One state’s detailed plans can provide a blueprint for other developing programs.

By Kriss Y. Kaye

As a result of Florida’s advancing stormwater and nonpoint-source management programs, which arguably are the most comprehensive in the country, the state’s total maximum daily load (TMDL) program is a model for other states to follow. Established with the approval of the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) of 1999, the TMDL program is rapidly taking form with unprecedented policies and practices for protecting Florida’s water bodies.

According to Eric Livingston, chief of Florida’s new Bureau of Watershed Management, "Florida has been doing watershed management for a number of years, primarily permitting in a piecemeal fashion." With the FWRA, Florida now precedes other states in establishing its TMDL program, a holistic, basinwide watershed management approach and regulatory program for protecting its waterways. "Florida’s coordinated approach to stormwater management policy and funding models is for other states to look to," notes Kurt Spitzer, executive director of the Florida Association of Stormwater Utilities.

Background

Florida has experienced incredible growth since the early 1970s: Its population more than doubled, and projections call for an increase from 15.7 million to nearly 21 million by the year 2025 (NPG, 1996). With more than 51,000 miles of rivers and streams, 7,800 lakes comprising 2 million ac., and 4,300 mi.² of estuaries, Florida has an abundance of surface waters. The population growth means increased land use, an increase in the number and size of wastewater facilities, increased stormwater and wastewater discharges, and a watershed shift from natural complex ecosystems to urbanized epicenters. As a result, a heavy burden lies on Florida’s environment: Receiving waters can end up impaired after exceeding their load assimilative capacities.

Prior to any federally imposed programs, with the 1979 stormwater rule (Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-4.248), Florida became one of the first states to enact regulations to control nonpoint-source pollution. Florida established the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) and Nonpoint Source (NPS) programs, among others, which help in implementing statutory requirements and focusing resources toward the control and treatment of nonpoint-source pollution.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 established a goal of attaining swimmable and fishable waters throughout the United States. Section 303(d) of the act requires EPA and individual states to develop a list of water bodies and segments that do not (and are expected not to) meet the water-quality standards for their designated use. States must also establish TMDLs for the listed waters.

Although Florida saw significant improvements in controlling pollution from point and nonpoint sources, nonpoint sources remain a significant load contributor to water bodies; many surface waters have yet to attain their designated uses (Guillory & Sear, 1999). Some point sources need more controls, and many nonpoint sources (from agriculture, forestry, urban runoff, and so on) still cause or contribute to water-quality impairments. Of the sources of surface-water pollution, estimates indicate that 80% of loads are from stormwater runoff (Council on Water Quality, 1972). Florida’s current 1998 303(d) impaired waters list contains 712 impaired water bodies and segments that, according to Livingston, will require establishing at least 2,000 TMDLs.

As with many states and EPA, Florida currently faces legal actions by citizen and environmental groups arguing that the regulatory authorities fail to implement timely programs that meet the intent of Section 303(d). On April 22, 1998, Earthjustice (formerly the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund) filed suit in Florida, alleging that the state is moving too slowly to develop TMDLs and expressing a desire for a broader approach to water-quality improvements (Guillory & Sear, 1999). Recent rulings in Montana (e.g., Friends of the Wild Swan v. EPA, November 7, 2000) have been upheld, banning permits for further development within watersheds that discharge to impaired waters without established TMDLs (BNA, 2000). As in Montana, without a timely establishment of TMDLs, land development in parts of the country could come to a standstill. (See "Stormwater Control and the TMDL Program: The Next Clean Water Act Battleground" in the March/April issue of Stormwater.)

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act

Stormwater discharge pipes at Lake Morton, Lakeland, FL

Lake Mirror in Lakeland

Storm sewer discharge

To further promote improvements in receiving water quality throughout Florida and to create a regulatory structure to facilitate compliance with the CWA, the Florida Legislature approved the FWRA of 1999, establishing the state’s TMDL program and providing clear legal authority for TMDL development. The act states, "While point and nonpoint sources have been managed through numerous programs, better coordination and additional management measures may be necessary in order to achieve restoration."

The following is a summary of the FWRA, Chapters 99-223: Total maximum daily load is the sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is authorized to be the lead agency in administering and coordinating the TMDL program. The FDEP must periodically submit to EPA a list of surface waters or segments for which TMDL assessments must be conducted, establish a priority ranking and schedule for analyzing the waters, and adopt a methodology for determining which waters are impaired.

TMDLs must be established for listed waters that are determined not to meet water-quality standards. The FWRA calls for complex assimilative capacity analyses to be performed before TMDL allocations can be established for an impaired water body. Using the previously developed methodology, the FDEP must conduct complex TMDL assessments of watersheds in which the impaired water body or segment exists.

Before developing a TMDL calculation for each impaired water body or segment, the FDEP must coordinate with other groups to determine the information requirements, accepted methods of data collection, and analyses. The TMDL calculation will then establish the amount of a pollutant a water body can assimilate without exceeding state water-quality standards, taking into account seasonal variations and including a margin of safety to account for any uncertainty.

The TMDL calculation establishes reasonable and equitable allocations of the TMDL among sources. Alone or in conjunction with other activities, these allocations provide for the attainment of water-quality standards and the restoration of impaired waters. Allocations are based on–among other factors–consideration of available treatment technologies, current level of treatment, management practices, environmental impacts of the pollutant, economic and technological feasibility of achieving the allocation, and cost-benefit relationships associated with achieving the allocation.

It is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) to develop and adopt interim measures or best management practices (BMPs) necessary to achieve pollutant reduction established in allocations of agricultural pollutant sources. The FDEP, in coordination with the water management districts and the DACS, must evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of TMDLs. If any existing programs, such as the National Estuary Program (NEP) or the Everglades Restoration Program, are deemed acceptable for achieving water-quality criteria, the FWRA requires no further TMDL compliance action.

The FDEP, in cooperation with the water management districts, is authorized to develop a procedure for pollutant trading among the point and nonpoint sources to a water body or segment. The procedure would include a mechanism for issuance and tracking of pollutant credits. Nonpoint-source pollution allocations will be offered through such incentive plans as public works programs, land acquisition, regional stormwater treatment systems, pollutant trading, and development of BMPs.

The FWRA presumes technology-based BMPs are sufficient to meet water-quality standards. The FDEP is limited on requiring more from a polluter if BMPs have been installed and are operated properly.

The FDEP has authorization to develop a watershed plan and must cooperatively develop suitable interim measures or BMPs to achieve the level of pollution reduction established in allocations in nonagricultural nonpoint pollutant sources.

According to the Florida Legislature, "The scientifically based TMDL program is necessary to fairly and equitably allocate pollutant loads to nonpoint and point sources." The program takes a broad approach to water-quality improvements by integrating all the management strategies available to Florida for achieving water-quality restoration.

Florida’s Watershed Approach

Lake Hollingsworth dredge/bottom sediments removal process in Lakeland

Urban development and shoreline encroachment in Lakeland

The FDEP recently created the Bureau of Watershed Management to oversee the TMDL program. The bureau consists of five sections: Watershed Monitoring and Data Management, Watershed Assessment, Watershed Planning & Coordination, Nonpoint Source Management and Water Quality Standards, and Ground Water Protection. These five sections will be instrumental in nearly all aspects of Florida’s watershed management program, the heart of Florida’s TMDL program. The bureau will be responsible for implementing the watershed management approach, the heart of Florida’s TMDL program. The broad watershed management approach manages by basins and focuses resources on a basin framework. As opposed to the traditional measures of micromanaging water-quality issues, this program focuses on the interrelationships of hydrology (i.e., surface water, groundwater, stormwater), ecosystems, and land management.

This approach shifts focus from cleaning up pipe discharges to addressing pollutants on a watershed basis. Explains Livingston, "This program allows integration and coordination of other programs, such as SWIM and NEP. The program will build on the foundations of ecosystem management using a hydrologic framework rather than political or regulatory boundaries." With this holistic approach, the FDEP will no longer concentrate on water-quality issues on a piecemeal basis; resources and attention will be concentrated on the entire subject watershed with impaired waters. This will allow a more efficient program for solving water resource problems.

This program allows a broad management perspective to ensue with opportunities for both government and private parties to participate. It improves decision-making by involving multiple parties and stakeholders. States Livingston, "Stakeholders and active participants within the watershed will be brought together to solve the water resource problems in a more combined and coordinated approach, which will allow for a more efficient use of resources."

Figure 1. FDEP's Watershed Management Groups and HUC Boundaries

Watershed Management Cycle

The assessment cycle will be applied to each watershed and will be repeated every five years, ensuring the addressing of all water bodies in a timely manner and that reassessment and adjustment of strategies occur on a regular basis.

The five-year cyclical process consists of the following phases:

Phase 1: Initial watershed assessment

Phase 2: Coordinated monitoring

Phase 3: Data analysis and TMDL development

Phase 4: Watershed MAP development

Phase 5: Implementation of Watershed MAP

Table 2 shows the five phases of the cycle and the activities to be carried out during each phase.

Phase 1: Preliminary Watershed Assessment

Building on the 305(b) reports and for the further refinement of the Florida’s 303(d) list of impaired waters, the Phase 1 objectives include characterizing the general ecological health and water quality of the receiving waters; identifying water bodies requiring restoration, protection, and/or TMDL development; identifying sources of pollution; identifying any further necessary study as a result of poor data or lack of data; developing a coordinated monitoring plan; and developing consensus-based water resource protection and restoration goals.

Tasks include:

• Build watershed teams.
• Coordinate with and identify local, state, and federal stakeholders (public and private) to assist in data collection, watershed assessment, and development of a coordinated plan of action for completing the assessment. This initial coordination will greatly facilitate the chances of success in Phase 4, when the FDEP works with local stakeholders to develop the Watershed MAPs.

• Prepare a status report (SR) and characterize each watershed, including climate, geology, hydrology (ground and surface water), water budgets, biology, land use, population, water quality, known sources of pollution (point and nonpoint), and general ecological health.
• Inventory and evaluate existing data (within and outside the FDEP), including the SWIM and NEP data, to characterize watershed conditions; refine the states 303(d) list; use STORET data and 305(b) methodology to generally assess major water bodies and overall watershed water quality, including groundwater evaluation and biology (HUC and watershed level assessment); and evaluate other existing data in the context of identified problem watersheds.
• Provide a detailed description of water resource issues for the watershed; identify candidate waters for TMDL development, restoration, and/or preservation; characterize point sources and nonpoint sources of pollution; identify specific parameters of concern (biological/chemical), including summary statistics and temporal variability, as available; and characterize watershed vulnerability.

• Study of prioritized listed waters by the watershed teams, including development of a verified list for TMDL development.
• Summarize existing and planned management activities (local, state, and federal) to address identified water resource issues, concentrating on water-quality management.
• Conduct field reconnaissance to identify potential sources of pollution and ground truth land-use data.
• Identify information needs, develop monitoring goals (establish questions to be answered), identify monitoring methodologies and resources required, and develop a plan of study (PS) for coordinated monitoring and its funding within the watershed.
• The monitoring plan will address design (location of sampling stations, indicators to be measured, and frequency of sampling), data management, and reporting.
• Summarize water-quality management goals for the watershed and identify management activities that should be initiated in the short term, produce and distribute watershed assessment report for public review, comment, and consensus build among all stakeholders.
• Assess effectiveness of existing point-source controls, BMPs, and TMDLs.
• Hold public meetings to allow citizens to review and comment on the draft SR and PS.

Under the TMDL process, initiation of assessments of new water groups occurs each July 1.

Phase 2: Strategic Monitoring

Phase 2 will include gathering additional data to further characterize conditions, investigating areas with identified or potential water resource issues, and evaluating the effectiveness of management actions for TMDL development.

The bureau’s statewide strategic monitoring will be conducted under an Integrated Water Resources Monitoring design as follows:

The forgoing monitoring information will be uploaded to STORET, EPA’s national database on water quality maintained by the FDEP.

Phase 3: Data Analysis and TMDL Development
Phase 3 will consist of compiling the water-quality data collected in Phase 2; noting any changes in the conclusions of the initial watershed assessment; providing a more detailed assessment of major pollutant sources, including but not limited to the quantification of nonpoint-source loadings; and establishing TMDLs.

Tasks include:

• Summarize available flow data into the SR, providing statistical analyses (e.g., worst-case conditions, differences from long-term averages).
• Summarize water-quality data from targeted monitoring stations into the SR, noting temporal and spatial differences in water quality within the watershed, compliance with water-quality criteria, and overall ranking of water quality.
• Summarize results of intensive surveys into the SR, noting any spatial and temporal trends and compliance with water-quality criteria. The Water Quality Standards group will take the lead on rule development needed for reclassification of waters.
• Summarize results of bioreconnaissance.
• Summarize results and conclusions of any special studies.
• Inventory and quantify major pollutant sources, including determination of nonpoint-source pollutant loadings of key parameters.
• Conduct modeling to determine assimilative capacity, establish TMDLs, and evaluate main management alternatives.

Phase 4: Watershed MAP Development

Phase 4 activities will include developing a Watershed MAP with local stakeholders to specify recommended management activities to establish TMDLs and watershed goals, implementation responsibility, implementation schedules, and plan effectiveness assessment.

Tasks include:

• Coordinate with the FDEP staff in other program areas, along with local stakeholders, to draft a Watershed MAP.
• Identify appropriate regulatory and voluntary programs that can address water-quality problems and implement TMDLs.
• Conduct at least one public workshop to discuss the draft Watershed MAP.
• Adopt the Watershed MAP with performance measures for water resource monitoring, TMDL implementation plans, responsibilities of BMPs, and other management strategies (BMPs, restoration projects, retrofits, and controls).
• Develop performance measures for both water resource monitoring and the voluntary implementation of BMPs and other management strategies and controls.
• Evaluate performance measures, to create Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for measuring the effectiveness of various management activities and use in the next cycle.
• Describe possible actions to comply with the TMDL allocation(s) to be included in the Watershed MAP (i.e., stormwater retrofits, BMPs, restoration actions, wastewater facility construction, regional stormwater treatment facilities, responsible parties, and potential sources of funding).

Phase 5: Implementation of Watershed MAP

Phase 5 activities will implement the Watershed MAP and associated water resource protection and restoration efforts to include the development and implementation of BMPs, habitat protection and restoration activities, environmental infrastructure improvements, and issuance of permits.

Tasks include:

• Adjust effluent limits, if necessary, upon renewal of wastewater permits.
• Develop and implement appropriate BMPs with pollution sources, which are responsible for implementing the management activities.
• Grant processing for implementing BMPs covered by the FDEP’s Nonpoint Source Management Section.
• Initiate rule-making or legislative action as required.
• Utilize Watershed MAPs to provide technical assistance.

This is a five-phase, five-year cycle that enables the effectiveness of management activities based on meeting certain objectives and goals taking place in successive cycles. Table 4 illustrates how the watershed rotation cycle will occur throughout Florida’s watersheds.

Table 4. Schedule of Activities

Adapted from Livingston, 2000 (a)

Conclusion

As part of Florida’s growth management program, the state conducted watershed management and is now making improvements in controlling loads to its water bodies. Florida must continue to improve its point-source and nonpoint-source pollution management practices in order to mitigate the effects resulting from its increasing population. The FWRA and the emerging TMDL program are examples of Florida’s effort to take a proactive approach to achieving the clean-water goals set forth in Section 303(d) of the CWA. Although the TMDL program is in its infancy, Florida is achieving at the state level what EPA hopes to eventually accomplish on a national level.

More information regarding the state’s TMDL program is available on the FDEP Web site: www.dep.state.fl.us/water/division/tmdl.

References

BNA Inc. "TMDLs: Montana, EPA Appeal Decision Banning Permits on Impaired Waters without TMDLs." January 1, 2001.

Council on Environmental Quality. Third Annual Report. CEQ, Washington, DC. 1972.

Guillory, Blake and Tom Sear. "The Florida Watershed Act and TMDL Program." Florida Water Resources Journal. September 1999.

Livingston, Eric. "Florida Rotating Basin Approach: Towards Better Integration, Coordination, and Cooperation." Paper presented at the Southeast Stormwater Conference, Orlando, FL. June 2000 (a).

Livingston, Eric. "Stormwater Management in Florida: The Past, The Present and the Future." Paper presented at the 1^st Biennial Stormwater Conference, Orlando, FL. December 2000 (b).

NPG. "Florida Population Projects: 1995 to 2025." www.npg.org/states/fl.htm. 1996.

Author’s note: Portions of this article were adapted from information provided by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which can be found on-line at www.dep.state.fl.us.

Kriss Y. Kaye, P.E., M.S., Env.E., is a senior project engineer. He works for Chastain-Skillman Inc. in Lakeland, FL.

Home + About + Subscribe + News + Calendar + Glossary
Talk + Images + Advertise + Contact Us + Search + Register + Services

Erosion Control Magazine | MSW Management Magazine
Grading & Excavation Contractor | ForesterPress | Forester Media

© 2000 - 2001 FORESTER MEDIA, INC.