STATEWIDE STORMWATER TREATMENT

Existing SFWMD Regulation…

Existing SFWMD Regulation… Insufficient

Does not ensure that current

legal standards are met:- 80% removal of nutrients causing violations

- 95% removal in Outstanding Florida Waters

?

• Emphasis on retention/detention ponds– Shown to only remove only 20-40% Nitrogen,

60-70% Phosphorus

Existing SFWMD Regulation… Insufficient

• Outdated practices and science for TSS, not nutrients based on 1” (though interim is 1 1/2” in some cases based on settlement)

• No incentives for preventative or alternative BMPs to wet detention

Littoral Zones Swales / Rain Gardens Pervious Pavement

Existing SFWMD Regulation… Insufficient

Alternatives?

Southwest Florida Basin Rule and Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Watershed Rule

V.

“Harper Methodology”

Effective Approaches Proposed

• Southwest Florida Basin Rule• Lake Okeechobee Ecosystem Watersheds

(LOEW) Rule

…But, instead…

Southwest Florida Basin Rule type of approach should be utilized

Effective Approaches Proposed

- Designed to meet state standards (80% removal requirement)

- Stakeholders cooperated to develop

- Gives incentives for reduction of runoff… prevention of problem

- Requires developers to be responsible for their own pollution, regardless of if previously polluting land use prior (no vesting of pollution rights)

In Development…Florida DEP begins development of the Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule

This has allowed us to:

- Better provide verbal and written comments

- Learn of and deal with issues directly

- Offer a conservationist perspective in the process

We’ve been active with SSR since its inception and we sit on the TAC.

Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule

Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule

Why? Because now it is generally accepted that new development is not adequately treating the stormwater pollution it is generating, thereby increasing our regional water quality degredation and the burden and costs of retrofitting required by the TMDL process and to be paid for by local govts (i.e. the taxpayers).

MOSTLY A MATTER OF WHO PAYS… AND HOW CAN WE BE MOST CERTAIN AND EFFICIENT IN GETTING IT DONE (i.e. Source Controls).

“This rule will be based upon a performance standard that the post-development nutrient load will not exceed the nutrient load from natural, undeveloped areas.”

- From DEP Website* ‘Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule Development Background’

However, this is still not certain and is essential to whether this rule will result in more effective treatment standards.

* http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wetlands/erp/rules/stormwater/background.htm

Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule

Makes estimates of ‘pre-development’ loading rates using current land uses

Harper Methodology

↔

PREVIOUS LAND USE NATURAL CONDITION

‘Pre-development’ = all the difference

↔PREVIOUS LAND USE NATURAL CONDITION

Vesting pollution rights, just don’t worsen conditions.

Clean what you generate, regardless of what the guy before you did = potential improvement!

WETLANDS POLLUTE?!

• Still using Harper approach of using event mean concentrations rather than mass balances… which doesn’t work for characterizing wetlands.

WETLAND MASS BALANCE EXAMPLE

100 lbs of TN inflow from adjacent uplands into wetland (Harper does not account for the inflow)

40 lbs of TN “exported” from wetland

Wetlands = ?

40lbs of TN or -60 lbs of TN

Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule

Inaccurately characterizes wetlands as pollution sources.

Harper Methodology

Example: Saturnia Falls pollution concentrations:

Wetlands 1.55 mg/l Nitrogen Commercial development 1.23 mg/l Nitrogen

These load rates are being used to calculate TMDLs and permit developments today!

Natural wetlands are more polluting than commercial development?

Scientific community universally recognizes wetlands as ‘sinks’ of nutrients… i.e. wetlands remove

nutrients from water.

Harper Methodology

Harper MethodologyWet prairies, Hydric hammocks or Hydric flatwoods… Uplands or Wetlands?

Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park

Harper says:

Uplands!

Previous negative peer review and Outstanding Concerns by EPA

No response to comments

- Problems not addressed

- 2006 revisions not adequate

Harper Methodology

EPA said they cannot confirm 2007 Harper Rpt. due to their concerns, and requests FDEP to conduct peer review. FDEP says it will not.

Overall results of this approach:

- Reduced stormwater treatment

- Increased water quality degradation

- Accelerated destruction of wetlands

Harper Methodology

- Require developers to treat at least 80% of the pollution of their own pollution (over natural based on TN, irregardless of previous land use)

- Incentivize runoff and stormwater pollution PREVENTION

- Not allow natural wetlands to be assigned a positive loading rate, or to be used for stormwater treatment other than “polishing”

Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule

We are advocating for a standard that would:

Which wetlands are ‘Waters of the State’?

Not “isolated” wetlands

(any jurisdictional wetland surrounded entirely by non-jurisdictional are despite any hydrological

connection - no size limitation)

…AND…

Wholly-Owned Wetlands(any wetland that is entirely owned by a single

person/entity who is not the State)

Which wetlands are ‘Waters of the State’?

…ARE…

NO LONGER CONSIDERED TO BE WATERS OF THE STATE

Which wetlands are ‘Waters of the State’?

…THUS…

They are no longer given water quality protection.

Natural wetlands have been opened to use as stormwater treatment.

Which wetlands are ‘Waters of the State’?

Incentives for DestructionProposes active

incentives for putting

partially or untreated

stormwater pollution into

wetlands.

- Require developers to treat at least 80% of the pollution of their own pollution (over natural based on TN, irregardless of previous land use)

- Incentivize runoff and stormwater pollution PREVENTION

- Not allow natural wetlands to be assigned a positive loading rate, or to be used for stormwater treatment other than “polishing”

Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule

We are advocating for a standard that would:

Littoral shelves should be used as part of stormwater treatment

Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule

- provide additional treatment- ecological benefit- aesthetic benefit

However, this is still uncertain and being suggested as being an optional recommendation.

The Rule should require a limitation on pond/lake depth

Statewide Stormwater Treatment Rule

- Groundwater aquifer protection- Protection of nearby wetlands- Prevent lake stratification

Soil borings and design features

or 12 Feet Maximum

Extended Timeline• TAC meetings will continue into Spring

• Rulemaking will commence in Summer

• Fall 2009: Finalized Statewide Stormwater Rule