annual report form · 2017-05-10 · dep form 62-624.600(2), effective january 28, 2004 page 1 of...

DEP Form 62-624.600(2), Effective January 28, 2004 Page 1 of 18

ANNUAL REPORT FORM FOR INDIVIDUAL NPDES PERMITS FOR

MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (RULE 62-624.600(2), F.A.C.)

This Annual Report Form must be completed and submitted to the Department to satisfy the annual reporting requirements established in Rule

62-621.600, F.A.C. Submit this fully completed and signed form and any REQUIRED attachments by email to the NPDES Stormwater Program Administrator or to

the MS4 coordinator. Their names and email addresses are available at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/stormwater/npdes/contacts.htm. If files are larger than 10mb, materials may be placed on the NPDES Stormwater ftp site at: ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/NPDES_Stormwater/. After uploading the ANNUAL REPORT files, an email must be sent to the MS4 coordinator or the NPDES program administrator notifying them the report is ready for downloading

Refer to the Form Instructions for guidance on completing each section.

Please print or type information in the appropriate areas below

SECTION I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

A. Permittee Name: City of Lakeland

B. Permit Name: Polk County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

C. Permit Number: FLS000015-003 (Cycle 3)

D. Annual Report Year: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Other, specify Year:

E. Reporting Time Period (month/year): October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015

F.

Name of the Responsible Authority: Greg James

Title: Interim Director, Public Works Department

Mailing Address: 228 South Massachusetts Avenue

City: Lakeland Zip Code: 33801-2467 County: Polk

Telephone Number: 863-834-8440 Fax Number: 863-834-8040 E-mail Address: [email protected]

G.

Name of the Designated Stormwater Management Program Contact (if different from Section I.F above): Curtis Porterfield Title: Manager, Lakes & Stormwater Division

Department: Public Works Department

Mailing Address: 407 Fairway Avenue

City: Lakeland Zip Code: 33801-2467 County: Polk

Telephone Number: 863-834-8439 Fax Number: 863-834-3308 E-mail Address: [email protected]

SECTION II. MS4 MAJOR OUTFALL INVENTORY (Not Applicable In Year 1)

A. Number of outfalls ADDED to the outfall inventory in the current reporting year (insert “0” if none): 0 (n/a in Yr 1) (Does this number include non-major outfalls?) Yes No Not Applicable)

B. Number of outfalls REMOVED from the outfall inventory in the current reporting year (insert “0” if none): 0 (n/a in Yr 1) (Does this number include non-major outfalls?) Yes No Not Applicable)

C. Is the change in the total number of outfalls due to lands annexed or vacated? Yes No Not Applicable


SECTION VII. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SWMP) SUMMARY TABLE

Part III.A.1 Structural Controls and Stormwater Collection Systems Operation

The current MS4 inventory is comprehensive and accurate. To ensure continued accuracy of data, the MS4 is continually undergoing GIS and field reviews by the City of Lakeland’s Engineering and Lakes & Stormwater Divisions, and subsequent updates are made annually to this report (as necessary).

Type of Structure Number of Activities Performed Documentation / Record Entity Performing the Activity Comments

Total

Number of Structures

Number of Inspections

Percentage Inspected

Number of Maintenance

Activities

Percentage Maintained

Dry retention systems

(# of) 15 135 100 132 100 LUCITY WORK ORDER

APPLICATION

Public Works (PW) Construction &

Maintenance (C&M)

INCLUDES MOWING, SPRAYING, CLEANING

& REPAIRS.

Wet retention systems (# of) 4 19 100 19 100 LUCITY WORK ORDER

APPLICATION C&M INCLUDES MOWING,

SPRAYING, CLEANING & REPAIRS.

Exfiltration trench / French drains (#

of) 10 69 100 56 100 LUCITY WORK ORDER



Grass treatment swales (miles)

7 28 100 28 100

LUCITY WORK ORDER APPLICATION

C&M INCLUDES MOWING,


Dry detention systems




Wet detention systems




Pollution control boxes (# of)

18 167 100 161 100 LUCITY WORK ORDER APPLICATION C&M INCLUDES CLEANING

& REPAIRS.

Stormwater pump stations


APPLICATION C&M

INCLUDES CLEANING

& REPAIRS.

Total (major/minor)

stormwater outfalls (# of)

49/311 51 100 51 100

LUCITY WORKORDER APPLICATION AND L&S

MAJOR OUTFALL SPREADSHEET

C&M and PW Lakes & Stormwater (L&S)

INCLUDES INSPECTIONS,


Weirs or other control structures

(# of) 11 1,197 100 64 100

LUCITY WORK ORDER APPLICATION and L&S

ELEVATION SPREADSHEET L&S INCLUDES SPRAYING,

CLEANING & REPAIRS.

MS4 pipes / culverts (linear feet) 1,471,000 143,020 9.72 143,020 9.72 LUCITY WORK ORDER

APPLICATION C&M INCLUDES CLEANINGS,

INSPECTIONS & REPAIRS

Inlets / catch basins / grates (# of) 4,701 7,269 100 3,836 82 LUCITY WORK ORDER

APPLICATION C&M INCLUDES CLEANINGS,

INSPECTIONS & REPAIRS

Ditches / conveyance swales

(# of) 84 1,600 /

6,339,425 SY 100 1,488 / 6,339,425 SY 100 LUCITY WORK ORDER

APPLICATION E C&M INCLUDES MOWING,



Part

III.A.2 Areas of New Development and Significant Redevelopment

Permit Activity Number

of Activities

Documentation Entity Performing the Activity Comments

Review of new and redevelopment projects 198

Engineering Spreadsheet for Project Review

(Trakit)

PW Engineering Division

Construction engineering review of new and significant redevelopment projects

Part

III.A.3 Roadways


of Activities


PERMITTEE Litter Control Program: Frequency of litter collection 312 Maximo COL Parks & Rec (P&R) & FDOT

Crews Number of days litter was picked up

PERMITTEE Litter Control Program: Estimated amount of area maintained (miles) 37.68 FDOT Contract P&R & FDOT

Crews Miles per FDOT Contract # 412947-1-78-92

PERMITTEE Litter Control Program: Estimated amount of litter collected (Tons) 32.6 Maximo P&R & FDOT

Crews Tons of litter collected

Trash Pick-up Events: Total miles cleaned 4.95 L&S

Stormwater Issues database

L&S 6 events/53 participants

Trash Pick-up Events: Estimated amount of litter collected (Bags collected) 34

L&S Stormwater

Issues database L&S 6 events/53 participants

Adopt-A-Lake Program: Total miles cleaned 4.29 L&S

Stormwater Issues database

L&S City of Lakeland’s Adopt-A-Lake Volunteer Program is coordinated by L&S staff

Adopt-A-Lake Program: Estimated amount of litter collected (Bags collected) 32

L&S Stormwater

Issues database L&S City of Lakeland’s Adopt-A-Lake Volunteer Program is

coordinated by L&S staff

Frequency of street sweeping DAILY Street Sweeper Log Work order

database C&M Work week-Mon-Thurs 6:30am to 5pm

Total miles -swept (per year) 20,384 Street Sweeper Log Work order

database C&M Total of 6 operating street sweepers

Estimated quantity of sweeping material collected (TONS) 2,332 Tonnage Spreadsheet C&M Includes street sweepings, catch basin cleanout, and BMP cleanout

Total nitrogen loadings removed (pounds) 2,700 Street Sweeper Load Reduction

Spreadsheet C&M FSA Assessment Tool Calculated Nutrient Load Reductions from

MS4 Maintenance Practices

Total phosphorus loadings removed (pounds) 1,719 Street Sweeper Load Reduction

Spreadsheet C&M FSA Assessment Tool Calculated Nutrient Load Reductions from

MS4 Maintenance Practices


Part

III.A.3 Roadways (continued)

Facility Number of Inspections Documentation Entity Performing

the Activity Comments

Name of facility #1: Construction & Maintenance Yard & Transfer

Station 12 Inspection reports Public Works

L&S & C&M The Construction & Maintenance Yard and Transfer Station is inspected monthly by

C&M staff and annually by L&S staff

Name of facility #2: Parks & Recs Repair Shop/Dumpster Facility 1 Inspection reports Public Works

L&S & Fleet The Parks & Recs repair shop and the dumpster facilities are inspected on an annual

basis by the L&S staff. Name of facility #3: Solid Waste

Facility 1 Inspection Reports Public Works L&S The solid waste facility is inspected by the L&S staff on an annual basis.

Part

III.A.4 Flood Control Projects

Permit Activity Number of Activities Documentation

Entity Performing the

Activity Comments

Flood control projects completed during the reporting period 2

Engineering Division

Approved Plans Docs

Public Works Engineering

Allamanda & Horney Park Drainage Improvements, including installation of a baffle box, and Deter Pit pump station retrofit

Flood control projects completed during the reporting period that did not include stormwater treatment 1 n/a n/a

The Deter Pit pump station retrofit project did not include stormwater treatment. The intent of the project was strictly an

upgrade to the existing pump station to provide better stormwater drainage.

Stormwater retrofit projects planned 0 Lakes &

Stormwater Project Files

Lakes & Stormwater

Stormwater retrofits will follow the schedule contained within the City’s TMDL Prioritization Report

Stormwater retrofit projects under construction during the reporting period 1

Lakes & Stormwater Project Files

Lakes &

Stormwater

One stormwater retrofit project within the Lake Parker drainage system (Pond G) was in progress during the reporting period. The project included enlarging the existing treatment pond, rerouting of the drainage pipes, and installing a pollution control device.

Stormwater retrofit projects completed during the reporting period 0 Lakes &

Stormwater Project Files

Lakes &

Stormwater

The project is expected to be completed in early 2016

Part

III.A.5 Municipal Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities Not Covered by an NPDES Stormwater Permit

Facility Number of Inspections Documentation


Activity Comments

Name of facility #1: Construction & Maintenance Yard & Transfer Station 12 Inspection

reports Public Works L&S & C&M

The C&M Yard and Transfer Station is inspected monthly by C&M staff and annually by L&S staff

Name of facility #2: Fleet Maintenance Facility 12 Inspection reports

Public Works L&S & Fleet

The Fleet Maintenance facility is inspected monthly by Fleet staff, and annually by L&S staff

Name of facility #3: Parks & Recs Repair Shop/Dumpster Facility 1 Inspection report Public Works

L&S & Parks & Recs

The Parks & Rec Repair Shop and Dumpster Facility are inspected annually by L&S staff


Part

III.A.6 Pesticides, Herbicides, and Fertilizer Application

Permit Activity Number of Activities Documentation Entity Performing the

Activity Comments

PERSONNEL: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) certified

applicators of pesticides and herbicides 24 FDACS Certificates

Parks & Recs, L&S, C&M, & Wastewater

employees

Personnel with Pesticide Applicator Licenses: C&M (2); L&S (2); Wastewater (2); P&R (18)

PERSONNEL: Green Industry BMP Program training completed 33 IFAS Certificates Parks & Recs, L&S

employees Personnel with Best Management Practices Certificates

PERSONNEL: Hazardous Communication, Pesticide Safety, Respiratory Protection and

Personal Protective Equipment training completed 55 P&R Training Records P&R Personnel trained at COL Safety Fair

FLORIDA YARDS & NEIGHBORHOODS (FYN) PROGRAM FUNDING: Permittee Provides Funding? Yes No

Estimated percentage of the population reached by the activities in total 50

L&S Educational Outreach Spreadsheet, LE/AD annual report, FYN annual report

COL L&S

For displays, distributions, web hits, and airings it’s assumed the message is received by a new individual each quarter and only 1 in 2 people receiving the message actively listen to it. The total # of occurrences is divided by 4

and then by 2. This number is added to the participant counts from the remaining outreach events. The total is then divided by COL’s total current

population (100,710 census 2013).

Brochures/CDs/Flyers/Fact sheets distributed 5,064 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files

COL L&S, LE/AD, FYN 1,173 COL L&S, 321 LE/AD, 3,570 FYN

Neighborhood presentations: Number conducted 6 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files

COL L&S, LE/AD, and FYN 4 COL L&S, 2 FYN

Neighborhood presentations: Number of participants 94 L&S Stormwater Issues

database, LE/AD files COL L&S, LE/AD,

FYN 91 COL L&S, 3 FYN

Newspapers & newsletters: Number of articles/notices published 12 L&S NPDES file, LE/AD

files COL L&S, LE/AD,

FYN

6 LE/AD (4 Lakes LEADer newsletter, 1 Ledger Timeout, 1 Ledger article), 1 COL L&S (Lakeland Ledger article highlighting stormwater pollution), 5

FYN Newspapers& newsletters: Number of

newspapers/newsletters distributed 226,916 L&S NPDES file, LE/AD files

COL L&S, LE/AD, FYN

2,400 LE/AD Lakes LEADer newsletters, 81,366 COL L&S (Lakeland Ledger Sunday newspaper readership), 143,150 FYN

Public displays (e.g., kiosks, storyboards, posters, etc.) 51 L&S Lakeside Educational

file, LE/AD files COL L&S. LE/AD, 32 Lakeside educational displays, 10 pet waste stations, 3 LE/AD displays; 6 street sweeper wraps

Radio or television Public Service Announcements (PSAs) 57,873 L&S NPDES file; LE/AD

files COL L&S, LE/AD,

FYN 57,871 COL (National Cinemedia Theatre showings), 2 LE/AD (1PGTV

advertisement, 1 Listen Lakeland Radio advertisement_

School presentations: Number conducted 5 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files

COL L&S, LE/AD, FYN 5 LE/AD

School presentations: Number of participants 245 Lakes Issues database, LE/AD files

COL L&S, LE/AD, FYN 245 LE/AD

Seminars/Workshops: Number conducted 32 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files

COL L&S, LE/AD, FYN

2 COL L&S (Living at the Lakes Fall & Spring Workshops); 2 LE/AD, 28 FYN

Seminars/Workshops: Number of participants 1,298 L&S Stormwater Issues

database, LE/AD files and sign in sheets

COL L&S, LE/AD, FYN

22 COL L&S (Living at the Lakes Fall & Spring Workshops); 56 LE/AD, 1,220 FYN

Special events: Number conducted 15 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD

COL L&S, LE/AD, FYN 6 COL L&S, 9 LE/AD

Special events: Number of participants 2,960 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files

COL L&S, LE/AD, FYN 2,064 COL, 896 LE/AD

Web Site: Number of hits / visitors to the stormwater-related pages 75,046 Website hits database COL Public Works Includes 7,553 views of the L&S webpage and 6,363 views on the COL

Public Works Facebook page, 400 LE/AD, 61,450 FYN website hits


Part III.A.7.a Illicit Discharges and Improper Disposal Inspections, Ordinances, and Enforcement Measures

See SWMP FY15 (Attachment 3). Part

III.A.7.c Illicit Discharges and Improper Disposal Investigation of Suspected Illicit Discharges and/or Improper Disposal


of Activities


Proactive inspections performed by Polk County on behalf of a co-permittee for suspected illicit

discharges / connections / dumping 147

Polk County’s hazardous waste/used oil inspections

file

Polk County –Proactive Inspections Database

Proactive inspections performed by Polk County staff occurring within the utility boundaries of the City of Lakeland.

Proactive inspections performed by the permittee for suspected illicit discharges / connections / dumping 71

L&S Stormwater Issues database; Code Enforcement

Trakit records

COL L&S and Code Enforcement staff &

FDOT

L&S (19) and Code Enforcement staff (52). Due to change in personnel at FDOT, the quarterly co-permittee proactive inspections by L&S and FDOT

NPDES Administrator staff were not completed during this permit year.

Illicit discharges / connections / dumping found during a proactive inspection 62


Trakit records

COL L&S and Code Enforcement staff &

FDOT

L&S staff (3) and Code Enforcement staff (59). Due to change in personnel at FDOT, the quarterly co-permittee proactive inspections by L&S and FDOT

NPDES Administrator staff were not completed during this permit year. Notices of Violation (NOVs) / warning letters /

citations issued for illicit discharges / connections / dumping found during a proactive inspection

7 L&S Stormwater Issues

database; Code Enforcement Trakit records

COL L&S and Code Enforcement staff Code Enforcement (7)

Fines issued for illicit discharges / connections / dumping found during a proactive inspection 0 n/a n/a No fines issued

Reports received by Polk County of suspected illicit connections / discharges / dumping received 0 n/a n/a Polk County reports not tracked; please see Polk County report

Reports received by the permittee of suspected illicit connections / discharges / dumping received 30


Trakit records

COL L&S and Code Enforcement staff L&S (18); Code Enforcement (12)

Reactive investigations of reports of suspected illicit discharges/ connections / dumping 30


Trakit records


Illicit discharges / connections / dumping found during a reactive investigation 28


Trakit records


Notices of Violation (NOVs) / warning letters / citations issued for illicit discharges / connections /

dumping found during a reactive investigation 15


Trakit records


Fines issued for illicit discharges / connections / dumping found during a reactive investigation 0 n/a n/a No fines issued

Initial Illicit Discharge Training - Personnel 0 L&S Stormwater Issues database, sign in sheets COL L&S

Due to a vacancy in the trainer position, no initial training was provided by L&S staff during the reporting year. Training will be provided by a

subcontractor during Year 5. Initial Illicit Discharge Training – Contractors

121 L&S Stormwater Issues database, sign-in sheets COL L&S Momentive Chemical (65), Cement Products (6); Polk County Natural

Resources (60)

Refresher Illicit Discharge Training - Personnel 0 L&S Stormwater Issues database, sign-in sheets COL L&S

Due to a vacancy in the trainer position, no initial training was provided by L&S staff during the reporting year. Training will be provided by a

subcontractor during Year 5.

Refresher Illicit Discharge Training - Contractors 10 L&S Access database, sign-in sheets COL L&S Momentive Chemical (9); Cement Products (1)


Part III.A.7.d Illicit Discharges and Improper Disposal Spill Prevention and Response



Activity Comments

Hazardous and non-hazardous material spills responded to 23 COL Fire Dept.

Response spreadsheet

COL Fire Department

Initial Hazardous Spill Training - Personnel 4 COL Fire Dept. Training sign-in

sheets

COL Fire Department

OSHA HAZWOPER & Refresher training, pollution prevention training

Initial Hazardous Spill Training - Contractors 0 n/a n/a All fire department personnel are City employees, no contractors are trained in-house.

Refresher Hazardous Spill Training - Personnel 161 COL Fire Dept. Training sign-in

sheets

COL Fire Department

OSHA HAZWOPER & Refresher training, pollution prevention training

Refresher Hazardous Spill Training - Contractors 0 n/a n/a All fire department personnel are City employees, no contractors are trained in-house.


Part

III.A.7.e Illicit Discharges and Improper Disposal Public Reporting

Permit Activity Number of Activities Documentation Entity Performing



COL NPDES files, L&S Education Program files,

LE/AD files, L&S Stormwater Issues

Database

COL, LE/AD

For displays, distributions, web hits, and airings it’s assumed the message is received by a new individual each quarter and that only 1 in 2 people receiving the message

actively listen to it. Thus for these activities the total # of occurrences is first divided by 4 and then by 2. This number is added to the participant counts from the remaining outreach events. The total is then divided by COL’s total current

population. Publicize the Polk County or local Pollution

Complaint Hotline 57,883 COL NPDES files COL 12 street sweeper wraps (one each side of six sweepers), 57,871 PSAs

Brochures/Flyers/Fact sheets distributed 1,494 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files COL L&S, LE/AD 1,173 COL, 321 LE/AD

Neighborhood presentations: Number conducted 4 COL NPDES files,

LE/AD files COL L&S, LE/AD 4 COL L&S

Neighborhood presentations: Number of participants 91 COL NPDES files,

LE/AD files COL L&S, LE/AD 91 COL L&S

Newspapers & newsletters: Number of articles/notices published 7 L&S NPDES files,

LE/AD files Lakeland Electric,

COL L&S, LE/AD 1 COL L&S (Lakeland Ledger) 6 LE/AD (Lakes LEADer newsletters; 1 Lakeland

Ledger , 1 Ledger Timeout) Newspapers & newsletters: Number of

newspapers/newsletters distributed 83,766 L&S NPDES file, LE/AD Annual Report

Lakeland Electric, COL L&S, LE/AD

2,400 LE/AD Lakes LEADer newsletter, 81,366 Lakeland Ledger Sunday newspaper readership

Public displays (e.g., kiosks, storyboards, posters, etc.) 51 L&S Education Programs

files, LE/AD files COL L&S, LE/AD 32 Lakeside educational displays; 10 pet waste stations; 3 LE/AD displays; 6 street sweeper wraps

Public Service Announcements (PSAs) 57,873 LE/AD files & NCM Audit Report COL L&S, LE/AD COL L&S 57,871 (NCM PSAs), 2 LE/AD (1PGTV announcement, 1 Listen

Lakeland radio advertisement)

School presentations: Number conducted 5 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files COL L&S, LE/AD 5 LE/AD

School presentations: Number of participants 245 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files COL L&S, LE/AD 245 LE/AD

Seminars/Workshops: Number conducted 4 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files COL L&S, LE/AD 2 COL L&S, 2 LE/AD

Seminars/Workshops: Number of participants 78 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files COL L&S, LE/AD 22 COL L&S (Living at the Lakes Fall & Spring Workshops); 56 LE/AD (Living at

the Lakes Workshops)

Special events: Number conducted 15 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files COL L&S, LE/AD

6 COL L&S: Lakeland PD Open House, Kid’s Naturefest (Winter), Boys & Girls Club, SPCA Walk for the Animals, Green Celebration, Public Works Celebration; 9 LE/AD: (Children’s Summer Splash, Project Eagle, 7-Rivers Water Festival, Lake

Somerset 6th grade planting project, Boys & Girls Club Getting Kid’s Outdoors, Lakes Appreciation Month Proclamation & Clean-up)

Special events: Number of participants 2,960 L&S Stormwater Issues database, LE/AD files COL L&S, LE/AD 2,064 COL L&S: 896 LE/AD;

Web Site: Number of visitors to the stormwater-related pages 14,316 Website hits database COL Public Works Includes 7,553 views of the L&S webpage and 6,363 views on the COL Public

Works Facebook page, 400 LE/AD


Part

III.A.7.f Illicit Discharges and Improper Disposal Oils, Toxics, and Household Hazardous Waste Control




COL NPDES files, L&S Education Program files,

LE/AD files, L&S Stormwater Issues database

COL L&S and Solid Waste (SW),

LE/AD-

% is based on the # of guides etc. distributed vs. # of households (based on 38,248 households)

Household Chemical Collection Center Program: Amount of waste collected / recycled / properly disposed (lbs.)

16,575 lbs. solids and

1,320 gallons liquids

COL Solid Waste; Polk County Material collected

spreadsheet and waste manifests

COL Solid Waste & Polk County

Annual Household Hazardous Waste Event (April 4, 2015)

Household Chemical Collection Center Program: Events 1 Local newspaper & Access Lakeland document

COL Solid Waste Division, Polk

County Solid Waste

Annual Household Hazardous Waste Event (April 4, 2015 ); 693 participants

Household Hazardous Waste Materials Guides distributed n/a n/a n/a n/a

Brochures/Flyers/Fact sheets distributed 3,426

Lakes Issues database, COL Solid Waste database –

Information Letters w/brochures, delivery of carts

w/ brochures

COL L&S and Solid Waste 2,253 COL Solid Waste; 1,173 COL L&S

Neighborhood presentations: Number conducted 8 Lakes Issues database &

Public outreach spreadsheet SW

COL L&S and Solid Waste L&S (3); Solid Waste (5)

Neighborhood presentations: Number of participants 775 Lakes Issues database &

Public outreach spreadsheet SW

COL L&S and Solid Waste L&S (77), COL Solid Waste (698)

Newspapers & newsletters: Number of articles/notices published 12

L&S Stormwater Issues database, Access Lakeland

newsletter; Ledger newspaper ads and articles,

COL InSite intranet time out ads; LE/AD LEADer

Newsletter

COL L&S and Solid Waste, and

LE/AD

1 L&S (Lakeland Ledger newspaper article); 4 LE/AD Lakes LEADer newsletter, 7 Solid Waste (3 COL Access Lakeland newsletter articles, 2 Ledger

articles, 1 In-Site article; 1 TimeOut article

Newspapers & Newsletters: Number of newspapers/newsletters distributed 504,803

Ledger, Access Lakeland ads & COL InSite intranet ad

docs, Utility bill insert distribution

COL L&S and Solid Waste,

Lakeland Electric, and LE/AD

2,400 LE/AD Lakes LE/ADer newsletter, 3 (approximately 95,000 each); Access Lakeland

Utility Newsletter; 1 COL Insite intranet articles (2,300 each); 3 Ledger newspaper articles/ads (44,579 each daily, 81,366 Sunday); TimeOut

(44,579)

Public displays (e.g., kiosks, storyboards, posters, etc.) 51 COL L&S Lakeside Display file, Access Lakeland; Solid

Waste Spreadsheet

COL L&S & Solid Waste

21 Lakeside educational displays, 10 pet waste stations, 3 LE/AD displays, 6 street sweeper wraps

Radio/ television/theatre Public Service Announcements (PSAs) 57,873 L&S NPDES file, COL Solid

Waste database COL L&S COL L&S 57,871 (NCM PSAs), 2 LE/AD (1PGTV

announcement, 1 Listen Lakeland radio advertisement)

School presentations: Number conducted 5 L&S Stormwater Issues database & Solid Waste

database

COL L&S & Solid Waste Solid Waste (Lakeland Senior High)


Part III.A.7.f Illicit Discharges and Improper Disposal Oils, Toxics, and Household Hazardous Waste Control (continued)



School presentations: Number of participants 140 L&S Stormwater Issues database & Solid Waste

database

COL L&S & Solid Waste COL Solid Waste

Seminars/Workshops: Number conducted 2 L&S Stormwater Issues database COL L&S 2 COL L&S (Living at the Lakes Workshops)

Seminars/Workshops: Number of participants 22 L&S Stormwater Issues database COL L&S 22 L&S

Special events: Number conducted 8 L&S Stormwater Issues database, Solid Waste

database COL L&S 6 COL L&S, 2 Solid Waste

Special events: Number of participants 2,964 L&S Stormwater Issues database, Solid Waste

database COL L&S 2,064 COL L&S, 900 Solid Waste

Storm sewer inlets newly marked/replaced 189 COL Engineering Surveying Spreadsheet COL Engineering 189 new plaques installed/replaced

Web Site: Number of visitors to the stormwater-related pages 13,916 Website hits database COL Public Works Includes 7,553 views of the L&S webpage and 6,363

views on the COL Public Works Facebook page

Part

III.A.7.g Illicit Discharges and Improper Disposal Limitation of Sanitary Sewer Seepage



Activity to reduce/eliminate SSOs and inflow / infiltration: Sanitary sewer pipe inspected for infiltration (linear feet) 40,795

COL Wastewater TV main line

work spreadsheet

COL Wastewater Department

Activity to reduce/eliminate SSOs and inflow / infiltration: Sanitary sewer pipe sealed, lined, and / or replaced (linear feet) 21,958

COL Wastewater line work

spreadsheet


Activity to reduce/eliminate SSOs and inflow / infiltration: Sanitary sewer line breaks repaired 50

COL Wastewater point repair spreadsheet


Activity to reduce/eliminate SSOs and inflow / infiltration: Septic systems removed 0 n/a n/a See Polk County Annual Report for Polk Health Dept.

records Activity to reduce/eliminate SSOs and inflow / infiltration: Emergency

generator added 5 n/a n/a 5 new installations and 1 replacement

SSO incidents discovered 1 COL Wastewater SSO Database COL Wastewater One incident was discovered that impacted the MS4

SSO incidents resolved 1 COL Wastewater SSO Database COL Wastewater One discovered incident that impacted the MS4 was

resolved

Inflow / infiltration incidents discovered 0 n/a n/a None recorded

Inflow / infiltration incidents resolved 0 n/a n/a None recorded


Name of owner of the sanitary sewer system - - - City of Lakeland

Part

III.A.8.a Industrial and High-Risk Runoff Identification of Priorities and Procedures for Inspections

Num

ber

of

Faci

litie

s

Num

ber

of

Insp

ectio

ns For violations discovered

during a high risk inspection

Documentation

Entity Performing the Activity

Comments Fines issued

Notices of Violation (NOVs) / warning letters /

citations issued

Total high risk facilities 14 14 n/a n/a COL High Risk Facilities Access Database

COL Lakes & Stormwater

New high risk facilities added to the inventory during the current reporting

period 0 n/a n/a n/a COL High Risk Facilities

Access Database COL Lakes & Stormwater

Operating municipal landfills 0 n/a n/a n/a COL High Risk Facilities Access Database

COL Lakes & Stormwater None in jurisdiction

Hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal and recovery (HWTSDR) facilities 0 n/a n/a n/a COL High Risk Facilities

Access Database COL Lakes & Stormwater None in jurisdiction

EPCRA Title III, Section 313 facilities (that are not landfills or HWTSDR facilities) 5 5 0 0 COL High Risk Facilities


No violations observed during inspections

Facilities determined as high risk by the permittee through the reactive inspections

as per Part III.A.7.c 0 n/a n/a n/a Copies of warning letters FDEP

Other facilities determined as high risk by the permittee (that are not facilities

identified through the reactive inspections) 9 9 0 0 COL High Risk Facilities


No violations observed during inspections

Part III.A.8.b Industrial and High-Risk Runoff Monitoring for High Risk Industries

High risk facilities sampled None sampled

Part III.A.9.a Construction Site Runoff Site Planning and Non-Structural and Structural Best Management Practices

Permit Activity Number of Activities Documentation Entity Performing the Activity Comments

PERMITTEE SITES: Construction site plans reviewed 19 COL Eng. Div. Building Plans Docs COL Engineering Division

PERMITTEE SITES: Construction site plans approved 15 COL Eng. Div. Approved Plans Docs COL Engineering Division

PRIVATE SITES: Construction site plans reviewed 198 COL Eng. Div. Review spreadsheet COL Engineering Division

PRIVATE SITES: Construction site plans approved 69 COL Eng. Div. Review

spreadsheet

COL Engineering Division


Part

III.A.9.a Construction Site Runoff Site Planning and Non-Structural and Structural Best Management Practices (continued)

Permit Activity Number of Activities Documentation Entity Performing the Activity Comments

Notified of ERP stormwater permit requirements 69 COL Eng. Div. Stamped Plans COL Engineering division

Confirmed ERP coverage 0 COL Eng. Division COL Engineering Division

This element is not currently tracked by COL. Changes to COL’s development review process is ongoing to develop a

plan for including signed confirmation of ERP and CGP coverage.

Notified of CGP stormwater permit requirements 69 COL Eng. Division Stamped Plans COL Engineering Division

Confirmed CGP coverage 0 n/a n/a

This element is not currently tracked by COL. Changes to COL’s development review process is ongoing to develop a

plan for including signed confirmation of ERP and CGP coverage

Part

III.A.9.b Construction Site Runoff Inspection and Enforcement


Entity Performing the Activity

Comments

PERMITTEE SITES: Active construction sites 6 COL Eng. Div.

Construction Site Database/Lucity

COL Engineering

Division

PERMITTEE SITES: Inspections of active construction sites for proper stormwater, erosion and sedimentation BMPs 132

COL Eng. Div. Construction Site Database/Lucity

COL Engineering

Division

Database records & tracks the # of inspections for permittee and private projects in total

PERMITTEE SITES: Percentage of active construction sites inspected 100 COL Eng. Div.


COL Engineering

Division

PRIVATE SITES: Active construction sites 55 COL Eng. Div.


COL Engineering

Division

PRIVATE SITES: Inspections of active construction sites for proper stormwater, erosion and sedimentation BMPs 590

COL Eng. Div. Construction Site Database/Lucity

COL Engineering

Division

Database records & tracks the # of inspections for permittee and private projects in total

PRIVATE SITES: Percentage of active construction sites inspected 100 COL Eng. Div.


COL Engineering

Division

Red Tags issued 0 n/a n/a None Issued

Notices of Violation (NOVs) issued 0 n/a n/a None Issued

Stop Work Orders issued 0 n/a n/a None Issued

Fines issued 0 n/a n/a None Issued


Part

III.A.9.c Construction Site Runoff Site Operator Training

Inspector Certification

Training

Non-Inspector Initial Training

(non-certification)

Refresher Training Documentation Entity

Performing the Activity

Comments

Permittee construction site inspectors 27 0 0 Received

Certificates FDEP & COL Public Works

Employees sent to FDEP Certified training (5 L&S, 3 Engineering, 19 C&M)

Permittee construction site plan reviewers 3 0 0 Received

Certificates COL

Engineering

Permittee construction site operators 5 0 0 Received

Certificates FDEP Employees sent to FDEP Certified training (5 L&S)

Private construction site operators 0 0 69 COL Eng. Div.

Stamped Plans

COL Engineering

Division

# of private construction sites inspected and educated during pre-construction and project kick-off meetings

SECTION VIII. EVALUATION OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SWMP)

Permit Citation/ SWMP Element SWMP EVALUATION

Part II.A.1 Structural control inspection and

maintenance

Strengths: The City of Lakeland has experienced drainage personnel dedicated solely to the inspection and maintenance of the MS4 system. Significant progress was made in upgrading the City’s new work order database system which ensures extremely accurate documentation of all MS4 inspection and maintenance activities. Drainage personnel work closely with Lakes & Stormwater staff on a daily basis and activities are prioritized and directed according to the requirements of the NPDES permit. GIS, Engineering, and IT staff also partner in this effort to ensure adequate up-to-date GIS documentation of the MS4 inventory. The overall inspection and maintenance program is supported by the Public Works Department, City Manager’s Office, and the Board of City Commissioners. The City’s stormwater utility fee continues to generate adequate monies for operating expenses plus a reserve of at least 10% of the total budget. Weaknesses: Did not meet the minimum inspection requirement for annual linear feet of stormwater pipes (9.72 percent achieved). However, this is a significant increase over previous years, where the average percent achieved was approximately 2 percent. SWMP Revisions to address deficiencies: See Attachment 1 for details.

Part II.A.2 Significant

redevelopment

Strengths: City ordinance requires new and re-development projects to be permitted. The Public Works Engineering Manual includes the applicable regulations pertaining to these projects. The Engineering Division ensures each project meets current land development regulations including the applicable NPDES permit requirements. Weaknesses: The current process for notification, verification and documentation of FDEP NOI/GCP and SWFWMD ERP permits for development projects is not well documented or tracked. Better tracking and documentation of permit reviews are needed prior to the initiation of construction activities. SWMP Revisions to address deficiencies: The Lakes & Stormwater and Engineering Divisions are working together to develop a consistent process and tracking mechanism to ensure that all appropriate and required permits are reviewed prior to initiation of construction. This process improvement is an ongoing goal and progress will be reported in each annual report. As of the end of the Permit Year 4 of Cycle 3, the Engineering and Lakes & Stormwater Divisions have developed a plan that will include tracking and documentation of FDEP NOI/CGP and SWFWMD ERP permits at applicable significant new and re-development sites through reviews at pre-construction meetings to be attended by Lakes & Stormwater staff.



Part II.A.3 Roadways

Strengths: The City has robust street sweeping and litter control programs. Street sweeping activities are directed according to the NPDES permit requirements and loads from sweepers, baffle boxes, and inlet baskets are accurately tracked to ensure reliable calculations of TN/TP removal numbers. Weaknesses: The sediment and debris collected and disposed of due to street sweeping, pipe cleaning, and structural control cleaning activities is not tracked by basins but in accordance with work zones. SWMP Revisions to address deficiencies: The Lakes & Stormwater Division has contracted with a consultant to evaluate the City’s street sweeping program during Year 4 and Year 5 of the permit cycle. Data collection and sampling activities will be completed during Year 5 of the permit cycle. A goal of the study is to further evaluate removal rates and sweeper routes to ensure accurate load reduction numbers particularly in TMDL basins.

Part II.A.4 Flood control

Strengths: Two flood control projects were completed during Year 4 of the current permit cycle. When flood control projects are in the design phase, Public Works Engineering staff consults with Lakes & Stormwater staff to ensure that these projects include the appropriate design criteria to maximize stormwater retention and treatment. Weaknesses: No weaknesses known at this time. SWMP Revisions to address deficiencies No deficiencies at this time (See Attachment 2).

Part II.A.5 Waste TSD Facilities

Strengths: All City TSD facilities are participants in the City Hot Spot inspection program. This program consists of routine inspections (monthly and/or annually) at each facility for compliance with stormwater regulations. The facilities are tracked with an annual summary inspection report. Inspection reports identify areas for improvement with suggested corrective actions. Weaknesses: No weaknesses known at this time. SWMP Revisions to address deficiencies: No deficiencies at this time.

Part II. A. 6 Pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer

application

Strengths: All of the City herbicide and fertilizer applicators are Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) certified sprayers and have completed the Green Industry BMP training. Personnel are continually educated and supplied with refresher training as necessary. The City adopted the Polk County Fertilizer Ordinance during Year 2 of the current permit cycle. Weaknesses: No weaknesses known at this time. SWMP Revisions to address deficiencies: No deficiencies at this time.

Part II.A.7 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination

Strengths: The acquisition of a new Environmental Code Enforcement Officer (ECOE) position during Year 4 of the current permit cycle lead to a marked increase in the proactive identification and elimination of illicit discharges in the City. The ECOE position focuses on enforcement of applicable COL codes and ordinances prohibiting illicit discharges to the City streets, drainage systems and surface waters. A stormwater hotline is set up for reporting suspected illicit discharges and/or environmental code violations occurring throughout the City. An access database is designated specifically to track this program. City staff and private industry personnel are provided with comprehensive training on IDDE on an annual basis. Proactive and reactive IDDE inspection programs are implemented by City and County. The aforementioned agencies partner in this effort by sharing information, reporting violations occurring in each other’s respective jurisdictions and by conducting proactive inspections together when necessary. The City’s public outreach and education program is robust, well-funded, and includes informational/educational signage, brochures, attendance at major environmental education events, PSA’s, and placement of advertisement wraps on our six street sweepers. Weaknesses: Due to a vacancy in the Lakes & Stormwater Divisions environmental education and outreach position, the internal IDDE training was not as robust during Year 4 of the permit cycle as it has been in previous years. SWMP Revisions to address deficiencies: The Lakes & Stormwater staff has hired a consultant to provide IDDE training to COL employees. Training will be provided for IDDE, pollution prevention, and erosion and sediment control for construction activities.



Part II.A.8 High Risk Industry

Runoff

Strengths: High risk industrial facilities located within the City limits are inspected on an annual basis to ensure that stormwater pollution control measures are in place and effective and that each facility is in compliance with NPDES regulations. All high risk facilities located within City limits were inspected during Year 4 of the current permit cycle. A comprehensive summary report is provided to the facility after the inspection which identifies areas of concern or non-compliance found during facility inspections and suggested corrective actions. A follow-up inspection is completed when necessary. Lakes & Stormwater staff offer a private employee training program for high risk facilities located in Lakeland to educate their employees on stormwater pollution prevention and IDDE procedures. An access database is designated specifically to track this program. All high risk facilities in the inventory hold a current industrial FDEP NPDES permit. Weaknesses: No weaknesses SWMP Revisions to address deficiencies: No deficiencies at this time.

Part II.A.9 Construction Site

Runoff

Strengths: The City has three engineering inspectors certified and trained to conduct sediment & erosion (S&E) control inspections of permittee and private commercial construction sites. City S&E inspectors attend construction kick-off meetings and provide education on stormwater controls to subcontractors, as well as review S&E control plans for the project and advise contractors about the State permit requirements. City S&E inspectors perform construction site inspections and attend weekly construction progress meetings as warranted. Lakes & Stormwater staff inspect residential construction sites to ensure proper BMPs are in use and maintained appropriately. Construction site inspections are tracked in the Lucity work order database system. Weaknesses: No weaknesses noted at this time. SWMP Revisions to address deficiencies: No deficiencies at this time.

SECTION IX. CHANGES TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SWMP) ACTIVITIES (Not Applicable In Year 4)

A. Permit Citation/ SWMP Element

Proposed Changes to the Stormwater Management Program Activities Established as Specific Requirements Under Part III.A of the Permit (Including the Rationale for the Change) REQUIRES DEP APPROVAL PRIOR TO CHANGE IF PROPOSING TO REPLACE OR DELETE AN ACTIVITY.

No major changes in scope and/or direction of SWMP. An updated SWMP is provided as an attachment with this report and documents the current scope and direction of the SWMP.

B. Permit Citation/ SWMP Element

Changes to the Stormwater Management Program Activities NOT Established as Specific Requirements Under Part III.A of the Permit (Including the Rationale for the Change)

No major changes in scope and/or direction of SWMP. An updated SWMP is provided as an attachment with this report and documents the current scope and direction of the SWMP.

of 4

CHECKLIST A: ATTACHMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE ANNUAL REPORTS

Below is a list of items required by the permit that may need to be attached to the annual report. Please check the appropriate box to indicate whether the item is attached or is not applicable for the current reporting period. Please provide the number and the title of the attachments in the blanks provided.

Attached N/A Rule / Permit Citation Required Attachment Attachment

Number Attachment Title/Comments

Part II.F EACH ANNUAL REPORT: If program resources have decreased from the previous year, a discussion of the impacts on the implementation of the SWMP.

No changes in Program resources. The difference

between permit Yr. 3 and Yr. 4 Stormwater Utility (SWU)

revenues was due to rollover of SWU dollars from previous fiscal

years to fund the drainage-related CIPs.

Part III.A.1 EACH ANNUAL REPORT: An explanation of why the minimum inspection frequency in Table II.A.1.a was not met, if applicable. 1 Minimum Inspection Frequency

Deficiencies Report.

Part III.A.4 EACH ANNUAL REPORT: A list of the flood control projects that did not include stormwater treatment and an explanation for each of why it did not, if applicable. 2

Two control projects were completed during Year 4 of permit

cycle; only 1 did not include stormwater treatment

Part III.A.7.a EACH ANNUAL REPORT: A report on amendments / changes to the legal authority to control illicit discharges, connections, dumping, and spills, if applicable. 3 City of Lakeland FY15 SWMP

Update

Part V.B.9 EACH ANNUAL REPORT: Reporting and assessment of monitoring results. [Also addressed in Section III of the Annual Report Form] 3 City of Lakeland FY15 SWMP

Update.

Part VI.B.2 EACH ANNUAL REPORT: An evaluation of the effectiveness of the SWMP in reducing pollutant loads discharged from the MS4 that, at a minimum, must include responses to the questions listed in the permit.

The evaluation section VIII in this

form satisfies this report requirement.

Part VIII.B.3.e EACH ANNUAL REPORT: A status report on the implementation of the requirements in this section of the permit and on the estimated load reductions that have occurred for the pollutant(s) of concern.

3 City of Lakeland FY15 SWMP Update.

Part VIII.B.4.f EACH ANNUAL REPORT after approval of the BPCP: The status of the implementation of the Bacterial Pollution Control Plan (BPCP). 3 Not applicable; COL does not

have any BPCPs.

Part III.A.1 YEAR 1: An inventory of all known major outfalls and a map depicting the location of the major outfalls (hard copy or CD-ROM).

Part III.A.3 YEAR 1: If have curbs and gutters but no street sweeping program, an explanation of why no street sweeping program and the alternate BMPs used or planned.

Part III.A.6 YEAR 1 or YEAR 2: A copy of the adopted Florida-friendly Ordinance, if applicable. The Polk County Fertilizer Ordinance was adopted in Year 2.

Part III.A.7.c YEAR 1: A proactive illicit discharge / connection / dumping inspection program plan. Part III.A.9.b YEAR 1: A construction site inspection program plan. [For approval by DEP]

Part III.A.2 YEAR 2: A summary report of a review of codes and regulations to reduce the stormwater impact from new development / redevelopment.

Part V.A.2 YEAR 3: Estimates of annual pollutant loadings and EMCs, and a table comparing the current calculated loadings with those from the previous two Year 3 ARs.

of 4

Part III.A.2 YEAR 4: A follow-up report on plan implementation of changes to codes and regulations to reduce the stormwater impact from new development / redevelopment. 3 City of Lakeland FY15 SWMP

Update

Part V.A.3 YEAR 4: If the total annual pollutant loadings have not decreased over the past two permit cycles, revisions to the SWMP, as appropriate. 3 Not applicable (see City of

Lakeland FY15 SWMP)

Part V.B.3 YEAR 4: The monitoring plan (with revisions, if applicable). 3 City of Lakeland FY15 SWMP Update.

Part VII.C YEAR 4: An application to renew the permit. See cover letter for request to renew permit

Part VIII.B.3.d YEAR 4: A TMDL Implementation Plan / Supplemental SWMP. 4

Lake Hunter BMP Development Preliminary Implementation Plan

prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler.

of 4

CHECKLIST B: THE REQUIRED ANNUAL REVIEWS OF WRITTEN STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPs) & PLANS

The permit requires annual review, and revision if needed, of written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and plans (e.g., public education and outreach, training, inspections). Please indicate your review status below. If you have made revisions that need DEP approval, you must complete Section VIII.A of the annual report.

Did not complete review of existing

SOP / Plan

Developed new written SOP / Plan

Reviewed & no revision needed to existing

SOP / Plan

Reviewed & revised existing

SOP / Plan

Permit Citation Description of Required SOPs / Plans

Part III.A.1 SOP and/or schedule of inspections and maintenance activities of the structural controls and roadway stormwater collection system.

Part III.A.2 SOP for development project review and permitting procedures and/or local codes and regulations for new development / areas of significant development.

Part III.A.3 SOP for the litter control program. Part III.A.3 SOP for the street sweeping program.

Part III.A.3 SOP for inspections of equipment yards and maintenance shops that support road maintenance activities.

Part III.A.5 SOP for inspections of waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities not covered by an NPDES stormwater permit.

Part III.A.6 Plan for public education and outreach on reducing the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer.

Part III.A.6 SOP for reducing the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer, and for the proper application, storage and mixing of these products.

Part III.A.7.c Plan for proactive illicit discharge / connections / dumping inspections.* Part III.A.7.c SOP for reactive illicit discharge / connections / dumping investigations. Part III.A.7.c Plan for illicit discharge training. Part III.A.7.d SOP for spill prevention and response efforts. Part III.A.7.d Plan for spill prevention and response training.

Part III.A.7.e Plan for public education and outreach on how to identify and report the illicit discharges and improper disposal to the MS4.

Part III.A.7.f Plan for public education and outreach on the proper use and disposal of oils, toxics and household hazardous waste.

Part III.A.7.g SOP to reduce / eliminate sanitary wastewater contamination of the MS4. Part III.A.8 SOP for inspections of high risk industrial facilities.

Part III.A.9.a SOP for construction site plan review for stormwater, erosion and sedimentation controls, and ERP and CGP coverage.

Part III.A.9.b Plan for inspections of construction sites.* Part III.A.9.c Plan for stormwater, erosion and sedimentation BMPs training.

* Revisions to these plans require DEP approval – please complete Section VIII.A of the annual report.

of 4

BMAP

Reporting

MS4 permittees are NOT required to submit the annual report required by any BMAP that applies to them since the NPDES Stormwater Staff can obtain them from the department’s Watershed Planning and Coordination staff. However, to assure that the stormwater staff are aware of which BMAPs apply to the MS4 permittees and when the latest BMAP annual report was submitted, please complete the information below, if applicable:

Rule/Permit Citation BMAP Title COL Requirements Part VIII.B.2

Alafia River Basin See BMAP Section of City of Lakeland FY15 SWMP Update

Part VIII.B.2

Hillsborough River Basin See BMAP Section of City of Lakeland FY15 SWMP Update

END OF REVISED TAILORED MS4 AR FORM CYCLE 3 PERMIT

REMINDER LIST OF THE TMDL / BMAP REPORTS TO BE SUBMITTED SEPARATELY FROM AN ANNUAL REPORT

Rule / Permit Citation Report Title Due Date

Part VIII.B.3.a 6 MONTHS from effective date of permit: TMDL Prioritization Report. See City of Lakeland FY15 SWMP Update

Part VIII.B.3.b 12 MONTHS from effective date of permit: TMDL Monitoring and Assessment Plan.

Submitted to FDEP (Refer to City of Lakeland FY15)

SWMP Update

Part VIII.B.3.c 6 MONTHS from receiving analyses from the lab: TMDL Monitoring Report. Submitted to FDEP (refer to City of Lakeland FY15

SWMP Update

Part VIII.B.4 30 MONTHS from start date per TMDL Prioritization Report: A Bacterial Pollution Control Plan (BPCP). Not applicable; no BPCP required

CITY OF LAKELAND MINIMUM INSPECTIONS DEFICIENCIES

Area of Deficiency The City of Lakeland (COL) Construction and Maintenance staff (C&M) coordinates with Lakes and Stormwater staff (L&S) to refine maintenance and inspections procedures and ensure procedures align with the respective NPDES reporting requirements. The minimum inspection frequencies for structural controls and other MS4 infrastructure listed in Table II.A.1 of the permit were met in all categories but one. The minimum inspection frequency fell just below the 10% inspection frequency requirement for the MS4 pipes and culverts with a recorded frequency of 9.72%.

Corrective Actions COL C&M, L&S, and City IT staff implemented a new work order system (Lucity) to more accurately code, identify, and track all MS4 infrastructure inspections. Additionally, L&S, IT, and Engineering staff are collaborating on a major GIS overhaul of the City’s MS4 Inventory such that accurate GIS reference data is available for input into the new work order system. Additionally, in FY15, the City added 3 new employees and secured the lease of a Vacuum Truck to inspect and clean the MS4 pipe system at the required rate of 10% per year. This equates to an annual inspection goal of 147,000 linear feet per year. The specific resources were secured for this portion of the City’s MS4 inspection program in April 2015, and contributed greatly to increasing the rate of inspection frequency to 9.72% by the end of Permit Cycle 3, Year 4 as compared to previous years when the inspection frequency was reported at approximately 2%. It is anticipated that the required inspection frequency for MS4 pipes and culverts will be met by FY16 (Permit Cycle 3, Year 5).

CITY OF LAKELAND FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS WITHOUT STORMWATER TREATMENT

The City of Lakeland (COL) Engineering and Construction and Maintenance (C&M) Divisions coordinated and completed two flood control projects during Year 4 of the current permit. Of the two projects, one did not have a stormwater treatment component as part of its scope. The Deter Pit stormwater pump station retrofit was completed at the Deter Pit site, which consisted of repairs and upgrades to an existing pump station. Stormwater already receives treatment through the existing wet detention pond prior to being pumped. No modifications to the existing wet detention pond was included in this retrofit project.

City of Lakeland Stormwater Management Plan

FY15 UpdateFY15 UpdateFY15 Update

Contents

Overview of SWMP

Strengths vs Weaknesses Summary

Ambient monitoring Program Summary

Stormwater Best Management Practices

Stormwater Utility Summary

Summary of Conditions

Appendix A: TMDL Prioritization Plan

Appendix B: Comprehensive Lakes Management Plan

Appendix C: Regulations, Codes, and SOPs

Appendix D: Pollutant Load Reductions

City of Lakeland Stormwater Management Plan

The City of Lakeland’s (COL) Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) consists of six distinct but integral elements:

1. The COL National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Annual Report and the respective documented activities

2. The COL Ambient Monitoring Program (AMP) 3. The COL Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Prioritization and Implementation

Plan 4. The COL Comprehensive Lakes Management Plan (CLMP) 5. COL Regulations, Codes, and SOPs 6. Pollutant Load Reduction Assessments

The COL NPDES Annual Report documents all the legally required activities performed by the COL in relation to managing and operating its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). Detailed information of such is provided annually to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). A “Strengths vs Weaknesses” summary of recurring COL NPDES-related activities is provided herein.

The COL AMP is aimed at capturing general water quality trends in receiving waterbodies throughout the COL. It is conducted on a routine basis and is described in more depth herein; including a discussion of current general water quality results. More detailed water quality data assessments are conducted in accordance with the TMDL Prioritization and Implementation Plan and the Comprehensive Lakes Management Plan.

The COL TMDL Prioritization and Implementation Plan is a site-specific water quality plan required by the NPDES MS4 permit. The plan aims to prioritize and schedule water quality improvement projects for the subset of COL lakes that have a TMDL. This program’s report is updated as-needed and provided to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) accordingly. The most updated (FY15) version of this report has been included herein for reference (Appendix A).

The COL CLMP identifies which in-lake remediation and stormwater retrofit projects are the most feasible (for all lakes regardless of regulatory status) given the various constraints including but not limited to: available land, COL monetary resources, existing in-lake conditions, existing MS4 conditions, legal requirements, and general COL water quality objectives. The COL CLMP update is currently under development; the scope of services of such is included in this report for reference (Appendix B). COL has a variety of codes, regulations, and SOPs aimed at reducing negative impacts to the MS4, reducing negative impacts to receiving waterbodies, and protecting natural resources in general. The applicable codes, regulations, and SOPs are included herein (Appendix C). Pollutant load reductions for the City as a whole are analyzed in Year 3 of each permit cycle. The most current analysis is provided herein for reference. Site specific load reductions will also be calculated for each stormwater retrofit and/or in-lake project implemented as part of the TMDL Implementation Plans and/or the CLMP.

Strengths vs Weaknesses Summary – NPDES Activities The following is a summary and evaluation of activities conducted by the COL and reported to the FDEP in the NPDES Annual Report. The detailed data associated with this report is available upon request.

1. MS4 Structural Control Inspections and Maintenance General requirement: ensure all structural controls are properly maintained and inspected.

Strengths The COL has experienced drainage personnel in the Construction and Maintenance Division (C&M) dedicated to inspecting and maintaining the MS4 system. The COL work order database system (Lucity) ensures accurate storage of all MS4 inspection and maintenance data. C&M drainage personnel work closely with the Lakes & Stormwater Division (L&S) to ensure MS4 inspection and maintenance activities are prioritized and directed according to the requirements of the NPDES permit. The Engineering Division (Engineering) also partner with L&S in this effort by ensuring GIS MS4 data is readily available and up-to-date. As of FY15, a crew of 3 operations technicians was hired to run the new TV and Vacuum Truck units. This crew and equipment will drastically increase the rate at which City MS4 pipe inspections are conducted.

Weaknesses The COL is currently not meeting the NPDES requirement to inspect 10% of the total MS4 pipe system annually.

Revisions to Address Weaknesses The current rate (as of FY15) has improved from 2% to over 9% per year and the 10% per year goal should be realized by FY16.

2. Development and Redevelopment Project Reviews General requirement: ensure all development and redevelopment projects are properly regulated to prevent negative downstream MS4 and receiving waterbody impacts.

Strengths The COL requires all new and re-development projects be appropriately permitted. Once a projected is approved and permitted by the COL, Engineering ensures each project meets current COL Land Development Regulations and the applicable State permitting requirements.

Weaknesses The current process for ensuring applicable State permits (and associated plans) are on site before construction begins needs improving.

Revisions to Address Weaknesses COL L&S and Engineering are currently working together to develop a consistent process to ensure all required permits (and associated plans) are reviewed and on site prior to initiation of construction. This will be achieved via

agreed-upon L&S involvement in pre-construction meetings for each applicable project.

3. Roadway Debris Maintenance General requirement: ensure roadways are properly maintained to prevent negative downstream MS4 and receiving waterbody impacts.

Strengths The COL has robust street sweeping and litter control programs. Street sweeping activities are directed according to the NPDES permit requirements and sediment loads removed from roadways, baffle boxes, MS4 pipes, and inlet baskets are tracked to ensure reliable calculations of total annual tonnage removed.

Weaknesses Sediment and debris collected cannot currently be tracked to accurately identify the respective loads removed per waterbody basin.

Revisions to Address Weaknesses L&S is currently working with a consultant to evaluate the City’s entire street sweeping program and recommend improvements to operations and data tracking where necessary.

4. Flood Control Projects General requirement: ensure all flood control projects also include stormwater treatment when possible.

Strengths When COL flood control projects are in the design phase, Engineering consults with L&S to ensure the design also maximizes stormwater treatment.

Weaknesses N/A

Revisions to Address Weaknesses N/A

5. Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) Facility Inspections General requirement: ensure all TSD facilities are properly inspected and maintained.

Strengths All COL TSD facilities are participants in the COL Hot Spot Inspection Program. This program consists of routine inspections (monthly and/or annually) at each facility for compliance with applicable stormwater regulations. The facility inspections include an annual summary inspection report. Inspection reports identify areas for improvement with suggested corrective actions.

Weaknesses N/A


6. Pesticide, Herbicide, and Fertilizer Best Management Practices (BMPs)

General requirement: ensure City and City-contract personnel who apply fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are properly trained and certified to do so.

Strengths All COL herbicide and fertilizer applicators are Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) certified and have completed the Green Industry BMPs training. Applicable personnel are educated and supplied with refresher training as necessary. The COL also adopted the Polk County Fertilizer Ordinance in FY14.

Weaknesses N/A


7. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Program General requirement: ensure that illicit discharges to the City’s MS4 are inspected and corrective action provided.

Strengths A stormwater hotline is provided by the COL for reporting suspected illicit discharges and/or environmental code violations occurring throughout the City. An access database is designated specifically to track this program. City staff and private industry personnel are provided with IDDE training annually. Proactive and reactive IDDE inspection programs are implemented by City, County, and applicable FDOT staff. The aforementioned agencies share information, report observed violations in one another’s jurisdictions, and conduct proactive/reactive inspections together when necessary. The City’s public outreach and education program includes IDDE topics in the various media disseminated to the general public.

Weaknesses Lack of COL environmental code enforcement in the past has constrained the program’s goal of significantly reducing illicit discharges City-wide.

Revisions to Address Weaknesses L&S continues to conduct proactive IDDE inspections and seek corrective

action accordingly. Additionally, a more robust inspection schedule of industrial facilities has been implemented by L&S. More importantly, the City recently (in FY15) finalized the acquisition of a COL Environmental Code Enforcement Officer to provide enforcement of City environmental code and issuance of fines where applicable.

8. High-risk Industrial Inspections General requirement: ensure High-risk Industrial facilities in the City are inspected for compliance with the applicable stormwater regulations.

Strengths High-risk industrial facilities located within the City limits are identified and inspected on a routine basis to ensure that stormwater pollution control measures are in place and that each facility is in compliance with NPDES regulations. A comprehensive summary report is provided to the facility after each inspection, which identifies areas of concern and/or non-compliance and suggested corrective actions. Additionally, a follow-up inspection is completed when necessary. L&S offers training to high-risk facility employees to educate them on stormwater pollution prevention and IDDE procedures. An access database is designated specifically to track this program. All high-risk facilities in the current inventory hold an up-to-date industrial FDEP NPDES permit.

Weaknesses N/A


9. Construction Site Inspections General requirement: ensure construction sites are properly inspected and BMPs enforced to prevent negative downstream MS4 and receiving waterbody impacts.

Strengths COL has 3 Engineering Inspectors certified and trained to conduct sediment & erosion control (S&E) BMP inspections of City commercial construction sites. The inspectors attend construction kick-off meetings and provide education to contractors on the required S&E BMPs and State permit requirements. The inspectors also perform the required construction site inspections and attend weekly construction progress meetings as warranted. L&S inspect residential construction sites to ensure proper S&E BMPs are utilized and maintained appropriately. Commercial construction site inspection activities are documented and tracked in the applicable Engineering database; residential construction site inspection activities are documented and tracked in the applicable L&S database.

Weaknesses Lack of ability in the past to enforce S&E BMPs and require clean-up of released sediment from all construction sites has constrained success in this area.

Revisions to Address Weaknesses In FY15 the COL acquired an Environmental Code Enforcement Officer to enforce COL environmental code and require proper S&E BMP installation and maintenance

COL Ambient Monitoring Program

L&S in coordination with the Polk County Natural Resources Division monitors the following 15 lakes within and/or bordering COL municipal boundaries:

1. Lake Bonnet 2. Lake Beulah 3. Lake Wire 4. Lake Hunter 5. Lake Morton 6. Lake Horney 7. Lake Hollingsworth 8. Lake John 9. Lake Somerset 10. Lake Gibson 11. Lake Crago 12. Lake Parker 13. Lake Mirror 14. Lake Bonny (including Little Lake Bonny) 15. Crystal Lake

All 15 lakes are analyzed by the County for the following suite of parameters:

1. Alkalinity 2. Chloride 3. Chlorophyll (Chl-a) 4. Corrected Chlorophyll 5. Color 6. Sulfate 7. Total Hardness 8. TSS (Total Suspended Solids) 9. Turbidity 10. Ca (Calcium) 11. Fe (Iron) 12. Mg (Magnesium) 13. Na (Sodium) 14. NH3 (Ammonia) 15. TKN (Organic Nitrogen) 16. NOx (Nitrogen Oxides) 17. TN (Total Nitrogen) 18. OP (Soluble Reactive Phosphorus) 19. TP (Total Phosphorus)

The 15 aforementioned lakes are sampled by the County on a quarterly basis (4 times a year) barring accessibility issues. Additionally, visual assessments are conducted by L&S on a quarterly basis to spot-check for illicit discharges, trash and debris accumulation,

shoreline erosion and sedimentation issues, and any other issues warranting further attention. The premise of the City’s ambient monitoring program is to track long-term trends in lake water chemistry due to hydrologic variations, landuse changes, implementation of stormwater BMPs, and implementation of in-lake remediation projects. Moreover, the program allows for a routine inspection of current conditions and identification of acute and/or chronic problems impacting general lake health.

Ambient Monitoring Program Results

Detailed site-specific data analyses are provided in the deliverables associated with the TMDL Prioritization and Implementation Plan and the COL CLMP. The AMP’s intent is to assess general in-lake water quality trends. The COL utilizes the Trophic State Index (TSI) to track long term trends in parameters of concern (TN, TP, Chl-a). Although this indicator is somewhat dated in terms of the currently used regulatory water quality parameters, it is still a reliable indicator of eutrophication in waterbodies. Annually, the COL reviews TSI data and graphically represents the results to give a general “snap shot” of current in-lake nutrient and algal biomass conditions. The most current TSI graphs are provided below. Every 5 years, a more detailed COL Lakes Report is published that documents the trends of all in-lake chemistry analytes. This report is currently being assembled and will be provided in the FY16 SWMP update. The following TSI charts reflect in-lake nutrient and Chl-a conditions for each of the 15 sampled COL lakes.

TSI Graphs – COL Lakes

Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs)

The overall effect of implemented COL stormwater BMPs is a reduction of pollutants leaving the MS4 and a corresponding reduction in pollutant loads entering receiving waterbodies. Evidence of such is indicated by the relatively flat or, in some cases, decreasing TSI trends illustrated in the above TSI graphs (i.e. trophic sates of lakes are not increasing over the long term). In addition to TSI trend data, the following list documents verified field observations related to COL in-lake and MS4 improvements:

1. A reduction in floatable trash in the water column at major outfalls to lakes where baffle boxes, inlet baskets, and/or stormwater ponds have been installed up-gradient.

2. A reduction in turbidity-related problems in the water column of lakes where baffle boxes, inlet baskets, and/or stormwater ponds have been installed up-gradient.

3. A major reduction in lakeshore debris (trash, yard waste, sediment etc.) where inlet baskets are installed along lakefront roads.

4. A major reduction in debris accumulation in MS4 inlets and pipes since street sweeping was initiated.

5. Less scouring at outfalls during storm events due to up-gradient capture of stormwater in detention/retention facilities and/or other stormwater structural controls.

6. Improved lake littoral shelf ecological conditions (most noticeably aquatic plant diversity and abundance) where stormwater structural controls are implemented up-gradient.

7. More stable water-column oxygen levels due to decreases in organic debris loading during storm events where stormwater structural controls are implemented up-gradient.

8. A reduction of grass clippings and other yard debris in waterbodies City-wide due to educational outreach and IDDE inspection activities.

9. A reduction in sustained cyanobacteria blooms and related fish kills in COL lakes due to implementation of all aforementioned stormwater structural and non-structural controls.

COL Stormwater Utility The COL Stormwater Utility (SWU) remains healthy and funds all elements of the SWMP discussed herein. The following documents projected SWU revenues from FY 2015 – FY 2020; the current COL SWU fee relative to other SWU fees in Florida; and major recurring MS4-related activities/programs presently funded through the SWU.

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (ACTUAL) (PROJ) (PROJ) (PROJ) (PROJ) (PROJ) REVENUES:

Revenues-Commercial

1,900,000 1,955,000 1,975,000 1,995,000 2,015,000 2,035,000

Revenues-Residential

2,365,000 2,443,000 2,467,000 2,492,000 2,517,000 2,542,000

Fees – Interfund

90,000 106,801 107,869 108,948 110,037 111,138

Investments & Earnings

265,000 146,812 145,348 159,995 163,860 166,108

TOTAL REVENUES

9,481,114 4,751,404 4,944,122 4,672,086 4,775,982 4,860,931

COL Projected Stormwater Revenues FY 2015 – FY 2020

COL Relative SWU Fee (FY15 Update)

CIP Line Item Comments

Stormwater O&M Funds 7 positions and resources to administer the NPDES Permit and L&S Division programs/activities

Environmental Code Enforcement Officer Funds 1 position to enforce COL environmental code

GIS Tech - Engineering Funds 1 position for upkeep of MS4 GIS data

ECEO –Community Development Funds 1 position for code enforcement of illicit discharges

GIS Storm Sewer Inventory Funds surveying of applicable MS4 infrastructure

Work Order System Partially funds work order system (Lucity) to manage data related to all MS4 activities

Drainage Maintenance Ops and Maintain PCDs

2 Funds – together they fund 11 positions and resources to clean and inspect all outfalls, drainage easements, stormwater structural controls, and other related MS4 infrastructure

TV & Cleaning of Storm Sewer and Maint & Retrofit of Drainage Facilities

2 Funds – together they fund 3 positions and resources to inspect 1.4 million linear feet of MS4 pipe system at a level of 10% per year (140,000 lf/yr)

Equipment - Drainage Maintenance Projects Funds annual equipment purchases for MS4 maintenance and inspection activities

Street Sweeping Operations

Funds 6 positions and 6 street sweeper trucks to clean and maintain City roads, right of ways, and associated MS4 inlets

Contribution to LEAD Funds outsourcing of NPDES-related education (specific to lakes protection)

Public Education Programs

Funds 1 position and resources to provide general NPDES-related educational outreach activities (multiple topics as required by the NPDES permit)

Contribution to Florida Friendly Landscaping

Funds outsourcing of NPDES-related education (specific to non-structural BMPs for landscape practices including fertilizer and pesticide application BMPs)

Lake Improvement Projects

Funds ambient monitoring program, small-scale water quality improvement projects, and some site-specific water quality studies

Lake Hunter TMDL Program

Funds implementation of studies and projects related to the FDEP Lake Hunter TMDL

Lake Parker TMDL Program

Funds implementation of studies and projects related to the FDEP Lake Parker TMDL

Lake Bonny TMDL Program

Funds implementation of studies and projects related to the FDEP Lake Bonny TMDL

Crystal Lake TMDL Program

Funds implementation of studies and projects related to the FDEP Crystal Lake TMDL

COL SWU Major Recurring Line Items

Summary of Conditions

Despite the encouraging TSI-trend and observational data, and despite significant COL investments to reduce stormwater loads entering waterbodies from the City’s MS4, the in-lake monitoring data clearly show a major overarching theme; the nutrient and Chl-a levels in COL lakes are predominantly trending flatly over time. This indicates that, although nutrients (TN and TP) are certainly being reduced at the source and/or up-gradient, the major response variable (Chl-a) is not decreasing to the degree one would expect given the amount of stormwater structural and non-structural BMPs implemented by the COL. Continued in-lake monitoring over the next several years may indicate otherwise sine there is often a significant time-lag between BMP installation and in-lake response. However, it seems, given the long period of record for COL in-lake chemistry data, stormwater retrofitting and other non-structural stormwater BMPs cannot alone produce a significant reduction in downstream algal biomass. Based on historic and ongoing analyses of in-lake monitoring data by COL staff and its principal water quality consultants, it is evident that internal recycling of nutrients in a majority of COL lakes is the principal driving force behind high algal biomass levels, prolonged reduction in water column clarity, and overall sustained hypereutrophic conditions. To that end, the City’s CLMP will strongly recommend more aggressive in-lake remediation strategies as opposed to solely relying on stormwater BMPs to meet general and/or TMDL water quality objectives.

In regard to the aforementioned disconnect between stormwater BMP implementation and respective downstream water quality responses, strategies to reduce pollutant loads and/or in-lake concentrations first require in-depth analyses and careful planning. Ongoing and future studies to analyze external (MS4) pollutant loads vs internal (in-lake) pollutant loads will help the COL better understand why Chl-a levels in most of our lakes are not appreciably declining. These types of analyses will be performed for each of the City’s TMDL lakes and, where feasible, for other non-TMDL lakes also.

Site-specific in-lake water quality and stormwater loading analyses relating to TMDL lakes will be reported to the FDEP as scheduled in the City’s TMDL Prioritization and Implementation Plan. The City’s CLMP was initiated last calendar year and, once finalized, will be foundational to how the City plans to meet its overall lake water quality objectives (including that of TMDL waterbodies). For reference, the current FY15 scope of services for the CLMP provided to the COL by ATKINS North America Inc. (ATKINS) is provided herein.

Appendix A –TMDL Prioritization and Implementation Report

COL TMDL Prioritization Report

City of Lakeland

NPDES-MS4 Permit # FLS000015-003

INTRODUCTION This report represents the City of Lakeland’s (COL) commitment to the process mandated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce pollutant loads entering Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) waterbodies from the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). Under permit # FLS000015-003 issued by the FDEP to Polk County and co-permittees, pollutant loads to TMDL waterbodies from the City’s MS4 are required to be identified, quantified, and reduced to comply with the respective Waste Load Allocations (WLAs). WLAs are attained through specified percentage reductions of either stormwater loads or in-lake pollutant concentrations. These pollutants are to be reduced through a combination of structural and non-structural stormwater and/or in-lake Best Management Practices (BMPs).

NPDES Permit Requirements

Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) Standard The stormwater management program (SWMP) must be designed and implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants from each permittee’s MS4 to surface waters of the State to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Implementation of BMPs consistent with the provisions of the SWMP required pursuant to this permit constitutes compliance with the standard of reducing pollutants to the MEP. The MEP standard is applied to MS4s in recognition of the fact that an operator typically does not have total control over the quality or quantity of stormwater entering its system and ultimately entering waters of the State. SWMPs must be assessed and adjusted by the permittee, as part of an iterative process, to maximize their efficiency and make reasonable further progress toward an ultimate goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the extent necessary to protect receiving waters.

Requirements for waterbodies with adopted TMDLs and a BMAP If a Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) is already adopted, the MS4 operator must comply with the adopted action items assigned to the respective permittee. If a BMAP is in development and will be adopted within two years of permit issuance, the permittee shall continue to participate in the BMAP process and shall comply with the adopted provisions of the BMAP that specify activities to be undertaken by the permittee during the permit cycle.

Requirements for waterbodies with adopted TMDL but without a BMAP The permittee shall prepare a TMDL Prioritization Report that includes, for each respective permit cycle, a list of waterbodies that have adopted TMDLs to which its MS4 discharges, a list of factors that will be used to prioritize the waterbodies, and the most up-to-date prioritized list of waterbodies with TMDLs.

Prioritized List of Adopted COL TMDLs

Table 1: Prioritized listing of TMDL waterbodies within the City of Lakeland’s MS4 jurisdiction.

TMDL Waterbody WBID TMDL Status

TMDL Year

Verified Impairment BMAP

No. COL

Outfalls Pollutant MS4 WLA TMDL/LA

(lbs/yr)

Lake Hunter (1) 1543

FDEP Adopted /

EPA Approved

2004 Yes No 352 TN 80%

REDUCTION 6,579

TP 80% REDUCTION 489

Lake Bonny (2) 1497E FDEP

Established 2015 Yes No 412 TN 64%

REDUCTION N/A (concentration based reduction)

TP 64% REDUCTION

N/A (concentration based reduction)

Crystal Lake (3) 1497A EPA

Established 2010 Yes No 82 TN 51.3%

REDUCTION 487.2

TP 79.2% REDUCTION 26.5

Lake Parker (4)

1497B

EPA Established

2006

Yes1

No

36

TN 57.4% REDUCTION 151,683.6

TP 57.1% REDUCTION 30,480.7

Lake Hollingsworth (5) 1549X FDEP

Established 2015 Yes No 673 TN 52%

REDUCTION N/A (concentration based reduction)

TP 57% REDUCTION

N/A (concentration based reduction)

1. Lake Parker was listed as verified impaired for nutrients on the 1998 303(d) list and again on the updated verified list in 2005. In 2005 the FDEP completed a draft nutrient TMDL for the

lake. This draft was used by the EPA to establish a final TMDL in 2006. The lake does not appear on the 2010 verified list nor the delist list for nutrients. The lake is listed as belonging to assessment category 5 (verified impaired) for nutrients (TSI) according to the assessment dashboard tool in the TMDL tracker at http://webapps.dep.state.fl.us/DearTmdl/welcomehz.do.

2. # is derived from AMEC Basin Delineations 2013 - 2014 3. # is estimation only - according to Go Sync

PRIORITIZATION FACTORS The following 4 factors were considered when prioritizing the COL TMDL waterbodies:

1. Pollutant Load Allocations The percentage of the required pollutant load reduction was taken into account while prioritizing the City’s TMDL lakes. Within Table 1, pollutants of concern and their corresponding Waste Load Allocations are shown. The values shown in the table were calculated by FDEP and/or EPA from best available data, reasonable assumptions and/or extrapolations, and mathematical models, all of which are detailed in the respective FDEP TMDL reports.

2. Watershed Factors Watershed factors were taken into account while prioritizing the City’s TMDL lakes. Landuse variation within a watershed may impact the variety, concentration, and/or quantity of stormwater pollutants generated. The more varied the landuses within a watershed, the more varied BMPs may need to be in order to reduce pollutants of concern.

3. Water Quality Projects Historical water quality projects were taken into account while prioritizing the City’s TMDL lakes. For some TMDL lakes, stormwater structural controls and in-lake remediation projects had already been implemented whereas other TMDL lakes had received relatively little water quality project funding to date.

4. Water Quality Data Availability Water quality data availability was taken into account while prioritizing the City’s TMDL lakes. Good water quality improvement projects necessitate first having an adequate amount of applicable water quality data (including in-lake and MS4 water chemistry concentrations and loads).

WATERBODY PRIORITIZATION

Priority Waterbody #1 - Lake Hunter Lake Hunter is the top priority TMDL waterbody for the COL. It has a relatively uniform watershed in terms of landuse (mixed residential / light commercial / light industrial). Water quality data is quite robust for Lake Hunter, although additional water quality studies will be necessary before implementing any stormwater retrofit and/or in-lake remediation projects. Lake Hunter has the highest required percentage reduction in TN/TP of all the COL TMDL lakes. It currently has no stormwater structural controls in place to protect it from stormwater pollutants and has had relatively few in-lake remediation projects implemented.

Priority Waterbody #2 – Lake Bonny Lake Bonny is the #2 priority TMDL waterbody for the COL. It has a relatively uniform watershed in terms of landuse (mixed residential / light commercial / light industrial). Water quality data is quite robust for Lake Bonny, although additional water quality studies will be necessary before implementing any stormwater retrofit and/or in-lake remediation projects. Lake Bonny has the second highest required percentage reduction in TN/TP of all the COL TMDL lakes. Although it receives stormwater treatment from 8 inlet baskets, due to the watershed size, they provide little protection. Lake Bonny has had relatively few in-lake remediation projects implemented. Priority Waterbody #3 – Crystal Lake Crystal Lake is the #3 priority TMDL waterbody for the COL. It has a relatively uniform watershed in terms of landuse (mixed residential / light commercial / light industrial). Water quality data is quite robust for Crystal Lake, although additional water quality studies will be necessary before implementing any stormwater retrofit and/or in-lake remediation projects. Crystal Lake has the third highest required percentage reduction in TN/TP of all the COL TMDL lakes. It currently only has one stormwater structural control in place (large County stormwater pond) to protect it from stormwater pollutants and has had relatively few in-lake remediation projects.

Priority Waterbody #4 – Lake Parker Lake Parker is the #4 priority TMDL waterbody for the COL. It has a relatively uniform watershed in terms of landuse (mixed residential / light commercial / light industrial). Water quality data is quite robust for Lake Parker, although additional water quality studies will be necessary before implementing any stormwater retrofit and/or in-lake remediation projects. Lake Parker has the fourth highest required percentage reduction in TN/TP of all the COL TMDL lakes. It currently has four stormwater structural controls in place (3 City stormwater ponds and 1 City in-lake treatment wetland). Moreover, in FY15 it will receive a fourth structural control (a nutrient separating baffle box) to further protect it from stormwater pollutants. Lake Parker has had relatively few in-lake remediation projects implemented

Priority Waterbody #5 – Lake Hollingsworth Lake Hollingsworth is the #5 priority TMDL waterbody for the COL. It has a relatively uniform watershed in terms of landuse (mixed residential / light commercial / light industrial). Water quality data is quite robust for Lake Hollingsworth, although additional water quality studies will be necessary before implementing any stormwater retrofit and/or in-lake remediation projects. Lake Hollingsworth has the fifth highest required percentage reduction in TN/TP of all the COL TMDL lakes. It currently has a substantial number of stormwater structural controls in place (2 ponds, 5 skimmer boxes, 34 inlet baskets, and 10 baffle boxes) to protect it from stormwater pollutants. Additionally it has had a

number of in-lake remediation projects implemented, including whole lake aquatic plant restoration and whole-lake dredging / alum applications.

SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION The following summarizes the tasks associated with the COL TMDL Prioritization and Implementation Plan:

Task #1: Outfall Basin Delineations Each stormwater outfall in the watershed of concern will be analyzed with GIS, field surveys, and LIDAR to determine the respective sub-basin. Published and verified EMCs and landuse characteristics will be used to initially estimate pollutant loads from each outfall. Service currently provided by AMEC Foster Wheeler.

Task #2: Monitoring Plan Based on the Task #1 data and previously documented watershed characteristics, priority stormwater outfalls will be selected for further storm event monitoring. In-lake sampling may be conducted also. The monitoring plan will lay out specific sampling logistics and will be submitted to FDEP as scheduled in Table 2. Service currently provided by AMEC Foster Wheeler.

Task #3: Monitoring Stormwater and in-lake water quality sampling will be conducted to validate and/or adjust the modeled TMDL loads and help determine appropriate water quality improvement projects. Service currently provided by AMEC Foster Wheeler.

Task #4: TMDL Implementation Plan A site-specific water quality management plan will be developed based upon the evaluation of data from Tasks 1 – 3 and the objectives of the COL Comprehensive Lakes Management Plan. Service currently provided by Atkins North America Inc. (Atkins) and Environmental Science Associates (ESA).

BMAP Waterbodies Table 3 documents where BMAPs are finalized for waterbodies impacted by COL MS4 loads and the required action items specified in the respective BMAP documents. If a site-specific Bacteria Pollution Control Plan (BPCP) is required in the BMAP, it will be noted in Table 3 and provided in the appendix of the COL’s SWMP.

Table 2: Schedule Summary for TMDL Task Completion

Lake WBID Task#1

Outfall Basin Delineations

(complete each FY)

Task #2 Monitoring Plan

(propose w/in 2 months of each new FY)

Task #3 Monitoring

(complete 18 months after Task 2)

Task #4 TMDL Implementation

Plan (complete 6 months after

Task 3) Lake Hunter 1543 (FY13) 09/30/2013 12/1/13 06/1/2015 04/1/2016

Lake Bonny 1497E (FY14) 09/30/2014 12/1/14 06/1/2016 04/1/2017

Crystal Lake 1497A (FY15) 09/30/2015 12/1/15 06/1/2017 04/1/2018

Lake Parker 1497B (FY16) 09/30/2016 12/1/16 06/1/2018 04/1/2019

Lake Hollingsworth 1549X FUNDING YET TBD FUNDING YET TBD FUNDING YET TBD FUNDING YET TBD

Table 3: City of Lakeland BMAPs and Associated Action Items

BMAP Date Issued Status Agency

Parameter(s) of

Concern

WBID segments with COL MS4

Required COL MS4 Action Item

Alafia River Basin April 2014 Final FDEP D.O. and

Fecal Coliforms

1552 English Creek

1583 Poley Creek

Illicit Discharge investigations and corrective action.

Hillsborough River Basin June 2009 Final FDEP Fecal Coliforms 1482 Blackwater Creek

Monitoring plan for all involved parties being drafted by the FDEP as of 04/2015.

Appendix B – Comprehensive Lakes Management Plan

COL COMPREHENSIVE LAKES MANAGEMENT PLAN (CLMP) SCOPE Based on COL CLMP Scope of Services provided by Atkins and ESA

Project Objective The ecological integrity and aesthetic beauty of lakes in the City of Lakeland (COL) are integral to the identity and economic sustainability of the COL. Moreover, the COL is facing increasing pressures from the applicable State regulatory agencies to maintain or improve water quality in its 38 named lakes. In some of the lakes, water quality is declining, and cost-effective solutions to remediate these problems are needed. In other lakes, water quality appears to be stable or improving; however, State regulatory agencies have deemed them impaired, potentially requiring costly remediation measures. To protect the City’s interests and assist with its general lake water quality objectives, Atkins and ESA will develop a Comprehensive Lakes Management Plan (CLMP) for 11 high priority lakes within the COL, including:

1. Lake Gibson 2. Lake Hunter 3. Lake Bonny (and Little Lake Bonny) 4. Lake Hollingsworth 5. Lake Parker 6. Lake Beulah 7. Lake Wire 8. Lake Bonnet 9. Lake Mirror 10. Lake Crystal 11. Lake Morton

The CLMP will provide a compilation of information relevant to water quality in these lakes including:

• an analysis of current water quality trends • identification of primary degradation sources (both in-lake and external) • identification of lake-specific potential restoration projects • a prioritization plan for implementation of restoration projects

One of the primary features of this plan will be the recommendation of scientifically proven methods for managing lakes as integrated ecological systems, rather than managing them solely based on external nutrient loads. Recommendations will also be made in consideration of management projects implemented in the past that have had successful, documented system responses. More specifically, this CLMP will:

• Characterize water quality for the named lakes in the City of Lakeland relating to regulatory criteria, such as State impairment determinations, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program

• Identify potential restoration, preservation, and/or treatment projects to address water quality issues (if found)

• Link potential restoration, preservation, and/or treatment projects to lakes based on COL water quality objectives

• Provide recommendations to prioritize lake restoration, preservation, and/or treatment actions

While traditional stormwater treatment projects can successfully reduce external nutrient loadings to lakes, historic point and nonpoint source runoff and subsequent sediment accumulation in some lakes may have resulted in internal nutrient loads that traditional stormwater projects cannot treat. Consequently, both traditional and non-traditional water quality management projects will be proposed. In addition to nutrients and chlorophyll a (a surrogate for algal biomass), factors affecting water quality in COL lakes include long-term landuse changes, hydrologic alterations, stormwater runoff, historic point source discharges, extent of in-lake submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, lake water levels, and hydrologic connections to forested wetlands and other lakes.

A decision key will be developed for COL lakes as a means of selecting the types of restoration projects that best address stressors on a lake by lake basis. These components will be included as part of a holistic lake management approach for the named lakes. The link between water quality issues and lake-specific water quality restoration projects for the named lakes will be presented in the context of State and Federal regulations (e.g. TMDL: status), as well as established lake management science.

Project Description This CLMP encompasses the 11 high priority lakes mentioned above. Many of these lakes have been negatively impacted through historical point and non-point sources of pollution and many have been officially listed as impaired by the FDEP. The CLMP involves incorporating existing information and previously conducted water quality studies to develop improved water quality plans for the lakes. The additional information will be used to evaluate the best alternatives and management practices to improve water quality. The CLMP could be incorporated into the TMDL Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) process, which may include the involvement of the applicable stakeholders. Task 1- Site Visits Scientists from Atkins and ESA will perform site visits to each of the 11 high priority lakes within the City. During each site visit, the scientists will document the characteristics of the adjacent watershed and lake to include the following features, at a minimum:

• Dominant natural and physical features of each watershed • Vegetation community (wetland, aquatic, submerged) • Adjacent infrastructure (i.e. lift stations, water level control structures) • Hydrologic features (i.e. canals, ditches, drainage features)

Deliverable:

Upon completion of the site visits, Atkins and ESA will compile the information collected for inclusion in the lake-specific characterization within the CLMP. Maps will be generated to provide a visual representation of the conditions identified in the field. Task 2 – Data Compilation and Analyses Lake eutrophication is a natural process of increasing nutrient enrichment and biological productivity that can be exacerbated by anthropogenic land uses (Gill et al. 2005). The accelerated eutrophication due to human activities is termed “cultural eutrophication”. Increased nutrients associated with eutrophication can increase algal blooms (Smith et al. 1999), in turn increasing turbidity, particulate organic matter, and dissolved organic particulate matter in lakes. Historic water quality impacts in the 11 named lakes, the implications of relevant State and Federal regulations for water quality restoration, and current water quality conditions will be characterized, thereby establishing the need for COL water quality improvement projects. Existing data pertinent to characterizing lake water quality and the adjacent watershed will be compiled for evaluation. These data will include but are not limited to:

• Existing water quality data within the (FDEP) Impaired Waters Rule database • COL water quality data • Existing hydrologic data (i.e. stage, discharge) • Rainfall • History of point source discharges • Landuses • Historic aerial photographs • History of SAV treatment • History of lake management actions (including street sweeping and stormwater

treatment) • Documentation of lift station failures • In-lake sediment characterization, as available • Lake bathymetry • Lake watershed boundaries • TMDL, BMAP, and other related documents

Deliverable:

These data will be compiled and analyzed to develop lake-specific evaluations of water quality and to identify potential restoration, preservation, and/or treatment projects. The graphs and table resulting from these analyses will be used in the Task 3 report.

Task 3- Gap Analysis / Potential Early Actions- Interim Report Based on the assimilation of the information derived from the site visits and data analyses, an interim report will be developed for the 11 high priority lakes to identify applicable data gaps. For example, a potential data gap relating to paleolimnological sediment core data is anticipated in most of the 11 lakes. Paleolimnological sediment core data has been shown to reliably provide evidence of historical water quality conditions within a lake (USF 2005). Deliverable:

Atkins will provide an electronic copy and two print copies of an interim report to the COL summarizing the justification for additional data collection efforts and/or preliminary manipulative studies. Proposed projects will be outlined, and cost estimates and timelines for conducting such additional efforts will be included in the interim report. Atkins and ESA will meet with staff from the COL to discuss the draft report and any comments or modifications requested by the COL for the document. Comments and edits will be integrated into to the draft interim report for inclusion in the initial draft CLMP. Task 4 – Develop a Decision Tree A decision key will be developed specifically for the COL CLMP to select restoration, preservation and/or treatment projects. To apply the key, series of yes/no decisions will be made for each lake, first pertaining to relevant water quality regulations, and then taking other COL water quality objectives into account. Deliverable:

Atkins and ESA will present the COL with a draft template of the decision tree for review prior to incorporation into the initial draft CLMP. Task 5- Regulatory Workshops for TMDL Lakes Atkins and ESA propose to have staff (Tomasko, Loy, and Keenan) available for up to three (3) meetings with the COL and representatives from FDEP to discuss how the proposed water quality restoration projects will satisfy TMDL requirements. At the discretion of the COL, such meetings could also include relevant stakeholders such as the Board of County Commissioners, Board of City Commissioners, local stakeholders, or the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District). The intent of these regulatory meetings is to initiate Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) for those lakes requiring load reductions as specified under their adopted TMDLs. BMAP meetings are aimed at identifying how the City intends to meet the TMDL requirements for any given lake. These meetings are typically conducted in a workshop setting with the principal stakeholders, and consist of the following elements:

a) Review of applicable adopted TMDLs b) Review of the impacted MS4 and watershed characteristics c) Review of the TMDL modelling approach and subsequent load allocations

d) Review of modeled and real-time data collected by the MS4 owner post TMDL issuance

e) Review of the landuse changes and implemented load-reduction projects by the MS4 owner post TMDL issuance

f) Review of design and efficacy of proposed load-reduction projects to be implemented by the MS4 owner to further reduce the pollutants of concern

g) Development of draft BMAP documentation to be submitted to the FDEP for review and comment

This Task is specifically earmarked to address the above seven (7) elements with the FDEP and other applicable stakeholders in a series of three (3) workshops. These workshops may be conducted in Tallahassee or locally depending upon the requests of the FDEP and/or other applicable stakeholders. Subsequent meetings with the FDEP to finalize applicable BMAPs will be the responsibility of the COL. This task will include a trip to Tallahassee (Loy and Tomasko) to meet with representatives from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the FDEP to discuss a joint venture focused on improving water quality in Lake Parker. As a part of this task, Atkins and ESA staff will arrange a meeting with selected FFWCC representatives to discuss the feasibility of using the Tenoroc Fish Management Area (TFMA) to improve water quality within Lake Parker. Following discussions with FFWCC, Atkins and ESA will arrange a separate meeting with FDEP staff to discuss the following:

1. The development of Site-Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) for City of Lakeland Lakes

2. Steps necessary to re-evaluate potentially problematic TMDLs and to identify the options available to stakeholders prior to TMDL-related project implementation

3. Discuss the steps toward COL CLMP and FDEP BMAP integration

Deliverable:

Atkins will provide minutes of the public meetings.

Task 6 – Water Quality Restoration Strategy

1. Develop a conceptual plan for restoration, preservation, and/or treatment activities for each lake

2. Develop project alternatives and BMPs that could be used to meet COL water quality objectives (e.g. TMDLs and/or other criteria)

3. Prepare full descriptions of proposed projects including alternatives and budgets.

Deliverable:

ATKINS will provide an electronic copy of the draft CLMP to the COL. Comments or modifications requested by the COL will be incorporated into the draft CLMP.

Task 7 - Prepare a draft CLMP for the COL

• Develop a draft CLMP, including recommendations, project prioritization, and cost estimates for projects to help meet water quality objectives (e.g. TMDL requirements) as well as to provide a list of projects to go beyond TMDL requirements (as appropriate).

• Develop approximate construction, restoration, preservation, and/or treatment (i.e., sediment removal, whole lake alum, etc.) techniques by lake, and a proposed schedule for implementation.

• Develop a cost/benefit estimate of proposed projects, including anticipated results once all projects are complete.

• Provide a plan for future data collection to ensure that projects are meeting their intended goals.

Deliverable:

ATKINS will provide an electronic copy of the draft CLMP to the COL. Comments or modifications requested by the COL will be incorporated. The COL will have two weeks to provide comments for integration into the document. Atkins and ESA will meet with staff from the COL, to discuss the draft report and any comments or modifications requested. Task 8 – Prepare a Final CLMP for the City of Lakeland ATKINS and ESA will incorporate the requested edits into the final CLMP. Deliverable:

Atkins will provide an electronic copy and two print copies of the CLMP to the COL.

MBE SUBCONSULTANT Katherine Kantaras Anamisis Consulting, Inc. (KKA) has been included in this project to provide GIS assistance. Ms. Anamisis is a certified geographic information system professional (GISP) at a Women’s Business Enterprise (WBE) firm. Ms. Anamisis has extensive experience related to environmental planning and GIS. Ms. Anamisis applies GIS in environmental and land use planning related to mitigation, listed species locations, and site and habitat evaluation.

PROJECT BUDGET – (updated April 2015)

Task Atkins ESA KKA Total

1- Site Visits $ 3,540 $ 2,700 $ 900 $ 7,140

2- Data Compilation and Analysis $ 15,347 $ 17,393 $ 9,000 $ 41,740

3-Gap Analysis $ 10,020 $ 18,000 $ 3,750 $ 31,770

4- Decision Tree $ 4,560 $ 7,650 $ 12,210

5- Regulatory Workshops $ 8,160 $ 14,130 $ 1,800 $ 24,090

6- Water Quality Restoration Strategy $ 7,890 $ 14,400 $ 1,500 $ 23,790

7- Draft Water Quality Management Plan

$ 10,130 $ 9,450 $ 1,800 $ 21,380

8- Final Water Quality Management Plan

$ 5,890 $ 8,100 $ 1,200 $ 15,190

Total Direct Expenses $ 2,450 $ 2,450

Total Project Budget $ 67,987 $ 91,823 $ 19,950 $ 179,760

COMPLETION SCHEDULE Task 1 October 2014 Task 2 May 15, 2015 Task 3 March 31, 2015 Task 4 June 30, 2015 Task 5 TBD Task 6 TBD (based on GAP) Task 7 TBD (based on GAP) Task 8 June 2016 PROJECT Completion June, 2016

Appendix C – Regulations, Codes, and SOPs

SUMMARY REPORT OF CODES,REGULATIONS, AND SOPs TOREDUCE STORMWATER IMPACTS FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT,

REDEVELOPMENT, AND POINT AND NON-POINT SOURCES.

NPDES Permit Year 4 UpdateFebruary 22, 2016

POLICY STATEMENT

The City of Lakeland follows established City policies and procedures to mitigate stormwater quality and storm magnitude impacts due to development; redevelopment; and both point and non-point sources.

APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES, REGULATIONS, AND SOPs

The City of Lakeland mitigates stormwater quality and storm magnitude impacts due to development and redevelopment activities as set forth in the City’s Land Development Regulations (specifically Article 6) and Chapter IV of the City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, officially adopted SOPs are strictly followed to reduce impacts to the stormwater system and receiving waterbodies.

DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE STORMWATER IMPACTS

A. Chapter IV of the City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan requires management techniques be adopted to generally ensure that the volume, rate, timing, and pollutant load which exists after development or redevelopment of a site are similar to or better than the drainage characteristics which existed prior.

B. Provisions in Article 6 of the City of Lakeland’s Land Development Regulations

specifically address management techniques to reduce development impacts to: aquifer recharge, surface water quality, existing stormwater drainage, natural habitats, and floodplains. Additionally, it addresses soil erosion controls and standards for the review of development site plans in regard to the protection of natural resources.

C. The City of Lakeland is an America Public Works Association (APWA) Accredited

Agency and is required to follow standardized practices in regard to applicable fully-compliant public works activities. The Streets, Lakes, and Stormwater SOPs included herein are followed by City staff in an effort to reduce point and non-point source impacts to the stormwater system and receiving waterbodies, and to maintain an acceptable level of stormwater infrastructure function via inspections, cleanings, and repairs.

INNOVATIVE STORMWATER PLANNING TECHNIQUES

TMDL Implementation Plans The City of Lakeland’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Prioritization Plan was submitted in Year 1 and is updated on an as-needed basis and submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). This plan outlines the schedule by which TMDL watersheds will be analyzed and a corresponding implementation plan developed. The implementation plan for each applicable watershed will incorporate Low Impact Development (LID) concepts (where feasible) and a mixture of innovative structural and non-structural control designs to a) reduce existing stormwater loads to the maximum extent possible (MEP) and b) reduce future development and/or redevelopment impacts on stormwater loading to the receiving waterbody. These concepts will ultimately form the basis of the initial draft of the implementation plan. All concepts will be discussed with and reviewed by the City of Lakeland’s Public Works Department, Community Development staff, the City Manager, the City Mayor, and the City Commissioners. The final TMDL implementation plan will ultimately consist of LID concepts and stormwater planning techniques deemed logistically and monetarily feasible. Potentially, subsequent changes to City of Lakeland Land Development Regulations may occur if the City Commission authorizes such.

Support for Florida Yards and Neighborhoods In addition to the above TMDL planning, the City of Lakeland now partners with the City of Winter Haven and Polk County (as of FY2015) to provide funding and support to the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods (FYN) Extension Program in the amount of $10,000 per fiscal year. In doing so, FYN will provide educational outreach services tailored to the needs of City of Lakeland residents with the ultimate goal of changing behavior and reducing stormwater quality and quantity impacts from routine residential activities such as lawn care, watering, and fertilizer usage. Moreover, FYN will assist the City by providing the mandated Best Management Practices (BMPs) training for commercial and municipal fertilizer and pesticide applicators.

Adoption of Polk County Fertilizer Ordinance On March 9, 2013, the Polk County Fertilizer Ordinance was fully executed. Since the City of Lakeland chose not to adopt an ordinance of its own, by default the stipulations of the ordinance became applicable within Lakeland’s municipal boundaries. The ordinance, in general, seeks to limit the impact of fertilizers on receiving waterbodies throughout Polk County. Code Enforcement As of FY2015, the City of Lakeland saw the creation of a new Environmental Code Enforcement Officer (ECEO) position funded jointly by the City’s Stormwater and Solid Waste utilities to enforce issues of concern for those utilities and for which they have previously been

unable to dedicate resources and/or bring about compliance. As a result, the Community Development Department recruited for the new position on February 23, 2015. Effective March 9, 2015, the Code Enforcement Office will officially begin accepting and responding to complaints for issues that were previously forwarded to and handled by divisions of Public Works. Those issues will include illicit discharges into the City’s streets and stormwater system (lawn clippings, illegal dumping), review and enforcement of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sediment controls on regulated and permitted construction sites, placement of solid waste and recycling containers (location and day/time), needed bulk pickups of junk, yard trash and/or white goods, and basketball goals placed in the street and/or which constitute prohibited right-of-way obstructions. To document and manage these new cases, CodeTRAK (a code enforcement database) has been configured with a new ENVIRONMENTAL case type which includes subtypes as follows:

CONSTRUCTION SITE BMP: The ECEO will document inspections of construction site off-site discharges and pursue corrective action if applicable.

LAWN DEBRIS: The ECEO will inspect and enforce codes for property owners and/or lawn services allowing lawn debris into the street and/or stormwater system.

ILLEGAL DUMPING: The ECEO will investigate people illegally dumping things in the street stormwater system, on City property, in drainage ditches, and any other area of the City’s MS4, and enforce City codes for compliance when applicable.

CONTAINER PLACEMENT: THE ECEO will inspect for improper placement of solid waste and/or recycling containers and enforce City codes for compliance when applicable. BULK YARD TRASH: The ECEO will investigate complaints of piles of tree limbs and other yard debris where there is an active solid waste account and enforce City codes for compliance when applicable.

ROW OBSTRUCTION: The ECEO will investigate any Right-of-Way (ROW) obstructions and enforce City codes for compliance when applicable.

Chapter IV of Lakeland’s Comprehensive Plan

Stormwater is the water which runs off buildings, streets, and all other impervious and pervious surfaces during a rainfall event. Untreated stormwater runoff can transport pollutants to city lakes and streams. Stormwater runoff is now considered to be the most significant source of pollutant loading to surface waters.

Stormwater management refers to techniques for dealing with runoff in a manner that ensures adequate removal of pollutants and flood protection in an economical manner. These management techniques must generally ensure that the volume, rate, timing and pollutant load which exists after development or redevelopment of a site are similar to or better than the drainage characteristics which existed prior to development.

There are distinct land topographies in the Lakeland Planning Area which require different approaches to stormwater management. There is a high, sandy ridge running north and south through the center of the City dotted with several natural lakes. West of this ridge lies a flat terrain with a maze of streams and expansive floodplains. East of the ridge is a wide swath of formerly mined lands, much of which is unreclaimed, except for establishment over time of dense natural vegetation. Water filled mine pits are also characteristic of these mined-out areas. Illustration IV-10 depicts the four watersheds within the Lakeland Planning Area which give rise to rivers flowing eventually into the Gulf of Mexico.

Local Rainfall Per the Water Management District, the region and County averages, respectively, approximately 51 and 49 inches of rainfall in a year (1990-2009). According to rain gauge readings taken near the Lakeland Linder Airport, local yearly rainfall has averaged about 49 inches from 2005 to 2009. In planning for the capacity of stormwater facilities to handle rainfall, the standard of a 25-year storm is generally chosen for open basin systems and is used by the water management district. This storm can be described as the largest amount of rainfall that can be expected during any 25-year period. In Lakeland such a storm would result in about 7.5 inches of rain during a 24-hour period. Stormwater facilities should be designed to accommodate a storm of that level.

The two key aspects of the local drainage system are the natural drainage features and the man-made drainage system. Illustration IV-10 depicts the Lakeland Planning Area's natural drainage features. The lakes, rivers, and other surface waters in the city are an integral part of the larger regional drainage basins also depicted in Illustration IV-10. Man-made drainage improvements within Lakeland are largely a function of street and site improvements which connect to the existing system of channels, lakes and streams. The City drainage system, shown in Illustration IV-11, is maintained and operated by the Lakeland Public Works Department. The illustration incorporates the location of the storm sewer pipelines as located via the Division’s extensive survey map of stormwater facilities.

DRAINAGE SYSTEM

STORMWATER

This survey will assist the City with the effort to maintain its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Stormwater control focuses on the temporary storage of water on-site. On-site detention areas are effective in controlling short, intense, local storm runoff and catch the initial pollutant wash. Detention strategies also help reduce downstream flooding and soil erosion, and help to recharge the groundwater aquifer. The City of Lakeland has had regulations requiring on-site stormwater detention and treatment since at least 1977. Following the adoption of the 1991 Comprehensive Plan, the City compiled and enhanced most existing development regulations into one ordinance, referred to as the Land Development Regulations.

Provisions in Article 34 of Lakeland’s land development regulations address aquifer recharge protection, surface water quality/stormwater management requirements, natural habitat protection, floodplain management, soil erosion control and standards for the review of development site plans in regard to the protection of natural resources. Most construction activity that results in an increase in impervious surface area requires prior submittal and approval of a stormwater management plan for the site. A pre-post match of peak rate, volume, and pollutant loads is required for new development and redevelopment. The City’s standards were historically more stringent than the current water management district requirements in that the district did not require a pre-post match for volume vs. rate. In an urban area where redevelopment is key to a healthy economy, the City’s drainage policies are crucial to prevent further degradation of our lakes or any new flooding problems. Developments in a floodplain area must first attempt to locate on the non- floodplain portion of the site. When a development must infringe on part of a 100 year floodplain, the flood water storage function and capacity must be compensated, usually somewhere else on site, according to City and Southwest Florida Water Management District and/or FDEP standards which address this issue; also, structures within a floodplain must be elevated per City regulations. If a site is totally within a 100 year floodplain, development should be prohibited except where it would result in a “taking” of private property unless it’s been permitted by the appropriate regulatory agencies (SWFWMD &/or FDEP.) New surface water and stormwater quality standards are being proposed by the federal government that could require significant increases in water treatment capabilities with associated new costs. As these new regulations become vetted, the City will need to monitor the impact on its lakes management and stormwater treatment projects, as well as examine its development regulations for any required changes.

DRAINAGE REGULATION

ILLUSTRATION IV-11

Article 6 of Lakeland’s Land Development Regulations

ARTICLE 6: NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS

6.1 GENERAL

6.1.1 INTENT

It is the intent of this Article to protect, maintain and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community by regulating land development activity with the potential of degrading important natural resources. More specifically, it is the purpose of this Article to create a clear compilation of regulatory standards which implement the environmental goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

6.1.2 DEFINITIONS

Adverse Impacts: Any direct or indirect effect likely to cause, or actually causing, a decline in the quality, stability, natural function, diversity or aesthetic value of a natural resource.

Alter: To change, rearrange, enlarge, extend or reduce any land or part thereof.

Aquifer: An underground formation, group of formations, or part of a formation that is permeable enough to transmit, store or yield a quantity of water providing a beneficial use.

Area of Shallow Flooding: A designated AO or VO Zone on a community’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) with base flood depths from one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate and where velocity flow may be evident.

Area of Special Flood Hazard: The land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.

Base Flood: The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year.

Biotechnical Erosion Control Method: primarily non-structural method of shoreline stabilization which uses native vegetation to stabilize the shoreline substrate.

Biological Inventory: A biological inventory prepared for a defined area of land based upon standard in-field methodologies to derive habitat types, species populations, biological interactions and other associated ecological factors.

Buffer Zone: An area, exclusive of land development activity, used to visibly separate one use from another or to shield or block noise, lights or other nuisances.

Contaminant: An undesirable substance not naturally present or an unusually high concentration of a naturally occurring substance in water, soil, or other environmental medium in addition to regulated substances listed in Appendix A.

Cut and Fill: The practice, associated with development, involving the removal of soil or substrate from one area and relocation of that soil to another location for the purpose of land alteration.

Discharge: The release of stormwater by any means into the environment excluding transpiration, evaporation, or natural percolation into the groundwater.

Elevated Building: A non-basement structure built to have the lowest floor elevated above the ground level by means of fill, solid foundation perimeter walls, pilings, columns (posts and piers), shear walls, or breakaway walls.

Flood or Flooding: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from the overflow in inland or tidal waters or the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source.

Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM): An official map of a community, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, where the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard have been defined as Zone A.

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): An official map of a community, on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency has delineated both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.

Floodplain: Land that will be inundated by flood waters known to have occurred or reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur from overflow of inland waters and the accumulation of runoff of surface waters from rainfall.

Floodproofing: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents.

Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot.

Free Board: A factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a flood level for purposes of flood plain management.

Impervious Surface: Any surface of material that prevents the absorption of water into the underlying soil.

Lake Bottom Construction: The construction, alteration or repair of any shoreline stabilization structure or water access structure.

Land Clearing: The removal of vegetation from any site, parcel or lot, however, land clearing does not include the removal of dead trees or routine mowing, trimming or pruning to maintain vegetation in a healthy, viable condition.

Natural Resources: Those resources, functions, and forms, concrete or abstract, which are of natural creation or form and which directly or indirectly contribute to the health, safety, general welfare and wellbeing of the community.

100-Year Flood: A flood having a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year.

Ordinary High Water Line: The ten year flood line for each respective lake as provided through Flood Insurance Rate Maps or historical city records and is ultimately established by the city Public Works Director.

Physical Protection Devices: Berms, fences, vegetation, water features, or similar physical barriers established for the purpose of protecting habitat or to minimize disturbance to a protected species.

Potable Public Groundwater: All public groundwater supplies meeting the standards of Class II water within Chapter 17, F.A.C. and the drinking water criteria of Health and Rehabilitative Services of the Polk County Health Department.

Protected Species: Animal species listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission in Rules 39-27.003, 39-27.004, 39- 27.005, Florida Administrative Code.

Setback: A minimum distance in which a structure or use can be located in proximity to a physical feature or specific boundary (property line, mean high water line).

Shoreline Stabilization Structure: Any structure or man-made feature whose purpose is to stabilize the shoreline substrate and protect it from erosion. Shoreline stabilization structures include but are not limited to seawalls, revetments, rip-rap and biotechnical erosion control methods.

Stormwater Runoff: The total volume of water accumulated over a surface during any form of precipitation resulting in a flowing quantity of water upon a site. Such waters are resistant to percolation into the groundwater due to the saturation of the soil matrix, impervious surface, or the large volume accumulated at the immediate time of occurrence.

Substantial Damage: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.

Substantial Improvement: Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement.

Surface Waters: Natural or man-altered lands which are submerged during normal hydroperiods. Surface waters include lakes, ponds, rivers, creeks, canals and ditches. The landward extent of surface waters shall be delineated using methods prescribed in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 17-301.

Undisturbed Land: A parcel, lot, or plot of land which has been absent of land use activities for a period exceeding twenty years.

Water Access Structure: Any man-made structure which has as its purpose the facilitation of human or vehicular access to surface waters, including, but not limited to, docks, floating docks, piers, mooring pilings, boat ramps, boathouses and boat lifts.

Wetlands: All areas within dredge and fill jurisdictions of the Department of Environmental Regulation (pursuant to Section 403, Florida statutes); the Army Corp of Engineers (pursuant to Section 404, Clean Water Act, Florida Statutes): or the Southwest Florida Water Management District (pursuant to chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code). These may include, but are not limited to, areas; inundated by water periodically through the seasons, characterized by specific vegetation, in the base floodplain or characterized by specific soil types.

6.1.3 RULES OF INTERPRETATION

For the purpose of the administration and enforcement of these regulations, unless specifically stated otherwise within this text, the following standard rules of interpretation shall apply to the text hereof.

6.1.3.1 Calculating Time Periods

In calculating any period of time prescribed for or allowed by this regulation, the day of the act, event or default from which the designated period of time begins to run, shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, in which event the period shall run until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. Where "working days" are specified for a computation, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, shall be excluded in the computation.

6.1.3.2 Conflict with Standing Regulations

Where this regulation conflicts with or overlaps other standing regulations, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions or limitations, shall prevail.

6.1.3.3 Interpretation by City Officials

Notwithstanding specified rules of language or definitions, city permitting agents and city regulatory inspectors shall interpret all conditions, provisions, and standards herein, in a reasonable manner to achieve the goals and purposes intended by this regulation.

6.2 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

6.2.1 APPLICABILITY

The requirements established within this Section shall apply in the following conditions: Any site alteration, construction or expansion of any structure within a delineated area of special flood hazard as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) on Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

6.2.2 DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY

The degree of flood protection required by this Section is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes. This Section does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazard or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This Section shall not create liability on the part of the city or by any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Section or by any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder.

6.2.3 GENERAL STANDARDS

6.2.3.1 Development Permit Application within Areas of Special Flood Hazard

The Building Official is hereby authorized to administer and implement the provisions of this Section. Application for a development permit shall be made to the Building Inspection Division prior to any development activities, and may include, but not be limited to, plans, drawn to scale, showing the location, dimensions and elevations of the area in question, existing or proposed structures, areas receiving fill and the storage of materials. More specifically, the following information shall be required on the site plan prior to approval:

a. Elevation in relation to mean sea level of the proposed lowest floor (including the

basement) of all new or substantially improved structures;

b. Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which the new or structurally altered structures have been floodproofed;

c. Any calculations deriving the altered volume of the floodplain and required measures

of excavation to compensate for volume taken by the development activity;

d. Description of the extent to which any watercourse will be altered or relocated as a

result of proposed development; e. Provide an as-built floor elevation or floodproofing certification after the lowest floor

is completed; and

f. Plans to assure that techniques have been used to prevent the flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure or otherwise demonstrate anchoring of structures.

6.2.3.2 Construction Methods

Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment, and other service utilities shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within components during conditions of flooding. All city building codes shall apply to the construction of any structure.

6.2.3.3 Utilities

Water, sewerage and solid waste facilities shall comply with the following standards:

a. All water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of

flood waters into the system.

b. All sanitary sewerage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system. Discharges or drain fields from the system shall be located to avoid impairment or contamination during flooding.

c. All solid waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment or

contamination during flooding.

6.2.3.4 Pre-Post Development Volume of the Floodplain

Post-development stormwater run-off volume shall not exceed pre-development volume, with additional compensating storage for all flood water displaced by development below the elevation of the base flood. Compensating storage is to be calculated between the base flood elevation and the seasonal high water table. The seasonal high water table shall be established by a qualified technician at the expense of the developer or by Southwest Florida Water Management District data, if available.

6.2.4 SPECIFIC PROVISIONS

6.2.4.1 Residential Construction

New construction or substantial improvements of any residential structure (including mobile homes) shall have the lowest floor and all utilities and equipment servicing the building, elevated one foot minimum above (freeboard) base flood elevation (zone AE) as designated on the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).

6.2.4.2 Non-Residential Construction

New construction or substantial improvements of any commercial, industrial or other non-residential structure shall either have the lowest floor and all utilities and equipment servicing the building elevated one foot minimum above (freeboard) base flood elevation or, together with attending utility and sanitary facilities, be flood proofed so that below the base flood level the structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. These flood proofing methods shall be adequate to withstand the flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact and uplift forces and other factors associated with the base flood.

6.2.4.3 Elevated Buildings

New construction or substantial improvements of elevated buildings that include fully enclosed areas formed by foundation and other exterior walls shall be designed to preclude finished living space below the base flood elevation and designed to allow for the entry and exit of floodwaters to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls. Designs for complying with this requirement must be certified by a professional engineer or architect or meet the following minimum criteria:

a. Provide at least two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch

for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding;

b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade; and

c. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided they permit the automatic flow of flood waters in both directions.

6.2.4.4 Mobile Homes

All mobile homes shall be anchored consistent with HUD rules and the manufacturer's specifications to resist flotation, collapse or lateral movement by providing frame ties to ground anchors. Specific requirements are:

a. Ties shall be provided at each of the four corners of the mobile home. Mobile homes

of 50 feet or longer must have two additional ties per side at intermediate locations. Mobile homes less than 50 feet long require one additional tie per side.

b. Frame ties shall be provided at each corner of the home. Mobile homes of 50 feet or

longer must have five additional ties per side at intermediate points. Mobile homes less than 50 feet long require four additional ties per side.

c. All components of the anchoring system shall be capable of carrying a force of 4,800

pounds.

d. Any additions to the mobile home shall be similarly anchored and permitted through the Building Inspection Division.

6.2.4.5 Subdivisions

Subdivisions shall meet the following standards:

a. Comply with all provisions within this section; and

b. Base flood elevation data prepared by a registered professional engineer shall appear

on the preliminary and final plat.

6.2.4.6 Other Available Data Defining the Base Flood Elevation

In the absence of Federal Housing Authority or Federal Emergency Management Agency base flood or floodway data, the Building Official shall consider other available data as a basis for establishing the elevation of residential structures to or above the base flood level, and floodproofing or elevating non-residential structures above the base flood elevation.

6.2.4.7 Hazardous Materials

No hazardous materials or waste shall be stored within the 100-year flood plain.

6.2.4.8 Floodway Standards

The following developments are prohibited from locating within areas designated as floodways:

a. Development using fill for structural support;

b. Development utilizing septic tank systems;

c. Development creating off-site increases in flood stage levels (an increase of not more

than one foot on-site will be allowed if the Engineer of Record can satisfactorily demonstrate that this increase on-site will not raise off-site flood levels); and

d. Mobile homes except when located within existing approved mobile home parks or

platted mobile home subdivisions.

6.2.4.9 Certification

A professional engineer registered in the State of Florida shall certify that the standards of this Section are satisfied. Such certification shall be provided to the Building Official.

6.3 GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN

6.3.1 INTENT AND APPLICABILITY

a. Intent

The Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) as defined under Ch. 380, Sec. 5, Florida Statutes, has been identified as a geographical area with special environmental significance and is protected by guiding principles which outline key issues of state concern. This Section is established to address minimum standards for development and redevelopment within the ACSC in the City of Lakeland.

b. Applicability

Applies to all public and private land located within the geographic boundaries of the Green Swamp ACSC within the City of Lakeland.

6.3.2 DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF USE

6.3.2.1 Future Land Use Designations

The following Future Land Use designations may be permitted in the Green Swamp ACSC, as defined in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.

a. Agricultural Residential Low (ARL) b. Residential Very Low (RVL) c. Public Institutional (PI) d. Business Park (BP) e. Interchange Activity Center (IAC) f. Convenience Center (CC) g. Recreation (R) h. Conservation (C) i. Preservation (P)

6 . 3 . 2 . 2 D e n s i t y a n d I n f r a s t r u c t u r e R e q u i r e m e n t s

Table 6.3-1: Green Swamp Density And Infrastructure Requirements FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION

Maximum Gross Density

Central Wastewater Required?

Paved Roads Required?

Central Water Required?

Transit District Petition Required?

A R L A g r i c u l t u r a l R e s i d e n t i a l L o w

1 : 1 0 d u / a c 1

& / o r A g r i c u l t u r e

N O Y E S , e x t e r n a l o n l y

N O N O

R V L R e s i d e n t i a l V e r y L o w

1 : 3 d u / a c & / o r A g r i c u l t u r e

Y E S Y E S Y E S I f s u b d i v i s i o n 1 0 a c . +

P I P u b l i c I n s t i t u t i o n a l B P B u s i n e s s P a r k

N . A . Y E S Y E S Y E S I f n e a r S R 3 3 o r I - 4

N . A . Y E S Y E S Y E S Y E S

I A C 2

I n t e r c h a n g e A c t i v i t y C e n t e r

M e d . & h i g h d e n s i t y u p t o 3 5 % o f I A C

Y E S Y E S Y E S Y E S

C C C o n v e n i e n c eC e n t e r R R e c r e a t i o n

N O N E Y E S Y E S Y E S I f n e a r S R 3 3 o r I - 4

N O N E Y E S Y E S Y E S I f n e a r S R

3 3 o r I - 4 C C o n s e r v a t i o n

1 : 1 0 d u / a c u p l a n d s o n l y ; r e q u i r e s c o n d i t i o n a l u s e a p p r o v a l

Y E S Y E S Y E S I f n e a r S R 3 3 o r I - 4

P P r e s e r v a t i o n

N O N E N . A . N . A . N . A . N . A .

1 A l l o w s 4 0 , 0 0 0 s q f t l o t s i f c l u s t e r i n g o n u p l a n d s , b u t g r o s s d e n s i t y m u s t r e m a i n s a m e . 2 I A C l i m i t e d i n A C S C t o t h e p r o p o s e d W i l l i a m s ( D R I ) I - 4 I n t e r c h a n g e A r e a , i f a p p r o v e d .

6 . 3 . 2 . 3 P e r m i t t e d Z o n i n g D i s t r i c t s

Table 6.3-2: Green Swamp Permitted Zoning Districts Zoning

DistrictsPossible Future Land Use Designations

ARL RVL PI BP IAC1 CC C P L D X X X X X X 2 X

R A - 1 X M F - 1 2 X M F - 1 6 X

O - 1 X X X X O - 2 X X X X O - 3 X X C - 1 X X X C - 3 X X I - 1 X 3

I - 2 X P U D 4 X X X X X X X X

1 L i m i t e d t o p a r c e l s w i t h i n W i l l i a m s P r o p o s e d I n t e r c h a n g e . 2 O n l y a l l o w e d w i t h c o n d i t i o n a l u s e a p p r o v a l . 3 R e t a i l u s e s a r e p r o h i b i t e d .

4 A n y p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s t o a n a p p r o v e d , b i n d i n g P U D d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n w i l l r e q u i r e m o d i f i c a t i o n t o t h e P U D .

6 . 3 . 2 . 4 P r o h i b i t e d U s e s

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e u s e s t h a t a r e p r o h i b i t e d b y t h e r e s p e c t i v e z o n i n g d i s t r i c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y ; t h e f o l l o w i n g u s e s s h a l l a l s o b e p r o h i b i t e d i n t h e G r e e n S w a m p A C S C :

a . C h e m i c a l r e s e a r c h o p e r a t i o n s b . D r y c l e a n i n g p l a n t s c . E l e c t r i c p o w e r g e n e r a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s o f a n y t y p e d . G o l f C o u r s e s e . H a z a r d o u s s u b s t a n c e s o r m a t e r i a l s ; n o s u b s t a n c e s o r m a t e r i a l s s h a l l b e s t o r e d o r

u s e d e x c e p t a s t h e y w o u l d , i n s u c h q u a n t i t y , b e p e r m i s s i b l e f o r d o m e s t i c o r h o u s e h o l d p u r p o s e s

f . I n d u s t r i a l a c t i v i t i e s a s d e f i n e d i n t h e F e d e r a l E P A ’ s N a t i o n a l P o l l u t i o n D i s c h a r g e E l i m i n a t i o n S y s t e m ( N P D E S ) f o r S t o r m w a t e r A s s o c i a t e d w i t h I n d u s t r i a l A c t i v i t y ( C h . 4 0 ,C F R , P a r t 1 2 2 ) , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f g e n e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t i e s

g . M i n i n g h . P a c k a g e w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s ; w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t r e s i d u a l s a n d t h e

s p r e a d i n g o f s l u d g e f r o m s e p t i c t a n k s i . P e t r o l e u m p i p e l i n e s j . P e t r o l e u m r e l a t e d i n d u s t r i e s a n d f u e l d e a l e r s ( n o t i n c l u d i n g g a s s t a t i o n s ) k . N e w s c h o o l s , p r i v a t e o r p u b l i c l . W h o l e s a l e c h e m i c a l o p e r a t i o n s m . N o x i o u s f o r m s o f a g r i c u l t u r e ( s p e c i f i c a l l y , a g r i c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t y s u c h a s c r o p p r o d u c t i o n ,

s i l v i c u l t u r e , c a t t l e g r a z i n g / p a s t u r e u s e s a n d a q u a c u l t u r e u s e s A R E a l l o w e d , b u t f e e d l o t s , p o u l t r y f a r m s a n d s i m i l a r “ n o x i o u s ” u s e s s h a l l b e p r o h i b i t e d . )

6.3.2.5 Use of Conservation Lands

Conservation land uses on privately owned lands may allow passive recreation uses and up to 1 unit per 10 acres if clustered on upland areas and outside of wetland and 100 year floodplain areas. Level one Utility and Essential Service Facilities as defined in Article 2, and as permitted by the city and applicable federal, state and/or regional agencies, are permitted in Conservation land uses. Any changes to Utility and Essential Service Facilities shall be subject to state review for impacts to the ACSC.

6.3.2.6 Interstate 4 Interchange

In the event that an Interchange Justification Report (IJR) for the proposed Interstate-4 interchange for the Williams DRI is approved by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the Florida DOT, then an Interchange Activity Center land use, as defined otherwise in the Comprehensive Plan, may be proposed in the Green Swamp ACSC within the Williams Community Redevelopment Area, consistent with the Williams CRA Redevelopment Plan. However, all proposed land use map amendments are subject to City and State review and approval. Final development plan approvals for these IAC areas shall be dependent upon meeting the city’s concurrency management provisions including adequate funding for construction of the new interchange in the first three years of a CIP or the CRA Trust Fund as reflected in a locally adopted CIP. Other appropriate future land uses of RVL or BP may be proposed for lands targeted in the CRA Plan for IAC uses until final approval of the IJR is obtained.

6.3.3 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

6.3.3.1 Minimum Lot Size Requirements

Minimum lot size requirements shall be in accordance with the underlying zoning district, except for the following:

LD zoning district, when Water and wastewater are available............................................. 5 acres Water and wastewater are unavailable......................................... 10 acres RA-1 zoning district ........................................................................ 14, 520 sq. ft.1

....................................................................................................... 40,000 sq. ft. 2 1Only permitted with an RVL Future Land Use designation. Central water and wastewater, as well as paved external and internal access roads are required. 2Only permitted with an ARL Future Land Use designation. Development must be clustered to meet the open space, wetland and/or floodplain protection requirements. The gross density for the overall development must not exceed the requirements for the applicable Future Land Use designation.

6.3.3.2 Setbacks

The setbacks for principal and accessory structures shall be in accordance with the underlying zoning district classification.

6 . 3 . 3 . 3 O p e n S p a c e , L o t C o v e r a g e a n d I m p e r v i o u s S u r f a c e R a t i o s

a . T h e m i n i m u m o p e n s p a c e , m a x i m u m l o t c o v e r a g e a n d i m p e r v i o u s s u r f a c e r a t i o

r e q u i r e m e n t s s h a l l b e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e u n d e r l y i n g z o n i n g d i s t r i c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , e x c e p t f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g :

Table 6.3-3: Green Swamp Residential Developments Standard Zoning District

RA-1 LD MF-12/MF-16 M i n i m u m O p e n

S p a c e 1

M a x i m u m

W i t h i n A R L – 8 0 % W i t h i n R V L – 3 0 % 8 0 %

M F - 1 2 – 0 . 7 3 M F - 1 6 - 0 . 7 0

I m p e r v i o u s S u r f a c e R a t i o 2

5 0 % 5 0 % 6 0 %

1 O p e n s p a c e i s d e f i n e d a s a n y a r e a o f l a n d o r w a t e r s e t a s i d e , d e s i g n a t e d o r r e s e r v e d f o r p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e e n j o y m e n t o r u s e . ( N O T E : W e h a v e t y p i c a l l y t r e a t e d t h i s a s e v e r y t h i n g e x c e p t b u i l d i n g s a n d p a r k i n g a r e a s , w h e t h e r p a v e d o r u n p a v e d . )

2 I m p e r v i o u s s u r f a c e r a t i o a s d e f i n e d b y t h e S o u t h w e s t F l o r i d a W a t e r M a n a g e m e n t D i s t r i c t ( S W F W M D ) .

Table 6.3-4: Green Swamp Non-Residential Developments Standard Zoning District

All Commercial All Office All Industrial M a x i m u m L o t

C o v e r a g e 3 5 % 3 5 % 5 0 % M a x i m u m

I m p e r v i o u s S u r f a c e R a t i o

W i t h i n B P – 7 0 % A l l O t h e r s – 6 0 %

W i t h i n B P - 7 0 % A l l O t h e r s - 6 0 % 7 0 %

I m p e r v i o u s s u r f a c e r a t i o , a s d e f i n e d b y S W F W M D .

b . S i t e p l a n s a n d s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t s s h a l l i d e n t i f y p o r t i o n o f l a n d r e s e r v e d f o r o p e n s p a c e a n d s h a l l s t a t e “ N o c l e a r i n g a n d n o s t r u c t u r e s o f a n y k i n d a r e a l l o w e d i n t h e o p e n s p a c e a r e a . ” S t o r m w a t e r r e t e n t i o n , a s a l l o w e d b y r e g u l a t o r y a n d p e r m i t t i n g a g e n c i e s , w o u l d b e p e r m i t t e d i n o p e n s p a c e a r e a s .

c . A t l e a s t 1 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e a b o v e o p e n s p a c e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a l l t y p e s o f l a n d u s e s

s h a l l b e o n t h e u p l a n d s p o r t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y i n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e s o m e p o r t i o n o f o r i g i n a l a q u i f e r r e c h a r g e r a t e s .

d . N o v a r i a n c e s o r w a i v e r s s h a l l b e g r a n t e d f o r o p e n s p a c e p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e G r e e n

S w a m p A C S C w i t h i n t h e C i t y o f L a k e l a n d .

6 . 3 . 4 L A N D S C A P I N G

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e l a n d s c a p e r e q u i r e m e n t s e s t a b l i s h e d i n A r t i c l e 4 , a l l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d r e d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e G r e e n S w a m p A C S C s h a l l e m p l o y X e r i s c a p i n g t e c h n i q u e s t o r e d u c e w a t e r c o n s u m p t i o n .

Xeriscaping, as a method of landscaping that conserves water by clustering plants according to similar sunlight and water needs. Where possible, irrigation systems should use stormwater runoff to irrigate landscaped areas and should preserve existing on-site vegetation.

6.3.5 WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY REQUIREMENTS

a. Connection to city wastewater service shall be required where it is available, as

defined by Statute. Necessary septic system permits shall be obtained and submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.

b. New septic systems shall not be permitted for non-residential uses.

c. The city shall enforce the cases referred to it by the Polk County Health Department

for violations of the Health Department’s special septic system inspection program in the Green Swamp ACSC. That inspection program provides for notices to be mailed every 5 years to those who have a septic system indicating it must be cleaned and maintained. Failure to meet the inspection program requirements will result in referral to the local code enforcement board for further action and as referred to in City Resolution 4465.

d. Wastewater treatment package plants, if allowed, shall have a minimum treatment

capacity of at least 100,000 gallons per day.

6.3.6 ROAD REQUIREMENTS

a. Parking, loading and internal circulation of developments within the Green Swamp ACSC shall be of pervious materials wherever feasible.

b. Paved external and internal access roads are required for all development.

c. In Conservation (C) future land use areas within the Green Swamp ACSC, a single

primary access road shall be allowed to access upland areas where upland options are not feasible and where not in conflict with city policies and standards including those for natural resource protection, and as approved by the Public Works Department. Identified wetlands shall not be impacted unless such results in a taking of private property. Any impacts to the 100 year floodplain for such an access road shall be made only as a last resort, shall be minimized and compensated to avoid a taking of property and must include all mitigation measures as required by applicable local, regional and state agencies.

6.3.7 TRANSIT DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS

Submission of a voluntary petition for inclusion into the Lakeland Area Mass Transit District (LAMTD) shall be required for the following developments within the Green Swamp ACSC, prior to issuance of site plan approval, subdivision plat approval or building permit:

a. All development along Interstate 4 or SR 33

b. Any development or redevelopment in a non-residential or multi-family residential

zoning district

c. Any residential subdivision of 10 acres or more

6.3.8 WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAIN AREAS

6.3.8.1 Development Criteria

a. No new lots shall be created which are entirely within a wetland or FEMA designated 100-year floodplain area.

b. No development shall be permitted within an identified wetland or within the 100-

year floodplain area except where allowed by the applicable federal, state or regional permitting agencies and as specified below. Development shall cluster in non-wetland and non-floodplain areas. All structures (other than pile supported docks) shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the most landward extent of a jurisdictional wetland.

c. No disturbance of wetlands within the Green Swamp ACSC is allowed unless

authorized or exempted from the regulation by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the applicable water management district. Evidence of the appropriate permit or exemption shall be required prior to the commencement of development.

d. Where impacts to wetlands cannot be avoided, all permits for an agency with

jurisdiction shall be approved prior to the city issuing a final development order. An "intent to issue a final development order" may be issued in writing prior to the issuance of said order if pre-approval is required by an agency with jurisdiction. Consideration of wetland impacts shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following circumstances where no reasonable alternative exists:

1. To provide access to the site; 2. To provide necessary internal traffic circulation; 3. To provide necessary utility lines; 4. To provide necessary pre-treated stormwater management; 5. For purposes of public safety; 6. To avoid precluding all beneficial use of the property.

e. All wetland and 100-year floodplain areas must be identified as environmental set-

aside areas on all final site plans or subdivision plats.

f. Septic systems shall be set back a minimum of 75 feet from designated wetlands and 100 feet from the high water line of water bodies and outside the 100-year floodplain.

g. A detailed flood insurance study shall be performed for all subdivision proposals and

other proposed development with five acres or more of the 100 year floodplain. The

study shall be performed in accordance with the Flood Insurance Study Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Contractors (FEMA Publication 37).

h. Subsequent development phases are not exempt from this section if the overall

development meets the five acre criterion. If existing subdivisions are proposed for re- platting, the re-platted portion shall be required to comply with this requirement if the re-platted portion meets the five acre criterion.

i. Subdivisions which contain 10 lots or less shall be exempt from these requirements.

j. The construction of a single-family residence on a parcel of land containing five or

more acres within the 100 year floodplain which is not part of a subdivision or which is part of a subdivision in existence prior to December 1, 1992, is exempt from this requirement.

k. Wetlands shall be maintained in their natural and unaltered state. However,

controlled burns, selective thinning, and ecosystem restoration and maintenance are permissible activities within the wetlands, provided they are performed in accordance with current Silviculture Best Management Practices published by the Division of Forestry. Any isolated wetlands of less than one acre shall be exempt from these requirements.

6.3.8.2 Density Transfers

a. Development within wetland or 100 year floodplain areas may be allowed to transfer

density of up to 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres to contiguous uplands (non-wetland and non-floodplain) areas on property under the same ownership or control.

b. Gross density requirements still apply and open space and impervious surface limits

shall be maintained.

c. Lot sizes shall be as governed by the assigned city context classification.

d. Transfers of density shall be noted on the face of the final plat as a restrictive covenant.

6.3.9 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

a. Stormwater management shall be executed in a manner consistent with the level of

service policies in the Infrastructure Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, all development is required to manage runoff from the 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration design storm event on-site so that post-development runoff rates, volumes and pollutant loads do not exceed pre-development conditions.

b. Stormwater management facilities shall not cause a reduction in the flood storage

capacity of the 100 year floodplain.

c. Stormwater management facilities shall be designed to accommodate access for

maintenance equipment, and shall facilitate regular operational maintenance including under-drain replacement, unclogging filters, sediment removal, mowing and vegetation control.

d. Prior to final plat or site plan approval, the developer shall ensure that a designated

responsible entity, approved by the city for the maintenance of the stormwater management system has been established and is listed on the plat or final site plan.

e. Monitoring and operational requirements for stormwater management facilities shall

include the following:

1. Periodic inspections of the system with a written inspection report to the appropriate water management district and a copy sent to Public Works Engineering to ensure that the system is functioning as designed and permitted.

2. Inspection reports will be submitted 1 year after construction and every year

thereafter to the relevant water management district.

3. A registered professional engineer must sign and seal the report certifying the stormwater management system is operational as designed and maintained adequately for that design.

4. Pollution abatement requirements shall be the first 1 inch (or 2.5 inches times the

impervious area) of runoff for the developed site, or as per the regulations of SWFWMD, with this volume being recovered within 72 hours.

5. Projects or portions of projects in Most Effective Recharge Areas must retain

three inches of runoff from directly connected impervious areas within the project. Applicants may instead demonstrate that the-post-development recharge will be equal to or greater than the pre-development recharge. Most Effective Recharge Areas are those areas with soils classified by the Soil Conservation Service as Type "A" Hydrologic Soil Group. Directly connected impervious areas are those impervious areas which are connected to the surface water management system by a drainage improvement such as a ditch, storm sewer, paved channel, or other man-made conveyance. Stormwater that is retained must be infiltrated into the soil or evaporated such that the storage volume is recovered within 14 days following a storm event.

6.3.10 LISTED SPECIES SURVEYS

a. To protect fauna and flora species identified as being endangered, threatened, and/or

species of special concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, (FWC), the developer shall perform and pay for listed species survey for the following types of development:

1. Any residential development consisting of 100 acres or more, OR

2. Any residential development of more than 10 lots, OR

3. Any non-residential development in excess of five acres,

If it is determined that listed species are located on the site, the developer shall prepare a habitat management plan using guidelines and protocols of the FWC and/or USFWS. It shall be the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to notify the city, the FWC and/or the USFWS of proposed development which will affect protected habitat and subsequently prepare and submit the above referenced habitat management plan. Prior to final plat or site plan approval, the city must receive a letter from FWC stating that the proposed Management Plan meets the standards placed on Management Plans by the FWC.

b. Protected habitat, for the purpose of the Management Plan, shall be defined as

habitat for endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern, and in most cases, the specific boundaries of these areas may not be determined until site-specific field inspections are conducted to verify those boundaries. It shall be the responsibility of the owner and/or developer to submit documentation to all relevant review agencies including exhibits, studies, etc., for the purpose of establishing that properties should not be classified as protected habitat for such species.

c. Those properties identified as containing protected habitat shall comply with the

following requirements:

1. Development shall be required to locate on the non-protected habitat portions of a development site. Transfer of residential densities shall be permitted from protected habitat areas to contiguous non-protected habitat areas within the same subdivision, subject to the following:

2. Residential densities shall be transferred from protected habitat areas to non-

protected habitat areas at the underlying density and shall be clustered to the greatest extent possible to protect habitat.

3. Any transfer of density to facilitate clustering shall not result in lot sizes, or areas

per dwelling unit less than that required by this Code (the minimum lot/area size shall be exclusive of the wetland area); for lots utilizing septic tanks, the area shall not be less than 40,000 square feet.

4. Portions of lots may be platted into habitat areas and shall not be construed as

having disturbed the habitat area for a density-transfer provision so long as that portion of the lot does not include any fill, construction, improvements, or other development, and a restriction is placed upon the plat to prohibit such future actions within habitat areas.

5. All such transfers of density shall be to contiguous property under the same

ownership or control and shall only be permitted within a subdivision platted and developed in accordance with this Code. Such transfers shall be noted on the face of the final plat as a restrictive covenant.

6. Commercial and industrial development shall locate on the non-protected habitat portion of a development site.

6.3.11 PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS AND EFFECTIVE DATES

a. In accordance with Chapter 9J-1, F.A.C., the Community Development Department

shall render development orders to the State Land Planning Agency (LPA) for development approvals that shall include, but not be limited to:

1. zoning 2. rezoning 3. conditional use 4. variance 5. plat approval 6. major development review 7. community impact assessment 8. building permit 9. fill permit 10. excavation permit 11. land clearing or landscaping permit 12. any change or amendment to a previously issued development order 13. any action that increases the impervious surface 14. any other action having the effect of permitting development

b. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to provide all necessary exhibits,

applications, or documents to the City of Lakeland to be included in the development order for rendition to the LPA.

c. City permits will include a reminder note that a development order in the Green

Swamp Area of Critical State Concern shall not take effect or be acted upon by the developer until 45 calendar days after rendition to the LPA, unless a later date is specified in the order. If no comments are received from the LPA by the 45th day, the development order may be acted upon.

6.3.11.1 Additional Review Requirements

a. In the Green Swamp ACSC, Planning and Zoning Board review and approval shall be

required for all site plans and subdivision plan/plat approvals.

b. Prior to commencement of development, all state and federal permits must be obtained.

c. All development approvals within the Green Swamp ACSC are subject to review and

approval by the LPA, up to 45 days after such approvals have been officially rendered to the LPA by the City. The LPA has authority to appeal any development approvals in the ACSC.

6.3.11.2 Application Narrative Requirement

All development, as defined in Section 380.04, FS, with the exception of a single-family dwelling unit and accessory uses, shall submit to the city a project narrative describing the proposed development. This narrative shall also address how their development supports the following State objectives in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern:

a. Minimize the adverse impacts of development on resources of the Floridan Aquifer,

wetlands, and flood-detention areas.

b. Protect or improve the normal quantity, quality and flow of ground water and surface water which are necessary for the protection of resources of state and regional concern.

c. Protect or improve the water available for aquifer recharge.

d. Protect or improve the functions of the Green Swamp Potentiometric High of the

Floridan Aquifer.

e. Protect or improve the normal supply of ground and surface water.

f. Prevent further salt-water intrusion into the Floridan Aquifer.

g. Protect or improve existing ground and surface-water quality.

h. Protect or improve the water-retention capabilities of wetlands.

i. Protect or improve the biological-filtering capabilities of wetlands.

j. Protect or improve the natural flow regime of drainage basins.

k. Protect or improve the design capacity of flood-detention areas and the water- management objectives of these areas through the maintenance of hydrologic characteristics of drainage basins.

6.4 LAKE AND NATURAL HABITAT PROTECTION


a. Intent

It is the intent of this Section to preserve environmentally sensitive or beneficial areas including lakes, lakeshores, wetlands, areas harboring protected species, fisheries and conservation areas.

b. Applicability

The requirements established within this Section shall apply to all construction or site alteration activity occurring or proposed upon a site in which the potential exists to impact protected habitat areas defined in this section or to impact a parcel of undisturbed land.

6.4.2 DETERMINATION OF PROTECTED HABITAT BOUNDARIES

It shall be the responsibility of the developer or landowner, the city and all effected regulatory agencies to establish to what extent protected habitat exists upon a site prior to development or site alteration activity. Delineation of a protected habitat area shall be based upon the following criteria:

6.4.2.1 Protected Lakeshores

Protected lakeshores shall exist around the following natural lakes:

a. Lake Beulah g. Lake Holloway b. Lake Bonnet h. Lake Hunter c. Lake Bonny i. Lake Morton d. Lake Crago j. Lake Parker e. Lake Gibson k. Lake Wire f. Lake Hollingsworth

6.4.2.2 Wetlands

Wetland boundaries shall be determined by the compilation of relevant evidence collected by professional in-field survey methods to derive botanical, physical, geomorphological and historic indicators that, when considered by a qualified professional, can delineate an area as a wetland. At a minimum, areas which meet the following established criteria shall be defined as wetlands:

a. Areas within the dredge and fill jurisdiction of the FDEP as authorized by Chapter 403,

Florida Statutes;

b. Areas within the jurisdiction of the Army Corp of Engineers as authorized by Section 10, River and Harbor Act; and

c. Areas within the jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District

pursuant to Chapter 40D-4 and 40D-40, Florida Administrative Code.

6.4.2.3 Protected Species

The city shall reserve the right to require a biological inventory of a development site to be performed in response to the documented presence or sighting of a protected species or based on the size or ecological diversity of the proposed development site.

Determination of areas harboring or supporting protected species shall be delineated by standardized field assessments conducted by a qualified professional.

6.4.2.4 Fisheries

Fishery habitats shall include all natural lakes within the corporate limits.

6.4.2.5 Conservation Areas

Conservation areas are designated upon the future land use map of the Comprehensive Plan.

6.4.2.6 Community Development Department Resources

The Community Development Department shall maintain and update maps contained within the Comprehensive Plan showing the general location of each regulated habitat type to the extent of available information. These maps shall be available to the public for reference to general habitat locations, however, habitat area boundaries may be established wherever the criteria for their determination exists.

6.4.3 STANDARDS FOR PROTECTED HABITAT AREAS

6.4.3.1 Identification within the Site Plan Review Process

Development plans submitted for site plan review shall be required to identify the extent and location of any protected habitat (lakeshores, wetlands, protected species, fisheries, conservation areas) areas within the proposed development plan. Failure to indicate these areas may result in the rejection of the site plan.

6.4.3.2 Minimum Setbacks for Protected Lakeshores

a. All commercial, residential and industrial structures, either primary or accessory, shall

maintain a minimum landward setback of 50 feet from the ordinary high water line around protected lakeshores. Activity within the fifty foot setback shall be regulated by the following:

1. Gravel paths, non-contiguous wood steps or wood platforms, raised boardwalks,

docks and boathouses are exempt from these setback requirements.

2. All ground area within the setback shall be covered with some form of vegetative ground cover. Barren soil shall not be exposed for a period exceeding one day.

3. Pesticides, excluding appropriate herbicides, shall not be used within the setback

distance due to their potential to harm the aquatic ecosystem. All required state or federal permits shall be obtained prior to the control or management of any wetland or aquatic plants. Fertilizer products may be applied to this setback area, in amounts prescribed by label, no more than once a year.

4. Variances to the 50 foot lakeshore setback shall be considered based on the

relative impact to the water body, existing setbacks on adjacent and nearby properties and in accordance with the process utilized for other variances to zoning setbacks by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Provided, application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall not be required when application to the City Commission is otherwise required pursuant to Subsection 34.04.03.02b. below and City Commission approval is secured.

b. It shall be unlawful for any person to build, place or cause to be built or placed any

building, house, shed, dock, wharf or any other structure of any kind or nature whatsoever upon the shores or margin of the following parkway lakes: Lake Mirror, Lake Morton, Lake Wire, Lake Beulah, Lake Hunter, Lake Hollingsworth, Lake Bonny and Lake Parker, where such lake is surrounded or bordered by a public collector roadway, as defined in Article 2, without obtaining the proper permits and permissions.

1. All of that certain area within the city, lying within 500 feet of the high water mark

and between any public collector roadway, as defined in Article 2, and the waterline of either and all of the above named lakes, is hereby designated for parks and parkways and restricted against the planting of any and all shrubs or plants without a specific permit issued by the City Manager, said permit being valid for sixty days. It being the purpose of this section to establish and maintain a healthy and functioning lake ecosystem and establish a systematic beautification of such area.

2. It shall be unlawful for any person to place or cause to be placed upon the area

defined herein , any brush, debris, wood, structure or other thing or object of whatsoever kind or nature except as authorized herein.

3. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the city from building or placing

buildings, structures or other objects at such points within the area described in Subsection 1. above, when such construction or placement is approved by action of the City Commission. Prior to approval, the City Commission shall determine that the building, structure or other object will not constitute a hazard to or interfere with traffic nor mar the beauty or appearance of the adjacent property or area surrounding the site of said building, structure or other object.

6.4.3.3 Lake Bottom Construction Regulations

This Section shall apply to all lake bottom construction, as defined herein, on all lakes and wetlands within the city. In addition to the regulations and approvals required below, lake bottom construction on the entire lakeshore of the parkway lakes listed in Section 6.4.3.2 shall be subject to City Commission review and approval. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prohibit the placement of ski ramps upon lakes within the city if the City Commission shall determine that the placement of any such ski ramp will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, the management of fish and wildlife, or the water quality of the lake.

a. Regulations Applicable to All Lake Bottom Construction

Lake bottom construction shall:

1. Minimize changes in the physical or biological conditions of the natural environment within or adjacent to the area that result in a detrimental effect upon flora, fauna, air, water, minerals or other natural characteristic(s) of the area. Special consideration shall be given to the protection of listed species.

2. Minimize adverse impacts on the natural beauty of wetlands/waters within the

city.

3. Minimize adverse impacts on navigability of adjacent waters.

4. Minimize the adverse impacts on traditional and future recreational uses of adjacent wetlands/waters.

5. Minimize adverse impacts on historic resources.

6. Minimize adverse impacts on views from adjacent properties.

7. Be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

8. Be maintained in sound condition. All elements, such as railings, planks, pilings,

and ornamentation, shall be securely attached. All unsecured, missing, rotten, decayed, or corroded elements shall be repaired or replaced. Any structure deemed to be unsafe by the Building Official shall be restored to a safe and sound condition or shall be demolished.

b. Regulations Applicable to All Water Access Structures

1. All water access structures shall be located along the riparian shoreline where the

least destruction will occur to shoreline and aquatic vegetation, and the associated faunal communities.

2. Dredging or filling to provide access from uplands to a water access structure, or

to provide access from a water access structure to deeper water, where such access has not previously existed, is prohibited.

3. No water access structure shall include fueling facilities of any kind.

4. No water access structure shall be larger than necessary to provide access to the

water for customary recreational purposes.

c. The construction of boat ramps shall be permitted in those surface waters where public access facilities are not available. Where possible, multiple boat ramps shall be consolidated or shared to minimize shoreline disturbance.

d. Standard water access structures are water access structures that meet the following

criteria:

1. All decks, platforms, gangways and similar elements of the water access structure shall be no higher than three feet above the Ordinary High Water Line (OHW) except and only where necessary to make a connection to the upland shore.

2. Vertical elements such as pilings and railings shall extend no higher than 3 1/2

feet above the deck, platform, gangway or other surface and shall not include or accommodate non-water dependent structures (e.g. gazebos, screen houses or other enclosed or semi-enclosed structures).

3. The water access structure shall meet the minimum sideyard structure setbacks

for from the side lot lines of the lot or parcel that the structure serves extended into the water.

4. The total horizontal area of all decks, platforms, gangways and other surfaces

shall not exceed 500 square feet over water.

5. The length of the water access structure shall be no greater than 50 feet over water.

e. Extraordinary water access structures include any water access structures that do not

meet the criteria for standard water access structures, including, but not limited to, those with boathouses.

1. Boathouses shall not be larger than the minimum size required to accommodate

one watercraft. A boathouse shall not be enclosed or include living quarters. There shall be no fueling facilities in a boathouse located over water.

f. Regulations Applicable to Shoreline Stabilization Structures

1. No shoreline stabilization structure shall be permitted unless the applicant clearly

demonstrates that an erosion problem is posing a significant threat to life or property.

2. To the maximum extent possible, shoreline stabilization should be accomplished

by using a biotechnical erosion control method which uses appropriate native vegetation.

3. A seawall may be constructed only as a last resort where the applicant shows that

neither biotechnical erosion control methods nor rip-rap type revetments will alleviate a significant threat to life or property.

6.4.3.4 Lake Bottom Construction Permit Procedures

It shall be unlawful for any person to erect or deposit any object upon, or fix, fill or otherwise use the bottom of any lake or to construct or alter any water access structure

or shoreline stabilization structure within the corporate limits of the city, or cause the same to be done by or through any person, without first obtaining a permit from the City in accordance with the following procedures:

a. All permit applications shall be accompanied by the following information:

1. A location map of the proposed improvement.

2. A detailed statement describing the proposed improvement, including a list of

plants to be used for shoreline stabilization, where applicable.

3. Copies of permits from applicable state and federal regulatory agencies. Water access structures over 1,000 square feet must obtain the proper permissions from the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection before submitting an application to the City of Lakeland. A city permit for lake bottom construction shall be issued only after all required state and federal permits have been obtained.

4. Detailed drawings of the proposed improvement, including construction materials

and planting schemes where applicable.

5. Satisfactory evidence of title or other riparian rights of the applicant to the riparian upland ownership or submerged ownership, with a copy of the applicant’s deed in the chain of title.

b. All permit applications shall be submitted to the Building Inspection Division along

with the applicable fee. If the submission is determined to be sufficient, the permit application will be reviewed by the Building Official and the Manager of the Lakes and Stormwater Division. Before any permit is issued, the Building Official will review the plans to ensure compliance with applicable building codes; the Manager of Lakes and Stormwater shall make a written determination that all applicable conditions are met. If a negative determination is made as to any applicable condition, the permit shall be denied.

c. Permitting Procedures for Standard Water Access Structures and Shoreline

Stabilization Structures on Non-Parkway Lakeshores

Standard water access structures and shoreline stabilization structures on non- parkway lakeshores shall require review and approval of the Manager of the Lakes and Stormwater Division and Building Official before a permit is issued. Upon a determination that the permit application is sufficient and all applicable conditions are met, the Building Inspection Division shall provide the required building permits. No further reviews shall be required.

Figure 6.4-1 Standard Water Access Structure

d. Permitting Procedures for Extraordinary Water Access Structures on Non-Parkway Lakeshores

Extraordinary water access structures on non-parkway lakeshores shall require initial review and approval of the Manager of the Lakes and Stormwater Division and Building Official. Upon a determination that the permit application is sufficient and all applicable conditions have been met, the Building Inspection Division shall send a notice letter by regular mail to all neighbors within 250 feet of the applicant’s property advising them of the proposed structure and of the city’s intention to issue a permit for the structure unless a written request for a public hearing and decision by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals is received by the Building Inspection Division within 30 days of the date of the letter. If a written request for public hearing is not received within said 30 day period, the Building Inspection Division shall issue a permit for the structure. If a written request for a public hearing is timely received, the Building Inspection Division shall schedule a hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals and mail notice of said hearing to the permit applicant and all neighbors within 250 feet of the applicant’s property. The Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall conduct a hearing in accordance with its normal procedures. The Board shall consider the testimony and evidence and determine whether or not all conditions applicable to the structure have been met. If the Board finds that all conditions have been satisfied, it shall approve the application and direct the Building Inspection Division to issue a permit for the structure. If the Board finds that one or more applicable conditions have not been satisfied, the Board shall disapprove the application and direct the Building Inspection Division to deny the permit. The decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals shall constitute

MAX 3-1/2'

MAX. 3' ABOVE

ORDINARY HIGH WATER

MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK

final action by the city and may be appealed in the same manner as any other decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and Appeals.

e. Permitting Procedures for Lake Bottom Construction on Parkway Lakeshores

Any lake bottom construction on parkway lakeshores outlined in Section 6.4.3.2 shall require City Commission review and approval before a permit is issued. The Manager of the Lakes and Stormwater Division and Building Official shall review each application for sufficiency. Upon a determination that the permit application is sufficient for review, the Building Inspection Division shall schedule the application before the City Commission and send a notice letter by regular mail to all property owners within 250 feet of the applicant’s property advising them of the proposed water access structure and of the date and time of the City Commission meeting. The Lakes and Stormwater Division shall review each request for proposed standard water access structures for compliance with the conditions applicable to the structure or improvement and provide a written recommendation to the City Commission. Proposed extraordinary water access structures shall be reviewed by both the Lakes and Stormwater Division and the Community Development Planning Division, who shall jointly provide a written recommendation to the City Commission. The City Commission shall consider all relevant public comment and determine whether or not all conditions applicable to the structure or improvement have been met. Because of the public significance of parkway lakeshores, the City Commission may also consider any other factor appropriate for legislative consideration, including whether or not the proposed structure or improvement furthers or adversely impacts the overall public health, safety and welfare of the city. If the Commission finds that all conditions have been met and that the proposed structure or improvement is otherwise appropriate, it shall approve the application and direct the Building Inspection Division to issue a permit for the structure or improvement. If the Commission finds that one or more applicable conditions have not been satisfied, or that the proposed structure or improvement is otherwise incompatible with the public health, safety and welfare of the City, the Commission shall disapprove the application and direct the Building Inspection Division to deny the permit.

f. If approved, the Building Inspection Division shall issue a permit subject to the

condition that all work shall be fully and completely finished, in accordance with the approved plans, within the period of one year. Permits issued pursuant to this Article shall expire if the work authorized by the permit has not commenced within one year.

g. Repair and maintenance of existing structures

No permit shall be required for the repair or maintenance of water access or shoreline stabilization structures constructed pursuant to all required Federal, State and local permits provided the work does not change the original dimensions, design, or placement of the structure, and is necessary to maintain the structure in good condition.

6.4.3.5 Minimum Standards for Protection Of Wetland Habitats

All residential, commercial or industrial structures are prohibited within the jurisdictional boundaries of a wetland.

6.4.3.6 Lakeshore and Wetland Area Buffer Requirement

A natural vegetative buffer zone of 15 feet measured landward from the ordinary high water line or the delineated boundary of the wetland shall be maintained around all protected lakeshores and wetland areas. This buffer shall exist within the 50 foot lakeshore protection setback area and shall remain undisturbed and free of development activity at all times except for maintenance in the form of trimming.

6.4.3.7 Required Protected Species Habitat Management

Upon completion of an environmental assessment establishing the extent to which a protected species exists upon a site, special management programs shall be created by the developer or landowner to preserve the species upon the site by protection of its supporting habitat. Management programs, implemented in coordination with the development activity, shall use buffer zones, setbacks, conservation areas or easements and physical protection devices to preserve the supporting habitat and prevent disturbance of the species.

6.4.3.8 Protection of Fisheries

Protection of fishery habitats shall be accomplished by following all standards established within these regulations. Measures to ensure surface water quality, lakeshore and conservation area protection shall apply to the preservation of local fisheries.

6.4.3.9 Maximum Allowable Density

Maximum density within a conservation area shall not exceed a gross density of one unit per ten acres. All land development within these areas shall take measures to ensure minimal disruption to the natural environment.

6.5 SITE ALTERATION

6.5.1 APPLICABILITY

A site alteration permit shall be required for all clearing, contouring and grading of land including, but not limited to the alteration of land in preparation for sale or development, the placement or storage of fill, borrow pits, and/or the removal of regulated trees as defined in Section 4.5, regardless of changes to grade. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to existing platted lots zoned for single-family or two family dwellings, to bona fide general maintenance or agricultural maintenance not undertaken in association with the preparation of land for sale or development, or to operations necessary for the substantial improvement of existing structures.

6.5.2 SITE ALTERATION PLAN

6.5.2.1 Site Alteration Plan Required

A site alteration plan shall be prepared by a professional engineer, architect or landscape architect registered in the State of Florida based on contours and site feature locations that have been verified, signed and sealed by a land surveyor and mapper registered in the State of Florida. The plan shall not exceed one inch equals 200 feet in scale and shall contain the following information and documentation. For projects requiring site plan review, a separate site alteration plan shall not be required if this information can be shown on the site plan.

a. Existing topography versus graded topography indicated as cut and fill areas (contours

shall be shown in one foot intervals); b. The exact location of drainage basins, streams, channels, floodplains, floodways,

wetlands, and lakes, which exist on the site; c. The location of any protected habitat areas which exist on the site pursuant to the

provisions of Section 6.4.3; d. An Erosion Control Plan; e. The location of all regulated trees as defined in Section 4.5; and f. A legend containing the definition of all symbols used in the layout of the plan, the

scale of the map, the orientation and location, including the legal description.

6.5.2.2 Plan Submission

If a separate site alteration plan is required, six copies of the plan shall be submitted to the Building Official who shall transmit copies to the Public Works Department, the Parks and Recreation Department and the Community Development Department for review. One copy shall remain with the Building Inspection Division.

6.5.2.3 Plan Review

The Public Works Department, the Parks and Recreation Department and the Community Development Department shall approve or disapprove the site alteration plan within twenty days of receipt of a complete plan. The basis for approval shall be a finding by the Public Works Department that the plan provides for adequate erosion control, a finding by the Parks and Recreation Department that the plan provides for the protection of regulated trees or compensation for the destruction of regulated trees, and a finding by the Community Development Department that the plan provides adequate habitat protection standards in accordance with this Section.

Upon the approval of the plan by all review departments, the Building Official shall issue the site alteration permit. The applicant shall display the permit on the site at all times during site alteration work.

The site alteration permit shall constitute a tree removal permit in accordance with Section 4.5.

6.5.3 EROSION CONTROL STANDARDS

6.5.3.1 Criteria for Erosion Control Devices

Measures of erosion control needed to minimize or eliminate any transfer or removal of soil from a site during a rainfall event shall be established upon all applicable sites. Compilation of all features upon a site may necessitate unified measures of control.

6.5.3.2 Natural Bodies of Water

The use of natural bodies of water for siltation settling ponds shall be strictly prohibited.

6.5.3.3 Development Adjacent to Roadways and Rights-Of-Way

All roads and public rights-of-way shall be protected from the encroachment of any siltation or erosion-created spoils. Any material encroaching upon a roadway or public right-of-way due to the effects of erosion from a private site shall be immediately removed by the owner or developer of the property and all damages compensated or the material will be removed by the city at the expense of the owner or developer.

6.6 SURFACE WATER QUALITY


a. Intent

It is the intent of this Section to maintain standards of water quality and quantity within local bodies of water by establishing provisions regulating the management of stormwater within the city.

b. Applicability

1. The requirements established within this section shall apply under the following

conditions:

(a) Construction of a structure or the alteration of a site;

(b) Alteration to the rate, volume, and quality characteristics of stormwater runoff occurring upon a site; or

(c) Increase in the amount of impervious surface area upon a site.

b. Exemptions to Stormwater Management Provisions

The following land development activities are exempt from the stormwater management provisions:

1. A single-family or a single duplex dwelling unit;

2. Any structure constructed prior to the requirement for a stormwater plan;

3. Those projects which have received a Southwest Florida Water Management District permit prior to the adoption of these regulations, including multiple-use developments which have an approved master drainage plan;

4. Maintenance activity that does not change or affect the quality, intensity, volume,

or location of stormwater runoff upon the site; and

5. Actions taken under emergency conditions to prevent imminent harm or danger to persons, or to protect property from imminent damage. A report of the emergency action shall be made to the Public Works Department immediately following the event.

All activities which are exempt, nevertheless, are to be accomplished in a manner which prevents flooding of adjacent sites and roadways by stormwater runoff.

6.6.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

A stormwater management plan shall be prepared for each site proposed for development in accordance with the following:

a. Prior to the issuance of a permit for any construction activity which increases the area

of impervious surface, except that deemed exempt, a stormwater management plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval.

b. The stormwater management plan shall be made a part of the required site plan for any proposed alteration, addition, structure or development and shall include the following:

1. All required information pursuant to Southwest Florida Water Management

District application requirements for the management and storage of surface waters contained in Chapter 40D, Florida Administrative Code (FAC);

2. The location of all bodies of water and jurisdictional wetlands indicated upon the

topographic map required within Chapter 40D, FAC;

3. Any additional stormwater related information that the Public Works Department finds to be necessary for the proper review of the proposed activity; and

4. Certification that the plan was prepared by a professional engineer registered in

the State of Florida.

6.6.3 GENERAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

6.6.3.1 Maintenance of Pre-Development Standards

The characteristics of stormwater conveyed from the site shall, at a minimum, approximate the volume, quality and intensity that occurred on the site prior to development activity.

6.6.3.2 Water Quality Standards of Treated Stormwater

Treated stormwater standards are set forth and hereby adopted within these regulations by reference to Section 62-25 and Section 62-302 of the Florida Administrative Code.

6.6.3.3 Compliance with State and Regional Regulations

The design and performance of all stormwater management systems shall comply with the following State of Florida regulations:

a. Section 62-25, Florida Administrative Code, regulating stormwater discharge;

b. Requirements of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Section 40D-4

and 40D-40, Florida Administrative Code; and

c. Chapter 373, Florida Statutes.

6.6.3.4 Intergovernmental Coordination of Approval

Prior to approval by the Public Works Department, the stormwater management plan shall be reviewed and its approval documented by all other governmental authorities having jurisdiction. Approval by such authorities shall be a mandatory requirement prior to obtaining a building permit from the city. Government agencies which may have authority include:

a. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT);

b. Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD);

c. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP);

d. Polk County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC);

e. Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE); and

f. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

6.6.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS

6.6.4.1 Minimum Design Standards for Stormwater Systems

All structures required as necessary devices within a stormwater management system shall be designed and constructed so as to conform with the Engineering Standards Manual.

6.6.4.2 Certification of Established Systems

The design and construction of the proposed stormwater management system shall be certified as meeting the requirements of this section by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida.

6.6.4.3 Systems within Phased Developments

In phased developments, stormwater systems for each integrated phase shall be independently functional unless specific development provisions are approved by the Public Works Department.

6.6.4.4 Access to Stormwater Structures

All man-made components within a stormwater management system shall be easily accessible for maintenance by streets, public rights-of-way or access easements.

6.6.4.5 Responsibility for Maintenance

It shall be the landowner who is responsible for maintenance of the established stormwater management system and structures therein unless legal and binding agreements are established to transfer this responsibility.

6.7 WELLHEAD AND AQUIFER PROTECTION


a. Intent

It is the intent of this Section to preserve the quality and availability of safe drinking water by protecting large capacity wells and areas of high aquifer recharge from the potential of contamination and degradation due to the proximity of specific land uses or activities. The Community Development Department shall review applicable development activity for conformance with this Section.

b. Applicability

The requirements of this Section shall apply to the construction or expansion of any structure or any impervious surface, or any change in use involving such structure or site, if any part of the development site (lot or parcel) falls within a Wellhead Protection Zone or within a designated area of high aquifer recharge as defined herein.

6.7.2 WELLHEAD PROTECTION STANDARDS

6.7.2.1 Wellhead Protection Zones

Wellhead Protection Zones having a radius of 500 feet around each public potable water wellhead possessing a pumping capacity of one million gallons a day or greater shall be delineated on the Official Zoning Map.

6.7.2.2 Prohibited Uses within Wellhead Protection Zones

The following uses, temporary or permanent, shall be prohibited:

a. Sanitary landfills and junk yards;

b. Wastewater treatment plants;

c. Petroleum storage and distribution facilities as a primary use and all underground

fuel, petroleum or chemical storage facilities;

d. Dairy farming;

e. Agricultural land treated with any regulated substance listed in Table 6.7-1;

f. Land uses incorporating deep penetration injector wells; and

g. Facilities which store, process, or handle any hazardous, toxic or medical waste.

Table 6.7-1: REGULATED SUBSTANCES

bezonitrile benzoquinone benzoyl chloride benzo (a) anthracene benzo (a) pyrene benzo (b) fluoranthene benzo (ghi) perylene benzo (k) fluoranthene benzyl alcohol benzyl chloride beryllium beryllium chloride beryllium fluoride beryllium nitrate beta-BHC bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane bis (2-chlorethyl) ether bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether bis (2-chloromethyl) ether bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate bromoform bromophenylphenyl ether butylacetate butylbenzyl phthalate butyldinitrophenol butylphthalate butyric acid cadmium acetate cadmium bromide cadmium chloride calcium arsenate calcium arsenite calcium carbide calcium chromate calcium cyanide

ammonium oxalate ammonium silicofluoride ammonium sulfamate ammonium sulfide ammonium sulfite ammonium tartrate ammonium thiocyanate ammonium thiosulfate amyl acetate aniline anthracene antimony pentachloride antimony potassium tartrate antimony tribromide antimony trichloride antimony trifluoride antimony trioxide aroclor 1016 aroclor 1221 aroclor 1232 aroclor 1242 aroclor 1248 aroclor 1254 aroclor 1260 arsenic arsenic disulfide arsenic pentoxide arsenic trichloride arsenic trioxide arsenic trisulfide barium cyanide benzene benzenethiol benzidine (dihydrochloride) benzoic acid

acenaphthene acenaphylene acetaldehyde acetic acid acetic anhydride acetone acetone cyanohydrin acetonitrile acetophenone acetyl bromide acetyl chloride acetylaminofluorene acrolein acrylonitrile adipic acid aldrin allyl alcohol allyl chloride alpha-BHC aluminum sulfate aminobiphenyl ammonia ammonium acetate ammonium benzoate ammonium bicarbonate ammonium bichromate ammonium bifluoride ammonium bisulfide ammonium carbamate ammonium chloride ammonium chromate ammonium citrate ammonium fluoride ammonium fluoroborate ammonium hydroxide

diethylpyrazinyl phosphorothioate dimethoxybenzidine dimethyl phthalateq dimethylamine dimethylaminoazobenzene dimethylbenzidine dimethylbenz (a) anthracene dimethylphenethylamine dimethylphenol dinitrobenzene dinitrocresol dinitropheno dinitrotoluene dioctyl phthalate dioxane diphenylamine diphenylhydrazine dipropylnitrosamine diquat (dibromide) disulfoton diuron dodecylbenzenesulfonate dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid EDTA Endosulfan endosulfan endrin endrin aldehyde epichloro hydrin ethion ethyl cyanide ethylamine ethylene dibromide ethylene oxide ethylenediamine ethylmethacrylate ferric ammonium citrate

cupric ammonium sulfate cupric chloride cupric nitrate cupric oxalate cupric sulfate cupric tartrate cyclohexane DDD DDE DDT delta-BHC diazinon dibenzofuran dibenzo (a,e) pyrene dibenzo (a,h) pyrene dibenzo (a,I) pyrene dibenzo (a,h) anthracene dibutyl phthalate dicamba dichlobenil dichlone dichlorobenzene dichlorobenzidine dichlorobromomethane dichlorobutene dichlorodifluoromethane dichloroethane dichloroethylene dichloroiodomethane dichlorophenol dichlorophenoxyacetic acid dichloropropane dichloropropene dichloropropionic acid dichlorvos dieldrin diethyl phthalate diethylamine

calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate calcium hypochlorite captan carbaryl carbofuran carbon disulfide carbon tetrachloride chlordane chlordecone chloroaniline chlorobenzene chlorobenzilate chlorobutadiene chlorocresol chlorodibromomethane chloroethane chloroethyl vinyl ether chloroform chloronaphthalene chlorophenol chlorophenylphenyl ether chloropropionitrile chloropyrifos chlorosulfonic acid chlorotoluene chromic acid chromic sulfate chromoic acetate chromous chloride chrysene cobaltous bromide cobaltous formate cobaltous sulfamate coumaphos cresol crontonaldehyde cupric acetate cupric acetoarsenite

mirex naled naphthalene naphthoquinone naphthylamine naphthenic acid nickel nickel ammonium sulfate nickel chloride nickel hydroxide nickel nitrate nickel sulfate nitric acid nitroaniline nitrobenzene nitrophenol nitropiperidine nitrosodibutylamine nitrosodiethylamine nitrosodimethylamine nitrosodiphenolamine nitrosodipropylamine nitrosomethylethylamine nitrosomorpholine nitrosophyrrolidine nitrotoluene nitrotoluidine osmium parathion pentachloroenzene pentachlorodibenzofuran pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin pentachloroethane pentachloronitrobenzene pentachlorophenol phenacetin phenanthrene phenol

kepone lead acetate lead arsenate lead chloride lead fluoride lead iodide lead nitrate lead stearate lead sulfate lead sulfide lead thiocyanate lindane lithium chromate malathion maleic acid malononitrile mercaptodimethur mercuric cyanide mercuric nitrate mercuric sulfate mercuric thiocyanate mercurous nitrate methacrylonitrile methapyrilene methyl chloride methylamine methylcholanthrene methylene chloride methylenebis (chloroaniline) methylethylketone methylmercaptan methylmethacrylate methylmethanesulfonate methylnaphthalene methylparathion methylpentanone mevinphos mexacarbate

ferric ammonium oxalate ferric chloride ferric fluoride ferric nitrate ferric sulfate ferrous ammonium sulfate ferrous chloride ferrous sulfate fluoranthene fluorene formaldehyde formic acid fumaric acid furfural guthion heptachlor heptachlor epoxide hexachlorobenzene hexachlorobutadiene hexachlorocyclopentadiene hexanchlorodibenzofuran hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin hexachloroethane hexachlorophene hexachloropropene hexanone hydrochloric acid hydrofluoric acid hydrogen cyanide hydrogen sulfide indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene iodomethane isobutyl alcohol isophorone isoprene isopropanolamine isosafrole kelthane

uranyl nitrate vanadium vanadium pentoxide vanadium sulfate vinyl acetate xylene zinc acetate zinc ammonium chloride zinc borate zinc bromide zinc carbonate zinc chloride zinc cyanide zinc fluoride zinc formate zinc hydrosulfonate zinc nitrate zinc phenolsulfonate zinc phosphide zinc silicofluoride zinc sulfate zinconium nitrate zirconium potassium fluoride zirconium sulfate zirconium tetrachloride

sodium methylate sodium nitrite sodium phosphate sodium selenite strontium chromate strychnine styrene sulfur chloride sulfuric acid TCDD TDE Tetrachlrobenzene tetrachlorodibenzo dioxin tetrachlorodibenzofuran tetrachloroethane tetrachloroethylene tetrachlorophenol tetraethyl lead tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate tetraethylpyrophosphate thallium thallium sulfate toluene toxaphene tribromomethane trichlorfon trichlorobenzene trichloroethane trichloroethylene trichlorofluoromethane trichloromethanethiol trichlorophenol trichloropropane triethanolamine dodecylbenzenesulfonate triethylamine trimethylamine tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate uranyl acetate

phosphoric acid phosphorous phosphorous oxychloride phosphorous pentasulfide phosphorous trichloride picoline potassium arsenate potassium arsenite potassium cyanide potassium dichromate potassium hydroxide potassium permanganate pronemide propargite propionic acid propionic anhydride propylene oxide propynol pyrene pyrethrin pyridine quinoline resourcinol safrole selenium oxide silver nitrate sodium sodium arsenate sodium arsenite sodium bichromate sodium bifluoride sodium bisulfite sodium bichromate sodium cyanide sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate sodium fluoride sodium hydrosulfide sodium hypochlorite

6.7.2.3 Restricted Uses

Any commercial or industrial land use, temporary or permanent, which requires the storage, use or production of any regulated substance in excess of 10 gallons in liquid form or 10 pounds in solid form, shall require a restricted use operating permit. This shall not include the storage of any routine cleaning or other maintenance products, provided that all other applicable state and federal regulations are satisfied. Restricted uses shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

a. Commercial laundry, dry cleaning, dying processes, textile manufacturing;

b. Printing, photographic processing, and paper manufacture;

c. Herbicide, fertilizer and pesticide manufacturing or distribution;

d. Manufacturing or distribution of chemical products, plastics or other general

manufacturing which utilizes any of the regulated substances listed in Table 6.7-1; and

e. Uses associated with automobile maintenance, storage and repair.

6.7.2.4 Restricted Use Operating Permit

Application for a restricted use operating permit shall be made through the Water Utilities Department in accordance with such submittals and procedures as the department shall require.

6.7.3 AQUIFER RECHARGE PROTECTION STANDARDS

In the event that any areas of high aquifer recharge are determined by the Southwest Florida Water Management District to exist upon a property within the corporate limits, the city shall reserve the right to limit land use intensity and set specific standards regulating stormwater management upon the affected parcels.

6.7.4 PREVENTION OF SINKHOLE CONTAMINATION

Sinkholes, sinks and similar karst formations, having direct connection with the aquifer system, shall be protected from contamination by the following:

6.7.4.1 Stormwater Contamination

Stormwater runoff shall be prohibited from direct or indirect discharge into any geological feature possessing unrestricted connection to an aquifer system or any channeling structure that directly achieves this action. Exceptions may be considered pursuant to Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, if pre-development standards of runoff warrant such an exemption of treated stormwater runoff.

6.7.4.2 Fill Material

Material to be used for the purpose of bulk fill of an sinkhole cavity shall be clean and free of the following contaminants:

a. All regulated substances listed in Table 6.7-1;

b. All petroleum based products including tar and roofing material; and

c. Biological wastes.

6.8 ENFORCEMENT

6.8.1 ENFORCEMENT

6.8.1.1 Stop Work Order

The city may, at any time during development or site alteration activity, reserve the right to issue a stop work order to a developer or landowner in the interest of enforcing the provisions of these regulations. A stop work order may be issued when the impact of a development activity violates the purpose or provisions of this Article. This may include the following:

a. Non-compliance with the requirements of this Article;

b. Documented or verifiable evidence reveals the presence of a protected species or

protected habitat on a site not recognized or specifically reviewed in the site alteration plan;

c. Habitat management programs have not been implemented according to pre-

development approval conditions;

d. Erosion control devices have not been established pursuant to the approved site alteration plan;

e. Improper use, disposal, handling or spillage of regulated substances, construction

supplies or other materials which may result in an adverse impact upon a natural resource protected within these regulations; or

f. Necessary permits from state or regional government agencies have not been

properly obtained.

6.8.1.2 Removal of a Stop Work Order

The Stop Work Order can only be removed by fulfilling all remedial requirements and compliance with the provisions of these regulations.

6.8.1.3 Monitoring

Management measures implemented or devices required by these regulations shall be subject to spot inspections by the city. Violations may be recorded at any time and referred to the Code Enforcement Board.

6.8.2 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES

6.8.2.1 General Violations

A violation against any provision of these regulations may be held as grounds for denying or repealing a development permit.

6.8.2.2 Repeated Non-Compliance

Any owner, developer, or other party representing a site which does not conform to the provisions of this Article shall be referred to the Code Enforcement Board. The board shall have the authority to impose a re-occurring daily fine for non-compliance.

Streets, Lakes, and Stormwater SOPs

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PRACTICE CHAPTER 24 SECTION 24.1 Coordination with Transportation Planning SECTION 24.2 Street and Highway Facility Inventory SECTION 24.3 Street Infrastructure Condition SECTION 24.4 Pavement Management System SECTION 24.5 Preventative Maintenance SECTION 24.6 Operations and Maintenance Responsibility SECTION 24.7 Operations and Maintenance Condition SECTONI 24.8 Operations and Maintenance Procedures and Standards SECTION 24.9 Operation and Maintenance Inspection SECTION 24.10 Work Crew Records SEDTION 24.11 Material Conservation SECTION 24.12 Pavement Cut Restoration SECTION 24.13 Guardrails and Impact Attenuators SECTION 24.14 Catch Basin and Inlets SECTION 24.15 Curbs, Gutters and Sidewalks SECTION 24.16 Graffiti Removal from Public Infrastructure CHAPTER 25 SECTION 25.1 Planning SECTION 25.2 Environmental Compliance SECTION 25.3 Debris, Leaf and Litter Collection SECTION 25.4 Routing SECTION 25.5 Scheduling SECTION 25.6 Litter Control SECTION 25.7 Storage Receptacles SECTION 25.8 Dead Animal Pickup CHAPTER 27 SECTION 27.1 Storm and Flood Management Service Levels SECTION 27.2 Operation Plan SECTION 27.3 Floodplain and Floodway Management SECTION 27.4 Water Quality Goals SECTION 27.5 System In-Flow of Polluted Runoff SECTION 27.6 Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharge into System SECTION 27.7 Watershed Stormwater Drainage Master Plan SECTION 27.8 Infrastructure Inventory SECTION 27.9 Infrastructure Condition SECTION 27.10 Stormwater Design SECTION 27.11 Stormwater System Improvement SECTION 27.12 Sediment and Erosion Control SECTION 27.13 Stormwater Flood Warning Systems SECTION 27.14 Infrastructure Inspection SECTION 27.15 Conveyance, Storage, and BMP Operations SECTION 27.16 Private Owner Operations and Maintenance SECTION 27.17 Private Facility Inspection SECTION 27.18 Pollution Prevention Plans SECTION 27.19 Public Education

CITY OF LAKELAND PUBLIC WORKS PRACTICES MANUAL

CHAPTER 24 – Street Maintenance

1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.1

PRACTICE: Coordination with Transportation Planning EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 2015

DIVISION(S): Construction and Maintenance

REVIEWED BY: Greg James, Assistant Director of Public Works

APPROVED BY: Richard E. Lilyquist, P.E., Director of Public Works

POLICY:C & M shall utilize the Collector Streets Annual Resurfacing List: Candidate Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Enhancements Standard Operating Procedure in conjunction with short-term roadway pavement maintenance activities.

PRACTICE:The Construction & Maintenance Division is responsible for the development of the City’s annual roadway pavement maintenance strategies and administering the project funds. Included, as a part of this effort, is the formation of the resurfacing list of City Collector Streets. Such list is provided to Public Works Engineering, Traffic Operations, and Community Development Department’s Transportation Planner, to determine candidate multi-modal enhancements for potential inclusion in the resurfacing of the noted collector streets.

GUIDELINES:A. Annually, during the month of October, the C&M Manager will provide a 2-year resurfacing list of collector

streets developed from the Micropaver software, to the Public Works Engineering Division, Traffic Operations Division and the Community Development Department’s Transportation Planner. The list will include a map showing locations of roads, including the limits of resurfacing, along with the proposed strategy.

B. Public Works Engineering and Traffic Division, and Community Development, will respond back to C&M in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the list of potential bicycle, pedestrian and transit enhancements to make in conjunction with the proposed street resurfacing.

C. C&M shall review the potential enhancements, to determine the associated cost and feasibility of adding such enhancements.



2

REFERENCES:

24.1a Public Works Practices Manual – Practice 24.1 24.1b C&M SOP - Collector Streets Annual Resurfacing List Candidate Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Enhancements Policy 24.1c FY 2015 – 2017 Candidate Multi-Modal Enhancements – Collector Streets

Revised Effective Date:



1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.2

PRACTICE: Street and Highway Facility Inventory EFFECTIVE DATE: August 24, 2015

DIVISION(S): Engineering, Construction and Maintenance, Traffic Operations, and Lakes and

Stormwater Divisions



POLICY: The City of Lakeland’s street and highway network and accompanying features are maintained and updated on a

regular schedule by multiple divisions within the Public Works Department.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department shall maintain a record or inventory of the City’s street and highway network and

accompanying features and update them on a regular basis.

GUIDELINES:A. An inventory and corresponding inspection records of roadway surfaces (including bike lanes) is

maintained by the Construction & Maintenance Division (C & M) in a pavement management database (MicroPAVER) and updated every three (3) years.

B. A database containing inventory of all City streets, sidewalks and curb ramps resides within ArcMap (GIS).

C. An inventory of City-maintained curb and gutters are managed and updated by C & M in an Excel spreadsheet and utilized in the City’s street sweeping program.

D. Inventories of City-maintained recreational paths are managed and updated as inventories increase, by C & M in an Excel spreadsheet.

E. The City’s storm sewer system inventory is maintained and updated by the Engineering Division’s GIS Technician in a database with ArcMap.

F. City-maintained bridges are inventoried by C & M, located in GIS and inspected by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) annually.

G. An inventory of all city-maintained traffic control devices and signs are managed and updated in an Excel spreadsheet by the City’s Traffic Operations Division.

H. City utilities (sanitary sewer, water, electric) are inventoried by their respective departments and maintained in GIS.



2

REFERENCES:

24.2a Public Works Practices Manual – Practice 24.2

24.2b Street Inventory

24.2c Inlets by Zone

24.2d Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory and Condition Ratings

24.2e Storm Water Structure Inventory Collection and Input SOP– Practice 27.8

24.2f COL Sidewalk and Curb Replacement Plan




1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.3

PRACTICE: Street Infrastructure Condition EFFECTIVE DATE: January 22, 2016

DIVISION(S): Construction and Maintenance Division

APPROVED BY: Greg James, Interim Director of Public Works

POLICY:The City of Lakeland’s street infrastructure condition is maintained and updated on a regular schedule by the

Construction & Maintenance (C & M) Division.

PRACTICE: C & M inventories, maintains and uses a Pavement Management Program in tracking maintenance and operating

costs to maximize life expectancy of the infrastructure.

GUIDELINES:A. Street infrastructure condition and maintenance:

1. An inventory of roadways, alleys, sidewalks, and curb ramps are maintained in a Pavement

Management database (Micropaver) and are inspected and updated every three (3) years.

2. An inventory of curb and gutters are maintained in an Excel spreadsheet and is used in the street

sweeping plan. Curbs are repaired or replaced if they are deemed a hazard or are part of a capital

improvement project.

3. Inlets are inspected routinely by the area crews (by quadrants) and are cleaned and repaired as

needed.

4. Storm sewer lines are routinely inspected and flushed, as needed, with the goal of inspecting 10%

of the total storm sewer lines each year. The lines are televised and repairs are made as needed.

5. All the daily work performed is tracked by a work management system. The C&M pavement

management system is updated to reflect the work history and current condition ratings. All C&M

task costs, associated with infrastructure maintenance and inspection, are tracked through the

work order management system.

REFERENCES:




2

24.3b Construction and Maintenance Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Inventory and Condition Ratings(Very large document, please use hyperlink)

24.3c Construction and Maintenance Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Replacement Plan (Very large document, please use hyperlink)

24.3d Inlets by Quadrant Inventory (Very large document, please use hyperlink)

24.3ee 5-Year Pavement Plan (Very large document, please use hyperlink)




1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.4

PRACTICE: Pavement Management System EFFECTIVE DATE: February 24, 2015

DIVISION(S): Construction & Maintenance Division



POLICY:The Construction and Maintenance (C&M) Division utilizes a Pavement Management System to manage all roadway

infrastructures.

PRACTICE:The C&M Division utilizes a pavement management system (Micropaver) that utilizes the condition coding of

roadways coupled with the identification of strategies to determine maintenance or reconstruction activities. It is a

planning tool that is able to model pavement and surface deterioration due to the effects of traffic and environmental

aging and contains a series of decision units used to determine how and when to repair a road’s surface based on

various tests. These tests can be simply visual or employ special software and databases to provide rankings for

roads or road sections so they can be maintained in the most economical and efficient manner.

GUIDELINES:A. Micropaver software is an automated pavement management system (PMS). It is a decision making tool for

the development of cost effective maintenance and repair alternatives for roads, streets and parking lots that

provides many important capabilities, including:

1. Pavement Inventory: The first step in a pavement inventory is to create a network of a hierarchical

structure. For example, in the pavement management system –“COL Roadways” is the network, each

street is a branch of the network, and each street segment is a section of the branch.

2. Pavement Condition Ratings: This process involves collecting distress types and severity levels for

each street segment. The information would be entered into the pavement management system and

stored in data tables which are then used to calculate a Pavement Condition Index for each section.

3. Development of Pavement Condition Deterioration Models: The pavement condition deterioration

models or life cycle curves demonstrate that one dollar spent for preventative maintenance early in the

life of the pavement is equivalent to four to five dollars spent later in the pavement life.



2

4. Determination of Present and Future Pavement Condition: The Condition Analysis feature of the

pavement management system allows the user to view the condition of the pavement network. The

analysis is based on prior inspection data, interpolated values between previous inspections, and

projected conditions based on street section assignments. For example street sections are assigned to

families based on like conditions such as base type, traffic conditions, etc. The pavement management

system can predict the deterioration of pavements once the analyzed pavements and duration of time

are chosen.

5. Determination of Maintenance and Repair (M&R) Needs and Analyzing the Consequence of Different

Budget Scenarios: The pavement management system’s Work Plan is a tool for planning, scheduling,

budgeting, and analyzing alternative pavement maintenance and repair (M&R) activities. The M&R Plan

utilizes basic inventory data combined with inspection information, maintenance policies, maintenance

costs, and predictions about future pavement condition.

REFERENCES:


24.4b City of Lakeland Streets

24.4c Prediction Modeling

24.4d Work Planning

24.4e Budget Determination




1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.5

PRACTICE: Preventive Maintenance EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2015




POLICY:The Construction & Maintenance (C&M) Division has a Preventive Maintenance Program for the City’s street and

highway system to preserve pavement, delay future deterioration, and improve overall conditions.

PRACTICE:The Public Works C&M Division provides the timely and appropriate preventive maintenance strategies to its street

and highway system to prolong the useful life of the facility and reduce maintenance and rehabilitation costs.

GUIDELINES:An annual paving program centered on pavement preservation is derived from the City’s pavement management

system (Micropaver). The pavement management program is a decision making process or system that helps Public

Works personnel make cost-effective decisions concerning the maintenance and rehabilitation strategy of pavements

in a systematic way. Preventive maintenance consists of planned activities to extend pavement life for pavements

that are in good condition. The following steps provide a detailed procedure for pavement preservation:

A. An annual paving program focused on pavement preservation is derived from the pavement management

system and includes regular evaluations, preventive maintenance, some forms of reactive maintenance, as

well as minor rehabilitation projects. The City’s approach to pavement management is to “place the right

treatment to the right road at the right time”, in contrast to the approach used prior to the 1990’s of “worst

road, first”, In other words, the City attempts maximize the effectiveness of funding available for road

maintenance by being proactive to roads still in good condition instead of reacting to roads in poor condition.

B. Preventive maintenance is a strategy of extending the service life by applying cost-effective treatments to

the surface of structurally sound pavements. Examples of preventive treatments used include pothole

patching, asphalt crack sealing, chip sealing, cape sealing, scrub sealing, slurry sealing, micro-surfacing,

micro paving and thin and ultra-thin hot-mix asphalt overlays.



2

C. Streets that have deteriorated beyond the point of a preventive maintenance strategy will require some

form of major rehabilitation or reconstruction.

Streets that do not qualify for a preventive treatment are evaluated to determine the extent of rehabilitation and/or

reconstruction along with the associated cost. If the total cost of the pavement management strategy exceeds

$200,000 then it is recommended to be placed in the Transportation Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as an

individual Transportation Fund CIP project. If less than $200,000 then the rehabilitation of the street is funded

through the Annual Resurfacing Program.

REFERENCES:


24.5b Good Roads Cost Money

24.5c Paving Program PAVER

24.5d Pavement Inspection Form




1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.6

PRACTICE: Operations and Maintenance Responsibility EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 2015

DIVISION(S): Construction and Maintenance and Traffic Operations Divisions



POLICY:The responsibility for the operation and maintenance of streets and related facilities is established.

PRACTICE:To ensure the operations and maintenance responsibilities are carried out consistently and properly, specific areas of

responsibility are established and documented. A clear delineation of responsibility to maintain these facilities will

help to ensure that proper resources are allocated for this activity and minimize undue delay or confusion in

emergencies.

GUIDELINES:The Public Works Director ensures that the operations and maintenance activities for all street infrastructure which includes, storm sewers, roadways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic control devices, and signs are accomplished.

A. The C & M Manager is responsible for maintenance and construction activities of roadways and drainage systems to include storm sewers, roadways, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. The C & M Division Manager reports to the Public Works Director.

1. C & M Supervisors manage the overall maintenance, repair, and construction of roadways and drainage infrastructure, and assures new and existing infrastructure meets accepted standards. The C & M Supervisors report to the C & M Division Manager.

2. C & M Foremen are responsible for the day-to-day operations directly involved with the maintenance and construction activities of roadways and drainage infrastructure, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks and schedules daily work assignments. The C & M Foremen report to the C & M Supervisors.



2

B. The Manager of Traffic Operations is responsible for the overall maintenance, construction and management of traffic signs, signals, and parking operations of the City of Lakeland. The Manager of Traffic Operations reports to the Public Works Director.

1. The Traffic Sign Foreman manages the overall maintenance, repair, and construction of signing installed within the City-maintained rights-of-way. The Traffic Sign Foreman is responsible for ensuring that all signs are fabricated and installed per guidelines and standards established by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and Florida Department of Transportation and schedules daily work assignments of the Sign Technicians. The Traffic Sign Foreman reports to the Manager of Traffic Operations.

2. The Traffic Signal Foreman is responsible for the operation and maintenance of traffic signals that are installed within City rights-of-way and those signals under a maintenance agreement with the FDOT. The Traffic Signal Foreman works closely with the Traffic System Operator to ensure correct signal timings and sequences are in place and schedules daily work assignments of the Traffic Signal Technicians. The Traffic Signal Foreman reports to the Manager of Traffic Operations.

3. The Traffic System Operator is responsible for the daily operations and management of the Traffic Management Center for the City of Lakeland. This involves ensuring that all traffic signals maintained by the City operate to established criteria for each intersection and schedules daily work assignments of direct reports. The Traffic System Operator reports to the Manager of Traffic Operations.

REFERENCES: 24.6a Public Works Practices Manual – Practice 24.6

24.6b C&M SOP Resurfacing of Collector Streets

24.6c Traffic Operations Policy and Procedure Manual




1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.7

PRACTICE: Operations and Maintenance Coordination EFFECTIVE DATE: September 16, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Construction and Maintenance (C&M) Division coordinates operations and maintenance activities

for streets and related facilities with all other departments, divisions, agencies, and outside organizations that may be

affected.

PRACTICE:The C & M Division coordinates the operations and maintenance activities of streets and related facilities with all

other departments, divisions, agencies, and outside organizations to minimize undue delay, disruption or confusion

during these activities.

GUIDELINES:A. Operations and maintenance activities for streets and related facilities are coordinated with all other

departments, divisions, agencies and outside organizations as follows:

1. Sidewalk repair or replacement: Utility locates are called in to the Sunshine State One Call of Florida at

least 48 hours prior to the start of work.

2. Pavement Maintenance: An email is sent to the City’s Public Information Officer (PIO) to be sent out

with the date, time, and locations of work. A reverse 911 call is made to the affected residents two (2)

weeks prior to start of work, message boards are set up on streets that are being resurfaced with

information to the traveling public, and a door hanger is placed on each home the day before the work

is to begin.

3. Storm pipe repair or replacement: Utility locates are called in to the Sunshine State One Call of Florida

at least 48 hours prior to the start of work. An email is sent to the City’s PIO to be sent out with the date,

time, reason and location of any temporary road closures during completion of the work.

4. Ditch excavation: Utility locates are called into the Sunshine State One Call of Florida at least 48 hours

prior to start of work.



2

B. Once it is determined that a road closure is needed to perform a maintenance activity, the Maintenance

Supervisor shall notify the C&M Division Manager via email. The email shall include the date, time, location,

reason for the closure, duration of the closure and a map of alternative routes. Once approved, the Division

Manager, or his designee forwards information to the Public Works Director and the Public Information

Officer to be published or posted.

REFERENCES:


24.7b Road Closure Email - Example

24.7c New Jersey Road Resurfacing Coordination Memo




1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.8

PRACTICE: Operations and Maintenance Procedures and Standards EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 2015




POLICY: C&M’s operations and maintenance procedures and performance standards are established and measured to

improve performance and service delivery.

PRACTICE:C&M Division procedures for conducting operations and maintenance activities are based on accepted industry

practices, available resources, environmental issues, and other conditions. Performance standards indicate how

operations and maintenance activities will be accomplished with available resources.

GUIDELINES:A. The City of Lakeland adopted the FDOT- Manuel of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction

and Maintenance for Streets and Highways as a manual that provides the basic guidelines for developing

street and highway facilities with reasonable operating characteristics with a minimum number of hazards.

B. Maintenance operations are recorded daily in a work order system to track tasks, personnel, equipment,

materials, quantities, production, costs, etc. This process is intended to facilitate timely and accurate

information reporting with a focus on effectively using resources and improving production and therefore

improving operations.

C. The City of Lakeland is a member of the Florida Benchmarking Consortium which is the largest local

government intra-state benchmarking consortium within the United States. This is a tool to compare our

performance measures on road repair and stormwater drainage maintenance with other municipalities of

comparable size and budgets.

REFERENCES:




2

24.8b City of Lakeland Engineering Standards Manual, Section I, General I – I

24.8c Task Comparison Report

24.8d Florida Benchmarking Consortium Annual Report




1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.9

PRACTICE: Operation and Maintenance Inspection EFFECTIVE DATE: August 26, 2015

DIVISION(S): Construction and Maintenance and Traffic Operations Divisions



POLICY: The Public Works Department establishes the frequency and level of inspection for all transportation system

elements including, but not limited to, roadways, bridges, bikeways, retaining walls, guardrails, sidewalks, signs, and

signals.

PRACTICE: Inspections are made at regular intervals for structural integrity to identify damage or decay and thus prevent failure

of existing infrastructure. Inspections are made during construction and at regular intervals afterwards.

GUIDELINES:A. Public Works C&M Division schedules and inspects streets, alleys, sidewalks, curb ramps, bridges, and

drainage system.

1. The streets, bike lanes, alleys, and multi use recreational paths are inspected once every three (3)

years. The process involves collecting distress types and severity levels for each street segment. The

information is entered into the paver program and stored in data tables and used to calculate a

Pavement Condition Index for each pavement segment.

2. Sidewalk and curb ramps are inspected once every three (3) years. The annual sidewalk repair and

replacement program is developed such that non-compliant ADA curb ramps and sidewalks on

resurfacing projects are given the highest priority. Remaining funds are then distributed by zones and

the work performed according to the condition ratings.

3. Guardrails are visually inspections during routine maintenance activities of C&M area crews.

4. Bridges are inspected once every two (2) years. Bridges are inspected by the Florida Department of

Transportation through the National Bridge Inspection Program.



2

5. Drainage infrastructure inspections: Pollution Control Devices and leaf baskets are inspected and

cleaned monthly. In accordance with the City’s NPDES MS4 permit, the storm sewer system is

inspected on a 10-year recurring frequency.

B. Public Works Traffic Operations Division inspects signs and signals on an annual basis. A complete

inspection of all city-maintained traffic signals is done in accordance with the Annual Preventive

Maintenance Checklist. Traffic signs are inspected for both visibility and reflectivity and are checked during

daylight and nighttime.


24.9b City of Lakeland Street Inventory List - 2015

24.9c City of Lakeland Sidewalk Inventory and Condition List - 2015

24.9d City of Lakeland Ramps Inventory List - 2015

24.9e Bridge Inspection Report – 2015

24.9f City of Lakeland Drainage Facilities List - 2014

24.9g Public Works Annual Preventative Maintenance Checklist




1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.10

PRACTICE: Work Crew Records EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 2015



POLICY: The Construction and Maintenance (C&M) Division of Public Works creates and maintains work crew records to

document types of activities, repairs, costs, and locations.

PRACTICE: The daily C&M work crews record documents are kept in a work order system that serves as a reference when

investigating the repair history or information of an activity when needed. The record documents or work orders

include crew activities, repairs, materials, and locations.

GUIDELINES:A. C&M crews complete a daily work record that documents their activities, repairs, materials, and locations.

B. The work records are turned in daily to their foreman who enters the records into the work order system.

C. Reports can be generated from the work order system showing the project or task, location, start and

complete dates, personnel, equipment, materials, and the cost of each project or task.

REFERENCES:


24.10b Construction & Maintenance Work Order (Example)




PRACTICE NO.: 24.11

PRACTICE: Material Conservation EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 2015

DIVISION(S): All Public Works Divisions



POLICY: The Public Works Department shall follow the below referenced policy that addresses material conservation in

planning, design, operations and maintenance.

PRACTICE: Consideration is given to conservation of materials in all aspects of program operation. Material stockpiles are

inventoried and usage is monitored. Where feasible and cost-effective, materials are recycled or reused.

GUIDELINES:Planning & Design

A. Design plans are reviewed to verify that all material quantities are accurate for the completion of the project,

help reduce costs and achieve the goal of a high quality product.

B. Design plans include appropriate construction stipulations and general notes (when applicable) in order to

recycle and conserve construction materials:

1. All recyclable materials shall remain the property of the City of Lakeland unless otherwise specified by

the Engineer.

2. The contractor shall deliver all broken concrete to the Construction & Maintenance Division at 407

Fairway Avenue for recycling.

3. For roadway and drainage projects, any bricks that are excavated under the asphalt surface must be

returned to the Construction & Maintenance Division at 407 Fairway Avenue.

4. All existing traffic signal hardware and traffic signs that are replaced are returned to the Traffic

Operations Division at 834 E. Rose Street for future use or to be recycled.


CHAPTER 24 – Street MaintenanceC. Feasibility studies or alternative designs are evaluated during project planning in an effort to conserve

materials and minimize construction, operational and maintenance costs.

Operations & Maintenance - C & M Division recycles materials from all projects and maintenance operations.

A. Materials from job sites are brought to the yard, separated, and stockpiled to be recycled or reused.

B. Recycled stockpiles are crushed every two (2) years to replenish material stockpiles in yard.

1. Concrete (from sidewalks, curbs, driveways, etc.) is crushed to make variable sized aggregate ranging

from < 0.75” and 0.75”-1.5”.

2. Asphalt (from roads, parking lots, etc.) is screened to separate the larger asphalt millings from the

asphalt fines.

3. Dirt is screened and separated into two (2) stockpiles for fill material and clean top soil.

REFERENCES:


24.11b 2014 Savings from Recycling




1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.12

PRACTICE: Pavement Cut Restoration EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 2015



POLICY: The Public Works Construction & Maintenance Division has established the methods and quality of pavement cut restoration.

PRACTICE: The policy establishes when and how cuts are made and ensure that the resulting patch is constructed according to required specifications and quality standards. The specifications are in the Public Works Engineering Standards under Pavement Restoration Criteria.

GUIDELINES:The Public Works Department has requirements that have to be met to open cut a road. If the requirements are met then there is a Pavement restoration criterion that has to be met. Where extraordinary circumstances preclude the use of “Jack and Bore”, “Push,” or “Directional Bore” methods for underground utility crossings, the Director of Public Works may authorize an open cut trench or other methods for installation of underground utilities.

A. When an open cut trench method is used, restoration of the affected pavement shall occur as follows: 1. If the road to be open cut has a curb and gutter section or storm drains, milling and resurfacing shall be

required to maintain the existing profile. The milling and resurfacing shall extend to a minimum of 25

feet from the cut in either direction. The restoration shall include the entire lane width if any part of the

lane is cut.

2. If the road to be open cut is a rural, un-curbed road, the open cut may be overlaid to a minimum of 50

feet from the cut in either direction. The restoration shall include the entire pavement width.

3. Prior to the pavement surface restoration, backfilling materials and procedures for fill, subgrade and

base shall be in accordance with the City of Lakeland Engineering Standards Manual Index No. 205,

7/18/02 revision.

4. Backfilling shall be completed immediately after completion of the underground utility work. Pavement

restoration shall be completed as soon as possible or within five (5) working days after completion of

backfilling.



2

5. Milling of the existing asphalt shall be a minimum of 1.25”. Asphalt to be used for overlay and

resurfacing shall be new Type SP asphalt conforming to the FDOT Standard Specifications for Road

and Bridge Construction, latest edition.

6. Temporary surface overlay may be allowed if the road to be open cut is scheduled for resurfacing within

two years. However, backfilling materials and procedures shall follow the same requirements as stated

in Item 3.

7. New permanent striping and other traffic control devices, when applicable, shall be installed in

accordance with the latest FDOT requirements.

8. If the total pavement cut area is 4 square feet or less, a local patch may be allowed. The local patch

can be restored as follows: After backfill compaction to the top of base course is completed, the asphalt

shall be saw-cut 1’ beyond the backfill area in all directions, and new asphalt shall be placed and

compacted to the original grade.

9. If the open cut extends over 50% of the lane width, the pavement restoration shall be performed

according to Item 1 or Item 2 above.

10. Any other situations not covered in the above items shall require field review and approval by Public

Works staff.

REFERENCES:


24.12b City of Lakeland Engineering Standards Manual – Pavement Cut Restoration Criteria




PRACTICE NO.: 24.13

PRACTICE: Guardrails and Impact AttenuatorsEFFECTIVE DATE: August 12, 2015




POLICY: A policy establishes responsibility for repair and maintenance of guardrails and stationary impact attenuators.

PRACTICE: The Construction & Maintenance Division (C&M) maintains all guardrail and impact attenuators associated with

streets that are maintained by the City. The policy defines and prioritizes maintenance and repair activities.

Engineering studies precede any new guardrail or attenuator installation.

GUIDELINES:C&M is responsible for the repair or replacement of guardrail and impact attenuators associated with city-maintained

streets when they are damaged.

A. When notice is received that a guardrail or impact attenuator has been damaged the following occurs:

1. A work order is written for the inspection, repair and/or replacement of the damaged guardrail or

impact attenuator.

2. The damaged guardrail or impact attenuator is field inspected and a plan of action is established

for the repair or replacement of the damaged guardrail or impact attenuator.

3. Proper safety devices are installed where the guardrail or impact devices are damaged.

4. A contractor is hired to do the repair or replacement work to the guardrail or impact attenuator.

5. Recovery of the cost of the repair or replacement is pursued by the City’s Risk Management

Department from the responsible party that damaged the guardrail or impact attenuator, if known.

6. The guardrail or impact attenuator is repaired or replaced to maintain compliance with the Florida

Department of Transportation (FDOT) Design Standards index 400 and 430.

REFERENCES:



CHAPTER 24 – Street Maintenance24.13b FDOT Index 400 Guardrail

24.13c FDOT Index 430 Attenuator (Crash Cushion)




PRACTICE NO.: 24.14

PRACTICE: Catch Basins and Inlets EFFECTIVE DATE: November 24, 2015

DIVISION(S): Construction and Maintenance Division (C&M)


POLICY: The Construction & Maintenance Division (C&M) has maintenance procedures established and documented for

inlets, manholes, catch basins, stormwater lines and culverts.

PRACTICE: The work method, procedure, and all work associated with catch basins and inlets are recorded in a work

management program. Emergency cleaning procedures in cases of flooding are established.

GUIDELINES:The C&M Division maintains all drainage facilities as follows:

A. Routine Maintenance and Inspection. The C&M staff maintains all catch basins and inlets related to City

maintained infrastructure within the Lakeland City limits as needed and after heavy rainfall events. The

catch basins and inlets are inspected and maintained on an as needed basis. Routine maintenance includes

removal of debris and any other obstructions. Repairs are scheduled as needed for the various stormwater

drainage facilities. Maintenance of drainage facilities includes pollution control devices (curb inlet and baffle

box structures), curb inlets, control structures, and storm sewer pipes. The curb inlet inspections and

maintenance are tracked in the work management program.

B. Emergency Drainage Operation. Rainfall events that exceed two (2) inches per hour require that area crews

inspect catch basins and inlets in their assigned quadrants. Drainage maintenance crews inspect all major

outfalls to ensure that maximum flow capacity is available for proper function of catch basins and inlets.

C. Citizens’ Concerns. When a concern is received, a complaint investigation work order is prepared and

given to the drainage foreman. He investigates the citizens concern and, if it is an emergency situation,

directs a crew to the location to perform the necessary task. If the work is routine, the foreman will schedule

the work through the work management program. The foreman will follow up with the citizen within 24-hours

with the information and completes the complaint investigation work order tracking the time, equipment, and

materials needed.


CHAPTER 24 – Street MaintenanceREFERENCES:


24.14b Inlets by Quadrant

24.14c Leaf Basket Locations

24.14d Work Order PCD’s

24.14e Control Structure Inventory

24.14f Outfalls all Quadrants




1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.15

PRACTICE: Curbs, Gutters, and Sidewalks EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2015




POLICY: The C & M Division has an inspection, maintenance, and reconstruction program established for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.

PRACTICE: The Construction and Maintenance (C & M) Division maintains a record or inventory of the City’s curb, gutter, and sidewalks which is updated on a continuous basis.

GUIDELINES:A. Inventory and Inspection:

1. An inventory and inspection of sidewalks is performed every three (3) years for condition assessment and maintained by the C & M Division in a Pavement management database.

2. A database resides within ArcMap (GIS) of sidewalk and curb ramps. 3. An inventory of City maintained curb and gutters are managed by the C & M Division in an Excel

spreadsheet and utilized in the City’s street sweeping plan

B. Maintenance and Reconstruction: 1. A sidewalk repair or replacement plan in place with a percentage of the budget going to each quadrant

of the city according to the amount of sidewalk in each quadrant. 2. In accordance with the Department of Justice/Department of Transportation Joint Technical Assistance

on the Title II of the ADA requirements to Provide Curb Ramps when Streets, Roads, or Highways are Altered through Resurfacing, ADA compliant curb ramps will be provided where street level pedestrian walkways cross curbs whenever streets, roadways, or highways are altered. Alterations include activities such as reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, widening, and projects of similar scale and effect.

3. Curb repairs or replacements are only done if the curb is deemed a hazard. It is then updated in the City’s work management program.



2

REFERENCES:

24.15a Public Works Practices Manual – Practice 24.15 24.15b Sidewalk and Curb Ramps Inventory Ratings24.15c Sidewalk and Curb Ramps Plan 24.15d DOJ/DOT Joint Tech. Assistance; ADA Curb Ramp Requirements




1

PRACTICE NO.: 24.16

PRACTICE: Graffiti Removal from Public Infrastructure EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 2015




POLICY: The C & M Division’s maintenance procedures for removal of graffiti from public infrastructure is established and

periodically reviewed.

PRACTICE: The work method and procedures and all work associated with graffiti removal on City right-of-way or City property is

recorded in a work management program.

GUIDELINES:Removal of graffiti may include areas such as sidewalks, roadways, walls, structures, bridges, or other City

maintained public areas.

A. Graffiti removal process:

1. C & M Division foreman will evaluate jobsite; determine the best method of graffiti removal, create a

work order and schedule a crew.

2. If the graffiti is gang related photos are taken and the Police Department is contacted prior to initiation

of work.

3. If required, set up work area traffic control and safety procedures according to MUTCD and FDOT

Roadway Traffic Design Standards.

4. If using chemicals be aware and know the different solvent and chemicals used and prevent harmful

exposure or chemical reactions. Refer to labels and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). Soap

products may be harmful to fish or the environment. Prevent runoff of chemicals into storm drains.



2

5. When using pressure washing equipment, read the instructions to insure proper use of equipment.

6. Paint or other similar material may be used to paint out graffiti on roadways.

7. Perform graffiti removal.

8. Remove all equipment and work area traffic control devices when finished.

REFERENCES:


24.16b Construction & Maintenance Graffiti Removal Standard



CHAPTER 25 – Street Cleaning

1

PRACTICE NO.: 25.1

PRACTICE: PlanningEFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 2015




POLICY:The City’s street-cleaning plan defines how the level of service meets the needs and goals of the community. The

plan shall comply with Lakeland’s City Code, Chapter 86-3, and the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System Permit (NPDES).

PRACTICE:Sweeping of curbed streets to remove the accumulation of debris, sand or other hazardous material before it reaches

the drainage system and enters the lakes.

GUIDELINES:The City’s comprehensive street cleaning plan is designed to meet the needs and goals of the community and

consist of the following,

A. City street sweepers sweep curbed streets, designated city parking lots, the landfill, parades, and

special events:

1. Street sweeping quadrants and locations have been pre-approved and can be revised if needed.

2. The City operates a total of six (6) street sweepers. Four (4) vacuum sweepers are assigned to

quadrants routinely, one (1) vacuum sweeper is assigned lake routes routinely, and one (1)

mechanical sweeper is assigned to City parking lots, the Polk County Landfill, and special

assignments.

3. Each quadrant will have a designated disposal site with approved roll off containers. The sweeper

operator will notify a foreman when the roll off container is full and the foreman will, on the same

day, schedule a pull from Solid Waste. The remaining accumulated debris swept up will be taken to

the transfer station located at the C&M complex.



2

4. The sweeper foreman or designee will email Customer Service billing with roll off container number

and location for next day pickup. All accumulated sweeping debris is transported by the City’s Solid

Waste Division to an approved landfill. Landfill off-load tickets are provided to the roll off driver and

emailed to the C&M Division for tracking purposes.

B. Customer Service:

Public concerns can be reported through phone calls, emails, www.lakelandgov.net , or in person.

These concerns are sent to the C&M Division management to be addressed immediately. The street

sweepers are equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS) to monitor routes, miles swept, broom

hours, and debris dumping.

REFERENCES:


25.1b Curbed Streets By Zone

25.1c Quadrant Map

25.1d City code Chapter 86-3

25.1e Annual report form for individual NPDES permits for municipal separate stormsewer systems (rule 62-

624.600)




1

PRACTICE NO.: 25.2

PRACTICE: Environmental Compliance EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 2015

DIVISION(S): Construction and Maintenance (C&M) Division



POLICY: The City’s street cleaning plan identifies environmentally sound methods of collection and disposal of street debris.

PRACTICE: Sweeping of curbed streets and following the required environmental procedures dealing with air and ground contamination, and the transfer and processing of material to a disposal site.

GUIDELINES:A. The City's comprehensive method for the collection and disposal of street sweeping debris assures

environmental compliance and consists of the following: 1. Street Sweepers. The city uses vacuum and mechanical sweepers to clean all curb streets. The

sweepers are industrial or municipal size, specifically designed for the safe collection and transportation of debris. The sweepers are required to spray water during sweeping operation to control dust.

2. Disposal of Debris. The street sweepers collect the debris and haul to one of two approved· sites: a. A roll off site where the material is dumped into a sealed roll off container and transported to the landfill on the same day. b. To a permitted transfer station at C & M yard where the material is loaded into roll off containers and transported to the landfill.

B. Recording and reporting of quantities collected. 1. The tonnage collected by the city and disposed of at the Polk County landfill is recorded by C&M

Division and reported annually for the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.

REFERENCES:


25.2b Cost and Date for Transfer Station Operator and Spotter Training

25.2c Permit draft to COL



2

25.2d NPDES intro SOP

25.2e Maintenance Log

25.2f SOP Transfer Station

25.2g Facility Condition Report

25.2h Transfer Station Plans (As-Built)

25.2i Contract Hauler Document

25.2j Notice of Permit

25.2k Application for Modification

25.2l Transfer Station Soil Testing

25.2m Transfer station Permit Surrender

25.2n Street Sweeping Roll Off Locations




1

PRACTICE NO.: 25.3

PRACTICE: Debris, Leaf, and Litter Collection EFFECTIVE DATE: March 18, 2015

DIVISION(S): Construction and Maintenance (C & M)



POLICY: The City’s street cleaning plan identifies methods of collecting street debris and use of city equipment and personnel

to implement the required process.

PRACTICE: The sweeping of curbed streets, cleaning of curb inlet baskets, and pollution control devices (PCDs) to collect debris,

leafy material, and litter.

GUIDELINES:A. The City's method for the collection and disposal of debris, leafy material, and litter consist of the following:

1. Street Sweepers. Unless noted otherwise, the street sweepers clean all curb streets approximately

twice per month and the leaf baskets once per month and inspect after every heavy rainfall event and

clean if necessary. Streets within Lakeland’s downtown are cleaned by street sweepers twice a week.

2. Flusher/Vacuum truck. The flusher/vacuum truck is used to clean PCD’s once per month and inspect

after every heavy rainfall event and clean if necessary.


25.3b Memo on the maintenance schedule of the leaf baskets and PCD’s

25.3c Copy of work sheet for cleaning leaf baskets



2

25.3d Copy of work order for cleaning PCD’s

25.3e Street sweeping tonnage report




1

PRACTICE NO.: 25.4

PRACTICE: RoutingEFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 2015



POLICY: Street sweeper route design plans are developed and periodically reviewed for effectiveness.

PRACTICE: Street sweeping quadrant and zone routes have been designed by different variables and conditions ranging from

topography, neighborhood boundaries, crew size, available equipment, equipment loads, community needs and

expectations, and workloads for crews. Traffic patterns, parking requirements, street widths, availability of through

driveways and alleys together with observation and experience, are taken into consideration.

Sweepers are monitored by the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking devices to ensure maximum

conservation of work time, fuel, and routes can be revised as needed to ensure efficiency and effectiveness.

GUIDELINES:The C&M Division shall sweep all curbed streets using assigned quadrant and zone maps to ensure maximum

production and an effective street sweeping program.

A. Four (4) sweepers are assigned quadrants as follows:

1. One (1) sweeper is assigned lake routes.

2. One (1) sweeper is assigned parking lots, the Polk County landfill, and unscheduled events.

3. Each quadrant has a designated disposal site with approved roll-off containers to reduce travel time

and increase production.

4. When the roll-off containers are full, accumulated debris shall be taken to the transfer station located at

the C&M complex.


25.4b Sweeper Quadrant Zone Maps

25.4c Sweeper Parking Lots List



2

25.4d Sweeper Route Using GPS (Example)

25.4e Street Sweeping & Maintenance BMP Optimization Study Scope



CHAPTER 25– Street Cleaning

1

PRACTICE NO.: 25.5

PRACTICE: SchedulingEFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 2015




POLICY: The schedule for the City’s street cleaning plan designates the time and frequency of street sweeping, debris, leafy

material, and litter collection.

PRACTICE: Sweeping of curbed streets, cleaning of curb inlet baskets, and pollution control devices (PCD’s) to collect debris, leafy material, and litter before it reaches the lakes.

GUIDELINES:A. The schedule for the City’s street cleaning plan consist of the following

1. Street Sweepers. All curb streets are swept Monday – Thursday 6:30 AM to 5:00 PM

approximately twice per month, Polk County landfill is swept once per week on Wednesday, and

leaf baskets are cleaned once per month (mid-month) and inspected after every significant

rainfall event and cleaned if necessary.

2. Flusher/Vacuum Truck. The pollution control devices (PCD’s) are cleaned once per month (mid-

month) and inspected after every significant rainfall event and cleaned if necessary.

REFERENCES:


25.5b Curbed streets by zone

25.5c Leaf baskets by location

25.5d Memo on frequency of maintenance of PCD’s and leaf baskets



CHAPTER 25 – STREET CLEANING

1

PRACTICE NO.: 25.6

PRACTICE: Litter Control EFFECTIVE DATE: May 29, 2015




POLICY:

A Litter Control Plan is implemented by using City equipment and personnel, City Codes and enforcement, an Adopt

a Lake program and community involvement.

PRACTICE: The Construction and Maintenance (C&M) Division’s Litter Control Plan includes: Sweeping of curbed streets,

cleaning of curb inlet baskets and PCD’s (pollution control devices), enforcement of City Code Sections 86-1, 86-2,

and 86-3, and an Adopt-a-Lake program that involves the community in cleaning within and around the lakes.

GUIDELINES:A. The City uses street sweepers and vacuum trucks in litter control.

1. The street sweepers are used to clean all curb streets approximately twice per month, leaf baskets

once per month and inspected after every significant rainfall event and cleaned if necessary.

2. The flusher/vacuum truck is used to clean pollution control devices (PCD’s) once per month and

inspected after every significant rainfall event and cleaned if necessary.

B. City Code Sections 86-1, 86-2, 86-3 addresses litter control through enforcement.

1. The Police Department enforces 86-1 and 86-3, which addresses litter control on streets, alleys, parks,

and public right of ways.

2. Code Enforcement enforces 86-2, which addresses litter control on private property and right of ways.


CHAPTER 25 – STREET CLEANING

2

C. The City has an Adopt-A-Lake Program to involve the community in litter control.

1. Litter pick up within and around area lakes

2. Install storm water plaques within lake basins

3. Water quality monitoring through the UF Florida LAKEWATCH Program

REFERENCES:

25.6a Public Works Practices Manuel – Practice 25.6

25.6b City Codes Sec 86-1 and 86-3 Police Enforcement

25.6c City Codes Sec 86-2. Code Enforcement

25.6d Adopt A Lake Program




1

PRACTICE NO: 25.7

PRACTICE: Storage Receptacles EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2015

DIVISION(S): Solid Waste Division



POLICY: Street-side litter storage in applicable areas within City limits are serviced on a regular schedule.

PRACTICE: The Manager of Solid Waste, through division supervisors, will ensure regular servicing of street-side trash cans in

downtown and other applicable areas.

GUIDELINES:A. Street-side litter containers that fall under City of Lakeland’s responsibility in downtown will be emptied four

times weekly by Solid Waste. Service days are Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday.

B. Litter containers provided by the City shall be located in the vicinity of any City-provided bench in downtown, and the basic requirement is to provide two cans per city block in the downtown area.

C. Current litter containers were designed and placed in downtown in the 1990s and no record exists regarding specification regarding shape and size requirements. Any future specifications shall be developed and approved in concert with the Lakeland Downtown Development Agency.





1

PRACTICE NO: 25.8

PRACTICE: Dead Animal Pickup EFFECTIVE DATE: July 10, 2015

DIVISION(S): Solid Waste Division



POLICY: Dead animal carcasses in applicable roadways and right-of-ways are quickly disposed of, using sanitary procedures.

PRACTICE: The Manager of Solid Waste, through division supervisors, will ensure prompt response and disposal of dead animal

carcasses within the City Limits of Lakeland roadways and right-of-ways only.

GUIDELINES:A. Dead animal carcasses in roadways are generally reported by Lakeland Police Department personnel

but can also be reported by citizens, City of Lakeland employees, or any person that observes a dead animal in the roadway. Dead Animals are reported to Solid Waste Customer Service at 863-834-8773. After-hours reports are reported from Lakeland Police Dispatch at 863-834-6900, to the on-call Solid Waste Supervisors for resolution.

B. Response and disposal of dead animal carcasses will be accomplished, at a minimum, prior to the end of the work day when the notification was received. Reports of dead animal carcasses are normally dispatched immediately to drivers for resolution.

C. Solid Waste employees will utilize personal protective equipment and materials to ensure zero contact with dead animal carcasses. If the carcass cannot be handled safely with gloves, implements such as shovels or pitchforks will be utilized to handle the carcass as it is prepared for disposal.

D. The remains are transported in a solid waste vehicle to the Polk County Landfill site for proper disposal of the dead animal carcass.



2


25.8b City of Lakeland Solid Waste Website showing contact details



CHAPTER 27 – Stormwater and Flood Management

1

PRACTICE NO: 27.1

PRACTICE: Storm and Flood Management Service Levels EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 2015

DIVISION(S): Lakes and Stormwater Division


POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures for addressing stormwater

quality, storm magnitudes, and the appropriate level of protection.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department manages stormwater quality, storm magnitudes, and provides an appropriate level of

protection as set forth in the City’s Land Development Regulations (Article 6), Chapter IV of the City of Lakeland

Comprehensive Plan, Illicit Discharge Investigation and Construction Site Inspection Standard Operating Procedures,

Section 86-4 of City Codes, and the Lakes and Drainage Standard Operating Procedures.

GUDELINES: A. Chapter IV of the City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan requires management techniques be adopted to

ensure that the volume, rate, timing, and pollutant load which exists after development/redevelopment of a

site are equal to or better than the drainage characteristics which existed prior to development.

B. Provisions in Article 6 of the City of Lakeland’s Land Development Regulations specifically address aquifer

recharge protection, surface water quality/stormwater management requirements, natural habitat protection,

floodplain management, soil erosion control and standards for the review of development site plans in

regard to the protection of natural resources.

C. Section 86-4 of City Codes specifies exactly what substances and materials are not allowable on City

streets or in the City stormwater system.

D. The provisions in the City of Lakeland Proactive Inspections and Construction Site Inspection Standard

Operating Procedures address timely investigation of suspected illegal substances entering the stormwater

system and a timely notification to the responsible entity to perform corrective action.



2

E. The City of Lakeland Illicit Discharge Code Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) forms the

basis of inspection and enforcement by Code Enforcement of illicit discharges to the stormwater system.

F. The City of Lakeland’s Lakes and Drainage Standard Operating Procedures specifically addresses the level

of service for maintenance and inspection of all City drainage infrastructure and receiving waterbodies.

G. Stormwater design standards are also included in Section 2-15 of the Public Work Engineering Standards

Manual. The standards specifically require that the design and operation of retention and detention storage

facilities shall be in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Florida Administration Code and Rules of the

Water Management District. Additionally, standards require that permits shall be received from the

appropriate jurisdiction prior to construction of the proposed project.

REFERENCES: 27.1a Public Works Practices Manual - Practice 27.1

27.1b City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IV: Stormwater

27.1c City of Lakeland Land Development Regulations, Article 6

27.1d City of Lakeland Ordinance, Chapter 86 – Solid Waste

27.1e Illicit Discharge - Code Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

27.1f Proactive Inspections SOP

27.1g Construction Site Inspections SOP

27.1h Lakes & Drainage SOP

27.1i City of Lakeland Engineering Design Manual, Section 2 - Drainage




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.2

PRACTICE: Operation PlanEFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures for addressing routine

inspections of City stormwater infrastructure to ensure adequate operation.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department ensures that all City stormwater infrastructure is operational as set forth in the Lakes

and Drainage Standard Operating Procedures.

GUDELINES: A. The Lakes and Drainage Standard Operating Procedures specify the frequency and type of inspection and

maintenance for all City stormwater infrastructure and applicable receiving waterbodies.


27.2b Lakes and Stormwater Lakes & Drainage Facilities Standard Operating Procedures




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.3

PRACTICE: Floodplain and Floodway ManagementEFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures for ensuring adequate

floodplain/floodway management.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department manages floodplains/floodways and provides an appropriate level of protection from

development and/or redevelopment in and around floodplains/floodways as set forth in the City’s Land Development

Regulations (Article 6) and Chapter IV of the City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan.

GUIDELINES:A. Chapter IV of the City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan requires that developments in a floodplain/floodway

area must attempt to locate on the non-floodplain portion of the site or, where not feasible, water storage

function and capacity must be compensated according to City and Southwest Florida Water Management

District standards.

B. Provisions in Article 6 of the City of Lakeland’s Land Development Regulations specifically address

floodplain/floodway management for development/redevelopment.


27.3b City of Lakeland Comprehensive Plan, Chapter IV- Stormwater

27.3c City of Lakeland Land Development Regulations, Article 6




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.4

PRACTICE: Water Quality Goals EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2015




POLICY:Stormwater quality best management practices are established.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department water quality goals pertaining to City stormwater pollutant loads and receiving

waterbodies are managed through our National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.

GUDELINES: A. The City’s NPDES permit specifically mandates routine monitoring of the stormwater system, routine

inspections of any known discharges to the stormwater system, and remediation plan development (TMDL

prioritization planning) for those receiving waterbodies not meeting state water quality standards.

B. Section 86-4 of City Codes specifies exactly what substances and materials are not allowable on City

streets or in the City stormwater system.

C. The provisions in the City of Lakeland Proactive Inspections and Construction Site Inspection Standard

Operating Procedures address timely investigation of suspected illegal substances entering the stormwater

system and a timely notification to the responsible entity to perform corrective action.

D. The City of Lakeland Illicit Discharge Code Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) forms the


REFERENCES: 27.4a Public Works Practices Manual - Practice No. 27.4

27.4b Polk County and Co-Permittees NPDES Permit



2

27.4c City of Lakeland NPDES Annual Report Permit 3 Year 1

27.4d City of Lakeland TMDL Prioritization Plan

27.4e City of Lakeland Land Development Regulations, Article 6

27.4f City Ordinance Code, Section 86-4

27.4g Illicit Discharge - Code Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

27.4h Proactive Inspections SOP

27.4i Construction Site Inspections SOP




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.5

PRACTICE: System In-Flow of Polluted Runoff EFFECTIVE DATE: September 9, 2015




POLICY:To establish a procedure for identifying and mitigating potential sources of polluted runoff.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department identifies locations of high risk sources of polluted stormwater runoff and provides

oversight at those locations to minimize the impact on the storm sewer system and receiving waterbodies.

GUDELINES: A. All construction activity greater than one acre in size is required to post their General Use Permit and

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) on site. Engineering inspectors review these documents and

inspect the construction sites on a routine basis during project development to ensure all Best Management

Practices (BMPs) are maintained and provide the appropriate level of protection to the storm sewer and

downstream waterbodies.

B. High risk industrial facilities within City limits requiring a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit are identified and tracked on an annual basis to ensure any pollutants of concern are not

entering the storm sewer system. If illicit discharges are found, the Lakes & Stormwater Division will initiate

a corrective action plan and follow-up with the entity to ensure compliance. If the discharge is not corrected

in a timely manner, the Lakes & Stormwater Division will coordinate further enforcement actions with the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).

C. The Construction & Maintenance Division’s (C&M) Street Sweeping Program cleans sediment, trash, and

debris from City roadways on a daily basis according to assigned work zones. C&M drainage crews are

assigned to clean curb inlets on an as-needed basis to ensure proper drainage function and to protect the

storm sewer from an accumulation of roadway sediment, trash, and debris.



2


27.5b City of Lakeland NPDES Annual Report Permit 3 Year 1




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.6

PRACTICE: Allowable Non-Stormwater Discharge into SystemEFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 2015




POLICY:To establish a procedure for defining and regulating allowable non-stormwater discharges to the stormwater system

or receiving waters.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department utilizes Chapter 86, Sec. 86.4 of City Codes to regulate non-stormwater discharges

and to define what discharges to the stormwater system are considered illicit. Additionally, the Lakes & Stormwater

Division utilizes the Proactive Inspection and Construction Site SOPs to guide the inspection and enforcement

process.

GUDELINES: A. Public Works staff is trained to identify, report, and document any suspicious discharges to the stormwater

system and make a determination, based on language in Chapter 86 – Solid Waste, of City Codes, as to

whether or not the discharge is considered allowable of illicit.

B. Illicit Discharges that are detected, where the offending entity is identified, are subject to follow-up

enforcement and corrective action as specified in the Lakes & Stormwater Proactive Inspections,

Construction Site SOPs, and Code Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - Illicit Discharge.


27.6b Chapter 86 – Solid Waste, Sec. 86.4 of City Codes

27.6c Lakes & Stormwater Proactive Inspections SOP

27.6d Lake & Stormwater Construction Site SOP



2

27.6e Code Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - Illicit Discharge




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.7

PRACTICE: Watershed Stormwater Drainage Master PlanEFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures to ensure a stormwater and flood

management master plan is developed and updated.

PRACTICE: Public Works Construction & Maintenance staff continually perform inspections of the City’s entire drainage system

and, depending on the magnitude of problems encountered, perform corrective action immediately or place the

project on an unfunded CIP list for consideration of future funding through the Stormwater Utility.

GUDELINES: A. Smaller scale stormwater and flooding issues are corrected immediately if the cost of such is within the

current fiscal year’s allocated funding level. Annual funding levels for stormwater/flooding repair, retrofit,

and maintenance services are set during each new fiscal year budget meetings and loaded into the

Stormwater Utility CIP accordingly.

B. Large scale stormwater and flooding issues that cannot be corrected immediately due to funding constraints

are placed on an unfunded CIP list in an Access Database. Each year, this list is reviewed by the Public

Works Directors Office and Construction & Maintenance staff. The highest priority projects from the list are

considered for funding through the Stormwater Utility.

REFERENCES:27.7a Public Works Practices Manual – Practice 27.7

27.7b Stormwater Utility CIP

27.7c Unfunded CIP List




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.8

PRACTICE: Infrastructure Inventory EFFECTIVE DATE: October 26, 2015



POLICY: The Public Works Department shall follow the established procedures for maintaining and updating stormwater

structure inventory data into t he City of Lakeland maintained Geographical Information System (GIS) database.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department shall maintain and update the existing GIS Stormwater Structure Inventory database

to meet various City users’ needs, including the reporting requirements of National Pollution Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permit for the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4).

GUIDELINES: All new or modified stormwater structure data within the City of Lakeland’s MS4 is to be entered into the GIS using

data obtained by the Engineering Division Survey Section and any operation authorized by the Manager of

Engineering, as specified in the GIS Stormwater Structure Data SOP.

REFERENCES:

27.8a Public Works Practices Manual - Practice 27.8

27.8b GIS Stormwater Structure Data SOP

27.8c As-Built Work Order Form (Example)

27.8d Work Order Form (Example)

27.8e Surveyor Data Collection Form (Example)

27.8f Survey – Lake Hunter (Example)




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.9

PRACTICE: Infrastructure Condition EFFECTIVE DATE: September 14, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department, Lakes and Stormwater Division (L&S), shall follow established City policies and

procedures for ensuring an inventory of stormwater infrastructure condition is maintained and updated.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department, L&S Division, maintains an up to date stormwater infrastructure inventory that

documents the condition of each component of the stormwater system and is reported annually to the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) via the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Permit Annual Report.

GUDELINES: A. The City’s NPDES permit specifically mandates routine monitoring of the entire stormwater system

including annual inspections of the following:

1 All major outfall pipes

2 all major outfall ditches

3 10% of the entire underground pipe system, and

4 All Pollution Control Devices (including stormwater ponds, inlet baskets, and baffle boxes).

B. Inspection records are maintained in the Work Order Database System and reported annually to FDEP

via the City’s NPDES Annual Report.


27.9b City of Lakeland NPDES Annual Report Permit, 3 Year 1

27.9c Example of Work order

27.9d Example of Citizen Request becoming a Work Order



2




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.10

PRACTICE: Stormwater Design EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures for ensuring stormwater design

standards are developed and utilized.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department establishes stormwater design criteria in the Engineering Standards Manual and

Article 6 of the Land Development Regulations,

GUIDELINES:A. Review and evaluation of plans for development and redevelopment to ensure that stormwater design

standards are met are conducted by the Public Works Engineering Division via reference to Section 2-15 of

the Public Work Engineering Standards Manual and Article 6 of the City’s Land Development Regulations.

The standards specifically require that the design and operation of retention and detention storage facilities

shall be in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Florida Administration Code and Rules of the Water

Management District. Additionally, standards require that permits shall be received from the appropriate

jurisdiction prior to construction of the proposed project.


27.10b City of Lakeland Land Development Regulations, Article 6

27.10c Engineering Standards Manual, Section 2-15




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.11

PRACTICE: Stormwater System ImprovementEFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures for ensuring necessary

improvements or additions to the stormwater system are identified and appropriately funded.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department annually reviews and revises the Stormwater Utility Capital Improvement Plan to

ensure the necessary additions or improvements to the stormwater system are included in the 10 year plan and

sufficiently funded.

GUIDELINES:A. The Public Works Directors Office, Engineering Division, Construction & Maintenance Division, and the

Lakes & Stormwater Division collaborate throughout the year to identify areas of the stormwater system that

need retrofitting and/or additional infrastructure. Annually, the same staff conducts a series of budget

meetings to ensure identified projects are included in the 10yr Stormwater CIP Plan and allocate the

appropriate level of Stormwater Utility funds.

REFERENCES: 27.11a Public Works Practice Manual—Practice No. 27.11

27.11b 2015 Stormwater CIP Plan




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.12

PRACTICE: Sediment and Erosion ControlEFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures for ensuring sediment and

erosion controls are in place, where applicable, for public and private construction projects, for protection of the City’s

stormwater drainage system and downstream receiving waterbodies.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Engineering Division reviews all commercial construction projects during the applicable City

permitting process. This review includes assessment and guidance on the appropriate sediment and erosion control

Best Management Practices (BMPs) to install and maintain for the duration of the construction project. Public Works

Lakes & Stormwater Staff track residential construction projects and inspect them to ensure the appropriate sediment

and erosion control BMPs are in-place and maintained.

GUDELINES: A. The Public Works Engineering Division utilizes the sediment and erosion control techniques described in the

Land Development Regulations Article 6 and provides guidance accordingly for commercial construction

projects on the appropriate sediment and erosion BMPs to install and maintain. Public Works Engineering

Staff inspect all commercial construction projects throughout the duration of the project to ensure the BMPs

are properly functioning and to ensure the construction project remains in compliance with the conditions of

the respective NPDES permit.

B. The Public Works Lakes & Stormwater Division (L&S) uses the City TrackIT database to review all current

residential construction projects and arranges site inspections to ensure sediment and erosion control BMPs

are in-place. L&S staff follows the L&S Construction Site Inspection SOP during all construction site

inspections. If BMPs are lacking, L&S staff work directly with the contractor to ensure the proper BMPs are

installed and maintained appropriately.



2

C. The City of Lakeland Illicit Discharge Code Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) forms the




27.12c Lakes & Stormwater Construction Site Inspection SOP

27.12d Code Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – Illicit Discharge




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.13

PRACTICE: Stormwater Flood Warning Systems EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures to ensure flood warning systems

are periodically evaluated and tested.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department has an Emergency Operations Plan for storm preparation and response. The City of

Lakeland works in conjunction with Polk County Communications Department and the Polk County Emergency

Management Division when severe storms are threatening the area. The Polk County Emergency Management

Division maintains, evaluates, and tests the flood warning system for the whole County.

GUDELINES: A. The Public Works Department coordinates the review and update of each Public Works Division’s

Emergency Operations Plan and produces a comprehensive Departmental Emergency Operation Plan for

Storms annually. This plan specifies preparation and response activities for each Division before, during,

and after a severe storm.

B. The City of Lakeland works in conjunction with Polk County Communications Department and the Polk

County Emergency Management Division before, during, and after severe storms that threaten the area.

Polk County provides emergency information for public dissemination to all of the local Tampa and Orlando

T.V. stations and to the County’s PGTV station. Hall Communications is the County’s primary contact to

disseminate information via radio. Additionally, the County is set up at the Emergency Operations Center

during severe storms to feed all applicable local broadcast stations information from the central PGTV

broadcast system.

REFERENCES:27.13a Public Works Practices Manual - Practice 27.13



2

27.13b Polk County Emergency Management Division Plan

27.13c Public Works Emergency Operations Plan - 2015




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.14

PRACTICE: Infrastructure Inspection EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures to ensure stormwater

infrastructure is routinely inspected and maintains an appropriate level of service to protect receiving waterbodies.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department reviews City-built stormwater management facilities to ensure construction of each

facility is in accordance with the policies specified in Article 6 of the City of Lakeland Land Development Regulations.

The post-construction inspection of all applicable stormwater drainage infrastructures is conducted by the Public

Works Construction & Maintenance Division as specified in the Lakes & Drainage Facilities SOP.

GUDELINES: A. The Public Works Department reviews the construction of any City-built stormwater management facility and

associated stormwater drainage infrastructure to ensure it adheres to specifications set forth in Article 6 of

the Land Development Regulations. Section 6.3.9 of Article 6 specifically addresses design criteria for

stormwater facilities.

B. The Public Works Construction & Maintenance Division routinely maintains all known drainage inventory

within the Lakeland City limits. The lakes and drainage facilities are inspected and maintained on a two-

month rotation schedule. Routine inspections at site addresses for facilities include all known structures in

the drainage inventory. Any address documented as inspected and/or maintained includes the pond as well

as any associated pipe, outfall, etc. that is located on the site. Routine flow maintenance includes removal of

trash, mowing, and spraying of herbicide. Repairs are scheduled as needed to the various stormwater

drainage facilities. Included with the maintenance of lakes and drainage facilities are associated pollution

control devices (curb inlet and baffle box structures), curb inlets, control structures, and storm sewer pipes.



2



27.14c Drainage Inspection Form




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.15

PRACTICE: Conveyance, Storage, and BMP Operations EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures to ensure that conveyance,

storage and permanent BMP facilities are properly operated and maintained.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department Construction & Maintenance Division keeps record of all City conveyance, storage and

permanent BMP facilities and details their drainage, flood control and water quality operational practices in

accordance with the Lakes & Drainage Facilities SOP.

GUDELINES: A. The Public Works Construction & Maintenance Division routinely maintains all known drainage

inventory within the Lakeland City limits. The lakes and drainage facilities are inspected and maintained

on a two-month rotation schedule. Routine inspections at site addresses for facilities include all known

structures in the drainage inventory. Any address documented as inspected and/or maintained

includes the pond as well as any associated pipe, outfall, etc. that is located on the site. Routine flow

maintenance includes removal of trash, mowing, and spraying of herbicide. Repairs are scheduled as

needed to the various stormwater drainage facilities. Included with the maintenance of lakes and

drainage facilities are associated pollution control devices (curb inlet and baffle box structures), curb

inlets, control structures, and storm sewer pipes.

B. Rainfall events more than two inches per hour require the drainage maintenance crews to check all the

outfalls in the area of the event following the storm. In the event of a named storm, all pumps and

drainage facilities will be checked for proper operation one week prior to the anticipated arrival of the

storm.



2

C. In the event of a named storm, including tropical depressions, all pumps and critical drainage facilities

will be checked for proper operation and flow during the one week period prior to the anticipated arrival

of the storm. Any constrictions within the outfalls will be addressed. At the 72-hour notice, all pumps will

be put in place and checked for proper operation. Emergency operations plan, lists, and hurricane map

will be reviewed with the crews so everyone is familiar with what is expected during this event.

D. Lake level staff gauge measurements for elevation are recorded on a weekly basis and after significant

rainfall events (two or more inches).

E. Flood control gates are adjusted in accordance with fluctuation conditions and operational ranges.

Adjustments to the control gates are conducted and recorded as needed. Coordination with the

SWFWMD is done on an as needed basis for any structure gates not operated by City staff.

F. Visual inspections are performed on canals and ditches downstream of outfall control gate structures.

The cleaning and removal of debris, floating vegetation or obstacles is performed where present or

necessary. Emergency assistance may be called to C & M staff if needed or non-emergency work

orders will be filled out.


27.15b Lakes and Stormwater Lakes & Drainage Facilities SOP




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.16

PRACTICE: Private Owner Operations and MaintenanceEFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures to ensure private conveyance,

stormwater storage, and BMP facilities are adequately maintained and operated.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department refers maintenance issues with private stormwater ponds to the City’s Community

Development Department for code enforcement review. Operational deficiencies and/or maintenance issues not

addressed in Sec 86-2 of City codes are referred to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD)

for review of compliance with the respective state issued permit.

GUDELINES: A. The Public Works Department refers private stormwater pond problems such as vegetative overgrowth,

trash build-up, and unsightly or hazardous conditions to the Community Development Department for code

enforcement review. Sec 86-2 of City codes is referred when the City attempts to take its own action to bring

the said facility into compliance.

B. Operational and maintenance issues with private stormwater ponds that are not directly enforceable under

City codes are referred to the SWFWMD for review of the respective facility permit and enforcement of

those permit conditions by the State.


27.16b City of Lakeland Code of Ordinances, Section 86-2




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.17

PRACTICE: Private Facility Inspection EFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures to ensure private stormwater

facilities are adequately inspected by the appropriate entity when operational and/or maintenance issues arise.

PRACTICE: The Public Works Department refers maintenance issues with private stormwater ponds to the City’s Community

Development Department for code enforcement review. Code enforcement staff will inspect the facility to determine if

enforcement may be provided under City code Sec 86-2. If City code enforcement staff determines the issue is not

enforceable under City codes, the issue will be referred over to the Southwest Florida Water Management District

(SWFWMD) inspectors.

GUDELINES: A. The Public Works Department refers private stormwater facility issues to the City’s code enforcement

officers for a complete inspection and review of the problem. Code enforcement staff determines if the issue

requires enforcement under Sec 86-2 of City codes.

B. Operational and maintenance issues with private stormwater ponds that are not directly enforceable under

City codes are referred to the SWFWMD for inspection and enforcement.


27.17b City of Lakeland Code of Ordinances, Section 86-2




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.18

PRACTICE: Pollution Prevention Plans EFFECTIVE DATE: October 13, 2015

DIVISION(S): Engineering, Construction & Maintenance, and Lakes and Stormwater Division



POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures to ensure pollution prevention

plans are established for applicable construction projects to protect and improve the quality of receiving waters.

PRACTICE: The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department inspects all commercial and municipal construction

projects occurring within municipal boundaries to ensure the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit conditions and the associated stormwater pollution prevention plans are being implemented.

GUDELINES: A. Private Commercial Inspections. Commerical construction site stormwater inspections are performed by the

Public Works Engineering inspection staff who have received certificates from Florida Department of

Environmental Protection as qualified stormwater management inspectors. The project sites are assigned

to an inspector based on geographic location. The City is divided into two areas; North and South, and staff

is assigned to their respective area of responsibility. Initial inspections are conducted, prior to land

disturbance, on all commerical construction sites, regardless of size.

1. Follow up inspections are conducted every seven (7) days or after each one half (1/2) inch rainfall event

on construction sites that disturb one or more acres. Projects that disturb less than one acre are

inspected initally and thereafter on an as needed basis per the Public Workd Engineering inspector’s

recommendation as a result of complaints and/or proactive / reactive inspections. Residential

subdivision development sites are considered a commerical site and are inspected accordingly.

2. Note that all inspections are random and unscheduled.

B. Municipal Commercial Inspections. Public, municipal sites are assigned to a qualified inspector in the Public

Works Engineering Department, based on geographic location and/or a qualified contrctor working for the

City.



2

C. Private Residential Inspections. Private residential construction sites that are not deemed commercial are

inspected when a report has been filed with the City as a result of a citizen report or as a follow-up to a

proactive/reactive investigation.


27.18b Engineering Construction Site Inspections SOP

27.18c FDEP Website

27.18d Site Example




1

PRACTICE NO: 27.19

PRACTICE: Public EducationEFFECTIVE DATE: September 29, 2015




POLICY:The Public Works Department shall follow established City policies and procedures to ensure a public education

program is developed to increase awareness of stormwater quality system needs.

PRACTICE: The Lakes & Stormwater Division of the Public Works Department develops and maintains a public education

program in alignment with the goals and objectives of the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit.

GUDELINES: A. The City of Lakeland’s public education and outreach program encourages citizens to reduce their use of

pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The program includes the distribution of public education materials

describing the need to minimize the application of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, and promote actions

such as incorporating Florida-friendly landscaping concepts into new landscaping projects. Additionally, the

program promotes, publicizes, and facilitates public reporting of the presence of illicit discharges and

improper disposal of materials into the MS4. As part of this program, the City maintains a phone line for

public reporting of suspected illicit discharges and improper disposal. The City also disseminates

information on the problems associated with illicit discharges, illicit connections and improper disposal, how

to identify them, and how to report incidents discovered.

B. In each annual NPDES MS4 Report, the City reports to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection

(FDEP) on the public education and outreach activities that are performed or sponsored by the City,

including the type and number of educational activities conducted, the type and number of materials

distributed, the percentage of the population reached by the activities in total, and the number of Web site

visits (if applicable).



2


27.19b NPDES Annual Report Permit 3 Yr 2

27.19c L&S Public Education Guidelines


Appendix D – Pollutant Load Reductions

NPDES Pollutant Load Comparison 1999, 2006, 2014

To: City of Lakeland

Date September 2015

From: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

NPDES POLLUTANT LOAD COMPARISON: 1999, 2006, 2014

Prepared for

City of Lakeland Lakeland, Florida

Prepared by

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2000 E. Edgewood Drive, Suite 215

Lakeland, Florida

Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 600319.6

September 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................3

1.1 Purpose and Objectives .......................................................................................3

1.2 Project Location and General Description .........................................................3

2.0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY MODEL .........................................................................6

3.0 LOAD REDUCTION ESTIMATES ..................................................................................8

3.1 Definition of BMP Area .........................................................................................8

3.2 BMP Load Reduction ............................................................................................9

3.3 Public Education Load Reduction .......................................................................9

3.4 Results ....................................................................................................................9

4.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................16

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Lake Hunter “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall TN and TP Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014 Table 2 Lake Bonny “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall TN and TP Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014 Table 3 Crystal Lake “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall TN and TP Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014 Table 4 Lake Hunter “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall BOD and TSS Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014 Table 5 Lake Bonny “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall BOD and TSS Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014 Table 6 Crystal Lake “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall BOD and TSS Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014 Table 7 Lake Hunter “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall Cu, Pb and Zn Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014 Table 8 Lake Bonny“Adjusted” MS4 Outfall Cu, Pb and Zn Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014 Table 9 Crystal Lake “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall Cu, Pb and Zn Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014 Table 10 Outfall Unit Area TN and TP Load Summary for 2014, 2006, 1999 Table 11 Outfall Unit Area BOD, TSS, Cu, Pb, Zn Load Summary for 2014, 2006, 1999

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 City of Lakeland Lake Hunter Major Outfalls and Contributing Basins Figure 2 City of Lakeland Lake Bonny Major Outfalls and Contributing Basins Figure 3 City of Lakeland Crystal Lake Major Outfalls and Contributing Basins

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A - Runoff Parameterization/ Pollutant Reduction Efficiency Tables Appendix B - “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall Basin Pollutant Load Summary Tables for 1999, 2006,

2014

City of Lakeland September 2015 NPDES Pollutant Load Comparison: 1999, 2006, 2014 Page 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Objectives Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) was contracted by the City of Lakeland to assist with the development and update of the pollutant loading assessments required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (NPDES MS4) permit. The tasks include identification of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) associated Best Management Practices (BMPs) and determination of adjusted annual pollutant load estimates for the Lake Hunter, Lake Bonny and Crystal Lake watersheds. BMP nutrient reduction and land use modifications are estimated based on aerial photography for 1999, 2006 and 2014, which are the load estimation years for the MS4 Cycle 1, Cycle 2 and Cycle 3 permits, respectively. The primary goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) program, of which MS4 permitting is a critical element, is to progressively reduce pollutant loads to the receiving waters that are impaired with the intent on improving the quality of those waters so that they eventually meet their designated use. 1.2 Project Location and General Description Pollutant load quantification for City of Lakeland major MS4 outfalls discharging to Lake Hunter, Lake Bonny and Crystal Lake were evaluated in this study. Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the City’s major outfalls for Lake Hunter, Lake Bonny and Crystal Lake, respectively. The majority of the outfalls’ contribution areas are relatively urbanized and developed. Landuse is relatively consistent from 1999 through 2014; with most of the contribution areas developed prior to 1999. Accurate estimation and quantification of MS4 pollutant loading for 1999, 2006 and 2014 is essential in defining the effects of land development on MS4 pollutant load generation. Definition of dynamic BMP and land use conditions facilitates analysis of representative treatment and development conditions within the MS4 contributing catchments for years 1999, 2006 and 2014. The adjusted loading values reflect land use changes, selected BMPs (within the SWFWMD ERP coverage) and load reductions associated with the City’s (and other MS4 operators’) comprehensive public education efforts. The completed analysis provides an “adjusted” pollutant load estimate that may allow the City to assess the impacts of development and growth with respect to nutrient loading to area surface waters.


FIGURE 1 City of Lakeland Lake Hunter Major Outfalls and Contributing Basins


FIGURE 2 City of Lakeland Lake Bonny Major Outfalls and Contributing Basins


FIGURE 3 City of Lakeland Crystal Lake Major Outfalls and Contributing Basins

2.0 SURFACE WATER QUALITY MODEL Pollutant load modeling was conducted to estimate the annual stormwater pollutant loads associated with each drainage basin associated with an MS4 outfall. The pollutant load modeling was accomplished using a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet named Pollutant Loadings Assessment (PLA) tool developed in-house by Amec Foster Wheeler that is based on design criteria that was developed by FDEP and the Water Management Districts during production of the draft guidance documents conceived during statewide stormwater regulation efforts. The model utilizes the modified U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Simple Method (Schueler, 1987). The Simple Method estimates stormwater pollutant loads as the product of annual runoff volume and pollutant concentrations.

The Simple Method is a three-step calculation (Ohrel, 2000):

1. Runoff coefficient calculation, Rv:

Rv = 0.05 + 0.009 * I

Where: Rv = Mean runoff coefficient I = Percent of site imperviousness


2. Runoff volume (acre-feet per year) (ac-ft/yr) calculation:

R = (P * Pj * Rv / 12) * A

Where: R = Runoff volume (ac-ft/yr) P = Annual rainfall depth (inches) Pj = Fraction of rainfall events that produce runoff (normally equal to 0.9) A = Study area (acres)

3. Annual pollutant loads (pounds per year)

L = 2.72 * R * C

Where: L = Annual pollutant load (lb/year) C = Event mean concentration of the pollutant (mg/l) 2.72 = Conversion factor (from mg/l to lb/ac-ft)

For this investigation, the Simple Method calculation of runoff volume was modified in accordance with the methodology developed by FDEP and the Water Management Districts when Florida was considering a statewide stormwater rule for calculating annual runoff as follows:

Q = 0.083*ciA Where: Q = Runoff Volume (ac-ft/yr) c = Runoff coefficient determined based on Florida Meteorological Zones as classified in the draft Stormwater Quality Applicant’s Handbook, March 2010. i = Annual rainfall depth (in) 0.083 = Conversion factor (inches to feet) A = Area (ac)

With the exception of Site 2 and Site 3 basins the runoff coefficient ‘c’ is determined based on the drainage basin non-directly connected impervious area curve number (NDCIA CN) and directly connected impervious area (DCIA) combination and the meteorological zone within which the project area falls. The March 2010 Draft Stormwater Quality Applicant’s Handbook has the runoff coefficients published for each NDCIA CN-DCIA combination and for each meteorological zone in Florida (DEP 2010). Among the five meteorological zones defined in Florida, Polk County is within Zone 2. Published runoff coefficients for Zone 2 are tabulated in Table 1-1 (Refer to Appendix A). The NDCIA CN for the various land uses and soil types comprising the drainage basins were determined by using the lookup table provided in this report as Table 1-2 (Refer to Appendix A). Specifc basin/landuse DCIA values were compiled and utilized to provide a more realistic representation of the DCIA/ impervious conditions within each basin. Table 1-3 (a), Table 1-3 (b) and Table 1-3 (c) provide a summary of the DCIA/impervious assignments for each applicable basin/landuse combination. An individual MS4 outfall may receive runoff from multiple contribution basins; Table 1-4 shows the basins and their associated outfall. Heterogenous basin/land use conditions and differing runoff coefficient ‘c’ estimation methodologies necessitate basin divison to provide representative runoff estimation.


Runoff coefficient ‘c’ parameterization for Site 2 and Site 3 was assigned based on the data collected during rainfall runoff volume sampling documented in the report titled “Lake Hunter Implementation Report- Results of Select Monitoring/Data Collection” (Amec Foster Wheeler 2015). The average runoff coefficient identified in the aforementioned report was utilized to estimate adjusted pollutant loading for Site 2 and Site 3. The average derived runoff coefficient ‘c’ for Site 2 and Site 3 was utilized for the 1999, 2006 and 2014 load analysis. Utilization of a uniform (rainfall runoff coefficient) average value is justified because the contribution basin characteristics (Site 2 and Site 3) are relatively consistent throughout the 1999-2014 period. The rainfall was analyzed by summarizing the rainfall depth for each calendar year for the period of 1915 to 2011 and calculating basic statistics such as minimum, maximum, and average annual rainfall depths. The years with annual rainfall amounts closest to the average of the entire analyzed dataset were selected for use in the model simulations. From over 90 years of rainfall data available, 8 to 10 years of data had annual rainfall depths close to the mean annual depth measured for the entire period-of-record. Within this data set, years dominated by a few days with high rainfall depths will have less total abstraction before runoff begins than a rainfall year with the same depth of rainfall spread over a longer period of time. In order to compensate for this effect, the rainfall year 1988 was selected for use to estimate pollutant loads since it had a total estimated runoff volume closest to the average runoff volume from the 8 years of rainfall data having near annual average. The year 1988 which recorded a depth of 51.65 inches was selected from this group of rainfall data and was used in determining the pollutant loading model simulations to estimate annual runoff volumes. Although the Simple Method is accepted as an appropriate and reasonably accurate planning level technique to estimate the pollution loading contributed by storm water runoff, it does have several limitations (Center, 2003):

This method cannot be used to estimate the pollutant loads generated by base flow, only the loads generated during the storm.

The Simple Method should be limited to basin areas smaller than 640 acres. Larger basins require a more complex method of analysis.

This technique may not accurately estimate pollutant loads for construction sites, heavily traveled highways, croplands, and undeveloped areas.

Despite the above limitations, the Simple Method is an accepted tool for comparing pollutant loads of different MS4 drainage basins for prioritization purposes.

Table 1-5 (Refer to Appendix A) lists the event mean concentrations (EMC) used to estimate pollutant loads for the MS4 basins. EMCs were developed using land use specific pollutant concentrations obtained from past monitoring activities conducted throughout the State of Florida, and were derived from several sources as noted in the documentation. EMCs were developed for total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorous (TP), biological oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), lead (Pb), copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn). 3.0 LOAD REDUCTION ESTIMATES 3.1 Definition of BMP Area


Best Management Practice areas were identified using a multi-step process. The existing City of Lakeland MS4 contributing basins were overlaid with the SWFWMD ERP coverage. Aerial imagery (1999, 2006, and 2014) of the intersecting areas between the ERP coverage and MS4 catchments were manually reviewed to identify BMP areas. BMPs were assigned as dry retention or wet detention based on presence or absence of a wet pond. The BMP treatment for areas within the ERP/MS4 basin intersect that did not have visible dry or wet stormwater treatment facilities was assigned “none” treatment. BMPs were classified as either “wet”, “dry” or “none”. Load reductions were assigned based on BMP designation type. Individual ERP documents/plans were not reviewed for this effort and field documentation of existing BMPs was not performed. 3.2 BMP Load Reduction To accurately quantify MS4 basin pollutant loading, a load reduction factor was applied to the raw storm water loads where BMPs were present. The “adjusted” pollutant loading provides MS4 basin pollutant loads minus the treatment provided by the onsite BMP. BMP treatment was assigned as wet, dry or none for all of the MS4 contributing basins. These areas were assigned a pollutant reduction factor. Wet pond pollution removal efficiencies were based on an assumed 14 day hydraulic residence time. Dry pond pollution removal efficiencies were based on 0.50” of retention. Load reductions are based on the methodology presented in Figures 13.2 and 13.3 (March 2010 DEP/WMD draft document) and Appendix D (Zone 2) (Harper 2007). Published mean annual mass removal efficiencies for 0.50-inches of Retention in Zone 2 are tabulated in Table 1-6 (Refer to Appendix A). Applied BMP treatment coverage increased from 1999 to 2006 and remained constant through 2014. In the years evaluated for this report, there were 32.5 acres identified as treated by BMPs in 1999, 39.9 acres treated in 2006, and 39.9 acres treated in 2014 for the major outfall contribution areas 3.3 Public Education Load Reduction The City of Lakeland provides a comprehensive City-wide public education program to educate residents to reduce their pollutant contribution within the MS4 catchment basins. This program has progressed over the years and now includes stormwater education messages on Street Sweepers as well as during previews at the local theatres. As a result of this progressive approach, the City has estimated a 1 percent and 3 percent reduction in pollutant loads for public education for years 1999 and 2006, respectively. A full five percent reduction for public education, consistent with past FDEP credit allowances, is applied to all of the pollutant constituents (TN, TP, TSS, BOD, Cu, Pb, Zn) within the 2014 load analysis. 3.4 Results and Discussion Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 provide summary TN and TP loading analysis for 1999, 2006 and 2014 for Lake Hunter, Lake Bonny and Crystal Lake major outfalls, respectively. “Adjusted” MS4 Lake basin pollutant loads (TN,TP,BOD,TSS,Cu,Pb,Zn) for 1999, 2006 and 2014 are summarized in Table 2-1, Table 2-2 and Table 2-3, respectively (Refer to Appendix B) and these are broken down by the sub-basins that drain to the major outfalls. These basins have been differentiated because of the TMDL monitoring efforts or because of prior MS4 inventory classification efforts. Outfall pollutant loads (BOD, TSS, CU, Pb and Zn) for 1999, 2006 and 2014 are summarized in Table 4, through Table 9. Table 10 and Table 11 summarize Outfall Unit Area loading for 1999, 2006 and 2014. In general, loading (lb/yr/acre) remains relatively consistent from 1999 to 2006 then decreases from 2006 to 2014.


Based on only minor landuse changes the results show only a slight change in pollutant loading because no stormwater retrofit projects have been implemented in the time frame reviewed. The same landuse modification trend (insignificant landuse changes) also occurs from 2006-2014. The estimated pollutant load reductions from 2006 to 2014 are the result of the gradually applied public educational reduction credits. Additionally, the City’s street sweeping efforts, such as sweeping frequency, have picked up over the years and has made a big difference as suggested by the monitoring data results gathered during the recent Lake Hunter priority TMDL waterbody monitoring efforts.

Pollutant loads from the City’s MS4 are estimated to have decreased in the time frame evaluated in this report. Although the decreases are slight, it is important to note that the City has invested in a number of source control measures to reduce pollutants from the MS4 including public education efforts and a rigorous street sweeping program. This approach has given the City a good “base” for its stormwater management program to which additional BMPs can be added when and where that is appropriate. As the City develops its Supplemental Stormwater Management Plan (SSWMP), it is possible that structural BMPs having greater load reduction potential will be programmed into the SSWMP. These efforts will provide greater potential for future pollutant load reduction to the receiving waters.

TABLE 1 Lake Hunter “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall TN and TP Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014

Outfall

1999 Estimated Existing

Annual TN Load (lb)


Annual TN Load (lb)


Annual TN Load (lb)


Annual TP Load (lb)


Annual TP Load (lb)


Annual TP Load (lb)

HU040 51.8 50.8 49.5 10.9 10.6 10.4 HU060 635.4 622.6 606.6 104.7 102.6 100.0 HU061 26.9 26.3 25.8 4.5 4.4 4.3 HU070 211.5 207.2 202.9 35.8 35.1 34.3 HU080 272.8 267.3 261.8 46.1 45.2 44.2 Totals 1198.4 1174.2 1146.6 202.0 197.9 193.3 % Reduction 0.0 -2.0 -2.3 0.0 -2.0 -2.3

TABLE 2 Lake Bonny “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall TN and TP Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014

Outfall

1999 Estimated Existing Annual

TN Load (lb)


TN Load (lb)


TN Load (lb)


TP Load (lb)


TP Load (lb)


TP Load (lb)

BY027 1185.4 1161.4 1137.4 197.6 193.6 189.6


TABLE 2 Continued

Lake Bonny “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall TN and TP Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014

Outfall


TN Load (lb)


TN Load (lb)


TN Load (lb)


TP Load (lb)


TP Load (lb)


TP Load (lb)

BY036 131.5 132.2 125.8 27.9 29.4 28.2 BY150 1086.2 1083.6 1059.8 182.2 182.7 178.7 BY195 119.6 117.2 114.7 20.1 19.7 19.3 Totals 2522.7 2494.3 2437.7 427.7 425.3 415.7 % Reduction 0.0 -1.1 -2.3 0.0 -0.6 -2.3

TABLE 3

Crystal Lake “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall TN and TP Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014

Outfall


Annual TN Load (lb)


Annual TN Load (lb)


TN Load (lb)


TP Load (lb)


TP Load (lb)


TP Load (lb)

CL020 166.2 163.0 158.7 40.7 39.9 38.9 Totals 166.2 163.0 158.7 40.7 39.9 38.9 % Reduction 0.0 -1.9 -2.6 0.0 -2.0 -2.7

Note: A small portion of the contribution area for this outfall lies outside of the city limits, conveys through city operated stormwater infrastructure

TABLE 4

Lake Hunter “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall BOD and TSS Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014

Outfall


Annual BOD Load (lb)


BOD Load (lb)


BOD Load (lb)


TSS Load (lb)


Annual TSS Load (lb)


TSS Load (lb)

HU040 303 297 288 2086 2044 1981 HU060 3909 3830 3697 29021 28435 27438 HU061 114 112 110 544 533 522 HU070 1240 1215 1190 7780 7623 7466 HU080 1509 1478 1448 9093 8909 8726 Totals 7075 6932 6732 48524 47544 46133 % Reduction 0.0 -2.0 -2.9 0.0 -2.0 -3.0


TABLE 5 Lake Bonny “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall BOD and TSS Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014

Outfall


BOD Load (lb)


BOD Load (lb)


BOD Load (lb)


TSS Load (lb)


TSS Load (lb)


TSS Load (lb)

BY027 5586 5472 5359 36828 36076 35332 BY036 776 892 767 5476 6369 5443 BY150 8629 8497 8301 64023 63060 61603 BY195 544 533 522 2770 2714 2658 Totals 15535 15394 14949 109098 108220 105036 % Reduction 0.0 -0.9 -2.9 0.0 -0.8 -2.9

TABLE 6

Crystal Lake “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall BOD and TSS Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014

Outfall


BOD Load (lb)


BOD Load (lb)


BOD Load (lb)


TSS Load (lb)


TSS Load (lb)


TSS Load (lb)

CL020 947 929 903 6581 6456 6279

Totals 947 929 903 6581 6456 6279

% Reduction 0.0 -1.9 -2.8 0.0 -1.9 -2.7


TABLE 7 Lake Hunter “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall Cu, Pb and Zn Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014

Outfall


Cu Load (lb)


Cu Load (lb)


Cu Load (lb)


Pb Load (lb)


Pb Load (lb)


Pb Load (lb)

1999 Estimated Existing Annual Zn Load

(lb)


(lb)


(lb)

HU040 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.19 0.19 0.18 3.00 2.94 2.84 HU060 9.30 9.12 8.81 2.72 2.67 2.57 46.68 45.73 44.05 HU061 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.90 0.88 0.86 HU070 2.73 2.67 2.62 0.73 0.71 0.70 12.76 12.51 12.25 HU080 3.28 3.21 3.14 0.87 0.85 0.83 14.94 14.63 14.33 Totals 16.0 15.7 15.3 4.6 4.5 4.3 78.3 76.7 74.3 % Reduction 0.0 -2.0 -2.8 0.0 -2.0 -3.1 0.0 -2.0 -3.1

TABLE 8

Lake Bonny “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall Cu, Pb and Zn Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014

Outfall


Cu Load (lb)


Cu Load (lb)


Cu Load (lb)


Pb Load (lb)


Pb Load (lb)


Pb Load (lb)


(lb)


(lb)


(lb)

BY027 7.30 7.15 7.00 8.56 8.39 8.22 53.85 52.75 51.67 BY036 1.01 1.31 1.04 0.44 0.52 0.44 7.00 8.58 7.11 BY150 20.14 19.85 19.39 5.91 5.83 5.69 105.07 103.57 101.18 BY195 1.12 1.10 1.08 0.29 0.28 0.27 4.57 4.48 4.39 Totals 29.6 29.4 28.5 15.2 15.0 14.6 170.5 169.4 164.3 % Reduction 0.0 -0.5 -3.1 0.0 -1.2 -2.6 0.0 -0.7 -3.0


TABLE 9 Crystal Lake “Adjusted” MS4 Outfall Cu, Pb and Zn Loads for 1999, 2006, 2014

Outfall


Cu Load (lb)


Cu Load (lb)


Cu Load (lb)


Pb Load (lb)


Pb Load (lb)


Pb Load (lb)


(lb)


(lb)


(lb)

CL020 0.91 0.89 0.88 0.51 0.50 0.49 7.67 7.53 7.34 Totals 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 7.7 7.5 7.3 % Reduction 0.0 -1.7 -1.7 0.0 -1.9 -2.7 0.0 -1.8 -2.4

TABLE 10

Outfall Unit Area TN and TP Load Summary for 2014, 2006, 1999

Outfall


TN Load (lb/yr/ac)


TN Load (lb/yr/ac)


TN Load (lb/yr/ac)


TP Load (lb/yr/ac)


TP Load (lb/yr/ac)


Annual TP Load

(lb/yr/ac) BY027 8.6 8.5 8.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 BY036 6.1 6.1 5.9 1.3 1.4 1.3 BY150 6.7 6.7 6.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 BY195 4.7 4.6 4.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 CL020 6.5 6.4 6.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 HU040 4.9 4.8 4.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 HU060 6.2 6.0 5.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 HU061 3.9 3.8 3.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 HU070 5.1 5.0 4.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 HU080 5.2 5.1 5.0 0.9 0.9 0.8

City of Lakeland August 2015 NPDES Pollutant Load Comparison: 1999, 2006, 2014 Page 15

TABLE 11 Outfall Unit Area BOD, TSS, Cu, Pb, Zn Load Summary for 2014, 2006, 1999

Outfall Area (acres)


BOD Load

(lb/ac/yr)


BOD Load

(lb/ac/yr)


BOD Load

(lb/ac/yr)


TSS Load (lb/ac/yr)


TSS Load (lb/ac/yr)


TSS Load (lb/ac/yr)


Cu Load (lb/ac/yr)


Cu Load (lb/ac/yr)


Cu Load (lb/ac/yr)


Pb Load (lb/ac/yr)


Pb Load (lb/ac/yr)


Pb Load (lb/ac/yr)

1999 Estimated Existing Annual Zn Load (lb/ac/yr)



BY027 137.20 40.7 39.9 39.1 268 263 258 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.39 0.38 0.38

BY036 21.49 36.1 41.5 35.7 255 296 253 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.33 0.40 0.33

BY150 162.05 53.3 52.4 51.2 395 389 380 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.65 0.64 0.62

BY195 25.47 21.4 20.9 20.5 109 107 104 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.18 0.17

CL020 25.48 37.2 36.5 35.5 258 253 246 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.30 0.29

HU040 10.50 28.8 28.3 27.4 199 195 189 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.28 0.27

HU060 103.28 37.9 37.1 35.8 281 275 266 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.45 0.44 0.43

HU061 6.95 16.5 16.1 15.8 78 77 75 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.12

HU070 41.15 30.1 29.5 28.9 189 185 181 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.30 0.30

HU080 52.47 28.8 28.2 27.6 173 170 166 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.28 0.28 0.27


4.0 REFERENCES Amec Foster Wheeler 2015, “Lake Hunter Implementation Report- Results of Select Monitoring/Data Collection”, City of Lakeland Public Works Harper, H.H., Baker, D.M. (2007). “Evaluation of Current Stormwater Design Criteria within the State of Florida- Final Report.” FDEP Contract No. SO108 NOAA Climatic Data Center. Climatological Data: Florida. Ron Ohrel. 2000. Simple and Complex Stormwater Pollutant Load Models Compared. In The Practice of Watershed Protection, editors Thomas R. Schueler and Heather K. Holland, published by the Center for Watershed Protection, Ellicott City, MD. Stormwater Level of Service Methodology, A Reprint of the 1993 Joint Report of the Water Management Districts and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, FL. Wilbur Smith Associates. December 1999. Stormwater Management Plan for Polk County Municipal Airport. Prepared for Polk County Aviation Authority, Bartow, FL. DEP and WMDs, ERP Stormwater Quality Applicant’s Handbook, Design Requirements for Stormwater Treatment Systems in Florida, March 2010 Draft.

Appendix A

City of Lakeland Appendix A NPDES Pollutant Load Comparison: 1999, 2006, 2014 September 2015 Page 1

APPENDIX A

Table 1-1 Published Runoff Coefficients (c) for Meteorological Zone 2 Based on Non-DCIA

CN and Percent DCIA Table 1-2 Summary of Curve Numbers Based on Land use and Soil Group Table 1-3 (a) Characterization of Basin/Landuse Specific DCIA/Impervious Assignments Lake

Hunter Table 1-3 (b) Characterization of Basin/Landuse Specific DCIA/Impervious Assignments Lake

Bonny Table 1-3 (c) Characterization of Basin/Landuse Specific DCIA/Impervious Assignments Crystal

Lake Table 1-4 MS4 Outfall and Corresponding Contribution Basins Table 1-5 Summary of Literature-Based Runoff Characterization for General Land use

Categories in Florida Table 1-6 Mean Annual Mass Removal Efficiencies for 0.50-inches of Retention in Zone 2

Based on Non-DCIA CN and Percent DCIA

City of Lakeland Appendix A NPDES Pollutant Load Comparison: 1999. 2006, 2014 September 2015 Page 2

TABLE 1-1 Published Runoff Coefficients (c) for Meteorological Zone 2 Based on Non-DCIA CN and Percent DCIA

NDCIA

CN PERCENT DCIA

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

30 0.002 0.043 0.083 0.123 0.164 0.204 0.244 0.285 0.325 0.366 0.406 0.446 0.487 0.527 0.567 0.608 0.648 0.688 0.729 0.769 0.809

35 0.004 0.044 0.085 0.125 0.165 0.205 0.246 0.286 0.326 0.366 0.407 0.447 0.487 0.528 0.568 0.608 0.648 0.689 0.729 0.769 0.809

40 0.007 0.047 0.087 0.127 0.167 0.207 0.248 0.288 0.328 0.368 0.408 0.448 0.488 0.528 0.569 0.609 0.649 0.689 0.729 0.769 0.809

45 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.729 0.769 0.809

50 0.015 0.055 0.095 0.134 0.174 0.214 0.254 0.293 0.333 0.373 0.412 0.452 0.492 0.531 0.571 0.611 0.651 0.69 0.73 0.77 0.809

55 0.022 0.061 0.101 0.14 0.179 0.219 0.258 0.298 0.337 0.376 0.416 0.455 0.494 0.534 0.573 0.613 0.652 0.691 0.731 0.77 0.809

60 0.03 0.069 0.108 0.147 0.186 0.225 0.264 0.303 0.342 0.381 0.42 0.459 0.498 0.537 0.576 0.615 0.654 0.693 0.731 0.77 0.809

65 0.042 0.08 0.119 0.157 0.195 0.234 0.272 0.311 0.349 0.387 0.426 0.464 0.502 0.541 0.579 0.618 0.656 0.694 0.733 0.771 0.809

70 0.057 0.095 0.133 0.17 0.208 0.245 0.283 0.321 0.358 0.396 0.433 0.471 0.509 0.546 0.584 0.621 0.659 0.697 0.734 0.772 0.809

75 0.079 0.116 0.152 0.189 0.225 0.262 0.298 0.335 0.371 0.408 0.444 0.481 0.517 0.554 0.59 0.627 0.663 0.7 0.736 0.773 0.809

80 0.111 0.146 0.181 0.216 0.251 0.285 0.32 0.355 0.39 0.425 0.46 0.495 0.53 0.565 0.6 0.635 0.67 0.705 0.74 0.774 0.809

85 0.16 0.192 0.225 0.257 0.29 0.322 0.355 0.387 0.42 0.452 0.485 0.517 0.55 0.582 0.614 0.647 0.679 0.712 0.744 0.777 0.809

90 0.242 0.27 0.299 0.327 0.355 0.384 0.412 0.44 0.469 0.497 0.526 0.554 0.582 0.611 0.639 0.667 0.696 0.724 0.753 0.781 0.809

95 0.404 0.424 0.444 0.464 0.485 0.505 0.525 0.546 0.566 0.586 0.606 0.627 0.647 0.667 0.688 0.708 0.728 0.749 0.769 0.789 0.809

98 0.595 0.605 0.616 0.627 0.638 0.648 0.659 0.67 0.68 0.691 0.702 0.713 0.723 0.734 0.745 0.756 0.766 0.777 0.788 0.799 0.809

Source: Stormwater Quality Applicant’s Handbook, Design Requirements for storm water Treatment Systems in Florida, March 2010 Draft


TABLE 1-2 Summary of Curve Numbers Based on Land use and Soil Group

FLUCCS Generalized Land Use Description

Hydrologic Soils Group

A B B/D C D W

1100 Residential-Low Density 39 61 61 74 80 99.8

1200 Residential-Med Density 39 61 61 74 80 99.8

1300 Residential-High Density 39 61 61 74 80 99.8

1400 Commercial 39 61 61 74 80 99.8

1500 Industrial 39 61 61 74 80 99.8

1600 Extractive 39 61 61 74 80 99.8

1700 Institutional 39 61 61 74 80 99.8

1800 Recreational 39 61 80 74 80 99.8

1900 Open Land 39 61 80 74 80 99.8

2100 Cropland and Pastureland 39 61 80 74 80 99.8

2200 Tree Crops - Citrus 32 58 79 72 79 99.8

2300 Feeding Operations 32 58 79 72 79 99.8

2400 Nurseries and Vineyards 67 78 89 85 89 99.8

2500 Specialty Farms 67 78 89 85 89 99.8

2600 Other Open Lands - Rural 39 61 80 74 80 99.8

3100 Herbaceous Rangeland 39 61 80 74 80 99.8

3200 Shrub and Brush Rangeland 30 48 73 65 73 99.8

3300 Mixed Rangeland 30 48 73 65 73 99.8

4100 Upland Coniferous Forest 32 58 79 72 79 99.8

4200 Upland Hardwood Forests 32 58 79 72 79 99.8

4300 Mixed Hardwood Forests 32 58 79 72 79 99.8


TABLE 1-2 Continued

Summary of Curve Numbers Based on Land use and Soil Group

FLUCCS Generalized Land Use Description

Hydrologic Soils Group

A B B/D C D W

4400 Tree Plantations 32 58 79 72 79 99.8

5000 Water 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8

5100 Streams and Waterways 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8

5200 Lakes 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8

5300 Reservoirs 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8

6100 Wetland Hardwood Forests 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8

6200 Wetland Coniferous Forests 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8

6300 Wetland Forested Mixed 98 98 98 98 98 99.8

6400 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands 98 98 98 98 98 99.8

7400 Mining 39 61 80 74 80 99.8

8100 Transportation / Utilities 83 89 89 92 93 99.8

8200 Communications 83 89 89 92 93 99.8

8300 Utilities 83 89 89 92 93 99.8

TABLE 1-3 (A)

Characterization of Basin/Landuse specific DCIA/Impervious Assignments Lake Hunter

Receiving Body Basin Outfall Landuse

(FLUCCS) DCIA (%) IMP (%)

Lake Hunter HU040H HU040 1200 10 15 Lake Hunter HU040H HU040 1300 10 15 Lake Hunter HU040H HU040 1700 30 30 Lake Hunter HU040H HU040 8100 75 75 Lake Hunter HU055036W HU060 1700 61 61 Lake Hunter HU055036W HU060 1900 0 0 Lake Hunter HU055036W HU060 4340 0 0 Lake Hunter HU055036W HU060 6440 100 100


TABLE 1-3 (A) Continued

Characterization of Basin/Landuse specific DCIA/Impervious Assignments Lake Hunter



Lake Hunter HU055036W HU060 8100 83 83 Lake Hunter HU055075 HU060 1400 59 59 Lake Hunter HU055075 HU060 5300 100 100 Lake Hunter HU055075 HU060 6400 100 100 Lake Hunter HU055075 HU060 8100 0 0 Lake Hunter HU060 HU060 1400 30 35 Lake Hunter HU060051R HU060 1400 74 74 Lake Hunter HU060051R HU060 1500 86 86 Lake Hunter HU060051R HU060 1700 90 90 Lake Hunter HU061 HU061 1200 23 30 Lake Hunter HU061 HU061 1900 0 0 Lake Hunter HU070 HU070 1400 80 85 Lake Hunter HU070 HU070 1200 24 34 Lake Hunter HU080 HU080 1400 80 85

Lake Hunter HU080 HU080 1200 24 34 Note: Site 2 (outfall HU040) and Site 3 (outfall HU060) DCIA not provided, runoff coefficient ‘c’ derived from “Lake Hunter Implementation Report- Results of Select Monitoring/Data Collection”

TABLE 1-3 (B)

Characterization of Basin/Landuse specific DCIA/Impervious Assignments Lake Bonny



Lake Bonny BY036 BY036 1300 12 15 Lake Bonny BY036 BY036 1700 61 61 Lake Bonny BY036 BY036 1900 0 0 Lake Bonny BY070 BY070 1200 25 34 Lake Bonny BY070 BY070 1300 25 34 Lake Bonny BY070 BY070 1400 80 85 Lake Bonny BY070 BY070 1500 68 77 Lake Bonny BY070 BY070 8100 66 66 Lake Bonny BY140 BY140 1200 25 34 Lake Bonny BY140 BY140 1300 0 0 Lake Bonny BY140 BY140 1400 85 90 Lake Bonny BY140 BY140 1700 44 49 Lake Bonny BY140 BY140 1900 0 0


TABLE 1-3 (B) Continued

Characterization of Basin/Landuse specific DCIA/Impervious Assignments Lake Bonny



Lake Bonny BY140 BY140 8100 66 66 Lake Bonny BY150 BY150 1700 28 28 Lake Bonny BY150 BY150 1400 75 75 Lake Bonny BY150 BY150 1900 0 0 Lake Bonny BY150 BY150 8100 0 0 Lake Bonny BY150 BY150 5300 100 100 Lake Bonny BY150 BY150 4300 0 0 Lake Bonny BY150 BY150 4340 0 0 Lake Bonny BY195 BY195 1100 0 0 Lake Bonny BY195 BY195 1200 27 35

Lake Bonny BY195 BY195 1400 48 53

TABLE 1-3 (C) Characterization of Basin/Landuse specific DCIA/Impervious Assignments Crystal Lake

Receiving

Body Basin Outfall Landuse (FLUCCS)

DCIA (%) IMP (%)

Crystal Lake CL020 CL020 1300 34 44 Crystal Lake CL020 CL020 1700 56 63

Crystal Lake CL020 CL020 1900 0 0

TABLE 1-4 MS4 Outfall and Corresponding Contribution Basins

Basins Outfall Outfall Waterbody

HU040H HU040 Lake Hunter HU055036W HU060 Lake Hunter HU055075 HU060 Lake Hunter HU060 HU060 Lake Hunter HU060051R HU060 Lake Hunter HU061 HU061 Lake Hunter HU070 HU070 Lake Hunter HU080 HU080 Lake Hunter Site 2 HU040 Lake Hunter Site 3 HU060 Lake Hunter


TABLE 1-4 Continued

MS4 Outfall and Corresponding Contribution Basins

Basins Outfall Outfall Waterbody

BY027 BY027 Lake Bonny BY036 BY036 Lake Bonny BY150 BY150 Lake Bonny BY195 BY195 Lake Bonny CL020 CL020 Crystal Lake

TABLE 1-5

Summary of Literature-Based Runoff Characterization for General Land use Categories in Florida

Land Use Category Typical Runoff Concentration (mg/l)

TN TP BOD TSS Cu Pb Zn

Low-Density Residential1 1.5 0.18 4.7 23 0.0084 0.0024 0.0314

Single-Family 1.85 0.31 7.9 37.5 0.016 0.004 0.062

Multi-Family 1.91 0.48 11.3 77.8 0.009 0.006 0.086

Low-Intensity Commercial 0.93 0.16 7.7 57.5 0.018 0.005 0.094

High-Intensity Commercial 2.48 0.23 11.3 69.7 0.015 -- 0.16

Light Industrial 1.14 0.23 7.6 60 0.003 0.002 0.057

Highway 1.37 0.17 5.2 37.3 0.032 0.011 0.126

Pasture 2.48 0.7 5.1 94.3 -- -- --

Citrus 2.31 0.16 2.55 15.5 0.003 0.001 0.012

Row Crops 2.47 0.51 -- 19.8 0.022 0.004 0.03

General Agriculture2 2.42 0.46 3.8 43.2 0.013 0.003 0.021

Undeveloped / Rangeland / Forest 1.15 0.055 1.4 8.4 -- -- --

Mining / Extractive 1.18 0.15 7.63 60.03 0.0033 0.0023 0.0573


TABLE 1-5 Continued

Summary of Literature-Based Runoff Characterization for General Land use Categories in Florida

Land Use Category Typical Runoff Concentration (mg/l)

TN TP BOD TSS Cu Pb Zn

Wetland 1.01 0.09 2.63 11.2 0.001 0.001 0.006

Open Water / Lake 1.6 0.067 1.6 3.1 0.0255 0.028

1. Average of single-family and undeveloped loading rates 2. Mean of pasture, citrus, and row crop land uses 3. Runoff concentrations assumed equal to industrial values for these parameters 4. Value assumed to be equal to 50% of single-family concentration 5. Runoff concentrations assumed equal to wetland values for these parameters Notes: This table is a replica of the Table 4-17 in the Final Report of "Evaluation of Current Stormwater Design Criteria within the state of Florida” prepared for: Florida Department of Environmental Protection (June 2007). Prepared by Environmental Research & Design, Inc. Harvey H. Harper, Ph.D., P.E. & David M. Baker, P.E. Total N and Total P EMC values are from the Table 3.4 in March 2010 Draft Department of Environmental Protection and Water Management Districts Environmental Resource Permit Stormwater Quality Applicant's Handbook Design Requirements for Stormwater Treatment Systems in Florida. Wetland and Open Water/Lake EMC values are from Table 7 of the Final Report of "Evaluation of Alternative Stormwater Regulations for Southwest Florida". (Revised Sept 08, 2003) Submitted to Water Enhancement & Restoration Coalition, Inc. Prepared by Environmental Research & Design, Inc. Harvey H. Harper, Ph.D., P.E. & David M. Baker, P.E.


TABLE 1-6 Mean Annual Mass Removal Efficiencies for 0.50-inches of Retention in Zone 2 Based on Non-DCIA CN and Percent DCIA

Source: Evaluation of Current Stormwater Design Criteria within the State of Florida- Final Report.” FDEP Contract No. SO108

Appendix B

City of Lakeland Appendix B NPDES Pollutant Load Comparison: 1999, 2006, 2014 September 2015 Page 1

APPENDIX B

Table 2-1 “Adjusted” MS4 Basin Pollutant Loads (TN,TP, BOD, TSS, Cu, Pb, Zn) for 1999 Table 2-2 “Adjusted” MS4 Basin Pollutant Loads (TN, TP, BOD, TSS, Cu, Pb, Zn) for 2006 Table 2-3 “Adjusted” MS4 Basin Pollutant Loads (TN, TP, BOD, TSS, Cu, Pb, Zn) for 2014


TABLE 2-1 “Adjusted” MS4 Basin Pollutant Loads (TN, TP, BOD, TSS, Cu, Pb, Zn) for 1999

Basins Outfall

Estimated Existing Annual

TN Load (lb.)


TP Load (lb.)


BOD Load (lb.)


TSS Load (lb.)


Cu Load (lb.)

Estimated Existing Annual Pb Load

(lb.)

Estimated Existing

Annual Zn Load (lb.)

HU040H HU040 30.51 5.61 177.73 1223.22 0.39 0.12 2.00 HU055036W HU060 52.59 7.84 178.26 1168.37 0.45 0.10 1.48 HU055075 HU060 78.37 12.26 227.19 1547.52 0.64 0.13 1.76 HU060 HU060 14.47 2.49 44.93 308.68 0.13 0.02 0.33 HU060051R HU060 62.53 11.01 504.24 3789.19 1.07 0.31 5.89 HU061 HU061 26.88 4.49 114.48 543.58 0.23 0.06 0.90 HU070 HU070 211.48 35.79 1239.80 7780.24 2.73 0.73 12.76 HU080 HU080 272.81 46.10 1508.73 9093.16 3.28 0.87 14.94 Site 2 HU040 21.31 5.26 125.13 862.99 0.11 0.07 1.00 Site 3 HU060 427.46 71.15 2954.71 22207.16 7.02 2.18 37.21 BY027 BY027 1185.40 197.58 5585.80 36828.35 7.30 8.56 53.85 BY036 BY036 131.51 27.92 776.31 5476.29 1.01 0.44 7.00 BY150 BY150 1086.20 182.16 8629.06 64023.28 20.14 5.91 105.07 BY195 BY195 119.57 20.07 543.95 2770.10 1.12 0.29 4.57 CL020 CL020 166.19 40.75 947.42 6580.82 0.91 0.51 7.67

TABLE 2-2

“Adjusted” MS4 Basin Pollutant Loads (TN, TP, BOD, TSS, Cu, Pb, Zn) for 2006

Basins Outfall


TN Load (lb.)


TP Load (lb.)


BOD Load (lb.)


TSS Load (lb.)


Cu Load (lb.)


Pb Load (lb.)

Estimated Existing Annual Zn Load

(lb.)

HU040H HU040 29.90 5.49 174.15 1198.62 0.38 0.12 1.96

HU055036W HU060 51.53 7.68 174.66 1144.77 0.44 0.10 1.45

HU055075 HU060 76.79 12.02 222.60 1516.26 0.63 0.12 1.72

HU060 HU060 14.18 2.44 44.02 302.44 0.13 0.02 0.32

HU060051R HU060 61.26 10.78 494.05 3712.64 1.05 0.30 5.77

HU061 HU061 26.34 4.40 112.19 532.69 0.23 0.06 0.88

HU070 HU070 207.20 35.07 1214.75 7623.06 2.67 0.71 12.51

HU080 HU080 267.30 45.17 1478.25 8909.46 3.21 0.85 14.63

Site 2 HU040 20.88 5.16 122.62 845.66 0.11 0.07 0.98

Site 3 HU060 418.82 69.71 2895.02 21758.53 6.87 2.13 36.46


TABLE 2-2 Continued


Basins Outfall


TN Load (lb.)


TP Load (lb.)


BOD Load (lb.)


TSS Load (lb.)


Cu Load (lb.)


Pb Load (lb.)

Estimated Existing Annual Zn Load

(lb.)

BY027 BY027 1161.37 193.57 5471.88 36076.30 7.15 8.39 52.75

BY036 BY036 132.16 29.40 892.07 6369.40 1.31 0.52 8.58

BY150 BY150 1083.64 182.71 8497.18 63059.69 19.85 5.83 103.57

BY195 BY195 117.15 19.66 532.96 2714.14 1.10 0.28 4.48

CL020 CL020 162.96 39.95 929.36 6455.97 0.89 0.50 7.53

TABLE 2-3


Basins Outfall


TN Load (lb.)


TP Load (lb.)


BOD Load (lb.)


TSS Load (lb.)


Cu Load (lb.)

Estimated Existing Annual Pb Load

(lb.)

Estimated Existing

Annual Zn Load (lb.)

HU040H HU040 29.06 5.34 167.78 1153.14 0.37 0.12 1.89 HU055036W HU060 49.60 7.37 155.46 1002.43 0.40 0.08 1.21 HU055075 HU060 73.28 11.47 186.30 1245.83 0.55 0.09 1.25 HU060 HU060 13.52 2.33 36.31 244.03 0.11 0.01 0.22 HU060051R HU060 60.00 10.56 483.87 3636.09 1.03 0.29 5.66 HU061 HU061 25.80 4.31 109.90 521.80 0.22 0.06 0.86 HU070 HU070 202.93 34.35 1189.70 7465.88 2.62 0.70 12.25 HU080 HU080 261.79 44.24 1447.77 8725.76 3.14 0.83 14.33 Site 2 HU040 20.45 5.05 120.09 828.21 0.11 0.07 0.96 Site 3 HU060 410.18 68.28 2835.31 21309.79 6.73 2.09 35.71 BY027 BY027 1137.42 189.58 5359.00 35332.05 7.00 8.22 51.67 BY036 BY036 125.77 28.20 767.12 5442.75 1.04 0.44 7.11 BY150 BY150 1059.81 178.69 8301.02 61603.02 19.39 5.69 101.18 BY195 BY195 114.74 19.26 521.97 2658.18 1.08 0.27 4.39 CL020 CL020 158.71 38.85 903.37 6279.06 0.88 0.49 7.34

Lake Hunter BMP Development Preliminary Implementation Plan

To: City of Lakeland

Date February 2016

From: Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

LAKE HUNTER BMP DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Prepared for

City of Lakeland 407 Fairway Avenue

Lakeland, Florida

Prepared by

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2000 E. Edgewood Drive, Suite 215

Lakeland, Florida


February 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3

2.0 PROJECT CONCEPTUALIZATION IN PRIORITY STORMWATER BASIN .................... 3

3.0 POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTION ESTIMATES .............................................................. 4

4.0 FUTURE LOAD REDUCTION EFFORTS ........................................................................ 9

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Existing Lake Hunter/Lakeland Center Drainage Connectivity

Figure 2 Conceptual Lake Hunter BMP

Figure 3 Conceptual Site Plan- Lake Hunter BMP

Figure 4 Lake Hunter Priority Basins

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Estimated Conceptual Pond Storage Volumes

Table 2 Estimated TN and TP Load Reductions

Table 3 Engineers Opinion of Implementation Cost

Table 4 Engineers Opinion of O & M Cost

Table 5 Cost per Nutrient Load Removed for TN and TP

Table 6 Project Considerations

Table 7 Priority Drainage Basins

Table 8 Comparison of Monitored Pollutant Concentrations from Storm Events

Table 9 TN and TP Load Generation Potential per Area

Table 10 Possible Future Stormwater BMP’s for Consideration in the Priority Basins

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Lake Hunter Site Wetland Delineation & Evaluation Report Appendix B Permitting Meeting Minutes

City of Lakeland Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 600319.9 Lake Hunter BMP Development February 2016 Preliminary Implementation Plan Page 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) is pleased to provide ongoing MS4 permit compliance support to the City of Lakeland (COL). This report summarizes Amec Foster Wheeler’s efforts to identify and develop a conceptual Best Management Practice (BMP) treatment train for areas contributing to Lake Hunter. The conceptual BMP outlined in this report is based on the concepts described in the July 2015 Lake Hunter Implementation report, discussions with you and your staff, and field meetings with the COL and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). This work effort generally included advancing the top conceptual best management practice (BMP) to an implementable stage. Initially Lake Hunter contributing basins HU060, HU070 and HU080 were identified as basins of interest due to relatively large pollutant load discharge to Lake Hunter. Nutrient and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) loads from HU060 are approximately 2.5 – 3 times the loads for basins HU080 and HU070, respectively. Additionally there is under-utilized government-owned land near the discharge of HU060; therefore basin HU060 was targeted for BMP implementation. Further, the base flow from Lake Wire has a fairly large pollutant load when considered on an annualized basis, and is discharged through the HU060 system. The TMDL requires an 80% reduction for both total nitrogen and total phosphorus from the MS4 discharges as well as from Load Allocation (LA) sources inclusive of the discharges from Lake Beaulah and Like Wire. Past monitoring efforts verified that Lake Hunter has a preponderance of nitrogen-fixing algae, therefore efforts to reduce total phosphorus loads to the lake are important. 2.0 PROJECT CONCEPTUALIZATION IN PRIORITY STORMWATER BASIN Information acquired from design plans and desktop/ field reconnaissance was utilized to derive a coarse conceptual schematic for BMP implementation. Additional information regarding the quality and condition of existing wetlands within the potential project area was gathered. A wetland delineation and assessment, otherwise known as a UMAM (Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method) was performed to help guide the conceptual design process (Refer to Appendix A - Wetland Report). The identified conceptual project location lies within lands owned by multiple stakeholders: the City of Lakeland and FDOT. The City’s Lakeland Center operates areas within the project area where overflow parking and drainage features currently exist. A preliminary “permitting inquiry” involving the City of Lakeland, FDOT and Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) staff was held to convey ideas and assess feedback on a proposed BMP within the project limits (Appendix B - Permitting Meeting Minutes). Based on stakeholder input, the original coarse conceptual BMP was modified to address potential project concerns. Figure 1 provides a depiction of the existing stormwater patterns through the project area. Both permitted stormwater management facilities and a “pre-permitting” excavated pond exist within the project limits. The estimated wetland limits are also identified on Figure 1 to show the currently unused areas that exist among the relatively complex mix of stormwater infrastructure in the area. Figure 2 depicts the BMPs that were conceptualized to maximize use of the available property, improve hydration of the existing wetlands, enhance litter capture and obtain the most nutrient load reduction possible using traditional treatment methods. The primary concepts for the proposed stormwater management retrofit include:


1. Create extended wet detention (permanent pool) stormwater management facilities in the upland areas north of the east and west wetlands. Sediments and litter will predominantly be captured in the East BMP Pond and higher storm flows will result in flow into the West BMP Pond. The base flow documented in the 2014-2015 stormwater sampling program will all be treated as opposed to discharging directly to Lake Hunter. Both ponds will discharge into the adjacent wetlands, providing an improved hydro period and therefore habitat and function in those systems.

2. Incorporate the existing dry retention ponds into one larger common BMP facility. The

existing dry ponds serving the City’s southern entrance road to the southern parking lot will be converted to serve as “pre-treatment” wet detention BMPs prior to discharge into the existing North Mitigation Wetland, which will serve as a stormwater wetland. It is anticipated that the hydro period of this wetland will be improved with this additional source of hydration.

3. Control the excavated pond outfall to provide some level of treatment prior to discharge to

the existing outfall (north-south box culvert) to Lake Hunter. This pond currently allows “flow through” of stormwater from the Center parking lot as well as from drainage east of Sikes Boulevard, including the Lakeland Ledger facility and areas further east as well. This pond is directly connected to Lake Hunter via the box culverts therefore concern over floodplain impacts exist. Therefore treatment is limited to controlling the pond at its current level, but adding a control structure as well as baffles to enhance sedimentation and improved pollutant removal efficiency in the system.

Stormwater runoff rates exceeding the capacity of the control structures for the East and West BMP ponds will overflow south into the existing conveyance ditch system to Lake Hunter. Based on results from flood routing modeling efforts, approximately 7% of the expected annual stormwater runoff volume will bypass the East/West treatment BMP ponds. Estimated pond storage and conceptual pond design parameters for the West/East BMP ponds and the wet detention east pond are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1 Estimated Conceptual Pond Storage Volumes

BMP Pond Bottom

Elevation (ft. NAVD88)

Control Elevation

(ft. NAVD88)

Estimated Permanent

Pool Volume (ac-ft.)

East BMP Pond 158 163.4 4.52 West BMP Pond 158 165 5.26

Wet Detention East 160 162.5 0.81

3.0 POLLUTANT LOAD REDUCTION ESTIMATES Representative TN and TP reduction factors are assigned based on the estimated detention time which is a function of the estimated annual runoff and permanent pool volume. Table 2 summarizes the estimated detention time based on the annualized rainfall runoff volume estimate and the estimated base flow from Lake Wire as a result of the 2014/2015 monitoring efforts. Table 2 also summarizes the assigned load reductions; these reductions are based on the methodology presented in Figures 13.2 and 13.3 from the document titled “ERP Stormwater Quality Applicant’s


Handbook, Design Requirements for Stormwater Treatment Systems in Florida” (DEP and WMD 2010).

TABLE 2 Estimated TN and TP Load Reductions

BMP

Estimated Annual Runoff Input1 (ac-ft.)

Estimated Annual Base Flow Input2 (ac-ft.)

Estimated Permanent

Pool Volume (ac-ft.)

Estimated Hydraulic Residence

Time (days)

Estimated TN

Reduction (%)

Estimated TP

Reduction (%)

East BMP Pond 99.06 165 4.52 6.2 25.7 56.3 West BMP Pond 62.44 0 5.26 30.8 38.3 67.3

Wet Detention East 1.92 0 0.81 154.8 42.5 79.2 Notes: 1 ICPR modeling was performed to determine the flow split for evaluation of the East/West ponds 2 From Table 30 of the document titled “Lake Hunter TMDL Implementation Report - Results of Select Monitoring/Data Collection” The addition of a control structure, internal baffles, and performing additional excavation of the excavated pond will provide some level of treatment prior to discharge to Lake Hunter. TN and TP load reduction for the excavated pond is dependent on the available storage below the proposed control elevation (161.5’). At this time, Amec Foster Wheeler has not attempted to estimate the load reduction attributable to modifications to the excavated pond. This can be performed once the site plan is confirmed by the stakeholders and final design is conducted. The engineer’s opinion of implementation cost and Operation and Maintenance (O & M) costs are provided in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.

TABLE 3 Engineers Opinion of Implementation Cost

ITEM NO DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL COST

0 Survey/Design/Permitting LS $95,000 1 $95,000 1 Mobilization LS $64,000 1 $64,000 2 Maintenance of Traffic LS $7,500 1 $7,500

3 Video Inspection of Existing Box Culvert LS $6,500 1 $6,500

4 Erosion & Sediment Control LS $20,000 1 $20,000 5 Clearing & Grubbing LS $75,000 1 $75,000 6 Excavation (Regular) CY $16.00 17100 $273,600


TABLE 3 - CONTINUED Engineers Opinion of Implementation Cost

ITEM NO DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT

COST QUANTITY TOTAL COST

7 Misc. Asphalt Road Repair LS $20,000 1 $20,000

8 Mitered End Section (15") EA $1,000 1 $1,000



11 Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) (48") LF $177 140 $24,780

12 Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) (30") LF $85 180 $15,300

13 Drop Structure LS $3,500 6 $21,000

14 Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) (15") LF $50.00 110 $5,500

15 Manhole-Junction Box/Diversion Weir LS $7,000 2 $14,000

16 Crushed Shell CY $30.00 10 $300

17 Bollard EA $30.00 150 $4,500

18 Slope Protection - Cellular Confinement Geotextile System SY $50.00 110 $5,500

19 Riprap (for inflow swale) TN $125.00 10 $1,250

20 Performance Turf (Sod) SY $3.00 6000 $18,000

21 Construction Survey & As-Builts LS $10,000 1 $10,000

22 Removal of Exotics in Wetlands LS $7,500 1 $7,500

Estimated Sub-Total $702,430

Contingency (Concept Level) 35% $211,551

Estimated Implementation Total $913,981

*Note: The passive recreational trail shown on the site plan is not included in the cost estimate.


TABLE 4 Engineer’s Opinion of O&M Cost

DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL COST

Desilt Structures (1 Time/ 10 Yr.) YR $1,000.00 0.1 $100

Mowing YR $80.00 12 $960

Cleaning of Trash from BMPs (8 times annually) YR $200.00 8 $1,600

Total $2,660

Effective Present Worth Cost of Maintenance (20 Year Term, 5%) $33,149

TABLE 5

Cost Per Nutrient Load Removed for TN and TP

COST/ DURATION METHOD

POUNDS TN REMOVED

ESTIMATE (LBS/20 YEARS)

POUNDS TP REMOVED

ESTIMATE (LBS/20 YEARS)

COST/POUND TN REMOVED

($/LB REMOVED)

COST/POUND TP REMOVED

($/LB REMOVED)

Capital Cost Method- Based on

Construction Cost Only

4569 737 $179 $1,110

Capital and O&M

Method- Based on

Construction & 20 Year

Maintenance Term

4569 737 $186 $1,155

Estimated cost per nutrient removed shown in Table 5 reflects the aforementioned 7% bypass volume for the proposed East/West BMP ponds. Based on 20 year load reduction estimates the estimated cost per pound removed of TN ranges from $179- $186 and TP cost per reduction ranges from $1,110- $1,155 capital cost only vs capital cost and O&M cost. The cost of the potential nature/educational trail (Refer to Site Plan, Figure 3) was not included in the provided cost estimate. The conceptual BMP provides a number of potential benefits that make this project viable despite the moderately high cost associated with it. Blake Elementary School is located adjacent to the western wetland and the potential for expanded educational opportunities exists. A boardwalk is


proposed with connectivity to the Sikes Boulevard sidewalk. This will provide the opportunity for passive recreational opportunities including observation areas as well as environmental educational signage. There have been challenges in the past with homeless camps being located within the wooded areas of this project. This has resulted in the addition of litter and sanitary waste problems. The implementation of this project will reduce the desirability of this area for such activities. A number of activities held at the Lakeland Center include “downtime” for patrons and the construction of this BMP would provide the opportunity for those visitors to have a place to walk to, providing additional opportunities for public education as well as relaxation. A costs/benefits summary for the conceptual BMP is included in Table 6. Additional project considerations such as negotiation potential, permitting challenges and level of maintenance complexity are listed and discussed as well.

TABLE 6 Project Considerations

PROJECT PARAMETER ESTIMATE/ VALUE COMMENTARY

Pollutant Load Removal 36.9 Lbs./Yr. TP 228.5 Lbs./Yr. TN

Cost $914,000 (includes 35% contingency)

The cost per pound removed including operation and maintenance costs is $186/lb. TN and $1,155/lb. TP for a 20 year life cycle unit cost. These values are fairly good for traditional structural BMPs considering they include the contingency.

Potential for Stakeholder Partnerships

FDOT Lakeland Center City of Lakeland Public Works SWFWMD FDEP

Project involves a diverse group of potential stakeholders with vested interest in supporting and enhancing water quality within Lake Hunter. Cost/ resource sharing among stakeholders may be implemented to accomplish the desired action at reduced costs to any given participant. Specifically:

- Lakeland Center will gain improved drainage conditions on the south entrance road as well as improved asthetics and a water amenity adjacent to its parking.

- City of Lakeland Public Works- MS4 pollutant load is decreased and public education opportunities are possible.

- FDOT- MS4 pollutant load is decreased. - SWFWMD- Project would be a prime

candidate as a cooperative project. - FDEP- Project would be eligible for

FRDAP cooperative funding. Permitting Challenges Wetland areas

enhanced; Exotic species removed; Flood plain storage increased

Project should have net positive benefits from a function and habitat standpoint. Additional H & H modeling may be performed to optimize structure/weir sizes and inverts within the conceptual design.


TABLE 6 - CONTINUED Project Considerations

PROJECT PARAMETER ESTIMATE/ VALUE COMMENTARY

Level of Maintenance Complexity

$2,660 estimated annual costs; no specialty treatment units are proposed in base concept.

Establishment and maintenance of design conveyances within the system are necessary to promote desired nutrient reduction; specific maintenance practices and recommendations will be identified in the evolved plan set.

Potential Issues that may Modify Concept

1. The FDOT pond can be deepened to increase load removal. 2. Existing box culvert is eroding and should be replaced at least under the entrance road. Culvert will be video’d in the future.

4.0 FUTURE LOAD REDUCTION EFFORTS The established Lake Hunter TMDL includes an 80% reduction in TN and TP. Reduction of load associated with base flow is applied towards load allocation and load reduction associated with stormwater runoff is applied towards waste load allocation; where the applicable Lake Hunter TMDL= Waste Load Allocation (WLA) + Load Allocation (LA). The proposed conceptual BMP provides for a 3.4% TN and 6.4% TP reduction with respect to the WLA. The WLA for Lake Hunter were previously derived in the report titled “Lake Hunter TMDL Implementation Report- Results of Select Monitoring/Data Collection”. The WLA from MS4 stormwater sources is defined as the estimated adjusted annual loading from the referenced 2015 report less the “Hunter Direct” contribution, which is defined as direct rainfall to the lake as well as overland flow runoff from fringe areas surrounding the lake and not draining into the MS4. Determination of LA reduction is variable and highly dependent on rainfall and lake stage levels of connected lakes: Beulah and Wire. It is also dependent on groundwater inflow from surrounding upgradient areas. According to discussion in the TMDL, if Lake Hunter water levels are maintained at higher levels, the groundwater gradient to the lake is reduced and therefore the potential loads from the groundwater is diminished. The estimated base flow load (LA) reduction for the proposed conceptual BMP is 132 lbs. TN and 9.5 lbs. TP. Load allocation reduction percentages were not determined because of the high variability associated with total LA calculation. Additional load reduction strategies maybe implemented within the Lake Hunter watershed to increase load reduction. Top priority basins for additional load reduction are shown in Table 7; these basins are sorted with respect to estimated TP loading (greatest to lowest). These basins account for 61% and 60% of the respective TN and TP WLA for Lake Hunter.


TABLE 7 Priority Drainage Basins

ADJUSTED ANNUAL LOAD

MODELED MODELED MODELED

BASIN ACRES TN TP TSS COMMENTS

(LBS.) (LBS.) (LBS.)

HU060Site3 69.5 483.6 77 24770 Current concept treats this basin

HU080 52.5 412 56.2 10575

HU070 72.7 310.1 44.9 8977

HU105Site1 41.2 254.9 42.5 5147

HU060 34.9 270.8 38.4 9688

Note: Table adapted from Table 29 from the Lake Hunter Implementation Report- Results of Select Monitoring/Data Collection (2015)

Implementation of street sweeping within these basins may help reduce nutrient loads within the Lake Hunter basin, especially considering the relative TP associated with particulates. During the 2014-2015 monitoring efforts, the average pollutant concentration for each of the monitored stations was compared. It is important to note that one of the monitored areas that receives street sweeping typically 2 times per week but 3 times a week every third week had significantly lower pollutant concentrations than the other basins (Refer to Table 8). Therefore it seems prudent to consider increased street sweeping frequency in these areas as a means of reducing the pollutant loads from this portion of the Lake Hunter watershed. During the 2014-2015 monitoring efforts, it was also observed that alleys behind homes tended to have significant organic debris susceptible to rainfall wash-off. Addressing the sediment/organic debris level in the alley ways may be another appropriate way for the City to reduce the pollutant loads to the lake.

TABLE 8 Comparison of Monitored Pollutant Concentrations from Storm Events

BASIN TN TP TSS COMMENTS

(MG/L) (MG/L) (MG/L)

HU060Site3 0.77 0.11 18.9 Swept every 3rd week plus twice per week in Downtown areas

Site 1 1.98 0.39 24.9 Swept every 3rd Week

Site 2 2.50 0.44 23.2 “

Site 4 3.14 0.66 80 “

Note: Taken from the Lake Hunter Implementation Report- Results of Select Monitoring/Data Collection (2015)


Application of street sweeping should target the basins with the greatest TP load concentration potential. Table 9 shows that basins HU060Site3, HU080, HU070 and HU060 have the highest estimated TP load generation concentration; with concentrations exceeding 1 lb. TP/ac/yr. Figure 4 shows the priority basins with the highest TP load generation concentrations.

TABLE 9 TN and TP Load Generation Potential per Area

BASIN TN LBS/AC/YR

TP LBS/AC/YR

HU060Site3 6.96 1.11

HU080 7.85 1.07

HU070 7.53 1.09

HU105Site1 3.51 0.58

HU060 7.76 1.10

There are additional opportunities for load reductions within the watershed. These BMPs are listed in Table 10 and some general observations of each is included. Application of the proposed conceptual BMP and potential future stormwater BMPs within the Lake Hunter Watershed may help reduce pollutant loading to Lake Hunter. Implementation of these BMP strategies works towards satisfying the MS4 permit requirements for load reductions as well as towards meeting the regulatory TMDL and ultimately improving water quality within Lake Hunter.

TABLE 10 Possible Future Stormwater BMPs for Consideration in the Priority Basins

BMP TYPE/LOCATION

BASIN FOR IMPLEMENTATION

RELATIVE POLLUTANT REMOVAL CAPACITY

COMMENTS

Street Sweeping Frequency Increase- SW Zone 1 in priority

basin areas

HU060, HU070, HU080 High Could phase in with increased

frequency during leaf fall period.

Street Sweeping of Alleys All Basins High This could be performed on a less

frequent cycle.


TABLE 10 - CONTINUED Possible Future Stormwater BMPs for Consideration in the Priority Basins

BMP TYPE/LOCATION

BASIN FOR IMPLEMENTATION

RELATIVE POLLUTANT REMOVAL CAPACITY

COMMENTS

Dry Retention underground at Drane

Park (passive recreational park)

HU070 High Requires Parks & Recreation

Department agreement for use of park property.

Dry Retention underground at High Intensity Commercial Parcels fronting west side Florida Avenue

HU070, HU080 Moderate

Requires by-in with private entities in a public/private

partnership; possible credits for stormwater utility fees could be

considered.

Drainage Inlet Basket Inserts

HU060, HU070, HU080 Moderate

Relatively low capital cost; relatively high operation and

maintenance cost as frequent cleaning is recommended to

maintain effectiveness Lakeside Treatment with Soil Amendment

on Select Outfalls (Highlands St. outfall as

an example)

HU080, HU070 Moderate Relatively high installation cost

and ongoing operation costs; may require easements.

Figures

Explanation of FeaturesNotes:1- Project No.: 600319 2- Data Sources - Conveyance data providedby COL, augmented by Amec Foster Wheeler3- This map is intended to be used for planning purposes only. It is not a survey.

0 10050

feetFile Path: R:\MM\COL\MXD\Lake_Hunter\Pre_11x17L_titleblockL_Concepts.mxd

Date: 01/27/2016Revised:MMChecked By:TK

³ Amec Foster WheelerEnvironment & Infrastructure, Inc.2000 E. Edgewood Drive Ste #215

Lakeland, FL 33803 CA-5392

(863) 667-2345

Figure 1Existing Lake Hunter/ Lakeland Center

Drainage ConnectivityCity of Lakeland, FL

Overland flowConveyance

Treatment FeaturesWetlandComponent Features

Existing Basin Connectivity Description

-Contributing Area: Treats runoff from Sikes Blvd-Outfall: Through drop structure to excavated pond to the north

FDOT Pond

-Contributing Area: Adjacent upgradient Uplands-Outfall: To adjacent south wooded area through overland flow

West Mitigation Wetland

-Contributing Area: Collects inflow from LakelandLedger via large east/west CBC, adjacent north parking lot and North Mitigation Wetland-Outfall: Uncontrolled outfall via CBC to the west

Excavated Pond

-Contributing Area: Adjacent upgradient uplandsand Flow from Existing Dry Retention East-Outfall: Through drop structure to excavated pond to the west

North Mitigation Wetland

-Contributing Area: Treats runoff from adjacent Lakeland Center Entrance road -Outfall: Through drop structure to North Mitigation Wetland

Existing Dry Retention West

Existing Dry Retention East

Sikes Blvd

To Lake Hunter

Emerg

ency

Ove

rflow

Ditch

N/S,

CBC

54" R

CP

CBC= Concrete Box CulvertRCP= Reinforced Concrete Pipe

East Wetland

-Overland connectivity with the FDOT pond

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

Explanation of FeaturesNotes:1- Project No.: 600319 2- Data Sources - Conveyance data providedby COL, augmented by Amec Foster Wheeler3- This map is intended to be used for planning purposes only. It is not a survey.

0 10050

feetFile Path: R:\MM\COL\MXD\Lake_Hunter\Post_11x17L_titleblockL_Concepts.mxd




(863) 667-2345

Figure 2Conceptual Lake Hunter BMP

for Water Quality ImprovementCity of Lakeland, FL

!. Proposed Control StructuresProposed BaffleProposed ConveyanceExisting Conveyance

Treatment FeaturesComponent FeaturesExcavate

-Inflow from East BMP

FDOT Pond

-Install controlled drop structure intoexisting ditch overlying CBC-Accept inflow from West BMP Pond


-Provide control structure to provide treatment for contributing runoff, add baffles within pond

Wet Detention Pond

-Assess and maintain existing conveyance features


Excavate Ponds and convert to Wet Detention- Maintainconnectivity between Wet Detention East and West, modifyexisting control structure to increase pond capacity & lower pond control el.

Wet Detention West

Wet Detention East

West BMP PondEast BMP Pond

-Excavate extent to create West BMP Pond-Inflow from secondary diversion weir within 54" RCP

-Excavate extent to create East BMP Pond-Inflow from primary diversion weir within54" RCP

Sikes Blvd

Proposed Diverter Weir:-North of existing E-W, N-S CBC junction-Baseflow, sediment & gross pollutants routed to East BMP pond at inv. 160' (NAVD88)-Excess flows routed to West BMP pond at 165' (NAVD88)-Emergency flows are conveyed at elevation 165.5' (NAVD88), into CBC and through the existing ditchwhich overlies the north-south CBC

To Lake Hunter

Emerg

ency

Ove

rflow

Ditch

N/S,

CBC

E/W, CBC

CBC= Concrete Box CulvertRCP= Reinforced Concrete Pipe

54" R

CP

Baseflow Control

Surge Overflow Weir

Junction N/S, E/W, CBC

East Wetland

-Inflow from East BMP Baseflow control structure

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

!.

Explanation of FeaturesNotes1- Project No.: 600319 2- Data Sources - Conveyance data provided by COL, augmented by Amec Foster Wheeler3- This map is intended to be used for planning purposes only. It is not a survey.4- All stated control elevations are in datum NAVD88.5- All stated control elevations are subject to change based on detailed H&H analysis

0 10050

feetFile Path: R:\MM\COL\MXD\Lake_Hunter\Post_Fig3_11x17L_titleblockL_Concepts.mxd




(863) 667-2345

Figure 3Conceptual Site Plan

Lake Hunter BMPCity of Lakeland, FL

Proposed_Bollards!. Proposed Control Structures

Potential Future Nature/Educational TrailProposed BaffleProposed Conveyance

Existing ConveyanceTreatment Features

Component FeaturesExcavate

FDOT Pond


Wet Detention Pond


Wet Detention West

Wet Detention East

West BMP PondEast BMP Pond

Sikes Blvd

Proposed Diverter Weir

To Lake HunterSH= Seasonal High

Baseflow Control

Surge Overflow WeirControl El.=161.6'

Control El.=163.4'

SH Control El.=164.4'

Control El.=165'

Control El.=162.5'

SH Control El.=162.2'

Control El.=161.5'

East Wetland SH Control El.=162.9'

Site 3

HU080

HU070

HU060

Notes:1- Project No.: 2- Data Sources - 3- This map is intended to be used for planning purposes only. It is not a survey.

Explanation of Features

0 1,000500

Feet

³ Figure 4 Lake Hunter Priorty Basins

Date: Revised:Checked By:

File Path: R:\MM\COL\MXD\Lake_Hunter\Figure4.mxd

Amec Foster WheelerEnvironment & Infrastructure, Inc.2000 E. Edgewood Drive Ste #215


(863) 667-2345

Lake Hunter Priority Basins

Appendix A

i

LAKE HUNTER BMP DEVELOPMENT

LAKE HUNTER SITE WETLAND DELINEATION & EVALUATION

Prepared for

City of Lakeland Lakeland, Florida

Prepared by

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2000 E. Edgewood Drive

Suite 215 Lakeland, Florida 33803


November 2015

City of Lakeland Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 600319.9 Lake Hunter Site November 2015 Wetland Delineation & Evaluation Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1

2.0 METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 1

4.0 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Location map

Figure 2 – Aerial Map

Figure 3 – USGS Topo Map

Figure 4 – NRCS Soils Map

Figure 5 – Wetland Map

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A – Site Photos

Appendix B – UMAM Forms

City of Lakeland Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 600319.9 Lake Hunter Site November 2015 Wetland Delineation & Evaluation Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec Foster Wheeler) was contracted by the City of Lakeland to conduct a wetland delineation and evaluation of a ten-acre site located on Sikes Boulevard in Lakeland, Polk County, Florida (Figure 1). The site is proposed for stormwater storage and ecological enhancement. This investigation and report may be used to aid in avoidance and minimization of impacts during the design phase and as a description of existing conditions during permitting.

2.0 METHODS The wetland delineation was conducted using criteria described in Florida Administrative Code “Chapter 62-340 - Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters”. Wetland limits were identified and flagged with pink “Wetland Delineation” tape or pin flags. Each flag location was recorded using a sub-meter GPS. A functional assessment of the wetlands on the site was conducted using the “Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) following Chapter 62-345 FAC”. Seasonal High Water Lines (SHWL) and Normal Pool (NP) elevations were set at four locations using accepted practices.

3.0 RESULTS The uplands on the site consist of a maintained grass parking, a shrub section and a forested section. Two wetland areas cover about half of the project area. An enclosed culvert bisects the site running north to south. A section of each wetland appears to have been constructed for FDOT mitigation purposes. An aerial photograph of the site is included in Figure 2. Elevations are fairly flat at approximately 165 feet (Figure 3). The excavated pond appear to be approximately 3 below surrounding grade. The NRCS mapped soils consist primarily of Hontoon muck in the wetland with small sections of Arents on the edges. (Figure 4). The soil map and USGS map indicate that the entire area was likely a wetland in the past, but subsequent construction has altered the hydrology and current soils appear disturbed. Large amounts of trash were present throughout the project area including some areas with larger construction type debris. Camps of homeless persons were found in several locations. The groundcover vegetation in the parking area is a mixture of upland groundcover species such as bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) and Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon). The shrub section consists of blackberry (Rubus sp.), frostweed (Verbesina virginica), winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), castor bean (Ricinus communis) and peppervine (Ampelopsis arborea). The forested upland consists primarily of live oak (Quercus viginiana), paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Soils in the upland sections appeared disturbed. The constructed wetland areas were dominated by a canopy of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), sweetgum, laurel oak, sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana) and red maple (Acer rubrum). The understory contained a variety of hydrophytic species including pickerelweed (Pontedaria cordata), lizard’s tail (Saururus cernuus), spadderdock (Nuphar advena), Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), duck potato (Sagittaria latifolia), and primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana). Surface water was present in these wetlands and hydrology appears to be stable due to berms and a weir structure in the northeast section. Little evidence of water level fluctuation was

City of Lakeland Amec Foster Wheeler Project No. 600319.9 Lake Hunter Site November 2015 Wetland Delineation & Evaluation Page i

present. Identifying SHWL and NP elevations was difficult due to the lack of clear indicators. Set elevations were approximately 20cm between the SHWL and NP. Four locations were evaluated for these elevations to provide more reliable data. The western wetland contained a dense canopy of sweetgum, sweetbay, sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) red maple, and laurel oak. The understory and groundcover was a nearly complete cover of exotic species including tuberous sword fern (Nephrolepis cordifolia), American evergreen (Syngonium podophyllum), and Turk’s turban (Clerodendrum indicum). Soils were mucky with several pockets of standing water. Weather conditions during the survey were normal for the time of year. The temperatures (in degrees Fahrenheit) were in the low 70’s in the morning to mid 80’s by late afternoon. Skies were generally clear to partly cloudy and winds were light. The locations of the wetland flags and delineation are depicted in Figure 5. Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) wetland evaluation forms were completed and are included in Appendix B. Wetland function was generally poor due to the impacts of adjacent land use and abundance of exotic species. Photographs of the site are included in Appendix A.

4.0 DISCUSSION Portions of this site appears to have been used in the past for a combination of stormwater treatment and wetland mitigation. The proposed project would expand the current stormwater treatment capabilities and provide additional wetland benefits to the site. Current regulations do not allow stormwater systems to be used as wetland mitigation. The previous dual use permitted for the site may allow the regulatory agencies some flexibility to consider the proposed project as an ecological restoration project that may provide some stormwater benefits. There is some precedence for this in Polk County with the Inwood Drainage Improvement Project and Elizabeth Place Hydrologic Enhancement Project. Pre-application discussions are highly recommended and results of those discussion will be incorporated in to this report. Due to the presence of mature desirable tree species throughout much of the site, clearing and grubbing should be limited to the shrub area in the center of the site and areas required for berms or structures. Flooding the site with an additional 12-18” of water will eliminate a large amount of exotic groundcover. It will also hydrate an area in the middle of the eastern portion that will quickly convert to a forested wetland. This will likely kill the laurel oaks in the area over time but these should be replaced naturally by more tolerant species already present. If possible, water levels should be raised incrementally over three to five years to avoid shocking the existing trees. Removal of trash and selective removal of exotic species will also increase the wetland value. Pre-treatment of stormwater through the pond north of the site would be desirable if possible. Similarly, incorporation of the small wetland further to the northeast may be beneficial. Creation of a single larger system would benefit wetland functions especially for wildlife.

Figures

1- Project No.: 600319.9 2- Data Source - Esri Street Map 3- This map is intended to be used for planning purposes only. It is not a survey.

Path: T:\600319.9 City of Lakeland - Lake Hunter BMP Development\Drawings \GIS\MXD\Figure1 Location Map.mxd

Notes:

0 0.5

Miles

Figure 1Location Map

Lakeland Polk County, FloridaAmec Foster Wheeler

Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.2000 E. Edgewood Drive Ste #215

Lakeland , FL 33803 CA-5392

(863) 667-2345

Date: 11/18/2015Revised:ABChecked By: KS


Project Location

1- Project No.: 600319.9 2- Data Source - 2014 Imagery AmecFW (11/11/2015)3- This map is intended to be used for planning purposes only. It is not a survey.

Path: T:\600319.9 City of Lakeland - Lake Hunter BMP Development\Drawings \GIS\MXD\Figure 2 Aerial Map.mxd

W MAIN ST

W LEMON ST

HODGES RD

LAKE BEULAH DR

S VIR

GINI

A AV

E

S DAKOTA AVE

S NEW

YOR

K AV

E

SIKES BLVD

S FLO

RIDA

AVE

SIKES

BLV

D

Notes:

0 700

Feet

Figure 2Aerial MapLakeland

Polk County, FloridaAmec Foster WheelerEnvironment & Infrastructure, Inc.2000 E. Edgewood Drive Ste #215


(863) 667-2345



Wetland Boundary

Lake Hunter Lake Hunter

Lake Lake BeulahBeulah

1- Project No.: 600319.9 2- Data Source - USGS Topo Quads3- This map is intended to be used for planning purposes only. It is not a survey.

Path: T:\600319.9 City of Lakeland - Lake Hunter BMP Development\Drawings \GIS\MXD\Figure 3 USGS Map.mxd

Notes:

0 2,000

Feet

Figure 3USGS Topo Map




(863) 667-2345



Project Location

1- Project No.: 600319.9 2- Data Source - 2014 Imagery AmecFW (11/11/2015) NRCS Soils3- This map is intended to be used for planning purposes only. It is not a survey.

Path: T:\600319.9 City of Lakeland - Lake Hunter BMP Development\Drawings \GIS\MXD\Figure 4 SoilsMap.mxd

55

16

55

99

59

61

99

63

35

59

13

21

61

50

14

50

16

41

63

17

Notes:

0 700

Feet

Figure 4Soils MapLakeland

Polk County, FloridaAmec Foster WheelerEnvironment & Infrastructure, Inc.2000 E. Edgewood Drive Ste #215


(863) 667-2345



Wetland Boundary

Soils ID Soils Description Hydrologic Group13 Samsula muck B/D14 Sparr sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes C16 Urban land NA17 Smyrna and Myakka fine sands B/D21 Immokalee sand B/D35 Hontoon muck B/D41 St. Johns sand B/D50 Candler-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes A55 Sparr-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes C59 Arents-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes B61 Arents, organic substratum-Urban land complex C63 Tavares-Urban land complex A99 Water W

Soils Table

1- Project No.: 600319.9 2- Data Source - 2014 Imagery AmecFW (11/11/2015)3- This map is intended to be used for planning purposes only. It is not a survey.

Path: T:\600319.9 City of Lakeland - Lake Hunter BMP Development\Drawings\GIS\MXD\Figure 5 wetlandsMap.mxd

Sikes Blvd

W Lime St

Sikes Blvd

W Lime St

A

B

Notes:

0 200

Feet

Figure 5Wetlands Map




(863) 667-2345


³Explanation of Features

Wetland FlagsWetland Boundary

Appendix A – Site Photos

City of Lakeland Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 600319.9 Lake Hunter Site November 2015 Wetland Delineation & Evaluation Page 1

Photograph #1: Interior of western wetland

Photograph #2: Interior of western wetland

City of Lakeland Amec Foster Wheeler Project Number 600319.9 Lake Hunter Site November 2015 Wetland Delineation & Evaluation Page 2

Photograph #3: Interior of eastern wetland

Photograph #4: Control Structure for FDOT Pond 16003-3509-02

Appendix B – UMAM Forms

Site/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number

Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

Catbird, Carolina wren, blue jay, mockingbird, unidentified snake, raccoon.

Additional relevant factors:

A large amount of trash was present in the area and obvious use by homeless persons.

Kevin Shelton 11/11/2015

Water storage and treatment. Minimal wildlife usage.Portions of the wetland have been constructed in the past for

mitigation for FDOT projects.

Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species

that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to

be found )

Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal

classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the

assessment area)

Various bird species, primarily transient songbirds. Alligators, small

mammals and reptiles.

This is a forested wetland with a mix of native and exotic species. Portions of the wetland have been constructed in the past for mitigation.

Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional

landscape.)

Lake Hunter to the south.Not unique. Several pockets of forested wetlands occur within one

mile of the site.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands

The site is surrounded by development. There is a large parking lot to the north, Sikes Blvd. to the south and east, and a school to the west. It

appears to ultimately drain to Lake Hunter to the south through culverts.

Assessment area description

6300 2.62

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)

PART I – Qualitative Description

(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Lake Hunter Wetland A

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional)

w/o pres or

current

w/o pres or

current

w/o pres or

current

currentor w/o pres

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]

For mitigation assessment areas

Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) =

RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk)

= -0.4

withAdjusted mitigation delta = 0.0

0.4 0

If mitigation

Risk factor =

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if

uplands, divide by 20)

If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas

Preservation adjustment factor = FL = delta x acres =

.500(6)(c)Community structure

The canopy contains a good diversity of native hydrophitic tree species but the mid-story and groundcover contained

a high degree of exotic and/or nuisance species such as Turk's turban, American evergreen, tuberous sword fern

and salix willow.

1. Vegetation and/or

2. Benthic Community

with

5

.500(6)(a) Location and

Landscape Support

The site is surrounded by development inlcuding a busy highway, elementary scholl and large parking lot. Lake

Hunter is located nearby but wildlife access is limited due to the highway.

with

3

.500(6)(b)Water Environment

(n/a for uplands)

The wetland receives run-off from a highly urbanized landscape including direct input from adjacent roads and

parking lots. Oil sheen was seen in some locations. Floating trash was present.

with

4

Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)

The scoring of each

indicator is based on what

would be suitable for the

type of wetland or surface

water assessed

Condition is optimal and fully

supports wetland/surface

water functions

Condition is less than

optimal, but sufficient to

maintain most

wetland/surface

waterfunctions

Minimal level of support of

wetland/surface water

functions

Condition is insufficient to

provide wetland/surface

water functions

Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:


PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)

(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)


Lake Hunter Wetland A


Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size

Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s):

PART I – Qualitative Description

(See Section 62-345.400, F.A.C.)

Lake Hunter Wetland B

FLUCCs code Further classification (optional)

6300 1.93

Basin/Watershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody (Class) Special Classification (i.e.OFW, AP, other local/state/federal designation of importance)

Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands

The site is surrounded by development. There is a large parking lot to the north, Sikes Blvd. to the south and east, and a school to the west. It

appears to ultimately drain to Lake Hunter to the south through culverts.

Assessment area description

This is a forested wetland with a mix of native and exotic species. Portions of the wetland have been constructed in the past for mitigation.

Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional

landscape.)

Lake Hunter to the south.Not unique. Several pockets of forested wetlands occur within one

mile of the site.

Functions Mitigation for previous permit/other historic use

Water storage and treatment. Minimal wildlife usage.Portions of the wetland have been constructed in the past for

mitigation for FDOT projects.

Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species

that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to

be found )

Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal

classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the

assessment area)

Various bird species, primarily transient songbirds. Alligators, small

mammals and reptiles.

Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [ effective date 02-04-2004 ]

Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.):

American alligator, catbird, Caroilna wren, blue jay, marsh rabbit, raccoon.

Additional relevant factors:

A large amount of trash was present in the area and obvious use by homeless persons.

w/o pres or

current

w/o pres or

current

w/o pres or

current

currentor w/o pres

PART II – Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation)

(See Sections 62-345.500 and .600, F.A.C.)


Lake Hunter Wetland B

Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date:


Scoring Guidance Optimal (10) Moderate(7) Minimal (4) Not Present (0)

The scoring of each

indicator is based on what

would be suitable for the

type of wetland or surface

water assessed

Condition is optimal and fully

supports wetland/surface

water functions

Condition is less than

optimal, but sufficient to

maintain most

wetland/surface

waterfunctions

Minimal level of support of

wetland/surface water

functions

Condition is insufficient to

provide wetland/surface

water functions

.500(6)(a) Location and

Landscape Support

The site is surrounded by development inlcuding a busy highway, elementary scholl and large parking lot. Lake

Hunter is located nearby but wildlife access is limited due to the highway.

with

3

.500(6)(b)Water Environment

(n/a for uplands)

The wetland receives run-off from a highly urbanized landscape including direct input from adjacent roads and

parking lots. Oil sheen was seen in some locations. Floating trash was present.

with

4

.500(6)(c)Community structure

The canopy contains a good diversity of native hydrophitic tree species but the mid-story and groundcover contained

exoticand/or nuisance species such as primrose willow, tuberous sword fern and salix willow.

1. Vegetation and/or

2. Benthic Community

with

7

Score = sum of above scores/30 (if

uplands, divide by 20)

If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas

Preservation adjustment factor = FL = delta x acres =

withAdjusted mitigation delta = 0.0

0.46667 0

If mitigation

Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04-2004]

For mitigation assessment areas

Delta = [with-current] Time lag (t-factor) =

RFG = delta/(t-factor x risk)

= -0.5 Risk factor =

Appendix B

PLEASE NOTE: If there is any comment or amendment to be made to these meeting notes, they must be brought to the notice of Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. within 24 hours of issue and confirmed in writing Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 2000 E. Edgewood Drive, Suite 215 Lakeland, Florida 33803 Tel (863) 667-2345 Fax (863) 667-2662 www.amecfw.com

Meeting Minutes

Date: January 6, 2016 Meeting at: SWFWMD- Tampa

Subject/Purpose: Lake Hunter Stormwater Retrofit Project– FDOT/SWFWMD Meeting

Attendees: Laurie Smith, City of Lakeland; David Kramer, Michelle Hopkins, Chaz Lariche (SWFWMD); Brent Setchell, Nicole Mills, Carlton Spirio (on phone), FDOT; Kevin Shelton, Tim Kelly (Amec Foster Wheeler)

Following is a brief summary of the meeting discussion. Please kindly note any additional or

required changes. Thank you.

Stormwater: · A handout (attached) was distributed and discussed. The information on the handout provides

project concepts that are not repeated here.

· There was much discussion about logistics on permitting and District staff ultimately suggested

that the permit application would be a permit modification to the existing permits (one for the

City access road and one for Sikes Blvd). The permit application would be looked upon

favorably because the net change to the systems modified would be positive and would

increase the pollutant load removal capacity of the existing system. Additionally, it is

anticipated that the wetlands would be enhanced through this action.

· Due to the number of stakeholders and the potential cost of this project, it is unknown when a

permit application would be submitted. The lead property owner most effected is the City of

Lakeland’s Lakeland Center and concepts must first be vetted through Public Works and the

Center and then with FDOT. The concept could take various forms depending on the future

Continued.

Page 2 of 3

hotel access needs, the need for improving the existing access off of Sikes Blvd., the

incorporation of passive recreation features (such as sidewalks and the like), potential

connectivity with the adjacent school, among others.

Wetlands: · District staff will meet with Amec Foster Wheeler staff on site to verify wetland limits and

functional evaluation following, at least, the conceptual plan development.

· Creating a dual purpose of water quality/quantity and wetland enhancement is permittable.

Details will be dependent on extent of wetland “impacts” and proposed alteration of hydrology.

· The conversion of forested wetlands to open water would not be looked upon favorably.

Therefore flooding of the hardwoods needs to be carefully evaluated.

· Enhancement of wetland by displacement of vagrants and associated trash will be beneficial.

Exclusion by means of flooding the area will benefit the area against illicit activities.

· Permitting options include

· Transfer of wetland mitigation areas to a single entity

· Modification of either existing permits

CITY OF LAKELAND PUBLIC WORKS LAKE HUNTER STORMWATER RETROFIT PROJECT IN CONCERT WITH FDOT’S LAKELAND NORTH/SOUTH ROUTE (SR 563) STORMWATER

MANAGEMENT FACILITY/PROPERTY

DRAFT AGENDA FOR SWFWMD PERMITTING MEETING JANUARY 6, 2016

City of Lakeland and FDOT have Lake Hunter as a priority TMDL waterbody for their

NPDES MS4 permits. Existing Stormwater Management Facilities/Features (see Attachment A) could be

modified for appreciable stormwater load reduction to Lake Hunter. These include: o Wet detention pond serving small segment of Sikes Blvd (SR 563) o Connected dry retention ponds serving south Lakeland Center parking lot from

Sikes Blvd. o Relic excavated/other surface waters that conveys stormwater through with no

apparent treatment intended (no control structure). Existing wetlands (see Attachment B) rate poorly with draft UMAM scores of 0.4 and

0.47. Opportunity exists to hydrate these wetlands better. Existing box culvert running parallel to wetlands has failed concrete walls in places-

possible influence on adjacent wetlands. The existing entrance road off of Sikes Blvd. is in poor condition, likely due to base

deterioration. Site survey efforts have not been initiated therefore some concepts may not be feasible.

Concept for Stormwater Management Retrofit Project

Create a permanent pool stormwater management facility in the upland area north of the wetlands incorporating the “other surface waters” pond

Convert the FDOT pond into a different element of the treatment train (possibly pre-treatment permanent pool prior to discharge into the adjacent wetland).

Incorporate the dry retention ponds into one larger common wet detention facility. Discussion Items desired from SWFWMD Permitting Meeting:

Can the noted permitted stormwater management facilities (that are permitted under the presumptive criteria) be incorporated into elements of a stormwater retrofit facility that creates a net pollutant load reduction but may not meet the permitting criteria for a wet detention facility (due to the large cumulative contributing area)?

Can the “other surface waters” pond be incorporated into the treatment train without wetland impact penalties?

ATTACHMENT A

EXISTING OTHERSURFACE WATERSTHAT IS A CONDUITFOR STORMWATER.NO SWFWMDPERMIT/NO CONTROLSTRUCTURE

EXISTING 54" STORMSEWER DISCHARGESINTO BOX CULVERT

(NO

T IM

PLE

ME

NTE

D)

FDOT WETDETENTION PONDPERMITTED UNDERMSSW 404814

TWO DRY RETENTIONAREAS SERVINGENTRANCE ROAD

ATTACHMENT B

LOCATION OFEXISTING BOXCULVERT

Amec Foster Wheeler 2000 E. Edgewood Drive Suite 215 Lakeland, Florida 33803 863.667.2345

annual report form · 2017-05-10 · dep form 62-624.600(2), effective january 28, 2004 page 1 of...

Documents