<%BANNER%>

Waters of the University of Florida: Managing for Water Quality in the Lake Alice Watershed


PAGE 1

WATERS OF THE UNIVER SITY OF FLORIDA: MANAGING FOR WATER QUALITY IN THE LAKE ALICE WATERSHED By A. ONDINE WELLS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by A. Ondine Wells

PAGE 3

Dedicated to Randy and Aleida.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank my advisor, Dr. Mark Clark, for giving me the opportunity to study at the University of Florida while explor ing the issue of water quality using an interdisciplinary approach. I wish to also thank my thesis committee members, Richard Hammam and Dr. James Heaney, for their intere st in this project. The student volunteers of the University of Florida Wetlands Club deserve special recogn ition for having helped initiate regular water quality testing on campus prior to my arrival, and continuing to assist me in carrying out that testing over the last two years. I thank Scott Roberts of the University Athletic Association as well as th e staff at the Physical Plant, including Chuck Hogan, Erick Smith, and Chris Keane. The st aff at the Wetland Biogeochemistry Lab in the Soil and Water Science Department and th e IFAS Analytical Research Lab both merit hearty thanks for their assistance in carry ing out much of the water quality analysis. Kathleen McKee deserves much gratitude for her excellent editorial comments and suggestions. Lastly, I wish to thank my husband, Randy, for his constant words of encouragement, assistance battling the bugs in the woods, and for making this all possible.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................x ii CHAPTER 1 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: HISTORICAL AND REGULATORY OVERVIEW..................................................1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 Legal Status of the Lake Alice Watershed...................................................................2 Federal Regulation.................................................................................................3 State Regulation.....................................................................................................5 Local Regulations..................................................................................................8 History of Hydrology and Water Quality...................................................................10 Current Hydrology......................................................................................................13 Conclusions.................................................................................................................14 2 WATER QUALITY ON THE UNIVERS ITY OF FLORIDA MAIN CAMPUS.....16 Introduction.................................................................................................................16 Methods......................................................................................................................19 Characterization of the Lake Alice Watershed....................................................19 Land use.......................................................................................................19 Wildlife.........................................................................................................21 Site descriptions...........................................................................................21 Sample Collection...............................................................................................22 Water Analysis....................................................................................................23 Statistical Analysis..............................................................................................25 Results and Discussion...............................................................................................25 Temperature.........................................................................................................25 pH........................................................................................................................26 Conductivity........................................................................................................26 Dissolved Oxygen...............................................................................................29

PAGE 6

vi Total Dissolved Solids.........................................................................................29 Total Suspended Solids.......................................................................................32 Total Nitrogen.....................................................................................................32 Nitrate..................................................................................................................32 Ammonium..........................................................................................................35 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)...........................................................................35 Phosphorus..........................................................................................................35 Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP)...................................................................38 Conclusions.................................................................................................................38 3 NITRATE SOURCES IN HUME CREEK................................................................41 Introduction.................................................................................................................41 Methods......................................................................................................................42 Site Description of Hume Creek..........................................................................42 Water Sampling...................................................................................................47 Culvert storm sampling................................................................................47 Culvert dry weather sampling......................................................................50 Nitrate analysis.............................................................................................50 Results and Discussion...............................................................................................50 Culvert Storm Sampling......................................................................................50 Culvert Dry Weather Sampling...........................................................................52 Land Use..............................................................................................................53 Further Research.........................................................................................................54 Conclusions.................................................................................................................58 4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPING AN INTERNAL TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD PROGRAM.................................................................60 Introduction.................................................................................................................60 TMDL Framework......................................................................................................61 Monitoring and Modeling....................................................................................63 Management........................................................................................................64 Best Management Practices.................................................................................65 Nutrient management...................................................................................66 Re-use of the water.......................................................................................66 Pretreatment.................................................................................................67 Wetland retention area in Graham Woods...................................................67 Vegetated buffers.........................................................................................67 Denitrification in floodplain soils................................................................68 Groundwater well monitoring......................................................................68 Development guidelines...............................................................................69 Stormwater Research...........................................................................................71 Financing.............................................................................................................72 Conclusion..................................................................................................................74

PAGE 7

vii APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING REGULATORY STATUS OF LAKE ALICE AND ITS WATERSHED..............................................................................75 B SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND PHOTOS FOR CAMPUS WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM......................................................................................99 C CAMPUS WATER QUALITY DA TA IN TABULAR FORMAT.........................107 D ABBREVIATIONS..................................................................................................114 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................115 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................121

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1. Summary of historical phosphorus and ni trogen concentrations for Lake Alice.......13 2-1. Reported UF Campus Land Uses, 2000 (UF 2000)....................................................20 2-2. Number of samples collected from each site..............................................................23 3-1. Site identification numbers and de scriptions for culverts sampled............................48 C-1. Temperature (C)......................................................................................................107 C-2. pH........................................................................................................................ .....107 C-3. Conductivity (S)....................................................................................................108 C-4. Dissolved Oxygen (%).............................................................................................108 C-5. Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)........................................................................................109 C-6. Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L).................................................................................109 C-7. Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)...............................................................................110 C-8. Total Nitrogen (mg/L)..............................................................................................110 C-9. Nitrate (mg/L)..........................................................................................................11 1 C-10. Ammonium (mg/L)................................................................................................111 C-11. TKN (mg/L)...........................................................................................................112 C-12. Total Phosphorus (mg/L).......................................................................................112 C-13. Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (mg/L)....................................................................113

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1. Watersheds, University of Florida (UF Office of Planning 2005).............................20 2-2. Campus water quality sampling locations on the UF campus....................................22 2-3. Temperature by site....................................................................................................27 2-4. Seasonal variation of temperature at all sites.............................................................27 2-5. Levels of pH by site....................................................................................................28 2-7. Dissolved oxygen percentage by site..........................................................................30 2-8: Dissolved oxygen in mg/L by site..............................................................................30 2-9. Total dissolved solids by site......................................................................................31 2-12. Florida LAKEWATCH data for total ni trogen concentrations of Bivens Arm (Florida LAKEWATCH 2003)................................................................................33 2-13. Nitrate concentration by site.....................................................................................34 2-15. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (T KN) concentration by site..............................................36 2-16. Total phosphorus concentration by site....................................................................36 2-17. LAKEWATCH data for Bivens Arm (Florida LAKEWATCH 2003).....................37 3-1. Hume Creek and the eastern and western forks. The sub-watersheds of each fork are outlined in dotted and dashed lines. The storm storm sewer system is shows underground drainage culverts, manholes and storm drains. Inset boxes indicate the two wooded areas where culverts drai n into the two forks of Hume Creek. Each boxed area is enlarged below with si te numbers for each culvert (Figures 3-2 and 3-3)..............................................................................................................44 3-2. Graham Woods sites...................................................................................................45 3-3. Reitz Ravine Woods sites...........................................................................................46 3-4. Example of a culvert (site 35) with deeply incised creek walls.................................49

PAGE 10

x 3-5. Example of stormwater sampli ng device installed in a culvert..................................49 3-6. Cumulative Nitrate concentrations in cu lverts during three st orm events. Site 26 samples the creek where it exited Grah am Woods. Site 47 sampled the creek where it exited Reitz Ravine Woods........................................................................51 3-7. Nitrate concentration for culv erts with dry weather flows.........................................52 3-8. Comparison of average nitrate concentra tions between dry flow events and storm events........................................................................................................................5 3 3-9. Sub-watershed for site 35. Shaded box i ndicates the area of the sub-watershed. The lines with dots indicate the portion of the storm drainage system that contributes to this watershed....................................................................................55 3-10. Sub-watershed for site 44. Shaded box i ndicates the area of the sub-watershed. The lines with dots indicate the portion of the storm drainage system that contributes to this watershed....................................................................................56 3-11. Sub-watershed of site 45. Shaded box w ith solid lines indicat es the area of the sub-watershed. The larger shaded box with dashed lines indicates the subwatershed of site 44 which is also a c ontributor to site 45. The small circles indicate two areas where water may be di rected from site 44’s sub-watershed to site 45.......................................................................................................................5 7 B-1. Sites 1 and 2, Brain In stitute South and North...........................................................99 B-2. Site 3, New Engin eering Building (NEB)................................................................100 B-3. Site 4, North South Drive.........................................................................................101 B-4. Site 5, Hume Creek..................................................................................................101 B-5. Site 6, Medicinal Gardens upstream........................................................................102 B-6. Site 7, Medicinal Gardens downstream...................................................................102 B-7. Site 8, Baughman Center.........................................................................................103 B-8. Site 9, Pony Field.....................................................................................................103 B-9. Site 10, Animal Science...........................................................................................104 B-10. Site 11, Surge Area................................................................................................104 B-11. Site 12, Golf Course Pond.....................................................................................105 B-12. Site 13, Golf View Creek.......................................................................................105

PAGE 11

xi B-13. Site 14, 7th Fairway................................................................................................106

PAGE 12

xii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science WATERS OF THE UNIVER SITY OF FLORIDA: MANAGING FOR WATER QUALITY IN THE LAKE ALICE WATERSHED By A. Ondine Wells December 2005 Chair: Mark Clark Major Department: Interdisciplinary Ecology This thesis provides a multi-disciplinary a pproach to sustainable water management on the University of Florida campus by usi ng scientific data to inform policy and management. In 1972, the United States Congress enacted th e Clean Water Act. This act set forth groundbreaking standards for water quality incl uding the reduction and elimination of point source pollutants. As a result, the na tion’s waters have, on the whole, improved in water quality. Today, however, nonpoint source pollution, such as stormwater, is one of the leading causes of impairment. Identifyi ng, managing and preventi ng non-point source pollution is one of the challenges facing m unicipalities and communities nationwide. The Clean Water Act addresses stormwater di scharge through Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N PDES) program. The University of Florida (UF) obtained an NPDES permit in the fall of 2003. This permit renewed interest in and

PAGE 13

xiii commitment to water quality, and in part icular stormwater management, on the UF campus. Hydrologic history of the main watershed on campus reveals that Lake Alice has had high nitrogen and phosphorus levels for more than thirty years. Lake Alice has also received numerous designations with potenti ally conflicting manage ment goals including a Class III water body, a stormwater manage ment system, and a university-designated conservation area. Water quality data for 15 sites throughout campus collected between November 2003 and December 2004 reveal high phosphorus levels throughout the campus and nitrate levels as high as 11.5 mg/L in two creeks, Hume Creek and Fraternity Row Creek. While there are no Class III numeric standards for nitrate levels, research has shown toxicity levels to freshwater species at concentrations below 10 mg/L. A characterization of the Hume Creek waters hed during storm events and dry weather periods indicates three stormwat er drainage culverts contri buted high concentrations of nitrate to the sub-watershed. These culverts receive water from athletic field drainage areas indicating that fertilizers may be the primary source of nitrates. The scientific data from both the Campus Water Quality monitoring program and the Hume Creek characterization enable the university to poten tially address a long-standing problem through targeted BMP implementation. It is through this multi-disciplinary approach to policy creation and implementation that the University of Florida may attain sustainable management of its surface waters.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER 1 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: HISTORICAL AND REGULATORY OVERVIEW Introduction In 1972, the United States Congress enacted th e Clean Water Act. This act set forth groundbreaking standards for water quality incl uding the reduction and elimination of point source pollutants. As a result, the na tion’s waters have, on the whole, improved in water quality. Today, however, nonpoint source pollution, such as stormwater, is one of the leading causes of impairment (US EP A 2005b). Identifying, managing and preventing non-point source pollution is one of th e challenges facing municipalities and communities nationwide. The Clean Water Act addresses stormwater discharge through Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharg e Elimination System (NPDES) program. The University of Florida (UF) obtained a NP DES permit in the fall of 2003. This permit renewed interest in and commitment to wa ter quality, and in pa rticular stormwater management, on the UF campus. The management of UF waters have been driven by a number of competing factors: regulatory compliance, aesthetics, conser vation, utility needs and convenience. The campus has grown from predominately agricultur al in the 1800s to heavily urbanized in the 1970s. Construction of buildings, parking lots, and roads drama tically altered the watershed by increasing the amount of imperv ious surface and incised waterways. As a result, UF has struggled with how to manage its waters effectively. Water quality data collected between 1971 and 2003 indicated that Lake Alice, the ma jor receiving water

PAGE 15

2 body on the UF campus, was a eutrophic sy stem with high nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations. The goal of this thesis is to provide a ch emical, legal and policy characterization of the Lake Alice watershed on the UF campus and propose recommendations for addressing pollutants identified within the wa tershed. Chapter 1 provides a regulatory and hydrologic history of the wate rshed showing how the waters have been utilized and managed in the past. This historical review shows that most water quality analyses on campus have been conducted within Lake A lice, excluding any anal ysis of contributing tributaries. Since nonpoint source pollution is one of the leading causes of impairment, isolating possible sources of pollutants to La ke Alice is a critical step. To identify potential nonpoint source po llutants within the watershe d, a Campus Water Quality monitoring program (CWQ) was initiated in October 2003 to characterize water quality of all the tributaries on campus. Chapter 2 pr esents the data for the first year of the monitoring program, revealing that campus creeks had high phosphorus levels throughout campus and that two creeks had elevated ni trate levels. Chapter 3 provides a more indepth characterization of one of the two creek s with elevated nitrat e levels during storm events and dry weather periods. This charac terization indicated three culverts were contributing high concentrations of nitrate. Chapter 4 discusses policy and management recommendations that would enable UF to m eet its regulatory obligations while also improving the water quality on campus. Included within the recommendations are best management practices that could directly address the high nitr ate concentrations. Legal Status of the Lake Alice Watershed The legal status of Lake Alice has been the subject of much debate since the inception of statutes that pr otect water quality. The US E nvironmental Protection Agency

PAGE 16

3 (EPA), the Florida Department of Environm ental Protection (DEP), the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), and th e University of Florida (UF) have all debated whether Lake Alice is a “water of the United States,” part of a stormwater management system or part of a wastewater treatment system. The legal determination of Lake Alice is important because it dictates how the waters are regulated and what, if any, water quality standards they must meet. Federal Regulation The Federal Water Pollution Control Ac t Amendments, now known as the Clean Water Act, were enacted in 1972 in order to protect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the country’s natural waterways. The initial act protected surface waters by setting water quality standards for contaminan ts, prohibiting point source discharges into navigable waters without a permit, and suppor ting the construction of sewage treatment facilities (US Code 1). In 1979, the EPA asserted regulatory jurisdiction over Lake Alice as a water of the United States on the gr ounds that it was a natural water body that affected interstate commer ce (McGhee Appendix A-1). Lake Alice has been regulated under the Clean Water Act both through the impaired water lis ting process and the NPDES permitting process. Under the impaired water 303(d) list proces s, the EPA requires each state to set Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for areas that do not meet wate r quality standards. These areas are identified on the 303(d) list compiled by the state every two years for submission to the EPA (US Code 2). In 1998, Lake Alice was listed by the state of Florida as an impaired water on the 303(d) li st due to high nutrient levels. By 2002, Lake Alice was de-listed because it met the water quality standards for its classification

PAGE 17

4 (Florida DEP 2002). Since Lake Alice is no l onger on the 303(d) list there are currently no TMDLs set for the water body. The Clean Water Act has also required a Na tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I permit for any pollu tant discharge to a water of the United States. Since the 1979 EPA decision to treat La ke Alice as a water of the United States, UF was requested by the EPA to obtain an NPDES permit for the discharge of sewage effluent into Lake Alice under Federal regulation 40 CFR 122.3 (1980) (McGarry Appendix A-11). According to UF Physical Pl ant Division, an NPDES permit for effluent discharge was never obtained (Hogan Appendix A-18). In 1999, the EPA implemented the NPDES Ph ase II plan to regulate stormwater discharge in municipal separa te storm sewer systems (MS4s) not covered in Phase I (Florida DEP 2005a). Under NPDES Phase II, those managing an MS4 must comprehensively deal with stormwater by re ducing pollutant discha rge, protecting water quality, meeting water quality standards, a nd implementing best management practices (BMPs). These efforts must include public education, participation and involvement, detection and elimination of illicit discharg es, construction site runoff control, postconstruction site runoff control, and pollu tion prevention (Florida DEP 2005b). The goal is to protect water quality, including meeti ng any applicable requirements of the Clean Water Act, and to reduce pollutant discharg es to the “maximum extent practicable” (MEP), a standard which has neither a specifi c regulatory definition nor numeric effluent limitations. To achieve the MEP, the permit holder must implement approved BMPs, but is not required to conduct water quality monitoring (US EPA 2000). If a TMDL is established for the receiving water body, the permit holder must ensure that the discharge

PAGE 18

5 will not adversely affect the ability to m eet the TMDL (US EPA 2004). UF received an NPDES Phase II permit for stormwat er discharge in the fall of 2003. State Regulation Waters of the state, as defined by the stat e of Florida, “include, but are not limited to, rivers, lakes, streams, sp rings, impoundments, wetlands, and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tid al, surface, or underground waters” (Florida Statute 1). The water quality standards of th ese waters are subject to state regulation (FAC 2). Bodies of water owned entirely by one person other than the state are only regulated for possible discharge onto another person’s property (Florida Statute 1). Lake Alice is currently owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, which holds all submerged and tidal land for use by the citizens of Florida (Florida Statute 2). As a body of water held in trust by the state, Lake Ali ce would therefore be subject to state-regulated wa ter quality standards. In co mmunications in 1994 and 1998, the DEP confirmed that Lake Alice was a water of the state according to Florida Statutes 403.031(13) and FAC 62-312.030 (formerly 17-312.030) (Tyler Appendix A-13). In addition, under the Federal NPDES pr ogram, each state is responsible for designating a state agency to implement a nd enforce the NPDES permitting process. In Florida, the Department of Environmental Pr otection (Florida DEP) is responsible for promulgating rules and issuing permits, mana ging and reviewing permit applications, and performing compliance and enforcement activ ities." (Florida DEP 2005a and US Code 1). Each state is required to designate an official use for each water body in its jurisdiction. There are five clas ses: Class I (potable water); Class II (shellfis h propagation or harvesting); Class III (re creation, propagation and mainte nance of a healthy, well-

PAGE 19

6 balanced population of fish and wildlife); Class IV (agricultural water supplies); and Class V (navigation, utility and industrial use) (FAC 8). As a legally designated Class III water body, Lake Alice is subject to an ex tensive list of maximum concentrations allowable for certain contaminants. Florida also regulates st ormwater through Environmenta l Resource Permits issued through each of five regional water management districts. The district that includes the UF campus is the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). These permits have general criteria that all stormwater management systems must meet, along with special criteria that apply to indi vidual stormwater management systems. A stormwater management system is a “system which is designed and constructed or implemented to control discharges whic h are necessitated by rainfall events, incorporating methods to collect convey, store, absorb, inhibit, treat, use, or reuse water to prevent or reduce flooding, overdrainag e, environmental degradation, and water pollution or otherwise affect the quantity and quality of discharges from the system.” (Florida Statute 3) In 1987, UF obtained a permit from the SJRWMD for stormwater management, including Lake Alice as a wet retention system for stormwater treatment. The rain that falls in this system and flows through it is c onsidered the stormwater of the system (FAC 3). The series of creeks and ponds leading to Lake Alice provide treatment for UF’s stormwater through natural filtration and se dimentation. The 1987 permit was renewed in 2000. The current permit attempts to curb st ormwater pollution by preventing violations of state water quality sta ndards through construction best management practices, calculating the amount of impervious surface in each basin, and regularly reporting to the

PAGE 20

7 St. Johns River Water Management Distri ct. The UF Physical Plant Division is responsible for maintenance of this stormwater system (SJRWMD 2000). While the waters of the Lake Alice waters hed are waters of the state, the permit issued in 1987 which allowed the watershed to be used as part of a stormwater management system does not require the uni versity to monitor water quality. According to Florida statute, State surface water quality sta ndards applicable to waters of the state, as defined in s. 403.031(13), shall not apply within a stormwater management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and main tained for stormwater treatment in accordance with a valid permit or noticed ex emption issued pursuant to chapter 1725, Florida Administrative Code; a valid pe rmit issued on or subsequent to April 1, 1986, within the Suwannee River Water Mana gement District or the St. Johns River Water Management District pursuant to this part. (Flo rida Statute 4) Florida statute requires that one must have a permit to discharge any waste that lowers the quality of water that it is being di scharged into (Florida Statute 5). Discharges to groundwater, unless under a specific ex emption, should not violate water quality standards for the receiving wa ter body (FAC 4) and monitoring of the discharge must occur (FAC 5). However, section (9)(a) exempt s stormwater facilities from monitoring requirements if the discharge does not pose a “potential hazard to human health or the environment…and as long as the facilities do not discharge direct ly to ground water.” (FAC 5) The UF Master Plan states that UF will abide by the conditions of the permits including “reporting water le vels in monitoring wells qua rterly and submission of groundwater and surface water monitoring tests to the Water Management District.” (UF 2000) At the western end of Lake Alice there are two wells, designated R-1 and R-2. R-1 is located near the bridge by the Baughman Ce nter and R-2 is located near the Bat House. R-2 has been elevated to restrict the flow of Lake Alice water into the well except during

PAGE 21

8 high water conditions. R-1, however, has a lowe r weir enabling it to receive water from Lake Alice on a more regular basis. Currentl y, neither well is metered for water flows nor is water quality measured. The UF Physical Pl ant Division indicated that they are in the process of placing a meter on R-1 to fulfill the DEP permit requirements (J. Blair Appendix A-20). Because the Lake Alice wate r is permitted as stormwater, UF is not required to monitor the quality of water entering either well. Therefore, pollutant levels within the Lake Alice watershed, if le ft undetected and untreated, could pose contamination threats to groundwater. Local Regulations While UF acts as its own regulating entit y, its actions inevitably have a major influence on the City of Ga inesville and Alachua County. To maintain a high level of water quality, the three entities would ideally coordinate their regul ation and management of surface waters, including the implementati on of BMPs. State law requires educational facilities coordinate their master plans “w ith the local comprehensive plan and land development regulations of local governments” (Florida Statute 6). The Alachua County Comprehensive Plan declares that environmental conservation will be a priority in all decision-making. With regard to stormwater, the Plan says it will “ensure the protection of natural drainage features, including surface water quality and groundwater aquifer quality and quantity rechar ge functions, from stormwater runoff.” Where appropriate, the Plan advocates for “the use of system upgrades, the use of drainageways…as habitat corridors which allo w the passage of wildlife between natural areas and throughout the County, as we ll as providing wildlife habitat”. The Plan also calls for the creation of a surface water monito ring program that will develop baselines for water quality as well as bi ological health (Alachua 2005).

PAGE 22

9 The UF Master Plan includes an Inter governmental Coordination Element which “establishes a development review process, to be implemented in conjunction with host and affected local governments, to assess the impacts of proposed development on significant local, regional, and st ate resources and facilities.” Th e Master Plan also states that “level of service standards for … stormwater manage ment (quantity and quality)…shall not be in conflict with thos e established by the C ity or County.” (UF 2005b) In September 2005, the Conservation Study Committee of the Campus Master Planning 2005-2015 process, adopted the following policy: Policy 3.7: The University shall continue to monitor Lake Alice and other surface water bodies for compliance with existing st andards for water quality in order to meet Class III water quality standards and report findings to the Lakes, Vegetation and Land Use committee annually (UF Conservation 2005b). The UF Master Plan does not recommend th e creation of performance indicators or baselines to measure ecosystem health. Many local regulations include minimum standards for vegetative buffers around waterways as a mechanism for improving water quality. Buffers can filter silt and pollutants from the water entering the waterw ay (US EPA 2005a). They also aid in slowing the entry of water in to the waterway thereby reduc ing erosion. Alachua County’s Comprehensive Plan requires an average 50 foot buffer (35 foot minimum) for surface waters and wetlands less than or equal to 0.5 acres and 75 foot buffer on average (50 foot minimum) for waters and wetlands greater than 0.5 acre (Alachua 2005). The City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plan establishes a buffer along waterways of at least 35 feet (Gainesville 2001). The Conservation Area Study Comm ittee has established a 25-foot buffer next to creeks, ponds and sinkhol es on campus (UF Conservation 2005a).

PAGE 23

10 History of Hydrology and Water Quality There are indications that Lake Alice is a natural body of water th at existed as early as 1000 A.D. According to the historic marker near the Fredric G. Levin College of Law on the UF campus, the Alachua Tradition peoples (who were ancestors of the Potano Indians) built a nearby burial mound and “probably lived alon g the shore of Lake Alice” (UF 1976). The earliest written hi storical records indicate th at Lake Alice, originally called Jonas Pond, was surrounded by farmland and owned by Mr. Witt in the late 1800s. The pond (at that time only two to three acr es) was renamed “Ali ce” after his daughter. UF purchased the Lake Alice area in 1925 as pa rt of an agricultural experiment station. The lake has undergone a number of changes in terms of size as well as hydrologic and nutrient inputs. Prior to 1948, the lake r eceived infiltrating and runoff waters from the surrounding land as well as sewage input s. In 1948, an earthen dam was constructed for flood control and irrigation purposes a nd the sewage was retained in a nearby treatment plant (Karraker 1953). This dam rais ed the level and surface area of the lake. Much of the prior vegetation including Cephalanthus occidentalis (buttonbush), Quercus virginiana (live oak), Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) and Liquidambar styraciflua (sweetgum) was replaced by Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), Ludwigia peruviana (willow), Acer rubrum (red maple), Hydrocotyle (water pennywort), Eichhornia crassipes (waterhyacinth), Pontederia cordata (pickerel weed), and Typha (cattail) (Jenni 1961). In the 1960’s the lake started receiving sec ondarily treated effluent from the sewage plant and the university medical center’s cooling plant. By 1971, Lake Alice was estimated to receive 1 to 2 million gallons per day of effluent and 10 to 12 million gallons per day of cooling water. At this time, La ke Alice exhibited high phosphorus levels (0.9 mg/L) when compared to other Florida lake s, which had typically below 0.1 mg/L of

PAGE 24

11 phosphorus. Sewage inputs were thought to be the reason for this high phosphorus level. The annual nitrogen load to Lake Alice was ca lculated to be more than double any other lake surveyed in Florid a (Brezonik and Shannon 1971). Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) flourished in th e lake, possibly as a result of the increased nutrient load. In order to control the water hyacinth, a number of measures were taken including a drag-line, hand remova l, and herbicide app lication (Brezonik and Shannon 1971). The construction of a boardwa lk and wire fence encouraged the development of a water hyacinth marsh on the eastside of the lake, where there was once a prairie, while maintaining open water to th e west creating conditions similar to current ones with approximately 12 hectares (29.6 acres) of open water and 21 hectares (51.9 acres) of marsh (Gottgens 1981). In 1975, sampling along the perimeter of La ke Alice revealed that temperature, turbidity, conductivity and n itrogen decreased as wate r flowed through the marsh whereas dissolved oxygen increased indicati ng that the marsh provided an important transitional treatment zone for the incoming water (Mitsch 1975). In 1976, cooling plant effluent was diverted from the lake but sewage effluent continued to provide a high nutrient level to the lake (Vega 1978). In 1977, the waste water treatment plant averaged approxim ately 1.85 million gallons a day of output (Gottgens 1981). By 1981, concentrations of phosphorus had increased to between 0.98 mg/L and 2.57 mg/L. The lake’s waterhyacinth-dominated marsh system was successfully reducing the amount of phosphorus by an average of 25% a year. However, much of this reduction was probably the c onversion of inorganic phosphorus to organic forms. Therefore, when the hyacinth died, the phosphorus was re-mineralized in the

PAGE 25

12 decomposition process, thereby contributing th e phosphorus back to the system (Velga and Ewel 1981). In 1982, Florida regulations stipulated that discharges into potable aquifers must meet drinking water standards (FAC 7). A high coliform concentration was identified in surface waters on campus that exceeded these standards. Since some of these surface waters had potentially direct connections to aquifers through wells and porous soils, a new sewage treatment plant on campus was c onstructed that would provide tertiary treatment (Korhnak 1996). When the Water Reclamation Plant opened in 1994, sewage was once again diverted from Lake Alice a nd phosphorus concentra tions in the lake dropped from 1.141 mg/L to 0.59 mg/L. Further i nvestigation suggested that stormwater probably also contributed to high phosphorus levels due to particulates from the Hawthorne Formation that eroded the tributar y streambanks. Nitrogen concentrations also dropped from 2.430 mg/L to 0.93 mg/L. The data suggested that nitrogen was being lost and possibly denitrified in the anoxic marsh system (Korhnak 1996). LAKEWATCH data from 1997 – 2003 show ed phosphorus ranges in Lake Alice to be between 0.3 and 0.7 mg/L and nitrogen levels between 0.4 and 1.3 mg/L, indicating a continued eutrophic state, but a lower range of values than those found in 1994 (US EPA 2005c). Data collected between 1998 and 2002 both in Lake Alice and Hume Pond found similar total phosphorus concentrati ons ranging from 0.2 mg/L to 0.9 mg/L. Additionally, nitrogen levels in Hume Pond were higher than levels found in the lake confirming again that denitrif ication may be occurring in the marsh system (Canfield 1998 – 2002).

PAGE 26

13 Table 1-1. Summary of historical phosphorus an d nitrogen concentrations for Lake Alice. Author, Date Phosphorus Nitrogen Brezonik and Shannon 1971 0.9 mg/L 0.5 mg/L Velga and Ewel 1981 0.98 – 2.57 mg/L Korhnak 1994 (with sewage) 1.141 mg/L 2.430 mg/L Korhnak 1995 (no sewage) 0.59 mg/L 0.93 mg/L US EPA 2005c and Canfield 1998-2002 0.2-0.9 mg/L 0.4-1.3 mg/L Current Hydrology Since 1994, the primary inputs into Lake Alice have been stormwater runoff; irrigation water; inter-storm di scharges; and direct inputs fr om rainwater. Any pollutants that existed in a water body in the Lake A lice watershed would come from one of these sources. Stormwater runoff is probably the greatest s ource of water to Lake Alice, draining all of the impervious surfaces in the watershed including pavement, roofs, and sidewalks. As impervious surfaces increase, so does the hydraulic load to the lake. This runoff can pick up pollutants such as oil, grease, and se diment and carry them to the creeks and the lake. Irrigation water landing on a sidewalk or st reet can travel into the storm drain system. Additionally, athletic fields with unde r-drains could drain excess irrigation water into the storm system. According to the Phys ical Plant Division of the University of Florida, 90% of the irrigation water used on campus is reclaimed water which is treated to Class I water quality sta ndards (potable water) (UF P hysical Plant 2005). Irrigation water, regardless of its source, can also carry fertilizers and other chemicals applied to the vegetation when running off the soil. Illicit discharges may contribute to unacc ounted nutrient loads but are difficult to detect. During a visit to the Stormwater Ecological Enhancement Project (SEEP) in 2004,

PAGE 27

14 water flow entered the SEEP at two different culverts even though there had not been any recent rainfall (M.D. Annable, personal communication, April 1, 2004). Similarly, visits in 2005 revealed inter-storm water inputs into the Hume Creek watershed from four different storm culverts. In one case, a str ong smell of bleach emanated from the water leaving the culvert. In another case, a culver t discharge was traced back to a storm drain that was receiving water from a parking lot stormdrain where vehicle washing was occurring (O. Wells, personal visit, July 13 and July 14, 2005). At other times, creeks on campus have had a milky white coloration i ndicating an unusual subs tance in the water (O.Wells, personal visit, March 15, 2004). Fu rther investigation would be needed to characterize illicit discha rges and their sources. Conclusions Lake Alice has numerous regulatory desi gnations including as a water of the United States, a water of the state, a Cla ss III water body, a stormwater system and a conservation area. These desi gnations have potentially c onflicting goals in terms of management. In order to meet the goals of each of the regulatory designations and improve water quality, the uni versity must make a clear commitment and mandate to fostering sustainable water management. Chapter 4 provides policy, management and best management practice (BMP) recommenda tions that, if implemented, could enable the university to meet its regulatory obligati ons while still also achieving a high standard of water quality. Historical water quality indicates that La ke Alice has been a eutrophic system for the past 35 years with nitrogen and phosphorus levels that exceeded those of comparable Florida lakes. The removal of sewage i nputs reduced phosphorus and nitrogen levels somewhat, but the levels remained higher than expected. The marsh system provides

PAGE 28

15 some water treatment in the form of denitr ification and partial phosphorus assimilation. There is a need for water qual ity data on upstream tributarie s to assess the sources of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Lake Alice wa tershed. Chapter 2 addresses this need by providing a scientific investigation of water quality throughout the University of Florida main campus.

PAGE 29

16 CHAPTER 2 WATER QUALITY ON THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA MAIN CAMPUS Introduction As discussed in chapter one, each state is required to designate an official use for each water body in its jurisdiction, based upon th e relative water quality required for that water body. The five water quality designations, from Class I to Class V, are based upon whether that water is intended to be potable, sa fe for human contact, or able to maintain a healthy ecosystem. All of the waters on the UF campus are designated by the state of Florida as Class III waters which requires water quality that is both safe for human recreation and capable of maintaining a healthy fi sh and wildlife population. There are seventy-one water quality criter ia for Class III waters, some of which have specific numeric limits and some of wh ich have narrative criteria with no specific numeric limits. If met, thes e criteria should ensure that the water body can provide a healthy habitat and resource for both aquatic a nd terrestrial organisms. If not met, an imbalance can occur in the ecosystem su ch as eutrophication, a process of high productivity which can result in algae bloom s, decreased oxygen availability, and even the death of organisms. The Campus Water Quality monitoring program tested twelve parameters, some of which have Class III criteria and some whic h do not. Three of the twelve have numeric Class III standards (pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxyge n), two have narrative standards (phosphorus and nitrogen), and th e remaining eight do not have Class III standards.

PAGE 30

17 Temperature does not have a Class III sta ndard, but can determine what organisms survive, the rate of photosynthesis, an d the amount of oxygen within the water. Variations of temperature are typically due to weather, vege tation, and various discharges into the water (US EPA 1997). Class III standards require that pH not fall below 6 units or rise above 8.5 units in fresh waters (FAC 6). Extreme pH levels can limit the biological diversity and lower pH levels can mobilize some toxic elements. Ge ology, wastewater disc harges and acid rain influence pH levels (US EPA 1997). Specific conductivity should not exceed the greater of 50% more than background levels or 1275 according to Class III standa rds (FAC 6). Conductivity levels between 150 and 500 hos/cm are optimal for maintaining fi sheries. Geology and discharges are the primary influences on conductivity. Dissolved oxygen should be maintained at or above 5 mg/L both on a daily and seasonal basis according to Class III sta ndards (FAC 6). Dissolved oxygen levels fluctuate as a result of temperature, flow rates of photosynthesis, decomposition, aquatic animal respiration and discharges to the water body (US EPA 1997). There are no Class III criteria for total dissolve solids (TDS). Total dissolved solids are those solids which are dissolved in th e water and can pass through a 2 micron filter such as calcium, nitrate, phosphorus, and ot her ions. High or low dissolved solids can detrimentally alter the wate r balance in aquatic organisms’ cells (US EPA 1997). Total suspended solids (TSS) does not have a Class III standard. Suspended solids can carry with them toxins such as pest icides and, if high en ough, can decrease water

PAGE 31

18 clarity which impacts photosynthesis and te mperature. Sources of suspended solids include discharges, road runoff, er osion and fertilizers (US EPA 1997). Nitrogen levels do not have a numeric limita tion in Class III water bodies. They are to be limited, however, “to prevent violations of other standards” and “in no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or faun a” (FAC 6). Higher levels of nitrogen can increase eutrophication rates. Nitrogen sources include blue-green algae, fertilizer, and waste products (Tippecanoe 2004). Nitrate, a form of nitrogen, does not ha ve a Class III standard, but cannot exceed 10 mg/L in Class I Drinking Waters. Nitrate levels are commonly below 1 mg/L in surface waters (US EPA 1997). As nitrate levels in crease, so does the rate of eutrophication. Some research has suggested that to preven t nitrate toxicity in sensitive freshwater organisms, levels should not exceed 2 mg /L (Camargo 2005). Nitrates come from fertilizers, wastewater, animal manur e and other discharges (US EPA 1997). Ammonium, a form of nitrogen, does not have a Class III standard, but should ideally not exceed 0.5 mg/L in natural water bodies. Ammonium is a nutrient for plants and algae, but in excess can increase the rate of eutrophication and, if high enough, become toxic. Sources of ammonium include fertilizers, decompos ing material, animal waste, and atmospheric deposition (LEO 2000-2002). Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), the orga nic and ammonium portion of total nitrogen, does not have a Cl ass III standard. TKN originates from animal waste, decomposing material, and live organic matter such as algae (Tippecanoe 2004).

PAGE 32

19 Phosphorus, an essential nutrient, does not have a Class III st andard, but in high concentrations can acceler ate eutrophication. Phosphorus sources include geology, wastewater, fertilizers, animal waste, and other discharges (US EPA 1997). Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), the most bioavailable form of phosphorus, does not have a Class III standard and originates from the same sources as phosphorus. SRP levels above 0.005 mg/L can encourag e eutrophication (T ippecanoe 2004). This chapter establishes a baseline of th e water quality data for all of the major tributaries on the campus providing a charac terization of the Lake Alice watershed. Methods Characterization of the Lake Alice Watershed Land use The 1,827 acre UF main campus is part of f our different watersheds: Lake Alice, Hogtown Creek, Bivens Arm and Depressional Basins (Figur e 2-1). More than 60% of the campus lies in the Lake Alice watershed (1,140 acres). This watershed is a closed basin system, meaning that all of the water that enters into the watershed terminates at Lake Alice making UF solely responsible fo r the management of the system (UF 2000). The Lake Alice watershed was predominatel y agricultural in the late 1800s, but by 1971 the land use was over 60% urban, with the remainder being fertilized crop (27%) and forested areas (12%) (Brezonik and Shannon 1971). Within the Lake Alice watershed, approximately 40% (425.7 acres) of the area is comprised of impervious surfaces that inhibit downwar d infiltration of water (McElhoe 1998). These include parking spaces, roads, buildings, and other hard surfaces. All of these surfaces drain stormwater into the stormwater sewer syst em which conveys through culverts, creeks and

PAGE 33

20 ponds that all terminate in Lake Alice, thus increasing the amount of water that would naturally drain to Lake Alice. Table 2-1. Reported UF Campus Land Uses, 2000 (UF 2000) Land Use Type Acres Percent of Total Academic 581.4 31.8% Support 125.15 6.8% Housing 106 5.8% Utility 21.11 1.2% Cultural 12.72 0.7% Parking 164.61 9% Active Recreational† 269.69 14.8% Passive Recreational‡ 201.77 11% Conservation 344.86 18.9% Total acreage 1827 100% † Active Recreational includes gyms, pools athletic fields ‡ Passive Recreational includes open spaces but not conservation areas Figure 2-1. Watersheds, University of Florida (UF Office of Planning 2005).

PAGE 34

21 Wildlife Lake Alice, is considered an Audubon Societ y sanctuary implying that the lake is a valuable habitat for fish and wildlife (Mitsc h 1975). In fact, the la ke is known for its prime alligator and wading bird viewing. Vert ebrate Zoology at UF lists ospreys, great blue herons and double-breasted cormorants as some of the water birds using Lake Alice (UF Zoology 2005). In the UF's management plan for the Lake Alice South Wetland, many species that may visit the area are listed: American Crow, American Goldfinch, Am erican Robin, Bald Eagle, Baltimore Oriole, Black and White Warbler, Belte d Kingfisher, Blue-Gray gnatcatcher, Brown-headed cowbird, Blue-headed Vireo, Blue Jay, Brown Thrasher, Boat-tailed Grackle, Carolina Chickadee, Caroli na Wren, Downy Woodpecker, Eastern Bluebird, Eastern Phoebe, Eastern Tufted Titmouse, Great Crested Flycatcher, Gray Catbird, Hermit Thrush, House Finch, House Wren, Killdeer, Mourning Dove, Northern Cardinal, Northern Flic ker, Northern Mockingbird, Northern Parula, Osprey, Palm Warbler, Pine Warb ler, Pileated Woodpecker, Red-bellied Woodpecker, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Red Headed Woodpecker, Red-Sanhill Crane, Shouldered Hawk, Red-winged Bl ackbird, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Yellowbellied Sapsucker, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Anolis carolinesis, Brown anole, Gray Squirrel, Black rat (1), Raccoon, and Fe ral Cat. (UF Office of Planning 2005) Site descriptions Fifteen water sampling sites were select ed throughout the main University of Florida campus along each tributary on campus (Figure 2-2). In some cases, multiple sites were placed along a single tributary to provide greater detail on the influence of smaller subwatersheds as well as potentia l treatment occurring through the stream. The majority of sites are within creeks which ha ve natural, vegetative banks (as opposed to concrete or other impervious surface). Excep tions include site 8 which is within Lake Alice, site 12 which is the UF Bostick Golf Course pond, and site 13 which is at a drainage culvert on the 7th fairway of the golf course. For a detailed description of the 15 sampling sites, see Appendix B.

PAGE 35

22Campus Water Quality Monitoring Sites 6 2 1 10 9 8 7 5 4 3 11 12 13 14 15 Figure 2-2. Campus water quality sa mpling locations on the UF campus Sample Collection Monthly water samples at each site were analyzed for temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, total disso lved solids, and redox potential were measured with a YSI 556 Multi-Probe Sensor (YSI Envir onmental, Yellow Springs OH). Thirteen sampling events took place between Oc tober 2003 and December 2004, with the exception of sites 12-15 where twelve sampli ng events occurred. Some sites experienced seasonal dry periods where there was little to no flow and sampling was not possible (see Table 2-2). Measurements were taken at th e midpoint in the water column between 12:00 and 17:00 hours. A 500-mL water sample was co llected from the mid-point in the water column. Samples were transported to the labo ratory and processed ac cording to standard operating procedures certified by the National Environmenta l Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC). Samples were analyzed for total suspended solids, total nitrogen,

PAGE 36

23 nitrates, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammoni um, total phosphorus, and soluble reactive phosphorus. Table 2-2. Number of samples collected from each site. Site # Site Name No flow Total # samples taken Notes 1 Brain Institute South 13 2 Brain Institute North 13 3 New Engineering Building 13 4 North South Drive 13 5 Hume Creek Bridge 13 6 Medicinal Gardens upstream 13 7 Medicinal Gardens downstream 13 8 Baughman Center 13 9 Pony Field 13 10 Animal Science 5 8 11 Surge Area 4 9 12 Golf Course pond 1 11 No October sampling. 13 Golf View Creek 3 9 No October sampling. 14 #7 Fairway 9 3 No October sampling.One sample taken when area was flooded. 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 6 6 No October sampling.Two samples from the stormwater pond side of the weir because there was no flow in the creek. Water Analysis Total suspended solids (TSS). Water samples were filtered using a vacuum filtration apparatus and Pall 50mm type A/E gla ss fiber filters. Filters were pre-treated with distilled water and heat ed in an oven at 100C for one hour. Following drying, the filters were weighed and then used for filte ring the samples. Following sample filtration, the filters were again placed in an oven at 100C for one hour, after which they were weighed a second time. TSS was determined by subtracting the pre-fi lter weight from the post-filter weights and dividi ng by the volume of the sample.

PAGE 37

24 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen. Unfiltered samples were transferred to 20 mL vials, treated with one drop of ultra c oncentrated sulfuric acid and stored at 4C. Samples were either transferred to the UF IF AS Analytical Research Labora tory (ARL) or were sulfuric acid digested (Method 351.2 EPA 1993) and an alyzed using a Technicon Autoanalyzer by the UF Wetland Biogeochemistry Laboratory (WBL). Nitrate and nitrite. Samples were analyzed either at the ARL or WBL. Samples analyzed by ARL were immediat ely frozen and then transf erred for processing. Samples processed at WBL were filtered using a 0.45 m membrane filter a nd vacuum filtration apparatus and acidified with ultra concentr ated sulfuric acid within two hours of collection. Samples were stored at 4C un til analysis using an Alpkem rapid flow analyzer (Method 353.2 EPA 1983). Total nitrogen. Total nitrogen was determined by adding TKN and nitrate-nitrite values. Ammonium. Samples were analyzed either at the ARL or at the WBL. Samples analyzed by ARL were immediat ely frozen and then transf erred for processing. Samples processed at WBL were filtered using a 0.45 m membrane filter a nd vacuum filtration apparatus and acidified with ultra concentr ated sulfuric acid within two hours of collection. Samples were stored at 4C until analysis using a Technicon Autoanalyzer (Method 350.1 EPA 1993). Total phosphorus. Samples were transferred to 20 ml vials and acidified with ultra concentrated sulfuric acid. Samples were eith er analyzed stored at at the ARL or were stored at 4C until digested (Method 365.1 EPA 1993) and analyzed using a Technicon Autoanalyzer at the WBL.

PAGE 38

25 Soluble reactive phosphorus. Samples were analyzed eith er at the ARL or at the WBL. Samples analyzed by ARL were immedi ately frozen and then transferred for processing. Samples processed at the WBL we re filtered using a 0.45 m membrane filter and vacuum filtration apparatus and acidified w ith ultra concentrated sulfuric acid within two hours of collection. Samples were stored at 4C until analysis using a Technicon Autoanalyzer (Method 365.1 EPA 1993). Statistical Analysis The data for each parameter was presented in a graphic with site 10%, 25% 50% (median), 75% and 90% quartiles expre ssed as a box and whiskers plot. Each graph also has a dotted horizontal line indicating the average for all points. Statistical outliers were retained on the gra phic to show the full range in values of samples collected. Tables with the minimum, maximum, and mean for each site can be found in the Appendix C. Add itionally, monitoring data fr om Bivens Arm collected by Lakewatch, a statewide volunteer lake monitoring program, was provided as a comparison when presenting total ni trogen and total phosphorus data. Results and Discussion Temperature Temperatures ranged from 9.83C to 32.92C (Figure 2-3). Variations in temperature were likely due to the amount of shade covering and seasonal variation in 90 75 Median 25 10

PAGE 39

26 climate (Figure 2-4). For in stance, the Golf Course pond had no shade whereas the Medicinal Gardens sites had a significant tree canopy. There are no Class III standards for temperature. pH The pH ranged from 4.72 to 8.85 (Figure 2-5). This range exceeded the range set forth by Class III water quali ty standards of between 6 and 8.5. The majority of measurements, however, were within this ra nge. Samples that fell below pH of 6 were taken on 5 different sampling dates and could be a result of discharges into the creek. Conductivity Conductivity ranged from 6 to 999 S (Figure 2-6). The majority of data points, however were between 100 and 500 S (area be tween dashed lines), the range acceptable for aquatic wildlife in freshwater ecosystems (US EPA 1997). Two sites, the Hume Creek and the Golf Course Pond, showed higher rang es for conductivity than those found in the other sites on campus. High conductivity levels for Hume Creek could have been due to high nitrate levels that were identified (described later in the chapter). However, high nitrates were also found at the Medicina l Garden sites (both up and downstream) and these sites did not appear to have elevated conductivity levels. High levels at the Golf Course Pond, on the other hand, may have been due to increased ion concentrations in the reuse water being supplied by the campus wa ter reclamation facility for the pond. Both Hume Creek and the Golf Course pond had grea ter fluctuations of conductivity than other sites.

PAGE 40

27 Temperature (degrees Celsius) 10 15 20 25 30 35 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-3. Temperature by site. 10 15 20 25 30 35 Temperature (degrees Celsius) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Day Figure 2-4. Seasonal variation of temperature at all sites. Day 50 = February 19 Day 100 = April 10 Day 150 = May 30 Day 200 = July 19 Day 250 = September 7 Day 300 = October 27 Day 350 = December 16

PAGE 41

28 pH 5 6 7 8 9 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-5. Levels of pH by site. Conductivity (uS) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-6. Conductivity by site. High end of range for good freshwater fishery Low end of range for good freshwater fishery Class III standards

PAGE 42

29 Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved oxygen, as % saturation, range d from 0% to 182.8% (Figure 2-7). Dissolved oxygen, in mg/L, ranged from 0 mg /L to 14.38 mg/L (Figure 2-8). Class III standards require that disso lved oxygen levels remain at 5 mg/L or higher. While dissolved oxygen levels may fluctu ate over a 24-hour period, most samples were collected at approximately the same time of the day between 12:00 and 17:00. The variation of dissolved oxygen levels between sites could ha ve been due to a number of different factors. The Pony Field was one site which shows consistently low oxygen, possibly due to a high level of organic ma tter found in the water, whereas, the Golf Course Pond had higher daytime levels of oxygen which may have been due a high algal population. N-S Drive site, which had consis tently low dissolved oxygen levels, was downstream from the Brain Institute and NE B sites, which all had acceptable levels. Reasons for this change in dissolved oxygen within the tributary were unknown but could have been a result of discharges between th e NEB and N-S Drive sites or due to the flow of the creek through a wetland area which ma y have reduced the oxygen levels. The Shop Stormwater Pond samples water exiting a we tland system which naturally has lower dissolved oxygen levels than a stream system. Total Dissolved Solids Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) ranged from 0.01 to 0.623 mg/L (Figure 2-9) and was calculated from conductivity and temperatur e measurements by the YSI. There were no standards for total dissolved solids. The means for Hume Creek and the Golf Course Pond were greater than that for othe r sites, corresponding to the conductivity measurement.

PAGE 43

30 DO% 0 100 200 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-7. Dissolved oxygen percentage by site. DO mg/L 0 10 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-8: Dissolved oxygen in mg/L by site. Class III minimum 5 mg/L

PAGE 44

31 TDS (mg/L) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-9. Total dissolved solids by site. TSS (mg/L) 0 10 20 30 40 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-10. Total susp ended solids by site.

PAGE 45

32 Total Suspended Solids The range for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) was near 0.0 to 42.1 (Figure 2-10). There were no Class III standards for total su spended solids. Fluctu ations of suspended solids may have been due to a sampling event closely following a storm event not allowing heavier particulates to settle out. For example, the four highest TSS measurements (circled on graph) were all recorded during the same sampling event after a storm. Total Nitrogen The range of values for Total Nitrogen (TN) was 0.07 mg/L to 14.53 mg/L (Figure 2-11). There were no numeric Class III water quality standards for nitrogen. Three sampling sites consistently showed elevated TN values relative to the rest of campus. When compared to LAKEWATCH data for Bive ns Arm, all sites had comparable values with the exception of the Hume Creek a nd Medicinal Garden sites which had ranges above the highest concentrations found at Bivens Arm (Figure 2-12). The Baughman Center site, located within Lake Alice, show s consistently low levels of total nitrogen indicating a potential loss of nitrogen in the system, most pr obably within the Lake Alice marsh. Nitrate The range for nitrate was 0 mg/L to 11.5 mg/L (Figure 2-13). There were no numeric criteria for nitrate levels in Class II I waters. Nitrates comprised the majority of total nitrogen identified on campus. The Hume Creek and Medicinal Garden sites had consistently elevated nitrate values, correspond ing to their high total nitrogen values. In a few samples, the levels exceeded 10 mg/L (t he legal limit for Class I potable waters) which could result in toxic conditions for a quatic organisms (see dashed line on graph).

PAGE 46

33 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-11. Total nitrogen concentration by site. Figure 2-12. Florida LAKEWATCH data for tota l nitrogen concentrations of Bivens Arm (Florida LAKEWATCH 2003). Highest level recorded at Bivens Arm

PAGE 47

34 NO3+NO2 mg/L -1 1 3 5 7 9 11 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-13. Nitrate concentration by site. NH4 conc (mg/) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0 7 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-14. Ammonium concentration by site. Threshold of concern 0.5 mg/L (LEO and SERVIT Group 2002). Proposed maximum nitrate level for freshwater organisms 2 mg/L (Camargo 2005) Class I Drinking Water Standard 10 mg/L

PAGE 48

35 However, research has shown nitrate toxi city can occur at levels at or below 10 mg/L. A proposed nitrate level for a healthy freshwater ecosystem is 2 mg/L (Camargo 2005). The majority of sites on cam pus were below this level. Ammonium Ammonium ranged from 0.007 mg/L to 0.676 mg/L (Figure 2-14). There were no Class III standards for amm onium. Ammonium concentrat ions made up only a small fraction of the total nitrogen measured in sites sampled. In only two cases did the ammonium concentration exceed the level accep table for aquatic organisms of 0.5 mg/L (LEO 2000-2002). Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) ranged fr om below detection to 10.13 mg/L (Figure 2-15). There were no Class III standards for total Kjeldahl nitrogen. TKN represented the organic and ammonium nitrogen fraction in th e water column. Results were similar to that of ammonium, confirming that the major ity of total nitrogen was in the form of nitrate. Phosphorus The range of data for Total Phosphorus (TP) was 0.11 to 5.75 mg/L (Figure 2-16). There were no Class III standards for phos phorus. When comparing these values to LAKEWATCH data from Bivens Arm (Figure 2-17) the majority of samples on campus were higher (see dashed line at 0.5 mg/L on Figure 2-16). Phosphorus sources could have been natural or anthropogenic. A natural source of phosphorus may be from clay soils which are prevalent in the area. On the ot her hand, the Pony Field and Animal Science sites received runoff from animal pastures wi th animal waste, a likely contributing factor of phosphorus. The Golf Course Pond, 7th Fairway and Shop Stormwater Pond sites

PAGE 49

36 TKN (mg/L) -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-15. Total Kjeldahl nitr ogen (TKN) concentration by site. Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-16. Total phosphorus concentration by site. Maximum level recorded at Bivens Arm (LAKEWATCH 2003)

PAGE 50

37 Figure 2-17. LAKEWATCH data for Bivens Arm (Florida LAKEWATCH 2003) SRP (mg/L) 0 1 2 3 4 Brain Inst South Brain Inst North NEB N-S Drive Hume Creek Med Gard Up Med Gard Down Baughman Center Pony Field Animal Science Surge Area Golf Course Pond Golf View Creek 7th Fairway Shop Storm. PondSite Figure 2-18. Soluble reactive phospho rus (SRP) concentrations by site. Levels 0.005 mg/L and higher can maintain eutrophic conditions (Tippecanoe 2004)

PAGE 51

38 received runoff from the UF Bostick Golf Course which may be have contributed phosphorus through fertilizer applications or irrigation water. Golf View Creek may have received some golf course runoff, but also flowed through a residential area where fertilizer may have been used on lawns. Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) Distribution of soluble re active phosphours concentrati ons were between 0.093 and 4.028 mg/L (Figure 2-18). There were no Cl ass III standards for soluble reactive phosphorus. SRP is the most bioavailable form of phosphorus and, therefore, the most likely to cause a rapid biol ogical response. Levels hi gher than 0.005 mg/L may cause eutrophication (Tippecanoe 2004). All of the levels on campus, with the exception of the Surge Area, were higher than 0.005 mg/L indicating the potential for maintaining eutrophic conditions. The highest levels were found at the UF Bostick Golf Course sites (Golf Course Pond, Golf View Creek, 7th Fairway, and Shop Stormwater Pond). Conclusions This first set of campus-wide water quali ty data provided a valuable baseline by which to identify potential pollutant problems. Many of the parameters did not have Class III water quality standards by which to measure the data. In these cases, ranges that were most habitable to freshwater aquatic organi sms were identified and used as a benchmark by which to compare the data. Conductivit y, dissolved oxygen, nitrate and phosphorus revealed some areas of concern on the UF campus. Two sites, the Hume Creek and the Golf Course Pond, showed higher ranges for conductivity than those found in the other sites on cam pus. While high conductivity levels for Hume Creek could have been due to high nitrate levels, conductivity levels were not elevated at the Medicinal Garden sites where high nitrat e levels were also

PAGE 52

39 found. High levels at the Golf Course Pond c ould have been due to water supplied from the UF Water Reclamati on Facility for the pond. A number of sites had dissolved oxyge n levels below 5 mg/L, the Class III standard. Some of these low levels may ha ve been human-induced, while others may have been related to the type of ecosyst em the water body flows through. For instance, the Pony Field’s low oxygen levels were likely due to animal manure in the runoff, while the Shop Stormwater Pond was a wetland system which naturally has lower dissolved oxygen levels than a stream system. Low leve ls found at the N-S Drive site were less straightforward and may requi re further investigation. Total nitrogen data revealed that all but three sites ha d comparable values with Bivens Arm. The Hume Creek and Medicinal Garden sites had ranges above the highest concentrations found at Bivens Arm. The Baughman Center site which was located within Lake Alice showed consistently low le vels of total nitrogen indicating a potential loss of nitrogen in the system, most probably due to denitrification within the Lake Alice marsh. The data shows that the majority of nitrogen was in the nitrate form with concentrations reaching as high as 11.5 mg/L. Two creeks had elevated total nitrogen levels (Hume Creek and Fraternity Row Creek – Medicinal Gardens sites) when compared to other sites on campus. These cr eeks had nitrate levels which may be of concern to aquatic organisms. It is likely that the nitrates sour ces were anthropogenic such as fertilizer. Many of the creeks on campus had high phos phorus levels (up to 5.7 mg/L). The soils on the UF campus could have been a potential source of high phosphorus

PAGE 53

40 concentrations and could have been a cont ributing factor to eutrophic waters. The soil layers of the Alachua County area are plio-p leistoscene sands, the Hawthorne Formation (clay layer) and the Ocala limestone layer. Ga inesville lies at the point where the pliopleistoscene layer becomes very thin and the Hawthorne Formation is closer to the soil surface. This clay layer can contain phosphorus that may be released to the water as it moves through the soil. However, a few creek s showed elevated phos phorus levels that were most likely due to anthropogenic source s. The Pony Field and Animal Science sites received runoff from animal pastures and si tes on the UF Bostick Golf Course received runoff which may have had higher levels of fertilizer. In each of these cases, the implementation of best management practices may help lower phosphorus concentrations. Of all the parameters studied, the nitrat e data revealed range s of most critical concern to aquatic organisms. This source of nitrogen may be a contributing factor to eutrophic levels within Lake Alice. It may also, however, pose dangers to the creek ecosystems if not kept in check. Chapter 3 wi ll investigate the Hume Creek watershed in an effort to identify the sources of nitrat e and enable appropriate best management practices to be implemented.

PAGE 54

41 CHAPTER 3 NITRATE SOURCES IN HUME CREEK Introduction Nitrogen is necessary to maintaining lif e, however it can be toxic in excess amounts. Nitrate (NO3), a form of nitrogen found in fertilizers, wastewater, and agricultural runoff, can be washed off of surfaces with irrigation or rain or it can leach through the soil. Once it enters a waterway it can remain there for extended periods until taken up by plants or wildlife or be reduced to nitrogen gas under anoxic conditions. In karst sensitive areas, higher nitrate concen trations have been found in groundwater which is near agricultural areas (Neill 2004). Th is direct linkage between the surface and groundwaters is particularly preval ent in North Central Florida. In Florida, nitrate levels ha ve increased in natural spri ngs (waterways that emerge to the surface from underground aquifers) wh ich were once thought to be safe from surface water pollution. A U.S. Geological Su rvey study in the Silver Springs Basin, Florida showed a more than 100% increase in nitrate since the 1960’s with current concentrations at or above 1 mg/L. The ma ximum concentration measured was 12 mg/L, a level which exceeds the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L (Phelps 2004). Although no specific threshold of concer n for nitrate levels exist on campus, enriched nutrient levels in a water body can lead to excessive algal growth and an overall imbalance in the ecology of an ecosystem. Nitrate exposure has also been shown to cause abnormalities in amphibians at concen trations as low as 3 mg/L (Rouse 1999). One paper which reviewed published scientific literature on the impacts of nitrates on

PAGE 55

42 freshwater and marine animals found that long term exposure to nitrate concentrations of 10 mg NO3N/L could have toxic effects on freshwater invertebrates. Researchers concluded that to prevent nitrate toxicity in freshwater levels should not exceed 2.0 mg/L (Camargo 2005). The University of Florida has declared that all surface water bodies on campus are conservation areas. Keeping the nitrate level low is essential to maintaining a balanced ecosystem within Hume Creek. Campus-wid e water quality testing found two creeks have elevated total nitrogen levels (Hume Cr eek and Fraternity Row Creek). This chapter investigates the Hume Creek sub-watershed, as an effort to locate possible sources of nitrate. The goals of this investigation were to 1. Determine nitrate concentrations for all culverts draining into Hume Creek during storm events; 2. Identify culverts which have flow dur ing dry periods and determine nitrate concentrations for these flows; 3. Identify culverts with nitrate c oncentrations of concern; and 4. Examine the sub-watersheds of culverts with high nitrate concentrations to establish potential links with land-use. If the nitrate source can be identified, pr eventative and treatment measures can be taken that will reduce the nitrate loading to the ecosystem, thereby meeting the goals of the conservation areas. Methods Site Description of Hume Creek Hume Creek, unofficially named after Hu me Pond through which it flows, begins with two forks and terminates at Lake Alice (F igure 3-1). The eastern fork originates in a ravine to the west of Reitz Union in th e Reitz Ravine Woods. Seven culverts convey

PAGE 56

43 water to the creek in this wooded area (Figur e 3-3). The creek is deeply incised in areas where heavy flows exit the culverts. These in cised areas are through largely clay soils. The creek flow is slowed down through pooli ng, widening and meandering before it exits the ravine woods through a culvert under Museum and North-South Drives. When the creek exits the culvert, its banks have a few trees and some minimal vegetation with areas of mowed grass coming up to the edge of th e creek in some areas before joining the western fork. The drainage basin for the eas tern fork includes academic buildings, Reitz Union, the Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, and the Union Lawn. The western fork begins in Graham Woods to the south of Perry Field and Stadium Drive. Fifteen culverts convey water into th e western creek in thes e woods (Figure 3-2). Some areas of the creek have deeply incise d streambanks near the culverts. Like the eastern fork, periodic pooling and widening assi st in slowing the flow of water. The creek exits the woods through an underground culver t and empties into Graham Pond which often has maintained landscape edges with mowed grass and minimal vegetated buffers. The water leaving Graham Pond flows under Museum Drive and through a minimally buffered area where it joins the eastern creek. Once the two forks meet, the creek continues to the north of Parking Garage 5 (south of the Honors Residential College at Hume Hall), flows through Hume Pond, and termin ates at Lake Alice. The drainage basin for the western fork includes the O’Connell Cent er, residential halls, the football practice field, Perry Field and a parking lot and garage. The combined sub-watersheds of the two forks comprise the majority of the total Hume Creek watershed.

PAGE 57

44 Figure 3-1. Hume Creek and the eastern and we stern forks. The sub-watersheds of each fork are outlined in dotted and dashed lines. The storm storm sewer system is shows underground drainage culverts, ma nholes and storm drains. Inset boxes indicate the two wooded ar eas where culverts drain into the two forks of Hume Creek. Each boxed area is enlarged below with site numbers for each culvert (Figures 3-2 and 3-3). Hume Creek Western Fork Hume Creek Eastern Fork Hume Creek Forks Join Hume Pond O’Connell Center Ben Hill Griffin Stadium Florida Field Reitz Union Tolbert, Riker, Weaver Perry Field Football Practice Field Parking Lot and Garage Union Lawn Graham Pond StadiumDrive MuseumDrive

PAGE 58

45 Figure 3-2. Graham Woods sites. 35 36 37 38 39 34 33 41 27 28 32 29 30 31 40

PAGE 59

46 Figure 3-3. Reitz Ravine Woods sites. 42 43 45 44 48 46 49

PAGE 60

47 Water Sampling Two sampling experiments were conducted: a culvert storm sampling and a culvert dry weather sampling. Samples were measured for nitrate concentration. Flow data was not collected due to financia l constraints of the project. Culvert storm sampling To establish stormwater nitrate concentra tions for all culverts draining into Hume Creek, a culvert storm sampling device was desi gned to capture a random grab sample of water exiting each culvert during a storm event. All culverts were visited and diameter and material were documented (Table 3-1 and Figure 3-4). Two metal rods and a turnbuckle were inserted vertically into the culvert and tightened to maintain rigidity during a storm event (Figure 3-5). An acid wa shed 125-mL plastic bottle was attached to the bottom of the rod using zip ties. A small in flated balloon was inserted into the bottle to serve as a plug when the bottle filled up. The devices were tested during several storm events to ensure their stability and effectiv eness. Samples were co llected within 24 hours following the storm and, in most cases with in 2 hours following the storm. Three storm events were sampled. Water which settled on top of the balloon during the storm (and after the bottle had filled up) was suctioned off before the sample was processed. All of the devices were set up no more than 24 hours be fore a storm to prevent contamination of the containers. Rainfall depth was recorded by a weather station located on the roof of the University of Florida Physics Building at the intersection of No rth-South and Museum Drives. In some cases the rainfall did not re ach an intensity level to produce enough flow within a culvert to collect a sample.

PAGE 61

48 Site # Diameter (in) Fork Culvert Type 26 NA western fork exits Graham Woods stream 27 10 western terra cotta 28 8 western terra cotta 29 8 western terra cotta 30 15 western concrete 31 23.5 western concrete 32 8 western pvc 33 36 western concrete 34 24 western concrete 35 30 western concrete 36 24 western concrete 37 22 western corrugated metal 38 western box culvert 39 23 western concrete 40 18 western plastic lined; box 41 18 western concrete 42 18 eastern concrete 43 8 eastern terra cotta 44 42 eastern concrete 45 48 eastern concrete 46 18 eastern concrete 47 eastern fork exits Reitz Ravine Woods stream 48 10 eastern corrugated metal 49 6 eastern metal E NA eastern fork of the stream NA W NA western fork of the stream NA E+W NA after the forks join NA Table 3-1. Site identification numbers a nd descriptions for culverts sampled.

PAGE 62

49 Figure 3-4. Example of a culvert (site 35) with deeply incised creek walls. Figure 3-5. Example of stormwater samp ling device installed in a culvert.

PAGE 63

50 Culvert dry weather sampling The dry weather sampling experiment was designed to identify the concentrations of nitrate exiting culverts during dry, or non-storm event, conditions. Samples were collected from all culverts which had a flow af ter at least 4 days without rain. Additional samples were collected at the eastern and we stern forks and after th e two forks joined. Samples were collected by hand in acid wash ed 50-mL plastic bottles, processed within two hours, and stored at 4 oC until analysis. Nitrate analysis Water samples were filtered using a 0.45 m membrane filter and vacuum filtration set-up. The filtered sample was acidifi ed with ultra concentrated sulfuric acid and stored at 4 oC. Samples were analyzed using an Alpkem Rapid Flow Analyzer within thirty days of collection. Results and Discussion Culvert Storm Sampling Storm events were sampled on 6/3/05, 6/22/05 and 7/14/05 with rainfall of 0.31 inches, 0.11 inches and 0.18 inches respect ively. Most of the samples (69.3%) had negligible (< 1 mg/L) concentrations of nitrate and 83.6% of the samples had concentrations below 1.5 mg/L (Figure 3-6). Site 35, however, exhibited consistently high nitrate concentrations th rough all three storms with concentrations ranging from 7.58 mg/L to 38.6 mg/L. Site 36 had one sampling event with a higher nitrate concentration of 7.02 mg/L. Sites 44 and 45 show ed slightly elevated nitrate levels as compared to other culverts in the watershed. Since the sampling device collected a random grab sample during the storm event, it was impossible to tell when exactly during the storm the bottle filled up. Therefore, it

PAGE 64

51 was difficult to know how the nitrate concentra tions varied at each site during the storm. An automated sampling device would provide more detailed information in future studies. Site 26 was located in the creek (not a cu lvert) at the location where the western fork exited Graham Woods and enters an underground culvert before reaching Graham Pond. Nitrate concentrations at the locati on where the western fork exited Graham Woods (site 26) appeared to be elevated above the majority of the culverts in the western fork. The concentrations, however, were lower than that of site 35 which could indicate dilution of concentrations from site 35 or denitrification occurring in the ravine. Culvert Storm Sampling(6/3/05, 6/22/05, 7/14/05) 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00262728293132333435363940424344454647Site #Nitrate mg/L Figure 3-6. Cumulative Nitrate c oncentrations in culverts during three storm events. Site 26 samples the creek where it exited Graham Woods. Site 47 sampled the creek where it exited Reitz Ravine Woods. Western Fork Eastern Fork

PAGE 65

52 Culvert Dry Weather Sampling During each of the three dry flow sampling events, water discharged from four sites (33, 35, 44, and 45). Additionally, discharge was also found from site 27 during two sampling events. The remainder of the site s had no flow during any of the sampling events. Culvert concentrations were highest at site 35 (ranging from 4.63 mg/L to 9.62 mg/L) (Figure 3-7). This was the same culvert that had the highest ni trate concentrations during storm events, however the concentratio ns found during dry events were generally lower than the concentrations found during st orm events (Figure 3-8). Higher storm event concentrations could be a result of fertiliz er runoff from the athletic fields during the storm. Dry Flow Sampling(9/16/05, 9/26/05, 9/30/05) 0 2 4 6 8 10 122733354445SiteNitrate (mg/L) Figure 3-7. Nitrate concentration for cu lverts with dry weather flows.

PAGE 66

53 Comparison of Average Nitrate Concentrations Storm Event vs. Base Flow0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2733354445 SiteNitrate Concentration (mg/L) Dry Storm Figure 3-8. Comparison of average nitrate conc entrations between dry flow events and storm events. Sites 44 and 45 both had higher nitrate concen trations during dry flow periods than during storm events, probably due to dilution from additional rainwater in the system (Figure 3-8). While nitrate c oncentrations at sites 44 and 45 were lower than those found at site 35, they were higher than the 2 mg /L cited by researchers as a recommended level for healthy aquatic systems (Camargo 2005). Land Use Stormdrain system maps were obtained fr om the University of Florida Physical Plant. These maps provided detailed informa tion as to where water entered the storm sewer system before exiting a particular culvert. Sites 35, 44 and 45 all received a portion of their runoff fr om fertilized athletic fields. Site 35 appeared to be the primary drainage for Pe rry Field and Sanders Football Practice Fields which both have an under drain system to drain the fi elds in times of high

PAGE 67

54 rainfall or irrigation (Figure 3-9). Site 35 ma y have had elevated nitrate concentrations during a storm event (as compared to dry flow events) because of fertilizer runoff from the athletic fields and the absence of non-field runoff to dilute the concentration. Site 44 drained a large area of campus to the north of the Reitz Ravine Woods including many academic buildings as well as the Ben Hill Griffin Stadium and Florida Field which has an under drain system (Fi gure 3-10). Site 45 appeared to provide drainage for some buildings, but also seemed to provide additional drainage for Site 44’s subwatershed (Figure 3-11). It appeared that the source of high nitrat e concentrations for site 35 was from athletic fields. However, si te 44 also received runoff from an athletic field, but the overall sub-watershed was much gr eater. Therefore, it is possible that site 44 was receiving high nitrate c oncentrations from the Florid a Field, but they were being diluted with additional water sources fr om throughout the sub-watershed. Further investigation could include sampling runoff directly at Florida Field. Further Research The goal of the Hume Creek watershed i nvestigation was to provide preliminary data as to potential nitrate sources within the watershed and a picture of how overall nitrate concentrations varied between dry and wet periods. The results from the study yielded interesting data that supports th e implementation of one or more best management practices within the watershe d. Further research on the watershed would assist in determining which BMP(s) would be most appropriate. In particular, calculations of loads from all culverts both during dry and wet periods would be valuable. For instance, if the volume of water from the high nitrate site 35 were relatively low compared to other culverts, th e diversion of this water may not decrease the overall creek volume appreciably. From observations, it appears that site 44 had a

PAGE 68

55 Figure 3-9. Sub-watershed for site 35. Sh aded box indicates the area of the subwatershed. The lines with dots indicate the portion of the storm drainage system that contributes to this watershed. 35

PAGE 69

56 Figure 3-10. Sub-watershed for site 44. Sh aded box indicates the area of the subwatershed. The lines with dots indicate the portion of the storm drainage system that contributes to this watershed. 44

PAGE 70

57 Figure 3-11. Sub-watershed of site 45. Shaded box with solid lines i ndicates the area of the sub-watershed. The larger shaded box with dashed lines indicates the subwatershed of site 44 which is also a c ontributor to site 45. The small circles indicate two areas where water may be directed from site 44’s sub-watershed to site 45. 45

PAGE 71

58 constant and relatively large flow, both duri ng dry and storm events. This was probably due to the large sub-watershed that conveyed wa ter to site 44. It is likely, however, that the nitrates were from a single source within the sub-watershed, name ly the Florida Field at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, and that this source may have discharged much higher nitrate concentrations which were being d iluted by the rest of the sub-watershed. Sampling at the culverts which dr ain directly from the field w ould yield data to test this hypothesis. Flow sampling direc tly at the field would also provide an estimate of how much water flowing out of site 44 was from th e field verses the rest of the sub-watershed and whether diverting this flow for re-u se or treatment w ould be feasible. If the university selects a BMP for implem entation, it would be important to collect pre-implementation water quality and quantity data as well as post-implementation data. Additionally, Hume Creek with BMPs could be compared to Fraternity Row Creek as a "control" that currently has simila rly high nitrate values and no BMPs. Conclusions This study revealed that the majority of th e nitrate was coming from three culverts, sites 35, 44 and 45. Nitrate concentr ations found exiting site 35 we re at levels that may be toxic to some aquatic organisms. This culv ert received the majority of its water from athletic field drainage areas. It was likely that fertilizing prac tices on athletic fields were a primary contributing source of nitrates. Ni trate concentrations from sites 44 and 45 were lower, but this may have been due to dilution occurring within the underground drainage system. Nitrate concentrations of wa ter exiting the culverts, particularly during dry periods, were higher than 2 mg/L, a r ecommended level for sensitive freshwater organisms.

PAGE 72

59 While additional sampling would be helpful in determining loads and seasonality of the nitrate concentrations, this scientific data provided information that will be helpful in addressing the high nitrate concentrations thr ough management decisions that include the implementation of best management practi ces. The next chapter proposes policy and management recommendations for improving wa ter quality in the Lake Alice watershed as well as best management practices that could directly address the high nitrate concentrations.

PAGE 73

60 CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPING AN INTERNAL TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD PROGRAM Introduction The Lake Alice watershed is currently a Class III water body, a stormwater management system, and a university-desi gnated conservation area. Each of these designations has potentially c onflicting goals in terms of policy and management. For instance, Class III waters must be mon itored, while UF's permit for a stormwater management system (including Lake Alice) specifically exempts the university from conducting regular monitoring. Current water quality data indicates th at some locations in the Lake Alice watershed fail to meet Class III numeric sta ndards such as dissolved oxygen. The greatest issue of concern, however, is nitrate, a nutri ent that does not have a numeric standard. Legally, Lake Alice is current ly not considered an impair ed water body and, therefore, there are not limits on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Histor ical and current water qual ity data, however, indicate these nutrient concentrations are higher at Lake Alice than in comparable water bodies and they are a major contributing factor to eutrophic conditions. To improve water quality would require th e university to make a clear commitment to sustainable water management. One mechan ism for achieving this is to develop an internal goal for nitrate levels on campus us ing the framework of the federally mandated TMDL program. There are a number of other universities that have developed innovative

PAGE 74

61 methods for ensuring a high standard of wate r quality, and key examples these programs are discussed below. TMDL Framework A Total Maximum Daily Load is “a cal culation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the polluta nt's sources” (US EPA 2005d). The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (D EP) has developed a five-step strategy for implementing TMDLs throughout the state: 1. Preliminary basin assessment focusi ng on existing data; 2. Strategic water quality monitoring to obtain additional detail ed scientific evidence of water quality conditions; 3. Data analysis and TM DL development and adoption; 4. Development of a Basin Management Ac tion Plan, in conjunction with local stakeholders, to allocate, among the local sources of pollution, reductions necessary to meet the TMDL; and 5. Implementation of the TMDL. (Florida DEP 2005c) The first two steps have been achieved largely through this study, and the Campus Water Quality monitoring program. The next st eps for UF are to adopt an internal TMDL and develop a Basin Management Ac tion Plan to achieve the TMDL. To accomplish these next steps in the TMDL process, and as already recommended internally by the Conserva tion Committee (UF Conservation 2005b), UF should follow Class III water quality standard s for all surface water bodies on campus including Lake Alice, ponds and creeks. Re gular water quality monitoring and wildlife sampling should be conducted in key locations throughout campus to ensure the maintenance of Class III standards. The fre quency of monitoring should be, at minimum, quarterly in order to identify seasonal varia tions. If Class III standards are not met, the university should develop an internal TMDL to address the issue.

PAGE 75

62 In some cases, Class III standards may not be stringent enough to ensure the water is safe for recreation and the propagation a nd maintenance of a h ealthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. For example, nutrients, such as nitrogen, do not have a numeric limits but should be limited so as to not “cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna” (FAC 7). One potential challenge with narrative criteria is that there is only emerging scie ntific knowledge about th e potential impacts of some chemicals on wildlife and an “imbalan ce” may be difficult to prove unless it is specifically being studied. For instance, high levels of nutri ents like nitrogen can cause algae blooms and eutrophication. One mech anism for ensuring waterbodies remain healthy is to create internal goals for vol ume, rate and pollutant loads and regularly monitor the water to ensure an imbalance does not occur. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) made the following commitments in the stormwater component of their development plan: “No increase in the volume of runo ff leaving main campus for all future development projects. No increase in the rate of runoff or the quantity of non-point source pollutants as a result of new deve lopment. An overall decrease in the volume of stormwater runoff, the rate of runoff, and the amount of non-point source pollutants leaving campus as co mpared to existing conditions” (UNC Development Plan 2005). The policy of no net increase is a major institutional commitment that requires extensive modeling and vigilance in post de velopment monitoring. To achieve this, UNC used GIS and a USDA Soil Conservation Serv ice “Cover Complex Me thod” to predict how future development will impact the vol ume of runoff. UNC will implement the no net increase policy at each indivi dual basin rather than the campus as a whole. Each new development project will include stormwater management technologies when possible or mitigation within the basin itself. Additionally, UNC committed to monitoring outfall

PAGE 76

63 locations for flow and water quality as well as a semi-annual benthic invertebrate sampling along a campus creek ( UNC Development Plan 2005). The University of Florida currently does not have a no net increase policy for volume, rate and pollutant load for any of its watersheds. In the case of the Lake Alice and Depressional Basin watersheds, there is no outfall to a water source off the university property. However, there are waters that feed into the Hogtown and Bivens Arm watersheds off campus (UF 2000). UF does not conduct modeling to a ssess pollutant load implications for current or future development. The University of Florida should adopt a pol icy of no net increase in volume, rate or pollutant load for all campus watersheds. In order to enforce this policy, the University should develop a monitoring program which m onitors flows at outlet points and water quality throughout campus. Included within this policy should be a goal for all waters not to exceed nitrate concentrations of 2 mg/L the level recommended in one scientific review of nitrate impacts on wildlife (Camargo 2005). The Un iversity of Florida should also develop a model for all surface waters on campus to predict how the volume, rate and pollutant loads may change with increased development. To achieve an internal TMDL, UF shoul d develop a Basin Area Management Plan. This plan would include water quality monito ring and modeling, a management structure, a set of best management practices, a re search program and a financing plan. Monitoring and Modeling Regular water quality monitoring should be continued throughout campus and at identified “hot spots” for potential polluta nts. Modeling of pollutant loads should be conducted throughout campus as well as at ke y locations where point source pollutants have been identified such as site 35.

PAGE 77

64 Management The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has a Stormwater Committee including representatives from Directors of R eal Estate, Facilities Planning and Design, Transportation, Facilities Operations, Water Quality Group, the University Architect, and extension. The committee is given training specific to the design and use of BMPs. There is also a Water, Stormwater and Wastewater Manager who is in char ge of overseeing all matters related to waters (UNC Sustainability Coalition 2005). The University of Florida should deve lop a Stormwater Advisory Committee composed of representatives from the P hysical Plant, the Office of Planning, the University Athletic Association, IFAS, Cu stodial Staff, Office of the President, Landscaping Division, faculty from the la ndscape architecture, environmental engineering, soil and water sciences, School of Natural Resources and Environment, and wildlife, and student representatives from the UF Wetlands Club, the American Water Resources Association, and the Environm ental Action Group. The Committee would meet at least once a year to set campus-wide priorities re garding stormwater issues on campus. The Committee would hire and advise the Water, Stormwater and Wastewater Manager. The Committee could be a subcommittee of the Lakes, Vegetation and Landscape Committee or it could be integrated into the newly developed Office of Sustainability. The University should create a full-tim e Water, Stormwater and Wastewater manager position that oversees all water rela ted issues on the UF Campus. The manager would develop a formalized mechanism for in spections, illicit disc harges and monitoring. The manager would provide accountability a nd reporting for all programs related to the NPDES permit as well as compliance with ot her federal, state and local regulations

PAGE 78

65 regarding water. The manager would also be responsible for working with the Stormwater Advisory Committee (see below) to implement best management practices and provide educational outreach. Best Management Practices There are two types of BMPs: behavioral and structural. Behavi oral BMPs require a behavioral change on the part of indivi duals. For instance, a janitor who empties wastewater into a storm drai n can change their behavior and improve water quality. Structural BMPs require a physical structur e which can assist in controlling water quantity and/or water quality. In some cases, multiple BMPs can be implemented for maximum effectiveness to create a “treatment train”. Scientific data on the success of BMPs is limited, but growing. Comparing the e ffectiveness of different BMPs has proven challenging because of the variety of re search methods and designs utilized. Nevertheless, BMPs, if designed and maintain ed correctly, are considered by the federal government to be reliable mechanisms for treating stormwater. BMP implementation on the campus should, when possible, address water quality concerns that have been identified, such as nitrate in Hume Creek. Mechanisms for removing nitrate from the water can include de nitrification in anoxic environments, plant assimilation, leaching to groundwater, a nd volatilization (Poe 2003). Wetlands and floodplains and riparian forest s can act as valuable sinks for nitrate (Tockner 1999). In the case of Hume Creek, the likely nitr ate source is fertilizer being applied to athletic fields managed by the University At hletic Association. Th ere are a number of best management practices that could be implemented to either reduce the inputs of nitrate or to treat the nitrat e once it has entered the creek.

PAGE 79

66 Nutrient management Currently there are no formal policies w ith regard to the rate of fertilizer applications on fields maintained by the Univ ersity Athletic Association (Scott Roberts, personal communication, September 23, 2005). The University Athletic Association and the Physical Plant (where app licable) can alter its turf mana gement practices to include more sustainable nutrient management pr actices. For instance, limiting fertilizer applications when soil moisture is high or when rainfall is expected would reduce runoff (Shuman 2002). Research has shown that leach ing and runoff of nitrate is higher from newly seeded turfgrass than from establis hed turfgrass (Easton and Petrovic 2004). By reducing fertilizer applications for a peri od of time after seeding fields, nitrate concentrations may be reduced. The Conservation Area Study Committee has taken steps to ensure this best management practice is implemented in the future. The following policy and recommendations were adopted on Se ptember 1, 2005 for inclusion in the Comprehensive Campus Master Plan 2005-2015: Policy 3.2: The University shall continue to mitigate University generated stormwater and to minimize stormwater borne pollutants through implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that includes, but is not limited to: …• Using slow release fert ilizers and/or carefully mana ged fertilizer applications timed to ensure maximum root uptake and minimal surface water runoff or leaching to groundwater… …• Incorporating features into the design of fertilizer and pesticide storage, mixing and loading areas that are designed to prevent/minimize spillage (UF Conservation 2005b). Re-use of the water Since nitrate is a component of fertilizers, it may be possible to re-use the nitrate laden water that is draining from the athletic fields for subs equent irrigation of those or

PAGE 80

67 other fields. This would require a facility that could store the water, possibly transport the water and re-use it when necessary. By re -using the water for irrigation, the amount of additional fertilizer coul d be potentially reduced. Pretreatment The water that discharges through sites 35, 44 and 45 could be diverted and pretreated prior to entry into Hume Creek. On e possible mechanism for pre-treatment would be a bioretention facility such as that found next to the soccer and softball fields near the intersection of Museum and Hull Roads. Wetland retention area in Graham Woods Water that enters Graham Woods and Reitz Ravine Woods could be treated partially via a wetland retention area in the woods itself. Small dams or weirs could be installed near the outlets of sites 35, 44 and 45 which would slow water down and provide temporary storage and treatment. One study indicated that denitrification rates increase by 400% following rainfall and increas ed inorganic nitrogen loading (Poe 2003). It may, therefore, be important to devel op mechanisms by which the wooded areas can retain a larger volume of water during periods when nitrogen loading is expected to be highest. This would require coordination with the University Athletic Association and the Physical Plant staff who apply fertilizers. Vegetated buffers Vegetative buffers have often been used as a mechanism for nitrate removal in agricultural areas. In the case of Hume Creek, the forested buffer provides some treatment as the culvert waters flow towa rds the main creek and can also provide treatment for the creek as it rises into the wooded floodplain during heavy rains. The Alachua County Comprehensive Plan 2001-2020 requires a minimum 35 foot buffer (50

PAGE 81

68 foot average) around surface waters that are less than 0.5 acres and a minimum 50 foot buffer (75 foot average) around waters grea ter than 0.5 acres. Pr eserving and possibly increasing the buffered area to these recomm ended widths could assist in nitrate reduction. While plant assimilation of nitrogen is a dvantageous to nitrogen removal, the nitrogen may be re-mobilized in the envir onment when the plant decays. Therefore, denitrification is a preferred mechanism for removing nitrate. Denitrification could be maximized by planting species which are part icularly efficient at denitrification (Matheson 2002). Denitrification in floodplain soils Research has shown that nitrate concen trations can be redu ced by applying the contaminated water to the floodplain soils The infiltration of water through the sediments results in denitrifcation in the anoxi c soil layers with sufficient organic matter (Chung 2004 and Tockner 1999 and Almendinger 1999). Diversion of high nitrate concentration waters from the storm drain culvert system to a spray application on floodplain soils may provide a mechanism by wh ich the waters can be treated as they filter through the soils and, eventu ally, into the creek system. Additional BMPs that are not specific to nitrate reduction incl ude monitoring flows into the groundwater wells and revising the UF Development Guidelines. Groundwater well monitoring Groundwater well R-1 should be raised su ch that it receives water only during extreme high water conditions (like R-2). A ga uge to monitor flows into the two wells should be installed as soon as possible in order to meet the requirements of the 2000

PAGE 82

69 Master Stormwater Permit. Water entering into either R-1 or R-2 should be monitored for water quality to prevent cont amination of groundwater. The Conservation Area Study Committee ackno wledged the need to monitor these wells in September 2005 through the adoption of the following policy: Policy 1.5: The University shall ab ide by all requirements and conditions of the current Master Stormwater Permit by the SJRWMD and shall seek renewal of the permit in 2010. Those conditions include repor ting water levels in monitoring wells quarterly and submission of groundwater a nd surface water monitoring tests to the water management district (UF Conservation 2005b). Development guidelines On many university campuses, there are guidelines which dictate the process for designing and approving any new development pr oject, particularly those which increase the percentage of impervious surface. Nort h Carolina State University’s (NC State) Stormwater Guidelines for New Developm ent are specific about not only creating adequate opportunities for dete ntion of stormwater, but also about reducing the amount of nitrogen that enters the stor mwater system. The guidelines are in direct response to regulations outlined in the Wayne County St ormwater Ordinance, Article 300, Section 301 (E) which limit the amount of nitrogen that can be exported from a new development. NC State addresses this requirement by providing a mechanism for calculating the projected nitrogen load s for a new development and recommending specific BMPs which can reduce nitrogen loading (NC State 2005). Additionally, NC State has made a concerted effort to mon itor BMPs they have implemented both on and off campus to assess their effectiveness a nd appropriateness for various water quality concerns. Cleveland State University’s Campus Master Plan has guidelines for new development which include vegetative roofs, water conservation, the use of native plants

PAGE 83

70 and low maintenance plants, reduction of fertilizer usage, permeable paved surfaces for parking, rainwater harvesting, and green spaces which can store and filter stormwater (Cleveland 2005). The University of Florida’s Design and Construction Standards currently includes policies for the minimum stormwater contro l measures as required under the NPDES permit. These policies do not, however, include limits to the nutrient loading from new developments, nor do they include design gui delines for more innovative stormwater management strategies such as rainwate r harvesting, porous pavement, and vegetative roofs (UF Conservation 2005a). In September 2005, the Conservation Study Area Committee approved the following policies for inclusion in the UF Comprehensive Campus Master Plan 20052015: Object[sic] 4: The University shall impleme nt sustainable stormwater practices in all campus site development incorporating Low Impact Development techniques where physically, economically, and practically possible. Policy 4.1: The University shall strive to incorporate stormwater improvements into all new building sites and into modificati on of existing sites. These improvements include, but are not limited to, rain ga rdens, roof-top gardens, porous soil amendments, hardscape storage, perv ious pavement and other innovative stormwater techniques. Policy 4.2: The University shall identify opportunities for retr ofitting existing open space (i.e. land use classifications of Bu ffer, Urban Park and Conservation) to incorporate rain gardens and other multi-use detention practices that maintain the primary use, but with the added benefit of slowing water discharges into the stormwater system. Examples include: lowe red flower beds (i.e instead of raised beds), curb openings (i.e. brick and other hardscape re moval in edging and seat wall footings) that allow water to enter vegetated areas, use of lawn areas for incorporating slight depressi ons that retain rainfall, and elevating storm drains where water detention is acceptable so that they are not at the lowest elevation (UF Conservation 2005b).

PAGE 84

71 This policy, if approved in the final Cam pus Master Plan, would set forth more stringent and innovative po licies for development on campus. This policy should be expanded into a standard set of best management practices th at architects and engineers are required to work from. Whenever possi ble, the implemented practice should be coordinated with researcher s who can monitor the effec tiveness of the BMP before, during and after implementation. Stormwater Research A number of universities have developed mechanisms to integrate research with stormwater management on their campuses. The Villanova University Stormwater BMP Park is one example of how BMPs are bei ng actively researched by students and faculty. Villanova developed the Urban Stormwater Partnershp to foster public, private and academic partnerships in researching stormw ater BMPs. In the last two years, five student research projects or theses have been completed related to BMP effectiveness and numerous faculty tours or pr esentations have been made related to BMPs (Villanova 2005). Another example is Ohio State Univer sity where a collaborative group called CampUShed, composed of students, faculty a nd staff, integrates research, education and hands-on environmental solutions. Their goals are to foster the implementation of scientifically-based environmental solutions on campus, encourage faculty to integrate on-campus projects in their courses, and provi de an information clearinghouse of events and activities. Many of the projects Camp UShed has worked on include stormwater management practices such as a bioretenti on area and constructe d wetlands (Ohio 2005). In September 2005, the Conservation Area Study Committee approved the following policies for inclusi on in the Comprehensive Camp us Master Plan 2005-2015:

PAGE 85

72 Objective 5: The University shall keep facu lty, staff, students and visitors informed on stormwater issues through outre ach and demonstration projects. Policy 5.1: The University shall strive wh ere practicable to include interpretive information and educationa l opportunities that go along with the University’s efforts to integrate innovative structur al stormwater design and BMP concepts. Policy 5.2: The University shall mainta in financial and personnel support of stormwater related education and awar eness programs for the campus community. Policy 5.3: The University shall pursue grants and other opp ortunities to fund implementation, outreach and study of stor mwater best management practices on campus (UF Conservation 2005b). If approved in the final Campus Master Plan, these policies will set forth a firm commitment to stormwater research on the UF campus. In the past, water quality data collected in Lake Alice and student research papers on campus waters was kept in disparate locations (such as professor’s o ffices), often only located through word of mouth. In order to ensure research effo rts are synchronized and complementary, UF should develop a centralized mechanism by which to support, recognize and record research activities related to water and stor mwater on the campus such as the UF Clean Water Campaign website or the Office of Sustainability. Financing Many municipalities have implemented stormw ater utility fees to help defray the costs of building, operating and maintain ing stormwater management systems. "Stormwater utility" is defined as the “f unding of a stormwater management program by assessing the cost of the progr am to the beneficiaries based on their relative contribution to its need. It is operated as a typical utility which bills services regularly, similar to water and wastewater services” (Florida Statute 1). These fees are based upon “an equitable unit cost approach”. In Gainesville, pr operty users are assessed a fee based on the

PAGE 86

73 estimated area of their building (impervious surface). The fees are applied to those individuals who are using the property and receive the services of the municipality. The University operates autonomously from the City of Gainesville and provides services to its users and residents just as a city would. Student enrollment has steadily increased over time and now includes 49,650 students (UF Factbook 2005). The more than 1,800 acre campus provides services and amenities to the surrounding Gainesville community such as the Shands medical facil ity, Ben Griffin Stadium, the Harn Museum, and the Phillips Center for the Perfor ming Arts. In 2002-2003, an estimated 1.8 million people visited UF for an ev ent (UF 2005a). In 2003, 37,631 parking decals were sold with revenues of $4.5 mill ion (UF Office of Audit and Compliance Review 2004). UF should implement a stormwater utility fee for users of the campus property. The primary mechanism by which users of the cam pus may contribute to stormwater pollution is by driving and parking on the campus. Therefor e, in order to create an equitable cost approach, it is recommended that a stormwater utility fee be assessed according to the usage of roads and parking spaces on campus. A stormwater utility fee may be assessed in one of three ways (or a combination of the following): a fee added to the cost of a parking decal; a fee added to the admission price of an event on campus in which users are parking and driving on campus; and a fee added to visitor parking tokens. Revenues generated may be used for the management, operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system on campus including the installation of new BMPs.

PAGE 87

74 Conclusion The Lake Alice watershed currently has multiple designations with potentially conflicting goals in terms of policy and manage ment of UF water bodies. In order to meet the goals of each of the regulatory designati ons and improve water quality, the university must adopt a comprehensive strategy for sustainable water management. In September 2005, the Conservation Ar ea Study Committee adopted some bold new policies for inclusion in the Comp rehensive Campus Master Plan 2005-2015 including meeting Class III water quality stan dards for Lake Alice and its contributing waterways, monitoring the groundwater wells in Lake Alice, incorporating best management practices into new developm ent and supporting research and education efforts around stormwater. However, the polic ies fall short of setting numeric limits to volume, rate and pollutant loads on campus. The policies also do not outline a monitoring plan nor a clear management structure. Last ly, there is no formalized mechanism within the proposed policies to link sc ientific investigat ion with the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). The scientific data gathered through this study enables the university to potentially address a long-standing problem of high nitrogen concentrations through targeted BMP implementation. The federal Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program provides a useful framework by which the university can develop internal goals for po llutant loads and a Basin Area Management Plan to achieve these goals. Through the TMDL program framework, the University of Florida can de fine clear numeric targets for water quality criteria, in particular nitrate. Be linking scie ntific investigation with policy, the University of Florida can attain a sustainable wate r management program that achieves a high standard of water quality and meets all of its regulatory designations

PAGE 88

75 APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING REGULATORY STATUS OF LAKE ALICE AND ITS WATERSHED 1. Robert F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, to Stallings Howell, December 31, 1979. 2. R. F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, to Stallings Howell, February 6, 1980. 3. Nell Keever, U.S. EPA, to Univer sity of Florida, March 20, 1980. 4. John C. Lank, U.S. EPA, to W. T. Michael, University of Florida, April 4, 1980. 5. Chronology, University of Florida, May 1, 1980. 6. Meeting Minutes, University of Florida, May 5, 1980. 7. W.T. Michael, University of Florida, to R.F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, July 17, 1980. 8. Bram Canter, State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Interoffice Memorandum to Frank Watkins, January 4, 1984. 9. Richard Hamann, University of Florida, to the Water Management Advisory Committee, May 7, 1984. 10. Robert D. Cremer, Jr., University of Florida, to Mr. McGarry, August 10, 1984. 11. Peter T. McGarry, U.S. EPA, to Robert Cremer, University of Florida, August 23, 1984. 12. Robert J. Epting, St. Johns Water Mana gement District, to Charles Hogan, University of Florida, June 10, 1994. 13. Jeremy Tyler, Florida Department of E nvironmental Protection, to Robert Epting, St. Johns River Water Management District, June 13, 1994. 14. Charles Hogan, University of Florida, to Tim Sagul and Barbara Hatchitt, St. Johns River Water Management District, January 16, 1998. 15. Lisa M. Grant, St. Johns River Water Management District, to Charles Hogan, University of Florida, February 20, 1998. 16. R.W. Cantrell, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to Chuck Hogan, University of Florida, 1998.

PAGE 89

76 17. Robert H. Pritchard, University of Florida, to Teresa B. Tinker, State of Florida, Growth Management and Strategic Planning Policy Unit, March 19, 1998 18. Charles Hogan, University of Florida, October 6, 2005 19. Charles Fender, University of Florida, October 6, 2005. 20. J. Blair, University of Florida, October 6, 2005.

PAGE 90

77 1. Robert F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, to Stallings Howell, December 31, 1979.

PAGE 91

78 2. R. F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, to Stallings Howell, February 6, 1980.

PAGE 92

79 3. Nell Keever, U.S. EPA, to Univ ersity of Florida, March 20, 1980.

PAGE 93

80 4. John C. Lank, U.S. EPA, to W. T. Mich ael, University of Florida, April 4, 1980.

PAGE 94

81 5. Chronology, University of Florida, May 1, 1980

PAGE 95

82 6. Meeting Minutes, University of Fl orida, May 5, 1980 (second page missing).

PAGE 96

83 7. W.T. Michael, University of Florida, to R.F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, July 17, 1980.

PAGE 97

84 8. Bram Canter, State of Flor ida Department of Environmental Regulation, Interoffice Memorandum to Frank Watkins, Janua ry 4, 1984 (continued on next page).

PAGE 98

85 8. Bram Canter, State of Flor ida Department of Environmental Regulation, Interoffice Memorandum to Frank Watkins, January 4, 1984 (continued from previous page).

PAGE 99

86 9. Richard Hamann, University of Florida, to the Water Management Advisory Committee, May 7, 1984.

PAGE 100

87 10. Robert D. Cremer, Jr., University of Florida, to Mr. McGarry, August 10, 1984.

PAGE 101

88 11. Peter T. McGarry, U.S. EPA, to Robert Cremer, University of Florida, August 23, 1984.

PAGE 102

89 12. Robert J. Epting, St. Johns Water Manageme nt District, to Charles Hogan, University of Florida, June 10, 1994.

PAGE 103

90 13. Jeremy Tyler, Florida Department of Envi ronmental Protection, to Robert Epting, St. Johns River Water Manageme nt District, June 13, 1994.

PAGE 104

91 14. Charles Hogan, University of Florida, to Tim Sagul and Barbara Hatchitt, St. Johns River Water Management District, January 16, 1998.

PAGE 105

92 15. Lisa M. Grant, St. Johns River Water Management District, to Charles Hogan, University of Florida, February 20, 1998.

PAGE 106

93 16. R.W. Cantrell, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to Chuck Hogan, University of Florida, March 19, 1998.

PAGE 107

94 17. Robert H. Pritchard, Universi ty of Florida, to Teresa B. Tinker, State of Florida, Growth Management and Strategic Planni ng Policy Unit, March 19, 1998 (continued on next page).

PAGE 108

95 17. Robert H. Pritchard, Universi ty of Florida, to Teresa B. Tinker, State of Florida, Growth Management and Strategic Pla nning Policy Unit, March 19, 1998 (continued from previous page).

PAGE 109

96 18. Charles Hogan, University of Florida, October 6, 2005.

PAGE 110

97 19. Charles Fender, University of Florida, October 6, 2005.

PAGE 111

98 20. J. Blair, University of Florida, October 6, 2005.

PAGE 112

99 APPENDIX B SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND PHOTOS FOR CAMPUS WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM Site Descriptions and Photographs Site 1 – Brain Institute South is the southern fork of the creek flowing south of Diamond Village and north of the McKnight Brain Institute. Its wa tershed includes the Brain Institute, parking garages and some of the academic and medical buildings to the south of the creek and east of Newell Drive. Site 2 – Brain Institute North is the northern fork of the creek flowing north of Diamond Village. Site 2’s watershed includes Diamond Village as well as buildings to the east of Newell Drive a nd south of Inner Road. Both forks have flow year round with some seasonal fluctuations. The two forks meet just north of the Brain Institute befo re the creek flows under Newell Drive and the continues on to Sites 3 and 4 before terminating in Lake Alice. Figure B-1. Sites 1 and 2, Brai n Institute South and North. 1 2

PAGE 113

100 Site 3 New Engineering Building (NEB) is downstream from Sites 1 and 2 on the western side of Center Drive at the New Engineering Building. The watershed for Site 3 includes the sub-watersheds of Sites 1 and 2 as well as Medi cal buildings east of Center Drive (to the south of the creek) a nd runoff from Center Drive itself. The creek widens at this point, has y ear-round flow and appears to be a point of periodic soil deposition. This creek term inates at Lake Alice. Figure B-2. Site 3, New Engineering Building (NEB). Site 4 – North South Drive is downstream from Site 3 on the western side of North South Drive. The watershed for Site 4 includes the sub-watersheds of Sites 1, 2 and 3 as well as buildings and parking lots to the north and south of the creek and to the east of North South Drive. The sub-watershed also includes ponds and wetlands which flow south of the Chemical Engineering building and Wastewater Treatment Plant and runoff from Center Drive itself. The creek con tinues to widen, has y ear-round flow and has seasonal blooms of Lemna valdiviana (small duckweed). This creek enters the Lake Alice wetland and terminates at Lake Alice. Site 5 – Hume Creek is located upstream from Hu me Pond by the bridge between the Commuter Parking Garage and the Hume Honors Dormitory parking lot. The watershed for Site 5 includes two creeks which drain a large area to the north and east of

PAGE 114

101 Figure B-3. Site 4, North South Drive Hume Pond. The eastern fork of the creek drai ns the majority of the area east of North South Drive, south of University and North of Museum Road. The western fork drains the area west of North South Drive, south of SW 2nd Ave, and east of Woodlawn Drive. The entire watershed includes academic buildings, residences, parking areas, and athletic facilities including the Ben Hill Griffin Stadium and Perry Field. The creek has yearround flow and flows to Hume Pond be fore terminating in Lake Alice. Figure B-4. Site 5, Hume Creek.

PAGE 115

102 Site 6Medicinal Gardens Upstream is located in the University Gardens south of Museum Road near the intersection with Fraternity Drive. The creek watershed includes Levin School of Law, Fraternity Row residences and athletic facilities including the Soccer Field and Beard Track. The cr eek has year-round flow and continues downstream to Site 7 and te rminating at Lake Alice. Figure B-5. Site 6, Medicinal Gardens upstream. Site 7 – Medicinal Gardens Downstream is located downstream from Site 6 after the creek flows through a small wetland area. Th e creek watershed is similar to that of Site 6. The creek has year-round flow and terminates at Lake Alice. Figure B-6. Site 7, Medicinal Gardens downstream. Site 8 Baughman Center is located on the western side of the bridge next to the Baughman Center. Water sampled at Site 8 ha s flowed through Lake Alice and is near

PAGE 116

103 one of the groundwater wells wh ich receives overflow from th e lake. This is the only sampling site located within Lake Alice. Figure B-7. Site 8, Baughman Center. Site 9 – Pony Field is located on the south side of Mowry Road east of IFAS Facilities Planning/Operations and north of a horse pasture. The site drains the pasture and open spaces south of the site. The creek continues north under Mowry Road where it enters the Lake Alice wetland, terminating at Lake Alice. Figure B-8. Site 9, Pony Field. Site 10 – Animal Science is located on the south side of Ritchey Road near the Animal Sciences facility. The watershed fo r Site 10 includes academic buildings, roads and animal pastures south of SW 16th Ave, west of Shealy Drive and north of Ritchey Road. This creek flows south and terminates at Bivens Arm.

PAGE 117

104 Figure B-9. Site 10, Animal Science. Figure B-10. Site 11, Surge Area. Site 11 – Surge Area is located on the eastern side of Natural Area Drive just north of the intersection with Archer Road. The wa tershed for Site 11 is comprised largely of natural areas and a little street runoff. This creek terminates in a depressional basin. Site 12 – Golf Course Pond is a lined pond that re ceives tertiary treated wastewater from the UF Water Reclamation F acility, Golf View Creek, precipitation and runoff from the golf course. Water from the pond is used for irrigation on the golf course. Storm overflow from the pond is directed off s ite to the low spot of Depressional Basin UF-1A. This site is of importance because it provides information as to the quality of water being re-used on th e course for irrigation. Site 13Golf View Creek originates offsite, and flows through the Golf View residential community before terminating in the Golf Course Pond. This site is of

PAGE 118

105 importance because it provides a potential refe rence for water quality of the area. The catchment for this stream flows through a resi dential watershed and is in direct contact with the underlying Hawthorne Formation, a geological formation consisting mostly of sandy clay with often high backgrou nd concentrations of phosphorus. Figure B-11. Site 12, Golf Course Pond. Figure B-12. Site 13, Golf View Creek. Site 14 7th Fairway site is located at the end of a stormwater drainage pipe for the southern portion of the golf course. The pipe empties into a shallow channel which exits the golf course and empties into the low spot of UF basin #?. This site is of importance because it is a site where water exits the golf course and is a potential source of water to the aquifer via infiltration at the old colla psed sinkhole at the bo ttom of Depressional Basin UF-1A. Site 15 Shop Stormwater Pond site is located on the northwest corner of the golf course and is a vegetated wetland pond. Sa mpling occurs on the creek side of the

PAGE 119

106 weir along the southern side of the wetland. Flow at the weir is only during or shortly after storm events. On two occasions, water was present on the wetland side, but not on the creek side. In these cases, sampling wa s conducted in the wetland. This site is of importance because it is where water exits the golf course and enters the Hogtown Creek Watershed. Figure B-13. Site 14, 7th Fairway Figure B-14: Site 15, Shop Stormwater Pond.

PAGE 120

107 APPENDIX C CAMPUS WATER QUALITY DATA IN TABULAR FORMAT Table C-1. Temperature (C). Site Minimum C Median C Max C 1 Brain Institute South Fork 13.3 23.3 29.3 2Brain Institute North Fork 13.9 23.7 27.2 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 13.5 23.0 29.1 4 North South Drive, center culvert 13.0 21.6 27.7 5 Hume Creek Bridge 15.2 22.4 29.1 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 15.0 22.7 27.9 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 12.3 20.8 27.9 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 16.0 25.0 30.3 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 12.0 19.9 28.5 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 9.8 19.1 31.4 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 12.2 21.5 26.8 12 Golf Course the pond 17.5 23.1 32.9 13 Golf View Creek 13.8 19.8 26.6 14 #7 Fairway 19.4 24.5 28.2 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 14.2 22.7 29.1 Table C-2. pH. Site Minimum Median Maximum 1 Brain Institute South Fork 5.4 7.4 7.9 2Brain Institute North Fork 4.7 7.6 8.0 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 5.0 7.7 8.3 4 North South Drive, center culvert 5.7 7.0 7.6 5 Hume Creek Bridge 5.9 7.6 7.8 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 6.9 7.7 8.7 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 6.9 7.3 7.7 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 6.7 7.6 8.9 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 5.9 7.3 7.8 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 6.5 7.3 7.4 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 4.9 7.0 7.7 12 Golf Course the pond 5.7 7.4 8.7 13 Golf View Creek 6.2 7.1 7.7 14 #7 Fairway 6.3 7.2 7.6 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 6.6 6.9 7.9

PAGE 121

108 Table C-3. Conductivity (S). Site Minimum S Median S Maximum S 1 Brain Institute South Fork 218 390 508 2Brain Institute North Fork 6 359 759 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 195 376 574 4 North South Drive, center culvert 168 327 510 5 Hume Creek Bridge 284 469 981 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 167 369 445 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 271 356 447 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 229 287 425 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 184 251 284 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 160 290 546 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 106 186 431 12 Golf Course the pond 74 603 999 13 Golf View Creek 296 344 437 14 #7 Fairway 116 163 328 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 100 140 263 Table C-4. Dissolved Oxygen (%). Site Minimum % Median % Maximum % 1 Brain Institute South Fork 66.0 79.0 99.5 2Brain Institute North Fork 71.9 88.9 100.8 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 85.6 106.1 4 North South Drive, center culvert 22.1 87.2 5 Hume Creek Bridge 61.0 70.3 92.0 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 43.6 78.7 104.0 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 31.0 54.6 140.5 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 5.4 95.5 140.1 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 4.7 17.5 190.0 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 40.8 60.8 130.1 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 3.1 33.4 71.8 12 Golf Course the pond 84.5 107.7 182.8 13 Golf View Creek 27.6 58.9 72.3 14 #7 Fairway 20.7 71.2 80.6 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 21.5 46.8 78.0 = Below Detection

PAGE 122

109 Table C-5. Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L). Site Minimum mg/L Median mg/L Maximum mg/L 1 Brain Institute South Fork 5.4 6.8 10.3 2Brain Institute North Fork 6.0 7.2 10.0 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 0 7.0 9.9 4 North South Drive, center culvert 0 2.1 8.3 5 Hume Creek Bridge 4.9 6.1 8.2 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 3.5 6.7 10.1 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 2.6 4.6 13.6 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 0.4 7.3 13.5 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 0.4 1.6 5.6 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 4.0 5.4 13.4 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 0.3 3.0 7.5 12 Golf Course the pond 6.5 8.7 14.4 13 Golf View Creek 2.5 5.4 7.1 14 #7 Fairway 1.6 6.0 7.4 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 1.7 4.0 6.0 Table C-6. Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L). Site Minimum mg/L Median mg/L Maximum mg/L 1 Brain Institute South Fork 0.16 0.28 0.31 2Brain Institute North Fork 0.01 0.25 0.51 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 0.14 0.25 0.39 4 North South Drive, center culvert 0.12 0.24 0.36 5 Hume Creek Bridge 0.17 0.34 0.62 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 0.12 0.26 0.29 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 0.17 0.26 0.29 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 0.14 0.20 0.27 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 0.12 0.19 0.21 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 0.10 0.20 0.42 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 0.07 0.15 0.88 12 Golf Course the pond 0.17 0.43 0.59 13 Golf View Creek 0.23 0.26 0.28 14 #7 Fairway 0.09 0.10 0.22 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 0.08 0.09 0.17

PAGE 123

110 Table C-7. Total Suspended Solids (mg/L). Site Minimum mg/L Median mg/L Maximum mg/L 1 Brain Institute South Fork 0.0 1.83 6.51 2Brain Institute North Fork 0.0 2.17 24.95 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 0.0 2.73 4.84 4 North South Drive, center culvert 0.0 2.82 6.09 5 Hume Creek Bridge 0.0 2.05 4.52 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 0.0 2.31 4.72 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 0.72 3.98 42.12 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 0.0 2.86 5.76 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 0.93 4.53 37.23 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 0.02 4.57 33.36 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 0.27 2.43 36.39 12 Golf Course the pond 3.51 7.57 12.81 13 Golf View Creek 0.0 1.94 13.34 14 #7 Fairway 1.96 7.84 26.00 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 4.37 6.19 18.90 Table C-8. Total Nitrogen (mg/L). Site Minimum mg/L Median mg/L Maximum mg/L 1 Brain Institute South Fork 0.26 0.99 2.17 2Brain Institute North Fork 0.47 1.09 5.77 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 0.33 1.07 2.14 4 North South Drive, center culvert 0.55 0.91 1.22 5 Hume Creek Bridge 0.39 6.68 14.53 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 0.30 9.77 12.53 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 0.39 7.74 10.87 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 0.60 0.88 3.19 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 0.67 1.19 10.27 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 0.78 1.40 2.99 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 0.07 0.92 1.74 12 Golf Course the pond 1.40 2.20 6.48 13 Golf View Creek 0.69 1.08 1.36 14 #7 Fairway 1.22 2.28 4.68 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 1.89 2.41 3.61

PAGE 124

111 Table C-9. Nitrate (mg/L). Site Minimum mg/L Median mg/L Maximum mg/L 1 Brain Institute South Fork 0.16 0.38 1.46 2Brain Institute North Fork 0.23 0.64 1.61 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 0.01 0.26 0.85 4 North South Drive, center culvert 0.03 0.18 0.43 5 Hume Creek Bridge 1.46 5.84 10.66 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 5.22 8.91 11.50 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 1.15 6.83 10.44 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 0.00 0.03 0.19 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 0.01 0.03 0.86 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 0.01 0.01 0.24 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 0.00 0.02 0.15 12 Golf Course the pond 0.00 1.65 5.27 13 Golf View Creek 0.02 0.24 0.40 14 #7 Fairway 0.00 1.86 2.57 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 0.00 0.04 1.07 Table C-10. Ammonium (mg/L). Site Minimum mg/L Median mg/L Maximum mg/L 1 Brain Institute South Fork 0.02 0.06 0.47 2Brain Institute North Fork 0.06 0.08 0.11 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 0.05 0.08 0.18 4 North South Drive, center culvert 0.04 0.09 0.12 5 Hume Creek Bridge 0.06 0.09 0.18 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 0.04 0.08 0.17 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 0.01 0.06 0.10 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 0.04 0.07 0.09 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 0.05 0.09 0.10 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 0.10 0.12 0.19 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 0.06 0.09 0.68 12 Golf Course the pond 0.02 0.08 0.59 13 Golf View Creek 0.04 0.06 0.33 14 #7 Fairway 0.11 0.13 0.33 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 0.06 0.21 0.29

PAGE 125

112 Table C-11. TKN (mg/L). Site Minimum mg/L Median mg/L Maximum mg/L 1 Brain Institute South Fork 0.0 0.62 1.23 2Brain Institute North Fork 0.30 0.70 4.58 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 0.03 0.67 1.53 4 North South Drive, center culvert 0.47 0.69 0.94 5 Hume Creek Bridge 0.39 0.67 9.03 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 0.30 0.73 1.47 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 0.30 0.70 1.34 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 0.60 0.83 3.15 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 0.64 1.18 10.13 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 0.74 1.40 2.99 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 0.55 0.86 1.74 12 Golf Course the pond 0.84 1.35 2.10 13 Golf View Creek 0.49 0.91 1.34 14 #7 Fairway 1.22 2.28 2.82 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 1.16 2.14 2.54 Table C-12. Total Phosphorus (mg/L). Site Minimum mg/L Median mg/L Maximum mg/L 1 Brain Institute South Fork 0.47 0.72 1.46 2Brain Institute North Fork 0.31 0.50 1.59 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 0.14 0.55 0.95 4 North South Drive, center culvert 0.34 0.47 0.93 5 Hume Creek Bridge 0.49 0.74 1.36 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 0.75 0.96 1.27 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 0.11 0.93 1.24 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 0.26 0.47 0.92 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 0.42 0.89 5.75 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 0.16 0.83 2.11 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 0.11 0.18 0.92 12 Golf Course the pond 0.16 1.13 4.05 13 Golf View Creek 1.07 1.37 2.02 14 #7 Fairway 0.64 1.36 1.78 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 0.80 1.09 2.14

PAGE 126

113 Table C-13. Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (mg/L). Site Minimum mg/L Median mg/L Maximum mg/L 1 Brain Institute South Fork 0.411 0.713 0.760 2Brain Institute North Fork 0.358 0.49 0.533 3NEB Center Drive, center culvert 0.095 0.379 0.570 4 North South Drive, center culvert 0.353 0.4775 0.602 5 Hume Creek Bridge 0.593 0.690 0.780 6 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Upstream 0.794 0.938 0.955 7 Medicinal Gardens Bridge, Downstream 0.797 0.814 0.874 8 Baughman Bridge (Lake Alice Discharge) 0.509 0.537 0.550 9 Pony Field Ditch, south side of road 0.382 0.423 0.546 10 Ritchey Road, near Animal Science 0.181 0.326 0.729 11 Surge Area NATL Sink 0.093 0.094 0.175 12 Golf Course the pond 0.159 1.042 4.028 13 Golf View Creek 1.013 1.360 1.628 14 #7 Fairway 0.527 1.224 1.399 15 Shop Stormwater Pond 0.459 0.789 1.756

PAGE 127

114 APPENDIX D ABBREVIATIONS ARL -UF IFAS Analytical Research Laboratory BMP -Best Management Practices CWQ -Campus Water Quality monitoring program DEP -Florida Department of Environmental Protection EPA -United States Environmental Protection Agency FAC -Florida Administrative Code IFAS -UF Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences MEP -maximum extent practicable MS4 -municipal separate storm sewer system NELAC -National Environmental La boratory Accreditation Conference NPDES -National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System SJRWMD -St. Johns River Water Management District SRP -soluble reactive phosphorus TMDL -Total Maximum Daily Load TDS -total dissolve solids TKN -total Kjeldahl nitrogen TN -total nitrogen TSS -total suspended solids UF -University of Florida UNC-Chapel Hill -University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill WBL -UF Wetland Biogeochemistry Laboratory

PAGE 128

115 LIST OF REFERENCES Alachua (2005). Alachua County Comprehensive Plan, 2001-2020 Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://growthmanagement.alachua.fl.us/compplanning/amendments.php Almendinger, J.E. (1999). A method to prio ritize and monitor wetland restoration for water-quality improvement. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 6 241-251. Brezonik, Patrick L. and Earl E. Shannon (1971) Trophic state of lakes in north central Florida Publication No. 13 of Fl orida Water Resources Research Center, August 3, 1971. Camargo, Julio A., Alvaro Alonso, and Annabe lla Salamanca (2005). Nitrate toxicity to aquatic animals: a review with new data for freshwater invertebrates. Chemosphere, 58, 1255-1267. Canfield, Daniel E. (1998-2002). Water quality data compiled from hand-written student data sheets from each year and lab reports on nitrogen levels for collected samples. University of Florida, Department of Fi sheries and Aquatic Sciences, Gainesville, FL. Canfield, Daniel E., Jr., Cl aude D. Brown, Roger W. Bachmann, and Mark V. Hoyer (2002). Volunteer lake monitoring: Testing the reliability of data collected by the Florida LAKEWATCH Program. Lake and Reservoir Management 18(1), 1-9. Cason, J.H. (1970). Lake Alice – a study of potential pollution of the Florida aquifer. The Compass of Sigma Gamma Epsilon 47, 206-210. City of Gainesville (2005). City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plan. Chung, Jong-Bae, Seung-Hyun Kim, By eong-Ryong Jeong, and Young-Deuk Lee (2004). Removal of organic matter and n itrogen from river water in a model floodplain. Journal of Environmental Quality, 33 1017-1023. Cleveland State University (2005). Campus Master Plan General Guidelines. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.csuohio.edu/campusmasterpl an/genguidelines.html#facilities

PAGE 129

116 Easton, Zachary M. and A. Martin Petrovic (2004). Surface water quality: fertilizer source effect on ground and surface water qua lity in drainage from turfgrass. Journal of Environmental Quality 33 645-655. FAC 1. Florida Administrative Code 62-624.200. FAC 2. Florida Administrative Code 62-302.500. FAC 3. Florida Administrative Code 40C-42.021. FAC 4. Florida Administrative Code 62-522.300. FAC 5. Florida Administrative Code 62-522.600. FAC 6. Florida Administrative Code 62-302.530. FAC 7. Florida Administrative Code 62-528, formerly 17-28. FAC 8. Florida Administrative Code 62.302.400. Florida DEP (2005a). NPDES Stormwater Program Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/wat er/stormwater/ npdes/index.htm Florida DEP (2005b). Program for Regulated Small MS4s Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/npdes/MS4_5.htm Florida DEP (2005c). Florida’s Total Maximum Daily L oad Program: the First 5 Years, A Report to the Legislature and Governor, February 2005 Retrieved November 1, 2005, from http://www.dep.state.fl. us/water/tmdl/docs/2005TMDL_Report_final_2-25-05.pdf Florida DEP (2002). Update to Florida’s 303(d) List of Impaired Surface Waters: Delist List Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.dep.state.fl.us /water/tmdl/docs/2002Update /Floridas_2002_303(d)_List 1_d.pdf. Florida LAKEWATCH. (2003). Florida LAKEWATCH Annual Data Summaries 2003. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/data2003.htm Florida Statute 1. Florida Statute § 403.031. Florida Statute 2. Florida Statute § 253.12. Florida Statute 3. Florida Statute § 373.403. Florida Statute 4. Florida Statute § 373.4142. Florida Statute 5. Florida Statute § 403.088.

PAGE 130

117 Florida Statute 6. Florida Statute § 1013.33. Gainesville (2001). City of Gainesville Comprehensive Plan Retrieved October 11, 2005 from http://www.cityofgainesville.org/comdev/plan/compplandocs.shtml Gottgens, Johan F. (1981). Lake Alice, Florida: Zooplankton communities and their exposure to a nutrient rich water flow. Master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Heaney, James P., Ruben Kertesz, Daniel Re isinger, Michael Zela zo, and Scott Knight (2004). 2004 hurricane impacts on Lake Alice watershed. 1st Annual Stormwater Research Symposium; Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida; October 12-13, 2004. Jenni, D.A. (1961). The breeding ecology of four speci es of herons at Lake Alice, Alachua County Florida Doctoral dissertation, Univers ity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Karraker, D.O. (1953) The birds of Lake Alice Master’s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Korhnak, Lawrence Victor (1996). Water, phosphorus, nitrogen and chloride budgets for Lake Alice, Florida, and documentation of the effects of wastewater removal. Master’s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. LEO and SERVIT Group at Le high University (2000-2002). LEO EnviroSci Inquiry Retrieved October 11, 2005, http://www.leo.lehigh.edu/envi rosci/watershed/wq/wqbackground. Matheson, F.E., M.L. Nguyen, A.B. Cooper, T.P. Burt, and D.C. Bull (2002). Fate of 15N-nitrate in unplanted, planted and harv ested riparian wetland soil microcosms. Ecological Engineering 19 249-264. McElhoe, Jennifer A. (1998). Stormwater monitoring program design for the University of Florida campus Unpublished manuscript, Univers ity of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, Offi ce of Dr. Joseph Delfino, Gainesville, Florida. Mitsch, William Joseph (1976). Ecosystem m odeling of water hyacinth management in Lake Alice, Florida. Ecological Modeling (Internati onal Journal on Ecological Modeling and Engineering and Systems Ecology 2 (1), 69-89. Mitsch, William Joseph (1975). Systems analysis of nutrient di sposal in cypress wetlands and lake ecosystems in Florida Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

PAGE 131

118 Neill, H., M. Gutierrez, and T. Aley (2004). In fluences of agricultural practices on water quality of Tumbling Creek cave stream in Taney County, Missouri. Environmental Geology, 45 550-559 North Carolina State University (2005). State Stormwater Brief Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.ncsu.edu/ehs/envi ron/Stormwater%20brief.pdf Ohio State University (2005). CampUShed Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://campushed.osu.edu/mission.html Phelps, G.G. (2004). Chemistry of ground water in the Si lver Springs basin, Florida, with an emphasis on nitrate U.S. Department of the In terior and U.S. Geological Survey. Poe, Amy C., Michael F. Piehler, Suzanne P. Thompson, and Hans W. Paerl (2003). Denitrification in a constructed wetland receiving agricultural runoff. Wetlands 23(4) 817-826. Rouse, Jeremy David, Christine A. Bishop, and John Struger (1999). Nitrogen pollution: An assessment of its threat to amphibian survival. Environmental Health Perspectives, 107(10) 799-803. Shuman, L.M. (2002). Phosphorus and nitrat e nitrogen in runoff following fertilizer application to turfgrass. Journal of Environmental Quality, 31, 1701-1715. SJRWMD (2000). Permit 4-001-155703. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.ppd.ufl.edu/requests/PPD%20R eference%20Data/Permits/Stormwater/ Master%20Permit%20%284%2D001%2D15570%2D3%29/. Tippecanoe Environmental Lake & Watershed Foundation. (2004). Water Testing. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.telwf.org/wate rtesting/watertesting.htm Tockner, Klement, Doris Pennetzdorfer, Niko Reiner, Fritz Schiemer, J.F. Ward (1999). Hydrologic connectivity, and the exchange of organic matter and nutrients in a dynamic river-floodplain system (Danube, Austria). Freshwater Biology, 41 521535. UF (2005a). The Economic Impact of the University of Florida on the State of Florida, 2002-2003 Retrieved October 11, 2005, from www.ir.ufl.edu/EconomicReport.pdf UF (2005b). UF Comprehensive Campus Master Plan 2005-2015, Draft July 2005. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.masterplan.ufl.edu/ UF (2000). UF Comprehensive Campus Master Plan 2000-2010. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.masterplan.ufl.edu/ UF (1976). The Law School Burial Mound Historic Marker. Florida State Museum.

PAGE 132

119 UF Clean Water Campaign (2003). University of Florida NPDES Permit. Retreived October 11, 2005, from http://campuswater quality.ifas.ufl.edu/ufpermit.htm. UF Conservation (2005a). Conservation Ar ea Study Committee meeting minutes. March 17, 2005. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.masterplan.ufl .edu/csc/concommittee.htm UF Conservation (2005b). Conservation Area Study Committee meeting minutes. September 1, 2005. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.masterplan.ufl .edu/csc/concommittee.htm UF Department of Zoology (2005). List of co mmon vertebrates that can easily be found on campus or in the Gainesville ar ea. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.zoo.ufl.edu/course s/vertzoo/GvilleVerts.html UF Factbook (2005). Enrollment Beginning Fall Term (2005) Retreived October 11, 2005, from http://www.ir.ufl.edu/fall.htm. UF Office of Audit and Compliance Review (2004). Annual Report 2003-2004 Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://oacr.ufl.edu/News&R eports/Annual_Report0304.pdf. UF Office of Planning (2005). University of Florida Conservation Area Land Management Plan, Lake Alice South Wetland Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.facilities.ufl.edu/cp/clmp /lake_alice_south/la ke_alice_south.pdf. UF Physical Plant (2005). Grounds-Irri gation. Retreived October 11, 2005, from http://www.ppd.ufl.edu/grounds-irr igation-watersources.html UNC-Chapel Hill (2005). UNC Development Plan, 2005 Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.fpc.unc.edu/DevelopmentPlan/DevPlanPDF/06Stormwater_Management.pdf UNC-Chapel Hill (2005). Sustainability Coalition Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://sustainability.unc.edu/index. asp?Type=Water&Doc=stormwater US Code 1. 33 United States Code § 1251. US Code 2. 33 United States Code § 1313. US Department of Agriculture (1985). Soil Survey of Alachua County, Florida Soil Conservation Service. US EPA (2005a). Aquatic Buffers Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/buffers.htm US EPA (2005b). Nonpoint Source Pollution Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/qa.html

PAGE 133

120 US EPA (2005c). Welcome to STORET, EPA's largest computerized environmental data system. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.epa.gov/STORET US EPA (2005d). Introduction to Total Maximum Daily Loads Retrieved November 5, 2005, http://www.epa.gov/ owow/tmdl/intro.html. US EPA (2004). National Pollutant Discharge Elim ination System (NPDES) Storm Water Program: Questions and Answers Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_qanda_entiredocument.pdf. US EPA (2000). Storm Water Phase II Comp liance Assistance Guide Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/comguide.pdf US EPA (1997). Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual. Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www.epa.gov/volunteer/stream/stream.pdf. Vega, Alberto (1978). Effects of different control practices for water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) at Lake Alice, Florida. Master’s thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Velga, A., and K.C. Ewel (1981). Wastewat er effects on a water hyacinth marsh and adjacent impoundment. Environmental Management 5(6) 537-541. Villanova University (2005). Stormwater Partnership, Technical Outreach Retrieved October 11, 2005, from http://www3.villanova.edu/VUSP/to.html

PAGE 134

121 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ondine Wells earned her Bachelor of Ar ts at Bard College in Annandale-onHudson, New York, where she majored in community, regional, and environmental studies. During her junior year, she studied global ecological issues in England, India, Thailand, Malaysia, New Zealand and Colomb ia on the Internati onal Honors Program. This pivotal experience solidified her commit ment to sustainability both locally and internationally. Between undergraduate and graduate school Ondine founded and directed Shaw EcoVillage, a non-profit organization in Washingt on, DC, that trains inner city youth in sustainable urban development and design. She entered the master’s program in the School of Natural Resources and Environment to learn more about the scie nce behind water qual ity issues and, in particular, with regard to ur ban stormwater and wetlands. Sh e looks forward to a career where she can continue to build useful connections among science, policy and urban design and development.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013284/00001

Material Information

Title: Waters of the University of Florida: Managing for Water Quality in the Lake Alice Watershed
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013284:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013284/00001

Material Information

Title: Waters of the University of Florida: Managing for Water Quality in the Lake Alice Watershed
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013284:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












WATERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA:
MANAGING FOR WATER QUALITY
IN THE LAKE ALICE WATERSHED
















By

A. ONDINE WELLS


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005





























Copyright 2005

by

A. Ondine Wells

































Dedicated to Randy and Aleida.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank my advisor, Dr. Mark Clark, for giving me the opportunity to study

at the University of Florida while exploring the issue of water quality using an

interdisciplinary approach. I wish to also thank my thesis committee members, Richard

Hammam and Dr. James Heaney, for their interest in this project. The student volunteers

of the University of Florida Wetlands Club deserve special recognition for having helped

initiate regular water quality testing on campus prior to my arrival, and continuing to

assist me in carrying out that testing over the last two years. I thank Scott Roberts of the

University Athletic Association as well as the staff at the Physical Plant, including Chuck

Hogan, Erick Smith, and Chris Keane. The staff at the Wetland Biogeochemistry Lab in

the Soil and Water Science Department and the IFAS Analytical Research Lab both merit

hearty thanks for their assistance in carrying out much of the water quality analysis.

Kathleen McKee deserves much gratitude for her excellent editorial comments and

suggestions. Lastly, I wish to thank my husband, Randy, for his constant words of

encouragement, assistance battling the bugs in the woods, and for making this all

possible.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS



A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES ......... ................... ... .......................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ............................... ........ ............ ix

ABSTRACT .............. ..................... .......... .............. xii

CHAPTER

1 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA:
HISTORICAL AND REGULATORY OVERVIEW ...............................................

Introduction ............. ......... .. ..... .. ...... ......................................
Legal Status of the Lake Alice Watershed ..... ............................. .................... .............2
F federal R egulation.......... ..... .................................................... ................ .3
State R egu lation ........... ................................................................... ....... .. ... 5
L local R regulations .............................. ... .................. ............... .. .8
History of Hydrology and W ater Quality ............................................. ............. 10
Current H ydrology ......... .. .................. .. ......... .......... ......... 13
C o n c lu sio n s........................................................................................................... 14

2 WATER QUALITY ON THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA MAIN CAMPUS .....16

In tro d u ctio n ........................................................................................................... 1 6
M methods .............................................................................. 19
Characterization of the Lake Alice Watershed......................... ................... 19
L a n d u se .................................................... ................ 1 9
W ild life ................................................................................................... 2 1
S ite d e scrip tio n s ..................................................................................... 2 1
S am p le C o llectio n ..................................................................... ................ .. 2 2
W after A n aly sis ..............................................................2 3
Statistical A analysis .......................... .......... ............... .... ....... 25
R results and D iscu ssion .............................. ........................ .. ...... .... ...... ...... 25
T e m p e ratu re ................................................................................................... 2 5
p H ..............................................................................2 6
C o n du ctiv ity ................................................................2 6
D isso lv ed O x y g en ......................................................................................... 2 9


v









T otal D issolved Solids............. .................................. ........ ........ ........... 29
T otal Suspended Solids ............................................... ............................ 32
T o ta l N itro g en ............................................................................................... 3 2
N itrate .................................................................................................... ....... ....32
Ammonium ....... ......................................... 35
Total Kj eldahl N itrogen (TK N ) .................................................................... 35
Phosphorus .......................... ....................... 35
Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) .................................. ...............38
C o n c lu sio n s ........................................................................................................... 3 8

3 NITRATE SOURCES IN HUME CREEK ...... ............................................41

In tro d u ctio n ........................................................................................................... 4 1
M methods ......................................................................42
Site Description of Hume Creek .................. ...... .............. ........... 42
W after Sam pling .............. ....... .. ................ ... ..................... 47
Culvert storm sam pling ............................................................... 47
Culvert dry w weather sam pling ........................................ ............... 50
N itrate analysis ............................................................ ............... 50
Results and Discussion ..........................................................50
Culvert Storm Sampling .................................. ........... .. .. .. ................50
Culvert Dry Weather Sampling ......................................... .........52
L an d U se ...................................................................... 5 3
Further R research ............... .... ........... ................. ...... .. .. .......... ... .. 54
C o n clu sio n s......................................................................................................5 8

4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPING AN INTERNAL TOTAL
MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD PROGRAM ...................................... ............... 60

In tro d u ctio n .......................................................................................6 0
T M D L F ram ew ork ......... ....... ....................................................................... ..... ..6 1
M monitoring and M odeling......................................................... ............... 63
M an ag em ent ................................................................64
B est M anagem ent Practices............................................ .......... ............... 65
N utrient m anagem ent ......................................................... ................. 66
R e-use of the w after ................................... ..... .......................................... 66
Pretreatm ent ........................ ........................67
Wetland retention area in Graham Woods ............................................67
V egetated buffers .......................... .. .... ............ .................... ..............67
D enitrification in floodplain soils ..................................... ............... ..68
Groundwater well monitoring ............. ........ .. .......... ...............68
D evelopm ent guidelines .......... ................. .......................... ..... .........69
Storm w after R research ......... ................. ................... ................. ............... 71
Financing ...... ..................... ........................72
C o n c lu sio n ....................................................................................................7 4









APPENDIX

A CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING REGULATORY STATUS OF LAKE
ALICE AND ITS W ATERSHED ........................................ ......................... 75

B SITE DESCRIPTIONS AND PHOTOS FOR CAMPUS WATER QUALITY
M ONITORING PROGRAM ......................................................... ................. .... 99

C CAMPUS WATER QUALITY DATA IN TABULAR FORMAT.........................107

D A B B R E V IA T IO N S ....................................................................... ..................... 114

L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ........................................................................ ................... 115

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................. ............... 121
















LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1-1. Summary of historical phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations for Lake Alice. ......13

2-1. Reported UF Campus Land Uses, 2000 (UF 2000).................................................20

2-2. Number of samples collected from each site...........................................................23

3-1. Site identification numbers and descriptions for culverts sampled ..........................48

C-1. Temperature (oC)..................................... ...................107

C -2 pH .................................. .......... .......................................... 107

C-3. Conductivity ( S). ................................... ................................... 108

C-4. Dissolved Oxygen (% ) ......................................................... ... ............... 108

C-5. D issolved O xygen (m g/L)................................................ ............................ 109

C -6. T otal D issolved Solids (m g/L ) ............ ........................................................ .......109

C-7. Total Suspended Solids (m g/L). .................................... .................. ......... 110

C -8. T total N nitrogen (m g/L ).............................................................................. ....... 110

C-9. N itrate (m g/L). .................. .............................. .. ....... .................. .. 111

C -10. A m m onium (m g/L ) ......................................... .. ....................................... 111

C-11. TK N (m g/L). .............. ................... ............... .. ............ .. ............. 12

C -12. Total Phosphorus (m g/L ). ......................................................................... ....... 112

C-13. Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (mg/L). ..............................................................113









viii
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1. Watersheds, University of Florida (UF Office of Planning 2005). ............................20

2-2. Campus water quality sampling locations on the UF campus............................... 22

2-3. Tem perature by site. ................................. .................................... ..... .... ..... ........ .. 27

2-4. Seasonal variation of temperature at all sites. ....................................................27

2-5. Levels of pH by site.............. ................... ............. .......28

2-7. D issolved oxygen percentage by site.................................... ........................ 30

2-8: Dissolved oxygen in mg/L by site. ........................................ ......................... 30

2-9. Total dissolved solids by site ................................. ........................ ............... 31

2-12. Florida LAKEWATCH data for total nitrogen concentrations of Bivens Arm
(Florida LAKEW ATCH 2003). ........................................ ......................... 33

2-13. N itrate concentration by site ........................ ......... ........................ ............... 34

2-15. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentration by site. ...........................................36

2-16. Total phosphorus concentration by site. ........................................ ............... 36

2-17. LAKEWATCH data for Bivens Arm (Florida LAKEWATCH 2003)...................37

3-1. Hume Creek and the eastern and western forks. The sub-watersheds of each fork
are outlined in dotted and dashed lines. The storm storm sewer system is shows
underground drainage culverts, manholes and storm drains. Inset boxes indicate
the two wooded areas where culverts drain into the two forks of Hume Creek.
Each boxed area is enlarged below with site numbers for each culvert (Figures
3-2 and 3-3). ...................................................................44

3-2. G raham W oods sites ....................... .... ............ ................. .... ....... 45

3-3. Reitz Ravine W oods sites. ............................................... ................................ 46

3-4. Example of a culvert (site 35) with deeply incised creek walls. .............................49









3-5. Example of stormwater sampling device installed in a culvert................................49

3-6. Cumulative Nitrate concentrations in culverts during three storm events. Site 26
samples the creek where it exited Graham Woods. Site 47 sampled the creek
where it exited Reitz Ravine W oods. ...................................................................... 51

3-7. Nitrate concentration for culverts with dry weather flows......................................52

3-8. Comparison of average nitrate concentrations between dry flow events and storm
e v e n ts ...................................... .................................. ................ 5 3

3-9. Sub-watershed for site 35. Shaded box indicates the area of the sub-watershed.
The lines with dots indicate the portion of the storm drainage system that
contributes to this w atershed. ...... ...................................................................... 55

3-10. Sub-watershed for site 44. Shaded box indicates the area of the sub-watershed.
The lines with dots indicate the portion of the storm drainage system that
contributes to this w atershed. ...... ...................................................................... 56

3-11. Sub-watershed of site 45. Shaded box with solid lines indicates the area of the
sub-watershed. The larger shaded box with dashed lines indicates the sub-
watershed of site 44 which is also a contributor to site 45. The small circles
indicate two areas where water may be directed from site 44's sub-watershed to
site 4 5. .............................................................................. 57

B-1. Sites 1 and 2, Brain Institute South and North................................ ............... 99

B-2. Site 3, New Engineering Building (NEB)..................................... ...........100

B -3. Site 4, N north South D rive.............. ................................................ ............... 101

B -4. Site 5, H um e C reek. .....................................................................101

B-5. Site 6, M edicinal Gardens upstream. ............................................ ............... 102

B-6. Site 7, Medicinal Gardens downstream. ...................................... ............... 102

B -7. Site 8, B aughm an C enter. ........................................ ........................................ 103

B -8. Site 9, Pony Field ................. .... ........................................ ............ 103

B -9. Site 10, A nim al Science .............. ............................................ ............... 104

B -10. Site 11, Surge A rea. ......................................... ......................... 104

B-11. Site 12, G olf Course Pond. ......................................................... ............... 105

B-12. Site 13, Golf View Creek .................................. ............... 105









B -13. Site 14, 7th Fairw ay ..................................................... ...................... 106
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

WATERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA:
MANAGING FOR WATER QUALITY IN THE
LAKE ALICE WATERSHED
By

A. Ondine Wells

December 2005

Chair: Mark Clark
Major Department: Interdisciplinary Ecology

This thesis provides a multi-disciplinary approach to sustainable water management

on the University of Florida campus by using scientific data to inform policy and

management.

In 1972, the United States Congress enacted the Clean Water Act. This act set forth

groundbreaking standards for water quality including the reduction and elimination of

point source pollutants. As a result, the nation's waters have, on the whole, improved in

water quality. Today, however, non-point source pollution, such as stormwater, is one of

the leading causes of impairment. Identifying, managing and preventing non-point source

pollution is one of the challenges facing municipalities and communities nationwide. The

Clean Water Act addresses stormwater discharge through Phase II of the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The University of Florida

(UF) obtained an NPDES permit in the fall of 2003. This permit renewed interest in and









commitment to water quality, and in particular stormwater management, on the UF

campus.

Hydrologic history of the main watershed on campus reveals that Lake Alice has

had high nitrogen and phosphorus levels for more than thirty years. Lake Alice has also

received numerous designations with potentially conflicting management goals including

a Class III water body, a stormwater management system, and a university-designated

conservation area. Water quality data for 15 sites throughout campus collected between

November 2003 and December 2004 reveal high phosphorus levels throughout the

campus and nitrate levels as high as 11.5 mg/L in two creeks, Hume Creek and Fraternity

Row Creek. While there are no Class III numeric standards for nitrate levels, research has

shown toxicity levels to freshwater species at concentrations below 10 mg/L. A

characterization of the Hume Creek watershed during storm events and dry weather

periods indicates three stormwater drainage culverts contributed high concentrations of

nitrate to the sub-watershed. These culverts receive water from athletic field drainage areas

indicating that fertilizers may be the primary source of nitrates.

The scientific data from both the Campus Water Quality monitoring program and the

Hume Creek characterization enable the university to potentially address a long-standing

problem through targeted BMP implementation. It is through this multi-disciplinary

approach to policy creation and implementation that the University of Florida may attain

sustainable management of its surface waters.














CHAPTER 1
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA:
HISTORICAL AND REGULATORY OVERVIEW

Introduction

In 1972, the United States Congress enacted the Clean Water Act. This act set forth

groundbreaking standards for water quality including the reduction and elimination of

point source pollutants. As a result, the nation's waters have, on the whole, improved in

water quality. Today, however, non-point source pollution, such as stormwater, is one of

the leading causes of impairment (US EPA 2005b). Identifying, managing and preventing

non-point source pollution is one of the challenges facing municipalities and

communities nationwide. The Clean Water Act addresses stormwater discharge through

Phase II of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The

University of Florida (UF) obtained a NPDES permit in the fall of 2003. This permit

renewed interest in and commitment to water quality, and in particular stormwater

management, on the UF campus.

The management of UF waters have been driven by a number of competing factors:

regulatory compliance, aesthetics, conservation, utility needs and convenience. The

campus has grown from predominately agricultural in the 1800s to heavily urbanized in

the 1970s. Construction of buildings, parking lots, and roads dramatically altered the

watershed by increasing the amount of impervious surface and incised waterways. As a

result, UF has struggled with how to manage its waters effectively. Water quality data

collected between 1971 and 2003 indicated that Lake Alice, the major receiving water









body on the UF campus, was a eutrophic system with high nitrogen and phosphorus

concentrations.

The goal of this thesis is to provide a chemical, legal and policy characterization of

the Lake Alice watershed on the UF campus and propose recommendations for

addressing pollutants identified within the watershed. Chapter 1 provides a regulatory and

hydrologic history of the watershed showing how the waters have been utilized and

managed in the past. This historical review shows that most water quality analyses on

campus have been conducted within Lake Alice, excluding any analysis of contributing

tributaries. Since nonpoint source pollution is one of the leading causes of impairment,

isolating possible sources of pollutants to Lake Alice is a critical step. To identify

potential nonpoint source pollutants within the watershed, a Campus Water Quality

monitoring program (CWQ) was initiated in October 2003 to characterize water quality

of all the tributaries on campus. Chapter 2 presents the data for the first year of the

monitoring program, revealing that campus creeks had high phosphorus levels throughout

campus and that two creeks had elevated nitrate levels. Chapter 3 provides a more in-

depth characterization of one of the two creeks with elevated nitrate levels during storm

events and dry weather periods. This characterization indicated three culverts were

contributing high concentrations of nitrate. Chapter 4 discusses policy and management

recommendations that would enable UF to meet its regulatory obligations while also

improving the water quality on campus. Included within the recommendations are best

management practices that could directly address the high nitrate concentrations.

Legal Status of the Lake Alice Watershed

The legal status of Lake Alice has been the subject of much debate since the

inception of statutes that protect water quality. The US Environmental Protection Agency









(EPA), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the St. Johns River

Water Management District (SJRWMD), and the University of Florida (UF) have all

debated whether Lake Alice is a "water of the United States," part of a stormwater

management system or part of a wastewater treatment system. The legal determination of

Lake Alice is important because it dictates how the waters are regulated and what, if any,

water quality standards they must meet.

Federal Regulation

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, now known as the Clean

Water Act, were enacted in 1972 in order to protect the chemical, physical and biological

integrity of the country's natural waterways. The initial act protected surface waters by

setting water quality standards for contaminants, prohibiting point source discharges into

navigable waters without a permit, and supporting the construction of sewage treatment

facilities (US Code 1). In 1979, the EPA asserted regulatory jurisdiction over Lake Alice

as a water of the United States on the grounds that it was a natural water body that

affected interstate commerce (McGhee Appendix A-1). Lake Alice has been regulated

under the Clean Water Act both through the impaired water listing process and the

NPDES permitting process.

Under the impaired water 303(d) list process, the EPA requires each state to set

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for areas that do not meet water quality standards.

These areas are identified on the 303(d) list compiled by the state every two years for

submission to the EPA (US Code 2). In 1998, Lake Alice was listed by the state of

Florida as an impaired water on the 303(d) list due to high nutrient levels. By 2002, Lake

Alice was de-listed because it met the water quality standards for its classification









(Florida DEP 2002). Since Lake Alice is no longer on the 303(d) list, there are currently

no TMDLs set for the water body.

The Clean Water Act has also required a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) Phase I permit for any pollutant discharge to a water of the United

States. Since the 1979 EPA decision to treat Lake Alice as a water of the United States,

UF was requested by the EPA to obtain an NPDES permit for the discharge of sewage

effluent into Lake Alice under Federal regulation 40 CFR 122.3 (1980) (McGarry

Appendix A- 1). According to UF Physical Plant Division, an NPDES permit for effluent

discharge was never obtained (Hogan Appendix A-18).

In 1999, the EPA implemented the NPDES Phase II plan to regulate stormwater

discharge in municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) not covered in Phase I

(Florida DEP 2005a). Under NPDES Phase II, those managing an MS4 must

comprehensively deal with stormwater by reducing pollutant discharge, protecting water

quality, meeting water quality standards, and implementing best management practices

(BMPs). These efforts must include public education, participation and involvement,

detection and elimination of illicit discharges, construction site runoff control, post-

construction site runoff control, and pollution prevention (Florida DEP 2005b). The goal

is to protect water quality, including meeting any applicable requirements of the Clean

Water Act, and to reduce pollutant discharges to the "maximum extent practicable"

(MEP), a standard which has neither a specific regulatory definition nor numeric effluent

limitations. To achieve the MEP, the permit holder must implement approved BMPs, but

is not required to conduct water quality monitoring (US EPA 2000). If a TMDL is

established for the receiving water body, the permit holder must ensure that the discharge









will not adversely affect the ability to meet the TMDL (US EPA 2004). UF received an

NPDES Phase II permit for stormwater discharge in the fall of 2003.

State Regulation

Waters of the state, as defined by the state of Florida, "include, but are not limited

to, rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments, wetlands, and all other waters or bodies

of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tidal, surface, or underground waters" (Florida

Statute 1). The water quality standards of these waters are subject to state regulation

(FAC 2).

Bodies of water owned entirely by one person other than the state are only

regulated for possible discharge onto another person's property (Florida Statute 1). Lake

Alice is currently owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust

Fund, which holds all submerged and tidal land for use by the citizens of Florida (Florida

Statute 2). As a body of water held in trust by the state, Lake Alice would therefore be

subject to state-regulated water quality standards. In communications in 1994 and 1998,

the DEP confirmed that Lake Alice was a water of the state according to Florida Statutes

403.031(13) and FAC 62-312.030 (formerly 17-312.030) (Tyler Appendix A-13).

In addition, under the Federal NPDES program, each state is responsible for

designating a state agency to implement and enforce the NPDES permitting process. In

Florida, the Department of Environmental Protection (Florida DEP) is responsible for

promulgating rules and issuing permits, managing and reviewing permit applications, and

performing compliance and enforcement activities." (Florida DEP 2005a and US Code

1). Each state is required to designate an official use for each water body in its

jurisdiction. There are five classes: Class I (potable water); Class II (shellfish propagation

or harvesting); Class III (recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-









balanced population of fish and wildlife); Class IV (agricultural water supplies); and

Class V (navigation, utility and industrial use) (FAC 8). As a legally designated Class III

water body, Lake Alice is subject to an extensive list of maximum concentrations

allowable for certain contaminants.

Florida also regulates stormwater through Environmental Resource Permits issued

through each of five regional water management districts. The district that includes the

UF campus is the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). These

permits have general criteria that all stormwater management systems must meet, along

with special criteria that apply to individual stormwater management systems. A

stormwater management system is a "system which is designed and constructed or

implemented to control discharges which are necessitated by rainfall events,

incorporating methods to collect, convey, store, absorb, inhibit, treat, use, or reuse water

to prevent or reduce flooding, overdrainage, environmental degradation, and water

pollution or otherwise affect the quantity and quality of discharges from the system."

(Florida Statute 3)

In 1987, UF obtained a permit from the SJRWMD for stormwater management,

including Lake Alice as a wet retention system for stormwater treatment. The rain that

falls in this system and flows through it is considered the stormwater of the system (FAC

3). The series of creeks and ponds leading to Lake Alice provide treatment for UF's

stormwater through natural filtration and sedimentation. The 1987 permit was renewed in

2000. The current permit attempts to curb stormwater pollution by preventing violations

of state water quality standards through construction best management practices,

calculating the amount of impervious surface in each basin, and regularly reporting to the









St. Johns River Water Management District. The UF Physical Plant Division is

responsible for maintenance of this stormwater system (SJRWMD 2000).

While the waters of the Lake Alice watershed are waters of the state, the permit

issued in 1987 which allowed the watershed to be used as part of a stormwater

management system does not require the university to monitor water quality. According

to Florida statute,

State surface water quality standards applicable to waters of the state, as defined in
s. 403.031(13), shall not apply within a stormwater management system which is
designed, constructed, operated, and maintained for stormwater treatment in
accordance with a valid permit or noticed exemption issued pursuant to chapter 17-
25, Florida Administrative Code; a valid permit issued on or subsequent to April 1,
1986, within the Suwannee River Water Management District or the St. Johns
River Water Management District pursuant to this part. (Florida Statute 4)

Florida statute requires that one must have a permit to discharge any waste that

lowers the quality of water that it is being discharged into (Florida Statute 5). Discharges

to groundwater, unless under a specific exemption, should not violate water quality

standards for the receiving water body (FAC 4) and monitoring of the discharge must

occur (FAC 5). However, section (9)(a) exempts stormwater facilities from monitoring

requirements if the discharge does not pose a "potential hazard to human health or the

environment...and as long as the facilities do not discharge directly to ground water."

(FAC 5) The UF Master Plan states that UF will abide by the conditions of the permits

including "reporting water levels in monitoring wells quarterly and submission of

groundwater and surface water monitoring tests to the Water Management District." (UF

2000)

At the western end of Lake Alice there are two wells, designated R-1 and R-2. R-1

is located near the bridge by the Baughman Center and R-2 is located near the Bat House.

R-2 has been elevated to restrict the flow of Lake Alice water into the well except during









high water conditions. R-l, however, has a lower weir enabling it to receive water from

Lake Alice on a more regular basis. Currently, neither well is metered for water flows nor

is water quality measured. The UF Physical Plant Division indicated that they are in the

process of placing a meter on R-1 to fulfill the DEP permit requirements (J. Blair

Appendix A-20). Because the Lake Alice water is permitted as stormwater, UF is not

required to monitor the quality of water entering either well. Therefore, pollutant levels

within the Lake Alice watershed, if left undetected and untreated, could pose

contamination threats to groundwater.

Local Regulations

While UF acts as its own regulating entity, its actions inevitably have a major

influence on the City of Gainesville and Alachua County. To maintain a high level of

water quality, the three entities would ideally coordinate their regulation and management

of surface waters, including the implementation of BMPs. State law requires educational

facilities coordinate their master plans "with the local comprehensive plan and land

development regulations of local governments" (Florida Statute 6).

The Alachua County Comprehensive Plan declares that environmental conservation

will be a priority in all decision-making. With regard to stormwater, the Plan says it will

"ensure the protection of natural drainage features, including surface water quality and

groundwater aquifer quality and quantity recharge functions, from stormwater runoff."

Where appropriate, the Plan advocates for "the use of system upgrades, the use of

drainageways.. .as habitat corridors which allow the passage of wildlife between natural

areas and throughout the County, as well as providing wildlife habitat". The Plan also

calls for the creation of a surface water monitoring program that will develop baselines

for water quality as well as biological health (Alachua 2005).









The UF Master Plan includes an Intergovernmental Coordination Element which

"establishes a development review process, to be implemented in conjunction with host

and affected local governments, to assess the impacts of proposed development on

significant local, regional, and state resources and facilities." The Master Plan also states

that "level of service standards for ... stormwater management (quantity and

quality)... shall not be in conflict with those established by the City or County." (UF

2005b) In September 2005, the Conservation Study Committee of the Campus Master

Planning 2005-2015 process, adopted the following policy:

Policy 3.7: The University shall continue to monitor Lake Alice and other surface
water bodies for compliance with existing standards for water quality in order to
meet Class III water quality standards and report findings to the Lakes, Vegetation
and Land Use committee annually (UF Conservation 2005b).

The UF Master Plan does not recommend the creation of performance indicators or

baselines to measure ecosystem health.

Many local regulations include minimum standards for vegetative buffers around

waterways as a mechanism for improving water quality. Buffers can filter silt and

pollutants from the water entering the waterway (US EPA 2005a). They also aid in

slowing the entry of water into the waterway thereby reducing erosion. Alachua County's

Comprehensive Plan requires an average 50 foot buffer (35 foot minimum) for surface

waters and wetlands less than or equal to 0.5 acres and 75 foot buffer on average (50 foot

minimum) for waters and wetlands greater than 0.5 acre (Alachua 2005). The City of

Gainesville Comprehensive Plan establishes a buffer along waterways of at least 35 feet

(Gainesville 2001). The Conservation Area Study Committee has established a 25-foot

buffer next to creeks, ponds and sinkholes on campus (UF Conservation 2005a).









History of Hydrology and Water Quality

There are indications that Lake Alice is a natural body of water that existed as early

as 1000 A.D. According to the historic marker near the Fredric G. Levin College of Law

on the UF campus, the Alachua Tradition peoples (who were ancestors of the Potano

Indians) built a nearby burial mound and "probably lived along the shore of Lake Alice"

(UF 1976). The earliest written historical records indicate that Lake Alice, originally

called Jonas Pond, was surrounded by farmland and owned by Mr. Witt in the late 1800s.

The pond (at that time only two to three acres) was renamed "Alice" after his daughter.

UF purchased the Lake Alice area in 1925 as part of an agricultural experiment station.

The lake has undergone a number of changes in terms of size as well as hydrologic

and nutrient inputs. Prior to 1948, the lake received infiltrating and runoff waters from

the surrounding land as well as sewage inputs. In 1948, an earthen dam was constructed

for flood control and irrigation purposes and the sewage was retained in a nearby

treatment plant (Karraker 1953). This dam raised the level and surface area of the lake.

Much of the prior vegetation including Cephalanthus occidentalis (buttonbush), Quercus

virginiana (live oak), Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) and Liquidambar styraciflua

(sweetgum) was replaced by Myrica cerifera (wax myrtle), Ludwigia peruviana (willow),

Acer rubrum (red maple), Hydrocotyle (water pennywort), Eichhornia crassipes (water-

hyacinth), Pontederia cordata (pickerel weed), and Typha (cattail) (Jenni 1961).

In the 1960's the lake started receiving secondarily treated effluent from the sewage

plant and the university medical center's cooling plant. By 1971, Lake Alice was

estimated to receive 1 to 2 million gallons per day of effluent and 10 to 12 million gallons

per day of cooling water. At this time, Lake Alice exhibited high phosphorus levels (0.9

mg/L) when compared to other Florida lakes, which had typically below 0.1 mg/L of









phosphorus. Sewage inputs were thought to be the reason for this high phosphorus level.

The annual nitrogen load to Lake Alice was calculated to be more than double any other

lake surveyed in Florida (Brezonik and Shannon 1971).

Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) flourished in the lake, possibly as a result of

the increased nutrient load. In order to control the water hyacinth, a number of measures

were taken including a drag-line, hand removal, and herbicide application (Brezonik and

Shannon 1971). The construction of a boardwalk and wire fence encouraged the

development of a water hyacinth marsh on the eastside of the lake, where there was once

a prairie, while maintaining open water to the west creating conditions similar to current

ones with approximately 12 hectares (29.6 acres) of open water and 21 hectares (51.9

acres) of marsh (Gottgens 1981).

In 1975, sampling along the perimeter of Lake Alice revealed that temperature,

turbidity, conductivity and nitrogen decreased as water flowed through the marsh

whereas dissolved oxygen increased indicating that the marsh provided an important

transitional treatment zone for the incoming water (Mitsch 1975).

In 1976, cooling plant effluent was diverted from the lake but sewage effluent

continued to provide a high nutrient level to the lake (Vega 1978). In 1977, the waste

water treatment plant averaged approximately 1.85 million gallons a day of output

(Gottgens 1981). By 1981, concentrations of phosphorus had increased to between 0.98

mg/L and 2.57 mg/L. The lake's water-hyacinth-dominated marsh system was

successfully reducing the amount of phosphorus by an average of 25% a year. However,

much of this reduction was probably the conversion of inorganic phosphorus to organic

forms. Therefore, when the hyacinth died, the phosphorus was re-mineralized in the









decomposition process, thereby contributing the phosphorus back to the system (Velga

and Ewel 1981).

In 1982, Florida regulations stipulated that discharges into potable aquifers must

meet drinking water standards (FAC 7). A high coliform concentration was identified in

surface waters on campus that exceeded these standards. Since some of these surface

waters had potentially direct connections to aquifers through wells and porous soils, a

new sewage treatment plant on campus was constructed that would provide tertiary

treatment (Korhnak 1996). When the Water Reclamation Plant opened in 1994, sewage

was once again diverted from Lake Alice and phosphorus concentrations in the lake

dropped from 1.141 mg/L to 0.59 mg/L. Further investigation suggested that stormwater

probably also contributed to high phosphorus levels due to particulates from the

Hawthorne Formation that eroded the tributary streambanks. Nitrogen concentrations also

dropped from 2.430 mg/L to 0.93 mg/L. The data suggested that nitrogen was being lost

and possibly denitrified in the anoxic marsh system (Korhnak 1996).

LAKEWATCH data from 1997 2003 showed phosphorus ranges in Lake Alice

to be between 0.3 and 0.7 mg/L and nitrogen levels between 0.4 and 1.3 mg/L, indicating

a continued eutrophic state, but a lower range of values than those found in 1994 (US

EPA 2005c). Data collected between 1998 and 2002 both in Lake Alice and Hume Pond

found similar total phosphorus concentrations ranging from 0.2 mg/L to 0.9 mg/L.

Additionally, nitrogen levels in Hume Pond were higher than levels found in the lake

confirming again that denitrification may be occurring in the marsh system (Canfield

1998- 2002).









Table 1-1. Summary of historical phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations for Lake Alice.
Author, Date Phosphorus Nitrogen
Brezonik and Shannon 1971 0.9 mg/L 0.5 mg/L
Velga and Ewel 1981 0.98 2.57 mg/L
Korhnak 1994 (with sewage) 1.141 mg/L 2.430 mg/L
Korhnak 1995 (no sewage) 0.59 mg/L 0.93 mg/L
US EPA 2005c and Canfield 0.2-0.9 mg/L 0.4-1.3 mg/L
1998-2002

Current Hydrology

Since 1994, the primary inputs into Lake Alice have been stormwater runoff;

irrigation water; inter-storm discharges; and direct inputs from rainwater. Any pollutants

that existed in a water body in the Lake Alice watershed would come from one of these

sources.

Stormwater runoff is probably the greatest source of water to Lake Alice, draining

all of the impervious surfaces in the watershed including pavement, roofs, and sidewalks.

As impervious surfaces increase, so does the hydraulic load to the lake. This runoff can

pick up pollutants such as oil, grease, and sediment and carry them to the creeks and the

lake.

Irrigation water landing on a sidewalk or street can travel into the storm drain

system. Additionally, athletic fields with under-drains could drain excess irrigation water

into the storm system. According to the Physical Plant Division of the University of

Florida, 90% of the irrigation water used on campus is reclaimed water which is treated

to Class I water quality standards (potable water) (UF Physical Plant 2005). Irrigation

water, regardless of its source, can also carry fertilizers and other chemicals applied to the

vegetation when running off the soil.

Illicit discharges may contribute to unaccounted nutrient loads but are difficult to

detect. During a visit to the Stormwater Ecological Enhancement Project (SEEP) in 2004,









water flow entered the SEEP at two different culverts even though there had not been any

recent rainfall (M.D. Annable, personal communication, April 1, 2004). Similarly, visits

in 2005 revealed inter-storm water inputs into the Hume Creek watershed from four

different storm culverts. In one case, a strong smell of bleach emanated from the water

leaving the culvert. In another case, a culvert discharge was traced back to a storm drain

that was receiving water from a parking lot stormdrain where vehicle washing was

occurring (0. Wells, personal visit, July 13 and July 14, 2005). At other times, creeks on

campus have had a milky white coloration indicating an unusual substance in the water

(O.Wells, personal visit, March 15, 2004). Further investigation would be needed to

characterize illicit discharges and their sources.

Conclusions

Lake Alice has numerous regulatory designations including as a water of the

United States, a water of the state, a Class III water body, a stormwater system and a

conservation area. These designations have potentially conflicting goals in terms of

management. In order to meet the goals of each of the regulatory designations and

improve water quality, the university must make a clear commitment and mandate to

fostering sustainable water management. Chapter 4 provides policy, management and

best management practice (BMP) recommendations that, if implemented, could enable

the university to meet its regulatory obligations while still also achieving a high standard

of water quality.

Historical water quality indicates that Lake Alice has been a eutrophic system for

the past 35 years with nitrogen and phosphorus levels that exceeded those of comparable

Florida lakes. The removal of sewage inputs reduced phosphorus and nitrogen levels

somewhat, but the levels remained higher than expected. The marsh system provides






15


some water treatment in the form of denitrification and partial phosphorus assimilation.

There is a need for water quality data on upstream tributaries to assess the sources of

nitrogen and phosphorus to the Lake Alice watershed. Chapter 2 addresses this need by

providing a scientific investigation of water quality throughout the University of Florida

main campus.














CHAPTER 2
WATER QUALITY ON THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA MAIN CAMPUS

Introduction

As discussed in chapter one, each state is required to designate an official use for

each water body in its jurisdiction, based upon the relative water quality required for that

water body. The five water quality designations, from Class I to Class V, are based upon

whether that water is intended to be potable, safe for human contact, or able to maintain a

healthy ecosystem. All of the waters on the UF campus are designated by the state of

Florida as Class III waters which requires water quality that is both safe for human

recreation and capable of maintaining a healthy fish and wildlife population.

There are seventy-one water quality criteria for Class III waters, some of which

have specific numeric limits and some of which have narrative criteria with no specific

numeric limits. If met, these criteria should ensure that the water body can provide a

healthy habitat and resource for both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. If not met, an

imbalance can occur in the ecosystem such as eutrophication, a process of high

productivity which can result in algae blooms, decreased oxygen availability, and even

the death of organisms.

The Campus Water Quality monitoring program tested twelve parameters, some of

which have Class III criteria and some which do not. Three of the twelve have numeric

Class III standards (pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen), two have narrative

standards (phosphorus and nitrogen), and the remaining eight do not have Class III

standards.









Temperature does not have a Class III standard, but can determine what organisms

survive, the rate of photosynthesis, and the amount of oxygen within the water.

Variations of temperature are typically due to weather, vegetation, and various discharges

into the water (US EPA 1997).

Class III standards require that pH not fall below 6 units or rise above 8.5 units in

fresh waters (FAC 6). Extreme pH levels can limit the biological diversity and lower pH

levels can mobilize some toxic elements. Geology, wastewater discharges and acid rain

influence pH levels (US EPA 1997).

Specific conductivity should not exceed the greater of 50% more than background

levels or 1275 according to Class III standards (FAC 6). Conductivity levels between 150

and 500 ihos/cm are optimal for maintaining fisheries. Geology and discharges are the

primary influences on conductivity.

Dissolved oxygen should be maintained at or above 5 mg/L both on a daily and

seasonal basis according to Class III standards (FAC 6). Dissolved oxygen levels

fluctuate as a result of temperature, flow, rates of photosynthesis, decomposition, aquatic

animal respiration and discharges to the water body (US EPA 1997).

There are no Class III criteria for total dissolve solids (TDS). Total dissolved solids

are those solids which are dissolved in the water and can pass through a 2 micron filter

such as calcium, nitrate, phosphorus, and other ions. High or low dissolved solids can

detrimentally alter the water balance in aquatic organisms' cells (US EPA 1997).

Total suspended solids (TSS) does not have a Class III standard. Suspended solids

can carry with them toxins such as pesticides and, if high enough, can decrease water









clarity which impacts photosynthesis and temperature. Sources of suspended solids

include discharges, road runoff, erosion and fertilizers (US EPA 1997).

Nitrogen levels do not have a numeric limitation in Class III water bodies. They are

to be limited, however, "to prevent violations of other standards" and "in no case shall

nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in

natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna" (FAC 6). Higher levels of nitrogen can

increase eutrophication rates. Nitrogen sources include blue-green algae, fertilizer, and

waste products (Tippecanoe 2004).

Nitrate, a form of nitrogen, does not have a Class III standard, but cannot exceed 10

mg/L in Class I Drinking Waters. Nitrate levels are commonly below 1 mg/L in surface

waters (US EPA 1997). As nitrate levels increase, so does the rate of eutrophication.

Some research has suggested that to prevent nitrate toxicity in sensitive freshwater

organisms, levels should not exceed 2 mg/L (Camargo 2005). Nitrates come from

fertilizers, wastewater, animal manure and other discharges (US EPA 1997).

Ammonium, a form of nitrogen, does not have a Class III standard, but should

ideally not exceed 0.5 mg/L in natural water bodies. Ammonium is a nutrient for plants

and algae, but in excess can increase the rate of eutrophication and, if high enough,

become toxic. Sources of ammonium include fertilizers, decomposing material, animal

waste, and atmospheric deposition (LEO 2000-2002).

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), the organic and ammonium portion of total

nitrogen, does not have a Class III standard. TKN originates from animal waste,

decomposing material, and live organic matter such as algae (Tippecanoe 2004).









Phosphorus, an essential nutrient, does not have a Class III standard, but in high

concentrations can accelerate eutrophication. Phosphorus sources include geology,

wastewater, fertilizers, animal waste, and other discharges (US EPA 1997).

Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), the most bioavailable form of phosphorus, does

not have a Class III standard and originates from the same sources as phosphorus. SRP

levels above 0.005 mg/L can encourage eutrophication (Tippecanoe 2004).

This chapter establishes a baseline of the water quality data for all of the major

tributaries on the campus providing a characterization of the Lake Alice watershed.

Methods

Characterization of the Lake Alice Watershed

Land use

The 1,827 acre UF main campus is part of four different watersheds: Lake Alice,

Hogtown Creek, Bivens Arm and Depressional Basins (Figure 2-1). More than 60% of

the campus lies in the Lake Alice watershed (1,140 acres). This watershed is a closed

basin system, meaning that all of the water that enters into the watershed terminates at

Lake Alice making UF solely responsible for the management of the system (UF 2000).

The Lake Alice watershed was predominately agricultural in the late 1800s, but by

1971 the land use was over 60% urban, with the remainder being fertilized crop (27%)

and forested areas (12%) (Brezonik and Shannon 1971). Within the Lake Alice

watershed, approximately 40% (425.7 acres) of the area is comprised of impervious

surfaces that inhibit downward infiltration of water (McElhoe 1998). These include

parking spaces, roads, buildings, and other hard surfaces. All of these surfaces drain

stormwater into the stormwater sewer system which conveys through culverts, creeks and











ponds that all terminate in Lake Alice, thus increasing the amount of water that would


naturally drain to Lake Alice.


Table 2-1. Reported UF Campus Land Uses, 2000 (UF 2000)
Land Use Type Acres Percent of Total
Academic 581.4 31.8%
Support 125.15 6.8%
Housing 106 5.8%
Utility 21.11 1.2%
Cultural 12.72 0.7%
Parking 164.61 9%
Active Recreationalt 269.69 14.8%
Passive Recreationalf 201.77 11%
Conservation 344.86 18.9%
Total acreage 1827 100%
t Active Recreational includes gyms, pools athletic fields
t Passive Recreational includes open spaces but not conservation areas


Watershedss
University otl'orida


UF boundary
Lake or pond
Wetland
- Buildings
Sub-watersheds
SHogtown Crook Watershed
C Lake Alice Watershed
B Rivens Arm Watioshed
SUF Deprossional Basin











0 600 1,200 2,400
Feet


Figure 2-1. Watersheds, University of Florida (UF Office of Planning 2005).









Wildlife

Lake Alice, is considered an Audubon Society sanctuary implying that the lake is a

valuable habitat for fish and wildlife (Mitsch 1975). In fact, the lake is known for its

prime alligator and wading bird viewing. Vertebrate Zoology at UF lists ospreys, great

blue herons and double-breasted cormorants as some of the water birds using Lake Alice

(UF Zoology 2005). In the UF's management plan for the Lake Alice South Wetland,

many species that may visit the area are listed:

American Crow, American Goldfinch, American Robin, Bald Eagle, Baltimore
Oriole, Black and White Warbler, Belted Kingfisher, Blue-Gray gnatcatcher,
Brown-headed cowbird, Blue-headed Vireo, Blue Jay, Brown Thrasher, Boat-tailed
Grackle, Carolina Chickadee, Carolina Wren, Downy Woodpecker, Eastern
Bluebird, Eastern Phoebe, Eastern Tufted Titmouse, Great Crested Flycatcher,
Gray Catbird, Hermit Thrush, House Finch, House Wren, Killdeer, Mourning
Dove, Northern Cardinal, Northern Flicker, Northern Mockingbird, Northern
Parula, Osprey, Palm Warbler, Pine Warbler, Pileated Woodpecker, Red-bellied
Woodpecker, Ruby-crowned Kinglet, Red Headed Woodpecker, Red-Sanhill
Crane, Shouldered Hawk, Red-winged Blackbird, Sharp-shinned Hawk, Yellow-
bellied Sapsucker, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Anolis carolinesis, Brown anole, Gray
Squirrel, Black rat (1), Raccoon, and Feral Cat. (UF Office of Planning 2005)

Site descriptions

Fifteen water sampling sites were selected throughout the main University of

Florida campus along each tributary on campus (Figure 2-2). In some cases, multiple

sites were placed along a single tributary to provide greater detail on the influence of

smaller subwatersheds as well as potential treatment occurring through the stream. The

majority of sites are within creeks which have natural, vegetative banks (as opposed to

concrete or other impervious surface). Exceptions include site 8 which is within Lake

Alice, site 12 which is the UF Bostick Golf Course pond, and site 13 which is at a

drainage culvert on the 7th fairway of the golf course. For a detailed description of the 15

sampling sites, see Appendix B.































/ f\ Ben"sAm I I

Figure 2-2. Campus water quality sampling locations on the UF campus

Sample Collection

Monthly water samples at each site were analyzed for temperature, dissolved

oxygen, pH, conductivity, total dissolved solids, and redox potential were measured with

a YSI 556 Multi-Probe Sensor (YSI Environmental, Yellow Springs OH). Thirteen

sampling events took place between October 2003 and December 2004, with the

exception of sites 12-15 where twelve sampling events occurred. Some sites experienced

seasonal dry periods where there was little to no flow and sampling was not possible (see

Table 2-2). Measurements were taken at the midpoint in the water column between 12:00

and 17:00 hours. A 500-mL water sample was collected from the mid-point in the water

column. Samples were transported to the laboratory and processed according to standard

operating procedures certified by the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation

Conference (NELAC). Samples were analyzed for total suspended solids, total nitrogen,









nitrates, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonium, total phosphorus, and soluble reactive

phosphorus.

Table 2-2. Number of samples collected from each site.
Site # Site Name No Total # Notes
flow samples
taken
1 Brain Institute South 13
2 Brain Institute North 13
3 New Engineering Building 13
4 North South Drive 13
5 Hume Creek Bridge 13
6 Medicinal Gardens upstream 13
7 Medicinal Gardens downstream 13
8 Baughman Center 13
9 Pony Field 13
10 Animal Science 5 8
11 Surge Area 4 9
12 Golf Course pond 1 11 No October sampling.
13 Golf View Creek 3 9 No October sampling.
14 #7 Fairway 9 3 No October sampling.One sample
taken when area was flooded.
15 Shop Stormwater Pond 6 6 No October sampling.Two samples
from the stormwater pond side of
the weir because there was no flow
in the creek.

Water Analysis

Total suspended solids (TSS). Water samples were filtered using a vacuum

filtration apparatus and Pall 50mm type A/E glass fiber filters. Filters were pre-treated

with distilled water and heated in an oven at 1000C for one hour. Following drying, the

filters were weighed and then used for filtering the samples. Following sample filtration,

the filters were again placed in an oven at 1000C for one hour, after which they were

weighed a second time. TSS was determined by subtracting the pre-filter weight from the

post-filter weights and dividing by the volume of the sample.









Total Kjeldahl nitrogen. Unfiltered samples were transferred to 20 mL vials,

treated with one drop of ultra concentrated sulfuric acid and stored at 40C. Samples were

either transferred to the UF IFAS Analytical Research Laboratory (ARL) or were sulfuric

acid digested (Method 351.2 EPA 1993) and analyzed using a Technicon Autoanalyzer

by the UF Wetland Biogeochemistry Laboratory (WBL).

Nitrate and nitrite. Samples were analyzed either at the ARL or WBL. Samples

analyzed by ARL were immediately frozen and then transferred for processing. Samples

processed at WBL were filtered using a 0.45 [m membrane filter and vacuum filtration

apparatus and acidified with ultra concentrated sulfuric acid within two hours of

collection. Samples were stored at 40C until analysis using an Alpkem rapid flow

analyzer (Method 353.2 EPA 1983).

Total nitrogen. Total nitrogen was determined by adding TKN and nitrate-nitrite

values.

Ammonium. Samples were analyzed either at the ARL or at the WBL. Samples

analyzed by ARL were immediately frozen and then transferred for processing. Samples

processed at WBL were filtered using a 0.45 [m membrane filter and vacuum filtration

apparatus and acidified with ultra concentrated sulfuric acid within two hours of

collection. Samples were stored at 40C until analysis using a Technicon Autoanalyzer

(Method 350.1 EPA 1993).

Total phosphorus. Samples were transferred to 20 ml vials and acidified with ultra

concentrated sulfuric acid. Samples were either analyzed stored at at the ARL or were

stored at 40C until digested (Method 365.1 EPA 1993) and analyzed using a Technicon

Autoanalyzer at the WBL.









Soluble reactive phosphorus. Samples were analyzed either at the ARL or at the

WBL. Samples analyzed by ARL were immediately frozen and then transferred for

processing. Samples processed at the WBL were filtered using a 0.45 itm membrane filter

and vacuum filtration apparatus and acidified with ultra concentrated sulfuric acid within

two hours of collection. Samples were stored at 40C until analysis using a Technicon

Autoanalyzer (Method 365.1 EPA 1993).

Statistical Analysis

The data for each parameter was presented in a graphic with site 10%, 25% 50%

(median), 75% and 90% quartiles expressed as a box and whiskers plot.
90


75

Median


25

10

Each graph also has a dotted horizontal line indicating the average for all points.

Statistical outliers were retained on the graphic to show the full range in values of

samples collected. Tables with the minimum, maximum, and mean for each site can be

found in the Appendix C. Additionally, monitoring data from Bivens Arm collected by

Lakewatch, a statewide volunteer lake monitoring program, was provided as a

comparison when presenting total nitrogen and total phosphorus data.

Results and Discussion

Temperature

Temperatures ranged from 9.83C to 32.920C (Figure 2-3). Variations in

temperature were likely due to the amount of shade covering and seasonal variation in









climate (Figure 2-4). For instance, the Golf Course pond had no shade whereas the

Medicinal Gardens sites had a significant tree canopy. There are no Class III standards

for temperature.

pH

The pH ranged from 4.72 to 8.85 (Figure 2-5). This range exceeded the range set

forth by Class III water quality standards of between 6 and 8.5. The majority of

measurements, however, were within this range. Samples that fell below pH of 6 were

taken on 5 different sampling dates and could be a result of discharges into the creek.

Conductivity

Conductivity ranged from 6 to 999 |tS (Figure 2-6). The majority of data points,

however were between 100 and 500 [iS (area between dashed lines), the range acceptable

for aquatic wildlife in freshwater ecosystems (US EPA 1997). Two sites, the Hume Creek

and the Golf Course Pond, showed higher ranges for conductivity than those found in the

other sites on campus. High conductivity levels for Hume Creek could have been due to

high nitrate levels that were identified (described later in the chapter). However, high

nitrates were also found at the Medicinal Garden sites (both up and downstream) and

these sites did not appear to have elevated conductivity levels. High levels at the Golf

Course Pond, on the other hand, may have been due to increased ion concentrations in the

reuse water being supplied by the campus water reclamation facility for the pond. Both

Hume Creek and the Golf Course pond had greater fluctuations of conductivity than other

sites.











" 35

330
,/)

25
-o
S20


( 15
0-
E
-10


0 Z L L 00 0 0)
.n -) .) u E
._ -o E 0- E 0 > o
. 0 0 ---
( CE ) ---
SO0 0

Site


Figure 2-3. Temperature by site.


50 100 150 200 250
Day


300 350


Figure 2-4. Seasonal variation of temperature at all sites.


Day 50 = February 19
Day 100= April 10
Day 150 = May 30
Day 200 = July 19
Day 250 = September 7
Day 300 = October 27
Day 350 = December 16




















m W -
6 ---- -- -- --


5-


0 z C a)
_c z E
c c o
L E
m mC




Figure 2-5. Levels of pH by site.
I IUU I


1000-
900-
-- 800-
09
3 700-
S600-
L 500-
: 400-
O 300-


Class III
standards


U 0

,D U)
Zmi
Site


High end of
range for good
freshwater
fishery


---
. n i '


2oo-_-_ _- _L --- -^ -- -^ ^
100- --------- Low end of range
O _________.____.________>for good
S m- L > 5 C 2 o a) c -a CU freshwater fishery
i i i 0 a, o
0 0 z | 0 C 0 0 I = | o
*c c Vn E n E 00> 0
) c L U o
m mU < o LL E
m 0 00

Site


Figure 2-6. Conductivity by site.









Dissolved Oxygen

Dissolved oxygen, as % saturation, ranged from 0% to 182.8% (Figure 2-7).

Dissolved oxygen, in mg/L, ranged from 0 mg/L to 14.38 mg/L (Figure 2-8). Class III

standards require that dissolved oxygen levels remain at 5 mg/L or higher.

While dissolved oxygen levels may fluctuate over a 24-hour period, most samples

were collected at approximately the same time of the day between 12:00 and 17:00. The

variation of dissolved oxygen levels between sites could have been due to a number of

different factors. The Pony Field was one site which shows consistently low oxygen,

possibly due to a high level of organic matter found in the water, whereas, the Golf

Course Pond had higher daytime levels of oxygen which may have been due a high algal

population. N-S Drive site, which had consistently low dissolved oxygen levels, was

downstream from the Brain Institute and NEB sites, which all had acceptable levels.

Reasons for this change in dissolved oxygen within the tributary were unknown but could

have been a result of discharges between the NEB and N-S Drive sites or due to the flow

of the creek through a wetland area which may have reduced the oxygen levels. The Shop

Stormwater Pond samples water exiting a wetland system which naturally has lower

dissolved oxygen levels than a stream system.

Total Dissolved Solids

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) ranged from 0.01 to 0.623 mg/L (Figure 2-9) and

was calculated from conductivity and temperature measurements by the YSI. There were

no standards for total dissolved solids. The means for Hume Creek and the Golf Course

Pond were greater than that for other sites, corresponding to the conductivity

measurement.
















0 100
0









USit
CFmur 2-7 DU Clv U)
: a c C U
E :. 0

-Sv E O
c c 3 U a- E 0 E
CU"s U a r

Z)m
Site

Figure 2-7. Dissolved oxygen percentage by site.





10-
-j
E -
o -7---7


Class III
minimum
- 5 mg/L


C5 I u i t .0 U 0w
CU CD C c
z E U o -
So E 0- E

U)
mSite
Site


Figure 2-8: Dissolved oxygen in mg/L by site.









900-
800-
700-
-600-

E 500-
U)400- -
300- AV
200
100- -


0 e C: I 0 I
L > a =, o o .C_

0 0 z E 0 a

c c E 0 E
E cu 0 cF
Z cu

Z)m
Site

Figure 2-9. Total dissolved solids by site.


_ z M a o Q C c o Y r .
c c a E CU E -
-o r( (- 09
D : 7a)- ,- L

0 0m 0 0


Site
C), L cu
I cc L




Site


Figure 2-10. Total suspended solids by site.









Total Suspended Solids

The range for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) was near 0.0 to 42.1 (Figure 2-10).

There were no Class III standards for total suspended solids. Fluctuations of suspended

solids may have been due to a sampling event closely following a storm event not

allowing heavier particulates to settle out. For example, the four highest TSS

measurements (circled on graph) were all recorded during the same sampling event after

a storm.

Total Nitrogen

The range of values for Total Nitrogen (TN) was 0.07 mg/L to 14.53 mg/L (Figure

2-11). There were no numeric Class III water quality standards for nitrogen. Three

sampling sites consistently showed elevated TN values relative to the rest of campus.

When compared to LAKEWATCH data for Bivens Arm, all sites had comparable values

with the exception of the Hume Creek and Medicinal Garden sites which had ranges

above the highest concentrations found at Bivens Arm (Figure 2-12). The Baughman

Center site, located within Lake Alice, shows consistently low levels of total nitrogen

indicating a potential loss of nitrogen in the system, most probably within the Lake Alice

marsh.

Nitrate

The range for nitrate was 0 mg/L to 11.5 mg/L (Figure 2-13). There were no

numeric criteria for nitrate levels in Class III waters. Nitrates comprised the majority of

total nitrogen identified on campus. The Hume Creek and Medicinal Garden sites had

consistently elevated nitrate values, corresponding to their high total nitrogen values. In a

few samples, the levels exceeded 10 mg/L (the legal limit for Class I potable waters)

which could result in toxic conditions for aquatic organisms (see dashed line on graph).
































z E C U o Q -, W L C, -C
c E 0E E 0 > r
Co o (. 9 o ) c
a CD 0

Site


Figure 2-11. Total nitrogen concentration by site.


Florida LAKEWATCH
Bivans Arm / Alachua
Total Nitrogen Seasonal and Long-Term Trend Analyses


Highest level
recorded at
Bivens Arm


Best Fit Seasonal Relationship: 2" Polynomial


* 0

J m* ^
^rC a *; *


es
0


-4 0


-,L-0C4 40


I I I I I I I I I I I November sta|
0 31 62 93 124 155 186 217 248 279 310 341 December star
Multiple Years of Data Plotted by the Day of the Year Sampled


Figure 2-12. Florida LAKEWATCH data for total nitrogen concentrations of Bivens Arm
(Florida LAKEWATCH 2003).


Graph A.


6000 -
g 5000-
4000-
-

S3000 -
S2000-
z
NO 1000-
I- i


January starts at day 1
February starts at day 32
March starts at day 61
April starts at day 92
May starts at day 122
June starts at day 152
July starts at day 183
August starts at day 214
September starts at day 245
October starts at day 275


1s at day 306
is at day 336


* u














S-









0 0I I
U) C i a) U Y
o S r I_. < g_ a _
0 Z g c o
Sr o, 0 a a)
- z E O C o r0_ = j o
c c E n E U0 0> 0
C CU CU
-
mm -- Sto
) < 0 0
Site
Site


Class I
SDrinking
Water Standard
10 mg/L



Proposed
maximum nitrate
level for
freshwater
organisms
2 mg/L
(Camargo 2005)


Figure 2-13. Nitrate concentration by site.


M- .- I 1a I u 1 0 .. cI C 9 O I U -o I I >,I "0
-L t LU D ( 1 -= C-) D c c: (D M
S z E -a .

c c = U E 1 E 0 0 > Cp
-m ( < o o 0
Scu 0 0.c
U E 0 E0 o)
E Er c0 4--Cr
c0) 0~ CL
=3m ( (1<


Threshold of
concern
0.5 mg/L
(LEO and
SERVIT
Group 2002).


Figure 2-14. Ammonium concentration by site.









However, research has shown nitrate toxicity can occur at levels at or below 10

mg/L. A proposed nitrate level for a healthy freshwater ecosystem is 2 mg/L (Camargo

2005). The majority of sites on campus were below this level.

Ammonium

Ammonium ranged from 0.007 mg/L to 0.676 mg/L (Figure 2-14). There were no

Class III standards for ammonium. Ammonium concentrations made up only a small

fraction of the total nitrogen measured in sites sampled. In only two cases did the

ammonium concentration exceed the level acceptable for aquatic organisms of 0.5 mg/L

(LEO 2000-2002).

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) ranged from below detection to 10.13 mg/L (Figure

2-15). There were no Class III standards for total Kjeldahl nitrogen. TKN represented the

organic and ammonium nitrogen fraction in the water column. Results were similar to

that of ammonium, confirming that the majority of total nitrogen was in the form of

nitrate.

Phosphorus

The range of data for Total Phosphorus (TP) was 0.11 to 5.75 mg/L (Figure 2-16).

There were no Class III standards for phosphorus. When comparing these values to

LAKEWATCH data from Bivens Arm (Figure 2-17) the majority of samples on campus

were higher (see dashed line at 0.5 mg/L on Figure 2-16). Phosphorus sources could have

been natural or anthropogenic. A natural source of phosphorus may be from clay soils

which are prevalent in the area. On the other hand, the Pony Field and Animal Science

sites received runoff from animal pastures with animal waste, a likely contributing factor

of phosphorus. The Golf Course Pond, 7th Fairway and Shop Stormwater Pond sites


































- -
c c
ro co
L L
mm


C3 )




0))


w
0 >
0 =
4- o

(5


Site


Figure 2-15. Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentration by site.


U


z E -p cr


I m

Site


0 >
4- 0
o 0
0


I- Maximum level
recorded at
S Bivens Arm
0o (LAKEWATCH
E 2003)
0
O)
0
-n
U)


Figure 2-16. Total phosphorus concentration by site.


o 0
U) Z
- U
_c r
ro 2o
C _
mm












Florida LAKEWATCH
Bivans Arm / Alachua
Total Phosphorus Seasonal and Long-Term Trend Analyses

Best Fit Seasonal Relationship: 3" Polynomial


0 31 62 93 124 155 186 217 248 279 310 341 Dec
Multiple Years of Data Plotted by the Day of the Year Sampled


Figure 2-17. LAKEWATCH data for Bivens Arm (Florida LAKEWATCH 2003)



4-



3-

0.)
E
n3 2-
1 -t
w -)


Levels 0.005 mg/L
and higher can
maintain eutrophic
conditions
(Tippecanoe 2004)


Site


Figure 2-18. Soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) concentrations by site.


Graph A.


S500
400-
300-
~200
- 100
I7


0 a0
, r. a


January starts at day 1
February starts at day 32
March starts at day 61
April starts at day 92
May starts at day 122
June starts at day 152
July stars at day 183
August starts at day 214
September starts at day 245
October starts at day 275
November starts at day 306


:ember starts at day 336


-- I









received runoff from the UF Bostick Golf Course which may be have contributed

phosphorus through fertilizer applications or irrigation water. Golf View Creek

may have received some golf course runoff, but also flowed through a residential

area where fertilizer may have been used on lawns.

Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP)

Distribution of soluble reactive phosphours concentrations were between 0.093 and

4.028 mg/L (Figure 2-18). There were no Class III standards for soluble reactive

phosphorus. SRP is the most bioavailable form of phosphorus and, therefore, the most

likely to cause a rapid biological response. Levels higher than 0.005 mg/L may cause

eutrophication (Tippecanoe 2004). All of the levels on campus, with the exception of the

Surge Area, were higher than 0.005 mg/L indicating the potential for maintaining

eutrophic conditions. The highest levels were found at the UF Bostick Golf Course sites

(Golf Course Pond, Golf View Creek, 7th Fairway, and Shop Stormwater Pond).

Conclusions

This first set of campus-wide water quality data provided a valuable baseline by

which to identify potential pollutant problems. Many of the parameters did not have Class

III water quality standards by which to measure the data. In these cases, ranges that were

most habitable to freshwater aquatic organisms were identified and used as a benchmark

by which to compare the data. Conductivity, dissolved oxygen, nitrate and phosphorus

revealed some areas of concern on the UF campus.

Two sites, the Hume Creek and the Golf Course Pond, showed higher ranges for

conductivity than those found in the other sites on campus. While high conductivity

levels for Hume Creek could have been due to high nitrate levels, conductivity levels

were not elevated at the Medicinal Garden sites where high nitrate levels were also









found. High levels at the Golf Course Pond could have been due to water supplied from

the UF Water Reclamation Facility for the pond.

A number of sites had dissolved oxygen levels below 5 mg/L, the Class III

standard. Some of these low levels may have been human-induced, while others may

have been related to the type of ecosystem the water body flows through. For instance,

the Pony Field's low oxygen levels were likely due to animal manure in the runoff, while

the Shop Stormwater Pond was a wetland system which naturally has lower dissolved

oxygen levels than a stream system. Low levels found at the N-S Drive site were less

straightforward and may require further investigation.

Total nitrogen data revealed that all but three sites had comparable values with

Bivens Arm. The Hume Creek and Medicinal Garden sites had ranges above the highest

concentrations found at Bivens Arm. The Baughman Center site which was located

within Lake Alice showed consistently low levels of total nitrogen indicating a potential

loss of nitrogen in the system, most probably due to denitrification within the Lake Alice

marsh.

The data shows that the majority of nitrogen was in the nitrate form with

concentrations reaching as high as 11.5 mg/L. Two creeks had elevated total nitrogen

levels (Hume Creek and Fraternity Row Creek Medicinal Gardens sites) when

compared to other sites on campus. These creeks had nitrate levels which may be of

concern to aquatic organisms. It is likely that the nitrates sources were anthropogenic

such as fertilizer.

Many of the creeks on campus had high phosphorus levels (up to 5.7 mg/L). The

soils on the UF campus could have been a potential source of high phosphorus









concentrations and could have been a contributing factor to eutrophic waters. The soil

layers of the Alachua County area are plio-pleistoscene sands, the Hawthorne Formation

(clay layer) and the Ocala limestone layer. Gainesville lies at the point where the plio-

pleistoscene layer becomes very thin and the Hawthorne Formation is closer to the soil

surface. This clay layer can contain phosphorus that may be released to the water as it

moves through the soil. However, a few creeks showed elevated phosphorus levels that

were most likely due to anthropogenic sources. The Pony Field and Animal Science sites

received runoff from animal pastures and sites on the UF Bostick Golf Course received

runoff which may have had higher levels of fertilizer. In each of these cases, the

implementation of best management practices may help lower phosphorus

concentrations.

Of all the parameters studied, the nitrate data revealed ranges of most critical

concern to aquatic organisms. This source of nitrogen may be a contributing factor to

eutrophic levels within Lake Alice. It may also, however, pose dangers to the creek

ecosystems if not kept in check. Chapter 3 will investigate the Hume Creek watershed in

an effort to identify the sources of nitrate and enable appropriate best management

practices to be implemented.














CHAPTER 3
NITRATE SOURCES IN HUME CREEK

Introduction

Nitrogen is necessary to maintaining life, however it can be toxic in excess

amounts. Nitrate (NO3), a form of nitrogen found in fertilizers, wastewater, and

agricultural runoff, can be washed off of surfaces with irrigation or rain or it can leach

through the soil. Once it enters a waterway it can remain there for extended periods until

taken up by plants or wildlife or be reduced to nitrogen gas under anoxic conditions. In

karst sensitive areas, higher nitrate concentrations have been found in groundwater which

is near agricultural areas (Neill 2004). This direct linkage between the surface and

groundwaters is particularly prevalent in North Central Florida.

In Florida, nitrate levels have increased in natural springs (waterways that emerge

to the surface from underground aquifers) which were once thought to be safe from

surface water pollution. A U.S. Geological Survey study in the Silver Springs Basin,

Florida showed a more than 100% increase in nitrate since the 1960's with current

concentrations at or above 1 mg/L. The maximum concentration measured was 12 mg/L,

a level which exceeds the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L (Phelps 2004).

Although no specific threshold of concern for nitrate levels exist on campus,

enriched nutrient levels in a water body can lead to excessive algal growth and an overall

imbalance in the ecology of an ecosystem. Nitrate exposure has also been shown to

cause abnormalities in amphibians at concentrations as low as 3 mg/L (Rouse 1999). One

paper which reviewed published scientific literature on the impacts of nitrates on









freshwater and marine animals found that long term exposure to nitrate concentrations of

10 mg N03- N/L could have toxic effects on freshwater invertebrates. Researchers

concluded that to prevent nitrate toxicity in freshwater levels should not exceed 2.0 mg/L

(Camargo 2005).

The University of Florida has declared that all surface water bodies on campus are

conservation areas. Keeping the nitrate level low is essential to maintaining a balanced

ecosystem within Hume Creek. Campus-wide water quality testing found two creeks

have elevated total nitrogen levels (Hume Creek and Fraternity Row Creek). This chapter

investigates the Hume Creek sub-watershed, as an effort to locate possible sources of

nitrate. The goals of this investigation were to

1. Determine nitrate concentrations for all culverts draining into Hume Creek during
storm events;

2. Identify culverts which have flow during dry periods and determine nitrate
concentrations for these flows;

3. Identify culverts with nitrate concentrations of concern; and

4. Examine the sub-watersheds of culverts with high nitrate concentrations to
establish potential links with land-use.

If the nitrate source can be identified, preventative and treatment measures can be

taken that will reduce the nitrate loading to the ecosystem, thereby meeting the goals of

the conservation areas.

Methods

Site Description of Hume Creek

Hume Creek, unofficially named after Hume Pond through which it flows, begins

with two forks and terminates at Lake Alice (Figure 3-1). The eastern fork originates in a

ravine to the west of Reitz Union in the Reitz Ravine Woods. Seven culverts convey









water to the creek in this wooded area (Figure 3-3). The creek is deeply incised in areas

where heavy flows exit the culverts. These incised areas are through largely clay soils.

The creek flow is slowed down through pooling, widening and meandering before it exits

the ravine woods through a culvert under Museum and North-South Drives. When the

creek exits the culvert, its banks have a few trees and some minimal vegetation with areas

of mowed grass coming up to the edge of the creek in some areas before joining the

western fork. The drainage basin for the eastern fork includes academic buildings, Reitz

Union, the Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, and the Union Lawn.

The western fork begins in Graham Woods to the south of Perry Field and Stadium

Drive. Fifteen culverts convey water into the western creek in these woods (Figure 3-2).

Some areas of the creek have deeply incised streambanks near the culverts. Like the

eastern fork, periodic pooling and widening assist in slowing the flow of water. The creek

exits the woods through an underground culvert and empties into Graham Pond which

often has maintained landscape edges with mowed grass and minimal vegetated buffers.

The water leaving Graham Pond flows under Museum Drive and through a minimally

buffered area where it joins the eastern creek. Once the two forks meet, the creek

continues to the north of Parking Garage 5 (south of the Honors Residential College at

Hume Hall), flows through Hume Pond, and terminates at Lake Alice. The drainage basin

for the western fork includes the O'Connell Center, residential halls, the football practice

field, Perry Field and a parking lot and garage. The combined sub-watersheds of the two

forks comprise the majority of the total Hume Creek watershed.






44
i


Parking A,
Foat all L tad Id
Pctice e B In HiI














culvert (FiGrahaes 3-2 and 3-3).
Pond i. J *
-- -MIN---


S.. . '".. .







Figure 3-1. Hume Creek and the eastern and western forks. The sub-watersheds of each
fork are outlined in dotted and dashed lines. The storm storm sewer system is
shows underground drainage culverts, manholes and storm drains. Inset boxes
indicate the two wooded areas where culverts drain into the two forks of
Hume Creek. Each boxed area is enlarged below with site numbers for each
culvert (Figures 3-2 and 3-3).








'-MH-2D43


MH-2D76


D65


Figure 3-2. Graham Woods sites.
















*3C1-8


-MH-3C1-16


34" X


CB-3C-30 /CB-3C'-3


Figure 3-3. Reitz Ravine Woods sites.


MUSEUM ROAD









Water Sampling

Two sampling experiments were conducted: a culvert storm sampling and a culvert

dry weather sampling. Samples were measured for nitrate concentration. Flow data was

not collected due to financial constraints of the project.

Culvert storm sampling

To establish stormwater nitrate concentrations for all culverts draining into Hume

Creek, a culvert storm sampling device was designed to capture a random grab sample of

water exiting each culvert during a storm event. All culverts were visited and diameter

and material were documented (Table 3-1 and Figure 3-4). Two metal rods and a

turnbuckle were inserted vertically into the culvert and tightened to maintain rigidity

during a storm event (Figure 3-5). An acid washed 125-mL plastic bottle was attached to

the bottom of the rod using zip ties. A small inflated balloon was inserted into the bottle

to serve as a plug when the bottle filled up. The devices were tested during several storm

events to ensure their stability and effectiveness. Samples were collected within 24 hours

following the storm and, in most cases within 2 hours following the storm. Three storm

events were sampled. Water which settled on top of the balloon during the storm (and

after the bottle had filled up) was suctioned off before the sample was processed. All of

the devices were set up no more than 24 hours before a storm to prevent contamination of

the containers. Rainfall depth was recorded by a weather station located on the roof of the

University of Florida Physics Building at the intersection of North-South and Museum

Drives. In some cases the rainfall did not reach an intensity level to produce enough flow

within a culvert to collect a sample.









Diameter Fork
Site # (in) Culvert Type
26 NA western fork exits Graham Woods stream
27 10 western terra cotta
28 8 western terra cotta
29 8 western terra cotta
30 15 western concrete
31 23.5 western concrete
32 8 western pvc
33 36 western concrete
34 24 western concrete
35 30 western concrete
36 24 western concrete
37 22 western corrugated metal
38 western box culvert
39 23 western concrete
40 18 western plastic lined; box
41 18 western concrete
42 18 eastern concrete
43 8 eastern terra cotta
44 42 eastern concrete
45 48 eastern concrete
46 18 eastern concrete
47 eastern fork exits Reitz Ravine Woods stream
48 10 eastern corrugated metal
49 6 eastern metal
E NA eastern fork of the stream NA
W NA western fork of the stream NA
E+W NA after the forks join NA
Table 3-1. Site identification numbers and descriptions for culverts sampled.

































Figure 3-4. Example of a culvert (site 35) with deeply incised creek walls.


Figure 3-5. Example of stormwater sampling device installed in a culvert.









Culvert dry weather sampling

The dry weather sampling experiment was designed to identify the concentrations

of nitrate exiting culverts during dry, or non-storm event, conditions. Samples were

collected from all culverts which had a flow after at least 4 days without rain. Additional

samples were collected at the eastern and western forks and after the two forks joined.

Samples were collected by hand in acid washed 50-mL plastic bottles, processed within

two hours, and stored at 4 C until analysis.

Nitrate analysis

Water samples were filtered using a 0.45/,m membrane filter and vacuum

filtration set-up. The filtered sample was acidified with ultra concentrated sulfuric acid

and stored at 4 C. Samples were analyzed using an Alpkem Rapid Flow Analyzer within

thirty days of collection.

Results and Discussion

Culvert Storm Sampling

Storm events were sampled on 6/3/05, 6/22/05 and 7/14/05 with rainfall of 0.31

inches, 0.11 inches and 0.18 inches respectively. Most of the samples (69.3%) had

negligible (< 1 mg/L) concentrations of nitrate and 83.6% of the samples had

concentrations below 1.5 mg/L (Figure 3-6). Site 35, however, exhibited consistently

high nitrate concentrations through all three storms with concentrations ranging from

7.58 mg/L to 38.6 mg/L. Site 36 had one sampling event with a higher nitrate

concentration of 7.02 mg/L. Sites 44 and 45 showed slightly elevated nitrate levels as

compared to other culverts in the watershed.

Since the sampling device collected a random grab sample during the storm event,

it was impossible to tell when exactly during the storm the bottle filled up. Therefore, it









was difficult to know how the nitrate concentrations varied at each site during the storm.

An automated sampling device would provide more detailed information in future

studies.

Site 26 was located in the creek (not a culvert) at the location where the western

fork exited Graham Woods and enters an underground culvert before reaching Graham

Pond. Nitrate concentrations at the location where the western fork exited Graham

Woods (site 26) appeared to be elevated above the majority of the culverts in the western

fork. The concentrations, however, were lower than that of site 35 which could indicate

dilution of concentrations from site 35 or denitrification occurring in the ravine.



Culvert Storm Sampling
(6/3/05, 6/22/05, 7/14/05)

40.00
35.00
30.00

E 25.00
,D 20.00
5 15.00
= 10.00
Z io,,,


3.UU
n nn


26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 39 40 42 43 44 45 46 47

Western Fork Site # Eastern Fork


Figure 3-6. Cumulative Nitrate concentrations in culverts during three storm events. Site
26 samples the creek where it exited Graham Woods. Site 47 sampled the
creek where it exited Reitz Ravine Woods.


I I ... ... ... ... ii-.. -.. all .1 .1









Culvert Dry Weather Sampling

During each of the three dry flow sampling events, water discharged from four sites

(33, 35, 44, and 45). Additionally, discharge was also found from site 27 during two

sampling events. The remainder of the sites had no flow during any of the sampling

events. Culvert concentrations were highest at site 35 (ranging from 4.63 mg/L to 9.62

mg/L) (Figure 3-7). This was the same culvert that had the highest nitrate concentrations

during storm events, however the concentrations found during dry events were generally

lower than the concentrations found during storm events (Figure 3-8). Higher storm event

concentrations could be a result of fertilizer runoff from the athletic fields during the

storm.


Dry Flow Sampling
(9/16/05, 9/26/05, 9/30/05)

12

10

8 8
E






0
27 33 35 44 45
Site


Figure 3-7. Nitrate concentration for culverts with dry weather flows.










Comparison of Average Nitrate Concentrations
Storm Event vs. Base Flow







o E Storm
S 30 -
0

2 0 20-






27 33 35 44 45
Site


Figure 3-8. Comparison of average nitrate concentrations between dry flow events and
storm events.

Sites 44 and 45 both had higher nitrate concentrations during dry flow periods than

during storm events, probably due to dilution from additional rainwater in the system

(Figure 3-8). While nitrate concentrations at sites 44 and 45 were lower than those found

at site 35, they were higher than the 2 mg/L cited by researchers as a recommended level

for healthy aquatic systems (Camargo 2005).

Land Use

Stormdrain system maps were obtained from the University of Florida Physical

Plant. These maps provided detailed information as to where water entered the storm

sewer system before exiting a particular culvert.

Sites 35, 44 and 45 all received a portion of their runoff from fertilized athletic

fields. Site 35 appeared to be the primary drainage for Perry Field and Sanders Football

Practice Fields which both have an under drain system to drain the fields in times of high









rainfall or irrigation (Figure 3-9). Site 35 may have had elevated nitrate concentrations

during a storm event (as compared to dry flow events) because of fertilizer runoff from

the athletic fields and the absence of non-field runoff to dilute the concentration.

Site 44 drained a large area of campus to the north of the Reitz Ravine Woods

including many academic buildings as well as the Ben Hill Griffin Stadium and Florida

Field which has an under drain system (Figure 3-10). Site 45 appeared to provide

drainage for some buildings, but also seemed to provide additional drainage for Site 44's

subwatershed (Figure 3-11). It appeared that the source of high nitrate concentrations for

site 35 was from athletic fields. However, site 44 also received runoff from an athletic

field, but the overall sub-watershed was much greater. Therefore, it is possible that site

44 was receiving high nitrate concentrations from the Florida Field, but they were being

diluted with additional water sources from throughout the sub-watershed. Further

investigation could include sampling runoff directly at Florida Field.

Further Research

The goal of the Hume Creek watershed investigation was to provide preliminary

data as to potential nitrate sources within the watershed and a picture of how overall

nitrate concentrations varied between dry and wet periods. The results from the study

yielded interesting data that supports the implementation of one or more best

management practices within the watershed. Further research on the watershed would

assist in determining which BMP(s) would be most appropriate.

In particular, calculations of loads from all culverts both during dry and wet periods

would be valuable. For instance, if the volume of water from the high nitrate site 35 were

relatively low compared to other culverts, the diversion of this water may not decrease

the overall creek volume appreciably. From observations, it appears that site 44 had a











.--7 ,,--- --1 8
CB-2D43 -----205 3H- H1
------ CB- ENGINEERED,
I NOT AS BUILT.
CB-2D45 --__dB7---C 148
CB-204 CB-2D45 CB--2D522 C 148
SAND F ------------- PARKING
GARAGE VII
CB-2D4 PRACTICE I CB-2D51
CB-2D4 --------- .-
I .(UNDER CO. .205 x 0
S CB-2D CB-2D47 ---B-25 -
S-----2057 24"



CB-20--- /-

C H-2D79 MH-2D8 ON-2D6




I" 5-"- -- A 1
C B-2D77 /8'
15 TRENCH I







/ I u '"
HD79 MH-2D40 --M B-206 t 306










B MH7-2D47 -H-2D3

NI M D95 -2D7 -2D7
S269 2 CB-2











S\MH-2076 8 .-D0B-213 ,
1008 NGNE-CB-2D29

MHH2D24
10 2D47
07.0

100 10NC DRAN124 CB-2D29


1010

B D MH-2D 65 -215





-CB-2D31"





GATORS
BAND





SHELL 824 249

Figure 3-9. Sub-watershed for site 35. Shaded box indicates the area of the sub-
watershed. The lines with dots indicate the portion of the storm drainage
system that contributes to this watershed.























































Figure 3-10. Sub-watershed for site 44. Shaded box indicates the area of the sub-
watershed. The lines with dots indicate the portion of the storm drainage
system that contributes to this watershed.






















































Figure 3-11. Sub-watershed of site 45. Shaded box with solid lines indicates the area of
the sub-watershed. The larger shaded box with dashed lines indicates the sub-
watershed of site 44 which is also a contributor to site 45. The small circles
indicate two areas where water may be directed from site 44's sub-watershed
to site 45.









constant and relatively large flow, both during dry and storm events. This was probably

due to the large sub-watershed that conveyed water to site 44. It is likely, however, that

the nitrates were from a single source within the sub-watershed, namely the Florida Field

at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, and that this source may have discharged much higher

nitrate concentrations which were being diluted by the rest of the sub-watershed.

Sampling at the culverts which drain directly from the field would yield data to test this

hypothesis. Flow sampling directly at the field would also provide an estimate of how

much water flowing out of site 44 was from the field verses the rest of the sub-watershed

and whether diverting this flow for re-use or treatment would be feasible.

If the university selects a BMP for implementation, it would be important to collect

pre-implementation water quality and quantity data as well as post-implementation data.

Additionally, Hume Creek with BMPs could be compared to Fraternity Row Creek as a

"control" that currently has similarly high nitrate values and no BMPs.

Conclusions

This study revealed that the majority of the nitrate was coming from three culverts,

sites 35, 44 and 45. Nitrate concentrations found exiting site 35 were at levels that may be

toxic to some aquatic organisms. This culvert received the majority of its water from

athletic field drainage areas. It was likely that fertilizing practices on athletic fields were

a primary contributing source of nitrates. Nitrate concentrations from sites 44 and 45

were lower, but this may have been due to dilution occurring within the underground

drainage system. Nitrate concentrations of water exiting the culverts, particularly during

dry periods, were higher than 2 mg/L, a recommended level for sensitive freshwater

organisms.






59


While additional sampling would be helpful in determining loads and seasonality of

the nitrate concentrations, this scientific data provided information that will be helpful in

addressing the high nitrate concentrations through management decisions that include the

implementation of best management practices. The next chapter proposes policy and

management recommendations for improving water quality in the Lake Alice watershed

as well as best management practices that could directly address the high nitrate

concentrations.














CHAPTER 4
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPING AN INTERNAL TOTAL MAXIMUM
DAILY LOAD PROGRAM

Introduction

The Lake Alice watershed is currently a Class III water body, a stormwater

management system, and a university-designated conservation area. Each of these

designations has potentially conflicting goals in terms of policy and management. For

instance, Class III waters must be monitored, while UF's permit for a stormwater

management system (including Lake Alice) specifically exempts the university from

conducting regular monitoring.

Current water quality data indicates that some locations in the Lake Alice

watershed fail to meet Class III numeric standards such as dissolved oxygen. The greatest

issue of concern, however, is nitrate, a nutrient that does not have a numeric standard.

Legally, Lake Alice is currently not considered an impaired water body and, therefore,

there are not limits on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) of nutrients, such as

nitrogen and phosphorus. Historical and current water quality data, however, indicate

these nutrient concentrations are higher at Lake Alice than in comparable water bodies

and they are a major contributing factor to eutrophic conditions.

To improve water quality would require the university to make a clear commitment

to sustainable water management. One mechanism for achieving this is to develop an

internal goal for nitrate levels on campus using the framework of the federally mandated

TMDL program. There are a number of other universities that have developed innovative









methods for ensuring a high standard of water quality, and key examples these programs

are discussed below.

TMDL Framework

A Total Maximum Daily Load is "a calculation of the maximum amount of a

pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an

allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources" (US EPA 2005d). The Florida

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has developed a five-step strategy for

implementing TMDLs throughout the state:

1. Preliminary basin assessment focusing on existing data; 2. Strategic water
quality monitoring to obtain additional detailed scientific evidence of water quality
conditions; 3. Data analysis and TMDL development and adoption; 4.
Development of a Basin Management Action Plan, in conjunction with local
stakeholders, to allocate, among the local sources of pollution, reductions necessary
to meet the TMDL; and 5. Implementation of the TMDL. (Florida DEP 2005c)

The first two steps have been achieved largely through this study, and the Campus

Water Quality monitoring program. The next steps for UF are to adopt an internal TMDL

and develop a Basin Management Action Plan to achieve the TMDL.

To accomplish these next steps in the TMDL process, and as already

recommended internally by the Conservation Committee (UF Conservation 2005b), UF

should follow Class III water quality standards for all surface water bodies on campus

including Lake Alice, ponds and creeks. Regular water quality monitoring and wildlife

sampling should be conducted in key locations throughout campus to ensure the

maintenance of Class III standards. The frequency of monitoring should be, at minimum,

quarterly in order to identify seasonal variations. If Class III standards are not met, the

university should develop an internal TMDL to address the issue.









In some cases, Class III standards may not be stringent enough to ensure the water

is safe for recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced

population of fish and wildlife. For example, nutrients, such as nitrogen, do not have a

numeric limits but should be limited so as to not "cause an imbalance in natural

populations of aquatic flora or fauna" (FAC 7). One potential challenge with narrative

criteria is that there is only emerging scientific knowledge about the potential impacts of

some chemicals on wildlife and an "imbalance" may be difficult to prove unless it is

specifically being studied. For instance, high levels of nutrients like nitrogen can cause

algae blooms and eutrophication. One mechanism for ensuring waterbodies remain

healthy is to create internal goals for volume, rate and pollutant loads and regularly

monitor the water to ensure an imbalance does not occur.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) made the following

commitments in the stormwater component of their development plan:

"No increase in the volume of runoff leaving main campus for all future
development projects. No increase in the rate of runoff or the quantity of non-point
source pollutants as a result of new development. An overall decrease in the
volume of stormwater runoff, the rate of runoff, and the amount of non-point
source pollutants leaving campus as compared to existing conditions" (UNC
Development Plan 2005).

The policy of no net increase is a major institutional commitment that requires

extensive modeling and vigilance in post development monitoring. To achieve this, UNC

used GIS and a USDA Soil Conservation Service "Cover Complex Method" to predict

how future development will impact the volume of runoff UNC will implement the no

net increase policy at each individual basin rather than the campus as a whole. Each new

development project will include stormwater management technologies when possible or

mitigation within the basin itself. Additionally, UNC committed to monitoring outfall









locations for flow and water quality as well as a semi-annual benthic invertebrate

sampling along a campus creek (UNC Development Plan 2005).

The University of Florida currently does not have a no net increase policy for

volume, rate and pollutant load for any of its watersheds. In the case of the Lake Alice

and Depressional Basin watersheds, there is no outfall to a water source off the university

property. However, there are waters that feed into the Hogtown and Bivens Arm

watersheds off campus (UF 2000). UF does not conduct modeling to assess pollutant load

implications for current or future development.

The University of Florida should adopt a policy of no net increase in volume, rate

or pollutant load for all campus watersheds. In order to enforce this policy, the University

should develop a monitoring program which monitors flows at outlet points and water

quality throughout campus. Included within this policy should be a goal for all waters not

to exceed nitrate concentrations of 2 mg/L, the level recommended in one scientific

review of nitrate impacts on wildlife (Camargo 2005). The University of Florida should

also develop a model for all surface waters on campus to predict how the volume, rate

and pollutant loads may change with increased development.

To achieve an internal TMDL, UF should develop a Basin Area Management Plan.

This plan would include water quality monitoring and modeling, a management structure,

a set of best management practices, a research program and a financing plan.

Monitoring and Modeling

Regular water quality monitoring should be continued throughout campus and at

identified "hot spots" for potential pollutants. Modeling of pollutant loads should be

conducted throughout campus as well as at key locations where point source pollutants

have been identified such as site 35.









Management

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has a Stormwater Committee

including representatives from Directors of Real Estate, Facilities Planning and Design,

Transportation, Facilities Operations, Water Quality Group, the University Architect, and

extension. The committee is given training specific to the design and use of BMPs. There

is also a Water, Stormwater and Wastewater Manager who is in charge of overseeing all

matters related to waters (UNC Sustainability Coalition 2005).

The University of Florida should develop a Stormwater Advisory Committee

composed of representatives from the Physical Plant, the Office of Planning, the

University Athletic Association, IFAS, Custodial Staff, Office of the President,

Landscaping Division, faculty from the landscape architecture, environmental

engineering, soil and water sciences, School of Natural Resources and Environment, and

wildlife, and student representatives from the UF Wetlands Club, the American Water

Resources Association, and the Environmental Action Group. The Committee would

meet at least once a year to set campus-wide priorities regarding stormwater issues on

campus. The Committee would hire and advise the Water, Stormwater and Wastewater

Manager. The Committee could be a sub-committee of the Lakes, Vegetation and

Landscape Committee or it could be integrated into the newly developed Office of

Sustainability.

The University should create a full-time Water, Stormwater and Wastewater

manager position that oversees all water related issues on the UF Campus. The manager

would develop a formalized mechanism for inspections, illicit discharges and monitoring.

The manager would provide accountability and reporting for all programs related to the

NPDES permit as well as compliance with other federal, state and local regulations









regarding water. The manager would also be responsible for working with the

Stormwater Advisory Committee (see below) to implement best management practices

and provide educational outreach.

Best Management Practices

There are two types of BMPs: behavioral and structural. Behavioral BMPs require

a behavioral change on the part of individuals. For instance, a janitor who empties

wastewater into a storm drain can change their behavior and improve water quality.

Structural BMPs require a physical structure which can assist in controlling water

quantity and/or water quality. In some cases, multiple BMPs can be implemented for

maximum effectiveness to create a "treatment train". Scientific data on the success of

BMPs is limited, but growing. Comparing the effectiveness of different BMPs has proven

challenging because of the variety of research methods and designs utilized.

Nevertheless, BMPs, if designed and maintained correctly, are considered by the federal

government to be reliable mechanisms for treating stormwater.

BMP implementation on the campus should, when possible, address water quality

concerns that have been identified, such as nitrate in Hume Creek. Mechanisms for

removing nitrate from the water can include denitrification in anoxic environments, plant

assimilation, leaching to groundwater, and volatilization (Poe 2003). Wetlands and

floodplains and riparian forests can act as valuable sinks for nitrate (Tockner 1999).

In the case of Hume Creek, the likely nitrate source is fertilizer being applied to

athletic fields managed by the University Athletic Association. There are a number of

best management practices that could be implemented to either reduce the inputs of

nitrate or to treat the nitrate once it has entered the creek.









Nutrient management

Currently there are no formal policies with regard to the rate of fertilizer

applications on fields maintained by the University Athletic Association (Scott Roberts,

personal communication, September 23, 2005). The University Athletic Association and

the Physical Plant (where applicable) can alter its turf management practices to include

more sustainable nutrient management practices. For instance, limiting fertilizer

applications when soil moisture is high or when rainfall is expected would reduce runoff

(Shuman 2002). Research has shown that leaching and runoff of nitrate is higher from

newly seeded turfgrass than from established turfgrass (Easton and Petrovic 2004). By

reducing fertilizer applications for a period of time after seeding fields, nitrate

concentrations may be reduced.

The Conservation Area Study Committee has taken steps to ensure this best

management practice is implemented in the future. The following policy and

recommendations were adopted on September 1, 2005 for inclusion in the

Comprehensive Campus Master Plan 2005-2015:

Policy 3.2: The University shall continue to mitigate University generated
stormwater and to minimize stormwater borne pollutants through implementation
of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that includes, but is not limited to:

...* Using slow release fertilizers and/or carefully managed fertilizer applications
timed to ensure maximum root uptake and minimal surface water runoff or
leaching to groundwater...

... Incorporating features into the design of fertilizer and pesticide storage, mixing
and loading areas that are designed to prevent/minimize spillage (UF Conservation
2005b).

Re-use of the water

Since nitrate is a component of fertilizers, it may be possible to re-use the nitrate

laden water that is draining from the athletic fields for subsequent irrigation of those or









other fields. This would require a facility that could store the water, possibly transport the

water and re-use it when necessary. By re-using the water for irrigation, the amount of

additional fertilizer could be potentially reduced.

Pretreatment

The water that discharges through sites 35, 44 and 45 could be diverted and pre-

treated prior to entry into Hume Creek. One possible mechanism for pre-treatment would

be a bioretention facility such as that found next to the soccer and softball fields near the

intersection of Museum and Hull Roads.

Wetland retention area in Graham Woods

Water that enters Graham Woods and Reitz Ravine Woods could be treated

partially via a wetland retention area in the woods itself. Small dams or weirs could be

installed near the outlets of sites 35, 44 and 45 which would slow water down and

provide temporary storage and treatment. One study indicated that denitrification rates

increase by 400% following rainfall and increased inorganic nitrogen loading (Poe 2003).

It may, therefore, be important to develop mechanisms by which the wooded areas can

retain a larger volume of water during periods when nitrogen loading is expected to be

highest. This would require coordination with the University Athletic Association and the

Physical Plant staff who apply fertilizers.

Vegetated buffers

Vegetative buffers have often been used as a mechanism for nitrate removal in

agricultural areas. In the case of Hume Creek, the forested buffer provides some

treatment as the culvert waters flow towards the main creek and can also provide

treatment for the creek as it rises into the wooded floodplain during heavy rains. The

Alachua County Comprehensive Plan 2001-2020 requires a minimum 35 foot buffer (50









foot average) around surface waters that are less than 0.5 acres and a minimum 50 foot

buffer (75 foot average) around waters greater than 0.5 acres. Preserving and possibly

increasing the buffered area to these recommended widths could assist in nitrate

reduction.

While plant assimilation of nitrogen is advantageous to nitrogen removal, the

nitrogen may be re-mobilized in the environment when the plant decays. Therefore,

denitrification is a preferred mechanism for removing nitrate. Denitrification could be

maximized by planting species which are particularly efficient at denitrification

(Matheson 2002).

Denitrification in floodplain soils

Research has shown that nitrate concentrations can be reduced by applying the

contaminated water to the floodplain soils. The infiltration of water through the

sediments results in denitrifcation in the anoxic soil layers with sufficient organic matter

(Chung 2004 and Tockner 1999 and Almendinger 1999). Diversion of high nitrate

concentration waters from the storm drain culvert system to a spray application on

floodplain soils may provide a mechanism by which the waters can be treated as they

filter through the soils and, eventually, into the creek system.

Additional BMPs that are not specific to nitrate reduction include monitoring flows

into the groundwater wells and revising the UF Development Guidelines.

Groundwater well monitoring

Groundwater well R-1 should be raised such that it receives water only during

extreme high water conditions (like R-2). A gauge to monitor flows into the two wells

should be installed as soon as possible in order to meet the requirements of the 2000









Master Stormwater Permit. Water entering into either R-1 or R-2 should be monitored for

water quality to prevent contamination of groundwater.

The Conservation Area Study Committee acknowledged the need to monitor these

wells in September 2005 through the adoption of the following policy:

Policy 1.5: The University shall abide by all requirements and conditions of the
current Master Stormwater Permit by the SJRWMD and shall seek renewal of the
permit in 2010. Those conditions include reporting water levels in monitoring wells
quarterly and submission of groundwater and surface water monitoring tests to the
water management district (UF Conservation 2005b).

Development guidelines

On many university campuses, there are guidelines which dictate the process for

designing and approving any new development project, particularly those which increase

the percentage of impervious surface. North Carolina State University's (NC State)

Stormwater Guidelines for New Development are specific about not only creating

adequate opportunities for detention of stormwater, but also about reducing the amount of

nitrogen that enters the stormwater system. The guidelines are in direct response to

regulations outlined in the Wayne County Stormwater Ordinance, Article 300, Section

301 (E) which limit the amount of nitrogen that can be exported from a new

development. NC State addresses this requirement by providing a mechanism for

calculating the projected nitrogen loads for a new development and recommending

specific BMPs which can reduce nitrogen loading (NC State 2005). Additionally, NC

State has made a concerted effort to monitor BMPs they have implemented both on and

off campus to assess their effectiveness and appropriateness for various water quality

concerns.

Cleveland State University's Campus Master Plan has guidelines for new

development which include vegetative roofs, water conservation, the use of native plants









and low maintenance plants, reduction of fertilizer usage, permeable paved surfaces for

parking, rainwater harvesting, and green spaces which can store and filter stormwater

(Cleveland 2005).

The University of Florida's Design and Construction Standards currently includes

policies for the minimum stormwater control measures as required under the NPDES

permit. These policies do not, however, include limits to the nutrient loading from new

developments, nor do they include design guidelines for more innovative stormwater

management strategies such as rainwater harvesting, porous pavement, and vegetative

roofs (UF Conservation 2005a).

In September 2005, the Conservation Study Area Committee approved the

following policies for inclusion in the UF Comprehensive Campus Master Plan 2005-

2015:

Object[sic] 4: The University shall implement sustainable stormwater practices in
all campus site development incorporating Low Impact Development techniques
where physically, economically, and practically possible.

Policy 4.1: The University shall strive to incorporate stormwater improvements into
all new building sites and into modification of existing sites. These improvements
include, but are not limited to, rain gardens, roof-top gardens, porous soil
amendments, hardscape storage, pervious pavement and other innovative
stormwater techniques.

Policy 4.2: The University shall identify opportunities for retrofitting existing open
space (i.e. land use classifications of Buffer, Urban Park and Conservation) to
incorporate rain gardens and other multi-use detention practices that maintain the
primary use, but with the added benefit of slowing water discharges into the
stormwater system. Examples include: lowered flower beds (i.e. instead of raised
beds), curb openings (i.e. brick and other hardscape removal in edging and seat
wall footings) that allow water to enter vegetated areas, use of lawn areas for
incorporating slight depressions that retain rainfall, and elevating storm drains
where water detention is acceptable so that they are not at the lowest elevation (UF
Conservation 2005b).









This policy, if approved in the final Campus Master Plan, would set forth more

stringent and innovative policies for development on campus. This policy should be

expanded into a standard set of best management practices that architects and engineers

are required to work from. Whenever possible, the implemented practice should be

coordinated with researchers who can monitor the effectiveness of the BMP before,

during and after implementation.

Stormwater Research

A number of universities have developed mechanisms to integrate research with

stormwater management on their campuses. The Villanova University Stormwater BMP

Park is one example of how BMPs are being actively researched by students and faculty.

Villanova developed the Urban Stormwater Partnershp to foster public, private and

academic partnerships in researching stormwater BMPs. In the last two years, five

student research projects or theses have been completed related to BMP effectiveness and

numerous faculty tours or presentations have been made related to BMPs (Villanova

2005).

Another example is Ohio State University where a collaborative group called

CampUShed, composed of students, faculty and staff, integrates research, education and

hands-on environmental solutions. Their goals are to foster the implementation of

scientifically-based environmental solutions on campus, encourage faculty to integrate

on-campus projects in their courses, and provide an information clearinghouse of events

and activities. Many of the projects CampUShed has worked on include stormwater

management practices such as a bioretention area and constructed wetlands (Ohio 2005).

In September 2005, the Conservation Area Study Committee approved the

following policies for inclusion in the Comprehensive Campus Master Plan 2005-2015:









Objective 5: The University shall keep faculty, staff, students and visitors informed
on stormwater issues through outreach and demonstration projects.

Policy 5.1: The University shall strive where practicable to include interpretive
information and educational opportunities that go along with the University's
efforts to integrate innovative structural stormwater design and BMP concepts.

Policy 5.2: The University shall maintain financial and personnel support of
stormwater related education and awareness programs for the campus community.

Policy 5.3: The University shall pursue grants and other opportunities to fund
implementation, outreach and study of stormwater best management practices on
campus (UF Conservation 2005b).

If approved in the final Campus Master Plan, these policies will set forth a firm

commitment to stormwater research on the UF campus. In the past, water quality data

collected in Lake Alice and student research papers on campus waters was kept in

disparate locations (such as professor's offices), often only located through word of

mouth. In order to ensure research efforts are synchronized and complementary, UF

should develop a centralized mechanism by which to support, recognize and record

research activities related to water and stormwater on the campus such as the UF Clean

Water Campaign website or the Office of Sustainability.

Financing

Many municipalities have implemented stormwater utility fees to help defray the

costs of building, operating and maintaining stormwater management systems.

"Stormwater utility" is defined as the "funding of a stormwater management program by

assessing the cost of the program to the beneficiaries based on their relative contribution

to its need. It is operated as a typical utility which bills services regularly, similar to water

and wastewater services" (Florida Statute 1). These fees are based upon "an equitable

unit cost approach". In Gainesville, property users are assessed a fee based on the









estimated area of their building (impervious surface). The fees are applied to those

individuals who are using the property and receive the services of the municipality.

The University operates autonomously from the City of Gainesville and provides

services to its users and residents just as a city would. Student enrollment has steadily

increased over time and now includes 49,650 students (UF Factbook 2005). The more

than 1,800 acre campus provides services and amenities to the surrounding Gainesville

community such as the Shands medical facility, Ben Griffin Stadium, the Ham Museum,

and the Phillips Center for the Performing Arts. In 2002-2003, an estimated 1.8 million

people visited UF for an event (UF 2005a). In 2003, 37,631 parking decals were sold

with revenues of $4.5 million (UF Office of Audit and Compliance Review 2004).

UF should implement a stormwater utility fee for users of the campus property. The

primary mechanism by which users of the campus may contribute to stormwater pollution

is by driving and parking on the campus. Therefore, in order to create an equitable cost

approach, it is recommended that a stormwater utility fee be assessed according to the

usage of roads and parking spaces on campus. A stormwater utility fee may be assessed

in one of three ways (or a combination of the following):

* a fee added to the cost of a parking decal;

* a fee added to the admission price of an event on campus in which users are
parking and driving on campus; and

* a fee added to visitor parking tokens.

Revenues generated may be used for the management, operation and maintenance

of the stormwater management system on campus including the installation of new

BMPs.









Conclusion

The Lake Alice watershed currently has multiple designations with potentially

conflicting goals in terms of policy and management of UF water bodies. In order to meet

the goals of each of the regulatory designations and improve water quality, the university

must adopt a comprehensive strategy for sustainable water management.

In September 2005, the Conservation Area Study Committee adopted some bold

new policies for inclusion in the Comprehensive Campus Master Plan 2005-2015

including meeting Class III water quality standards for Lake Alice and its contributing

waterways, monitoring the groundwater wells in Lake Alice, incorporating best

management practices into new development and supporting research and education

efforts around stormwater. However, the policies fall short of setting numeric limits to

volume, rate and pollutant loads on campus. The policies also do not outline a monitoring

plan nor a clear management structure. Lastly, there is no formalized mechanism within

the proposed policies to link scientific investigation with the implementation of best

management practices (BMPs). The scientific data gathered through this study enables

the university to potentially address a long-standing problem of high nitrogen

concentrations through targeted BMP implementation.

The federal Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program provides a useful

framework by which the university can develop internal goals for pollutant loads and a

Basin Area Management Plan to achieve these goals. Through the TMDL program

framework, the University of Florida can define clear numeric targets for water quality

criteria, in particular nitrate. Be linking scientific investigation with policy, the University

of Florida can attain a sustainable water management program that achieves a high

standard of water quality and meets all of its regulatory designations















APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING REGULATORY STATUS OF LAKE ALICE
AND ITS WATERSHED

1. Robert F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, to Stallings Howell, December 31, 1979.

2. R. F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, to Stallings Howell, February 6, 1980.

3. Nell Keever, U.S. EPA, to University of Florida, March 20, 1980.

4. John C. Lank, U.S. EPA, to W. T. Michael, University of Florida, April 4, 1980.

5. Chronology, University of Florida, May 1, 1980.

6. Meeting Minutes, University of Florida, May 5, 1980.

7. W.T. Michael, University of Florida, to R.F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, July 17, 1980.

8. Bram Canter, State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Interoffice
Memorandum to Frank Watkins, January 4, 1984.

9. Richard Hamann, University of Florida, to the Water Management Advisory
Committee, May 7, 1984.

10. Robert D. Cremer, Jr., University of Florida, to Mr. McGarry, August 10, 1984.

11. Peter T. McGarry, U.S. EPA, to Robert Cremer, University of Florida, August 23,
1984.

12. Robert J. Epting, St. Johns Water Management District, to Charles Hogan,
University of Florida, June 10, 1994.

13. Jeremy Tyler, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to Robert Epting,
St. Johns River Water Management District, June 13, 1994.

14. Charles Hogan, University of Florida, to Tim Sagul and Barbara Hatchitt, St. Johns
River Water Management District, January 16, 1998.

15. Lisa M. Grant, St. Johns River Water Management District, to Charles Hogan,
University of Florida, February 20, 1998.

16. R.W. Cantrell, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, to Chuck Hogan,
University of Florida, 1998.






76


17. Robert H. Pritchard, University of Florida, to Teresa B. Tinker, State of Florida,
Growth Management and Strategic Planning Policy Unit, March 19, 1998

18. Charles Hogan, University of Florida, October 6, 2005

19. Charles Fender, University of Florida, October 6, 2005.

20. J. Blair, University of Florida, October 6, 2005.







77



'.' *

nraoar 3, 1979
Staba of Ztal Alice, X1laam nty. lorida

Mater Oality Staweml Mdisnator

status amn
Flria Soe cak )


In zearaua to aw mtlac acmmaning lale Aflas, caZ atetad 7n
Wt detaang Mather or awt they meuidn! the Irse %tears of
Tlrida. Their wpaa, dated amBt 3, 197 9, ijiUcatos tlw
xraidhr fthe Ute a part of thMe wt treaMtat* steWm oana by tho
tduversty oa F2ricda rd thweVby 1lo pt bf: vater quatwy stuaates.
MRI a osd in Vtis positis in a I ctbr dated Wesr 12, 1973

at th dciPetatn pwUdd An the raont Rt ttr, thro s 1is
little 4tht that ZtA AX&B wwald be amidmvd %stemn of the
U.s.' Ubtr tih Aw 7, 2979 Ws agulatiam. A a uttx tt Me
0.S., Lrae aII mst be =owR tMd7 StBate watr luay qM i taanvbrtnl
r EPA Is alitatAd te pgeauwlatB Padral watr quality staMru*.
X MpWest we ditou thiN s atilr with dtWCment and "nWglnal




1fRet F. Eneae t
aaries ianrr m g m ri




\LI- : s.'3
fl g







e iFs






1. Robert F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, to Stallings Howell, December 31, 1979.






78






bm ONEW FEB I1 1i






ftP qf AM 4 911 49 01.1. 401~dm E1 M
Z bm cmdWadi ma MS m
W ~ WL t s m b am af 1n m am 4.

06WWMs Iin mvAb msd WO0 mma v W
to A" pmnS mm taW ml Nw
k bSUSr t'Tt~LUbSl~r

at I"'~ -~k h Ar tm SW am MAN ~ JIV

As,- abu ini m55 Twf SlWWW =A
-I ~ t -
J' imid 1PEn suB dL~a~a I mlt 7.~ 113b~l d~~

11m
IMMAN16 'Ube I gor UL~ trd1Yt b" b mdLl




or.
*0 1&%* Axrm J& a vatem o do UAW @bnm ad ST madom
t1 modo mft hme ~a POEMI ru l q~rLq

11 nmn 1o an)444 mb* IV RL E
a I&W -Na n. W dd &" A.
~ r~rr d b Amanre. m WVMOTA- go am 7. mmDIL~k


fte mmld~ft Wei=.
P IL 8e IN&" "elf ,v




~t tO..00
ANON*, Wd VO o
sow, b
amok" *m !"ldS~d1 :: ~i~; :~r~ k \~
:qll ah L~jka~\7i
~a ~1W
4k 0XV! \
ftoo V. MO AWnO\C
oru ~zi-


2. R. F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, to Stallings Howell, February 6, 1980.












'I a T4
f4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
uS couRTLAND STNm
ATLANTA eM0naUA 030


March 20, 19980 f

REP: 4A-E 140


Director PI
Physical Plant
Drivis FEB 111998
University of Florida
CGinesville, FL 32611
RE: PDS Permit B

Dear Sir
In 1973, your facility applied to this office for aa PDE permit. In
your application you stated that your disehargS vent to an ration pond,
ate. Based on that information, it did not appear that you had a discharge
to surface water of the United States, so you vere advised at that time
that a permit would not be required for your facility.
It has now bean determined that the teration lsat, nton a Lake Alice, is
considered to be waters of the United States and may facility discharging
into those waters mut arve as HPD permit.
enclosed in a set of Standard Form A application forms with instructions.
Please complete these forms and retrn them to this office within 20 days
after receipt of this lattet.
Should you have any questioas acncernin this, please contact this office.
Sincerely,



Birocanental Protection Assistant .. yo oj/. /a o/
Plannat and Reports Ut 'n
Water Eaforcant Branch /
Steorc-n nt Division At / a .
Enodosure aq-r 3t- 597/

















3. Nell Keever, U.S. EPA, to University of Florida, March 20, 1980.







80






*A' j UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Rt -oum GION IV
S j *a A 4UI 1 0nem0A NAOI


ATR 4 IoU
4E-WE .


RECEzIV


mr. W. t. MichaeI
Physical plant Division
alinrazity of norida
Gainueellsl, ririda 32611


APR 10 19

AMt O$l 10 Of


Ie: Dtermination for Lak Alice
Dear Mr. Michaels
In a recent telephone convrsation with a, you rquested the atioate4 fto
the determination aking Lake Auice a vater of the aUnted Statea. Blosed
arM copies of inter-ofioer amI from the Water Quality Standead Bach of
EPA imaitiring Lth fact that Laka Alice is classifed a water of the
United States.
Should you have an further question please fet f to contact m at (04)
881-7428.
Stwely yours,


C. Laok, Jr. ?.I.
f Cit Gln. ColqiBe 1roiq
Iaforcemat Division
Enclosures (2)


4. John C. Lank, U.S. EPA, to W. T. Michael, University of Florida, April 4, 1980.















UGA ,I Ns L*R r v o t r *"*'*t

GAIINtiVILc* -L.OIIIUA '*:tM


May 1, 1980


wPytISAL PLANT OIvaIoNQ



Chronology


16 August 1973 Greene to EPAt requstftin p rmiLt application.

12 Novambar 1973 Cozart to Greene, sat. ig n EPA Is required, beescut no
discharge to urtfanc wacer is involved.

26 July 1976 Creene to Stewar.t POER, giving history and facts re:
"Pond Alice".

June 1932 Aerial phoco of Lake Alice area, showing shrinkage or
high water rings, and size during rainy asuoa,

20 October 1976 Purman to Yee, FDER, nutltnLng history and opinions re-
garding permanence and purpnsea of the area, with attcched
bathymetric map.
NOfl Compare bachymetrlJc ith aerial photo, showing approximate
depth of two feet, with amn.iL portion four feat, in 1932,
during rainy eason.

14 March 1977 Stuart to Singh B.C.& R., Indlenting that the lake cannot
be classified as Class III Recreation, lihb and UWLldife.

31 December 1979 EPA, McGhee. to.Howell indicating that FDER considers
the lake to be a part of the vaste treatment system of
the UT; but also Indicating the EPA considers it is
waters of the US Iunder June 7. 1979 SFDES re ulations.'

6 February 1980 EPA, McGhe t9 Howell, lndtcicari the area was a marsh,
and io mlntrastate wetland modified by iapoundmstn, *al
could be umQd by both ltterstate and foreign travelers.


20 March 1980


ATTACHMENT


Kamver to I7, IndicatiL that the aeration lake, know
as Lake Alice, required a NPDES permit.

June 7, 1979, RevitLon of Begulatioan eMES; 40. CTA
122.3 c, "D fluliton of lavigable Waters"; indicating
thac vaste treatment systems re not waters or wvtlaos
of the United CStaes.


5. Chronology, University of Florida, May 1, 1980















U AIIVILL.T L~f, .OAl A
tAJN6VIaLI.* lattSA sm,



SvIec*i. p~.ur oIIe0oN Hay 5, 1980
ikke Alic11 Meeting In Atlanta with r'A representative, on Hay 1, 1980
in the EA Building 235 Courtlead 8c. 30308.

Attenodee Mr. I. L. Martial f
Mr. V. T. Michael
Mr. tay Strickland, tel: 404-8814201 |
Mr. John Lank. falt 404-51-7423 -FEB 1- I* I
%. PMr. Lkhe MceGhee. el 404-881-4793
Mr. ALLM Fraer
Ma. lose Mary arrow

Referred to 1) 11ll6 avemr. tal: 404-526-3971
2) J*uanect Mauldia, telt 404-881-2328

Jeanette Wuldia reportedly (per armer) stated it wuan a oaeossai y to
fillU n all of the "tale" section of the appliteai. it we dlda' t have
evidence of the utarial's am l tante.

During th aeeti t, Mr. McGhee who uae late asuatla d that Lake Alie
s o Inatreautae eland, modified by apoundment, oad that ths W wa n
ogaged in teamta Comarca bee es w hav out-f-otat and foreign
students and viittos (travelers).

Obviously., ary Strickland ws opposed to the 01 Pla0 beig ra nw d, 1d
as a consequaeu of his roiew, he had sequestd that eGahe dAet eh tdi'
clasificattso of Ltk& Alle. McCh ruld it we a wtlandU odiftel by .
Sapouadmn t end could be ueed by intL tate sat foreign travel Federal
tleulatie sc. at t stlMeds the a degradation or detnmctioa of which
would aftest or could afftat interstate Or fareltan onsmeo-" and clasding
"*oul be used by laterstte or toeign travel for nrcreatto al or other
purpnes.
ae mlintaned that cw did not degree or daetr the area, *nad that the
proviso eeludina wastatresmant systw applied In our tes., A*o, if the'
aUS etat the ake cold be used for xecreeltes W p 0s4M4e were 1 tIocMai j

Mcohs. atat a e id revieU his poiltaes, ad ftermliy notify lrlda .
bDpartmaet of aviroenutal Iegulasto of uip detuis .* tierwardist A .op, '
of any errpOade u erspo* d to .
Hr. Lank contriwatnd little o the cnareasesio stating we -had Ptrei .
students ad viitors. ad lake AlMce we uN a atrestets Iandm, ia latn .
the meein eorly, before Mr. Meahes rtved.
xr. Tarmer did not participate la tih dtcwseta, but did easort as to r
leiver's ad Ma. anuldiag's areWs.

NS. NHrrow parMtiapet d to a vry aIqor degree.
Mr. Mchee stated he kane of no appel action. excApt thtrath the coutsu and/o
public hrtarg after a rule had beea promalted. Ve su4d in this case,
6. Meeting Minutes, University of Florida, May 5, 1980 (second page missing).









6. Meeting Minutes, University of Florida, May 5, 1980 (second page missing).























32611
PYU4CAL PLANT elv~Imo

July 17, 1980


Mr. R. F. McGhee \ o,
US Environmental Protection Agencyg
Reglon IV, Water Enforcement Branch
34S Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30308

Dear Mike:

We have noted that we failed to thank you for your courteous attention and
professional approach displayed by you and your staff during our visit on
May 1, to discuss a classification for Lake Alice on our campus.
I am sorry that at the time we did not reach a caplete meeting of minds on
whether or not the area Is a final waste treatment pond, or the present use
degrades a wetlands which could affect interstate commerce.

We do appreelite your agreement to review your position, to work through the
Florida DER to develop final determinationS, and to keep us informed of pro-
gress. in anticipation of that determination, we are holding the application
for the NPDES permit, per our agreement;
Please let me know If you have any questions, or If we can be of assistance
in any way.

Sincertly,


V. T. Michael
Assistant Director Post-t FaxNote 7671 Jtl 9 9
WTM/bk .
eei R. L. Martin

















7. W.T. Michael, University of Florida, to R.F. McGhee, U.S. EPA, July 17, 1980.













S '. .. -w'.
DEPARTUINTOP t VIRONMiT|riGULATlTW
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
ov


t. Frank Uatin )1 L E U IE 1 I i .
raic szas cantered FEB 111998
MDAi January 4, 1984
IUUlCT? a Lake Alice Status


7ro. the *lwOed w an a yot will se that the De-
partmset has an the pon t i tioa t Zake Alal is not waters
qf trhe tate. she lake i1 to be egwted as a p "Fif the
nieeretty' wmswateta treatate syst. Ats trsatm-at sys
te.-wponat, hBIwver it mut be opoated ia ca planee
a*X Deppartmnt raole regarding the truatwat am dis a l"o of
wast. iscluding th zouddwte uaoteotoI znqn--melt eoa-
taited I sAles t7 *o s4ema.te ean--
t i* i& I s i7-3, 17-4, 17-4, 17-U, U& 1,7t-.

x aMuCT MaCMas

It the lake diaeblrge vi the draLaMge wll oaly
4Iuia etrMUo inaray n fao ll evenoa, I think t wi ol be Zre-
onabe (ad coanisteat with Iepartaeat Iraetoe) to ousrider
ths as a 'ao diasihrgo"' etlity alnsee a I ui health riAk
would be orestr evn I n etra rdinamy discharge (WhAeubo
nualkely tnm yew deserAlstee of the sitLuatIa). If the pro-
Posed tormemter disroha to Zake AU3e w~lI not oRmeon th'a
situation, it would =e a dihaehuge' ecliUt. a *ffeCtts
it uould be a retention beaia for the toamltar uofL as welt
as a pereooatioe poad foe the trotm"Mt Plat e*ttl Mt. Seoua
toate tOtr ofteuts ac to bIe takem lato aeout la the "oth"
t ai meto er b M i te rse r et At to that

t m Cn ter distehageo tr(if e bae atammethi awar ent te o
rowegusmeto awiU t lu he met).
tfUag iostelliatiew Uae ahe alms get an autoeati
somem of tibase. (800) to the owner's property iSe *tii the
amuit zrumewe0 or odifited (17-4.245(41)(b)). a that tim.












8. Bram Canter, State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Interoffice
Memorandum to Frank Watkins, January 4, 1984 (continued on next page).


lie












/ MHemorndum
January 4, 1984
Page 2

the s20 met be established i the permit but It vill till1 ex-
tend to the property boundary unless th e parent show that
the SOD should be snlle because r ter quality standards out-
side thOe 0 would be violated, the designated uses oe o ter
wvaers will be Ipaired, an Imint tbt threat t th public balth
would result. et. (17.4.245(5)(b) and Ct)). za either ase,
Lake Aliae will be easpt r tem aintorintg ett1 tst it the
treatmnt plat ha I*s" thel a 100,000 ia Di a spety
(17-4. 45S( ) ( }). ( et sthe plant LOSa it 0e1t it r
mnaatoring plan oa o~ before ebr ry 4 i TI-4.atW56) elte 2.).



the situation beaoms wah nore dftticolt it Waek AliL=
has a r tger discharge through tih drainage ill. lo sm to
diseherge is aUowd for irseet discharge to *Z -aters through
Sdrlasgi wells (17-4.245 (2) b). ha't aans the rlasy ga
seoaday rtaikiug wter s tanares at be Mt prior t mo oelese.
That to tr before and fteu tib pompeosd p ormu ter deieharge
i os sie. 2f facet with such a req m the gbivrsity sea
itht chang the drainage well t tho (ed C tnlsesu bom
Stroordiiay) oar else sot driakis wmter standards An LatO UAon.





FEB 111998
























8. Bram Canter, State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Interoffice
Memorandum to Frank Watkins, January 4, 1984 (continued from previous page).


















MEMORANDUM

TO: The Water Management advisory Committee

FROM: Richard Hamann
RE: Whether Lake Alice Is A Natural Lake

DATE: May 7, 1984

The issue has arisen whether Lake Alice is a natural body of
water subject to regulation as "waters of the state" or an artificial
impoundment created by the University of Florida. The University has
maintained the latter is the true state of affairs and both DER and
EPA have been regulating based on that premise. Their version is that
Lake Alice was created when sewage effluent and cooling water were
diverted onto an existing marsh shortly after World War II. When the
discharge increased, it became necessary to build a dike around the
west end of the lake and discharge the overflow to two drainage wells.
I checked the validity of those assumptions with Dr. Archie Carr,
a most distinguished observer of natural systems. He is .very familiar
with Lake Alice. He began working on research for his Master's degree
in 1932 at Lake Alice and he reports that it was very definitely a
lake at that time. It was called Jonas Pond and was much smaller than
the current lake. Jonas Pond was located where the open water portion
of Lake Alice now exists. To the east was a wooded swamp. At one I
point in the 1930's, Jonas Pond dried up for a short while because of
.sinkhole formation, but it soon refilled as a lake. Dr. Carr reports
that not only was it a lake, but it was also biologically rich and
diverse, a quality that has been essentially destroyed.


















Center for Governmental Responsibility






9. Richard Hamann, University of Florida, to the Water Management Advisory
Committee, May 7, 1984.


U














SUivtesnv or F 1*w.oao
*AsItevri.LC. iPLiBA maaI
RECEIVED

pwvar.sia .T .v. IisO I "l 1 1004
August 10, 1984 A iK VRFC6


United States Environmental
Protection Agency l I
Ra io IV
345 Courtland Street FEB 111998
Atlanta,. Georgia 30308
ATTENTION& Mr. HcGarrys
Dear Mr. McCarryt
Reference is made to your Notice of Violation, dated
July 31, 1984, for our wastewater treatment facility.
We have not applied for a IPDES permit because it is
our understanding that, while we discharge into Lake Alice,
Lake Alice is mt considered by the State of Florida to be
"surface water". The State of Florida's Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER) considers Lake Alice to be
merely a continuation of the University's vatewater treatment
facility.
Attached herete is a BDER Interoffice Haorandua, dated
January 4, 1984, that states that FDER has taken the position
that Lake Alice is not waters of the State and is to be
regulated as a part of the Universitty's vaatwater treatment
sycste. Also attached is a FDER letter, dated May 18, 1981,
that details the parameters of our current permit. Again,
we understand that we are not considered a surface discharger.
Understand that we are not offering argument concerning
the need for an NPDES permit. We offer these explanations
as a statement of status quo. You may be sure that the
University of Florida wishes to cooperate fully with any
environmental matter of concern to you. Incidentally, we
have recently applied to the Department of Environmental
Regulation for renewal of our state operating permit.
#leas, inform us if you require further action on our
part.



w(b emer, Jr.
Physical Plant Division
RDC/RIB:jt
IStAL CW9OVrTiNWT OnPaP**,f JT' PF MWat#r9 ACT.Of 9*C V Sk Al


10. Robert D. Cremer, Jr., University of Florida, to Mr. McGarry, August 10, 1984.