BASIN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN
for the Implementation of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Fecal
Coliform Adopted by the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
in
Bayou Chico
(Pensacola Basin)
Developed in consultation with
Bayou Chico BMAP Technical and Local Stakeholders
and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration
Bureau of Watershed Restoration
Tallahassee, FL 32399
August 2011
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The Bayou Chico Watershed Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) was
prepared as part of a statewide watershed management approach to restore and protect
Florida’s water quality. It was developed by local stakeholders, with participation from
affected local, regional, state, and federal governmental and private interests, and in
cooperation with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. FDEP especially
recognizes and appreciates the efforts of all of our participants and local stakeholder groups,
and particularly wish to recognize the following contributors to the Bayou Chico BMAP:
ENTITY/STAKEHOLDER PARTICIP ANT(S)
Bay Area Resource Council, in conjunction with the West
Florida Regional Planning Council
Mary Gutierrez
Bayou Chico Association John Naybor
City of Pensacola Al Garza and L. Derrik Owens
Emerald Coast Utility Authority
Tim Haag, John M. Seymour, Stephen P. Holcomb,
and Wade Wilson
Escambia County
Taylor Kirschenfeld, Brent Wipf, Sava Varazo,
Joy Blackmon, T. Lloyd Kerr, Robert Turpin, Jeri Folse,
and Erin Percifull
Escambia County Health Department –
Florida Department of Health
Robert Merritt, Philip Davies, and Louviminda Donado
Florida Department of Environmental Protection –
Northwest District
Shawn Hamilton (Director), Dick Fancher,
Bradley Hartshorn, Mike King, Cheryl Bunch,
Jennifer Claypool, Jonathon Colmer, and Dan Stripling
Florida Department of Environmental Protection –
Tallahassee
John Abendroth, Bonita Gorham, Linda Lord, Kimberly
Jackson, and Yesenia Escribano
Florida Department of Transportation, District 3
James “Jim” Kapinos, Joy Giddens, and
Lonnie “DJ” Barber
Facilitators and Technical Support:
Science Application International Corporation (SAIC)
Wildwood Consulting, Inc.
Kathleen Harrigan and Robert Kelly
Marcy Policastro
Other key local interest groups and private citizens and
consultants
Larry Buxton, Alexander Maestre, Barbara Albrecht,
Eleanor Godwin, Ken Davis, William DeBusk,
Chris Knight (Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services), Janet Hearn, Ann Shortell,
Steve Freeman, Amy Tracy, Erin Cox, and Rick Higdon
Northwest Florida Water Management District Ron Bartel
Pensacola Yacht Club Sam Foreman, Alan McMillan, and Vicki Fletcher
University of West Florida, Center for Environmental
Diagnostics and Bioremediation
Dr. Richard Snyder and Dr. Carl Mohrherr
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Michael Lewis and Franklin Baker
U.S. Navy (Naval Air Station) Mark Gibson
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
iii
For additional information on the Basin Management Action Plan in the Bayou Chico
watershed, contact:
Bonita Gorham, Basin Coordinator
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Watershed Restoration, Watershed Planning and Coordination Section
2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Email:
Bonita.Gorham@dep.state.fl.us
Phone: (850) 245–8513
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................. VII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... X
SECTION 1: CONTEXT, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE OF THE PLAN ............................... 1
1.1 Water Quality Standards and Total Maximum Daily Loads .......................... 1
1.2 TMDL Implementation ........................................................................................... 4
1.3 The Bayou Chico BMAP ......................................................................................... 5
1.3.1 Stakeholder Involvement .................................................................................................... 5
1.3.2 Plan Purpose and Approach ................................................................................................ 6
1.3.3 Plan Scope .............................................................................................................................. 7
1.3.4 Sufficiency-of-Effort Determinations ............................................................................... 9
1.3.5 Pollutant Reduction and Discharge Allocations ........................................................... 12
1.3.5.1 Categories for Rule Allocations.................................................................. 12
1.3.5.2 Initial and Detailed Allocations ................................................................. 12
1.3.5.3 Bayou Chico Watershed Fecal Coliform TMDL ........................................ 13
1.3.5.4 Background and Pollutant Considerations in Bayou Chico ...................... 13
1.4 Assumptions and Considerations Regarding TMDL Implementation .......... 15
1.4.1 Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 15
1.4.2 Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 16
1.5 Future Growth in the Watershed ......................................................................... 17
SECTION 2: POLLUTANT SOURCES AND ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES .............. 18
2.1 Fecal Coliform Pollutant Sources ....................................................................... 18
2.1.1 Sanitary Sewer Systems ..................................................................................................... 18
2.1.2 OSTDS .............................................................................................................................. 19
2.1.3 Stormwater ........................................................................................................................... 19
2.1.4 Marina Activities ................................................................................................................. 20
2.1.5 Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. 21
2.2 Water Quality Trends in the Watershed ............................................................ 21
2.3 Anticipated Outcomes .......................................................................................... 22
SECTION 3: SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS ..................................................................... 24
3.1 Potential Sources ................................................................................................... 24
3.2 Projects To Reduce Fecal Coliform Loading ..................................................... 24
SECTION 4: ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS ........... 32
4.1 Potential Sources ................................................................................................... 32
4.2 Projects To Reduce Fecal Coliform Loading ..................................................... 34
SECTION 5: STORMWATER ............................................................................................... 40
5.1 Potential Sources ................................................................................................... 40
5.2 Projects To Reduce Fecal Coliform Loading ..................................................... 40
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
v
SECTION 6: MARINAS, BOATYARDS, AND MOORINGS ........................................ 49
6.1 Potential Sources ................................................................................................... 49
6.2 Projects To Reduce Fecal Coliform Loading ..................................................... 49
SECTION 7: SUMMARY OF RESTORATION ACTIVITIES AND
SUFFICIENCY OF EFFORT ........................................................................................ 53
SECTION 8: ASSESSING PROGRESS AND MAKING CHANGES ........................... 57
8.1 Tracking Implementation ..................................................................................... 57
8.2 Water Quality Monitoring ................................................................................... 58
8.2.1 Water Quality Monitoring Objectives ............................................................................ 58
8.2.2 Water Quality Indicators ................................................................................................... 58
8.2.3 Monitoring Network .......................................................................................................... 59
8.2.4 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ................................................................................. 60
8.2.5 Data Management and Assessment ................................................................................. 60
8.3 Adaptive Management Measures ........................................................................ 61
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 62
Appendix A: TMDL Basin Rotation Schedule .......................................................... 63
Appendix B: Summary of Statutory Provisions Guiding BMAP
Development and Implementation .................................................................. 64
Appendix C: Summary of EPA-Recommended Elements of a
Comprehensive Watershed Plan ...................................................................... 67
Appendix D: Programs To Achieve the TMDL ......................................................... 71
Appendix E: BMAP Annual Reporting Form ............................................................ 81
Appendix F: Minutes from Technical Meetings with Stakeholders ...................... 83
Appendix G: Glossary of Terms .................................................................................. 84
Appendix H: Bibliography of Key References and Websites .................................. 89
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Bayou Chico Watershed Location Map ............................................................................. 3
Figure 2-1: Long-Term Monitoring Stations in the Bayou Chico Watershed ................................ 23
Figure 3-1: Sewer Infrastructure in the Eastern Bayou Chico Watershed ...................................... 25
Figure 3-2: Sewer Infrastructure in the Western Bayou Chico Watershed ..................................... 26
Figure 4-1: Septic Tank Repairs in the Bayou Chico Watershed ..................................................... 33
Figure 7-1: Stakeholder Restoration Efforts in the Eastern Bayou Chico Watershed ................... 55
Figure 7-2: Stakeholder Restoration Efforts in the Western Bayou Chico Watershed .................. 56
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Designated Use Attainment Categories for Florida Surface Waters .............................. 1
Table 1-2: Phases of the Watershed Management Cycle ..................................................................... 4
Table 1-3: Bayou Chico Fecal Coliform TMDL .................................................................................. 13
Table 3-1: Sewer Expansion Program Projects in the Bayou Chico Watershed ............................ 28
Table 3-2: Stakeholder Projects and Activities To Reduce Fecal Coliform Loadings from
Sanitary Sewer Sources ........................................................................................................ 31
Table 4-1: Stakeholder Projects and Activities To Reduce Fecal Coliform Loading from
OSTDS Sources ...................................................................................................................... 38
Table 5-1: Stakeholder Projects and Activities To Reduce Fecal Coliform Loading from
Stormwater Sources .............................................................................................................. 46
Table 6-1: Stakeholder Projects and Activities To Reduce Fecal Coliform Loading from
Marinas, Boatyards, and Moorings ................................................................................... 52
Table 7-1: Potential Source Control Categories in the Bayou Chico Watershed for
Addressing Load Reductions for Fecal Coliform and Other Bacteria .......................... 54
Table 8-1a: Water Quality Indicators ................................................................................................. 59
Table 8-1b: Field Parameters ................................................................................................................. 59
LIST OF TABLES: APPENDICES
Table A-1: Major Hydrologic Basins by Group and FDEP District Office .................................... 63
Table E-1: Proposed BMAP Annual Reporting Form ........................................................................ 81
Table G-1: Stormwater and Water Quality Protection Websites ................................................... 91
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
A
CRONYM
/
A
BBREVIATION
XPLANATION
umhos/cm
ARV
ATAC
AWT
BARC
BAT
BCA
BMAP
BMP
BOD
CAFOs
CDBG
CDS
CEDB
CFU
CIP
CIPP
CMOM
COP
Counts/100mL
CVA
CWA
CWRF
DSR
EAP
ECHD
ECMR
ECUA
ECWQD
EPA
F.A.C.
FCT
FDACS
FDEP
FDOH
FDOT
FOG
F.S.
FWC
FWRA
FY
GIS
HUD
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
viii
A
CRONYM
/
A
BBREVIATION
XPLANATION
I/E
I&I
IWR
LA
LF
MF
MGD
mg/L
Mi
2
mL
MOS
MPN
MRP
MS4
MSGP
MST
MSWTTP
NMWF
NOAA
NOI
NPDES
NPS
NRCS
NTUs
NWFWMD
OSTDS
PAHs
PCBs
PCPs
PIC
PLRGs
ppt
PSA
PVC
QA/QC
ROW
SCADA
SEP
SIC
SOP
SSO
STORET
SU
SWIM
SWPPP
SWR
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
ix
A
CRONYM
/
A
BBREVIATION
XPLANATION
TKN
TMDL
TN
TP
USACOE
USDA
USGS
UV
UWF
WBID
WLAs
WQSs
WWTF
WWTP
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED
The Bayou Chico watershed, located in the southern end of Escambia County, just east of Blue
Angel Parkway and north of Bayou Grande, has a 10.36-square-mile (mi
2
) drainage area and a
water surface area of approximately 0.39 mi
2
.
The waterbodies addressed by this Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) consist of Bayou
Chico, which discharges directly to Pensacola Bay, and the following six waterbody segments,
all of which flow into Bayou Chico and the bay: Jones Creek, Jackson Creek, Bayou Chico
Drain, Bayou Chico Beach (at Lakewood Park), Bayou Chico proper, and Sanders Beach.
The Bayou Chico watershed consists of two Class III fresh waterbodies (Jones Creek and
Jackson Creek) and four Class III marine waterbodies (Bayou Chico, Bayou Chico Drain, Bayou
Chico Beach, and Sanders Beach). Class III waterbodies have a designated use of recreation,
propagation, and the maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife.
The water quality criterion applicable to the impairment addressed by the Bayou Chico Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is the Class III criterion for fecal coliform.
BAYOU CHICO TMDLS
TMDLs are water quality targets for specific pollutants (such as fecal coliform) that are
established for impaired waterbodies that do not meet their designated uses based on Florida’s
water quality standards. During Cycle 1 of the watershed management cycle in the Pensacola
Basin, as required by federal law, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
verified fecal coliform impairments in five of the six waterbodies in the Bayou Chico watershed.
In 2008, FDEP adopted TMDLs for the following waterbodies, which are included in the BMAP:
• Bayou Chico (Waterbody Identification [WBID] Number 846);
• Jones Creek (WBID 846A);
• Jackson Creek (WBID 846B);
• Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB); and
• Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA).
In addition, a sixth segment, Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C), was verified impaired for fecal
coliform in Cycle 2 of the listing process. Also in Cycle 2, Bayou Chico (WBID 846) and Bayou
Chico Drain (WBID 846C) were verified impaired for nutrients (with total phosphorus [TP] as
the limiting nutrient), and this impairment will be further evaluated in subsequent BMAP
planning efforts for the Pensacola Basin.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
xi
The Bayou Chico fecal coliform TMDL was calculated as the median of the percent reductions
needed over the data range where exceedances occurred, which in this case was over the entire
range of flow conditions. The source loadings (levels) for fecal coliform described in Section 2
would need to be reduced by 61% to achieve the required TMDL load reduction.
THE BAYOU CHICO BMAP
Stakeholder involvement is critical to the success of the TMDL Program, and varies with each
phase of implementation to achieve the same purpose—the attainment of water quality
standards for Bayou Chico. The BMAP development process is structured to achieve
cooperation and consensus among a broad range of interested parties.
Stakeholder involvement and meaningful public involvement are essential to develop, gain
support for, and secure commitments to implement a BMAP. They were a key component in
the development of the Bayou Chico BMAP. Beginning in February 2009, FDEP initiated the
BMAP development process for Bayou Chico and held a total of nine technical meetings. The
purpose of the meetings, all of which were open to the general public, was to consult with key
stakeholders to gather information on the impaired waterbody and its tributaries; identify
potential sources; conduct field reconnaissance; define programs, projects, and actions currently
under way; and develop the BMAP contents and actions that would result in improved water
quality, with the goal of achieving the TMDL target reductions.
This BMAP addresses the waterbodies in the Bayou Chico watershed that were verified
impaired for fecal coliform. Six segments that make up the entire watershed were impaired for
fecal coliform (as described earlier, five were identified in Cycle 1 of the watershed assessment
process and in the TMDL, and a sixth segment was listed for fecal coliform in Cycle 2).
The types of projects that stakeholders have been implementing over the last five years (2006–
11) that help to address these impairments include sanitary sewer expansion projects,
stormwater improvements, pet waste ordinance adoption, septic tank inspections and testing
(prior to property sales), neighborhood clean-sweep programs, barge and derelict vessel
removals, Clean Marina and Boatyard Program implementation, and Bayou Chico channel
dredging (improved flushing). This BMAP highlights these and other projects that will address
the known and suspected sources of fecal coliform and other pathogens, and demonstrate that
local stakeholders have taken a proactive stance in addressing future water quality concerns.
The projects and activities outlined in this BMAP have been determined to be “sufficient” to
address all of the identified sources and, with the full implementation of the BMAP, water
quality in the Bayou Chico watershed is expected to meet the TMDL requirements. Through
ongoing projects, studies, and monitoring efforts, the five-year BMAP milestone evaluation and
annual BMAP reviews should help stakeholders identify and address any additional sources
and any necessary actions that should be taken.
BMAP STAKEHOLDERS
FDEP worked with the following groups and organizations to prepare this BMAP:
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
xii
• Bay Area Resource Council (BARC), in conjunction with the West Florida
Regional Planning Council, comprises a cross-section of elected officials from
local governments representing the Pensacola Basin that have signed an interlocal
agreement. Through various activities, BARC works to share information
gathered for local planning purposes and to develop a restoration program for
Pensacola Bay;
• Bayou Chico Association (BCA) represents over 800 residents and commercial
and industrial interests in the Bayou Chico watershed. It facilitates efforts to help
the water quality, living, and working conditions on and around Bayou Chico;
• City of Pensacola;
• Emerald Coast Utility Authority (ECUA);
• Escambia County;
• Escambia County Health Department (ECHD), Florida Department of Health
(FDOH);
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Northwest District
Office;
• Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT);
• Pensacola Yacht Club;
• University of West Florida (UWF), Center for Environmental Diagnostics and
Bioremediation (CEDB) and Wetland Research Laboratory;
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gulf Islands Marine Research
Laboratory; and,
• U.S. Naval Air Station
BMAP APPROACH
The 1999 Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) contains provisions that guide the
development of BMAPs and other TMDL implementation approaches. The Bayou Chico BMAP
provides for phased implementation under Paragraph 403.067(7)(a)1, Florida Statutes (F.S.). A
five-year milestone evaluation will be carried out to assess and verify that adequate progress is
being made towards achieving water quality standards and the load reductions identified in the
Bayou Chico TMDL. An adaptive management approach for TMDL implementation, as
described in the BMAP, will address reductions to fecal coliform bacteria, and the iterative
evaluation process will continue until reductions are attained.
This first five-year phase of the BMAP is designed to address the TMDL and work towards
achieving water quality standards in the watershed. It includes gathering additional
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
xiii
information or studies that can be used in the development of the subsequent phase(s) to
further support TMDL implementation, as well as more intensive monthly sampling to
determine the locations of particular hot spots that should be addressed. In addition, the
phased BMAP approach allows for the continued implementation of projects designed to
achieve reductions, while simultaneously implementing source assessment, carrying out
monitoring, and conducting studies to better understand fecal coliform variability and water
quality dynamics in each impaired waterbody.
SUFFICIENCY-OF-EFFORT EVALUATION
The Bayou Chico fecal coliform TMDL is expressed as a percent reduction based on in-stream
fecal coliform concentrations. This method of TMDL allocation precludes detailed allocations,
as it would be complicated, if not impossible, to equitably allocate to stakeholders based on a
percent reduction of in-stream concentrations. Fecal coliform are highly variable and easily
transported, making it difficult in most cases to identify the source of the bacteria.
Additionally, very few data are available that show the efficiency of stormwater best
management practices (BMPs) and management actions in removing or reducing fecal coliform.
FDEP evaluated fecal coliform reduction activities using a basinwide sufficiency-of-effort
approach by assessing identified potential sources and the specific activities over the entire
Bayou Chico watershed that will reduce or eliminate sources of fecal coliform loading. Thus,
this sufficiency-of-effort evaluation is not an evaluation of each entity’s individual activities;
rather, it focuses on whether these activities correspond to the potential sources identified in the
watershed and whether the total efforts are adequate to eliminate or reduce the known sources,
assess unknown sources, and prevent the development of new sources.
Based on source assessments and information gathered for this BMAP, a summary of
restoration activities (Section 7) was produced to identify the appropriate programs and
activities being implemented for the most likely sources in the Bayou Chico watershed. These
programs and activities are expected to either reduce or eliminate the known sources, or they
may be needed to further assess fecal coliform loadings. Both FDEP and key stakeholders have
deemed the full implementation of the management actions/projects identified in this BMAP as
sufficient to address the fecal coliform bacteria reductions needed to meet the target load
reductions defined in the TMDL for Bayou Chico.
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE BMAP
This BMAP addresses the key elements required by the FWRA, Chapter 403.067, F.S., including
the following:
• Document how the public and other stakeholders were encouraged to participate
or participated in developing the BMAP (Section 1.3.1);
• Equitably allocate pollutant reductions in the watershed (Sections 1.3.4 and
1.3.5);
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
xiv
• Identify the mechanisms by which potential future increases in pollutant loading
will be addressed (Section 1.5);
• Document management actions/projects to achieve the TMDL (Sections 3
through 7);
• Document the implementation schedule, funding, responsibilities, and milestones
(Sections 3 through 6); and
• Identify monitoring, evaluation, and a reporting strategy to evaluate reasonable
progress over time (Section 8).
ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES OF BMAP IMPLEMENTATION
Through the implementation of projects, activities, and additional source assessments as
documented in this BMAP, stakeholders expect the following outcomes:
• Improved water quality trends in the Bayou Chico watershed that will also help
improve water quality in other receiving waterbodies (e.g., Pensacola Bay);
• Decreased loading of the target pollutants (fecal coliform and other pathogens, i.e.,
Enterococcus sp.);
• Enhanced public awareness of fecal coliform sources and impacts on water quality;
• Enhanced effectiveness of corresponding corrective actions by stakeholders;
• Better understanding of the watershed’s hydrology, water quality, and pollutant
sources; and
• Improved ability to evaluate management actions, assess their benefits, and
identify additional pollutant sources.
BMAP COST
Costs were provided for 57% of the activities identified in the BMAP, with an estimated total
cost of more than $18,551,946 for capital projects and an estimated $1,000,000 to $1,500,000
(needed, or being funded) for ongoing programs, operation and maintenance, and restoration
proposals. In addition, some of the activities identified in the BMAP have no defined real or
actual costs (e.g., the Clean Marina and Boatyard Programs in Bayou Chico and state-funded,
e.g., ECHD programs). The funding sources for the ongoing improvements have typically come
from local contributions and homeowner associations, stormwater utility fees, and grants from
state and federal programs (such as Section 319 programs, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA] grants, and other programs). Technical stakeholders and local citizens
will continue to explore new opportunities for funding assistance to ensure that the activities
listed in this BMAP can be maintained at the necessary level of effort.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
xv
BMAP FOLLOW-UP
As a part of BMAP follow-up, FDEP and stakeholders will track implementation efforts and
monitor water quality to determine additional sources and water quality trends. The sampling
locations in the monitoring plan were selected to identify potential sources of contamination
through source assessment monitoring at key locations throughout the watershed, and to track
trends in fecal coliform (and Enterococci) using existing monitoring stations with historical data.
In addition, more extensive monthly sampling is proposed at specific sampling locations where
fecal coliform counts have been historically high.
The source assessment monitoring will follow the established sampling protocol, in which any
observed fecal coliform counts of 5,000 colony-forming units per 100 milliliters (CFU/100mL) or
greater will be followed up with targeted sampling efforts (Tier 2) to determine and address the
source. FDEP, Escambia County, the city of Pensacola, BCA, and ECUA, in concert with FDEP’s
strategic monitoring network, will be responsible for the trend and source assessment sampling
(Tier 1) in the overall monitoring plan. These stakeholders have committed to assist or provide
services and/or monetary aid for a 3-year monitoring plan though the help of UWF and FDEP.
FDEP will add the analysis for Enterococcus as well as fecal coliform to its quarterly sampling.
Escambia County will provide assistance in monthly field sampling. Samples for Enterococcus
and fecal coliform will be processed by the Wetland Research Laboratory at UWF, while UWF’s
CEDB will help to compile and analyze the data, and will provide a three-year interim report on
water quality status and trends. In addition, ECHD will continue (biweekly) beach sampling
for fecal coliform and (weekly) Enterococcus bacteria counts at Bayou Chico (Lakewood Park)
and Sanders Beach, in conjunction with its Healthy Beaches Program. Furthermore, all data
collected for these follow-up BMAP efforts will be uploaded into FDEP’s STOrage and
RETrieval (STORET) database, where water quality data can be stored and readily retrieved by
WBID number(s) for watershed-wide assessments.
The Tier 2 analysis will specifically target the following areas: (1) probable or suspected loading
points previously identified, and (2) newly suspected spots, especially in the tributaries and
creeks that were not previously sampled. Samples will be taken both during dry and rainy
periods to isolate chronic and stormwater influences. Higher resolution sampling will be used
to resample identified loading areas for further confirmation and to assist in pinpointing
sources. Areas using septic tanks that were previously identified as hot spots and converted to
sanitary sewer service will be revisited to document any remediation of fecal loadings from that
activity.
The results of these efforts will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the BMAP activities in
reducing fecal coliform loading in the Bayou Chico watershed. In addition, technical
stakeholders and local citizens will meet with FDEP at least every 12 months to discuss
implementation issues, consider new information, and determine what other management
strategies are needed, if monitoring indicates that additional measures are necessary to reduce
fecal coliform.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
xvi
BENEFITS OF THE BMAP PROCESS
With the implementation of the activities outlined in this BMAP, in addition to the anticipated
outcomes noted above, the following benefits are expected:
• Increased coordination between state and local governments and within divisions
of local governments in problem solving for surface water quality restoration;
• Added security in obtaining additional state and local funding for water quality
restoration;
• Improved communication and cooperation among state and local agencies
responding to restoration needs; and
• The determination of effective projects through the stakeholder decision-making
and priority-setting processes.
COMMITMENT TO BMAP IMPLEMENTATION
Local technical stakeholders support the BMAP on behalf of the entities they represent and are
committed to ensuring that the plan to reduce fecal coliform in the Bayou Chico watershed is
implemented. In addition to this support, the BMAP was presented to BARC on April 27, 2011.
The BARC representatives comprise many of the watershed’s various stakeholders and include
many of the entities involved in developing this BMAP. These entities share their support of
the BMAP and activities in the watershed, and can ensure that as their staff and board members
change over time, BARC has a way to continue support for the BMAP and the efforts it
describes.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
1
SECTION 1: CONTEXT, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE OF THE PLAN
1.1 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY
LOADS
Florida's water quality standards are designed to ensure that surface waters can be used for
their designated purposes, such as drinking water, recreation, and agriculture. Currently, most
surface waters in Florida, including those in the Bayou Chico watershed, are categorized as
Class III waters, which mean they must be suitable for recreation and must support the
propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. Table
1-1 shows all designated use categories.
Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act, every two years each state must identify
its impaired waters, including estuaries, lakes, rivers, and streams that do not meet their
designated uses and that are not expected to improve within the subsequent two years. The
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is responsible for developing this
“303(d) list” of impaired waters.
TABLE 1-1: DESIGNATED USE ATTAINMENT CATEGORIES FOR FLORIDA SURFACE WATERS
* Class I and II waters include the uses of the classifications listed below them.
CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
Class I* Potable water supplies
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
Class V Navigation, utility, and industrial use (no current Class V designations)
Florida's 303(d) list identifies hundreds of waterbody segments that fall short of water quality
standards. The three most common water quality concerns are fecal coliform, excess nutrients,
and oxygen-demanding substances from anthropogenic sources, resulting in impaired waters
that do not meet state standards. The listed waterbody segments are candidates for more
detailed assessments of water quality to determine whether they are impaired according to state
statutory and rule criteria. FDEP develops and adopts Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
for waterbody segments identified as impaired. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a specific
pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate while maintaining its designated uses.
The water quality evaluation and decision-making processes for listing impaired waters and
establishing TMDLs are authorized by Section 403.067, Florida Statutes (F.S.), also known as the
Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA), and contained in Florida’s Identification of
Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR), Rule 62-303, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The
impaired waters in the Bayou Chico watershed addressed in this Basin Management Action
Plan (BMAP) are all Class III waters. The TMDLs established for the Bayou Chico watershed in
June 2008 identify the amount of fecal coliform and other pollutants that the watershed’s
waterbodies can receive and still maintain Class III designated uses.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
2
The Bayou Chico watershed consists of two Class III fresh waterbodies (Jones Creek and
Jackson Creek) and four Class III marine waterbodies (Bayou Chico, Bayou Chico Drain, Bayou
Chico Beach, and Sanders Beach). Class III waterbodies have a designated use of recreation,
propagation, and the maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife.
The water quality criterion applicable to the impairment addressed by the TMDL is the Class III
criterion for fecal coliform.
For assessment purposes, FDEP divided the Pensacola Basin into water assessment polygons
with a unique waterbody identification (WBID) number for each watershed or stream reach.
The Bayou Chico watershed was divided into six waterbody segments, and the TMDL
addressed potential sources of bacteria in five of these six segments: Bayou Chico (WBID 846),
Jones Creek (WBID 846A), Jackson Creek (WBID 846B), Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB),
and Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA). The sixth segment, Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C), was
not listed as impaired prior to TMDL development. However, it was verified impaired for fecal
coliform in Cycle 2 of the watershed management cycle, and thus this BMAP includes site-
specific projects that may reduce or eliminate potential fecal coliform sources in WBID 846C.
Figure 1-1 shows the verified impaired waterbodies discussed in this BMAP.
There are 25 sampling stations in the Bayou Chico watershed with historical coliform
observations. The primary data collector of historical data is the Bureau of Water within the
Florida Department of Health (FDOH), Florida Division of Environmental Health, which
maintains routine sampling sites at Bayou Chico and Sanders Beach (STORET IDs: 21FLDOH
ESCAMBIA96 and 21FLDOH ESCAMBIA91) (STORET refers to FDEP’s STOrage and RETrieval
database). These sites were sampled between 2 and 6 times per month from August 14, 2000,
through June 27, 2005. Additional sampling was conducted by FDEP up to 5 times per month,
and by the Bream Fisherman’s Association on a quarterly basis. Sample data also collected by
the Florida Division of Environmental Health were also used in the TMDL.
The verified period for the TMDL was January 1, 1998, through June 30, 2005. Of the 965 fecal
coliform samples collected within the verified period, 920 qualified samples could be used to
establish the Bayou Chico TMDL (since 45 sampling events occurred on days without
corresponding U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] flow measurements). The samples used in the
TMDL calculation ranged from 0 to 25,000 counts per 100 milliliters (counts/100mL).
Samples were collected in all months of the year, and exceedances occurred in each of the
months. At least 64 samples were collected during a given month, with the greatest number of
samples (105) collected in March and December. The number of exceedances ranges from a low
of 4 in January to a high of 35 in September. More than 50% of exceedances during the verified
period occurred in all months except January, February, and March.
Numeric criteria for bacterial quality are expressed in terms of fecal coliform bacteria
concentrations. The water quality criterion for the protection of Class III waters, as established
by Rule 62-302, F.A.C., states the following:
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
3
FIGURE 1-1: BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED LOCATION MAP
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
4
Fecal Coliform Bacteria:
The most probable number (MPN) or membrane filter (MF) counts per 100 mL of fecal coliform
bacteria shall not exceed a monthly average of 200, nor exceed 400 in 10% of the samples, nor
exceed 800 on any one day.
The criterion states that monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a
minimum of 10 samples taken over a 30-day period. However, during the development of load
curves for the impaired streams, there were insufficient data (fewer than 10 samples in a given
month) available to evaluate the geometric mean criterion for fecal coliform bacteria. Therefore,
the criterion selected for the TMDL was “not to exceed 400 in 10% of the samples.”
TMDLs are developed and implemented as part of a watershed management cycle that rotates
through Florida’s 52 river basins every 5 years (see Appendix A) to evaluate waters, determine
impairments, and develop and implement management strategies to restore impaired waters to
their designated uses. Table 1-2 summarizes the five phases of the watershed management
cycle.
TABLE 1-2: PHASES OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT CYCLE
PHASE ACTIVITIES
Phase 1
Preliminary evaluation of water quality
Phase 2
Strategic monitoring and assessment to verify water quality impairments
Phase 3
Development and adoption of TMDLs for waters verified as impaired
Phase 4
Development of management strategies to achieve the TMDL(s)
Phase 5
Implementation of TMDL(s), including monitoring and assessment
1.2 TMDL IMPLEMENTATION
Rule-adopted TMDLs may be implemented through BMAPs, which contain strategies to reduce
and prevent pollutant discharges through various cost-effective means. During Phase 4 of the
TMDL process, FDEP and the affected stakeholders in the various basins jointly develop
BMAPs or other implementation approaches. The FWRA contains provisions that guide the
development of BMAPs and other TMDL implementation approaches. Appendix B
summarizes the statutory provisions related to BMAP development and implementation.
Stakeholder involvement is critical to the success of the watershed assessment (Phase 2), TMDL
development and adoption (Phase 3), and BMAP development (Phase 4), and varies with each
phase of implementation to achieve different purposes. The BMAP development process is
structured to achieve cooperation and consensus among a broad range of interested parties.
Under statute, FDEP invites stakeholders to participate in the BMAP development process and
encourages public participation to the greatest practicable extent. FDEP holds at least one
noticed public meeting in each basin to discuss and receive comments during the planning
process.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
5
1.3 THE BAYOU CHICO BMAP
1.3.1 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Meaningful public involvement was a key component in the development of the Bayou
Chico BMAP. The BMAP process promotes the engagement of local stakeholders in a
coordinated and collaborative manner to address the reductions in fecal coliform
bacteria needed to achieve the Bayou Chico TMDL. It also builds on existing water
quality improvement programs and local participation to address water quality
problems.
The following organizations and entities are key stakeholders in the Bayou Chico
watershed:
• Bay Area Resource Council (BARC), in conjunction with the West Florida
Regional Planning Council, consists of a cross-section of elected officials from
local governments representing the Pensacola Basin (Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties and the municipalities of Pensacola, Gulf Breeze, and Milton) and other
organizations that have signed an interlocal agreement. Its mission is “to develop
annual goals and identify projects for implementation by engaging in agreements
or contracts with public and private entities for assistance in planning, financing,
and managing the physical, chemical, biological, economic, and aesthetic aspects of
the Pensacola Bay System, to share information gathered for local planning
purposes, and to develop a restoration program for the Pensacola Bay System”
(EPA 2011);
• Bayou Chico Association (BCA) is a voluntary organization representing over
800 residents and commercial and industrial interests in the Bayou Chico
watershed. Organized for charity, education, and science, it facilitates efforts to
help the water quality, living, and working conditions on and around Bayou
Chico;
• City of Pensacola;
• Emerald Coast Utility Authority (ECUA);
• Escambia County;
• Escambia County Health Department (ECHD), Florida Department of Health
(FDOH);
• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Northwest District
Office;
• Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT);
• Pensacola Yacht Club;
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
6
• University of West Florida (UWF), Center for Environmental Diagnostics and
Bioremediation (CEDB) and Wetland Research Laboratory;
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gulf Islands Marine Research
Laboratory; and,
• U.S. Naval Air Station
In February 2009, FDEP initiated the BMAP development process and held a series of
technical meetings involving key stakeholders and the general public. The purpose of
these meetings was to consult with key stakeholders to gather information on the
impaired waterbody and its tributaries, in order to aid in the development of the BMAP
and identify specific management actions that would improve water quality. Beginning
in 2009, a total of nine technical meetings, all open to the public, were held for the
purposes of gathering information; identifying potential sources; conducting field
reconnaissance; defining programs, projects, and actions currently under way; and
developing the BMAP contents and actions that will result in improved water quality
with the goal of achieving the TMDL target reductions. Stakeholder involvement is
essential to develop, gain support for, and secure commitments to implement the
BMAP.
In addition to stakeholder input on the technical issues of BMAP development, FDEP
solicited further input from key stakeholder groups at the management level through a
presentation to BARC on April 27, 2011. BARC’s technical representatives constitute
many of the same stakeholders as in the Bayou Chico watershed and include many of
the entities directly involved in developing this BMAP. These entities share their
support of the BMAP and activities in the watershed, and can ensure that as their staff
and board members change over time, BARC has a way to continue support for the
BMAP and the efforts it describes.
This BMAP document reflects the input of the technical stakeholders, along with public
input from workshops and meetings held to discuss important aspects of the TMDL and
BMAP development. Appendix C provides further details about the stakeholder and
public involvement process in BMAP development.
1.3.2 PLAN PURPOSE AND APPROACH
The purpose of this BMAP is to implement the load reductions established in the fecal
coliform TMDL for the Bayou Chico watershed. The plan outlines specific actions to
achieve load reductions and a schedule for implementation. In addition, it details a
monitoring approach to identify additional sources of fecal coliform (and Enterococcus)
and to track trends in water quality. Following BMAP adoption, basin stakeholders will
meet at least annually to review the progress made toward achieving target load
reductions in the Bayou Chico watershed.
This BMAP addresses six impairments for fecal coliform in the watershed, all centered
on tributaries of the larger bayou. Specifically, it focuses on actions that reduce fecal
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
7
coliform levels, with a goal of meeting water quality standards and load reductions as
defined in the TMDL. Some water quality concerns in the bayou may benefit from these
BMAP actions, such as issues with excess nutrients and turbidity (as verified in Cycle 2
of the watershed management cycle), while other concerns, such as a history of elevated
levels of contaminants in sediments (polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs] and
dioxins/furans), must be addressed through programs other than the TMDL and BMAP
process.
Therefore, it should be emphasized that this BMAP does not address all of the water
quality issues in the watershed; rather, it is specifically developed to address
anthropogenic sources and elevated levels of fecal coliform, Enterococcus, and other
human-borne bacteria. The Bayou Chico BMAP contains a comprehensive set of
strategies focused on the primary sources of bacteria, such as wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs), sewage pumping stations, onsite sewage treatment and disposal
systems (OSTDS), marina activities (e.g., septic pump outs), and urban sources,
including stormwater, pet waste, and other potential bacterial sources in the bayou.
Though considerable effort has been taken to understand the dynamics of the TMDL
waterbodies, the relationship of fecal coliform water quality exceedances to pollutant
sources is not well understood. Where specific fecal coliform sources have been
identified, the stakeholders have proposed projects and activities to eliminate those
sources. There are also other nonhuman sources that can contribute to fecal coliform
impairments, such as wildlife, that are not addressed in this BMAP.
For the projects and programs in the BMAP, quantitative values for pollutant load
reduction activities cannot be calculated due to the lack of scientific information on
bacteria removal rates for best management practices (BMPs) or activities that reduce
fecal coliform levels. While certain BMPs are expected to prevent or eliminate fecal
coliform sources, it is not known exactly how much of a reduction will occur in the
waterbody. As a result, the expected date on which target load reductions of fecal
coliform addressed in the TMDL will be achieved is difficult to predict; however, the
stakeholders do expect that significant water quality improvements can be achieved by
the end of the first five-year BMAP cycle through ongoing and future activities, planned
projects, and county and citywide programs to eliminate sources, as outlined in this
BMAP. Coordinated efforts to monitor fecal coliform concentrations, in conjunction
with the implementation of projects basinwide, will also enhance the capability to
quantify positive effects in the future.
Furthermore, key stakeholders are committed to continue future assessments of
potential sources and source controls through the implementation of projects, programs,
and public education campaigns to eliminate potential sources, as well as to monitor the
water quality impairment(s) to achieve the reductions established in the fecal coliform
TMDL for Bayou Chico.
1.3.3 PLAN SCOPE
In an effort to address the known impairments, FDEP consulted with key stakeholders
to describe potential sources and available water quality, spatial, and geographic data
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
8
that would be useful in the BMAP. The available data and local knowledge in the
watershed pointed to the most probable sources of fecal coliform. These fall into five
main categories (not in order of magnitude), as follows: (1) OSTDS; (2) sewer
infrastructure; (3) urban stormwater and nonpoint pollution sources; (4) marinas located
in the bayou, as well as other recreational boaters who enter (and sometimes moor in)
the bayou; and (5) natural background such as wildlife (including wildlife parks,
sanctuaries, and rookeries).
FDEP used existing reports and the local knowledge of technical stakeholders to
establish a baseline to assist in identifying projects and activities that would address
potential sources and specific monitoring needs and plans, all of which are included in
this BMAP.
A “weight-of-evidence” approach was used to help identify likely sources of fecal
coliform and guide follow-up reconnaissance and investigations into corrective action.
This approach uses the best information available at the time to summarize impairments
and identify potential sources, and then focuses on watershed management efforts and
classifies priority areas or hot spots to support decisions related to fecal coliform
reduction efforts. This weight-of-evidence method, in conjunction with best professional
judgment and local knowledge of the bayou and of likely sources, was used to aid in
source identification to the maximum extent possible. In addition, the identification of
specific projects in the Bayou Chico watershed, their proximity to potential hot spots,
and the expected positive outcome in achieving fecal coliform reductions were taken
into consideration in evaluating a weight-of-evidence approach.
At this time, water quality modeling has not been used to assess the temporal
relationship between the source of fecal coliform and the associated impact on the
impaired waterbodies. Due to the intrinsic variability of fecal coliform and the diffuse
nature of nonpoint sources, modeling is not a viable consideration; therefore, the
weight-of-evidence approach seems the best way to assess information on the most
likely sources and a particular project’s associated benefit(s).
BMAPs do provide for phased implementation approaches under Paragraph
403.067(7)(a)1, F.S. The adaptive management approach for TMDL implementation
described in this BMAP will address fecal coliform bacteria reductions, and the iterative
evaluation process will continue until the target load reductions defined in the TMDL
are met. A phased BMAP approach also allows for the implementation of projects
designed to achieve reductions while simultaneously executing source assessments,
monitoring, and studies to better understand fecal coliform variability and water quality
dynamics in each impaired waterbody.
This first five-year phase of the BMAP is designed to address the TMDL and the
achievement of water quality standards in the watershed. This phase may include
gathering additional information or carrying out studies that can be used in the
development of the subsequent phase(s), which further support TMDL implementation.
The adaptive management process will continue until the TMDL pollutant load
reduction requirements are met.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
9
A five-year milestone evaluation in this BMAP will be carried out to verify that adequate
progress is being made toward achieving the TMDL. During the fifth year following
BMAP adoption (anticipated to be 2015), water quality data will again be evaluated for
in-stream reductions of fecal coliform levels within each WBID, or identified hot spots.
If significant reductions are not achieved by the end of this five-year implementation
phase, additional efforts may be necessary and will be reassessed. In addition, this five-
year milestone provides opportunities to further improve source assessment and
management measures going forward. Future projects that may be identified can open
opportunities for continued reductions and move into the next phase of implementation,
with the objective being to improve water quality trends, with the goal of reaching the
target TMDL reduction over the entire watershed.
In addition to stakeholder management actions, BMAP monitoring efforts will continue
in the watershed on a long-term basis. With many management actions already in place,
water quality data collected after 2008 began showing some reductions in fecal coliform
levels. The majority of the planned management actions will be implemented by the
end of 2012. In addition, a number of well-established long -term monitoring stations in
the watershed will continue to be monitored weekly or biweekly for both fecal coliform
counts and for Enterococcus bacteria by ECHD (Sanders and Bayou Chico Beach). Other
monitoring stations in the watershed are regularly monitored by Escambia County and
the Bream Fisherman’s Association. UWF also established a number of monitoring
points for its 2001–03 study of urban watersheds that included Bayou Chico (Snyder
2003). That study provided additional baseline data and information relating to
particular hot spots where fecal coliform and Enterococcus bacteria counts were
measured.
This BMAP details a monitoring approach to identify additional sources of fecal
coliform and to track trends in water quality. FDEP will meet with stakeholders at least
annually to review progress made towards achieving the TMDLs.
In summary, the implementation of key projects and actions identified in the Bayou
Chico BMAP, along with the implementation of the strategic monitoring plans described
in the BMAP, should achieve water quality improvements, and management actions
may be adjusted as needed to show continued progress.
1.3.4 SUFFICIENCY-OF-EFFORT DETERMINATIONS
Fecal coliform can be highly variable and easily transported, making it difficult in many
cases to identify the source of the bacteria. Based on the potential sources in each WBID,
the stakeholders were asked to identify completed activities carried out to reduce or
remove bacteria sources since 1995 (the start of the TMDL verified period), as well as
additional efforts that are currently under way or planned in the next five years.
Escambia County, ECUA, city of Pensacola, ECHD, FDOT District 3, West Florida
Regional Planning Council (in association with BARC), U.S. Naval Air Station, and BCA
all submitted project sheets and program descriptions for the prevention, reduction, and
source removal activities they conduct in the BMAP planning area and/or on a
countywide or citywide basis. FDEP then used a sufficiency-of-effort approach to
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
10
conduct a basinwide assessment of potential sources and cumulative projects and
activities that address or eliminate fecal coliform loading.
This sufficiency-of-effort evaluation was not an assessment of each agency’s individual
activities; rather, it focused on whether the activities submitted by all entities
corresponded to potential sources or hot spots previously identified and whether the
total efforts were adequate to eliminate the known sources, assess unknown sources,
and/or prevent the development of new sources.
During a sufficiency-of-effort evaluation, FDEP reviews the following information about
each WBID:
• Documentation of the most likely sources;
• A geographic information system (GIS) database to determine the spatial and
temporal distribution of the sources based on existing land use and activities;
• Permit and water quality information;
• Relevant field information and published data; and
• The completed corrective actions.
As the evaluation was conducted, the agencies’ programs and activities for each type of
source were recorded in a table summarizing restoration activities (Table 7-1). Because
the controllable sources (sewer infrastructure, septic tanks, and stormwater
conveyances) vary considerably among the individual WBIDs, the actions and
responsibilities of the stakeholders also vary considerably in the Bayou Chico
watershed.
The criteria for sufficiency for OSTDS-related efforts included the following:
designation as a septic tank failure or nuisance area in accordance with ECHD
requirements (as described in Section 4) that prioritizes these areas for transition to
sewer service; the status of phase outs to sewer in critical OSTDS failure areas; the
number of complaint investigations and any resulting enforcement actions; the number
of septic tank repair permits; and the proximity of repair sites to surface waters or
stormwater inlets. In addition, program implementation was evaluated for efforts such
as inspections, training programs, plan reviews, and site visits, as well as the regulation
of annual operating permits. Local ordinances were also evaluated for their ability to
proactively address potential OSTDS failures.
The criteria for sufficiency for sewer infrastructure included the assessment of recent
sewer line upgrades within the watershed, as well as evaluation of sanitary sewer
overflow (SSO) history to determine if previous problems were addressed through
repairs and upgrades. Rehabilitated manholes can prevent overflows from occurring at
the manhole and potentially reaching surface waters or the stormwater system;
therefore, manhole rehabilitation and targeted monitoring efforts were also evaluated.
Sanitary sewer programs that are carried out system wide or countywide, such as sewer
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
11
line inspections and rehabilitation, SSO investigations, and infiltration and inflow (I&I)
programs were also evaluated as measures to prevent and control sewer infrastructure
as a potential fecal coliform source.
The stormwater sufficiency evaluations included a review of flood control projects
(which reduce fecal coliform loading by preventing water from inundating septic
systems) and stormwater BMPs, such as wet/dry retention and baffle boxes (which
reduce sediment buildup that can provide a breeding ground for fecal coliform).
Consideration was also given to the maintenance of stormwater ditches, ponds, and
closed conveyances to prevent debris, vegetation, dense tree canopy, and sediment from
potentially providing conditions that would allow the growth of new sources of fecal
coliform bacteria.
Another important activity that was evaluated was the detection and removal of
potential illicit connections (PICs) to stormwater conveyances to eliminate illegal
discharges that can contribute fecal coliform and other pollutants into surface waters.
Stormwater-related program implementation also included public education campaigns,
the Adopt-A-Highway Program, street sweeping, drainage connection permits, and
countywide and citywide inspection programs, all of which may reduce the
contaminants entering stormwater conveyance systems.
Additionally, stakeholders (through BARC and BCA) are developing and implementing
pet waste programs, Clean Marina and Clean Vessel Programs, and other public
education campaigns using public service announcements, website content, conferences,
and printed handouts to raise awareness through public outreach and education. ECHD
also shares brochures and information related to leaking septic tanks, permit
requirements, and other important handouts on OSTDS with the public and through its
website. In addition, Escambia County ordinances are in place for OSTDS inspections
prior to property sales, and for pet waste management.
In efforts specific to each source, the entities also participate in special source assessment
activities. These include the strategic sampling of several public access points to Bayou
Chico (Lakewood Park and Sanders Beach) and follow-up sampling at locations where
high counts occur, in an effort to identify potential sources or suspected hot spots.
Based on source assessments and information gathered for this BMAP, a summary of
restoration activities (Section 7) was produced to ensure that appropriate programs and
activities were being implemented that would either decrease or eliminate the known
sources, or that might be needed to further assess fecal coliform loadings. The full
implementation of the management actions/projects identified in this BMAP was
deemed sufficient to address the fecal coliform bacteria reductions needed to achieve the
fecal coliform reductions described in the TMDL.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
12
1.3.5 POLLUTANT REDUCTION AND DISCHARGE ALLOCATIONS
1.3.5.1 CATEGORIES FOR RULE ALLOCATIONS
The rules adopting TMDLs must establish reasonable and equitable allocations that will
alone, or in conjunction with other management and restoration activities, attain the
target reductions defined in the TMDL. Allocations may be to individual sources,
source categories, or drainage areas that discharge to the impaired waterbody. The
allocations identify either in terms of how much pollutant discharge (which for fecal
coliform is expressed in CFUs per day) that each source designation may continue to
contribute (discharge allocation), or in terms of the percentage loading that the source
designation must reduce (percent reduction allocation). Currently, the TMDL allocation
categories are as follows:
• Wasteload Allocation – The allocation to point sources permitted under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program includes
the following:
o Wastewater Allocation is the allocation to industrial and domestic
wastewater facilities; and
o NPDES Stormwater Allocation is the allocation to NPDES stormwater
permittees that operate municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s). These permittees are treated as point sources under the TMDL
Program.
• Load Allocation - The allocation to nonpoint sources, including agricultural
runoff and stormwater from areas that are not covered by an MS4.
This approach is consistent with federal regulations (40 CFR § 130.2[I]), which state that
TMDLs can be expressed in terms of mass per time (e.g., pounds per day), toxicity, or
other appropriate measure. The TMDL for the Bayou Chico watershed was expressed in
terms of percent reduction, and represents the maximum annual fecal coliform load the
watershed can assimilate and maintain the fecal coliform criterion.
1.3.5.2 INITIAL AND DETAILED ALLOCATIONS
Under the FWRA, the TMDL allocation may be an “initial” allocation among point and
nonpoint sources. In such cases, the “detailed” allocation to specific point sources and
specific categories of nonpoint sources must be established in the BMAP. The FWRA
further states that the BMAP may make detailed allocations to individual “basins” (i.e.,
sub-basins) or to all basins as a whole, as appropriate. Both initial and detailed
allocations must be determined based on a number of factors listed in the FWRA,
including cost-benefit, technical and environmental feasibility, implementation time
frames, and others (see Appendix B).
Due to the nature of fecal coliform impairments, this BMAP does not specify detailed
allocations. It is difficult to attribute the fecal coliform loads to specific sources because
bacteria are highly variable and can be easily transported. In addition, research and
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
13
information are not available to quantify the expected fecal coliform reduction from
project implementation. Instead of assigning detailed allocations, a sufficiency-of-effort
evaluation (as described above) was conducted to assess whether the management
actions carried out by the entities in the watershed were sufficient to address potential
sources of fecal coliform, or to address known or suspected areas of high exceedances of
the water quality criterion.
1.3.5.3 BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED FECAL COLIFORM TMDL
The water quality criterion for fecal coliform bacteria is detailed in Subsection
62-302.530(6), F.A.C. The requirements for exceeding maximum fecal coliform
concentrations in a Class III waterbody are stated as follows:
The most probable number (MPN) or membrane filter (MF) counts per 100 milliliters (mL) of
fecal coliform bacteria shall not exceed a monthly average of 200, nor exceed 400 in 10% of
samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day.
FDEP has verified six WBIDs in the Bayou Chico watershed as impaired for fecal
coliform bacteria and adopted a TMDL to address these impairments in June 2008.
Table 1-3 lists the TMDL and pollutant load allocations adopted by rule for the
watershed.
TABLE 1-3: BAYOU CHICO FECAL COLIFORM TMDL
* The percent reduction is based on the 10
th
to 90
th
percentile of recurrence intervals minus the wasteload allocation.
WBID
TMDL
(%
REDUCTION
)
WASTELOAD
ALLOCATION FOR
WASTEWATER
(CFU
S
/100
M
L)
W
ASTELOAD
ALLOCATION FOR
NPDES
STORMWATER
(%)
LOAD ALLOCATION*
(%)
Bayou Chico watershed
(WBIDS 846, 846A, 846B,
846C, 846CB, and 848DA)
61%
Point sources must
meet permit limits
61% 61%
1.3.5.4 BACKGROUND AND POLLUTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN BAYOU CHICO
Pensacola Bay is a saline bay with about a one-half mile channel to the Gulf of Mexico.
The bay is the receiving body of water for Escambia and East Bays and Bayous Texar,
Chico, and Grande. The flushing of the bay is adequate, though it has water quality
problems due to nonpoint and point sources and urbanization. Bayou Chico has had a
long history of human activities and associated problems, including polluted
stormwater runoff, wastewater inputs, nutrient enrichment, and contaminated
sediments from urban runoff and industrial pollution. Prior to 1971, at least eight
industrial and domestic wastewater facilities discharged into Bayou Chico.
Both the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) and the University
of West Florida (UWF) have published studies that indicated the presence of polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pentachlorophenols (PCPs), and trace metals in both the
sediments and water in Bayou Chico (Debusk et al. 2002; Liebens et al. 2007). The bayou
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
14
is adjacent to the abandoned American Creosote Works site, a National Priority List
hazardous waste site that may still be affecting the bayou.
A review of the scientific literature shows that the quality of the water and sediments in
Bayou Chico has been, and is still, affected by a variety of pollutants. Liebens et al.
(2006) state, “In the 1970s, organic pollutants were found to be many times higher than
typical values for coastal sediments.” Studies have shown elevated levels of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins/furans in seafood from the bayou
(Snyder and Karouna-Renier 2009). Trace metals are also elevated in the main part of
the bayou and between two topographic constrictions in the northern half of the bayou.
Organisms affected by the pollution of Bayou Chico have diminished in density and
diversity. Two other nearby industrial sites also have documented environmental
problems, though their impact on the bayou is not well known.
The lower portion of Bayou Chico was dredged between March and August 2008. The
NWFWMD partnered with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) on the project.
Dredged spoil was placed in the northwest pond of the Clark Sand Pit. The NWFWMD
carried out monitoring during and following the deposition to determine the quality of
water discharging into Jackson Branch Creek and to track saltwater movement into the
lower water zone and into nearby wells. A potential issue whose impacts are still
unknown is the behavior of the contaminants in the spoil after disposal. Even though
these pollutants may not pose a direct threat to humans, who have limited direct contact
with the sediments of Bayou Chico, they do have the potential to indirectly affect human
health.
While these and other water quality issues in the bayou are very well documented, the
impacts and solutions are beyond the scope of this BMAP. These water quality issues
should, however, be addressed by programs other than the TMDL Program. They are
valid concerns of stakeholders and residents in the bayou, in terms of both water quality
and future restoration efforts, and thus deserve mention in this BMAP.
Chronic fecal coliform contamination in a number of waterways in Pensacola Bay has
also been well documented (Snyder 2006; Maestre 2009). Snyder conducted a multiyear
study (2001–03) to identify the sources of loadings of fecal coliform and Enterococci
within the urban bayous in Pensacola Bay, including Bayou Chico. Sampling stations
were selected to coincide with stormwater drains, perennial streams, and areas of likely
ground water discharges. Spatially explicit loading in the bayou was evident. Snyder
found that concentrations of fecal bacteria decreased along the salinity gradient of the
system as a general trend, indicating that the freshwater tributaries and residential areas
of the bayou were primary sources to the system, and that older residential areas using
septic tanks in low-lying areas were also likely sources. In other nearby urban bayous,
residential areas served by older sewer lines and/or affected by rainfall were evident as
the likely sources.
Other available literature, including a report prepared for the city of Pensacola, Bayou
Chico Stormwater Needs Assessment (Baskerville-Donovan 2004), also suggests that
structural and nonstructural alternatives should be considered to address potential
sources of runoff pollution in all the watersheds evaluated. These alternatives include
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
15
eliminating septic tanks in areas where sanitary sewer is available and educating
residents and businesses in the area on proper septic tank maintenance and cleaning, as
well as on proper disposal methods for animal waste. This information, as well as key
stakeholders’ local knowledge of the potential problem zones where high fecal coliform
counts have been documented, provides a basis for the projects and activities identified
in the Bayou Chico BMAP.
1.4 ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING TMDL
IMPLEMENTATION
The water quality benefits of TMDL implementation are based on several fundamental
assumptions about the targeted pollutants, modeling approaches, waterbody response, and
natural processes. In addition, there are a number of important assumptions and considerations
to keep in mind about the nature of the BMAP and its long-term implementation.
1.4.1 ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions were made during the BMAP process:
• Load reductions for stormwater discharges are typically expressed as a percent
reduction because it is difficult to quantify the loads from MS4s (given the
numerous discharge points) and to distinguish MS4 loads from other nonpoint
sources (given the diffuse nature of stormwater transport).
• Bacteria loads from specific sources cannot be quantified because they are highly
variable and not well understood. Thus it is not possible to calculate a specific
bacterial load for a specific source. Rather, a percent reduction in load, calculated
from stream load, not source to stream, is the best way to quantify the necessary
reduction.
• The technical stakeholders evaluated the known sources of bacteria contributing to
the impairment in each waterbody and whether there was strong evidence of
responsibility. Affected stakeholders then determined which projects would help
to address these problems and included these projects in the BMAP.
• In cases where the sources were unknown, stakeholder groups determined
appropriate assessment programs to investigate the sources of bacteria loadings.
• Due to a lack of literature values and high variability, it is difficult to determine
the quantitative load reductions expected from management actions to decrease
fecal coliform; therefore, the benefits of these actions were evaluated on a
qualitative basis by matching elimination, reduction, and prevention activities to
known or potential sources.
• Flood control projects are included as BMAP activities because these projects help
to reduce flooding after a storm event, decreasing the amount of fecal coliform
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
16
loading to nearby waterbodies through stormwater runoff. Programs such as
Adopt–A-Highway, drainage connection permits, and street sweeping and
inspection programs are also important because they remove trash, sediment,
debris, and pollutants from roadways and conveyance systems that would
otherwise be transported to stormwater systems and surface waters. Fecal
coliform can be transported in sediments and debris, and these materials can also
create a breeding ground for bacteria. Therefore, flood control projects and
roadway clean-up programs were given credit in this BMAP as actions that may
reduce fecal coliform.
• The penetration of ultraviolet (UV) light into waters and sediments may aid fecal
coliform die-off and prevent bacteria regrowth. Therefore, attention was paid to
any restoration efforts that included the maintenance of stormwater ditches,
ponds, and closed conveyance systems. Activities such as preventing the
accumulation of debris, removing vegetation or dense tree canopy, and controlling
sediment erosion help to eliminate conditions that would encourage the growth of
potential new sources of fecal coliform bacteria.
1.4.2 CONSIDERATIONS
This BMAP requires all stakeholders to implement projects and programs to achieve
fecal coliform load reductions as soon as practicable. However, the full implementation
of the BMAP is recognized to be a long-term process. While some of the projects and
activities contained in the BMAP were recently completed, or are currently ongoing,
there are still several projects that will require more time to design, secure funding, and
construct. While project funding can be an issue, such limitations do not affect TMDL
implementation requirements; thus, all stakeholders or entities must make every
reasonable effort to secure funding and implement the activities listed in the BMAP.
Since BMAP implementation is a long-term process, the TMDL targets established for
the Bayou Chico watershed may not be achieved in the next five years. It is understood
that all waterbodies can respond differently to the implementation of reduced loadings
in order to meet applicable water quality standards. Regular follow-up and continued
coordination and communication by stakeholders will be essential to ensure the
implementation of management strategies and assessment of their incremental effects.
Any additional management actions required to meet the target load fecal coliform
reductions in the TMDL will, if necessary, be developed as part of BMAP follow-up.
As part of this BMAP, stakeholders have committed to a wide variety of management
actions/projects. Generally, the projects or activities fall into the following categories:
• Public education and outreach;
• Wastewater infrastructure management, including sanitary sewer expansion
programs;
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
17
• Stormwater management and the installation of new or retrofitted stormwater
treatment;
• Regulations, ordinances, and guidelines (including local, state, and federal);
• Restoration, land acquisition, and water quality improvements; and
• Special studies, planning, monitoring, and assessment.
1.5 FUTURE GROWTH IN THE WATERSHED
The FWRA, Paragraph 403.067(7)(a)(2), F.S., requires that BMAPs “identify the mechanisms by
which potential future increases in pollutant loading will be addressed.”
As mandated by the FWRA, fecal coliform loadings associated with future growth were
considered as part of the BMAP. Most lands surrounding Bayou Chico are already urbanized
and consist of older, well-established residential subdivisions and industrial and commercial
uses. Since these areas are mostly developed, future growth is not expected to substantially
increase fecal coliform loadings to the tributaries and creeks.
Any new development or redevelopment would be connected to the existing or future sanitary
sewer system infrastructure, where the wastewater will be treated to high levels, as opposed to
septic tanks. The vast majority of anticipated residential and/or redevelopment areas (such as
the Warrington drainage area) in the watershed has or will have centralized sewer available.
Recent upgrades included in the newly relocated Main Street WWTP will also provide
advanced and improved secondary or tertiary treatment with high-level disinfection. In
addition, the availability of sanitary sewer where it did not previously exist in the Bayou Chico
watershed, along with BMPs implemented for any structural works associated with new
development or redeveloped areas (e.g., stormwater treatment facilities), should diminish any
direct (and indirect) discharges into Bayou Chico and its associated tributaries and creeks.
Where sewer service is not available, ECHD will review septic tank plans and evaluate sites
before issuing new permits, so that the new systems are correctly designed, placed, and
operated to prevent further fecal coliform loading. To address potential new sources, all new
development will also have to meet all local, state, and federal requirements for stormwater
management.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
18
SECTION 2: POLLUTANT SOURCES AND ANTICIPATED
OUTCOMES
2.1 FECAL COLIFORM POLLUTANT SOURCES
This section summarizes the general types of sources associated with fecal coliform
impairments. Additional details on these sources in the watershed can be found in Sections 3
through 6 of this document.
2.1.1 SANITARY SEWER SYS TEMS
A sanitary sewer system (i.e., public and privately owned sewer infrastructure) may
contribute fecal coliform pollution to the environment through the slow and continuous
leakage of sanitary sewer infrastructure, treatment failure in WWTPs, and SSOs.
Common causes of SSOs may include the following:
1. Heavy rainfall resulting in the inflow of stormwater or infiltration of ground water
into sewer lines;
2. Breaks or blockages in sewer lines due to aging infrastructure or the accumulation of
grease; and
3. Malfunctioning equipment and pumps (possibly due to power failures).
It is not clear how much leaking sewer infrastructure below ground may contribute to
surface water contamination. Although there is evidence that in some soils, bacteria
may not be readily transported to nearby surface waters, there are no known local data
related to bacterial transport in the soil types and ground water conditions in the Bayou
Chico watershed.
Underground sanitary sewer pipes can leak. When ground water levels are low or the
pressure in the sanitary sewer pipes is greater than the surrounding pressure of ground
water, it is possible that wastewater in the sanitary sewer pipes can exfiltrate out
through the leaks in the pipes and into the surrounding ground water, and potentially
migrate to adjacent surface waters. When ground water levels are high, ground water
surrounding the pipes can infiltrate into the leaks in the sanitary sewer pipes. Surface
water associated with flooding also can inflow into the sanitary sewer pipes when
stormwater pipes are connected illegally to the sanitary sewer pipes. In addition,
surface water and/or ground water can inflow into the sanitary sewer pipes when the
caps are off sanitary sewer laterals or when there are holes or breakages in sanitary
sewer pipes.
A California study (Brown and Caldwell 2005) suggested that high water tables do not
usually result in the exfiltration of sewage from pipes or couplings into ground water.
Rather, as indicated above, ground water is more likely to infiltrate into the collection
system. Some studies also suggest that the transport of sewage and fecal coliform
bacteria into ground water depends on many factors, with one of the largest being the
difference in hydraulic head between the sewage and the ground water table.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
19
According to a recent U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study, “The
occurrence of exfiltration is limited to those areas where sewer elevations lie above the
ground water table. Since ground water elevations near surface water bodies are
typically near the ground surface, sewers near surface water bodies are generally below
the ground water table, and infiltration (rather than exfiltration) will dominate as the
mode of sewer leakage in these areas” (Amick and Burgess 2003). It is important to note
that some areas in the Bayou Chico watershed have a relatively high water table, and
therefore infiltration may be the primary form of sewer leakage in those areas.
ECUA owns and maintains the sanitary sewer system that serves the majority of the
watershed. It is possible that the sewer system and the associated infrastructure
(particularly aging infrastructure) could contribute to the impairments in these areas,
especially where this infrastructure crosses or is located near Bayou Chico. A number of
watersheds in the surrounding area have had SSOs with the potential to impact surface
waters. Response times, however, can be minimized and the problems addressed by
taking proactive steps.
2.1.2 OSTDS
OSTDS consist of a septic tank and a subsurface wastewater infiltration system, or
drainfield, where most of the treatment occurs in the soil above the water table. The
drainfield and underlying soils are the most critical components of septic systems for the
treatment of wastewater. Under Subsection 64E-6.002(23), F.A.C., a failing septic system
is one that is not functioning in a sanitary manner and that may result in the transport of
untreated or partially treated wastewater to surface waters.
OSTDS failure can be due to a number of causes, including unsuitable soil conditions,
flooding, improper design and installation, or inadequate maintenance practices.
Improperly functioning septic systems are often recognized as a significant contributor
of pollutants, including microbiological pathogens (Nicosia et al. 2001; McDowell et al.
2005). These failing systems may result in obvious sanitary hazards, such as ponding on
the ground and runoff into surface waters or stormwater collection systems, and less
conspicuous nuisances, including the leaching of untreated wastewater into ground
water. As noted in Section 1.3.5.4, certain areas of the watershed have relatively high
water tables, which could potentially transport fecal coliform from septic tanks through
shallow ground water into Jackson and Jones Creeks, and into Bayou Chico.
2.1.3 STORMWATER
The term “nonpoint sources” is used to describe intermittent, rainfall-driven, diffuse
sources of pollution (e.g., stormwater runoff) associated with everyday human activities,
including runoff from urban land uses, agriculture, silviculture, and mining activities;
discharges or overflow from failing septic systems; and atmospheric deposition.
Additional nonpoint sources may include areas with concentrated wildlife (e.g., bird
sanctuaries) or domestic animals (e.g., dog parks or improper pet waste disposal).
While there are no known dog parks in the watershed, a number of county and city
parks close to Bayou Chico could be used by residents who walk their dogs and who
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
20
may improperly dispose of pet waste. Other land uses likely to contribute fecal coliform
loading through runoff to surface waters include agricultural activities. Runoff from
agricultural areas containing animals (e.g., livestock grazing, dairies, cattle farms, or
concentrated animal feeding operations [CAFOs]) can contribute a significant amount of
fecal contamination to surface waters. Bayou Chico, however, is a very urbanized
watershed, with no agricultural land uses.
Sediments in streambeds also can allow stormwater conveyance systems, especially
those underground, to act as reservoirs for contamination as bacteria persist and
possibly regrow in the sediments. These sediment bacteria sources can periodically
result in the influx of high levels of bacteria to receiving waters (Anderson et al. 2005;
Brownell et al. 2007). Bacteria from sediments could potentially be an issue in certain
areas of Jones Creek and Jackson Branch, where the majority of the watershed (more
than 50%) is highly urbanized and stormwater runoff is managed through stormwater
treatment systems or conveyances.
Illicit connections to stormwater conveyance systems can also contribute to fecal
coliform loading. Escambia County and FDOT have ongoing programs to identify PICs
to MS4 conveyances and to waterbodies. As part of this program, Escambia County, the
city of Pensacola, and FDOT can verify PICs and remove illicit connections through their
existing regulatory programs. The number of open PIC cases for Escambia County and
FDOT is unknown, but the results of any investigations into PICs are typically reported
in the MS4 annual monitoring information and will also be reported in the first annual
BMAP progress report
2.1.4 MARINA ACTIVITIES
Marinas with onsite waste disposal areas (pump-out stations) that can leak or overflow
can dump raw sewage directly into a waterbody. However, marinas that do not provide
onsite waste disposal areas can be much larger sources of contamination if boaters
discharge their waste directly into waterbodies. Eight commercial marinas in the Bayou
Chico watershed represent potential sources for fecal contamination to surface waters.
Another potential source is seasonal or transient live-aboard boaters who may enter the
bayou to moor temporarily. These boaters may contribute to the fecal coliform source
problem if they are not properly disposing of their sewage or using existing pump-out
facilities available in Bayou Chico.
Florida’s Clean Marina Program is designed to make marine facilities and boaters aware
of environmentally friendly practices intended to protect and preserve waterways.
Marinas, boatyards, and marine retailers receive clean designations by demonstrating a
commitment to implement and maintain a host of BMPs. These measures address
critical environmental issues such as sensitive habitat, waste management, stormwater
control, spill prevention, and emergency preparedness. Designated facilities and those
facilities seeking the designation receive ongoing technical support from the Florida
Clean Marina Program and the Clean Boating Partnership.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
21
Another effective program that specifically addresses potential contaminant sources
from marina activities is the Clean Vessel Act (CVA). CVA is a federally funded grant
program administered by the Florida Clean Marina Program for the construction of
pump-out facilities and pump-out vessels at marina and boatyard sites. The CVA
Program also supports educational and public awareness programs on the importance
and practice of keeping raw sewage out of Florida’s waterways.
2.1.5 WILDLIFE
In some segments of the Bayou Chico watershed, wildlife can be a significant source of
fecal coliform, especially in areas such as the Jones Creek swamp, where there is
considerable undeveloped acreage, including wetlands, upland forest, or wooded
corridors. A noted bird sanctuary (with a concentrated population of geese) was also
noted in the northeast branch of Jackson Creek. While wildlife is a contributing source
of fecal coliform loading to the tributaries, this is considered a background concentration
and an uncontrollable source in the BMAP. Stakeholders are not asked to remove or
discourage wildlife near the bayou. However, where stakeholders have noted instances
or indicators of wildlife, additional sampling may help correlate potential sources with
fecal coliform concentrations.
2.2 WATER QUALITY TRENDS IN THE WATERSHED
Rule 62-303, F.A.C., establishes a methodology by which surface waters of the state are verified
as impaired. FDEP used the IWR database to assess water quality impairments in the Bayou
Chico watershed based on fecal coliform data within the verified period, which was January 1,
1998, through June 30, 2005. Five of the six waterbody segments in the watershed have been
verified impaired for fecal coliform: Bayou Chico (WBID 846), Jones Creek (WBID 846A),
Jackson Creek (WBID 846B), Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB), and Sanders Beach (WBID
848DA). In addition, a sixth segment, Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C) was verified impaired
for fecal coliform in Cycle 2 of the listing process. These waterbody segments comprise the
Bayou Chico watershed, for which this BMAP has been developed.
Samples were collected in all months of the year, and exceedances occurred in each month. At
least 64 samples were collected during each month, with the greatest number of samples (105)
collected in March and December. The number of exceedances ranged from 4 in January to 35
in September. Greater than 50% exceedances occurred in all months except January, February,
and March (FDEP 2008).
For all of the long-term monitoring stations (Figure 2-1) with (nearly) 10-year records—Jackson
Creek (Station 21FLBFA 33020146), Bayou Chico Drain (Station 21FLBFA 33020JF1), Upper
Bayou Chico (Station 21FLBFA 3302JE20), Jones Creek (Station 21FLBFA 33020118), Bayou
Chico Beach (21FLDOH ESCAMBIA96), and Bayou Chico proper (21FLPNS 33020JD4)—there
has been a general trend of declining fecal coliform concentrations and a declining number of
exceedances of both the 800 single-sample criterion and 400 CFUs in no more than 10% of
samples. The trends, however, are not statistically significant, and all stations (except Upper
Bayou Chico) have had exceedances of both criteria in one of the most recent 3 years of record.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
22
So, while the trends are promising, there is still work to be done in reducing fecal coliform
inputs.
2.3 ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
Although the relationship between fecal coliform loading and sources is not fully understood,
the implementation of the projects and programs in this BMAP should improve water quality in
the impaired tributaries. The following outcomes are expected from BMAP implementation:
• Improved water quality trends in the Bayou Chico watershed that will also help
improve water quality in the surrounding bays (Escambia/Pensacola Bay);
• Attainment of the load reductions described in the adopted TMDL;
• Decreased loading of the target pollutant (fecal coliform bacteria);
• Increased coordination between state and local governments and within divisions
of local governments in problem solving for surface water quality restoration;
• Ability to secure additional state and local funding for water quality restoration;
• Improved communication and cooperation among state and local agencies,
allowing a more effective response to restoration needs;
• Determination of effective projects through the stakeholder decision-making and
priority-setting processes;
• Enhanced public awareness of pollutant sources, pollutant impacts on water
quality, and corresponding corrective actions; and
• Enhanced understanding of basin hydrology, water quality, and pollutant
sources.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
23
FIGURE 2-1: LONG-TERM MONITORING STATIONS IN THE BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
24
SECTION 3: SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS
3.1 POTENTIAL SOURCES
Sanitary sewer systems (i.e., public and privately owned sewer infrastructure) may contribute
fecal coliform pollution to the environment through the slow and continuous leakage of
sanitary sewer infrastructure, treatment failure in WWTPs, and SSOs.
ECUA owns and maintains the sanitary sewer system that serves the majority of the watershed.
It is possible that the sewer system and the associated infrastructure (particularly aging
infrastructure) could contribute to the impairments in these areas, especially where this
infrastructure crosses or is located near Bayou Chico. A number of watersheds in the
surrounding area have had SSOs with the potential to impact surface waters, but response times
have been minimized and the problems addressed through proactive action.
Figures 3-1 and 3-2 depict the current ECUA sanitary sewer infrastructure (as of March 2011) in
the eastern and western portions, respectively, of the Bayou Chico watershed. The map also
highlights the new expansion projects currently under way in the Edgewater and Lakewood
subdivisions north and south of Bayou Chico proper, respectively, and discussed further in
Section 3.2. This map also illustrates sites where previously permitted OSTDS (i.e., septic
tanks) failed and were repaired, and where sewer expansions were or are currently under
design in those residential communities.
3.2 PROJECTS TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM LOADING
ECUA and ECHD provided FDEP with information on a number of projects that are expected
to significantly reduce and eliminate potential sources of fecal coliform loading in the
watershed. These projects either have been completed or are in design. A few more consist of
planned or ongoing programs and activities that these two stakeholders are undertaking to
address fecal coliform loading in this BMAP.
The following descriptions highlight a few of these projects:
• Main Street Wastewater Treatment Plant (MSWTTP) Replacement
Project – ECUA owns and operates the MSWWTP, which is located in
downtown Pensacola, approximately 1 ½ miles east of Bayou Chico. The plant is
permitted at 20 million gallons per day (MGD) and discharges its effluent directly
to Pensacola Bay. While the discharge does not have a direct impact on Bayou
Chico, much of the watershed is served through the collection system that is
connected to the MSWWTP.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
25
FIGURE 3-1: SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE EASTERN BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
26
FIGURE 3-2: SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE WESTERN BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
27
ECUA completed this major capital improvement project during the summer of
2010: the construction of a replacement water reclamation facility that will allow
the closure of the MSWWTP. The new plant, the Central Water Reclamation
Facility (CWRF), is located near Cantonment, approximately 15 miles north of
the MSWWTP site. The CWRF is an advanced wastewater treatment (AWT)
facility that is permitted at 22.5 MGD and features 100% industrial reuse of its
reclaimed water, resulting in the total elimination of the surface water discharge
in what was formerly the Main St. drainage area.
ECUA began diverting flows from the MSWWTP to the CWRF in August 2010.
In early April 2011, the CWRF was treating approximately two-thirds of the
flows in the Main St. drainage area, and the MSWWTP was officially taken
offline on April 28, 2011. The flows from the Bayou Chico watershed that were
previously treated at the MSWWTP are now transmitted to the CWRF for
treatment, and the reclaimed water will be available for industrial reuse.
• Sewer Expansion Program (SEP) – ECUA has an ongoing capital
improvement program (CIP) focusing on the phaseout and elimination of poorly
operating or failed septic tanks through the expansion of the ECUA wastewater
collection system. The priority areas targeted for this program are typically
located close to surface water or public drinking water wells, or where the
operation of septic tanks has caused health concerns. The program includes
financial incentives to encourage connection to the sewer system. ECUA waives
the wastewater capacity impact fee for all connections in the project areas that are
completed within 365 days of notice of availability of the system.
SEP has benefitted the Bayou Chico area specifically through the completion of a
number of projects within the Bayou Chico watershed and proposed/planned
projects for the phaseout of existing septic tanks. Table 3-1 lists the SEP projects
that have benefitted the watershed and those that are planned for implementation
in the near future. As of September 2010, of the 1,051 properties that had service
available through the completed projects, 917 of those properties had connected to
the sewer system. In other words, approximately 87% of the properties in the
project areas have eliminated their septic tanks.
Funding for SEP originates with ECUA’s annual CIP budget as well as through
agreements with Escambia County for the use of disaster recovery grants.
• Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Response Plan – ECUA occasionally must
deal with an emergency or unexpected discharge from its wastewater collection
system. Typically, these discharges, or SSOs, result from extraordinary rainfall
events, damaged or broken sewer mains, or pump malfunction/failure at a lift
station due to electrical outage or mechanical failure. ECUA’s response typically
includes the repair or resolution of the cause, clean-up of any affected area(s)
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
28
TABLE 3-1: SEWER EXPANSION PROGRAM PROJ ECTS IN THE BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED
*Projected start date (Source: ECUA April 2011)
N/A = Not applicable
P
ROJECT
S
TART
D
ATE
(
MONTH
/
YEAR
)
P
ROPERTIES
S
ERVED
P
ROPERTIES
C
ONNECTED
%
C
ONNECTED
Jamaica Street 3/01 34 24 71%
Corry Heights 7/01 128 119 93%
Carver Heights 4/08 140 117 84%
Lakewood I 12/05 183 172 91%
Lakewood II 6/05 85 77 94%
Lakewood III 12/08 112 82 73%
Edgewater I 3/06 74 62 84%
Edgewater II 8/06 295 264 90%
Lakewood IV 6/11* 168 N/A N/A
Lakewood V 5/11* 469 N/A N/A
with a vacuum truck and application of a biocide, and notification to the State
Warning Point (the office that coordinates the state’s response to a wide variety of
both natural and man-made emergencies). ECUA is dedicated to reducing the
number of SSOs within its collection system through the implementation of a
number of the policies detailed in this report, such as the Fats, Oils, and Grease
(FOG) Program and the reduction of inflow and infiltration (I&I) (both of which
are described below).
ECUA has installed emergency power generators at key lift stations throughout
the collection system to provide electrical power if line power is lost. It also
maintains a pool of portable generators that can be easily transported to smaller
lift station sites if a loss of electrical power occurs. Most of the lift stations in the
system have been equipped with quick-connect fixtures to facilitate the hook-up of
these portable generators. This flexibility allows ECUA to react quickly in the
event of a loss of power and reduces the incidence of SSOs.
• Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Reduction – The ECUA wastewater collection
system conveys sewage to either of the two ECUA water reclamation facilities on
the mainland. The operation and maintenance of the collection system entails
typical activities to keep the system in normal condition, as well as an attempt to
reduce or eliminate the unintended flow of ground water and stormwater into the
collection system. This extraneous flow into the system is commonly known as
I&I.
ECUA staff perform routine maintenance practices such as using GIS-based
system mapping on laptop computers for mobile access to collection system data,
cleaning the collection system with vacuum trucks, inspecting pipes with a video
camera, and remotely monitoring the operation of over 360 pumping stations
through the use of a Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA)
system. ECUA also funds additional collection system maintenance activities
through its CIP budget. These activities include a manhole rehabilitation
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
29
program to repair structural deficiencies in manholes and sewer line repair and
replacement using a variety of proven repair approaches such as in-place liners,
pipe-bursting, and pressure grouting.
• Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Program – ECUA has implemented a program
to reduce sewer overflows by controlling the discharge of fats, oils, and grease into
the collection system. The aim of this program is to help sewer customers capture
and dispose of cooking grease in an environmentally safe way, in order to reduce
the occurrence of grease-related sewer clogs, which often result in SSOs. ECUA
provides containers to customers who wish to participate in the program and
offers a safe disposal option at a number of sites throughout the ECUA utility
service area, thus avoiding the discharge of these materials to the ECUA collection
system and related grease clogs. A contractor processes the materials collected
through this program to produce biodiesel.
The implementation of the FOG Program also includes the monitoring and
assessment of grease traps at restaurants and other food service establishments in
ECUA’s utility service area, which includes the Bayou Chico watershed. ECUA
maintains a database of FOG customers and conducts routine inspections and
follow-ups on these facilities. In 2010, ECUA established the Protector of the
Environment Award Program to recognize organizations that implement BMPs
for the removal of FOG prior to its discharge into the ECUA collection system.
ECUA presents this award quarterly. FOG staff participates in community
activities and train staff at local restaurants, cafeterias, and food service
establishments.
• Lift Station Upgrades and Emergency Power Generation Program – In
addition to the activities listed above, and as part of the MSWWTP, ECUA has
upgraded a number of lift stations throughout its service area and has installed
emergency power generators at the new WWTP (and existing MSWWTP) to
address the release of untreated sewage caused by power failures—another
potential source problem that can be posed during heavy storm events, including
hurricanes.
The importance of replacing the MSWWTP was emphasized when Hurricane
Ivan struck Pensacola in September 2004, rendering the plant inoperable for 3
days and causing the release of raw sewage into the streets of Pensacola. It was
estimated that the hurricane, with its wind-driven salt water, aged the already
outdated plant by approximately 10 years. The new facility, located near
Cantonment, has increased capacity (20 to 22.5 MGD) and is located above the
Category 5 storm surge level. It also addresses ECUA’s primary goal, which is to
provide long-range solutions to the sewage treatment needs of the community.
• ECHD Septic to Sewer Enforcement Program – This ongoing noticing and
tracking program, carried out in conjunction with ECUA’s sanitary sewer
expansion projects, is designed to track residential communities that are phasing
out septic systems and connecting to available sanitary sewer lines. At last report
(2010), ECHD had sent out 751 notices informing residents of the requirement to
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
30
connect where sanitary sewer was available (e.g., the Edgewater and Lakewood
subdivisions in the Bayou Chico watershed) and stated that 113 residents were
still within the required connection time frame (within 1 year from the notice),
while about 40 residents were noncompliant. ECHD continues to monitor
progress and enforcement through a series of notices and mailers. The program
also aids in promoting ECUA’s waiver of the wastewater capacity impact fee for
all connections in the project areas that are completed within 365 days of notice of
availability of the system.
Table 3-2 summarizes all sanitary sewer system projects and activities that address potential
fecal coliform loading in the Bayou Chico watershed, including their costs (if known) and
status.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
31
TABLE 3-2: STAKEHOLDER PROJ ECTS AND ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM LOADINGS FROM SANITARY SEWER SOURCES
P
ROJ ECT
N
UMBER
P
ROJ ECT
N
AME
P
ROJ ECT
D
ES CRIP TION
L
EVEL OF
E
FFORT
E
STIMATED
C
OST
F
UNDING
S
OURCE
P
ROJ ECT
S
TATUS
ECUA – 1
Lakewood Phase I
Construct sewage collection system –
183 connections established
Sewer extensions in area previously
served by septic tanks
$1,431,866 ECUA Completed
ECUA – 2
Lakewood Phase II
Construct sewage collection system –
85 connections established
Sewer extensions in area previously
served by septic tanks
$747,263 ECUA Completed
ECUA – 3
Lakewood Phase III
Construct sewage collection system –
112 connections established
Sewer extensions in area previously
served by septic tanks
$723,964 ECUA Completed
ECUA and
Escambia
County – 4
Lakewood Phase IV Sewer extension project
Sewer extensions in area previously
served by septic tanks
$128,845
Community
Development
Business Grant
(CDBG) (through U.S.
Department. of
Housing and Urban
Development [HUD])
and ECUA
In design
ECUA and
Escambia
County – 5
Lakewood Phase V Sewer expansion project
Sewer extensions in area previously
served by septic tanks (construction
funded through Escambia County
HUD/CBDG funds for Phases IV, V,
and portions of VI)
$3,390,897
CDBG (HUD) In design
ECUA and
Escambia
County – 6
Lakewood Phase VI Sewer expansion project
Sewer extensions in area previously
served by septic tanks
Included in
costs of
Lakewood:
Phase IV
Partly funded through
CDBG (HUD)
Portions in
design
ECUA – 7
Edgewater Phase I
Construct sewage collection system –
74 connections established
Sewer extensions in area previously
served by septic tanks
$1,467,661 ECUA Completed
ECUA – 8
Edgewater Phase II
Construct sewage collection system –
295 connections established
Sewer extensions in area previously
served by septic tanks
Included in
costs of
Edgewater:
Phase I
ECUA Completed
ECUA – 9
FOG Program
Reduce sewer overflows by
controlling the discharge of fats, oils,
and grease into the collection system.
Throughout entire ECUA service
area
Unknown ECUA Ongoing
ECUA – 10
I&I Program
Reduce or eliminate the unintended
flow of ground water and stormwater
into the collection system
Throughout entire ECUA service
area
Unknown ECUA Ongoing
ECUA – 11
SSO Response Plan Respond and clean up SSOs
Throughout entire ECUA service
area
Unknown ECUA Ongoing
ECUA – 12
Emergency Power
Generator Program
Install generators at WWTP Sewer upgrades/repairs Unknown ECUA Completed
ECUA – 13
Lift Station Upgrades Upgrade lift stations in the watershed
Throughout entire ECUA service
areas
Unknown ECUA Ongoing
ECHD – 14
Septic to Sewer
Enforcement Program
Carry out enforcement by notifying
residents and tracking conversion
compliance: 751 notices were sent
out; 113 are still within the connect
time frame; 40+
are in
noncompliance
Enforcement programs Unknown FDOH Ongoing
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
32
SECTION 4: ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
4.1 POTENTIAL SOURCES
A watershed tour was conducted with stakeholders in February 2009 to gain a better
understanding of potential sources in the Bayou Chico watershed and insight into the best
monitoring strategies that may help track water quality improvements over time. In addition to
evaluating areas of the watershed that were not currently sewered, the group discussed
potential areas where septic tank failures or poor siting of those facilities may be a contributing
source.
Historically, most of the residential and commercial development in several older
neighborhoods used OSTDS prior to the implementation of ECUA’s recent sewer expansion
program. These subdivisions are planned for septic tank phaseout by the end of 2011. There
are approximately 771 homes with OSTDS in the Bayou Chico watershed, principally in the
Lakewood subdivision, located just south of Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB), and in the
Edgewater subdivision, situated just north of Bayou Chico (near WBID 846CB). Local
stakeholders have pointed out that these older septic systems are a likely contributor to the
elevated fecal coliform concentrations and impairments in the Bayou Chico watershed.
The majority of households (686 out of 1,017 homes) in the Lakewood subdivision are currently
on septic, but ECUA’s sewer expansion program is implementing 6 planned phases for
conversion from septic to sewer. Of the 6 phases, 3 are now complete (2005 and 2008). Phases
IV, V, and portions of Phase VI are now in design or under way, while some of Phase VI is
without the necessary funding for the complete phaseout (see Figures 3-1 and 3-2).
Sewer expansion is now complete in the Edgewater subdivision. At this time, only 43 of 369
homes are still not connected where sewer service is available. In addition, an estimated 10
OSTDS on Jamaica Street, 9 in Corry Heights, and another 23 in Carver Heights have not yet
connected where sanitary sewer is available (see Table 3-2).
ECHD is tracking and evaluating septic tank failure areas and has issued repair permits for
septic tanks in all the surrounding WBIDs of Bayou Chico. The locations of the repair permits
closely correspond with the failure areas in older subdivisions such as Lakewood and
Edgewater, particularly in the areas adjacent to the freshwater tributaries of Bayou Chico (e.g.,
Jones Creek and Jackson Branch). Figure 4-1 shows the septic tank repairs that have been
reported in the Bayou Chico watershed.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
33
FIGURE 4-1: SEPTIC TANK REPAIRS IN THE BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
34
4.2 PROJECTS TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM LOADING
As identified in Section 3, ECUA has an ongoing CIP that is focused on phasing out and
eliminating poorly operating or failed septic tanks through the expansion of the ECUA
wastewater collection system. The priority areas targeted for this program are typically situated
close to surface water or public drinking water wells, or where the operation of septic tanks has
caused health concerns.
ECHD has determined that many areas of the Bayou Chico watershed are susceptible to ground
water contamination by failing septic tank systems. Water quality monitoring has identified
several hot spots of bacteria. The greatest concentrations are found in the small creeks and
streams feeding into the area’s waterbodies. Many septic tanks in sensitive areas have been
abandoned, hopefully preventing further impacts to surface waters.
As ECHD continues to identify failing septic tanks and available sewer connections in sensitive
areas, it plans to move closer to the goal of cleaning up susceptible areas near waterways and
protecting drinking water resources. Further water quality improvements and the protection of
drinking water resources will be realized as additional failing septic tanks are identified, taken
offline, and connected to available sewer lines.
ECHD programs and activities being conducted in the Bayou Chico watershed to address fecal
coliform loading from OSTDS include the following:
• ECHD OSTDS Program – The objective of the OSTDS Program is to provide
safe and sanitary treatment and disposal of domestic and commercial sewage
waste in the areas not served by public sewage systems. Generally, OSTDS
present no public health problems when they are properly designed, installed, and
maintained on sites having satisfactory soil and drainage features. However,
where an installation site is unsuitable, and where no modification of the property
is possible or practical, the use of an OSTDS may contaminate ground or surface
waters. The primary goals of ECHD are to protect public health by eliminating
the potential for the spread of infectious disease caused by improperly built or
maintained OSTDS, and to protect ground and surface water from OSTDS
discharge.
ECHD is responsible for all operational aspects of the OSTDS Program, as
described in Rule 64E-6, F.A.C. To accomplish its program goals and objectives,
ECHD uses the expertise of FDOH-certified supervisors, FDOH-certified field
inspectors, and administrative support staff. In addition, ECHD has a field
inspector to investigate complaints and address legal cases.
During the permitting process, OSTDS staff provides many services, including,
but not limited to, the following:
o Application/plan review;
o Site evaluation;
o System construction permitting; and
o Installation inspection.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
35
ECHD must review all applications for construction permits relating to the
installation, modification, replacement, or repair of OSTDS and determine within
the time limitations prescribed by the Florida Administrative Procedures Act,
Section 120.60, F.S., whether to issue or deny a permit. The goal for the average
number of days to issue a new construction permit is eight days and two days for
a repair permit.
The review process involves a determination as to whether the site location and
installation comply with standards set forth in Chapter 381, F.S., and Rule 64E-6,
F.A.C. ECHD also inspects and evaluates all new installations, repairs,
abandonments, or modifications of OSTDS; the inspections are made to ensure
compliance with regulatory requirements for a number of system components,
including adequate tank construction and capacity, fill material if needed, drain
field size, elevation, cover, dosing system construction, and distance from surface
water and potable wells. ECHD also inspects existing OSTDS for compliance
when there is a change of use or occupancy. When Escambia County’s Building
and Zoning Department receives an application for a building permit, when a
zoning change is requested, or when the county receives an application for an
occupational license, the applicant is referred to ECHD for OSTDS review.
When a building served by an OSTDS is located in an area zoned or used for
industrial/manufacturing purposes, or where a business generates commercial
sewage waste, ECHD issues an annual operating permit and requires at least one
compliance inspection per year. ECHD staff identify the updated listings of these
properties.
In addition to the actual permitting process for OSTDS systems, ECHD also
regulates the OSTDS maintenance industries. Service permits are issued to the
following facilities annually, and ECHD performs one to two compliance
inspections each year, depending on the type of facility:
o Septic disposal services;
o Lime stabilization facilities;
o Land application facilities;
o Portable or temporary toilet services; and
o Septic tank manufacturers.
When an inspection determines that an ECHD-issued OSTDS permit is out of
compliance, the inspector notifies the appropriate parties in writing with the
appropriate violations noted, as referenced in the Florida Statutes and Florida
Administrative Code.
Most cases in Escambia County are corrected without further enforcement. For
those cases that require enforcement, ECHD has its own attorney to take cases to
court. FDEP law enforcement becomes involved in cases of willful pollution. The
ECHD database includes a record of all complaints and investigations. This
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
36
database is updated daily and may include approximately 10 to 15 complaints per
week.
• ECHD Research Program – In September 2006, Dr. Richard Snyder at UWF’s
CEDB published a report for ECHD, entitled
Analysis of Fecal Loadings into
Bayous Grande, Chico, and Texar: Pensacola Bay System, FL
• ECHD Environmental Analysis Program (EAP) – EAP began operating in
August 1999. One of its tasks is to evaluate the effects of improperly installed and
poorly maintained septic tank systems on ground water and surface water quality
in Escambia County. Many areas of the county have soil conditions that are
unsuitable for a septic tank system. For a septic system to work properly, the
drain field should be at least 24 inches from the seasonal high water table. This
allows bacteria, nutrients, and solids to be filtered and/or treated within the soil
before reaching the sensitive ground water. Low-lying areas, especially along the
coast, may have a water table very close to the ground surface that could be
contaminated by improperly installed septic tank systems. Other potential
problems include undersized septic tanks, illegal laundry discharges, improper
setbacks to water wells, and drain fields crossing drinking water lines—all of
which could allow contaminants to reach ground water, surface water, or
drinking water.
(Snyder 2006).
ECHD funded a portion of the research and manpower for this project. The report
summarizes the findings of a multiyear study to identify sources of fecal loading
contamination within the Pensacola Bay system’s urban bayous. UWF is
working in partnership with ECHD to develop a method to distinguish human
from nonhuman sources of pollution. Several avenues have been and are
currently being explored. The goal is to determine if failing septic tank systems
are contributing to pollution in the area’s waterways. If problem areas can be
identified, the information will be shared with ECUA and will help in prioritizing
its sewer expansion projects.
• Escambia County Ordinance, Chapter 98, Article III, Relating to OSTDS –
This ordinance, adopted in 1999, requires an inspection by ECHD prior to the sale
or transfer of property with an existing septic tank system. The requirement
pertains to all areas of Escambia County south of Well Line Road. The inspection
is designed to identify septic tanks that may be having a detrimental effect on
water resources and provide information to the buyer on the functionality of the
septic system. Inspectors evaluate the drain field and determine the outside
dimensions of the septic tank compartment, what material the tank is made from,
and if the tank has any obvious structural defects. If a sanitary nuisance exists,
the homeowner is required to correct the problem immediately. All required
setbacks regarding system placement are also checked for compliance with Rule
64E-6, F.A.C., and Chapter 381, F.S. The results of the inspection must be made
available to the seller as well as the buyer before or at the time of closing.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
37
• ECHD Healthy Beaches Program – It is anticipated that ECHD will continue
its biweekly beach sampling for fecal coliform and weekly for Enterococcus
bacteria counts in Bayou Chico, at Lakewood Park and Sanders Beach, in
conjunction with its Healthy Beaches Program.
As a part of BMAP follow-up, FDEP and stakeholders will track implementation efforts and
monitor water quality to determine additional sources and water quality trends. Technical
stakeholders and local citizens will continue to explore new opportunities for funding
assistance. Their goal will be to ensure that the activities listed in this BMAP can be maintained
at the necessary level of effort to address problem areas where OSTDS may contribute to fecal
contamination in Bayou Chico.
Table 4-1 lists stakeholder activities that may reduce or eliminate fecal coliform from OSTDS
sources.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
38
TABLE 4-1: STAKEHOLDER PROJ ECTS AND ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM LOADING FROM OSTDS SOURCES
(page 1 of 2)
PROJ ECT
N
UMBER
P
ROJ ECT
N
AME
P
ROJ ECT
D
ES CRIP TION
L
EVEL OF
E
FFORT
ESTIMATED
C
OST
FUNDING
S
OURCE
P
ROJ ECT
S
TATUS
ECHD – 15
Environmental Analysis
Program
Inspects septic tanks prior to
property sales
When an inspection
determines that an ECHD-
issued OSTDS permit is out
of compliance, the inspector
notifies the appropriate
parties in writing with the
appropriate violations noted
Unknown FDOH
For those cases that require
enforcement, ECHD has its own
attorney to take cases to court.
FDEP law enforcement becomes
involved in cases of willful
pollution. The ECHD database
contains a record of all
complaints and investigations. It
is updated daily and may include
approximately 10 to 15
complaints per week.
ECHD – 16
OSTDS Permitting
Carries out all operational aspects
of the OSTDS Program, as
described in Rule 64E-6, F.A.C.
The goal for the average
number of days to issue a
new construction permit is
eight days and two days for a
repair permit
Unknown FDOH Ongoing
ECHD – 17
Industrial/Business
Annual Operating
Permits and Compliance
Inspections
Issues a permit when a building
served by an OSTDS is located in
an area zoned or used for
industrial/manufacturing purposes,
or where a business generates
commercial sewage waste
ECHD issues an annual
operating permit and requires
at least one compliance
inspection per year
Unknown FDOH Ongoing
ECHD – 18
Septic to Sewer
Enforcement Program
Through notification and tracking,
enforces conversion compliance for
the septic tank phase-out program
done in concert with ECUA
Currently monitoring the
progress of conversions in
adjacent residential
communities in the Bayou
Chico watershed, including
Edgewater, Lakewood, and
Corry and Carver Heights.
Unknown FDOH Ongoing
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
39
P
ROJ ECT
NUMBER PROJ ECT NAME PROJ ECT DES CRIP TION LEVEL OF EFFORT
E
STIMATED
COST
F
UNDING
SOURCE PROJ ECT STATUS
ECHD – 19
ECHD Research
Program
Funded a portion of the research
and manpower for a study with
UWF to develop a method to
distinguish human from nonhuman
sources of pollution. Several
avenues have been and are
currently being explored.
The goal is to determine if
failing septic tank systems are
contributing to pollution in
area waterways. If problem
areas can be identified, the
information will be shared
with ECUA and will help in
prioritizing sewer expansion
projects.
Unknown ECHD
Complete; 2006 report provides
important baseline data on fecal
contamination in the Bayou Chico
watershed
ECHD
and
Escambia
County – 20
Escambia County
Ordinance 99-36,
referenced in Escambia
County Ordinance,
Chapter 98, Article III
Requires an inspection by ECHD
prior to the sale or transfer of
property with an existing septic tank
system. All required setbacks
regarding system placement are
also checked for compliance with
Rule 64E-6, F.A.C., and Chapter
381, F.S. The results of the
inspection must be made available
to the seller as well as the buyer
before or at the time of closing.
The inspection is designed to
identify septic tanks that may
be having a detrimental effect
on water sources and provide
information to the buyer
regarding the functionality of
the septic tank system.
Inspectors evaluate the drain
field and determine the
outside dimensions of the
septic tank compartment,
what material the tank is
made from, and if the tank
has any obvious structural
defects.
Unknown
ECHD, through
FDOH
To date, ECHD has found many
areas that are susceptible to
ground water contamination by
failing septic tank systems; water
monitoring has identified several
hot spots of bacteria
ECHD – 21
Healthy Beaches
Program
Samples for fecal coliform and
Enterococcus at specific sites in
Bayou Chico, at Lakewood Park
and Sanders Beach
Weekly for Enterococcus and
biweekly for fecal coliform
Unknown
ECHD, through
FDOH and
UWF
Ongoing (but funding to be
reduced in 2012)
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
40
SECTION 5: STORMWATER
5.1 POTENTIAL SOURCES
Sources of stormwater runoff and other nonpoint sources may include the highly urbanized and
medium- to high-density residential and commercial lands adjoining the Bayou Chico
watershed, as well as areas with concentrated wildlife (e.g., bird sanctuaries) or domestic
animals (e.g., dog parks or improper pet waste disposal). While there are no known dog parks
in the watershed, a number of county and city parks close to the bayou could be used by
residents who walk their dogs and may improperly dispose of any pet waste. Bacteria from
sediments could also be a potential concern in certain areas of Jones Creek and Jackson Branch,
where more than half of the watershed is urbanized and where stormwater runoff is managed
through stormwater treatment systems or conveyances that outfall into Bayou Chico. While
monitored by city and county programs, illicit connections to stormwater conveyance systems
can also contribute to fecal coliform loading.
5.2 PROJECTS TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM LOADING
The city of Pensacola (representing approximately 18% of the watershed), Escambia County, the
town of Century, and FDOT District 3 are all co-permittees on an MS4 permit and are required
to carry out specific actions to reduce fecal coliform loading such as BMPs, operation and
maintenance, and illicit discharge detections, as well as annual inspections and monitoring
programs for stormwater conveyance systems that they own and operate.
These stakeholders provided the following information related to projects, programs, and
activities they are conducting or planning to implement to reduce or eliminate fecal coliform
loading in the Bayou Chico watershed:
• Escambia County and the City of Pensacola
Funding Source
In 2003, the city of Pensacola implemented a stormwater utility fee that generates
approximately $2 million annually for stormwater improvement projects.
Escambia County uses a portion of the local option sales tax for capital
improvement stormwater projects. The county designates approximately $5
million annually for these efforts and projects the need for between $1 million and
$1.5 million of additional funding to complete other planned stormwater
improvements and restoration activities in the watershed.
MS4 Capital and Drainage System Repair (DSR) Projects
Between 1999 to present, Escambia County and the city of Pensacola completed
numerous new MS4 capital improvement projects in the Bayou Chico watershed
at a cost of over $10 million. The county and city’s current 5-year capital
improvement plans list a number of MS4 projects in the watershed, with a total
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
41
estimated cost of over $3 million. This does not include the estimated $3,390,900
of HUD/CDBG funds that Escambia County secured in 2010 to complete
ECUA’s Lakewood Park sewer expansion projects (Phases IV and V, and part of
Phase VI).
In addition to constructing new capital improvement drainage projects in the
Bayou Chico watershed, between 1999 and 2010 the county and city completed
numerous DSR projects in the watershed (see Table 5-1). It is anticipated that
continuing expenditures for DSR projects will average $1 million annually.
As summarized above, the county and city will continue to construct new MS4
projects, as well as DSR projects, in the Bayou Chico watershed in order to reduce
and treat stormwater runoff and to address potential fecal coliform loading in
surface waters.
Stormwater Management Plan
Both Escambia County and the city of Pensacola have Stormwater Management
Plans that include new proposed stormwater capital improvement projects, needed
DSR projects, water quality monitoring and modeling results, and proposed
stormwater budgets.
MS4 NPDES Program
Escambia County and the city of Pensacola are MS4 NPDES co-permittees, along
with FDOT and the town of Century. Managing stormwater, maintaining the
MS4 infrastructure, reducing pollutant loading, monitoring progress, and
carrying out education and outreach are important components of the NPDES
Program.
MS4 Maintenance Activities
The Escambia County and city of Pensacola Public Works Departments manage
MS4 maintenance activities, including street sweeping, stormwater pond and
BMP maintenance, ditch cleaning, and infrastructure repair. Citizen concerns
are logged in through telephone and internet systems to enable timely and
responsive tracking and repair. Monthly schedules for regular maintenance
activities are followed. Stormwater BMPs are regularly maintained, and miles of
streets are swept regularly. The county and city budget between $500,000 and $1
million annually for MS4 maintenance activities.
Inspection and Sampling Activities
Escambia County and the city of Pensacola, through an interlocal agreement,
inspect all major stormwater outfalls and monitor pollutant loading as required
by the NPDES permit. Over 1,500 outfalls are inspected and over 150 major
outfalls are sampled on a schedule specified by the NPDES permit. Escambia
County has constructed and staffed a Water Quality Laboratory to analyze
sediment and water samples for the NPDES Monitoring Plan. Stormwater
outfalls in the Bayou Chico watershed are regularly inspected and sampled.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
42
Bacteria monitoring data illustrate trends and areas of concern so that potential
sources of contamination can be traced.
Illicit Connection Program and Enforcement
Escambia County and the city of Pensacola conduct routine inspections to locate
potential illicit discharges and connections. Escambia County purchased a truck-
operated camera that is deployed in the storm drain system to locate illicit
connections. Dry weather monitoring is conducted to determine if dry weather
flows are from illicit connections or discharges. High-risk industries and small-
quantity generators are routinely inspected.
• FDOT
MS4 Maintenance Activities
In the event of an illicit discharge, FDOT takes immediate action to terminate the
discharge if possible; however, FDOT has no formal enforcement authority under
Rule 14-86, F.A.C., but monitors and reports illicit discharges to its co-permittee,
who has enforcement authority.
The FDOT storm sewer system is inspected for operation and condition under a
Maintenance Rating Program (MRP). Maintenance activities are graded and
reported on based on this program. MRP is the method that FDOT uses to
conduct a visual and mechanical evaluation of routine highway maintenance
conditions. The purpose of the evaluation is to provide information that is used to
schedule and prioritize routine maintenance activities and provide uniform
maintenance conditions that meet established FDOT objectives. It is broken into
five different elements: roadway, roadside, traffic services, drainage,
vegetation/aesthetics.
MRP is just one tool that FDOT uses to ensure that roadways are maintained
consistently and systematically. Other tools include Quality Assurance Reviews
performed on each FDOT District by subject matter experts who compare the
District’s planned work activities with work actually accomplished using the
FDOT’s Maintenance Management System (MMS). Also, work needs
supervisors regularly inspect the highways for issues that may require additional
maintenance. In addition, the maintenance units are aware of problem areas and
adjust routine schedules as needed to properly maintain the system. MRP is a
proven system with demonstrated effectiveness for maintaining the FDOT
infrastructure.
FDOT District 3 Projects
State Road 292 Bridge at Barrancas Avenue and U.S. Highway 98 Navy
Boulevard Replacement Bridge: These two newly constructed bridges over
Bayou Chico were replaced by FDOT and now have stormwater treatment.
Neither bridge had associated water quality treatment when originally
constructed. The new construction meets current permitting water quality
standards; it includes new stormwater ponds located on Barrancas Avenue under
the high-rise bridge on the south side of the highway, and roadside treatment
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
43
swales on U.S. Highway 98 Navy Boulevard, adjacent to the bridge within the
right-of-way.
• Other Projects and Activities
Other projects and activities that have been (or will be) implemented in the Bayou
Chico watershed over the last (or next) five years by the various stakeholder
groups include the following:
Escambia County Stream and Floodplain Restoration Projects and
Educational Boardwalks:
o West Jones Creek Restoration Projects: Escambia County has
completed and is continuing to monitor the Jones Creek Restoration
Projects, which include natural stream channel restoration, associated
sediment and erosion controls, and floodplain and wetland
restoration/preservation
o Jackson Lakes and Glynn Key Stormwater Projects: These include
the installation of new stormwater BMPs along with an educational
amphitheater, boardwalk, and signage.
Escambia County Pet Waste Ordinance: Part I: Article
I, Section 10-11 (F)
This ordinance requires the removal of canine waste and requirement for
possession of device for removal in the county.
Derelict Vessel Removal: Escambia County’s Marine Resources Division
coordinated the removal of 40 vessels from the bayou during the years following
Hurricane Ivan in 2004.
City of Pensacola
Sanders Beach (at Pensacola Yacht Club) Ditch Improvement Project:
Currently in design, the project will reroute flow and add stormwater treatment
from a known contaminated area (the former American Creosote Works site) of
Bayou Chico.
L St. and Zarragossa Drainage Improvements Project: The project includes
the installation of new (and replacement) stormwater treatment.
Magnet School, Pace and Gregory Street Project: This includes the
installation of new baffle boxes at the new Charter School.
Other Bayou Activities
Bayou Chico Channel Dredging: This USACOE and NWFWMD project,
which included the entrance channel dredging of Bayou Chico, was completed in
2008. Sediment/spoil was deposited in Clark’s Sandpit (within Jackson Branch),
and the NWFWMD is monitoring ground water and sediment transport as part
of the permit conditions. The project opened up the turn basin and entrance
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
44
channel, provided increased flushing between Bayou Chico and Pensacola Bay,
and positively benefits water quality by reducing fecal coliform.
Neighborhood Clean Sweep Programs: Escambia County, in partnership with
BARC, hosts an annual neighborhood clean sweep event. The program is a one-
or two-day event to clear debris and litter in the Bayou Chico watershed. The last
event was held in April 2011.
Oyster Reef Project near Harbor View Marina: The project includes the
establishment of an oyster reef and was funded by BCA and an FDEP grant.
Planned Projects
Bayou Chico Channel Widening: On the north end of Bayou Chico just south
of the new Navy Boulevard Bridge lies the remains of an old railroad trestle bridge
that chokes the north end of the bayou down to about a 20- to 26-foot opening.
Two major tributaries feed the bayou through the opening. The debris restricts
the flow of water and reduces the ability of the bayou to properly flush.
Stakeholders generally agreed that by opening this restriction, the water would be
able to flow more freely and allow greater flushing, helping to improve water
quality in the bayou.
The removal of this obstruction has been permitted by one of the commercial
property owners on the north end of Bayou Chico, located between the obstruction
and the U.S. Highway 98 Navy Boulevard Bridge. The permit authorizes the
construction of a new 63-slip marina, placement of 234 cubic yards of riprap, and
dredging of approximately 1,478 cubic yard of spoil material from within the
mooring area. It also authorizes the removal of 908 cubic yards of material from
within the former railroad trestle, located south of the project site. In addition, the
permit authorizes the removal of 20 creosote pilings from the trestle area by
cutting them off at the bayou bottom (at the mud line). The spoil from both sites
will be placed in a lined spoil cell, with no return flow into Bayou Chico, and will
be hauled off by truck to a landfill.
The property owner has discussed the project with BCA, and the owner has agreed
to allow the use of this permit by other agencies/stakeholders to dredge the area
(since marina construction is currently postponed). The current 20- to 26-foot
opening may be expanded to approximately 60 feet and the depth increased from 2
to 4 to 6 to 8 feet. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the obstruction, its
removal will not be easy. It consists of very large creosote pilings spaced 8 feet
apart and armored by large rocks and sand. Estimates for the removal of the
obstruction came in at about $68,000. However, the detailed specifications have
not yet been established and the price may rise. The permit to remove the
obstruction has a limited life (5 years from 2009) and may expire before the project
is funded or completed.
Projects or Proposals under Consideration
BCA has suggested to stakeholders and local agencies several activities that may
aid in the restoration of the bayou and its water quality. Though the purpose of
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
45
this BMAP is to address very specific and limited pollutants (fecal coliform), the
BCA has other water quality concerns for Bayou Chico. New technologies being
proposed by BCA are expected not only to help in reducing the amount of fecal
coliform, but may also help in reducing other contaminants such as nitrates,
ammonia, phosphates, copper, and zinc. These methods have been proven in other
situations and environments that BCA has researched, and so it wishes to
evaluate and study their potential use; these additional proposals may benefit the
bayou. Funding sources for the proposals have not yet been identified.
Two such project proposals are as follows:
o DO2E® aeration system – This system, like many others, is used in
sewage treatment plants as a major step in the breakdown of waste,
including fecal coliform. BCA has proposed using these systems in the
freshwater tributaries of Bayou Chico (Jackson Branch and Jones
Creek). These are believed to be the principal hot spots where fecal
coliform sources may enter the bayou. The DO2E® aeration system
adds oxygen by injecting air in through its cylinder, facilitating the
digestion process of raw sewage before it enters the main body of the
bayou. Biological digestion is further enhanced by reducing
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), while the enhancement of the
aerobic environment might also stimulate, or enhance the activity of
microbes or beneficial organisms and propagate the growth of good
bacteria that may account for 10% to 15% of the digestive process.
o
BioHaven® Floating Islands – BCA has proposed the installation of
BioHaven® Floating Islands technology that is designed around the
same principles as a wetland: using the natural processes of plants
and microbes to improve water quality. BioHavens are man-made
floating islands. Like wetlands, they create habitat for plant and
aquatic species. Additionally, man-made floating islands can be
produced, deployed, and maintained at a fraction of the cost compared
to other water quality treatments.
Table 5-1 describes in more detail stakeholder activities that may reduce or eliminate fecal
coliform loadings from stormwater runoff and nonpoint sources.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
46
Table 5-1: STAKEHOLDER PROJECTS and ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM LOADING FROM Stormwater Sources
P
ROJECT
NUMBER
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LEVEL OF EFFORT
E
STIMATED
COST
FUNDING SOURCE
P
ROJECT
STATUS
Escambia
County – 22
Glynn Key Stormwater,
Wetland Education
Park
Construct new stormwater
BMPs, educational boardwalk,
and signage to show how such a
stormwater wetland can be an
asset to the individual
development and community
Project is being expanded to
include an educational
component and connect
Glynn Key with the existing
Jones Creek project.
$500,000
FDEP grant, partnered with
Escambia County, U.S.
Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Natural Resources
Conservation Service
(NRCS), FDOT, Southgate
Shopping Center, and BCA
to convert a commercial
development holding pond
into a county stormwater
wetland education park
Completed
Escambia
County – 23
Bayou Chico
Restoration Projects:
W St. Weir
Replace a dilapidated weir at W
St. that feeds into Bayou Chico
Stormwater upgrades and
repair
Unknown
Escambia County and city
of Pensacola
Completed
Escambia
County – 24
Jackson Lakes
Stormwater
Construct new stormwater
BMPs, educational
amphitheater, and signage
Stormwater treatment for
drainage areas north of Navy
Blvd.
$500,000
Escambia County, through
FDEP grant
Completed
Escambia
County – 25
Derelict Vessel
Removal
Remove derelict vessels from
the bayou
Stakeholders pitched in to
remove 40 vessels from the
bayou that could be potential
sources of contamination
$50,000
Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission
(FWC) grant
Completed
Escambia
County – 26
Stormwater Treatment
– construction of 11
new stormwater BMPs
associated with new
development
Install and maintain stormwater
treatment BMPs
County is constructing
stormwater BMPs for areas
under redevelopment that are
close to the bayou
$1,100,000 Escambia County
Under
construction
Escambia
County and
FDOT – 27
Illicit Discharge
Detection
Carry out inspections associated
with NPDES permit
Sampling to assess
conditions and identify
sources. Enforcement action
taken if PICs detected.
$50,000 Escambia County Ongoing
Escambia
County – 28
Stormwater Pond
Inspection and
Maintenance Program
County maintains and inspects
> 300 ponds countywide
Stormwater inspections and
maintenance continually
ongoing
$300,000 Escambia County Ongoing
City of
Pensacola
and ECUA –
29
West Avery St.
Drainage
Improvements
Construct two stormwater
treatment facilities
Stormwater upgrades/retrofit
project between Pace and J
St. in the watershed
$1,400,000 Escambia County In design
Escambia
County – 30
Jones Swamp Wetland
Preservation
Acquire four parcels of riparian
wetlands along Jones Creek for
preservation
Located near Fairfield Dr. and
Albany Ave.
$300,000
Funded
(Florida Communities Trust
[FCT] grant)
Completed
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
47
P
ROJECT
N
UMBER
P
ROJECT
N
AME
P
ROJECT
D
ESCRIPTION
L
EVEL OF
E
FFORT
E
STIMATED
C
OST
F
UNDING
S
OURCE
P
ROJECT
S
TATUS
Escambia
County – 31
West Jones Creek
Stream Restoration
Construct natural stream
channel, restoration activities in
floodplain (wetland restoration)
Wetland restoration and
maintenance carried out west
of Navy Blvd., east of
Fairfield Dr.
$250,000 Funded (EPA grant) Completed
Escambia
County,
BARC, and
BCA – 32
Public Education and
Outreach
Carry out miscellaneous public
education activities
Stormwater and pollution
prevention brochures and
information distributed to
public in Bayou Chico
watershed
$10,000 Escambia County Ongoing
NWFWMD
and
USACOE –
33
Bayou Chico dredging
Dredge entrance to Bayou Chico
channel
Entrance to the bayou at the
main channel was dredged to
improved flushing and
channel depth
Unknown USACOE/NWFWMD Completed
Escambia
County – 34
Stormwater Outfall
Monitoring
Sample as part of ongoing
monitoring efforts for stormwater
facilities located in the bayou
Ongoing Unknown Escambia County Ongoing
Escambia
County and
U.S. Navy –
35
Retrofit Projects
(Planned)
Corry Field
Remove runway and install
stormwater BMPs for treatment
adjacent to bayou on Naval Air
Station property
Seeking funding Unknown
U.S. Navy and Escambia
County
Pending
Escambia
County / US
Navy - 36
Corry Station Runway
Surface Restoration
Involves the complete logistics to
move 5-acres of impervious
concrete and asphalt surface to
promote environmental
restoration projects surrounding
the NAS Pensacola Complex,
including providing new
treatment for stormwater runoff,
where currently there is no
treatment. The concrete material
will be available for use as base
substrate material for community
offshore fishery habitat
improvements, oyster reefs, and
other shoreline stabilization and
restoration projects
Stormwater treatment for 100
acres (drainage area) north of
US Hwy 98 vicinity of
Pensacola State College and
Corry Station US Navy.
$80,000 Funded (FCT Grant) In Planning
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
48
P
ROJECT
N
UMBER
P
ROJECT
N
AME
P
ROJECT
D
ESCRIPTION
L
EVEL OF
E
FFORT
E
STIMATED
C
OST
F
UNDING
S
OURCE
P
ROJECT
S
TATUS
Escambia
County –
US Navy –
Gulf
Coastal
Plain
Ecosystem
Partnership
- 37
Jackson’s Branch
Headwater Restoration
This project with Naval Air
Station (NAS) Pensacola at
Corry Station will involve stream
restoration for the headwaters of
Jackson’s Branch from the
northeast corner of Corry Station
eastward to New Warrington
Road. Stream debris and
sedimentation will be removed,
invasive species removed, and
wetlands restoration at the Corry
Station headwater area.
Stormwater treatment for 20
acres (drainage area) in
Jackson’s Branch from Corry
Station US Navy eastward to
New Warrington Road.
$125,000 Seeking Funding In Planning
Escambia
County / US
Navy - 38
Bayou Chico / Jones
Creek Stormwater
Retrofit Project West
Side of Corry Station
US Navy
Stormwater treatment drainage
areas north of US Hwy 98
vicinity of Pensacola State
College and Corry Station US
Navy.
Stormwater Retrofit Project
Unknown at
this time
Unknown In Planning
Escambia
County – 39
Pet Waste Ordinance,
Part 1,Article 1,
Section 10-11(f)
Pass an ordinance to define the
handling and removal or
domestic pet waste countywide
County-wide, ongoing Unknown Escambia County Completed
FDOT – 40
State Road 292
Barrancas Ave. Bridge
Add stormwater improvements
with bridge construction
Roadway project with
stormwater treatment
Unknown FDOT, District 3 Completed
FDOT – 41
U.S. Highway 98 Navy
Blvd. Bridge
Replacement
Add stormwater improvements
with bridge construction
Roadway project with
stormwater treatment
Unknown FDOT, District 3 Completed
BCA-42
Oyster Reef Project
Construct oyster reef near
Harbor View Marina
Establishment of oyster reef –
habitat
Unknown
BCA/Escambia County and
FDEP
Completed
BCA – 43
Bayou Chico Channel
Dredging
Remove restrictive pilings to
open up channel and increase
flushing in the tributaries of the
bayou
Seeking approvals and
funding
Estimated at
$68,000
BCA/permittee, owner Pending
BCA – 44
Aeration Systems in
Tributary
(Jones Creek)
Install aeration systems to break
down waste and allow aerobic
activity and bacterial digestion
Seeking approvals and
funding
Unknown BCA
Planning
stages
BCA – 45
Floating Islands
Promote the use of BioHaven®
Floating Islands to enhance
wetland functions and improve
water quality
Seeking approvals and
funding
Unknown BCA
Planning
stages
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
49
SECTION 6: MARINAS, BOATYARDS, AND MOORINGS
6.1 POTENTIAL SOURCES
Marinas, boatyards, and moorings are all potential sources of fecal coliform. Escambia County,
the city of Pensacola and local marina owners within the Bayou Chico watershed are active
supporters of the state’s Clean Marina Program. Waste management and reduction, hazardous
material storage, and sewage pump-out facilities are key elements of this program. Most of the
marinas and boatyards in the watershed have been awarded Clean Marina recognition.
6.2 PROJECTS TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM LOADING
There are currently eight commercial marinas in the Bayou Chico watershed. Five of these eight
have been awarded Clean Marina status: Island Cove Marina (806 Lakewood Rd.), Palm Harbor
Marina (1206 Mahogany Mill Rd.), Bahia Mar Marina (1901 Cypress St.), Pensacola Ship Yard
and Marine Complex (Clean Marina and Clean Boatyard, 700 Myrick St.), and the newest Clean
Marina, Harbor View Marina (Clean Boatyard and Clean Retailer, 1220 Mahogany Mill Rd.).
Individual marina owners in the BMAP area are carrying out a number of ongoing efforts, as
follows, to address pathogen sources from the marinas to the bayou:
• Pump Outs in Florida – The National Marine Waste Foundation, Inc.
(NMWF) is a new organization whose goals are to make waste removal services
free to boaters through funding from local business sponsors and state grants.
NMWF’s mission is to provide free marine disposal to the general public in order
to enhance and benefit water resources. The organization has 501(c)(3) nonprofit
status and can secure funding from the Boating Improvement Trust Fund and
Florida Boating Improvement Program grants.
Currently three pump-out stations are available in local marinas in the Bayou
Chico watershed, including one mobile unit that can be transported to any boater
who requests the service. Recent upgrades and capacity to handle more sewage
were added to this mobile unit.
• Barge and Derelict Vessel Removals – Two abandoned barges and many
derelict vessels left from the aftermath of recent hurricanes were removed from
Bayou Chico and may have been potential sources of contaminants. These
programs were funded through an FWC grant, BCA, and the Escambia County
Marine Resources Division.
• Florida’s NPDES Stormwater Program: regulates point source discharges of
stormwater into surface waters of the state from certain municipal, industrial, and
construction activities. Industrial activities that discharge to surface waters of the
state or into an MS4 and that fall under any one of the 11 categories of industrial
activities identified in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) are required to obtain NPDES
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
50
stormwater permit coverage. (The 11 categories are defined using both narrative
descriptions and the facilities’ Standard Industrial Classification [SIC] codes.)
Most regulated facilities obtain permit coverage by submitting a Notice of Intent
(NOI) To Use Multi-Sector Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge
Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP). However, some facilities are
required to obtain an individual permit. Industrial activities that can certify “no
exposure” at the facility may be excluded from the requirement to obtain an
NPDES stormwater permit. Regulated facilities that apply for coverage under the
MSGP must also prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Marine industry operations that fall under the definition of industrial activity
include the following:
o Ship and boat building and repair facilities under SIC Codes 3731 and
3732 ; and
o Water transportation facilities under SIC Code 44 that have vessel
maintenance shops (mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, and
lubrication) and/or equipment-cleaning operations. This group
includes marinas identified under SIC Code 4493. Note that
equipment-cleaning operations include areas where vessel and vehicle
exterior wash downs take place.
Marinas and boatyards that meet the criteria above must obtain coverage under
the NPDES Stormwater Program with either an MSGP or individual permit. An
SWPPP is an essential component of a MSGP.
As part of a marina’s SWPPP, measures must be identified that address good
housekeeping, spill prevention, and response procedures, as well as plans to
address non-stormwater and sediment and erosion controls. Such measures and
the implementation of specific SWPPP plans by all marinas should provide some
source controls in these particular areas of the watershed. It is not known how
many marine industry operations fall under this MSGP permit requirement in
the Bayou Chico watershed at this time. Additional information will be obtained
for future BMAP annual reporting.
• Mooring and Live-aboard Vessels: FWC Inspection and Compliance
Sweeps – Another potential source includes seasonal or transient live-aboard
boats that may enter the bayou to moor temporarily. Some stakeholders have
reported that many seasonal or transient boats frequent the Bayou Chico
watershed and are not marina slip holders, but rather moor or stay in the bayou
for extended periods. These boaters may contribute to the fecal coliform source
problem if they are not properly disposing of their sewage or using existing pump-
out facilities that are available in Bayou Chico.
The FWC has the authority to issue warnings to moored and live-aboard vessels
for noncompliance with state rules on the disposal of waste, or improper safety
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
51
equipment aboard boats. It issued warnings to nearly a dozen vessels on a
compliance and inspection sweep in the bayou early in 2011.
Table 6-1 describes in more detail the stakeholder activities that may reduce or eliminate fecal
coliform loadings from marina, boatyards, or moorings.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
52
TABLE 6-1: STAKEHOLDER PROJ ECTS AND ACTIVITIES TO REDUCE FECAL COLIFORM
LOADING FROM MARINAS , BOATYARDS, AND MOORINGS
PROJ ECT
N
UMBER
PROJ ECT
N
AME
P
ROJ ECT
D
ES CRIP TION
L
EVEL OF
E
FFORT
ESTIMATED
C
OST
FUNDING
S
OURCE
PROJ ECT
S
TATUS
BCA – 46
Clean Marina –
Clean Boatyard
Pensacola Shipyard
Awarded Clean
Marina and Clean
Boatyard status
Unknown Marina owners Completed
BCA – 47
Pump Out Bahia Mar
Pump out Facility
Available
Unknown Marina owners Completed
BCA – 48
Clean Marina Palm Harbor
Awarded Clean
Marina status
Unknown Marina owners Completed
BCA – 49
Clean Marina Island Cove Marina
Awarded Clean
Marina status
Unknown Marina owners Completed
BCA – 50
Clean Marina Harbor View Marina
Awarded Clean
Marina and Clean
Boatyard status
Unknown Marina owners Completed
BCA-51
Planned
Pensacola Yacht Club
(private marina)
Currently working on
obtaining Clean
Marina status
Unknown Private Marina Ongoing
BCA – 52
Pump-out
Facilities
Three pump-out facilities,
including a mobile unit,
are available at marinas
to access for sewage
treatment disposal
Make waste removal
services free to
boaters; available at a
number of locations in
Bayou Chico marinas
Unknown
Funding from
local business
sponsors and
grants through the
state
Completed
BCA – 53
Marine Industry
Operations
Requirement to obtain an
NPDES stormwater
permit (MSGP) to address
good housekeeping, spill
prevention, and response
procedures, as well as
plans to address non-
stormwater and sediment
and erosion controls
Ship and boat building
and repair facilities
and all water
transportation
facilities and /or
equipment-cleaning
operations
Unknown
Permittees consist
of marine industry
operations and
ship or
commercial boat
operators
Ongoing
FWC – 54
Compliance
and Inspection
Sweeps
FWC has the authority to
issue warnings to moored
and live-aboard vessels
for noncompliance with
state rules relating to the
disposal of waste, or
improper safety
equipment aboard boats
Annually, or on
occasion;
one sweep conducted
in early 2011
Unknown FWC Ongoing
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
53
SECTION 7: SUMMARY OF RESTORATION ACTIVITIES AND
SUFFICIENCY OF EFFORT
Successful BMAP implementation requires proactive action, commitment, and follow-up. Key
stakeholders have expressed their intention to carry out the plan, monitor its effects, and
continue to coordinate within and across jurisdictions to achieve water quality targets. The
FWRA requires that an assessment be conducted every five years to determine whether there is
reasonable progress in implementing the BMAP and achieving pollutant load reductions.
Table 7-1 summarizes the key stakeholders’ level of effort related to controlling, reducing, or
eliminating potential fecal coliform (bacterial) sources in the Bayou Chico watershed. Figures
7-1 and 7-2 illustrate the many restoration and stakeholder activities and projects currently
under way, completed, or planned to prevent fecal coliform (bacterial) sources from entering
the eastern and western portions, respectively, of the Bayou Chico watershed.
The number of activities carried out to restore Bayou Chico and its associated tributaries over
the last 5 to 10 years is very impressive, and demonstrates stakeholders’ commitment to address
the fecal coliform impairments in the watershed. FDEP has determined that the projects and
activities outlined in this BMAP are sufficient to address all of the identified sources and, with
the full implementation of the BMAP, the Bayou Chico watershed is expected to meet the
TMDL requirements.
Through ongoing projects, studies, and monitoring efforts, stakeholders should be able to use
the 5-year BMAP milestone evaluation and annual BMAP reviews to identify and take the
necessary actions to address any additional sources that occur. Appendix D summarizes all
stakeholder programs and local ordinances involving activities to implement the required
TMDL reductions.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
54
TABLE 7-1: POTENTIAL SOURCE CONTROL CATEGORIES IN THE BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED
FOR
ADDRESSING LOAD REDUCTIONS FOR FECAL COLIFORM AND OTHER BACTERIA
N/A = Not applicable
WATERBODY (WBID)
B
AYOU
C
HICO
BMAP
M
ANAGEMENT
A
CTIONS
CATEGORY PROJ ECTS
Bayou Chico (WBID 846)
Stormwater Management Programs
√
Bayou Chico (WBID 846)
Education and Outreach Efforts
√
Bayou Chico (WBID 846)
Regulations, Ordinances, and Guidelines
√
Bayou Chico (WBID 846)
Special Studies, Planning, Monitoring, and
Assessment
√
Bayou Chico (WBID 846)
Restoration and Water Quality Improvement
√
Bayou Chico (WBID 846)
Wastewater Infrastructure Management
N/A
Bayou Chico (WBID 846)
Marinas, Boatyards, and Mooring Activity
√
Jones Creek (WBID 846A)
Stormwater Management Programs
√
Jones Creek (WBID 846A)
Education and Outreach Efforts
√
Jones Creek (WBID 846A)
Regulations, Ordinances, and Guidelines
√
Jones Creek (WBID 846A)
Special Studies, Planning, Monitoring, and
Assessment
√
Jones Creek (WBID 846A)
Wastewater Infrastructure Management
√
Jones Creek (WBID 846A)
Marinas, Boatyards, and Mooring Activity
√
Jackson Creek (WBID 846B)
Stormwater Management Programs
√
Jackson Creek (WBID 846B)
Education and Outreach Efforts
√
Jackson Creek (WBID 846B)
Regulations, Ordinances, and Guidelines
√
Jackson Creek (WBID 846B)
Special Studies, Planning, Monitoring, and
Assessment
√
Jackson Creek (WBID 846B)
Wastewater Infrastructure Management
√
Jackson Creek (WBID 846B)
Marinas, Boatyards, and Mooring Activity
√
Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C)
Stormwater Management Programs
√
Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C)
Education and Outreach Efforts
√
Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C)
Regulations, Ordinances, and Guidelines
√
Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C)
Special Studies, Planning, Monitoring, and
Assessment
√
Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C)
Restoration and Water Quality Improvement
√
Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C)
Wastewater Infrastructure Management
√
Bayou Chico Drain (WBID 846C)
Marinas, Boatyards, and Mooring Activity
√
Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB)
Stormwater Management Programs
√
Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB)
Education and Outreach Efforts
√
Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB)
Regulations, Ordinances, and Guidelines
√
Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB)
Special Studies, Planning, Monitoring, and
Assessment
√
Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB)
Restoration and Water Quality Improvement
Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB)
Wastewater Infrastructure Management
√
Bayou Chico Beach (WBID 846CB)
Marinas, Boatyards, and Mooring Activity
√
Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA)
Stormwater Management Programs
√
Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA)
Education and Outreach Efforts
√
Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA)
Regulations, Ordinances, and Guidelines
√
Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA)
Special Studies, Planning, Monitoring, and
Assessment
√
Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA)
Restoration and Water Quality Improvement
√
Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA)
Wastewater Infrastructure Management
√
Sanders Beach (WBID 848DA)
Marinas, Boatyards, and Mooring Activity
√
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
55
FIGURE 7-1: STAKEHOLDER RESTORATION EFFORTS IN THE EASTERN BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
56
FIGURE 7-2: STAKEHOLDER RESTORATION EFFORTS IN THE WESTERN BAYOU CHICO WATERSHED
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
57
SECTION 8: ASSESSING PROGRESS AND MAKING CHANGES
This section describes the water quality monitoring component sufficient to assess progress and
make adjustments as necessary to determine the success of programs and activities identified in
the Bayou Chico BMAP.
8.1 TRACKING IMPLEMENTATION
FDEP is working with stakeholders to organize the monitoring data and track project
implementation. This information will be presented in an annual report. Stakeholders have
agreed to meet at least every 12 months after the adoption of the BMAP to follow up on plan
implementation, share new information, and continue to coordinate on TMDL-related issues.
The following types of activities may occur at annual meetings:
• Implementation Data and Reporting
o Collect project implementation information from stakeholders and
MS4 permit reporting, and compare with the BMAP schedule. Table
E-1 in Appendix E provides a sample annual reporting form for BMAP
project implementation (to be completed by the entities).
o Discuss the data collection process, including any concerns and
possible improvements to the process.
o Review the monitoring plan implementation, as detailed in Section
8.2.
• Sharing New Information
o Report on results from water quality monitoring and trend
information.
o Provide updates on new projects and programs in the watershed that
will help reduce fecal coliform loading.
o Identify and review new scientific developments in addressing fecal
coliform contamination and incorporate any new information into
annual progress reports.
o Discuss new sampling technologies that will improve source
identification.
• Coordinating TMDL-Related Issues
o Obtain updates from FDEP on the basin cycle and activities related to
any impairments, TMDLs, and BMAP.
o Obtain reports from other basins where tools or other information may
be applicable to the Bayou Chico TMDL.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
58
Covering all of these topics is not required for the annual meetings, but this list provides
examples of the types of information that should be considered for the agenda, in order to assist
with BMAP implementation and improve coordination among the agencies and stakeholders.
8.2 WATER QUALITY MONITORING
8.2.1 WATER QUALITY MONITORING OBJECTIVES
Focused objectives are critical for a monitoring strategy to provide the information
needed to evaluate implementation success. The primary and secondary objectives of
the monitoring strategy for the Bayou Chico watershed will help stakeholders evaluate
the success of the BMAP, interpret the data collected, and provide information for
potential future refinements of the BMAP. These objectives are as follows:
• Primary Objective – To track implementation efforts and monitor water quality,
in order to determine additional sources and water quality trends using existing
monitoring stations in the watershed. There are six STORET stations with long
term historical data which also coincide with key problem areas, or hot spots,
observed in the watershed. This Tier 1 monitoring effort will provide critical
information to meet this primary objective.
• Secondary Objective – To conduct more extensive monthly sampling at specific
locations where fecal coliform counts are historically high and where additional
sampling has been proposed. This Tier 2 analysis will target the following areas:
(1) probable or suspected loading points previously identified, and (2) newly
suspected spots, especially in the tributaries and creeks, that were not previously
sampled. Samples will be taken both during dry and rainy periods to isolate
chronic and stormwater influences.
8.2.2 WATER QUALITY INDICATORS
The water quality indicators that are commonly collected during sampling events (see
Tables 8-1a and 8-1b) will be sampled to achieve the monitoring plan objectives. These
parameters will be analyzed to determine if there is a correlation with the observed fecal
coliform concentrations. In addition, descriptions of the field conditions are important
because factors other than water quality could affect the observed bacterial colony
counts.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
59
TABLE 8-1A: WATER QUALITY INDICATORS
*Nutrients sampled as part of FDEP’s Strategic Monitoring Plans and for Escambia County’s MS4 permitting requirements.
WATER QUALITY INDICATORS
Fecal coliform (colony-forming units per 100 milliliters [CFU/100mL])
Enterococcus (CFU/100mL)
Nutrients (total Kjeldahl nitrogen [TKN], total phosphorus [TP], total nitrogen [TN])
(for verifying nutrient impairments)*
Turbidity (nephelometric turbidity units [NTU]
TABLE 8-1B: FIELD PARAMETERS
FIELD CONDITIONS
Air Temperature (°C)
Cloud Cover
Rainfall
Tide Stage
Canopy Cover
Water Flow Condition
Wind
YSI-Measured Parameters:
Conductivity (micromhos per centimeter [umhos/cm])
Dissolved Oxygen (milligrams per liter [mg/L])
Dissolved Oxygen Saturation (%)
pH (standard units [SU])
Salinity (parts per thousand [ppt])
Temperature (°C)
8.2.3 MONITORING NETWORK
As a part of BMAP follow-up, FDEP and stakeholders will track implementation efforts
and monitor water quality to determine additional sources and water quality trends.
The sampling locations in the monitoring plan were selected to identify potential
sources of contamination through source assessment monitoring at key locations
throughout the watershed, and to track trends in fecal coliform (and Enterococusi) using
existing monitoring stations (see Figure 2-1) with historical data. In addition, more
extensive monthly sampling is proposed at specific sampling locations where fecal
coliform counts were historically high.
The source assessment monitoring will follow the established sampling protocol, in
which any observed fecal coliform counts greater than 5,000 CFU/100mL will be
followed up with targeted sampling efforts (Tier 2) to determine and address the source.
FDEP, Escambia County, the city of Pensacola, BCA, and ECUA, in concert with FDEP’s
strategic monitoring network, will be responsible for the trend and source assessment
sampling (Tier 1) in the overall monitoring plan. These stakeholders have committed to
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
60
assist or provide services and/or monetary aid for a three-year monitoring plan with the
help of UWF and FDEP. FDEP will add the analyses for Enterococcus as well as fecal
coliform to its quarterly sampling. Escambia County will provide assistance in monthly
field sampling. Samples for Enterococcus and fecal coliform will be processed by the
Wetland Research Laboratory at UWF, while UWF’s CEDB will contribute to the
compilation and analyses of the data and provide a three-year interim report on water
quality status and trends. In addition, ECHD will continue its weekly beach sampling of
Enterococcus bacteria counts at Bayou Chico (Lakewood Park) and Sanders Beach, in
conjunction with its Healthy Beaches Program. Furthermore, all data collected for these
follow-up BMAP efforts will be uploaded into FDEP’s STORET database, where water
quality data can be stored and readily retrieved by WBID number(s) for basinwide
watershed assessments.
The Tier 2 analysis will specifically target the following areas: (1) probable or suspected
loading points previously identified, and (2) newly suspected spots, especially in the
tributaries and creeks, that were not previously sampled. Samples will be taken during
both dry and rainy periods to isolate chronic and stormwater influences. Higher
resolution sampling will be used to resample identified loading areas for further
confirmation and to assist in pinpointing sources. Areas using septic tanks that were
previously identified as hot spots and connected to sanitary sewer service will be
revisited to document any remediation of fecal loadings from that effort.
8.2.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
Through cooperation on TMDL-related data collection, FDEP and stakeholders have
consistently used similar standard operating procedures (SOPs) for field sampling and
lab analyses. This consistency will continue into the future to ensure that data can be
used not only for tracking BMAP progress but also for future TMDL evaluations and
other purposes. Water quality data will be collected in a manner consistent with FDEP’s
SOPs for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC). The most current version of these
procedures can be downloaded from
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/sas/
sop/sops.htm
. All stakeholders contributing data in support of the BMAP agree to
follow these SOPs.
8.2.5 DATA MANAGEMENT AND ASSESSMENT
To be useful in support of the BMAP, data collected as part of this monitoring plan will
need to be tracked, compiled, and analyzed. The Florida STORET database will serve as
the primary resource for storing ambient data and providing access for all stakeholders,
in accordance with Section 62-40.540, F.S. Stakeholders have agreed to upload data to
STORET in a timely manner, after the appropriate QA/QC checks have been completed.
All applicable data collected by the entities responsible for monitoring will be uploaded
to STORET regularly, but at least quarterly. FDEP will be responsible for data storage
and retrieval from the STORET database.
STORET uploads are only appropriate for data that represent ambient conditions. Data
that are collected to follow up on fecal coliform water quality exceedances should not be
uploaded to STORET.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
61
8.3 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Adaptive management involves setting up a mechanism for making adjustments in the BMAP
when circumstances change or feedback indicates the need for a more effective strategy.
Adaptive management measures include the following:
• Procedures to determine whether additional cooperative strategies are needed;
• Criteria/processes for determining whether and when plan components need
revision due to changes in costs, environmental impacts, social effects, watershed
conditions, or other factors;
• Descriptions of the stakeholders’ roles after BMAP completion; and
• The use of key components of adaptive management to share information and
expertise, such as tracking plan implementation, monitoring water quality and
pollutant loads, and holding periodic meetings.
BMAP implementation is expected to be a long-term process. Some projects may extend
beyond the first five years of the BMAP cycle. The stakeholders will track implementation
efforts and monitor water quality to measure effectiveness and ensure BMAP compliance.
Stakeholders will meet at least every 12 months to discuss implementation issues, new
information will be considered, and, if the watershed is not projected to meet the TMDL,
additional corrective actions will be defined. Project implementation as well as program and
activity status will be collected annually from the participating entities. The stakeholders will
review these reports to assess progress towards meeting the BMAP’s goals.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
62
APPENDICES
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
63
APP ENDIX A: TMDL BAS IN ROTATION SCHEDULE
TMDLs are developed, allocated, and implemented through a watershed management
approach (managing water resources within their natural boundaries) that addresses the state’s
52 major hydrologic basins in 5 groups, on a rotating schedule. Table A-1 shows the hydrologic
basins within each of the 5 groups, with the FDEP District office of jurisdiction.
TABLE A-1: MAJ OR HYDROLOGIC BASINS BY GROUP AND FDEP DIS TRICT OFFICE
N/A = Not applicable
FDEP
DIS TRICT
GROUP 1
BAS INS
GROUP 2
BAS INS
GROUP 3
BAS INS
GROUP 4
BAS INS
GROUP 5
BAS INS
Northwest
Ochlockonee–
St. Marks
Apalachicola–
Chipola
Choctawhatchee–
St. Andrews Bay
Pensacola Bay Perdido Bay
Northeast
Suwannee Lower St. Johns N/A Nassau–St. Marys
Upper East
Coast
Central
Ocklawaha Middle St. Johns Upper St. Johns Kissimmee
Indian River
Lagoon
Southwest
Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay
Tributaries
Sarasota Bay–
Peace–Myakka
Withlacoochee Springs Coast
South
Everglades
West Coast
Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee Fisheating Creek Florida Keys
Southeast
Lake
Okeechobee
St. Lucie–
Loxahatchee
Lake Worth
Lagoon–
Palm Beach Coast
Southeast Coast–
Biscayne Bay
Everglades
Each group will undergo a cycle of five phases on a rotating schedule:
Phase 1: Preliminary evaluation of water quality
Phase 2: Strategic monitoring and assessment to verify water quality impairments
Phase 3: Development and adoption of the TMDL for waters verified as impaired
Phase 4: Development of the BMAP to achieve the TMDL
Phase 5: Implementation of the BMAP and monitoring of results
The Bayou Chico watershed is part of the Pensacola Bay Basin, which is a Group 4 basin. As
such, the Cycle 1 list of verified impaired waters was developed in 2006. Subsequent TMDL
and BMAP development is occurring on a schedule driven by the 1998 303(d) list (see
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/ for more information) and FDEP staff resource
availability. FDEP will re-evaluate impaired waters every five years to determine whether
improvements are being achieved, and to refine loading estimates and TMDL allocations using
new data. If any changes in a TMDL are required, the applicable TMDL rule may be revised.
Changes to a TMDL would prompt revisions to the applicable BMAP, which will be revisited at
least every five years and modified as necessary, regardless of whether the TMDL is modified.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
64
APP ENDIX B: SUMMARY OF STATUTORY PROVIS IONS GUIDING
BMAP DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
S
ECTIONS
403.067(6)
AND
(7),
F.S. – Summary of Excerpts
ALLOCATIONS
• The TMDL shall include reasonable and equitable allocations of the TMDL between or among
point and nonpoint sources that will alone, or in conjunction with other management and
restoration activities, provide for the attainment of pollutant reductions established pursuant to
paragraph (a) to achieve applicable water quality standards.
• The allocations may establish the maximum amount of the pollutant that may be discharged or
released in combination with other discharges or releases.
• Allocations may also be made to individual basins and sources or as a whole to all basins and
sources or categories of sources of inflow to the water body or water body segments.
• An initial allocation of allowable pollutant loads may be developed as part of the TMDL; in such
cases detailed allocations to specific point sources and categories of nonpoint sources shall be
established in the basin management action plan.
• The initial and detailed allocations shall be designed to attain pollutant reductions established
pursuant to paragraph (a) and shall be based on consideration of:
1. Existing treatment levels and management practices;
2. Best management practices established and implemented pursuant to paragraph (7)(c);
3. Enforceable treatment levels established pursuant to state or local law or permit;
4. Differing impacts pollutant sources may have on water quality;
5. The availability of treatment technologies, management practices, or other pollutant reduction
measures;
6. Environmental, economic, and technological feasibility of achieving the allocation;
7. The cost benefit associated with achieving the allocation;
8. Reasonable timeframes for implementation;
9. Potential applicability of any moderating provisions such as variances, exemptions, and mixing
zones; and
10. The extent to which non-attainment of water quality standards is caused by pollution sources
outside of Florida, discharges that have ceased, or alterations to water bodies prior to the date
of this act.
GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION
DEP is the lead agency in coordinating TMDL implementation, through existing water quality
protection programs.
Application of a TMDL by a water management district does not require WMD
adoption of the TMDL.
TMDL implementation may include, but is not limited to:
o Permitting and other existing regulatory programs
o Non-regulatory and incentive-based programs
o Other water quality management and restoration activities, such as Surface Water
Improvement and Management (SWIM) plans or basin management action plans
o Pollutant trading or other equitable economically based agreements
o Public works
o Land acquisition
BAS IN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN DEVELOPMENT
DEP may develop a basin management action plan that addresses some or all of the
watersheds and basins tributary to a TMDL waterbody.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
65
A basin management action plan shall:
o Integrate appropriate management strategies available to the state through existing
water quality protection programs.
o Equitably allocate pollutant reductions to individual basins, all basins, each identified
point source, or category of nonpoint sources, as appropriate.
o Identify the mechanisms by which potential future increases in pollutant loading will
be addressed.
o Specify that for nonpoint sources for which BMPs have been adopted, the initial
requirement shall be BMPs developed pursuant to paragraph (c).
o Establish an implementation schedule.
o Establish a basis for evaluating plan effectiveness.
o Identify feasible funding strategies.
o Identify milestones for implementation and water quality improvement, and an
associated water quality monitoring component to evaluate reasonable progress over
time.
o Be adopted in whole or in part by DEP Secretarial Order, subject to chapter 120.
A basin management action plan may:
o Give load reduction credits to dischargers that have implemented load reduction
strategies (including BMPs) prior to the development of the BMAP. (Note: this
assumes the related reductions were not factored into the applicable TMDL.)
o Include regional treatment systems or other public works as management strategies.
o Provide for phased implementation to promote timely, cost-effective actions.
An assessment of progress in achieving milestones shall be conducted every 5 years
and the basin management action plan revised, as appropriate, in cooperation with basin
stakeholders, and adopted by secretarial order.
DEP shall assure that key stakeholders are invited to participate in the basin
management action plan development process, holding at least one noticed public
meeting in the basin to receive comments, and otherwise encouraging public
participation to the greatest practicable extent.
A basin management action plan shall not supplant or alter any water quality
assessment, TMDL calculation, or initial allocation.
BAS IN MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
NPDES Permits
o Management strategies related to a discharger subject to NPDES permitting shall be
included in subsequent applicable NPDES permits or permit modifications when the
permit expires (is renewed), the discharge is modified (revised), or the permit is
reopened pursuant to an adopted BMAP.
o Absent a detailed allocation, TMDLs shall be implemented through NPDES permit
conditions that include a compliance schedule. The permit shall allow for issuance of
an order adopting the BMAP within five years. (Note: Intended to apply to individual
wastewater permits – not MS4s)
o Once the BMAP is adopted, the permit shall be reopened, as necessary, and permit
conditions consistent with the BMAP shall be established.
o Upon request by a NPDES permittee, DEP may establish individual allocations prior
to the adoption of a BMAP, as part of a permit issuance, renewal, or modification
(revision).
o To the maximum extent practicable, MS4s shall implement a TMDL or BMAP through
the use of BMPs or other management measures.
o A BMAP does not take the place of NPDES permits or permit requirements.
o Management strategies to be implemented by a DEP permittee shall be completed
according to the BMAP schedule, which may extend beyond the 5-year term of an
NPDES permit.
o Management strategies are not subject to challenge under chapter 120 when they are
incorporated in identical form into a NPDES permit or permit modification (revision).
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
66
Management strategies assigned to nonagricultural, non-NPDES permittees (state,
regional, or local) shall be implemented as part of the applicable permitting programs.
Nonpoint source dischargers (e.g., agriculture) included in a BMAP shall demonstrate
compliance with the applicable TMDLs by either implementing appropriate BMPs
established under paragraph 7(c), or conducting water quality monitoring prescribed by
DEP or a WMD. (Note: this is not applicable to MS4s, as they are considered point
sources under the federal Clean Water Act and TMDL Program.)
o Failure to implement BMPs or prescribed water quality monitoring may be subject to
DEP or WMD enforcement action.
Responsible parties who are implementing applicable BMAP strategies shall not be
required to implement additional pollutant load reduction strategies, and shall be deemed
in compliance with this section. However, this does not limit DEP’s authority to amend a
BMAP.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
DEP, in cooperation with WMDs and other interested parties, may develop interim
measures, BMPs, or other measures for non-agricultural nonpoint sources to achieve
their load reduction allocations.
o These measures may be adopted by DEP or WMD
rule. If adopted, they shall be
implemented by those responsible for non-agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
DACS may develop and adopt by rule interim measure, BMPs, or other measures necessary
for agricultural pollutant sources to achieve their load reduction allocations.
o These measures may be implemented by those responsible for agricultural pollutant
sources. DEP, the WMDs, and DACS shall assist with implementation.
o In developing and adopting these measures, DACS shall consult with DEP, DOH, the
WMDs, representatives of affected farming groups, and environmental group
representatives.
o The rules shall provide for a notice of intent to implement the practices and a system to
ensure implementation, including recordkeeping.
Verification of Effectiveness and Presumption of Compliance -
o DEP shall, at representative sites, verify the effectiveness of BMPs and other measures
adopted by rule in achieving load reduction allocations.
o DEP shall use best professional judgment in making the initial verification of effectiveness,
and shall notify DACS and the appropriate WMD of the initial verification prior to the
adoption of a rule proposed pursuant to this paragraph.
o Implementation of rule-adopted BMPs or other measures initially verified by DEP to be
effective, or verified to be effective by monitoring at representative sites, provides a
presumption of compliance with state water quality standards for those pollutants addressed
by the practices.
Reevaluation –
o Where water quality problems are demonstrated despite implementation, operation,
and maintenance of rule-adopted BMPs and other measures, DEP, a WMD, or
DACS, in
consultation with DEP, shall reevaluate the measures. If the practices
require modification, the revised rule shall specify a reasonable time period for
implementation.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
67
APP ENDIX C: SUMMARY OF EPA-RECOMMENDED ELEMENTS OF A
COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLAN
The following is an excerpt on the nine elements of a watershed plan from the EPA’s Draft
Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters. Additional
information regarding these elements can be found in the full version of the handbook,
available at:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/.
NINE MINIMUM ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN A WATERSHED PLAN FOR
IMPAIRED WATERS FUNDED USING INCREMENTAL SECTION 319 FUNDS
Although many different components may be included in a watershed plan, EPA has identified
a minimum of nine elements that are critical for achieving improvements in water quality. EPA
requires that these nine elements be addressed for watershed plans funded using incremental
Section 319 funds and strongly recommends that they be included in all other watershed plans
that are intended to remediate water quality impairments.
The nine elements are provided below, listed in the order in which they appear in the
guidelines. Although they are listed as a through i, they do not necessarily take place
sequentially. For example, element d asks for a description of the technical and financial
assistance that will be needed to implement the watershed plan, but this can be done only after
you have addressed elements e and i.
Explanations are provided with each element to show you what to include in your watershed
plan.
NINE ELEMENTS
a. Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar sources
that need to be controlled to achieve needed load reductions, and any other goals identified in
the watershed plan. Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the significant
subcategory level along with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the watershed (e.g., X
number of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including a rough estimate of the number of cattle per
facility; Y acres of row crops needing improved nutrient management or sediment control; or Z linear
miles of eroded streambank needing remediation).
What does this mean?
Your watershed plan should include a map of the watershed that locates the major sources and
causes of impairment. Based on these impairments, you will set goals that will include (at a
minimum) meeting the appropriate water quality standards for pollutants that threaten or
impair the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the watershed covered in the plan.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
68
b. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures.
What does this mean?
You will first quantify the pollutant loads for the watershed. Based on these pollutant loads,
you will determine the reductions needed to meet the water quality standards.
You will then identify various management measures (see element c below) that will help to
reduce the pollutant loads and estimate the load reductions expected as a result of these
management measures to be implemented, recognizing the difficulty in precisely predicting the
performance of management measures over time.
Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope
component in paragraph a (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row
crops, or eroded streambanks). For waters for which EPA has approved or established TMDLs,
the plan should identify and incorporate the TMDLs.
Applicable loads for downstream waters should be included so that water delivered to a
downstream or adjacent segment does not exceed the water quality standards for the pollutant
of concern at the water segment boundary. The estimate should account for reductions in
pollutant loads from point and nonpoint sources identified in the TMDL as necessary to attain
the applicable water quality standards.
c. A description of the management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve load
reductions in paragraph 2, and a description of the critical areas in which those measures will
be needed to implement this plan.
What does this mean?
The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the
load reductions estimated under element b, as well as to achieve any additional pollution
prevention goals called out in the watershed plan. It should also identify the critical areas in
which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. This can be done by using a map
or a description.
d. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs,
and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan.
What does this mean?
You should estimate the financial and technical assistance needed to implement the entire plan.
This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management
measures, information and education (I/E) activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities.
You should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the
plan. Plan sponsors should consider the use of federal, state, local, and private funds or
resources that might be available to assist in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between needs
and available resources should be identified and addressed in the plan.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
69
e. An information and education (I/E) component used to enhance public understanding of the
project and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and
implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be implemented.
What does this mean?
The plan should include an I/E component that identifies the education and outreach activities
or actions that will be used to implement the plan. These I/E activities may support the
adoption and long-term operation and maintenance of management practices and support
stakeholder involvement efforts.
f. Schedule for implementing the management measures identified in this plan that is
reasonably expeditious.
What does this mean?
You need to include a schedule for implementing the management measures outlined in your
watershed plan. The schedule should reflect the milestones you develop in g.
g. A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether management
measures or other control actions are being implemented.
What does this mean?
You’ll develop interim, measurable milestones to measure progress in implementing the
management measures for your watershed plan. These milestones will measure the
implementation of the management measures, such as whether they are being implemented on
schedule, whereas element h (see below) will measure the effectiveness of the management
measures, for example, by documenting improvements in water quality.
h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being achieved
over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality standards.
What does this mean?
Using the milestones you developed above, you’ll develop a set of criteria (or indicators) with
interim target values to be used to determine whether progress is being made toward reducing
pollutant loads. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal coliform
concentrations) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of beach closings). You
must also indicate how you’ll determine whether the watershed plan needs to be revised if
interim targets are not met and what process will be used to revise the existing management
approach. Where a nonpoint source TMDL has been established, interim targets are also
needed to determine whether the TMDL needs to be revised.
i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts over
time, measured against the criteria established under item h immediately above.
What does this mean?
The watershed plan must include a monitoring component to determine whether progress is
being made toward attainment or maintenance of the applicable water quality standards. The
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
70
monitoring program must be fully integrated with the established schedule and interim
milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be designed to
determine whether loading reductions are being achieved over time and substantial progress in
meeting water quality standards is being made. Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to
measure the effects of multiple programs, projects, and trends over time. In stream monitoring
does not have to be conducted for individual BMPs unless that type of monitoring is
particularly relevant to the project.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
71
APP ENDIX D: PROGRAMS TO ACHIEVE THE TMDL
PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM AS A SOURCE OF FECAL COLIFORM
CONTAMINATION
SPECIFIC COUNTYWIDE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS BY ECUA
• Main Street Wastewater Treatment Plant Relocation: ECUA completed a
major capital improvement project during the summer of 2010: the construction
of a replacement water reclamation facility that will allow the closure of the
MSWWTP. The new plant, the CWRF, is located near the Cantonment
community, approximately 15 miles north of the MSWWTP site. The CWRF, an
AWT facility that is permitted at 22.5 MGD, features 100% industrial reuse of its
reclaimed water, resulting in the total elimination of the surface water discharge
in what was formerly the Main St. drainage area. ECUA began diverting flows
from the MSWWTP to the CWRF in August 2010. In early April 2011, the
CWRF was treating approximately two-thirds of the flows in the Main St.
drainage area, and the MSWWTP was officially taken offline on April 28, 2011.
The flows from the Bayou Chico watershed that had previously been treated at the
MSWWTP are now transmitted to the CWRF for treatment, and the reclaimed
water will be available for industrial reuse.
• Sewer Expansion Program
• Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Plan
• Lift Station Upgrades and Repairs
• Emergency Generator Program
• Infiltration and Inflow Program
• Fats, Oils, and Grease Program: The program includes the following
requirements for participants:
o Satisfactorily pump out grease traps/interceptors;
o Attend waste hauler education meeting;
o Accept limited regulatory responsibility for the generator; and
o Submit a manifest document for the disposal of all trap contents
generated in ECUA’s service area on a quarterly basis.
Documentation, measurement, and reporting in this standardized fashion will lead to more
informed decisions based on hard data, allowing ECUA to identify and address system
priorities, detect trends, and proactively address problems both internally and cooperatively
with local partners.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
72
PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS STORMWATER AS A SOURCE OF FECAL COLIFORM CONTAMINATION
• MS4 Capital Improvement and DSR Projects
• MS4 Maintenance Activities
• Inspection, Sampling, and Enforcement Activities
• Stormwater Management Plan
• MS4 NPDES Program
• Outreach and Education:
o Public service announcements on septic tank maintenance and pet
waste management;
o Educational materials and newsletters to provide a better
understanding of ordinances; and
o Presentations to groups such as homeowners’ associations and local
citizens on the effects of fecal coliform generated by pet waste entering
waterways.
• PIC Program
PET WASTE MANAGEMENT
Escambia County, Florida, Code of Ordinances: Part I: Article I,
Section
10-11 (F)
Sec. 10-11. – Animal control.
(f) Removal of canine waste and requirement for possession of device for removal in the
county.
(1) It shall be the duty of each person who is in the company of or responsible for a
dog on areas other than the property of such person to remove any feces left by
his dog on any yard, sidewalk, gutter, street, right-of-way, or other public or
private place.
(2) It shall further be the duty of any person while in direct control of a dog to have
in his possession a plastic bag or "pooper scooper" or other such device
sufficient for his use in the removal of canine waste.
(3) Violators of this section shall be guilty of a civil infraction and punishable
pursuant to section 10-23
(4) This section may be enforced by the county sheriff or county animal control
officers. The provisions of Rule 3.125, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure,
providing that violators of county ordinances may be served with a notice to
appear, shall be applicable to violations of this section. Failure of a person
receiving a notice to appear to comply with the requirements on the notice shall
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
73
be deemed a separate violation of this chapter for which a warrant for the
violator's arrest may be issued.
SPECIAL PROJECTS AND INVESTIGATIONS
ECHD Research Programs
Escambia County Special Studies and Demonstration Projects (examples include Jackson Lakes
and Glynn Key stormwater projects and educational boardwalks)
FDOT DRAINAGE CONNECTION PROGRAM
14-86.001 Purpose. The purpose of this rule chapter is to regulate and prescribe conditions for
the transfer of stormwater to the Department of Transportation’s right of way as a result of
manmade changes to adjacent property(ies), through a permitting process designed to ensure
the safety and integrity of the Department of Transportation’s facilities and to prevent an
unreasonable burden on lower properties. This rule chapter does not regulate dewatering
activities.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-12-
86, Amended 1-20-09.
14-86.002 Definitions. As used in this rule chapter the following terms shall have the following
meanings:
(1) “Adjacent Property” means any real property or easement with a shared boundary to the
Department’s right of way.
(2) “Applicant” means the owner of adjacent property or the owner’s authorized representative.
(3) “Applicable Water Quality Standards” means rules and regulations of state or federal
governmental entity(ies) pertaining to stormwater discharges from the Department’s facilities to
which the drainage connection is made.
(4) “Approved Stormwater Management Plan” or “Master Drainage Plan” means a plan
adopted or approved by a city, county, water management district, or other agency with
specific drainage or stormwater management authority provided that:
(a) Such plan is actively being implemented;
(b) Any required construction is substantially complete;
(c) Downstream mitigation measures have been provided for in the plan; and
(d) The use of any Department facilities either existing or planned, which are part of such plan,
have been approved by the Department.
(5) “Closed Basin” means a basin without any positive outlet, for the design storms applicable
to this rule.
(6) “Critical Duration” means the length of time of a specific storm frequency which creates the
largest volume or highest rate of net stormwater runoff (post-improvement runoff less pre-
improvement runoff) for typical durations up through and including the 10-day duration for
closed basins and up through the 3-day duration for basins with positive outlets. The critical
duration for a given storm frequency is determined by calculating the peak rate and volume of
stormwater runoff for various storm durations and then comparing the pre-improvement and
post-improvement conditions for each of the storm durations. The duration resulting in the
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
74
highest peak rate or largest net total stormwater volume is the “critical duration” storm
(volume is not applicable for basins with positive outlets).
(7) “Department” means the Florida Department of Transportation.
(8) “Discharge” means the event or result of stormwater draining or otherwise transferring from
one property to another or into surface waters.
(9) “Drainage Connection” means any structure, pipe, culvert, device, paved or unpaved area,
swale, ditch, canal, or other appurtenance or feature, whether naturally occurring or created,
which is used or functions as a link to convey stormwater.
(10) “Facility” or “Facilities” means anything built, installed, or maintained by the Department
within the Department’s right of way.
(11) “Impervious Area” means surfaces which do not allow, or minimally allow, the penetration
of water. Examples of impervious areas are building roofs, all concrete and asphalt pavements,
compacted traffic-bearing areas such as limerock roadways, lakes, wet ponds, pond liners, and
other standing water areas, including some retention/detention areas.
(12) “Improvement” means any man-made change(s) to adjacent property.
(13) “Licensed Professional” means an individual licensed by a Florida professional licensing
board, authorized by law to design and certify the stormwater management system under
review.
(14) “Man-made Change” means any intentional physical change to or upon adjacent property
resultant from an intentional physical change, which establishes or alters the rate, volume, or
quality of stormwater.
(15) “Permit” or “Drainage Connection Permit” means an authorization to establish or alter a
drainage connection to the Department’s right of way issued pursuant to this rule chapter.
(16) “Permittee” means the individual or entity to which a Drainage Connection Permit is
issued.
(17) “Positive Outlet” means a point of stormwater runoff into surface waters which under
normal conditions would drain by gravity through surface waters ultimately to the Gulf of
Mexico, or the Atlantic Ocean, or into sinks, closed lakes, or recharge wells provided the
receiving waterbody has been identified by the appropriate Water Management District as
functioning as if it recovered from runoff by means other than transpiration, evaporation,
percolation, or infiltration.
(18) “Post-improvement” means the condition of property after improvement.
(19) “Pre-improvement” means the condition of property:
(a) Before November 12, 1986; or
(b) On or after November 12, 1986, with connections which have been permitted under this rule
chapter or permitted by another governmental entity based on stormwater management
requirements equal to or more stringent than those in this rule chapter.
(20) “Right of Way” means land in which the Department owns the fee or less than the fee, or
for which the Department has an easement, devoted to or required for use as a transportation or
stormwater management facility.
(21) “Stormwater” or “Stormwater Runoff” means the flow of water which results from and
occurs immediately following a rainfall event.
(22) “Stormwater Management System” means a system which is designed and constructed or
implemented to control stormwater, incorporating methods to collect, convey, store, infiltrate,
treat, use, or reuse stormwater to prevent or reduce flooding, overdrainage, pollution, and
otherwise affect the quantity or quality of stormwater in the system.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
75
(23) “Surface Water” means water upon the surface of the earth whether contained in bounds
created naturally or artificially or diffused. Water from natural springs shall be classified as
surface water when it exits onto the earth’s surface.
(24) “Watershed” means the region draining or contributing water to a common outlet, such as
a stream, lake, or other receiving area.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-12-
86, Amended 1-20-09.
14-86.003 Permit, Assurance Requirements, and Exceptions.
(1) Permit.
(a) No permits are required for properties without improvements on or after November 12,
1986.
(b) All improvements on or after November 12, 1986, require a Drainage Connection Permit,
Form 850-040-06 (10/08), whether or not the work is done in conjunction with a driveway
connection, and whether or not the improvement retains stormwater runoff on the adjacent
property up to and including the 100 year event of critical duration.
(2) Assurance Requirements.
(a) The applicant for a drainage connection permit shall provide reasonable assurances that:
1. The peak discharge rates and total volumes of stormwater discharging from the adjacent
property to the Department’s right of way are those provided for in an approved stormwater
management plan or master drainage plan; otherwise the post-improvement stormwater runoff
discharging from the adjacent property to the Department’s right of way shall not exceed the
more stringent of the following:
a. The peak discharge rates and total volumes allowed by applicable local regulation; or
b. The improvement shall not increase stormwater discharge rate above the pre-improvement
discharge rate, and in watersheds which do not have a positive outlet, the post-improvement
total volume of stormwater runoff shall not be increased beyond the pre-improvement volume
considering worst case storms for up to the frequencies and durations contained in paragraph
14-86.003(2)(c), F.A.C.
2. Any discharge pipe establishing or constituting a drainage connection to the Department’s
right of way is limited in size based on the pre-improvement discharge rate, downstream
conveyance limitations, downstream tailwater influences, and design capacity restrictions
imposed by other governmental entities.
3. If the improvement changes the inflow pattern of stormwater or method of drainage
connection to the Department’s right of way, post-improvement discharge will not exceed the
pre-improvement discharge to the Department’s right of way, any new drainage connection
will not threaten the safety or integrity of the Department’s right of way, and will not increase
maintenance costs to the Department. At a minimum pavement hydraulics, ditch hydraulics,
storm drain hydraulics, cross drain hydraulics, and stormwater management facilities shall be
analyzed. The analysis must follow the methodology used in the design of the Department’s
facilities receiving the discharge and meet the criteria in chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the
Department’s Drainage Manual, Topic Number 625-040-002-c, May 2008, incorporated herein by
reference. The Drainage Manual is available from the Department at:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/dr/Manualsandhandbooks.shtm.
4. The quality of water conveyed by the connection meets all applicable water quality
standards, and such assurance shall be certified in writing. In the event the discharge is
identified causing or contributing to a violation of applicable water quality standards, the
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
76
permittee will be required to incorporate such abatement as necessary to bring the permittee’s
discharge into compliance with applicable standards.
(b) If the requirements set forth in paragraph 14-86.003(2)(a), F.A.C., cannot be fully complied
with, the applicant may submit alternative drainage connection designs. The analysis
supporting the proposed alternative connection must follow the methodology used in the
design of the Department’s facilities receiving the proposed alternative drainage connection and
meet the criteria in chapters 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Department’s Drainage Manual. Deviation from
a standard in the Drainage Manual must be approved by the District Drainage Engineer.
Acceptance of any alternative design must serve the purpose of this rule chapter and shall be
based upon consideration of the following:
1. The type of stormwater management practice proposed;
2. The efficacy and costs of alternative controls;
3. The impact upon the operation and maintenance of the Department’s facilities; and
4. The public interest served by the drainage connection.
(c) In providing reasonable assurances, the applicant shall:
1. Use a methodology which is compatible with the methodology employed in the design of the
Department’s facilities receiving the stormwater;
2. Determine the peak discharge rates considering various rainfall event frequencies up to and
including a 100 year event of critical duration of up to three days; and
3. In watersheds without a positive outlet, determine the stormwater runoff total volumes
considering various rainfall amounts up to a 100 year rainfall frequency of critical durations of
up to ten days. The pond retention volume must recover at a rate such that one-half of the
volume is available in seven days with the total volume available in 30 days, with a sufficient
amount recovered within the time necessary to satisfy applicable water treatment requirements.
(3) Exceptions. The following exceptions do not require a Drainage Connection Permit:
(a) Improvements to adjacent properties not draining to the Department’s right of way in the
pre-improvement and post-improvement condition.
(b) Single-family residential improvements which are not part of a larger common plan of
improvement or larger common plan of sale.
(c) Agricultural and silvicultural improvements that:
1. Are subject to regulation by the Department of Environmental Protection or regional Water
Management Districts;
2. Are exempt under the provisions of Section 373.406, F.S.; or
3. Are implementing applicable best management practices adopted by the Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services in Rule Chapter 5M, F.A.C., or Rule Chapter 5I-6, F.A.C.
(d) Any other improvement provided that all of the following apply:
1. The total impervious area, after improvement, is less than 5,000 square feet of cumulative
impervious area and is less than 40% of that portion of the property that naturally drained to
the Department’s right of way;
2. The improvement does not create or alter a drainage connection;
3. The improvement does not change flow patterns of stormwater to the Department’s right of
way, and does not increase the surface area draining to the Department’s right of way;
4. The property is located in a watershed which has a positive outlet; and
5. The site or improvement is not part of a larger common plan of improvement or larger
common plan of sale. (4) An exception provided in subsection 14-86.003(3), F.A.C., shall not
apply if any drainage connection from the adjacent property threatens the safety and integrity
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
77
of the Department’s facilities or creates an unreasonable burden on lower properties, including
violations of applicable water quality standards.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-12-
86, Amended 1-20-09.
14-86.004 Permit Application Procedure.
(1) An applicant shall submit a Drainage Connection Permit, Form 850-040-06 (10/08),
incorporated herein by reference. This form may be obtained from any of the Department’s
local area Maintenance Offices, District Offices, or on the internet at the Department’s website:
http://www.dot.state.fl.us/onestoppermitting/.
(2) The applicant shall submit four completed Drainage Connection Permits packages. Each
completed Drainage Connection Permit package shall include all applicable attachments. All
applicable plans and supporting documentation shall be submitted on no larger than 11" X 17"
multipurpose paper and included in PDF format on a compact disk.
(3) The Drainage Connection Permit shall be accompanied by:
(a) A location map, included in the construction plans, sufficient to show the location of the
improvement and any drainage connection to the Department’s right of way, and shall include
the state highway number, county, city, and section, range, and township.
(b) A grading plan drawn to scale showing pre-improvement and post-improvement site
conditions including all pervious and impervious surfaces, land contours, spot elevations, and
all drainage facilities of the Department and of the adjacent property. The bench mark datum
for the plans (whether NGVD 29 or NAVD 88) shall be noted on the plans. Contour
information shall extend 50 feet beyond the property boundaries or be sufficient to clearly
define the portion of the watershed which drains through the property to the Department’s
right of way.
(c) Photographs which accurately depict pre-improvement and present conditions.
(d) Soil borings and water table data and, where percolation or infiltration is utilized in the
design, appropriate percolation test methodology and results.
(e) Computations as required by subsection 14-86.003(2), F.A.C.
(f) The Drainage Connection Certification, Part 2 of the permit must be certified by a Licensed
Professional that the complete set of plans and computations comply with either paragraph 14-
86.003(2)(a) or 14-86.003(2)(b), F.A.C.
(4) Improvements which otherwise meet the criteria of subparagraphs 14-86.003(3)(d)1. and 14-
86.003(3)(d)4., F.A.C., but which create or alter a drainage connection to the Department’s right
of way, will not require submittal of the information required by paragraphs 14-86.004(3)(d)
through (f), F.A.C., but will otherwise require the submittal of all other required information.
(5) The Department recognizes that regulatory and permitting programs exist or may be
developed in the future by local units of government, and state or federal agencies which may
overlap with some or all of the requirements of this rule chapter. In order to avoid duplication
the Department will:
(a) In lieu of the requirements in Rule 14-86.003 and subsection 14-86.004(3), F.A.C., accept a
permit that accomplishes the purposes of this rule chapter so long as the permit is issued by a
governmental entity with specific stormwater management authority and is based on
requirements equal to or more stringent than those in Rule 14-86.003, F.A.C.; or
(b) Accept any form, plans, specifications, drawings, calculations, or other data developed to
support an application for a permit required by a governmental entity, pursuant to any rule
which establishes requirements equal to or more stringent than Rule 14-86.003, F.A.C.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
78
(6) The Drainage Connection Permit serves as the application. Once approved by the
Department, the form and supporting documents become the Drainage Connection Permit.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-12-
86, Amended 1-20-09.
14-86.005 General Conditions for a Drainage Permit.
(1) A Drainage Connection Permit does not exempt the permittee from meeting all other
applicable regulations and ordinances governing stormwater management.
(2) All work done in conjunction with the drainage connection permit shall meet and adhere to
all general and specific conditions and requirements contained on the Permit.
(3) Within 15 working days after completion of the work authorized by an approved Drainage
Connection Permit, the permittee shall notify the Department in writing of the completion; and
for all design work that originally required certification by a Licensed Professional, this
notification shall contain the As Built Certification, Part 8 of the Permit. The certification shall
state that work has been completed in substantial compliance with the Drainage Connection
Permit.
(4) The permittee or property owner, will be required to reimburse the Department for any
fines, penalties and costs, e.g., abatement costs, mitigation costs, remediation costs, etc. incurred
by the Department in the event the permittee’s discharge fails to meet the applicable water
quality standards or minimum design and performance standards contrary to the permittee’s
assurances provided in subsection 14-86.003(2), F.A.C.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-12-
86, Amended 1-20-09.
14-86.006 Permit Suspension or Revocation. A permit will be suspended or revoked if:
(1) The permitted drainage connection is not constructed, operated, or maintained in
accordance with the permit;
(2) Emergency conditions or hazards exist;
(3) False or misleading information is submitted to the Department in the Drainage Connection
Permit package;
(4) Another governmental entity revokes or suspends a permit which was the basis upon which
a Department Drainage Connection Permit was obtained;
(5) The As-built Certificate required for the Drainage Connection Permit is not submitted in
accordance with subsection 14-86.005(3), F.A.C.
(6) Any discharge above the permitted design discharge.
Specific Authority 334.044(2), (15) FS. Law Implemented 334.044(15) FS. History - New 11-12-
86, Amended 1-20-09.
14-86.007 Forms.
Specific Authority 334.044(2) FS. Law Implemented 120.53(1)(b), 120.60, 334.03(17), (22), 334.035,
334.044(1), (12), (13), (27), 335.04(2), 335.10(2), 339.155(2)(a), (f) FS. History - New 11-12-86,
Repealed 1-20-09.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
79
PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS OSTDS SOURCES AS A SOURCE OF FECAL COLIFORM
CONTAMINATION
• ECHD
• OSTDS Program
• ECHD Research Program
• ECHD Environmental Analysis Program
• Escambia County Ordinance, Chapter 98, Article III, Relating to OSTDS
• ECHD Healthy Beaches Program
PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS MARINAS, BOATYARDS, AND MOORING SOURCES AS A SOURCE OF
FECAL COLIFORM CONTAMINATION
• Clean Marina and Clean Boatyards Program: Most of the marinas in the
Bayou Chico watershed have been designated as Clean Marinas and/or Clean
Boatyards. A list of designated marinas and information related to this program
is available at:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cleanmarina/.
• Pump Outs in Florida: The National Marine Waste Foundation, Inc. (NMWF)
is a new organization whose goals are to make waste removal services free to
boaters through funding from local business sponsors and grants through the
state of Florida.
• Barge and Derelict Vessel Removals
• Florida’s NPDES Stormwater Program: This program regulates point source
discharges of stormwater into surface waters of the state from certain municipal,
industrial, and construction activities. Most regulated facilities obtain permit
coverage by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) To Use Multi-Sector
Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Industrial
Activity (MSGP); however, some facilities are required to obtain an individual
permit. Industrial activities that can certify “no exposure” at the facility may be
excluded from the requirement to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit.
Regulated facilities that apply for coverage under the MSGP must also prepare a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
• Marine industry operations that fall under the definition of industrial activity
include the following:
o Ship and boat building and repair facilities under SIC Codes 3731 and
3732; and
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
80
o Water transportation facilities under SIC Code 44 that have vessel
maintenance shops (mechanical repairs, painting, fueling, and
lubrication) and/or equipment-cleaning operations. This group
includes marinas identified under SIC Code 4493. Note that
equipment-cleaning operations include areas where vessel and vehicle
exterior wash down takes place.
Marinas and boatyards that meet the criteria above must obtain coverage under
the NPDES Stormwater Program with either an MSGP or individual permit. An
SWPPP is an essential component of a MSGP.
As part of the marinas’ SWPPPs, measures must be identified that address good
housekeeping, spill prevention, and response procedures, as well as plans to
address nonstormwater and sediment and erosion controls. Such measures and
the implementation of specific SWPPP plans by all marinas should provide some
source controls in these particular areas of the watershed. It is not known how
many marine industry operations fall under the MSGP permit in the Bayou Chico
watershed at this time.
• Mooring and Live-aboard Vessels: The Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC) has the authority to issue warnings to moored
and live-aboard vessels for noncompliance with state rules relating to the disposal
of waste or improper safety equipment aboard boats. The FWC issued warnings to
nearly a dozen vessels on a compliance and inspection sweep in Bayou Chico
earlier this year (2011).
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
81
APP ENDIX E: BMAP ANNUAL REPORTING FORM
TABLE E-1: PROPOSED BMAP ANNUAL REPORTING FORM
2011 Bayou Chico Watershed BMAP
___YEAR__ ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
REPORTING ENTITY: ___________________________________________________ DATE: __________________
Note: Relevant MS4 activities, whether contained in the BMAP or not, may be included in this report.
IMPLEMENTATION STATUS – BMAP MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
BMAP
P
ROJECT
#
1
A
FFECTED
AREA
(WBID)
BRIEF
D
ESCRIPTION
2
P
ROJECTED
START/
E
ND
3
PROJECT/
A
CTIVITY
S
TATUS
4
PROJECT
M
ONITORING
R
ESULTS
5
C
OMMENTS
6
Shade if
also an MS4
activity
NEW MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
BMAP
PROJECT #
1
A
FFECTED
AREA
(WBID)
BRIEF
DESCRIPTION
2
P
ROJECTED
START/
END
3
PROJECT/
ACTIVITY STATUS
4
PROJECT
MONITORING RESULTS
5
COMMENTS
6
Shade if
also an MS4
activity
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
82
Directions for BMAP Annual Reporting Format:
1
BMAP Projects: This includes projects and other management strategies. Use the project number assigned in the BMAP
Activities Tables (e.g., A.1). Please include all management strategies for which you have lead responsibility in the BMAP,
regardless of their status. New Management Strategies: Include new projects/activities that are not included in the BMAP in
the New Management Strategies table. Create a project number for new management strategies by using the prefix, then -N#
(e.g., A-N1). If a management action listed in either table is part of your MS4, please shade the project number box in grey.
2
Include a brief description of the management action being reported (e.g., street sweeping removing gross debris on all streets
with "L curbs" – 5 miles performed each month).
3
If applicable, include the start and end dates for the management action. If not applicable, put “N/A” or, if it is a continuous
activity, put “Continuous” and indicate how often the activity takes place (e.g., for street sweeping).
4
Clearly summarize the status of the management action, in a way that makes sense for the item listed. For instance, for
educational activities, list pertinent publications, events, etc., including name and/or topic for each. Include specific or general
time frames (e.g., two public workshops on pet waste disposal in July 2011). Also, describe any significant changes to the
management action that have taken place.
5
As applicable: If monitoring is required as part of a management action (e.g., in a cost-share situation), or is conducted
voluntarily (e.g., as part of an effort to collect information on BMAP effectiveness), include the monitoring results to date, as
practicable.
6
Include comments on any implementation obstacles, including weather, funding, and technical difficulties. Include any other
comments you consider important.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
83
APP ENDIX F: MINUTES FROM TECHNICAL MEETINGS WITH
STAKEHOLDERS
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
84
APP ENDIX G: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
303(d) List: The list of Florida's waterbodies that do not meet or are not expected to meet
applicable water quality standards with technology-based controls alone.
305(b) Report: Section 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states to report biennially
to the EPA on the quality of the waters in the state.
Allocation Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC): The Florida Watershed Restoration Act of
1999 required FDEP to form a Technical Advisory Committee to address issues relating to the
allocation of load reductions among point source and nonpoint source contributors. The ATAC
was therefore formed in order to develop recommendations for a report to the legislature on the
process for allocating TMDLs.
Background: The condition of waters in the absence of human-induced alterations.
Baffle box: An underground stormwater management device that uses barriers (or baffles) to
slow the flow of untreated stormwater, allowing particulates to settle out in the box before the
stormwater is released into the environment.
Baseline period: A period of time used as a basis for later comparison.
Baseline loading: The quantity of pollutants in a waterbody, used as a basis for later
comparison.
Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP): The document that describes how a specific TMDL
will be implemented; the plan describes the specific load and wasteload allocations as well as
the stakeholder efforts that will be undertaken to achieve an adopted TMDL.
Basin Status Report: For the Pensacola Basin, this document was published in 2004 by FDEP.
The report documents the water quality issues, list of water segments under consideration for a
TMDL, and data needs in the basin.
Best Available Technology (BAT) Economically Achievable: As defined by 40 CFR, §125.3,
outlines technology-based treatment requirements in permits.
Best Management Practices (BMPs): Methods that have been determined to be the most
effective, practical means of preventing or reducing pollution from nonpoint sources.
Coliforms: Bacteria that live in the intestines (including the colon) of humans and other
animals, used as a measure of the presence of feces in water or soil.
Clean Water Act (CWA): The Clean Water Act is a 1977 amendment to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972, which set the basic structure for regulating discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
85
Continuous deflective separation (CDS) Unit: A patented stormwater management device
that uses the available energy of the storm flow to create a vortex to cause a separation of solids
from fluids. Pollutants are captured inside the separation chamber, while the water passes out
through the separation screen.
Designated use: Uses specified in water quality standards for each waterbody or segment
(such as drinking water, swimmable, fishable).
Detention Pond: A stormwater system that delays the downstream progress of stormwater
runoff in a controlled manner, typically by using temporary storage areas and a metered outlet
device.
Domestic Wastewater: Wastewater derived principally from dwellings, business buildings,
institutions and the like; sanitary wastewater; sewage.
Dry Season: The dry part of the year when rainfall is low; in Florida, the dry season is defined
as November through May.
Effluent: Wastewater that flows into a receiving stream by way of a domestic or industrial
discharge point.
Event mean concentration: The flow-weighted mean concentration of an urban runoff
pollutant measured during a storm event.
Exfiltration: Loss of water from a drainage system as the result of percolation or absorption
into the surrounding soil.
External loading: Pollutants originating from outside a waterbody that contribute to the
pollutant load of the waterbody.
Flocculent: A liquid that contains loosely aggregated, suspended particles.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP): FDEP is Florida's principal
environmental and natural resources agency. The Florida Department of Natural Resources
and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation were merged to create FDEP effective
July 1, 1993.
Geomean: A log-transformation of data to enable meaningful statistical evaluations.
Ground Water or Groundwater: Water below the land surface in the zone of saturation where
water is at or above atmospheric pressure.
Impairment: The condition of a waterbody that does not achieve water quality standards
(designated use) due to pollutants or an unknown cause.
Load Allocations (LA): The portions of a receiving water's loading capacity that are allocated
to one of its existing or future nonpoint sources of pollution.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
86
Load Capacity: The greatest amount of loading that a waterbody can receive without violating
water quality standards.
Loading: The total quantity of pollutants in stormwater runoff that contributes to the water
quality impairment.
Margin of safety (MOS): An explicit or implicit assumption used in the calculation of a TMDL
that takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent
limitations and water quality. An explicit MOS is typically a percentage of the assimilative
capacity or some other specific amount of pollutant loading (e.g., the loading from an out-of-
state source). Most FDEP-adopted TMDLs include an implicit MOS based on the fact that the
predictive model runs incorporate a variety of conservative assumptions (they examine worst-
case ambient flow conditions and worst-case temperature, and assume that all permitted point
sources discharge at their maximum permittable amount).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): The permitting process by which
technology-based and water quality–based controls are implemented.
Nonpoint Source (NPS): Diffuse runoff without a single point of origin that flows over the
surface of the ground by stormwater and is then introduced to surface or ground water. NPS
includes atmospheric deposition and runoff or leaching from agricultural lands, urban areas,
unvegetated lands, OSTDS, and construction sites.
Nonpoint Source Pollution: Nonpoint source pollution is created by the flushing of pollutants
from the landscape by rainfall and the resulting stormwater runoff, or by the leaching of
pollutants through the soils into ground water.
Organic Matter: Carbonaceous waste contained in plant or animal matter and originating from
domestic or industrial sources.
Outfall: The place where a sewer, drain, or stream discharges.
Particulate: A minute separate particle, as of a granular substance or powder.
Pollutant Load Reduction Goals (PLRGs): PLRGs are defined as the estimated numeric
reductions in pollutant loadings needed to preserve or restore the designated uses of receiving
waterbodies and maintain water quality consistent with applicable state water quality
standards. PLRGs are developed by the water management districts as part of a Surface Water
Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan.
Point Source: An identifiable and confined discharge point for one or more water pollutants,
such as a pipe, channel, vessel, or ditch.
Pollutant: Generally any substance, such as a chemical or waste product, introduced into the
environment that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
87
Pollution: An undesirable change in the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of air,
water, soil, or food that can adversely affect the health, survival, or activities of humans or other
living organisms.
Removal efficiency: The amount of a given substance (metals, sediment, etc.) that has been
extracted from another substance.
Retention Pond: A stormwater management structure whose primary purpose is to
permanently store a given volume of stormwater runoff, releasing it by infiltration and/or
evaporation.
Reuse: The deliberate application of reclaimed water for a beneficial purpose. Criteria used to
classify projects as “reuse” or “effluent disposal” are contained in Subsection 62-610.810, F.A.C.
Runoff curve: A calculated number representing the percentage of rainfall that becomes runoff
for a given area.
Quality Assurance (QA): An integrated system of management activities involving planning,
implementation, documentation, assessment, reporting, and quality improvement to ensure
that a process, product, or service meets defined standards of quality.
Quality Control (QC): The overall system of technical activities that measures the attributes
and performance of a process, product, or service against defined standards to verify that they
meet the established data quality objectives.
Septic Tank: A watertight receptacle constructed to promote the separation of solid and liquid
components of wastewater, to provide the limited digestion of organic matter, to store solids,
and to allow clarified liquid to discharge for further treatment and disposal in a soil absorption
system.
STORET: The STOrage and RETrieval database, used nationally for water quality data storage.
Stormwater: Water that results from a rainfall event.
Stormwater runoff: The portion of rainfall that hits the ground and is not evaporated,
percolated, or transpired into vegetation. Rather, it flows over the ground surface seeking a
receiving waterbody.
Submersed: Growing or remaining under water.
Surface Water: Water on the surface of the earth, whether contained within boundaries created
naturally or artificially, or diffused. Water from natural springs is classified as surface water
when it exits the spring onto the earth’s surface.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL): The sum of the individual wasteload allocations for
point sources and the load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. Prior to
determining individual wasteload allocations and load allocations, the maximum amount of a
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
88
pollutant that a waterbody or waterbody segment can assimilate from all sources while still
maintaining its designated use must first be calculated. TMDLs are based on the relationship
between pollutants and instream water quality conditions.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): This federal agency was created in December
1970 to address the nation's urgent environmental problems and to protect the public health.
The majority of FDEP’s regulatory programs have counterparts at the EPA or are delegated
from the EPA.
Wasteload Allocations (WLAs): Pollutant loads allotted to existing and future point sources,
such as discharges from industry and sewage facilities.
Wastewater: The combination of liquid and pollutants from residences, commercial buildings,
industrial plants, and institutions, together with any ground water, surface runoff, or leachate
that may be present.
Waterbody Identification (WBID) Numbers: WBIDs are numbers assigned to hydrologically
based drainage areas in a river basin.
Water column: The water within a waterbody between the surface and sediments.
Water Quality Index: Determines the quality of Florida's streams, blackwaters, and springs.
Categories include water clarity, dissolved oxygen, oxygen-demanding substances, nutrients,
bacteria, and macroinvertebrate diversity.
Water Quality Standards (WQSs): (1) Standards that comprise the designated most beneficial
uses (classification of water), the numeric and narrative criteria applied to the specific water use
or classification, the Florida Anti-degradation Policy, and the moderating provisions contained
in Rules 62-302 and 62-4, F.A.C. (2) State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient standards for
waterbodies. The standards prescribe the use of the waterbody (such as drinking, fishing and
swimming, and shellfish harvesting) and establish the water quality criteria that must be met to
protect designated uses.
Watershed: The topographic area that contributes or may contribute runoff to specific surface
waters or an area of recharge.
Watershed management approach: The process of addressing water quality concerns within
their natural boundaries, rather than political or regulatory boundaries. The process draws
together all the participants and stakeholders in each basin to decide what problems affect
water quality in the basin, which are most important, and how they will be addressed.
Wet Season: The rainy part of the year; in Florida, the wet season is defined as June through
October.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
89
APP ENDIX H: BIBLIOGRAP HY OF KEY REFERENCES AND WEBSITES
KEY REFERENCES
Amick, R., and E. Burgess. March 2003. Exfiltration in sewer systems. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
EPA ]600/SR-01/934. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r01034/
600sr01034.pdf
..
Anderson, K.L., J.E. Whitlock, and V. J. Harwood. 2005. Persistence and differential survival of
fecal indicator bacteria in subtropical waters and sediments. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology 71:3041-3048.
Baskerville-Donovan Inc. August 2004. Bayou Chico stormwater needs assessment. Prepared for
the city of Pensacola, FL.
Brown and Caldwell. September 2005. Status report on the development of a reporting methodology
for surface discharges of sewage. Irvine, CA. Prepared for the Orange County Sanitation
District.
Brownell, M.J., V.J. Harwood, R.C. Kurz, S.M. Mcquaig, J. Lukaisik, and T. M. Scott. 2007.
Confirmation of putative stormwater impact on water quality at a Florida beach by
microbial source tracking methods and structure of indicator organism populations.
Water Research 41:3747-3757.
Davies, C.M., J.A. Long, M. Donald, and N.J. Ashbolt. 1995. Survival of fecal microorganisms
in marine and freshwater sediments. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61:1888-
1896.
Debusk, W.F., I. Poyer, and I. Herzfeld. 2002. Sediment quality in the Pensacola Bay system, final
report. Northwest Florida Water Management District.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). July 1998. The Pensacola Bay watershed
management guide: An integrated ecosystem action plan. Available:
http://www.uwf.edu/rsnyder/reports/PBWMG.pdf. (Note: pp. 12–14 and 320 of the
guide address Bayou Chico, Jones Creek, and Jackson Creek.)
———. 2004. Water quality status report: Pensacola. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Watershed
Management.
———. 2008. Fecal coliform TMDL for the Bayou Chico watershed, WBIDs 846, 846A, 846B, 846CB,
and 848DA. Tallahassee, FL: Bureau of Watershed Management.
Liebens, J., C.J. Mohrherr, and K.R. Rao. 2007. Sediment pollution pathways of trace metals
and petroleum hydrocarbons in a small industrialized estuary: Bayou Chico, Pensacola,
FL. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 1529-1539.
Liebens, J., C.J. Mohrherr, K.R. Rao, and C.A. Houser. 2006. Pollution in an urban bayou:
Magnitude, spatial distribution, and origin. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 174: 235-263.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
90
Maestre, A. 2009. Advisory and warning analyses in Alabama and northwest Florida beaches.
Presentation to the February 17, 2009, Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan
Technical Meeting. Pensacola, FL.
Mallin, M.A. L.B. Cahoon, B.R. Toothman, D. C. Parsons, M.R. McIver, M.L. Ortwine, and R.N.
Harrington. 2007. Impacts of a raw sewage spill on water and sediment quality in an
urbanized estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54:81-88.
McDowell, W., C. Brick, M. Clifford, M. Frode-Hutchins, J. Harvela, and K. Knudsen. 2005.
Septic system impact on surface water: A review for the inland northwest. Tri-State Water
Quality Council.
Metz, A. April 26, 2010. “Pumped up for pumping out: Free marine waste removal service
‘just about a reality.’ ” The Destin Log. Available:
http://www.thedestinlog.com/
articles/boaters-13568-service-free.html
.
Nicosia, L., J.B. Rose, L. Stark, and M. Stewart. 2001. Ground water quality. Journal
Environmental Quality 30, 1933-1939.
Snyder, R.A. 2006. Analysis of fecal loadings into Bayous Grande, Chico, and Texar: Pensacola Bay
system, FL. Prepared for the Florida Department of Health, Escambia County Health
Department. Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida, Center for Environmental
Diagnostics and Bioremediation. Available:
http://uwf.edu/cedb/
Analysis_of_Fecal_Loadings_Bayou_Report.pdf
..
Snyder, R.A., and N. Karouna-Renier. 2009. Accumulation of pollutants in fish and shellfish from
the northwest Florida region, final report. Pensacola, FL: University of West Florida, Center
for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). June 2007. Report of the experts scientific workshop
on critical research needs for the development of new or revised recreational water criteria. EPA
823-R-07-006. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, Office of Research and Development.
Available:
http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/health/
recreation/experts_index.cfm
.
———. March 2008. Handbook for developing watershed plans to restore and protect our waters. EPA
841-B-08-002. Washington, D.C.: Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Control Branch.
Available:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/watershed_handbook/.
———. 2011. West Florida Regional Planning Council/Bay Area Resource Council. Surf Your
Watershed website. Available:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/water/surfnote.nsf/
95ac962f1308404885256392006ee6ba/88fedfc9eb4ae352852564fa00693444!OpenDocumen
t.
Draft Bayou Chico Basin Management Action Plan – October 2011
91
STORMWATER AND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION WEBSITES
TABLE H-1: STORMWATER AND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION WEBSITES
- = Empty cell/no data
ENTITY/PROGRAM URL
Local and Regional Sites
-
University of West Florida Center for
Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation
(CEDB)
http://uwf.edu/cedb/
Escambia County
http://www.myescambia.com/index.html
City of Pensacola
http://www.ci.pensacola.fl.us/
Emerald Coast Utility Authority (ECUA)
http://www.ecua.fl.gov/
West Florida Regional Planning Council
http://www.wfrpc.org/
Bay Area Resource Council (BARC)
http://www.wfrpc.dst.fl.us/barcstructure
Escambia County Health Department (ECHD)
http://www.escambiahealth.com/
Northwest Florida Water Management District
(NWFWMD)
http://www.nwfwmd.state.fl.us/
State Sites
-
General Portal for Florida
http://www.myflorida.com
FDEP
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/
Watershed Management
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/index.htm
TMDL Program
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm
BMAP Program
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/bmap.htm
BMPs, Public Information
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/pubs.htm
NPDES Stormwater Program
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/npdes/index.htm
Nonpoint Source Funding Assistance
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/319h.htm
Surface Water Quality Standards
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/legal/Rules/shared/62-302/62-302.pdf
Pensacola Bay Water Quality Assessment Report
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/pensacola/assessment.htm
Clean Marina Program
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/cleanmarina/
FDOH
http://www.doh.state.fl.us
Standards for OSTDS
http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/ostds/pdfiles/forms/64e620070924.pdf
National Sites
-
Center for Watershed Protection
http://www.cwp.org/
EPA Office of Water
http://www.epa.gov/water
EPA Region 4 (Southeast United States)
http://www.epa.gov/region4
EPA SSO Fact Sheet
http://www.epa.gov/npdes/sso/control/
National Marine Waste Foundation, Inc. (NMWF)
http://nationalmarinewastefoundation.org/