Lake OkeechobeeWatershed

 Construction Project

Phase II

Technical Plan

February 2008 Florida Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services

Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

Construction Project 

Phase II Technical Plan 

February 2008

Prepared by:

South Florida Water Management District 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1-1 

2. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2-1 

3. PLANNING PROCESS...................................................................................................... 3-1 

4. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................... 4-1 

5. WATER QUALITY DATA ANALYSES.......................................................................... 5-1 

6. WATER QUANTITY DATA ANALYSES....................................................................... 6-1 

7. FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS............................................................... 7-1 

8. ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND COMPARISON ..................................... 8-1 

9. PREFERRED PLAN PROJECTS AND ACTIONS .......................................................... 9-1 

10. PLAN REFINEMENTS AND REVISIONS.................................................................... 10-1 

11. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 11-1 

APPENDICES 

A – Performance Measure Fact Sheets 

B – Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model 

C – Phase II Technical Plan Management Measures Tool Box 

D – Plan Operations & Maintenance, Permitting, and Monitoring 

E – Agency and Public Comments on the Draft P2TP and Response to Comments 
This page intentionally left blank. 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

i 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

ac Acre 

ac-ft Acre-feet 

APAFR Avon Park Air Force Range 

ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

ATS Algal Turf Scrubber 

AWSF Alternative Water Storage Facility 

BAT Best Available Technology 

BMAP Basin Management Action Plan 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BOD Biological Oxygen Demand 

BODR Basis of Design Report 

BWCD Barron Water Control District 

C&SF Central and Southern Florida 

CAPT Coordinating Agency Planning Team 

CBIR Community Budget Issue Request 

CE Caloosahatchee Estuary 

CELCP Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

CFS Cubic Feet per Second 

CRW Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DMSTA Dynamic Model for Stormwater Treatments Areas 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DOI Department of Interior 

EAA Everglades Agricultural Area 

ECP Everglades Construction Project 

EMCT Environmental Monitoring Coordination Team 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ERP Environmental Resource Permit 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ET Evapotranspiration 

ETF Everglades Trust Fund 

EVS Ecological Value Score 

FAA Federal Aviation Authority 

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code 

FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

FDCA Florida Department of Community Affairs 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FEC Fisheating Creek 

FLUCCS Florida Land Use, Covers, and Forms System 

FP&L Florida Power and Light 

FRESP Florida Ranchland Environmental Services Project 

FRPP Farm and Ranchland Protection Program 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

ii 

F.S. Florida Statutes 

FSQM Field Sampling Quality Manual 

ft Feet 

ha Hectares 

HHD Herbert Hoover Dike 

HWTT Hybrid Wetland Treatment TechnologyTM

ICGA Indiantown Citrus Growers Association 

IRL-S Indian River Lagoon-South 

JD Jurisdictional Wetland 

KBMOS Kissimmee Basin Modeling and Operations Study 

KCOL Kissimmee Chain of Lakes 

Km Kilometer 

KRHRP Kissimmee River Headwaters Revitalization Project 

KRRP Kissimmee River Restoration Project 

LECSA Lower East Coast Service Area 

LIW Lake Istokpoga Watershed 

LOER Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery 

LOFT Lake Okeechobee Fast-Track 

LOK Lake Okeechobee 

LOOP Lake Okeechobee Operating Permit 

LOPA Lake Okeechobee Protection Act 

LOPP Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan 

LOSA Lake Okeechobee Service Area 

LOW Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

LOWCP Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project 

LSM Land Suitability Model 

m Meter 

MAPS Managed Aquatic Plant System 

MFL Minimum Flows and Levels 

MGD Million Gallons per Day 

mi Mile 

MM Management Measure 

mt Metric Tons 

N Nitrogen 

NEEPP Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NERSM Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model 

NETP Northern Everglades Technical Plan 

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

P Phosphorus 

P2TP Phase II Technical Plan 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

iii 

PD&E Project Development and Engineering 

PIR Project Implementation Report 

PM Performance Measure 

POI Public Outreach Initiative 

POR Period of Record 

ppb Parts per billion 

ppt Parts per thousand 

QASR Quality Assurance Systems Requirements 

R&D Research and Development 

R&U Risk and Uncertainty 

RASTA Reservoir-Assisted Stormwater Treatment Area 

RECOVER Restoration Coordination and Verification 

RLSA Rural Land Stewardship Areas 

RSM Regional Simulation Model 

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

SFER South Florida Environmental Report 

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District 

SFWMM South Florida Water Management Model 

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District 

SLRW St. Lucie River Watershed 

STA Stormwater Treatment Area 

SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan 

T&E Threatened and Endangered 

TCNS Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough 

TDS Total Dissolved Solids 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TNC The Nature Conservancy 

TP Total Phosphorus 

TPL Trust for Public Lands 

UF University of Florida 

UF/IFAS University of Florida Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences 

UKISSWIN Upper Kissimmee Model 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

UTF Urban Turf Fertilizer 

USSR Unified Statewide Stormwater Rule 

WCA Water Conservation Area 

WOD Works of the District 

WRAC Water Resources Advisory Committee 

WRDA Water Resources Development Act 

WSE Water Supply and Environment 

WWF World Wildlife Fund 

yr Year 
This page intentionally left blank. 
SECTION 1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1-1 

1.1 Background.................................................................................................................. 1-2 

1.2 Previous Restoration Efforts........................................................................................ 1-5 

1.3 Preferred Technical Plan Key Objectives/Findings.....................................................1-7 

1.4 Alternatives Evaluation................................................................................................ 1-9 

1.5 Preferred Technical Plan Features .............................................................................1-10 

1.6 Phased Implementation..............................................................................................1-11 

1.7 Preliminary Cost Estimates........................................................................................1-13 

1.8 Preferred Technical Plan Refinements and Revisions...............................................1-14 

1.9 For more details... .....................................................................................................1-14 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-1 

The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program requires the development of a 

detailed technical plan for Phase II of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project by 

February 2008. In response, this preferred Plan was developed by the South Florida Water 

Management District in coordination with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services – and with extensive input 

from stakeholders throughout its development. Subject to ratification by the Florida Legislature, 

the preferred Plan builds upon and dovetails with on-going restoration activities and 

successfully consolidates many previous Lake Okeechobee restoration efforts into a broader, 

Northern Everglades-focused approach. 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Passed by the Florida Legislature and signed into law by Governor Charlie Crist in 2007, the 

landmark “Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program” promotes a comprehensive, 

interconnected watershed approach to protecting Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee and 

St. Lucie rivers and estuaries. By expanding the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act, the Florida 

Legislature recognized the importance and connectivity of the entire ecosystem – from the 

Kissimmee Chain of Lakes south to Florida Bay. 

The primary goal of the legislation is to restore and protect surface water resources by addressing 

not only the water quality but also the quantity, timing and distribution of water to the natural 

system. State agencies are working in partnership with those local governments whose economy 

and quality of life depend on the health of Lake Okeechobee and the coastal estuaries to develop 

and implement comprehensive plans to restore and protect these water bodies. 

The preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan was 

developed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in coordination with the 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Florida Department of 

Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) – and with extensive input from stakeholders 

throughout its development. 

To achieve the restoration goals, the coordinating agencies evaluated various alternatives using 

best available technology and scientific information, and included significant public involvement 

and review throughout the process. The resulting preferred Plan identifies construction projects, 

along with on-site measures that prevent or reduce pollution at its source such as agricultural and 

urban best management practices (BMPs), needed to achieve water quality targets for the lake. 

In addition, it includes other projects for increasing water storage north of Lake Okeechobee to 

achieve healthier lake levels and reduce harmful discharges to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie 

estuaries. 

Components of the multi-phase preferred Plan include: 

• Implementing agricultural management practices on more than 1.7 million acres of farmland; 

• Adopting new regulations that will reduce the impacts of development on water quality and 

flow; 

• Building treatment wetlands to clean water flowing into the lake; 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-2 

• Using other innovative “green” nutrient control technologies to reduce phosphorus loads 

from the watershed; and 

• Creating between 900,000 and 1.3 million acre-feet of water storage north of the lake through 

a combination of above-ground reservoirs, underground storage and alternative water storage 

projects on public and private lands. 

Comprised of local and regional projects, the preferred Plan consolidates, builds upon and 

dovetails with many on-going restoration activities. In addition to augmenting and enhancing 

efforts under way in the remnant Everglades south of Lake Okeechobee, it builds upon 

environmental improvements currently being implemented north of the lake as a part of the statefederal Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). It also consolidates the numerous 

initiatives currently under way through Florida’s Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (LOPP) and 

Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Plan (LOER). 

The proposed implementation schedule calls for a phased approach – designed to provide 

progressive water quality and quantity improvements to benefit the lake and downstream 

estuaries. Initial measures outlined by the preferred Plan call for an additional investment of up 

to $320 million beyond the State’s 50 percent cost-share for land acquisition and construction 

projects as part of CERP. While the cost of non-CERP features will be primarily borne by the 

South Florida Water Management District and the State, CERP investments are eligible for up to 

a fifty percent cost share with the federal government. 

Completion of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan is 

a critical step in the state’s Northern Everglades initiative to protect and improve Lake 

Okeechobee and downstream receiving waters. The preferred Plan achieves the legislative 

requirement by outlining the steps needed to reduce pollution and improve the storage in the 

watershed north of the lake necessary to clean water flowing into Lake Okeechobee. 

1.1 Background 

Lake Okeechobee is the “liquid heart” of South Florida’s interconnected aquatic ecosystem and 

holds the distinction of being the largest freshwater body in the southeastern United States. The 

730 square-mile lake provides a number of values and benefits to the state’s population, 

economy and environment, including environmental, public and agricultural water supply; flood 

protection; a sport and commercial fishery; navigation/recreation; and natural habitat for a 

variety of endangered and threatened animal and plant species. 

Today, the lake’s ecological health is adversely affected by three major influences: (1) excessive 

nutrient loading; (2) extreme high and low water levels in the lake; and (3) the proliferation of 

exotic species. 

In addition to direct rainfall, the massive lake receives tributary inflows from a number of 

sources. The Lake Okeechobee watershed encompasses a drainage area of over 3.5 million acres 

(5,500 square miles), spanning 10 Florida counties, and is dominated by agricultural land uses 

that account for just over 50 percent of the total area. Based on hydrologic and geographic 

boundaries, the watershed includes nine sub-watersheds. 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-3 

Phase II Technical Plan Boundary and Sub-Watersheds 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-4 

Over the last century, a number of factors have led to adverse changes in the hydrology and 

water quality of Lake Okeechobee – as well as to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers and 

estuaries. These include changes in land use within the upstream Kissimmee River basin; the 

construction of the regional water management network for flood control (the Central and 

Southern Florida public works project built by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers); loss of 

available surface water storage; and the subsequent flow of nutrient-enriched local runoff into 

the water bodies. 

The impacts have been significant: Channelization of the Kissimmee River removed regional 

storage upstream of Lake Okeechobee while making way for growth. As nutrient-enriched runoff 

from agricultural and urban activities within the watershed flowed into the lake, its water quality 

suffered. In recognition of increasing phosphorus impacts in the lake, in 2001 the State 

established a stringent restoration target known as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for 

Lake Okeechobee. The TMDL establishes the maximum amount of phosphorus that Lake 

Okeechobee can assimilate without causing exceedences of water quality standards. The amount 

of phosphorus entering the lake has significantly exceeded the TMDL over the past three 

decades. 

In addition, construction of the Herbert Hoover Dike greatly reduced the extent of the lake’s 

natural littoral or shoreline marsh areas, reducing overall lake surface area by a third and, 

thereby, significantly reducing the lake’s available and historical storage capacity. Construction 

of the protective levee system along with drainage and development efforts to the south, reduced 

the natural expanse of the Florida Everglades’ wetland area by 50 percent, constraining flow 

south from Lake Okeechobee. 

Because the volume of water coming from the upstream basin has remained relatively constant 

(approximately 3.5 million acre-feet per year, on average, equivalent to about 7.5 feet over the 

lake surface area), lake inflows have often exceeded its limited present-day storage capacity. 

With discharge capacity to the southern part of the Everglades ecosystem reduced because of 

constructed changes to the natural system, along with legal and environmental operating 

constraints, the need to discharge water from the lake to the east (via the St. Lucie River and 

Estuary) and west (via the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary) has increased. These coastal 

discharges of excess lake water – driven by the need to maintain safe lake levels in accordance 

with federal regulations and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ operating schedule for Lake 

Okeechobee – can cause detrimental ecological fluctuations for the delicate estuarine 

environments in the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries. 

 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-5 

1.2 Previous Restoration Efforts 

A number of lake and estuary improvement plans and actions have been developed and 

implemented over the years, primarily aimed at reducing pollution and the flow of excess 

phosphorus into the lake. Some early protection efforts began in the 1970s and, by the late 

1980s, a mandatory program to control phosphorus discharges from dairy operations north of 

Lake Okeechobee was implemented. That program resulted in the implementation of an initial 

suite of best management practices on 30 farms and the buy-out of 18 dairies. 

 

Recognizing that construction of the federally-built water management system resulted in 

unintended consequences on the natural system, Congress authorized the Restudy of the Central 

and South Florida Project in the early 1990s to assess the measures necessary to restore the south 

Florida ecosystem. During this time, a number of “Critical Restoration Projects” were 

determined to provide immediate, substantial, and independent benefits to the Everglades and 

were specifically authorized by the 1996 Water Resources Development Act. These included 

projects to benefit the health of Lake Okeechobee. 

The broader-scope Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) was proposed in 1999 

and was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The joint state-federal 

partnership of CERP provides a framework and guide to restore, protect and preserve the water 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-6 

resources of central and southern Florida, including the Everglades. The overarching goal of 

CERP is to capture fresh water that now flows unused to the ocean and the gulf and redirect it to 

areas that need it most. The majority of the water will be devoted to environmental restoration. 

The remaining water will enhance urban and agricultural water supplies. 

To better manage Lake Okeechobee and the coastal estuaries, CERP included a series of storage 

and water quality treatment facilities north of the lake, as well as Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

(ASR) in the vicinity of Lake Okeechobee. In addition, to improve flows to the Caloosahatchee 

and St. Lucie River watersheds, CERP includes water storage and water quality improvement 

projects such as the C-43 Reservoir, Indian River Lagoon South projects and the Everglades 

Agricultural Area Reservoir. 

Also in 2000, Florida passed the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act establishing a phased, 

watershed-based protection program to restore the lake and its tributaries. As required by the 

Lake Okeechobee Protection Act, the South Florida Water Management District, the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection developed the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan, which details a suite of activities 

necessary for reducing pollutant loads in the watershed and achieving the established TMDL. 

That Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan included Phase I of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

Construction Project (as described in the original Lake Okeechobee Protection Act), which 

identified a series of project features designed to obtain phosphorus load reductions through the 

construction of stormwater treatment facilities and isolated wetland restoration projects. 

Through the implementation of the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan, the State has achieved 

some notable accomplishments: 

• Adopting a Lake Okeechobee TMDL for phosphorus of 140 metric tons to achieve an in-lake 

target phosphorus concentration of 40 parts per billion; 

• Constructing the Taylor Creek and Nubbin Slough Stormwater Treatment Areas (a 

Congressionally-approved Critical Restoration Project) in partnership with the federal 

government; 

• Completing conservation and nutrient-management plans on individual farms covering 

550,000 acres to reduce phosphorus loads from agricultural land in the watershed; 

• Completing a suite of individual projects to reduce phosphorus from dairy farms, restore 

isolated wetlands, treat urban stormwater run-off and enhance water storage and habitat on 

ranchlands; 

• Implementing a comprehensive research and water quality monitoring program for the lake 

and watershed; and 

• Treating more than 32,000 acres of exotic and invasive vegetation. 

To help further accelerate progress, the $200 million Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery 

(LOER) plan was launched in 2005 – a combination of capital projects and numerous 

interagency initiatives to increase water storage, expand and construct treatment marshes and 

expedite environmental management initiatives. In addition to expediting construction of a 

series of Lake Okeechobee Fast-Track projects, other components of the LOER plan include 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-7 

alternative water storage, revisions to permit criteria, changes in fertilizer practices, revisions to 

the Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule and continued implementation of the Lake 

Okeechobee Protection Plan components. 

To restore the health of the ecosystem upstream of Lake Okeechobee, portions of the 

channelized Kissimmee River are being backfilled in an effort to reestablish the lost floodplain. 

The $578 million Kissimmee River Restoration Project is among the largest ecosystem 

restoration projects in the world and is well under way. In 2006, the South Florida Water 

Management District completed acquisition of the 102,061 acres needed for construction of the 

project. The backfilling of 9.5 miles of flood control canal by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

has already restored close to 20 miles of historic river channel and 6,500 acres of associated 

floodplain. 

1.3 Preferred Technical Plan Key Objectives/Findings 

To develop the preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical 

Plan, the best available land use information, flow data and water quality data were used to 

identify existing flows and phosphorus loads from each sub-basin within the lake’s watershed. 

An evaluation of current programs and projects was also conducted. Following these analyses, 

alternatives were identified to reduce harmful flows and phosphorus loads. Potential constraints 

were also identified to ensure compatibility with all ongoing or planned initiatives and legal 

mandates. 

A set of four restoration alternatives were developed and reviewed, using established 

performance measures to assess how well each proposed alternative achieved the identified water 

quality and water quantity/storage objectives. 

Water Quality: Meet the Lake Okeechobee Phosphorus TMDL 

In 2001, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection established a TMDL of 140 metric 

tons per year of total phosphorus for Lake Okeechobee. This has been determined as the amount 

of total phosphorus that the lake can assimilate without causing significant ecological impacts 

within the lake. Of that limit, 35 metric tons per year are estimated to naturally reach the lake 

directly through atmospheric deposition; therefore, no more than 105 metric tons per year of total 

phosphorus loading should enter the lake from the watershed. 

Based on the initial 1991 to 2000 period of record, the average total phosphorus loading to the 

lake was reported to be 433 metric tons per year from the watershed. Projects and strategies 

were identified as part of the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (including Phase I of the Lake 

Okeechobee Construction Project) to meet the target load. It is important to note that the TMDL 

is based on a five-year rolling average and the load reduction required to achieve it will vary 

annually. 

For development of the preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II 

Technical Plan, the period of record for inflow to Lake Okeechobee was updated through 2005 – 

which included the hurricane-driven extreme rainfall events in 2004 and 2005. This expanded 

period (1991-2005) raised the annual total phosphorus load to 514 metric tons per year, 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-8 

necessitating additional phosphorus reduction measures to meet the total maximum daily load 

target. 

Significant conclusions from the water quality analyses are: 

• Existing water quality in the Lake Okeechobee watershed is significantly influenced by the 

various land use and land management practices within the individual sub-watersheds and 

drainage basins. 

• In the future, implementation of Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan recommended best 

management practices (BMPs) and other total phosphorus reduction measures are expected 

to significantly reduce phosphorus loading. However, measured phosphorus reductions in 

the lake waters are likely to be substantially delayed because of the residual phosphorus in 

soils within the watershed (legacy phosphorus) and lake sediments. 

• Implementation of BMPs in areas that contribute flows to Lake Istokpoga and Lakes 

Kissimmee, Cypress and Hatchineha are expected to reduce phosphorus loading to these 

lakes. While the load reductions to these upstream lakes are not expected to provide an 

immediate benefit to Lake Okeechobee, implementation of BMPs in these sub-watersheds is 

necessary to protect water quality in the lakes themselves and to ensure the long-term ability 

to assimilate phosphorus and protect Lake Okeechobee. 

• The Indian Prairie, Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough and Fisheating Creek sub-watersheds 

contribute disproportionately high phosphorus loads to Lake Okeechobee relative to their 

flow contributions. Therefore, these sub-watersheds were targeted for additional water 

quality measures. 

Water Quantity/Storage: Manage Lake Okeechobee water levels within an ecologicallydesirable range and manage flows to meet desirable salinity ranges for the St. Lucie and 

Caloosahatchee estuaries while meeting other water–related needs of the region, including water 

supply and flood protection. 

The 2007 legislation also recognized the importance of managing the quantity, timing, and 

distribution of water from the watershed north of the lake to achieve integrated and 

comprehensive environmental restoration of Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee and St. 

Lucie estuaries. An analysis was conducted to determine the amount of water needed to be 

stored in the watershed to better manage water levels in Lake Okeechobee and reduce excess 

damaging freshwater releases to the estuaries. This analysis included an evaluation to ensure 

that the identified water quantity storage goal would not impact the ability to maintain existing 

water supply for Lake Okeechobee water users. 

Key findings from the water quantity data analysis are: 

• There is a breakpoint between 900,000 and 1.3 million acre-ft of storage above which 

additional increases in storage capacity would provide relatively small improvements in 

damaging releases to estuaries. 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-9 

• Because a large portion of the inflows come from large rainfall events, it will be necessary to 

size, locate and design features with the operational flexibility to capture significant amounts 

of water during these large events. 

• The Upper and Lower Kissimmee and Istokpoga sub-watersheds contribute close to threequarters of the total average annual inflow to Lake Okeechobee. The Lower Kissimmee and 

Istokpoga sub-watersheds were targeted for storage projects. 

• Although there is a large volume of flow to Lake Okeechobee from the Upper Kissimmee 

sub-watershed, further evaluation through the Upper Kissimmee Regional Water Supply 

Feasibility Study will determine if a portion of storage capacity currently identified for the 

Lower Kissimmee sub-watershed could be located in the Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed. 

1.4 Alternatives Evaluation 

The coordinating agencies evaluated four restoration alternatives as part of the development of 

the preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan. 

Extensive emphasis was also placed on providing opportunities for public comment and review 

through meetings, web postings and community briefings. 

A set of restoration alternatives that addressed project objectives were formulated and evaluated 

by the coordinating agencies planning team. Below are brief descriptions of the alternatives and 

a comparison of their load reduction and storage capacities. 

Alternative 

No. 

Alternative Characterization Projected 

Average Load 

Reduction* 

(metric tons 

per year) 

*target 

reduction is 

409 mt/yr 

Shortfall in 

achieving goal 

(metric tons 

per year) 

Projected 

Storage 

Capacity 

(acre-feet) 

1 Current, on-going, and planned projects 301 108 265,000 

2 Maximizes storage capacity 316 93 1,300,000 

3 Maximizes phosphorus load reduction 364 45 330,000 

4 Integrates the most efficient and effective 

combination of storage capacity and 

phosphorus load reduction 

360 49 900,000 

Each alternative was evaluated for its performance at reducing phosphorus, improving Lake 

Okeechobee water levels, reducing damaging discharges to estuaries and maintaining water 

supply. It was clear that Alternative 1 on its own would not meet the water quality and water 

quantity objectives. Alternative 2 performed best at improving Lake Okeechobee water levels 

and reducing damaging discharges to the estuaries. Alternative 3 performed best at reducing 

phosphorus inputs to Lake Okeechobee. Alternative 4 performed the best when balancing the 

achievement of both water quality and water quantity objectives. It falls short, however, of 

meeting the TMDL by 49 metric tons per year. It also provides slightly lower water quantity 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-10 

benefits for Lake Okeechobee and the estuaries than Alternative 2, which had a larger storage 

capacity. 

Therefore, a modified version of Alternative 4 became the basis for the preferred Plan. 

Additional features were added to address the phosphorus reduction shortfall and to provide a 

storage range from 900,000 to 1.3 million acre feet for optimum water quantity performance. 

The development and comparisons of the four alternative restoration plans, with input from the 

public, ultimately identified the best science-based and technologically feasible options for 

improving lake and estuary health. 

1.5 Preferred Technical Plan Features 

An important aspect of the 2007 legislation that sets it apart from previous actions is the 

requirement to identify both the water quality treatment and water quantity storage needed to 

improve the health of Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries. The 

preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan represents 

the best blueprint that current technology allows for achieving water quality standards while 

better managing lake levels. 

To meet the water quality targets established for the lake, the preferred Plan includes local and 

regional treatment projects, along with ongoing and expanded implementation of on-site 

agricultural and urban best management practices. Based on a water budget analysis of the 

major sub-watersheds flowing into Lake Okeechobee, the preferred Plan also includes other 

projects and initiatives for increasing water storage north of Lake Okeechobee that will help 

achieve healthier lake levels and reduce harmful discharges to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie 

Estuaries. 

It comprises local and regional project features that include both structural and non-structural 

components, and builds upon ongoing treatment and restoration projects that are in the planning, 

design or construction phases. Through interaction between the coordinating agencies and the 

public, the preferred Plan also promotes involvement of private landowners, local governments 

and other stakeholders as restoration partners. 

Water Quality – The following types of water quality measures are designed to meet the 105 

metric ton total phosphorus limit: 

• Source control – Best Management Practices (BMPs) and changes in regulatory requirements 

• Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) 

• Deep injection wells 

• Innovative nutrient control technologies 

Cumulatively, the preferred Plan’s construction projects and other measures are predicted to 

reduce total phosphorus loads to Lake Okeechobee by approximately 409 metric tons per year – 

the amount needed to meet the total maximum daily load based on the 1991-2005 period of 

record. In addition, implementation of the preferred Plan provides the capability to reduce inlake total phosphorus loads by approximately 75 metric tons per year. 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-11 

Water Storage – The following types of water quantity measures are designed to meet the 

900,000 - 1,300,000 acre-feet of needed storage: 

• Alternative water storage on public and private lands 

• Above-ground reservoirs 

• Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facilities 

It is important to note that the water quantity storage goal of 900,000 to 1.3 million acre-feet is 

not in addition to existing or planned projects. It is an overall goal that may be met through a 

combination of existing or future projects and through a combination of storage methods such as 

alternative water storage on public and private lands, large above-ground reservoirs or aquifer 

storage and recovery facilities. Information from the Lake Okeechobee aquifer storage and 

recovery pilot projects and other regional pilot projects will help determine the best mix of 

surface and underground storage needed to achieve the overall goal. 

NOTE: An overview of features, by project type, is included at the end of this executive 

summary. For more detailed information and descriptions, please refer to the entire preferred 

Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan. 

1.6 Phased Implementation 

The preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan calls 

for an iterative, adaptive and phased implementation process, including an Initial Implementation 

Stage, Mid-Term Implementation Stage and Long-Term Implementation Stage. The first phase 

includes existing projects already under way and/or new features that will be initiated between 

2008 and 2010. 

Key expectations of the initial implementation stage include: 

• Implementing Best Management Practices on 1.3 million acres of agricultural lands; 

• Completing Environmental Resource Permit and Works of the District rule revisions; 

• Initiating/completing implementation of approximately 100,000 acre-feet of long-term 

alternative water storage; 

• Completing design and initiating construction of more than 2,600 acres of Stormwater 

Treatment Areas; 

• Completing the initial suite of Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan phosphorus source control 

projects; 

• Implementing eight Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Projects; 

• Completing cycle testing of CERP Aquifer Storage and Recovery pilot projects, the interim 

report, optimization analysis and Floridan Aquifer groundwater model; 

• Implementing 65 million gallons per day of Aquifer Storage and Recovery storage; 

• Restoring 4,470 acres of wetlands within the Lake Okeechobee watershed; and 

• Reducing phosphorus loads to Lake Okeechobee by approximately 150 metric tons. 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-12 

Initial Implementation Measures. 

 Water Quality Water Quantity 

Agricultural and Urban BMPS and Regulatory Programs 9 9 

LOPP Phosphorus Source Control Projects 9 9 

Local Government Initiatives 9 9 

Florida Ranchlands and Environmental Services Projects 9 9 

LOER Alternative Water Storage Projects 

(Alternative water storage facilities, Paradise Run 10 Well 

ASR System, Seminole Brighton ASR Pilot, and Taylor 

Creek ASR Reactivation) 9 9 

LOER Stormwater Treatment Areas 

(Brady Ranch STA and Lemkin Creek Water Quality 

Treatment Facility) 9 9 

CERP ASR Pilots 9 9 

Projects 

CERP Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project 

(Istokpoga STA, Lakeside Ranch STA, Taylor Creek 

Reservoir, and Paradise Run Wetland Restoration) 9 9 

BMP Research and Refinement 9 9 

Chemical Treatment Feasibility Study 9 9 

Water Quality Model Development 9 9 

ASR Feasibility- Pilot Cycle Testing, ASR Regional Study, 

ASR Optimization Analysis 9 9 

Technology and 

Model 

Refinement 

Hydrologic Model Refinement 9 9 

9= Primary benefit 9 = Ancillary benefit 

Information from pilot projects and studies conducted during the initial stage will be used to 

determine the types of projects to be implemented in future stages. 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-13 

Mid-term Implementation Measures. 

 Water Quality Water Quantity 

Continued Implementation of Previous Measures 9 9 

Implementation of Additional Water Quality Measures as 

optimized by Technology and Model Refinement Studies Projects 9 9 

Initiate Implementation of Appropriate Combination of Storage 

Methods based upon CERP ASR Feasibility Studies 9 9 

BMP Research and Refinement 9 9 

STA Integration and Refinement 9 9 Technology 

and Model 

Refinement ASR Feasibility- Final Results of ASR Regional Study, Data from 

LOER ASR and Pilot Projects 9 9 

9= Primary benefit 9 = Ancillary benefit 

Long-term Implementation Measures. 

 Water Quality 

Water 

Quantity 

Continued Implementation of Previous Measures 9 9 

Projects Continue Implementation of Storage (ASR/Surface 

Storage) 9 9 

Technology and 

Model Refinement Process Development and Engineering 9 9 

9= Primary benefit 9 = Ancillary benefit 

1.7 Preliminary Cost Estimates 

To provide a source of State funding for the continued restoration of the South Florida 

ecosystem, the 2007 Florida Legislature expanded the use of the Save Our Everglades Trust 

Fund to include Northern Everglades restoration and extended the State of Florida’s commitment 

to Everglades restoration through the year 2020. 

Cost estimates for the initial implementation stage of the preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan were broken out into two categories: 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) features and non-CERP features. 

• Estimate for Non-CERP features: $260-$320 million 

• Estimate for CERP features: $1-$1.4 billion 

The costs for non-CERP features will be primarily borne by the South Florida Water 

Management District and the State, while CERP costs are eligible for up to a fifty percent cost 

share with the federal government. It is anticipated that once the Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

Project – a component of the CERP state-federal partnership effort – is formally authorized by 

Congress, the federal government will provide its fifty percent cost sharing commitment on a 
Section 1 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

1-14 

series of reservoirs and stormwater treatment areas in the Lake Okeechobee watershed. It is 

important to note that a portion of the estimated CERP cost is for projects that the South Florida 

Water Management District is expediting ahead of authorization to achieve environmental 

benefits earlier. Completion of these Lake Okeechobee Fast-Track projects, however, is 

dependent on continued State and SFWMD funding in advance of federal appropriation. 

Costs for each subsequent stage of implementation will be developed as information from 

various pilot projects and studies are gathered. This information will be incorporated into more 

detailed planning design in the future. Cost estimates for mid-term measures will be provided in 

the 2010 Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan update submitted to the Florida Legislature. 

1.8 Preferred Technical Plan Refinements and Revisions 

The preferred Plan provides a framework and road map for progressive water quality and 

quantity improvements to benefit the lake and downstream estuaries. 

Throughout implementation, it is fully expected that hydrologic and water quality conditions in 

the watershed will continue to change as land uses in the watershed are modified, and as 

restoration projects become operational. Performance will be periodically assessed and revisions 

made as necessary. In addition, the legislation requires annual reports and plan updates every 

three years. 

1.9 For more details... 

The preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan is 

designed to reduce phosphorus loadings to the lake and to identify additional storage capacity 

within the watershed. It builds on and consolidates numerous restoration actions into a more 

cohesive and comprehensive approach. An electronic copy of the Preferred Plan may be 

downloaded from the following website: https://my.sfwmd.gov/northerneverglades 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

1-15 

Preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan 

Overview of LOCAL FEATURES

Project 

Type 

Project Name Project Description 

Source Control Programs SFWMD’s Environmental 

Resource Permit Program (ERP) 

Existing regulatory program which ensures that alterations in stormwatdegrade surface water quality, flood protection or the function of existiSFWMD has initiated rule development for an ERP basin rule for the L

Lucie and Caloosahatchee Watersheds that will be based on a performadevelopment discharge volumes not exceeding pre-development discha

intent of this rule is to ensure that new development is not increasing thstormwater discharging downstream. 

 SFWMD’s Works of the 

District Regulatory Phosphorus Source Control Program 

Existing regulatory program which governs Best Management Practice implementation on agricultural and non-agricultural lands through issuSFWMD is updating the rule criteria to be compatible with current initamendments to the statute. Proposed updates to the rule could include expansion of program to entire Lake Okeechobee watershed, establish performance measures for the combined BMP source control programs 

watershed and timeline for BMP implementation; and establish a moninecessary to ensure compliance. 

 FDACS Agricultural BMP 

Programs 

On-going program under which FDACS and Natural Resources Conser(NRCS) cooperate with local landowners to develop farm-specific conscow/calf, citrus, row crop and other agricultural operations. 

 Supplementary NonAgricultural BMP Programs On-going programs under which FDEP regulates measures implemente

phosphorus loads from non-agricultural sources. Includes implementatBMPs, master planning for stormwater and wastewater, implementing designing larger urban stormwater projects and public education. FDEP is also expected to propose a Unified Statewide Stormwater Rulincrease the level of treatment required for nutrients in stormwater from FDACS recently adopted the Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule to limit phosph

content in fertilizers used for urban turf and lawns. (Overview of LOCAL FEATURES continues on next page) 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

1-16 

Project 

Type 

Project Name Project Description 

Land Management Programs Comprehensive 

Planning/Land Development Regulations 

On-going Florida Department of Community Affairs program under whcomprehensive plans are reviewed for consistency with the State’s growpolicies. 

 Farm and Ranchland 

Protection Program Partnership 

On-going, voluntary NRCS program under which matching funds are pTribal or local governments and non-governmental organizations to pueasements. Such easements typically remain agricultural and provide storage benefits. 

 Florida Ranchlands 

Environmental Services Project 

Recently launched pilot program under development. If successful, loc

environmental services related to water retention, phosphorus load redu

habitat expansion to state agencies and other willing buyers. 

Alternative Water Storage Facilities 

-- Stormwater runoff is held on-site on designated private and state lands 

and discharge of nutrients to the regional drainage systems. These faciminimal engineering, construction, and operation and maintenance and privately-owned agricultural lands in cooperation with the landowners lands. 

Local Initiatives Taylor Creek Canals 

Sediment Removal 

Removal of sediment and vegetation from canals and tributaries that drfrom the Treasure Island and Taylor Creek Isles residential areas. 

 Okeechobee City Sediment 

Trap Installation 

Installation of two sediment traps within the city of Okeechobee for the phosphorus-laden particulates that might otherwise enter Lake Okeecho

 Nubbin Slough East Flow 

Diversion 

Diverting Nubbin Slough flows to restore the east main tributary of the 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

1-17 

Preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan 

Overview of REGIONAL FEATURES

Project Type Project Name Project Description 

Surface Storage Facilities 

Storage Reservoirs A reservoir that is operated with changing water level for the purpose of storing and releas

Underground Storage Facilities 

Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

The injection of fresh water into a confined saline aquifer during times when supply excee

season), and recovering it via the same well during times when there is a supply deficit (dr

Underground Surface Disposal 

Deep Injection Well The practice of water and wastewater disposal into the deep Floridan Aquifer “Boulder Zo

high capacity well. 

Nutrient Load Reduction Facilities 

Stormwater Treatment Areas 

Large, constructed wetlands designed to remove pollutants, particularly nutrients, from stonatural processes. 

ReservoirAssisted Stormwater Treatment Areas (RASTAs) 

Reservoir-Assisted Stormwater Treatment Areas (RASTAs) 

Feature comprised of a reservoir and a stormwater treatment area. The reservoir functions 

water directly to the STA in order to optimize STA performance. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
SECTION 2 

INTRODUCTION
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 2

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

2.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Background.................................................................................................................. 2-3 

2.2 Legislation and Mandated Plans ..................................................................................2-4 

2.2.1 Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Program.............................................. 2-5 

2.2.2 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan ......................................................2-5 

2.2.3 Lake Okeechobee Total Maximum Daily Load................................................... 2-6 

2.2.4 FDEP’s Basin Management Action Plans ........................................................... 2-6 

2.3 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................... 2-7 

2.4 Study Area ...................................................................................................................2-7 

2.4.1 Lake Okeechobee................................................................................................. 2-7 

2.4.2 Lake Okeechobee Watershed............................................................................... 2-8 

2.4.2.1 Lake Okeechobee Upstream Sub-watersheds.................................................. 2-9 

2.4.2.2 Lake Okeechobee Downstream Sub-watersheds........................................... 2-11 

2.4.3 Lake Okeechobee Water Control Structures...................................................... 2-11 

List of Figures 

2-1 Phase II Technical Plan Boundary and Sub-Watersheds................................................. 2-2 

2-2 NEEPP Legislative Mandates.......................................................................................... 2-4 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 2 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-1 

2.0 INTRODUCTION 

This document describes the Phase II Technical Plan (P2TP) for the Lake Okeechobee 

Watershed (LOW) Construction Project. The P2TP, also known as the Northern Everglades 

Technical Plan (NETP) has been developed in response to the recent state legislation, which 

authorized the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) [Section 

373.4595, Florida Statutes (F.S.)]. The primary intent of the new legislation is: 

“to protect and restore surface water resources and achieve and maintain compliance with water 

quality standards in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed, the Caloosahatchee River Watershed, and 

the St. Lucie River Watershed, and downstream receiving water through the phased 

comprehensive, and innovative protection program which includes long-term solutions based 

upon the total maximum daily loads.” 

Accordingly, in addition to the LOWCP P2TP, the NEEPP legislation also requires development 

of watershed protection plans for the Caloosahatchee and the St. Lucie Estuary Watersheds. The 

estuary watershed plans are to be completed by January 2009. The NEEPP jurisdiction thus 

covers the Lake Okeechobee Watershed (LOW), the watersheds of the St. Lucie and the 

Caloosahatchee estuaries, Lake Okeechobee and designated areas south of Lake Okeechobee 

(Figure 2-1). 

The new legislation requires the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or the 

District) in collaboration with the Coordinating Agencies, to develop and submit such a plan to 

the Florida Legislature for ratification by February 1, 2008. The Coordinating Agencies include 

the District, Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and the Florida 

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). 

The LOWCP P2TP recommendations included in this document are based on best available 

information to date. All recommendations are subject to modification as additional data and 

understanding of the dynamics of the watershed and lake are developed, thus allowing maximum 

flexibility to implement additional phosphorus reduction measures through the Process 

Development and Engineering (PD&E) component of this plan to achieve the Lake Okeechobee 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and related restoration goals. Implementation of these 

projects is subject to availability of real estate, formation of local and state partnerships, and the 

potential for meeting multiple State and District water management, water quality, and water 

supply objectives. 

Philosophies and programs described in this plan reflect collective efforts of an interagency 

team, representing federal, state, regional, and local public and private stakeholders. 

Recommendations, performance goals and effectiveness estimates included in this plan are based 

on current data, best available information to date, and best professional judgment. Program 

performance and effectiveness may vary from originally established goals and estimates. 
Section 2 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-2 

Figure 2-1. Phase II Technical Plan Boundary and Sub-Watersheds.
Section 2 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-3 

2.1 Background 

Lake Okeechobee is the “liquid heart” of South Florida’s interconnected aquatic ecosystem and 

holds the distinction of being the largest freshwater body in the southeastern United States. The 

730 square-mile (mi2

) lake provides a number of values and benefits to the state’s population, 

economy and environment, including environmental, public and agricultural water supply; flood 

protection; a sport and commercial fishery; navigation/recreation; and natural habitat for a 

variety of endangered and threatened animal and plant species. 

Today, the lake’s ecological health is adversely affected by three major influences: (1) excessive 

nutrient loading; (2) extreme high and low water levels in the lake; and (3) the proliferation of 

exotic species. 

In addition to direct rainfall, the massive lake receives tributary inflows from a number of 

sources. The Lake Okeechobee watershed encompasses a drainage area of over 3.5 million acres 

(5,500 mi2

), spanning 10 Florida counties, and is dominated by agricultural land uses that 

account for just over 50 percent of the total area. Based on hydrologic and geographic 

boundaries, the watershed includes nine sub-watersheds. 

Over the last century, a number of factors have led to adverse changes in the hydrology and 

water quality of Lake Okeechobee – as well as to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers and 

estuaries. These include changes in land use within the upstream Kissimmee River basin; the 

construction of the regional water management network for flood control (the Central and 

Southern Florida public works project built by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers); loss of 

available surface water storage; and the subsequent flow of nutrient-enriched local runoff into 

the water bodies. 

The impacts have been significant. Channelization of the Kissimmee River removed regional 

storage upstream of Lake Okeechobee while making way for growth. As nutrient-enriched runoff 

from agricultural and urban activities within the watershed flowed into the lake, its water quality 

suffered. In recognition of increasing phosphorus impacts in the lake, in 2001 the State 

established a stringent restoration target known as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for 

Lake Okeechobee. The TMDL, which goes into effect in 2015, establishes the maximum 

amount of phosphorus that Lake Okeechobee can assimilate without causing exceedences of 

water quality standards. The amount of phosphorus entering the lake has significantly exceeded 

the TMDL over the past three decades. 

In addition, construction of the Herbert Hoover Dike greatly reduced the extent of the lake’s 

natural littoral or shoreline marsh areas, reducing overall lake surface area by a third and, 

thereby, significantly reducing the lake’s available and historical storage capacity. Construction 

of the protective levee system along with drainage and development efforts to the south, reduced 

the natural expanse of the Florida Everglades’ wetland area by 50 percent, constraining flow 

south from Lake Okeechobee. 

Because the volume of water coming from the upstream basin has remained relatively constant 

(approximately 3.5 million acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr), on average, equivalent to about 7.5 feet 

(ft) over the lake surface area), lake inflows have often exceeded its limited present-day storage 
Section 2 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-4 

capacity. With discharge capacity to the southern part of the Everglades ecosystem reduced 

because of constructed changes to the natural system, along with legal and environmental 

operating constraints, the need to discharge water from the lake to the east (via the St. Lucie 

River and Estuary) and west (via the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary) has increased. These 

coastal discharges of excess lake water – driven by the need to maintain safe lake levels in 

accordance with federal regulations and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ operating schedule 

for Lake Okeechobee – can cause detrimental ecological fluctuations for the delicate estuarine 

environments in the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries. 

 

2.2 Legislation and Mandated Plans 

The legislative mandate for the NEEPP program (Section 373.4595, F.S) brings several on-going 

ecosystem restoration programs in the Lake Okeechobee and St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee 

Watersheds under one umbrella (Figure 2-2). It provides a platform for ensuring that future 

restoration and protection efforts in the northern region of the greater Everglades ecosystem are 

coordinated and build upon success of past and current initiatives. 

Figure 2-2. NEEPP Legislative Mandates. 
Section 2 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-5 

Goals and objectives of the NEEPP are supported by several other complementary watershedscale initiatives that are either currently being implemented or planned for future implementation 

in the LOW. These initiatives are briefly described below: 

2.2.1 Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Program 

The Lake Okeechobee Estuary and Recovery (LOER) program was announced by Governor Jeb 

Bush in October 2005 to help restore the ecological health of Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie 

and Caloosahatchee estuaries. The program consists of a combination of capital projects and 

numerous interagency initiatives designed to provide measurable and meaningful improvements 

to water quality and quantity in Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie 

estuaries. Key state agencies charged with carrying out the plan include SFWMD, FDEP, 

FDACS, and Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA). 

 The LOER program includes the following major components: 

• Lake Okeechobee Fast-Track (LOFT) Projects 

• Lake Okeechobee Operating Schedule Revisions 

• Revised Environmental Resource Permitting Criteria 

• Alternative Water Storage and Disposal Options 

• Lake Okeechobee Tributary Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 

• Mandatory Fertilizer Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

Implementation of LOER program components has already been initiated. Information on 

progress made on individual LOER components is presented in Section 3.0. The LOER study 

area and its goals and objectives significantly overlap with the NEEPP; therefore, the two 

programs are expected to complement and support each other. 

2.2.2 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) provides a framework and guide to 

restore, protect, and preserve the water resources of central and southern Florida, including the 

Everglades. The CERP area covers 16 counties over an 18,000-square-mile (mi2

) area and 

focuses on the update of the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project. The plan was 

approved by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000. It includes 

more than 60 elements, will take more than 30 years to construct, and, in 1999 dollars, was 

estimated to cost $7.8 billion. 

The goal of the CERP is to capture fresh water that now flows unused to the Atlantic Ocean and 

the Gulf of Mexico and redirect it to areas that need it most. The majority of the water will be 

devoted to environmental restoration projects that protect the remaining Everglades and other 

natural areas by providing appropriate water quality and flows. After the natural areas are 

provided with water, the remaining water will benefit South Florida cities and farmers by 

enhancing water supplies. CERP is currently being implemented as a joint effort between the 

federal government and the State of Florida. However, Federal funding issues have delayed the 
Section 2 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-6 

original estimated 30-year effort. The increased land values will cause the CERP projects to 

exceed the original 1999 price tag of $7.8 billion. 

The CERP study area includes all of the LOW. The goals and objectives of the CERP and the 

NEEPP significantly overlap; therefore, the two programs complement and support each other. 

Within the LOW, the CERP recommends implementation of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

(LOW) Project and construction of numerous Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells. 

In addition, CERP recommendations include implementation of several projects in watersheds 

adjacent to the LOW such as the C-43 Reservoir, C-44 Reservoir/Stormwater Treatment Area 

(STA), Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Reservoir Projects, and ASR projects. Additional 

information on the current status of individual CERP components that complement the NEEPP is 

presented in Section 3.0. 

2.2.3 Lake Okeechobee Total Maximum Daily Load 

A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) [Section 62-304.700(1), Florida Administrative Code 

(F.A.C.)] for total phosphorus (TP) for Lake Okeechobee was adopted by the FDEP in 2001. 

This TMDL is based on a five-year rolling average of 140 metric tons per year (mt/yr) which 

includes atmospheric deposition of 35 mt/yr. The TMDL is allocated to the sum of all non-point 

sources and includes all direct inflows into Lake Okeechobee. 

In addition to the phosphorus TMDL for Lake Okeechobee itself, nutrient TMDLs are also being 

developed for the northeastern tributaries to the lake. These tributaries include waterbodies in 

the Kissimmee River Basin and the Fisheating Creek Basin. TMDLs for the Kissimmee River 

Basin were fast-tracked from an original deadline date of 2010 / 2011 to the end of 2007. 

2.2.4 FDEP’s Basin Management Action Plans 

FDEP’s Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs) are the implementation arm of the TMDL 

program. BMAPs include detailed pollutant source identification, pollutant load allocations, and 

specific projects that will be implemented by local stakeholders, Water Management Districts 

and others. Project timeframes, costs, and environmental benefits are identified where possible. 

The BMAP process includes the following key elements: 

• Focuses exclusively on water quality restoration 

• Requires data collection and source evaluation at a greater level of detail than the TMDL 

• Considers all sources (point, non-point, agricultural, stormwater, wastewater, etc.) 

• Relies heavily on local stakeholder involvement 

• Links to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, but also 

contains non-permit obligations that are enforceable through the BMAP itself 

• Integrates the concept of adaptive management in addressing unknowns about a water body 

• Adopted by the FDEP secretary 
Section 2 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-7 

The BMAP process is defined in Section 403.067, F.S. This statute provides specific 

information on the required elements that shall be included in a BMAP but allows for significant 

flexibility in how those elements are considered. The statute also allows TMDLs to be 

implemented through other mechanisms that provide sufficient assurances regarding project 

implementation and success. In the Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee, and St. Lucie 

Watersheds, the primary BMAP issue will be nutrient load reduction. Salinity issues will not be 

directly addressed as part of the BMAP process. The Protection Plan will provide the basis for 

BMAPs developed by the Department. 

2.3 Purpose and Scope 

The purpose of the P2TP is to provide an overall strategy for improving quality, quantity, timing 

and distribution of water in the northern Everglades ecosystem and achieve the total phosphorus 

TMDL for Lake Okeechobee. The plan is intended to achieve the following objectives: 

• Meet Lake Okeechobee Watershed Total Maximum Daily Loads 

• Manage Lake Okeechobee levels within an ecologically desirable range 

• Manage flows to meet desirable salinity ranges for the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee 

Estuaries through the delivery of appropriate freshwater releases from the lake made possible 

by additional water storage north of the lake 

• Identify opportunities for alternative water management facilities and practices in the 

watershed to meet specified goals 

2.4 Study Area 

The P2TP study area covers the entire LOW as shown in Figure 2-1. Counties that fall within 

this area include portions of Polk, Orange, Osceola, Okeechobee, Highlands, St. Lucie, Glades, 

Martin, Charlotte, Lee, Hendry, and Palm Beach. 

2.4.1 Lake Okeechobee 

Lake Okeechobee is a large, shallow eutrophic lake located in south central Florida. It is a 

central component to the Southern and Central Florida Flood Control project that extends from 

the headwaters of the Kissimmee River to Florida Bay. 

The lake is the largest body of freshwater in the southeastern United States. It has a surface area 

in excess of 427,500 acres [1,730 square kilometers (km2

)], and it is extremely shallow with a 

mean depth of 8.9 f) [2.77 meters (m)] and maximal depth of 18 ft (5.5 m) (James et al., 1995). 

The lake is encircled by an earthen embankment, the Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD), which is 

approximately 140 miles (mi) long with crest elevations ranging from 32 to 46 ft (9.7 to 14 m) 

National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD, formerly mean sea level). 

The lake provides a number of benefits to society and nature including water supply for 

agriculture, urban areas, and the environment; flood protection; a multimillion-dollar sport and 

commercial fishery; and habitat for wading birds, migratory waterfowl, and the federally 

endangered Everglades snail kite. These benefits have been threatened in recent decades by 
Section 2 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-8 

excessive phosphorus loading, harmful high and low water levels, and rapid expansion of exotic 

plants. 

2.4.2 Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

The Lake Okeechobee Watershed (LOW), as defined hydrologically, consists of the entire area 

that contributes surface water flow and phosphorus load to Lake Okeechobee. This includes 

lands that drain by gravity to the lake, as well as areas that are drained by pumps into the lake. 

The LOW encompasses a drainage area of over 3.5 million acres [5,500 square miles (mi2) or 

14,000 km2] and is dominated by agricultural land uses that account for almost 52 percent of the 

total area (1.8 million acres). 

The single largest agricultural land use is improved pasture, which is 20 percent of the total area 

(SFWMD, 2007). Natural areas are the second most predominant land use type in the watershed 

accounting for 38 percent of the total area (1.3 million acres). Urban areas account for 8 percent 

of the total area (approximately 262,000 acres) the majority of which lies within the Upper 

Kissimmee and Lake Istokpoga sub-watersheds. The SFWMD uses Florida Land Use, Cover 

and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) to define land use types. This system defines 

improved pasture and wetlands as follows: 

Improved pasture – land has been cleared, tilled, reseeded with specific grass types and 

periodically improved with brush control and fertilizer application 

Wetlands – areas where the water table is at, near or above the land surface for a significant 

portion of most years. Extensive parts of some river floodplains qualify as Wetlands. These do 

not include agriculture land where seasonal wetness or short-term flooding may provide an 

important component of the total annual soil moisture necessary for crop production. But, 

uncultivated wetlands yielding products such as wood or which are grassed by livestock are 

retained in the Wetlands category. 

Uncultivated wetlands in improved pastures are therefore counted as wetlands and they were 

grouped as natural areas. This distinction is important when assigning P coefficients (loading 

rates) since uncultivated wetlands in improved pastures do have a low P loading rate. The P 

loading rates are 0.72 and 0.2 lb/ac for improved pasture and natural area respectively. 

The watershed consists of four distinct tributary systems: the Kissimmee River Valley, Lake 

Istokpoga-Indian Prairie/Harney Pond, Fisheating Creek, and Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough. 

With the exception of Fisheating Creek, all major inflows to Lake Okeechobee are controlled by 

gravity-fed or pump-driven water control structures. 

The four major tributary systems of the LOW are generally bounded by the drainage divides of 

the major water bodies and are further divisible into the following smaller sub-watersheds based 

on hydrology and geography: 

• Upper Kissimmee 

• Lower Kissimmee 
Section 2 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-9 

• Lake Istokpoga 

• Indian Prairie 

• Fisheating Creek 

• Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough 

• Eastern Lake Okeechobee (C-44/L-8 Basin) 

• Western Lake Okeechobee (C-43 Basin) 

• Southern Lake Okeechobee, which is a portion of the EAA, including Chapter 298 Districts 

Upper Kissimmee, Lower Kissimmee, Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough, Lake Istokpoga, Indian 

Prairie, and Fisheating Creek sub-watersheds primarily drain into the lake by gravity. The S-133 

basin and other urban areas can also pump into the lake from the north when the lake stage is 

high. The East and West Lake Okeechobee sub-watersheds also contribute flow by gravity but 

only when Lake Okeechobee water levels are below 14.5 ft (4.4 m) NGVD and 11.5 ft (3.5m) 

NGVD, respectively. When lake stages are high making gravity flows impossible, urban areas 

north of the lake are drained via pumps. 

In addition, the South Lake Okeechobee sub-watershed, which includes a portion of the EAA, 

contributes flow through backpumping. Each sub-watershed is further divisible into basins and 

sub-basins based on hydrologic and/or geographic divides. 

2.4.2.1 Lake Okeechobee Upstream Sub-watersheds 

Upper and Lower Kissimmee Sub-watersheds – These two sub-watersheds comprise the 

Kissimmee River Basin (KRB) which includes most of the areas that drain into Lake 

Okeechobee from the north and northwest through the Kissimmee River (C-38). The Upper 

Kissimmee (UK) sub-watershed covers approximately 1,633 mi2

 and includes Lake Kissimmee 

and the Chain of Lakes area in Orange and Osceola counties. The 758 mi2

 Lower Kissimmee 

(LK) sub-watershed includes the tributary watersheds of the Kissimmee River that lie between 

the Lake Kissimmee outlet and the Kissimmee River inlet to Lake Okeechobee. The Kissimmee 

River Basin contributes the largest surface inflow to Lake Okeechobee. Based on a 1990 to 2005 

period of record the Kissimmee River accounted for approximately 53 percent of the total inflow 

to Lake Okeechobee (SFWMD, 2007). 

One of the most conspicuous changes in the LOW over the past 50 years has been the 

channelization of the Kissimmee River. Historically, the river meandered for approximately 102 

miles (165 km), within a 1 mi (1.5 km) to 2 mi (3 km) wide flood plain, before emptying into 

Lake Okeechobee (Koebel, 1995). River channelization took place between 1962 and 1971, 

largely for flood control purposes, transforming the river into a 56 mi (90 km) long, 30 ft (10 m) 

deep, and 300 ft (100 m) wide canal, and resulting in the loss of 30,000 acres (12,000 hectares 

(ha)) to 35,0000 acres (14,000 ha) of wetland habitat (Koebel, 1995). 

The Kissimmee River Restoration Project (KRRP) and the Kissimmee River Headwaters 

Revitalization Project (KRHRP) are large-scale restoration projects that are currently being 

implemented in this sub-watershed to reestablish the river-floodplain system’s ecological 

integrity by reconstructing the river’s physical form and reestablishing pre-channelization 

hydrologic characteristics (stage and discharge). When completed, the project will have restored 
Section 2 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-10 

over 40 mi2of river/floodplain ecosystem including 43 miles of meandering river channel and 

27,000 acres of wetlands. 

The S-65 series of sub-basins (S-65A, S-65BC, S-65D, and S-65E) are located along the length 

of the C-38 Canal and form four pools. Structure S-65B was removed as a part of the first phase 

of Kissimmee River Restoration Project and reduced the number of pools from five to four. The 

final phase of the restoration project (scheduled to be completed in 2012), will include removal 

of S-65C to form Pool S-65BCD. 

Water levels in each of the pools are regulated according to interim-regulation schedules. 

Monitoring station S-65 is located at the outlet from Lake Kissimmee to the Kissimmee River. 

Monitoring stations are located at each of the S-65 structures (at the downstream boundary of 

each sub-basin). The S-65 Structures are gated spillways and locks that provide flood protection 

within their respective sub-basins and upstream basins. Each structure is sized to provide a 

minimum of 3,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) flow-through capacity for flood control in the 

Upper Kissimmee River Basin, irrespective of local runoff conditions. 

Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (TCNS) Sub-watershed – Taylor Creek (104 mi2

 watershed) 

and Nubbin Slough (84 mi2) basins are interconnected and drain into Lake Okeechobee from the 

north and northeast. The Nubbin Slough basin includes three tributaries: Lettuce Creek, Henry 

Creek, and Mosquito Creek, which, along with Nubbin Slough, are intercepted by canals (L-63, 

L-64, and C-59) and enter Lake Okeechobee through flow control structure S-191. The unmonitored boat locks at S-193 are used for gravity flows into and out of the lake. The lower 

reaches of Taylor Creek, downstream of S-192, flow into the lake through structure S-193. 

Additional flow into the lake is provided by pump station structure S-133 which is primarily 

operated for flood protection. 

Lake Istokpoga Sub-watershed – The 392,147 acres (613 mi2

) Lake Istokpoga sub-watershed 

is located generally to the west and north (upstream) of Lake Istokpoga and is largely 

characterized by natural lands. It is the source of all inflows to Lake Istokpoga. The primary 

outlet from Lake Istokpoga is through the S-68 structure, which releases water through a series 

of canals southeastward to both Lake Okeechobee and the Kissimmee River. 

Indian Prairie Sub-watershed – This 398,078 acres (622 mi2

) sub-watershed drains the area 

between Lake Istokpoga and Lake Okeechobee. It includes C-41, C-40, S-84, L-49, L-59, and S131 sub-basins. 

Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed – The Fisheating Creek sub-watershed drains into Lake 

Okeechobee from the west side and is the only sub-watershed with an uncontrolled “natural” 

discharge. It covers approximately 440 mi2 and originates in western Highlands County and 

flows south through Cypress Swamp and into Glades County with an average gradient of 0.5 foot 

per mile. From central Glades County, water leaves the creek channel and flows east through 

Cowbone Marsh into Lake Okeechobee. Levees have been constructed roughly parallel to the 

creek near its outlet to the lake. 
Section 2 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

2-11 

2.4.2.2 Lake Okeechobee Downstream Sub-watersheds 

As shown in Figure 2-1, the northern portion of the EAA is included in the LOW because this 

area can potentially contribute flows to the lake through backpumping. A recently issued Lake 

Okeechobee Operating Permit (LOOP) allows the District to backpump waters into the lake at S2 and S-3 for flood control purposes. Runoff from the EAA produced by normal rainfall is 

discharged into the water conservation areas (WCAs). In addition, the S-4 structure also 

discharges to Lake Okeechobee because no alternative discharge is available. 

2.4.3 Lake Okeechobee Water Control Structures 

A wide variety of structures, such as gates, spillways, culverts, and pumps, control the inflows 

and outflows from Lake Okeechobee. FDEP has issued a 5-year permit to the SFWMD that 

governs operation and maintenance of 35 different water control structures in the LOW. This 

permit has the following key features: 

• It requires structures to be operated consistent with the federal Lake Okeechobee Regulation 

Schedule, and the state Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (LOPP). 

• It allows the transfer of water into Lake Okeechobee from the Everglades Agriculture Area 

(EAA) for flood control through backpumping at the S-2, S-3, and S-4 structures and requires 

the District to coordinate and report backpumping activities to the State. 

• It establishes four regions within the LOW and identifies stringent targets for total 

phosphorus (TP) loading from each of the four regions. These targets are intended to ensure 

that the Lake Okeechobee total phosphorus TMDL is met by 2015. 

• It includes a comprehensive plan for monitoring water quality. 

• It authorizes the installation and operation of temporary forward pumps needed to convey 

water south of the lake for water supply when lake water levels are low and for lake 

restoration under certain conditions. 

• It requires regional annual evaluations. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
SECTION 3 

PLANNING PROCESS
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

3.0 PLANNING PROCESS................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 Previous Studies and Ongoing projects ....................................................................... 3-2 

3.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan .......................................................................3-2 

3.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project, Phase I...............................3-3 

3.1.3 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Phosphorus Control Program...............................3-3 

3.1.3.1 SFWMD Phosphorus Control Programs..........................................................3-4 

3.1.3.2 FDACS Agricultural Programs........................................................................ 3-5 

3.1.3.3 Supplemental Non-Agricultural Programs ......................................................3-6 

3.1.4 LOW Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program ....................................3-6 

3.1.5 Lake Okeechobee Internal Phosphorus Management Program...........................3-7 

3.1.5.1 Algal Bloom and Toxin Monitoring ................................................................ 3-7 

3.1.5.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Monitoring....................................................3-7 

3.1.5.3 Lake Okeechobee Sediment Dredging.............................................................3-7 

3.1.6 Lake Okeechobee Exotic Species Control Program ............................................3-8 

3.1.7 Kissimmee River Watershed Programs ...............................................................3-8 

3.1.7.1 Kissimmee River Restoration Project.............................................................. 3-8 

3.1.7.2 Kissimmee River Restoration Evaluation Program ......................................... 3-9 

3.1.7.3 Kissimmee Chain of Lakes Long-Term Management Plan...........................3-10 

3.1.7.4 The Kissimmee Basin Modeling and Operations Study................................ 3-10 

3.1.7.5 Upper Kissimmee River Basin Water Supply Plan .......................................3-11 

3.1.8 Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Program............................................ 3-11 

3.1.9 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan ....................................................3-11 

3.1.9.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project ............................................................3-12 

3.1.9.2 C-44 Reservoir and STA Project ................................................................... 3-13 

3.1.9.3 C-43 Reservoir Project...................................................................................3-13 

3.1.9.4 Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Phase I Reservoir Project..................3-13 

3.1.9.5 Aquifer Storage and Recovery.......................................................................3-13 

3.1.10 Other Relevant Projects .....................................................................................3-14 

3.1.10.1 Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Project..............................................3-14 

3.1.10.2 Minimum Flows and Levels ......................................................................3-14 

3.1.10.3 Estuary TMDL and BMAPs ...................................................................... 3-14 

3.2 Problems and Opportunities.......................................................................................3-14 

3.2.1 Lake Okeechobee Water Quality.......................................................................3-15 

3.2.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Eutrophication..................................................................3-15 

3.2.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Sediment........................................................................... 3-16 

3.2.1.3 Phosphorus Loading to Lake Okeechobee..................................................... 3-16 

3.2.1.4 In-Lake Total Phosphorus Concentrations.....................................................3-18 

3.2.2 Lake Okeechobee Water Levels ........................................................................3-18 

3.2.2.1 Extreme High Lake Okeechobee Water Levels.............................................3-19 

3.2.2.2 Extreme Low Lake Okeechobee Water Levels .............................................3-20 

3.2.3 Lake Okeechobee Discharges to Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuaries........3-20 

3.2.3.1 Lake Okeechobee Discharges to the Caloosahatchee Estuary.......................3-20 

3.2.3.2 Lake Okeechobee Discharges to the St. Lucie Estuary .................................3-21 

3.2.4 Lake Okeechobee Service Area Water Supply..................................................3-22 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-ii 

3.2.5 Lake Stage Management....................................................................................3-24 

3.3 Planning Objectives ...................................................................................................3-24 

3.3.1 Lake Okeechobee Water Quality.......................................................................3-24 

3.3.2 Lake Okeechobee Water Levels and Discharges...............................................3-24 

3.3.3 Water Supply ..................................................................................................... 3-24 

3.4 Planning Constraints .................................................................................................. 3-25 

3.4.1 Kissimmee River Restoration ............................................................................3-25 

3.4.2 Water Supply and Flood Control .......................................................................3-25 

3.4.3 Herbert Hoover Dike..........................................................................................3-25 

3.4.4 Minimum Flows and Levels ..............................................................................3-25 

3.4.4.1 Lake Istokpoga Minimum Flows and Levels.................................................3-26 

3.4.4.2 Lake Okeechobee Minimum Flows and Levels.............................................3-26 

3.4.4.3 St. Lucie River and Estuary Minimum Flows and Levels.............................3-26 

3.4.4.4 Caloosahatchee River and Estuary MFL .......................................................3-26 

3.4.5 Water Quality Standards....................................................................................3-26 

3.4.6 Everglades Restoration Flows............................................................................ 3-27 

3.5 Performance Measures............................................................................................... 3-27 

List of Tables 

3-1 Historical Total Phosphorus Loading to Lake Okeechobee .......................................... 3-17 

3-2 Summary of LOWCP Phase II Problems, Objectives, and Performance Measures...... 3-27 

List of Figures 

3-1 Annual Total Phosphorus Loads and Surface Water Inflows to Lake Okeechobee ...... 3-17 

3-2 In-lake and Surface Water Inflow Phosphorus Concentrations for Lake Okeechobee . 3-18 

3-3 Lake Okeechobee Stage Characteristics ........................................................................ 3-19 

3-4 S-79 Flow Characteristics ............................................................................................. 3-22

3-5 S-80 Flow Characteristics ............................................................................................. 3-22

3-6 Lake Okeechobee Service Area..................................................................................... 3-27 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-1 

3.0 PLANNING PROCESS 

A comprehensive and systematic planning process was used to develop the Phase II Technical 

Plan (P2TP) for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed (LOW) Construction Project. The planning 

was conducted by a Coordinating Agency Planning Team (CAPT), which included staff from the 

SFWMD, FDEP, and FDACS. Significant steps in this process included the following: 

1. Characterization of existing conditions – Existing conditions in the LOW study area were 

characterized by reviewing available data on previous studies, ongoing projects, and planned 

initiatives in the LOW. Current and future planned projects that would either contribute to 

the achievement of P2TP objectives or could be directly integrated into the plan were also 

identified during this review. 

2. Identification of problems and opportunities – Water resources projects are generally 

planned and implemented to solve problems, to meet challenges, and to seize opportunities. 

In the context of planning, a problem can be thought of as an undesirable condition, while an 

opportunity offers a chance for progress or improvement. Identification of problems and 

opportunities gives focus to the planning effort and aids in the development of planning 

objectives. For the P2TP planning process, problems and opportunities were identified 

through an interagency brainstorming process and a review of historical documents. 

3. Determination of planning objectives – Planning objectives are statements of what a plan is 

attempting to achieve. The objectives communicate to others the intended purpose of the 

planning process. The P2TP planning objectives were developed from the problem and 

opportunity statement. Planning objectives were intended to solve the identified problems 

and take advantage of recognized opportunities. 

4. Identification of planning constraints – Constraints are restrictions that both define and 

limit the extent of the planning process and in some sense support and inform it. For the 

P2TP planning process, the constraints were identified through a CAPT brainstorming 

process concurrent with the identification of problems and opportunities. 

5. Selection of performance measures – Performance measures, also known as evaluation 

criteria, are benchmarks used to guide formulation of alternative plans and evaluate plan 

performance. For the P2TP planning process, a series of hydrologic performance measures 

were identified consistent with previous planning processes. 

6. Identification of management measures – Management measures (MM) are the building 

blocks of alternative plans. A comprehensive list of MMs was prepared and evaluated 

through the collective input of the Lake Okeechobee Interagency Team. Using 

predetermined criteria, the MMs were screened to eliminate features or activities that did not 

contribute to meeting the planning goals and objectives. 

7. Formulation of alternatives – A set of four alternative plans were formulated by combining 

individual MMs. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-2 

8. Evaluation of alternatives – Performance of each individual alternative plan was 

determined using agreed upon methodologies and modeling applications. Performance 

measures were then used to compare the performance of individual plans. 

9. P2TP Selection – The Plan that best met the legislative goals was selected as the P2TP. 

10. P2TP Processing – Planning-level budget estimates, implementation schedule, and an 

adaptive management plan were developed for the P2TP. Funding needs and opportunities 

were identified. A process development and engineering (PD&E) component was added to 

identify and implement additional phosphorus reduction measures necessary to achieve the 

Lake Okeechobee Total phosphorus (TP) TMDL. 

Routine, periodic Northern Everglades Interagency Meetings were held to engage CAPT, 

stakeholders, and the public throughout the planning process. Through these meetings, public 

input was sought and incorporated into the decision-making process as appropriate. 

3.1 Previous Studies and Ongoing projects 

There are numerous ongoing or planned projects in the Lake Okeechobee watershed that are 

aimed at improving water quality and enhancing water supplies for agriculture, industry, and the 

environment. Some of the major projects, which complement and support the LOWCP P2TP 

goals and objectives, are described in the following sections. 

3.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan 

The original Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (LOPP) was delivered to the legislature in 2004 

and an update was submitted in February 2007. Because Lake Okeechobee receives excessive 

phosphorus load from agricultural and urban activities that dominate land use in the LOW, the 

LOPP contains an integrated management strategy that is based on implementation of 

phosphorus source-control programs. These control programs include Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) at parcel level, sub-basin and regional phosphorus control and flow-attenuation 

projects, and in-lake remediation activities. The LOPP also contains elements of exotic species 

control and research and monitoring. 

During the past 3 years, the cooperating agencies have collectively implemented a large number 

of total phosphorus (TP) load reduction projects in the LOW. These include TP source-control 

grants for agricultural landowners, Dairy Best Available Technology (BAT) pilot projects, soil 

amendments projects, isolated wetland restoration projects, remediation of former dairies, and 

regional public/private partnerships. A comprehensive Lake Okeechobee monitoring program 

has also been initiated that regularly monitors water quality and ecological indicators in the lake. 

The District also conducts project and sub-basin water quality monitoring in the watershed. 

Research and model applications have been instituted which continue to provide predictive 

understanding necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of water management alternatives. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-3 

3.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project, Phase I 

LOWCP Phase I was intended to bring immediate TP load reduction to the lake. The project 

features are designed to improve hydrology and water quality of Lake Okeechobee and 

downstream receiving waters, consistent with recommendations included in the South Florida 

Ecosystem Working Group’s Lake Okeechobee Action Plan. The LOWCP Phase I included 

projects identified as the Lake Okeechobee Water Retention Phosphorus Removal Critical 

Project that was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. 

These include two isolated wetlands-restoration projects and the construction of two stormwater 

treatment area facilities in the priority basins. Construction of a 190-acre stormwater treatment 

area (STA) at the Grassy Island Ranch site (Taylor Creek STA) and a 790-acre STA at the New 

Palm Dairy location (Nubbin Slough STA) has been completed and start-up operations will soon 

be initiated. The Dynamic Model for Stormwater Treatment Areas (DMSTA) project TP load 

reductions of approximately 2.08 and 6.5 mt/yr from the Taylor Creek and Nubbin Slough STAs, 

respectively. 

3.1.3 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Phosphorus Control Program 

Phosphorus source control is integral to the success of any water resource protection or 

restoration program. Source controls in LOW began with the enactment of the Surface Water 

Improvement Management Act in 1987, which became the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act 

(LOPA) in 2000. The LOPA preceded the 2007 Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection 

Program (NEEPP). The original Act authorized the creation of the Lake Okeechobee Works of 

the District Program which became effective in 1989. Two other initiatives were instituted 

during this period to address phosphorus source control from dairies, namely the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) Dairy Rule and the Dairy Buyout Program. 

Source control programs have evolved and expanded through cooperative efforts by the South 

Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP), and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

(FDACS). The 2007 NEEPP further refines the responsibilities of the coordinating agencies to 

achieve the objectives of the LOPP on an expedited basis, including: 

• Develop an interagency agreement that assures the development of BMPs that complement 

existing regulatory programs and specifies how the BMPs are implemented and verified; 

• Address measures to be taken when water quality problems are detected despite BMP 

implementation; 

• Develop a BMP re-evaluation process; and 

• Develop programs to provide technical and financial assistance for BMP implementation 

subject to availability of funds. 

The various SFWMD, FDACS, and FDEP programs that are planned or in place are described in 

the following sections. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-4 

3.1.3.1 SFWMD Phosphorus Control Programs 

Lake Okeechobee Works of the District Phosphorus Source Control Program – The Lake 

Okeechobee Works of the District (WOD) program, developed under Chapter 40E-61, F.A.C. in 

1989, was the original vehicle for implementing TP load reduction BMPs in the LOW. It was 

adopted as a result of the Lake Okeechobee Surface Water Improvement and Management plan. 

The rule was expected to limit the amount of TP that can be discharged from lands within a 

defined boundary by issuing permits that approved a phosphorus source control plan. The rule 

criteria are based on the initiatives in place at the time the rule was adopted. It is necessary to 

update the 1989 program criteria to be consistent with current objectives. 

 

The current objective is to establish criteria to ensure that discharges to Lake Okeechobee Works 

of the District allow the District to meet the legislative policies established in Chapter 373, F.S. 

The District is updating the rule criteria to be compatible with current initiatives and 

amendments to the statute. Proposed updates the rule could include the following amendments: 

• Implement a phosphorus source control program utilizing best management practices (BMPs) 

for all lands within the Lake Okeechobee watershed (LOW); 

• Provide an option for agricultural land uses of greater than 100 acres to participate in the 

FDACS BMP rule under Chapter 5M-3, F.A.C., to meet the intent of the District’s WOD 

rule; 

• Define the monitoring network necessary to monitor compliance with the established 

performance measures, to identify priority areas of water quality concern and BMP 

optimization, and to provide data to evaluate and enhance performance of downstream 

treatment facilities; 

• Establish a timeline for implementation of all BMP source control programs within the 

watershed by 2010; 

• Establish load-based performance measures for the combined BMP source control programs 

implemented in the watershed; 

• Establish a plan for optimizing the BMP program should the expected water quality criteria 

not be met; 

• Ensure that the rule is consistent with data presented in LOPP; and 

• Include incentives for permittees to participate in TP reduction demonstration projects that 

will provide valuable data for expanding, accelerating, and optimizing the implemented 

BMPs to meet water quality objectives and for further refinement of the LOW BMP Program 

as necessary. 

SFWMD and FDEP Environmental Resource Permit Program – The existing Environmental 

Resource Permit (ERP) program began in the mid 1990s. It covers the entire State and regulates 

activities involving the alteration of surface water flows. These activities include alterations in 

uplands that alter stormwater runoff, as well as, dredging and filling in wetlands and other 

surface waters. The purpose of the program is to ensure that alterations do not degrade water 

quality, compromise flood protection, or adversely affect the function of wetland systems. 

FDEP and the District initiated rule development in May and June 2007 respectively of a Unified 

Statewide Stormwater Rule. Currently, regulatory requirements governing stormwater treatment 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-5 

are technology-based, and rely primarily upon BMP design criteria that are presumed to achieve 

a specified level of stormwater treatment. Under the proposed Unified Statewide Stormwater 

(USS) Rule, FDEP and Florida water management districts are working on criteria that will be 

based on a performance standard of post-development nutrient loads (total phosphorus and total 

nitrogen) not exceeding pre-development nutrient loads. The pre-development condition is an 

existing site with natural vegetation, not necessarily existing conditions. Methods for estimating 

treatment efficiency in typical water management BMPs and in low impact design type water 

management BMPs will be included in the rule. The proposed rule will also address retrofit 

projects, redevelopment and compensating treatment. The intended effect of the rule is to 

increase the level of treatment required for nutrient loads in stormwater from new development 

to that of natural conditions, thereby reducing the discharge of nutrients to the lowest reasonable 

level for new development. The target date for rule adoption is May 2009. 

In addition, the District is in the process of developing an ERP basin rule that will require 

applicants to provide reasonable assurances that they will appropriately improve the hydrology 

within the Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee River and St. Lucie River watersheds in 

accordance with Chapter 373.4595, F.S. The basin rule will be supplemental to existing criteria. 

Average annual discharge volumes and specific storm event discharge volumes will be 

addressed. Methods for estimating storage capacities in typical water management BMPs and in 

low impact design type water management BMPs will be included in the rule. 

Watershed Phosphorus Control Projects – The SFWMD, in coordination with the FDACS 

and the FDEP, has developed and implemented more than 30 TP reduction projects. These 

projects have been implemented under programs such as the Phosphorus Source Control Grants, 

Isolated Wetland Restoration, Dairy Best Available Technologies, Public/Private Partnerships, 

Former Dairy Remediation, and Alternate Water Storage and Treatment. All of these projects 

have some level of performance monitoring to facilitate their evaluation and potential future use 

of these types of technologies. 

3.1.3.2 FDACS Agricultural Programs 

The Lake Okeechobee Protection Act (LOPA) (Section 373.4595, F.S.) was amended in 2000 to 

specifically charge the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) with 

developing and implementing an agricultural Best Management Practice (BMP) Program to 

complement the existing regulatory programs described under Section 3.1.3.1 in reducing the 

movement of phosphorus from agricultural lands into Lake Okeechobee and its tributaries. 

BMPs refers to a practice or combination of practices determined by the coordinating agencies, 

based on research, field-testing, and expert review, to be the most effective and practicable onlocation means, including economics and technical considerations for improving water quality in 

agricultural and urban discharges. BMPs must be implemented consistent with Section 604.000 

(F.S.). 

Pursuant to the LOPA, the FDACS adopted a BMP program (Rule 5M-3) that encourages 

agricultural producers on farms greater than 100 acres in the watershed to implement a 

conservation, nutrient management, or alternative plan consistent with specified NRCS 

requirements. These plans are farm-specific assessments that identify existing environmental 

resource challenges and appropriate BMPs to address those challenges. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-6 

Other crop-specific FDACS BMP Programs that do not require the development of conservation 

plans are also implemented in the LOW. These include Ridge Citrus, Gulf Citrus, Indian River 

Citrus, Container Nurseries, and Vegetables and Agronomic Crop BMP Programs. 

3.1.3.3 Supplemental Non-Agricultural Programs 

To complement the SFWMD phosphorus source control program discussed under Section 

3.1.3.1, the 2000 amendments to the LOPA charged FDEP, in consultation with the SFWMD, 

with the development of BMPs for non-agricultural land uses to achieve the TMDL. A phased 

approach has been used to reduce phosphorus loads to Lake Okeechobee from non-agricultural 

areas in the Lake Okeechobee watershed. The largest contributors of TP load from nonagricultural areas to Lake Okeechobee are existing residential developments without stormwater 

treatment (yard fertilization, pet wastes, septic tanks, etc.), golf courses, and failing wastewater 

systems (Septic tanks and package plants). Efforts since the inception of LOPA (Section 

373.4595, Florida Statutes) include implementation of BMPs, development of master plans for 

stormwater and wastewater, implementation of stormwater retrofits, the designing of larger 

urban stormwater projects, and public education. 

There is continued focus on reducing the impacts of non-point source pollution from urban lands 

through public education programs and nonstructural BMPs. Nonstructural BMPs primarily 

target homeowners and businesses and rely on behavioral changes rather than the construction of 

treatment tools or facilities. Addressing pollutant loads from older, existing developments that 

do not have stormwater treatment continues, with the completion of stormwater master plans for 

the City of Okeechobee in Okeechobee County and the City of Moore Haven in Glades County. 

The SFWMD’s Okeechobee Service Center is working cooperatively with Okeechobee County 

to expand the master plans and begin implementing projects. Stormwater master plans are also 

being developed for other urban areas within the Lake Okeechobee watershed. Because a 

majority of the urban areas were developed prior to the adoption of state stormwater regulations, 

the existing infrastructure is typically inadequate to properly deal with stormwater. Stormwater 

retrofits, such as detention/retention facilities and swales, are needed to improve the water 

quality of urban stormwater runoff. 

3.1.4 LOW Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program 

As required by LOPA, the SFWMD, in cooperation with the FDEP and FDACS, has 

implemented a comprehensive research and water quality monitoring program for the lake and 

watershed. Monitoring data collected under this program are used by the coordinating agencies 

to identify areas of water quality concerns and to optimize water quality improvement programs. 

Ongoing monitoring programs include the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Assessment (LOWA) 

micro-basin monitoring and the SFWMD’s ambient water quality monitoring program. In 

addition, water quality monitoring is conducted by the USGS in the LOW as part of the CERPrecommended Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-7 

3.1.5 Lake Okeechobee Internal Phosphorus Management Program 

Water quality problems in Lake Okeechobee are a function of both external TP load associated 

with runoff from the watershed and internal TP loads from lake bed sediments. The objective of 

the in-lake phosphorus management program is to develop and implement projects that will 

alleviate loading of phosphorus from the lake bed. In 2007, drought conditions caused low water 

levels in Lake Okeechobee exposing thousands of acres of phosphorus laden muck sediments. 

The SFWMD took the opportunity to scrape approximately 2,000 acres of lake bed. 

3.1.5.1 Algal Bloom and Toxin Monitoring 

Excessive nutrient load has resulted in a major change in the phytoplankton community in Lake 

Okeechobee. SFWMD’s Lake Okeechobee Division currently monitors biomass, taxonomic 

composition, and toxin production of bloom-forming blue-green algae in Lake Okeechobee on a 

monthly basis at ten shoreline stations where blooms have historically occurred. Data from this 

monitoring provide insight into factors controlling the occurrence of algal blooms and toxins in 

the lake ecosystem. 

3.1.5.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Monitoring 

A submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) monitoring program was initiated by the District in 1999. 

This program documents the abundance and distribution of SAV in the lake through monthly and 

annual surveys. The entire lake SAV community is mapped annually with an intensive program 

that includes over 600 sites around the shoreline. Sampling is generally conducted in August at 

the height of SAV growth. Using these SAV maps, the District determines the total number of 

acres of each dominant plant species (eelgrass, peppergrass, Hydrilla, and Chara), and how this 

acreage changes from year-to-year with variations in lake stage and other conditions. 

In addition, monthly surveys are conducted at stations located along 17 fixed transects 

encompassing the lake's south and west shoreline, covering a region where SAV beds have 

historically occurred. The sampling includes measurements of plant biomass, water chemistry, 

clarity of the water, and underwater light penetration. 

Historical SAV biomass and distribution data exists from a study conducted in the late 1980s and 

early 1990s (Zimba et al., 1995). The Zimba et al. historical SAV data are compared to current 

SAV monitoring program data to identify adverse impacts to SAV beds. 

3.1.5.3 Lake Okeechobee Sediment Dredging 

Detailed design for the Eagle Bay Island Habitat Enhancement Dredging Project was initiated in 

Spring 2007. Plans will be developed to remove mud sediments from the lake bed to restore 

habitat to 2.5 mi2

 area east of Eagle Bay Island. In addition to providing local habitat benefits, 

the project will evaluate technologies for effective removal of mud sediments, disposal of 

removed sediments, and sediment stabilization of the area for use in other potential dredging 

projects within the lake. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-8 

3.1.6 Lake Okeechobee Exotic Species Control Program 

The objective of this program is to identify exotic species that threaten native flora and fauna 

within the LOW and to develop and implement measures to protect native species. A LOPA 

Exotic Species Plan was completed in June 2002 and is currently being implemented in the lake 

and the watershed. 

In 2005, approximately 5,000 acres (2,023 ha) of torpedo grass and 3,000 acres (1,214 ha) of 

cattail were treated in the Moore Haven and Indian Prairie regions of the marsh. To date, 

approximately 25,000 acres (10,117 ha) of torpedo grass and 7,400 acres (2,995 ha) of cattail 

have been treated in the LOW. 

In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), with support from the SFWMD, 

utilizes a combination of biological, mechanical, and chemical measures to control water 

hyacinth, water lettuce, Hydrilla, alligator weed, and tussocks in Lake Okeechobee. 

3.1.7 Kissimmee River Watershed Programs 

Several major ecosystem-restoration initiatives are currently ongoing in the Kissimmee River 

watershed and, by virtue of their location, will be directly integrated into the NEEPP program. 

Five of the more significant programs include the Kissimmee River Restoration Project with the 

Kissimmee River Headwaters Revitalization Project, the Kissimmee River Restoration 

Evaluation Program, the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes Long-Term Management Plan, the 

Kissimmee Basin Study Modeling and Operations Study, and the Upper Kissimmee River Basin 

Water Supply Plan. 

3.1.7.1 Kissimmee River Restoration Project 

The Kissimmee River Restoration Project (KRRP) and the Kissimmee River Headwaters 

Revitalization Project (KRHRP) were authorized by Congress in 1992 under the Water 

Resources Development Act (WRDA). Together, these large-scale restoration projects are 

intended to achieve the following: 

• Reestablish the river-floodplain system’s ecological integrity by reconstructing the river’s 

physical form and reestablishing pre-channelization hydrologic characteristics (stage and 

discharge), 

• Modify the water storage and regulation schedule to approximate historical flow 

characteristics of the Kissimmee river system, and 

• Increase the quantity and quality of shoreline habitat in Kissimmee, Hatchineha, Tiger, and 

Cypress Lakes for the benefit of fish and wildlife. 

When completed, the project will have restored over 40 mi2

of river/floodplain ecosystem 

including 43 miles of meandering river channel and 27,000 acres of wetlands. The project is 

joint effort between the District and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In 2006, the 

Florida Forever Program funded land acquisitions of more than 33,000 acres, the last of the 

102,061 acres needed to achieve the river’s restoration. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-9 

The first of four major phases of canal backfilling were completed in early 2001. It resulted in 15 

continuous miles of reconnected river channel and reclaiming almost 6,000 acres of floodplain 

habitat. The second phase of construction (2006-2007) backfilled 1.9 miles of C-38 canal, 

removed three weirs, and excavated some portions of river channel. The next major phase of the 

project is scheduled for October 2009 – April 2011. It will involve backfilling 8.5 miles of canal 

removing one water control structure, and extend the length of reconnected river channel by 

approximately 20 miles. All restoration-related construction is projected to be completed by 

2012 and evaluation of restoration success will continue through at least 2017. 

As the restoration effort proceeds, some positive ecosystem changes have already been observed. 

Sandbars and sandy bottom have started appearing in the river bed and in formerly isolated 

sections of the river, oxbows are flowing again. These are positive signs of hydrologic 

improvement. Emergent and shoreline vegetation have reappeared and are thriving. Water 

quality has improved and waterfowl are returning. The project is re-establishing the physical 

form of the river with its historical water levels and flows, while ensuring existing flood 

protection is maintained. 

Other improvements include increased dissolved oxygen (DO) levels, reductions in accumulated 

sediments, and increased populations of bass and sunfishes in river channels, as well as increased 

use of the river and floodplain by various bird species. Since the completion of Phase I 

construction in 2001, wading bird densities have exceeded the projected restoration expectation 

in this area. 

3.1.7.1.1 Kissimmee River Headwaters Revitalization Project 

The primary purpose of the Kissimmee River Headwaters Revitalization Project is to provide 

water storage and regulation schedule modifications needed to approximate the historical flow 

characteristics of the Kissimmee River system. A secondary objective is to increase quantity and 

quality of littoral-zone habitat for the benefit of fish and wildlife. 

The strategy for accomplishing these objectives involves increasing water-storage capacity of 

Kissimmee, Hatchineha, Tiger, and Cypress Lakes by approximately 100,000 ac-ft. The canal 

and structure conveyance capacities will also be increased to accommodate increased storage 

volumes. The project is scheduled for completion in 2012. 

The number of acres expected to be reflooded under the Headwaters Project is 23,236. In 

addition to the existing 16,000 acres of littoral wetlands occurring under the current regulation 

schedule with a high pool stage of 52.5 ft, an additional 7,236 acres is expected when the high 

pool stage is increased to 54 ft under the Headwaters Regulation Schedule. 

3.1.7.2 Kissimmee River Restoration Evaluation Program 

The Kissimmee River Restoration Evaluation Program is designed to collect, manage, evaluate 

and disseminate information related to activities, observations, and measurements associated 

with restoration of the Kissimmee River and its floodplain ecosystem. This program tracks 

initial and long-term responses to restoration efforts by evaluating indicators representing 

physical, chemical, biological, and functional components of the system. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-10 

3.1.7.3 Kissimmee Chain of Lakes Long-Term Management Plan 

The Kissimmee Chain of Lakes Long-Term Management Plan was initiated by the District in 

2003 to improve the health and sustainability of the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes by developing a 

long-term management plan for 19 regulated lakes in the upper basin. The plan balances 

improving the health of the lakes with impacts between upstream and downstream ecosystems. 

The plan is intended to complement existing local, regional, and state government and watershed 

projects such as the Kissimmee Basin Water Supply Plan, Kissimmee River Basin TMDLs, Lake 

Okeechobee TMDLs, the LOPP, and SFWMD land-management activities. 

This plan is currently under development and scheduled for public release in March 2008. The 

plan will address the following five goals: 

• Hydrologic Management – Manage water levels in the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes for flood 

protection, aquatic habitat enhancement, recreational use (navigation), water supply, aquatic 

weed control, and protection of downstream water resources. 

• Habitat Preservation and Enhancement – Manage the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes and 

adjacent state lands to preserve and enhance habitat, maintain or restore fish and wildlife 

resources, maintain healthy sport fish populations, and protect threatened and endangered 

wildlife species. 

• Aquatic Plant Management – Control aquatic plants in the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes to 

maintain navigation, reduce risk of damage to in-lake structures, and improve aquatic habitat 

and ecological integrity. 

• Water quality improvement – Achieve state water quality standards. 

• Recreation and Public Use – Manage public lakes and state lands for multiple recreational 

purposes and maintain healthy fish and wildlife communities. 

A draft of the plan is scheduled for public release in April 2008. 

3.1.7.4 The Kissimmee Basin Modeling and Operations Study 

The Kissimmee Basin Modeling and Operation Study is currently being implemented by the 

SFWMD and includes both the Upper and Lower Kissimmee River Basins. It will evaluate 

alternative operations for the 13 structures controlling flow through the Kissimmee Chain of 

Lakes and the Kissimmee River. Operations must be balanced to meet objectives for flood 

control, water supply, aquatic plant management, and natural resources of the Kissimmee River, 

Chain of Lakes, and Lake Okeechobee. Operating criteria will be developed to effectively meet 

these various objectives with complete reliance on the existing water management infrastructure 

and land interests of the State of Florida and the SFWMD. The study has no water quality 

component and is independent of but closely related to the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes LongTerm Management Plan. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-11 

Phase I was completed in June 2005. Phase II, initiated in July 2005, includes development of 

evaluation performance measures, modeling tools, and an alternative plan formulation process. 

The study is scheduled for completion in September 2008. 

3.1.7.5 Upper Kissimmee River Basin Water Supply Plan 

The District has concluded, through detailed water supply planning and individual permit 

actions, that traditional groundwater sources in central Florida are inadequate to meet projected 

water demands over the next 20 years. If traditional groundwater sources continue to be 

developed to meet growing public water supply demands in the area, water resources will be 

harmed. The SFWMD, along with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) 

and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), has concluded that 

sustainable quantities of groundwater in central Florida are insufficient to meet future demands 

beyond 2013. 

Alternative water supply projects need to be developed in addition to continued aggressive 

conservation and use of reclaimed water. Surface water from the Kissimmee River and 

Kissimmee Chain of Lakes will need to be used as alternative water supply. A rulemaking effort 

is underway to codify this understanding. A Kissimmee River and Chain of Lakes Feasibility 

Study has recently been initiated to evaluate the amount of water that might be withdrawn from 

the system and where such a water plant might be located. In any case, it is expected that a 

storage reservoir or ASR well will be necessary to make the project feasible. 

3.1.8 Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Program 

The LOFT component of LOER originally consisted of five projects, which included Taylor 

Creek Reservoir, Lakeside Ranch STA, rerouting of S-133 Basin flows to S-135 Basin, rerouting 

of S-154 Basin flows to S135 Basin, and Nubbin Slough STA expansion. Three of the five 

components (Nubbin Slough STA expansion and S-133 and S-154 Basin flow re-routing 

projects), were determined not to be cost-effective and were therefore dropped (Draft SFER, 

2008). Two new projects were recently added to this program, namely the Lemkin Creek Urban 

Stormwater Facility and the Brady Ranch STA. 

A Basis of Design Report (BODR) was recently completed for the Lakeside Ranch STA. This 

2,400 acre STA is located in the S-135 basin and is projected to reduce TP load by 

approximately 8 mt/yr. Construction is expected to start by 2010 and to be completed by 2011. 

Also, a BODR for a 2,000 acre reservoir to be located at Grassy Island Ranch site (Taylor Creek 

Reservoir) in the S-191 basin was recently completed. This 15-ft deep reservoir will provide 

annual storage capacity of approximately 24,000 ac-ft and reduce TP loads by 2 mt/yr. This 

feature is currently being evaluated as part of the Phase II Technical Plan (P2TP) and a 

construction schedule will be identified under the P2TP implementation. 

3.1.9 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

The CERP has recommended the implementation of the LOW Project and construction of 

several ASR wells within the LOW. In addition, CERP recommendations include 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-12 

implementation of several projects in watersheds adjacent to the LOW such as the C-43 

Reservoir, C-44 Reservoir/STA, EAA Reservoir Projects, and ASR projects. 

The objective of the LOW Project is to provide better management of lake water levels, improve 

lake water quality, provide appropriate releases to the estuaries, restore isolated wetlands in the 

watershed, and resolve water volume and quality problems in Lake Istokpoga. Through a 

comprehensive planning process, a tentatively selected plan has recently been identified. The 

proposed plan for the LOW Project will collectively provide approximately 286,000 ac-ft of 

storage, reduce TP loads by 74 mt/yr, and restore 3,700 acres of wetlands at an estimated cost of 

approximately $1.5 billion. 

3.1.9.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project 

The LOW Project selected plan includes six structural components and a modification to the 

existing Lake Istokpoga Regulation Schedule. The components are as follows: 

• Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Reservoir – This 1,984-acre storage facility is located in the 

S-191 sub-basin and will provide a maximum capacity of 32,000 ac-ft at an average depth of 

18 ft. It will receive inflows from and discharge back to Taylor Creek. This reservoir feature 

will remove approximately 3–5 mt/yr of TP by sediment settling. The location and 

configuration of this feature matches with that of the Taylor Creek Reservoir being 

considered under the LOFT program. 

• Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough STA – This 3,975-acre treatment facility is located in the S135 sub-basin and will treat flows from S-133, S-191, and S-135 sub-basins. This STA is 

expected to reduce TP loads by 19 mt/yr. The location of this facility overlaps with that of 

the Lakeside Ranch STA being considered under LOFT. 

• Kissimmee Reservoir – This storage facility consists of a 10,281-acre above ground 

reservoir with a maximum storage capacity of 161,263 ac-ft at 16-ft average depth. The 

feature is located in the C-41A sub-basin. It will receive flow from and discharge back to the 

C-38 canal (Kissimmee River). A secondary discharge structure will also allow for releases 

to the C-41A canal. 

• Istokpoga Reservoir – This 5,416-acre storage facility will be located in the C-40A and C41A sub-basins and will provide a maximum storage capacity of 79,560 ac-ft at an average 

depth of 16 ft. It will receive inflow from and discharge back to the C-41A canal. 

• Istokpoga STA – This 8,044-acre treatment facility will be located in the L-49 sub-basin. It 

will receive flow from the C-41 canal and discharge treated water to Lake Okeechobee. It is 

expected to reduce TP loads by approximately 29.1 mt/yr. 

• Paradise Run Wetland Restoration – This 3,730-acre wetland restoration site is located at 

the ecologically significant confluence (under pre-development conditions) of Paradise Run, 

oxbows of the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee. Under restored conditions it would 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-13 

have a rain-driven hydrology unless future efforts could link the site to the surface flows 

from the C-38 or C-41A canals. 

• Lake Istokpoga Regulation Schedule – The recommended revised Lake Istokpoga 

Regulation Schedule is based on an El Niño operating strategy. This operating strategy 

consists of a combined assessment of existing hydrologic conditions and long-term climatic 

forecasts at the beginning of each dry season to determine whether normal, wet, or dry year 

recession rule curves should be used. 

3.1.9.2 C-44 Reservoir and STA Project 

The objectives of the C-44 Reservoir and STA Project are to capture, store, and treat flood runoff 

from the C-44 basin prior to discharge to the St. Lucie Estuary. Implementation of this project 

is expected to reduce damaging freshwater discharges, decrease nutrient load, and maintain 

desirable salinity regimes that are expected to collectively occur as a result of NEEPP and CERP 

implementation. The project includes construction of a 3,400-acre reservoir and a 6,300-acre 

STA in Martin County, to be located directly north of the C-44 canal. 

3.1.9.3 C-43 Reservoir Project 

The C-43 Reservoir Project is intended to capture and store flood runoff from the C-43 basin 

prior to discharge to the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Implementation of this project is expected to 

reduce damaging freshwater discharges, decrease nutrient loads, and maintain desirable estuarine 

salinity regimes that are expected to collectively occur as a result of NEEPP and CERP 

implementation. The major benefit of the proposed reservoir is expected to be on the low flow 

side as it is expected to provide supplemental flows to meet the minimum flow (450 cfs) 

requirements of the estuary. This project includes a 10,000-acre reservoir that will provide 

approximately 170,000 ac-ft of storage capacity. 

3.1.9.4 Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Phase I Reservoir Project 

The Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Storage Reservoir Project will capture local runoff 

from the EAA and also store flood discharges from Lake Okeechobee. This project is expected 

to improve Lake Okeechobee water management, regulate water discharges to the Everglades, 

and improve the timing of inflows to the Everglades Construction Project (ECP) STAs. Phase I 

of this project includes a 31,000-acre, two-celled reservoir with a total storage capacity of 

360,000 ac-ft. A revised draft project implementation report (PIR) is scheduled for completion 

in early 2008. 

3.1.9.5 Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

The CERP includes a large number of ASR wells to store excess water during wet periods for 

later recovery when water supply is needed. Several ASR wells are planned for the LOW and 

adjacent watersheds. A series of ASR pilot tests and follow-up studies are currently underway to 

develop a strategy for the number of ASR wells and their locations. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-14 

3.1.10 Other Relevant Projects 

3.1.10.1 Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Project 

The primary purpose of the Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD) Rehabilitation Project (WRDA 2000 

and 2007) is to rehabilitate the HHD to continue to function as authorized by Congress for the 

containment of water levels within Lake Okeechobee to provide flood protection, water supply 

and navigation. During 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has been very active 

developing a modified design for Reach 1. 

3.1.10.2 Minimum Flows and Levels 

Florida law requires the water management districts to establish minimum flows and levels 

(MFL) criteria for surface waters and aquifers within their jurisdiction [Section 373.042(1), 

Florida Statutes (F.S.)]. Minimum flow is defined as the "...limit at which further withdrawals 

would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area" [Section 

373.042(1), F.S.]. MFL criteria provide technical criteria for protection of major water bodies 

from significant harm due to reduction in water levels or flows. 

As of 2006, the SFWMD had established MFL criteria for 12 water bodies within its jurisdiction 

including Lake Okeechobee, four areas of the Everglades, and the northern portion of the 

Biscayne aquifer, lower west coast deeper aquifers, Caloosahatchee River and Estuary, St. Lucie 

River and Estuary, the northwest fork of the Loxahatchee River, Lake Istokpoga, and Florida 

Bay. 

3.1.10.3 Estuary TMDL and BMAPs 

Caloosahatchee Estuary – TMDLs for the Caloosahatchee Estuary, downstream of Franklin 

Lock are in the process of being researched. Draft TMDLs are expected to be proposed by the 

fall of 2008, with a deadline for December 31, 2008. These TMDLs will address elevated 

nutrients in the lower Caloosahatchee River. Once TMDLs have been established, nutrient load 

allocations within the Caloosahatchee watershed will be established through the Basin 

Management Action Plan (BMAP) process. 

St. Lucie Estuary – TMDLs for the lower, middle, and upper estuary, North Fork, South Fork, 

Bessey Creek, C-23, C-24, C-25, and C-44 canals are being developed. These TMDLs are 

expected to be proposed by FDEP in late 2007/early 2008. These TMDLs address elevated 

nutrients in the St. Lucie watershed. For planning purposes, allocations within St. Lucie Estuary 

TMDLs will be calculated with and without the influence of Lake Okeechobee discharge. 

TMDLs and BMAPs for both estuaries will be incorporated into the Caloosahatchee and St. 

Lucie River Watershed Protection Plans. 

3.2 Problems and Opportunities 

Many of the defining characteristics of the pre-drainage Everglades ecosystem, including spatial 

extent, habitat heterogeneity, and dynamic storage, as a whole, and the LOW in particular, have 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-15 

either been lost or substantially altered as a result of land use and water management practices 

during the past 100 years. Because the LOWCP P2TP focuses on the entire watershed, it has a 

unique opportunity to target site-specific issues and problems, while at the same time evaluating 

additional opportunities for improving regional water quality and ecological conditions beyond 

those identified in regional efforts such as the CERP. 

Lake Okeechobee’s environmental resources are impaired by nutrient enrichment, altered 

hydroperiod, and expansion of exotic species. The 2007 Draft South Florida Environmental 

Report (SFWMD, 2007) listed the following major issues as being most critical for restoration of 

the entire Lake Okeechobee ecosystem: 

• External TP loads to the lake must be substantially reduced. 

• Internal (in-lake) TP loads from lake sediments must also be reduced, if feasible, otherwise, 

responses to external TP load reduction initiatives will be considerably delayed. 

• Internal TP loads within some tributaries may also need to be reduced in some basins in order 

to achieve NEEPP objectives. 

• Extremely high and low water levels in the lake must be dramatically reduced in their 

frequency and duration. 

• Rapid expansion of exotic plants in the lake littoral zone must be stopped. 

The major sources of inflows that cause extremely high and low lake levels and key sources of 

high nutrient loads to Lake Okeechobee occur in its watershed. This is where these problems 

need to be addressed. 

3.2.1 Lake Okeechobee Water Quality 

The FDEP has included Lake Okeechobee in its list of impaired water bodies as required by 

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. High TP concentrations are the predominant reason for 

impairment, and TP is currently the sole pollutant considered for TMDL analysis. The FDEP 

has established an in-lake TP concentration of 40 micrograms per liter (μg/L) or parts per billion 

(ppb) as a goal for meeting the lake’s designated use as a Class I Waters of the State (FDEP 

2001). 

3.2.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Eutrophication 

The rate of eutrophication in Lake Okeechobee has increased from 1973 to the present. 

Symptoms of this eutrophication include the following: 

• Increased algal bloom frequency since mid-1980s. An algal bloom is defined as chlorophyll 

a concentrations greater than 40 ppb (Carrick et al., 1994; Havens et al., 1995b; Maceina, 

1993), 

• Increased dominance of blue-green algae following a shift in the total nitrogen:total 

phosphorus ratio (Smith et al., 1995), 

• Increased lake water concentration of total phosphorus, 

• Increased average chlorophyll a concentrations (Havens et al. 1995a). 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-16 

The key nutrient contributing to eutrophication of Lake Okeechobee is phosphorus (Federico et 

al., 1981). Increases in total phosphorus concentrations, coupled with decreases in nitrogen 

loads from reduced backpumping from the EAA, have shifted the total nitrogen:total phosphorus 

ratio from greater than 25:1 in the 1970s to around 15:1 in the 1990s. This shift has created 

conditions more favorable for the proliferation of nitrogen-fixing blue-green algae, which are 

responsible for the algal blooms (Smith et al. 1995). 

Additional information on Lake Okeechobee eutrophication can be found in the South Florida 

Environmental Report (SFWMD, 2008). 

3.2.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Sediment 

The TP concentration in Lake Okeechobee sediments has also been increasing. Prior to the 

1950s, the lake bottom was comprised primarily of sand with low phosphorus concentrations 

(Harvey and Havens, 1999). According to Engstrom and Benzonik (1993), phosphorus 

accumulation rates increased between the 1950s and 1980s. This TP accumulation has resulted 

in the development of phosphorus-laden mud sediments. The top 10 cm of the lake sediment 

layer is estimated to contain approximately 30,000 mt of phosphorus that has accumulated over 

the last 75 years. High TP loads to the lake saturate the mud sediments, which then decrease the 

lake’s capacity to assimilate additional phosphorus (James et al., 1995). 

3.2.1.3 Phosphorus Loading to Lake Okeechobee 

In 2001, the FDEP established a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for phosphorus loads to 

Lake Okeechobee as 140 mt/yr. Attainment of the TP TMDL is based on 5-year rolling average 

that uses monthly TP loads calculated from measured flows and phosphorus concentrations. The 

140 mt/yr TMDL includes 35 mt/yr of TP estimated for atmospheric deposition. 

Annual phosphorus load to Lake Okeechobee is a function of the TP concentrations of runoff 

and the volume of inflows. The TP concentration of runoff from the watershed is impacted by 

land use, management practices, and legacy phosphorus in the soils. The dominant factor 

influencing TP load to the lake is the volume of inflow. Variations in annual rainfall cause 

dramatic variations in annual TP load and make it difficult to assess the impacts of changes in 

land use, management practices, and/or other phosphorus reduction measures. 

Figure 3-1 shows annual TP load and total annual surface water inflows to Lake Okeechobee for 

the period from the 1970s through 2006 (Zhang et al., 2007). This figure illustrates the close 

correlation between surface water inflows to Lake Okeechobee and TP load. A notable 

exception occurred in 2005 when TP load was lower relative to 2004, but surface water inflows 

were higher. One possible explanation for this are hurricanes in 2004 flushed the most mobile 

phosphorus from the watershed. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-17 

Figure 3-1. Annual total phosphorus (TP) loads and annual surface water inflows to Lake 

Okeechobee from the 1970’s to 2006. 

Table 3-1 shows annual phosphorus loads to Lake Okeechobee during the period from 1991 

through 2005 (Zhang et al., 2007). During the 10-year period from 1991 through 2000, the 

average TP load was 468 mt/yr. The average TP load for the period from 2001 through 2005 

was 709 mt/yr. The annual load in 2005 was 822 metric tons. These values include 35 mt/yr of 

atmospheric deposition. 

Table 3-1. Historical total phosphorus (TP) load to Lake Okeechobee. 

Year Measured Load a

(mt/yr) 

Long-term 5-year moving average b

(mt/yr) 

1991 445 415 

1992 388 393 

1993 296 375 

1994 580 421 

1995 683 478 

1996 200 430 

1997 470 446 

1998 780 543 

1999 670 561 

2000 169 458 

2001 609 540 

2002 561 558 

2003 614 525 

2004 938 578 

2005 822 709 a

 Measured load and long term moving average includes atmospheric deposition of 35 mt/yr. 

b The 5-year moving average is a better indicator of the annual P loading to the lake since it accounts for yearly 

variations in flows and loads. 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Total Phosphorus Load 

(Mt/yr)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Surface Inflow 

(millions of acre-feet)

Phosphorus load Surface Inflow
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-18 

3.2.1.4 In-Lake Total Phosphorus Concentrations 

Average TP concentrations in lake water have increased from approximately 40 ppb in the 1970s 

to over 200 ppb in the last two years (Figure 3-2) (Zhang et al., 2007). 

Figure 3-2. In-lake and surface water inflow total phosphorus (TP) concentrations for 

Lake Okeechobee. 

The highest in-lake phosphorus concentration occurred early in 2005 due to the effects of 

Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne. In-lake phosphorus concentrations increased significantly 

following these hurricanes as a result of winds that caused suspension of Lake Okeechobee 

sediments. In-lake phosphorus concentrations remained high following the hurricanes – even 

higher than inflow concentrations. 2005 and 2006 are the only times when in-lake phosphorus 

concentrations were greater than inflow concentrations. 

3.2.2 Lake Okeechobee Water Levels 

In 1978, construction of S-308 (Port Mayaca Lock and Spillway) was completed. This allowed 

the implementation of an operating strategy that raised the regulation schedule to a seasonal 

fluctuation between 15.5 and 17.5 ft National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). After 

implementing the higher regulation schedule, high water levels, above 17.0 ft NGVD, occurred 

more frequently and for longer durations. At the same time, during periods of below normal 

rainfall, extreme low water levels, below 10.0 ft NGVD, occurred more frequently. A wide body 

of published research, summarized in Havens (2002), documents the ecologic benefits of 

seasonally variable water levels within the range of 12.5 ft NGVD, in June or July, and 15.5 ft 

NGVD, in November through January. Such seasonally variable water level fluctuations in Lake 

Okeechobee benefit native plant and animal communities. 

In 2000, the Water Supply and Environment (WSE) Regulation Schedule was implemented. 

This schedule provides a complex decision matrix based on lake stages in relation to a set of 

seasonally varying rule curves, tributary storage, and long-term climatic forecasts. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

TP Concentrations 

(ppb)

Inflow Lake
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-19 

Implementation of this operating strategy provided significant improvements in water 

management capabilities, particularly reducing extreme high lake stages. However, WSE has 

been less successful at reducing the occurrence of low lake stages. 

Figure 3-3 shows the percent of time water levels in Lake Okeechobee rose above 17 ft NGVD 

during three periods: 1932 to 1977, 1978 to 1999, and 2000 to 2006. From 1932 to 1977, the 

lake operating schedule was based on water levels between 13.5 and 15.5 ft NGVD. Between 

1978 and 1999, lake operations were based on a 15.5 to 17.5 ft NGVD regulation schedule. 

Since 2000, the lake has been operated in accordance with the WSE Regulation Schedule. Pre1978 water levels in Lake Okeechobee were within desirable ranges, between 12.5 and 15.5 ft 

NGVD, more than 80 percent of the time. Since 1978, lake stages have been within the desirable 

range only 45 to 50 percent of the time. 

3.2.2.1 Extreme High Lake Okeechobee Water Levels 

Extreme high stages, above 17 ft NGVD, allow wind-driven waves to directly impact the littoral 

emergent plant communities and nearshore submerged plant communities, causing physical 

uprooting of plants. In addition, high stages permit suspended solids from the mid-lake region, 

where unconsolidated sediments are thickest, to be transported to the shoreline regions, reducing 

water clarity and light penetration. This reduces the depth at which SAV growth can occur 

(James and Havens, 2005). High stage conditions also allow deposition of unconsolidated mud 

in nearshore regions, which can cover the natural sand and peat sediment, reducing their 

suitability to sustain healthy and balanced vegetative communities. 

Figure 3-3. Lake Okeechobee stage characteristics 

(POR: 1932 – 1977 (13.5 to 15.5 ft, NGVD regulation schedule; 1978 – 1999 (15.5 to 17.5 ft, NGVD regulation 

schedule); and 2000 – 2007 (WSE Regulation Schedule)) 

At extreme high stages, nutrient-rich water from the mid-lake region is transported to the littoral 

zone where it causes changes in periphyton biomass and taxonomic structure, as well as induces 

shifts in plant dominance, including expansion of cattail. Overall, high lake stages result in 

extirpation or reduced growth of submerged plants, adverse impacts to germination of 

Lake Okeechobee Stage Characteristics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Stage < 10 ft Stage < 12.5 ft 12.5 ft<=Stage<=15.5 ft Stage > 17 ft

% Time Stage is Within Specified 

Range

1932 to 1977 1978 to 1999 2000 to 2007
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-20 

submerged plants, reductions in fish spawning and fish reproductive success, and undesirable 

shifts among species that comprise the macroinvertebrate community. 

3.2.2.2 Extreme Low Lake Okeechobee Water Levels 

Extreme low stages, below 10 ft NGVD, can result in desiccation of the entire littoral zone, the 

shoreline fringing bulrush zone, and nearly all of the lake area that would otherwise support 

submerged plants. Thus, the in-lake habitat for reptiles, amphibians, wading birds, apple snails, 

and fish that depend on these aquatic plant-dominated regions for successful foraging and 

recruitment is severely compromised. Extreme low stages also encourage invasive exotic plants 

such as torpedo grass and melaleuca to establish in areas of the littoral zone where they did not 

formerly occur, displacing native vegetation. Recovery from prolonged low stage events is slow, 

requiring many years of appropriate stage regime, as documented for submerged plants (Havens 

et al., 2004) and for sport fish such as largemouth bass (Havens et al., 2005). 

The incidence of extreme low Lake Okeechobee water levels has been increasing recently 

(Figure 3-3). The 2000 to 2007 period includes data through June of 2007. This data reflects 

two of the worst droughts on record, which occurred in 2002 and 2007. Both droughts 

established new record low water levels in Lake Okeechobee. While water supply demands, 

drainage, and management practices have contributed to these low water levels, climatic 

conditions have had the most significant impacts. 

Recent restoration work conducted on the southern islands re-established hydrologic connections 

between Torry and Kraemer Islands and the lake proper. This will help to preserve the peat soils 

in all but the most extreme events. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service South Florida 

Multi-Species Recovery Plan (1999) recommendations were to remove the remnant agricultural 

berms on the islands to preserve the gourd habitat through re-establishment of the hydrologic 

connection between the island and the lake. Recent reports from the field also indicate that the 

Okeechobee gourd is thriving under the current drought. 

3.2.3 Lake Okeechobee Discharges to Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuaries 

Based on the Lake Okeechobee WSE Regulation Schedule, regulatory (flood control) discharges 

are made via the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) and the St. Lucie Canal (C-44) when lake stages 

are high. Regulatory discharges are also made via the four EAA canals although the capacity of 

each of these canals is relatively small. Both the Caloosahatchee River and the St. Lucie Canal 

have primary capacity for local inflows and are only utilized for Lake Okeechobee discharges 

when secondary capacity is available. 

3.2.3.1 Lake Okeechobee Discharges to the Caloosahatchee Estuary 

The Caloosahatchee River is the major source of freshwater for the Caloosahatchee Estuary (CE) 

and southern Charlotte Harbor aquatic environment. Prior to 1880, the river did not connect with 

Lake Okeechobee and its upstream limit was at Lake Hicpochee. Today, the Moore Haven Lock 

and Dam (S-77) discharges water from Lake Okeechobee into the Caloosahatchee River. The 

river bisects the Caloosahatchee watershed and now functions as a primary canal (C-43) that 

conveys both runoff from the watershed and regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-21 

The canal has undergone a number of alterations to facilitate this increased freshwater discharge 

and flood protection. These alterations include channel enlargement; bank stabilization; the 

development of an intricate network of canals within the watershed; and the addition of three 

lock and dams. The final downstream structure, Franklin Lock and Dam (S-79), demarcates the 

beginning of the estuary, and acts as a barrier to salinity and tidal action, which historically 

extended upstream to near the LaBelle area. 

Alterations to the Caloosahatchee River and Lake Okeechobee operations have resulted in drastic 

changes in freshwater inflow to the downstream Caloosahatchee Estuary ecosystem. The large 

fluctuations in salinity and water quality have adversely impacted estuarine biota (Chamberlain 

and Doering, 1998a; Sklar and Browder, 1998). 

S-79 discharges flows from both Lake Okeechobee and the local Caloosahatchee River drainage 

area. As a result, the discharge exceedance information depicted in Figure 3-4 reflects the 

combined impacts of Lake Okeechobee operations and local inflows on the estuary. Since 2000, 

discharges in the desirable range (between 450 and 2800 cfs) have occurred more frequently. 

This may be due to implementation of the MFL criteria for the Caloosahatchee River and 

Estuary in 2002. However, extreme high flows (greater than 4500 cfs) have continued to occur. 

3.2.3.2 Lake Okeechobee Discharges to the St. Lucie Estuary 

The St. Lucie Canal (C-44) is a man-made canal constructed by the Everglades Drainage District 

in the 1920s. The canal was subsequently enlarged and incorporated into the Central and 

Southern Florida Project (C&SF Project). The Port Mayaca Lock and Dam (S-308) discharges 

water from Lake Okeechobee into the St. Lucie Canal and the St. Lucie Lock and Dam (S-80) 

discharges water from the St. Lucie Canal into the St. Lucie River and Estuary. 

In addition to the St. Lucie Canal, several other canals have been constructed that discharge local 

runoff to the estuary. 

As a result, the area draining local runoff to the estuary has increased to almost 775 square miles 

in addition to Lake Okeechobee. Freshwater flow into the estuary tends to be excessive in the 

wet season and occasionally insufficient in the dry season. 

Figure 3-5 depicts the flows to the St. Lucie Estuary at S-80. These flows represent the 

combined flows from Lake Okeechobee and local inflows from the St. Lucie Canal drainage 

area. Structure S-308, which was constructed in 1978, discharges from Lake Okeechobee to the 

St. Lucie Canal and reflects only Lake Okeechobee operations. Moreover, S-80 is only one of 

several inflows to the St. Lucie Estuary. To evaluate a longer period of record and the impacts 

from Lake Okeechobee, flow exceedance relationships at S-80 were compiled (Figure 3-5). 

Since 2000, flows have been maintained above 350 cfs for a greater percentage of time. 

Additionally, flows have been maintained within a desirable range between 350 and 2,000 cfs for 

a greater percentage of the time. The incidence of extremely high flows (greater than 2000 cfs) 

has also increased since 2000. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-22 

S-79 FlowCharacteristics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Flow <=450 450<Flow <=2800 2800 <Flow <=4500 Flow > 4500

% time with specified flows

1966 to 1977 1978 to 1999 2000 to 2007

Figure 3-4. S-79 flow characteristics. 

(POR: 1966 to 1977; 1978 to 1999; and 2000 to 2007) 

Figure 3-5. S-80 flow characteristics. 

(POR: 1952 to 1977; 1978 to 1999; and 2000 to 2007)

3.2.4 Lake Okeechobee Service Area Water Supply 

Lake Okeechobee is the primary source of supplemental irrigation for four major adjacent 

agricultural areas: North Shore, Caloosahatchee, St. Lucie and EAA (Figure 3-6). Collectively, 

these basins are referred to as the Lake Okeechobee Service Area (LOSA). During the dry 

season when precipitation is low, local sources of irrigation become scarce and the need for 

supplemental irrigation becomes necessary. Because, presently, there is no substantial off-site 

water storage, Lake Okeechobee is the only source of supplemental irrigation for these basins. 

S-80 Flow Characteristics

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Flow <=350 350<Flow <=2000 Flow > 2000

% of time with specified flows

1952 to 1977 1978 to 1999 2000 to 2006
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-23 

Average annual supplemental irrigation requirement from Lake Okeechobee amounts to about 

half a million ac-ft (SFWMD, 2000a). 

Figure 3-6. Lake Okeechobee service area.

Pursuant to the Water Rights Compact (Public Law No. 100-228, 101 Statute 1556, and Chapter 

87-292, Laws of Florida, and codified in Section 285.165, F.S.) and implementing agreements, 

the Seminole Tribe of Florida has entitlement rights to surface water for its reservations. The 

Brighton Seminole Reservation northwest of the lake and the Big Cypress Seminole Reservation 

southwest of the EAA must be considered in addressing Lake Okeechobee water shortage 

management plan. Cutbacks associated with the water shortage plan and water shortage 

management may apply to the tribe's water rights in accordance with the Water Rights Compact 

and the controlling agreements. Water supply shortages are relatively frequent for the Brighton 

Seminole Reservation and adjoining portions of the C-40 and C-41 basins. 

Lake Okeechobee is also a water supply source for the following purposes: 

• Supplemental water supply for the City of West Palm Beach 

• Protection of the performance of Everglades Construction Project STAs during dry periods 

• Providing minimum flows to Caloosahatchee Estuary and portions of St. Lucie Estuary. 

• Providing environmental water supply for the Everglades 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-24 

3.2.5 Lake Stage Management 

In addition to Lake Okeechobee, there are many natural lakes in the study area that provide 

important habitat for fish and wildlife. Many of these lakes, including Lake Istokpoga, Lake 

Kissimmee, and other lakes in the Upper Kissimmee Basin, are now managed as components of 

the C&SF Project water management system. As components of this system, the operations that 

control water levels and discharges from the lakes are greatly influenced by the need to maintain 

flood protection and/or to provide water supply. 

In many cases, the operational practices required to provide these flood control and water supply 

benefits result in water level fluctuations and discharges from the lakes that are not conducive to 

maintaining healthy habitats within the lakes. Invasion of exotic species, accumulation of muck 

in the littoral zone, changes in vegetative communities, and the loss of SAV are examples of 

problems these lakes have experienced as a result of operational practices. In many cases, 

extensive modeling and operational investigations have been undertaken to identify operational 

modifications that would meet the C&SF Project goals and, at the same time, provide healthy 

ecologic conditions within the lakes. Even though significant improvements have been achieved 

through operational modifications, problems in many lakes still exist. 

3.3 Planning Objectives 

The problems and opportunities described above directly lead to the following project objectives: 

3.3.1 Lake Okeechobee Water Quality 

• Meet the Lake Okeechobee phosphorus TMDL. 

3.3.2 Lake Okeechobee Water Levels and Discharges 

• Manage Lake levels to improve the ecological health of the Lake. 

• Provide management measures to manage Lake levels within the ecologically desirable stage 

envelope and to manage Lake Okeechobee releases to achieve salinity envelope targets for 

the St. Lucie and the Caloosahatchee Estuaries. 

3.3.3 Water Supply 

• Identify opportunities for alternative water supply sources in the watershed. 

• Maintain water supply capability for the Lake Okeechobee Service Area (LOSA). 

These planning objectives provide the basis for development of evaluation criteria, formulation 

and screening of alternative plans, evaluation of alternative plans, and selection of the 

recommended plan. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-25 

3.4 Planning Constraints 

3.4.1 Kissimmee River Restoration 

Kissimmee River Restoration depends on meeting the following five key hydrologic criteria: 

• Continuous flow with duration and variability comparable to pre-channelization periods 

• Average flow velocities that range between 0.8 and 1.8 ft per second (fps), when flows are 

within bank 

• A stage discharge relationship that results in overbank flows when flows are greater than 

1,400 cfs. 

• Stage recession rate(s) on the floodplain that are less than 1 foot per month 

• Floodplain inundation durations comparable to historic hydrographs 

Of these five hydrologic criteria, floodplain recession requirements are the most sensitive to 

available volumes of water in the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes. The volume required is dependent 

on the magnitude of the flood event. Enough water needs to be available in Zone B of the 

Kissimmee Chain of Lakes regulation schedules to sustain a 1 foot per month floodplain 

recession rate. Methodologies for evaluating impacts on floodplain recession rates are being 

developed in the Kissimmee Basin Modeling and Operations Study. Recommendations of this 

study must be consistent with achieving the goals of the Kissimmee River Restoration Project. 

3.4.2 Water Supply and Flood Control 

The NEEPP legislation requires that water related needs of the region including water supply and 

flood protection will continue to be met. 

3.4.3 Herbert Hoover Dike 

The Herbert Hoover Dike is made of natural materials such as gravel, rock, limestone, sand, and 

shell. During extreme high water conditions, excessive seepage occurs through these natural 

materials. A recent study reported that it is likely that a failure mode involving piping 

from seepage has initiated at certain locations. The rate at which piping is occurring is 

dependent on lake level. It is clear that the seepage volume and distress indicators in certain 

reaches of the structure at reservoir levels above about Elevation 17 ft are cause for concern to 

the degree that failure is considered very likely when operating at or above these levels for any 

significant time. The higher the lake level, the shorter the time required for failure to occur 

(USACE, 2007). P2TP recommendations should not increase the risk of failure of the Herbert 

Hoover Dike. 

3.4.4 Minimum Flows and Levels 

MFL criteria prevent harmful withdrawals from water sources that would be significantly 

harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area (SFWMD, 2007). MFL criteria have been 

established for four water bodies within, or adjacent to, the P2TP study area, including: Lake 

Istokpoga, Lake Okeechobee, and the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries. P2TP 

recommendations cannot reduce the ability to meet the MFL criteria for these water bodies. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-26 

3.4.4.1 Lake Istokpoga Minimum Flows and Levels 

Lake Istokpoga MFL criteria are intended to address low water levels occurring from regional 

drought conditions and/or from withdrawals of water from the lake or adjacent aquifers. A MFL 

violation occurs within Lake Istokpoga when surface water levels fall below 36.5 ft NGVD for 

20 or more weeks within one calendar year, more often than once every four years (SFWMD, 

2005). 

3.4.4.2 Lake Okeechobee Minimum Flows and Levels 

Minimum water level criteria for Lake Okeechobee consist of two components: operational 

criteria and water supply planning criteria. Operational criteria are used to identify when the 

MFL has been exceeded on a day-to-day basis. Water supply planning criteria provides water 

managers with information as to how often, and for what duration, the minimum level may be 

exceeded based on the expected frequency of natural drought events. These criteria are as 

follows (SFWMD, 2000c): 

• Operational MFL Criteria - During most years, water levels in Lake Okeechobee should 

not fall below 11 ft NGVD. However, to make water deliveries from the lake to the Lower 

East Coast Planning Area, the water level may occasionally fall below 11 ft NGVD from 

April 15 to July 15, as long as it does not drop below the top of Supply-Side Management 

Zone C. 

• Water Supply Planning Criteria - Water level should not fall below 11 ft NGVD for more 

than 80-days duration, more often than once every six years, on average. 

3.4.4.3 St. Lucie River and Estuary Minimum Flows and Levels 

Mean monthly flows to the St. Lucie Estuary of more than 28 cfs from St. Lucie River’s North 

Fork represent the amount of water necessary to maintain sufficient salinities in the estuary 

needed to protect oligohaline organisms. If flows fall below this minimum for two consecutive 

months, the minimum flow criteria will be exceeded and harm occurs to estuarine resources. If 

harm, as defined above, occurs during two consecutive years, significant harm and a violation of 

MFL criteria occurs (SFWMD, 2002a). 

3.4.4.4 Caloosahatchee River and Estuary MFL 

The MFL rule for the Caloosahatchee Estuary states that a discharge of 300 cfs at S-79 is 

necessary to maintain a salinity of 10 ppt at the Ft. Myers Yacht Basin. The Caloosahatchee 

MFL rule includes two salinity criteria. An incident occurs if the 30-day moving average salinity 

at Fort Myers exceeds 10 ppt and if a single daily average salinity exceeds 20 ppt (SFWMD, 

2002b). 

3.4.5 Water Quality Standards 

Recommendations contained in the P2TP must be permittable with respect to protecting and 

maintaining all applicable water quality standards. 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-27 

3.4.6 Everglades Restoration Flows 

The future base of this plan includes Everglades rainfall deliveries within the constraints of the 

system with Acceler8 projects and a version of the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades 

National Park (ENP). However, full Everglades restoration flows are not included. It is the 

intent of this planning process not to preclude additional deliveries to the Water Conservation 

Areas (WCA) and ENP as these needs are better defined. Future updates of the plan will 

incorporate more full scale deliveries as better information becomes available. 

3.5 Performance Measures 

Performance measures (PMs) provide a means to evaluate how well alternatives achieve the 

project goals. Water resources problems for the study area are described in Section 3.2 of this 

document. Identification of the water resources problems led to establishment of the project 

objectives which are described in Section 3.3. The performance measures were developed based 

on these problems and objectives. 

Table 3-2 describes the relationships between the problems, objectives, and performance 

measures for this project. All of the performance measures for this project were developed by 

the Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER) program for the CERP or have been 

successfully applied in other projects. Fact sheets that provide a description of what is being 

measured, a rationale for why this measure is important, a target, and an evaluation methodology 

for each individual performance measure are presented in Appendix A. 

Table 3-2. Summary of Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project (LOWCP) 

Phase II (P2TP) problems, objectives, and performance measures. 

Problems Objectives Performance Measures 

Excessive phosphorus 

loads to Lake 

Okeechobee 

Meet the Lake 

Okeechobee phosphorus 

TMDL 

Total Surface Phosphorus Loading to Lake 

Okeechobee 

Lake Okeechobee Extreme High Lake Stage 

(> 17 ft NGVD) 

Lake Okeechobee Extreme Low Lake State (< 

10 ft, NGVD) 

Lake Okeechobee Stage Envelope – Score 

Below Envelope (see fact sheet for this PM in 

Appendix A for description of the stage 

envelope) 

Lake Okeechobee Stage Envelope – Score 

Above Envelope 

Lake 

Okeechobee 

Undesirable high and 

low levels in Lake 

Okeechobee 

Manage Lake 

Okeechobee within 

ecologically desirable 

ranges 

Number of Times Proposed Minimum Water 

Level & Duration – Criteria Exceeded 

Number of Times St Lucie High Discharge 

Criteria Exceeded – Mean Monthly Flows 

between 2,000 and 3,000 cfs 

Estuaries 

Excess regulatory 

discharges to St. Lucie 

Estuary 

Manage flows to meet 

desirable salinity ranges 

for St. Lucie Estuary 

Number of Times St Lucie High Discharge 

Criteria Exceeded – Mean Monthly Flows > 

3,000 cfs 
Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

3-28 

Problems Objectives Performance Measures 

Number of Times Salinity Envelope Criteria 

NOT Met for St Lucie Estuary – Average 

Monthly Flow < 350 cfs and 14 day moving 

average flow > 2,000 cfs for 14 days1

Number of Times Salinity Envelope Criteria 

NOT Met for the Caloosahatchee Estuary – 

Mean Monthly Flows < 450 cfs and Mean 

Monthly Flows > 2,800 cfs 

Number of Times Caloosahatchee Estuary 

High Discharge Criteria Exceeded – Mean 

Monthly Flows between 2,800 and 4,500 cfs 

Excess regulatory 

discharges to 

Caloosahatchee 

Estuary 

Undesirable low flows 

to the Caloosahatchee 

Estuary 

Manage flows to meet 

desirable salinity ranges 

for Caloosahatchee 

Estuary 

Number of Times Caloosahatchee Estuary 

High Discharge Criteria Exceeded – Mean 

Monthly Flows > 4,500 cfs 

Water Year LOSA Demand Cutback Volumes 

for 7 Years with Largest Cutbacks Water 

Supply 

LOSA and EAA water 

supply shortages 

Avoid increasing the 

frequency, duration, or 

severity of EAA and 

LOSA water supply 

demands not met 

Mean Annual EAA/LOSA Supplemental 

Irrigation Demands Not Met 

 

1

The efficacy of the 350 cfs performance measure for the St. Lucie Estuary is currently being evaluated. This PM 

will be further evaluated during the River Watershed Protection Plan Process. 
SECTION 4 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 4 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

4-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

4.0 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................ 4-1 

4.1 Interagency Coordination.............................................................................................4-1 

4.2 Public Involvement and Stakeholder Notification.......................................................4-6 

4.3 Public Comments......................................................................................................... 4-7

List of Tables 

4-1 Summary of P2TP Interagency Coordination.................................................................. 4-2 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 4 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

4-1 

4.0 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

A concerted effort was made during the P2TP planning process to involve all appropriate and 

relevant agencies and keep the public and stakeholders informed about the project. A public 

outreach initiative (POI) was developed and implemented throughout the planning process. 

Specific objectives of this initiative included the following: 

• Develop and implement an approach that would reach all stakeholders, including minority 

and low-income populations within the P2TP study area 

• Integrate the public outreach efforts with all other aspects of the planning process 

• Take advantage of other on-going public efforts being conducted by the District and 

collaborating agencies as part of other Lake Okeechobee restoration programs 

• Use public outreach tools and materials developed for use by various other agencies and 

programs for education and distribution 

The P2TP POI focused on the four following activities: 

• Interagency Coordination 

• Public Involvement and Stakeholder Notification 

• Outreach to Minority and Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Communities 

• Internal Management and Communication 

4.1 Interagency Coordination 

The legislation authorizing the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program required 

the South Florida Water Management District to work in collaboration with coordinating 

agencies such as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the Florida 

Department of Consumer Affairs (FDACS) to develop the Phase II Technical Plan. 

Input from other agencies was solicited through informal interaction and during stakeholder and 

interagency meetings that were periodically held under initiatives such as: 

• The Water Resources Advisory Commission (WRAC) 

• The WRAC Lake Okeechobee Committee 

• The Northern Everglades Interagency Team 

Table 4-1 identifies the key interagency meetings at which input on Phase II planning was 

actively sought. 
Section 4

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

4-2 

Table 4-1. Summary of P2TP interagency coordination. 

Meeting ID Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Agenda 

Lee County Commissioner Ray 

Judah 

June 8, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Caloosahatchee Partners for 

Restoration 

June 13, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Charlotte Harbor National 

Estuarine Program Executive 

Director Lisa Beever 

June 13, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Sierra Club Regional 

Community Organizer Mari 

Daltry 

June 14, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Purre Water Coalition 

Executive Director Kirk 

Woodbury 

June 21, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Audubon of SW Florida 

President Peter Quasius 

June 21, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Captiva Sanibel Conservation 

Natural Resource Policy 

Director Rae Ann Wessel 

June 22, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

SFWMD GB Member Harkley 

Thornton, Osceola 

Commissioner Ken Smith, 

Osceola Manager, Engineers 

and Osceola Environmental 

Lands Conservation Program 

Coordinator and Osceola Land 

Conservation Advisory Board 

June 26, 2007 Orlando Service Center Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

City of Sanibel Mayor Mick 

Denham 

June 27, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Harbor Branch Field Trip Tour 

to Lake Okeechobee 

June 28, 2007 Okeechobee Service 

Center 

Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

City of Ft. Myers Vice Mayor 

Larry Kiker 

July 2, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Florida Gulf Citrus Growers 

Association Vice President Ron 

Hamel 

July 3, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Martin County Commissioner 

Mike Diterlizzi 

July 3, 2007 Martin County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Martin County Commissioner 

Lee Weberman 

July 3, 2007 Martin County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Martin County Commissioner 

Sara Heard 

July 3, 2007 Martin County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Martin County Commissioner 

Doug Smith 

July 3, 2007 Martin County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Team Meeting 

July 10, 2007 Okeechobee • Introduce key 

planning team 

members to the 

Interagency group 

• Present goals and 

objectives of the 

Phase II planning 

process 
Section 4

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

4-3 

Meeting ID Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Agenda 

• Provide an update on 

the planning process 

PGA National/Devonshire 

Homeowners Association 

July 11, 2007 Palm Beach Gardens Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Water Enhancement and 

Restoration Coalition Director 

Sharon Arnold 

July 12, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

St. Lucie County 

Commissioner Charles Grande 

July 13, 2007 St. Lucie County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

St. Lucie County 

Commissioner Susan Valerie 

July 13, 2007 St. Lucie County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

St. Lucie County 

Commissioner Joe Smith 

July 13, 2007 St. Lucie County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

City of Cape Coral City 

Manager Terry Steward 

July 17, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

TMDL Group – monthly 

meeting with representatives 

from DEP, Martin County, St. 

Lucie County, City of Stuart 

and City of Ft. Pierce 

July 17, 2007 Martin County Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Okeechobee Mainstreet – 

various community leaders 

July 18, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Senator Nelson’s Regional 

Director Diana McGee 

July 18, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

St. Lucie County 

Commissioner Chris Craft 

July 18, 2007 St. Lucie County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

St. Lucie County 

Commissioner Doug Coward 

July 18, 2007 St. Lucie County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Public Meeting at Martin/St. 

Lucie Service Center 

July 18, 2007 Martin County Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

La Posada Retirement 

Community 

July 19, 2007 Palm Beach Gardens Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

City of Sanibel Public Works 

Director Gates Castle 

July 20, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Bonita Bay Group Sr. VP of 

Development Susan Watts 

July 23, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Battle of Okeechobee with 

FDEP 

July 23, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Soil & Water Conservation 

Society Annual Conference 

July 24, 2007 Tampa Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Captiva Sanibel Conservation 

Foundation Executive Director 

Erick Landblat 

July 26, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Everglades Issues Panel / Pine 

Jog Fellows/Florida Atlantic 

University 

July 31, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

St. Lucie County 

Commissioner Paula Lewis 

August 3,2007 St. Lucie County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Babcock Ranch Environmental 

and Planning Steering 

Committee (Charlotte and Lee 

counties; state & regional 

natural resource agencies; and 

environmental groups 

August 8, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Presentation 
Section 4

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

4-4 

Meeting ID Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Agenda 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Group 

August 15, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Ft. Myers City Commission 

Meeting 

August 20, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Hendry County Administrator 

Wayne O’Neal 

August 20, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Florida Citrus Annual Meeting August 22 & 23 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Tabletop Display 

Martin County 101 – quarterly 

class introduces the services of 

Martin County 

August 23, 2007 Martin County Northern Everglades 

Tabletop Display & Fact 

Sheet 

Florida Association of Realtors 

– Land Use Property Rights 

and Environmental Resources 

Committee 

August 24, 2007 Orlando Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Ft. Myers Seniors’ Club 

Meeting 

August 26, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Cape Coral City Commission 

Meeting 

August 27, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Glades County Commissioners 

Russell Echols and Butch Jones 

August 28, 2007 Glades County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Cape Coral Rotary Club August 29, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC August 29, 2007 Martin/St. Lucie Service 

Center 

Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

East County Water Control 

District Executive Director 

David Lindsey 

August 30, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Okeechobee County 

Commissioners Ray Domer, 

Noel Chandler, George Long 

August 30, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Hendry County Engineer Shane 

Parker 

August 31, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Highlands County Board of 

Commissioners 

September 4, 2007 Highlands County Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Group 

September 5, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC September 5, 2007 Naples Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Okeechobee City Commission 

Meeting 

September 5, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

City of La Belle Mayor Paul 

Puletti 

September 5, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Horticulture and Natural 

Resources Committee of the 

Osceola County Extension 

Service 

September 7, 2007 Orlando Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Lee County Commissioner 

Briefing 

September 14, 2007 Lee County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Ten County Coalition Meeting September 14, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Update 

Martin County Medical Center 

Board of Governors 

September 17, 2007 Martin County Northern Everglades 

Update 

Conservancy of SW Florida September 18, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 
Section 4

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

4-5 

Meeting ID Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Agenda 

Update 

City of Ft Myers Councilman September 19, 2007 Ft Myers Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Southwest Florida Regional 

Planning Council 

September 20, 2007 Lower West Coast Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Okeechobee Main Street 

Meeting 

September 24, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Hendry County Commission 

Meeting 

September 25, 2007 Hendry County Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Lee County Commissioner 

Meeting 

September 26, 2007 Lee County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

St. Lucie County Conservation 

Alliance 

September 26, 2007 St. Lucie County Northern Everglades 

Update 

Mitch Hutchcraft October 1, 2007 Lee County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Lykes Brothers October 3, 2007 Okeechobee-Brighton 

Office 

Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Osceola County Commission 

Meeting 

October 8, 2007 Osceola County Northern Everglades 

Update 

Lee County Commissioner Bob 

Jones 

October 8, 2007 Lee County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

YMCA - Newcomers October 9, 2007 Martin County Northern Everglades 

Update 

Governing Board Workshop October 10, 2007 West Palm Beach Northern Everglades 

Update 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Meeting 

October 17, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Update 

Heartland Agricultural Water 

Resources Forum/ Highland 

County Citrus Growers 

Association 

October 24, 2007 Sebring Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Lee County Commissioner 

Brian Bigelow 

October 25, 2007 Lee County Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Great Outdoor Days Event October 28, 2007 Kissimmee Northern Everglades 

Update 

Environmental Protection 

Conference 

October 30, 2007 Lee County Northern Everglades 

Update 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC October 31, 2007 Okeechobee County Northern Everglades 

Update 

WRAC November 8, 2007 West Palm Beach Northern Everglades 

Update 

Governing Board Workshop November 14, 2007 Florida Keys Northern Everglades 

Update 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Meeting 

November 27, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Update 

Lake Okeechobee Phase II 

Technical Plan Public Meeting 

November 27, 2007 Okeechobee Public Workshop on Draft 

Plan 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC November 28, 2007 Clewiston Northern Everglades 

Update 

Lake Okeechobee Phase II 

Technical Plan Public Meeting 

November 28, 2007 Clewiston Public Workshop on Draft 

Plan 

Ten County Coalition November 30, 2007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Update 

FlashPoint Television December 3, 2007 Orlando Northern Everglades 
Section 4

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

4-6 

Meeting ID Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Agenda 

Interview with Carol Wehle Briefing 

Congressman Connie Mack’s 

DC Scott Henderson and Kara 

Moore 

December 3, 2007 Ft. Myers Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Joint Meeting of WRAC/South 

Florida Ecosystem Restoration 

Task Force 

December 5, 2007 Miami Northern Everglades 

Update 

Walt Disney World 

Environmentality Expo Day 

December 6, 2007 Orlando Northern Everglades 

Display 

Lee County Commissioners 

Ray Judah and Carla Palmer 

December 6, 2007 Ft. Myers Northern Everglades 

Update 

Stetson University December 8, 2007 Orlando Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Gulf Citrus Growers 

Association E.V.P. Ron Hamel 

December 10, 2007 Ft. Myers Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Governing Board Workshop December 12, 2007 West Palm Beach Northern Everglades 

Update 

Joint Meeting with Palm Beach 

County Commissioners and 

SFWMD Governing Board 

December 13, 2007 West Palm Beach Northern Everglades 

Update 

Lee County Commissioner 

Frank Mann 

December 17, 2007 Ft. Myers Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Various environmental 

stakeholders 

December 19, 2007 Tallahassee Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Bonita Bay Group S.V.P. December 21, 2007 Ft. Myers Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Queens University of London 

Group 

January 1, 2008 Okeechobee Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Combined Lake Okeechobee 

Committee and WRAC 

January 3, 2008 West Palm Beach Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

SFWMD Governing Board January 8, 2008 Miami Northern Everglades 

Briefing and Plan 

Acceptance 

4.2 Public Involvement and Stakeholder Notification 

The objectives of the public outreach effort for the Phase II planning process were to achieve the 

following goals: 

• Increase public awareness of the overall goals and objectives of the NEEPP 

• Inform the public and receive input regarding the project goals, objectives, progress, issues 

and findings 

• Involve stakeholders, agencies, Tribes and other interested groups and individuals as the plan 

was developed, to ensure that public values regarding the project were fully considered 

• Reduce potential conflict among interested and affected parties by building consensus 

solutions to emerging issues 

• Improve the substantive quality of project-level decisions as a result of public participation 

• Increase public trust in the South Florida Water Management District and the other agencies 

involved in the planning process 
Section 4

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

4-7 

4.3 Public Comments 

Public, stakeholders, and agencies were invited to review and provide comments on the Draft 

P2TP. Over 100 comments were received over the four week public comment period (Appendix 

E). These comments were considered during the finalization of the P2TP. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
SECTION 5 

WATER QUALITY DATA ANALYSES
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

5.0 WATER QUALITY DATA ANALYSES....................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................5-1 

5.2 Sub-watershed Water Quality Profiles.........................................................................5-1 

5.2.1 Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed........................................................................5-1 

5.2.1.1 Land Uses......................................................................................................... 5-4 

5.2.1.2 Total Phosphorus (TP) Loads and Concentrations .......................................... 5-7 

5.2.1.3 Other Contaminants of Concern ......................................................................5-7 

5.2.2 Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed .......................................................................5-8 

5.2.2.1 Land Uses......................................................................................................... 5-8 

5.2.2.2 TP Loads and Concentrations ..........................................................................5-8 

5.2.2.3 Other Contaminants of Concern ......................................................................5-9 

5.2.3 Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Sub-watershed ....................................................5-10 

5.2.3.1 Land Uses....................................................................................................... 5-10 

5.2.3.2 TP Loads and Concentrations ........................................................................5-10 

5.2.3.3 Other Contaminants of Concern ....................................................................5-10 

5.2.4 Lake Istokpoga Sub-watershed..........................................................................5-10 

5.2.4.1 Land Uses....................................................................................................... 5-12 

5.2.4.2 TP Loads and Concentrations ........................................................................5-12 

5.2.4.3 Other Contaminants of Concern ....................................................................5-12 

5.2.5 Indian Prairie Basins Sub-watershed ................................................................. 5-12 

5.2.5.1 Land Uses....................................................................................................... 5-13 

5.2.5.2 TP Loads and Concentrations ........................................................................5-14 

5.2.5.3 Other Contaminants of Concern ....................................................................5-15 

5.2.6 Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed........................................................................ 5-15 

5.2.6.1 Land Uses....................................................................................................... 5-15 

5.2.6.2 TP Loads and Concentrations ........................................................................5-15 

5.2.6.3 Other Contaminants of Concern ....................................................................5-15 

5.2.7 West Lake Okeechobee Sub-Watershed............................................................ 5-15 

5.2.7.1 Land Uses....................................................................................................... 5-15 

5.2.7.2 TP Loads and Concentrations ........................................................................5-16 

5.2.7.3 Other Contaminants of Concern ....................................................................5-17 

5.2.8 EAA Sub-watershed........................................................................................... 5-18 

5.2.8.1 Land Uses....................................................................................................... 5-19 

5.2.8.2 TP Loads and Concentrations ........................................................................5-19 

5.2.8.3 Other Contaminants of Concern ....................................................................5-19 

5.2.9 East Lake Okeechobee Sub-watershed ..............................................................5-19 

5.2.9.1 Land Uses....................................................................................................... 5-19 

5.2.9.2 TP Loads and Concentrations ........................................................................5-19 

5.2.9.3 Other Contaminants of Concern ....................................................................5-20 

5.3 Relationship Between Sub-watershed Flows and TP Loads...................................... 5-21 

5.4 Assessment of Water Quality Improvement Needs - LOPP vs. P2TP ......................5-22 

5.4.1 LOPP Assessed Water Quality Needs ...............................................................5-22 

5.4.2 P2TP Water Quality Assessment Needs............................................................5-23 

5.5 Water Quality Analysis Conclusions.........................................................................5-23 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

List of Tables 

5-1 Summary of average annual flows and TP loads to Lake Okeechobee (1991-2005) for 

each sub-watershed .......................................................................................................... 5-2

5-2 Summary of projected Lake Okeechobee TP load reductions associated with LOPP 

recommended projects and initiatives.............................................................................. 5-3 

5-3 Distribution of land use by sub-watershed in the Lake Okeechobee watershed.............. 5-6 

5-4 TP load reduction required to meet FDEP’s total phosphorus (TP) TMDL for Lake 

Okeechobee (1991-2000)............................................................................................... 5-23 

5-5 LOPP TP load reduction estimates ................................................................................ 5-24 

List of Figures 

5-1 Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed.................................................................................... 5-4 

5-2 2006 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Land Uses................................................................ 5-5 

5-3 Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed ................................................................................... 5-9 

5-4 Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Sub-watershed ................................................................ 5-11 

5-5 Lake Istokpoga Sub-watershed...................................................................................... 5-13 

5-6 Indian Prairie Basins Sub-watershed ............................................................................. 5-14 

5-7 Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed.................................................................................... 5-16 

5-8 West Lake Okeechobee Sub-watershed......................................................................... 5-17 

5-9 EAA Sub-watershed....................................................................................................... 5-18 

5-10 East Lake Okeechobee Sub-watershed .......................................................................... 5-20 

5-11 Comparison of total Lake Okeechobee inflows to TP loads (1991-2005)..................... 5-21 

5-12 Total Lake Okeechobee inflows vs. total phosphorus (TP) loads after LOPP 

recommended projects are in place................................................................................ 5-22 
Section 5

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-1 

5.0 WATER QUALITY DATA ANALYSES 

5.1 Introduction 

Existing water quality in the Lake Okeechobee watershed (LOW) is significantly influenced by 

the various land use and land management practices within the individual sub-watersheds and 

drainage basins (Hiscock et al., 2003; Zhang et al.; 2002). The current distribution of land use in 

the LOW is illustrated in Figure 5-1. Phosphorus, in particular, has been identified as a nutrient 

of major concern in the surface runoff in the LOW (Davis and Marshall; 1975, Fredrico et al., 

1981; Joyner, 1972). Average annual flows, phosphorus loads, and concentrations for individual 

sub-watersheds, based on a 15 year average for the period 1991 to 2005, are shown in Table 5-1. 

These phosphorus loads represent existing conditions for LOW water quality. 

Numerous regional and site specific phosphorus source control projects are either currently being 

implemented or are identified for future implementation at various locations in the LOW under 

the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (LOPP) (SFWMD et al., 2007). Cumulatively, these 

projects are expected to contribute towards reducing total phosphorus (TP) loading to Lake 

Okeechobee. The predicted phosphorus load reductions under various activities or management 

measures for each sub-watershed are shown in Table 5-2. The goal of the LOPP is to meet a 

total phosphorus TMDL mandated annual average discharge of 105 metric tons per year (mt/yr) 

from the watershed. The Lake Istokpoga sub-watershed contributes flow to Lake Istokpoga. 

Phosphorus load reductions in the Lake Istokpoga sub-watershed are buffered by Lake Istokpoga 

and are not counted toward the TP load reduction listed in Table 5-2. 

5.2 Sub-watershed Water Quality Profiles 

As previously described in Section 2.3.2, the LOW can be broadly divided into nine subwatersheds based upon hydrologic drainage boundaries (Figure 2-1). Water quality conditions 

within each sub-watershed vary considerably depending upon existing land uses, land 

management practices, and the magnitude of water quality improvement projects that were either 

implemented in the recent past or are currently being implemented. Many areas in the LOW are 

undergoing rapid urbanization. These land use changes, however, are not expected to adversely 

impact water quantity and quality due to new, more stringent regulatory requirements that are 

currently under development. 

5.2.1 Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed 

The Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed (Figure 5-1) is the largest of the nine sub-watersheds, 

covering just over a million acres or 30 percent of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed. This subwatershed includes all of the areas drained by tributaries to Lake Kissimmee including Lakes 

Kissimmee, Marian, Weohyakapka, Tiger, Rosalie, Pierce, Hatchineha, Cypress, Task, Marion, 

Gentry, Alligator, Conlin, Russel, Tohopekaliga, East Tohopekaliga, Myrtle, Hart, Conway, 

Butler, Tibet Butler, Sawgrass, Boggy Marsh, Reedy Creek, Shingle Creek, and Boggy Creek. 

The major canals conveying water within the Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed include C-29A, 

C-30, C-31, C-32C, C-33, C-34, C-35, and C-37.
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

5-2 

Table 5-1. Summary of average annual flows and TP loads to Lake Okeechobee (1991-2005) for each 

Sub-watershed

Area 

(acres)

Average Annual 

Discharge) 

(ac-ft)

Average Annual P 

Load 

(mt)

Upper Kissimmee (S-65) 1,021,674 954,204 91 Lower Kissimmee (S-65A,B,C,D,E) 429,283 378,836 77 Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (S-191,154,133,135) 198,299 187,583 124 Lake Istokpoga (S-68) 392,147 299,656 23 Indian Prairie Basins (12 basins) 294,147 249,175 89 Fisheating Creek & Nicodemus Slough (Culvert 5) 315,007 224,368 55 West Lake Okeechobee Basin (S-77) 200,993 5,835 1 EAA Basins 361,707 149,488 33 East Lake Okeechobee Basins (C-44, L-8) 237,831 109,134 20 Total 3,451,087 2,558,279 514 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

5-3 

Table 5-2. Summary of projected Lake Okeechobee TP load reductions associated with LOPP recomme

initiatives. 

Sub-Watershed 

Baseline TP Load 

(1991- 2005) 

(mt) 

Projected TP Load 

After All LOPP 

Recommended 

Projects are in 

place 

(mt) 

Projected TP L

Reduction 

Achieved by LO

Recommende

Projects* 

(mt) 

Upper Kissimmee 91 78 13 Lower Kissimmee 78 21 57 Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough 124 42 82 Lake Istokpoga 23 23 0 Indian Prairie Basins 89 51 38 Fisheating Creek 55 39 16 West Lake Okeechobee Basins 1 1 0 EAA 33 12 21 East Lake Okeechobee Basins 20 8 12 Total 514 275 239 *Baseline load for LOPP, which used a 10-year period of record (1991-2000) was 433 mt. 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-4 

Figure 5-1. Upper Kissimmee River Sub-watershed. 

5.2.1.1 Land Uses 

More than half (55 percent) of the current land use in this sub-watershed (approximately 570,000 

acres) is classified as natural and woodland/rangeland (James and Zhang, 2008) (Figure 5-2, 

Table 5-3). Approximately 207,000 acres (roughly 20 percent) are classified as urban. This is 

more than half of the total urban development in the entire LOW. This sub-watershed also 

includes more than 130,000 acres (13 percent) of improved pasture. Only the Lower Kissimmee 

sub-watershed contains more improved pasture. 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-5 

Figure 5-2. 2006 Lake Okeechobee watershed land uses. (Source: James and Zhang, 2008) 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

5-6 

Table 5-3. Distribution of land use by sub-watershed in the Lake Okeechobee watershe

Land Use Entire Watershed Upper Kissimmee Lower Kissimmee (S65A-E) 

Taylor 

Creek/Nubbin 

Slough (S191, 

S154, S133, 

S135) 

Lake 

Istokpoga 

Indian 

Prairie 

(12 

basins) 

Fisheating 

Creek and 

Nic. Slough 

Acres % Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres 

Citrus 234,629 7% 57,478 11,666 3,572 55,918 30,331 12,542 Dairy 22,432 1% 0 5,950 11,085 3,031 177 26 Improved Pasture 674,356 20% 133,437 134,894 86,186 48,228 108,424 90,779 Natural Areas 1,282,267 37% 529,079 146,449 38,989 173,433 72,880 122,189 Ornamentals 4,687 0% 187 12 542 348 2,667 541 Other Areas 27,567 1% 8,396 2,358 1,517 3,626 1,707 4,583 Row Crops 23,157 1% 3,391 7,814 817 1,646 3,456 235 Sod Farms 39,081 1% 9,505 2,335 2,314 2,933 10,222 2,448 Sugarcane 399,711 12% 9,123 12,674 7,220 Tree Plantations 49,687 1% 3,743 8,358 12,710 58 17,919 Unimproved Pasture 140,249 4% 27,828 23,468 1,090 24,374 28,845 19,595 Woodland/Rangeland 184,381 5% 41,623 64,220 3,620 14,924 15,720 32,720 Urban 368,884 11% 207,006 21,758 39,444 50,976 6,987 4,209 Total 3,451,088 100% 1,021,673 429,282 198,299 392,147 294,148 315,006 

Source: James and Zhang, 2008
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-7 

5.2.1.2 Total Phosphorus (TP) Loads and Concentrations 

The Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed is the largest contributor of flows to Lake Okeechobee. 

For the 1991-2005 period of record (POR), this sub-watershed contributed 91 metric tons/year 

(mt/yr) of total phosphorus at a flow-weighted concentration of 78 ppb (Table 5-1). Overall the 

Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed contributes approximately 37 percent of the total flow volume 

and 18 percent of the TP load to Lake Okeechobee. It is recognized that since 2001 TP loads 

have increased in this sub-watershed. 

The Kissimmee River Headwaters Revitalization Project, which is focused on this subwatershed, is to provide the water storage and regulation schedule modifications needed to 

approximate the historical flow characteristics of the Kissimmee River system and to increase 

the quantity and quality of lake littoral zone habitat in Lakes Kissimmee, Hatchineha, Tiger, and 

Cypress for the benefit of fish and wildlife. Some phosphorus load attenuation will also occur as 

a result of the restoration of natural flows patterns through headwaters. The exact amount of 

load reduction achieved by the restoration project has not been determined. Preliminary 

estimates indicate that between the Upper and Lower Kissimmee sub-watersheds, the TP load 

reduction could be as much as 20 mt/yr. 

However, any reduction in external TP loading to Lakes Kissimmee, Cypress, and Hatchineha is 

not likely to result in immediate improvements in water quality as these lake sediments are a 

source of dissolved phosphorus (White et al., 2003). It may take many years for this phosphorus 

source to be depleted once TP loads to these lakes have been reduced (Mock*Roos, 2003) 

Portions of the Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed are projected to experience a significant 

increase in urbanization over the foreseeable future. By 2060 urban acreage in Central Florida is 

forecasted to increase by as much as 27 percent. However, these land use changes are not 

expected to adversely impact water quantity and quality due to new more stringent regulatory 

requirements. 

Many different types of owner-implemented BMPs, typical cost-share BMPs, additional BMPs, 

and regional public works projects are planned for implementation in this sub-watershed under 

the LOPP. BMP implementation in this basin is necessary for the long-term protection of Lakes 

Kissimmee, Cypress, and Hatchineha, as well as downstream areas and Lake Okeechobee. 

These source control efforts are currently underway but have not been fully implemented. 

Therefore current water quality data does not reflect improvements that are anticipated with full 

BMP implementation. 

5.2.1.3 Other Contaminants of Concern 

FDEP and EPA maintain a list of impaired water bodies in accordance with Section 303(d) of the 

Clean Water Act. According to Section 303(d) and Section 403.067, F.S., impaired waters are 

defined as, “those not meeting applicable water quality standards, a broad term that includes 

designated uses, water quality criteria, the Florida anti-degradation policy, and moderating 

provisions.” 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-8 

In the Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed, 17 water bodies were identified as impaired due to 

excessive nutrients in the FDEP’s February 2006 Verified Impaired Waters List. Mercury and 

low dissolved oxygen levels were each found to cause impairment to 11 and 5 water bodies, 

respectively. Other contaminants that caused impairment were copper, lead, and fecal coliforms. 

Pursuant to the Governor’s 2005 Lake Okeechobee & Estuary Recovery (LOER) Plan, nutrient 

related TMDLs in the Kissimmee Basin that were originally scheduled to be completed in 2010 / 

2011, have been accelerated for completion by December 31, 2007. The pollutant reductions 

necessary to restore water quality will be implemented as quickly as possible with local 

stakeholders through the implementation of Basin Management Action Plans (BMAPs). Lower 

priority, non-nutrient related TMDLs will be developed by 2010/2011. 

Waterbodies in the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes (KCOL) under nutrient TMDL development 

include lakes: Marion, Davenport, Underhill, Holden, Pineloch, Copeland, Olive, Clear, Lorna 

Doone, Mann, Cane, Catherine, Rock, Butler, Cypress, and Kissimmee (Per. Comm. Pat Fricano, 

FDEP). 

5.2.2 Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed 

The 429,283 acre Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed lies between the outlet of Lake Kissimmee 

(S-65) and the C-38 inflow structure to Lake Okeechobee (S-65E) (Figure 5-3). Two of the four 

“priority” basins, namely S-65D and S-65E identified in the original Lake Okeechobee Surface 

Water Improvement (SWIM) Plan (SFWMD 1989), are located in this sub-watershed. The 

primary water management features are C-38 (Kissimmee River) and S-65A, S-65C, S-65D, and 

S-65E. 

When completed, the federally authorized Kissimmee River Restoration Project will restore over 

40 square miles of river/floodplain ecosystem, including 43 miles of meandering river channel 

and 27,000 acres of wetlands in this sub-watershed. 

5.2.2.1 Land Uses 

The primary land uses in this sub-watershed are natural areas (146,000 acres), improved pasture 

(135,000 acres), and woodland/rangeland (64,000 acres) which account for 34, 31, and 15 

percent, respectively of the total acreage in this sub-watershed (Figure 5-2, Table 5-3). 

5.2.2.2 TP Loads and Concentrations 

The average TP loading (1991-2005) is approximately 77 mt/yr with an average annual TP 

concentration of 166 ppb (Table 5-1). Implementation of LOPP-mandated BMPs, watershed 

phosphorus-source control projects, regional public works, and the Kissimmee River Restoration 

Project are estimated to cumulatively reduce TP loads to Lake Okeechobee by 57 mt/yr. 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-9 

5.2.2.3 Other Contaminants of Concern 

In the Lower Kissimmee sub-watershed, two water bodies were identified as impaired due to 

excessive nutrients in the FDEP’s February 2006 Verified Impaired Waters List. Low dissolved 

oxygen levels caused of impairments to three water bodies. 

Figure 5-3. Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-10 

5.2.3 Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Sub-watershed 

The Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (TCNS) sub-watershed (Figure 5-4) is located directly 

northeast of Lake Okeechobee and is bounded by the Kissimmee River to the west. The primary 

water management features in this 198,299 acre sub-watershed are S-191, S-135, S-154, C-59, L63N, L-63S, L-64, L-65, and L-47. Two of the four priority basins, S-191 and S-154, are located 

in this sub-watershed. 

5.2.3.1 Land Uses 

Almost half (86,186 acres) of the acreage is improved pasture (Figure 5-2, Table 5-3). Natural 

areas and urban land each constitute about 20 percent of the sub-watershed’s acreage. This subwatershed contains almost half (11,085 acres) of the dairy land in the entire Lake Okeechobee 

watershed. Dairy farms are contributors to phosphorus runoff in this sub-watershed (Bottcher, 

2006). 

5.2.3.2 TP Loads and Concentrations 

The TCNS sub-watershed contributes 7 percent of the total average annual flow volume to Lake 

Okeechobee, but it accounts for almost 24 percent of the TP load. The average TP loading for 

the 1991-2005 POR was approximately 124 mt/yr with an average annual TP concentration of 

537 ppb. 

The priority basins, S-191 and S-154, have extensive TP reduction projects and BMPs have been 

constructed and are being planned. A total of 74,874 acres in the sub-watershed have been 

designated for BMP implementation, 41,188 of which have been currently funded. Ongoing and 

planned LOPP-mandated BMPs, watershed phosphorus-source control projects, and regional 

projects are estimated to reduce TP loads to Lake Okeechobee by 66 percent (82 mt/yr). 

5.2.3.3 Other Contaminants of Concern 

Eight water bodies were identified as impaired due to excessive nutrients in the FDEP’s March 

2003 Amended Verified Impaired Waters List. Low dissolved oxygen levels caused impairment 

to three water bodies. 

5.2.4 Lake Istokpoga Sub-watershed 

The 392,147 acre Lake Istokpoga sub-watershed (Figure 5-5) is located generally to the west 

and north (upstream) of Lake Istokpoga and is largely characterized by natural lands and other 

low intensity land uses. It is the source of inflows to Lake Istokpoga and includes (from south to 

north): Lake Istokpoga, Lake Placid, Lake June in Winter, Lake Josephine, Lake Jackson, Lake 

Arbuckle, and Arbuckle Creek, Lake Livingston, Reedy Lake, and Crooked Lake. 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-11 

Figure 5-4. Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Sub-watershed 

The primary outlet of water from Lake Istokpoga is through the S-68 structure, which releases 

water through a series of canals southeastward to both Lake Okeechobee and the Kissimmee 

River. Structure G-85, located on the Istokpoga Canal, is an antiquated structure constructed by 

private interests and later adopted by the District. Although this structure could discharge from 

Lake Istokpoga to the Kissimmee River, it typically remains closed. G-85 is scheduled for 

replacement as part of the Kissimmee River Restoration Project. 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-12 

5.2.4.1 Land Uses 

Almost half of the acreage (173,433 acres) is classified as natural area (Figure 5-2, Table 5-3). 

An additional 39,000 acres are classified as woodland/rangeland or unimproved pasture. As a 

result, more than half of the acreage in this sub-watershed is dominated by low intensity land 

uses. A reduction of high lake levels has provided the catalyst for development around the 

lakeshore, including agriculture (citrus and caladium farms), pasture land, and residential and 

commercial establishments. 

Many lakeside areas that once flooded seasonally or infrequently are now drained (MFLs for 

Lake Istokpoga, 11/7/2005). As a result, the sub-watershed also includes more than 50,000 acres 

of urban development, the majority of which are concentrated adjacent to its numerous lakes. 

Citrus land constitutes more than 14 percent of the sub-watershed area with a total of 55,918 

acres. 

5.2.4.2 TP Loads and Concentrations 

Under existing conditions (1991-2005), the average TP load from Lake Istokpoga to Lake 

Okeechobee (as measured at S-68) is 23 mt/yr with an average annual TP concentration of 63 

ppb. The planned implementation of LOPP-mandated owner-implemented, typical cost-share, 

and additional BMPs will result in a total TP load reduction to Lake Istokpoga of more than 8 

mt/yr. 

However, the projected TP load reduction is not likely to carry forward to Lake Okeechobee as 

the Lake Istokpoga sediments are expected to buffer any reductions. Nevertheless, BMP 

implementation in this sub-watershed is necessary for the long-term protection of Lake 

Istokpoga, as well as Lake Okeechobee. 

5.2.4.3 Other Contaminants of Concern 

Four water bodies were identified as impaired due to excessive nutrients in the FDEP’s March 

2003 Amended Verified Impaired Waters List. Fecal coliform caused impairment in one water 

body. Dissolved oxygen levels and mercury in fish tissue caused impairments to two and five 

water bodies, respectively. 

5.2.5 Indian Prairie Basins Sub-watershed 

The Indian Prairie Basins sub-watershed is located between Lake Istokpoga, the Kissimmee 

River to the east, and northwest of Lake Okeechobee (Figure 5-6). The primary water 

management features are the Indian Prairie Canal (C-40), Harney Pond Canal (C-41), and C-41A 

which convey water to Lake Okeechobee. Total land area in this sub-watershed is estimated at 

294,147 acres. 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-13 

Figure 5-5. Lake Istokpoga Sub-watershed 

 

5.2.5.1 Land Uses 

Land use is dominated by improved pasture area (108,424 acres) which accounts for 37 percent 

of the basin’s total acreage (Figure 5-2, Table 5-3). The basin also includes significant 

agricultural acreages for citrus (30,000 acres), row crops (3,400 acres), sod farms (10,000 acres), 

caladium (2,700 acres), and sugarcane (almost 13,000 acres). Lake Placid, which lies in this subwatershed, calls itself the “Caladium Capital of the World.” 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-14 

5.2.5.2 TP Loads and Concentrations 

For the 1991- 2005 POR, average TP loading was estimated at 89 mt/yr with average annual TP 

concentrations of 289 ppb. This sub-watershed contributes about 10 percent of the total average 

annual flow volume and 17 percent of the average annual TP loading to Lake Okeechobee. 

Implementation of planned and ongoing BMPs, watershed phosphorus-control projects, and 

regional public works under LOPP are projected to reduce TP loading by 37 mt/yr. 

Figure 5-6. Indian Prairie Basins Sub-Watershed 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-15 

5.2.5.3 Other Contaminants of Concern 

Two water bodies were identified as impaired due to excessive nutrients and low dissolved 

oxygen levels in FDEP’s March 2003 Amended Verified Impaired Waters List.

5.2.6 Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed 

The Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed includes the entire drainage areas of Fisheating Creek and 

Nicodemus Slough (Figure 5-7). It is located to the west and northwest of Lake Okeechobee 

and covers approximately 315,007 acres. Fisheating Creek is the only remaining naturally 

flowing tributary to Lake Okeechobee. Nicodemus Slough flows are discharged to Lake 

Okeechobee via Culvert 5A. 

5.2.6.1 Land Uses 

The lower portion of Fisheating Creek is predominantly natural and is characterized by wetlands 

and forested areas (Figure 5-2, Table 5-3). Much of the land (about 60,000 acres) adjacent to 

the lower reaches of the creek is covered under a State controlled conservation easement that 

conserves and protects natural communities along the shores of Fisheating Creek. The State 

plans to acquire additional lands for conservation in this area. In the upper reaches of Fisheating 

Creek, major land uses include citrus, improved pasture, and tree plantations. 

5.2.6.2 TP Loads and Concentrations 

For the 1991-2005 POR, average annual TP loading is approximately 55 mt/yr with an average 

annual TP concentration of 199 ppb. Planned and ongoing implementation of various types of 

BMPs under LOPP should reduce TP loading to about 39 mt/yr, a 29 percent reduction. 

5.2.6.3 Other Contaminants of Concern 

Only one water body was identified as impaired due to excessive nutrients, low dissolved 

oxygen, and high iron levels in the FDEP’s March 2003 Amended Verified Impaired Waters 

List. The iron impairment was thought to be a naturally occurring condition from ground water 

seepage into the creek (Kissimmee River/Fisheating Creek Assessment Report, FDEP 2006). 

5.2.7 West Lake Okeechobee Sub-Watershed 

The West Lake Okeechobee sub-watershed has a total acreage of 200,993 acres and is located 

directly southwest of Lake Okeechobee (Figure 5-8). This sub-watershed includes Lake 

Hicpochee, the Caloosahatchee River (C-43), C-19, L-306, L-42, and L-2W. 

5.2.7.1 Land Uses 

Only 31 percent of the sub-watershed is natural area or forest land. Dominant land uses are 

citrus (24,000 acres), improved pasture (48,000 acres), and sugarcane (37,000 acres) (Figure 5-

2, Table 5-3). 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-16 

Figure 5-7. Fisheating Creek sub-watershed 

5.2.7.2 TP Loads and Concentrations 

The average annual flows and loads into Lake Okeechobee from the East Caloosahatchee River 

are very small. Flows only occur when extreme low Lake Okeechobee stages are below the 

normal operating level of C-43. As a result, average TP load to Lake Okeechobee from this subwatershed is approximately 1 mt/yr with an average annual TP concentration of 139 ppb. 

Implementation of LOPP-mandated BMPs in this sub-watershed will primarily improve water 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-17 

quality discharged to C-43 and the Caloosahatchee Estuary; it is expected to have minimal 

impacts, if any, on Lake Okeechobee inflows. 

5.2.7.3 Other Contaminants of Concern 

One water body was identified as impaired due to excessive nutrients in FDEP’s June 2005 

Verified Impaired List. Two water bodies were impaired due to high lead and iron levels. Low 

dissolved oxygen levels and fecal coliforms caused one water body to be impaired. 

Figure 5-8. West Lake Okeechobee Sub-watershed 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-18 

5.2.8 EAA Sub-watershed 

The Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) consists of several basins that are located directly 

southeast of Lake Okeechobee (Figure 5-9) and occupies 361,707 acres. Major hydrologic 

features in this sub-watershed include C-21, L-1, L-1E, L-26, L-25, L-21, L-19, L-20, L-14, L10, L-12, and L-13. 

Figure 5-9. EAA Sub-watershed. 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-19 

5.2.8.1 Land Uses 

The primary land use in the EAA is sugarcane (320,590 acres), which accounts for almost 90 

percent of the total acreage (Figure 5-2, Table 5-3). The other land uses (natural areas, urban 

centers, and sod farms) each account for 5 percent of the total basin area. 

5.2.8.2 TP Loads and Concentrations 

For the 1991-2005 POR, average TP loading is 33 mt/yr with an average annual TP 

concentration of 177 ppb. The 1994 Everglades Forever Act requires EAA landowners to reduce 

the total phosphorus in their runoff by 25 percent. In the past years, landowners have generally 

surpassed this goal. 

Several non-LOPP projects are slated for implementation in this sub-watershed such as the EAA 

storage reservoir (CERP); diversion of 298 District flows (Everglades Construction Project) and 

BMPs under Chapter 40E-61, F.A.C. and Chapter 40E-63, F.A.C. These regional public works 

projects along with LOPP-mandated BMPs are expected to reduce TP-loads from this subwatershed by over 60 percent (approximately 21 mt/yr). 

5.2.8.3 Other Contaminants of Concern 

A total of 14 water bodies were identified as impaired due to excessive nutrients in FDEP’s 

October 2005 303(d) list. Low dissolved oxygen caused impairment in ten water bodies. High 

chlorophyll-a, turbidity, and mercury were also signs of impairment. 

5.2.9 East Lake Okeechobee Sub-watershed 

The 237,831 acre East Lake Okeechobee Sub-watershed is located directly east of Lake 

Okeechobee and includes the St. Lucie Canal (C-44) and L-8 Basin (Figure 5-10). The L-8 

canal conveys excess storm water from Lake Okeechobee and agricultural areas. 

5.2.9.1 Land Uses 

About 56 percent of the acreage in this sub-watershed is classified as natural areas or forested 

(Figure 5-2). This sub-watershed also contains the largest acreage of citrus (39,000 acres) in the 

Lake Okeechobee watershed area. Approximately 13,000 acres are under sugarcane cultivation. 

5.2.9.2 TP Loads and Concentrations 

For the 1991-2005 POR, average TP loading to Lake Okeechobee is approximately 20 mt/yr 

with an average annual TP concentration of 151 ppb. The Lake Okeechobee and Estuary 

Recovery (LOER) Program requires the implementation of mandatory fertilizer BMPs, 

Environmental Resource Permitting revisions, and storage/disposal plans for excess surface 

water in an effort to protect the St. Lucie Estuary. These measures along with LOPP-mandated 

BMPs, regional public works, and other regional projects are expected to reduce the total TP 

load to Lake Okeechobee by 12 mt/yr. 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-20 

5.2.9.3 Other Contaminants of Concern 

One water body was identified as being impaired due to excessive nutrients in FEDP’s October 

2005 303(d) list. Low dissolved oxygen and high chlorophyll-a, and copper were identified as 

other contaminants of concern. 

Figure 5-10. East Lake Okeechobee Sub-watershed. 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-21 

5.3 Relationship Between Sub-watershed Flows and TP Loads 

Flows and accompanying total phosphorus (TP) loads from each sub-watershed were analyzed 

for the 1991 to 2005 POR and for the future after all LOPP recommended projects were 

implemented to identify those sub-watersheds with disproportionately large TP loads. These 

sub-watersheds would be targeted by the P2TP for application of water quality improvement 

measures. 

Figure 5-11 shows the percent of the total inflow vs. the percent of the TP loading contributed to 

Lake Okeechobee from each of the sub-watersheds for the 1991-2005 POR. Sub-watersheds that 

contribute greater TP loads relative to flows lie above the diagonal line. Conversely, subwatersheds that discharge greater flows relative to TP loads lie below the diagonal line. The 

figure shows that TCNS and the Indian Prairie Basins sub-watersheds discharge 

disproportionately high TP loads under existing conditions. The Upper Kissimmee and Lake 

Istokpoga sub-watersheds discharge relatively low TP loads to Lake Okeechobee. 

Figure 5-11. Comparison of total Lake Okeechobee inflows to TP loads (1991-2005). 

When all LOPP recommended strategies are implemented and become fully operational, the TP 

loads to Lake Okeechobee are projected to decline dramatically. The sub-watersheds that 

contribute disproportionately high percentages of the remaining TP loads, however, remain the 

same (Figure 5-12). Indian Prairie, TCNS, and Fisheating Creek sub-watersheds will contribute 

West Lake O

East Lake O

Upp Kiss

Low Kiss

TCNS

Istok

Indian Prairie

FEC 

EAA

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

% Total Average Annual Inflow

% Total Lake P Loa

d
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-22 

significantly greater TP loads relative to their total Lake Okeechobee inflows. The large 

reductions in TP loads from the TCNS sub-watershed expected to be accomplished under LOPP 

will bring this sub-watershed closer to a condition where TP loading is proportional to its flow 

contribution. 

Figure 5-12. Total Lake Okeechobee inflows vs. total phosphorus (TP) loads after LOPP 

recommended projects are in place. 

5.4 Assessment of Water Quality Improvement Needs - LOPP vs. P2TP 

5.4.1 LOPP Assessed Water Quality Needs 

Based on 1991 to 2000 POR, the 2007 LOPP Update (SFWMD, 2007) reported an annual 

average Lake Okeechobee TP loading of 433 mt/yr. Allowing for the 105 mt/yr that can be 

discharged under the TMDL this meant that LOPP had to reduce TP loading by 328 mt/yr (433 

mt – 105 mt) (Table 5-4). Note that the TMDL is based on a five-year rolling average and the 

load reduction required to achieve it will vary as the five-year rolling average is updated. 

Table 5-5 summarizes the TP load reduction associated with different initiatives that are 

recommended for implementation in the LOW by the 2007 LOPP Update. The LOPP 

recommended initiatives and strategies are projected to cumulatively remove 370 mt/yr, which 

surpasses the TP load reduction needed to achieve the TMDL. 

Low Kiss EAA

East Lake O

Up Kiss

TCNS

Istok

Indian Prairie

FEC

West Lake O 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

% Total Average Annual Inflow

% Total Lake P Loa

d
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-23 

Table 5-4. TP load reduction required to meet FDEP’s total phosphorus (TP) 

TMDL for Lake Okeechobee (1991-2000). 

FDEP’s Total Phosphorus TMDL for Lake Okeechobee (calculated as a five-year rolling 

average) 

140 mt/yr 

Atmospheric deposition 35 mt/yr 

Permitted watershed loading 105 mt/yr 

Measured watershed loading (1991-2000) (Baseline) 433 mt/yr 

Load reduction needed to achieve TMDL 328 mt/yr 

These projected LOPP TP load reductions are based on the assumption that BMPs, watershed 

phosphorus-source control projects, regional projects and strategies will be appropriately funded 

in a timely manner, implemented where recommended, and will perform as intended. The 

difference between the total TP load reduction needed to meet the TMDL (328 mt/yr) and the 

projected LOPP load reduction (370 mt/yr) is expected to provide a contingency in case some of 

the recommended projects are not implemented or do not perform at the levels intended. The 

contingency also recognizes the high loads that the Lake has experienced over the last five years. 

5.4.2 P2TP Water Quality Assessment Needs 

Although the LOPP used the 10-year POR (1991–2000), the P2TP is based upon a 15-year POR 

(1991–2005). Measured watershed loading for this 15-year POR was estimated at 514 mt/yr, 

which is 81 mt/yr greater than the baseline TP load for the LOPP 1991–2000 POR (Table 5-2). 

The additional five-year period (2001 – 2005) includes years dominated by above average annual 

inflow volumes. Since annual inflow volumes are closely correlated to TP loading, the addition 

of the five-year period of record resulted in a significant increase in the average annual TP loads 

(81 mt/yr) addressed in the P2TP. The P2TP will identify strategies to remove this additional 81 

mt/yr of TP in order to meet the total phosphorus TMDL for Lake Okeechobee. 

5.5 Water Quality Analysis Conclusions 

• Existing water quality in the Lake Okeechobee watershed is significantly influenced by the 

various land use and land management practices within the individual sub-watersheds and 

drainage basins. 

• In the future, implementation of Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan recommended best 

management practices (BMPs) and other total phosphorus reduction measures are expected 

to significantly reduce phosphorus loading. However, measured phosphorus reductions in 

the lake waters are likely to be substantially delayed because of the residual phosphorus in 

soils within the watershed (legacy phosphorus) and lake sediments. 

• Implementation of BMPs in areas that contribute flows to Lake Istokpoga and Lakes 

Kissimmee, Cypress, and Hatchineha are expected to reduce phosphorus loading to these 

lakes. While the load reductions to these upstream lakes are not expected to provide an 

immediate benefit to Lake Okeechobee, implementation of BMPs in these sub-watersheds is 

necessary to protect water quality in the lakes themselves and to ensure the long-term ability 

to assimilate phosphorus and protect Lake Okeechobee 
Section 5 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

5-24 

Table 5-5. LOPP TP load reduction estimates. 

 Estimated 

TP Load 

Reduction (mt/yr) 

Subtotal 

(mt/yr) 

Current Activities 146 146 

LOPP Reduction Tools 88 

 Typical Cost-Share BMPs that require future funding 31 

 Additional agricultural BMPs 30 

 Regional Projects (LOFT, Lemkin Creek, Brighton Reservoir, etc.) 27 

CERP 54 

 LOW Project 54 

LOPP Strategies 82 

Total TP Load Reduction Projected by LOPP 370 

• The Indian Prairie, Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough, and Fisheating Creek sub-watersheds 

contribute disproportionately high phosphorus loads to Lake Okeechobee relative to their 

flow contributions. Therefore, these sub-watersheds were targeted for additional water 

quality measures 

• For the 1991-2000 POR, average TP loading from the watershed to Lake Okeechobee was 

433 mt/yr. This does not include atmospheric deposition and exceeds the TMDL mandated 

watershed TP loading limit of 105 mt/yr by 328 mt. 

• The 2007 LOPP update identified numerous projects and strategies which would 

cumulatively reduce the TP loading from the watershed by 370 mt/yr. 

• Projected LOPP TP load reductions are based on the assumption that recommended projects 

and strategies are appropriately funded in a timely manner, implemented where 

recommended, and will perform as intended. The difference between the total TP load 

reduction needed to meet the TMDL (328 mt/yr) and the projected LOPP TP load reduction 

(370 mt/yr) is expected to provide the contingency in case some of the recommended projects 

are not implemented or do not perform at the levels intended. The contingency was also 

recognizes the high loads that the Lake has experienced over the last five years. 

• For the 15-year POR adopted by the P2TP, baseline TP loading from the watershed to Lake 

Okeechobee is 514 mt/yr. This does not include atmospheric deposition and exceeds the TP 

load reduction required to achieve the TMDL by 409 mt/yr (514-105). This TP reduction is 

81 mt/yr greater than the TP load reduction projected by LOPP. 

• The P2TP planning process will focus upon reducing this additional TP load of 81 mt/yr. 
SECTION 6 

WATER QUANTITY DATA ANALYSES 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 6 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

6-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

6.0 WATER QUANTITY DATA ANALYSES.................................................................... 6-1 

6.1 Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model.......................................................6-1 

6.1.1 Model Set-up........................................................................................................ 6-1 

6.1.1.1 Boundary Conditions .......................................................................................6-3 

6.1.2 Model Application and Modeling Scenarios .......................................................6-4 

6.2 Water Quantity Data Analyses Observations ..............................................................6-6 

6.3 Water Quantity Data Analyses Conclusions................................................................6-6 

List of Tables 

6-1 NERSM Sub-watershed inflow data ............................................................................... 6-4 

6-2 Flow Characteristics for Key Lake Okeechobee Sub-watersheds ................................. 6-6 

List of Figures 

6-1 Sub-Watersheds Simulated in the NERSM ..................................................................... 6-2 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 6 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

6-1 

6.0 WATER QUANTITY DATA ANALYSES 

This section describes the customized modeling tool (the Northern Everglades Regional 

Simulation Model, NERSM), which was used to generate and analyze the water budget in the 

Lake Okeechobee Watershed (LOW) and simulate hydrologic conditions in the LOW under 

varying scenarios such as current base, future base, and alternative plans. 

A water budget reflects the relationship between water input and output through a given area. 

Water generally enters a system through precipitation and surface and groundwater flows. The 

water generally leaves the system through human consumption (domestic, municipal, industrial 

and agricultural), surface and groundwater flows, evaporation, and transpiration from plants. 

6.1 Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model 

The Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model (NERSM) is a basin budget/link-node 

implementation of the Regional Simulation Model (RSM). It covers the northern extent of the 

SFWMD boundary down to Lake Okeechobee. The model uses an object-oriented approach, 

which allows new objects to be added without the need to edit the previous code or functionality 

of existing modules. For example, the addition and operation of a new reservoir would be 

simulated as a discrete “object” – there would be no need to modify the coding for other 

elements of the water management system. Inflows to the model were input as a daily time 

series (1970–2005) and planning alternatives were simulated by making corresponding changes 

to the model domain – e.g. the addition of a reservoir or STA in a given sub-watershed. 

 

6.1.1 Model Set-up 

Lake Okeechobee and its tributary sub-watersheds to the north, east and west namely Fisheating 

Creek, Lake Istokpoga/Indian Prairie, Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough, Lower Kissimmee and 

Upper Kissimmee, were simulated in the model (Figure 6-1). 

Note that the East Okeechobee (St Lucie), West Okeechobee (Caloosahatchee), and the EAA 

Sub-watersheds were not explicitly modeled in NERSM. In this document, these basins are 

referred to collectively as the Lake Okeechobee Sub-watershed. Storage alternatives specific to 

these areas are considered in the Acceler8 projects and their impacts to the other portions of the 

study area were generally taken as boundary conditions. 

 The NERSM uses a lumped hydrologic approach to model water levels. It assumes that water in 

each water body is distributed in level pools. Therefore, local-scale features within a subwatershed, e.g. stages at specific gauging stations and flows across specific transects are not 

simulated. 

Lakes in the Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed, and pools in the Lower Kissimmee Subwatershed are simulated as level pools with watershed inflows (local runoff) as boundary 

conditions obtained from other models or from historical data. A flow pass-through approach is 

used for the other sub-watersheds where historical runoff into Lake Okeechobee is modified 

based on proposed management measures specific to these sub-watersheds. 
Section 6 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

6-2 

Figure 6-1. Sub-watersheds simulated in the Northern Everglades Regional Simulation 

Model (NERSM). 
Section 6 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

6-3 

 Lake Okeechobee is also simulated using a lumped hydrologic approach. Certain inflows and 

outflows from Lake Okeechobee are not simulated and are incorporated into a modified delta 

storage (MDS) term or imposed as boundary conditions. The South Florida Water Management 

Model (SFWMM or 2x2) is the main source of boundary conditions for NERSM. Boundary 

conditions include water supply demands and environmental releases to the Everglades and to 

the Lower East Coast urban areas. Regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee to the C-43 and 

C-44 Estuaries and to the Water Conservation Areas are simulated based on the WSE schedule. 

The Hybrid LOWSM water supply management scheme is simulated in conjunction with fixed 

demand boundary conditions to introduce water supply cutbacks for Lake Okeechobee Service 

Area (LOSA) basins. Lake Okeechobee is a primary or secondary source of water supply to the 

LOSA basins. 

Both St. Lucie and the Caloosahatchee basin demand/runoff time series are obtained from the 

SFWMM. C-44 reservoir inflows/outflows are also obtained from the SFWMM and used as 

boundary condition flows for the future base and alternative scenarios. Due to the strong 

interaction between Lake Okeechobee and the C-43 reservoir, simulation of this reservoir is 

included in the future base and alternative scenarios. Furthermore, the procedure for meeting St. 

Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuary demands are also simulated. For more detailed description of 

the model setup for Lake Okeechobee and estuaries see Appendix B. 

A 36-year (1970-2005) period of record (POR) was used for all NERSM simulations. This POR 

is slightly different from the typical 36-year POR typically used by the SFWMM, namely 1965 

to 2000. The inclusion of the five years (2001-2005) in the NERSM POR was driven by the 

desire to use the most current climatic information available, which includes extreme events such 

as Hurricanes Charlie, Frances, and Jeanne in 2004, and Hurricane Wilma in 2005. 

No history-matching was done during initial model set-up; however, NERSM was validated by 

making comparative runs with established models currently in use within the model domain: the 

UKISS for the Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed (Fan, 1986) and the SFWMM for Lake 

Okeechobee and areas further south. 

A series of assumptions were developed to facilitate model set-up; these are documented in 

Appendix B. Additional information on how each individual sub-watershed was modeled is also 

included in this appendix. 

6.1.1.1 Boundary Conditions 

Table 6-1 identifies the source of sub-watershed inflow data for each individual sub-watershed. 

Predicting changes to these boundary conditions due to future land use and demand changes is 

outside the scope of this modeling effort; therefore, the same sub-watershed inflow data was 

used for all model simulations including current base, future base, and alternative simulations. 

Although the NERSM input data for sub-watershed inflows do not change from one simulation 

to the next, RSM actually adjusts the values on a daily basis because the size of the drainage 

basin contributing to runoff into the pool or lake is inversely proportional to the simulated stage 

in the pool or lake. This allowed a comparison of the performance of the system for different 

physical configurations of hydrologic components using the same stresses. 
Section 6 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

6-4 

Table 6-1. NERSM Sub-watershed inflow data. 

Sub-watershed Source of Inflow Data Description of Inflow Data 

Upper Kissimmee (KUB) Output of UKISSWIN Model Flows developed for calibration of 

UKISSWIN model. 

Lower Kissimmee (LKB) Historical Flows 

Consistent with the SFWMM current base 

simulation, runoff for sub-watershed estimated 

from historical flow data at LKB boundary 

structures (S-65E – S-65). Runoff attributed to 

each basin within LKB based on area. Time 

series was imposed as boundary condition for 

each level-pool. 

Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough 

(TCNS) Historical Flows 

Runoff for sub-watershed assumed to be equal 

to the historical outflows. Sum of TCNSQ, S154 and S-135 from DBHYDRO. 

Lake Istokpoga Historical Flows 

Runoff for sub-watershed lumped into a single 

quantity. Sum of historical flows through S71, S-72, S-84, S-127, S-129 and S-131. 

Fisheating Creek (FEC) Historical Flows 

Runoff for sub-watershed estimated from 

historical flows at Palmdale station – several 

miles upstream of discharge of Fisheating 

Creek to LOK. Runoff downstream of 

Palmdale is included in Modified Delta 

Storage (MDS) term. 

Lake Okeechobee (LOK) Output from SFWMM 

Backflows – flows into LOK – coming from 

east (St Lucie), west (Caloosahatchee), and 

south (EAA) taken from SFWMM. 

To account for the decreased runoff volumes caused by the added footprints of proposed 

management measures, these flow time series are corrected internally in RSM by applying a 

factor which is defined as the ratio of the remaining contributing sub-watershed area (excluding 

the combined footprint of all management measures in the sub-watershed) to the total 

contributing sub-watershed basin area. 

6.1.2 Model Application and Modeling Scenarios 

The following scenarios were modeled using the NERSM: 

• Current Base – This scenario represented hydrologic conditions as they existed in the LOW 

in 2005. This condition assumed that no CERP projects had been implemented. Measured 

data for the 36-year POR (1970-2005) was used for this simulation. Regulatory (flood 

control) releases from Lake Okeechobee to the estuaries and to the WCAs are simulated 

based on the WSE Regulation Schedule. 

• Future Base – This scenario was intended to represent conditions likely to exist in the LOW 

after the implementation of all Acceler8 (A8) and Lower and Upper Kissimmee Subwatershed water resources projects, including : 
Section 6 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

6-5 

- A8 projects: C-43 Reservoir, C-44 Reservoir and STA, Broward Water Preserve Areas, 

Site 1 Reservoir, Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, limited version 

of Everglades rainfall deliveries, and EAA Phase A-1 Reservoir 

- Kissimmee Projects: Kissimmee River Restoration Project and the Kissimmee River 

Headwaters Revitalization Project including the headwaters revitalization stage regulation 

schedule. 

CERP Lake Okeechobee ASR was not included in the future base, however, it is anticipated 

that ASR will play an important role in meeting the storage goal identified in this plan. The 

results from Lake Okeechobee ASR pilots and the ASR Regional Study will be used to help 

determine the mix of surface and sub-surface storage needed to better manage Lake 

Okeechobee water levels. 

Also, a number of Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan features have been completed or are 

currently under development. These projects were not included in the future base because of 

the need to clearly document all of the activities and projects that are currently underway as 

well as those to be implemented in the future make up of the overall Plan. 

For the future base simulation no land use changes were assumed in the LOW. Therefore, 

the same sub-watershed inflow time series data used in the current base simulation were 

applied. External boundary conditions on Lake Okeechobee including environmental flows 

to the south and water supply demand time series were updated based on output from the 

South Florida Water Management Model A8 run, which includes those features described in 

Appendix B. 

• P2TP Alternative Plans – The P2TP planning process formulated and evaluated four 

separate alternative plans for achieving project goals and objectives. For modeling purposes, 

known configuration of Level 1, 2, and 3 management measures (MM) were used; whereas 

for Level 4 and 5 MMs only conceptual configurations were utilized. Each alternative plan 

was simulated by the NERSM and the output was used to determine system-wide impacts 

likely to be associated with implementation of that alternative. 

Preliminary operating rules were incorporated into the modeling of alternative plans, as 

appropriate. For example, excess volume of water within Lake Okeechobee is diverted to 

offline storage (reservoirs) when needed, such as when the lake stage is above the stage 

envelope. Similarly, volume of water in offline storage (reservoirs) is returned to Lake 

Okeechobee when needed, such as when the lake stage is below the stage envelope. 

Additional information in modeling of individual alternatives is also included in Appendix 

B. 

Model simulation output from current and future base simulations were used to prepare and 

analyze the water budget for the LOW. Additional information on the water budget analyses is 

presented in Appendix B; key observations from this analysis are discussed below in Section 

6.2. Model output from simulations of the alternative plans were compared and evaluated in 

terms of performance measures. This information is presented in Section 8. 
Section 6 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

6-6 

6.2 Water Quantity Data Analyses Observations 

Key observations from an analysis of the LOW water budget data are presented below: 

• Average annual rainfall in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed is less than the potential ET in 

the vast majority of the study area with the possible exception of the Upper Kissimmee Subwatershed. Therefore, ET should be an important consideration in the evaluation of the 

performance of alternative plans, particularly for reservoirs or STAs that might hold water 

for extended periods. 

• The Upper and Lower Kissimmee and Istokpoga Sub-watersheds contribute close to threequarters of the total average annual inflow to Lake Okeechobee. The Lower Kissimmee subwatersheds were targeted for maximizing storage options. Although there is large volume of 

flow to Lake Okeechobee from the Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed, further evaluation is 

needed to determine the storage potential in light of the timing and flow rates required for the 

Kissimmee River Restoration Project and to maintain the ecologic integrity of the Upper 

Chain of Lakes. 

• Table 6-2 summarizes important flow characteristics within key sub-watersheds. This 

information is important for sizing inflow pumps and discharge structures and will also guide 

development of operational plans for individual storage features. 

• Results also indicate that it will be necessary to capture a substantial portion of the peak 

flows in the watershed in order to store a large percentage of the total flow volume. This is 

particularly true in the Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed where 60 percent of the total flow 

volume occurs when discharges are greater than 758 cfs (the 10 percent exceedance level). 

In other words, 60 percent of the total flow volume resulted from the highest 10 percent of 

the daily flows. 

Table 6-2. Flow characteristics for key Lake Okeechobee sub-watersheds. 

Sub-watershed 

10% 

Exceedance 

Flow Rate 

% Total Flow 

Volume when 

Flow> 10% 

Exceedance 

Flow Rate 

5% 

Exceedance 

Flow Rate 

% Total Flow 

Volume when 

Flow> 5% 

Exceedance 

Flow Rate 

Kissimmee (combined) 3,208 cfs 37% 5,086 cfs 21% 

Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough 776 cfs 44% 1,185 cfs 27% 

Lake Istokpoga 1,360 cfs 48% 1,904 cfs 28% 

Fisheating Creek 758 cfs 60% 1,260 cfs 39% 

6.3 Water Quantity Data Analyses Conclusions 

Major conclusions from the water quantity data analysis are as follows: 

• ET is an important consideration in the identification and evaluation of potential surface 

water storage (or treatment) options. 
Section 6 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

6-7 

• The Upper Kissimmee, Lower Kissimmee, and Lake Istokpoga Sub-watersheds generate the 

largest volume of flows to Lake Okeechobee. As a result, these sub-watersheds offer 

significant potential for water storage. 

• Water storage measures must be capable of capturing and storing large volumes of water 

during peak discharge periods – particularly in the Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
SECTION 7 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

7.0 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS............................................................ 7-1 

7.1 Planning Goals............................................................................................................. 7-1 

7.1.1 Water Quality Goal..............................................................................................7-1 

7.1.2 Water Quantity Storage Goal............................................................................... 7-1 

7.2 Plan Formulation Challenges....................................................................................... 7-3 

7.3 Management Measures ................................................................................................ 7-4 

7.3.1 Management Measures Toolbox.......................................................................... 7-4 

7.3.1.1 Proof of Concept.............................................................................................. 7-5 

7.3.1.2 Other Unintended Impacts ............................................................................... 7-5 

7.3.2 Types of Management Measures ......................................................................... 7-5 

7.3.2.1 Integrated Growth Management and Restoration............................................ 7-5 

7.3.2.2 Water Quality................................................................................................... 7-6 

7.3.2.3 Water Storage................................................................................................. 7-10 

7.3.2.4 Water Disposal............................................................................................... 7-12 

7.4 Determination of Relatively Constraint-Free Acreages (CFA) ................................. 7-12 

7.4.1 MM Constraints ................................................................................................. 7-12 

7.4.2 LSM Scoring Approach ..................................................................................... 7-14 

7.4.3 Secondary Screening Criteria ............................................................................ 7-15 

7.4.4 LSM Output ....................................................................................................... 7-15 

7.5 Plan Formulation........................................................................................................ 7-17 

7.5.1 Alternative 1 – Common Elements.................................................................... 7-17 

7.5.2 Alternative 2 – Maximizing Storage.................................................................. 7-18 

7.5.3 Alternative 3 – Maximizing Water Quality Improvements ............................... 7-19 

7.5.4 Alternative 4 – Optimize Storage and Water Quality Improvements................7-21 

List of Tables 

7-1 Divertable volume events for the period 1970-2005 ....................................................... 7-3 

7-2 Land Suitability Model attributes .................................................................................. 7-14 

7-3 Land Suitability Model scoring strategy........................................................................ 7-15 

7-4 Summary of P-load Reduction associated with Alternative 1 ....................................... 7-18 

7-5 Summary of P-load Reduction associated with Alternative 2 ....................................... 7-19 

7-6 Summary of P-load Reduction associated with Alternative 3 ....................................... 7-21 

7-7 Summary of P-load Reduction associated with Alternative 4 ....................................... 7-22 

7-8 P2TP Alternative Plans Performance Comparison........................................................ 7-22 

7-9 Management measures associated with P2TP Alternative Plans................................... 7-23 

List of Figures 

7-1 Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Releases (1986-2000)...................................................... 7-2 

7-2 Land Suitability Model Output ...................................................................................... 7-16 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-1 

7.0 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS 

This section describes the four alternative plans formulated and evaluated by the planning team. 

Water quality and storage planning targets are identified, which is followed by a description of 

the management measures (MMs) that were used as building blocks of alternative plans. 

Information on key components and projected performance of individual alternative plans is also 

presented. 

7.1 Planning Goals 

7.1.1 Water Quality Goal 

The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) legislation established 

meeting the Lake Okeechobee total phosphorus (TP) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) as the 

water quality target for the planning process. In 2001, the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP) established a TMDL of 140 metric tons per year (mt/yr) of TP for Lake 

Okeechobee in an effort to improve the health of the lake. The TMDL includes 35 mt/yr of 

estimated atmospheric deposition; therefore, only 105 mt/yr of TP loading is permitted from the 

watershed. The Lake Okeechobee TMDL is based on the TP reduction needed to restore the 

natural resources in the lake to those that existed prior to any significant anthropogenic 

alterations. 

As discussed in Section 5, the initial TP loading from the watershed of 514 mt/yr is based on a 

15-year period of record (1991- 2005). To meet the TMDL of 105 mt/yr, the TP loading in the 

LOW must be reduced by 409 mt/yr. 

7.1.2 Water Quantity Storage Goal 

The NEEPP legislation also recognized that it was important to manage the quantity, timing and 

distribution of water in the Northern Everglades ecosystem to achieve integrated and 

comprehensive environmental restoration of Lake Okeechobee and the two estuaries. An 

analysis was performed to determine the amount of water needed to be stored in the watershed to 

improve lake stage management and reduce the frequency of damaging freshwater releases to the 

estuaries. 

The South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) output for the CERP 2050B (future 

without project conditions) simulation was used for this analysis. This simulation represents 

future condition without the CERP projects projected to exist in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

(LOW) in 2050. The total volume of discharge from Lake Okeechobee in excess of the 

damaging level for each estuary was calculated for each discharge event. A discharge event was 

defined as a period of continuous damaging discharges from the Lake to the estuaries greater 

than 30 days in duration, with no interruptions. Some damaging discharge events lasted for 

relatively short periods (few weeks) while others lasted for many months. The events were 

sorted by volume and a discharge volume exceedance curve was developed (Figure 7-1). 

Based on the discharge volume exceedance curve, approximately 90 percent of the damaging 

freshwater release events from Lake Okeechobee to the estuaries could be avoided by providing 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-2 

approximately 1.1 million ac-ft of stormwater runoff storage in the watershed. The curve also 

suggests that there is a breakpoint between 900,000 and 1.3 million ac-ft above which very large 

incremental increases in storage capacity would produce relatively small improvements in 

damaging releases to the estuaries. 

Figure 7-1. Lake Okeechobee regulatory releases (1965-2000). 

This analysis only addressed harmful discharges to the estuaries – it did not address ecologically 

harmful high Lake Okeechobee water levels. Also, this evaluation only considered discharges 

from Lake Okeechobee. Local runoff from the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuary watersheds 

also contributes damaging freshwater discharges to the estuaries – therefore local storage for 

both the river watersheds would still be required. These additional storage requirements will be 

addressed in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plans. 

A separate analysis using data from the NERSM future base scenario was used to develop a 

screening level spreadsheet application that allowed for simulation of offline storage for Lake 

Okeechobee and its sub-watersheds. The application was utilized to determine the divertible 

volume associated with the objectives of both Lake Okeechobee and the estuaries. 

For this analysis, the RECOVER performance measures for Lake Okeechobee stage envelope 

and extreme events were utilized. For the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries, defined target 

time-series of flows at discharge points into the estuaries (S-79 and S-80) were used. When 

conditions in the Lake and estuaries would result in less than ideal performance, flow was 

diverted to offline storage until such time as it was desirable to release back to the Lake. 

In order to determine the magnitude of divertible volume (made up of volume both within Lake 

Okeechobee during high stage events and as Lake discharges to the estuaries) on an event by 

event basis, the spreadsheet application was run utilizing a 100% efficiency offline storage 

system with an unlimited inflow/outflow capacity. A divertible event was defined as a period of 

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

% Exceedance

Volume (ac-ft)

90% Threshold 

Incremental Breakpoint
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-3 

continuous release from the Lake to the simulated storage without an interruption of greater than 

30 consecutive days. 

Results of this analyses indicated that the sorted progression of divertible volume events is not 

linear, but rather tend toward exponential in nature with the most extreme divertible volume 

events displaying significantly higher volumes. Peak events tend to be greater than four times 

the magnitude of median events and one half to two thirds larger than the 10 percent exceedance 

events (Table 7-1). 

Table 7-1. Divertable Volume Events for the period 1970-2005. 

Scenario Peak Event 

(ac-ft) 

10% Exceedance Event 

(ac-ft) 

Median Event 

(ac-ft) 

Lake high stages only 1,610,000 990,000 360,000 

Lake high stages + estuary 

targets 2,480,000 1,540,000 550,000 

Based on these water quantity analyses, the planning team adopted a water quantity goal of 

maximizing storage in the LOW with an upper ceiling of approximately 1.3 million ac-ft. This 

water quantity goal was corroborated through an additional set of sensitivity analyses which 

evaluated a range of storage values from 900,000 to 4 million ac-ft of storage. Additional 

information on this sensitivity analyses is contained in Appendix B. 

7.2 Plan Formulation Challenges 

During the plan formulation process, numerous challenges needed to be resolved, including: 

1. Alternative plans were developed that concurrently addressed two discrete and sometimes 

competing project objectives, namely TP load reduction and water storage. 

2. Multiple MMs were considered for each project objective. 

3. Interdependencies and potential conflicts (resource, real estate, and cost limitations) 

between storage and P-load reduction MMs had to be considered and evaluated. 

4. A very large study area (approximately 3.5 M acres) was available for locating solutions. 

5. The process had to allow for equitable consideration of all reasonable alternatives; no 

feasible alternative could be arbitrarily eliminated without being evaluated. 

6. Finally, while cumulative water management and phosphorus loading problems in Lake 

Okeechobee are the result of combined inputs from all nine sub-watersheds previously 

identified, solutions had to be identified for individual sub-watersheds. This is because 

solutions identified for one sub-watershed would not necessarily address issues that exist in 

another non-contiguous sub-watershed. For example, phosphorus load reduction and water 

storage in the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough sub-watershed is not likely to have much 

impact on phosphorus load reduction and storage in the Fisheating Creek sub-watershed. 

7. Numerous constraints as previously described in Section 3.4.
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-4 

To address these challenges, a structured, systematic, and reproducible process was identified 

and adopted for formulation of alternative plans. Major steps in this process included the 

following: 

1. Identification of management measures (MMs) 

2. Determination of relatively constraint-free acreages within each sub-watershed 

3. Combining of MMs to form alternative plans 

Additional information on each of these steps is presented in the subsections below. 

7.3 Management Measures 

A management measure (MM) is a feature or activity that can be implemented at a specific site 

within the study area to address one or more planning objectives. A feature is a structural 

element that requires construction or on-site assembly. Storage reservoirs, stormwater treatment 

areas (STAs), and structural best management practices (BMPs) are examples of features. An 

activity is a non-structural action or practice that achieves one or more goals. Operational 

changes, regulatory programs, and modified land management practices are examples of 

activities. MMs are building blocks that can be combined to form viable alternative plans. 

7.3.1 Management Measures Toolbox 

The Coordinating Agency Planning Team (CAPT) developed the MM toolbox by seeking input 

from the multiple agency staff. This toolbox identified various features, activities, technologies, 

and current and future planned projects that, if implemented in the LOW, could achieve the 

stated project objectives. Individual fact sheets, which described the salient facts and storage and 

water quality benefits associated with each MM were prepared (Appendix C). 

The MMs in the toolbox could be applied either at the parcel scale (local features) or at a subwatershed scale (regional features). Local features typically have minimal requirements for 

engineering, construction, and operations. These local features also have relatively less real 

estate requirements and promote landowner involvement. In contrast, regional features require 

significant amounts of real estate acquisition, engineering, construction, and operations. 

Each MM was assigned a feasibility level using the following scale: 

• Level 1 – Already constructed/ implemented or construction/implementation is imminent 

• Level 2 – Construction/implementation likely; detailed design/activity development ongoing; siting location well defined 

• Level 3 – Implementation certainty unknown; conceptual level of design/activity 

development complete; siting location may be defined 

• Level 4 – Implementation certainty unknown; conceptual idea with rough order of magnitude 

costs and siting location 

• Level 5 – Implementation certainty unknown; conceptual idea with limited information. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-5 

For each MM, a range (minimum, most likely, and maximum) for phosphorus reduction and/or 

storage benefits was established. To ensure that only viable MMs were included in the 

formulation of alternatives, two criteria, proof of concept and other unintended impacts, were 

used to screen the MM list. 

7.3.1.1 Proof of Concept 

The proof of concept criterion is a subjective measure of how reliably the MM technology would 

function under similar conditions and at the same scale that exists in the P2TP. A score of +1, 

0, or -1 was assigned to each MM based on the following guidelines: 

• Score = +1 if the MM technology has been applied under the same physical conditions that 

exist in the Northern Everglades and at the same spatial scale that exists in the P2TP. 

• Score = 0 if the MM technology has been successfully shown to function based on laboratory 

analyses and/or pilot test projects, but has not been implemented on the same spatial scale 

that exists in the P2TP. 

• Score = -1 if there is only theoretical evidence to suggest that the MM technology would 

function under P2TP conditions. 

7.3.1.2 Other Unintended Impacts 

This criterion provides a measure of the potential for unintended consequences that could result 

from implementation of an MM. Such unintended impacts could be positive or negative. For 

example, an MM identified to improve lake stage management might also enhance flood 

protection. Conversely, an MM intended to improve water quality might have an adverse impact 

on flood control. A subjective score of +1, 0, or -1 was assigned to each MM based on the 

following guidelines: 

• Score = +1 if there are positive unintended consequences of the MM. 

• Score = 0 if there are no positive or negative unintended consequences of the MM. 

• Score = -1 if there are negative unintended consequences of the MM. 

7.3.2 Types of Management Measures 

A wide variety of structural and non-structural management measures were identified for 

consideration during the planning process. The MMs in the toolbox can be broadly grouped into 

the general categories described below. 

7.3.2.1 Integrated Growth Management and Restoration 

This category includes programs and projects that integrate environmental restoration objectives 

with urban growth initiatives. For example, under the Rural Land Stewardship Areas Program, 

counties can designate rural lands and natural areas for integrated growth management. Planning 

and economic incentives are provided for theses areas to encourage use of innovative and 

flexible planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques. The 

program encourages minimizing development footprint and maintaining a high ratio of 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-6 

conservation and agricultural lands to development lands thereby maximizing the opportunity for 

water quality treatment and on-site water storage. 

7.3.2.1.1 Wetland Restoration 

Natural wetlands inherently sequester surface water flows and provide water quality treatment 

through assimilation and sedimentation. Restoring degraded wetlands or planting new wetlands 

in areas that were historically covered with wetlands maybe an integral component of other MMs 

such as Alternative Water Storage (AWS) and programs such as the Florida Rangelands 

Environmental Services Project (FRESP). 

7.3.2.2 Water Quality 

Management measures for achieving water quality improvements were identified for both 

reducing phosphorus loads from the inflows to the lake and for removing in-lake phosphorus 

loads. Inflow phosphorus removal applications included treating surface water runoff within 

canals and tributaries in the watershed using either offline or inline systems. Improving quality 

of water in Lake Okeechobee could be accomplished by removing the sediments that sequester 

the nutrients or circulating lake water through STAs located adjacent to the lake. 

7.3.2.2.1 Sub-watershed Water Quality 

7.3.2.2.1.1 Source Control 

Source control refers to all activities and measures that can be undertaken on agricultural and 

urban lands to ensure the following: 

• Amount of nutrients used onsite are minimized to the greatest possible extent, 

• The nutrients that are actually used are applied in an effective manner which limits their 

entry into the local runoff, and 

• Nutrients that do find their way into the local runoff and, where possible, excess flows are 

retained onsite to prevent their entry into the regional drainage system. 

Collectively, source control practices are also referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs). 

As defined in the NEEPP legislation, “a BMP means a practice or combination of practices 

determined by the coordinating agencies, based on research, field-testing, and expert review, to 

be the most effective and practicable on-location means including economic and technological 

considerations for improving water quality in agricultural and urban discharges.” The 

legislation also specifies that BMPs for agricultural practices shall reflect a balance between 

water quality improvements and agricultural productivity. BMPs include structural measures 

such as creating physical changes in the landscape to reroute local discharges, erecting fences 

and barriers, etc. and non-structural measures such as education, changing attitudes and 

behaviors, and establishing regulations. 

Regardless of how it is achieved, source control is integral to the success of any water resource 

protection or restoration program. Without BMPs as the first stage technology utilized within 

water quality treatment train to control introduction (source) of nutrients into the local runoff and 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-7 

movement off site (loss) into the drainage system, treatment and cost effectiveness of large, 

regional, capital projects such as reservoirs and STAs will be limited. 

Numerous source and loss control programs currently are in operation within the LOW. Several 

are the direct result of the LOPA which preceded the NEEPP. These control programs have been 

developed and implemented cooperatively by the District, FDEP and FDACS. Estimates of load 

reduction associated with these programs were developed by an expert consultation group based 

on various land use types (Bottcher, 2006). The consultation group consisted of SFWMD, 

FDACS, and FDEP staff and researchers from UF/IFAS. 

The LOW Works of the District Regulatory Phosphorus Source Control Program under Chapter 

40E-61, FAC, will use these load reduction estimates to establish performance measures for the 

combined source control programs implemented in the watershed by the coordinating agencies. 

The performance measures will establish a reasonable range that can be consistently anticipated 

from source control programs so that downstream treatment facilities may be effectively planned 

and designed as necessary. Strategic monitoring locations will be utilized to measure 

performance and to enhance and optimize the source control programs. 

Examples include widespread development and implementation of agricultural BMPs and 

restrictions on the application of wastewater residuals. Other currently implemented source and 

loss control programs predate the LOPA. These include continued implementation of the Florida 

Yards and Neighborhoods Program and Florida’s consolidated stormwater management 

programs. 

7.3.2.2.1.2 Stormwater Treatment Areas 

Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) are constructed wetlands that have been used very 

successfully in South Florida to treat nutrient-rich stormwater runoff. When water flows 

through these wetlands, plants (including tiny algae) absorb nutrients from the water, using them 

in life processes or storing them in their tissues. Constructed wetlands planted with certain types 

of vegetation in a certain sequence have been shown to be very efficient in reducing nutrient 

loads and concentrations. Even after plants in an STA die, they are still at work. Leaf 

decomposition helps form sediments in the wetland bottom. Cattail roots readily absorb 

phosphorus from these sediments, producing yet more leaves. Over the past decade, over 40,000 

acres of STAs have been constructed and are being operated in South Florida by the District to 

facilitate restoration of the Everglades. 

The primary advantage of STAs is that they are relatively easy to design, construct, and operate 

and since they do not use any chemicals to precipitate nutrients, they are very environmentally 

friendly (green technology). However, similar to reservoirs, they require large tracts of land for 

construction and will have relatively high evapotranspiration (ET) rates. 

7.3.2.2.1.3 Managed Aquatic Plant Systems 

Managed Aquatic Plant System (MAPS) are aquatic plant-based water treatment units. The 

technology involves routing nutrient loaded stormwater into ponds that are vegetated with plants 

that have enhanced ability to absorb and assimilate nutrients. A variant of a MAPS, that is 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-8 

currently being tested in the LOW, is known as the Algal Turf ScrubberTM, (ATS). This 

technology developed by HydroMentia, Inc., involves the cultivation of a mixed community of 

periphytic algae that are cultured on an engineered geomembrane. The membrane sits on a grid 

upon which nutrient-rich waters are discharged. Algae that grow on the geomembrane are 

periodically scrapped and collected with an automatic rake at a harvesting station. The harvested 

biomass is then conveyed to a bunker for storage and further processing. 

The two primary advantages of MAPS are that the plant biomass is routinely harvested and 

potentially recycled into marketable products and they require relatively little land, making them 

a cost-effective option for locations that are land limited either due to land availability or cost. 

The effectiveness of the MAPS in treating nutrient rich stormwater on a large scale has not yet 

been demonstrated. 

7.3.2.2.1.4 Chemical Treatment 

Chemical treatment involves application of chemicals into contaminated stormwater runoff to aid 

reduction of contaminant loads and concentrations. Chemical treatment is generally used to 

lower turbidity of local discharges. It has also been successfully used to reduce turbidity and 

nutrient concentrations in drinking water and wastewater. Application of chemicals to 

stormwater to reduce nutrient loads is relatively new. It has been tested with varying levels of 

success in some locations such as Lake Apopka and the Everglades. 

Review of available literature indicates that calcium, iron, and aluminum salts are effective at 

reducing total phosphorus loads in stormwater runoff. These technologies can be applied both 

in-stream and in off-line treatment systems. They can be used for pre-treating stormwater runoff 

prior to storage and additional treatment in a reservoir or a STA; they can also be used as posttreatment units to polish effluent from reservoirs and STAs. The specific technology that will 

work best at any given location will primarily depend upon influent water quality and the 

quantity of water that has to be treated. 

7.3.2.2.2 In-lake Water Quality 

Water quality problems in Lake Okeechobee are a function of both external loading associated 

with runoff from the watershed and internal loadings from the sediments on the lake bed. These 

sediments are estimated to cover more than 197,000 acres of the lake bed with an approximate 

volume of 262 million cubic yards (EA, 2002). 

The upper 4 to 12 inches of the sediment bed is composed largely of particles with relatively low 

specific gravity and because this layer tends to disperse very easily in the water column, it is 

often described as the fluid mud layer. Particles of the fluid mud layer are known to be 

associated with large quantities of bound phosphorus. Most of these fluid mud sediments are 

confined to the deeper pelagic regions of the lake and their negative impacts are primarily related 

to periodic resuspension of phosphorus into the water column. 

Several alternative options have been proposed for dealing with Lake Okeechobee’s sedimentbound nutrient loads. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-9 

7.3.2.2.2.1 Muck Sediment Removal 

Due to current drought in South Florida, Lake Okeechobee stages fell to below 9 ft which 

completely exposing large tracts of near shore areas that normally remain fully submerged. 

Taking advantage of this situation, the District initiated an emergency program under which 

approximately 2,000 acres of the exposed areas were scraped and the nutrient-rich mucks were 

removed for off-site disposal. This scraping is expected to expose the natural bottom which 

should promote the re-growth of native vegetation once the lake levels return to normal. For 

obvious reasons, this approach has very limited applicability outside of a drought situation. 

7.3.2.2.2.2 Dredging 

Due to their fluid nature, the Lake Okeechobee mud sediments from the deeper areas beyond the 

littoral shelf cannot be easily removed by using conventional dredging technologies without 

severely compromising ambient water quality. A pilot dredging project was conducted in 2001 

to demonstrate use of innovative dredging technologies and processes under conditions similar to 

Lake Okeechobee. The study showed that the fluid muds could be removed using a modified 

hydraulic dredge that essentially worked like a vacuum to gently suck up the muds while 

minimizing resuspension. Commercial application of the technology used by the pilot dredging 

project however has not been demonstrated. 

More recently, the District has initiated a near-shore dredging project in the lake. The objective 

of this demonstration project is to remove sediments from a 2.5 square mile area adjacent to the 

Eagle Bay Island using a technique that minimizes adverse environmental impacts and can be 

scaled up for use in other parts of the lake. The demonstration area has a layer of mud sediments 

that prevents the growth of native aquatic vegetation; therefore, the area has limited habitat 

value. 

Removal of the mud sediments is expected to expose the natural sand bottom and seed source 

and therefore promote the resurgence of native emergent and submergent plant communities. 

Return of the native vegetation is expected to initiate overall ecosystem restoration, improving 

conditions to foster a healthy and diverse macro invertebrate community and foraging habitat for 

fish and wading birds. 

It should be noted that compared to other lake restoration projects (Cooke et al. 1993), removal 

of mud sediments from Lake Okeechobee will require an order of magnitude of greater effort. 

Dredging methodologies examined for this effort are largely vacuum or pump based and are not 

expected to result in substantial turbidity problems. 

7.3.2.2.2.3 Disking/Plowing 

There are two distinct types of soil tilling, both of which may be useful in dealing with lake 

sediments. They are disking and plowing. Disking involves mixing the organic sediments with 

the underlying layer of mineral soils, usually sands. Mixing the two soils together is expected to 

reduce the turbidity production and phosphorus flux into the water column. Mixing of the soils 

is expected to significantly reduce the amount of the organic sediments that are exposed to the 

water column. Plowing is a similar action, but is accomplished with a farm implement that is 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-10 

designed, not to mix the soil layers, but to invert the two layers. If the organic layer is about one 

foot or less in thickness, it should be possible to plow the soil and leave about one foot or so of 

mineral soil over the organic soils. Some mixing will occur, but it should be much less than with 

the disking approach. Plowing should result in a more nearly complete sequestration from the 

water column of the organic sediments below a layer of mineral soils. 

7.3.2.2.2.4 Recirculating STAs 

Another option of dealing with the high phosphorus concentrations in lake waters which, at least 

in part, originate from the sediments is to treat lake waters using STAs located adjacent to the 

lake to treat lake water and recirculate the treated water back to the lake. Such systems are 

intended to treat nutrient–rich flows from the watershed. However, during periods when there is 

little or no flow from the watershed and lake levels are relatively high, lake waters could be 

diverted to these systems for treatment. Given the large volumes of lake water that have to be 

treated and the very high phosphorus loads in the sediments, the use of recirculating STAs is 

expected to provide a relatively small contribution to the overall load reduction that is required to 

achieve restoration of Lake Okeechobee. Note that at this time, TP load reduction from in-lake 

waters does not count toward the TMDL. 

7.3.2.3 Water Storage 

MMs considered for capturing and storing stormwater runoff in the watershed included 

aboveground reservoirs, Alternative Water Storage Facilities, (AWSFs), and Aquifer Storage and 

Recovery (ASR) wells. Each type of feature has its own advantages and disadvantages. 

A very large amount of water storage capacity is required in the LOW to significantly manage 

lake stages in Lake Okeechobee and reduce damaging freshwater releases to the Caloosahatchee 

and St. Lucie estuaries. A combination of different types of storage options were considered 

because a single type of water storage can not practically provide the required storage capacity. 

Alternative formulation for water storage features for this plan focused on the four southern subwatersheds; Lower Kissimmee, Fisheating Creek, Lake Istokpoga, and Taylor Creek/Nubbins 

Slough which also includes run-off from the Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed. A separate 

analysis evaluating the potential for storage of excess surface water from the Upper Kissimmee 

sub-watershed is ongoing independent of this planning process through the Upper Kissimmee 

Basin Regional Water Supply Feasibility Study. Initial indications are that there may be some 

volume of excess surface water in this sub-watershed. 

7.3.2.3.1 Reservoirs 

Above ground reservoirs are one of the most common types of surface water storage features. 

They are relatively easy to design, construct, and operate and several large reservoirs are 

currently being designed and constructed in the greater Everglades ecosystem. Storing water in 

reservoirs also has water quality benefits; nutrients and other contaminants tend to settle out 

within the reservoir. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-11 

One of the major drawbacks of reservoirs is that they are very land intensive. In order to reduce 

the acreage needed to site a reservoir, its footprint can be reduced by increasing the depth up to a 

certain point. For the P2TP planning process, the reservoirs considered are 16-ft deep consistent 

with other reservoirs such as C-43 and C-44. Actual reservoir depth will be determined through 

advanced planning and engineering analyses. 

Another major disadvantage of reservoirs is that they are typically subject to very high 

evapotranspiration (ET) rates due to the large exposed surface area. Reservoir ET rates can be 

reduced significantly by compartmentalizing the feature and increasing depth. High ET rates 

may be beneficial in situations where there is a large amount of excess water in the system. 

7.3.2.3.2 Alternative Water Storage Facilities 

In compliance with 373.4595(3)(b)2.g. the Lake Okeechobee Estuary and Recovery (LOER) 

action plan recommended evaluating options for storage and/or disposal of excess surface water 

runoff by capturing and holding it onsite on available private, public, and tribal lands. In most 

cases low technology approaches such as the use of weirs, berms, and small impoundments are 

used to detain water on-site. These alternative water storage facilities (AWSFs) essentially 

prevent the runoff from reaching the regional drainage system or improve the timing of its 

delivery. AWSFs typically require minimal design, engineering, and construction effort. 

Several AWSFs are currently in operation in the LOW on both private and public lands. 

Numerous additional sites are currently being evaluated for siting new AWSFs. Note that 

storage in AWSFs is intended to be compatible with improving wetland functions 

7.3.2.3.3 Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) involves injecting water into an aquifer through wells and 

then pumping it out when needed. The aquifer essentially functions as a water bank. Deposits 

are made in times of surplus, typically during the rainy season, and withdrawals occur when 

available water is needed, typically during a dry period. 

Interest and activity in aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in southern Florida has greatly 

increased over the past 10 to 15 years. In South Florida, ASR wells have typically been used to 

store excess freshwater during the wet season and subsequently recover it during the dry season 

for use as an alternative drinking-water supply source. Water is injected down an ASR well, 

stored in an aquifer, and withdrawn using the same well. Many utility-operated ASR facilities 

now have wells completed in deep confined aquifers for this purpose. Large scale application of 

the ASR technology is under evaluation as a storage option in the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan. 

A series of CERP pilot projects and a regional ASR study are currently being evaluated to help 

determine the magnitude of the application of ASR to help meet the storage necessary to 

improve Lake Okeechobee’s operating levels to more ecologically desirable ranges as well as 

reduce undesirable discharges to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries and to address 

potential problems that have been identified that could limit application of this storage option. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-12 

7.3.2.4 Water Disposal 

7.3.2.4.1 Deep Well Injection 

Deep injection wells have been extensively used across the US to dispose of a variety of fluid 

materials for many years. Depending upon the nature of material discharged and the depth at 

which the fluid is discharged, deep wells are classified by EPA as belonging to one of five 

classes, namely, I, II, III, IV, and V. The requirements for siting, permitting, and monitoring and 

the costs for construction and operation vary significantly by well class. 

Deep injection wells were considered by the P2TP planning team to dispose of excess 

stormwater run-off at selected locations in the watershed. A typical deep injection well is 24 

inches in diameter and discharges 2,000 to 3,000 ft below the surface into the boulder zone. 

They are conceptually installed in clusters of four arranged in a linear array and can dispose up 

to 17 million gallons of stormwater runoff per day per well. 

Permitting requirements for deep injection wells are generally easier to meet than those for ASR 

wells (because ASR wells typically inject into drinking-water aquifers, whereas injection wells 

typically inject into aquifers containing salt water). Deep injection wells also have the added 

advantage of permanently disposing of the nutrient- and pollutant-contaminated stormwater. 

Additionally, injection wells can typically be operated at higher pumping rates than ASR wells, 

because they inject water into a high capacity aquifer called the boulder zone. The primary 

disadvantage of using existing deep injection wells is that once the water is injected it cannot be 

easily recovered without major retrofitting. New wells can be designed with recovery options. 

7.4 Determination of Relatively Constraint-Free Acreages (CFA) 

To identify land areas within the P2TP project study area with the fewest MM siting constraints, 

a customized, GIS-based spatial data tool, the Land Suitability Model (LSM), was created. The 

LSM incorporates multiple land characteristics as discrete data layers and allows the quick visual 

identification of those land areas with the fewest siting constraints. Data inputs for the LSM 

included most recent land use/land cover information and pre-determined siting constraints. 

For the lower half of the P2TP study area, which coincided with the CERP’s LOW Project study 

area, 2004 updated land use/land cover information was used. For the upper half of the P2TP 

study area, 1999 land use/land cover information was updated using Florida Land Use, Covers, 

and Forms System (FLUCCS) Level 1 codes (FDOT, 1999). This update identified 

agricultural/rural areas that have become urbanized since 1999. 

7.4.1 MM Constraints 

The LSM incorporated the following siting constraint criteria (Table 7-2): 

• Real estate – Because relatively large parcels of land would be needed to site the P2TP 

management measures and most of the land will have to be acquired from current land 

owners, a desirable feature was ability to identify acreages that would require relatively 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-13 

fewer real estate transactions. By using this feature, fewer individuals and businesses would 

be impacted and administrative costs would be significantly reduced. 

Therefore, areas with a parcel density of six or fewer parcels per section (large-sized parcels 

with few owners) were considered highly suitable. In contrast, areas with parcel density of 

26 or more parcels per section (many small-sized parcels with many different owners) were 

considered to have low suitability. Areas with a parcel density from 7 to 25 parcels per 

section were considered moderately suitable. Note that while relatively fewer number of 

owners was considered a desirable attribute, it is recognized that real estate transactions will 

have to be conducted with these land owners. 

• Existing wetlands – Another siting objective was to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to 

existing wetlands. Therefore locating an MM feature outside existing wetlands was 

considered a positive attribute. If features had to be located in existing wetlands then 

mitigation would be required. Accordingly, areas outside the boundaries of existing 

wetlands were designated as highly suitable and areas within the boundaries of existing 

wetlands were designated as moderately suitable. This constraint was included in the LSM 

to meet the intent of the legislation which requires that potential impacts to wetlands be 

identified to the maximum extent practicable. 

• Ecologic value – The goal was to avoid locating project features in areas with high 

ecological value and preferentially site MMs on lands with relatively low ecological values. 

An ecologic value score (EVS) ranging from 0 to 10 was assigned to each major land 

use/land cover type in the study area based on best professional judgment. The EVS 

reflected habitat type and project suitability and included consideration of critical habitats, 

threatened & endangered species distribution, and biodiversity issues. 

A low EVS (0 to 2) represents land areas with low ecologic value and high suitability for 

locating project features. In contrast, a high EVS (>4) represents parcels with high ecologic 

value and low suitability for locating project features. Areas with an EVS between 2 and 4 

were characterized as having moderate suitability. This constraint was included in the LSM 

to meet the intent of the legislation which requires that potential impacts to threatened and 

endangered species be identified to the maximum extent practicable. 

• Land use economic values – This goal intends to minimize impacts to the regional 

economy. High intensity land uses that require more intensive labor and/or economic 

resources were considered to be poor sites for locating project features. Using best 

professional judgment, a low, moderate, or high economic values was assigned to each major 

land use/land cover type in the study area. Parcels that had low economic values, based on 

existing land use, were considered highly suitable for locating project features. This 

relatively simple approach to estimating land use economic values was considered adequate 

for preliminary planning. During the advanced planning phase, detailed analyses of real 

estate costs and economic impacts associated with varying land uses will be conducted. 

• Cultural resources – Land areas that contain culturally important resources were to be 

avoided during the locating process to prevent adverse impacts. A 300 ft buffer zone was 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-14 

considered adequate to lessen the impacts and, accordingly, areas outside a 300 ft buffer zone 

of known culturally important resources were considered highly suitable for locating project 

features, whereas areas inside the 300 ft buffer zone were considered moderately suitable. 

• Infrastructure – Proposed project features cannot be sited on lands occupied by 

infrastructure such as large drainage canals, roads, highways, utility corridors, airports, etc. 

For linear infrastructure features, a 100 ft protection corridor on either side was considered to 

provide adequate protection. Therefore, areas within the 200 ft buffer were assigned low 

suitability and locations outside the 200 ft buffer were considered highly suitable for locating 

project features. For airports, the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) requires a 10,000 ft 

buffer zone, accordingly all locations within 10,000 ft of a major airport were assigned a low 

suitability and areas outside the 10,000 ft buffer were considered highly suitable. 

Table 7-2. Land Suitability Model (LSM) attributes. 

Constraint Suitability Attributes 

Layer 

Criteria 

Category 1 

High 

Suitability 

Category 2 

Moderate 

Suitability 

Category 3 

Low 

Suitability 

Data Source 

Real Estate Minimize number of 

impacted parcels 

0 to 6 parcels/ 

section 

7 to 25 parcels/ 

section 

26 or more 

parcels/ section 

FDR, 2003 

Existing 

Wetlands 

Avoid existing 

wetlands 

Outside the 

boundary of 

existing 

wetlands 

Within the 

boundary of 

existing 

wetlands 

-- SFWMD, 

1999 

Ecologic Value Avoid areas with high 

ecologic values 

Areas with 

ecologic values 

between 0 and 2 

Areas with 

ecologic values 

between 3 and 4 

Areas with 

ecologic values 

greater than 4 

USFWS, 2007 

Land Use 

Economic 

Values 

Minimize regional 

economic impacts 

and real estate costs 

Land use types 

with low 

economic 

impact/ value 

Land use types 

with moderate 

economic 

impact/ value 

Land use types 

with high 

economic 

impact/ value 

SFWMD, 

2003a 

Cultural 

Resources 

Avoid areas of 

culturally significant 

resources 

Areas outside a 

300 ft buffer 

zone 

Areas inside a 

300-ft buffer 

zone 

-- FDHR, 

2002 

Infrastructure Avoid overlap with 

major infrastructure 

features 

Areas outside 

the 100 ft buffer 

zone 

-- Areas inside the 

buffer zone 

FGDL, 2007 

SFWMD, 

1997 

7.4.2 LSM Scoring Approach 

Using the values in Table 7-2, each land area was assigned a level of suitability value for each 

constraint layer. The suitability attribute values ranged from high suitability (Category 1), to 

moderate suitability (Category 2), to low suitability (Category 3). 

Each land area was then evaluated for overall suitability using the scoring strategy presented in 

Table 7-3. For example, a land area which received Category 1 suitability values for all 

constraint layers other than Cultural Resources, would receive a LSM score of 2. Each 

suitability attribute level indicates the extent to which a given area could be considered relatively 

suitable for siting a project feature. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-15 

Table 7-3. Land Suitability Model (LSM) scoring strategy. 

LSM Score Scoring Strategy Suitability Attribute 

1 No Category 2 or 3 Very Good 

2 One Category 2 Good 

3 Two Category l 2 Moderate 

4 Three or more Category 2 Marginal 

5 One Category 3 Poor 

7.4.3 Secondary Screening Criteria 

Soil type was used as a secondary screening criterion. After the LSM identified areas with the 

fewest constraints and the lowest LSM scores, the soil type layer was superimposed on the LSM 

model output. The soil types for the suitable sites were evaluated to identify areas more suitable 

for locating water storage features such as reservoirs versus those areas that are more suitable for 

locating stormwater treatment areas (STAs). To reduce loss of water through infiltration, water 

storage features would be preferentially located in areas with non-porous soils types. Locations 

with hydric soils were considered best suited for locating STAs. 

7.4.4 LSM Output 

Those areas with the fewest constraints are shown in the LSM output (Figure 7-2). Darker areas 

received a high LSM score and are considered to have poor suitability for locating project 

features. Lighter areas received a low LSM score and are considered to have high suitability. 

For example, areas that received a LSM score of 5 (poor suitability) are shown in the darkest 

shade of brown; areas that are received a LSM score of 1 (very good suitability) are shown in 

white. 

Note that the LSM model output is only intended to provide general guidance on constraint-free 

acreages within the study area. Detailed analyses of locations for siting specific project features 

will be performed during feasibility studies. Also, output from planning tools such as the LSM is 

typically used to guide siting of large, regional facilities such as reservoirs and STAs; it is not 

intended to be used for locating smaller, local projects such as wetland rehydration. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-16 

Figure 7-2. Land Suitability Model output. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-17 

7.5 Plan Formulation 

Alternative plans were formulated by the CAPT by considering all five levels of MMs. Because 

Level 1 and Level 2 MMs were either already constructed/ implemented or their construction/ 

implementation was imminent these MMs would be included in all alternative plans. This suite 

of Level 1 and Level 2 MMs is referred to as common elements. 

By combining viable MMs, four alternative plans were identified that met pre-established 

planning objectives: 

7.5.1 Alternative 1 – Common Elements 

This alternative characterizes the TP load reduction and storage that would be provided by the 

Level 1 and Level 2 MMs. It also includes certain Level 3 and Level 4 MMs for which, in the 

planning team’s opinion, construction/implementation was imminent pending resolution of 

certain issues. Key features of Alternative 1 included the following: 

• Level 1 local features – Owner-implemented Agricultural BMPs, Funded Cost-shared 

BMPs, Cost-shared Future Funding Agricultural BMPs, Additional Agricultural BMPs, ECP 

diversions, Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule, Land Application of Residuals, Florida Yards and 

Neighborhoods, ERP Regulatory Program, NPDES Stormwater Program, Coastal and 

Estuarine Land Conservation Program, Watershed Phosphorus Source Control Projects, 

Alternative Water Storage Facilities (5 sites), Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services 

Project (4 existing projects), and Local Initiatives (3 projects) 

• Level 1 regional features – Taylor Creek Critical Project STA, Nubbin Slough Critical 

Project STA, Taylor Creek Algal Turf Scrubber Nutrient Recovery Facility, and Kissimmee 

River ASR Pilot Project 

• Level 2 local features –Works of District Regulatory Phosphorus Source Control Program, 

Alternative Water Storage Facilities (3 sites), and Florida Ranchlands Environmental 

Services Project (4 new pilot projects) 

• Level 2 regional features –Lakeside Ranch STA, Lemkin Creek Urban Stormwater Facility, 

Seminole Brighton ASR Pilot, and Taylor Creek ASR Reactivation 

• Level 3 local features –FP&L Martin Cooling Pond, Comprehensive Planning – Land 

Development Regulations, and Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Watershed Basin Rule 

• Level 3 regional features –Taylor Creek Reservoir, Brady Ranch STA, Paradise Run 10-

well ASR system, Paradise Run Wetland Restoration Project, and Rolling Meadows Catfish 

Wetland Restoration 

• Level 4 regional features –Kissimmee Reservoir, Istokpoga Reservoir, and Istokpoga STA 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-18 

The project goal is to reduce TP loading from the watershed by 409 mt/yr and achieve the Lake 

Okeechobee TP TMDL. Level 1 and 2 MMs of Alternative 1 are projected to cumulatively 

reduce TP loads by 239 mt/yr; the Level 3 and 4 MMs are projected to reduce TP loads by 

another 62 mt/yr. Overall, Alternative 1 would provide reduced TP loading by 301 mt/yr, which 

would fall short of meeting the TMDL by 108 mt/yr (Table 7-4). 

Table 7-4. Summary of total phosphorus (TP) load reduction associated with 

Alternative 1.

Initial TP load (1991-2005) 514 mt/yr 

TMDL 105 mt/yr 

Load reduction required to meet TMDL 409 mt/yr 

 

Load reduction provided by Level 1 and Level 2 Project features of 

Alternative 1 

239 mt/yr 

Load reduction provided by Level 3 and Level 4 Project features of 

Alternative 1 

62 mt/yr 

Total load reduction provided by Alternative 1 301 mt/yr 

TMDL shortfall 108 mt/yr 

Alternative 1 also includes several storage features that would provide annual average surface 

storage capacity of approximately 265,000 ac-ft. 

7.5.2 Alternative 2 – Maximizing Storage 

This alternative plan was intended to maximize storage capacity in the LOW. Using Alternative 

1 as a base, new MMs were added that would provide increased storage capacity. Accordingly, 

it consisted of all MMs that were included in Alternative 1 plus the following three, new, Level 4 

structural features1: 

• Kissimmee Reservoir East – This feature would provide up to 200,000 ac-ft of storage 

capacity and reduce TP loads by approximately 6.5 mt/yr. It would be located to the east of 

Kissimmee River in the Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed. It consists of a 16-ft deep, 

14,000-acre reservoir that would primarily receive flows from and discharge back to the 

Kissimmee River. Water stored in this reservoir can potentially also be diverted to the 

Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Sub-watershed for additional treatment. 

• Istokpoga/Kissimmee Reservoir – This facility would provide a total of 600,000 ac-ft of 

storage capacity with flows coming from the Istokpoga Basin and the Kissimmee River. The 

configuration for this proposed reservoir was developed by modifying a feature evaluated by 

the CERP LOW Project during early planning stages. The reservoir would occupy 42,000 

acres in the southern reaches of the Lake Istokpoga and Indian Prairie Sub-watersheds. 

Because of its proximity to Lake Okeechobee and its large size, this feature could also be 

used to store lake waters, if needed. It would also provide annual average TP load reduction 

 

1

Note that configuration of Level 4 MMs (size, depth, and location) presented is based on conceptual planning only, 

additional feasibility studies will have to be conducted to finalize the configuration of these features. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-19 

of approximately 6.2 mt/yr from watershed flows and 22.7 mt/yr of load reduction for in-lake 

waters. 

• Fisheating Creek Reservoir – This facility would provide 250,000 ac-ft of storage capacity 

in the Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed. It consists of a 17,500 acre, 16-ft deep reservoir that 

would primarily receive flows from Fisheating Creek. Because of its proximity to Lake 

Okeechobee, it could also be used to store lake waters, if necessary. This reservoir would 

also provide annual average TP load reduction of approximately 2.6 mt/yr from watershed 

flows and 12.9 mt/yr of load reduction for in-lake waters. 

Besides providing significant additional storage capacity, the three proposed reservoirs would 

also collectively provide TP load reduction of 15 mt/yr. Thus Alternative 2 would reduce TP 

loads by 316 mt/yr. This would leave a TP TMDL shortfall of 93 mt/yr (Table 7-5). 

Table 7-5. Summary of total phosphorus (TP) load reduction associated with 

Alternative 2.

Initial TP load (1991-2005) 514 mt/yr 

TMDL 105 mt/yr 

Load reduction required to meet TMDL 409 mt/yr 

 

Load reduction provided by Alternative 1 301 mt/yr 

Load reduction provided by the three new project features in Alternative 2 15 mt/yr 

Total load reduction provided by Alternative 2 316 mt/yr 

TMDL shortfall 93 mt/yr 

Additional in-lake TP load reduction 36 mt/yr 

The Istokpoga/Kissimmee and the Fisheating Creek reservoirs could also be used to store Lake 

Okeechobee water. Therefore, the Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model (NERSM) 

simulation for Alternative 2 also included an operating rule that dictated when lake water would 

be pumped into and out of the proposed reservoirs. Storing lake waters in the proposed features 

is expected to reduce Lake Okeechobee TP loads by 36 mt/yr. At this time, this load reduction 

does not count towards the TMDL. 

Alternative 2 focused on maximizing storage and provided approximately 1.3 million ac-ft of 

surface storage. 

7.5.3 Alternative 3 – Maximizing Water Quality Improvements 

This alternative plan was intended to maximize TP load reduction in the LOW. Using 

Alternative 1 as the basis, new MMs were added to increase TP load reduction. This plan 

consisted of all features from Alternative 1 plus the following seven, new Level 4 MMs: 

• S-154 Basin Deep Injection Well – This feature would be located in the S-154 drainage 

basin of the Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed which is characterized by relatively high TP 

loading. Approximately 16,500 ac-ft of water would be disposed of annually into the boulder 

zone using a cluster of deep injection wells. Disposal of this water would provide an average 

TP load reduction of 9 mt/yr. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-20 

• Istokpoga Canal RASTA – This feature would provide 28,000 ac-ft of storage capacity. It 

consists of a 2,000 acre, 16-ft deep reservoir coupled with a 5,000 acre STA. This feature 

would target runoff from the Lower Kissimmee, the Lake Istokpoga, and the Indian Prairie 

Sub-watersheds. Collectively, this RASTA would reduce TP loads by approximately 10 to 

18 mt/yr. 

• Fisheating Creek RASTAs – Even after all LOPP-mandated BMPs and watershed 

phosphorus source control projects are implemented in the Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed, 

it is projected that 39 mt/yr of TP would continue to be discharged to Lake Okeechobee from 

this drainage basin. To markedly reduce TP loading from this sub-watershed, two separate, 

strategically located RASTAs were conceptualized. 

- Fisheating Creek RASTA I would provide 39,000 ac-ft of storage capacity in the upper 

reaches of the Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed. It consists of a 9,000 acre STA and a 

3,000 acre, 10-ft deep reservoir. This RASTA would reduce TP loads by approximately 

28-29 mt/yr. 

- Fisheating Creek RASTA II would provide 15,000 ac-ft of storage capacity in the lower 

reaches of the Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed. It consists of a 1,350 acre, 12-ft deep 

reservoir and a 450 acre STA. This RASTA would reduce TP loads by approximately 2-3 

mt/yr. 

• Clewiston STA – This 700 acre STA would be located south of Lake Okeechobee and would 

reduce TP loads approximately 2.5 mt/yr. 

• S-133 Water Quality Treatment Facility – It was important to locate a water quality 

improvement feature in the S-133 sub-basin of the Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed because 

the original plan of treating flows from this sub-basin using one of the LOFT STAs has 

recently been shown to be impracticable. This feature would reduce TP loads by 2-3 mt/yr. 

The exact nature of this feature (STA, deep well, expansion of the existing Lemkin Creek 

Urban Stormwater Treatment Area, or a combination of these) would be determined through 

a feasibility study. 

• S-68 STA – One of the major sources of TP loading in the Istokpoga/Indian Prairie Subwatershed is flows from the intense agricultural operations located to the south of Lake 

Istokpoga. A 5,000 acre STA was conceptualized to capture these flows. This STA would be 

located in the Lake Istokpoga and Indian Prairie Sub-watersheds and reduce TP loads by 8 

mt/yr. 

These seven new project features would collectively reduce TP loading by 63 mt/yr. Thus, 

Alternative 3 would provide a total TP load reduction of 364 mt/yr. This would leave a TP 

TMDL shortfall of 45 mt/yr (Table 7-6). Annual average surface storage capacity associated 

with Alternative 3 was estimated at 330,000 ac-ft. 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-21 

Table 7-6. Summary of total phosphorus (TP) load reduction associated with 

Alternative 3.

Initial TP load (1991-2005) 514 mt/yr 

TMDL 105 mt/yr 

Load reduction required to meet TMDL 409 mt/yr 

 

Load reduction provided by Alternative 1 301 mt/yr 

Load reduction provided by the seven new project features in Alternative 3 63 mt/yr 

Total Load reduction provided by Alternative 3 364 mt/yr 

TMDL shortfall 45 mt/yr 

7.5.4 Alternative 4 – Optimize Storage and Water Quality Improvements 

 This alternative plan was intended to optimize storage capacity and reduce TP loads in the study 

area. It was conceived as a hybrid between Alternative Plans 2 and 3 and would essentially 

reduce some storage capacity to increase TP load reduction. Accordingly, it consisted of all 

constituents of Alternative 1 plus the following nine, new MMs: 

• Nicodemus Slough RASTA – This proposed feature would provide approximately 168,000 

ac-ft of storage capacity and reduce TP loads up to 33 mt/yr in the lower reaches of the 

Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed. The RASTA complex consists of a 6,500 acre STA 

coupled with an 11,000 acre, 16-ft deep reservoir. Because of its proximity to Lake 

Okeechobee, it could also be used to store and treat lake waters, if necessary. 

• Fisheating Creek RASTA I – same configuration as previously described in Alternative 3

• Fisheating Creek RASTA II – same configuration as previously described in Alternative 3 

• Taylor Creek STA – This proposed 2,000 acre STA would replace the LOFT 2,000 acre 

reservoir at the same location that was originally proposed for Alternative 1. This feature 

would reduce TP loads by 6 mt/yr. Since flows in Taylor Creek, which would be the primary 

source of water for this STA, are transient, this STA could also treat water from the East 

Kissimmee Reservoir. 

• Istokpoga/Kissimmee RASTA – This proposed feature would provide a total annual 

average storage capacity of 273,600 ac-ft and collect runoff from the Lake Istokpoga and 

Indian Prairie Basin Sub-watersheds and the Kissimmee River Sub-watershed. It includes an 

8,000 acre STA coupled with a 19,000 acre reservoir and it would be located in the Indian 

Prairie Basin Sub-watershed. The RASTA complex would reduce TP loads by 37 mt/yr. 

Because of its proximity to Lake Okeechobee and its large size, this feature could also be 

used to store and treat Lake Okeechobee waters, as appropriate. 

• Kissimmee Reservoir East – same configuration as previously described in Alternative 2 

• S-154 Basin Deep Injection Well – same configuration as previously described in 

Alternative 3 
Section 7 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

7-22 

• Clewiston STA – same configuration as previously described in Alternative 3 

• S-133 Water Quality Treatment Facility – same configuration as previously described in 

Alternative 3 

• S-68 STA – same configuration as previously described in Alternative 3 

These nine new project features would collectively reduce TP loads in watershed flows by 

approximately 59 mt/yr and in-lake loading by approximately 74 mt/yr. Thus, Alternative 4 

would provide a total TP load reduction of 360 mt/yr. This would leave a TMDL shortfall of 49 

mt/yr (Table 7-7). 

Table 7-7. Summary of total phosphorus (TP) load reduction associated with 

Alternative 4.

Initial TP load (1991-2005) 514 mt/yr 

TMDL 105 mt/yr 

Load reduction required to meet TMDL 409 mt/yr 

 

Load reduction provided by Alternative 1 301 mt/yr 

Load reduction provided by the nine new project features in Alternative 4 59 mt/yr 

Total Load reduction provided by Alternative 4 360 mt/yr 

TMDL shortfall 49 mt/yr 

Additional in-lake TP load reduction 74 mt/yr 

The Nicodemus Slough and the Istokpoga/Kissimmee RASTAs could also be used to store and 

treat Lake Okeechobee water. The NERSM simulation for Alternative 4 included an operating 

rule that dictated when lake water would be pumped into and out of the proposed reservoirs and 

STAs. Storing and treating lake water in the two RASTAs is expected to reduce Lake 

Okeechobee TP loads by approximately 74 mt/yr. At this time, this TP load reduction does not 

count toward the TMDL. 

Annual average surface storage capacity associated with Alternative 4 was estimated at 900,000 

ac-ft. Table 7-8 compares the projected performance of the four alternative plans; individual 

management measure components of each of the four alternative plans are shown in Table 7-9. 

Table 7-8. P2TP comparison of alternative plan performance. 

Alternative 

No. 

Alternative Characterization Projected 

Average TP 

Load 

Reduction* 

(mt/yr) 

Estimated 

TMDL 

Shortfall 

(mt/yr) 

Projected 

Surface 

Storage 

Capacity 

(ac-ft) 

1 Current, on-going, and planned projects 301 108 265,000 

2 Maximizes storage capacity 316 93 1,300,000 

3 Maximizes phosphorus load reduction 364 45 330,000 

4 Integrates the most efficient and effective 

combination of storage capacity and 

phosphorus load reduction 

360 49 900,000 

*target reduction is 409 mt/yr.
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

7-23 

Table 7-9. Management measures associated with P2TP Alternative Plans. 

MM 

ID Management Measure MM Description MM Level 

1 Agricultural BMPs - Owner Implemented Conservation plans, including Agricultural Nutrient Management 

Plans, have enrolled over 527,370 acres in the LOW to reduce TP load to lake. Costs incurred by owner. 

1 

2 Agricultural BMPs - Funded Cost Share Conservation plans, including Agricultural Nutrient Management 

Plans, have enrolled over 527,370 acres in the LOW to reduce TP load to lake. Costs to be shared between land owner and the State. 

1 

3 Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule (LOER) FDACS prepared statewide draft rule to regulate N and P in urban turf 

fertilizers. 1 

4 Land Application of Residuals LOPA requirement that domestic wastewater residuals will not add to 

TP loadings in Lake Okeechobee. 1 

5 Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Educate citizens and builders about proper landscape design to 

minimize nutrient loading to lake by reducing use of pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation water. 

1 

7 ERP Regulatory Program Permit regulating activities involving alteration of surface water 

flows. 1 

8 NPDES Stormwater Program Rules implemented by EPA to reduce stormwater pollutant loads 

discharged to surface waters. 1 

99 Taylor Creek Critical Project 142 acre STA located at the Grassy Island Ranch Site on District 

owned lands. Receives flow from and discharges to Taylor Creek. Provides annual average load reduction of 0.3 mt. 

1 

100 Nubbin Slough Critical Project 809 acre STA located at the New Palm Dairy Site on District owned 

lands. Receives flow from and discharges to Nubbin Slough. Provides average TP load reduction of 0.9 mt/yr. 

1 

13 Taylor Creek Algal Turf Scrubber Nutrient 

Recovery Facility 

A 15 MGD facility on a District owned property at the Grassy Island Site in S-191 basin. Consists of an engineered system in which attached algae are cultured and biomass is routinely harvested to facilitate recovery of pollutants from impaired waters. Projected average TP-load reduction is approximately1.82 mt/yr. 

1 

53 Watershed Phosphorus Source Control 

Projects 

About 30 ongoing projects in the four priority basins to treat water and reduce TP loads at source. 1 

49 Agricultural BMPs - Cost Share Future 

Funding 

Conservation plans, including Agricultural Nutrient Management Plans, have enrolled over 527,370 acres in the LOW to reduce TP load to lake. Costs to be shared between land owner and the State. 

1 

50 Agricultural BMPs - Additional Advanced level BMPs including chemical treatment and 1 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

7-24 

MM 

ID Management Measure MM Description MM Level 

Agricultural BMPs retention/detention ponds to treat water and reduce TP load at source 

in all basins north of Lake Okeechobee. 

93 Kissimmee River ASR Project Facility is located along the Kissimmee River, 2 miles north of Lake 

Okeechobee. It is intended to test the feasibility of using ASR technology as part of CERP. 

1 

12a LOER AWS - Brighton Reservoir 

500-acre stormwater storage and treatment area located in the L-61 East Basin. 1 

12b LOER AWS - Clewiston Site 

728 acres of primarily State and some privately owned land bordering Lake Okeechobee just outside of Clewiston. Temporary 50 cfs pump would deliver C-21 regional water into the site for storage 

1 

12e LOER AWS - Avon Park Air Force Range 

On-site retention on 3,600 acres providing approximately 10,000 acre-feet of storage capacity. Includes restoration of existing levee and water control structures. Will reduce flows and nutrient loading 

to Arbuckle Marsh. 

1 

12f 

LOER AWS - Indiantown Citrus Growers Association 

3,550 acre-feet of water storage on 1,775 acres. Includes rehabilitation and relocation of pump stations and widening ditches to reduce surface water volume discharged to St. Lucie Estuary 

1 

12g 

LOER AWS - Barron Water Control District 

5,000 acre-feet of water storage on 6,129 acres. Includes weir 

construction and ditch retention to enable water quality improvements and reuse by growers 

1 

12h LOER AWS - Raulerson and Sons, Inc. 

300 acre-feet of water storage on 670 acres. Will reduce flows and nutrient loading to Fish Slough 1 

12i 

LOER AWS - Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park 

3,800 acre-feet of water storage on 1,920 acres. Will enhance quality of water entering Kissimmee River via Duck Slough, Lake Okeechobee, and the Everglades 

1 

87a_1 FRESP - Alderman-Deloney Ranch (C-25 

basin) 

43 ac-ft of on-site storage and TP-load reduction of 0.078 mton/yr Located in C-25 basin. 1 

87a_2 FRESP - Williamson Cattle Company (S191) 150 ac-ft of on-site storage and TP-load reduction of 0.24 mton/yr. Located in S-191 basin. 1 87a_3 FRESP - Buck Island Ranch (C-41) 967 ac-ft of on-site storage and TP-load reduction of 1.5 mton/yr 

Located in C-41 basin. 1 

87a_4 FRESP - Lykes Bros (C-40) 5,000 ac-ft of regional water storage and TP-load reduction of 0.2 

mt/yr. Located in C-40 basin. 1 

70a Local Initiatives - Taylor Creek Sediment 

Removal (S-133) 

Removal of sediment and vegetation from canals tributary to Taylor Creek in the Treasure Island and Taylor Creek Isles residential areas. 1 

70b Local Initiatives - Okeechobee City 

Sediment Trap (S-133) 

Two sediment traps installed within the city of Okeechobee to remove P-laden particles that would enter Lake Okeechobee. 1 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

7-25 

MM 

ID Management Measure MM Description MM Level 

70c Local Initiatives - Nubbin Slough East 

Diversions (S-133) 

Restoration of the east main tributary flow conveyance to Nubbin Slough to reduce flooding. 1 

116 In-lake Features – Muck Sediment 

Removal 

Involves removal of muck sediments from shore line areas that are 

completely exposed due to extremely low lake stages. This scraping exposes the natural bottom which in turn promotes re-growth of native vegetation once the lake levels return to normal. 

1 

15 LO WoD Rule Regulatory P Source 

Control Program 

Amend Lake Okeechobee Works of the District rule to meet current needs including: P source control program, BMP optimization, and monitoring network to measure effectiveness of all BMP Programs within the watershed. 

2 

16 Lakeside Ranch STA (LOFT) 2,400 acre STA in western Martin County between Beeline Highway 

and Lake Okeechobee. Will provide annual average TP-load reduction of 8 mt. 

2 

17 Lemkin Creek Urban Stormwater Facility 

(LOFT) 

150 acre stormwater treatment facility located on District owned lands in Okeechobee County southwest of the City of Okeechobee. Will provide annual average TP-load reduction of 1 mt 

2 

18 Seminole Brighton Reservation ASR Pilot One 5 MGD ASR well system located along the C-41 Canal on the 

western edge of the Reservation in Glades County. 2 

19 Taylor Creek ASR Reactivation One 6 MGD well system located adjacent to the L-63N Canal in 

Okeechobee, Florida. 2 

87b_1 FRESP - C.M. Payne and Son, Inc 

(Fisheating Creek) 

932 ac-ft of on-site storage in Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed 2 

87b_2 FRESP - Lightsey Cattle Company 

(Fisheating Creek) 

135 ac-ft of on-site water storage in Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed 2 

87b_3 FRESP - Syfrett Ranch West (C-41A) 140 ac-ft of regional water storage in C-41A basin 2 87b_4 FRESP - Rafter T Ranch (Arbuckle Creek) 1,145 ac-ft of on-site storage along Arbuckle Creek 2 

12c LOER AWS - Rolling Meadows Stormwater storage on 400 acres of District-owned land. Will reduce 

runoff and nutrient loading to Lake Kissimmee. 3 

12d LOER AWS - Sumica 1,920 acres of over drained property which has been over drained by 

adjacent DOT box culverts. Project proposes to install a rip rap weir upstream of the box culverts to maintain stormwater for hydrologic restoration on-site before eventually reaching Lake Kissimmee. 

3 

12k LOER AWS - Lykes Nicodemus Slough Design, engineer, and implement a water storage area on 15,129 acres 

of which a flowage easement exists on the southern most 2,000 acres 

in an area surrounding Nicodemus Slough near Fisheating Creek. The project will have the potential to store 13,000 to 26,000 acre feet of water from Lake Okeechobee. 

3 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

7-26 

MM 

ID Management Measure MM Description MM Level 

12n LOER AWS - Fisheating Creek Marsh 

Watershed Project 

Evaluate, engineer, and rehabilitate PL 566 water control structures in the Fisheating Creek Marsh Watershed project area to more effectively store and manage water and reduce phosphorus runoff from more than 50,000 acres in the headwaters of Fisheating Creek. 

3 

120 Central County Water Control District 

Reservoir 

Construct and operate the CCWCD reservoir under a cooperative agreement between the South Florida Water Management District and 

CCWCD to provide both flood protection and excess water storage in the Caloosahatchee Basin. 

3 

21 LO and Estuary Watershed Basin Rule 

(LOER) 

Develop specific supplemental permit criteria designed to reduce TP loads and total runoff volume from new developments that discharge to Lake Okeechobee, St. Lucie, or Caloosahatchee Estuary. 

3 

23 Taylor Creek Reservoir (LOFT) Will provide approximately 24,000 ac-ft of storage. 1,600 acre, 16-ft 

deep reservoir located on District owned lands in at the Grassy Island Ranch Site. 

3 

24 Brady Ranch STA (LOFT) 1,800 acre STA proposed to be located in Western Martin County 

between the Beeline Highway and Lake Okeechobee immediately 

east of Lakeside Ranch. 

3 

26 10 Well ASR System (Paradise Run) 50 MGD ASR system along Lake Okeechobee in the area of Paradise 

Run in Highlands County, south of the S-65E structure. 3 

28 Paradise Run Wetland Restoration (LOW 

Project) 

3,730 acre wetland restoration site located at the confluence of Paradise Run, oxbows of the Kissimmee River, and Lake Okeechobee. 

3 

62 Florida Power and Light Martin Cooling 

Pond 

95,000 ac-ft cooling pond located north of the C-44 Canal, east of the L-65 Canal, and west of Indiantown in Martin County. 3 

68 Comprehensive Planning-Land 

Development Regulations 

Basin-wide work with cities and counties to review current plans and ensure promotion of low impact design for stormwater treatment. 3 

56 Rolling Meadows/Catfish Creek 

Restoration 

Hydrologic restoration of Catfish Creek and the creation of an impoundment to restore littoral wetlands. 3 

116 Lake Bed Disking/Plowing Disking involves mixing the organic sediments on the lake bed with 

the underlying layer of mineral soils, usually sands. Mixing the two soils together is expected to reduce the turbidity production and phosphorus flux into the water column. Mixing of the soils is expected to significantly reduce the amount of the organic sediments that are exposed to the water column. Plowing is a similar action, but is accomplished with a farm implement that is designed, not to mix the soil layers, but to invert the two layers. 

3 

12j LOER-AWS - Dupuis Design, engineer, and implement additional 1 to 2 feet of storage in 4 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

7-27 

MM 

ID Management Measure MM Description MM Level 

the Dupuis marsh before on-site stormwater enters the L-8 Canal. 

12l LOER-AWS - Stokes Design, engineer and implement an on-site stormwater storage project 

on a 490 acre site in the Fisheating Creek Basin. The project will have the potential to store approximately 510 ac-ft of water. 

4 

12m LOER-AWS - Waste Management St. 

Lucie Site 

Enter into a partnership arrangement to modify borrow areas into minor above ground impoundment(s). Preliminary hydrologic investigation is in process. 

4 

12p LOER-AWS - Istokpoga Marsh 

Improvement District 

Design and construct an agricultural water treatment facility within the Istokpoga Marsh Improvement District to reduce phosphorus runoff and provide additional storm water storage for the 19,209 acre area. 

4 

12q LOER-AWS - Caulkins Rehabilitation and relocation of internal pump stations. During 

regulatory releases to the St. Lucie Estuary irrigation facilities will be utilized to draw excess stormwater into the 3,400 acre project site. The detention of stormwater within the existing ditch system will result in water quality improvements thereby promoting water conservation and reducing the volume of surface water discharge from the site. 

4 

12r LOER – AWS Lake Wales Ridge State 

Forest Lake Kissimmee Site 

Internal ditch plugs and modified control structures on 800 ac-ft of additional storage. 4 

29 Kissimmee Reservoir Will provide approximately 161,263 ac-ft of storage to be provided 

by 10,281 acre, 16-ft deep reservoir located in Istokpoga/Indian 

Prairie Sub-watershed and will capture flows from the Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed. 

4 

30 Istokpoga Reservoir Will provide storage capacity of 79,560 ac-ft; 5,416 acre, 16-ft deep 

reservoir located in and will capture flows from the Istokpoga/Indian Prairie Sub-watershed. 

4 

31 Istokpoga STA Will provide approximately 29 mt/yr of TP-load reduction; 8,044 acre 

treatment facility; Will target flows from the Istokpoga Subwatershed. 4 

107 Kissimmee Reservoir East Will capture flows from the Kissimmee River and store 

approximately 200,000 ac-ft of water. 12,500, 16-ft deep reservoir located to the east of the Kissimmee River in the Lower Kissimmee 

Sub-watershed. 

4 

108 Istokpoga/Kissimmee Reservoir It would provide a total of 600,000 ac-ft of storage capacity with half 

the flows coming from the Istokpoga Basin and the other half coming from the Kissimmee River. 42,000 acre reservoir located in the 

4 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

7-28 

MM 

ID Management Measure MM Description MM Level 

southern reaches of the Lake Istokpoga/Indian Prairie Sub-watershed. Because of its proximity to Lake Okeechobee and its large size, this feature could also be used to store lake waters, if needed. 

114 Istokpoga/Kissimmee RASTA Would provide total annual average storage capacity of 273,600 ac-ft 

and target flows from both, the Istokpoga/Indian Prairie Basin and the Kissimmee River. 8,000 acre STA coupled with a 19,000 acre reservoir. Projected annual average load reduction of 37 mt. Because of it’s proximity to Lake Okeechobee and its large size, this feature could also be used to store and treat Lake Okeechobee waters, as appropriate. 

4 

61 FEC RASTA I Will provide annual average P-load reduction of approximately 28 to 

29 mt/yr. 9,000 acre STA coupled with a 3,000 acre, 10-ft deep reservoir. 

4 

77 FEC RASTA II Will provide annual average P-load reduction of approximately 2-3 

mt/yr. 1,350 acres, 12-ft deep reservoir coupled with a 450 acre STA. 4 

109 FEC Reservoir Will provide approximately 250,000 ac-ft of storage capacity and its 

primary source of water would be Fisheating Creek. 17,500 acre, 16-ft deep reservoir located in the Nicodemus Slough region of the Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed. Given it’s proximity to Lake Okeechobee it could also be used to store lake waters, if necessary. 

4 

115 Nicodemus Slough RASTA Will provide approximately 168,000 ac-ft of storage capacity and an 

annual average P-load reduction of up to 33 mt/yr. 6,500 acre STA coupled with an 11,000 acre, 16-ft deep reservoir. Given it’s proximity to Lake Okeechobee it could also be used to store and treat lake waters, if necessary. 

4 

112 Istokpoga Canal RASTA Located along the boundary of the Lower Kissimmee and the Lake 

Istokpoga/Indian Prairie Sub-watersheds thereby allowing flows from both sub-watersheds to be captured and treated. Collectively, this RASTA would provide an annual average P-load reduction of approximately 10 to 18 mt/yr. 2,000 acre, 16-ft deep reservoir coupled with a 5,000 acre STA. 

4 

32 (LO) In-Lake Dredging Involves removal of phosphorus-contaminated mud sediments from 

the deeper areas of the lake beyond the littoral shelf using innovative technologies. Exemplified by the recently initiated demonstration dredging and habitat restoration project being implemented near Eagle Bay. The area selected for the demonstration project is currently covered with mud sediments which prevent the growth of 

4 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

7-29 

MM 

ID Management Measure MM Description MM Level 

native aquatic vegetation; therefore, the area has limited habitat value 

38 C-44 Littoral Project includes creation of a littoral zone of native vegetation to 

“treat” for water entering the C-44 via the S308 can benefit Lake Okeechobee and the St Lucie Estuary 

4 

40 Lake Hicpochee Project comprises a reservoir and stormwater treatment area along the 

C-19 and C-43 Canals, degradation of berms, and exotic removal and control. This project could potentially create 55,090 acre feet of 

above ground storage. 

4 

41 C-43 Distributed Reservoirs Project objectives are to capture excess run-off within the West Lake 

Okeechobee Watershed which will then be operated to achieve both environmental flows to the Caloosahatchee Estuary and agricultural demands in the West Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

4 

47 Upper Kissimmee/Chain of Lakes 

Reservoir 

Supplying surface water from the Kissimmee valley lakes and tributaries for water supply is considered the most viable water supply project in the basin and has been identified priority project with the District. A storage reservoir or ASR is expected to be a component of any withdrawal facility to improve reliability. Reductions in ploads would be incidental to the water diverted for consumption. 

4 

59 Nicodemus Slough STA Proposed facility would provide significant load reduction in FEC. 

Since this feature would draw water from close to the mouth of the creek, it would be able to treat loads from the entire drainage basin. 

4 

60 Fisheating Creek Managed Aquatic Plant 

Systems 

Treatment units consisting of managed aquatic plan systems would be considered for siting in this sub-watershed at selected locations. Such units would be used in conjunction with source control practices to treat agricultural runoff with high phosphorus loads. 

4 

65 L-65 Culvert to L-8 Tieback Install a high volume (1000+/- cfs) inverted culvert under the C-44 

Canal from the L-65 Canal to the L-8 Tieback Canal to facilitate the movement of low nutrient water from Stormwater Treatment Areas north of Lake Okeechobee to the L-8 Reservoir. 

4 

71 KRR in Pool E Complete backfilling of C-38 in Pool D. Pool E could be managed to 

maximize nutrient removal. STAs would be constructed on the floodplain adjacent to C-38. Some water moving through C-38 would be directed into the STAs but C-38 would remain intact for flood control. 

4 

73 Central Florida Recharge Project Supplying surface water from the lakes and tributaries for aquifer 

recharge may offset a portion of the environment impacts projected to 

occur and that will limit future use of the Floridan aquifer system. 

4 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

7-30 

MM 

ID Management Measure MM Description MM Level 

Water delivered to these RIB would move to the Floridan aquifer and a small percentage would be blended with reclaimed water for irrigation. Water would be moved to these RIBs only during high lake levels. Reductions in p-loads would be incidental. 

74 Indian Prairie Basin Regional STA Located primarily in the Indian Prairie Sub-watershed this feature 

would consist of a 6,680 acre STA and a 1,531ac wetland Preservation/Enhancement Area. 

4 

75 In-Lake Chemical Treatment Will involve application of chemical treatment technologies inside 

Lake Okeechobee to reduce in-lake TP loads. 4 

78 Taylor Creek Wetland Restoration (Grassy 

Island) 

Project would provide for incidental water storage and also reduce phosphorus from the runoff; would be sited on District owned lands 4 

79 Nubbin Slough Wetland Restoration (New 

Palm Dairy) 

Project would provide for incidental water storage and also reduce phosphorus from the runoff; would be sited on District owned lands 4 

80 ASR-TCNS New ASR facility in the TCNS Sub-watershed 4 81 Managed Aquatic Plant Systems in S-133 Proposed MAPS would target flows and load from a specific portion 

of the drainage basin and provide a certain amount of localized load reduction 

4 

82 Chemical Treatment in Taylor Creek 

Reservoir 

Addition of a chemical treatment unit to the proposed LOW Project Taylor Creek Reservoir in order to enhance TP load reduction 4 

85 Three Lakes WMA Hydrologic Restoration Project is intended to reestablish more natural hydrology and partially 

restore wetlands on the property. This may provide more temporary water storage and potential for phosphorus removal. 

4 

90 Gardner-Cobb Marsh Project would be sited on District owned lands in the Upper 

Kissimmee Sub-watershed and reduce the rate of run-off from this region by holding the water higher, as well as, provide incidental nutrient reductions due to plant uptake from overland flows in the marsh 

4 

91 Farm and Ranchland Protection Program 

Partnership 

Voluntary USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) program that helps farmers and ranchers keep their land in agriculture. The program provides matching funds to State, Tribal or local governments and non-governmental organizations to purchase conservation easements. 

4 

94 Deep Well Injection- C-40 below S-72 Deep-injection well 4 95 Deep Well Injection- C-43 at Berry Groves 

Reservoir 

Deep-injection well 4 

96 Deep Well Injection- C-44 St. Lucie Canal Deep-injection well 4 97 Deep Well Injection- C-41 below S-71 Deep-injection well 4 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

7-31 

MM 

ID Management Measure MM Description MM Level 

98 Deep Well Injection- Taylor Creek/Nubbin 

Slough 

Deep-injection well 4 

104 Larson Dairy Lagoon Treatment System 

(HWTT) 

Hybrid Wetland Treatment TechnologyTM (HWTT) is an innovative approach that combines beneficial attributes of the two top ranked 

nutrient removal technologies, namely wetland treatment and chemical injection. Exemplified by four pilot HWTT systems that are currently being tested in the LOW. 

4 

105 Upper Nubbin Slough Tributary Treatment 

System (HWTT) 

Hybrid Wetland Treatment TechnologyTM (HWTT) is an innovative approach that combines beneficial attributes of the two top ranked 

nutrient removal technologies, namely wetland treatment and chemical injection. Exemplified by four pilot HWTT systems that are currently being tested in the LOW. 

4 

106 Upper Mosquito Creek Watershed 

Treatment System (HWTT) 

Hybrid Wetland Treatment TechnologyTM (HWTT) is an innovative approach that combines beneficial attributes of the two top ranked 

nutrient removal technologies, namely wetland treatment and chemical injection. Exemplified by four pilot HWTT systems that are currently being tested in the LOW. 

4 

63 Wastewater/Stormwater Master Plan Project involves assessing, planning, and updating 

wastewater/stormwater master plans to address short term and long term quality and quantity issues dealing with urban stormwater runoff. The updated plans will identify specific projects to be implemented to improve urban wastewater/stormwater quality. Exemplified by the on-going wastewater/master plan update projects in City of Okeechobee. 

4 

64 Unified Statewide Stormwater Rule Intended to increase the level of nutrient treatment of stormwater 

from new development and thereby reduce the discharge of nutrients and excess stormwater volume. 

4 

54 S-154 Basin Deep Injection Well Annual average P-load associated with the lost water is estimated to 

be approximately 9 mt/yr. Located in the S-154 drainage basin this cluster of deep injection wells would be used to irretrievably pump 16,500 ac-ft of runoff into the boulder zone. 

4 

92 Clewiston STA Will provide annual average P-load reduction of approximately 2.5 

mt/yr. 700 acre STA located south of Lake Okeechobee. 4 

113 Taylor Creek STA Projected annual average P-load reduction is approximately 4 mt. 

2,000 acre STA located on District owned lands at the Grassy Island Ranch Site in S-191 Basin. Would receive flows from and discharge 

to Taylor Creek. Since flows in Taylor Creek, which would be the 

4 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

7-32 

MM 

ID Management Measure MM Description MM Level 

primary source of water for this STA, are transient, this STA could also treat water from the East Kissimmee Reservoir. 

111 S-68 STA Will provide approximately 8 mt/yr of P-load reduction on an annual 

average basis. 5,000 acre STA located in the Istokpoga/Indian Prairie Sub-Watershed. 

5 

110 S-133 Water Quality Treatment Facility A 4-well cluster with a 1,000 ac-ft storage pond to optimize the 

removal of flow and well operation. 5 

48 Compartmentalization of Lake Establishing compartments within the Lake to facilitate lake stage 

management. 5 

55 Construction of S-64 Structure on C-37 This project was part of the original design for the C&SF Project. It 

would allow greater flexibility for lake management in the upper basin. It may be possible to perform draw downs of Lake Toho without also drawing down Lake Kissimmee. 

5 

57 Istokpoga Creek Reservoir Proposed reservoir would create extra storage during times of excess 

water. Water could be withdrawn via Istokpoga Canal from either Lake Istokpoga or the Kissimmee River (under periods of high flow). The reservoir would then serve as a source of water to the Kissimmee 

River, Lake Istokpoga, or downstream water-users during periods of less abundant rainfall. 

5 

58 Alternative Water Storage in Indian Prairie 

Region 

Maximize water storage and meet all water supply needs within the region by limiting discharges to the Lake to when a standard level of flood protection is needed. This system would have the potential to reduce phosphorus loads by nearly 100 percent. 

5 

67 EAA Flow way Originally suggested in 1993, the concept of the EAA Flow-way is to 

convert approximately 120,000 acres of primarily agricultural land into a natural wetland flow-way that would allow water to flow south from Lake Okeechobee to Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA 3A). 

5 

69 Lower Kissimmee Reservoir One or two reservoir(s) would be constructed on either currently 

unused land owned by the SFWMD or on new lands to be acquired. It would be sized to provide the lesser of either the maximum required volume of storage capacity, or to utilize the entire available area. 

5 

72 Ice Cream Slough Creation of a wetland impoundment on SFWMD owned land. 

Restoration of historic floodplain conditions in this area has the potential to retain water in Pool A as well as remove phosphorus from Ice Cream Slough discharge into C-38. 

5 

84 Yates Marsh Hydrologic Restoration Wetland restoration project to restore hydrology of the marsh. 5 86 Upper Chain of Lakes Sediment Removal Take advantage of low water levels during droughts to remove 5 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

7-33 

MM 

ID Management Measure MM Description MM Level 

phosphorus laden sediments; this would enhance the phosphorus assimilation capacity of sediments in the upper basin lakes. 

87c Florida Ranchlands Environmental 

Services Project- full implementation 

Implementation of this program beyond the ongoing pilot projects 5 

88 Chemical Treatment in Istokpoga 

Reservoir 

Addition of a chemical treatment unit to the proposed LOW Project Istokpoga Reservoir in order to enhance TP load reduction 5 

89 Chemical Treatment in Kissimmee 

Reservoir 

Addition of a chemical treatment unit to the proposed LOW Project Kissimmee Reservoir in order to enhance TP load reduction 5 
This page intentionally left blank. 
SECTION 8 

ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND COMPARISON
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 8 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

8.0 ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND COMPARISON............................... 8-1 

8.1 Alternative Plan Evaluation .........................................................................................8-1 

8.1.1 Water Quality Performance Evaluation...............................................................8-1 

8.1.2 Water Quantity (Storage) Performance Evaluation .............................................8-7 

8.1.2.1 Lake Okeechobee............................................................................................. 8-7 

8.1.2.2 Caloosahatchee (C-43) Estuary......................................................................8-15 

8.1.2.3 St Lucie (C-44) Estuary .................................................................................8-19 

8.1.2.4 LOSA and EAA Water Supply...................................................................... 8-22 

8.2 Alternative Plan Comparison.....................................................................................8-25 

8.3 Risks and Uncertainties Analyses..............................................................................8-27 

8.3.1 R&U Analyses Methodology............................................................................. 8-27 

8.3.1.1 Estimating Uncertainties Associated with MM Levels .................................8-27 

8.3.1.2 Estimating Uncertainties Associated with MM Performance........................8-28 

8.4 Identification of the Preferred Phase II Technical Plan.............................................8-30 

List of Tables 

8-1 P-load Reduction Estimates for LOPP Recommended Level 1 and 2 MMs ................... 8-2 

8-2 P2TP Alternative Plans P-load Reduction by Sub-watershed ......................................... 8-4 

8-3 Comparison of Lake Okeechobee and Local Discharges at S-79.................................. 8-15 

8-4 Evaluation Results for the Current and Future Base Conditions and Alternatives 1 

through 4 ....................................................................................................................... 8-26 

8-5 Uncertainty Associated with Management Measure Levels ......................................... 8-28 

8-6 Cumulative Uncertainties Associated with P2TP Alternative Plans ............................. 8-29 

8-7 Contribution of MM Levels towards P-load Reduction and Storage Capacity ............. 8-30 

List of Figures 

8-1 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Lake Okeechobee 

Extreme Low Stages ........................................................................................................ 8-8 

8-2 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Lake Okeechobee 

Extreme High Stages........................................................................................................ 8-9 

8-3 Lake Okeechobee Stage Envelope................................................................................. 8-10 

8-4a Simulated Performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Lake Okeechobee Stage 

Envelope Lower Limit ................................................................................................... 8-12 

8-4b Simulated Performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Lake Okeechobee Stage 

Envelope Upper Limit.................................................................................................... 8-13 

8-5 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Lake Okeechobee 

Minimum Flows and Level............................................................................................ 8-14 

8-6 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Caloosahatchee Estuary 

High Discharge Criteria ................................................................................................. 8-17 

8-7 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Caloosahatchee Estuary 

Salinity Envelope Criteria Not Met ............................................................................... 8-18 
Section 8 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

List of Figures (continued) 

8-8 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – St. Lucie Estuary High 

Discharge Criteria .......................................................................................................... 8-20 

8-9 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – St. Lucie Estuary Salinity 

Envelope Criteria Not Met............................................................................................. 8-21 

8-10 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – LOSA Demand Cutback 

Volumes ......................................................................................................................... 8-23 

8-11 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – LOSA/EEA Supplemental 

Demands & Demands Not Met...................................................................................... 8-24
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-1 

8.0 ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND COMPARISON 

This section describes the process by which the four alternative plans were evaluated and 

compared to each other and to current and future base conditions, as appropriate. It also 

includes a description of the process by which the P2TP was selected. 

8.1 Alternative Plan Evaluation 

Performance of each of the four alternative plans was evaluated to determine the extent to which 

each plan contributed toward achievement of the two major goals, namely 

• meeting the Lake Okeechobee Total Phosphorus (TP) TMDL, and 

• providing additional storage capacity in the watershed to better manage Lake Okeechobee 

stages for ecological purposes and reduce magnitude and frequency of harmful freshwater 

releases to the two estuaries, while meeting water supply needs. 

8.1.1 Water Quality Performance Evaluation 

Contribution of each alternative plan toward meeting the Lake Okeechobee TP TMDL was 

determined by using an Excel spreadsheet tool. For each alternative plan, the reductions in TP 

loading were estimated at the sub-watershed level, in two parts: 

• First, TP load reductions associated with LOPP (SFWMD, 2007) recommended BMPs 

(owner implemented, funded typical cost-share, typical cost-share BMPs requiring future 

funding, and advanced BMPs); watershed phosphorus source control projects; and other 

regional projects were identified and analyzed for each sub-watershed (Table 8-1). All 

LOPP recommended projects were considered Level 1 or 2 MMs by the P2TP planning 

process. 

• Then, TP load reductions associated with Level 3, 4, and 5 MMs were estimated using flows, 

loads, and TP concentrations after the LOPP (SFWMD, 2007) recommended projects were in 

place (Table 8-2). 

Total TP load reduction within each sub-watershed is the sum of the TP load reductions from 

LOPP projects and the Level 3, 4, and 5 MMs. Total TP load reduction provided by an 

alternative plan was determined as the sum of TP load reductions across the nine sub-watersheds 

in the study area. TP load reduction associated with each alternative plan was then compared to 

the TMDL mandated TP load reduction to determine shortfalls, if any. 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-2 

Table 8-1. TP load reduction estimates for LOPP recommended Level 1 and 2 MMs. 

Sub-Watershed 

Upper Kissimmee 

(S-65)** 

Lower Kissimmee 

(S-65A, B ,C ,D ,E) 

Taylor Creek/ 

Nubbin Slough 

(S-191, 

154,133,135) 

Lake Istokpoga 

(S-68)** 

Indian Prairie 

Basins (12 basins) 

Fisheating Creek 

& Nicodemus 

Slough (Culvert 5) 

West Lake 

Okeechobee Basin 

(S-77) *** 

EAA Basins 

Average Annual Discharge (Measured) (1991-2005) (ac-ft) 

954,204 378,836 187,583 299,656 249,175 224,368 5,835 149,4

Annual Average P Conc. (Calculated) (1991-2005) (ppb) 78 166 537 63 289 199 139 177 

Existing Conditions 

Average Annual P Load (Measured) (1991-2005) (mt) 

91 77 124 23 89 55 1 33 

Owner Implemented BMPs (1) (MM 1 from Table 7-9) 7 10 12 2 11 5 0 2 Funded Typical Cost-Share BMPs (2) (MM 2) 0 13 17 0 1 0 0 0 Watershed P Control Projects (3) (MM 53) 0 11 19 0 2 0 0 0 Regional Public Works Projects (4) (MMs 99, 100, 

EAA Reservoir, C-44 Reservoir, Kissimmee River Restoration, ECP Diversions) 

13 7 1 0 0 0 0 21 

Typical Cost-Share BMPs that Require Future Funding (5) (MM 49 from Table 7-9) 

8 8 10 3 12 7 0 0 

Additional Agricultural BMPs (6) (MM 50 from Table 7-9) 7 8 13 3 9 3 0 0 

Estimated 

Phosphorus 

Reduction 

(mt) 

Other Regional Projects (7) 

(MMs 17, 12a, 18, 19, 93, 16 from Table 7-9) 

0 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 

Total Load Reduction to the Lake (mt) 13 57 82 0 37 15 0 23 

Level 1 and 

2 Resulting 

Conditions 

Adjusted Remaining Load Above TMDL* (mt) 

78 21 42 23 51 39 1 12 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-3 

Notes: (1) Reduction resulting from Owner BMPs - applied to all basins except the eight EAA basins. (2) Reduction resulting from cost-share BMPs implemented with federal and state subsidies. (3) Reduction due to ongoing watershed projects: PSCGP, Dairy BATs, Isolated Wetlands, etc. (4) Reduction resulting from implementation of EAA Reservoir (11 mt), C-44 Reservoir (7 mt), LO Critical Projects (1 mt), Kissimme

(KRR) (20 mt), and the ECP/Diversions (BMPs for 8 of the 10 EAA basins have been realized in 2005) (9 mt). 

(5) Potential future (typical), BMPs implemented by land owners with government cost-share. (6) Chemical treatment with retention/detention for Citrus, Dairy, Row crop, Ornamentals, and Sod. 

(7) Reductions from Lemkin Creek STA (1.1 mt), Brighton Reserve Reservoir and ASR (2.3 mt), Taylor Creek ASR (1.2 mt), Kissimm

LOER fast-track project - Lakeside ranch STA (8 mt). 

* To be conservative, where TP reductions were projected to result in concentrations less than 30 ppb, the remaining load was estimate

flow by 30 ppb instead of a lower projected concentration. **TP reductions from implementing BMPs were applied to individual land uses within the Lake Kissimmee basins and Lake Istokpoga 

reductions are important from the overall long-term restoration perspective, they will have little or no short-term improvement on what 

to lakes' internal buffering effects. Therefore, these load reductions were not carried through the remaining spreadsheet calculations. 

***The TP loads into Lake Okeechobee from the East Caloosahatchee basin are small due to the manner in which the basin operates. Tassociated with BMP projects in the Caloosahatchee will primarily benefit the Caloosahatchee basin itself, this, there are no TP load red
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-4 

Table 8-2. P2TP Alternative Plans total phosphorus (TP) load reduction by sub-watersh

Sub-Watershed 

Upper 

Kissimmee (S65)** 

Lower 

Kissimmee (S65A,B,C,D,E) 

Taylor 

Creek/Nubbin 

Slough (S191,154,133,135) 

Lake Istokpoga 

(S-68)** 

Indian Prairie 

Basins (12 

basins) 

Fisheating 

Creek & 

Nicodemus 

Slough (Culv 5) 

West Lake 

Okeechobee 

Basin (S-77) *** 

Load reduction from Level 1 and 2 MMs (mt) (From Table 8-1) 

13 57 82 0 37 15 0 

Load reduction from remaining Alt 1 MMs (mt) (MMs 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 from Table 7-9) 

4 8 15 0 36 0 0 

Total Load Reduction (mt) 17 65 97 0 73 15 0 Adjusted Remaining Load Above TMDL* (mt) 

74 14 26 23 15 39 1 

Alternative #1 Load Reduction Management Measures (8) 

Remaining Concentration (ppb) 63 29 113 63 50 143 139 Load reduction from Level 1 and 2MM (mt) (from Table 8-1) 

13 57 82 0 37 15 0 

Load reduction from remaining Alt 1MMs (mt) (MMs 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 from Table 7-9) 

4 8 15 0 36 0 0 

Load reduction from remaining Alt 2MMs (mt) (MMs 107, 108, 109 from Table 7-9) 

10 0 0 3 0 3 0 

Total Load Reduction (mt) 23 57 82 3 37 18 0 

Alternative #2 Load Reduction Management Measures (9) 

Adjusted Remaining Load Above TMDL* (mt) 

65 14 26 20 15 37 1 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-5 

Sub-Watershed 

Upper 

Kissimmee (S65)** 

Lower 

Kissimmee (S65A,B,C,D,E) 

Taylor 

Creek/Nubbin 

Slough (S191,154,133,135) 

Lake Istokpoga 

(S-68)** 

Indian Prairie 

Basins (12 

basins) 

Fisheating 

Creek & 

Nicodemus 

Slough (Culv 5) 

West Lake 

Okeechobee 

Basin (S-77) *** 

Remaining Concentration (ppb) 55 30 113 55 50 133 139 Load reduction from Level 1 and 2MMs (mt) (from Table 8-1) 

13 57 82 0 37 15 0 

Load reduction from remaining Alt 1MMs (mt) (MMs 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 from Table 7-9) 

4 8 15 0 36 0 0 

Load reduction from remaining Alt 3MMs (mt) (MMs 54, 110, 111, 112, 61, 77, 92 from Table 7-9) 

0 0 12 12 6 31 0 

Total Load Reduction (mt) 17 65 109 12 79 46 0 Adjusted Remaining Load Above TMDL* (mt) 

74 14 15 11 9 8 1 

Alternative #3 Load Reduction Management Measures (10) 

Remaining Concentration (ppb) 63 30 64 30 30 30 139 Load reduction from Level 1 and 2MMs (mt) (Table 8-1) 13 57 82 0 37 15 0 

Alternative #4 Load Reduction Management Measures (11) 

Load reduction from remaining Alt 1MMs (mt) (MMs 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 from Table 7-9) 

4 8 15 0 36 0 0 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-6 

Sub-Watershed 

Upper 

Kissimmee (S65)** 

Lower 

Kissimmee (S65A,B,C,D,E) 

Taylor 

Creek/Nubbin 

Slough (S191,154,133,135) 

Lake Istokpoga 

(S-68)** 

Indian Prairie 

Basins (12 

basins) 

Fisheating 

Creek & 

Nicodemus 

Slough (Culv 5) 

West Lake 

Okeechobee 

Basin (S-77) *** 

Load reduction from remaining Alt 4MMs (mt) (MMs 54, 110, 113, 111, 114, 107, 61, 77, 115, 92 from Table 7-9) 

14 0 14 9 1 18 0 

Total Load Reduction (mt) 31 65 111 9 74 33 0 Adjusted Remaining Load Above TMDL* (mt) 

60 14 12 14 14 21 1 

Remaining Concentration (ppb) 51 30 52 38 46 78 139 

Notes: (8) Alternative 1 reductions include Taylor Creek Reservoir (2 mt), Brady Ranch STA (5 mt), Paradise Run ASR (1.4 mt), and LOW

reduction for Upper Kissimmee, 30% for Lower Kissimmee, 20% for Taylor Creek Nubbin Slough, and 70% for Indian Prairie). 

(9) Alternative 2 reductions include Kissimmee reservoir east (6.5 mt), Istokpoga/Kissimmee reservoir (6.2 mt from the watershed a

circulation), and Fisheating Creek reservoir (2.6 mt from the watershed and 12.9 mt from in-lake circulation). They are additive 

reductions. 

(10) Alternative 3 reductions include S-154 deep injection wells (9 mt), S-133 water quality treatment (2.5 mt), S-68 STA (8 mt), Isto

mt), FEC RASTA (31.2 mt), and Clewiston STA (2.5 mt). They are also additive to Alternative 1 reductions, but Alternatives 2 

(11) Alternative 4 reductions include S-154 deep injection wells (9 mt), S-133 water quality treatment (2.5 mt), Taylor Creek STA (n

including 6 mt from STA minus 2 mt from reservoir already included in Alt. 1), S-68 STA (8 mt), Istokpoga/Kissimmee RASTA watershed and 28 mt from in-lake circulation), Kissimmee reservoir east (6.5 mt), Fisheating Creek RASTAs and Nicodemus Sl

the watershed and 46 mt from in-lake circulation), and Clewiston STA (2.5 mt). They are also additive to Alternative 1 reductionand 4 are independent.

* To be conservative, where reductions were projected to result in concentrations less than 30 ppb, the remaining load was estimated by 

flow by 30 ppb instead of a lower projected concentration. ** Reductions from implementing BMPs were applied to individual land uses within the Lake Kissimmee and Lake Istokpoga basins. will have little or no short-term improvement on what is leaving the basins due to lakes' internal buffering effects. Therefore, these load carried through the remaining spreadsheet calculations. *** The TP loads into Lake Okeechobee from the East Caloosahatchee basin are small due to the manner in which the basin operates. associated with BMP projects in the Caloosahatchee will primarily benefit the Caloosahatchee basin itself, thus there are no TP load red
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-7 

8.1.2 Water Quantity (Storage) Performance Evaluation 

The ability of each alternative plan to provide additional storage capacity in the watershed was 

determined through NERSM simulations. Each alternative plan was evaluated for its potential 

impact on Lake Okeechobee and the two estuaries using pre-determined performance measures 

(See Section 3 for a description of the PMs). The potential impact of each alternative plan on 

water supply was also assessed using a pre-determined performance measure. 

8.1.2.1 Lake Okeechobee 

8.1.2.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Extreme Low Stage 

Improved Lake Okeechobee stage management is one of the primary objectives of the P2TP. 

Stage management includes minimizing the duration of both extreme high (>17 ft NGVD) and 

low (<10 ft NGVD) lake stages. Figure 8-1 shows the simulated performance of each of the 

four alternative plans (NETPA1, NETPA2, NETPA3, and NETPA4) and the future base 

conditions (NETPFB) with respect to the frequency of undesirable extreme low stage events in 

Lake Okeechobee. 

A score of 100 percent indicates that lake stages never fell below 10 ft NGVD for 15 weeks or 

more in a year during the 36-year period of record, which is a desirable condition. A score of 0 

percent represents the worst score indicating the least desirable outcome (i.e. extreme high or 

low stages which exceed 15 weeks in duration). 

Alternative plan performance with respect to the stage management performance measure (PM) 

is directly related to the plan’s storage capacity – the more storage an alternative plan has, the 

more water it can make available to the lake during the dry season, thereby preventing lake 

stages from falling below 10 ft NGVD for prolonged durations. Accordingly, Alternatives 2 and 

4 which have total storage capacities in excess of 900,000 ac-ft and produce the best scores. 

Compared to the future base conditions, all four alternative plans showed improved performance 

in regard to managing the stage levels in Lake Okeechobee. 

8.1.2.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Extreme High Stage 

The simulated performance of each of the four alternative plans and the future base conditions 

(NETPFB) is shown in Figure 8-2 with respect to the frequency of undesirable extreme high 

stage events in Lake Okeechobee. A score of 100 percent indicates that lake stages never 

exceeds 17 ft NGVD for 11 weeks or more during a single year in the period of record, which is 

a desirable condition. A score of 0 percent represents the worst score indicating the least 

desirable outcome. 

Once again, the performance of an individual alternative plan performance with respect to this 

PM is also directly related to storage capacity – the more storage an alternative plan has, the 

more water it can store during wet seasons, thereby preventing lake stages from exceeding 17 ft 

NGVD for prolonged durations. Accordingly, Alternatives 2 and 4 scored the highest and 

overall all four plans scored higher than the future base condition.
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-8 

Figure 8-1. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios – Lake Okeechobee Extrem

(Score = 0 if Lake Stage falls below 10 ft for an average of 15 weeks per year or more; 

Score = 100 if Lake Stage never falls below 10 ft) 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-9 

Figure 8-2. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios – Lake Okeechobee Extrem

(Score = 0 if Lake Stage exceeds 17 ft for an average of 11 weeks per year or more; 

Score = 100 if Lake Stage never exceeds 17 ft) 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-10 

It is also desirable to maintain Lake Okeechobee stages within an ecologically beneficial 

seasonal stage envelope (Figure 8-3). Lake stages fluctuate in response to a combination of 

seasonal, annual, and inter-annual climatic conditions and operational practices. Research 

(Havens 2002) has confirmed that lakes stage should ideally vary seasonally between 12.5 ft, 

NGVD (June-July low) and 15.5 ft, NGVD (November-January high). A healthy variation of 

lake stages result in annual flooding and drying of the littoral zone, promoting development of 

diverse plant and animal communities. Decreasing water levels toward the end of winter and 

spring allow wading birds to easily prey on resources in the littoral zone. However, if the lake 

stage falls below the envelope too frequently, the littoral zone is threatened. 

Figure 8-3. Lake Okeechobee stage envelope.

The Lake Stage Envelope performance measure (PM) assesses the duration and extent of lake 

stages (average weekly) that are outside the desirable envelope. The simulated performance of 

the four alternative plans and the future base relative to this PM is shown in Figures 8-4 and 8-5. 

A score of 100 percent indicates that lake stages do not fall below or above the ecologically 

desirable envelope. A score of 0 percent represents a worst score scenario. 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-11 

Alternative Plans 2 and 4 performed the best for this PM because they have large storage 

capacities that allow them to store or release water in order to maintain lake stages within the 

desirable envelope. Alternative 2 performs better than Alternative 4 because it has almost 40 

percent greater storage capacity. All four alternatives resulted in a significant improvement in 

the ability to maintain desirable lake stages compared to the future base condition. 

The Lake Okeechobee Minimum Flow and Level (MFL) specifies that water levels should not 

fall below 11 ft NGVD for greater than 80 days more often than once every six years (or 6 times 

during the 36-year period of record). The frequency of MFL violations is addressed in the 

Performance Measure for Number of Times Proposed Minimum Water Level & Duration 

Criteria Exceeded. Figure 8-5 compares the performance of the future base condition and the 

four alternative plans against this PM. The future base condition and all four alternative plans 

comply with the MFL requirement. 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-12 

Figure 8-4a. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios – Lake Okeechobee S

Score below Envelope. 

(Score = 0 if Lake Stage falls below the ecologically desirable envelope by 1 ft or more on aver

Score = 100 if Lake Stage never falls below the ecologically desirable envelope) 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-13 

Figure 8-4b. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios – Lake Okeechobee S

Score above Envelope. 

(Score = 0 if Lake Stage exceeds the ecologically desirable envelope by 1 ft or more on avera

Score = 100 if Lake Stage never exceeds the ecologically desirable envelope) 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-14 

Figure 8-5. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios – Number of Times LOK P

Water Level & Duration Criteria Exceeded. 

(Target: Minimum Level, duration and Return Frequency – Water levels in Lake Okeechobee should not fall be

greater than 80 days more often than once every six years.) 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-15 

8.1.2.2 Caloosahatchee (C-43) Estuary 

Another project objective of the P2TP is to reduce frequency and duration of harmful freshwater 

releases into the Caloosahatchee Estuary at the S-79 structure. Large volumes of freshwater 

releases into the estuary lower salinity concentrations and adversely impact abundance and 

diversity of estuarine flora and fauna. Conversely, long periods of zero or extremely low flows 

can cause undesirable increases in salinity concentrations. 

Mean monthly discharges to the estuary in excess of 2,800 cfs cause stress to the ecosystem 

while mean monthly discharges greater than 4,500 cfs are known to result in severe damage. 

The goal is to reduce the occurrence of such discharges to a frequency that approximates natural 

conditions. Figure 8-6 shows the number of mean monthly discharge events at S-79 in excess of 

2,800 cfs and 4,500 cfs for each of the four alternative plans and the future base condition. 

Alternatives with greater storage capacity are able to capture and store excess water until 

conditions allow for non-damaging releases. Therefore, Alternative 2, with the largest storage 

capacity, produces the most significant reductions in damaging discharges. Discharges to the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary at S-79 consist of contributions from Lake Okeechobee plus local 

inflows from the C-43 drainage basin. Table 8-3 compares the number of high flow events 

associated with Lake Okeechobee discharges and local inflows at S-79. 

Table 8-3. Comparison of Lake Okeechobee and local discharges at S-79. 

(Number of months discharge > 2,800 cfs (432 total months of simulation)) 

 Current 

Base 

Future 

Base 

ALT1 ALT2 ALT3 ALT4 

Number of months Lake 

Okeechobee (LOK) 

regulatory discharges > 

2,800 cfs 

21 13 13 9 13 9 

Number of months 

Caloosahatchee (C-43) 

Basin > 2,800 cfs 

48 28 27 26 27 26 

Number of months 

combined (not 

individually) LOK and 

C-43 Basin runoff 

discharges 

> 2,800 cfs 

11 14 15 8 14 16 

Total number of 

months S-79 > 2,800 cfs 80 55 55 43 54 51 

Notes: 

1. Number of months Lake Okeechobee regulatory discharges>2,800 cfs – This is the number of additional months that Lake 

Okeechobee discharges only is greater than 2,800 cfs. 

2. Number of months Caloosahatchee (C-43) Basin>2,800 cfs – This is the number of months that runoff originating from 

within Caloosahatchee Basin is greater than 2,800 cfs. 

3. Number of months combined (not individually) Lake Okeechobee and C-43 Basin runoff discharges > 2,800 cfs – This is 

the number of months that a combination of runoff from within the Caloosahatchee Basin and Lake Okeechobee regulatory 

discharges are greater than 2,800 cfs. 

4. Number of months S-79 > 2,800 cfs – Total number of months discharge across S-79 is greater than 2,800 cfs. - These flows 

that are greater than 2,800 cfs could be caused by runoff from within the Caloosahatchee Basin, Lake Okeechobee 

regulatory discharges, or a combination of runoff from within the Caloosahatchee Basin and Lake Okeechobee 

regulatory discharges. 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-16 

The data in Table 8-3 indicate that while regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee do 

contribute to the problems in the Caloosahatchee Estuary, local discharges from the C-43 basin 

also play an important role. The Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan, which will be 

prepared separately and implemented, will address problems associated with local discharges 

into the estuary and recommend solutions to address this issue. This highlights the fact that to 

achieve holistic restoration of the Northern Everglades ecosystem, many different initiatives 

have to converge and complement each other in space and time. 

Maintenance of Caloosahatchee Estuary salinity concentrations at levels that are conducive to its 

ecologic health requires maintaining flows at S-79 within a desirable salinity envelope. The goal 

is to avoid mean monthly flows less than 450 cfs (particularly from October through July) and 

mean monthly flows greater than 2,800 cfs. The capture and storage of excess water during wet 

conditions helps reduce the need for high discharges at S-79. The storage of excess water can 

also contribute toward maintaining minimum flows during dry conditions. Consequently, 

alternatives with large storage capacities (Alternatives 2 and 4) exhibit better performance as 

shown in Figure 8-7. 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-17 

Figure 8-6. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios –Number of Times Caloosah

Discharge Criteria Exceeded. 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-18 

Figure 8-7. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios – Number of Times Salinity E

the Caloosahatchee Estuary NOT Met. 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-19 

1 8.1.2.3 St Lucie (C-44) Estuary 

2 Another P2TP project objective is to minimize the frequency and duration of harmful freshwater 

3 releases to the St Lucie Estuary. Similar to the situation in Caloosahatchee Estuary, the release 

4 of large and untimely volumes of freshwater into the St. Lucie estuary also lowers salinity 

5 concentrations and adversely impact the abundance and diversity of estuarine flora and fauna. 

6 Maintenance of minimum flows is also required to avoid undesirable increases in estuary salinity 

7 concentrations. 

8 

9 In addition to discharges from Lake Okeechobee, the St. Lucie Estuary also receives local 

10 stormwater discharges from the C-44, C-23, C-24, and the Tidal Southfork Basins. The P2TP is 

11 only addressing discharges from Lake Okeechobee to C-44. The St Lucie River Watershed 

12 Protection Plan will be prepared and implemented as a separate document. The plan will address 

13 problems associated with local discharges into the estuary and recommend solutions to address 

14 this issue. Cumulatively, mean monthly discharges (from local runoff plus Lake Okeechobee 

15 discharges) to the estuary in excess of 2,000 cfs cause stress to the ecosystem. Mean monthly 

16 discharges greater than 3,000 cfs result in severe damage to the estuary. The overall goal is to 

17 reduce the frequency of damaging discharges. 

18 

19 Figure 8-8 compares the simulated performance of the four alternative plans and the future base 

20 condition with respect to the number of monthly St. Lucie Estuary mean discharge events in 

21 excess of 2,000 cfs and 3,000 cfs. The largest improvements are provided by the alternatives 

22 which reduce the number of monthly discharge events to the estuary in excess of a mean of 3,000 

23 cfs. Alternative 2 reduces the number of these events by almost 25 percent relative to the future 

24 base condition. However, many of the mean monthly flow events over 3,000 cfs were reduced in 

25 severity by the other alternatives which have mean monthly flows between 2,000 cfs and 3,000 

26 cfs. As a result, the alternatives did not produce a significant reduction in the number of mean 

27 monthly flow events between 2,000 cfs and 3,000 cfs. Extremely large storage volumes (in 

28 excess of 2,000,000 ac-ft) would be required to produce significantly improved performance 

29 relative to these high discharge PMs. 

30 

31 Maintenance of salinity concentrations in the St Lucie Estuary at levels that are conducive to its 

32 ecologic health requires maintaining inflows within a desirable salinity envelope. The goal is to 

33 avoid mean monthly flows less than 350 cfs and 14-day rolling average discharges from 

34 exceeding 2,000 cfs. 

35 

36 Figure 8-9 shows the frequency of low flow events (< 350 cfs) and high flow events caused by 

37 local inflows and discharges from Lake Okeechobee. The future base condition and all 

38 alternative plans perform better than the target of “no more than 31 events in the 36-year period 

39 of record with average monthly flows less than 350 cfs.” All alternatives reduce the contribution 

40 of Lake Okeechobee discharges to maximum flow exceedances compared to the future base 

41 condition. Alternatives 2 and 4 provide the best performance because of their large storage 

42 capacities. 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-20 

Figure 8-8. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Number of Times St. Luc

Discharge Criteria Exceeded. 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-21 

Figure 8-9. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Number of Times Salinity En

the St. Lucie Estuary NOT Met.
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-22 

8.1.2.4 LOSA and EAA Water Supply

A P2TP project constraint is to achieve Lake Okeechobee water quality and water management 

benefits while meeting the other water related needs of the region including water supply. By 

using 7 years in the period of record with the most severe Lake Okeechobee Service Area 

(LOSA) water supply cutbacks, the water supply impact of each alternative plan can be 

compared. Figure 8-10 shows the percentages and volumes of water supply cutbacks that 

would occur for each alternative during the seven most severe water shortage years. In each of 

the seven years, the water supply cutback volumes were reduced by each of the alternatives 

relative to the future base condition. The additional storage capacity of Alternative 2 resulted in 

the greatest reductions in cutbacks. However, in all but two of the seven years, the performance 

of Alternative 4 was comparable to Alternative 2. 

Figure 8-11 shows the sources of water supply and the mean annual percentage of water supply 

demands not met for the EAA and LOSA. The additional storage capacity provided by 

Alternative 2 results in the largest increase in demands met in both, the EAA and LOSA. 

Overall, all four alternative plans appear to reduce demands not met as compared to the future 

base condition. 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-23 

Figure 8-10. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Water Year LOSA Demand 
LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan 

8-24 

Figure 8-11. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Mean Annual LOSA/EE

Demands & Demands Not Met. 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-25 

8.2 Alternative Plan Comparison 

The simulated performance of each of the four alternative plans was compared with respect to 

the PMs, the other alternative plans, and to the current and future base conditions (Table 8-4). In 

this table, the score of the best performing alternative(s) for a given PM is highlighted in bold 

text and the score of the second best alternative(s) is italicized. 

From a water storage perspective, projects that will become operational in the future base 

condition will substantially improve water management capabilities compared to the current base 

condition. The future base condition will reduce undesirable high stages, reduce undesirable low 

stages, and increase frequency of water levels within the desirable seasonal stage envelope in 

Lake Okeechobee. 

Similar improvements are also anticipated from altering water discharges to the St Lucie and 

Caloosahatchee Estuaries for the future base condition. These enhancements will result from the 

completion of the planned C-43, C-44, and EAA reservoirs as part of the Acceler8 Program. 

A noteworthy benefit of Alternatives 2 and 4 is a reduction in the in-lake phosphorus load. This 

is accomplished by the withdrawal of Lake Okeechobee water, reducing the phosphorus 

concentration in an STA or reservoir, and then returning water to the lake with reduced 

phosphorus concentrations. The net result is a reduction in the total phosphorus load stored in 

Lake Okeechobee. These benefits are noted in Table 8-4. 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-26 

Table 8-4. Performance Measure evaluation of current and future base conditions and 

Alternatives 1 through 4a

Performance Measure/Indicator Target Current 

Base 

Future 

Base Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

Water Quality (ability to meet the TMDL)b

Total surface phosphorus load 

reductions to Lake Okeechobee 

(metric tons)c

409 NA NA 301 316 364 360 

Total phosphorus load reduction to 

In-lake Loads (metric tons)d Maximize NA NA 0 36 0 74 

Water Quantity Storage 

Lake Okeechobee 

Extreme Low Lake Stage* 100 91.67 94.07 96.48 100.00 96.30 99.07 

Extreme High Lake Stage* 100 83.59 87.88 91.92 96.46 92.42 95.45 

Below Envelope - Weekly Average* 100 61.03 66.03 75.17 99.10 73.69 89.20 

Above Envelope - Weekly Average* 100 58.00 65.85 71.25 83.36 72.40 80.31 

Minimum Water Level and Duration 

** < 6 6 4 4 0 4 2 

Caloosahatchee Estuary 

High Discharge Exceeded 

Mean Monthly Flow > 2,800 cfs** 3 82 55 55 43 54 51 

Mean Monthly Flow > 4,500 cfs** 0 38 25 22 15 21 18 

Number of months Lake 

Okeechobee regulatory releases 

>2,800 cfs** 

0 21 13 13 9 13 9 

Salinity Envelope 

Mean Monthly Flow < 450 cfs** 0 190 32 29 11 29 18 

Mean Monthly Flow >2,800 cfs** 3 82 55 55 43 54 51 

St. Lucie Estuary 

High Discharge Exceeded 

2,000 cfs < Mean Monthly Flow < 

3,000 cfs** 0 37 38 34 34 34 33 

Mean Monthly Flow > 3,000 cfs** 0 28 21 21 16 20 18 

Salinity Envelope

Mean Monthly Flow < 350 cfs** 31 134 26 22 10 23 15 

14-day (MAF) > 2,000 cfs from 

Lake Okeechobee Regulatory 

Releases**e

0 42 40 34 20 32 22 

Water Supply 

Everglades Agricultural Area Mean 

Annual Percent Demand not Met (%) 0 4.7 4.2 3.6 1.5 3.7 2.4 

Lake Okeechobee Service Area 

Mean Annual Percent Demand not 

Met (%) 

0 4.4 4.6 3.6 0.7 3.7 1.5 

Water Year Lake Okeechobee 

Service Area Demand Cutback 

Volumes- 7 Worst Years (K ac-ft) 

Fig 

8-10 

Fig 

8-10

Fig 

8-10

Fig 

8-10

Fig 

8-10

Fig 

8-10

Fig 

8-10

a For each evaluation criterion, the alternative that performs the best is bolded and the second best performing 

alternative is italicized. b

 Initial average load is 514 mt/yr (1991-2005); Total Maximum Daily Load (excluding atmospheric deposition) is 

105 mt/yr. Load reduction needed to achieve the Total Maximum Daily Load is 514-105 = 409 mt/yr. c

 This load reduction is counted toward meeting the Total Maximum Daily Load. 

d

 At this time, this load reduction, while desirable, does not count toward the Total Maximum Daily Load . 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-27 

e

 This evaluation criterion assesses whether the Lake Okeechobee Minimum Flows and Levels criteria are met. All 

alternatives result in less than 1 event per 6 years with stages below 11 ft NGVD for more than 80 days and are in 

compliance with the Minimum Flows and Level criteria. 

*Standard Score 

**Frequency 

8.3 Risks and Uncertainties Analyses 

With any large water resources planning effort, there are numerous sources of uncertainty that 

can potentially impact project outcome. Each source carries with it a level of risk of an 

undesirable outcome. For the P2TP projected performance of each of the four alternative plans 

was subject to some level of uncertainty. Major sources of this uncertainty include: 

• large scale of the project, 

• complexity and diversity of the problems and potential solutions, 

• relationships between the impacted physical processes, 

• conceptual nature of some of the plan components (Level 3, 4, and 5 MMs), and 

• uncertainty related to the performance of some Level 1 and 2 MMs. 

A risk and uncertainty (R&U) analyses was conducted to qualitatively assess the range of 

uncertainties associated with the projected performance of each of the four alternative plans. 

The results of the R&U analyses were used to guide the selection of the preferred plan. 

8.3.1 R&U Analyses Methodology 

8.3.1.1 Estimating Uncertainties Associated with MM Levels 

In the P2TP planning process, potential risks of unanticipated outcomes must be considered so 

that appropriate risk management approaches can be developed and undertaken. 

Each of the four P2TP alternative plans is made of up to five different types of MMs (Levels 1 to 

5). Level 1 MMs generally have the following characteristics: 

• There are substantial data supporting the effectiveness of the technology under similar 

conditions and scale. 

• Planning work has been completed and shows that, compared to other alternatives, this 

measure is the most appropriate for the site specific situation. 

• Private land owners, stakeholders, interest groups, the general public, and other agencies 

have been involved in development of the plan. 

• Design work has progressed or has been completed and cost estimates have been prepared. 

• A site has been identified and/or required real estate interests have been obtained. 

• Funding has been budgeted. 

• Progress has been made in gathering information, preparing/submitting permit applications, 

and/or processing permits. 

• In some cases, construction has been initiated or even completed. In the completed projects, 

MM benefits are currently being evaluated. 

In contrast, Level 5 MMs have the following characteristics: 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-28 

• The proposed technology may be untested under the conditions and at the scale being 

considered. 

• Only conceptual descriptions of the approach have been developed. 

• Limited or no coordination with other interests has been conducted. 

• No design work has been initiated. 

• A site has not been identified other than on a regional basis. 

• No funding has been budgeted. 

• There is not enough information to initiate permitting. 

The characteristics of Levels 2, 3, and 4 MMs lies between the two extremes (Levels 1 and 5). 

Based on the MM characterization, a level of uncertainty was assigned to each MM level type 

(Table 8-5). The increasing levels of uncertainty from 15 percent to 75 percent reflect the 

decreasing amount of available supporting information. Note that these estimates of uncertainty 

were subjective and are intended to support relative assessment of relative uncertainties. 

Table 8-5. Uncertainty Associated with management measure (MM) levels. 

Management Measure Level Assigned Uncertainty (%) 

(plus or minus) 

1 15% 

2 30% 

3 45% 

4 60% 

5 75% 

8.3.1.2 Estimating Uncertainties Associated with MM Performance 

Each alternative plan is composed of multiple levels of MMs. An estimate was made of the 

percent of the total water quality and water quantity benefits contributed by the MMs in each 

level. Alternatives that derive the majority of their benefits from Level 1 and 2 MMs will have 

relatively low levels of uncertainty (and risk). Conversely, alternatives that derive the majority 

of their benefits from Level 4 and 5 MMs are likely to have relatively high levels of uncertainty 

(and risk). Table 8-6 shows the percentage of TP load reduction and storage capacity derived 

from the different MM Levels. 

Uncertainties related to the TP load reduction performance for each alternative are relatively 

similar. This is because Level 1 and 2 MMs provide the majority (> 65 percent) of the projected 

TP load reduction for all alternatives. However, this analysis does account for the uncertainties 

related to interactions between the effectiveness of MMs within an alternative plan. If an actual 

TP load reduction of a MM is less than or greater than what was projected, it could impact 

inflow phosphorus concentrations and the performance of other MMs in the plan. The net result 

could be either better or worse overall performance. Uncertainties in potential TP load reduction 

performance of individual MMs are related to the following factors: 

• The proof of concept for the phosphorus reduction technology 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-29 

• The availability of lands 

• Accuracy of projected flow volumes and phosphorus concentrations 

• Inflow water chemistry 

Table 8-6. Relative contribution of MM levels to total phosphorus (TP) load reduction and 

storage capacity. 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

% Total 

TP Load 

% Total 

Storage 

% Total 

TP Load 

% Total 

Storage 

% Total 

TP Load 

% Total 

Storage 

% Total 

TP Load 

% Total 

Storage 

Level 1 79% 92% 75% 20% 65% 74% 66% 29% 

Level 2 4% -- 4% -- 3% -- 3% -- 

Level 3 17% 8% 16% 2% 15% 7% 15% 3% 

Level 4 -- -- 5% 78% 14% 19% 14% 68% 

Level 5 -- -- -- -- 3% -- 2% -- 

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Uncertainties related to the storage capacity of each alternative cover a much wider range – from 

less than 20 percent to more than 50 percent. This is because Alternatives 2 and 4 derive most of 

their storage capacities from Level 4 MMs. These alternatives also include the largest storage 

capacities. The relatively small storage capacities of Alternatives 1 and 3 are largely provided by 

Level 1 MMs. 

Uncertainties in potential storage capacities are related to the following factors: 

• Availability of adequate land 

• Cost of available land 

• Existence of geotechnical conditions conducive to construction of surface storage reservoirs 

• The location of available land near tributaries with large flows 

Based on the Level 1 through 5 uncertainties described in Table 8-5 and the proportion of 

benefits derived from each level of MM shown in Table 8-6, the overall uncertainties for each 

alternative were estimated. These uncertainties are useful for comparing the relative risks 

associated with the four alternatives. Table 8-7 provides estimates of overall uncertainties of 

TP-load reduction and storage capacity benefits of Alternatives 1 through 4. A more thorough 

analysis of risk and uncertainty should be performed using more specific and quantitative 

information. 

The primary sources of uncertainty for phosphorus load reduction effectiveness are largely 

associated with water quality MMs performance issues. Conversely, the primary sources of 

uncertainty for water storage are related to the magnitude to which storage MMs are 

implemented. As a result, the TP load reduction uncertainty of an alternative should not be 

compared with the uncertainty in storage capacity. 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-30 

Table 8-7. Uncertainties for total phosphorus (TP)-load reduction and storage capacity for 

each alternative plan. 

Alternative Plan TP Load Uncertainty Storage Uncertainty 

1 21% 17% 

2 23% 51% 

3 28% 26% 

4 27% 47% 

Results from this preliminary R&U analysis were used in qualitative comparisons of the 

potential risks associated with Alternatives 1 through 4 for TP-load reduction and storage 

capacity. 

8.4 Identification of the Preferred Phase II Technical Plan 

A modified version of Alternative 4 was selected as the plan that best met the legislative goals 

(i.e. Phase II Technical Plan or the Preferred Plan). The two major goals of the NEEPP 

legislation are to meet the Lake Okeechobee total phosphorus (TP) TMDL and to provide 

additional storage capacity in the watershed in order to better manage Lake Okeechobee stages 

and reduce the magnitude and frequency of harmful freshwater releases to the two estuaries 

while meeting other water related needs. Both TP-load reduction from inflows to the lake and 

additional storage capacity in the watershed are required to achieve the restoration goals for Lake 

Okeechobee and the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries. 

Each alternative was evaluated for its performance at reducing phosphorus, improving Lake 

Okeechobee water levels, reducing damaging discharges to estuaries, and maintaining water 

supply. It was clear that Alternative 1 on its own would not meet the water quality and water 

quantity objectives (Table 8-4). Alternative 2 performed best at improving Lake Okeechobee 

water levels and reducing damaging discharges to the estuaries (Table 8-4). Alternative 3 

performed best at reducing phosphorus inputs to Lake Okeechobee (Table 8-4). Alternative 4 

performed the best when balancing the achievement of both water quality and water quantity 

objectives (Table 8-4). It falls short, however, of meeting the TMDL by 49 mt/yr. It also 

provides slightly lower water quantity benefits for Lake Okeechobee and the estuaries than 

Alternative 2, which had a larger storage capacity. 

Therefore, a modified version of Alternative 4 became the basis for the preferred Plan. 

Additional features were added to address the phosphorus reduction shortfall and to provide a 

storage range from 900,000 to 1.3 million ac-ft for optimum water quantity performance. 

The Preferred Plan (modified Alternative 4) includes additional measures to address the shortfall 

in phosphorus load reduction necessary to achieve the TMDL. These additional measures 

include refining, optimizing, and maximizing site-specific source controls as well as integrating 

and optimizing regional projects that include reservoirs and stormwater treatment areas. In 

addition, if necessary, expanded application of ASR and deep well technology, and limited 

application of chemical treatment technologies will be used to further reduce TP loading in order 

to achieve the TMDL. 
Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

8-31 

A total storage capacity ranging from 900,000 to 1.3 million ac-ft is needed to achieve a more 

ecologically desirable range of Lake Okeechobee levels and to better manage lake discharges to 

achieve more desirable salinity ranges for the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries. The 

storage need will be met with a combination of alternative water storage on public and private 

lands, surface reservoirs and ASR. 

The Preferred Plan includes the following features: 

• Builds upon the LOPP by fully incorporating all projects included in the 2007 LOPP update. 

• Encompasses and builds upon all other on-going and planned efforts in the watershed that are 

directed toward Lake Okeechobee restoration including CERP and LOER. 

• Initially emphasizes lower cost and locally applied source control options by incorporating 

and prioritizing all on-going and planned BMP and watershed phosphorus-source control 

programs. 

• Promotes involvement of private landowners as partners in the restoration program through 

project features such as the BMPs, FRESP, and alternative water storage projects. 

• Minimizes real estate acquisition requirements by attributing substantial TP-load reduction to 

source control options and promoting storage and treatment on privately owned lands. 

• Includes regional projects that will complement and build upon success of source control 

options. 

• Includes additional water quality projects necessary to meet the Lake Okeechobee TMDL for 

total phosphorus. 

• Identifies the range of storage needed (900,000 – 1.3 million ac-ft) for lake stage and 

discharge management. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
SECTION 9 

PREFERRED PLAN PROJECTS AND ACTIONS
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

9.0 PREFERRED PLAN PROJECTS AND ACTIONS .......................................................9-3 

9.1 Technical Preferred Plan Summary .....................................................................9-3 

9.2 Preferred Plan Features........................................................................................9-4 

9.2.1 Local Project Features..............................................................................9-4 

9.2.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Phosphorus Source Control Programs .....9-4 

9.2.1.1.1 SFWMD Phosphorus Control Programs..................................................9-5 

9.2.1.1.2 FDACS Agricultural BMP Programs ...................................................... 9-7 

9.2.1.1.3 Supplemental Non-Agricultural BMP Programs.....................................9-7 

9.2.1.2 Land Management Programs ...................................................................9-8 

9.2.1.2.1 Comprehensive Planning/Land Development Regulations .....................9-9 

9.2.1.2.2 Farm and Ranchland Protection Program Partnership...........................9-10 

9.2.1.2.3 Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project (FRESP) .............9-10 

9.2.1.3 Alternative Water Storage Facilities......................................................9-12 

9.2.1.4 Local Initiatives .....................................................................................9-14 

9.2.2 Regional Features...................................................................................9-15 

9.2.2.1 Storage ...................................................................................................9-15 

9.2.2.2 Stormwater Treatment Areas .................................................................9-16 

9.2.2.3 Reservoir Assisted Stormwater Treatment Areas..................................9-17 

9.2.2.4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery...............................................................9-17 

9.2.2.5 Deep Injection Wells..............................................................................9-18 

9.2.3 Other Projects......................................................................................... 9-18 

9.2.3.1 In-Lake Treatment .................................................................................9-19 

9.2.3.2 Innovative Nutrient Control Technologies ............................................9-19 

9.2.3.3 Wetland Restoration............................................................................... 9-20 

9.2.3.4 Miscellaneous Projects........................................................................... 9-20 

9.3 Preferred Plan Real Estate Requirements ..........................................................9-20 

9.4 Operations & Maintenance ................................................................................9-21 

9.5 Monitoring .........................................................................................................9-22 

9.6 Permitting...........................................................................................................9-23 

9.7 Preferred Plan Implementation ..........................................................................9-23 

9.7.1 Initial Implementation Stage Benefits ...................................................9-25 

9.8 Preliminary Cost Estimates................................................................................9-26 

9.8.1 Initial Implementation Stage Cost Estimate ..........................................9-26 

9.8.2 Future Implementation Stages Cost Estimate........................................9-27 

9.9 Funding Sources and Cost-Sharing Opportunities............................................. 9-27 

9.9.1 Funding Sources..................................................................................... 9-27 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

List of Tables 

9-1 Summary of P2TP benefits and degree of uncertainty for each MM level ..................... 9-3 

9-2 Location and capacity of Preferred Plan storage features.............................................. 9-16 

9-3 Location and TP load reduction of Preferred Plan STAs .............................................. 9-16 

9-4 Location, water storage, and TP load reduction of Preferred Plan RASTAs ................ 9-17 

9-5 Location, water storage, and TP load reduction of Preferred Plan ASR ....................... 9-18 

9-6 Initial Implementation Measures ................................................................................... 9-24 

9-7 Mid-term Implementation Measures.............................................................................. 9-25 

9-8 Long-term Implementation Measures............................................................................ 9-25 

9-9 Cost estimate for the initial implementation stage of the Preferred Plan ...................... 9-26 

9-10 Potential funding sources for implementation of Preferred Plan features ..................... 9-28 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-3 

9.0 PREFERRED PLAN PROJECTS AND ACTIONS 

An important aspect of the 2007 legislation that sets it apart from previous action is the 

requirement to identify both the water quality treatment and water quantity storage needed to 

improve the health of Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries. The 

Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Preferred Plan represents 

the best blueprint that current technology allows for achieving water quality standards while 

better managing lake levels. An explanation of how this plan was identified as the best Preferred 

Plan to meet these objectives can be found in Section 8.4. This section describes the suite of 

Preferred Plan features and provides their projected performance. Operations and maintenance, 

monitoring and permitting requirements are identified, where appropriate. 

9.1 Technical Preferred Plan Summary 

The Preferred Plan consists of a suite of local and regional project features and includes both 

structural and non-structural management measures (MMs) and builds upon ongoing treatment 

and restoration projects that are in the planning, design, or construction phases. Collectively, all 

the project features operating together are expected to provide necessary improvements in water 

quality and quantity. All five levels of MMs are represented in the Preferred Plan. The degree 

of uncertainty around the projected benefits for each MM level varies from certain (for Level 1 

MMs) to uncertain (for Level 5 MMs) (Table 9-1). 

Table 9-1. Summary of P2TP benefits and degree of uncertainty for MM level. 

MM Level Configuration 

Information 

Implementation 

Certainty 

Projected Benefits 

Certainty 

Cost Estimate 

Confidence 

1 Well established Certain Very High Very High 

2 Known High High High 

3 Conceptual Moderate Moderate Moderate 

4 Limited Low Low Low 

5 Very Limited Uncertain Very Low Very Low 

Water Quality Goal 

The NEEPP legislation identified the Lake Okeechobee Total Phosphorus (TP) TMDL of 140 mt 

as the water quality goal. To that end, the Preferred Plan includes a variety of water quality 

improvement measures including source control (Best Management Practices and changes in 

regulatory requirements), stormwater treatment areas, deep injection wells, and innovative 

nutrient control technologies to achieve the TMDL. In addition, implementation of the Preferred 

Plan provides the capability to reduce in-lake total phosphorus loads by approximately 75 mt/yr 

and ancillary water quality benefits may result from implementation of storage features. It is 

recognized that it may be necessary to further optimize and refine the management measures as 

well as incorporate chemical treatment and expand the use of deep-well injection to meet the TP 

TMDL. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-4 

Water Quantity Storage Goal 

The Preferred Plan has identified a water quantity storage goal in the range of 900,000 to 1.3 

million ac-ft in order to achieve Lake Okeechobee levels within a more ecological desirable 

range and to better manage lake discharges to achieve more desirable salinity ranges for the St. 

Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries. It is important to note that the storage goal of 900,000 to 

1.3 million ac-ft is not in addition to existing or planned projects. It is an overall goal that can be 

achieved through various means including low intensity/local measures such as alternative 

storage and land management activities as well as through more intensive/regional measures 

such as ASR and large-scale storage reservoirs. The magnitude of this storage need that can be 

achieved through low intensity/local measures has not yet been quantified. As more detailed 

information on these features is compiled, it will be possible to quantify the water storage benefit 

from these features. Regardless, it is recognized that these local features alone will not be able to 

achieve the water quantity storage goal. 

Therefore, regional measures, such as ASR and storage reservoirs, will be required. It is 

anticipated that a combination of these two approaches will be necessary and that co-location and 

integration of these two storage methods may provide the best solution. Results of ongoing Lake 

Okeechobee ASR pilot and regional studies, will allow for a determination of the best 

combination of these measures to achieve the identified storage goal. 

9.2 Preferred Plan Features 

9.2.1 Local Project Features 

Local project features provide an important foundation for this Preferred Plan to improve water 

quality and storage. Local project features typically require minimal engineering, construction, 

and operation efforts, and can be implemented more rapidly. Local project features are generally 

implemented at the parcel-scale and usually do not require land acquisition. Project features of 

they type are usually implemented through rules and public education or outreach efforts. Many 

of these project features are existing on-going programs or processes that will continue to be 

implemented and optimized as new information becomes available. Local project features offer 

tremendous opportunities for landowner involvement. 

9.2.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Phosphorus Source Control Programs 

Source control refers to all activities and measures that can be used on agricultural and urban 

lands to ensure that: 

• the amount of nutrients used onsite are minimized to the greatest possible extent 

• those nutrients that are used are applied in an effective manner which minimizes their entry 

into the local runoff 

• local runoff is retained onsite to prevent nutrients from entering the regional drainage system 

Collectively, source control measures (also referred to as Best Management Practices or BMPs) 

include structural and non-structural measures. Structural measures include creating physical 

changes in the landscape to reroute local discharges, erecting fences and barriers, and installation 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-5 

of water control structures. Non-structural source control measures include education, 

operational changes, and establishing regulations. 

Numerous source control programs are currently being implemented in the LOW by the District, 

FDEP, and FDACS to reduce nutrient loads from both agricultural and urban land use practices. 

Most of these programs are expected to continue in the future and several of them are slated to be 

expanded to cover new geographic areas or revised to incorporate more stringent requirements. 

The LOPA directive is that the LOW source control programs shall be implemented on an 

expedited basis and that the coordinating agencies shall develop an interagency agreement that 

assures the development of BMP programs that complement existing regulatory programs (see 

Section 9.2.1.1.1) and specifies how BMPs will be implemented and verified. LOPA also directs 

that the agreement shall address measures to be taken by the coordinating agencies during any 

BMP reevaluation performed as a result of water quality problems being detected. All of the 

coordinating agencies’ source control programs have been integrated into the Preferred Plan and 

are expected to significantly contribute to achieving the Lake Okeechobee TP TMDL. It is 

expected that the coordinating agencies will execute an Interagency Agreement in 2008 to meet 

the source control program directives of LOPA. 

Based on the 2007 LOPP update, source control BMPs will be implemented in the Lower 

Kissimmee (five basins), Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (4 basins), Indian Prairie (12 basins), 

Fisheating Creek (2 basins), and East Lake Okeechobee (2 basins) sub-watersheds by 2009. 

BMP implementation in the Lake Istokpoga (4 basins) and Upper Kissimmee Basins (18 basins) 

will commence in 2009. BMPs in the Lake Istokpoga sub-watershed will be fully implemented 

by 2012. BMPs in the Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed will be fully implemented by 2015. The 

S-4 and Industrial Canal basins located in the Southern sub-watershed implement the BMP 

program under their existing WOD permit. 

The currently implemented agricultural BMPs, in addition to those planned for implementation, 

are projected to reduce TP loads to Lake Okeechobee by approximately 147 mt/yr (see Table 8-1 

for more details on BMP reduction). This projection includes TP reductions associated with the 

major ongoing LOW source control programs described in the next sections. 

9.2.1.1.1 SFWMD Phosphorus Control Programs 

9.2.1.1.1.1 Environmental Resource Permit Program 

The existing Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program, which covers the entire SFWMD 

jurisdiction, regulates activities that alter surface water flows. These include land development 

projects that influence stormwater runoff in upland areas and dredging and filling activities in 

wetlands and surface waters. The primary objective of the ERP program, which is implemented 

by the District and FDEP, is to ensure that alterations in stormwater runoff do not degrade 

surface water quality, compromise flood protection, or adversely affect the function of wetland 

systems. 

Prior to adoption of the rulemaking activities discussed below and in following sections, it is 

anticipated that this existing process will be enhanced by utilizing a nutrient analysis to 

determine if proposed activities will impact downstream water quality. Under the existing WOD 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-6 

program, where projects are found to have impacts, acceptable mitigation will be required for 

project approval. This program applies to both agricultural and non-agricultural activities. 

In addition, the District is in the process of developing an ERP basin rule that will require 

applicants to provide reasonable assurances that they will appropriately improve the hydrology 

within the Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee River and St. Lucie River watersheds in 

accordance with Chapter 373.4595, F.S. The basin rule will be supplemental to existing criteria. 

Average annual discharge volumes and specific storm event discharge volumes will be 

addressed. Methods for estimating storage capacities in typical water management BMPs and in 

low impact design type water management BMPs will be included in the rule. 

9.2.1.1.1.2 Works of the District Regulatory Phosphorus Source Control Program 

Phosphorus source controls in LOW began with the enactment of the Surface Water 

Improvement Management Act in 1987 which led to the adoption of the Lake Okeechobee 

Works of the District (WOD) rule under Chapter 40E-61, FAC. This rule was initially adopted 

to address the reduction of phosphorus to Lake Okeechobee based on the goals and objectives of 

the SWIM Plan for the lake. It is the foundation of all subsequent BMP Programs which are 

directed to complement the existing WOD BMP and the ERP programs. It was recognized at the 

time that the WOD rule was originally adopted that additions or amendments to the rule may be 

necessary in the future, consistent with the results of research and evaluation. 

The WOD BMP Program is an on-going program of BMPs implemented by issuing permits for 

agricultural and non-agricultural land uses. It is a comprehensive program of BMP plan 

approval, verification of implementation through reporting and field visits, and data evaluation to 

identify optimization efforts. This program is expected to continue under NEEPP to meet 

current goals and objectives. The District is refining the existing rule criteria to be compatible 

with current initiatives and amendments to the statute. The initiatives include: 

• Implement a phosphorus source control program utilizing best management practices (BMPs) 

for all lands within the Lake Okeechobee watershed (LOW); 

• Provide an option for agricultural land uses of greater than 100 acres to participate in the 

FDACS BMP rule under Chapter 5M-3, F.A.C., to meet the intent of the District’s WOD 

rule; 

• Establish a timeline for implementation of all BMP source control programs within the 

watershed by 2010 

• Establish load-based performance measures for the combined BMP source control programs 

implemented in the watershed 

• Define the monitoring network necessary to monitor compliance with the established 

performance measures, to identify priority areas of water quality concern and BMP 

optimization, and to provide data to evaluate and enhance performance of downstream 

treatment facilities 

• Establish a plan for optimizing the combined BMP source control programs should the 

expected water quality criteria not be met; 

• Ensure that the rule is consistent with data presented in LOPP; and 

• Include incentives for permittees to participate in TP reduction demonstration projects that 

will provide valuable data for expanding, accelerating, and optimizing the implemented 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-7 

BMPs to meet water quality objectives and for further refinement of the LOW BMP Program 

as necessary. 

In order to have BMPs fully implemented in LOW and performance measures in place by 2010, 

the rule amendments must be adopted in 2008. Once adopted, it is anticipated that there will be a 

phased approach to implementation based on areas identified as water quality priorities and 

District resources. 

9.2.1.1.2 FDACS Agricultural BMP Programs 

Based on directives under the 2000 LOPA, FDACS has been developing and implementing 

agricultural BMPs to reduce the movement of TP from agricultural lands into Lake Okeechobee. 

These voluntary agricultural BMP programs are expected to continue under the NEEPP. 

Rule (Chapter 5M-3, F.A.C.) adopted by FDACS pursuant to LOPP encourages agricultural 

producers on greater than 100 acres to implement a conservation, nutrient-management, or 

alternative Plan consistent with specified National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

requirements. These Plans are farm-specific assessments that identify existing environmental 

resource challenges and appropriate BMPs to address those challenges. 

As a result, FDACS and NRCS have executed an interagency Memorandum of Agreement that 

commits available federal resources to expedite conservation planning in the LOW. Funding 

through this agreement has been used to identify, train, and contract with private-sector technical 

service providers to develop Plans for cow/calf, citrus, row crop, and other agricultural 

operations. This effort has significantly increased Plan development and implementation, 

including the engineering and design of planned water control structures. 

Completed conservation Plans now cover approximately 527,370 acres (213,423 ha) in the 

watershed (including approximately 22,000 acres of dairies). These Plans are in various stages 

of implementation. In addition, conservation Plans are being developed for an additional 

approximately 600,000 acres (242,811 ha) of agricultural operations. 

Other voluntary FDACS BMP programs, which do not require the development of conservation 

Plans, but do require management plans, include Ridge Citrus, Gulf Citrus, Indian River Citrus, 

Container Nurseries, and Vegetable and Agronomic Crop BMP programs. FDACS is currently 

preparing an estimate of the acreage in the LOW with notice of intents (NOI) submitted under 

these programs. Preliminary estimates indicate that more than half of the agricultural acreage in 

the LOW is currently under non-regulatory FDACS programs to plan and implement practices to 

control offsite movement of TP. 

At the current rate of participation, all agricultural acreage in the watershed is expected to be 

covered either by F.A.C. Rule 5M-3 required conservation Plans or other FDACS BMP 

programs by July 2010 and will have functioning BMPs in place by 2015. 

9.2.1.1.3 Supplemental Non-Agricultural BMP Programs 

In coordination with the District, under LOPP, FDEP is charged with implementing 

supplemental phosphorus source control programs complementary to existing regulatory 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-8 

programs in non-agricultural areas. The largest non-agricultural contributors of TP loads to Lake 

Okeechobee are residential developments without stormwater treatment (e.g., yard fertilization, 

pet wastes, septic tanks, etc.), golf courses, and failing wastewater systems (e.g., septic tanks and 

package plants). Measures implemented to control TP loads from these sources include 

implementing site-specific BMPs, master planning for stormwater and wastewater, implementing 

stormwater retrofits, designing larger urban stormwater projects, and public education. All of 

these efforts will continue under the NEEPP. 

Additionally, FDEP and the District initiated rule development in May and June 2007 

respectively of a Unified Statewide Stormwater Rule. Currently, regulatory requirements 

governing stormwater treatment are technology-based, and rely primarily upon BMP design 

criteria that are presumed to achieve a specified level of stormwater treatment. Under the 

proposed Unified Statewide Stormwater (USS) Rule, FDEP and Florida water management 

districts are working on criteria that will be based on a performance standard of postdevelopment nutrient loads (total phosphorus and total nitrogen) not exceeding pre-development 

nutrient loads. 

The pre-development condition is an existing site with natural vegetation, not necessarily 

existing conditions. Methods for estimating treatment efficiency in typical water management 

BMPs and in low impact design type water management BMPs will be included in the rule. The 

proposed rule will also address retrofit projects, redevelopment and compensating treatment. The 

intended effect of the rule is to increase the level of treatment required for nutrients loads in 

stormwater from new development to that of natural conditions, thereby reducing the discharge 

of nutrients to the lowest reasonable level for new development. The target date for rule adoption 

is May 2009. 

Another statewide program targeting phosphorus in urban discharges is the Urban Turf 

Fertilizer Rule. The Urban Turf Fertilizer (UTF) Rule, which was adopted by FDACS in 2007, 

limits P and nitrogen (N) content in fertilizers that are used for urban turf and lawns. This Rule 

is intended to reduce nutrient loads from urban fertilizer applications by requiring that all 

fertilizer products labeled for urban use (turf, sports turf, and lawns) only contain the amount of 

P and N that is actually needed to support healthy turfs and lawns. The rule requires that 

applications rates for phosphorus not exceed an application rate of 0.25 pounds (lbs) P2O5 per 

1000 ft2

 per application and not exceed 0.50 lbs P2O5 per 1000 ft2 per year. 

The rule also requires that application rates for nitrogen not exceed 0.7 lbs of readily available 

nitrogen per 1000 ft2

 per application, with no more than 1 lb total N per 1000 ft2 per application. 

Under this rule, FDACS expects a 20-25 percent reduction in N and a 15 percent reduction in P 

in every bag of fertilizer sold to the public. The UTF Rule will continue to be enforced under the 

NEEPP. Note that the UTF represents the current state of science and will revised by FDEP 

research. 

9.2.1.2 Land Management Programs 

Land management programs are designed to protect sensitive environmental resources from 

unintended adverse impacts that result from changes in land use or land management practices in 

the watershed. Several ongoing regulatory programs focus on reducing nutrient loads through 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-9 

implementation of improved land management practices. Most of these programs are expected 

to continue under NEEP and some programs will be expanded. All ongoing and future planned 

land management programs have been incorporated into the Preferred Plan and are expected to 

significantly contribute to the overall achievement of LOWCP Phase II goals and objectives. 

In recognition of the importance of natural lands restoration, the South Florida Ecosystem 

Restoration Task Force (SFERTF) undertook a study to identify and prioritizes natural attributes 

of lands necessary to achieve natural system restoration goals for the South Florida ecosystem. 

This study reported that two types of lands are needed to achieve natural system restoration in 

the South Florida ecosystem: 

a. lands needed for construction and operation of project features that will capture, store, and 

treat water to provide improvements in the quantity, quality, timing and distribution of water 

necessary to achieve natural system restoration; and 

b. “natural lands” on which historical, pre-drainage water flows and levels will be restored, 

such as lands on which sheet flow will be restored, drained wetlands will be re-hydrated, 

and/or wetland/upland mosaics will be enhanced and preserved to expand the spatial extent 

of wetlands and natural areas within the Everglades. 

Both types of lands are critical to accomplishing the natural system restoration goals of the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and both are under severe development 

pressure that is driving up land costs at an exponential rate. The study focused on prioritization 

of natural lands on which historical flows and levels will be restored. It analyzed 189,471 acres 

of unacquired natural lands and prioritized 186,087 of those acres based upon their outstanding 

natural attributes and the key role they could play in ecosystem restoration (SFERTF, 2006). 

Major land management programs that are currently being implemented in the LOW include the 

following: 

9.2.1.2.1 Comprehensive Planning/Land Development Regulations 

Land use decisions fall under the purview of local government and are governed by local 

government comprehensive Plans, local ordinances, and regulations. The Florida Department of 

Community Affairs (FDCA) is the state land Planning agency and is responsible for reviewing 

local government comprehensive Plans for consistency with the State’s growth management 

policies. The FDCA has established processes to allow for input from state agencies, regional 

Planning councils, water management districts, and other stakeholders regarding local 

government comprehensive Plans, Plan amendments, and evaluation and appraisal reports. 

However, some land use changes important to the P2TP do not require an amendment to a local 

government comprehensive Plan. As such, it will be important to keep track of relevant zoning 

changes and special use provisions since they can vary from county to county. 

The FDCA provides technical assistance to local governments in the LOW for local government 

comprehensive Plan amendments, developments agreements, Developments of Regional Impact, 

Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, and other Planning related efforts. The FDCA works with 

these entities to ensure that local decisions consider water resource issues in the LOW such as 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-10 

promoting low impact design, stormwater management, and water quality protection. The 

FDCA will continue supporting local government Planning efforts under the NEEPP. 

Another important growth management and planning effort that falls under the authority of the 

FDCA is the Rural Land Stewardship Areas (RLSA) Program. This program authorizes counties 

to designate rural land stewardship areas. These lands may include all or portions of lands 

classified in the future land use element of the local government comprehensive Plan as 

predominantly agricultural, rural, open, open-rural, or a substantively equivalent land use. The 

intent of the RLSA Program is to maintain the viability of agriculture, protect rural character, 

prevent the encroachment of urban sprawl into rural and agricultural areas, and preserve open 

space for agriculture and protect natural resources. 

This planning technique also contemplates a minimal development footprint and a high ratio of 

conservation/preservation lands to development lands. Within these areas, planning and 

economic incentives are applied to encourage the implementation of innovative and flexible 

planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques. This and other 

land use planning techniques, such as clustering development and transferable development 

rights, are tools that can facilitate the construction of public works projects and the acquisition of 

lands necessary to protect and restore the watershed and downstream receiving water bodies.

9.2.1.2.2 Farm and Ranchland Protection Program Partnership 

The Farm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) is a voluntary USDA Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) program that helps farmers and ranchers keep their land in 

agriculture. The program provides matching funds to State, Tribal, or local governments and 

non-governmental organizations to purchase conservation easements. These easements which 

would remain in agriculture will provide water quality and storage benefits. 

9.2.1.2.3 Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project (FRESP) 

This program, launched in October 2005, is intended to provide a mechanism by which local 

landowners can sell environmental services related to water retention, TP load reduction, and 

wetland habitat expansion to state agencies and other willing buyers. This program has been 

incorporated into the Preferred Plan because it offers several distinct advantages: 

• There are no land acquisition costs and it offers a financial incentive to landowners to 

promote participation. 

• Private entities can typically implement projects much quicker and cheaper than government 

agencies. 

• The sale of environmental services will provide additional income for ranchers, who face low 

profit margins, and will provide an incentive against selling land for more intensive 

agriculture and urban development—land uses that will further aggravate water flow, 

pollution, and habitat problems. 

• The program complements public investment in regional water storage and water treatment 

facilities. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-11 

FRESP is currently being implemented through a collaboration of the World Wildlife Fund 

(WWF), eight participating ranchers, NRCS, FDACS, SFWMD, and FDEP. Technical support 

is being provided by scientists from the MacArthur Agro-Ecology Research Center and the 

University of Florida. Funding from Federal, state, and private sources exceeds $5 million for 

Phase 1, which includes pilot project implementation and program design. In addition, the 

District has provided State Community Budget Issue Request (CBIR) funding for similar 

additional pilot projects on private lands. 

The program is currently field testing different methods of using monitoring and modeling of 

hydrology, water and soil chemistry, and vegetation change to document the level of 

environmental services provided by ranch level water-management practices. 

To date, the following private landowners have agreed to participate in this program; efforts are 

on-going to invite other landowners to join the program. 

• Buck Island Ranch – This ranch, located in the Lake Istokpoga Sub-watershed, will provide 

approximately 967 ac-ft of on-site water storage and treatment with removal of an estimated 

3,341lb of TP per year. 

• Lykes Brothers, Inc. – This project, located in the Lake Istokpoga Sub-watershed, will 

provide 5,000 ac-ft of regional water storage. Some water quality improvements are also 

expected from retaining water on-site; these benefits have not yet been quantified. 

• Williamson Cattle Company – This project, located in the S-191 sub-basin of the Taylor 

Creek/Nubbin Slough Sub-watershed, will provide approximately 150 ac-ft of storage and 

treatment, removing an estimated at 548 pounds of TP removal per year. 

• Alderman Delony Ranch – The project, located in the East Lake Okeechobee Subwatershed, will provide approximately 43 ac-ft of storage in the C-25 sub-basin. TP removal 

is estimated to bet 172 lb /yr. 

• Syfrette Ranch West – The project, located in the Lake Istokpoga Sub-watershed, will 

provide approximately 140 ac-ft of water storage capacity. Some water quality benefits are 

expected from this project; these have not yet been quantified. 

• Rafter T Ranch (Arbuckle Creek) – The project, located in the Lake Istokpoga Subwatershed, will store approximately 1,145 ac-ft of water. Some water quality benefits are 

expected from this project; these have not yet been quantified. 

• Payne and Son – This site, located in the Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed, will provide 

approximately 932 ac-ft of storage capacity. Some level of water quality improvement is 

expected from this project; these benefits have not been quantified. 

• Lightsey Cattle Company – This site, located in the Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed, will 

provide approximately 135 ac-ft of storage capacity. Some level of water quality 

improvement is expected from this project; these benefits have not been quantified. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-12 

9.2.1.3 Alternative Water Storage Facilities 

These alternative water storage facilities (AWSFs) are primarily intended to retain stormwater 

runoff on site and thereby reduce flow to the regional drainage systems. Nutrient load associated 

with the detained volume of water is also prevented from leaving the parcel. AWSFs thus 

provide both localized water quantity and water quality benefits in the LOW and contribute to 

overall improvements in Lake Okeechobee water quality and stage management. AWSFs 

generally require minimal engineering, construction, and operation and maintenance efforts and 

can be sited either on privately owned agricultural lands in cooperation with the landowners or 

on public and tribal lands. 

Under the LOER initiative, AWSF implementation plans were completed for four locations in 

the LOW and four other locations were identified for siting such facilities. These eight facilities 

have been incorporated into the Preferred Plan. Provisions for identification of other locations in 

the LOW to site such facilities is also included in the Preferred Plan. To date the following 

locations in the LOW have been identified for siting AWSFs: 

• Brighton Reservoir – This facility will provide storage capacity of up to 1,300 ac-ft and 

reduce TP loads by approximately 1.5 mt/yr. It will consist of a 500 acre reservoir to be 

located on the Brighton Seminole Reservoir in Lower Kissimmee sub-watershed. 

• Avon Park Air Force Range (APAFR) – Approximately 10,000 ac-ft of stormwater runoff 

will be retained on a 3,600 acre site at this location. Some water quality improvements are 

also expected from capturing and holding water on-site; these benefits have not yet been 

quantified. This project also includes restoration of an existing levee and replacement of 

selected water control structures in Arbuckle Marsh. Stormwater runoff to Arbuckle Creek 

and Lake Istokpoga will be reduced by this project. 

• Indiantown Citrus Growers Association (ICGA) – Approximately 3,550 ac-ft of 

stormwater will be retained on a 1,775 acre site at this location. Phase 1 of the project will 

include the rehabilitation and relocation of existing pump stations. The ICGA will use their 

irrigation pumps at the St. Lucie Canal to draw regulatory regional lake releases into their 

site for disposal, which will reduce freshwater volumes to the estuary. Phase 2 of the project 

will include widening ditches in the ICGA ditch system. 

• The detention of stormwater within the existing ditch system is expected to result in water 

quality improvements, promote water conservation, and reduce the volume of surface water 

discharged to the St. Lucie Canal and Estuary. Expected water quality benefits of the project 

have not yet been quantified. 

• Barron Water Control District (BWCD) – 5,000 ac-ft of stormwater runoff will be 

retained on a 6,129 acre site at this location. Water retention will be accomplished through 

the construction of two weirs in an existing canal within the BWCD canal system. Some 

water quality improvements are also expected from this project; these benefits have not yet 

been quantified. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-13 

• Raulerson and Sons Inc., Ranch – This site would provide approximately 300 ac-ft of 

storage on a 670 acre site. On-site stormwater runoff will be captured from the farm and 

pumped into three stormwater ponds; this AWSF is expected to meet approximately 82 

percent of the farm’s irrigation demands. Storing water on this site will also reduce runoff to 

Fish Slough. Some water quality improvements are expected from retaining water on-site; 

these benefits have not yet been quantified. Implementation funds will be obtained from 

contributions and grants from the District, Alternative Water Supply Funding, FDACS, local 

farmers, and USDA EQIP. 

• Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park – This feature would store approximately 3,800 acft of storage on a 1,920 acre parcel. Some water quality improvements are also expected 

from retaining water on-site; these benefits have not yet been quantified. This project is 

expected to reduce stormwater runoff and enhance water quality entering Duck Slough. The 

park is owned by the State of Florida and managed by FDEP’s Division of Recreation and 

Parks. 

• Rolling Meadows – This site would provide approximately 2,912 ac-ft of storage on 720 

acre District owned parcel located in the Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed. It will detain, 

store, and provide some natural treatment for runoff that would otherwise flow into Lake 

Kissimmee. A bermed area already exists that can be incorporated into the design of the 

proposed project. A new culvert is proposed to restore natural flows and gravity-feed into 

the bermed area. Small agricultural pumps could be used to fill the detention area with 

additional agricultural land runoff. Some water quality improvements are expected from 

retaining water on-site; these benefits have not yet been quantified. 

• Sumica – This site would provide approximately 281 ac-ft of storage on a portion of 1,920 

acres of land in Polk County (Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed) which has been over drained 

by adjacent DOT box culverts. This project proposes to install a rip rap weir upstream of box 

culverts to maintain stormwater for hydrologic restoration on-site before eventually reaching 

Lake Kissimmee. Some water quality improvements are expected from retaining water onsite; these benefits have not yet been quantified. 

• Fisheating Creek Marsh Watershed Project – This project would provide between 11,000 

to 22,000 ac-ft of storage. It will evaluate, engineer, and rehabilitate PL 566 water control 

structures in the Fisheating Creek Marsh Watershed to more effectively store and manage 

water and reduce phosphorus runoff from more than 50,000 acres in the headwaters of 

Fisheating Creek. 

• Lykes Nicodemus Slough – This project will have the potential to store 13,000 to 26,000 acft of water from Lake Okeechobee. It includes design, engineering, and implementation of a 

water storage area on 15,129 acres of which a flowage easement exists on the southern most 

2,000 acres in an area surrounding Nicodemus Slough near Fisheating Creek. 

• Central County Water Control District (CCWCD) Reservoir – This project would 

provide approximately 4,800 acre-ft of additional storage in the LOW. It involves 

construction and operation of the CCWCD reservoir under a cooperative agreement between 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-14 

the South Florida Water Management District and CCWCD to provide both flood protection 

and excess water storage in the Caloosahatchee Basin. Currently there are conveyance 

facilities in place which hydraulically connect the CCWCD reservoir to the Caloosahatchee 

River. 

• Dupuis – This site would store between 1,250 to 4,500 ac-ft of runoff. The project includes 

design, engineering, and implementation of an additional 1 to 2 feet of storage in the Dupuis 

marsh before on-site stormwater enters the L-8 Canal. 

• Stokes – This site would provide approximately 510 ac-ft of water on a 490 acre site in the 

Fisheating Creek Basin. Estimated TP load reduction projected to range from 0.004 mt/yr to 

0.02 mt/y. 

• Istokpoga Marsh Improvement District – This project is projected to provide up to 1,920 

ac-ft of on-site storage. It includes design and construction of an agricultural water treatment 

facility within the Istokpoga Marsh Improvement District to reduce phosphorus runoff and 

provide additional storm water storage for the 19,209 acre area. The Istokpoga Marsh 

Improvement District was created in 1962 and Highlands County is the local sponsoring 

organization. Estimated TP load reduction is projected to range from 0.09 mt/yr to 0.24 

mt/yr. 

• Caulkins – This project includes rehabilitation and relocation of internal pump stations. 

During regulatory releases to the St. Lucie Estuary irrigation facilities will be utilized to draw 

excess stormwater into the 3,400 acre project site. The detention of stormwater within the 

existing ditch system will result in water quality improvements thereby promoting water 

conservation and reducing the volume of surface water discharge from the site. 

• Waste Management St. Lucie Site – This project involves entering into a partnership 

arrangement to modify borrow areas into minor above ground impoundment(s). Preliminary 

hydrologic investigation is in process. Details are being developed. 

• Lake Wales Ridge State Forest Lake Kissimmee Site - Internal ditch plugs and modified 

control structures on 800 acres of the site are estimated to provide approximately 800 acre-ft 

of additional storage. 

9.2.1.4 Local Initiatives 

The Preferred Plan includes all ongoing and future planned local initiatives that will contribute to 

overall flow attenuation and nutrient load reduction to Lake Okeechobee. Three local projects 

are ongoing in the TCNS Sub-watershed; opportunities for similar other projects are currently 

being investigated. 

• Taylor Creek Canals Sediment Removal – This project includes sediment and vegetation 

removal from canals and tributaries that drain to Taylor Creek from the Treasure Island and 

Taylor Creek Isles residential areas. Approximately 1 mt of TP was removed from the 

system by this project. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-15 

• Okeechobee City Sediment Trap Installation – This project includes installation of two 

sediment traps within the city of Okeechobee for the removal of phosphorus-laden 

particulates that contribute to the load entering Lake Okeechobee. The water quality 

improvements expected from this project have not yet been quantified. 

• Nubbin Slough East Flow Diversion – This project includes diverting Nubbin Slough flows 

to restore the east main tributary of the slough. The diversion is expected to provide flood 

control and water quality benefits. The water quality improvements expected from this flow 

diversion project have not yet been quantified. 

9.2.2 Regional Features 

Although local features are expected to provide substantial TP load reductions and some flow 

attenuation, they are not large enough in scale to achieve the overall Preferred Plan objectives. 

Therefore, the Preferred Plan includes several large structural features that will be implemented 

on a regional basis. Several of these structural features, particularly STAs and storage facilities, 

are Level 4 or 5 MMs and therefore they are conceptual in nature. For planning process 

preliminary configuration of such features included general sizing, sources of water, and location 

at a sub-watershed scale. Specific project locations were not identified. 

There are multiple ways to achieve the storage goal identified in the Preferred Plan; these include 

alternative water storage, reservoirs and ASR. Storage as formulated in this planning process 

primarily evaluated the use of surface storage reservoirs rather than rely on CERP Lake 

Okeechobee ASR. The conceptual configuration for these storage features is shown in Table 9-

2. Ongoing Lake Okeechobee ASR Pilots and the ASR regional study will help determine the 

application of ASR. The results of these efforts will be incorporated into more detailed planning 

and design (see Section 10) which will be used to determine the mix of ASR and surface storage. 

At the regional level, water quality improvements were primarily achieved through the use of 

Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs). Similar to reservoirs, only conceptual configurations 

were developed for these Level 4 and 5 water quality features (Table 9-3). 

The regional features will require substantial real estate acquisition, engineering, design, and 

construction and will be more expensive than local features. However, they are expected to 

provide the remaining load reduction and storage capacity necessary to achieve the TMDL and 

improve Lake stage management. 

9.2.2.1 Storage 

Three stand-alone storage features are included in the Preferred Plan (Table 9-2). While these 

facilities were modeled and evaluated as surface water reservoirs, the storage benefits derived 

from these types of projects may also be attained through smaller scale storage on private lands, 

ASR, or surface water reservoirs, or a combination of these. The appropriate mix of storage will 

become more defined as results from ASR pilots and the ASR Regional Study become available. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-16 

In addition, depending upon the outcome of the Upper Kissimmee Regional Water Supply 

Feasibility Study a portion of the storage capacity currently identified for the Lower Kissimmee 

Sub-watershed could be located in the Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed. 

Table 9-2. Location and capacity of Preferred Plan storage features. 

Storage ID Sub-watershed Storage 

Capacity 

(ac-ft) 

TP load 

reduction to 

Lake 

(mt/yr) 

Source Water 

Kissimmee East 

Storage 

Lower 

Kissimmee 

200,000 6.5 • Receives flows from and 

discharge back to the 

Kissimmee River 

• Stored water can potentially 

also be diverted to the TCNS 

Sub-watershed for additional 

treatment 

Kissimmee 

Storage 

Lower 

Kissimmee 

161,263 12 • Receives flows from and 

discharges to Kissimmee 

River 

• CERP-LOW Project feature 

Istokpoga 

Storage 

Istokpoga/Indian 

Prairie 

79,560 7 • Receives flows from Lake 

Istokpoga/Indian Prairie and 

discharges to Indian Prairie 

• CERP-LOW Project feature 

9.2.2.2 Stormwater Treatment Areas 

The following stand-alone STAs are included in the Preferred Plan (Table 9-3). Note that while 

these facilities were modeled and evaluated as specific facilities during the planning exercise, 

more detailed planning and design will better define the specific types of facilities that are 

needed to attain the phosphorus reductions for the specific basin. In addition, the results of the 

proposed innovative treatment technology projects may influence the type and design of other 

nutrient treatment facilities. 

Table 9-3. Location and TP load reduction of Preferred Plan STAs. 

STA ID Sub-watershed TP load reduction to 

Lake 

(mt/yr) 

Source Water 

Taylor Creek Critical 

Project STA TCNS 0.3 • Receives flows from and 

discharges to Taylor Creek 

Nubbin Slough Critical 

Project STA TCNS 0.9 • Receives flows from and 

discharges to Nubbin Slough 

Lakeside Ranch STA TCNS 8 

• Receives flows from L-63 

and discharges to Lake 

Okeechobee 

Brady Ranch STA TCNS 5 

• Receives flows from L-63 

and discharges to Lake 

Okeechobee 

Istokpoga STA Istokpoga/Indian Prairie 29 • Receives flow from and 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-17 

discharges to C-41 Canal 

• LOW Project Feature 

S-68 STA Istokpoga/Indian Prairie 8 • Receives flows the area 

south of S-68 

Clewiston STA EAA 2.5 • Receives flow from C-21 

Taylor Creek STA TCNS 6 

• Receives flow from Taylor 

Creek and Kissimmee 

Reservoir East 

Lemkin Creek Urban 

Stormwater Facility Lower Kissimmee 1.1 

• Located on District-owned 

lands in the Lower 

Kissimmee Sub-watershed 

9.2.2.3 Reservoir Assisted Stormwater Treatment Areas 

Three, large, reservoir-assisted stormwater treatment areas (RASTAs) are included in the 

Preferred Plan to maximize TP load reduction and water storage (Table 9-4). While these 

facilities were modeled and evaluated as RASTAs during the planning exercise, benefits from 

these types of projects may be attained through a combination of surface water reservoirs and 

ASR as well as other types of nutrient treatment facilities. As noted previously, the results of 

AST pilots and regional study along with results of the proposed innovative treatment 

technology projects will help determine the mix of facilities needed to meet the storage and 

treatment needs for specific basins. 

Table 9-4. Location, water storage, and TP load reduction of Preferred Plan RASTAs. 

RASTA ID Subwatershed Storage 

(ac-ft) 

TP load 

reduction to 

Lake 

(mt/yr) 

TP Load 

reduction to 

in-lake loads 

(mt/yr) 

Source Water 

Istokpoga/ 

Kissimmee 

RASTA 

Istokpoga/ 

Indian Prairie 

273,600 8.9 28.1 • Receives flows from 

Istokpoga/Indian Prairie 

Basin and Kissimmee River 

• Will also store and treat 

Lake Okeechobee Waters 

Fisheating 

Creek 

RASTA 

Fisheating 

Creek 

41,580 9 23 • Receives flows from and 

discharges back to 

Fisheating Creek 

Nicodemus 

Slough 

RASTA 

Fisheating 

Creek 

158,400 9 22.6 • Receives flows from 

Fisheating Creek and 

discharges to Lake 

Okeechobee 

• Will also store and treat 

Lake Okeechobee waters 

9.2.2.4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

To complement surface storage, the Preferred Plan also includes features for subsurface storage 

using the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) technology. Five ASR facilities are currently 

identified for inclusion in the Preferred Plan (Table 9-5). It is anticipated that additional ASR 

features will be identified in the future to help meet the storage goal of the Preferred Plan. 

Information from Lake Okeechobee ASR pilots and the ASR Regional Study will help determine 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-18 

the mix of surface and subsurface storage needed to better manage Lake Okeechobee water 

levels. 

9.2.2.5 Deep Injection Wells 

One deep injection well is included in the Preferred Plan; feasibility of additional deep injection 

well facilities will be evaluated during planning and design. 

S-154 Basin Deep Injection Well – This proposed 4-well cluster and a 1,000 ac-ft storage pond 

is expected provide approximately 19,000 ac-ft of storage TP load reduction of 8.3 to 10.6 mt/yr. 

The feature will consist of a single deep injection well system located at the intersection of the S154 connection to the C-38 Canal. The proposed well disposes a relatively small volume of 

water, approximately 68 million gallons per day (MGD), relative to the overall flow of water 

entering Lake Okeechobee. It was included in the NERSM modeling. 

Table 9-5. Location, water storage, and TP load reduction of Preferred Plan ASR. 

ASR ID Subwatershed Storage 

(ac-ft) 

TP load 

reduction 

(mt/yr) 

Comments 

Kissimmee Pilot Lower 

Kissimmee 

3,780 

(5 million 

gallons per day 

(MGD)) 

0.1 • Facility is currently being 

implemented as a part of 

CERP. 

• Cycling testing, pumping into 

the Upper Floridan aquifer, 

storing for a period of time, 

followed by recovery is 

scheduled for late 2007 

depending upon Lake 

Okeechobee water levels 

Paradise Run 10-well 

System 

Lower 

Kissimmee 

22,950 

(50 MGD) 

1.4 • Maximum pumping capacity 

of up to 50 MGD 

Seminole Brighton 

Reservoir ASR System 

 3,780 

(5 MGD) 

0.8 • One 5 MGD ASR well 

system to be located along 

the C-41 Canal on the 

western edge of the Seminole 

Brighton Reservation in 

Glades County 

• Construction to be completed 

in late 2009. 

Taylor Creek ASR 

Reactivation 

Taylor 

Creek/Nubbin 

Slough Subwatershed 

5,400 

(6 MGD) 

1.2 • Assessment and eventual reactivation of the TCNS ASR 

system 

• One 6 MGD well system is 

proposed adjacent to the L63N Canal 

9.2.3 Other Projects 

The Preferred Plan includes several other projects that are intended to contribute to overall 

achievement of NEEPP goals and objectives. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-19 

9.2.3.1 In-Lake Treatment 

Three project features are included in the Preferred Plan for reducing in-lake TP loads. For the 

purpose of this Preferred Plan, in-lake load TP load reductions are not counted towards the 

TMDL. 

Muck Sediment Removal – This is accomplished by scraping the lake bed as it is exposed due 

to falling water levels, and transporting the muck off-site. The scraping is typically conducted 

mechanically and is intended to expose the natural bottom, which then promotes re-growth of 

native vegetation once the lake levels return to normal. 

Dredging – Innovative dredging techniques are currently being evaluated for use in Lake 

Okeechobee. If successful, these techniques will be applied at other locations in the lake. 

Recirculating STAs – Two RASTAs (Istokpoga/Kissimmee RASTA and Nicodemus Slough 

RASTA) have been sited along Lake Okeechobee shoreline. Both systems are intended to treat 

nutrient–rich flows from the watershed; however, during dry periods when there is little or no 

flow from the watershed, lake waters could be diverted to these systems for treatment. 

Treatment of in-lake waters would provide additional beneficial TP load reduction. 

9.2.3.2 Innovative Nutrient Control Technologies 

The legislation authorizing the P2TP specifically required that innovative nutrient treatment 

technologies be considered for inclusion in the Preferred Plan. The following innovative nutrient 

control technologies meet this requirement: 

Taylor Creek Algal Turf Scrubber® Nutrient Recovery Facility – This ongoing project is a 

scaled-up demonstration of HydroMentia’s proprietary water treatment technology that uses 

algae to remove pollutants from water. Algal Turf Scrubbers® (ATS) are engineered systems in 

which attached algae are cultured and the algal biomass is routinely harvested to facilitate 

recovery of pollutants from impaired waters. The objectives of the facility are to: (1) reduce TP 

loads from stormwater runoff associated with the Taylor Creek drainage basin; (2) provide 

secondary enhancement of water quality associated with the targeted flows from Taylor Creek 

through increased dissolved oxygen levels; and (3) recover and recycle captured nutrients 

through the harvesting and composting of harvested algae biomass. The project is located on a 

District-owned parcel at the Grassy Island Ranch and is designed to treat 15 MGD of water from 

Taylor Creek and reduce TP loads by 1.8 mt/yr. 

Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology (HWTT) – This innovative approach combines 

beneficial attributes of the two top ranked nutrient removal technologies, namely wetland 

treatment and chemical injection. Four pilot HWTT systems will be field tested in the LOW 

under a FDACS initiative. If successful, other locations will be evaluated for application of this 

technology. 

Chemical Treatment – The Preferred Plan includes selective application of chemical treatment 

using alum salts to achieve the TP load reduction required to reach the TMDL. If alum is 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-20 

applied, this chemical treatment will be used in conjunction with reservoirs and STAs to enhance 

TP load reduction. A feasibility study will be conducted to evaluate locations, dosages, and costeffectiveness prior to implementation of the chemical treatment technology. 

9.2.3.3 Wetland Restoration 

Restoring degraded wetlands adds to the ecosystem’s natural ability to trap flows and 

contaminants. Two wetland restoration projects are included in the Preferred Plan. 

Paradise Run Wetland Restoration – Approximately 3,730 acres of degraded wetlands will be 

restored as part of this project at the ecologically significant confluence of Paradise Run, 

Kissimmee River oxbows, and Lake Okeechobee. This feature is a component of CERP’s LOW 

Project. Under restored conditions the wetland will have a rain-driven hydrology unless efforts 

to further enhance watershed conditions could link the wetland site to the surface flows from the 

C-38 (Kissimmee River) or C-41A (Istokpoga) Canals. 

Rolling Meadows/Catfish Creek Restoration – Rolling Meadows/Catfish Creek is located at 

the southern end of Lake Hatchineha on District /FDEP owned lands. The proposed restoration 

project would include hydrologic restoration of Catfish Creek and the creation of a wetland that 

can potentially hold up to one foot of water in the Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed. 

9.2.3.4 Miscellaneous Projects 

Other miscellaneous projects that are expected to contribute to overall NEEPP goals and 

objectives include the following: 

Florida Power and Light Martin Cooling Pond – This feature will expand currently available 

storage capacity at an existing 7,000 acre impoundment located at FP&L’s Martin County 

Facility. The impoundment has a current maximum storage capacity of 95,000 ac-ft and 

provides power Plant cooling water. A recently completed feasibility study evaluated increasing 

the storage capacity of this pond by upgrading the embankments, seepage management systems, 

and emergency spillways. 

S-133 Water Quality Treatment Facility – It was important to locate a water quality 

improvement feature in the S-133 sub-basin because the original Preferred Plan of treating flows 

from this sub-basin using one of the LOFT STAs has recently been shown to be impractical. The 

proposed feature would reduce TP loads by 1-2 mt/yr. The exact nature of this feature (STA, 

deep well, expansion of the existing Lemkin Creek Urban Stormwater Treatment Area, or a 

combination of these) would be determined during the implementation stage through a feasibility 

study. 

9.3 Preferred Plan Real Estate Requirements 

Specific locations for some Preferred Plan features have already been determined (Level 1, 2, 

and 3 MMs); while for other project features (Level 4 and 5 MMs) locations have been identified 

only to the sub-watershed level. Land acquisition needs will be developed over time through the 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-21 

process development and engineering process. The results of feasibility efforts will be factored 

into the more detailed planning to help define the real estate requirements. 

Results from studies and pilot projects that test and evaluate various water quality treatment 

technologies may influence the size and location of water quality treatment feature. Information 

from Lake Okeechobee ASR pilots and the ASR Regional Study will help determine the mix of 

above and below surface storage needed to better manage Lake Okeechobee water levels. 

Utilization of ASR for storage requires significantly less land than surface storage through 

reservoirs or RASTAs. Subsequent Preferred Plan updates will provide more refined estimates 

of real estate requirements as research is completed for ASR and other project features. 

During Process Development and Engineering stage, conceptual planning will be conducted to 

further evaluate project siting and real estate acquisition requirements. To the extent possible, 

opportunities for less than fee acquisition, such as the wetland reserve program will be evaluated. 

It is expected that real estate acquisition for individual features will occur over a period of time. 

State and District-owned lands would be preferentially evaluated for siting Preferred Plan project 

features. However, many of the existing State-and District-owned acreages have already been 

targeted for specific features. 

When it is necessary to acquire private lands and in an effort to compensate eligible counties 

where lands are acquired for project purposes and subsequently removed from the tax rolls, the 

Legislature has created a ten year program for payments in lieu of taxes. See Fla. Stat. Section 

373.59(10)(b). Payment in lieu of taxes will be paid by the District for private lands acquired in 

counties eligible for this program 

The District recognizes that the legislature has requested a schedule for the acquisition of lands 

or sufficient interests necessary to achieve the construction schedule. Currently, the 

development of such a schedule is premature for the reasons discussed above. This schedule will 

be developed and periodically updated based on information and recommendations from the 

Process Development and Engineering component of this plan, as contemplated by section 

373.4595(3)(b)2, F.S. 

9.4 Operations & Maintenance 

With very few exceptions, the majority of projects features included in the Preferred Plan are 

likely to require some level of operation and maintenance (O&M). Consideration of operation 

and maintenance needs from the outset of Planning is important to insuring that the project goals 

and objectives are achieved in the most efficient, effective, and safe manner. The term 

“operations and maintenance” collectively refers to the following five major elements: 

• Operations – ongoing activities required to operate the management measure to achieve the 

project objectives – includes water control, fuels and materials, monitoring, etc. 

• Maintenance – ongoing activities required to maintain system in an operable condition – 

includes machinery maintenance, mowing, inspections, etc. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-22 

• Repair – periodic repair of machinery or other structural elements as needed to restore 

complete operability of the management measure – includes machinery repair, filling scour 

holes, repairing erosion, etc. 

• Replacement – periodic replacement of project elements that have reached or exceeded their 

functional life – includes pump replacement, stop-log riser replacement, etc. 

• Rehabilitation – major rehabilitation of a project component may be required under the 

following circumstances: 

9.5 Monitoring 

A comprehensive monitoring and information system will be utilized to provide the data 

necessary to measure the performance and effectiveness of the NEEPP (SB 392) in satisfying the 

restoration goals of the LOPP. It has been determined that the Lake Okeechobee TMDL 

established in accordance with Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, and future, additional TMDL’s 

set forth for other contributing pollutants to the surface water resources of the Lake Okeechobee 

watershed, are appropriate foundations for achieving restoration. The District will utilize the 

current monitoring base and provide any project specific resources needed to document the 

effectiveness of phosphorus control efforts in meeting Lake Okeechobee watershed TMDL’s and 

to assure compliance with all future permit requirements. 

The District maintains and/or provides funding for a well established and comprehensive water 

quality monitoring network within the boundaries of the geographical area identified in the 

Preferred Plan. This network consists of over 325 individual locations where water quality 

information is collected. This network provides water quality data used for the following 

initiatives: 

• LOPA-Watershed (including Lake Istokpoga) and In-Lake Management 

• LOPA Lake Okeechobee Operating Permit 

• Lake Okeechobee Watershed Assessment (WOD Rule) 

• CERP – Critical Project Permit Requirements, Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project 

Assessment, and the Restoration Coordination and Verification Program (RECOVER) 

• Kissimmee River Restoration 

• Upper Chain of Lakes Long -Term Management 

• Lake Okeechobee Conceptual Ecological Model 

• South Florida Environmental Report 

Water quality monitoring stations have been integrated with the hydrologic monitoring network 

and can now identify pollutant loadings at structures discharging into Lake Okeechobee and at 

major tributary structures throughout the watershed. The District will continue to leverage the 

existing water quality and hydrologic monitoring networks, wherever possible, to satisfy 

watershed based and project specific monitoring requirements. 

Biological monitoring needs will be integrated with the RECOVER program efforts within the 

watershed, will continue to support the Lake Okeechobee Conceptual Ecological Model and will 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-23 

also be determined on a project specific basis when permit requirements for biological 

monitoring are identified. 

All current and future water quality data collection, analysis, validation, management and storage 

will be conducted in accordance with the FDEP Quality Assurance Rule, 62-160, F.A.C., the 

District Field Sampling Quality Manual (FSQM) and/or the CERP Quality Assurance Systems 

Requirements (QASR) manual. 

The District has established an Environmental Monitoring Coordination Team (EMCT) to 

critically review and evaluate all new monitoring requests to ensure permit compliance, scientific 

validity and efficiency. Any future monitoring requirements associated with the Lake 

Okeechobee Watershed Protection Plan will be subject to review and approval by the EMCT. 

9.6 Permitting 

Construction and implementation of the Preferred Plan features will require a variety of permits 

and regulatory approvals. Types of permits and approvals needed are likely to vary with feature 

type and location. 

Obtaining all required federal and state permits for implementation and operation of a project 

feature often requires an intensive level of effort. Permitting can result in significant project 

delays if it is not adequately considered early in project development. However, specific permit 

requirements and/or issues may not be evident until a substantial level of detail has been 

developed during Planning and design. 

The types of permits and level of effort required during the permitting process may vary greatly 

for similar or identical measures depending on the physical conditions that exist at the project 

site and surrounding area. During the Project Development & Environmental (PD&E) process, 

continuing consideration will be given to the types of permits required and the potential 

permitting issues that must be addressed. In this way the level of effort and time requirements 

can be factored into the Planning and design process to minimize the potential for significant 

permit-related project delays. 

Federal and state permits, and potential permitting issues, that are likely to be encountered for 

the types of project features contained in the Preferred Plan are described in Appendix D. 

9.7 Preferred Plan Implementation 

The Preferred Plan calls for an iterative, adaptive and phased implementation process. 

Therefore, implementation of the Preferred Plan is expected to occur in three stages. The first 

stage, Initial Implementation Measures, will occur from approximately 2008 to 2010, and will 

primarily focus on continued implementation of ongoing measures and initiatives. For instance, 

this stage will include ongoing implementation of the LOPP and LOER water quality measures 

and LOER alternative water storage facilities (Table 9-6). 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-25 

Table 9-7. Mid-term Implementation Measures (2011 – 2015). 

 Water Quality Water Quantity 

Continued Implementation of Previous Measures 9 9 

Implementation of Additional Water Quality Measures as 

optimized by Technology and Model Refinement Studies Projects 9 9 

Initiate Implementation of Appropriate Combination of Storage 

Methods based upon CERP ASR Feasibility Studies 9 9 

BMP Research and Refinement 9 9 

STA Integration and Refinement 9 9 Technology 

and Model 

Refinement ASR Feasibility- Final Results of ASR Regional Study, Data from 

LOER ASR and Pilot Projects 9 9 

9= Primary benefit 9 = Ancillary benefit 

Table 9-8. Long-term Implementation Measures (Beyond 2015). 

 Water Quality 

Water 

Quantity 

Continued Implementation of Previous Measures 9 9 

Projects Continue Implementation of Storage (ASR/Surface 

Storage) 9 9 

Technology and 

Model Refinement Process Development and Engineering 9 9 

9= Primary benefit 9 = Ancillary benefit 

9.7.1 Initial Implementation Stage Benefits 

• Implementing Best Management Practices on 1.3 million acres of agricultural lands; 

• Completing Environmental Resource Permit and Works of the District rule revisions; 

• Initiating/completing implementation of approximately 100,000 ac-ft of long-term alternative 

water storage; 

• Completing design and initiating construction of more than 2,600 acres of Stormwater 

Treatment Areas; 

• Completing the initial suite of Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan phosphorus source control 

projects; 

• Implementing eight Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Projects; 

• Completing cycle testing of CERP Aquifer Storage and Recovery pilot projects, the interim 

report, optimization analysis, and Floridan Aquifer groundwater model; 

• Completing implementing 65 million gallons per day of Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

storage; 

• Restoring 4,470 acres of wetlands within the Lake Okeechobee watershed; and 

• Reducing phosphorus loads to Lake Okeechobee by approximately 150 metric tons. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-26 

9.8 Preliminary Cost Estimates 

9.8.1 Initial Implementation Stage Cost Estimate 

To provide a source of State funding for the continued restoration of the South Florida 

ecosystem, the 2007 Florida Legislature expanded the use of the Save Our Everglades Trust 

Fund to include Northern Everglades restoration and extended the State of Florida’s commitment 

to Everglades restoration through the year 2020. 

The costs for non-CERP features will be primarily borne by the South Florida Water 

Management District and the State, while CERP costs are eligible for up to a fifty percent cost 

share with the federal government. It is anticipated that once the Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

Project – a component of the CERP state-federal partnership effort – is formally authorized by 

Congress, the federal government will provide its fifty percent cost sharing commitment on a 

series of reservoirs and stormwater treatment areas in the Lake Okeechobee watershed. It is 

important to note that a portion of the estimated CERP cost is for projects that the South Florida 

Water Management District is expediting ahead of authorization to achieve environmental 

benefits earlier. Completion of these Lake Okeechobee Fast Track projects, however, is 

dependent on continued State and SFWMD funding in advance of federal appropriation. Cost 

estimates for the initial implementation stage were calculated for features for which construction 

began during the initial implementation stage (Table 9-9). 

Table 9-9. Cost estimate for the initial implementation stage of the Preferred Plan. 

Category of Cost Cost estimate 

Non-CERP $260-320 Million 

CERP $1-1.4 Billion 

Cost estimates presented in Table 9-9 are based on the following assumptions: 

• Costs do not include dollars that have already been expended to date 

• CERP ASR costs are not included in the cost estimate 

• Costs include the full cost to build a project completely even it construction period goes 

beyond the initial implementation stage 

• LOFT projects included are eligible for federal cost share, however those funds will be 

needed in advance of the CERP project from State and SFWMD sources 

• Not all of the project features within CERP’s LOW Project are implemented within the initial 

implementation stage 

• High cost estimate based upon the following: 

- 10% annual-Real Estate inflation 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-27 

- 9% annual- Construction inflation 

• Low cost estimate based upon the following: 

- 6% annual- Real Estate inflation 

- 2% annual- Construction inflation 

9.8.2 Future Implementation Stages Cost Estimate 

Costs for each progressive stage of implementation will be developed as information from 

various pilot projects and studies are factored into more detailed planning design in the future. It 

is anticipated that modifications and refinements in the methods used to reduce phosphorus 

loading to Lake Okeechobee will occur in the future as the result of Technology and Model 

Refinement described in Section 10. 

Results from Lake Okeechobee ASR pilots and the ASR Regional Study will be used to help 

determine the mix of above and below surface storage needed to better manage Lake 

Okeechobee water levels. Factoring this type of information will provide clarity of the projects 

that will be proposed for the future stages and reduce the uncertainty associated with cost 

estimates. Cost estimates for the Mid-Term Implementation Stage will be provided in the 2010 

Preferred Plan update. 

9.9 Funding Sources and Cost-Sharing Opportunities 

9.9.1 Funding Sources 

The majority of funding for the implementation of this Preferred Plan will be from State, 

SFWMD and Federal sources. The 2007 NEEPP legislation provides a dedicated state funding 

source for the Northern Everglades restoration by expanding the use of the Save Our Everglades 

Trust Fund to include the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Plan and the River’s 

Watershed Protection Plans for the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie. 

The Bill also extends the state's commitment to provide funding for CERP and the Northern 

Everglades through the year 2020. For FY2008 the Florida legislature allocated $100 million 

from the Everglades Trust Fund (ETF) to the initiate implementation stage of this Preferred Plan. 

This is intended to be a recurring source of funding from the State, but must be appropriated by 

the Legislature annually. Funding from the State is to be matched by the SFWMD. Many of the 

local features will have cost sharing with landowners and local governments, as well as State and 

Federal grant programs 

The rate of implementation for non-CERP projects will be dependent upon the level of funding 

from State, SFWMD, and select federal sources. The rate of implementation for CERP projects 

will be dependent upon federal, state, and SFWMD sources. 

It is recognized that multiple sources of funding beyond the recurring annual State and SFWMD 

appropriations will be required to complete the implementation of the Preferred Plan (Table 9-

10). These sources could include funding from federal government agencies (USACE, DOI, 

USDA, etc.) local governments, tribal communities, and private landowners. Also, it is 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-28 

anticipated that once the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan’s LOW Project is fully 

authorized by the Congress, the federal government will honor it previous commitment to 

provide fifty percent cost sharing on a series of reservoirs and stormwater treatment areas in the 

Lake Okeechobee Watershed. 

Table 9-10. Potential funding sources for implementation of Preferred Plan features. 

Program Purpose

FEDERAL 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan 

CERP Projects are eligible for 50:50 cost sharing per WRDA, 2000. 

Small Navigation Projects To provide the most practicable and economic means of fulfilling the 

needs of general navigation, through projects not specifically authorized 

by Congress. 

Department of Interior - Federal land acquisition programs

Land and Water Conservation Fund – 

Federal Land Acquisition 

Acquisition for various federal agencies (Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest 

Service). 

Grant programs strictly for land acquisition by non-Federal entities 

Cooperative Endangered Species 

Conservation Fund Act Program (Fish 

and Wildlife Service) 

To provide grants to States for Recovery Land Acquisition. (There is 

additional funding for Habitat Conservation Fund Land Acquisition 

Grants.) 

Grant programs that may be used for land acquisition and other purposes by non-Federal agencies 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

State Grant Program (National Park 

Service) 

To provide matching grants to States and local governments for the 

acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and 

facilities. 

Grant programs that may be used for land acquisition and other purposes by Federal and non-Federal 

agencies 

North American Wetlands Conservation 

Act (Fish and Wildlife Service) 

May fund the acquisition of habitat for waterfowl and migrating birds in 

support of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

Federal Aid Wetlands Conservation 

(Fish and Wildlife Service) 

May fund the acquisition of habitat for waterfowl and migrating 

birds in support of the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan. 

Other partnership programs supporting non-land acquisition conservation activities 

Private Stewardship Grants Program 

(Fish and Wildlife Service) 

To provide grants for on-the-ground conservation projects on private 

lands benefiting federally listed, threatened, endangered species or other 

at-risk species. 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program 

(Fish and Wildlife Service) 

To provide assistance to landowners to voluntarily restore wetlands, 

streams, grasslands, woodlands, and other important habitat that support 

fish and wildlife. 

Fish and Wildlife Service Challenge 

Cost Share 

Foster innovative and creative cooperative efforts to restore natural 

resources and establish or expand wildlife habitat, with an emphasis on 

Federal lands and resources. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-29 

 STATE 

Florida Forever Program/Board of 

Trustees (Department of Environmental 

Protection) 

To fund the acquisition and restoration of environmentally sensitive 

lands, lands to protect water resource development and supply, to 

increase public access, public lands management and maintenance, and 

increase protection of land by acquisition of conservation easements. 

Florida Forever is the umbrella funding source for the state programs 

listed below. 

Florida Forever Program Water 

Management Districts (Department of 

Environmental Protection) 

To fund the acquisition of lands and capital project expenditures 

necessary to implement the water management districts' priority lists; 

$25 million of the annual Florida Forever allocation to the 

SFWMD is to be used exclusively for the acquisition of land needed to 

implement CERP. 

Florida Communities 

Trust (Department of Community 

Affairs) 

To fund the state’s land acquisition grant program for local 

governments and non-profits to acquire lands that promote 

outdoor recreation and natural resource protection needs identified in 

local government comprehensive plans. 

Florida Forever Program In-holdings 

and Additions Programs (Department of 

Environmental Protection) 

To acquire in-holdings and additions to existing conservation lands. 

Florida Greenways and Trails 

(Department of Environmental 

Protection) 

To fund the statewide initiative to create a system of greenways and 

trails connecting communities and conservation areas. 

Florida Recreation Development 

Assistance Program (Department of 

Environmental Protection) 

To fund the acquisition or development of land for public outdoor 

recreation and the acquisition of in-holdings and additions for state 

parks. 

Save Our Everglades Trust Fund 

(Department of Environmental 

Protection) 

To implement CERP. 

Florida’s Rural Land Stewardship 

Program (Department of Community 

Affairs) 

The intent of the program is to direct development of rural lands to 

preserve agriculture and protect the environment. Local 

governments designate Stewardship areas within their 

Comprehensive Plans and credits are allocated to individual parcels 

based on environmental and other values. The credits are recorded as a 

covenant or restrictive easement. 

COUNTIES 

Orange County Green PLACE To preserve conservation and water resource lands. 

Osceola County S.A.V.E Osceola To acquire lands to protect open space and water quality, preserve 

natural areas, protect endangered or threatened animals or Plants and 

provide passive recreation such as trails. 

Polk County Environmental Lands 

Program 

To acquire, preserve, manage and restore endangered and 

environmentally sensitive lands, water resources and important wildlife 

habit. 

NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 

Green Horizon Land Trust, Inc. To preserve environmentally valuable or sensitive lands and open 

space areas in and around the Central Florida Ridge for the 

benefit of the general public, and to educate the public as to the 

importance of such lands and their preservation. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-30 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation To award challenge grants that address priority actions promoting fish 

and wildlife conservation and the habitats on which they depend; work 

proactively to involve other conservation and community interests; 

leverage available funding; and evaluate project outcomes. 

The Conservation Fund To forge partnerships to preserve our nation’s outdoor heritage, 

American’s legacy of wildlife habitat, working landscapes and 

community open space. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) To preserve Plants, animals and natural communities representing the 

diversity of life on Earth. TNC works to increase public funding at the 

local, state and federal level and works with landowners to craft 

innovative land protection projects. 

Trust for Public Lands (TPL) To help agencies and communities create a vision for conservation, raise 

funds for conservation and complete conservation real estate 

transactions. TPL raises public as well as private funds and packages 

projects to funders and agencies. 

Bureau of Land Management 

Challenge Cost Share 

To leverage federal dollars with private and state funding for 

conservation efforts, benefiting resources on Bureau of Land 

Management administered public lands. The program solicits 

partnerships and partnership funding through a variety of resource 

management programs, including fisheries, wildlife, threatened and 

endangered species, cultural resources and recreation. 
Section 9 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

9-24 

The next stage, Mid-Term Implementation Measures (2011 to 2015), will continue 

implementation of previous measures and implement additional water quality measures as 

optimized by Technology and Model Refinement Studies. This stage will initiate 

implementation of the appropriate combination of storage methods based upon the results of 

ongoing CERP Lake Okeechobee ASR Pilots and Regional Study (Table 9-7). 

The final stage, Long-Term Implementation Measures (beyond 2015), will include continued 

implementation of previous measures and continued implementation of storage through 

appropriate combination of storage methods (Table 9-8). See Section 7 for additional 

information on MMs. 

Table 9-6. Initial Implementation Measures (2008 – 2010). 

 Water Quality Water Quantity 

Agricultural and Urban BMPS and Regulatory Programs 9 9 

LOPP Phosphorus Source Control Projects 9 9 

Local Government Initiatives 9 9 

Florida Ranchlands and Environmental Services Projects 9 9 

LOER Alternative Water Storage Projects 

(Alternative water storage facilities, Paradise Run 10 Well 

ASR System, Seminole Brighton ASR Pilot, and Taylor 

Creek ASR Reactivation) 9 9 

LOER Stormwater Treatment Areas 

(Brady Ranch STA and Lemkin Creek Water Quality 

Treatment Facility) 9 9 

CERP ASR Pilots 9 9 

Projects 

CERP Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project 

(Istokpoga STA, Lakeside Ranch STA, Taylor Creek 

Reservoir, and Paradise Run Wetland Restoration) 9 9 

BMP Research and Refinement 9 9 

Chemical Treatment Feasibility Study 9 9 

Water Quality Model Development 9 9 

ASR Feasibility- Pilot Cycle Testing, ASR Regional Study, 

ASR Optimization Analysis 9 9 

Technology and 

Model 

Refinement 

Hydrologic Model Refinement 9 9 

9= Primary benefit 9 = Ancillary benefit 
SECTION 10 

PLAN REFINEMENT AND REVISIONS
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 10 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

10-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

10.0 PLAN REFINEMENT AND REVISIONS ................................................................... 10-1 

10.1 Process Development and Engineering ..................................................................... 10-1 

10.1.1 Model and Technology Refinement................................................................... 10-2 

10.1.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Water Quality Model Development...........10-2 

10.1.1.2 Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model Refinement ................. 10-2 

10.1.2 Existing Technology Refinement ...................................................................... 10-3 

10.1.2.1 BMP Research and Refinement................................................................. 10-3 

10.1.2.2 STA Integration and Refinement............................................................... 10-3 

10.1.2.3 Lake Okeechobee ASR Pilots and Regional Study ................................... 10-3 

10.1.3 Innovative Nutrient Control Technologies ........................................................10-4 

10.1.3.1 Chemical Treatment Pilot Study................................................................ 10-4 

10.1.3.2 Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology .................................................... 10-4 

10.1.4 Sub-Watershed Conceptual Planning ................................................................ 10-4 

10.2 Plan Updates and Revisions....................................................................................... 10-5 

10.2.1 Types of Updates and Revisions........................................................................10-6 

10.2.2 Process for Updates, Revisions, and Reporting.................................................10-6 

10.2.3 Public Involvement ............................................................................................ 10-7 

10.2.4 Force Majeure .................................................................................................... 10-7 
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 10 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

10-1 

10.0 PLAN REFINEMENT AND REVISIONS 

The Preferred Plan provides a framework and road map for progressive water quality and 

quantity improvements to benefit the lake and downstream estuaries. 

Throughout implementation, it is fully expected that hydrologic and water quality conditions in 

the watershed will continue to change as land uses in the watershed are modified, and as 

restoration projects become operational. Performance will be periodically assessed and revisions 

made as necessary. In addition, the legislation requires annual reports and protection plan 

updates every three years. 

Portions of this Plan have already been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. 

More detailed planning and design of other features will begin in 2008 and continue throughout 

the Plan implementation stages. During implementation, the hydrologic and water quality 

conditions in the LOW will continue to change as land use changes and individual projects 

affecting the quality and quantity of water become operational. It is therefore important to have 

a procedure in place to ensure that: 

1. Provide a process to move through more detailed planning and design to project 

implementation. 

2. Plan performance is adequately and appropriately monitored over time, 

3. Plan is revised at periodic intervals, as necessary, based on evaluation of monitoring data, 

and 

4. Plan progress is reported to the Legislature, regulatory agencies, and the public on a regular 

basis. 

Similar to other state initiatives (e.g. Everglades Protection Area Tributary Basins Long-Term 

Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals), it is anticipated that this procedure will be borne out 

through Process Development and Engineering. The recommendations for Process Development 

and Engineering (PD&E) are described in this section. A description of the strategy for plan 

refinement, revision, and reporting is also provided. 

10.1 Process Development and Engineering 

The primary objective of the PD&E is to provide a roadmap for further refinement of the design 

of individual plan components. The PD&E will also identify additional measures that, if 

implemented, will increase certainty that the overall plan objectives for improving water quality 

and quantity are met. The PD&E procedure recognizes that: 

• Achieving improvements in the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water and 

achievement of water quality standards will involve an adaptive management approach, 

whereby the best available information is used to develop and expeditiously implement 

incremental improvement measures in a cost-effective manner; 
Section 10 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

10-2 

• Continued engineering evaluations will be necessary to increase certainty in the overall 

operation and performance of integrated hydrology and water quality improvement 

strategies; and 

• Significant technical and economic benefits can be realized by integrating the Lake 

Okeechobee Watershed (LOW) Construction Project water quality and water quantity 

management measures with CERP projects, even to the extent that existing schedules should 

be re-evaluated in some basins and synchronized with CERP implementation schedules. 

• LOW Tributary TMDLs may influence the types of projects that will be needed in the 

watershed. 

Key elements of the PD&E procedure are described below: 

10.1.1 Model and Technology Refinement 

Model and Technology Refinement efforts likely to be required to support implementation of the 

Preferred Plan include: 

• Identification of new technologies that can be used either to accelerate achievement of plan 

objectives or increase cost-effectiveness of implementation 

• Modification of existing analytical and monitoring tools, and 

• Development of new analytical and monitoring tools 

10.1.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Water Quality Model Development 

This effort is primarily focused on development of an assessment tool that will evaluate various 

phosphorus control programs at the watershed level to maximize water quality improvements to 

meet the lake’s TMDL goal of 140 mt/yr. Specifically, the project will update input data sets; 

add an enhanced sub-model to better represent internal lake processes in the upper chain of 

lakes; refine and integrate hydrodynamic modeling and water quality tools; and evaluate the 

effectiveness of the field level BMPs and the basin/regional level phosphorus control projects on 

phosphorus load reductions to the lake. 

10.1.1.2 Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model Refinement 

The migration to a detailed modeling approach is planned for the Northern Everglades. Initially, 

a basin or “pot” model set-up of the Regional Simulation Model (RSM) was used to evaluate the 

relative benefits of different sets of management measures. Performance measures at a regional 

level, e.g., Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries, were formulated, 

quantified and analyzed. RSM refinement would, then, incorporate updated data sets, more 

rigorous channel routing and potentially mesh-based representation of the sub-watersheds. 

In addition, the spatial extent of model would be expanded to include areas not previously 

considered such as additional tributary basins influencing the St. Lucie Estuary (e.g. C23/C24, 

Ten-Mile Creek, South Fork, etc.). The additional model extent and resolution in the hydrology 
Section 10 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

10-3 

of the study area will provide more detailed water budgets and better interface to the water 

quality evaluation component of the project. Sub-regional as well as localized performance 

measures will also be possible due to this effort. Further refinement to the operational package 

for Lake Okeechobee may also be required to represent potential changes to the regulation 

schedule as envisioned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

10.1.2 Existing Technology Refinement 

Existing technology refinement efforts will play an important role in optimizing and refining the 

implementation of many features that make-up the Preferred Plan and currently include: 

• Best Management Practices (BMP) Research and Refinement 

• Stormwater Treatment Area Integration and Refinement 

• Lake Okeechobee ASR Pilots and Regional Study 

10.1.2.1 BMP Research and Refinement 

Several uncertainties exist in estimating BMP performance. Some uncertainties associated with 

the performance of BMPs include the impacts of different soils and hydrologic conditions, the 

quantity of water that can be held on a parcel without impacting an agricultural operation, and 

legacy phosphorus currently within the watershed. The BMP performance estimates utilized in 

this plan were based on best professional judgment and take into account the uncertainties 

described above, information available from literature, as well as actual performance data 

observed within the watershed to date. These estimates will continue to be refined over time as 

ongoing and future research provides additional information through the Technology and Model 

Refinement efforts. 

10.1.2.2 STA Integration and Refinement 

The Preferred Plan establishes a technical framework through Process Development and 

Engineering for the refinement and integration of STAs for the purpose of meeting water quality 

goals for Lake Okeechobee. The goal of STA refinement and integration is to apply adaptive 

management analyses that will assist in determining how STAs can effectively treat water over 

time. Flow, water quality, vegetation, and soil data may all be collected on a routine basis, and 

used to understand removal performance of the STAs, and the analysis and interpretation of this 

data is intended to form the basis for potential modifications to the configuration or operation of 

STAs if it is determined that further water quality improvements within the watershed are needed 

and can be achieved within the STAs. 

10.1.2.3 Lake Okeechobee ASR Pilots and Regional Study 

Lake Okeechobee ASR, as applied in CERP, plays an important role attenuating high and low 

Lake Okeechobee levels by storing water from Lake Okeechobee when lake levels are high and 

releasing water back to Lake Okeechobee when lake levels are declining. A series of pilot 

projects are currently underway as well as an ASR Regional Study. The pilot facilities will have 

a defined cycle testing plan for the first two years of operations. These pilots and the Regional 

Study will provide information on the magnitude that ASR could be feasibly implemented in the 
Section 10 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

10-4 

vicinity of Lake Okeechobee as well as the operational scheme that will provide the optimum 

benefits. This information will be used in the more detailed planning and design needed to 

determine the mix of surface storage and ASR that will be constructed to improve the 

management of Lake Okeechobee levels in the future. 

10.1.3 Innovative Nutrient Control Technologies 

Evaluation and testing of technologies, such as chemical treatment and hybrid wetland treatment 

technologies, that have the potential to remove phosphorus in a cost-effective manner to help 

meet the phosphorus TMDL for Lake Okeechobee will be conducted. The results of these and 

other testing and evaluation in future will play a role in refining and optimizing the Plan. 

10.1.3.1 Chemical Treatment Pilot Study 

The chemical treatment pilot study would investigate available information on chemical 

treatment technologies that have recently been tested for reducing total phosphorus loads in 

stormwater runoff. Currently there are several different types of technologies that can be applied 

both in-stream and in off-line treatment systems. As a result treatment costs are likely to vary 

depending upon influent water quality, volume of water treated and level of treatment desired. 

The location of chemical addition (pre treatment vs. polishing) also plays a major part in 

determining total treatment cost. Selection of potential technologies appropriate for use with the 

Lake Okeechobee watershed should be based on results of the pilot study which will evaluate the 

comparative effectiveness of these differing applications. 

10.1.3.2 Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology 

The Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology (HWTT) combines beneficial attributes of the two 

commonly used nutrient removal systems, namely treatment wetland and chemical injection 

systems. The technology capitalizes on many of the positive attributes of treatment wetlands 

(effective N and suspended solids removal), and on the effective P removal capability of 

chemical additive systems. The use of chemical additives within the HWTT is minimized by a 

patented approach of recycling the active flocs that are formed following additive application. 

The additive flocs are retained within the reaction chamber, and can be removed later, if desired. 

A proposed HWTT feasibility study will evaluate the technical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 

implementing this technology within the LOW. The feasibility study will identify potential sites 

to test the HWTT on a small, pilot scale and, if successful, on a larger scale. 

10.1.4 Sub-Watershed Conceptual Planning 

This Preferred Plan has provided a general framework and road map to follow that will result in 

progressive improvements in phosphorus loading to Lake Okeechobee and additional storage 

that will improve Lake Okeechobee’s operating levels to more ecologically desirable ranges as 

well as reduce undesirable discharges to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries. However, 

due to the general nature of many of the projects identified in this planning process a significant 
Section 10 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

10-5 

amount of more detailed planning, design and engineering will be necessary prior to project 

implementation. 

In addition, the results of other feasibility efforts will be used to help meet the Preferred Plan’s 

objectives in as cost effective a manner as possible. Studies and pilot projects that test and 

evaluate various water quality treatment technologies will be used to refine and optimize 

phosphorus removal. The results from Lake Okeechobee ASR pilots and the ASR Regional 

Study will be used to help determine the mix of surface and sub-surface storage needed to better 

manage Lake Okeechobee water levels. 

Significant progress has been made on a number of features and the initial focus will be on 

completing these features such as Lakeside Ranch STA, Lemkin Creek Urban Stormwater 

Facility, Seminole Brighton Reservation ASR, and Taylor Creek ASR reactivation. More 

detailed planning, design and engineering will also continue on features such as Brady Ranch 

STA, Taylor Creek Reservoir/STA and Paradise Run ASR. In addition, engineering and design 

of a number of Alternative Water Storage features will also continue. 

Level 4 and 5 features of the Preferred Plan are those that have the least detail and have not been 

sited at this time. Therefore, for these features the initial stages of more detailed planning and 

design prior to more detailed engineering will be an evaluation of lands that are currently in 

District ownership and how best to maximize their utilization for water quality and surface 

storage. This conceptual planning may be performed on a site-specific basis; however, most 

other planning will be conducted on a broader sub-watershed scale. In compliance with the 

NEEPP legislative requirements, the siting analyses will consider potential impacts to wetlands 

and threatened and endangered species. After siting of features is completed more detailed 

design and engineering will follow. 

This stage in the PD&E process will also evaluate known issues in the LOW such as those 

related to siting of project features in the Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed. The CERP LOW 

Project had identified several issues that will have to be addressed in this sub-watershed, 

including: 

• Potential for navigation impedance in the creek 

• Presence of several, large culturally significant resource sites 

• Impacts on critical habitats 

10.2 Plan Updates and Revisions 

Updates and revisions to the Plan resulting from a number of factors including information from 

Process Development and Engineering, updated water quality and hydrologic data, and adaptive 

management will be prepared by the Coordinating Agencies. In addition, other agencies and the 

public will have the opportunity to provide input to the Coordinating Agencies in developing 

proposed changes through numerous public forums. A process for updating and revising the 

Plan throughout the various implementation stages is described below. 
Section 10 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

10-6 

10.2.1 Types of Updates and Revisions 

Revisions to the Plan will be classified as minor or major based on the following criteria: 

• Magnitude and nature of the proposed revisions (i.e., scope, schedule, budget); 

• Potential for the proposed revision to have environmental impacts that are significantly 

different from those previously considered by the Coordinating Agencies for the project; 

• Potential for the revision to impact the intent and purpose of the Phase II Technical Plan; 

• Revision may require SFWMD Governing Board approval. 

 

The classification of the revision will not necessarily determine the nature of any accompanying 

permit requirements that may be necessary. 

10.2.2 Process for Updates, Revisions, and Reporting 

The following process is proposed for updating the Plan and reporting: 

• Monthly Interagency Coordinating Meetings – this forum is used to discuss progress of 

implementation, review new information and data, proposals for revisions (minor and major) 

along with supporting documentation, and to seek review and comments; 

• Semiannual Coordinating Agency Review- new information compiled as a result of the 

Interagency Coordinating Meetings and other agency and public input will be reviewed by 

the South Florida Water Management District, Department of Environmental Protection and 

the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to determine plan revisions that may 

be necessary; 

• Annual Report in the South Florida Environmental Report (SFER) – the SFWMD will 

submit the required Annual Report in the South Florida Environmental Report (SFER) (a.k.a. 

Consolidated Water Management District Annual Report) to the Department of 

Environmental Protection, the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the 

House of Representatives. This annual report will summarize the status of research and 

monitoring, project implementation, and recommended revisions to the protection plan. In 

addition, major updates and revisions to the plan will be identified and described in the 

annual report. The discussion will include a description of the need for the revision and its 

impacts on the plan’s scope, schedule, budget, and objectives. Public comments received 

during the coordination of the proposed plan revision will also be noted in the annual report. 

• Annual work plan submitted for each fiscal year to the Department of Environmental 

Protection identifying the projects and funding necessary to implement those projects 

• Every three years the SFWMD in cooperation with the coordinating agencies will formally 

update, revise and submit the protection plan to the State Legislature. 
Section 10 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

10-7 

10.2.3 Public Involvement 

Public involvement will be sought regarding proposed updates and revisions to the Protection 

Plan through discussion with the following groups: 

• Monthly Interagency Coordinating Meetings – this forum is used to discuss progress of 

implementation, review new information and data, proposals for revisions (minor and major) 

along with supporting documentation, and to seek review and comments from the 

coordinating agencies, stakeholders, and the general public; 

• Water Resources Advisory Commission and Lake Okeechobee Committee meetings – 

regular updates will be provided to the WRAC and Lake Okeechobee Committee, which 

advises the SFWMD Governing Board on a variety of environmental restoration and water 

resource management issues. The WRAC also serves as a forum for improving public 

participation and decision-making on water resource issues. These meetings will be used to 

discuss progress of implementation and seek input from stakeholders as well as the general 

public; 

• South Florida Water Management District Governing Board meetings – updates on progress 

of implementation and proposals for major revisions will be discussed as appropriate. This 

forum provides an opportunity for input from stakeholders as well as the general public ; 

• Other public meetings as necessary. 

10.2.4 Force Majeure 

Extraordinary events or circumstances beyond the control of the Coordinating Agencies may 

prevent or delay implementation of Plan projects. Such events may include, but are not limited 

to, Acts of Nature (including fire, flood, drought, hurricane, or other natural disaster) as well as 

unavoidable legal barriers or restraints, including litigation of permits for individual Plan 

projects. 
This page intentionally left blank. 
SECTION 11 

REFERENCES
This page intentionally left blank. 
Section 11 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

11-1 

11.0 REFERENCES 

Abtew, W., 1996. "Evapotranspiration measurements and modeling for three wetland systems in 

South Florida." J. Amer. Water Res. Ass., 32(3):465-473. 

Abtew, W., J Obeysekera, M. Irizarry-Ortiz, D. Lyons and A. Reardon. 2003. 

“Evapotranspiration Estimation for South Florida.” P. Bizier and P. DeBarry (ed.). Proceedings 

of the World Water and Environmental Resources Congress 2003. ASCE (CD) 

Ali, A. and Abtew, W. 1999. “Regional Rainfall Frequency Analysis for Central and South 

Florida”. Technical Publication , WRE #380. South Florida Water Management District, West 

Palm Beach, FL. 

Allen, R. G., et al. 2005. “The ASCE Standardized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation.” 

ASCE Publications. 

Bottcher, A.B. 2006. Phosphorus Reduction Performance and Implementation Costs under BMPs 

and technologies in the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan Area. Letter Report to South Florida 

Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. 

Carrick, H.J., D. Worth, and M.L. Marshall. 1994. The influence of water circulation on 

chlorophyll-turbidity relationships in Lake Okeechobee as determined by remote-sensing. J. 

Plankton Res. 16: 1117-1135. 

Chamberlain, R. H., D. E. Haunert, P. H. Doering, K. M. Haunert, and J. M. Otero. 1995. 

Preliminary estimate of optimum freshwater inflow to the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Florida. 

Technical report, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Chamberlain, R. H. and P. H. Doering. 1998a. Freshwater inflow to the Caloosahatchee Estuary 

and the resource-based method for evaluation, p. 81-90. In S.F. Treat (ed.), Proceedings of the 

1997 Charlotte Harbor Public Conference and Technical Symposium. South Florida Water 

Management District and Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, Technical Report No. 98-

02. Washington, D.C. 

Chamberlain, R. H. and P. H. Doering. 1998b. Preliminary estimate of optimum freshwater 

inflow to the Caloosahatchee Estuary: A resource-based approach, p. 121-130. In S.F. Treat 

(ed.), Proceedings of the 1997 Charlotte Harbor Public Conference and Technical Symposium. 

South Florida Water Management District and Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, 

Technical Report No. 98-02. Washington, D.C. 

Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson and P.R. Newroth. 1993. Restoration and 

Management of Lakes and Reservoirs (2nd edition). Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. 
Section 11 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

11-2 

Davis, F.E., and M.M. Marshall. 1975. Chemical and biological investigation of Lake 

Okeechobee January 1973 – June 1974. Technical Publication 75-1, South Florida Water 

Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Doering, P. H., R. H. Chamberlain, and D. E. Haunert. 2002. Using submerged aquatic 

vegetation to establish minimum and maximum freshwater inflows to the Caloosahatchee 

Estuary, Florida. Estuaries 25 (1343-1354). 

EA. 2002. Lake Okeechobee Pilot Dredging Project Report. EA Engineering, Science, & 

Technology, Inc. June 2002. 

EarthTech, 2007a. “NETP Rating Curve Development for Fully-Restored Kissimmee River 

Conditions.” Memorandum dated June 29, 2007. 

EarthTech, 2007b. “KBMOS Draft Operating Criteria for Modeling S-65D Future Conditions.” 

Memorandum dated July 20, 2007. 

Engstrom, D.R. and P.L. Brezonik. 1993. Lake Okeechobee phosphorus dynamics study volume 

V. phosphorus accumulation rates. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, 

Florida. 

Fan, A., 1986. “A routing model for the Upper Kissimmee Chain of Lakes.” Technical 

Publication 86-5. Water Resources Division. South Florida Water Management District. 

FDEP. 2001. Total Maximum Daily Load for Total P Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection, Florida. 

FDEP. 2006. Water Quality Assessment Report Kissimmee River and Fisheating Creek. Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection 

FDOT. 1999. Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System Manual. Florida Department of 

Transportation. 

 

Federico, A.C., K.G. Dickson, C.R. Kratzer and F.E. Davis. 1981. Lake Okeechobee water 

quality studies and eutrophication assessment. Report, South Florida Water Management 

District, West Palm Beach, FL. 

Harvey, R. and K.E. Havens. 1999. Lake Okeechobee Action Plan. Lake Okeechobee 

Action Team. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach FL. 43 pp. 

Havens, K.E. 1995. Relationships of annual chlorophyll a means, maxima and algal bloom 

frequencies in a shallow eutrophic lake (Lake Okeechobee, Florida, USA). Lake and Reservoir 

Management 10: 127-132. 

Havens, K.E. 2002. Development and application of hydrologic restoration goals for a large 

subtropical lake. Lake and Reservoir Management 18: 285-292. 
Section 11 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

11-3 

Hall, C.A. 1991. Lake Okeechobee Supply-Side Management Plan, Internal report. Operations 

and Maintenance Department, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, 

Florida 

Havens, K.E. 2002. Development and application of hydrologic restoration goals for a large 

subtropical lake. ASLO (invited presentation). 

Havens, K.E., B. Sharfstein, M.A. Brady, T.L. East, M.C. Harwell, R.P. Maki, A.J. Rodusky. 

2004. Recovery of submerged plants from high water stress in a large subtropical lake in Florida, 

USA. Aquatic Botany 78: 67-82. 

Havens, K.E., D. Fox, S. Gornak, C. Hanlon. 2005. Aquatic vegetation and largemouth bass 

population responses to water level variations in Lake Okeechobee, Florida (USA). 

Hydrobiologia 539(1): 225-237. 

Hiscock, J.G., C. S. Thourot, J. Zhang. 2003. Phosphorus budget – land use relationships for the 

northern Lake Okeechobee watershed, Florida, Ecological Engineering 21:1 

Hoffacker, V. A. 1994. Caloosahatchee River submerged grass observation during 1993. W. 

Dexter Bender and Associates, Inc. Letter-report and map to Chip Meriam, SFWMD. 

Irizarry-Ortiz, M. M., Said, W., Trimble, P., Trimble, B., Brown, M., Ali A., Obeysekera, J., 

Tarboton, K., Newton, T., 2007. “Estimation of Long-Term Reference Evapotranspiration from 

Regional Climate Datasets.” Proceedings of the ASCE-EWRI 2007 World Environmental and 

Water Resource Congress, Tampa, FL. 

Irmak, S., T.A. Howell, R.B. Allen, J.O. Payero, and D.L. Martin. 2005. Standardized ASCE 

Penman-Monteith: Impact of sum-of-hourly vs. 24-hour timestep computations at reference 

weather station sites. Trans. ASAE 48(3):1063-1077 

Itenfisu, D., R.L. Elliott, R.G. Allen, and I.A. Walter. 2003. Comparison of reference 

evapotranspiration calculations as part of the ASCE standardization effort. J. Irrig. and Drain. 

Eng. (ASCE) 129)6):440-44. 

James, R.T., B.L. Jones and V.H. Smith. 1995. Historical Trends in the Lake 

Okeechobee Ecosystem II. Nutrient Budgets. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie Monographische 

Beitrage, 107: 25-47. 

James, R. T., and K. E. Havens. 2005. Outcomes of Extreme Water Levels on Water Quality of 

Offshore and Nearshore Regions in a Large Shallow Subtropical Lake. Archiv für Hydrobiologie 

163: 225-239. 

James, R.T. and J. Zhang. 2008. Chapter 10: Lake Okeechobee Protection Program – State of the 

Lake and Watershed. In: 2008 South Florida Environmental Report – Volume I, South Florida 

Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. 
Section 11 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

11-4 

Joyner, B.F. 1972. Appraisal of chemical and biological conditions of Lake Okeechobee, Florida 

1969-1970. Open File report 71006, United States Geological Survey. 

Koebel, J.W. Jr. 1995. An historical perspective on the Kissimmee River restoration project. 

Restoration Ecology 3:149-159. 

Maceina, M.J. 1993. Summer fluctuations in planktonic chlorophyll a concentrations in Lake 

Okeechobee, Florida: the influence of lake levels. Lake and Reservoir Management 8: 1-11. 

Mock*Roos, 2003. Lake Istokpoga and Upper Chain of Lakes Phosphorus Source Control. Task 

4 Final Report submitted to South Florida Water Management District in partial fulfillment of 

Contract No. C-13413. 247 pp. 

Sackett. J. W. 1888. Survey of the Caloosahatchee River, Florida. Report to Captain of the U.S. 

Engineering Office, St. Augustine, Florida. 

SFWMD. 1989. Surface Water Improvement and Management [SWIM] Plan for Lake 

Okeechobee, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

SFWMD. 2000a. Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan, Planning Department, South 

Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

SFWMD. 2000b. Technical documentation to support development of minimum flows and levels 

for the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary. West Palm Beach, Florida.. 

SFWMD. 2000c. Minimum Flows and Levels for Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, and the 

Biscayne Aquifer. South Florida Water Management District, Florida 

SFWMD. 2002a. Technical Documentation Report to Support Development of Minimum Flows 

and Levels for the St Lucie River and Estuary, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

SFWMD. 2002b. Minimum Flows and Levels for the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary. West 

Palm Beach, Florida. 

SFWMD. 2002. Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan Update for Lake 

Okeechobee. West Palm Beach, Florida. 

SFWMD. 2005. Technical Documentation Report to Support Development of Minimum Levels 

for Lake Istokpoga, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

SFERT. 2006. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Natural Lands Report. Prepared by the 

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. Miami, FL. 
Section 11 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

11-5 

South Florida Water Management District, 2006. DRAFT Internal HESM Department 

Documentation on the “Estimation of Long-Term Reference Evapotranspiration for Hydrologic 

Modeling.” West Palm Beach, Florida. 

SFWMD. 2007. Lake Okeechobee Protection Program, Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan 

Evaluation Report, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

SFWMD. 2008. Draft South Florida Environmental Report, West Palm Beach, Florida. 

Sklar, F. H. and J. A. Browder. 1998. Coastal environmental impacts brought about by alteration 

to freshwater flow in the Gulf of Mexico. Environmental Management 22 (4): 547-562. 

Smith, M., 1991. "Report on the expert consultation on procedures for revision of FAO 

guidelines for prediction of crop water requirements." Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations. Rome, Italy. 

Smith, V.H., V.J.B. Jr., B.L. Jones and K.E. Havens. 1995. Historical trends in the Lake 

Okeechobee ecosystem IV. Nitrogen: phosphorus rations, cyanobacterial dominance, and 

nitrogen fixation potential. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie Suppl. 107:71-88 

USACE. 2006. Herbert Hoover Dike Reaches 2 and 3, Draft Engineering Analysis and Draft 

Supplement to the 1999 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Palm Beach, Glades and Hendry 

Counties, Florida. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Florida 

Visher, F.N. and Hughes, G.H. 1969. “The difference between rainfall and potential evaporation 

in Florida.” Journal of American Water Resources Association, 34(1), 149-157. 

Volety, A. K., S. G. Tolley and J. T. Winstead. 2003. Effects of seasonal and water quality 

parameters on oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and associated fish populations in the 

Caloosahatchee River: Final contract report (C-12412) to the South Florida Water Management 

District. Florida Gulf Coast University, Ft. Myers, Florida. 

White, J., M. Belmont, K. R. Reddy, and C. Martin. 2003. Phosphorus Sediment Water 

Interactions in Lakes Istokpoga, Kissimmee, Tohopekaliga, Cypress and Hatchineha. Report 

submitted in partial fulfillment of contract C-13942 to the South Florida Water Management 

District. 14 pp. 

Zhang, J., S.A.F. Ray, and A. Steinman. 2002. Potential phosphorus load reductions under the 

Lake Okeechobee regulatory program. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 38(6): 

1613-1624. 

Zhang, J, R.T. James, G. Ritter, and B. Sharfstein. Chapter 10: Lake Okeechobee Protection 

Program – State of the Lake and Watershed, 2007 South Florida Environmental Report. South 

Florida Water Management District, Florida. 

Zimba, P.V., M.S. Hopson, J.P. Smith, D.E. Colle, and J.V. Shireman. 1995. Chemical 
Section 11 

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008 

11-6 

composition and distribution of submersed aquatic vegetation in Lake Okeechobee, 

Florida (1989-1991). Archive fur Hydrobiologie, Special Issue Advances in Limnology 

45:241-246.