DOCSLIB.ORG

Pinellas County MPO Goods Movement Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pinellas County MPO Goods Movement Study Pinellas County MPO Goods Movement Study PINELLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY For the PINELLAS AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY Prepared by: PINELLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Preparation of the document was financed in part by the United States Department of Transportation under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users PINELLAS AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY PINELLAS COUNTY METROPLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION GOODS MOVEMENT STUDY PINELLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Frank Hibbard Chairman Chris Arbutine Vice Chairman Ronnie Duncan Secretary/Treasurer Karen Seel Robert Stewart Robin Saenger William Mischler Jeff Danner David Eggers Herbert Polson Don Skelton (Ex Officio) Harriet Crozier Prepared By: PINELLAS COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Brian K. Smith Executive Director Sarah E. Ward Transportation Planning Administrator DECEMBER 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................1 Technical Memorandum Number1: Documentation of Existing Policy Context ................................ 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5 Regulatory Controls...................................................................................................................... 5 Pinellas County Truck Route Plan................................................................................................ 7 Pinellas County Code of Ordinances............................................................................................ 8 Select Municipal Governments Code of Ordinances.................................................................. 12 Pinellas County MPO Long Range Transportation Plan............................................................ 15 Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan......................................................................................... 22 Comprehensive Plan Observations for Consideration................................................................ 26 Florida Department Of Transportation (FDOT) District Seven Freight Mobility...................... 30 Pinellas County MPO Goods Movement Study ......................................................................... 32 General Regulatory Recommendations ...................................................................................... 32 2 Technical Memorandum Number 2: Stakeholder Group and Interviews ........................................... 34 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 35 Summary of Goods Movement Advisory Committee (GMAC) and Carrier Issues/Concerns... 36 Summary of GMAC and Carrier Interviews............................................................................... 39 Identification of Problem Truck Routes ..................................................................................... 44 Appendices for Technical Memorandum No. 2.......................................................................... 46 Appendix A-1: Goods Movement Advisory Committee Membership...................................... 48 Appendix A-2: Freight Activity Centers and Mobility Corridors ............................................. 50 Appendix A-3: GMAC Stakeholders Survey Questionnaire..................................................... 63 Appendix A-4: Carrier Survey of Local Transportation Concerns............................................ 65 Appendix A-5: Identification of Problem Routes...................................................................... 66 3 Technical Memorandum Number 3: General Procedure for Freight Transportatin Asset Improvement Measures....................................................................................................................... 67 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 68 Pinellas County Public Works.................................................................................................... 68 City of St. Petersburg.................................................................................................................. 68 City of Clearwater ...................................................................................................................... 69 City of Pinellas Park ................................................................................................................... 69 City of Safety Harbor ................................................................................................................. 70 Purpose of Existing Designation Assets and Signage ................................................................ 71 Appendix for Technical Memorandum No. 3............................................................................. 73 Appendix B-1: Freight Transportation Asset Inventory............................................................ 74 4 Technical Memorandum Number 4: Determining Designation Criteria and Community Values..... 88 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 89 Primary Designation Criteria...................................................................................................... 89 Associated Designation Criteria ................................................................................................. 91 Community Input Card Response Results.................................................................................. 92 Summary of Public Involvement Activities ............................................................................... 93 5 Technical Memorandum Number 5: Update of the Existing Truck Route Plan................................ 95 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 96 Truck Freight Assessment: Tampa Bay Regional Goods Movement Study Phase I.................. 96 Recommended Freight Friendly Design Criteria: Tampa Bay Regional Goods Movement Study Phase I................................................................................................. 97 Operational Recommendations: I Tampa Bay Regional Goods Movement Study Phase I....... 97 Goods Movement Advisory Committee and Freight Carrier Concerns ..................................... 98 Hazardous Materials................................................................................................................... 99 Pinellas County Truck Route Plan Analysis and Evaluation.................................................... 101 Locations with Planned Improvements .................................................................................... 101 Operational and Capacity Review ............................................................................................ 101 Analysis Summary.................................................................................................................... 122 6 Technical Memorandum Number 6: Recommendations ................................................................. 133 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 134 Existing Policy and Regulatory Controls ................................................................................. 134 Pinellas County MPO Long Range Transportation Plan.......................................................... 136 Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element............................................... 138 Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use and Quality Communities Element .. 138 FDOT Freight Mobility - Phase I and II, Tampa Bay Regional Goods Movement Study ....... 138 Goods Movement Advisory Committee (GMAC) ................................................................... 139 Freight Transportation Asset Inventory.................................................................................... 139 Community Values and Designation Criteria........................................................................... 141 Jurisdictional Transfer of Roadways ........................................................................................ 142 Summary of Identification of Candidate Roadways................................................................. 144 Identification of Areas of High Conflict................................................................................... 145 Identification of Areas for Operational Improvements................. ……………………………145 Short Term Improvements........................................................................................................ 148 Status of Pinellas County ATMS/ITS Projects (June 2006)..................................................... 150 Long Term Improvements ........................................................................................................ 152 Recommendations for Operational and Areas of High Conflict............................................... 154 Future Actions.........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Current Status of Oyster Reefs in Florida Waters: Knowledge and Gaps
    Current Status of Oyster Reefs in Florida Waters: Knowledge and Gaps Dr. William S. Arnold Florida FWC Fish and Wildlife Research Lab 100 Eighth Avenue SE St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727-896-8626 [email protected] Outline • History-statewide distribution • Present distribution – Mapped populations and gaps – Methodological variation • Ecological status • Application Need to Know Ecological value of oyster reefs will be clearly defined in subsequent talks Within “my backyard”, at least some idea of need to protect and preserve, as exemplified by the many reef restoration projects However, statewide understanding of status and trends is poorly developed Culturally important- archaeological evidence suggests centuries of usage Long History of Commercial Exploitation US Landings (Lbs of Meats x 1000) 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Statewide: Economically important: over $2.8 million in landings value for Florida fishery in 2003 Most of that value is from Franklin County (Apalachicola Bay), where 3000 landings have been 2500 2000 relatively stable since 1985 1500 1000 In other areas of state, 500 0 oysters landings are on 3000 decline due to loss of 2500 Franklin County 2000 access, degraded water 1500 quality, and loss of oyster 1000 populations 500 0 3000 Panhandle other 2500 2000 1500 1000 Pounds500 of Meats (x 1000) 0 3000 Peninsular West Coast 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Peninsular East Coast 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 MAPPING Tampa Bay Oyster Maps More reef coverage than anticipated, but many of the reefs are moderately to severely degraded Kathleen O’Keife will discuss Tampa Bay oyster mapping methods in the next talk Caloosahatchee River and Estero Bay Aerial imagery used to map reefs, verified by ground-truthing Southeast Florida oyster maps • Used RTK-GPS equipment to map in both the horizontal and the vertical.
    [Show full text]
  • State of Emergency on Red Tide for Tampa Bay
    July 19, 2021 Governor Ron DeSantis State of Florida The Capitol 400 S. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 [email protected] Re: State of Emergency on Red Tide for Tampa Bay The undersigned respectfully request you immediately declare a state of emergency for the ongoing red tide and fish kill occurring in Tampa Bay. Such a declaration would help coordinate and fund relief efforts to mitigate further environmental and economic damage from red tide in the region. Red tide produces toxic chemicals that harm marine wildlife and humans. The ongoing, widespread red tide and fish kills have unreasonably interfered with the health, safety, and welfare of the State of Florida, causing harm to its environment and fragile ecosystems in Hillsborough, Manatee, Pinellas, and Sarasota counties. Therefore, we ask you exercise your authority, as the Governor of Florida, vested by the Florida Constitution and the Florida Emergency Management Act to issue an executive order declaring a state of emergency due to red tide in Tampa Bay. Sincerely, Audubon Everglades Scott Zucker, President [email protected] Cape Coral Friends of Wildlife Paul Bonasia, President [email protected] Cape Coral Wildlife Trust Lori Haus-Bulcock [email protected] Calusa Waterkeeper John Cassani, Calusa Waterkeeper [email protected] Cat Chase Media Caitlin Chase, Owner [email protected] Center for Biological Diversity Elise Bennett, Staff Attorney [email protected] Chispa Florida Maria Revelles, Program Director [email protected] Collins Law Group Martha M. Collins, Esq. [email protected] Defenders of Wildlife Elizabeth Flemming, Senior Florida Representative [email protected] Environment Florida Jenna Stevens, State Director [email protected] Florida Student Power Network Mary-Elizabeth Estrada, Tampa Climate Justice Organizer [email protected] Florida Turtle Conservation Trust George L.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Assessment Sources
    To: Elizabeth Abernethy, Director, Date: October 2020 Planning and Development Services City of St. Petersburg Project #: 66316.00 From: Neale Stralow, Senior Planner Re: StPete2050 - Market Assessment Sources This correspondence is provided at the request of City of St. Petersburg staff relating to the final Market Assessment reporting provided by Landwise Advisors, LLC dated January 24, 2020 in support of the StPete2050 project. The final submittal includes source references and responses to City staff provided comments. The following is a source listing for future use by City staff. Slide # - Description Stated Sources Slide 5 – SWOT Grow Smarter 2014 and update 2019 State of the City, 2019 StPete2050 Economic Development Roundtable, October 10, 2019 Slide 7 – Population UF Bureau of Economic Research (BEBR) Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Slide 8 – Population ESRI Business Analyst Online (BAO), 2019 Slide’s 23 to 30 – Employment US Census Bureau, 2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, OnTheMap Slide 31 – Target Industries St. Petersburg Economic and Workforce Development Department Slide 32 – Travel Time To Work US Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates Slide’s 36 to 41 – Office Market Avision, Young Tampa Bay Office Report, Q3 2019 Statistics Slide 42 – Office Downtown Tenant CoStar, St. Petersburg City Directories Mix Slide 43 to 47 – Project Employment Moody’s 30-year forecast, Total No-Agricultural Employment, 2019
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Cumulative Effects of Restoration Activities on Water Quality in Tampa Bay, Florida
    Estuaries and Coasts https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00619-w MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS Assessment of the Cumulative Effects of Restoration Activities on Water Quality in Tampa Bay, Florida Marcus W. Beck1 & Edward T. Sherwood2 & Jessica Renee Henkel3 & Kirsten Dorans4 & Kathryn Ireland5 & Patricia Varela6 Received: 10 April 2019 /Revised: 13 June 2019 /Accepted: 26 July 2019 # The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Habitat and water quality restoration projects are commonly used to enhance coastal resources or mitigate the negative impacts of water quality stressors. Significant resources have been expended for restoration projects, yet much less attention has focused on evaluating broad regional outcomes beyond site-specific assessments. This study presents an empirical framework to evaluate multiple datasets in the Tampa Bay area (Florida, USA) to identify (1) the types of restoration projects that have produced the greatest improvements in water quality and (2) time frames over which different projects may produce water quality benefits. Information on the location and date of completion of 887 restoration projects from 1971 to 2017 were spatially and temporally matched with water quality records at each of the 45 long-term monitoring stations in Tampa Bay. The underlying assumption was that the developed framework could identify differences in water quality changes between types of restoration projects based on aggregate estimates of chlorophyll-a concentrations before and after the completion of one to many projects. Water infra- structure projects to control point source nutrient loading into the Bay were associated with the highest likelihood of chlorophyll- a reduction, particularly for projects occurring prior to 1995. Habitat restoration projects were also associated with reductions in chlorophyll-a, although the likelihood of reductions from the cumulative effects of these projects were less than those from infrastructure improvements alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Survey of Pinellas County, Florida
    United States In cooperation with Department of the University of Florida, Agriculture Institute of Food and Soil Survey of Agricultural Sciences, Natural Agricultural Experiment Pinellas County, Resources Stations, and Soil and Conservation Water Science Service Department; the Florida Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services; and the Pinellas County Board of Commissioners i How To Use This Soil Survey Detailed Soil Maps The detailed soil maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. To find information about your area of interest, locate that area on the Index to Map Sheets. Note the number of the map sheet and turn to that sheet. Locate your area of interest on the map sheet. Note the map unit symbols that are in that area. Turn to the Contents, which lists the map units by symbol and name and shows the page where each map unit is described. The Contents shows which table has data on a specific land use for each detailed soil map unit. Also see the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs. ii This soil survey is a publication of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Major fieldwork for this soil survey was completed in 2002. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 2003. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this publication refer to conditions in the survey area in 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Sea Level Rise Methodology Recommendation.Docx
    RECOMMENDED PROJECTIONS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel Updated April 2019 RECOMMENDED PROJECTIONS OF SEA LEVEL RISE IN THE TAMPA BAY REGION Executive Summary In this document, the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel (CSAP) recommends a common set of sea level rise (SLR) projections for use throughout the Tampa Bay region. The recommendation establishes the foundation for a coordinated approach to address the effects of a changing climate, which advances the objectives of the newly-established Tampa Bay Regional Resiliency Coalition. Local governments and other agencies planning for SLR in the Tampa Bay region should incorporate the following key findings of this CSAP recommendation. • Data measured at the St. Petersburg tide gauge shows that water levels in Tampa Bay have already increased approximately 7.8 inches since 1946. • Based upon a thorough assessment of scientific data and literature, the Tampa Bay region can expect to see an additional 2 to 8.5 feet of SLR by 2100. • Projections of SLR should be consistent with present and future National Climate Assessment estimates and methods. The NOAA Low scenario should not be used for planning purposes. • Projections of SLR should be regionally corrected using St. Petersburg tide gauge data. • Adaptation planning should employ a scenario-based approach that, at minimum, considers location, time horizon, and risk tolerance. Introduction Formed in spring 2014, the CSAP is an ad hoc network of scientists and resource managers working in the Tampa Bay region (Figure 1). The group’s goal is to collaboratively develop science-based recommendations for local governments and regional agencies as they respond to climate change, including associated sea level change.
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Tampa Florida
    DOWNTOWN TAMPA FLORIDA 2016 - Downtown Tampa is HAPPENING! Shovels turning dirt, red cranes a constant in the skyline, large scale development projects announced with regularity, commercial office towers sold at record prices, and ceremonial ribbons being cut as private and public development/investments soar to an all-time high! PUBLIC SPACES Tampa Riverwalk - The Kennedy Riverwalk Segment opened in early 2015, resulting in 2.2 miles of contiguous urban waterfront walkway Selmon Greenway - Bicycle and pedestrian path opened in early 2015 Water Works Park - Opened Summer 2014 Julian B. Lane Riverfront Park - Master planning process in 2014 TRANSPORTATION & LAND USE PLANNING Public and Private Sector Plans guiding community growth Imagine Hillsborough 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (2015) Downtown Transit Assets & Opportunities (2014) Tampa Historic Streetcar Extension Study (2014) Port Tampa Bay Vision (Unveiled 2015) – 45 acres SPP Tampa Bay Waterfront 2020 Vision (Unveiled 2014) – 40 acres RESIDENTIAL – Supply and demand on the rise +1,500 Newly Opened Units 2012-2016 - Crescent Bayshore | NoHo Flats Pierhouse Channelside | ENCORE!® | The Aurora | SkyHouse Channelside Madison Heights +4,500 Planned /Under Construction Units - 500 Harbour Island |The Aurora The Fitzgerald | The Channel Club (with Publix Grocery) |AER | NINE 15 The Heights | The Manor | NoHo Flats II | Related Group’s Tribune Site Feldman Equities/Tower Realty ‘s Riverwalk Tower| Gas Worx | Riverwalk Tower Port Tampa Bay Vision | SPP Waterfront Vision HOTELS 2 - New (adaptive reuse) 1 - Planned 4 - Renovations Le Méridien Tampa - Opened June 2014, 130-room hotel converted from 109 year old Federal Courthouse Aloft Tampa Downtown - Opened July 2014, 130-room riverfront hotel converted from old Mercantile Bank Planned - 400-room hotel adjacent to Amalie Arena MARKETPLACE New and expanding retail, restaurants, and personal service businesses opening to meet the demand of growing residential and visitor populations.
    [Show full text]
  • Tampa Electric's Manatee Viewing Center
    Tampa Electric’s Manatee Viewing Center Tampa Electric Company • Has supplied the Tampa Bay area with electricity since 1899 – Areas include Hillsborough, Polk, Pasco, and Pinellas counties • Has more than 5,000 megawatts of generating capacity and over 765,000 residential, commercial, and industrial customers • Has installed 600 MW of photovoltaic solar with the plans to add 600MW more – 7% of the energy produced by Tampa electric comes from the sun Big Bend Power Station • Located in Apollo Beach, Florida • Why do manatee visit the Big Bend discharge canal? • Manatees need water warmer than 68F to survive • Big Bend uses water from Tampa bay to cool the power plant. This produces warm salt water which is then released into in the discharge canal where the manatee seek refuge from the cold. The sea walls contain the warm water and allow the temperature in the canal to return to ambient temperature before the water returns to the bay. Manatee Viewing Center • Open: Nov. 1 - April 15 • Hours: 10am-5pm, Nature Trails & Observation Tower close at 4pm • Closed: Thanksgiving day, Christmas Eve at 3pm, Christmas day & Easter • Admission: Free! • Parking: Free! Manatee Viewing Center • Owned and operated by Tampa Electric Company • Opened in December 1986 • Is a federal and state sanctuary • 7 million visitors! • Features: Manatee, ray touch tank, butterfly garden, nature trails & an observation tower Newman Branch Creek History • The MVC is located on roughly 500 acres • The area was historically dredged to deepen and straighten the channel
    [Show full text]
  • Boater's Guide to Hillsborough
    Boater’s Tips: IDLE SPEED Speed Restrictions ◆ Stay clear of the main ship channel when large Vessel speeds are regulated for many reasons ships are approaching. Some vessels entering including safety concerns in high traffic areas, and Tampa Bay are as long as two football fields, to help ensure the safety of swimmers, boaters, or carry hazardous materials, and are very NO WAKE manatees. Please refer to motor exclusion zones difficult to maneuver. Many clear the 45-foot and shallow water cautionary zones on the map. deep shipping channel by as little as 4 feet, and may require a mile or more to stop. Pilot’s SLOW SPEED Idle Speed: A vessel operating in an “Idle vision may be restricted by the large size of the Speed No Wake” zone must slow to the minimum vessel they are captaining. It is up to the small speed that will maintain steerage control. An boat operator to keep safely out of the way of example of this is to put a car’s automatic trans- these ships. MINIMUM WAKE mission in “Drive” and allow it to idle forward. ◆ Monitor Channel 16 for distress calling and Slow Speed: A vessel operating in a “Slow safety, ship-to-ship and ship-to-coast contact. Speed Minimum Wake” zone must come fully off RESUME NORMAL plane and completely settle in the water. The ves- ◆ Be sure your boat is visible at night and in poor sel’s wake must not be excessive, so as not to create weather conditions. a hazard to other vessels. “Slow Speed Minimum ◆ The main shipping channels are shown on Wake” and “Slow Speed” mean the same thing and the map.
    [Show full text]
  • Pinellas County Community Health Assessment
    PINELLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT 2012 Pinellas County | Community Health Assessment 0 PINELLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSESSMENT REPORT 2012 Produced by: Pinellas County Health Department Report and Supplemental Materials Available at: www.pinellashealth.com To Provide Feedback or Request Additional Information: contact the Pinellas County Health Department, Office of Performance and Quality Improvement at (727)820-4214 Acknowledgments: The community health improvement planning process has been a collaborative and community driven approach for Pinellas County. Many individuals and organizations participated in and contributed valuable information to the community health assessment. This collaborative approach was essential in the development of a quality community health assessment report. 1 Pinellas County | Community Health Assessment 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................3 1.1. Acknowledgements.......................................................................................7 2. Pinellas County Overview....................................................................................8 3. Community Themes & Strengths Assessment.............................................10 3.1. Collaborative Engagement.........................................................................11 3.2. Community Survey.......................................................................................18 4. Local Public Health System Performance Assessment............................25
    [Show full text]
  • Traffic Counts 2018
    Average Annual Daily Traffic 2018 Counts in Pinellas County Pasco County Pinellas County Dunedin Cswy 3600 7500 15500 49500 29000 22000 Curlew Rd Trinity Blvd CURLEW RD 4300 9800 14200 22500 DEMARET DR OAK CREE K JONES DR 3300 22500 HAGEN AVE PalmPALM BLVDBlvd BRADY DR 1900 17100 15200 14000 5900 MichiganMICHIGAN Blvd BLVD Tarpon Ave 14000 CR 1 34500 Keystone Rd ALT US 19 | BAYSHORE BLVD Tarpon 16300 39500 Bayshore Blvd 3500 77500 GARRISONRD Springs 19800MIRA VISTA DR 4600 3300 SOLON AVE 6300 SAN JOSE DR RD PINEHURST Pinehurst RdPinehurst 20000 SAN SALVADOR DR 10500 Klosterman Rd 3000DR PALOMA 4800 950 8100 5900 SAN CHRISTOPHER DR 17000 20500 72000 31500 BASS BLVD Main St 2000 17600 SR 580 | MAIN ST 17800 Rd Lake East 10800 Pinellas County 28000 Skinner Blvd NEW YORK AVE YORK NEW 8000 LAKE HAVEN RD HAVEN LAKE 18500 County Hillsborough 2100 MAIN ST INDIGO DR INDIGO VIRGINIAVirginia3400 ST St 14800 US19 | BROADWAY ALT 25000 4100 DOUGLAS AVE DOUGLAS 9100 8200 Alderman Rd 4100 AR LYNDHURST ST LYNDHURST ST HIGHLAND W AVE 4800 Palm 14500 20500 11400 63500 GREENBRI BELTREES ST Edgewater Dr 1400 VIRGINIA AVE S Harbor 2300 AVE PATRICIA MILWAUKEE AVE MILWAUKEE 250 7500 Douglas Ave 83500 21500 16000 15500 Patricia Ave BROADWAY 3800 8900 Keene Rd Keene 6900 ALT US 19 | EDGEWATER DR Oldsmar UNION ST Union St 26000 24000 4700 17300 Tampa Rd 39500 KEENERD MONTCLAIR Y ES AVE ES LAND AVE LAND LN UL GH 35500 HW 13500 20500 Area 4400 Dunedin 23000 23500 Palmetto St 49500 Memorial Causeway 19000 74500 890089008900 25500 35500 Curlew Rd 58500 Betty Ln 119001190011900
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Reasonable Assurance Plans As Alternatives to Tmdls
    Use of Reasonable Assurance Plans as Alternatives to TMDLs Florida Stormwater Association Winter 2017 Meeting 6 December 2017 Presentations by: • Tony Janicki • Julie Espy • Tiffany Busby • Judy Grim • Brett Cunningham Florida Reasonable Assurance Plans Julie Espy Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida Stormwater Association Winter 2017 Meeting 6 December 2017 Florida’s Requirements • Section 303(d) of the Federal CWA • Florida statute 403.067 established the Florida Watershed Restoration Act in 1999 • Surface Water Quality Standards Rule 62- 302, F A.C. • Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) 62-303, F.A.C. Watershed Management Approach Waterbody Identification Number - WBID Assessment Unit (waterbody) Blue Lake WBID Boundary Line for the stream WBID Assessment Unit (waterbody) and WBID line for lake WBID Assessment Category Descriptions Category 1 - Attaining all designated uses Category 2 - Not impaired and no TMDL is needed Category 3 - Insufficient data to verify impairment (3a, 3b, 3c) Category 4 - Sufficient data to verify impairment, no TMDL is needed because: 4a – A TMDL has already been done 4b – Existing or proposed measures will attain water quality standards; Reasonable Assurance 4c – Impairment is not caused by a pollutant, natural conditions 4d – No causative pollutant has been identified for DO or Biology 4e – On-going restoration activities are underway to improve/restore the waterbody Category 5 - Verified impaired and a TMDL is required Descriptions of the Lists • Planning list – used to plan for monitoring • Study
    [Show full text]