North Spreader Canal Ecosystem Management Agreement Process

November 19, 2008

Technical Committee Meeting Summary Report





The Cape Coral N. Spreader Ecosystem Management Agreement Technical Committee (TC) met on November 19, 2008 at the SW FL Regional Planning Council in Ft. Myers.  The TC was created to support the work of a Stakeholder Group (SG) that will seek consensus on water volume, timing and quality projects that will provide a net ecosystem benefit (NEB) in the Cape Coral North Spreader watershed and receiving wetlands and waters. The focus of this meeting was on refining a proposal for surveying, water quality and quantity modeling in the spreader watershed, potential project descriptions and identifying potential pros and cons of replacing the barrier at the end of the spreader canal. 




The November 19, 2008 meeting of the NS-EMA Technical Committee was held at the SW FL Regional Planning Council from 1:00 to 5:00.  The session began by having everyone introduce themselves, see the list of participants in Appendix A.  The facilitator went over the meeting agenda, objectives and guidelines in Appendix B.


Survey Proposal


Tony Janacki, Technical Committee Chair and Hans Zarbock presented the survey needs and approach proposal and solicited input from the group.  They will build on these past efforts:

Avalon Engineering, 1993 – West Dike

WCIND, 2003 – Canal Bottom Profile

DRMP, 2006 – Ceitus Boat Lift Site

Cape Coral, 2008 - Breach Resurvey

Cross Sections for H&H Models

Aerial Photography

Elevations, plan views and aerial photographs were presented.  The key question is whether the earlier survey work is still accurate.  The current proposed surveying with determine the degree of change.  The proposed approach called for surveying the: west bank only, the top of bank at 500-foot intervals and at observed highs/lows and the width and depth of the breaches.  They will use existing data and aerials for canal footprint and depth.  The final slide was a 1953 aerial photo.  The following are highlights from the resulting discussion:


·       It will take 2-3 weeks to complete the contract and about three weeks to complete the surveying.

·       Soils classification information is needed.  There is some information on soils near where the barrier was removed.  Determine bearing capacity that is probably minimal.

·       Look for bio-perbations, e.g. burrowing by monitor lizards, etc.

·       We need assessments of the landscape. 

·       Conduct field visit to critical hydrological locations.

·       Elevations of the creeks downstream from the barrier are needed to determine volumes.

·       We should use the term “bank” not “dike,” as there is no elevated barrier along the west spreader canal bank.

·       The focus should be on where there are openings.  Elevations every 500’ are not needed.

·       Use RTK methods, GPS data and show the geometry. 

·       Do depths of the breeches.  Do a stick survey of breech 1A and other major outlets in the northern 1/3 of canal to Buzzard Bay.

·       Compare to the 1993 survey to determine if there have been changes due to Hurricane Charlie and other factors. Compare the Avalon results with aerial photographs. 

·       Investigate tidal flows.  How much water comes in the north and goes out the south as is typical in a linear lagoon?  Is there a tidal node?  Document tidal cycles.  There is a lack of tidal data for this area.

·       Install survey monuments on the salterns.

·       We need invert elevations of the breaches.

·       Focus on the most important information needed for modeling and determining net ecosystem benefits.  Consider outflows with and without the barrier.

·       We need to know the effect of the barrier on flushing the system.


This led to a discussion of the overall effort.


·       Detailed modeling may be a long-term out project that is part of the NEB package.

·       We could just work on projects in the watershed and address the receiving waters in the future.

·       This would require going to the Administrative Law Judge and requesting amendments to the Consent Order.

·       We understand the hydrology of the watershed and can determine NEBs there.

·       We have to understand the receiving waters at some level to determine NEBs.

·       The storage in the canal needs to be determined and compared under different scenarios.  Consider the historic distribution to the west.  We should let an equilibrium set in.  More hard structures may not work.

·       The decision about the focus of this process should be determined by the Stakeholder Group not the Technical Committee. 

·       The main issue is where the highest volume of water goes.  The removal of the barrier has created a point source.

·       We need to do both the watershed and the receiving waters and wetlands.


Then Tony Janicki described how a box model could be used.


·       We can look at the watershed and what volumes come into the canal and flows through the breaches in the western bank.

·       The box model can be set up to show the tidal influence and interaction with the freshwater hydraulic head.  Some of this will require best professional judgments when there are not adequate data. This may not be A-1 science and engineering but we can make recommendations within the allowable time frame based on the information available.

·       We can estimate salinity and flows and this can be used to estimate the NEBs.  We can also measure the acres of damage and claim NEBs.

·       We don’t have to engineer the breaches, just assure you don’t increase erosion in the breaches.  If there are more breaches there may not be significant erosion. 

·       We know that the freshwater inflow patterns to the estuary have been altered and that we have too much water in the wet season and too little water in the dry season.  Estimated improvements can be claimed as NEBs.  This and the change in estuary area damage have been used in other projects.

·       Compare this to surrogate ideal creeks to the north.

·       This needs to tell us whether the barrier should be replaced.

·       The box model will show the volume of water coming into and out of the spreader canal but it will not do detailed water level estimates.  It will allow us to do simple water budgets and make adjustments for barrier and opening options.  

·       The model results can be linked to salinities.  The Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program has data for Matlacha Pass.

·       Inter-cell transfers can be calculated to model tidal flows to the south in the spreader canal.

·       The sea level is rising and mangroves are moving up.  In 70 years water will be higher.  We have 25-year projections for mangroves and sea grasses.  This can be accounted for in the box model.  The growth and reproduction of different types of mangroves varies depending on the salinity and water depth.



Water Quantity and Quality Modeling for the Watershed


Tony Janicki provided an update on modeling activity to date.  They have located the SW FL Feasibility Study (SWFFS) data at the Jacksonville USACE office.  There are data for 75 watersheds and the data for these watersheds will need to be compiled.  The models provided for Lee County and the City of Cape Coral by Boyle Engineering were done for flood control but do not provide daily flow estimates.  They have requested the STELLA model too.  Changes to land uses will need to be factored into the SWFFS model.


DEP has established Gator Slough as an impaired water body for Dissolved Oxygen and parts of Matlacha pass for bacteria in shellfish. This may impact the ability to permit EMA projects.  It also means that water quality estimates will be needed for projects.


This water allocation table was presented as a basis for the Stakeholder Group to discuss water allocation using information from the modeling.  Jim Beever provided the data for flows from the watershed into the spreader canal. He pointed out that the wet season flow is three times above historical levels and that the target of historical flows is probably not achievable but that movement can be made towards it.


Watershed Flow Allocation Table




Dry Season


Wet Season


Dry Season


Wet Season

Watershed Rainfall





Spreader Canal

105935 AF/m




Surface Water Storage Areas





Charlotte Flatwoods/Yucca





Caloosahatchee Creeks










CC Irrigation N-S Pumping






Discussion Notes


·       Add columns for current conditions.

·       The model provides historic, current and 2050 flows for the four weirs. 

·       We will put a map of the future land uses on the DEP web site.

·       The N to S pumping from the canals by the City of Cape Coral may take water from the estuary in the dry season.


Further Development of the Project Lists


The Technical Committee looked over the project descriptions in Appendix D that also has comments from the 10-29-08 Stakeholder Group meeting.  These are the notes from the discussion of projects in the Webb Preserve and Yucca Penn.  Oliver Clark will be sending updated information on the projects including data that can be used in the modeling.  Other members were encouraged to do the same.  Tony Janacki will send a map for people to locate the project location and the related watershed.  He will also work with the City, Counties and WMD to do a map of the diversions like the I-75 culverts. 


Webb Projects


·       The problem is water stacking up to the south that then goes north to Webb Lake along I-75 and then to Alligator Creek.  Some goes into Gator Slough under the I-75. When illegal barriers were built on the south side of the Webb property they cut off water to the Caloosahatchee through Hall and the east and west branches of Powell Creek.  Water can’t get to other side of I-75.  The railroad also creates a blockage.

·       Putting culverts under I-75 may and Gator Slough may bring more water

·       We need a way to direct water to the Caloosahatchee River creeks through Powell and other creeks, if it is clean.  There can’t be any nitrogen.  The goal it to reestablish historic creeks. We need to determine how much water could be diverted.

·       The representatives from FWC will talk to Clyde Dabbs at SFWMD to determine what projects and enforcement efforts could be implemented.


Yucca Penn


·       Project #12 Yucca Penn is part of Charlotte Flatwoods.  The goal is to redirect water that is now going to the Gator Slough. 

·       There is a problem the County landfill is in the way.  The Zimmel property is another option but they don’t want water to run through their property.  We may have to move water from Gator Slough back to Yucca Penn. 

·       Mike Kemerer will work with Bill Byle to sketch out a map with alternatives.

·       Project #10 May need restoration of damage from off-road use and fire lines.

·       These projects have been talked about before and the hold up is that they need funding.

·       We need a list of projects and then we will figure out how to fund them.



Should the Barrier be Left Out or Put back?


The group brainstormed these pros and cons of putting the barrier back as an initial step in determining criteria/measures to be considered by the Stakeholder group.


These statements were not discussed, nor was the validity of any statement confirmed.


Pros for Putting the Barrier Back


Decrease potential boat traffic

Decrease fresh water flow to Matlacha pass

Increase water flow to other areas along the spreader

It would increase the hydro period

It would keep areas to the west wet

Reduce saltwater intrusion in areas to the East

Reduces residential development

Increases reuse water for Cape Coral

Fewer boats may protect water quality

Increase the habitat for fisheries

Reduces demand for dredging in Matlacha Pass

Improve stormwater treatment


Cons for Putting the Barrier Back


Replacement money could be used for other projects

There would be less incentive to solve a regional problem

There will be no NEBs

Erosion on the west side and habitat damage

Accelerates the need for central sewage and

Increased saline habitat

Continued maintenance problems

Sea level rise will make this moot


Appendix A

11-19-08 Technical Committee Meeting Participant List



Tony Janicki, Technical Chair

Noel Andress

Jim Beever

Karen Bickford

Bill Byle

Oliver Clark

Jay Garner

Whitney Gray

Alec Hart

Connie Jarvis

Anura Karuna-Muni

Kirk Martin

Jennifer Nelson

Roland Ottolini

Tony Pellicer

Greg Rawl

David Scott

Jack Schrager

Stephanie Smith

Rae Ann Wessel

Hans Zarbock

Tom Taylor

Rafael Montalvo by Skype Video Call


Appendix B

North Spreader Canal Ecosystem Management Agreement Process

Technical Committee Meeting

SW FL Regional Planning Council

1926 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, FL 33990

November 19, 2008, 1:00 to 5:00







1:00     Welcome and introductions

Introductions of attendees

Agenda review, ground rules and consensus process guidelines


            Survey proposal

Review and discuss proposal

Refine as necessary


Update on quantity and quality modeling

Activity to-date

Next steps

Discussion and input


3:00     Break


3:15     Further development of the project lists

How do we develop the lists further – in full Technical Committee, subcommittees, or individual assignments?

For watershed projects

For canal, barrier and receiving waters projects


How do we assess the impacts of leaving the barrier out or putting it back?


4:50     Closing

                  Summary of meeting activities, products and next steps

                  Concluding comments from participants

                  Meeting evaluation


5:00     Adjourn


Appendix C

Cape Coral North Spreader Canal

Survey Data Needs and Approach - DRAFT



This document was prepared for review and comment by the Technical Committee of the North Spreader Canal (NSC) Environmental Management Agreement (EMA). One of the tools to be used in the development of recommendations is a hydrological assessment, including a water budget, of the NSC system. The water budget will provide estimates of inflows, outflows, and storage in the NSC and its tributary canals.


One critical element of the water budget is the relationship between topography and storage capacity in the NSC, that is, how much water will remain in the NSC when the water level is at a certain elevation. Also, the rate at which water enters or leaves the NSC when water levels rise or fall must be estimated for a variety of conditions.


Field survey data is a means of obtaining the above information. The purpose of this paper is to:

·       Summarize existing field survey information of the system, and

·       Suggest potential approaches to best utilize those data or collect new data as appropriate.


The ultimate use of the survey data will be to:

·       Generally characterize the existing system, and

·       Provide a basis for recommending an approach to meeting the Committee’s goals.


Existing Data

Field survey data have been collected for various areas of the NSC system, as follows.


1)     Avalon Engineering surveyed the west NSC dike in 1993. This relatively detailed study identified 20 breaches in the west dike but at the time the Ceitus boatlift was intact and no breach was identified at that site. Detailed survey of the breaches was obtained, as well as west dike top of bank (TOB) elevations at 200 to 300- foot intervals. Although much good information was collected, it is 15 years old and may or may not still reflect on-site conditions.

2)     Bathymetry for the NSC centerline was obtained for the West Coast Inland Navigation District (WCIND) in 2003. A single profile of bottom elevation was developed for the NSC and several tributary canals.

3)     A boundary and topographic survey was conducted for the Ceitus boatlift site in 2006 by Dyer, Riddle, Mills, and Presort, and contains several NSC cross sections in the immediate vicinity of the lift location.


Water Budget

A water budget is needed for the NSC system. As stated above, the water budget would summarize inflows, outflows, and storage for the system. Inflows include surface water runoff, direct rainfall, groundwater seepage, and tidal flows. Outflows include surface discharge through the dike breaches and the south end of the canal, and evapotranspiration. Storage estimates will be made by developing a “stage-storage” relationship that shows how much water is contained in the NSC at a given water elevation. The dimensions of the breaches will in large determine this relationship, as well as the rate at which water can enter and leave the NSC as water levels rise and fall due to stormwater inflows and tidal exchange.


Potential Approaches

It should be noted that different levels of detail of survey are appropriate for different tasks. Our current task is to develop a conceptual model that uses reasonable and technically defensible data, but that does not require data as precise as would be necessary for hard design.


It should also be noted that to obtain truly complete and accurate data, even comparable to the 1993 effort, would take more time and money than is available. Future survey may be needed when a recommended approach to the canal restoration is agreed upon. Thus, a working assumption should be that the survey data should allow us to reasonably characterize the system with respect to water retention and release, but does not have to be detailed enough to allow specific design details to be developed.


The central question is: “Has the overall configuration of the west spreader dike changed substantially in the past 15 years, or has the dike reached an “equilibrium” condition through continuing exposure to stormwater and tidal action? “

In this case “changed substantially“ means changed enough so that using the 1993 data would give a significantly inaccurate appraisal of how much water enters and leaves the canal along its length in a general sense. It is not necessary to determine exactly how much water flows through each breach, but collectively how is the water outflow distributed along the length of the NSC.


Given these conditions, three potential alternatives have been identified:

1)     Use the 1993 data as is.

2)     Use the 1993 data as appropriate, with supplemental survey to close any obvious data gaps. For example, the breaches at the Ceitus boatlift had not yet developed in 1993. A review of aerial photography and field reconnaissance would be conducted to identify any obvious changes in west dike conditions from the 1993 survey.

3)     Develop a new data set of field measurements of all breaches and dike TOB.

We should seek to come to agreement on an approach during the meeting of November 19, taking into account time and effort constraints, as well as the need for a technically defensible solution.

Appendix D

Possible NS-EMA Projects


The group reviewed this partial list of potential projects submitted by local sponsors to the Caloosahatchee River Watershed Protection Plan, by Lee County and by the City of Cape Coral that may be relevant to the Cape Coral Spreader Canal Ecosystem Management Agreement (EMA).  The discussion notes are shown in italics.  There are also additional projects suggested by the group.


Permitted or Planned Projects in the Watershed


1.      Gator Slough Channel Improvement (Also known as Gator Slough/Powell Creek Hydrologic Restoration; Also known as North Fort Myers Surface Water Restoration Project)

CRE 66 – Alt 2, Local

Source:  Management Measure description.

Description:  This project has three components (1) Gator Slough flow way and water quality improvement;  (2) Redistribution of Gator Slough/Powell Creek water originating from northern reach (Charlotte County) of Lee County and construction of a filter marsh to improve water quality;  (3) Construction of ditch plugs and installation of risers to mimic natural system in the region.

Storage/Timing Benefits: None

Flow Benefits:  None

Water Quality Benefits:  No apparent water quality load reduction.

Expected Completion Date:  June 2009

Project Budget:  $2,800,000

Agency: Lee,


Discussion Notes


·        Shallow conveyance with weirs to allow management that mimics natural hydroperiod.

·        Is this taking water from in the watershed and diverting it outside the watershed?  The Powell Creek portion would.


2.      Aquifer Storage and Recovery Program

North-South Transfer Station, In Construction

CRE 77 – Alt 2, Local

Description: Installation of one (1) Class V injection well for storage and recovery of surplus freshwater.  Location allows for use of recovered water for irrigation or to maintain minimum flows during dry season

Source:  Management Measure description.

Storage/Timing Benefits:  None

Flow Benefits:  None presumed at this time.

Water Quality Benefits:  No apparent water quality load reduction.

Expected Completion Date: 

Project Budget: 

Agency: Cape Coral


Discussion Notes


·        I am ambivalent about ASR.  It can reduce water flows, but also may divert water that historically flowed to the estuary.

·        Even in wet season, the concept of “excess water” is debatable.

·        The value of all storage systems, whether ASR or higher weirs, depends on what you do with it.  If you use these to mimic natural patterns, they can be good.

·        In terms of diverting water that historically went to the estuary, as development increases, you have more runoff that historically did not make it to the estuary.


3.  Canal Pump Station Operations, North-South Transfer Station Optimization

Description: Development of procedures for best management and operation of Canal Pump Station at NSTS to maximize freshwater storage in the City’s canal system.

Flow Benefits: 

Storage/Timing Benefits

Expected Completion Date: On-going

Project Budget: 

Agency: Cape Coral


4.  Cape Coral Canal Weir System

CRE 78 – Alt 2, Local

Description: Construction and reconfiguration of existing weirs in the canal system to reduce stormwater discharges

Source:  Management Measure description.

Flow Benefits:  None presumed at this time.

Storage/Timing Benefits:  Surface area of canal system is estimated at 2800 ac.

Water Quality Benefits:  No apparent water quality load reduction.

Expected Completion Date: 

Project Budget: 

Agency: Cape Coral


Discussion Notes


·        Subsequent phases could be credited towards NEB if that is allowed.



5.           Cape Coral Utility Extension Program North 3 and North 7 areas, Planning

CRE 80 – Alt 3, Local   

Description: Construction of wastewater collection and transmission facilities to remove domestic sanitary waste from residential and commercial septic systems in the Northwest section of Cape Coral

Source:  Management Measure description

Storage/Timing Benefits:  Approx. 1500 ac in Cape Coral east and 18000 ac in Cape Coral west, according to current expansion plan out to about 2015.

Flow Benefits:  None

Water Quality Benefits:  Calculated using SWFFS reductions for “central sewer” (currently 2.5 lb/ac/yr for TN and 0.4 lb/ac/yr for TP).  (This presumes that the entire area is fully built out with septic.)

Expected Completion Date: 

Project Budget: 

Agency: Cape Coral


6.      Cape Coral Utility Extension Program (UEP)

Stormwater Drainage System Improvements, On-going

Description/Purpose: Stormwater drop inlets are upgraded during utility installation.  Drainage inlets are changed from “open slot” type to Type C and Type E which feature flow control orifices and elevated grates to prevent “first flush” flows from polluting canals.

Flow Benefits: 

Storage/Timing Benefits

Water Quality Benefits: 

Expected Completion Date: 

Project Budget: 

Agency: Cape Coral


7.           Yellow Fever Creek/Gator Slough Storm Water Transfer Facility, CRE 64 – Alt 1, Local

Description: Restoration of historic flows that were disconnected due to development. Construct an interconnect facility to transfer water during high-flow periods from Gator Slough to Yellow Fever Creek rather than over the Gator Slough weir to Matlacha Pass.

Source:  Management Measure description.  Additional information from Anura Karuna-Muni,

Lee County, by phone, 4/24/08.

Flow Benefits:  Reported by Anura Karuna-Muni as 500 gem, or 806 ac-ft/yr.

Storage/Timing Benefits:  None

Water Quality Benefits:  Water would be transferred from one basin to another, with no net change in loadings.  Using 806 ac-ft/yr and an estimate of 1.27 mg/L for TN and 0.154 mg/L for TP, which is typical of runoff from the Yucca Pens area, the load is calculated as 2784 lb/yr for TN and 338 lb/yr for TP.

In the water-quality spreadsheet, these flows and loads will be subtracted from the N Coastal sub-region and added to the Tidal N sub-region.  It will contain one line for each sub-region.

Expected Completion Date:  June 2009

Project Budget:  $ 700,000

Agency: Lee


Discussion Notes


·        May need to hold off on initiation if would not otherwise qualify for NEB.


Potential Projects in the Watershed


8.  Filter Marsh possibly with Reservoir, Zemel Property, 00001.0000

Description: Approximately 222.3 acre parcel located adjacent to the Gator Slough and potentially available for development as a recreational area, wetlands park and filter marsh for on-land storage of water.

Flow Benefits: 

Storage/Timing Benefits: impact major reduction in peak flow quantities and provide some water quality treatment benefits.

Water Quality Benefits: 

Expected Completion Date: Conceptual

Project Budget: 

Agency: Cape Coral


Discussion Notes

·        Could be broadened to be a large project, possibly in phases, along the north side of Gator Slough that takes advantage of the drops along the weir for storage.

·        Could the Technical Committee provide conceptual information about performance per hundred acres based on experience elsewhere?

·        Where would the water come from?  From the north side?  Intercept water in Gator Slough.

·        I am concerned because we have been trying to buy the Zemel property for ten years – they are not interested in selling.  The State has some land that too.

·        Conceptually, if we have more water coming into the system than the system can store, we need to be looking at storage somewhere in this area.


9.  Add culverts under the two power line easements that run north-south through the drainage west of I-75 (Noel Andress).


10.  Restrict off-road use of the Charlotte Harbor Flatwoods area west of US 41 and north of Cape Coral for the disruption to the land has produced many dams impeding sheet flow through the area (Noel Andress).


11.  Buy interspersed empty lots to make smaller retention areas.  A larger number of smaller areas provide distributed storage.  Look at foreclosed properties.


12.  Reconnect the Webb Preserve to the Charlotte flatwoods (restoration of historic routing of that water).  (I-75 widening is an opportunity.)


13. Install really big culverts under Pine Island Rd. Mitigate freshwater flows by increasing circulation.


14.  Fertilizer Ordinance City of Cape Coral

Description: Development and implementation of a local fertilizer ordinance limiting the type/application areas/time of use of landscaping fertilizers that adversely impact surface water systems by contributing to nutrient loading during precipitation events

Flow Benefits:  Storage/Timing Benefits             Water Quality Benefits: 

Expected Completion Date: Conceptual; Project Budget; Agency: Cape Coral


Discussion Notes

·        There should be a NEB, along with other regulatory projects.


15.  Require better stormwater management for new single-family construction?  Require low impact development standards.


16.  Provide a program with incentives for actions that individual homeowners or dock owners can take, e.g. periscope, fertilizer reduction, rain barrels, etc.


17.  Provide education and possibly programs, regarding pet waste.



·        Pull projects from SW FL Feasibility Study (need to examine for impact to Gator Slough).

·        Need some idea of storage capacity in acre-feet.  Also an indication of area treated.

·        Improve treatment for the approximately forty square miles of lots north of Pine Island Road and west to Hwy 41 that drain to spreader; beyond what happens in the canals.


Permitted and Planned Receiving Waters and Wetland Projects


1.  Project NameMatlacha Pass Hydrologic Restoration Phase I

Description:  Restoration of historical flow ways and base flows; Improving drainage while minimizing flooding downstream of Burnt Store Road and reducing fresh water flow through Gator Slough Canal into Matlacha Pass.

Flow Benefits:  Storage/Timing Benefits             Water Quality Benefits: 

Expected Completion Date:  December 2008

Project Budget:  $1,800,000

Agency: Lee,                  


Discussion Notes

·        Minimal water goes to the west; most goes to the south along Burnt Store Road.

·        Some is supposed to go to Charlotte Harbor independent of Gator Slough, but there is not enough capacity; it backs up.



2.  Project NameMatlacha Pass Hydrologic Restoration Phase II

Description:  Restoration of historical flow ways and improving water quality downstream of Burnt Store Road

Flow Benefits:  Storage/Timing Benefits             Water Quality Benefits: 

Expected Completion Date:  June 2011

Project Budget:  $1,200,000

Agency: Lee,


Discussion Notes

·        Would move water west, especially if back-ups addressed.  Will probably wait until the completion of these discussions since the agreed-upon distribution of water here may affect what we do.



Potential Receiving Waters and Wetland Projects


3.  Install weirs to distribute water from the spreader wall to the area west of the spreader. 


4.  Change seawall regulation in Cape Coral to be more like Lee County.  Specify slopes and vegetation.


5.  Establish littoral vegetation and hard-bottom reef habitat along canals – west of Burnt Store and near the spreader.


6.  Hydrological restoration of tidal creeks using information regarding historical elevations, etc.


7.  Bring deeper water bodies up to a more natural grade, it benefits water quality.


8.  Create seven miles of oyster and clam farming along the spreader.


9.  Restrict shallow-water areas, outside channels, to non-motorized vessel traffic only.