Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan and Best Management Practice Pollutant Load Analysis

Transcription

1 Lake Tohopekaliga Nutrient Reduction Plan and Best Management Practice Pollutant Load Analysis Danielle Honour, P.E., D.WRE Principal Water Resources Engineer UF Water Institute Symposium February 15, 2012

2 Lake Tohopekaliga Background Upper Kissimmee River Basin 34 square miles in size Watershed area approximately 473 square miles Class 3 fresh water lake Heavily used for fishing, hunting, boating, bird watching, and sightseeing Lake Tohopekaliga Background

3 Overview of Lake Toho Impairment Placed on Verified List by FDEP in November 2010 Lake Toho initially assessed as impaired for nutrients [(i.e., increasing trend in Trophic State Index (TSI)] Assessment Category 5 - water quality standards are not attained and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is required Osceola County and the City of Kissimmee disagreed with the initial listing Performed independent analysis that showed no impairment Lake Tohopekaliga Background

4 Overview of Lake Tohopekaliga Impairment (cont.) FDEP re-considered modifying the cause of impairment for the lake as an imbalance of flora and fauna, which is included under the narrative nutrient criteria in Chapter , FAC FDEP willing to change assessment category to 4e if a Nutrient Reduction Plan (NRP) is prepared Final listing delayed until December 2011 TSIs and annual mean chlorophyll a values shall be the primary means for assessing whether a water should be assessed further for nutrient impairment. Other information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment, including, but not limited to, algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, decrease in the distribution (either in density or areal coverage) of seagrasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen swings, shall also be considered. Lake Tohopekaliga Background

5 Lake Management History Lake Tohopekaliga has been highly managed since the 1960s Water level stabilization (1960s) Sewage treatment plant effluent discharges (1940s to 1980s) Major drawdowns to improve habitat (1969, 1979, 1987, 2004) Introduction of Hydrilla spp. into the lake (1980s) Supporting endangered snail kite population Impact of management activities not fully understood FDEP agreed that more research is needed Lake Tohopekaliga Background

6 What is a Nutrient Reduction Plan? Hybrid of a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) and a Reasonable Assurance Document (RAD) Key differences: No water quality targets are set Loads are not allocated Not a restoration plan Not a long-term solution: stepping stone Plan is not formally adopted Nutrient Reduction Plan

7 Who are the Participating Stakeholders? NRP Funding Plan Partners City of Kissimmee City of Orlando City of St. Cloud Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Osceola County Technical Resources and Plan Support FDEP Florida Farm Bureau Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Orange County Reedy Creek Improvement District Nutrient Reduction Plan

8 Purpose of the Nutrient Reduction Plan Document local efforts that achieve nutrient reductions (TN and TP) Provide additional time to assess the complex relationships within the lake Focuses on reducing nutrient loads that can be achieved through management activities, capital improvement projects, nonstructural best management practices, and/or research activities Can only control what s in your own backyard Nutrient Reduction Plan

9 Benefits of Nutrient Reduction Plan Eliminates short-term need for TMDL May eliminate the long-term need for TMDL Control your own destiny Allows flexibility FDEP provides support where needed Work closely with FDEP so that NRP is accepted Begins reduction activities quickly Potential long-term cost savings Small investment helps focus where efforts should be vs. spending millions on questionable targets Nutrient Reduction Plan

10 Nutrient Reduction Plan Approach Estimate existing annual stormwater-related anthropogenic landbased pollutant loads generated from land surface (i.e., loads that stakeholders can control) Define existing loads by jurisdiction Evaluate load reduction associated with planned projects/activities NRP modeling will not be used for the following: Setting water quality targets Determining load allocations

11 Modeling Approach Applied HSPF model used for Kissimmee River Basin TMDL modeling Used HSPF output in conjunction with GIS layers to estimate landbased loading for all jurisdictional entities (including agriculture) Apply attenuation factors to account for natural assimilation processes Calculated baseline load (untreated load) Calculated existing treated load (accounting for BMPs) Year 2008 as the starting point of analysis Approach

12 Modeling Approach (cont.) Loading Rates Soil TP TN Type (lb/ac/yr) (lb/ac/yr) A B Commercial/Industrial C D A Cropland/ B Improved Pasture C D A High Density B Residential C D A Low Density B Residential C D A Medium Density B Residential C D A B Forest/ Rangeland C D A B Unimproved Pasture C D A ----B ----Wetland C ----D Land Use Category Land Use Soils Subbasins Existing BMPs

13 Baseline Pollutant Load Results Jurisdiction/ Area Area (Acres) Natural Area (Acres) Developed Area (Acres) TN Anthropogenic Load TN Natural Load TN Total Load TP Anthropogenic Load (lbs/year) TP Natural Load (lbs/year) TP Total Load Osceola County 103,001 80,033 22, ,399 83, ,665 21,054 4,791 25,845 City of Kissimmee 11,731 3,533 8,198 88,912 5,202 94,113 11, ,246 City of St. Cloud 8,582 2,146 6,436 56,658 3,451 60,109 6, ,991 Orange County 83,500 41,755 41, ,648 51, ,084 31,878 2,653 34,531 City of Orlando 34,302 11,856 22, ,501 13, ,782 12, ,393 FDOT 2, ,209 26, ,686 3, ,219 Agriculture 39, , ,505 Other 19,956 9,028 10,928 92,603 8, ,295 5, ,194 Totals: 302, , , , ,791 1,263,146 93,480 8, ,924 Results

14 Existing Treated TN Load Results Jurisdiction/ Area Jurisdictional Area (ac) TN Baseline Anthropogenic Load TN Existing Anthropogenic Load TN Anthropogenic Load Reduction (%) TN Natural Treated Load TN Total Existing Load Osceola County 103, , , % 82, ,896 City of Kissimmee 11,731 88,912 70, % 4,834 75,009 City of St. Cloud 8,582 56,658 42, % 3,292 45,444 City of Orlando 34, ,501 86, % 11,393 97,863 FDOT 2,501 26,222 20, % ,237 Totals: 160, , , % 102, ,449 Results

15 Existing Treated TP Load Results Jurisdiction/ Area Jurisdictional Area (ac) TP Baseline Anthropogenic Load TP Existing Anthropogenic Load TP Anthropogenic Load Reduction (%) TP Natural Treated Load TP Total Existing Load Osceola County 103,001 21,054 13, % 4,674 17,927 City of Kissimmee 11,731 11,867 7, % 327 7,684 City of St. Cloud 8,582 6,740 3, % 230 3,911 City of Orlando 34,302 12,792 6, % 435 6,919 FDOT 2,501 3,183 2, % 27 2,254 Totals: 160,117 55,636 33, % 5,693 38,695 Results

16 Management Actions to Reduce Nutrient Loading Stakeholders provided information on projects and programs in place since 2009 or will be implemented to reduce external nutrient loads to Lake Toho over the next five years All projects and programs required to address nutrient loads (specifically TN and TP) to receive credit Future management actions were given credit for the portion of the load reduction that was over and above any permit requirements Stakeholders are committing to reducing external nutrient loads to Lake Toho Management Actions

17 Management Actions to Reduce Nutrient Loading (cont.) Project Number Osceola County OSC-11 OSC-12 OSC-13 Project Name Stewart Street Regional Pond Retrofit East Lake Reserve Reuse Bass Road Landfill Reuse Project Type Wet detention pond Treatment Acres Project Cost End Date Status TN Reduction TP Reduction 2,300 Unknown 2009 Completed 2, Stormwater reuse 3.7 Unknown 12/2028 Ongoing Stormwater reuse 0.9 Unknown 04/2031 Planned and Funded OSC-14 Neptune Road Reuse Stormwater reuse 3.0 $640,690 09/2027 Ongoing OSC-15 OSC-16 OSC-17 OSC-18 Waterside Vista Reuse Bellalago & Isles of Bellalago Reuse Poinciana Commerce Center Reuse Kissimmee Bay Reuse Stormwater reuse 0.3 Unknown 02/2030 Ongoing Stormwater reuse 327 Unknown 05/2031 Ongoing 3, Stormwater reuse 1.3 Unknown 06/2028 Ongoing Stormwater reuse Unknown 10/2030 Ongoing OSC-19 Remington Reuse Stormwater reuse Unknown 11/2015 Ongoing OSC-20 Eagle Lake Reuse Stormwater reuse 17.3 Unknown 07/2023 Ongoing 1, OSC-21 La Quinta Inn Reuse Stormwater reuse 2.8 Unknown 10/2022 Ongoing OSC-22 Street Sweeping Street Sweeping N/A Unknown Ongoing Ongoing OSC-23 Education Education N/A Unknown Ongoing Ongoing 8, Management Actions

18 Water Quality Monitoring Plan & Research Priorities Objective: Identify major inputs to Lake Toho and East Lake Toho to calculate the loading to the impaired waterbodies and to identify areas of high nutrients in the watershed Identify and refine research priorities Tributaries Sampling Core Parameters Total phosphorus as P Nitrate/nitrite as N Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) as N Dissolved oxygen (DO) ph Temperature Conductivity Monitoring Plan Supplemental Parameters Total suspended solids (TSS)/turbidity Chloride True color/total organic carbon (TOC) Orthophosphate as P Alkalinity In-Lake Sampling (SFWMD) Core Parameters Total phosphorus as P Orthophosphate as P Nitrate/nitrite as N Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) Ammonium Nitrogen dioxide Chlorophyll Alkalinity Turbidity Chloride Color TSS

19 Implementation and Status of Plan FDEP accepted the NRP in December 2011 Change assessment category to 4e in early 2012 Track implementation Periodic stakeholder meetings and coordination Successful collaboration of local, regional, and state government Approach has never been done in the State of Florida Status

20 Questions and Discussion Questions