EAC-SC Agenda 08/29/2012EAC
LDC GMP
SUBCOMMITTEE
MEETING
AGENDA
AUGUST 29, 2012
Agenda
Environmental Advisory Council LDC GMP Subcommittee
Wednesday, August 29, 2012, 9 a.m.
Conference Rooms 609/610, located at the Growth Management Division, 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL, 34104
1. Welcome
2. Designate a Subcommittee member to take minutes
3. Signup sheet provided — please remind all attendees to signup
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Approval of July 25, 2012 meeting minutes
6. Upcoming absences - Next Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for September 26, 2012
7. Roundtable discussion on items from minutes of last meeting
8. Other items for Discussion
9. Public comment
10. Adjournment
Minutes of 7 -25 -2012 Environmental Advisory Council sub - committee meeting.
Meeting held in room 609 at the Horseshoe Drive location. 9 am to 11 am.
Chris D'Arco, Steve Preston, Jeremy Franz, Andrew Dickman, David Bishof, Gary
McNally, Gina Downs in attendance
David Bishof stated that EAC sub - committee recommendations need to be brief. The
recommendations should be presented to the planning commission by an EAC
member. Would like to see the recommendations posted on the website and
suggested the language be in layman terms.
Some discussion ensued concerning the watershed management plan. The plan was
'accepted' by the board of county commissioners. Perhaps 'adoption' of the plan by
the BCC would move the plan beyond the recommendation stage to the
implementation stage.
Steve Preston stated that the BCC accepted the plan as a technical document and the
North Golden Gate flow way is being studied using criteria from the new watershed
management plan.
EAC members were concerned that the watershed management plan not be 'put on
the shelf'. A lot of time and money went into developing the plan and the EAC would
like assurances that it was not a wasted effort.
Gary McNally recommended development of a schedule for implementing the
watershed management plan. Would like to see it adopted in resolution form.
It was suggested that the committee might pull specific items from the plan and
promote their implementation. In essence, have the committee develop the timeline
and not just suggest that one be developed.
Andrew Dickman wondered if we needed a manual for the Low Impact Development
criteria. He said if the LID principles are to move forward into the land development
code, they should be organized in a manual first.
Gary McNally suggested that the credits program for implementing LIDs be compared
with credit programs for same in other Florida counties. He thought the
demographics would be helpful.
Discussion took place regarding what should or should not be included in spreadsheet
format for county comparisons.
Nutrient
Budget
-1---
Eolith Florida Water
Management District
June 2010
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Science and Technologies Services
Water Resources Work Order No. ST61239 W005
TASK 4: NUTRIENT BUDGET ANALYSIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... ............................... 1
2.0 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE ................................................................................ ............................... 5
3.0 NUTRIENT BUDGET METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH ................................................. ............................... 6
4.0 LAND USE .................................................................................................................... ............................... 9
4.1 LAND USE COEFFICIENTS ....................................................................................................... .............................11
Figure4: Aggregated Land Use .................................................................................. ...............................
5.0 ATMOSPHERIC INFLUENCES ....................................................................................... ...............................
11
5.1 RAINFALL ........................................................................................................................... .............................11
Figure 6: Zonal Area Selection Tool ........................................................................... ...............................
5.2 AMMONIA VOLATILIZATION ................................................................................................... .............................12
Figure 7: Net Phosphorus Import Spatial Distribution ............................................... ...............................
6.0 RUNOFF AND DISCHARGE ASSIMILATION .................................................................. ...............................
14
6.1 RUNOFF ............................................................................................................................ .............................14
Figure 9: Net Phosphorus Import by Land Use .......................................................... ...............................
6.2 ATTENUATED DISCHARGE ...................................................................................................... .............................15
Figure 10: Net Nitrogen Import by Land Use ............................................................. ...............................
7.0 NUTRIENT BUDGETS .................................................................................................. ...............................
18
7.1 GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE ................................................................................................. .............................18
7.2 PHOSPHORUS ..................................................................................................................... .............................19
7.3 NITROGEN ......................................................................................................................... .............................25
8.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. ...............................
30
9.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. ...............................
33
List of Figures:
Figure1: Study Area Sub - watersheds .......................................................................... ............................... 3
Figure 2: Upland Land Use Mass Balance .................................................................... ...............................
7
Figure 3: Mass Balance at the Sub - watershed Scale ................................................... ...............................
8
Figure4: Aggregated Land Use .................................................................................. ...............................
10
Figure 5: Rainfall Stations and Zones ......................................................................... ...............................
12
Figure 6: Zonal Area Selection Tool ........................................................................... ...............................
19
Figure 7: Net Phosphorus Import Spatial Distribution ............................................... ...............................
20
Figure 8: Net Nitrogen Import Spatial Distribution ................................................... ...............................
25
Figure 9: Net Phosphorus Import by Land Use .......................................................... ...............................
31
Figure 10: Net Nitrogen Import by Land Use ............................................................. ...............................
31
Page ii
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
List of Tables:
Table 1: Aggregated Land Uses for Nutrient Budget Analyses .................................... ............................... 9
Table 2: Ammonia Volatilization Coefficients ............................................................ ...............................
14
Table 3: Estimated TN assimilation coefficients within the Lake Okeechobee watershed ......................
17
Table 4: Total Phosphorus Budget by Land Use (in Metric Tons per Year) ................ ...............................
21
Table 5: Total Phosphorus Budget by Regions (in Metric Tons per Year) .................. ...............................
21
Table 6: Total Phosphorus Budget by Basins (in Metric Tons per Year) .................... ...............................
22
Table 7: Total Phosphorus Budget by Land Use Component (in Metric Tons per Year) ..........................
23
Table 8: Total Phosphorus Budget by Sub - watershed (in Metric Tons per Year) ...... ...............................
24
Table 9: Total Nitrogen Budget by Land Use (in Metric Tons per Year) .................... ...............................
26
Table 10: Total Nitrogen Budget by Region (in Metric Tons per Year) ...................... ...............................
26
Table 11: Total Nitrogen Budget by Basin (in Metric Tons per Year) ........................ ...............................
27
Table 12: Total Nitrogen Budget by Land Use Component (in Metric Tons) ............. ...............................
28
Table 13: Total Nitrogen Budget by Sub - watershed (in Metric Tons) ....................... ...............................
30
Table 14: Comparison of Phosphorus Budget Analyses (in Metric Tons) .................. ...............................
30
APPENDIX A: LAND USE CODE CORRELATION
APPENDIX B: NUTRIENT COEFFICIENTS PER REGION
APPENDIX C: SOIL LEGACY PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN STORAGE IN SOILS OF LOW
AS AFFECTED BY LAND USES
Page iii
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
1.0 Introduction
The Lake Okeechobee Watershed spans from just south of Orlando to areas bordering the lake
on the south, east, and west and covers approximately 5,400 square miles (3.45 million acres).
This watershed, known as the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan (LOPP) area, includes several
sub - watersheds that contribute runoff discharge to the lake containing potentially harmful
nutrients (Figure 1). Phosphorus (P) in the discharge has been identified as the primary cause of
eutrophication of the lake. Nutrient levels in the runoff are directly related to land use and land
use practices.
The Lake Okeechobee Protection Program (the Program) is designed for the protection and
restoration of Lake Okeechobee and was established under the 2000 Lake Okeechobee
Protection Act (Florida Statutes, Chapter 373.4595).
In 2007, the Florida Legislature enacted the Northern Everglades and Estuaries Protection
Program (the Program), which expanded the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program to include
the St Lucie and Caloosahatchee River Watersheds. The objective of the Program is to protect
and restore surface water resources and achieve and maintain compliance with water quality
standards in the Lake Okeechobee watershed, the Caloosahatchee River watershed, and the St.
Lucie River watershed, and downstream receiving waters. It will be implemented in a phased,
comprehensive, and innovative protection program and will include long -term solutions based
upon the total maximum daily loads established in accordance with s. 403.067. This Program is
watershed - based, provides for all water quality issues needed to meet the total maximum daily
load, and includes research and monitoring, development and implementation of best
management practices, refinement of existing regulations, and structural and nonstructural
projects, including public works. This program is jointly administered by the South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP), and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) — the
coordinating agencies. The Lake Okeechobee Construction Project Phase 11 Technical Plan
(P2TP) was completed in January 2008 and provided a strategy for meeting the objectives of the
Program. To achieve the restoration goals, the coordinating agencies evaluated various
alternatives using best available technology and scientific information, and including significant
public involvement and review throughout the process. The resulting P2TP Preferred Plan
identifies construction projects, along with on -site measures that prevent or reduce pollution at
its source such as agricultural and urban best management practices, needed to achieve water
quality targets for the lake. In addition, it includes other projects for increasing water storage
north of Lake Okeechobee to achieve healthier lake levels and reduce harmful discharges to the
Caloosahatchee and St Lucie estuaries.
Components of the multi -phase preferred Plan include:
Implementing agricultural management practices on more than 1.7 million acres of
farmland;
• Adopting new regulations that will reduce the impacts of development on water quality
and flow;
Page 1
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
• Building treatment wetlands to clean water flowing into the lake;
• Using other innovative "green" nutrient control technologies to reduce P loads from the
watershed; and
Creating between 900,000 and 1.3 million acre -feet of water storage north of the lake
through a combination of above - ground reservoirs, underground storage and alternative
water storage projects on public and private lands.
A materials balance approach to nutrient management provides information about the total
amount of nutrients, specifically P and N, which enter and exit the study area on an annual
basis. Accounting for imports and exports of nutrient containing materials provides a baseline
for field research and a more detailed understanding of how changes in management practices
affect nutrient transport. Materials balance is a particularly useful tool when linked to a
Geographical Information System (GIS) such as ArcGISTM for spatial representation and
analysis.
The SFWMD has requested the HDR Team to perform a nutrient budget study of the Lake
Okeechobee Watershed. This watershed contains nine sub - watersheds with 61 drainage basins
spanning from just south of Orlando to areas surrounding the southern, eastern, and western
borders of the lake (Figure 1).
A nutrient budget study consists of data collection from landowners and local agencies and
businesses to characterize P and N import and export practices for relevant land uses within
specific regions. This information will be assessed to develop P and N import coefficients for
each land use in each sub - watershed. The study includes the development of Graphical User
Interface for computer tools that allows the testing of various import and export scenarios
This project includes an update of previous studies and computer tool development, which are
described below, to determine the relative contribution and sources of total P and nitrogen from
identifiable sources and level III land uses. The results of this assessment will be used by the
coordinating agencies to develop interim measures, Best Management Practices (BMPs), or
regulations, as applicable.
Page 2
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watersh
NO
p
A
t
p xa
a
a �
�t
�5
R
Figure 1: Study Area Sub - watersheds
A P source identification and budget study was conducted in 1989 -1990 based
and export data collected from 1985 to 1989 (Fonyo et al., 1991; Boggess et
study area encompassed 25 drainage basins in four sub- watersh
Creek/Nicodemus Slough, Indian Prairie, Lower Kissimmee, and Taylor Creel
(Figure 1). That study was updated in 2001 -2002 using data collected from
account for land management changes that have occurred (Mock Roos Team,
al., 2003). The same four sub - watersheds were included in the study, thoi
internal basins had changed. This update also included the development of
interface written in Avenue programming language for ESRI's ArcView
on the P import
al., 1995). The
ds: Fisheating
/Nubbin Slough
1997 to 2000 to
002; Hiscock et
gh some of the
i graphical user
.2x Geographic
Page 3
b t., wd
}
*
; wtd
US, Fwlib*'m y
9.-wvm 4*
Lmt
a �
�t
�5
R
Figure 1: Study Area Sub - watersheds
A P source identification and budget study was conducted in 1989 -1990 based
and export data collected from 1985 to 1989 (Fonyo et al., 1991; Boggess et
study area encompassed 25 drainage basins in four sub- watersh
Creek/Nicodemus Slough, Indian Prairie, Lower Kissimmee, and Taylor Creel
(Figure 1). That study was updated in 2001 -2002 using data collected from
account for land management changes that have occurred (Mock Roos Team,
al., 2003). The same four sub - watersheds were included in the study, thoi
internal basins had changed. This update also included the development of
interface written in Avenue programming language for ESRI's ArcView
on the P import
al., 1995). The
ds: Fisheating
/Nubbin Slough
1997 to 2000 to
002; Hiscock et
gh some of the
i graphical user
.2x Geographic
Page 3
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Information System (GIS) software. The interface allowed users to create P management plans
by changing P imports such as fertilizer rates, P- content of feed, etc. The P- content in runoff
(an export) was estimated based on Event Mean Concentration (EMCs).
In 2003, similar P budget studies were conducted by Mock, Roos & Associates, Inc. for the
Upper Kissimmee and Lake Istokpoga sub - watersheds (Mock Roos Team, 2003). The P-
Budget GIS interface was updated at that time to include the new sub - watersheds and also to
replace the EMCs with results from the Watershed Assessment Model (WAM). In 2004, the
District conducted their own P budget studies of the East and South Lake Okeechobee sub -
watersheds (Zhang et al. 2004a and 2004b). To date, net P import coefficients have been
developed for all of the sub - watersheds with the exception of West Lake Okeechobee.
In 2005, JGH Engineering, in association with Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc.
and HDR Engineering, Inc., (JGH et.al, 2005) combined the results of the previous studies and
developed a new GIS graphical user interface written in Visual Basic for Applications (VBA)
programming language for ESRI's ArcGIS platform. Net P import coefficients from the South
Lake Okeechobee sub - watershed were used for the West Lake Okeechobee sub - watershed. The
interface was similar to the previous interface, but included three new features:
1. A delineation tool to map the upstream watershed of a selected stream reach.
2. A direct linkage with WAM to account for the effects of management plans on runoff.
3. New reports with tables and pie charts.
Page 4
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
2.0 Work Breakdown Structure
The District has identified six tasks for this contract
(1) Develop a Project Work Plan that will document the literature review, identify
methodology to be used, and finalize the deliverable schedule.
(2) Conduct surveys and interviews to obtain the nutrient (TP and TN) import and
export data during the recent three years from 2006 to 2008. Develop the gross
import, gross export, and net import coefficients (the import or export amount per
unit area) by land use for each sub - watershed based on the new data. Analyze soil
data (existing or new samples if necessary) to quantify the relative mobility and
transport potential of both the legacy P in soils and the anthropogenic P through the
sub - watershed.
(3) Upgrade the graphical user interface tool to view input data including farms, drainage
basins, hydrographic features, land uses, soil types and nutrient (TP and TN) budget
results using ArcGIS. A User's Manual shall be developed and a four hour training
class shall be conducted at the District.
(4) Perform a mass balance analysis of TP and TN for each land use. With the graphical
user interface tool developed in Task 3, the land use based budget can be aggregated
by basin and sub - watersheds as shown in Figure 1. Contrast the results with the
previous ones and determine the change of net P imports by land use, basin, and sub -
watersheds between these two study periods. Obtain the baseline data for TN at
different spatial levels. Summarize the P storage, relative mobility, and transport
potential over time based on soil and stream types.
(5) Analyze possible relationships between net nutrient (TP and TN) imports and basin
characteristics (land use type, soil type, stream type, etc) for each basin. Identify
basin characteristics that affect net nutrient imports and storage.
(6) Write a final report that describes work done for this contract. The HDR Team also
will give a one -day workshop including presentation and hands on analysis describing
this project and its products at the District.
This report corresponds to Task 4 as described above.
Page 5
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
3.0 Nutrient Budget Methodology and Approach
A mass balance budget approach as described in the Task 1 Work Plan was applied using the
same mass balance equation as previously used by Boggess et al. (1995) and Mock -Roos
(2002). The basin nutrient mass balance budgets may be expressed by a series of mass balance
equations:
a a
ASb =�Ii— �0,
i =1 i =1
where: Ii = Inet + Irain
ASb = OS, + ASa
a a
OS,, = li — RU
i =1 i =1
a a
ASa — RU — OLi
i =1 i =1
where: OSb= basin nutrient retention (the average annual mass stored in a specific basin),
ASo= on -site nutrient retention (the average annual mass retained in the uplands of a
specific basin),
OSa= wetland /lake /stream nutrient assimilation (the average annual mass assimilated
by the wetlands, streams, and lakes of a specific basin, as estimated by the WAM
model),
Ii = nutrient inputs (the mass of nutrient imports to a specific basin, from mass
balance calculations),
Inet = net nutrient imports (the difference of the mass of the nutrient imports minus the
mass of the nutrient exports of a specific basin, based on land use activity),
Irain = rainfall nutrient load (the mass of nutrient contained in rainfall for a specific
basin, using rainfall estimates and an average measured rainfall nutrient
concentrations),
RLi = average annual runoff nutrient load (the mass in surface water runoff within a
specific basin, as estimated in the WAM model),
OLi = basin nutrient load (the mass discharged from a specific basin as accounted for in
runoff concentration estimated in WAM model),
i = the specific basin number, which is arbitrarily assigned
a = the number of tributary basins within each sub - watershed.
b = the specific basin
There are two separate analyses performed to estimate the average annual amount of nutrient
mass that enters, exits or remains within the sub - watersheds. These can generally be described
Page 6
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
as micro and macro levels of study. At the micro level, a mass balance between imports,
including rain, and exports, including runoff, is analyzed for each upland land u e. This
analysis focuses on production and consumption activities and how those proce ses relate to
nutrient import and export. For example, the consumption of feed by dairy cow is an import
and the production of milk is an export.
The specifics of imports and exports are considered through assessment of the ost probable
land use activities, such as fertilizing crops, feeding livestock, sewage outflows, stocking and
harvesting rates.(Figure 2). A net import coefficient is determined for each land use based on
several sources of information as obtained in Task 2 of this study pertaining to tie nutrient
imports /exports and internal processes. The sources included landowner questi nnaire surveys,
agency databases, expert interviews and relevant documents.
Upl
Consum
. Production
Figure 2: Upland Land Use Mass Balance
The net nutrient import coefficients are based on average information obtained
use. The coefficients are developed by region because land use activities will 1
geographic locations due to soil and climate. The regions are essentially the sal
watersheds with the exception of what is referred to as the Northern Lake Oke(
which includes the Fisheating Creek, Indian Prairie, Lower Kissimmee and Ta;
Creek/Nubbin Slough sub - watersheds (Figure 1). The delineation of the regioi
previous studies will allow for analytic comparisons.
Based on the previous studies, common types of nutrient imports and exports
anthropogenic activities emerged across the various land uses:
Imports
Fertilizer: Nutrients delivered to the land in fertilization practices
Feed: Nutrients consumed and deposited by livestock, people and pets
Cleaners: Nutrients in products used to disinfect livestock
Biological fixation: Nutrients fixed from N2 in the atmosphere by plants and
each land
in different
as the sub -
:)bee region
matches
with
Page 7
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
R 11
Exports
Livestock: Sale and culling of livestock
Harvest: Removal and sale of Crops
Hay: Production of hay for feed
Sod: Sod sold
Milk: Milk production sold
Septic: Cleaning of septic tanks and removal of waste
Coefficients are developed for each component in gm/ha and summarized into n t nutrient
coefficient for each land use.
Runoff is estimated with the water quality assimilation model WAM (Watershed Assessment
Model). WAM is a physical based model that is set up to use the same parameters, e.g., the
fertilizer nutrient content, as were used to derive the net import coefficients. The model uses
daily rainfall information spatially distributed using Thiessen's Method. WAM ases submodels
GLEAMS and EAAMOD depending on the land use and soil combinations that are encountered
to estimate the quantity and nutrient concentrations of the runoff.
At the macro level, the entire sub - watershed is analyzed starting with the results t runoff from
upland activities. The three components of the watershed are uplands, wetlands streams and
Lake Okeechobee (Figure 3). The mass balance of the system includes rainfall End net nutrient
imports as input and runoff, atmospheric losses and accumulated flow as export . The
difference between the mass that enters and exits each component represents the onsite nutrient
accumulation that occurs. Atmospheric exports include N lost from fertilizers and manures
through ammonia volatilization and N lost through gas emission (NO, N2O and 2) referred to
as denitrification.
Atmospheric
Rain t Net Imports
Rain
Runoff
j wevanas Measured
Soils end SrE'" Discharge
Sediments
Figure 3: Mass Balance at the Sub - watershed Scale
Page 8
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
4.0 Land Use
Land use is a critical part of the nutrient budget analysis because it establishes the amounts and
locations of the nutrient sources resulting from anthropogenic activities. Land use GIS data sets
of the study area were provided by the District. The land classification system was aggregated
to 26 categories based on similarities between the land uses in terms of nutrient import and
export (see Table 1). Appendix A shows the relationship of the Florida Land Use
Classification Code System (FLUCCS) codes to the proposed nutrient budget land use codes.
Table 1: Aggregated Land Uses for Nutrient Budget Analyses
NUTRIENT BUDGET LAND USE
CODE
IMPROVED PASTURE
2
WETLANDS
3
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
4
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
5
DAIRY
6
BARREN LAND
7
OTHER URBAN
8
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
9
TRUCK CROPS
10
CITRUS
11
WATER BODIES
12
GOLF COURSE
13
SOD FARM
14
ORNAMENTALS
15
TREE NURSERIES
16
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
17
SUGARCANE
18
AQUACULTURE
19
POULTRY
20
ABANDONED DAIRY
21
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNITS
22
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
23
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
24
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
25
FIELD CROPS
26
HORSE FARMS
27
A spatial change was made to the land use to reflect abandoned dairies. Abandoned dairies are,
for the most part, operated as improved pasture and are treated as such in terms of net import.
However, due to past activities, these areas are typically high in legacy P which can be
accounted for in the WAM model by setting higher values in the soil parameter files. The
Page 9
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Wa
abandon dairy locations were obtained from the dataset using the previous study (JGH et al.,
2005). Figure 4 shows the land use aggregated to the 26 categories
Figure 4: Aggregated Land Use
Page 10
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
4.1 Land Use Coefficients
Land use coefficients represent the annual rate of nutrient import and export for each land use
within the study area based on anthropogenic activities related to the individual land uses such
as fertilizer application and crop harvests. These coefficients were derived based on data
collection performed in Task 2 which included a combination of landowner surveys and
consultation with various federal, state, and local agencies and utilities, and businesses.
Sets of land use coefficients were created for each region and separated into the import/export
components (as described in Section 3) including feed, fertilizer and cleaners, as imports, and
harvest, live weight, sod, hay, milk and septic, as exports. The coefficients for these components
were derived based on summarized averages of the information obtained and reported in Task 2.
Tables showing the coefficient values for P and N for each region are present in Appendix B. It
should be noted that while the P and N coefficients were based on extensive landowner surveys,
consultation with experts, and literature reviews, there was a great deal of variability in the
information obtained from the various sources. Because of the variability in the results, the raw
coefficients were adjusted for reasonableness and consistency with prior surveys based on best
professional judgment.
5.0 Atmospheric Influences
5.1 Rainfall
The obvious dominant atmospheric influence in relation to nutrient import and export is the
contribution by wet and dry deposition. The rainfall datasets were updated using the rainfall
data collected for the recent WAM modeling effort performed for the Lake Okeechobee
Watershed (HDR, 2009) which used the same 42 rainfall stations that were used in the previous
P budget analysis (JGH et al, 2005). A distribution grid of rainfall zones was created using
Thiessen's method (Figure 5).
The nutrient content in rainfall used by the WAM model was adjusted to match the values
derived from District data (James et al., 2008). Values of 0.0159 mg /l and 0.54 mg /1 were used
for P and N, respectively.
Page 11
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Figure 5: Rainfall Stations and Zones
5.2 Ammonia Volatilization
Ammonia volatilization rate can vary from 5 to over 20 %, as affected by nitroge
rate, temperature, moisture condition, wind speed, and pH of the soil. For comm
fertilizers, ammonia volatilization decreases in the order of NH4HCO3 > (NH4)2
CO(NH2)2 > NH4NO3 (He et al., 1999). Ammonia volatilization generally increa
increase in NH4 + -N application rate, temperature, soil pH and wind speed, but de
increasing soil moisture. Incorporation of fertilizers into soil by fertilization or n
significantly reduce N loss by ammonia volatilization. Based on our simulation
of mineralized N from composts can be lost by ammonia volatilization, but volal
reduced by soil incorporation (He et al., 2003).
source and
ily used N
D4 >
;s with an
reases with
ping can
udy, 18 -23%
ization loss is
Page 12
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Based on previous simulations and field studies, ammonia volatilization rate is estimated at 5%
for pasture land, abandoned nurseries, golf course, sod farm, residential area, and horse farm
(He et al, 1999; 2003). Except abandoned nurseries for which ammonia volatilization results
mainly from residual N, all other land uses are covered by grasses. Ammonia volatilization of
applied N should be low in these land areas because the ground is shaded by grass leaves, the
effect of wind is minor and surface temperatures are lower (He et al., 1999; Mattos et al., 2003).
For land uses like citrus, truck crops, field crops, forest land, and ornamental tree nurseries, dry
water soluble granular fertilizers are still the main sources. Fertilizer is applied to soil surface
without much protection by the crop plants except for forestland in which weeds may provide
some direct shade. Therefore, a 10% of ammonia volatilization rate is estimated for these land
uses. Ammonia volatilization is generally high from farm manures, chicken litter, and liquid
waste from dairy farms as these wastes contain a high percentage of ammonia. An average of
15% volatilization rate is estimated for dairy and poultry. Bareland is included in this category
because of minimal protection from plants, high temperature and often dry condition on soil
surface of bareland enhances ammonia volatilization.
The amount of N excreted by animals is calculated based on the survey information and
parameters used in the WAM model as provided by Dr. Del Bottcher. Improved and
unimproved pasture N amount (kg/ha /yr) equals the number of animals per hectare of land times
the amount of N excreted per animal per year, which is an average of dry cow, springers,
heifers, bulls, horse, calves, and beef cattle. Dairy farm /pasture amount of N is excreted by
animals based on dry cows only. The number of animals per hectare of pasture land is estimated
at 2.5 for improved pasture and balanced dairy, and 1.0 for unimproved pasture.
Page 13
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table 2: Ammonia Volatilization Coefficients
NUTRIENT BUDGET LAND USE
N LOSS (kg /ha -yr)
IMPROVED PASTURE
19.28
WETLANDS
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
DAIRY
49.14
BARREN LAND
0.00
OTHER URBAN
7.25
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
7.71
TRUCK CROPS
4.08
CITRUS
22.83
WATER BODIES
0.00
GOLF COURSE
6.21
SOD FARM
9.34
ORNAMENTALS
7.64
TREE NURSERIES
14.69
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
2.80
SUGARCANE
3.92
AQUACULTURE
0.00
POULTRY
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
0.00
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
0.14
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
7.93
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
7.25
FIELD CROPS
19.73
HORSE FARMS
11.69
6.0 Runoff and Discharge Assimilation
6.1 Runoff
WAM has been used in previous P budget analyses and was dynamically integrated into the
GUI in 2005. It is a mass balance model that estimates nutrient concentrations and loads in
runoff based on land use activities such as fertilizer application rates, animal densities, etc. The
model uses many of the same parameters that are used in the nutrient budget analyses making it
highly suitable for integration.
The concept of WAM is to overlay land use, soils and rainfall zones to produce unique
combinations that are submitted to three submodels — Groundwater Loading Effects of
Page 14
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Agricultural Management Systems (GLEAMS; Knisel, 1993), Everglades Agricultural Area
Model (EAAMod; Botcher et al., 1998; SWET, 1999), and a special -case model written
specifically for WAM to handle wetland and urban landscapes. These submodels are bundled
into one program called BUCShell, where BUC stands for Basin Unique Cell. BUCShell uses
parameter dataset files for land use, soils and rainfall to produce an estimated annual average P
runoff load in kilograms per hectare for each unique combination. The results are then spatially
distributed onto the watershed by relating the output table to a grid of the unique combinations.
The resulting grids represent the average annual nutrient loads at the source in both surface
water runoff and groundwater.
The submodels and parameters were updated based on the recent WAM modeling effort
performed for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed (HDR, 2009) and also with information
obtained from surveys such as fertilizer and harvest rates. The soils analysis performed in Task
2 was reviewed to determine if there was any justification in updating the soil parameters used
in the WAM submodels. This review is presented in Appendix C.
6.2 Attenuated Discharge
WAM includes a routing and attenuation model that functions on a daily time step as opposed to
annual as used in the budget analyses. Separate algorithms are needed to attenuate the nutrients
from the sources to the outfall on an average annual basis. In the previous P budget analysis,
the P assimilation algorithm developed for the Lake Okeechobee Agricultural Support System
(LOADSS) program (SWET, 2001) was used to estimate the attenuation based on distances and
flow type (overland, wetland, and channel). A similar algorithm was needed for the attenuation
of N through the watershed.
P has been the focus of study in the past because of it has been identified as the primary limiting
nutrient in Lake Okeechobee as well as the Everglades (SFWMD, 2004). This focus on P
resulted in significant amounts of research and monitoring data to be collected for P. Very little
work has been done on N responses within the watershed. No specific nitrogen assimilation
studies were found for South Florida conditions. However, related modeling and monitoring
studies and general N processes research reports from other similar locations provided
preliminary information for developing N assimilation coefficients.
The assimilation algorithm for nutrient attenuation has the following form:
Cout = (Cin - Cb) * e a *K *D +Cb
[Eq. 1 ]
Where, K = a * q b [Eq. 2]
and
Parameter definitions are:
Cout = N concentration at the outlet of the flow conveyance reach (mg /1)
Ci„ = N concentration at the inflow of the flow conveyance reach (mg /1)
Page 15
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Cb = N concentration for the background condition for the reach (mg/1)
D = Distance along the flow path (miles)
a = linear coefficient
b = exponential coefficient
q = flow rate (inches /year)
The assimilation coefficients are the "a ", "b ", and "Cb" parameters. The other parameters are
state variables generated by WAM and the nutrient budget GUI. Assimilation coefficients for
N were developed for overland, channel, and wetland flow. A review of available literature and
actual nitrogen data turned up numerous studies on N assimilation within stream and wetland
systems. However, none were found for the Okeechobee basin. WASP (Ambrose, et al, 1993)
and QUAL2E /QUAL2K (Brown and Barnwell, 1987) are two in- stream nutrient dynamic
models that represent the nitrogen dynamics within the water conveyance systems in much
greater detail then the above simplified assimilation algorithm. These models require
significant parameterization data that are not available for this watershed, however, they do
provide excellent process dynamic information and through their use in other areas provide a
good indication of the N assimilation responses. The processes that effect N assimilation
include; denitrification, biomass uptake and deposition, ammonia volatilization, and N- fixation
by cyanobacteria. These models show that the net effect of these processes can be generally
represented by the above exponential assimilation algorithm. The lack of parameterization data
for these models, however, do not allow their direct use, but provide guidance for deriving
values from monitoring data.
Within stream and canals the N assimilation processes are dominated by algae and macrophytes
uptake and detritus settleimentation. These processes are also dominant in wetlands, however, in
wetlands the denitrification processes for nitrate become more importance due to their more
anaerobic and high organic environment. However, as evidenced by the monitoring data in the
Kissimissee River and the S -191 basin, the nitrate levels are typically low (less than 3% of total
N) as compared to the soluble organic N, which is not very bio- reactive. Note that ammonia
concentrations are typically even less than nitrate. Since only nitrate N can be denitrified and
plants can only uptake N in the forms nitrate and ammonia, a large amount of the total N within
the flow conveyance system will not be active in the assimilation processes. In contrast, the
majority of the TP, which is in the soluble reactive (SRP) form, can be assimilated by plant
uptake or by sediment adsorption. Though the ratio of N denitrified or uptaken up by plants to
the total N in the water is much less than for P, the total plant uptake of N is still higher for N
than P because TN levels in the drainage waters are typically an order of magnitude higher than
TP. As noted above, the higher organic fraction of nitrogen means the assimilation rates for N
are less than for P and for the inorganic forms of N. The relative assimilative capacity of the N
forms, as reflected by the "a" coefficient, was set accordingly. Smaller "a" coefficients means
less assimilation. For nitrate N, the "a" coefficients were set considerably higher, particularly
for wetlands where denitrification plays a bigger role. Therefore, high assimilation rates of N
would be expected for discharges with high nitrate levels, however there is little data that
supports that high nitrate levels are common except from intensive crops like vegetables,
ornamentals, and citrus. These nitrates sources will typically be attenuated by denitrification
relatively quickly in wetland and sloughs, but not in canals and open streams. The final "a"
coefficients for N constituents were based on the conditions discussed above and the observed
Page 16
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
N levels within the various tributaries within the Okeechobee basins. In addition, coefficients
adjusted to be consistent with the calibrated P coefficients.
The Kissimmee River and the S -191 stream flow data were reviewed to determine TN
background concentrations. In addition the EPA's recent numeric nutrients standards for
peninsula central Florida, which were developed to represent background or native condition
values were also reviewed. The observed data from low impacted areas or native areas are
found to be consistent with the EPA estimates, which imply that the background concentration
in the Kissimmee /Okeechobee basin would likely be about 1.2 mg /1 as TN. Though some
individual observed data from more intensive land use areas measured values do range higher
than this level, in general, the mean TN values in Kissimmee and S -191 appear to be only
slightly elevated above background levels.
The final step is determining the "a" and "b" coefficients. Since we do not have a direct
assimilation studies for N for our study basins, attenuation coefficient ratios between N and P
that were provided by the OF Wetland Center (Mark Brown, personal communication and
Reiss, et al, 2009) were used as an indicator of the relative attenuation/assimilation rates
between TN and TP. Using TN instead of the individual N species does have the constraint of
not being able to represent the difference assimilations rates for the various species. Though the
main two species (TKN and nitrate) attenuate at very different rates, the low levels of nitrate
allows TN to be well represented by TKN. Nitrate N can rapidly denitrify and be lost to the
atmosphere in canals and wetlands that are organic laden systems like those found in the Lake
Okeechobee watershed, while TKN, which is almost all organic N of with most is dissolved, has
a much lower assimilation rate. As mentioned nitrate and particularly ammonia, the inorganic
forms of N, are typically very small components of TN (less than 3 and 1 % respectively),
therefore the organic assimilation rate should be a reasonable indicator of the TN assimilation
rate.
Based on the above analyses, assimilation coefficients for the various systems were developed
(Table 3) within the Lake Okeechobee watershed based on the above approach.
Table 3: Estimated TN assimilation coefficients within the Lake Okeechobee watershed.
LOADSS Flow Conveyance LOADSS Algorithm Parameters*
System for TN
A B Cbkg
Overland Flow 200 2.5 1.2
Open Channel 10 3 1.2
Wetland Channel 25 3 1.2
* The parameters in this table are based on the units for the D, Q, Co,, and
Cbkg in Eq. 1 and 2 being miles, inches /year, mg /I, and mg /I, respectively.
Page 17
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
7.0 Nutrient Budgets
7.1 Graphical User Interface
The P- Budget Graphical User Interface (GUI) was developed in 2005 for the District. It
provides a tool to create and assess Phosphorus Control Plans (PCPs) anywhere within the study
area. The GUI also provides reports based on existing conditions and land use, which is an
ideal tool for this task. The nutrient masses as outlined in Section 3 and as illustrated in Figure
3 can be obtained using the GUI.
The GUI applies the various land use component coefficients (Appendix B) to the land use
spatial dataset to create grid datasets of total import, total export and net import. These grids can
then be parsed using a selected zonal dataset such as basins, sub - watersheds or regions to
provide tabular data that is combined with rainfall and runoff data. The onsite storage reported
in the tables represents the nutrient amounts that are retained in the soils and equals the
difference between net imports plus rainfall minus source discharge.
Other tools in the GUI allow a drainage area to be calculated based on a selected downstream
reach for which the attenuated nutrient amount is also calculated. This represents the nutrient
discharge amount. Nutrients stored as sediments in streams and wetlands can be determined by
subtracting the discharge amount from the runoff amount.
The GUI was successfully updated in Task 3 to include the following:
• Upgrade to ESRITm ArcGIS 9.3.1 software (ArcView with Spatial Analyst)
• Convert programming language from VBA to C #.Net
• Add N to input and output
• Replace Crystal Reports for report viewing
• Other minor enhancements
One enhancement to the GUI allowed more options for the selection of Areas of Interest (AOI).
One tool allowed the selection of one or more basins. This tool has been revised to prompt the
user to select a hydrologic zonal theme such as regions, sub - watersheds or basins, which was
useful to present the results of this task (Figure 6).
Page 18
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee W.
Figure 6: Zonal Area Selection Tool
7.2 Phosphorus
The areal extent and distribution of the net P import within the watershed are sh wn in Figure 7.
Areas in red indicate that the land use is an importer. Green areas indicate an a porter. Overall,
there is an estimated annual net P import to the study area of approximately 5,330 metric tons
through anthropogenic activities. An additional 312 metric tons is introduced ir atmospheric
deposition. An estimated 1,193 metric tons is discharged via runoff and ground ater from the
individual land uses into wetlands, streams and lakes. A balance of 4,448 metric tons is
estimated to be retained in the soils, referred to onsite storage. The results were summarized by
land use, basins and regions (Tables 4, 5 and 6).
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Net P trst Ctha -y
-x
°
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table 4: Total Phosphorus Budget by Land Use (in Metric Tons per Year)
Table 5: Total Phosphorus Budget by Regions (in Metric Tons per Year)
Net
Source
Onsite
Land Use
Area (ha)
Imports
Exports
Imports
Rainfall
Discharge
Storage
IMPROVED PASTURE
273,969
1,627.7
323.9
1,304.0
60.1
223.1
1,141.0
CITRUS
99,468
1,596.5
468.1
1,128.3
22.3
221.0
929.6
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
30,639
701.1
4.3
696.8
7.0
236.0
467.7
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
75,068
620.0
2.4
617.6
17.1
15.3
619.4
SUGARCANE
161,556
3,157.1
2,613.7
543.5
34.7
46.9
531.3
DAIRY
9,454
833.0
363.3
469.7
2.0
1.7
470.0
TRUCK CROPS
9,404
767.5
458.9
308.7
2.0
2.2
308.5
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNIT
6,432
426.8
137.0
289.9
1.4
19.2
272.1
GOLF COURSE
3,472
112.1
0.0
112.1
0.8
1.5
111.5
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
11,314
106.8
1.7
105.0
2.8
35.0
72.8
OTHER URBAN
42,629
73.9
0.0
73.9
10.0
88.7
4.8
HORSE FARMS
864
16.7
0.0
16.7
0.2
0.3
16.6
ABANDONED DAIRY
3,891
20.4
4.2
16.2
0.8
77.3
-60.2
TREE NURSERIES
892
19.7
4.6
15.1
0.2
2.9
12.4
AQUACULTURE
233
14.7
1.0
13.7
0.0
0.4
13.3
FIELD CROPS
1,231
49.2
40.1
9.1
0.3
1.7
7.7
WETLANDS
248,915
0.0
0.0
0.0
57.0
64.7
-7.7
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
83,901
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.2
1.6
17.6
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
54,767
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.0
0.9
11.1
BARREN LAND
16,721
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.7
12.8
-9.1
WATER BODIES
88,969
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
22.9
-2.9
POULTRY
89
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ORNAMENTALS
1,847
40.2
55.0
-14.8
0.3
4.6
-19.0
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
20,050
280.9
317.3
-36.4
4.7
1.5
-33.2
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
131,549
0.0
84.4
-84.4
29.6
31.6
-86.4
SOD FARM
15,550
585.0
840.7
-255.8
3.3
78.8
-331.3
Total
1,392,874
11,049.4
5,720.6
5,329.1
311.5
1,192.5
4,448.0
Table 5: Total Phosphorus Budget by Regions (in Metric Tons per Year)
Total 1,392,874 11,049.4 5,720.6 5,329.1 311.5 1,192.5 4,448.0
Page 21
Net
Source
Onsite
Region
Area (ha)
Imports
Exports
Imports
Rainfall
Discharge
Storage
Northern Lake Okeechobee
484,248
3,519.5
1,695.6
1,824.0
102.8
387.0
1,539.9
Upper Chain of Lakes
416,556
2,101.9
544.1
1,557.8
100.9
385.9
1,272.9
Lake Istokpoga
157,837
1,029.6
382.4
647.2
32.9
129.4
550.8
Western Lake Okeechobee
90,270
1,072.4
563.8
508.6
21.5
98.0
432.2
Southern Lake Okeechobee
147,638
2,754.9
2,333.6
421.3
32.0
85.9
367.4
Eastern Lake Okeechobee
96,325
571.1
201.1
370.1
21.3
106.5
284.9
Total 1,392,874 11,049.4 5,720.6 5,329.1 311.5 1,192.5 4,448.0
Page 21
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table 6: Total Phosphorus Budget by Basins (in Metric Tons per Year)
Page 22
Net
Source
Onsite
Basin
Area (ha)
Imports
Exports
Imports
Rainfall
Discharge
Storage
EAST CALOOSAHATCHEE
90,237
1,071.8
563.3
508.4
21.5
97.9
432.0
S -191
48,688
777.5
278.4
499.1
9.8
56.0
452.9
REEDY CREEK
70,869
380.2
57.6
322.6
17.9
76.0
264.4
S-65D
45,734
454.0
189.7
264.2
9.6
24.7
249.2
C -44
47,265
370.7
124.6
246.1
11.0
84.6
172.5
JOSEPHINE CREEK
36,921
298.5
54.6
244.0
7.7
49.7
202.0
ARBUCKLE CREEK
54,971
396.0
189.1
206.9
12.0
44.1
174.8
FISHEATING CREEK
115,037
469.8
269.3
200.5
26.6
57.6
169.5
SHINGLE CREEK
31,364
207.0
13.4
193.6
8.1
58.1
143.6
LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
32,781
190.6
12.0
178.5
8.3
35.9
151.0
LAKE HATCHINEHA
37,374
235.0
76.5
158.6
8.0
41.9
124.8
C-41
36,655
358.6
223.3
135.4
6.4
49.3
92.5
BOGGY CREEK
20,764
146.3
18.3
127.9
5.3
40.2
93.1
LAKE ARBUCKLE
43,045
221.5
94.0
127.4
9.4
25.0
111.9
S-65A
41,820
235.8
111.0
124.8
10.4
20.8
114.4
LAKE WEOHYAKAPKA
25,204
168.1
43.3
124.7
5.5
10.6
119.7
S -5A
48,828
927.3
816.4
110.9
10.8
32.4
89.3
LAKE PIERCE
21,294
166.6
58.8
107.7
4.6
15.7
96.6
C -41A
23,730
186.8
79.3
107.5
4.4
26.7
85.2
S -2
42,977
818.3
715.3
103.0
9.6
23.4
89.1
S -65E
11,797
190.4
87.7
102.7
2.5
29.5
75.7
L -8
42,959
148.8
54.7
94.1
9.1
18.2
84.9
S -3
25,501
477.1
392.8
84.3
5.4
9.7
79.9
LAKE KISSIMMEE
65,624
224.9
142.7
82.2
15.7
28.8
69.2
EAST LAKE TOHOPEKALI
15,035
78.7
3.7
75.0
3.8
15.6
63.3
S-63A
30,550
107.9
35.2
72.7
7.2
20.8
59.0
S-4
17,412
297.7
225.1
72.6
3.6
14.1
62.1
S-65C
20,427
94.8
24.1
70.7
4.4
12.8
62.4
LAKE ISTOKPOGA
22,900
113.6
44.7
68.9
3.9
10.7
62.1
S -154
12,801
84.2
22.8
61.4
2.5
33.8
30.1
S -133
10,376
110.7
59.2
51.5
2.2
22.3
31.3
C-40
17,780
171.7
126.7
45.1
3.1
16.0
32.2
L48
8,411
52.8
15.1
37.7
1.5
4.0
35.2
LAKE MARIAN
16,213
51.0
14.9
36.2
4.3
11.7
28.8
LAKE MYRTLE
18,466
33.7
4.0
29.7
4.4
7.3
26.7
LAKE CYPRESS
18,035
79.3
53.0
26.3
4.5
16.9
13.9
S -135
7,324
92.0
65.7
26.2
1.4
3.6
24.0
S -153
5,164
37.1
11.9
25.2
1.0
2.7
23.5
S -65B
51,913
101.3
78.7
22.6
11.8
18.4
16.0
LAKE HART
12,983
32.7
10.7
22.0
3.3
6.4
18.9
S -131
2,899
49.7
32.3
17.4
0.6
1.0
17.0
L -59E
5,833
19.1
3.6
15.6
1.1
2.9
13.7
S -236
4,344
76.7
61.3
15.4
0.9
2.3
14.0
EAST BEACH
2,175
40.3
26.5
13.9
0.4
2.3
12.0
L-49
4,895
29.6
17.7
11.9
0.9
2.1
10.7
EAST SHORE
3,401
65.3
54.0
11.3
0.8
0.8
11.4
L-61 E
5,780
11.9
3.4
8.6
1.0
1.4
8.2
L -61W
5,488
9.8
3.0
6.8
1.1
2.2
5.7
SOUTH SHORE
1,624
28.9
23.3
5.6
0.3
0.6
5.3
L -59W
2,604
7.2
1.8
5.4
0.5
0.6
5.3
PORT MAYACA GROVES
937
14.6
9.8
4.7
0.2
0.9
4.0
715 FARMS
1,409
24.1
19.5
4.6
0.3
0.5
4.4
L -60W
1,322
4.9
1.2
3.7
0.2
0.6
3.4
S -154C
887
3.7
0.8
2.9
0.2
0.5
2.7
L-60E
2,047
3.3
0.9
2.4
0.4
0.3
2.5
Total
1,392,874
11,049.4
5,720.6
5,329.1
311.5
1,192.5
4,448.0
Page 22
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
The individual P import and export components per land use activity were also summarized (Table 7). The results at a sub
watershed level allowed for the incorporation of the attenuated discharge and resultant storage of P as sediments in the
conveyance system (Table 8).
Table 7: Total Phosphorus Budget by Land Use Component (in Metric Tons per Year)
TOTAL
LIVE
TOTAL
NET
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
FEED
CLEANERS
IMPORTS HARVEST
WEIGHT
HAY
SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
EXPORTS
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
229.3
1,398.6
0.0
1,627.7
0.0
308.4
2.4
12.9
0.0
0.0
323.9
1,304.0
WETLANDS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORESTED- CONIFEROUS
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
DAIRY
28.0
794.1
10.9
833.0
0.0
26.6
5.3
0.0
326.7
4.7
363.3
469.7
BARREN LAND
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
OTHER URBAN
73.9
0.0
0.0
73.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
73.9
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
84.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
84.4
-84.4
TRUCK CROPS
767.5
0.0
0.0
767.5
458.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
458.9
308.7
CITRUS
1,596.5
0.0
0.0
1,596.5
468.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
468.1
1,128.3
WATER BODIES
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
GOLF COURSE
112.1
0.0
0.0
112.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
112.1
SOD FARM
585.0
0.0
0.0
585.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
840.7
0.0
0.0
840.7
-255.8
ORNAMENTALS
40.2
0.0
0.0
40.2
55.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.0
-14.8
TREE NURSERIES
19.7
0.0
0.0
19.7
4.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.6
15.1
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
280.9
0.0
0.0
280.9
317.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
317.3
-36.4
SUGARCANE
3,157.1
0.0
0.0
3,157.1
2,613.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2,613.7
543.5
AOUACULTURE
3.3
11.4
0.0
14.7
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
13.7
POULTRY
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ABANDONED DAIRY
0.0
20.4
0.0
20.4
0.0
4.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2
16.2
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.0
426.8
0.0
426.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
137.0
137.0
289.9
RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY
240.4
379.5
0.0
620.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.4
2.4
617.6
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
181.3
519.8
0.0
701.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
4.3
696.8
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
20.0
86.7
0.0
106.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.7
105.0
FIELD CROPS
49.2
0.0
0.0
49.2
40.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.1
9.1
HORSE FARMS
5.0
11.7
0.0
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.7
TOTAL
7,399.5
3,649.2
10.9
11,049.4
3,957.6
424.5
7.8
853.6
326.7
150.1
5,720.6
5,329.1
Page 23
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Since a sub - watershed typically represents a contributing area to a discharge outfall, it allows for the assessment of the
attenuated discharge and resultant storage as sediments in the conveyance system. Some of these sub - watersheds, however, do
not include a single outfall for a single drainage area. The Upper Kissimmee sub - watershed passes through the Lower
Kissimmee sub - watershed. Therefore, the discharge amount from that sub - watershed was subtracted from Lower Kissimmee.
Indian Prairie sub - watershed includes seven outfalls (S127, S129, S131, L -59E, C -40, C -41 and C-4 IA) which were added
together. Lake Istokpoga passes through Indian Prairie and was, therefore, subtracted out. East Lake Okeechobee includes C-
44, Basin 8 and L -8. West Lake Okeechobee includes C -43 and Nicodemus Slough. Finally, South Lake Okeechobee
includes S352, S351, C -4A, S354, 5236 and S4.
The P budget results at the sub - watershed level show that, of the 1,193 metric tons of P discharged at the source in runoff, 584
metric tons discharges to Lake Okeechobee and other offsite locations (Table 8). It is important to note that the outlet
discharge in the table below does not necessarily refer to discharge to Lake Okeechobee. The East, West and South Lake
Okeechobee sub - watersheds have the potential of discharging to the Lake, but the majority of their flows discharge away from
the lake.
Table 8: Total Phosphorus Budget by Sub - watershed (in Metric Tons per Year)
Page 24
Net
Source
Onsite
Outlet
Subwatershed
Area (ha)
Imports
Exports
Imports
Rainfall
Discharge
Storage Discharge
Attenuated
Upper Kissimmee
416,556
2,101.9
544.1
1,557.8
100.9
385.9
1,272.9
117.3
268.6
Lake Istokpoga
157,837
1,029.6
382.4
647.2
32.9
129.4
550.8
37.5
91.8
Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough
80,076
1,068.0
427.0
641.1
161
116.2
541.0
88.8
27.4
Lower Kissimmee
171,692
1,076.2
491.2
585.1
38.8
106.2
517.8
58.7
47.5
West Lake Okeechobee
90,270
1,072.4
563.8
508.6
21.5
98.0
432.2
67.9
30.0
South Lake Okeechobee
147,327
2,749.3
2,329.2
420.1
31.9
85.8
366.2
75.6
10.2
Indian Prairie
117,443
905.4
508.1
397.4
21.3
107.0
311.6
46.5
60.5
East Lake Okeechobee
96,635
576.8
205.5
371.4
21.3
106.6
286.1
66.4
40.2
Fisheating Creek
115,037
469.8
269.3
200.5
26.6
57.6
169.5
25.3
32.4
Total
1,392,873
11,049.4
5,720.6
5,329.1
311.5
1,192.5
4,448.0
583.9
608.6
Page 24
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Waters
7.3 Nitrogen
The areal extent and distribution of the net nitrogen import within the watershed are shown in
Figure 8. Areas in red indicate that the land use is an importer. Green areas indicate exporter. .
Overall, there is an estimated annual net N import to the study area of approximately 41,075
metric tons through anthropogenic activities. An additional 8.977 metric tons is introduced in
atmospheric deposition. An estimated 9,458 metric tons is discharged via runo from the
individual land uses into wetlands, streams and lakes. The results were summarized by land use,
basins and regions (Table 9, 10 and 11)
Net N Import ftlha-yr)
ZY, -Fix 0 -5
too _i 0
'-,3 -t.co _cep -_5
Net Nitrogen Import Spatial Distribution
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table 9: Total Nitrogen Budget by Land Use (in Metric Tons per Year)
Table 10: Total Nitrogen Budget by Region (in Metric Tons per Year)
Net
Source
Onsite
Land Use
Area (ha)
Imports
Exports
Imports
Rainfall
Discharge
Balance
CITRUS
99,468
21,544.2
39.0
21,505.2
640.3
1,194.8
20,950.7
IMPROVED PASTURE
273,969
12,050.6
2,157.9
9,892.7
1,727.9
1,923.2
9,697.3
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
30,639
5,527.0
24.2
5,502.7
201.5
690.3
5,013.9
RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY
75,068
5,176.3
13.4
5,162.9
493.9
451.5
5,205.2
DAIRY
9,454
6,105.9
1,864.9
4,241.0
56.4
2.2
4,295.2
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNIT
6,432
2,384.6
764.2
1,620.4
40.4
775.4
885.4
OTHER URBAN
42,629
1,034.1
0.0
1,034.1
287.9
388.6
933.4
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
11,314
765.9
9.7
756.2
79.5
126.7
708.9
GOLF COURSE
3,472
431.0
0.0
431.0
24.0
1.4
453.6
TREE NURSERIES
892
134.7
19.8
114.9
5.0
5.8
114.1
ABANDONED DAIRY
3,891
108.5
27.3
81.2
24.0
23.0
82.2
HORSE FARMS
864
50.5
0.0
50.5
5.8
0.8
55.5
SOD FARM
15,550
3,118.5
3,090.6
27.8
94.0
76.6
45.2
AQUACULTURE
233
74.3
69.7
4.6
1.4
0.5
5.5
WETLANDS
248,915
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,644.4
367.1
1,277.3
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
83,901
0.0
0.0
0.0
554.3
39.3
515.0
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
54,767
0.0
0.0
0.0
345.4
22.6
322.8
BARREN LAND
16,721
0.0
0.0
0.0
106.5
127.8
-21.2
WATER BODIES
88,969
0.0
0.0
0.0
575.9
323.5
252.4
POULTRY
89
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.5
FIELD CROPS
1,231
246.1
246.1
0.0
8.2
7.2
1.0
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
20,050
1,123.7
1,359.9
-236.2
135.5
149.4
-250.2
ORNAMENTALS
1,847
141.1
440.0
-298.8
9.8
22.6
-311.6
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
131,549
0.0
541.2
-541.2
854.0
747.7
434.9
TRUCK CROPS
9,404
383.8
1,323.3
-939.5
58.9
11.9
-892.5
SUGARCANE
161,556
5,102.3
12,436.4
- 7,334.3
1,001.5
1,977.9
- 8,310.7
Total
1,392,874
65,502.9
24,427.5
41,075.1
8,976.8
9,458.1
40,593.9
Table 10: Total Nitrogen Budget by Region (in Metric Tons per Year)
Page 26
Net
Source
Onsite
Region
Area (ha)
Imports
Exports
Imports
Rainfall
Discharge
Balance
Upper Chain of Lakes
416,556
16,872.6
1,679.5
15,193.0
2,910.8
2,643.2
15,460.5
Northern Lake Okeechobee
484,248
20,258.2
7,739.0
12,519.2
2,961.5
2,847.3
12,633.4
Lake Istokpoga
157,837
8,968.8
1,150.8
7,818.0
948.3
935.3
7,831.0
Western Lake Okeechobee
90,270
7,798.8
2,256.2
5,542.6
620.4
587.0
5,576.0
Eastern Lake Okeechobee
96,325
6,028.7
531.3
5,497.3
613.7
613.6
5,497.4
Southern Lake Okeechobee
147,638
5,575.8
11,070.7
- 5,495.0
922.2
1,831.5
- 6,404.3
Total
1,392,874
65,502.9
24,427.5
41,075.1
8,976.8
9,458.1
40,593.9
Page 26
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table 11: Total Nitrogen Budget by Basin (in Metric Tons per Year)
Page 27
Net
Source
Onsite
Basin
Area (ha)
Imports
Exports
Imports
Rainfall Discharge
Balance
EAST CALOOSAHATCHEE
90,237
7,795.7
2,253.8
5,541.9
620.2
586.8
5,575.3
C-44
47,265
4,504.9
256.0
4,248.9
317.4
445.6
4,120.7
S -191
48,688
5,074.7
1,463.2
3,611.6
283.0
410.1
3,484.5
REEDY CREEK
70,869
3,184.3
189.0
2,995.3
515.9
472.6
3,038.6
JOSEPHINE CREEK
36,921
2,958.1
104.7
2,853.4
220.8
305.6
2,768.7
ARBUCKLE CREEK
54,971
2,832.0
679.0
2,153.0
345.0
312.5
2,185.5
LAKE ARBUCKLE
43,045
2,390.4
241.2
2,149.2
271.4
241.6
2,178.9
LAKE HATCHINEHA
37,374
2,046.2
225.1
1,821.2
231.5
217.8
1,834.9
FISHEATING CREEK
115,037
2,875.6
1,157.1
1,718.5
766.4
447.8
2,037.1
LAKE PIERCE
21,294
1,799.5
114.7
1,684.7
131.6
163.3
1,653.0
LAKE WEOHYAKAPKA
25,204
1,746.1
93.9
1,652.3
159.6
207.3
1,604.6
C -41
36,655
2,411.1
839.6
1,571.6
185.4
459.5
1,297.5
SHINGLE CREEK
31,364
1,617.7
70.4
1,547.3
232.9
290.9
1,489.3
LAKE TOHOPEKALIGA
32,781
1,575.7
57.8
1,517.9
240.2
231.9
1,526.2
S -65D
45,734
2,276.7
921.0
1,355.7
276.9
180.9
1,451.7
BOGGY CREEK
20,764
1,167.8
76.8
1,091.0
153.0
199.0
1,045.0
C-41A
23,730
1,300.4
290.0
1,010.3
126.6
160.4
976.5
L -8
42,959
1,145.8
203.4
942.5
262.4
145.1
1,059.7
S -63A
30,550
1,025.0
101.5
923.5
206.9
147.8
982.5
LAKE ISTOKPOGA
22,900
788.2
125.8
662.4
111.1
75.6
697.9
EAST LAKE TOHOPEKALI
15,035
641.8
18.0
623.8
110.7
98.7
635.8
S -65C
20,427
700.3
101.7
598.6
127.7
85.4
641.0
S -65A
41,820
1,049.7
563.4
486.2
300.0
347.1
439.2
S -133
10,376
684.5
218.0
466.6
62.0
100.8
427.8
LAKE KISSIMMEE
65,624
813.9
360.5
453.4
453.1
271.4
635.1
S -65E
11,797
858.6
440.4
418.2
73.4
54.1
437.5
C-40
17,780
881.2
485.6
395.6
90.3
102.9
383.0
S -154
12,801
508.9
129.9
379.1
73.1
65.7
386.5
S -153
5,164
291.4
31.1
260.3
29.2
15.5
274.0
LAKE MYRTLE
18,466
274.5
21.8
252.7
126.3
61.9
317.1
LAKE CYPRESS
18,035
432.7
205.8
226.9
128.9
119.3
236.6
LAKE MARIAN
16,213
303.9
86.3
217.7
125.2
116.3
226.7
S -65B
51,913
551.9
342.1
209.8
341.6
205.0
346.3
L.48
8,411
286.8
84.8
202.0
43.5
51.6
193.9
LAKE HART
12,983
243.4
57.9
185.5
94.8
45.2
235.1
L -59E
5,833
105.3
23.0
82.3
32.0
25.4
89.0
L -61 W
5,488
65.7
15.7
50.0
31.2
18.2
63.0
PORT MAYACA GROVES
937
86.5
40.8
45.7
4.7
7.5
42.9
L -61 E
5,780
63.2
21.7
41.5
29.6
15.7
55.5
L -60W
1,322
39.3
4.7
34.6
6.8
3.0
38.4
L -59W
2,604
38.2
11.4
26.8
13.3
5.4
34.8
S -154C
887
19.6
4.9
14.7
4.9
3.7
15.9
L_49
4,895
116.4
102.9
13.5
25.7
18.4
20.8
L -60E
2,047
17.4
5.8
11.6
10.3
3.1
18.9
EAST BEACH
2,175
121.3
126.8
-5.5
10.9
21.5
-16.0
715 FARMS
1,409
43.8
93.0
-49.2
7.6
14.2
-55.8
SOUTH SHORE
1,624
52.5
110.7
-58.2
9.8
17.9
-66.3
S -131
2,899
103.1
177.2
-74.0
16.9
20.7
-77.8
S -135
7,324
229.6
335.1
-105.5
40.8
62.7
-127.4
EAST SHORE
3,401
106.8
256.7
-150.0
22.9
48.4
-175.4
S -236
4,344
144.2
294.2
-150.0
26.3
49.7
-173.4
S-4
17,412
687.6
1,074.9
-387.3
104.0
203.6
-487.0
S -3
25,501
787.0
1,869.9
- 1,082.9
154.3
287.8
- 1,216.4
S -2
42,977
1,759.8
3,387.0
- 1,627.3
276.1
576.7
- 1,927.9
S -5A
48,828
1,876.1
3,860.0
- 1,983.9
310.5
612.1
- 2,285.5
Total
1,392,874
65,502.9
24,427.5
41,075.1
8,976.8
9,458.1
40,593.8
Page 27
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
The individual N import and export components per land use activity were also summarized (Table 12). This shows the
individual influences of anthropogenic activities for each land use in the watershed. The reason for the negative net imports is
that there are internal sources of N being generated from soil mineralization, particularly in the mucks soils. These sources
correspond to organic matter or soil N losses over time, i.e. soil subsidence is supplying N for plant uptake instead of import
fertilizer.
Table 12: Total Nitrogen Budget by Land Use Component (in Metric Tons)
TOTAL WE TOTAL NET
LAND USE FERTILIZER FEED CLEANERS IMPORTS HARVEST WEIGHT HAY SOD MILK SEPTIC EXPORTS IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
4,662.0
7,388.6
0.0
12,050.6
0.0
1,979.8
27.2
150.9
0.0
0.0
2,157.9
9,892.7
WETLANDS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
DAIRY
1,073.7
5,032.2
0.0
6,105.9
0.0
170.6
31.0
0.0
1,648.1
15.2
1,864.9
4,241.0
BARREN LAND
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
OTHER URBAN
1,034.1
0.0
0.0
1,034.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,034.1
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5412
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5412
-541.2
TRUCK CROPS
383.8
0.0
0.0
383.8
1,323.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,323.3
-939.5
CITRUS
21,544.2
0.0
0.0
21,544.2
39.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.0
21,505.2
WATER BODIES
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
GOLF COURSE
431.0
0.0
0.0
431.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
431.0
SODFARM
3,118.5
0.0
0.0
3,118.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,090.6
0.0
0.0
3,090.6
27.8
ORNAMENTALS
141.1
0.0
0.0
141.1
440.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
440.0
-298.8
TREE NURSERIES
134.7
0.0
0.0
134.7
19.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.8
114.9
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
1,1233
0.0
0.0
1,123.7
1,359.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,359.9
-236.2
SUGARCANE
5,102.3
0.0
0.0
5,102.3
12,436.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12,436.4
- 7,334.3
AQUACULTURE
1.1
73.2
0.0
74.3
0.0
69.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
69.7
4.6
POULTRY
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ABANDONED DAIRY
0.3
108.2
0.0
108.5
0.0
26.7
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.3
81.2
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.0
2,384.6
0.0
2,384.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
764.2
764.2
1,620.4
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
3,246.8
1,929.5
0.0
5,176.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.4
13.4
5,162.9
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
2,616.0
2,910.9
0.0
5,527.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
24.2
24.2
5,502.7
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
282.0
483.9
0.0
765.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
9.7
756.2
FIELD CROPS
246.1
0.0
0.0
246.1
246.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
246.1
0.0
HORSE FARMS
25.2
25.3
0.0
50.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.5
TOTAL
45,1665
20,336.3
0.0
65,502.9
15,864.4
2,788.0
58.8
3,241.6
1,648.1
826.7
24,427.5
41,075.1
Page 28
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Since a sub - watershed typically represents a contributing area to a discharge outfall, it allows for the assessment of the
attenuated discharge. Some of these sub - watersheds, however, do not include a single outfall for a single drainage area. The
Upper Kissimmee sub - watershed passes through the Lower Kissimmee sub - watershed. Therefore, the discharge amount from
that sub - watershed was subtracted from Lower Kissimmee. Indian Prairie sub - watershed includes seven outfalls (S127, S129,
S131, L -59E, C -40, C -41 and C -41A) which were added together. Lake Istokpoga passes through Indian Prairie and was,
therefore, subtracted out. Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough includes S -191, S -135, S -154 and S -154C. East Lake Okeechobee
includes C -44, Basin 8 and L -8. West Lake Okeechobee includes C -43 and Nicodemus Slough. Finally, South Lake
Okeechobee includes 5352, S351, C -4A, S354, S236 and S4.
The N budget results at the sub - watershed level show that, of the 9,458 metric tons of N discharged at the source in runoff, 6,482
metric tons discharges to Lake Okeechobee and other offsite locations (Table 13). It is important to note that the discharge in the
table below does not necessarily refer to discharge to Lake Okeechobee. The East, West and South Lake Okeechobee sub -
watersheds have the potential of discharging to the Lake, but the majority of their flows discharge away from the lake.
One calculation for nitrogen is Onsite Balance (Tables 9, 10, 11, 13). Like the P tables, this value equals the difference between
the sum of net imports (imports - exports) and rainfall minus the source discharge. Unlike P, this amount does not represent
estimated nutrient storage in the soils because there are atmospheric losses of N due to denitrification and ammonia
volatilization. Rather, it reflects the balance of the nutrient. N, that is converted to nitrate +nitrite which is subject to
denitrification. A negative balance indicates a depletion of N in the soils as a result of the uptake being greater than the N
import. This is most prevalent in the nitrogen rich muck soils of the EAA that can mineralize up to 200 lbs /ac /yr of N as the soil
organic matter oxidizes /mineralizes (subsidence).
Page 29
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table 13: Total Nitrogen Budget by Sub - watershed (in Metric Tons)
Page 30
Net
Source
Onsite
Outlet
Subwatershed
Area (ha)
Imports
Exports
Imports
Rainfall
Discharge
Balance Discharge
Attenuated
Upper Kissimmee
416,556
16,872.6
1,679.5
15,193.0
2,910.8
2,643.2
15,460.5
1,402.6
1,240.7
Lake Istokpoga
157,837
8,968.8
1,150.8
7,818.0
948.3
935.3
7,831.0
425.8
509.6
West Lake Okeechobee
90,270
7,798.8
2,256.2
5,542.6
620.4
587.0
5,576.0
570.2
16.9
East Lake Okeechobee
96,635
6,040.3
552.3
5,488.1
615.2
616.4
5,486.9
443.3
173.1
Taylor Creek /Nubbin Slough
80,076
6,517.4
2,151.0
4,366.4
463.9
643.0
4,187.3
455.7
187.3
Indian Prairie
117,443
5,428.1
2,062.3
3,365.7
611.6
884.0
3,093.3
437.8
446.1
Lower Kissimmee
171,692
5,437.1
2,368.5
3,068.6
1,119.7
872.5
3,315.7
379.1
493.4
Fisheating Creek
115,037
2,875.6
1,157.1
1,718.5
766.4
447.8
2,037.1
355.9
91.9
South Lake Okeechobee
147,327
5,564.2
11,049.8
- 5,485.7
920.6
1,828.8
- 6,393.9
2,011.5
-182.7
Total
1,392,873
65,502.9
24,427.5
41,075.1
8,976.8
9,458.1
40,593.9
6,481.8
2,976.3
Page 30
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
8.0 Conclusion
Several changes have occurred since the previous P budget analyses, which were performed for
various regions at different times. The Northern Lake Okeechobee region was last updated in
2002. Lake Istokpoga and Upper Kissimmee were analyzed in 2003. The remaining regions
were analyzed in 2005, but primarily used coefficients from the previous studies. At that time,
all of the regions were combined within a single GUI and the land use spatial dataset was
updated. A comparison of the previous and current P budget analyses was performed (Table
14).
Overall, compared to the previous analyses, there is a 34 percent decrease in net P imports and a
38 percent decrease in onsite storage, which is equal to the sum of the new P imports and
rainfall P minus runoff P (source discharge).
Table 14• Comparison of Phosphorus Budget Analyses (in Metric Tons)
Land Use
PREVIOUS 2002 -3 PHOSPHORUS BUDGET ANALYSES
Net Source Onsite
Area (ha) Imports Rainfall Discharge Storage
CURRENT PHOSPHORUS BUDGET ANALYSIS
Net Source Onsite
Area (ha) Imports Rainfall Discharge Storage
IMPROVED PASTURE
289,045
1,672.5
55.1
403.7
1,323.8
273,969
1,304.0
60.1
223.1
1,141.0
CITRUS
101,477
285.3
19.9
178.7
126.5
99,468
1,128.3
22.3
221.0
929.6
RESIDENTIAL - MED DENSITY
32,430
660.5
6.4
185.3
481.6
30,639
696.8
7.0
236.0
467.7
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
37,053
182.1
7.0
2.5
186.6
75,068
617.6
17.1
15.3
619.4
SUGARCANE
161,808
1,562.2
29.7
86.9
1,505.1
161,556
543.5
34.7
46.9
531.3
DAIRY
11,435
503.6
2.1
7.0
498.8
9,454
469.7
2.0
1.7
470.0
TRUCK CROPS
9,186
1,844.5
1.7
16.0
1,830.2
9,404
308.7
2.0
2.2
308.5
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME
3,034
111.0
0.6
0.2
111.4
6,432
289.9
1.4
19.2
272.1
GOLF COURSE
4,804
310.0
1.0
4.7
306.3
3,472
112.1
0.8
1.5
111.5
RESIDENTIAL- HIGH DENSITY
11,306
519.2
2.3
35.0
486.5
11,314
105.0
2.8
35.0
72.8
OTHER URBAN
30,150
815.1
6.0
62.6
758.5
42,629
73.9
10.0
88.7
-4.8
HORSE FARMS
799
11.7
0.2
0.2
11.7
864
16.7
0.2
0.3
16.6
ABANDONED DAIRY
1,975
6.0
0.4
29.3
-23.0
3,891
16.2
0.8
77.3
-60.2
AQUACULTURE
244
0.0
0.0
0.5
-0.5
233
13.7
0.0
0.4
13.3
FIELD CROPS
10,704
78.6
2.2
17.7
63.1
1,231
9.1
0.3
1.7
7.7
WETLANDS
248,761
0.0
48.2
67.1
-18.9
248,915
0.0
57.0
64.7
-7.7
FORESTED UPLANDS
147,633
-11.1
28.1
2.1
14.8
138,668
0.0
31.2
2.5
28.7
BARREN LAND
25,937
0.0
5.0
23.1
-18.1
16,721
0.0
3.7
12.8
-9.1
WATER BODIES
91,722
0.0
17.5
23.2
-5.7
88,969
0.0
20.0
22.9
-2.9
POULTRY
46
8.5
0.0
0.0
8.5
89
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
ORNAMENTALS/TREES
2,817
19.0
0.5
12.0
7.5
2,739
0.3
0.5
7.5
-6.7
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
20,803
-3.3
4.1
0.2
0.6
20,050
-36.4
4.7
1.5
-33.2
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
136,535
2.5
26.2
28.0
07
131,549
-84.4
29.6
31.6
-86.4
SOD FARM
1 13,283
492.8
2.4
44.7
-535.1
15,550
-255.8
3.3
78.8
-331.3
Total
1,392,987
8,085.1
266.6
1,230.8
7,120.9
1,392,874
5,329.1
311.5
1,192.5
4,448.0
The net P imports for improved pasture were reduced by 22 percent, which suggests that the
efforts by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), local
rangers and the District to reduce the use of P in fertilizers appear to be successful. Other
factors, however, may be the economy as suggested by some of the experts contacted in Task 2
and also the fact that some ranchers, particularly in the Upper Kissimmee region, are converting
to sod, which is a net P exporter. Other significant reductions occurred in truck crops and
Page 30
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Waters
sugarcane. The reduction in truck crops may be attributable to the economy. Ttle change in
Sugarcane, however, may reflect a more accurate calculation of imports and ex orts which were
compared to fertilizer sales and crop reports.
By contrast, citrus increased. This is due primarily to changed coefficients in the Lake
Istokpoga and Upper Kissimmee regions where citrus was previously calculated as a net
exporter as opposed to an importer as calculated previously in the other regions. In the current
analysis, citrus was found to be an importer in all of the regions with fertilizer rAtes in the mid-
range of IFAS recommendations.
Overall, urban land uses, while comprising only 12 percent of the watershed, represent 33
percent of the total net P import (Figure 9). This warrants further study of ways to reduce
nutrient imports onto these land uses. An offsetting factor, however, is that most of the urban
land uses are located in the Upper Kissimmee region which includes an extensive lake system.
These lakes are currently providing significant retention and associated nutrient buffering for
the water passing through them. However, if the water quality of these lakes continues to
decline and water levels are artificially manipulated, their nutrient buffering capacity will also
decline and could eventually result in increased nutrient discharges to the Kissimmee River and
Lake Okeechobee.
® W '=�PAs% f M per
s VIMM ;s Q TRLuC'< :R s
s -; of !ice °Rv 0 - "= r_
rM go 00J; CO-isE
In
;. iT * CTW
W AAY M
Figure 9: Net Phosphorus Import by Land Use Figure 10: Net Nitrogen Import by Land Jse
This is the first N budget analysis in the watershed and, therefore, cannot be compared to
previous analyses. The findings for N show that citrus is the primary source of net N import
(Figure 10).
Mehlich 1 and 3 extractable P levels that were collected as part of this study have helped verify
the P storage or legacy P estimates from previous work (SWET, 2008). Unfortmiately,
extractable P data alone, i.e. without having aluminum and iron content data also being
Page 31
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
collected, are poorly correlated with P mobility from the soil. The use of these data for P
mobility is further complicated by the lack of relationships between extractable P and soil
categories, like Entisol, Spodosol, Alfisol, Mollisol, and Inceptisol. However, based on data
from this study and previous work we developed the following general conclusions:
1. Native soil P is tightly bound and has very limited mobility.
2. Anthropogenic or legacy P storage is directly dependent on historic differences of imported
and exported P and is correlated well with P mobility from a soil based on runoff P data from
various land uses.
3. Mobility of legacy P from a soil is dependent on clay, aluminum, and iron content, where
increasing content of any will decrease P mobility.
4. Most Okeechobee soils have low clay, aluminum, and iron contents in the upper soil
horizons and therefore have relatively high P mobility with the Histosols (mucks) having the
greatest mobility.
5. Mobility of P in the flow conveyance systems is dependent on flow residence time, its P
assimilative capacity, and its historic P loadings.
6. Sloughs and wetlands have the greatest assimilative capacities while canals have the lowest.
7. The assimilative capacity of conveyance types can become saturated from high historic P
loads and lose assimilative capacity as P accumulates within these systems. Unfortunately, this
means that as P concentrations are reduced coming into these conveyance systems, they can
start releasing the stored P and thereby reduce the initial benefits of upstream P control
measures. How long these systems can release P will depend on how much P was accumulated
in them and on the concentration levels of the inflow P.
Though this project's soil P data have verified existing legacy P levels, it has provided no
compelling justification for changing the existing initial P storage and mobility parameters
currently being used within WAM.
Page 32
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
9.0 References
Ambrose, R.B., T.A. Wool, and J.L. Martin. 1993. The Water Quality Analysis Simulation
Program, WASPS, Part A and B: Model Documentation. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling, Athens, GA.
Boggess, C.F., E.G Flaig and R.C. Fluck, 1995. Phosphorus budget -basin relationships for Lake
Okeechobee tributary basins. Ecological Engineering Special Issue Vol. 5, Elsevier
Science B.V., 1000 BM Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Boucher, A.B, N.B. Pickering, and A.B. Cooper, 1998. EAAMOD - FIELD: A Flow and
Phosphorous Model for High Water Tables. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Drainage
Symposium. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Brown, L. C. and T. O. Barnwell. 1987. The enhanced stream water quality models QUAL2E
and QUAL2E- UNCAS: documentation and user manual. Env. Res. Laboratory. US EPA,
EPA /600/3 - 87/007, Athens, GA. 189 pp.
Fonyo, C., R. Fluck, W. Boggess, C. Kiker, H. Dinkler, L. Stanislawski, 1991. Biogeochemical
behavior and transport of phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee basins. Area 3 Final Report
(Volume 1) to South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida.
He Z. L., et al. 1999. Ammonia volatilization from different fertilizer sources, and effects of
temperature and soil pH. Soil Sci. 164:750 -758.
He Z. L., et al. 2003. Nitrogen Transformation and ammonia volatilization from biosolids and
compost applied to calcareous soil. Compost Sci. & Utilization I1(1): 81 -88
Mattos D et al. 2003.Nitrogen volatilization and mineralization in a sandy entisol of Florida
under citrus.Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis,34: 1803 -1824.
HDR, Inc. 2009. WAM Enhancement and Application in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed.
Task 3 Final Report to the South Florida Water Management District Under Contract No.
3600001244.
Hiscock, J.G., C.S. Thourot and J. Zhang, 2003. Phosphorus Budget -Land Use Relationships for
the Northern Lake Okeechobee Watershed, Florida. Ecological Engineering, 21: 63 -74.
James, R.T., J. Zhang, 2008, South Florida Environmental Report Chapter 10: Lake
Okeechobee Protection Program — State of the Lake and Watershed, West Palm Beach,
FL
JGH (JGH Engineering), Soil and Water Engineering Technologies, Inc. and HDR Engineering,
Inc., 2005. Development of a Graphical User Interface for Analyzing Phosphorus Load
Page 33
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
and Import/Export in the Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan Area. SFWMD, West Palm
Beach, FL.
Knisel, W. G. 1993. GLEAMS: Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management
Systems. UGA- CPES -BAED Publication no. 5.
Mock Roos Team, 2002. Phosphorus budget update for the northern Lake Okeechobee
watershed. Final project report to the South Florida Water Management District, West
Palm Beach, FL.
Mock Roos Team, 2003. Lake Istokpoga/Upper Chain of Lakes basin phosphorus source
control. Task 4 report to the South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach,
FL.
Reiss, K. C., J. Evans, and M. T. Brown. 2009. Summary of the Available Literature on
Nutrient Concentrations and Hydrology for Florida Isolated Wetlands. Prepared under
DEP Contract WM942 and submitted to the Bureau of Watershed Restoration, Florida
Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.
SFWMD, FDEP, FDACS, 2004. Lake Okeechobee Protection Program — Lake Okeechobee
Protection Plan, West Palm Beach, Florida.
SWET. 1999. EAAMOD Technical and User Manuals. Final Reports to the Everglades
Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Belle Glade, FL.
SWET (Soil & Water Engineering Technology, Inc.), K. Remesh Reddy, Mock, Roos &
Associates, Inc., Entel Environmental Companies, Inc. 2001. Development of Phosphorus
Retention Assimilation Algorithms for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed - Final Report to
the SFWMD, West Palm Beach, Florida.
SWET (Soil and Water Engineering & Technology, Inc.), 2008. Task 2 - Evaluation of
Existing Information. For Project Entitled: Technical Assistance in Review and Analysis
of Existing Data for Evaluation of Legacy Phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee
Watershed. Final Report to SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL
Zhang, J. and W. Donovan, 2004a. Basin scale mass balance approach for assessing phosphorus
import and export in the southern Lake Okeechobee watershed. Florida Section of ASAE
Paper No. FL04 -1007, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Zhang, J., E. Colborn, and Boyd Gunsalus, 2004b. Phosphorus assessment and source
identification for the eastern drainage basins in the Lake Okeechobee Protection Area.
Florida Section of ASAE Paper No. FL04 -1006, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Page 34
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
APPENDIX A
LAND USE CODE CORRELATION
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
FLUCCS
FLUCCS DESCRIPTION
NUTRIENT BUDGET LAND USE
1009
RV Parks
RESIDENTIAL -
MOBILE HOME UNITS
1100
Low Density Residential, Fixed Single Family Units
RESIDENTIAL -
LOW DENSITY
1110
Low Density Residential, Fixed Single Family Units
RESIDENTIAL -
LOW DENSITY
1130
Low Density Residential, Mixed Units (Fixed and Mobile)
RESIDENTIAL -
LOW DENSITY
1180
Low Density Residential, Other
RESIDENTIAL -
LOW DENSITY
1190
Low Density Residential, Under Construction
RESIDENTIAL -
LOW DENSITY
1200
Medium Density Residential, Fixed Single Family Units
RESIDENTIAL -
MEDIUM DENSITY
1210
Medium Density Residential, Fixed Single Family Units
RESIDENTIAL -
MEDIUM DENSITY
1230
Medium Density Residential, Mixed Units (Fixed and Mobile)
RESIDENTIAL -
MEDIUM DENSITY
1290
Medium Density Residential, Under Construction
RESIDENTIAL -
MEDIUM DENSITY
1300
High Density Residential
RESIDENTIAL -
HIGH DENSITY
1310
High Density Residential, Fixed Single Family Units
RESIDENTIAL -
HIGH DENSITY
1320
High Density Residential, Mobile Home Units
RESIDENTIAL -
HIGH DENSITY
1330
High Density Residential, Multiple Dwelling Units (Low Rise)
RESIDENTIAL -
HIGH DENSITY
1340
High Density Residential, Multiple Dwelling Units (High Rise)
RESIDENTIAL -
HIGH DENSITY
1350
High Density Residential, Mixed Units (Fixed and Mobile
RESIDENTIAL -
HIGH DENSITY
1390
High Density Residential, Other
RESIDENTIAL -
HIGH DENSITY
1400
Commercial and Services
OTHER URBAN
1410
Retail Sales and Services
OTHER URBAN
1411
Shopping Centers (Plazas, Malls)
OTHER URBAN
1420
Wholesale Sales and Services
OTHER URBAN
1423
Junk Yards
OTHER URBAN
1430
Professional Services
OTHER URBAN
1440
Cultural and Entertainment
OTHER URBAN
1450
Tourist Services
OTHER URBAN
1453
Travel Trailer Parks
OTHER URBAN
1460
Oil and Gas Storage
OTHER URBAN
1470
Mixed Commercial and Services
OTHER URBAN
1480
Cemeteries
OTHER URBAN
1490
Commercial and Services Under Construction
OTHER URBAN
1500
Industrial
OTHER URBAN
1510
Industrial
OTHER URBAN
1530
Mineral Processing
OTHER URBAN
1540
Mineral Processing
OTHER URBAN
1550
Other Light Industrial
OTHER URBAN
1560
Other Heavy Industrial
OTHER URBAN
1590
Industrial, Under Construction
OTHER URBAN
1600
Extractive
OTHER URBAN
1610
Strip Mines
OTHER URBAN
1620
Sand and Gravel Pits
OTHER URBAN
1630
Rock Quarries
OTHER URBAN
1660
Holding Ponds (Extractives)
OTHER URBAN
1670
Inactive Strip Mines
OTHER URBAN
1700
Educational Facilities
OTHER URBAN
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
e
FLUCCS
FLUCCS DESCRIPTION
NUTRIENT BUDGET LAND USE
1710
Educational Facilities
OTHER URBAN
1720
Religious Facilities
OTHER URBAN
1730
Military
OTHER URBAN
1740
Medical and Health Care
OTHER URBAN
1750
Governmental
OTHER URBAN
1760
Correctional Facilities
OTHER URBAN
1761
State Prisons
OTHER URBAN
1763
Correctional Facilities
OTHER URBAN
1770
Other Institutional Facilities
OTHER URBAN
1800
Recreation
OTHER URBAN
1810
Swimming Beach
OTHER URBAN
1820
Golf Courses
GOLF COURSE
1830
Race Tracks
OTHER URBAN
1840
Marinas and Fish Camps
OTHER URBAN
1841
Marinas and Fish Camps - Wild Game
OTHER URBAN
1850
Golf Courses
OTHER URBAN
1860
Community Recreational Facilities
OTHER URBAN
1870
Stadiums
OTHER URBAN
1880
Historical Sites
OTHER URBAN
1890
Other Recreational Facilities
OTHER URBAN
1900
Undeveloped Land
OTHER URBAN
1910
Undeveloped Land Within Urban Areas
OTHER URBAN
1920
Inactive Land With Street Pattern but Without Structure
OTHER URBAN
1930
Urban Land in Transition
OTHER URBAN
1940
Other Open Land
OTHER URBAN
2100
Pastures and Fields
IMPROVED PASTURE
2110
Improved Pasture
IMPROVED PASTURE
2120
Unimproved Pastures
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
2130
Woodland Pasture
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
2140
Row Crops
TRUCK CROPS
2150
Field Crops
FIELD CROPS
2156
Sugar Cane
SUGARCANE
2200
Tree Crops
CITRUS
2210
Citrus Groves
CITRUS
2220
Fruit Orchards
CITRUS
2230
Other Groves
CITRUS
2240
Abandoned Tree Crops
BARREN LAND
2310
Cattle Feeding Operations
IMPROVED PASTURE
2320
Poultry Feeding Operations
POULTRY
2400
Nurseries and Vineyards
ORNAMENTALS
2410
Tree Nurseries
ORNAMENTALS
2420
Sod Farms
SOD FARM
2430
Ornamentals
ORNAMENTALS
2450
Floriculture
ORNAMENTALS
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
FLUCCS
FLUCCS DESCRIPTION
NUTRIENT BUDGET LAND USE
2500
Specialty Farms
FIELD CROPS
2510
Horse Farms
HORSE FARMS
2520
Dairies
DAIRY
2525
Abandoned Dairy
ABANDONED DAIRY
2540
Aquaculture
AQUACULTURE
2549
Aquaculture
AQUACULTURE
2590
Other Specialty Farms
FIELD CROPS
2600
Old Field
BARREN LAND
2610
Old Field
BARREN LAND
3100
Herbaceous
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
3200
Prairies
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
3210
Palmetto Prairies
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
3290
Other Shrubs and Brush
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
3300
Other Shrubs and Brush
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
4100
Upland Coniferous Forests
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
4110
Pine Flatwoods
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
4119
Pine Flatwoods - Melaleuca Infested
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
4120
Longleaf Pine - Xeric Oak
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
4130
Sand Pine
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
4140
Pine - Mesic Oak
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
4200
Upland Hardwood Forest
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4210
Xeric Oak
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4220
Brazilian Pepper
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4230
Oak - Pine - Hickory
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4240
Melaleuca
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4250
Temperate Hardwoods
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4270
Live Oak
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4280
Cabbage Palm
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4290
Cabbage Palm - Melaleuca Infested
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4310
Beech - Magnolia
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4320
Sand Live Oak
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4330
Western Everglades Hardwoods
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4340
Hardwood - Conifer Mixed
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4350
Dead trees
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4370
Australian Pine
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
4380
Other Hardwoods
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4390
Other Hardwoods
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
4400
Coniferous Plantations
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
4410
Coniferous Plantations
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
4420
Tree Plantations
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
4430
Forest Regeneration Areas
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
5100
Streams and Waterways
WATER BODIES
5200
Lakes
WATER BODIES
5210
Lakes larger than 500 acres
WATER BODIES
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
FLUCCS
FLUCCS DESCRIPTION
NUTRIENT BUDGET LAND USE
5220
Lakes larger than 100 acres but less than 500 acres
WATER BODIES
5230
Lakes larger than 10 acres but less than 100 acres
WATER BODIES
5240
Lakes less than 10 acres
WATER BODIES
5250
Lakes less than 5 acres
WATER BODIES
5300
Reservoirs
WATER BODIES
5310
Reservoirs larger than 500 acres
WATER BODIES
5320
Reservoirs larger than 100 acres but less than 500 acre
WATER BODIES
5330
Reservoirs larger than 10 acres but less than 100 acres
WATER BODIES
5340
Reservoirs less than 100 acres
WATER BODIES
5410
Embayments Opening Directly into the Gulf or the Atlant
WATER BODIES
5600
Slough Waters
WATER BODIES
6100
Mixed Wetland Hardwoods
WETLANDS
6110
Bay Swamps
WETLANDS
6120
Mangrove Swamps
WETLANDS
6130
Gum Swamps
WETLANDS
6140
Shrub Swamps
WETLANDS
6150
Stream and Lake Swamps (Bottomland)
WETLANDS
6160
Inland Ponds and Sloughs
WETLANDS
6170
Mixed Wetland Hardwoods
WETLANDS
6171
Mixed Wetland Hardwoods - Willows
WETLANDS
6172
Mixed Wetland Hardwoods - Mixed Shrubs
WETLANDS
6200
Wetland Coniferous Forest
WETLANDS
6210
Cypress
WETLANDS
6218
Cypress - melaleuca infested
WETLANDS
6219
Cypress - with wet prairies
WETLANDS
6220
Wet Flatwoods
WETLANDS
6230
Atlantic White Cedar
WETLANDS
6240
Cypress - Pine - Cabbage Palm
WETLANDS
6250
Wetland Coniferous Forest
WETLANDS
6300
Wetland Forested Mixed
WETLANDS
6410
Freshwater Marshes
WETLANDS
6411
Freshwater Marshes - Sawgrass
WETLANDS
6412
Freshwater Marshes - Cattail
WETLANDS
6420
Saltwater Marshes
WETLANDS
6430
Wet Prairies
WETLANDS
6439
Wet Prairies - with Pine
WETLANDS
6440
Emergent Aquatic Vegetation
WETLANDS
6450
Submergent Aquatic Vegetation
WETLANDS
6460
Emergent Aquatic Vegetation
WETLANDS
6510
Salt Barrens
WETLANDS
6520
Intertidal Areas
WETLANDS
6530
Inland Shores /Ephemeral Ponds
WETLANDS
7100
Beaches
BARREN LAND
7200
Sand Other Than Beaches
BARREN LAND
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
FLUCCS
FLUCCS DESCRIPTION
NUTRIENT BUDGET LAND USE
7400
Barren Land
BARREN LAND
7410
Rural Land in Transition
BARREN LAND
7420
Borrow Areas
BARREN LAND
7430
Spoil Areas
BARREN LAND
7440
Fill Areas
BARREN LAND
7450
Burned Areas
BARREN LAND
8000
Transportation, Communications and Utilities
BARREN LAND
8100
Transportation
OTHER URBAN
8110
Airports
OTHER URBAN
8120
Railroads
OTHER URBAN
8130
Bus and Truck Terminals
OTHER URBAN
8140
Limited Access Roads (Interstate System)
OTHER URBAN
8160
Canals and Locks
OTHER URBAN
8170
Oil, Water or Gas Long Distance Transmission Lines
OTHER URBAN
8180
Parking, Other
OTHER URBAN
8190
Auto Parking Facilities
OTHER URBAN
8200
Communications
OTHER URBAN
8210
Communications
OTHER URBAN
8213
Transmission Towers
OTHER URBAN
8220
Communication Facilities
OTHER URBAN
8300
Utilities
OTHER URBAN
8310
Electrical Power Facilities
OTHER URBAN
8320
Electrical Power Transmission Lines
OTHER URBAN
8330
Water Supply Plants
OTHER URBAN
8340
Sewage Treatment
OTHER URBAN
8349
Sewage Treatment
OTHER URBAN
8350
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
OTHER URBAN
8360
Solid Waste Storage
OTHER URBAN
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
APPENDIX B
NUTRIENT COEFFICIENTS PER REGION
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table B -1 : Fastem Take nkeerhnheP RPQin. Ph -hnn,c ;- ],-tt, ,
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
7.40
4.80
0.00
12.20
0.00
1.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
11.12
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
ODO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DAIRY
3.42
90.79
1.23
95.43
0.00
3.01
0.65
0.00
37.58
0.57
41.81
53.62
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.D0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
1.61
0.00
0.00
1.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.61
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
-0.61
TRUCK CROPS
81.62
0.00
0.00
81.62
48.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48.79
32.82
CITRUS
11.97
0.00
0.00
11.97
3.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.70
8.27
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
32.30
0.00
0.00
32.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.30
SOD FARM
37.68
0.00
0.00
37.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.74
0.00
0.00
52.74
-15.06
ORNAMENTALS
21.79
0.00
0.00
21.79
29.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.78
-7.99
TREE NURSERIES
23.67
0.00
0.00
23.67
2.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.32
21.36
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
14.01
0.00
0.00
14.01
15.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.83
-1.82
SUGARCANE
19.54
0.00
0.00
19.54
16.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.12
3.36
AQUACULTURE -
14.02
49.09
0.00
63.12
0.00
4.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.27
58.84
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
7.40
4.80
0.00
12.20
0.00
1.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
11.12
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
66.36
0.00
66.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.30
21.30
45.07
RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY
1.61
5.06
0.00
6.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
6.64
RESIDENTIAL- MEDIUM DENSITY
11.81
16.97
0.00
28.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
28.63
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
1.61
7.67
0.00
9.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.15
9.12
FIELD CROPS
39.45
0.00
0.00
39.45
32.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.55
6.91
HORSE FARMS
5.83
13.48
0.00
19.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.31
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
lll,,.o,.1, .,1- D--;. XT;t -o ('.,ffirientc in L-P/ha
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
115.82
25.20
0.00
141.03
0.00
6.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.92
134.11
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DAIRY
128.82
572.78
0.00
701.60
0.00
19.31
3.79
0.00
189.47
1.85
214.42
487.18
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
21.97
0.00
0.00
21.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.97
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.92
-3.92
TRUCK CROPS
40.81
0.00
0.00
40.81
40.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.81
0.00
CITRUS
198.70
0.00
0.00
198.70
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.31
198.39
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
12414
0.00
0.00
124.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.14
SOD FARM
186.88
0.00
0.00
186.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
171.44
0.00
0.00
171.44
15.44
ORNAMENTALS
76.42
0.00
0.00
76.42
238.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
238.20
- 161.78
TREE NURSERIES
161.40
0.00
0.00
161.40
9.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.92
151.48
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
56.04
0.00
0.00
56.04
67.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
67.82
-11.78
SUGARCANE
31.58
0.00
0.00
31.58
76.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
76.98
-45.40
AQUACULTURE
4.67
314.20
0.00
318.87
0.00
299.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
299.13
19.74
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
115.82
25.20
0.00
141.03
0.00
6.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.92
134.11
RESIDENTIAL- MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
370.73
0.00
370.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
118.81
118.81
251.92
RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY
21.97
25.70
0.00
47.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.18
47.50
RESIDENTIAL- MEDIUM DENSITY
66.17
95.01
0.00
161.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.79
160.38
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
21.97
42.77
0.00
64.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.86
63.89
FIELD CROPS
197.27
0.00
0.00
197.27
197.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
197.27
0.00
HORSE FARMS
1 29.14
29.26
0.00
58.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 58.40
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table B -3: Lake Istoknoea Region Phnsnhnni, Cneffic;Pnrc in l-f"
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
0.01
5.25
0.00
5.26
0.00
1.07
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
4.17
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DAIRY
0.00
40.20
0.67
40.87
0.00
1.54
0.00
0.00
15.03
0.00
16.57
24.30
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
1.79
0.00
0.00
1.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.79
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.77
-0.77
TRUCK CROPS
81.62
0.00
0.00
81.62
48.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48.79
32.82
CITRUS
15.27
0.00
0.00
1517
5.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.35
9.92
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.DO
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
32.30
0.00
0.00
32.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.30
SOD FARM
50.21
0.00
0.00
50.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
55.70
0.00
0.00
55.70
-5.49
ORNAMENTALS
21.79
0.00
0.00
21.79
29.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.78
-7.99
TREE NURSERIES
22.73
0.00
0.00
22.73
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
18.73
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
14.01
0.00
0.00
14.01
15.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.83
-1.82
SUGARCANE
19.54
0.00
0.00
19.54
16.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.12
3.36
AQUACULTURE
14.02
49.09
0.00
63.12
0.00
4.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.27
58.84
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
0.01
5.25
0.00
5.26
0.00
1.07
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
4.17
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
66.36
0.00
66.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.30
21.30
45.07
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
3.22
5.06
0.00
8.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
8.25
RESIDENTIAL- MEDIUM DENSITY
5.99
16.97
0.00
22.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
22.81
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
1.79
7.67
0.00
9.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.15
9.30
FIELD CROPS
39.45
0.00
0.00
39.45
32.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.55
6.91
HORSE FARMS
5.83
13.48
0.00
19.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 1
19.31
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
1 aVlc U-`*. Mani. i�wn
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
0.08
27.80
0.00
27.88
0.00
6.87
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.02
20.86
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DAIRY
15.13
270.84
0.00
285.98
0.00
9.86
0.00
0.00
76.62
0.00
86.48
199.50
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
25.40
0.00
0.00
25.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.40
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.91
-4.91
TRUCK CROPS
40.81
0.00
0.00
40.81
40.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.81
0.00
CITRUS
220.81
0.00
0.00
220.81
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
220.36
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
124.14
0.00
0.00
124.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.14
SOD FARM
233.65
0.00
0.00
233.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
261.26
0.00
0.00
261.26
-27.61
ORNAMENTALS
76.42
0.00
0.00
76.42
238.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
238.20
- 161.78
TREE NURSERIES
155.26
0.00
0.00
155.26
17.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.15
138.11
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
56.04
0.00
0.00
56.04
67.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
67.82
-11.78
SUGARCANE
31.58
0.D0
0.00
31.58
76.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
76.98
-45.40
AQUACULTURE
4.67
314.20
0.00
318.87
0.00
299.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
299.13
19.74
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
0.08
27.80
0.00
27.88
0.00
6.87
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.02
20.86
RESIDENTIAL- MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
370.73
0.00
370.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
118.81
118.81
251.92
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
43.94
25.70
0.00
69.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.18
69.47
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
85.29
95.01
0.00
180.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.79
179.51
RESIDENTIAL- HIGH DENSITY
25.40
42.77
0.00
68.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.86
67.32
FIELD CROPS
197.27
0.00
0.00
197.27
197.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
197.27
0.00
HORSE FARMS
1 29.14
29.26
0.00
58.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 58.40
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table 13-5: Northern Take OkeechnheP RPUinn Phncnhnmc f naf4irivntc in L (k.
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
0.01
5.25
0.00
5.26
0.00
1.07
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
4.17
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DAIRY
3.42
90.79
1.23
95.43
0.00
3.01
0.65
0.00
37.58
0.57
41.81
53.62
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.D0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
1.60
0.00
0.00
1.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.60
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
-0.61
TRUCK CROPS
81.62
0.00
0.00
81.62
48.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48.79
32.82
CITRUS
20.30
0.00
0.00
20.30
4.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.42
15.88
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
32.30
0.00
0.00
32.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.30
SOD FARM
37.68
0.00
0.00
37.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.74
0.00
0.00
52.74
-15.06
ORNAMENTALS
21.79
0.00
0.00
21.79
29.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.78
-7.99
TREE NURSERIES
21.46
0.00
0.00
21.46
6.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.30
15.16
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
14.01
0.00
0.00
14.01
15.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.83
-1.82
SUGARCANE
19.54
0.00
0.00
19.54
16.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.12
3.36
AQUACULTURE
14.02
49.09
0.00
63.12
0.00
4.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.27
58.84
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
0.01
5.25
0.00
5.26
0.00
1.07
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
4.17
RESIDENTIAL- MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
66.36
0.00
66.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.30
21.30
45.07
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
0.09
5.06
0.00
5.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
5.12
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
4.83
16.97
0.00
21.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
21.66
RESIDENTIAL -HIGH DENSITY
1.60
7.67
0.00
9.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.15
9.11
FIELD CROPS
39.45
0.00
0.00
39.45
32.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.55
6.91
HORSE FARMS
5.83
13.48
0.00
19.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 1
19.31
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
'r ,.t,1 n L. 1.T,,. I,o.,, i �1, C)t --hnh- R-;nn Mitrnaan ('nPffiviPntc in ko/ha
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
0.08
27.80
0.00
27.88
0.00
6.87
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.02
20.86
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DAIRY
128.82
572.78
0.00
701.60
0.00
19.31
3.79
0.00
189.47
1.85
214.42
487.18
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
21.75
0.00
0.00
21.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.75
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.92
-3.92
TRUCK CROPS
40.81
0.00
0.00
40.81
238.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
238.85
- 198.04
CITRUS
228.26
0.00
0.00
228.26
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.37
227.89
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
124.14
0.00
0.00
124.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.14
SOD FARM
186.88
0.00
0.00
186.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
171.44
0.00
0.00
171.44
15.44
ORNAMENTALS
76.42
0.00
0.00
76.42
238.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
238.20
- 161.78
TREE NURSERIES
146.90
0.00
0.00
146.90
26.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.99
119.91
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
56.04
0.00
0.00
56.04
67.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
67.82
-11.78
SUGARCANE
31.58
0.00
0.00
31.58
76.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
76.98
-45.40
AQUACULTURE
4.67
314.20
0.00
318.87
0.00
299.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
299.13
19.74
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
0.08
27.80
0.00
27.88
0.00
6.87
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.02
20.86
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
370.73
0.00
370.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
118.81
118.81
251.92
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
1.28
25.70
0.00
26.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.18
26.81
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
79.34
95.01
0.00
174.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.79
173.56
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
21.75
42.77
0.00
64.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.86
63.67
FIELD CROPS
197.27
0.00
0.00
197.27
197.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
197.27
0.00
HORSE FARMS
29.14
29.26
0.00
58.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 58.40
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table B -7: Southern Lake Okeechobee Region Phosnhonl- Coefficient- in ku/hn
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
0.01
5.25
0.00
5.26
0.00
1.07
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
4.17
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DAIRY
3.42
90.79
1.23
95.43
0.00
3.01
0.65
0.00
37.58
0.57
41.81
53.62
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
1.61
0.00
0.00
1.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.61
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
-0.61
TRUCK CROPS
81.62
0.00
0.00
81.62
48.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48.79
32.82
CITRUS
17.20
0.00
0.00
17.20
4.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.08
13.12
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
32.30
0.00
0.00
32.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.30
SOD FARM
33.59
0.00
0.00
33.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
57.49
0.00
0.00
57.49
-23.91
ORNAMENTALS
21.79
0.00
0.00
21.79
29.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.78
-7.99
TREE NURSERIES
22.73
0.00
0.00
22.73
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
18.73
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
14.01
0.00
0.00
14.01
15.83
0.D0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.83
-1.82
SUGARCANE
19.54
0.00
0.00
19.54
16.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.12
3.36
AQUACULTURE
14.02
49.09
0.00
63.12
0.00
4.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.27
58.84
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
0.01
5.25
0.00
5.26
0.00
1.07
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
4.17
RESIDENTIAL- MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
66.36
0.00
66.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.30
21.30
45.07
RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY
4.83
5.06
0.00
9.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
9.86
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
6.04
16.97
0.00
23.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
22.87
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
1.61
7.67
0.00
9.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.15
9.12
FIELD CROPS
39.45
0.00
0.00
39.45
32.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.55
6.91
HORSE FARMS
S.83
13.48
0.00
19.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.31
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Ir T I n 4• c ,,rho T �1, P-;nn 1NTitrnapn Cneffwiente in ko/hn
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
0.08
27.80
0.00
27.88
0.00
6.87
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.02
20.86
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.D0
0.00
DAIRY
128.82
572.78
0.00
701.60
0.00
19.31
3.79
0.00
189.47
1.85
214.42
487.18
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
21.97
0.00
0.00
21.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.97
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.92
-3.92
TRUCK CROPS
40.81
0.00
0.00
40.81
40.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.81
0.00
CITRUS
201.75
0.00
0.00
201.75
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.34
201.42
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
124.14
0.00
0.00
124.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.14
SOD FARM
230.70
0.00
0.00
230.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
260.14
0.00
0.00
260.14
-29.44
ORNAMENTALS
76.42
0.00
0.00
76.42
238.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
238.20
- 161.78
TREE NURSERIES
155.26
0.00
0.00
155.26
17.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.15
138.11
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
56.04
0.00
0.00
56.04
67.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
67.82
-11.78
SUGARCANE
31.58
0.00
0.00
31.58
76.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
76.98
-45.40
AQUACULTURE
4.67
314.20
0.00
318.87
0.00
299.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29913
19.74
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
0.08
27.80
0.00
27.88
0.00
6.87
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.02
20.86
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
370.73
0.00
370.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
118.81
118.81
251.92
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
65.91
25.70
0.00
91.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.18
91.44
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
97.65
95.01
0.00
192.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.79
191.87
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
21.97
42.77
0.00
64.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.86
63.89
FIELD CROPS
197.27
0.00
0.00
197.27
197.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
197.27
0.00
HORSE FARMS
29.14
29.26
0.00
58.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 58.40
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table B -9: UDAer Kissimmee Region Phosnhorns Cneffieienrc in kn/hn
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
0.05
4.80
0.00
4.85
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.68
4.17
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DAIRY
0.00
40.20
0.67
40.87
0.00
1.54
0.00
0.00
15.03
0.00
16.57
24.30
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
1.79
0.00
0.00
1.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
139
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.66
-0.66
TRUCK CROPS
81.62
0.00
0.00
81.62
48.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.DO
48.79
32.82
CITRUS
15.73
0.00
0.00
15.73
5.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.45
10.28
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
32.30
0.00
0.00
32.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.30
SOD FARM
37.68
0.00
0.00
37.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.74
0.00
0.00
52.74
-15.06
ORNAMENTALS
21.79
0.00
0.00
21.79
29.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.78
-7.99
TREE NURSERIES
22.73
0.00
0.00
22.73
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
18.73
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
14.01
0.00
0.00
14.01
15.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.83
-1.82
SUGARCANE
19.54
0.00
0.00
19.54
16.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.12
3.36
AQUACULTURE
14.02
49.09
0.00
63.12
0.00
4.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.27
58.84
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
0.05
4.80
0.00
4.85
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.68
4.17
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
66.36
0.00
66.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.30
21.30
45.07
RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY
4.86
5.06
0.00
9.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
9.88
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
5.97
16.97
0.00
22.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
22.80
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
1.79
7.67
0.00
9.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.15
9.31
FIELD CROPS
40.40
0.00
0.00
40.40
32.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.55
7.86
HORSE FARMS
5.83
13.48
0.00
19.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.31
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Tnhla R_1 n- T Tnner Kiccimmee Reainn Nitmuen Coefficient-, in kg/ha
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
2.26
25.20
0.00
27.47
0.00
2.88
0.00
2.68
0.00
0.00
5.56
21.90
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.D0
0.00
DAIRY
15.13
270.84
0.00
285.98
0.00
9.86
0.00
0.00
76.62
0.00
86.48
199.50
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
25.34
0.00
0.00
25.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.34
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.26
-4.26
TRUCK CROPS
40.81
0.00
0.00
40.81
40.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.81
0.00
CITRUS
220.16
0.00
0.00
220.16
0.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.45
219.71
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
124.14
0.00
0.00
124.14
0.00
0.00
0.D0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.14
SOD FARM
186.88
0.00
0.00
186.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
171.44
0.00
0.00
171.44
15.44
ORNAMENTALS
76.42
0.00
0.00
76.42
238.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
238.20
- 161.78
TREE NURSERIES
155.26
0.00
0.00
155.26
17.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.15
138.11
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
56.04
0.00
0.00
56.04
67.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
67.82
-11.78
SUGARCANE
31.58
0.00
0.00
31.58
76.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
76.98
-05.40
AQUACULTURE
4.67
314.20
0.00
318.87
0.00
299.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
299.13
19.74
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
2.26
25.20
0.00
27.47
0.00
2.88
0.00
2.68
0.00
0.00
5.56
21.90
RESIDENTIAL- MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
370.73
0.00
370.73
0.00
0.00
.0.00
0.00
0.00
118.81
118.81
251.92
RESIDENTIAL- LOW DENSITY
65.43
25.70
0.00
91.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.18
90.96
RESIDENTIAL- MEDIUM DENSITY
85.29
95.01
0.00
180.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.79
179.51
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
25.34
42.77
0.00
68.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.86
67.25
FIELD CROPS
202.02
0.00
0.00
202.02
202.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
202.02
0.00
HORSE FARMS
1 29.14
29.26
0.00
58.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 58.40
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table B -11: Western Lake Okeechobee Region Phosnhonls ('nefficientc in ku/hn
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
7.00
4.80
0.00
11.80
0.00
3.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.20
8.60
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DAIRY
3.42
90.79
1.23
95.43
0.00
3.01
0.65
0.00
37.58
0.57
41.81
53.62
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
1.61
0.00
0.00
1.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.61
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.61
-0.61
TRUCK CROPS
81.62
0.00
0.00
81.62
48.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
48.79
32.82
CITRUS
17.20
0.00
0.00
17.20
4.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.23
12.97
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
32.30
0.00
0.00
32.30
0.00
O.DO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.30
SOD FARM
37.68
0.00
0.00
37.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.74
0.00
0.00
52.74
-15.06
ORNAMENTALS
21.79
0.00
0.00
21.79
29.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.78
-7.99
TREE NURSERIES
22.73
0.00
0.00
22.73
4.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
18.73
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
14.01
0.00
0.00
14.01
15.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.83
-1.82
SUGARCANE
19.54
0.00
0.00
19.54
16.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.12
3.36
AQUACULTURE
14.02
49.09
0.00
63.12
0.00
4.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.27
58.84
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
7.00
4.80
0.00
11.80
O.DO
3.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.20
8.60
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
66.36
0.00
66.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.30
21.30
45.07
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
4.83
5.06
0.00
9.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
9.86
RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY
6.04
16.97
0.00
23.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.14
22.87
RESIDENTIAL - HIGH DENSITY
1.61
7.67
0.00
9.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.15
9.12
FIELD CROPS
39.45
0.00
0.00
39.45
32.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
32.55
6.91
HORSE FARMS
5.83
13.48
0.00
19.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.31
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
'r t to n 11. 1170 ro , T .1- T?ao;nn NJ;trnoen Cneffir;entc in ku/hn
LAND USE
FERTILIZER
IMPORTS
FEED CLEANERS
TOTAL
HARVEST
LIVEWEIGHT
EXPORTS
HAY SOD
MILK
SEPTIC
TOTAL
NET
IMPORT
IMPROVED PASTURE
151.91
25.20
0.00
177.11
0.00
20.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.54
156.57
WETLANDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - CONIFEROUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FORESTED - DECIDUOUS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
DAIRY
128.82
572.78
0.00
701.60
0.00
19.31
3.79
0.00
189.47
1.85
214.42
487.18
BARREN LAND
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OTHER URBAN
21.97
0.00
0.00
21.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.97
UNIMPROVED PASTURE
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.92
-3.92
TRUCK CROPS
40.81
0.00
0.00
40.81
40.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.81
0.00
CITRUS
208.63
0.00
0.00
208.63
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
208.28
WATER BODIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
GOLF COURSE
124.14
0.00
0.00
124.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
124.14
SOD FARM
186.88
0.00
0.00
186.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
171.44
0.00
0.00
171.44
15.44
ORNAMENTALS
76.42
0.00
0.00
76.42
238.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
238.20
- 161.78
TREE NURSERIES
155.26
0.00
0.00
155.26
17.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.15
138.11
COMMERCIAL FORESTRY
56.04
0.00
0.00
56.04
67.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
67.82
-11.78
SUGARCANE
31.58
0.00
0.00
31.58
76.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
76.98
-45.40
AQUACULTURE
4.67
314.20
0.00
318.87
0.00
299.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
299.13
19.74
POULTRY
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ABANDONED DAIRY
151.91
25.20
0.00
177.11
0.00
20.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.54
156.57
RESIDENTIAL - MOBILE HOME UNITS
0.00
370.73
0.00
370.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
118.81
118.81
251.92
RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY
65.91
25.70
0.00
91.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.18
91.44
RESIDENTIAL- MEDIUM DENSITY
97.65
95.01
0.00
192.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.79
191.87
RESIDENTIAL- HIGH DENSITY
21.97
42.77
0.00
64.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.86
63.89
FIELD CROPS
197.27
0.00
0.00
197.27
197.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
197.27
0.00
HORSE FARMS
29.14
29.26
0.00
58.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1 58.40
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
APPENDIX C
SOIL LEGACY PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN STORAGE IN
SOILS OF LOW AS AFFECTED BY LAND USES
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
SOIL LEGACY PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN STORAGE IN SOILS
OF THE LAKE OKEECHOBEE WATERSHED AS AFFECTED BY LAND
USES
Introduction
To extend our knowledge of the phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) storage in the soils of the Lake
Okeechobee Watershed (LOW) and its impact on potential releases into drainage waters a soil
testing program was completed. The protocol for the sampling and testing program (Task 2)
was based on the identification of potential data gaps from previous studies in the watershed.
The legacy P study by SWET (2008) provided an excellent summary of previous P data, but it
was found that there was very little N data available. Therefore an extensive N testing program
was completed as well as for P.
Total phosphorus (TP) is a direct indicator of anthropogenic or legacy P storage in a watershed.
Legacy P is closely related to P inputs from various sources and reflects P balance of influxes
and out fluxes in a specific time event. Of the legacy P, only a small fraction ( <1 -5 %) is
bioavailable and /or subjected to losses by surface runoff and to a lesser degree leaching on an
annual basis. However, 50% or more of the legacy P can become available over time thus
providing a long term source of P for crops and losses in runoff. Available or labile P, which
represents the bioavailable P and leachable P, is usually estimated by chemical extraction such
as by Mehlich 1 or Mehlich 3 extraction procedure. Mehlich 1 is a recommended procedure by
IFAS for estimating soil labile P in Florida, but often Mehlich 3 is more efficient in extracting P
from soil. Because TP is often not available, a relationship between Mehlich 1 or 3 is used to
estimate TP, which is the case for this project.
Total nitrogen (TN) in soils is also an indicator of reserve or storage of N in a watershed or
basin. However, it is not as reflective of anthropogenic N because most anthropogenic N is
soluble, and quickly leached from the soil. Therefore the majority of TN is sourced from the
native organic matter in the soil. However, elevated levels of inorganic N would be well
correlated with anthropogenic N, such as fertilizer. The N content of surface mineral soils
normally ranges from 0.2 to 5 g kg-1, a value of about 1.5 g kg-1 being representative for
cultivated soils. Total N is often related to organic matter content, but it also reflects the
balance of influxes and out fluxes of N in a specific time event, as affected by climate, land use,
and other anthropogenic activities such as agricultural practices and industrial activities. In
general, around 1 -5% of the total N can be bioavailable (to plants and microorganisms) and/ or
subjected to losses through leaching, volatilization, and denitrification. Part of this available N
can be measured as extractable inorganic N, including NO3 -N and N144 -N, which are readily
bioavailable and /or subjected to losses.
In the previous studies of nutrient budget of LOW, WAM model was used to predict nutrient
balance and movement in the watershed. However, previous focus was on phosphorus with
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07 -09\ Nutrient- BudgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt_final(6 -22-
I0).docx Page 1
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
legacy P data from limited land uses and determined 10 -20 years ago. Since this project has
expanded to include soil N, on which existing information is very limited. Therefore, it is
necessary and important to measure soil N and P in major soil types under representative land
uses in the LOW.
Objective
The major objective of this study was to verify and update if appropriate soil parameters for the
WAM model by determining additional N and P levels in selected soils collected from typical
soil types under representative land uses in the LOW.
Legacy P in the Soils of LOW
Mehlich 3 -P (M3 -P) is greater than Mehlich 1 -P in most of the soil samples from LOW and for
some soils, Mehlich 1 -P is zero (Table 1). Therefore, M3 -P may be more reliable and will be
further discussed.
Mehlich 3 -P in the surface soils (0 -20 cm) of LOW ranges from 7.56 to 2892 kg ha 1, with the
lowest being found in a Histosol under mix shrub and the highest occurring in a Spodosol under
improved pasture (Table 1). Obviously the former was under natural vegetation with minimal P
input and the latter was added with a lot of P through fertilization and manure application. Soils
under improved pasture contained a larger amount of M3 -P than those under unimproved
pasture, indicating that long -term application of P fertilizers has resulted in significant
accumulation of labile P in the LOW soils.
Melich 3 -P in the subsurface soils (20 -40 cm) is generally similar to that in the surface soils, but
for some land uses such as improved pasture, hardwood coniferous, and deciduous trees, M3 -P
in the subsurface soil exceeded that in the surface layer, suggesting downward movement of P
due to long -term P input and leaching.
In the past, legacy P was used in the WAM model for predicting P mobility in the soils of
LOW. In order to keep consistency, legacy P was calculated based on the relationship between
labile P and legacy P in the soils (SWET, 2008), i.e. legacy P is equal to two times labile P (M
3 -P is used in this report). The calculated legacy P in representative soils under major land uses
is presented in Table 1. Previous legacy P data cover a limited land uses including dairy,
concentrated farm, residential areas (Table 4), whereas the newly determined legacy P data
cover more land uses related to natural vegetation and agriculture. The comparison of the new
and previous legacy P data indicates that the current study results are consistent with the SWET
(2008) report within statistical tolerances, except for citrus and improved pasture which
increased legacy P levels. However, the increases were due to a couple extremely high samples,
which were questionable as to previous land activities. Therefore, the new results did not
provide justification for the existing P parameters in WAM, which were based on the previous
legacy P work, to be updated based on the findings of this study.
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- 09�Nutrient- BudgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt_final(6 -22
I0).docx Page 2
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Land use appears to have a pronounced effect on legacy P in the LOW soils. Legacy P varies
with land uses in the order of dairy > improved pasture > tree crop > residential area > field
crops >citrus > hardwood regeneration, ornamental, hardwood coniferous > cypress >
deciduous trees >sugarcane >unimproved pasture, row crops > coniferous forest > oak trees >
mix shrub. Soils under improved pasture contain, on average, approximately four times greater
legacy P than those under unimproved pasture, indicating the impact of P fertilization and
manure application on legacy P in the LOW soils.
Soil Nitrogen and Its Environmental Significance
Total N as an indicator of N storage
Total N content in the soils of LOW ranged from 0.08 to 15.3 g kg �, with a mean value of 1.42
g kg 1 (Table 2). Although the mean value of soil total N in the LOW is quite close to that of
most cultivated soils, the LOW soils had a wider range of N content due to different land uses
and soil types, particularly Histosols which have a very high N content due to their high organic
matter.
On a hectare area basis, LOW soils had a N amount of 232 to 44283 kg N ha 1 , with a mean
value of 4118 kg N ha 1. This average value is about 20 -30 times of annual fertilizer N
application rates for most agricultural crops. In other words, if soil N availability is averaged to
2.5 %, one hectare of land can release 100 kg N to the environment (Table 2).
Total N content varied significantly among the soil orders (P <0.01) and decreased in the order
of Histosol (14610 kg ha-1) > Mollisol (2755 kg ha-1) > Inceptisol (2117 kg ha-) > Entisol (1943
kg ha-) >Alfisol (1508 kg ha-) > Spodosol (1160 kg ha-) > Ultisol (580 kg ha-) (Data not
shown).
Land use affects N storage in the soils of LOW. N storage (kg N ha-) in surface soil (0 -20 cm)
for various land uses decreases in the order of sugarcane (22359) >field crop (21386)> deciduous
trees (6087) >row crop (3871) >cypress (3538) >improved pasture (2576) >oak tree
(2542) >residential area (2320)> coniferous forest (2030) >mixed shrub (1604) >unimproved
pasture (1574) >citrus grove (1148) >tree crop (677), whereas N storage (kg N ha-1) in subsurface
soil (20 -40 cm) for various land uses changes in the order of improved pasture (7818)>
sugarcane (3009)> unimproved pasture (1594) > citrus grove (1425) >coniferous forest (1305)>
oak tree (1112)> mixed shrub (1037) >Row crop (1015)> tree crop (821), > cypress (746)>
deciduous trees (692)> field crop (405). Improved pasture has a greater N storage than
unimproved pasture for both surface and subsurface soils, indicating that agricultural practices
have a significant influence on soil N storage.
The amounts of NO3 -N (kg ha-) in surface soils (0 -20 cm) of LOW varied among the different
land use (on average) in the order of field crop (66.9)> residential area (35.2) > sugarcane (27.7)
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07 -09\ Nutrient- BudgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt_final(6 -22-
I0).docx Page 3
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
> dairy (26.5) >tree crop (15.7) > citrus (12.1)> row crop (I 1.9)> mix shrub (I 1.5)> deciduous
(I 1.2)> improved pasture (11.1) >oak tree (9.0) > unimproved pasture (6.0), ornamental (6.0)>
hardwood regeneration (4.99)> hardwood coniferous mix (4.76)> coniferous forest (4.73) >
cypress (1.85), whereas NO3 -N (kg ha-) in subsurface soils (20 -40 cm) for various land uses
changes in the order of improved pasture (22.4)> ornamental (21.0) > hardwood regeneration
(14.3), tree crop (13. 1), citrus (11.6) > coniferous forest (9.58) > row crop (7.87), sugarcane
(7.77), oak tree (7.17), deciduous (6.41) >cypress (5.99), unimproved pasture (5.82) > hardwood
coniferous mix (5.08), mix shrub (4.92) > residential area (3.74) > field crop (2.19). The high
NO3 -N in surface soil under field crops is likely related to heavy fertilizer application for
vegetable crops, while the low NO3 -N in subsurface soil under this land use is likely due to
plastic mulch, which limited vertical movement of NO3 -N by leaching. The lowest NO3 -N
storage in surface soils under cypress or coniferous forest is expected as these land uses receive
minimal fertilizers or biological N from biosynthesis. Again we see a significant increase in
NO3 -N storage in both surface and subsurface soils from unimproved to improved pasture land,
indicating the impact of anthropogenic inputs of N from fertilizers or manures on available N
accumulation and downward movement in soils.
Risk Evaluation of Soil Nitrogen
Two nitrogen indicators are being developed by MacDonald to assess the environmental
sustainability of agricultural production activities. Residual soil nitrogen (RSN) is an estimate
of the quantity of mineral N remaining in the soil after harvest. An indicator of risk of water
contamination by N ( IROWCN), which links RSN to soil types and climatic conditions for
assessing the likelihood of N moving out of the agricultural system is also being developed
(MacDonald K.B., 2000). RSN and IROWCN indicators have been used to assess the risk of
water contamination by nitrogen and environmental sustainability in Canada (Yang, 2007)
Residual soil N is a simple N balance, which estimates the amount of inorganic N (including
NH4 -N, NO3 -N) that remains in the soil at the end of a growing season. The RSN verification
project compared RSN with measured soil N and showed that soil N variations were similar to
the simulated RSN. Due to the mobile nature of NO3 -N, N is lost by leaching mainly as NO3 -.
Soil NO3N content is often used to assess the environmental risk of agricultural production
activities.
The sum of measured soil organic N (including NH4 -N, NO3 -N) in surface soil (0 -20cm) and
subsurface soil (20 -40 cm) was used to indicate the environmental risk according to four RSN
risk classes in Canada (Table 2). The calculated results (Table 3) showed that some sampling
points in the LOW such as Entisol under citrus production, tree crop and deciduous, Spodosol
under citrus production, improved pasture and dairy, and Alfisol under oak and improved
pasture fell in the moderately high risk class (40-60 kg ha-1). Some soil sampling points such as
Histosol under field crops, Inceptisol of residential areas, Spodosol under citrus and improved
pasture, and Ultisol under tree crops belonged to the high risk class (Table 4). It is estimated
C: \Documents and Setti ngs\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- 09Nutrlent -B udget09\Task4\Task4rpt _final(6 -22-
10).docx Page 4
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
that 18 and 12 percent of soil sampling points in the LOW belong to moderately high risk and
high risk class, respectively.
Conclusions
The additional soils data collected during this study has provided verification that the previous
legacy P estimates that have been used for the P Budget and associated WAM modeling are
reasonable and do not require updating based on the findings. The N data have provided
verification that the fertility practices associated with land use activities are directly correlated
with higher environment risk of N losses to the environment. However, due to high
leachability of N, adjustments for legacy N or storage N for the WAM parameters is not needed.
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- 09�Nutrient- BudgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt_final(6-22-
10).docx Page 5
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table 1. Extractable P in soils collected from Lake Okeechobee Watershed in September 2009.
Sample Extractable P (mg kg -s) Legacy P ( kg ha-
c: \Documents and setl]ngs\jzhang \My Documents \Proio7 -o9\ Nutrient- BudgetO9\ Task4 \Task4rpt_final(6- 22- 10).docx
Page 6
kg ha-'*
1) **
Legacy P (kgha -1)
Soil
Depth
ID
Land use
order
(cm)
M 1 -P
M3 -P
(Del)
1
Citrus
Entisol
0 -20
1.9
6.02
17.46
34.92
43
Citrus
Spodosol
0 -20
125.5
86.32
250.33
500.66
45
Citrus
Entisol
0 -20
101
85.39
247.63
495.26
47
Citrus
Entisol
0 -20
48.7
67.62
196.10
392.20
49
Citrus
Spodosol
0 -20
65.9
93.05
269.85
539.69
75
Citrus
Alfisol
0 -20
141.5
58.55
169.80
339.59
103
Citrus
Inceptisol
0 -20
138.3
201.56
584.52
1169.05
Mean
88.97
85.50
247.95
495.91
250
SD
52.29
59.01
171.12
342.24
51
Coniferous forest
Spodosol
0 -20
0
16.91
49.04
98.08
53
Coniferous forest
Spodosol
0 -20
0
4.3
12.47
24.94
115
Coniferous forest
Spodosol
0 -20
0
56.2
162.98
325.96
Mean
0.00
25.80
74.83
149.66
SD
0.00
27.07
78.50
157.00
111
Cypress
Histosol
0 -20
0
55.36
133.25
266.50
113
Cypress
Histosol
0 -20
0
79.08
190.35
380.69
Mean
0.00
67.22
161.80
323.60
SD
0.00
16.77
40.37
80.74
109
Dairy
Spodosol
0 -20
168.1
179.18
519.62
1039.24
500
65
Deciduous
Spodosol
0 -20
23.9
3.09
8.96
17.92
67
Deciduous
Entisol
0 -20
53
22.24
64.50
128.99
69
Deciduous
Spodosol
0 -20
0
6.36
18.44
36.89
97
Deciduous
Spodosol
0 -20
45.3
171.23
496.57
993.13
c: \Documents and setl]ngs\jzhang \My Documents \Proio7 -o9\ Nutrient- BudgetO9\ Task4 \Task4rpt_final(6- 22- 10).docx
Page 6
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
99
Deciduous
Histosol
0 -20
0
55.17
132.79
265.59
Mean
14.90
51.62
149.69
299.38
SD
19.63
69.97
202.93
405.85
3
Field crop
Entisol
0 -20
0
27.44
79.58
159.15
59
Field crop
Histosol
0 -20
15.2
144.82
348.58
697.16
Mean
7.60
86.13
249.78
499.55 650
SD
10.75
83.00
240.70
481.40
117
Hardwood regeration
Spodosol
0 -20
0
57.53
166.84
333.67
Hardwood/coniferous
119
mixed
Entisol
0 -20
0
62.64
181.66
363.31
5
Improved pasture
Entisol
0 -20
14.6
120.83
350.41
700.81
19
Improved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
997.4
997.4
2892.46
5784.92
23
Improved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
0
6.22
18.04
36.08
25
Improved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
21.3
9.08
26.33
52.66
27
Improved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
50.1
38.87
112.72
225.45
29
Improved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
1.1
3.99
11.57
23.14
33
Improved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
0.5
6.88
19.95
39.90
37
Improved pasture
Mollisol
0 -20
1.6
5.18
15.02
30.04
39
Improved pasture
Mollisol
0 -20
0
11.21
32.51
65.02
41
Improved pasture
Mollisol
0 -20
5.3
20.39
59.13
118.26
89
Improved pasture
Alfisol
0 -20
2.8
9.61
27.87
55.74
91
Improved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
445
456.96
1325.18
2650.37
Mean
128.31
140.55
407.60
815.20 314
SD
301.28
299.02
867.15
1734.29
63
Mix shrub
Histosol
0 -20
36.7
11.41
27.46
54.93
83
Mix shrub
Alfisol
0 -20
0
5.31
15.40
30.80
85
Mix shrub
Entisol
0 -20
0.3
8.23
23.87
47.73
87
Mix shrub
Histosol
0 -20
0
3.14
7.56
15.12
C: \Documents and setvngs\jzhang \My Documents \Proj07 -o9\ Nutrient- Budget09\ Task4 \Task4rpt_final(6- 22- 10).docx
Page 7
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
a \Documents and setdngs\jzhang \My Documents\Prol07-09\ Nutrient- BudgetO9\ Task4 \Task4rpt_final(6- 22- 10).docx
Page 8
Mean
9.25
7.02
20.37
40.73 30
SD
18.30
3.59
10.42
20.84
7
Oak
Entisol
0 -20
6.5
8.28
24.01
48.02
79
Oak
Alfisol
0 -20
0.7
6.03
17.49
34.97
81
Oak
Alfisol
0 -20
0
13.06
37.87
75.75
Mean
2.40
9.12
26.46
52.92
SD
3.57
3.59
10.41
20.82
107
Ornamentals
Spodosol
0 -20
0
58.54
169.77
339.53 300
105
Resident
Inceptisol
0 -20
26.6
88.6
256.94
513.88 180
61
Row crop
Spodosol
0 -20
17.8
24.32
70.53
141.06
77
Row crop
Mollisol
0 -20
19.5
43.34
125.69
251.37
Mean
18.65
33.83
98.11
196.21
SD
1.20
13.45
39.00
78.01
55
Sugarcane
Histosol
0 -20
27.2
90.65
218.19
436.39
57
Sugarcane
Histosol
0 -20
0
25.54
61.47
122.95
Mean
13.60
58.10
139.83
279.67
SD
19.23
46.04
110.82
221.64
71
Tree crop
Ultisol
0 -20
5.6
11.81
34.25
68.50
73
Tree crop
Ultisol
0 -20
55.4
83.84
243.14
486.27
101
Tree crop
Entisol
0 -20
129.8
247.65
718.19
1436.37
Mean
63.60
114.43
331.86
663.71
SD
62.50
120.86
350.49
700.99
9
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
0
15.49
44.92
89.84
11
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
3.5
11.14
32.31
64.61
15
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
0.5
12.91
37.44
74.88
17
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
1.1
19.07
55.30
110.61
93
Unimproved pasture
Alfisol
0 -20
0
57.23
165.97
331.93
95
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
9.6
88.85
257.67
515.33
a \Documents and setdngs\jzhang \My Documents\Prol07-09\ Nutrient- BudgetO9\ Task4 \Task4rpt_final(6- 22- 10).docx
Page 8
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
121
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
0 -20
0
64.89
188.18
376.36
Mean
2.10
38.51
111.68
223.37 46
SD
3.54
31.34
90.88
181.77
2
Citrus
Entisol
20-40
4
9.12
26.45
52.90
44
Citrus
Spodosol
20-40
22.9
32.31
93.70
187.40
46
Citrus
Entisol
20-40
45.8
83
240.70
481.40
48
Citrus
Entisol
2040
25.6
54.25
157.33
314.65
50
Citrus
Spodosol
20-40
20.4
40.56
117.62
235.25
76
Citrus
Alfisol
20-40
72.7
30.07
87.20
174.41
104
Citrus
Inceptisol
20-40
81.9
187.83
544.71
1089.41
Mean
39.04
62.45
181.10
362.20 50
SD
28.96
59.85
173.56
347.11
52
Coniferous forest
Spodosol
20-40
1.1
11.26
32.65
65.31
54
Coniferous forest
Spodosol
20-40
0
1.82
5.28
10.56
116
Coniferous forest
Spodosol
20-40
0
55.73
161.62
323.23
Mean
0.37
22.94
66.52
133.03
SD
0.64
28.79
83.49
166.98
112
Cypress
Histosol
2040
0
64.31
154.79
309.59
114
Cypress
Histosol
2040
0.2
80.89
194.70
389.40
Mean
0.10
72.60
174.75
349.50
SD
0.14
11.72
28.22
56.44
110
Dairy
Spodosol
20 -40
36.2
96.47
279.76
559.53 200
66
Deciduous
Spodosol
20-40
24.2
0.89
2.58
5.16
68
Deciduous
Entisol
20-40
21.8
38.55
111.80
223.59
70
Deciduous
Spodosol
20-40
0
1.24
3.60
7.19
98
Deciduous
Spodosol
20-40
34.1
151.01
437.93
875.86
100
Deciduous
Histosol
20-40
0
56.26
135.42
270.84
Mean
16.02
49.59
143.81
287.62
c:\Documents and setnngs\jznang\My Documents\Proj07 -09\ Nutrient- BudgetO9\ Task4 \Task4rpt_final(6- 22- 10).docx
Page 9
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
c: \Documents and Setbngs \jzhang \MyDocuments \Prolo7 -o9\ Nutrient- BudgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt final(6- 22- 10).docx
Page 10
SD
15.33
61.57
178.54
357.09
4
Field crop
Entisol
2040
0
31.56
91.52
183.05
60
Field crop
Histosol
20-40
15.4
119.99
288.82
577.63
Mean
7.70
75.78
219.75
439.50 50
SD
10.89
62.53
181.34
362.67
118
Hardwood regeration
Spodosol
2040
0
59.96
173.88
347.77
Hardwood/coniferous
120
mixed
Entisol
20-40
0
82.2
238.38
476.76
6
Improved pasture
Entisol
20-40
53
62.37
180.87
361.75
20
Improved pasture
Spodosol
20-40
848.3
721.73
2093.02
4186.03
24
Improved pasture
Spodosol
20-40
0
0.29
0.84
1.68
26
Improved pasture
Spodosol
20-40
4.8
2.9
8.41
16.82
28
Improved pasture
Spodosol
20-40
551.5
261.58
758.58
1517.16
30
Improved pasture
Spodosol
20-40
0
0.45
1.31
2.61
34
Improved pasture
Spodosol
20-40
0
1.15
3.34
6.67
38
Improved pasture
Mollisol
20-40
0
2.06
5.97
11.95
40
Improved pasture
Mollisol
20-40
0
4.88
14.15
28.30
42
Improved pasture
Mollisol
20-40
0
4.36
12.64
25.29
90
Improved pasture
Alfisol
20-40
33
6.34
18.39
36.77
92
Improved pasture
Spodosol
20-40
1657.7
1034
2998.60
5997.20
Mean
262.36
175.18
508.01
1016.02 62
SD
517.83
343.01
994.73
1989.46
64
Mix shrub
Histosol
20-40
37.3
6.53
15.72
31.44
84
Mix shrub
Alfisol
20-40
0
2.19
6.35
12.70
86
Mix shrub
Entisol
20 -40
69.2
12.34
35.79
71.57
88
Mix shrub
Histosol
20-40
0
6
14.44
28.88
Mean
26.63
6.77
19.62
39.24 3
SD
33.39
4.19
12.15
24.30
c: \Documents and Setbngs \jzhang \MyDocuments \Prolo7 -o9\ Nutrient- BudgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt final(6- 22- 10).docx
Page 10
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
8
Oak
Entisol
20 -40
0.3
6.28
18.21
36.42
80
Oak
Alfisol
2040
0
12.57
36.45
72.91
82
Oak
Alfisol
2040
0
5.89
17.08
34.16
Mean
0.10
8.25
23.92
47.83
SD
0.17
3.75
10.87
21.75
108
Ornamentals
Spodosol
20 -40
0
60.31
174.90
349.80 SO
106
Resident
Inceptisol
20 -40
25.1
89.62
259.90
519.80 696
62
Row crop
Spodosol
20 -40
9.1
6.56
19.02
38.05
78
Row crop
Mollisol
20-40
10.6
27.74
80.45
160.89
Mean
9.85
17.15
49.74
99.47
SD
1.06
14.98
43.43
86.86
56
Sugarcane
Histosol
20 -40
9.1
69.58
167.48
334.96
58
Sugarcane
Histosol
20 -40
0
14.39
34.64
69.27
Mean
4.55
41.99
101.06
202.12
SD
6.43
39.03
93.93
187.87
72
Tree crop
Ultisol
20-40
1.1
5.15
14.94
29.87
74
Tree crop
Ultisol
2040
57
74.41
215.79
431.58
102
Tree crop
Entisol
20 -40
49.8
173.94
504.43
1008.85
Mean
35.97
84.50
245.05
490.10
SD
30.41
84.85
246.05
492.11
10
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
20-40
0
11.35
32.92
65.83
12
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
20-40
0
0.42
1.22
2.44
16
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
20 -40
0
5.96
17.28
34.57
18
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
20-40
0
11.77
34.13
68.27
94
Unimproved pasture
Alfisol
2040
0
53.15
154.14
308.27
96
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
2040
6.4
69.12
200.45
400.90
122
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
20-40
0
56.26
163.15
326.31
c:\Documents and setdngs\jzhang\My Documents \Proj07 -o9\ Nutrient- BudgetO9\ Task4 \Task4rpt_fmal(6- 22- 10).docx
Page 11
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Mean 0.91 29.72 86.18 172.37 23
SD 2.42 28.54 82.78 165.55
* Kg ha'totaI phosphorus is calculated by multiplying N concentration (g kg 1) with the amount of soil in one hectare area up to 20 cm depth
A value of 1.45 g CM-3 is used for mean soil bulk density in the above calculation except for Histosol which is 1.20 g cm3.
** Legacy P =M3 -P x2
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Projo7 -o9\ Nutrient- BudgetO9\ Task4 \Task4rpt_fmal(6- 22- 10).doex
Page 12
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table 2. Total N, NH4 -N and NO3 -N in soils collected from Lake Okeechobee
Watershed
Sampl
Dept
Tota
e
h
1 N
NI -34 -N
NO3 -N
( mg kg
kg
( mg kg
kg
(g
ID
Land use
Soil type
(cm)
kg')
kg ha'`
I )
ha -'
�)
ha-'
1
Citrus
Entisol
0 -20
0.13
377.0
1.06
3.07
2.4
6.96
Spodoso
43
Citrus
1
0 -20
0.63
1827.0
3.18
9.22
4.69
13.60
45
Citrus
Entisol
0 -20
0.21
609.0
2.79
8.09
0.8
2.32
47
Citrus
Entisol
0 -20
0.26
754.0
2.29
6.64
1.52
4.41
Spodoso
49
Citrus
1
0 -20
0.69
2001.0
2.6
7.54
12.74
36.95
75
Citrus
Alfisol
0 -20
0.67
1943.0
2.67
7.74
4.38
12.70
Inceptis
103
Citrus
of
0 -20
0.18
522.0
1.62
4.70
2.59
7.51
Mean
0.40
1147.57
2.32
6.72
4.16
12.06
SD
0.25
736.29
0.73
2.13
4.04
11.71
Spodoso
51
Coniferous forest
1
0 -20
0.59
1711.0
4.72
13.69
1.83
5.31
Spodoso
53
Coniferous forest
1
0 -20
0.6
1740.0
6.46
18.73
1.59
4.61
Spodoso
115
Coniferous forest
1
0 -20
0.91
2639.0
4.98
14.44
1.47
4.26
Mean
0.70
2030.00
5.39
15.62
1.63
4.73
SD
0.18
527.61
0.94
2.72
0.18
0.53
111
Cypress
Histosol
0 -20
0.74
1781.2
4.91
11.82
0.17
0.41
113
Cypress
Histosol
0 -20
2.2
5295.4
5.87
14.13
1.37
3.30
Mean
1.47
3538.29
5.39
12.97
0.77
1.85
SD
1.03
2484.93
0.68
1.63
0.85
2.04
Spodoso
109
Dairy
1
0 -20
2.26
6554.0
3.58
10.38
9.14
26.51
Spodoso
65
Deciduous
1
0 -20
0.36
1044.0
2.83
8.21
3.02
8.76
67
Deciduous
Entisol
0 -20
0.48
1392.0
2.29
6.64
6.13
17.78
Spodoso
69
Deciduous
1
0 -20
0.81
2349.0
4.98
14.44
2.94
8.53
Spodoso
97
Deciduous
1
0 -20
0.67
1943.0
1.56
4.52
3.36
9.74
99
Deciduous
Histosol
0 -20
9.85
23709.0
19.01
45.76
3.79
9.12
Mean
2.43
6087.39
6.13
15.91
3.85
10.79
SD
4.15
12032.9
7.31
21.20
1.32
3.83
3
Field crop
Entisol
0 -20
2.05
5945.0
2.39
6.93
1.98
5.74
128.1
59
Field crop
Histosol
0 -20
15.3
36827.1
15.19
44.05
44.18
2
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents \Proi07 -09\ Nutrient- BudgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt_flnal(6-22-
1 O).docx Page 13
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07 -09\ Nutrient-B udgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt_flnal(6 -22-
10).docX Page 14
21386.0
Mean
8.68
5
8.79
25.49
23.08
66.93
21836.9
SD
9.37
4
9.05
26.25
29.84
86.54
Spodoso
117
Hardwood regeneration
1
0 -20
0.89
2581.0
15.44
44.78
1.72
4.99
Hardwood/coniferous
119
mixed
Entisol
0 -20
0.7
2030.0
2.85
8.27
1.64
4.76
5
Improved pasture
Entisol
0 -20
0.78
2262.0
2.31
6.70
3.85
11.17
Spodoso
19
Improved pasture
1
0 -20
1.89
5481.0
3.69
10.70
8.94
25.93
Spodoso
23
Improved pasture
1
0 -20
1.03
2987.0
6.33
18.36
2.15
6.24
Spodoso
25
Improved pasture
1
0 -20
0.88
2552.0
2.97
8.61
6.49
18.82
Spodoso
27
Improved pasture
1
0 -20
0.21
609.0
1.75
5.08
1.29
3.74
Spodoso
29
Improved pasture
1
0 -20
0.97
2813.0
3.19
9.25
3.51
10.18
Spodoso
33
Improved pasture
1
0 -20
0.31
899.0
2.41
6.99
0.74
2.15
37
Improved pasture
Mollisol
0 -20
0.62
1798.0
4.14
12.01
0.69
2.00
39
Improved pasture
Mollisol
0 -20
0.74
2146.0
4.8
13.92
1.11
3.22
41
Improved pasture
Mollisol
0 -20
0.85
2465.0
3.99
11.57
4.62
13.40
89
Improved pasture
Alfisol
0 -20
0.89
2581.0
9.44
27.38
4.14
12.01
Spodoso
91
Improved pasture
1
0 -20
1.49
4321.0
2.93
8.50
8.53
24.74
Mean
0.89
2576.17
4.00
11.59
3.84
11.13
SD
0.46
1324.33
2.11
6.13
2.89
8.39
63
Mix shrub
Histosol
0 -20
1.18
2840.3
5.56
13.38
6.53
15.72
83
Mix shrub
Alfisol
0 -20
0.73
2117.0
1.71
4.96
3.36
9.74
85
Mix shrub
Entisol
0 -20
0.32
928.0
3.32
9.63
3.88
11.25
87
Mix shrub
Histosol
0 -20
0.22
529.5
0.91
2.19
2.07
4.98
Mean
0.61
1603.70
2.88
7.54
3.96
10.42
SD
0.44
1065.04
2.05
4.96
1.87
4.43
7
Oak
Entisol
0 -20
1.18
3422.0
2.6
7.54
3.34
9.69
79
Oak
Alfisol
0 -20
0.62
1798.0
5.1
14.79
1.83
5.31
81
Oak
Alfisol
0 -20
0.83
2407.0
4.3
12.47
4.14
12.01
Mean
0.88
2542.33
4.00
11.60
3.10
9.00
SD
0.28
820.41
1.28
3.70
1.17
3.40
Spodoso
107
Ornamentals
1
0 -20
0.42
1218.0
2.64
7.66
2.07
6.00
Inceptis
105
Resident
of
0 -20
0.8
2320.0
4.68
13.57
12.15
35.24
Spodoso
61
Row crop
1
0 -20
0.36
1044.0
1.71
4.96
3.74
10.85
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07 -09\ Nutrient-B udgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt_flnal(6 -22-
10).docX Page 14
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
77
Row crop
Mollisol
0 -20
2.31
6699.0
6.54
18.97
4.46
12.93
Mean
1.34
3871.50
4.13
11.96
4.10
11.89
SD
0.31
902.27
2.10
6.09
5.95
17.25
55
Sugarcane
Histosol
0 -20
6.86
19894.0
5.94
14.30
9.95
23.95
57
Sugarcane
Histosol
0 -20
8.56
24824.0
11.89
28.62
13.05
31.41
22359.0
Mean
7.71
0
8.92
21.46
11.50
27.68
SD
1.20
3486.04
4.21
10.13
2.19
5.28
71
Tree crop
Ultisol
0 -20
0.03
87.0
1.62
4.70
0.72
2.09
73
Tree crop
Ultisol
0 -20
0.35
1015.0
2.4
6.96
9.87
28.62
101
Tree crop
Entisol
0 -20
0.32
928.0
2.09
6.06
5.69
16.50
Mean
0.23
676.7
2.04
5.91
5.43
15.74
SD
0.18
512.5
0.39
1.14
4.58
13.28
Spodoso
9
Unimproved pasture
1
0 -20
0.51
1479.0
2.7
7.83
3.77
10.93
Spodoso
156.8
11
Unimproved pasture
1
0 -20
0.42
1218.0
54.07
0
1.38
4.00
Spodoso
15
Unimproved pasture
1
0 -20
0.52
1508.0
5.32
15.43
1.12
3.25
Spodoso
17
Unimproved pasture
1
0 -20
0.6
1740.0
3.6
10.44
1.98
5.74
93
Unimproved pasture
Alfisol
0 -20
0.34
986.0
1.4
4.06
3.19
9.25
Spodoso
95
Unimproved pasture
1
0 -20
0.48
1392.0
1.92
5.57
1.72
4.99
Spodoso
121
Unimproved pasture
1
0 -20
0.93
2697.0
4.95
14.36
1.37
3.97
Mean
0.54
1574.3
10.57
30.64
2.08
6.02
SD
0.19
548.9
19.24
55.79
1.01
2.93
20-
2
Citrus
Entisol
40
0.11
319.0
1.27
3.68
11.97
34.71
Spodoso
20-
4
Citrus
1
40
2
5800.0
2.41
6.99
3.09
8.96
20-
6
Citrus
Entisol
40
0.4
1160.0
0.97
2.81
3
8.70
20-
8
Citrus
Entisol
40
0.4
1160.0
1.74
5.05
3.77
10.93
Spodoso
20-
10
Citrus
1
40
0.23
667.0
1.48
4.29
2.4
6.96
20-
12
Citrus
Alfisol
40
0.12
348.0
5.04
14.62
2.23
6.47
Inceptis
20-
16
Citrus
of
40
0.18
522.0
2.3
6.67
1.46
4.23
Mean
0.49
1425.1
2.17
6.30
3.99
11.57
SD
0.68
1960.2
1.37
3.97
3.60
10.43
Spodoso
20-
18
Coniferous forest
1
40
0.43
1247.0
1.6
4.64
0.86
2.49
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- 09\NUtrient- BudgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt_final(6 -22-
IQ).docX Page 15
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
C: \Documents and Sethngs\jzhang \My Documents\Proj07-09\Nutrient- Budget O9\Task4\Task4rpt_flnal(6 -22-
1 0).docx Page 16
Spodoso
20-
20
Coniferous forest
1
40
0.66
1914.0
2.41
6.99
7.67
22.24
Spodoso
20-
24
Coniferous forest
1
40
0.26
754.0
1.58
4.58
1.38
4.00
Mean
0.45
1305.0
1.86
5.40
3.30
9.58
SD
0.20
582.2
0.47
1.37
3.79
10.99
20-
26
Cypress
Histosol
40
0.22
529.5
2.08
5.01
3
7.22
20-
28
Cypress
Histosol
40
0.4
962.8
2.65
6.38
1.98
4.77
Mean
0.31
746.2
2.37
5.69
2.49
5.99
SD
0.13
306.4
0.40
0.97
0.72
1.74
Spodoso
20-
30
Dairy
1
40
0.23
667.0
1.42
4.12
2.15
6.24
Spodoso
20-
34
Deciduous
1
40
0.16
464.0
1.91
5.54
0.54
1.57
20-
38
Deciduous
Entisol
40
0.23
667.0
4.01
11.63
0.36
1.04
Spodoso
20-
40
Deciduous
1
40
0.22
638.0
2.01
5.83
0.69
2.00
Spodoso
20-
42
Deciduous
1
40
0.26
754.0
2.9
8.41
3.34
9.69
20-
44
Deciduous
Histosol
40
0.39
938.7
3.04
7.32
6.13
14.75
Mean
0.25
692.35
2.77
7.74
2.21
5.81
SD
0.09
173.38
0.86
2.46
2.51
6.13
20-
46
Field crop
Entisol
40
0.13
377.0
1.88
5.45
0.16
0.46
20-
48
Field crop
Histosol
40
0.18
433.3
2.1
5.05
1.35
3.25
Mean
0.16
405.13
1.99
5.25
0.76
1.86
SD
0.04
39.78
0.16
0.28
0.84
1.97
Spodoso
20-
50
Hardwood regeneration
1
40
0.47
1363.0
5.39
15.63
4.94
14.33
Hardwood/coniferous
20-
52
mixed
Entisol
40
0.6
1740.0
3.68
10.67
1.75
5.08
20-
54
Improved pasture
Entisol
40
0.22
638.0
2.22
6.44
0.32
0.93
Spodoso
20-
56
Improved pasture
1
40
6.53
18937.0
5.82
16.88
11.07
32.10
Spodoso
20-
58
Improved pasture
1
40
8.42
24418.0
6.95
20.16
6.29
18.24
Spodoso
20-
15.2
111.9
60
Improved pasture
1
40
7
44283.0
13.67
39.64
3 8.6 1
7
Spodoso
20-
62
Improved pasture
1
40
0.2
580.0
3.1
8.99
2.94
8.53
Spodoso
20-
64
Improved pasture
1
40
0.22
638.0
2.38
6.90
4.69
13.60
66
Improved pasture
Spodoso
20-
0.18
522.0
3.18
9.22
1.91
5.54
C: \Documents and Sethngs\jzhang \My Documents\Proj07-09\Nutrient- Budget O9\Task4\Task4rpt_flnal(6 -22-
1 0).docx Page 16
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- 09Nutrient- BudgetO9\Task4\Task4r pt_flnll(6 -22
I O).docx Page 17
1
40
20-
68
Improved pasture
Mollisol
40
0.4
1160.0
2.39
6.93
6.61
19.17
20-
70
Improved pasture
Mollisol
40
0.19
551.0
2
5.80
2.39
6.93
20-
72
Improved pasture
Mollisol
40
0.08
232.0
1.81
5.25
2.31
6.70
20-
74
Improved pasture
Alfisol
40
0.33
957.0
4.31
12.50
13.37
38.77
Spodoso
20-
76
Improved pasture
1
40
0.31
899.0
1.47
4.26
2.31
6.70
Mean
2.70
7817.9
4.11
11.91
7.74
22.43
SD
4.86
14101.1
3.44
9.99
10.48
30.39
20-
78
Mix shrub
Histosol
40
0.5
1203.5
2.05
4.93
1.91
4.60
20-
80
Mix shrub
Alfisol
40
0.41
1189.0
3.32
9.63
1.59
4.61
20-
82
Mix shrub
Entisol
40
0.39
1131.0
2.52
7.31
2.94
8.53
20-
84
Mix shrub
Histosol
40
0.26
625.8
0.68
1.64
0.35
0.84
Mean
0.39 _
1037.33
2.14
5.88
1.70
4.64
SD
0.10
276.12
1.11
3.41
1.07
3.14
20-
86
Oak
Entisol
40
0.17
493.0
1.36
3.94
2.33
6.76
20-
88
Oak
Alfisol
40
0.24
696.0
2.37
6.87
3.62
10.50
20-
90
Oak
Alfisol
40
0.74
2146.0
3.09
8.96
1.47
4.26
Mean
0.38
1111.7
2.27
6.59
2.47
7.17
SD
0.31
901.5
0.87
2.52
1.08
3.14
Spodoso
20-
92
Ornamentals
1
40
1.21
3509.0
2.4
6.96
7.24
21.00
Inceptis
20-
94
Resident
of
40
0.13
377.0
0.91
2.64
1.29
3.74
Spodoso
20-
96
Row crop
1
40
0.36
1044.0
3.83
11.11
3.45
10.01
20-
98
Row crop
Mollisol
40
0.34
986.0
1.07
3.10
1.98
5.74
Mean
0.35
1015.0
2.45
7.11
2.72
7.87
SD
0.01
41.0
1.95
5.66
1.04
3.01
20-
100
Sugarcane
Histosol
40
2.14
5151.0
4.1
9.87
2.41
5.80
20-
102
Sugarcane
Histosol
40
0.36
866.5
1.76
4.24
4.05
9.75
Mean
1.25
3008.8
2.93
7.05
3.23
7.77
SD
1.26
3029.6
1.65
3.98
1.16
2.79
104
Tree crop
Ultisol
20-
0.19
551.0
1.27
3.68
5.51
15.98
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- 09Nutrient- BudgetO9\Task4\Task4r pt_flnll(6 -22
I O).docx Page 17
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
* Kg ha- ltotal nitrogen is calculated by multiplying N concentration (g kg -1) with the amount of soil in one
hectare area up to 20 cm depth. A value of 1.45 g cm -3 is used for mean soil bulk density in the above
calculation except for Histosol which is 1.20 g cm 3.
Table 3. Four RSN risk classes (MacDonald, 2000)
Risk Class Low Risk Moderately Low Risk Moderately High Risk High Risk
RSN(kg N ha -') <20 20 -40 40 -60 >60
C: \Documents and Setdngs\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- 09Nutrient- BudgetO9\Task4\Task4rpt _fina1(6 -22-
I0).docX Page 18
40
20-
106
Tree crop
Ultisol
40
0.48
1392.0
1.81
5.25
5.69
16.50
20-
108
Tree crop
Entisol
40
0.18
522.0
1.1
3.19
2.33
6.76
Mean
0.28
821.7
1.39
4.04
4.51
13.08
SD
0.17
494.1
0.37
1.08
1.89
5.48
Spodoso
20-
110
Unimproved pasture
1
40
0.49
1421.0
1.34
3.89
4.91
14.24
Spodoso
20-
112
Unimproved pasture
1
40
0.25
725.0
3.84
11.14
0.51
1.48
Spodoso
20-
114
Unimproved pasture
1
40
0.77
2233.0
2.88
8.35
2.07
6.00
Spodoso
20-
116
Unimproved pasture
1
40
0.23
667.0
2.04
5.92
1.64
4.76
20-
118
Unimproved pasture
Alfisol
40
0.8
2320.0
9.65
27.99
0.19
0.55
Spodoso
20-
120
Unimproved pasture
1
40
0.93
2697.0
2.46
7.13
2.59
7.51
Spodoso
20-
122
Unimproved pasture
1
40
0.27
783.0
2.77
8.03
2.15
6.24
Mean
0.53
1549.4
3.57
10.35
2.01
5.82
SD
0.30
860.3
2.79
8.09
1.55
4.50
* Kg ha- ltotal nitrogen is calculated by multiplying N concentration (g kg -1) with the amount of soil in one
hectare area up to 20 cm depth. A value of 1.45 g cm -3 is used for mean soil bulk density in the above
calculation except for Histosol which is 1.20 g cm 3.
Table 3. Four RSN risk classes (MacDonald, 2000)
Risk Class Low Risk Moderately Low Risk Moderately High Risk High Risk
RSN(kg N ha -') <20 20 -40 40 -60 >60
C: \Documents and Setdngs\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- 09Nutrient- BudgetO9\Task4\Task4rpt _fina1(6 -22-
I0).docX Page 18
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- 09\Nutrient- BudgetO9\Task4\Task4rpt _final(6 -22-
I0).docX Page 19
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table 4. Risk Evaluation of soil inorganic nitrate based on four RSN risk classes
Row crop Spodosol ++
Mix shrub Histosol +
+ low risk, ++ moderately low risk, ++ +moderately high risk, + + ++ high risk
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- 09�Nutrient- BudgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt_flnal(6 -22-
I0).docx Page 20
Risk Classes
Land use
Soil <20
20 -40 40 -60
>60 (kg ha')
Citrus
Entisol
+ ++
Field crop
Entisol
++
Improved pasture
Entisol
++
Oak
Entisol
++
Uninmproved pasture
Spodosol
++
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
++ ++
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
++
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
++
Improved pasture
Spodosol
++++
Improved pasture
Spodosol
++
Improved pasture
Spodosol
++
Improved pasture
Spodosol
++
Improved pasture
Spodosol
++
Improved pasture
Spodosol +
Improved pasture
Mollisol
++
Improved pasture
Mollisol
++
Improved pasture
Mollisol
+ ++
Citrus
Spodosol
+ ++
Citrus
Entisol +
Citrus
Entisol
++
Citrus
Spodosol
+ + ++
Coniferous forest
Spodosol
++
Coniferous forest
Spodosol
++
Sugarcane
Histosol
++
Sugarcane
Histosol
++
Field crop
Histosol
+ + ++
Row crop Spodosol ++
Mix shrub Histosol +
+ low risk, ++ moderately low risk, ++ +moderately high risk, + + ++ high risk
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- 09�Nutrient- BudgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt_flnal(6 -22-
I0).docx Page 20
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Table 4 Risk Evaluation of soil nitrate based on four RSN risk classes (continued)
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07 -09\ Nutrient- BudgetO9\Task4\Task4rpt _final(6 -22-
10).docx Page 21
Risk Classes
Land use
Soil
<20
20 -40
40 -60 >60 (kg ha-)
Deciduous
Spodosol
++
Deciduous
Entisol
+ ++
Deciduous
Spodosol
++
Tree crop
Ultisol
++
Tree crop
Ultisol
+ + ++
Citrus
Alfisol
++
Row crop
Mollisol
+ ++
Oak
Alfisol
++
Oak
Alfisol
+ ++
Mix shrub
Alfisol
+
Mix shrub
Entisol
++
Mix shrub
Histosol
+
Improved pasture
Alfisol
+ ++
Improved pasture
Spodosol
+ ++
Unimproved pasture
Alfisol
++
Unimproved pasture
Spodosol
++
Deciduous
Spodosol
++
Deciduous
Histosol
++
Tree crop
Entisol
+ ++
Citrus groves
Inceptisol
++
Resident
Inceptisol
+ +++
Ornamentals
Spodosol
++
Dairy
Spodosol
+ ++
Cypress
Histosol
+
Cypress
Histosol
+
Coniferous forest
Spodosol
++
Hardwood regeneration
Spodosol
+ + ++
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07 -09\ Nutrient- BudgetO9\Task4\Task4rpt _final(6 -22-
10).docx Page 21
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
Hardwood/Coniferous mixed Entisol ++
Unimproved pasture Spodosol ++
+ low risk, ++ moderately low risk, +++moderately high risk, + + ++ high risk
C: \Documents and Settings\jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07 -09N utrient- BudgetO9 \Task4 \Task4rpt_flnal(6 -22-
10).docx Page 22
Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed
References
MacDonald, K.B. 2000. Risk of water contamination by nitrogen. 2000 Environmental
Sustainability of Canadian Agriculture; Report of the Agri - Environmental Indicator Project.
Agriculture and Agri -Food Canada, Ottawa, Ont, pp. 117 -123.
Yang, J.Y., E.C. Huffman, R.D. Jong, V. Kirkwood, K.B. MacDonald, and C.F. Drury. 2007. Residual
soil nitrogen in soil landscapes of Canada as affected by land use practices and agricultural
policy scenarios, Land Use Policy 24: 89 -99.
SWET (Soil and Water Engineering & Technology, Inc.), 2008. Task 2 - Evaluation of Existing
Information. For Project Entitled: Technical Assistance in Review and Analysis of Existing Data
for Evaluation of Legacy Phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed. Final Report to
SFWMD, West Palm Beach, FL
C: \Documents and Settings \jzhang \My Documents\ Proj07- og\Nutrient- BudgetO9\Task4\Task4rpt _flnal(6 -22-
10).docx Page 23
Land Use Code
Acres
0
39479.37593120000
1
51741.50386130000
2
2295.40786993000
3
911.51723839400
4
6316.16940276999
4
1372.55423306410
5
317.84655017300
6
342.07176934200
7
2527.21994875000
8
608.11752362300
10
1534.71337443000
11
518.58261338400
12
293.20389598600
14
13.88183239885
15
70.20045879460
16
1056.47878410000
17
115.92359986000
18
207.52813941800
19
42.45611726550
20
110.38116922400
21
93.33837718060
22
35.62620359800
23
100.71305367700
25
23.96809244010
26
98.27494377400
27
252.47416836000
28
869.46186961000
29
72.70637974080
30
33.01037414500
32
11.28484741080
33
5.66719904424
34
16.10514719910
35
1727.75078972000
36
22.24077517750
37
557.18015319700
38
16191.25345310000
39
212.98970815200
40
595.50263936100
41
348.74787199700
42
41.24508944570
43
26.04032862420
44
99.29310902780
46
2.36746804013
47
699.98985116400
48
563.35500476500
49
152.22088816500
51
19669.29234180000
52
44695.32287120000
60
82609.29668300000
66
58085.85881760000
67
3099.05197579000
69
3499.52127623000
70
16151.58993630000
71
826.67272327100
72
361.85555904200
73
179.94046912300
74
29.52881387510
75
1238.36953950000
76
85.64352714140
77
103.82165155700
78
28.02332275880
79
71.27904277170
82
620369.40917400000
83
2333.09693164000
84
409.64190229200
86
29882.99971280000
87
212695.58564600000
88
3467.55202812000
89
1593.01007557000
90
32.96657780680
91
419.97231912100
92
944.88583030500
94
5078.73295714000
95
4523.10097813000
96
6951.08195973000
97
1292.42893931000
99
43424.12945630000
TOTAL
1296881.60513875000
Nutrient Budget Analysis for Collier County, Florida
This methodology is based on work performed by HDR Engineering for the South Florida Water
Management District for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed." As a part of this study, Total Phosphorous
and Total Nitrogen Budgets were determined for a wide variety of land uses based on FLUCS codes. Not
all of these land uses are present in Collier County, but there is a major overlap and the soil types and
rainfalls should be similar enough for estimation purposes.
The factors in metric tons per hectare for each land use for imports, exports, net imports, rainfall, source
discharge and onsite storage were computed. To obtain a generic budget by land use type, the factors
were divided by the number of hectares of that land use in the Okeechobee basin. This then gave a
general factor that can be multiplied by the hectares of each land use in Collier County to obtain total
Phosphorous and Total Nitrogen Budgets by land use type (Tables 1 & 2)
Land use /acreage information was obtained from the Collier County Tax Assessor's office and from the
Conservancy of Southwest Florida. This allowed the construction of an approximate parallel to the land
uses for the Okeechobee watershed. The biggest area of deviation is wetlands since they are not
classified in the tax assessor's database and reside mostly on barren land and pastures. The whole
wetlands number from the Conservancy was used, but this use results in an overestimation of the total
land. These data are shown in (Tables 3 & 4).
The computed number of greatest interest is that for source discharge since this is a measure of releases
to the surface water systems. Based on this number and ignoring wetlands for the time being, the
greatest contributions to the Phosphorous Budget are from: citrus, residential -high density and field
crops. The order of contributions to Nitrogen Budget is: citrus, field crops and residential -low density.
In both cases, the contribution from agriculture is more than twice that from urban activities.
The Conservancy of SWFL also provided acreage by land use by Water Body ID (WBID) which facilitates
this analysis further (see Figure 1). By selecting WBIDS that are predominately agricultural or urban it is
possible to calculate impacts of specific WBIDS. Tables 5 & 6 contain nutrient balances by WBID by land
use categories for P and N, respectively. These can be summed to give an approximate WBID value. Not
all WBIDS were included in this analysis since the purpose was to demonstrate contrasts in WBIDS with
differing land uses.
Again, the Wetlands values may be obscuring other factors and for the time being are not considered.
For Phosphate, the WBIDs with the largest Source Discharges were: 3278D, , 3278K, 32780 and 3278V
for urban runoff impacts and 32591, 3278T and 3278W for agricultural runoff impacts. For Nitrogen, the
WBIDS with the largest Source Discharges were: 3278S for urban runoff impacts and 3278F, 3278L,
3278T, 3278U, 3278V and 3278W for agricultural runoff impacts.
This exercise helps to target areas where preventive measures should be focused.
" HDR Engineering Inc., University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, JGH Engineering, Soil and
Water Engineering Technology, Inc., Nutrient Budget Analysis for the Lake Okeechobee Watershed Task 4 Nutrient
Budget Analysis, prepared for South Florida Water Management District, June 2010.
(L i
Total Phosphorous Budget by Land
Use Per Hectare (in Metric Tons per Year)
Source
Onsite
Lake 0
Land Use
Imports
Exports
Net Import
Rainfall
Discharge
Storage
Hectares
Improved Pasture
0.005941
0.001182251
0.00476
0.000219368
0.000814326
0.004164705
273,969
Unimproved Pasture
0
0.000641586
- 0.00064
0.000225011
0.000240215
- 0.000656789
131549
Residential- Medium Density
0.022883
5.72814E -05
0.022742
0.000228467
0.007702601
0.015264859
30639
Reside ntial =Low Density
0.008259
3.1971E -05
0.008227
0.000227793
0.000203815
0.008251186
75068
Residential - Mobile Homes
0.066356
0.021299751
0.045072
0.000217662
0.002985075
0.042304104
6432
Golf Course
0.032287
0
0.032287
0.000230415
0.000432028
0.032114055
3472
Residential -High Density
0.03076
0.000489631
0.030242
0.000806452
0.010080645
0.020967742
11314
Other Urban
0.001734
0
0.001734
0.000234582
0.002080743
- 0.000112599
42629
Horse Farms
1
0
0.019329
0.000231481
0.000347222
0.019212963
864
Dairy
0.088111
0.038428179
0.049683
0.000211551
0.000179818
0.049714407
9454
Abandoned Dairy
0.005243
0.005242868
0.001079
0.004163454
0.019866358
- 0.015471601
3891
Tree Nurseries
0.022085
0.005156951
0.016928
0.000224215
0.003251121
0.013901345
892
Ornamentals
0.021765
0.029778018
- 0.00801
0.000162426
0.002490525
- 0.010286952
1847
Aquaculture
0.06309
0.004291845
0.058798
0
0.001716738
0.057081545
233
Field Crops
0.039968
0.172103004
0.007392
0.000243704
0.001380991
0.006255077
1231
Truck Crops
0.081614
0.048798384
0.032826
0.000212675
0.000233943
0.032805189
9404
Citrus
0.01605
0.004706036
0.011343
0.000224193
0.00222182
0.092789641
99468
Wetlands
0
0
0
0.000228994
0.000259928
- 3.09343E -05
248915
Water Bodies
0
0
0
0.000224797
0.000257393
- 3.25956E -05
88969
Forested- Coniferous
0
0
0
0.000228841
0.00001907
0.000209771
83901
Forested - Deciduous
0
0
0
0.00021911
1.64333E -05
0.000202677
54767
Barren Land
0
0
0
0.000221279
0.000765504
- 0.000544226
16721
Poultry
0
0
0
0
0
0
89
Commercial Forrestry
0.01401
0.015825436
- 0.00182
0.000234414
7.4813E -05
- 0.00165586
20050
Sod Farm
0.037621
0.054064309
- 0.01645
0.000212219
0.005067524
- 0.021305466
15550
Total Nitrogen Budget by Land
Use Per Hectare (in Metric
Tons per Year)
Source
Onsite
Lake 0
Land Use
Imports
Exports
Net Import
Rainfall
Discharge
Storage
Hectares
Improved Pasture
0.043985
0.000142352
0.078495
0.002337126
0.004361077
0.076471061
273,969
Unimproved Pasture
0
0.004114056
- 0.00411
0.006491878
0.005683814
- 0.003305992
131549
Residential- Medium Density
0.180391
0.000789843
0.179598
0.006576585
0.022530109
0.163644375
30639
Residential -Low Density
0.068955
0.000178505
0.068776
0.006579368
0.006014547
0.069339799
75068
Residential - Mobile Homes
0.066356
0.021299751
0.045072
0.000217662
0.002985075
0.042304104
6432
Golf Course
0.124136
0
0.124136
0.006912442
0.000403226
0.130645161
3472
Residential -High Density
0.067695
0.000857345
0.066838
0.007026693
0.011198515
0.062656885
11314
Other Urban
0.024258
0
0.024258
0.006753618
0.00911586
0.021895892
42629
Horse Farms
0.058449
0
0.058449
0.006712963
0.000925926
0.064236111
864
Dairy
0.645854
0.197260419
0.448593
0.008504337
0.000232706
0.454326211
9454
Abandoned Dairy
0.027885
0.007016191
0.020869
0.00616808
0.005911077
0.021125675
3891
Tree Nurseries
0.151009
0.022197309
0.128812
0.005605381
0.006502242
0.127914798
892
Ornamentals
0.076394
0.238224147
- 0.16178
0.005305901
0.012236058
- 0.16870601
1847
Aquaculture
0.031888
0.299131631
0.019742
0.006008584
0.002145923
0.02360515
233
Field Crops
0.199919
0.199918765
0
0.006661251
0.005848903
0.000812348
1231
Truck Crops
0.040812
0.140716716
- 0.0999
0.006263292
0.001265419
- 0.094906423
9404
Citrus
0.216594
0.000392086
0.216202
0.006437246
0.012011903
0.210627539
99468
Wetlands
0
0
0
0.006606271
0.001474801
0.005131471
248915
Water Bodies
0
0
0
0.006473041
0.003636098
0.002836943
88969
Forested - Coniferous
0
0
0
0.006606596
0.000468409
0.006138187
83901
Forested- Deciduous
0
0
0
0.006306718
0.000412657
0.00589406
54767
Barren Land
0
0
0
0.006369236
0.007643084
- 0.001267867
16721
Poultry
0
0
0
0.005617978
0.001123596
0.005617978
89
Commercial Forrestry
0.056045
0.067825436
- 0.01178
0.006758105
0.007451372
- 0.012478803
20050
Sod Farm
0.200547
0.198752412
0.001788
0.006045016
0.004926045
0.002906752
15550
.T-lb L. :3
3500
1416
31.28
7.30
23.97
0.32
4.60
19.69
Collier County - Total Phosphorous Budget by Land Use (in Metric Tons per Year)
Collier Colliee
Aquaculture
1550
627
39.57
2.69
Source
Onsite
Land Use
acres ha
Field Crops
Imports
Exports
Net Imports
Rainfall
Discharge
Storage
Improved Pasture
35939
14544
213.52
42.49
171.06
7.88
29.27
149.67
Unimproved Pasture
Citrus
58086
23507
377.29
110.62
266.64
5.27
Residential- Medium Density
2527
1023
23.40
0.06
23.26
0.23
7.88
15.61
Residential -Low Density
51742
20939
172.94
0.67
172.27
4.77
4.27
172.77
Residential - Mobile Homes
2295
929
61.64
19.79
41.87
0,20
2.77
39,30
Golf Course
8600
3480
112.37
0.00
112.37
0.80
1.50
111.77
Residential -High Density
9868
3993
122.83
1.96
120.76
3.22
40.25
83.73
Other Urban
26816
10852
18.81
0.00
18.81
2.55
22.58
-1.22
Horse Farms
Dairy
Abandoned Dairy
Tree Nurseries
3500
1416
31.28
7.30
23.97
0.32
4.60
19.69
Ornamentals
Aquaculture
1550
627
39.57
2.69
36.88
0.00
1.08
35.80
Field Crops
64365
26047
1041.05
4482.85
192.55
6.35
35.97
162,93
Truck Crops
Citrus
58086
23507
377.29
110.62
266.64
5.27
52.23
2181.16
Wetlands
1549227
626950
0.00
0.00
0.00
143.57
162.96
-19.39
Water Bodies
Forested - Coniferous
88924.6
35987
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.24
0.69
7.55
Forested- Deciduous
Barren Land
49448
20011
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.43
15.32
-10.89
Poultry
1550
627
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Commercial Forrestry
Sod Farm
1954435 -
799933
2244.78
4668.4'
1180.44
187.82
-3 _0 133 -7
X4$.47
Collier County - Total Nitrogen Budget by Land
Use (in Metric Tons per
Year)
Source
Onsite
Land Use
Imports
Exports
Net Imports Rainfall
Discharge
Storage
Improved Pasture
35939
14544
639.72
2.07
1141.63
33.99
63.43
1112.19
Unimproved Pasture
Residential- Medium Density
2527
1023
184.49
0.81
183.68
6.73
23.04
167.36
Residential -Low Density
51742
20939
1443.85
3.74
1440.11>
137,77
125.94
1451.91'
Residential- Mobile Homes
2295
929
61.64
19.79
41.87
0.20
2.77
39.30
Golf Course
8600
3480
432.03
0.00
432.03
24.06
1.40
454.68
Residential -High Density
9868
3993
270.32
3.42
266.90
28.06
44.72
250.21
Other Urban
26816
10852
263.25
0.00
263.25
73.29
98,93
237.62
Horse Farms
Dairy
Abandoned Dairy
Tree Nurseries
3500
1416
213.86
31.44
182.42
7.94
9.21
181.15
Ornamentals
Aquaculture
1550
627
20.00
187.61
12.38
3.77
1.35
14.80
Field Crops
64365
26047
5207.38
5207.38
0,00
173.51
152.35
21.16';
Truck Crops
Citrus
58086,
23507
5091,38
` 912
5082.16
151.32
282.36
4951.12
Wetlands
1549227
626950
0.00
0.00
0.00
4141.80
924.63
3217.18
Water Bodies
Forested - Coniferous
88924.6
35987
0.00
0.00
0.00
237.75
16.86
220.89
Forested - Deciduous
Barren Land
49448''
20011
0.00
0,00
0.00
127,45
152.94
- 25.37
Poultry
1550
627
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.52
0.70
3.52
Commercial Forrestry
Sod Farm
13827.92
5465.4589
9046.44064
5151.155
1900.624
12297.73
Collier County Phosphate Balance by WBID
8/21/2012
A
B
C
M
N
O
P
Ct
R
S
WBID
LAND USE
ACRES
HECTARES
IMPORTS
EXPORTS
NET
IMPORTS
RAINFALL
SOURCE
DISCHARGE
ONSITE
STORAGE
2
3
L
8063
8063
8064
8064
3235L
3235L
3235L
3258F
3258F
3258F
3259A
3259A
3259A
3259A
32598
3259B
3259B
32596
32591
32591
32591
32591
3259M
3259M
3259M
3259M
3259W
3259Z
3261B
3261B
3261B
3261B
3261C
3261C
3261C
3261C
3261C
3269A
3279C
3278C
3278C
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
UPLAND FORESTS
WETLANDS
AGRICULTURE
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
AGRICULTURE
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
WETLANDS
AGRICULTURE
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
WETLANDS
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
WETLANDS
WETLANDS
UPLAND FORESTS
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
UPLAND FORESTS
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
81.96
12.26
5.47
1511.59
15831.93
145.97
36.98
89.26
52.74
2578.36
6.73
9036
146.37
2808.00
3044.83
832.51
638.79
19883.28
39161.20
2552.06
6326.57
54543.40
59.31
150.08
611.63
114532.49
13048.62
4.71
7942.78
33027.61
249.59
448522.30
48.10
1232.59
461.24
164.00
63347.27
8.33
116.52
221.06
1207.21
33
5
2
612
6407
59
15
36
21
1043
3
37
59
1136
1232
337
259
8046
15848
1033
2560
22073
24
61
248
46350
5281
2
3214
13366
101
181511
19
499
187
66
25636
3
47
89
489
0.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
102.83
0.87
0.00
0.53
0.00
23.88
0.00
0.54
0.00
26.00
48.87
4.95
0.00
0.00
1565.18
15.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
47.19
0.00
0.83
0.00
0.00
7.32
0.00
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.69
0.00
4.03
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.15
0.17
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.07
5.80
0.98
0.00
0.00
2 -55
3.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.02
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
72.68
0.69
0.00
0.42
0.00
23.73
0.00
0.43
0.00
25.84
13.98
3.96
0.00
0.00
117.15
12.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
37.80
0.00
0.83
0.00
0.00
5.87
0.00
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.00
4.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.14
1.44
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.24
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.26
0.28
0.18
0.06
1.84
3.86
0.56
0.59
5.05
0.01
0.03
0.06
10.61
1.21
0.00
1.74
3.06
0.02
41.56
0.00
0.27
0.04
0.02
5.87
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.11
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.16
14.24
0.12
0.00
0.07
0.00
8.04
0.00
0.07
OM
8.75
2.74
0.68
0.00
2.09
21.89
108
0.05
5.74
0.02
0.12
0.00
1105
1.37
0.00
6.47
0.25
OA2
47.18
0.01
1.00
0.00
0.01
6.66
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.10
0.34
0.00
0.00
-0.02
594.50
0.61
0.00
0.37
0.00
15.93
0.00
0.38
0.01
17.35
114.34
3.47
0.05
-0.25
99.13
10.63
0.54
-0.68
-0.01
0.63
0.05
-1.43
-0.16
0.00
33.08
2.80
0.83
-5.61
-0.01
5.13
0.04
0.55
-0.79
0.00
0.49
0.02
4.03
4
5
61
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
8/21/2012
Collier County Phosphate Balance by WBID
8/21/2012
A
B
C
M
N
O
P
q
R
S
1
WBID
LAND USE
ACRES
HECTARES
IMPORTS
EXPORTS
NET
IMPORTS
RAINFALL
SOURCE
DISCHARGE
ONSITE
STORAGE
2
S8
3278D
3278D
3278D
3278D
3278D
3278E
3278E
3278E
3278E
3278E
3278E
3278F
3278F
3278F
3278F
3278F
3278G
3278G
3278G
32786
3278G
3278H
3278H
3278H
3278H
3278H
3278H
32781
32781
32781
32781
3278K
3278K
3278K
3278L
3278L
3278L
3278L
3278L
3278M
3278M
3278M
3278M
3278M
32780
32780
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
AGRICULTURE
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
AGRICULTURE
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
AGRICULTURE
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
AGRICULTURE
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
42.68
473.71
731.24
13326.96
14919.30
15674.05
100.05
475.53
891.05
1144.26
16533.57
18152.38
2487.79
3004.41
1260.12
35435.70
48.10
349.78
1988.46
148.42
148490.07
4478.63
354.70
4554.03
4124.59
12130.39
29952.21
1225.85
1209.48
295.27
98237.71
94.81
278.86
7611.68
20890.86
396.85
555.20
2110.85
15960.60
284.95
1708.97
11760.00
63.45
121594.13
31.42
166.24
17
192
296
5393
6038
6343
40
192
361
463
6691
7346
1007
1216
510
14340
19
142
805
60
60092
1812
144
1843
1669
4909
12121
496
489
119
39755
38
113
3080
8454
161
225
854
6459
115
692
4759
26
49207
13
67
0.00
2.81
0.00
123.41
0.00
251.57
0.00
2.83
0.00
30.73
0.00
725.51
14.78
0.00
4.21
0.00
0.00
2.08
0.00
0.50
0.00
179.00
0.00
27.06
0.00
40.54
0.00
7.28
0.00
0.99
0.00
0.56
0.00
70.49
834.96
2.36
0.00
19.55
0.00
0.00
10.15
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.99
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.31
0.00
29.85
0.00
0.56
0.00
9.86
0.00
1.18
2.94
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
538
0.00
0.16
0.00
1.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.18
11.06
0.47
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
2.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
2.25
0.00
122.65
0.00
71.95
0.00
2.26
0.00
20.87
0.00
54.30
11.84
0.00
4.20
0.00
0.00
1.66
0.00
0.49
0.00
13.40
0.00
21.68
0.00
40.39
0.00
5.83
0.00
0.98
0.00
0.45
0.00
70.05
62.50
1.89
0.00
19.43
0.00
0.00
8.13
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.00
0.10
0.07
1.23
1.38
1.42
0.01
0.10
0.08
0.10
1.53
1.79
0.55
0.28
0.12
3.28
0.00
0.08
0.18
0.01
13.76
0.44
0.03
1.00
0.38
1.12
2.78
0.27
0.11
0.03
9.10
0.02
0.03
0.70
2.06
0.09
0.05
0.20
1.48
0.03
0.37
1.09
0.01
11.27
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.39
0.01
41.54
1.57
14.09
0.03
0.39
0.01
1.38
1.74
10.14
2.03
0.02
0.10
3.73
0.01
0.28
0.02
0.01
15.62
2.50
0.11
331
0.03
1.00
3.15
1.00
0.01
0.02
10.33
0.08
0.00
23.73
11.68
0.32
0.00
6.58
1.68
0.09
1.39
OA9
0.01
1179
0.01
0.14
-0.01
1.97
0.06
82.33
-0.19
588.57
-0.02
1.98
0.08
19.59
-0.21
45.95
10.36
0.26
4.21
-044
-0.01
1.46
0.17
0.50
-1.86
1134
-0.08
18.97
0.35
40.51
-0.37
5.11
0 -10
0.99
-1.23
039
0.02
47.02
52.88
1.65
0.05
13.04
-0.20
-0.06
7.12
IM
0.21
-1.52
-0A1
0.69
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
8/21/2012
Collier County Phosphate Balance by WBIO
8/21/2012
A
B
C
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
1
WBID
LAND USE
ACRES
HECTARES
IMPORTS
EXPORTS
NET
IMPORTS
RAINFALL
SOURCE
DISCHARGE
ONSITE
STORAGE
2
113
32780
32780
32780
3278P
3278P
3278P
3278P
3278Q
3278Q
3278R
3278R
3278R
3278R
32785
32785
32785
32785
3278T
3278T
3278T
3278T
3278T
3278U
327BU
3278U
3278U
3278U
3278V
3278V
3278V
3278V
3278V
3278V
3278W
3278W
3278W
3278W
3278W
3278W
3278Y
3278Y
3278Y
3278Y
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
AGRICULTURE
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
AGRICULTURE
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
AGRICULTURE
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
AGRICULTURE
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
WETLANDS
BARREN LAND
RANGELAND
UPLAND FORESTS
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
24.99
4888.06
23653.86
56.28
97.64
93.83
2752.75
7496.89
22.59
5993.70
4.23
42.59
351.29
8081.15
4859.90
369.67
2749.32
5157.37
48774.13
24682.46
33551.25
1621.59
5813.14
85.12
57491.19
59.45
1612.91
1495.62
3826.25
40003.79
8582.84
222.27
2330.45
5695.97
4721.18
64125.61
43300.99
394.75
1857.62
2939.30
1271.81
37994.01
184.22
277.97
1209.42
9233.03
10
1978
9572
23
40
38
1114
3034
9
2426
2
17
142
3270
1967
150
1113
2087
19738
9989
13578
656
2352
34
23266
24
653
605
1548
16189
3473
90
943
2305
1911
25951
17523
160
752
1189
515
15376
75
112
489
3736
0.00
45.26
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.00
25.49
0.00
0.00
55.50
0.00
0.25
0.00
74.83
194.24
0.00
16.33
0.00
163.02
0.00
538.51
9.63
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.00
9.58
0.00
35.43
0.00
343.03
0.00
13.85
0.00
43.72
0.00
695.00
0.00
11.04
0.00
4.25
0.00
0.00
1.65
0.00
85.50
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.19
2.57
0.00
3.25
0.00
0.63
0.00
63.90
1.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.91
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.56
0.00
2.76
0.00
0.11
0.00
82.47
0.00
2.20
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.00
0.21
0.00
44.99
0.00
0.00
0.46
0.00
25.33
0.00
0.00
55.16
0.00
0.20
0.00
74.37
14.54
0.00
13.09
0.00
162.39
0.00
154.02
7.72
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.00
7.68
0.00
35.21
0.00
25.68
0.00
11.09
0.00
43.45
0.00
198.77
0.00
8.84
0.00
4.23
0.00
0.00
1.32
0.00
84.98
0.00
0.45
2.19
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.25
0.69
0.00
0.55
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.75
0.48
0.03
0.60
0.48
4.50
2.29
3.04
0.36
0.54
0.01
5.33
0.01
0.35
0.14
0.35
3.71
0.85
0.02
0.51
0.53
0.44
5.94
3.93
0.04
0.41
0.27
0.12
3.52
0.02
0.06
0.11
0.85
0.00
15.24
2.49
0.02
0.08
0.00
8.58
0.79
0.00
18.68
0.00
0.03
0.00
25.19
2.72
0.11
2.24
0.04
4.02
2.60
30.17
1.32
0.04
0.01
6.05
0.02
1.31
0.01
11.93
4.21
4.80
0.07
1.90
0.04
14.72
6.75
38.93
0.12
1.51
0.02
0.10
4.00
0.06
0.23
0.01
28.78
0.00
30.20
-030
-0.01
0.41
0.01
17.01
-0.09
0.00
37.03
0.00
0.18
0.03
49.92
12.30
-0.08
11.45
0.44
162.86
-0.31
1259.87
6.75
0.49
0.28
-0.72
-0.01
6.72
0.13
23.64
-0.50
21.73
-0.05
9.71
0.48
29.16
-0.80
1625.98
-0.09
7.74
0.25
4.25
-0.48
-0.04
1.16
0.10
57.04
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
1213279P
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
13132785
132
133
1343278S
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
8/21/2012
Collier County Phosphate Balance by WBID
8/21/2012
A
B
C
M
N
O
1 P
Q
R
S
1
WBID
LAND USE
ACRES
HECTARES
IMPORTS
EXPORTS
NET
IMPORTS
RAINFALL
SOURCE
DISCHARGE
ONSITE
STORAGE
2
168
8061C
8061C
8061G
80616
8062C
8063A
8064A
8064A
80648
8064C
8064C
8064D
8064D
8064E
IND02
IND03
IND03
RANGELAND
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
RANGELAND
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
RANGELAND
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
RANGELAND
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
RANGELAND
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
UPLAND FORESTS
BARREN LAND
UPLAND FORESTS
41.75
157.58
41.75
42.56
253.55
310.30
53.92
357.11
302.14
17.34
393.98
25.99
241.76
229.54
7.51
77.26
16.51
17
64
17
17
103
126
22
145
122
7
159
11
98
93
3
31
7
0.25
1.96
0.25
0.53
3.16
3.86
0.32
4.45
3.76
0.10
4.90
0.15
3.01
2.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.08
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
1.93
0.20
0.52
3.10
3.80
0.26
437
3.70
0.08
4.82
0.12
2.96
2.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.10
0.01
0.12
0.10
0.00
0.13
0.01
0.08
0.07
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.64
0.03
0.17
1.03
1.27
0.04
1.46
1.23
0.01
1.61
0.02
0.99
0.94
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.17
1.34
0.17
0.36
2.15
2.63
0.22
3.03
2.56
0.07
3.34
0.11
2.05
1.95
0.00
-0.02
0.00
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
8/21/2012
Collier County Nitrogen Balance by WBID
NET
SOURCE
ONSITE
WBID
LAND USE
ACRES
HECTARES
IMPORTS
EXPORTS
IMPORTS
RAINFALL
DISCHARGE
STORAGE
8063
RANGELAND
81.96
33.17
1.46
0.00
2.60
0.08
0.14
2.54
8063
UPLAND FORESTS
12.26
4.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
8064
UPLAND FORESTS
5.47
2.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
8064
WETLANDS
1511.59
611.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.04
0.90
3.14
3235L
AGRICULTURE
15831.93
6406.96
1387.71
2.51
1385.20
41.24
76.96
1349.48
3235L
RANGELAND
145.97
59.07
2.60
0.01
4.64
0.14
0.26
4.52
3235L
UPLAND FORESTS
36.98
14.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.01
0.09
3258F
RANGELAND
89.26
36.12
1.59
0.01
2.84
0.08
0.16
2.76
3258E
UPLAND FORESTS
52.74
21.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.01
0.13
3258F
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
2578.36
1043.43
18812
0.82
187.40
6.86
23.51
170.75
3259A
BARREN LAND
6.73
2.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
3259A
RANGELAND
90.76
36.73
1.62
0.01
2.88
0.09
0.16
2.81
3259A
UPLAND FORESTS
14637
59.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.03
0.36
3259A
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
2808.00
1136.36
204.99
0.90
204.09
7.47
25.60
185.96
3259B
AGRICULTURE
3044.83
1232.20
266.89
0.48
266.40
7.93
14.80
259.54
3259B
RANGELAND
832.51
336.90
14.82
0.05
26.45
0.79
1.47
25.76
32598
UPLAND FORESTS
638.79
258.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.71
0.12
1.59
32598
WETLANDS
19883.28
8046.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
53.16
11.87
41.29
32591
AGRICULTURE
39161.20
15847.99
3168.31
3168.31
0.00
105.57
92.69
12.87
32591
RANGELAND
2552.06
1032.78
45.43
0.15
81.07
2.41
4.50
78.98
32591
UPLAND FORESTS
6326.57
2560.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.91
1.20
15.72
32591
WETLANDS
54543.40
22072.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
145.82
32.55
113.27
3259M
BARREN LAND
59.31
24.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.18
-0.03
3259M
RANGELAND
150.08
60.73
2.67
0.01
4.77
0.14
0.26
4.64
3259M
UPLAND FORESTS
611.63
247.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.64
0.12
1.52
3259M
WETLANDS
114532.49
46349.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
306.20
68.36
237.84
3259W
WETLANDS
13048.62
5280.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
34.89
7.79
27.10
3259Z
UPLAND FORESTS
4.71
1.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
3261B
BARREN LAND
115.93
46.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
0.36
-0.06
3261B
RANGELAND
7942.78
3214.33
141.38
0.46
252.31
7.51
14.02
245.80
3261B
UPLAND FORESTS
33027.61
13365.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
88.30
6.26
82.04
32616
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
249.59
101.00
6.96
0.02
6.95
0.66
0.61
7.00
32618
WETLANDS
448522.30
181510.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
1199.11
267.69
931.42
3261C
BARREN LAND
48.10
19.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.15
-0.02
3261C
RANGELAND
1232.59
498.81
21.94
0.07
39.15
1.17
2.18
38.14
3261C
UPLAND FORESTS
461.24
186.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.23
0.09
1.15
3261C
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
164.00
66.37
4.58
0.01
4.56
0.44
0.40
4.60
3261C
WETLANDS
63347.27
25635.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
169.36
37.81
131.55
3269A
UPLAND FORESTS
8.33
3.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
8/21/2012
1
Collier County Nitrogen Balance by WBID
NET
SOURCE
ONSITE
WBID
LAND USE
ACRES
HECTARES
IMPORTS
EXPORTS
IMPORTS
RAINFALL
DISCHARGE
STORAGE
3278C
RANGELAND
116.52
47.15
2.07
0.01
3.70
0.11
0.21
3.61
3278C
UPLAND FORESTS
221.06
89.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.59
0.04
0.55
3278C
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
1207.21
488.54
33.69
0.09
33.60
3.21
2.94
33.88
3278D
BARREN LAND
42.68
17.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.13
-0.02
3278D
RANGELAND
473.71
191.70
8.43
0.03
15.05
0.45
0.84
14.66
3278D
UPLAND FORESTS
731.24
295.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.96
0.14
1.82
3278D
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
13326.96
5393.23
972.89
4.26
968.61
35.47
121.51
882.57
3278D
WETLANDS
14919.30
6037.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
39.89
8.90
30.98
3278E
AGRICULTURE
15674.05
6343.07
1373.87
2.49
1371.39
40.83
76.19
1336.02
3278E
BARREN LAND
100.05
40.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.31
-0.05
3278E
RANGELAND
475.53
192.44
8.46
0.03
15.11
0.45
0.84
14.72
3278E
UPLAND FORESTS
891.05
360.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.38
0.17
2.21
3278E
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
1144.26
463.07
30.73
9.86
20.87
0.10
1.38
19.59
3278E
WETLANDS
16533.57
6690.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
44.20
9.87
34.33
3278F
AGRICULTURE
18152.38
7346.01
1468.61
1468.61
0.00
48.93
42.97
5.97
3278E
RANGELAND
2487.79
1006.78
44.28
0.14
79.03
2.35
4.39
76.99
3278F
UPLAND FORESTS
3004.41
1215.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.03
0.57
7.46
3278F
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
1260.12
509.95
35.16
0.09
35.07
3.36
3.07
35.36
3278F
WETLANDS
35435.70
14340.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
94.74
21.15
73.59
3278G
BARREN LAND
48.10
19.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.15
-0.02
3278G
RANGELAND
349.78
141.55
6.23
0.02
11.11
0.33
0.62
10.82
3278G
UPLAND FORESTS
1988.46
804.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.32
0.38
4.94
3278G
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
148.42
60.06
4.14
0.01
4.13
0.40
0.36
4.16
3278G
WETLANDS
148490.07
60091.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
396.98
88.62
308.36
3278H
AGRICULTURE
4478.63
1812.44
362.34
362.34
0.00
12.07
10.60
1.47
3278H
BARREN LAND
354.70
143.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.91
1.10
-0.18
3278H
RANGELAND
4554.03
1842.95
81.06
0.26
144.66
4.31
8.04
140.93
3278H
UPLAND FORESTS
4124.59
1669.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.03
0.78
10.25
3278H
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
12130.39
4909.00
338.50
0.88
337.62
32.30
29.53
340.39
3278H
WETLANDS
29952.21
12121.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
80.08
17.88
62.20
32781
RANGELAND
1225.85
496.09
21.82
0.07
38.94
1.16
2.16
37.94
32781
UPLAND FORESTS
1209.48
489.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.23
0.23
3.00
32781
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
295.27
119.49
8.24
0.02
8.22
0.79
0.72
8.29
32781
WETLANDS
98237.71
39755.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
262.64
58.63
204.00
3278K
RANGELAND
94.81
38.37
1.69
0.01
3.01
0.09
0.17
2.93
3278K
UPLAND FORESTS
278.86
112.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.05
0.69
3278K
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
7611.68
3080.34
555.67
2.43
553.22
20.26
69.40
504.08
3278L
AGRICULTURE
20890.86
8454.24
1690.16
1690.16
0.00
56.32
49.45
6.87
3278L
RANGELAND
396.85
160.60
7.06
0.02
12.61
0.38
0.70
12.28
3278L
UPLAND FORESTS
555.20
224.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.48
0.11
1.38
3278L
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
2110.85
854.23
154.10
0.67
153.42
5.62
19.25
139.79
3278L
WETLANDS
15960.60
6459.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
42.67
9.53
33.14
3278M
BARREN LAND
284.95
115.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.88
-0.15
8/21/2012
2
'?"6 b (k (10
Collier County Nitrogen Balance by WBID
8/21/2012 3
NET
SOURCE
ONSITE
WBID
LAND USE
ACRES
HECTARES
IMPORTS
EXPORTS
IMPORTS
RAINFALL
DISCHARGE
STORAGE
3278M
RANGELAND
1708.97
691.60
30.42
0.10
54.29
1.62
3.02
S2.89
3278M
UPLAND FORESTS
11760.00
4759.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.44
2.23
29.21
3278M
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
63.45
25.68
1.77
0.00
1.77
0.17
0.15
1.78
3278M
WETLANDS
121594.13
49207.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
325.08
72.57
252.51
32780
BARREN LAND
31.42
12.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.10
-0.02
32780
RANGELAND
166.24
67.27
2.96
0.01
5.28
0.16
0.29
5.14
32780
UPLAND FORESTS
24.99
10.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.06
32780
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
4888.06
1978.13
356.84
1.56
355.27
13.01
44.57
323.71
32780
WETLANDS
23653.86
9572.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
63.24
14.12
49.12
3278P
BARREN LAND
56.28
22.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.17
-0.03
3278P
RANGELAND
97.64
39.51
1.74
0.01
3.10
0.09
0.17
102
3278P
UPLAND FORESTS
93.83
37.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.02
0.23
3278P
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
2752.75
1114.00
200.96
0.88
200.07
7.33
25.10
182.30
3278P
WETLANDS
7496.89
3033.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.04
4.47
15.57
3278Q
UPLAND FORESTS
22.59
9.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.06
3278Q
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
5993.70
2425.57
437.55
1.92
435.63
15.95
54.65
396.93
3278R
BARREN LAND
4.23
1.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
3278R
RANGELAND
42.59
17.23
0.76
0.00
1.35
0.04
0.08
1.32
3278R
UPLAND FORESTS
351.29
142.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.07
0.87
3278R
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
8081.15
327033
589.94
2.58
58734
21.51
73.68
535.17
32785
AGRICULTURE
4859.90
1966.73
393.19
393.19
0.00
13.10
11.50
1.60
32785
BARREN LAND
369.67
149.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.95
1.14
-0.19
32785
RANGELAND
2749.32
1112.61
48.94
0.16
87.33
2.60
4.85
85.08
32785
UPLAND FORESTS
5157.37
2087.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.79
0.98
12.81
32785
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
48774.13
19738.21
1361.04
3.52
1357.52
129.86
118.72
1368.64
32785
WETLANDS
24682.46
9988.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
65.99
14.73
51.26
3278T
AGRICULTURE
33551.25
13577.72
2940.86
5.32
2935.53
87.40
163.09
2859.84
3278T
RANGELAND
1621.59
656.24
28.86
0.09
51.51
1.53
2.86
50.18
3278T
UPLAND FORESTS
5813.14
2352.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.54
1.10
14.44
3278T
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
85.12
34.45
2.38
0.01
2.37
0.23
0.21
2.39
3278T
WETLANDS
57491.19
23265.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
153.70
34.31
119.39
3278U
BARREN LAND
59.45
24.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.18
-0.03
3278U
RANGELAND
1612.91
652.72
28.71
0.09
51.24
1.53
2.85
49.91
3278U
UPLAND FORESTS
1495.62
605.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.00
0.28
3.72
3278U
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
3826.25
1548.43
279.32
1.22
278.10
10.18
34.89
253.39
3278U
WETLANDS
40003.79
16188.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
106.95
23.88
83.07
3278V
AGRICULTURE
8582.84
3473.35
694.39
694.39
0.00
23.14
20.32
2.82
3278V
BARREN LAND
222.27
89.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.69
-0.11
3278V
RANGELAND
2330.45
943.10
41.48
0.13
74.03
2.20
4.11
72.12
3278V
UPLAND FORESTS
5695.97
2305.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.23
1.08
14.15
3278V
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
4721.18
1910.60
344.65
1.51
343.14
12.57
43.05
312.66
3278V
WETLANDS
64125.61
25950.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
171.44
38.27
133.17
3278W
AGRICULTURE
43300.99
1752330
3795.45
6.87
3788.58
112.80
210.49
3690.89
8/21/2012 3
-fia bi.L 0
Collier County Nitrogen Balance by WBID
WBID
LAND USE ACRES
HECTARES
IMPORTS
EXPORTS
NET
IMPORTS
SOURCE
RAINFALL DISCHARGE
ONSITE
STORAGE
3278W
BARREN LAND
394.75
159.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.02
1.22
-0.20
3278W
RANGELAND
1857.62
751.75
33.07
0.11
59.01
1.76
3.28
57.49
3278W
UPLAND FORESTS
2939.30
1189.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.86
0.56
7.30
3278W
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
1271.81
514.68
35.49
0.09
35.40
3.39
3.10
35.69
3278W
WETLANDS
37994.01
15375.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
101.58
22.68
78.90
3278Y
BARREN LAND
184.22
74.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.57
-0.09
3278Y
RANGELAND
277.97
112.49
4.95
0.02
8.83
0.26
0.49
8.60
327BY
UPLAND FORESTS
1209.42
489.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.23
0.23
3.00
3278Y
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
9233.03
3736.48
674.03
2.95
671.06
24.57
84.18
611.45
8061C
RANGELAND
41.75
16.89
0.74
0.00
1.33
0.04
0.07
1.29
8061C
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
157.58
63.77
4.32
0.05
4.26
0.45
0.71
4.00
8061G
RANGELAND
41.75
16.89
0.74
0.00
1.33
0.04
0.07
1.29
8061G
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
42.56
17.22
1.17
0.01
1.15
0.12
0.19
1.08
8062C
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
253.55
102.61
6.95
0.09
6.86
0.72
1.15
6.43
8063A
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
310.30
125.57
8.50
0.11
8.39
0.88
1.41
7.87
8064A
RANGELAND
53.92
21.82
0.96
0.00
1.71
0.05
0.10
1.67
8064A
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
357.11
144.52
9.78
0.12
9.66
1.02
1.62
9.06
8064B
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
302.14
122.27
8.28
0.10
8.17
0.86
1.37
7.66
8064C
RANGELAND
17.34
7.02
0.31
0.00
0.55
0.02
0.03
0.54
8064C
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
393.98
159.44
10.79
0.14
10.66
1.12
1.79
9.99
8064D
RANGELAND
25.99
10.52
0.46
0.00
0.83
0.02
0.05
0.80
8064D
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
241.76
97.84
6.62
0.08
6.54
0.69
1.10
6.13
8064E
URBAN AND BUILT -UP
229.54
92.89
6.29
0.08
6.21
0.65
1.04
5.82
IND02
UPLAND FORESTS
7.51
3.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
IND03
BARREN LAND
77.26
31.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.24
-0.04
IND03
UPLAND FORESTS
16.51
6.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
8/21/2012 4