2011 Estuaries Report Card - Conservancy of Southwest Florida

Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 2 of 251 Acknowledgements
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida would like to thank S. Gregory Tolley, Ph.D.
(Professor of Marine Science at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) and Director of
FGCU's Coastal Watershed Institute) and Lisa Beever, Ph.D. (Director of the Charlotte
Harbor National Estuary Program) for their review and editing assistance of the 2011
Estuaries Report Card.
In addition, the Conservancy sincerely thanks the following for their generous financial
support in making this report possible: including the John Ben Snow Foundation,
Munson Foundation, Banbury Fund and Agua Fund. The recommendations listed
therein are those of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and do not necessarily reflect
the view of our report sponsors.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida Environmental Policy staff and interns compiled,
drafted and edited the 2011 Estuaries Report Card. The report card’s primary authors,
Jessica Stubbs and Jennifer Hecker worked with environmental policy interns Eliza
Davis, John Aquilino and Dan DiNicola, all of whom provided vital research and support
in producing this report.
© 2011 Conservancy of Southwest Florida
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida is a non-profit organization. Since 1964, the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida has provided educational programs, scientific
research, wildlife rehabilitation and policy advocacy to protect Southwest Florida’s water,
land, wildlife and future. Each and every citizen has the power to make a difference in his or her daily life and to
get involved. To restore and protect the region’s estuaries, the Conservancy suggests
the following actions:
• make careful choices in everyday living to reduce the input of pollutants into our
environment and waterways, such as reducing fertilizer and pesticide use
• encourage elected officials to implement water resource policy initiatives that will
improve water quality in our region and ensure a sufficient supply of clean water
for the environment as well as for citizens
The mission of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida: Protecting Southwest Florida’s
natural environment…now and forever.
For more information about the Conservancy of Southwest Florida please visit our
website at www.conservancy.org or write to us at:
Conservancy of Southwest Florida
Environmental Policy Division
1450 Merrihue Drive
Naples, FL 34102
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 3 of 251 Table of Contents
1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................. 6
2 ESTUARIES INCLUDED IN THE 2011 ESTUARIES REPORT CARD ............. 8
3 INDICATORS OF ESTUARINE HEALTH ....................................................... 22
4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 32
5 REPORT CARD GRADES AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................... 38
Coastal Venice ......................................................................................................... 40
Lemon Bay ............................................................................................................... 41
Greater Charlotte Harbor ........................................................................................ 41
Pine Island Sound ................................................................................................... 42
Caloosahatchee River ............................................................................................. 43
Estero Bay ............................................................................................................... 44
Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River ......................................................................... 45
Naples Bay ............................................................................................................... 46
Rookery Bay ............................................................................................................ 47
Ten Thousand Islands ............................................................................................ 48
6 RECOMMENDATIONS: TEN STEPS TO SAVE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA’S
WATERS ....................................................................................................... 50
APPENDIX A :SUMMARY OF DATA FOR INDICATORS OF ESTUARINE
HEALTH PROPOSED FOR FUTURE ESTUARIES REPORT CARDS ....... 64
APPENDIX B :PERCENTAGE OF WETLANDS REMAINING FOR EACH
WATERSHED ............................................................................................. 133
APPENDIX C :PERCENTAGE OF MANGROVES REMAINING FOR EACH
WATERSHED ............................................................................................. 135
APPENDIX D :ACREAGE OF CONSERVATION LANDS IN EACH
WATERSHED ............................................................................................. 145
APPENDIX E: WATER QUALITY: PARAMETERS ASSESSED FOR EACH
WATERSHED ............................................................................................. 156
APPENDIX F :WATER QUALITY- CALCULATION OF PERCENTAGE OF
IMPAIRMENT FOR EACH WATERSHED .................................................. 181
APPENDIX G :HYDROLOGY INFORMATION FOR EACH WATERSHED ..... 204
APPENDIX H :DATA GAPS BY PARAMETER FOR EACH WATERSHED ... 218
LIST OF PHOTOS ............................................................................................ 234
INDEX ............................................................................................................... 235
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 4 of 251 Table of Figures in Estuaries Report Card
Figure 1 - Watersheds included in the Estuaries Report Card ........................................................ 8
Figure 2 - Coastal Venice ................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 3 - Lemon Bay .................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4 – Greater Charlotte Harbor.............................................................................................. 11
Figure 5 - Pine Island Sound ......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6 - Caloosahatchee River ................................................................................................... 14
Figure 7 - Estero Bay ..................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 8 - Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River................................................................................. 17
Figure 9 - Naples Bay .................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 10 - Rookery Bay................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 11 - Ten Thousand Islands................................................................................................. 21
Figure 12 - Estuarine Health Indicators ......................................................................................... 22
Figure 13 - Watersheds & WMD Jurisdiction ................................................................................ 33
Figure 14 - 2011 Wildlife Habitat Grade ........................................................................................ 38
Figure 15 - 2011 Water Quality Grade .......................................................................................... 38
Figure 16 - Summary of 2011 Watershed Health Grades ............................................................. 39
Figure 17 - Areas of Florida vulnerable to 27 inches of Sea Level Rise ....................................... 62
Table of Figures in Appendix A
Figure A- 1: Statewide Seagrass Coverage .................................................................................. 65
Figure A- 2: Current Acres of Seagrass ........................................................................................ 65
Figure A- 3: Range of Cuban Tree Frog in Florida ........................................................................ 70
Figure A- 4: Distribution of Brazilian Pepper ................................................................................. 72
Figure A- 5: Distribution of Australian Pine ................................................................................... 72
Figure A- 6: Distribution of Melaleuca ........................................................................................... 73
Figure A- 7: Ten Thousand Island manatee survey data .............................................................. 74
Figure A- 8: Salinity classification of water .................................................................................. 117
Figure A- 9: Reported Fish Kills, January 2010........................................................................... 127
Figure A- 10: Beach Advisory/Closure Days by Watershed ........................................................ 128
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 5 of 251 Commonly Used Acronyms
ABM – Estero Bay Agency on Bay Management
BMAP – Basin Management Action Plan
CHNEP – Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program
CREW – Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed
CWA – Clean Water Act
DEP – Department of Environmental Protection
EPA – Environmental Protection Agency
FDEP – Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FLUCCS – Florida Land Use and Cover and Forms Classification System
FNAI – Florida Natural Areas Inventory
IWR – Impaired Waters Rule
MFLs – Minimum Flow and Levels
NERR – National Estuarine Research Reserve
OFW – Outstanding Florida Water
SAV – Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
SFWMD – South Florida Water Management District
STORET – EPA’s Environmental database for water quality
SWFFS – Southwest Florida Feasibility Study
SWIM – Surface Water Improvement and Management
SWFWMD – Southwest Florida Water Management District
TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load
USACOE – US Army Corps of Engineers
WBID – Waterbody Identification Number
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 6 of 251 1 BACKGROUND
Southwest Florida contains some of the most
unique habitats and natural resources in
America, making it a top destination for
ecotourism, scientific research, and
recreational enjoyment. The Gulf coast also
has some of the most productive estuaries,
with more than 70 percent of Florida's
recreationally and commercially important
fishes, crustaceans, and shellfish spending part
of their lives in this area where fresh water
meets salt water.2 A mosaic of mangroves,
freshwater marshes, saltwater marshes, rivers,
and streams intertwine with canals, coastal
development, agriculture and other humaninfluenced environments to create a
challenging system to manage and preserve.
Photo 1 - Wading Heron1
Each estuary in Southwest Florida lies
downstream of a larger watershed that encompasses freshwater lakes, streams, rivers,
and canals, all of which eventually flow into the estuary. For this reason, it is vital to
examine the entire watershed to know what is impacting the estuary and where those
impacts are coming from. Destruction of filtering wetlands, increases in impervious
surfaces and stormwater runoff, addition of point sources upstream, failing septic
systems, continued disturbance of hydrology, and many other factors can influence the
health of the estuary and place the natural resources we depend on most at risk.
With Florida’s recreational saltwater fishery contributing over 50,000 jobs and over $5
billion to the state alone3, and beach tourism creating over 275,000 jobs and contributing
over $24 billion to the state’s economy4, it is no wonder that more and more emphasis is
being placed on conserving, protecting, and restoring our estuaries for future
generations. Even with the recent economic downturn, “the threats of unmitigated urban
sprawl and rampant overdevelopment are evident daily,”5 and a better understanding the
health of our estuaries today will hopefully guide policy decisions for the future that will
protect the interests of Florida’s citizens and our economy.
Booming population growth and associated development in Florida throughout the 2000s
and prior is indicative of the declines in wildlife habitat and water quality that we are
seeing today. Approximately 78% of Florida’s population lives along the coast or
adjacent to estuaries, corresponding to about 14 million people statewide.6 Even with the
recent lull in population growth in Southwest Florida, estuarine degradation continues to
pose a serious threat to our citizens’ way of life.
Water quality throughout the region, particularly with regard to nutrients and dissolved
oxygen, continues to be degraded. The Conservancy of Southwest Florida has
documented the expanding range of water quality impairments in our waterbodies.
Additionally, more waterbodies are not meeting state water quality standards for multiple
types of pollutants. The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program (CHNEP) has also
shown “shallow increasing trends” for these parameters throughout parts of the Greater
Charlotte Harbor Watershed.7 Current legislation and policy decisions including the
development of the Statewide Stormwater Rule, development of Numeric Nutrient
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 7 of 251 Criteria for the state of Florida, and adoption of local fertilizer ordinances all have the
potential to address some of the state’s water quality issues and will be key to restoring
our already damaged estuaries.
General public interest in our estuaries and their importance to a healthy Gulf of Mexico
is also mounting, as seen by the massive public outcry following the recent
BP/Deepwater Horizon oil spill. However, the public does not have ready access to the
copious amounts of data that have been collected over the years by scientists statewide.
Water Management Districts and local governments within the region also have large
quantities of data from their water quality monitoring efforts that have been used to
create comprehensive watershed assessment reports (such as the 1999 Report for
Estero Bay). However, this information is also not readily available or easily
understandable to the general public.
As represented by our mission statement, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida is
committed to protecting and conserving the natural environment of the region, with one
of our primary goals being the protection of estuaries and coastal waters. To achieve
this goal a three-pronged approach is used through strategic policy advocacy, scientific
research, and action-oriented public education. To create a sustained public will to
protect and restore our estuaries, it is imperative that citizens are properly educated - so
they understand the function and condition of estuaries as well as the problems plaguing
them.
To that end, the Conservancy created the Estuaries Report Card as a more easily
understood method of communicating the best available scientific information about the
health of the region’s estuaries. It compiles detailed scientific information from many
sources, using consistent indicators for which data exists throughout the region, and
converts this information into grades that represent Southwest Florida’s estuarine health.
As compared to the 2005 Estuaries Report Card, the 2011 report utilizes original four
indicators while adding a fifth indicator of estuarine health: mangrove coverage.
However, despite attempts to replicate approaches for comparative results, this report
should be utilized more for providing an assessment of current water quality and wildlife
habitat value than in trying to ascertain the degree of trends in status since many other
external variables prevented an exact replication of methodology.
Overall, the Estuaries Report Card will continue to be replicated every five years to
determine the trends in water quality and wildlife habitat, as well as to track the adaptive
management of these watersheds and their water resources. This timing also follows
Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) impaired waters listing cycle,
explained later in this report. In providing our citizens and decisions periodic snapshots
on the environmental health of region, we hope these reports will continue to lead to
further grassroots advocacy for protecting Southwest Florida’s estuaries and other
exceptional natural resources.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 8 of 251 2 ESTUARIES INCLUDED IN THE 2011 ESTUARIES REPORT CARD
South Florida is a complex interconnected system of mangrove swamps, marshes,
sloughs, ponds, lakes, rivers, canals, and estuaries that encompasses over 11 million
acres in its entirety. The region ranges from north of Lake Okeechobee south toward the
Florida Keys and includes southern Sarasota, Charlotte, Glades, Hendy, Lee, and Collier
counties. The Estuaries Report Card encompasses the 10 estuary watersheds along
coastal Southwest Florida including: Coastal Venice, Lemon Bay, Greater Charlotte
Harbor, Pine Island Sound, Caloosahatchee River, Estero Bay, Wiggins
Pass/Cocohatchee River, Naples Bay, Rookery Bay, and Ten Thousand Islands.
The boundaries for each of the estuaries and their watersheds are based on the FDEP
waterbody identifications (WBIDs), which depict the subbasins or drainage units of each
watershed.8 Each of the watersheds discussed in the Report Card contain more than
one WBID. The WBID boundaries were changed in recent years to better reflect the
pattern of water flow. Therefore, the watersheds and subbasins depicted in the 2011
analysis look very different from 2005 (particularly in Collier County).
Figure 1 - Watersheds included in the Estuaries Report Card
The following are descriptions of the 10 individual estuary watershed evaluated in the
2011 Estuaries Report Card for Southwest Florida.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 9 of 251 Coastal Venice
Coastal Venice is a 62,961-acre watershed
that extends along the coast from the north of
the Manasota Key bridge to the Venice inlet
and stretches northeast, above the Myakka
River, all the way into Manatee County. Its
key waterways include Cow Pen Slough, Salt
Creek, Curry Creek, Hatchett Creek, and Fox
Creek, all of which flow into either Donna or
Roberts Bay and then into the Gulf of Mexico
through Venice Pass.
Archeological evidence shows ancient
civilizations may have been present in the
area nearly 10,000 years ago, at a time when
Florida’s topography and hydrology was
extremely different than it is today. The
Calusa Indians who controlled the region
when the Spaniards arrived in the early part
of the 16th century, created basic canal
systems and artificial islands built from shells.
By doing so, the Calusa were the first people
to alter the regions natural environment.9
Figure 2 - Coastal Venice
More recently, the Coastal Venice watershed
was home to one of the first planned developments in Florida in the early 1900s. The
250,000-acre city and agricultural area, planned by the Brotherhood of Locomotive
Engineers, was the foundation of present day Venice.10
With a low surrounding elevation and a near surface water table, the Venice watershed
historically had surface water flows through meandering streams during the wet
season.11 Today, however, development has greatly altered the watershed. Activities
such as increasing the amount of impervious areas along the coast and redirecting
natural flowways have changed the natural flow rates of freshwater to downstream
systems.
This area is now a popular tourist destination in part because of its famous public
beaches that are littered with fossilized shark teeth; “Collecting prehistoric shark’s teeth
has been a favorite pastime of visitors and residents of the Venice area for years. They
may be black, brown, or gray, depending on the minerals in the soil in which they have
been buried. They range in size from one eighth inch to three inches, and on rare
occasions more.”12
Coastal Venice also has some great recreational opportunities for sportsmen and wildlife
enthusiasts. Fishers can expect to find a wide variety of fish including; mackerel, perch,
black sea bass, snook, redfish, mangrove snapper, grouper, tarpon and whiting.13
Additionally, numerous species of birds can be found here, ranging from cormorants,
pelicans, ospreys, and various types of herons and egrets to wintering ducks, wood
storks, and the Florida scrub jay. 14 Of 62,961 total acres, approximately 7,400 are
conserved lands. The largest preserves are Pinelands Preserve, with 4,332 acres, and
Heritage Ranch Conservation Easement, with 1,917 acres. Communities within the
Coastal Venice watershed include Venice, Nokomis, and Laurel.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 10 of 251 Lemon Bay
Just northwest of the Charlotte Harbor watershed in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties
lies Lemon Bay. The bay is fairly shallow, with an average depth of 6 feet, and varies in
width from 0.5 to 1.2 miles at various points along its 7 mile length.15 The 52,341-acre
watershed is comprised of Alligator, Forked, Gottfried, Rock, Oyster, Buck, and Coral
Creeks, along with Lemon Bay and several
barrier islands.
Additionally, Lemon Bay “has been recognized
as a National Estuary Program estuary, as an
aquatic preserve by the Florida Legislature and
as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) by the
FDEP.”16 An OFW is a designation reserved
for waters of pristine and exceptional quality.
This designation protects Lemon Bay’s water
from pollution, resulting in waters that are
“bustling with live creatures, such as eagles,
pinfish, pelicans, snook, shrimp, dolphins and
manatees. Near shore, the seagrasses swaying
with the tidal currents are key elements of this
ecosystem.”17
The Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve covers over
6,500 acres of the Lemon Bay watershed and
houses a plethora of wildlife species. The
Preserve is home to “at least 230 species of
Figure 3 - Lemon Bay
fish [who] depend directly upon the mangrove
ecosystem of Lemon Bay for food, shelter, breeding and/or nursery ground. In the
southwest Florida region, at least 20 species of reptiles and amphibians, 90 species of
birds and 20 species of mammals utilize the mangroves as habitat for feeding, roosting,
breeding and/or cover.”18
Communities in the Lemon Bay watershed include Placida, Rotunda, Grove City,
Manasota Key, Englewood, South Venice, Plantation, and Venice Gardens.
Photo 2 - Lemon Bay19
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 11 of 251 Charlotte Harbor
With two large tributaries, the Peace and Myakka Rivers, flowing into it, Charlotte Harbor
is a massive watershed spanning over 2,075,825 acres. Along the coast Charlotte
Harbor stretches from Venice to south Cape Coral, and stretches inland northeast to
Winter Haven. The Charlotte Harbor estuary is actually the second largest “open water
estuary” in Florida.20 The Peace and Myakka watersheds combine to account for over
half the total acreage of the Charlotte
Harbor watershed.
The Myakka River watershed is one
of the largest watersheds in South
Florida and is made up of cattle
ranches, smaller citrus farms, and one
of the largest state parks in Florida.
The hydrology in the area has been
greatly altered, as much of the water
in the area has been drained and
diverted in order to create larger and
more effective pasturelands for
cattle.21
Upstream from these cattle ranches is
Myakka River State Park. Spanning
across 37,000 acres of prairie and
wetlands, the park lands were once
an area where cattle roamed free and
grazed on the prairie grasses. The
park is now dedicated to restoring and
preserving the prairie lands and the
water as a vital resource for wildlife in
the area.
Figure 4 – Greater Charlotte Harbor
The other major tributary in the Charlotte Harbor
watershed is the Peace River. The Peace River
watershed, like the Myakka, has been greatly altered for
anthropogenic reasons. In Polk County, near the
headwaters of the Peace River, phosphate mines have
been a dominate feature of the region, “greatly altering
the hydrology, and natural flora and fauna of the
landscape.”23 Even though a 1975 State law requires
that all mined areas must be reclaimed, the area is still
suffering. In 2004, the American Rivers organization
listed the Peace River as one of the 10 most endangered
rivers in the United States due to the immense ecological
deterioration that can be caused by phosphate mining.24
Currently, the river is a major source of drinking water for
citizens in Charlotte County, Desoto County, and parts of
Sarasota County.
Photo 3 - Myakka River22
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 12 of 251 The Charlotte Harbor watershed is also home to the 47,000-acre Babcock Webb Wildlife
Management Area. Here visitors can enjoy fishing, hiking, biking, and horseback riding,
while wildlife
enthusiasts can find
freshwater marshes,
hardwood hammocks,
and wet pine flatwoods
that are home to
numerous animals.26
Also within the
Charlotte Harbor
watershed is the
Gasparilla SoundCharlotte Harbor
Aquatic Preserve. It
contains over 80,000
acres of preserved
lands, and over 80
endangered and
threatened species can
Photo 4 - Babcock Webb WMA25
be found in the area.
Like most aquatic
preserves, Gasparilla Sound serves as a great platform to inform the public and to
conduct research. According to DEP, “One of the primary aims of the aquatic preserve
program is to educate the general public and policy makers about the importance of
natural resources in the preserves and the effects of certain actions on those
resources.”27 Charlotte Harbor is also home to red, black, white and buttonwood
mangroves, along with various types of seagrasses and salt marshes.28 Due to this
watershed’s immense natural resource value, the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary
Program was created in 1987 by an amendment to the Clean Water Act to identify,
restore, and protect estuaries of national importance.
The entire watershed includes portions of 6 counties including Polk, Lee, Sarasota,
Hardee, Desoto, and Charlotte. Within these counties lie Punta Gorda, Port Charlotte,
North Port, Arcadia, Wauchula, Bartow, Winter Haven, and over a dozen additional cities
and towns.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 13 of 251 Pine Island Sound
The Pine Island Sound watershed is an 187,100-acre region that encompasses
Matlacha Pass, Pine Island Sound, and San Carlos Bay. Smaller waterways, such as
the Sanibel River, Gator Slough Canal, and Tarpon Bay, make up the rest of the
watershed. Pine Island Sound and Matlacha Pass lie immediately south of Charlotte
Harbor on either side of Pine Island and
connect south of Pine Island to San Carlos
Bay.
Connected to the Gulf via three main
waterways, Boca Grande Pass, Captiva Pass,
and Red Fish Pass, Pine Island Sound is a
unique spot for wildlife. Unfortunately,
alterations in the timing and amount of
freshwater inflow from Caloosahatchee River,
which flows into Pine Island Sound through
San Carlos Bay, have had a significant
negative ecological impact on the area.29
Even with these human alterations, Pine
Island Sound has maintained some
widespread seagrass beds and lush mangrove
forests along its shorelines. These areas are
a home to juvenile fishes and other wildlife.30
Furthermore, Pine Island Sound contains more
than 102,000 acres of conserved land. A few
of the larger preserves are the Pine Island
Figure 5 - Pine Island Sound
Sound Aquatic Preserve, the Matlacha Pass
Aquatic Preserve, the Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park, the J.N. Ding Darling
National Wildlife, and Cayo Costa State Park.
Within the Pine Island Sound estuary, visitors can expect to see a wide mixture of both
aquatic and avian wildlife. Anglers can find bountiful fishing spots for tarpon and snook
and a variety of other fishes. Additionally, visitors can expect to see egrets, ospreys,
herons, pelicans, ibis, wood storks, and an assortment of other birds. Pine Island Sound
is also home to numerous active bald eagle nests. Eight different endangered species
are known to inhabit this area as well, including the Atlantic green turtle, leatherback
turtle, Atlantic hawksbill turtle, Kemps ridley turtle, smalltooth sawfish, wood stork,
Everglades kite, and Florida manatee.
Communities in the Pine Island Sound watershed include Sanibel, Captiva, Punta
Rassa, Matlacha, Pineland, and Saint James City.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 14 of 251 Caloosahatchee River Estuary
The Caloosahatchee River watershed encompasses two distinct human land uses, with
a strong urban presence in the west, and agricultural lands in the east. The river itself
currently flows for nearly 40 miles, connecting Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee
Estuary.31 The river has been greatly altered from its natural conditions and is now
highly controlled with various locks and structures in order to direct discharges for flood
protection.
Historically, the Caloosahatchee River was a shallow meandering stream with its
headwaters near Lake Hicpochee.32
The creation of the Caloosahatchee
Canal in the late 1880s connected
Lake Hicpochee to Lake
Okeechobee, thus providing a route
between Lake Okeechobee and the
coast. In 1948, the Central and
South Florida Project, was
authorized by Congress and
created another 1,000 acres of
levees, 720 miles of canals and 200
additional water control structures
that redirected and changed the
quantity, timing and distribution of
flows entering the Caloosahatchee.
Figure 6 - Caloosahatchee River
Since then, continued dredging and
channelization of the Caloosahatchee River has further modified the hydrology in the
area. Three separate water control structures have been put in place to help control
navigation and flooding, with the most recent being the W.P. Franklin Lock and Dam.
The Franklin Lock, located 30 miles inland was constructed in 1964 for “flood control,
water control, prevention of salt-water intrusion, and navigation purposes.”33 This lock
acts as a salinity barrier, preventing saline coastal waters from entering the upstream
freshwater systems. Simultaneously, the lock also allows nearly 15,000 boaters to travel
through its gates annually.34
“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.”35 So
although discharges from Lake Okeechobee have a significant impact on the health of
the Caloosahatchee Estuary, the FDEP and the Water Management Districts do not
officially view these as pieces of the same puzzle when drawing their watershed
boundaries but instead manage them as separate water management and drainage
areas. Therefore, we did not include the Lake and its upstream watershed north of Lake
Okeechobee as part of the Caloosahatchee River Estuary watershed for the purposes of
this report.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 15 of 251 The land uses within the Caloosahatchee watershed vary greatly from west to east. The
western portion of this watershed contains urban areas such as the City of Fort Myers,
For Myers Shores, North Fort Myers, Cape Coral, Lehigh Acres, and East Fort Myers.
The central and eastern areas are largely
agricultural. Unfortunately, of this 880,800
“The dredging and construction of
acre watershed only 67,553 acres are
canals, locks and pumping stations
labeled as preserved lands. One of the most
created the world's single most
notable preserves is Babcock Ranch. With
sophisticated plumbing system. The
over 81,000 acres in Lee County and an
system which was built specifically to
additional 10,000 acres in Charlotte County,
redirect the natural flow of water has
Babcock Ranch is a vital ecological harbor
radically changed the historic sheet
for Florida wildlife (approximately 19,500
flow patterns of the southern
acres
reside within the Caloosahatchee
peninsula and Everglades region.”
estuary watershed). It is home to both the
Florida panther and Florida black bear, along
with various wetlands, cypress domes, and flatwoods.36 Other significant natural areas
within this watershed include Babcock-Webb Wildlife Management Area, Prairie Pines
Wildfire Preserve, Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest, and Canoe Slough Wildlife
Management Area.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 16 of 251 Estero Bay
Totaling 197,920 acres and stretching across Lee County and into the northern portion
of Collier County, Estero Bay is a unique preserve bordered by a line of barrier islands
including Estero Island, Lovers Key, Long Key, Black Island, Big Hickory Island, and
Little Hickory Island. 37 Five main tributaries: Hendry Creek, Mullock Creek, Estero
River, Spring Creek, and Imperial Creek all
empty into Estero Bay. Similar to most of
southern Florida, the Estero Bay Basin is
comprised of low, flat terrain and wetlands
that are greatly influenced by sheet-flow
drainage patterns.
Estero Bay is a productive aquatic habitat that
supports abundant and diverse fauna. Four
different species of mangrove trees - red
mangrove, white mangrove, black mangrove,
and buttonwood - inhabit the shorelines and
inland areas.38 In the shallower waters
various types of seagrasses, tidal flats, salt
marshes and oyster beds can be found,
providing the perfect environment for young
fishes and crustaceans.
In fact, Estero Bay provides such great
habitat for aquatic wildlife that nearly 10,000
acres of the bay is designated by the state as
an Aquatic Preserve.39 Additionally, the state protects Estero Bay’s water quality by
designating them as Outstanding Florida Waters, a designation in place to protect a
waterbody “worthy of special protection because of its natural attributes.”
Figure 7 - Estero Bay
With such phenomenal environments, both aquatic and land based, it is no wonder that
approximately 40 percent of the State’s endangered or threatened species are found in
this area.40 Avian endangered and threatened species include the wood stork, piping
plover, and a handful of other birds listed as species of special concern. Rare mammals
and reptiles include loggerhead, green and leatherback turtles, American alligators,
crocodiles, mangrove fox squirrels, Florida Manatee, and Florida black bears.
Communities within the Estero Bay watershed include Bonita Springs, Fort Myers
Beach, Estero, and San Carlos Park. While coastal areas in Estero Bay are moderately
populated, the inland populations remain lower; however, both areas are rapidly being
developed in response to a continuing influx of new residents. The Estero Bay
watershed currently has over 41,000 acres of preserved land, with the majority of that
land being located within Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW), Estero
Bay Aquatic Preserve, and Estero Bay Preserve State Park.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 17 of 251 Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River Estuary
Named after Joe Wiggins, who operated a small trading post in the area and was the
first known homesteader, Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee Estuary has been called home by
various groups throughout its history. During the 1600s, the Calusa Indians thrived off
the area’s resources, as did the Seminole Indians and the early European settlers in the
1800s.41 Today, the watershed for the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee Estuary is made up
of a narrow strip of bays and channels
and totals approximately 119,475 acres.
With only a small channel leading into
the Gulf, the watershed widens
significantly moving east, taking up a
large portion of northern Collier County,
and extending slightly into Hendry
County.
Delnor Wiggins State Park, located at
the northern end of Wiggins
Pass/Cocohatchee estuary near
Vanderbilt Beach, is “one of the most
popular seashore destinations” in
Southwest Florida.42 It is separated from
the mainland by mangrove swamps and
tidal creeks, and at the northern end of
this barrier island is a pass that provides
an outlet for the Cocohatchee River.43
A variety of vegetation, including
cabbage palms, sea oats, and sea
Figure 8 - Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River
grapes, provides ample environment for
wildlife. The most dominant element of the park is the mangrove forests that occupy
approximately 80 percent of the park.44 These mangrove trees provide lush cover for
the shorelines during storms and are also a valuable habitat for juvenile species in the
area. Additionally, during colder winter months the Florida Manatee travels inland
seeking shelter from the colder coastal waters.
Groundwater seepage, rainfall, and surface runoff from the area west of the coastal
ridge (west of Lake Trafford in the northeast portion of the watershed) are primary ways
freshwater enters this system. In addition, the Cocohatchee River and its canal system
discharge into the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River Estuary. This area has been
affected by development, and Wiggins Pass, which is a natural outlet for the
Cocohatchee River, “has been dredged frequently to allow for improved boater access
into the Gulf. Extensive channel dredging in the park’s adjacent mangroves in the 1950s
and 1960s altered the surrounding estuary’s hydrology.”45
The largest undeveloped area in the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River Estuary is the
16,700-acre Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW). Through the
combined efforts of the CREW Land and Water Trust and the South Florida Water
Management District, acquisition and management has begun for much of this land,
which provides aquifer recharge, natural flood protection, water purification, preservation
of wildlife habitat, and public recreation.46 Visitors to the area can expect to see pine
flatwoods, oak hammocks, and a variety of other arboreal species. The natural filtration
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 18 of 251 of Corkscrew Marsh and Corkscrew Swamp helps to improve the quality of the water
being introduced into the north end of the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee watershed.47
Though the headwaters of the watershed have been protected, the major wetland
flowways have been diverted and constricted where the watershed approaches the
coast as a result of drainage canals, roads, and development.
Pepper Ranch Preserve and the Caracara Prairie Preserve are both fairly new preserves
within the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee estuary. Pepper Ranch Preserve was acquired
by Conservation Collier in February 2009 and comprises 2,500 acres of natural and
agricultural lands. Caracara Prairie Preserve, or the Starnes Preserve as it was
previously known, was also acquired by Conservation Collier in 2007, and provides
protection for an additional 500 acres of land.48 Both of these properties provide
contiguous lands adjacent to CREW for landscape-level wildlife habitat and water
resource protection. The ecological and hydrological importance of these sites is well
documented and the area within and around Immokalee is home to many of rare and
endangered species. Telemetry data shows the Florida panther utilizing these areas.
Subtropical old-growth bald cypress forests provide a unique habitat for wood storks and
other wading birds. Scrub jays and gopher tortoises also occupy the scrub habitats
found here.
Communities within the Wiggins Pass/ Cocohatchee River watershed include Naples
Park and Palm River.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 19 of 251 Naples Bay
Since the early 1900s, immense alterations have been made affecting the natural flow of
the waterways and tributaries draining into Naples Bay. Development has been one of
the largest contributing factors to the deterioration of Naples Bay. Population increases
during the 40s, 50s, and 60s led to multiple
dredging projects, many of which have
been altered numerous times since. During
the1960s, the Gulf American Corporation
(GAC) began the development of the
Golden Gate Estates, which spanned
113,000 acres of forest. The project
entailed the construction 800 miles of roads
and excavation of approximately 180 miles
of canals, some of them 19 feet deep. This
essentially expanded the Naples watershed
from 10 to nearly 100 square miles.49
Historically, much of Naples Bay was
dominated by mangrove trees, but as
development progressed in the 1900s, it
has been estimated that upwards of 70
percent of the mangrove forests in the area
were destroyed. This heavily impacts fish
and wildlife in the area as the mangroves
provide shelter and nutrients, and act as a
filtration system.
Figure 9 - Naples Bay
Currently, the Naples Bay watershed totals 92,537 acres, with its major tributaries being
the Gordon River and the Golden Gate Canal. Additionally, this rather shallow bay has
an average depth of less than 5 feet but has a navigation channel that is maintained at a
depth of 7-14 feet.50
Most of the Naples Bay watershed is urbanized, with little open space and preserve area
remaining. Communities within the Naples Bay watershed include East Naples, The
Moorings, Port Royal, Golden Gate City, and the Golden Gate Estates. Only 890 acres
of the more than 92,000-acre watershed is conserved lands, and most of the conserved
land consists of small dispersed parks or smaller portions of larger preserves that
overlap with adjacent watersheds. The majority of listed species within the Naples Bay
watershed can be found in these larger conservation areas; however, some are found
along the coast in the more developed areas as well. Florida panthers and red-cockaded
woodpeckers can be found around the Corkscrew Swamp and Picayune Strand areas,
where bald eagle nests are found mostly along the Naples Bay watershed coast. Many
listed species of coastal birds, including the least tern, are found along the coast and
multiple species of sea turtles, including loggerhead and green, nest along the beaches.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 20 of 251 Rookery Bay
The Rookery Bay watershed spans across 126,965 acres and contains an ecosystem
that “is a prime example of a nearly pristine subtropical mangrove forested estuary.”51
This watershed is home to 64,320 acres of protected lands, 40,420 of which are part of
the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. The bay itself is located
approximately 5 miles south of the City of
Naples and is rather shallow, with an
average depth of one meter. Its surrounding
estuarine environment provides a prime
habitat for “a myriad of wildlife, including 150
species of birds and many threatened and
endangered animals” that thrive in the
“estuarine environment and surrounding
upland hammocks and scrub found within
the Reserve.”52
Conservation for Rookery Bay began in the
early 1960s, and progressed when the
Collier County Conservancy was formed
(1965) and began raising money to purchase
property in Rookery Bay. The Conservancy
(which later became the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida as it is known today)
continued to buy and make deals to acquire
lands all around Rookery Bay and the Ten
Thousand Islands until 1977 when Rookery
Bay was declared a National Estuarine
Figure 10 - Rookery Bay
Research Reserve (NERR).
In total, the Rookery Bay NERR contains well over 100,000 acres of land, including
marshes, mangrove forests, tidal creeks, and open-water areas.53 These habitats
support a vast amount of species, particularly juvenile fishes and marine life that depend
on the shelter of the estuary. Sea turtles, Florida tree snails, manatees, and gopher
tortoises can all be found within the Rookery Bay NERR, displaying the biodiversity that
this watershed can support.
Although much of this watershed is conservation lands, a significant portion of Rookery
Bay is also intensely developed, particularly south of the NERR in Marco Island and
north of the NERR in Lely and agricultural areas. Canal systems and creeks receiving
pollution from human-influenced areas lead to the more natural areas of the watershed.
Communities within the Rookery Bay watershed include Marco Island, Lely, and Naples
Manor.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 21 of 251 Ten Thousand Islands
The Ten Thousand Islands watershed is a 1,549,890-acre watershed made up of
various habitats; mainly mangrove swamps and salt marshes along the coasts that
provide ample feeding and nursery grounds for wildlife. “Sprawled between the dense
mangrove swamps of Florida’s southwest coast and the open waters of the Gulf of
Mexico lies a tangled mass of islands, oyster bars, sandy spits, and other bits of land. In
this productive estuarine environment, the tides are the pulse of life, and nearly every
plant and animal living in the Ten Thousand Islands is influenced by them in some
way.”54 The watershed is actually a collection of smaller bays and tributaries, beginning
in the north in Palm Beach County, with the
eastern extent of the watershed reaching
into Everglades National Park and the
southern end stretching into Monroe
County.
A failed development project during the
1960s left behind a string of 58 canals that
have since greatly altered the natural
sheetflow of freshwater in the area just
north of the Ten Thousand Islands. The
canals directed freshwater flows into one
larger canal that drained directly into Faka
Union Bay, thus lowering salinity content in
that bay and raising salinity in adjacent
bays that were no longer receiving
freshwater. Since then, projects have been
initiated to help restore flows in the area
and return the estuaries back to historic
conditions, once again providing prime
habitat for coastal creatures. 55
The Ten Thousand Island watershed is
Figure 11 - Ten Thousand Islands
also home to the 720,000 plus acre Big Cypress National Preserve. This land was
originally acquired in 1974 by the National Park Service that purchased 570,000 acres to
help protect the habitat from being destroyed by the construction of an international
airport. Today, visitors can potentially view six different species of endangered animals
there including the red-cockaded woodpecker, wood stork, Everglades snail kite, Cape
Sable seaside sparrow, Florida manatee, and Florida panther.56
A large portion of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge is also located
within the watershed. This National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was set up in 1996 and is
now “part of the largest expanses of mangrove forest in North America. Approximately
two thirds of the refuge is mangrove forest, which dominates most tidal fringes and the
numerous islands (or keys). The northern third of the refuge consists of brackish marsh
and interspersed ponds, and small coastal hammocks of oak, cabbage palms, and
tropical hardwoods such as gumbo limbo.”57 Nearly 200 species of fishes have been
spotted in the area, and over 185 species of birds utilize this NWR’s fantastic resources
every year.
Communities within the Ten Thousand Islands include Chokoloskee, Everglades City,
Ochopee, Copeland, Jerome, Sunniland, and Immokalee.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 22 of 251 3 INDICATORS OF ESTUARINE HEALTH
The range of indicators of estuarine health that were the basis for the assessment fit into
three basic categories: (1) wildlife habitat, (2) species abundance and diversity, and (3)
water quality. It is important to note that indicators are usually directly or indirectly
connected with water quality affecting habitat or habitat affecting species. Alternately,
some species (such as oysters) can affect both water quality and habitat. Ultimately, the
selection of indicators for an assessment of current estuarine health depends on
knowledge of baseline or optimum conditions, the existence of comprehensive data
throughout the region overtime, as well as “pre-development” conditions, which
represents an estimate of Florida’s environment before anthropogenic activities.
The Conservancy utilized the same two indicator categories selected in 2005 (wildlife
habitat and water quality) and then examined what additional indictors might also be
used presently. The Conservancy reviewed the indicators used by Charlotte Harbor
National Estuary Program, the Estero Bay Agency for Bay Management, and other
estuary programs’ reports to compose a potential list of indicators of estuarine health.
The complete list of indicators is shown below.
Wildlife Habitat
Extent of Wetlands
Extent of Conservation
Lands
Extent of Impervious
Surface
Extent of Mangroves
Extent of SAV
Extent of Invasive Exotic
Species Infestation
Indicator Species
Populations
Oyster
Spotted Seatrout
Manatee
Blue Crab
Water Quality
Water Pollution
Fish Kills
Beach Closures
Harmful Algal Blooms
Hydrology
Current Flows
Figure 12 - Estuarine Health Indicators
The Report Card requires that the assessment of all 10 Southwest Florida estuaries
uses the same indicators; however, data does not exist across the board for all of the
proposed indicators. For example, although data regarding seagrasses displays current
coverage, there is no baseline data for most of the estuaries. Therefore, indicators used
for the 2011 Report were selected both by their dependability as indicators of estuarine
health and by the availability of data for those indices across the entire extent of the
study area.
Three indicators used in determining the wildlife habitat grade for this report card were
(1) Extent of Wetlands Remaining, (2) Extent of Mangroves Remaining, and (3) Extent of
Conservation Lands. The Extent of Mangroves Remaining is a new indicator, as
consistent coverage date is now available for the region. The water quality grade was
determined by combining the scores for water pollution and hydrologic indicators. The
Conservancy will continue to research all of the proposed indicators and to expand the
indicators used in future Report Cards as more data becomes available.
The following is a summary of each indicator and why it is important for representing
estuarine health. Research that has already been identified regarding indicators for
future analysis may be found in Appendix A.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 23 of 251 Wildlife Habitat
Typically, a healthy ecosystem provides habitat for countless animal and plant species.
Coastal wetlands, mangrove forests, and seagrass beds provide homes for many
important species and in some cases (such as shellfish beds) continue to do so even
after the animals that built them are no longer alive. Wildlife habitat loss is a major cause
of population decline among coastal species. As habitats disappear in an area,
organisms depending on them are also lost. The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary
Program’s Management Plan identified fish and wildlife habitat loss as one of four
“priority problems”.58
The habitat indicators discussed below are critical for many species of crabs, fishes, and
sea birds, as well as for smaller organisms that provide food for these larger creatures.
Extent of Wetlands Remaining
Wetlands are “lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the
nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the
soil and on its surface.”59 They are transitional zones where flow of water, cycling of
nutrients, and the energy of the sun meet to produce a unique ecosystem characterized
by its hydrology, soils, and vegetation.60 Wetland plant species can consist of a
combination of grasses and rushes, brackish or salt water species of red, black, and
white mangroves, or typical freshwater marsh plants such as pickerelweed, cattail, and
marsh grasses.61
Wetlands are important for improving coastal water quality by filtering stormwater runoff,
removing nutrients, contaminants, and sediments.62 Often referred to as nature’s
kidneys, they are also nutrient reducers who are known for their natural water quality
cleansing abilities. They also play a critical role in regulating the flow of water into a
watershed. Excavation of drainage canals short-circuits surface water flow upstream and
moves it rapidly down the coastal water basin, while passage of water through natural
wetlands extends the purification process. This ensures the delivery of fresh water to the
estuary at natural rates and volumes.63 During times of high precipitation, wetlands may
also act as storage for floodwater, reducing the velocity of runoff and replenishing
groundwater.
In addition, wetlands provide habitat for a variety of coastal birds, mammals, and fishery
species. Wetland loss and degradation reduce the amount of habitat available to support
healthy populations of wildlife and marine organisms and decrease the land’s natural
ability to deal with seasonal flooding.64 The extent of wetlands remaining is an indicator
of estuarine health and is typically determined by evaluating the extent of current
wetlands relative to their historic coverage.
Extent of Conservation Lands
With the rapid development of coastal watersheds in Southwest Florida, pavement and
lawns are rapidly replacing wetlands and other natural areas. The only sure means of
protecting the ecological value and function of these wetlands and natural areas is to
protect them through permanent conservation, either by public ownership or by
conservation easements. Conservation lands are critical to the protection of estuaries
and coastal watersheds. Conversely, land development can reduce the capability of the
land to store and regulate the release of rainwater from the watershed and to cleanse it
of particulates, nutrients, and contaminants.65 Covering the land with impervious
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 24 of 251 surfaces and installing drainage systems create an imbalance in the timing and delivery
of surface water. These activities also prevent the recharge of groundwater and
adversely impact water clarity and quality.
With the recent economic downturn, it is not surprising that many large landowners are
now contemplating compensation through conservation easements, or fee simple and
bargain sales of their land rather than trying to develop it. This has created a wealth of
opportunities for local land acquisition programs, public trusts, and the state’s Florida
Forever Program that wish to secure some of the last remaining intact ecosystems in
Florida. However, with budgets tight across the board, it has been an uphill battle to
keep these programs funded. Moving into the future, it will be more and more important
to realize the economic benefits that natural landscapes have, and why it is so vital to
continue public land acquisition programs. The Trust for Public Land has quantified
these natural resource values in “The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation,” a report
completed in 2007.66 Also, the Florida Forever Coalition recently released “Florida
Forever: Conservation at a Crossroads, Florida Green Book 2011,”67 an excellent
resource that places a monetary value on conservation lands.
Extent of conservation lands is a useful indicator of estuarine health that can be
evaluated by comparing the extent of protected or conserved areas to the total land
area.
Extent of Mangroves Remaining
Mangrove forests are important to coastal environments for several reasons. First, their
leaf litter, trunks, branches and seeds add organic material to coastal waters providing
the basis of an elaborate food chain. Second, mangroves provide habitat, breeding
grounds, and nursery areas to many marine and terrestrial species, such as birds,
mammals, crustaceans, and fishes.68 In fact, “[s]tudies of South Florida estuarine food
webs have found that 85 percent of the detrital food base is from red mangroves”
alone.69 The prop roots of red mangroves “disperse wave energy, increase surface area
for organisms such as sponges and mollusks, and provide shelter for marine organisms
such as the gray snapper, spotted seatrout and red drum.”70 “Mangrove ecosystems are
important habitat for at least 1,300 species of animals including 628 species of
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians. They provide areas for breeding,
nesting, foraging, and shelter.”71
Mangroves have also been proposed as a means to monitor change in coastal
environments by acting as indicators of climate change, storm effects, sea level change,
pollution, and changes in sedimentation. In addition, mangroves are sensitive to oil and
air pollution, as well as to alterations in the frequency of marine or freshwater
inundation.72 Therefore, the extent of mangroves remaining is another indicator of
estuarine health, evaluated by comparing the current coverage of mangroves in each
estuary to the historic extent of mangrove coverage. Growth rates and seedling health
may also be important aspects to consider; however, these indicators were not included
in the analysis due to inadequate data across the region.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 25 of 251 Water Quality
The health of marine and estuarine systems largely depends upon the quality of the
water within that system. Coastal water quality is affected by both natural and
anthropogenic factors, such as rainfall, tidal action, coastal development and changes in
water flow patterns. Changes in these factors may lead to detrimental effects including
changes in salinity, increases in harmful bacteria, and hypoxia. These situations
severely compromise estuarine health, which in turn endangers coastal species such as
seagrasses, manatees, and even humans that rely on the waterbody.73
Water Pollution
Water quality monitoring is critical to assess whether a body of water is meeting state
standards and is safe for its intended use. States may designate an individual waterbody
for multiple beneficial uses.74 Examples of “designated uses” in Florida are drinking
water supply, shellfish harvesting, and swimming and fishing – with each use having its
own specified set of water quality criteria for ensuring the public’s safety. To determine
whether a given water body can support its associated beneficial uses, the state FDEP
assesses every five years whether a given waterbody is meeting its water quality
thresholds for various physical and chemical parameters. Physical and chemical numeric
criteria may set maximum concentrations of pollutants, acceptable ranges of physical
parameters, and minimum concentrations of desirable parameters such as dissolved
oxygen.75
In the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) evaluation, the agency
reviews each waterbody for compliance with water quality standards using the Impaired
Waters Rule and determines whether it is verified impaired, whether it should be on the
planning list, (the list of surface waters or segments for which assessments will be
conducted to evaluate whether the water is impaired and a total maximum daily load
(TMDL) is needed), or whether the data are insufficient to determine compliance. The
following are important water quality criteria, which were grouped into 6 major pollutant
type categories and used as indicators of estuarine health in Southwest Florida.
1) Nutrients: Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous
Nutrients that have been dissolved in the water, such as nitrogen compounds (nitrites,
nitrates, and ammonia) and phosphorus provide nourishment to plants. A continuous
biochemical storage-release-cycling system supplies these nutrients to the ecosystem.
Without these sources of nutrient replacement, the ecosystem would gradually become
impoverished; however, high loads of these compounds (eutrophication) may throw off
estuarine balance and become dangerous to inhabitants by causing unnaturally large
algal blooms or other adverse ecological effects.
Eutrophication is a natural process associated with some lakes and estuaries, but
human activities can trigger or greatly accelerate eutrophication by increasing the rate at
which nutrients and organic substances enter aquatic ecosystems from their surrounding
watersheds as well. Agricultural runoff, urban runoff, leaking septic systems, sewage
discharges, eroded stream banks, and similar sources can increase the flow of nutrients
and organic substances into aquatic systems. When high nutrient concentrations
stimulate algal blooms, the water may be affected in two ways.76 First, algal blooms can
decrease light penetration, which may cause SAV to die and result in the loss of the food
and shelter for many estuarine species. Second, the amount of dissolved oxygen is
severely depleted during the decomposition of the algae. In some rare cases, such as
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 26 of 251 that of red tide, algal blooms may even cause direct toxicity to other organisms with
which it comes into contact as discussed in further detail in Appendix A.
Currently, there are no numeric thresholds for nutrient pollution; though the US
Environmental Protection Agency recently began creating some by adopting numeric
nutrient criteria for freshwater rivers and lakes outside South Florida. Thus, a narrative
standard with Chlorophyll a (Chl-a) and the Trophic State Index (TSI) as surrogate
indicators for assessing nutrient enrichment and compliance have been used to date.77
Chl-a is a measure of phytoplankton biomass and plant abundance in the water.
Phytoplankton are a direct and indirect source of food for many marine animals and
depend on certain conditions for growth; they are therefore a good indicator of
environmental change.78 TSI “uses algal biomass as the basis for trophic state
classification.”79
The current narrative state standards for nutrient impairment are as follows:
(1) A stream or stream segment shall be included on the planning list for nutrients if the
following biological imbalances are observed: (a) Algal mats are present in sufficient
quantities to pose a nuisance or hinder reproduction of a threatened or endangered
species, or (b) Annual mean chlorophyll a concentrations are greater than 20 µg/l or if
data indicate annual mean chlorophyll a values have increased by more than 50% over
historical values for at least two consecutive years,
(2) For the purposes of evaluating nutrient enrichment in lakes, TSIs shall be calculated
and Lakes or lake segments shall be included on the planning list for nutrients if: (a) For
lakes with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units, the annual mean TSI for
the lake exceeds 60, unless paleolimnological information indicates the lake was
naturally greater than 60, or (b) For lakes with a mean color less than or equal to 40
platinum cobalt units, the annual mean TSI for the lake exceeds 40, unless
paleolimnological information indicates the lake was naturally greater than 40, or (c) For
any lake, data indicate that annual mean TSIs have increased over the assessment
period, as indicated by a positive slope in the means plotted versus time, or the annual
mean TSI has increased by more than 10 units over historical values. When evaluating
the slope of mean TSIs over time, the Department shall require at least a 5 unit increase
in TSI over the assessment period and use a Mann’s one-sided, upper-tail test for trend,
and (3) Estuaries, estuary segments, or open coastal waters shall be included on the
planning list for nutrients if their annual mean chlorophyll a for any year is greater than 11
µg/l or if data indicate annual mean chlorophyll a values have increased by more than
50% over historical values for at least two consecutive years.80
Unionized ammonia was included with nutrients (chl-a) as a type of parameter since
ammonia is a nitrogen waste released by aquatic animals, affecting the nutrient cycle.
2) Oxygen-Depleting Wastes
Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Biological Oxygen Demand is a measure of the amount of dissolved oxygen used by
microorganisms to assimilate organic wastes.81 BOD is the most commonly used
parameter for determining the oxygen demand on the receiving water of a municipal or
industrial discharge. The greater the BOD, the more rapidly oxygen is being depleted.
The rate of oxygen consumption in an estuary is affected by a number of variables,
including temperature, the presence of certain kinds of microorganisms, and the type of
organic and inorganic material in the water.82 A high BOD indicates a large presence of
organic matter in the water. Increases in organic matter may be caused by natural
sources, such as leaf litter, or by anthropogenic sources. Major anthropogenic sources
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 27 of 251 contributing to high levels of BOD in this region are wastewater treatment facilities,
septic tanks, as well as agricultural and urban runoff.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is an important indicator of estuarine health because fish,
shellfish and other marine animals are negatively affected by anoxia (no oxygen) and
hypoxia (very low oxygen). DO is the measure of the amount of gaseous oxygen
dissolved in the water column. Oxygen is dissolved into water from the atmosphere and
is a product of photosynthesis. Natural stream purification processes require oxygen in
order to provide support for aerobic life forms.
As dissolved oxygen levels in the water column drop below 5.0 mg/l, the water quality
criterion for marine and freshwater environments, aquatic life is put under stress.83 The
lower the concentration of DO the greater the stress. Oxygen levels that remain below 12 mg/l for a few hours can result in a loss of aquatic life.84 One such example was in
1996 when there was a massive fish kill in Lake Trafford (Wiggins Pass watershed) from
excessive human nutrient pollution. With widespread human pollution influences present
and dissolved oxygen levels being recorded as too low to support aquatic life in many
waterbodies throughout the region, dissolved oxygen is a prevalent water quality
concern.
Reduction in dissolved oxygen may result from natural processes and/or human
pollution. Human sources of nutrients can lead to low DO because nutrients feed algae,
which grow in numbers and then die, fueling bacteria to breakdown dead algae. As
bacteria decompose the algae, leading to an increase in bacterial activity, available
oxygen is depleted. Current and accurate data on concentrations of DO in water are
essential for documenting changes to the environment caused by natural phenomena
and human activities. 85 Time of day and long-term information on the condition of the
system is important here as well, due to fluctuations in DO levels based on temperature
and salinity. Differentiating the degree to which current low DO waterbodies are being
influenced by human versus natural factors is a pressing research need.
3) Pathogens (e.g., Bacteria, Protozoans)
Pathogens act as infectious agents of disease, spreading illnesses such as cholera,
salmonella, typhoid fever, and dysentery. High levels of pathogenic organisms in the
water column are a human health concern. Total Coliform bacteria “are a collection of
relatively harmless microorganisms that live in large numbers in the intestines of man
and warm- and cold-blooded animals.”86 They originate from soils, plants, and human
and animal wastes. Alone, fecal coliform bacteria, a subgroup of total coliforms
(including E. coli), generally do not pose a danger to people or animals, but they may
indicate the presence of other disease-causing bacteria such as those which cause
typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis A, and cholera. Stormwater runoff, leaching from septic
systems and animal feedlots are common sources of fecal contamination.
Bacterial contamination in shellfish, primarily fecal coliform and E. coli, can pose a
problem for human health if contaminated shellfish are consumed. Sources of
contamination include sewage treatment plants, on-site sewage systems, farm animals,
boater waste, pets and wildlife.87 The Florida Department of Health keeps track of
contamination levels in shellfish harvesting areas and determines whether the areas are
open, closed, or restricted to harvesting. Currently, the FDEP determination for
impairment is based upon a degradation of harvesting status as opposed to the current
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 28 of 251 harvesting status. This means that some areas with prohibited harvesting status are not
listed as impaired due to their consistent status as prohibited; this also means that some
conditional status locations are impaired, having been downgraded from permitted to
conditional during the monitoring period.88
In order to protect human health, water quality criteria for fecal coliform should not
exceed Most Probable Number (MPN) or Membrane Filter (MF) counts with a monthly
average of 200, nor exceed 400 in 10% of the samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day
for Class I waters (potable water), MPN shall not exceed a median value of 14 with not
more than 10% of the samples exceeding 43, nor exceed 800 on any one day for Class
II waters (shellfish harvesting water), and MPN or MF counts shall not exceed a monthly
average of 200, nor exceed 400 in 10% of the samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day
for Class III waters (recreational water).89
Beach advisories are often linked to excess bacteria. While the Florida Department of
Health does not have the authority to close Florida beaches; it can instead issue
advisories for Enterococcus exceedances and warnings for fecal coliform exceedances.
In most coastal counties, if either of the standards for Enterococcus or fecal coliform is
exceeded, officials will usually issue an advisory. However, if a sample exceeds a
standard and the county conducts a follow-up sampling within the same week, the beach
may be resampled before an advisory is issued. If the resample confirms an
exceedance, an advisory is then usually issued. Furthermore, the Florida Department of
Health posts monitoring results on its website, and local media are alerted, and signs are
posted at the beach when an advisory is issued. Advisories apply to entire beaches, not
just to sections of beaches.90
In Southwest Florida, water is routinely tested for both enterococci and fecal coliform
bacteria, the presence of which could indicate high concentrations of microorganisms
that can cause could cause disease, infections, or rashes. In 2004, enterococci took the
place of fecal coliform as the new federal standard for water quality at public beaches as it provides a higher correlation with many of the human pathogens often found in city
sewage.91 One such example of unsafe bacteria levels causing beach closures was on
August 25, 2010 at the Cape Coral Yacht Club in Lee County; where sections of beach
were closed due to high levels of both enterococci and fecal coliform.
4) Toxins
Since industrialization in the late 1940s and 1950s, the level of contaminants and toxic
substances dispersed into estuaries has increased significantly.92 These contaminants
include pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, oils, greases, and heavy metals such as
copper, mercury, and zinc. Toxins are introduced into estuaries through industrial
discharges, runoff from lawns, streets and farmlands, urban development and boating. In
addition, the estuary’s own sediment may serve as a source of contaminants due to the
buildup of toxic compounds deposited over the years.
Monitoring for the presence of toxins can provide information about possible effects on
estuarine community structure.93 Toxins in an estuary can directly affect even top
predators through the process of bioaccumulation or biomagnification, whereby the
concentrations of toxins accumulate in the flesh and increase every level up the food
chain. Since there are no water quality standards for toxins other than metals, metals
were the only parameter included in the analysis of this pollutant category.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 29 of 251 5) Metals
Waters containing high concentrations of metals may become toxic, adversely affecting
drinking water and disrupting growth and reproduction of aquatic organisms. Heavy
metals like mercury and lead may enter an estuary through rain or as dry particulate
matter and then build up in sediment and, when absorbed by plants, can pass into the
food chain. For some metals, long-term exposure in even relatively small concentrations
may lead to serious health effects.94 “Symptoms such as lesions (skin damage) on fish,
thinning of birds’ egg shells, or birth defects appear as the level of toxin builds up.”95 The
metals focused on for this report card are cadmium, mercury, iron, lead, and copper.
Cadmium may be airborne or carried by water and has many sources. Incineration of
rubber and some plastics, plating from old cars and airplanes, some fungicides, and
galvanized pipes, roofs, and cisterns are all potential sources of cadmium contamination.
In humans, cadmium’s specific effects are on the stomach causing irritation, vomiting,
and diarrhea. Small amounts of cadmium taken in over many years may cause kidney
damage and fragile bones.96
Mercury may also be an airborne pollutant released by incineration and fossil fuel
combustion and converted to methyl mercury when it reaches the water. It may cause
neurological problems and death in wildlife and humans. Even after emissions are
stopped, sediments in polluted waters may continue to pose a threat. In addition,
accumulation in fish tissue can be dangerous to those who eat fish from mercury
contaminated waters.
Iron, while not harmful unless in very large concentration, it influences the uptake of
copper and lead, magnifying the toxic affects for those contaminants. This metal occurs
naturally in groundwater, but can also be present in wastewater and stormwater due to
corrosion.97 FDEP states that major sources of iron in watersheds are solid waste sites,
SUPERFUND sites, NPDES discharges, and sites in the COMET Database.98
Lead accumulates in the body and affects the central nervous system, with pregnant
women and children most at risk. Symptoms may be flu-like, and continued exposure
may cause kidney, nerve, and brain damage. Although small levels occur naturally,
industry, pipes, fittings, solder, and the service connections of some household plumbing
systems are common additional sources.99
Copper may be released into waterways due to its common use as an
algaecide/pesticide or from tar on rooftops. Copper is predominantly toxic in infants or
adults with specific metabolic disorders. Less severe implications are unpleasant odor
and taste associated with contaminated waters. Uptake of this metal is related to
cadmium presence.
5) Physical Parameters
Various physical parameters can provide valuable data in relation to water quality.
These methods measure for the physical indicators of estuarine health such as how
acidic or alkaline water is, salt content, and amount physical debris in the water column.
They can be used to determine the source of impairment; for example, constant high
turbidity can indicate that excessive amounts of stormwater entering a receiving water
body.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 30 of 251 pH
pH measures acidity or alkalinity of water on a log scale from 0 (extremely acidic) to 14
(extremely alkaline). A pH of 7 is neutral and most estuarine organisms prefer a pH in
the range of 7.0-8.5, neutral to slightly alkaline. pH is generally relatively stable in
estuarine and marine waters because of carbonate buffering. However, significant
changes in pH may occur due to disturbance of acid sulphate soils from mine drainage
or chemical pollution.
An altered pH that is higher or lower than that normally encountered by estuarine
organisms can result in tissue damage, leading to death. Changes in pH can also affect
the availability of metals and the solubility of calcium carbonate, which is important for
shell-forming organisms. pH changes of more than 0.5 pH units from the seasonal
maxima or minima could cause significant harm to the organisms inhabiting the estuary.
Dissolved Solids
Dissolved Solids include a variety of substances including salts, metals, and organic
compounds. Total dissolved solids are not a measure of water quality but an indicator of
the presence of chemical contaminants and are only measured in Class I potable
waters, with a statewide standard of ≤ 500 milligrams/L as a monthly average and ≤
1,000 milligrams/L as a maximum. “Elevated total dissolved solids can result in your
water having a bitter or salty taste; result in incrustations, films, or precipitates on
fixtures; corrosion of fixtures, and reduced efficiency of water filter and equipment.”100
Chloride
A chloride is a salt compound composed of chlorine and a metal, such as NaCl or
MgCl2.101 Salinity is the measure of this salt content within the water. The measure of
salinity within an estuary tells us how much freshwater has been mixed with seawater.
There is a gradient in salt content that starts with high values in Gulf waters, decreases
inward through the estuary, and drops at some distance up the tidal tributaries.102 Many
aquatic organisms function optimally within a narrow range of salinity. Changes in
salinity, above or below this range, may weaken organisms and cause them to succumb
to biotic pressures such as predation, competition, disease, or parasitism.103 State water
quality standards for chloride allows no more than a 10% increase above normal
background conditions, with the allowance of normal daily and seasonal fluctuations. For
Class I potable waters, the chloride must be ≤ 250 milligrams/L.
Specific Conductance
Conductance is the measure of water’s ability to carry an electrical current and is used
as an indirect measure of salinity. Conductivity is based upon the concentration of solids
dissolved, mostly salts; the greater the concentration of dissolved solids the higher the
conductivity.104 Specific conductance is the measure used by FDEP to determine
impairment, which is the conductivity normalized to temperature of 25 ºC. State water
quality standards state that specific conductance shall not be increased more than 50%
above background or to 1,275 micromhos/cm, whichever is greater.
Turbidity/Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
The amount of sunlight that reaches aquatic plants, such as seagrasses and
phytoplankton, depends on the clarity of the water and turbidity. Turbid water results
from the delivery or resuspension of sediments and other materials, which may be
caused by natural or anthropogenic activities. The greater the total suspended solids
(TSS) in the water, the murkier it appears and the higher the measured turbidity.
Dredging operations, channelization, increased flow rates, floods, boat wakes, or an
abundance of bottom-feeding fish may stir up bottom sediments and increase the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 31 of 251 cloudiness of the water. If light penetration is reduced significantly and for a sufficient
period of time, the plant growth may decreased, which would impact the organisms
dependent upon them for food and cover.105
High concentrations of particulate matter can also cause shallow bays to fill in faster and
smother benthic habitats, impacting associated organisms. As particles of silt, clay, and
organic materials settle to the bottom, non-mobile planktonic organisms can suffocate
and sediment can blanket hard bottom, decreasing its habitat value. Fine particulate
material can also clog or damage sensitive gill structures, decrease resistance to
disease, prevent proper egg and larval development, and potentially interfere with
feeding activities.
State water quality criteria require that turbidity remains less than or equal to 29
Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) above natural background conditions in marine
and freshwater environments.106
6) Biology
Currently, FDEP measures the biological health of waterbodies based on an aquatic
community-based biological evaluation consisting of one of the following procedures:
Stream Condition Index, BioRecon, Lake Vegetation Index, or Shannon-Weaver
Diversity Index. The state water quality standard is technically for “biological integrity”,
although FDEP refers to this parameter in the listing process as biology and is based on
a pass-fail analysis of the aforementioned procedures.
Not only is the collection of biology data very sparse throughout the region, FDEP also
does not have very clear guidelines for which method to use for a certain waterbody. It is
also not clear how results are used to determine whether or not a waterbody is impaired
based on pass/fail analysis and what steps should be taken to identify the causative
pollutant. Because the Florida Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) requires a causative
pollutant in order to list a waterbody impaired for a certain parameter, FDEP has not
listed any waterbodies impaired for biology. Waterbodies that have repeatedly failed
biology analyses are considered impaired by the US Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), yet no TMDLs have been completed for biology to date.
Hydrology
One of the most prominent stressors of an estuarine ecosystem is altered hydrology.
Excessive freshwater withdrawals and over-drainage, or dramatic increases of
freshwater flowing into an estuary are examples of alterations that take place as a result
of anthropogenic activities. These hydrological changes can decrease water quality by
increasing turbidity and nutrient loading, changing the residence time of water in the
estuary, and altering the natural salinity regime.
Restoration of historic hydrology helps return the balance of estuarine systems and their
nursery grounds.107 Restoring slower and more natural flow rates reduces the level of
suspended particulates, thereby increasing light penetration and photosynthesis. This,
as well as decreasing the input of nutrients and pesticides, can aid in restoring
seagrasses. This indicator is evaluated through a qualitative assessment of the
hydrologic changes in the estuary over time.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 32 of 251 4 METHODOLOGY
This report assesses the health of each estuary based on two categories: Wildlife
Habitat and Water Quality. A Wildlife Habitat grade was assigned, based on the
percentage of wetlands remaining and percent of mangroves remaining for each
watershed, with that grade being weighted by the percentage of conservation lands
within the same watershed. Water pollution lists were used to calculate the water quality
grade for each watershed, and those grades were then weighted based on the
hydrologic conditions of the same watershed.
Wildlife Habitat
Three measures of Wildlife Habitat were used for this Report Card: (1) Extent of
Wetlands Remaining, (2) Extent of Mangroves Remaining and (3) Extent of
Conservation Lands. The baseline for the extent of wetlands remaining is the “predevelopment” conditions of each estuary’s watershed. Wildlife Habitat was graded based
on the assessment of the percentage of remaining wetlands averaged with percent of
mangroves remaining within each estuary watershed, qualified with a plus (+) or minus () stemming from the percentage of conservation lands within that watershed.
In order to calculate the Extent of Wetlands Remaining, the current wetland acreage was
divided by the pre-development wetland acreage and multiplied by 100 to obtain a
percentage. The percentage of the Extent of Wetlands Remaining was assigned a letter
grade according to the following scale: A (80-100%), B (60-79%), C (40-59%), D (2039%), and F (19% or less).
This grade was then assigned a qualifying value based on the percentage of acres
within the estuary’s watershed that are managed lands in permanent conservation. The
Conservation Lands percentage was graded independently and assigned a value on a
scale of 36% and above (+), no qualifier for 24-35%, and 23% or less (-).
Extent of Wetlands Remaining
The most current estimate of wetlands is easily extrapolated using the “Florida Land Use
and Cover Classification System,” commonly known as FLUCCS. Because the Estuary
Report Card scope area is within two water management districts (the SFWMD and the
SWFWMD), both FLUCCS data layers were used (see table below for corresponding
water management districts and watershed). The most up-to-date FLUCCS shapefile
available from the SFWMD at the time this analysis was completed was titled “LU-04”,
with data representing Land Use from 2004. The most up-to-date FLUCCS shapefile
available from the SWFWMD was titled “LU-06,” containing data representative of 2006
Land Use Cover. The 6000 series of FLUCCS codes are commonly referred to as
wetlands, all of which were selected from the FLUCCS data layer to represent existing
wetlands. Because Charlotte County is divided into two water management districts, the
SFWMD data was used, where available, and the SWFWMD was used for the remaining
area.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Watershed
Coastal Venice
Lemon Bay
Charlotte Harbor
Pine Island Sound
Caloosahatchee River
Estero Bay
Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee
Naples Bay
Rookery Bay
Ten Thousand Islands
Page 33 of 251 Corresponding Water Management
District
SWFWMD
SWFWMD
SFWMD / SWFWMD
SFWMD
SFWMD / SWFWMD
SFWMD
SFWMD
SFWMD
SFWMD
SFWMD
Figure 13 - Watersheds & WMD Jurisdiction
The pre-development wetlands are also provided by both water management districts in
a “pre-development wetlands” data layer. The following categories of wetlands were
extrapolated from the SFWMD data layer: Cypress, Hydric Flatwood, Hydric Hammock,
Mangrove, Marsh, Scrub Cypress, Swamp Forest, Tidal Marsh, and Wet Prairie. The
following categories of wetlands were extrapolated from the SWFWMD: Cypress
Swamp, Hardwood Swamp, Herbaceous Wetlands, Mangrove Swamps, and Salt Marsh.
All other categories were considered uplands and not included in our calculation for predevelopment wetlands.
Acreages of each habitat were calculated using the calculate geometry tool in ArcGIS
9.2. Acreages were summed using the statistics tool in the attribute table. Details of the
wetlands acreage for each estuary are found in Appendix B.
Extent of Mangroves Remaining
The calculation for the extent of mangroves remaining was carried out in the same
manner as wetlands remaining. The same pre-development vegetation GIS shapefile
was used to determine historic mangrove coverage. The distinction between whether to
use SFWMD data (which titles mangrove coverage as “mangrove“) or SWFWMD data
(which titles mangrove coverage as “mangrove swamp“) was determined by the table
above. Current coverage of mangroves was represented by a GIS shape provided by
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission titled “Florida Mangroves 2009.”
The data was selected for land use and land cover represents mangrove coverage as of
May 2009. Details of the mangroves acreage for each estuary are found in Appendix C.
Extent of Conservation Lands
Federal, state, and local public conservation lands, as well as private lands with
conservation easements, were identified for each estuary’s watershed based on
information provided by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) “Managed Lands”
data layer dated September 2009 from the Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL)
website. Aquatic Preserves were also calculated into the Extent of Conservation Lands
acreage by utilizing the “Aquatic Preserves” data layer dated February 2008 from the
FGDL website. The Managed Lands and Aquatic Preserve shapefiles were clipped to
each watershed’s boundary and acreages were calculated using the calculate geometry
tool. Where Managed Lands and Aquatic Preserves overlapped, an intersect was
determined with these layers and subtracted out of the Aquatic Preserves acreage,
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 34 of 251 thereby not double-counting area. The individual conservation areas and their acreages
that were used to attain the aggregated percentages are provided in Appendix D.
Water Quality
Florida’s water quality standards are assessed through a complex listing process that is
governed by the state’s Impaired Waters Rule (IWR) and the federal Clean Water Act
(CWA). FDEP is the lead agency responsible for monitoring the health of Florida’s
waters through water quality standards. The Florida Watershed Restoration Act of 1999
directed FDEP to implement a comprehensive, integrated, watershed approach to
evaluating and managing cumulative impacts to the state’s waters.
FDEP assesses the entire state by dividing the state’s land area into 5 different
assessment areas called Groups. Each Group is assessed on a 5 year rotating
schedule, so that generally every 5 years all Groups have been analyzed and a new list
of impaired waterbodies has been generated. Using the rotating basin management
cycle, FDEP and stakeholders assess individual basins, identify impaired waters
requiring the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and develop Basin
Management Action Plans (BMAPs) to restore water quality.
Each individual assessment area is called a Waterbody Identification or WBID. WBID
boundaries have changed, most dramatically in Southwest Florida, since Cycle 1 to
better reflect actual watershed boundaries, largely in part due to concerns raised by the
Conservancy in the 2005 Estuaries Report Card. FDEP has different “IWR runs” as data
is incorporated and WBID boundaries are changed. For this assessment, IWR run 35
was used, which reflected the most recent delineations at the time.
Every two years FDEP is required under CWA 303(b) and 303(d) to submit to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) an overview of Florida’s surface water and
ground water quality trends. Moreover, every year that FDEP adopts a Verified List of
Impaired Waters, they must submit this 303(d) list to EPA for approval. However,
litigation over the state’s IWR in 2003 and subsequently in 2008 led to immense delay in
EPA’s approval of FDEP lists. It was not until September of 2009 that EPA approved in
part and disapproved in part FDEP’s list of impaired waters for Groups 1, 2, and 5 by
releasing a Decision Document. EPA also approved the Group 3 303(d) List of waters in
May 2010. All watersheds assessed in the Estuaries Report Card are in Group 1, 2, or 3,
therefore the EPA approved lists were utilized as a basis for water quality scores.
It is important to note that the Conservancy has many concerns with the state’s listing
process, which are now being realized as each watershed is into its second cycle of
assessment. FDEP has created in Cycle 2 new categories with which to place waters in,
which exclude them from the 303(d) List, 4d and 4e. EPA however includes category 4d
waters on the federally-approved 303(d) list. This has created different 303(d) Lists for
state-approved and federally-approved lists. These concerns will be further discussed in
the Recommendations section.
The determination of the water pollution score for each watershed has two parts: (1) the
acres of spatial impairment and (2) the severity of the impairment (when one WBID is
impaired for multiple parameters) within those impaired acreages. First, for the spatial
impairment, the total number of acres for each estuary was determined by totaling the
acreage for each WBID within the estuary’s watershed. Second, the acreages for
impaired WBIDs were totaled to determine the impaired acreage of the watershed. The
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 35 of 251 percent of unimpaired acreage within the watershed was then calculated. Finally, the
percent of acres of unimpairment within that watershed was assigned a spatial
impairment ranking.
Each rank is based on the following percentage scale:
GPA Rank
4.00
3.67
3.33
3.00
2.67
2.33
2.00
1.67
1.33
1.00
0.67
0.33
Percentage
Scale
93-100%
85-92%
77-84%
69-76%
61-68%
53-60%
45-52%
37-44%
29-36%
21-28%
13-20%
0-13%
The spatial impairment calculation is shown below:
Percent of Watershed Unimpaired = 100 x { 1 - [(Sum of Acreage for Impaired WBIDs) / (Total
Acreage of Watershed)]}
To determine the severity of impairment within the impaired portions of the watershed,
the possible impaired criteria were divided into six categories commonly associated with
water pollutants: (1) Pathogens, e.g. Bacteria, Fecal Coliform; (2) Oxygen-depleting
wastes, e.g. DO, BOD; (3) Metals, e.g. Mercury, Iron, Lead, Copper; (4) Nutrients,
including Un-Ionized Ammonia; (5) Physical Parameters, e.g. pH, Specific Conductance,
Turbidity, TSS; (6) Biology. Then, each impaired WBID’s acreage was multiplied by the
number of categories for which it was impaired. These acreages were totaled and then
divided by the total impaired acreage for the watershed multiplied by the 6 possible
categories of impairment.
It should be noted that while this method does count multiple categories of impairment
as more severe than a single one, it does not account for the differences in toxicity levels
of certain pollutants. Moreover, the method used normalizes the denominator to
represent that all WBIDs could have 6 possible types of impairments, even though not
every WBID was sampled for all 6 types of pollutants. A solution to this is to utilize a
weighted mean in the denominator, which would represent the actual number of types of
parameters measured for, however it was decided that a more conservative approach of
normalizing the denominator would alleviate underscoring the watersheds and provide a
consistent methodology with that used in 2005 in order to facilitate comparative analysis.
What is herein referred to as severity of impairment score is in actuality, a relative
degree of unimpairment of the watershed. This is because the inverse of the severity is
calculated so that the overall water quality grade will be consistent with a high score equaling a higher letter grade.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 36 of 251 The severity of impairment calculations are shown below:
(
)
The final water pollution score was determined by weighting the spatial impairment more
heavily than the severity of impairment (a weight of 2/3 to 1/3), as it was determined that
it is more important that a given amount of a specified watershed does not meet
requirements for its designated use than the importance of severity within only the
impaired portion. To combine the two impairment scores they were scaled using the
common 4.0 grade point scale then combined to determine the final Grade Point
Average (GPA) for the watershed. This GPA was then assigned a letter grade, once
again based on the familiar 4.0 grade scale where A = 4.00-3.67, B = 3.66-2.67, C =
2.66-1.67, D = 1.66-0.67, F = 0.66-0.00. The final GPA calculation is shown below:
(
)
Several estuaries in Southwest Florida are impacted by either too little freshwater flow,
due to diversions of water from their watersheds, or too much freshwater flow, due to
drainage features that push water out through estuaries in the wet season. First, it
should be noted that there is no baseline hydrology data for the watersheds included in
our study area that predates alteration. In addition, there is no available current
quantitative data for each of the estuaries in Southwest Florida. Therefore, though
hydrology is arguably of equal importance as water pollution, the lack of quantitative
data precludes it from being used equally for the analysis of water quality in each
watershed. Qualitative reports do exist for the degree of alteration and detailing
freshwater flow problems in many of the estuaries. For some of the tributaries that flow
into the estuaries, a minimum freshwater flow and level (MFL) has been adopted by
either the SWFWMD or the SFWMD using the best available scientific data to establish
an MFL for preventing harm to the tributary or its downstream estuary. However, since
quantitative thresholds are not available for all of the watersheds in this report,
qualitative data on the current hydrological status of each estuary was collected and
assessed.
In order to convert qualitative data to a water quality grade qualifier, the Conservancy
posed 5 questions consistently to independent experts from each watershed area.
Combined, these questions were developed to hit upon major hydrologic indicators
that will help identify the health of an estuary. The questions are as follows:
1. Have natural flowways been diverted to other waterbodies either within the
natural watershed or outside of the area?
2. Are continued alterations occurring within the watershed?
3. Are there any past or current restoration efforts taking place within the
watershed?
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card 4.
5.
Page 37 of 251 Are there plans for restoration within the watershed?
Is there any change in the species present (i.e., extinction of natives/ and
presence of exotics)?
After examining each estuary and factoring in the answers to the above questions,
each estuary was given a qualifier of “Poor,” “Fair,” or “Good,” which was then used
to modify the letter grade for water quality. Estuaries that were evaluated to be
between two qualifiers were given a range, i.e., “Poor- Fair.” “Good” means that the
watershed was determined to have been only slightly altered and does not present
significant ecological detriment to the watershed, generally had a positive answer to
all 5 questions listed above, and was given a qualifier of plus (+). “Fair” means that
the watershed has been moderately altered presenting a degree of negative impact
to the watershed, generally having answered positively to at least 3 of the questions
listed above, and was given no qualifier. “Poor” means that the watershed is
significantly altered from historical conditions presenting a substantial negative
impact on the ecological integrity of the watershed, generally has less than 3 of the
questions listed above answered positively, and was given a qualifier of minus (-).
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 38 of 251 5 REPORT CARD GRADES AND CONCLUSIONS
Figure 14 - 2011 Wildlife Habitat Grade
Estuary
Wetlands
Remaining
Mangroves
Remaining
Averaged
Percentage
Base
Grade
Conservation
Lands
Percentage
Qualifier
Overall
Wildlife
Habitat
Grade*
Coastal Venice
48%
47%
48%
C
12%
minus
C-
Lemon Bay
70%
55%
63%
B
25%
none
B
Greater Charlotte Harbor
64%
57%
61%
B
18%
minus
B-
Pine Island Sound
70%
100%
85%
A
56%
plus
A+
Caloosahatchee
39%
38%
39%
D
16%
minus
D-
Estero Bay
62%
85%
74%
B
21%
minus
B-
Wiggins Pass/ Cocohatchee
71%
61%
66%
B
27%
none
B
Naples Bay
31%
30%
31%
D
1%
minus
D-
Rookery Bay
78%
70%
74%
B
52%
plus
B+
Ten Thousand Islands
90%
100%
95%
A
67%
plus
A+
Figure 15 - 2011 Water Quality Grade
Estuary
Total Acreage
Final Water
Quality Grade
Hydrology
Qualifier
Overall Water
Quality Grade*
Coastal Venice
62,961
C
poor
C-
Lemon Bay
52,341
D
poor
D-
Greater Charlotte Harbor
2,075,825
C
fair
C
Pine Island Sound
187,111
D
poor to fair
D
Caloosahatchee
880,874
D
poor
D-
Estero Bay
Wiggins Pass/
Cocohatchee
197,922
D
fair
D
119,475
C
poor
C-
Naples Bay
92,537
D
poor
D-
Rookery Bay
126,969
D
fair
D
Ten Thousand Islands
1,549,893
D
poor to fair
D
*Please refer to Appendix B for calculation of percentage of wetlands remaining,
Appendix C for percent of mangroves remaining, Appendix D for percent of conservation
lands, and Appendix E, F, and G for calculation of water quality grades.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 39 of 251 Figure 16 - Summary of 2011 Watershed Health Grades
Estuary
Total Acreage
Final Wildlife
Habitat Grade
Final Water Quality Grade
Coastal Venice
62,961
C-
C-
Lemon Bay
52,341
D-
B
Greater Charlotte Harbor
2,075,825
C
B-
Pine Island Sound
187,111
D
A+
Caloosahatchee
880,874
D-
D-
Estero Bay
197,922
D
B-
Wiggins Pass/ Cocohatchee
119,475
C-
B
Naples Bay
92,537
D-
D-
Rookery Bay
126,969
D
B+
Ten Thousand Islands
1,549,893
D
A+
Conclusions
The Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card has compiled and
evaluated indicators of health for the region’s ten major estuarine watersheds, from
Coastal Venice to the Ten Thousand Islands. These estuaries share similar
characteristics, but they differ significantly in the amount and timing of freshwater flows
from their watersheds and in the amount of urban and agricultural development
impacting their watersheds.
The hydrology of much of Southwest Florida has been altered by drainage including the
Central and Southern Florida Project. Roads, canals, and wetland filling for residential
development and agriculture have also had a significant impact on the hydrology of the
area. Alterations in flow and timing have a significant impact on water quality and on the
health of aquatic life within the estuaries and their watersheds. As urban development
continues to crowd coastal watersheds of Southwest Florida, alterations of water flows to
the estuaries will worsen unless flowway and wetland protection become higher
priorities. There have been significant improvements in the protection of environmentally
sensitive lands in the last 5 years, particularly with regards to public land acquisition;
however, wildlife habitat and wetlands have continued to be reduced.
The estuaries of Southwest Florida all display impact from human activity even in the
relatively remote Ten Thousand Islands estuary. Each estuary, including those that are
significantly protected by conservation lands, has portions if not all of its watershed that
does not meet state water quality standards. The 2011 Report Card grades reflect that
there is an increasing spatial area not meeting state water quality standards and there
are more waterbodies containing multiple impairments than in 2005. Moreover, this
report reflects the same conclusion that was made in 2005, that for the more urbanized
areas of each watershed - it appears that the primary problems relate to dissolved
oxygen and nutrients, while agricultural areas have problems with pesticides and metals.
More estuaries are also being verified impaired for mercury, which is the most common
impairment in coastal areas and open waters.
In the process of creating the 2005 Estuaries Report Card, the Conservancy learned
that, despite several governmental programs to monitor the environment of Southwest
Florida, consistent and comprehensive data on important indicators of estuarine health
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 40 of 251 were not collected throughout the region. This holds true 5 years later, and the
Conservancy was faced with incorporating only a few key indicators, the same that were
used in 2005. The only exception was that a more extensive analysis of mangrove
coverage has been completed in recent years, which was integrated into the wildlife
habitat grade. The other key indicators utilized were water quality (303(d) lists and
hydrology) and wildlife habitat (wetlands remaining, mangroves remaining, and percent
conservation lands).
Biological indicators of estuarine health may actually be more effective indicators than
the chemical indicators of water quality being relied upon in FDEP’s and EPA’s impaired
waters evaluation. However, in order for specific bioindicators to be utilized in a
comparative analysis, sampling protocol and sampling intensity must be sufficiently
rigorous and consistent across watersheds. A lot has been accomplished by state
agencies in the past 5 years to better document biological indicators. There have been
more and more studies being made available in GIS format as well, which has allowed
more users to access information. For example, the Conservancy was now able to
analyze statewide mangrove cover, as well as statewide oyster bed coverage, both of
which have been provided by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)
in recent years. There have also been more statewide studies of seagrass; however, the
Conservancy was unable to locate a statewide GIS database of historic seagrass
coverage in order to make a comparison to determine loss or gain. The same historic
database was also not available for oyster bed coverage.
Even water quality data, though more extensive, still has gaps. For example, 30% of the
entire Greater Charlotte Harbor watershed is not sampled for any water quality
parameters. An analysis of data gaps can be found in Appendix H of this report, which is
based on FDEP categories 3a (no data), 3b (insufficient data), and 3c (planning list, i.e.,
not enough data to be placed on the verified list).
Below are specific conclusions for each of the estuaries evaluated.
Coastal Venice
With less than half of the original wetlands remaining and only 12% land in conservation,
the habitat grade for this watershed is a C-. Coastal Venice is the 2nd most developed
urban watershed in this study. The largest land holding in preservation is the privately
owned conservation easement known as Heritage Ranch, encompassing almost 2,000
acres. Most of the watershed falls within Sarasota County, which does have a land
acquisition program and could contribute to future improvements of wildlife habitat. This
watershed, which is mostly inland, only had about 148 acres of mangroves historically;
however, even this original small acreage of mangroves has decreased by over 50%,
with only 69 acres remaining. However, this is still within the middle range of acres lost
and did not affect the letter grade.
Coastal Venice has degraded water quality with 66% of its watershed impaired for at
least one parameter. The most pervasive water quality problems in this watershed are
nutrients and DO. Over half of the watershed is impaired for nutrients, either tested for
chl-a or TSI, or impaired for DO with Total Nitrogen (TN) and/or Total Phosphorus (TP)
as the causative pollutant. Even more of an issue is that 61% of the watershed is
impaired for DO. No TMDLs or BMAPs have been completed or drafted for these
impairments. Additionally, about 13% of the watershed is impaired for mercury.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 41 of 251 Hydrology in the area has been severely altered and there is a great possibility that
natural systems may be heavily impacted due to these changes. There also have not
been any significant improvements to the altered hydrology. Therefore, the water quality
grade for Coastal Venice is C-.
Lemon Bay
Lemon Bay has 70% of its wetlands remaining and contains about 25% of its total
acreage in conservation. The Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve, the Myakka State Forest,
and the Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park make up most of the land currently in
conservation, although there have been many efforts in recent years to publicly acquire
smaller parcels. There has been an increase in conservation land over the past 5 years,
which has earned this watershed a qualifier of “none,” rather than a minus which it was
given in 2005. Additionally, there were a little less than 2,000 acres of mangroves in the
Lemon Bay watershed historically, 45% of which has been lost. This fell in the middle
range of acres lost and therefore did not affect the letter grade. The final wildlife habitat
grade for this watershed is a B.
The Lemon Bay watershed is composed mostly of marine and estuarine waters, of which
96% are impaired for at least one parameter. The most pervasive impairment is mercury,
for which 87% of the watershed is not meeting state water quality standards. Moreover,
over 51% of Lemon Bay is spatially impaired for nutrients and almost 52% is impaired for
DO. An FDEP informational sheet pertaining to Lemon Bay states that “[w]ater quality
conditions in Lemon Bay show average conditions, with very high nutrient, chlorophyll
and bacteria levels associated with summer rain events.”108 Of course, summer rains
bring more man-made pollution via agricultural and residential stormwater runoff as well.
FDEP also states that “[c]omprehensive watershed management activities will be
directed toward reducing detrimental conditions,” however no updated management
plans have been implemented.
In recent years, land development has contributed to the overall degradation of water
quality in the Lemon Bay estuary. This watershed has suffered from the over-pumping of
groundwater and the channelization of the majority of its coastal creeks. This resulted in
a “poor” determination for Lemon Bay hydrology, and a final water quality grade of D-.
Perhaps the greater number of WBIDs impaired for at least one parameter is indicative
of increased and more thorough monitoring of the area, particularly of mercury. A recent
CHNEP report of Lemon Bay showed good conditions of chlorophyll, water clarity, DO,
total nitrogen, oysters, and seagrasses,109 suggesting that mercury may be the cause of
a low water quality grade.
Greater Charlotte Harbor
The Greater Charlotte Harbor watershed is enormous in size and encompasses many
types of waterbodies and habitat types. Unfortunately, different environments in the
watershed have been affected, whether through continued wetland loss or destruction of
mangroves because of loss of pollutant filtration. About 64% of the watershed’s wetlands
are remaining and about 43% of the mangroves have been lost compared to historic
coverage. Moreover, only 18% of the watershed is in conservation, resulting in a wildlife
habitat grade of B-.
The water quality for Greater Charlotte Harbor is slightly better than the other
watersheds, with about 54% of its area impaired for at least one parameter. The primary
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 42 of 251 impairment for this watershed is DO, with almost 37% of the area being impaired. There
are also areas impaired for nutrients (18%), mercury (18%), and pathogens (13%). It
should be noted, however that 30% of the watershed is not measured for any parameter
and no water quality monitoring data is on record. Most of these unsampled areas are
within the upper reaches of the watershed, which is out of the CHNEP monitoring area.
Because vast amounts of data exist for Charlotte Harbor proper, specific importance
should be placed on continued monitoring of this watershed in order to accurately reflect
water quality conditions as a system.
The hydrology for the entire Greater Charlotte Harbor watershed has been significantly
altered, with many of its tributaries affected by mining and development discharge into
the system. This has detrimentally affected water levels and allowed saltwater intrusion
into the surficial aquifer system. Areas surrounding the Myakka River, however, have not
been degraded to the same degree and have largely been protected through public land
conservation. A “fair” rating was assigned to the Greater Charlotte Harbor watershed
and the overall water quality grade was assessed to be a C.
Pine Island Sound
Pine Island Sound waterbodies receive a fair amount of protection due to the amount of
wetlands and conserved lands remaining in this watershed. Pine Island Sound
watershed has 70% of its historical wetlands remaining, which contributed to a base
grade of B. Lee County and private organizations, such as the Calusa Land Trust, have
preserved most of the remaining wetlands through public/private conservation
ownership. In addition, this watershed has 56% of the entire acreage held in public
conservation, which is in the upper limit of the scoring category. Most astonishingly is
that little to no mangroves have been lost when comparing to historical coverage. There
has even been mangrove growth in many areas where there had not historically been
mangroves, which increases the base grade to an A. Overall the Pine Island Sound
received an A+ for wildlife habitat. Although “periodically, large freshwater releases from
the Caloosahatchee River, caused by agricultural activities, adversely affect seagrasses,
oyster beds, and other plants and animals,” the system has been able to recover quite
quickly to date.110 Recent restoration projects such as scallop reseeding have
highlighted this ability to recover. In August 2010, volunteers participated in the “2010
Pine Island Sound Scallop Search” and found that scallops were thriving in the area.
Despite extensive wildlife habitat, this watershed is spatially impaired for 95% of the
area. Much of this impairment is due to high mercury levels, for which 66% of the
watershed is impaired. Forty-one percent of the watershed is also impaired for
pathogens, including bacteria and fecal coliform. The bacteria assessed for
contamination of shellfish are those that indicate human waste, possibly from septic
tanks and/or sewage treatment plants. Pine Island Sound is directly influenced by the
quantity and quality of freshwater flows from Cape Coral waterways, and the
Caloosahatchee River, which may account for water quality decline in this area. Pine
Island Sound is also 19% impaired for nutrients and 25% impaired for DO.
In addition, the hydrology of Pine Island Sound has been slightly altered by the Cape
Coral canal and drainage system and through deepening and widening of a channel
between the Caloosahatchee and San Carlos Bay. This resulted in a hydrological
condition assessed as “poor to fair.” Combining this with the water quality score, the
overall water quality grade for Pine Island Sound is a D.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 43 of 251 Caloosahatchee River
Much of the wildlife habitat has been lost in the Caloosahatchee watershed. Only about
39% of the wetlands remaining from historic coverage and only 38% of mangroves
remain. In addition, very little land in the watershed is held in conservation (16%),
although there have been numerous public land acquisitions in recent years, including
one of the single largest purchases of conservation land in the state’s history, Babcock
Ranch Preserve. Purchased in 2006, this preserve occupies 73,239 acres in southeast
Charlotte County and northwest Lee County.111 Despite recent land acquisition activities,
the overall habitat grade is a D-. Continued wetland destruction and mangrove loss
prove to be a significant wildlife habitat loss problem for this watershed.
Given its direct connection to Lake Okeechobee, the Caloosahatchee has compromised
water quality, resulting in 94% of the watershed currently not meeting state water quality
standards for at least one parameter. The primary impairments in this watershed are low
DO (89%), nutrients (43%), and pathogens (27%). It should be noted that the majority of
DO impairments in the Caloosahatchee are actually listed by FDEP as a category 4d,
meaning that no causative pollutant could be found. This means that there was
inadequate sampling or that FDEP was not able to find elevated levels of TN, TP, or
BOD that could be causing low DO in the area where it was being sampled. Since not all
sites displaying low DO have even been tested for all 3 causative pollutants, EPA
maintains category 4d impairments (where no causative pollutant can be identified) on
the 303(d) list, for which EPA will be responsible for establishing a TMDL waterbodyspecific pollutant limit.
Also of concern in this watershed is that FDEP has listed numerous waterbodies as
“naturally impaired” for high levels of iron. FDEP contributes this to groundwater inputs
among other things, which does not appear to be totally substantiated. These
waterbodies currently not meeting state water quality standards for iron are not
represented in the water quality grades because FDEP places them in a category 4c,
which is not included on the 303(d) list. Water quality grades in this report are solely
based on EPA approved 303(d) lists so reflect both what FDEP and EPA deems
impaired.
Significant loads of nitrogen and phosphorus flow from Lake Okeechobee into the
Caloosahatchee during the wet season result from farming operations around the lake
and in the Kissimmee River watershed. In addition, nutrients discharged from agricultural
operations along the river and from urban areas from La Belle to Cape Coral contribute
to nutrient enrichment and low DO in the river. Bacterial impairment likely results from a
combination of septic tanks and sewage treatment plants both around Lake Okeechobee
and within the Caloosahatchee watershed.
The Caloosahatchee hydrology has been dramatically altered by the Central and
Southern Florida Project, which dumps high flows of freshwater into the river from Lake
Okeechobee during the wet season and severely restricts flows from the lake during the
dry season. For dry periods, a regulatory Minimum Flow and Level (MFL) was
established at 300 cubic feet per second (cfs), the flow level initially thought to sufficient
for preventing significant environmental harm to the river and estuary. This MFL has
been violated for much of the time since it was established. It was also supposed to
have been revised 8 years ago and is now known to be insufficient to prevent significant
harm. As such, the Conservancy requested it be revised in September 2010 to ensure
that too much freshwater is not permitted away in the consumptive use process –
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 44 of 251 causing severe environmental damage to the Caloosahatchee River and estuary.
However, in November of this year, the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD) governing board denied the request to update the MFL and it remains at a
level too low to prevent significant ecological harm. Additionally, SFWMD protocols and
issuance of agricultural permits around Lake Okeechobee have allowed water from the
lake to be used to fully meet those uses when the estuary is entirely cut off from any
flows. The Conservancy continues to oppose such policies, seeking more equitable
water allocation strategies that would provide for the Caloosahatchee natural system’s
basic needs for freshwater in dry times.
Inversely during the wet season, flows sometime exceed 13,000 cfs, which is more than
four times the flow that is considered damaging to sea grasses due to reduced salinities
caused by excessive freshwater inundation. Overall, the high degree of alteration to the
hydrology of this watershed, in concert with the significant negative effects of this
alteration on water quality, benthic fauna, submerged vegetation, and fisheries, has
resulted in a “poor” hydrologic conditions assessment and an overall water quality grade
of D-.
Estero Bay
Estero Bay has 62% of its historical wetlands remaining and 85% of its mangroves
remaining, resulting in a base grade of B. Wetlands loss has drastically increased in
recent years, however, and an Estero Bay watershed study “shows a dismal
environmental future if the way development permits are reviewed isn't changed.”112 An
assessment of the 345-square-mile watershed showed that more than 25 percent of the
watershed is already developed, and a recent 12-month period saw a decrease in
wetlands within the watershed of 6.4 percent. “That's 3,755 acres of wetlands in 2006
that agencies like the South Florida Water Management District, the Department of
Environmental Protection and the Corps of Engineers allowed to be destroyed.”113 As of
2010, only 21% of the entire watershed was held in public conservation, which suggests
a need to intensify acquisition efforts of environmentally sensitive lands, including upland
buffer areas within the watershed. Much of the headwaters of the watershed are in the
Density Reduction/Groundwater Resource (DR/GR) area of Lee County, a land use
designation for private land in the area created to protect water supply and decrease
density. Thousands of acres were previously taken out of this designation to permit
development, including Florida Gulf Coast University and surrounding gated golfing
communities.
Work is currently underway to include better provisions including the following: a Future
Limerock Mining Overlay, where mining can be located with minimal impact to
surrounding land uses and natural resources; an Historic Surface and Groundwater
Levels Overlay, providing data on the historic water levels that the County will attempt to
restore in the future; a Priority Restoration Overlay, identifying and prioritizing lands
important for future restoration and/or acquisition, and; a Transfer of Development
Rights Program, allowing residential development to be transferred from environmentally
sensitive areas to more appropriate locations where suitable mixed-use development will
be allowed. If implemented correctly, land acquisitions within the DR/GR could
substantially protect environmentally sensitive lands in the watershed. One such
potential acquisition is the 4,000-acre Edison Farms parcel, which is in the headwaters
for the South Branch of the Estero, Halfway and Spring Creeks and currently under
review in the Lee County Conservation 20/20 program. The Estero Bay watershed, as is,
received a wildlife habitat grade of B-.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 45 of 251 The majority of the Estero Bay watershed is impaired for at least one parameter, with
96% of the watershed not meeting state water quality standards. Most of this area (78%
of the watershed) is impaired for nutrients or DO, with TN and/or TP being the causative
pollutant, suggesting that there is nutrient enrichment in the system. Fortunately, the
Lower West Coast Watersheds Committee of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council developed a resolution regarding fertilizer use, which was adopted by Lee
County as an ordinance in May of 2008. The ordinance regulates the nitrogen and
phosphorus content of landscaping fertilizers, establishes a fertilizer black-out period
during the rainy season, and establishes a 10-foot no-fertilizer buffer around
waterbodies. Most municipalities in Lee County have followed suit, adopting the Lee
County standards in whole, or some variation. This hopefully will address a portion of the
nutrient inputs to the bay. Estero Bay is also 71% impaired for pathogens, either for
bacteria or fecal coliform and 27% impaired for mercury. Water quality has declined in
the past years despite the fact that much of the watershed is classified as Outstanding
Florida Waters (OFW) with a “no degradation” standard, violating the state implemented
OFW rule.
According to the Estero Bay Agency for Bay Management “changes to stream flow have
been occurring at statistically significant rates for many streams over the period of
record” and the locations of highest stream flow changes “were also locations where
changes in water quality were detected.”114 Alteration through drainage canals and other
water management structures during both the wet and dry seasons have resulted in high
peaks of freshwater flows and times with very little discharge. Over-drainage has
lowered the water table and has resulted in a reduction of wetlands in the watershed,
harming aquatic life in the estuary by destroying habitat for those species that depend on
it (e.g., wading birds, amphibians, and native fish). However, due to projects like The
Estero Bay Watershed Initiative, this watershed is currently undergoing beneficial
changes that will help restore many of the hydrologic conditions to near historical levels
in portions of the watershed. Consequently, Estero Bay received a “Poor to Fair” grade
which contributed to the overall water quality grade of D.
Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River
The Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River watershed has a large percentage of wetlands
remaining (71%) from historical conditions and a significant percentage of mangroves
remaining (61%), which contributed to a base grade of B. There has been a significant
improvement of amount of land in conservation in this watershed, including the
acquisition of Pepper Ranch by the Conservation Collier program, as well as additions to
CREW lands. The entire watershed has 27% of land acreage in conservation, meaning
there is a neutral qualifier to grade. Therefore, the overall wildlife habitat grade for the
Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee watershed is a B.
Significant water quality problems in this watershed stem primarily from the
Cocohatchee River, Cocohatchee Canal, and Vanderbilt Lagoon. Each of these waters
have been significantly altered and impacted by the building of roads and land
development activities. Eighty percent of the watershed is impaired for at least one
parameter, with the most significant impairments being for nutrients (67%) and low DO
(77%). It has been determined that low DO in the Cocohatchee River is caused by
excess nitrogen compounds, likely resulting from runoff of fertilizers from agriculture and
residential use. Additionally, Lake Trafford is most severely impaired; however, since the
2005 Estuaries Report Card, Lake Trafford has had a completed TMDL for nutrients,
DO, and un-ionized ammonia. Typically FDEP will remove impairments from the 303(d)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 46 of 251 list after a TMDL has been completed; however, these impairments remain on the list
and are reflected in the water quality grades. The restoration of Lake Trafford, which
involves the removal of deep nutrient-rich muck and littoral shelf plantings, has been
shown to improve water quality. However, long-term management of the lake must
continue in order to perpetuate the water quality benefits of this effort.
The hydrology of the watershed has been significantly altered, warranting a “poor”
hydrologic score. Prior to development, the Cocohatchee Flowway was 20 miles wide,
allowing sheet flow of freshwater from the Corkscrew Swamp to reach the Imperial and
Cocohatchee Rivers. Agriculture, land development, and the building of roads narrowed
the flowway first to 2 miles where it crosses the Lee County line and then to 2,000 feet
where it enters the Cocohatchee Canal. The South Florida Water Management District
has issued a wetlands filling permit that would narrow the flowway again to around 200
feet in order to permit the construction of a large residential golfing community. There
was a challenge to the federal permit however, which to date has not issued this
allowance. The overall water quality score, comprised of both water pollution and
hydrology, assigned to Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee is a C-.
Naples Bay
It is not surprising for such an urban estuary to be accompanied by a significant loss of
wetlands and mangroves and little land in conservation. Only 30% of historical mangrove
acreage and only 31% of wetlands remain, earning Naples Bay a base grade of a D.
With only 1% of land in conservation, the overall wildlife habitat grade is a D-. There
have been multiple land acquisition efforts in recent years, including Freedom Park, the
Gordon River Greenway Preserve, and numerous Conservation Collier acquisitions. The
largest bulk of land in this watershed, however, contains Golden Gate Estates and
eastern agricultural lands, neither of which have been a focus for conservation.
Conservation Collier is in the middle of a multi-parcel project in Golden Gate Estates,
which should improve flowways in this area.
The Naples Bay watershed has a significant degree of water quality impairment. One
hundred percent of the watershed is impaired for at least one parameter, which when
combined with the severity of impairment, corresponds to a D on the grading scale.
These impairments are due to low DO with TN and/or TP being the causative pollutant
(95% impaired), metals (89%) (including mercury at 16%), and pathogens (10%). The
Naples Bay watershed is clearly impacted by stormwater runoff from urban residential
and commercial areas, including roads. Runoff from portions of the City of Naples, for
instance, flow untreated into the bay, as does runoff from much of Golden Gate Estates
and urbanized areas of north Naples Bay. The Bay experiences a flushing and
stratification effect from the tremendous volumes of water released down the Golden
Gate Canal in the wet season that could potentially be diluting existing levels of pollution
or inversely contributing to certain pollution conditions.
When the Golden Gate Canal was built to drain the Northern Golden Gate Estates
canals, it drastically altered the hydrology of the area, connecting over 70 square miles
of the watershed to the bay that were not previously connected. As a result, freshwater
flows increased during the wet season by 20 to 40 times historic flows, altering the
sensitive balance that once supported fishes, oysters, and seagrasses in the bay.115 In
addition, much of the bay itself has been altered by dredging and filling for residential
development and navigation and by seawall construction. Due to severe alteration of the
watershed, both in terms of the boundaries of the bay and the expansion of the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 47 of 251 watershed, the hydrologic condition of the watershed is deemed “poor.” The overall
water quality grade for the entire Naples Bay watershed is a D-.
Rookery Bay
As of 2010, 78% of Rookery Bay’s original wetlands and 70% of its mangroves remain,
representing a base grade of B. Almost all the wetlands lost were from historic wetlands
on Marco Island and those in the northern part of the watershed. The wetlands
preservation in protected areas is exemplary, and 52% of this watershed is in
conservation despite a great deal of development in the northern portion of the
watershed. Picayune Strand State Forest and the Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve comprise most of the lands in conservation, although there have
been recent acquisitions through the Conservation Collier program such as Otter Mound
and McIlvane Marsh. The overall wildlife habitat grade for this watershed is a B+.
Despite the fact that a large portion of the watershed is in the Rookery Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, 85% of the area is impaired for at least one parameter.
The main parameters of concern are low DO (85%), nutrients and/or DO with TN and/or
TP being the causative pollutant (30%), mercury (30%), and pathogens (30%). The
largest WBID in this watershed, WBID 3278U is impaired for DO, mercury, fecal
coliform, and nutrients, suggesting that there are intense anthropogenic factors affecting
this portion of the watershed. It should also be noted that the 2 WBIDs encompassing
Marco Island have no water quality data available for assessment, severely underrepresenting the entire watershed area’s water quality score.
Some have suggested that the nutrient impairment for this WBID, based on a chl-a
threshold of 11µ/L, is inaccurate due to sampling stations being located by roadside
bridges in the year of impairment (2006). The Conservancy would argue, however, that
not only is this WBID shown to have anthropogenic influences (contributing to various
pollutant impairments), but the chl-a measurements represent an annual average that
should have minimized the impact of any outlying data. Moreover, if the WBID is truly not
impaired it will be delisted after 3 consecutive years of attainment or when delisting
requirements are sufficiently supported by scientific data.
The water quality of Rookery Bay is increasingly threatened by development in the
Henderson Creek headwaters, along the Henderson Creek Canal, and in other drainage
areas to the bay. Recent efforts like the Belle Meade Land Acquisition project driven by
the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) could help to lessen these
threats if the project continues to be funded. The area is adjacent to the Save Our
Everglades Golden Gate Estates project, which would aid in protection of the primary
watershed of the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Preserve. The project area also
shares a 2-mile border with Collier-Seminole State Park. If acquired, Belle Meade will
ultimately be an important part of a contiguous public conservation area extending
across South Florida from the Gulf Coast to approximately 10 miles from the Atlantic
Ocean.
The hydrology of the Rookery Bay watershed has been altered by development north of
the reserve and throughout Marco Island. The alteration of the freshwater entering
Rookery Bay’s primary tributary, Henderson Creek, from the historic sheetflow to a
roadside canal, has resulted in decreased water retention during the wet season and
hypersaline conditions in Henderson Creek during periods of drought. As the Rookery
Bay watershed has only been slightly altered and fluctuations in salinity are attributed to
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 48 of 251 natural factors, its hydrological condition is determined to be “fair.” The overall water
quality grade for Rookery Bay is a D, due to significant water quality impairments.
Ten Thousand Islands
The Ten Thousand Islands watershed is outstanding with regard to wildlife habitat.
Ninety percent of wetlands remain compared to historical conditions and mangrove
coverage has changed very little over time. In fact, there are some areas within the
watershed that have mangroves today, where they may have not been present before.
In addition, the portion of conservation lands is the highest among the other watersheds
in this report at 67%. This is mainly due to large areas of state and federal conservation
lands such as the Big Cypress National Preserve, Fakahatchee Strand State Park,
Picayune Strand State Forest, and Everglades National Park, among others. This results
in a combined A+ wildlife habitat grade for the Ten Thousand Islands watershed.
The Ten Thousand Islands is a large estuarine area comprised of several individual bays
that are connected to the Gulf of Mexico. The watershed is exceptional in the degree of
relatively inaccessible mangrove forests and salt marshes that provide vital refuge,
feeding areas, and nursery grounds for Southwest Florida’s aquatic life. However, the
large upper portion of this watershed is also home to an expansive area of subdivision
known as Golden Gate Estates, as well as thousands of acres of agricultural operations,
mainly row crops and citrus groves. Miles of canals were dug and roads were built
without regard to impact on the estuary through the building of Golden Gate Estates. An
area previously known as “Southern Golden Gate Estates” and that recently became the
Picayune Strand State Forest, was acquired largely through public funds and restoration
efforts are now underway. There are four large canals that drain the Southern Golden
Gate Estates area: Prairie Canal, Merritt Canal, and Miller Canal, which all drain into the
Faka Union Canal. The Faka Union Canal then discharges into the Faka Union Bay and
the Ten Thousand Islands Estuary. Faka Union Canal, as well and the Tamiami Canal
running along US 41, have among the poorest water quality in the watershed. These
canals feed into the Ten Thousand Islands and affect its water quality score significantly.
One hundred percent of the watershed is impaired for at least one parameter, with the
most significant problem being mercury (65%). This demonstrates the widespread and
severe scale of this pollutant, which poses a threat to wildlife and humans alike. Fifty
nine percent of the watershed is experiencing low DO and 18% is impaired for nutrients
and/or DO with TN and/or TP being the causative pollutant. Because natural flowways
still remain in the system, they are easily influenced by upstream development and
agricultural activities that are most likely contributing to these impairments. However,
many of the DO impairments in this watershed are in a category 4d, which means that
FDEP was not able to find a causative pollutant. More research needs to be done in this
area to accurately reflect anthropogenic inputs and which areas might have naturally
depressed levels of DO. Again, sampling in major canals that bisect natural areas and
transport pollution from upstream watersheds should not be seen as characterizing the
natural background pollution rates in this watershed.
As already indicated, the hydrology of the Ten Thousand Islands watershed has been
altered substantially in major portions of the watershed. In the Picayune Strand,
hydrology was altered most significantly; however, restoration in the area has filled the
Prairie and Merritt Canals and plans are underway to remove all roads and fill the
additional canals. “The refined project includes 83 miles of canal plugs, 227 miles of
road removal, and the addition of pump stations (3) and spreader swales to aid in
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 49 of 251 rehydration of the wetlands.”116 The improvements already completed, along with
planned projects such as additional water conservation areas, resulted in a present
hydrology score of “poor-fair,” corresponding to no qualifier on the grading scale. The
overall water quality grade for this watershed is a D due to significant water quality
impairments, mostly due to FDEP’s implementation of category 4d in the 2nd listing cycle.
Over 40% of the Ten Thousand Islands watershed is impaired for low DO, with no
causative pollutant identified, where in cycle 1 these WBIDs were assessed as having
insufficient data (category 3b) to be listed for low DO. Therefore, the overall grade
dropped dramatically from 2005, but for a substantiated reason - since there has not
been enough data to verify that low DO levels are entirely due to natural causes and
they are unlikely to be.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 50 of 251 6 RECOMMENDATIONS: TEN STEPS TO SAVE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA’S
WATERS
Step1: Prevent Further Over-drainage
Southwest Florida, once a mosaic of wetlands and flowways, has been severely drained
through the decades. Many of the major issues concerning water and wildlife habitat loss
in the region stem from the disruption of the natural sheetflow by the construction of
extensive canals, ditches, agricultural drains, and urban stormwater outfalls. Though
drainage provides the flood protection desired, we are also now aware that it is depleting
our water supply, degrading our water quality, and diminishing the habitat value for
native wildlife.
One prominent example is the management of freshwater releases from Lake
Okeechobee and its enormous impact on the Caloosahatchee River and estuary, Pine
Island Sound, Sanibel and Captiva Islands, and Estero Bay. The Caloosahatchee, which
was historically not connected to Lake Okeechobee, now depends on low level releases
from Lake Okeechobee during dry periods to prevent significant ecological harm.
Conversely, during the wet season, an excess amount of water is released from the
Lake because of over-drainage in central Florida and the lack of sufficient water storage
capacity elsewhere.
Though a maximum flow limit does not exist for the Caloosahatchee, there is an existing
minimum flow rule that stipulates a minimum threshold of water needed to prevent
significant harm to the river and estuary. In 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008, and 2009;
however, there were multiple violations of this minimum flow requirement for the
Caloosahatchee estuary. These drastic fluctuations in salinity and water quality have
seriously affected aquatic life in the area, including endangered species such as the
smalltooth sawfish and the Florida Manatee. The alternating deprivation and excessive
inundation of freshwater have also resulted in the estuaries and river becoming more
susceptible to red tides events and blue-green algae blooms.
However, there is a limited supply of water in Lake Okeechobee to meet the
Caloosahatchee’s minimum flow needs, with almost all of the lake water being allocated
for agriculture and other permitted uses. The current policy process for water allocation
is severely unbalanced. Natural resource needs are rarely accounted for and the public
water is not made available for maintaining public resources such as fisheries, shellfish,
and swimmable/fishable water quality. Economic losses from agriculture are assessed,
while the economic losses and declines in waterfront real estate values and tourism are
ignored. These policy disparities need to be rectified if natural system needs for water
are to be satisfied.
There is also a dire need for more storage and water treatment within the
Caloosahatchee watershed. While there is a CERP project pending, the C-43 West
Basin Storage Reservoir, this will provide only half of the flow needed to support the
Caloosahatchee estuary. It is also expected to cost nearly $1 billion, has not yet
received funding, and is expected to require another 5-10 years to complete. Therefore,
providing sufficient water to meet the natural system needs will ultimately require some
lake water and thus, impact other consumptive uses.
Similar problems occur elsewhere in Southwest Florida. In Collier County, the Golden
Gate Canal System has increased the Naples Bay watershed from 10 square miles to
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 51 of 251 approximately 120 square miles. On average, 200 million gallons of freshwater (recently
as high as 320 million gallons) is going into Naples Bay each day from this artificial
tributary. In the rainy season, this creates a freshwater lake on top of the saltwater,
resulting in inadequate dissolved oxygen (DO) and impacting aquatic life in the Bay.
Conversely, the Rookery Bay area in Collier County is periodically starved for
freshwater. Efforts are underway to divert a third of the water coming from the Golden
Gate Canal back into the Henderson Creek, a main tributary of Rookery Bay. Another
CERP project, the Picayune Strand restoration, is already underway to help restore
some of the natural hydrology in the area as well.
But with all the intellectual awareness and efforts to prevent over-drainage, there are still
ongoing efforts to permit the drainage and development of thousands of more acres of
natural wetlands and flowways in Southwest Florida. Our local, state and federal
leadership need to focus more resources and attention towards creating policies and
effectively enforcing existing standards for ensuring that future development does not
recreate the mistakes of the past - in allowing drainage and diversion of flows in our last
remaining flowway and wetlands areas.
Step 2: Restore Hydrology While Maintaining Existing Flood Protection
While prevention of continued over-drainage is paramount, it will not address the large
areas where this has already occurred in Southwest Florida. Obviously hydrology cannot
be entirely restored to how it was naturally, but we do need to make an overarching
effort throughout the region to restore it where possible while maintaining flood
protection for our existing communities. This will increase the retention and filtration of
freshwater, enhancing our water supply and our water quality.
The Picayune Strand Everglades Restoration project in south Collier County is a flagship
example of how we should try to restore hydrology in Southwest Florida. This restoration
project entails filling 83 miles of canals and removing 227 miles of roads to rehydrate 85
square miles of drained wetlands. Since the official groundbreaking of January 2010,
substantial progress has already been made, and barren overdrained lands are naturally
regenerating into freshwater wetlands. Habitat function has improved for native wildlife,
and recently several critically endangered Florida panthers have been documented as
being birthed and raised on the property. Overall, this project will have an impact from
the Ten Thousand Islands to Fakahatchee State Preserve, having a huge influence on
Faka Union Bay and other bays in the area.
Also, in the Big Cypress Basin in Collier County, weirs are being constructed to hold
back water and maintain higher water levels outside the Picayune, keeping the water
table as high as possible while allowing releases that more closely mimic natural
discharge rates. There are additional sophisticated weir replacements planned for other
areas in the immediate vicinity as well, such as in the Belle Meade, Rookery Bay, and
Henderson Creek watersheds.
To the north in Lee County, hydrological restoration of the critical Corkscrew Regional
Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) project has not yet begun, but holds potential for similar
hydrologic and wetland restoration. For this project to be successful, all of the remaining
parcels within the southern critical CREW need to be publicly purchased. Then the
hydrology of that area can be restored by filling ditches and removing roads so it can
return to its original natural state. Restoring CREW would enhance a series of
interconnected wetlands that feed several estuaries in the region, creating an
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 52 of 251 interconnected web of functional flowways and habitat corridors. In North Lee County,
there are several efforts underway to try and restore hydroperiods, as well as to secure
better Lake Okeechobee release policies for maintaining healthy flows to the
Caloosahatchee River and estuary.
In the Charlotte Harbor watershed, there are hydrologic activities focused on restoring
the upper headwaters of the Peace River, specifically around Lake Hancock. Banana
Creek Canal has been restored to appropriate hydrology and marshes have been
restored to improve the quality of water flowing into Lake Hancock. Water levels in the
lake will also be raised to provide more water for the Peace River. Additionally, there
are proposals for fixing the Black Bern Canal problem between the Myakka and Roberts
Bay, but they have not been implemented as of yet.
All in all, there are numerous local and regional studies readily available that outline
specific hydrologic restoration opportunities that exist throughout Florida. The limiting
factor is finding the political will and financial resources to meet so great a need.
However, without such projects, our water supply and quality of life is at stake - so we
must continually impress upon our leadership that hydrological restoration needs to
remain a priority.
Step 3: Restore Swimmable/Fishable Water Quality
Water quality is declining throughout Florida, often not meeting water quality standards
for safe swimming and fishing. With water-based tourism and waterfront real estate
supporting such a large proportion of Southwest Florida’s economy, water quality
threatens to essentially kill the goose that laid the golden egg in our region. Even so,
efforts are currently underway to downgrade our state water quality standards in an
effort to make water quality look compliant without actually changing the condition of our
water.
While citizens need to demand that state swimmable/fishable goals and water quality
standards stay in effect, they can also engage their local leadership to enact more
stringent local water quality standards. Many communities throughout Southwest Florida
have enacted fertilizer ordinances, such as Lee County, the City of Sanibel, and the City
of Naples. Other areas such as Collier County and Marco Island have not yet done so.
Unless expressly preempted from doing so by the state or federal government, local
government is always allowed to develop its own more stringent regulations to protect
local resources and to develop guidelines to effectively address local water quality
problems. Stormwater and fertilizer ordinances are just some examples of how local
governments can proactively address their own water quality issues.
The City of Naples even enacted an ordinance banning the use of copper sulfate, a
common pollutant in that area. Unfortunately, after receiving a letter from the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services saying that they could not ban copper
sulfate because it was considered a pesticide and that municipalities are preempted
from regulating pesticides, they were forced to repeal the ordinance. This now leaves the
City without a way to adequately control a pollutant that prevents local waters from
meeting state standards. Citizens and local governmental leaders need to work together
to fight such state governmental preemptions that restrict their ability to protect local
water quality.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 53 of 251 Another vital action to protecting our water quality is creating water quality standards for
nutrient pollution. Nutrient pollution is excess nitrogen and phosphorus that comes from
fertilizer, human and animal wastes, and other sources linked to industry, development
and agriculture. It can cause harmful algal blooms, which in turn can produce toxins that
cause a host of human health and ecological effects. Until this point, Florida did not have
nutrient pollution number thresholds for determining how much is too much, as it does
for almost every other type of pollutant. The state statute simply says that a project
cannot generate too much nutrients to cause an imbalance of flora and fauna. This, like
a sign saying “drive slowly,” is difficult to enforce. Rather, we needed a defined limit like
a “25 mph” speed limit sign to tell us what level is safe in waters used for swimming and
fishing, shellfish harvesting, and drinking.
After 11 years of the state not developing and implementing such numeric standards
after being directed to do so by the US Environmental Protection Agency, nutrient
pollution continues to grow unabated in Florida’s waterbodies. Now, significant industry
interests are pressuring local and state governments to fight these numeric nutrient
standards, saying they are unreasonable and too expensive. Since standards were
based on healthy Florida waterbodies, and the cost of allowing continued water quality
degradation is even more detrimental to Florida’s economy, we simply cannot afford to
allow these interests to derail us from restoring water quality in our region. Citizens need
to immediately engage their local and state representatives to express their support for
EPA’s efforts to develop and implement numeric nutrient water quality criteria.
For waterbodies known to be already exceeding state water quality standards, we need
the FDEP to create waterbody specific pollution limits (known as Total Maximum Daily
Loads or TMDLs) and compliance plans to meet those limits (known as Basin
Management Action Plans or BMAPs). BMAP compliance plans can credit investments
already made by a community towards improving its water quality. The Gordon River
Water Quality Freedom Park in Collier County is just such a project and has come online
since the implementation of the TMDL pollution limit for the Gordon River. However,
rarely does one project completely satisfy the need to reduce pollution levels to the
TMDL limit, and the Gordon River is no exception. There will likely be other actions
needed to restore the River to a quality that is safe for swimming and fishing, and that is
why a BMAP compliance plan is still needed.
BMAPs are in progress for portions of Southwest Florida, but not in all the areas where
they are warranted and should be required. Collier County for instance, though having
some of the worst water quality areas in the region and having not yet enacted a fertilizer
ordinance, is not being required to develop BMAP compliance plans for any of its verified
impaired waterbodies presently. This leaves coastal municipalities like the City of
Naples, without an enforceable cooperative agreement with neighboring communities
such as Collier County, for fixing downstream waterbodies like Naples Bay.
In the Charlotte Harbor watershed to the north, compliance plans for Shell, Joshua, and
Prairie Creeks have been developed and are considered successful thus far. There have
also been several TMDLs developed, but no restoration has been implemented to date
in other areas there. In Lee County, TMDLs have been established for some
waterbodies, including the tidal Caloosahatchee River, Hendry Creek, most of the
tributaries in the Estero Basin, and parts of the Imperial River, but the BMAP compliance
plans are just now being developed.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 54 of 251 In the future, there may also need to be water quality trading to allow certain entities that
truly cannot reduce pollution to the level needed on-site to buy credits for similar
reductions to be made offsite. This should only be allowed within the same basin or
drainage areas, so that certain areas are not blighted with permanent poor water quality.
If such a limitation is not created, the off-site improvements will naturally migrate inland
to lower priced land areas, creating more challenges for coastal communities to maintain
swimmable and fishable bays and beaches.
By far the cheapest way of addressing water quality is through pollution prevention and
control. Policies to create more stringent standards in regulating the treatment of
wastewater, stormwater, and agricultural runoff are urgently needed to stem the pollution
fouling our regional waterbodies. This also involves maintaining swimmable and fishable
water quality goals and standards even for our canals, to ensure that standards in these
waterbodies closest to pollution sources meet the level of pollution control needed for
supporting swimmable/fishable standards downstream. Even though we might not often
swim or fish in canals, wildlife often does and the water in those canals flows into our
rivers and bays and along our beaches where we do want to swim and fish.
The Clean Water Act aimed to have all waterbodies swimmable and fishable by 1983, by
ensuring adequate pollution prevention and controls before pollution hits waterways.
Although that date is past, we can still achieve that goal, as long as we do not allow
special interests to lower the regulatory water quality expectations. While the process of
improving water quality will most certainly involve time and money, doing so is an
investment in infrastructure that supports Southwest Florida’s economy and quality of
life. Southwest Floridians need to demand that swimmable/fishable water quality
standards remain in effect for flowing waters, if we are ever going to have waterways
that are truly safe for those uses again.
Step 4: Re-establish Natural Salinity Levels
In 2007 and 2008, drought caused salinity levels (the ratio of saltwater to freshwater) in
local estuaries to increase. In areas of over-drainage and severely altered hydrology,
rainy seasons routinely bring an excess of freshwater that lowers salinities to levels
inadequate to support estuarine life. The estuaries surrounding the Caloosahatchee all
experience very low salinities when water is being dumped in unnaturally high quantities
from Lake Okeechobee. While estuarine organisms are adapted to tolerate a range of
salinities, these unnatural patterns of over-drainage and altered hydrology have caused
the water in our estuaries to become either too salty or too fresh for many estuarine
organisms to withstand.
In particular, large freshwater discharges have grossly affected Naples and Faka Union
Bays in Collier County, the two main outfalls for the Golden Gate Canal system. Lack of
minimum flows to the Caloosahatchee in Lee County has resulted in salinity swings that
have significantly harmed aquatic resources in the river and estuary. Matlacha Pass to
the north and Estero Bay to the south have major freshwater inflow problems as well.
Tapegrass, Vallisneria americana, which used to be found extensively in the upper
estuaries, has been mostly gone since 1999. The cause for its disappearance is the
higher salinities in the winter, and excess nutrients cause epiphytic algae to coat the
regrowth of the plants in the summer, limiting their growth and preventing their
reestablishment.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 55 of 251 To reestablish natural salinities in our estuaries, we need to correct over-drainage and
hydrological alteration to the greatest degree we can. We also need policies that provide
water for natural systems (ex. rivers and estuaries) during dry periods and protect them
from over-inundation during wet periods. Finally, we need to restore drained wetlands
and purchase additional lands to create more freshwater storage areas, which will not
only hold water for when it is needed - but also allow an alternate place to divert it when
it is not.
Step 5: Require Sustainable Agricultural Practices
Agriculture is an important industry in Southwest Florida, sustaining a large segment of
our economy. Agricultural lands can also provide important groundwater recharge
areas, seasonal surface water storage, and habitat for our native wildlife. That being
said, agriculture is our largest water consumer, as well as one of the largest sources for
many types of water pollution. Therefore, we need to advance sustainable agricultural
practices that improve water conservation and water quality in Southwest Florida’s
working landscapes.
One such measure would involve enhancing requirements for agricultural Best
Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs are currently geared toward efficient agronomic
use of fertilizers and pesticides for crops, and not to what a receiving waterbody can
actually sustain ecologically. Instead, BMPs should be required to scale the usage of
pesticides and fertilizers to the water quality standards in the receiving waterbody and if
necessitated as a result, change the crop selection to one that does not require more
fertilizer or pesticides than can be sustained in the downstream receiving waters.
With growing demand on our limited freshwater supply, Florida is going to need to
implement agriculture practices that fit the local hydrology and climate, so excess water
is not needed trying to grow a crop that would otherwise die of drought. If there is a
continued desire to grow high water use crops (e.g., tomatoes), such farms should be
encapsulated within a self-sustaining and closed hydrologic system, with water being
reused over and over. While citrus has made great strides in improving its water
conservation and reusing water, row crops are still not sustainable at their current water
usage rates.
Additionally, water use for freeze protection has to be reduced through the use of frost
cloth and other alternatives. In January 2010, farmers spraying crops in advance of a
freeze caused the aquifer in the Tampa area to drop 60 feet within a 48-hour hour
period, drying up more than 300 private residential wells and creating 22 document
sinkholes that damaged numerous homes and roads. With technological frost-protection
alternatives available for averting such excessive water usage and its associated
ramifications, policy needs to evolve to require such measures wherever they can be
employed.
As for water quality, the same problem persists in agricultural canals as in other canals,
except that agricultural canals are already allowed to be at a lower
unswimmable/unfishable water quality. Wildlife often uses these canals and ditches and
is therefore, being exposed to the high levels of pollution present in them. The water in
these agricultural ditches often flows to other canals, rivers and eventually to bays, to
which the agricultural pollution travels as well. It is imperative for agriculture to be held to
pollution prevention and treatment standards necessary to meet the swimmable/fishable
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 56 of 251 standards downstream. If not, it would be literally passing the buck to downstream
municipalities to intercept and treat such pollution at taxpayer expense.
The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program has worked with the Southwest Florida
Water Management District in the Peace River watershed to create projects with large
agricultural farm owners to implement water reuse instead of “pumping and dumping.”
This has yielded some success, with the aid of an accompanying compliance plan.
Overall, all agriculture needs to detain and treat runoff the same way that residential and
urban landscapes are required to do for stormwater runoff. Best management practices
can be used to improve agricultural runoff and its treatment within the watershed.
However, with the implementation of such BMPs voluntary at present, this is simply not
getting done to the degree necessary. Citizens need to contact their state legislators to
relay their expectation that agricultural BMPs become mandatory for all agricultural
areas, and that agricultural canals be held to standards compatible with reaching
swimmable and fishable water quality in the waterbodies into which they discharge.
Step 6: Require Adequate Stormwater Management On-site
Inadequate stormwater management, i.e., insufficient retention and treatment of
stormwater on-site, continues to create widespread deleterious water quality effects in
Southwest Florida. With stormwater carrying many of the common pollutants impairing
our waters, and more sophisticated stormwater management technology now readily
available, there is no excuse for continuing to apply ineffective stormwater standards in
designing new development.
Rather than the traditional stormwater ponds used, which are known to remove only
approximately 40% of nitrogen and 70% of phosphorus generated by new development,
we need to develop “treatment train” systems that incorporate additional stormwater
treatment mechanisms. We also need to create policy that incentivizes pollution
prevention, crediting practices that reduce pollution, rather than continuing with a
regulatory system focused exclusively on treatment. This is being contemplated in
FDEP’s efforts to adopt a new statewide stormwater rule. However, with the rule yet to
be finalized, citizens need to weigh in to let FDEP and their state legislators know that
this rule should be finalized as soon as possible and require at least 80% removal of
both nitrogen and phosphorus, not use natural wetlands for polluted stormwater disposal
or treatment, as well as not preempt more stringent local stormwater standards where
local communities believe those are warranted.
Additionally, creating constructed wetlands is an effective means to enhance natural
processes that cleanse stormwater. Because constructed wetlands are maintained to
ensure they do not become overloaded, they can continue to provide the intended
stormwater treatment, unlike natural wetlands that become saturated, degraded, and
ineffective over time if used for stormwater treatment. However, once stormwater is
treated, it can be used to rehydrate natural wetlands as well, thus enhancing freshwater
storage and habitat function. Many local governments are working to develop such
regional treatment systems, such as the City of Fort Myers restoring Billy’s Creek and
Lee County creating the Island Park Mitigation Bank.
Some communities in Southwest Florida, such as the City of Naples, are aggressively
taking matters into their own hands in managing stormwater runoff. Naples instituted a
comprehensive water quality testing program 5 years ago to analyze 16 sites in the
Naples Bay area. It’s testing revealed bacteria and copper to be the primary issues
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 57 of 251 followed secondarily by nutrients. Since Naples Bay is surrounded by existing
development that contributes fertilizer, pesticides, oils, heavy metals from cars, and pet
waste, the program required to fix this problem would need to focus on retrofitting
existing infrastructure and modifying existing practices. To improve stormwater
treatment, the City is enhancing a system of 28 stormwater retention ponds with
shoreline plantings of vegetation to take the nutrients and heavy metals out of the water
as it passes through. It is also installing floating islands in some of the lakes along with
aerators, which have already helped water quality in these areas. Additionally, it has
instituted a stringent fertilizer ordinance limiting when, where, and how you can apply
fertilizers, as well as a stormwater ordinance requiring redevelopment to accommodate
more stormwater on-site.
Many communities have found that they don’t have the financial resources to undertake
such a comprehensive stormwater management program. In these instances, the
formation of a stormwater utility may be necessary to provide the resources for
upgrading stormwater management infrastructure. Stormwater utilities provide a
dedicated revenue stream and a means to comprehensively plan for stormwater
infrastructure improvements. This was considered in Lee County, where a feasibility
study was funded and completed though no such utility has been created as of yet.
Every citizen can positively affect stormwater pollution through reducing the use of
fertilizer, utilizing native and Florida friendly plants, lowering use of water for irrigation,
and using pervious materials such as crushed shell or stone for paths and drives rather
than asphalt or concrete. With personal action and political engagement, citizens can
encourage local and state leaders to allocate more resources towards improving policies
for improved stormwater management, an approach that would enhance our water
quality significantly.
Step 7: Require Enhanced Wastewater Treatment and Bio-waste Disposal
Some of the major pollutants in the Southwest Florida region are nutrients (e.g.,
phosphorus and nitrogen), which can cause harmful algal blooms and low dissolved
oxygen in the water suffocating our aquatic life. A major source of nutrient pollution
comes from human and animal wastes in the form of undertreated or improperly
disposed wastes or wastewater runoff. Eutrophication from wastes can cause serious
environmental concerns as well as human health problems and economic losses. Each
year, 1.8 million to 3.5 million illnesses in the U.S. are caused by swimming in water
contaminated by sewage, and an additional 500,000 from drinking contaminated water.
Sewage-contaminated shellfish cause medical expenses ranging from $2.5 to $22
million each year.117
Contaminated sewage in Florida can originate from many sources including septic tanks,
small “package plants” that serve subdivisions, wastewater reuse systems, sprayfield
discharges, older wastewater treatment plants, or even mechanical failures in
“advanced” systems. In many cases, Florida’s current sewage collection and treatment
systems do not adequately treat wastewater to a high enough standard that would
guarantee protection of coastal waters. Accidents, poor maintenance, or overloaded
systems can also be the culprit in allowing a large number of bacteria, toxins, nutrients,
heavy metals, and other contaminants to enter the environment.
According to a 2008 Clean Water Network of Florida report,118 22 of Lee County’s 80
sewage plants were sending sewage into waterbodies that empty into Charlotte Harbor.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 58 of 251 In fact, the frequency of wastewater violations in Lee County resulted in them being the
fourth highest out of the 67 counties in Florida for wastewater plant violations. Municipal
wastewater facilities need not only to employ Advanced Wastewater Treatment, but also
to add capacity to prevent further discharges of partially treated sewage during large wet
weather events.
Even in cases, where treated wastewater is being reclaimed and reused for irrigation,
there can be water quality impacts. “Reclaimed water,” water partially treated to a level
fit for irrigation, is very helpful from a water conservation perspective since it offsets the
use of potable water for such purposes. However, many municipalities are discharging
this reclaimed water during the wet season to our surface waters, creating serious
nutrient problems in downstream waterbodies. This is due to reclaimed water not having
to be treated to levels safe for swimming and fishing because of the assumption that it
will not be discharged to surface waters, but instead will be reused as irrigation over land
surfaces. In order to rectify reclaimed water being discharged inappropriately, either
additional treatment is needed prior to discharge or the water should be stored until it
can be reused and thus, truly be “reclaimed.”
Another issue arising from domestic wastewater treatment is the disposal of the solid byproduct called biosolids or more commonly “sewage sludge.” This sludge is high in
organic content and contains high levels of nutrients. When properly treated, biosolids
can be used as fertilizer supplements or soil amendments. Biosolids are subject to
regulatory requirements (Chapter 62-640, F.A.C.) including pollutant limits, treatment to
destroy harmful microorganisms, and management practices for land application sites.
However, improper disposal of biosolids or use adjacent to waterways can cause serious
harm to water quality. Therefore, there need to be additional measures put in place that
ensure that biosolids are strictly regulated and properly disposed of.
Leaching from individual septic tanks is also contributing to the eutrophication of
Southwest Florida’s estuaries by releasing bacteria such as fecal coliform and high
levels of nutrients. Septic tanks are prone to leakage and failure, needing to be
maintained regularly and eventually replaced. They are also especially problematic
when used in areas with high water tables, such as in South Florida. In this region, there
may not be adequate separation for pollutants to be filtered out before reaching
groundwater. As Florida becomes more urbanized, the proportion of septic talks would
be expected to decrease with more people favoring central sewer. Surprisingly,
according to the Florida Department of Health (DOH) installations of new septic tanks
actually increased from 2,139,864 in 1993-1994 to 2,640,036 in 2006-2007. This has
undoubtedly had profound implications for water quality, aquatic organisms, the shellfish
industry, and human health. Equally concerning is that DOH data shows that during the
same period, despite the increasing number of septic tanks, permits for repairing these
systems have actually gone down from 21,319 in 1993-1994 to 16,057 in 2006-2007.119
San Carlos Park, Lehigh Acres, and Cape Coral in Lee County are examples of areas
where much of the wastewater is being treated through septic systems, negatively
affecting Pine Island Sound, the Caloosahatchee Estuary and Estero Bay. Pine Island
Sound communities and the City of Sanibel have successfully switched from septic to
central sewer, improving surrounding water quality by decreasing bacteria and nutrient
levels. Overall, centralizing sewer and eliminating septic use wherever feasible must
continue to be a priority throughout Southwest Florida, as well as implementing septic
maintenance requirements where central sewer is not feasible.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 59 of 251 Finally, pet and livestock wastes are finding their way into our canal systems and
eventually our estuaries, contributing to the eutrofication of our waters. An example is
when cattle are not being properly fenced off from waterways, allowing their wastes that
carry bacteria and nutrients to be directly deposited into waterways. Agricultural and
Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) need to be put into place to ensure that
operations like dairy farms properly dispose of manure or recycle it as fertilizer.
Currently, agricultural BMPs dealing with animal wastes are voluntary, but with nutrient
and fecal coliform bacteria levels climbing we need to create requirements for the
widespread implementation of such BMPs statewide. Additionally, citizen education on
the proper disposal of pet wastes would have a positive effect in improving our regional
water quality.
Step 8: Protect Critical Environmental Lands for Water and Wildlife
Southwest Florida has large areas of intact wetlands and wildlife habitat, many of which
are protected and some critical areas that are not. Numerous regional studies have
identified these target protection areas, including the Southwest Florida Feasibility
Study, Critical Lands Identification Program, and the Density Reduction / Groundwater
Resource Area Study to name a few. These unprotected environmental lands support
wetlands and groundwater recharge areas critical for our water supply, as well as habitat
for some of Florida’s most endangered species. Even with development pressures
temporarily suspended, future transportation and development needs as well as
increased mining and intensification of agriculture will put many of these exceptional
natural areas at further risk.
Collier, Lee and Charlotte communities have taken extraordinary measures to secure
these areas by supporting additional self-taxation for local county land acquisition
programs: Conservation Collier, Lee’s Conservation 20/20, and Conservation Charlotte.
However, with dwindling local revenue and a state deficit severely depleting state
acquisition funds, new resources will be needed if we are to protect these areas that
provide the quality of life we enjoy in Southwest Florida. Citizens need to vigorously
support county and the state’s Florida Forever land acquisition programs, by asking their
elected leadership to maintain funding and support for the continuation of these land
acquisition programs. Meanwhile, they need to push their representatives to bring more
federal dollars to match and supplement state and local monies for preserving the last
great unprotected areas of Southwest’s Florida natural landscape. This is especially
justified because Southwest Florida encompasses the Western Everglades, a national
treasure enjoyed by other Americans and international tourists.
While easements and fee-simple acquisition are important tools for the conservation of
environmentally sensitive lands, so too are effective land use policies and state and
federal regulatory compliance measures. Wetland and wildlife policies need to be
strengthened to ensure that the full scope of protection envisioned in the Clean Water
Act and the Endangered Species Act is being realized. These laws clearly illustrate that
even though private landowners have rights, their rights must be balanced against the
public’s interests in preserving public resources such as water and wildlife. Implementing
provisions in the Endangered Species Act such as the officially designation of critical
habitat of the Florida panther, will provide additional federal protection and resources for
protecting this critically endangered animal while allowing landowners to farm and
appropriately develop their property.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 60 of 251 Progressive land use planning efforts, such as the Density Reduction / Groundwater
Resource Area in Lee County, incentivize development to avoid and minimize impacts to
key water and wildlife habitat areas through restrictions and the transfer of development
rights to less sensitive areas without significantly increasing the overall development
potential. Collier County’s Rural Lands Stewardship Program also attempts to redirect
development, but with changes proposed to expand the overall development potential in
Eastern Collier to an area twice the size as Miami, it will inherently allow development of
sensitive areas that had previously been identified as essential endangered species
habitat. Therefore, land use planning is not a panacea, but it is another tool that needs
to be used alongside state and federal policy mechanisms and land acquisition in order
to ensure Southwest Florida’s critical environmental lands are not severely degraded or
lost forever.
Transportation planning needs to direct new and expanded roadways to areas where
they will least impact hydrology, wetlands, wildlife movement and key habitat areas.
Numerous projects in Southwest Florida, such as the 951 Extension in north Collier and
south Lee counties and a new I-75 interchange in eastern Collier County, threaten to
slice through key water and wildlife habitat areas. New roadways extending out to rural
areas, such as the Vanderbilt Beach Extension or the eastern alignments of the
proposed SR 29 bypass in Collier County, will spur sprawl-style development more than
they alleviate congestion and serve existing residents’ needs. The citizens of Southwest
Florida need to engage their local and state leaders and let them know that they expect
transportation improvements to be made only where they are truly needed to satisfy
existing identified community needs and in such a way as to avoid impacting key water,
wetland, and wildlife habitat areas.
At the state and federal levels, policies to offset impacts to wetlands and wildlife need to
be improved. The current process of providing offset for impacts, called mitigation, is
resulting in significant losses of wetlands and wildlife habitat throughout Southwest
Florida. Mitigation tends to look at providing “functional offsets” rather than similar
amount of acreage. The result is that in almost every instance, more and more impacts
are occurring to wetlands and wildlife habitat in return for less and less wetlands and
habitat areas being preserved. This is putting tremendous strain on native wildlife and
water quality. Endangered Florida panthers are being killed by cars and territorial
disputes at record rates, up to a fifth of their entire estimated population each year. Redcockaded woodpeckers are now locally extinct within the Estero Bay watershed, a place
where they once thrived. Wood storks have less food to eat and feed their young as
short hydroperiod wetlands that generate their food source have been filled and
developed at an alarming rate. Mitigation methods need to immediately be revised to
require type for type (i.e., short hydroperiod wetlands for impacts to short hydroperiod
wetlands) and equal spatial replacements (i.e., acre preserved for each acre impacted) if
we are to preserve our regional water and wildlife resources.
Overall, the downturn in the economy has given us some exceptional opportunities with
regards to environmental lands acquisition, but unfortunately little resources with which
to take advantage of them. Therefore, it is more important than ever that citizens support
local and state land acquisition programs, while urging their state and federal leaders to
employ every regulatory and planning approach to preserving the water, wetland and
wildlife habitat values until the resources become available to publicly purchase them.
Protecting critical lands for water and wildlife is not only vitally important for our
environment, but also for preserving our tourism-based economy and quality of life.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 61 of 251 Step 9: Plan for Sea Level Rise
A difficult challenge looming on the horizon is how Florida will confront the oncoming
impacts of sea level rise. More than 90 percent of Florida’s 18.5 million residents live on
its coasts and are extremely vulnerable to sea level rise.120 The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) “estimates that the global average sea level will rise
between 0.6 and 2 feet (0.18 to 0.59 meters) in the next century.”121 Expected damages
would include a loss of tourism revenue, increased damages from more frequent and
intense hurricanes, real estate losses due to sea level rise, and the increased cost of
electricity as temperatures and use of air conditioning climb. A 2007 study concluded
that if sea level were to rise 58 centimeters by 2050, it would cost Florida $92 billion
yearly in losses related to these just these four factors.122
The IPCC 2007 report, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability,
uses the analogy of “hold the line” versus “retreat the line” when discussing adaption
policies coastal spatial planning. In other words, will Florida continue a business as
usual approach of not taking the necessary steps to adapt to sea level rise, or develop
plans to meet these future challenges to protect our environment as well as ourselves.
Troubling is the lack of legislative and public attention on this issue, indicating that
Florida will continue with the current approach and be unprepared to adapt to the future.
Ongoing research in Southwest Florida currently examines climate change indicators
such as water temperature, rainfall (including extremes), relative salt marsh position,
relative sea level stand, and citrus plant life cycles in relation to seasonal and
interannual variations in climate. One hundred years of temperature and rainfall data
indicate that we have had roughly the same amount of rainfall throughout the last
century, but about 6 percent has moved from dry season delivery to wet season delivery,
resulting in our wet seasons becoming wetter while our dry seasons are becoming dryer.
In addition to the negative economic effects, the environmental impacts could also be
disastrous. Entire ecological communities will be lost if we cannot devise a way to
retreat inland as sea levels rise. Wetlands, estuaries, salt marshes, and other coastal
communities will be forced to retreat but are blocked by human development, preventing
the inland migration necessary for their survival. Coastal planning needs to account for
such scenarios, so that strategic land purchases by the government can function as
retreat corridors for wildlife and their habitats.
Some solutions that have been proposed include raising land levels or building hard
structures that hold back the advancing sea. These strategies could pose significant
ecological harm, such as beach erosion and degradation of endangered sea turtle
nesting sites. Beach nourishment projects can protect beaches in the short-term by
counteracting erosion and building beaches up, but will become obsolete as sea levels
rise high enough to submerge these areas. This process can also have negative
environmental impacts by burying existing beach habitat with new sand, thereby
impacting organisms already living there.123 By 2060, there is projected to be a 27 inch
rise in sea level, and if Florida continues along a business as usual approach, 99
percent of its mangroves will be inundated with sea water (Figure 17).124
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Figure 17 - Areas of Florida vulnerable to 27 inches of Sea Level Rise
Page 62 of 251 It is inevitable that if we continue to do nothing to plan for sea level rise and protect our
priceless natural ecosystems, which they will succumb to irreversible damages and
many will disappear. Hotter average temperatures, rising sea level, changes in
precipitation, increased storm damage, and increased ocean acidity could cause
wholesale extinctions and ecosystem destruction.125 While allowing wetlands to migrate
is the best strategy for preserving the most species and ecosystems, it unfortunately
seems unlikely to occur on a large enough scale. More needs to be done to convey the
severity of this issue and to ensure that it receives immediate action by governments
and policy makers.
Step 10: Implement Comprehensive and Consistent Scientific Sampling
Comprehensive and consistent water quality monitoring and sampling, as well as
scientific analyses of Southwest Florida’s estuaries, are critical to understanding the
current health of the systems and identifying trends. It is imperative to have data, not
necessarily from the same source, but which is comparable throughout the region. This
is because the only way to mitigate human influences and maintain a healthy
environment is to be able to discover the problems in the first place and find a cause and
effect.
Currently, the only way for Florida’s citizens to get an idea of the water quality of the
state as a whole or regionally is to rely on FDEP’s verified lists of impaired waters, which
is available on their website.126 What you cannot tell from these lists, however, is where
additional monitoring needs to be done, what parameters are not measured, or what
areas are not being monitored at all. This information is found in FDEP’s “Master List”
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 63 of 251 (not readily accessible), which lists every WBID in the state and how those WBIDs are
monitored.
Among the most concerning realizations stemming from a review of this master list is
that 30% of the entire area of Greater Charlotte Harbor is not sampled for any
parameter. Meanwhile, there is an enormous amount of water quality data in Charlotte
Harbor proper thanks to the CHNEP and its efforts; however, in order to fully understand
the health of the estuary, the entire watershed should be sampled for key parameters
such as nutrients and DO at least.
In order to accurately depict the health of all of Florida’s waters, FDEP sampling should
be focused where there is currently no data or insufficient data as well as collaborating
with water management districts, local governments, and private organizations to fill in
such data gaps. While many different agencies, organizations, and individuals collect
vast amounts of data, only a limited few actually incorporate that data into the FDEP’s
STORET database that ultimately determines whether our waters are classified as
healthy or not. Further collaboration in terms of data collection and use will aid future
management decisions regarding water quality.
Regardless how many samples are taken, another concern is that any person
conducting water quality sampling in the state of Florida is currently not required to go
through any training or become certified. Although laboratories that process samples
collected must be state certified, a sample is only as good as the methods used collect
it. FDEP currently has 2 water quality sampling courses titled 1) “Introduction to DEP
SOP's for Groundwater & Soil Sampling/Calibration & Verification of Field Testing
Meters” and 2) “Introduction to DEP SOP's for Surface Water, WasteWater, Drinking
Water, Ultra-Trace Metals & Sediment Sampling/Calibration & Verification of Field
Testing Meters.”127 FDEP also recently provided training opportunities for measuring
Stream Conditions Index (SCI). However, completion of such courses is not required. In
order to assure that accurate data is presented, both in the impaired waters listing
process and subsequent restoration, all water quality samples submitted for purposes of
the 303(d) list should be undergone by a certified tester.
Another issue related to insufficient scientific monitoring is the large gap in seagrass
mapping, because seagrass is such an excellent indicator of estuarine health. Many
organizations such as the CHNEP regularly map seagrasses in Charlotte Harbor and
surrounding estuaries, with a lot of work completed in Estero Bay as well. However, the
SFWMD has plans to scale back their seagrass monitoring program from once every two
years to once every five years. This is very problematic, considering that annual
variability of seagrass coverage is high and the one year in five sampled may have
occurred during unusual circumstances, such as an extremely wet year. There also
needs to be more coordination between the SFWMD and SWFWMD in terms of timing
and methodologies used in seagrass monitoring.
Although there has been an improvement in the amount of scientific sampling in recent
years, the latest economic downturn has impacted many agencies’ and organizations’
budgets, where one of the first “expendables” is water quality and indicator sampling.
Citizens concerned about the health of their estuaries need to insist on continued
funding of local monitoring programs, whether through the water management districts,
FDEP, local government, private organizations, or individuals. The only way to improve
the health of our waters is to first accurately identify the problem.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 64 of 251 APPENDIX A : SUMMARY OF DATA FOR INDICATORS OF ESTUARINE
HEALTH PROPOSED FOR FUTURE ESTUARIES REPORT CARDS
Area of Impervious Surface
Impervious surfaces are mainly artificial structures such as building roofs and pavements
covered by materials like asphalt, concrete, brick, and stone, which prevent water from
penetrating to the underlying soils. The artificial seal created on the surface eliminates
rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge, creating excess stormwater on the
surface which carries pollutants entering our estuaries, rivers, and streams. “While
urban areas cover only 3 percent of the U.S., it is estimated that their runoff is the
primary source of pollution in 13 percent of rivers, 18 percent of lakes and 32 percent of
estuaries.”128 Impervious surfaces also alter the shape of stream channels, raise the
water temperature and sweep urban debris and pollutants into aquatic environments.
These effects are measurable once impervious areas cover 10 percent of a watershed's
surface.129
The consequences of increased imperviousness include fewer fish and less diversity
among fish and aquatic insects, as well as a general degradation of wetlands and rivers.
Thus, imperviousness is a useful indicator to measure the impact of land development
within these systems. In addition, imperviousness is one of the few variables that can be
explicitly quantified, managed and controlled at each stage of land development.130 This
indicator of estuarine health quantifies the coverage of impervious area within a
watershed.
Currently, Southwest Florida does not have accurate impervious surface graphics
because of tree coverage. Trees obscure aerials by blocking some areas that could
have impervious surface underneath the viewable canopy. Identifying the percentage of
imperviousness (PIMP) would be a substantial investment, but would provide important
data relevant to stormwater runoff and its effects.
Extent of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) / Seagrasses Remaining
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) including seagrasses, perform many important
functions for the estuarine ecosystem. SAV provides shoreline protection, sediment
stabilization, and prevents sediment resuspension. SAV provides food and habitat for
microbes, invertebrates and vertebrates. It also improves water clarity, traps and cycles
nutrients, and attenuates wave energy. Finally, SAV provides oxygen to water and
sediments, sequesters carbon from the atmosphere, and exports organic carbon to
adjacent ecosystems.131
In addition to their functional importance within the ecosystem, seagrasses are indicators
of salinity and water quality.132 Seagrasses are susceptible to many known pressures
such as pests, pollution, fishing activity, and sea level change.133 Dredge and fill
projects, nonpoint source pollution from road runoff, septic systems, and agricultural
practices, and turbidity resulting from dredging are common causes of seagrass loss.134
The extent of SAV remaining is estimated by comparing the acreage of submerged
aquatic vegetation beds within each estuary to the estimated extent during
predevelopment conditions. Diversity and physical condition of the beds are also
important, since each seagrass species has slightly different biological demands. Bed
composition or a composition change over time may indicate the presence of certain
conditions or progressive alteration of the habitat.135
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 65 of 251 A generalized extent of seagrass coverage was located for all 10 estuaries in this report.
The statewide GIS shapefile of seagrass can be seen below, and represents a
compilation of statewide seagrass data from various source agencies and scales ranging
in date from 1987 to 2009. Not all data in this compilation are mapped from photography;
some are the results of field measurements. The original source data sets were not all
classified in the same manner; some used the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms
Classification System (FLUCCS) codes 9113 for discontinuous seagrass and 9116 for
continuous seagrass; some
defined only presence and
absence of seagrass, and some
defined varying degrees of
seagrass percent cover. In order
to merge all of these data sources
into one compilation data set,
FWRI reclassified the various
source data attribute schemes
into two categories: "Continuous
Seagrass" and "Patchy
(Discontinuous) Seagrass".
In areas where studies overlap,
the most recent study where a
given area has been interpreted is
represented in this data set. This
data set is not comparable to
previous statewide data sets for
time series studies - not all areas
have been updated since the
previous statewide compilation
and some areas previously not
mapped are now included. The
exhibit and table depict current
seagrass coverage for each
watershed according to this
dataset.
Figure A- 1: Statewide Seagrass Coverage
Watershed
Coastal Venice
Lemon Bay
Greater Charlotte Harbor
Pine Island Sound
Caloosahatchee
Estero Bay
Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee
Naples Bay
Rookery Bay
Ten Thousand Islands
Continuous
22
2736
9552
22970
3
3483
15
0
5
0
Figure A- 2: Current Acres of Seagrass
Patchy
89
1286
5797
4969
85
399
24
30
1789
2627
Total
111
4022
15349
27939
88
3882
39
30
1794
2627
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 66 of 251 Overall, this GIS data set was developed to represent the most recent seagrass
mapping available in Florida for current statewide display and analysis. However,
historical seagrass coverage could not be located and is necessary to include seagrass
coverage as an indicator in the Estuaries Report Card.
Extent of Exotic Species Infestation
Exotic species are plants or animals that are not naturally or historically found in an area
and can be either intentionally or unintentionally introduced. Invasive species are nonnative or native plants or animals that spread and out-compete native species - due to
disturbance or a lack of adequate natural controls in its new environment. Invasive
exotic species represent a threat to native biodiversity and their prevalence can provide
an indication as to the poor health of natural systems.
Florida has the largest total of established non-indigenous amphibian and reptilian
species of any state, with twenty-eight exotic fish species reproducing in our lakes,
rivers, and canals. Overall, approximately 42 percent of Florida's reptile species, 22
percent of its amphibian species, 16 percent of its fish species, and 5 percent of its bird
species are naturalized non-indigenous species.136 Invasive exotic plants have easily
adapted and thrived in the sub-tropical climate of south Florida and their seeds are
easily spread by wind, water, birds and other animals. Additionally, along waterways,
estuaries, and coastlines, decay from persistent leaf drops from invasive tree species
can encourage algal blooms.137
The following is a list of the most prevalent invasive exotics that have a presence within
the study watersheds (Greater Charlotte Harbor, Coastal Venice, Lemon Bay, Pine
Island Sound, Caloosahatchee River, Estero Bay, Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River,
Naples Bay, Rookery Bay, and Ten Thousand Islands).
Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius)
This plant was originally introduced as an
ornamental plant and is sometimes called
“Florida holly” or “Christmas holly” because it
often produces berries during the winter.
Aggressively out-competing native plant
species, especially mangroves, its success in
Florida can be attributed to its high germination
and dispersal rates. The Brazilian peppers
abundant seeds are easily distributed by birds
138
and
mammals. It can flourish in both wet and
Photo 5 - Brazilian Pepper
dry conditions and its growth habit allows it to
climb over understory vegetation and invade mature canopies, effectively choking out
most other plants.139 Research has been done with this species in estuarine
environments in relation to its affects on mangroves on the east coast of Florida,140 but
no extensive research has been done on this subject in our area. Therefore, Brazilian
pepper populations need to be monitored to quantify the displacement of current and
historic mangrove populations in target watersheds.
Current Brazilian Pepper research / projects:
• Classical Biological Control of Brazilian Peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolius) in
Florida (James P. Cuda, University of Florida - [email protected]. (352) 392-1901)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 67 of 251 Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia)
Introduced in the late 1800’s, Australian pine is
salt tolerant - invading pinelands, sandy shores,
and dunes. It produces dense shade and drops
large amounts of needles smothering native
plant life. Additionally, it has a very shallow root
system and is easily knocked down by high
winds further accelerating beach erosion. On
beaches, the downed trees and shallow roots
can interfere with endangered nesting sea
turtles and American crocodiles.141
The Conservancy’s Co-Director of Science,
David Addison, has done research on
Keewaydin Island in the Rookery Bay watershed
involving the relationship between Australian
pine and its possible impacts on sex
determination of Loggerhead sea turtle
hatchlings. While the short term data collected
was not enough definitively prove that shade
from Australian pine had an active role in sex
determination, it was concluded that the removal
of the invasive species should be encouraged to
protect viable nesting habitat.142
Further research should be conducted within
target watersheds to examine the impacts of
Australian pine on beach erosion and sea turtle Photo 6 - Australian Pine143
nesting habitat. Beach erosion levels should be
monitored and compared in areas where Australian pine is prevalent to areas that are
not impacted and remain pristine.
Current Australian pine research / projects:
• Casuarina spp.: Australian-Pine (Edward F. Gilman, University of Florida [email protected]. (352) 392-1831 Ext. 373)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 68 of 251 Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia)
Originally introduced in the late 1800’s as
an ornamental tree and then used in the
1930’s in an ill-conceived attempt to drain
the Everglades, it has now become
extremely invasive – displacing native
vegetation on 391,000 acres of wet pine
flatwoods, sawgrass marshes, and cypress
swamps in southern Florida.145 The
melaleuca’s fast growth and reproductive
rate allows them to completely dominate
144
the landscape they invades, severely
Photo 7 - Melaleuca
limiting biodiversity. Dense melaleuca
stands are the only vegetation type in south Florida that will support and perpetuate
intense crown fires to which native vegetation often succumbs and is subsequently
outcompeted.146 The transpiration rates of melaleuca are thought to be higher than that
of the native slash pine as well as other native tree species, along with the notion that its
water-use leads to reduction in groundwater availability.147 Unfortunately, our
understanding of melaleuca’s impact on local hydrology is inadequate and needs further
study.
Current melaleuca research / project:
• Ecological Consequences of Invasion by Melaleuca quinquenervia in South Florida
Wetlands: Paradise Damaged, not Lost (Frank J. Mazzotti, University of Florida [email protected]. (954) 577-6304)
Asian Green Mussels (Perna viridis)
Asian green mussels recently established
themselves in Florida’s coastal waters, and are
believed to have been introduced in Tampa Bay
in 1999 from cargo ships’ ballast water.
However, these mussels also have a planktonic
stage that allows them to spread easily by
ocean currents.
The presence of this species could pose a
significant threat to our native oysters
(Crassostrea virginica). Population levels should
be monitored in all watersheds - so the affect of
this species on native flora and fauna can be
compared over time.
Water conditions where Asian green mussels
Photo 8 - Asian Green Mussel148
naturally grow are permanently or provisionally
closed to shellfish harvests because of concerns about water pollution which poses a
significant problem for future harvesting.149 Because the Asian green mussel is of high
economic importance in its home range, studies should also be done to see if it can also
be harvested for commercial value here in Florida in an effort to help control populations.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 69 of 251 The green mussels have become widely distributed in Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay
and continue to expand their new range. This invasive species had spread to Charlotte
Harbor by 2000, Ten Thousand Islands by 2002,150 and was discovered on rocks off
Naples beach in June 2004. Because it has now been documented along the Gulf Coast
in all target watersheds of the Estuaries Report Card, it should be considered as a future
indicator - when more data becomes available to determine its impact on estuarine
health and management strategies are appropriate for controlling it.151
Current Asian green mussel research / project:
Habitat dominance and demographics of a nonindigenous tropical bivalve, Perna viridis,
in a subtropical Gulf of Mexico estuary (Patrick Baker, University of Florida,
[email protected]. (352) 273-3629)
Wild Hogs and Boar (Sus scrofa)
By digging up the forest floor and wallowing in
wetland areas, these non-native animals
destroy the vegetation that both prevents
erosion and provides food and habitat for
native wildlife. This process also makes it
easier for non-native plants to spread.
Photo 9 - Two Feral Pigs152
Hogs have also been known to destroy breeding sites and degrade key habitats of
several endangered amphibians’ nesting areas and for marine turtles.153 Conversely,
wild boar has become a staple food source for the endangered Florida panther. Not
enough information is available at this time to include this species as an indicator, but
future research may provide more insight on their impact on estuaries and beaches.
Current wild hog and boar research / project:
• Wild Hogs in Florida: Ecology and Management (William M. Giuliano, University of
Florida - [email protected]. (352) 846-0575)
Cuban Tree Frog (Osteopilus septentrionalis)
Because of their size, Cuban tree frogs are outcompeting native frogs for food, in addition to
preying on them and other native species. In
addition to decimating our native amphibian
population, Cuban tree frogs are also notorious
for causing short circuits in power-transmission
equipment resulting in thousands of dollars in
damages. Because Cuban tree frogs secrete a
slime that makes them less palatable, they can
avoid predation and their population continues
to grow rapidly.
As a result of this species’ introduction,
populations of native tree frogs such as the
154
American green tree frog (Hyla cinerea) and the Photo 10 - Cuban Tree Frog
squirrel tree frog (Hyla squirella) are in rapid decline. A joint study by researchers at the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 70 of 251 University of Florida, University of Tampa, and a Florida-based consulting firm,
Biological Research Associates, found that Cuban tree frogs in wetlands outside of
Tampa greatly outnumbered native amphibian species.155 Another study done by the
Conservancy of SWFL showed that the Cuban tree frog dominated the drained and
disturbed Picayune Area in the Ten Thousand Islands watershed. See the graphic
below for the current known range for this species:
Therefore, one more population
surveys are done within target
watersheds in Southwest Florida,
as well studies quantifying their
impact on the environment.,
Cuban tree frogs could be a good
indicator of whether a natural
system is healthy or not.
Figure A‐ 3: Range of Cuban Tree Frog in Florida
Current Cuban tree frog research / project:
• Long-Term Effects of Water Use, Surrounding Land Use, and Introduced Species on
Native Frogs and Toads at Morris Bridge Wellfield (Steve Johnson, University of
Florida, [email protected]. (813) 757-2273)
Photo 11 – Young Cuban Tree Frog156
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 71 of 251 Extent of Exotic Species Conclusion
In conclusion, studying the extent of exotic species can indicate the health of an estuary
by examining the biodiversity that is present. The presence of invasive species results
in the restructuring of established food webs, importation of new diseases, and
competition with native flora and fauna for space and food. Monitoring the spread of
invasive exotics within each watershed will help us better understand how to combat
them in an attempt to minimize the ecological damage they present. The relative
recentness of data collection and lack of historic data available in our area makes it a
challenge to try and compare present with past conditions. The problem associated with
invasive species in not limited to certain watersheds within southwest Florida, but
extends into all of them as the infestations are region and state wide.
The Conservancy has identified that the SFWMD and SWFWMD FLUCCS codes could
estimate to a degree the amount of exotic plant species cover in the watersheds covered
in this report, however using FLUCCS alone would not account for any exotic animal or
plant species located within the ground cover, since land cover was based off of aerial
photographs. Moreover, WMD FLUCCS codes are very generalized and only document
coverage of melaleuca, Australian pine, and Brazilian pepper. The Conservancy was
not able to locate an over-arching animal exotic species report, which is vital to
understanding the broad effects that invasive and exotic species are having on the
natural environment.
Current invasive species monitoring projects:
• The Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System (EDDMapS) is an extremely
useful tool in assessing the total range of exotic invasive species. Launched in 2005
by the Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health at the University of
Georgia, it acts as a database, where participants input various verified data
regarding the sightings and locations of invasive species around the country. It can
be used to track the range and distribution of exotic species, through individual GPS
coordinates, allowing the user to follow a species progress throughout a state,
region, or even county.
This data can then be used for management purposes and how to best address
problems relating to invasive species. EDDMapS is currently partnered with a variety
of organizations within the state of Florida including: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
The Florida Invasive Species Partnership, Everglades Cooperative Invasive Species
Management Area, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 72 of 251 See Figures below of EDDMapS for various Southwest Florida exotic species.
Figure A‐ 4: Distribution of Brazilian Pepper Source: EDDMapS Database Figure A‐ 5: Distribution of Australian Pine Source: EDDMapS Database Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 73 of 251 Figure A‐ 6: Distribution of Melaleuca Source: EDDMapS Database Extent of Native Species
Manatees
Like oysters, seagrasses, and mangroves, the
endangered Florida manatee (Trichechus
manatus latirostris) can be used as an indicator
of restoration success along Southwest
Florida’s coasts and estuaries.
Manatee success along with the success of
others species is heavily dependent on the
health of seagrass populations. Seagrasses
along with other aquatic vegetation “help
maintain water clarity by trapping fine
sediments and improve water quality by taking
up large quantities of nutrients that would otherwise accelerate eutrophication of the
estuarine system.”158 Decreases in manatee populations can indicate a decrease in
suitable seagrass habitats that are necessary for foraging, calving, resting, and
mating.159
Increased boating activities in Southwest Florida also lead to the destruction and
degradation of necessary manatee habitat, as well as many direct deaths as the result of
collisions with watercrafts. Red tide events caused by excess nutrient runoff have also
been linked to high manatee mortalities. “In 2003, 98 manatee deaths were attributed to
a red tide event and between March 5, 2005 and April 10, 2005, red tide is suspected to
be the cause of 52 manatee deaths” within the Caloosahatchee watershed alone.160 157
Photo 12 - Female manatee with offspring
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 74 of 251 Assessing the populations of manatees can provide good insight as to the stability of
estuarine systems. Manatee mortalities and population crashes can be linked back to
their source, indicating dramatic changes in estuarine conditions. Manatee aerial
surveys were taken from 1999 – 2001 along the Ten Thousand Island watershed for use
as an indicator in response to restoration of natural hydrologic patters in Southwest
Florida. Specifically, the restoration of the Southern Golden Gate Estates and its impact
on the Faka Union Canal drainage system is being studies to determine possible
impacts on manatee population density in the area.161 See the survey map and photo
below.
Figure A- 7: Ten Thousand Island manatee survey data162
Manatee surveys have also been conducted in the
Coastal Venice, Lemon Bay, and Greater Charlotte
Harbor watersheds within Sarasota County. This
population data was collected over a long period of
time (1987 – 2006) to allow planning of human
activities in a way that should minimize the effects on
manatees and their habitat.164 The surveys
concluded that the spatial scale of the project limits
what can be understood with regard to manatee
status and trends on a local level and that without
doing aerial surveys on a regional basis, it would be
impossible to draw conclusions for the entire
population.165
Synoptic aerial surveys taken yearly by the FWC and
other organizations cover a large area, useful in
estimating the overall manatee population for a
region. The surveys are conducted in the coldest
Photo 13 - Manatees congregating at
months (December – March) when manatees
power plant outfall163
congregate in warm springs and thermal discharges from power plants and industrial
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 75 of 251 plants, and deep canals providing an opportunity for the most reliable population
surveys.
Since manatees prefer water conditions in some watersheds over others based on
salinity, seagrass prevalence, and nutrient concentrations, their presence and
abundance could provide a useful indicator of estuarine health. Manatee mortalities
directly related to Red Tide and other HAB events can be attributed to specific
watersheds, perhaps indicating poor conditions. As more data becomes available,
manatees should be considered as a potential estuarine indicator for inclusion.
Current Manatee research / projects:
• Aerial Distribution Surveys / Synoptic Surveys – Southwest Florida (Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission)
• Aerial Distribution Surveys / Synoptic Surveys - Sarasota and Charlotte Counties
(Mote Marine Lab)
• Caloosahatchee Estuary Conceptual Ecological Model (Tomma Barnes, South
Florida Water Management District)
Oysters
Eastern oysters (Crassostrea virginica) are
endemic in all watersheds of Southwest Florida
and are an integral part of estuarine ecology.
Oysters congregate forming reefs that create
vital habitat for many estuarine species. Over
time, these reefs provide the necessary
substrate for the formation mangrove islands
and eventually barrier reefs which provide many
benefits to the estuary. They are viewed as
indicator species for a variety of reasons
including:166
• Salinity and other water quality conditions
suitable for oysters also provide the optimum
balance for other aquatic organisms.
• Oysters filter water and provide food, shelter,
and habitat for over 300 different marine
species.
• Larger fish and birds prey upon the
crustaceans and small fish that congregate
Photo 14 - Oysters167
around oyster communities.
• Because oysters are sedentary (stay in one place) it is easy to measure water quality
and other stressors based on their health.
Recent studies by Aswani Volety from Florida Gulf Coast University’s (FGCU) Coastal
Watershed Institute (CWI) in the Caloosahatchee estuary indicates that oysters there are
being negatively impacted by too much fresh water in the summer and not enough fresh
water in the winter. An excess of freshwater impacts oysters reproduction, larval
recruitment, survival, and growth whereas, to little freshwater results in hypersaline
conditions leading to a higher disease prevalence and intensity of Perkinsus marinus
along with predation.168
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 76 of 251 A Stoplight Report Card was created to communicate the level of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) performance on restoring estuaries in the
Caloosahatchee watershed. The oyster population there is currently at yellow or
“caution” as a result of three main stressors identified as: altered hydrology, altered
habitat (affecting habitat loss, hydrology, water quality), and sedimentation (affecting
habitat loss).169 CWI studies have also been completed or are presently underway in the
Ten Thousand Islands watershed where sheet flow has been disrupted by drainage
canals and roads at South Golden Gate Estates, in addition to studies in Rookery Bay
and Estero Bay. Michael Savarese also from FGCU’s CWI is currently doing valuable
research in these estuaries by taking sediment cores to determine sea level rise and
how oyster reefs have shaped coastal morphology.170
Photo 15 - Oyster Reef171
Oyster restoration is also another large part of
the CWI’s work. Fossilized shells are used as
substrate for oyster settlement and placed in
the estuaries to encourage extensive reef
growth. Restoration projects have currently
been performed at sites in Naples Bay,
Henderson Creek (Rookery Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve), Estero Bay, and
the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary.
Photo 16 - Volunteers help build oyster reefs172
Future Estuary Report Cards can benefit from using oysters as indicators of estuarine
health. Studying the history of oyster reef development and presence through sediment
cores can provide important data pertinent to comparing historic and present oyster bed
coverage. As oyster restoration projects continue, a measurable comparison can be
made for water quality, turbidity, and biodiversity of pre and post efforts for specific
watersheds.
Current oyster research / projects:
• Influence of freshwater inflow on the habitat value of oyster reefs in Southwest
Florida estuaries (Gregory Tolley, CWI - [email protected]. (239) 590-7206 and
Aswani Volety, CWI - [email protected]. (239) 590-7216)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card •
•
•
•
•
•
Page 77 of 251 Aspects of Oyster Ecology and Their Utility in the Design of Estuarine Restoration
Projects in the Greater Everglades: Example from Southern Golden Gate Estates
(Michael Savarese, CWI - [email protected]. (239) 590-7165)
Sea-level rise, oyster reef development, and their effects upon coastal evolution of
southwest Florida through the late Holocene (Michael Savarese, CWI [email protected]. (239) 590-7165)
Oyster restoration in Naples Bay / Southwest Florida (Michael Savarese, CWI [email protected]. (239) 590-7165)
Is Water Quality Suitable for Oyster Reef Development in Naples Bay? A Reef
Restoration Demonstration Project (Michael Savarese, CWI - [email protected].
(239) 590-7165, Lesli Haynes, CWI - [email protected]. (239) 590-7242, and Erin
Dykes, DEP - [email protected])
Establishing an Oyster Habitat Restoration Program for Sarasota Bay (Jay R.
Leverone, Mote Marine Laboratory and Gary E. Raulerson, Sarasota Bay Estuary
Program)
Caloosahatchee Estuary Conceptual Ecological Model (Tomma Barnes, South
Florida Water Management District)
Spotted Sea Trout
The spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) can be used as an important indicator of
estuarine conditions because it is one of the few species that spends its entire life within
the confines of a single estuarine system. At different stages in their life cycle they will
utilize different estuarine zones providing a full view of the entire system.173 “Spotted
sea trout have growth rings or annuli on the otolith or ear stone; these rings reflect the
growth conditions to which the fish have been subjected.”174 Because of this, the growth
rate of each fish is a historical record, reflecting the environmental conditions in
individual estuaries.
Photo 17 - Spotted Seatrout175
Stressor response model can utilize such information to portray species responses, both
spatially and temporally, to changes in environmental variables resulting from CERP
restoration activities.176 Specifically, the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin
Storage Reservoir project and the Southwest Florida Feasibility Study (SWFFS) were
modeled utilizing such an approach. The model created does not simulate species’ life
cycles, but rather estimates the numbers of habitat units to serve as a relative basis for
comparing management alternatives.177
The habitat suitability index (HSI) for spotted seatrout could also provide information of
estuarine health. “As more data becomes available, additional variables, habitat
requirements, or additional life stages can be incorporated.”178 By adjusting variables to
mimic local conditions in other estuaries, this HSI model can be used in all target
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 78 of 251 watersheds for future Estuaries Report Cards. As of right now, the Caloosahatchee
watershed is the only one with HSI data for spotted seatrout. Data would need to be
collected in all watersheds for this indicator, before it can be used in future report cards.
Current spotted seatrout research / projects:
• Stressor Response Model for the Spotted Sea Trout, Cynoscion nebulosus (Frank J.
Mazzotti, University of Florida - [email protected]. (954) 577-6304)
• Caloosahatchee Estuary Conceptual Ecological Model (Tomma Barnes, South
Florida Water Management District)
Blue Crabs
Like other possible
indicators discussed in this
section, blue crabs
(Callinectes sapidus) can
provide important insight of
estuarine conditions. Data
collected from licensed
commercial crabbers within
the Caloosahatchee
watershed has the potential
to provide valuable insight
into the environmental
impacts of freshwater
releases.
Photo 18 - Blue Crabs
179
Unfortunately, data is only
recorded by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) for Lee County and
not the entire Caloosahatchee watershed. Additionally, environmental conditions are not
recorded along with the landings, “thereby precluding any attempt at cause and effect
analysis.”180 Continued but more intense long-term monitoring of the blue crab fishery,
along with currently recorded environmental parameters (temperature, salinity, nutrient
conditions, and GIS mapped land-water features) will permit direct determination of the
association that blue crab production has with the environmental water quality in the
system.181 Monitoring from commercial crabbers should be applied to all germane
watersheds and when available, blue crabs should be considered for inclusion as a
potential estuarine health indicator.
Current blue crab research / projects:
• Assessing the relationship between environmental conditions and the blue crab
fishery in relation to restoration goals for the Caloosahatchee River (John Reguzzoni,
Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation - [email protected]. (239) 989-6152)
• Caloosahatchee Estuary Conceptual Ecological Model (Tomma Barnes, South
Florida Water Management District)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 79 of 251 Degree of Flow Alteration
In future report cards, the current flow of each estuary’s tributaries, as compared to
historic flow, could be incorporated as a sub-criterion of the hydrology indicator.
Alternately, minimum flow levels (MFLs) established by the Water Management Districts
in Florida to protect water resources or an ecosystem from significant harm resulting
from water withdrawals could potentially be utilized to determine with estuarine health
has been severely compromised. MFLs are determined based on evaluations of
topography, soils, vegetation data collected within plant communities and other pertinent
information associated with the water resource and are set to define how often and for
how long high, average, and low water levels and/or flows should be maintained to
prevent significant harm.
Hydrographs that represent existing conditions and MFL-defined condition should be
constructed for all the different tributaries for Southwest Florida’s estuaries. The distance
between the two lines on hydrographs represents the water available or the water deficit,
for ‘reasonable-beneficial uses’ that will not result in harm to water resources. These
availabilities and deficits could then be aggregated by each estuary to determine the
overall current flow status of each estuary’s contributing watershed.182 This indicator
would measure the contribution of each tributary’s flow to the health of the overall
estuary.
The information that follows provides the total size of the estuary, its watershed, and the
most recent flow data for each tributary.
Greater Charlotte Harbor
The surface area of Charlotte Harbor is 805 km2 while the entire drainage area
encompasses an area of 13.000 km2.183
Data from the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that in
1999 the average daily inflow into Charlotte Harbor was 1 m3/s.184 While 1994 EPA data
indicated that total freshwater inflow into Charlotte Harbor was 161-173 m3/s (5,7006.100 ft m3/s).185 Finally, a 1995-96 report of tidal flow for parts of Charlotte Harbor
states that the mean daily freshwater inflow volume (cubic feet x 1010 for water years
1995 and 1996) for the Charlotte Harbor Estuarine System is 0.012.186
Data has been collected from the SFWMD DBHYDRO website. Units are in CFS (cubic
feet per second)
Table breaks identify sets of data based on different data sampling conditions such as
different agency samples, time of year sampled, difference of measuring methods, etc.
Alligator Creek near Punta Gorda, FL
Year
Min
Mean
1982
0.000
0.000
1983
0.000
0.000
Lat: 26°53’’42’ / Long: 81°58’’30’187
Max
Std. Dev.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
North Prong Alligator Creek near Punta Gorda, FL
Lat: 26°53’’42’’ / Long: 81°58’’30’188
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1975
1.100
17.925
185.000
Std. Dev.
32.30
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 80 of 251 Little Charlie Bowlegs Creek near Sebring, FL
Year
Min
Mean
1974
0.080
3.938
1975
0.000
20.085
1976
0.000
34.676
1977
0.000
16.209
1978
0.000
29.061
1979
0.000
23.197
1980
0.000
8.825
1981
0.000
5.263
1982
0.000
65.285
1983
0.000
34.579
Lat: 27°28’’41’ / Long: 81°33’’24’189
Max
Std. Dev.
45.000
8.63
189.000
34.47
228.000
47.16
92.000
18.51
368.000
49.48
195.000
36.17
98.000
14.96
181.000
16.81
831.000
132.17
196.000
42.21
Peace Creek Drainage Canal near D
Year
Min
Mean
1946
3.600
19.790
1947
3.000
49.654
1948
2.300
67.760
1949
0.200
37.136
1950
0.200
18.442
1951
5.200
34.132
1952
0.400
26.726
1953
2.400
56.264
1954
1.600
26.028
1955
0.000
1.221
1956
0.000
1.869
1957
0.000
15.870
1958
1.100
20.822
1959
3.500
82.262
Lat: 28°01’’51’ / Long: 81°39’’34’190
Max
Std. Dev.
40.000
15.15
181.000
42.64
227.000
57.33
198.000
43.01
114.000
22.08
98.000
21.35
98.000
18.55
220.000
58.55
143.000
30.74
9.300
1.50
31.000
5.20
96.000
16.97
79.000
14.98
209.000
53.99
Gum Lake Marsh at Lake Alfred
Year
Min
1960
3.500
1961
0.000
1962
0.000
Lat: 28°06’’12’ / Long: 81°42’’21’191
Max
Std. Dev.
29.000
8.30
5.400
1.11
0.000
0.00
Mean
13.253
0.547
0.000
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Pine Island Sound
• Pine Island Sound Upper
• Matlacha Pass
• Pine Island Sound Lower
• North Captiva Island
• Captiva Island
Page 81 of 251 •
•
•
•
Pine Island
San Carlos Bay
Punta Rasa Cove
South Urban Cape Coral
Data has been collected from the SFWMD DBHYDRO website. Units are in CFS.
Table breaks identify sets of data based on different data sampling conditions such as
different agency samples, time of year sampled, difference of measuring methods, etc.
Shadroe Canal at Cape Coral
Year
Min
1987
0.970
1988
0.000
1989
0.000
1990
0.000
1991
0.000
1992
0.000
1993
0.000
1994
0.160
1995
0.000
1996
0.000
1997
0.720
1998
0.000
1999
0.000
2000
0.000
2001
0.000
2002
0.000
2003
1.800
2004
0.510
2005
0.100
2006
0.000
2007
0.000
2008
0.000
2009
0.000
2010
0.000
Hermosa Canal at Cape Coral
Year
Min
1987
0.420
1988
0.150
1989
0.000
1990
0.280
1991
0.980
1992
0.150
1993
2.300
1994
0.550
1995
0.870
Mean
17.787
5.207
3.500
3.151
7.199
11.735
6.827
6.082
31.742
8.580
6.581
10.608
7.976
8.565
12.651
12.278
21.452
10.887
16.080
18.755
2.674
12.254
7.215
24.448
Lat: 26°39’’06 / Long: 81°57’’53’192
Max
Std. Dev.
174.000
18.16
94.000
9.23
31.000
4.96
32.000
4.51
67.000
8.34
198.000
23.61
141.000
11.98
102.000
10.33
674.000
81.56
276.000
15.94
343.000
19.89
438.000
28.31
164.000
16.99
586
33.72
903
62.18
205
22.26
321
34.47
158
18.18
275
24.74
259
39.71
82
7.75
164
31.72
168
14.76
190
37.58
Mean
22.252
15.461
21.094
10.161
24.682
18.714
21.464
16.275
43.833
Lat: 26°40’’09’ / Long: 82°02’’17’193
Max
Std. Dev.
370.000
39.22
77.000
19.96
137.000
24.60
152.000
14.02
277.000
30.73
209.000
26.20
142.000
20.26
116.000
17.25
1,040.000
84.72
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Hermosa Canal at Cape Coral
Year
Min
1996
0.000
1997
0.000
1998
0.000
1999
0.000
2000
0.000
2001
0.000
2002
0.000
2003
0.000
2004
0.000
2005
0.000
2006
0.000
2007
0.000
2008
0.000
2009
0.000
2010
0.000
Horseshoe Canal
Year
Min
1987
1.6000
1988
0.000
1989
0.000
1990
0.000
1991
0.640
1992
0.000
1993
1.200
1994
0.000
1995
0.000
1996
0.000
1997
0.000
1998
0.000
1999
0.000
2000
0.000
2001
0.000
2002
0.000
2003
0.000
2004
0.310
2005
0.000
2006
0.000
2007
0.000
2008
0.000
2009
0.000
2010
0.000
Page 82 of 251 Mean
17.533
22.559
29.750
16.507
20.086
26.073
22.662
28.721
20.432
20.593
23.829
4.693
33.643
14.317
35.868
Lat: 26°40’’09’ / Long: 82°02’’17’193
Max
Std. Dev.
243.000
23.98
303.000
34.29
530.000
45.77
240.000
29.20
420.000
44.96
745.000
69.01
214.000
35.30
601.000
53.46
305.000
39.97
448.000
39.36
318.000
56.28
70.000
9.85
519.000
78.37
254.000
26.37
287.000
41.81
Mean
33.612
15.194
10.205
13.498
36.362
22.323
25.772
15.255
47.708
20.534
23.503
45.342
24.792
11.263
29.739
23.974
36.277
20.249
45.199
27.529
8.099
22.185
19.041
35.862
Lat: 26°40’’50’ / Long: 82°02’’18’194
Max
Std. Dev.
355.000
39.00
154.000
25.57
208.000
21.52
216.000
19.70
318.000
42.73
438.000
45.49
243.000
31.18
154.000
20.75
1,060.000
90.41
257.000
26.90
326.000
38.69
580.000
62.87
319.000
45.09
315.000
28.10
819.000
80.43
225.000
37.75
600.000
57.21
26.000
41.32
489.000
65.94
265.000
50.84
87.000
16.61
281.000
41.85
210.000
29.56
228.000
40.50
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 83 of 251 Gator Slough at SR 765 near Ft. Myers
Year
Min
Mean
1984
5.000
67.292
1985
0.000
27.069
1986
0.000
40.508
1987
7.000
56.054
1988
0.000
39.011
1989
0.000
41.620
1990
0.000
19.471
1991
2.100
55.856
1992
0.980
50.461
1993
2.800
41.297
1994
1.400
35.887
1995
0.000
109.845
1996
0.000
57.152
1997
0.000
65.565
Lat: 26°41’’40’ / Long: 82°02’’20’195
Max
Std. Dev.
290.000
65.05
286.000
41.05
842.000
83.99
595.000
64.27
507.000
70.39
504.000
66.78
175.000
27.76
604.000
79.04
740.000
95.93
279.000
37.74
443.000
50.34
1,240.000
174.09
573.000
74.38
781.000
136.48
Gator Slough at US 41
Year
Min
1984
0.080
1985
0.000
1986
0.000
1987
0.100
1988
0.000
1989
0.000
1990
0.000
1991
0.000
1992
0.000
1993
0.000
1994
0.010
1995
0.860
1996
0.070
1997
0.000
1998
0.000
1999
0.000
2000
0.000
2001
0.000
2002
0.000
2003
0.030
2004
0.000
2005
0.000
Lat: 26°44’’38’ / Long: 81°55’’00’196
Max
Std. Dev.
61.000
12.27
40.000
7.98
44.000
8.28
79.000
9.20
175.000
19.42
88.000
8.21
5.000
.93
185.000
26.34
277.000
27.13
107.000
13.60
122.000
11.98
225.000
30.82
60.000
9.38
65.000
11.07
92.000
12.72
70.000
10.47
93.000
10.45
154.000
19.19
116.000
16.73
153.000
22.53
76.000
12.09
81.000
14.72
Mean
9.479
4.164
4.221
6.372
8.012
2.044
0.706
13.483
9.310
7.535
4.707
20.342
6.197
6.403
8.753
7.222
4.875
8.232
9.424
14.233
6.822
10.908
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 84 of 251 Caloosahatchee Estuary
The watershed for the Caloosahatchee Estuary from Lake Okeechobee to San Carlos
Bay is 1338 square miles.
Data has been collected from the SFWMD DBHYDRO website. Units are in CFS
Table breaks identify sets of data based on different data sampling conditions such as
different agency samples, time of year sampled, difference of measuring methods, etc.
*Flow data from stations in Hendry County were not included in the following tables.
These stations are
G136_O
G136_C
G135_C
G96_C
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tidal Caloosahatchee
Yellow Fever Creek
Manual Branch
Daughtrey Creek
Trout Creek
Gilchrest Drain – Powel
Camelot
Year
1989
Sugarlnd
S4_P
S47D_S
S235_C
Townsend_O
Townsend
Indust
S169_C
Min
0.000
Courtney Canal at Cape Coral
Year
Min
1986
0.000
1987
0.000
1988
0.000
1989
0.000
1990
0.000
1991
0.000
1992
0.000
1993
0.000
1994
0.000
1995
0.000
1996
0.000
1997
0.000
1998
0.000
1999
0.000
2000
0.000
2001
0.000
2002
0.000
2003
0.000
2004
0.000
2005
0.000
Stoud Creek
Owl Creek
Popash Creek
Wyoua Creek
Billy Creek
Orange River
Mean
0.558
Lat: 26°32’’36’ / Long: 82°00’’32’197
Max
Std. Dev.
1.000
.50
Mean
0.190
7.767
2.111
5.527
5.449
6.788
5.921
6.255
4.909
13.703
10.860
13.662
27.637
11.983
14.819
12.376
18.167
19.053
10.694
13.622
Lat: 26°34’’40’ / Long: 81°59’’07’198
Max
Std. Dev.
4.900
.79
71.000
10.26
36.000
5.70
41.000
9.33
34.00
9.50
44.000
9.03
133.000
14.65
61.000
8.13
55.000
9.66
210.000
29.88
91.000
19.92
160.000
23.37
191.000
33.85
220.000
30.66
193.000
25.46
194.000
24.40
180.000
26.22
191.000
28.19
21.000
18.93
148.000
20.74
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Courtney Canal at Cape Coral
Year
Min
2006
0.000
2007
0.000
2008
0.000
2009
0.000
2010
0.000
San Carlos Canal at Cape Coral
Year
Min
1986
0.000
1987
0.000
1988
0.000
1989
0.000
1990
0.000
1991
0.000
1992
0.000
1993
0.000
1994
0.000
1995
0.000
1996
0.000
1997
0.000
1998
0.000
1999
0.000
2000
0.000
2001
0.000
2002
0.000
2003
0.000
2004
0.000
2005
0.000
2006
0.000
2007
0.000
2008
0.000
2009
0.000
2010
0.000
Mackinac Canal at Cape Coral
Year
Min
1986
0.000
1987
0.000
1988
0.000
1989
0.000
1990
0.000
1991
0.000
1992
0.000
1993
0.000
1994
0.000
1995
0.000
1996
0.000
Page 85 of 251 Mean
10.553
0.577
5.623
7.773
21.835
Lat: 26°34’’40’ / Long: 81°59’’07’198
Max
Std. Dev.
224.000
24.20
25.000
2.65
128.000
16.19
97.000
17.47
180.000
33.91
Mean
0.413
4.503
2.594
3.310
2.323
4.479
5.542
5.345
2.633
12.752
4.635
2.872
6.575
5.838
4.707
8.211
7.365
10.160
6.024
7.706
7.543
4.454
3.396
4.929
7.144
Lat: 26°36’’12’ / Long: 81°57’’53’199
Max
Std. Dev.
3.700
.83
89.000
7.00
44.000
4.12
30.000
4.38
35.000
4.08
59.000
6.86
128.000
12.10
86.000
8.51
25.000
3.14
150.000
24.45
61.000
7.78
58.000
6.48
58.000
10.15
86.000
12.18
153.000
12.94
330.000
23.27
258.000
18.43
311.000
26.99
80.000
10.66
84.000
12.07
152.000
15.37
45.000
7.45
41.000
7.79
71.000
10.48
123.000
13.38
Mean
0.000
0.686
0.259
0.000
0.000
1.993
4.477
2.240
1.087
8.549
1.069
Lat: 26°38’’10’ / Long: 81°57’’28’200
Max
Std. Dev.
0.000
.00
72.000
5.20
17.000
1.56
0.000
.00
0.000
.00
82.000
6.99
221.000
21.00
78.000
6.74
30.000
3.14
291.000
27.93
38.000
4.66
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Meade Canal at Cape Coral
Year
Min
1986
0.640
1987
0.760
1988
0.000
1989
0.000
1990
0.000
1991
0.000
1992
0.000
1993
0.000
1994
0.000
1995
0.000
1996
0.000
1997
0.000
1998
0.000
1999
0.000
2000
0.000
2001
0.000
2002
0.000
2003
0.000
2004
0.010
2005
0.170
2006
0.000
2007
0.000
2008
0.000
2009
0.000
2010
0.000
Orange River near Ft. Myers
Year
Min
1935
0.050
1936
0.010
1937
0.020
1938
0.000
1939
0.000
1940
0.000
1941
0.000
1942
0.030
1943
0.000
1944
1.800
1945
0.000
1946
0.000
1990
2.900
1991
4.300
1992
2.300
Page 86 of 251 Mean
1.501
4.918
3.143
6.189
4.815
5.183
3.833
2.874
2.368
11.457
3.329
6.143
9.358
6.502
6.108
6.078
11.884
12.033
8.717
7.838
6.623
3.588
10.554
7.575
9.558
Lat: 26°38’’11’ / Long: 81°55’’49’201
Max
Std. Dev.
2.900
.44
36.000
3.90
33.000
5.01
34.000
9.19
44.000
6.88
44.000
6.69
75.000
7.42
32.000
3.70
17.000
2.61
177.000
19.31
34.000
4.72
74.000
8.79
89.000
13.82
57.000
9.32
79.000
9.72
321.000
20.61
211.000
20.28
149.000
18.87
127.000
15.44
98.000
11.89
87.000
11.86
118.000
9.27
90.000
16.14
91.000
15.12
107.000
16.96
Mean
0.050
92.811
48.042
25.641
76.333
45.758
55.816
18.254
48.644
18.135
50.757
26.526
22.143
124.088
130.324
Lat: 26°40’’01’ / Long: 81°43’’55’202
Max
Std. Dev.
0.050
.00
4,900.000
381.94
850.000
128.63
790.000
88.26
685.000
136.30
1,270.000
130.27
810.000
109.67
283.000
37.67
1,320.000
130.38
301.000
41.16
1,020.000
110.44
417.000
57.01
92.000
21.38
1,160.000
154.66
2,040.000
229.77
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Canal S-78
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Canal S-79
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Min
0.000
5.880
11.733
5.770
15.140
Min
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
10.000
3.800
1.500
1.800
4.300
2.400
0.000
0.600
2.500
2.700
0.000
2.900
4.600
4.500
1.200
2.000
5.800
7.500
1.100
7.800
7.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Page 87 of 251 Mean
247.812
1,238.152
2,439.113
1,739.227
4,017.943
Lat: 26°43’’26’ / Long: 81°41’’54’203
Max
Std. Dev.
4,073.027
506.69
7,017.225
1,547.17
8,646.223
2,386.25
9,182.000
2,341.40
9,372.000
2,649.33
Mean
3,408.988
664.540
1,835.325
3,427.400
3,704.068
560.474
297.893
799.871
2,198.756
584.115
469.271
575.643
975.686
2,151.079
1,634.449
675.408
1,760.162
3,867.933
2,711.280
990.927
1,332.244
1,700.022
1,001.690
684.454
585.595
1,273.905
1,299.663
1,699.785
2,256.199
4,668.559
1,296.245
1,044.677
3,610.280
2,180.792
853.882
1,154.493
2,059.652
3,577.181
Lat: 26°47’’23’ / Long: 81°18’’10’204
Max
Std. Dev.
7,930.000
2,305.10
5,970.000
1,005.39
10,000.000
2,616.06
10,100.000
3,011.63
21,400.000
3,908.85
5,760.000
908.99
4,960.000
624.06
4,920.000
1,013.90
15,100.000
3,999.61
4,780.000
849.13
6,670.000
686.29
4,610.000
872.19
6,910.000
1,391.94
11,400.000
2,746.19
7,230.000
1,988.39
12,900.000
1,836.88
17,300.000
2,814.49
15,500.000
3,821.51
11,700.000
2,847.39
9,650.000
1,410.87
10,600.000
1,783.95
12,600.000
1,833.31
6,780.000
1,297.21
5,270.000
932.69
5,980.000
1,050.99
6,650.000
1,499.80
15,500.000
2,241.81
10,500.000
1,886.96
9,490.000
2,310.72
13,800.000
3,724.36
9,890.000
1,887.66
8,600.000
1,400.86
12,700.000
3,562.34
10,200.000
2,470.43
5,230.000
1,284.29
14,500.000
2,079.63
11,500.000
2,386.37
15,200.000
3,418.57
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Canal S-79
Year
2004
2005
Min
0.000
0.000
Mean
2,551.565
5,385.968
Page 88 of 251 Lat: 26°47’’23’ / Long: 81°18’’10’204
Max
Std. Dev.
13,000.000
2,920.71
16,900.000
3,982.61
S-4 Pump from LD-1 & Canal C-20 to Lake Okeechobee
Lat: 26°47’’23’ / Long: 80°57’’42’205
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1990
0.000
0.000
0.000
1991
0.000
5.064
222.792
1992
0.000
28.868
904.883
1993
0.000
23.697
1,039.844
1994
0.000
12.640
299.077
Data Set 1
Std. Dev.
.00
25.51
130.64
109.46
54.11
S-4 Pump from LD-1 & Canal C-20 to Lake Okeechobee
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1974
0.000
70.814
490.000
1975
0.000
38.945
812.000
1976
0.000
20.107
674.000
1977
0.000
66.515
1,182.000
1978
0.000
65.312
1,087.000
1979
0.000
42.589
828.000
1980
0.000
38.287
1,276.000
1981
0.000
0.000
0.000
1982
0.000
21.901
615.000
1983
0.000
78.904
962.000
1984
0.000
96.773
1,309.000
1985
0.000
5.984
309.000
1986
0.000
17.674
779.000
1987
0.000
14.268
1,049.000
1988
0.000
24.565
1,188.000
1989
0.000
0.518
189.000
1990
0.000
0.000
0.000
1991
0.000
5.093
222.800
1992
0.000
28.868
904.900
1993
0.000
23.696
1,039.800
1994
0.000
65.136
1,351.680
1995
0.000
108.641
2,214.450
1996
0.000
16.119
586.210
1997
0.000
17.033
929.540
1998
0.000
75.650
2,106.410
1999
0.000
57.897
926.390
2000
0.000
4.744
491.610
2001
0.000
19.477
666.840
2002
0.000
9.598
576.140
2003
0.000
28.015
978.670
2004
0.000
75.162
1,689.700
2005
0.000
65.430
1,138.350
2006
0.000
9.857
676.720
Data Set 2
Std. Dev.
109.84
129.48
72.83
173.43
151.75
127.68
136.70
.00
82.47
188.51
252.13
36.80
79.88
96.79
112.60
9.89
.00
25.58
130.64
109.46
195.75
305.37
68.71
85.96
258.96
154.61
39.59
85.01
54.76
104.75
247.69
190.68
58.80
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 89 of 251 S-4 Pump from LD-1 & Canal C-20 to Lake Okeechobee
Year
Min
Mean
Max
2007
0.000
0.689
48.680
2008
0.000
37.903
1,313.680
2009
0.000
24.887
1,127.060
2010
0.000
61.834
1,284.120
Data Set 2
Std. Dev.
5.20
174.89
100.76
181.94
S-4 Pump from LD-1 & Canal C-20 to Lake Okeechobee
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1977
0.000
92.444
353.000
1978
0.000
65.311
1,087.000
1979
0.000
0.000
0.000
1982
0.000
41.853
615.000
1983
0.000
78.442
962.000
1984
0.000
96.773
1,309.000
1985
0.000
5.984
309.000
1986
0.000
17.626
772.313
1987
0.000
14.268
1,049.000
1988
0.000
24.497
1,188.000
1989
0.000
0.518
189.000
1990
0.000
0.000
0.000
1991
0.000
0.000
0.000
Data Set 3
Std. Dev.
138.78
151.75
.00
110.42
187.57
252.13
36.80
79.58
96.79
112.46
9.89
.00
.00
S-4 Pump from LD-1 & Canal C-20 to Lake Okeechobee
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1974
0.000
70.814
490.000
1975
0.000
38.945
812.000
1976
0.000
20.107
674.000
1977
0.000
67.584
1,182.000
1978
0.000
70.737
1,089.000
1979
0.000
42.589
828.000
1980
0.000
38.287
1,276.000
1981
0.000
0.000
0.000
1982
0.000
44.017
628.041
1983
0.000
81.372
944.867
1984
0.000
116.220
1,320.842
1985
0.000
12.067
983.476
1986
0.000
19.507
809.192
1987
0.000
14.543
1,038.734
1988
0.000
13.217
491.587
Data Set 4
Std. Dev.
109.84
129.48
72.83
174.45
159.47
127.68
136.70
.00
116.05
192.83
286.02
86.92
86.74
97.74
62.68
S-4 Pump from LD-1 & Canal C-20 to Lake Okeechobee
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1978
0.000
65.312
1,087.000
1979
0.000
42.589
828.000
1980
0.000
38.287
1,276.000
1981
0.000
0.000
0.000
1982
0.000
21.901
615.000
1983
0.000
78.904
962.000
Data Set 5
Std. Dev.
151.75
127.68
136.70
.00
82.47
188.51
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 90 of 251 S-4 Pump from LD-1 & Canal C-20 to Lake Okeechobee
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1984
0.000
96.773
1,309.000
1985
0.000
5.984
309.000
1986
0.000
17.674
779.000
1987
0.000
14.268
1,049.000
1988
0.000
24.363
1,188.000
1989
0.000
0.518
189.000
1990
0.000
0.000
0.000
1991
0.000
4.925
222.800
1992
0.000
28.868
904.900
1993
0.000
23.696
1,039.800
1994
0.000
65.136
1,351.680
1995
0.000
108.641
2,214.450
1996
0.000
16.119
586.210
1997
0.000
17.033
929.540
1998
0.000
75.650
2,106.410
1999
0.000
57.897
926.390
2000
0.000
4.744
491.610
2001
0.000
19.477
666.840
2002
0.000
9.598
576.140
2003
0.000
28.015
978.670
2004
0.000
75.162
1,689.700
2005
0.000
65.430
1,138.350
Data Set 5
Std. Dev.
252.13
36.80
79.88
96.79
112.16
9.89
.00
25.17
130.64
109.46
195.75
305.37
68.71
85.96
258.96
154.61
39.59
85.01
54.76
104.75
247.69
190.68
S-4 Pump from LD-1 & Canal C-20 to Lake Okeechobee
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1994
0.000
73.709
1,351.678
1995
0.000
108.641
2,214.449
1996
0.000
16.119
586.214
1997
0.000
17.028
929.536
1998
0.000
75.650
2,106.414
1999
0.000
57.897
926.393
2000
0.000
4.744
491.605
2001
0.000
19.477
666.839
2002
0.000
9.599
576.143
2003
0.000
28.015
978.672
2004
0.000
75.162
1,689.703
2005
0.000
65.430
1,138.354
2006
0.000
9.857
676.715
2007
0.000
0.689
48.682
2008
0.000
37.903
1,313.680
2009
0.000
24.886
1,127.063
2010
0.000
54.832
1,284.121
Data Set 6
Std. Dev.
208.51
305.37
68.71
85.93
258.96
154.61
39.59
85.01
54.76
104.75
247.68
190.68
58.80
5.20
174.89
100.76
158.04
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card S-47D Spillway on Canal C-19 at C-43
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Min
0.000
-15.979
-118.000
-201.000
-176.000
-553.000
-462.000
-244.000
-72.000
-74.000
-18.000
-227.000
-176.000
-327.000
-835.751
-114.105
-161.211
-85.551
Mean
0.000
60.316
51.186
67.474
6.170
-17.858
114.903
27.593
20.918
58.597
78.630
78.765
0.268
-24.171
-281.561
62.420
38.294
33.270
S-47D Spillway on Canal C-19 at C-43
Year
Min
Mean
1993
-249.260
-117.539
1994
-283.476
0.006
1995
-226.116
-18.819
1996
-110.565
32.741
1997
-57.957
24.810
1998
-143.734
50.993
1999
-247.111
51.374
2000
-226.478
-81.471
2001
-215.728
-56.233
2002
-137.295
45.569
2003
-62.657
97.388
2004
-64.538
40.975
2005
-67.483
118.873
2006
-14.881
48.907
2007
-86.764
16.092
2008
-130.288
18.287
2009
-133.716
12.969
2010
-69.311
78.221
Page 91 of 251 Lat: 26°48’’35’ / Long: 81°08’’22’206
Data Set 1
Max
Std. Dev.
0.000
.00
228.000
39.66
272.000
54.92
948.000
153.40
158.000
66.20
342.000
208.58
678.000
187.48
454.000
106.87
139.000
38.36
375.000
88.28
320.000
38.89
694.000
163.11
159.000
70.18
134.000
61.41
409.092
338.84
557.467
95.98
358.648
63.06
200.887
42.92
Max
352.619
210.155
359.933
306.891
325.284
406.345
301.983
224.339
297.835
355.572
429.757
367.045
1,028.106
526.495
115.136
512.457
251.596
441.236
Data Set 2
Std. Dev.
122.68
71.03
73.83
44.35
39.29
74.67
141.89
145.59
86.93
85.72
79.62
59.92
122.95
91.78
36.08
78.56
48.47
92.03
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card S-235 Culvert on Levee LD-3 at Canal C-43
Year
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
Min
-111.000
-102.000
0.000
-262.089
-228.481
-209.019
-190.485
-178.062
Mean
107.188
31.743
0.000
-10.449
127.191
134.671
150.083
96.285
Page 92 of 251 Lat: 26°50’’17’ / Long: 81°05’’07’207
Data Set 1
Max
Std. Dev.
471.000
122.18
431.000
106.98
0.000
.00
443.601
86.85
456.417
112.43
445.370
104.13
393.827
92.09
301.685
137.83
S-235 Culvert on Levee LD-3 at Canal C-43
Year
Min
Mean
1975
0.000
0.000
1976
-126.000
18.347
1977
0.000
1.849
1978
0.000
6.490
1979
-7.000
110.321
1980
-237.000
82.079
1981
-283.000
-20.238
1982
-123.000
37.200
1983
-292.000
109.068
1984
-214.000
139.066
1985
-163.000
30.688
1986
-146.000
73.468
1987
-260.000
77.882
1988
-169.000
139.128
1989
-73.000
31.471
1990
0.000
0.000
1991
-94.841
85.895
1992
-173.156
52.458
1993
49.039
60.806
1994
49.039
54.279
1995
-224.721
-26.344
1996
-210.921
-193.570
1998
-274.573
153.761
1999
0.165
142.284
Max
0.000
298.000
265.000
311.000
526.000
525.000
304.000
382.000
405.000
466.000
463.000
514.000
529.000
523.000
454.000
0.000
478.352
407.341
197.429
54.756
164.271
263.567
370.869
412.693
Data Set 2
Std. Dev.
.00
63.51
16.99
34.56
140.55
118.30
55.91
90.22
121.36
140.04
91.73
151.81
145.29
104.50
77.63
.00
170.70
179.01
39.01
1.58
129.49
84.08
141.26
118.17
S-235 Culvert on Levee LD-3 at Canal C-43
Year
Min
Mean
1989
0.000
0.000
Max
0.000
Data Set 3
Std. Dev.
.00
S-235 Culvert on Levee LD-3 at Canal C-43
Year
Min
Mean
1965
0.000
0.000
1966
0.000
0.000
1967
0.000
0.000
Max
0.000
0.000
0.000
Data Set 4
Std. Dev.
.00
.00
.00
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 93 of 251 S-235 Culvert on Levee LD-3 at Canal C-43
Year
Min
Mean
1968
0.000
0.000
1969
0.000
0.000
1970
0.000
0.000
1971
0.000
0.000
1972
0.000
0.000
1973
0.000
0.000
1974
0.000
0.000
1975
0.000
0.000
1976
-126.000
18.347
1977
0.000
1.849
1978
0.000
6.490
1979
-7.000
110.321
1980
-237.000
82.079
1981
-283.000
-20.238
1982
-123.000
37.200
1983
-292.000
109.068
1984
-214.000
139.066
1985
-163.000
30.688
1986
-146.000
73.468
1987
-260.000
77.882
1988
-169.000
139.128
1989
-73.000
31.471
1990
0.000
0.000
1991
-73.000
35.506
1992
-263.730
108.907
1993
-233.030
68.592
1994
-245.060
48.536
1995
-205.640
75.343
1996
-152.430
109.694
1997
-140.570
79.366
1998
-144.960
87.057
1999
0.140
101.939
2000
-177.100
27.892
2001
-286.441
18.429
2002
-215.915
140.821
2003
-228.210
65.323
2004
-153.810
39.869
2005
-266.398
82.803
2006
-165.623
-5.294
2007
0.000
0.001
Max
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
298.000
265.000
311.000
526.000
525.000
304.000
382.000
405.000
466.000
463.000
514.000
529.000
523.000
454.000
0.000
467.170
465.570
448.490
393.920
416.790
415.780
388.650
407.790
406.150
332.480
375.264
485.460
416.190
478.410
500.379
439.346
0.222
Data Set 4
Std. Dev.
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
63.51
16.99
34.56
140.55
118.30
55.91
90.22
121.36
140.04
91.73
151.81
145.29
104.50
77.63
.00
86.97
130.07
138.58
117.55
113.77
93.30
92.27
105.47
106.69
78.62
83.26
141.64
137.59
102.01
149.51
75.80
.02
S-235 Culvert on Levee LD-3 at Canal C-43
Year
Min
Mean
1990
0.000
0.000
1991
-249.989
29.072
1992
-263.734
85.337
1993
-233.033
54.948
Max
0.000
325.877
463.922
448.485
Data Set 5
Std. Dev.
.00
80.43
126.00
129.68
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card S-235 Culvert on Levee LD-3 at Canal C-43
Year
Min
Mean
1994
-245.064
48.536
1995
-205.641
75.343
1996
-152.427
109.694
1997
-140.569
79.325
1998
-144.955
87.057
1999
0.144
101.938
2000
-177.103
27.892
2001
-286.441
18.429
2002
-215.915
140.821
2003
-228.213
65.322
2004
-153.805
39.869
2005
-266.398
82.803
2006
-165.623
-5.576
2007
0.000
0.001
2008
-129.223
0.548
2009
-139.991
15.197
2010
-168.669
13.512
Page 94 of 251 Max
393.915
416.791
415.776
388.646
407.786
406.151
332.476
375.264
485.460
416.185
478.412
500.379
439.346
0.222
187.592
427.344
294.831
Data Set 5
Std. Dev.
117.54
113.77
93.30
92.23
105.47
106.69
78.62
83.26
141.64
137.59
102.01
149.51
75.78
.01
25.65
106.36
83.43
S-47B Culvert on Canal C-19 at A.C.L. Railroad Lat: 26°51’’29’ / Long: 81°08’’20’208
Data Set 1
Year
Min
Mean
Max
Std. Dev.
1978
-164.280
46.475
306.654
77.92
1979
-138.806
116.678
135.259
46.49
1980
-124.800
134.925
201.127
68.14
1981
-170.718
34.215
179.689
107.23
1982
-342.412
47.674
502.467
180.61
1983
-321.780
90.553
323.459
183.04
1984
-413.154
122.833
422.341
201.65
1985
-362.921
44.331
454.383
193.72
1986
-386.723
127.925
465.829
162.83
1987
-313.856
129.748
394.432
142.76
1988
-304.091
201.083
698.282
175.36
1989
-294.718
77.452
682.368
229.22
1990
-347.314
-4.725
333.683
87.82
1991
-378.792
58.165
416.427
106.72
S-47B Culvert on Canal C-19 at A.C.L. Railroad
Year
Min
Mean
1995
0.000
114.136
1996
0.000
64.048
1997
0.000
52.010
1998
-117.932
80.502
1999
-183.732
119.658
2000
-196.215
63.892
2001
-91.294
3.927
2002
-83.350
48.262
2003
-112.074
99.813
Max
295.403
307.613
254.202
357.104
355.339
351.562
249.197
300.857
356.601
Data Set 2
Std. Dev.
73.00
62.67
54.01
70.66
132.50
110.35
27.21
68.19
97.52
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card S-47B Culvert on Canal C-19 at A.C.L. Railroad
Year
Min
Mean
2004
-101.289
57.214
2005
-78.368
144.059
2006
-188.507
71.004
2007
-77.871
-10.707
2008
-52.516
20.489
2009
-344.091
35.918
2010
0.000
161.372
S342
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Min
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-59.211
-12.304
0.769
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-0.664
-11.224
0.000
-14.133
-38.719
-55.211
Mean
11.087
0.000
0.000
20.162
39.298
40.006
10.762
32.627
35.171
36.347
3.640
10.526
22.138
0.000
9.088
5.019
-0.723
Page 95 of 251 Max
358.457
371.464
349.289
228.773
282.193
235.350
399.202
Data Set 2
Std. Dev.
80.16
120.66
109.61
30.90
54.38
86.19
111.17
Lat: 26°53’’03’ / Long: 81°08’’19’209
Max
Std. Dev.
132.408
23.58
0.000
.00
0.000
.00
83.737
24.37
67.298
20.91
90.663
19.62
112.514
18.91
110.465
28.30
72.164
24.48
116.877
18.32
89.753
13.30
195.800
25.36
146.548
20.88
0.000
.00
198.901
32.98
125.293
21.01
83.532
24.84
Caloosahatchee River near Citrus C
Year
Min
Mean
1934
31.000
481.347
1935
20.000
286.468
1936
60.000
471.825
Lat: 26°47’’19’ / Long: 81°18’’42’210
Max
Std. Dev.
1,110.000
276.80
1,190.000
288.33
1,300.000
436.10
Culvert 5A
Lat: 26°53’’07’ / Long: 81°07’’19’211
Data Set 1
Max
Std. Dev.
215.734
40.38
338.068
73.33
176.518
46.40
183.467
46.38
276.743
77.06
212.266
52.60
201.953
55.82
297.183
79.95
324.075
112.40
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Min
-3.261
-21.299
-21.431
-19.115
0.000
0.000
-5.250
0.000
0.000
Mean
21.752
71.585
45.715
35.990
70.102
81.340
68.498
97.548
155.191
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Culvert 5A
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Min
-298.628
-387.264
-239.328
-85.798
-189.129
-445.927
-446.591
-266.200
-446.435
-498.641
-358.649
Mean
127.058
75.635
99.065
131.183
118.481
116.024
61.813
3.889
-37.238
-101.456
33.556
Culvert 5
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
2007
2008
Min
0.000
-12.675
-3.496
0.904
-11.423
0.000
-7.519
Min
0.000
-196.986
-289.298
0.000
0.000
0.000
Max
361.443
377.642
398.027
472.652
335.626
466.869
252.944
128.678
205.776
159.324
181.606
Data Set 2
Std. Dev.
94.22
84.35
108.58
125.43
83.73
146.93
128.86
53.39
96.91
150.20
115.58
Mean
5.206
2.511
0.220
3.520
20.747
3.377
1.802
Lat: 26°55’’10’ / Long: 81°07’’18’212
Data Set 1
Max
Std. Dev.
12.091
4.69
14.232
6.38
2.689
2.07
4.624
1.15
765.768
102.35
135.479
17.51
34.514
5.69
Mean
0.000
25.108
42.796
63.173
0.000
0.000
Data Set 2
Std. Dev.
.00
88.23
135.42
149.23
.00
.00
Culvert 5
Year
1993
1994
1995
1996
2008
2009
2010
Page 96 of 251 Private Pumping out of Lake Okeechobee
Year
Min
Mean
1963
0.000
76.140
1964
0.000
126.186
1965
0.000
172.132
1966
0.000
158.126
1967
0.000
76.975
1968
0.000
221.710
1969
0.000
164.647
1970
0.000
205.036
1971
0.000
122.756
1972
0.000
84.803
1973
0.000
77.737
1974
0.000
148.532
1975
0.000
145.575
Max
0.000
500.954
311.258
994.217
0.000
0.000
Lat: 26°50’’17’ / Long: 81°05’’07’213
Max
Std. Dev.
213.000
83.86
516.000
153.34
549.000
200.50
789.000
216.10
288.000
99.52
1,208.000
331.20
409.000
146.20
946.000
287.06
344.000
124.33
317.000
95.77
305.000
105.46
637.000
221.08
462.000
173.17
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Private Pumping out of Lake Okeechobee
Year
Min
Mean
1976
0.000
88.208
1977
0.000
181.493
1978
0.000
175.932
1979
0.000
108.871
1980
0.000
89.093
1981
0.000
90.425
1982
0.000
141.663
1983
0.000
143.814
1984
0.000
106.852
1985
0.000
94.474
1986
3.000
53.723
1987
0.000
33.822
1988
0.000
81.612
1989
0.000
38.855
1990
0.000
17.395
Nicodemus Slough Site #4
Year
Min
1972
3.700
1973
3.600
1974
3.600
1975
3.700
1976
3.700
1977
3.700
1978
4.000
1979
3.700
1980
3.700
1981
3.700
1982
3.700
1983
3.700
1984
3.600
1985
3.700
1986
3.700
1987
3.600
1988
3.800
1989
3.600
1990
3.600
1991
3.700
1992
3.800
1993
4.200
Mean
4.468
4.711
4.862
4.518
4.589
4.605
4.673
4.654
4.560
4.271
4.804
4.651
4.676
4.460
4.731
4.742
4.301
4.435
4.528
4.608
5.111
4.542
Page 97 of 251 Lat: 26°50’’17’ / Long: 81°05’’07’213
Max
Std. Dev.
400.000
121.42
775.000
249.22
566.000
201.24
736.000
195.22
376.000
105.30
696.000
191.26
515.000
153.87
387.000
139.51
291.000
106.13
311.000
99.64
181.000
52.61
136.000
35.65
683.000
186.16
152.000
50.84
84.000
29.31
Lat: 265422 / Long: 810836214
Max
Std. Dev.
6.300
.81
6.300
.86
8.500
1.56
6.800
.90
7.000
1.00
5.200
.54
6.100
.69
8.200
1.21
5.700
.65
6.400
.74
6.500
.90
5.900
.63
6.800
.87
5.400
.62
6.900
.90
6.500
.87
5.300
.51
5.800
.64
6.500
.87
5.500
.58
11.100
2.02
5.300
.38
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 98 of 251 Estero Bay
The Estero Bay is approximately 15 square miles and its watershed is approximately
293 square miles and includes the following water bodies:
•
•
•
•
Estero Bay
Estero Bay Wetlands
Oak Creek
Hendry Creek
The Hendry Creek Basin includes approximately 18 square miles of the Estero Bay
Watershed in coastal Lee County and is located along the length of Hendry Creek from
Estero Bay to College Parkway and Woodland Boulevard215.
•
Estero River
The Estero River Basin includes 71 square miles in the Estero Bay Watershed in Lee
County. The basin extends northeast from Estero bay, sharing its western boundary
with Spring Creek Basin until it reaches S.R. 82. Both S.R. 41 and I-75 are major northsouth transportation corridors in the eastern half of the basin. Another major feature in
the Estero River Basin is Florida Gulf Coast University, located just east of I-75 between
Alico and Corkscrew roads.
Data has been collected from the SFWMD DBHYDRO website. Units are in CFS.
Table breaks identify sets of data based on different data sampling conditions such as
different agency samples, time of year sampled, difference of measuring methods, etc
Estero N
Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Min
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.780
Mean
8.323
2.015
0.006
0.092
3.460
5.912
0.858
4.196
29.807
4.766
7.869
14.530
16.370
5.845
13.867
2.491
17.669
17.893
22.765
9.023
0.452
9.258
4.321
6.878
Lat: 26°26’’31’ / Long: 81°47’’44’216
Max
Std. Dev.
203.000
21.96
27.000
4.58
0.390
.04
12.000
.81
51.000
6.86
151.000
15.90
26.000
2.53
142.000
14.90
366.000
67.74
121.000
12.27
250.000
22.52
216.000
29.07
204.000
37.36
204.000
19.75
284.000
38.96
39.000
5.04
314.000
47.33
232.000
42.08
228.000
36.71
131.000
20.87
10.000
1.19
177.000
19.00
38.000
6.30
49.000
7.19
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Estero S
Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Min
1.500
0.060
0.100
0.200
0.200
0.210
0.120
0.080
0.310
0.000
0.050
0.310
0.000
0.000
0.180
0.170
0.040
0.150
0.050
0.190
0.000
0.030
0.100
1.600
Mean
17.094
8.364
2.038
2.895
11.210
14.618
4.165
15.921
48.645
8.125
10.129
18.833
18.671
9.248
13.762
6.667
17.124
15.756
22.777
9.341
1.491
15.653
6.818
11.451
Page 99 of 251 Lat: 26°25’’44’ / Long: 81°47’’35’217
Max
Std. Dev.
281.00
39.96
116.000
20.72
46.000
4.60
44.000
7.02
106.000
19.40
307.000
33.33
48.000
7.41
200.000
33.87
410.000
89.98
82.000
14.98
220.000
23.51
185.000
29.98
267.000
42.80
147.000
24.15
225.000
31.89
58.000
10.67
195.000
28.04
195.000
32.85
173.000
30.69
96.000
17.59
50.000
4.45
221.000
31.49
53.000
10.52
72.000
11.79
Imperial River
The Imperial River Basin includes 84 square miles in the Estero Bay Watershed and
covers 27 percent of the watershed. The basin is the largest in Lee County and is
located south of the Spring Creek basin and extends northeast beyond the coastal
basins to S.R. 82. Major developments in the basin are located west of I-75 and include
Bonita Beach, Bonita Bay, and Bonita Springs.
Lat: 26°26’’06’ / Long: 81°45’’19’218
Imperial River
Year
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
Min
0.000
2.800
1.500
1.000
1.100
0.710
0.710
1.500
0.900
0.600
0.600
Mean
169.853
127.269
51.962
74.579
28.979
99.008
69.886
223.992
88.140
103.384
31.122
Max
2,890.000
518.000
321.000
509.000
400.000
1,120.000
483.000
2,400.000
1,110.000
906.000
841.000
Std. Dev.
425.88
120.68
76.63
120.59
61.71
182.38
99.71
392.40
191.87
157.90
96.36
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Lat: 26°26’’06’ / Long: 81°45’’19’218
Imperial River
Year
1951
1952
1953
1954
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Page 100 of 251 Min
0.500
0.600
0.700
0.700
24.000
5.300
3.300
2.000
8.300
2.700
6.600
8.900
16.000
10.000
5.300
11.000
7.000
6.800
4.800
6.900
11.000
8.100
8.900
8.200
6.200
7.100
5.500
16.000
Mean
113.443
59.855
97.785
42.639
164.980
69.641
27.692
25.844
151.990
135.893
59.395
127.321
346.578
53.530
53.282
115.885
201.185
55.657
139.203
99.391
180.181
107.283
185.099
106.051
22.522
141.392
43.605
69.587
Max
2,680.000
526.000
762.000
273.000
526.000
505.000
349.000
284.000
671.000
1,030.000
431.000
637.000
2,000.000
232.000
374.000
485.000
935.000
460.000
816.000
599.000
830.000
782.000
634.000
697.000
200.000
1,400.000
303.000
299.000
Std. Dev.
320.98
90.00
157.90
67.07
125.63
105.91
45.32
39.88
175.17
203.04
77.11
141.60
455.45
47.54
76.12
99.96
249.49
93.62
215.35
150.79
204.55
190.79
190.27
177.57
31.24
257.99
67.69
67.81
Ten Mile Canal
The Ten Mile Canal is approximately 68 square miles.
Ten Mile Canal at Control near Estero, FL
Year
Min
Mean
1987
4.300
6.848
1988
0.000
20.235
1989
0.000
9.336
1990
0.000
87.564
1991
0.000
147.014
1992
0.000
75.254
1993
0.000
49.921
1994
0.000
64.107
1995
0.000
205.045
1996
0.200
60.275
1997
0.000
47.421
1998
0.000
86.657
1999
0.000
38.560
2000
0.000
40.175
2001
0.000
36.324
Lat: 26°31’’05’ / Long: 81°51’’17’219
Max
Std. Dev.
18.000
2.71
311.000
49.03
112.000
22.98
1,270.000
208.73
1,200.000
245.85
1,300.000
162.32
524.000
84.96
693.000
119.74
1,940.000
369.60
380.000
77.94
400.000
68.63
632.000
114.00
553.000
71.10
2,170.000
168.87
462.000
84.81
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Ten Mile Canal at Control near Estero, FL
Year
Min
Mean
2002
0.000
41.564
2003
0.040
54.776
2004
0.000
50.688
2005
0.000
148.140
2006
0.580
84.388
2007
1.400
31.757
2008
0.030
106.132
2009
0.000
49.445
2010
2.800
94.326
Page 101 of 251 Lat: 26°31’’05’ / Long: 81°51’’17’219
Max
Std. Dev.
471.000
66.22
995.000
121.35
534.000
76.37
3,270.000
319.88
662.000
137.25
252.000
42.04
1,050.000
184.07
444.000
71.34
707.000
113.51
Spring Creek
The Spring Creek Basin includes 11 square miles in the Estero Bay Watershed in Lee
County and is associated with the Spring Creek tributary to the southern half of Estero
Bay. The basin extends east from Estero Bay to I-75 in the northern portion of the basin
and includes most of the area south of the City of Coconut to just north of the Imperial
River. S.R. 41 bisects the basin north to south and C.R. 887 traverses the eastern half
of the basin.
Spring Creek Headwater near Bonita Springs
Year
Min
Mean
1987
3.700
13.471
1988
0.150
4.457
1989
0.000
2.883
1990
0.000
5.028
1991
0.520
8.232
1992
0.110
12.372
1993
0.090
8.376
1994
0.090
9.180
1995
0.320
24.539
1996
0.600
5.931
1997
0.000
5.564
1998
0.250
8.596
1999
0.190
15.414
2000
0.310
6.564
2001
0.070
7.117
2002
0.370
7.983
2003
1.700
8.408
2004
0.720
5.762
2005
0.650
11.650
2006
0.010
6.922
2007
0.000
1.063
2008
0.200
8.316
2009
0.000
4.508
2010
2.000
7.963
Lat: 26°21’’43’ / Long: 81°47’’26’220
Max
Std. Dev.
38.000
7.18
49.000
7.10
23.000
3.25
59.000
6.81
42.000
7.27
234.000
23.60
102.000
12.51
117.000
15.76
269.000
38.52
121.000
9.20
120.000
12.73
239.000
16.75
465.000
39.08
108.000
13.08
100.000
11.34
111.000
10.30
105.000
9.77
92.000
8.18
170.000
16.67
82.000
9.40
11.000
1.87
102.000
15.28
32.000
5.45
42.000
5.27
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card •
Lakes Park
Page 102 of 251 •
Mullock Creek
The Mullock Creek Basin includes less than 11 square miles of the Estero Bay
Watershed in coastal Lee County. The basin extends from Estero Bay east along the
length of Mullock Creek, north to Alico Road and east to Three Oaks Parkway, just west
of I-75. Although residential areas occur over much of the basin, it is largely
undeveloped west of S.R. 41.
Six Mile Cypress Creek North near Ft. Myers
Year
Min
Mean
1987
5.500
5.557
1988
4.500
5.505
1989
4.770
5.824
1990
4.860
6.094
1991
5.450
8.805
1992
2.640
7.127
1993
5.020
8.852
1994
5.270
10.037
1995
4.380
9.353
1996
4.250
8.880
1997
5.240
8.040
1998
5.190
8.884
1999
4.470
8.367
2000
3.800
7.145
2001
4.770
7.387
2002
4.840
8.460
2003
5.540
9.744
2004
5.350
8.692
2005
4.150
9.809
2006
5.490
9.014
2007
5.540
7.446
2008
5.420
8.511
2009
5.410
7.684
2010
5.540
5.923
Lat: 26°31’’21’ / Long: 81°51’’16’221
Max
Std. Dev.
5.620
.04
7.160
.45
9.390
.90
10.120
1.39
11.150
2.54
11.460
2.68
11.440
2.44
11.340
1.55
12.090
2.42
11.340
2.30
11.690
2.57
11.330
2.36
11.250
2.49
11.170
2.42
11.480
2.50
11.420
2.55
11.740
2.07
11.490
2.35
11.660
2.04
11.430
2.33
11.170
2.32
11.610
2.72
11.250
2.41
7.640
.40
Six Mile Cypress Creek South near Ft. Myers
Year
Min
Mean
1987
0.000
0.275
1988
0.000
0.169
1989
0.000
0.384
1990
0.000
11.678
Lat: 26°31’’06’ / Long: 81°51’’16’222
Max
Std. Dev.
0.910
.21
1.900
.30
7.300
1.16
140.00
31.54
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 103 of 251 Wiggins Pass Estuary/Cocohatchee Estuary
• Little Hickory Bay
• Cocohatchee River
• Vanderbilt Way
• Drainage to Corkscrew
• Lake Trafford (In some reports Lake Trafford is classified as part of
Estero Bay’s watershed basin)
• Cocohatchee River Canal
Data has been collected from the SFWMD DBHYDRO website. Units are in CFS.
Table breaks identify sets of data based on different data sampling conditions such as
different agency samples, time of year sampled, difference of measuring methods, etc
Spillway of Cocohatchee Canal: Structure 1 at Palm River Road
Lat: 26°16’’22’ / Long: 81°46’’47’223
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1994
0.306
107.167
272.093
1995
0.000
90.963
554.182
1996
0.000
26.310
144.113
1997
0.000
9.289
78.053
1998
0.000
26.020
189.593
1999
0.000
37.319
495.161
2000
24.918
29.825
42.165
2001
0.000
55.479
481.608
2002
0.000
46.405
260.070
2003
0.000
97.554
432.995
2004
0.000
43.374
303.228
2005
0.000
72.307
428.518
2006
0.000
44.085
372.433
2007
0.000
2.473
88.494
2008
0.000
47.856
380.297
2009
0.000
11.862
119.818
2010
0.000
28.259
183.386
Std. Dev.
66.67
121.42
28.38
13.70
29.81
56.16
2.75
92.84
60.37
116.81
77.20
89.09
86.72
8.44
90.26
27.27
40.93
Weir overflow on Cocohatchee Canal: Structure 1 at Palm River Road
Lat: 26°16’’22’ / Long: 81°46’’47’224
Year
Min
Mean
Max
Std. Dev.
1994
0.000
0.199
11.824
1.09
1995
0.000
1.858
39.898
5.74
1996
0.000
0.239
19.424
1.72
1997
0.000
0.000
0.004
.00
1998
0.000
0.005
1.368
.07
1999
0.000
0.030
4.924
.31
2000
0.000
0.000
0.000
.00
2001
0.000
0.005
1.055
.06
2002
0.000
0.002
0.751
.04
2003
0.000
0.077
10.473
.79
2004
0.000
0.023
0.867
.11
2005
0.000
0.269
9.107
.94
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 104 of 251 Weir overflow on Cocohatchee Canal: Structure 1 at Palm River Road
Lat: 26°16’’22’ / Long: 81°46’’47’224
Year
Min
Mean
Max
Std. Dev.
2006
0.000
0.195
5.880
.62
2007
0.000
0.398
3.695
.66
2008
0.000
0.213
16.484
1.10
2009
0.000
0.033
2.468
.16
2010
0.000
0.261
2.673
.51
Cocohatchee River Canal at Willoughby Acres Bridge
Lat: 26°16’’22’ / Long: 81°45’’50’225
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1968
6.100
23.696
79.000
1969
5.000
32.480
172.000
1970
0.960
24.348
154.000
1971
0.000
34.082
244.000
1972
3.700
25.396
135.000
1973
1.500
53.846
454.000
1974
0.000
46.113
409.000
1975
0.840
15.764
91.000
1976
0.980
14.646
111.000
1977
0.660
21.365
166.000
1978
0.850
27.401
192.000
1979
2.400
25.959
241.000
1980
6.000
29.100
184.000
1981
0.400
27.744
214.000
1982
0.650
57.179
273.000
1983
5.000
82.746
331.000
1984
0.000
43.924
185.000
Location from GPS position (COCOH.95)
Year
Min
Mean
1996
0.000
46.313
1997
0.000
8.239
1998
0.000
32.937
1999
-4.257
90.034
2000
0.000
18.014
2001
0.000
72.974
2002
0.000
59.041
2003
0.000
120.454
2004
0.000
10.425
2005
0.000
54.105
2006
0.000
46.246
2007
0.000
0.018
2008
0.000
72.344
2009
0.000
8.116
2010
0.000
21.736
Std. Dev.
18.62
34.06
30.19
49.00
25.34
103.02
76.74
20.04
15.51
29.66
45.38
39.84
35.77
46.76
70.06
69.08
43.92
Lat: 26°16’’23’ / Long: 81°45’’33’226
Max
Std. Dev.
202.159
50.52
60.970
13.71
473.296
47.28
794.256
170.36
201.545
43.70
789.307
148.43
460.945
92.75
597.878
156.01
76.801
78.35
263.625
63.92
630.823
115.43
5.114
.28
655.010
158.42
95.879
22.67
199.833
43.02
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 105 of 251 Location from GPS position (COCO2_S)
Year
Min
Mean
1996
0.000
46.313
1997
0.000
8.239
1998
0.000
32.937
1999
-4.257
90.034
2000
0.000
18.014
2001
0.000
72.974
2002
0.000
59.041
2003
0.000
120.454
2004
0.000
10.425
2005
0.000
54.105
2006
0.000
46.246
2007
0.000
0.018
2008
0.000
72.344
2009
0.000
8.116
2010
0.000
21.736
Lat: 26°16’’23’ / Long: 81°45’’33’227
Max
Std. Dev.
202.159
50.52
60.970
13.71
473.296
47.28
794.256
170.36
201.545
43.70
789.307
148.43
460.945
92.75
597.878
156.01
76.801
78.35
263.625
63.92
630.823
115.43
5.114
.28
655.010
158.42
95.879
22.67
199.833
43.02
Cocohatchee River Canal near Naples Park
Year
Min
Mean
1966
0.000
57.280
Lat: 26°17’’01’ / Long: 81°45’’59’228
Max
Std. Dev.
190.000
51.83
Naples Bay
The Naples Bay watershed is approximately 120 square miles.
• Naples Bay
• Center of Outer Clam B
• Gordon River
Data has been collected from the SFWMD DBHYDRO website. Units are in CFS.
Table breaks identify sets of data based on different data sampling conditions such as
different agency samples, time of year sampled, difference of measuring methods, etc
Golden Gate Canal Weir 1 (West of Airport Pulling Road)
Lat: 26°10’’05’ / Long: 81°46’’27’229
Year
Min
Mean
Max
2008
0.000
182.195
675.066
2009
0.000
53.808
408.597
2010
0.000
186.031
497.511
Golden Gate Canal Weir 2
Year
Min
2008
6.552
2009
0.000
2010
-121.714
Mean
17.458
61.151
138.738
Std. Dev.
170.99
87.64
133.23
Lat: 26°10’’06’ / Long: 81°44’’05’230
Max
Std. Dev.
32.223
8.63
417.714
96.08
426.955
115.32
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Golden Gate Canal at Airport Pulling Road
Page 106 of 251 Lat: 26°10’’04’ / Long: 81°46’’01’231
Data Set 1
Year
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Min
80.000
41.000
89.000
39.000
30.000
56.000
42.000
0.050
41.000
10.000
0.100
0.000
6.800
0.000
37.000
19.000
55.000
17.000
11.000
40.000
1.500
Mean
162.870
275.622
405.378
351.855
398.306
329.537
329.079
307.085
339.087
413.526
424.981
190.841
271.735
276.985
238.236
286.564
256.301
251.501
310.030
424.460
291.283
Max
303.000
986.000
2,240.000
1,650.000
1,970.000
1,120.000
1,290.000
3,060.000
1,720.000
1,790.000
1,980.000
845.000
1,320.000
1,5000.000
868
1,740.000
1,080.000
1,400.000
1,520.000
2,420.000
1,350.000
Std. Dev.
70.25
234.17
353.86
314.96
366.28
237.18
228.16
428.26
318.22
411.28
467.22
210.89
292.68
339.56
203.29
281.30
174.63
311.73
315.50
330.39
271.40
Golden Gate Canal at Airport Pulling Road
Year
Min
Mean
1989
44.914
72.320
1990
0.000
155.635
1991
4.297
533.044
1992
0.000
389.002
1993
4.235
336.211
1994
0.000
303.499
Max
144.529
965.713
1,908.000
1,993.452
1,469.772
1,336.078
Std. Dev.
24.44
212.07
490.59
516.16
303.01
403.75
Golden Gate Canal at Airport Pulling Road
Year
Min
Mean
1994
74.579
200.191
1995
-182.696
550.913
1996
0.000
178.267
1997
0.000
171.611
1998
0.000
329.183
1999
0.000
362.951
2000
0.000
156.776
2001
0.000
360.938
2002
0.000
26.580
Max
719.946
3,085.638
1,168.113
972.118
1,997.961
2,318.888
1,436.424
2,797.964
252.133
Std. Dev.
115.25
697.82
235.91
234.97
371.71
493.37
308.33
570.69
39.47
Data Set 2
Data Set 3
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Golden Gate Canal at Airport Pulling Road
Year
Min
Mean
1981
0.000
333.333
1982
0.000
83.333
1983
0.000
90.909
1984
0.000
246.286
Gordon River at Naples, FL
Year
Min
1982
0.000
Mean
0.000
Page 107 of 251 Data Set 4
Max
1,000.000
1,000.000
1,000.000
579.000
Std. Dev.
577.35
288.68
301.51
152.83
Lat: 26°10’’22’ / Long: 81°47’’05’232
Max
Std. Dev.
0.000
0.000
Golden Gate Canal Weir #3 at 17th Ave West of 941 Lat: 261157 / Long: 814017233
Year
Min
Mean
Max
Std. Dev.
1977
53.000
99.011
280.000
58.76
1978
40.000
148.805
648.000
129.26
1979
6.300
147.141
714.000
152.84
1980
10.000
111.339
335.000
71.22
1981
15.000
127.764
324.000
106.15
1982
0.000
219.860
1,270.000
252.47
1983
50.000
323.712
1,640.000
242.52
1984
20.000
193.033
752.000
150.88
Golden Gate Canal at Weir #4
Year
Min
1994
0.000
1995
0.000
1996
0.000
Mean
0.000
0.000
0.000
Lat: 26°14’’39’ / Long: 81°35’’18’234
Max
Std. Dev.
0.000
.00
0.000
.00
0.000
.00
Weir Over Flow on Cocohatchee Canal, Structure 3 at Palm River Rd.
Lat: 261623 / Long: 814302235
Year
Min
Mean
Max
Std. Dev.
2003
0.000
0.000
0.000
.00
2004
0.000
0.000
0.000
.00
2005
0.000
0.284
28.473
2.36
2006
0.000
0.023
8.430
.44
2007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2008
-18.963
0.807
73.321
6.24
2009
-0.140
0.000
0.140
.01
2010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Spillway on Cocohatchee Canal, Structure 3 at Palm River Rd.
Lat: 261623 / Long: 814302236
Year
Min
Mean
Max
2003
0.000
0.000
0.000
2004
-0.834
13.524
164.111
2005
-89.950
4.756
85.459
2006
-19.927
16.143
181.465
2007
0.000
0.000
0.107
2008
-86.626
8.351
147.246
2009
-7.997
2.386
35.654
Std. Dev.
.00
33.68
25.85
38.58
.01
37.82
7.88
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 108 of 251 Spillway on Cocohatchee Canal, Structure 3 at Palm River Rd.
Lat: 261623 / Long: 814302236
Year
Min
Mean
Max
2010
-0.502
6.397
66.671
Golden Gate Canal near Sunniland
Year
Min
Mean
1977
13.000
24.162
1978
1.700
27.541
1979
0.000
37.043
1980
10.000
26.210
1981
5.400
30.566
1982
0.500
34.886
1983
0.000
39.835
1984
9.300
29.459
Std. Dev.
15.46
Lat: 26°16’’46’ / Long: 81°33’’40’237
Max
Std. Dev.
65.000
11.69
111.000
27.14
181.000
35.75
77.000
12.08
125.000
27.33
118.000
34.64
109.000
20.58
82.000
20.49
Rookery Bay
Rookery Bay has a surface area of 1,034 acres and a mean depth of 1 meter.
Freshwater input to Rookery Bay comes primarily from Henderson Creek at the
northeastern corner of the Reserve. This creek, with an average water depth of 0.8
meters and a mean flow rate of 2,073,600 cubic feet per day, drains the Belle Meade
Water Management District.238 During 1970, the average discharge at the Henderson
Creek Canal station was 25 cfs.239
Data has been collected from the SFWMD DBHYDRO website. Units are in CFS.
Table breaks identify sets of data based on different data sampling conditions such as
different agency samples, time of year sampled, difference of measuring methods, etc
Henderson Creek Main Branch Canal at Tamiami Canal (US 41)
Lat: 26°03’’31’ / Long: 81°41’’20’240
Year
Min
Mean
Max
2001
0.000
0.000
0.000
2002
0.000
0.000
0.000
2003
0.000
0.000
0.000
2004
0.000
7.339
67.137
2005
0.000
18.304
108.182
2006
0.000
0.000
0.000
2007
0.000
0.000
0.000
2008
0.000
0.000
0.000
2009
0.000
8.617
96.797
2010
0.000
0.000
0.000
Henderson Creek Culvert
Year
Min
2001
0.000
2002
0.000
2003
0.000
2004
0.000
Mean
14.548
1.963
3.456
0.878
Std. Dev.
.00
.00
.00
16.51
29.23
.00
.00
.00
20.68
.00
Lat: 26°03’’31’ / Long: 81°41’’20’241
Max
Std. Dev.
167.087
39.20
130.432
14.06
255.882
23.97
70.289
7.14
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Henderson Creek Culvert
Year
Min
2005
0.000
2006
0.000
2007
0.000
2008
0.000
2009
0.000
2010
0.000
Mean
0.000
0.943
0.000
4.809
0.000
0.000
Page 109 of 251 Lat: 26°03’’31’ / Long: 81°41’’20’241
Max
Std. Dev.
0.000
.00
115.770
9.52
0.000
.00
137.005
22.94
0.000
.00
0.000
.00
Henderson Creek Non-Gated Weir
Year
Min
Mean
2001
0.000
31.761
2002
0.000
3.905
2003
0.000
9.112
2004
0.000
1.883
2005
0.000
5.642
2006
0.000
3.291
2007
0.000
0.000
2008
0.000
5.931
2009
0.000
1.605
2010
0.000
5.808
Lat: 26°03’’31’ / Long: 81°41’’20’242
Max
Std. Dev.
243.696
37.03
66.026
9.93
274.769
26.36
48.472
6.53
97.322
14.21
99.136
10.73
0.000
.00
129.503
15.77
53.720
6.90
78.573
10.29
Henderson Creek Canal near Naples, FL
Lat: 26°05’’59 / Long: 81°41’’12’243
Year
Min
Mean
1968
13.000
26.377
1969
3.700
16.969
1970
3.100
32.909
1971
0.100
18.245
1972
3.000
22.425
1973
0.000
21.561
1974
0.000
23.637
1975
0.000
30.107
1976
1.400
20.150
1977
0.600
38.201
1978
1.600
28.117
1979
1.500
15.822
1980
1.400
19.368
1981
1.200
19.766
1982
0.000
24.481
1983
1.400
36.084
1984
2.800
18.773
Data Set 1
Henderson Creek Canal near Naples, FL
Year
Min
Mean
1981
0.000
0.000
1982
-99.990
31.000
1983
-99.990
74.000
1984
2.800
48.000
Max
63.000
84.000
220.000
246.000
250.000
323.000
106.000
169.000
140.000
242.000
114.000
58.000
65.000
116.000
104.000
95.000
76.000
Std. Dev.
12.25
10.14
33.84
28.77
28.36
46.02
26.47
36.75
25.95
50.54
27.33
11.73
15.10
27.07
26.00
22.64
16.64
Max
0.000
31.000
74.000
48.000
Data Set 2
Std. Dev.
.00
54.59
57.49
17.86
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 110 of 251 Ten Thousand Islands
Data has been collected from the SFWMD DBHYDRO website. Units are in CFS.
Table breaks identify sets of data based on different data sampling conditions such as
different agency samples, time of year sampled, difference of measuring methods, etc
*Flow data from stations in Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Hendry Counties were not
included in the following tables. These stations are:
Miami-Dade:
• S343_T
•
S343A_C
•
S344_C
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
G108_Q3
G108_Q4
G108_Q5
G108_Q6
C139S1_I
C139S3_I
C139S4_I
•
•
•
•
•
•
C139S6_I
DFNBV_I
SMSBV_I
G134_C
G150_C
G151_C
Monroe:
• Roberts
Hendry:
• USSO_O
• PC17A_C
• PC17A_Q1
• PC17A_Q2
• G108_C
• G108_Q1
• G108_Q2
Tamiami Canal Outlets, 40-mile bend to Monroe, FL
Lat: 25°51’’06’ / Long: 80°58’’49’244
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1982
0.000
0.000
0.000
1983
104.000
419.667
886.000
1984
10.000
260.857
1,130.000
1985
0.000
149.500
1,690.000
Data Set 1
Std. Dev.
0.00
340.11
427.87
485.62
Tamiami Canal Outlets, 40-mile bend to Monroe, FL
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1980
49.000
192.400
350.000
Data Set 2
Std. Dev.
123.46
Tamiami Canal Outlets, 40-mile bend to Monroe, FL
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1963
5.000
311.011
2,790.000
1964
2.000
179.169
1,080.000
1965
0.000
192.767
948.000
1966
0.000
497.684
3,800.000
1967
0.000
182.830
1,330.000
1968
0.6000
380.312
1,740.000
1969
20.000
621.616
2,090.000
1970
1.900
283.080
1,250.000
1971
0.000
250.264
1,690.000
1972
0.000
105.786
651.000
1973
0.000
205.657
1,090.000
Data Set 3
Std. Dev.
601.06
185.92
239.23
706.34
291.98
459.00
515.80
306.08
400.29
114.76
315.23
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 111 of 251 Tamiami Canal Outlets, 40-mile bend to Monroe, FL
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1974
0.000
141.028
870.000
1975
0.000
154.951
1,530.000
1976
0.000
224.626
1,110.000
1977
0.000
148.597
1,350.000
1978
14.000
247.351
1,070.000
1979
0.000
202.504
1,130.000
1980
13.000
198.224
1,160.000
1981
0.000
185.691
2,320.000
1982
0.000
511.857
2,600.000
1983
2.500
552.765
3,040.000
1984
0.000
251.169
1,100.000
1985
0.000
318.261
2,360.000
1986
0.860
437.749
2,370.000
1987
1.300
277.545
1,100.000
1988
0.000
307.627
1,680.000
1989
0.000
181.871
1,060.000
1990
0.000
161.170
1,720.000
1991
0.000
410.637
1,370.000
1992
0.000
576.097
1,970.000
1993
48.000
452.616
1,810.000
1994
0.710
959.306
4,760.000
1995
172.000
1,495.808
6,110.000
1996
0.810
503.906
1,860.000
1997
1.500
466.674
2,140.000
1998
0.880
493.168
1,780.000
1999
0.000
1,221.328
7,270.000
2000
0.000
227.803
2,120.000
2001
0.000
479.450
2,360.000
2002
0.000
518.074
2,030.000
2003
2.700
581.330
2,330.000
2004
0.000
368.877
2,240.000
2005
0.000
950.367
3,090.000
2006
0.000
272.432
1,370.000
2007
0.000
101.599
696.000
2008
0.000
725.460
3,430.000
2009
0.260
141.749
1,240.000
Jet Port
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
Min
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Mean
2.093
1.337
0.943
3.122
0.357
Data Set 3
Std. Dev.
216.85
230.34
310.32
282.31
223.40
236.46
229.83
389.66
613.53
507.42
308.91
547.71
508.56
283.41
436.71
287.29
342.90
420.51
596.30
399.69
1,221.17
1,204.10
411.23
477.26
403.04
1,337.33
316.80
623.69
537.71
560.06
510.04
1,041.60
351.62
128.36
929.14
231.33
Lat: 25°51’’52’ / Long: 80°53’’44’245
Max
Std. Dev.
13.000
3.16
43.000
5.44
72.000
4.90
90.000
9.72
19.000
1.45
Tamiami Canal Outlets Monroe to Carnestown FL
Lat: 25°53’’11’ / Long: 81°15’’29’246
Data Set 1
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Min
53.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
1.000
5.000
7.000
0.000
0.000
3.800
14.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.100
0.000
0.320
7.700
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.360
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Mean
1,520.746
138.647
355.773
244.137
286.399
320.479
548.482
217.814
529.121
756.607
548.430
492.259
169.718
332.175
240.091
240.232
380.897
334.903
225.174
353.106
207.263
299.309
764.924
731.852
309.593
385.630
414.435
369.162
338.771
389.079
274.591
499.009
463.486
498.131
648.744
857.940
393.114
473.322
436.898
657.560
317.751
595.087
604.808
627.361
331.588
748.184
392.977
248.615
Page 112 of 251 Max
6,010.000
2,390.000
4,220.000
3,660.000
1,110.000
1,570.000
5,440.000
1,590.000
2,770.000
4,470.000
2,940.000
4,980.000
1,420.000
1,950.000
1,670.000
1,880.000
1,770.000
1,950.000
793.000
2,190.000
1,510.000
4,400.000
5,040.000
6,000.000
1,910.000
5,220.000
2,060.000
1,780.000
1,940.000
2,660.000
2,510.000
1,910.000
3,290.000
1,970.000
3,530.000
3,770.000
2,750.000
3,070.000
2,600.000
4,640.000
3,950.000
3,780.000
3,760.000
4,570.000
2,590.000
4,880.000
3,630.000
1,490.000
Std. Dev.
1,510.00
304.87
665.05
504.01
285.72
401.63
921.91
328.40
662.03
892.60
558.45
792.73
255.30
491.58
365.72
360.91
493.15
552.75
226.28
465.46
300.75
764.45
1,029.77
917.00
386.76
830.95
524.77
301.99
554.59
606.30
510.39
565.85
702.94
503.40
852.21
907.75
613.31
569.42
461.16
925.44
692.56
895.45
801.46
800.45
604.73
1,040.07
803.15
299.79
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 113 of 251 Tamiami Canal Outlets Monroe to Carnestown FL
Lat: 25°53’’11’ / Long: 81°15’’29’246
Year
Min
Mean
2008
0.000
519.829
2009
0.000
302.445
2010
0.000
470.966
Tamiami Canal Outlets Monroe to Carnestown FL
Year
Min
Mean
1982
0.000
0.000
1983
137.000
457.500
1984
0.000
160.952
1985
0.000
394.667
Barron River near Everglades
Year
Min
1952
0.000
1953
12.000
1954
53.000
1955
9.000
1956
0.100
1957
3.000
1958
97.000
1959
7.000
1960
45.000
1961
7.000
1962
1.000
1963
11.000
1964
8.000
1965
5.000
1966
12.000
1967
3.600
1968
15.000
1969
17.000
1970
15.000
1971
6.600
1972
4.200
1973
0.300
1974
1.700
1975
0.000
1976
5.800
1977
7.700
1978
12.000
1979
9.100
1980
18.000
1981
0.600
1982
0.000
1983
28.000
1984
26.000
Mean
65.554
73.099
96.214
104.055
24.385
101.573
186.238
157.090
123.929
78.732
95.085
64.019
95.243
83.855
117.214
83.425
136.943
137.723
169.332
84.409
82.515
91.570
81.343
69.158
93.749
89.482
115.830
112.902
99.066
57.857
120.692
172.636
125.139
Data Set 1
Max
4,160.000
1,890.000
3,320.000
Std. Dev.
749.94
441.37
693.89
Data Set 2
Max
0.000
890.000
1,840.000
3,980.000
Std. Dev.
0.00
342.97
427.06
1,090.26
Lat: 25°58’’01 / Long: 81°20’’59’247
Max
Std. Dev.
118.000
33.05
146.000
35.89
140.000
21.03
242.000
76.41
87.000
17.76
201.000
65.16
237.000
32.04
263.000
71.73
195.000
36.61
208.000
59.01
292.000
90.34
200.000
42.41
207.000
60.17
221.000
74.51
262.000
75.60
202.000
54.51
234.000
65.24
260.000
67.01
283.000
58.09
257.000
86.84
227.000
60.64
256.000
78.29
254.000
77.05
227.000
79.18
237.000
78.08
231.000
68.84
248.000
60.39
270.000
74.96
206.000
52.05
197.000
55.77
258.000
96.17
270.000
50.09
216.000
53.92
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Barron River near Everglades
Year
Min
1985
0.000
1986
0.000
1987
0.240
1988
0.000
1989
0.000
1990
0.000
1991
0.900
1992
11.000
1993
5.900
1994
12.000
1995
12.000
1996
0.000
1997
6.500
1998
3.300
1999
6.500
2000
3.000
2001
0.150
2002
1.900
2003
39.000
2004
5.400
2005
3.600
2006
4.900
2007
7.700
2008
0.000
2009
4.900
2010
29.000
Mean
66.959
97.387
112.285
68.874
3.079
10.895
68.779
64.257
64.164
53.945
91.733
70.630
59.884
78.425
77.062
41.298
51.962
53.831
72.186
60.305
63.887
60.630
30.696
40.628
41.747
38.463
Page 114 of 251 Lat: 25°58’’01 / Long: 81°20’’59’247
Max
Std. Dev.
199.000
74.69
209.000
74.17
208.000
55.88
195.000
72.77
17.000
4.68
130.000
18.33
157.000
49.72
144.000
34.78
107.000
17.25
103.000
18.39
258.000
45.89
162.000
53.20
157.000
42.13
214.000
55.39
140.000
41.90
120.000
34.18
156.000
46.59
95.000
26.95
116.000
22.19
132.000
30.83
150.000
41.10
135.000
37.57
135.000
19.97
103.000
22.57
102.000
27.94
54.000
4.36
Faka Union Canal at Weir #1 (US. 41 near Copeland)
Lat: 81°30’’34’ / Long: 48°87’’60’248
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1969
145.000
344.395
604.000
1970
48.000
380.723
1,170.000
1971
0.000
372.000
3,190.000
1972
0.000
197.289
1,460.000
1973
0.000
255.789
1,400.000
1974
0.000
326.462
1,590.000
1975
0.000
266.0888
1,190.000
1976
1.000
118.566
527.000
1977
1.000
155.516
545.000
1978
1.000
260.721
831.000
1979
0.000
118.902
777.000
1980
9.7000
175.375
1,140.000
1981
0.000
213.346
1,210.000
1982
0.000
376.136
1,740.000
1983
0.000
380.062
1,110.000
1984
0.000
190.700
817.000
Data Set 1
Std. Dev.
150.41
264.04
615.27
204.81
380.12
473.73
343.55
135.22
146.06
190.46
130.95
189.03
291.28
407.20
230.15
148.63
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 115 of 251 Data Set 2
Faka Union Canal at Weir #1 (US. 41 near Copeland)
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1981
0.000
0.000
0.000
1982
0.000
0.000
0.000
1983
0.000
0.000
0.000
1984
58.000
169.143
258.000
Std. Dev.
0.00
0.00
0.00
82.37
Faka Union Canal at Weir #1 (US. 41 near Copeland)
Year
Min
Mean
Max
1984
10.000
483.342
997.100
1985
0.000
265.197
1,661.000
1986
-2.813
259.291
632.377
1987
0.000
434.073
982.612
1988
-4.630
167.906
749.608
1989
-3.958
115.408
529.203
1990
-14.647
158.614
556.034
1991
6.456
407.832
1,149.752
1992
-16.500
251.842
978.915
1993
-20.359
188.120
722.594
1994
-16.633
304.587
1,146.239
1995
9.406
672.495
2,245.392
1996
-319.117
207.394
1,155.413
1997
-33.577
289.330
841.727
1998
-20.062
324.881
1,904.770
1999
-50.540
384.993
2,119.357
2000
-36.259
4.519
93.596
Std. Dev.
342.53
336.91
209.63
214.38
220.12
152.18
163.26
353.84
308.41
160.81
320.99
608.91
246.79
218.86
363.49
472.53
17.27
Faka Union Canal at Weir #1 (US. 41 near Copeland)
Year
Min
Mean
Max
2000
41.996
423.782
1,340.519
2001
-17.376
519.616
2,265.222
2002
-11.102
442.407
1,487.144
2003
-5.401
543.761
1,662.513
2004
-21.012
344.413
1,484.691
2005
-29.723
507.707
1,554.434
2006
-22.649
399.948
2,053.663
2007
-398.214
141.328
808.544
2008
-41.779
396.304
1,565.334
2009
-65.206
223.599
1,389.949
2010
73.265
331.461
819.782
Fakahatchee Slough at Janes Rd
Year
Min
1969
136.000
1970
0.000
1971
0.000
1972
0.000
Mean
175.786
217.432
124.900
4.385
Data Set 3
Data Set 4
Std. Dev.
343.76
650.08
387.90
473.52
393.57
490.86
484.23
180.21
459.99
273.38
179.40
Lat: 25°58’’45’ / Long: 81°24’’29’249
Max
Std. Dev.
208.000
19.48
1,020.000
219.70
1,220.000
245.89
53.000
10.17
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 116 of 251 Faka Union Canal near Deep Lake
Year
Min
Mean
1977
12.000
27.5000
1978
3.400
59.693
1979
1.000
59.154
1980
2.000
59.174
1981
0.000
63.580
1982
1.500
165.023
1983
9.600
212.775
1984
44.000
107.714
Lat: 26°03’’43 / Long: 81°31’’24’250
Max
Std. Dev.
53.000
11.61
285.000
75.24
362.000
90.67
256.000
53.99
335.000
87.95
636.000
184.41
529.000
152.73
290.000
70.70
Faka Union Canal near Sunniland
Year
Min
Mean
1977
0.000
0.000
1978
0.000
1.123
1979
1.000
12.922f
1980
0.000
12.163
1981
2.000
10.325
1982
2.000
27.731
1983
3.300
23.634
1984
0.000
14.191
Lat: 26°16’’17’ / Long: 81°31’’43’251
Max
Std. Dev.
0.000
.00
9.800
1.82
157.000
24.73
134.000
19.69
100.000
12.13
170.000
31.98
126.000
18.64
137.000
23.02
L-28 Interceptor South at Collier Border
Year
Min
Mean
1997
-93.000
90.100
1998
-127.000
84.373
1999
-104.000
92.595
Lat: 26°08’’23’ / Long: 80°52’’40’252
Max
Std. Dev.
684.000
121.60
1,070.000
143.45
1,120.000
179.59
Big Cypress at Alligator Alley
Year
Min
1969
76.000
1970
0.000
1971
0.000
Mean
116.379
93.227
1.413
Lat: 26°10’’09’ / Long: 81°05’’14’253
Max
Std. Dev.
159.000
23.12
246.000
59.05
15.000
3.60
Mean
162.759
111.807
11.621
Lat: 26°10’’19’ / Long: 81°05’’14’254
Max
Std. Dev.
230.000
30.78
937.000
126.55
188.000
35.28
Big Cypress at Alley near Indian
Year
Min
1969
113.000
1970
0.000
1971
0.000
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 117 of 251 Salinity
Salinity in Southwest Florida’s estuaries is usually lowest during the months of June through
September, coinciding with the wet season. Likewise, highest salinity concentrations are
recorded during the dry season, January through March. In Southwest Florida variations in
salinity are controlled by precipitation, the amount and timing of freshwater runoff, evaporation,
and tidal fluctuations.255 Freshwater releases from Lake Okeechobee greatly affect salinity in
Greater Charlotte Harbor, Pine Island Sound, Caloosahatchee, and Estero Bay watersheds and
are responsible for the high fluctuations that are recorded.
Salinity ranges from fresh (less than 1 part per thousand) to saltwater (35 parts per thousand).
There are four main salinity regimes: stratified, partially mixed, fully mixed, and inverse. Coastal
waters are considered stratified there is a distinct increase in salinity with water depth. In
partially mixed coastal waterways, tidal currents generate turbulence which promotes vertical
mixing, but the tidal currents are not strong enough to fully mix the water column. Fully mixed
conditions occur in coastal waterways where tide, river, or wave energy produces enough
turbulence to fully mix the water column creating a uniform salinity regime. In this regime,
salinity still varies between the riverine and oceanic ends of the estuary. Inverse estuaries are
caused by high evaporation rates in the presence of low freshwater inflow. The estuarine water
can become denser than the oceanic water and sink below it forming a hypersaline bottom
layer.
Salinity regimes are important in determining the distribution and types of organisms found
within an estuary. R.O. McLean and S.S. Cave identified a system for classifying salinity within
the water:
Freshwater
Brackish
Seawater
Less than 0.18 ppt
0.18 ppt
0.18 – 1.8 ppt
1.8 – 30 ppt
30 – 35 ppt
Greater than 35 ppt
infrahaline
oligohaline
mesohaline
polyhaline
ultrahaline
metahaline
Figure A- 8: Salinity classification of water
Additionally, R.O. McLean and S.D. Cave divided estuaries into regions according to their
salinity ranges:
•
•
•
•
•
Head: where freshwater enters; with maximum salt penetration, the salinity rises to 5 ppt
Upper Reaches: 5–18 ppt
Middle Reaches: 18–25 ppt
Lower Reaches: 25–30 ppt
Mouth: equal to that of the adjacent sea
Oysters are sensitive to salinity and require levels to be above 4-5 ppt with an optimal range
between 14 and 28 ppt. Higher salinity levels increase negative effects from saltwater predators
such as oyster drills and the parasite Perkinsus marinus.256
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 118 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor / Coastal Venice / Lemon Bay
The total average salinity of the Charlotte harbor region is 13 ppt. Charlotte Harbor can be
broken down into:
1. The River Reaches including Tidal Peach, Myakka, and Caloosahatchee Rivers,
typically high in salinity (less than 20 ppt).
2. The Upper Harbor comprised of the Boca Grande Region (east and north to the Peach
and Myakka Rivers).
3. The Lower Harbor including Pine Island Sound, Matlacha Pass, and San Carlos Bay
The large fluctuations in wet and dry seasons strongly affect the salinity and water
characteristics of Charlotte Harbor.
Studies done during 1959, 1966, and 1967 indicate an average salinity range for Charlotte
Harbor of 20.0-34.2 ppt. Near surface salinity values have been found for Charlotte harbor from
October 2002 – February 2004. All values have then been compared to the averaged data from
1993 to 2000.
February
January
December
November
October
September
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
December
2004
2004
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2002
2002
12.74-35.26 ppt
5.77-34.03 ppt
8.55-36.08 ppt
6.69-35.54 ppt
0.1-36.53 ppt
0.10-33.12 ppt
0.18-33.12 ppt
0.12-30.90 ppt
5.31-34.89 ppt
5.39-35.97 ppt
15.24-36.94 ppt
5.22-35.34 ppt
0.73-35.54 ppt
11.00-33.74 ppt
16.00-33.13 ppt
Dona and Robert’s Bay Second Annual Watershed and Estuary Analysis (2004) reported
salinity fluctuations from wet and dry seasons with the most apparent being Curry Creek which
went from a dry season average of 30.19 ppt to a wet season average of 2.69 ppt. The average
salinity in 2004 for Dona and Robert’s Bay was 30.42 ppt in the dry season and 21.46 ppt in the
wet season.257
Pine Island Sound
To date salinity and turbidity data has been recorded for the months of February 2002 to
December 2002 and September 2003. The Division of Aquaculture recorded the data every
thirty minutes.
A study conducted by Melynda Schneider-Brown looked at the salinity fluctuations in two sites
within Matlacha Pass over 2005-2007. Data gathered from the northern most site provided an
average minimum salinity of 14.34 ppt and a maximum of 36.4 ppt. The southern site reported
an average minimum salinity of 7.21 ppt and a maximum of 36.96 ppt.258
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 119 of 251 In 1995, salinity ranged from 30 ppt (± 5) on the surface and near bottom when discharge from
all five weirs of the North Cape Coral Drainage System was less than 100 cfs. The salinity fell
sharply in June to 11 ppt as discharges increased to nearly 1,500 cfs. In June, salinity fell
sharply to 11 ppt as discharges increased to nearly 1,500 cfs. Bottom salinity remained less
than 20 ppt until discharges decline to 200-300 cfs. As of July 2003 several hydrological targets
were set for Matlacha pass:259
1. Provide a combined minimum flow of 10 cfs over weirs of the North CCDS.
2. Combined average annual flow from the North CCDS weirs <100 cfs.
3. Combined flow from the North CCDS weirs never >1000 cfs.
4. Combined flow from the North CCDS weirs never >500 cfs for longer than a month.
5. Preferred average wet season flow < 200 cfs.
Caloosahatchee
The most dramatic effects of freshwater releases from Lake Okeechobee are seen in the
Caloosahatchee watershed. Greater volumes of freshwater now travel down the
Caloosahatchee River and reach the estuary more rapidly during the rainy season. Conversely
during the dry season, agricultural and urban water supply demands result in reduced river
flows to the estuary. In 1992, salinity levels in the estuary were recorded between 0-25 ppt.260
Ecological performance targets set by the SWFFS/CERP include maintaining a 30 day moving
average salinity of < 10 ppt during the dry season at the Ft. Myers continuous salinity sensor, so
that tape grass (Vallisneria americana) coverage and health do not decrease. The daily
average salinity shall also not exceed 20 ppt at Ft. Myers once every two years, and neither
shall the 30-day moving average salinity of 10 ppt. The occurrence of average monthly salinity
of <15 ppt at Cape Coral Bridge as well as > 5 ppt at Piney Point must be maintained to ensure
seagrass density and health in addition to oyster growth, survival, and recruitment. Maintaining
an average monthly salinity of > 25 ppt, as measured at the Sanibel Causeway Bridge, is also
indicated to recover historical seagrass density and coverage in the San Carlos Bay area.
The target set by the 2010 Southwest Florida Feasibility Study for the Caloosahatchee Estuary
is maintaining an average annual average salinity of 10-25 ppt.
Estero Bay
In a 2008 study, salinity was measured at different sites throughout the Estero Bay
watershed.261 Salinity at Big Carlos Pass during the dry season (December-May) ranged from
25 to 35 ppt. Matanzas Pass recorded salinity ranges were from 22 to 34 ppt. Typical salinity
values at Big Hickory Pass ranged from 26 to 36 ppt. The Imperial River, Mullock Creek, and
Estero River all followed the same seasonal trend and had an annual salinity range from 5 to 25
ppt. In 2003, several hydrological targets have been established for the tributaries of Estero
Bay based on regression analysis.262
Ten Mile Canal: Maximize days of average discharge that exceeds daily mean flows of 290 cfs.
Maximize days of daily mean flows of 5-35 cfs. Thus, maintain flows that hold salinities at 15-25
ppt at the Mullock Creek Station.
Estero River: Minimize number of days that average river discharge exceeds mean flows of 31
cfs. Maximize days of daily mean flows of 3-9 cfs. Thus, maintain flows that hold salinities at
15-25 ppt.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 120 of 251 Imperial River: Minimize days of average river discharge that exceed daily mean flows of 390
cfs. Maximize days of daily mean flows of 7-23 cfs. Thus, maintain flows that hold salinities at
15-25 ppt.
This has also been reiterated in the 2010 Southwest Florida Feasibility Study where 15-25 ppt is
the target average annual salinity in the Estero Bay.
Naples Bay
Evaluation of Naples Bay Water Quality and Hydrologic Data prepared by the South Florida
Water Management District used water quality samples from 1999-2002.263
Site
Lower Naples Bay
Upper Naples Bay
Halderman Creek
Gordon River Downstream Weir 952
Golden Gate Canal
Lely Canal
Gulf of Mexico (Adjacent to Gordon Pass)
Min (ppt)
0.48
0.48
0.27
0.42
0.00
0.09
29.20
Salinity
Max (ppt)
41.50
34.85
36.40
30.60
31.97
14.74
37.90
Rookery Bay
In Rookery Bay, salinities range from 18.5 to 39.4 ppt with the lower values occurring in the wet
season.264 The highest values occur during the dry seasons and can exceed that of the open
Gulf of Mexico (35-36 ppt).265 Salinity and turbidity data is collected and then recorded by the
Centralized Data Management Office for upper and lower Henderson Creek, Big Marco Pass,
Blackwater River, Middle Blackwater River, Faka Union Bay, and Fakahatchee Bay.266
The target set by the 2010 Southwest Florida Feasibility Study for the Rookery Bay, Blackwater
Bay, Buttonwood Bay, and Pumpkin Bay is maintaining an average annual average salinity of
20 - 30 ppt.
Ten Thousand Islands
The Ten Thousand Islands region is characterized by a salinity gradient and mosaic that varies
based on topography and seasonal rainfall and freshwater flow from upstream.267
In 2004–2005, discharge, stage, salinity, and water temperature data was collected by the
USGS, in cooperation with the SFWMD as part of the USGS Greater Everglades Priority
Ecosystem Science Initiative.268
Site
Barron River
Blackwater River
East River
Faka Union River
Fakahatcee River
Ferguson River
Little Wood River
Min (ppt)
2
26
7
5
12
9
21
Salinity
Max (ppt)
37
36
37
34
37
36
43
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Site
Palm River
Pumpkin River
Whitney River
Wood River
Min (ppt)
22
29
23
19
Page 121 of 251 Salinity
Max (ppt)
36
38
36
40
The target set by the 2010 Southwest Florida Feasibility Study is 10-30 ppt for Faka Union Bay,
20-30 ppt in Fakahatchee Bay, and 16-30 ppt in the Ten Thousand Islands and Barron River
Estuary.
Prevalence of Pesticides
Several of the pesticides widely used in Southwest Florida’s watersheds are toxic to aquatic
organisms. These include malathion, atrazine, bromacil, metolachlor, norflurazon, simazine,
diazinon, and ethoprop.269 However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
recently withdrawn many pesticides including diazinon and endosulffan and will be phased out
from use.270 Unfortunately, the State has not set water quality standards for very many
pesticides, and insufficient monitoring of pesticides exists to date. The Conservancy has
evaluated pesticide use in the coastal watersheds of Southwest Florida, including use by
agriculture, golf courses, lawn maintenance, and mosquito control and again found that lawn
care was second only to agriculture in its impact on local waterways.271 Without adequate
pesticide monitoring in the watersheds, it may be necessary to utilize pesticide loadings and the
hazards of the pesticides to the watersheds as a means of assessing the impacts of pesticides
on the health of estuaries in future Report Cards. The Conservancy is also encouraging the
South Florida Water Management District to expand its pesticide monitoring program to
encompass additional areas of Southwest Florida’s coastal watersheds, particularly where
pesticide usage is high.
A PhD Toxicologist donated time to update a survey of pesticide usage that was completed for
the 2005 Estuaries Report Card. The methodology used is the same as that used to analyze the
2002 data and is described in detail in Hushon, J., “Pesticides in Southwest Florida Waterways
– A Report Card,” Florida Scientist, 69(2) pp. 100-116, 2006. The methodology uses data on a
chemical’s physical and chemical properties to predict its environmental transport and fate and
this information is combined with toxicology and amount used to arrive at a relative hazard
index. The Hazard Index (HI) was not intended to be a quantitative risk assessment, but rather
to indicate which water drainage areas are most likely to be impaired due to pesticide use. The
possible HI scores are High Risk, Moderate Risk, Low but Measureable Risk, and Activity
Present but Low Risk. Available information from this report is shown below.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 122 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 123 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 124 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 125 of 251 Prevalence of Harmful Algal Blooms, Red Tide, and Nutrients
Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) are caused by toxic or nuisance algae which proliferate to the
point where it negatively affects natural resources and humans. Several main groups are
responsible for causing HABs: flagellates (including dinoflagellates), diatoms, and blue-green
algae (also known as cyanobacteria). Of the approximate 85 species that cause HABs, almost
all are photosynthetic microalgae.272
In Southwest Florida along our coasts, “red tides” are
massive HABs commonly caused by the single celled
dinoflagellate, Karenia brevis. Its common epithet is
derived from the discolored brownish-red water associated
with high concentrations of K. brevis. It produces potent
neurotoxins which are carried by winds and currents along
the coasts and into estuaries posing serious risks to
aquatic and human health.274 Filter feeding shellfish, such
as oysters, clams, mussels, and other bivalve mollusks that
consume K. brevis, concentrate the toxin, posing the threat
of neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (NSP) to humans who
consume them. These toxins are deadly to most marine
life including fish, birds, and marine mammals. Manatees
are particularly susceptible, where necropsies have linked
the deaths of hundreds to persistent blooms. The toxins
are also carried by the air on shore and can cause
respiratory irritation to humans.
Photo 19 - Red Tide273
Red tides are a natural occurrence, but are also
exacerbated by human impacts such as nutrient overloads into coastal waters, which spur their
growth. “Analyzing data over a 50-year period from the southwest coast of Florida, researchers
at the University of Miami determined that K. brevis red tides are occurring with greater
frequency, closer to shore, and during more months of the year. They attribute this phenomenon
to greater inputs of nutrients into coastal waters due to increased agricultural runoff and sewage
discharges in the watershed over that time period.”275 In conjunction with the environmental
impacts, just one harmful algal bloom event can result in millions of dollars in losses to local
coastal communities. Recent research into red tide
prevention includes resuspending K. brevis cysts in
localized areas where “point source” blooms occur on
the sea floor. Resuspension would result in a
redistribution of cysts with many becoming buried in
layers of sediment preventing germination due to
anoxia.276
Blue-green algal blooms have also become everpresent in Florida’s lakes, rivers, and estuaries. They
plague some of Florida’s largest and most important
aquatic systems, including Lake Okeechobee and the
Caloosahatchee River and estuary. High
concentrations of cyanobacteria create blooms,
discoloring the water and creating visible “scums” on
Photo 20 - Cyanobacteria Bloom277
the surface. These conditions lead to decreased oxygen levels contributing to fish kills.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 126 of 251 Cyanobacteria also produce toxins that are detrimental to the environment and public health
and natural resources.278 The toxins produced are divided into three categories and different
species can produce more than one: “hepatotoxins (which affect the liver), neurotoxins (which
affect the nervous system), and dermatotoxins (which cause topical skin irritations).”279
To combat the ongoing problem of HABs in the state, the Florida Harmful Algal Bloom Task
Force (FHABTF) was created in 1997. “The FHABTF was designed to address the issues of
health, environment, and economic impacts of HABs in Florida.”280
Current red tide research / projects:
• Red Tide Current Status Statewide Information and Database (Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC))
• Harmful Algal Bloom Operational Forecast System (HAB-OFS) (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA))
• Suppression of Alexandrium blooms by resuspension and burial of resting cysts
(Department of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Director of the Coastal Ocean
Institute. [email protected]. (508) 289-2351)
• Harmful algal blooms in subtropical and tropical coastal ecosystems and stable isotope
analysis for assessing nutrient sources to coastal waters (Brian LaPointe, Research
Professor at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, FAU, [email protected])
• Karenia brevis in relation to offshore dredging (Dr. Larry Brand, Professor of Marine Biology
at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, UM,
[email protected].)
• Jennifer Wolny (Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg,
[email protected].)
• Karenia brevis growth cycles and predation (Patricia Gilbert, Professor at the University of
Maryland Center for Environmental Science Horn Point Laboratory, [email protected].
(410) 221-8422))
Prevalence of Documented Fish Kills
Fish kill is a term used to describe a localized die-off of fish
populations. Data retrieved from the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission fish kill database indicates that there
have been 311 reported cases of Fish Kills in Charlotte, Collier,
DeSoto, Glades Hardee, Hendry, Lee, Manatee, Polk, and
Sarasota counties between 01/01/2006 and 08/01/2010, with
the majority occurring in the study watersheds.
Photo 21 (at right) shows a fish kill due to phosphate run-off
from agriculture and golf courses in Lake Trafford, near
Immokalee, Florida.
The suspected causes for these kills were Algal Blooms, Low
Dissolved Oxygen, Pollution, and Red Tide. Broken down
there where 39 cases in Charlotte, 30 in Collier, 2 in Desoto, 5
in Glades, 0 in Hardee, 2 in Hendry, 85 in Lee, 53 in Manatee,
34 in Polk, and 61 in Sarasota (see graphic).
Photo 21 - Fish kill in Lake Trafford281
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 127 of 251 FWC also records this data as graphics for
each month incorporating diseased/lesioned
fish, fish kills, dolphin/turtle/manatee
mortalities and spill/sewage
Current fish kill research / projects:
• Fish Kill Database and Kill Maps
ƒ Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FWC)
–
(http://research.myfwc.com/fishkill/)
Figure A- 9: Reported Fish Kills, January 2010282
Prevalence of Beach Advisories & Closures
Beach advisories and closures are often linked an over-nutrification of the marine environment.
Water is routinely tested for both enterococci and fecal coliform bacteria, the presence of which
could indicate high concentrations of microorganisms which can cause could cause disease,
infections, or rashes. In 2004, enterococci took the place of fecal coliform as the new federal
standard for water quality at public beaches as it provides a higher correlation with many of the
human pathogens often found in city sewage.283 Unsafe levels of bacteria can result in beach
closures that last for months at a time. Hollywood Beach Florida is one such example where
sections of beach have been suffering from intermittent beach closures for about two months,
creating difficulties for the local economy. Even after all this time the cause of the elevated
levels of bacteria have eluded officials, where no evidence of a sewage leak or spill could be
found.284
The Department of Health does not have the authority to close Florida beaches; instead,
advisories (for enterococcus exceedances) and warnings (for fecal coliform exceedances) are
issued. All advisories and warnings have been combined in the Natural Resources Defense
Council’s Testing the Waters Annual Report and are simply referred to as “advisories”. In most
coastal counties, if either of the standards for enterococcus or fecal coliform is exceeded,
officials may consider issuing an advisory. However, if a sample exceeds a standard and the
county can conduct a followup sample within the same week, the beach may be resampled
before an advisory is issued. If the resample confirms an exceedance, an advisory is usually
issued. Furthermore, the Florida Department of Health posts monitoring results on its website
and local media is alerted and signs are posted at the beach when an advisory is issued.
Advisories apply to entire beaches, not to sections of beaches.285
For the purposes of the Conservancy of South West Florida’s 2011 Estuary Report Card, data
was gathered from the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) Testing the Waters
annual report starting with the 2006 report and all subsequent reports up to the most recent
2010 edition. Additionally, we also utilized data collected by Florida Department of Health’s
(FDH) Florida Healthy Beaches Program. The beaches and their associated data were
categorized by watershed, north to south by coastline, and the total advisories / closures along
with the days making up their length were totaled.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 128 of 251 The graph shows the trend of advisory / closure days over the four year sample period.
Advisory / closure days were especially high in 2008 quite possibly because of Tropical Storm
Fay which passed over Florida August 18-24. Fay hit Naples and then slowly zigzagged north
across the state all the while releasing a deluge of rain. Often the effects of such excessive
stormwater are not seen immediately after the event and this could explain why there were high
levels of bacteria in the waters 9/23 – 11/12 in the Greater Charlotte Harbor watershed.
Another reason this could have occurred is that low river flow in the Caloosahatchee and Peace
Rivers in 2008 could have allowed excess amounts of nutrient and bacteria buildup which then
could have been flushed out during the following rainy season in 2009.
Figure A‐ 10: Beach Advisory/Closure Days by Watershed
Current Beach Closure research / projects:
• Florida Healthy Beaches Program (Florida Department of Health (DOH) http://esetappsdoh.doh.state.fl.us/irm00beachwater/default.aspx)
• Testing the Waters, Annual Report (Natural Resources Defense Council http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/titinx.asp)
• Comparison of E.Coli, Enterococci, and Fecal Coliform as Indicators for Brackish Water
Quality Assessment (Dr. Guang Jin, Department of Health Science, Illinois State University,
[email protected]. (309) 438-2668)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 129 of 251 Degree of Impact from Gulf of Mexico Deep Horizon Oil Spill
In April 2010, a BP oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded, creating the worst oil spill disaster in
U.S. history.286 Oil relentlessly flowed from the rig for three months until it was finally capped in
mid July 2010. A relief well was drilled in September 2010 and the rig was deemed “dead;”
however, over 200 million gallons of crude oil had already been released into the ecosystem.287
Although Southwest Florida was extremely fortunate that a number of factors (e.g., unseasonal
wind vectors keeping much of the oil offshore, Franklin Eddie separating from the loop current,
prevailing currents resulting in what has been termed the “forbidden zone” off SW Florida and,
the lack of hurricanes in the Gulf) did not result in the spread of the bulk of the oil from reaching
Southwest Florida, there remains cause for concern. However, many species inhabiting the Gulf
are highly migratory (e.g., king mackerel, tarpon, sharks, sea birds, sea turtles, etc.). It is
conceivable that organisms exposed in the northern Gulf could contain residues of oil or
dispersant in their tissues when they return to Southwest Florida coastal waters – in effect
biotransporting the contaminants. Alternatively, if they were able to clear their tissues of these
contaminants, it is possible that during the biotransformation process these organisms suffered
chronic effects (e.g., lesions, tumors, reduced fertility) that could manifest while in local waters.
Additionally, we must be wary in Southwest Florida of indirect or secondary effects resulting
from environmental degradation of areas in the northern Gulf. For example, a change in
community structure in the northern Gulf, e.g., loss or reduction in abundance of a particular
prey species, could result in the dispersal of organisms southward; possibly resulting in
increased competition in local waters. It is also likely that populations in Gulf estuaries function
as metapopulations with some estuaries (i.e., patches of habitat) acting as sources of
organisms while other estuaries act as sinks. Impacts from the oil spill on the dynamics of
exchanges between estuaries may take years to rise to the level that is detectable, given the
current state of monitoring.
Very little is known about long-term effects of oil on marine life and coastal dwelling citizens,
and data need to be collected in order to fully understand the spill’s affect on the health of our
estuaries. Currently, there is insufficient data to assess oil as a factor driving water quality in
local estuaries, and therefore not enough information to incorporate into the report card grade.
Although a great number of samples were collected immediately after the spill by various state
and federal agencies as part of the NRDA process, many of these samples have yet to be
analyzed and little data have been made available to date. Moreover, it is still unclear to
scientists exactly what levels of oil contaminants are unsafe for both estuaries and humans,
especially when considering long-term exposure. Therefore, the Conservancy did not
incorporate oil as a component of estuarine health, but will monitor the situation should such
data become available to assess in determining Southwest Florida’s estuarine health.
The following is a list of current water quality monitoring efforts in response to the BP oil spill,
along with brief summaries of the scope and purpose of study.
•
RestoreTheGulf.gov
o Summary: The Unified Area Command coordinates ongoing comprehensive
monitoring of the water, coastal areas, and sediments in the Gulf of Mexico to
clean up oil and properly respond to oil occurrence. To date, government and
academic oceanographers, chemists, and biologists onshore and on a fleet of
vessels operating in the Gulf have collected tens of thousands of samples.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Purpose: Provides real-time information about where the oil is, where safe fishing
spots are, and where it is safe to swim
o Additional information at:
http://www.restorethegulf.gov/release/2010/10/02/subsurface-oil-monitoringoverview
FDEP Oil Spill monitoring for water quality
o Summary: Routine oil spill sampling by FDEP was completed on
September 9, 2010. Additional water sampling for all of the affected
states will be coordinated through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s (NOAA) Damage Assessment Remediation and
Restoration Program. FDEP’s Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed
Areas will continue to act as Florida’s trustees for this effort.
o Purpose: 1) Pre-assessment Baseline – Used as a part of the Natural
Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process to establish the
baseline or the state of the resource prior to contact with any petroleum
products which is necessary to document the harm caused by the
petroleum products associated with the Deepwater Horizon incident. 2)
Oil Spill Sampling – Conducted in response to petroleum reaching
Florida’s waters. Used by the Florida Department of Health to make
decisions on the safety of the beaches for recreation and also used as a
part of the NRDA process.
o Additional information at:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/deepwaterhorizon/water.htm
USEPA Oil Spill monitoring for water quality
o Summary: Water samples are collected to assess potential oil spill
impacts on aquatic life and human health near shore and are analyzed
for 22 chemicals that are components of oil.
o Purpose: EPA contaminant data are compared to technical benchmarks
to determine the potential effects of contaminants on human health and
aquatic life. Sample results are also being compared to EPA water
quality criteria guidelines and State water quality standards, when
available. EPA, in partnership with states, oversees the National Coastal
Condition Assessment (NCCA). NCCA reports describe the ecological
and environmental conditions in U.S. coastal waters. When possible,
EPA is comparing data collected during the BP spill response to the
NCCA data.
o EPA is also analyzing water samples to determine if any dispersant-related
chemicals can be detected. Some of the chemical analyses use existing EPA
methods that EPA slightly modified to enhance the performance of the method
for the particular chemical. Other chemicals required the creation of new
methods which EPA developed. The new methods are currently being reviewed
for posting on EPA’s website and will be available as soon as they are finalized.
o Sediment samples are also collected to assess potential oil spill impacts on
aquatic life near shore and were analyzed for 29 chemicals that are components
of oil. Additional information at: http://www.epa.gov/bpspill/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
o Summary: NOAA has been tracking where the oil is going on the surface and
under the sea, and what the consequences are to coastal communities, wildlife
and the marine environment. This includes seafood/fisheries monitoring data,
subsurface oil monitoring and ocean current data, and NRDA data.
o Additional information at: http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/bpoilspill.html
o
•
•
•
Page 130 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card •
•
•
•
Page 131 of 251 Mote Marine Laboratory
o Summary: Mote scientists have gathered baseline samples of bottom-dwelling
organisms, water, sediment, oysters, clams, seagrasses, total organic carbon
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are chemical components
found in oil. So far, Mote has gathered samples from 25 sites in Sarasota Bay
and another dozen sites in Charlotte Harbor. These baselines will provide the
critical baseline information on our environment.
o Just after the spill, Mote expanded the Beach Conditions Report system to
include oil spill impacts on 33 beaches on Florida's west coast and added the
ability to provide current photos of beaches.
o Another reporting system that Mote has in place is the Marine Ecosystem Event
Response and Assessment Project (MEERA). MEERA provides early detection
and assessment of biological events occurring in the Florida Keys and
surrounding waters. Should the oil spill affect the Florida Keys, that information
will be included in the MEERA reports.
o Additional information at:
http://www.mote.org/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=Gulf%20of%20Mexico%20Oil
%20Spill&category=Marine%20Policy%20Institute
University of Miami, Marine Biology and Fisheries
o Summary: The BP oil spill impacted the early life stages in many species of fish;
however, the total impact will not be known for another 5-10+ years because of
the fish’s life cycles.
o Purpose: To monitor fish species for economic reasons
o Additional information available from Dr. Jerald Ault at the University of Miami
Roffer’s Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service (ROFFS)
o Summary: Tracking the spill by satellite oceanography and possible effects on
Florida and Atlantic bluefin tuna
o Purpose: Bluefin tuna is a commercially viable species and they spawn in the
area affected by the oil. Therefore, the species will be a good indicator of how the
oil is affecting fish species.
o Additional information available at: http://www.roffs.com/
Florida Gulf Coast University
o Summary: Acute toxicity to humans was not a major problem during the BP
horizon spill; however, chronic human toxicity might occur if PAHs are
sequestered in marine sediments
o Purpose: To ensure that monitoring will continue, particularly for oysters as an
indicator of PAHs.
o New, accurate, precise and cost-effective monitoring technologies should be
developed to conduct the required screening
o Summary: Impacts from MC252 Oil on Ecologically and Commercially Important
Plankton of the Gulf of Mexico
o Purpose: 1)Ex situ bioassays using bacteria, copepods and ELS of urchin, oyster
or finfish to determine toxicity of water samples collected locally and from the
northern Gulf; 2) chemical assays for PAHs and dispersants of both water and
bulk plankton, and 3) assays of wild-caught neuston and plankton for
biochemical, morphological or cytogenetic biomarkers
o Additional information available from Dr. Darren Rumbold at Florida Gulf Coast
University
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 132 of 251 Below is a table of entities contracted to do research in Florida in response to the BP Oil Spill.
The above research represents a substantial research investment; however, it was made clear
at an October 2010 BP Conference that these efforts are not enough. Of the billions of dollars
set aside by BP for mitigation of the oil spill, relatively very little is going to research.288 A
national plan is needed that brings academia and the private sector to develop a plan for the
next 20 years in order to fully understand the impacts of the oil spill.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 133 of 251 APPENDIX B :PERCENTAGE OF WETLANDS REMAINING FOR EACH
WATERSHED
Coastal Venice
Predevelopment
(Acres)
Wetlands
Total Land
Area
Predevelopment
(%)
Current
(Acres)
Current
(%)
20,978
33%
10,166
16%
62,961
100%
62,961
100%
Percent
Remaining
48%
—
Lemon Bay
Predevelopment
(Acres)
Wetlands
Total Land
Area
Predevelopment
(%)
Current
(Acres)
Current
(%)
9,624
15%
6,752
11%
62,320
100%
62,320
100%
Percent
Remaining
70%
—
Greater Charlotte Harbor
Predevelopment
(Acres)
Wetlands
Total Land
Area
Predevelopment
(%)
Current
(Acres)
Current
(%)
551,482
27%
352,539
17%
2,075,823
100%
2,075,823
100%
Percent
Remaining
64%
—
Pine Island Sound
Predevelopment
(Acres)
Wetlands
Total Land
Area
Predevelopment
(%)
Current
(Acres)
Current
(%)
56,216
30%
39,128
21%
187,111
100%
187,111
100%
Percent
Remaining
70%
—
Caloosahatchee River
Predevelopment
(Acres)
Wetlands
Total Land
Area
Predevelopment
(%)
Current
(Acres)
Current
(%)
358,073
41%
140,941
16%
880,874
100%
880,874
100%
Percent
Remaining
39%
—
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 134 of 251 Estero Bay
Predevelopment
(Acres)
Wetlands
Total Land
Area
Predevelopment
(%)
Current
(Acres)
Current
(%)
112,267
57%
69,620
35%
197,922
100%
197,922
100%
Percent
Remaining
62%
—
Wiggins Pass/ Cocohatchee River
Predevelopment
(Acres)
Wetlands
Total Land
Area
Predevelopment
(%)
Current
(Acres)
Current
(%)
70,942
59%
50,608
42%
119,475
100%
119,475
100%
Percent
Remaining
71%
—
Naples Bay
Predevelopment
(Acres)
Wetlands
Total Land
Area
Predevelopment
(%)
Current
(Acres)
Current
(%)
57,814
62%
17,984
19%
92,537
100%
92,537
100%
Percent
Remaining
31%
—
Rookery Bay
Predevelopment
(Acres)
Wetlands
Total Land
Area
Predevelopment
(%)
Current
(Acres)
Current
(%)
90,784
72%
70,463
55%
126,969
100%
126,969
100%
Percent
Remaining
78%
—
Ten Thousand Islands
Predevelopment
(Acres)
Wetlands
Total Land
Area
Predevelopment
(%)
Current
(Acres)
Current
(%)
1,185,783
77%
1,062,071
65%
1,549,893
100%
1,640,228
100%
Percent
Remaining
90%
—
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 135 of 251 APPENDIX C :PERCENTAGE OF MANGROVES REMAINING FOR EACH
WATERSHED
Mangrove Coverage ‐ Coastal Venice Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 136 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 137 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 138 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 139 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 140 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 141 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 142 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 143 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 144 of 251 Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 145 of 251 APPENDIX D : ACREAGE OF CONSERVATION LANDS IN EACH WATERSHED
Coastal Venice
Conservation Lands Name
Brohard Beach and Paw Park
Caspersen Beach County Park
Curry Creek Preserve
Fox Creek
Gum Slough TNC Conservation Easement
Heritage Ranch Conservation Easement
Knight Trail Park
Legacy Trail
Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve
Myakka River State Park
Pinelands Reserve
Pocono Trails
Rattlesnake Island
Rocky Ford
Service Club Park
Shamrock Park and Nature Center
Total
Acreage
84.3
134.4
81.5
165.0
224.2
1,917.5
378.1
88.5
0.8
64.1
4,332.5
8.0
12.1
114.4
7.5
0.9
7,613.8
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 146 of 251 Lemon Bay
Conservation Lands Name
Ainger Creek Trails
Alligator Creek Conservation Area
Amberjack Environmental Park
Blind Pass Park
Buck Creek Preserve
Cape Haze Aquatic Preserve
Caspersen Beach County Park
Cedar Point Environmental Park
Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park
Don Pedro Island State Park
Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve
Indian Mound Park
James E. Cook Memorial Preserve
Kiwanis/Buchan Park
Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve
Lemon Bay Park and Environmental Center
Manasota Scrub Preserve
Myakka State Forest
Oyster Creek Regional Park
Rotunda Community Park and Preserve
Shamrock Park and Nature Center
South Venice Lemon Bay Preserve
Stump Pass Beach State Park
Thornton Key Preserve
Total
Acreage
148.0
212.4
222.9
72.4
85.8
2.9
23.3
110.3
2,284.0
245.1
850.0
6.5
31.5
6.4
6,593.7
208.7
147.0
3,344.6
257.2
32.2
96.6
225.9
246.6
35.0
15,488.9
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 147 of 251 Charlotte Harbor
Conservation Lands Name
Alligator Creek
Audubon-Pennington Nature Park
Babcock Ranch Preserve
Bartow Trailhead at Fort Fraser
Beker
Biscayne Trust Conservation Easement
Bocilla Preserve
Bok Tower Gardens Knoll
Bok Tower Gardens Pine Ridge Preserve
Bok Tower Gardens Planted Pines
Bok Tower Gardens Preserve
Bowlegs Creek
Bright Hour Watershed
Cape Haze Aquatic Preserve
Calusa Land Trust and Nature Preserve of Pine Island, Inc.
Carlton Ranch, Inc.
Cayo Costa State Park
Cayo Pelau Preserve
Charlotte Flatwoods Environmental Park
Charlotte Harbor Buffer Preserve
Charlotte Harbor Environmental Center
Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park
Circle B Bar Reserve
Clear Springs
Crooked Lake West
Crooked Lake West - Stuart Tract
Crooked Lake Wildlife and Environmental Area
Crowley Museum and Nature Center
Cypress Gardens Conservation Easement
Deep Creek Properties
Deer Prairie Creek
Deer Prairie Creek/Churchill and Jordyn Parcels
Duette Park
FPC Hines Conservation Easement
Fred C. Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area
Gasparilla Island State Park
Gasparilla Sound - Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve
Hathaway Park
Headwaters at Duette Park
Highlands Hammock State Park
Homeland
Acreage
145.9
9.7
2,127.2
8.7
614.2
176.8
167.8
0.3
26.7
17.2
49.9
919.4
32,241.2
11,449.4
0.6
4,742.6
21.6
137.1
487.9
34.6
18.4
29,586.4
1,267.8
1,426.0
757.8
0.7
1,085.9
191.6
150.6
450.2
6,135.4
894.5
716.4
1,647.3
47,903.9
126.3
81,241.8
14.3
292.9
9,200.2
1,712.7
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 148 of 251 Charlotte Harbor
Conservation Lands Name
IMC - Peace River Park
Island Bay National Wildlife Refuge
Jelks Preserve
Lake Hancock
Lake Manatee Lower Watershed
Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife Refuge
Lake Wales Ridge National Wildlife and Environmental Area
Lake Wales Trailways
Lakeland Highlands Scrub
Laurent/Peace River
Lewis Longino Preserve
Little Payne Creek
Lower Peace River Corridor
Mackay Gardens and Lakeside Preserve
Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve
Myakka Forest Addition
Myakka Islands Point
Myakka Pines
Myakka Prairie Conservation Easement
Myakka River
Myakka River State Park
Myakka State Forest
Myakkahatchee Creek Conservation Easement
Myakkaha Creek Environmental Park
O-Bar-O Ranch Conservation Easement
Old Myakka - O'Neil Property
Ollie's Pond Park
Paynes Creek Historic State Park
Peace River Hammock
Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve
Pinelands Reserve
Prairie Creek Preserve
Prairie Pines Preserve
Prairie/Shell Creek
Rocky Ford
RV Griffin Reserve (GDC)
Saddle Blanket Scrub Preserve
Saddle Creek County Park
Saddle Creek Sanctuary
Shell Creek Preserve
Sleeping Turtles Preserve North
Sleeping Turtles Preserve South
Acreage
464.9
28.2
582.4
6,319.6
938.4
41.8
594.7
1.3
293.1
48.2
3,806.2
299.3
2,105.8
131.0
397.0
3.1
89.0
58.8
659.8
3,993.6
37,133.4
4,887.0
7,631.4
166.6
163.3
132.1
41.6
398.6
42.3
2,245.1
1,707.4
1,644.3
147.6
609.5
805.2
5,920.5
365.1
729.1
443.0
366.9
200.7
209.3
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 149 of 251 Charlotte Harbor
Conservation Lands Name
South Peace River
South River Road
Street Sanctuary
Sunrise Park
T. Mabry Carlton, Jr. Memorial Reserve
Tenoroc Fish Management Area
The Preserve
Tippecanoe Environmental Park
Tippecanoe II Florida Scrub-Jay Mitigation Area
Upper Myakka Watershed
Warm Mineral Springs Creek
Well Field Scrub-Jay Habitat
Winter Haven to Lake Alfred Trail
Yucca Pens Preserve
Yucca Pens Unit
Total
Acreage
365.2
71.5
28.3
40.3
24,577.2
7,018.9
1,341.1
360.9
182.9
2,357.1
3.4
73.0
43.8
133.4
5,234.5
366,877.6
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 150 of 251 Pine Island Sound
Conservation Lands Name
Bocilla Preserve
Bowman's Beach Regional Park
Calusa Land Trust and Nature Preserve of Pine Island
Carver Preserve
Cayo Costa State Park
Cayo Costa Unit
Charlotte Flatwoods Environmental Park
Charlotte Harbor Buffer Preserve
Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park
Estero Bay Preserve State Park
Galt Preserve
Gasparilla Sound-Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve
J.N. Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge
Kurgis Conservation Easement
Lighthouse Beach Park
Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve
Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge
Murdock Point Cayo Costa
Norberg Research Natural Area
Pine Island Flatwoods Preserve
Pine Island National Wildlife Refuge
Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve
Punta Rassa Preserve
Randell Research Center
Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation Conservation Lands
Smokehouse Bay Preserve
St. James Creek Preserve
Yellow Creek Preserve
Yucca Pens Preserve
Yucca Pens Unit
Total
Acreage
26.9
154.0
1,030.6
189.1
2,613.2
8.9
3.8
1,211.9
13,358.7
366.1
262.1
366.8
6,298.7
6.8
30.4
12,865.7
559.1
99.7
105.2
774.8
425.7
51,623.7
6.7
55.8
1,706.8
222.3
116.2
197.4
162.5
9,809.2
104,658.7
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 151 of 251 Caloosahatchee River
Conservation Lands Name
Alva Cypress Preserve
Alva Scrub Preserve
Babcock Ranch Conservation Easement
Babcock Ranch Preserve
Billy Creek Preserve
Buckingham Trails Preserve
C-43 Basin Storage Reservoir - Part 1
Caloosahatchee Basin Water Storage Reservoir
Caloosahatchee Creeks Preserve
Caloosahatchee National Wildlife Refuge
Caloosahatchee Regional Park
Caloosahatchee River Basin Water Quality Treatment and Testing Facility
Charlie's Marsh Preserve
Charlotte Harbor Preserve State Park
Columbus G. Macleod Preserve
Daniel's Preserve at Spanish Creek
Deep Lagoon Preserve
Estero Bay Preserve State Park
Fisheating Creek Wildlife Management Area
Four Mile Cove Ecological Preserve
Fred C. Babcock-Cecil M. Webb Wildlife Management Area
Greenbriar Swamp Preserve
Harn's Marsh
Hickey's Creek Mitigation Park
Hickey's Creek/Greenbriar Connector
Hickey Creek Mitigation Park Wildlife and Environmental Area
Hickory Swamp Preserve
Imperial Marsh Preserve
Labelle Ranch, Inc. Conservation Easement
Lakes Park
Manatee Park
Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve
Meadowbrook Park
Moya Sanctuary
Nicodemus Slough Flowage Easement
Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest
Okaloacoochee Slough Wildlife Management Area
Old Bridge Preserve
Orange River Parcel
Orange River Preserve
Persimmon Ridge Preserve
Acreage
687.7
172.3
322.7
71,109.1
43.9
575.5
5,313.7
7,133.0
1,262.1
9.5
768.8
1,773.5
20.9
47.1
9.2
243.5
405.0
5.0
31.8
174.4
19,432.6
394.2
578.5
85.4
80.2
785.7
67.2
3.8
3,018.5
0.3
21.4
2.4
34.2
193.4
2,230.2
5,645.1
2,923.7
48.2
6.4
61.7
36.1
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 152 of 251 Caloosahatchee River
Conservation Lands Name
Popash Creek Preserve
Powell Creek Preserve
Prairie Pines Preserve
Savannah Lakes
Spirit of the Wild Wildlife Management Area
Telegraph Creek Preserve
West Marsh Preserve
Wild Turkey Strand Preserve
Yellow Fever Creek Preserve
Total
Acreage
305.3
77.0
2,586.9
390.0
7,648.0
1,722.2
218.2
8.8
142.1
138,856.4
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 153 of 251 Estero Bay
Conservation Lands Name
Big Hickory Island Preserve
Bowditch Point Park
Calusa Nature Center and Planetarium
Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed
Corkscrew Regional Mitigation Bank
Eagle Lake Preserve
Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve
Estero Bay Preserve State Park
Estero Marsh Preserve
Flag Pond Preserve
Flint Pen Strand
Gator Hole Preserve
Imperial Flowway
Imperial Marsh Preserve
Imperial River Preserve
Koreshan State Historic Site
Koreshan/Boomer Property
Lakes Park
Lovers Key State Park
Mantanzas Pass Preserve
Matlacha Pass National Wildlife Refuge
Mound Key Archaeological State Park
Mullock Creek Preserve
Pine Lake Preserve
Railhead Scrub Preserve
Sam Galloway Tract at Imperial Marsh Preserve
San Carlos Bay - Bunche Beach Preserve
Six Mile Cypress II
Six Mile Cypress Slough Preserve
Wild Turkey Strand Preserve
Total
Acres
263.5
17.3
101.0
9,646.0
643.5
41.1
9,371.5
10,943.8
238.2
66.1
939.0
176.8
34.2
525.5
46.2
248.7
40.8
285.3
1,351.2
58.1
144.9
120.0
4.3
129.1
48.8
89.7
722.2
59.5
2,281.1
3,141.3
41,778.7
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 154 of 251 Wiggins Pass / Cocohatchee River
Conservation Lands Name
Barefoot Beach Preserve County Park
Brochu Property
Cocohatchee Creek Preserve
Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary
Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park
Flint Pen Strand
Lake Trafford Impoundment
Milano
Pepper Ranch Preserve
Railhead Scrub Preserve
Sam Galloway Tract at Imperial Marsh
Preserve
Starnes
Vanderbilt Beach County Park
Wet Woods Preserve
Total
Acreage
198.6
9.0
3.8
16,718.4
11,678.6
170.5
53.2
634.6
18.7
2,460.3
87.6
335.2
381.9
5.0
25.6
32,780.9
Naples Bay
Conservation Lands Name
Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed
Freedom Park
Freitas Property
Gordon River Greenway Park
Gordon River Greenway Preserve
Logan Woods Preserve
Nancy Payton Preserve
Oetting Property
Red Maple Swamp Preserve
Rivers Road Project
Riverside Circle Wetland Area
Total
Acreage
471.9
12.5
2.3
83.9
41.6
6.8
70.0
2.3
173.9
62.2
5.3
932.7
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 155 of 251 Rookery Bay
Conservation Lands Name
Collier-Seminole State Park
Malt
McIlvane Marsh
Otter Mound Preserve
Picayune Strand State Forest
Rookery Bay Aquatic Preserve
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Tigertail Beach County Park
Total
Acreage
2,130.2
82.7
342.9
2.5
19,481.9
1,595.9
40,428.7
1,493.3
19.6
65,577.7
Ten Thousand Islands
Conservation Lands Name
Big Cypress National Preserve
BR Bar Ranch Conservation Easement
Camp Keais Strand
Camp Keais Strand (SFWMD)
Cape Romano Aquatic Preserve
Collier-Seminole State Park
Deer Fence Canal
Dinner Island Ranch Wildlife Management Area
Everglades and Francis S. Taylor Wildlife Management
Area
Everglades National Park
Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park
Florida Panther Conservation Bank Conservation
Easement
Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge
Holey Land Wildlife Management Area
Jentgen Parcel
Miccosukee Indian Water Conservation Area
Okaloacoochee Slough State Forest
Picayune Strand State Forest
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Reserve
Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area
Stormwater Treatment Areas
Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge
Winchester Head
Total
Acreage
728,978.5
562.3
33.0
77.3
330.2
5,140.6
516.9
21,706.0
3,097.9
53,896.3
71,538.6
1,933.0
26,873.3
9.9
96.9
1.5
26,388.0
53,748.4
8,619.7
4,101.2
29.4
29,740.9
57.9
1,037,477.7
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 156 of 251 APPENDIX E: WATER QUALITY: PARAMETERS ASSESSED FOR EACH
WATERSHED
The baseline the Conservancy utilizes to assess water quality indicators are the water quality
standards set by the state of Florida. To determine if a waterbody meets the water quality
standard for each of the indicators, FDEP’s Verified Lists and EPA’s 303(d) Lists were used,
pursuant to §303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Understanding Florida’s Verified List and EPA 303(d) List
Under §303(d) of the CWA, states are required to identify waterbodies that do not meet, or are
projected not meet, state water quality standards and report those waterbodies to the EPA. The
CWA requires EPA to review the lists submitted by the states and either approve or disapprove
the lists either wholly or in part. If EPA disapproves the list, then it is required to identify the
waterbodies that should be included on the states’ 303(d) lists, which EPA refers to as “waters
added by EPA.” Once a waterbody is added to the 303(d) list and approved by EPA, it may only
be delisted if EPA approves the delisting and it meets the state’s delisting requirements.
Florida initially submitted a 303(d) list in 1998, which was approved by EPA and became the
baseline for water quality tracking in the state. Subsequently, the state legislature enacted the
Total Maximum Daily Load statute in 2000, and FDEP promulgated the Impaired Waters Rule
(IWR) to implement that statute. Under the IWR, Florida creates two lists of waterbodies, the
Planning List and the Verified List. Only waterbodies on the Verified List are submitted to EPA
as not meeting state water quality standards. In recent years, however, FDEP has also created
a list of waterbodies impaired for a parameter where no causative pollutant can be found. The
IWR specifically states that in order for the state to list a waterbody as impaired, they must have
a pollutant causing that impairment. This is known as category 4d, and FDEP does submit all
category 4d waterbodies to the EPA to be included on the EPA approved 303(d) list. It is
assumed that EPA is responsible for any and all TMDLs associated with those category 4d
impaired waterbodies, because Florida only adopts TMDLs based on the state’s Verified List.
FDEP categories of waters are further explained below. To identify waterbodies that do not
meet state water quality standards chronologically, FDEP has divided the state into 5 basins:
Group 1 Basins, Group 2 Basins, Group 3 Basins, Group 4 Basins, and Group 5 Basins. Each
basin is reviewed on a 5 year rotating cycle, so that an updated 303(d) list is released every 5
years for each basin. The watersheds assessed in the Report Card are in basin groups 1
(Estero Bay, Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River, Naples Bay, Rookery Bay, and Ten Thousand
Islands), 2 (Pine Island Sound, Lemon Bay, and Charlotte Harbor Proper), and 3 (Coastal
Venice, Caloosahatchee, and the rest of Greater Charlotte Harbor).
The state Cycle 2 Verified Lists for Groups 1 and 2 basins were adopted by the state in May of
2009 and EPA approved in part and disapproved in part these lists in September 2009. The
state Cycle 2 Verified List for Group 3 was adopted by the state in January 2010 and EPA
approved in part and disapproved in part this list in May 2010.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 157 of 251 Limitations of the 303(d) Lists
FDEP has recently created new categories of waters in which to place waterbodies regarding
attainment of designated uses for a certain parameter. FDEP currently classifies waterbodies as
follows:
1—Attains all designated uses;
2—Attains some designated uses;
3a—No data and information are available to determine if any designated use is attained;
3b—Some data and information are available, but they are insufficient for determining if any
designated use is attained;
3c—Meets Planning List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;
3d—Meets Verified List criteria and is potentially impaired for one or more designated uses;
4a—Impaired for one or more designated uses and the TMDL is complete;
4b—Impaired for one or more designated uses, but no TMDL is required because an existing or
proposed pollutant control mechanism provides reasonable assurance that the water will attain
standards in the future;
4c—Impaired for one or more designated uses but no TMDL is required because the
impairment is not caused by a pollutant;
4d—No causative pollutant has been identified;
4e—Impaired, but recently completed or ongoing restoration activities should restore the
designated uses of the waterbody; and
5—Water quality standards are not attained and a TMDL is required.
It is FDEP’s use of these categories that has created discrepancies between the state adopted
Verified List and the EPA approved 303(d) List. EPA allows categories 4a, 4b, and 4c to be
excluded from the 303(d) List, whereas they have determined that category 4d and 4e still
require a TMDL.
The Conservancy has concerns with the utilization of categories 4a, 4b, and 4c for the following
reasons:
•
•
•
4a: TMDLs in the state of Florida are not representative of the sum of the individual
waste load allocations (WLAs) for point and load allocations (Las) for nonpoint sources.
Instead they represent a percent pollution reduction for the area in question. It is not until
the Basin Management Action Plan that individual waste load allocations are given to
polluting entities. Therefore, TMDLs in Florida (i.e., those placed in category 4a) should
remain on the 303(d) list until a load allocation is established
4b: Contrary to federal regulations and EPA guidance, sections 62-303.600 and 62303.100(5), F.A.C. do not provide the “technology-based effluent limitations” or “other
pollution control programs” that would warrant excluding a waterbody from the 303(d)
List. 4b (those waterbodies with a Reasonable Assurance Document) do not coincide
with federal regulations and should remain on the 303(d) list until these are met.
4c: Category 4c waterbodies should remain on the 303(d) List because their current
water quality condition is not meeting state water quality standards. If there is any
indication that anthropogenic pollution is or could be present, that waterbody must be
listed. EPA guidance shows that unless all of the pollutant load can be attributable to
natural factors and there are no anthropogenic sources of that pollution, then the
waterbody must remain on the 303(d) list and receive a TMDL.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 158 of 251 The Data for the Water Quality Parameters
Following is the water quality data for each of the estuaries. The data for each estuary is divided
into marine and fresh waters. To determine the number of water quality parameters that are
considered impaired for a particular waterbody, the number of parameters listed on the Verified
List and the number of parameters listed on the EPA approved 303(d) List were counted.
Remember, these parameters fall into 6 different categories of impairments in order not to
“double-count” pollutants that are related to one another and thereby inflate the water quality
grade given. For example, where a waterbody is impaired for DO and BOD, it will only be
counted as being impaired for one category.
Coastal Venice
Marine Waterbodies in Coastal Venice
WBID
Waterbody
Segment
1924A
Cow Pen Slough
(Tidal)
2002
Dona Bay
FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
EPA Decision
Document. May
12, 2010
Number of Types of
Parameters of
Concern
Mercury
Mercury
1
Mercury
DO
Mercury
1
2009A
Curry Creek
DO
Mercury
2015
Hatchett Creek
(Tidal)
Mercury
Mercury
1
Direct Runoff to Bay
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
1
1
2017
2018
Roberts Bay Venice
2
Fresh Waterbodies in Coastal Venice
WBID
1924
1924B
1987
1994
1996
2009
2015A
2016
Waterbody
Segment
Cow Pen Slough
FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
Nutrients
DO
EPA Decision
Document. May
12, 2010
Nutrients
DO
Direct Runoff to Bay
Unnamed Drain
Salt Creek
Fox Creek
Curry Creek
Hatchett Creek
Blackburn Canal
Number of Types
of Parameters of
Concern
2
0
0
0
0
DO4d
1
0
0
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 159 of 251 Lemon Bay
Marine Waterbodies in Lemon Bay
WBID
Waterbody
Segment
FDEP Verified List.
May 14, 2009
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Bacteria
Nutrients
Mercury
Bacteria
1983A
Lemon Bay
1983A1
North Lemon Bay
1983B
Lemon Bay
Mercury
Direct Runoff to Bay
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Copper
Mercury
Nutrients
DO
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Nutrients
DO
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Mercury
Nutrients
Fecal Coliform
DO
Copper
Mercury
Nutrients
DO
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Nutrients
DO
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Mercury
2021
Mercury
Nutrients
2030
Alligator Creek
(Tidal Segment)
2039
Forked Creek
2042
Direct Runoff to
Bay
2049
Gottfried Creek
2051
Englewood Coastal
Drainage
Mercury
2052
Rock Creek
Mercury
2067
Oyster Creek
Mercury
Nutrients
Mercury
2068
2072
2075A
2075B
2075C
2075D
2076
2078A
2078B
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Buck Creek
Direct Runoff to Bay
Manasota Key
Barrier Island
Barrier Island
Barrier Island
Lemon Creek
Coral Creek
Coral Creek (East
Branch)
Nutrients
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
DO
Mercury
Mercury
DO
Mercury
DO
Mercury
Nutrients
DO
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
DO
Mercury
Nutrients
Number of Types
of Parameters of
Concern
2
1
2
1
4
2
3
4
1
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 160 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Lemon Bay
WBID
Waterbody
Segment
2030A
2050
2057
Alligator Creek
Unnamed Ditch
Unnamed Ditch
FDEP Verified
List.
May 14, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Nutrients
Nutrients
Number of
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
1
0
0
Greater Charlotte Harbor
Charlotte Harbor Proper
Marine Waterbodies in Charlotte Harbor Proper
WBID
Waterbody
Segment
2063
Alligator Creek
(North Fork)
2065A
Charlotte Harbor
(Upper Segment)
2065B
Charlotte Harbor
(Mid Segment1)
2065C
Charlotte Harbor
(Mid Segment2)
2065D
Charlotte Harbor
(Lower Segment1)
2066
2073
Direct Runoff to Bay
2074B
Alligator Creek
Tidal
2079
2080
Whidden Creek
Catfish Creek
Bayou
2087
2089
Direct Runoff to Bay
2090
2092A
2092B
Mangrove Point
Canal
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Number of Types
of Parameters of
Concern
DO
1
Nutrients
Nutrients
Mercury
Iron
Mercury
2
1
Bacteria
Mercury
Mercury
2
1
0
Mercury
Mercury
1
0
0
Mercury
Mercury
Direct Runoff to Bay
Direct Runoff to Bay
Mercury
Mercury
Gasparilla Island
Mercury
Mercury
Boggess Hole
Outflow
0
1
0
1
0
1
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 161 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Charlotte Harbor Proper
WBID
Waterbody
Segment
2071
No. Prong
Alligator Cr
2074
Alligator Creek
2074A
2077
Alligator Lake
2081
2082A
2082B
2083
2084
2085
2086
2088
2091
2093
2093A
2094
3240T
Alligator Creek
Pirate Canal
Yucca Pen Creek
FDEP Verified
List (Cycle 2
Assessment)
May 18, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Fecal Coliform
Dissolved Solids
Number of
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
Fecal Coliform
DO
Dissolved Solids
DO4d
Direct Runoff to Bay
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Direct Runoff to Bay
Mound Creek
Direct Runoff to Bay
Winegourd Creek
Direct Runoff to Bay
Direct Runoff to Bay
Direct Runoff to Bay
Hog Branch
Bear Branch
Gilchrest Drain
Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
Marine Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment Jan
15, 2010
WBID
Waterbody
Segment
1991A
Myakka River
Bacteria
Mercury
1991B
Myakka River
Bacteria
Mercury
1991C
Myakka River
Mercury
2026
Little Salt Creek
Mercury
2048A
Sam Knight
Creek
DO
Mercury
Nutrients
EPA Decision
Document. May
12, 2010
Bacteria
Mercury
Nutrients
Bacteria
Mercury
Fecal Coliform
DO
Mercury
Nutrients
DO
Mercury
DO
Mercury
Nutrients
Number of Types
of Parameters of
Concern
3
2
3
2
3
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 162 of 251 Marine Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
Waterbody
Segment
2055
Tippecanoe Bay
2041A
Shell Creek
Below
Hendrickson
Dam
Rock Creek
Little Alligator
Creek
Mercury
2054
Myrtle Slough
2056A
Peace R Lower
Estuary
DO
Fecal Coliform
Iron
Mercury
Iron
Nutrients
2056B
Peace R Mid
Estuary
2056C
Peace R Upper
Estuary
2056D
Alligator Bay
2045
2046
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Mercury
Iron
Nutrients
Mercury
Mercury
Nutrients
EPA Decision
Document. May
12, 2010
Bacteria
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Nutrients
Mercury
DO
Mercury
DO
DO
Fecal Coliform
Iron
Mercury
Iron
Nutrients
Mercury
Iron
Nutrients
Mercury
Iron
Nutrients
Mercury
Mercury
Nutrients
Bacteria
2056DB
Port Charlotte
Beach East
2056DC
Port Charlotte
Beach West
2060
2061
Myakka Cutoff
Dir Runoff to
Stream
Mercury
Iron
Mercury
2064
Direct Runoff to
Bay
Mercury
Mercury
Iron
Mercury
Nutrients
DO
Mercury
2069
Punta Gorda
Isles CA
Mercury
Mercury
Nutrients
Nutrients
DO
Mercury
2070
FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment Jan
15, 2010
WBID
Punta Gorda Isles
2 CA
Number of Types
of Parameters of
Concern
3
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
Bacteria
Mercury
1
1
3
1
3
1
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 163 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
EPA Decision
Number of
WBID
Waterbody Segment FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
1867
Unnamed Creek
0
1869A
Wingate (Johnson)
Creek
0
1869B
Myakka River
(Upper)
Mercury
1869C
Myakka River
(Upper)
Mercury
1877A
Myakka River
(Upper)
Mercury
1877B
Myakka River (Upper)
Mercury
1877C
Myakka River North
Fork
Mercury
1882
Johnson Creek
1894
Young Creek
1902
Taylor Creek
1908
1917
1918
1919
1920
1922
Coker Creek
Long Creek
Unnamed Ditch
Sand Slough
Owen Branch
Boggy Creek
1927
Oglebay Creek
1933
Owen Creek
1935
Document.
May 12, 2010
Maple Creek
Mercury
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
DO4d
2
2
Mercury
DO4d
3
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
1
Mercury
DO4d
2
0
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
2
0
DO
DO
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
DO
DO
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
DO
4d
DO
4d
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1940
Howard Creek
1942
Tatum Sawgrass
Slough
0
1943
1946
1949
1952
Indian Creek
Unn Drain
Unnamed Creek
Sand Branch
0
0
0
0
1955
Wildcat Slough
1958
Mud Lake Slough
1960
Unn Ditch
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
1
1
2
0
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 164 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
EPA Decision
Number of
WBID
Waterbody Segment FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
1967
Bud Slough
1970
Sardis Branch
1972
Myakka River
1973
Mossy Island Slough
1976
Big Slough Canal
1978
Deer Prairie Creek
1981
1981A
Lower Lake Myakka
Fecal Coliform
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
2
0
Mercury
DO
Mercury
DO
2
0
4d
DO
1
0
Mercury
Mercury
Lower Lake Myakka Dr
Mercury
Mercury
Nutrients
DO
Mercury
Nutrients
1
0
1981B
Myakka River
1981C
Upper Lake Myakka
1981D
Upper Lake Myakka Dr
0
Fish Camp Drain
0
0
0
1988
1989
1990
Mercury
Nutrients
Unnamed Ditch System
Shiney Town Slough
Mercury
1991D
Myakka River
Nutrients
DO
Mercury
Nutrients
3
2
3
1998
1999
Unnamed Creek
Unn Drain
0
0
2000
Unnamed Canal
System
0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2019
2022
Document.
May 12, 2010
Unn Ditch
Unnamed Ditch
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Ditch System
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Ditch System
Unnamed Ditch System
Deer Prairie Slough
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Biology4d
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2023
Unnamed Canal
System
0
2024
Unnamed Ditch
0
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 165 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
EPA Decision
Number of
WBID
Waterbody Segment FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
2025
2026A
2027
2029
2031
2032
2034
2036
2037
2038
2043
2048B
2053
1488
14881
14882
1488A
1488B
1488C
1488C1
1488D
1488D1
1488D2
1488D3
1488E
1488F
1488G
1488H
1488I
1488P
1488Q
1488R
1488S
1488T
1488U
1488V
1488W
1488W1
Document.
May 12, 2010
Unnamed Canal
System
Warm Mineral Spring
Unnamed Canal
System
0
0
0
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Ditch System
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Apollo Waterway
Huckaby Creek
Trailer Park Canal
Lake Fannie Outlet
Swan Lake
Lake Fannie
Lake Smart
Lake Rochelle
Lake Haines
Gum Lake
Lake Alfred
Grass Lake
Lake Griffin
Lake Camp
Nutrients
DO
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
DO
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
C of Lake IDA in Winter
Center of Citrus Lake
Silver Lake in Polk Co
C of Gem Lake in Winte
Lake Smart Drain
Lake Martha
Lake Maude
Lake Idyl
Lake Buckeye
Lake Cummings
Lake Connie
Lake Swoope
Lake Lucerne
Terrie Pond
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 166 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
EPA Decision
Number of
WBID
Waterbody Segment FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
1488X
1488Y
1488Z
1492
14921
14922
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
1497
Saddle Creek
DO
1497A
1497B
1497C
1497D
1497D1
1497E
1500
15001
15002
15003
15004
15005
1501
Crystal Lake
Lake Parker
Lake Tenoroc
Lake Gibson
Lake Cargo
Lake Bonny
Nutrients
Nutrients
DO
Fecal Coliform
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Channelized Stream
Little Lake Hamilton
Middle Lake Hamilton
Nutrients
Nutrients
Lake Confusion
Lake Hester
Lake Brown
Lake Lena
Nutrients
Nutrients
1501A
Lake Lena Run
Fecal Coliform
1501B
1501B1
1501C
1501D
1501E
1501F
1501V
1501W
1501X
1501Z
Lake Arianna North
1504
15041
1504A
1510
15101
15102
Lake George
Lake Pansy
Lake Echo
Lake Tracy Outlet
Lake Tracy
Lake Joe
Document.
May 12, 2010
Nutrients
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Lake Arianna South
Lake Aretta
Dinner Lake
Lake Arianna S Drain
Lake Arianna N Drain
Spirit Lake
Sears Lake
Lake Thomas
Lake Whistler
3
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Lake Hamilton Outlet
Lake Hamilton
Lake Henry
Lake Eva Outlet
Lake Eva
Lake Butler
0
1
1
0
1
0
Mercury
Mercury
Nutrients
Nutrients
1
0
0
1
0
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 167 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
EPA Decision
Number of
WBID
Waterbody Segment FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
1521
1521A
1521A1
1521B
Lake Lulu
Lake Winterset
River Lake
Lake Eloise
1521C
Lake Lulu Run
1521C1
1521D
1521E
1521F
1521G
1521G1
1521H
1521I
1521J
1521K
1521L
1521M
1521N
1521O
1521P
1521Q
1521R
1539
Lake Lulu Outlet
Lake Shipp
Lake May
Lake Howard
Lake Mirror
Spring Lake
Lake Cannon
Lake Hartridge
Lake Idylwild
Lake Jessie
Lake Marianna
Lake Summitt
Ina Lake
Lake Roy
Deer Lake
Lake Blue
Lake Blue Drain
Peace Creek Dr
Canal
Document.
May 12, 2010
Nutrients
DO
Fecal Coliform
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
BOD
DO
Mercury
DO
Mercury
Nutrients
DO
Fecal Coliform
Nutrients
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
1539A
Lake Star – Open Water
0
1539B
1539C
1539D
1539E
1539F
1539 P
1539Q
1539R
1539S
1539X
1539Y
Mountain Lake
Lake Annie
Lake Otis
C of Lake Florence
Lake Lee
Lake Dexter
Lake Ned
Lake Daisy
Lake Ring
Lake Miriam
Link Lake
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
Nutrients
Nutrients
Mercury
Nutrients
Mercury
Nutrients
Nutrients
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 168 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
EPA Decision
Number of
WBID
Waterbody Segment FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
1539Y1
1539Z
1545
1548
1548A
Link Lake Outlet
Lake Menzie
Unnamed Drain
Lake Elbert
Lake Elbert Outlet
Document.
May 12, 2010
Nutrients
1549B
Banana Lake
1549B1
Lake Stahl
1549C
1549X
Lake Bentley
Hollingsworth Lake
1580
1582A
1582B
1586
1588
1588A
1589
1589A
1590
1590A
1590B
1590C
1590D
1590E
1590Z
1598
1602
1608
1611
1613
1613A
Banana Lake Canal
Wahneta Farms
Drain Ca
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Lake Mcleod Outlet
Lake Mcleod
Lake Mable
Lake Mable Outlet
Lake Myrtle Outlet
Lake Ruby-Bess
Lake Myrtle
Rattlesnake Lake
Lake Hart
Reeves Lake
Nutrients
Nutrients
DO
1549A
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
Nutrients
DO
Nutrients
Nutrients
DO
Nutrients
3
Biology4d
Nutrients
DO
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
DO4d
Nutrients
Nutrients
DO
DO
Lake Ruby-Bess Outlet
Gaskin Branch
Unnamed Ditches
Unnamed Slough
Mine Area
Peace Cr Trib Canal
Lake Blue South
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1613B
Lake Gordon – Open
Water
0
1613C
Lake Gordon (SW) OPE
0
1613D
Lake Parker – Open
Water
0
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 169 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
EPA Decision
Number of
WBID
Waterbody Segment FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
1613E
1616
1617
1617A
1622
1622A
1622B
1622C
1623B
Peace R AB Horse CK
1623C
Peace R AB Joshua
CK
1623G
1623H
DO
DO
Mercury
Mercury
Nutrients
Nutrients
Mercury
Mercury
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Mercury
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Nutrients
Mercury
Lake Garfield Outlet
Peace R AB Thorton
BR
1623F
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
Lake Garfield Outlet
1623A
1623D
1623E
Peace R AB Charlie CK
Peace R AB Oak CK
Peace R AB
Troublesome
Peace R AB LTL
Charlie
Peace R AB Payne CK
Nutrients
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
2
Mercury
Mercury
1
Mercury
Mercury
1
1
1623I
Peace R AB Whidden
CK
Mercury
Mercury
1623J
Peace R AB Bowlegs
CK
DO
Mercury
1623K
Saddle CK AB L
Hancock
1623L
Lake Hancock
DO
Mercury
Fecal Coliform
DO
Nutrients
DO
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
Fecal Coliform
2
3
2
1623M
1623M1
1623M2
1623N
Eagle Lake
Grassy Lake
Millsite Lake
Eagle Lake Outlet
1623S
Lake Hancock Outlet
0
1623X
Reclaimed Mine Cut
Lake
0
1626
1629
1629A
Lake Belle
Mined Area
Lake Effie Outlet
Lake Effie
Lake Garfield
Boggy Branch
Document.
May 12, 2010
West Wales Drainage
CA
Brush Lake Outlet
Brush Lake
Nutrients
DO
Fecal Coliform
DO
Fecal Coliform
1
1
0
0
2
0
0
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 170 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
EPA Decision
Number of
WBID
Waterbody Segment FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
1631
1634
1638
1644A
1644B
1646
1647
1647A
1647B
1672
1677A
1677B
1677C
1677C1
1679
1699
1718
1720
1722
1727
1728
1734
1735
1737
1738
1740
1741
1744
1745
1746
1748
1750
1751
1752
1757A
1757B
1759
1763A
Document.
May 12, 2010
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
Bear Branch
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mule Island Ditches
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Surveyors Lake
Gadua Lake – Open
Water
0
Surveyors Lake Drain
Mined Area
Bowlegs Creek
DO
DO
Bowlegs CK AB
Boggy CA
Lake Buffum
Lake Lizzie
Sink Branch
McCullough Creek
Mined Area
Mined Area
Boggy Branch
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Unnamed Drain
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mill Creek
Payne Creek
Whidden Creek
Mined Area
Payne Creek
Payne Creek
Unnamed Run
Charlie CK AB Peace R
0
0
1
0
Mercury
Mercury
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 171 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
EPA Decision
Number of
WBID
Waterbody Segment FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
1763B
1763C
1763D
1764
1765
1766
1767
1769
1772
1773
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Charlie CK AB Oak CK
Charlie Creek
Charlie CK AB Old Town
Unnamed Run
Mined Area
Mined Area
Unnamed Run
Payne Creek
Unnamed Run
Sandy Gully
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
DO
1774
Little Charlie Creek
1775
1776
Unnamed Run
Old Town Creek
0
0
Chilton Lake – Open
Water
0
Parker Branch
Gilshey Branch
Mined Area
0
0
0
1776A
1777
1781
1786
1787A
Horse CK AB Peace
R
1787B
Horse CK AB Bushy CK
1791
DO4d
BOD4d
Hickey Branch
1795
1796
1799
1801
1802
1805
1808
1814
1815
1817
1818
1820
1821
1822
Bowling Green Run
2
1
0
Mined Area
1794
1824
Document.
May 12, 2010
0
4d
Biology
1
Unnamed Run
Unnamed Ditches
Hog Branch
Unnamed Ditch
Coons Bay Branch
Plunder Branch
Doe Branch
Shirttail Branch
Lake Dale Branch
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mitchell Hammock Drain
0
Payne Creek
Unnamed Run
Mined Area
Gum Swamp Branch
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 172 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
EPA Decision
Number of
WBID
Waterbody Segment FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
1826
1827
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1844
1845
1851
18511
1852
1854
Brushy Creek
Bee Branch
Max Branch
1857
1857A
1863
1866
1870
Little Charlie Bowlegs
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
West Fork Horse Creek
Buckhorn Creek
Lettis Creek
Troublesome Creek
Thomson Branch
Hickory Branch
Hog Lake Outlet
Hog Lake
Unnamed Branch
Unnamed Branch
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
Lake Schumacher - Open
Hickory Creek
Hickory Creek
Fivemile Gully
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1871
Alligator Branch
1873
1878
1879
1884
1886
1897
1904
1905
1907
1915
Oak Creek
Mineral Branch
Jackson Branch
Unnamed Stream
Oak Creek
Elder Creek
Unnamed Run
Punch Gully
Cypress Creek
1921
Limestone Creek
1928
1934
1939
Fish Branch
Osborn Branch
Brandy Branch
0
0
0
1939A
C Will Outfall at Conv
0
1944
1945
1948
Buzzard Roost Branch
0
0
0
1950A
Document.
May 12, 2010
Fecal Coliform
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indian Mound Drain
DO4d
Sand Gully
Bear Branch
Joshua CK AB
Peace R
2
DO4d
1
1
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 173 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
EPA Decision
Number of
WBID
Waterbody Segment FDEP Verified
List Cycle 2
Assessment
Jan 15, 2010
1950B
1956
1957
1959
1962
1963
1965
1969
1974
1977
1980
1986
Mare Branch
Oak Hill Branch
Unnamed Branch
Honey Run
MC Bride Slough
Unnamed Slough
1995
Myrtle Slough
1997
Hawthorne Creek
2001
2003
2008
2020
2028
2033
2033Z
2035
Hog Bay
Unnamed Ditches
Thornton Branch
Gannet Slough
Unnamed Ditches
Unnamed Drain
Lake Suzy
Lee Branch
2041B
2044
2047
2048C
2056E
2058
Hampton Branch
Unnamed Stream
Walker Branch
Prairie Creek
Lake Slough
Cow Slough
2041
Types of
Parameters of
Concern
Joshua Cr. AB Honey Cr
1964
2040
Document.
May 12, 2010
DO
Biology4d
DO4d
DO
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
DO
2062
NO. Fork Alligator CR
DO
2
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
1
DO
4d
1
DO
4d
1
DO
Fecal Coliform
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
DO4d
Shell Creek Reservoir
(Hamilton Reservoir)
Cleveland Cemetery
Ditch
DO
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
Shell Creek
2059
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Myrtle Slough
Cypress Slough
Manchester Way
(Unnamed Canal)
Flopbuck Creek
Runoff
Unnamed Ditch
DO
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Nutrients
Nutrients
1
Nutrients
Nutrients
Nutrients
1
1
0
DO
DO
Fecal Coliform
2
0
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 174 of 251 Pine Island Sound
Marine Waterbodies in Pine Island Sound
WBID
Waterbody
Segment
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
2065E
Pine Island Sound
(Upper Segment)
Mercury
2065F
Matlacha Pass
Mercury
2065G
Pine Island Sound
(Lower Segment)
Mercury
Mercury
Bacteria
Mercury
Bacteria
Mercury
2065H
2065HA
San Carlos Bay
Sanibel
Causeway
Mercury
Mercury
2082C1
West Urban Cape
Coral
2092C
Number of Types of
Parameters of
Concern
2
2
1
1
0
Nutrients
Nutrients
North Captiva
Island
Mercury
Mercury
2092D
Captiva Island
Mercury
Mercury
DO4d
2
2092E
Pine Island
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Bacteria
2
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
2092G
3240O
Sanibel Bayous
Punta Rosa Cove
3240S
South Urban
Cape Coral
8059B
Lighthouse Beach
1
1
0
1
1
0
Fresh Waterbodies in Pine Island Sound
WBID
Waterbody
Segment
2082C
Gator Slough
Canal
2092F
Sanibel River
Basin
2092H
3240A3
Sanibel Dune Lakes
Horseshoe
Hermosa Canals
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
DO
Nutrients
DO
Nutrients
DO
Nutrients
DO
Nutrients
DO
DO
Number of Types
of Parameters of
Concern
2
2
0
1
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 175 of 251 Caloosahatchee River
Marine Waterbodies in the Caloosahatchee River
WBID
Waterbody Segment
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
3240A
Caloosahatchee Estuary
Tidal Segment1
Mercury
Mercury
3240A1
Cape Coral Tidal
Segment
Mercury
Mercury
DO
Mercury
Nutrients
DO
Mercury
Nutrients
3240A4
Deep Lagoon Canal
3240AB
Cape Coral Yacht Club
Mercury
Mercury
3240B
Caloosahatchee
Estuary Tidal
Segment2
3240B2
Chapel Creek/ Bayshore
Creek Marine Segments
Mercury
DO
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
Yellow Fever Creek
Mercury
3240 E1
Hancock Creek
Mercury
3240I
Manuel Branch
3240J
Billy Creek
1
1
3
0
Mercury
3240E
Number of Types
of Parameters of
Concern
Mercury
DO
Mercury
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
DO
Fecal Coliform
Nutrients
Mercury
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
DO
Mercury
Fecal Coliform
3
1
3
4
3
3
Fresh Waterbodies in the Caloosahatchee River
WBID
Waterbody Segment
3235A
Caloosahatchee River
Above S-79
3235B
Caloosahatchee River
Between S-79
and S-78
3235C
Cypress Creek
3235D
Jacks Branch
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
DO4d
Nutrients
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Nutrients
DO4d,
Biology4d
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
DO4d,
Nutrients
Number of Types
of Parameters of
Concern
1
3
2
3
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 176 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in the Caloosahatchee River
WBID
Waterbody Segment
3235E
Bee Branch
3235F
Pollywog Creek
3235G
Cypress Branch
3235H
3235I
3235J
Hickey Creek
Bedman Creek
Dog Canal
3235K
Fort Simmon's Branch
3235L
Townsend Canal
3235M
Goodno Canal
3235N
Roberts Canal
3235O
Okaloacoochee Branch
3236
3236A
Telegraph Creek
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
DO
Lead
DO4d
DO4d
DO4d
DO4d
Biology4d
DO
Nutrients
Biology4d
DO4d
Biology4d
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
DO
Lead
DO
Nutrients
DO
4d
Telegraph Swamp
3237A
Caloosahatchee River
Above S-78
3237B
Long Hammock Creek
3237C
3237D
3237E
3240A2
Lake Hicpochee
Ninemile Canal
C-19 Canal
Cape Coral
3240B1
Chapel Creek/
Bayshore Creek
3240C
Caloosahatchee Estuary
Tidal Segment3
3240C1
Palm Creek
3240F
Daughtrey Creek
3240G
Trout Creek
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Number of Types
of Parameters of
Concern
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
0
1
DO4d
Nutrients
Iron
BOD4d
DO4d
Nutrients
BOD4d
Biology4d
DO
DO
DO
Nutrients
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
DO
DO
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
DO
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 177 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in the Caloosahatchee River
WBID
Waterbody Segment
3240H
Whiskey Creek
(Wyoua Creek)
3240K
Orange River
3240L
Powell Creek
3240M
Stroud Creek
3240N
Owl Creek
3240Q
Popash Creek
3246
S-4 Basin
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Fecal Coliform
Nutrients
DO4d
DO4d
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
Nutrients
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
Nutrients
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
DO4d
Fecal Coliform
Nutrients
Nutrients
DO
Number of Types
of Parameters of
Concern
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
Estero Bay
Marine Waterbodies in Estero Bay
WBID
3258A
Estero Bay Wetlands
3258B1
Hendry Creek Marine
Segment
3258C1
Estero Bay Drainage
Marine Segment
3258D1
Estero River Marine
Segment
3258 E1
Imperial River Marine
Segment
3258H1
Spring Creek Marine
Segment
3258I
3258J
8060A
Waterbody Segment
Estero Bay
Hell Peckney Bay
Bowditch Park
FDEP
Verified List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Mercury
Mercury
DO
Fecal Coliform
DO
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
DO
Iron
Mercury
DO
Mercury
DO
Fecal Coliform
Nutrients
Mercury
DO
Iron
DO
DO
Fecal Coliform
Nutrients
Mercury
Number of Types
of Parameters of
Concern
1
3
2
2
4
Mercury
1
Mercury
Mercury
1
1
0
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 178 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Estero Bay
WBID
Waterbody Segment
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
3258B
3258C
Hendry Creek
Estero Bay Drainage
3258D
Estero River
3258E
Imperial River
DO
DO
Fecal Coliform
DO
Fecal Coliform
DO
Fecal Coliform
3258F
3258G
3258H
Oak Creek
Tenmile Canal
Spring Creek
3258X
The Lakes Park
DO
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Number of Types of
Parameters of
Concern
DO
DO
Fecal Coliform
DO
Fecal Coliform
DO
Fecal Coliform
Mercury
DO
1
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River
Marine Waterbodies in the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River
WBID
Waterbody Segment
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
3259A
Cocohatchee River
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Iron
Iron
Mercury
Number of Types of
Parameters of
Concern
2
Fresh Waterbodies in the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River
WBID
Waterbody Segment
3259B
3259W
Drainage to Corkscrew
Lake Trafford
3259Z
Little Hickory Bay
3278C
Cocohatchee Golf Course
Discharge
3278D
Cocohatchee Inland
Segment
3278E
3278F
Cow Slough
Corkscrew Marsh
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Number of Types of
Parameters of
Concern
0
Nutrients
Nutrients
Un-Ionized
Ammonia
Un-Ionized
Ammonia
DO
Mercury
DO
Mercury
DO
DO
DO
DO4d
DO
2
1
0
1
1
1
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 179 of 251 Naples Bay
Marine Waterbodies in Naples Bay
WBID
Waterbody Segment
3278R
Naples Bay Coastal
Segment
3278Q
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Copper
DO
Copper
DO
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Iron
Iron
Mercury
Mercury
Naples
Number of Types of
Parameters of Concern
3
1
Fresh Waterbodies in Naples Bay
WBID
Waterbody Segment
3278K
3278S
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
Gordon River Extension
North Golden Gate
DO
DO
Iron
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Number of Types of
Parameters of Concern
DO
DO
Iron
1
2
Rookery Bay
Marine Waterbodies in Rookery Bay
WBID
Waterbody Segment
3278O
3278P
Marco Island
Marco Island South
Segment
3278U
Rookery Bay Coastal
Segment
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Number of Types of
Parameters of Concern
0
0
DO
DO
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Nutrients
Nutrients
Mercury
4
Fresh Waterbodies in Rookery Bay
WBID
Waterbody Segment
3278V
Rookery Bay Inland East
Segment
Rookery Bay Inland West
Segment
3278Y
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Number of Types of
Parameters of Concern
DO4d
1
DO4d
1
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 180 of 251 Ten Thousand Islands
Marine Waterbodies in the Ten Thousand Islands
WBID
Waterbody
Segment
3259M
Ten Thousand
Islands
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Number of Types of
Parameters of
Concern
DO4d
Mercury
2
Fresh Waterbodies in the Ten Thousand Islands
WBID
Waterbody
Segment
3255
C-139
3259I
Camp Keais
3261B
Tamiami Canal
3261C
Barron River Canal
3266A
L-28 Interceptor
Upper Segment
3267
Feeder Canal
3269A
L-28 Gap Upper Segment
3278G
Fakahatchee Strand
3278H
FDEP Verified
List.
May 19, 2009
EPA Decision
Document.
Sept 2, 2009
Number of Types of
Parameters of
Concern
DO4d
Mercury
DO4d
DO4c
Mercury
Iron
Mercury
Iron
Mercury
DO4d
Mercury
DO4d
1
2
1
1
2
1
0
DO
Fecal Coliform
DO
Fecal Coliform
2
Faka Union North
Segment
DO4d
1
3278I
Faka Union South
Segment
DO4d
3278L
Immokalee Basin
DO
Mercury
DO
DO4d
2
1
3278M
L-28 Tieback
3278T
Okaloacoochee
Slough
DO
DO
1
3278W
Silver Strand
DO
DO
1
Mercury
2
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 181 of 251 APPENDIX F : WATER QUALITY- CALCULATION OF PERCENTAGE OF
IMPAIRMENT FOR EACH WATERSHED
Coastal Venice
Marine Waterbodies in Coastal Venice
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
WBID
Water Segment
Name
Total
Acreage
1924A
Cow Pen Slough (Tidal)
2002
2009A
2015
Dona Bay
Curry Creek
2017
2018
Direct Runoff to Bay
Roberts Bay Venice
181
3,004
1,131
579
57
5
5
6
5
5
1
1
2
1
1
181
3,004
1,131
579
57
181
3,004
2,262
579
57
3,209
5
1
3,209
3,209
31
7
8,161
9,292
Hatchett Creek (Tidal)
Totals
8,161
Fresh Waterbodies in Coastal Venice
WBID
Water Segment
Name
1924
Cow Pen Slough
1924B
1987
1994
1996
2009
2015A
2016
Direct Runoff to Bay
Unnamed Drain
Salt Creek
Fox Creek
Curry Creek
Hatchett Creek
Blackburn Canal
Totals
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
33,566
6
2
33,566
67,132
1,640
3,675
4,074
3,475
3,632
3,382
1,356
1
0
0
5
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,632
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,632
0
0
54,800
23
3
37,198
70,764
Spatial Impairment for Coastal Venice
Total
Acreage
8,161
Acreage of
Impairment
8,161
Fresh Water Bodies in the
Coastal Venice Watershed
54,800
Totals
62,961
Marine Water Bodies in the
Coastal Venice Watershed
Percent of Watershed
Unimpaired
Spatial Impairment
GPA Rank
0%
0.33
37,198
32%
1.33
45,359
28%
1.00
Severity of Impairment for Coastal Venice
Marine Water Bodies in the
Coastal Venice Watershed
Fresh Water Bodies in the
Coastal Venice Watershed
Totals
Severity Acreage
of Impairment
Degree of
Unimpairment
Score
Severity of
Impairment
GPA Rank
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
8,161
8,161
9,292
79%
3.33
54,800
37,198
70,764
78%
3.33
62,961
45,359
80,056
79%
3.33
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 182 of 251 Lemon Bay
Marine Waterbodies in Lemon Bay
WBID
1983A
1983A1
1983B
2021
2030
2039
2042
2049
2051
2052
2067
2068
2072
2075A
2075B
2075C
2075D
2076
2078A
2078B
Water Segment
Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
2,403
456
5,063
876
1,357
5
3
5
1
6
2
1
2
1
4
2,403
456
5,063
876
1,357
4,806
456
10,126
876
5,428
7,371
1,681
7,229
1,240
6
6
6
4
2
3
4
1
7,371
1,681
7,229
1,240
14,742
5,043
28,916
1,240
4,877
3,220
1,108
511
210
1,117
42
962
606
1,739
2,700
6
6
6
4
1
5
1
6
4
6
6
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4,877
3,220
1,108
511
210
1,117
42
962
606
1,739
2,700
9,754
6,440
3,324
511
210
1,117
42
962
606
1,739
8,100
44,768
93
37
44,768
104,438
Lemon Bay
North Lemon Bay
Lemon Bay
Direct Runoff to Bay
Alligator Creek
(Tidal Segment)
Forked Creek
Direct Runoff to Bay
Gottfried Creek
Englewood
Coastal Drainage
Rock Creek
Oyster Creek
Buck Creek
Direct Runoff to Bay
Manasota Key
Barrier Island
Barrier Island
Barrier Island
Lemon Creek
Coral Creek
Coral Creek
(East Branch)
Totals
Fresh Waterbodies in Lemon Bay
WBID
2030A
2050
2057
Water Segment Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
4,406
1,327
1,840
5
0
0
1
0
0
4,406
0
0
4,406
0
0
7,573
5
1
4,406
4,406
Alligator Creek
Unnamed Ditch
Unnamed Ditch
Totals
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
Spatial Impairment for Lemon Bay
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
Percent of
Watershed
Unimpaired
Spatial
Impairment
GPA Rank
Marine Water Bodies in the Lemon
Bay Watershed
Fresh Water Bodies in the Lemon
Bay Watershed
44,768
44,768
0%
0.33
7,573
4,406
42%
1.67
Totals
52,341
49,174
6%
0.33
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 183 of 251 Severity of Impairment for Lemon Bay
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity of
Impairment
Degree of
Unimpairment
Score
Severity of
Impairment
GPA Rank
Marine Water Bodies in
the Lemon Bay Watershed
Fresh Water Bodies in the
Lemon Bay Watershed
44,768
44,768
104,438
61%
2.67
7,573
4,406
4,406
90%
3.67
Totals
52,341
49,174
108,844
65%
2.67
Greater Charlotte Harbor
Marine Waterbodies in Charlotte Harbor Proper
WBID
2063
2065A
2065B
Water Segment
Name
Alligator Creek
(North Fork)
Charlotte Harbor
(Upper Segment)
Charlotte Harbor
(Mid Segment1)
2065C
Charlotte Harbor
(Mid Segment2)
2065D
Charlotte Harbor
(Lower Segment1)
Direct Runoff to Bay
2066
2073
2074B
2079
2080
2087
2089
2090
2092A
2092B
Mangrove Point Canal
Alligator Creek Tidal
Whidden Creek
Catfish Creek Bayou
Direct Runoff to Bay
Boggess Hole Outflow
Direct Runoff to Bay
Direct Runoff to Bay
Gasparilla Island
Totals
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
4,829
5
1
4,829
4,829
12,092
5
2
12,092
24,184
28,690
5
1
28,690
28,690
9,551
5
2
9,551
19,102
37,766
6
1
37,766
37,766
18,924
2,748
2,007
2,753
5,272
283
412
196
347
1,295
4
6
5
4
3
6
3
1
3
5
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
2,748
0
0
0
283
0
196
0
1,295
0
2,748
0
0
0
283
0
196
0
1,295
127,165
66
11
97,450
119,093
Fresh Waterbodies in Charlotte Harbor Proper
WBID
Water Segment
Name
2071
2074
2074A
2077
2081
2082A
2082B
No. Prong Alligator Cr
Alligator Creek
Alligator Lake
Direct Runoff to Bay
Alligator Creek
Pirate Canal
Yucca Pen Creek
Total
Acreag
e
5,816
5,811
6,223
2,155
4,124
5,884
2,274
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
6
6
5
0
6
6
3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
5,816
5,811
0
0
0
0
0
11,632
11,622
0
0
0
0
0
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 184 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Charlotte Harbor Proper
WBID
Water Segment
Name
2083
2084
2085
2086
2088
2091
2093
2093A
2094
3240T
Direct Runoff to Bay
Mound Creek
Direct Runoff to Bay
Winegourd Creek
Direct Runoff to Bay
Direct Runoff to Bay
Direct Runoff to Bay
Hog Branch
Bear Branch
Gilchrest Drain
Totals
Total
Acreag
e
549
1,400
206
1,658
1,163
1,858
273
2,401
1,711
19,007
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62,513
35
4
11,627
23,254
Marine Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
WBID
1991A
1991B
1991C
2026
2048A
2055
2041A
2045
2046
2054
2056A
2056B
2056C
Water Segment
Name
Myakka River
Myakka River
Myakka River
Little Salt Creek
Sam Knight Creek
Tippecanoe Bay
Shell Creek Below
Hendrickson Dam
Rock Creek
Little Alligator Creek
Myrtle Slough
Peace R Lower Estuary
Peace R Mid Estuary
Peace R Upper Estuary
2056D
2056DB
Alligator Bay
Port Charlotte Beach
East
2056DC
Port Charlotte Beach
West
Myakka Cutoff
2060
2061
2064
2069
2070
Totals
Dir Runoff to Stream
Direct Runoff to Bay
Punta Gorda Isles CA
Punta Gorda Isles 2 CA
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
11,227
6,487
3,532
1,530
3,706
2,116
6
6
6
6
6
5
3
2
3
2
3
3
11,227
6,487
3,532
1,530
3,706
2,116
33,681
12,974
10,596
3,060
11,118
6,348
7,490
5
1
7,490
14,980
1,207
5,057
22,520
5,863
3,582
5
5
6
6
6
1
2
3
2
2
1,207
5,057
22,520
5,863
3,582
1,207
10,114
67,560
11,726
7,164
7,309
6
2
7,309
14,618
464
6
2
464
928
25
2
1
25
25
35
2
1
0
0
5
6
1
6
5
1
3
1
3
1
2,376
1,373
453
729
691
2,376
4,119
453
2,187
691
43
87,772
215,960
Total
Acreage
2,376
1,373
453
729
691
87,772
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 185 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
WBID
1867
1869A
1869B
1869C
1877A
1877B
1877C
1882
1894
1902
1908
1917
1918
1919
1920
1922
1927
1933
1935
1940
1942
1943
1946
1949
1952
1955
1958
1960
1967
1970
1972
1973
1976
1978
1981
1981A
1981B
1981C
1981D
1988
1989
Water Segment Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
Unnamed Creek
3,783
5,244
1,884
5,005
14,525
1,554
134
2,750
3,662
1,716
4,293
4,306
5,498
1,205
5,364
1,218
9,424
12,294
2,851
9,218
9,702
4,754
1,657
4,670
2,874
7,669
11,408
1,484
4,154
2,540
389
11,370
34,275
20,962
590
1,473
8,784
962
5,512
2,394
19,534
0
5
6
6
6
6
6
4
6
0
6
6
0
0
0
2
6
6
6
6
0
5
0
3
0
6
6
0
5
0
6
0
6
6
6
2
6
6
5
0
0
0
0
2
2
3
1
2
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
1,884
5,005
14,525
1,554
134
0
3,662
0
4,293
4,306
0
0
0
0
9,424
12,294
2,851
9,218
0
0
0
0
0
7,669
11,408
0
4,154
0
389
0
34,275
0
590
0
8,784
962
0
0
0
0
0
3,768
10,010
43,575
1,554
268
0
7,324
0
4,293
4,306
0
0
0
0
18,848
12,294
2,851
9,218
0
0
0
0
0
7,669
22,816
0
8,308
0
778
0
34,275
0
590
0
26,352
1,924
0
0
0
Wingate (Johnson) Creek
Myakka River (Upper)
Myakka River (Upper)
Myakka River (Upper)
Myakka River (Upper)
Myakka River North Fork
Johnson Creek
Young Creek
Taylor Creek
Coker Creek
Long Creek
Unnamed Ditch
Sand Slough
Owen Branch
Boggy Creek
Oglebay Creek
Owen Creek
Maple Creek
Howard Creek
Tatum Sawgrass Slough
Indian Creek
Unn Drain
Unnamed Creek
Sand Branch
Wildcat Slough
Mud Lake Slough
Unn Ditch
Bud Slough
Sardis Branch
Myakka River
Mossy Island Slough
Big Slough Canal
Deer Prairie Creek
Lower Lake Myakka
Lower Lake Myakka Dr
Myakka River
Upper Lake Myakka
Upper Lake Myakka Dr
Fish Camp Drain
Unnamed Ditch System
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 186 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
WBID
1990
1991D
1998
1999
2000
2004
2005
2006
2007
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2019
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026A
2027
2029
2031
2032
2034
2036
2037
2038
2043
2048B
2053
1488
14881
14882
1488A
1488B
1488C
1488C1
1488D
1488D1
1488D2
Water Segment Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
Shiney Town Slough
Myakka River
Unnamed Creek
Unn Drain
6,792
15,317
3,661
3,704
10,014
1,339
3,318
2,498
2,636
21,399
1,165
484
858
3,283
267
1,784
2,348
981
2,393
106
2,589
622
3,051
1,260
2,690
288
209
1,292
2,900
427
585
9,146
12
837
274
580
724
161
640
9
14
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
6
5
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
5
6
5
3
2
5
5
5
6
0
6
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
15,317
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,399
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,900
427
585
0
0
0
274
580
724
0
640
0
0
0
45,951
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,399
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,900
854
585
0
0
0
274
580
724
0
640
0
0
Unnamed Canal System
Unn Ditch
Unnamed Ditch
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Ditch System
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Ditch System
Unnamed Ditch System
Deer Prairie Slough
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Canal System
Unnamed Ditch
Unnamed Canal System
Warm Mineral Spring
Unnamed Canal System
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Ditch System
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Creek
Unnamed Canal
Huckaby Creek
Trailer Park Canal
Lake Fannie Outlet
Swan Lake
Lake Fannie
Lake Smart
Lake Rochelle
Lake Haines
Gum Lake
Lake Alfred
Grass Lake
Lake Griffin
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 187 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
WBID
Water Segment Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
1488D3
1497E
1500
15001
15002
15003
15004
Lake Camp
C of Lake IDA in Winter
Center of Citrus Lake
Silver Lake in Polk Co
C of Gem Lake in Winte
Lake Smart Drain
Lake Martha
Lake Maude
Lake Idyl
Lake Buckeye
Lake Cummings
Lake Connie
Lake Swoope
Lake Lucerne
Terrie Pond
Lake George
Lake Pansy
Lake Echo
Lake Tracy Outlet
Lake Tracy
Lake Joe
Saddle Creek
Crystal Lake
Lake Parker
Lake Tenoroc
Lake Gibson
Lake Cargo
Lake Bonny
Channelized Stream
Little Lake Hamilton
Middle Lake Hamilton
Lake Confusion
Lake Hester
45
17
4
52
3
1,077
84
307
19
70
99
238
86
396
40
51
50
69
1,047
135
11
38,384
27
2,103
23
480
54
268
3,403
368
107
15
8
0
6
2
4
3
1
6
4
5
4
3
6
5
3
1
3
5
5
0
5
0
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
0
4
3
4
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
3
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
52
0
0
84
307
0
70
0
238
86
0
0
0
50
69
0
135
0
38,384
27
2,103
23
480
0
268
0
368
0
15
0
0
0
0
52
0
0
84
307
0
70
0
238
86
0
0
0
50
69
0
135
0
115,152
27
2,103
23
480
0
268
0
368
0
15
0
15005
1501
1501A
1501B
1501B1
1501C
1501D
1501E
Lake Brown
Lake Lena
Lake Lena Run
Lake Arianna North
Lake Arianna South
Lake Aretta
Dinner Lake
Lake Arianna S Drain
18
207
7,833
486
555
737
40
855
0
6
6
6
0
5
4
0
0
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
207
7,833
486
0
0
0
0
0
207
15,666
486
0
0
0
0
1488E
1488F
1488G
1488H
1488I
1488P
1488Q
1488R
1488S
1488T
1488U
1488V
1488W
1488W1
1488X
1488Y
1488Z
1492
14921
14922
1497
1497A
1497B
1497C
1497D
1497D1
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 188 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
WBID
Water Segment Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
1501F
1501V
1501W
1501X
1501Z
1504
15041
1504A
1510
15101
15102
1521
1521A
1521A1
1521B
1521C
1521H
1521I
1521J
1521K
1521L
1521M
1521N
1521O
1521P
1521Q
1521R
1539
1539A
1539B
Lake Arianna N Drain
Spirit Lake
Sears Lake
Lake Thomas
Lake Whistler
Lake Hamilton Outlet
Lake Hamilton
Lake Henry
Lake Eva Outlet
Lake Eva
Lake Butler
Lake Lulu
Lake Winterset
River Lake
Lake Eloise
Lake Lulu Run
Lake Lulu Outlet
Lake Shipp
Lake May
Lake Howard
Lake Mirror
Spring Lake
Lake Cannon
Lake Hartridge
Lake Idylwild
Lake Jessie
Lake Marianna
Lake Summitt
Ina Lake
Lake Roy
Deer Lake
Lake Blue
Lake Blue Drain
Peace Creek Dr Canal
Lake Star – Open Wate
Mountain Lake
2,283
208
79
54
77
5,748
2,186
858
821
171
16
303
509
50
1,161
713
9,076
281
43
623
124
24
334
437
97
190
497
62
8
66
116
53
262
33,802
146
128
0
4
4
4
2
5
5
5
0
4
0
5
5
4
5
5
0
6
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
0
6
5
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
79
0
0
0
2,186
0
0
171
0
0
0
0
1,161
713
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
497
0
0
0
116
53
0
33,802
0
0
0
0
79
0
0
0
2,186
0
0
171
0
0
0
0
1,161
2,139
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
497
0
0
0
116
53
0
101,406
0
0
1539C
1539D
1539E
1539F
1539 P
Lake Annie
Lake Otis
C of Lake Florence In
Lake Lee
Lake Dexter
437
144
65
44
148
5
4
4
2
5
1
0
0
0
1
437
0
0
0
148
437
0
0
0
148
1521C1
1521D
1521E
1521F
1521G
1521G1
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 189 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
WBID
1539Q
1539R
1539S
1539X
1539Y
1539Y1
1539Z
1545
1548
1548A
1549A
1549B
1549B1
1549C
1549X
1580
1582A
1582B
1586
1588
1588A
1589
1589A
1590
1590A
1590B
1590C
1590D
1590E
1590Z
1598
1602
1608
1611
1613
1613A
1613B
1613C
1613D
1613E
1616
Water Segment Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
Lake Ned
Lake Daisy
Lake Ring
Lake Miriam
Link Lake
Link Lake Outlet
Lake Menzie
Unnamed Drain
Lake Elbert
Lake Elbert Outlet
Banana Lake Canal
Banana Lake
Lake Stahl
Lake Bentley
Hollingsworth Lake
63
128
3
194
26
751
20
1,537
172
469
11,003
255
32
51
354
4,121
52
93
1,885
914
398
115
654
2,553
260
326
65
70
21
136
3,218
4,812
1,033
6,520
14,862
118
158
85
190
33
1,014
5
6
4
4
3
0
5
0
6
0
6
6
6
6
5
6
0
0
0
0
5
4
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
5
5
5
5
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
3
1
2
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
128
0
0
0
0
20
0
172
0
11,003
255
32
0
354
4,121
0
0
0
0
398
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,862
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
128
0
0
0
0
20
0
172
0
33,009
255
64
0
354
8,242
0
0
0
0
398
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,862
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wahneta Farms Drain Ca
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Lake Mcleod Outlet
Lake Mcleod
Lake Mable
Lake Mable Outlet
Lake Myrtle Outlet
Lake Ruby-Bess
Lake Myrtle
Rattlesnake Lake
Lake Hart
Reeves Lake
Lake Ruby-Bess Outlet
Gaskin Branch
Unnamed Ditches
Unnamed Slough
Mine Area
Peace Cr Trib Canal
Lake Blue South
Lake Gordon – Open Water
Lake Gordon (SW) - OPE
Lake Parker – Open Water
Lake Belle
Mined Area
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 190 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
WBID
1617
1617A
1622
1622A
1622B
1622C
1623A
1623B
1623C
1623D
1623E
1623F
1623G
1623H
1623I
1623J
1623K
1623L
1623M
1623M1
1623M2
1623N
1623S
1623X
1626
1629
1629A
1631
1634
1638
1644A
1644B
1646
1647
1647A
1647B
1672
1677A
1677B
1677C
1677C1
1679
Water Segment Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
Lake Effie Outlet
Lake Effie
Lake Garfield
Boggy Branch
Lake Garfield Outlet
Lake Garfield Outlet
1,504
102
525
303
40
10,266
7,314
15,782
24,588
7,304
4,320
12,729
3,163
6,549
847
25,052
4,182
4,529
647
57
136
4,514
7,084
168
1
6
5
4
0
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
3
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
102
0
0
0
0
7,314
15,782
24,588
7,304
4,320
12,729
3,163
6,549
847
25,052
4,182
4,529
647
57
0
0
0
0
0
102
0
0
0
0
14,628
15,782
49,176
7,304
4,320
25,458
3,163
6,549
847
50,104
12,546
9,058
647
57
0
0
0
0
4,557
1,177
33
3,030
2,637
1,097
803
778
14,159
291
27
9,535
12,258
12,383
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
5
5
0
0
6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4,557
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,383
9,114
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,383
19,492
1,434
95
8,515
0
5
2
4
0
1
0
0
0
1,434
0
0
0
1,434
0
0
Peace R AB Thorton BR
Peace R AB Horse CK
Peace R AB Joshua CK
Peace R AB Charlie CK
Peace R AB Oak CK
Peace R AB Troublesome
Peace R AB LTL Charlie
Peace R AB Payne CK
Peace R AB Whidden CK
Peace R AB Bowlegs CK
Saddle CK AB L Hancock
Lake Hancock
Eagle Lake
Grassy Lake
Millsite Lake
Eagle Lake Outlet
Lake Hancock Outlet
Reclaimed Mine Cut Lake
West Wales Drainage CA
Brush Lake Outlet
Brush Lake
Bear Branch
Mule Island Ditches
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Surveyors Lake
Gadua Lake – Open Water
Surveyors Lake Drain
Mined Area
Bowlegs Creek
Bowlegs CK AB Boggy CA
Lake Buffum
Lake Lizzie
Sink Branch
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 191 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
WBID
Water Segment Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
1699
1718
1720
1722
1727
1728
1734
1735
1737
1738
1740
1741
1744
1745
1746
1748
1750
1751
1752
1757A
1757B
1759
1763A
1763B
1763C
1763D
1764
1765
1766
1767
1769
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1776A
1777
1781
1786
1787A
1787B
McCullough Creek
Mined Area
Mined Area
Boggy Branch
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Unnamed Drain
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mined Area
Mill Creek
Payne Creek
Whidden Creek
Mined Area
Payne Creek
Payne Creek
Unnamed Run
Charlie CK AB Peace R
Charlie CK AB Oak CK
Charlie Creek
6,010
335
166
5,508
640
615
506
2,557
213
11,933
12,315
2,234
534
631
626
299
872
388
10,440
1,139
17,850
1,262
16,640
13,884
13,284
6,652
1,369
248
1,217
1,542
5,818
1,755
2,793
17,367
905
12,966
22
3,952
2,139
1,677
40,267
24,167
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
6
6
6
6
0
6
5
1
0
4
0
0
1
6
1
0
6
0
0
5
0
1
0
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16,640
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17,367
0
0
0
0
0
0
40,267
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16,640
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34,734
0
0
0
0
0
0
40,267
0
Charlie CK AB Old Town
Unnamed Run
Mined Area
Mined Area
Unnamed Run
Payne Creek
Unnamed Run
Sandy Gully
Little Charlie Creek
Unnamed Run
Old Town Creek
Chilton Lake – Open Water
Parker Branch
Gilshey Branch
Mined Area
Horse CK AB Peace R
Horse CK AB Bushy CK
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 192 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
WBID
1791
1794
1795
1796
1799
1801
1802
1805
1808
1814
1815
1817
1818
1820
1821
1822
1824
1826
1827
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1844
1845
1851
18511
1852
1854
1857
1857A
1863
1866
1870
1871
1873
1878
1879
1884
1886
Water Segment Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
Mined Area
Hickey Branch
Bowling Green Run
Payne Creek
Unnamed Run
Mined Area
Gum Swamp Branch
Unnamed Run
Unnamed Ditches
Hog Branch
Unnamed Ditch
Coons Bay Branch
Plunder Branch
Doe Branch
Shirttail Branch
Lake Dale Branch
1,117
2,867
906
1,636
897
1,076
6,614
2,190
3,564
4,561
6,822
1,251
3,282
5,709
2,407
6,113
1,498
18,544
8,722
3,336
8,435
11,774
3,946
10,027
4,156
2,122
3,171
30
6,711
3,044
41,951
11
1,675
4,610
3,271
13,028
14,376
2,886
1,399
2,176
4,027
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
4
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
5
0
3
0
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,156
0
0
0
0
0
41,951
0
0
0
0
13,028
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,156
0
0
0
0
0
41,951
0
0
0
0
26,056
0
0
0
0
0
Mitchell Hammock Drain
Brushy Creek
Bee Branch
Max Branch
West Fork Horse Creek
Buckhorn Creek
Lettis Creek
Troublesome Creek
Thomson Branch
Hickory Branch
Hog Lake Outlet
Hog Lake
Unnamed Branch
Unnamed Branch
Little Charlie Bowlegs
Lake Schumacher - Open
Hickory Creek
Hickory Creek
Fivemile Gully
Alligator Branch
Oak Creek
Mineral Branch
Jackson Branch
Unnamed Stream
Indian Mound Drain
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 193 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
WBID
Water Segment Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
1897
1904
1905
1907
1915
1921
1928
1934
1939
1939A
1944
1945
1948
1950A
1950B
1956
1957
1959
1962
1963
1964
1965
1969
1974
1977
1980
1986
1995
1997
2001
2003
2008
2020
2028
2033
2033Z
2035
2040
2041
2041B
Oak Creek
Elder Creek
Unnamed Run
Punch Gully
Cypress Creek
Limestone Creek
Fish Branch
Osborn Branch
Brandy Branch
C Will Outfall at Conv
Buzzard Roost Branch
Sand Gully
Bear Branch
Joshua CK AB Peace R
40,351
3,978
2,450
2,856
4,757
19,121
17,560
1,696
9,782
663
9,137
9,276
2,341
21,792
7,358
2,619
9,488
2,391
64,570
6,202
89,168
4,685
6,899
6,474
10,191
3,380
6,007
15,583
17,616
7,812
4,275
12,597
10,611
1,733
3,868
2
4,524
21,310
31,703
2,977
5
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
5
2
4
0
5
6
3
0
0
0
6
0
6
0
0
4
0
0
0
6
6
6
0
6
0
5
6
1
5
6
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
19,121
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,792
0
0
0
0
64,570
0
89,168
0
0
0
0
0
0
15,583
17,616
7,812
0
12,597
0
1,733
0
0
4,524
21,310
31,703
2,977
0
0
0
0
0
19,121
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,792
0
0
0
0
64,570
0
178,336
0
0
0
0
0
0
31,166
35,232
7,812
0
12,597
0
1,733
0
0
4,524
21,310
31,703
2,977
Joshua Cr. AB Honey Cr
Hampton Branch
Unnamed Stream
Walker Branch
Prairie Creek
Lake Slough
Cow Slough
Mare Branch
Oak Hill Branch
Unnamed Branch
Honey Run
MC Bride Slough
Unnamed Slough
Myrtle Slough
Hawthorne Creek
Hog Bay
Unnamed Ditches
Thornton Branch
Gannet Slough
Unnamed Ditches
Unnamed Drain
Lake Suzy
Lee Branch
Myrtle Slough
Shell Creek
Shell Creek Reservoir
(Hamilton Reservoir)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 194 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Greater Charlotte Harbor (Excluding Charlotte Harbor Proper)
WBID
2044
2047
2048C
2056E
2058
2059
2062
Total
Acreage
Water Segment Name
Cypress Slough
Manchester Way
(Unnamed Canal)
Flopbuck Creek
Runoff
Unnamed Ditch
Cleveland Cemetery Ditch
NO. Fork Alligator CR
Totals
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
4,722
4,296
0
6
0
1
0
4,296
0
4,296
522
26,067
3,367
4,529
2,567
6
6
0
5
3
1
1
0
2
0
522
26,067
0
4,529
0
522
26,067
0
9,058
0
154
920,018
1,458,933
1,798,375
Spatial Impairment for Greater Charlotte Harbor (Including Charlotte Harbor Proper)
Total
Acreage
Marine Water Bodies in Greater Charlotte
Harbor except Charlotte Harbor Proper
Totals
Percent of
Watershed
Unimpaired
Spatial Impairment
GPA Rank
87,772
87,737
0%
0.33
127,165
97,450
23%
1.00
1,798,375
920,018
49%
2.00
62,513
11,627
81%
3.33
2,075,825
1,116,867
46%
2.00
Marine Water Bodies in Charlotte Harbor
Proper
Fresh Water Bodies in Greater Charlotte
Harbor except Charlotte Harbor Proper
Fresh Water Bodies in Charlotte Harbor
Proper
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity of Impairment for Greater Charlotte Harbor (Including Charlotte Harbor Proper)
Total
Acreage
Marine Water Bodies in Greater
Charlotte Harbor except Charlotte
Harbor Proper
Marine Water Bodies in Charlotte
Harbor Proper
Fresh Water Bodies in Greater
Charlotte Harbor except Charlotte
Harbor Proper
Fresh Water Bodies in Charlotte
Harbor Proper
Totals
Degree of
Unimpairment
Score
Severity of
Impairment
GPA Rank
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity of
Impairment
87,772
87,737
215,960
85%
3.67
127,165
97,450
119,093
84%
3.33
1,798,375
920,018
1,458,933
86%
3.67
62,513
11,627
23,254
94%
4.00
2,075,825
1,116,867
1,817,240
85%
3.67
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 195 of 251 Pine Island Sound
Marine Waterbodies in Pine Island Sound
Water Segment
Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
2065E
Pine Island Sound
(Upper Segment)
28,507
5
2
28,507
57,014
2065F
2065G
Matlacha Pass
17,348
18,727
5
5
2
1
17,348
18,727
34,696
18,727
2065H
2065HA
2082C1
San Carlos Bay
7,755
448
7,848
5
1
6
1
0
1
7,755
0
7,848
7,755
0
7,848
3,775
5
1
3,775
3,775
3,364
31,158
8,516
1,160
13,271
5
5
4
4
6
2
2
0
1
1
3,364
31,158
0
1,160
13,271
6,728
62,316
0
1,160
13,271
154
3
0
0
0
142,031
59
14
132,913
213,290
WBID
2092C
2092D
2092E
2092G
3240O
3240S
8059B
Pine Island Sound
(Lower Segment)
Sanibel Causeway
West Urban
Cape Coral
North Captiva
Island
Captiva Island
Pine Island
Sanibel Bayous
Punta Rosa Cove
South Urban
Cape Coral
Lighthouse Beach
Totals
Fresh Waterbodies in Pine Island Sound
WBID
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
2082C
Gator Slough
Canal
23,174
6
2
23,174
46,348
2092F
Sanibel River
Basin
3,685
5
2
3,685
7,370
2092H
Sanibel Dune
Lakes
903
2
0
0
0
3240A3
Horseshoe
Hermosa Canals
17,318
5
1
17,318
17,318
45,080
18
5
44,177
71,036
Totals
Water Segment
Name
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 196 of 251 Spatial Impairment of Pine Island Sound
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
Marine Water Bodies in the
Pine Island Sound Watershed
142,031
Fresh Water Bodies in the
Pine Island Sound Watershed
Totals
132,913
Percent of
Watershed
Unimpaired
6%
Spatial
Impairment
GPA Rank
0.33
45,080
44,177
2%
0.33
187,111
177,090
5%
0.33
Severity of Impairment for Pine Island Sound
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity of
Impairment
213,290
Degree of
Unimpairment
Score
75%
Severity of
Impairment
GPA Rank
3.00
Marine Water Bodies
in the Pine Island
Sound Watershed
Fresh Water Bodies
in the Pine Island
Sound Watershed
142,031
132,913
45,080
44,177
71,036
74%
3.00
Totals
187,111
177,090
284,326
75%
3.00
Caloosahatchee River
Marine Waterbodies in the Caloosahatchee River
WBID
Water Segment
Name
3240A
Caloosahatchee
Estuary Tidal Segment1
3240A1
Cape Coral Tidal
Segment
3240A4
3240AB
Deep Lagoon Canal
Cape Coral Yacht
Club
3240B
Caloosahatchee
Estuary Tidal Segment2
3240B2
Chapel Creek/
Bayshore Creek
Marine Segments
3240E
3240 E1
3240I
3240J
Yellow Fever Creek
Hancock Creek
Manuel Branch
Billy Creek
Totals
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters on
303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
13,517
6
1
13,517
13,517
15,483
8,406
6
5
1
3
15,483
8,406
15,483
25,218
16
2
0
0
0
7,762
5
3
7,762
23,286
713
3,137
3,375
2,448
6,964
6
6
6
6
6
1
3
4
3
3
713
3,137
3,375
2,448
6,964
713
9,411
10,125
7,344
20,892
61,821
54
22
61,805
129,364
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 197 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in the Caloosahatchee River
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
WBID
Water Segment
Name
Total
Acreage
3235A
Caloosahatchee
River Above S-79
Caloosahatchee
River between
S-79 & S-78
5,851
6
1
5,851
5,851
14,648
6
3
14,648
43,944
25,675
51,617
21,941
18,872
36,489
18,878
3,210
25,219
2,157
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
25,675
51,617
21,941
18,872
36,489
18,878
3,210
25,219
2,157
51,350
154,851
43,882
37,744
72,978
18,878
3,210
25,219
4,314
31,556
28,873
47,845
17,019
6
6
6
6
3
2
1
1
31,556
28,873
47,845
17,019
94,668
57,746
47,845
17,019
49,204
3,526
45,232
5
6
6
0
1
2
0
3,526
45,232
0
3,526
45,232
84,281
6
3
84,281
252,843
14,350
41,541
37,077
11,220
3,100
6
6
6
5
6
1
1
1
1
2
14,350
41,541
37,077
11,220
3,100
14,350
41,541
37,077
11,220
6,200
5,857
6
2
5,857
11,714
2,583
22,876
16,273
7,741
5
6
6
5
2
2
2
2
2,583
22,876
16,273
7,741
5,166
45,752
32,546
15,482
48,636
7,447
5,756
6,276
12,679
43,548
6
6
6
5
6
6
1
3
2
2
3
2
48,636
7,447
5,756
6,276
12,679
43,548
48,636
14,894
11,512
12,552
38,037
87,096
205
63
769,849
1,473,310
3235B
3235C
3235D
3235E
3235F
3235G
3235H
3235I
3235J
3235K
3235L
3235M
3235N
3235O
3236
3236A
3237A
3237B
3237C
3237D
3237E
3240A2
3240B1
3240C
Cypress Creek
Jacks Branch
Bee Branch
Pollywog Creek
Cypress Branch
Hickey Creek
Bedman Creek
Dog Canal
Fort Simmon's
Branch
Townsend Canal
Goodno Canal
Roberts Canal
Okaloacoochee
Branch
Telegraph Swamp
Telegraph Creek
Caloosahatchee
River Above S-78
Long Hammock
Creek
Lake Hicpochee
Ninemile Canal
C-19 Canal
Cape Coral
Chapel Creek/
Bayshore Creek
Caloosahatchee
Est. Tidal Seg. t3
3240C1
Palm Creek
3240F
3240G
3240H
Daughtrey Creek
Trout Creek
3240K
3240L
3240M
3240N
3240Q
3246
Orange River
Powell Creek
Stroud Creek
Owl Creek
Popash Creek
S-4 Basin
Totals
Whiskey Creek
(Wyoua Creek)
819,053
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 198 of 251 Spatial Impairment in the Caloosahatchee River
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
Percent of
Watershed
Unimpaired
Spatial
Impairment
GPA Rank
61,821
61,805
0%
0.33
Fresh Water Bodies in the
Caloosahatchee Watershed
819,053
769,849
6%
0.33
Totals
880,874
831,654
6%
0.33
Marine Water Bodies in the
Caloosahatchee River
Watershed
Severity of Impairment in the Caloosahatchee River
Degree of
Unimpairment
Score
Severity of
Impairment
GPA Rank
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity of
Impairment
61,821
61,805
129,364
65%
2.67
Fresh Water Bodies in the
Caloosahatchee Watershed
819,053
769,849
1,473,310
70%
3.00
Totals
880,874
831,654
1,602,674
70%
3.00
Marine Water Bodies in the
Caloosahatchee River
Watershed
Estero Bay
Marine Waterbodies in Estero Bay
WBID
3258A
3258B1
3258C1
3258D1
3258 E1
3258H1
3258I
3258J
8060A
Totals
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters on
303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Estero Bay
Wetlands
Hendry Creek
Marine Segment
13,875
5
1
13,875
13,875
6,052
5
3
6,052
18,156
Estero Bay
Drainage Marine
Segment
Estero River
Marine Segment
Imperial River
Marine Segment
Spring Creek
Marine Segment
4,602
5
2
4,602
9,204
5,472
5
2
5,472
10,944
4,270
5
4
4,270
17,080
2,951
5
1
2,951
2,951
11,350
784
412
5
5
1
1
1
0
11,350
784
0
11,350
784
0
49,768
41
15
49,356
84,344
Water Segment
Name
Estero Bay
Hell Peckney Bay
Bowditch Park
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 199 of 251 Fresh Waterbodies in Estero Bay
WBID
Water Segment
Name
3258B
3258C
Hendry Creek
Estero Bay
Drainage
3258D
3258E
3258F
3258G
3258H
3258X
Estero River
Imperial River
Oak Creek
Tenmile Canal
Spring Creek
The Lakes Park
Totals
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters on
303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
533
113,320
5
6
1
2
533
113,320
533
226,640
5,738
5,873
4,740
9,560
6,080
2,310
6
6
6
5
6
5
2
2
1
1
0
0
5,738
5,873
4,740
9,560
0
0
11,476
11,746
4,740
9,560
0
0
148,154
45
9
139,764
264,695
Spatial Impairment in Estero Bay
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
Percent of
Watershed
Unimpaired
Spatial
Impairment
GPA Rank
Marine Water Bodies in the
Estero Bay Watershed
49,768
49,356
1%
0.33
Fresh Water Bodies in the
Estero Bay Watershed
Totals
148,154
139,764
6%
0.33
197,922
189,120
4%
0.33
Severity of Impairment in Estero Bay
Marine Water Bodies in
the Estero Bay
Watershed
Fresh Water Bodies in
the Estero Bay
Watershed
Totals
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity of
Impairment
Degree of
Unimpairment
Score
Severity of
Impairment
GPA Rank
49,768
49,356
84,344
72%
3.00
148,154
139,764
264,695
70%
3.00
197,922
189,120
349,039
71%
3.00
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 200 of 251 Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River
Marine Waterbodies in Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River
WBID
Water Segment
Name
3259A
Cocohatchee River
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
3,087
Number of
Parameters
Measured
6
3,087
6
Total
Acreage
Totals
2
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
3,087
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
6,174
2
3,087
6,174
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
Fresh Waterbodies in Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River
WBID
Water Segment
Name
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
3259B
Drainage to
Corkscrew
Lake Trafford
Little Hickory Bay
Cocohatchee Golf
Course Discharge
21,577
6
0
0
0
1,490
635
2,155
6
2
5
2
1
0
1,490
635
0
2,980
635
0
3278D
Cocohatchee
Inland Segment
25,837
6
1
25,837
25,837
3278E
3278F
Cow Slough
Corkscrew Marsh
11,778
52,916
3
6
1
1
11,778
52,916
11,778
52,916
116,388
34
6
92,656
94,146
3259W
3259Z
3278C
Totals
Spatial Impairment in Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River
Marine Water Bodies in the Wiggins Pass/
Cocohatchee River Watershed
Fresh Water Bodies in the Wiggins Pass/
Cocohatchee River Watershed
Totals
Percent of
Watershed
Unimpaired
Spatial
Impairment
GPA Rank
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
3,087
3,087
0%
0.33
116,388
92,656
20%
0.67
119,475
95,743
20%
0.67
Severity of Impairment in Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River
Total
Acreage
Marine Water Bodies in the Wiggins
Pass/ Cocohatchee River Watershed
Fresh Water Bodies in the Wiggins
Pass/ Cocohatchee River Watershed
Totals
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity of
Impairment
Degree of
Unimpairment Score
Severity of
Impairment
GPA Rank
3,087
3,087
6,174
67%
2.67
116,388
92,656
94,146
87%
3.67
119,475
95,743
100,320
86%
3.67
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 201 of 251 Naples Bay
Marine Waterbodies in Naples Bay
WBID
Water Segment
Name
3278R
Naples Bay
Coastal Segment
3278Q
Naples
Totals
Number of
Parameters
Measured
6
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
5,027
4
1
5,027
5,027
14,340
10
4
14,340
32,966
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
5,412
Number of
Parameters
Measured
6
1
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
5,412
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
5,412
72,785
6
2
72,785
145,570
78,197
12
3
78,197
150,982
Total
Acreage
9,313
3
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
9,313
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
27,939
Fresh Waterbodies in Naples Bay
WBID
3278K
3278S
Water Segment
Name
Gordon River
Extension
North Golden
Gate
Totals
Total
Acreage
Spatial Impairment in Naples Bay
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
Percent of
Watershed
Unimpaired
Spatial
Impairment
GPA Rank
Marine Water Bodies in the
Naples Bay Watershed
Fresh Water Bodies in the
Naples Bay Watershed
14,340
14,340
0%
0.33
78,197
78,197
0%
0.33
Totals
92,537
92,537
0%
0.33
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity of
Impairment
Severity of Impairment in Naples Bay
Total
Acreage
Marine Water Bodies in
the Naples Bay Watershed
14,340
14,340
32,966
Degree of
Unimpairment
Score
62%
Severity of
Impairment
GPA Rank
2.67
Fresh Water Bodies in the
Naples Bay Watershed
78,197
78,197
150,982
68%
2.67
Totals
92,537
92,537
183,948
67%
2.67
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 202 of 251 Rookery Bay
Marine Waterbodies in Rookery Bay
WBID
Water Segment
Name
3278O
3278P
Marco Island
3278U
Marco Island
South Segment
Rookery Bay
Coastal Segment
Totals
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters on
303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
8,474
10,815
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
38,633
6
4
38,633
154,532
57,922
14
4
38,633
154,532
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters on
303(d) List
53,992
6
1
53,992
53,992
15,055
6
1
15,055
15,055
69,047
12
2
69,047
69,047
Fresh Waterbodies in Rookery Bay
WBID
Water Segment
Name
3278V
Rookery Bay Inland
East Segment
Rookery Bay Inland
West Segment
3278Y
Totals
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
Spatial Impairment in Rookery Bay
Total
Acreage
Acreage of
Impairment
Percent of
Watershed
Unimpaired
Spatial
Impairment
GPA Rank
Marine Water Bodies in the Rookery Bay
Watershed
57,922
38,633
33%
1.33
Fresh Water Bodies in the Rookery Bay
Watershed
Totals
69,047
69,047
0%
0.33
126,969
107,680
15%
0.67
Severity of Impairment in Rookery Bay
Total
Acreage
Marine Water Bodies in
the Rookery Bay
Watershed
Fresh Water Bodies in the
Rookery Bay Watershed
Totals
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity of
Impairment
Degree of
Unimpairment
Score
Severity of
Impairment
GPA Rank
57,922
38,633
154,532
56%
2.33
69,047
69,047
69,047
83%
3.33
126,969
107,680
223,579
71%
3.00
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 203 of 251 Ten Thousand Islands
Marine Waterbodies in Ten Thousand Islands
WBID
Water Segment
Name
3259M
Ten Thousand Islands
Totals
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
134,270
6
2
134,270
268,540
134,270
6
2
134,270
268,540
Number of
Parameters
on 303(d) List
Total Acreage
of Impairment
Fresh Waterbodies in Ten Thousand Islands
WBID
Water Segment
Name
3255
3259I
3261B
3261C
3266A
C-139
Camp Keais
Tamiami Canal
3267
3269A
Feeder Canal
3278G
3278H
Barron River Canal
L-28 Interceptor
Upper Segment
L-28 Gap Upper
Segment
Fakahatchee Strand
Faka Union North
Segment
Total
Acreage
Number of
Parameters
Measured
Severity
Acreage of
Impairment
168,341
55,709
588,755
33,368
18,703
5
6
6
6
5
1
2
1
1
2
168,341
55,709
588,755
33,368
18,703
168,341
111,418
588,755
33,368
37,406
56,545
7,343
3
1
1
0
56,545
0
56,545
0
94,502
27,450
6
6
2
1
94,502
27,450
189,004
27,450
3278I
Faka Union South
Segment
59,453
6
2
59,453
118,906
3278L
3278M
3278T
3278W
Immokalee Basin
L-28 Tieback
8,745
116,882
125,992
53,835
4
6
6
5
1
2
1
1
8,745
116,882
125,992
53,835
8,745
233,764
125,992
53,835
1,415,623
71
18
1,408,280
1,753,529
Okaloacoochee Slough
Silver Strand
Totals
Spatial Impairment in Ten Thousand Islands
Acreage of
Impairment
Total
Acreage
Marine Water Bodies in the Ten Thousand Islands Watershed
Fresh Water Bodies in the Ten Thousand Islands Watershed
Totals
134,270
1,415,623
1,549,893
134,270
1,408,280
1,542,550
Percent of
Watershed
Unimpaired
Spatial
Impairment
GPA Rank
0%
1%
0%
0.33
0.33
0.33
Severity of Impairment in Ten Thousand Islands
Acreage of
Impairment
Severity of
Impairment
Degree of
Unimpairment
Score
134,270
134,270
268,540
67%
2.67
1,415,623
1,408,280
1,753,529
79%
3.33
1,549,893
1,542,550
2,022,069
78%
3.33
Total
Acreage
Marine Water Bodies in the Ten
Thousand Islands Watershed
Fresh Water Bodies in the Ten
Thousand Islands Watershed
Totals
Severity of
Impairment
GPA Rank
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 204 of 251 APPENDIX G : HYDROLOGY INFORMATION FOR EACH WATERSHED
Estuary
Coastal Venice
Lemon Bay
Greater Charlotte Harbor
Pine Island Sound
Caloosahatchee
Estero Bay
Wiggins Pass/ Cocohatchee
Naples Bay
Rookery Bay
Ten Thousand Islands
Summary of Hydrologic
Conditions
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor-Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor-Fair
Coastal Venice
Historically a watershed of only five poorly drained square miles, Coastal Venice has been
drastically altered in the last century as “natural drainage systems have been channelized and
extensive ditch systems constructed to improve drainage.”289 Since 1890 “More than 80
percent of the bay water has changed in the area between the Albee and Hatchett Creek
bridges.”290 The Blackburn Canal now diverts water away from the Myakka River and shunts it
towards the Gulf of Mexico into Roberts Bay and Curry Creek. In addition, the completion of
Cow Pen Slough Canal in the 1960s diverted water which originally flowed towards the Myakka
into Dona Bay. The creation of this canal increased the size of the watershed by 15 times to
almost 75 square miles and severely altered freshwater flow to the bays.291
Today, the hydrology of Coastal Venice and Lemon Bay to the south is affected by major boat
traffic and dredging projects in large channels and the Intracoastal Waterway. The Army Corps
of Engineers began dredging operations for the Intracoastal Waterway in 1895, and the original
channel ran from Tampa Bay south to Charlotte Harbor. This channel, which allowed small
vessels to transport merchandise throughout the region, was protected from Gulf currents by
barrier islands just off the coast. “The Intracoastal Waterway created a relatively deep (nine- to
12- foot) north-south channel through Lemon Bay, Gasparilla Sound and Pine Island Sound,
affecting tidal energy and inlet stability. Numerous spoil areas also were formed by Intracoastal
Waterway construction.”292 Continued dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway and the
construction and maintenance of associated bridges still affect Gulf Coast hydrology.
The unintended effects of septic systems in areas such as Manasota Key and of regional
stormwater runoff have also changed both the quality and quantity of freshwater flows in the
creeks and bays of Venice.293.294 While the negative effects of freshwater diversion are widely
acknowledged, instead of filling canals to promote more natural flows, the most common
response in the region is to pump excess surface and groundwater sources.295 Additionally,
increased interconnections between local and regional water utilities have led to greater
exchange of resources during droughts. In southern Venice, the Englewood Water District
resources have water in excess of its needs, water that is used by neighboring communities
during times of drought.296
Due to the severe alterations made to this watershed through dredging, canalization of natural
flow systems, and the pumping of surface and groundwater resources, Coastal Venice has
received a grade of “Poor” for hydrology.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 205 of 251 Lemon Bay
Freshwater travels to Lemon Bay through man-made canals, tidal creeks, and by overland
sheetflow.297 The bay is affected by tidal flows that travel through two significant inlets from the
Gulf of Mexico as well. Most of the stormwater from the Lemon Bay watershed either
evaporates or drains into the bay through a network of streams. Many of these streams have
been deepened or changed in other ways, which has allowed for increased inland intrusion of
saltwater.298 Within the Lemon Bay estuary lies Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve, “a linear lagoon
system, connected by artificial dredging activities which were conducted through former
wetlands.”299 Lemon Bay was designated as part of the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve by
the Florida Aquatic Preserve Act of 1975.
In recent years, land development activities have contributed to the overall degradation
of water quality in the Lemon Bay estuary. This watershed has suffered from the overpumping of groundwater and the channelization of the majority of its coastal creeks.
Ainger Creek, which flows from the protected Myakka State Forest and into Lemon Bay,
has been degraded by the channelization of the creek bed further downstream.300
Extensive destruction of wetlands and sloughs has occurred within the headwaters of
Oyster Creek and Buck Creek and dead-end finger canals have been constructed
throughout the watershed.301 The use of culverts for drainage, the creation of interceptor
waterways, and the addition of salinity barriers have seriously altered the timing of water
delivery throughout the watershed. The fact that Lemon Bay is split between Sarasota,
Charlotte and Lee Counties has made it difficult to develop a regional hydrologic
restoration plan for this area.
Hydrologic changes and declining water quality have resulted in an increase in exotic
species in the Myakka State Forest and Peace River drainages, which discharge into
Lemon Bay. For instance, Dr. Bill Dunson and associates have noted significant
increases in exotic fish in the Myakka State Forest.302 Salinity and flow volume changes
determine which species can survive in a given area, and when existing levels are
affected by waterway alterations, native species are often displaced.
Despite the aforementioned alterations, there is little indication that dredging alone has severely
and detrimentally distorted the overall watershed. For instance, tributary discharges have been
found to correspond to rainfall, as opposed to unnatural flushing, (which is a major factor in the
Caloosahatchee and other watersheds).303 In addition, these changes have only affected the
water levels in half of the total area and are due mostly to waterway deepening, as opposed to
water-to-land transformation.304
Due to the lingering effects of development, the destruction of wetlands, the alterations to
natural flow, and the introduction of exotics, Lemon Bay has received a grade of ‘Poor’ for
hydrology.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 206 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor
Greater Charlotte Harbor includes extensive areas of publicly owned wetlands,
mangroves, and salt marshes and has received an Outstanding Florida Waters
designation, which lends special protections to the estuary and its tributaries. Despite
being home to significant protected areas, the Charlotte Harbor watershed has still
experienced major alterations from historic conditions. In the Charlotte Harbor Proper
portion of this watershed, which contains 60 miles of coastline along the Gulf and
stretches 75 miles wide from San Carlos Bay to Lake Okeechobee, canals, roads,
drainage ditches, berms and water control structures have affected hydrology. 305,306 The
artificial connection between the Caloosahatchee River and Lake Okeechobee and the
Intracoastal Waterway both affect the hydrology of this region. Stormwater and drainage
systems now flow into this system and have affected salinity, turbidity, and overall
nutrient levels.307 The tidal canals and streams in the coastal area surrounding Charlotte
Harbor derive their flow from surface runoff and the surficial aquifer system. Sea-level
canals transport saltwater inland and, at the same time, cause existing freshwater in the
surficial aquifer to drain off into the canals, which has led to saltwater intrusion in the
surficial aquifer system in Charlotte County.308
The Greater Charlotte Harbor watershed is affected by large-scale phosphate mining
and agricultural operations upstream and is further stressed by domestic water uses of
surrounding towns. The addition of the Coral Creek structure and the dredging of the
Peace Creek system and the Gator Slough Canal Collector System have affected the
area’s hydrology as well. Gator Slough, which originally flowed toward Pine Island
Sound, was transformed into a major canal as part of the City of Cape Coral
development project in the 1950s and 1960s. During the 1960s, significant urban
development in the lower Myakka River affected the waters of the region as well.
The waters of Greater Charlotte Harbor tend to be well mixed, however some vertical
salinity stratification occurs especially late in the summer when the area experiences the
highest inflow of fresh water from its tributaries.309 Streamflow in the Peace and Myakka
Rivers is unregulated, except for one low-water dam in the upper Myakka basin.
Discharge in these rivers, therefore, tends to correspond to rainfall patterns in the basins
and tends to peak in August and September when rainfall totals are the greatest.”310 The
Myakka now receives excess freshwater during the rainy season, especially from the
Flatford Swamp and Tatum Sawgrass regions, which affects the salinity of the
watershed.311 The pumping of water in the Peace River watershed around Joshua
Creek, Prairie Creek and Shell Creek (which has been dammed to use as a source of
domestic water) has also affected flows by adding water to this section of the system.312
In 2005 the SWFWMD proposed minimum flows and levels (MFLs) for the middle segment of
the Peace River (from Zolfo Springs to Arcadia) and MFLs have since been adopted for both the
middle and upper segments of the Peace River. In 2009 an MFL was proposed for the Lower
Peace River and Shell Creek. An MFL for the Upper Peace River was proposed in 2002. For the
Upper Segment of the Myakka River an MFL was proposed in 2005 and has since been
adopted. The success of these new water use limits has yet to be evaluated but the addition of
several new MFLs throughout the region will likely impact area salinity as well as the volume
and timing of flows.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 207 of 251 Charlotte Harbor is a designated Estuary of National Significance and includes both state and
national refuges. Five contiguous preserves, now known as the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic
Preserves, were created in greater Charlotte Harbor in 1975 as part of the Florida Aquatic
Preserve Act. These include Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve (in the Lemon Bay watershed), Cape
Haze Aquatic Preserve, Gasparilla Sound–Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, Matlacha Pass
Aquatic Preserve (in the Pine Island watershed), and Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve (in
the Pine Island Sound watershed). The Charlotte Harbor Buffer Preserve is home to several
large buffer areas as well. FDEP designated the area of Charlotte Harbor within SFWMD as a
Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program water body in 1990. This plan
includes restoration projects such as the hydrologic restoration of Alligator Creek, which began
in 1999 and is ongoing. Such projects may hold future benefits for hydrology and water quality
in this watershed.
Because the upper Peace River watershed has been significantly altered from historical
conditions so as to negatively impact the ecological integrity of the watershed, it received a
grade of “Poor” for hydrology. The Myakka River system; however, has experienced less
hydrologic impairment due to continued land acquisition programs and less urbanization than
the upper Peace River region.313 This part of the watershed received a “Fair to Good”
hydrologic grade. When these grades are averaged, they become a “Fair” hydrologic grade.
Pine Island Sound
Pine Island Sound lies south of Charlotte Harbor and is separated from the Gulf by Pine
Island. Although much of this watershed lies within national and state preserve areas,
the historic flowways in portions of the watershed have been altered. While the estuary
receives some fresh water from Pine Island’s wetlands and streams, most of the water in
this watershed comes from a combination of rainfall and runoff from Cape Coral. Water
flows from Charlotte County and North Fort Myers as well as the Webb Wildlife
Management Area into the freshwater canals of Cape Coral and through to Matlacha
Pass. Originally water flowed slowly along this path through coastal creeks from
freshwater wetlands and salt marshes, but today much of the water flows south along
US 41 and the flows into culverts and ditches that drain into Matlacha Pass.314 The Cape
Coral Canal and Drainage System, which was constructed during the last half of the
twentieth century to support urban development, consists of 404 miles of freshwater and
estuarine canals. The Cape Coral interceptor waterways and spreader canals
significantly modify flows of fresh water.315
The town of Matlacha was developed diagonally across from the spoil causeways that
were built to connect Little Pine Island to the mainland. In order to create the navigation
channel through the Pass, significant excavation was required, resulting in unnatural
depths in the channel and the large-scale removal of oyster bars.316 Five weirs separate
the North Spreader Canal System from freshwater canals in the residential area, and
weirs are in place to elevate the water level in the freshwater region, making saltwater
intrusion less likely.317 The canal system has been dredged frequently over the years.
While the NCS was intended to have an elevation above 1.4 feet on its western bank,
repeated breaches occurred, which led to increases in the flow of freshwater through the
Pass and related mangrove erosion.318 Breaches at the Ceitus Boat Lift led to its
removal, with the consent of FDEP, in August 2008.319,320 Despite the fact that Matlacha
Pass contains an aquatic preserve (Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve), this area of the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 208 of 251 Pine Island Sound watershed has been significantly and negatively altered from natural
conditions, and this area has been given a grade of “Poor” for hydrology.
Freshwater releases from the Caloosahatchee River drain into San Carlos Bay in the
southern part of Pine Island Sound, affecting the salinity of the area. Consistent dredging
and freshwater pulses have negatively impacted the ecology and water quality of this
region. The addition of salinity barriers and drainage culverts has also affected the timing
of water delivery. Consumptive water use is another pressing issue for the Pine Island
Sound watershed as both urban development and agriculture use the Caloosahatchee
River’s surface and groundwater. Surface water is especially important in this region as
it recharges the surficial aquifers.321
Deep tidal canals on the eastern end of Sanibel Island have permanently lowered the
water table, while small finger-fill canal systems on Sanibel and Captiva also affect the
water resources of the islands. The construction of the ICW channel, which involved
side-casting of the spoil that covered nearby beds of seagrass, was another significant
alteration. The Sanibel Causeway has both decreased the flow of water through the area
between the island and the mainland and changed the direction and location of water
flowing underneath and around the bridge. Recently, the expansion of the ornamental
agriculture business on Pine Island has required enhanced drainage, resulting in pulsed
runoff from the resulting destabilized lands.322 This part of the watershed received a
grade of “Fair” as only small portions have been altered.
San Carlos Bay, which lies to the South of Pine Island, has also been drastically altered
by human activities. Originally, the connection between the Caloosahatchee River and
San Carlos Bay occurred at a shoal depth of 5.5 feet. The shoal was broken and oyster
bars removed in 1882 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to create a 7-foot deep, 100foot wide channel. The channel was widened in 1910 to 200 feet and 12-foot depth to
accommodate the passage of steamboats.323 This part of the watershed experiences
large inter-annual variations in freshwater flows due to releases from the
Caloosahatchee River that drain into the bay.324 Since the San Carlos Bay area of the
watershed has been negatively altered in significant ways, this area of the watershed
also received a grade of “Poor” for hydrology.
As the Pine Island Sound watershed is determined to have been moderately altered overall we
have evaluated this watershed and given it a grade of “Poor to Fair.” Although alterations have
taken place, many areas within the watershed have remained in decent condition.
Caloosahatchee
Historically, the Caloosahatchee River flowed slowly from its headwaters at Lake Flirt, near
Lake Hicpochee and east of Labelle, through swamp forests and marshes.325 However,
“Twentieth Century transportation, drainage, irrigation, and waste disposal have been hard on
the Caloosahatchee River and its watershed. The channels have been straightened, shorelines
hardened, and oyster reefs dredged.”326 Major dredging extended the river to Lake Okeechobee
in 1884, creating the Disston Canal. In 1937 the Moore Haven (S-77) and Ortona (S-78) lock
and dam structures were added, which resulted in greater channelization. In the 1950s the
freshwater portion of the Caloosahatchee River was dredged to create the C-43 canal in order
to benefit navigation, flood control, and land use. The Franklin Lock and Dam (S-79 structure),
which now separates the freshwater and tidal river, was finished in 1966.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 209 of 251 Today, the Caloosahatchee River is the major western outlet for Lake Okeechobee,
stretching 105 km to San Carlos Bay. Recently the Caloosahatchee River system “has
undergone further modification as part of the central and south Florida Flood Control
Project and Okeechobee waterway, including further deepening and widening of the C43 canal, (also known by the SFWMD as the C-43 feature) and the placement of
navigational locks and water control structures.”327 The Caloosahatchee estuary has also
been disrupted by maintenance of the network of channels and drainage canals in the
basin. The recurring channelization of the river has had long-lasting effects on the
ecosystem, including significant impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation.328
The river is affected by excess stormwater runoff, sewage and pesticides, and thermal
effluent that make their way into its waters on the long journey from Lake Okeechobee to
the coast.329 Irrigation canals for the extensive agricultural operations east of the Franklin
Lock as well as urban runoff from Lee County drain into the river and affect the salinity,
water quality, and overall flows of the waterway. It has been estimated that if no Best
Management Practices for stormwater treatment are implemented for future
development in the region, runoff from the sub-basin of the estuary may increase by as
much as 25%.330
The Caloosahatchee River Watershed is significantly affected by Lake Okeechobee’s
flood control and water supply projects, which are characterized by excessive
withdrawals of water and over-drainage.331 During the rainy season, high levels of
freshwater are released from Lake Okeechobee into the Caloosahatchee River to
prevent flooding, further damage to the Herbert Hoover Dike, and dangerously high
water levels in the lake.332 These discharges significantly increase the volume of
freshwater in the Caloosahatchee Estuary. The Tidal Caloosahatchee contains 30% of
the area of the watershed and creates 28% of the watershed’s runoff, which is roughly
340,000 acre-feet annually. However the regulatory releases have added 24% to this
annual runoff or an additional 297, 000 acre-feet.333 The releases can involve more than
20,000 cfs of water, which far exceeds historic levels of freshwater flow. Additionally, the
network of drainage canals and channelized tributaries in the region magnify the effects
of these releases.334
Freshwater releases from Lake Okeechobee during the rainy season negatively impact
the Caloosahatchee Estuary in many ways. Discharges greater than 4500 cfs at Franklin
Lock cause the entire estuary to become fresh and decreases salinity in the outer
embayments, San Carlos Bay and Matlacha Pass. Submerged vegetation in the estuary
has decreased significantly due to unnaturally high volume flows of water and high flows
of nutrients from the Lake during the rainy season.335 Other studies suggest impacts on
water quality, benthic fauna, and fisheries.336 Freshwater releases have also altered
historic salinity levels, which are now exceeded for both wet and dry seasons.337
During the dry season, while regulatory releases do occur for water supply, management
of salinity levels, and occasionally to comply with Minimum Flows and Levels, this
freshwater flow is limited so that sufficient water is saved for Lake Okeechobee
agricultural lands and is available as a backup water supply for urban areas.338
Regulatory releases are made infrequently if at all during this period, which results in
unnaturally low freshwater flow to the Caloosahatchee River. The increase in southwest
Florida’s population during winter months combined with the lack of rainfall during the
dry season results in significant stress on both surface water and ground water in the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 210 of 251 region and leaves Lake Okeechobee with little water remaining to be used for freshwater
releases.339 The low flow target of 450 cfs at S-79 was not reached 55.9% of the time
during the period of October to May from1996 and 2005, according to DB Hydro.340 The
Caloosahatchee River therefore receives too little fresh water during the dry season and
too much during the rainy season.
During the recorded period from 1931 to 2001, the Caloosahatchee Basin received an
average of 52 inches of rainfall per year, which varied from 30 to 80 inches.341 From
1970 to 1979, 20% of the average rainfall was estimated to leave the basin as runoff.342
According to the SFWMD, as of 2005 the average flow at Moore Haven (S-77) was 734
cfs whereas the average flow upstream of Fort Myers at S-79 was 1,730 cfs.343 The
average flows vary dramatically both because of rainfall and Lake Okeechobee
regulatory releases at the S-77 structure.344 The optimal flow range of the river at S-79
was consistently exceeded between May of 2005 and January of 2006.345 Additional
exceedences occurred in the fall of 2006 and the late summer and fall of 2008.346
While a Minimum Flow and Level regulation, which requires “environmental” releases
from Lake Okeechobee, was set for the Caloosahatchee River in 2001, this regulation is
often violated. For the Caloosahatchee, “A MFL exceedance occurs during a 365-day
period, when (a) a 30-day average salinity concentration exceeds 10 parts per thousand
at the Ft. Myers salinity station (measured at 20% of the total river depth from the water
surface at a location latitude 263907.260, longitude 815209.296) or (b) a single, daily
average salinity exceeds a concentration of 20 parts per thousand at the Ft. Myers
salinity station. Exceedance of either subsection (a) or subsection (b), for two
consecutive years is a violation of the MFL” (Chapter 40.E.8.221(2) F.A.C.).347 MFL
exceedences occurred in 2002, 2004, 2007, 2008, and 2009.348 These exceedences
during the dry season affect both the health of the estuary and the drinking water
resources of eastern Lee County.349
One major restoration project has been developed as part of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Project (CERP) for the region of the Caloosahatchee River
included in this study. The Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir
Project, which began as part of the 2000 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
includes an above-ground reservoir that would have 160,000 acre-feet storage capacity.
The reservoir would be placed in the C-43 Basin, which is shared by Charlotte, Collier,
Glades, Hendry, and Lee counties. The reservoir would capture runoff from C-43 as well
as Lake Okeechobee freshwater releases and is being developed for “environmental
water supply benefits to the Caloosahatchee Estuary that will reduce salinity and nutrient
impacts of runoff to the estuary and provide some flood attenuation.”350 The project is
awaiting a decision regarding land valuation and crediting issues involving the State.351 If
completed and used for the aforementioned purposes, this project may significantly
improve conditions of the Caloosahatchee River related to volume and timing of
freshwater releases and the related issue of salinity levels.
Therefore, because the Caloosahatchee watershed has been significantly altered from historical
conditions such as to negatively impact the ecological integrity of the river and the watershed at
large, it received a grade of “Poor” for hydrology.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 211 of 251 Estero Bay
The Estero Bay estuary watershed includes many public wetlands, salt marshes, and mangrove
areas, and is sheltered from the Gulf by barrier islands including Fort Myers Beach and Bonita
Beach. Limited inflow and exchange of water between the bay and the Gulf occurs at
Mantanzas Pass, Big Carlos Pass, New Pass, and Big Hickory Pass.352 Estero Bay Aquatic
Preserve, designated in 1966 as the state’s first Aquatic Preserve was the first watershed in the
state to have its tributaries protected as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs).353 Today all Estero
Bay tributaries are protected as OFWs. Historically, Estero Bay included over 75,000 acres of
wetlands but 19,143 acres or about 28% have been lost to development.354 Estero Bay once
received sheet flow from a number of sloughs, however increased urbanization in the area,
including recent heavy development surrounding Florida Gulf Coast University, which broke
ground in 1995, has resulted in the concentration of flow from fewer sources.355 Major
residential developments such as Bonita Bay have affected natural flows; however such new
developments have begun to incorporate natural buffers, which is a positive step toward treating
stormwater runoff. Today approximately 26% of the watershed is classified as urban
development.356
Mining operations have had major effects on this watershed as the demand for aggregate for
development and road construction soared through 2006.357 Throughout the watershed,
drainage culverts, salinity barriers and interceptor waterways have changed the timing of flows.
The widening of I-75 has led to a reexamination of the location and size of culverts, the outcome
of which may significantly affect the flow of water in this region especially during storm
events.358 Water control structures such as the one located at the south end of Lake Hancock
alter the timing and magnitude of flows. The presence of the causeway between Lovers Key
State Recreation Area and Bonita Beach also affects flow through this watershed.
Today Hendry Creek, Mullock Creek, the Estero River, Spring Creek and the Imperial River
comprise the primary inflows to Estero Bay. Major hydrologic alterations have changed the sizes
of these tributaries and have made the area more susceptible to drainage flows. The creation of
the Ten Mile Canal in the 1920s severed hydrologic connection between Six-Mile Cypress
Strand and Hendry Creek. The canal was deepened and widened in the 1970s and water
control structures were installed. The Ten Mile Canal watershed has grown to 68 square miles,
includes several water control structures, and now flows into Mullock Creek.359 The drainage for
Fort Myers flows into the Ten Mile Canal as well as into the Tidal Caloosahatchee River.360 Lee
County and the Water Enhancement and Restoration Coalition created the Ten Mile Canal Filter
Marsh in 2006 to restore water quality, and the area has been performing at anticipated
levels.361 Even this improvement, however, has not been enough to filter all of the water that
flows through the canal.362 Two additional parcels of land have been identified that could be
turned into filter marshes in the future to assist the process of water retention and treatment.
The Southwest Florida International Airport expansion, which occurred about five years ago,
involved the creation of an additional large drainage canal, which resulted in further degradation
between the 10-mile canal and the airport and increased freshwater flows to Mullock Creek and
the northern part of Estero Bay.363 Additionally, the construction of US Highway 41 stopped the
headwaters of Spring Creek from flowing into other segments downstream. These alterations
have resulted in a 50% decrease in the overall size of the Hendry Creek and Spring Creek
watersheds.364
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 212 of 251 Overall, the Estero River basin has grown from 60 square miles to 69 square miles and the
Imperial River watershed has decreased from 103 square miles to 92 square miles. 365,366
Because of these changes, periods of high rainfall cause excess runoff to flow into the now
smaller Imperial River when historically it flowed primarily into the Cocohatchee River. In
addition, growth in Fort Myers has created excess surface water runoff especially during storm
events, leading to extensive flooding in Lee County. 367
Currently, the assessment of the Bay has been that:
“Tributary flows to Estero Bay have been altered through enhancements to drain land
surfaces during wet season and retain water behind weirs and salinity barriers during dry
season. This has resulted in a spiked hydroperiod with little discharge in the dry season
and sharp peaks during rain events, particularly when water control structures are
opened. The lack of surface water retention on the landscape and the elimination of
gradual sheetflow delivery to the estuary have shortened freshwater wetland
hydroperiods. Surface water table elevations are rapidly lowered and drought conditions
are accentuated causing exotic vegetation to invade into wetlands and an increased
severity of fire season. Fisheries and wildlife dependent on depressional wetlands and
riparian habitats lose valuable breeding periods and nursery habitats as the hydrologic
systems acts as a flush plumbing mechanism.”368
“Freshwater inflow into the Estero Bay estuary generally peaks in September. Flows measured
in the Imperial River from 1940 to 1952 indicate that flow in dry months (December to May)
averages only about 7% of the total annual inflow. Tidally induced flows in Estero Bay are far
greater than freshwater inflow. Because freshwater inflow into Estero Bay is low, salinities at the
mouths of the rivers and creeks in the Estero Basin seldom fall below 10 ppt during the rainy
season.”369 Inadequate aquifer recharge, attributed to canal construction and other surface
alterations, has led to saltwater intrusion of local water supplies.
The SFWMD has recently developed The Estero Bay Watershed Initiative, which combines
several restoration and water quality projects in the bay itself and in the receiving waters off the
coast.370 Projects such as improving stormwater treatment systems, restoring flowways and
natural systems for better aquifer recharge, the creation of filter marshes, enhancing water
control structures to decrease pollutant loading, improving shellfish and fish habitats, and
monitoring water quality and hydrology changes have been included the plan.371 The success of
the plan will rely on cooperation between all levels of government, non-profit organizations,
universities and other interested parties. The Town of Fort Myers Beach has identified 11
drainage projects as part of a Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) that are either finished or in
the process of completion and that include the addition of swales on the sides of streets as well
as a system to keep sediment and sand out of Estero Bay.372 Lee County and the City of Bonita
Springs have also completed SMPs. Additionally, Lee County recently completed the Island
Park Filter Marsh Wetland Restoration project to the north of Mullock Creek and the northeast of
Hendry Creek, and although it is too early to note changes in hydrology and water quality, it is a
positive step for the region.373
Therefore, because the Estero Bay watershed has been significantly altered from historical
conditions so as to negatively impact the ecological integrity of the watershed, it would receive a
“Poor” hydrology grade. However, due to projects like The Estero Bay Watershed Initiative, this
watershed is currently undergoing beneficial projects that will help restore many of the
hydrologic conditions to near historical levels. Consequently, Estero Bay received a grade of
“Poor to Fair.”
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 213 of 251 Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee Estuary
Historically, sheetflow from the Immokalee ridge, the eastern portion of Corkscrew Swamp, and
western Lake Trafford flowed southwest to the Cocohatchee River, the Imperial River, and into
Estero Bay. 374 Surface water from interior areas such as Flint Pen Strand also drains into the
Estero Bay and Bird Rookery Swamp drains into the Estero Bay and the Wiggins
Pass/Cocohatchee River estuarine system through the Cocohatchee Canal.375,376 However, a
number of changes in the watershed including the construction of the Cocohatchee Canal, the
encroachment of agriculture and development into former wetlands, and the continued dredging
of the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee estuary have affected the historic flowways.
The estuary has been dredged several times as part of Collier County’s Inlet Management Plan,
creating a deeper channel though the estuary and has lead to the loss of seagrass beds.377
Also, the modification of the Cocohatchee Canal and loss of pervious areas as a result of
urbanization have increased freshwater discharge into the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee
estuary.378 The practice of creating ditches to drain excess water is widely used throughout the
watershed as well. Canals have drawn down water levels in the Golden Gate area as much as
10 feet. This has affected the surrounding groundwater in the City of Naples as the zone of
influence for drawdown is three to four miles and has resulted in saltwater intrusion of
aquifers.379
Developments such as Parklands and Village Walk have altered sheetflow and have resulted in
water transfer to the Imperial River in the Estero watershed. This has led to a decrease in
overall watershed size, however, this is somewhat balanced by an increase in water brought to
the Cocohatchee River. Much of the sheetflow from northeast to southwest in the basin has
been obstructed by a series of elevated grades and dikes east of Interstate 75 between
Corkscrew Road to the north and County Road 846 to the south. The Cocohatchee Canal
receives the runoff from the urbanized region north of Vanderbilt Beach Road to the west of I-75
as well.380 Like other interior portions of the watershed, sheetflows vary with the magnitude of
storm events. Due to flood protection releases from the gated water control structures on the
Cocohatchee Canal, reduced salinities often occur during storms in the Wiggins
Pass/Cocohatchee Estuary.
Due to fact that the Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee watershed has been significantly altered by
inflow from the Cocohatchee Canal and the watershed has been negatively impacted, it has
been given a grade of “Poor” for hydrology.
Naples Bay
The timing and volume of flows through the Naples Bay watershed have been significantly
altered by the creation of the Golden Gate Canal system and the rapid development of urban
Naples and unincorporated Collier County.381 The addition of the Golden Gate Canal system in
the 1960s had the effect of expanding the size of the watershed more than tenfold, from less
than 20 square miles to approximately 130 square miles. “Impacts from the canal system not
only include the over-drainage of surface waters and lowered ground water levels, but altered
hydro-periods, reduction of habitats, succession of historically wet habitats to drier habitats and
declines in agricultural potential. The construction of the GGE (Golden Gate Estates) drainage
system has so dramatically lowered the ground water table that it has changed salinity regimes
in coastal areas.”382 The continued development of the North Golden Gate Estates area is of
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 214 of 251 particular concern to the SFWMD as the addition of single-family homes has also destroyed
large areas of wetlands and replaced them with impermeable rooftops and pavement.383
Historically, the major sources of freshwater to Naples Bay were the Gordon River, Haldeman
Creek, Rock Creek, and direct run-off from the city of Naples watershed, which provided a
combined annual average discharge of less than 100 cubic feet per second. The dredging of
Naples Bay and the construction of the Golden Gate Canal system has increased the
instantaneous peak flow of freshwater into the Bay during major storms to as much as 3,500
cfs, with an average annual wet season discharge of 800 cfs.384 In contrast, during the dry
season in April, discharge to the Bay drops to near zero.
While the Golden Gate Canal system increased the size of the Naples Bay watershed, it
decreased the size of the Gordon River, one of the original tributaries of Naples Bay. “The
Gordon River Watershed was over 25 square miles in size, extending NE from Naples Bay
beyond the present intersection of CR 951 and CR 846. With development that has occurred in
the area, specifically the construction of Airport Road (SR 31) and the Golden Gate Canal
System, the watershed has been significantly reduced to 8.5 square miles.”385
As a result, the historic tributary of Naples Bay “no longer flows into the bay in the same
amounts or at the same times as it used to – altering the sensitive balance that once
supported fish, oysters, and seagrasses in the bay.” 386
The rapid development of this region has led to increased demand for groundwater and
the resulting drawdown of aquifers. In some cases, this groundwater drawdown has
resulted in saltwater intrusion. Because development is so centralized around a small
area, new developments are forced to draw from brackish aquifers.387 The City of Naples
now draws from the Golden Gate well field in addition to the Naples Coastal well, which
was the original water supply for the city but has since been affected by saltwater
intrusion. The Vanderbilt Beach wells were added more recently to supplement supply
for domestic uses.388 North Golden Gate Estates is actually a watershed of concern for
the Big Cypress Basin of SFWMD as wetland loss has begun to affect the filtration and
recharge of aquifer water supplies.389 The Soil and Water Conservation District is
currently in the process of developing the Horse Pen Strand Watershed Management
Plan, which will hopefully improve the future of hydrology in the North Golden Gate
Estates area.390
In 2003 the SFWMD approved a Surface Water Improvement and Management Act
(SWIM) plan to improve stormwater treatment in Naples Bay. The plan focuses on (1)
Water Quality (2) Stormwater Quantity (3) Watershed Master Planning and
Implementation and (4) Habitat Assessment, Protection and Restoration, and is currently
being implemented with a combination of state and federal funding.391 This project will
hopefully improve both water quality and hydrology for the watershed.
Because the Naples Bay watershed has been significantly altered from historical
conditions such as to negatively impact the ecological integrity of the watershed, it
received a hydrology grade of “Poor.”
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 215 of 251 Rookery Bay
Although much of the Rookery Bay watershed is contained within the Rookery Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, its watershed has been altered by development north of the
preserve. Large developments constructed in recent years, including Sabal Bay and Wentworth
Estates/Treviso Bay, have had significant impacts on local wetlands north and east of Rookery
Bay.392 This area continues to face the pressure of further development.
The primary tributary feeding Rookery Bay is Henderson Creek. “Historically, Henderson Creek
received freshwater through surface water sheetflow. Currently freshwater enters Henderson
Creek through Henderson Creek Canal, which receives water from the US 41 Canal and the
southern Belle Meade.”393 The construction of Interstate 75 and County Road 951 decreased
the size of the Henderson Creek watershed from 100 to 60 square miles. The timing and
volume of flow to the estuary is highly variable, as large amplitudes of freshwater rush through
during the wet season while hardly any freshwater flows through Henderson Creek, Eagle
Creek, and other tributaries for most of the year.394 This has had significant impacts on salinity.
The Rookery Bay watershed has an increased potential for non-point source pollution runoff and
a decreased retention time from channelization of the surface water flow. “Rookery Bay has
been described as a transitional estuary in terms of its location between high-energy (erosional
forces) coastline to the north and the lower energy (Ten Thousand Islands landscape) to the
southeast. Physical water quality is characterized by large fluctuations in salinity and low
flushing due to the small size of adjacent upstream watershed. Freshwater arrives into Rookery
Bay via Henderson Creek to the west and Stopper Creek to the northwest. Tidal exchange is
low due to the presence of oyster bars and low flushing of the shallow creek that feed into the
Bay. Hypersaline conditions can result during periods of drought.” 395
In 2006, the Big Cypress Basin created a comprehensive water management plan for the Belle
Mead basin within the Rookery Bay watershed, which identifies eight actions to restore its
historic flowways. While this plan has not yet been implemented, it is expected to benefit
regional hydrology in the future. In 2007 Big Cypress Basin and Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve developed a hydrodynamic model with the University of South Florida to
simulate the mixing of freshwater and distribution of salinity in the bay. This model will be useful
in planning future restoration activities for Rookery Bay.396 Minimum Flows and Levels have
been considered for Rookery Bay and Henderson Creek but have not yet been created or
implemented.397 CERP includes plans for Henderson Creek and Belle Meade restoration;
however, the design agreement is currently awaiting review by FDEP.398
At the request of Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve and the Collier County
Transportation Division, the Big Cypress Basin branch of the SFWMD created a Stormwater
Management Master Plan for the Belle Meade area. The plan was developed to help evaluate
and manage the natural resources of the Belle Meade area, which is comprised of 69,700 acres
in south central Collier County. The four objectives of this plan are as follows: “Identifying
alternatives to ensure the goals of the County Growth Management Plan (CGMP) are met;
Restoring historic flowways; Protecting and preserving the environmentally sensitive areas; and
Reducing point source discharges into the estuary.”399 The plan includes eight elements that
range from the creation of a stormwater treatment area to road improvements, including the
construction of weirs, road diversions, and culverts, as well as habitat enhancements.400 One
element, the diversion of some Golden Gate Canal flows to Henderson Creek, is expected to be
implemented in the near future when land negotiations are completed.401 The updated allowable
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 216 of 251 discharge rates that the plan recommends have already been implemented in Environmental
Resource Permits, which should help to cut back on excessive flows during storm events.
As the Rookery Bay watershed has been slightly altered such as to not present significant
ecological detriment to the watershed and the fluctuations in salinity are also attributed to
natural factors, its hydrological condition is determined to be “Fair.”
Ten Thousand Islands
Much of the Ten Thousand Islands watershed has been preserved, yet like the Rookery Bay
watershed, large portions, especially areas east and west of the Big Cypress National Preserve,
have been significantly altered by upstream development. Some of the tributaries feeding the
watershed remain largely intact, while others have been significantly changed, and enormous
areas of historic wetlands have been drained. Canals have been added as a result of increased
growth such as the construction of the Ave Maria community in eastern Collier County, which
broke ground in 2006.402
One of the many tributaries feeding the Ten Thousand Islands is Blackwater River. “Located
approximately 12 miles from downtown Naples, this river is relatively remote and has much of
its watershed intact. The hydrology has been slightly altered from the US 41 canal, however,
most surface water sheetflow entering Blackwater River enters through natural wetland
flowways.”403
On the other hand, the Faka Union Canal system drains an approximately 234 square mile
area, including the Golden Gate Estates region, and discharges into the Ten Thousand Islands.
The associated canals, roads, and levees surrounding the Faka Union Canal system have
changed the timing and volume of flows to the region.404 The addition of the Faka Union Canal
increased the amount and frequency of freshwater flowing into areas of the Ten Thousand
Islands bays, while drastically decreasing the flow to other areas, which has seriously altered
salinity in these bays and threatened the ecology of the region. “The influence of freshwater
input from the Everglades is very significant to this region. Large salinity variations are the
norm, being driven by both climatic events and water management practices.”405 The district has
tried to reverse this trend by installing culverts to promote improved water distribution.406 The
Tamiami Trail culverts have already been completed. Agricultural runoff has also contributed to
hydrologic alteration and to a decline in water quality in the Ten Thousand Island watershed.
CERP includes a restoration plan for the Seminole Tribe lands north of Big Cypress National
Preserve just west of Water Conservation Area 3A. This project will help to rectify hydrologic
alterations such as the L-28 and L-29 Canals and the North and West feeder canals that were
built during the Central and Southern Florida Project of the 1960s. The eastern portion of the
Seminole Tribe Big Cypress Water Conservation Plan includes conveyance canals that the
Tribe has designed and will construct.407 The western portion of the project will include four
basins that will each have an irrigation storage cell, a water resource area that will be used
much like a stormwater treatment area, pump stations, canals to improve water distribution, and
inverted siphons that will transport effluent into the Native Range by guiding water under the
West Feeder Canal.408 This project is currently underway; however, the completion of the
second, third and fourth basins has been delayed while results from seepage testing on the
fourth basin is analyzed.409 Restoration activities are also underway for Lake Trafford as well as
for Picayune Strand.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 217 of 251 The Picayune Strand Restoration Project (PSRP) was initiated to restore natural water flows
over 86 square miles of former wetlands in the Ten Thousand Islands watershed between
Alligator Alley and the Tamiami Trail. The area was drained, 48 miles of canals were dredged,
and 290 miles of shell-rock roads were built in preparation for a 1960s real estate development
that eventually failed. As a result of these activities, the water table dropped several feet, and
native cypress wetland declined, giving way to invasive and nuisance plants.410 Instead of
flowing slowly across the landscape, water was channeled into the Faka Union Canal system.411
Drinking water resources also suffered from saltwater intrusion as salinity was altered
throughout the estuary.
In 1974, Collier County commissioned an original study of the property to determine what would
be needed to restore the area. Between 1984 and 2005 the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, aided by the U.S. Department of the Interior, acquired these lands
and began the lengthy process of restoring historic flows. In addition to increasing wetlands,
enhancing ecosystems and water quality, improving endangered species habitat, and
maintaining flood protection, one of the leading goals of the PSRP is to restore natural flow to
the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge.412 The project to date has included the
installation of culverts under the Tamiami Trail to allow for increased sheetflow, the plugging of
canals to prevent the channelization of flow away from wetlands, the demolition of existing
structures and removal of trash from the property, soil remediation to remove contaminants, and
the elimination of roads that act as impediments to natural water flow. Three pump stations have
been designed, which are anticipated to benefit sheetflow in the near future.413
One example of a successfully completed project is the plugging of the Prairie Canal, which the
state of Florida finished as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) in
the fall of 2006. This project, which filled seven miles of canal, should have a positive impact on
area hydrology as it is expected to significantly decrease drainage. The Governing Board of the
South Florida Water Management District adopted a water reservation for the Picayune Strand
on January 8, 2009, which may have positive future impacts on hydrology and water quality in
this region as well. Water reservations are created to “quantify and reserve water needed for the
protection of fish and wildlife”414 and public health ahead of consumptive uses. They allow for
the protection of both volume and timing of water at particular locations.415 This is the first water
reservation to be established in the southwest Florida region.416
Although the restoration of Picayune Strand is expected to improve freshwater flows in
downstream areas in the Ten Thousand Islands over the next ten years, much of this watershed
has not yet realized improvements.417 Therefore the current benefits of the PSRP are not
enough to raise the hydrology grade of the Ten Thousand Islands estuary watershed to fair.
Because of the severe impact of the hydrological alteration from the old Southern Golden Gate
Estates and the agricultural industry’s draining practices, the Ten Thousand Islands watershed
is determined to have been significantly altered such as to present a degree of negative impact
to the watershed, although improvements are underway, it has been assessed a grade of “PoorFair.”
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 218 of 251 APPENDIX H : DATA GAPS BY PARAMETER FOR EACH WATERSHED
Distribution of EPA Final Grade by WBID
The following tables display how many parameters were measured in each WBID, with a total
possible number of 17. The Conservancy found that 15 parameters were most commonly
measured for and according to Conservancy methodology, were grouped into 6 types of
parameters:
1) Nutrients
a. Nutrients (chl-a or TSI)
b. Unionized Ammonia
2) Oxygen Depleting Wastes
a. Dissolved Oxygen
b. Biological Oxygen Demand
3) Metals
a. Copper
b. Lead
c. Mercury
d. Iron
4) Pathogens
a. Bacteria (in shellfish or beach advisories)
b. Fecal Coliform
5) Physical Parameters
a. pH
b. Conductance
c. Turbidity
d. Alkalinity
6) Biology Some WBIDs have 17 parameters measured for because either there were 2 different types of
measurements for mercury (in fish tissue and in the water column), or there were 2 different
types of measurements for nutrients (TSI and chl-a). FDEP Category 3a represents where no
data has been collected. For example, WBID 3236 in the Caloosahatchee watershed has had
16 parameters it should be measured for, and 50% of those (8 parameters) have no data.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 219 of 251 Caloosahatchee River
2
3236
3246
3235A
3235B
3235C
3235D
3235E
3235F
3235G
3235H
3235I
3235J
3235K
3235L
3235M
3235N
3235O
3236A
3237A
3237B
3237C
3237D
3237E
8
9
9
8
6
4
2
4
9
9
10
9
9
1
7
47%
56%
60%
50%
38%
25%
13%
27%
56%
56%
63%
56%
56%
6%
44%
7
9
8
9
8
6
44%
56%
50%
56%
53%
40%
7
4
7
5
1
4
6
44%
27%
44%
31%
7%
25%
38%
6
4
4
7
6
6
4
4
7
6
5
6
6
38%
25%
27%
44%
38%
38%
25%
25%
44%
38%
31%
38%
38%
3240 E1
3240A
3240A1
3240A2
3240A4
3240AB
3240B
3240B1
3240B2
3240C
3240C1
3240E
3240F
3240G
3240H
3240I
3240J
3240K
3240L
3240M
3240N
3240Q
8
3
2
2
3
3
4
4
2
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
5
4
3
4
3
3
3
15
7
9
7
7
14
6
6
9
4
7
6
4
5
6
6
6
4
4
4
6
4
3a
50%
18%
13%
13%
19%
19%
25%
25%
13%
25%
25%
25%
19%
13%
19%
19%
31%
25%
19%
25%
19%
20%
20%
100%
44%
60%
44%
44%
93%
38%
38%
60%
25%
44%
40%
25%
31%
38%
38%
38%
25%
25%
25%
38%
25%
7
3b
44%
1
6%
2
2
2
6
3
2
2
13%
13%
13%
38%
20%
13%
13%
1
6%
1
6%
8
4
9
1
1
50%
25%
56%
6%
6%
2
1
1
2
2
13%
6%
6%
13%
13%
1
1
3
6%
7%
20%
1
6%
2
13%
1
1
7%
6%
1
3
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
3c
6%
18%
19%
7%
6%
13%
19%
6%
13%
4a
4c
1
1
1
1
6%
1
6%
1
6%
1
1
1
1
6%
33%
3
1
2
3
2
2
1
4
3
2
1
2
19%
7%
13%
19%
13%
13%
6%
25%
19%
13%
6%
13%
1
6%
2
13%
1
6%
1
2
1
1
1
1
6%
13%
6%
6%
6%
6%
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
6%
6%
6%
13%
6%
13%
6%
6%
1
2
6%
13%
1
7%
7%
6%
5
3
18%
1
1
2
1
1
3
7%
6%
13%
6%
6%
20%
3
19%
1
6%
1
2
2
6%
13%
13%
1
1
6%
7%
4
25%
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
4
13%
6%
7%
6%
6%
13%
6%
6%
6%
13%
25%
1
1
1
2
6%
6%
6%
13%
6%
3
1
5
6%
6%
7%
4d
3
19%
1
6%
6%
13%
1
6%
6%
1
1
1
1
1
1
6%
7%
6%
6%
6%
6%
1
1
1
1
1
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
19%
1
7%
1
1
6%
6%
6%
1
2
1
1
1
6%
6%
Total
16
17
16
15
16
16
16
16
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
16
15
16
16
15
16
16
15
16
16
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 220 of 251 Charlotte Harbor Proper
2
2063
2066
2071
2073
2074
2077
2079
2080
2081
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2093
2094
2065A
2065B
2065C
2065D
2074A
2074B
2082A
2082B
2092A
2092B
2093A
3240T
3a
4
5
7
4
5
25%
31%
44%
27%
31%
3
19%
1
7%
4
5
5
6
27%
33%
33%
40%
1
6%
3
20%
11
11
6
8
7
15
11
12
7
15
15
11
15
9
15
12
15
15
15
15
8
8
8
6
8
11
4
15
12
9
15
15
3b
69%
69%
38%
53%
44%
100%
69%
75%
44%
100%
100%
69%
100%
60%
100%
75%
94%
100%
100%
100%
53%
53%
53%
40%
50%
69%
25%
100%
75%
60%
100%
100%
3c
1
1
2
6%
7%
13%
2
4
9
13%
25%
56%
5
31%
3
20%
4
25%
1
7%
2
8
4
11
13%
50%
25%
69%
4
2
25%
13%
4d
1
6%
1
7%
1
5
1
6%
1
6%
1
6%
1
2
6%
13%
1
7%
1
6%
3
1
2
1
20%
7%
13%
7%
1
7%
Total
16
16
16
15
16
15
16
16
16
15
15
16
15
15
15
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
15
16
15
15
15
6%
Coastal Venice
2
1924
1987
1994
1996
2009
2016
1924B
2015A
3a
3
20%
4
25%
4
15
15
9
6
15
15
14
27%
100%
100%
56%
38%
100%
100%
88%
4
3b
27%
1
3c
7%
4d
7
3
44%
19%
2
13%
2
13%
5
3
1
6%
20%
Total
15
15
15
16
16
15
15
16
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 221 of 251 Estero Bay
2
3258 E1
3258A
3258B
3258B1
3258C
3258C1
3258D
3258D1
3258E
3258F
3258G
3258H
3258H1
3258I
3258J
3258X
8060A
3a
5
5
4
6
6
5
5
4
33%
31%
27%
38%
38%
31%
33%
25%
9
7
4
5
60%
44%
27%
33%
1
15
9
7
7
4
6
4
6
5
7
4
5
6
9
9
16
14
7%
3b
100%
60%
44%
47%
25%
38%
25%
40%
31%
47%
27%
31%
40%
60%
60%
100%
93%
3c
2
13%
2
13%
4
1
4
6
25%
7%
25%
40%
3
1
19%
7%
5
33%
4c
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
6%
7%
13%
6%
6%
7%
6%
7%
7%
1
7%
1
5
1
1
3
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
7%
6%
20%
13%
19%
13%
13%
13%
7%
7%
3
1
1
20%
7%
7%
6%
Total
15
15
16
15
16
16
16
15
16
15
15
16
15
15
15
16
15
Lemon Bay
2
2021
2030
2039
2042
2049
2050
2051
2052
2057
2067
2068
2072
2076
1983A
1983A1
1983B
2030A
2075A
2075B
2075C
2075D
2078A
2078B
3a
2
5
3
2
13%
33%
19%
13%
4
25%
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
27%
19%
20%
19%
20%
19%
27%
4
27%
4
5
3
27%
33%
19%
15
9
6
9
9
15
10
9
15
9
9
10
12
6
12
7
8
15
9
15
9
9
6
3b
94%
56%
40%
56%
56%
100%
67%
56%
100%
60%
56%
67%
75%
40%
75%
47%
50%
94%
60%
94%
60%
60%
38%
3c
1
7%
4
27%
1
7%
3
20%
2
4
13%
25%
1
7%
3
5
19%
1
7%
1
1
5
3
4
5
6%
31%
20%
25%
31%
1
3
7%
19%
2
4
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
5
3
4
13%
25%
7%
6%
20%
6%
13%
6%
6%
7%
6%
31%
20%
25%
Total
16
16
15
16
16
15
15
16
15
15
16
15
16
15
16
15
16
16
15
16
16
15
16
Naples Bay
3a
3278K
3278Q
3278R
3278S
15
11
15
15
3b
100%
73%
100%
100%
3
5
20%
1
Total
7%
15
15
15
15
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 222 of 251 Pine Island Sound
2
2065E
2065F
2065G
2065H
2065HA
2082C
2082C1
2092C
2092D
2092E
2092F
2092G
2092H
3240A3
3240O
3240S
8059B
3a
8
4
4
5
1
9
4
4
3
6
5
3
53%
27%
27%
33%
7%
60%
25%
27%
20%
40%
33%
19%
7
4
5
2
47%
27%
33%
13%
5
5
9
6
14
2
8
6
9
5
6
11
14
6
10
9
12
31%
31%
33%
44%
44%
11
11
6
5
5
3b
33%
33%
60%
40%
93%
13%
50%
40%
60%
33%
40%
69%
93%
40%
67%
60%
80%
4d
4
1
3
27%
7%
20%
2
4
4
1
2
1
2
1
13%
25%
27%
7%
13%
7%
13%
7%
1
1
5
7%
Total
2
2
1
1
13%
13%
7%
7%
2
13%
1
1
2
3
7%
7%
13%
20%
2
1
1
13%
7%
7%
7%
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
Rookery Bay
2
3278O
3278P
3278U
3278V
3278Y
5
5
5
7
7
3a
3b
69%
69%
40%
31%
31%
4d
5
4
3
3
19%
19%
1
1
Total
27%
6%
6%
16
16
15
16
16
Wiggins Pass/Cocohatchee River
2
3259A
3259B
3259W
3259Z
3278C
3278D
3278E
3278F
3a
6
2
4
38%
13%
25%
7
3
5
44%
19%
31%
6
6
8
15
9
8
10
5
3b
38%
40%
50%
94%
56%
50%
63%
31%
4a
4c
1
7
4d
5
6%
Total
3
19%
3
1
19%
6%
1
6%
1
6%
47%
1
7
44%
2
5
13%
31%
6%
1
6%
16
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
Ten Thousand Islands
2
3255
3267
3259I
3259M
3261B
3261C
3266A
3269A
3278G
3278H
3278I
3278L
3278M
3278T
3278W
3a
2
2
10
7
10
9
2
13%
13%
67%
47%
63%
60%
13%
9
10
10
5
56%
63%
67%
31%
10
3
67%
19%
9
12
3
6
3
3
11
15
5
5
3
10
15
3
10
56%
75%
20%
40%
19%
20%
73%
100%
31%
31%
20%
63%
100%
20%
63%
3b
4
1
1
1
2
4a
4c
25%
6%
6%
7%
13%
1
4d
1
1
1
1
6%
6%
7%
7%
1
1
7%
7%
1
1
6%
7%
6%
Total
1
1
1
2
1
7%
7%
6%
13%
7%
2
13%
1
1
7%
6%
1
1
7%
6%
16
16
15
15
16
15
15
15
16
16
15
16
15
15
16
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 223 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor
2
1488
1492
1497
1500
1501
1504
1510
1521
1539
1545
1548
1580
1586
1588
1589
1590
1598
1602
1608
1611
1613
1616
1617
1622
1626
1629
1631
1634
1638
1646
1647
1672
1679
1699
1718
1720
1722
1727
1728
1734
1735
1737
1738
1740
1741
1744
1745
1746
1748
1750
3a
6
40%
4
25%
5
5
31%
31%
5
4
31%
25%
4
27%
5
3
31%
20%
5
31%
1
6%
14
15
4
15
7
13
15
7
4
15
7
6
15
15
9
15
15
15
15
15
5
15
15
7
3
15
16
15
15
15
7
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
15
15
15
15
14
15
93%
100%
27%
100%
44%
87%
100%
44%
25%
100%
44%
38%
100%
100%
56%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
33%
100%
100%
44%
20%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
44%
100%
100%
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
88%
100%
3b
3c
4a
1
7%
1
7%
3
1
19%
7%
1
1
6%
7%
3
1
19%
6%
2
13%
1
1
6%
6%
3
2
19%
13%
2
13%
1
6%
7
44%
4
27%
1
4
6%
27%
2
13%
3
1
19%
7%
4
25%
1
7%
4b
4c
4d
1
1
7%
5
Total
4
27%
1
6%
3
19%
1
6%
2
13%
3
20%
6%
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
16
16
15
16
16
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
16
15
15
15
16
15
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 224 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor
2
1751
1752
1759
1764
1765
1766
1767
1769
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1781
1786
1791
1794
1795
1796
1799
1801
1802
1805
1808
1814
1815
1817
1818
1820
1821
1822
1824
1826
1827
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1844
1845
1851
1852
1854
1857
1863
1866
1867
1870
1871
1873
8
50%
3
19%
4
25%
4
4
25%
25%
3a
6
8
15
15
15
15
14
7
14
15
5
15
15
15
14
15
15
14
15
14
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
14
14
15
15
15
15
9
15
15
16
15
15
8
9
15
15
15
15
8
15
11
15
15
7
15
38%
50%
100%
94%
100%
100%
93%
44%
93%
100%
31%
100%
100%
100%
93%
100%
100%
93%
100%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
93%
93%
100%
100%
100%
100%
56%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
56%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
69%
100%
100%
44%
94%
3b
2
7
13%
44%
6
1
38%
7%
4
25%
3c
1
6%
1
6%
1
7%
1
6%
1
7%
1
7%
1
7%
1
1
7%
7%
4a
4b
4c
4d
1
6%
5
31%
2
13%
7
1
44%
6%
1
1
6%
6%
6
38%
1
6%
1
6%
5
31%
2
13%
1
1
6%
6%
1
6%
5
Total
1
6%
1
6%
1
6%
16
16
15
16
15
15
15
16
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
16
15
15
16
16
15
15
15
15
16
15
16
15
15
16
16
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 225 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor
2
1878
1879
1882
1884
1886
1894
1897
1902
1904
1905
1907
1908
1915
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1927
1928
1933
1934
1935
1939
1940
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1948
1949
1952
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1962
1963
1964
1965
1967
1969
1970
3a
15
15
15
15
15
100%
100%
94%
100%
100%
3b
3c
1
6%
4a
4b
4c
4d
5
Total
15
15
16
15
15
1
6%
5
31%
6
38%
2
13%
2
13%
7
44%
6
38%
1
6%
15
100%
15
15
100%
15
15
100%
15
15
100%
15
3
3
4
19%
20%
25%
7
44%
6
40%
13%
15
100%
15
15
100%
15
15
100%
15
19%
31%
6
20%
2
15
100%
6
38%
15
100%
31%
5
1
6%
5
31%
6
5
5
13%
38%
33%
33%
6
40%
5
31%
1
6%
16
15
5
2
16
2
3
5
16
31%
69%
31%
6%
100%
38%
5
1
5
6
47%
6%
15
11
14
1
2
13%
2
13%
7%
2
7%
1
6%
3
19%
31%
5
31%
7
44%
6
38%
7
44%
3
19%
15
100%
2
1
13%
6%
15
16
16
6
20%
30
15
1
6%
1
6%
1
6%
16
15
2
16
13%
16
16
15
8
50%
7
44%
10
63%
6
38%
15
100%
15
100%
7
44%
3
19%
4
25%
16
12
75%
3
19%
1
6%
16
15
100%
6
38%
2
13%
1
6%
15
100%
15
100%
3
20%
15
100%
15
15
100%
15
2
13%
15
100%
4
27%
15
100%
7
15
15
44%
100%
100%
1
6%
16
16
15
15
15
1
6%
16
15
15
2
13%
4
27%
3
20%
1
6%
3
2
20%
1
7%
13%
1
2
7%
13%
15
15
15
2
13%
1
6%
15
15
1
6%
1
6%
16
15
15
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 226 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor
2
1972
1973
1974
1976
1977
1978
1980
1981
1986
1988
1989
1990
1995
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2019
2020
2022
2023
2024
2025
2027
2028
2029
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2040
2041
2043
2044
2047
2053
5
31%
6
40%
6
40%
4
4
27%
25%
5
33%
8
50%
4
27%
5
31%
7
44%
1
5
4
6%
31%
25%
4
4
25%
25%
3a
5
15
16
3
15
3
15
7
15
15
15
15
2
6
15
15
15
4
15
15
15
15
15
6
7
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
9
15
15
8
4
15
15
15
6
16
6
16
15
15
4
4
9
15
9
9
31%
100%
100%
20%
100%
20%
100%
47%
100%
100%
100%
100%
13%
38%
100%
100%
100%
27%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
38%
44%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
56%
100%
100%
50%
27%
100%
100%
100%
38%
100%
38%
100%
100%
100%
25%
25%
56%
100%
56%
56%
3b
3c
2
13%
1
6%
1
7%
4
27%
4
27%
7
47%
4
2
27%
13%
2
2
13%
13%
3
20%
1
7%
1
8
6%
50%
7
44%
7
4
44%
27%
1
1
6%
7%
2
13%
3
19%
1
6%
1
6%
9
5
2
56%
31%
13%
2
2
13%
13%
4a
4b
4c
4d
1
2
1
1
6%
6%
Total
19%
1
7%
3
1
20%
6%
2
13%
2
13%
1
6%
1
6%
1
1
6%
6%
7%
13%
1
1
1
5
3
1
1
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
16
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
15
15
16
16
16
15
16
16
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 227 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor
2
2058
2059
2062
14881
14882
14921
14922
15001
15002
15003
15004
15005
15041
15101
15102
18511
1488A
1488B
1488C
1488C1
1488D
1488D1
1488D2
1488D3
1488E
1488F
1488G
1488H
1488I
1488P
1488Q
1488R
1488S
1488T
1488U
1488V
1488W
1488W1
1488X
1488Y
1488Z
1497A
1497B
1497C
1497D
1497D1
1497E
1501A
1501B
1501B1
1501C
1501D
3
20%
6
5
38%
31%
4
3
5
25%
19%
31%
5
4
33%
25%
5
31%
5
6
31%
38%
5
31%
4
5
25%
31%
5
31%
5
5
31%
31%
4
4
4
5
2
5
25%
25%
25%
31%
13%
31%
3
5
4
19%
31%
25%
3a
15
7
15
13
7
7
15
8
10
8
9
15
5
8
15
7
8
100%
47%
100%
87%
44%
44%
100%
50%
63%
50%
56%
100%
33%
50%
100%
44%
50%
7
7
15
7
15
15
15
7
13
8
11
15
7
8
7
8
11
7
7
13
16
14
7
7
8
7
8
7
12
7
6
7
15
7
9
44%
44%
100%
44%
100%
100%
100%
44%
87%
50%
69%
100%
44%
50%
44%
50%
69%
44%
44%
81%
100%
88%
44%
44%
50%
44%
50%
44%
75%
44%
38%
44%
100%
44%
56%
3b
3c
4a
4b
4c
4d
5
Total
2
13%
3
20%
2
3
3
13%
19%
19%
1
6%
3
3
2
7
19%
19%
13%
44%
1
6%
1
6%
4
2
27%
13%
1
6%
1
1
7%
6%
9
1
56%
6%
1
6%
1
6%
3
1
19%
6%
6%
1
1
6%
6%
3
19%
1
6%
8
2
7
4
50%
13%
44%
25%
1
6%
1
6%
1
6%
3
2
9
2
5
2
3
3
19%
13%
56%
13%
31%
13%
19%
19%
1
6%
1
1
6%
6%
1
6%
1
1
6%
6%
2
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
3
13%
25%
25%
13%
13%
13%
19%
19%
19%
6%
19%
1
1
1
1
1
1
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
6%
1
1
1
6%
6%
6%
9
7
56%
44%
1
1
6%
1
1
3
6%
6%
19%
1
2
2
1
6%
13%
13%
6%
1
6%
15
15
15
15
16
16
15
16
16
16
16
15
15
16
15
16
16
16
16
15
16
15
15
15
16
15
16
16
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
16
16
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 228 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor
2
1501E
1501F
1501V
1501W
1501X
1501Z
1504A
1521A
1521A1
1521B
1521C
1521C1
1521D
1521E
1521F
1521G
1521G1
1521H
1521I
1521J
1521K
1521L
1521M
1521N
1521O
1521P
1521Q
1521R
1539 P
1539A
1539B
1539C
1539D
1539E
1539F
1539Q
1539R
1539S
1539X
1539Y
1539Y1
1539Z
1548A
1549A
1549B
1549B1
1549C
1549X
1582A
1582B
1588A
1589A
5
2
31%
13%
6
5
38%
31%
4
3
25%
20%
4
5
4
4
5
5
6
6
5
4
6
25%
31%
25%
25%
31%
31%
38%
38%
31%
25%
38%
5
4
5
31%
25%
31%
5
31%
5
4
31%
25%
6
38%
5
31%
5
6
3
33%
38%
20%
5
31%
5
31%
3a
15
15
8
10
10
15
7
7
10
7
6
15
7
7
7
7
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
10
8
8
7
15
15
9
9
8
10
9
16
8
7
10
8
10
15
7
15
4
7
6
7
8
15
15
7
15
100%
100%
50%
63%
63%
100%
44%
44%
63%
44%
40%
100%
44%
44%
44%
44%
50%
44%
44%
44%
44%
44%
44%
63%
50%
50%
44%
100%
100%
56%
56%
50%
63%
56%
100%
50%
44%
63%
50%
63%
100%
44%
100%
27%
44%
40%
44%
50%
100%
100%
44%
100%
3b
7
44%
4
25%
3
3
6
3
2
19%
19%
38%
19%
13%
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
6
2
3
3
19%
19%
19%
19%
13%
13%
19%
13%
19%
19%
19%
38%
13%
19%
19%
7
7
2
6
7
44%
44%
13%
38%
44%
2
2
6
2
6
13%
13%
38%
13%
38%
3
19%
1
2
8
1
6%
13%
50%
6%
3
19%
3c
1
6%
1
6%
1
6%
1
1
1
1
6%
6%
6%
6%
1
6%
1
6%
2
1
1
1
1
4b
4c
4d
5
Total
6%
1
2
4a
1
1
1
1
6%
6%
6%
6%
1
6%
1
1
6%
6%
13%
13%
6%
7%
6%
6%
1
7%
1
6%
1
4
6%
27%
1
6%
1
1
6%
6%
1
6%
1
1
6%
6%
1
6%
3
1
3
20%
6%
20%
1
6%
1
6%
15
15
16
16
16
15
16
16
16
16
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
16
15
15
16
15
16
16
15
15
16
15
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 229 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor
2
1590A
1590B
1590C
1590D
1590E
1590Z
1613A
1613B
1613C
1613D
1613E
1617A
1622A
1622B
1622C
1623A
1623B
1623C
1623D
1623E
1623F
1623G
1623H
1623I
1623J
1623K
1623L
1623M
1623M1
1623M2
1623N
1623S
1623X
1629A
1644A
1644B
1647A
1647B
1677A
1677B
1677C
1677C1
1757A
1757B
1763A
1763B
1763C
1763D
1776A
1787A
1787B
1857A
1
4
3
9
7
6
6
2
6
3
6
3
2
5
1
3a
6%
27%
20%
56%
47%
40%
38%
13%
38%
20%
35%
20%
13%
31%
6%
4
27%
4
27%
7
7
5
44%
44%
33%
7
6
47%
38%
8
9
15
15
15
8
7
7
7
8
15
5
9
15
15
7
4
3
5
5
5
6
4
4
4
4
5
7
7
16
15
14
14
15
15
15
8
15
4
15
6
13
6
6
3
10
16
15
7
3
6
8
50%
56%
100%
100%
100%
50%
44%
44%
44%
50%
94%
33%
56%
100%
100%
47%
27%
19%
33%
33%
31%
40%
25%
27%
24%
27%
33%
44%
44%
100%
100%
93%
93%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
27%
100%
40%
87%
38%
38%
20%
63%
100%
100%
44%
20%
38%
50%
3b
3c
6
7
38%
44%
1
6%
7
9
7
9
8
1
7
6
44%
56%
44%
56%
50%
6%
47%
38%
1
6%
2
13%
1
1
7%
6%
6
2
1
2
3
6
1
6
1
1
3
2
7
40%
13%
7%
13%
19%
40%
6%
40%
6%
7%
20%
13%
44%
1
1
7%
7%
1
1
7%
7%
4
1
2
3
2
1
25%
7%
12%
20%
13%
6%
1
1
7%
7%
3
20%
8
50%
2
13%
4
2
3
2
6
4
27%
13%
19%
13%
40%
25%
8
3
3
8
50%
20%
19%
50%
1
6%
2
13%
1
1
1
6%
7%
6%
4a
4b
4c
1
1
4d
7%
6%
1
7%
5
Total
2
13%
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
4
3
1
1
13%
7%
13%
7%
7%
13%
7%
6%
7%
18%
27%
20%
6%
6%
2
13%
1
7%
1
7%
16
16
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
15
16
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
16
15
16
15
17
15
15
16
16
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
15
16
16
15
16
15
16
16
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 230 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor
2
1869A
1869B
1869C
1877A
1877B
1877C
1939A
1950A
1950B
1981A
1981B
1981C
1981D
1991D
2026A
2033Z
2041B
2048B
2048C
2056E
1521A
1521A1
4
2
6
27%
13%
40%
5
31%
6
6
35%
38%
4
24%
6
1
5
38%
7%
31%
3
5
19%
31%
3a
16
2
3
2
7
7
15
6
16
15
2
5
9
5
5
14
8
7
8
100%
13%
20%
13%
47%
47%
100%
38%
100%
94%
12%
31%
56%
29%
31%
93%
50%
47%
50%
11
7
10
69%
44%
63%
3b
3c
5
6
4
7
5
33%
40%
27%
47%
33%
2
2
13%
13%
1
3
19%
3
2
7
5
9
18%
13%
44%
29%
56%
1
4
2
6%
27%
13%
1
3
6
6%
19%
38%
4a
4b
4c
4d
1
1
7%
7%
7%
1
7%
1
6%
1
6%
1
2
1
6%
12%
6%
1
1
1
6%
6%
7%
1
6%
1
1
6%
1
6%
5
Total
2
1
2
1
1
13%
7%
13%
7%
7%
4
2
24%
13%
1
6%
3
1
20%
6%
1
6%
6%
16
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
17
16
16
17
16
15
16
15
16
16
16
16
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 231 of 251 WBIDS WITH NO DATA
The following is a list of WBIDs with absolutely no data collected for any type of parameter. The
acreage of these WBIDs was then totaled and compared to the total acres in the watershed to
get a percentage of the watershed that has no water quality data collected for it.
Charlotte Harbor Proper
WBID
Total Acres
2077
2082B
2083
2084
2086
2088
2091
2093
2093A
2094
3240T
Total
2,155.03
2,273.57
549.20
1,400.17
1,657.87
1,163.01
1,857.63
272.51
2,400.82
1,710.88
19,007.55
34,448.23
Coastal Venice
WBID
Total Acres
1,640.02
3,675.42
4,074.31
1,355.58
10,745.33
Estero Bay
WBID
3.0%
6.7%
7.4%
2.5%
20%
Total Acres
2,310.29
2,310.29
Lemon Bay
WBID
193,653
1%
1%
Total Acres
62,320
Area
2050
2057
Total
1,327.37
1,840.08
3,167.45
Ten Thousand Islands
54,800
Area
3258X
Total
3269A
Total
1%
1%
0.3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
0.1%
1%
1%
10%
18%
Area
1924B
1987
1994
2016
Total
WBID
189,677
Area
2%
3%
5%
Total Acres
1,549,900
Area
7,343.17
7,343.17
0.5%
0.5%
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Greater Charlotte Harbor
WBID
Area
1488W1
40.34
1492
1,047.33
14922
11.06
1500
3,403.40
15005
18.01
1501B1
554.50
1501E
854.56
1501F
2,282.81
1501Z
77.01
1510
821.30
15102
16.12
1521C1
9,076.25
1521R
261.91
1539F
43.63
1867
3,782.77
1869A
5,244.39
1902
1,716.19
1918
5,497.73
1919
1,205.14
1920
5,364.07
1942
9,701.98
1946
1,656.86
1952
2,874.08
1960
1,483.94
1970
2,539.69
1973
11,369.74
1988
2,394.49
1989
19,534.54
1990
6,792.49
1998
3,660.84
1999
3,703.73
2000
10,014.31
2004
1,338.71
2005
3,317.81
2006
2,497.86
2007
2,635.75
2011
1,164.63
2012
483.57
2013
858.24
2014
3,283.27
2019
267.31
2022
1,784.23
2024
980.83
2025
2,392.77
2029
622.39
2031
3,051.07
2032
1,260.13
2034
2,689.87
2036
287.71
2037
208.78
Total Acres
1,807,658
0.0022%
0.0579%
0.0006%
0.1883%
0.0010%
0.0307%
0.0473%
0.1263%
0.0043%
0.0454%
0.0009%
0.5021%
0.0145%
0.0024%
0.2093%
0.2901%
0.0949%
0.3041%
0.0667%
0.2967%
0.5367%
0.0917%
0.1590%
0.0821%
0.1405%
0.6290%
0.1325%
1.0807%
0.3758%
0.2025%
0.2049%
0.5540%
0.0741%
0.1835%
0.1382%
0.1458%
0.0644%
0.0268%
0.0475%
0.1816%
0.0148%
0.0987%
0.0543%
0.1324%
0.0344%
0.1688%
0.0697%
0.1488%
0.0159%
0.0115%
Page 232 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor
WBID
Area
2038
1,291.78
1488C1
161.38
1488D1
8.67
1488D2
13.58
1488D3
44.83
1488I
1,076.66
1539Y1
750.53
1545
1,536.74
1548A
469.04
1582A
51.76
1582B
92.78
1586
1,885.28
1588
914.33
1589A
654.50
1590
2,552.67
1590C
65.25
1590D
70.48
1590E
20.99
1598
3,218.23
1602
4,812.42
1608
1,033.38
1611
6,520.38
1616
1,014.50
1617
1,503.62
1622B
40.35
1622C
10,266.25
1623M2
136.08
1623N
4,513.79
1629
1,176.75
1629A
32.72
1631
3,029.85
1634
2,636.62
1638
1,096.72
1644A
803.31
1644B
778.16
1646
14,158.94
1647B
9,535.10
1672
12,257.83
1677B
19,491.64
1679
8,515.23
1718
335.00
1720
166.45
1722
5,507.83
1727
639.94
1728
615.18
1734
505.87
1735
2,557.20
1737
212.87
1738
11,933.39
1741
2,233.73
Total Acres
1,807,658
0.0715%
0.0089%
0.0005%
0.0008%
0.0025%
0.0596%
0.0415%
0.0850%
0.0259%
0.0029%
0.0051%
0.1043%
0.0506%
0.0362%
0.1412%
0.0036%
0.0039%
0.0012%
0.1780%
0.2662%
0.0572%
0.3607%
0.0561%
0.0832%
0.0022%
0.5679%
0.0075%
0.2497%
0.0651%
0.0018%
0.1676%
0.1459%
0.0607%
0.0444%
0.0430%
0.7833%
0.5275%
0.6781%
1.0783%
0.4711%
0.0185%
0.0092%
0.3047%
0.0354%
0.0340%
0.0280%
0.1415%
0.0118%
0.6602%
0.1236%
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Greater Charlotte Harbor
WBID
Area
1744
534.35
1745
630.89
1746
625.65
1750
872.32
1759
1,261.68
1763C
13,284.41
1763D
6,651.94
1765
247.84
1766
1,216.72
1773
2,792.79
1775
904.96
1776
12,965.60
1777
3,952.15
1786
1,676.66
1791
1,116.61
1795
906.24
1799
897.45
1801
1,075.89
1802
6,614.08
1805
2,189.76
1808
3,563.57
1814
4,561.26
1815
6,821.88
1820
5,708.56
1821
2,406.59
1822
6,112.71
1824
1,498.18
1827
8,722.26
1835
3,335.69
1836
8,434.89
1837
11,773.81
1838
3,946.49
1845
2,121.63
1851
3,170.64
Total Acres
1,807,658
0.0296%
0.0349%
0.0346%
0.0483%
0.0698%
0.7349%
0.3680%
0.0137%
0.0673%
0.1545%
0.0501%
0.7173%
0.2186%
0.0928%
0.0618%
0.0501%
0.0496%
0.0595%
0.3659%
0.1211%
0.1971%
0.2523%
0.3774%
0.3158%
0.1331%
0.3382%
0.0829%
0.4825%
0.1845%
0.4666%
0.6513%
0.2183%
0.1174%
0.1754%
Page 233 of 251 Greater Charlotte Harbor
WBID
Area
1852
6,710.61
1854
3,044.25
1863
1,674.52
1870
3,270.51
1878
2,886.27
1879
1,398.56
1884
2,175.56
1886
4,027.04
1904
3,977.59
1905
2,449.96
1907
2,855.62
1915
4,757.33
1928
17,560.39
1934
1,696.04
1939A
663.40
1945
9,276.15
1950B
7,358.46
1956
2,619.34
1957
9,487.80
1959
2,391.00
1963
6,202.32
1965
4,685.24
1969
6,899.01
1974
6,474.05
1977
10,190.83
1980
3,379.84
1986
6,006.72
2003
4,275.22
2020
10,610.62
2044
4,721.86
2058
3,367.28
2062
2,567.12
Total
581,367.40
Total Acres
1,807,658
0.3712%
0.1684%
0.0926%
0.1809%
0.1597%
0.0774%
0.1204%
0.2228%
0.2200%
0.1355%
0.1580%
0.2632%
0.9714%
0.0938%
0.0367%
0.5132%
0.4071%
0.1449%
0.5249%
0.1323%
0.3431%
0.2592%
0.3817%
0.3581%
0.5638%
0.1870%
0.3323%
0.2365%
0.5870%
0.2612%
0.1863%
0.1420%
32.1614%
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 234 of 251 List of Photos
Photo 1 - Wading Heron ............................................................................................................................ 6
Photo 2 - Lemon Bay ............................................................................................................................... 10
Photo 3 - Myakka River ........................................................................................................................... 11
Photo 4 - Babcock Webb WMA ............................................................................................................. 12
Photo 5 - Brazilian Pepper ...................................................................................................................... 66
Photo 6 - Australian Pine ........................................................................................................................ 67
Photo 7 - Melaleuca ................................................................................................................................. 68
Photo 8 - Asian Green Mussel ............................................................................................................... 68
Photo 9 - Two Feral Pigs ......................................................................................................................... 69
Photo 10 - Cuban Tree Frog ................................................................................................................... 69
Photo 11 – Young Cuban Tree Frog ..................................................................................................... 70
Photo 12 - Female manatee with offspring .......................................................................................... 73
Photo 13 - Manatees congregating at power plant outfall ................................................................. 74
Photo 14 - Oysters ................................................................................................................................... 75
Photo 15 - Oyster Reef ............................................................................................................................ 76
Photo 16 - Volunteers help build oyster reefs ...................................................................................... 76
Photo 17 - Spotted Seatrout ................................................................................................................... 77
Photo 18 - Blue Crabs ............................................................................................................................. 78
Photo 19 - Red Tide ............................................................................................................................... 125
Photo 20 - Cyanobacteria Bloom ......................................................................................................... 125
Photo 21 - Fish kill in Lake Trafford ..................................................................................................... 126
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Index
Caloosahatchee River
Acreage of Conservation Lands, 151
Conclusions, 43
Data for Water Quality Parameters, 175
Data Gaps by Parameter, 219
Estuary Information, 14
Hydrology Information, 208
Percentage of Impairment, 196
Percentage of Wetlands Remaining, 133
Charlotte Harbor
Acreage of Conservation Lands, 147
Conclusions, 41
Data for Water Quality Parameters, 160
Data Gaps by Parameter, 220
Estuary Information, 11
Hydrology Information, 206
Percentage of Impairment, 183
Percentage of Wetlands Remaining, 133
WBIDS with no data, 231
Coastal Venice
Acreage of Conservation Lands, 145
Conclusions, 40
Data for Water Quality Parameters, 158
Data Gaps by Parameter, 220
Estuary Information, 9
Hydrology Information, 204
Percentage of Impairment, 181
Percentage of Wetlands Remaining, 133
WBIDS with no data, 231
Estero Bay
Acreage of Conservation Lands, 153
Conclusions, 44
Data for Water Quality Parameters, 177
Data Gaps by Parameter, 221
Estuary Information, 16
Hydrology Information, 211
Percentage of Impairment, 198
Percentage of Wetlands Remaining, 134
WBIDS with no data, 231
Lemon Bay
Acreage of Conservation Lands, 146
Conclusions, 41
Data for Water Quality Parameters, 159
Data Gaps by Parameter, 221
Estuary Information, 10
Hydrology Information, 205
Percentage of Impairment, 182
Percentage of Wetlands Remaining, 133
WBIDS with no data, 231
Page 235 of 251 Naples Bay
Acreage of Conservation Lands, 154
Conclusions, 46
Data for Water Quality Parameters, 179
Data Gaps by Parameter, 221
Estuary Information, 19
Hydrology Information, 213
Percentage of Impairment, 201
Percentage of Wetlands Remaining, 134
Pine Island Sound
Acreage of Conservation Lands, 150
Conclusions, 42
Data for Water Quality Parameters, 174
Data Gaps by Parameter, 222
Estuary Information, 13
Hydrology Information, 207
Percentage of Impairment, 195
Percentage of Wetlands Remaining, 133
Rookery Bay
Acreage of Conservation Lands, 155
Conclusions, 47
Data for Water Quality Parameters, 179
Data Gaps by Parameter, 222
Estuary Information, 20
Hydrology Information, 215
Percentage of Impairment, 202
Percentage of Wetlands Remaining, 134
Ten Thousand Islands
Acreage of Conservation Lands, 155
Conclusions, 48
Data for Water Quality Parameters, 180
Data Gaps by Parameters, 222
Estuary Information, 21
Hydrology Information, 216
Percentage of Impairment, 203
Percentage of Wetlands Remaining, 134
WBIDS with no data, 231
Wiggins Pass
Acreage of Conservation Lands, 154
Conclusions, 45
Data for Water Quality Parameters, 178
Data Gaps by Parameter, 222
Estuary Information, 17
Hydrology Information, 213
Percentage of Impairment, 200
Percentage of Wetlands Remaining, 134
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 236 of 251 REFERENCES
1
Photographer: Joseph D’silva, 1-1-2010, available at
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Gn6nj4LGNePVUhDcdfVvaw (last viewed Dec. 16, 2010)
2
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. What are Estuaries? 2010 Feb 15. [Internet] [2010
Sept 20]. Available from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/habitats/estuaries.htm
3
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The Economic Impact of Saltwater Fishing in
Florida.
4
Florida Forever Coalition. Florida Forever: Conservation at a Crossroads. Green Book 2010.
5
Id 4
6
Id 2
7
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Water Quality Data Analysis and Report 2007Chapter 6.
[Internet] [2010 Sept 20]. Available from:
http://www.chnep.org/info/wq/CHNEP2007Status&Trends_ch6.pdf
8
Florida Department of Environmental Protection . Watershed Management Basin Rotation Project
[Internet]. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/default.htm 2010 Sep 17.
9
Southern Coastal Watershed Excursion [Internet]. Available at Southwest Florida Water Management
District website: http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/education/interactive/southerncoastal/venice.html
10
Marquis, Darcy Lee, and Paul Roat. The Insider’s Guide to Sarasota and Bradenton. Bradenton, FL:
Bradenton Herald; 1996
11
Antonini, Gustavo. Fann, David. Roat, Paul. A Historical Geography of Southwest Florida Waterways,
Volume Two. Found at: http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgpm99004/flsgpm99004_part3.pdf - Pg 59.
12
Sharks Teeth; General Information. Found at Venice Florida.com.
http://www.veniceflorida.com/shark.htm
13
Marquis, Darcy Lee, and Paul Roat. The Insider’s Guide to Sarasota and Bradenton. Bradenton, FL:
Bradenton Herald; 1996
14
Antonini, Gustavo. Fann, David. Roat, Paul. A Historical Geography of Southwest Florida Waterways,
Volume Two. Found at: http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgpm99004/flsgpm99004_part3.pdf - Pg 59.
15
Lemon Bay Conservancy [Internet]. “About Lemon Bay”. Found At:
http://www.lemonbayconservancy.org/about.htm. Feb. 1st, 2010
16
Southwest Florida Water Management District. Lemon Bay [Internet]. Available at:
http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/education/interactive/southerncoastal/lemonbay.html. Feb. 2nd , 2010
17
Id 16
18
Florida Department of Environmental Protection [Internet]. June 24th, 2009. “About Lemon Bay Aquatic
Preserve”. Found At: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/COASTAL/sites/lemon/info.htm. Feb. 1st, 2010
19
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/lemon/ (December 16, 2010)
20
1000 Friends of Florida: Building Better Communities. “Charlotte Harbor”. Found At:
http://www.1000friendsofflorida.org/emas/Charlotte.asp. Feb 10th, 2010
21
Rudolph, Robert. Lutterman, Tiffany. Directors. Committing to Our Future: The Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan for the Greater Charlotte Harbor Watershed- Vol 1. North Fort
Myers, FL. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, 2000. Pg 27-28. Feb 12th, 2010
22
http://www.venicegov.com/Park_links/venice_myakka.htm. (December 16, 2010)
23
Id 21. Pgs 27
24
American Rivers. “America’s Most Endangered Rivers of 2004”. Found At:
http://www.americanrivers.org/assets/pdfs/mer-past-reports/2004reportc2f1.pdf. Feb 10th, 2010
25
http://deegandom.blogspot.com/2009_01_01_archive.html. (December 16, 2010)
26
Way Making. “Babcock/Webb Wildlife Management Area”. Found At:
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM408G_Babcock_Webb_Wildlife_Management_Area_Charlotte
_County_FL. Feb 25th, 2010
27
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. June 24, 2009. Found at:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/COASTAL/SITES/gasparilla/info.htm. Feb 11th, 2010
28
Id 27
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 237 of 251 29
Rudolph, Robert. Lutterman, Tiffany. Directors. Committing to Our Future: The Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan for the Greater Charlotte Harbor Watershed- Vol 1. North Fort
Myers, FL. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program, 2000. Pg 32
30
Estevez, Ernest D. et al. The Story of the Greater Charlotte Harbor Watershed. Florida. North Ft.
Myers, FL: Patti & Tom Cross, Tom Cross, Inc.; 1998.
31
South Florida Water Management District. “Caloosahatchee River & Estuary”, [Internet]. Found At:
http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_watersupply/pg_sfwmd_watersupply_calriverest
uary. Jan. 10th, 2010
32
Gleason, Patrick J., editor. Environments of South Florida; Present and Past II:Memoir 2, 2 ed. Coral
Gables, FL: Miami Geological Society; 1984. Indicates that the headwaters of the Caloosahatchee River
were actually Lake Flirt, which lies 26 miles east of Ft. Myers. That report states that the Indians built
canals to connect the river with Lake Okeechobee.
33
US Army Corps of Engineers; Jacksonville District. “W.P. Franklin Lock & Dam Fact Sheet”. Found At:
http://news.caloosahatchee.org/docs/FactSheet_WPF.pdf. Jan. 10th, 2010
34
Id 33
35
South Florida Water Management District. Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan. 2009.
Available from:
http://www.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/xrepository/sfwmd_repository_pdf/ne_crwpp_main_123108.pdf
36
Florida Parks and Wildlife. “Babcock Ranch: Preserving an Environmental Legacy”, 2006. With
comment from Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Found At:
http://www.floridaparksandwildlife.com/pages/posts/babcock-ranch2.php. Feb 2nd, 2010.
37
Florida Department of Environmental Protection website. Feb 18th, 2009. “About Estero Bay Aquatic
Preserve”. Found at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/estero/info.htm
38
Id 37
39
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Feb 17th, 2009. “Estero Bay Aquatic Preserve”.
Accessed on Jan 13th, 2010. Found at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/estero/.
40
Florida Department of Environmental Protection website. Feb 18th, 2009. “About Estero Bay Aquatic
Preserve”. Accessed on Jan 12th, 2010. Found at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/sites/estero/info.htm.
41
Florida Online Park Guide website. “Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park History”.Accessed on Jan 19th,
2010. Found at: http://www.floridastateparks.org/Delnor-Wiggins/History.cfm
42
Florida State Parks. Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Park. Accessed on Jan 20th, 2010. Found at:
http://www.floridastateparks.org/delnorwiggins/default.cfm
43
Explore Naples website. “Delnor Wiggins Pass State Recreation Area”. Accessed Jan 20th, 2010.
Found at: http://www.explorenaples.com/brochure.phtml?memberno=1392
44
Id 43
45
State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection, division of Recreation and Parks. October 9th,
2009. Report can be found at: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/parks/planning/parkplans/DelnorWigginsPassStateRecreationArea.pdf
46
CREW Trust. The CREW Lands [Internet]. Available from: http://crewtrust.org/about_us.html
47
Aududon Society. Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.audobon.org/local/sanctuary/corkscrew /index.html
48
Collier County, Fl. Pepper Ranch Preserve: Land Management Plan [Internet].
49
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Naples Bay: Surface Water Improvement &
Management Plan [Internet]. January 25th, 2007. Pg. 13. Found at:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page/portal/pg_grp_sfwmd_watershed/portlet%20%20stormwater%20management/tab8996095/naples%20bay%20swim%20plan%20final%20january%20
2007%20final.pdf
50
Id 49
51
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Facts and Figures [Internet]. Accessed on Feb 5th,
2010. Found at: http://www.rookerybay.org/about-us/facts-and-figures
52
Id 51
53
Id 51
54
Ripple, J. Southewst Florida’s Wetland Wilderness: Big Cypress Swamp and the Ten Thousand
Islands. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 238 of 251 55
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Shark Nurserys in the Ten Thousand Islands:
March, 2009. Available at: http://www.rookerybay.org/images/stories/pdfs/Finding-Solutions--SharkNurseries.pdf
56
Jewell, Susand D. Exploring Wild South Florida: A Guide to Finding the Natural Areas and Wildlife of
the Southern Peninsula and the Florida Keys. . Sarasota, Florida: Pineapple Press.
57
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Accessed on Feb 15th,
2010 Found at: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/profiles/index.cfm?id=41555
58
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Committing to Our Future: A Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan for the Greater Charlotte Harbor Watershed FROM Venice to Bonita Springs to
Winter Haven, Update 2008. [Internet]. Available at: http://www.chnep.org/CCMP/CCMP2008.pdf
59
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/definitions.cfm
60
US EPA. Wetlands Overview. Available at:
http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/upload/2005_01_12_wetlands_overview.pdf
61
Clark, John and P.J. Sarokwash. 1975. Rookery Bay Land Use Studies Environmental Planning
Strategies for the Development of a Mangrove Shoreline: Study No. 9, Principles of Ecosystem
Management. The Conservation Foundation.
62
US Geological Survey. Marine and Coastal Program: Florida Wetlands. [Internet]. 1996. [2010 Sept
19]. Available from: http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/FLAwetlands/
63
Id 61
64
US Environmental Protection Agency. Costal Watershed Factsheet [Internet]. 1998 [2004 Sept 30].
Available from: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/factsheets/fact5.html
65
Clark, John and P.J. Sarokwash. 1975. Rookery Bay Land Use Studies Environmental Planning
Strategies for the Development of a Mangrove Shoreline: Study No. 9, Principles of Ecosystem
Management. The Conservation Foundation.
66
Trust for Public Land. Benefits of Parks, The Economic Benefits of Land Conservation. Available at:
http://www.tpl.org/tier2_cl.cfm?folder_id=725
67
Florida Forever Coalition. Florida Forever: Conservation at a Crossroads, Florida Green Book 2010
[Internet] [2010 Sept 21]. Available at: http://supportfloridaforever.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/gb2010-21.pdf
68
US Geological Survey. South Florida Virtual Tour Ecosystems [Internet]. 2004 [2010 Sept 19].
Available from: http://sofia.usgs.gov/virtual_tour/ecosystems/
69
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Multi Species Recovery Plan for South Florida. Mangrove Chapter. May
1999.
70
McPherson, Benjamin F., Ronald L. Miller, and Yvonne E. Stoker. Physical, Chemical, and Biological
Characteristics of the Charlotte Harbor Basin and Estuarine System in Southwest Florida: a Summary of
the 1982-89 U.S. Geological Survey Charlotte Harbor Assessment and other Studies. Washington DC:
US GPO; 1996.
71
Id 69
72
Ward, T., Butler, E., and B. Hill. Environmental Indicators for National State of Environmental
Reporting: Estuaries and the Sea [Internet]. 1998 [2010 Sept 19]. Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/publications/indicators/estuaries.html
73
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. “Marine and Estuarine Health”. Florida
Assessment of Coastal Trends (FACT). Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of Community Affairs.
Pg. 103.
74
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. The Quality of Our Nation’s Water [Internet]. 1992 [2010
Sept 19]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/305b/92report/92summ.pdf
75
IBID
76
Clark, John and P.J. Sarokwash. 1975. Rookery Bay Land Use Studies Environmental Planning
Strategies for the Development of a Mangrove Shoreline: Study No. 9, Principles of Ecosystem
Management. The Conservation Foundation.
77
State of Florida. Interpretation of Narrative Nutrient Criteria. Florida Statute 62-303.450
78
Herring, David. NASA’s Earth Observatory web page for What is Phytoplankton? [Internet]. 2010 [2010
Sept 19]. Available from: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Phytoplankton/
79
Carlson, R.E. and J. Simpson. 1996. A Coordinator’s Guide to Volunteer Lake Monitoring Methods.
North American Lake Management Society. 96 pp. Available at: http://dipin.kent.edu/tsi.htm
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 239 of 251 80
State of Florida. Identification of Impaired Surface Waters. Florida Statute 62-303.351-.353
Bengtson, Harlan. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) as One of the Causes of Water Pollution.
[Internet] Available at: http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/civil/articles/55336.aspx
82
Environmental Protection Agency. National Estuary Program. Chapter 9: Oxygen [Internet]. 2006
March [2010 Sept 19]. Available from:
http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/upload/2009_03_13_estuaries_monitor_chap9.pdf
83
FAC 62-302.530, Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifications.
84
Oxygen: A good level of dissolved oxygen is essential for aquatic life [Internet]. 2002 [2004 Sept 29].
Available from: http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wcpdo.htm
85
Wilde, F.D., ed., chapter sections variously dated, Field measurements: U.S. Geological Survey
Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 9, chap. A6. [Internet] [2010 Sept 19] Available
from: http://pubs.water.usgs.gov/twri9A6/
86
Kentucky Water Watch. Fecal Coliform Bacteria [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wcpfcol.htm
87
Puget Sound Action Team. Shellfish Protection [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.psat.wa.gov/Publications/workplan_03/wp03/10_sf.htm
88
Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 62-303.370 Fish and Shellfish Consumption Use Support.
89
Florida Administrative Code 62-302.530, Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifications
90
Dorfman, Mark, & Stoner, Nancy. (2007). Testing the waters. A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation
Beaches, 17. Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/ttw2007.pdf
91
Jin G, Jeng HW, Bradford H, Englande AJ. (2005). Comparison of e. coli, enterococci, and fecal
coliform as indicators for brackish water quality assessment.. Water Environ Res, 5(433), Available from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15338696
92
US Environmental Protection Agency. National Estuary Program, Chapter 12: Toxins [Internet]. 2006
March [2010 Sept 19]. Available from:
http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/upload/2009_03_13_estuaries_monitor_chap12.pdf
93
Id 92
94
US Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Contaminants [Internet]. 2002 Nov 26 [2010 Sept
19]. Available from:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/caddis/candidate.cfm?section=133&step=24&parent_section=132
95
Water and Rivers Commission. River and Estuary Pollution. East Perth, WA: Waterways Commission
of Western Australia; 1997.
96
Illinois Department of Health. Cancer in Illinois: Cadmium. Available from:
http://www.idph.state.il.us/cancer/factsheets/cadmium.htm
97
The Water Company. Common Water Problems and Their Corrections [Internet]. Available from:
http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C01/C01Links/www.goodwaterco.com/comprob.htm
98
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Caloosahatchee Basin, East Caloosahatchee (WBID
3237B) West Caloosahatchee (WBIDs 3235E, 3235F, 3235G, 3235J, 3235L) Orange River (WBID
3240J) Estuarine Caloosahatchee (3240B, 3240E, 3240I, 3240M, 3240N). Evaluation of Potential Ground
Water/Geologic Contributions of Iron. Prepared by James Dodson, Teayann Tinsley, Akia Laurant, and
Edgar Wade Ground Water Protection Section, Bureau of Watershed Restoration.
99
Health Impacts of Water Pollution [Internet]. Available from:
http://edugreen.teri.res.in/explore/water/health.htm
100
Oram, Brian, PG. Total Dissolved Solids and Water Quality. Available from: http://www.waterresearch.net/totaldissolvedsolids.htm
101
Kentucky Water Watch. Chlorides [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.state.ky.us/nrepc/water/wcpcl.htm
102
Clark, John and P.J. Sarokwash. 1975. Rookery Bay Land Use Studies Environmental Planning
Strategies for the Development of a Mangrove Shoreline: Study No. 9, Principles of Ecosystem
Management. The Conservation Foundation.
103
Ozestuaries.org. What is Salinity? [Internet]. 2010 [2010 Sept 19]. Available from:
http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/indicators/salinity.jsp
104
ACWD. System Water Quality [Internet]. Available from: http://www.acwd.org/waterquality-system.html
105
WaterontheWeb.org. Turbidity [Internet]. 2004 May [2010 Sept 19]. Available from:
http://waterontheweb.org/under/waterquality/turbidity.html
81
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 240 of 251 106
FAC 62-302.530, Criteria for Surface Water Quality Classifications
Shirley, Michael, PhD., J. Haner, M.A., H. Stoffel and H. Flannagan. Rookery Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve and the Ten Thousand Islands Aquatic Preserve Estuarine Habitat Assessment
(1997). A report of the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida Coastal Management Program,
pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA67OZ0463.
108
FDEP, NOAA. Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve Flyer. Available at:
http://199.73.242.12/coastal/sites/lemon/pub/Lemon_Bay_AP_Flyer.pdf
109
Lemon Bay Watershed Management Plan. Presentation to CHNEP Science Forum. July 8, 2009.
Available at: http://www.chnep.org/NEP/agendas-2009/TAC/SciForum7-8-09_LemonBayWSMP.pdf
110
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Learn About Your Watershed: Charlotte Harbor
Watershed. Available at: http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/charlotte_harbor/
111
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Babcock Ranch Preserve. Available at:
http://myfwc.com/recreation/WMASites_BabcockRanchPreserve_index.htm
112
Whitehead, Charlie. “Study: Estero Bay watershed lost 6.5 percent of wetlands in a year”. Naples Daily
News. January 28, 2008.
113
Id 112
114
Id
115
Collier County Conservancy. The Naples Bay Study. Naples, FL; Collier County Conservancy, 1979,
G-4.
116
Evergladesplan.org. A Journey to Restore America’s Everglades. Available at:
http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/projects/proj_30_sgge.aspx
117
Natural Resources Defense Council. 2004. Swimming in Sewage: The growing problem of sewage
pollution and how the Bush administration is putting our health and environment at risk. 75p. Available at
www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/sewage/contents.asp
118
Clean Water Network, 2008. The Gulf of Mexico – Florida’s Toilet: How Sewage Discharges are
Fouling Florida’s Gulf of Mexico’s Tributaries, Estuaries and Coastal Waters. [Internet] [cited 2010 Sept
17] PP Available from: http://www.cleanwaternetwork-fl.org/issues_sewage.php
119
Id 118
120
Schrope, Mark. "Unarrested Development." Nature Reports Climate Change. Nature.com, 04/06/2010.
Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010
121
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry,
Martin L., Canziani, Osvaldo F., Palutikof, Jean P., van der Linden, Paul J., and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1000 pp.
122
Stanton, E. A., and F. Ackerman. "Florida and Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction." Tufts University,
11/2007. Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Florida_hr.pdf
123
Schrope, Mark. "Unarrested Development." Nature Reports Climate Change. Nature.com, 04/06/2010.
Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010
124
Stanton, E. A., and F. Ackerman. "Florida and Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction." Tufts University,
11/2007. Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/Florida_hr.pdf
125
Id 124
126
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Watershed Assessment Program. [2010 Sept]
Available from: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/assessment/index.htm
127
University of Florida TREEO Center. Field Sampling. Available from: http://www.treeo.ufl.edu/field/
128
Cappiello, Dina. "EPA failing to stop sprawl runoff." The Seattle Times. The Seattle Times Company,
28 Oct 2008. Web. 28 Sep 2010.
<http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008272441_stormwater16m.html
129
Schueler, Thomas R. and Heather K. Holland, editors. The Practice of Watershed Protection. Ellicott
City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection; 2000. The Importance of Imperviousness; P 110-111.
130
Schueler, Thomas R. (editor). 2000. “The Importance of Imperviousness”. The Practice of Watershed
Protection. 1(3): 110-111.
131
Duarte, Carlos M. The Future of Seagrass Meadows. Environmental Conservation 2002; 29(2): 192206.
107
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 241 of 251 132
Thayer, GW et al. Toxicological Studies in Tropical Ecosystems: An ecotoxicological risk assessment
of pesticide runoff in South Florida estuarine ecosystems. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
2002; 50(15): 4400-4408.
133
Ward, T., Butler, E., and B. Hill. Environmental Indicators for National State of Environmental
Reporting: Estuaries and the Sea [Internet]. 1998 [2010 Sept 19]. Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/publications/indicators/estuaries.html
134
Wood, Sonya. Seagrass Tells Water Quality Story [Internet]. 1995 [2010 Sept 19]. Available from:
http://www.flseagrant.org/library/publications/fathom_magazine/volume-7_issue-1/seagrass_tells.htm
135
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan RECOVER: Interim Goals/Interim Targets (IG/IT) Sub
Team. Appendix – Interim Goals: Indicator 4.2 - Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Southern Estuaries.
2005 March 18 [2010 Sept 19]. Available from:
http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/recover/recover_docs/igit/igit_mar_2005_report/ig_4-2_sesav.pdf
136
Clendenon , Cindy , and Elliot Richmond . "Pollution by Invasive Species ." Water Encyclopedia:
Science and Issues. Advameg, 2010. Web. 29 Sep 2010. <http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/OcPo/Pollution-by-Invasive-Species.html>.
137
"Alien Invasion." Forestry. Sarasota County, 2007. Web. 29 Sep 2010.
<http://forestry.scgov.net/Alien.aspx>.
138
Photographer: Shirley Denton. Available at
http://www.shirleydenton.com/plants/plant_www.php?uniq=schin_ter ( December 16, 2010)
139
"Brazilian pepper-tree." Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. University of Florida, 2009. Web. 4 Oct
2010. <http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/node/405>.
140
Donnelly, Melinda, and Florida Sea Grant. Is the Exotic Brazilian Pepper, "Schinus Terebinthifolius," a
Threat to Mangrove Ecosystems in Florida? (Thesis Abstract)., 2006. Print.
141
"ABCL, Biological control of Australian pine ." Agricultural Research Service. United States
Department of Agriculture, 13 Aug 2009. Web. 4 Oct 2010.
<http://www.ars.usda.gov/docs.htm?docid=18840&dropcache=true&mode=preview&modecode=02-0600-00>.
142
Schmid, Jill L., et al. "The Effect of Australian Pine (Casuarina Equisetifolia) Removal on Loggerhead
Sea Turtle
(Caretta Caretta) Incubation Temperatures on Keewaydin Island, Florida." Journal of Coastal Research
55.sp1 (2008): 214-20. Print.
143
Photographer: Shirley Denton. http://www.shirleydenton.com/plants/plant_www.php?uniq=casua_equ
12-16-10
144
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Aboutus/docs.htm?docid=3764 (December 16, 2010)
145
Langeland, K.A. "Help Protect Florida's Natural Areas from Non-Native Invasive Plants." University of
Florida IFAS Extension. University of Florida, 2009. Web. 29 Sep 2010. <http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ag108>.
146
McPherson, K. "Fire Management and Melaleuca Swamps." Melaleuca Swamps. Forest Encyclopedia
Network, 14 Nov 2008. Web. 29 Sep 2010. <http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p145>.
147
Wewerka, Laura. "The Impacts of Melaleuca quinquenervia Removal on the Ecohydrology of a."
Research & Restoration Partners Projects. Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Charlotte Co.
Utilities/Eastport campus, Port Charlotte, FL. 10 Oct 20008. Address.
148
Photographer Buck Albert, USCG, http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Perna_viridis.htm (December 16,
2010)
149
Division of Aquaculture. 2006. Shellfish harvesting area information Division of aquaculture, Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, FL.
http://www.floridaaquaculture.com/seas/seas_areainfo.htm
150
"Asian Green Mussels." Fish and Wildlife Research Institute . Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission , 2010. Web. 29 Sep 2010. <http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=4315>.
151
Baker, Patrick, et al. "Range and Dispersal of a Tropical Marine Invader, the Asian Green Mussel,
Perna Viridis, in Subtropical Waters of the Southeastern United States." Journal of Shellfish Research
26.2 (2007): 345-55. Print.
152
NASA/Wikimedia Commons found at:
http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2009/01/growing_population_carries_dis.html (Dec. 16,
2010)
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 242 of 251 153
"Animals Behaving Worse: America's Least Wanted." Nature. Public Broadcasting Service, 2010. Web.
29 Sep 2010. <http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/animals-behaving-worse/americas-leastwanted/911/>.
154
http://www.jaxshells.org/onei019.htm (December 16, 2010)
155
Campbell, K.R., T.S. Campbell, and S.A. Johnson. "Long-Term Effects of Water Use, Surrounding
Land Use, and Introduced Species on Native Frogs and Toads at Morris Bridge Wellfield." Biological
Research Associates, University of Tampa, University of Florida. 2007
156
Photographer: Gabriel Kamener on Flickr. Available at http://www.fotopedia.com/items/flickr3861188924 December 16, 2010
157
http://www.itsnature.org/sea/aquatic-mammals/american-manatee/ (December 16, 2010)
158
Barnes, T. "Caloosahatchee Estuary Conceptual Ecological Model." Wetlands 25.4 (2005): 884-97.
Print.
159
IBID
160
IBID
161
Lefebvre, Lynn W., et al. “Using Strip-transect Aerial Surveys to Estimate Manatee Abundance in the
Ten Thousand Islands Region of Southwest Florida.” U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (2001):
http://fl.biology.usgs.gov/posters/Manatee/Manatee_Aerial_Surveys/manatee_aerial_surveys.html
162
IBID
163
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_FloridaUSA.htm December 16, 2010
164
Scolardi, Kerri M., et al. "Trends in Counts of Manatees Trichechus Manatus Latirostris from 1987 to
2006 in Waters of Sarasota County, Florida, USA." Endangered Species Research 9.1 (2009): 1-11.
Print.
165
IBID
166
Volety, A.K., et al "Assessment Report for the Oyster Indicator in the Northern Estuaries 2008."
Coastal Watershed Institute and South Florida Water Management District. (2008): 1-8. Print.
167
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_food_blog/files/2010/06/oyster-HR4.jpg (December 16,
2010)
168
IBID
169
Volety, AK, et al. "Eastern Oysters (Crassostrea Virginica) as an Indicator for Restoration of
Everglades Ecosystems." Ecological Indicators 9.6 (2009): S120-36. Print.
170
Savarese, Michael . "Sea-level rise, oyster reef development, and their effects upon coastal evolution
of Southwest Florida through the late Holocene." Coastal Watershed Institute. Florida Gulf Coast
University, 2006. Web. 18 May 2010. <http://www.fgcu.edu/cwi/research2.htm>.
171
Coastal Watershed Institute. Web. 15 Dec 2010. <http://www.fgcu.edu/cwi/>.
172
Ibid.
173
Mazzotti, F.J., et al. “Stressor Response Model for the Spotted Sea Trout, Cynoscion nebulosus.”
University of Florida IFAS Extension. University of Florida, 2008. Web 5 Oct 2010. <
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/UW/UW28000.pdf>
174
Bedee, D.C., D.A. DeVries, S.A. Bortone, and C.L. Palmer. 2003. Estuary–specific age and growth of
spotted seatrout in northern Gulf of Mexico. In Biology of the Spotted Seatrout, ed. S.A. Bortone, 57-78.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
175
http://www.miamiflyfishing.com/Fish-Species-2.html
176
Mazzotti, F.J., et al. “Stressor Response Model for the Spotted Sea Trout, Cynoscion nebulosus.”
University of Florida IFAS Extension. University of Florida, 2008. Web 5 Oct 2010. <
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/UW/UW28000.pdf>
177
IBID
178
IBID
179
http://www.newfultonfishmarket.com/wholesalers/Executive_Seafood.htm (December 16, 2010)
180
Reguzzoni, John. "Assessing the relationship between environmental conditions and the blue crab
fishery in relation to restoration goals for the Caloosahatchee River." Sanibel-Captiva Conservation
Foundation 2007 Web. 6 Oct 2010. <http://www.sccf.org/files/content/docs/3514_TechReport
181
Barnes, T. "Caloosahatchee Estuary Conceptual Ecological Model." Wetlands 25.4 (2005): 884-97.
Print.
182
Southwest Florida Water Management District. Proposed Minimum Flows and Levels for
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 243 of 251 the Lower Peace River and Shell Creek [Internet]. 2010 April [2010 Sept 19]. Available from:
http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/projects/mfl/reports/lower_peace_river-04-2010.pdf
183
Gulfbase.org. 2002. Resource Database for the Gulf of Mexico.
<http://www.gulfbase.org/bay/view.php?bid=charlotte> Accessed 12 Oct. 2010.
184
IBID
185
[USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Freshwater Inflow Action Agenda for the Gulf of
Mexico. First Generation Management Committee Report. Stennis Space Center, MS.
186
DelCharo, M.J. 1998. Tidal flow in Selected Areas of Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor, Florida, 199596. Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4265. U.S. Geological Survey
187
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 15 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
188
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 15 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
189
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 15 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
190
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 15 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
191
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 15 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
192
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 11 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
193
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 18 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
194
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 11 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
195
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 18 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
196
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 18 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
197
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 21 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
198
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 11 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
199
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 21 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
200
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 21 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
201
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 16 Dec 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
202
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 11 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
203
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 11 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
204
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 11 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
205
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 21 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
206
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 21 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
207
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 22 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
208
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 22 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
209
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 22 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 244 of 251 210
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 22 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
211
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 22 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
212
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 22 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
213
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 22 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
214
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 22 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
215
[SFWMD] South Florida Water Management District. 1998. Estero Bay-State of the Bay Report
http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/exo/ftmyers/proj/StateOfTheBay1.html Accessed 2004 Oct. 15.
216
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 11 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
217
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
218
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 11 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
219
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
220
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
221
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
222
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
223
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
224
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
225
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
226
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
227
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 19 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
228
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
229
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 19 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
230
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 19 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
231
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 13 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
232
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
233
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 19 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
234
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 14 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
235
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 19 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
236
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 19 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 245 of 251 237
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 13 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
238
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 20 Aug 2010. Site-Specific Information in Support of
Establishing Numeric Nutrient Criteria for the Southwest Coastal Estuaries, Including Naples Bay,
Rookery Bay, and the Ten Thousand Islands. Retrieved from
<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/wqssp/nutrients/docs/estuarine/wpb/southwest_coast_082010.pdf>
239
McCoy, Jack. 1972. Hydrology of Western Collier County, Florida. Retrieved from
<http://aquacomm.fcla.edu/1861/1/Collier.pdf>
240
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 19 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
241
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 19 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
242
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 19 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
243
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 12 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
244
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 14 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
245
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 15 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
246
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 14 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
247
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 14 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
248
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 14 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
249
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 15 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
250
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 14 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
251
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 15 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
252
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 15 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
253
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 15 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
254
DBHYDRO Browser, South Florida Water Management District, 18 Oct 2010,
http://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2235,4688582&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
255
Kelble C.R. et al. 2006. “Salinity patterns of Florida Bay.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 71
(2007) 318-334
256
Barnes T. et al. 2006, “Caloosahatchee Estuary and Charlotte Harbor conceptual model.”
257
Michael Jones, 2005. “Dona and Robert’s Bay Second Annual Watershed and Estuary Analysis”
<http://www.sarasota.wateratlas.usf.edu/upload/documents/DonaRobertSecondAnnual2WaterEstuaryAna
lysis2004.pdf> Accessed 2010 Oct. 22
258
Melynda Schneider-Brown et al. 2005-2007. “A two year look at continuous water quality data in the
Matalacha Pass.” DEP and Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserves.
<http://www.chnep.org/Events/Summit08/presentations/Schneider.ppt> Accessed 2010 Oct. 22.
259
Chamberlin, B. 2003. “Freshwater inflow to Matlacha Pass: DRAFT performance measures for Gator
Slough and Cape Coral Canals.”
260
Edwards, R.E. et al. 2000. “Final Review Report Caloosahatchee Minimum Flow Peer Review Panel September 27-29, 2000”
261
Byrne, M.J., Gabaldon, J.N., 2008, Hydrodynamic Characteristics and Salinity Patterns in Estero Bay,
Lee County, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5217, 33 p.
262
Thomas, Daryl. 2003. “Freshwater Inflow Performance Measures: Estero Bay”
263
Taylor Engineering, Inc. 2006. South Florida Environmental Report
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 246 of 251 264
[RBNERR] Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. 2010. Homepage for RookeryBay.org.
<http://www.rookerybay.org/about-us/facts-and-figures> Accessed 2010 Oct. 25.
265
IBID
266
[CDMO] Centralized data Management Office. 2010. Rookery Bay (RKB) Florida Water Quality Data.
<http://cdmo.baruch.sc.edu/get/export.cfm.> Accessed 2010 Oct. 25.
267
Popowski, Ron. 2006. “Ten Thousand Islands Conceptual Ecological Model” U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. < http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/studies/study_docs/swfl/swffs_cems_10000islands.pdf>
Accessed 2010 Oct. 25.
268
Byrne, M.J., Patino, Eduardo, 2008, Estuarine River Data for the Ten Thousand Islands Area, Florida,
Water Year 2005: U.S. Geological Survey, Data Series 322, 10 p.
269
Letter from Conservancy Environmental Policy Director Gary Davis to Daryll Joyner, TMDL Program.
Re: Verified Impaired Water List for the Caloosahatchee River For The Group 3 Draft Master List of
Impaired Waters.
270
Hushon, Judith M. Update on Pesticide Use in Southwest Florida. Naples, FL: The Conservancy of
Southwest Florida; August 2010.
271
Id Error! Bookmark not defined.
272
FWC,. (2010). What is a Harmful algal bloom?. Retrieved from
http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=4060
273
Scope: The Student Publication of the Graduate Program in Science Writing at MIT. Web. 15 Dec
2010. <http://scopeweb.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/red_tide.gif>.
274
Dorfman, Mark, & Stoner, Nancy. (2007). Testing the waters. A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation
Beaches, 17. Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/ttw2007.pdf
275
Dorfman, Mark, & Rosselot, Kirsten Sinclair. (2009). Testing the waters. A Guide to Water Quality at
Vacation Beaches, 19. Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/ttw2009.pdf
276
Anderson, D.M., and D Ralston. "PCM HAB Fiscal Year 2010 Projects." Center for Sponsored Coastal
Ocean Research. Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research, 28 July 2010. Web. 8 Oct 2010.
<http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/Project_details.aspx
277
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission . Web. 15 Dec 2010.
<http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=25327>.
278
FWC,. (2010). Cyanobacteria in Florida Surface Water Reservoirs. Retrieved from
http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=25327
279
IBID
280
FWC,. (2010). History of Florida’s Harmful Algal Bloom Task Force. Retrieved from
http://research.myfwc.com/features/view_article.asp?id=26891
281
http://www.naturalwanders.com/environmentalpollutionpictures.htm ( December 16, 2010)
282
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission . Web. 15 Dec 2010.
<http://research.myfwc.com/gallery/image_details.asp?id=31238>.
283
Jin G, Jeng HW, Bradford H, Englande AJ. (2005). Comparison of e. coli, enterococci, and fecal
coliform as indicators for brackish water quality assessment.. Water Environ Res, 5(433), Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15338696
284
Rodriguez, I. (2010, September 7). Bacteria at hollywood beach slows labor day weekend business.
Sun Sentinel, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/broward/hollywood/fl-beach-bacteria-folo20100907,0,4327694.story
285
Dorfman, Mark, & Stoner, Nancy. (2007). Testing the waters. A Guide to Water Quality at Vacation
Beaches, 17. Retrieved from http://www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/ttw/ttw2007.pdf
286
The Encyclopedia of Earth. Deep Horizon oil spill. October 15 2010. Available from:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill
287
IBID
288
BP Conference, Naples Florida. October 30, 2010. Oceans: Protecting our Lives and Livelihood.
UM Rosentiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science Presentation.
289
Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., et al. Synthesis of Existing Information, Volume 1, Technical
Report No. 99-02. Ft. Myers, FL: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program; 1999.
290
Altering Land and Water for Coastal Development: Venice, Florida [Internet]. Available from:
http://nsgl.gso.uri.edu/flsgp/flsgpm99004/flsgpm99004_part3.pdf
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 247 of 251 291
Jones, Mike. Minutes of the Technical Advisory Committee Hydrological Alterations Subcommittee of
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Punta Gorda, FL: CHNEP; 2004 Feb 19.
292
Estevez, Ernest D., et al. The Story of the Greater Charlotte Harbor Watershed. Fort Myers, FL:
Charlotte Harbor NEP; 1998.
293
“Committing to Our Future: A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Greater
Charlotte Harbor Watershed from Venice Beach to Bonita Springs to Winter Haven.” Prepared by
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Adopted April 13, 2000 and updated March 24, 2008. Pg. 16.
294
Comments from Bill Dunson, Professor of Biology at Pennsylvania State University and former
member of PRMRWSA Scientific Peer Review Panel, summer 2009.
295
Comments from Bill Dunson, Professor of Biology at Pennsylvania State University and former
member of PRMRWSA Scientific Peer Review Panel, summer 2009.
296
Comments from Bill Dunson, Professor of Biology at Pennsylvania State University and former
member of PRMRWSA Scientific Peer Review Panel, summer 2009.
297
“Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan.” Prepared by Bureau of Submerged Lands and
Preserves, Division of State Lands, Florida Department of Natural Resources. Adopted April 7, 1992. Pg.
27.
298
“Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan.” Prepared by Bureau of Submerged Lands and
Preserves, Division of State Lands, Florida Department of Natural Resources. Adopted April 7, 1992. Pg.
28.
299
“Lemon Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan.” Prepared by Bureau of Submerged Lands and
Preserves, Division of State Lands, Florida Department of Natural Resources. Adopted April 7, 1992. Pg.
27.
300
Comments from Bill Dunson, Professor of Biology at Pennsylvania State University and former
member of PRMRWSA Scientific Peer Review Panel, summer 2009.
301
Charlotte County. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Natural Resources and Coastal Planning Element
[Internet]. 1997 Oct. 7 [2004 Sept 29]. Available from:
http://www.charlottecountyfl.com/ComprehensivePlan/chapter_3.pdf
302
Comments from Bill Dunson, Professor of Biology at Pennsylvania State University and former
member of PRMRWSA Scientific Peer Review Panel, summer 2009.
303
Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., et al. Synthesis of Existing Information, Volume 1, Technical
Report No. 99-02. Ft. Myers, FL: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program; 1999.
304
Antonioni, Gustavo A., et al. A Historical Geography of Southwest Florida Waterways, Volume One:
Anna Maria Sound to Lemon Bay. FL: Sea Grant.
305
“Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement & Management Plan.” South Florida Water
Management District, pg. 2. February 4, 2008. SFWMD website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_WATERSHED/PORTLET%20%20STORMWATER%20MANAGEMENT/TAB8996095/FINAL_PUBLISH_LCH_SWIM_.PDF.
306
“Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement & Management Plan.” South Florida Water
Management District, pg. 2. February 4, 2008. SFWMD website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_WATERSHED/PORTLET%20%20STORMWATER%20MANAGEMENT/TAB8996095/FINAL_PUBLISH_LCH_SWIM_.PDF.
307
“Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement & Management Plan.” South Florida Water
Management District, Pg. 2. February 4, 2008. SFWMD website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_WATERSHED/PORTLET%20%20STORMWATER%20MANAGEMENT/TAB8996095/FINAL_PUBLISH_LCH_SWIM_.PDF.
308
Hammett, K. M. Land Use, Water Use, Streamflow, and Water-Quality Characteristics of the Charlotte
Harbor Inflow Area, Florida. Denver, CO: US Geological Survey; 1988.
309
“Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement & Management Plan.” South Florida Water
Management District, pg. 20. February 4, 2008. SFWMD website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_WATERSHED/PORTLET%20%20STORMWATER%20MANAGEMENT/TAB8996095/FINAL_PUBLISH_LCH_SWIM_.PDF.
310
Stoker, Yvonne E. Salinity distribution and variation with freshwater inflow and tide, and potential
changes in salinity due to altered freshwater inflow in the Charlotte Harbor estuarine system, Florida,
Water-resources investigations report: 92-4062. Tallahassee, FL: U. S. Dept. of the Interior, 1992.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 248 of 251 311
“Committing to Our Future: A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Greater
Charlotte Harbor Watershed from Venice Beach to Bonita Springs to Winter Haven.” Prepared by
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Adopted April 13, 2000 and updated March 24, 2008. Pg. 47.
312
“Committing to Our Future: A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Greater
Charlotte Harbor Watershed from Venice Beach to Bonita Springs to Winter Haven.” Prepared by
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Adopted April 13, 2000 and updated March 24, 2008. Pg. 22.
313
Comments from Jim Beever, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, 05.20.09.
314
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County. Pg. 6.
315
“Committing to Our Future: A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Greater
Charlotte Harbor Watershed from Venice Beach to Bonita Springs to Winter Haven.” Prepared by
Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. Adopted April 13, 2000 and updated March 24, 2008. Pg. 18.
316
Comments from Jim Beever, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, 05.20.09.
317
“2: Matlacha Pass and NS Canal: Hydrologic and Natural System Delineation - DRAFT.” Janicki
Environmental, Inc. May 15, 2009. Pg. 2-36. Pg. 2-35 – 2-36.
318
“2: Matlacha Pass and NS Canal: Hydrologic and Natural System Delineation - DRAFT.” Janicki
Environmental, Inc. May 15, 2009. Pg. 2-36. Pg. 2-34.
319
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July
2009.Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County.
320
“2: Matlacha Pass and NS Canal: Hydrologic and Natural System Delineation - DRAFT.” Janicki
Environmental, Inc. May 15, 2009. Pg. 2-36.
321
“Caloosahatchee River/Estuary Nutrient Issue White Paper.” Prepared for the South Florida Water
Management District. October 10, 2005. Pg. 18.
322
Comments from Jim Beever, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, 05.20,09.
323
Savarese, Michael, and Heather Rein. Southwest Florida Regional Restoration Coordination Team
Report to the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group: Restoration and Science Project
Recommendations. 2003.
324324
Boyer, Joseph N. FY2003 Cumulative Report to the South Florida Water Management District.
Miami, FL: Florida International University; 2003.
325
“Caloosahatchee Estuary and Charlotte Harbor Conceptual Model.” FINAL – Caloosahatchee &
Charlotte Harbor CEM. 22 May 2006. Pg. 1.
326
“Committing to Our Future: A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Greater
Charlotte Harbor Watershed from Venice to Bonita Springs to Winter Haven.” Prepared by Charlotte
Harbor National Estuary Program. Adopted April 13, 2000 and updated March 24, 2008. Pg. 15.
327
Gleason, Patrick J., editor. Environments of South Florida; Present and Past II: Memoir 2, 2ed. Coral
Gables, FL: Miami Geological Society; 1984.
328
Barnes, Tomma, Darren Rumbold and Mark Salvato. “Caloosahatchee Estuary and Charlotte Harbor
Conceptual Model.” South Florida Water Management District. May 22, 2006. Pg. 2.
329
“Committing to Our Future: A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Greater
Charlotte Harbor Watershed from Venice to Bonita Springs to Winter Haven.” Prepared by Charlotte
Harbor National Estuary Program. Adopted April 13, 2000 and updated March 24, 2008. Pg. 15.
330
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County.
331
Barnes, Tomma, Darren Rumbold and Mark Salvato. “Caloosahatchee Estuary and Charlotte Harbor
Conceptual Model.” South Florida Water Management District. May 22, 2006. Pg. 3.
332
Comments from Rae Ann Wessel, Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation, summer 2009.
333
“Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement & Management Plan.” South Florida Water
Management District, pg. 20. February 4, 2008. SFWMD website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_WATERSHED/PORTLET%20%20STORMWATER%20MANAGEMENT/TAB8996095/FINAL_PUBLISH_LCH_SWIM_.PDF.
334
Comments from Karen Bickford, Lee County Natural Resources, 2009.
335
Comments from Rae Ann Wessel, Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation, summer 2009.
336
Science Subgroup. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration: Scientific Information Needs Report to the
Working Group of The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. 1996 [2004 Oct 15]. Available
from: http://everglades.fiu.edu/taskforce/scineeds/sub10.pdf
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 249 of 251 337
“Committing to Our Future: A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Greater
Charlotte Harbor Watershed from Venice to Bonita Springs to Winter Haven.” Prepared by Charlotte
Harbor National Estuary Program. Adopted April 13, 2000 and updated March 24, 2008. Pg. 47.
338
Comments from John Cassani, Lee County Hyacinth Control District, 2009 and Rae Ann Wessel,
Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation, summer 2009.
339
Comments from Karen Bickford, Lee County Natural Resources, 2009.
340
Comments from John Cassani, Lee County Hyacinth Control District, 2009
341
“Caloosahatchee River/Estuary Nutrient Issue White Paper.” Prepared for the South Florida Water
Management District. October 10, 2005. Pg. 15.
342
“Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement & Management Plan.” South Florida Water
Management District, pg. 20. February 4, 2008. SFWMD website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_WATERSHED/PORTLET%20%20STORMWATER%20MANAGEMENT/TAB8996095/FINAL_PUBLISH_LCH_SWIM_.PDF.Pg. 20.
343
“Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement & Management Plan.” South Florida Water
Management District, pg. 20. February 4, 2008. SFWMD website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_WATERSHED/PORTLET%20%20STORMWATER%20MANAGEMENT/TAB8996095/FINAL_PUBLISH_LCH_SWIM_.PDF. Pg. 20.
344
“Lower Charlotte Harbor Surface Water Improvement & Management Plan.” South Florida Water
Management District, pg. 20. February 4, 2008. SFWMD website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_WATERSHED/PORTLET%20%20STORMWATER%20MANAGEMENT/TAB8996095/FINAL_PUBLISH_LCH_SWIM_.PDF. Pg. 20.
345
“S-79 Flow Statistics 2000 to 2009.” Courtesy of Karen Bickford, Lee County Natural Resources.
346
“S-79 Flow Statistics 2000 to 2009.” Courtesy of Karen Bickford, Lee County Natural Resources.
347
“Caloosahatchee MFL 2002 Status Update Report.” South Florida Water Management District website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_WATERSUPPLY/PORTLET%20%20CALOOSAHATCHEE%20RIVER%20ESTUARY/TAB1608162/CALOO2003DOC.PDF. Visited
08.06.09.
348
Comments from John Cassani, Lee County Hyacinth Control District, 2009.
349
Comments from Karen Bickford, Lee County Natural Resources, 2009.
350
“Status Report: CERP C-43 Caloosahatchee River WBSR.” Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Project, US Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District. CERP website:
http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/projects/project_docs/status/proj_04_current.pdf. Visited 08/27/09.
351
“Status Report: CERP C-43 Caloosahatchee River WBSR.” Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Project, US Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District. CERP website:
http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/projects/project_docs/status/proj_04_current.pdf. Visited 08/27/09.
352
“Caloosahatchee MFL 2002 Status Update Report.” South Florida Water Management District website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_WATERSUPPLY/PORTLET%20%20CALOOSAHATCHEE%20RIVER%20ESTUARY/TAB1608162/CALOO2003DOC.PDF. Visited
08.06.09.
353
“Growth Management Regulation, Public Investment and Resource Implications for the Estero Bay
Watershed 2006-2007 – Southwest Lee County, Florida.” James W. Beever III. Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council and Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 2008. Pg. 15.
354
“Growth Management Regulation, Public Investment and Resource Implications for the Estero Bay
Watershed 2006-2007 – Southwest Lee County, Florida.” James W. Beever III. Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council and Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 2008.
355
“Caloosahatchee MFL 2002 Status Update Report.” South Florida Water Management District website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_WATERSUPPLY/PORTLET%20%20CALOOSAHATCHEE%20RIVER%20ESTUARY/TAB1608162/CALOO2003DOC.PDF. Visited
08.06.09.
356
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County. Pg. 7.
357
Comments from Wayne Daltry, FAICP, Director of Smart Growth, Lee County, summer 2009.
358
Comments from Wayne Daltry, FAICP, Director of Smart Growth, Lee County, summer 2009.
359
Mitchell-Tapping, H.J. et al. Research studies in Estero by Aquatic Preserve, Lee county, Florida..
Fort Myers, FL: Estero Bay Marine Laboratory; 2000.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 250 of 251 360
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County. Pg. 17.
361
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County. Pg. 17.
362
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County. Pg. 17.
363
Comments from David Ceilley, Florida Gulf Coast University, 2009.
364
Comments from Jim Beever, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, 05.20.09.
365
South Florida Water Management District. Estero Bay—State of the Bay Report [Internet]. 1998
[2004 Oct 15]. Available from: http://www.sfwmd.gov/org/exo/ftmyers/proj/StateOfTheBay1.html
366
Mitchell-Tapping, H.J. et al. Research studies in Estero by Aquatic Preserve, Lee county, Florida.
Fort Myers, FL: Estero Bay Marine Laboratory; 2000.
367
“Estero Bay Watershed Assessment Volume B: Watershed Characterization.” South Florida Water
Management District, 1999. Pg. 2-19.
368
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, Agency on Bay Management. State of the Bay Update:
Trends and Analysis [Internet]. 2004 [2004 Oct 15]. Available from:
http://www.swfrpc.org/ABM/StateoftheBay/2004.pdf
369
Post, Buckley, Schun, & Jernigan. Synthesis of technical information. Technical Report No. 99-02. 2
Vols. North Fort Myers, FL: Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program; 1999.
370
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County. Pg. 16.
371
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County. Pg. 17.
372
“Growth Management Regulation, Public Investment and Resource Implications for the Estero Bay
Watershed 2006-2007 – Southwest Lee County, Florida.” James W. Beever III. Southwest Florida
Regional Planning Council and Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. 2008. Pg. 85.
373
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County. Pg. 17.
374
Comments from Jim Beever, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, 05.20.09.
375
US Army Corps of Engineers. Environmental Impact Statement on Improving the Regulatory Process
in Southwest Florida. 2000 [2004 Oct 15]. Available from:
http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/permit/hot_topics/SFLAEIS/PDF_Files/deise.pdf
376
Comments from Jim Beever, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, spring 2009.
377
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
378
Gleason, Patrick J. (editor). Environments of South Florida; Present and Past II. Memoir 2, 2ed. Coral
Gables, FL: Miami Geological Society; 1984.
379
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
380
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
381
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
382
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County. Pg. 19.
383
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
384
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
385
CH2M Hill. Gordon River Watershed Study. NA11977.D.O. Naples, Fl; 1980.
386
Staats, Eric. Election 2004: Candidates address Naples Bay as an Issue. Naples Daily News Online.
2004 Jan 26 [2004 Oct 15]. Available from:
http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/news/article/0,2071,NPDN_14940_2604207,00.html
387
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
388
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
389
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
390
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
391
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County. Pg. 22.
392
Comments from Karyn Allman, SFWMD, summer 2009.
Conservancy of Southwest Florida’s 2011 Estuaries Report Card Page 251 of 251 393
Shirley, Michael et al. Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research and The Ten Thousand Islands
Aquatic Preserve Estuarine Habitat Assessment. NA670Z0463: 1997.
394
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin Water Management District, summer 2009.
395
US Army Corps of Engineers. Environmental Impact Statement on Improving the Regulatory Process
in Southwest Florida. 2000 [2004 Oct 15]. Available from:
http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/permit/hot_topics/SFLAEIS/PDF_Files/deise.pdf
396
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin Water Management District, summer 2009.
397
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin Water Management District, summer 2009.
398
“Status Report: CERP Henderson Creek/Belle Meade Restoration.” Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Project, US Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District. CERP
website: http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/projects/project_docs/status/proj_93_current.pdf . Visited
08/27/09.
399
“Belle Meade Area Stormwater Management Master Plan.” Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD. 2006.
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PG_GRP_SFWMD_REGIONALSERV/PORTLET_BCBPROJ
ECTS/BELLEMEADEAREASTORMWATERMANAGEMENTPLAN/REPORT/SECTION1/SECTION_1_09
2606%20_TF_.PDF . Pg. 1 – 3.
400
“Plan Elements – Belle Meade Area.” Courtesy of Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer
2009.
401
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
402
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
403
Shirley, Michael et al. 1997. Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research and The Ten Thousand
Islands Aquatic Preserve Estuarine Habitat Assessment. NA670Z0463.
404
“Draft Southwest Florida Feasibility Study.” US Army Corps of Engineers. Revision date: July 2009.
Courtesy of Karen Bickford, TMDL Coordinator, Lee County. Pg. 8.
405
Boyer, Joseph N. FY2003 Cumulative Report to the South Florida Water Management District. Miami,
FL: Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University; 2003.
406
Comments from Ananta Nath, Big Cypress Basin, SFWMD, summer 2009.
407
“Status Report: E&SF:SBC Reservation Plan.” Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project, US
Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District. CERP website:
http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/projects/project_docs/status/proj_487_current.pdf. Visited 08/27/09.
408
“Status Report: E&SF:SBC Reservation Plan.” Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project, US
Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District. CERP website:
http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/projects/project_docs/status/proj_487_current.pdf. Visited 08/27/09.
409 409
“Status Report: E&SF:SBC Reservation Plan.” Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project, US
Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District. CERP website:
http://www.evergladesplan.org/pm/projects/project_docs/status/proj_487_current.pdf. Visited 08/27/09.
410
“Picayune Strand Restoration.” Army Corps of Engineers website: Updated October 2008.
411
“Picayune Strand Restoration.” Army Corps of Engineers website: Updated October 2008.
412
“Picayune Strand (Southern Golden Gate Estates) Restoration.” South Florida Water Management
District website:. Visited 08.03.09. http://www.evergladesplan.org/docs/fs_picayune_oct_2008.pdf.
https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=1855,2831193,1855_2831931&_dad=portal&_schema=PORT
AL&navpage=prjsgge
413
“Quick Facts on Picayune Strand Restoration Project: Update on Progress.” South Florida Water
Management District website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/COMMON/PDF/SPLASH/PICAYUNE_STR_RESTOR.PDF.
Visited 08.03.09
414
“Water Reservations – Picayune Strand Water Reservation.” South Florida Water Management District
website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=1874,9678097,1874_21152225:1874_22133505&_dad=portal
&_schema=PORTAL. Visited 08.03.09.
415
“Water Reservations.” South Florida Water Management District website:
https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2754,24403079&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL. Visited
08.03.09.
416
Comments from Mike Duever, SFWMD, summer 2009.
417
Comments from David Ceilley, Florida Gulf Coast University, 2009.