January 2009 Florida Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services

Caloosahatchee River

Watershed Protection Plan

Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

Protection Plan 

January 2009

Prepared by:

South Florida Water Management District 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

Consulting Services Provided by: 

Jordan, Jones & Goulding 

 Acknowledgements 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Coordinating Agencies appreciate the active participation and many 

contributions of the following local governments, organizations and agencies 

toward development of the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan: 

Lee County 

Hendry County 

Glades County 

City of Sanibel 

City of Cape Coral 

City of Fort Myers 

City of Fort Myers Beach 

City of LaBelle 

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program 

East County Water Control District 

Lee County Hyacinth Control District 

University of Florida- IFAS 

Florida Gulf Coast University 

Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation 

Conservancy of Southwest Florida 

The Nature Conservancy 

Audubon of Florida 

Audubon of Southwest Florida 

Collier County Audubon Society 

Sierra Club 

Riverwatch 

Gulf Citrus Growers Association 

PURRE Water Coalition 

Southwest Florida Watershed Council 

 

 Executive Summary 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan (preferred Plan) was developed by the 

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in cooperation with the Florida 

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

Consumer Services (FDACS), Lee County, and other affected counties and municipalities – 

along with a diversity of other stakeholder and public input. 

Similar to the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project Phase II Technical Plan, a 

comprehensive and systematic, multi-agency process was implemented to develop the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan. One of the first steps in this plan development 

process was to inventory existing and planned restoration programs and projects (e.g., 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan) and determine the cumulative benefit provided by 

those initiatives. The cumulative benefit was then compared to the identified objectives of the 

watershed protection plan to determine if gaps still existed and whether additional projects or 

programs would be necessary. Key identified objectives include: 

• Reducing nutrient loads to meet any adopted Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). It 

should be noted that TMDLs for nutrients are currently under development by FDEP; 

hence, an interim goal to “maximize reductions in nutrient loads to the estuary” was 

used for plan development. 

• Reducing the frequency and duration of undesirable salinity ranges in the estuary while 

meeting other water related needs such as water supply and flood protection. 

A set of four alternatives was developed and reviewed. Alternatives were evaluated for nitrogen 

load removal, phosphorus load removal and water quantity performance. The alternatives were 

formulated with input from an interagency working team. The resulting Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Protection Plan combines the Watershed Construction Project, Watershed Pollutant 

Control Program and Watershed Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program into a 

comprehensive approach that best meets the legislative goals. 

The preferred Plan identifies the best combination of watershed storage and water quality 

projects needed to help improve the quality, timing and distribution of water in the natural 

ecosystem. More specifically, the preferred Plan includes the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West 

Basin Storage Reservoir, best management practices (BMPs) and regulatory programs, regional 

water quality projects with an emphasis on nitrogen reduction, additional storage in the 

freshwater basins and local water quality/quantity projects. 

Working in concert with the expected results from implementing the Lake Okeechobee 

Watershed Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan, the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

Protection Plan includes: 

• Implementation of best management practices on more than 430,000 acres of agricultural 

lands and 145,000 acres of urban lands; 

• Completion of proposed regulatory rule revisions; 
 Executive Summary 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2

• Construction of approximately 36,000 acres of reservoirs and 15,000 acres of Stormwater 

Treatment Areas (STAs) and Water Quality Treatment Areas; 

• Potential reduction of total phosphorus loads to the Caloosahatchee Estuary by 166 

metric tons per year (39 percent) and total nitrogen loads by 1,840 metric tons per year 

(38 percent); 

• Restoration of more than 2,000 acres of wetlands within the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed; and 

• Provision of approximately 400,000 acre-feet of water storage within the Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed (in addition to the 900,000 acre-feet of identified storage needs in the 

Lake Okeechobee Watershed). 

The preferred Plan also includes recommendations to expand existing estuarine and watershed 

monitoring programs and to initiate five applied research projects to track progress towards 

achieving the plan’s objectives. Total phosphorus and total nitrogen load reduction performance 

will be revisited once the TMDLs are formally adopted by FDEP, which will provide specific 

loading rates, compliance locations, and compliance methodology. 

As required by the legislation, the preferred Plan avoids impacts to other water-related needs of 

the region and actually improves water supply by reducing the frequency of unmet irrigation 

demands and the frequency and volume of Lake Okeechobee Service Area cutbacks. 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan meets the intent of the legislative directive 

by providing significant nutrient load reductions and decreases in damaging local discharges to 

the estuary; building upon existing and planned programs and projects; minimizing real estate 

acquisition requirements by promoting the involvement of private landowners as partners and 

emphasizing the use of publicly-owned lands; and accentuating both cost-effective local features 

and select regional projects. 

Implementation will be based on a phased-approach. Phase I includes projects initiated or 

constructed between 2009 and 2012, followed by Phase II projects initiated between 2013 and 

2018. The Long-Term Implementation Phase will include projects initiated beyond 2018. 

The preferred Plan includes many existing projects and programs and assumes these efforts will 

continue; therefore, a variety of federal, state, and local funding sources will be used. Cost 

estimates, potential funding sources, and cost assumptions are provided below for each preferred 

Plan component included in Phase I (with the exception of urban BMPs where the costs reflect 

full implementation with no phasing. Schedules for urban BMP implementation will be 

addressed in the Basin Management Action Plan development process). Costs for each 

progressive phase of implementation will be developed as more detailed project designs and 

information from various projects and studies are available. 

Phase I implementation cost estimates: 

• Watershed Pollutant Control Program 

-- Agricultural BMPs: $3.3-$4.0 million from state, SFWMD and/or local funds 

-- Urban BMPs: $663-$809 million from state and local funds (total – no phasing) 
Executive Summary 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3

• Watershed Construction Project

-- Regional Projects: 

CERP - $524-$781 million; 50:50 cost-share state and federal funds 

Non-CERP - $117-175 million from state, SFWMD, and/or local funds 

-- Local Projects: $15 million from state funds 

• Watershed Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program 

-- $5.2 million in state and local funds 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan is based on the best available information 

to date – incorporating agricultural and urban best management practices to reduce pollutants at 

the source and “green technologies” to help remove excess nutrients and improve water quality. 

As additional data and understanding of the dynamics of the watershed are developed and 

analyzed, plan features may be modified. Plan revisions will be included in the three-year plan 

updates, as required by the legislation. This approach allows for maximum flexibility for 

implementing proposed and additional management measures to achieve any adopted nutrient 

TMDLs, desirable salinity ranges, flow regimes and related restoration goals for the 

Caloosahatchee River and Estuary. 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan Boundary and Sub-Watersheds 

 Table of Contents 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

1. WATERSHED HISTORY AND PREFERRED PLAN HIGHLIGHTS............................ 1-1 

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

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

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

5. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (TMDLs) ............................................................. 5-1 

6. CALOOSAHATACHEE RIVER WATERSHED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT............ 6-1 

 6.1 MANAGEMENT MEASURES ................................................................................ 6.1-1 

6.2 WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS METHOD......................................................... 6.2-1 

6.3 WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS METHOD AND BASE CONDITION 

CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................................................... 6.3-1 

6.4 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS...................................................... 6.4-1 

6.5 ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND COMPARISON ............................ 6.5-1 

7. CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED POLLUTANT CONTROL 

 PROGRAM......................................................................................................................... 7-1 

8. CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED RESEARCH AND WATER QUALITY 

MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY ........................................................................ 8-1 

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

10. LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................... 10-1 

APPENDICES 

A – Performance Measure and Performance Indicator Fact Sheets 

B – Management Measure Tool Box and Fact Sheets 

C – Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model 

D – Nutrient Loading Rates, Reduction Factors and Implementation Costs Associated with 

BMPs and Technologies 

E – Caloosahatchee River Watershed Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program 

F – Plan Operations & Maintenance, Permitting, and Monitoring 

G – Potential Funding Sources 

H – Agency and Public Comments and Responses 

 List of Abbreviations 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

ii 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

ac acre 

ac-ft acre-feet 

AFSIRS Agricultural Field Scale Irrigation Requirement Simulation 

ASR aquifer storage and recovery 

BMAP Basin Management Action Plan 

BMP best management practice 

BOD biological oxygen demand 

BOD5 5-day biochemical oxygen demand 

CBASE Current Base 

CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

CESWQ Caloosahatchee Estuary Water Quality Monitoring 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CH3D Curvilinear Hydrodynamics 3-Dimensional 

CIP Capital Improvement Plan 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DO dissolved oxygen 

DON dissolved organic nitrogen 

DTKN dissolved total Kjeldahl nitrogen 

ECAL East Caloosahatchee 

ECWCD East County Water Control District 

EFDC Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ERC Environmental Regulation Commission 

ERP Environmental Resource Permit 

ET evapotranspiration 

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code 

FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FDER Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 

FDOH Florida Department of Health 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FLUCCS Florida Land Use, Covers, and Forms System 

F.S. Florida Statutes 

ft feet 

FWRA Florida Watershed Restoration Act 

ha hectares 

HIS Habitat Suitability Index 

HSPF Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran 

IRL-S PIR Indian River Lagoon-South Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and 

Environmental Statement 

km kilometer 

km2

 square kilometer 

LDR Land Development Regulations 

lb/yr pounds per year 
 List of Abbreviations 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

iii 

lb/ac/yr pounds per acre per year 

LCH Lower Charlotte Harbor 

LOER Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery 

LOFT Lake Okeechobee Fast Track 

LOPA Lake Okeechobee Protection Act 

LORSS Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Study 

LOSA Lake Okeechobee Service Area 

LOP2TP Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan 

LOWQM Lake Okeechobee Water Quality Model 

LOWSM Lake Okeechobee Water Shortage Management 

m meter 

m

2 square meter 

MGD million gallons per day 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

mi mile 

mi2 square mile 

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

mt metric ton 

mt/yr metric tons per year 

N nitrogen 

NEEPP Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program 

NERSM Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model 

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NSM Natural Systems Model 

USNRCS U. S. Natural Resources Conservation Service 

O&M operation and maintenance 

OPTI Reservoir Optimization Model 

P phosphorus 

PD&E Process Development and Engineering 

PIR Project Implementation Report 

ppb parts per billion 

ppm parts per million 

ppt parts per thousand 

RECOVER Restoration Coordination and Verification 

RSM Regional Simulation Model 

RWCA recyclable water containment areas 

RWPPB River Watershed Protection Plan Base 

RWQMP Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program 

SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

SFER South Florida Environmental Report 

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District 

SFWMM South Florida Water Management Model 

SLRWPP St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan 

STA stormwater treatment area 

STORET Storage and Retrieval (5.3) 
 List of Abbreviations 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

iv 

SWET Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. 

SWFFS Southwest Florida Feasibility Study 

SWFRPC Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 

SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan 

TFI Target Flow Index 

TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TN total nitrogen 

TOC total organic carbon 

TP total phosphorus 

TSS total suspended solids 

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

μg/L micrograms per liter 

US United States 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USDOI U.S. Department of Interior 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDA/NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resource Conservation Service 

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VEC Valued Ecosystem Component 

WaSh Watershed Hydrology and Water Quality Model 

WASP Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program 

WBID waterbody identification 

WCA Water Conservation Area 

WCAL West Caloosahatchee 

WMM Watershed Management Model 

WRAC Water Resources Advisory Committee 

WRDA Water Resources Development Act 

WRF Water Reclamation Facility 

WSE Water Supply and Environment 

yr year 

 

CHAPTER 1 

WATERSHED HISTORY AND PREFERRED PLAN HIGHLIGHTS 

 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

1-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 WATERSHED HISTORY AND PREFERRED PLAN HIGHLIGHTS......................... 1-1

1.1 Watershed History and Restoration Efforts .................................................................1-1

1.1.1 A Brief History ...................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.2 Regional System Modifications – Lake Okeechobee Constraints.........................1-2

1.1.3 Ecological Consequences.......................................................................................1-2

1.1.4 Economic and Social Value...................................................................................1-3

1.1.5 Preferred Plan Builds Upon Ongoing Efforts ........................................................ 1-4

1.2 Preferred Plan Highlights............................................................................................. 1-7

1.2.1 Plan Components ...................................................................................................1-8

1.2.1.1 Watershed Construction Project .....................................................................1-8

1.2.1.2 Watershed Pollutant Control Program............................................................1-9

1.2.1.3 Watershed Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program.....................1-10

1.2.2 Phased Implementation........................................................................................1-11

1.2.3 Preliminary Cost Estimates..................................................................................1-12

1.2.4 Plan Refinements and Revisions..........................................................................1-13

LIST OF TABLES 

1-1 Phase I (2009-2012) Projects and Implementation Status ............................................. 1-11 

 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-1 

1.0 WATERSHED HISTORY AND PREFERRED PLAN HIGHLIGHTS 

1.1 Watershed History and Restoration Efforts 

Like most populated areas in the state, natural habitats, drainage patterns, and land uses within 

the Caloosahatchee River Watershed have been significantly altered over time. Loss of natural 

habitat from riverfront and coastal development, increased urban development and stormwater 

runoff, construction of drainage canals, and agricultural activities have affected the quality, 

quantity, timing, and distribution of flows to the estuary. Wet season flows have increased due 

to increased and more rapid runoff from land clearing and impervious areas, and dry season 

flows have decreased due to the lack of (natural) storage and increased water supply demand for 

agricultural and urban development. Loss of storage within the watershed has resulted from the 

watershed being drained to accommodate grazing, citrus farms and other agricultural and urban 

development. 

The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) was developed in response 

to legislative findings that the Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee River, and St. Lucie River 

watersheds are critical water resources that have been, and continue to be, adversely affected 

from changes to hydrology and water quality. 

1.1.1 A Brief History 

Prior to the development of a canal system in the late 1800s, the Caloosahatchee River was a 

sinuous river originating in the natural marshlands west of Lake Okeechobee. In 1881, a canal 

(C-43) was dredged to connect the Caloosahatchee River to Lake Okeechobee. After the initial 

dredging, three lock-and-dam structures were added to control flow and stage height in the lake 

and canal. S-77 at Moore Haven on Lake Okeechobee and S-78 at Ortona were completed in the 

1930s; S-79 (W.P. Franklin Lock and Dam) at Olga was completed in 1966. S-79 was 

constructed to assure a freshwater supply for Lee County and to prevent saltwater intrusion. 

Construction of the massive control structures combined with the dredging that widened and 

deepened the river transformed the shallow and crooked Caloosahatchee River into a regulated 

waterway, part of the Intracoastal and Okeechobee Waterway system under federal jurisdiction. 

The river is no longer free-flowing and is operated as two “pools” maintained at different 

elevations between the major water control structures. These actions provided a navigable 

connection between the west coast of Florida and Lake Okeechobee, and also made the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary one of the major outlets for water draining from the vast Upper 

Kissimmee and Lake Okeechobee Basins. 

These changes opened the area to agricultural and urban development, increasing the demand for 

dry land, better flood protection and consistent water supply. A limited network of local canals 

now provides flood control and water supply conveyance to accommodate citrus groves, sugar 

cane, cattle grazing, and rural/urban areas. Residents and businesses continue to rely on the river 

as a primary source for irrigation, drainage and potable water. 

 The Caloosahatchee Estuary, west of S-79, has also been significantly altered. Early 

descriptions of the estuary characterize it as barely navigable, with extensive shoals and oyster 
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-2 

bars restricting accessibility. In the 1960s, a navigation channel was dredged and a causeway 

built across the mouth of San Carlos Bay. Historic oyster bars upstream of Shell Point were 

mined for use in the construction of roads. 

1.1.2 Regional System Modifications – Lake Okeechobee Constraints 

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

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

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

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

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

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

into the water bodies. 

While making way for growth, channelization of the Kissimmee River removed regional storage 

upstream of Lake Okeechobee. As nutrient-enriched runoff from agricultural and urban 

activities within the watershed flowed into the lake, its water quality suffered. Earlier, 

completion of the Herbert Hoover Dike in 1937 greatly reduced the extent of the lake’s natural 

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

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

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

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

from Lake Okeechobee. 

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

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

lake surface area, inflows have often exceeded Lake Okeechobee’s limited present-day storage 

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

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

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

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

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

accordance with federal regulations and the USACE operating schedule for Lake Okeechobee – 

can cause detrimental fluctuations for the delicate estuarine environment. 

1.1.3 Ecological Consequences 

While the physical changes within the 1,687 square mile Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

created tremendous opportunities for population and economic growth, they also resulted in 

major changes in the hydrology of the area. Adverse ecological impacts in the estuary have 

occurred as a result of hydrological changes in the timing, distribution, quality, and volume of 

freshwater released into the estuary from the watershed and Lake Okeechobee. 

Currently, two key conditions are negatively impacting the waterway’s overall health. First is 

the delivery of freshwater to the estuary. The Caloosahatchee Estuary often receives excessive 

freshwater discharges from its local watersheds, especially during the wet season. This situation 

is sometimes exacerbated by regulatory discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Conversely, there 
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-3 

are often periods during the dry season when flows from the Caloosahatchee River to the estuary 

stop completely. During drought periods when irrigation demands are high, little or no water is 

released to the river. Due to the deprivation of freshwater, estuarine salinity levels rise, which 

impacts seagrasses and oysters. 

The combination of an excess of freshwater during the wet season and a lack of discharge during 

the dry season lead to exaggerated seasonal and short-term fluctuations in salinity throughout the 

entire estuary. The fluctuations in salinity in any one region of the estuary can exceed the 

physiological tolerance limits of the organisms that normally live there, causing stress and/or 

mortality. 

A second problem is excessive nutrient loading, which has resulted in eutrophication – typically 

indicated by blooms of algae, low dissolved oxygen (DO) and periodic fish kills. Excess nutrient 

loading has been a concern since at least the 1980s, when the state determined that the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary had reached its nutrient loading limits. More recently, blue-green algae 

blooms, red tides, and massive accumulation of drift algae have indicated that nutrient loads to 

the Caloosahatchee Estuary are too high. 

 

Land use changes and drainage practices within the watershed have contributed to elevated 

nutrient concentrations in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. Nearly 35 percent of the 

drainage area is characterized as natural lands (e.g., upland forests, wetlands, barren and open 

lands). Key developed land uses include improved pasture, citrus, sugarcane, and other 

agricultural operations; urban areas; and open water. Today, nutrient-ladened surface water 

runoff from subdivisions, farms, and cities, along with underground septic tanks and discharges 

from sewage treatment plants, carry high amounts of nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) into the 

river and estuary. 

The result of nutrient loading combined with too much or too little freshwater flowing to the 

Caloosahatchee River is a degraded estuarine ecological community. Documented signs include 

declines in the abundance and diversity of marine and estuarine species, degradation of water 

quality, increased phytoplankton and benthic algae, and a reduction in submerged habitat such as 

oyster and seagrass beds. A lack of suitable habitat causes stress for seagrass and oysters (two 

primary indicators of healthy estuarine communities in south Florida), as well as threatened and 

endangered species such as manatees and wood storks. Urbanization and shoreline development 

have also resulted in an extensive loss of mangrove habitat along the estuary. Mangrove 

destruction results in a chain of reactions that affect estuarine and offshore productivity. 

1.1.4 Economic and Social Value 

Despite a variety of human-induced impacts on the natural system, the Caloosahatchee River and 

Estuary continues to be an important environmental and economic resource for both the state and 

local communities. The Caloosahatchee Estuary is considered part of the larger Charlotte Harbor 

National Estuary. A 1998 report estimated that tourism expenditures for the Charlotte Harbor 

area were more than $1.2 billion in 1996. 

Restoration of a healthy, productive aquatic ecosystem is essential not only to maintaining the 

ecological integrity of a number of publicly owned and managed areas (e.g., Matlacha Pass 
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-4 

Aquatic Preserve, Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve, Charlotte Harbor National Estuary, and 

the Caloosahatchee, Matlacha Pass, Pine Island, and Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuges – 

along with numerous other federal, state, and local parks and recreation areas), but also to the 

associated economic benefits and overall quality of life in the watershed. 

1.1.5 Preferred Plan Builds Upon Ongoing Efforts 

Numerous ongoing or already planned projects in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed are aimed 

at improving water quality, quantity, timing and distribution. A key benefit of the NEEPP is 

capturing all restoration-type projects under one umbrella. Major efforts which complement and 

support the preferred Plan goals and objectives include: 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) – 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 (Restudy) in 

the early 1990s to assess the measures necessary to restore the south Florida ecosystem. Upon 

completion of the Restudy, the CERP was proposed in 1999 and approved as the framework for 

Everglades restoration in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The joint state-federal 

partnership of CERP aims to restore, protect, and preserve the water resources of central and 

southern Florida, including the Everglades. 

 

To date, the state has invested more than $1.5 billion to acquire 58 percent of the land needed to 

implement the state-federal CERP initiative. 

The CERP projects that have the greatest benefit for the Caloosahatchee Estuary are the 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project, the Southwest Florida 

Feasibility Study, the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project, and Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

(ASR) Projects. 

• Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project – Currently, the 

South Florida regional system stores water in Lake Okeechobee. Based on a variety of 

complex flood control and ecologic factors, excess water is sometimes discharged from 

the lake via the C-43 canal. The resulting surges of freshwater down the river reduce 

estuarine salinity levels. Alternately, during drought periods when irrigation demands are 

high, little or no water is released to the river, allowing estuarine salinity levels to rise. 

This project will help ensure a more natural, consistent flow of freshwater to the estuary. 

Excess basin stormwater runoff, along with regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee, 

will be captured and stored in a reservoir (170,000 acre-feet capacity) and released 

slowly, as needed, to restore and maintain the estuary. All needed land has been 

acquired; pre-construction test cells have been completed and monitored; and project 

design is complete. 

• Southwest Florida Feasibility Study – The study is a comprehensive review of the water 

issues that face southwest Florida, and is not limited to those related to the regional flood 

control project. The goal of the feasibility study is to develop a water resources plan for 

the entire southwest Florida area and provide for ecosystem and marine/estuary 
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-5 

restoration and protection, water quality, flood protection, water supply, and other waterrelated purposes. 

• Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project – This project includes six structural components 

and a modification to the existing Lake Istokpoga Regulation Schedule. The construction 

components include the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Reservoir and Stormwater 

Treatment Area (STA), Kissimmee Reservoir, Istokpoga Reservoir, Istokpoga STA and 

Paradise Run Wetland Restoration. This project will improve quality and quantity of 

discharges into Lake Okeechobee, which will also benefit the downstream 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed. 

• Aquifer Storage and Recovery – ASR involves the concept of storing partially treated 

surface water underground, by pumping the water through wells that are used for both 

recharge (injection) and recover. ASR technology has been demonstrated to be feasible, 

but has not been tested on the scale that is required for CERP. A pilot project was 

initiated in the Caloosahatchee River Basin in 2003, just west of LaBelle. The results of 

the exploratory well indicated that while high capacity ASR technology would not be 

feasible at that location, other sites within the watershed may be evaluated for a potential 

pilot project. 

C-43 Water Quality Treatment and Testing Facility – One of the first projects identified 

under NEEPP, this is a joint, 1,350-acre project with Lee County. The purpose of this project is 

to design and build a testing facility that will study N removal methods and to provide results 

which can be used to improve the methods of water quality treatment in the Caloosahatchee 

Basin. The land has been acquired and design is under way. 

Lake Okeechobee Protection Act – In 2000, the Florida legislature passed the Lake 

Okeechobee Protection Act establishing a phased, watershed-based protection program to restore 

the lake and its tributaries. As required by the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act, SOUTH Florida 

Water Management District (SFWMD), Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services (FDACS), and Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) developed the 

Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Plan, detailing a suite of activities for reducing pollutant 

loads, particularly P, in the watershed. 

Since the implementation of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Plan, the coordinating 

agencies have reached some notable milestones: 

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

P concentration of 40 parts per billion; 

• Constructing the Taylor Creek and Nubbin Slough Stormwater Treatment Areas in 

partnership with the federal government; 

• Completing conservation and nutrient management plans for 278,000 acres of 

agricultural land in the watershed; 

• Investing $7.5 million in individual projects to reduce P from dairy farms, restore isolated 

wetlands, treat urban stormwater and enhance water storage and habitat on ranchlands; 
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-6 

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

lake and watershed; 

• Treating more than 32,000 acres of exotic and invasive vegetation since 2000. 

Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery (LOER) – To help further accelerate progress, the 

$200 million LOER plan was launched in 2005 – a combination of capital projects and numerous 

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

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

series of Lake Okeechobee Fast-Track projects, other components of the LOER plan included 

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

the Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule and continued implementation of the Lake 

Okeechobee Protection Plan components. 

Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule – A study was initiated in late 2005 by the USACE to 

develop a new water regulation schedule allowing operational changes within the existing 

infrastructure to address ecological and Herbert Hoover Dike safety issues. Based solely on 

current water storage capacity in the system, the operational changes will allow for quicker 

response and operational flexibility to fluctuating lake conditions and tributary inflows. It also 

allows for the capability to initiate releases to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River estuaries 

and the Water Conservation Areas to the south, at lower levels than under the previous schedule. 

The low-volume releases should add flows to the Caloosahatchee Estuary, helping maintain 

appropriate salinity ranges. A follow-up study will take into account construction of early CERP 

projects, including projects expedited by the SFWMD, along with dike rehabilitation efforts, 

which will provide many additional options for water storage and management. 

Regulatory and Source Control Programs/Planning – Examples of existing and proposed 

source control programs include widespread development and implementation of agricultural 

Best Management Practices (BMPs), restrictions on the application of wastewater residuals, 

implementation of the Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program (minimizes the use of 

pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation water) and Florida’s consolidated stormwater management 

programs. As part of the preferred Plan, some regulatory rules will be revised/expanded to 

ensure compatibility with current initiatives. 

For example, the existing Lake Okeechobee Watershed Regulatory Nutrient Source Control 

Program was adopted in 1989 to specifically address P. The Northern Everglades and Estuary 

Protection legislation expanded the program boundary to the Caloosahatchee River and St. Lucie 

River watersheds and added N to the focus of nutrient source controls. Rule development to 

extend the program to the Caloosahatchee Basin is expected to begin in 2009. 

 

Stormwater Master Programs/Charlotte County – Charlotte County received a federal 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II municipal permit in 2003. 

The permit allows the creation of a county-wide Stormwater Management Plan with a five-year 

implementation schedule. Every five years, the county must renew the permit and prove that the 

plan is being implemented. An annual reporting program provides proof of their continuing 

effort to protect water quality and meet federal standards. 
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-7 

Stormwater Master Programs/Lee County – Lee County received an NPDES municipal 

permit in 2004 containing 14 required program elements. A number of the elements identified 

controls for specific pollutants such as pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, sanitary seepage, and 

construction site runoff. Other elements addressed public education, system operation and 

maintenance, and inspection program implementation. An annual reporting program provides 

proof of their continuing effort to protect water quality and meet federal standards. 

Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council – A Lower West Coast Watersheds 

Subcommittee was formed in 2006 to address the condition of the Caloosahatchee River and 

Estuary. Through the work of this Subcommittee, four resolutions have been passed that should 

positively impact water quality in the watershed. The resolutions address fertilizer, wastewater, 

wastewater package plants, and onsite wastewater systems planning, treatment, and management. 

 

Research and Monitoring – Research and monitoring in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

have been on-going for a number of years. In the late 1970s, the SFWMD began obtaining 

biological and physical information to determine the effects of low salinity on fishes and benthic 

organisms. The SFWMD initiated a continuous, long-term salinity monitoring program in the 

Caloosahatchee River in 1992. 

Significant data gaps and uncertainties in the understanding of the estuarine system and its 

watershed still exist. An important component of the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

Protection Plan (CRWPP) is the continuation of research and monitoring to reduce uncertainty 

and to close information gaps, and to support improvements to the estuary through the adaptive 

management process. This will ultimately lead to robust, scientifically-based solutions and more 

accurately predict the response of the estuarine systems to changes in water quality and quantity. 

1.2 Preferred Plan Highlights 

The steadfast commitment and support of all levels of government working together with 

environmental groups and local communities has been instrumental in sustaining support for the 

long-term restoration of the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. That continued support is just as 

vital for future efforts. A concerted effort was made during the CRWPP planning process to 

involve all appropriate and relevant agencies, as well as the public and stakeholders. A multidisciplinary, multi-agency working team met periodically to collaborate, discuss and develop the 

technical components of the plan. Those meetings were open to the public, along with numerous 

other venues for public input. 

The draft CRWPP was released for public comment on October 1, 2008, with an open public 

comment period through October 31, 2008. Input received during this process was considered 

during the finalization of the preferred Plan and formal responses for each comment are provided 

in the full plan document. 
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-8 

1.2.1 Plan Components 

1.2.1.1 Watershed Construction Project 

Identifies water quality and storage projects (known as management measures) to improve 

hydrology, water quality, and aquatic habitats within the watershed. Various management 

measures, submitted by working team members, were used to formulate alternatives, which were 

then evaluated for water storage benefits and nutrient loading reductions. 

Water quantity was evaluated by a water budget analysis using the Northern Everglades 

Regional Simulation Model, based upon a simulation period of 1970-2005. The water storage 

capacity of each management measure was estimated based upon the best available information. 

Water quality was evaluated using a spreadsheet model based on water quality data from 1995-

2005. P and N reductions for each management measure were estimated and were utilized in the 

spreadsheet to calculate remaining loads to the Caloosahatchee Estuary upon implementation of 

the alternatives. 

Four alternatives were formulated and evaluated by the working team: 

Alternative 1 – Current, ongoing and planned projects 

Alternative 2 – Maximize water storage capacity 

Alternative 3 – Maximize P and N nutrient load reductions 

Alternative 4 – Optimize both water storage capacity and P and N nutrient load reductions 

Based on the results of the water quantity and quality analysis, Alternative 4 was identified as the 

plan that best met the legislative goals. The key findings include: 

Water Quantity/Storage – The total storage identified in the preferred Plan is approximately 

400,000 acre-feet. The Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir accounts for 

nearly half of that amount, with the remainder to be made up through additional storage in 

freshwater basins (215,000 acre-ft). The preferred Plan watershed storage is in addition to the 

approximately 900,000 acre-feet of storage identified in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan (LOP2TP) to better manage lake levels and to help 

reduce the need for releases to the estuaries. 

An objective of the CRWPP is to reduce the frequency and duration of harmful freshwater 

releases into the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Based on computer modeling, the preferred Plan: 

• Reduces the occurrences of undesirable flows between 2,800 and 4,500 cubic feet per 

second (cfs) by more than 50 percent over current conditions; 

• Reduces the occurrences of undesirable flows greater than 4,500 cfs by 60 percent over 

current conditions; 

• Significantly reduces occurrences of flows less than 450 cfs, resulting in a 98 percent 

improvement over current conditions; 

• Results in an 84 percent improvement over current conditions towards achieving ideal 

flow distribution. 
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-9 

Overall, the preferred Plan reduces the percentage of months with detrimental high or low flows 

to 11 percent. Under current conditions, the Caloosahatchee Estuary experiences detrimental 

flow events 62 percent of the time.

Water Quality – The current load from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed to the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary is 2,900 metric tons per year (mt/yr) of total nitrogen (TN) and 326 

mt/yr of total phosphorus (TP). The preferred Plan achieves a total load reduction of 38 percent 

for TN and 39 percent for TP. These results reflect the cumulative benefits provided by 

implementation of the LOP2TP and the CRWPP. 

During the plan development process, analyses were conducted to estimate nutrient load 

reductions by sub-watershed. “Hot spots” contributing high nutrient loads were identified within 

the watershed and management measures were developed to address these areas. The major 

focus of management measures implemented for nutrient reductions in the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed is N treatment, especially in the West Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed – a major 

contributor of high N levels. 

1.2.1.2 Watershed Pollutant Control Program 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed Pollutant Control Program is designed to be a multifaceted approach to preventing or reducing pollution at its source through the implementation of 

existing state regulations and BMPs, along with the development and implementation of 

improved BMPs focusing on P and N. Key agency responsibilities and programs include: 

• FDACS develops, adopts, and implements agricultural BMPs to reduce water quality 

impacts from agricultural discharges and enhance water conservation. The statewide 

Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule, adopted in August 2007, limits the P and N content in 

fertilizers for urban turf and lawns, reducing the amount of P and N reaching Florida’s 

water resources. The proposed Animal Manure Application Rule, initiated in February 

2008, addresses the land application of animal wastes in the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed, including minimum application setbacks from wetlands and all surface 

waters. 

• FDEP oversees initiatives to improve existing stormwater and wastewater infrastructure; 

implement pollutant reduction plans for municipal stormwater management systems; 

promote improved stormwater treatment through land development regulations; enhance 

existing regulations for the management of domestic wastewater residuals within the 

watershed; and administer the NPDES permit program. 

• SFWMD regulatory programs include the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) 

program and the proposed Caloosahatchee River Watershed Regulatory Nutrient Source 

Control Program. In March 2008, the District initiated rule development for an ERP 

basin rule with specific supplemental criteria designed to result in no increase in total 

runoff volume from new development that discharges ultimately to Lake Okeechobee 

and/or the Caloosahatchee or St. Lucie Estuaries. Adopted in 1989, the 40E-61 program 
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-10 

requires source control measures for P. As a result of the NEEPP legislation, the 

program will be expanded to include the Caloosahatchee River Watershed and to include 

N source control. 

1.2.1.3 Watershed Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program 

The objective of the Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program is to increase the ability to 

identify robust, scientifically based solutions to the water quality and water quantity issues in the 

Caloosahatchee River and Estuary and allow for more accurate predictions for responding to 

ecological changes. It builds upon existing monitoring, research, and modeling efforts and 

makes recommended modifications to better achieve and assess the goals and targets of the 

CRWPP. 

Monitoring - Existing monitoring in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed includes water quality 

and flow monitoring. Monitoring efforts are also being undertaken within the Caloosahatchee 

Estuary including salinity and aquatic habitat monitoring (e.g., oysters and seagrasses). 

The preferred Plan recommends that the existing flow, salinity, water quality, and aquatic habitat 

monitoring programs continue, along with several water quality and flow optimization 

enhancements, including: 1) East of S-79 – An additional eight long-term sites along the reach 

of the Caloosahatchee River to provide improved spatial coverage and four new short-term sites 

in canal tributaries flowing into the Caloosahatchee River to help determine if loads calculated 

from reach samples accurately reflect the sum of tributary loads; 2) West of S-79 – To address 

important sampling gaps, reinstate four historic water quality sites, and to eliminate 

redundancies, remove six sites from the network; and 3) Additional water quality parameter 

measurements (five-day biochemical oxygen demand and dissolved total Kjeldahl nitrogen) are 

also recommended at both freshwater and estuarine monitoring sites. 

Research – Research projects are intended to reduce or eliminate key uncertainties related to 

TMDLs and flow and salinity envelopes, and optimize operational protocols. The preferred Plan 

recommends five applied research projects: 

Estuarine Nutrient Budget - This project will construct nutrient budgets of N and P for the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary and increase the capability to predict the effects of various 

management measures. 

Dissolved Oxygen Dynamics - This project will identify the factors causing DO impairment 

in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Understanding DO dynamics will also help to identify 

impacts from pollutant loads to estuarine ecosystems. 

Low Salinity Zone - This project examines the effects of freshwater discharges on the 

production of fish larvae in the estuary and utilization of the low salinity zones as a nursery 

area. 
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-11 

Light Attenuation in San Carlos Bay - This study will examine how relative contributions 

to total light attenuation of chlorophyll-a, colored dissolved organic matter, and turbidity 

vary with season and freshwater inflow in San Carlos Bay. 

Modeling – An integrated modeling framework is proposed to meet water management 

objectives for coastal ecosystems protection and restoration. 

1.2.2 Phased Implementation 

The preferred Plan will be implemented in multiple phases. Phase I includes projects that are 

currently initiated, or that will be initiated or completed by 2012. Phase II includes projects that 

will be initiated between 2013 and 2018. The Long Term Implementation Phase includes 

projects that will be initiated beyond 2018. 

Table 1-1. Phase I (2009-2012) Projects and Implementation Status 

 Initiated Completed 

Powell Creek Algal Turf Scrubber 9

Alternative Water Storage Facilities- Barron Water 

Control District 

9

Caloosahatchee Area Lakes Restoration (Lake 

Hicpochee) 

9

C-43 Water Quality Treatment Demonstration 

Project (BOMA) 

9

Spanish Creek/Four Corners Environmental 

Restoration Phase I 

9

C-43 West Reservoir 9

Local Stormwater Projects (e.g., treatment wetlands, 

conveyance and structural improvements, and 

stormwater recovery projects) 

9 9

Florida Ranchlands and Environmental Services 

Projects 

9

Construction 

Project 

Farm and Ranchland Partnership 9

Agricultural and Urban BMPs 9

Proposed Revisions to Regulatory Programs (40E61 Source Control Regulatory Program, ERP Basin 

Rule, Statewide Stormwater Rule) 

9

Pollutant 

Control 

Program 

Comprehensive Planning and Growth Management 9

Research 

and Water 

Quality 

Monitoring 

Monitoring, Research, and Modeling 9 9
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-12 

1.2.3 Preliminary Cost Estimates 

The preferred Plan captures a wide array of restoration projects and programs, utilizing a variety 

of implementation and funding strategies to move projects forward. Many are already included 

in other planning or restoration efforts. 

The coordinating agencies will seek to maximize opportunities for federal and local government 

cost-sharing programs and opportunities for partnerships with the private sector and local 

government. In addition, 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. 

Costs estimates, potential funding sources, and cost assumptions are provided below for each 

Plan component included in Phase I (with the exception of the urban BMP costs where the costs 

reflect full implementation with no phasing). Costs for each progressive phase of 

implementation will be developed as more detailed project designs and information from various 

projects and studies become available. 

Phase I implementation cost estimates: 

• Watershed Construction Project 

Regional Projects 

CERP: For CERP projects included in Phase I, capital costs are estimated to be $524-

$781 million. State CERP costs are eligible for a 50 percent cost-share with the federal 

government and may also include a local cost share. 

Non-CERP: For non-CERP projects (e.g., C-43 Water Quality Treatment and Testing 

Facility), capital costs are estimated to be $117-$175 million from state, SFWMD and/or 

local funds. 

Local Projects

$15 million from state funds. Note: Based on $5 million per year from 2010 to 2012 and 

does not reflect matching funds from SFWMD or local sources. 

• Watershed Pollutant Control Program 

Agricultural BMPs: $3.3-$4.0 million from state, SFWMD and/or local funds. Note: 

Assumes that 100 percent of owner-implemented and 35 percent of cost-share 

agricultural BMPs within the watershed can be implemented during Phase I, the state 

contributes 50% for capital costs, and that remaining costs are paid by landowners and 

federal grants. 

Urban BMPs (total – no phasing): $663-$809 million of total capital costs paid from state 

and local funds. Note: Reflects total capital costs for full implementation of urban BMPs 

with no phasing and no cost share assumptions. Additional details regarding funding 

scenarios and schedules for urban BMP implementation will be established during the 
 Chapter 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

1-13 

Basin Management Action Plan development process and will be incorporated into future 

protection plan updates. 

• Watershed Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program 

$5.2 million in state and local funds. Note: This estimate includes costs for research and 

additional monitoring. Ongoing monitoring costs are not included, as those programs are 

already in existence and funded through other mechanisms. 

1.2.4 Plan Refinements and Revisions 

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

quantity improvements to benefit the watershed and estuary. Throughout implementation, it is 

fully expected that hydrologic and water quality conditions in the watershed will continue to 

change as land uses in the watershed are modified, and as restoration projects become 

operational. Performance will be periodically assessed and revisions made as necessary. In 

addition, the legislation requires annual reports and protection plan updates every three years. 

CHAPTER 2 

INTRODUCTION

Chapter 2

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

2.1 Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program.............................................. 2-2

2.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Program ................................................2-2

2.1.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Plan Phase I ...................................2-2

2.1.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan2-2

2.1.2 Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan................................................. 2-3

2.1.2.1 Construction Project ....................................................................................... 2-4

2.1.2.2 Pollutant Control Program..............................................................................2-4

2.1.2.3 Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program.........................................2-4

2.1.3 St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan............................................................2-4

2.2 Purpose and Scope ....................................................................................................... 2-4

2.3 Background.................................................................................................................. 2-5

2.3.1 Historical Conditions .............................................................................................2-5

2.3.2 Current Conditions.................................................................................................2-7

2.3.3 Economic and Social Value...................................................................................2-7

2.4 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 2-8

2.4.1 Caloosahatchee Estuary ......................................................................................... 2-8

2.4.2 Caloosahatchee River Watershed ..........................................................................2-9

2.4.3 S-4 Sub-watershed ................................................................................................. 2-9

2.4.4 East Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed....................................................................2-10

2.4.4.1 Freshwater Northeast and Southeast Basins.................................................2-10

2.4.5 West Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed .................................................................. 2-11

2.4.5.1 Freshwater Northwest and Southwest Basins...............................................2-11

2.4.6 Tidal Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed ..................................................................2-11

2.4.6.1 Tidal North and South Basins.......................................................................2-11

2.4.6.2 Caloosahatchee Estuary Basin......................................................................2-12

2.4.7 Coastal Sub-watershed.........................................................................................2-12

2.4.7.1 North Coastal Basin......................................................................................2-12

2.4.7.2 Nearshore Basin............................................................................................2-12

LIST OF FIGURES 

2-1 Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program Legislative Mandates .............. 2-3 

2-2 Historical vs. Current Everglades Flows ......................................................................... 2-6 

2-3 Caloosahatchee River Watershed and Sub-watershed Boundary Map............................ 2-8 

2-4 Caloosahatchee River Watershed Land Use Map.......................................................... 2-10 

Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-1 

2.0 INTRODUCTION 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan (CRWPP) has been developed in response 

to recent state legislation, which authorized the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection 

Program (NEEPP), Section 373.4595, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Passed by the Florida Legislature 

and signed into law by Governor Charlie Crist in 2007, the landmark Northern Everglades and 

Estuaries Protection Program promotes a comprehensive, interconnected watershed approach to 

protecting Lake Okeechobee, and the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Rivers and Estuaries. The 

primary goal is to restore and protect surface water resources by addressing not only the water 

quality but also the quantity, timing, and distribution of water to the natural system. 

The legislation requires development of watershed protection plans for the Caloosahatchee and 

St. Lucie by January 1, 2009. The coordinating agencies, which include the South Florida Water 

Management District (SFWMD), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and 

the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), developed the CRWPP 

and St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan (SLRWPP), in cooperation with Martin, St. 

Lucie, and Lee counties and affected municipalities, throughout late 2007 and 2008. 

The three main components of the plans are: (1) a Watershed Construction Project, which 

identifies water quality and storage projects to improve hydrology, water quality, and aquatic 

habitats within the watershed; (2) a Watershed Pollutant Control Program that is a multi-faceted 

approach to reducing pollutant loads by improving the management of pollutant sources within 

the watershed; and (3) a Watershed Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program to monitor 

progress of the programs and the health of the estuaries. The Construction Project is provided in 

Chapter 6 of this document, the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Pollutant Control Program is 

included as Chapter 7 of this document, and the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Research and 

Water Quality Monitoring Program (CRWQMP) is attached as Appendix E and summarized in 

Chapter 8 of this document. A summary of all three components, which collectively represent 

the Preferred Plan of the CRWPP, is found in Chapter 9. 

IMPORTANT NOTE: While acknowledging the impacts of freshwater releases from Lake 

Okeechobee on the downstream environment, it is important to note that the intent of the 

protection plan is to identify strategies for addressing and better understanding local watershed 

influences and inflows on the health of the river and estuary. A separate document, the Lake 

Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan (LOP2TP), focuses on 

projects and initiatives designed to reduce total phosphorus (TP) loadings to the Lake and to 

provide additional storage capacity north of the Lake in order to better manage lake levels and 

help reduce the need for releases to the estuaries. That plan, also a requirement of the Northern 

Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program, was submitted to the Florida Legislature on 

February 1, 2008. 
Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-2 

2.1 Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program 

The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program recognizes the importance and 

connectivity of the entire Everglades ecosystem. Implementation of this program will include 

improving the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water to the natural system. 

The legislative mandate for the NEEPP (Section 373.4595, F.S.) establishes three watershed 

protection programs: (1) the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Program; (2) the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Program; and (3) the St. Lucie River Watershed 

Protection Program (Figure 2-1). Under each of these watershed protection programs, a specific 

watershed protection plan is required. Details of these plans are discussed in the following 

subsections. 

2.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Program 

In 2000, the legislature passed the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act LOPA, Section 373.4595, 

F.S. (2000), which established a restoration and protection program for the Lake. The intent of 

the original legislation was to achieve and maintain compliance with state water quality 

standards in Lake Okeechobee and its tributary waters. This was to be done through a 

watershed-based, phased, comprehensive and innovative protection program designed to reduce 

P loads and implement long-term solutions, based upon the Lake’s TMDL for P. The Lake 

Okeechobee Watershed Protection Program includes two phases: Phase I was developed under 

the original LOPA and Phase II was developed under the NEEPP. 

2.1.1.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Plan Phase I 

Phase I was intended to bring some immediate total phosphorus (TP) load reduction to Lake 

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

Okeechobee and downstream receiving waters, consistent with recommendations included in the 

South Florida Ecosystem Working Group’s Lake Okeechobee Action Plan. Section 528(b)(3) of 

the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 authorized the identification of critical 

restoration projects for the South Florida ecosystem. Phase I included a critical restoration 

project, which was identified as the Lake Okeechobee Water Retention Phosphorus Removal 

Critical Project. Phase I was delivered to the legislature in 2004 and an update was submitted in 

February 2007. 

2.1.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan 

Phase II identifies construction projects, along with on-site measures, needed to achieve water 

quality targets for Lake Okeechobee. These efforts, such as agricultural and urban best 

management practices (BMPs), are to prevent or reduce pollution at its source. In addition, 

Phase II includes projects for increasing water storage north of Lake Okeechobee to achieve 

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

estuaries. Phase II was submitted to the legislature in February 2008. 
Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-3 

Figure 2-1. Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program Legislative Mandates

2.1.2 Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

The CRWPP is required by the NEEPP. This document will be updated every three years. As 

such, the recommendations included in this plan are based on best available information to date 

and are subject to modification as additional data and understanding of the dynamics of the 

watershed and Lake Okeechobee are developed. This will allow maximum flexibility to embrace 

new technologies, processes and procedures. 

This CRWPP identifies the geographic extent of the watershed and is being coordinated, as 

needed, with the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Plan and SLRWPP. It provides an 

implementation schedule for pollutant load reductions consistent with any adopted nutrient 

TMDLs. However, the TMDL for the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary is still under 

development by FDEP. In order to move forward with the plan, alternatives were formulated to 

“maximize” reduction of TP and total nitrogen (TN), based on provisional nutrient concentration 

reduction goals for the system. The CWRPP includes three main components: (1) a Construction 

Project, (2) a Pollutant Control Program, and (3) a Research and Water Quality Monitoring 

Program. 

FDAC Mandatory 

BMPs 

LOFT 

Lake O Reg. 

Schedule Mod 

CRW 

Construction 

Project 

CRW 

Research and 

Water Quality 

Monitoring 

Program 

CRW Pollution 

Control 

Program

Lake Okeechobee & Estuary 

Recovery Program (LOER)

Lake Okeechobee 

Watershed Protection Plan 

Phase II Technical Plan

Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

Protection Program

River Watershed 

Protection Program 

Caloosahatchee River 

 Watershed (CRW) Protection 

Plan

St. Lucie River 

Watershed (SLRW) 

Protection Plan

SLRW 

RWQM 

Program 

SLRW 

Pollution 

Control 

Program 

SLRW 

Construction 

Project 

Northern Everglades & Estuaries Protection TMDLs 

Program (§373.4595) 
Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-4 

2.1.2.1 Construction Project 

The purpose of the CRWPP Construction Project is to (1) identify potential water quality and 

quantity projects within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed, (2) formulate alternatives based on 

the projects identified, and (3) identify a preferred alternative that results in the most benefit to 

the Caloosahatchee Estuary. The CRWPP also identifies available funding sources to implement 

the projects. To ensure timely implementation, the coordinating agencies will coordinate design, 

scheduling, and sequencing of project facilities with Lee County, Hendry County, Glades 

County, Charlotte County, and other interested stakeholders and affected local governments. 

The Construction Project is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6 of this document. 

2.1.2.2 Pollutant Control Program 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed Pollutant Control Program is designed to be a multifaceted approach to reducing pollutant loads by improving the management of pollutant sources 

within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. Such improvements will be made through (1) the 

implementation of regulations; (2) the development and implementation of BMPs; (3) the 

improvement and restoration of hydrologic function of natural and managed systems; and (4) the 

utilization of alternative technologies for pollutant reduction, such as cost-effective biologically 

based, hybrid wetland/chemical and other innovative nutrient control technologies. The 

coordinating agencies will facilitate the utilization of federal programs that offer opportunities 

for water quality treatment, including preservation, restoration, or creation of wetlands on 

agricultural lands. The Pollutant Control Program is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 of this 

document. 

2.1.2.3 Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program 

The Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program (RWQMP) will build upon SFWMD’s 

existing research program and is intended to carry out, comply with, or assess the plans, 

programs, and other responsibilities created by this program. The program will also conduct an 

assessment of existing monitoring programs for hydrology, water quality, and aquatic habitat, as 

well as evaluations of their ability to meet program goals and the identification of potential 

improvements. The RWQMP is discussed in more detail in Chapter 8 of this document. 

2.1.3 St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan 

The SLRWPP is being developed concurrently with the CRWPP, and will also be submitted to 

the Florida Legislature no later than January 1, 2009. The SLRWPP comprises the same three 

components as the CRWPP: (1) a Construction Project, (2) a Pollutant Control Program, and (3) 

a Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program. 

2.2 Purpose and Scope 

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

timing, and distribution of water in the Caloosahatchee Estuary and to re-establish salinity 

regimes suitable for the maintenance of a healthy, naturally diverse, and well-balanced estuarine 

ecosystem. The CRWPP is intended to achieve the following four objectives: 
Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-5 

• Minimize the frequency and duration of harmful excess freshwater discharges from the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed; 

• Maintain minimum flows to the Caloosahatchee Estuary to prevent undesirable high 

salinity conditions; 

• Maximize nitrogen (N) and P load reductions to meet TMDLs as they are established for 

the Caloosahatchee Estuary; and 

• Establish a Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program sufficient to implement the 

program and projects. 

2.3 Background 

The Caloosahatchee Estuary is located in Lee County and encompasses approximately 140 

square miles (mi2

) of estuarine habitat on Florida’s southwest coast in the vicinity of Fort Myers. 

The estuary consists of the tidal portion of the Caloosahatchee River, which extends from the 

W.P. Franklin Lock and Dam (Structure S-79) downstream to its mouth at Shell Point, and its 

associated coastal waters, which include Matlacha Pass, San Carlos Bay, and Pine Island Sound. 

The estuary is connected to Lake Okeechobee by the Caloosahatchee River (C-43), a man-made 

connection to the Lake originally created in the late 19th century. The Caloosahatchee River now 

serves as the western reach of the cross-state Okeechobee Waterway that connects Lake 

Okeechobee to the Gulf of Mexico at Fort Myers on the west coast. 

2.3.1 Historical Conditions 

Historical drainage patterns within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed have been highly altered 

since pre-drainage times. Figure 2-2 shows the extent of altered flows and wetland loss in the 

Everglades system, including the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. Continued population 

growth increased the demands for more land, better flood protection, and consistent water 

supply. Flood control measures were taken to protect residents by constructing the Herbert 

Hoover Dike around Lake Okeechobee, and included ditching and draining to create residential 

land, cities, and agricultural fields. 

Prior to the development of a canal system in the late 1800s, the Caloosahatchee was a sinuous 

river originating in the marshlands of Lake Flirt, west of Lake Okeechobee. Two small lakes, 

Lettuce and Bonnet, stood between the headwaters of the river and Lake Okeechobee, and were 

only connected by marshy grassland. In 1881, a canal (C-43) was dredged to connect the 

Caloosahatchee River to Lake Okeechobee. Dredging opened the area for agriculture, 

navigation, and development. At the same time, these activities had environmental 

consequences including lowering Lake Okeechobee’s water table and the loss of 76 river bends 

and 8.2 miles of river length (Kimes & Crocker, 1998). 

After the initial dredging, three lock-and-dam structures were added to control flow and stage 

height in the lake and canal. S-77 at Moore Haven on Lake Okeechobee and S-78 at Ortona 

were completed in the 1930s; while the last, S-79 at Olga (W.P. Franklin Lock and Dam), was 

completed in 1966. S-79 was constructed to assure a freshwater supply for Lee County and to 

prevent saltwater intrusion. The last major improvements, from the massive control structures to 

the dredging that widened and deepened the river, finished the 80-year process of transforming 

the shallow and crooked Caloosahatchee River into a regulated navigational waterway, part of 
Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-6 

the Intracoastal and Okeechobee Waterway system under federal jurisdiction (Kimes & Crocker, 

1998). 

Figure 2-2. Historical vs. Current Everglades Flows

The Caloosahatchee Estuary west of S-79 has also been significantly altered (Chamberlain & 

Doering, 1998a). Early descriptions of the estuary characterize it as only navigable in a small 

craft for a few miles before the channel would disappear into marshland. Additionally, extensive 

shoals and oyster bars restricted accessibility to the estuary. However, once the navigational 

significance of the waterway was recognized, work began to open it to larger vessels. In the 

1960s, a navigation channel had been dredged and a causeway built across the mouth of San 

Carlos Bay. Historic oyster bars upstream of Shell Point were mined and removed for use in the 

construction of roads, which include seven automobile bridges and one railroad bridge. All of 

these projects have resulted in major changes in the hydrology of the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed. Adverse ecological impacts in the estuary have occurred as a result of hydrological 

changes in the timing, distribution, quality, and volume of freshwater released into the estuary 

from the watershed and Lake Okeechobee. Despite these impacts, the Caloosahatchee Estuary 

continues to be an important environmental and economic resource. 
Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-7 

2.3.2 Current Conditions 

The Caloosahatchee River is at the head of a vast estuarine and marine ecosystem that includes 

aquatic preserves (Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve, Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve, 

Charlotte Harbor National Estuary, and the Caloosahatchee, Matlacha Pass, Pine Island, and 

Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuges), along with numerous other federal, state, and local 

parks and recreation areas. Restoration of a healthy, productive aquatic ecosystem in the 

Caloosahatchee River is essential to maintaining the ecological integrity of these publicly owned 

and managed areas, as well as the associated economic activity in the watershed. 

Currently, the watershed is facing a number of conditions that are having a negative impact on its 

health. First, the delivery of freshwater to the estuary has been altered and is more variable with 

higher wet season discharges and lower dry season discharges. There is not enough storage 

capacity in the regional water management system to minimize or prevent the possible harmful 

effects of periodic high volume discharges of freshwater from the local watershed and Lake 

Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee River. Conversely, during dry periods, there is sometimes 

not enough freshwater available in the regional system to maintain desirable salinity levels in the 

estuary. 

A second problem is excessive nutrient loading, which has resulted in eutrophication. The 

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, now FDEP, conducted a waste load allocation 

study in 1981 and concluded that the estuary had already reached its nutrient loading limits 

(DeGrove, 1981). Following the study, target concentrations were established for chlorophyll-a, 

TN, and TP. 

The combined result of nutrient loading and too much or too little freshwater flowing to the 

Caloosahatchee River is a degraded estuarine ecological community. This degradation can be 

characterized by declines in the abundance and diversity of marine and estuarine species, poor 

water quality, increased phytoplankton and benthic algae, and reductions in submerged habitat. 

A lack of suitable habitat causes stress for seagrass and oysters (two primary indicators of 

healthy estuarine communities in south Florida) and other higher trophic-level species, including 

threatened and endangered species (e.g., manatees, wood storks) (USACE & SFWMD, 2007). 

2.3.3 Economic and Social Value 

Despite a variety of human-induced impacts on the natural system, the Caloosahatchee River and 

Estuary continues to be an important environmental and economic resource for both the state and 

local communities. The Caloosahatchee Estuary is considered part of the larger Charlotte Harbor 

National Estuary. A 1998 report estimated that tourism expenditures for the Charlotte Harbor 

area were more than $1.2 billion in 1996. 

Restoration of a healthy, productive aquatic ecosystem is essential not only to maintaining the 

ecological integrity of a number of publicly owned and managed areas (e.g., Matlacha Pass 

Aquatic Preserve, Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve, Charlotte Harbor National Estuary, and 

the Caloosahatchee, Matlacha Pass, Pine Island, and Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuges – 

along with numerous other federal, state, and local parks and recreation areas), but also to the 

associated economic benefits and overall quality of life in the watershed. 
Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-8 

2.4 Study Area 

The study area encompasses the Caloosahatchee Estuary and its watershed, which are shown on 

Figure 2-3. The following subsections provide basic physical characteristics of the estuary and 

watershed as it exists today. 

Land-use types are one of the physical characteristics of the study area discussed. SFWMD uses 

the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) to define land-use 

types. In the following discussions, the designation “natural areas” includes upland forests, 

wetlands, barren lands, and open lands. In addition, the designation “urban areas” includes landuse descriptions for the following categories: low, medium, and high density residential; 

commercial and services; industrial; extractive; institutional; and recreational. 

Figure 2-3. Caloosahatchee River Watershed and Sub-watershed Boundary Map 

2.4.1 Caloosahatchee Estuary 

The Caloosahatchee Estuary is located in Lee County, southwest Florida, and consists of two 

distinct estuarine areas. It includes the tidal portion of the Caloosahatchee River, which extends 

about 41 kilometers (km) from the W. P. Franklin Lock and Dam (S-79) downstream to Shell 

Point, where the river empties into San Carlos Bay. The estuary also includes the Matlacha Pass, 

San Carlos Bay, and Pine Island Sound areas, which lie near the mouth of the Caloosahatchee 

River and are directly affected by its flows. The estuary is connected to Lake Okeechobee by the 
Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-9 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43 Canal), a man-made connection to the Lake originally created in the 

early 20th century. 

Loss of natural habitat from riverfront and coastal development, increased urban development, 

construction of drainage canals, and agricultural activities have affected the timing, quantity, 

quality, and distribution of runoff to the estuary. Wet season flows have risen, due to land 

clearing and impervious areas increasing runoff, and dry season flows have decreased, due to 

increased water supply demand for agricultural and urban development. The resulting biological 

impacts include habitat loss and degradation, decreased biodiversity, and increased prevalence of 

marine resource diseases. 

2.4.2 Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed consists of the Caloosahatchee Estuary and all lands that 

drain directly or indirectly into the waters of the estuary. These lands include the drainage area 

of the Caloosahatchee River, the mainland area that drains into Matlacha Pass, and the nearshore 

islands in the vicinity of the estuary. The watershed includes portions of Lee, Hendry, Charlotte, 

and Glades counties, and a small portion of north-central Collier County. It encompasses a 

drainage area of over 1,079,796 acres [1,687 mi2 or 4,370 square kilometers (km2)]. A map of 

land-use types for the Caloosahatchee River Watershed, based on the FLUCCS, is shown in 

Figure 2-4. The single largest land use is natural areas, which encompass 34.0 percent (366,765 

acres) of the total watershed. Improved pastures are second, accounting for 10.8 percent of the 

watershed (117,152 acres), and citrus farms are third, accounting for 9 percent (96,684 acres). 

Urban areas are typical of the southwestern reaches of the watershed, as well as areas along the 

Caloosahatchee River, and account for 13.5 percent of the total area (145,280 acres). 

The watershed contains sub-watersheds that may consist of one or more smaller units, referred to 

as basins. The sub-watersheds include the S-4, East Caloosahatchee, West Caloosahatchee, 

Tidal Caloosahatchee, and Coastal sub-watersheds. 

2.4.3 S-4 Sub-watershed 

The S-4 Sub-watershed includes only the S-4 Basin and has a total drainage area of 

approximately 42,504 acres (66.4 mi2

). The sub-watershed is located in northeastern Hendry 

County and southeastern Glades County. The predominant land use is sugar cane (32,932 acres), 

followed by urban areas (4,362 acres) and natural areas (2,431 acres). 

Approximately 15 miles of the north boundary of the S-4 Basin run adjacent to Lake 

Okeechobee. The major drainage canals in the basin include the L-D1 Perimeter Canal, the C-20 

and C-21 canals, and the Clewiston (Industrial) Canal. There are four main structures that 

regulate flows within the S-4 Basin: the S-4 pump station (located at the northern end of the C20 Canal) that controls flow from the basin into Lake Okeechobee; the S-310 navigational lock 

structure (located between Lake Okeechobee and the Clewiston Canal); S-169 (a series of three 

gated culverts connecting the Clewiston Canal and C-21); and S-235 (a pair of gated culverts 

connecting the L-D1 and C-43 canals). The gates for the S-235 culverts are normally left open, 

allowing water to flow to the Caloosahatchee River during normal conditions. The gates are 

closed when the stage in Lake Okeechobee falls below 13.0 feet or during hurricane alerts. The 
Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-10 

main functions of the canals and structures in the S-4 Basin are removing excess water from the 

basin and supplying water to the basin when needed. The CRWPP addresses only the 

Caloosahatchee River Basin inflow from the S-4 Basin. The LOP2TP looked at flows from the 

S-4 Basin into Lake Okeechobee. 

Figure 2-4. Caloosahatchee River Watershed Land Use Map 

2.4.4 East Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed 

The East Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed consists of the Freshwater Northeast and Freshwater 

Southeast basins and is located in southern Glades County and northern Hendry County. It has a 

total drainage area of approximately 198,299 acres (309.8 mi2

). Land-use types in this subwatershed are mostly characterized by natural areas (55,390 acres), sugar cane (52,751 acres), 

and improved pastures (36,795 acres). 

2.4.4.1 Freshwater Northeast and Southeast Basins 

The Freshwater Northeast and Freshwater Southeast basins have drainage areas of approximately 

63,724 acres (99.6 mi2

) and 134,575 acres (210.3 mi2), respectively. The primary conveyance 

that serves these basins is the C-43 Canal (Caloosahatchee River), which separates the two 

basins. Two control structures are located in these basins: the S-77 gated spillway (also known 

as the Moore Haven Lock and Dam) and the S-78 gated spillway (also known as the Ortona 
Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-11 

Lock and Dam). The C-43 Canal is intersected by Lake Hicpochee about five miles west of S77. The C-43 Canal is also an integral part of the Okeechobee Waterway Navigational Project 

and, along with the St. Lucie Canal, provides a primary outlet from Lake Okeechobee for flood 

control. Water surface elevations in these basins are regulated by the S-78 gated spillway, and 

regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee are made by way of the S-77 gated spillway. The C19 Canal provides conveyance for agricultural lands to the C-43 Canal and is located in the 

Freshwater Northeast Basin. Water flows north to south in the C-19 Canal before it discharges 

into Lake Hicpochee before entering the C-43 Canal. The operational goals of this system are to 

remove excess waters from the basins and supply surface water to the basins when needed. 

2.4.5 West Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed 

The West Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed consists of the Freshwater Northwest and Freshwater 

Southwest basins. A majority of the sub-watershed is located in southern Glades and northern 

Hendry counties, with smaller portions in eastern Charlotte County, northeastern Lee County, 

and north-central Collier County. It has a total drainage area of 349,734 acres (546.5 mi2

). 

Land-use types in this sub-watershed are primarily natural areas (142,980 acres), citrus (69,008 

acres), and improved pastures (55,555 acres). 

2.4.5.1 Freshwater Northwest and Southwest Basins 

The Freshwater Northwest and Freshwater Southeast basins have drainage areas of 

approximately 162,141 acres (253.3 mi2

) and 187,593 acres (293.1 mi2), respectively. The 

primary conveyance that serves these basins is the C-43 Canal, which separates the two basins. 

Two control structures are located in these basins: the S-78 gated spillway and the S-79 gated 

spillway (also known as the W.P. Franklin Lock and Dam). The S-78 aids in control of water 

levels on adjacent lands upstream. The S-79 is the most downstream structure and marks the 

beginning of the Caloosahatchee Estuary. The S-79 helps maintain specific water levels 

upstream, regulates freshwater discharges into the estuary, and serves as an impediment to 

saltwater intrusion upstream of the lock. 

2.4.6 Tidal Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed 

The Tidal Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed is located in northern Lee County and southwestern 

Charlotte County and includes the Tidal North, Tidal South, and Caloosahatchee Estuary basins. 

Numerous tidal creeks drain into the Caloosahatchee Estuary Basin between S-79 and Shell 

Point. Five domestic wastewater treatment facilities are permitted to discharge treated 

wastewater to the estuary. Several of these plants, however, currently discharge significantly 

less than their permitted amounts due to reuse programs (most notably Cape Coral, and to a 

lesser extent, Fiesta Village and Waterway Estates). The total drainage area of this subwatershed is approximately 262,023 acres (409.4 mi2

). Major land uses include natural areas 

(97,453 acres), urban areas (79,124 acres), and improved pastures (21,392 acres). 

2.4.6.1 Tidal North and South Basins 

The Tidal North Basin alone has a drainage area of approximately 163,505 acres (255.5 mi2

) and 

the Tidal South Basin has a drainage area of approximately 82,234 acres (128.5 mi2

). The tidal 
Chapter 2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

2-12 

reach of the Caloosahatchee River separates the two basins and is the primary conveyance that 

serves the basins. The only control structure located in the basins is the S-79 gated spillway, 

which acts to regulate freshwater discharges to the estuary and serves as an impediment to 

saltwater intrusion upstream of the spillway. 

2.4.6.2 Caloosahatchee Estuary Basin 

The Caloosahatchee Estuary Basin consists of the tidal portion of the Caloosahatchee River, 

which extends from S-79 downstream to the river’s mouth at Shell Point. This basin, combined 

with the tidal waters of the Coastal Sub-watershed, comprises the larger area referred to as the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary. The Caloosahatchee Estuary Basin has an area of 16,285 acres (25.4 

mi2), and is almost entirely open water. Some small land areas are included within the boundary 

of this basin due to mapping irregularities. The basin is about 41 km long, and below the I-75 

bridge the waterway widens to a maximum extent of about 2.5 km. 

2.4.7 Coastal Sub-watershed 

The Coastal Sub-watershed consists of the North Coastal and Nearshore basins. The 

Caloosahatchee River discharges into the sub-watershed at Shell Point. The tidal waters of this 

sub-watershed comprise a large proportion of the area of the Caloosahatchee Estuary. The subwatershed has an area of 227,236 acres (355.1 mi2

). The predominant land-use type is open 

water (101,055 acres), followed by natural areas (68,512 acres), and urban areas (28,279 acres).

2.4.7.1 North Coastal Basin 

The North Coastal Basin has a drainage area of approximately 89,583 acres (140 mi2

). The 

majority of the basin is in western Lee County, with a small portion in southern Charlotte 

County. The northern part of the basin is drained by Gator Slough, and under normal conditions 

the entire basin discharges directly into Matlacha Pass and San Carlos Bay. 

2.4.7.2 Nearshore Basin 

The Nearshore Basin has a total drainage area of approximately 137,653 acres (215.1 mi2

). The 

basin is located in Lee County and is entirely composed of islands and open tidal waters. The 

barrier islands of Sanibel, Captiva, North Captiva, and Cayo Costa face the Gulf of Mexico to 

the west. Pine Island separates Pine Island Sound from Matlacha Pass. For this study, the 

northern boundary between the Nearshore Basin and Charlotte Harbor was arbitrarily defined as 

Boca Grande Pass. 
CHAPTER 3 

PLANNING PROCESS

 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

3.1 Ongoing Restoration Efforts and Other Relevant Projects.......................................... 3-2

3.1.1 Federal and State Partnership Efforts....................................................................... 3-2

3.1.1.1 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan ...................................................3-2

3.1.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule and Herbert Hoover Dike..................3-6

3.1.2 State and Local Efforts .............................................................................................3-7

3.1.2.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan..3-7

3.1.2.2 St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan.......................................................3-8

3.1.2.3 “River of Grass” Land Acquisition...................................................................3-8

3.1.2.4 Regulatory and Source Control Programs ........................................................3-8

3.1.2.5 C-43 Water Quality Treatment and Testing Facility ......................................3-10

3.1.2.6 Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement and Management 

Plan ................................................................................................................. 3-11

3.1.2.7 Lee County/City of Sanibel ............................................................................ 3-11

3.1.2.8 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council...............................................3-11

3.1.3 Stormwater Management Programs .......................................................................3-13

3.1.3.1 Charlotte County Stormwater Management Program.....................................3-13

3.1.3.2 Lee County Stormwater Management Program .............................................3-13

3.2 Problems ....................................................................................................................3-14

3.2.1 Ecological Problems in the Caloosahatchee Estuary .............................................3-14

3.2.1.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ......................................................................3-15

3.2.1.2 Oysters ............................................................................................................3-15

3.2.1.3 Algal Blooms .................................................................................................. 3-16

3.2.2 Potential Causes .....................................................................................................3-17

3.2.2.1 Discharges from Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Releases and the Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed..............................................................................................3-17

3.2.2.2 Insufficient Flows from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed.......................3-18

3.2.2.3 Loss of Shoreline Habitat and Function..........................................................3-18

3.2.2.4 Increased Nutrients and Contaminants ...........................................................3-18

3.3 Planning Objectives ...................................................................................................3-19

3.3.1 Caloosahatchee Estuary Salinity Envelope Objective............................................ 3-19

3.3.2 Caloosahatchee River Watershed Water Quality Objectives .................................3-19

3.3.3 Caloosahatchee River Watershed Water Quantity Objective.................................3-19

3.4 Planning Constraints .................................................................................................. 3-19

3.4.1 Water Supply and Flood Protection .......................................................................3-19

3.4.2 Minimum Flows and Levels...................................................................................3-20

3.4.3 Lake Okeechobee Proposed Target Minimum Water Level Condition .................3-20

3.4.4 Lake Okeechobee Service Area Irrigation Demand...............................................3-20

3.4.5 State Water Quality Standards ...............................................................................3-21

3.5 Performance Measures and Indicators....................................................................... 3-21
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-ii 

LIST OF TABLES 

3-1 Current Recommended Frequency Distribution (EST05) of Inflow from S-79............ 3-17 

3-2 CRWPP Problems, Objectives, Performance Measures and Indicators, and Targets ... 3-23 
Chapter 3

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-1 

3.0 PLANNING PROCESS 

A comprehensive and systematic planning process was used to develop the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Protection Plan (CRWPP). The planning was conducted by the coordinating 

agencies, which included staff from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Florida Department of Agriculture and 

Consumer Services (FDACS), Lee County, and affected municipalities. Planning was performed 

in consultation with the CRWPP Working Team, which included cooperating agencies (Lee 

County and affected municipalities), stakeholders, and the interested public. Significant steps in 

this process included the following: 

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

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

planned initiatives in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. Current and future planned 

projects that would either contribute to the achievement of CRWPP objectives or could be 

directly integrated into the plan were also identified during this review. 

2. Identification of problems – Water resource construction 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. Identification 

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

objectives. For the CRWPP planning process, water resource problems were identified 

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

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

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

plan. The CRWPP planning objectives were developed from the problems and opportunities 

identified in the working team meetings. Plans are intended to focus on the identified 

problems and take advantage of recognized opportunities. 

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

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

CRWPP planning process, the constraints were identified through a working team 

brainstorming process concurrent with the identification of problems and opportunities. 

5. Selection of performance measures – Performance measures and indicators are benchmarks 

used to guide formulation of alternative plans and evaluate plan performance. For the 

CRWPP planning process, performance measures and/or indicators for water quality and 

quantity were identified and consistent with previous and current planning processes. 

6. Identification of management measures – A management measure is a current or future 

feature, activity, or technology that can be implemented at a specific site within the study 

area to address one or more planning objectives. Management measures are the building 

blocks of alternative plans. A comprehensive list of management measures was prepared and 

evaluated through the collective input of the Caloosahatchee River Working Team (see 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-2 

Chapter 4.0 for a description of the working team). Using predetermined criteria, the 

management measures were screened to eliminate features or activities that did not contribute 

to meeting the planning goals and objectives. 

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

individual management measures. 

8. Evaluation of alternatives – The performance of each individual alternative plan was 

determined using agreed upon methodologies and modeling applications. Performance 

measures and indicators were then used to evaluate the performance of individual plans to the 

objectives of the CRWPP. 

9. CRWPP Selection - The plan that best met the legislative goals was selected as the CRWPP. 

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

adaptive management plan were developed for the CRWPP. Funding needs and 

opportunities were identified. 

Routine, periodic Northern Everglades interagency meetings and working team meetings were 

held to engage the cooperating agencies, stakeholders and the public throughout the planning 

process. Through these meetings, public input was sought and incorporated into the decisionmaking process, as appropriate. 

3.1 Ongoing Restoration Efforts and Other Relevant Projects 

Numerous ongoing or planned projects in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed are aimed at 

improving water quality, quantity, timing and distribution, which will complement and support 

the CRWPP goals and objectives. A key benefit of the Northern Everglades and Estuaries 

Protection Program (NEEPP) legislation is capturing all restoration-type projects under one 

umbrella plan. Some of the major projects, which complement and support the CRWPP goals 

and objectives, are described in the following sections. 

3.1.1 Federal and State Partnership Efforts 

Several completed or planned federal and state projects contribute to the goals and objectives of 

the CRWPP. The effects of these projects will be seen on a regional scale. Projects in this 

section include the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) – Caloosahatchee River 

(C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project Implementation Report (PIR), Southwest Florida 

Feasibility Study, and the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project. 

3.1.1.1 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan 

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. Upon completion of the Restudy of the Central and South Florida Project, 

CERP was proposed in 1999 and approved as the framework for Everglades restoration in the 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-3 

Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The joint state-federal partnership of CERP 

provides a framework and guide to restore, protect, and preserve the water resources of central 

and southern Florida, including the Everglades. The major components of CERP are surface 

water storage reservoirs, water preservation areas, and management of Lake Okeechobee as an 

ecological resource. Other major components include improved water deliveries into the 

estuaries, underground water storage, treatment wetlands, improved water deliveries to the 

Everglades, removal of barriers to sheet flow, storage of water in existing quarries, reuse of 

wastewater, pilot projects, improved water conservation, and additional feasibility studies. The 

CERP projects that have the greatest impact on the Caloosahatchee Estuary are the 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project, the Lake Okeechobee 

Watershed Project, Southwest Florida Feasibility Study, and the Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

(ASR) projects. These projects are summarized in the following subsections. 

3.1.1.1.1 Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project 

The purpose of the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir project is to 

improve the timing and quantity of freshwater flows to the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Currently, 

the South Florida flood control system stores water in Lake Okeechobee. Excess water is 

discharged when the lake rises to a level that threatens flooding in the Everglades Agricultural 

Area, the health of the lake, or the integrity of the Herbert Hoover Dike. The resulting unnatural 

surges of freshwater down the river reduce estuarine salinity levels. 

Alternately, during drought periods when irrigation demands are high, little or no water is 

released to the river. Deprived of freshwater, estuarine salinity levels rise, which impacts 

seagrasses and oysters, species that indicate the overall health of the estuary. 

The Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir will be used to ensure a more 

natural, consistent flow of freshwater to the estuary. Excess basin stormwater runoff, along with 

regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee, will be captured and stored in a reservoir and 

released slowly, as needed, to restore and maintain the estuary. This project may also provide 

recreation and water supply benefits. 

The Tentatively Selected Plan as identified in the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin 

Storage Reservoir PIR provides approximately 170,000 acre-feet of aboveground storage volume 

in a two-cell reservoir, with normal full pool depths varying from 15 feet at the southeast corner 

to 25 feet at the northwest corner. The plan encompasses approximately 10,500 acres, acquired 

by the Department of the Interior with federal Everglades restoration funds and by the State of 

Florida. Major features of the Tentatively Selected Plan include external and internal 

embankments, perimeter canals, two pump stations, internal controls, and outflow water control 

structures. 

Potential benefits from project implementation appear to be far-reaching. Based on a salinity 

model, the area within the Caloosahatchee estuarine system that is beneficially affected 

conservatively encompasses approximately 71,000 acres in the Caloosahatchee River, San Carlos 

Bay, and a portion of Pine Island Sound. The total area benefited by project implementation will 

likely be much larger, including portions of Matlacha Pass, Pine Island Sound, Estero Bay, and 

the Gulf of Mexico. 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-4 

In addition, the Tentatively Selected Plan provides deepwater habitat within the impoundment 

cells, including refugia (created by embankment excavation) for fish and other aquatic animals 

during extremely dry periods. The perimeter canal may also include littoral areas which may be 

utilized as forage and nursery habitat by wading birds. The configuration and extent of these 

areas will be determined during detailed design work. 

Finally, reservoir operations will improve water quality in the Caloosahatchee Estuary, since 

some of the nutrient-laden runoff and lake water will be stored in the reservoir, allowing for the 

settling of nutrients and other pollutants within the reservoir cells prior to delivery to the estuary. 

Removals of nutrients by mechanical and biological processes within the reservoir were 

estimated to be 7.3 metric tons per year (mt/yr) for total nitrogen (TN) (Knight, 2008). 

3.1.1.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project 

The Lake Okeechobee Watershed Project selected plan includes six structural components and a 

modification to the existing Lake Istokpoga Regulation Schedule. The components are as 

follows: 

• Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Reservoir – This 1,984-acre storage facility is located in the 

S-191 Sub-basin and will provide a maximum capacity of 32,000 acre-feet at an average 

depth of 18 feet. It will receive inflows from and discharge back to Taylor Creek. This 

reservoir feature will remove approximately three-to-five mt/yr of total phosphorus (TP) by 

sediment settling. The location and configuration of this feature matches with that of the 

Taylor Creek Reservoir being considered under the Lake Okeechobee Fast-Track (LOFT) 

program. 

• Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Stormwater Treatment Area (STA) – This 3,975-acre 

treatment facility is located in the S-135 Sub-basin and will treat flows from S-133, S-191, 

and S-135 sub-basins. This STA is expected to reduce TP loads by 19 mt/yr. The location of 

this facility overlaps with that of the Lakeside Ranch STA being considered under LOFT. 

• Kissimmee Reservoir – This storage facility consists of a 10,281-acre aboveground 

reservoir with a maximum storage capacity of 161,263 acre-feet at an average depth of 16 

feet. The feature is located in the C-41A Sub-basin. It will receive flow from and discharge 

back to the C-38 Canal (Kissimmee River). A secondary discharge structure will also allow 

for releases to the C-41A Canal. 

• Istokpoga Reservoir – This 5,416-acre storage facility will be located in the C-40A and C41A sub-basins and will provide a maximum storage capacity of 79,560 acre-feet at an 

average depth of 16 feet. It will receive inflow from and discharge back to the C-41A Canal. 

• Istokpoga STA – This 8,044-acre treatment facility will be located in the L-49 Sub-basin. It 

will receive flow from the C-41 Canal and discharge treated water to Lake Okeechobee. This 

facility is expected to reduce TP loads by approximately 29.1 mt/yr. 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-5 

• Paradise Run Wetland Restoration – This 3,730-acre wetland restoration site is located at 

the ecologically significant confluence (under pre-development conditions) of Paradise Run, 

oxbows of the Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee. Under restored conditions it would 

have a rain-driven hydrology, unless future efforts could link the site to the surface flows 

from the C-38 or C-41A canals. 

• Lake Istokpoga Regulation Schedule – The recommended revised Lake Istokpoga 

Regulation Schedule is based on an El Niño operating strategy. This operating strategy 

consists of a combined assessment of existing hydrologic conditions and long-term climatic 

forecasts at the beginning of each dry season to determine whether normal, wet, or dry year 

recession rule curves should be used. The revisions to the Lake Istokpoga Regulation 

Schedule will help to restore the natural variability to the system which will then restore the 

natural variability in inflows to downstream systems.

3.1.1.1.3 Southwest Florida Feasibility Study 

The Southwest Florida Feasibility Study (SWFFS) covers approximately 4,300 square miles of 

Florida’s southern peninsula. The study area encompasses all of Lee County, most of Collier 

and Hendry counties, and portions of Charlotte, Glades, and Monroe counties. In the SWFFS 

study area, the Caloosahatchee River serves as the western outlet for discharges of stormwater 

and flood releases from Lake Okeechobee to the Gulf of Mexico and is a major source of surface 

water supply for the basin. The SWFFS will provide a comprehensive review of the water issues 

that face southwest Florida, and is not limited to those related to the Central and Southern 

Florida Project. The study will develop and address alternatives that protect and restore early 

wet-season and overland sheet flow conditions that provide for restoration of amphibian, reptile, 

macro-invertebrate, and forage fish populations. The SWFFS will consider the impacts of 

freshwater pulsing and/or depletion of freshwater flows to estuaries, improvement of shellfish 

and fisheries habitat, and protection and restoration of shoreline wetlands that are unique to 

southwest Florida, such as mangroves. Wide-ranging federal- and state-listed threatened and 

endangered species, such as the Florida panther, wood stork, and Florida black bear, as well as 

migratory birds and endemic species, will be prioritized in the study’s alternative development 

and analysis. The study will look at the protection and/or restoration of existing natural 

resources through land acquisition and conservation easement. The study will plan for proper 

infrastructure before, or as development occurs, not after. The SWFFS will develop a water 

resources plan for the entire southwest Florida area and provide for ecosystem and 

marine/estuary restoration and protection, environmental quality, flood protection, water supply 

and other water-related purposes. 

3.1.1.1.4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) involves the concept of storing partially treated surface 

water in the subsurface, by pumping the water through wells that are used for both recharge 

(injection) and recover. During storage, the water would remain in the Floridan aquifer. Within 

the Caloosahatchee River Basin, it is anticipated to help minimize high-volume water releases to 

the estuary. During dry periods, water recovered from ASR wells would be utilized to maintain 

surface water levels within the River and associated canals and to maintain a minimum flow of 

freshwater to the estuary. ASR technology has been demonstrated to be feasible, but has not 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-6 

been tested on the scale that is required for CERP. The ASR pilot projects will provide the 

platforms for the ASR Regional Study to address the uncertainties identified by the National 

Academy of Sciences. 

Pilot projects were authorized for several components of the CERP that were to be implemented 

on a very large scale. The components of the CERP had sufficient detail for plan selection, but 

did not have sufficient detail for traditional U.S. Army Corps of Engineers feasibility studies. 

The pilot projects will provide further information regarding the hydrogeological and 

geotechnical characteristics of the upper Floridan Aquifer System within the region and the 

ability of the upper Floridan Aquifer System to maintain injected water for future recovery. ASR 

pilot projects have been initiated at various locations around Lake Okeechobee, the Hillsboro 

Canal (in southern Palm Beach County), and within the Caloosahatchee River Basin. The pilot 

projects also will evaluate the available technology and contribute information necessary for 

additional plan formulation and development by the ASR Regional Study team. A 

comprehensive Technical Data Report of the ASR technologies and cycle testing responses will 

be prepared. From the information collected at the sites, the ASR Regional Study Team may 

determine the optimal number of wells, where to site these wells, and any specific treatment 

requirements to operate the ASR systems. 

A pilot project was initiated in the Caloosahatchee River Basin in 2003, at the location of Berry 

Groves, just west of LaBelle. The results of the exploratory well indicated that high capacity 

ASR technology would not be feasible at that location. Presently, the Caloosahatchee River 

ASR pilot project is on “hold,” until an alternative site is selected for future exploratory work. 

3.1.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule and Herbert Hoover Dike 

A regulation schedule is a federally authorized tool used by water managers to manage the water 

levels in a lake or reservoir. Water in Lake Okeechobee previously was managed in accordance 

with the Water Supply/Environmental (WSE) Regulation Schedule that was approved in 2000. 

On April 28, 2008, the USACE approved the new 2008 Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule. 

Therefore, all surface water releases from Lake Okeechobee to the estuaries after this date are in 

accordance with the new schedule. 

Water management decisions regarding Lake Okeechobee are highly dependent upon the Herbert 

Hoover Dike. The Herbert Hoover Dike is an earthen levee that was constructed around the 

southern portion of Lake Okeechobee for flood control purposes approximately 70 years ago. 

For decades, the dike has served this purpose; however, it is in need of rehabilitation. Until the 

rehabilitation is complete, the USACE’s goal is to manage Lake Okeechobee water levels at a 

safe range for the dike, between 12.5 and 15.5 feet throughout the year (USACE, 2008b). 

The previous WSE schedule was developed to improve performance of Lake Okeechobee's 

littoral zone habitat and water supply without impacting the other lake management objectives. 

The WSE schedule for maintaining water levels within the lake has proven ineffective in meeting 

these goals. During extreme wet weather events in the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, Lake 

Okeechobee rose to 17 and 18 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (USACE, 2008b; 

USACE, 2008c). These high levels are not considered within the safe range for the Herbert 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-7 

Hoover Dike, as determined by the USACE. Furthermore, implementing the WSE has resulted 

in ecological impacts to Lake Okeechobee from fluctuating water levels and to the 

Caloosahatchee River and St. Lucie River estuaries from excessive freshwater releases (USACE, 

2007). 

The Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Study (LORSS) was initiated in late 2005 to develop 

a new water regulation schedule allowing operational changes within the existing infrastructure 

to address these issues. Based solely on current water storage capacity in the system, the 

operational changes will allow for quicker response and operational flexibility to fluctuating lake 

conditions and tributary inflows. An additional feature of the new schedule is that it allows for 

the capability to initiate releases to the Caloosahatchee River and St. Lucie River estuaries and 

the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) to the south, at lower levels than under the current 

schedule. The low-volume releases should add flows to the Caloosahatchee Estuary, but not in 

excessive quantities, helping maintain appropriate salinity ranges (USACE, 2008b). 

Upon fully implementing the Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (USACE, 2008a), water 

managers began conducting another regulation schedule study (System Operating Manual 

Study). This study will take into account construction of early CERP projects, including projects 

expedited by SFWMD, which will provide many additional options for water storage and 

management. Water managers will also take into account an adjusted lake level afforded by the 

Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Project in future revisions to the regulation schedule. 

3.1.2 State and Local Efforts 

There are several state and local government rules, plans and programs in place that contribute to 

the goals and objectives of the CRWPP. In addition to the Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan (LOP2TP) and the St. Lucie River Watershed 

Protection Plan (SLRWPP), these water quality initiatives include source control programs, 

stormwater management programs, and local government water quality resolutions. 

3.1.2.1 Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan 

The LOP2TP was developed in response to NEEPP. The purpose of the LOP2TP is to provide 

an overall strategy for improving quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water in the 

Northern Everglades ecosystem and achieve the TP Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for 

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

• Meet Lake Okeechobee Watershed TMDLs; 

• Manage Lake Okeechobee water levels within an ecologically desirable range; 

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

Caloosahatchee estuaries through the delivery of appropriate freshwater releases from 

Lake Okeechobee made possible by additional water storage north of the lake; and 

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

watershed to meet specified goals. 

Many of the projects identified in the LOP2TP are also included as management measures in this 

CRWPP. 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-8 

3.1.2.2 St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan 

The SLRWPP also was developed in response to NEEPP. As with this CRWPP, the SLRWPP 

addresses undesirable water flows and nutrient loading to the St. Lucie River and has the same 

three main components: (1) a Construction Project, (2) a Pollutant Control Program, and (3) a 

Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program. 

3.1.2.3 “River of Grass” Land Acquisition 

The “River of Grass” Land Acquisition is a proposed real estate transaction of historic 

proportions between SFWMD and United States (US) Sugar Corporation which could bring over 

180,000 acres of agricultural lands into public ownership to help revive, restore, and preserve 

America’s Everglades. The proposed acquisition of US Sugar Corporation lands when finalized 

will provide the unprecedented opportunity to store and treat water on a scale never before 

envisioned for the benefit of the Everglades ecosystem. The acquisition will build upon and 

enhance CERP and the State’s Northern Everglades Program. If the acquisition is successful, 

initial conceptual planning will be a SFWMD/State led public effort utilizing the Water 

Resources Advisory Committee. The potential use of lands acquired within the Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed will be included in this planning process. 

3.1.2.4 Regulatory and Source Control Programs 

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

program. There are several existing source control programs in the watershed that are evolving 

and expanding through cooperative and complementary efforts by FDEP, FDACS, and SFWMD. 

An overview of each of the existing nutrient source control programs in the Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed is provided below. Details of the comprehensive CRWPP Pollutant Control 

Program, including improvements to existing programs, are described in Chapter 7 of this 

document. 

3.1.2.4.1 Environmental Resource Permit Program 

The existing Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program is a statewide permitting program 

that began in the mid-1990s and is implemented by both FDEP and the water management 

districts. The ERP program regulates activities in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters 

and the management and storage of all surface waters. This includes activities in uplands that 

alter stormwater runoff as well as dredging and filling in wetlands and other surface waters. 

Generally, the program's purpose is to ensure that activities do not degrade water quality, 

compromise flood protection, or adversely affect the function of wetland systems. The program 

applies to new activities only, or to modifications of existing activities, and requires an applicant 

to provide reasonable assurances that an activity will not cause adverse impacts to existing 

surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, and will not adversely affect the quality of 

receiving waters such that any applicable water quality standards will be violated. Therefore, the 

applicant must address the long-term water quality impacts of a proposed activity and must 

prevent any discharge or release of pollutants from the system that will cause water quality 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-9 

standards to be violated. Rule revisions to the ERP Program are being proposed to improve 

regulatory criteria as described in Chapter 7 of this document. 

3.1.2.4.2 Proposed Caloosahatchee River Watershed Regulatory Nutrient Source Control 

Program 

The existing SFWMD Chapter 40E-61, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Regulatory 

Nutrient Source Control Program was adopted in 1989 (as a result of the Lake Okeechobee 

Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan), to provide a regulatory source control 

program specifically for phosphorus (P). The NEEPP legislation expanded the program 

boundary to the Caloosahatchee River Watershed as well as St. Lucie River Watershed and 

included N, in addition to P, as the focus of nutrient source controls. The program applies to 

new and existing agricultural and non-agricultural activities, with the goal of reducing nutrients 

in offsite discharges. 

 

SFWMD is proposing amendments to Chapter 40E-61, F.A.C., to be compatible with NEEPP. 

To ensure consistency with the CRWPP, rule development is expected to begin in early 2009. 

Additional details on this program and its expansion can be found in Chapter 7 of this document. 

3.1.2.4.3 Agricultural Best Management Practices 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act, Section 403.067, F.S. (1999), authorized FDACS to 

develop, adopt by administrative rule, and implement agricultural Best Management Practices 

(BMPs) statewide. In the ensuing years, FDACS has developed and adopted comprehensive 

BMP manuals for citrus, vegetables, and agronomic crops, containerized nurseries, and sod 

production. BMP manuals for sod, beef cattle production and the equine industry are scheduled 

to be adopted by administrative rule by early 2009. 

Agricultural landowners participating in FDACS BMP programs must implement nutrient 

management plans and maintain records verifying nutrient management plan implementation. In 

addition, typical BMPs include irrigation management (which includes an evaluation of the 

irrigation system efficiency), surface water management (installation of modern water control 

structures), and comprehensive ditch maintenance programs. As of the approval date of the 

CRWPP, agricultural acreage within Glades, Hendry, and Charlotte counties enrolled in FDACS 

BMP Program totaled 242,000 acres. 

Critical components in the success of the agricultural BMP program are the collection and 

analysis of data to determine whether BMPs are working as anticipated. The interagency team is 

committed to continue funding on-farm BMP demonstration projects at representative sites that 

will provide both BMP effectiveness data. In cooperation with the University of Florida Institute 

of Food and Agriculture Sciences (UF/IFAS), FDACS is conducting BMP demonstration and 

evaluation projects at representative sites for all agricultural land uses in the watershed as 

funding becomes available. 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-10 

3.1.2.4.4 Urban Best Management Practices 

There is a continued focus in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed on reducing the impacts of 

non-point source pollution from urban land use through rules, public education programs, and 

other non-structural BMPs. Urban BMPs are practices determined by the coordinating agencies 

to be the most effective and practicable on-location means, including economic and 

technological considerations, for improving water quality in urban discharges. Examples of 

urban BMPs implemented in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed include the Florida Yards and 

Neighborhoods Program, comprehensive planning initiatives, and the Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule, 

which are discussed in more detail below. 

The Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program is an excellent example of a nonstructural urban 

BMP program. By educating citizens and builders about proper landscape design (e.g., “right 

plant-right place” practices), this program is helping minimize the use of pesticides, fertilizers 

and irrigation water. FDEP has an ongoing monitoring program to determine the effectiveness 

of this program in reducing nutrient loads. 

Comprehensive planning initiatives involve cities, counties, and other entities in the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed that are responsible for comprehensive planning and land 

development approvals. FDEP works with those entities to review current comprehensive plans 

and associated land development regulations to ensure that they promote low impact design and 

proper stormwater treatment. The objective is to implement low impact design measures basinwide to achieve additional nutrient reductions and water storage. 

In August 2007, FDACS adopted a statewide Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule. The rule limits the P 

and N content in fertilizers for urban turf and lawns, thereby significantly reducing the amount of 

P and N applied in urban areas and limiting the amount of those compounds reaching Florida’s 

water resources. It requires that all fertilizer products labeled for use on urban turf, sports turf 

and lawns be limited to the amount of P and N needed to support healthy turf maintenance. 

FDACS expects a 20 to 25 percent reduction in N and a 15 percent reduction in P in every bag of 

fertilizer sold to the public. The rule was developed by FDACS with input from UF/IFAS, 

FDEP, the state’s five water management districts, the League of Cities, the Association of 

Counties, fertilizer manufacturers, and concerned citizens. It enhances efforts currently 

underway to address excess nutrients in the Northern and Southern Everglades. As a component 

of the Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Recovery (LOER) Plan, the new rule is an essential 

component to improve water quality through nutrient source control. 

3.1.2.5 C-43 Water Quality Treatment and Testing Facility 

The C-43 Water Quality Treatment and Testing Facility is a joint project with Lee County and 

SFWMD and will develop, design, and build a testing facility that will study nitrogen removal 

methods. The results of the studies and system performance will be used to improve the methods 

of water quality treatment in the Caloosahatchee Basin. The facility will be located along the 

Caloosahatchee River in Glades County very near the Ortona Lock and Dam. It is a 1,350 acre 

project located on a 1,800 acre site. A portion of the site has been set aside for recreational 

purposes and use by Glades County. 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-11 

3.1.2.6 Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan 

The Lower Charlotte Harbor (LCH) is listed as a Tier 1 Priority Water Body. The designation 

came from the SFWMD Governing Board decision in 2003 to amend and combine the then listed 

Tier 2 Caloosahatchee River and Estero Bay, and the Tier 3 Pine Island Sound, Matlacha, and 

Ding Darling into the LCH. In preparation for development of the LCH Surface Water 

Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan, a LCH SWIM Reconnaissance Report was 

authorized in 2004. Upon completion of the Reconnaissance Report the LCH SWIM Plan was 

developed and approved in February of 2008. The LCH SWIM Plan’s basic strategy consists of 

restoring, protecting, and managing the surface water resources of the LCH Watershed through 

the use of a prioritized, objective, applied, sustainable, ecosystem, or watershed approach with 

periodic public review and input. 

The Plan is organized around a system of goals, initiatives, strategies, and action steps. In this 

system, the goals are broad-based and identify objectives of SFWMD. Initiatives are general 

categories that have been used to divide the plan into distinct subject areas developed by 

SFWMD staff. Strategies are more detailed descriptions of the underlying work proposed to 

achieve results. The strategies identify the approaches and methods that will be used to 

implement the initiatives. Action steps represent specific activities under each strategy 

suggested to reach project delivery. Each action step has an associated estimate of the funding 

requirements and schedule for completion. These action steps, as well as the strategies and 

initiatives referenced above are not mutually exclusive, and may be undertaken concurrently or 

sequentially. There are six primary initiatives to address within the watershed, which are: Water 

Quality; Stormwater Quantity; Watershed Master Planning and Implementation; Habitat 

Assessment, Protection, and Restoration; Outreach; and Funding. 

3.1.2.7 Lee County/City of Sanibel 

As a source control measure, Lee County and the City of Sanibel have adopted unique fertilizer 

ordinances. These ordinances limit the amount of P and N that can be applied to landscapes by 

landscape professionals as well as property owners. All landscape professionals must also attend 

and pass a landscape BMP course and be certified by the county. Additionally, Lee County and 

the City of Sanibel have established outreach programs and Lee County has set aside dedicated 

funding for staff positions to administer their program. 

Lee County has budgeted for pollutant source control through its Capital Improvement Plan 

(CIP). Over $200 million in projects for water quality improvements are either under way or are 

planed through the CIP process. 

3.1.2.8 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council 

The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) formed the Lower West Coast 

Watersheds Subcommittee in 2006 to address the deteriorating condition of the Caloosahatchee 

River and Estuary. The Subcommittee’s purpose would be to review existing plans to a five-year 

horizon, identify gaps preventing an effective basin water quality initiative, make 

recommendations for improvement, and propose a successor coordination tool/entity to 

implement the emerging recommendations of the SWFFS and the TMDL plan. Through the 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-12 

work of this subcommittee, five resolutions have been passed by the SWFRPC that should have a 

positive impact on water quality in the watershed. The resolutions address fertilizer, wastewater, 

wastewater package plants, onsite wastewater systems planning, treatment, and management, and 

general stormwater management. The resolutions are described in the following subsections. 

3.1.2.8.1 Fertilizer Resolution (SWFRPC Resolution #2007-01) 

The Fertilizer Resolution provides specific recommendations and guidelines for the 

consideration of local governments within Southwest Florida as they regulate the use of 

fertilizers containing N and/or P. This resolution covers the governance of all segments of the 

community that may be involved in fertilizer application, such as the general public, commercial, 

institutional, and retail sectors. A broad range of recommendations, such as public education, 

licensing programs, impervious surfaces, buffer zones, and application specifics, were included 

to cover the diverse community that may apply fertilizers and may impact water quality in the 

Caloosahatchee River Basin. 

3.1.2.8.2 Wastewater Resolution (SWFRPC Resolution #2007-02) 

The Wastewater Resolution gives Southwest Florida local government’s specific guidance for 

the regulation and control of treated wastewater discharges containing N and/or P. This 

resolution covers multiple types of wastewater treatment scenarios such as reuse applications, 

processing and disposal of solids/sludge, and the discharge of treated effluent to open waters or 

ground water aquifers. All of the recommendations support improving and maintaining water 

and habitat quality through the reduction of nutrients within the treated wastewater stream and/or 

reduction of the wastewater stream itself into water bodies and adjacent areas affected by 

groundwater transport. 

3.1.2.8.3 Wastewater Package Plant Resolution (SWFRPC Resolution #2007-05) 

The Wastewater Package Plant Resolution supports the reduction and elimination of surface 

water discharges from small wastewater treatment facilities. It provides specific 

recommendations and guidelines to be considered by local government jurisdictions in 

Southwest Florida for the regulation and control of treated wastewater discharges containing N 

and/or P. 

3.1.2.8.4 Managed Care Model Guidance for Onsite Wastewater Systems Planning, 

Treatment and Management Resolution (SWFRPC Resolution #2008-02) 

This resolution provides specific recommendations and guidelines for the regulation, 

management, and control of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. These 

recommendations include regular maintenance and inspection of existing onsite wastewater 

systems, adopting inspection standards, and requiring training for system inspectors, in addition 

to other efforts. Through these recommendations, the negative environmental effects of onsite 

sewage treatment and disposal systems will be minimized for Southwest Florida lakes, canals, 

estuaries, interior wetlands, rivers, and near shore waters of the Gulf of Mexico. This resolution 

also will contribute to the regulation of nutrients and the prevention of pathogen contamination 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-13 

entering the water bodies in this region, which will be a crucial step toward improving and 

maintaining water and habitat quality. 

3.1.2.8.5 Stormwater Resolution (SWFRPC Resolution #2007-11) 

The purpose of this Resolution is to provide specific recommendations and guidelines to be 

considered by local government jurisdictions in Southwest Florida for the regulation, control, 

use, and treatment of stormwater containing N and/or P. This will assist with the protection of 

Southwest Florida's lakes, rivers and streams, and groundwater. Additionally, this will assist 

with the proper selection, operation and management of existing stormwater systems to prevent 

the further degradation of groundwater, lakes, rivers and streams. 

3.1.3 Stormwater Management Programs 

The Federal Clean Water Act was amended in 1987 to require the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA) to regulate storm water discharges through National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. This program controls water pollution by 

regulating point sources, such as pipes or man-made ditches, which discharge pollutants into 

waters of the United States. Industrial, municipal, and other facilities that are connected to a 

municipal system must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. The 

Stormwater Management Program is a fundamental element of the NPDES program and contains 

action items that must be implemented by the permit holder. Lee County and Charlotte County 

are stormwater NPDES permittees and have Stormwater Management Programs that are 

described in the following section. 

3.1.3.1 Charlotte County Stormwater Management Program 

On June 2003, Charlotte County submitted an application to obtain a NPDES Phase II municipal 

permit, which was granted in July 2003. The permit allows the creation of a county-wide 

Stormwater Management Plan with a five-year implementation schedule. Every five years, the 

county has to renew the permit and prove that the plan is being implemented. Annual reports 

will illustrate Charlotte County's continuing efforts to meet federal standards (CCPU, 2008). 

3.1.3.2 Lee County Stormwater Management Program 

In April 2003, Lee County submitted an application to obtain a NPDES municipal permit, which 

was granted in March 2004. The Stormwater Management Program for the community 

contained 14 required program elements. A number of the elements identified controls for 

specific pollutants such as pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, sanitary seepage, and construction 

site runoff. Other elements addressed public education, system operation and maintenance, and 

inspection program implementation. An annual reporting program provides proof of their 

continuing effort to protect water quality and meet federal standards. The county is required to 

show progress on Stormwater Management Program elements as part of the permit renewal 

process (USEPA, 2003). 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-14 

3.2 Problems 

The quality and quantity of water entering the Caloosahatchee Estuary directly affects the health 

of the system. Evaluating water quality and quantity can determine long term trends and the 

state of this estuary. Historical drainage patterns within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

have been highly altered since pre-drainage times. Loss of natural habitat from riverfront and 

coastal development, increased urban development, construction of drainage canals, and 

agricultural activities have affected the timing, quantity, quality, and distribution of runoff to the 

estuary. Wet season flows have intensified, due to increased runoff resulting from land clearing 

and impervious areas; dry season flows have decreased, due to increased water supply demand 

for agricultural and urban development. Loss of storage within the watershed has resulted from 

the watershed being drained to accommodate grazing, citrus farms and other crop farms. 

The general problems associated with water entering the Caloosahatchee Estuary include: 

• Excess discharges from Lake Okeechobee and watershed runoff occurring mainly during 

the wet season; 

• Insufficient flows to the Caloosahatchee Estuary during the dry season; and 

• Excess nutrient loads to the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary. 

The following subsections focus on the ecological problems in the Caloosahatchee Estuary, 

identify the possible causes of the problems, and describe opportunities to improve conditions in 

the estuary. 

3.2.1 Ecological Problems in the Caloosahatchee Estuary 

The major ecological problems in the Caloosahatchee Estuary stem from altered hydrology and 

excess nutrient loading. The combination of an excess of freshwater during the wet season and a 

lack of discharge during the dry season lead to exaggerated seasonal and short term fluctuations 

in salinity throughout the entire estuary. The fluctuations in salinity in any one region of the 

estuary can exceed the physiological tolerance limits of the organisms that normally live there, 

causing stress and/or mortality (Chamberlain and Doering, 1998 a, b). 

Excess nutrient loading has been a concern since at least the 1980s, when the Florida Department 

of Environmental Regulation (FDER) determined that the Caloosahatchee Estuary had reached 

its nutrient loading limits. A series of algal blooms and massive accumulations of drift algae that 

have occurred since 2000 is another indication of coastal eutrophication (Lapointe & Bedford, 

2006). 

This section focuses on submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), oysters, and algal blooms. 

Seagrass and oysters are Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs). VECs sustain an important 

ecological resource and/or water resource function by providing food, living space, refuge and 

foraging sites for other desirable species in the estuary. The salinity tolerances and other 

environmental requirements of SAV and oysters have been used to identify preferred ranges of 

freshwater inflows. Algal blooms are an indicator of eutrophication. 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-15 

3.2.1.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

Beds of SAV are important to the ecology of shallow estuarine and marine environments. These 

beds provide habitat for many benthic and pelagic organisms, function as nurseries for juveniles 

and other early life stages, stabilize sediments, improve water quality, and can form the basis of a 

detrital food web (Fonseca & Fisher, 1986; Carter, 1988; Killgore, 1989). Because of their 

importance, estuarine restoration initiatives often focus on SAV (Batiuk 1992). SAV are 

commonly monitored to gauge the health of estuarine systems (Tomasko, 1996) and their 

environmental requirements can form the basis for water quality goals (Dennison, 1993; 

Stevenson, 1993). 

Tape grass (Vallisneria americana) is the dominant submerged aquatic vegetation in the upper 

Caloosahatchee Estuary and occurs in well-defined beds in shallow water (Doering et al., 2001, 

2002). Vallisneria americana is an important habitat for a variety of freshwater and estuarine 

invertebrate and vertebrate species, including some commercially and recreationally important 

fishes (Bortone & Turpin, 1999). Additionally, it can serve as a food source for the Florida 

manatee (Trichechus manatus). Shoal grass (Halodule wrightii), turtle grass (Thalassia 

testudinum), and manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme) are the most common higher salinity 

grasses in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Argopectin species, the bay scallop, prefers shoal and 

turtle grass beds. 

All species of SAV have a preferred and tolerable salinity range. The SAV management 

measures include creation and restoration of wetlands, and incorporation of growth management 

techniques and initiatives that integrate environmental objectives into urban growth planning. 

SAV respond unfavorably when salinity alterations fall outside of these ranges. Degraded water 

quality and physical alterations, such as construction of the Sanibel Causeway and the dredging 

of the Intracoastal Waterway, have also shown negative impacts to the seagrasses. The result has 

been a regional decrease of seagrass coverage (Chamberlain & Doering, 1998a). This decline 

negatively impacts the fish and invertebrate communities. Loss of seagrass also causes 

destabilization of sediments and a shift in primary productivity from benthic macrophytes to 

phytoplankton, both of which provide negative biofeedback to further affect seagrass beds 

(SFWMD, 2006). Further information can be found in the Research and Water Quality 

Monitoring Program in Appendix E. 

3.2.1.2 Oysters 

The American Oyster (Crassostrea virginica), also known as the Eastern or Virginia Oyster, is a 

natural component of southern estuaries and has been documented to be abundant in these 

systems. In the Caloosahatchee Estuary, oysters have been identified as a VEC. They filter 

particles from the water column, provide habitat and play an important role in the food chain. 

Oysters require firm and stable substrate for attachment; water flows adequate to provide food 

supplies of plankton and algae; oxygen concentrations greater than three parts per million (ppm); 

and salinity ranges between 10 to 30 parts per thousand (ppt), with 14 to 28 ppt as optimal 

conditions. They can tolerate high salinity (40 ppt), but are especially vulnerable to low salinity 

(~3-5 ppt) for very brief periods (Gunter & Geyer, 1955; Volety, 2003). Oysters are also very 

susceptible to parasitic diseases, which are more prevalent during periods of high salinity 

(greater than 25 ppt) and high temperatures. 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-16 

Recent estimates (2003 to 2004) for the Caloosahatchee River suggest approximately 18.4 acres 

of oyster reefs. The Caloosahatchee River and Estuary (including San Carlos Bay that forms the 

estuary portion of the Caloosahatchee River) has an accommodation space of 62,644,983 square 

meters (m2

) (6264 hectares (ha) or 15,479.36 acres) with oyster reefs comprising 74,336 m2 (7.43 

ha or 18.37 acres). This area translates to 0.12 percent coverage of total surface area available in 

the estuarine portion (Volety, 2003; RECOVER 2007). Consequently, restoration efforts are 

expected to improve the recruitment and survivorship of the Eastern Oyster by restoring oyster 

beds in suitable habitat and maintaining habitat function of oyster beds for fish, crabs, and birds. 

3.2.1.3 Algal Blooms 

Periodic blooms of algae have been reported within the marine and freshwater portions of the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary. In many instances, these algal blooms are merely an aesthetic and 

odiferous nuisance. However, when bloom occurrences cause the annual average chlorophyll-a

concentration within the water to exceed 11 micrograms per liter (μg/L), then FDEP Impaired 

Water Rule is violated (Rule 62-303.353, F.A.C.). These blooms can cause depressed dissolved 

oxygen (DO) below the state criteria, depending on the concentration of the bloom, spatial 

extent, and duration (Doering, et al. 2006). 

In addition to the impact of a bloom on general water quality, certain algal species produce 

toxins that kill fish, invertebrates, birds and mammals. One such species is Karenia brevis,

which can produce blooms that are toxic to the marine environment and are referred to as “red 

tides.” Florida red tide blooms typically begin offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and move slowly 

with the prevailing ocean currents toward southwest Florida. As the bloom progresses, the 

density of red tide organisms increases to several million cells in each liter of sea water, and the 

affected area expands to many square miles. Other algal species, such as the freshwater 

cyanobacteria microcystis species, can enter the estuary during freshwater inflow and cause 

harmful blooms, depending on environmental conditions such as temperature, season, and 

nutrient availability. 

Accumulations of drift algae (seaweed) constitute another problem. The seaweed can smother 

seagrass beds and render beaches unusable for recreational purposes. While some recent studies 

have been conducted (LaPointe & Bedford, 2006), the causes of these massive accumulations are 

not yet fully understood and further investigations, funded by the City of Sanibel and Lee 

County, are underway. 

Marine algal toxins, such as brevetoxin, bioaccumulate and are magnified in the food chain, 

while anatoxins from freshwater cyanobacteria affect the nervous system. There have been 

several documented cases in the field where blooms of Karenia brevis, a brevetoxin that 

produces neurotoxins, have killed both vertebrate and invertebrate species. At least 17 

invertebrate species normally present in Tampa Bay, Florida have been recorded as absent 

immediately after red tide incidents. Various species of bivalve shellfish, especially oysters, 

clams, and coquinas can accumulate so much toxin that they become toxic to both marine 

animals and humans (SFWMD, 2006). 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-17 

3.2.2 Potential Causes 

Beginning in the1890s, ecological degradation began in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed due 

to channelization, connection to Lake Okeechobee, and construction of an extensive canal 

network. The potential causes of the ecological problems in the Caloosahatchee Estuary 

discussed above include excess water discharges from Lake Okeechobee regulatory releases and 

the Caloosahatchee River Watershed, insufficient discharges from the Caloosahatchee 

Watershed, loss of shoreline habitat and function, and nutrient loading (USFWS, 1984). These 

potential causes and their relationship to the ecological problems are discussed in the following 

section. 

3.2.2.1 Discharges from Lake Okeechobee Regulatory Releases and the Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed 

Construction of drainage systems in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed to accommodate 

agriculture and urban development has resulted in a loss of storage. During the rainy season, 

runoff occurs with a shorter duration at higher volumes and peak discharges. These high 

discharges can be exacerbated by regulatory discharges from Lake Okeechobee sent to the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary through the C-43 Canal. These discharges have led to extreme and 

sudden low salinity conditions within the Caloosahatchee Estuary. For example, discharges to 

the Caloosahatchee Estuary exceeding 2,800 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the S-79 Franklin 

Lock and Dam have been determined to cause stress to the estuary. Discharges greater than 

4,500 cfs have been determined to be severely damaging. Although this CRWPP accounts for 

Lake Okeechobee regulatory releases, they are addressed in the LOP2TP. This plan focuses on 

discharges from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. 

The current proposed frequency distribution of mean monthly inflows to the Caloosahatchee 

Estuary, from S-79 (estuary demand time series EST05), was chosen from several CERP model 

run options. This distribution best achieves the range of flows from S-79 that are needed for 

meeting ecological and salinity targets. Table 3-1 (SFWMD, 2003b; Chamberlain, 2005)

identifies the current recommended frequency distribution of average monthly freshwater inflow 

from S-79 associated with EST05, without contributions from tidal basins downstream of S-79. 

Table 3-1. Current Recommended Frequency Distribution (EST05) of Inflow from S-79 

(without contributions from tidal basins downstream of S-79)

Discharge Range (cfs) 

from S-79

Percent Distribution of 

Flows from S-79 

0 to 450 0% 

450 to 500 42.8% 

500 to 800 31.7% 

800 to1500 19.2% 

1500 to 2800 5.6% 

2800 to 4500 0.7% 

>4500 0% 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-18 

Analysis of modeled flow data from S-79 entering the Caloosahatchee Estuary during the 1970-

2005 period of record (432 months) has resulted in a useful snapshot of historic conditions. For 

example, the modeled mean monthly flows of existing conditions exceeded 2,800 cfs for 117 

months (27 percent of the total months), and 37 of those 117 months exceeded 4,500 cfs. Even 

with implementation of all LOP2TP projects, it is projected that the mean monthly flows 

exceeding 2,800 cfs for this period of record would have occurred in 76 months, and of those, 21 

months would have been above 4,500 cfs. The resulting extreme low salinity conditions stress 

oyster and seagrass communities and can ultimately lead to reduced populations and coverage. 

3.2.2.2 Insufficient Flows from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

Drainage, loss of storage in the watershed, and urban and agricultural demands for water have 

decreased dry season flows to the Caloosahatchee Estuary. At times, discharge from the 

Caloosahatchee River to the downstream estuary ceases entirely and salt water intrudes 

upstream, with salinities at S-79 often exceeding 10 ppt. These high salinities cause the 

mortality of brackish water organisms that ordinarily live in this region of the estuary. During 

such dry periods, a flow of 450 cfs at S-79 is required to maintain salinity less than 10 ppt in the 

estuary upstream of Fort Myers (SFWMD, 2003a and b; Chamberlain & Doering, 2004; 

Chamberlain, 2005), which protects SAV and other organisms from salinity-induced stress and 

mortality. Based on the modeled mean monthly flows of existing conditions at S-79 during the 

1970 to 2005 period of record (432 months), average flows of less than 450 cfs occurred in 189 

months (44 percent). 

3.2.2.3 Loss of Shoreline Habitat and Function 

Mangrove habitat is the predominant contributor to the ecological functionality of shoreline 

habitat in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Urbanization and shoreline development have resulted in 

the extensive loss of mangrove habitat along the estuary. Among the ecological functions 

carried out by mangroves are land formation (Davis, 1940), sediment stabilization, and primary 

productivity, filtration of land runoff, absorption, and recharge floodwaters. The mangroves also 

serve as habitats and nurseries, providing food and cover for a multitude of native fish and 

wildlife (MacNae, 1968; Odum, 1982; Harris, 1983; Dawes, 1998). These functions help to 

maintain water quality, recycle nutrients, and control erosion (Harris, 1983). In south Florida, 

mangroves have been destroyed by dredge-fill operations used to create real estate and by port 

and industrial facilities. Mangrove destruction results in a chain of reactions that affect estuarine 

and offshore production. In the Tampa Bay estuarine system, which is similar in structure and 

function to the Caloosahatchee Estuary, 44 percent of the mangrove and salt marsh land has been 

lost due to construction and resultant turbidity from runoff and pollution (Lewis & Estevez, 

1988). This loss in the Tampa Bay Estuary has been linked to declines in fin fish and 

commercial shrimping in the region (Dawes, 1998; SFWMD, 2006). 

3.2.2.4 Increased Nutrients and Contaminants 

The amount of nutrients entering the Caloosahatchee River has important effects on the water 

quality of the system. Organisms use these nutrients, but excessive amounts may have negative 

impacts. Algal blooms and epiphyte growth may cause decreased water clarity and block 

sunlight for aquatic plants (Day, 1989). As algae die, organic decomposition depletes the 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-19 

oxygen in the water (LaRose & McPherson, 1983; Drew & Schomer, 1984; Day, 1989). Low 

levels of DO can have negative effects on fish and other aquatic organisms (Heyl, 1998). 

Eutrophication may also result in an increase in red tide blooms. 

Over-fertilization of estuaries with nutrients from urban and agricultural sources is both a local 

problem for the Caloosahatchee Estuary and a problem for most estuaries worldwide. In the 

1980s, the FDER determined that the Caloosahatchee Estuary had reached its nutrient loading 

limits based on high chlorophyll-a (phytoplankton biomass) and low DO concentrations 

(DeGrove, 1981). More recently, blue-green algae blooms, red tides, and massive accumulation 

of drift algae (Lapointe & Bedford, 2006) have been taken as an indication that nutrient loads to 

the Caloosahatchee Estuary are too high and that the system suffers from eutrophication. 

3.3 Planning Objectives 

The problems described in Section 3.2 directly lead to the objectives discussed in sections below. 

Measures to reduce discharges and nutrient loading from Lake Okeechobee through the 

Caloosahatchee River are addressed in the LOP2TP. Performance measures used to evaluate the 

performance of the alternative plans are described in Section 3.5. 

3.3.1 Caloosahatchee Estuary Salinity Envelope Objective 

The objectives of the Salinity Envelope are to: 

• Manage Lake Okeechobee and watershed discharges within the proposed flow range (450 

to 2,800 cfs, as outlined in Section 3.2.2.1) to maintain salinity ranges for the estuary. 

3.3.2 Caloosahatchee River Watershed Water Quality Objectives 

The water quality objectives of the Caloosahatchee River Watershed are to: 

• Meet TMDLs; and 

• Reduce pollutant loads by improving management of pollutant sources throughout the 

watershed. 

3.3.3 Caloosahatchee River Watershed Water Quantity Objective 

The water quantity objectives of the Caloosahatchee River Watershed are to: 

• Manage the frequency and duration of excess freshwater discharges to the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary. 

3.4 Planning Constraints 

3.4.1 Water Supply and Flood Protection 

The NEEPP legislation requires that water-related needs of the region, including water supply 

and flood protection, will continue to be met. Recommendations contained in the CRWPP must 

continue to meet water supply and flood protection needs for the watershed. 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-20 

3.4.2 Minimum Flows and Levels 

Minimum flows and levels are established to identify where further withdrawals would cause 

significant harm to the water resources, or to the ecology of the area. The Minimum Flows and 

Levels Rule for the Caloosahatchee River at S-79, set in Rule 40E-8.221 F.A.C., was established 

in 2001, based on scientific and peer reviewed technical documentation (SFWMD, 2000). The 

rule states that: 

• A minimum mean monthly flow of 300 cfs is necessary to maintain sufficient salinities at 

S-79 in order to prevent a minimum flows and levels exceedance. A minimum flows and 

levels exceedance occurs during a 365-day period, when (a) a 30-day average salinity 

concentration exceeds 10 ppt at the Fort Myers salinity station (measured at 20 percent of 

the total river depth from the water surface at a location of latitude 263907.260, longitude 

815209.296), or (b) there is a single average salinity exceedance concentration of 20 ppt 

at the Fort Myers salinity station. Exceedance of either subsection (a) or subsection (b), 

for two consecutive years is a violation of the Minimum Flows and Levels Rule. 

• The minimum flow criteria for the Caloosahatchee River in Rule 40E-8.221, F.A.C., shall 

be reviewed within one year of the effective date of the rule and amended, as necessary, 

based on the best available information. 

As per the review requirement above, the rule was reviewed and a technical update document 

(SFWMD, 2003a) was produced. The document reported that 300 cfs at S-79 was insufficient to 

achieve the 10 ppt minimum flows and levels salinity criteria (a and b above) during periods of 

below average rainfall, when tributaries downstream of S-79 were contributing below average 

inflow. Subsequent analysis and documentation (including SFWMD, 2003b; Chamberlain & 

Doering, 2004) estimated that about 450 cfs is required from S-79 to ensure the minimum flows 

and levels salinity criteria is achieved under most downstream tidal flow conditions. 

CRWPP recommendations cannot reduce the ability to meet the minimum flows and levels 

salinity criteria. 

3.4.3 Lake Okeechobee Proposed Target Minimum Water Level Condition 

The proposed target minimum water level condition for Lake Okeechobee allows for only one 

occurrence over a six-year period when water levels drop below 11 feet NGVD for more than 80 

days. CRWPP recommendations should not reduce the ability to meet this proposed minimum 

water level condition. 

3.4.4 Lake Okeechobee Service Area Irrigation Demand 

Another CRWPP planning constraint is to ensure that the plan does not adversely affect the Lake 

Okeechobee Service Area (LOSA) water supply demands. 
 Chapter 3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

3-21 

3.4.5 State Water Quality Standards 

Recommendations contained in the CRWPP must protect, maintain or, as necessary, improve 

water quality within the watershed to be consistent with applicable water quality standards. 

3.5 Performance Measures and Indicators 

Alternatives were specifically formulated to meet the performance measure targets to the greatest 

extent possible. The alternative plans were then compared to the performance measure targets to 

determine their efficiency and effectiveness in achieving CRWPP objectives. 

Performance indicators are planning constraints or other parameters of interest that the 

alternative plans could directly or indirectly affect. Alternative plans were compared to the 

performance indicators to ensure planning constraints were met and to determine if ancillary 

impacts on other parameters would occur and, if so, to what extent. 

Research results reported by Chamberlain et al. 1995, Doering et al. 1999 and 2001, and 

Kraemer et al. 1999 were used to determine optimum salinity (envelope) for SAV in the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary that also protect and promote benthic invertebrates, ichthyoplankton, 

and zooplankton (Chamberlain & Doering, 1998a; Doering, 2002). A combination of salinity 

models developed for the estuary, along with watershed modeling efforts, (SFWMD, 2003a) 

were used to define the optimum distribution of average monthly flows from S-79 (EST05). The 

defined optimum distribution provides the desirable salinity range in the geographic locations of 

key estuarine biota and achieves the minimum flows and levels salinity criteria (see Section 

3.2.2.1). 

Consistent with EST05, a favorable maximum monthly flow of 2,800 cfs at S-79 was identified, 

below which suitable salinity conditions exist within the estuary for the development of 

important benthic communities (e.g., oysters and seagrass). Mean monthly flows above 2,800 

cfs that approach 4,500 cfs can result in freshwater conditions throughout the estuary, causing 

severe impacts to estuarine biota, including seagrass upstream and downstream of Shell Point. 

Oysters also are affected acutely by high flows. Volety et al. (2003) reported salinities of five 

ppt or lower will result in > 95 percent mortality of juvenile oysters. High juvenile mortality can 

occur when exposed to this salinity for just a week. Experimental results indicate that adults are 

able to tolerate salinities as low as five ppt, but cannot tolerate salinities lower than three ppt, 

which can occur upstream of Shell Point during very high flow events. On the other extreme, 

average monthly flows below 450 cfs can produce high salinity conditions for tape grass 

upstream of Fort Myers and increase the probability of Minimum Flows and Levels Rule 

exceedance and violations. Mean monthly flows that fall well below 450 cfs for consecutive 

months that extend into late spring and early summer also result in increased oyster mortality. 

Table 3-2 describes the relationships between the problems, objectives, performance measures 

and performance indicators for this project. Water resources problems for the study area are 

described in Section 3.2 of this document. Identification of the water resources problems led to 

establishment of the project objectives, which are described in Section 3.3. The performance 

measures and indicators discussed above were developed based on these problems and 

objectives. 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

3-22 

Table 3-2. Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan – 

Problems, Objectives, Performance Measures and Indicators, and Targets

Problem Objective Performance Measure/Indicator 

Excess freshwater discharges from Lake Okeechobee regulatory discharge events and local watershed runoff leading to an undesirable low salinity condition

Manage the frequency and duration of excess freshwater discharges to the Caloosahatchee Estuary from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

The number of times discharge from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed (CRW) exceeds the High Discharge Criteria of: 

1. Mean monthly flows from the CRW of 

greater than 2,800 cfs (14-day moving average) 

2. Mean monthly flows from the CRW of 

greater than 4,500 cfs

1. Limit mean m

cfs to 3 monthperiod 

2. Limit mean m

cfs to zero mo

Excess nutrient loads from surface water discharges leading to algae blooms and fish kills

Maximize N and P load reductions to meet anticipated TMDLs 

Maximize load reduction and compare against TMDLs as appropriate Meet TMDLs as est

Increases in undesirable high salinity conditions, due to insufficient surface water flows from Caloosahatchee River Watershed, leading to unfavorable conditions for estuarine organisms

Manage watershed discharges to maintain a salinity range conducive to the ecological health of the Caloosahatchee Estuary that includes maintaining salinity < 35 ppt for oysters at Shell Point and upstream and salinity < 10 ppt at Fort Myers location (Minimum Flows and Levels Rule)

Number of months that salinity envelope in the Caloosahatchee Estuary is not met, due to little or no flow from watershed based on the low flow target of 450 cfs Use the Target Flow Index (TFI) based on EST05 flow time series (TFI assesses the level of divergence of each alternative from the desired flow distribution defined by EST05)

Limit average monthOctober to July TFI value of zero sigProgressively more associated with flow 

Lake Okeechobee water levels falling below ecologically desirable levels

Maintain Lake Okeechobee water levels within a desirable range for ecological needs

Number of occurrences that the Lake Okeechobee minimum water level condition was not met during the 432-month Period of Record

Limit to no more thawhen Lake Okeechofeet NGVD for more 

Water supply cutbacks that affect the ability to meet existing and future 

municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply needs in the region

Ensure plan does not adversely affect the Lake Okeechobee Service Area water supply demands

Evaluate the LOSA demand cutback volumes during seven drought events and annual percentage of water supply demands not met during the period of record

Maintain or reduce tand the annual water 
CHAPTER 4 

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

 Chapter 4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

4-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

4.0 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................ 4-1

4.1 Interagency Coordination.............................................................................................4-1

4.2 Public Involvement and Stakeholder Notification.......................................................4-7

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

LIST OF TABLES 

4-1 Summary of CRWPP Interagency Coordination ............................................................. 4-2 

 Chapter 4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

4-1 

4.0 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

A concerted effort was made during the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

(CRWPP) planning process to involve all appropriate and relevant agencies and keep the public 

and stakeholders informed about the project. A public outreach initiative was developed and 

implemented throughout the planning process. Specific objectives of this initiative included the 

following: 

• Develop and implement an approach that would reach all stakeholders; 

• Integrate the public outreach efforts with all other aspects of the planning process; and 

• Take advantage of other ongoing public efforts being conducted by the South Florida 

Water Management District (SFWMD) and collaborating agencies as part of other 

Caloosahatchee Estuary restoration programs. 

The CRWPP public outreach initiative focused on the four following activities: 

• Interagency coordination; 

• Public involvement and stakeholder notification; and 

• Internal management and communication. 

4.1 Interagency Coordination 

The legislation authorizing the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) 

required SFWMD to work in collaboration with coordinating agencies, such as Florida 

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

Consumer Services (FDACS), to develop the CRWPP. 

Input from other agencies was solicited through informal interaction and during stakeholder and 

interagency meetings that were periodically held such as: 

• The CRWPP Working Team; 

• The Water Resources Advisory Commission (WRAC); 

• The WRAC Lake Okeechobee Committee; 

• Ten County Coalition Meeting; and 

• The Northern Everglades Interagency Meetings. 

Table 4-1 identifies the key meetings or briefings at which input on CRWPP planning was 

actively sought. 
Chapter 4

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

4-2 

Table 4-1. Summary of CRWPP Interagency Coordination

Meeting ID Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Agenda 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Meeting 

September 5, 2007 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

WRAC Meeting September 6, 2007 Naples, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Program Update 

Ten County Coalition Meeting September 14, 2007 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Meeting 

October 17, 2007 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

CRWPP Working Team 

Meeting 

October 19, 2007 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on legislation 

• Introduced key working 

team members 

• Formed the plan 

schedule 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC 

Meeting 

October 31, 2007 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

WRAC Meeting November 8, 2007 West Palm Beach, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Program Update 

Research and Water Quality 

Monitoring Program Working 

Team Meeting 

November 9, 2007 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule 

• Introduced key working 

team members 

• Opened for public 

comments 

CRWPP Working Team 

Meeting 

November 20, 2007 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule 

• Coordinating agencies 

update 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Meeting 

November 27, 2007 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC 

Meeting 

November 28, 2007 Clewiston, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

Ten County Coalition Meeting November 30, 2007 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

Walt Disney World 

Environmental Expo Day 

December 3, 2007 Orlando, FL • Northern Everglades 

display 

Joint Meeting of WRAC/South 

Florida Ecosystem Restoration 

Task Force 

December 5, 2007 Miami, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

Research and Water Quality 

Monitoring Program Working 

Team Meeting 

December 7, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Stetson University December 8, 2007 Deland, FL • Northern Everglades 

Briefing 

CRWPP Working Team December 20, 2007 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 
Chapter 4

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

4-3 

Meeting ID Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Agenda 

Meeting and schedule 

• Coordinating agencies 

update 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Combined Lake Okeechobee 

Committee and WRAC 

January 3, 2008 West Palm Beach, FL • Lake Okeechobee Phase 

II Technical Plan and 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans 

Briefing 

Research and Water Quality 

Monitoring Program Working 

Team Meeting 

January 23, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Meeting 

January 29, 2008 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Program Update 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC 

Meeting 

January 30, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Northern Everglades: 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans Update 

Research and Water Quality 

Monitoring Program Ad-Hoc 

Group Meeting 

February 7, 2008 Conference Call • Research and Water 

Quality Monitoring Plan 

Objectives 

Research and Water Quality 

Monitoring Program Working 

Team Meeting 

February 20, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule 

• Opened for public 

comments 

CRWPP Working Team 

Meeting 

February 20, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule 

• Coordinating agencies 

update 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC 

Meeting 

February 27, 2008 Stuart, FL • Northern Everglades: 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans Update 

South Florida Ecosystem 

Restoration Task Force 

February 28, 2008 West Palm Beach, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Program Update 

Ten County Coalition Meeting February 29, 2008 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Program Update 

Research and Water Quality 

Monitoring Program Ad-Hoc 

Group Meeting 

March 4, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Evaluation on the 

existing water quality 

monitoring efforts. 

Environmental Preservation 

Committee 

March 12, 2008 Tallahassee, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Program Briefing 

Research and Water Quality 

Monitoring Program Working 

Team Meeting 

March 18, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Lee County March 18, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Discussion on 

Regulatory Approaches 
Chapter 4

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

4-4 

Meeting ID Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Agenda 

to Management 

Measures 

Lee County Meeting March 19, 2008 Fort Myers 

(Conference Call) 

• Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Protection 

Plan Discussion 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC 

Meeting 

March 26, 2008 Okeechobee, FL ● Lake Okeechobee Phase 

II Technical Plan and 

River Watershed 

Protection Update 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Meeting 

March 27, 2008 Stuart, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Program Update 

City of Sanibel April 3, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Discussion of 

Management Measures 

SFWMD Governing Board 

Workshop 

April 9, 2008 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Program Update 

Research and Water Quality 

Monitoring Program Working 

Team Meeting 

April 15, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Research and WQ Monitoring 

Program Ad-Hoc Group 

Meeting 

April 15, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Evaluation of existing 

aquatic habitat 

monitoring efforts. 

CRWPP Working Team 

Meeting 

April 16, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule and 

coordinating agencies 

update 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Meeting with Florida 

Department of Community 

Affairs Secretary Pelham and 

staff 

April 28, 2008 NA (Conference Call) • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Program Coordination 

Meeting 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC 

Meeting 

April 30, 2008 Clewiston, FL • Northern Everglades: 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans Update 

Okeechobee Board of Realtors May 21, 2008 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

Research and Water Quality 

Monitoring Program Working 

Team Meeting 

May 20, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule 

• Opened for public 

comments 

CRWPP Working Team 

Meeting 

May 21, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule and 

coordinating agencies 

update 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC 

Meeting 

May 28, 2008 West Palm Beach, FL • Northern Everglades: 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans Update 

Ten County Coalition Meeting May 30, 2008 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 
Chapter 4

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

4-5 

Meeting ID Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Agenda 

Program Update 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Meeting 

June 4, 2008 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

Okeechobee Economic Council 

Meeting 

June 4, 2008 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

WRAC Meeting June 5, 2008 Hollywood, FL • Northern Everglades: 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans Update 

• Analysis of Impacts of 

Lake Regulation 

Schedules and its 

Relation to Northern 

Everglades 

Research and Water Quality 

Monitoring Program Working 

Team Meeting 

June 17, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC 

Meeting 

June 25, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Northern Everglades: 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans Update 

Highlands County 

Conservation Connection Day 

June 25, 2008 Sebring, FL • Northern Everglades 

display 

CRWPP Working Team 

Meeting 

June 27, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule and 

coordinating agencies 

update 

• Opened for public 

comments 

WRAC Meeting July 3, 2008 West Palm Beach, FL • Northern Everglades: 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans Update 

Martin County Staff Meeting July 10, 2008 Stuart, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

Palm Beach Community 

College 

July 11, 2008 Palm Beach Gardens, FL • Northern Everglades 

Presentation 

Sanibel Mayor Nick Denham July 21, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Northern Everglades 

Projects 

CRWPP Working Team 

Meeting 

July 21, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule and 

coordinating agencies 

update 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC 

Meeting 

July 24, 2008 Stuart, FL • Northern Everglades: 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans Update 

CRWPP Working Team 

Meeting 

August 1, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Briefing on plan status 

and schedule 

• Coordinating agencies 

update 

• Opened for public 

comments 

Rivers Coalition August 28, 2008 Stuart, FL • Northern Everglades 

Presentation 
Chapter 4

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

4-6 

Meeting ID Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Agenda 

Ten County Coalition Meeting August 29, 2008 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Program Update 

SFWMD Governing Board 

Workshop 

September 10, 2008 West Palm Beach, FL • Northern Everglades: 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans Update 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC and 

WRAC Combined Meeting 

September 16, 2008 West Palm Beach, FL • Northern Everglades: 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans Update 

Northern Everglades 

Interagency Meeting 

October 2, 2008 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Plan 

Representative Ralph Poppell October 3, 2008 Titusville, FL • Northern Everglades 

Update 

Glades County Commission 

Meeting 

October 14, 2008 Moore Haven, FL • Overview of the draft 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Protection 

Plan 

Southwest Florida Watershed 

Council 

October 14, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Overview of the draft 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Protection 

Plan 

Florida’s Heartland Rural 

Economic Development 

Initiative Board Meeting 

October 20, 2008 Sebring, FL • Overview of the draft 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Protection 

Plan 

Public Workshop for 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Protection Plan 

October 27, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Overview of the draft 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Protection 

Plan 

Lee County Commission 

Meeting 

October 28, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Overview of the draft 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Protection 

Plan 

Hendry County Commission 

Meeting 

October 28, 2008 La Belle, Florida • Overview of the draft 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Protection 

Plan 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC 

Meeting 

October 29, 2008 West Palm Beach, FL • Northern Everglades: 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans Update 

Rivers Coalition November 6, 2008 Stuart, FL • Northern Everglades 

and Estuaries Protection 

Plan Update 

Southwest Florida Regional 

Planning Council Meeting 

November 20, 2008 Fort Myers, FL • Overview of the draft 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Protection 

Plan 

SFWMD Governing Board 

Meeting 

December 15, 2008 West Palm Beach, FL • Northern Everglades 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans: Public 

Comments and Final 

Plan 

Lake Okeechobee WRAC and December 3, 2008 Key Largo, FL • Northern Everglades 
Chapter 4

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

4-7 

Meeting ID Meeting Date Meeting Location Meeting Agenda 

WRAC Combined Meeting River Watershed 

Protection Plans: Public 

Comments and Final 

Plan 

Ten County Coalition Meeting December 5, 2008 Okeechobee, FL • Northern Everglades 

River Watershed 

Protection Plans: Public 

Comments and Final 

Plan 

4.2 Public Involvement and Stakeholder Notification 

The public outreach effort for the CRWPP planning process sought to achieve the following 

goals: 

• Increase public awareness of the overall goals and objectives of the NEEPP; 

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

issues and findings; 

• Involve stakeholders, agencies, and other interested groups and individuals during plan 

development, to ensure that public values regarding the project were fully considered; 

• Reduce potential conflict among interested and affected parties by building consensus 

solutions to emerging issues; 

• Improve the substantive quality of project-level decisions, as a result of public 

participation; and 

• Increase public trust in SFWMD and the other agencies involved in the planning process. 

4.3 Public Comments 

The Draft CRWPP was released for public comment on October 1, 2008, with a public comment 

period until Oct 31, 2008. The public, stakeholders, and agencies were invited to review and 

provide comments on the Draft CRWPP. 114 comments were received during the public 

comment period. The public comments were considered during the finalization of the CRWPP 

and formal response for each comment was provided in the Final Plan (see Appendix H). 

CHAPTER 5 

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS 

Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

5.0 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS........................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Background.................................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Clean Water Act and Florida Watershed Restoration Act.....................................5-1

5.1.2 Total Maximum Daily Load Development Timelines...........................................5-2

5.1.3 Total Maximum Daily Load Process ..................................................................... 5-2

5.1.4 Watershed Approach..............................................................................................5-2

5.2 Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Caloosahatchee River Basin ........5-4

5.2.1 Impaired Water Body Identification Numbers ......................................................5-4

5.2.2 Modeling Efforts....................................................................................................5-6

5.2.2.1 Hydrological Simulation Program—FORTRAN ...........................................5-7

5.2.2.2 Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code ............................................................5-7

5.3 Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin.........5-8

5.4 Timetable for Total Maximum Daily Load Completion..............................................5-9

5.5 Basin Management Action Plans...............................................................................5-10

LIST OF TABLES 

5-1 Basin Groups and Florida Department of Environmental Protection Districts ............... 5-3 

5-2 Nutrient and DO Impaired Waterbodies for Caloosahatchee River Basin ...................... 5-6 

5-3 Caloosahatchee River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load Schedule............................... 5-9 

LIST OF FIGURES 

5-1 Watershed Basin Rotation Groups and Schedule ............................................................ 5-3 

5-2 Caloosahatchee River Basin Boundary............................................................................ 5-5 

5-3 Impaired Waterbodies within the Caloosahatchee River Basin....................................... 5-5 

5-4 EFDC Fine and Coarse-Grain Model Comparison.......................................................... 5-8 

Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-1 

5.0 TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS 

5.1 Background 

The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) in Section 373.4595, 

Florida Statutes (F.S.) requires the Caloosahatchee River Water Protection Plan (CRWPP) to 

contain an implementation schedule for pollutant load reductions consistent with any adopted 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and in compliance with applicable state water quality 

standards. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) was developing 

TMDLs for the Caloosahatchee River Watershed during the formulation of the CRWPP. This 

chapter summarizes the TMDL process and the status of the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

TMDL development as of middle to late 2008. Detailed information on TMDLs in the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed will be provided in FDEP’s TMDL Report Nutrient and 

Dissolved Oxygen TMDL for the Caloosahatchee River Basin. 

5.1.1 Clean Water Act and Florida Watershed Restoration Act 

A TMDL is the maximum loading of a particular pollutant that can be discharged into a surface 

water and still meets its designated uses and applicable water quality standards. TMDLs provide 

important water quality restoration goals that will guide restoration activities. 

The TMDL requirements were originally promulgated as a part of the Federal Pollution Control 

Act of 1972 and were later expanded by the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 and the Water 

Quality Act of 1987. The law requires states to define state-specific water quality standards for 

various designated uses and to identify waterbodies for which the ambient water quality has been 

determined not to meet established standards (Subsection 303(d)). Waterbodies that do not 

achieve such water quality standards as a result of human-induced conditions are considered 

impaired. An updated list of impaired waterbodies must be presented by the state to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) every two years and must designate which of the 

listed impaired waterbodies will require implementation of the TMDL process. 

In Florida, a TMDL study is required when a water segment is determined to be impaired. This 

process has been defined by the Florida Watershed Restoration Act (FWRA) in Section 403.067, 

F.S. Regulations have been promulgated under the Impaired Surface Waters Rule Chapter 62-

303, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The rule defines methods to identify water segments 

requiring a TMDL. 

The two-step process for the listing of impaired waters is based on the FWRA. The first step 

involves developing the initial “planning list” that names potentially impaired waters based on 

existing impairment-related data. The second step involves developing a focused list of 

“verified” impaired waters based on additional data. The list of waters for which impairments 

have been verified using the methodology in the Impaired Waters Rule is referred to as the 

verified list. This “verified list” is adopted by the FDEP Secretary and constitutes the required 

303(d) list. FDEP has developed these lists since 1992, and Florida’s 1998 303(d) list included 

571 waterbodies located throughout the state. 
Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-2 

5.1.2 Total Maximum Daily Load Development Timelines 

The schedule for USEPA's TMDL development is done in accordance with a Consent Decree 

entered in the case styled National Wildlife Federation v. Browner, Case No. 98-356-CIVStafford (N.D. Fla.) ("Consent Decree"). The Consent Decree sets forth a timeline for USEPA to 

adopt TMDLs for those impaired waters listed on Florida 1998 Section 303(d) list. FDEP 

promulgates TMDLs pursuant to the FWRA in Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. The FWRA 

stated that all previous Florida 303(d) lists of impairments were for planning purposes only and 

directed FDEP to develop, and to adopt by rule, a new science-based methodology to identify 

impaired waters. After a long rulemaking process, the Environmental Regulation Commission 

adopted the new methodology as Chapter 62-303, F.A.C. (Impaired Waters Rule), in April 2001 

and modified it in 2006 and again in 2007. 

5.1.3 Total Maximum Daily Load Process 

In Florida, the TMDL process is multi-phased and includes the identification, the verification, 

and the listing of impaired waters, followed by the development and implementation of the 

TMDL. Below are the phases of Florida’s TMDL process: 

1. Preliminary data compilation and assessment 

2. Strategic monitoring and assessment to verify water quality parameters 

3. Development and adoption of TMDL 

4. Development of Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) and allocations 

5. Implementation of BMAP to meet TMDL and monitoring of results 

5.1.4 Watershed Approach 

In order to address pollutants in the state’s waterbodies, FDEP has adopted a watershed-based 

management approach, which is implemented using a cyclical management process that rotates 

through the state’s 52 major hydrologic basins in five groups over a five-year cycle (FDEP Basin 

411, 2008). Each of the FDEP Districts is divided into five geographically based groups of 

watersheds, as broken down in Table 5-1. Figure 5-1 illustrates the basin groups, as well as the 

rotation schedule for each group. 
Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-3 

Table 5-1. Basin Groups and FDEP Districts 

FDEP 

District

Group 1 

Basins

Group 2 

Basins Group 3 Basins Group 4 Basins

Group 5 

Basins

Northwest OchlockoneeSt. Marks

ApalachicolaChipolaChoctawhatcheeSt. Andrews Bay Pensacola Bay Perdido Bay

Northeast Suwannee Lower St. Johns - Nassau-St. Marys Upper East Coast

Central Ocklawaha Middle St. Johns Upper St. Johns Kissimmee Indian River 

Lagoon

Southwest Tampa Bay Tampa Bay 

Tributaries

Sarasota BayPeace-Myakka Withlacoochee Springs Coast

South Everglades West 

Coast Charlotte Harbor Caloosahatchee Fisheating Creek Florida Keys

Southeast Lake 

Okeechobee

St. LucieLoxahatchee

Lake Worth 

Lagoon-Palm 

Beach Coast

Southeast CoastBiscayne Bay Everglades

Figure 5-1. Watershed Basin Rotation Groups and Schedule
Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-4 

5.2 Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Caloosahatchee River Basin 

Florida’s impaired waters assessment process divides waters into segments, each of which is 

assigned a unique waterbody identification (WBID) number. The Caloosahatchee River Basin 

had eight WBIDs included on Florida’s list of impaired waters (1998 303(d)) for various 

pollutants including fecal coliform bacteria, nutrients (chlorophyll-a), and dissolved oxygen 

(DO). Figure 5-2 shows the Caloosahatchee River Basin boundary, and Figure 5-3 depicts the 

WBIDs within the Caloosahatchee River Basin. Recent information relative to the hydrology 

within the basin has resulted in proposed changes to some of the WBID boundaries. The map 

shown in Figure 5-3 incorporates recent changes to the WBIDs in the Tidal Caloosahatchee area 

and is consistent with the current WBID version, Run 33, which was completed in July 2008. 

In September 2005, FDEP issued a fecal coliform TMDL for Ninemile Canal, WBID 3237D. 

The TMDL document assessed potential sources of fecal coliform in the watershed, quantified 

the fecal coliform load allocation appropriate for Ninemile Canal, and outlined the next step in 

water quality protection after the TMDL had been adopted by rule. 

The nutrient (chlorophyll-a) and DO TMDL for the Tidal Caloosahatchee River, downstream of 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) W.P. Franklin Lock (S-79), is currently being 

developed by FDEP. Originally, these TMDLs were scheduled to be completed by September 

30, 2010. However, the NEEPP fast-tracked these TMDLs (Section 373.4595, F.S.). The 

legislation states that FDEP “is directed to expedite the development and adoption of total 

maximum daily loads for the Caloosahatchee River and estuary... [and to] no later than 

December 31, 2008, propose for final agency action, total maximum daily loads for nutrients in 

the tidal portions of the Caloosahatchee River and estuary.” 

5.2.1 Impaired Water Body Identification Numbers 

Figure 5-3 and Table 5-2 display the WBIDs in the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin determined to 

be impaired for either DO or nutrients (chlorophyll-a) based on water quality data from 1996 to 

2003 (Cycle 1). As a result of the NEEPP legislation, draft TMDLs for the main stem of the 

Tidal Caloosahatchee River will be completed by December 31, 2008. The TMDLs for the Tidal 

Caloosahatchee tributary WBIDs that are currently impaired are due to be completed by 2010. 
Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-5 

Figure 5-2. Caloosahatchee River Basin Boundary

Figure 5-3. Impaired Waterbodies within the Caloosahatchee River Basin 
Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-6 

Table 5-2. Nutrient and DO Impaired Waterbodies for Caloosahatchee River Basin 

WBID Waterbody Segment Waterbody 

Type

Waterbody 

Class1

Parameters 

Assessed 

Using the 

Impaired 

Waters Rule2 

3240A Tidal Caloosahatchee Estuary 3M Dissolved 

Oxygen

3240A Tidal Caloosahatchee Estuary 3M Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll-a)

3240B Tidal Caloosahatchee Estuary 3M Dissolved 

Oxygen

3240B Tidal Caloosahatchee Estuary 3M Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll-a)

3240C Tidal Caloosahatchee Stream 3F Dissolved 

Oxygen

3240C Tidal Caloosahatchee Stream 3F Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll-a)

3240E 1 Hancock Creek Estuary 3M Dissolved 

Oxygen

3240E 1 Hancock Creek Estuary 3M Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll-a)

3240L Gilchrest Drain - Powel Stream 3F Dissolved 

Oxygen

3240L Gilchrest Drain - Powel Stream 3F Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll-a)

3240M Stroud Creek Stream 3F Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll-a)

3240Q Popash Creek Stream 3F Dissolved 

Oxygen

3240Q Popash Creek Stream 3F Nutrients 

(Chlorophyll-a)

1 The 3 stands for Class III. The designated uses of Class III waters are for recreation, propagation, and maintenance of 

healthy, well-balanced populations of fish and wildlife. The M stands for marine, and the F stands for freshwater. 2 Based on Cycle 1 Assessment (1996 to 2003 water quality data). 3 Based on Cycle 1 Assessment (January 1, 1997 to June 30, 2004 water quality data). 

5.2.2 Modeling Efforts 

In order to establish nutrient targets [i.e., TMDLs for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus 

(TP)] that correspond with other hydrologic and ecological goals (e.g., salinity envelopes), 

modeling efforts are being undertaken to better understand how the river system interacts with 

the Gulf of Mexico. Modeling efforts are also intended to determine how the numerous WBIDs 

are interconnected within a watershed perspective. The modeling effort to support the 

development of TMDLs for the Tidal Caloosahatchee River involves the development of linked 

watershed and receiving waterbody numerical models, including the Hydrological Simulation 

Program—Fortran (HSPF) and the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC). These models 

are linked together to simulate the hydrologic and water quality functions of the Caloosahatchee 

River Basin and its receiving waters. 
Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-7 

5.2.2.1 Hydrological Simulation Program—FORTRAN 

The watershed or hydrologic model of the Caloosahatchee River Basin is being developed using 

the modeling software called the Hydrological Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF). The 

watershed model will be used to simulate rainfall, runoff, evaporation, infiltration, irrigation, 

stream and channel flow, and related water quality in the tributary sub-basins flowing into the 

Caloosahatchee River. The model also simulates flow and water quality constituents such as 

temperature, five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), TN, 

TP, corrected chlorophyll-a, DO, fecal coliform, and it will provide a pollutant load time-series. 

All of these parameters are used as input to the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) 

hydrodynamic and water quality model. 

The hydrologic component of the HSPF model was calibrated using data from 2001 through 

2005 and validated using data from 1997 through 1999. The water quality component of the 

model was calibrated using the ambient water quality data from 2004 through 2005 and validated 

using data from 2002 through 2003. 

5.2.2.2 Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code 

The modeling software used to create the receiving waterbody model is the Environmental Fluid 

Dynamics Code (EFDC). The EFDC water quality model being developed for the TMDL 

process for the Caloosahatchee Estuary was initially based on the EFDC model of the 

Caloosahatchee River for the USACE (DSLLC, 2007). The USACE Caloosahatchee Estuary 

Model was developed to evaluate release scenarios from Lake Okeechobee and as a water 

management tool. 

The EFDC water quality model is a 3-D grid hydrodynamic model that simulates flow, transport, 

and biogeochemical processes in the tidal Caloosahatchee River Basin. The receiving waterbody 

model will include a fine-grid hydrodynamic, solids transport, and water quality model. A 

separate coarse-grid model of the near ocean portion of the Gulf of Mexico extending from Port 

Charlotte to Naples, Florida was also developed to simulate the effects of meteorological 

phenomena and tidal interactions between the Caloosahatchee River and its receiving water the 

Gulf of Mexico, as shown in Figure 5.4. The calibration period for the hydrodynamic/salinity 

component of the EFDC model is from January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003. The water 

quality component of the EFDC simulates the biochemical processes involving phytoplankton 

growth, nutrient cycling, and dissolved oxygen dynamics. The EFDC water quality model used 

water quality data collected in 2003 for calibration and 2004 for validation. 
Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-8 

Figure 5-4. EFDC Fine and Coarse-Grain Grid Model Comparison

5.3 Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads for Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin 

The major activities that have occurred to date or are currently taking place listed below. 

• Camp, Dresser, McKee and Dynamic Solutions, LLC (CDM/DS) was contracted in July 

2007 to perform water quality modeling of the Caloosahatchee Estuary. 

• Sites for flow monitoring stations on tributaries to the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin were 

identified, based on the potential impact to the Caloosahatchee River Basin (size of 

contributing sub-basin and level of pollutant load). 

• The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was contracted in August 2007 to install equipment at 

seven sites to continuously monitor the water level, water velocity, temperature, and salinity, 

as well as permit computation of discharge within the Caloosahatchee River Basin. These 

seven sites are located in the Caloosahatchee River near the mouth at Shell Point, 

Caloosahatchee River at Marker #52 near US-41, Telegraph Creek, Orange River, Hancock 

Creek, Billy’s Creek, and Popash Creek. In the summer and fall of 2007, FDEP calculated 

flow from five tributaries to the Caloosahatchee River using portable flow meters, 

specifically at Manuel’s Branch, Stroud Creek, Owl Creek, Powell Creek, and Yellow Fever 

Creek. This work was done prior to the USGS installation of the stationary instrumentation 

and provided data from smaller tributaries that are no tidally influenced. 

• FDEP District personnel began discussions with Johnson Engineering about the firm’s 

sampling program in Telegraph Swamp (where Babcock Ranch property is located) to 
Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-9 

determine if and how this data might be uploaded into the Florida Storage and Retrieval 

(STORET) database. This effort was important because Telegraph Swamp was the single 

WBID in the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin for which FDEP had no data for TMDL 

assessment. These water quality and flow data were subsequently submitted to FDEP. 

• In May 2007, monthly Caloosahatchee TMDL Technical Working Group meetings began, 

and in August 2007 these meetings were supplemented by monthly teleconferences. The 

goal of these meetings and teleconferences is to facilitate technical discussions between 

FDEP and local stakeholders to enhance the development of the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin 

DO and Nutrient TMDL as well as the subsequent TMDLs in 2010. The topics of discussion 

include: 

− Optimum locations for USGS flow monitoring instrumentation; 

− Hydrologic computer modeling options; 

− Strategies for developing nutrient target concentrations; 

− Coordination with SFWMD on the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

and Research and Water Quality Monitoring Planning; 

− Information gathering for water quality model and TMDL; 

− CDM/DS contract deliverables provided to group for comments, including report with 

historical data and report with Calibrated/Validated Model; 

− Identification of baseline and management scenarios for model simulations; and 

− Best management practices (BMPs) and other issues relevant to TMDL development. 

• In August 2007, a public meeting was conducted in Fort Myers to announce the intent to 

develop a TMDL for the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin. 

• In May 2008, the FDEP added continuously monitoring YSIs to the USGS flow monitoring 

sites at Marker #52, Telegraph Creek, and Orange River. The purpose is to supplement the 

flow data with continuous DO, conductance, and pH data. 

5.4 Timetable for Total Maximum Daily Load Completion 

An estimate to completion for issuance of the nutrient (TP and TN) and DO TMDL for the 

Caloosahatchee River Basin is provided in Table 5-3. The schedule is based on best available 

data, but it may be subject to change. 

Table 5-3. Caloosahatchee River Basin Total Maximum Daily Load Schedule 

Action Item Projected Dates 

1 

Writing draft TMDL documents with reviewer 

inputs In progress through the middle of November 2008 

2 

Compile local project details for modeling and 

TMDL existing and historic conditions chapters 

Primarily completed April/2008 for incorporation 

in model, but information gathering 

continues throughout project 

3 

Compile Ag BMP details, with SFWMD 

assistance, for background information, model 

setup and scenarios Through Mid-July 2008 
Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-10 

Action Item Projected Dates 

4 

Discuss modeled scenario results with Technical 

Working Group August through Early November 2008 

5 Announce 1st public meeting Early September 2008 

6 

1st public meeting: review of TMDL model 

scenarios Early October 2008 

7 Announce 2nd public meeting Early October 2008 

8 

2nd public meeting: review TMDL approach and 

progress Early November 2008 

9 

Review TMDL documents by SFWMD and 

Working Group mid October through mid November 2008 

10 

Internal FDEP administrative review of draft 

TMDL Mid-October through November 2008 

11 

Notice public workshop (Draft TMDL documents 

required) Mid-November 2008 

12 Post Draft TMDL on FDEP website Mid-November 2008 

13 Comment Period for Draft TMDL Mid-November 2008 - Late December 2008 

14 TMDL public workshop (to present Draft TMDL) Early December 2008 

15 

Develop and post Final TMDL documents to 

website Early January 2009 

16 Administrative steps for adoption Early January 2009 

17 FDEP adoption of TMDLs Mid-January 2009 

18 BMAP kickoff Late January 2009 

5.5 Basin Management Action Plans 

This TMDL will be implemented primarily through a BMAP. Section 373.4595 F.S. requires 

that the BMAP be initiated no later than 90 days after adoption of this TMDL, and that the 

BMAP be completed as soon as practicable. In the Caloosahatchee River Watershed, the BMAP 

process will be closely coordinated with the NEEPP Watershed Protection Plan. As discussed in 

Chapter 1, the CRWPP is being developed primarily by SFWMD, with participation from FDEP, 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), and a variety of interested 

stakeholders. The CRWPP is due to the Florida Legislature on January 1, 2009. 

Section 373.4595, F.S. calls for expeditious implementation of the CRWPP, and states that 

implementation of the CRWPP and any related BMAPs is a reasonable means of achieving 

TMDLs and compliance with state water quality standards. SFWMD and FDEP are working 

closely together to coordinate the NEEPP and BMAP processes, avoid overlap, and ensure that 

implementation efforts are timely and cost-effective. Prior to initiation of the BMAP, FDEP will 

closely review the CRWPP and identify components of the CRWPP that are directly applicable 

to the BMAP. The development of BMAPs and implementation of TMDLs are outlined in 

Section 403.067(7), F.S. and include the following elements: 

• Appropriate load reduction allocations among the affected parties, or to the basin as a 

whole (403.067(7)(a)2); 

• A description of the appropriate management strategies to be undertaken, including 

regional treatment systems or other public works, where appropriate; 
Chapter 5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

5-11 

• An implementation schedule; 

• A basis for evaluating the Plan’s effectiveness; 

• Feasible funding strategies; 

• Linkages to affected National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits; 

• Mechanisms by which potential future increases in pollutant loading will be addressed; 

• A water quality monitoring component sufficient to evaluate progress in pollutant load 

reductions; and 

• An assessment process to occur no less than every five years. 

The BMAP will likely include other factors beyond these basic elements. The BMAP 

development process will occur with the close coordination of local stakeholders and NEEPP 

coordinating agencies (FDEP, SFWMD and FDACS), many of whom were involved in 

development of the TMDL. 

CHAPTER 6.0 

CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED CONSTRUCTION 

PROJECT 

Chapter 6.0 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6-1 

6.0 CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT 

Section 373.4595(4)(b)1., Florida Statutes (F.S.), requires the establishment of a 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Construction Project. The purpose of the project is to 

identify potential water quality and quantity projects within the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed and Estuary, formulate alternatives based on the projects identified, and 

identify a preferred Plan that results in the most benefits to the Caloosahatchee Estuary. 

This chapter includes the following five sections which describe the tools and processes 

used to formulate and evaluate alternatives to meet overall project objectives for water 

quality and quantity. As a result, a preferred Plan is identified that provides the best 

overall strategy for improving the hydrology, water quality, and aquatic habitats within 

the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan (CRWPP) study area. The basis for 

the identification of the preferred Plan is discussed in Section 6.5. A detailed description 

of the preferred Plan is included in Chapter 9. 

Section 6.1 - Management Measures – This section discusses the different management 

measures identified within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed that can address one or 

more of the planning objectives. Management measures discussed include water 

quantity/storage projects, watershed water quality projects, and land management and 

restoration projects. 

Section 6.2 - Water Quantity Analysis Method – This section provides an overview of 

the analysis method used to evaluate project alternatives in terms of water quantity 

performance measures and performance indicators. 

Section 6.3 - Water Quality Analysis Method and Base Condition Characterization – 

This section provides an overview of the method used to evaluate project alternatives in 

terms of water quality performance measures. Section 6.3 also characterizes the current 

water quality conditions of the Caloosahatchee River Watershed and provides a 

discussion of the water quality benefits of the base projects included in the River 

Watershed Protection Plan Base Condition. 

Section 6.4 - Formulation of Alternative Plans – This section describes the CRWPP 

formulation process including the goals, challenges, and development of alternatives. 

The alternative plans were formulated and evaluated by the coordinating agencies in 

consultation with the CRWPP Working Team. The water quantity and quality benefits of 

each alternative are summarized. 

Section 6.5 - Alternative Plan Evaluation and Comparison – This section evaluates 

and compares the water storage and quality results of the four alternatives to the water 

quantity and water quality targets. This section also identifies the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed Construction Project preferred Plan. 

SECTION 6.1 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES 

Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

6.1 Management Measures .................................................................................6.1-1

6.1.1 Management Measures Toolbox...........................................................6.1-1

6.1.2 Risk and Uncertainties Analysis ...........................................................6.1-2

6.1.3 Estimating Uncertainties Associated with Management Measure Levels

............................................................................................................... 6.1-2

6.1.4 Estimating Uncertainties Associated with Management Measure 

Performance .......................................................................................... 6.1-3

6.1.5 Types of Management Measures ..........................................................6.1-4

6.1.5.1 Water Quantity/Storage..............................................................6.1-4

6.1.5.2 Watershed Water Quality Projects .............................................6.1-6

6.1.5.3 Land Management and Restoration..........................................6.1-10

LIST OF TABLES 

6.1-1 Management Measures Summary Table......................................................... 6.1-12 

LIST OF FIGURES 

6.1-1 Typical Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well System....................................... 6.1-5 

6.1-2 Typical STA with Emergent and Submerged Vegetation................................. 6.1-8 

6.1-3 Typical Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology ........................................... 6.1-10 

Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-1 

6.1 MANAGEMENT MEASURES 

A management measure is a current or future feature or activity that can be implemented 

at a specific site within the study area to address one or more planning objectives. A 

feature is a structural element that requires construction or on-site assembly. Storage 

reservoirs, stormwater treatment areas (STAs), and structural best management practices 

(BMPs) are examples of features. An activity is a non-structural action or practice, such 

as operational changes, regulatory programs, and modified land management practices. 

Management measures are building blocks that can be combined to form alternative 

plans. 

6.1.1 Management Measures Toolbox 

The coordinating agencies developed the management measures toolbox by seeking input 

from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan (CRWPP) Working Team, a 

group of federal, state, and local agencies and interested stakeholders. The management 

measures toolbox is a compilation of various management measures that, if implemented 

in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed, could achieve the stated project objectives. 

Management measures include both projects specific to the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed and Estuary and management measures from the Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan (LOP2TP) that were relevant to the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed. The management measures toolbox is provided in 

Appendix B. 

The management measure sheets provide the general description/background of the 

management measure and its purpose, the sub-watershed in which it is located, the size 

and capacity of the feature, and the status of the initiative as provided by the working 

team. Each management measure sheet also includes the summary of final water quality 

and water quantity benefits as determined by the working team. Each management 

measure was designated with an individual identification code. Management measures 

included in the LOP2TP begin with the letters CRE-LO. Management measures specific 

to the Caloosahatchee River Watershed and not included in the LOP2TP begin with the 

letters CRE. The initial CRE management measures were then assigned numbers in an 

east to west order. Later management measures were assigned numbers chronologically. 

Each management measure was also assigned a level of certainty using the following 

scale: 

• Level 1 – Already constructed or implemented, or construction and/or 

implementation is imminent; 

• Level 2 – Construction/implementation likely, detailed design/activity 

development ongoing, siting location well defined; 

• Level 3 – Implementation certainty unknown, conceptual level of design/activity 

development complete, siting location may be defined; 

• Level 4 – Implementation certainty unknown, conceptual idea with rough order of 

magnitude costs and siting location; and 
Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-2 

• Level 5 – Implementation certainty unknown, conceptual idea with limited 

information. 

For management measures, a range (minimum, most likely, and maximum) for nutrient 

reduction and/or storage benefits was also established. The management measures were 

then screened for inclusion into the alternatives formulation by determining if the 

management measure would at a minimum support the objectives of the CRWPP. 

6.1.2 Risk and Uncertainties Analysis 

With any large water resources planning effort, there are numerous sources of uncertainty 

that can potentially impact project outcome. Since each management measure carries a 

level of risk, the risks were also carried over to the alternatives subjecting them to some 

level of uncertainty. Sources of uncertainty may include: 

• 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 based on assigned level; and 

• Uncertainty related to the performance of management measures. 

6.1.3 Estimating Uncertainties Associated with Management Measure Levels 

The potential risks associated with the management measures’ assigned level was 

evaluated so that appropriate risk management approaches could be considered. Since 

management measures risks fall between Level 1 (substantially defined) to Level 5 

(conceptual), all management measures were evaluated allowing for the following 

criteria. 

Level 1 management measures include the following characteristics: 

• Substantial data supports the technologies effectiveness in similar conditions and 

scale; 

• Planning, design/engineering and permitting has been completed and shows that, 

compared to other management measures, this measure is the most appropriate for 

the site-specific situation; 

• Private land owners, stakeholders, interest groups, the general public, and other 

agencies have been involved in development of the plan; 

• Cost estimates have been prepared; 

• Site selection has occurred and/or required real estate interests have been 

obtained; 

• Funding has been budgeted and encumbered; and 

• Construction may have begun or even completed. 
Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-3 

Level 5 management measures may contain the following characteristics: 

• The proposed technology may be untested for the use and scale being considered; 

• Only conceptual descriptions of the approach have been developed; 

• Limited or no coordination has occurred between stakeholders; 

• Design work has not been initiated; 

• Site selection has not occurred except on a regional basis; 

• Funding has not been established; and 

• Permitting has not been initiated due to lack of information. 

6.1.4 Estimating Uncertainties Associated with Management Measure 

Performance 

A very conservative approach was taken when quantifying water quantity and water 

quality benefits anticipated from individual management measures. When management 

measures were evaluated for water quantity or water quality benefits, values were 

estimated as minimum, most likely, and maximum. The most likely performance value 

was then assigned to the management measure. If a management measure was submitted 

with a benefit enumerated, that number was verified and accepted. Many water quality 

management measures did not have performance values assigned due to insufficient or 

preliminary information, therefore additional water quality benefits may be provided that 

are not included in the estimates for the four alternatives. 

Despite this conservative approach, uncertainties associated with the performance of 

management measures remain. Uncertainties in potential water quantity were related to 

the following factors: 

• Availability of adequate land; 

• Cost of available land; 

• Existence of geotechnical conditions conducive to construction of surface storage 

reservoirs; 

• Availability of land in locations most suitable for capturing and storing flows, 

• Interactions among various storage facilities; and 

• Specific operational criteria for storage features. 

Uncertainties in potential total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) load reduction 

performance of management measures are related to the following factors: 

• Extent of nutrient control with different technologies; 

• Most appropriate technology for nitrogen control and how to optimize treatment 

for nitrogen reduction; 

• The availability of lands; 

• Accuracy of projected flow volumes and nutrient concentrations; 

• Inflow water chemistry; and 

• Synergy and interactions between treatment facilities and storage facilities. 
Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-4 

6.1.5 Types of Management Measures 

The management measures in the toolbox could be applied either at the local (parcel) or 

regional level (sub-watershed) scale. Local features typically have minimal requirements 

for engineering, construction, and operations. These local features also have relatively 

smaller real estate requirements and promote landowner involvement. In contrast, 

regional features require significant amounts of real estate acquisition, engineering, 

construction, and operations. Another scale designation is source control which includes 

projects that contain pollutants on site, many of which were included in the report entitled 

Nutrient Loading Rates, Reduction Factors and Implementation Costs Associated with 

BMPs and Technologies (Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. 2008) (Appendix 

D). 

Management measures can also be broadly grouped into three general categories. These 

categories include water quantity/storage projects, water quality projects, and land 

management and restoration projects. Table 6.1-1 (at the end of this section) shows the 

scale, general category, and sub-watershed for each management measure in the toolbox. 

6.1.5.1 Water Quantity/Storage 

Management measures considered for capturing and storing stormwater runoff in the 

watershed include aboveground reservoirs, alternative water storage/disposal projects, 

and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells. 

6.1.5.1.1 Reservoirs 

Aboveground reservoirs are the most common types of surface water storage features that 

comprise large areas of land surrounded by levees that are used to store water. They also 

provide ancillary water quality benefits because nutrients and contaminants tend to settle 

out within the reservoir. Reservoir storage sites are planned at various sites throughout 

the watershed, including the C-43 Distributed Reservoirs Project and the C-43 West 

Basin Storage Reservoir. 

6.1.5.1.2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

ASR involves injecting water in to an aquifer through wells and then pumping it out from 

the same aquifer when needed. The aquifer essentially functions as a water bank. 

Deposits are made in times of surplus, typically during the rainy season, and withdrawals 

occur when available water is needed, typically during a dry period. Storage zone 

monitoring wells are also put in place and equipped with water-level recorders to track 

the water levels within the storage zone. Monitoring wells can also be used to test water 

quality parameters such as chloride, alkalinity, bicarbonate, pH, sulfate, sodium, 

potassium, magnesium, total dissolved solids, specific conductance, salinity, temperature, 

and turbidity. Figure 6.1-1 displays a typical ASR well system. 
Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-5 

Figure 6.1-1. Typical Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well System 

Interest and activity in ASR wells in South Florida has greatly increased over the past 10 

to 15 years. ASR wells have typically been used in South Florida to store excess 

freshwater during the wet season and subsequently recover it during the dry season for 

use as an alternative drinking-water supply source. Many utility-operated ASR facilities 

now have wells completed in deep confined aquifers for this purpose. Large-scale 

application of the ASR technology is under evaluation as a storage option in the 

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). 

A series of CERP pilot projects and a regional ASR study are currently underway and are 

being evaluated to help determine the magnitude of ASRs needed to assist with managing 

Lake Okeechobee water levels at more ecologically desirable ranges and to reduce 

undesirable discharges to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries. The CERP ASR 

Program initially included three ASR pilot projects: Lake Okeechobee, Hillsboro Canal, 

and the Caloosahatchee River. However, because of the extensive scope of ASR 

envisioned for Lake Okeechobee, the Lake Okeechobee ASR Pilot Project was later split 

into three distinct project locations: Kissimmee River, Port Mayakka, and Moore Haven, 

bringing the total pilot project sites to five. 

6.1.5.1.3 Alternative Water Storage/Disposal 

Alternative water storage/disposal projects prevent runoff from reaching the regional 

drainage system, improve the timing of its delivery, and can be developed on available 

private, public, and tribal lands. They are used to store and/or dispose of excess water by 

capturing it prior to runoff or pumping it from areas or canals with excess water, and 

holding it in the facility. In most cases, alternative water storage/disposal projects 

involve simple technology approaches such as the use of pumps to move water to the 
Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-6 

desired area and the construction of weirs, berms, and small impoundments to detain the 

water in the facility. Alternative water storage/disposal projects typically require 

minimal design, engineering, and construction effort. If they are established on existing 

wetlands, they are designed and operated to improve the existing wetland functions. 

Several alternative water storage/disposal projects are currently in operation in the Lake 

Okeechobee Watershed and are planned for both private and public lands located within 

the Caloosahatchee River Watershed, such as the Recyclable Water Containment Areas. 

6.1.5.2 Watershed Water Quality Projects 

Watershed water quality projects focus on reducing TP and TN loading within the 

watershed before nutrients reach the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Management measures 

under this general category include source control/BMPs, STAs and water quality 

treatment areas, managed aquatic plant systems, stormwater management system, 

chemical treatment, Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology, and waste management. 

6.1.5.2.1 Source Control 

Source control projects include activities and measures that focus on capturing nutrients 

at the source and prevent nutrients from leaving the site and entering other surface 

waters. The main purposes of source control projects are to: 

• Minimize the use of nutrients on site; 

• Ensure the nutrients are applied in an effective manner; and 

• Prevent nutrient laden waters from leaving the site. 

Agricultural and urban BMPs are examples of efficient and effective source control 

measures. The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) 

legislation defines a BMP as “a practice or combination of practices determined by the 

coordinating agencies, based on research, field-testing, and expert review, to be the most 

effective and practicable on-location means including economic and technological

considerations for improving water quality in agricultural and urban discharges. Best 

management practices for agricultural discharges shall reflect a balance between water 

quality improvements and agricultural productivity,” Section 373.4595(2)(a), Florida 

Statutes (F.S.)(2007). BMPs include structural measures such as creating physical 

changes in the landscape to reroute local discharges and erecting fences and barriers; and 

include non-structural measures such as education, operational changes, fertilizer 

application techniques, and establishing regulations. 

Regardless of how it is achieved, source control is integral to the success of any water 

resource protection or restoration program. BMPs or other treatments are often utilized 

in a series to improve water quality by controlling the introduction (source) of nutrients 

into the local runoff and the movement of off-site nutrients (loss) into the drainage 

system. This combination of treatment technologies is known as a treatment train, 

because BMPs and other treatment are implemented in a series, like cars on a train. 

Without BMPs as the first stage technology utilized within water quality treatment trains, 

treatment and cost effectiveness of large, regional, capital projects such as reservoirs and 
Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-7 

STAs will be limited. Moreover, the total costs associated with pollutant removal can be 

substantially reduced if the pollutant is not initially allowed to enter the drainage system. 

6.1.5.2.2 Stormwater Treatment Areas/Water Quality Treatment Areas 

Water quality treatment areas are constructed wetlands designed for optimal nutrient 

removal. When water flows through flooded wetland cells, plants and algae remove 

nutrients from the water. Constructed wetlands have been shown to be very efficient in 

reducing nutrient loads and concentrations. 

Like water quality treatment areas, STAs are constructed wetlands that have been used 

very successfully in South Florida to treat nutrient-rich stormwater runoff. Typically, 

STAs comprise flooded cells with emergent or submerged vegetation (Figure 6.1-2). 

When water flows through these cells, wetland plants and algae absorb nutrients from the 

water. Constructed wetlands have been shown to be very efficient in reducing nutrient 

loads and concentrations. Even after plants in an STA die, leaf decomposition helps 

sequester sediments on the wetland bottom. Cattail roots readily absorb TP from these 

sediments (Newman et al., 1998). Over the past decade, more than 40,000 acres of STAs 

have been constructed in south Florida to facilitate restoration of the Everglades. The 

STAs are maintained and operated by South Florida Water Management District 

(SFWMD). 

The primary advantage of STAs, particularly as they relate to TP removal, is that they are 

relatively easy to design, construct, and operate. They do not use any chemicals to 

precipitate nutrients and are environmentally friendly. However, they require large tracts 

of land and have relatively high evapotranspiration rates. Increasing the depth of the 

STAs and using a compartmentalizing design can minimize these disadvantages. STAs 

also require adaptive management and maintenance in order to maintain their required 

performance level. As more information of the lifecycle performance of these facilities is 

obtained, it will be used to validate the efficiencies of STAs. Understanding the removal 

efficiencies over time will help to identify the performance levels, maintenance, and 

adaptive management needs. Factors to be considered in the adaptive management 

process include the size of the watershed, treatment area, inflow/outflow, and nutrient 

rates. As the Caloosahatchee Estuary is considered to be TN limited, the STA technology 

may be modified to more specifically target TN removal in addition to TP removal. 
Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-8 

Figure 6.1-2. Typical STA with Emergent and Submerged Vegetation 

There are both regional-scale and local-scale water quality treatment areas included in the 

management measures. The regional-scale water quality treatment areas within the 

Caloosahatchee Watershed include the Clewiston STA and C-43 Water Quality 

Treatment and Demonstration Project (BOMA Property). Many of the local-scale water 

quality treatment areas are smaller wet detention projects associated with older residential 

developments that lack storm water treatment systems. Collectively, these local-scale 

water quality treatment areas have the potential to make a significant difference in water 

quality within the Caloosahatchee Estuary. 

6.1.5.2.3 Managed Aquatic Plant Systems 

Managed aquatic plant systems are aquatic plant-based water treatment units. The 

technology involves routing nutrient-loaded stormwater into ponds that are vegetated 

with plants that have enhanced ability to absorb and assimilate nutrients. A variant of 

managed aquatic plant systems, which is currently proposed as a management measure to 

be included in the CRWPP, is known as the Algal Turf ScrubberTM (ATS). This 

technology developed by HydroMentia, Inc., involves the cultivation of a mixed 

community of periphytic algae that are cultured on an engineered geomembrane. The 

geomembrane sits on a grid across which nutrient-rich waters are discharged. Algae that 

then grow on the geomembrane are periodically scraped 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 managed aquatic plant systems are that the plant biomass 

is routinely harvested and potentially recycled into marketable products and they require 

relatively little land. These advantages make them a cost-effective option for locations 

that are limited, either due to land availability or cost. The effectiveness of the managed 
Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-9 

aquatic plant systems in treating nutrient rich stormwater on a large scale has not yet been 

demonstrated. 

6.1.5.2.4 Stormwater Management 

The installation or upgrade of an urban stormwater management system can improve 

surface water quality in the watershed. A variety of structures (e.g. wet detention ponds, 

vegetated swales, diversion weirs, etc.) within the system can attenuate surface water 

flow to increase percolation for groundwater storage, facilitate settling, and promote 

nutrient uptake prior to receiving water discharge. Local scale STAs, such as smaller wet 

detention projects associated with older residential developments that lack stormwater 

treatment systems, have the potential to make a big difference in water quality within the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary. 

System retrofit projects and local government Stormwater Master Plan implementation 

projects are management measures that will improve the conveyance of stormwater 

during storm events and reduce pollutant loadings from urban runoff. 

6.1.5.2.5 Chemical Treatment 

Chemical treatment involves application of chemicals into stormwater runoff to aid in 

reduction of contaminant loads and concentrations, and of turbidity (suspended solids) in 

the water. It has also been successfully used to reduce turbidity and nutrient 

concentrations in drinking water and wastewater. Application of chemicals to stormwater 

to reduce nutrient loads is relatively new and has been tested in some locations such as 

Lake Apopka and the Everglades with varying levels of success (SFWMD et al., 2007). 

Chemical treatment can be used in combination with wet detention of stormwater, 

treatment of runoff prior to storage, or with supplemental treatment associated with 

reservoirs or STAs. The specific technology that will work best at any given location 

will primarily depend upon inflow water quality and the quantity of water to be treated. 

Management measures that include chemical treatment may be included in future plan 

updates. 

Review of available literature indicates that calcium, iron, and aluminum salts are 

effective at reducing TP loads in stormwater runoff (SFWMD et al., 2007). These 

technologies can be applied both in-stream and in off-line treatment systems. Aluminum 

sulfate (alum) treatment has been used as a stormwater retrofit option for the past 20 

years. This technology is a viable retrofit option for urban areas. Alum treatment of 

stormwater consistently provides removal efficiencies of 85 to 95 percent for total TP, 

greater than 95 percent for total suspended solids (TSS), 35 to 70 percent for total TN, 60 

to 90 percent for metals, and 90 to greater than 99 percent for total and fecal coliform 

bacteria (Harper 2007). 

6.1.5.2.6 Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology 

Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology combines the strengths of the two top-ranked 

nutrient removal technologies, namely treatment wetlands and chemical injection system. 

This synergy results in nutrient removal efficiencies beyond those attainable by either 
Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-10 

separate technology with lower capital and operating costs. Optimization of system 

performance is achieved by adjusting hydraulic retention time (area of facility) and/or 

chemical dosing rates. Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology has been previously 

demonstrated to reduce P concentrations from over 1,000 parts per billion (ppb) to less 

than 100 ppb (Watershed Technologies, Inc. 2007). Preliminary data from the existing 

full-scale Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology facilities in Lake Okeechobee and St. 

Lucie watersheds show P concentration reductions in the range of 84 to 94 percent. A 

typical schematic of the treatment system is shown in Figure 6.1-3. 

Figure 6.1-3. Typical Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology 

Four pilot Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology systems are currently being fieldtested. Three systems are located in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed and one system is 

located in the St. Lucie River Watershed. If successful, other locations will be evaluated 

for application of this technology. Depending on the success of the pilot projects, 

additional Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology management measures may be 

included in future plan updates. 

6.1.5.2.7 Waste Management 

Effluent discharges from existing domestic wastewater treatment facilities are required to 

meet minimum secondary treatment standards in accordance with Rule 62-600.420(1), 

F.A.C. New facility permits and modification/renewal permits are frequently requiring 

alternative effluent discharge methods, such as reuse and ground water injection, which 

reduce the P and N load entering the estuary through direct discharge. In addition, other 

management measures will result in the diversion of wastewater effluent discharges from 

treatment plants where there is insufficient demand for reclaimed water to facilities that 

have reclaimed water storage and distribution infrastructure in place, such as the 

Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Reclaimed Water Project (CRE 129). 

6.1.5.3 Land Management and Restoration 

Land management, conservation, and restoration of natural areas within the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed are also incorporated into the CRWPP. Many land 

management and restoration management measures may effectively provide water 

quantity and/or quality benefits to the surrounding watershed and downstream 

waterbodies. Management measures include creation and restoration of wetlands and 
Section 6.1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.1-11 

incorporation of growth management techniques and initiatives that integrate 

environmental objectives into urban growth planning. 

6.1.5.3.1 Wetland Restoration 

Natural wetlands sequester surface water flows and provide water quality treatment 

through assimilation and sedimentation. Wetland restoration includes enhancing 

degraded wetlands or restoring areas that were historically wetlands. Wetland restoration 

may be stand-alone projects, or they may be integral components of other management 

measures, such as Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project (CRE-LO 87c). 

6.1.5.3.2 Land Conservation 

Conservation of natural areas in urban settings provides both natural and social benefits. 

One example is the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CRE-LO 09), 

which was established in 2002 to protect coastal and estuarine lands considered important 

for their ecological, conservation, recreational, historical or aesthetic values. The 

program provides state and local governments with matching funds to purchase 

significant coastal and estuarine lands, or conservation easements on such lands, from 

willing sellers. Lands or conservation easements acquired with Coastal and Estuarine 

Land Conservation Program funds are protected in perpetuity so that they may be 

enjoyed by future generations. 

Another example is the Farm and Ranchland Partnerships (CRE-LO 91), which seeks to 

acquire easements on private lands to remain in agriculture and to provide water quality 

and storage benefits in support of the Northern Everglades initiative. 

6.1.5.3.3 Integrated Growth Management and Restoration 

This category includes programs and projects that integrate environmental restoration 

objectives with urban growth initiatives. Planning and economic incentives are typically 

provided to encourage the use of innovative and flexible planning and development 

strategies creating land use planning techniques that minimize the footprint of 

developments while conserving natural lands and open spaces. Comprehensive PlanningLand Development Regulations (CRE-LO 68) is an initiative to work with those entities 

(e.g. cities and counties) in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed responsible for 

comprehensive planning and land development proposals. The initiative involves 

reviewing current comprehensive plans and associated land development regulations to 

assure that they promote low-impact design and proper stormwater treatment. 

In 2001, the Florida Legislature established Section 163.3177(11)(d), Florida Statutes, the 

Rural Land Stewardship Area Program. This program allows counties to designate Rural 

Land Stewardship Areas, to include all or portions of lands classified in the future land 

use element as predominantly agricultural, rural, open, open-rural, or a substantively 

equivalent land use. 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.1-12 

Table 6.1-1. Management Measure Summary Table 

Management Measure # 

Project Feature/Activity Category Sub-wat

Basi

CRE-LO 01,02,49 

Agricultural BMPs- Owner Implemented, Funded Cost Share, and Cost Share Future Funding Water Quality Al

CRE-LO 03 Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule [Lake Okeechobee Estuary and Recovery (LOER)] Water Quality AlCRE-LO 04 Land Applications of Residuals Water Quality AlCRE-LO 05 Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Water Quality AlCRE-LO 07 Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Regulatory Program Water Quality AlCRE-LO 08 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program Water Quality AlCRE-LO 09 Coastal & Estuarine Land Conservation Program Land Management and Restoration TN, TS, E

NS 

CRE-LO 12g Alternative Water Storage (LOER) - Barron Water Control District (BWCD) Water Quantity/Storage FSW CRE-LO 15 Proposed Caloosahatchee River Watershed Regulatory Nutrient Source Control Program Water Quality AlCRE-LO 21 Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Watershed Basin Rule (LOER) Water Quality AlCRE-LO 40 West Lake Hicpochee Project Water Quantity/Storage FNCRE-LO 41 C-43 Distributed Reservoirs Water Quantity/Storage FSE,FCRE-LO 63 Wastewater & Stormwater Master Plans Water Quantity/Storage and Water Quality AlCRE-LO 64 Proposed Unified Statewide Stormwater Rule Water Quality AlCRE-LO 68 Comprehensive Planning - Land Development Regulations (LDR) Land Management and Restoration AlCRE-LO 87c Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project Land Management and Restoration AlCRE-LO 91 Farm and Ranchland Partnerships Land Management and Restoration Al
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.1-13 

Management Measure # 

Project Feature/Activity Category Sub-wat

Basi

CRE-LO 92 Clewiston STA Water Quality S-4 CRE 01 Recyclable Water Containment Areas (RWCA) Water Quantity/Storage AlCRE 02 Recycled Water Containment Area in the S-4 Basin Water Quantity/Storage S-4 CRE 04 Caloosahatchee Area Lakes Restoration (Lake Hicpochee) Water Quality and Water Quantity/Storage FNE, CRE 05 East Caloosahatchee Water Quality Treatment Area Water Quality FNCRE 10 C-43 Water Quality Treatment and Demonstration Project (BOMA Property) Water Quality FSCRE 11 Caloosahatchee Ecoscape Water Quality Treatment Area Water Quality and Water Quantity/Storage FSCRE 13 West Caloosahatchee Water Quality Treatment Area Water Quality FSCRE 18 Harns Marsh Improvements, Phase I & II Water Quantity/Storage TS CRE 19 Harns Marsh Improvements, Phase II Final Design - ECWCD Water Quantity/Storage TS CRE 20 Yellowtail Structure Construction - ECWCD Water Quantity/Storage TS CRE 21 Hendry County Storage Water Quantity/Storage FSW CRE 22 Hendry Extension Canal Widening (Construction) - ECWCD Water Quantity/Storage FSW CRE 29 Lehigh Acres Wastewater Treatment & Stormwater Retrofit Water Quality FSW CRE 30 Aquifer Benefit and Storage for Orange River Basin (ABSORB) - ECWCD Water Quality and Water Quantity/Storage TS CRE 44 Spanish Creek / Four Corners Environmental Restoration Water Quality and Water Quantity/Storage FNW CRE 45 Billy Creek Filter Marsh, Phase I & II Water Quality TS CRE 48 Manuel's Branch Silt Reduction Structure Water Quality TS CRE 49 Manuel's Branch East & West Weirs Water Quality TS 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.1-14 

Management Measure # 

Project Feature/Activity Category Sub-wat

Basi

CRE 53 Caloosahatchee Creeks Preserve Hydrological Restoration Water Quality and Water Quantity/Storage TN CRE 57 Powell Creek Algal Turf Scrubber Water Quality TN CRE 59 North Fort Myers Surface Water Restoration Water Quality TN CRE 64 Yellow Fever Creek/Gator Slough Transfer Facility Water Quality TN CRE 69 Cape Coral Wastewater Treatment & Stormwater Retrofit Water Quality TN CRE 77 Cape Coral - Canal Stormwater Recovery by ASR Water Quantity/Storage TN, NCRE 121 City of LaBelle Stormwater Master Plan Implementation Water Quality FSW CRE 122 Rehydrate Lee County Well Fields (south of Hwy 82) Water Quantity/Storage FSW CRE 123 North Ten Mile Canal Stormwater Treatment System Water Quality TS CRE 124 Carrell Canal (FMCC) Water Quality Improvements Water Quality TS CRE 125 Shoemaker-Zapato Canal Stormwater Treatment Water Quality TS CRE 126 Fort Myers-Cape Coral Reclaimed Water Interconnect Water Quality TN, CRE 128 East Caloosahatchee Storage Water Quantity/Storage FNE, CRE 128a Caloosahatchee Storage - Additional Water Quantity/Storage FNE, CRE 129 Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Reclaimed Water Water Quality and Water Quantity/Storage AlCRE 130 Animal Manure Application Rule Water Quality AlCRE 131 Application of Septage Rule Water Quality Al1 Descriptions of the following basins can be found in Chapter 2: 

FNE = Freshwater Northeast Basin FSW = Freshwater Southwest Basin NC = North Coastal Basin FSE = Freshwater Southeast Basin TN = Tidal North Basin NS = South Coastal Basin FNW = Freshwater Northwest Basin TS = Tidal South Basin EST = Caloosahatchee Estuary 
SECTION 6.2 

WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS METHOD 

Section 6.2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.2-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

6.2 Water Quantity Analysis Method ............................................................................. 6.2-1

6.2.1 Modeling Tools................................................................................................... 6.2-1

6.2.1.1 Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model (NERSM) ..................... 6.2-1

6.2.1.2 Model Scenarios .......................................................................................... 6.2-8

6.2.2 Water Quantity Performance Measures and Targets .......................................... 6.2-9

6.2.2.1 High Discharge Criteria............................................................................... 6.2-9

6.2.2.2 Salinity Envelope......................................................................................... 6.2-9

6.2.2.3 Target Flow Index ....................................................................................... 6.2-9

6.2.2.4 Lake Okeechobee Proposed Minimum Water Level Criterion ................. 6.2-10

6.2.2.5 Supplemental Irrigation Requirements...................................................... 6.2-10

LIST OF FIGURES 

6.2-1 Watersheds Simulated in the Northern Everglades Regional Simulation 

 Model ............................................................................................................................ 6.2-3 

6.2-2 Sample Node-Link Representation for CRWPP Model .............................................. 6.2-5 

6.2-3 Target Flow Index Criteria Graph............................................................................... 6.2-10 

Section 6.2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.2-1 

6.2 WATER QUANTITY ANALYSIS METHOD 

This section describes the method used to analyze water quantity for the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed, while water quantity results are presented in Section 6.5. To establish a baseline 

condition to which all alternatives will be compared, the River Watershed Protection Plan Base 

(RWPPB) Condition is characterized and described. Finally, water quantity performance 

measures and targets used to evaluate how well each alternative achieves the project goals are 

described. 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan (CRWPP) builds upon the Northern 

Everglades Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan 

(LOP2TP). Thus, the analysis method, modeling tools, and overall evaluation methodologies 

employed in the current planning efforts are similar to the previous plan. These same methods 

and tools are utilized for the St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan (SLRWPP), as well. 

This approach ensures consistency in water quantity analysis conducted for three Northern 

Everglades watersheds. 

6.2.1 Modeling Tools 

The water quantity analysis method used in the CRWPP involves the generation of water budgets 

for each alternative plan. The water budget information provided by the model feeds into a set of 

performance measures which, in turn, are used to differentiate and compare alternative plans. 

A water budget reflects the relationship among all the components of hydrologic input and 

output for a given area. Water generally enters a system through precipitation, as well as surface 

and groundwater flows. Water generally exits the system through human consumption 

(domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural), surface and groundwater flows, evaporation 

from water surfaces, and transpiration from vegetation. The RWPPB Condition is a scenario that 

reflects conditions with the LOP2TP in place. Alternatives were developed from a series of 

management measures that are intended to improve water quantity and quality, consistent with 

the planning objectives. Each alternative plan represents a unique combination of management 

measures simulated in the Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model (NERSM), and 

whose relative effectiveness is evaluated through a standard set of hydrologic performance 

measures. 

The CRWPP water quantity analysis was performed at each increment of alternative plan 

development. Lessons learned from the existing alternatives were used to formulate the next 

alternative. The NERSM was selected as the modeling tool to carry out the water quantity 

analysis. 

6.2.1.1 Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model (NERSM) 

The NERSM is a link-node based model designed to simulate the water budget of a regional 

scale drainage basin. The model assumes that water in each waterbody is distributed in level 

pools. Therefore, local-scale features within a watershed, e.g. stages at specific gauging stations 

and flows across specific transects, are not simulated. The model domain covers Lake 

Okeechobee and four major watersheds: Kissimmee, Lake Okeechobee, St. Lucie River, and 
Section 6.2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.2-2 

Caloosahatchee River. The watersheds are further divided into sub-watersheds, as described 

below. Several management measures were combined to produce a number of alternatives 

whose individual impacts on pre-established performance measures have been evaluated. The 

model is an effective tool in comparing the relative performance of the proposed alternatives for 

the CRWPP. 

The computational engine for the NERSM was constructed using an object-oriented approach, 

which allows new objects to be added without the need to significantly alter the previously coded 

modules and objects in the computer program. For example, adding the operation of a new 

reservoir would be simulated as adding a discrete “object” that is automatically assigned with the 

features and functions commonly defined for a reservoir in the water management system. Input 

data for the model includes daily records of hydrologic and meteorological data (rainfall and 

potential evapotranspiration), as well as discharges at the boundaries for the period between 1970 

and 2005. Other model input data includes the physical description of management features 

(e.g., reservoir stage-storage relationship and structure capacities) and corresponding operating 

rules (e.g., maximum operating levels and reservoir outflow priorities). 

6.2.1.1.1 Model Setup 

The NERSM boundary includes the Lake Okeechobee, St. Lucie, and Caloosahatchee River 

watersheds (Figure 6.2-1). In the LOP2TP, the East Okeechobee (St. Lucie River), West 

Okeechobee (Caloosahatchee River), and the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) watersheds 

were not explicitly modeled in the NERSM. However, in the planning efforts of the River 

Watershed Protection Plans, the NERSM domain was expanded to include direct simulations of 

the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee River watersheds. Since the EAA is not explicitly modeled, 

impacts of the EAA reservoir on the other portions of the study area were considered as 

boundary conditions. This section focuses on the model set-up common to both the LOP2TP and 

the RWPPB Condition. The succeeding section will provide additional details on how the two 

river watersheds were incorporated into the model. 

Lakes in the Upper Kissimmee Watershed and pools in the Lower Kissimmee Watershed are 

simulated as level pools. Watershed inflows, such as local runoff, are treated as boundary 

conditions and were generated from other hydrologic models or from historical data. A flow 

pass-through approach is used for the other watersheds where historical runoff into Lake 

Okeechobee is modified, based on proposed management measures specific to these watersheds. 

Lake Okeechobee was also simulated using a lumped hydrologic approach. Certain inflows and 

outflows from Lake Okeechobee are not simulated, and are incorporated into a modified delta 

storage term or imposed as boundary conditions. The South Florida Water Management Model 

(SFWMM) is the main source of boundary conditions for the NERSM. Boundary conditions 

include water supply deliveries to the Lower East Coast urban areas and environmental releases 

to the Everglades. Regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee and St. 

Lucie estuaries and to the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) are simulated based on the Water 

Supply/Environmental (WSE) Regulation Schedule. The Hybrid Lake Okeechobee Water 

Shortage Management (LOWSM) water supply management scheme is simulated in conjunction 

with fixed demand boundary conditions to approximate the water supply drought management 
Section 6.2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.2-3 

cutbacks for Lake Okeechobee Service Area (LOSA) basins. Lake Okeechobee is a primary or 

secondary source of water supply to the LOSA basins. 

Figure 6.2-1. Watersheds Simulated in the Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model 
Section 6.2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.2-4 

The selected period of record, 1970 to 2005, is slightly different from the 36-year period of 

record (1965 to 2000) typically used by the SFWMM. The inclusion of the latter five years 

(2001 to 2005) in the NERSM period of record was driven by the desire to use the most current 

climatic information available, which includes extreme events, such as Hurricanes Charlie, 

Frances, and Jeanne in 2004 and Hurricane Wilma in 2005. 

No detailed verification was done during initial model set-up; however, the NERSM was 

validated by making comparative runs with established models currently in use within the model 

domain: the UKISS for the Upper Kissimmee Watershed (Fan, 1986) and the SFWMM for Lake 

Okeechobee and areas further south. 

A series of assumptions were developed to facilitate model set-up; these assumptions are 

documented in Appendix C. Additional information on how each individual watershed was 

modeled is also included in this appendix. 

6.2.1.1.2 Conceptualization in River Watershed Protection Plans 

As mentioned in the previous section, additional conceptualization beyond what was done in the 

LOP2TP was necessary for the two river watersheds in order to simulate specific management 

measures outside the original NERSM domain. For a more detailed description of the model 

setup and conceptualization for Caloosahatchee River and St. Lucie River watersheds, see 

Appendix C. 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed is conceptualized as a series of interconnected nodes (e.g., 

single or multiple basins/storage) and links (e.g., single-purpose or multi-purpose structure). A 

simple example of the node-link diagrams used for the model is shown in Figure 6.2-2. Demand 

and runoff in the East Caloosahatchee Basin (ECAL) and West Caloosahatchee Basin (WCAL) 

are very different in magnitude. Therefore, in order to better account for available water for 

capture by individual water management measures proposed in the CRWPP, the two basins were 

modeled as two separate nodes. The Caloosahatchee Estuary and the S-4 Basin were also 

simulated as individual nodes. Specific management measures, such as reservoirs and water 

quality treatment features proposed in the CRWPP, were modeled as storage nodes. The link 

node diagrams for all the model runs are included in Appendix C. 

Storage nodes are linked by single-purpose or multi-purpose water control structures. Inflow 

into the ECAL includes the S-77 structure, which is used for water supply, environmental, and 

regulatory purposes; and the S-235 structure, which discharges excess runoff from the S-4 basin. 

S-77 will also allow natural backflow into Lake Okeechobee when the lake stage is less than 

11.5 feet (ft) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). This backflow component was 

identified as a separate outflow time series from ECAL (S-77BK). The ECAL and WCAL basins 

are connected through the S-78 structure, which controls discharge for water supply, 

environmental and flood control purposes. The WCAL discharges into the Caloosahatchee 

Estuary through S-79, which handles both deliveries to meet estuary needs and upstream excess. 
Section 6.2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.2-5 

Figure 6.2-2. Sample Node-Link Representation for CRWPP Model

Runoff generated from the ECAL and WCAL basins was applied directly to each corresponding 

model node as a boundary condition. These runoff time series were adjusted (reduced) for each 

alternative, in order to account for the footprint of proposed management measures (reservoirs 

and stormwater treatment areas) to be simulated within the alternative. Agricultural and public 

water supply demands in ECAL and WCAL basins and environmental needs in the estuary drive 

water supply and environmental deliveries in the model. Surface water demand from the Olga 

public water supply plant in Lee County was accounted for in the WCAL demand time series. 

Excesses in upstream nodes were first used to meet water supply and environmental demands in 

downstream nodes. The remaining water supply need was met from Lake Okeechobee, subject 

to the Hybrid LOWSM cutback scheme. 

In the RWPPB and alternative scenario simulations, the proposed Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan (CERP) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir was 

included. The purpose of this reservoir is to store basin excess and Lake Okeechobee regulatory 

releases that exceed estuary demands. During times of low upstream excess and absence of lake 

regulatory releases, the reservoir is used to meet estuary demands before any additional water is 

brought in from Lake Okeechobee for environmental purposes. The remaining environmental 

need may be met from Lake Okeechobee, as long as the lake stage is greater than 11.5 ft NGVD. 

St. Lucie River Watershed

The St. Lucie River Watershed is conceptualized using the same node-link approach as 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed. The St. Lucie River Watershed was subdivided into four nontidal nodes (C-44, C-23, C-24, and Ten Mile Creek), and one tidal node (comprised of Basins 

4,5, and 6, and South Fork, plus the tidal portion of North Fork that is outside the Ten Mile 

Creek Basin). The non-tidal nodes are linked to the St. Lucie Estuary via structures, S-80, S-48, 
Section 6.2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.2-6 

and S-49, respectively. The tidal node discharges freely into the estuary without an intervening 

control structure. 

NERSM, as used in the LOP2TP, conceptualized the St. Lucie River Watershed as two nodes: C44 and non-C-44. The model showed that more detail was needed in the non-C-44 model node, 

in order to simulate the proposed storage facilities in the different sub-basins that comprise this 

node. Therefore, a total of five basins were simulated in the RWPP model runs, including C-44, 

C-23, C-24, Ten Mile Creek, and one tidal basin [comprised of the North Fork (excluding Ten 

Mile Creek), South Fork and Basins 4, 5, and 6]. 

Three important time series drive this model: basin irrigation demands, basin runoff, and the St. 

Lucie Estuary target flows. Pre-processed supplemental irrigation demands and basin runoff 

were associated with each basin represented in the model. Except for the C-44 basin, all runoff 

and demand time series were obtained from Watershed Hydrology and Water Quality Model 

(WaSh) modeling (Wan and Roaza, 2003). The runoff and demand time series for C-44 Basin (a 

part of LOSA), were derived from the Agricultural Field Scale Irrigation Requirements 

Simulation Water Budget (AFSIRS/WATBAL) model, instead of the WaSh modeling, to be 

consistent with the rest of LOSA. Non-C-44 basins in the St. Lucie River Watershed are not 

connected directly to Lake Okeechobee and, thus, do not receive lake supplemental irrigation 

deliveries from it. Backflow from the C-44 basin into Lake Okeechobee is initiated when the 

simulated stages at Lake Okeechobee drop to less than 14.5 ft NGVD. 

For the RWPPB, the C-44 and Ten Mile Creek reservoirs and stormwater treatment areas (STAs) 

were added as additional nodes that represent storage facilities expected to be in place by 2015. 

Both the reservoir and STA facilities in each of these basins were simulated as a combined unit, 

such that only two additional model nodes are used. 

A third important time series that drives the St. Lucie River Watershed simulation is the St. 

Lucie Estuary target time series. This time series represents the anticipated discharges into the 

St. Lucie River after features of the Indian River Lagoon-South preferred alternative are put in 

place. Output from the Reservoir Optimization Model (OPTI-5 that was subsequently upgraded 

to OPTI-6) used in Indian River Lagoon-South Final Integrated Project Implementation Report 

and Environmental Statement (IRL-S PIR) was the source for the St. Lucie Estuary target time 

series and is referred to as NERSM operational targets for the estuary. In order to take advantage 

of the increased resolution in modeling the area, the time series was parsed into each individual 

contributing (non-tidal) basin. To be consistent with the objectives of the SLRWPP, no Lake 

Okeechobee releases were made in the model to meet the low-flow operational targets for the 

estuary. 

For SLRWPP alternative formulation, a combined C-23/C-24 Reservoir and C-23/C-24 STA 

model nodes were created with associated operating rules. These features are consistent with the 

IRL-S PIR Recommended Plan. The multiple model node representation of non-C-44 basins 

facilitates various scenarios for water transfer to occur between C-23 and C-44 Reservoir/STA, 

C-23/C-24 STA and Ten Mile Creek Basin, C-23 Basin and C-23/C-24 Reservoir, C-24 Basin 

and C-23/C-24 Reservoir, and C-23/C-24 Reservoir and C-23/C-24 STA, as specified in the IRLS PIR Recommended Plan (see Appendix C Section 2.2.6.1 for more details). 
Section 6.2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.2-7 

6.2.1.1.3 Boundary Conditions 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

The NERSM runoff/demand time series for ECAL, WCAL, and S-4 basins were obtained from 

the AFSIRS/WATBAL model, as used in the SFWMM modeling in support of the 

Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project. The AFSIRS/WATBAL 

hydrologic model is a simplified basin-scale water budget model and is based on the Agricultural 

Field Scale Irrigation Requirements Simulation (AFSIRS) model (Smajstrla, 1990). The 

AFSIRS/WATBAL model calculates the supplemental (beyond local net rainfall and storage) 

demands for irrigated and non-irrigated lands and provides basin scale estimates of runoff. 

Output from AFSIRS/WATBAL model was used as input to SFWMM and, more recently, to the 

NERSM. 

A 36-year (1970 to 2005) period of record was used for this project. Even though the ECAL and 

WCAL were represented in the AFSIRS/WATBAL model, the calibration was performed for the 

entire Caloosahatchee River basin as a whole (Wilcox and Konyha, 2003). 

As a part of data pre-processing, an adjustment was done to both the ECAL and WCAL 

demand/runoff time series, using an assumed seepage value of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs)/day 

from east to west across S-78 structure. Another adjustment was made to ensure that runoff and 

demand did not occur on the same day, which is a requirement in the NERSM. The model did 

not allow for WCAL runoff to meet ECAL demands (unlike AFSIRS/WATBAL), which is better 

representation of reality compared to a single Caloosahatchee River basin representation. 

The Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir specifications were taken from 

the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir Project Implementation Report. 

Due to the reservoir footprint, the runoff time series was adjusted internally in the NERSM by 

applying a factor that is defined as the ratio of the remaining contributing watershed area (total 

watershed area less the C-43 West Basin Storage Reservoir footprint) to the total watershed area. 

S-4 Basin runoff/demands were aggregated based on estimates for Disston Water Control 

District and non-Disston Water Control District portions of S-4 Basin. Other input parameters, 

like rainfall and potential evapotranspiration for ECAL, WCAL and S-4 Basin, were the same as 

used in the AFSIRS/WATBAL modeling for Acceler8. 

St. Lucie River Watershed 

Except for the C-44 Basin, all runoff and demand time series were obtained from WaSh 

modeling. Because the C-44 Basin is a part of LOSA, the runoff and demand input time series 

were derived from the AFSIRS/WATBAL model instead of the WaSh modeling. WaSh is a 

time-dependent, coupled hydrologic and hydraulic simulation model. It includes many features 

specifically required to simulate conditions in the St. Lucie River Watershed basins, such as 

irrigation demand and supply, high water table conditions, fully coupled groundwater and 

surface interactions, reservoirs and STAs, and flow structures. 

Operational flow targets in the NERSM were assigned downstream of each contributing basin 

(represented as model nodes) and were established using OPTI-6. The optimization model 
Section 6.2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.2-8 

OPTI-6 determines the optimal sizing and operating rules for reservoirs in the watershed, such 

that the long term natural flow distribution of stormwater discharges to the estuary is matched. It 

also minimizes the required capacities of the detention reservoirs, while providing reliable 

supplemental irrigation at the required pumping levels (Wan et al., 2006). 

The St. Lucie River Watershed basins demand/runoff flow time series, as produced by WaSh, 

was used as an input to OPTI-6. The purpose of this effort was to create operational flow targets 

for all basins, so that the NERSM could know whether to hold or release the water to the estuary. 

By meeting these operational flow targets, the NERSM can essentially mimic OPTI-6 

performance in terms of meeting its ecological/environmental goals. 

6.2.1.2 Model Scenarios 

Modeling tools were used to evaluate project alternatives by comparing the modeling results to 

the performance measure targets. Base conditions were established to provide a starting point by 

which relative comparisons will be made between the project alternatives. The following is a 

summary of the various scenarios that were modeled to determine system-wide impacts likely to 

be associated with implementation of each alternative: 

• Current Base (CBASE) – This scenario includes the following assumptions: 

− The conditions are represented as they existed in the Northern Everglades Watershed in 

2005; 

− There are no CERP projects or LOP2TP projects in place; and 

− Lake Okeechobee releases to the estuary and WCAs are based on the existing WSE 

regulation schedule. 

• River Watershed Protection Plan Base (RWPPB) – This scenario assumes the base 

condition of 2015, with the following projects in place: 

- LOP2TP Recommended Projects: Combined Reservoir storage, STA storage and aquifer 

storage and recovery (ASR) capacity equal to 914,000 acre-feet, 54,000 acre-feet and 66 

million gallons per day, respectively. Additional details can be found in the LOP2TP; 

- Acceler8 Projects: C-43 (Caloosahatchee River) Reservoir, C-44 (St. Lucie Canal) 

Reservoir and STA, and A-1 (Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir A-1); 

- Kissimmee Projects: Kissimmee River Restoration Project and the Kissimmee River 

Headwaters Revitalization; 

- Ten Mile Creek Reservoir in St. Lucie River Watershed; and 

- Authorized MODWATERs and C-111 projects. 

• Alternative Plans – Management measures were combined to develop alternative plans to 

meet the performance measure targets (water quantity and quality goals).
Section 6.2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.2-9 

6.2.2 Water Quantity Performance Measures and Targets 

Performance measures and performance indicators provide a means to evaluate how well each 

alternative achieves the project goals. Alternative plans are specifically formulated to achieve 

the targets set for each of the performance measures (e.g., flow ranges, limits, and distribution), 

as described in Section 6.4. Each alternative is then evaluated on how efficiently and effectively 

it meets such performance measure targets, as discussed in Section 6.5. The performance 

measures and indicators utilized in the comparison include the high discharge criteria, the 

salinity envelope criteria, the proposed Lake Okeechobee minimum water level criteria, and the 

supplemental irrigation requirements. 

6.2.2.1 High Discharge Criteria 

As discussed in Section 3.5, favorable maximum monthly flow (from surface water sources) for 

the Caloosahatchee Estuary (2,800 cfs) will provide suitable salinity conditions to promote the 

development of identified valued ecosystem components (e.g., oysters and seagrass). Mean 

monthly flows greater than 4,500 cfs result in freshwater conditions throughout the estuary, 

causing severe impacts to estuarine biota [Restoration Coordination and Verification 

(RECOVER), 2007]. 

The restoration target for the high discharge criteria in the Caloosahatchee Estuary are as 

follows: 

• Limit mean monthly flows greater than 2,800 cfs to three months or less over a 432-

month period; and 

• Eliminate mean monthly flows greater than 4,500 cfs over a 432-month period. 

6.2.2.2 Salinity Envelope 

Discharges from the watershed should be managed to maintain a salinity range conducive to the 

ecological health of the Caloosahatchee Estuary. The relationship between high flows and low 

salinity conditions are briefly described in Section 6.2.2.1. As discussed in Section 3.5, average 

monthly flows less than 450 cfs from October to July will produce high salinity conditions that 

are unfavorable to estuarine biota. The restoration target for the salinity envelope performance 

indicator in the Caloosahatchee Estuary is as follows: 

• Eliminate mean monthly flows less than 450 cfs from October to July; and 

• Limit the number of times monthly flows exceed 2,800 cfs for three occurrences. 

6.2.2.3 Target Flow Index 

The Target Flow Index (TFI) reflects the ideal flow distribution to the estuary, which would 

result in a healthy and productive estuary. The TFI compares the modeled flow distributions 

against a target or desired flow distribution at S-79. The green line depicted in Figure 6.2-3

represents the desired flow distribution at S-79 that was derived from the EST05 time series of 

flows. The TFI evaluation method calculates a composite score for a given alternative scenario 

by adding up weighted deviations from a desired flow distribution – more specifically, a set of 
Section 6.2 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.2-10 

-1.121

-4.601

0.000

TFI

flow categories that characterizes EST05 (Chamberlain, 2008). Deviation from the desired flow 

distribution will result in a negative TFI. The TFI progressively becomes negative as the flow 

deviates from the target. A value of zero signifies a perfect match to EST05. 

Figure 6.2-3. Target Flow Index Criteria Graph 

6.2.2.4 Lake Okeechobee Proposed Minimum Water Level Criterion 

This criterion is being used as a performance indicator to ensure that alternatives do not cause 

any adverse impacts on Lake Okeechobee minimum water levels. The target of the Lake 

Okeechobee proposed minimum water level performance indicator allows for only one 

occurrence over a six-year period, when water levels drop below 11 ft NGVD for more than 80 

days. 

6.2.2.5 Supplemental Irrigation Requirements 

Supplemental irrigation requirements are being evaluated to ensure that the plan does not 

adversely affect LOSA water supply demands. This was done utilizing two water supply 

performance indicators. The first indicator evaluates water supply cutback volumes during the 

seven worst drought years. The second indicator evaluates demands not met based on the entire 

period of record. The goal of both indicators is to ensure that “LOSA demands not met” and 

“cutback volumes” are equal to or better than existing conditions.
SECTION 6.3 

WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS METHOD AND BASE CONDITION 

CHARACTERIZATION

Section 6.3 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.3-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

6.3 Water Quality Analysis Method and Base Condition Characterization ................... 6.3-1

6.3.1 Water Quality Spreadsheet ............................................................................... 6.3-1

6.3.1.1 Current Base Condition......................................................................... 6.3-1

6.3.1.2 River Watershed Protection Plan Base (RWPPB) Condition............... 6.3-6

6.3.1.3 Alternative Condition............................................................................ 6.3-7

6.3.2 Watershed Water Quality Characterization ...................................................... 6.3-8

6.3.2.1 Caloosahatchee River Watershed Water Quality Profile...................... 6.3-9

6.3.2.2 Sub-watershed Water Quality Profiles.................................................. 6.3-9

6.3.2.3 Benefits from Base Projects in the RWPPB Condition ...................... 6.3-12

6.3.2.4 Comparison of Flows and Loads from Sub-watersheds ..................... 6.3-12

6.3.3 Water Quality Conclusions............................................................................. 6.3-14

LIST OF TABLES 

6.3-1 Water Quality Spreadsheet Example ............................................................................ 6.3-2

6.3-2 Distribution of Land-Use Types by Sub-watershed...................................................... 6.3-4

6.3-3 Summary of Land-Use Loading Rates and Acreages................................................... 6.3-5

6.3-4 Summary of Average Annual Flows, TP and TN Loads and Concentrations for 

Current Base................................................................................................................ 6.3-11

6.3-5 Summary of Average Annual Flows, TP and TN Loads and Concentrations for 

RWPPB....................................................................................................................... 6.3-13

LIST OF FIGURES 

6.3-1 Comparisons of Percent Average Annual Discharge and Average Annual TP and 

TN Loads from each Sub-watershed for RWPPB Condition ..................................... 6.3-14

Section 6.3

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.3-1 

6.3 Water Quality Analysis Method and Base Condition Characterization 

This section provides an overview of the water quality analysis method and, based on the results 

of the analysis, a description of the water quality conditions and conclusions for the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed and each individual sub-watershed. 

6.3.1 Water Quality Spreadsheet 

Water quality modeling was accomplished using algorithms in a Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet 

to estimate nutrient loads and the load reductions that would result from the implementation of 

various management alternatives. This simplified approach was selected because of time 

constraints and, more importantly, limitations in the data needed to populate a more complex, 

process-based model. 

Watershed loading simulations were based on land-use specific total nitrogen (TN) and total 

phosphorus (TP) loading rates that were compiled from various sources by Soil and Water 

Engineering Technology, Inc. (SWET, 2008) (Appendix D). As described below, calibration of 

the model was done using flow and nutrient concentrations measured at various structures in the 

river. The water quality spreadsheet is categorized by sub-watershed and the three basic water 

quality conditions: the Current Base (CBASE) Condition, the River Watershed Protection Plan 

Base (RWPPB) Condition, and the Alternative Conditions. Table 6.3-1 shows an example of the 

water quality spreadsheet for TN, using Alternative 1 as a representative Alternative Condition. 

Similar calculations were made for TP, although for simplicity, these results are not shown in the 

table. The following sections describe the components of the water quality spreadsheet and 

define the columns, the origin of the data, and how the values were calculated. 

6.3.1.1 Current Base Condition 

The CBASE Condition section of the water quality spreadsheet (Table 6.3-1) is the first building 

block of the spreadsheet and represents the 2005 condition of the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed. It summarizes the average annual discharge (column 3a), the average annual TP or 

TN load (column 3b), and the resulting average annual TP or TN concentration (column 3c), 

based on the 1995 to 2005 period of record. 

In determining average annual discharge and average annual TP or TN loads, measured data for 

the Caloosahatchee River (C-43 Canal) at structures S-77, S-78, and S-79 on the C-43 Canal 

were used. Daily values were available for discharge. Monthly loads were estimated by 

combining data from monthly water quality samples with the discharge record (i.e., daily flows 

were summed for the month and multiplied by the grab sample concentration). 

There are insufficient data available downstream from S-79 for direct estimation of discharge or 

loads. Accordingly, simulations for the Tidal Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed and the North 

Coastal Basin were calibrated to flows and loads estimated in 2008 by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) as part of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

development process, using the Watershed Management Model (WMM). Sub-basins, land uses, 

and loading factors in the WMM were identical to those used in the spreadsheet loading model. 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.3-2 

Table 6.3-1. Water Quality Spreadsheet Example

3 - Current Base (CBASE) Condition 4 - River Watershed Protection Plan B

1 - Sub-watershed 2 - Area (acres) 3a - Annual 

Discharge(1)

(ac-ft/yr) 

3b - Annual 

Total 

Nitrogen 

Load(1)

(mt/yr) 

3c - Total 

Nitrogen 

Conc.(1)

(ppm) 

4a - Load 

Reduction 

(mt/yr) 

4b - 

Remaining 

Discharge 

(ac-ft/yr) 

4c - 

Remaining 

Conc.(2)

(ppm) 

S-4(5) 42,504 45,698 93.0 1.65 0.0 45,698 1.65 East Caloosahatchee 198,299 232,874 460.4 1.60 0.0 232,874 1.60 West Caloosahatchee 349,734 646,089 1,121.9 1.41 93.2 646,089 1.29 Tidal Caloosahatchee 262,023 456,580 863.6 1.53 0.0 456,580 1.53 Coastal 227,236 224,952 360.8 1.30 0.0 224,952 1.30 Lake Okeechobee input(6) n.a. 975,042 1,950.9 1.62 735.9 674,700 1.46 Total for CRWPP 1,079,796 1,606,192 2,899.7 1.46 93.2 1,606,192 1.42 Total for CRWPP, with Lake Okee. n.a. 2,581,234 4,850.6 1.52 829.2 2,280,892 1.43 

5 - Alternative 1 (Common Elements) 

5a - Owner-Implemented 

BMPs(3)

5b - Cost-Share 

BMPs(4) 5c - Local Projects 5d - Regional Projects 5e - Summary 

Load 

Reduction 

(mt/yr) 

Remaining 

Load 

(mt/yr) 

Load 

Reduction 

(mt/yr) 

Remaining 

Load 

(mt/yr) 

Load 

Reduction 

(mt/yr) 

Remaining 

Load 

(mt/yr) 

Load 

Reduction 

(mt/yr) 

Remaining 

Load 

(mt/yr) 

Load 

Reduction 

(mt/yr) 

Remaining 

Concentration(2)

(ppm) 

6.9 86.1 13.0 73.1 0.0 73.1 0.0 73.1 19.9 1.30 

41.2 419.3 41.8 377.5 0.0 377.5 87.2 290.2 170.2 1.01 96.7 932.0 76.0 856.0 37.5 818.5 42.9 775.6 253.1 0.97 89.4 774.2 79.9 694.2 30.0 664.2 0.0 664.2 199.3 1.18 26.0 334.8 14.7 320.0 1.3 318.8 0.0 318.8 42.0 1.15 

n.a. 735.9 n.a. 735.9 0.0 735.9 0.0 735.9 0.0 1.46 

260.1 2,546.3 225.5 2,320.8 68.8 2,252.0 130.1 2,121.9 684.5 1.07 260.1 3,761.3 225.5 3,535.8 68.8 3,467.0 130.1 3,336.9 684.5 1.19 
Section 6.3

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.3-3 

 Notes for Table 6.3-1: 

(1) CBASE conditions are average annual values and are based on measured data for the period 1995 to 2005. Units for all 

columns: Flow = acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr); Load = metric tons per year (mt/yr); Concentration = parts per million (ppm). 

(2) Where load reductions were projected to result in concentrations less than 0.80 ppm, the remaining load was estimated by 

multiplying the basin flow by 0.80 ppm. 

(3) Owner-implemented best management practices (BMPs) are adjusted for urban pervious areas and the percentages of the 

BMPs that already have been implemented (30 percent for row crops, 50 percent for ornamentals/nurseries, and percent that 

became citrus after 1988). 

(4) Cost-share BMPs are adjusted for the percentages of the BMPs that already have been implemented (percent that became 

urban after 1988, 30 percent for row crops, 50 percent for ornamentals/nurseries, and percent that became citrus after 1988). 

(5) Approximately 50 percent of the flow from S-4 basin discharges directly into Lake Okeechobee. Flows and loads shown 

here represent the estimated inputs to the Caloosahatchee Watershed at S-235. 

(6) Lake Okeechobee discharges into the Caloosahatchee Watershed at S-77; thus the full reach of the Caloosahatchee River and 

Estuary are affected by inputs from Lake Okeechobee. 

For the Nearshore Basin, neither sampled nor modeled data were available for estimation of 

source loads or discharge. For that area, the estimates of discharge and load were based solely 

on land use acreages, as described below. 

Approximately half of the flow from the S-4 Sub-watershed discharges directly into Lake 

Okeechobee and half discharges to the Caloosahatchee Watershed. Flows and loads used in this 

report represent the estimated inputs from the S-4 Sub-watershed to the C-43 Canal at structure 

S-235. They were estimated from a water-balance analysis for flow and TP for the S-4 area for 

the period 1993 to 2004 (Burns & McDonnell, 2008). For this report, the flow and TP 

discharged to the Caloosahatchee River Watershed were estimated as 48 percent of the totals 

given in the Interim Draft Report on the S-4 Basin Feasibility Study. That study did not collect 

TN data; so for this report, the TN load from the S-4 Sub-watershed was estimated as having an 

average concentration of 1.65 milligrams per liter (mg/L). 

The water quality analysis method simulates the sources of flow and loads for the geographic 

areas of the basins and sub-watersheds that were described in Section 2.4. It also tracks the 

sources of TP and TN loads for different land-use types and estimates some of the source-load 

reductions on the basis of land-use types. Because the available data does not contain the 

necessary level of detail, a procedure was developed to estimate flows and loads for the basins 

and land-use types. These estimated flows and loads were then adjusted proportionally to fit the 

available data. This procedure is described in the following paragraphs. Though computed for 

each basin in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan (CRWPP) study area, most of 

the tabular data has been compiled by sub-watershed for ease of presentation in this report. 

The Florida Land Use, Covers, and Forms System (FLUCCS) land-use categories, described in 

Section 2.4, were grouped into twenty land-use types for further analysis, and acreages were 

summed for each basin. Table 6.3-2 shows the acreages for the land-use types for each subwatershed. 

Runoff coefficients and loading-rate coefficients for TP and TN were developed for the different 

land-use types in the CRWPP by SWET. The SWET Report can be found in Appendix D. The 

loading-rate coefficients for TP and TN are shown in Table 6.3-3. When the coefficients are 

multiplied by the acreages for each land-use type within each basin, source discharge and 

loadings were estimated. These coefficients were calibrated for the reach between structure S-78 

and S-79, which includes the East Caloosahatchee and West Caloosahatchee sub-watersheds. 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.3-4 

Table 6.3-2. Distribution of Land-Use Types by Sub-watershed

S-4 East Caloosahatchee West Caloosahatchee Tidal Caloosahatchee 

Land-Use Type Area 

(acres) 

Percent of 

Total Area 

Area 

(acres) 

Percent of 

Total Area 

Area 

(acres) 

Percent of 

Total Area 

Area 

(acres) 

Percent of 

Total Area 

Residential Low Density 548 1.3% 3,015 1.5% 14,869 4.3% 30,111 11.5% Residential Medium Density 1,506 3.5% 383 0.2% 1,758 0.5% 26,183 10.0% Residential High Density 77 0.2% 59 0.0% 398 0.1% 8,501 3.2% Other Urban 2,231 5.2% 1,162 0.6% 1,873 0.5% 14,329 5.5% Improved Pasture 797 1.9% 36,795 18.6% 55,555 15.9% 21,392 8.2% Unimproved Pasture 0 0.0% 5,752 2.9% 12,736 3.6% 4,873 1.9% Rangeland, Woodland Pasture 278 0.7% 10,890 5.5% 31,543 9.0% 23,255 8.9% Row Crops 0 0.0% 1,080 0.5% 6,354 1.8% 1,632 0.6% Sugar Cane 32,932 77.5% 52,751 26.6% 2,058 0.6% 0 0.0% Citrus 66 0.2% 26,593 13.4% 69,008 19.7% 824 0.3% Sod 0 0.0% 289 0.1% 2,947 0.8% 1,833 0.7% Ornamentals 0 0.0% 16 0.0% 369 0.1% 300 0.1% Horse Farms 0 0.0% 140 0.1% 38 0.0% 24 0.0% Dairies 0 0.0% 18 0.0% 0 0.0% 38 0.0% Other Agriculture 325 0.8% 755 0.4% 2,746 0.8% 4,886 1.9% Tree Plantations 0 0.0% 12,923 6.5% 28,403 8.1% 1,103 0.4% Water 717 1.7% 2,061 1.0% 3,639 1.0% 22,896 8.7% Natural Areas 2,431 5.7% 42,467 21.4% 114,598 32.8% 96,350 36.8% Transportation 330 0.8% 741 0.4% 645 0.2% 2,674 1.0% Communication, Utilities 268 0.6% 408 0.2% 195 0.1% 820 0.3% Total 42,504 100.0% 198,299 100.0% 349,734 100.0% 262,023 100.0% 
Section 6.3

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.3-5 

Table 6.3-3. Summary of Land-Use Loading Rates and Acreages

Loading Rate Area in Watershed

Land-Use Type Total 

Phosphorus 

(lb/ac/yr)

Total 

Nitrogen 

(lb/ac/yr)

Area

(acres)

Percent of 

Total Area

Residential Low Density 0.68 7.26 76,863 7.1%

Residential Medium Density 1.93 10.56 33,396 3.1%

Residential High Density 4.14 15.84 11,453 1.1%

Other Urban 2.05 11.68 23,568 2.2%

Improved Pasture 1.93 14.65 117,152 10.8%

Unimproved Pasture 0.99 7.26 23,827 2.2%

Rangeland, Woodland Pasture 0.40 5.41 78,130 7.2%

Row Crops 3.45 19.80 9,656 0.9%

Sugar Cane 0.55 10.56 87,741 8.1%

Citrus 0.90 11.22 96,684 9.0%

Sod 2.79 11.88 5,070 0.5%

Ornamentals 4.00 15.84 861 0.1%

Horse Farms 2.51 21.12 202 0.0%

Dairies 12.94 26.40 56 0.0%

Other Agriculture 3.20 10.18 10,909 1.0%

Tree Plantations 0.21 4.09 42,498 3.9%

Water 0.07 1.19 130,368 12.1%

Natural Areas 0.11 2.96 324,289 30.0%

Transportation 2.28 12.14 4,915 0.5%

Communication, Utilities 0.66 7.92 2,159 0.2%

Total 1,079,796 100.0%

For East Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed, the values were adjusted to match the difference in flow 

and load between structures S-77 and S-78. For the S-4 Sub-watershed, flows and loads were 

adjusted to match the values derived from the Draft S-4 Feasibility Study. For the West 

Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed, the values were adjusted to match the difference in flow and 

load between structures S-78 and S-79. For the Tidal Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed and the 

North Coast Basin, the values were adjusted to match the values derived from FDEP’s WMM 

model. For the Nearshore Basin, which consists of tidal water bodies and several offshore 

islands, in-basin assimilation was assumed to reduce the source flows and loads by 10 percent in 

lieu of more site-specific data. 

Input flows and loads to the Caloosahatchee River Watershed from Lake Okeechobee at 

structure S-77 contribute to the total flow and loads within the Caloosahatchee River and to the 

flows and loads that discharge from the Caloosahatchee River into the Caloosahatchee Estuary at 

structure S-79. The measured data for net inflow at S-77 for the 1995-2005 period of record 

were used to represent the CBASE Condition input from Lake Okeechobee. 

The values in columns 3a, 3b, and 3c of Table 6.3-1 contain the adjusted values for annual flow, 

load, and concentration that are contributed from each sub-watershed to the riverine and 
Section 6.3

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.3-6 

estuarine systems. They represent the best-available estimates of flows and loads from the subwatersheds, and generally the annual averages for the years 1995 to 2005 are used to define the 

CBASE. Concentration is a flow-weighted average and is computed by dividing total load by 

total flow. TP concentration is reported as parts per billion (ppb) or micrograms per liter (μg/L), 

and TN as parts per million (ppm) or milligrams per liter (mg/L). 

6.3.1.2 River Watershed Protection Plan Base (RWPPB) Condition 

The water quality RWPPB Condition is the second building block of the water quality 

spreadsheet, and represents the anticipated loading to the estuarine system after the 

implementation of several base projects. These base projects are presumed to be in place in the 

near future and include full restoration of the Kissimmee River, including the Kissimmee River 

Headwaters Revitalization project, the Northern Everglades Lake Okeechobee Watershed 

Construction Project, Phase 2 Technical Plan (LOP2TP), the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West 

Basin Storage Reservoir Project, and other Acceler8 projects. 

The base projects include the LOP2TP projects which will affect the inflow from Lake 

Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee River Watershed at S-77. More specifically, implementation 

of the projects in the LOP2TP is expected to reduce the amount of water that discharges from the 

Lake to the estuary and it is also expected to affect the quality of the water that is discharged 

from the Lake. In regards to discharge volumes, the post-project average annual inflow was 

estimated at 675,000 acre-ft (ac-ft), as compared to 975,000 ac-ft in the pre-project condition. 

These estimates reflect the post-project flows at S-77 based on Northern Everglades Regional 

Simulation Model output. In regards to water quality, it was assumed that discharges into Lake 

Okeechobee were consistent with the Lake Okeechobee phosphorus (P) TMDL of 105 metric 

tons (mt) (from surface inflows). 

To compare discharge loads to the Caloosahatchee River, with and without water quality 

enhancements in place, two model scenarios were developed: 1) the base scenario, without 

features that improve water quality; and 2) the LOP2TP scenario, which includes the features 

that improve water quality and meets the Lake Okeechobee P TMDL of 105 mt. The Lake 

Okeechobee Water Quality Model (LOWQM) was used to simulate these two scenarios. The 

model estimated an average lake-wide TP concentration of 80 ppb for the LOP2TP scenario and 

88 ppb for the base scenario. Total nitrogen concentrations were estimated at 1.46 ppm for the 

LOP2TP scenario, and 1.62 ppm for the base scenario (James et al., 2005). Because this model 

simulates the lake as one completely mixed compartment, specific estimates of nutrient 

concentrations at the S-77 discharge point were not available, instead discharge loads at S-77 

were calculated with the LOWQM estimated TP and TN multiplied by the discharge flow. The 

combination of reduced volume and reduced concentration resulted in an estimated 36 percent 

reduction of TP load and an estimated 38 percent reduction of TN load for discharges from Lake 

Okeechobee. 

The only base project within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed is the Caloosahatchee River 

(C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir, which is an Acceler8 project to build a 10,000 acre 

reservoir in the West Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed on the old Berry Groves site west of 

LaBelle. In written communication from Knight in 2008, removal of nutrients by mechanical 

and biological processes within the reservoir was estimated to be 7.3 metric tons per year (mt/yr) 
Section 6.3

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.3-7 

for TP and 93 mt/yr for TN. The effects of evaporation on outflow volume and concentration 

were not considered. 

In Table 6.3-1, column 4a represents the sum of the load reductions from the base projects. 

Column 4b represents the remaining discharge after implementation of the base projects, and 

column 4c represents the resulting concentrations, calculated by dividing total load by total flow. 

The resulting concentration was then checked against the minimum value that would be expected 

for a freshwater riverine system under natural conditions for southern Florida. To be 

conservative, where simulated load reductions resulted in a concentration less than the natural 

condition, the “natural-condition” concentration value was used to calculate the remaining load 

(column 4d). For this study, the “natural-condition” concentration for TP was estimated as 80 

ppb (0.080 mg/L) and TN as 0.80 ppm (0.80 mg/L). Decisions regarding the concentrations 

were established in writing between Robert Chamberlin and the South Florida Water 

Management District (SFWMD) in April 2008. This adjustment of concentration and load for 

the “natural-condition” concentration is repeated in the water quality spreadsheet for all of the 

alternative conditions. 

The adjusted remaining load (Column 4d) shows the estimated loads from the sub-watersheds 

under the RWPPB Condition. Column 4e shows the percent reduction in loads that result from 

the base projects, as compared to the CBASE Condition. 

6.3.1.3 Alternative Condition 

The Alternative Condition is the third building block of the water quality spreadsheet and 

represents the anticipated TP and TN load reductions upon implementation of the alternatives. 

For the purposes of this discussion, Alternative 1 was used as the example for the water quality 

spreadsheet. Management measures that contribute to load reductions for Alternative 1 include 

BMPs, as well as local and regional management measures. 

As described more fully in Section 6.4, Alternative 1 consists of all the ongoing or imminent 

projects in these watersheds (aka “common elements”). These projects will be included in all 

subsequent alternatives. Alternative 2 contains management measures that are optimized for 

water quantity requirements, in addition to the Alternative 1 projects. Alternative 3 is 

independent from Alternative 2 and contains management measures that are optimized for 

improvement of water quality, in addition to the Alternative 1 projects. Alternative 4 represents 

the alternative that optimizes both quality and quantity. It contains the Alternative 1, 2, and 3 

projects, plus a few additional management measures. 

The Alternative Condition columns in the water quality spreadsheet are identical for each of the 

alternatives, except that the BMPs (columns 5a and 5b) are only included in Alternative 1. The 

BMPs are tabulated for Alternative 1 and thus are implicitly included as “common elements” in 

all of the subsequent alternatives. Columns 5c, 5d, and 5e are included for all of the alternatives. 

BMPs are described more fully in Chapter 7. Owner-implemented BMPs generally include 

practices that can be implemented by individual landowners without the need for explicit funding 

by the state. Cost-share BMPs generally consist of programs that require additional funding. 
Section 6.3

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.3-8 

Estimates of removal efficiencies for various BMPs are presented in Appendix D (SWET, 

2008). These estimates represent the best available information based on available literature and 

expert opinion. For each land-use type, a percentage of load reduction was estimated for ownerimplemented BMPs and cost-share BMPs. Estimates were developed for TP and TN. For 

certain land-use types, it was presumed that some level of BMP implementation was already in 

place, and the load reduction was adjusted accordingly. For example, cost-share BMPs for row 

crops were estimated to reduce TN load by 30 percent for the estimated 70 percent of the rowcrop lands that do not yet have cost-share BMPs in place. Load reductions, in mt/yr, thus were 

calculated as the product of existing load, percent reduction, and percent of area available for 

reduction. The calculations were made for each land-use type and for the acreages in each basin, 

and the load reductions were totaled by sub-watershed. Column 5a in the water quality 

spreadsheet shows the load reduction and remaining load for the application of ownerimplemented BMPs, and column 5b shows the load reduction and remaining load for the 

subsequent application of cost-share BMPs. 

The values in columns 5c and 5d contain the load reductions and remaining loads for the local 

project management measures and the regional project management measures, respectively. In 

the water quality spreadsheet, the potential load reductions for the individual local and regional 

management measures were totaled for each sub-watershed. Local and regional management 

measures are described in Section 6.1, and a complete list of management measures is given in 

Table 6.1-1. The values used for removal efficiency and percent participation, which varied by 

management measure, are provided in the water quality and water quantity summary at the 

bottom of each management measure sheet (Appendix B). Load reductions for some 

management measures, such as the Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule, were presumed to be accounted 

for in the calculations for BMP removals. Some management measures were developed 

primarily for water quantity benefits and are expected to have little or no direct effect on water 

quality. 

The values in the remaining load columns (under 5e) were calculated by combining the potential 

load reductions from columns 5a, 5b, and 5c and subtracting them from the remaining load in the 

RWPPB Condition (column 4d). The resulting concentration was calculated from total load and 

discharge, as described previously, and compared to the “natural-condition” concentration. The 

final column under 5e shows the percent reduction in loads that result from the alternative 

condition. For each alternative in the water quality spreadsheet, the percentage represents the 

cumulative reduction in load as compared to the RWPPB Condition. 

6.3.2 Watershed Water Quality Characterization 

The data and results contained in the water quality spreadsheet allow for the evaluation of the 

relative contribution of TP and TN loadings by sub-watershed, their magnitudes, and the 

potential for the combinations of management measures to reduce the nutrient loadings 

contributed from the watershed to the estuarine system. 

The CBASE Condition is intended to represent the water quality conditions in the CRWPP study 

area, as they existed in 2005. Specifically, the CBASE Condition is based on the 1995-2005 

monitoring records, supplemented by estimations of runoff and source loadings that are based on 

the 2004 to 2005 land-use types for the basins and sub-watersheds in the study area. The 
Section 6.3

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.3-9 

RWPPB Condition represents the anticipated flows and loadings after implementation of the 

base projects. For the CRWPP study area, the RWPPB Condition presumes that the LOP2TP 

and the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir will be in place. 

6.3.2.1 Caloosahatchee River Watershed Water Quality Profile 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed has a total drainage area of approximately 1,080,000 acres. 

Large volumes of inflow from Lake Okeechobee to the watershed, by way of structure S-77 into 

the C-43 Canal, have a significant impact on the concentrations and loads of TP and TN 

downstream and in the estuarine system. The watershed has been described more fully in 

Section 2.4 and the land-use types have been summarized in Tables 6.3-2 and 6.3-3. 

Estimated annual flows of 1,606,000 acre-feet and loads of 2,900 mt of TN, and 326 mt of TP 

are contributed by the CRWPP study area for the CBASE Condition (Table 6.3-4). In 

comparison, annual inflows from Lake Okeechobee have averaged 975,000 acre-feet and annual 

loads of 1,951 mt of TN, and 104 mt of TP. In terms of relative contribution, as indicated by 

concentration, the runoff from the CRWPP study area has a higher concentration of TP than the 

inflow from Lake Okeechobee (165 ppb versus 87 ppb) and a lower concentration of TN (1.46 

ppm versus 1.62 ppm). 

At the S-79 structure, where the freshwater discharges into the Caloosahatchee Estuary, the 

average proportions contributed from Lake Okeechobee inflows are 51 percent of the flow 

volume, 38 percent of the TP load, and 54 percent of the TN load. 

If measured at Shell Point, which is at the downstream mouth of the Tidal Caloosahatchee, the 

average proportions contributed from Lake Okeechobee inflows would be 41 percent of the flow 

volume, 26 percent of the TP load, and 43 percent of the TN load. 

6.3.2.2 Sub-watershed Water Quality Profiles 

The sub-watersheds in the CRWPP study area have been described more fully in Section 2.4 and 

the land-use types have been summarized in Table 6.3-2. Table 6.3-4 summarizes the flows, 

loads, and concentrations contributed by the various sub-watersheds. 

S-4 Sub-watershed - The S-4 Sub-watershed has a total drainage area of 42,500 acres, but it is 

estimated that only about 22,100 acres contribute discharge to the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed. The S-4 Sub-watershed is the farthest upstream of all the sub-watersheds and 

contributes the least discharge and loads. Average annual discharge to the C-43 Canal is 45,700 

acre-feet, with 14 mt of TP annual load and 93 mt of TN. The average concentrations from the 

S-4 Sub-watershed, however, are the highest of all the sub-watersheds, at 241 ppb for TP and 

1.65 ppm for TN. 

East Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed - The East Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed lies between 

structures S-77 and S-78 and has a drainage area of 198,000 acres, or 19 percent of the CRWPP 

study area. Annually, it contributes about 233,000 acre-feet of discharge, 41 mt of TP, and 460 

mt of TN. The average concentration is 144 ppb for TP and 1.60 ppm for TN. The average TP 

concentration is relatively low and the TN concentration is relatively high, compared to the 

overall average for the CRWPP study area. 
Section 6.3

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.3-10 

West Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed - The West Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed lies between 

structures S-78 and S-79 and has a drainage area of 350,000 acres, or 33 percent of the CRWPP 

study area. Annually, it contributes about 646,000 acre-feet of discharge, 118 mt of TP, and 

1,122 mt of TN. The average concentration is 148 ppb for TP and 1.41 ppm for TN. The 

average TP and TN concentrations are both relatively low, compared to the overall averages for 

the CRWPP study area. 

Tidal Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed - The Tidal Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed lies between 

structure S-79 and the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River at Shell Point. It has a drainage area 

of 262,000 acres, or 25 percent of the CRWPP study area. Annually, it contributes about 

456,000 acre-feet of discharge, 118 mt of TP, and 864 mt of TN. The average concentration is 

210 ppb for TP and 1.53 ppm for TN. The average TP and TN concentrations are both relatively 

high, compared to the overall averages for the CRWPP study area. 

Coastal Sub-watershed - The Coastal Sub-watershed consists of the tidal and offshore areas 

that do not contribute to the discharge at Shell Point. It has a drainage area of 227,000 acres, or 

21 percent of the CRWPP study area. Estimates suggest that the sub-watershed annually 

contributes about 225,000 acre-feet of discharge, 35 mt of TP, and 361 mt of TN. The average 

concentration is estimated at 125 ppb for TP and 1.30 ppm for TN. The average TP and TN 

concentrations are both relatively low, compared to the overall averages for the CRWPP study 

area. 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.3-11 

Table 6.3-4. Summary of Average Annual Flows, TP and TN Loads and Concentrations for Curren

 Total Phosphorus 

Sub-watershed Contributing 

Area 

(acres) 

Percent 

of Area 

for 

CRWPP 

Annual 

Discharge 

(ac-ft/yr) 

Percent 

of Total 

Discharge 

for 

CRWPP 

Annual 

Total 

Load 

(mt/yr) 

Percent 

of Total 

Load 

for 

CRWPP 

Conc. 

(ppb) 

An

To

Lo

(m

S-4 22,102 2.1% 45,698 2.8% 13.58 4.2% 241 East Caloosahatchee 198,299 18.7% 232,874 14.5% 41.26 12.7% 144 4West Caloosahatchee 349,734 33.0% 646,089 40.2% 118.29 36.3% 148 1,1Tidal Caloosahatchee 262,023 24.7% 456,580 28.4% 118.22 36.3% 210 8Coastal 227,236 21.4% 224,952 14.0% 34.77 10.7% 125 3Lake Okeechobee Inflow n.a. n.a. 975,042 n.a 104.46 n.a 87 1,9

Total for CRWPP 1,059,394 100.0% 1,606,192 100.0% 326.12 100.0% 165 2,8

Total for CRWPP above S-79 570,135 53.8% 924,660 57.6% 173.13 53.1% 152 1,6Total above S-79, with Lake Okeechobee n.a. n.a. 1,899,702 n.a. 277.59 n.a. 118 3,6Total for CRWPP, above Shell Point 832,158 78.6% 1,381,240 86.0% 291.35 89.3% 171 2,5Total above Shell Point, with Lake Okeechobee n.a. n.a. 2,356,282 n.a. 395.81 n.a. 136 4,4Total for CRWPP, with Lake Okeechobee n.a. n.a. 2,581,234 n.a. 430.58 n.a. 135 4,8
Section 6.3

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.3-12 

6.3.2.3 Benefits from Base Projects in the RWPPB Condition 

As mentioned above and in Section 6.3.1.2, the RWPPB Condition presumes that the LOP2TP 

and the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir are in place. 

With implementation of the LOP2TP, the annual inflows from Lake Okeechobee are expected to 

decrease from 975,000 to 675,000 acre-feet, annual loads of TP are expected to decrease from 

104.5 to 66.6 mt, and annual loads of TN are expected to decrease from 1,951 to 1,215 mt. This 

represents a net decrease of 31 percent in flow, 36 percent in TP, and 38 percent in TN loads. 

The Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is estimated to reduce the 

annual load of TP by 7.3 mt and TN by 93 mt. The reservoir will be constructed for purposes of 

storing water during periods of excess stream flow and releasing water throughout the dry season 

to provide adequate inflow to the estuary at S-79. Water quality benefits from the reservoir are 

expected to be minor, representing a reduction of only 2.2 percent of the TP load and 3.2 percent 

of the TN load from the study area. 

The estimated flows and loads for the RWPPB Condition, for the watershed and by subwatersheds, are shown in Table 6.3-5. For the CRWPP study area, the annual averages are 

estimated to be 1,600,000 acre-feet of flow, 319 mt of TP, and 2,806 mt of TN, corresponding to 

flow-weighted concentrations of 161 ppb and 1.42 ppm, respectively. 

The RWPPB Condition loads are used as the basis for computing the relative load reductions 

among the various alternative conditions, and are discussed further in Section 6.5. 

6.3.2.4 Comparison of Flows and Loads from Sub-watersheds 

The estimated flows and loads, by sub-watershed, for the CBASE and RWPPB Conditions are 

shown in Table 6.3-4 and 6.3-5. The relative contributions from each sub-watershed are shown 

in Figure 6.3-1. In the figure, the bars for S-4 are higher for TP and TN than for discharge, 

indicating that the concentrations in S-4 are higher than the average for the other sub-watersheds. 

Compared to other sub-watersheds, however, the magnitude of loads from S-4 is small. 

Similarly, the contributions from the East Caloosahatchee and Coastal sub-watersheds are 

relatively modest. The greatest discharge is contributed by the West Caloosahatchee Subwatershed, along with the greatest nitrogen load, but the largest P load is contributed by the Tidal 

Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed, which has more urbanized areas. 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.3-13 

Table 6.3-5. Summary of Average Annual Flows, TP and TN Loads and Concentrations for RWP

Total Phosphorus 

Sub-watershed Contributing 

Area 

(acres) 

Percent 

of Area 

for 

CRWPP 

Annual 

Discharge 

(ac-ft/yr) 

Percent 

of Total 

Discharge 

for 

CRWPP 

Annual 

Total 

Load 

(mt/yr) 

Percent 

of Total 

Load 

for 

CRWPP 

Conc. 

(ppb) 

Annual 

Total 

Load 

(mt/yr) 

S-4 22,102 2.1% 45,698 2.8% 13.58 4.3% 241 93.East Caloosahatchee 198,299 18.7% 232,874 14.5% 41.26 12.9% 144 460.West Caloosahatchee 349,734 33.0% 646,089 40.2% 111.03 34.8% 139 1,028.Tidal Caloosahatchee 262,023 24.7% 456,580 28.4% 118.22 37.1% 210 863.Coastal 227,236 21.4% 224,952 14.0% 34.77 10.9% 125 360.Lake Okeechobee inflow n.a. n.a. 674,700 n.a. 66.58 n.a. 80 1,215.Total for CRWPP 1,059,394 100.0% 1,606,192 100.0% 318.86 100.0% 161 2,806.Total for CRWPP above S-79 570,135 53.8% 924,660 57.6% 165.87 52.0% 145 1,582.Total above S-79, with Lake Okeechobee n.a. n.a. 1,599,360 n.a. 232.45 n.a. 118 2,797.Total for CRWPP, above Shell Point 832,158 78.6% 1,381,240 86.0% 284.09 89.1% 167 2,445.Total above Shell Point, with Lake Okeechobee n.a. n.a. 2,055,940 n.a. 350.67 n.a. 138 3,660.Total for CRWPP, with Lake Okeechobee n.a. n.a. 2,280,892 n.a. 385.44 n.a. 137 4,021.
Section 6.3

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

6.3-14 

Figure 6.3-1. Comparison of Percent Average Annual Discharge and Average Annual TP and 

TN Loads from each Sub-watershed for RWPPB Condition

6.3.3 Water Quality Conclusions 

The water quality Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet was used to demonstrate and compare load 

reductions of TP and TN with two base conditions and the alternative conditions. The CBASE 

Condition represents the 2005 flows and loads for the watershed and its sub-watershed 

components. The RWPPB Condition represents the anticipated loading after several projects are 

implemented (see Section 6.3.1.2) and is expected to reduce the input of loads from Lake 

Okeechobee by 36 percent for TP and 38 percent for TN, largely due to the reduced flow 

volumes into the C-43 Canal. Base projects within the CRWPP study area are not designed for 

water quality improvements, and are expected to reduce loads to the estuary only by two percent 

for TP and three percent for TN. The average annual loads contributed within the CRWPP study 

area under the RWPPB Condition are expected to be 319 mt for TN and 2,806 mt for TP. 

The highest concentration of nutrients is estimated to derive from the S-4 Sub-watershed, but 

because the discharge volume is small, the overall impact of S-4 is relatively small. The West 

and Tidal Caloosahatchee sub-watersheds contribute most of the flow and loads within the study 

area. The West Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed contributes the largest flow volume and the 

largest load of TN. The Tidal Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed contributes the largest load of TP. 

For the RWPPB Condition, the overall concentration of TP for the CRWPP study area is 161 

ppb, which is twice the expected “natural-condition” concentration value of 80 ppb. The 

concentration of TN is estimated to be 1.42 ppm, compared to the “natural-condition” 

concentration value of 0.80 ppm, which likewise leaves plenty of opportunity for the 

management measures to play an important role in restoring a healthy watershed and estuary. 
SECTION 6.4 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

6.4 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS......................................................... 6.4-1

6.4.1 Planning Goals....................................................................................................... 6.4-1

6.4.1.1 Water Quantity Storage Goal .................................................................... 6.4-1

6.4.1.2 Water Quality Goal ................................................................................... 6.4-1

6.4.2 Formulation Challenges......................................................................................... 6.4-2

6.4.3 Formulation of Alternatives .................................................................................. 6.4-2

6.4.3.1 Alternative 1 – Common Elements ........................................................... 6.4-3

6.4.3.2 Alternative 2 – Maximizing Water Storage .............................................. 6.4-5

6.4.3.3 Alternative 3 – Maximizing Water Quality Improvements....................... 6.4-7

6.4.3.4 Alternative 4 – Optimize Water Storage and Water Quality 

Improvements............................................................................................ 6.4-9

LIST OF TABLES 

6.4-1 Alternative 1 Benefits by Project Scale ........................................................................ 6.4-5 

6.4-2 Alternative 1 TP and TN Summary .............................................................................. 6.4-5 

6.4-3 Alternative 2 TP and TN Summary .............................................................................. 6.4-7 

6.4-4 Alternative 3 TP and TN Summary .............................................................................. 6.4-9 

6.4-5 Alternative 4 TP and TN Summary ............................................................................ 6.4-11 

6.4-6 Summary of Management Measures Associated with the CRWPP Alternatives....... 6.4-12 

Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-1 

6.4 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS 

This section describes the four alternative plans formulated and evaluated by the working team. 

Water quality and storage planning targets are identified, followed by a description of the 

management measures that were used as building blocks for each of the plans. Information on 

key components and projected performance of individual alternative plans is also presented. 

6.4.1 Planning Goals 

The sections below reiterate the water quantity and water quality goals of the Caloosahatchee 

River Water Protection Plan (CRWPP). The alternative plans were formulated to achieve these 

goals. 

6.4.1.1 Water Quantity Storage Goal 

The legislative intent of Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) finds 

that the expeditious implementation of the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan and the River 

Watershed Protection Plans is needed to improve the quality, quantity, timing and distribution of 

water in the northern Everglades ecosystem, Section 373.4595(1)(h), F.S. (2007). The water 

quantity storage goal for the Caloosahatchee River Watershed is to manage flows to meet the 

high discharge criteria, salinity envelope, and Target Flow Index (TFI) in the Caloosahatchee 

Estuary, as detailed below. 

• The restoration target high discharge criteria for the Caloosahatchee Estuary are as 

follows: 

− Limit mean monthly flows greater than 2,800 cubic feet per second (cfs) to three 

months or less over a 432-month period, and 

− Eliminate mean monthly flows greater than 4,500 cfs over a 432-month period. 

• The restoration salinity envelope target for the Caloosahatchee Estuary is as follows: 

− Eliminate mean monthly flows below 450 cfs from October to July, and 

− Limit the number of times flows exceed 2,800 cfs for 14 days or more to three, based 

on a 14-day moving average. 

• The target for the TFI is to achieve a flow distribution at S-79 identical to the EST05. 

EST05 represents the preferred flow distribution at S-79. A flow distribution identical to 

EST05 is given a TFI score of zero. Improving scores are represented by values 

approaching zero. 

The basis for these goals is discussed in detail in Sections 3.5 and 6.2. This section identifies the 

storage gained with each alternative in acre-feet, while Section 6.5 discusses the modeling results 

as they specifically relate to the water quantity storage goals. 

6.4.1.2 Water Quality Goal 

The NEEPP legislation requires pollutant load reductions consistent with any adopted nutrient 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Caloosahatchee River Watershed as the water 

quality objective for the CRWPP planning process. However, during the formulation of the 
Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-2 

CRWPP, the TMDLs were under development and had not yet been established for any impaired 

waterbody segments in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. TMDLs for nutrients and dissolved 

oxygen (DO) were originally scheduled for development by September 2010. However; NEEPP 

directed the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to expedite development of 

TMDLs for the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary. Specifically, NEEPP directed FDEP to 

propose TMDLs for nutrients in the tidal portions of the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary by 

December 31, 2008. TMDLs for the riverine portion of the watershed will be established 

subsequent to the estuarine TMDLs. 

Since nutrient TMDLs did not exist during this planning process, a water quality goal of 

maximizing nutrient load reductions was utilized. Progress in meeting the total phosphorus (TP) 

and total nitrogen (TN) water quality goals is measured in the planning process via the water 

quality spreadsheet, which is discussed in detail in Section 6.3.1. This tool compiles the benefits 

of the various management measures and performance measures for the existing conditions, the 

River Watershed Protection Plan Base Condition, and four alternatives. Once TMDLs are 

established for the watershed, they will be used in future plan updates to assess water quality 

performance of the plan. Specifically, the TMDLs will be used to determine whether sufficient 

pollutant load reductions have been implemented in the watershed to achieve the waterbody’s 

designated use and whether any plan refinements are necessary. 

6.4.2 Formulation Challenges 

During the plan formulation process, numerous challenges needed to be resolved, including the 

challenges listed below. 

• Alternative plans were developed that concurrently addressed two discrete and sometimes 

competing project objectives, namely TP and TN load reductions and water storage. 

• Multiple management measures were considered for each project objective. 

• TMDLs have not yet been established in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed, so an 

interim goal of maximizing load reductions was used for this planning process. Once 

TMDLs are established in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed they will be applied in 

future CRWPP updates to assess water quality performance of the plan. 

• Water quantity or water quality benefits for some management measures could not be 

quantified due to the nature or development stage of the projects, although water quantity 

or water quality benefits are anticipated. These projects were included in the alternatives, 

but did not contribute to the overall TP and TN load reductions or the water storage 

capacity for the alternatives. 

• The numerous challenges previously discussed in Section 3.4. 

To address these challenges, a structured, systematic, and reproducible process was identified 

and adopted for formulation of alternative plans. 

6.4.3 Formulation of Alternatives 

The alternatives were formulated by combining management measures from the management 

measures toolbox, previously discussed in Section 6.1.1, to meet pre-established planning 
Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-3 

objectives. Both the CRWPP and the St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan (SLRWPP) 

have four alternatives, with the main objectives as listed below: 

Alternative 1: Common elements for incorporation into all subsequent alternatives 

Alternative 2: Maximize water storage 

Alternative 3: Maximize nutrient load reductions 

Alternative 4: A combination of management measures from Alternatives 1-3 intended to 

maximize both water storage and nutrient load reductions 

Table 6.4-6 at the end of this section identifies the quantified water quality and storage benefits 

associated with each management measure. The management measure sheets in Appendix B

provide the methods used for determining the water quality and storage benefits associated with 

each management measure, as determined by the working team. The following sections provide 

details of the four alternatives discussed above and the associated anticipated water quantity and 

water quality benefits. 

6.4.3.1 Alternative 1 – Common Elements 

Alternative 1 is defined as the “common elements” and is included in all subsequent alternatives. 

It includes management measures either already constructed/implemented or with 

construction/implementation imminent, or management measures for which 

construction/implementation was imminent pending resolution of certain issues. The 

management measures in Alternative 1 range from Level 1 to Level 5 (Refer to Section 6.1.1 for 

a description of the management measure levels). 

The key management measures of Alternative 1 are listed below and categorized by the scale of 

the project: local, regional, and source control. Regional projects are designed to reduce nutrient 

loads from regional scale sources. Local projects are designed to reduce nutrient loads from 

local sources. Source control projects are activities and measures that focus on capturing 

pollutants at the source, preventing the pollutants from leaving the site and entering other surface 

waters. The water storage capacity and TP and TN reductions for Alternative 1 management 

measures are also provided and summarized in Table 6.4-1. 

• Regional Projects - Alternative 1 regional projects provide annual average TP and TN 

reductions of approximately 18.7 and 130.1 metric tons per year (mt/yr), respectively. 

Alternative 1 regional projects include: 

− Coastal & Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

− Harns Marsh Improvements – Phase I & II (East County Water Control District 

(ECWCD)) 

− Harns Marsh Improvements – Phase II Final Design (ECWCD) 

− Aquifer Benefit and Storage for Orange River Basin (ABSORB) – ECWCD 

− Spanish Creek/ Four Corners Environmental Restoration 

− West Lake Hicpochee Project 

− C-43 Distributed Reservoirs 

− C-43 Water Quality Treatment and Demonstration Project (BOMA property) 

− Hendry County Storage 
Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-4 

• Local Projects - Alternative 1 local projects provide annual average TP and TN reductions 

of approximately 13.5 and 68.8 mt/yr, respectively. Alternative 1 local projects include: 

− Billy Creek Filter Marsh Phase I &II 

− North Fort Myers Surface Water Restoration Project 

− Yellow Fever Creek/ Gator Slough Transfer Facility (#208509) 

− Yellowtail Structure Construction (ECWCD) 

− Hendry Extension Canal Widening – Construction (ECWCD) 

− Manuel’s Branch Silt Reduction Structure 

− Manuel’s Branch East and West Weirs 

− Caloosahatchee Creeks Preserve Hydrological Restoration 

− Powell Creek Algal Turf Scrubber 

− City of LaBelle Stormwater Master Plan Implementation 

− Clewiston STA 

− Alternative Water Storage (LOER) – Barron Water Control District 

− Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project 

• Source Control Projects - Alternative 1 source control projects are anticipated to provide 

annual average TP and TN reductions of approximately 54.9 and 485.2 mt/yr, respectively. 

Alternative 1 source control projects include: 

− Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) – Owner Implemented, Funded Cost 

Share, and Cost Share Future Funding 

− Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule [Lake Okeechobee Estuary and Recovery (LOER)] 

− Land Application of Residuals 

− Florida Yards and Neighbors 

− Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Regulatory Program 

− National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program 

− Proposed Caloosahatchee River Watershed Regulatory Nutrient Source Control Program 

− Proposed Unified Statewide Stormwater Rule 

− Animal Manure Application Rule 

− Application of Septage Rule 

− Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Watershed Basin Rule (LOER) 

− Wastewater & Stormwater Master Plans 

− Farm & Ranchland Partnerships 

− Comprehensive Planning – Land Development Regulations (LDR) 

The water quality and storage benefits previously described are summarized by project scale in 

Table 6.4-1. 
Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-5 

Table 6.4-1. Alternative 1 Benefits by Project Scale

Project Scale TP Load 

Reduction1

TN Load 

Reduction1 Storage2

Regional Projects 18.7 mt/yr 130.1 mt/yr 46,900 ac-ft 

Local Projects 13.5 mt/yr 68.8 mt/yr 1,013 ac-ft 

Source Control Projects 54.9 mt/yr 485.2 mt/yr NA 

1

 Values are from the water quality spreadsheet described in Section 6.3.1 

2 Values are a sum of the storage for each management measure provided in the management measure summary 

sheets as calculated by the coordinating agencies. 

6.4.3.1.1 Alternative 1 Water Storage Benefits 

Increased storage from Alternative 1 is a sum of the storage benefits from Alternative 1 

management measures (CRE10: C-43 Water Quality Treatment and Demonstration Project, 

BOMA property) and Alternative 1 management measures adopted from the Lake Okeechobee 

Watershed Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan (LOP2TP) (CRE-LO41: C-43 

Distributed Reservoirs and CRE-LO92: Clewiston STA). Alternative 1 includes storage features 

that would provide an annual average surface storage capacity of approximately 47,900 acre-feet. 

Of the Alternative 1 storage components, the C-43 Distributed Reservoir, a reservoir/ hydraulic 

restoration management measure, provided the majority of the surface water storage. 

6.4.3.1.2 Alternative 1 Nutrient Load Reductions 

Table 6.4-2 below summarizes the water quality benefits from Alternative 1, as captured in the 

water quality spreadsheet. Alternative 1 would provide a total TP load reduction of 84.8 mt/yr 

and a total TN load reduction of 684.0 mt/yr. This would leave a Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed loading of 234.1 mt/yr and a concentration of 118 parts per billion (ppb) for TP and 

2,122 mt/yr and a concentration of 1.07 parts per million (ppm) for TN. 

Table 6.4-2. Alternative 1 TP and TN Summary

 TP1

 TN1

Current Load from Watershed (Current Base) 326.1 mt/yr 2,900 mt/yr 

Remaining Load from Watershed (River 

Watershed Base Condition) 318.9 mt/yr 2,806 mt/yr 

Total Load Reduction for Alternative 12 84.8 mt/yr 684 mt/yr 

Remaining Load from Watershed 234.1 mt/yr 2,122 mt/yr 

Remaining Concentration 118 ppb 1.07 ppm 

1 Values are from the water quality spreadsheet described in Section 6.3.1. 

2 Total reduction may be less than the sum by project scale in Table 6.4-1 due to the load reduction adjustment. 

6.4.3.2 Alternative 2 – Maximizing Water Storage 

This alternative is intended to maximize storage capacity in the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed. Using Alternative 1 as a base, new management measures were added that would 
Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-6 

provide increased storage capacity. Accordingly, Alternative 2 consisted of all management 

measures that were included in Alternative 1, plus the following six new features: 

• Cape Coral Canal Stormwater Recovery by ASR (Level 1) – This feature overcomes 

water shortfalls during the dry season and provides flood attenuation during the wet season 

through the use of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells in the Cape Coral Canal System. 

The project is designed for six wells, one million gallons per day (MGD) each, to be 

constructed from 2007–2009. Water quality benefits from the well construction are 

estimated at a net reduction of 4.13 mt/yr for TN and 14.3 mt/yr for TP. 

• Rehydrate Lee County Well Fields (south of Hwy 82) (Level 3) – This facility would 

redirect water from Lehigh Acres to rehydrate Lee County well fields to the south of SR 82. 

A total of approximately 4,000 acre-feet of storage capacity will be provided through this 

project. In addition, it would provide an estimated annual average reduction of 1.27 mt/yr for 

TN and an assumed 0.23 mt/yr for TP as reasonable in comparison to TN. 

• West Lake Hicpochee Project (Level 4) – This project comprises a reservoir and 

stormwater treatment area along the C-19 and C-43 canals, degradation of berms, exotic 

plant removal and control. This facility could potentially provide 43,010 acre-feet of 

aboveground storage capacity. It consists of two cells totaling 5,700 acres that would 

primarily receive flows from Fisheating Creek (via C-19). Because of its proximity to Lake 

Okeechobee, it could also be used to store lake waters, if necessary. In addition, this project 

is estimated to provide an annual average TN load reduction of approximately 27.6 mt/yr and 

a load reduction of 1.95 mt/yr for TP. 

• Recyclable Water Containment Areas (RWCAs) (Level 4) – RWCAs act as a distributed 

reservoir within the agricultural lands. This project utilizes agricultural areas for temporary 

water storage and water quality benefits. A total of approximately 5,000 acres of storage 

area would be distributed equally among five sub-regions, with 4-foot berms able to hold 

water up to a 2-foot depth. Water quality benefits from the project are estimated at a net 

reduction of 67.5 mt/yr for TN and 14.3 mt/yr for TP. 

• East Caloosahatchee Storage (Level 4) – This project comprises a series of distributed 

reservoirs located in the East Caloosahatchee Basin, which could potentially create 100,000 

acre-feet of aboveground storage. The current configuration is one large reservoir with an 

effective area of 8,000 acres and a capacity of 70,000 acre-feet. The total water quality 

benefit from this project is estimated to reduce TN loading by 69.1 mt/yr and TP loading by 

5.16 mt/yr. 

• Recycled Water Containment Area in the S-4 Basin (Level 5) – This project would use 

agricultural or other lands on a rotating basis through the S-4 Basin as temporary water 

storage for water quality and storage benefits. Benefits from this concept include recycling 

nutrients, water storage, aquifer recharge and decreasing excessive flows to the estuaries. 

Estimated water quality benefits from this project are a total load reduction of 11.8 mt/yr for 

TN and 2.41 mt/yr for TP. 
Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-7 

6.4.3.2.1 Alternative 2 Water Storage Benefits

Increased storage from Alternative 2 is a sum of the storage benefits from the Alternative 2 

management measure, CRE128: East Caloosahatchee Storage, and the Alternative 2 management 

measure adopted from LOP2TP, CRE-LO40: West Lake Hicpochee Project. Alternative 2 

includes storage features that would provide an annual average surface storage capacity of 

approximately 143,000 acre-feet. The additional projects in Alternative 2 are 

reservoir/hydrologic restoration features. Of the Alternative 2 storage components, the East 

Caloosahatchee Storage project provided the majority of the surface water storage. 

6.4.3.2.2 Alternative 2 Nutrient Load Reductions 

Table 6.4-3 below summarizes the water quality benefits from Alternative 2, as captured in the 

water quality spreadsheet. The additional six new project features would collectively reduce TP 

loading by 12.1 mt/yr and TN loading by 118 mt/yr. Thus, Alternative 2 would provide a total 

TP load reduction of 96.9 mt/yr and a total TN load reduction of 802 mt/yr. This would leave a 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed loading of 222.0 mt/yr TP and 2,004 mt/yr TN, and 

concentration of 113 ppb and 1.02 ppm, for TP and TN respectively. 

Table 6.4-3. Alternative 2 TP and TN Summary

 TP1

 TN1

Current Load from Watershed (Current Base) 326.1 mt/yr 2,900 mt/yr 

Remaining Load from Watershed (River 

Watershed Base Condition) 318.9 mt/yr 2,806 mt/yr 

Load Reduction for Alternative 1 Common 

Elements 84.8 mt/yr 684 mt/yr 

Load Reduction for Additional Alternative 2 

Projects 12.1 mt/yr 118 mt/yr 

Total Load Reduction for Alternative 2 96.9 mt/yr 802 mt/yr 

Remaining Load from Watershed 222.0 mt/yr 2,004 mt/yr 

Remaining Concentration 113 ppb 1.02 ppm 

1

 Values are from the water quality spreadsheet described in Section 6.3.1 

6.4.3.3 Alternative 3 – Maximizing Water Quality Improvements 

This alternative plan is intended to maximize nutrient load reductions in the Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed. Using Alternative 1 as the basis, new management measures are added for 

further nutrient load reduction. This plan consists of all features from Alternative 1, plus the 

following eight new management measures ranging from Levels 2 through 5: 

• Cape Coral Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Retrofit (Level 2) – This project is 

comprised of the implementation of the City of Cape Coral’s utility expansion program to 

changeover from septic systems to gravity sewers for wastewater treatment. In addition, the 

project contains funding to replace older stormwater inlets with newer inlets designed to 
Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-8 

assist with stormwater management. Estimated water quality benefits are a total load 

reduction of 27.0 mt/yr for TN and 5.40 mt/yr for TP. 

• North Ten Mile Canal Stormwater Treatment System (Level 2) – This project proposes 

to create a large-scale detention storage/treatment area in the City of Fort Myers for the 

Fowler commercial corridor and easterly industrial areas. Upon construction, the stormwater 

runoff can better mimic a pre-developed hydrologic response condition. The projected water 

quality load reductions from project implementation would be 0.82 mt/yr for TN and 0.33 

mt/yr for TP for a three-year event. 

• Carrell Canal (FMCC) Water Quality Improvements (Level 2) – This project proposes to 

create a stormwater treatment area (STA) via diversion structures, quiescent settling ponds, 

and constructed marshes within the “non-play” areas of the existing golf course facility. It 

will work in conjunction with other stormwater treatment projects in the watershed to 

improve the overall water quality of Carrell Canal and stormwater discharges to the 

Caloosahatchee River. Annual estimated water quality load reductions are 0.42 mt/yr for TN 

and 0.13 mt/yr for TP. 

• Shoemaker-Zapato Canal Stormwater Treatment (Level 2) – This project proposes to 

install weir/control structures for peak flow attenuation through increased channel storage 

and the “balancing” of outfalling stormwater volumes between the Shoemaker and Zapato 

canal systems. The project should improve water quality and reduce erosion and siltation 

into Billy Creek and improve stormwater discharges to the Caloosahatchee River. Annual 

water quality load reductions from the project are estimated at 0.54 mt/yr for TN and 0.14 

mt/yr for TP. 

• West Caloosahatchee Water Quality Treatment Area (Level 3) – This project consists of 

a constructed wetland designed to treat water from the reservoir to reduce nutrient 

concentrations from the Caloosahatchee River and nutrient loading to the downstream 

estuary. Total load reduction is estimated to be 58.5 /yr for TN and 13.9 mt/yr for TP. 

• Lehigh Acres Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Retrofit (Level 3) – The purpose 

of this project is to install structural components to slow and hold stormwater on the land, in 

order to facilitate settling and nutrient uptake prior to discharge into canals and ditches that 

discharge to the Caloosahatchee River. In addition, it should eliminate high-density septic 

systems, as well as the use of private wells for irrigation, which will significantly reduce 

potential pollutant loading. Annual estimated water quality load reductions are estimated at 

68.5 mt/yr for TN and 13.7 mt/yr for TP. 

• Caloosahatchee Ecoscape Water Quality Treatment Area (Level 4) – This project 

consists of a constructed wetland designed for optimal removal of nitrogen (N) from the 

Caloosahatchee River. The purpose of the project is to reduce nutrient concentrations within 

the Caloosahatchee River and nutrient pollutant loading to the downstream estuary. Total 

load reduction is estimated as 50.0 mt/yr for TN and 12.0 mt/yr for TP. 

• Caloosahatchee Area Lakes Restoration (Lake Hicpochee) (Level 3) – The proposed 

project comprises restoring the historic lake bed of Lake Hicpochee. The restored areas 
Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-9 

would treat runoff from agricultural canals that currently flow into Lake Hicpochee and the 

Caloosahatchee River. Annual water quality load reductions from the project are estimated 

as 100 mt/yr for TN and 24.7 mt/yr for TP. 

6.4.3.3.1 Alternative 3 Water Storage Benefits 

Increased storage from Alternative 3 is a sum of the storage benefits from the following 

Alternative 3 management measures – CRE04: Caloosahatchee Area Lakes Restoration (Lake 

Hicpochee), CRE11: Caloosahatchee Ecoscape Water Quality Treatment Area, and CRE13: 

West Caloosahatchee Water Quality Treatment Area. Alternative 3 includes additional water 

quality treatment facilities that would provide an annual average surface storage capacity of 

approximately 19,000 acre-feet. Of the Alternative 3 storage components, the Caloosahatchee 

Area Lakes Restoration (Lake Hicpochee) provided the majority of the surface water storage. 

6.4.3.3.2 Alternative 3 Nutrient Load Reductions 

Table 6.4-4 below summarizes the water quality benefits from Alternative 3, as captured in the 

water quality spreadsheet. The additional eight new project features would collectively reduce 

TP loading by 29.8 mt/yr and TN loading by 266 mt/yr. Thus, Alternative 3 would provide a 

total TP load reduction of 114.6 mt/yr and a total TN load reduction of 950 mt/yr. This would 

leave a Caloosahatchee River Watershed loading of 204.2 mt/yr TP and 1,856 mt/yr TN, and 

concentration of 103 ppb and 0.94 ppm, for TP and TN respectively. 

Table 6.4-4. Alternative 3 TP and TN Summary

 TP1

 TN1

Current Load from Watershed (Current Base) 326.1 mt/yr 2,900 mt/yr 

Remaining Load from Watershed (River 

Watershed Base Condition) 318.9 mt/yr 2,806 mt/yr 

Load Reduction for Alternative 1 Common 

Elements 84.8 mt/yr 684 mt/yr 

Load Reduction for Additional Alternative 3 

Projects 29.8 mt/yr 266 mt/yr 

Total Load Reduction for Alternative 3 114.6 mt/yr 950 mt/yr 

Remaining Load from Watershed 204.2 mt/yr 1,856 mt/yr 

Remaining Concentration 103 ppb 0.94 ppm 

1 Values are from the water quality spreadsheet described in Section 6.3.1 

6.4.3.4 Alternative 4 – Optimize Water Storage and Water Quality Improvements 

This alternative plan was intended to optimize storage capacity and reduce nutrient loads in the 

study area. It was conceived as a hybrid between Alternative 2 and 3 and essentially increases 

storage capacity, as well as furthers nutrient load reduction. Accordingly, it consists of all 

previous components from Alternatives 1 through 3, while adding the following four new 

management measures: 
Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-10 

• East Caloosahatchee Water Quality Treatment Area (Level 3) – This project consists of a 

constructed wetland designed for optimal N removal from water that currently flows into 

Lake Hicpochee. Upon construction, the water will be diverted to the wetland treatment 

facility and then back to the Caloosahatchee River, bypassing Lake Hicpochee. The total 

estimated water quality benefit from the proposed project would be 80.1 mt/yr load reduction 

for TN and 19.2 mt/yr load reduction for TP. 

• Caloosahatchee Storage – Additional (Level 4) - The proposed project is located in the 

Freshwater Basins of the Caloosahatchee River and could potentially create 50,000 acre-feet 

of aboveground storage to meet additional demands. Estimated water quality benefits 

calculated for the project are a reduction of 58.0 mt/yr TN and 4.30 mt/yr TP. 

• Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Reclaimed Water (Level 4) – This project 

will address the treatment of effluent entering the Caloosahatchee Estuary through upgrading 

existing wastewater treatment plants, constructing future planned plants with higher 

treatment levels, and beneficially distributing reclaimed water. Water quality benefits are 

anticipated to occur as a result of this project; however, the magnitude of these benefits is 

undetermined. 

• Fort Myers-Cape Coral Reclaimed Water Interconnect (Level 5) – This proposed project 

would construct a transmission line between the Fort Myers South Wastewater Treatment 

Plant and the Cape Coral Everest Parkway Water Reclamation Facility. This would remove 

the City of Fort Myers’ wastewater discharge from the Caloosahatchee Estuary, eliminate the 

need for the city to construct an injection well for reclaimed water disposal, and will provide 

reclaimed water to the City of Cape Coral, which has the necessary infrastructure for water 

distribution. Fort Myers would have an estimated 9 MGD reduction in flow. 

6.4.3.4.1 Alternative 4 Water Storage Benefits 

Increased storage from Alternative 4 is derived from the storage benefit of CRE 128a: 

Caloosahatchee Storage – Additional. This reservoir/ hydraulic restoration feature would provide 

an annual average surface storage capacity of approximately 50,000 acre-feet. 

6.4.3.4.2 Alternative 4 Nutrient Load Reductions 

Table 6.4-5 summarizes the water quality benefits from Alternative 4, as captured in the water 

quality spreadsheet. The additional four new project features would collectively reduce TP 

loading by 23.5 mt/yr and TN loading by 138.1 mt/yr. The projects for Alternatives 2 and 3, and 

the extras for Alternative 4 collectively could reduce TP loading by 36.1 mt/yr for TP and 326.5 

mt/yr for TN. Thus, Alternative 4 would provide a total TP load reduction of 120.9 mt/yr and a 

total TN load reduction of 1,010.5 mt/yr. This would leave a Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

loading of 197.9 mt/yr TP and 1,760 mt/yr TN, and concentration of 101 ppb and 0.91 ppm, for 

TP and TN respectively. 
Section 6.4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.4-11 

Table 6.4-5. Alternative 4 TP and TN Summary

 TP1

 TN1

Current Load from Watershed (Current Base) 326.1 mt/yr 2,900 mt/yr 

Remaining Load from Watershed (River 

Watershed Base Condition) 318.9 mt/yr 2,806 mt/yr 

Load Reduction for Alternative 1 Common 

Elements 84.8 mt/yr 684 mt/yr 

Load Reduction for Additional Alternative 4 

Projects 36.1 mt/yr 326 mt/yr 

Total Load Reduction for Alternative 4 120.9 mt/yr 1,010 mt/yr 

Remaining Load from Watershed 197.9 mt/yr 1,760 mt/yr 

Remaining Concentration 101 ppb 0.91 ppm 

1

 Values are from the water quality spreadsheet described in Section 6.3.1 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.4-12 

Table 6.4-6. Summary of Management Measures Associated with the CRWPP Alternative

ID Management Measure Management Measure Description Leve

CRE-LO 01,02,49 

Agricultural BMPs- Owner Implemented, Funded Cost Share, and Cost Share Future Funding 

Implementation of agricultural BMPs and water quality improvement projects to reduce the discharge of nutrients from the watershed. 

1 

CRE-LO 03 

Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule [Lake Okeechobee Estuary and Recovery (LOER)] 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) rule which regulates the content of P and N in urban turf fertilizers to improve water quality. 

1 

CRE-LO 04 Land Application of Residuals 

Subsection 373.4595(4)(b)2.of the NEEPP requires that after December 31, 2007, the FDEP may not authorize the disposal of domestic wastewater residuals within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed unless the applicant can affirmatively demonstrate that the nutrients in the residuals will not add to nutrient loadings in the watershed. 

1 

CRE-LO 05 Florida Yards and Neighborhoods 

Provides education about the land-use design to the citizens by promoting the Florida Yards & Neighborhood programs to minimize the pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation water. 

1 

CRE-LO 07 

Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Regulatory Program 

The ERP program regulates activities in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters and the management and storage of all surface waters. This includes activities in uplands that alter stormwater runoff as well as dredging and filling in wetlands and other surface waters. Generally, the program's purpose is to ensure that activities do not degrade water quality, compromise flood protection, or adversely affect the function of wetland systems. The program applies to new activities only, or to modifications of existing activities, and requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that an activity will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, and will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that any applicable water quality standards will be violated. 

1 

CRE-LO 08 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Program 

To reduce stormwater pollutant loads discharged to surface waters, especially from existing land uses and drainage systems. This is especially true for the master drainage systems owned and operated by cities, counties, FDOT, and Chapter 298 water control districts. This also can help to reduce stormwater pollutant loads from existing industrial sites and from new construction sites. 

1 

CRE-LO 09 

Coastal & Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

To protect important coastal and estuarine areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion from their natural or recreational state to other uses (CELCP Final Guidelines, 2003).. 

1 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.4-13 

ID Management Measure Management Measure Description Leve

CRE-LO 12g 

Alternative Water Storage (LOER) - Barron Water Control District 

This project will provide 5,000 acre-feet of water storage on 6,129 acres. Includes weir construction and ditch retention to enable water quality improvements and reuse by growers. Water quality benefits are anticipated to occur as a result of this project; however, the magnitude of these benefits is undetermined. 

1 

CRE-LO 15 

Proposed Caloosahatchee River Watershed Regulatory Nutrient Source Control Program 

To implement a nutrient source control program utilizing BMPs for the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. Ongoing activities include revising 40E-61 Rule to reflect the requirements of the Northern Everglades Protection Act and to expand the rule boundary to include the Caloosahatchee River Watershed as defined by the act. 

2 

CRE-LO 21 

Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Watershed Basin Rule (LOER) 

In February 2008, SFWMD initiated rule development for an ERP basin rule. The intent is to develop specific supplemental permit criteria for new permitted projects to demonstrate that no increase in total runoff volume will occur from new development that ultimately discharges to Lake Okeechobee or the Caloosahatchee or St. Lucie estuaries. 

3 

CRE-LO 40 West Lake Hicpochee Project 

Project comprises a reservoir and stormwater treatment area along the C-19 and C-43 canals, degradation of berms and exotic removal and control. This project could potentially create 55,090 acre-feet of above ground storage and will result 

in 27.6 and 1.95 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

4 

CRE-LO 41 C-43 Distributed Reservoirs 

The project involves storage reservoirs to capture the excess run-off. This project will result in 39.4 and 2.65 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 4 

CRE-LO 63 

Wastewater & Stormwater Master Plans 

Implement urban stormwater retrofitting projects or wastewater projects to 

achieve additional nutrient reductions and water storage basin wide by working with entities responsible for wastewater and stormwater programs in the service area. 

4 

CRE-LO 64 

Proposed Unified Statewide Stormwater Rule 

Intended to increase the level of nutrient treatment of stormwater from new development and thereby reduce the discharge of nutrients and excess stormwater volume. Treatment rule will be based on a performance standard of post-development nutrient loading that does not exceed pre-development nutrient loading. 

4 

CRE-LO 68 

Comprehensive Planning - Land Development Regulations (LDR) 

Basin-wide work with state agencies, cities and counties to review current plans and ensure promotion of low impact design through coordinated comprehensive planning and growth management initiatives. 

3 

CRE-LO 87c 

Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project (FRESP) 

The Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project will design a program in which ranchers in the Northern Everglades sell environmental services of water retention, nutrient load reduction, and wetland habitat expansion to agencies of the state and other willing buyers. Pilot project program is 

1 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.4-14 

ID Management Measure Management Measure Description Leve

currently underway. 

CRE-LO 91 Farm and Ranchland Partnerships 

There are two USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs that help farmers and ranchers keep their land in agriculture, the Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. Both programs provide funds to purchase conservation easements. 

4 

CRE-LO 92 Clewiston STA 

The State of Florida currently owns 766 acres of land along the southwestern boundary of Lake Okeechobee in Clewiston that can be used as a stormwater treatment area to treat stormwater that is currently discharging to Lake Okeechobee. Water quality benefits are anticipated to occur as a result of this project; however, the magnitude of these benefits is undetermined. 

4 

CRE 01 

Recyclable Water Containment Areas (RWCA) 

Utilizes the agricultural lands for reduction of nutrient loads into the Caloosahatchee River. This project will result in 67.5 and 14.3 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

4 

CRE 02 

Centralized Recycled Water Containment Area in the S-4 Basin 

Utilizes the agricultural or other lands for temporary storage to remove nutrients and treat agricultural stormwater runoff from the S-4 Basin to help reduce 

nutrient loading to the Caloosahatchee River, aquifer recharge and add a temporary back up water supply for irrigation. This project will result in 11.9 and 2.41 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

5 

CRE 04 

Caloosahatchee Area Lakes Restoration (Lake Hicpochee) 

Restore historical lake bed of Lake Hicpochee using 5,300 acres within footprint of state-owned lands, which will treat runoff from agricultural canals that currently flow into Lake Hicpochee and the Caloosahatchee River. Total load reduction is estimated as 100.4 mt/yr for TN and 24.7 mt/yr for TP.

3 

CRE 05 

East Caloosahatchee Water Quality Treatment Area 

The project consists of a constructed wetland designed for optimal removal of N within Lake Hicpochee and the Caloosahatchee River, and to reduce the nutrient pollutants loading to the downstream estuary. This project will result in 80.1 and 19.2 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

3 

CRE 10 

C-43 Water Quality Treatment and Demonstration Project (BOMA property) 

The project consists of a constructed wetland designed for optimal removal of N from the Caloosahatchee River and to reduce the nutrient pollutants loading to the downstream estuary. Total load reduction is estimated as 47.8 mt/yr for TN and 9.21 mt/yr for TP. 

3 

CRE 11 

Caloosahatchee Ecoscape Water Quality Treatment Area 

The project consists of a constructed wetland designed for optimal removal of N from the Caloosahatchee River and to reduce the nutrient pollutants loading to the downstream estuary. Total load reduction is estimated as 50.0 mt/yr for TN and 12.0 mt/yr for TP. 

4 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.4-15 

ID Management Measure Management Measure Description Leve

CRE 13 

West Caloosahatchee Water Quality Treatment Area 

The project consists of a constructed wetland designed to treat water from the reservoir to reduce nutrient concentrations from the Caloosahatchee River and 

nutrient pollutants loading to the downstream estuary. Total load reduction is estimated as 58.5 mt/yr for TN and 13.9 mt/yr for TP. 

3 

CRE 18 

Harns Marsh Improvements, Phase I & II 

Construction of a control weir at the outlet of Harns Marsh into the Orange River, which will raise water levels in Harns Marsh and create 1,450 acre-feet of storage capacity in the canal. This project also includes replacement of other outlet structures (S-HM-2) and (S-HM-3); along with the addition of a controllable gate structure next to the existing inlet to the South Marsh structure (S-HM-1). This project will result in 1.52 and 0.24 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

1 

CRE 19 

Harns Marsh Improvements, Phase II Final Design - ECWCD 

Repair the Able Canal weirs, replacement of structure (S-OR-1) and (S-OR1SE), and install pump station to lift water during dry period. This project could help to reduce discharge into the Orange River at least 20 percent for the 25-year design storm. This project will result in 0.61 and 0.09 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

2 

CRE 20 

Yellowtail Structure Construction - ECWCD 

The Yellowtail Structure will replace an old, failing broad crest weir with a new sheet pile weir with operable gates that will allow a better control of canal water quantity and quality, and will help on water recharge purposes. This project will result in 0.32 and 0.03 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

2 

CRE 21 Hendry County Storage 

Buy land for additional storm water storage and treatment during the rainy season and to provide base flows for the ECWCD’s outfalls along with additional groundwater recharge in the dry season. This project will result in 2.72 and 0.68 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

3 

CRE 22 

Hendry Extension Canal Widening (Construction) - ECWCD 

This proposed canal widening project will help to address additional stormwater storage in the 5.5 mile section of Hendry Extension Canal. Water quality benefits are anticipated to occur as a result of this project; however, the magnitude of these benefits is undetermined. 

2 

CRE 29 

Lehigh Acres Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Retrofit 

This project consists of the installation of stormwater treatment features in 

Lehigh Acres and updates the current stormwater management system. This project also consists of the conversion of high-density septic tanks to centralized wastewater treatment including installation of the infrastructure for a treated wastewater reuse system. This project will result in 68.4 and 13.7 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

3 

CRE 30 

Aquifer Benefit and Storage for Orange River Basin (ABSORB) - ECWCD 

Project primarily oriented to increase stormwater storage capacity and SW 

Lehigh Acres groundwater recharge. This project will result in 3.72 and 0.37 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

2 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.4-16 

ID Management Measure Management Measure Description Leve

CRE 44 

Spanish Creek/ Four Corners Environmental Restoration 

Restore flow ways, build 400-acre deep reservoir and remove citrus grove. This project will result in 42.8 and 6.79 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

2 

CRE 45 

Billy Creek Filter Marsh Phase I & II 

This project includes construction of a filter marsh facility and a water control structure. The water control structure diverts flows into the filter marsh facility, 

providing additional attenuation of stormwater flows within the channel itself. The filter marsh facility will consists of an 8-acre open water lake, 13-acre wetland marsh and incorporate/restore an existing 12-acre cypress hammock. This project will result in 2.05 and 0.51 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

1 

CRE 48 

Manuel's Branch Silt Reduction Structure 

Install a silt reduction structure near the mouth of the creek to reduce the silt associated with the stream bank scour, erosion and degradation. This project will result in 0.14 and 0.11 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

2 

CRE 49 

Manuel's Branch East and West Weirs 

The project involves the installation of two weir water control structures within the existing canal. This project will result in 0.42 and 0.16 mt/yr of TN and TP, 

respectively. 

2 

CRE 53 

Caloosahatchee Creeks Preserve Hydrological Restoration 

This project will consist of culvert construction and plugging existing ditches to increase the retention time on the Caloosahatchee Creeks Preserve to help in the rehydration of the wetland and in the quality of water that later discharges into the Caloosahatchee River. It is estimated that this will contribute 1,200 acres of storage capacity and will result in 21.8 and 5.44 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

2 

CRE 57 Powell Creek Algal Turf Scrubber 

This project proposes to install a mobile unit of Algal Turf Scrubber system to remove nutrients, based on the results of a pilot project. This project will result in 0.06 and 0.02 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

2 

CRE 59 

North Fort Myers Surface Water Restoration Project 

The proposed management measure includes channel improvements, construction of weirs to control runoff form Palermo and to incorporate filter marsh to reduce contaminants. This project will result in 0.68 and 0.06 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

1 

CRE 64 

Yellow Fever Creek/Gator Slough Transfer Facility (#208509) 

Construct an interconnection facility between the Gator Slough Canal and Yellow Fever Creek to transfer the surface waters during the high flow periods. This project will result in 1.26 and 0.15 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

1 

CRE 69 

Cape Coral Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Retrofit 

The City of Cape Coral is implementing a program that involves conversion of septic systems to gravity sewers. This project also includes replacement of older stormwater inlets with the newer inlets designed to assist stormwater. This project will result in 27.0 and 5.40 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

2 

CRE 77 

Cape Coral Canal Stormwater Recovery by ASR 

Using aquifer storage and recovery wells in Cape Coral to overcome water shortfall during dry season and to provide flood attenuation during wet season. This project will result in 4.13 and 0.82 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

1 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.4-17 

ID Management Measure Management Measure Description Leve

CRE 121 

City of LaBelle Stormwater Master Plan Implementation 

This project will include stormwater conveyance and water quality storage improvements within the City of La Belle consisting in approximately 149 acres 

resulting in 34.8 and 5.80 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

2 

CRE 122 

Rehydrate Lee County Well Fields (south of Hwy 82) 

Redirecting water from Lehigh Acres to rehydrate Lee County well fields to the south of SR 82. This project will result in 1.27 and 0.23 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

3 

CRE 123 

North Ten Mile Canal Stormwater Treatment System 

Stormwater storage/detention 12 acre-feet area for urban and commercial area. Estimated at 0.82 mt/yr for TN and 0.33 mt/yr for TP for 3-year event. 

2 

CRE 124 

Carrell Canal (FMCC) Water Quality Improvements 

Stormwater treatment area to contribute with 0.13 mt/yr for TN and 0.14 mt/yr for TP reduction coming to Carrel Canal. 

2 

CRE 125 

Shoemaker-Zapato Canal Stormwater Treatment 

Installation of weir/control structures to increase channel storage providing peak flow attenuation, reducing erosion and siltation into Billy Creek. This project will result in 0.54 and 0.14 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

2 

CRE 126 

Fort Myers-Cape Coral Reclaimed Water Interconnect 

Installation of a 20-inch diameter transmission line from Fort Myers Treatment 

Plant to Cape Coral Reclamation Treatment Plant. This will help prevent discharging 9 MGD treated water into Caloosahatchee River. Water quality benefits are anticipated to occur as a result of this project; however, the magnitude of these benefits is undetermined. 

5 

CRE 128 East Caloosahatchee Storage 

Construction of distributed reservoirs on 7500 acres of private properties. The project could potentially create 100,000 acre-feet of above ground storage and will result in 69.1 and 5.16 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

4 

CRE 128a 

Caloosahatchee Storage -Additional 

Creation of 50,000 acre-feet of above ground storage in the Caloosahatchee Watershed. This project will result in 58.0 and 4.30 mt/yr of TN and TP, respectively. 

4 

CRE 129 

Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Reclaimed Water 

Upgrade existing wastewater treatment plants to reduce the effluent loadings. 

Includes the potential for distribution as reclaimed water. Also construct future plants to higher treatment levels. Water quality benefits are anticipated to occur as a result of this project; however, the magnitude of these benefits is undetermined. 

5 

CRE 130 Animal Manure Application Rule 

Landowners who apply more than one ton per acre of manure must develop conservation plans, approved by the US Department of Agriculture/National Resource Conservation Service (USDA/NRC), that specifically address the application of animal wastes and include soil testing to demonstrate the need for manure application. 

1 
Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan 

6.4-18 

ID Management Measure Management Measure Description Leve

CRE 131 Application of Septage Rule 

FDOH rule which regulates the regarding application of septage in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers. Entities disposing of septage within the watersheds must develop and submit to FDOH an agricultural use plan that limits applications, based upon nutrient loading. 

1 
SECTION 6.5 

ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND COMPARISON

Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

6.5 Alternative Plan Evaluation and Comparison............................................................... 6.5-1

6.5.1 Water Quantity.................................................................................................... 6.5-1

6.5.1.1 High Discharge Criteria............................................................................... 6.5-2

6.5.1.2 Salinity Envelope......................................................................................... 6.5-4

6.5.1.3 Target Flow Index ....................................................................................... 6.5-5

6.5.1.4 Lake Okeechobee Proposed Minimum Water Level Criteria ..................... 6.5-6

6.5.1.5 Lake Okeechobee Service Area Irrigation Demand.................................... 6.5-7

6.5.2 Water Quality...................................................................................................... 6.5-9

6.5.2.1 Water Quality Results................................................................................ 6.5-10

6.5.3 Identification of the Preferred CRWPP Construction Project .......................... 6.5-13

LIST OF TABLES 

6.5-1a Breakdown of Flows Greater than 2,800 cfs to Estuary by Source..............................6.5-3

6.5-1b Breakdown of Flows Greater than 4,500 cfs to Estuary by Source......................6.5-6.5-34

6.5-2 Summary of Total Phosphorus Loads and Concentrations.........................................6.5-10

6.5-3 Summary of Total Nitrogen Loads and Concentrations .............................................6.5-11

6.5-4 Load Reductions Achieved by the Preferred Plan for Total Phosphorus and Total 

Nitrogen ......................................................................................................................6.5-14

LIST OF FIGURES 

6.5-1 High Discharge Criteria Performance...........................................................................6.5-3

6.5-2 Salinity Envelope Criteria Performance .......................................................................6.5-5

6.5-3 Target Flow Index Performance ...................................................................................6.5-6

6.5-4 Lake Okeechobee Minimum Water Level Performance ..............................................6.5-7

6.5-5 Lake Okeechobee Service Area Performance...............................................................6.5-8 

6.5-6 Lake Okeechobee Supplemental Irrigation Performance .............................................6.5-9 

6.5-7 Remaining Total Phosphorus Loads by Sub-watershed .............................................6.5-12 

6.5-8 Remaining Total Nitrogen Loads by Sub-watershed..................................................6.5-13 

Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-1 

6.5 ALTERNATIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND COMPARISON 

Section 6.5 evaluates and compares the water quantity and water quality results for Alternatives 

1 through 4 of the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan (CRWPP). The four 

alternatives are a combination of various management measures more fully described in Sections 

6.1, 6.4, and Appendix B. 

Alternative 1: Alternative 1 is defined as the “common elements” and is included in all 

subsequent alternatives. Alternative 1 includes the Level 1 through 4 management measures 

for which construction or implementation were determined to be imminent by the working 

team. All source control management measures are included in Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2: Alternative 2 maximizes the surface water storage in the freshwater 

watershed. Six management measures were added to the common elements. Among the 

management measure included is the East Caloosahatchee Storage Project, potentially 

creating 100,000 acre-feet of aboveground storage in the watershed. 

Alternative 3: Alternative 3 maximizes the total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) 

load reductions in water from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed, again including the 

common elements of Alternative 1. Eight water quality management measures were 

incorporated in Alternative 3, including five regional projects and three additional local 

projects. 

Alternative 4: Alternative 4 is a compilation of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 with three 

management measures added to increase storage capacity and improve water quality in the 

watershed. Alternative 4 is intended to optimize watershed storage and maximize TP and TN 

load reductions in the watershed. The three additional regional management measures are the 

Fort Myers-Cape Coral Reclaimed Water Interconnect, the Caloosahatchee Storage - 

Additional (50,000 acre-feet), and the East Caloosahatchee Water Quality Treatment Area. 

In an effort to determine the appropriate level of storage to implement within the watershed, the 

working team evaluated varying levels of watershed storage beyond what was prescribed in 

Alternative 2. Based on the insight gained from this effort, the working team determined that the 

four additional management measures in Alternative 4 provided the most practicable water 

storage in the watershed needed to minimize damaging flows to the Caloosahatchee Estuary. 

6.5.1 Water Quantity 

One objective of the CRWPP is to improve water quantity and delivery to the Caloosahatchee 

Estuary by reducing the frequency and duration of harmful freshwater releases. There are three 

performance measures for evaluating the plan alternatives with respect to water quantity: the 

High Discharge Criteria, the Salinity Envelope Criteria and the Target Flow Index (TFI). The 

criteria are based on maintaining the ecological health of the system and measure total flows to 

the Caloosahatchee Estuary at the Franklin Lock and Dam structure (S-79). The CRWPP only 

addresses the watershed contribution to the estuary. Lake Okeechobee discharges were 

addressed in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan 

(LOP2TP). 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-2 

6.5.1.1 High Discharge Criteria 

The target for the ecology-based high discharge criteria is three or fewer occurrences of mean 

monthly flows greater than 2,800 cubic feet per second (cfs) and no occurrences of mean 

monthly flows over 4,500 cfs for the model simulated 36-year period of record (1970 to 2005). 

The basis for the High Discharge Criteria is discussed in detail in Section 6.2. The following 

sections present the Northern Everglades Regional Simulation Model (NERSM) results for the 

high discharge criteria and evaluate and compare the performance of the four alternatives relative 

to the criteria. 

6.5.1.1.1 High Discharge Criteria Results 

The performance of the base conditions and the four alternatives compared to the high discharge 

criteria target are provided in Figure 6.5-1. The left bars represent a tally of the mean monthly 

flows greater than 2,800 cfs and the right bars represent a tally of the mean monthly flows 

greater than 4,500 cfs. 

Under the RWPPB condition, discharges exceeding 2,800 cfs decreased by 31 percent and 

discharges exceeding 4,500 cfs decreased by 43 percent compared to the CBASE Condition. 

These improvements are from the base projects included in the RWPPB Condition, including the 

LOP2TP Preferred Alternative and the C-43 Reservoir. 

All of the alternatives showed improvement in reducing the number of exceedances compared to 

the RWPPB Condition. As expected, Alternative 4 showed the greatest improvement for both 

flow threshold values, reducing the number of watershed discharges greater than 2,800 cfs to 41 

and reducing the number of discharges greater than 4,500 cfs to 16. 

The implementation of the alternatives reduced the occurrences of total basin and Lake 

Okeechobee flows greater than 2,800 cfs by 7 percent to 20 percent, from the RWPPB shown in 

Figure 6.5-1. The number of occurrences of total discharges greater than 4,500 cfs also 

decreased from the RWPPB condition to all four alternatives by about 5 percent to 24 percent. 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-3 

Figure 6.5-1. High Discharge Criteria Performance 

Tables 6.5-1a and 6.5-1b further divide each of the exceedances depicted in Figure 6.5-1 by its 

source. This is important, since this plan’s objective is to address the watershed contribution to 

the estuary. Lake Okeechobee discharges were addressed in the LOP2TP. Identifying the source 

of water that contributes to the exceedances of the High Discharge Criteria helps to focus the 

management measures on this objective. When considering the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

contribution only, the four alternatives reduced the number of discharges greater than 2,800 cfs 

by 21 percent to 39 percent and the occurrences of discharges greater than 4,500 cfs by 14 

percent to 43 percent. 

Table 6.5-1a. Breakdown of Flows Greater than 2,800 cfs to Estuary by Source 

(Number of Months out of 432 Total Months of Simulation (1970-2005 period of record)) 

Discharges greater than 2,800 cfs CBASE RWPPB ALT1 ALT2 ALT3 ALT4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed 48 33 26 22 26 20 

Lake Okeechobee 21 5 7 7 7 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed and Lake 

Okeechobee Combined 11 17 16 18 18 16 

TOTAL 80 55 49 47 51 44 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-4 

Table 6.5-1b. Breakdown of Flows Greater than 4,500 cfs to Estuary by Source 

(Number of Months out of 432 Total Months of Simulation (1970 to 2005 period of record)) 

Discharges greater than 4,500 cfs CBASE RWPPB ALT1 ALT2 ALT3 ALT4 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed 10 7 6 5 5 4 

Lake Okeechobee 5 1 2 1 2 1 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed and Lake 

Okeechobee Combined 22 13 12 11 13 11 

TOTAL 37 21 20 17 20 16 

6.5.1.2 Salinity Envelope 

The salinity envelope target is the second CRWPP water quantity performance measure. The 

restoration salinity envelope targets for the Caloosahatchee Estuary eliminate the occurrence of 

mean monthly flows less than 450 cfs from October to July, and limit the number of times 

monthly flows exceed 2,800 cfs to three occurrences. Meeting the mean monthly flow targets 

will ensure that the salinity envelope targets are met. 

Meeting the salinity envelope target will maintain desirable salinity levels in the Caloosahatchee 

Estuary conducive to the estuary’s ecologic health. Like the High Discharge Criteria, this 

performance measure considers both the quantity and duration of discharges to the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. 

6.5.1.2.1 Salinity Envelope Results 

Figure 6.5-2 illustrates the number of times the salinity envelope criteria are not met for the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary based on modeled mean monthly flows for the period of record (top 

chart), and the number of consecutive months when exceedances occurred (bottom chart). On 

the top chart, the bars on the left indicate the number of months the average surface water flows 

were less than 450 cfs, and the bars on the right indicate the number of months the average flow 

from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed exceeded 2,800 cfs. On the bottom chart, the 

numbers on the left of each column represent the number of times the salinity envelope low flow 

criterion was not met for consecutive months, and the numbers on the right of each column 

represent the same for the salinity envelope high flow criterion. 

As can be seen in Figure 6.5-2, Alternative 4 resulted in a 98% improvement over current 

conditions in regards to the salinity envelope low flow criterion, reducing the number of 

exceedances from 189 to 4. In addition, Alternative 4 resulted in a 66 percent reduction (from 55 

to 44) in the number of exceedances of the salinity envelope high flow criterion, whereas 

Alternative 1 resulted in a reduction of only 33 percent (from 55 to 49). 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-5 

Figure 6.5-2. Salinity Envelope Criteria Performance 

6.5.1.3 Target Flow Index 

TFI was the third CRWPP water quantity performance measure. TFI compares the modeled 

flow distributions to a desired flow distribution. Deviation from the desired flow distribution 

will result in a negative TFI. The TFI becomes progressively negative as the flow distribution 

deviates further from the targeted distribution. The goal is to have a TFI value of zero, which 

would indicate a perfect match of the flow distribution corresponding to the ecologically-based 

target flow time series, EST05. 

6.5.1.3.1 Target Flow Index Results 

Figure 6.5-3 displays the flow distribution graph of the base conditions and the alternatives, as 

well as the TFI score for EST05. The EST05, which is depicted by the green line, is the desired 

condition or target flow distribution and therefore has a TFI of zero. 

As expected, the TFI for the RWPPB Condition is closer to the desired value of zero at –0.121, 

an improvement from the CBASE Condition by 76 percent. All of the alternatives showed 

improvement in reaching the desired flow distribution when compared to the RWPPB Condition. 

The flow distribution for the alternatives matched the EST05 flow distribution better than the 

distribution for the RWPPB Condition. The corresponding TFI scores for the alternatives were 

closer to the EST05 by 35 percent to 15 percent compared to the RWPPB Condition, with 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-6 

Alternative 4 being the closest to EST05 with a score of -0.733. Alternative 4 results in an 84 

percent improvement over current conditions. 

Figure 6.5-3. Target Flow Index Performance 

6.5.1.4 Lake Okeechobee Proposed Minimum Water Level Criteria 

Performance indicators were used to measure how an alternative may impact, either directly or 

indirectly, other water related needs of the region. One performance indictor in the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed is the Lake Okeechobee minimum water levels. The target 

minimum water level condition for Lake Okeechobee allows for only one occurrence over a sixyear period when water levels drop below 11 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) for 

more than 80 days. The model results are provided in Figure 6.5-4. The RWPPB and all of the 

CRWPP alternatives met the Lake Okeechobee minimum water level criteria, with only one 

occurrence when the lake’s water levels were less than 11 feet NGVD for greater than 80 days. 

TFI 

0000 

-4.601 

-1.121 

-0.948 

-0.804 

-0.954 

-0.733
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-7 

Figure 6.5-4. Lake Okeechobee Minimum Water Level Performance

6.5.1.5 Lake Okeechobee Service Area Irrigation Demand 

Another CRWPP performance indicator is to ensure that the plan does not adversely affect the 

Lake Okeechobee Service Area (LOSA) water supply demands. The water supply impact of the 

RWPPB and each of the alternatives are shown in Figure 6.5-5. All alternatives were evaluated 

to determine their impact on Lake Okeechobee’s capacity to meet Lake Okeechobee Service 

Area (LOSA) water supply demands by using the most severe seven water years within the 

period of record. Alternative 4 provided the greatest reduction in demand cutback volumes. The 

additional reductions in Water Year 2001 cutbacks with Alternative 4 compared to Alternatives 

1, 2, and 3 are a likely result of additional storage in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

reducing demands on Lake Okeechobee. 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-8 

Figure 6.5-5. Lake Okeechobee Service Area Performance 

Figure 6.5-6 shows the sources and volumes of water supplies (top two bar charts) and the mean 

annual percentage of water supply demands not met for the Everglades Agricultural Area and 

other LOSA area (bottom two bar charts), for the same seven water years with the most severe 

LOSA water supply cutbacks. All alternatives showed reduction in cutbacks relative to RWPPB, 

with Alternative 4 providing the lowest cutback volume and/or percentage. 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-9 

Figure 6.5-6. Lake Okeechobee Supplemental Irrigation Performance 

6.5.2 Water Quality 

The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) in Section 373.4595, 

Florida Statutes (F.S.) requires the CRWPP to contain an implementation schedule for pollutant 

load reductions consistent with any adopted nutrient Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and 

in compliance with applicable state water quality standards. The Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP) was developing TMDLs for the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed during the formulation of the CRWPP and as a result, an interim water quality goal 

was used by the coordinating agencies to maximum nutrient load reductions. NEEPP requires the 

CRWPP to be updated every three years. Therefore, the water quality goals will be updated in 

the three-year update of the CRWPP to include any established TMDLs in the Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed. 

The working team also considered estimated natural background concentrations of TP and TN 

against which all alternative condition concentrations were then checked. The “natural 

condition” was based on the minimum value that would be expected for a freshwater riverine 

system under “natural conditions” for southern Florida. For this study, the natural background 

concentration for TP was estimated as 80 parts per billion (ppb) (0.080 mg/L) and TN as 0.80 

parts per million (ppm) (0.80 mg/L). Decisions regarding the concentrations were established in 

writing between Robert Chamberlin and the South Florida Water Management District 

(SFWMD) in April 2008. 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-10 

The water quality evaluation method was described in Section 6.3. The base projects that 

influence anticipated TP and TN loading to the Caloosahatchee Estuary are: the C-43 West Basin 

Storage Reservoir and implementation of the LOP2TP. 

6.5.2.1 Water Quality Results 

The summaries of TP and TN load reductions are provided in Tables 6.5-2 and 6.5-3, 

respectively. The range of total average annual load reductions from the alternatives compared 

to the RWPPB Condition is 27 to 38 percent (84.8 and 121.0 mt/yr) TP and 24 to 36 percent (684 

and 1,011 mt/yr) TN. 

Each of the four alternatives provides a reduction in annual TP and TN loads compared to the 

CBASE and RWPPB conditions, with Alternative 4 achieving the maximum load reductions. 

The load reductions from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed represent water quality benefits 

from the CRWPP projects only. Alternative 4 resulted in a 39 percent reduction in TP loading 

and a 38 percent reduction in TN loading from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. With 

Alternative 4, the combined average annual TP and TN loading was reduced 39 percent for TP 

and 38 percent for TN compared to the CBASE Condition, and 31 percent for TP and 25 percent 

for TN compared to the RWPPB Condition. 

For the load contributed from Lake Okeechobee and the Caloosahatchee River Watershed, the 

total load reduction of 38 percent for TN has resulted in a remaining load and concentration of 

3,011 mt and 1.08 ppm, respectively. Similarly, the total load reduction of 39 percent for TP has 

resulted in a remaining load and concentration of 265 mt and 94 ppb, respectively. Remaining 

TP and TN concentrations are higher than the natural background concentrations, although to a 

much lesser extent than under the CBASE and RWPPB conditions. The major focus of 

management measures implemented for nutrient reductions in the watershed is TN treatment, 

especially in the West, East, and Tidal Caloosahatchee sub-watersheds. These sub-watersheds 

are major contributors of high TN levels, as discussed below and also in Section 6.3.2.4. 

Table 6.5-2. Total Phosphorus Load Reductions

Load Reduction (%) 

Total Phosphorus Annual Load 

(mt/yr) 

Concentration 

(ppb) 

RWPPB 

Condition1

 CBASE 

Condition2

Lake Okeechobee 66.6 80 n.a. 36% 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed 318.9 161 n.a. 2% 

RWPPB 

Condition 

Combined 385.4 137 n.a. 10% 

Lake Okeechobee 66.6 80 0% 36% 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed 234.1 118 27% 28% 

Alt 1 

Combined 300.6 107 22% 30% 

Lake Okeechobee 66.6 80 0% 36% 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed 222.0 113 30% 32% 

Alt 2 

Combined 288.6 103 25% 33% 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-11 

Load Reduction (%) 

Total Phosphorus Annual Load 

(mt/yr) 

Concentration 

(ppb) 

RWPPB 

Condition1

 CBASE 

Condition2

Lake Okeechobee 66.6 80 0% 36% 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed 204.2 103 36% 37% 

Alt 3 

Combined 270.8 96 30% 37% 

Lake Okeechobee 66.6 80 0% 36% 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed 197.9 101 38% 39% 

Alt 4- 

Preferred 

Plan 

Combined 264.5 94 31% 39% 

1 Percent load reduction compared to RWPPB Condition – only applies to Alternatives 1 through 4. 2 Percent load reduction compared to CBASE Condition – only applies to Alternatives 1 through 4. 

Table 6.5-3. TN Load Reductions 

1 Percent load reduction compared to RWPPB Condition – only applies to Alternatives 1 through 4. 2 Percent load reduction compared to CBASE Condition – only applies to Alternatives 1 through 4. 

As discussed in Section 6.3.2.4, the West and Tidal Caloosahatchee sub-watersheds were 

identified “hot spots” (sub-watersheds with disproportionately high annual TN loads and 

concentration); therefore, they were targeted for water quality management measures. The 

focused water quality efforts applied to these sub-watersheds are highlighted in Figures 6.5-7 

and 6.5-8 (the reduction of height in the bars for West and Tidal Caloosahatchee subLoad Reduction (%) 

Total Nitrogen 

Annual 

Load 

(mt/yr) 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

RWPPB 

Condition1

 CBASE 

Condition2

Lake Okeechobee 1,215 1.46 n.a. 38% 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed 2,806 1.42 n.a. 3% 

RWPPB 

Condition 

Combined 4,021 1.43 n.a. 17% 

Lake Okeechobee 1,215 1.46 0% 38% 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed 2,122 1.07 24% 27% 

Alt 1 

Combined 3,337 1.19 17% 31% 

Lake Okeechobee 1,215 1.46 0% 38% 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed 2,004 1.02 29% 31% 

Alt 2 

Combined 3,219 1.15 20% 34% 

Lake Okeechobee 1,215 1.46 0% 38% 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed 1,856 0.94 34% 36% 

Alt 3 

Combined 3,071 1.09 24% 37% 

Lake Okeechobee 1,215 1.46 0% 38% 

Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed 1,796 0.91 36% 38% 

Alt 4 - 

Preferred 

Plan 

Combined 3,011 1.08 25% 38% 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-12 

watersheds). Remaining loads to the estuary from the West Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed were 

reduced by 38 percent for TN and 43 percent for TP. Similarly, from the Tidal Caloosahatchee 

Sub-watershed remaining loads were reduced 34 percent for TN and 36 percent for TP. 

Although not as large in magnitude, loads from the East Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed were 

significant; water-quality efforts were estimated to reduce the annual loads by 50 percent for TN 

and 44 percent for TP. 

Total Phosphorus (TP) 

Load Results

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

140.0

Remaining TP (mt/yr)

S-4 East Caloos.

West Caloos. Tidal Caloos.

Coastal Lake Okee.

S-4 13.6 13.6 11.3 8.9 11.3 8.9

East Caloos. 41.3 41.3 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0

West Caloos. 118.3 111.0 73.9 68.2 63.8 63.8

Tidal Caloos. 118.2 118.2 94.7 90.8 80.0 76.1

Coastal 34.8 34.8 31.2 31.2 26.2 26.2

Lake Okee. 104.5 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6

Current Base 

Conditions

RWPP Base 

Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Figure 6.5-7. Remaining Total Phosphorus Loads by Sub-watershed 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-13 

Total Nitrogen (TN) 

Load Results

0.0

500.0

1,000.0

1,500.0

2,000.0

2,500.0

Remaining TN (mt/yr)

S-4 East Caloos.

West Caloos. Tidal Caloos.

Coastal Lake Okee.

S-4 93.0 93.0 73.1 61.2 73.1 61.2

East Caloos. 460.4 460.4 290.2 229.8 229.8 229.8

West Caloos. 1,121.9 1,028.7 775.6 748.6 667.1 637.6

Tidal Caloos. 863.6 863.6 664.7 645.8 592.5 573.6

Coastal 360.8 360.8 318.8 318.8 293.8 293.8

Lake Okee. 1,950.9 1,215.0 1,215.0 1,215.0 1,215.0 1,215.0

Current Base 

Conditions

RWPP Base 

Conditions Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Figure 6.5-8. Remaining Total Nitrogen Loads by Sub-watershed 

6.5.3 Identification of the Preferred CRWPP Construction Project 

NEEPP requires the CRWPP to contain an implementation schedule for pollutant load reductions 

consistent with any adopted nutrient TMDLs and applicable state water quality standards, and to 

consider and balance water supply, flood control, estuarine salinity, aquatic habitat, and water 

quality considerations when assessing current water management practices within the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed. Both TP and TN load reduction from watershed flows to the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary and additional storage capacity in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

is required to achieve the restoration goals for the Caloosahatchee Estuary. 

Each alternative was evaluated for its performance at reducing damaging discharges to the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary and TP and TN loads while maintaining existing levels of water supply. 

Alternative 4 was selected as the plan that best met the legislative intent of NEEPP. Alternative 

4 is referred to as the preferred CRWPP or the preferred Plan from this point forward. 

The preferred Plan achieved a total load reduction of 38 percent for TN and 39 percent for TP, as 

shown in Table 6.5-4. These results reflect the “big picture” benefits provided by 

implementation of the LOP2TP and the CRWPP. The load reductions to the estuary achieved by 

each plan are also included in Table 6.5-4. It should be noted that the total load reduction of 39 

percent for P has resulted in a remaining load and concentration of 265 metric tons (mt) and 94 

ppb, respectively. On the other hand, the total load reduction of 38 percent for N has resulted in 

remaining load and concentration of 3,011 mt and 1.08 ppm, respectively. However, based on 

the current assessment, it appears that excessively high N levels throughout the watershed pose 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-14 

the greatest water quality challenge. Therefore, the major focus of management measures 

implemented for nutrient reductions in the watershed is N treatment, especially in the West 

Caloosahatchee Sub-watershed, which is a major contributor of high N levels. Total phosphorus 

and total nitrogen load reduction performance will be revisited once the TMDLs are formally 

adopted by FDEP, which will provide specific loading rates, compliance locations, and 

compliance methodology. 

Table 6.5-4. Load Reductions Achieved by the Preferred Plan for Total Phosphorus and Total 

Nitrogen 

 Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen 

Total Load Reduction1 39% 38% 

Watershed Load Reduction2 38% 36% 

Lake Okeechobee Load Reduction3 36% 38% 

Resulting Load 265 mt 3,011 mt 

Resulting Concentration 94 ppb 1.08 ppm 

1 Total load reduction from Lake Okeechobee and Caloosahatchee River Watershed compared to the CBASE Condition 2

 Load reductions only from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed compared to the RWPPB Condition 3

 Load reductions only from the Lake Okeechobee compared to the CBASE condition 

In addition to the water quality benefits mentioned above, implementation of the preferred Plan 

is anticipated to result in the following water quality and water quantity benefits: 

Water Quantity 

• Construction of approximately 36,000acres of reservoirs and over 15,000 acres of 

Stormwater Treatment Areas and and Water Quality Treatment Areas; 

• Providing approximately 400,000 acre-feet of water storage within the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed; 

• Over 50 percent reduction of the occurrences of flows between 2,800 and 4,500 cfs 

from current conditions; 

• Over 60 percent reduction in flows greater than 4,500 cfs from current conditions; 

• A 98 percent improvement over current conditions for flows less than 450 cfs; 

• An 84 percent improvement over current conditions towards the achievement of the 

Target Flow Index; and 

• Reduction in the percentage of months with detrimental high or low flows from 62 

percent to 11 percent. 

Water Quality 

• Implementation of BMPs on more than 430,000 acres of agricultural lands and 

145,000 acres of urban lands; 

• Completing regulatory rule revisions (ERP and Regulatory Nutrient Source Control 

Rule revisions); 
Section 6.5 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

6.5-15 

• Construction of approximately 15,000 acres of Stormwater Treatment Areas and 

Water Quality Treatment Areas; and 

• Restoring more than 2,000 acres of wetlands and natural areas within the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed. 

CHAPTER 7 

CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED POLLUTANT CONTROL 

PROGRAM

Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

7-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

7.0 CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED POLLUTANT CONTROL PROGRAM . 

 ..........................................................................................................................................7-1

7.1 Non-Point Source Best Management Practices ........................................................... 7-2

7.1.1 South Florida Water Management District Nutrient Source Control Programs ....7-2

7.1.1.1 Environmental Resource Permit Program ......................................................7-2

7.1.1.2 Proposed Caloosahatchee River Watershed Regulatory Nutrient Source 

Control Program............................................................................................. 7-3

7.1.2 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Nutrient Source Control 

Programs................................................................................................................7-4

7.1.2.1 Agricultural Best Management Practices Program ........................................7-4

7.1.2.2 Animal Manure Application Rule ..................................................................7-5

7.1.2.3 Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule.............................................................................. 7-6

7.1.3 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Pollutant Source Control 

Programs................................................................................................................7-6

7.1.3.1 Stormwater and Wastewater Infrastructure Updates and Master Planning....7-6

7.1.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit Program............................7-9

7.1.3.3 Comprehensive Planning – Land Development Regulations.......................7-11

7.1.4 Other Pollutant Source Control Programs ...........................................................7-11

7.1.4.1 Application of Septage – Senate Bill 392/2007 changes to Section 373.4593, 

Florida Statues ............................................................................................. 7-11

7.1.4.2 Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project ...................................7-12

7.1.4.3 Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program.................................................7-12

7.2 Summary.................................................................................................................... 7-12

LIST OF TABLES 

7-1 Point Sources in Tidal Caloosahatchee River.................................................................. 7-8 

7-2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permittees in the Tidal Caloosahatchee 

Watershed ...................................................................................................................... 7-10 

Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-1 

7.0 CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED POLLUTANT CONTROL 

PROGRAM 

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

program. Source control programs in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed are evolving and 

expanding through cooperative and complementary efforts by the Florida Department of 

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

Services (FDACS), and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Pollutant Control Program is designed to be a multi-faceted 

approach to reducing pollutant loads. The program includes improving the management of 

pollutant sources within the watershed through implementation of regulations and best 

management practices (BMPs) and development and implementation of improved BMPs 

focusing on nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P). The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection 

Program (NEEPP) legislation [Section 373.4595, Florida Statutes (F.S.) (2007)] further refines 

the responsibilities of the coordinating agencies to achieve the objectives of the Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed Protection Program (CRWPP) on an expedited basis, including: 

• Implementation of non-point source BMPs on agricultural and non-agricultural lands to 

ensure that the amount of nutrients discharged offsite are minimized to the greatest 

possible extent; 

• Coordination with local governments to implement the nonagricultural, nonpoint-source 

BMPs within their respective geographic boundaries; 

• Assessment of current water management practices within the watershed and 

development of recommendations for structural, nonstructural, and operational 

improvements that consider and balance water quality and supply, flood control, 

estuarine salinity, and aquatic habitat considerations; 

• Ensuring that domestic wastewater residuals within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

do not contribute to nutrient loadings in the watershed; 

• Coordination with the Florida Department of Health (FDOH) to ensure that septage 

disposal within the watershed is under an approved agricultural use plan, limiting 

applications based on nutrient loading limits established in the proposed revisions 

SFWMD’s 40E-61 Regulatory Nutrient Source Control Program; 

• Ensuring that entities utilizing land-application of animal manure develop a resource 

management system level conservation plan; 

• Utilization of alternative and innovative nutrient control technologies; 

• Utilization of federal programs that offer opportunities for water quality treatment, 

including preservation, restoration, or creation of wetlands on agricultural land; and 

• Implementation of a source control monitoring program to measure the collective 

performance and progress of the coordinating agencies’ programs, to support adaptive 

management within the programs, to identify priority areas of water quality concern and 

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

downstream treatment facilities. 

Source control programs are anticipated to be implemented through a phased approach based on 

identified priority areas of water quality concern. 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-2 

7.1 Non-Point Source Best Management Practices 

Nutrient source controls refer to activities and measures (many are referred to as BMPs) that can 

be utilized on agricultural and non-agricultural lands to ensure that the amount of nutrients, 

specifically P and N, in offsite discharge is minimized, thereby preventing excessive nutrients 

from entering the waterways. Implementation of BMPs is a relatively cost-effective pollutant 

reduction and prevention measure. BMPs include structural and non-structural measures. 

Structural measures include creating physical changes in the landscape to reroute discharges, 

installing water control structures, and erecting barriers. Non-structural source control measures 

include education, operational or behavioral changes, and establishing regulations. 

The major categories of commonly used BMPs are nutrient management, water management, 

and erosion control. Nutrient management considers the amount, timing, and placement of 

nutrients, such as fertilizer. Water management considers the timing, volume, maintenance, and 

overall efficiency of the stormwater and irrigation systems. Erosion control practices prevent the 

off-site transport of nutrients in particulate matter and sediment. 

One key component of an effective BMP program is education to make participants aware of 

practices and activities that may contribute to pollutants in discharges. The education component 

of source control also includes providing the latest technical information, through demonstration 

and research projects, to continually optimize the effectiveness of BMPs and to introduce 

alternative nutrient source control technologies. Much of the region-specific BMP research to 

date has been conducted in partnership with the University of Florida Institute of Food and 

Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). Another key factor for an effective source control program is 

the proper implementation of the BMPs. The coordinating agencies are making a 

complementary effort to verify that participants are trained and implementing BMPs properly. 

There are existing and proposed nutrient source control programs within the Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed. These programs are developed and implemented cooperatively by SFWMD, 

FDEP, and FDACS, in collaboration with local governments and private landowners. Examples 

include development and implementation of agricultural and non-agricultural BMPs, 

development of agricultural use plans that limit nutrient loading, restrictions on the application of 

domestic wastewater residuals and septage, implementation of the Florida Yards and 

Neighborhoods Program, and several urban stormwater management programs. 

These nutrient source control programs will continue, regardless of the number, size, and 

configuration of the capital water quality improvement projects described and prioritized 

elsewhere in this plan. Nutrient source control is a critical component of watershed restoration; 

it is typically less expensive to prevent pollution than to remediate its impacts. Further, these 

programs operate under authorities and requirements independent of the NEEPP. 

7.1.1 South Florida Water Management District Nutrient Source Control Programs 

7.1.1.1 Environmental Resource Permit Program 

One of the earlier pollutant source control programs began in the 1980s in Chapters 17 to 25, 

Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) and focused on the regulation of stormwater. Since the 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-3 

1990s, stormwater quality has been regulated under the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) 

program, which is found in Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. The ERP program regulates activities 

involving the alteration of surface-water flows, and it includes activities in uplands that alter 

stormwater runoff, as well as dredging and filling in wetlands and other surface waters. 

Generally, the program’s purpose is to ensure that alterations do not degrade water quality, 

compromise flood protection, or adversely affect the function of wetland systems. 

In May 2007, FDEP initiated the development of the Unified Statewide Stormwater rule. In June 

2007, SFWMD also initiated rule development to incorporate the Unified Statewide Stormwater 

rule. The rule will be based on a performance standard of post-development total nitrogen (TN) 

and total phosphorus (TP) loading not exceeding pre-development natural conditions. The predevelopment natural condition is proposed to be defined as the condition of the site as if it were 

naturally vegetated, not necessarily the conditions existing at the site today. The intended effect 

of the rule is to increase the level of treatment required for TN and TP in stormwater from new 

development, which is anticipated to adequately address the discharge of nutrients in general. 

Methods for estimating treatment efficiency in typical water management BMPs and in low 

impact design type water management BMPs are proposed to be included in the rule, as well as 

retrofit projects, redevelopment and compensating treatment. The rule is also anticipated to have 

an incidental effect of reducing the volume of stormwater. The proposed date for rule adoption 

is mid to late 2010. 

In March 2008, SFWMD initiated rule development for an ERP Basin Rule with supplemental 

criteria designed to result in no increase in total runoff volume from new development that 

ultimately discharges to Lake Okeechobee or the Caloosahatchee or St. Lucie estuaries. This 

rule will be supplemental to existing criteria and the proposed USS rule. Average annual 

discharge volumes are proposed to be addressed. Methods for estimating storage capacities in 

typical water management BMPs and in low-impact design type water management BMPs are 

also proposed to be included in this rule. The target effective date of the rule is mid to late 2010. 

7.1.1.2 Proposed Caloosahatchee River Watershed Regulatory Nutrient Source Control 

Program 

The existing SFWMD 40E-61 Regulatory Nutrient Source Control Program was adopted in 1989 

[Chapter 40E-61, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)], as a result of the Lake Okeechobee 

Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan, to provide a regulatory source 

control program specifically for P. The NEEPP legislation expanded the program boundary to 

the Caloosahatchee River Watershed and included N, in addition to P, as the focus of nutrient 

source controls. The program applies to new and existing activities with the goal of reducing 

nutrients in offsite discharges. 

SFWMD is proposing to modify Chapter 40-61, F.A.C. to be compatible with recent 

amendments to the NEEPP to include the following: 

• Implement a nutrient source control program utilizing BMPs for agricultural and nonagricultural lands within the Northern Everglades, including the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed; 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-4 

• Recognize agricultural lands that are greater than 100 acres and are participating in the 

FDACS BMP program as meeting the intent of the proposed rule, to prevent duplication 

of effort; 

• Define the monitoring network necessary to gauge the collective effectiveness of the 

source control programs implemented by the coordinating agencies, to make water 

quality compliance determinations as necessary, to identify priority areas of water quality 

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

treatment facilities; 

• Establish water quality performance criteria specific to the collective source control 

programs and develop a plan for optimizing the collective BMP programs, should the 

expected water quality performance criteria not be met; 

• Establish nutrient concentration limits for sites utilized for septage application or 

disposal; 

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

• Include incentives to participate in nutrient reduction demonstration and research projects 

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

implemented BMPs to meet water quality objectives and for further refinement of the 

programs, as necessary. 

To ensure consistency with the CRWPP, rule development is expected to begin in 2009. 

7.1.2 Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Nutrient Source 

Control Programs 

7.1.2.1 Agricultural Best Management Practices Program 

The Florida Watershed Restoration Act (Section 403.067, F.S.), enacted in 1999, authorizes 

FDACS to develop, adopt by administrative rule, and implement agricultural BMPs statewide. 

Through the Office of Agricultural Water Policy, FDACS develops, adopts and implements 

agricultural BMPs to reduce water quality impacts from agricultural discharges and enhance 

water conservation. Where agricultural nonpoint source BMPs or interim measures have been 

adopted by FDACS, the owner or operator of an agricultural nonpoint source addressed by such 

rule shall either implement interim measures or BMPs or demonstrate compliance with the 

SFWMD’s 40E-61 Regulatory Nutrient Source Control Program, by conducting monitoring 

prescribed by FDEP or SFWMD. 

The Office of Agricultural Water Policy’s role involves assisting agricultural producers in 

selecting, funding, properly implementing, and maintaining BMPs. The Office of Agricultural 

Water Policy employs field staff and contracts with service providers to work with producers to 

identify and to implement BMPs appropriate for their operations. A detailed explanation of 

adopted agricultural BMPs can be found at www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com. Printed BMP 

manuals can be obtained in local extension offices at county agricultural centers or by contacting 

Office of Agricultural Water Policy field staff. 

The Office of Agricultural Water Policy has adopted, by rule, BMPs that address the following 

operations in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed: 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-5 

• Container Nurseries (Chapter 5M-6, F.A.C.); 

• Vegetable and Agronomic Crops (Chapter 5M-8, F.A.C.); and 

• Citrus (Chapter 5M-2, F.A.C.). 

The Office of Agricultural Water Policy is currently developing and will be adopting BMP 

manuals of statewide application for cow/calf, equine, container nursery, and sod operations. 

BMPs for all agricultural land uses in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed are expected to be 

adopted and available for implementation (enrollment) by early 2009. 

When the 2007 Florida legislature enacted the NEEPP legislation, significant portions of 

agricultural acreage within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed were already implementing 

(enrolling) water resource protection BMPs previously adopted by FDACS. As of the approval 

date of the CRWPP, agricultural acreage within Glades, Hendry, and Charlotte counties enrolled 

in the FDACS BMP Program totaled 242,000 acres. Enrolled acreage is expected to increase 

dramatically when the beef cattle BMP manual is adopted in early 2009. 

To meet the intent of the NEEPP legislation with regard to agriculture in the Caloosahatchee 

Basin, the Office of Agricultural Water Policy will conduct the following activities during 2008 

to 2012, as necessary and feasible: 

• Adopt BMP manuals for cow/calf, equine, container nursery, and sod operations; 

• Intensify its efforts to sign up cow/calf and equine producers for BMP implementation in 

the Caloosahatchee Basin;

• Work with FDEP to identify priority cow/calf and equine BMPs and verify their 

effectiveness;

• Develop a BMP implementation assurance program to follow up with selected cow/calf 

and equine operations on whether they are implementing BMPs and keeping appropriate 

records;

• Provide or participate in training and educational opportunities for producers regarding 

BMP implementation and its importance to water quality;

• Evaluate the need for BMP enrollment and implementation for other commodities in the 

basin and conduct these on a priority basis; and

• Continue on-farm BMP demonstration projects at representative sites to provide BMP 

effectiveness data and insight into what new or modified BMPs may be necessary to 

reach nutrient reduction goals.

7.1.2.2 Animal Manure Application Rule 

In February 2008, FDACS initiated rule development to control the land application of animal 

wastes in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. The proposed rule includes minimum 

application setbacks from wetlands and all surface waters. Landowners who apply more than 

one ton per acre of manure must develop conservation plans, approved by the US Department of 

Agriculture/National Resource Conservation Service (USDA/NRC), that specifically address the 

application of animal wastes and include soil testing to demonstrate the need for manure 

application. All use of animal manure must be recorded and included in the operation’s overall 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-6 

nutrient management plan. FDACS expects to complete rule making for this effort by the fall of 

2008. 

7.1.2.3 Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule 

In August 2007, FDACS adopted a statewide Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule 5E-1.003(2) F.A.C. 

The rule limits the P and N content in fertilizers for urban turf and lawns, thereby reducing the 

amount of P and N applied in urban areas and limiting the amount of those compounds reaching 

Florida’s water resources. It requires that, by July 1, 2009, all fertilizer products labeled for use 

on urban turf, sports turf, and lawns be limited to the amount of P and N needed to support 

healthy turf maintenance. FDACS expects a 20 to 25 percent reduction in N and a 15 percent 

reduction in P in every bag of fertilizer sold to the public. 

The rule was developed by FDACS, with input from UF/IFAS, FDEP, the state’s five water 

management districts, the League of Cities, the Association of Counties, fertilizer manufacturers, 

and concerned citizens. The rule enhances efforts currently underway to address excess nutrients 

in the northern and southern Everglades. As a component of the Lake Okeechobee and Estuary 

Recovery (LOER) Plan established in October 2005, the new rule is an essential component to 

improve water quality through nutrient source control. 

In addition, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) has approved a 

resolution (SWFRPC Resolution #07-01) addressing urban fertilizer use that adds additional 

limitations to urban fertilizer use. Lee County and the City of Sanibel have adopted ordinances 

(Lee County Ordinance No. 08-08 and City of Sanibel Ordinance No. 07-003), which further 

limit the use of fertilizers in their urban areas. 

7.1.3 Florida Department of Environmental Protection Pollutant Source Control 

Programs 

FDEP is responsible for several existing and planned source control programs primarily targeting 

urban and non-agricultural issues. Programs include: 

• Initiatives to improve existing stormwater and wastewater infrastructure; 

• Implementation of pollutant reduction plans for municipal stormwater management 

systems; 

• Land development regulations to promote proper stormwater treatment; 

• Enhancement to existing regulations for the management of domestic wastewater 

residuals within the watershed; 

• Coordination with applicable authorities on septage disposal to ensure that nutrient 

loadings are considered; and 

• Administering the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

program. 

7.1.3.1 Stormwater and Wastewater Infrastructure Updates and Master Planning 

Stormwater and wastewater infrastructure updates and master planning are the responsibility of, 

and implemented by, the local governments. Portions of the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

urbanized area were developed prior to the implementation of ERP. In these areas, stormwater 

retention and treatment levels are often inadequate to protect surface water quality. Local 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-7 

governments in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed have been conducting stormwater 

management projects for more than ten years, well before the initiation of municipal stormwater 

permits in the watershed. Additionally, the SWFRPC has approved a Stormwater Resolution 

(SWRRPC Resolution #2008-11) providing specific recommendations and guidelines to be 

considered by local government jurisdictions in Southwest Florida for the regulation, control, 

use, and treatment of stormwater containing N and /or P.

7.1.3.1.1 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Wastewater Facilities 

There are five domestic wastewater treatment facilities that are permitted to discharge treated 

wastewater to the Caloosahatchee River (Table 7-1). All meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment 

Standards (F.S. 403.086) for N and are more stringent for P. All offer secondary treatment with 

additional nutrient removal; some have high-level disinfection and/or dechlorination for public 

access reuse, which is used for urban irrigation. 

All capacities listed in this section are in “annual average daily flow,” except for Waterway 

Estates, which uses both annual average and “maximum monthly daily flow.” 

Fort Myers Central Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) (FL0021261) has a permitted 

treatment capacity of 11 million gallons per day (MGD). This facility has two disposal methods 

for the treated effluent: 

• An 11 MGD permitted surface water discharge (Caloosahatchee River); and 

• A 1.5 MGD public access re-use system that has a planned expansion up to 6 MGD in 

this permit cycle (by 2011). 

 

Fort Myers South WWTP (FL0021270) has a permitted treatment capacity of 12 MGD. This 

facility has one disposal method for the treated effluent, a 12 MGD permitted surface water 

discharge (Caloosahatchee River). 

Fiesta Village WWTP (FL0039829) has a permitted treatment capacity of 5 MGD. This 

facility has two disposal methods for the treated effluent: 

• 5 MGD permitted surface water discharge (Caloosahatchee River); and 

• 2.01 MGD public access reuse system. 

This facility is also permitted for intermittent discharges from reuse storage/stormwater ponds. 

These indirect discharges occur only during high water events. 

Waterway Estates Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) in North Fort Myers 

(FL0030325) has a permitted treatment capacity of 1.25 MGD. This facility has two disposal 

methods for the treated effluent: 

• 1 MGD surface water discharge (Caloosahatchee River); and 

• 0.95 MGD public access re-use system. 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-8 

It should also be noted that unlike other facilities, this facility has a maximum of 1.5 MGD for 

both capacity and reuse disposal, if measured by “maximum monthly daily flow” as opposed to 

“annual average daily flow.” 

The City of Cape Coral (FL0030007) operates two water reclamation facilities under one 

collective permit. Everest Parkway Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) has a permitted 

treatment capacity of 8.5 MGD and is currently expanding to a capacity of 13.4 MGD. 

Southwest WRF has a permitted treatment capacity of 6.6 MGD and is currently expanding to 

15.0 MGD. The facilities utilize three methods for disposal of treated effluent: 

• 15.1 MGD capacity surface water discharge (shared – Caloosahatchee River); 

• 29.4 MGD public access reuse system (shared); and 

• Independent underground injection wells: 

− Everest Parkway WRF uses a 3.35 MGD underground injection well; and 

− Southwest WRF uses a 3.75 MGD underground injection well currently under 

expansion to 9.6 MGD. When Southwest WRF completes the expansion to its injection 

well, it will disconnect from the river outfall and function under an independent permit. 

Table 7-1. Point Sources in Tidal Caloosahatchee River 

 Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facility Effluents 

1 The Average Daily Flow is the average daily flow, averaged on an annual basis, being treated and discharged from the facility 

(including all disposal types). 

2

 The Surface Water Discharge column describes the average daily flow being discharged to the tidal Caloosahatchee River. 3

 The Reuse Systems Disposal column describes the average daily flow being sent to a reuse system. 

7.1.3.1.2 Stormwater Infrastructure and Master Planning 

Local governments have constructed and continue to build stormwater retrofits, such as 

detention/retention facilities and swales, to improve the quality of urban stormwater runoff. Lee, 

Hendry, and Glades counties do not have stormwater utilities in place, but do have dedicated 

mechanisms used to fund stormwater improvements through Capitol Improvement Plans. 

 

Facility 

Name NPDES 

Permit No. 

Permitted 

Flow 

(MGD) 

Year 

Average 

Daily 

Flow1

(MGD) 

Surface 

Water 

Discharge2

 

(MGD) 

Reuse 

Systems 

Disposal3 

(MGD) 

Fort Myers 

Central FL0021261 11 2005-2007 6.809 5.899 0.91 

Fort Myers 

South FL0021270 12 2005-2007 8.866 8.866 0 

City of 

Cape Coral FL0030007 15.1 2005-

2007 

9.405 + 

deep well 

injection 

3.899 5.506 

Waterway 

Estates FL0030325 1.25 2005-2007 1.07 0.987 0.086 

Fiesta 

Village FL0039829 5 2005-2007 2.89 1.885 1.005 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-9 

Charlotte County and the Southwest Florida Water Management District jointly fund the 

Charlotte County Master Stormwater Management Plan which was completed in 1998. The 

Master Plan targeted ten major stormwater basins for drainage analysis and planning. The 

Master Plan identified 40 major water control structures which need to be replaced due to 

deterioration or to meet current design and Comprehensive Plan Level of Service conveyance 

standards. The highest priority projects are contained within Charlotte County's adopted, multiyear Capital Improvements Program. 

Lee and Hendry counties also have adopted Stormwater Master Plans in order to address 

flooding and property damage concerns, address water quality issues, and preserve the 

environment and enhance wildlife habitat. Objectives of the Lee County Plan are to identify 

existing flowways, streams, and runoff rates for each basin and recommend actions for 

protection and improvement of each flowway and stream. Hendry County’s Surface Water 

Master Plan includes the development of watershed boundaries, wetland maps, a conveyance 

element database, and detailed hydrologic-hydraulic studies for the northwest portion of the 

County. 

Local utilities are also aggressively pursuing upgrades to their wastewater management systems 

to protect water quality. Improvements to lift stations, inspection frequency and replacement of 

leaking sewer lines, and related activities help limit the introduction of nutrients into surface 

waters. Additionally, the SWFRPC has approved a Wastewater Resolution (SWFRPC 

Resolution #2007-02) providing specific recommendations and guidelines to be considered by 

local government jurisdictions in Southwest Florida for the regulation and control of treated 

wastewater discharges containing N and/or P. The SWFRPC has also approved a Wastewater 

Package Plant Resolution (SWFRPC Resolution #2007-05) providing specific recommendations 

and guidelines to be considered by local government jurisdictions in Southwest Florida for the 

regulation and control of treated wastewater discharges from small wastewater treatment 

facilities (Package Plants) containing N and/or P.

7.1.3.2 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit Program 

Local governments (Lee County, Glades County, Hendry County, and Charlotte County) and the 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) operate permitted Municipal Separate Storm 

Sewer Systems (MS4s) in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. An MS4 is a publicly-owned 

conveyance or system of conveyances designed or used for discharging stormwater, which can 

include streets, curbs, gutters, ditches and storm drains. These water conveyance systems are 

permitted through the statewide MS4 permitting program and receive a NPDES permit 

administered by FDEP (see Chapter 62-624, F.A.C.). The purpose of the MS4 permitting 

program is to develop, implement, and enforce a stormwater management plan to reduce the 

discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, to protect water quality and to 

comply with the water quality requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

The stormwater collection systems are owned and operated by Lee County and co-permittees, 

including the City of Cape Coral, City of Fort Myers, Town of Fort Myers Beach, and the City of 

Sanibel. All are on MS4 Phase I Permit Number FLS000035. As shown in Table 7.2, Charlotte 

County, which has population areas in northern portions of some Tidal Caloosahatchee 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-10 

waterbody identifications (WBIDs), is covered by a separate MS4 Phase II permit (Permit 

Number FLR04E043). 

Table 7-2. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permittees in the Tidal Caloosahatchee 

Watershed

County Name Permit ID Number MS4 Type 

Lee Lee County Board of County 

Commissioners FLS000035 Phase I 

Lee City of Fort Myers FLS000035 Phase I 

Lee City of Sanibel FLS000035 Phase I 

Lee City of Cape Coral FLS000035 Phase I 

Lee Town of Fort Myers Beach FLS000035 Phase I 

Charlotte Charlotte County FLR04E043 Phase II 

Permit duration is five years. Most of the MS4 permits in the Caloosahatchee Basin are Phase I 

permittees, up for renewal in 2008. However, there are a few Phase II permittees. Each phase is 

summarized in the following subsections. 

7.1.3.2.1 Phase 1 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

Phase 1 MS4s consist of jurisdictions with a population of 100,000 individuals or more that were 

designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1990. Issuance of Phase I MS4 

permits is complete; therefore, any new MS4 facilities will be permitted as a Phase II facility. 

Phase I MS4s are regulated through an individual NPDES permit that addresses: 

• Implementation of stormwater master plan to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent 

practicable; 

• Development of storm sewer system map; 

• Implementation of a monitoring plan; 

• Calculation of Event Mean Concentrations and Seasonal Pollutant Loadings, at least once 

per permit term (usually in year three or five years); 

• Post-construction runoff control (met through state stormwater permitting requirements 

[ERP] under Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., as a qualifying alternative program); and 

• Pollution prevention/good housekeeping. 

7.1.3.2.2 Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems 

Phase II MS4s are regulated under an NPDES generic permit that requires implementation of 

BMPs to meet the following six minimum control measures: 

• Education and outreach (e.g. Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program); 

• Public participation; 

• Illicit discharge detection and elimination; 

• Construction site runoff control; 

• Post-construction runoff control (met through state stormwater permitting requirements 

[ERP] under Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., as a qualifying alternative program); and 

• Pollution prevention/good housekeeping. 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-11 

7.1.3.3 Comprehensive Planning – Land Development Regulations 

The Office of Intergovernmental Programs coordinates FDEP’s involvement in statewide 

planning efforts conducted under various authorities, including Chapter 187, F.S. (the State 

Comprehensive Plan), which sets forth goals that articulate Florida’s desired future. The State 

Comprehensive Plan is reviewed annually, and local plans are updated every five-to-seven years 

through the Evaluation and Appraisal Report process. Throughout this process, FDEP has the 

formal opportunity to evaluate proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, which are 

based upon the evaluation and appraisal report, to ensure that they are consistent with FDEP 

rules and policies. 

Local governments in the Caloosahatchee Basin are taking steps to implement low impact design 

principles to minimize nutrient sources and loss and enhance water storage. 

7.1.3.3.1 Domestic Wastewater Residuals – Senate Bill 392/2007 changes to Section 

373.4595, Florida Statues 

In response to the 2007 residuals-related changes to Section 373.4595, F.S., FDEP’s Division of 

Water Resource Management promulgated a program guidance memo. The memo provides 

general procedures for FDEP district offices to implement the requirements within the current 

regulatory framework of Chapter 62-640, F.A.C. This guidance is consistent with the NEEPP 

legislation stating that “After December 31, 2007, the Department may not authorize the disposal 

of domestic wastewater residuals within the Caloosahatchee Watershed unless the applicant can 

affirmatively demonstrate that the nutrients in the residuals will not add to nutrient loadings in 

the watershed.” Section 373.4595(4)(a)2.e., F.S. (2007). 

Effectively, the provisions will be phased in as wastewater treatment facility permits expire. 

Permit renewals must include the appropriate nutrient balance demonstration, required by the 

statute in the site agricultural use plan and submitted with the facility permit renewal application. 

Additionally, Chapter 62-640, F.A.C., is undergoing rule making. Under the proposed revisions, 

the nutrient balance demonstration must be submitted with the Nutrient Management Plan when 

a land application site is permitted. 

7.1.4 Other Pollutant Source Control Programs 

7.1.4.1 Application of Septage – Senate Bill 392/2007 changes to Section 373.4593, 

Florida Statues 

Sections 373.4595(4)(a)2.f. and (4)(b)2.f., F.S. (2007), require all entities disposing of septage 

within the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River watersheds to develop and submit to the FDOH, 

an agricultural use plan that limits applications based upon nutrient loading. In response to these 

NEEPP requirements, FDOH has notified all county permitting authorities in the watersheds of 

the requirement that entities disposing of septage within the watersheds develop and submit to 

FDOH an agricultural use plan that limits applications based upon nutrient loading. At this time, 

there are no known septage application sites in these watersheds. Once SFWMD or FDEP has 

promulgated nutrient concentration limits for runoff from sites in these watersheds, through the 

SFWMD’s 40E-61 Regulatory Nutrient Source Program or another validly adopted rule, FDOH 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-12 

will notify all county permitting authorities in the watersheds that nutrient concentrations 

originating from these application sites may not exceed the established limits. 

7.1.4.2 Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project 

Launched in October 2005, the Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project will design a 

program under which ranchers in the northern Everglades watersheds can sell environmental 

services of water retention, P load reduction, and wetland habitat expansion to agencies of the 

state and other willing buyers. To document the level of environmental services provided by 

ranch water-management projects, the Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project will 

field test different methods of monitoring and modeling of hydrology, water and soil chemistry 

and vegetation change. 

These ranchers will bring such services on line quickly, in comparison to other options, because 

land purchase is not required. The program will complement public investment in regional water 

storage and water treatment facilities. The sale of the water retention services will add income 

for ranchers and will provide an incentive to combat converting land uses for more intensive 

agriculture and urban development land uses that can increase stormwater flow, pollution, and 

habitat impacts. 

The Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project is being implemented through a 

collaboration of the World Wildlife Fund, eight participating ranchers, the USDA/NRCS, 

FDACS, SFWMD, and FDEP. Technical support is being provided by scientists from the 

MacArthur Agro-Ecology Research Center and the University of Florida. Funding from federal, 

state, and private sources exceeds five million dollars for Phase One, which includes pilot project 

implementation and program design. 

7.1.4.3 Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program 

The Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program is an excellent example of a nonstructural 

program. It is a partnership of UF/IFAS, Florida’s water management districts, FDEP, the 

National Estuary Program, the Florida Sea Grant College Program, concerned citizens, members 

of private industry and numerous other nongovernmental agencies. It is implemented through 

the counties’ UF/IFAS Cooperative Extension Service. The program addresses the serious 

problems of pollution in stormwater runoff, water shortages and disappearing habitats by 

enlisting Floridians to preserve and to protect our natural resources. By educating citizens and 

builders about proper landscape design (e.g., “right plant-right place” practices), this program is 

helping minimize the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and irrigation water. FDEP has an ongoing 

monitoring program to determine the effectiveness of this program in reducing nutrient loads. 

More information on this program, as well as other FDEP BMPs, can be found at 

www.dep.state.fl.us/water/nonpoint/pubs.htm. 

7.2 Summary 

Source control is integral to the success of any water resource protection or restoration program; 

it is typically less expensive to prevent pollution than remediate its impacts. Source control 

programs in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed are evolving and expanding through 

cooperative and complementary efforts by FDEP, FDACS, and SFWMD. Activities underway, 
Chapter 7 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

7-13 

which will significantly improve the source control program’s contribution to the achievement of 

NEEPP legislation objectives, include: 

• Adoption of BMP manuals for cow/calf, equine, container nursery, and sod operations 

(all agricultural land uses in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed expected to have 

FDACS-adopted BMP manuals by early 2009); 

• Proposed revisions will be implemented to supplement the ERP program, including the 

proposed statewide stormwater treatment rule that is intended to increase the level of 

treatment required for nutrients (N and P) in stormwater from new development, and the 

proposed basin rule for the Lake Okeechobee and estuary watershed basins with specific 

supplemental criteria designed to result in no increase in total runoff volume from new 

development; 

• Expansion of the SFWMD’s 40E-61 Regulatory Nutrient Source Control Program to 

include the Caloosahatchee River Watershed is planned for both P and N; 

• Restrictions to the P and N content in fertilizers for urban turf and lawns; and 

• Restrictions on the disposal of domestic wastewater residuals, septage, and animal 

manure within the watershed are proposed. 

Collectively, these source control programs will require all agricultural and non-agricultural land 

uses to implement and be accountable for BMPs through the FDACS BMP program or the 

SFWMD’s Regulatory Nutrient Source Control Program, or by demonstrating compliance with 

water quality standards, as applicable. 

CHAPTER 8 

CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED RESEARCH AND WATER QUALITY 

MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY 

Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

8.0 CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED RESEARCH AND WATER QUALITY 

MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY ................................................................................. 8-1

8.1 Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program Document Structure.....................8-1

8.2 Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................8-2

8.3 Status, Trends and Targets........................................................................................... 8-2

8.4 Monitoring, Research, and Modeling Assessment ......................................................8-4

8.4.1 Monitoring Assessment .......................................................................................8-4

8.4.1.1 Existing Watershed Monitoring Programs..................................................8-4

8.4.1.2 Existing Estuarine Monitoring Programs.................................................... 8-5

8.4.1.3 Aquatic Habitat (Oyster and Seagrass) Monitoring....................................8-5

8.4.2 Research Projects Assessment ............................................................................. 8-6

8.4.3 Modeling Assessment ..........................................................................................8-7

8.4.3.1 Caloosahatchee River Watershed Hydrology and Water Quality Models..8-7

8.4.3.2 Estuary Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Models....................................8-8

8.4.3.3 Ecological Response Model........................................................................8-9

8.5 Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program Recommendations........................8-9

8.5.1 Monitoring Needs ................................................................................................8-9

8.5.1.1 Watershed Quality and Flow Monitoring in the Watershed .......................8-9

8.5.1.2 Water Quality and Salinity Monitoring in the Caloosahatchee Estuary...8-10

8.5.1.3 Aquatic Habitat Monitoring......................................................................8-10

8.5.2 Prioritization of Research .................................................................................. 8-10

8.5.3 Model Refinements............................................................................................ 8-11

LIST OF TABLES 

8-1 Capabilities of the Watershed Hydrology and Water Quality Models ............................ 8-8 

8-2 Capability of the Estuarine Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model............................ 8-8 

8-3 Capability of the Estuarine Ecological Response Models ............................................... 8-9 

8-4 Commonalities between Components of the Various Projects...................................... 8-11 

Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-1 

8.0 CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER WATERSHED RESEARCH AND WATER 

QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM SUMMARY 

The Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Program (NEEPP) requires the establishment 

of a Caloosahatchee River Watershed Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program 

(RWQMP). According to the NEEPP, this program shall build upon the South Florida Water 

Management District’s (SFWMD) existing research program and be sufficient to carry out, 

comply with, or assess the plans, programs, and other responsibilities created by the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan (CRWPP). The RWQMP shall also conduct an 

assessment of the water volumes and timing from the Lake Okeechobee and Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed and their relative contributions to the timing and volume of water delivered to 

the Caloosahatchee Estuary. This section provides the summary of the RWQMP, whereas the 

full version of the program is included as Appendix E. 

The objective of the RWQMP is to identify scientifically based solutions to improve the water 

quality and quantity in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed and to provide more accurate 

predictions of ecological responses to changes in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed to these 

solutions. Information generated through the monitoring, modeling and research efforts will help 

support potential changes in the design and operation of the NEEPP. 

8.1 Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program Document Structure 

The RWQMP includes five chapters, which are described in the following paragraphs. 

Chapter 1 provides an introduction to the RWQMP, a brief summary of the ecological history of 

the Caloosahatchee River Watershed, and the rationale for the program. 

Chapter 2 identifies the specific goals and objectives of the RWQMP based on the legislation. 

This chapter specifies how research, modeling, and monitoring contribute to the adaptive 

management of nutrient load reduction goals and the implementation and operation of projects 

designed to achieve them. 

Chapter 3 presents the current state of knowledge regarding hydrology, water quality and aquatic 

habitat in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. It also identifies the effects of discharges from 

Lake Okeechobee on the Caloosahatchee Estuary, along with salinity and freshwater inflow 

goals. Also included in this chapter is a detailed chemical and physical analysis of the water 

quality, along with the ecological importance and distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation 

and oysters. 

Chapter 4 is a summary of existing monitoring programs for hydrology, water quality, and 

aquatic habitat. The programs are evaluated based on their ability to meet program goals and 

potential improvements are identified. Finally, a recommended monitoring plan is described. 

Chapter 5 describes ongoing research and modeling applicable to the RWQMP goals and 

objectives. Plans for future research and modeling are also described and prioritized. Integration 

of research, modeling, and monitoring will establish scientifically sound performance measures 

and support improvements to the Caloosahatchee Estuary through the adaptive management 

process. 
Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-2 

8.2 Goals and Objectives 

Research, modeling, and monitoring are essential for the design and operation of programs to 

restore and protect the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. 

The following objectives are keys to the success of the RWQMP: 

• Build upon SFWMD’s existing monitoring, research, and modeling programs; 

• Implement, comply with, or assess the plans, programs, and other responsibilities of 

NEEPP; 

• Assess the water volumes and timing from Lake Okeechobee and the St. Lucie River and 

Caloosahatchee River watersheds and their relative contributions to the timing and 

volume of water delivered to each estuary; 

• Provide technical information regarding inflow targets and salinity envelopes for the 

estuaries; 

• Provide for the scientific studies that are necessary to support the design and operation of 

the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Construction Project facilities; 

• Facilitate creation of predictive and/or numeric modeling tools for quantitative 

assessment and prediction of the overall program progress; 

• Provide the empirical data and conceptual understanding of the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed and Estuary for support and improvement of the predictive models and to 

identify new water quality management measures; 

• Collect data as necessary to quantify load reductions in order to meet any applicable 

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed; 

• Implement salinity monitoring sufficient to measure the frequency and duration of 

undesirable salinities for those biotic resources upon which salinity envelopes are based; 

• Monitor oysters and seagrasses to determine if reductions in undesirable salinities and/or 

nutrient loads have the desired ecological result; and 

• Support annual reporting of the conditions of hydrology, water quality, and aquatic 

habitat required by the NEEPP in Section 373.4595(6), F.S. 

8.3 Status, Trends and Targets 

Chapter 3 of the RWQMP addresses the status, trends, and targets in hydrology, salinity, and 

aquatic habitats. The CRWPP will use this information to establish a goal for salinity and 

freshwater inflow targets for the estuary based upon existing research and documentation. 

Trends identified in Chapter 3 of the RWQMP include: 

• Change in the delivery of freshwater to the estuary at S-79 has grown more variable with 

higher wet season discharges and lower dry-season discharges; 

• Freshwater inflows are such that in general about half the discharge at S-79 is attributed 

to runoff from the eastern and western basins and half to Lake Okeechobee; 
Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-3 

• Compared to watershed runoff alone, additional flows from Lake Okeechobee effectively 

increase the frequency and duration of high flows which, damage the marine portion of 

the estuary, but decrease the frequency and duration of the damaging low flows that 

impact upstream, low salinity regions; 

• At 27 stations, mainly in tidal creeks of the Caloosahatchee Estuary, 74 percent showed 

slight increases in the concentration of ammonia and 44 percent showed slight increases 

in TN and dissolved inorganic TP; and 

• Comparisons to TN (1.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L)), TP (0.15 mg/L) and chlorophyll-a

(20 micrograms per liter (μg/L)) standards established for the upper estuary by FDEP 

Regulation (DeGrove, 1981) revealed: 

- Most exceedances occurred in the estuary upstream of Fort Myers; 

- DO concentrations less than the state standard (4.0 mg/L), or the generally 

accepted threshold for hypoxia (2.0 mg/L), were relatively rare and confined to 

the upper reaches of the Caloosahatchee Estuary; 

- Low DO concentrations tended to occur during the warmer months of May 

through October; 

- In the upper and mid-estuarine regions, chlorophyll-a concentrations exceeded the 

nutrient standard in 40 percent of the samples; and 

- In the lower estuary and San Carlos Bay, the vast majority of measured 

concentrations were below the standard. 

An optimal flow envelope for the estuary (Shell Point to Km 30) would be 600 cfs to 1,000 cfs. 

Flow less than 1,500 cfs and 3,000 cfs would preserve optimal salinities for San Carlos Bay and 

Pine Island Sound, respectively. In general, the desired salinity envelope consists of: 

• < 10 parts per thousand (ppt) upstream of the Fort Myers Bridges (measured at the Fort 

Myers Yacht Basin); 

• > 15 ppt at the Cape Coral Bridge and ~ 20 ppt in Iona Cove; 

• 14 to 28 ppt just upstream of Shell Point; and 

• ~ 25 ppt (range 22 ppt to 36 ppt) in San Carlos Bay. 

The general monthly average flow range objectives to support the optimal flow envelope are: 

• Maintain mean monthly flows greater than 450 cfs, with the majority of flows in the 

range 450 to 800 cfs, which supports the widest range of species; 

• Limit the flows greater than about 2,800 cfs and avoid flows that exceed 4,000 to 4,500 

cfs, which harm seagrass beds as far as lower Pine Island Sound; and 

• End destructive flows that exceed 6,500 cfs, which destroy marine life far from the 

estuary mouth and sends poor water quality up Pine Island Sound and into the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

The combination of enhanced drainage in the Caloosahatchee River watershed, flood control 

releases from Lake Okeechobee, population growth, and urban and agricultural development 

have created problems for the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Seasonal and short term fluctuations in 

stormwater runoff drive changes in salinity that are beyond the tolerance limits of most marine 
Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-4 

and estuarine organisms. The Caloosahatchee Estuary shows typical signs of eutrophication 

(extreme nutrient levels) including intense algal blooms and periods of hypoxia (low DO levels) 

and anoxia (absence of DO). Other environmental problems identified include degraded benthic 

communities, decreases in the extent of seagrasses, and the loss of functioning oyster reefs. 

8.4 Monitoring, Research, and Modeling Assessment 

Assessments of monitoring, research, and modeling will be used to track progress and to identify 

if the plan objectives and targets are being met. They will also aid in identifying potential 

shortfalls or accomplishments. For example, information gained from monitoring, modeling, 

and research can be used to identify any necessary refinements to flow and salinity envelopes, 

pollutant load reduction goals, and changes to facility operations and implementation priorities. 

Research and monitoring in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River Watersheds have been 

ongoing for more than 40 years (Phillips, 1960). Continued monitoring with the integration of 

research and modeling will establish scientifically sound performance measures and support 

improvements to the Caloosahatchee River Estuary through the adaptive management process. 

8.4.1 Monitoring Assessment 

The environmental monitoring in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed RWQMP has two major 

purposes: (1) to quantify long-term change and (2) to support adaptive management. 

Quantification of long-term change measures progress towards program goals such as meeting 

any adopted nutrient TMDLs. The monitoring program includes establishing a goal/target, the 

systematic collection of data, using that data to measures change or progress towards the 

goal/target, and determining when modifications to the project are required. 

The objectives of the RWQMP were already identified in Section 8.2 above. One of the 

objectives is to build upon existing monitoring programs. A brief summary of the existing 

programs is provided below and detailed discussion of the programs can be found in Chapter 4 of 

the RWQMP in Appendix E. 

8.4.1.1 Existing Watershed Monitoring Programs 

Existing watershed monitoring programs include flow monitoring and water quality monitoring: 

• Flow Monitoring Program: The existing flow monitoring is conducted daily at the 

major water control structures along the Caloosahatchee River (S-77, S-78, and S-79). 

Currently, nine hydrologic data flow sites collect data and provide information for 

calibration of watershed loading models and estuarine hydrodynamic models. Three of 

those stations are located in the Caloosahatchee Estuary, while the remaining six sites are 

in tidal tributaries and are maintained by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

Department, FDEP, and Lee County. 

• Water Quality Monitoring Programs: Water quality monitoring efforts are being 

conducted at freshwater sites in the watersheds that eventually drain into the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary, including the Caloosahatchee River and its watershed and the 
Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-5 

Tidal Basins located to the west of S-79. Watershed monitoring efforts are being carried 

out by several state and local governmental agencies and a non-profit organization 

including SFWMD, Lee County, East County Water Control District, City of Cape Coral, 

City of Fort Myers, and Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF). Monitoring 

east of S-79 is currently sparse and is only sufficient for determining long-term trends 

and characterizing the quality of water entering the Caloosahatchee Estuary at S-79, 

exiting the East Caloosahatchee Basin at S-78 and exiting Lake Okeechobee at S-77. The 

frequency of water quality sampling at S-79 and S-78 may not be sufficient for accurate 

calculation of load, which requires further investigation. Since individual tributaries to 

the Caloosahatchee River are not routinely sampled, tracking progress towards the 

TMDL at spatial scales smaller than the East and West Caloosahatchee Basins is not 

possible. 

8.4.1.2 Existing Estuarine Monitoring Programs 

Existing estuarine monitoring includes salinity monitoring and water quality monitoring: 

• Salinity Monitoring: There are currently two salinity monitoring programs in the 

Caloosahatchee River and Estuary: a SFWMD program and a program recently 

established by SCCF. The salinity information currently being collected is adequate to 

determine the frequency and duration of undesirable salinity ranges resulting from 

Caloosahatchee River discharges at S-79. The FDEP Aquatic Preserves Program has 

recently established two stations in Matlacha Pass that will further enhance salinity 

monitoring capability. 

• Water Quality Monitoring: The existing water quality monitoring effort established for 

the estuarine portion of the Caloosahatchee River is being carried out by numerous 

governmental entities. Organizations at state, regional, and local levels, as well as 

universities and private organizations including SFWMD, Charlotte Harbor National 

Estuary Program, Lee County, cities of Sanibel and Cape Coral, FDEP, SCCF, Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, and Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water 

Quality Monitoring Network are involved. Sampling in most of the estuarine portion of 

the study area is sufficient to assess status and trends in water quality. However, the 

lower Caloosahatchee Estuary between Marker 66 and Shell Point is not sampled 

adequately at this time. Sampling at the head of the estuary, just downstream of S-79, 

also is not covered adequately. 

8.4.1.3 Aquatic Habitat (Oyster and Seagrass) Monitoring 

Existing aquatic habitat monitoring includes seagrass monitoring and oyster monitoring. 

• Seagrass Monitoring: There are currently six SAV monitoring efforts in the tidal waters 

within the CRWPP boundaries, with the sampling conducted by SFWMD’s Restoration 

Coordination and Verification (RECOVER), FDEP South District, FDEP Charlotte 

Harbor Aquatic Preserve, and FDEP Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve. Five aerial 

photography surveys, conducted since 1999, have been used to evaluate incremental and 

long-term changes throughout the entire region and within major sections of the system. 
Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-6 

The existing SAV monitoring programs are sufficient for detecting trends and assessing 

the status of seagrasses in the CRWPP study area on multiple spatial and temporal scales. 

The two-to-three year frequency of aerial photography surveys is sufficient to detect 

long-term large-scale changes, but not frequent enough to account for the impact of 

extreme drought or storm events. 

• Oyster Monitoring: RECOVER currently conducts monitoring of oysters in the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary at six stations. The program measures various aspects of oyster 

condition, life history, and distribution. Most parameters are measured monthly or 

seasonally; the regional distribution of oysters will be mapped every five years 

(RECOVER, 2007). The present oyster monitoring program is sufficient to detect long 

term change in population size and physiological condition and to support adaptive 

management. The working team has recommended that measurements (e.g. percent 

coverage) be standardized when possible. 

8.4.2 Research Projects Assessment 

Research projects are intended to reduce or eliminate key uncertainties in nutrient load 

reductions, flow and salinity envelopes, and to optimize the operation protocols. The four 

research projects in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed RWQMP are summarized below. 

Chapter 5 of the RWQMP provides a detailed description of these projects, and assesses their 

adequacy in achieving the CRWPP goals/targets. 

• Estuarine Nutrient Budget: Over-enrichment with nutrients from urban and agricultural 

sources is a problem for the Caloosahatchee Estuary. A well-constrained nutrient budget 

is critical to understanding the origin, magnitude, and management of problematic 

nutrient loads and guide prioritization for load reductions. The project will construct 

nutrient budgets for nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) for the Caloosahatchee Estuary. 

Terms in the nutrient budget will be determined by a variety of methods. Some of the 

terms in the budget can be derived from existing information (i.e. nutrient load at S-79). 

Others, such as storm water runoff from the Tidal Caloosahatchee Basin, may require a 

modeling effort. Still others, such as the flux of nutrients out of the bottom sediments, 

may require direct measurement. Results of this project can be used to support water 

quality modeling efforts that will reduce the uncertainties related to nutrient TMDLs and 

increase the capability to predict effects of various management measures, including best 

management practices. 

• DO Dynamics: Low oxygen concentrations are often associated with excess nutrient 

loading and have been a recognized problem in the Caloosahatchee Estuary since the 

1980s (DeGrove, 1981). The DO dynamics research project will identify the factors 

causing the DO impairment in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Once causes are known, 

appropriate management solutions can be implemented. The results of this study will 

provide critical information that will guide the selection of management solutions. This 

research project supports the CRWPP goal of achieving the TMDL for the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary and improving DO conditions in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. 
Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-7 

• Low Salinity Zone: Much of the work that supports estimates of minimum and 

maximum freshwater inflow requirements to the Caloosahatchee Estuary is based on the 

salinity tolerances of freshwater and marine organisms that inhabit the system. The low 

salinity zone research project examines elements of the estuarine food web. The ultimate 

goal is to understand the role of freshwater discharge and production of fish larvae in the 

estuary. Results can be applied to establishing water reservations, to refining flow and 

salinity envelopes, and to providing guidelines for delivery of freshwater to the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary. 

• Light Attenuation in San Carlos Bay: A resource-based method (Corbett & Hale, 2006) 

is being considered to establish nutrient TMDLs in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Nutrient 

load reductions would be based on achieving water clarity in San Carlos Bay that allows 

enough light for seagrasses to grow to a depth of 2.2 meters. Three major water quality 

constituents have been identified that attenuate light in the Southern Charlotte Harbor: 

turbidity, colored dissolved organic matter, and chlorophyll-a (McPherson & Miller, 

1994). This light attenuation research study will determine how relative contributions to 

total light attenuation of chlorophyll-a, colored dissolved organic matter, and turbidity 

vary with season and freshwater inflow in San Carlos Bay. Information from this study 

will better define controls on light attenuation in San Carlos Bay and the relationship 

between the TMDL and its resource goal. Results can be used to determine when, and in 

what conditions, resource light attenuation goals may be met. 

8.4.3 Modeling Assessment 

An integrated modeling framework combining the resource-based Valued Ecosystem 

Component (VEC) approach and linked watershed and estuarine models has been used for years 

in the Minimum Flows and Levels Program and for CERP-related projects. Integrated or linked 

models have been used to simulate the effects of changes in population, land use, or management 

practices in the watershed on estuarine physics, chemistry, and ecology (Wan et. al., 2006). 

Three existing modeling efforts include the Watershed Hydrology and Water Quality Models, 

the Estuary Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Models, and the Ecological Response Models. 

8.4.3.1 Caloosahatchee River Watershed Hydrology and Water Quality Models 

Effective management that aims to protect water quality requires a big picture view of water 

resources at the watershed-scale. Watershed models provide the necessary links for this purpose, 

particularly when it comes to understanding how non-point sources of pollution interact with 

point sources, and how these jointly affect the downstream water quality. The Watershed 

Hydrology and Water Quality Models include the Agricultural Filed Scale Irrigation 

Requirements Simulation/Water Balance (AFSIRS/WATBAL), the Northern Everglades 

Regional Simulation Model (NERSM), MIKESHE and the Hydrologic Simulation Program 

Fortran (HSPF) Model for the Caloosahatchee River Basins TMDLs. The capability of these 

models is provided in Table 8-1. 
Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-8 

Table 8-1. Capabilities of the Watershed Hydrology and Water Quality Models 

8.4.3.2 Estuary Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Models 

For the Caloosahatchee Estuary hydrodynamic and water quality simulation, modeling tools are 

needed that are capable of: (1) simulating the impacts induced by the watershed loading; (2) 

assessing estuary hydrodynamics; and (3) assessing estuary water quality processes. The Estuary 

Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Models include the Curvilinear Hydrodynamic Three 

Dimensional (CH3D), Hydrodynamic Salinity Model, and the Environmental Fluid Dynamic 

Code and Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (EFDC/WASP) Model for 

Caloosahatchee River Basin TMDLs. The capability and water management practice 

applications of these models are provided in Table 8-2. 

Table 8-2. Capability of the Estuarine Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Models 

Hydrologic Models 

AFSIRS/WATBAL 

1. Determines demands from groundwater and surface waters 

2. Determines demands for the major irrigated and non-irrigated land uses 

3. Determines runoff from land irrigated with ground water 

4. From land irrigated with surface water and non-irrigated lands 

5. Four basin model covering lands b/t S-77/S-235 and S-79 influencing regional system

NERSM 

1. Basin budget/link node implementation of the Regional Simulation Model Subdivided into East and 

West Caloosahatchee Basins 

2. Simulates 1970-2005 using a 1-day time step 

MIKESHE 

1. Integrates surface water and groundwater simulating hydrologic processes in the watershed 

2. Includes evaporation, runoff, stormwater detention, river hydraulics, stream management, 

groundwater withdrawals and recharge provides total daily flow from tidal basin watershed. 

HSPF Model for Caloosahatchee River Basin TMDLs 

1. Simulates flow and water quality in the freshwater and tidal watersheds 

2. Simulates flow and water quality constituents such as temperature, BOD5, N, P, Chlorophyll-a and 

DO 

3. Provides pollutant load input to the estuarine hydrodynamic and water quality models 

Estuarine Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model 

CH3D Hydrodynamic Salinity Model

1. Predicts circulation and distribution of salinity as influenced by tide, wind, and freshwater flows 

2. Predicts spatial and temporal distribution of salinity in estuary 

3. Provides salinity and velocity outputs for input to ecological and habitat suitability models 

4. Solves three dimensional equations of motion with given computational variables 

EFDC/WASP Model for Caloosahatchee River Basin TMDLs

Hydrodynamic/Salinity Component 

1. Simulates 1D, 2D, 3D flow transport, and 

biogeochemical process in surface water 

systems 

2. HSPF provided flow input to the EFDC 

model

Water Quality Component 

1. Simulates eutrophication process involving 

phytoplankton growth, nutrient cycling and 

DO dynamics 
Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-9 

8.4.3.3 Ecological Response Model 

The Estuarine Ecological Response Model was developed based on available literature data to 

evaluate the influence of watershed hydrology on stream ecosystem health. Currently, it 

includes the Tape Grass Model and the Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Models developed for 

multiple species (three submerged aquatic vegetation species and eastern oyster) in the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary. The capability and water management practice applications of these 

models are provided in Table 8-3. 

 Table 8-3. Capability of the Estuarine Ecological Response Models

8.5 Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program Recommendations 

The recommended RWQMP has been formulated to fulfill the objectives and reporting 

requirements of the CRWPP and to support adaptive management. It builds upon the existing 

monitoring, research, and modeling components discussed above, and makes 

recommendations/modifications to these efforts to better achieve and assess the 

objectives/targets of the CRWPP. 

8.5.1 Monitoring Needs 

The recommended monitoring program has been formulated to fulfill the objectives and 

reporting requirements of the CRWPP, as well as to support adaptive management. 

8.5.1.1 Watershed Quality and Flow Monitoring in the Watershed 

The RWQMP recommends that the current long-term flow monitoring and water quality 

monitoring conducted in the tidal basin west of S-79 by Lee County, USGS, and FDEP should 

continue as it is now planned. BOD5 and dissolved TKN (DTKN) should be added to the water 

quality parameters measured in the monthly grab samples. Measurement of BOD5 is used to 

quantify the DO demand in oxidation of organic carbon and provide a measure of labile organic 

loads to the receiving waters. The most recent water quality modeling effort in the 

Caloosahatchee Watershed was undertaken by FDEP for TMDL development and includes 

BOD5 as one of the water quality constituents. DTKN allows the calculation of dissolved 

organic nitrogen, which constitutes most of the TN load. The following parameters should be 

considered for inclusion in the monitoring program at specific locations, based on the potential 

for possible impairments now or in the future: sediment oxygen demand, fecal coliform, total 

dissolved solids, total hardness, iron, copper, lead, arsenic, and zinc. 

Estuarine Ecological Response Models

Tape Grass Model 

1. Integrates both field and lab data to predict effect of environmental variables 

2. Calibrated based on measured data variables 

HSI Models

1. Provides output based on salinity, temperature, dept, substrate and high flow frequency for each 

species 

2. Calculates habitat suitability monthly
Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-10 

Eight long-term water quality and flow monitoring sites are proposed along the Caloosahatchee 

River to provide spatial coverage necessary for tracking progress towards the TMDL and for 

supporting adaptive management and development of a Basin Management Action Plan. 

Monthly water quality and continuous flow will be measured at each station allowing calculation 

of loading to each section of the river. Once problem sections of the river are identified, a 

secondary level of local monitoring will be conducted by SFWMD for a limited time period to 

ascertain the most appropriate BMPs associated with the water quality concern identified. 

Four short-term water quality and flow monitoring sites in canal tributaries flowing into the 

Caloosahatchee River are also recommended. These stations will help determine if loads 

calculated from grab samples accurately reflect the sum of tributary loads. A three-year study is 

contemplated to help identify hot spots and support calibration of watershed models. 

8.5.1.2 Water Quality and Salinity Monitoring in the Caloosahatchee Estuary 

Salinity monitoring stations maintained by SFWMD and SCCF should be continued. In general, 

the water quality monitoring conducted by all agencies in estuarine and marine waters of the 

study area is adequate to meet program goals and should continue. Some redundancies have 

been identified; the removal of one existing Lee County station and five SFWMD/Florida 

International University stations is recommended. Because the Caloosahatchee Estuary is 

currently under-sampled spatially, four historical stations from the Caloosahatchee Estuary 

Water Quality Program should be re-instated (CES02, CES05, CES07, and CES08). BOD5 and 

DTKN should be added to the water quality parameters measured in the monthly grab samples in 

estuarine and marine waters in order to monitor progress towards meeting any adopted nutrient 

TMDLs. 

8.5.1.3 Aquatic Habitat Monitoring 

The present oyster monitoring program, conducted by RECOVER, is sufficient to meet the goals 

of CRWPP and is recommended to continue, along with mapping of oyster beds at a frequency 

of at least every five years. The current multi-agency approach to seagrass monitoring in the 

study area should also continue. SAV aerial photography surveys should continue at the 

historical sampling frequency of every two-to-three years. It is also recommended that 

measurements (e.g. percent coverage) be standardized where possible. 

8.5.2 Prioritization of Research 

Each major project (e.g. Nutrient Budget) can be broken down into several components. 

Examination of each project shows that several projects may have common components. The 

commonalities between components of the various projects are summarized in Table 8-4 of the 

RWQMP. The source of data for each component is given (existing data, new measurements, 

model, etc). Components funded in any given year may be prioritized according to the number 

of projects to which they belong. 
Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-11 

Table 8-4. Commonalities between Components of the Various Projects 

Research Component Research Projects 

Nutrient 

Budget 

DO 

Dynamics 

Low 

Salinity 

Zone 

Light 

Attenuation 

Source 

INPUTS 

 Franklin Lock Loads 

(S-79) √ √ √ √ Monitoring 

 Tidal Basin Loads 

 Surface Flows 

 Groundwater 

 Wastewater 

Treatment Facilities 

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Model/Measurements 

Model/Measurements 

New Measurements 

 Gulf of Mexico √ Model for Flow 

Literature Concentration 

 Atmospheric 

Deposition √ Literature/ Data Analysis 

INTERNAL CYCLING

 Primary Productivity/ 

 Water Column 

Respiration 

√ √ √ √ New Measurements 

 Organic Matter 

 Decomposition (incl 

DON) 

√ √ New Measurements 

 Benthic Nutrient Flux √ √ New Measurements 

 DO Time Series √ √ New Measurements 

INTERNAL CYCLING

San Carlos Bay Times 

Series 

 Color 

 Turbidity 

 Chlorophyll-a

 TSS 

 PAR (Kd)

 

√

√

√

√

√

New Measurements 

New Measurements 

New Measurements 

New Measurements 

New Measurements 

OUTPUTS

 Export to Gulf √ Model 

 Denitrification √ Benthic Flux Project 

BIOMASS

 Larval/ Juvenile Fish 

 Zooplankton 

 Benthic microalgae 

 Phytoplankton 

(species/groups) 

 √

√

√

√

New Measurements 

8.5.3 Model Refinements 

The following refinements to the existing models are included in the recommended RWQMP: 

• Further evaluate and refine the watershed hydrology/water quality models with longer 

period of calibration and validation to better simulate nutrient cycling and DO dynamics 

in major canals. 
Chapter 8 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

8-12 

• Integrate a user-friendly graphic user interface for management of the geo-spatial data, 

such as land use change and irrigation demands. 

• Refine Caloosahatchee Estuary CH3D model with groundwater seepage data and 

sediment transport scheme including integration with a water quality component. 

• Update estuary water quality models with newly collected data including the benthic 

fluxes, diurnal DO concentrations, and sediment and turbidity in order to simulate the 

impact in the estuary from watershed loading for adaptive management. Also, the 

simulation period also needs to be extended to cover a longer time period. 

• Expand the Estuarine Ecological Response Model to include other VECs such as seagrass 

and fish larvae. 

• Incorporate the HSI models into ArcGIS to portray responses spatially and temporally to 

facilitate policy decisions. The models need to be further validated with comprehensive 

monitoring data. A comprehensive assessment is also necessary to evaluate the model for 

both long-term and short-term applications. 

• Convert the SAV model to a common platform, such as a FORTRAN program with 

linkages to spreadsheets or another user-friendly interface, to increase computation 

efficiency. Also, expand the SAV model for broader applications to include other SAV 

species, such as Halodule wrightii and Thalassia testudinum. 

 
CHAPTER 9 

PREFERRED PLAN PROJECTS AND ACTIONS

Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

9-i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

9.0 Preferred plan projects and actions.................................................................................. 9-1

9.1 Watershed Construction Project ...................................................................................9-1

9.1.1 Water Quantity/Storage .......................................................................................9-1

9.1.1.1 Reservoirs ................................................................................................ 9-1

9.1.1.2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery.................................................................9-2

9.1.1.3 Alternative Water Storage/Disposal ........................................................9-2

9.1.2 Watershed Water Quality Projects.......................................................................9-2

9.1.2.1 Water Quality Treatment Areas and Stormwater Treatment Areas.........9-3

9.1.2.2 Stormwater Management.........................................................................9-3

9.1.2.3 Waste/Wastewater Management..............................................................9-4

9.1.2.4 Innovative Nutrient Control Technologies ..............................................9-4

9.1.3 Land Management and Restoration Projects .......................................................9-5

9.1.3.1 Wetland Restoration................................................................................. 9-5

9.1.3.2 Land Conservation................................................................................... 9-5

9.1.3.3 Integrated Growth Management and Restoration....................................9-5

9.2 Watershed Pollutant Control Program..........................................................................9-5

9.2.1 SFWMD Nutrient Source Control Programs.......................................................9-6

9.2.2 FDACS Nutrient Source Control Programs.........................................................9-6

9.2.3 FDEP Pollutant Source Control Programs...........................................................9-7

9.2.4 Other Pollutant Source Control Programs ...........................................................9-8

9.2.5 Local Programs ....................................................................................................9-8

9.3 Watershed Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program .....................................9-8

9.3.1 Monitoring Program.............................................................................................9-9

9.3.1.1 Watershed Monitoring – Water Quality ..................................................9-9

9.3.1.2 Estuary Monitoring – Water Quality, Flow, Salinity, and Aquatic 

Habitat......................................................................................................9-9

9.3.2 Research Program ..............................................................................................9-11

9.3.2.1 Research Project Priorities.....................................................................9-11

9.3.3 Modeling Needs and Recommendations ...........................................................9-13

9.3.3.1 Watershed Hydrology and Water Quality Modeling.............................9-13

9.3.3.2 Estuary Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Modeling ...........................9-13

9.3.3.3 Estuarine Ecologic Response Modeling ................................................ 9-14

9.4 Preferred Plan Implementation ...................................................................................9-14

9.4.1 Real Estate Requirements ..................................................................................9-14

9.4.2 Operations, Maintenance, Permitting, and Monitoring .....................................9-15

9.4.2.1 Operations & Maintenance ....................................................................9-15

9.4.2.2 Permitting...............................................................................................9-15

9.4.2.3 Monitoring .............................................................................................9-16

9.4.3 Phased Implementation......................................................................................9-17

9.4.3.1 Phase I Implementation Benefits ...........................................................9-19

9.4.4 Cost Estimates and Funding Sources.................................................................9-19

9.4.4.1 Phase I Implementation Cost Estimate ..................................................9-19

9.4.4.2 Future Implementation Cost Estimate ...................................................9-21

9.4.4.3 Funding Sources and Cost-Sharing Opportunities................................. 9-21
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009

9-ii 

9.4.5 Implementation Challenges ...............................................................................9-22

9.4.6 Plan Refinement and Revisions .........................................................................9-22

9.4.6.1 Process Development and Engineering .................................................9-23

9.4.6.2 Public Involvement ................................................................................ 9-27

9.4.7 Force Majeure .................................................................................................... 9-27

LIST OF TABLES 

9-1 Components and Commonalities of Major Research Projects in the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed and Estuary .................................................................................................. 9-15 

9-2 Existing Caloosahatchee River Watershed Models ....................................................... 9-16 

9-3 Phase 1 (2009-2012) Projects and Implementation Status ............................................ 9-18 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-1 

9.0 PREFERRED PLAN PROJECTS AND ACTIONS 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan (CRWPP) was developed in response to 

the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection Plan (NEEPP) legislation, Section 373.4595, 

Florida Statutes (F.S.) (2007). This legislation requires the CRWPP to include a Construction 

Project, a Watershed Pollutant Control Program, and a Research and Water Quality Monitoring 

Program (RWQMP). This chapter provides an overview of all three components, which 

collectively comprise the preferred Plan and describes the plan implementation strategy, initial 

costs and funding estimates, cost share opportunities, and the process for plan refinements and 

revisions. 

9.1 Watershed Construction Project 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed Construction Project is detailed in Chapter 6. The 

following sections highlight the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Construction Project 

(Construction Project) features. The features are broadly grouped into the following three 

general categories: (1) Water Quantity/Storage, (2) Water Quality, and (3) Land Management 

and Restoration. Individual projects are categorized based on their primary objective and 

discussed in the following sections (See Table 6.4-6). 

9.1.1 Water Quantity/Storage 

The Construction Project water quantity/storage projects are designed to capture and store 

stormwater runoff in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed and include aboveground reservoirs, 

alternative water storage/disposal projects, and aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells. These 

projects include both local and regional projects. 

9.1.1.1 Reservoirs 

Aboveground reservoirs are the most common type of surface water storage features. 

Aboveground reservoirs typically comprise large areas of land surrounded by levees that are 

used to store water. This water is typically withdrawn from the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

and stored during the wet season to provide attenuation and reduce the discharge of freshwater in 

the estuary. In the dry season, this water can then be released to reduce the demand on the 

Caloosahatchee River for freshwater to be used for irrigation, or may provide flows needed for 

environmental purposes. These types of reservoirs also provide ancillary quality benefits; 

nutrients and other contaminants tend to settle out within the reservoir. Several large reservoirs 

are currently being designed and constructed in the greater Everglades ecosystem. 

Reservoir storage sites are planned at various sites throughout the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed, including: 

• C-43 Distributed Reservoir (CRE-LO 41); 

• Harns Marsh Improvements – Phase I & II (CRE 18); 

• Harns Marsh Improvements – Phase II Final Design ECWCD (CRE 19); 

• Yellowtail Structure Construction – ECWCD (CRE 20); 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-2 

• Hendry County Storage (CRE 21); 

• Hendry Extension Canal Widening (Construction) – ECWCD (CRE 22); 

• East Caloosahatchee Storage (CRE 128); and 

• Caloosahatchee Storage – Additional (CRE 128a). 

9.1.1.2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) involves injecting water into an aquifer through wells and then 

pumping it out from the same aquifer when needed. The aquifer essentially functions as a water 

bank. Deposits are made in times of surplus, typically during the rainy season, and withdrawals 

occur when available water is needed, typically during a dry period. 

Interest and activity in ASR in southern Florida have greatly increased over the past 10 to 15 

years. In south Florida, ASR wells have typically been used to store excess freshwater during 

the wet season and subsequently recover it during the dry season for use as an alternative 

drinking water supply source. Many utility-operated ASR facilities now have wells completed in 

deep confined aquifers and available for this purpose. Large-scale application of the ASR 

technology is under evaluation as a storage option in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 

Plan (CERP). The Construction Project includes the Cape Coral Canal Stormwater Recovery by 

ASR (CRE 77) and the Rehydrate Lee County Well Fields – south of Hwy 82 (CRE 122) 

projects. 

9.1.1.3 Alternative Water Storage/Disposal 

Alternative water storage/disposal projects essentially prevent runoff from reaching the regional 

drainage system or improve the timing of its delivery, and can be developed on available private, 

public, and tribal lands. They are used to store and/or dispose of excess water by capturing it 

prior to runoff or pumping it from areas or canals with excess water, and holding it on-site. 

Alternative water storage/disposal projects typically require minimal design, engineering, and 

construction effort, as compared to constructed reservoirs, because of the use of low technology 

approaches. Approaches include the use of existing infrastructure, such as pumps to move water 

to the desired area, and weirs, berms, and small impoundments needed to detain the water in the 

facility. If they are established on existing wetlands, they are designed and operated to improve 

the existing wetland functions. 

The Construction Project includes the following alternate water storage/disposal projects: 

Alternate Water Storage (LOER) – Barron Water Control District (CRE-LO12g), Recyclable 

Water Containment Areas (RWCA) (CRE 01), and Recycled Water Containment Area (RWCA) 

in the S-4 Basin (CRE 02). 

9.1.2 Watershed Water Quality Projects 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed water quality projects focus on reducing total nitrogen (TN) 

and total phosphorus (TP) loading within and from the watershed. The projects are a 

combination of the source control efforts described in Section 9.2 and projects including water 

quality treatment areas/stormwater treatment areas (STAs), stormwater management, 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-3 

waste/wastewater management, and innovative nutrient control technologies (e.g., managed 

aquatic plant systems, Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology). 

9.1.2.1 Water Quality Treatment Areas and Stormwater Treatment Areas 

Water quality treatment areas are constructed wetlands designed for optimal nutrient removal. 

When water flows through flooded wetland cells, plants and algae remove nutrients from the 

water. Constructed wetlands have been shown to be very efficient in reducing nutrient loads and 

concentrations. 

STAs, a type of water quality treatment area, are constructed wetlands that have been used very 

successfully in South Florida to treat nutrient-rich stormwater runoff. Typically, wetland cells in 

STAs include emergent vegetation or a combination of emergent and submerged vegetation. 

There are both regional scale and local scale water quality treatment areas and STAs included in 

the Construction Project. The regional scale water quality treatment areas within the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed include the C-43 Water Quality Treatment Demonstration 

Project (BOMA Property) (CRE 10), the Caloosahatchee Ecoscape Water Quality Treatment 

Area (CRE 11), East Caloosahatchee Water Quality Treatment Area (CRE 05), and the West 

Caloosahatchee Water Quality Treatment Area (CRE 13). The Construction Project also 

includes the Clewiston STA (CRE-LO 92), Caloosahatchee Area Lakes Restoration (Lake 

Hicpochee) (CRE 04), and the West Lake Hicpochee Project (CRE-LO 40). 

9.1.2.2 Stormwater Management 

The installation or upgrade of an urban stormwater management system can improve surface 

water quality in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. A variety of structures (e.g. wet detention 

ponds, vegetated swales, diversion weirs, baffle boxes, etc.) within a surface water management 

system can attenuate surface water flow to increase percolation for groundwater storage, 

facilitate settling, and promote nutrient uptake prior to receiving water discharge. System retrofit 

projects and local government Stormwater Master Plan implementation projects are management 

measures that will improve the conveyance of stormwater during storm events and reduce 

pollutant loadings from urban runoff. 

The Construction Project includes a variety of stormwater projects. These projects generally 

consist of the construction of filter marshes, construction of facilities to transfer water between 

basins, installation of water control structures, repair or improvement of existing water control 

structures, and widening of canals to provide additional storage and attenuation. These projects 

are constructed on both a local and regional scale. The projects consist of the following: 

 

• Lehigh Areas Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Retrofit (CRE 29); 

• Billy Creek Filter Marsh Phase I and II (CRE 45); 

• Manuel’s Branch Silt Reduction Structure (CRE 48); 

• Manuel’s Branch East & West Weirs (CRE 49); 

• North Fort Myers Surface Water Restoration (CRE 59); 

• Yellow Fever Creek/ Gator Slough Transfer Facility (CRE 64); 

• Cape Coral Wastewater Treatment and Stormwater Retrofit (CRE69); 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-4 

• City of LaBelle Stormwater Master Plan Implementation (CRE 121); 

• North Ten Mile Canal Stormwater Treatment System (CRE 123); 

• Carrell Canal (FMCC) Water Quality Improvements (CRE 124); and 

• Shoemaker-Zapato Canal Stormwater Treatment (CRE 125). 

9.1.2.3 Waste/Wastewater Management 

The Construction Project includes several waste or wastewater management projects. These 

include projects to eliminate septic systems and install central sewer systems, the interconnection 

of wastewater facilities to provide an additional source of reclaimed water, and the upgrading of 

existing wastewater treatment plants. The Construction Project includes the following projects: 

Leigh Acres Waste Water Treatment & Stormwater Retrofit (CRE 29), Cape Coral Reclaimed 

Water Interconnect (CRE 126), and Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade and Reclaimed Water 

(CRE 129). 

9.1.2.4 Innovative Nutrient Control Technologies 

9.1.2.4.1 Managed Aquatic Plant Systems 

Managed aquatic plant systems are aquatic plant-based water treatment units. The technology 

involves routing nutrient loaded stormwater into ponds that are vegetated with plants that have 

enhanced ability to absorb and assimilate nutrients. A variant of managed aquatic plant systems, 

which is currently proposed as a management measure to be included in the CRWPP, is known 

as the Algal Turf ScrubberTM. This technology, developed by HydroMentia, Inc., involves the 

cultivation of a mixed community of periphytic algae that are cultured on an engineered 

geomembrane. The membrane sits on a grid upon which nutrient-rich waters are discharged. 

The Construction Project includes the Powell Creek Algal Turf Scrubber (CRE 57). The Powell 

Creek project will include a pilot project with the potential for a large scale project, depending 

on the outcome of the pilot project. 

9.1.2.4.2 Hybrid Wetland and Chemical Treatment 

Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology combines the strengths of the two top ranked nutrient 

removal technologies, namely treatment wetlands and chemical injection systems. This 

technology forms a synergistic relationship that results in nutrient removal efficiencies beyond 

those attainable by either technology separately, but with lower capital and operating costs. 

Optimization of system performance is achieved by adjusting hydraulic retention time (area of 

facility) and/or chemical dosing rates. Hybrid Wetland and Treatment Technology has been 

previously demonstrated to reduce P concentrations from over 1,000 parts per billion (ppb) to 

less than 100 ppb (Watershed Technologies, Inc. 2007). 

Chemical treatment involves application of chemicals into stormwater runoff to aid in reduction 

of contaminant loads and concentrations, and of turbidity (suspended solids) in the water by 

promoting the coagulation and flocculation of suspended solids. Chemical treatment can be used 

in combination with wet detention of stormwater, treatment of runoff prior to storage, or with 

supplemental treatment associated with reservoirs or STAs. Currently, there are no chemical 

treatment or Hybrid Wetland and Treatment Technology management measures in the 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-5 

Construction Project. However, these technologies will be further evaluated during the plan 

refinement process and may be incorporated in future plan updates. 

9.1.3 Land Management and Restoration Projects 

The Construction Project management measures related to land management and restoration 

include creation and restoration of wetlands, land conservation, and incorporation of growth 

management techniques and initiatives that integrate environmental objectives into urban growth 

planning. 

9.1.3.1 Wetland Restoration 

Natural wetlands sequester surface water flows, recharge the aquifer, and provide water quality 

treatment through assimilation and sedimentation. Wetland restoration includes enhancing 

degraded wetlands and restoring areas that were historically wetlands. 

The Construction Project includes a variety of wetlands projects, both at the local and regional 

scale: Spanish Creek/Four Corners Environmental Restoration (CRE 44), Caloosahatchee Creeks 

Preserve Hydrological Restoration (CRE 53), and Rehydrate Lee County Well Fields – south of 

Highway 82 (CRE 122). 

9.1.3.2 Land Conservation 

Conservation of natural areas in urban settings provides both natural and social benefits. The 

goal of land conservation programs is to protect coastal and estuarine lands considered important 

for their ecological, conservational, recreational, historical, or aesthetic values. There are 

programs that provide state and local governments with matching funds to purchase significant 

coastal and estuarine lands, or conservation easements on such lands, from willing sellers. The 

Construction Project includes the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CRE-LO 

09), Florida Ranchlands Enviromental Services Project (CRE-LO 87c), and the Farm and 

Ranchland Partnerships (CRE-LO 91). 

9.1.3.3 Integrated Growth Management and Restoration 

This category includes programs and projects that integrate environmental restoration objectives 

with urban growth initiatives. Planning and economic incentives are typically provided to 

encourage the use of innovative and flexible planning, development strategies, and creative land 

use planning techniques that minimize the footprint of developments while conserving natural 

lands and open spaces. The Construction Project includes both the Rural Land Stewardship Area 

Program and the Comprehensive Planning & Growth Management (CRE-LO 68). 

9.2 Watershed Pollutant Control Program 

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

program. Nutrient source controls refer to activities and measures, also referred to as Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), that can be utilized on agricultural and non-agricultural lands to 

ensure that the amount of phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) in off-site discharge is minimized, 

thereby preventing nutrients from entering the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-6 

Implementation of source controls is a relatively cost-effective pollutant reduction and 

prevention measure, as it is typically less expensive to prevent pollution than to remediate its 

impacts. There are presently several existing and proposed nutrient source control programs 

within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. These programs are developed and implemented 

cooperatively by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer 

Services (FDACS) in collaboration with local governments and private landowners. 

The Caloosahatchee River Watershed Pollutant Control Program is designed to be a multifaceted approach to reducing pollutant loads. The program includes improving the management 

of pollutant sources within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed through implementation of 

regulations and BMPs and development and implementation of improved BMPs focusing on N 

and P. This section provides an overview of the program. Please refer to Chapter 7 for the 

complete Caloosahatchee Lucie River Watershed Pollutant Control Program. 

9.2.1 SFWMD Nutrient Source Control Programs 

The Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) Program regulates activities involving the alteration 

of surface-water flows, and includes activities in uplands that alter stormwater runoff, as well as 

dredging and filling in wetlands and other surface waters. Generally, the program’s purpose is to 

ensure that alterations do not degrade water quality, compromise flood protection, or adversely 

affect the function of wetland systems. 

The ERP Program only applies to new or modified development. It operates on the assumption 

that permit requirements will result in adequate water-storage capacity and no increase in P 

loading. SFWMD has initiated development of an ERP basin rule with specific supplemental 

criteria designed to result in no increase in total runoff volume from new development that 

discharges ultimately to Lake Okeechobee and/or the Caloosahatchee or St. Lucie estuaries. The 

tentative date for rule adoption is mid to late 2010. 

The Regulatory Nutrient Source Control Program, (Chapter 40E-61, F.A.C.), adopted in 1989, 

was a result of the Lake Okeechobee Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) 

Plan to provide a regulatory source control program specifically for P. The NEEPP legislation 

expanded the program boundary to the Caloosahatchee River Watershed and included N, in 

addition to P, as the focus of nutrient source controls. The program applies to new and existing 

agricultural and non-agricultural activities with the goal of reducing nutrients in off-site 

discharges. 

SFWMD plans to propose modifications to Chapter 40E-61, F.A.C. for consistency with the 

goals and objectives of NEEPP. To ensure consistency with the CRWPP, rule development is 

expected to begin in 2009. 

9.2.2 FDACS Nutrient Source Control Programs 

FDACS has adopted, by administrative rule, agricultural BMPs addressing containerized 

nursery, vegetable and agronomic crop and citrus land uses in the Caloosahatchee River 

Watershed. FDACS is currently developing and will be adopting BMP programs for cow/calf, 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-7 

sod and equine operations. BMPs for all agricultural land uses are expected to be adopted by 

early 2009. 

In February 2008, FDACS initiated rule development to control the land application of animal 

wastes in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. The proposed rule includes minimum 

application setbacks from wetlands and all surface waters. Landowners who apply more than 

one ton per acre of manure must develop conservation plans approved by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture/National Resource Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS). The conservation plan 

must specifically address the application of animal wastes, and the landowner must conduct soil 

testing to demonstrate the need for manure application. All use of animal manure must be 

recorded and included in the operation’s overall nutrient management plan. FDACS expects to 

complete rule making for this effort by the end of 2008. 

In August 2007, FDACS adopted a statewide Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule. The rule limits the P 

and N content in fertilizers being applied to urban turf and lawns, thereby limiting the amount of 

those compounds reaching Florida’s water resources. It requires that, by July 1, 2009, all 

fertilizer products labeled for use on urban turf, sports turf, and lawns be limited to the amount of 

P and N needed to support healthy turf maintenance. As a component of the Lake Okeechobee 

and Estuary Recovery (LOER) Plan established in October 2005, the new rule is an essential 

component to improve water quality through nutrient source control. See Sections 7.1.2 for a 

more in-depth description of FDACS nutrient source control programs. 

9.2.3 FDEP Pollutant Source Control Programs 

FDEP is responsible for several existing and planned source control programs primarily targeting 

urban and non-agricultural issues. These programs include: 

• Initiatives to improve existing stormwater and wastewater infrastructure; 

• Implementation of pollutant reduction plans for municipal stormwater management 

systems; 

• Land development regulations to promote proper stormwater treatment; 

• Enhancement to existing regulations from the management of domestic wastewater 

residuals within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed; 

• Coordination with applicable authorities on septage disposal to ensure that nutrient 

loadings are considered; and 

• Administering the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

program. 

As a result of these programs, local governments have constructed numerous stormwater retrofit 

projects and are continuing to pursue additional projects to improve the quality of water in urban 

runoff. Local utilities have also aggressively pursued upgrades to wastewater management 

systems to improve water quality. FDEP also administers the statewide Municipal Separate 

Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Program. The MS4 Program requires that a stormwater 

management plan be developed to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent 

practicable to protect water quality and comply with the water quality requirements of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA). Please refer to Chapter 7 for a complete description of all FDEP programs. 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-8 

9.2.4 Other Pollutant Source Control Programs 

Launched in October 2005, the Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project established a 

program under which ranchers in the northern Everglades watersheds can sell environmental 

services of water retention, P load reduction, and wetland habitat expansion to agencies of the 

state and other willing buyers. To document the level of environmental services provided by 

ranch water-management projects, the Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project will 

field test different methods of using monitoring and modeling of hydrology, water and soil 

chemistry, and vegetation change. The Florida Ranchlands Environmental Services Project is 

being implemented through a collaboration of the World Wildlife Fund, eight participating 

ranchers, USDA/NRCS, FDACS, SFWMD, and FDEP. 

The Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Program is an excellent example of a nonstructural 

program. It is a partnership of the University of Florida, Institute for Food and Agricultural 

Sciences (UF/IFAS), Florida’s water management districts, FDEP, the National Estuary 

Program, the Florida Sea Grant College Program, concerned citizens, members of private 

industry and numerous other nongovernmental agencies. It is implemented through the counties’ 

UF/IFAS Cooperative Extension Service. The program addresses the serious problems of 

pollution in stormwater runoff, water shortages, and disappearing habitats by enlisting Floridians 

to preserve and to protect our natural resources. 

9.2.5 Local Programs 

The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council approved a Stormwater Resolution (SWFRPC 

Resolution #2008-11) providing specific recommendations and guidelines to be considered by 

local government jurisdictions in Southwest Florida for the regulation, control, use, and 

treatment of stormwater containing N and/or P. Additionally, the Southwest Florida Regional 

Planning Council has approved a Wastewater Resolution (SWFRPC Resolution # 2007-02) 

providing specific recommendations and guidelines to be considered by local government 

jurisdictions in Southwest Florida for the regulation and control of treated wastewater discharges 

containing N and/or P. The Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council has also approved a 

Wastewater Package Plant Resolution (SWFRPC Resolution # 2007-05) providing specific 

recommendations and guidelines to be considered by local government jurisdictions in 

Southwest Florida for the regulation and control of treated wastewater discharges from small 

wastewater treatment facilities (Package Plants) containing N and/or P. 

Lee County and the City of Sanibel have enacted fertilizer ordinances that provide more 

restrictive residential and commercial application schedules. Additionally, education, 

certification, and enforcement capability have been included to assure compliance. 

9.3 Watershed Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program 

The recommended RWQMP has been formulated to fulfill the goals and reporting requirements 

of the CRWPP and support adaptive management. It builds upon the existing monitoring, 

research, and modeling components discussed above, and makes recommendations/modifications 

to these efforts to better achieve and assess the goals/targets of the CRWPP. 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-9 

9.3.1 Monitoring Program 

The monitoring program consists of a watershed monitoring component and an estuarine 

monitoring component. 

9.3.1.1 Watershed Monitoring – Water Quality 

As stated previously under Section 8.4.1, monitoring east of S-79 is currently sparse. The 

frequency of water quality sampling at S-79 and S-78 may not be sufficient for accurate 

calculation of load and this issue requires investigation. Identification of problem areas and 

tracking progress toward the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) at spatial scales smaller than 

the East and West Caloosahatchee basins are not possible with existing monitoring activities. 

Recommendations include the addition of eight long-term water quality and flow monitoring 

sites along the reach of the Caloosahatchee River, east of S-79. These additional sites will 

provide the spatial coverage necessary for tracking progress towards the TMDL, and will support 

adaptive management and development of a Basin Management Action Plan. Monthly water 

quality and continuous flow will be measured at each station, allowing calculation of loading to 

each reach of the Caloosahatchee River. Four short-term water quality and flow monitoring sites 

in canal tributaries flowing into the river are also recommended. These stations will help 

determine if loads calculated from reach samples accurately reflect the sum of tributary loads. 

Additionally, two new water quality parameters are recommended to be added to the monthly 

suite of water quality grab sample analytes in order to support progress towards meeting any 

adopted nutrient TMDLs. These parameters are: dissolved total Kjeldahl nitrogen (DTKN) and 

5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD5). Measurement of BOD5 will support modeling efforts 

and provide a measure of the labile organic loads to the receiving waters. DTKN allows the 

calculation of dissolved organic nitrogen, which often constitutes most of the TN load. The 

following parameters should be considered for inclusion in the monitoring program, based on the 

potential for possible impairments now or in the future: sediment oxygen demand, fecal 

coliform, total dissolved solids, total hardness, iron, copper, lead, arsenic, and zinc. The 

sampling suite will be re-evaluated at the three-year CRWPP re-evaluation period. 

In addition, the RWQMP recognizes that a SFWMD-sponsored source control monitoring 

program, to measure the success of the collective Source Control Programs (SFWMD, FDEP and 

FDACS) at the sub-watershed level, is under development and may refine the proposed 

Caloosahatchee Tributary Monitoring Program. At the sub-watershed level, monitoring 

activities associated with the program will assess the collective success of pollutant source 

control BMPs, compliance with pollution reduction targets, and the need for additional BMPs or 

optimization of existing BMPs. At the local level, this monitoring will identify priority areas of 

water quality concern and provide data to enhance performance of downstream treatment 

facilities. This program also will provide data that can be used in adaptive management, as well 

as modeling and tracking of progress towards achieving TMDLs. 

9.3.1.2 Estuary Monitoring – Water Quality, Flow, Salinity, and Aquatic Habitat 

Existing estuarine monitoring includes water quality, flow, salinity, submerged aquatic 

vegetation, and oyster habitats. 

Water Quality Monitoring: The existing water quality monitoring effort established for the 

estuarine portion of the Caloosahatchee River is being carried out by SFWMD, FDEP, Lee 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-10 

County, City of Cape Coral, City of Sanibel, Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, Florida 

International University (FIU), Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation (SCCF), Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Research Institute, and the Charlotte Harbor Estuaries Volunteer Water Quality 

Monitoring Network. In general, the water quality monitoring conducted by all agencies in 

estuarine and marine waters of the study area are adequate to meet program goals and should 

continue. Some redundancies have been identified; the removal of one existing Lee County 

station and five SFWMD/FIU stations are recommended. Because the Caloosahatchee Estuary is 

currently under-sampled spatially, four historical stations from the Caloosahatchee Estuary 

Water Quality Monitoring Program should be re-instated (CES02, CES05, CES07 and CES08). 

As recommended for watershed monitoring, BOD5 and DTKN should also be added to the water 

quality parameters measured in the estuary monthly grab samples. The following parameters 

should be considered for inclusion in the monitoring program, based on the potential for possible 

impairments now or in the future: sediment oxygen demand, fecal coliform, total dissolved 

solids, total hardness, iron, copper, lead, arsenic, and zinc. 

Flow Monitoring: Historically, there have been few measurements of freshwater inflows to the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary from the Tidal Basin west of S-79. To quantify these flows, eight 

additional flow sites and one cooperative site with Lee County were added by the USGS, in 

cooperation with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The current longterm flow monitoring conducted in the tidal basin west of S-79 by Lee County, United States 

Geological Survey and FDEP should continue as it is now planned. 

Salinity Monitoring: Salinity monitoring is essential to supporting water quality modeling, 

refining salinity envelopes, and quantifying the goal of reducing undesirable salinity ranges. 

Salinity monitoring stations maintained by SFWMD and SCCF are sufficient and should also be 

continued. 

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Monitoring: There are currently six SAV monitoring 

efforts in the tidal waters within the CRWPP boundaries. There have been five aerial 

photography surveys conducted since 1999. Aerial survey information has been used by various 

organizations to evaluate incremental and long-term changes throughout the entire region and 

within major sections of the system. The existing programs are sufficient for detecting trends 

and assessing the status of seagrasses in the CRWPP study area on multiple spatial and temporal 

scales. The current multi-agency approach to seagrass monitoring in the study area should also 

continue. SAV aerial photography surveys should continue at the historical sampling frequency 

of every two-to-three years. 

Oyster Monitoring: Monitoring of oysters in the Caloosahatchee Estuary is currently conducted 

by the Restoration Coordination and Verification Program (RECOVER) at six stations. Various 

aspects of oyster condition, life history and distribution are measured. While most parameters 

are measured monthly or seasonally, the regional distribution of oysters is mapped every five 

years (RECOVER, 2007). The current oyster monitoring program conducted by RECOVER 

should continue, along with mapping of oyster beds, at a planned frequency. 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-11 

9.3.2 Research Program 

Research projects are intended to reduce or eliminate key uncertainties in the proposed TMDL 

and in flow and salinity envelopes, and to optimize the operation protocols. The four research 

projects in the RWQMP are summarized below. Chapter 5 of the RWQMP provides a detailed 

description of these programs, and assesses their adequacy in achieving the CRWPP 

goals/targets. 

• Estuarine Nutrient Budget: Over-enrichment with nutrients from urban and agricultural 

sources is a problem for the Caloosahatchee Estuary. This project will construct nutrient 

budgets of TN and TP. Results of this project can be used to support water quality 

modeling efforts that will reduce the uncertainties related to nutrient TMDLs and 

increase the capability to predict effects of various management measures, including 

BMPs. 

• Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Dynamics: This research project will identify the factors 

causing the DO impairment in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. Understanding of DO 

dynamics will also help to identify impacts from the pollutant loads to estuarine 

ecosytems. Once causes are known, appropriate management solutions can be 

implemented. The results of this study will provide critical information that will guide 

the selection of these management solutions.

• Low Salinity Zone: Much of the work that supports estimates of minimum and 

maximum freshwater inflow requirements to the Caloosahatchee Estuary is based on the 

salinity tolerances of freshwater and marine organisms that inhabit the system. The low 

salinity zone research project examines elements of the estuarine food web. The ultimate 

goal is to understand the role of freshwater discharge and production of fish larvae in the 

estuary. Results can be applied to establishing water reservations, to refining flow and 

salinity envelopes, and to providing guidelines for delivery of freshwater to the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary.

• Light Attenuation in San Carlos Bay: This study will determine how relative 

contributions to total light attenuation of chlorophyll-a, colored dissolved organic matter, 

and turbidity vary with season and freshwater inflow in San Carlos Bay. Information 

from this study will better define controls on light attenuation in San Carlos Bay and the 

relationship between the TMDL and its resource goal. Results can be used to determine 

when, and under what conditions, resource light attenuation goals may be met. 

9.3.2.1 Research Project Priorities 

Each major research project (e.g., Nutrient Budget) can be broken down into several 

components. Examination of the components of each project shows that several projects may 

have common components. The major research projects and commonalities between 

components of these projects are summarized in Table 9-1. The source of data for each 

component is given (existing data, new measurements, model etc). Items funded in any given 

year may be prioritized according to the number of projects to which they belong.
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-12 

Table 9-1. Components and Commonalities of Major Research Projects in the Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed and Estuary 

Research Research Projects 

Component Nutrient 

Budget 

DO 

Dynamics 

Low 

Salinity 

Zone 

Light 

Attenuation 

Source 

INPUTS 

 Franklin Lock Loads 

(S-79) √ √ √ √ Monitoring 

 Tidal Basin Loads 

 Surface Flows 

 Groundwater 

 Wastewater 

Treatment Facilities 

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

Model/Measurements 

Model/Measurements 

New Measurements 

 Gulf of Mexico √

 Model for Flow 

Literature 

Concentration 

 Atmospheric 

Deposition √ Literature/ Data Analysis 

INTERNAL CYCLING

 Primary Productivity/ 

 Water Column 

Respiration 

√ √ √ √ New Measurements 

 Organic Matter 

 Decomposition (incl 

DON) 

√ √ New Measurements 

 Benthic Nutrient Flux √ √ New Measurements 

 DO Time Series √ √ New Measurements 

INTERNAL CYCLING

San Carlos Bay Times 

Series 

 Color 

 Turbidity 

 Chlorophyll-a

 TSS 

 PAR (Kd)

 

√

√

√

√

√

New Measurements 

New Measurements 

New Measurements 

New Measurements 

New Measurements 

OUTPUTS

 Export to Gulf √ Model 

 Denitrification √ Benthic Flux Project 

BIOMASS

 Larval/ Juvenile Fish 

 Zooplankton 

 Benthic microalgae 

 Phytoplankton 

(species/groups) 

 √

√

√

√

New Measurements 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-13 

9.3.3 Modeling Needs and Recommendations 

Numerous models have been developed or are currently under development for use in the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed, as summarized in Table 9-2. An assessment of existing 

models and their ability to meet future modeling needs was conducted and a set of modeling 

recommendations was developed. 

Table 9-2. Existing Caloosahatchee River Watershed Models

Watershed Water Quality and 

Hydrology 

Estuary Water Quality 

and Hydrology 

Estuarine Ecology 

ASFIRS/WATBAL Hydrologic 

Model CH3D Hydrodynamic Model Tapegrass Model 

Northern Everglades Regional 

Simulation Model (NERSM) EFDC/WASP Model Habitat Suitability Index 

MIKESHE Hydrologic Model 

HSPF Model 

 

An integrated modeling framework, combining the resource-based Valued Ecosystem 

Component (VEC) approach and linked watershed and estuarine models, is proposed to meet 

water management objectives for coastal ecosystems protection and restoration (SFWMD, 2008). 

Specifically, the watershed model estimates the quantity, timing, and quality of freshwater 

inflow to the estuary. The estuarine hydrodynamic, sediment transport, and water quality 

models, in turn, simulate the estuarine conditions in terms of salinity, water quality, and sediment 

transport. Finally, the ecological models simulate the responses of estuarine resources and 

processes to the estuarine conditions. 

9.3.3.1 Watershed Hydrology and Water Quality Modeling 

Effective management that aims to protect water quality requires a “big picture” view of water 

resources at a watershed-scale. Watershed models provide the necessary links for this purpose, 

particularly when it comes to understanding how non-point sources of pollution interact with 

point sources, and how these jointly affect the downstream water quality. 

Watershed hydrology and water quality simulation modeling tools are needed that are capable of 

(1) simulating the hydrologic interaction of the Caloosahatchee River Watershed with other 

components of the Northern Everglades Program (Lake Okeechobee and St Lucie River 

watersheds); (2) watershed loading simulation; (3) optimizing operations/sizing of features; and 

(4) a user-friendly graphic user interface. Additionally, watershed models are in need of 

refinement with longer period of calibration and validation to enhance the simulations of nutrient 

cycling and DO dynamics. An integration of watershed models with estuarine models is also 

needed. 

9.3.3.2 Estuary Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Modeling 

Estuary hydrodynamic and water quality simulation modeling tools are needed that are capable 

of (1) simulating the impacts induced by the watershed loading, (2) estuary hydrodynamics, and 

(3) estuary water quality processes. Estuarine models also need refinements in integration with 

watershed loadings and with longer periods of calibration and validation to enhance the nutrient 

and DO simulations. 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-14 

9.3.3.3 Estuarine Ecologic Response Modeling 

Future efforts in the estuarine ecologic response modeling should simulate the habitats for 

seagrass, oyster, and fish larvae to represent the entire spectrum of the valued ecosystems in the 

estuary. A set of ecological performance measures representing different habitats for fish larvae, 

oysters, and seagrass will be needed to direct operation for both the dry season and the wet 

season. Eventually, a community-level ecological response model should be developed to 

predict the ecosystem change with the anticipated improvement in the habitats. A graphic user 

interface will also need to be developed to provide explicit linkage between management 

objectives and predicted improvements with restoration actions. 

The Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models should be incorporated into ArcGIS to portray 

responses spatially and temporally to facilitate policy decisions. The models need to be further 

validated with comprehensive monitoring data. A comprehensive assessment is also necessary 

to evaluate the model for both long-term and short-term applications. 

The SAV model should be converted to a common platform, such as a FORTRAN program with 

linkages to Microsoft Excel® or other userfriendly interface to increase computation efficiency. 

For broader applications, the SAV model needs to be expanded to include other SAV species, 

such as Halodule wrightii and Thalassia testudinum. A numeric ecological model will need to 

be set up for each species and calibrated with field monitoring data. A broad range of tests will 

also need to be conducted under different salinity, light and water temperature conditions. 

Additionally, current water quality linkage applications need to be established. 

9.4 Preferred Plan Implementation 

The Watershed Construction Project, Watershed Pollutant Control Program, and Watershed 

Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program collectively comprise the preferred 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan. The following sections provide information 

on various aspects of program implementation including real estate requirements, phasing 

approach, costs, and plan refinements. 

9.4.1 Real Estate Requirements 

Specific locations for some preferred Plan features have already been determined, while for other 

project features, locations have been identified only to the sub-watershed level. Land acquisition 

needs will be developed over time through the Process Development and Engineering (PD&E) 

process. During PD&E, conceptual planning will be conducted to further evaluate project siting 

and real estate acquisition requirements. The results of feasibility studies will help define the 

real estate requirements which will be reflected in future Plan updates. 

To the extent possible, opportunities for less than fee acquisition, such as the Wetland Reserve 

Program, will be evaluated. It is expected that real estate acquisition for individual features will 

occur over a period of time. State- and SFWMD-owned lands would be preferentially evaluated 

for siting preferred Plan project features. However, many of the existing state- and SFWMDowned acreages have already been targeted for specific features. 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-15 

9.4.2 Operations, Maintenance, Permitting, and Monitoring 

The following sections describe the operations, maintenance, permitting, and monitoring needed 

for the preferred Plan, to the greatest extent possible. This section will be revised in future 

CRWPP updates, as more information becomes available. Appendix F provides greater detail 

on these items. 

9.4.2.1 Operations & Maintenance 

With very few exceptions, the majority of project features included in the preferred Plan are 

likely to require some level of operation and maintenance (O&M). Consideration of O&M needs 

from the outset of planning is important to insure that the project goals and objectives are 

achieved in the most efficient, effective, and safe manner. O&M collectively refers to the 

following five major elements: 

• Operations – ongoing activities required to operate the management measure to achieve 

the project objectives, including water control, fuels and materials, monitoring, etc.; 

• Maintenance – ongoing activities required to maintain system in an operable condition, 

including machinery maintenance, mowing, inspections, etc.; 

• Repair – periodic repair of machinery or other structural elements as needed to restore 

complete operability of the management measure, including machinery repair, filling 

scour holes, repairing erosion, etc.; 

• Replacement – periodic replacement of project elements that have reached or exceeded 

their functional life including pump replacement, stop-log riser replacement, etc.; and 

• Rehabilitation – major rehabilitation of a project component may be required under the 

following circumstances: 

- when the component has exceeded its functional life and continued repair and 

replacement activities are no longer cost effective; 

- when there are substantive changes in conditions at the facility or associated 

components of the water management system that preclude meeting the project 

objectives or result in other undesirable impacts; or 

- changes in design or safety standards. 

9.4.2.2 Permitting 

Construction and implementation of the preferred Plan features will require a variety of permits 

and regulatory approvals. Types of permits and approvals needed are likely to vary with feature 

type and location. 

Obtaining all required federal and state permits for implementation and operation of a project 

feature often requires an intensive level of effort. Permitting can result in significant project 

delays if it is not adequately considered early in project development. However, specific permit 

requirements and/or issues may not be evident until a substantial level of detail has been 

developed during planning and design. 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-16 

The types of permits and level of effort required during the permitting process may vary greatly 

for similar or identical measures, depending on the physical conditions that exist at the project 

site and surrounding area. During the PD&E process, continuing consideration will be given to 

the types of permits required and the potential permitting issues that must be addressed. In this 

way, the level of effort and time requirements can be factored into the planning and design 

process to minimize the potential for significant permit-related project delays. 

Federal and state permits are likely to be required for the types of project features contained in 

the preferred Plan, are described in Appendix F. Local permit requirements will vary from site 

to site and will have to be addressed on a site-specific basis. 

9.4.2.3 Monitoring 

A comprehensive monitoring and information system will be utilized to provide the data 

necessary to measure the performance and effectiveness of the preferred Plan in satisfying the 

restoration goals of the CRWPP. The SFWMD will utilize the current monitoring base and 

monitoring proposed in the Caloosahatchee River Watershed RWQMP to provide any projectspecific resources needed to document the effectiveness of nutrient control efforts in meeting 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed TMDLs, when established, and to assure compliance with all 

future permit requirements. 

Monitoring is generally required to determine if individual project features and the plan, as a 

whole, are performing as intended. Typically, monitoring requirements for individual projects 

are established during the permitting and design process. Since the two primary objectives of the 

CRWPP are storage and water quality improvements, it can be expected that performance of all 

structural and non-structural project features included in the plan will have to be monitored for 

flow and P and N load reduction. 

Project-level assessments may also be needed that will focus on estimating the performances of 

both regional projects (i.e. water quality treatment areas, STAs) and local projects (i.e 

stormwater retrofits) located throughout the Caloosahatchee River Watershed. Results of the 

project-level assessment will provide important water quality reduction information, including 

the assessment of the size of the sub-watershed verses the size of the treatment facility and 

residence time/pollution removal efficiencies. The results also will assist in evaluating specific 

nutrient reductions from different types of treatment systems. The overall temporal performance 

(life cycle) of these facilities over time will also be estimated through this effort. This 

information will ultimately be used in the adaptive management process to improve the overall 

performance of treatment facilities of various sizes (i.e. regional and local scale). In addition, 

safety monitoring will be required for features, such as reservoirs and water quality treatment 

features. BMPs will also need to be inspected periodically to ensure structural efficacy and that 

expected performance is achieved. 

SFWMD has established an Environmental Monitoring Coordination Team to critically review 

and evaluate all new monitoring requests to ensure permit compliance, scientific validity, and 

efficiency. Any future monitoring requirements associated with the CRWPP will be subject to 

review and approval by the Environmental Monitoring Coordination Team. All current and 

future water quality data collection, analysis, validation, management, and storage will be 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-17 

conducted in accordance with the FDEP Quality Assurance Rule, 62-160, Florida Administrative 

Code (F.A.C.), the District Field Sampling Quality Manual and/or the CERP Quality Assurance 

Systems Requirements Manual. 

9.4.3 Phased Implementation 

The NEEPP legislation states that the River Watershed Protection Plans shall be achieved 

through a phased program of implementation. Therefore, implementation of the preferred Plan 

described in this chapter will occur through an iterative, adaptive, and phased implementation 

process. The preferred Plan will be implemented in at least the following three phases. 

Phase I - Projects that will be initiated or completed between 2009 and 2012 (Table 9-3). This 

phase will primarily focus on continued implementation of ongoing measures and initiatives. 

Projects were included in Phase I if current project schedules indicate the project will be initiated 

or completed by 2012. It is recognized that implementation of these projects is contingent upon 

funding from many different sources and that actual implementation timeframes may vary. 

Changes in project schedules will be reflected in annual reports and three-year updates, as 

appropriate (see Section 9.4.6 for more information regarding plan updates). Phase I includes 

the projects listed below: 

• Regional Projects: 

- CERP C-43 West Reservoir 

- Caloosahatchee Area Lakes Restoration (Lake Hicpochee) (CRE 04) 

- C-43 Water Quality Treatment Demonstration Project (CRE 10) 

- Spanish Creek/Four Corners Environmental Restoration Phase I (CRE 44) 

• All Source Control Projects (Note: The Pollutant Control Project features are accounted 

for in these source control projects.): 

- Agricultural BMPs- Owner Implemented, Funded Cost Share, and Cost Share Future 

Funding (CRE-LO 1, 2 and 49) 

- Land Application of Residuals (CRE-LO4) 

- Additional Agricultural BMPs (CRE-LO 50) 

- Urban Turf Fertilizer Rule (LOER) (CRE-LO 3) 

- Florida Yards and Neighborhoods (CRE-LO 5) 

- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sysetm (NPDES) Stormwater Program 

(CRE-LO 8) 

- Environmental Resource Permit Program (CRE-LO 7) 

- Proposed Caloosahatchee River Watershed 40E-61 Regulatory Nutrient Source 

Control Program (CRE-LO 15) 

- Wastewater and Stormwater Master Plans (CRE-LO 63) 

- Proposed Unified Statewide Stormwater Rule (CRE-LO 64) 

- Comprehensive Planning-Land Development (CRE-LO 68) 

- Lake Okeechobee and Estuary Watershed Basin Rule (LOER) (CRE-LO 21) 

• Local Stormwater, Wastewater, and Habitat Restoration Projects: 

- Alternative Water Storage - Barron Water Control District (CRE-LO 12g) 

- Harns Marsh Improvements, Phase I and II (CRE 18) 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-18 

- Billy Creek Filter Marsh, Phase I and II (CRE 45) 

- Hendry Extension Canal Widening (CRE 22) 

- North Fort Myers Surface Water Restoration (CRE 59) 

- Yellow Fever Creek/Gator Slough Transfer Facility (CRE 64) 

- Cape Coral Canal Stormwater Recovery by ASR (CRE 77) 

• Land Management Projects: 

- Florida Ranchlands and Environmental Services Program (CRE-LO 87c) 

- Farm and Ranchland Partnerships (CRE-LO 91) 

- Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CRE-LO 9) 

• Research & Water Quality Monitoring Plan: Monitoring, Research, and Modeling 

Table 9-3. Phase 1 (2009-2012) Projects and Implementation Status 

 Initiated Completed 

Powell Creek Algal Turf Scrubber 9

Alternative Water Storage - Barron Water Control 

District 9

Caloosahatchee Area Lakes Restoration (Lake 

Hicpochee) 9

C-43 Water Quality Treatment Demonstration 

Project (BOMA) 9

Spanish Creek/Four Corners Environmental 

Restoration Phase I 9

C-43 West Reservoir 9

Local-Stormwater Projects (e.g., treatment wetlands, 

conveyance and structural improvements, and 

stormwater recovery projects) 

9 9

Florida Ranchlands and Environmental Services 

Projects 9

Construction 

Project 

Farm and Ranchland Partnerships 9

Agricultural and Urban BMPs 9

Proposed Revisions to Regulatory Programs (40E61 Regulatory Nutrient Source Control Program, 

ERP Basin Rule, Statewide Stormwater Rule) 

9

Pollutant 

Control 

Program 

Comprehensive Planning and Growth Management 9

Research 

and Water 

Quality 

Monitoring 

Monitoring, Research, and Modeling 9 9
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-19 

Phase II - Projects that will be initiated or completed between 2013 and 2018. Phase II projects 

will be identified in the 2012 CRWPP three-year update. The 2012 CRWPP three-year update 

will also provide a status update on Phase I projects. The 2015 and subsequent CRWPP threeyear updates will provide status reports and any proposed refinements and revisions regarding 

Phase I and Phase II. 

Long-Term Implementation Phase - Projects that will be initiated subsequent to 2018. The 

Long-Term Implementation Phase will be further defined during the 2015 and 2018 CRWPP 

three-year updates. 

9.4.3.1 Phase I Implementation Benefits 

The following benefits are anticipated from implementation of the Phase I projects: 

• Ongoing implementation of BMPs on more than 430,000 acres of agricultural lands and 

over 145,000 acres of urban lands; 

• Completing regulatory rule revisions (ERP and Regulatory Nutrient Source Control Rule 

revisions); 

• Completing design and initiating construction of approximately 9,380 acres of reservoirs 

and over 6,700 acres of STAs and water quality treatment areas; 

• Restoring 2,000 acres of wetlands within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed; and 

• Providing approximately 178,600 acre-feet of water storage within the Caloosahatchee 

River Watershed. 

9.4.4 Cost Estimates and Funding Sources 

9.4.4.1 Phase I Implementation Cost Estimate 

The preferred Plan captures a wide array of projects and programs; therefore, there will be a 

variety of implementation and funding strategies utilized to move the preferred Plan projects 

forward. Many of these projects are already included in other planning or restoration efforts 

(e.g., CERP). This plan assumes that those projects will continue to be implemented through the 

existing mechanisms or programs as originally intended. 

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. Save Our Everglades Trust Fund appropriations 

are determined on an annual basis through the state’s budget process. Opportunities for cost 

sharing, partnering, and grant funding will be utilized to optimize use of resources, as required 

by section 373.4595(4), F.S. 

For purposes of this planning effort, costs have been broken into three categories. It is 

recognized that there may be other alternative funding strategies for these projects in addition to 

those found below. 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-20 

• CERP - Costs for CERP projects are eligible for a 50 percent cost share with the federal 

government. The non-federal contribution may be provided by the state, SFWMD, or 

local sources. 

• Non-CERP - Costs for non-CERP features will primarily be borne by SFWMD and the 

state, with potential for local cost sharing. 

• Local - Costs for local projects will be covered entirely by the local government or may 

be cost shared by the local government and state or SFWMD sources. 

Cost estimates, potential funding sources, and cost assumptions are provided for each Plan 

component included in Phase I (with the exception of Urban BMPs where the cost reflects full 

implementation with no phasing). Costs for each progressive phase of implementation will be 

developed as more detailed project designs and information from various projects and studies 

become available. 

• Watershed Construction Project 

Regional Projects 

CERP: For CERP projects included in Phase I, capital costs are estimated to be $524-

$781 million. State CERP costs are eligible for a 50 percent cost-share with the federal 

government and may also include a local cost share. 

Non-CERP: For non-CERP projects (e.g., C-43 Water Quality Treatment and Testing 

Facility), capital costs are estimated to be $117-$175 million from state, SFWMD and/or 

local funds. 

Local Projects

$15 million from state funds. Note: Based on $5 million per year from 2010 to 2012 and 

does not reflect matching funds from SFWMD or local sources. 

• Pollutant Control Program 

Agricultural BMPs: $3.3-$4.0 million from state, SFWMD and/or local funds. Note: 

Assumes that 100% of owner-implemented and 35% of cost-share agricultural BMPs 

within the watershed can be implemented during Phase I, the state contributes 50% for 

capital costs, and that remaining costs are paid by landowners and federal grants. 

Urban BMPs: $663-$809 million from state and local funds. Note: Reflects total capital 

costs for full implementation of urban BMPs with no phasing and no cost share 

assumptions. Additional details regarding funding scenarios and schedules for urban bmp 

implementation will be established during the Basin Management Action Plan 

development process and will be incorporated into future Protection Plan updates. 

• Research and Water Quality Monitoring Program 

$5.2 million in state and local funds. Note: This estimate includes costs for research and 

additional monitoring. Ongoing monitoring costs are not included, as those programs are 

already in existence and funded through other mechanisms. 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-21 

Cost estimates are based on the following assumptions: 

• Costs do not include dollars that have already been expended to date; 

• Costs include the full cost to build a project completely, even if construction period goes 

beyond Phase I; 

• High cost estimates are based upon 10 percent annual real estate inflation and nine 

percent annual construction inflation; and 

• Low cost estimates are based upon 6 percent annual real estate inflation and two percent 

annual construction inflation. 

9.4.4.2 Future Implementation Cost Estimate 

Costs for each progressive stage of implementation will be developed as more detailed project 

designs and information from various projects and studies are available. It is anticipated that 

modifications and refinements in the methods used to reduce TP and TN loading to the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary will occur in the future, as a result of model and technology refinements 

described in Section 9.4.6.2 and Section 9.4.6.3, respectively. Factoring this type of information 

in will provide additional clarity regarding the scope and engineering and design specifics of 

projects that will be included in subsequent stages and reduce the uncertainty associated with 

cost estimates. Cost estimates for Phase II will be provided in the 2012 CRWPP three-year 

update. 

9.4.4.3 Funding Sources and Cost-Sharing Opportunities 

The majority of funding for the implementation of this preferred Plan will be from state, 

SFWMD, federal, and local sources. The 2007 NEEPP legislation provides a dedicated state 

funding source for the Northern Everglades restoration by expanding the use of the Save Our 

Everglades Trust Fund to include the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Plan, the CRWPP, 

and the St. Lucie River Watershed Protection Plan. The legislation specifically states “There is 

created within the Department of Environmental Protection the Save Our Everglades Trust 

Fund. Funds in the trust fund shall be expended to implement the comprehensive plan defined in 

s. 373.470(2)(a), the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Protection Plan defined in s. 373.4595(2), the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan defined in s. 373.4595(2), and the St. Lucie 

River Watershed Protection Plan defined in s. 373.4595(2)...” (Section 373.472, F.S.)(2007). 

The legislation also extends the state's commitment to provide funding for CERP and the 

Northern Everglades through the year 2020. Section 470(6)(a) F.S (2007) states “Except for 

funds appropriated for debt service, the department shall distribute funds in the Save Our 

Everglades Trust Fund to the district in accordance with a legislative appropriation and s. 

373.026(8)(b) and (c). Distribution of funds to the district from the Save Our Everglades Trust 

Fund shall be equally matched by the cumulative contributions from the district by fiscal year 

2019-2020 by providing funding or credits toward project components.” This is intended to be a 

recurring source of funding from the state, but must be appropriated by the legislature annually. 

Funding from the state is to be matched by SFWMD. Many of the local features will have cost 

sharing with landowners and local governments, as well as state and federal grant programs. 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-22 

The rate of implementation for non-CERP projects will be dependent upon the level of funding 

from state, SFWMD, local, 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 (Appendix 

G). These sources may include funding from federal government agencies (United States Army 

Corps of Engineers, United States Department of the Interior, USDA, etc.) local governments, 

tribal communities, and private landowners. 

9.4.5 Implementation Challenges 

An array of public agencies works to protect and manage the Caloosahatchee River Watershed 

and Estuary. Most of these agencies have multiple roles in the management of water resources. 

With this overlapping framework for water resource management, both challenges and 

opportunities are inevitable. For instance, though an agency may play a role in managing the 

resource, the level of funding dedicated to the different responsibilities may vary significantly 

and will change as the agencies’ priorities change. This plan will be updated regularly in order 

to account for these types of changes throughout the implementation process. Because water 

resources do not follow jurisdictional lines and are affected by all levels of government, 

identifying and pursuing effective management approaches that reach across these jurisdictional 

lines is critical to the successful implementation of the CRWPP. Linking water resource 

management and land-use programs, as well as seeking cooperative management and funding 

opportunities is a necessary part of plan implementation. Continued participation by public and 

private organizations will assist in maintaining the momentum for protecting and managing the 

water resources within the Caloosahatchee Watershed. 

9.4.6 Plan Refinement and Revisions 

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

quantity improvements to benefit the Lake Okeechobee and downstream estuaries. 

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

the Caloosahatchee River 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, NEEPP requires annual progress reports 

and protection plan updates every three years. 

Portions of this CRWPP have already been implemented or are in the process of being 

implemented. More detailed planning and design of other features will begin in 2009 and 

continue throughout the CRWPP implementation stages. During implementation, the hydrologic 

and water quality conditions in the Calooshatachee River Watershed will continue to change as 

land use changes and individual projects affecting the quality and quantity of water become 

operational. Therefore, it is important to have a procedure in place to ensure that: 

• A process is established to promote more thorough planning from initial design through 

project implementation; 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-23 

• Plan performance is adequately and appropriately monitored over time; 

• The CRWPP is revised at periodic intervals, as necessary, based on evaluation of 

monitoring data; and 

• Plan progress is reported to the legislature, regulatory agencies, and the public on a 

regular basis. 

Similar to other state initiatives (e.g. Everglades Protection Area Tributary Basins Long-Term 

Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals), this procedure is expected to be borne out through 

PD&E. The recommendations for PD&E are described in this section. A description of the 

strategy for plan refinement, revision, and reporting is also provided. 

9.4.6.1 Process Development and Engineering 

The primary objective of the PD&E is to provide a roadmap for further refinement of the design 

of individual plan components. The PD&E will also identify additional measures that, if 

implemented, will increase certainty that the overall plan objectives for improving water quality 

and quantity are met. The PD&E procedure recognizes the following: 

• Achieving improvements in the quality, quantity, timing, and distribution of water and 

achievement of water quality standards will involve an adaptive management approach, 

whereby the best available information is used to develop and expeditiously implement 

incremental improvement measures in a cost-effective manner. 

• Continued engineering evaluations will be necessary to increase certainty in the overall 

operation and performance of integrated hydrology and water quality improvement 

strategies. 

• Significant technical and economic benefits can be realized by integrating the preferred 

Plan water quality and water quantity management measures with CERP projects, even to 

the extent that existing schedules should be re-evaluated in some basins and synchronized 

with CERP implementation schedules. 

• The Nutrient and DO TMDL for the Tidal Calooshatachee River and tributaries are 

currently under development and are anticipated to be completed in December 2008. 

Depending upon of the outcome of the development of the TMDLs, the preferred Plan 

may need to be modified and/or additional projects may need to be added to the preferred 

Plan. 

Key elements of the PD&E procedure include model refinement, technology refinement, subwatershed conceptual planning, adaptive management (resulting from research and water quality 

monitoring), and plan updates and revisions. These elements are further described in the 

following sections. 

9.4.6.1.1 Model Refinements 

An integrated modeling approach is recommended to provide the technical support for 

implementation and adaptive management of the CRWPP. In addition, several modeling needs 

have been identified to refine or update the existing models. These continuous improvements are 

further described in the RWQMP (Appendix E). 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-24 

9.4.6.1.2 Technology Refinements 

Existing technology refinement efforts will play an important role in optimizing and refining the 

implementation of many features that make up the preferred Plan. These features currently 

include BMP research and refinement, STA integration and refinement, and further research on 

innovative nutrient control techniques, chemical treatment, and hybrid wetland treatment 

technologies. 

BMP Research and Refinement: Several uncertainties exist in estimating BMP 

performance. Some uncertainties associated with the performance of BMPs include the 

impacts of different soils and hydrologic conditions, the quantity of water that can be held on 

a parcel without impacting an agricultural operation, and legacy nutrients currently within the 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed. The BMP performance estimates utilized in the CRWPP 

were based on best professional judgment and take into account the uncertainties described 

above and information available from literature, as well as actual performance data observed 

within the Caloosahatchee River Watershed to date. These estimates will continue to be 

refined over time, as ongoing and future research provides additional information through the 

technology and model refinement efforts. 

Water Quality Project Integration and Refinement: The preferred Plan establishes a 

technical framework through PD&E for the refinement and integration of water quality 

projects for the purpose of meeting water quality goals for the watershed and estuary. The 

goal of water quality project refinement and integration is to apply adaptive management 

analyses that will assist in determining how to optimize nutrient removal in individual 

projects and how to integrate multiple water quality projects throughout the watershed. 

Innovative Nutrient Control Technologies: Evaluation and testing of technologies, such as 

chemical treatment and hybrid wetland treatment technologies that have the potential to 

remove nutrients in a cost-effective manner to meet any adopted TMDLs in the St. Lucie 

River Watershed, will be conducted. The results of these and other testing and evaluations in 

the future will play a role in refining and optimizing the CRWPP. 

Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology: Hybrid Wetland and Treatment Technology 

combines the strengths of the two top-ranked nutrient removal technologies, namely 

treatment wetlands and chemical injection system. This synergy results in nutrient removal 

efficiencies beyond those attainable by either separate technology, with lower capital and 

operating costs. Optimization of system performance is achieved by adjusting hydraulic 

retention time (area of facility) and/or chemical dosing rates. Hybrid Wetland and Treatment 

Technology has been previously demonstrated to reduce P concentrations from over 1000 

ppb to less than 100 ppb. Preliminary data from the existing Hybrid Wetland and Treatment 

Technology pilot facilities in Lake Okeechobee and St. Lucie River watersheds show P 

concentration reductions in the range of 84 to 94 percent. Based on the results of the ongoing 

pilot projects, additional Hybrid Wetland and Treatment Technology projects may be located 

within the St. Lucie watershed. 

Nitrogen Reduction Technology: The treatment efficiency of most of the included water 

quality features is well documented with regards to TP reductions. Unfortunately, there is 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-25 

not as much existing information regarding how well these facilities address reductions of 

TN in the South Florida region. Additional investigations to determine the most efficient and 

effective methods of reducing TN loads and concentrations will be included in future efforts. 

9.4.6.1.3 Sub-watershed Conceptual Planning 

The preferred Plan has provided a general framework and road map to follow that will result in 

progressive improvements in nutrient loading to the Caloosahatchee Estuary and additional 

storage that will reduce undesirable Caloosahatchee River Watershed discharges. However, due 

to the general nature of many of the projects identified in this planning process, a significant 

amount of detailed planning, design and engineering will be necessary prior to project 

implementation. 

In addition, the results of other feasibility efforts will be used to help meet the preferred Plan’s 

objectives in as cost-effective a manner as possible. Studies and pilot projects that test and 

evaluate various water quality treatment technologies will be used to refine and optimize nutrient 

removal. 

Level 4 and 5 features of the preferred Plan are those that have the least detail and have not been 

sited at this time. Therefore, for these features, the initial stages of more detailed planning and 

design, prior to more detailed engineering, will be an evaluation of lands that are currently in 

SFWMD ownership and how best to maximize their utilization for water quality and surface 

storage and minimize the need for additional lands. This conceptual planning may be performed 

on a site-specific basis; however, most initial planning will be conducted on a broader subwatershed scale. In compliance with the NEEPP requirements, the siting analyses will consider 

potential impacts to wetlands and threatened and endangered species. After siting of features is 

completed, more detailed design and engineering will follow. 

9.4.6.1.4 Adaptive Management 

In order to improve environmental conditions in both estuaries, protection plans will call for the 

construction of facilities designed to help meet any adopted TMDLs and flow/salinity targets by 

attenuating and storing storm water runoff, and reducing nutrient loads. Operation of these 

facilities will be vital to their success. Monitoring and short-term studies will be required to 

adaptively manage these facilities to meet environmental objectives. 

Research conducted within the context of an environmental protection program supports and 

informs adaptive management. Adaptive management is the iterative and deliberative process of 

applying the principles of scientific investigation to the design and implementation of a program 

to better understand the ecosystem and predict its response to implementation and to reduce key 

uncertainties. The basis of adaptive management is the use of feedback loops that iteratively 

feed new information into the decision-making process for planning, implementation, and 

assessment of project components. The three-year assessment, specified in the legislation, 

provides this feedback loop and ensures the incorporation of adaptive management in the River 

Watershed Protection Plans. 

Research for adaptive management uses a combination of models (conceptual to numeric) and 

observational and experimental studies to reduce uncertainty in the proposed TMDL and 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-26 

salinity/flow targets, improve the operations of water storage and water quality projects and 

increase predictive capability. The role of modeling is to provide a mechanism for synthesis, 

hypothesis specification, and preliminary testing, and to enhance predictive capability. 

9.4.6.1.5 Plan Updates and Revisions 

The coordinating agencies will prepare CRWPP updates and revisions, which may be necessary 

based on new information from PD&E, updated water quality and hydrologic data, and adaptive 

management. In addition, other agencies and the public will have the opportunity to provide 

input to the coordinating agencies in developing proposed changes through numerous public 

forums. A process for updating and revising the CRWPP throughout the various implementation 

stages is described below. 

9.4.6.1.5.1 Types of Updates and Revisions 

Revisions to the preferred Plan will be classified as minor or major, based on the following 

criteria: 

• Magnitude and nature of the proposed revisions (i.e., scope, schedule, budget); 

• Potential for the proposed revision to have environmental impacts that are significantly 

different from those previously considered by the coordinating agencies for the project; 

• Potential for the revision to impact the intent and purpose of the preferred Plan; and 

• If the revision requires SFWMD Governing Board approval. 

The classification of the revision will not necessarily determine the nature of any accompanying 

permit requirements that may be necessary. 

9.4.6.1.5.2 Process for Updates, Revisoins, and Reporting 

The following process is proposed for updating the CRWPP and reporting. 

• Monthly/Bi-monthly Coordinating Agency Meetings – This forum will be used to 

discuss progress of implementation, review new information and data, present proposals 

for revisions (minor and major) along with supporting documentation, and to seek review 

and comments. 

• Semi-annual Coordinating Agency Review – New information compiled as a result of 

the Interagency Coordinating Meetings and other agency and public input will be 

reviewed by SFWMD, FDEP, and FDACS. 

• Annual Report in the South Florida Environmental Report (SFER) – SFWMD will 

submit the required annual report in the SFER (a.k.a. Consolidated Water Management 

District Annual Report) to FDEP, the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. This annual report will summarize the status of 

research and monitoring, project implementation, and recommended revisions to the 

CRWPP. In addition, major updates and revisions to the plan will be identified and 

described in the annual report. The discussion will include a description of the need for 

the revision and its impacts on the CRWPP’s scope, schedule, budget, and objectives. 
Chapter 9 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

9-27 

Public comments received during the coordination of the proposed plan revision will also 

be noted in the annual report. 

• Annual Work Plan – The Annual Work Plan will be submitted for each fiscal year to 

FDEP, identifying the projects and funding necessary to implement those projects. 

• CRWPP Update –Every three years SFWMD, in cooperation with the coordinating 

agencies, will formally update, revise, and submit the CRWPP to the State Legislature. 

9.4.6.2 Public Involvement 

Public involvement will be sought regarding proposed updates and revisions to the CWRPP 

through discussion with the groups listed below. 

• Northern Everglades Interagency Coordinating Meetings – This forum will be used 

to discuss progress of implementation, review new information and data, present 

proposals for revisions (minor and major) along with supporting documentation, and to 

seek review and comments from the coordinating agencies, stakeholders, and the general 

public. 

• Water Resources Advisory Commission (WRAC) and Lake Okeechobee Committee 

Meetings – Regular updates will be provided to WRAC and the Lake Okeechobee 

Committee, which advises SFWMD Governing Board on a variety of environmental 

restoration and water resource management issues. WRAC also serves as a forum for 

improving public participation and decision-making on water resource issues. These 

meetings will be used to discuss progress of implementation and seek input from 

stakeholders, as well as the general public. 

• SFWMD Governing Board Meetings – Updates on progress of implementation and 

proposals for major revisions will be discussed as appropriate. This forum will provide 

an opportunity for input from stakeholders, as well as the general public. 

• Other public meetings, as necessary. 

9.4.7 Force Majeure 

Extraordinary events or circumstances beyond the control of the coordinating agencies may 

prevent or delay implementation of the preferred Plan. Such events may include, but are not 

limited to, Acts of Nature (including fire, flood, drought, hurricane, or other natural disaster), as 

well as unavoidable legal barriers or restraints, including litigation of permits for individual 

CRWPP projects. 

CHAPTER 10 

LITERATURE CITED

Chapter 10 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

10-1 

10.0 LITERATURE CITED 

Batiuk, R.A., Orth, R.J., Moore, W.C., Dennison, J.C., Stevenson, L.W., Staver, V., et al. (1992). 

Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic vegetation habitat requirements and restoration 

targets: A technical synthesis (Technical Report PB-93-196665/XAB). Annapolis, MD: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program. 

Bortone, S.A., & Turpin, R.K. (1999). Tape grass life history metrics associated with 

environmental variables in a controlled estuary. In S.A. Bortone (Ed.), Seagrasses: 

Monitoring, ecology, physiology, and management (pp. 65-79). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

Burns and McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (2008). Interim Draft Report on the S-4 Basin 

Feasibility Study (March 2008). Kansas City, MO: Foster. 

Carter, V., Barko, J.W., Godshalk, G.L., & Rybicki, N.B. (1988). Effects of submersed 

Macrophytes on water quality in the tidal Potomac River, MD. Journal of Freshwater 

Ecology, 4(4), 493-501. 

Chamberlain, R.H. (2005). Caloosahatchee Estuary Hydrologic Evaluation Performance 

Measures (C-43 Basin Storage Reservoir Project) (C-43 BSR Study Team Adopted Draft). 

West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District. 

Chamberlain, R.H. (2008). Written Communication to the South Florida Watershed Management 

District (March). West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District.

Chamberlain, R.H., & Doering P.H. (1998a). Freshwater inflow to the Caloosahatchee estuary 

and the resource-based method for evaluation (Technical Report No. 98-02). Punta Gorda, 

FL: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Retrieved September 18, 

 2008, from http://www.chnep.org/info/Symposium97/9802-12.pdf 

Chamberlain, R.H., & Doering P.H. (1998b). Preliminary estimate of optimum freshwater inflow 

to the Caloosahatchee estuary: A resource-based approach (Technical Report No. 98-02). 

Punta, Gorda, FL: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Retrieved September 18, 

2008, from http://www.chnep.org/info/Symposium97/9802-15.pdf 

Chamberlain, R.H., & Doering, P.H. (2000). Experimental studies on the salinity tolerance of 

Turtle Grass, Thalassia testudinum. In S.A. Bortone (Ed.), Seagrasses: Monitoring, ecology, 

physiology, and management (pp. 81-98). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 

Chamberlain, R.H., & Doering, P.H. (2004). Recommended Flow Distribution (the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary and the C-43 basin Storage Reservoir Project) (Technical 

Memorandum). West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District. 

Chamberlain, R.H., & Doering, P.H. (2005). Water quality in the Caloosahatchee estuary: status, 

trends and derivation of potential Chlorophyll a goals and associated total nitrogen 

(Deliverable Report 1, Grant CZ515). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Coastal Management Program. 
Chapter 10 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

10-2 

Chamberlain, R.H., Haunert, D.E., Doering, P.H., Haunert, K.M., & Otero, J.M. (1995). 

Preliminary estimate of optimum freshwater inflow to the Caloosahatchee estuary, Florida

(Technical Report). West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District. 

Charlotte County Public Works. (2008). Public Works: Stormwater Management. Retrieved 

September 18, 2008, from: http://charlottecountyfl.com/PublicWorks/stormwater/index.asp 

Corbett, C. A. & Hale, J.A. (2006). Development of water quality targets for Charlotte Harbor, 

Florida using seagrass light requirements. Florida Scientist, 69(2), 36-50. 

Davis, J.H. Jr. (1940). The ecology and geologic role of mangroves in Florida. Carnegie Institute, 

Washington, D.C. Publication 517. Tortugas Laboratory Papers, 32, 302-412. 

Dawes, C.J. (1998). Marine Botany. Second Edition. New York, NY: John Wiley Sons, Inc. 

Day, J.W., Hall, C.A.S., Kemp, W.M., & Yanez-Arancibia, A. (1989). Estuarine Ecology. New 

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

DeGrove, B.D. (1981). Caloosahatchee River Wasteload Allocation Documentation (No. 52). 

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Water Quality, Tech. Ser. 

Dennison, W.C., Orth, R.J., Moore, K.A., Stevenson, J.C., Carter, V., Kollar, S., et al. (1993). 

Assessing water quality with submerged aquatic vegetation: habitat requirements as 

barometers of Chesapeake Bay health. BioScience, 43, 86-94. 

Doering, P.H., Chamberlain, R.H., Donohue, K.M., & Steinman, A.D. (1999). Effect of salinity 

on the growth of Vallisneria americana Michx. from the Caloosahatchee estuary, Florida.

Florida Scientist, 62(2), 89-105. 

Doering, P.H., Chamberlain, R.H., & Haunert, D.E. (2002). Using submerged aquatic vegetation 

to establish minimum and maximum freshwater inflows to the Caloosahatchee estuary 

(Florida). Estuaries, 25, 1343-1354. 

Doering, P.H., Chamberlain, R.H., & Haunert, K.M. (2006). Chlorophyll a and its use as an 

indicator of eutrophication in the Caloosahatchee Estuary, Florida. Florida Scientist Special 

Issue: Charlotte Harbor. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from 

http://www.chnep.org/info/FloridaScientist/flsc-69-2S-051.pdf 

Doering, P.H., Chamberlain, R.H., & McMunigal, J.M. (2001). Effects of simulated saltwater 

intrusion on the growth and survival of Wild Celery, Vallisneria americana, from the 

Caloosahatchee estuary (South Florida). Estuaries 24(6A): 894-903. 

Drew, R.D., & Schomer, N.S. (1984). An ecological characterization of the Caloosahatchee 

River Big Cypress watershed (Technical Report FWS/OBS-82/58-2). Washington, DC: 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Chapter 10 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

10-3 

Dynamic Solutions, LLC. (2007). A 3D Hydrodynamic Model of the Caloosahatchee for 

Operation Applications. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from 

http://www.dsllc.com/hydraulics-hydrodynamics.htm 

Fan, A., (1986). A routing model for the Upper Kissimmee Chain of Lakes (Technical Publication 

86-5). Kissimee, FL: South Florida Water Management District. 

Fonseca, M.S., & Fisher, J.S. (1986). A comparison of canopy friction and sediment movement 

between four species of seagrass with reference to their ecology and restoration. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series, 29, 15-22. 

Gunter, G., & Geyer, A. (1955). Studies of foulding organisms in the northeastern Gulf of 

Mexico. Public Institute of Marine Science, University of Texas, 4, 39-67. 

Hamrick, J.M. (1996). User’s manual for the environmental fluid dynamics computer code 

(Special Report No. 331 in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering). Gloucester 

Point, VA: Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 

Harper, H.H. (2007). Proceedings from the Seventh Biennial Conference on Stormwater 

Research and Watershed Management: Current research and trends in alum treatment of 

stormwater runoff. Orlando, Florida: UCF Stormwater Management Academy. 

Harris, B.A., Hadda, K.D., Steidinger, K.A., & Huff, J.A. (1983). Assessment of fisheries habitat: 

Charlotte Harbor and Lake Worth, Florida. St. Petersburg, FL: Florida Department of 

Natural Resources: Bureau of Marine Research. 

Heyl, M.G. (1998). Hypoxia in upper Charlotte harbor (Technical Report No. 98-02). North Ft. 

Meyers, FL: Charlotte Harbor Estuary Program. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from 

 http://www.chnep.org/info/Symposium97/9802-24.pdf 

Hoffacker, V. A. 1994. Caloosahatchee River submerged grass observation during 1993. W. 

Dexter Bender and Associates, Inc. Letter-report and map to Chip Meriam, SFWMD. 

James, R. T., Bierman, V. J., Jr., Erickson, M. J. & Hinz, S. C. (2005). The Lake Okeechobee 

water quality model (LOWQM) enhancements, calibration, validation and analysis. Lake 

and Reservoir Management. 21, 231-260. 

James, R.T., & Zhang, J. (2008). Lake Okeechobee Protection Program: State of the Lake and 

Watershed. (2008 South Florida Environmental Report, Volume 1, Chapter 10). West Palm 

Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District. 

Killgore, K.J., Morgan, R.P. II, & Rybicki, N.B. (1989). Distribution and abundance of fishes 

associated with submersed aquatic plants in the Potomac River. North American Journal 

 of Fisheries Management, 9, 101-111. 

Kimes, C.A., & Crocker, L.C. (1998). The Caloosahatchee River and its watershed (Historical 

overview). Fort Myers, FL: Florida Gulf Coast University Library Services. 
Chapter 10 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

10-4 

Knight, R.K. (2008). Written Communication to the South Florida Watershed Management 

District (August). Gainesville, FL: Wetland Solutions, Inc.

Kraemer, G.P., Chamberlain, R.H., Doering, P.H., Steinman, A.D., & Hanisak, M.D. (1999). 

Physiological response of transplants of the freshwater angiosperm Vallisneria americana

along a salinity gradient in the Caloosahatchee estuary (SW Florida). Estuaries, 22, 138-

148. 

Lapointe, B.E. & Bedford, B.J. (2006). Drift Rhodophyte blooms emerge in Lee County, FL: 

Evidence of escalating coastal eutrophication. Retrieved September 18, 2008, from 

 http://www.leewaterfacts.com/pdf/Red_Drift_Report.pdf 

LaRose, H.R., & McPherson, B.F. (1983). Chemical and hydrologic assessment of the 

Caloosahatchee River basin, Lake Okeechobee to Franklin Lock, Florida (Water Resources 

Investigations Report 83-4123). Tallahassee, FL: United States Geological Survey. 

Retrieved September 18, 2008, from http://library.fgcu.edu/caloo/rose20.pdf 

Lewis, R.R.III, & Estevez, E.D. (1988). The ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: an estuarine profile

(Technical Report BR 85(7.18)). Washington, DC: United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 

MacNae, W. (1968). A general account of the fauna and flora of mangrove swamps and forests in 

the Indo-West-Pacific region. Advances Marine Biology, 6, 73-270. 

McPherson, B.F. & Miller, R.L. (1994). Causes of light attenuation in Tampa Bay and Charlotte 

Harbor Southwestern Florida. Water Resources Bulletin, 30:43-53. 

Newman, S., Schutte, J., Grace, J.B., Rutchey, K., Fontaine, T., Reddy, K.R., & Pietrucha, M. 

(1998). Factors influencing cattail abundance in the northern Everglades. Aquatic Botany,

60(3):256-280.

Odum, W.E., McIvor, C.C., & Smith, T.J. III. (1982). The ecology of the mangroves of South 

 Florida: a community profile (Technical Report FWS/OBS 81-24). Washington, D.C.: US 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from 

http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/reports/fws-obs-81-24/fws-obs-81-24.pdf 

Phillips, R.C. (1960). Observations on the ecology and distribution of the Florida seagrasses. 

Marine Research Laboratory Professional Papers Series No.2. St. Petersburg, FL: Florida 

State Board of Conservation. 

Restoration Coordination & Verification. (2007). Northern Estuaries performance measure oyster 

habitat (CERP System-wide Performance Measure Documentation Sheet). Jacksonville, FL: 

United States Army Corps of Engineers. Retrieved June 2008, from 

http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/recover/recover_docs/et/ne_pm_oysterhabitat.pdf 

Smajstrla, A. G. (1990). Agricultural field scale irrigation requirements simulation (AFSIRS) 

model, Version 5.5 (Technical Manual). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 
Chapter 10 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

10-5 

Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. (2008). Nutrient Loading Rates, Reduction Factors 

and Implementation Costs Associated with BMPs and Technologies Preliminary Report 

(DRAFT) (First Rev.). West Palm Beach, FL: Author. 

South Florida Water Management District. (2000). Technical documentation to support 

development of minimum flows and levels for the Caloosahatchee River and estuary. West 

Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District. 

South Florida Water Management District. (2003a). Technical documentation to support 

development of minimum flows and levels for the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary (Status 

Update Report). West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District. 

South Florida Water Management District. (2003b). Existing Legal Sources for the 

Caloosahatchee Estuary at the Franklin Lock and Dam (S-79) (Technical Report). West 

Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District. 

South Florida Water Management District. (2006). Caloosahatchee Estuary and Charlotte 

Harbor Conceptual Model. Retrieved June 2008, from 

http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/studies/study_docs/swfl/swffs_cems_caloosahatchee_b.p

df. 

South Florida Water Management District. (2007). Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan Evaluation 

Report (Lake Okeechobee Protection Program). Retrieved July 2008, from 

http://stormwaterauthority.org/assets/sta.pdf. 

South Florida Water Management District. (2008). Draft South Florida Environmental Report.

West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District. 

South Florida Water Management District, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. (2007) Lake Okeechobee 

Watershed Construction Project, Phase II Technical Plan. West Palm Beach, FL: South 

Florida Water Management District. 

South Florida Water Management District. (2008). Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology 

Facility Tour. West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water Management District. 

Stevenson, J.C., Staver, L.W., & Staver, K.W. (1993). Water quality associated with survival of 

submersed aquatic vegetation along an estuarine gradient. Estuaries, 16, 346-361. 

Tomasko, D.A., Dawes, C.J., & Hall, M.O. (1996). The effects of anthropogenic nutrient 

enrichment on turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Estuaries, 19, 

448-456. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers. (2007). Revised tentatively selected plan: Lake 

 Okeechobee regulation schedule study: Overview & update. Retrieved September 18, 

 2008, from http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/cco/docs/lorss/LORSS_Factsht_Aug2007.pdf 
Chapter 10 

Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan January 2009 

10-6 

United States Army Corps of Engineers. (2008a). Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule: Record 

of decision. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from 

http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/cco/docs/lorss/Approval_ROD.pdf 

United States Army Corps of Engineers. (2008b). News release No. 0831: Corps approves 2008 

Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule. Retrieved September 17, 2008, from 

http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/cco/newsReleases/2008/NR0831.pdf 

United States Army Corps of Engineers & South Florida Water Management District. (2007). 

Central and Southern Florida Project, Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage 

Reservoir (Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and Environmental Impact 

Statement). Jacksonville, FL: United States Army Corps of Engineers. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Amendment to fact sheet for Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection municipal separate storm sewer system 

application for permit to discharge to Waters of the State. Retrieved June 21, 2008, from 

http://www.epa.gov/npdescan/FLS000035FS.pdf 

Untied States Fish and Wildlife Service. (1984). An Ecological Characterization of the 

Caloosahatchee River/Big Cypress Watershed. Retrieved June 2008, from 

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/ESPIS/3/3852.pdf. 

Volety, A.K., Tolley, S.G., & Winstead, J.T. (2003). Effects of seasonal and water quality 

parameters on oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and associated fish populations in the 

Caloosahatchee River: Final contract report (C-12412) to the South Florida Water 

Management District. Ft. Myers, FL: Florida Gulf Coast University. 

Wan, Y., Labadie, J.W., Konyha, K.G., & Conboy, T. (2006). Optimization of frequency 

distribution of storm-water discharges for coastal ecosystem restoration. Journal of Water 

Resources Planning and Management, 132(5), 320-329. 

Watershed Technologies, Inc. (2007). Implementation of Hybrid Wetland Treatment Technology 

in the St. Lucie and Lake Okeechobee Watersheds. January 21. 

Wilcox, W.M., & Konyha, K. G. (2003). Calibration of the Caloosahatchee (C43) Basin 

AFSIRS/WATBAL model for use in modeling select Lake Okeechobee Service Area basins in V5.0 of 

the South Florida Water Management Model. West Palm Beach, FL: South Florida Water 

Management District.