Title: Identification of Priority Water Bodies within the SFWMD
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00000854/00001
 Material Information
Title: Identification of Priority Water Bodies within the SFWMD
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: A report prepared by South Florida Water Management District for the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation in Compliance with Rule 17-43 December 17, 1987
General Note: Box 7, Folder 3 ( Vail Conference 1988 - 1988 ), Item 25
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00000854
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text

A report prepared by


South Florida Water Managenient District
for the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation

in Compliance with Rule 17-43
December 17, 1987

Identification of Priority Water Bodies within the SFWMD

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................. ......................... 1
Methods ...................... ..................... ................ 2
Inventory and Data Base ................ ................... 2
Agency meetings .............................................. 2
Public M meetings. ... ....................................... 2
Public Survey ............. ......................... ........ 5
Initial Classification............................. ................. 5
Priority-Setting Process. ......................................... 5
Availability of Data., ........................................ 5
Restoration vs. Preservation. .............................. 5
Ranking Steps .............................................. 7
Results ................................................................ 8
Discussion ...................... .... .... ...................... 12
Comparison with Rule Criteria. .. .. ........................ 12
Water Quality ........ ................. 12
Biological and Physical Conditio ................... 14
Threats to Water Supplies an d ................14
Protection of Outstandin 15
Local Government Pa ........15
Fine Tuning Factors. ..... .. '- ,4... ........... 16
Position in the Water em ............ 16
Adequacy of Existing ............ 16
Feasibility. ...................... 16
Geographic Distribution. i .. .......... 16
References ........................... 1 ........ 17


Appendix A-- Inventory of surface water bodi ~ling
a Listing of all Water Bodies and wmapiolg
their locations.
Appendix B-- Mailing List and copy of the letter that was sent to local
governments and special Interests groups.
Appendix C-- Summary of responses from the public survey and copies of the
letters received.
Appendix D-- Report of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
on use and critical habitat data.
Appendix E-- List of water bodies that were excluded from the ranking
process due to lack of data

3.11










Identification of Priority Water Bodies within the SFWMD


List of Figures

Figure 1. SFWMD SWIM Priority Setting Process .......................... 3
Figure 2. Rule 17-43--Part II .......................................... 13



List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Agency Responses to SWIM Priority Survey 12/8/87 ..... 4
Table 2. Local Government/Concerned Citizens SWIM Priorities 12/14/87 ..... 6
Table 3. Basis for Calculation of Trophic State Index (TSI) ................ 7
Table 4. Criteria Used for Ranking of Wetlands ............................ 8
Table 5. Example of Calculations used to Determine Ranking of Lakes on the
Restoration List ............................................ 9
Table 6. Ranked Listing, Based on Total Adjusted Scores, of All Water
Bodies that were Evaluated in the SWIM Priority-Setting
Process .......................... ................. 10
Table 7. Relative Ranking, by Type, of SFWMD Water Bodies for
Preservation and Restoration ............................. 11
Table 8. Problem areas within the SFWMD showing water quality Improve-
ments (based on the study by Hand, et al., 1986). ........... 14
Table 9. Problem areas showing water quality degradation (based on the
study by Hand, et al., 1986) ............................... 14
Table 10. Water Bodies that do not meet their designated use (based on
the study by Hand,etal. 1986). .......................... 15


i









Identification of Priority Water Bodies within the SFWMD


Introduction
In 1987, the Florida Legislature adopted the Surface Water Improvement and
Management (SWIM) act (CS/HB 1350). This legislation identifies certain high
priority water bodies throughout the state, requires the water management
districts to develop management plans for each of these water bodies, and
establishes the SWIM trust fund to provide financial support for these planning and
management activities. As part of this legislation, the South Florida Water
Management District is required to complete four tasks during FY 87-88. Three of
these tasks are to develop management plans for the three high-priority water
bodies within the district that are identified by the legislation -- Indian River
Lagoon, Biscayne Bay and Lake Okeechobee. The fourth task is to develop a priority
listing of other water bodies that will be addressed by future SWIM activities. The
FDER developed rule 17-43, in October, 1987, that specifies the criteria that are to
be used by the water management districts to establish water body priorities, the
format for SWIM management plans and procedures for the release of monies from
the SWIM Trust Fund.
The legislation indicates that the priority-setting process must be completed
by March 1, 1988 and that management plans for the water bodies should provide
the basis for any future funding requests from the legislature. Water Management
Districts are requested to provide funding requests for legislative consideration by
September, 1988 and each September thereafter.
The legislation further requires that the priority-setting process and the
development of management plans must be conducted in cooperation with the
other state agencies--notably the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
(FDER), Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) and the Florida Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission (FGFWFC). The FDER has a 30-day period to review the
prioritized list of water bodies and a 60-day period for review of management
plans. The process must incorporate public input, including a public hearing.
This report describes the process that was used to develop the initial
prioritized list of water bodies within the SFWMD that was submitted for DER
review in December 1988. Because of the schedule that was developed by the
legislature, this process was executed in a very short period of time. This process
attempted to integrate available water quality data, professional opinion of agency
staff experts; and the results of a public survey to address technical, political and
social issues in a balanced manner. This list has several limitations as follows:
a) This initial list is not complete. The list that was generated by this analysis
represents a first pass at establishing priorities for future SWIM planning and
management efforts. Only those water bodies for which the District had sufficient
data were evaluated. Many other water bodies were not evaluated because data
were not currently available at the District. Efforts will be made during the next
several weeks to acquire additional data so that more water bodies can be included
in the ranking process before the final list is submitted in March.
b) This list is not a schedule for next year's activities. The list represents an
initial ordering of water bodies for future planning and management activities, but
does not establish a schedule for when these water bodies wil be addressed. No
time frame has been determined for completion of any SWIM plans except for the
plans for Lake Okeechobee, Biscayne Bay and the Indian River Lagoon.
c) The positions of water bodies on these lists may change. The relative
ranking of these water bodies may change during the next few weeks due to three
conditions: 1) more water bodies may be added to the ranking process, 2)
Additional data may be provided to change the assessments, and/or 3) consideration

-1-

3.i3






SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


of other factors, such as the fine-tuning factors that are described in the discussion,
may change the final ranking.
Methods

Inventory and Data Base. The process that was used to establish priorities is
diagrammed in Figure 1. The first step in the priority-setting process was to develop
a comprehensive inventory of water bodies within the SFWMD. Each water body
was classified by type as a canal, stream, lake, estuary or wetland. The inventory
included a listing of the size (in acres) of each lake, estuary and wetland (if known)
and the county in which the centroid of the water body was located. Canals, rivers
and streams were assigned a size of 0. The data base that was associated with this
inventory contained the following information concerning each water body: a)
whether the water body was listed as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW); b) the
FDER classification (I, II or III); and c) available data for each water body, as
identified from several sources. The primary sources of data were reports by
Canfield (1981); Baker, Brezonik, and Kratzer (1981); Hand, Tauxe and Watts
(1986); and water quality data collected by the SFWMD.
In addition to the data base, locations of water bodies in the inventory were
marked on county base maps and each water body was assigned a unique
classification number based on a two-letter designation for the county and a
sequential numeric listing within that county.
The initial inventory contained more than 380 individual water bodies. Based
on agency recommendations and public input, the number of entries in this data
base was modified continually during the priority-setting process. The first step was
to add water bodies to the list that were suggested by agencies, local governments,
and concerned citizens. The next step was to link all streams, rivers and canals to an
associated lake, wetland or estuary that was its primary receiving body or
headwaters. The third step was to group associated tributaries and linked water
bodies into larger systems. Each such system consists of a number of discrete water
bodies that should be considered together as a management unit. The fourth step
was to divide the inventory into three lists, based on water body type--Lakes,
Wetlands and Estuaries. The final water body inventory listing consisted of 384
individual water bodies including 126 Lakes, 57 estuaries, 27 wetlands and 174
canals, rivers or streams. These water bodies were grouped into 157 management
units. A listing of all water bodies in the inventory and the mapped locations of
these water bodies are included in Appendix A to this report.
Agency meetings. Personnel from various state agencies were requested to
participate in the SWIM priority-setting process. The first meeting was held on
November 19 at SFWMD headquarters and was attended by representatives of DER,
DNR and FGFWFC. At these meetings, the priority process was outlined and a
proposed procedure was developed for the ranking of water bodies. Each attendee
was asked to review the data base and maps and to provide a listing of water bodies
that should be considered for restoration and for preservation. Results of this
survey of agency personnel are summarized in Table 1.
A second meeting was held on December 8, 1987, to review the results of the
survey. District staff had also developed a preliminary ranking of water bodies and
this list was reviewed by the other agencies. A more detailed procedure for ranking
of water bodies was outlined to incorporate the requirements of rule 17-43.
Agencies agreed to provide the District with data to assist in the ranking process.
Public Meetings. Public input on the SWIM priority-setting process was
solicited at two public meetings, which were held in conjunction with the agency

-2-

3.14







Figure 1. SFWMD SWIM PRIORITY-SETTING PROCESS


PUBLIC/STATE AGENCY 1
SURVEY RESULTS


-3-
5. 15"







SFWMD SWIM Priorities-Report


Table 1. Summary of Agency Responses to SWIM Priority Survey 12/8/87
Water Body Por R Po PorR Por R DER-- Florida
Kissimmee River Basin I W bept. of
Lake Tohopekaliga R-GFC Environmental
East Lake Tohopekaliga RIF Regulation--Staff
Lakes Kissimmee, Cypress, members
Hatchineha
Arbuckle Creek R-DER DNR--Florida
Lake Istokpoga P-DER C -ept. of Natural
Carter Creek P-ER Resources--Staff
Lake Okeechobee member
Fisheating Creek PDER PDER OEi .-
Caloosahatchee River/San R -M F--n Freshwater
Carlos Bay, RDER R*D5 S R MML R-DER and Freshwater
Telegraph Swamp PDER -Fish Commission-
Coastal OFWs--Lee County PDER -Agency
Manmade Canals SW Fla Representative
R-DER S-DER O-DNR
(GGE, Cape Coral) FWS-United States
Cape Coral Wilderness Area P-DNR -- Fish and Wildlife
Pine Island Sound P-DNR Service-Staff
Estero Bay R-DNR Member
--- = == Member
Six Mile Canal/Mullock Creek R -DNR
Estero Bay-Hendry Creek PDER R-DNR MML--Mote Marine
Imperial River -DNR laboratory
Spring Creek PDNR Scientist
Estero River P-DUR
Lake Trafford R_ R-6 IGFC
Biq Cvypress National Preserve R 1R 1 -D ERS P-FS
Naples Bay R -DER
Fakahatchee Strand/Pumpkin DE PDER P-
Bay
Everalades EP-DER
Water Conservation Areas -ER
Water Conservation Area 1 P-
Water Conservation Area 21 PW RER P-GF
Water Conservation Area 3 W I Bl P-GFC
Everlades ationPk PlW --
East Everl
Florida Bay PER P-D IOER-
Florida KYse Tract IDEl PDE
Garrison Bight-Key West E
Boot Key Harbor-Marathon RDE
Hillsboro Inlet/Canal R-DER
Lake Worth 1RDER WI D *DER --
Lake Osborne 15R R -
Lake Ida R-DER
Indian River R-FWS
Loxahatchee River System PDEI P-DER R-DEI
St Lucie/Martin Savannahs P-DES PDE I


-4-

3. It






SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


meetings. Agency representatives, local and county government staff and members
of conservation groups were invited to attend the first meeting. The intent of the
SWIM legislation was outlined and information was presented concerning the
history of management efforts in the Indian River lagoon. The prioritization
process was discussed next, including the results of the first agency meeting.
Attendees were asked to provide their insights and concerns regarding the SWIM
program and their suggestions of water bodies that should be considered in the
priority-setting process.
All of the recipients of the public survey (see below) were invited to attend
the second meeting. An updated list and maps of water bodies were provided,
along with an outline of a proposed ranking procedure. Discussion at this meeting
focused on the ranking process, various factors that needed to be considered in this
process and the appropriate weights that should be applied to water quality, FDER
classification, public use, and critical habitat. Once again, participants were asked
to provide their insights into the SWIM effort and any suggestions for water bodies
that should be considered in the priority-setting process.
Public Survey. Public input was also requested by mai rs were sent to
336 local government entities, civic groups, conservation g s and concerned
citizens requesting their suggestions of water bodies for consideration in the SWIM
process. The letters were accompanied by a copy of the inventory and a set of maps.
Recipients were asked to review the database and make additions or corrections.
Each respondent was asked to identify five water bodies that would be suitable for
restoration and five water bodies that would be suitable for preservation, and was
invited to attend the second public meeting at the SFWMD on December 8. Results
of this survey are summarized in Table 2. A mailing list for this letter and a copy of
the letter are included in Appendix B to this report. Appendix C includes a copy of
Each of the responses from this survey
Initial Classification. The next step in the sorting process was to identify
water bodies that were publicly owned. FDNR staff indicated for their assessments
that any water body that is more than 140 acres is assumed to be in public
ownership. Some water bodies less than 140 acres may be publicly owned, but
verification of ownership would require a title search. The threshold of 140 acres
was established as an indicator of public ownership of the water body. All
Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW's) were assumed to public access and ownership.
Priority-Setting Process. The process that was used by the SFWMD to
establish priorities for water bodies was based on consideration of four factors as
follows: a) water quality of lakes and estuaries or general condition of wetlands; b)
DER classification (1, II or III) based on water use or designation as an OFW; c) Public
use of the water body; and d) presence or absence of habitats that are critical to the
survival of threatened or endangered species or other significant wildlife resources.
Availability of Data. In all cases, the ability to complete the priority setting
process for a water body is based on availability of data. If no data are available for
one of these factors, the water body is removed from the process. If additional data
become available at a later time for these factors, the water body will be placed
back into the priority-setting process and its relative position will be re-calculated.
Restoration vs. Prevtion. The first step in the process was to determine
whether the water body was a candidate for restoration or a candidate for
preservation/ enhancement. For lakes and estuaries, this assessment was based on
the Trophic State Index (TSI) value. TSI was used by the FDER in the report by Hand,
Tauxe and Watts (1986), and was developed by FDER based on the method
- developed by Carlson (1977). The index is based on secchi disc depth,


-5-

1.117







SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


Table 2. Local Government/Concemed Citizens SWIM Priorities 12/14/87

Water Body PorRP or RP or R Water Body P or Ror RP orR
Miami Canal R-City BiscayneBay R- NIB
Sanibel Interior Wetlands P-City_ Key Largo -ASE


C-14, Pompano;Cypress
Creek Canal System


R-Br


C-13, Middle River Canal R-Br
South Fork New River-Dania R-Br
Cutoff Canal System
West Lake Estuary System R-Br
Tradewinds Park cypress/ P-Br
maple swamp
Fern Forest P-Br
Everglades buffer strip P-Br
Manatee Pocket R-Ma
South Fork St. Lucie River R-Ma P-TPC
North Fork St. Lucie River R-Ma RTPC
Loxahatchee River/LW Creek RI-Ma RPC P-PB
Savannahs R-Ma P-SL
Naples Bay/Gordon Pass R-Co R-TO
Golden Gate Canal/Upper R-TOa
Gordon River
Barefoot Beach P-Co P-TO
Wiggins Bay/Wiggins Park P-Co P*-TO
Little Hickory Bay P-Co PVT
West Cocohatchee R. P-TO
Inner-Outer Clam Bay P-Co P-TO
Rookery Bay/Dollar Bay P-co P-TO
Cape Romano/lOK Islands/ p.Co P-TO
Collier Seminole State Park
Fakahatchee Strand/GGE/ P-Co P-TO
Okalaocoochee Slough
Lake Trafford/Corkscrew RCo P-TO
Marsh
Bird Rookery Swamp P-TO
Big Cypress National Pres. -AS PT
NNR Canal/Port Everglades City
Hillsboro Canal and Inlet ty
C-10 Canal ty
rugh Taylor Birch Recreation ty
Area C
John U. Lloyd State Park City
Six Mile Cypress P-Le
IRL Areas R-SL
East Everglades R-Da
Transitional NE Everglades P-Da
Southeast Saline Glades P De
ird Drive/Pennsuco Wetland P-Da
Water Cons Area 1 -TPC ASE PB
Water Cons. Area 2A RTPC R-PB


John Pennekamp


P-ASE


C-51/L4-Lake Worth A W -
Loxahatchee/Hungryland p.
CorbettAreea jF
Holeyland/fRotenberger R.P -


East Central Wetlands


P-P I


Chain o LakesMdahbborr)|PB I

P a Preserve
R = Restore


Counties:Br = Broward
Ma Martin
Co Collier
Le Lee
SL St. Lucie
Da = Dade
PB a Palm Beach
Po a Polk

Other: Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council (TPC)
Biscayne Bay National Park
(BNP)
Audubon Society of the
Everglades (ASE)
The Conservancy, Inc. (TCI)

Cities: Medley
Sanibel
Fort Lauderdale


-6-

:54 1






SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


concentrations of Chlorophyll a, and either total nitrogen, or total phosphorus. The
procedure for calculation of TSI is shown in Table 3. The TSI value is based on
Table 3. Basis for Calculation of Trophic State Index (TSI).
Chi a SD TP 'TN TSI EQuations that generate these criteria:
STSI luam/1) V (mVo LW CHLa= 16.8 +14.4 xLOG(CHLa)
1T0 0 00 SD60 30 x LOG(SD)
10 0.6 5.3 0.005 0.10 TN = 56 + 19.8 x LOG (TN)
S20 1.3 3.8 0.009 0.16 TP= 18.6 xLOG(TPx 1000)- 18.4
30 2.5 2.7 0.01 0.27 where LOG a Natural Log
40 5.0 2.0 0.02 0.45
50 10 0 1.4 0.04 0.70 Limitinr nutrient concentrations to calculate TSI-NUT:
60 20.0 1.0 0.07 1.2 If TN/TP > 30.then NUTTP
70 40.0 0.7 0.12 2.0 if TNITP < 10, then NUT= TN
80 80 0.5 0.20 3.4 If 10 < TN/TP < 30,then NUT= (TP + TN)/2
90 160 0.4 0.34 5.6 where TN/TP is the limiting nutrient ratio
100 320 0.3 0.58 ,9.3

primary production and the potential ability of nutrient levels to sustain this
production. TSI had the additional value of being available for a large number of
lakes and estuaries within the SFWMD. The FDER has established that TSI values
from 0 to 59 constitute good water quality conditions, 60 to 69 constitute fair
conditions, and values from 70 to 100 constitute poor water quality conditions for
lakes. The criteria for estuaries were established at lower levels -- 0 to 49 is good; 50
to 59 is fair, and 60 to 100 is poor. Using these standards, water bodies with good
water quality were identified for preservationlenhancement and water bodies with
fair to poor quality were identified for restoration.
TSI values were not available for wetland systems. In addition, these values
were not felt to constitute a valid measure of water quality for wetlands, since
much of the productivity occurs in aquatic macrophytes and emergent plant species.
Wetlands were therefore classified for preservation or restoration by agency
biologists, based on consideration of the following definitions:
Preservation -- includes wetlands that have significant remaining natural
plant and wildlife communities.
Restoration -- areas that have undergone significant degradation and/or
natural communities have been extensively replaced by
exotic or other undesirable species.
The result of this Initial ranking step-was the creation of six lists of water
bodies including a restoration list and a preservation list for each of the three types
of water bodies.
Ranking Steps. The next series of steps in the priority-setting process
established the relative position of water bodies within each list. These steps are
shown in greater detail in Figure 2. For wetlands, this internal ranking was based on
the expert opinion of biologists from the SFWMD and the FGFWFC. Factors that
were considered to develop this relative ranking for wetlands are shown in Table 4.
A scoring technique was used to develop relative rankings for lakes and
estuaries, based on four factors -- water quality, DER class, public use, and critical
habitats. Each of these factors was assigned a relative weight. Water quality of the
water body was based on the TSI values and was assigned a weight of 0.4. DER
classification was assigned a relative weight of 0.1. Public use was based on data
that were provided by the FGFWFC and DNR (a copy of the FGFWFC report is
included as Appendix 6) and was assigned a relative weight of 0.25 Critical habitats
for threatened and endangered species and other significant wildlife were provided
by the FGFWFC and DNR and were assigned a weight of 0.25. Each water body on


-7-

35.1q







SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


Table 4. Criteria Used for Ranking of Wetlands
1. Size--larger areas were placed higher on both the the preservation list and the
restoration list than smaller areas
2. Location relative to the water management system--Areas that receive
discharge waters from upstream sources are more threatened and were placed
higher on the lists than those that are located in or near recharge areas.
3. Degree of ecological problems or threats (such as agricultural or urban
development pressure, excessive use, invasion by exotic species, uncontrolled
fires, etc)--Areas with more problems were placed higher on the lists
4. Perceived adequacy of existing management/protection--areas with
inadequate protection were placed higher on the lists than areas with
adequate protection

each list was ranked on the basis of each of the four factors. The ranked position of
the water body within each of the lists was adjusted to a standard score based on a
100-point range. The standard score was multiplied by the weighting factor to
calculate a weighted score. An example of these calculations for the restoration list
for lakes is provided in Table 5. Weighted scores for each of the four factors for
each water body were then summed to produce a final score for that water body.
Water bodies with the lowest weighted scores were placed highest on the
restoration priority list. This process was repeated for the remaining five lists.
Results

The 1987 legislative session established Lake Okeechobee, Biscayne Bay and
the Indian River Lagoon as the three highest-priority water bodies for development
of SWIM plans in the SFWMD. The ranking process described above was applied to
determine how other water bodies within the District rank below these three
highest-priority areas.
Results of the priority analyses are presented in Tables 6 and 7. Of the total
list of 157 management units listed in the inventory, only 37 met all of the initial
screening criteria and had sufficient data available to complete the priority-setting
process. A list of the water bodies that did not complete the ranking process is
provided in Appendix E. The overall rankings of these 37 water bodies, plus the
three "number one" water bodies established by the legislature, are presented in
Table 6. In Table 7, the 37 water bodies are divided into preservation and
restoration groups for each of the three types--estuaries, lakes and wetlands and
water bodies are listed in order, from high to low priority, within each group.
Among the 40 water bodies that were ranked in Table 6, Everglades National
Park received the highest rank (4). East Lake Tohopekaliga ranked fifth and Lake
Tohopekaliga ranked sixth. Lake Weohyakapka and Water Conservation Area 3A
were tied for seventh position. Water Conservation Area 1 and the Big Cypress
Preserve ranked ninth and tenth, respectively. The highest ranked estuary was the
Florida Keys, which ranked in position 14. The five lowest-ranked water bodies
were Lake Marian, the Corbett Area, Three Lakes Ranch, Fish lake and Everglades
Water Conservation Area 2B; which ranked 36,37,38,39 and 40, respectively.
The listings in Table 7 include eleven lakes on the preservation list and five
lakes on the restoration list. The eleven lakes include one lake (Butler) in Orange
County, one lake (Trafford) in Collier County, four lakes (Arbuckle, Weohyakapka,
Rosalie and Pierce) in Polk County, and five lakes (Tohopekaliga, Kissimmee,
Jackson, Alligator and Fish) in Osceola County. Lakes that were ranked 1, 2, 3 and
five on the restoration list (Tohopekaliga, Cypress,'and Hatchineha and Marian) are

-8-
d3.20







SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


Table 5. Example of Calculations that were Used to Determine Ranking of Lakes
on the Restoration List.


Water Quality (TSI)

Lake* TSI Rnk Adj Weght
Score* Store?

LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA 73 2 40 16
CYPRESS LAKE 78 1 20 8
LAKE HATCHINEHA 69 3 60 24
LAKE ISTOKPOGA 62 S 100 40
LAKE MARIAN 65 4 80 32

Public Use (Man-days/yr)

Lake Use Rank Adj eight
Score* Scortt

LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA s,.o 1 20
CYPRESS LAKE %4 4
LAKE HATCHINEHA ass 3 60


LAKE ISTOKPOGA


LAKE MARIAN


n.s3o 2


SI


a- I S r


IM 1 5 100 25


DER Class/OFW

Lake DER Rank Adj Weght
Class Score* Score?

LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA 3 3 99 9
CYPRESS LAKE 3 3 99 9
LAKE HATCHINEHA 3 3 99 9
LAKE ISTOKPOGA 3 3 99 9
LAKE MARIAN OFW 1 33 3

Critical Habitatt

-A
> ,.Y Lake ank egh-
.. Score" Score?

K OPEKALLGA 1 20 5
Cj Lyjs6AE 5 100 25
S f HA 3 60 15
2 40 10


.I....... i ____ minr .i -


Summary of Weighted Scores


Lake TSI DER Cri Tout
Class Hab*

LAKE TQHOPEKALIGA 16 9 5 5 36
CYPRESS LAKE 8 9 20 25 63
LAKE HATCHINEHA 24 9 15 15 64.
LAKE ISTOKPOGA 40 9 10 10 70
LAKE MARIAN 32 3 25 20 80


I


4 80


* Normalized to a range of 1-100 points
t Multiplied by weighting factor of 0.4 (water quality), .1 (DER Class), or 0.25 (use and habitat)
** FGFWFC Data Indicate No Public Access--recommend deletion from the list
i based on lake size and the professional opinion of FGFWFC biologists
I The original list included Lake Russell. However. Lake Russell was eliminated because the
FGFWFC indicated that this lake has no public access


-9-


4 *iArl ltW oration List


S Final Final
coe' Rank

WKE TOMOPEAiGA 35 1
CYPRESS LAKE 62 2
LAKE HATCHINEHA 63 3
LAKE ISTOKPOGA 69 4
LAKE MARIAN 80 5


I"


Ma .


R


QKEPl ,l A







SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


Table 6. Ranked Listing. Based on Total Adjusted Scores, of All Water Bodies that
were Evaluated in the SWIM Priority-Setting Process.
Water Adjusted Scores
Rank Body Natne Hlato e S DER atubt
Type Qust Class at **
I LAKE ViKE OKEECHOBEE --
I ESTUARY T V dkSCAY BAY- -
I ESTUARY "--.- IMRUAN RIVER LAGOON -
4 WETLAND 0 '- :R4S.AES NATIONAL PARK P 4 3 5 2 14
5 LAKE r STRIKE TOMOPEKALIGA P 14 9 4 4 31
6 LAKE tr _L MOPEKALI A a 16 9 5 6 35
7 LAKE LAI- WEQMYAKAPKA P 1t8 6 6 39
7 WETLAND n % i'EVIZ S bCA 3A P I 1 1 11 39
9 WETLAND 'PVErNt S MfA (LOXAHATCHEE MW ) P 13 3 S 16 40
10 WETLAND -' iK CREAS1iALM PRESERVE P 1 17 3 16 6 41
11 LAKE C -s I=-- LftEKISSIMEE P 36 3 2 2 43
11 WETLAND V r' VEIRGLADES EAST a 10 9 1I 6 43
13 LAKE LAE ARSBUCKLE P 21 3 11 9 44
14 ESTUARY FLORIDA KEYS P 30 3 6 6 45
15 ESTUARY all CA O SAHATCHEE RIVER ESTUARY R 10 6 18 12 46
16 LAKE ...."- LAKE BUTLER -P 3 3 20 22 48
17 LAKE *'- ALLIGATOR LAKE P 7 9 13 20 49
17 WETLAND J N "DING, DARLING NMR P 30 3 1 5 11 49
19 WETLAND CORKSCREW MARSH P 22 0 13 8 62
20 ESTUARY NAPLES BAY/G60RON RIVER/0GLDENSATE CANAL R 20 3 12 18 63
20 WETLAND EVERGLADES WCA 2A R 20 9 8 18 53
22 LAKE LAKE ROSALIE P 26 9 9 11 64
23 LAKE LAKE JACKSON P 10 3 24 18 5S
24 ESTUARY ESTERO BAY AQUATIC PRESERVE P 10 3 25 18 65
25 LAKE CYPRESS LAKE R 8 9 20 25 82
26 LAKE LAKE HATCHINEHA R 24 9 15 15 83
26 WETLAND EVERGLADES HOLEY LANO/ROTENBER6 R 30 9 12 12 63
28 LAKE LAKE PIERCE P 28 9 15 13 65
29 ESTUARY LOXAHATCHEE RIVER-LU CREEK/JUPITER INLET P 20 6 18 26 66
30 ESTUARY FLORIDA BAY P 40 9 12 *e 67
31 LAKE LAKE ISTOKPOGA a 40 9 10 to o8
32 ESTUARY LAKE WORTH It 1 30 9 6 25 70
33 LAKE LAKE TRAFFORD P 32 9 18 15 74
33 ESTUARY ROOKERY BAY AQUATIC PRESERVE/MAT'L ESTUAR SAICT I 40 3 25 4 74
35 WETLAND SAVANNAS STATE PRESERVE P 26 3 24 24 77
36 LAKE LAKE MARIAN a 32 3 25 20 80
37 WETLAND CORBETT WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA P 36 9 10 10 82
38 WETLAND THREE LAKES RANCH P 39 9 22 22 9
39 LAKE FISH LAKE P 39 9 22 24 94
40 WETLAND EVERGLADES WCA 26 # 1 1n 40 r It .6 O

located in Osceola County. The fourth-ranked lake (Istokpoga) is located in
Highlands County.
The four estuaries on the preservation list, ranked from top to bottom are the
Florida Keys, Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve, Loxahatchee River and Florida Bay. The
restoration priority list for estuaries, ranked from high to low priority, includes the
Caloosahatchee Estuary, Naples Bay, Lake Worth and-Rookery Bay.



-10-

3. 2






SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


Table 7. Relative Ranking, by Type, of SFWMD Water Bodies for Preservation and
Restoration. (Not including Lake Okeechobee. Biscayne Bay, or Indian
River Lagoon).
LAKES


Preservation/Enhancement
Final
Final Rank Lake county
Score
"31 1 East Lake Tohopekaliga* ono
39 2 Lake Weohyakapka Pol
43 3 Lake Kissimmee* Oseola
44 4 Lake Arbucklet Polk
48 5 Lake Butler Orange
49 6 Alligator Lake Osceola
54 7 Lake Rosalie Polk
55 8 Lake Jackson eol
65 9T Lake Pierce Poft
74 1 Lake Trafford t C
94 11 Fish Lake


Restoration
TSI Rank Lake nty

78 7 T Cyp esslae" lOsceoI
SI Lake Let 4 Oseoi

65 5 elakMari Ooi

b-oe
".imni ted by one or more agencies
t pn-ed by one or more local Gov'ts
*-. -.


Preservation/Enhancen Restoration
Firal Rank Estuary yEstuary county
Score*
4 Florida Keys Riv"
-6 TEstero Bay* 14O "Sver Colier
66 3 oxahatce Jupiter orWJupiter River** P
14 i iiorid Ba II I C c lil r


WETLANDS


Preservation/Enhancement
Finre Rank Wetlands county
Score
'I I Everglades National Park' D&* o
3 WCA* "Do/r
40 3 WA (Lohatce
41 4 Coler
49 5 J.N. "Din n NWR Lee
5 6 T CorkCrew Swamp Collier
s0 7- T hSavannahs'' Ma8SL.
82 8 CorbettWMA P
SThree Lakes Ranch Oeoia
- i


Restoration
"F' Rank Wetlands nty

43 1 East Everglades*

63 3 HoleytandMotnbrg I k
i~4 cIA I i ir


-11-

5.P.


r







SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


The highest-ranked wetlands on the preservation list were associated with
the Everglades and Big Cypress areas. In descending order these were Everglades
National Park, Water Conservation Area 3A, Water Conservation Area 1 and the Big
Cypress National Preserve. The remaining five wetlands include portions of existing
state or private reserves or wildlife management areas--J.N. "Ding" Darling,
Corkscrew Marsh, the Savannahs, Corbett Wildlife Management Area and Three
Lakes Ranch The wetland areas that were identified for restoration all lie within
the Everglades system in Southeast Florida and include the East Everglades in Dade
County, Water Conservation Area 2A in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, the
Holeyland/Rotenberg Area in Palm Beach County and Water Conservation Area 28
in Broward County.
Discussion
Comparison with Rule Criteria. In October, 1987 the FDER adopted Rule
17-43, which specifies the criteria that are to be used in establishing water body
priorities, a format for management plans, and procedures for release of funds
from the SWIM trust fund. Part II of the rule, which deals with criteria for
establishing priorities for water bodies, is shown in Figure 2. District staff felt that
many of these criteria could not be determined without extensive analysis of
existing data and/or collection of additional data. The short time period required
for the priority-setting process did not permit such analyses or additional data
collection. Instead, evaluations of these factors were developed by subjective
analysis of available information by the staff of the SFWMD, FGFWFC and FDNR;
and were based on information provided by the various governmental agencies,
interest groups, and concerned citizens that participated in the public survey. The
criteria in Rule 17-43 can be divided into five major categories--water quality,
biological and physical condition, threats to use, protection of outstanding water
bodies, coordination with local government planning efforts, and feasibility.
Water Quality. This first category includes the degree to which state water
quality standards are violated and evaluation of water quality conditions that may
adversely affect the water body. This analysis was based primarily on information
provided in the FDER report by Hand, Tauxe, and Watts, (1986). In addition, reports
y Baker, Brezonik and Kratzer (1981) and by Canfield (1981) provided data for
Florida Lakes. However, the latter two reports did not furnish any data for lakes
within the SFWMD that were not also included in the FDER study. The SFWMD
maintains an extensive water quality database. However, most of these data are for
areas within the SFWMD's primary water management system and these areas were
also included in the FDER report.
The FDER calculated two kinds of indexes that could be used as indicators of
chemical and biological conditions in various water bodies--Trophic State Index (TSI)
and Water Quality Index (WQI). The TSI data were appropriate for lakes and
estuaries and WQI's were appropriate for canals and streams. This analysis by
SFWMD staff did not consider streams by themselves, but rather combined the
streams with their downstream receiving water body (lakes or estuary). TSI was
chosen as the index of water quality that was applied to these downstream
receiving bodies. The FDER report also provided an analysis of water quality
problems in various basins. Many water bodies with water quality problems were
located within the SFWMD. These problem areas were divided into two categories:
areas showing water quality improvements, and areas showing water quality
degradation. Water bodies in each of these categories are listed in Tables 8 and 9.
The problem areas that were identified in the FDER study (not including
Biscayne Bay, the Indian River Lagoon or Lake Okeechobee), were Lake
Tohopekaliga, Lake Hatchineha, Lake Russell/Cypress Lake and tributaries; tributary

-12-

609







SFWMD SWIM Priorities-Report


Figure 2. Rule 17-43-Part II
17-43 00 Criteria: Surface Waters, Establishing Priorities
By March 1, 1988 each District, in cooperation with the Department (of Environmental
Regulation], the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the Department of Natural
Resources, shall develop a list in priority order of surface waters of regional or statewide
significance which require restoration or conservation, each District shall consider the following
criteria in preparing the list and priority ranking:
(1) The degree to which state water quality standards are violated. In reviewing this criterion,
each District shall consider the following factors:
S (a) The status and trends of water quality in the water body, including the nature and
I extent of pollutant loading from point and nonpoint sources and the extent to which
uses are impaired;
(b) Whether the water body can reasonably be expected to meet or maintain water quality
standards without action to control point or nonpoint sources; and
(c) The nature and extent of sources of point or nonpoint pollution which contribute to
the waters not meeting standards.
(2) An evaluation of the nature and extent of conditions that adversely affect the water body,
including, but not limited to:
(a) Nutrient balance of the water body;
(b) Trophic state of the water body;
(c) Existence or need for continuous aquatic weed control;
(d) biological condition
(e) Physical condition;
(f) Reduced Fish and wildlife values;
(3) Threats to water supplies, especially agricultural and urban supplies, and recreational
opportunities. In reviewing this criterion, each District shall consider the following factors:
(a) whether uses of the water body are impaired, including whether the water body does
not meet water quality standards or requires control programs to maintain compliance
with standards; and
(b) Whether conditions intermittently or frequently prevent a beneficial use.
(4) Threats to or need for long-term protection of, those exceptional or outstanding water
bodies which are currently in good condition.
(5) The extent to which the plans, ordinances, and policies of local governmental units with
jurisdiction over a water body are consistent with a District's efforts to restore or conserve a
water body.
(6) The feasibility of monitoring the success of restoration or conservation efforts in the water
body.
(7) The economic and environmental feasibility of accomplishment of restoration or
conservation goals.
17-43.035 Preparation and Submittal of Surface Water Priority Lists and Plans
(1) Using the criteria established by Rule 1743.030, FLC.. each District shall prepare and
submit annually to the Department a Surface Water Priority List, with supporting
documentation, which shall include an explanation of the selected priority order. Within
30 days after receipt, the Department will notify the District in writing whether the list is
consistent with the intent and provisions of this rule and Chapter 17-7, Laws of Florida. If
the list is not consistent, the notification will include recommendations for modifications
necessary to obtain Department concurrence with the final list.


canals to Lake Worth, the Loxahatchee River system, central Broward County
estuaries, and Naples Bay; certain portions of the Caloosahatchee River system; and
the North New River canal within the Everglades Agricultural Areas. Water quality
conditions in lakes Tohopekaliga and Hatchineha; C-51 and C-17 canals; C-18 Canal;
and the C-12 Canal have been improving. Further degradation has occurred in the
North New River Canal Basin, Lake Russell, Reedy Creek, and the Gordon River. The
only one of these problem areas that was not evaluated in the SFWMD priority-
setting process was the Broward County estuaries that receive discharge from C-12
and the North New River Canal.


-13-

.3, !







SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


Table 8. Problem areas within the SFWMD showing water quality
Improve-ments (based on the study b Hand. et al., 196).
Water Body County Receiving Body
Taylor Creek Okeechobee Lake Okeechobee
Nubbin Slough Okeechobee Lake Okeechobee
Five Mile Creek St. Lucie Indian River Lagoon
Lake Hatchineha Polk/Osceola Lake Hatchineha
Take Tohopekaliga Osceola Lake Tohopekaliga
Earman River / C-17 Canal Palm Beach Lake Worth
West Palm Beach Canal I C-51 Palm Beach Lake Worth
Loxahatchee River I C-18 Palm Beach/Martin Loxahatchee Estuary
Plantation Canal (C-12) Broward Broward County Estuaries

Table 9. Problem areas showing water quality degradation (based on the
study by Hand, et al.. oW9M).
Water Body County Receiving Body
Lake Okeechobee Palm Beach/Martin Lake Okeechobee
Lake Russell St. Lucie Lake Russell/Cypress Lake
Reedy Creek Osceola lake Russell/Cypress Lake
North New River Canal L-18, 19,Broward County Estuaries, Water
20, 35 Broward/Palm Beach Conservation Areas
Gordon River Collier Naoles Bay
Biological and Physical Condition. This factor includes an assessment of
biological resource values for the water body (recreational use, fish and wildlife
habitat) and the need for aquatic weed control. The primary basis for evaluating
these conditions was data provided by SFWMD, FGFWFC, and DNR staff concerning
the condition of of various lakes, wetlands and estuaries, including the assessment
of recreational values (use) for fishing and hunting and the presence and relative
extent of critical habitats for threatened and endangered species.
Although the District has an extensive aquatic weed control program and
maintains extensive information on the status of aquatic weeds and weed control
activities in various lakes within the District, there was not sufficient time to compile
these data for this report. A more detailed assessment of aquatic weed conditions
in the high priority lakes within the District will be prepared in the next few months.
Threats to Water Su pies and Imaired Use. TSI value provided an estimate
of nutrient oadings to the water bod addition, the FDER report provided an
assessment of water bodies within the district that were degraded to the point that
their present water quality was no longer suitable for their designated use. A list of
such degraded water bodies in the SFWMD is provided in Table 10.
Threats to existing water use and recreational values were also considered by
identifying all OFW's and Class I or Class II water bodies on the initial priority list,
and by using such use-dependent factors as estimated man-days expended by the
public in fishing, hunting, etc. activities.
Threats to the quantity of water available for agricultural and public water
use are addressed in the SFWMD Water Shortage Plan and the associated
documentation in the Water Shortage Manual. The District is divided into a series
of water shortage planning basins, based primarily on surface water hydrologic
conditions. Resources within each of these basins are managed and monitored
continually throughout the dry season to ensure that adequate quantities of water


-14-

10







SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


Table 10. Water Bodies that do not meet their designated use (based on the
study by Hand, et a. 1986).
Water Body County Receiving Body
Lettuce Creek Okeechobee Lake Okeechobee
Nubbin Slough Okeechobee Lake Okeechobee
Popash Slough Okeechobee Laeke echobee
Turkey Slough Okeechobee Lake Okeechobee
Mosquito Creek Okeechobee Lake Okeechobee
Levee-30 Canal Dade Biscayne Bay
St. Cloud Canal Osceola Lake Tohopekaliga
Shingle Creek Orange/Osceola Lake Tohopekaliga
Lake Tohopekaliga Osceola Lake Tohopekaliga
Cypress Lake Osceola Cypress Lake
Canals E-1 and E-3 Palm Beach Lake Worth, Hillsboro Canal
North Fork New River Broward Broward County Estuaries
Plantation Canal, C-12 Broward Broward County Estuaries
South New River Canal Broward Broward County Estuaries
Caloosahatchee River Lee, Hendry, Glades Caloosahatchee Estuary
Sanibel River Lee Gulf of Mexico
are maintained in the system for public and private beneficial use and to maintain
environmental quality of lakes and wetlands.
Additional analysis of potential threats to water bodies could be conducted,
based on evaluation of land use data and analysis of drainage systems surrounding
the water body. Most of the data needed for these analyses has been compiled by
the District in the southern counties, but the District has little land use data for Polk,
Osceola, and Orange counties which include most of the lake systems in the
SFWMD. Current (1986-87) land use data for most of these areas has been collected
through contractual agreements with the Central Florida and East Central Florida
Regional Planning Councils and should be available for use in early 1988. Such an
analysis of potential threats to water bodies is also required as a major component
of the development of management plans for the selected high-priority water
bodies and will be conducted later in the SWIM planning process.
Protection of Outstanding Water Bodies. Threats to water bodies that are
currently in good condition were identified by consideration of TSI values; agency
staff evaluations and results of the public survey. Lakes and estuaries were first
placed on ranked lists from lowest to highest TSI values. Water bodies with the
lowest TSI values (most pristine water quality) were given the highest ranking.
Further indicators of the need for preservation included the presence of critical
wildlife habitat, public use and DER classification. Several water bodies were added
to this list, especially wetlands, due to input from the public survey. However, many
of these areas were dropped from the ranking process due to lack of data
concerning water quality, critical habitat and/or public use. Attempts will be made
to collect these additional.data during the next few weeks so that some additional
areas can be entered into the priority-setting process.
Local Government Planning. The extent to which these water bodies are
being addressed in local government planning efforts could not be assessed in the
time allotted. This analysis should receive high priority in future evaluations,
especially as a component of developing management plans for high-priority water
bodies. City and county governments within the District are currently in the process


-15-

S.?7







SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


of developing comprehensive plans. A significant portion of the SWIM priority-
setting and planning efforts will be completed during the next few months while
these local plans arebeing drafted.
The public survey was sent planning entities of cities and counties within the
District. This survey provided maps and a description of water bodies and a
description of the role that the SWIM process could play in future land and water
resource planning and management. Of the sixteen counties in the District, at least
eight counties and three municipalities responded to the survey by December 12,
1987 and identified water bodies within their jurisdiction that were of interest.
Some of these local governments provided extensive information and planning
documents for protection or enhancement of these areas. These documents
indicate that some water bodies within the District have been given extensive
consideration at the local and county levels.
Fine Tuning Factors. In addition to the above factors that could be
quantitatively measured or subjectively evaluated based on limited data, several
other considerations entered into the priority-setting process. These "fine tuning
factors" will be applied to the list that has been produced so far during the next
several weeks to shuffle the priority order based on perceived needs. Several such
factors are discussed below:
Position in Water Management System--Areas that receive discharge waters
from upstream sources are more threatened and perhaps should be placed higher
on the lists than areas that are located in or near recharge areas. Another approach
is to provide additional protection or enhancement to upstream recharge areas as a
way to provide benefits to downstream areas. In either case, the position of the
__.s water body relative to other water bodies must be evaluated and linked to the
ranking process.
Adequacy of Existing Protection. This factor considers the degree and nature
of ecological problems or threats (such as agricultural or urban development
pressure, excessive use, invasion by exotic species, uncontrolled fires, etc) facing the
water body and the perceived adequacy of existing management program or
agencies to provide protection against those threats. Most of the water bodies on
the SWIM priority list are protected or managed under existing programs at the
local, regional state or Federal level, or as private preserves. However, many of the
water bodies have been included on this list because existing protection was not felt
to be adequate and that more protection, over a larger area was required.An
assessment must be made by the District and other managing agencies to determine
whether such areas can be better managed through increasing the authority of an
existing management entity or by adding another level of management at the state
level through the SWIM program.
Feasibility. The economic and environmental feasibility of restoration or
preservation programs and the probable success of monitoring efforts for these
programs could not be evaluated at this preliminary phase in the planning process.
These data will be developed as the list of highest-priority areas grows shorter
during the next few months. Feasibility will be assessed on the basis of estimated
costs to implement planning and management activities; the degree of interest and
support expressed and demonstrated by local government entities in various
projects and areas; by the presence of existing restoration, enhancement or
management programs in the water body; and by the prior development of
planning or management efforts to address water quality or environmental
concerns.
Geographic Distribution. The ranking process favors water bodies in certain
geographic areas of the water management district-especially the lakes in the
north central counties of the District and the wetlands of the Everglades along the

-16-
.3.;






SFWMD SWIM Priorities--Report


Southeast coast. In order to develop a balanced distribution of projects within the
District, a project in the lower west coast planning area (Lee or Collier Counties may
be assigned a higher priority.

References
Baker, Lawrence A., Patrick L. Brezonik, and Charles R. Kratzer, 1981. Nutrient
Loading Trophic State Relationships in Florida Lakes. Research Project
Technical Completion Report, OWRT Project Number A-038-FLA. Florida
Water Resources Research Center, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Publication No. 56. 126 pp.
Canfield, Daniel E., Jr. 1981. Chemical and Trophicstate Characteristics of Florida
Lakes in Relation to Regional Geology. Final report Submitted to Cooperative
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Florida, Gainesville. 444 pp.
Carlson, Robert E. 1977. A Trophic State Index for Lakes. Lmnology and
Oceanography 22(2) :361-369.
Hand, Joe, Victoria Tauxe and John Watts, 1986. 1986 Florida Water Quality
Assessment 305(b) Technical Report. Technical Appendix. report submitted
in accordance with the 1972 Federal water Pollution Control Act public Law
92-500 Section 305(b), by Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
SWater Quality Monitoring and Quality Assurance section, Bureau of Water
Quality Management, Division of Environmental Programs. June, 1986.
235pp.























-17-

30 01




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs