<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Title Page
 Presentation 1
 Presentation 2
 Presentation 3
 Presentation 4
 Presentation 5
 Presentation 6
 Presentation 7
 Presentation 8
 Presentation 9
 Presentation 10
 Presentation 11
 Presentation 12














Solving water pollution problems in the Wakulla Springshed of North Florida
ALL VOLUMES CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS DOWNLOADS PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00094056/00004
 Material Information
Title: Solving water pollution problems in the Wakulla Springshed of North Florida science and technology at work for a better Florida
Series Title: Special publication (Florida Geological Survey)
Physical Description: 1 computer disk : ill., col., charts, maps ; 4 3/4 in.
Language: English
Creator: Florida -- Dept. of Environmental Protection
Florida Geological Survey
Hydrogeology Consortium (Fla.)
Conference: Hydrogeology Consortium Workshop, May 11-13, 2005
Publisher: The Consortium
Place of Publication: Tallahassee Fla
Tallahassee Fla
Publication Date: 2005
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Water quality -- Florida -- Wakulla Spring   ( lcsh )
Hydrogeology -- Florida -- Wakulla Spring   ( lcsh )
Groundwater flow -- Florida -- Wakulla Spring   ( lcsh )
Water -- Pollution -- Florida -- Wakulla Spring   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Summary: Purpose of workshop: To present an overview of the broad and growing scientific evidence linking water quality decline at Wakulla Spring with land use practices in the region.
System Details: System requirements: PC or Mac, CD-ROM reader, Adobe Acrobat Reader.
General Note: Title from: Title screen.
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management:
The author dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law and all related or neighboring legal rights he or she had in the work, to the extent allowable by law.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 70203207
System ID: UF00094056:00004

Downloads
Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Presentation 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
    Presentation 2
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
    Presentation 3
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
    Presentation 4
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
    Presentation 5
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
    Presentation 6
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
    Presentation 7
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
    Presentation 8
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
    Presentation 9
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
    Presentation 10
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
    Presentation 11
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
        Page 225
        Page 226
        Page 227
        Page 228
        Page 229
        Page 230
        Page 231
        Page 232
        Page 233
        Page 234
        Page 235
        Page 236
        Page 237
    Presentation 12
        Page 238
        Page 239
        Page 240
        Page 241
        Page 242
        Page 243
        Page 244
        Page 245
        Page 246
        Page 247
        Page 248
        Page 249
        Page 250
        Page 251
        Page 252
        Page 253
        Page 254
        Page 255
        Page 256
        Page 257
        Page 258
        Page 259
        Page 260
        Page 261
        Page 262
        Page 263
        Page 264
        Page 265
        Page 266
        Page 267
        Page 268
        Page 269
        Page 270
        Page 271
        Page 272
        Page 273
        Page 274
        Page 275
        Page 276
        Page 277
        Page 278
        Page 279
        Page 280
        Page 281
        Page 282
        Page 283
        Page 284
        Page 285
        Page 286
        Page 287
        Page 288
        Page 289
        Page 290
        Page 291
        Page 292
        Page 293
Full Text




Presentation Files






FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF


HEALTH


WEKIVA BASIN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM STUDY
Bureau of Onsite Sewage Programs
Division of Environmental Health
Florida Department of Health






Today's


Presentation


* Existing Onsite Systems and Aquifer
Vulnerability in the Wekiva Basin

* Department Recommendations


* DOH Rule Adoption


Process








Existing Development on OSTDS


120,000

100,000

80,000 i

60,000

40,000

20,000

Orange
Orange


m Wekiva
m Remaining


Lake Seminole









Protection


zones


based or


aquifer

vulnerability

assessment


. .* T .
Relative Vulnerability
SPrimary Protection Zone
Secondary Protection Zone
Tertiary Protection Zone
Wekiva Study Area
I Water Features


Hydrography
10


10 Miles


1K


NEN -


5 P


10 5 0


10 Kilometers









Department Recommendations






DOH Recommendations 1

* Set a discharge limit of 10 milligrams per liter of
total nitrogen for new systems, systems being
modified, and for existing systems in the primary
and secondary Wekiva Study Area protection
zones.
* Prohibit the land-spreading of septage and
grease trap waste in the Wekiva Study Area.
Septage waste would be required to be
disposed of at wastewater treatment plants.







DOH Recommendations 2

* Evaluate the economic feasibility of sewering versus
nutrient removal upgrades to existing onsite sewage
treatment and disposal systems. A phased-in approach
to replacing the remaining existing systems should be
developed with a target completion date of 2010.

* Establish new regional wastewater management entities
or modify existing ones to oversee the maintenance of all
wastewater discharged from onsite sewage treatment
and disposal systems in the study area. These
programs should take the privatization approach and
contract with existing licensed septic tank contractors.






The


Recommended System


I q ir1I5lll


*1


A Nutrient Reducing System with Drip Irrigation






System Construction and

Operating Costs


* Conventional system
$5,500 to $7,000

No operating permit
except IM zoned areas


* Proposed system
$7,500 to $9,000

$100 operating permit
Every 2 years

$140 in annual
electric costs

Maintenance agreement









DOH Rule Adoption Process






Rule Adoption

* Primary issues are to adopt a nitrogen limit and
require drip irrigation for onsite systems
* Permitting process is already in place in the rule


* Public Input Technical Review and Advisory
Panel (TRAP) established by 318.0068 FS
* Formal TRAP Meeting to review proposals in
May, 2005;
* Anticipated rule implementation as early as
March 2006












Solving Water Pollution Problems
in the Wakulla Springshed




The City of Tallahassee's Efforts to
Reduce Stormwater Pollution


Hydrogeology Workshop
May 12-13, 2005









Water Quality and Stormwater Pollution



* City of Tallahassee shares the goal of
preserving water quality with Leon and
Wakulla Counties, FDEP, EPA, Friends of
Wakulla Springs and all Stakeholders.

* Best accomplished through technically
sound planning and goal setting.










The Reality of Our Working Environment


* There are many competing needs for a
community's financial resources; fire, police,
schools, roads.....
Managing and improving water quality is an
expensive endeavor.
Due diligence must be used to ensure that the
limited funding that is available, is effectively
applied.
Failure to do so, actually works against the goal of
preserving water quality.












City of Tallahassee's -
Stormwater Pollution Reduction Planning



.- 1 " / - .:
,r /p ,: The objective --
maximize progress with
Focus on problem
magnitude and
remediation
Effectiveness.

S. 140,000 acres modeled

.. 145 discrete catchments
II~n
II Llil














City of Tallahassee's -

Stormwater Pollution Reduction Planning


Monitoring Sites Map


* LUC Sites
* MLUS Sites
Channels
/~Inlerstales
/'\/ Federal
,' Major
Minor
I IUS Waters
I Cily Limils


* Monitoring sites were
used to characterize
the pollution in runoff
from different land
uses.


5 0 5 10 Miis


V.










City of Tallahassee's -
Stormwater Pollution Reduction Planning



Typical monitoring
9!. site used to collect
and measure the
pollution in runoff.











TALLAHASSEE STORMWATER


* Nitrogen values
Less than National and Statewide Averages
* Phosphorus, BOD, and TSS values
Higher than National and Statewide Averages for Residential,
Recreational and Open Land.
Lower or equal to Statewide Averages for Other Land Uses.
* Metals values
Less than National and Statewide Averages except for Pb











City of Tallahassee's -
Stormwater Pollution Reduction Planning




S Pollutant loading data was
Sp-applied to the land use map
across 140,000 acres.

S This enables quantification
of pollutant loads by
watershed.











City of Tallahassee's -
Stormwater Pollution Reduction Planning


S* Pollutant Loading
-, Model was combined
\ /with BMP data to
develop a Program
S- Cost Model.
-* Done by evaluating
actual pond sites and
developing cost
estimates and removal
rates.
I-- Yielded cost curves for
-- a variety of alternative
S/ program levels.












Target Watersheds Alternative



Revenue limitations
led to examination of
alternative
approaches.

Identified 20 Target
-~ Watersheds with
)n highest loadings.









Target Watersheds Alternative


* $60 million in investment over approx. 20 years

* Not a "end-all" solution but a realistic start for
what will be a long term effort.

* Even this approach presents challenges.




















Tallahassee's SW Utility Fee With WIQ Increase







1.10 00
I.1 00
5 00 T Tallahassee with $1.70 increase for total of $7.95 per ERU.
u 1.- 00
O .: :
S2$5 00
n,

o $2
1.1 00
$0 00


Florida Sunr tc% ol Smornm.imc ti ilil Rait'e

















Impact of $1.70 SW Fee Increase

on 20 Largest Customers



Current Annual Annual Change Current Monthly Monthly Change
with $1.70 Increase with $1.70 Increase
$458,663 $124,756 $38,222 $10,396
$397. 185 $108,034 $33,099 $9,003
$350,243 $95.266 $29, 187 $7,939
$341,303 $92.834 $28.442 $7,736
$159,465 $43,374 $13,289 $3,615
$103,688 $28,203 $8,641 $2,350
$94,470 $25,696 $7.873 $2.141
$89.550 $24.358 $7.463 $2,030
$49,380 $13,431 $4,115 $1,119
$48,525 $13. 199 $4,044 $1,100
$46,650 $12,689 $3.888 $1,057
$45.518 $12.381 $3.793 $1.032
$42,533 $11,569 $3,544 $964
$41.535 $11.298 $3.461 $941
$35.430 $9.637 $2.953 $803
$19,545 $5,316 $1,629 $443
$19,328 $5,257 $1,611 $438
$18,690 $5,084 $1,558 $424
$18.473 $5,025 $1,539 $419
$17. 183 $4.674 $1,432 $389























Continued Application of Conventional
Stormwater Management Practices

S^ ^^H^^^^^^ ^.5. -H^^^
















Capital Cascades Trail Stormwater System


* Cost $110 million.


--~ic *1. t~

& F
...., ;-f
.* *

tj .,...


* Part of City & County
Blue Print 2000 Initiative.


* 15 New Ponds or Wetlands
totaling 50 acres.


* Removes approximately
2000 Ibs N / yr
600 Ibs P /yr


,*, .W sU


^r"'










TENNESSEE STREET


FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

PENSACOIASTREET
CIVICCTR. CAPITOL
GAINES STREET


FLORIDA
UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY


r >
i-\ ORANGE AVENUE


^r/ N


\ p


* Cost $110 million.


* Part of City & County
Blue Print 2000 Initiative.


* 15 New Ponds or Wetlands
totaling 50 acres.


* Removes approximately
> 2000 Ibs N /yr
S600 Ibs P/yr


I -irt








YPALiPM 64T


1 .'-
rf


Nutrient Removal Project Evaluation


Application of Innovative Stormwater Management


FITiTP^
oS D DSON LN N ea*- ,
te. llxllll l


1~9" di


,LI









































* .-


*.'
1. i.
r.


-~


W.MOOL60--=-







































'J m.


rIL


-i


RAM


---

CLi~r.l rl .I ~

;iiru~L

J
..y ~. .
'~;cc-nu i
rY~


r



























.~
j.

t ;.:I~ FL. I~~f
r
* .. X)* 1*
"w'
PC
2, -
I~ I -
"-- ** *I
, a .... ,,
..~E\
Y
*2-;' ;"' ".'
.. ~~
1*
-+ tee r
2
a
r
1*- r. -~
'~* "~c ~ c* -

--ee:; - ---
~

r
~~~
^trcj;;

,,


. .. ...... ..










Highlights of Local Project Under Consideration
Managed Aquatic Plant System


* Approximate Size = 12 ac.
* Harvest Cycle of 7 Days.
* Total Mass P Percent Removal 35% @ 25 MGD Avg Daily
Flow.
* Removal Considers Warm Season (243 da.) and Cool
Season (122 da.) Reduced Performance Period.
* Compost Assumed to be Most Likely End Product.









Estimated Cost and Performance of Managed
Aquatic Plant System


ITEM Weems Pond NRF
Bench Scale Testing $81,390
Capital Construction Cost $2,484,000
Annual Operation $252,000


Phosphorus Removal (Lbs/Yr) 3,560
Annual Compost (Tons /Yr) 331










Groundwater Nitrate Loading Various Sources










Nitrate Loading Stormwater














Nitrate in Tallahassee Stormwater

Compared to Wakulla Sprinas (2000-2004)


Nitrate in Tallahassee Stormwater
Compared to Wakulla Springs (2000-2004)

0.783






0.126


Tallahassee Stormwater Nitrate Level


1*

0.8-

0.6-

0.4-


lib


I


Wakulla Springs Nitrate level














Wakulla Springs Nitrate Concentration vs. Flow




00 Nitrate m2 Inverse relationship
600 it1 r between flow and
- 500o Nitrate concentration
So400 indicates that
S300 stormwater is not the
.o 04 likely source of high
100 Flow(cfs) 0 nitrate levels at
100 02 z
Wakulla Springs.
ol lo
.- s ,- ,
,-,* ,-,*J ,-,*J ,-,*J ,-,*J ,-' ,-,*J ,-,*J ,-,*J ,-,*J ,-,*J ,-' ,-,*J ,-,*J










Nitrate Loading Wastewater Systems















Comparison of Sprayfield Nitrogen Load with

Nitrogen Discharae at Wakulla Sprinas


700

600
0
0 500
0

_ 400
Cu
S300
4-
0
u 200
.0


100

0


Wakulla Springs Discharge


Sprayfield Effluent (after plant
uptake)


















Nitrate Loading Septic Tanks


Septic Tank
Locations


Legend

/ \ / : r, L, ,,


.. ..




1 0 1 2 Miles

TIM
1.F













Comparison of Nitrogen Load From Sprayfield with
Load from Leon and Wakulla County Septic Tanks


500
450
4 Sprayfield
400 Effluent
o 350
C
o 300 m Wakulla
x County Septic
250 Tanks
Z 200 o Leon County
C 150 Septic Tanks
100
50
0
Septic Tanks Sprayfield Effluent













Comparison of Nitrogen Load from Sprayfield
and Septic Tanks in Sprinashed Area


250

200

150

100

50

0


Septic Tanks (after treatment and
assuming only 1/3 of total are
within Springshed Area)


Sprayfield Effluent (after plant
uptake)














Septic Tanks How To Manage Problem


Septic Tank
Locations


Legend

., ,


Perhaps limit
proliferation -
by ordinance -
No central
water w/o
central sewer.


1 0 1 2 Miles

tIDw i












Questions?


Solving Water Pollution Problems
in the Wakulla Springshed


Hydrogeology Workshop
May 12-13, 2005











r- riksps 1
Fa ty i













LT7T77


F* rl
f~i i~~


rl











F' 'u ] ] Af
EIJ


7WTIj


- I r'.


INill


lfr40 r1


J J


rjF)















Wekia dAra C
A nd dd p Ci ntpr











Vfy, J 7~1I
S... .................



arc

IlL.U 61





















Relative Vulnerability
Primary Protection Zone
Secondary Protection Zone
Tertiary Protection Zone
Wekiva Study Area
=I Water Features



10 5 0 10 Miles
10 5 0 10 Kilometers







Leon County Surfa


ce


Water


Management Activities


Theresa


B. Heiker, P.E.


Stormwater Management Coordinator
Leon County Public Works Dept.






Cou


nty activities


involve many


agen


cies


O Tallahassee/Leon
Department


County


Planni


0 Leon County Growth
Management


and Environmental


0 Leon County


Public Works


Department


* Parks and Recreation
* Roadway Operations
* Mosquito Control and Stormwater Maintenance
* Solid Waste
* Engineering Services


ng







Joint City/County Planning

O Comprehensive Plan guides land use and
infrastructure
O Sector studies of the community to
determine site specific management goals
O Land use designation and management,
such as site-specific zoning and delineating
the Urban Services Area
0 Greenway and sensitive land acquisition to
protect natural habitat and other features






County Growth and
Environmental Management


o Environmental
activity to cor


permitti
ply with


ng of
local


development
standards


O Develop ordinances for resource protection
county-wide (eg., volume control)
O Studies to establish basin-specific
stormwater treatment and habitat
protection standards (eg., Bradfordville)
O Lakes monitoring to document conditions
and identify trends
O Map environmentally sensitive features
O Enforcement of environmental ordinances







County Public Works

O Parks and
Recreation
Department
Resource
management
I education









E Roadway Operations
Shoulder maintenance
Linear detention maintenance
Vegetation control












D Mosquito Control and
Stormwater Maintenance
Stormwater facility
maintenance
Natural drainage way
monitoring and
maintenance
Licensed operators









engineering Services
Stormwater Program
Infrastructure design
Construction management
Development review and coordination


D E

*







Stormwater Program

O Utility management
D NPDES compliance
O TMDL coordination
O Capital program development
E Operations support
E Emergency response and planning






Improve data supporting
modeling and analysis

0 Improved watershed mapping detail with
LIDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging)


0 Real-time


rainfall


and stream


reporting through CAFWr
Flood Warning Network)


q (Ca


level
pital


gauge
Area


0 Countywide water quality and
sampling program


biological






Water


Sam


Q


quality and Habitat


pling for NPDES


Co


mpliance


O Monitor inflow


existing t
efficiency


and discharge


treatment facilities to


quality


for


determine


by facility type


O Perform


Stream Condition


Index for three


areas


in the Lake


Munson


system


O Quarterly trend


O Coliform


monitoring


characterization at


in 12 tributaries
5 locations


NEENNEr-







Program enhancements


O Improve GIS


and base


map data


E Increase knowledge of flowway
function and rainfall distribution

O Document groundwater response to
surface flows









USGS Quadrangle


- Hydrography


MMF-


i





Leon County GIS
Hydrography






Capital Area Flood Warning Network






Capital Proj


rface


ects


for


Water Management


D Gum


* Public


Swamp


Restoration


health required


mosquito control


ditching of wetland


* Drained


swamp


was timbered


developed


* 1980's plan
Swamp, at I
* Rehydration


evolved
east wha
has cau


to "restore" Gum
it remained


sed


tree


loss


Su


and


Nor-







Lake Henrietta


* Baseflow up to 2-year storm (1-inch) will
be captured and treated
* High flows are directed through AND
around the treatment pond


* Natural wetlands along slough
rehydrated to provide nutrient
and peak flow storage


are
uptake










Lake Henrietta Restoration


Lake Henrietta and
Munson Slough North


N


0 I


0.5 0


1 Miles














Lake Munson Response


In Lake Total Nitrogen mg/L


4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
= 2.50
E 2.00
1.50-
1.00
0.50
0.00


00 00o m0
0 0 00 0
0 0 IN (C0


hypereutrophic


O O 0 v- i- v- C\J C\ C\J CO CO CO O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0
(c C en 0 N1 (en 0 N1 (en 0 N1 (en 0 N j e( 0
Date


. .


III I I I


irl~ 1















Lake Munson Response


Total Phosphorus


(N "o LO 0 r- o0 0) 0 t- (0 0 )-o

0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
o o o o o
(3 (3 3 (3 3 (3 3 (3 3 (3 3 (3 3


-_- In Lake Total Phosphorus mg/L
-- Inflow Total Phosphorus mg/L
Outflow Total Phosphorus mg/L


Date


1.200
1.000
0.800
' 0.600
0.400
0.200
0.000






Habitat has value to be considered
in the cost/benefit analysis


O Large regional ponds sacrifice
and wetlands
O Designing based on relative


creeks


alternative


costs


rather than net


improvement to habitat due to


intangible valu


of system


O Altered hydroperiod of streams and
receiving waters affect habitat





AN INTRODUCTION TO
STORMWATER AND
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT


Eric H. Livingston


Burea


u of Watershed Management


Florida Dept. of Env. Protection


lahassee,


Florida


850/245-8430


eric


.Iivingston@dep.state.fl.us


http://www.dep.state.fl


. us/water/watershed


Tal






Central
Florida


Water Budgets


Solving Water Pollution Problems in the


Hydrogeology
Workshop
2005
Tallahassee FL


Wakulla Springshed of North


Florida


Marty Wanielista

Stormwater Academy
i ormwat er: lf .ed u
LM mi4


I-


J






Solving Water Pollution
Problems in the Wakulla
Springshed


The City of Tallahassee's Efforts to
Reduce Stormwater Pollution

John Buss, P.E.

Hydrogeology Workshop
May 12-13, 2005







TENNESSEE STREET


PARK AVENUE


FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

PaENSmAO A Tmccr


CIVIC CTR APALACIEE PKWAY Cost $110 million.
GAINES STREET 1

Part of City & County
i Blue Print 2000 Initiative.

Li
FLORIDA
0 __ iA&M =
S UNIVERS 15 New Ponds or Wetlands
j totaling 50 acres.

=^ ./
S* Removes approximately
S"> 2000 Ibs N /yr

I > 600 Ibs P /yr
ORANGE AVENUE



\,


I3







Leon County Surface Water
Management Activities


Theresa B. Heiker, P.E.
Stormwater Management
Coordinator


Leon County Public


Works Dept.







NORTHERN
75' TO 500'
ABOVE SEA LEVEL
(ASL)


UPLAND LAKE


HIGH


bD-S




%4y


~1.4


WITH WETLANDS
STEEPHEAD RAVINE,
SPRING & STREAM


DUNE


(if
7,.;:.'.


SAND DUNE


b0


DISAPPEARING
MIt STREAM


BARRIER
ISLANDS


SINKHOLE LAKE


N


CAVE


REPRESENTATIVE PLANTS


1. Pines
2. Hardwoode: oak, maple, hickory, magnolia
3. Falme
4. Scrub Oak
5. Saw Palmetto
6. Cypress
7. Grasses: wetlands marshes and dunes


SSINKHOLE WITH
CAVERNS


ASL ABOVE SEA LEVEL


TIDAL
IARSHES


--li


PMWI-


P; a













F -


5r


.20M jb


-lb


icl


~-~418~i


^-*














*~4U
N


~ICS

































-4


j e ll r
I '. Ij




| I"
,-. '

.. r ." .








.1 h" ^ ..' .3 ';

.3 ..
.. t *. .














.' .
:.





I"


4'


4v


4. .

ti
* .
. r

.'. 4
.. ..





Leon County GIS -
Hydrography









General

o Define the issue: is it water quality at springs or
aquatic plant growth
o Stormwater perspectives: urban vs. national forest vs.
county
o Increase ad valorem for NWFWMD
o Emphasize that loadings need to be delineated as
accurately as possible, and have a good
hydrogeological model
o TMDLs underway (assimilation capacity of water bodies
to minimize water qual. and quant. impacts
o First address stormwater entering most vulnerable
areas
o Continue working with DOT re: stormwater and
hydrogeological issues








Higher-level


iss


ues


o Nutrient balance
issue
o Need good
hydrogeologic
model
o Point versus non-
point infiltration
o Influence of


National


Forest


practices


o N-P removal
technology
o Better
understanding of
clarity problem
o Pre=Post volume
balance
o Relationship
between P and
geology (i.e.,
Hawthorn Group)








Higher-level


issues


o Monitoring
o Nutrient balance in
sinkhole lakes
o Cost-benefit of
wetland treatment
systems vs.
sprayfield
o Education Public
schools


o Education -
landowners
o Mass balance: How
much of a problem
is storm water in the
big picture?





#1


Relative loadings: septic


storm water


vs.


Vs.


agriculture/


spray field,


etc...






#2 Land-use; modify comp plan based
on highly vulnerable areas

o Evaluate existing data
o Need LIDAR in Wakulla Co
o Stream to sink study
o Complete aquifer vulnerability
assessment of natural system
o Define highly vulnerable areas
o Leon Co/TLH/Wakulla coordination
Interlocal agreement
o Phased in land use regulations (long term
and short term)






#2 Land-use;


modify comp plan


based


on highly vulnerable areas


o Tie in
land L


FEMA flood


zone


remapping


ise plan


Model


vulnerable areas v


o Evaluate and
programs (i.e
with karst, W


Code for highly
within all springsheds


implement existing
. ERP, other states dealing


kkiva


Study)


Have all relevant agencies at table (i.e., DOT,
DCA, DEP, WMD, etc.)


o Accountability and


enforcement


o Implement


into


.=








#3 Minimize runoff

o All land-use regs need to focus on minimizing
runoff
o Ordinance-development-enforcement targeting
post=pre regarding quality and quantity
o Implement Source Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP)
o Revise Master SW Plan
Wakulla/Leon/TLH
Discourage impervious surfaces
o Landowner education
o Look at other states dealing with karst issues and
how they address runoff
o Landowner incentives









City of Tallahassee Wastewater
Treatment System




May 12 13, 2005
" .... : ..: :: : ....: ..: .: .. .`.: ... .`. `...: .: .: r . :: -." ; '.; ;: i ; : '' ::'! : ',:5 2 ? : . : :


May 12- 13, 2005










Description of System

* Population Served -
170,000+
* Treatment Plants: _______
LBR 4.5 mgd P--A q
TPS 27.5 mgd
Total = 32 mgd . . .
Effluent Discharges:
SSWS 1.04 .. ..mgd
SSEFtion S- 27.39mgd
Total = 28.43 mgd




;::..... ... -. : ..

City's Wastewater Treatment
System Highly Regulated


. FAC 62-610


- Reuse, including land


application


m FAC 62-600


Wastewater Treatment


Facilities


. FAC 62-601


m 503


- Wastewater Monitoring


Rule Federal Biosolids regulations


Myriad others regarding safety, chemicals,
stormwater, etc.




:.. i: :... ... .... ....



Ground Water Standards

* Potable Ground Water
* Drinking Water Standards
Primary Standards
Secondary Standards
* Total Coliforms < 4/100 mL
* Nitrate 10 mg/L (as N)





K .I


Zone


Land Application


Ground Water


Flow


of Discharge


100 ft.
I I


Monitoring
Wells








:':..l~j ~ (g ~.: ~ .-
.:. .. ..-

SEF Mon :itoring We 'lls


SEF Monitoring Wells


0 Southeast Monitor %VeU Sitez
0999 Imagery05DOQQ s)
0 ~ 05r QN
MIt0 6 O k 4


FIGURE 47





,. ... ... . I. -....- . ....

Levels of Nitrate (as N) in

Compliance Wells

(Limit 10 mg/1)

* SE-2 4.34 SE-52 5.42
* SE-15 1.14 SE-53 5.28
* SE-16 0.05 SE-77 0.53
* SE-17 0.43 SE-78 0.55
* SE-22A 3.77 SE-79 2.8









Nutrient


Selected Crops


600
500
400
300
200
100
0


NITROGEN PHOSPHOROUS POTASSIUM


D Alfalfa
D Sweet Clover


O Soybeans


o (Coastal
l Corn
D Cotton


Bermuida Ryegrass
Grain Sorghum




.- :i -" i ..


Estimated N Allowable at SEF
* Total acres in pivots = 2000+
* 85% in bermuda grass @ 400 lbs. N
* 10% in corn @ 210 lbs. N
* 5% in other crops @ 150 lbs. N
* Total N allowed per year = 737,000 lbs.
* Or 2019 lbs/day average










* S s' ..


Total N Applied at SEF


3000




2500




2000



V.
z 500










500




0


Jan- Apr- Jul- Oct- Jan- Apr- Jul- Oct- Jan- A pr- Jul- Oct
02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04


SEFN Ag.Rate






Successes in Re ucing Nitrogen
Loads
* Stopped applying biosolids in Wakulla
County 2001
* Start-up of Class A dryer March 2004
* 85% reduction of total biosolids land
applied at airport
* 85% Class A product or Class B to landfill
* Obtaining more N reduction at TPS
effluent