Title: Format For SWIM Plans
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00000929/00001
 Material Information
Title: Format For SWIM Plans
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Abstract: Format for SWIM Plans May 9, 1988
General Note: Box 7, Folder 4 ( Vail Conference 1989 - 1989 ), Item 28
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00000929
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text

May 9, 1988

Format For SWIM Plans


The SWIM Act requires DER to establish a uniform format
for SWIM plans. In addressing this requirement, it is DER's
intent to provide the flexibility needed to accommodate
particular circumstances of individual water management
districts and still provide for DER review as required by the

The following is a suggested outline for SWIM plans. It
is a guide to the information and interpretive perspective that
SWIM plans must include in order for DER to carry out its
review responsibilities. It is anticipated that specific
waterbody plans would be organized on the basis of the unique
requirements for restoring/protecting the waterbody, but that
organization should provide an ability to clearly address the
topic areas outlined below.

I. Executive Summary

This part of the plan should provide a concise summary
(description) of the total plan, including priority issues
affecting management of the waterbody; the strategies for
dealing with the issues; the programs for carrying out the
strategies; and projects included in the various
programs. In addition to summary text, it should contain
an organizational diagram of the plan components and
program frameworks (e.g., relationships between basic SWIM
intent, priority issues, strategies, programs and

II. Introductory Text

Introductory text should provide a clear perspective of
the Act's requirements as it pertains to the specific
waterbody, and provide a management context for subsequent
chapters/parts of the plan. In doing so, the text should
reflect the intent and focus of the SWIM Act as well as
the determinations DER must make during plan review.

A. SWIM Act intent and focus

Plans should clearly demonstrate a cohesive set of
strategies and programs to address the following
central concerns of the Act:

1. Point and nonpoint source pollution
(Ch.373.451(4)(a), F.S.).
2. Destruction of natural systems (Ch. 373.451(4)(b),

3. Correction and prevention of surface water
problems (Ch. 373.451(5), F.S.).
4. Research for better management of surface waters
and associated natural systems (Ch. 373.451(7),

B. Basic DER review requirements

Chapter 373.455(2) requires DER, in reviewing SWIM
plans, to make three specific determinations. These
requirements should be used as reference points by
plan preparers to judge the sufficiency of the plan
prior to submission for DER review. The required
determinations are described below.

1. Whether the costs described in the plan, as
projected by the water management districts, are
reasonable estimates of actual costs of programs
in the plan. This determination requires an
understanding of:
a) Objectives of the work as related to the plan.
b) Specific program elements involved.
c) Responsibilities of the participants.
d) Specific budget requirements in summary form
(personnel, equipment, supplies, travel,
contracts, etc.)
2. The likelihood of the programs described in the
plan resulting in significant improvements in
water quality in the priority surface waters
designated in the plan. This determination
requires that the plan demonstrate clear linkages
between each program and the program elements
being implemented. Programs and their elements
must be clearly designed to address specific
management needs of the water body. Research
programs need to be linked to specific management
strategies. Care should be taken in the plan to
avoid the tendency of research to be "open ended",
without clear benefit in terms of making
improvements in management programs. The plan
needs to provide clear understanding of how
research will be channeled and coordinated to meet
management needs for the water body.
3. The combination of programs which can be funded
based upon available revenues within the SWIM
Trust Fund. This determination requires an
understanding of the relative importance of the
proposed work on a priority basis within the
District. In order to facilitate this, the plan
should provide at least a general ranking of
programs and projects submitted for SWIM funding
in terms of the level of support they provide for
carrying out the strategies contained in the plan.

III. Identification of priority issues and analysis

This portion of the plan should clearly discuss the
current status of the waterbody and identify priority
issues of concern in restoring or protecting that
waterbody. Text should include identification of critical
deficiencies in, knowledge about the waterbody as well as
actual and potential impacts on the waterbody that require

A. The plan must meet the minimum information
requirements specified under Ch. 373.453(2),
(a),(b),(c),(d), and (f), F.S. This should be done
within the context of identifying restoration/
protection issues in sufficient detail to set the
stage for logical plan development. For example, the
list of jurisdictions within one mile of the waterbody
should provide the basis for understanding how these
jurisdictions relate to managing activities that can
affect the waterbody. Similarly, the discussion of
land uses should provide the basis for understanding
the relationships between land uses and management of
the waterbody. Other subjects required by the Act
should be discussed in this same context.

B. This part of the plan should also assess current
management approaches or practices, including
evaluation of the ability of existing water management
district programs to deal with the priority issues/
problems. Examples include evaluation of planning,
research, permitting, enforcement, coordination and
information programs in terms of identifying strengths
and weaknesses.

C. Minimum contents of this portion of the plan are:

1. A description of the water body system including
name of the water body(ies) covered, its location
and major features; specify the boundaries of the
water body as completely as possible; and indicate
the numerical status of the water body on the
approved surface water priority list.
2. A description of the water body's historical and
current uses and its hydrology, including a
description of major characteristics of the
watershed (soils, topography, vegetation, geology,
etc.) For water bodies in need of restoration,
describe the history of conditions which have led
to the need for restoration. For water bodies in
need of protection, provide a description of the
circumstances which threaten its condition, and
any unique uses to be protected.
3. An identification of all governmental units having
jurisdiction over the water body and the land
within its watershed or a one mile perimeter of

the water body, whichever is greater, including
local, regional, state and federal units. This
identification should include a map(s) showing the
geographic boundaries of city and county
government units and an outline of the types of
authorities exercised by each unit (e.g.,
stormwater permitting, wetlands protection
ordinance, special zoning, land acquisition
programs, etc.).
4. A description of adjacent land uses in the
watershed in terms of their effects on water
quality, habitat and health of the aquatic system,
including the information source and date of
compilation. Describe point and nonpoint sources
of pollution, and permitted discharge activities.
This should include maps/tables in adequate detail
to provide understanding of the extent of land
uses and location of point and nonpoint sources.
5. A list of the owners of point and nonpoint sources
of pollution that discharge into the water body or
tributaries thereto and that adversely affect the
public interest (by causing or significantly
contributing to violations of water quality
standards). Include separate lists of those
sources that are operating without a permit,
operating with a temporary operating permit, and
those presently violating effluent limits or water
quality standards.
6. A list of studies that are being or have been
prepared for the surface water body.

IV. Strategies

This portion of the plan should address requirements of
Ch. 373.453(2),(e),(g),(h), and (i), F.S. It should
discuss needed changes to current management approaches
and specific strategies to be used to restore/conserve the
waterbody. This discussion should include specific plan
objectives, with time frames. The level of detail of this
discussion may vary depending on the complexity of issues
associated with a given waterbody. In the case of a large
waterbody with complex programs, it would be best if this
discussion simply provided the framework for understanding
discussions of specific programs/projects provided in
separate appendices. In a simpler case this discussion
would go into the detail of specific programs/projects as
outlined in Item V, below. Examples of strategy areas
include: improving compliance monitoring and enforcement,
local technical assistance and interlocal agreements,
applied research, restoration activities, etc. Minimum
contents of this portion of the plan include:

A. A list and current status of active restoration or
conservation projects initiated prior to July 1, 1987
for the surface water body, including efforts being


conducted by other agencies This should include a
discussion of the funding level for these projects and
how they will be coordinated with SWIM-funded
activities. This listing should be updated on an
annual basis to provide an accurate picture of all
activities being conducted relative to a specific
water body.

B. For "restoration" waterbodies, provide a description
of the research and feasibility studies which will be
performed to determine the particular strategy or
strategies to restore the water body.

C. A description of the strategies and potential
strategies that the water management district will use
for restoring the water body to Class III or better or
for protecting the waterbody.

D. A description of the measures needed to manage and
maintain the water body once it has been restored and
to prevent future degradation.

E. In the case of Lake Okeechobee the plan must
accomplish the following:

1. By July 1, 1992 reduce phosphorus loading in the
amounts specified in the South Florida Water
Management District Report 81-2.
2. Prohibit harmful diversions to the Indian River
Lagoon Estuary, Caloosahatchee River Estuary, and
Everglades unless an emergency is declared.
3. Unless otherwise prohibited by law diversions are
allowed, however, they must be monitored and the
results provided to LOTAC.

V. Specific Proarams/Projects

As noted above, this discussion may be included in the
strategies portion of the plan or covered in a separate
section or appendix depending on the complexity of
waterbody issues and anticipated strategies. In either
case, the discussion must address the following minimum
requirements to allow DER evaluation:

A. Ch. 373.453(2) requires timetables for restoration and
for bringing all sources into compliance with water
quality standards when not contrary to the public
interest. For those sources that are not given a
timetable for compliance because it would be contrary
to the public interest, include an explanation of why
and how that determination was made. Coordination
with DER district offices will be necessary for those
sources with DER permits. It may not be practical in
some cases to specify compliance schedules for
individual sources, but the plan must, at a minimum,

establish general target dates for bringing point and
nonpoint sources into compliance and for carrying out
the restoration and protection strategies specified in
the plan.

B. Provide an estimate of the funding needed for the next
state fiscal year to carry out the restoration or
protection strategies, programs and projects. The
cost estimate must be a reasonable estimate of the
actual costs of programs in the plan necessary to
result in significant improvements in water quality or
to protect existing health of the aquatic system.
This estimate must be supported by appendices

1. Objectives of the work (as related to specific
strategies stated in the plan);
2. Specific programs/projects involved;
3. Responsibilities of the participants (agencies,
contractors, etc.);
4. Schedule of work;
5. Specific budget requirements in summary form
(personnel, equipment, travel, contracts,
supplies, etc. ) Where possible, also provide a
reasonable estimate by fiscal year of the total
SWIM funding that will be needed for subsequent
years to carry out projected work.
6. Where appropriate, include a copy of contractss.
7. An indication of the priority of programs/
projects/activities for which funding is requested.

VI. Appendices

This part of the plan should provide detailed
documentation for subjects discussed in the plan.
Materials in the appendices should be organized in logical
order and be coded in a manner which allows direct
reference as needed for clearly understanding various
parts of the plan. Information should be in sufficient
detail (in combination with information in the main body
of the plan) to permit DER to make the determinations
required by Ch. 373.455(2), F.S.).



University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs