 

### T ABLE 

### 16 : EPA E LE ME NTS OF A 

### W ATE R S HE D 

### P LAN

EPA

E LE ME NT EPA E LE ME NT S E C TION IN B MAP W HE R E
A DDR 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 neede d 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 tha t 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 an d 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 mile stones 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 i mmediately above. Section 5.1FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 43 

# CHAPTER 5 : M ONITOR 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 h ave 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 M ONITOR 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 moni toring 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 imp rovement 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 m ade 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 O B J E CTIVE S


### Focused objectives are critical for a moni toring 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 Objecti ves** 
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 load s from each jurisdiction for model refinement, attenuation c alculations, 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. Ident ify 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 pho sphorus 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 implementa tion.

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 W ATER 

## Q UALITY 

## I NDIC 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

in dicators 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

t racked ( Table 18 ). Changes in water chemistry are expected to occur within a relatively short timeframe, depending on the actual rate of project im plementation 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 Jesu p

.

T ABLE 

### 17 : C OR E AND 

### S UPPLE ME NTAL 

### W ATER 

### Q UALITY 

### P AR AME TE R S FOR 

### A MB IE NT 

### M ONITOR ING

C ORE P AR AME TE R S L AKE J ESUP

- A NTIC IP ATE D T R E ND T R IB UTAR IE S

- A NTIC IP ATE D T R E ND Chlorophyll

- a (corrected) Decrease in concentration Decrease in conc entration Total Phosphorus (as P) Decrease in concentration Decrease in concentration

O rthophosphate as P Decrease in concentration Decrease in concentration

Ammoni um as N (NH4) No trend anticipated No trend anticipated

N itrate/nitrite as N No trend an ticipated No trend anticipated

T otal K jeldahl 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: A nticipated trends are only for the first 5

- year BMAP implementation period.

* The focus in this BMAP is on r educing 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.



### T ABLE 

### 18 : A NTICIP ATE D 

### R ESOUR CE 

### R E S P ONS E S FR OM 

### B MAP I MPLE 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 M ONITOR ING 

## N ETWORK


### The monitoring network for this plan bu ilds on existing efforts in basin by:

**•** Orange County

**•** Seminole County

**•** Altamonte Springs

**•** Casselberry

**•** Lake Mary **•** Longwood

**•** Maitland

**•** Orlando

**•** Oviedo

**•** Sanford **•** Winter Park

**•** SJRWMD

**•** FDEPFINAL 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 BM AP. 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 basi n 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
Secti on 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 boun daries, 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 Co unty’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 c ontinue 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 propo sed 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 

### F IGUR E 

### 7 : M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS 

### I N 

### O R LANDO AND 

### W INTE R 

### P ARKFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 47 

### F IGUR E 

### 8 : M ONITOR ING 

### S T ATIONS IN 

### M AITL AND



### , C ASSELBERRY



### , L ONGWOOD



### , AND 

### W INTE R


### S PR INGSFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 48 

### F IGUR E 

### 9 : M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### O R ANGE 

### C OUNTYFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 49 

### F IGUR E 

### 10 : M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### W INTE R 

### S PR INGS



### , S E MINOLE 

### C OUNTY



### , AND 

### L AKE 

### M ARYFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 50 

### F IGUR E 

### 11 : M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### S E MINOLE 

### C OUNTY



### , S ANFOR D



### , AND 

### L AKE 

### J ESUPFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 51 

### F IGUR E 

### 12 : M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### S E MINOLE 

### C OUNTY AND 

### L AKE 

### J ESUPFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 52 

### F IGUR E 

### 13 : M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### L AKE 

### J ESUPFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 53 

### T ABLE 

### 19 : B MAP M ONITOR ING 

### N ETWORK

E NTITY S TATION ID S TATION D E S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE S AMPL ING
F R E QUE NCY Y EAR 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 Co re 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 supp lemental 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 Rowen a to Lake Sue Water Quality Monthly 2008 Core and supplemental parameters, volatile

T SS, TDS, a lkalinity

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, c olor

Seminole County/Oviedo SOLARY Solary Canal Water Qualit y Quarterly/Fill in for monthly 2004 Core and supplemental parameters, secchi depth, water depth, coliform, alkalinity, TDS

,
v olatile TSS, c olor

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,

vo latile TSS, color, metalsFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 54 E NTITY S TATION ID S TATION D E S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE S AMPL ING
F R E QUE NCY Y EAR 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 W hites 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

, plankt on

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, fec al 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 a s 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, nitr ate/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 How ell 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 22344 35 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 sampl ing 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 m ajority 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

cl ose to the confluence with the l ake as is structurally possible. All of the storm even t sites have

been in operation since 2000, with the ex ception 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 effectivenes s 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
opport unities 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 p roject, 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 col lected 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 paramet ers 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 fro m 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, futur e 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

mon itoring 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 even t 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 a ddition, 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 S JRWMD

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 : L OCATIONS OF 

### S ITE 

### 10 G R OUNDWATE R 

### M ONITOR ING 

### W ELLSFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 58 

### F IGUR E 

### 15 : L OCAT ION OF THE 

### S ITE 

### 10 S TOR M 

### E VE NT 

### S AMPLING 

### S ITEFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 59 

### F IGUR E 

### 16 : L OCATIONS OF 

### I N



### - L AKE 

### S AMPLING 

### N EAR 

### S ITE 

### 10FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 60 

## 5.1.4 D ATA 

## M ANAGE ME NT AND 

## A S 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 av ailability. 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 qualit y 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 SJ RWMD 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 Contr ol 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 mo nitored 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 p erformance

- 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 performa nce

- 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 managem ent 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 analys es. 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, t he BWG will u se commonly accepted methods of data analysis that are consistent

with the TMDL model

.



## 5.1.5 Q UALITY 

## A S S UR ANCE 

## /Q UALITY 

## C ONTR 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 cond ucted 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 theFINAL 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 SO P’s do not correspond to one another, SJRWMD staff and contractors defer to FDEP’s SOPs.



## 5.1.6 M ONITOR ING 

## N ETWORK 

## 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 informatio n 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 attenuat ion 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 r esearch 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 addres sed are

shown in Table 20

. The status and r esults of each study will be discussed at the annual BMAP progress report meeting s . 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.

T ABLE 

### 20 : R E S E AR CH 

### P R OJ E CTS IN THE 

### L AKE 

### J ES UP 

### B AS IN

I NFOR MATION
G AP
A DDR E S S E D R ESEARCH
O B J E C TIVE P ROJECT D E S C R IP TION P ROJECT
S PONS OR ( S ) L OCATION T IME LINE K EY D E LIVE R AB LE S

N itrogen

fixation Quantify n itrogen

fixation In

- situ n itrogen

fixation study. Seminole County Lake Jesup Completed

2006 Actual n itrogen

f ixation rat es studied during the peak annual season (i.e. worst case scenario).FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 62 I NFOR MATION
G AP
A DDR E S S E D R ESEARCH
O B J E C TIVE P ROJECT D E S C R IP TION P ROJECT
S PONS OR ( S ) L OCATION T IME LINE K EY D E LIVE R AB LE S

Nitrogen

fixation Quantification of nitrogen

- fixation

load and rates

. One year nitrogen

fixation 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

me asure 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

surface

groundwater modeling Middle

St. Johns Ri ver 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 poin ts 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; mo re
accurate
information.

Watershed

loads Delineate sub

basins 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 sub

basin to better define poll utant 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 I NFOR MATION
G AP
A DDR E S S E D R ESEARCH
O B J E C TIVE P ROJECT D E S C R IP TION P ROJECT
S PONS OR ( S ) L OCATION T IME LINE K EY D E 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 D evelop 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 Dete rmine 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 stage

discharge curve. Monthly water quality samples bein g 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

wi thin 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

sam pling will be

added to this area if funding

becomes

available.

Non

contributing

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 vi a 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

.

Non

contributing

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

c ontributes load to Jesup.FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 64 I NFOR MATION
G AP
A DDR E S S E D R ESEARCH
O B J E C TIVE P ROJECT D E S C R IP TION P ROJECT
S PONS OR ( S ) L OCATION T IME LINE K EY D E LIVE R AB LE S

BMP efficiency Determine feasibility of regional treatment

p rojects 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 Dete rmine 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 t he pollutant load

removal rates. Determine the actual pollutant l oad 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 th e Orange County

setback of 150

feet. Determine exact

locations of tanks that meet the Orange County setback of

150 f ee t versus the

State Rule of 75 f ee t
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

Ba sin 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 A DAPTIVE 

# M ANAGE ME NT 

# M E AS UR ES

Adaptive management involves setting up a mechanism for making course corrections in the BMAP when circumstances change or feedback indicate s a more effective strategy is needed. Adaptive management measures include:

**•** Procedu res 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 facto rs.

**•** Descriptions of what the role of the B WG 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 manageme nt. 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 proj ect 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 mo re 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

. F DEP 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 meeting s

.



## 5.3.1 A NNUAL 

## A S S E S S ME NT OF 

## M ANAGE ME NT 

## A CTIONS



### 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 afte r 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

co mparisons 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 technologie s 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 BMAP s

. 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 to pics be c over ed 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 activi ties 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 A CTIV ITIE S 

### I MPLE ME NTATION 

### T IME LINEFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 67 

## 5.3.2 F UTUR 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 futur e 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 consi deration 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 show s 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 

### T ABLE 

### 21 : D RAFT 

### B MAP A NNUAL 

### R E POR TING 

### F OR MAT



## 20 **10 Lake**  **Jesup Basin Management Action Plan** 

___Y EAR



### _ _ A NNUAL 

### I MPLEMENTATION 

### R EPORT



### R EPORTING 

### E NTITY 

### :

___________________________________________________ D ATE 

### :

________________________

Note: Relevant MS4 activities, whether contained in the BMAP or not, may be included in this report.

I MPLEMENTATION 

### S TATUS



### – BMAP M ANAGEMENT 

### S TRATEGIES

1

P ROJECT # B MAP A FFECTED

A REA 2

D E S C R IPTION B R IE F 3

S TAR T /E ND P ROJECTED 4

S TATUS P ROJECT /A C TIVITY 5 T P R E MOVAL

E S TIMATE (T OTAL ) 5 T P R E MOVAL

E S TIMATE (I NTE R IM ) 6

M ONITOR ING R ESULTS P ROJECT 7 C OMME NTS



### N EW 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### S TRATEGIES

1

P ROJECT # B MAP A FFECTED

A REA 2

D E S C R IPTION B R IE F 3

S TAR T /E ND P ROJECTED 4

S TATUS P ROJECT /A C TIVITY 5 T P R E MOVAL

E S TIMATE (T OTAL ) 5 T P R E MOVAL

E S TIMATE (I NTE R IM ) 6

M ONITOR ING R ESULTS P ROJECT 7 C OMME NTSFINAL 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 Ma nagement 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 debri s 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 20 10 ). Also, describe any significant changes t o 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 speci fic management action.

6 

### As Applicable : If monitoring is required as part of a management action (e.g., in a cost

share 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. Inclu de any other comments you consider important.FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 70 

# CHAPTER 6 : C OMMITME NT TO 

# P LAN 

# I MP 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 th e entities they represent since they have been actively involved in the BMAP process. In addition to this endorsement, FDEP has ask ed for letters of commitment or resolutions of support for the BMAP from the entities to ensure that as staff and board memb ers 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 . W ritten statements of commitment that have been provided are included below and additional statemen ts will be added to this chapter of the BMAP as they are received.FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 71FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 72FINAL 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 Act ion 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 co nsensus 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 tec hnical, 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 a nd 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

- 8340FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 74FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010



### 75FINAL 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 i n 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 i t 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 o f 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. Co nflicts . 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 unco nstitutional, 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.

PASSE D and ADOPTED this 8 th 

### day of March, AD 2010

ATTEST:

Donna G. Gardner Charlene Glancy City Clerk Mayor/CommissionerFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 77 

### Exhibit ‘A’



# L **AKE** 

# J **ESUP** 

# B **ASIN** 

# M **ANAGEMENT** 

# A **CTION** 

# P **LAN**


# 2010

**S TATEMENT OF**  

# C **OMMITMENT TO** 

# S **UPPORT** 

# P **LAN** 

# I **MPLEMENTATION**

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, the ir 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;

**•** Subj ect 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 ap provals 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 advis e 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 wat er 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 o f Casselberry

Authorized Name/Title: Charlene Glancy Mayor/CommissionerFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 78FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 79 

# C ity of L ake Mary

**L AKE**  

# J **ESUP** 

# B **ASIN** 

# M **ANAGEMENT** 

# A **CTION** 

# P **LAN**


# 2010

**S TATEMENT OF**  

# C **OMMITMENT TO** 

# S **UPPORT** 

# P **LAN** 

# I **MPLEMENTATION**

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 us e 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 fund ing 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 manageme nt 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 i dentified 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 acros s 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 MaryFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 80FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 81FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 82FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 83 

### R E S OLUTION NUMB E R 20 10

- 06

A R E S OLUTION OF THE C ITY C OMMIS S ION OF W INTE R S PR INGS , FLOR IDA, AG R E E ING

TO IMPLE ME NTATION OF A L AK E J E S UP B AS IN M ANAGE ME NT AC TION PL A N; AND

PR OVIDING FOR AN E FF E CTIVE DATE

WHEREAS , Lake Jesup has been verified by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as impaired for nutrients an d 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 n itrogen (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 La ke 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 appr oximately 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 org anizations 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 W inter Springs hereby agrees that the City of Winter Springs will:

a. Agree to the use of a n equitable and cost

- effective coordinated comprehensive watershed management approach to address and

achieve total maximum daily load ( TMDL )

- related pollutant load

red uctions and water quality improvements.

b. Agree to pursue t he necessary approvals and funding needed to implement the consensus management actions identified in the BMAP,

and assist implement ation of those actions as required approvals and funding are secur ed.

c. Pursuant to the process agreed upon by the B asin 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 Protec tion (F DEP ) 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 accordi ng 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 W inter 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 8 th 

### day of February, 2010.

CITY OF WINTER SPRIN GS, FLORIDA John F. Bush, Mayor

ATTEST:

Andrea Lorenzo

- Luaces, City ClerkFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan – April 2010



### 85FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 86FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 87FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 88 

# RESOLUTION

**of the**

ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION ERS **regarding**

THE LAKE JESUP BASIN

MANAGEMENT ACT ION 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 wate r 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 A ction 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 wor king 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 I T RESOLVED BY THE BO ARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS OF ORA NGE COUNTY:

Section 1

. The Board supports the continued development and finalization of the use of the Lake Jesup BMAP with the participation of representatives o f 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 Boa rd 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 TMDL s.

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

r eviewing 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 Orang e 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 mat ter 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 23 rd 

### day of February, 2010.

ORANGE COUNTY, FLORI DA 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 CommissionersFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 90FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 91FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 92 

## St. Johns River Water Management District

February 16, 2010

The Honorable Mr. Michael Sole, Se cretary 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 Bas in 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 SterlingFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 93 

# L **AKE** 

# J **ESUP** 

# B **ASIN** 

# M **ANAGEMENT** 

# A **C TION**  

# P **LAN**


# 2010

**S TATEMENT OF**  

# C **OMMITMENT TO** 

# S **UPPORT** 

# P **LAN** 

# I **MPLEMENTATION**

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 Jes up 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 a nd 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 implementatio n 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 t he 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 wa ter 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

- ye ar basin rotation schedule.

T ABLE 

### A

- 1 : M AJ OR 

### H YDR OLOGIC 

### B AS INS B Y 

### G R OUP AND 

### DE P D IS TR ICT 

### O FFICE

**DEP**

**District Group 1** 

**Basins Group 2** 

**Basins Group 3** 

**Basins Group 4** 

**Basins Group 5** 

**Basins**

NW Ochlockonee

St. Marks Apalachicola

Chipola Choctawhatchee

St . 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 Saraso ta Bay

Peace

- Myakka Withlacoochee Springs Coast

S Everglades

West Coast Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee Fisheating Creek Florida Keys

SE Lake

Okeechobee St. Lucie

Loxahatchee Lake Worth Lagoon

Palm Beach Coast Southeast Coast Biscayne Bay Ever glades



### 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 fo r 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 imp aired 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) l ist (see http://www.dep.state.fl.us/w ater/tmdl/ for more information) and F DEP staff resource availability.

F DEP 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 a ny 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 mod ified.FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 95 

# Appendix B : S UMMAR Y OF 

# S TATUTOR Y 

# P R OVIS IONS 

# G UIDING



# B MAP D E VE LOPME NT AND 

# I MPLE ME N T ATION

S E CTIONS 

## 403.067(6) AND 

## (7), F LOR IDA 

## S TATUTES



## - Summary of Excerpts

A

LLOCATIONS



### • The TMDL shall include reasonable and equitable allocations of the TMDL between or among point and nonpoint sources that will alone, or in 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 al locations 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 catego ries 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 sh all 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 m anagement 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 q uality;

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 t he 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 po llution sources outside of Florida, discharges that have ceased, or alterations to water bodies prior to the date of this act.



### G E NE R AL 

### I MPLE ME NTATION



###  DEP is the lead agency in coordinating TMDL implementation, through existing water quality protection pr ograms.

 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 Ot her 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 acquisitionFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 96 

### B AS IN 

### M ANAGE ME NT 

### A CTION 

### P LAN 

### D E 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 ava ilable 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 whic h 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 Establ ish 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 ad opted 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 a ssessment 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 ar e 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 man agement action plan shall not supplant or alter any water quality assessment, TMDL calculation, or initial allocation.



### B AS IN 

### M ANAGE ME NT 

### A CTION 

### P LAN 

### I MPLE ME NTATION



###  NPDES Permits

o Management strategies related to a discharger subject to NPDES permitting shal l 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 impl emented 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 adopt ed, 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 completedFINAL 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 discharger s (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 imp lementing applicable BMAP strategies shall not be required to implement additional pollutant load reduction strategies, and shall be deemed in compliance with this section. However, this does not limit DEP’s authority to amend a

BMAP.



### B EST 

### M ANAGE ME NT 

### P R A CTICE 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 reduc tion 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 an d 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

ef fectiveness, 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 perio d for implementation.FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 98 

# Appendix C : S TAK E HOLDE R 

# I NVOLVE ME NT IN 

# B MAP D E VE L OPME NT



# L AKE 

# J ESUP 

# B ASIN 

# W ORKING 

# G ROUP The Lake Jesup Basin Working Group (BWG) is made up of responsible stakeholder s in the watershed. The BWG was formed in July 2007 and has advised FDEP o n major issues related

to the BMAP and detailed allocations . The BWG play ed 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 th e Total Maximum Dail y 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 t he 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 uncertain ties and needs for additional research, as well as input on existing monitoring sites and information for the monitoring plan.



# P ROCESS FOR 

# P LAN 

# R ECOMMENDATION 

# D EVELOPMENT



## B

**ASIN** 

## W **ORKING** 

## G **ROUP** 

## M **EETING** 

## P **ROCESS**


### The BWG was asked to endorse the BMAP, to refle ct 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 . T he 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)

.



## C **ONSENSUS** 

### The technical stakeholder meetings were ope rated on an informal basis where the purpose of the discussions was to provide technical input. As such, there w ere no official members of designated group of technical representatives . The BWG, however, had designated representatives for the major stake holder 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 noticedFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 99 

### meeting. Consensus wa s achieved when all participants could support, agree to, or accept the

recommendation.



## P **UBLIC** 

## P **ARTICIPATION IN** 

## B **ASIN** 

## W **ORKING** 

## G **ROUP** 

## M **EETINGS**


### All BWG and technical me etings 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, publ ic meetings were held on the verified lists, the adoption of the TMDLs, and the

BMAP document.



## P **UBLIC** 

## M **EETING S** 


### Public m eetings 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

.



# P LAN 

# R ECOMMENDATION 

# A PPROVAL AND 

# A DOPTION

The Basin Working Group approved the final recommended BMAP at its January 14, 2010 meeting. The final BMAP is to be adopted by F DEP secretarial order.FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 100 

# Appendix D : P ROJECTS TO 

# A CHIE VE TH E 

# 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 p ounds 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 

### C ITY OF 

### A LTAMONTE 

### S PR INGS

E NTITY P ROJECT
N UMBER P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D ETAIL TP R EDUCTION ( LBS / YR ) S TATUS

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 Ongoin g
Total Projects Reduction 40.1 Total Required Reduction 2010

- 2014 19.0

Credit for Future BMAPs 21.1FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 102 

### C ITY OF 

### C ASSELBERRY

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST T R E ATME NT

A CRES P R O JECT

T YPE S TATUS

Casselberry C

- 1 Lake Concord

Stormwater Park/Anniversary

Park

- Plumosa

Baffle Box R edevelopment and retrofit of City

- owned property into an

educational stormwater park ; 2 nd

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 R edevelopment and retrofit of City

- owned property into an

educational stormwater park ; an exfiltration

trench 10/2007 09/2009 0.4 $143,200 1.7 Exfiltrat ion Started

Casselberry C

- 3 Lake Concord

Stormwater Park/Anniversary

Park

- Dry

Detention R edevelopment 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

Cass elberry C

- 4 Lake Concord

Stormwater Park/Anniversary

Park

- Swale,

Wetland Revegetation, &

Boardwalk R edevelopment and retrofit of City

- owned property into an

educational stormwater park ; swale, l akeshore revegetation, educational

b oardwalk 10/2007 09/2009 0.1 $742,000 1.7 Swales Started

Casselberry C

- 5 Lake Concord

Stormwater Park/Anniversary

Park R edevelopment and retrofit of City

- owned property into an

educational stormwater park ; b affle b ox, p ervious pavement, b ioretention/ parking l ot 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 StartedFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 103 E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST T R E ATME NT
A CRES P R O JECT
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 S wales Completed

Casselberry C

- 9 Fountain/Aeration and Revegetation for Grassy Lake Installation of aeration

for high BOD loading to this waterbody; i ncludes 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 $ 3 00

, 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 Stormwate r 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 &

FundedFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 104 E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST T R E ATME NT
A CRES P R O JECT
T YPE S TATUS

Casselberry C

- 14 360 South Lake Triple t 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 existi ng 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 2 nd

Replace existing storm

manholes with baf fle

boxes for removal of pollutants generation

b affle b oxes 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

p ond Planned &

FundedFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 105 E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST T R E ATME NT
A CRES P R O JECT
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 stormw ater 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 T riplet 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 So uth 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 OngoingFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 106 E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST T R E ATME NT
A CRES P R O JECT
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 3 19.9 N/A N/A N/A Completed

Total Projects Reduction 4 6 2.8 Total Required Reduction 2010

- 2014 342.7

Credit for Future BMAPs 1 2 0.1



### T OWN OF 

### E ATONVILLE

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE 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 Exis ting 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

- 201 4 23.4

Credit for Future BMAPs 0.0FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 107 

### F LOR IDA 

### D E P AR TME NT OF 

### T R ANS P OR TATION

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E S C R IP TION S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P R E DUCTION ( LBS / Y R ) T R E ATME NT
A CRES 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 Shepar d 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; dr ainage 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 W et

Detention Construction

FDOT FDOT

- 5 Street Sweeping Monthly s treet s weeping 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 205.9FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 108 

### C ITY OF 

### L AKE 

### M ARY

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST A NNUAL
O&M

C OST F OOTPR INT (A CRES ) 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



### C IT Y OF 

### L ONGWOOD

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE 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 Sewerin g 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 Ongoi ng

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, t he 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 

### C ITY OF 

### M AITLAND

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST A NNUAL
O&M

C OST T R E ATME NT

A CRES 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

inf iltration 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 &

FundedFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 110 E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST A NNUAL
O&M

C OST T R E ATME NT
A CRES 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 ba ffle

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 O ngoing 7.4 N /A $100,000 2898 Street Sweeping Ongoing

Maitland M

- 17 Education Efforts Landscaping ordinance, PSAs, presentations/

pam phlets, 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

- 20 14 124.8

Credit for Future BMAPs

- 2.4 *

* Note: Due to some project calculation adjustments done by FDEP, t he 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 

### O R LANDO 

### O R ANGE 

### C OUNTY 

### E XPRESSWAY 

### A UTHOR ITY

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E 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



### O R ANGE 

### C OUNTY

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE 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

Or ange 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 P rojects Reduction 569.0 Total Required Reduction 2010

- 2014 569.0

Credit for Future BMAPs 0.0FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 112 

### C ITY OF 

### O R LANDO

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST A NNUAL
O&M C OST T R E ATME NT

A CRES 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 O RL

- 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 underg round,

flow

- actuated rotating bar screen on 108" outfall pipe to capture debris with

additional treatment via

a lum s ystem 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 Hi ghland 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 sub

basin drainage N/A N/A 0.1 $425,000 N/A 80 Wet detenti on 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

FundedFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 113 E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST A NNUAL
O&M C OST T R E ATME NT
A CRES 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 sub

basin N/A N/A 1.6 $72,000 N/A 30 Stormwater

Retrofit Envisioned,

but Not

Funded

Orla ndo 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 b askets 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

O rlando 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

bas kets 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 OR L

- 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 L ake 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 CompletedFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 114 E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST A NNUAL
O&M C OST T R E ATME NT
A CRES 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 Spri ng 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 B ox 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, illici t 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 Stormwate r 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 6 3 1.9FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 115 

### C ITY OF 

### O VIE DO

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P R E DUCTION ( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST T R E ATME NT
A CRES 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 Cre ek 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

progr am 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



### C ITY OF 

### S ANFOR D

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P R E DUCTION ( LBS / Y R ) S TATUS

Sanford S

- 1 Street Sweeping Weekly s treet s weeping 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 31.5FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 116 

### S E MINOLE 

### C OUNTY

E NTITY P ROJE CT
N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND D ATE T P R E DUCTION ( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST F OOTPR INT (A CRES ) T R E ATME NT
A CRES 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 R SF 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

Sem inole 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 1/20 10 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 10/20 09 5.1 $2,000,000 13 60.7 Wet

detention pond Started

Seminole County SC

- 9 Street Sweeping Street sweeping

m onthly of 66.8

miles and quarterly

of 160.2 miles N/A N/A 13.1 N/A N/A N/A Street sweeping OngoingFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 117 E NTITY P ROJE CT
N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND D ATE T P R E DUCTION ( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST F OOTPR INT (A CRES ) T R E ATME NT
A CRES P ROJECT

T YPE S TATUS

Seminole County SC

- 10 Education

Efforts FYN, ord inances, 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 Pr ojects Reduction 3,184.9 Total Required Reduction 2010

- 2014 2,137.0

Credit for Future BMAPs 1,047.9



### T UR NPIK E 

### A UTHOR ITY

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL T P R E DUCTION ( LBS / Y R ) S TATUS

Turnpike Authority T

- 1 Existing BMPs BMPs that we re in place at

the time of the TMDL 252.3 Completed

Turnpike Authority T

- 2 Monthly street

s weeping of 48 miles Monthly street sweeping 3.2 Ongoing

Turnpike Authority T

- 3 Education Efforts Presentations, illicit discharge

program 9 Ongoing

Total Projec ts Reduction 264.5 Total Required Reduction 2010

- 2014 101.1

Credit for Future BMAPs 163.4FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 118 

### C ITY OF 

### W INTE R 

### P ARK

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST A NNUAL
O&M

C OST T R E ATME NT

A CRES 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 1 0/2007 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 05/200 4 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 1 st

Ba ffle 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 Cour tland 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 CompletedFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 119 E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST A NNUAL
O&M

C OST T R E ATME NT
A CRES P R OJECT

T YPE S TATUS

Winter

Park WP

- 15 Trismen and

Lakew ood 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 Complet ed

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 Glenc oe 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

detenti on 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 Pr e 1995 7.6 N/A N/A 110.8 Wet

detention pond Completed

Winter

Park WP

- 2 6 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

- 2 7 Oxford Road Bricking Stormwat er capture and screening system (baffle box) 08/2006 11/2006 0.1 N/A N/A 5.28 Stormwater

Retrofit CompletedFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 120 E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST A NNUAL
O&M

C OST T R E ATME NT
A CRES P R OJECT

T YPE S TATUS

Winter

Park WP

- 2 8 Lake Island Park Created treatment

volume in Lake Mednsen, construct

control structures for

wet detention

treatment 06/1905 03/1 996 83.8 N/A N/A 256.00 Wet

detention pond Completed

Winter

Park WP

- 2 9 950 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 O n

- line Retention

0.25 treatment

volume 2008 2008 0.4 N/A N/A N/A On

- line

Retention Completed

Winter

Park WP

- 3 1 Bryan CDS CDS 2008 2008 0.2 N/A N/A N/A Stormwater

Retrofit Completed

Winter

Park WP

- 3 2 E. Lake Sue CDS CDS 2008 2008 0.1 N/A N/A N/A Stormwat er Retrofit Completed

Winter

Park WP

- 3 3 Elizabeth Drive

baffle box Baffle box N/A N/A 1.1 N/A N/A N/A Stormwater

Retrofit Completed

Winter

Park WP

- 3 4 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

- 3 5 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

- 3 6 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 152.4FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 121 

### W INTE R 

### S PR INGS

E NTITY P ROJECT

N UMB E R P ROJECT N AME P ROJECT D E TAIL S TAR T
D ATE E ND
D ATE T P

R E DUCTION

( LBS / Y R ) P ROJECT
C OST A NNUAL
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 devic es 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

Fund ed

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 Redu ction 2010

- 2014 513.0

Credit for Future BMAPs 886.0FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 122 

# Appendix E : LID A P 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 b asin.FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 123 

### T ABLE 

### E

- 1: L OW 

### I MPACT 

### D E VE LOPME NT



### – A PPLIC 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 feature s 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 Mana gement District, state and local land acquisition programs. Application within the Lake Jesup Basin

**•** All of the communities within the Lake Jesup B asin have policies requiring minimum upland buffers from the edges of wetlands and

Conservation Land Use cate gories that protect sensitive lands within their respective Comprehensive Plans.

**•** Orange County established GreenPLACE (Park Land Acquisition and Conservation for Environmental Protection) to preserve and ma nage 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 R esource 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 ove rlay 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 opportuni ties 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 large

scale systems a nd 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 swa les. To minimize runoff, developments must maximize the infiltration of natural rainfall into the soil and minimize direct overland runoff int o adjoining streets and water courses. The Code further encourages infiltration of runoff from driveways, roofs, or other imperviou s 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 t otal site area.

**•** A general requirement of the Seminole County land development code requires that runoff from driveways, roofs or other imperv ious areas should be diverted so as to flow over grassed areas prior to flowing into any drainage system whenever p ossible. 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 ov erland flow.

Increasing infiltration Mechanisms that can retain s tormwater 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 wit h Geo

- tubes to maximize infiltration of runoff andFINAL 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 (S ection 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, t erraces, 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 undergro und 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 surface s, 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 parki ng 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, mu lch, 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 regul atory 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 bu ilding 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 wa ter use reduction.

**•** Orange County has several LEED certified staff members within both the Environmental Protection, and Buildin g 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 plant ings in the littoral zone along at least 75% of the lake frontage.

**•** Article XII of the Oviedo code has specific sections on Xeriscaping TM 

### and lake edge landscaping, as well as tree planting and buffering requirements.FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 125 

### T ABLE 

### E

- 2: L OW 

### I MPACT 

### D E VE LOPME NT



### – K EY 

### A C TIVITIE S AND 

### L OCAL 

### P ROJ ECTS



### Activities Description

Green roofs Green roofs, also known as vegetated roof covers, are m ulti

- 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 impermeabl e 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 ha ve 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 syst ems.

**•** 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 plant s 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 shal low 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 reten tion.

Terraces and berms Terraces and berms surrounding surface wa ter 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 a batement 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 drainFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 126 

### Activities Description

directly into adjacent waterbodies sha ll 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 d rainage 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 sidewa lks 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 u sed 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 util ity 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 thruway s.

**•** 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 pla nts 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 m odel 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 f or 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 Florid a 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 adj acent 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 Xeriscape TM



### • Policy 5.7 within the Lake Mary Conservation Element discourages fertilizers and pesticides on lakefront property, and encour ages the use of

native and xer iscape plants as landscaping on lake front property. design and maintenance principles. The code also encourages water use zones and allows no irrigation where eithe r 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 Pub l ic Works Building has an experimental irrigation test site used fo r 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 neighborhoo d improvement grant program to assist neighborhood groups within the C ity limits who desire to enhance landscape amenities in the community.

**•** F DEP maintains an interactive Web site to provide information on Florida

- friendly plants and landscaping ( www.floridayards.org ) . The site

pr ovides 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 Outstand ing 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 o f runoff.

**•** The City of Lake Mary created an Environmental Buffer Zone adjacent to each Wetland Protection Zone that extends 25 feet land ward of the boundaries of the Wetland Protection Zone (Chapter 160

– Resource Protection Standards). Commercial developme nt 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 shor eline 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 Compreh ensive Plan also requires a minimum o f 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 J esup 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 cit izen lake monitoring program that facilitates "hands

- on" citizen participation in the management of Florida lakes throughFINAL 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 disc usses the importance of shoreline vegetation and native plants for landscaping. Article IV of the Code of Ordinances specifically addresses lakeshore protectio n and has provisions for landscaping, water quality and buffering.

**•** The Casselberry lakeshore prot ection 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

i mpacts 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 re quires a

lakefront berm for all new and re

- developed properties

.

**•** Orange County has an ordinance f or 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 C ity 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 e xisti ng vegetation.

**•** Orange County has a “Green Building” brochure that promotes water efficient landscaping using native plants, the use of an ef ficient irrigation system and landscaping designed to prevent water from running off property

. A stormwater fact she et 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 b uilding, design, and engineering professional s. 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 str ategies used

for water r esource 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 ed ucational 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 fu ture 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 p roduces a Citizens Guide to Understanding Stormwater that discusses permeable pavement, rain barrels, rain gardens, grassy swales, and vegetated filter strips. They produce a DVD titl ed the “CitizensFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 129 

### Activities Description

Guide to Lake Management” that includes discussions of L ID 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 com mercials and programs as SCTV.

**•** Orange County, Seminole County, and SJRWMD are sponsors of the Watershed Action Volunteer (WAV) Program that provides educati onal outreach and volunteer water quality monitoring. The WAV program implements activities that pro mote “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 Qual ity” 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.

**•** Cas selberry 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 progr am o n 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 an d 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 t he Orange and Seminole county LID workshops.



### T ABLE 

### E

- 3: L OCAL 

### M ULTI



### - S TRATEGY 

### L OW 

### I MPACT 

### D E 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 Blv d, 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 inun dated during storm events.

Casselberry The City is re

- developing Anniversary Park at the C ity H all complex

, and construction plans include demonstration rain gardens, pervious pavements, a model baffle box with a plexiglas cover for viewing the inside, mo del 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 c ontained 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 descrip tion 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 Man agement 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 aqu atic 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 i s 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 i s 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 c ity.

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 wi th 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

p rofessionals, 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 CountiesFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 131 

# Appendix F : L AKE 

# J ES UP 

# M ONITOR ING 

# P LAN 

# S UPPLE ME NTAL



# I NF 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 networ k in order t o achieve the objectives of the monitoring plan. The column “Station Type” identifies which ty pe of monitoring (water quality, flow, storm event, or biology ) will occur at the station. The table also identifies the responsible entity, frequen cy 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 moni toring sites in the basin

.FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 132 

### F IGUR E 

### F

- 1: M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### O R LANDO AND 

### W INTE R 

### P ARKFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 133 

### F IGUR E 

### F

- 2: M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### M AITL AND



### , C ASSELBERRY



### , L ONGWOOD



### , W INTE R 

### S PR INGS



### , AND 

### S E MINOLE 

### C OUNTYFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 134 

### F IGUR E 

### F

- 3: M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### O R ANGE 

### C OUNTY



### , S E MIN OLE 

### C OUNTY



### , W INTE R 

### S PR INGS



### , AND 

### O VIE DOFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 135 

### F IGUR E 

### F

- 4: M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### W INTE R 

### S PR INGS



### , L AKE 

### M ARY



### , AND 

### S ANFOR DFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 136 

### F IGUR E 

### F

- 5: M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### S E MINOLE 

### C OUNTY



### , S ANFOR D



### , AND 

### L AKE 

### J ESUPFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 137 

### F IGUR E 

### F

- 6: M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### S E MINOLE 

### C OUNTY AND 

### L AK E 

### J ESUPFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 138 

### F IGUR E 

### F

- 7: M ONITOR ING 

### S TATIONS IN 

### L AKE 

### J ESUPFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 139 

### T ABLE 

### F

- 1 : M ONITOR 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 D E S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE S AMPL ING
F R E QUE NCY Y EAR S ITE
E S T

. S AMPL ING P AR AME TE R S

Bear Gulley Oran ge County HB4 Lake Burkett Center

Water Quality Quarterly 1967

Field parameters

, w ater chemistry

, nutrients , b acteria , m etals

, c hlorophyll

- a HB62 Lake Martha Center 2007

HB29 Lake Nan Center 1971

HB47 Deep Lake Center 1990

HB40 Lake Wa unatta 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 , f low

, discharge

, nutrients

, bacteria Burk ett 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 o xygen (DO)

, p H, s ecchi d epth,

s pecific c onductance, t emp, w ater d epth,

c hlorophyll

- a, c oliform, a lkalinity, total suspended solids ( TSS )

, t otal d issolved

s olids (TDS)

, a mmonia as N, n itrate/ n itrite

as N, p hosphorous, TN, v olatile TSS,

o rthophosphate as P, TKN Maitland Lake Maitland

Min nehaha 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, w ater chemistry

, nutrients , b acteria , 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 Lak e 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 Iva nhoe

- 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 2000FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 140 S UB

- B AS IN S AMPL ING
E NTITY S TATION ID S TATION D E S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE S AMPL ING
F R E QUE NCY Y EAR 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, dept h, 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

- Wes t 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

D t 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, t emp, pH, DO, chlorophyll

- a, fecal coliform, s ecchi depth Lake Virginia Lake Virginia @ center of

lake 1995

Lake Berry Lake Berry @ center of lake 1 995

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 TPFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 141 S UB

- B AS IN S AMPL ING
E NTITY S TATION ID S TATION D E S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE S AMPL ING
F R E QUE NCY Y EAR 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 Chl orophyll

- 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 M ary 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

F DEP 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, specif ic 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, phosp horous, 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 2004FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 142 S UB

- B AS IN S AMPL ING
E NTITY S TATION ID S TATION D E S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE S AMPL ING
F R E QUE NCY Y EAR 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, orthop hosphate 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 Cree k @ 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 Quart erly 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 Flo rence 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 Q uality 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 Green wood 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,

TKNFINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 143 S UB

- B AS IN S AMPL ING
E NTITY S TATION ID S TATION D E S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE S AMPL ING
F R E QUE NCY Y EAR S ITE
E S T

. S AMPL ING P AR AME TE R S

Se minole 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, vo latile 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, orthoph osphate 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, colo r, ammonia as N,

nitrate/nitrite as N, TP, TN, volatile TSS, orthophosphate as P, BOD, TKN SOL Soldiers Creek 1998

GEE Gee Creek 1998FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 144 S UB

- B AS IN S AMPL ING
E NTITY S TATION ID S TATION D E S C R IPTION S TATION T YPE S AMPL ING
F R E QUE NCY Y EAR 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 200 7 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, n itrate/ n itrite as N, TN, a mmonia as N,

TKN , TP, BOD5, f ecal c oliform 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, p H, s pecific c onductance, t emp,

t urbidity, c hlorophyll JESUP

- W Jesup West YSI Buoy 2003

HOW Howell YSI Buoy 2006

SJRWMD T

- 3 Six Mile Creek at Sanfo rd Ave Canal NE of Lk Jesup

Water Quality Monthly 1995

Field parameters, w ater chemistry

, m etals T

- 5 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 Poi nt

Water Quality Monthly 1995

Field parameters, w ater chemistry

, metals, chlorophyll

- a, l ight attenuation

, p lankton 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 223 4308 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 (recor ded)

-- discharge (computed)FINAL Lake Jesup Basin Management Action Plan

– April 2010



### 145 

# Appendix G : S ITE 

# 10 A NALYS 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 Wate rshed, 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 : G LOSSARY OF 

# T E R MS

303(d) List: The list of Florida's waterbodies that do not meet o r 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 deposit ion: P ollutants, 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 impleme nted; 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 s tatus r eport: For the Middle St

. Johns, this document was published in March 2003 by

the Fl orida 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 a vailable t echnology (BAT) e conomically a chievable: As defined b y 40 CFR, §125.3, outlines technology

- based treatment requirements in permits.

Best m anagement p ractices (BMPs): Methods that have been determined to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing pollution from nonpoint sources.

Bioch emical o xygen d emand (BOD): The amount of dissolved oxygen utilized by aquatic microorganisms.

Biomass: T he total living biological material in a given area.

Clean Water Act (CWA): The Clean Water Act is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water

Pollut ion 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 sto rm flow to create a vortex to cause a separation ofFINAL 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: U ses specified in water quality standards for each wat erbody or segment (such as drinking water, swimmable, fishable).

Detention p ond: 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 r egional i mpact (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 o xygen (D O): 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 s eason: The dry part of the year when rainfall is low; in t he 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 prot ect the public health. The majority of F DEP’s regulatory programs has counterparts at the EPA or is delegated from the EPA.

Event mean concentration: T he flow

- weighted mean concentration of an urban runoff pollutant measured during a storm event.

Exfil tration: 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 D epartment 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

mer ged together to create the Department of Environmental Protection effective July 1, 1993.

Ground w ater or g roundwater: 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 d evelopment r egulations (LDRs): O rdinances 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 a llocations (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 c apacity: The greatest amount of loading that a waterbody can receive without violating water quality standards.

Loading: The to tal quantity of pollutants in stormwater runoff which contributes to the water quality.

Macrophyte : R ooted 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

- cas e ambient flow conditions, worst

- case temperature, and assume that all permitted point sources discharge at their maximum permittable amount).

Middle Basin: R efers to the Middle St

. Johns River Basin.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPD ES): 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 s ources (NPS): Diffuse runoff with out 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

- s ite sewage treatment and disposal systems, and construction sites.

Nonpoint s ource p ollution: 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 poll utants 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 pr eserve 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 s ource: An identifiable and confined dischar ge 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 muc h of a given substance (metals, sediment, etc.)

has been extracted from another substance.

Retention p ond: 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 a ssurance (QA): An integrated system of management activities involving planning, implementation, documentati on, assessment, reporting, and quality improvement to ensure that a process, product, or service meets defined standards of quality.

Quality c ontrol (QC): The overall system of technical activities that measures the attributes and performance of a proces s, product, or service against defined standards to verify that they meet the established data quality objectives.

Septic t ank: A watertight receptacle constructed to promote separation of solid and liquid components of wastewater, to provide limited dig estion 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 p oints: The pollutant concentrations and flows used as a basis from which nutrient

reductions must be achieved.

STORET : The U.S. E nvironmental P rotectio n A gency '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 tran spired 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 w ater: 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 feat ures of the waterbody. T he 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

de termining 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 o n the relationship between pollutants and in

- stream water quality conditions.

Total n itrogen (TN): TN is the combined measurement of nitrogen in nitrate (NO 3 

### ), nitrite (NO 2 

### ), ammonia, and organic nitrogen found in water. Nitrogen compounds function as

i mportant 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 nutrien ts, serve as an important base for primary productivity.

Total p hosphorus (TP): TP is the combined measurement of phosphorus in phosphate (PO 4 

### ) and organic compounds found in water. TP is one of the primary nutrients that regulates algal and macrophyte growth in natural waters, particularly in fresh water. Phosphate, the form in which almost all TP is found in the water column, can enter the aquatic environment in a number of ways. Natural processes transport phosphate to water through atmospheric depo sition, 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 fertilizer

processing activities.

Total s uspended s olids (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 s tate i ndex (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

Ni trogen, 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 a llocations (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 i dentification ( WBID) n umbers: WBIDs are numbers assigned to hydrologically based drainage areas within a river basin.

Water column: The w ater within a waterbody between the surface and sed iments.

Water q uality i ndex: 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 q uality s tandards (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 provisi ons 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 contribute s 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 i mportant, and how they will be addressed

.

Wet s eason: 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 

# W E B S ITE S



# R EFERENCES 

# : Brezonik, P. L., and J. L. Fox. 19 76. 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 fo r 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.

Coffma n, 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 Prote ction.

**•** 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

. Fl orida 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 Develo pment 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

- 505 7. 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.

Sem inole 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 Cost s of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program

- Draf t 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 

# W EBSITES 

# :

T ABLE 

### I

- 1: S TOR MWATE R AND 

### W ATER 

### Q UALITY 

### P R OTE CTION 

### W E B S ITE S



### L **OC AL AND**  

### R **EGIONAL** 

### S **ITES** 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/



### S **TAT E**  

### S **ITES**

General Portal for Florida http://www.myflorida.com

F DEP Watershed Management TMDL Program BMPs, public information, NPDES Stormwater Program NPS funding assistance
Middle St. Johns River Basin Water Qua lity 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

F DACS Office of Agricultural Water Policy http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/

F DACS Division of Forestry http://www.fl

- dof.com University of Florida/ Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences http://lake.ifas.ufl.edu/



### N

**ATIONAL** 

### S **ITES**

Center for Watershed Protection http://www.cwp.org/

US EPA Office of Water EPA Region 4 (SE US) Clean Water Act history http://www.epa.gov/water http://www.epa.gov/region 4 http://www.epa.gov/Region5/water/cwa.htm United States Geological Survey: Florida Waters http://sofia.usgs.gov/ publications/reports/floridawaters/#options