# L ake 

# O keechobee 

# W atershed 

# C onstruction 

# P roject

Phase II

Technical Plan

February 2008 F lorida Depar tment of Ag riculture

and C onsumer Ser vices

# 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 ServicesLOWCP 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 AN D PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................... 4-1

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

6. WATER QUANTITY DAT A ANALYSES....................................................................... 6-1

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

8. ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVALUA TION AND COMPARISON ..................................... 8-1

9. PREFERRED PLAN PROJEC TS 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 CommentsThis 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 Estuarin e Land Conservation Program CERP Comprehensive Evergl ades 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 Monito ring 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 Agri culture 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 ProgramLOWCP 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 Technology TM

ICGA Indiantown Citrus Growers Association IRL-S Indian River Lagoon-South

JD Jurisdictional Wetland

KBMOS Kissimmee Basin Modeli ng 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 Okeec hobee 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 No rthern 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 PlanLOWCP 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 Coordi nation and Verification RLSA Rural Land Stewardship Areas RSM Regional Simulation Model SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation SFER South Florida Environmental Report

SFWMD South Florida Wate r 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 YearThis page intentionally left blank.

### SECTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSection 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 Re finements and Revisions...............................................1-14

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

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

1-1 The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protect ion Program requires the development of a detailed technical plan for Phase II of the La ke Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project by February 2008. In response, this preferred Pl an was developed by the South Florida Water Management District in coordination with the Florida Depar tment of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Agriculture and C onsumer Services – and with extensive input from stakeholders throughout its development. Subject to ratifi cation 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 Legislatur e and signed into law by Gover nor Charlie Crist in 2007, the landmark “Northern Everglades and Estuaries Pr otection Program” promotes a comprehensive, interconnected watershed approach to protec ting Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers and estuaries. By expanding the Lake Okeechobee Protec tion Act, the Florida Legislature recognized the impor tance and connectivity of the entire ecosystem – from the

Kissimmee Chain of Lakes south to Florida Bay.

The primary goal of the legislation is to restor e and protect surface water resources by addressing not only the water quality but also the quantity, timing and distribu tion of water to the natural system. State agencies are working in partne rship with those local governments whose economy and quality of life depend on the health of Lake Okeechobee and th e coastal estuaries to develop and implement comprehensive plans to rest ore and protect thes e water bodies.

The preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Constr uction Project Phase II Technical Plan was developed by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in coordination with the Florida Department of Environmental Protec tion (FDEP) and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Servi ces (FDACS) – and with extens ive input from stakeholders throughout its development.

To achieve the restoration goals, the coordinating agencies evalua ted various alternatives using best available technology and scientific info rmation, and included significant public involvement and review throughout the process. The resulting preferred Plan identifie s 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 proj ects for increasing water storag e 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 impact s 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, underg round storage and alternative water storage projects on public and private lands.

Comprised of local and regional projects, th e 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 implemen ted 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 Florid a’s Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (LOPP) and Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Plan (LOER).

The proposed implementation schedule calls fo r a phased approach – designed to provide progressive water quality and quantity improve ments to benefit the lake and downstream estuaries. Initial measures outlined by the pref erred Plan call for an a dditional 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 Di strict and the State, CERP inve stments 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 initiativ e to protect and improve Lake Okeechobee and downstream receiving waters. Th e preferred Plan achie ves the legislative requirement by outlining the steps needed to reduce pollution and improve the storage in the watershed north of the lake necessary to cl ean 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 th e largest freshwater body in the southeastern United States. The 730 square-mile lake provides a number of va lues and benefits to the state’s population, economy and environment, including environmenta l, public and agricultu ral water supply; flood protection; a sport and commerci al fishery; navigation/recreatio n; and natural habitat for a variety of endangered and threaten ed animal and plant species.

Today, the lake’s ecological health is adversely affected by three major influences: (1) excessive nutrient loading; (2) extr eme 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 infl ows from a number of sources. The Lake Okeechobee watershed encomp asses 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 pe rcent of the total area. Ba sed 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-WatershedsSection 1

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

1-4 Over the last century, a number of factors ha ve led to adverse cha nges 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 Kissi mmee River basin; the construction of the regional water management network for flood control (the Central and Southern Florida public works project built by th e 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: Channeliz ation of the Kissimmee River removed regional storage upstream of Lake Okeechobee while maki ng 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 phosphor us impacts in the lake, in 2001 the State established a stringent restora tion target known as a Total Ma ximum Daily Load (TMDL) for

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

Okeechobee can assimilate withou t causing exceedences of water quality standards. The amount of phosphorus entering the lake has significan tly exceeded the TMDL over the past three

decades.

In addition, construction of the Herbert Hoover Dike greatly redu ced the extent of the lake’s natural littoral or shoreline marsh areas, re ducing 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 al ong with drainage and development efforts to the south, reduced the natural expanse of the Flor ida Everglades’ wetland area by 50 percent, constraining flow

south from Lake Okeechobee.

Because the volume of water comi ng from the upstream basin has remained relatively constant (approximately 3.5 million acre-feet per year, on av erage, equivalent to about 7.5 feet over the lake surface area), lake inflow s 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 th e lake to the east (via the St. Lucie River and Estuary) and west (via the Caloosahatchee Rive r 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 Co rps of Engineers’ operating schedule for Lake Okeechobee – can cause detrimental ecological fluctuations for th e 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 a nd the flow of excess phosphorus into the lake. Some early protecti on 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 re sulted 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 numbe r of “Critical Restor ation 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 De velopment Act of 2000. The joint state-federal partnership of CERP provides a fr amework and guide to restore, protect and preserve the waterSection 1

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

1-6 resources of central and southern Florida, incl uding the Everglades. The overarching goal of CERP is to capture fresh water that now flows unus ed to the ocean and the gulf and redirect it to areas that need it most. The majority of the wa ter will be devoted to en vironmental restoration. The remaining water will enhance urba n 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 th e lake, as well as Aqui fer 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 Ok eechobee Protection Act establishing a phased, watershed-based protection program to restore the lake and its tr ibutaries. As required by the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act, the South Flor ida Water Management District, the Florida Department of Agriculture and C onsumer Services and the Florid a Department of Environmental Protection developed the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan, which details a suite of activities necessary for reducing pollutant loads in the wa tershed and achieving th e established TMDL.

That Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan included Phase I of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project (as described in the or iginal 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 rest oration projects.

Through the implementation of the Lake Okeechob ee 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 concentrati on of 40 parts per billion;

• Constructing the Taylor Creek and Nubbi n Slough Stormwater Treatment Areas (a Congressionally-approved Critical Restoration Project) in pa rtnership 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 enhanc e water storage and habitat on ranchlands;

• Implementing a comprehensive research and wa ter 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 comb ination of capital projects and numerous interagency initiatives to increase water stor age, expand and construct treatment marshes and expedite environmental management initiatives. In addition to expedi ting construction of a series of Lake Okeechobee Fast-Track projects , other components of the LOER plan includeSection 1

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

1-7 alternative water storage, revisions to permit crit eria, 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 th e ecosystem upstream of Lake Okeechobee, portions of the

channelized Kissimmee River are bei ng 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 complete d acquisition of the 102,061 acres n eeded 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 hist oric river channel and 6,500 acres of associated floodplain.

1.3 Preferred Technical Plan Key Objectives/Findings

To develop the preferred Lake Okeechobee Waters hed 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 w ith all ongoing or planne d initiatives and legal

mandates.

A set of four restoration a lternatives were developed a nd reviewed, using established performance measures to assess how well each pr oposed alternative achieve d the identified water quality and water quantity/storage objectives.

Water Quality: Meet the Lake Okee chobee Phosphorus TMDL

In 2001, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection established a TMDL of 140 metric tons per year of total phosphorus for Lake Okeec hobee. 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 deposi tion; 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 me tric tons per year from the wa tershed. Projects and strategies were identified as part of the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (includi ng 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 Okeech obee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan, the period of record for in flow 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 phosp horus 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 th e total maximum daily load

target.

Significant conclusions from the water quality analyses are:

• Existing water quality in the Lake Okeechobee wa tershed is significantly influenced by the various land use and land management practic es 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. Ho wever, measured phosphorus reductions in the lake waters are likely to be substantially delayed because of th e residual phosphorus in soils within the watershed (legac y phosphorus) and lake sediments.

• Implementation of BMPs in areas that c ontribute flows to Lake Istokpoga and Lakes Kissimmee, Cypress and Hatchine ha are expected to reduce phosphorus loading to these lakes. While the load reductions to these ups tream lakes are not expe cted to provide an immediate benefit to Lake Okeechobee, implemen tation 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 a nd protect Lake Okeechobee.

• The Indian Prairie, Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough and Fishea ting 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 de sirable salinity ranges for the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries while meeting other wate r–related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection.

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

distribution of water from the watershed north of the lake to achieve integrated and comprehensive environmental restoration of La ke 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 wate r 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 woul d 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 woul d 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 s ub-watersheds contribu te close to threequarters of the total average annual inflow to Lake Okeechobee. The Lower Kissimmee and Istokpoga sub-watersheds were targ eted for storage projects.

• Although there is a large volume of flow to Lake Okeechobee from the Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed, further evaluation through th e 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 locat ed in the Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed.

1.4 Alternatives Evaluation

The coordinating agencies evaluated four restorati on alternatives as part of the development of the preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Cons truction 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 re duction 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 evaluate d for its performance at reducing phosphorus, improving Lake Okeechobee water levels, reducing damaging discha rges to estuaries and maintaining water supply. It was clear that Alte rnative 1 on its own would not m eet the water quality and water quantity objectives. Alternative 2 performed be st at improving Lake Okeechobee water levels and reducing damaging discharges to the estuaries. Alternativ e 3 performed best at reducing phosphorus inputs to Lake Okeechobee. Alternativ e 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 quantitySection 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 Alternativ e 4 became the basis for the preferred Plan.

Additional features were added to address the phosphorus reducti on shortfall and to provide a storage range from 900,000 to 1.3 m illion acre feet for optimum water quantity performance. The development and comparisons of the four alte rnative 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 pr evious actions is the requirement to identify both the water quality tr eatment 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 ongoi ng and expanded implementation of on-site agricultural and urban best mana gement practices. Based on a water budget analysis of the major sub-watersheds flowing into Lake Okeechob ee, the preferred Plan also includes other projects and initiatives for increasing water st orage 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 pr oject features that include bot h structural and non-structural components, and builds upon ongoing treatment and rest oration projects that are in the planning, design or construction phases. Through interac tion between the coordinating agencies and the public, the preferred Plan also promotes involv ement 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 (BMP s) and changes in regulatory requirements

• Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs)

• Deep injection wells

• Innovative nutrient control technologies

Cumulatively, the preferred Plan’s construction projects and othe r 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 maximu m daily load based on the 1991-2005 period of record. In addition, implementati on of the preferred Plan provides the capability to reduce inlake total phosphorus loads by approxim ately 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 Rec overy (ASR) facilities

It is important to note that the water quantit y storage goal of 900,000 to 1.3 million acre-feet is not in addition to existing or pl anned projects. It is an overa ll goal that may be met through a combination of existing or future projects and th rough a combination of storage methods such as alternative water storage on public and private lands, large above-g round 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 need ed to achieve the overall goal.

NOTE: An overview of features, by project t ype, is included at the end of this executive summary. For more detailed information and desc riptions, please refer to the entire preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan.

1.6 Phased Implementation

The preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Constr uction Project Phase II Technical Plan calls for an iterative, adaptive and phased implementa tion 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 a nd Works of the District rule revisions;

• Initiating/completing implementation of a pproximately 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 Fl oridan 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 Okeec hobee 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 Envir onmental 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 condu cted 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 9 9 Projects

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 st age of the preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Pl an were broken out in to two categories: Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) features and non-CERP features.

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

• Estimate for CERP feat ures: $1-$1.4 billion

The costs for non-CERP features will be primarily borne by the South Florida Water Management District and the Stat e, while CERP costs are eligible for up to a fifty percent cost share with the federal government. It is an ticipated 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 aSection 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 CE RP 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 esti mates for mid-term measur es 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 th at 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 legislati on requires annual reports and plan updates every three years.

1.9 For more details...

The preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Constr uction Project Phase II Technical Plan is designed to reduce phosphorus loadi ngs to the lake and to identif y additional storage capacity

within the watershed. It builds on and consolid ates numerous restoration actions into a more cohesive and comprehensive approach. An el ectronic copy of the Preferred Plan may be downloaded from the following website: https://my.sfwmd.gov/ northernevergladesSection 1LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20081-15Preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical PlanOverview of LOCAL FEATURESProjectTypeProject Name Project DescriptionSource Control Programs SFWMD’s EnvironmentalResource Permit Program(ERP)Existing regulatory program which ensures thatalterations in stormwater runoff do notdegrade surface water quality, flood protection orthe function of existing wetland systems.SFWMD has initiated rule development for anERP basin rule for the Lake Okeechobee, St.Lucie and Caloosahatchee Watersheds that will be based on a performance standard of postdevelopment discharge volumes not exceedingpre-development discharge volumes. Theintent of this rule is to ensure that new development is not increasing the volume ofstormwater discharging downstream.SFWMD’s Works of theDistrict RegulatoryPhosphorus Source ControlProgramExisting regulatory program which governs Best Management Practice (BMP)implementation on agricultural and non-agricultural lands through issuance of permits.SFWMD is updating the rule criteria to be compatible with current initiatives andamendments to the statute. Proposed updatesto the rule could include amendments such asexpansion of program to entire Lake Okeechobee watershed, establish load-basedperformance measures for thecombined BMP source control programs implemented in thewatershed and timeline for BMP implementation; and establish a monitoring networknecessary to ensure compliance.FDACS Agricultural BMPProgramsOn-going program under which FDACS and Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) cooperate with local landowners to develop farm-specific conservation plans forcow/calf, citrus, row crop and other agricultural operations.Supplementary NonAgricultural BMP ProgramsOn-going programs under which FDEP regulates measures implemented to controlphosphorus loads from non-agricultural sources. Includes implementation of site-specificBMPs, master planning for stormwater and wastewater, implementing stormwater retrofits,designing larger urban stormwater projects and public education.FDEP is also expected to propose a UnifiedStatewide Stormwater Rule (January 2009) toincrease the level of treatment required for nutrients in stormwater from new development.FDACS recently adopted the Urban Turf FertilizerRule to limit phosphorus and nitrogencontent in fertilizers used for urban turf and lawns.(Overview of LOCAL FEATUREScontinues on next page)Section 1LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20081-16ProjectTypeProject Name Project DescriptionLand Management Programs ComprehensivePlanning/Land DevelopmentRegulationsOn-going Florida Department of Community Affairs program under which local governmentcomprehensive plans are reviewed for consistency with the State’s growth managementpolicies.Farm and RanchlandProtection ProgramPartnershipOn-going, voluntary NRCS program under which matching funds are provided to State,Tribal or local governments and non-governmental organizations to purchase conservationeasements. Such easements typically remain agricultural and provide water quality andstorage benefits.Florida RanchlandsEnvironmental ServicesProjectRecently launched pilot program under development. If successful, local landowners can sellenvironmental services relatedto water retention, phosphorus load reduction and wetlandhabitat expansion to state agencies and other willing buyers.Alternative Water StorageFacilities-- Stormwater runoff is held on-site on designated private and state lands thereby reducing flowand discharge of nutrients to the regional drainage systems. These facilities generally requireminimal engineering, construction, and operation and maintenance and can be sited on eitherprivately-owned agricultural lands in cooperation with the landowners or on public and triballands.Local Initiatives Taylor Creek CanalsSediment RemovalRemoval of sediment and vegetation from canals and tributaries that drain to Taylor Creekfrom the Treasure Island and Taylor Creek Isles residential areas.Okeechobee City SedimentTrap InstallationInstallation of two sediment traps within the city of Okeechobee for the removal ofphosphorus-laden particulates that might otherwise enter Lake Okeechobee.Nubbin Slough East FlowDiversionDiverting Nubbin Slough flows to restore the east main tributary of the slough.Section 1LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20081-17Preferred Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical PlanOverview of REGIONAL FEATURESProject Type Project Name Project DescriptionSurface StorageFacilitiesStorage Reservoirs A reservoir that is operated with changing water level for thepurpose of storing and releasing water.UndergroundStorage FacilitiesAquifer Storage andRecoveryThe injection of fresh water into a confined saline aquifer during times when supply exceeds demands (wetseason), and recovering it via the same well during times when there is a supply deficit (dry season).UndergroundSurface DisposalDeep Injection Well The practice of water andwastewater disposal into the deep Floridan Aquifer “Boulder Zone” through use ofahigh capacity well.Nutrient LoadReductionFacilitiesStormwaterTreatment AreasLarge, constructed wetlands designed to remove pollutants, particularly nutrients, from stormwater runoff usingnatural processes.ReservoirAssistedStormwaterTreatment Areas(RASTAs)Reservoir-AssistedStormwaterTreatment Areas(RASTAs)Feature comprised of a reservoir and astormwater treatment area. The reservoir functions to store and releasewater directly to the STA in order to optimize STA performance.This page intentionally left blank.

### SECTION 2

INTRODUCTIONThis 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.......................................................................................... 2-4This page intentionally left blank.Section 2

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

2-1 2.0 INTRODUCTION

This document describes the Phase II Techni cal Plan (P2TP) for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed (LOW) Construction Project. The P2 TP, 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 Es tuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) [Section 373.4595, Florida Statutes (F.S.)]. The primar y 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 Waters hed, 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, th e NEEPP legislation also requires development of watershed protection plans for the Caloosahat chee 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 th e South Florida Water Manageme nt District (SFWMD or the District) in collaboration with th e Coordinating Agencies, to develop and submit such a plan to the Florida Legislature for ratification by Febr uary 1, 2008. The Coordinating Agencies include the District, Florida Departme nt of Environmental Protec tion (FDEP), and the Florida Department of Agriculture a nd 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 a nd lake are developed, t hus allowing maximum flexibility to implement additional phosphor us 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 lo cal and state partnerships, and the potential for meeting multiple State and Distri ct 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 effectiven ess estimates included in this plan are based on current data, best available information to date, and best professi onal 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 Pl an 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 th e largest freshwater body in the southeastern United States. The 730 square-mile (mi 2 ) lake provides a number of values a nd benefits to the state’s population, economy and environment, including environmenta l, public and agricultu ral water supply; flood protection; a sport and commerci al fishery; navigation/recreatio n; and natural habitat for a variety of endangered and threaten ed animal and plant species.

Today, the lake’s ecological health is adversely affected by three major influences: (1) excessive nutrient loading; (2) extr eme 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 infl ows from a number of sources. The Lake Okeechobee watershed encomp asses a drainage area of over 3.5 million acres (5,500 mi 2 ), spanning 10 Florida counties, and is do minated by agricultu ral land uses that account for just over 50 percent of the tota l area. Based on hydrologic and geographic boundaries, the watershed includes nine sub-watersheds.

Over the last century, a number of factors ha ve led to adverse cha nges 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 Kissi mmee River basin; the construction of the regional water management network for flood control (the Central and Southern Florida public works project built by th e 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. Channeliz ation of the Kissimmee River removed regional storage upstream of Lake Okeechobee while maki ng 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 phosphor us impacts in the lake, in 2001 the State established a stringent restora tion target known as a Total Ma ximum 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 redu ced the extent of the lake’s natural littoral or shoreline marsh areas, re ducing 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 al ong with drainage and development efforts to the south, reduced the natural expanse of the Flor ida Everglades’ wetland area by 50 percent, constraining flow

south from Lake Okeechobee.

Because the volume of water comi ng from the upstream basin has remained relatively constant (approximately 3.5 million acre-feet per year (ac-f t/yr), on average, equivalent to about 7.5 feet (ft) over the lake surfac e area), lake inflows have often ex ceeded its limited present-day storageSection 2

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

2-4 capacity. With discharge capacity to the southe rn part of the Everglades ecosystem reduced because of constructed changes to the natura l system, along with legal and environmental operating constraints, the need to discharge wate r from the lake to the east (via the St. Lucie River and Estuary) and west (v ia 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 ecologi cal 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) br ings 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 suppor ted 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 (L OER) program was announced by Governor Jeb Bush in October 2005 to help restore the ecologi cal health of Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries. The program cons ists 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 Storag e and Disposal Options

• Lake Okeechobee Tributary Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

• Mandatory Fertilizer Best Ma nagement Practices (BMPs)

Implementation of LOER program components ha s already been initia ted. 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 th e 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 18,0 00-square-mile (mi 2 ) area and focuses on the update of the Central and Southe rn Florida (C&SF) Proj ect. 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 restora tion projects that pr otect the remaining Everglades and other natural areas by providing appropriate water qual ity 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 be ing implemented as a joint effort between the federal government and the State of Florida. Ho wever, Federal funding issues have delayed theSection 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 pri ce 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; ther efore, the two programs compleme nt and support each other. Within the LOW, the CERP recommends implementation of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed (LOW) Project and construction of numerous A quifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells.

In addition, CERP recommendations include implem entation of several proj ects in watersheds adjacent to the LOW such as the C-43 Reservoi r, C-44 Reservoir/Stormwater Treatment Area (STA), Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Rese rvoir Projects, and ASR projects. Additional

information on the current status of individual CE RP 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) [Secti on 62-304.700(1), Florida Ad ministrative 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 aver age of 140 metric tons per year (mt/yr) which includes atmospheric deposition of 35 mt/yr. Th e 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 tri butaries to the lake. These tri butaries include waterbodies in the Kissimmee River Basin and the Fisheating Cr eek 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 lo cal stakeholders, Water Management Districts and others. Project timeframes, costs, and enviro nmental benefits are identified where possible.

The BMAP process includes the following key elements:

• Focuses exclusively on water quality restoration

• Requires data collection and sour ce evaluation at a greater leve l of detail than the TMDL

• Considers all sources (point, non-point, ag ricultural, 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 manage ment in addressing unknowns about a water body

• Adopted by the FDEP secretarySection 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 consider ed. The statute also allows TMDLs to be implemented through other mechanisms that provi de sufficient assurances regarding project implementation and success. In the Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee, and St. Lucie Watersheds, the primary BMAP issue will be nutrie nt load reduction. Salin ity issues will not be directly addressed as part of the BMAP process. The Protection Plan w ill provide the basis for BMAPs developed by the Department.

2.3 Purpose and Scope

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

and distribution of water in th e northern Everglades ecosystem and achieve the total phosphorus TMDL for Lake Okeechobee. The plan is intended to achieve the following objectives:

• Meet Lake Okeechobee Watershe d 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 fres hwater releases from the lake made possible by additional water storage north of the lake

• Identify opportunities for altern ative water management fac ilities 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, Os ceola, Okeechobee, Highlands, St. Lucie, Glades, Martin, Charlotte, Lee, Hendry, and Palm Beach.

2.4.1 Lake Okeechobee

Lake Okeechobee is a large, shallo w eutrophic lake located in sout h central Florida. It is a central component to the Southern and Central Florida Flood Cont rol 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 (km 2 )], and it is extremely shallow with a mean depth of 8.9 f) [2.77 meters (m)] and maxima l depth of 18 ft (5.5 m) (James et al., 1995). The lake is encircled by an earthen embankme nt, the Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD), which is approximately 140 miles (mi) long with crest elev ations 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 bird s, migratory waterfowl, and the federally endangered Everglades snail kite. These benefi ts have been threaten ed in recent decades bySection 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 define d hydrologically, consists of the entire area that contributes surface water flow and phosphor us 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 (mi 2 ) or 14,000 km 2 ] 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 pe rcent 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 to tal area (1.3 million acres). Urba n areas account for 8 percent of the total area (approximately 262,000 acres) the majority of which lie s 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, res eeded with specific grass types and periodically improved with brush co ntrol and fertilizer application

Wetlands – areas where the water tabl e 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 we tness or short-term flooding may provide an important component of the total annual soil moisture necessary for crop production. But, uncultivated wetlands yielding pr oducts such as wood or which are grassed by livestock are retained in the Wetlands category.

Uncultivated wetlands in improved pastures are th erefore 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 improve d pasture and natura l area respectively.

The watershed consists of four distinct tri butary systems: the Kissimmee River Valley, Lake Istokpoga-Indian Prairie/Harney Pond, Fisheat ing 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 wa ter control structures.

The four major tributary systems of the LOW ar e 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 KissimmeeSection 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 al so pump into the lake from the north when the lake stage is high. The East and West Lake Okeechobee sub-wa tersheds also contribut e 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 hi gh making gravity flows impossible, urban areas north of the lake are drained via pumps.

In addition, the South Lake Okeechobee sub-wate rshed, which includes a portion of the EAA, contributes flow through backpumpin g. Each sub-watershed is furt her 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) wh ich includes most of the areas that drain into Lake

Okeechobee from the north and northwest thro ugh the Kissimmee River (C-38). The Upper Kissimmee (UK) sub-watershed covers approximately 1,633 mi 2 and includes Lake Kissimmee

and the Chain of Lakes area in Oran ge and Osceola counties. The 758 mi 2 Lower Kissimmee (LK) sub-watershed includes the tributary waters heds of the Kissimmee River that lie between

the Lake Kissimmee outlet and the Kissimmee Ri ver 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 th e LOW over the past 50 years has been the

channelization of the Kissimmee River. Histori cally, 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 ch annelization 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 resu lting in the loss of 30,000 acres (12,000 hectares (ha)) to 35,0000 acres (1 4,000 ha) of wetland habitat (Koebel, 1995).

The Kissimmee River Restoration Project (K RRP) and the Kissimmee River Headwaters Revitalization Project (KRHRP) ar e large-scale restoration projects that are currently being implemented in this sub-watershed to reesta blish the river-floodplain system’s ecological integrity by reconstructing the river’s physical form and reestablishing pre-channelization hydrologic characteristics (stage a nd discharge). When completed, the project will have restoredSection 2

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

2-10 over 40 mi 2 of 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 Pr oject 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 pool s are regulated according to interim-regulation schedules. Monitoring station S-65 is locate d at the outlet from Lake Kissi mmee 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 st ructure is sized to provide a minimum of 3,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) fl ow-through capacity for flood control in the Upper Kissimmee River Basin, irrespec tive of local runoff conditions.

Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (TCNS) Sub-watershed – Taylor Creek (104 mi 2 watershed) and Nubbin Slough (84 mi 2 ) basins are interconnected and drain into Lake Okeechobee from the north and northeast. The Nubbin Slough basin in cludes three tributarie s: 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 th rough 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 mi 2 ) 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 th rough 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 mi 2 ) 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-wa tershed drains into Lake Okeechobee from the west side and is the only sub-watershed with an uncontrolled “natural” discharge. It covers approximately 440 mi 2 and originates in west ern Highlands County and flows south through Cypress Swamp and into Glades County with an averag e 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 ha ve been constructed r oughly 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 flow s to the lake through backpumping. A recently issued Lake Okeechobee Operating Permit (LOOP) allows the Dist rict to backpump waters into the lake at S2 and S-3 for flood control purposes. Runoff fr om the EAA produced by normal rainfall is discharged into the water conservation areas (WCAs). In addition, th e 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, sp illways, 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 wa ter control structures in the LOW. This permit has the following key features:

• It requires structures to be operated consistent with the fe deral 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 st ructures and requires the District to coordinate and report b ackpumping 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 re gions. These targets are intended to ensure

that the Lake Okeechobee tota l 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 wh en lake water levels are low and for lake

restoration under ce rtain conditions.

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

### SECTION 3

PLANNING PROCESSThis 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 C ontrol 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 Qu ality 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 Restor ation Project.............................................................. 3-8

3.1.7.2 Kissimmee River Restorati on 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 Stor age 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 Re habilitation 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 Caloosah atchee 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..................................................3-22Section 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 Surf ace Water Inflows to Lake Okeechobee ...... 3-17 3-2 In-lake and Surface Water Inflow Phosphor us 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..................................................................................... 3-27Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

3-1 3.0 PLANNING PROCESS

A comprehensive and systematic planning proce ss was used to develop the Phase II Technical Plan (P2TP) for the Lake Okeechobee Watershe d (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 pr evious studies, ongoing projects, and planned

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

the achievement of P2TP objectives or could be directly inte grated 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 im provement. 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 opportuni ties 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 communi cate to others the in tended purpose of the planning process. The P2TP planning object ives were developed from the problem and opportunity statement. Planning objectives were intended to solve th e identified problems and take advantage of recognized opportunities.

4. Identification of planning constraints – Constraints are restric tions 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 identific ation of problems and opportunities.

5. Selection of performance measures – Performance measures, also known as evaluation criteria, are benchmarks used to guide formul ation 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 comprehens ive 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 pla nning 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 indi vidual alternative plan was determined using agreed upon methodologies and modeling applications. Performance measures were then used to compare th e performance of individual plans.

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

10. P2TP Processing – Planning-level budget estimates, implementation schedule, and an adaptive management plan were developed fo r the P2TP. Funding n eeds 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 Intera gency Meetings were held to engage CAPT, stakeholders, and the public throughout the pl anning process. Through these meetings, public input was sought and incorporated into th e 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 descri bed in the following sections.

3.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan

The original Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (L OPP) was delivered to the legislature in 2004 and an update was submitted in February 2007. Because Lake Okeechobee receives excessive phosphorus load from agricultural an d urban activities that domina te land use in the LOW, the LOPP contains an integrated management st rategy that is based on implementation of phosphorus source-control programs. These c ontrol programs include Best Management Practices (BMPs) at parcel leve l, sub-basin and regional phosphor us control and flow-attenuation projects, and in-lake remediation activities. The LOPP also contai ns elements of exotic species control and research and monitoring.

During the past 3 years, the cooperating agencies have collectively impl emented a large number of total phosphorus (TP) load redu ction 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 restoratio n projects, remediation of former dairies, and regional public/private partners hips. A comprehensive Lake Okeechobee monitoring program has also been initiated that regu larly monitors water qua lity and ecological indi cators in the lake. The District also conducts proj ect and sub-basin water quality monitoring in the watershed. Research and model applications have been in stituted which continue to provide predictive understanding necessary to evaluate the effec tiveness 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 th e lake. The project features are designed to improve hydrology and water quality of Lake Okeechobee and downstream receiving waters, cons istent with recommendations in cluded in the South Florida Ecosystem Working Group’s Lake Okeechobee Ac tion Plan. The LOWCP Phase I included projects identified as the Lake Okeechobee Water Rete ntion Phosphorus Removal Critical Project that was authorized in the Wa ter Resources Development Act of 1996.

These include two isolated wetlands-restoration pr ojects and the construc tion 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 (T aylor 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 Stormwat er Treatment Areas (DMSTA) project TP load reductions of approximately 2.08 and 6.5 mt/yr fr om the Taylor Creek and Nubbin Slough STAs, respectively.

3.1.3 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Phosphorus Control Program

Phosphorus source control is integral to th e 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 Nort hern 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 expa nded 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 res ponsibilities of the coor dinating 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 wate r quality problems are de tected 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 Distri ct 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 Su rface 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 crite ria 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 legisla tive 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 th e rule could include the following amendments:

• Implement a phosphorus source control program u tilizing 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 priori ty areas of water quality concern and BMP optimization, and to provide data to eval uate 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 fo r 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 participat e in TP reduction demons tration projects that will provide valuable data for expanding, accelerating, and optimizing the implemented BMPs to meet water quality objectives and fo r 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 act ivities include alterations in uplands that alter stormwater runoff, as we ll 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 adversel y affect the function of wetland systems.

FDEP and the District initiated rule development in May and J une 2007 respectively of a Unified Statewide Stormwater Rule. Currently, regulator y requirements governing stormwater treatmentSection 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

3-5 are technology-based, and rely primarily upon BMP de sign criteria that are presumed to achieve a specified level of stormwater treatment. U nder the proposed Unified Statewide Stormwater (USS) Rule, FDEP and Florida water management di stricts are working on criteria that will be based on a performance standard of post-develo pment 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 necessa rily existing conditions. Methods for estimating treatment efficiency in typical water manageme nt 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 comp ensating treatment. The intended effect of the rule is to

increase the level of treatment required for nutrient loads in st ormwater from new development to that of natural conditions, th ereby reducing the discharge of nut rients 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 th at they will appropriate ly 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 mo re than 30 TP reduction projects. These projects have been implemented under programs such as the Phosphorus Source Control Grants, Isolated Wetland Restoration, Dair y Best Available Technologies, Public/Private Partnerships, Former Dairy Remediation, and Alternate Water St orage and Treatment. All of these projects have some level of performance monitoring to faci litate their evaluation a nd 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 Ag riculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) with developing and implementing an agricultural Be st Management Practic e (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, a nd 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 th e watershed to implement a conservation, nutrient management, or alterna tive 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 Vegeta bles and Agronomic Crop BMP Programs.

3.1.3.3 Supplemental Non-Agricultural Programs

To complement the SFWMD phosphorus s ource 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-agricultur al 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 ta nks, etc.), golf courses, and failing wastewater systems (Septic tanks and package plants). Efforts since the incep tion of LOPA (Section 373.4595, Florida Statutes) include implementation of BMPs, development of master plans for stormwater and wastewater, implementation of st ormwater retrofits, the designing of larger urban stormwater projects , and public education.

There is continued focus on reducing the impact s of non-point source pollution from urban lands through public education programs and nonstructu ral BMPs. Nonstructural BMPs primarily target homeowners and businesses and rely on behavi oral changes rather th an the construction of

treatment tools or facilities. Addressing pollutant loads from ol der, 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 th e City of Moore Haven in Glades County.

The SFWMD’s Okeechobee Service Center is wo rking 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/re tention facilities and swales, ar e 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 coope ration with the FDEP and FDACS, has implemented a comprehensive research and wate r quality monitoring program for the lake and watershed. Monitoring data colle cted under this program are used by the coordinating agencies to identify areas of water quality concerns and to optimize wate r quality improvement programs.

Ongoing monitoring programs include the La ke Okeechobee Watershed Assessment (LOWA) micro-basin monitoring and the SFWMD’s ambi ent 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 f unction of both external TP load associated

with runoff from the watershed and internal TP lo ads 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 be d. 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 majo r change in the phytoplankton community in Lake

Okeechobee. SFWMD’s Lake Okeechobee Divisi on currently monitors biomass, taxonomic composition, and toxin production of bloom-formi ng blue-green algae in Lake Okeechobee on a monthly basis at ten shoreline sta tions where blooms have historic ally occurred. Data from this monitoring provide insight into fa ctors 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 distri bution 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 sp ecies (eelgrass, peppergrass, Hydrilla , and Chara ), and how this acreage changes from year-to-ye ar 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 shorel ine, covering a region where SAV beds have historically occurred. The sa mpling includes measurements of plant biomass, water chemistry, clarity of the water, and unde rwater light penetration.

Historical SAV biomass and distribution data ex ists 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 da ta 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 mi 2 area east of Eagle Bay Is land. In addition to providi ng local habitat benefits, the project will evaluate technologies for eff ective 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 m easures to protect native species. A LOPA Exotic Species Plan was completed in June 2002 a nd 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 Moor e Haven and Indian Prairie regi ons of the marsh. To date, approximately 25,000 acres (10,117 ha) of torpe do grass and 7,400 acres (2,995 ha) of cattail

have been treated in the LOW.

In addition, the U.S. Army Corps of Engin eers (USACE), with support from the SFWMD, utilizes a combination of biological, mechani cal, and chemical measures to control water hyacinth, water lettuce, Hydrill a, alligator weed, and tussocks in Lake Okeechobee.

3.1.7 Kissimmee River Watershed Programs

Several major ecosystem-restoration initiative s are currently ongoing in the Kissimmee River watershed and, by virtue of their location, will be dire ctly integrated into the NEEPP program. Five of the more significant pr ograms include the Kissimmee Rive r 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 an d Operations Study, and the Upper Kissimmee River Basin Water Supply Plan.

3.1.7.1 Kissimmee River Restoration Project

The Kissimmee River Restoration Project (K RRP) and the Kissimmee River Headwaters Revitalization Project (KRHRP) were aut horized 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 ecol ogical integrity by rec onstructing the river’s physical form and reestablishing pre-channeli zation hydrologic charact eristics (stage and discharge),

• Modify the water storage and regulation sc hedule 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 mi 2 of river/floodplain ecosystem including 43 miles of meande ring 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 channe l and reclaiming almost 6,000 acres of floodplain habitat. The second phase of constructi on (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 exte nd the length of reconne cted river channel by approximately 20 miles. All restoration-relate d construction is projec ted to be completed by

2012 and evaluation of restoration success wi ll 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 vegetatio n 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 sunf ishes 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 Headwa ters 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 refloode d 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 a dditional 7,236 acres is e xpected 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 activitie s, observations, and measurements associated

with restoration of the Kissimmee River and it s floodplain ecosystem. This program tracks initial and long-term responses to restorati on efforts by evaluating i ndicators representing physical, chemical, biological, and func tional 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 Manageme nt 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 la kes 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 comple ment existing local, regional, a nd 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 pub lic 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 enhanc ement, recreational use (navig ation), 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 populat ions, 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 fo r public release in April 2008.

3.1.7.4 The Kissimmee Basin Modeling and Operations Study

The Kissimmee Basin Modeling an d 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 co ntrolling flow through the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes and the Kissimmee River. Operations mu st 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 Stat e 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, in cludes development of evaluation performance measures, m odeling tools, and an alternativ e 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 cent ral Florida are inadequa te to meet projected water demands over the next 20 years. If tr aditional groundwater sour ces 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 Wa ter Management District (S WFWMD), has concluded that sustainable quantities of groundwater in central Florida are insuffi cient 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 nece ssary to make the project feasible.

3.1.8 Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery Program

The LOFT component of LOER originally consis ted of five projects, which included Taylor Creek Reservoir, Lakeside Ranch STA, reroutin g of S-133 Basin flows to S-135 Basin, rerouting of S-154 Basin flows to S135 Basin, and Nubbi n Slough STA expansion. Three of the five components (Nubbin Slough STA expansion a nd S-133 and S-154 Basin flow re-routing projects), were determined not to be cost-eff ective and were therefor e dropped (Draft SFER, 2008). Two new projects were rece ntly 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 expect ed to start by 2010 and to be completed by 2011.

Also, a BODR for a 2,000 acre reser voir to be located at Grassy Island Ranch site (Taylor Creek Reservoir) in the S-191 basin was recently comple ted. 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 eval uated 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 implementatio n of the LOW Project and construction of

several ASR wells within the LOW. In addition, CERP recommendations includeSection 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 Rese rvoir Projects, and ASR projects.

The objective of the LOW Project is to provide be tter management of lake water levels, improve lake water quality, provide appropria te releases to the estuaries, restore isolated wetlands in the watershed, and resolve water volume and quali ty problems in Lake Istokpoga. Through a comprehensive planning process, a tentatively sel ected plan has recently been identified. The proposed plan for the LOW Project will colle ctively 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 compone nts and a modification to the existing Lake Istokpoga Regul ation 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 capac ity 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 featur e 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 f acility overlaps with that of the Lakeside Ranch STA being considered under LOFT.

• Kissimmee Reservoir – This storage facility consis ts 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 s ub-basin. It will receive flow from and discharge back to the C-38 canal (Kissimmee River). A secondary discharge structure wi ll also allow for releases

to the C-41A canal.

• Istokpoga Reservoir – This 5,416-acre storage facility w ill be located in the C-40A and C41A sub-basins and will provi de a maximum storage capacity of 79,560 ac-ft at an average depth of 16 ft. It will recei ve 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 discha rge 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 restor ation site is located at the ecologically significant confluence (under pre-development conditio ns) of Paradise Run,

oxbows of the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechob ee. Under restored conditions it wouldSection 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

3-13 have a rain-driven hydrology unless future effo rts 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 strate gy. This operating strategy

consists of a combined assessment of existi ng 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 Proj ect 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 disc harges, 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 constr uction of a 3,400-acre rese rvoir 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 cap ture and store flood runoff from the C-43 basin prior to discharge to the Caloosah atchee Estuary. Implementation of this project is expected to reduce damaging freshwater discharges, decrease nut rient loads, and maintain desirable estuarine salinity regimes that are exp ected 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 pr ovide supplemental flows to meet the minimum flow (450 cfs) requirements of the estuary. This project in cludes a 10,000-acre reservoi r 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) Storag e 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, re gulate water discharges to the Everglades, and improve the timing of inflows to the Evergl ades Construction Project (ECP) STAs. Phase I of this project includes a 31,000-acre, two-celled reservoir with a tota l storage capacity of 360,000 ac-ft. A revised draft project implementa tion 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 test s 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 Di ke (HHD) Rehabilita tion 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 Ok eechobee 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 dist ricts to establish minimum flows and levels (MFL) criteria for surface waters and aquifers within their jurisdiction [Section 373.042(1), Florida Statutes (F.S.)]. Minimu m flow is defined as the "...li mit 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 pr ovide technical criteria for pr otection of major water bodies from significant harm due to reduct ion in water levels or flows.

As of 2006, the SFWMD had established MFL criter ia for 12 water bodies within its jurisdiction including Lake Okeechobee, four areas of th e Everglades, and the northern portion of the Biscayne aquifer, lower west coast deeper aqui fers, 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 esta blished, nutrient load

allocations within the Caloosahatchee wate rshed 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 waters hed. For planning purposes, alloca tions within St. Lucie Estuary

TMDLs will be calculated with and without th e 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 characteristic s of the pre-drainage Everglad es ecosystem, including spatial extent, habitat heterogeneity, and dynamic storage, as a whole, and the LOW in particular, haveSection 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

3-15 either been lost or substantially altered as a result of land use and wate r management practices during the past 100 years. Because the LOWCP P2 TP focuses on the entire watershed, it has a unique opportunity to target site-s pecific issues and problems, wh ile at the same time evaluating additional opportunities for impr oving regional water quality a nd ecological conditions beyond those identified in regional e fforts such as the CERP.

Lake Okeechobee’s environmental resources ar e impaired by nutrient enrichment, altered hydroperiod, and expansion of exotic species. The 2007 Draft South Florida Environmental Report (SFWMD, 2007) listed the follo wing 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 co nsiderably 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 la ke must be dramatically reduced in their frequency and duration.

• Rapid expansion of exotic plants in th e lake littoral zone must be stopped.

The major sources of inflows that cause extremely high and low la ke 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 lis t 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 polluta nt considered for TMDL analysis. The FDEP

has established an in-lake TP concen tration of 40 micrograms per liter ( μ g/L) or parts per billion (ppb) as a goal for meeting the lake’s designate d use as a Class I Waters of the State (FDEP 2001).

3.2.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Eutrophication

The rate of eutrophication in Lake Okeechob ee has increased from 1973 to the present. Symptoms of this eutrophicat ion 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; Ha vens 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 concentr ation 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 Okeechob ee is phosphorus (Federico et al., 1981). Increases in total phosphorus concen trations, 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-g reen algae, which are responsible for the algal bl ooms (Smith et al. 1995).

Additional information on Lake Okeechobee eutr ophication can be found in the South Florida Environmental Report (SFWMD, 2008).

3.2.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Sediment

The TP concentration in Lake Okeechobee sedime nts 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 a nd 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 satu rate the mud sediments, which then decrease the lake’s capacity to assimilate additi onal 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 th e TP TMDL is based on 5-year rolling average that uses monthly TP loads cal culated from measured flows a nd 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 concentrat ion of runoff from the watershed is impacted by land use, management practices, and legacy phos phorus 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 su rface 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 wa ter 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 averag e TP load for the period from 2001 through 2005 was 709 mt/yr. The annual load in 2005 was 822 me tric tons. These values include 35 mt/yr of atmospheric deposition.

Table 3-1. Historical total phosphoru s (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 2010Total Phosphorus Load(Mt/yr)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0Surface Inflow(millions of acre-feet) Phosphorus load Surface InflowSection 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 c oncentration occurred early in 2005 due to the effects of

Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne. In-lake phosphorus c oncentrations increa sed 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 seasonall y variable water level fluctuations in Lake Okeechobee benefit native plant and animal communities.

In 2000, the Water Supply and Environment (W SE) 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 stor age, and long-term climatic forecasts. 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010TP Concentrations(ppb) Inflow LakeSection 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 th e 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 le vels 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 accord ance with the WSE Regulation Schedule. Pre1978 water levels in Lake Okeechobee were with in 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-dr iven waves to directly impact the littoral emergent plant communities and nearshore s ubmerged 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 reduc es 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 na tural sand and peat sediment, reducing their suitability to sustain healthy and balanced vegetative communities.

Figure 3-3. Lake Okeechob ee 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 th e 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 submerge d 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 SpecifiedRange 1932 to 1977 1978 to 1999 2000 to 2007Section 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 en tire 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, wadi ng 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 an d melaleuca to establish in areas of the littoral zone where they did not formerly occur, displacing native vegetation. Rec overy 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 thr ough June of 2007. This data reflects two of the worst droughts on record, whic h occurred in 2002 and 2007. Both droughts

established new record low water levels in Lake Okeechobee. While water supply demands, drainage, and management practic es 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) recommendati ons were to remove the remnant agricultural berms on the islands to preserve the gourd habi tat through re-establishm ent of the hydrologic

connection between the island and th e 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 Sche dule, 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 E AA canals although the capacity of each of these canals is relatively small. Both the Caloosahatch ee River and the St. Lucie Canal have primary capacity for local inflows and ar e 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 a quatic 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 no w 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 alte rations include channel enlarg ement; bank stabilization; the development of an intricate netw ork of canals within the waters hed; 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 ti dal 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 downstr eam Caloosahatchee Estuary ecosystem. The large fluctuations in salinity and wa ter quality have adversely impact ed 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 (gr eater 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 Everglad es Drainage District in the 1920s. The canal was subsequently enla rged 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 ca nals 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 insu fficient in the dry season.

Figure 3-5 depicts the flows to the St. Lucie Estu ary 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 Okeechob ee operations. Moreover, S-80 is only one of several inflows to the St. Lucie Estuary. To ev aluate 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 3 50 cfs for a greater percentage of time. Additionally, flows have been maintained with in a desirable range between 350 and 2,000 cfs for a greater percentage of the time. The inciden ce 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 suppl emental 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 sour ce 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 2006Section 3

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

3-23 Average annual supplemental ir rigation 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 (Publ ic Law No. 100-228, 101 Statute 1556, and Chapter 87-292, Laws of Florida, and codified in S ection 285.165, F.S.) and implementing agreements,

the Seminole Tribe of Florida ha s entitlement rights to surface wa ter 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 right s in accordance with the Water Rights Compact and the controlling agreements. Water supply shor tages are relatively fr equent for the Brighton Seminole Reservation and adjoining por tions of the C-40 and C-41 basins.

Lake Okeechobee is also a water su pply source for the following purposes:

• Supplemental water supply for th e City of West Palm Beach

• Protection of the performance of Everglades Construction Pr oject STAs during dry periods

• Providing minimum flows to Caloosahatchee Es tuary and portions of St. Lucie Estuary.

• Providing environmental water supply for the EvergladesSection 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 Kissi mmee 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 prac tices required to provide thes e flood control and water supply

benefits result in water level fluc tuations 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 comm unities, and the loss of SAV are examples of problems these lakes have experienced as a resu lt 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 t hough significant improvements have been achieved through operational modifications, probl ems in many lakes still exist.

3.3 Planning Objectives

The problems and opportunities descri bed 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 th e 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 wa ter 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 ev aluation 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 meeti ng 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 compar able to historic hydrographs

Of these five hydrologic criter ia, 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 wate r needs to be available in Zone B of the Kissimmee Chain of Lakes regul ation 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 Basi n Modeling and Operations Study. Recommendations of this study must be consistent with achieving the goals of the Kissimmee River Re storation Project.

3.4.2 Water Supply and Flood Control

The NEEPP legislation requires th at water related needs of the region including water supply and flood protection will con tinue to be met.

3.4.3 Herbert Hoover Dike

The Herbert Hoover Dike is made of natural mate rials 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 ar e cause for concern to the degree that failure is consider ed very likely when operating at or above these levels for any significant time. The higher the lake level, th e shorter the time required for failure to occur (USACE, 2007). P2TP recommenda tions 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 ad jacent to, the P2TP study area, including: Lake Istokpoga, Lake Okeechobee, and the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries. P2TP recommendations cannot reduce the ability to m eet 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 a ddress low water levels occurring from regional drought conditions and/or from withdrawals of wate r from the lake or adjacent aquifers. A MFL

violation occurs within Lake Istokpoga when surface water leve ls fall below 36.5 ft NGVD for 20 or more weeks within one calendar year, mo re often than once every four years (SFWMD, 2005).

3.4.4.2 Lake Okeechobee Minimum Flows and Levels

Minimum water level criteria for Lake Okeec hobee consist of two co mponents: 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, a nd 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 le vels 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 dr op below the top of Supply-Side Management

Zone C.

• Water Supply Planning Criteria - Water level should not fa ll 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 sa linities in the estuary needed to protect oligohaline or ganisms. 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 consecu tive years, significant ha rm 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 stat es 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 incide nt 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 resp ect 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 bette r 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 res ources problems for the study area are described in Section 3.2 of this

document. Identification of the water resource s 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 relationshi ps 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 projec ts. 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 performan ce 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 Phosphoru s 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 cfsSection 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 days 1

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/LO SA 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 Ri ver Watershed Protection Plan Process.

### SECTION 4

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENTThis 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 St akeholder Notification.......................................................4-6

4.3 Public Comments......................................................................................................... 4-7

List of Tables

4-1 Summary of P2TP Inte ragency Coordination.................................................................. 4-2This 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 dur ing the P2TP planning process to involve all appropriate and relevant agencies and keep the public and stakeh olders informed about the project. A public outreach initiative (POI) was developed and im plemented throughout the planning process. Specific objectives of this initiative included the following:

• Develop and implement an approach that w ould 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 e fforts being conducted by the District and collaborating agencies as part of othe r Lake Okeechobee restoration programs

• Use public outreach tools and materials deve loped for use by various other agencies and programs for educati on 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 Evergl ades 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 periodi cally 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 Meet ing Location M eeting 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 Progr am 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

processSection 4

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

4-3 Meeting ID Meeting Date Meet ing Location M eeting Agenda

• Provide an update on the planning process

PGA National/Devonshire

Homeowners Association July 11, 2007 Palm Beach Ga rdens 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 Coun ty Northern Everglades Briefing St. Lucie County

Commissioner Susan Valerie July 13, 2007 St. Lucie Coun ty Northern Everglades Briefing St. Lucie County

Commissioner Joe Smith July 13, 2007 St. Lucie Coun ty 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 Coun ty Northern Everglades Briefing St. Lucie County Commissioner Doug Coward July 18, 2007 St. Lucie Coun ty 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 Ga rdens 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

PresentationSection 4

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

4-4 Meeting ID Meeting Date Meet ing Location M eeting Agenda Northern Everglades Interagency Group August 15, 2007 Okeechob ee 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 Co unty 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 Okeechob ee 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 Okeech obee Northern Everglades Briefing Lake Okeechobee WRAC September 5, 20 07 Naples Northern Everglades Briefing Okeechobee City Commission Meeting September 5, 2007 Okeech obee 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 EvergladesSection 4

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

4-5 Meeting ID Meeting Date Meet ing Location M eeting 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 Okeech obee 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 No rthern Everglades Update Northern Everglades Interagency Meeting October 17, 2007 Okeechob ee 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 Nort hern Everglades Update

Environmental Protection

Conference October 30, 2007 Lee County Northern Everglades Update
Lake Okeechobee WRAC October 31, 2007 Ok eechobee County Nort hern Everglades Update
WRAC November 8, 2007 West Pa lm Beach Northern Everglades Update Governing Board Workshop November 14, 2007 Florida Keys Northern Everglades Update Northern Everglades Interagency Meeting November 27, 2007 Okeech obee 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, 2 007 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, 2 007 Okeechobee Northern Everglades Update
FlashPoint Television December 3, 2007 Orlando Northern EvergladesSection 4

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

4-6 Meeting ID Meeting Date Meet ing Location M eeting Agenda Interview with Carol Wehle Briefing Congressman Connie Mack’s

DC Scott Henderson and Kara

Moore December 3, 2007 Ft. Myer s 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. Myer s Northern Everglades Update Stetson University December 8, 20 07 Orlando Northern Everglades Briefing

Gulf Citrus Growers

Association E.V.P. Ron Hamel December 10, 2007 Ft. Myer s Northern Everglades Briefing Governing Board Workshop Decem ber 12, 2007 West Palm B each 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. Myer s 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 Okeechob ee 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 overa ll goals and objectives of the NEEPP

• Inform the public and receive input regarding the project goals , objectives, progress, issues and findings

• Involve stakeholders, agencies, Tr ibes and other intere sted groups and individuals as the plan was developed, to ensure that public values regarding the project were fully considered

• Reduce potential conflict among interested a nd 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 Wate r Management District and the other agencies involved in the planning processSection 4

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

4-7 4.3 Public Comments

Public, stakeholders, and agencies were invite d to review and provide comments on the Draft

P2TP. Over 100 comments were received ove r the four week public comment period ( Appendix

E ). These comments were considered during the finaliza tion of the P2TP.This page intentionally left blank.

### SECTION 5

WATER QUALITY DATA ANALYSESThis 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 Sl ough 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-waters hed Flows and TP Loads...................................... 5-21 5.4 Assessment of Water Quality Impr ovement 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.........................................................................5-23Section 5

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

5-ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

List of Tables

5-1 Summary of average annu al 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-watershe d in the Lake Okeechobee watershed.............. 5-6 5-4 TP load reduction required to meet FD EP’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 Basi ns 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....................................................................................................... 5-1 8

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. to tal phosphorus (TP) loads after LOPP recommended projects are in place................................................................................ 5-22Section 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 wa tershed (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, phosphor us 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 speci fic phosphorus source control project s are either currently being implemented or are identified for future implem entation at various locations in the LOW under the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (LOPP) (SFWMD et al., 2007). Cumulatively, these projects are expected to cont ribute towards reducing total phos phorus (TP) loading to Lake Okeechobee. The predicted phosphorus load reducti ons under various activi ties 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 di scharge of 105 metric tons per year (mt/yr) from the watershed. The Lake Istokpoga sub- watershed contributes fl ow to Lake Istokpoga. Phosphorus load reductions in the Lake Istokpo ga sub-watershed are buffered by Lake Istokpoga

and are not counted toward th e 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 hydrologi c drainage boundaries ( Figure 2-1 ). Water quality conditions within each sub-watershed vary consider ably depending upon existing land uses, land management practices, and the magnitude of water quality improvement projec ts that were either implemented in the recent past or are currently being implemen ted. Many areas in the LOW are undergoing rapid urbanization. Thes e land use changes, however, ar e not expected to adversely impact water quantity and quality due to new, more stringent regulator y 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 percen t of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed. This subwatershed includes all of the ar eas 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.Section 5LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20085-2Table 5-1. Summary of average annual flows and TP loadsto Lake Okeechobee (1991-2005)for each sub-watershed.Sub-watershedArea(acres)Average AnnualDischarge)(ac-ft)Average Annual PLoad(mt)Average Annual PConc.(ppb)Upper Kissimmee (S-65) 1,021,674 954,204 9178Lower Kissimmee (S-65A,B,C,D,E) 429,283 378,836 77166Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough (S-191,154,133,135) 198,299 187,583 124537Lake Istokpoga (S-68) 392,147 299,656 2363Indian Prairie Basins (12 basins) 294,147 249,175 89289Fisheating Creek & Nicodemus Slough (Culvert 5) 315,007 224,368 55199West Lake Okeechobee Basin (S-77)200,9935,8351139EAA Basins361,707149,48833177East Lake Okeechobee Basins (C-44, L-8)237,831109,13420151Total3,451,0872,558,279514163Section 5LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20085-3Table 5-2. Summary of projected LakeOkeechobee TP load reductions associated with LOPP recommended projects andinitiatives.Sub-WatershedBaseline TP Load(1991- 2005)(mt)Projected TP LoadAfter All LOPPRecommendedProjects are inplace(mt)Projected TP LoadReductionAchieved by LOPPRecommendedProjects*(mt)Projected % TPLoad ReductionUpper Kissimmee 91 78 13 14%Lower Kissimmee 78 21 57 73%Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough 124 42 82 66%Lake Istokpoga 23 23 0 0%Indian Prairie Basins 89 51 38 43%Fisheating Creek 55 39 16 29%West Lake Okeechobee Basins 1 1 0 0%EAA 33 12 21 64%East Lake Okeechobee Basins 20 8 12 60%Total 514 275 239 46%*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 wo odland/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 (1 3 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 Okeechob ee watershed land uses. (Source: James and Zhang, 2008)Section 5LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20085-6Table 5-3. Distribution of land use by sub-watershed in the Lake Okeechobee watershed.Land UseEntire WatershedUpperKissimmeeLowerKissimmee(S65A-E)TaylorCreek/NubbinSlough (S191,S154, S133,S135)LakeIstokpogaIndianPrairie(12basins)FisheatingCreek andNic. SloughWestLOBasinsSouthLOBasins(10 EAABasins)East LOBasins (C44 and L8)Acres % Acres Acres Acres AcresAcres Acres Acres Acres AcresCitrus234,6297%57,47811,6663,57255,91830,33112,54223,7419539,287Dairy22,4321%05,95011,0853,031177262,164Improved Pasture674,35620%133,437134,89486,18648,228108,42490,77948,4473,81920,143Natural Areas1,282,26737%529,079146,44938,989173,43372,880122,18954,84715,157129,243Ornamentals4,6870%187125423482,6675412260126Other Areas27,5671%8,3962,3581,5173,6261,7074,5831,9711,1052,303Row Crops23,1571%3,3917,8148171,6463,4562354,6931,104Sod Farms39,0811%9,5052,3352,3142,93310,2222,44899,099216Sugarcane399,71112%9,12312,6747,22037,298320,59012,806Tree Plantations49,6871%3,7438,35812,7105817,9196,899Unimproved Pasture140,2494%27,82823,4681,09024,37428,84519,5958,5446,505Woodland/Rangeland184,3815%41,62364,2203,62014,92415,72032,7208,620652,868Urban368,88411%207,00621,75839,44450,9766,9874,2093,75711,51723,230Total 3,451,088 100% 1,021,673 429,282 198,299 392,147 294,148 315,006 200,992 361,707 237,831Source: James and Zhang, 2008Section 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 fl ow-weighted concentration of 78 ppb (Table 5-1). Overall the Upper Kissimmee sub-watershed c ontributes approximately 37 perc ent of the total flow volume and 18 percent of the TP load to Lake Okeechobe e. 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 a nd 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 Ki ssimmee, Hatchineha, Tiger, and Cypress for the benefit of fish and wildlife. So me phosphorus load attenuation will also occur as a result of the restoration of natural flows pa tterns through headwaters. The exact amount of load reduction achieved by the restoration proj ect 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, Cypre ss, 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 th ese lakes have been reduced (Mock*Roos, 2003)

Portions of the Upper Kissimm ee sub-watershed are projected to experience a significant

increase in urbanization over the foreseeable futu re. 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 wa ter 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 projec ts are planned for implementati on 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 unde rway but have not been fully implemented. Therefore current water quality da ta 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 bodi es 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-degradati on policy, and moderating provisions.”Section 5

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

5-8 In the Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed, 17 water bodi es 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 im pairment were copper, lead, and fecal coliforms.

Pursuant to the Governor’s 2005 Lake Okeechob ee & Estuary Recovery (LOER) Plan, nutrient

related TMDLs in the Kissimmee Basin that were or iginally 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 im plemented as quickly as possible with local stakeholders through the implementation of Basi n Management Action Plans (BMAPs). Lower priority, non-nutrient related TMDLs will be developed by 2010/2011.

Waterbodies in the Kissimmee Chain of Lake s (KCOL) under nutrient TMDL development include lakes: Marion, Davenport, Underhill, Hold en, Pineloch, Copeland, Olive, Clear, Lorna Doone, Mann, Cane, Catherine, Rock, Butler, Cypr ess, and Kissimmee (Per. Comm. Pat Fricano, FDEP).

5.2.2 Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed

The 429,283 acre Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed lie s between the outlet of Lake Kissimmee (S-65) and the C-38 inflow struct ure to Lake Okeechobee (S-65E) ( Figure 5-3) . Two of the four “priority” basins, namely S-65D and S-65E iden tified 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 Kiss immee 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 approxim ately 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-watershedSection 5

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

5-10 5.2.3 Taylor Creek/Nubbin Sl ough 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 acr e 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-19 1 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 constitu te about 20 percent of the sub-wa tershed’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 phos phorus 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 extens ive TP reduction projects and BMPs have been constructed and are being planne d. A total of 74,874 acres in the sub-watershed have been designated for BMP implementation, 41,188 of whic h have been currently funded. Ongoing and planned LOPP-mandated BMPs, watershed phosphor us-source control projects, and regional projects are estimated to redu ce 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 Ist okpoga 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 infl ows to Lake Istokpoga and includes (from south to north): Lake Istokpoga, Lake Placi d, Lake June in Winter, Lake Josephine, Lake Jackson, Lake Arbuckle, and Arbuckle Creek, Lake Livi ngston, Reedy Lake, and Crooked Lake.Section 5

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

5-11 Figure 5-4. Taylor Creek/N ubbin Slough Sub-watershed

The primary outlet of water from Lake Istokpoga is through the S-68 struct ure, which releases water through a series of can als southeastward to both La ke Okeechobee and the Kissimmee River. Structure G-85, located on the Istokpoga Canal, is an an tiquated structure constructed by private interests and later adopted by the District. Although this structure could discharge from Lake Istokpoga to the Kissimmee River, it typi cally remains closed. G-85 is scheduled for replacement as part of the Kissi mmee 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 woodl and/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 agri culture (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 su b-watershed also includes more than 50,000 acres of urban development, the majority of which ar e 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 averag e 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-mandat ed owner-implemented, typical cost-share,

and additional BMPs will result in a total TP lo ad reduction to Lake Ist okpoga 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 Ca nal (C-40), Harney Pond Canal (C-41), and C-41A which convey water to Lake Okeechobee. Total la nd 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 ar ea (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 sugar cane (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 es timated at 89 mt/yr with average annual TP concentrations of 289 ppb. This sub-watershed c ontributes about 10 percen t of the total average annual flow volume and 17 percent of the averag e annual TP loading to Lake Okeechobee.

Implementation of planned and ongoing BMPs, watershed phosphorus-control projects, and regional public works under LOPP are projecte d to reduce TP loading by 37 mt/yr.

Figure 5-6. Indian Prairie Basins Sub-WatershedSection 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 Ame nded Verified Impaired Waters List.

5.2.6 Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed

The Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed includes the en tire 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. Fishea ting Creek is the only remaining naturally flowing tributary to Lake Okeechobee. Nic odemus Slough flows are discharged to Lake

Okeechobee via Culvert 5A.

5.2.6.1 Land Uses

The lower portion of Fisheating Creek is predomin antly 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 controlle d conservation easement that conserves and protects natural communities alo ng 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 loadi ng is approximately 55 mt/yr with an average annual TP concentration of 199 ppb. Planned an d 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 Ma rch 2003 Amended Verified Impaired Waters List. The iron impairment was thought to be a naturally occurring c ondition from ground water seepage into the creek (Kissimmee River/Fish eating 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 acr es 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 natura l area or forest land. Dominant land uses are citrus (24,000 acres), improved pasture (48,000 acres), and suga rcane (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, aver age 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 waterSection 5

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

5-17 quality discharged to C-43 and the Caloosahatch ee 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 colifo rms caused one water body to be impaired.

Figure 5-8. West Lake Ok eechobee Sub-watershedSection 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 sugar cane (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 implemen tation in this sub-watershed such as the EAA storage reservoir (CERP); divers ion of 298 District flows (Everg lades 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-manda ted BMPs are expected to re duce 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-watershe d is located directly east of Lake

Okeechobee and includes the St. Luci e Canal (C-44) and L-8 Basin ( Figure 5-10 ). The L-8 canal conveys excess storm water from La ke 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 impl ementation of mandatory fertilizer BMPs, Environmental Resource Permitting revisions, an d 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 nutrien ts 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) load s from each sub-watershed were analyzed

for the 1991 to 2005 POR and for the future af ter all LOPP recommended projects were implemented to identify those sub-watersheds with disproportionately la rge 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. th e 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 flow s lie above the diagonal line. Conversely, subwatersheds that discharge greate r flows relative to TP loads li e below the diagonal line. The figure shows that TCNS and the Indian Pr airie Basins sub-watersheds discharge disproportionately high TP lo ads 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 Ok eechobee inflows to TP loads (1991-2005).

When all LOPP recommended strategies are impl emented and become fully operational, the TP loads to Lake Okeechobee are projected to dec line 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 Fisheat ing 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 LoadSection 5

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

5-22 significantly greater TP loads relative to thei r total Lake Okeechobee inflows. The large

reductions in TP loads from the TCNS sub-wa tershed expected to be accomplished under LOPP will bring this sub-watershed closer to a conditi on 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 Impr ovement Needs - LOPP vs. P2TP

5.4.1 LOPP Assessed Water Quality Needs

Based on 1991 to 2000 POR, the 2007 LOPP Upda te (SFWMD, 2007) reported an annual average Lake Okeechobee TP load ing 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 achie ve it will vary as the five-y ear rolling average is updated.

Table 5-5 s ummarizes 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 proj ected to cumulatively remove 370 mt/yr, which surpasses the TP load reduction n eeded 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 LoadSection 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 hi gh loads that the Lake has experi enced 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 ba seline TP load for the LOPP 1991–2000 POR ( Table 5-2 ). The additional five-year period (2001 – 2005) includes years domi nated by above average annual

inflow volumes. Since annual inflow volumes ar e 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 tota l phosphorus TMDL for Lake Okeechobee.

5.5 Water Quality Analysis Conclusions

• Existing water quality in the Lake Okeechobee wa tershed is significantly influenced by the various land use and land management practic es 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. Ho wever, measured phosphorus reductions in the lake waters are likely to be substantially delayed because of th e residual phosphorus in soils within the watershed (legac y phosphorus) and lake sediments.

• Implementation of BMPs in areas that c ontribute flows to Lake Istokpoga and Lakes Kissimmee, Cypress, and Hatchineha are exp ected to reduce phosphor us loading to these lakes. While the load reductions to these ups tream lakes are not expe cted to provide an immediate benefit to Lake Okeechobee, implemen tation 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 a nd protect Lake OkeechobeeSection 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 Fish eating 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 fr om 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 continge ncy in case some of the recommended projects are not implemented or do not perform at the le vels intended. The contingency was also recognizes the high loads that the Lake ha s experienced over the last five years.

• For the 15-year POR adopted by the P2TP, baseli ne 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 reduci ng this additional TP load of 81 mt/yr.

### SECTION 6

WATER QUANTITY DATA ANALYSESThis page intentionally left blank.Section 6

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

6-i TABLE OF CONTENTS

6.0 WATER QUANTITY DAT A 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 La ke Okeechobee Sub-watersheds ................................. 6-6

List of Figures

6-1 Sub-Watersheds Simulated in the NERSM ..................................................................... 6-2This 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 modeli ng 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 simula te hydrologic conditions in the LOW under varying scenarios such as cu rrent 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 precipi tation and surface and groundwater flows. The water generally leaves the system through human consumption (domestic, municipal, industrial and agricultural), surface and gr oundwater flows, evaporation, and transpiration from plants.

6.1 Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model

The Northern Everglades Regional Simulati on 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 n eed to edit the previous code or functionality of existing modules. For example, the additi on and operation of a ne w reservoir would be simulated as a discrete “object” – there woul d be no need to modify the coding for other elements of the water management system. In flows to the model were input as a daily time series (1970–2005) and planning al ternatives were simulated by making corresponding changes to the model domain – e.g. the addition of a re servoir 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, Ta ylor 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 S ub-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 specifi c gauging stations and flows across specific transects are not

simulated.

Lakes in the Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershe d, and pools in the Lo wer Kissimmee Subwatershed are simulated as le vel pools with watershed inflows (local runoff) as boundary

conditions obtained from other models or from hi storical data. A flow pass-through approach is

used for the other sub-watersheds where histor ical 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 lump ed 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 cond itions. 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 envir onmental 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 sc heme 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 de mand/runoff time series are obtained from the

SFWMM. C-44 reservoir inflow s/outflows are also obtained from the SFWMM and used as boundary condition flows for the future base an d alternative scenario s. 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. Furthermor e, 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-y ear 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 informati on available, which includes extreme events such as Hurricanes Charlie, Frances, and Jea nne in 2004, and Hurricane Wilma in 2005.

No history-matching was done during initial m odel 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-waters hed (Fan, 1986) and the SFWMM for Lake

Okeechobee and areas further south.

A series of assumptions were developed to f acilitate model set-up; these are documented in Appendix B

. Additional information on how each individu al 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 infl ow 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 modeli ng 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-watershe d inflows do not change from one simulation to the next, RSM actually adjusts the values on a daily basis because th e 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 Da ta 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 equalto the historical outflows. Sum of TCNSQ, S154 and S-135 from DBHYDRO.

Lake Istokpoga Historical Flows Runoff for sub-watershed lumped into a singlequantity. 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 re maining contributing sub-wa tershed area (excluding the combined footprint of all management measures in the sub-watershed) to the total contributing sub-waters hed 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 th e estuaries and to th e WCAs are simulated based on the WSE Regulation Schedule.

• Future Base – This scenario was intended to represen t 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 ST A, 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 th e 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 Pl an features have been completed or are currently under development. Thes e projects were not included in the future base because of the need to clearly document all of the activitie s and projects that ar e 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 seri es 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 fo rmulated and evaluated four separate alternative plans for achieving project goals and objec tives. For modeling purposes, known configuration of Level 1, 2, and 3 manage ment measures (MM) were used; whereas for Level 4 and 5 MMs only conceptual configurati ons 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 implem entation of that alternative.

Preliminary operating rules were incorporated into the modeling of alternative plans, as appropriate. For example, excess volume of wate r 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 offlin e 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 indi vidual 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 LO W. Additional information on the water budget analyses is presented in Appendix B ; key observations from this an alysis are discussed below in Section

6.2 . Model output from simulations of the altern ative plans were compared and evaluated in terms of performance measures. Th is 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 th e possible exception of the Upper Kissimmee Subwatershed. Therefore, ET should be an impor tant 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 S ub-watersheds contribute close to threequarters of the total average annual inflow to Lake Okeechobee. The Lower Kissimmee subwatersheds were targeted for maximizing storage options. Alt hough 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 li ght of the timing and flow rates required for the Kissimmee River Restoration Proj ect and to maintain the ecologic integrity of the Upper

Chain of Lakes.

• Table 6-2 summarizes important flow characteris tics within key sub-watersheds. This information is important for sizing inflow pump s and discharge structures and will also guide development of operational plans for individual storage features.

• Results also indicate that it wi ll be necessary to capture a substantial portion of the peak

flows in the watershed in order to store a large percentage of th e total flow volume. This is particularly true in the Fisheating Creek Sub- watershed where 60 percen t of the total flow volume occurs when discharges are greater th an 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 ke y 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 quan tity data analysis are as follows:

• ET is an important consideration in the iden tification 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 Fi sheating Creek Sub-watershed.This page intentionally left blank.

### SECTION 7

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANSThis 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 Cons traint-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........................................................................................................ 7-1 7

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 an d 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 a ssociated with Alternative 1 ....................................... 7-18 7-5 Summary of P-load Reduction a ssociated with Alternative 2 ....................................... 7-19 7-6 Summary of P-load Reduction a ssociated with Alternative 3 ....................................... 7-21 7-7 Summary of P-load Reduction a ssociated 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 ...................................................................................... 7-16This 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 plan s formulated and evaluated by the planning team. Water quality and storage planni ng 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 alte rnative plans is also presented.

7.1 Planning Goals

7.1.1 Water Quality Goal

The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protect ion 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 Depart ment of Environmental Protection (FDEP) established a TMDL of 140 me tric 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, onl y 105 mt/yr of TP loading is permitted from the

watershed. The Lake Okeechobee TMDL is base d 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 in itial 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 rec ognized 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 fre quency of damaging freshw ater 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 discha rge 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 discha rges from the Lake to the estuaries greater than 30 days in duration, with no interruptions. Some damaging discha rge 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 providingSection 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 w ould produce relatively small improvements in damaging releases to the estuaries.

Figure 7-1. Lake Okeechobee reg ulatory releases (1965-2000).

This analysis only addressed harm ful 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 Ca loosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuary watersheds also contributes damaging freshwater discharges to the estuaries – ther efore local storage for both the river watersheds would still be require d. 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 allo wed for simulation of offline storage for Lake Okeechobee and its sub-watersheds. The applicati on was utilized to determine the divertible volume associated with the objectives of bot h Lake Okeechobee and the estuaries.

For this analysis, the RECOVER performance measures for Lake Okeechobee stage envelope

and extreme events were utilized. For the Caloosah atchee 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 resu lt 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 diver tible 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 r un 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%

% ExceedanceVolume (ac-ft)

90% Threshold

Incremental Break p ointSection 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. P eak 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 an alyses, the planning team adopt ed a water quantity goal of maximizing storage in the LOW with an upper ce iling of approximately 1.3 million ac-ft. This water quantity goal was corroborat ed 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 pro cess, numerous challenges need ed to be resolved, including:

1. Alternative plans were developed that concur rently 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 acr es) was available for locating solutions.

5. The process had to allow for equitable cons ideration of all reasonable alternatives; no

feasible alternative could be arbitrar ily eliminated without being evaluated.

6. Finally, while cumulative water management and phosphorus loading problems in Lake Okeechobee are the result of combined inputs fr om 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 ex ample, phosphorus load reduction and water storage in the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough s ub-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, syst ematic, and reproducible process was identified and adopted for formulation of alternative plans. Major steps in this process included the following:

1. Identification of manage ment measures (MMs)

2. Determination of relatively constraint-fr ee 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 fe ature 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 asse mbly. Storage reservoirs, stormwater treatment areas (STAs), and structural best management pr actices (BMPs) are examples of features. An activity is a non-structur al action or practice th at 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 co mbined to form viable alternative plans.

7.3.1 Management Measures Toolbox

The Coordinating Agency Planning Team (CAP T) developed the MM toolbox by seeking input from the multiple agency staff. This toolbox id entified various features, activities, technologies, and current and future planned projects that, if implemented in the LOW, could achieve the stated project objectives. Individu al 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 feat ures typically have minimal requirements for engineering, construction, and ope rations. These local features also have relatively less real estate requirements and promote landowner involvement. In contrast, regional features require significant amounts of real es tate 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; siti ng location may be defined

• Level 4 – Implementation certainty unknown; con ceptual idea with rough order of magnitude costs and siting location

• Level 5 – Implementation certainty unknown; c onceptual idea with limited information.Section 7

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

7-5 For each MM, a range (minimum, most likely, a nd 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 m easure 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 success fully shown to function based on laboratory analyses and/or pilot test pr ojects, 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 measur e 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 nega tive unintended consequences of the MM.

• Score = -1 if there are negative un intended consequences of the MM.

7.3.2 Types of Management Measures

A wide variety of structural and non-structu ral 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 environmenta l restoration objectives with urban growth initiatives. For example, under the Rural Land Stewardship Areas Program, counties can designate rura l lands and natural areas for integr ated growth management. Planning and economic incentives are provided for thes es areas to encourage use of innovative and flexible planning and development strategies an d creative land use planning techniques. The program encourages minimizing development footprint and maintain ing a high ratio ofSection 7

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

7-6 conservation and agricultural lands to developm ent 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 wa ter flows and provide water quality treatment through assimilation and sedimentation. Restori ng 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 eith er offline or inline systems. Improving quality of water in Lake Okeechobee could be accomplis hed 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 ac tivities and measures that can be undertaken on agricultural and urban lands to ensure the following:

• Amount of nutrients used ons ite are minimized to the greatest possible extent,

• The nutrients that are actually used are appl ied in an effective manner which limits their entry into the local runoff, and

• Nutrients that do find their way into the loca l runoff and, where possible, excess flows are retained onsite to prevent their entry into the regional drainage system.

Collectively, source control practices are also refe rred 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 pr acticable on-location means incl uding economic and technological considerations for improving water qua lity in agricultural and urban discharges .” The legislation also specifies that BMPs for agricu ltural practices shall re flect a balance between water quality improvements and agri cultural 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 esta blishing regulations.

Regardless of how it is achieved, so urce 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 c ontrol introduction (source) of nutri ents into the local runoff andSection 7

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

7-7 movement off site (loss) into the drainage syst em, 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 operati on 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 Dist rict, 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 C ontrol Program under Chapter 40E-61, FAC, will use these load reduction estimate s to establish performance measures for the combined source control programs implemented in the watershed by the c oordinating agencies. The performance measures will establish a reasonab le range that can be consistently anticipated from source control programs so that downstream treatment faciliti es may be effectively planned and designed as necessary. Strategic monito ring locations will be utilized to measure performance and to enhance and optimize the source control programs.

Examples include widespread development a nd implementation of agricultural BMPs and restrictions on the application of wastewater residuals. Other currently implemented source and loss control programs predate the LOPA. These in clude continued implemen tation 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 constr ucted wetlands that have been used very successfully in South Florida to treat nutrient-rich stormwater runoff. When water flows through these wetlands, plants (inclu ding tiny algae) absorb nutrient s from the water, using them in life processes or storing them in their tissues. Constructed we tlands planted with certain types of vegetation in a certain sequen ce 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 wetl and bottom. Cattail roots readily absorb phosphorus from these sediments, producing yet mo re leaves. Over the past decade, over 40,000

acres of STAs have been constructed and are be ing operated in South Flor ida 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 chem icals to precipitate nutrients, they are very environmentally friendly (green technology). Howeve r, 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 aqua tic plant-based water treatment units. The technology involves routing nutrient loaded stormwater into ponds th at are vegetated with plants that have enhanced ability to absorb and assim ilate nutrients. A varian t of a MAPS, that isSection 7

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

7-8 currently being tested in the LOW, is known as the Algal Turf Scrubber TM , (ATS). This technology developed by HydroMentia, Inc., invol ves 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 discharge d. 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 an d 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 chemi cals 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 load s 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 al uminum salts are effective at reducing total phosphorus loads in stormwater runo ff. These technologies can be applied both in-stream and in off-line treatment systems. Theycan be used for pre-treating stormwater runoff prior to storage and additional treat ment in a reservoir or a STA; they can also be used as posttreatment units to polish efflue nt from reservoirs and STAs. The specific technology that will work best at any given location will primar ily 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 loadi ngs from the sediments on the lake bed. These sediments are estimated to cover more than 197,0 00 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 co mposed largely of partic les 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. Part icles of the fluid mud layer are known to be associated with large quantities of bound phosphor us. Most of these fluid mud sediments are confined to the deeper pelagic re gions of the lake and their nega tive impacts are primarily related to periodic resuspension of phos phorus into the water column.

Several alternative options have been proposedfor 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 situa tion, the District initiated an emergency program under which approximately 2,000 acres of the exposed areas we re 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 na tive vegetation once th e 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 usi ng conventional dredging technologies without severely compromising ambient water quality. A pilot dredging project was conducted in 2001 to demonstrate use of innovative dredging technol ogies and processes unde r conditions similar to Lake Okeechobee. The study showed that the fl uid muds could be removed using a modified hydraulic dredge that essentially worked like a vacuum to gently suck up the muds while minimizing resuspension. Commer cial application of the tec hnology used by the pilot dredging project however has not been demonstrated.

More recently, the District has in itiated a near-shore dredging pr oject in the lake. The objective of this demonstration project is to remove sediments from a 2.5 s quare mile area adjacent to the Eagle Bay Island using a techniqu e that minimizes adverse envi ronmental impacts and can be scaled up for use in other parts of the lake. Th e demonstration area has a layer of mud sediments that prevents the growth of native aquatic ve getation; 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 resurg ence 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 a nd foraging habitat for fish and wading birds.

It should be noted that compared to other lake restor ation 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 ty pes of soil tilling, both of which may be useful in dealing with lake sediments. They are disking and plowing. Di sking 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 a nd phosphorus flux into the water co lumn. 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 isSection 7

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

7-10 designed, not to mix the soil layers, but to invert th e 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 w ill 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 sediment s below a layer of mineral soils.

7.3.2.2.2.4 Recirculating STAs

Another option of dealing with th e high phosphorus concentrations in lake waters which, at least in part, originate from the sediments is to trea t lake waters using STAs located adjacent to the

lake to treat lake water and recirculate the trea ted water back to the lake. Such systems are

intended to treat nutrient–rich flows from the wa tershed. However, during periods when there is

little or no flow from the watershed and lake le vels are relatively high, lake waters could be diverted to these systems for treatment. Given th e 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 sm all contribution to the overall load reduction that is required to

achieve restoration of Lake Okeechobee. Note th at 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 stor mwater 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 st orage capacity is required in th e LOW to significantly manage lake stages in Lake Okeechobee and reduce damagi ng freshwater releases to the Caloosahatchee

and St. Lucie estuaries. A comb ination of different types of st orage options were considered because a single type of water storage can not pr actically 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. In itial indications are that there may be some

volume of excess surface wate r in this sub-watershed.

7.3.2.3.1 Reservoirs

Above ground reservoirs are one of the most co mmon types of surface water storage features. They are relatively easy to design, construct, and operate and several large reservoirs are currently being designed and constr ucted in the greater Everglades ecosystem. Storing water in reservoirs also has water quality benefits; nutr ients 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 th ey are very land intensive. In order to reduce the acreage needed to site a reservoir, its foot print can be reduced by increasing the depth up to a certain point. For the P2TP planning process, the reservoirs considered ar e 16-ft deep consistent

with other reservoirs such as C-43 and C-44. Actual reservoir depth wi ll be determined through advanced planning and engineering analyses.

Another major disadvantage of reservoirs is th at they are typically subject to very high evapotranspiration (ET) rates due to the large ex posed surface area. Re servoir ET rates can be reduced significantly by compartmentalizing th e 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 St orage Facilities

In compliance with 373.4595(3)(b)2.g. the Lake Okeechobee Estuary and Recovery (LOER) action plan recommended evaluating options for st orage and/or disposal of excess surface water runoff by capturing and holding it on site on available private, public , and tribal lands. In most cases low technology approaches such as the us e 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 dr ainage system or improve the timing of its delivery. AWSFs typically require minimal de sign, 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 comp atible with improving wetland functions

7.3.2.3.3 Aquifer Storage and Recovery

Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) involves inj ecting water into an aquifer through wells and then pumping it out when needed. The aquifer es sentially functions as a water bank. Deposits are made in times of surplus, typically duri ng the rainy season, and withdrawals occur when available water is needed, typically during a dry period.

Interest and activity in aquife r storage and recovery (ASR) in southern Florida has greatly increased over the past 10 to 15 years. In Sout h Florida, ASR wells have typically been used to store excess freshwater during the wet season an d subsequently recover it during the dry season

for use as an alternative drinki ng-water supply source. Water is injected down an ASR well, stored in an aquifer, and wit hdrawn using the same well. Many utility-operated ASR facilities now have wells completed in deep confined aquife rs for this purpose. La rge scale application of the ASR technology is under evaluation as a stor age option in the Comprehensive Everglades

Restoration Plan.

A series of CERP pilot projects and a regional ASR study are curre ntly 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 mo re 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 th at 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 be longing 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 th e watershed. A typical d eep 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 ar e 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 inje ction wells also have the added advantage of permanently disposing of the nutri ent- and pollutant-contaminated stormwater. Additionally, injection wells can typically be ope rated 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 re trofitting. New wells can be de signed with recovery options.

7.4 Determination of Relatively Constraint-Free Acreages (CFA)

To identify land areas within the P2TP project st udy 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 di screte 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 inform ation and pre-determined siting constraints.

For the lower half of the P2TP study area, whic h 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 followi ng 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 wi ll have to be acqui red from current land owners, a desirable feature was ability to id entify acreages that would require relativelySection 7

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

7-13 fewer real estate transactions. By using this feature, fewer individua ls 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-si zed parcels with many di fferent owners) were considered to have low suitability. Areas w ith a parcel density fr om 7 to 25 parcels per section were considered moderately suitable. Note that while rela tively fewer number of owners was considered a desirable attribute, it is recognized that real es tate transactions will

have to be conducted with these land owners.

• Existing wetlands – Another siting objective was to a void 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. Accordi ngly, areas outside the boundaries of existing wetlands were designated as highly suitable and areas within the boundaries of existing wetlands were designated as moderately suitab le. This constraint was included in the LSM to meet the intent of the legislation which re quires that potential impacts to wetlands be identified to the maximum extent practicable.

• Ecologic value – The goal was to avoid locating pr oject 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 a nd included consideration of critical habitats, threatened & endangered species dist ribution, and biodive rsity 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) repres ents parcels with high ecologic value and low suitability for locating project f eatures. Areas with an EVS between 2 and 4 were characterized as having moderate suitabilit y. This constraint was included in the LSM to meet the intent of the legislation which requ ires that potential impacts to threatened and endangered species be identified to the maximum extent practicable.

• Land use economic values – This goal intends to mini mize impacts to the regional economy. High intensity land uses that requi re 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 hi gh 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 suit able for locating projec t features. This relatively simple approach to estimating land use economic values was considered adequate for preliminary planning. During the advanced planning phase, detail ed 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 wasSection 7

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

7-14 considered adequate to lessen the impacts a nd, accordingly, areas outside a 300 ft buffer zone of known culturally important reso urces were considered highly suitable for locating project features, whereas areas inside the 300 ft buffe r zone were considered moderately suitable.

• Infrastructure – Proposed project features cannot be sited on lands occupied by infrastructure such as large drainage canals, road s, highways, utility corr idors, 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 consider ed highly suitable for locating project features. For airports, the Federa l Aviation Authority (FAA) requires a 10,000 ft buffer zone, accordingly all locations within 10,00 0 ft of a major airport were assigned a low suitability and areas outsid e the 10,000 ft buffer were c onsidered highly suitable.

Table 7-2. Land Suitability Model (LSM) attributes.

Suitability Attributes Constraint

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 leve l of suitability value for each constraint layer. The suitabi lity attribute values ranged from high suitability (Category 1), to moderate suitability (C ategory 2), to low suita bility (Category 3).

Each land area was then evaluate d 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 rece ive 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 crit erion. 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 reservoi rs 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 prefer entially located in ar eas 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 constr aints 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) ar e shown in the darkest shade of brown; areas that ar e received a LSM score of 1 (v ery good suitability) are shown in

white.

Note that the LSM model output is only intended to provide gene ral 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 le vels of MMs. Because

Level 1 and Level 2 MMs were ei ther already constructed/ impl emented or their construction/ implementation was imminent these MMs would be incl uded 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 pl ans were identified that met pre-established planning objectives:

7.5.1 Alternative 1 – Common Elements

This alternative characterizes th e TP load reduction and storag e that would be provided by the

Level 1 and Level 2 MMs. It also includes ce rtain Level 3 and Level 4 MMs for which, in the planning team’s opinion, construction/implemen tation was imminent pending resolution of certain issues. Key features of A lternative 1 included the following:

• Level 1 local features – Owner-implemented Agricultu ral BMPs, Funded Cost-shared BMPs, Cost-shared Future Funding Agricultur al BMPs, Additional Agricultural BMPs, ECP diversions, Urban Turf Ferti lizer Rule, Land Application of Residuals, Florida Yards and Neighborhoods, ERP Regulatory Program, NP DES 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), a nd Local Initiatives (3 projects)

• Level 1 regional features – Taylor Creek Critical Proj ect 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 P hosphorus Source Control Program, Alternative Water Storage Facilities (3 si tes), 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 Okeec hobee and Estuary Watershed Basin Rule

• Level 3 regional features –Taylor Creek Reservoir, Bra dy Ranch STA, Paradise Run 10- well ASR system, Paradise Run Wetland Restor ation Project, and Rolling Meadows Catfish

Wetland Restoration

• Level 4 regional features –Kissimmee Reservoir, Istokpoga Reservoir, and Istokpoga STASection 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 A lternative 1 are projected to cumulatively reduce TP loads by 239 mt/yr; the Level 3 a nd 4 MMs are projected to reduce TP loads by another 62 mt/yr. Overall, Alternative 1 woul d provide reduced TP loading by 301 mt/yr, which

would fall short of meeti ng the TMDL by 108 mt/yr ( Table 7-4 ).

Table 7-4. Summary of total phosphorus (T P) 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 f eatures that would provide annual average surface storage capacity of appr oximately 265,000 ac-ft.

7.5.2 Alternative 2 – Maximizing Storage

This alternative plan was intended to maximize st orage capacity in the LOW. Using Alternative 1 as a base, new MMs were added that would prov ide increased storage capacity. Accordingly,

it consisted of all MMs that were included in Alte rnative 1 plus the following three, new, Level 4

structural features 1 :

• Kissimmee Reservoir East – This feature would provide up to 200,000 ac-ft of storage capacity and reduce TP loads by approximately 6.5 m t/yr. It would be lo cated 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 reser voir can potentially also be diverted to the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Sub-wate rshed for additional treatment.

• Istokpoga/Kissimmee Reservoir – This facility would provi de a total of 600,000 ac-ft of storage capacity with flows coming from the Is tokpoga Basin and the Kissimmee River. The configuration for this proposed reservoir was developed by m odifying a feature evaluated by the CERP LOW Project during early planni ng stages. The reservoir would occupy 42,000

acres in the southern reaches of the Lake Is tokpoga and Indian Prairie Sub-watersheds. Because of its proximity to Lake Okeechobee an d its large size, this feature could also be used to store lake waters, if needed. It woul d 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 flow s 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 cons ists 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 reducti on of approximately 2.6 mt/yr from watershed flows and 12.9 mt/yr of load redu ction for in-lake waters.

Besides providing significant a dditional storage capacity, the three proposed reservoirs would also collectively provide TP load reduction of 15 mt/yr. Thus Altern ative 2 would reduce TP loads by 316 mt/yr. This would leav e 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 proj ect 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 re servoirs could also be used to store Lake Okeechobee water. Therefore, the Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model (NERSM) simulation for Alternative 2 also included an opera ting 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 a nd 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 maxi mize TP load reduction in the LOW. Using Alternative 1 as the basis, new MMs were adde d 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 locat ed in the S-154 drainage

basin of the Lower Kissimmee Sub-watershed whic h 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. Di sposal of this water w ould 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 w ould 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 implemen ted in the Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed, it is projected that 39 mt/yr of TP would conti nue 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 st orage capacity in the upper reaches of the Fisheating Creek Sub-waters hed. It consists of a 9,000 acre STA and a 3,000 acre, 10-ft deep reservoir. This RA STA 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-watershe d. 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 combin ation of these) would be determined through a feasibility study.

• S-68 STA – One of the major sources of TP lo ading in the Istokpoga/Indian Prairie Subwatershed is flows from the intense agricultura l 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-waters heds and reduce TP loads by 8 mt/yr.

These seven new project features would collect ively reduce TP loading by 63 mt/yr. Thus, Alternative 3 would provide a total TP load reduction of 36 4 mt/yr. This would leave a TP TMDL shortfall of 45 mt/yr ( Table 7-6 ). Annual average surface st orage 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 inte nded to optimize storag e 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. Acco rdingly, it consisted of all constituents of Alternative 1 pl us 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 RAST A complex consists of a 6,500 acre STA coupled with an 11,000 acre, 16-ft deep reser voir. Because of its proximity to Lake Okeechobee, it could also be used to stor e and treat lake waters, if necessary.

• Fisheating Creek RASTA I – same configuration as previous ly described in Alternative 3

• Fisheating Creek RASTA II – same configuration as previous ly described in Alternative 3

• Taylor Creek STA – This proposed 2,000 acre STA w ould replace the LOFT 2,000 acre reservoir at the same location that was origin ally proposed for Altern ative 1. This feature would reduce TP loads by 6 mt/yr. Since flow s 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 runo ff from the Lake Istokpoga and

Indian Prairie Basin Sub-waters heds and the Kissimmee River S ub-watershed. It includes an 8,000 acre STA coupled with a 19,00 0 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 an d 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 pr eviously described in

Alternative 3Section 7

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

7-22 • Clewiston STA – same configuration as previous ly described in Alternative 3

• S-133 Water Quality Treatment Facility – same configuration as previously described in

Alternative 3

• S-68 STA – same configuration as previous ly described in Alternative 3

These nine new project features would collec tively reduce TP loads in watershed flows by approximately 59 mt/yr and in-lake loading by a pproximately 74 mt/yr. Thus, Alternative 4 would provide a total TP load re duction 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 RA STAs could also be used to store and

treat Lake Okeechobee water. The NERSM simu lation for Alternative 4 included an operating rule that dictated when lake water would be pum ped into and out of the proposed reservoirs and STAs. Storing and treating lake water in th e two RASTAs is expe cted 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 cap acity associated with Altern ative 4 was estimated at 900,000

ac-ft. Table 7-8 compares the projected performance of the four alternativ e 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.Section 7LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20087-23Table 7-9. Management measures associated with P2TP Alternative Plans.Alternative PlansMMIDManagement Measure MM DescriptionMMLevelAlt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 41 Agricultural BMPs - Owner Implemented Conservation plans, including Agricultural Nutrient ManagementPlans, have enrolled over 527,370 acres in the LOW to reduce TPload to lake. Costs incurred by owner.1√√√√2 Agricultural BMPs - Funded Cost Share Conservation plans, including Agricultural Nutrient ManagementPlans, have enrolled over 527,370 acres in the LOW to reduce TPload 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 turffertilizers.1√√√√4 Land Application of Residuals LOPA requirement that domestic wastewater residuals will not add toTP loadings in Lake Okeechobee.1√√√√5 Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Educate citizens and builders about proper landscape design tominimize 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 waterflows.1√√√√8 NPDES Stormwater Program Rules implemented by EPA to reduce stormwater pollutant loadsdischarged to surface waters.1√√√√99 Taylor Creek Critical Project 142 acre STA locatedat the Grassy Island Ranch Site on Districtowned lands. Receives flow fromand 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 ownedlands. Receives flowfrom and dischargesto Nubbin Slough.Provides average TP load reduction of 0.9 mt/yr.1√√√√13 Taylor Creek Algal Turf Scrubber NutrientRecovery FacilityA 15 MGD facility on a District owned property at the Grassy IslandSite in S-191 basin. Consists of an engineered system in whichattached algae are cultured and biomass is routinely harvested tofacilitate recovery of pollutants from impaired waters. Projectedaverage TP-load reduction is approximately1.82 mt/yr.1√√√√53 Watershed Phosphorus Source ControlProjectsAbout 30 ongoing projects in the four priority basins to treat waterand reduce TP loads at source.1√√√√49 Agricultural BMPs - Cost Share FutureFundingConservation plans, including Agricultural Nutrient ManagementPlans, have enrolled over 527,370 acres in the LOW to reduce TPload 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√√√√Section 7LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20087-24Alternative PlansMMIDManagement Measure MM DescriptionMMLevelAlt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4Agricultural BMPs retention/detention ponds to treat water and reduce TP load at sourcein all basins north of Lake Okeechobee.93 Kissimmee River ASR Project Facility is located along the Kissimmee River, 2 miles north of LakeOkeechobee. It is intended to test the feasibility of using ASRtechnology as part of CERP.1√√√√12a LOER AWS - Brighton Reservoir500-acre stormwater storage and treatment area located in the L-61East Basin.1√√√√12b LOER AWS - Clewiston Site728 acres of primarily State and some privately owned land borderingLake Okeechobee just outside of Clewiston. Temporary 50 cfs pumpwould deliver C-21 regional water into the site for storage1√√√√12e LOER AWS - Avon Park Air Force RangeOn-site retention on 3,600 acres providing approximately 10,000acre-feet of storage capacity. Includes restoration of existing leveeand water control structures. Willreduce flows and nutrient loadingto Arbuckle Marsh.1√√√√12fLOER AWS - Indiantown Citrus GrowersAssociation3,550 acre-feet of water storage on 1,775 acres. Includesrehabilitation and relocation of pump stations and widening ditches toreduce surface water volume discharged to St. Lucie Estuary1√√√√12gLOER AWS - Barron Water ControlDistrict5,000 acre-feet of water storage on6,129 acres. Includes weirconstruction and ditch retention to enable water quality improvementsand reuse by growers1√√√√12h LOER AWS - Raulerson and Sons, Inc.300 acre-feet of water storage on 670 acres. Will reduce flows andnutrient loading to Fish Slough1√√√√12iLOER AWS - Kissimmee Prairie PreserveState Park3,800 acre-feet of water storage on 1,920 acres. Will enhance qualityof water entering Kissimmee River via Duck Slough, LakeOkeechobee, and the Everglades1√√√√87a_1 FRESP - Alderman-Deloney Ranch (C-25basin)43 ac-ft of on-site storage and TP-load reduction of 0.078 mton/yrLocated 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/yrLocated 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 0.2mt/yr. Located in C-40 basin.1√√√√70a Local Initiatives - Taylor Creek SedimentRemoval (S-133)Removal of sediment and vegetation from canals tributary to TaylorCreek in the Treasure Island and Taylor Creek Isles residential areas.1√√√√70b Local Initiatives - Okeechobee CitySediment Trap (S-133)Two sediment traps installed within the city of Okeechobee to removeP-laden particles that would enter Lake Okeechobee.1√√√√Section 7LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20087-25Alternative PlansMMIDManagement Measure MM DescriptionMMLevelAlt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 470c Local Initiatives - Nubbin Slough EastDiversions (S-133)Restoration of the east main tributary flow conveyance to NubbinSlough to reduce flooding.1√√√√116 In-lake Features – Muck SedimentRemovalInvolves removal of muck sediments from shore line areas that arecompletely exposed due to extremely low lake stages. This scrapingexposes the natural bottom which in turn promotes re-growth ofnative vegetation once the lake levels return to normal.1√√√√15 LO WoD Rule Regulatory P SourceControl ProgramAmend Lake Okeechobee Works of theDistrict rule to meet currentneeds including: P source control program, BMP optimization, andmonitoring network to measure effectiveness of all BMP Programswithin the watershed.2√√√√16 Lakeside Ranch STA (LOFT) 2,400 acre STA in western Martin County between Beeline Highwayand Lake Okeechobee. Will provide annual average TP-loadreduction of 8 mt.2√√√√17 Lemkin Creek Urban Stormwater Facility(LOFT)150 acre stormwater treatment facility located on District ownedlands in Okeechobee County southwest of the City of Okeechobee.Will provide annual average TP-load reduction of 1 mt2√√√√18 Seminole Brighton Reservation ASR Pilot One 5 MGD ASR well system located along the C-41 Canal on thewestern edge of the Reservation in Glades County.2√√√√19 Taylor Creek ASR Reactivation One 6 MGD well system located adjacentto the L-63N Canal inOkeechobee, Florida.2√√√√87b_1 FRESP - C.M. Payne and Son, Inc(Fisheating Creek)932 ac-ft of on-site storage in Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed2√√√√87b_2 FRESP - Lightsey Cattle Company(Fisheating Creek)135 ac-ft of on-site water storage in Fisheating Creek Sub-watershed2√√√√87b_3 FRESP - Syfrett Ranch West (C-41A) 140 ac-ft of regional water storage in C-41A basin2√√√√87b_4 FRESP - Rafter T Ranch (Arbuckle Creek) 1,145 ac-ft of on-site storage along Arbuckle Creek2√√√√12c LOER AWS - Rolling Meadows Stormwater storage on400 acres of District-owned land. Will reducerunoff and nutrient loading to Lake Kissimmee.3√√√√12d LOER AWS - Sumica 1,920 acres of over drained property which has been over drained byadjacent DOT box culverts. Projectproposes to install a rip rap weirupstream of the box culverts to maintain stormwater for hydrologicrestoration 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 acresof which a flowage easement existson the southern most 2,000 acresin an area surrounding Nicodemus Slough near Fisheating Creek. Theproject will have the potential to store 13,000 to 26,000 acre feet ofwater from Lake Okeechobee.3√√√√Section 7LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20087-26Alternative PlansMMIDManagement Measure MM DescriptionMMLevelAlt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 412n LOER AWS - Fisheating Creek MarshWatershed ProjectEvaluate, engineer, and rehabilitate PL 566 water control structures inthe Fisheating Creek Marsh Watershed project area to moreeffectively store and manage water and reduce phosphorus runofffrom more than 50,000 acres in the headwaters of Fisheating Creek.3√√√√120 Central County Water Control DistrictReservoirConstruct and operate the CCWCD reservoir under a cooperativeagreement between the South Florida Water Management District andCCWCD to provide both flood protection and excess water storage inthe Caloosahatchee Basin.3√√√√21 LO and Estuary Watershed Basin Rule(LOER)Develop specific supplemental permit criteria designed to reduce TPloads and total runoff volume from new developments that dischargeto 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-ftdeep reservoir located on District owned lands in at the Grassy IslandRanch Site.3√√√--24 Brady Ranch STA (LOFT) 1,800 acre STA proposed to be located in Western Martin Countybetween the Beeline Highway and Lake Okeechobee immediatelyeast of Lakeside Ranch.3√√√√26 10 Well ASR System (Paradise Run) 50 MGD ASR system along Lake Okeechobee in the area of ParadiseRun in Highlands County, south of the S-65E structure.3√√√√28 Paradise Run Wetland Restoration (LOWProject)3,730 acre wetland restoration site located at the confluence ofParadise Run, oxbows of the Kissimmee River, and LakeOkeechobee.3√√√√62 Florida Power and Light Martin CoolingPond95,000 ac-ft cooling pond located north of the C-44 Canal, east of theL-65 Canal, and west of Indiantown in Martin County.3√√√√68 Comprehensive Planning-LandDevelopment RegulationsBasin-wide work with cities and counties to review current plans andensure promotion of low impactdesign for stormwater treatment.3√√√√56 Rolling Meadows/Catfish CreekRestorationHydrologic restoration of Catfish Creek and the creation of animpoundment to restore littoral wetlands.3√√√√116 Lake Bed Disking/Plowing Disking involves mixing the organic sediments on the lake bed withthe underlying layer of mineral soils, usually sands. Mixing the twosoils together is expected to reduce the turbidity production andphosphorus flux into the water column. Mixing of the soils isexpected to significantly reduce the amount of the organic sedimentsthat are exposed to the water column. Plowing is a similar action, butis accomplished with a farm implement that is designed, not to mixthe soil layers, but to invert the two layers.3√√√√12j LOER-AWS - Dupuis Design, engineer, and implement additional 1 to 2 feet of storage in4√√√√Section 7LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20087-27Alternative PlansMMIDManagement Measure MM DescriptionMMLevelAlt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4the Dupuis marsh before on-site stormwater enters the L-8 Canal.12l LOER-AWS - Stokes Design, engineer and implement an on-site stormwater storage projecton a 490 acre site in the Fisheating Creek Basin. The project willhave the potential to store approximately 510 ac-ft of water.4√√√√12m LOER-AWS - Waste Management St.Lucie SiteEnter into a partnership arrangement to modify borrow areas intominor above ground impoundment(s). Preliminary hydrologicinvestigation is in process.4√√√√12p LOER-AWS - Istokpoga MarshImprovement DistrictDesign and construct an agricultural water treatment facility withinthe Istokpoga Marsh Improvement District to reduce phosphorusrunoff and provide additional storm water storage for the 19,209 acrearea.4√√√√12q LOER-AWS - Caulkins Rehabilitation and relocation of internal pump stations. Duringregulatory releases to the St. Lucie Estuary irrigation facilities will beutilized to draw excess stormwater into the 3,400 acre project site.The detention of stormwater within the existing ditch system willresult in water quality improvements thereby promoting waterconservation and reducing the volume of surface water dischargefrom the site.4√√√√12r LOER – AWS Lake Wales Ridge StateForest Lake Kissimmee SiteInternal ditch plugs and modified control structures on 800 ac-ft ofadditional storage.4√√√√29 Kissimmee Reservoir Will provide approximately 161,263 ac-ft of storage to be providedby 10,281 acre, 16-ft deep reservoir located in Istokpoga/IndianPrairie Sub-watershed and will capture flows from the LowerKissimmee Sub-watershed.4√√√√30 Istokpoga Reservoir Will provide storage capacity of 79,560 ac-ft; 5,416 acre, 16-ft deepreservoir located in and will capture flows from the Istokpoga/IndianPrairie Sub-watershed.4√√√√31 Istokpoga STA Will provide approximately 29 mt/yr of TP-load reduction; 8,044 acretreatment facility; Will target flows from the Istokpoga Subwatershed.4√√√√107 Kissimmee Reservoir East Will capture flows from the Kissimmee River and storeapproximately 200,000 ac-ft of water. 12,500, 16-ft deep reservoirlocated to the east of the Kissimmee River in the Lower KissimmeeSub-watershed.4 --√--√108 Istokpoga/Kissimmee Reservoir It would provide a total of 600,000 ac-ft of storage capacity with halfthe flows coming from the Istokpoga Basin and the other half comingfrom the Kissimmee River. 42,000acre reservoir located in the4 --√-- --Section 7LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20087-28Alternative PlansMMIDManagement Measure MM DescriptionMMLevelAlt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4southern reaches of the Lake Istokpoga/Indian Prairie Sub-watershed.Because of its proximity to LakeOkeechobee and its large size, thisfeature 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-ftand target flows from both, the Istokpoga/Indian Prairie Basin and theKissimmee River. 8,000 acre STA coupled with a 19,000 acrereservoir. Projected annual average load reduction of 37 mt. Becauseof it’s proximity to Lake Okeechobee and its large size, this featurecould also be used to store and treat Lake Okeechobee waters, asappropriate.4 -- -- --√61 FEC RASTA I Will provide annual averageP-load reduction of approximately 28 to29 mt/yr. 9,000 acre STA coupled with a 3,000 acre, 10-ft deepreservoir.4 -- --√√77 FEC RASTA II Will provide annual average P-load reduction of approximately 2-3mt/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 itsprimary source of water would be Fisheating Creek. 17,500 acre, 16-ft deep reservoir located in the Nicodemus Slough region of theFisheating Creek Sub-watershed. Given it’s proximity to LakeOkeechobee 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 anannual average P-load reduction of up to 33 mt/yr. 6,500 acre STAcoupled with an 11,000 acre, 16-ft deep reservoir. Given it’sproximity to Lake Okeechobee it could also be used to store and treatlake waters, if necessary.4 -- -- --√112 Istokpoga Canal RASTA Located along the boundary of the Lower Kissimmee and the LakeIstokpoga/Indian Prairie Sub-watersheds thereby allowing flows fromboth sub-watersheds to be captured and treated. Collectively, thisRASTA would provide an annual average P-load reduction ofapproximately 10 to 18 mt/yr. 2,000 acre, 16-ft deep reservoircoupled with a 5,000 acre STA.4 -- --√--32 (LO) In-Lake Dredging Involves removal of phosphorus-contaminated mud sediments fromthe deeper areas of the lake beyond the littoral shelf using innovativetechnologies. Exemplified by the recently initiated demonstrationdredging and habitat restoration project being implemented nearEagle Bay. The area selected for the demonstration project iscurrently covered with mud sediments which prevent the growth of4√√√√Section 7LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20087-29Alternative PlansMMIDManagement Measure MM DescriptionMMLevelAlt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4native aquatic vegetation; therefore,the area has limited habitat value38 C-44 Littoral Project includes creationof a littoral zone of native vegetation to“treat” for water entering the C-44via the S308 can benefit LakeOkeechobee and the St Lucie Estuary4 -- -- -- --40 Lake Hicpochee Project comprises a reservoir and stormwater treatment area along theC-19 and C-43 Canals, degradation of berms, and exotic removal andcontrol. This project could potentially create 55,090 acre feet ofabove ground storage.4 -- -- -- --41 C-43 Distributed Reservoirs Project objectives are to capture excess run-off within the West LakeOkeechobee Watershed which will then be operated to achieve bothenvironmental flows to the Caloosahatchee Estuary and agriculturaldemands in the West Lake Okeechobee Watershed4 -- -- -- --47 Upper Kissimmee/Chain of LakesReservoirSupplying surface water from the Kissimmee valley lakes andtributaries for water supply is considered the most viable water supplyproject in the basin and has been identified priority project with theDistrict. A storage reservoir or ASR is expected to be a componentof 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 thecreek, it would be able to treat loads from the entire drainage basin.4 -- -- -- --60 Fisheating Creek Managed Aquatic PlantSystemsTreatment units consisting of managed aquatic plan systems would beconsidered for siting in this sub-watershed at selected locations. Suchunits would be used in conjunction with source control practices totreat agricultural runoff withhigh phosphorus loads.4 -- -- -- --65 L-65 Culvert to L-8 Tieback Install a high volume(1000+/- cfs) inverted culvert under the C-44Canal from the L-65 Canal to the L-8 Tieback Canal to facilitate themovement of low nutrient water from Stormwater Treatment Areasnorth 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 tomaximize nutrient removal. STAs would be constructed on thefloodplain adjacent to C-38. Some water moving through C-38 wouldbe directed into the STAs but C-38 would remain intact for floodcontrol.4 -- -- -- --73 Central Florida Recharge ProjectSupplying surface water from thelakes and tributaries for aquiferrecharge may offset a portion of the environment impacts projected tooccur and that will limit future use of the Floridan aquifer system.4 -- -- -- --Section 7LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20087-30Alternative PlansMMIDManagement Measure MM DescriptionMMLevelAlt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4Water delivered to these RIB would move to the Floridan aquifer anda small percentage would be blended with reclaimed water forirrigation. Water would be moved to these RIBs only during high lakelevels. Reductions in p-loads would be incidental.74 Indian Prairie Basin Regional STALocated primarily in the Indian Prairie Sub-watershed this featurewould consist of a 6,680 acre STA and a 1,531ac wetlandPreservation/Enhancement Area.4 -- -- -- --75 In-Lake Chemical Treatment Will involve application of chemical treatment technologies insideLake Okeechobee to reduce in-lake TP loads.4 -- -- -- --78 Taylor Creek Wetland Restoration (GrassyIsland)Project would provide for incidental water storage and also reducephosphorus from the runoff; would be sited on District owned lands4 -- -- -- --79 Nubbin Slough Wetland Restoration (NewPalm Dairy)Project would provide for incidental water storage and also reducephosphorus from the runoff; would be sited on District owned lands4 -- -- -- --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 portionof the drainage basin and provide a certain amount of localized loadreduction4 -- -- -- --82 Chemical Treatment in Taylor CreekReservoirAddition of a chemical treatment unit to the proposed LOW ProjectTaylor Creek Reservoir in order to enhance TP load reduction4 -- -- -- --85 Three Lakes WMA Hydrologic Restoration Project is intended to reestablish more natural hydrology and partiallyrestore wetlands on the property. This may provide more temporarywater storage and potential for phosphorus removal.4 -- -- -- --90 Gardner-Cobb Marsh Project would be sited on District owned lands in the UpperKissimmee Sub-watershed and reduce the rate of run-off from thisregion by holding the water higher, as well as, provide incidentalnutrient reductions due to plant uptake from overland flows in themarsh4 -- -- -- --91 Farm and Ranchland Protection ProgramPartnershipVoluntary USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)program that helps farmers and ranchers keep their land inagriculture. The program provides matching funds to State, Tribal orlocal governments and non-governmental organizations to purchaseconservation easements.4√√√√94 Deep Well Injection- C-40 below S-72 Deep-injection well 4 -- -- -- --95 Deep Well Injection- C-43 at Berry GrovesReservoirDeep-injection well4 -- -- -- --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 -- -- -- --Section 7LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20087-31Alternative PlansMMIDManagement Measure MM DescriptionMMLevelAlt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 498 Deep Well Injection- Taylor Creek/NubbinSloughDeep-injection well4 -- -- -- --104 Larson Dairy Lagoon Treatment System(HWTT)Hybrid Wetland Treatment TechnologyTM (HWTT) is an innovativeapproach that combines beneficialattributes of the two top rankednutrient removal technologies, namely wetland treatment andchemical injection. Exemplified by four pilot HWTT systems that arecurrently being tested in the LOW.4√√√√105 Upper Nubbin Slough Tributary TreatmentSystem (HWTT)Hybrid Wetland Treatment TechnologyTM (HWTT) is an innovativeapproach that combines beneficialattributes of the two top rankednutrient removal technologies, namely wetland treatment andchemical injection. Exemplified by four pilot HWTT systems that arecurrently being tested in the LOW.4√√√√106 Upper Mosquito Creek WatershedTreatment System (HWTT)Hybrid Wetland Treatment TechnologyTM (HWTT) is an innovativeapproach that combines beneficialattributes of the two top rankednutrient removal technologies, namely wetland treatment andchemical injection. Exemplified by four pilot HWTT systems that arecurrently being tested in the LOW.4√√√√63 Wastewater/Stormwater Master Plan Project involves assessing, planning, and updatingwastewater/stormwater master plans to address short term and longterm quality and quantity issues dealing with urban stormwaterrunoff. The updated plans will identify specific projects to beimplemented to improve urban wastewater/stormwater quality.Exemplified by the on-going wastewater/master plan update projectsin City of Okeechobee.4√√√√64 Unified Statewide Stormwater Rule Intended to increase the level of nutrient treatment of stormwaterfrom new development and thereby reduce the discharge of nutrientsand excess stormwater volume.4√√√√54 S-154 Basin Deep Injection Well Annual average P-load associated withthe lost water is estimated tobe approximately 9 mt/yr. Located in the S-154 drainage basin thiscluster of deep injection wells would be used to irretrievably pump16,500 ac-ft of runoff into the boulder zone.4 -- --√√92 Clewiston STA Will provide annual average P-load reduction of approximately 2.5mt/yr. 700 acre STA located south of Lake Okeechobee.4 -- --√√113 Taylor Creek STA Projected annual averageP-load reduction is approximately 4 mt.2,000 acre STA located on District owned lands at the Grassy IslandRanch Site in S-191 Basin. Would receive flows from and dischargeto Taylor Creek. Since flows in Taylor Creek, which would be the4 -- -- --√Section 7LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20087-32Alternative PlansMMIDManagement Measure MM DescriptionMMLevelAlt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4primary source of water for this STA, are transient, this STA couldalso treat water from the East Kissimmee Reservoir.111 S-68 STA Will provide approximately 8 mt/yr of P-load reduction on an annualaverage basis. 5,000 acre STA located in the Istokpoga/Indian PrairieSub-Watershed.5 -- --√√110 S-133 Water Quality Treatment Facility A 4-well cluster with a 1,000 ac-ft storage pond to optimize theremoval of flow and well operation.5 -- --√√48 Compartmentalization of Lake Establishing compartments within the Lake to facilitate lake stagemanagement.5 -- -- -- --55 Construction of S-64 Structure on C-37 This project was part of the original design for the C&SF Project. Itwould allow greater flexibility for lake management in the upperbasin. It may be possible to perform draw downs of Lake Tohowithout also drawing down Lake Kissimmee.5 -- -- -- --57 Istokpoga Creek Reservoir Proposed reservoir would create extra storage during times of excesswater. Water could be withdrawn via Istokpoga Canal from eitherLake Istokpoga or the Kissimmee River (under periods of high flow).The reservoir would then serve asa source of water to the KissimmeeRiver, Lake Istokpoga, or downstream water-users during periods ofless abundant rainfall.5 -- -- -- --58 Alternative Water Storage in Indian PrairieRegionMaximize water storage and meet all water supply needs within theregion by limiting discharges to the Lake to when a standard level offlood protection is needed. This system would have the potential toreduce phosphorus loads by nearly 100 percent.5 -- -- -- --67 EAA Flow way Originally suggested in 1993, the concept of the EAA Flow-way is toconvert approximately 120,000 acres of primarily agricultural landinto a natural wetland flow-way that would allow water to flow southfrom Lake Okeechobee to Water Conservation Area 3A (WCA 3A).5 -- -- -- --69 Lower Kissimmee Reservoir One or two reservoir(s) would be constructed on either currentlyunused land owned by the SFWMD or on new lands to be acquired.It would be sized to provide the lesser of either the maximum requiredvolume 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 thepotential to retain water in Pool A as well as remove phosphorus fromIce 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 oflow water levels during droughts to remove 5 -- -- -- --Section 7LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20087-33Alternative PlansMMIDManagement Measure MM DescriptionMMLevelAlt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4phosphorus laden sediments; this would enhance the phosphorusassimilation capacity of sediments in the upper basin lakes.87c Florida Ranchlands EnvironmentalServices Project- full implementationImplementation of this program beyond the ongoing pilot projects5 -- -- -- --88 Chemical Treatment in IstokpogaReservoirAddition of a chemical treatment unit to the proposed LOW ProjectIstokpoga Reservoir in order to enhance TP load reduction5 -- -- -- --89 Chemical Treatment in KissimmeeReservoirAddition of a chemical treatment unit to the proposed LOW ProjectKissimmee Reservoir in order to enhance TP load reduction5 -- -- -- --This page intentionally left blank.

### SECTION 8

ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVAL UATION AND COMPARISONThis page intentionally left blank.Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

8-i TABLE OF CONTENTS

8.0 ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVALUA TION 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 Asso ciated with MM Levels .................................8-27 8.3.1.2 Estimating Uncertainties Associ ated with MM Performance........................8-28

8.4 Identification of the Preferre d 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 an d Local Discharges at S-79.................................. 8-15

8-4 Evaluation Results for the Current and Fu ture 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-lo ad 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 Plan s and Future Base – Caloosahatchee Estuary High Discharge Criteria ................................................................................................. 8-17

8-7 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plan s and Future Base – Caloosahatchee Estuary Salinity Envelope Criteria Not Met ............................................................................... 8-18Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

8-ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

List of Figures (continued)

8-8 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plan s and Future Base – St. Lucie Estuary High Discharge Criteria .......................................................................................................... 8-2 0

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 Pl ans and Future Base – LOSA Demand Cutback

Volumes ........................................................................................................................ . 8-23

8-11 Simulated Performance of Alternative Plan s and Future Base – LOSA/EEA Supplemental

Demands & Demands Not Met...................................................................................... 8-24Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

8-1 8.0 ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND COMPARISON

This section describes the pro cess by which the four alternat ive plans were evaluated and compared to each other and to current and future base conditions, as appropriate. It also includes a description of the proce ss 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 magn itude 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 alternativ e 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 phosph orus 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 Leve l 3, 4, and 5 MMs were estimated using flows, loads, and TP concentrations after the LOPP (SFW MD, 2007) recommended projects were in place ( Table 8-2 ).

Total TP load reduction within each sub-watershe d 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 w ith each alternative plan was then compared to the TMDL mandated TP load reduction to determine shortfalls, if any.Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-2Table 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 East Lake Okeechobee Basins (C-44, L-8) TotalAverage Annual Discharge(Measured) (1991-2005) (ac-ft)954,204378,836187,583299,656249,175224,3685,835149,488109,1342,558,279Annual Average P Conc.(Calculated) (1991-2005) (ppb)7816653763289199139177151163ExistingConditionsAverage Annual P Load(Measured) (1991-2005) (mt)917712423895513320514Owner Implemented BMPs(1)(MM 1 from Table 7-9)7 10 12 2 11 5 0 2 2 41Funded Typical Cost-ShareBMPs(2)(MM 2)0 13 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 31Watershed P Control Projects(3)(MM 53)0 11 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 32Regional Public WorksProjects(4)(MMs 99, 100,EAA Reservoir, C-44Reservoir, Kissimmee RiverRestoration, ECP Diversions)13 7 1 0 0 0 0 21 7 47Typical Cost-Share BMPs thatRequire Future Funding(5)(MM 49 from Table 7-9)8 8 10 3 12 7 0 0 2 39Additional Agricultural BMPs(6)(MM 50 from Table 7-9)7 8 13 3 9 3 0 0 2 36EstimatedPhosphorusReduction(mt)Other Regional Projects(7)(MMs 17, 12a, 18, 19, 93, 16from Table 7-9)0 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 13Total Load Reduction to theLake (mt)13 57 82 0 37 15 0 23 13 239Level 1 and2 ResultingConditionsAdjusted Remaining LoadAbove TMDL* (mt)78 21 42 23 51 39 1 12 8 275Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-3Notes:(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), KissimmeeRiver Restoration(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 forCitrus, 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), Kissimmee ASR (0.1 mt), and theLOER fast-track project - Lakeside ranch STA (8 mt).* To be conservative, where TP reductionswere projected to result in concentrations less than 30 ppb, the remaining load was estimated by multiplying the basinflow 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 Istokpogabasins. While thesereductions are important from the overall long-term restorationperspective, they will have little or no short-term improvementon what is leaving the basins dueto 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. Therefore, reductionsassociated with BMP projects in the Caloosahatchee will primarilybenefit the Caloosahatchee basin itself, this, there are no TP load reductions to the lake.Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-4Table 8-2. P2TP Alternative Plans total phosphorus (TP) load reduction by sub-watershed.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) *** EAA Basins East Lake Okeechobee Basins (C-44, L8) TotalLoad reduction from Level 1and 2 MMs (mt) (From Table8-1)1357820371502313239Load reduction fromremaining Alt 1 MMs (mt)(MMs 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30,31 from Table 7-9)4815036000062Total Load Reduction (mt)1765970731502313301Adjusted Remaining LoadAbove TMDL* (mt)7414262315391128213Alternative#1 LoadReductionManagementMeasures (8)Remaining Concentration(ppb)63291136350143139665767Load reduction from Level 1and 2MM (mt) (from Table 8-1)13 57 82 0 37 15 0 23 13 239Load reduction fromremaining Alt 1MMs (mt)(MMs 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30,31 from Table 7-9)4 8 15 0 36 0 0 0 0 62Load reduction fromremaining Alt 2MMs (mt)(MMs 107, 108, 109 fromTable 7-9)10 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 15Total Load Reduction (mt)23 57 82 3 37 18 0 23 13 316Alternative#2 LoadReductionManagementMeasures (9)Adjusted Remaining LoadAbove TMDL* (mt)65 14 26 20 15 37 1 12 8 198Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-5Sub-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) *** EAA Basins East Lake Okeechobee Basins (C-44, L8) TotalRemaining Concentration(ppb)55 30 113 55 50 133 139 66 57 63Load reduction from Level 1and 2MMs (mt) (from Table 8-1)1357820371502313239Load reduction fromremaining Alt 1MMs (mt)(MMs 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30,31 from Table 7-9)4815036000062Load reduction fromremaining Alt 3MMs (mt)(MMs 54, 110, 111, 112, 61,77, 92 from Table 7-9)00121263103063Total Load Reduction (mt)176510912794602613364Adjusted Remaining LoadAbove TMDL* (mt)74141511981108150Alternative#3 LoadReductionManagementMeasures(10)Remaining Concentration(ppb)633064303030139525748Load reduction from Level 1and 2MMs (mt) (Table 8-1)13 57 82 0 37 15 0 23 13 239Alternative#4 LoadReductionManagementMeasures(11)Load reduction fromremaining Alt 1MMs (mt)(MMs 23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30,31 from Table 7-9)4 8 15 0 36 0 0 0 0 62Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-6Sub-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) *** EAA Basins East Lake Okeechobee Basins (C-44, L8) TotalLoad reduction fromremaining Alt 4MMs (mt)(MMs 54, 110, 113, 111, 114,107, 61, 77, 115, 92 fromTable 7-9)14 0 14 9 1 18 0 3 0 59Total Load Reduction (mt)31 65 111 9 74 33 0 26 13 360Adjusted Remaining LoadAbove TMDL* (mt)60 14 12 14 14 21 1 10 8 154Remaining Concentration(ppb)51 30 52 38 46 78 139 52 57 49Notes:(8)Alternative 1 reductions include Taylor CreekReservoir (2 mt), Brady Ranch STA (5 mt), Paradise Run ASR (1.4 mt), and LOWP projects (54.3 mt) (5%reduction for Upper Kissimmee, 30% for Lower Kissimmee, 20% forTaylor 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 and 22.7 mt from in-lakecirculation), and Fisheating Creek reservoir (2.6 mt from the watershed and 12.9 mt from in-lake circulation). They are additive to Alternative 1reductions.(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), Istokpoga canal RASTA (10mt), FEC RASTA (31.2 mt), and Clewiston STA (2.5 mt). They arealso additive to Alternative 1 reductions, but Alternatives 2 and 3 are independent.(11)Alternative 4 reductions include S-154 deep injection wells (9 mt), S-133 water quality treatment (2.5 mt), Taylor Creek STA (net benefit of 4 mtincluding 6 mt from STA minus 2 mt from reservoir already included in Alt. 1), S-68 STA (8 mt), Istokpoga/Kissimmee RASTA (8.9mt from thewatershed and 28 mt from in-lake circulation), Kissimmee reservoir east (6.5 mt), Fisheating Creek RASTAs and Nicodemus SloughRASTA (18 mt fromthe watershed and 46 mt from in-lake circulation), and ClewistonSTA (2.5 mt). They are also additive to Alternative 1 reductions, but Alternatives 2, 3and 4 are independent.* To be conservative, where reductions were projected to resultin concentrations less than 30 ppb, the remaining load was estimated by multiplying the basinflow 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.However, these reductionswill have little or no short-term improvement on what is leavingthe basins due to lakes' internal buffering effects. Therefore, these load reductions were notcarried 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. Therefore, reductionsassociated with BMP projects in the Caloosahatchee will primarilybenefit the Caloosahatchee basin itself, thus there are no TPload reductions to the lake.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 alte rnative 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 pot ential 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 du ration 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 (NETP A1, NETPA2, NETPA3, and NETPA4) and the future base conditions (NETPFB) with respect to the frequenc y of undesirable extreme low stage events in

Lake Okeechobee.

A score of 100 percent indicates that lake stag es never fell below 10 ft NGVD for 15 weeks or more in a year during the 36-year period of reco rd, which is a desirable condition. A score of 0 percent represents the worst score indicating th e 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 pe rformance 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. A ccordingly, Alternatives 2 and 4 which have total storage capacities in exces s of 900,000 ac-ft and produce the best scores. Compared to the future base conditions, all four alternative plans show ed 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 freque ncy of undesirable extreme high stage events in Lake Okeechobee. A score of 100 percent indicates th at lake stages never exceeds 17 ft NGVD for 11 weeks or more during a si ngle year in the period of record, which is

a desirable condition. A score of 0 percent represents the wo rst score indicating the least

desirable outcome.

Once again, the performance of an individual alternative plan perf ormance 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, Alte rnatives 2 and 4 scor ed the highest and overall all four plans scored highe r than the future base condition.Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-8Figure 8-1. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios – LakeOkeechobee Extreme Low Lake Stage.(Score = 0 if Lake Stage falls below 10 ft foran average of 15 weeks per year or more;Score = 100 if Lake Stagenever falls below 10 ft)Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-9Figure 8-2. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios – Lake Okeechobee Extreme High Lake Stage.(Score = 0 if Lake Stage exceeds 17 ft for anaverage 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 Okeec hobee 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 c onditions and operational practices. Research (Havens 2002) has confirmed that lakes stage should ideally va ry 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, pr omoting 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 frequentl y, the littoral zone is threatened.

Figure 8-3. Lake Okee chobee stage envelope.

The Lake Stage Envelope performance measure (P M) assesses the duration and extent of lake stages (average weekly) that are outside the de sirable 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 stag es do not fall below or above the ecologically desirable envelope. A score of 0 per cent represents a worst score scenario.Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

8-11 Alternative Plans 2 and 4 perfor med the best for this PM because they have large storage capacities that allow them to store or release wate r in order to maintain lake stages within the desirable envelope. Alternative 2 performs bette r 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 stag es compared to the future base condition.

The Lake Okeechobee Minimum Flow and Level (M FL) specifies that wa ter 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 fre quency 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 th e future base condition and the four alternative plans against this PM. The futu re base condition and all four alternative plans comply with the MFL requirement.Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-12Figure 8-4a. Simulated performance of Alternative Plansand Base Scenarios – Lake Okeechobee Stage EnvelopeScore below Envelope.(Score = 0 if Lake Stage falls below the ecologicallydesirable envelope by 1 ftor more on average;Score = 100 if Lake Stage never falls below the ecologically desirable envelope)Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-13Figure 8-4b. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios – Lake Okeechobee Stage EnvelopeScore above Envelope.(Score = 0 if Lake Stage exceeds the ecologically desirable envelopeby 1 ft or more on average;Score = 100 if Lake Stagenever exceeds the ecologically desirable envelope)Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-14Figure 8-5. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios –Number of Times LOK Proposed MinimumWater Level & Duration Criteria Exceeded.(Target: Minimum Level, duration and ReturnFrequency – Water levels in Lake Okeechobee should not fall below 11ft NGVD forgreater 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 frequenc y and duration of harmful freshwater releases into the Caloosahatchee Estuary at the S-79 structure. Large volumes of freshwater releases into the estuary lowe r salinity concentrations and adversely impact abundance and diversity of estuarine flora a nd fauna. Conversely, long periods of zero or extremely low flows

can cause undesirable increases in salinity concentrations.

Mean monthly discharges to the estuary in ex cess 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 occurren ce of such discharges to a fre quency that approx imates 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 altern ative plans and the future base condition. Alternatives with greater storage capacity ar e able to capture and store excess water until conditions allow for non-damaging releases. Theref ore, 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 c ontributions 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 discha rges and local inflows at S-79.

Table 8-3. Comparison of Lake Ok eechobee 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 Okeech obee regulatory discharges>2,800 cfs – This is the number of additi onal months that Lake Okeechobee discharges only is greater than 2,800 cfs.

2. Number of months Caloosahatchee (C-43) Basin>2,800 cfs – Th is is the number of months that runoff originating from within Caloosahatchee Basin is greater than 2,800 cfs.

3. Number of months combined (not indivi dually) Lake Okeechobee and C-43 Basin runoff discharges > 2,800 cfs – This is

the number of months that a combination of runoff from with in 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 Cal oosahatchee 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 re leases 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 Watershe d Protection Plan, which will be prepared separately and implemented, will address problems associated with local discharges into the estuary and recommend soluti ons to address this issue. Th is highlights the fact that to

achieve holistic restoration of the Northern Ev erglades ecosystem, many different initiatives have to converge and complement each other in space and time.

Maintenance of Caloosahatchee Estuar y salinity concentrations at le vels that are conducive to its ecologic health requires maintaini ng 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. Th e capture and storage of excess water during wet conditions helps reduce the need for high discharg es at S-79. The storage of excess water can also contribute toward maintaining minimu m flows during dry conditions. Consequently, alternatives with large storage capacities (Alterna tives 2 and 4) exhibit better performance as

shown in Figure 8-7

.Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-17Figure 8-6. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios –Number of Times Caloosahatchee Estuary HighDischarge Criteria Exceeded.Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-18Figure 8-7. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Base Scenarios – Numberof Times Salinity Envelope Criteria forthe Caloosahatchee Estuary NOT Met.Section 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

8-19 8.1.2.3 St Lucie (C-44) Estuary 1

Another P2TP project objective is to minimize the frequency and duration of harmful freshwater 2 releases to the St Lucie Estuary. Similar to th e situation in Caloosahat chee Estuary, the release 3 of large and untimely volumes of freshwater in to the St. Lucie estuary also lowers salinity 4 concentrations and adversely impact the abundanc e and diversity of estuarine flora and fauna. 5

Maintenance of minimum flows is al so required to avoid undesirable increases in estuary salinity 6

concentrations. 7

8 In addition to discharges from Lake Okeechobee, the St. Lucie Estuary also receives local 9 stormwater discharges from the C-44, C-23, C-24, a nd the Tidal Southfork Basins. The P2TP is 10 only addressing discharges from Lake Okeechobee to C-44. The St Lucie River Watershed 11 Protection Plan will be prepared and implemented as a separate document. The plan will address 12 problems associated with local discharges into the estuary and recommend solutions to address 13 this issue. Cumulatively, mean monthly disc harges (from local runoff plus Lake Okeechobee 14 discharges) to the estuary in excess of 2,000 cfs cause stress to the ecosystem. Mean monthly 15 discharges greater than 3,000 cfs result in severe damage to the estuary. The overall goal is to 16 reduce the frequency of damaging discharges. 17

18 Figure 8-8 compares the simulated performance of the four alternative plans and the future base 19 condition with respect to the number of monthly St. Lucie Estuary mean discharge events in 20 excess of 2,000 cfs and 3,000 cfs. The largest imp rovements are provided by the alternatives 21 which reduce the number of monthly discharge even ts to the estuary in excess of a mean of 3,000 22

cfs. Alternative 2 reduc es the number of these events by almost 25 percent relative to the future 23 base condition. However, many of the mean mont hly flow events over 3,000 cfs were reduced in 24 severity by the other alternatives which ha ve mean monthly flows between 2,000 cfs and 3,000 25 cfs. As a result, the alternat ives did not produce a significant reduction in the number of mean 26 monthly flow events between 2,000 cfs and 3,000 cf s. Extremely large storage volumes (in 27 excess of 2,000,000 ac-ft) would be required to produce significantly improved performance 28 relative to these high discharge PMs. 29

30 Maintenance of salinity concentratio ns in the St Lucie Estuary at le vels that are conducive to its 31 ecologic health requires maintaini ng inflows within a desirable sali nity envelope. The goal is to 32 avoid mean monthly flows less than 350 cfs and 14-day rolling average discharges from 33 exceeding 2,000 cfs. 34

35 Figure 8-9 shows the frequency of low flow events (< 350 cfs) and high flow events caused by 36 local inflows and discharges from Lake Ok eechobee. The future base condition and all 37 alternative plans perform better th an the target of “no more than 31 events in the 36-year period 38 of record with average monthly flows less than 350 cfs.” All alte rnatives reduce the contribution 39 of Lake Okeechobee discharges to maximum flow exceedances compared to the future base 40 condition. Alternatives 2 and 4 provide the best performance because of their large storage 41 capacities. 42Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-20Figure 8-8. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Number of Times St. Lucie Estuary HighDischarge Criteria Exceeded.Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-21Figure 8-9. Simulated performance of Alternative Plans and Future Base – Numberof Times Salinity Envelope Criteria forthe 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 suppl y impact of each alte rnative 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 mo st severe water shortage years. In each of the seven years, the water suppl y cutback volumes were reduced by each of the alternatives

relative to the future base condi tion. The additional storage capac ity of Alternative 2 resulted in the greatest reductions in cutbacks. However, in all but two of the seve n years, the performance of Alternative 4 was comparable to Alternative 2.

Figure 8-11 shows the sources of water supply and th e 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 re duce demands not met as compared to the future

base condition.Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-23Figure 8-10. Simulated performance ofAlternative Plans and Future Base – WaterYear LOSA Demand Cutback Volumes.Section 8LOWCP Phase II Technical PlanFeb 20088-24Figure 8-11. Simulated performance ofAlternative Plans and Future Base– Mean Annual LOSA/EEA SupplementalDemands & 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 manageme nt 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 desirabl e 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 cond ition. These enhancements will result from the completion of the planned C-43, C-44, and EAA reser voirs as part of the Acceler8 Program.

A noteworthy benefit of A lternatives 2 and 4 is a reduction in the in-lake phosphorus load. This is accomplished by the withdr awal of Lake Okeechobee water, reducing the phosphorus

concentration in an STA or re servoir, and then returning wa ter to the lake with reduced phosphorus concentrations. The net result is a re duction in the total phosp horus 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 4 a

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 altern ative 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 Ok eechobee Minimum Flows and Levels criteria are met. All alternatives result in less than 1 event per 6 years with stag es 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 source s 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 perf ormance 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 performa nce of some Level 1 and 2 MMs.

A risk and uncertainty (R&U) analyses was co nducted to qualitativel y 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 mu st be considered so that appropriate risk management appr oaches 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 th at, compared to other alternatives, this measure is the most appropriate fo r 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 comple ted 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 inform ation, 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 unde r the conditions and at the scale being

considered.

• Only conceptual descriptions of the approach have been developed.

• Limited or no coordination with ot her 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 tw o extremes (Levels 1 and 5).

Based on the MM characterization, a level of uncertainty was a ssigned 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 supp orting information. Note that these estimates of uncertainty were subjective and are intended to support re lative 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 Associ ated with MM Performance

Each alternative plan is composed of multiple levels of MMs. An estimate was made of the percent of the total water quali ty 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, alterna tives that derive the majority

of their benefits from Level 4 a nd 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 reducti on performance for each alternative are relatively similar. This is because Level 1 and 2 MMs provid e 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 th e effectiveness of MMs within an alternative plan. If an actual TP load reduction of a MM is less than or gr eater 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 performa nce. Uncertainties in potential TP load reduction performance of individual MMs are re lated to the following factors:

• The proof of concept for th e phosphorus reduction technologySection 8

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

8-29 • The availability of lands

• Accuracy of projected flow volum es and phosphorus concentrations

• Inflow water chemistry

Table 8-6. Relative contributio n of MM levels to total phospho rus (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 stor age 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 st orage 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 condi tions 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 cap acity 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 eff ectiveness 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 alte rnative 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 (T P)-load reduction and storage capacity for each alternative plan.

Alternative Plan TP Load Un certainty Storage Uncertainty

1 21% 17%

2 23% 51%

3 28% 26%

4 27% 47%

Results from this preliminary R&U analysis we re 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 Pref erred 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 Okeechob ee 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 harmfu l 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 re quired to achieve the rest oration goals for Lake

Okeechobee and the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries.

Each alternative was evaluate d for its performance at reducing phosphorus, improving Lake Okeechobee water levels, reducing damaging discha rges to estuaries, and maintaining water supply. It was clear that Alte rnative 1 on its own would not m eet 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 phosphor us inputs to Lake Okeechobee ( Table 8-4 ). Alternative 4 performed the best when balancing the achieve ment of both water quality and water quantity objectives ( Table 8-4 ). It falls short, howev er, 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 la rger storage capacity.

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

Additional features were added to address the phosphorus reducti on 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-sp ecific source controls as well as integrating and optimizing regional projects th at include reservoirs and stor mwater treatment areas. In addition, if necessary, expanded application of ASR and deep well technology, and limited application of chemical treatmen t technologies will be used to fu rther 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 rest oration including CERP and LOER.

• Initially emphasizes lower cost and locally a pplied source control op tions 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 rest oration program through project features such as the BMPs, FRESP, and alternative wate r storage projects.

• Minimizes real estate acquisition requirements by attributing substantia l TP-load reduction to source control options and promoting storag e and treatment on pr ivately owned lands.

• Includes regional projects that will compleme nt 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 ACTIONSThis page intentionally left blank.Section 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-i TABLE OF CONTENTS

9.0 PREFERRED PLAN PROJEC TS 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 C ontrol 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 Protecti on Program Partnership...........................9-10

9.2.1.2.3 Florida Ranchlands Environmenta l 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 C ontrol 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 Implementati on 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-S haring Opportunities............................................. 9-27 9.9.1 Funding Sources..................................................................................... 9-27Section 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 implemen tation stage of the Preferred Plan ...................... 9-26 9-10 Potential funding sources for implemen tation of Preferred Plan features ..................... 9-28Section 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 pr evious action is the requirement to identify both the water quality tr eatment 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 Ph ase II Technical Preferred Plan represents the best blueprint that current technology allows for achieving water quality standards while better managing lake levels. An ex planation 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 provi des 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 feat ures and includes both

structural and non-structural management measures (MMs) and builds upon ongoing treatment and restoration projects that are in the planni ng, design, or construction pha ses. Collectively, all the project features operating together are expect ed to provide necessary improvements in water quality and quantity. All five le vels of MMs are repres ented in the Preferred Plan. The degree of uncertainty around the projected bene fits 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 Ok eechobee Total Phosphorus (TP) TMDL of 140 mt as the water quality goal. To that end, the Pr eferred Plan includes a variety of water quality improvement measures including source control (Best Management Practices and changes in regulatory requirements), stormw ater treatment areas, deep in jection 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 benefi ts 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 quant ity storage goal in the range of 900,000 to 1.3

million ac-ft in order to achieve Lake Okeechobe e levels within a more ecological desirable range and to better manage lake discharges to achieve more desi rable 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 pla nned projects. It is an overall goal that can be achieved through various means in cluding low intensity/local meas ures such as alternative storage and land management activities as well as through more intens ive/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 th at these local features al one 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 appro aches will be necessary and that co-location and integration of these two storage methods may prov ide 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 founda tion for this Preferred Plan to improve water quality and storage. Local proj ect 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 no t require land ac quisition. Projec t features of they type are usually implemented through rules and public education or outreach efforts. Many of these project features are existing on-going pr ograms 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 measur es that can be used on agricultural and urban

lands to ensure that:

• the amount of nutrients used onsite are mi nimized 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 referr ed to as Best Manageme nt Practices or BMPs)

include structural and non-struct ural measures. Structural m easures include creating physical changes in the landscape to rer oute local discharges, erecting fen ces and barriers, and installationSection 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-5 of water control structures. Non-structural source control measur es 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 se veral of them are slated to be expanded to cover new geographic ar eas 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 coor dinating 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 ex ecute 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 Sl ough (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 ba sins) 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 lo ads to Lake Okeechobee by approxi mately 147 mt/yr (see Table 8-1 for more details on BMP reduction). This projec tion 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 wate r flows. These include land development projects that influence stormwater runoff in upl and 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 di scussed 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 dow nstream water quality. Under the existing WODSection 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-6 program, where projects are found to have imp acts, acceptable mitigation will be required for project approval. This program applies to bo th agricultural and non-ag ricultural activities. In addition, the District is in the process of developing an ERP basin rule that will require applicants to provide reasonable assurances th at they will appropriate ly 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 w ith 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 subs equent BMP Programs which are directed to complement the exis ting 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 resear ch and evaluation.

The WOD BMP Program is an on-going program of BMPs implemented by issuing permits for agricultural and non-agri cultural land uses. It is a comp rehensive program of BMP plan approval, verification of implementation through re porting 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 re fining the existing rule criteria to be compatible

with current initiatives and amendments to the statute. The initiatives include:

• Implement a phosphorus source control program u tilizing 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 fo r 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 priori ty areas of water quality concern and BMP optimization, and to provide data to eval uate and enhance performance of downstream

treatment facilities

• Establish a plan for optimizing the combin ed 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 participat e in TP reduction demons tration projects that will provide valuable data for expanding, accelerating, and optimizing the implementedSection 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-7 BMPs to meet water quality objectives and fo r 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 area s identified as water quality priorities and

District resources.

9.2.1.1.2 FDACS Agricultural BMP Programs

Based on directives under the 2000 LOPA, FDAC S has been developing and implementing agricultural BMPs to reduce the move ment 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 FDAC S pursuant to LOPP encourages agricultural producers on greater than 100 acres to implem ent 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 BM Ps to address those challenges.

As a result, FDACS and NRCS have executed an interagency Memorandum of Agreement that commits available federal resources to expedi te conservation planning in the LOW. Funding through this agreement has been us ed to identify, train, and contract with private-sector technical service providers to develop Plans for cow/cal f, citrus, row crop, and other agricultural operations. This effort has significantly in creased Plan development and implementation, including the engineering and design of planned wa ter 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 Pl ans are being developed for an additional approximately 600,000 acres (242,811 ha) of agricultural operations.

Other voluntary FDACS BMP progr ams, 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 Agrono mic Crop BMP programs. FDACS is currently preparing an estimate of the acreage in the LOW with notice of inte nts (NOI) submitted under these programs. Preliminary estimates indicate that more than half of the agricultural acreage in the LOW is currently under non-re gulatory FDACS programs to plan and implement practices to

control offsite movement of TP.

At the current rate of participa tion, all agricultural acr eage in the watershed is expected to be covered either by F.A.C. Rule 5M-3 requi red conservation Plans or other FDACS BMP programs by July 2010 and will have f unctioning BMPs in place by 2015.

9.2.1.1.3 Supplemental Non-Agricultural BMP Programs

In coordination with the Di strict, under LOPP, FDEP is charged with implementing supplemental phosphorus source control program s complementary to existing regulatorySection 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-8 programs in non-agricultural areas. The largest non-ag ricultural contributors of TP loads to Lake Okeechobee are residential developments without stormwater treatment (e.g., yard fertilization, pet wastes, septic tanks, etc.), golf courses, a nd 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 planni ng for stormwater and wastewater, implementing stormwater retrofits, designing la rger urban stormwater projects , and public education. All of

these efforts will continue under the NEEPP.

Additionally, FDEP and the Di strict initiated rule deve lopment in May and June 2007 respectively of a Unified Stat ewide Stormwater Rule. Curre ntly, regulatory requirements governing stormwater treatment are technology-based, and rely primarily upon BMP design criteria that are presumed to achieve a specifi ed level of stormwater treatment. Under the proposed Unified Statewide Stormwater (USS) Rule, FDEP and Florida water managementdistricts 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 si te with natural vegetation, not necessarily existing conditions. Methods for estimating treatme nt efficiency in typical water management BMPs and in low impact design type water mana gement 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 na tural conditions, there by reducing the discharge

of nutrients to the lowest reasonable level for ne w development. The target date for rule adoption is May 2009.

Another statewide program targeting phos phorus 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 urba n 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 hea lthy turfs and lawns. The rule requires that applications rates for phosphorus not exceed an application rate of 0.25 pounds (lbs) P 2 O 5 per 1000 ft 2 per application and not exceed 0.50 lbs P 2 O 5 per 1000 ft 2 per year.

The rule also requires that application rates fo r nitrogen not exceed 0.7 lbs of readily available nitrogen per 1000 ft 2 per application, with no more than 1 lb total N per 1000 ft 2 per application. Under this rule, FDACS expects a 20-25 percent reduction in N and a 15 pe rcent reduction in P in every bag of fertilizer sold to the public. Th e UTF Rule will continue to be enforced under the NEEPP. Note that the UTF represents the cu rrent state of science and will revised by FDEP

research.

9.2.1.2 Land Management Programs

Land management programs are designed to prot ect sensitive environm ental resources from unintended adverse impacts that result from change s in land use or land management practices in the watershed. Several ongoing regulatory prog rams focus on reducing nutrient loads throughSection 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-9 implementation of improved land management pract ices. 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 goal s and objectives. In recognition of the importanc e 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 na tural system restoration goals fo r the South Florida ecosystem. This study reported that two types of lands are ne eded 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 qua ntity, quality, timing and distribution of water necessary to achieve natural system restoration; and

b. “natural lands” on which historical, pre-draina ge water flows and levels will be restored,

such as lands on which sheet flow will be re stored, drained wetlands will be re-hydrated, and/or wetland/upland mosaics will be enhanced and preserved to expa nd the spatial extent of wetlands and natural areas within the Everglades.

Both types of lands are critical to accomplishi ng 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 leve ls will be restored. It analyzed 189,471 acres of unacquired natural lands a nd prioritized 186,087 of those ac res based upon their outstanding

natural attributes and the key role they could play in ecosystem restoration (SFERTF, 2006).

Major land management programs that are curren tly being implemented in the LOW include the following:

9.2.1.2.1 Comprehensive Planning/Land Development Regulations

Land use decisions fall under th e 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 Pla nning agency and is responsible for reviewing local government comprehensive Plans for consis tency with the State’s growth management policies. The FDCA has establis hed processes to allow for input from state agencies, regional Planning councils, water management districts, and other stakeholders regarding local government comprehensive Plans, Plan amendmen ts, and evaluation and appraisal reports. However, some land use changes important to th e 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 a ssistance 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 effo rts. The FDCA works with

these entities to ensure that local decisions consider water resource issues in the LOW such asSection 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-10 promoting low impact design, stormwater mana gement, and water quality protection. The FDCA will continue supporting local govern ment 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. Thes e 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 ar eas, and preserve open space for agriculture and protect natural resources.

This planning technique also contemplates a mi nimal development footprint and a high ratio of conservation/preservation lands to developmen t lands. Within these areas, planning and economic incentives are applied to encourage the implementati on of innovative and flexible planning and development strategies and creative land use planning techniques. This and other land use planning techniques, such as clusteri ng development and transferable development rights, are tools that can facilitate the construc tion 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 Protect ion Program Partnership

The Farm and Ranchland Protec tion Program (FRPP) is a volunt ary USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) program that help s farmers and ranchers keep their land in agriculture. The program provide s matching funds to State, Tr ibal, or local governments and non-governmental organizations to purchase conservation easements. These easements which would remain in agriculture will prov ide water quality and storage benefits.

9.2.1.2.3 Florida Ranchlands Environmen tal Services Project (FRESP)

This program, launched in October 2005, is inte nded to provide a mechanism by which local

landowners can sell environmental services rela ted to water retention, TP load reduction, and wetland habitat expansion to stat e agencies and other willing buye rs. 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 proj ects much quicker and cheaper than government agencies.

• The sale of environmental services will provid e additional income for ranchers, who face low profit margins, and will provide an incentiv e 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 M acArthur 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 implem entation 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 vege tation change to doc ument the level of environmental services provided by ranch level water-management practices.

To date, the following private landowners have agr eed 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-waters hed, 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 th e 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 La ke Istokpoga Sub-watershed, will provide approximately 140 ac-ft of water storag e capacity. Some water quality benefits are expected from this project; thes e 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 be nefits 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 leve l 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 Stor age Facilities

These alternative water storage facilities (AWSFs ) are primarily intended to retain stormwater runoff on site and thereby reduce flow to the regiona l drainage systems. Nutrient load associated with the detained volume of water is also pr evented from leaving th e parcel. AWSFs thus provide both localized water quan tity and water quality benefits in the LOW and contribute to overall improvements in Lake Okeechobee wate r quality and stage management. AWSFs generally require minimal engineering, construc tion, and operation and maintenance efforts and can be sited either on privatel y owned agricultu ral 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 we re identified for siting such fac ilities. These eight facilities have been incorporated into the Preferred Plan. Provisions for identificatio n 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 stor age 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 Reservoi r 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 lo cation. 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 exis ting levee and replacement of

selected water control structures in Arbuckl e Marsh. Stormwater r unoff 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 ex isting 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 with in 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 be nefits 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 fro m 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 AW SF is expected to meet approximately 82 percent of the farm’s irrigation demands. Storin g water on this site will also reduce runoff to Fish Slough. Some water quality improvements are expected from re taining 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 par cel. Some water quality impr ovements are also expected from retaining water on-site; these benefits ha ve not yet been quantif ied. This project is expected to reduce stormwater runoff and e nhance 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 approxi mately 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 wa ter quality improvements are expected from retaining water on-site; these benefi ts have not yet been quantified.

• Sumica – This site would provide approximately 281 ac-ft of storag e 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 propos es 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 improveme nts 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 reha bilitate PL 566 water control structures in the Fisheating Creek Marsh Wate rshed 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 incl udes design, engineering, a nd implementation of a water storage area on 15,129 acres of which a flow age easement exists on the southern most 2,000 acres in an area surrounding Nicode mus Slough near Fisheating Creek.

• Central County Water Control District (CCWCD) Reservoir – This project would provide approximately 4,800 acre-ft of additi onal storage in the LOW. It involves construction and operation of the CCWCD rese rvoir under a cooperativ e agreement betweenSection 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. Cu rrently 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 r unoff. The project includes design, engineering, and implementation of an add itional 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 5 10 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 proj ected 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 Is tokpoga Marsh Improvement District to reduce phosphorus runoff and provide additional storm wate r storage for the 19,209 acre area. The Istokpoga Marsh Improvement District was created in 1962 a nd 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 re habilitation and relocation of internal pump stations. During regulatory releases to the St. Lucie Estuar y irrigation facilities wi ll be utilized to draw excess stormwater into the 3,400 ac re project site. The detenti on of stormwater within the existing ditch system will result in water qu ality improvements thereby promoting water conservation and reducing the volume of su rface water discharge from the site.

• Waste Management St. Lucie Site – This project involves entering into a partnership arrangement to modify borrow areas into mi nor above ground impoundment(s). Preliminary hydrologic investigation is in proces s. 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 pl anned local initia tives that will contribute to

overall flow attenuation and nutri ent load reduction to Lake Ok eechobee. Three local projects are ongoing in the TCNS Sub-waters hed; 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 residentia l 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 Ok eechobee 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 expe cted to provide flood control and water quality benefits. The water quality improvements expected from this flow diversion project have no t yet been quantified.

9.2.2 Regional Features

Although local features are expect ed to provide substantial TP load reductions and some flow attenuation, they are not large e nough in scale to achieve the overa ll Preferred Plan objectives. Therefore, the Preferred Plan includes several larg e structural features that will be implemented on a regional basis. Several of these structural featur es, particularly STAs and storage facilities,

are Level 4 or 5 MMs and theref ore they are conceptual in nature. For planning process preliminary configuration of such features included general sizi ng, sources of water, and location at a sub-watershed scale. Specific proj ect locations were not identified.

There are multiple ways to achieve the storage goal identified in the Preferred Plan; these include alternative water storage, reservoi rs and ASR. Storage as formul ated in this planning process primarily evaluated the use of surface storage re servoirs rather than rely on CERP Lake Okeechobee ASR. The conceptual configuratio n for these storage features is shown in Table 9-

2 . Ongoing Lake Okeechobee ASR Pilots and th e 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 improveme nts 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 loca l features. However, they are expected to provide the remaining load reduction and storag e capacity necessary to achieve the TMDL and improve Lake stage management.

9.2.2.1 Storage

Three stand-alone storage features ar e included in the Preferred Plan ( Table 9-2 ). While these

facilities were modeled and eval uated as surface water reservoirs , the storage benefits derived from these types of projects may also be attain ed 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 curre ntly 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 duri ng 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 ma y 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 Istokpog a/Indian Prairie 29 • Receives flow from andSection 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 Stor mwater 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 eval uated as RASTAs during the pla nning 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 f acilities. As noted prev iously, the results of AST pilots and regional study along with results of the pr oposed 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 P referred 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 fa cilities 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 he lp meet the storage goal of the Preferred Plan. Information from Lake Okeechobee ASR pilots and the ASR Regional Study will help determineSection 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-18 the mix of surface and subsurface storage need ed to better manage Lake Okeechobee water

levels.

9.2.2.5 Deep Injection Wells

One deep injection well is included in the Prefer red Plan; feasibility of additional deep injection

well facilities will be evaluate d during planning and design.

S-154 Basin Deep Injection Well – This proposed 4-well cluste r 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 singl e 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 wa s included in the NERSM modeling.

Table 9-5. Location, water storage, and TP load reduction of P referred 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/NubbinSlough Subwatershed 5,400 (6 MGD) 1.2 • Assessment and eventual reactivation of the TCNS ASR

system

• One 6 MGD well system isproposed adjacent to the L63N Canal

9.2.3 Other Projects

The Preferred Plan includes several other projec ts 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 Prefe rred 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 natu ral bottom, which then promotes re-growth of native vegetation once the lake levels return to normal.

Dredging – Innovative dredging techniques are curre ntly 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/Kissi mmee 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 specifica lly 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 Scrubbe r® Nutrient Recovery Facility – This ongoing project is a scaled-up demonstration of HydroMentia’s proprietary wate r 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 draina ge basin; (2) provide secondary enhancement of water quality associated with the targ eted 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 Gr assy 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 ranke d 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 successf ul, other locations will be evaluated for application of this technology.

Chemical Treatment – The Preferred Plan includes selectiv e application of chemical treatment using alum salts to achieve the TP load reduc tion required to reach the TMDL. If alum isSection 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-20 applied, this chemical treatment w ill 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 im plementation of the chemi cal treatment technology.

9.2.3.3 Wetland Restoration

Restoring degraded wetlands adds to the ecosy stem’s natural ability to trap flows and contaminants. Two wetland restoration proj ects are included in the Preferred Plan.

Paradise Run Wetland Restoration – Approximately 3,730 acres of degraded wetlands will be restored as part of this proj ect at the ecologically significan t confluence of Paradise Run, Kissimmee River oxbows, and Lake Okeechobee. Th is 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/Catfis h Creek is located at

the southern end of Lake Hatc hineha on District /FDEP owned lands. The proposed restoration project would include hydrologic re storation of Catfish Creek and the creation of a wetland that can potentially hold up to one foot of wate r in the Upper Kissimmee Sub-watershed.

9.2.3.4 Miscellaneous Projects

Other miscellaneous projects that are expected to contribute to ove rall NEEPP goals and objectives include the following:

Florida Power and Light Martin Cooling Pond – This feature will expand currently available storage capacity at an exis ting 7,000 acre impoundment located at FP&L’s Martin County Facility. The impoundment has a current ma ximum 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 th e 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 su b-basin because the original Pr eferred 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 dur ing the implementation stage through a feasibility study.

9.3 Preferred Plan Real Estate Requirements

Specific locations for some Preferred Plan featur es have already been determined (Level 1, 2, and 3 MMs); while for other project features (Level 4 and 5 MMs) lo cations have been identified only to the sub-watershed level. Land acquisitio n needs will be developed over time through theSection 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 de fine the real estate requirements.

Results from studies and pilot projects that te st 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 be tter manage Lake Okeechobee water levels. Utilization of ASR for storage requires signi ficantly 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 AS R and other project features.

During Process Development and Engineering stage, conceptual planning will be conducted to further evaluate project siting a nd real estate acquisi tion 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 i ndividual features will occur over a period of time. State and District-owned lands would be preferenti ally evaluated for siting Preferred Plan project features. However, many of the existing State- and District-owned acreag es 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 necessa ry to achieve the constructi on 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 projec ts features included in the Preferred Plan are likely to require some level of operation and ma intenance (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 efficien t, effective, and safe manner. The term “operations and maintenance” collectively refe rs 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 machin ery or other structural elements as needed to restore complete operability of the management meas ure – 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 replacem ent, 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 syst em will be utilized to provide the data necessary to measure the perfor mance 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, Flor ida Statutes, and future, additional TMDL’s set forth for other contributing pollutants to th e surface water resources of the Lake Okeechobee watershed, are appropriate foundatio ns for achieving restoration. The District will utilize the current monitoring base and pr ovide any project specific reso urces needed to document the effectiveness of phosphorus control efforts in meeting Lake Okeechobee watershed TMDL’s and to assure compliance with al l future permit requirements.

The District maintains and/or provides funding for a well estab lished and comprehensive water quality monitoring network within the boundaries of the geographical area identified in the

Preferred Plan. This network consists of ove r 325 individual locations where water quality information is collected. This network provi des water quality data used for the following

initiatives:

• LOPA-Watershed (including Lake Is tokpoga) and In-Lake Management

• LOPA Lake Okeechobee Operating Permit

• Lake Okeechobee Watershed Assessment (WOD Rule)

• CERP – Critical Project Permit Requireme nts, Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project Assessment, and the Restoration Coordina tion 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 in tegrated with the hydrologic monitoring network and can now identify pollutant loadings at stru ctures discharging into Lake Okeechobee and at major tributary structures throughout the watershed. The District will con tinue to leverage the existing water quality and hydrologic monitoring networks, wherever pos sible, to satisfy watershed based and project sp ecific monitoring requirements.

Biological monitoring needs will be integrated with the RECOVER program efforts within the watershed, will continue to support the Lake Ok eechobee Conceptual Ecological Model and willSection 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-23 also be determined on a proj ect specific basis when perm it requirements for biological monitoring are identified.

All current and future water quali ty data collection, an alysis, validation, management and storage

will be conducted in accordance with the FD EP 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 Environmen tal Monitoring Coordination Team (EMCT) to critically review and evaluate a ll new monitoring requests to ensure permit compliance, scientific validity and efficiency. Any future monito ring requirements associ ated with the Lake

Okeechobee Watershed Protection Pl an will be subject to revi ew 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 a pprovals 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 effo rt. 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 th e physical conditions that exist at the project site and surrounding area. During the Project De velopment & 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 pr ocess to minimize the potential for significant permit-related project delays.

Federal and state permits, and potential permitting i ssues, that are likely to be encountered for the types of project featur es contained in the Preferred Plan are described in Appendix D

.

9.7 Preferred Plan Implementation

The Preferred Plan calls for an iterative, ad aptive 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 wa ter 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 9 9 Projects

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 Implemen tation 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 a nd Works of the District rule revisions;

• Initiating/completing implementation of approxi mately 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 Fl oridan Aquifer groundwater model;

• Completing implementing 65 million gallons pe r day of Aquifer Storage and Recovery

storage;

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

• Reducing phosphorus loads to Lake Okeec hobee 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 Stat e, while CERP costs are eligible for up to a fifty percent cost share with the federal government. It is an ticipated 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 CE RP 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 a nd SFWMD funding in advance of fe deral 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 im plementation 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 ha ve 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 ev en it constructi on period goes beyond the initial implementation stage

• LOFT projects included are eligible for federa l cost share, however those funds will be needed in advance of the CERP pr oject 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 inflationSection 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-27 - 9% annual- Construc tion inflation

• Low cost estimate based upon the following:

- 6% annual- Real Estate inflation

- 2% annual- Construc tion 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 refineme nts 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 a nd reduce the uncertainty associated with cost

estimates. Cost estimates for the Mid-Term Im plementation Stage will be provided in the 2010 Preferred Plan update.

9.9 Funding Sources and Cos t-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 le gislation provides a de dicated 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 th e Florida legislature allocated $100 million from the Everglades Trust Fund (ETF) to the initiat e implementation stage of this Preferred Plan. This is intended to be a recurring source of f unding 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 landowne rs and local governments, as well as State and Federal grant programs

The rate of implementation for non-CERP project s 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 fr om federal government agencies (USACE, DOI, USDA, etc.) local governments, tribal commun ities, and private landowners. Also, it isSection 9

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

9-28 anticipated that once the Comprehensive Everglad es Restoration Plan’s LOW Project is fully authorized by the Congress, the federal govern ment will honor it previous commitment to provide fifty percent cost sharing on a series of reservoirs and st ormwater treatment areas in the

Lake Okeechobee Watershed.

Table 9-10. Potential funding sources for im plementation 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 - Fe deral 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 ac quisition by non-Federal entities Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund Act Program (Fish and Wildlife Service) To provide grants to States for R ecovery Land Acquisition. (There is additional funding for Habitat Conservation Fund Land Acquisition Grants.) Grant programs that may be used for land acquisi tion 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 acquisi tion 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 w ildlife 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 acqui sition 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 Program s (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 prot ect the environment. Local governments designate Stewardship areas within their Comprehensive Plans and credits ar e 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, wate r resources and important wildlife

habit.

NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Green Horizon Land Trust, Inc. To preserve en vironmentally valuable or sensitive lands and open space areas in and around the Ce ntral 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 prior ity 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 ha bitat, 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 an d communities create a vision for conservation, raise funds for conservation and comple te 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 fish eries, 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 Implementati on 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 appropria te 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 Me asures (beyond 2015), will include continued implementation of previous measures and c ontinued implementation of storage through appropriate combination of storage methods ( Table 9-8 ). See Section 7 for additional

information on MMs.

Table 9-6. Initial Implemen tation 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 Envir onmental 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 REVISIONSThis 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 C ontrol 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, Re visions, and Reporting.................................................10-6

10.2.3 Public Involvement ............................................................................................ 10-7 10.2.4 Force Majeure .................................................................................................... 10-7This 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 th at 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 legislati on 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 f eatures will begin in 2008 and continue throughout the Plan implementation stages. During im plementation, 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 ope rational. 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 n ecessary, based on evaluati on 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. Everglad es Protection Area Tribut ary Basins Long-Term Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals), it is anticipated that th is procedure will be borne out through Process Development and Engineering. The recommendations for Process Development and Engineering (PD&E) are described in this se ction. A description of the strategy for plan refinement, revision, and repor ting 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 w ill 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, quan tity, timing, and distribution of water and achievement of water quality standards will involve an adaptive management approach, whereby the best available information is us ed 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 nece ssary 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 Pr oject 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 synchr onized with CERP implementation schedules.

• LOW Tributary TMDLs may influe nce 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-eff ectiveness of implementation

• Modification of existing analytic al and monitoring tools, and

• Development of new analyt ical 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 le vel to maximize water quality improvements to meet the lake’s TMDL goal of 140 mt/yr. Specifi cally, the project will update input data sets; add an enhanced sub-model to better represent in ternal lake processes in the upper chain of lakes; refine and integrate hydrodynamic modeli ng and water quality tools; and evaluate the

effectiveness of the field level BMPs and the basin/regional level phospho rus 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 Si mulation 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 Caloosahatch ee and St. Lucie estuaries, were formulated, quantified and analyzed. RSM refinement would, then, incorporate updat ed data sets, more rigorous channel routing and poten tially mesh-based representa tion 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. Lu cie Estuary (e.g. C23/C24, Ten-Mile Creek, South Fork, etc.). The additi onal model extent and resolution in the hydrologySection 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. Su b-regional as well as localized performance measures will also be possible due to this effo rt. Further refinement to the operational package for Lake Okeechobee may also be required to re present 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 effort s 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 (B MP) Research and Refinement

• Stormwater Treatment Area In tegration and Refinement

• Lake Okeechobee ASR Pilots and Regional Study

10.1.2.1 BMP Research and Refinement

Several uncertainties exist in estimating BMP perf ormance. 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 j udgment 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 pr ovides 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 a ssist in determining how STAs can effectively treat water over time. Flow, water quality, vegeta tion, and soil data may all be co llected on a routine basis, and used to understand removal performa nce of the STAs, and the analys is and interpretation of this data is intended to form the basis for potential modifications to the config uration or operation of STAs if it is determined that further water qua lity improvements within th e 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, play s an important role attenuating high and low Lake Okeechobee levels by storing water from La ke Okeechobee when lake levels are high and releasing water back to Lake Okeechobee when la ke levels are declini ng. 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 y ears of operations. These pilots and the Regional Study will provide information on the magnitude that ASR could be feasibly implemented in theSection 10

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

10-4 vicinity of Lake Okeechobee as well as the ope rational 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 pot ential 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 inve stigate available information on chemical treatment technologies that have recently been tested for reducing to tal phosphorus loads in stormwater runoff. Currently ther e 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 wate r treated and level of treatment desired.

The location of chemical addition (pre treatmen t 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 result s 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) co mbines beneficial attributes of the two commonly used nutrient removal systems, name ly treatment wetland and chemical injection systems. The technology capit alizes on many of the positive attributes of treatment wetlands (effective N and suspended solids removal), a nd on the effective P removal capability of chemical additive systems. The use of chemi cal 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 w ithin the reaction chamber, and can be removed later, if desired.

A proposed HWTT feasibility study will evaluate th e technical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of implementing this technology within the LOW. Th e 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 framew ork and road map to follow that will result in progressive improvements in phosphorus loadin g to Lake Okeechobee and additional storage that will improve Lake Okeechobee’s operating leve ls 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 significantSection 10

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

10-5 amount of more detailed planning, design and en gineering will be necessary prior to project implementation.

In addition, the results of other f easibility efforts will be used to help meet the Preferred Plan’s objectives in as cost effective a manner as possi ble. Studies and pilot pr ojects that test and evaluate various water quality treatment technol ogies 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 al so 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 St orage features will also continue.

Level 4 and 5 features of the Pref erred Plan are those that have th e least detail and have not been sited at this time. Therefore, for these features the initial stages of mo re 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 th eir utilization for water quality and surface storage. This conceptual planning may be perf ormed on a site-specific basis; however, most other planning will be conducted on a broader s ub-watershed scale. In compliance with the NEEPP legislative requirements, the siting analys es 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 proce ss will also evaluate known issues in the LOW such as those related to siting of project f eatures 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 cultu rally 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 hydrologi c data, and adaptive management will be prepared by the Coordinating Agencies. In addition, other agencies and the public will have the opportunity to provide inpu t to the Coordinating Agencies in developing proposed changes through numerous public foru ms. A process for updating and revising the Plan throughout the various implemen tation 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 re visions (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 Agen cies for the project;

• Potential for the revision to impact the inte nt and purpose of the Ph ase II Technical Plan;

• Revision may require SFWMD Governing Board approval.

The classification of the revision will not necessa rily 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 fo r updating the Plan and reporting:

• Monthly Interagency Coordinati ng Meetings – this forum is used to discuss progress of implementation, review new information and da ta, proposals for revisions (minor and major) along with supporting documentation, a nd to seek review and comments;

• Semiannual Coordinating Agency Review- new information compiled as a result of the Interagency Coordinating Meeti ngs and other agency and pub lic input will be reviewed by the South Florida Water Management District, Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Se rvices to determine plan revisions that may be necessary;

• Annual Report in the South Florida Envir onmental Report (SFER) – the SFWMD will submit the required Annual Report in the Sout h Florida Environmental Report (SFER) (a.k.a. Consolidated Water Management District Annual Report) to the Department of Environmental Protection, the Governor, the Pres ident 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 recommende d 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 de scription 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 propos ed 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 fundi ng necessary to implement those projects

• Every three years the SFW MD in cooperation with the coordinating agencies will formally update, revise and submit the protecti on 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 w ith the following groups:

• Monthly Interagency Coordinati ng Meetings – this forum is used to discuss progress of implementation, review new information and da ta, proposals for revisions (minor and major) along with supporting documentation, and to seek review and comments from the coordinating agencies, stakehol ders, 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 Bo ard on a variety of environm ental restoration and water resource management issues. The WRAC al so serves as a forum for improving public participation and decision-making on water resour ce issues. These meetings will be used to discuss progress of implementation and seek inpu t 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 revisi ons will be discussed as appropriate. This forum provides an opportunity for input from st akeholders as well as the general public ;

• Other public meetings as necessary.

10.2.4 Force Majeure

Extraordinary events or circumstances beyond th e 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, hu rricane, or other natura l disaster) as well as unavoidable legal barriers or restraints, includ ing litigation of permits for individual Plan projects.This page intentionally left blank.

### SECTION 11

REFERENCESThis 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 S outh Florida.” P. Bizier and P. DeBarry (ed.). Proceedings

of the World Water and Environmenta l Resources Congress 2003. ASCE (CD)

Ali, A. and Abtew, W. 1999. “Regional Rainfa ll Frequency Analysis for Central and South

Florida”. Technical Publica tion , WRE #380. South Florida Wate r Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.

Allen, R. G., et al. 2005. “The ASCE Standard ized Reference Evapotranspiration Equation.”

ASCE Publications.

Bottcher, A.B. 2006. Phosphorus Reduction Perfor mance and Implementation Costs under BMPs and technologies in the Lake Okeechobee Protecti on 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 relationshi ps in Lake Okeechobee as determined by remote-sensing. J.

Plankton Res. 16: 1117-1135.

Chamberlain, R. H., D. E. Haunert, P. H. Do ering, K. M. Haunert, and J. M. Otero. 1995. Preliminary estimate of optimum freshwater infl ow to the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Florida. Technical report, South Florida Water Manage ment District, West Palm Beach, Florida.

Chamberlain, R. H. and P. H. Doering. 1998a. Fres hwater 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 Char lotte Harbor National Estuary Program, Technical Report No. 98- 02. Washington, D.C.

Chamberlain, R. H. and P. H. Doering. 1998b. Pr eliminary estimate of optimum freshwater inflow to the Caloosahatchee Estuary: A res ource-based approach, p. 121-130. In S.F. Treat (ed.), Proceedings of the 1997 Ch arlotte Harbor Public Confer ence and Technical Symposium. South Florida Water Management District and Charlotte Har bor 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. Chemi cal and biological i nvestigation of Lake Okeechobee January 1973 – June 1974. Technica l 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 Develo pment for Fully-Restored Kissimmee River Conditions.” Memorandum dated June 29, 2007.

EarthTech, 2007b. “KBMOS Draft Operating Criter ia 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 Wa ter Management District, West Palm Beach,

Florida.

Fan, A., 1986. “A routing model for the Uppe r Kissimmee Chain of Lakes.” Technical

Publication 86-5. Water Resources Division. South Florida Water Ma nagement 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 Ki ssimmee River and Fisheating Creek. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FDOT. 1999. Florida Land Use and Cover Classificat ion System Manual. Florida Department of Transportation.

Federico, A.C., K.G. Dickson, C.R. Kratze r and F.E. Davis. 1981. Lake Okeechobee water quality studies and eutrophicat ion 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 Manageme nt 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 la ke (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 Re servoir Management 18: 285-292.Section 11

LOWCP Phase II Technical Plan Feb 2008

11-3 Hall, C.A. 1991. Lake Okeechobee Supply-Side Mana gement Plan, Internal report. Operations and Maintenance Department, South Florida Wa ter 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 subtropi cal lake in Florida, USA. Aquatic Botany 78: 67-82.

Havens, K.E., D. Fox, S. Gornak, C. Hanl on. 2005. Aquatic vegetation and largemouth bass population responses to water level variati ons in Lake Okeechobee, Florida (USA). Hydrobiologia 539(1): 225-237.

Hiscock, J.G., C. S. Thourot, J. Zhang. 2003. Phos phorus budget – land use relationships for the northern Lake Okeechobee watershed, Fl orida, Ecological Engineering 21:1

Hoffacker, V. A. 1994. Caloosahatchee River submerged grass obser vation during 1993. W. Dexter Bender and Associates, Inc. Lette r-report and map to Chip Meriam, SFWMD.

Irizarry-Ortiz, M. M., Said, W., Trimble, P., Tr imble, B., Brown, M., Ali A., Obeysekera, J., Tarboton, K., Newton, T., 2007. “Estimation of L ong-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. Paye ro, 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, a nd I.A. Walter. 2003. Comparison of reference evapotranspiration calculations as part of the ASCE standardiza tion effort. J. Irrig. and Drain. Eng. (ASCE) 129)6):440-44.

James, R.T., B.L. Jones and V.H. Smit h. 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 La ke. 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 biol ogical conditions of Lake Okeechobee, Florida 1969-1970. Open File report 71006, Unite d States Geological Survey.

Koebel, J.W. Jr. 1995. An historical perspectiv e on the Kissimmee River restoration project. Restoration Ecology 3:149-159.

Maceina, M.J. 1993. Summer fluctuations in pla nktonic chlorophyll a concentrations in Lake Okeechobee, Florida: the influence of lake le vels. Lake and Reservoi r 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 a nd Management [SWIM] Plan for Lake Okeechobee, West Palm Beach, Florida.

SFWMD. 2000a. Lower East Coast Regional Wate r Supply Plan, Planning Department, South Florida Water Management Distri ct, West Palm Beach, Florida.

SFWMD. 2000b. Technical documentation to suppor t development of mini mum flows and levels

for the Caloosahatchee River and Es tuary. West Palm Beach, Florida..

SFWMD. 2000c. Minimum Flows and Levels for Lake Oke echobee, the Everglades, and the Biscayne Aquifer. South Florida Wa ter Management District, Florida

SFWMD. 2002a. Technical Documentation Report to Support Development of Minimum Flows

and Levels for the St Lucie River an d Estuary, West Palm Beach, Florida.

SFWMD. 2002b. Minimum Flows a nd Levels for the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary. West Palm Beach, Florida.

SFWMD. 2002. Surface Water Improvement and Ma nagement (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 Restora tion Natural Lands Report. Prepared by the South Florida Ecosystem Restora tion 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 Pr ogram, Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan Evaluation Report, West Palm Beach, Florida.

SFWMD. 2008. Draft South Flor ida Environmental Report, We st 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 Mexi co. Environmental Mana gement 22 (4): 547-562.

Smith, M., 1991. "Report on the expert cons ultation on procedures for revision of FAO guidelines for prediction of crop water requirement s." 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. Arch iv 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 Envi ronmental 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 differe nce between rainfall and potential evaporation

in Florida.” Journal of American Wa ter Resources Associ ation, 34(1), 149-157.

Volety, A. K., S. G. Tolley and J. T. Wins tead. 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 Flor ida 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, To hopekaliga, 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. Po tential phosphorus load reductions under the Lake Okeechobee regulatory progra m. Journal of American Water Resources Association, 38(6):

1613-1624.

Zhang, J, R.T. James, G. Ritter, and B. Shar fstein. 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. ChemicalSection 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 Hydrobiolog ie, Special Issue Advances in Limnology

45:241-246.