<%BANNER%>
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Index map
 Foreword
 To the reader
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Central and South Florida
 Lower St. Johns and North Coastal...
 Northwest Florida
 Southwest Florida area
 Suwannee
 Aquatic plant control
 Flood plain management
 Speical flood hazard information,...
 Flood insurance studies
 Glossary
 Index
 Maps


FAMU PALMM



Water resources development by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Florida
CITATION SEARCH THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AM00000246/00001
 Material Information
Title: Water resources development by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Florida
Cover title: Water resources development in Florida
Abbreviated Title: Water resour. dev. U.S. Army Corps Eng. Fla.
Physical Description: v. : ill. (some col.), col. maps ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: United States -- Army. -- Corps of Engineers. -- South Atlantic Division
Publisher: U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic
Place of Publication: Atlanta Ga
Creation Date: 1985
Frequency: biennial
regular
 Subjects
Genre: federal government publication   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )
 Notes
General Note: Description based on: 1981.
General Note: Latest issue consulted: 1985.
 Record Information
Source Institution: Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Holding Location: Florida A&M University (FAMU)
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 07703582
lccn - sc 82004429
issn - 0737-2272
System ID: AM00000246:00001

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Index map
        Unnumbered ( 3 )
    Foreword
        Unnumbered ( 4 )
    To the reader
        Unnumbered ( 5 )
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Central and South Florida
        Page 11
        Introduction
            Page 12
        Navigation projects
            Page 13
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
        Navigation studies
            Page 19
        Flood control projects
            Page 20
        Flood control studies
            Page 21
        Beach erosion contol projects
            Page 22
            Page 23
            Page 24
        Beach erosion contol studies
            Page 25
        Beach erosion contol projects
            Page 26
        Recreation projects and studies
            Page 27
            Page 28
    Lower St. Johns and North Coastal Area
        Page 29
        Introduction
            Page 30
        Navigation projects
            Page 31
            Page 32
            Page 33
            Page 34
        Navigation studies
            Page 35
        Beach erosion control projects
            Page 36
        Beach erosion control studies
            Page 37
        Small beach erosion control studies and recreation projects
            Page 38
    Northwest Florida
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Introduction
            Page 41
        Navigation projects
            Page 42
            Page 43
            Page 44
            Page 45
            Page 46
            Page 47
            Page 48
        Multiple purpose projects
            Page 49
            Page 50
        Navigation studies
            Page 51
        Flood control projects and beach erosion control projects
            Page 52
        Flood control studies and beach erosion control studies
            Page 53
    Southwest Florida area
        Page 54
        Introduction
            Page 55
            Page 56
        Navigation projects
            Page 57
            Page 58
            Page 59
            Page 60
            Page 61
            Page 62
            Page 63
        Navigation studies
            Page 64
        Flood control projects
            Page 65
        Beach erosion control projects
            Page 66
            Page 67
        Beach erosion control studies
            Page 68
            Page 69
        Small beach erosion control studies and recreation projects
            Page 70
            Page 71
        Special studies and projects
            Page 72
    Suwannee
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Introduction
            Page 75
        Navigation projects and studies
            Page 76
        Flood control studies and inactive projects
            Page 77
    Aquatic plant control
        Page 78
        Page 79
    Flood plain management
        Page 80
    Speical flood hazard information, expanded flood plain information, and flood emergency evacuation plan
        Page 81
    Flood insurance studies
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
    Glossary
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
    Index
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
    Maps
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
Full Text


US Army Corps
of Engineers


Water Resources Development
in Florida 1985


I. ,


f 1 4


*










Water Resources Development

by the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

in

Florida












January 1985



Inquiries may be directed to the following offices, which have limits of
responsibility as shown in the map in the back of this pamphlet.




U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DIVISION, SOUTH ATLANTIC
Corps of Engineers
510 Title Building
30 Pryor St., S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30335-6801


U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, MOBILE
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, Alabama 33528-0001


U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, JACKSONVILLE
Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019


(This pamphlet supersedes a similar pamphlet dated January 1981)











ALABAMA



i
rAJ:


LEGEND


CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN
FLORIDA AREA
LOWER ST. JOHNS AND N
COASTAL AREA
NORTHWEST FLORIDA A
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AF
FLORIDA PORTION OF SUWA
RIVER BASIN AREA


L-
;;



'


N



GEORGIA





R A



~: -.












REA
-EA 0 ..
INNEE










KEY WEST




INDEX MAP
SCALE IN MILES
50so 0 50so
ORTH "'...

REA
KEY WES .ss.!;
REA~ ~ ~~ ^a O .<.31>'"" ":













Foreword
This pamphlet gives current information on the scope and progress of water resource projects and studies
by the Corps of Engineers within the State of Florida. It describes briefly the role of the Corps of Engineers in
the planning and building of water resources improvements, and explains the procedure for initiating studies
leading to authorization of such projects. It gives the status of various projects, whether construction has
been completed, is underway, or not started, together with data on the purposes and schedules of studies.
Since the civil works activities of the Corps of Engineers are established by river basins rather than by state
boundaries, the work within this state may be under the jurisdiction of more than one District or Division.*
Project locations are shown on the maps at the back of this pamphlet. In arranging the material presented
herein, the State of Florida has been divided into five areas:

1. Central and Southern Florida area
2. Lower St. Johns River and North Coastal area
3. Northwest Florida area
4. Southwest Florida area
5. Suwannee River Basin

Each section includes a general map of the area, and a vicinity map.

*The location of the five Districts within South Atlantic Division are shown on the back cover.



















US Army Corps
of Engineers


To Our Readers:

This booklet summarizes how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has helped and continues
to help improve water resources in your area. It is one of a series covering water resources pro-
grams in the 50 states and U.S. possessions and territories.

The Corps is the federal government's largest water resources development and managerial
agency. Congress assigned the Corps this civil works responsibility in an effort to preserve one
of our nation's most vital natural resources. The variety and challenge of water projects also
serve to maintain a broad range of engineering skills critical to the Corps' capabilities and per-
formance during national emergencies.

The Corps began its water resources program in 1824 when the U.S. Congress first ap-
propriated money for improving river navigation. Since then, the Corps has been involved in
improving ports and river navigation, reducing flood damage and controlling beach erosion.
Along with these missions, the Corps generates hydropower, supplies water to cities and in-
dustry, regulates development in navigable waters and wetlands and operates an extensive
recreation program. Today, the Corps manages nearly 2,000 water resources projects nation-
wide.

The Corps performs its water resources mission in close cooperation with the states, local
sponsoring agencies, and the other federal agencies with related responsibilities. We place a
high premium on coordinating our efforts closely with Congress, environmental interests, and
users of our projects-in short, the public.

We in the Corps of Engineers continue our commitment to working with interested parties
to meet the water resources needs of our country. A great deal of work remains to be done. In
this era of limited federal dollars, one of our greatest challenges is to continue to meet urgent
water resources requirements. This challenge includes finding innovative methods to increase
the users' share of federal project costs. We owe it to future generations to continue water
resources development in an appropriate way and on a timely basis.





E.R. HEIBRG III
Lieutenant General, USA
Chief of Engineers









Contents

INTRODUCTION


Functions of the Corps of Engineers ................... 2
Navigation ........................... ............ 2
Flood Control ....................................2
Beach Erosion Control....... ................... .2
Regulatory Functions ............................. 3
Recreation ...................................3
Hurricane Protection ............... ............... 4
Hurricane Studies .................. ............... 4
Water Supply .................................... 4
Water Quality Control ........................... 4.
Environmental Quality Policy ...................... 4
Hydroelectric Power ............................. 4
Flood Plain Information.......................... 5
Coast of Florida Erosion and Storm Effects Study ........ 5
Other Special and Continuing Authorities ............... 5
EPA-CE Construction Grant Program .................. 6
Emergency Operations ........... ................ 6
Continuing Authorities Summary .................... 7
Fifteen Steps to a Civil Works Project ................. 8

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA AREA

INTRODUCTION .................. ........12
NAVIGATION PROJECTS
Bakers Haulover Inlet, Fla. ................... ..... 13
Canaveral Harbor, Fla .............................13
Courtenay Channel, Fla. ..........................13
Eau Gallie Harbor, Fla ............ ..............14
Fort Pierce Harbor, Fla. .......................... 14
Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami, Fla ........ 14
Intracoastal Waterway, Miami to Key West, Fla.......... 14
Kissimmee River, Fla .............. .... ..........15
Melbourne Harbor, Fla. ........... .......... .15
Miami Harbor, Fla ............................. 15
New River, Fla. ................. ............... 16
Okeechobee Waterway, Fla. ......................... 16
Orange River, Fla. ..............................17
Palm Beach Harbor, Fla. ......................... 17
Port Everglades Harbor, Fla. ..................... 17
St. Lucie Inlet, Fla. ............................18
NAVIGATION STUDIES
Boca Raton Inlet, Fla. .......................... 19
Clearwater, (Spoil Disposal) Fla. ................... ..19
Fort Pierce Harbor, Fla. ...........................19
Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville To Miami, Fla. ...... 19
Intracoastal Waterway, Miami to Key West, Fla.......... 19
Jupiter Inlet, Fla. ............................ 19
Miami Harbor (Miami River Cleanup) ................ 19
Miami Harbor Channel, Fla. ..................... ...19
North Lake Channel, Fla. ........................ 19
Okeechobee Waterway-Side Channel and Thrning
Basin at Clewiston, Fla. .................... ...19
Pahokee, Fla. .................. .................19
Palm Beach Harbor, Fla ............. ............19
Sebastian Inlet, Fla. ............ .. ............ 19


FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
Central and Southern Florida .......................20
FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES
Greater Miami Area (Area B), Fla. ................. 21
Hillsboro Canal (East of Conservation Areas Nos. 1
and 2), Fla...................................21
Kissimmee River ............ ..... ............21
Shark River Slough .............................21
South New River Canal, C-ll, Fla. ................... 21
Wekiva River Basin, Fla. ... ....................... 21
C&SF Water Supply, Fla. ........................ 21
BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS
Brevard County, Fla. ............................ 22
Broward County and Hillsboro Inlet, Fla. ............ 22
Dade County, Fla. ................................23
Fort Pierce, Fla. ............ ....................23
Palm Beach County, Fla., from Lake Worth Inlet to
South Lake Worth Inlet ........................23
Palm Beach County, Fla. from Martin County Line
to Lake Worth Inlet and from South Lake Worth
Inlet to Broward County Line, Fla ................24
Virginia Key and Key Biscayne, Fla. .................. 24
BEACH EROSION CONTROL STUDIES
Brevard County, Fla ............. ...............25
Broward County, Fla ............................. 25
Dade County, Fla. ................................25
Indian River County, Fla. ........................ 25
Martin County, Fla ............. .... ............ 25
SMALL BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS
Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Recreation Area,
Key Biscayne, Fla ................................26
SMALL BEACH EROSION CONTROL STUDIES
Key Biscayne, Fla.................................26
RECREATION PROJECTS
Miami Beach International Sunshine Pier ..............27
Port Mayaca Recreation Area.........................27

LOWER ST. JOHNS AND NORTH COASTAL AREA

INTRODUCTION ..........................30

NAVIGATION PROJECTS
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway between Norfolk, Va.
and St. Johns River, Fla. ................. 31
Cross Florida Barge Canal, Fla. .................... 31
Fernandina Harbor, Fla. ..........................32
Jacksonville Harbor, Fla. ......................... 32
Lake Crescent and Dunns Creek, Fla .................32
Oklawaha River, Fla ............................33
Ponce de Leon Inlet, Fla. ........................ 33
Rice Creek, Putnam County, Fla ................... 33









CONTENTS (Continued)


St. Augustine Harbor, Fla. ................... .... 33
St. Johns River, Fla. Jacksonville to Lake Harney, Fla....34
NAVIGATION STUDIES
Blount Island Turning Basin, Jacksonville Harbor, Fla. .. .35
Jacksonville Harbor, Fla. ......................... 35
St. Augustine Harbor and vicinity, Fla. ........ ...... 35
St. Johns River, Jacksonville to Lake Harney, Palatka,
Fla., Side Channel .......................... 35
Rock House Creek .............................. 35
FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES
Black Creek, Clay County, Fla. .................. .35
Orange Lake Basin, Fla .......................... 35
Streams in St. Johns, Flagler, and Putman Counties,
Fla ........................ .......... .35
Streams in Brevard and Volusia Counties, Fla........... 35
BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS
Duval County, Fla. .............................36
BEACH EROSION CONTROL STUDIES
Flagler County, Fla. ............................. 37
Nassau County, Fla .............................37
St. Johns County, Fla ............ ...............37
SMALL BEACH EROSION CONTROL STUDIES
Ft. Clinch State Park ............. ............... 38
RECREATION PROJECTS
Fort Clinch Fishing Pier, Fla. .................. .38
NORTHWEST FLORIDA AREA
INTRODUCTION ......................... 41

NAVIGATION PROJECTS
Apalachicola Bay, Fla. ........................... 42
Apalachicola River Industrial Park .................. 42
Bayou Texar, Fla..................................43
Blackwater River, Fla ............ ...............43
Carrabelle Harbor, Fla. ........................... 43
Choctawhatchee River, Fla. and Ala. ............... 43
East Pass Channel from the Gulf of Mexico into
Choctawhatchee Bay, Fla. ................... .. .43
Escambia and Conecuh Rivers, Fla. and Ala. ..........44
Grand Lagoon, Panama City, Fla. ..................... 44
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway between Apalachee Bay, Fla.
and the Mexican Border ................... ..... 45
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (St. Marks to Tampa
Bay, Fla.) .................................46
LaGrange Bayou, Fla .............. ..............46
Panacea Harbor, Fla. ............................46
Panama City Harbor, Fla. .......................... 46
Pensacola Harbor, Fla. ................. .......... 47
Port St. Joe Harbor, Fla ..........................47
St. Marks River, Fla. ............................48


MULTIPLE PURPOSE PROJECTS
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers,
Fla. and Ga. ...............................49
Apalachicola River ........... ... ................49
Jim Woodruff Dam and Lock .......................49
NAVIGATION STUDIES
Alligator Harbor, Fla. ......................... 51
Apalachicola Bay, Fla ............................ 51
Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers .......... 51
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Carrabelle to St. Marks,
Fla ........................................51
Joe's Bayou, Choctawhatchee Bay, Fla ................51
Mexico Beach, Fla. ............................ 51
Old Pass Lagoon, Fla. .......................... 51
Peach Creek, Eastern and Redfish Lakes, Fla...........51
Pensacola Harbor, Fla. ........................... 51
Panacea Harbor, Fla. ............................ 51
Shell Point-Oyster Bay, Fla..........................51
Waterway from East Bay. Fla. across Santa Rosa
Peninsula ............... .................51
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
Jackson County, Fla ............................52
BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS
Santa Rosa Island, Fla ............................52
Valparaiso, Fla. .................. ............52
FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES
Blackwater and Yellow Rivers, Fla. and Ala ............53
Coastal Streams between Suwannee and Apalachicola
Rivers, Fla ................... ................ 53
Choctawhatchee River and Tributaries, Fla and Ala. ..... 53
BEACH EROSION CONTROL STUDIES
Liza Jackson State Park, Ft. Walton Beach. Fla .........53
Santa Rosa Island, Fla. ........................ 53
Valparaiso, Fla. ..............................53
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AREA
INTRODUCTION ............................ 56
NAVIGATION PROJECTS
Anclote River, Fla. ............................. 57
Cedar Keys Harbor, Fla. ...................... .57
Charlotte Harbor, Fla. ........................ .57
Clearwater Pass (Little Pass), Clearwater Bay, Fla. ......57
Crystal River, Fla. .. ..................... .... .57
Everglades Harbor, Fla ........................... 58
Fort Myers Beach, Fla ............................ 58
Homosassa River,Fla. ......................... 58
Hudson River, Fla ............................... 58
Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee River to
Anclote River, Fla ............................ 58
Johns Pass, Fla..................... ............ 59
Key West Harbor, Fla.......................... 59









CONTENTS (Continued)


Largo Sound Channel, Fla...........................59
Longboat Pass, Fla. .............................59
Manatee River, Fla ............................. 60
Naples to Big Marco Pass, Channel from; and Channel
at Gordon Pass, Fla. .......................... 60
New Pass, Sarasota, Fla .......................... 60
Ozona, Fla., Channel and Turning Basin .............. 60
Pass-a-Grille Pass, Pinellas County, Fla. ............... 61
Pithlachascotee River, Fla ......: ................. .61
St. Petersburg Harbor, Ha. .........................61
Tampa Harbor, Fla. ............................ 61
Withlacoochee River, Fla. ................... .... ..62
NAVIGATION STUDIES
Big Sarasota Pass, Fla. ............................64
Charlotte Harbor, Fla. (Port Boca Grande) ............ 64
Dunedin Pass, Clearwater, Fla. ................... .. 64
Gulf Coast Passes, Fla ........................... 64
IWW, Caloosahatchee River to Naples Bay, Fla ........ 64
Key West Harbor (Stock Island), Fla ..................64
Little Gasparilla Pass, Charlotte County, Fla ........... 64
Manatee Harbor, Fla. ............................64
Midnight Pass, Sarasota, Fla. ................... .. 64
St. Petersburg Harbor, Fla. ................... .. .64
Tampa Harbor (Big Bend Channel and Alafia
River), Fla ................................64
Tampa Harbor (East Bay Channel and Turning .
Basin), Fla...................................64
Port Sutton Channel, Fla. ........................ 64
Pasco County Small Boat Channels, Fla .............. 64
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS
Four River Basins, Fla. .......................... 65
BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS
Key West, Fla.............. ..... .............66
Lee County, Fla. .................. .............66
Lido Key, Fla. ..... ... ... .... ................... 66
Manatee County, Fla. .. .......................... 67
Pinellas County, Fla. ........................... 67
BEACH EROSION CONTROL STUDIES
Charlotte County, Fla. .......................... 68
Collier County, Fla ................................68
Monroe County, Fla............................68
Pinellas County, Fla. ................. ........... 69
Sarasota County, Fla ..............................69
SMALL BEACH EROSION CONTROL STUDIES
Dunedin, Fla. ................. .................70
RECREATION PROJECTS
Brooker Creek Park ..............................70
Moss Bluff Recreation Area ....................... 70
Wilderness Park ................ ...... .... .....70
St. Lucie Lock Park ............................. 70
W .P. Franklin Park ............ .................. 70


Ortona Lock Park .................. ..............71
Rodman Park ..................................71
Oklawaha Park ................... .............71
Kenwood Park ................................. 71
SPECIAL STUDIES AND PROJECTS
Fort Jefferson National Monument ................... 72
FLORIDA PORTION OF
SUWANNEE RIVER BASIN
INTRODUCTION .............................75
NAVIGATION PROJECTS
Horseshoe Cove, Fla. .............. .. ......... 76
Suwannee River, Fla .............. ...............76
NAVIGATION STUDIES
Cedar Island-Keaton Beach, Fla......................76
Suwannee River, Fla. ................. ...........76
FLOOD CONTROL STUDIES
Fenholloway River Basin, Fla. ................... .77
Suwannee River, Fla .............................77
INACTIVE PROJECTS
Bayou Chico (Pensacola Harbor), Channel
Enlargem ent ............................... 77
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway extension, Carrabelle to
Apalachee Bay .............................77
Holmes Creek .................................77
AQUATIC PLANT CONTROL
Aquatic Plant Control Program .................. .... 78
Removal of Aquatic Growth Throughout Florida ........ 79
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT
General ...................................... 80
FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION
Blackwater Bay and River, Milton, Fla. ............... 80
Boggy Creek, Orange and Osceola Counties, Fla ........ 80
Broward County, Fla. ............................ 80
Charlotte and North Lee Counties, Fla. ............... 80
Choctawhatchee Bay, Fort Walton Beach Vicinity,
Okaloosa County, Fla. ........................80
Cypress Creek near Orlando .......................80
Destin, Okaloosa County, Fla. .................... 80
Lake Monroe at Sanford, Fla ........................80
Levy County Coastal Areas, Fla. .................... 80
Little Wekiva River, Orange County, Fla ............... 80
Little Wekiva River, Seminole County ................ 80
Martin County Coastal Areas, Fla ................... 80
Mill Slough at Kissimmee, Fla. ................... 80
North Fork, St. Lucie River, Fla. .................... 80
Northeast Volusia County, Fla. ......................80
Northwest Putnam and Southwest Clay Counties,
Upper Etonia Creek Basin, Fla ................. 80
Palm Beach County,Fla ............................80









CONTENTS (Continued)


Perdido Bay, Ala. and Fla ....................... 80
Polk County, Saddle Creek and Peace River ...........80
Ponce de Leon, Sandy and Blue Creeks, Fla. .......... 80
St. Johns River, Jacksonville, Fla. ................... .80
St. Lucie County Coastal Areas, Fla. ................. 80
Sarasota County Coastal Areas, Fla................... 80
Sarasota County, Elligraw Bayou, Catfish Creek,
North Creek, and South Creek, Fla .............. 80
Seminole, Lake, and Orange Counties, Wekiva River, Fla. 80
Southeast Palm Beach County, Fla.................... 80
Southeast Volusia County, Fla. ................... 80
Sumter County, Withlacoochee River, Fla .............. 80
Sumter and Marion Counties, Withlacoochee River
(Dunnellon to Rutland), Fla. .................. 80
Vicinity of Pensacola, Escambia, and Santa Rosa
Counties, Fla............. ................ .. 80
Volusia and Lake Counties, St. Johns River and
Lake Beresford, Fla ..........................80
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION
Boggy Creek ................. ..... ............. 81
Canal 17, Palm Beach County .......................81
City of Hastings ............................... 81
City of Naples ................................ 81
City of Palm Beach Shores .........................81
City of Pompano Beach .......................... 81
Econlockhatchee River .............................81
Hogans Creek, Jacksonville .........................81
Howell Creek Basin ............................. 81
Lake Istokpoga, Highlands County ................... 81
Manatee and Braden Rivers ...................... 81
Monroe County Keys ............................ 81
Ochlockonee River, Lake Talquin to Allen Landing ...... 81
Okaloosa Island Beaches on Santa Rosa Island .......... 81
Philips Inlet to St. Andrew Bay ................. ...81
Reedy Creek Basin ................... .............81
St. Johns River, Brevard County ................... 81
Shingle Creek ....................................81
South Lee County Coastal Areas ................... 81
Suwannee River ............... ................ 81
Upper Wekiva Lake Region .................. ..... .81
Withlacoochee River, Nobleton to Gulf of Mexico ....... 81
EXPANDED FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION
Boggy Creek, Orange and Osceola Counties ........... 81
Lee County ..................................... 81
Tampa Bay Region (Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco,
and Pinellas Counties) ........................ 81
Lower Southeast Florida (Broward, Dade, Monroe, and
Palm Beach Counties) .......................... 81
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDIES
Flood Insurance Studies Completed:
Altamonte Springs, Seminole County ................. 82
Apopka, Orange County ...........................82
Belle Isle, Orange County .......................... 82
Casselberry, Seminole County ................. ..... 82


Cocoa, Brevard County ..........................82
Cooper City, Broward County ................... ... 82
Dania, Broward County .......................... 82
Deerfield Beach, Broward County .................... 82
Eatonville, Orange County ............ ............ 82
Edgewood, Orange County ........................ 82
Fort Lauderdale, Broward County .................... 82
Hallandale, Broward County ................... ... .82
Hastings, St. Johns County ................... ..... 82
Hollywood, Broward County ........................ 82
Kissimmee, Osceola County ........................ 82
LaBelle, Hendry County ......................... 82
Lake Mary, Seminole County ....................... 82
Lake Tarpon, Pinellas County ................... .. 82
Longwood, Seminole County .................. .... 82
Maitland, Orange County ........................ 82
Malabar, Brevard County ........................ .. 82
Melbourne, Brevard County ....................... 82
Melbourne Village, Brevard County .................. 82
Miramar, Broward County ....................... 82
Monroe County Keys ............... .............83
Moore Haven, Glades County ..................... 83
Naples, Collier County .......................... 83
Oakland Park, Broward County ......................83
Ocoee, Orange County .......................... 83
Orlando, Orange County ......................... 83
Oviedo, Seminole County ........................ 83
Palm Bay, Brevard County .......................... 83
Palm Beach Shores, Palm Beach County .............. 83
Pembroke Pines, Broward County .................... 83
Plantation, Broward County ................... ...... 83
Pompano Beach, Broward County ...................83
Rockledge, Brevard County ......................... 83
St. Cloud, Osceola County .................. .... .83
Sanford, Seminole County ..........................83
Sea Ranch Lakes, Broward County ................... 83
Tamarac, Broward County ...... ......... ..........83
Tampa, Hillsborough County .......................83
Temple Terrace, Hillsborough County ................. 83
Unincorporated Broward County ..................... 83
Unincorporated Glades County ...................... 83
Unincorporated Hendry County ...................... 83
Unincorporated Highlands County .................... 83
Unincorporated Hillsborough County ................. 83
Unincorporated Lake County ........................ 83
Unincorporated Okeechobee County .................. 83
Unincorporated Orange County ...................... 83
Unincorporated Osceola County .................... 83
Unincorporated Seminole County .................... 83
Unincorporated Sumter County ....................83
West Melbourne, Brevard County .................... 83
Wildwood, Sumter County ........................ 83
Wilton Manors, Broward County ..................... 83
Winter Garden, Orange County ...................... 83
Winter Park, Orange County .......................83
Winter Springs, Seminole County .................... 83









CONTENTS (Continued)


Summary Of Statistical Data ...................... .84
GLOSSARY ..............................92
INDEX ..................................95

MAPS
Flood Control and Shore Protection Projects in Florida
Navigation Projects in Florida







Introduction


Aerial view of Jacksonville





Functions of The Corps of Engineers
This pamphlet gives a brief description of water resources
activities of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the State
of Florida. These projects and the administration of certain
laws classified as civil functions have been assigned by Con-
gress to the Department of the Army for accomplishment by
the Corps of Engineers.
The civil works mission of the Corps includes investigating
problems and potentials, considering solutions, and recommen-
ding actions to Congress to conserve and develop the Nation's
water resources to meet the needs and wishes of the people
of the United States; planning, designing, constructing,
operating, and maintaining public works in this field authorized
by Congress; administering laws pertaining to the protection
and preservation of navigable waters; and certain related
functions.
In addition to the development of projects designed to meet
specific localized problems, the Corps of Engineers undertakes
planning for long-range coordinated development of the water
resources of entire river basins and urban areas. Such com-
prehensive, basinwide and urban areas planning presents a
challenge and many problems. Investigations include considera-
tion of navigation, flood control, generation of hydroelectric
power, water conservation, domestic and industrial water
supply, water quality management and improvement, the pro-
tection of fish and wildlife, recreation, protection and enhance-
ment of environmental quality, and other potential uses of water
which may enter into an overall plan. The various Federal and
State agencies concerned contribute their specialized knowledge
and skills to the investigation through active participation in
the study.
Considerations which enter into recommendations for pro-
ject authorization to Congress include determinations that
benefits will exceed costs, that the engineering design of the
project is sound and will meet the needs of the people con-
cerned, that it makes the fullest use possible of the natural
resources involved and that opportunities for protection and
enhancement of environmental quality will not be lost.
The various civil works functions of the Corps of Engineers
have evolved gradually over a long period of years. They are
governed by a series of public laws enacted by Congress.



Navigation
The Federal interest in navigation improvements stems from
the commerce clause of the Constitution, and from subsequent
decisions of the Supreme Court, to the effect that the Federal
obligation to regulate navigation and commerce also includes
the right to make necessary improvements. The Corps of
Engineers was first assigned responsibility for improving rivers
and harbors for navigation in 1824. At the present time, naviga-
tion of harbors and inland waterways remains one of the most
important parts of the nation's transportation system.
The Corps of Engineers is responsible for construction, as
well as the maintenance and operation, of Federal river and
harbor projects.
In addition, the Corps of Engineers has the responsibility
for administering Federal laws for the protection and preser-
vation of the navigable waters of the United States, embrac-
ing: granting permits for structures other than bridges over and


in such navigable waters; establishing regulations for use of
navigable waters, including dumping grounds, fishing areas,
and harbor lines; and removal of wrecks and other obstruc-
tions to navigation.


Flood Control
The Federal interest in flood control began in the alluvial valley
of the Mississippi River in the 19th century when the inter-
relationship of flood control and navigation became apparent.
That interest was extended in 1936 to the entire country due
to the impact of disaster-type floods affecting wide areas, as
well as transportation systems. It was recognized that the
Federal Government would participate in the solution of pro-
blems affecting the public interest when they are too large or
complex to be handled by State or local organizations.
The purpose of flood control works is to regulate flood flows
and thus prevent flood damage. In addition, the Flood Con-
trol Act of 1944 provided that "flood control" shall include
major drainage of land. These objectives are accomplished with
structural features such as reservoirs and local protection works,
or with non-structural methods such as flood proofing and
evaluation of the flood plain. Combinations of various means
are considered.
Reservoirs constructed for flood control storage often include
additional storage capacity for multiple-purpose uses, such as
the conservation of water for municipal and industrial use,
navigation, irrigation, development and hydroelectric power,
conservation of fish and wildlife, recreation, and water quali-
ty control. Non-structural solutions could also have other
benefits or purposes besides flood control.
Local protection works usually require specific conditions
of local cooperation and are turned over to non-Federal
authorities for maintenance, as are small reservoirs of localiz-
ed effect.


Beach Erosion Control
Beach erosion control is concerned with the restoration of
eroded shores and their subsequent preservation. This work
acts to prevent future damage and the restored beaches pro-
vide additional recreational benefits.
The development of a plan for protection of non-Federal pro-
perties is accomplished by cooperative effort between the
United States and an appropriate State or local element. The
cost of the study is borne by the Federal Government. After
review by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors and
the Chief of Engineers, the plan, if found to be economically
and environmentally sound, is submitted to Congress for
adoption.
The Federal contribution toward construction of remedial
works for publicly owned shores and for publicly owned or
used beaches, authorized as a result of the study, is limited
by law to a maximum of one-half of the construction cost ex-
cept in special circumstances such as 70 percent for eligible
public parks. The remedial work may include initial fill to pro-
vide additional protective and recreational beach space,
together with periodic nourishment to compensate for erosion
losses, if this provides the most economically feasible solu-
tion. Maintenance of any required structures is a non-Federal
responsibility.





Regulatory Functions
Corps of Engineers regulatory functions are based on Sec-
tion 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, and Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Section 10
requires Department of the Army authorization for work in
or affecting navigable waters. Section 404 requires Department
of the Army authorization for activities involving discharge of
dredged or fill material into the waters and wetlands of the
United States. Section 103 requires a permit for transporting
dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean
waters.

The Clean Water Act of 1977, which amended the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, makes the following significant
changes in the Corps' Section 404 regulatory program:
- Federal permit applications must comply with State
water quality certification requirements.
- Allows States to take over conduct of Section 404 per-
mit program from the Corps by requesting permission
from Administrator of Environmental Protection Agen-
cy (EPA).
- Requires Memoranda of Agreement between the
Secretary of the Army and Secretaries of the Depart-
ments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and
Transportation, and the Administrator of EPA to
minimize duplication and delays in the issuance of
permits. These agreements, in part, establish a review
schedule for each level of review.

Activities regulated by individual permits require a public
notice and, under certain circumstances, a public hearing and
Environmental Impact Statement. The decision whether to issue
an individual permit is based on an evaluation of the probable
impact, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activi-
ty on the public interest. All factors which may be relevant
are considered. These include conservation, economics,
aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural
values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain
values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion,
recreation, water supply and quality, energy needs, safety, food
production, and the needs and welfare of the people.

Several types of permits are issued by the Corps. Those used
to streamline the permitting procedure are called letters of per-
mission, nationwide permits, and general permits. Letters of
permission may be used to authorize only Section 10 activities
such as building minor structures and engaging in limited
dredging operations that do not return the discharges to the
waterway. Nationwide permits provide prior approval
throughout the United States for large groups of minor activities
including repair of certain structures, structures in residential
canals, minor road crossing fills, shoreline stabilization, and
other similar works. General permits specify categories of pro-
jects which have little or no significant environmental impact.
Such permits include private docks, boat ramps and slips, out-
fall structures, submerged and aerial utility crossings, and other
minor construction activities.

Regulatory Reform, initiated in 1982, has significantly reduc-
ed the time required to review and tender a decision regar-
ding issuance of Department of the Army permits. The goal
of regulatory reform is to process routine applications in less
than 60 days. The Jacksonville District has made great strides


by reducing average processing time to 70-90 days. Efforts are
continuing to identify and overcome remaining sources of delay.
Several Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) have been
signed with state (Commonwealth, Territorial) governments.
These MOU encourage use of General permits, joint process-
ing procedures and interagency review coordination to reduce
duplications. Jacksonville District has signed an MOU regar-
ding a joint permit application with the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation (DER). A joint permit applica-
tion booklet was published in September 1977 (updated in
1982). Another MOU dealing with joint enforcement activities
was signed in January 1983.*

*The MOU between the Corps and the Florida DER assures
consistency of agency enforcement actions for the benefit of
the public and both agencies by encouraging common enforce-
ment strategies and restoration plans.



Recreation
The economic development of the United States has reach-
ed a stage which makes it possible for the Nation to channel
an increasing portion of our materials and human resources
into activities which help satisfy the intellectual, emotional and
aesthetic aspirations of the people. This economic development,
accompanied by a rapid increase in population, industrializa-
tion and urbanization has generated pressures to preserve lands
and waters suitable for outdoor recreation and the enjoyment
of nature.
These pressures have resulted in laws which set aside
wilderness areas, placed more land in public ownership and
established more parks. One of these laws is the Federal Water
Project Recreation Act of 1965 establishing development of the
recreational potential of all water resources projects as a full
project purpose.
The Corps also recognized recreation as an essential public
need and current planning includes development of recreation
areas on all water resource projects. Local non-Federal par-
ticipation is actively sought in implementing the cost-sharing
policies of the Federal Water Project Recreation Act in order
to meet the recreational demands of an ever-expanding
population.
The outdoor recreational facilities to be provided at reser-
voirs, lakes, rivers, canals, ship channels, floodway lands, etc.,
will vary from small picnic areas and/or access to a single boat
ramp to lands open to camping, wilderness hiking, canoeing
and large scale marinas depending on the project size. Most
developments will include landscaped areas, walking and bik-
ing trails, overlooks, and facilities for the comfort of visitors
as well as for campers, boaters and picnickers.



Hurricane Protection
Hurricanes have been the cause of catastrophic loss of life and
property along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. In some cases tidal
flooding can be prevented or reduced by protective structures,
including barriers in estuaries, with openings for navigation.
Other measures include constructing dikes, walls, and
breakwaters. There are also places where increasing the height
of natural beaches affords effective protection.





Under the authorization contained in Public Law 71, 84th
Congress, 1st Session, approved June 15, 1955, and Section
110 of the 1962 River and Harbor Act, the Corps of Engineers
is conducting general interest investigations of the coastal areas
of the United States in order to identify problem areas and
determine the feasibility of protection. Specific studies must
be authorized by an appropriate resolution by either the Senate
or House Public Works Committee. Works found to be justified
are recommended to Congress for authorization and subsequent
construction.



Hurricane Studies
Many coastal areas have experienced rapid and large popula-
tion growth in recent decades. Increased population densities
in coastal areas have strained the abilities of some local govern-
ments to evacuate vulnerable populations in timely manner
under hurricane threatening conditions. All levels of govern-
ment are currently struggling to improve the abilities of
populated coastal areas to respond effectively to hurricane
threats.
The Corps of Engineers participates in hurricane studies
under the authority for the Flood Plain Management Services
(FRMS) program (Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act,
as amended).
Initial Corps' assistance focused upon hurricane evacuation
studies with objectives of providing quantitative frameworks
in technical reports that could be used by local and state govern-
ment agencies as bases for refined or new hurricane evacua-
tion plans. As local and state governments complete initial
evacuation planning efforts, further Corps' technical assistance
can be provided to assist these governments in the indentifica-
tion and resolution of unique hurricane and flood-related pro-
blems and the development of hurricane loss mitigation
measures.


Water Supply
Water supply is of vital interest to the national economy and
security, and full attention is given to this subject in the plan-
ning of water resources works. Under Section 6 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944, the Secretary of the Army is authorized
to contract with states, municipalities, private concerns, or in-
dividuals for domestic and industrial uses for surplus water
that may be available at Corps of Engineers projects. The Water
Supply Act of 1958, as amended, makes further provisions for
water supply storage in Federal navigation, flood control, ir-
rigation, or multiple-purpose projects.
All costs associated with storage for municipal and industrial
water supply in multipurpose projects must be borne by the
users.



Water Quality Control
Reservoir capacity for streamflow regulation to improve
water quality may be recommended pursuant to the clean water
act. The need, value and impact of storage for water quality
control is determined by the Administrator of EPA. The need
for and the value of storage for regulation of streamflow (other
than for water quality), including but not limited to naviga-


tion, salt water intrusion, recreation, esthetics, and fish and
wildlife, is determined by the Corps of Engineers. Storage and
water releases for regulation of streamflow shall not be pro-
vided as a substitute for adequate treatment or other methods
of controlling waste at the source. Costs of regulation of
streamflow features incorporated in any Federal reservoir or
other impoundment shall be determined and the beneficiaries
identified. If the benefits are widespread or National in scope,
the cost of such features shall be nonreimubursable.


Environmental Quality Policy
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, declared
a national policy on improvement of environmental quality and
established a Council on Environmental Quality to carry out
its purposes. Federal agencies, including the Corps of
Engineers, are directed in the planning and development of pro-
jects and other activities to identify the impact on the environ-
ment and to examine alternatives and their effects. The Corps
of Engineers' activities include environmental studies and ac-
tions in cooperation with the Council under this act. The ob-
jectives of these studies are to preserve unique and important
ecological, aesthetic, and cultural values; conserve and use
wisely the natural resources for the benefit of present and future
generations; enhance, maintain, and restore the natural and
manmade environment; and create new opportunities to use
and enjoy the environment. In the review of programs and pro-
posals, emphasis is placed on development of alternatives or
modifications which benefit environmental quality.



Hydroelectric Power
Power development in multiple-purpose projects under the
jurisdiction of the Chief of Engineers is collateral to the major
objectives of flood control and navigation. In a series of laws
and resolutions dating back to the River and Harbor Act of
1909, Congress has directed the Corps of Engineers to give
consideration in its report to various water uses, including
hydroelectric power.
Provisions for hydroelectric power are thus a part of proper
comprehensive planning for water resource development. The
Chief of Engineers, in accordance with specific directives of
Congress, makes comprehensive plans which include con-
sideration of power and submits recommendations to Congress
concerning those plans. As a result of such plans and recom-
mendations, Congress has authorized many multiple-use pro-
jects that involve hydropower development. In some cases, Con-
gress has authorized projects primarily for power development
when such projects were part of recommended basin plans.
The cost of the power is required to be reimbursed by revenues
from sale of the power. The Southeastern Power Administra-
tion, an agency of the Department of Energy, markets the power
in the southeastern United States.
Because of concern for future energy sources, the National
Hydroelectric Power Resources Study was authorized in Oc-
tober 1976 under Public law 94-587, to analyze the most effi-
cient methods of utilizing the nation's hydroelectric power
resources. Although the hydroelectric power prospect in Florida
is in general less than in most other parts of the country, the
existing potential, including small scale and low-head power,
was studied.






Flood Plain Management Services
The Chief of Engineers, through the Secretary of the Army,
is authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1960, as amended,
to provide technical information to states and local com-
munities, upon their request, to aid them in providing for the
use and regulation of flood plain areas. The work to be done
by the Corps under this authority involves surveying and map-
ping of flood plain areas, together with hydrology and frequency
studies necessary to establish the flood damage potential, flood
heights, and the extent of flooding of the areas involved. Such
information is provided to aid local interests in establishing
land use regulations.



Coast of Florida Erosion and Storm Effects Study
The first statewide study to be initiated for documenting,
quantifying, and understanding coastal changes and processes
for major physiographic regions of shoreline in Florida was
authorized by the Ninety-eighth Congress (H.R. 5653 Sec. 104)
in January 1984. The major coastal regions included in the
study are: the Atlantic Coast from the Florida-Georgia state
line to the Florida keys, the Gulf Coast from Key West to the
Tampa-St. Petersburg area, and the Gulf Coast of the Panhan-
dle region; which extends west to the Alabama state line.

The need for a statewide study was documented in 1973 by
the National Shoreline Study, when 543 miles of Florida's
shoreline were identified as having erosion problems. Except
for the 55 miles of shoreline that have been rebuilt through
Federal and private beach nourishment projects, much of the
shoreline is currently in a state of erosion.

The study will be conducted in two phases, and is funded
for completion of the appraisal report in 1985. The appraisal,
or reconnaissance phase will formulate the study objectives
and develop a comprehensive plan of study. The statewide study
of feasibility scope will follow the appraisal report and is
estimated to require seven years to complete. The study will
encompass all 15 authorized Federal beach erosion control pro-
jects in the State which provide for restoration of 108 miles
of shorefront at an estimated cost of $132 million, and 6 pro-
jects recommended for authorization for an additional 30 miles
of shoreline at an estimated cost of $67 million.


Other Special And Continuing Authorities
Special continuing authorities are items of legislation giv-
ing responsibility to the Secretary of the Army and the Chief
of Engineers for authorization and funding of certain work
items. The objective is to make fast response to relatively small
problems. The various authorities are discussed in the follow-
ing paragraphs, and in the following summary table.

SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS (Section 205, Flood
Control Act of 1948, as amended). Provides for construction
of small flood control projects not specifically authorized by
Congress when, in the opinion of the Chief of Engineers, such
work is advisable. The Federal share in such projects may not
exceed $4,000,000, and must constitute a complete solution to
the flood problem involved so as not to commit the United
States to additional improvements to insure effective operation.
Such projects are subject to the same requirements of feasibility


and economic justification as the larger projects which require
specific authorization by Congress.
SMALL NAVIGATION PROJECTS (Section 107, 1960 River
and Harbor Act, as amended). This legislation authorizes the
Corps of Engineers to construct small river and harbor im-
provement projects not specifically authorized by Congress.
The Federal share in such projects may not exceed $2,000,000,
and the projects must be complete in themselves and not com-
mit the United States to any additional improvement to insure
successful operation. Such projects are also subject to the same
requirements of feasibility and economic justification as the
larger projects which require specific authorization by
Congress.
SMALL BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS (Section
103, River and Harbor Act of 1962, as amended). This Act
authorizes construction of small beach restoration and protec-
tion projects not specifically authorized by Congress. The
Federal share of the cost must not exceed $1,000,000 for a single
project, and the project must not be dependent on additional
improvement for success. Such projects are also subject to the
same requirements of feasibility and economic justification as
the larger projects which require specific authorization by
Congress.
SNAGGING AND CLEARING FOR FLOOD CONTROL
(Section 208, 1954 Flood Control Act). The Corps of Engineers
is authorized, under this act, to spend up to $250,000 on any
single tributary during any one fiscal year for removal of ac-
cumulated snags and other debris, and for the clearing and
straightening of stream channels when, in the opinion of the
Chief of Engineers, such work is justified in the interest of flood
control.
SNAGGING AND CLEARING FOR NAVIGATION (Section
3, River and Harbor Act of 1945). This act authorizes the Corps
of Engineers to undertake emergency work to clear or remove
unreasonable obstructions from rivers, harbors, and other
waterways in the interest of navigation.
EMERGENCY BANK PROTECTION FOR HIGHWAYS
AND PUBLIC WORKS-The general authority of Section 14
of the 1946 Flood Control Act, as amended by Section 27 of
the 1974 Water Resources Development Act, now provides for
funding up to $250,000 for any given locality, for any fiscal
year, for the construction, repair, restoration, and modifica-
tion of emergency streambank and shoreline protection works
to prevent damage to highways, bridge approaches, public
works, churches, hospitals, schools and other nonprofit public
services. Requests should be submitted in writing by agencies
of governments, providing details on the requested assistance.
EMERGENCY FLOOD FIGHTING, RESCUE AND
REPAIR WORK-Public Law 99, 84th Congress, as amend-
ed, and Public Law 288, 93rd Congress may involve the Corps
in emergency flood fighting work and public and private
assistance.
PLANNING ASSISTANCE TO STATES-Section 22, Water
Resources Development Act of 1974, authorizes the Corps of
Engineers to cooperate with any state in preparation of com-
prehensive plans for the development, utilization, and conser-
vation of the water and related resources of drainage basins
located within the boundaries of that state. Not more than
$200,000 may be expended in any one year in any one state,
nor more than $4,000,000 a year for the nation-wide program.





COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT. The Corps, under Public
Law 92-583, provides technical assistance to coastal states hav-
ing an interest in implementing the Coastal Zone Management
Act. This assistance consists of participation in meetings, fur-
nishing data on sensitive coastal areas, coordinating in develop-
ment of state programs and reviewing environmental impact
statements. Where a state CZM Plan exists, permit applications
for activities regulated by the Corps must include a certifica-
tion that they are consistent with the state CZM Plan.
MITIGATION OF SHORE DAMAGE TO NAVIGATION
WORKS. Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1968
authorizes the Corps of Engineers to spend up to $1 million
at a project location without requiring Congressional authoriza-
tion. This expenditure would be for navigation and construc-
tion of the projects for the prevention or mitigation of shore
damages attributed to Federal navigation works.



EPA-CE Construction Grant Program
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) / Corps of
Engineers (CE) Interagency Agreement of 1980 assigned to the
Jacksonville District responsibility for inspection and construc-
tion management of the EPA financed Construction Grant Pro-
gram. The EPA/CE agreement provides for the monitoring of
the construction of sanitary sewage systems including treatment
plants, pumping stations, interceptor and trunk sewers, and
ocean outfalls.
The Jacksonville District Office Staff is responsible for
assigned EPA projects located throughout the State of Florida.
This requires close coordination with the local grantee and the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Overall
responsibility of the CE staff at the district level includes grant
monitoring, review of plans, specifications, bid material and
preconstruction contract award management.
The objective of the program is to assure that EPA grant
assisted wastewater treatment projects are constructed in ac-
cordance with the highest standards of engineering practice
and in compliance with applicable Federal regulations.
The Corps may also provide other technical assistance, bas-
ed on available expertise within the scope of the Construction
Grants Program (PL 92-500, as amended), as requested by and
agreed upon by the respective EPA Regional Administrator and
Division Engineer.
A mission approach is used by the Corps and, therefore, the
Corps determines the need and frequency of inspections in
keeping with EPA regulations and Federal statutes.
The Jacksonville District handles inspection of the program
through offices established at Jacksonville, Pensacola, and
Orlando and through the Gulf Coast and South Florida Area
Engineers' Offices. The South Florida Area Office has a subof-
fice at Ft. Lauderdale to cover the many EPA projects in that
area.
EPA funds treatment works under the Clean Water Act in


the amount of 55 per centum of the cost of construction. For
projects utilizing innovative or alternative wastewater treatment
processes and techniques, the fundable amount is 75 per cen-
tum of the cost of construction. Under the agreement the Corps
monitors these funds under outlay management to insure ade-
quate funds are available for construction costs.
As of 1 October 1984, there were 75 active grants assigned
for Corps monitoring, with a total construction value of over
$1,253,225,000. Additionally, the Corps is assisting EPA in the
final inspection and closeout of other projects.
These grants range in value from $125,000 to well over
$79,000,000.


Emergency Operations
(Emergency Flood Fighting, Rescue and Repair Work)
Congress has assigned Federal responsibility for flood pro-
tection and flood fighting in the United States to the Chief of
Engineers. Construction of flood protective works is performed
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) with specific
Civil Works appropriations. One of these is a continuing
authority which established a fund to conduct flood emergen-
cy operations defined by the 84th Congress in Public Law PL
84-99. When substantial flooding or damage to Federally con-
structed shore protection is probable or occurring, the resources
of the Corps Districts are employed to minimize loss of life
and property. The work supplements the community effort.
Flood fighting may be authorized even if there is no existing
flood protection. Emergency water supplies may be furnished
drought distressed areas, or when a source is contaminated.
When emergencies or disasters of major proportions occur
that are beyond the capability of local and State resources, com-
bined Federal assistance is available under the Disaster Relief
Act of 1974 (PL 93-288). Responding to the Governor's request
and documentation, the President may declare that an emergen-
cy or major disaster situation exists. In these cases, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates Federal
aid to State and local governments. When local or State of-
ficials request direct Federal assistance FEMA may direct that
resources of the Corps and other agencies be employed to pro-
vide Federal aid. Debris removal, emergency protective
measures (channel clearance) and restoration of public utilities
are examined.
The most recent use of these authorities in the State of Florida
occurred from 26 June 82 to 31 July 82 for the purpose of rein-
forcement of 1 mile of dikes during flooding in Hendry County.
From 7 July 82 to present the Corps was involved in the
preparation of Damage Survey Reports (DSR) for the rehabilita-
tion of flood damaged public facilities in De Soto, Manatee
and Sarasota Counties, Florida.
The Emergency Management Division also, during 1980-84,
was involved in planning and training for hazardous material
spills, and mobilization.











CONTINUING AUTHORITIES SUMMARY
FLORIDA

TOTAL ANNUAL OVERALL
FEDERAL APPROPRIATION FEDERAL COST
AUTHORITY-SEC & YEAR LIMITATIONS FOR EACH LIMITATION/PROJECT
PROJECT OF FC OR R&H ACT PURPOSE

Small Flood Control Projects Sec 205, 1948 FC Act, as amended $4,000,000 $30,000,000
Small Navigation Projects Sec 107, 1960 R&H Act, as amended 2,000,000 25,000,000
Small Beach Erosion Projects Sec 103, 1962 R&H Act, as amended 1,000,000 25,000,000
Snaggin and Clearing for Sec 208, 1954 Flood COntrol Act 250,000 5,000,000
Flood Control
Snagging and Clearing Sec 3, 1945 R&H Act -(1) 300,000
for Navigation
Emergency Bank Protection Sec 14, 1946 FC Act, as amended 250,000 10,000,000
for Highways and Public Works
Planning Assistance to States Sec 22, 1974 Water Resources 200,000(2) 4,000,000
Development Act
Coastal Zone Management Public Law 92-583 -
Mitigation of Shore Damages Sec 111 1,000,000

(1) No Federal cost limitation per project.
(2) Maximum expenditure in any one State.





Fifteen Steps to a Civil Works Project
Each civil works project moves through 15 major steps from
conception to operation. These steps carry the typical project
through the planning, design and implementation stages of
engineering. A project usually starts with a local perception
that a water resource problem exists in a specific location.
Local officials approach one of the Corps' district offices to
inquire if some form of federal assistance may be available.
A detailed description of this process appears in EP 1105-2-10,
dated April 1984, "Fifteen Steps to a Civil Works Project."
This brochure is available to the public from one of the Corps
offices listed at the front of this pamphlet. A summary of the
15 steps follows:

Step Description

1 Local officials talk to Corps about
Action by available federal programs. Technical
Local People if assistance and some small projects can
They Perceive be accomplished without congressional
Water Resources authorization.
Problems Local officials contact congressional
delegation if study authorization
required.


2 Action by
Congressional
Delegation and
Congress


3 Initial
Funding of
Study


4 Accom-
plishing the
Study


Member of Congress requests study
authorization through Public Works
Committees.
Committee resolution adopted if report
was previously prepared on water pro-
blems in area.
Legislation normally required if no
Corps report exists.

Study assigned to Corps district office.
Funds to Complete 12-18 months recon-
naissance phase included in President's
budget.
Appropriations for reconnaissance pro-
vid6d in annual Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill.

District conducts reconnaissance phase.
If study continues beyond recon-
naissance, local sponsors may be re-
quired to help fund the feasibility phase.
Public involvement an integral part of
planning process, including review of
draft report and draft environmental im-
pact statement (EIS).
Study conducted under federal Prin-
ciples and Guidelines.
Funds included annually in President's
budget; annual appropriations needed to
continue study.
Study results in feasibility report and
EIS which are submitted to Corps divi-
sion (regional) office.


Step

SDivision
(Regional)
Review


Description
Division office, which reviews district
work during planning process, completes
technical review of final district feasi-
bility report and EIS.
Division engineer submits report to
review board or commission and issues
public notice inviting comments.


BERH or MRC conducts review of
U Review by report and submits views and recommen-
Board of dations to Chief of Engineers.
Engineers for Comments from public fully considered
Rivers and Har- in BERH or MRC. action.
bors (BERH) or
Mississippi
River Commis-
sion (MRC)

SProposed report of Chief of Engineers
Preparation and final EIS sent to heads of federal
of Chief of agencies and governors of affected states
Engineers for comment.
Report Final EIS filed with Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) and made available
to public.
Chief of Engineers considers comments
on proposed report and EIS, prepares
final report, and submits it to Secretary
of the Army.


8 Adminis-
tration Review


Chief of Engineers' report reviewed by
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works).


Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) comments on report as it relates
to President's programs.
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil
Works) transmits Chief of Engineers'
report to Congress.

9In some cases, Corps continues planning
SContinuation and design pending congressional
of Planning and authorization of proposal. This process
Engineering is called CP&E. Funds included in
(CP&E or Ad- President's budget and Congress acts on
vance Engineer- each item in appropriations bill.
ing and Design In other cases, planning and design ter-
(AE&D) minated when district completed its
feasibility study (Step 4) and must be
reinitiated through budget and appropria-
tions process following congressional
authorization. This process is called
AE&D.
Division offices and, in some cases, Of-
fice of the Chief of Engineers review
continuing planning and engineering
reports.





Step Description


1O Con-
gressional
Authorization


U Plans and
Specifications
for Project
Implementation


2 Funding
for Project
Implementation


Step


Feasibility reports referred to Committee
on Public Works and Transportation in
House and Committee on Environment
and Public Works in Senate.

Civil works projects are normally
authorized by Water Resources Develop-
ment Act (Omnibus Bill) following com-
mittee hearings.
Occasionally, a Corps proposal is
authorized by separate legislation or as
part of another bill or, in cases where
estimated federal cost is $15 million or
less, by committee resolutions.

District completes enough engineering
and design, and develops plans and
specifications, for initiating project
implementation.


New projects included in President's
budget based on national priorities and
anticipated completion of design, plans
and specifications so that construction
contract can be awarded.
Budget recommendations supported by
evidence of support from state and other
non-federal sponsors responsible for
sharing in cost of project.
Congress appropriates funds for new
starts; normally, this occurs in annual
Energy and Water Development Ap-
propriations Bill.


3 Contract
between the
Federal Govern-
ment and Non-
Federal
Sponsors






14 Project
Implementation


Description
Secretary of the Army and appropriate
non-federal sponsors sign formal agree-
ment once Congress has appropriated
funds for project implementation to
begin.
Agreement obligates non-federal spon-
sors to participate in implementing,
operating and maintaining project
according to requirements established by
Congress and administration.

Engineering and design continue during
implementation process; plans and
specifications reviewed by division of-
fices and sometimes by Office of the
Chief of Engineers.


Funds included in President's annual
budget; appropriations required to con-
tinue design and implementation.
Construction managed by Corps but
done by private contractors.

SFFor operating and maintaining federal
SOperation project, funds are included in President's
and annual budget based on project needs
Maintenance and available funding; congressional ap-
propriations required to continue opera-
tion and maintenance.
Local flood damage reduction, hurricane
protection and beach erosion projects
normally operated and maintained by
non-federal sponsors as part of agree-
ment signed prior to implementation.
Corps periodically inspects projects after
turning them over to non-federal
sponsors.































RT PIERCE



STUART





WEST
PALM
BEACH






FT. LAUDERDALE





MIAMI


SCALE IN MILES
20 0 20 40 60


Central and Southern Florida Area


-9
0


VICINITY MAP -o
SCALE IN MILES ""O
5&,..-o0


LA
FORT
MYERS


An Inn


L r,


--


v






Central and Southern Florida Area


Port Mayaca









Introduction


The area includes the central and southern part of the State
south of Cape Canaveral and the city of Orlando, and lies
generally east of the ridge which divides the waters which flow
into the Atlantic from those which reach the Gulf of Mexico.
The individual drainage basins included in this area constitute,
for all practical purposes, a single watershed because in most
cases their waters intermingle during periods of heavy rainfall
and their problems of water control and use, as well as their
economic problems, are closely interrelated. Principal sub-
areas include the upper St. Johns River and related areas,
Kissimmee River Basin and related areas, Lake Okeechobee
and its outlets, the Everglades, the coastal areas, and the nor-
thern portion of the Florida Keys.
Because of the nature of the climate, topography and develop-
ment, the area is subject to extremes of flood and drought.
Lake Okeechobee, a large natural, shallow, freshwater lake,
is the heart of the Central and Southern Florida area. The
Okeechobee Waterway is a navigation channel which connects
the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico via St. Lucie Canal,
Lake Okeechobee, and Caloosahatchee River.
The source of the Kissimmee is in several streams which
rise southerly of Orlando. The entire basin is generally flat
with a gentle southerly slope toward Lake Okeechobee, and
is dotted with shallow lakes and interconnecting sloughs and
channels. With the exception of the emerging urban complex
in the Orlando area, the entire drainage area is utilized for
agricultural production, primarily beef cattle.
The St. Johns River begins in a broad swamp and marsh area
just west of Ft. Pierce in St. Lucie County. The area is
separated from the saline Indian River by a low coastal ridge
3 to 10 miles wide and ranging up to elevation 30. Direction
of drainage is largely indeterminate and, depending on dif-
ferences in rainfall and direction of winds, may be west toward
the Kissimmee River, south toward the St. Lucie River, or to


the north and east where waters collect to form the St. Johns.
Open water and the beginning of the channel is in the latitude
of Melbourne. In recent years, much of the original marsh has
been converted to improved pasture, cropland, or citrus
production.
The Everglades is the name generally applied to the area
extending southerly from Lake Okeechobee to points west of
Miami, then southwesterly about 40 miles toward Florida Bay
and the Gulf of Mexico. In its original state it was a vast solitude
of sawgrass and water and was aptly termed by its Indian in-
habitants the "Pay-hay-okee" or "grassy water." Almost half
of the Everglades proper is in the water conservation areas of
the Central and Southern Florida project; less than 10 percent
is in the Everglades National Park, which is in the Southwest
area.
By 1979 over 3 V2 million people had settled along the south
Florida coast, primarily along the coastal ridges in Dade,
Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Rapid population influx,
the resulting development and related environmental damage
have resulted in serious water-resource-related problems. Poor
water quality is a severe problem stemming from inadequate
or untreated waste discharges, agricultural and urban storm-
water runoff, and salt water intrusion and septic tank water
seepage into groundwater. Competition for land resources also
has forced development into flood-prone lands.
In recent years, Miami Harbor and adjacent Port Everglades
have become the principal cruise ship ports in the southeastern
United States. The cruise ship industry is one of south Florida's
fastest growing industries.
Beach erosion is a problem along the coastal areas. A number
of navigation, flood control, and beach erosion control pro-
jects have been authorized. These are discussed on the follow-
ing pages.









Navigation Projects


Bakers Haulover Inlet, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Bakers Haulover Inlet connects the upper end of Biscayne
Bay and the Intracoastal Waterway with the Atlantic Ocean.
It is located about 9 miles north of the entrance to Miami Har-
bor and is used primarily by recreational craft. The project
provides for jetties north and south of the entrance channel,
to help maintain the project depth in the entrance channel and
reduce maintenance costs. It also provides for dredging, when
necessary, a channel 11 feet deep and 200 feet wide through
the 300-foot section of the inlet, thence 8 feet deep and 100
feet wide west and north to and including a marina basin 200
feet wide and thence 8 feet deep and 100 feet wide both west
and north to the Intracoastal Waterway.
The Project was completed in December 1964.
No traffic reported for 1983.

PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


1960 River and Harbor Act


$243,235
342$ 213


Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channel Feature
Entrance channel
Inner channel
Marina basin


Depth (ft.)
11
8
8


basin. The barge lock is 90 feet wide and 600 feet long to
accommodate NASA's cargo requirements.
The average annual freight traffic from 1978 to 1982 was
about 2,945,084 tons. The 1983 traffic was 2,285,751 tons.

PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act 1960 River and Harbor Act
Cost
Federal $8,254,521
Non-Federal $1,003,000
Remaining Cost
Federal $13,596,100
Non-Federal $171,000


Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Feature
Entrance channel
Inner channel


Turning basin
Westward extension
$159,157 Barge channel
1.0 miles


Width (ft.)
200
100
200


Canaveral Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Canaveral Harbor is on the east coast of Florida adjacent
to Kennedy Space Center. The harbor is used by military
vessels serving the Space Center, Navy vessels in connection
with missile operations, and commercial vessels serving cen-
tral Florida. The existing project provides for maintaining the
existing jetties located north and south of the entrance chan-
nel; relocating the perimeter dike about 4,000 feet westward;
extending the harbor westward at a 31-foot depth and providing
a second harbor basin; enlarging the barge channel to 12 feet
deep by 125 feet wide from the turning basin to the Intracoastal
Waterway; relocating and constructing the previously authoriz-
ed barge lock; and constructing and operating a sand-transfer
plant. The work is complete except for providing the second
harbor basin and sand-transfer plant. The project has been
modified to provide a 1,540-foot westward extension off the
existing basin at a 31-foot depth in lieu of providing a second


Barge lock


Depth (ft.)
37
36
35
31
12
Width
(ft.)
90


$26,963,645
11.5 miles

Width (ft.)
400
300
900-2,000
300
125
Length
(ft.)
600


Courtenay Channel, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Courtenay Channel is a side channel in the Indian River con-
necting the Intracoastal Waterway with the town of Courtenay.
The channel was completed in 1940 and is used by commer-
cial and recreational fishing craft in the area.
No commerce was reported for 1983.

PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


1938 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal

Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


$22,846



$18,808
1.7 miles


8 feet deep X 100 feet wide


Channel





Eau Gallie Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Eau Gallie Harbor project consists of a channel from
the Indian River to and including a 300-foot-wide and 600-foot-
long turning basin in the Eau Gallie River at Eau Gallie,
Florida. The channel is used primarily by recreational boats
but does receive a small amount of commercial traffic. It is
also used occasionally as a harbor of refuge.
The average annual traffic from 1965 to 1975 was about 200
tons. No traffic reported for 1983.


Florida, is a major segment of the Federal Inland Waterway
system which serves both commercial barges and recreational
boats. In addition to maintenance of the waterway and side
channels, the Corps of Engineers has maintenance responsibili-
ty for the bridge which spans the waterway at Palm Valley in
St. Johns County. The existing project was completed in 1965.
The average annual traffic from 1978 to 1982 has been about
1,193,883 tons and about 547,237 passengers. The 1983 traffic
was 835,925 tons.

PROJECT DATA


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act


Authorizing Act


1938 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channel


$9,627


$157,987
2,700 feet


8 feet deep X 100 feet wide


Fort Pierce Harbor
(Jacksonville District)
The project provides a channel from the Atlantic Ocean
through Ft. Pierce Inlet, across the Indian River, and up to
Ft. Pierce where it terminates with a turning basin located in
front of the Ft. Pierce city docks. The project also includes
maintenance of two jetties and shore revetments at the inlet.
The project was completed in 1938.
A fishing walkway atop the south jetty was constructed by
the local sponsor in 1968. The average traffic from 1978 to 1982
has been about 242,298 tons. Traffic for 1983 was 196,642.


1945 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal

Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length

FEATURE:
Main Channel Depth (ft.)
Jacksonville to
Fort Pierce, Florida 12
Fort Pierce to
Miami, Florida 10

SIDE CHANNELS & TURNING BASIN
Vero Beach
turning basin 8
Daytona Beach
side channel 8
Sebastian side
channel 8


and prior acts

$19,250,889



$25,068,124
370 miles



Width (ft.)


Varies


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act


1938 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channel
Entrance channel
Inner channel
Turning basin


Depth (ft.)
27
25
25


Intracoastal Waterway, Miami to Key West, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


$356,056 The Intracoastal Waterway from Jacksonville to Miami was
$18,574 extended to Cross Bank in the Florida Keys in 1939. Length
of this portion of the project is about 63 miles. The remaining
portion of the waterway from Cross Bank to Key West is in
$3,570,092 an inactive category. The waterway is used by commercial and
3.5 miles recreational craft.


Width (ft.)
350
200
900


The average annual traffic from 1978 to 1982 has been about
615,880 tons. The 1983 traffic was 590,346 tons.

PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


1945 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts


Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to
Miami, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Intracoastal Waterway from Jacksonville to Miami,


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal

Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984


$243,079



$27,752





Total authorized project length
(63 miles completed)
Channel


Melbourne Harbor, Fla.
158 miles (Jacksonville District)


7 feet deep X 90 feet wide


Kissimmee River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The project provides a channel between the towns of Kissim-
mee and Fort Basinger and a channel between the Kissimmee
River and Lake Istokpoga. The project was completed in 1909
and is used primarily by recreational craft. Since its initial con-
struction, the project has been largely supplemented by a flood-
way with control structures and navigation locks.
No traffic was reported for 1983.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


This project provides a channel from approximately the
8-foot depth in the Indian River to the town of Melbourne. It
is adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway, Jacksonville to Miami,
Florida, and receives a small amount of commercial traffic.
Its main use, however, is by recreational boats. No traffic
reported for 1983.

PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984


1902 River and Harbor Act


$23,479


Total authorized project length
Channel


1937 River and Harbor Act


$17,696



$147,113


3,150 feet
8 feet deep X 100 feet wide


Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length

Depth (ft.)
Channel 3


$89113 Miami Harbor, Fla.
$89,113
(Jacksonville District)
109 miles The Miami Harbor project is actually three inter-related
projects-the main ship channel adjacent to Miami port
Width (ft.) facilities on Dodge Island which serves cruise ships and deep
30 draft commercial ships, and the channels in and adjacent to


Miami Harbor





Miami River which serve small commercial ships, recreational
boats, and commercial barges. The 15.3 miles authorized by
the project consists of 6 miles in the main ship channel, 5.8
miles in Miami River, and 3.5 miles of connecting channels.
The main ship channel is protected by jetties north and south
of it, and has a turning basin 1,400 feet long and 1,650 feet
wide adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard. The main channel serves
the large number of cruise ships which make Miami the
recognized leader for Caribbean cruises. The actual dredging
of Miami Harbor to its authorized 38-and 36-foot depths is
now complete.
Other work authorized but now in an inactive status would
provide a channel 8 feet deep and 200 feet wide from the mouth
of Miami River to the Intracoastal Waterway and thence 100
feet wide to Government Cut; provide a channel 12 feet deep
and 100 feet wide from Miami River to a harbor of refuge in
Palmer Lake; and provide a channel 15 feet deep and 200 feet
wide from the mouth of the river to the municipal turning basin.
The average annual traffic from 1978 to 1982 has been about
3,591,862 tons and about 934,707 passengers. The 1983 traffic
was 6,651,093 tons.

PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


1968 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized length of project


Channels
Main Ship Channel
Bar channel
Government Cut
Other channels
Mouth of Miami
River to turning basin
at seaport terminals
Miami River to IWW
IWW to Government Cut
Miami River Channel


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act
Cost


Federal
Non-Federal

Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channel


1945 River and Harbor Act


$36,518



$23,582
7.9 miles


8 feet deep X 100 feet wide


Okeechobee Waterway, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Okeechobee Waterway traverses the southern part of the
Florida peninsula via Lake Okeechobee, a large fresh water
lake about 31 miles in diameter, and connects the Atlantic and
Gulf sections of the Intracoastal Waterway. The waterway serves
commercial barges and recreational boats. The entire project
is complete except for the turning basin at Stuart which is in
an inactive category.
The average annual traffic from 1978 to 1982 has been about
819,342 tons and about 35,933 passengers. The 1983 traffic
was about 87,734 tons.


$24,685,677 RECREATION: There are five navigation locks on the
$2,202,126 Okeechobee Waterway: W.P. Franklin, Ortona, Moore Haven,
Port Mayaca and St. Lucie. At W.P. Franklin on the north side
$2,266,102 of the Caloosahatchee River is a picnic area, a camping area
15.3 miles with a modern restroom and showers. On the south side of
the river is a picnic area, and a restroom with showers. Each


Depth (ft.) Width

38
36


15
8
8
Varies


(ft.)


side has a boat ramp with courtesy pier.


At Ortona Lock there is a small picnic/camping area with
500 a modern restroom with showers, a boat ramp and a fishing
400 pier.
At Moore Haven Lock there is a small picnic area with a
modern restroom with showers, a boat ramp and a fishing pier.


The new facilities planned for the Port Mayaca Lock are
200 described under recreation projects.
200 At St. Lucie Lock there is also a small picnic/camping area
100 with a modern restroom with showers and a boatramp. Fishing
Varies walkways and a picnic area are on the north side of the river.


New River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
New River flows through Fort Lauderdale in eastern Broward
County. The 8-foot-deep and 100-foot-wide channel extends
from the Intracoastal Waterway to Tarpon Bend at the intersec-
tion of New River and Tarpon River. The project also provides
for removal of sunken vessels and snags in New River and its
south fork to the intersection of Dania Cutoff Canal. The
navigation channel serves recreational boats and makes up only
.64 miles of the total 7.9 miles of the project which was com-
pleted in 1956.
No traffic reported for 1983. Traffic on New River is in-
cluded in totals compiled for Port Everglades Harbor.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintet
costs to September 30, 198Z
Total authorized length of pro

Channels
Main channel
Fort Myers to Tice


1945 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts
Sec. 107, 1960 River and Harbor Act


$21,397,889
$503,700

$27,659,296
154.6 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)





Tice to Okeechobee
Waterway near
Stuart

Other channels and
turning basins
Gulf of Mexico to
Punta Rassa
Punta Rassa to
Fort Myers
including a
turning basin
Channel in Taylor
Creek from town
of Okeechobee to
Lake Okeechobee
Channel along south
side of Lake
Okeechobee
from Clewiston to
Port Mayaca Lock


Varies 80


to


Palm Beach Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


S100 The project consists of a channel from the Atlantic Ocean
through Lake Worth Inlet, then across Lake Worth and ter-
minating with a turning basin in front of the Port of Palm Beach.
The project serves commercial and recreational craft.
The project was completed in 1967. *
The average annual traffic for 1978-1982 was 1,476,496 tons
and 797 passengers. The 1983 traffic was 2,386,467 tons.


PROJECT DATA

Authorizing Act


1960 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts


Cost
60 Federal
Non-Federal

Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
80 Total authorized project length


$6,904,021
$509,506


$4,774,768

1.6 miles'


Locks
St. Lucie
Port Mayaca
Moore Haven
Ortona
W. P. Franklin


Depth over Width
Sill (ft.) (ft.)
10 50
10.5 56
10 50
11.5 50
14 56


Length
(ft.)
250
400
250
250
400


Channel
From Atlantic
Ocean through
the inlet
Inner channel
Turning basin


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


400
300
1,210x1,400


Orange River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The project provides a channel from the mouth of the Orange
River upstream to the town of Buckingham. The Orange River
empties into the Caloosahatchee River just east of Ft. Myers,
Florida.
Transient recreational craft occasionally use the river for
refuge during storms. Several local commercial fishing boats
also either base on the river or go there chiefly to take advan-
tage of the repair facilities available. The project was completed
in 1903.
No traffic was reported for 1983.

PROJECT DATA


Authorizing


1902 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


5.7 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)
4 50


Channel


Port Everglades Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The present Port Everglades harbor project, which is now
under construction, provides for a channel 45 feet deep and
500 feet wide through the ocean bar, tapering to 450 feet wide
and 42 feet deep between the rubblestone entrance jetties, and
continuing at those dimensions to an irregularly flared entrance
and a turning basin of the same depth, and maintenance of the
entrance jetties. The entrance channel widening requires the
removal of a portion of the existing north jetty. The authoriz-
ed project will also provide a 36-foot depth in front of Berth
18 in the north-south extension of the inner harbor and turn-
ing basin. The remainder of the extension will keep its pre-
sent 31-foot depth. A new channel extension 400 feet wide and
36 feet deep will connect with the main harbor basin. The
deeper depths over 40 feet will more economically serve deep-
draft ships carrying primarily petroleum products. Pier 7 chan-
nel will serve general cargo and cruise ships while the Berth
18 channel is primarily for general cargo vessels. The funds
to initiate work were appropriated for Fiscal Year 1979, and
construction was initiated. The first of two contracts was award-
ed July 18, 1979. All channel deepening was completed in April
1984.

Average annual traffic from 1978 to 1982 has been about
12,360,171 tons and about 1,077,940 passengers.

The 1983 traffic was about 11,463,317 tons.





PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act Section 2
Law 89-298, I
ai
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channels
Entrance channel
Main channel
and basin
Pier 7 channel
Berth 18 channel


authorized improvements which help stabilize the inlet and
01 of Public reduce hazards to navigation are construction of a north jetty
vay 31, 1974 extension in a south-easterly direction to help break up waves
nd prior acts which normally enter the inlet from the northeast, construc-
tion of a detached breakwater immediately south of the entrance
channel in a southwesterly direction to improve protection of
$38,264,192 the channel and impoundment basin during east and southeast
$323,456 wave attack, and construction of a south jetty to break up waves
during periods when the wind is blowing from the southeast
$1,344,960 as well as reducing the deposits of sand in the inlet during those
1.6 miles periods. Finally a fishing walkway is provided on the south
jetty.


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.) Project construction was initiated in 1979. All work was com-
45 500 pleted in October 1982. The average annual traffic for 1978-1982
was 15,842 tons. The 1983 traffic was 2,899 tons.


450
400
Varies


St. Lucie Inlet, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The present project at St. Lucie Inlet provides for a channel
16 feet deep and 300 feet wide across the outside rock reef
(Bar Cut), tapering to 10 feet deep and 150 feet wide through
the inlet, and a channel 7 feet deep and 100 feet wide between
the inlet and the Intracoastal Waterway.
Funds to initiate enlargement and stabilization of the St.
Lucie Inlet project, authorized by the 1974 River and Harbor
Act, were appropriated in Fiscal Year 1979. The authorized im-
provements will be multi-purpose in nature. The channel dredg-
ing will benefit both commercial and recreational boats by pro-
viding a deeper and wider channel. The impoundment basin
will reduce the maintenance from once a year to once every
two years, a benefit to navigation. At the same time, the im-
poundment basin catches sand used to nourish the now eroding
beaches .for a 3.5-mile distance south of the inlet. Other


PROJECT DATA

Authorizing Act
for new project


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


Section 201 of
Public Law 89-298,
May 31, 1974


Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984

Total authorized project length


Channels

Bar Cut
Entrance channel
Main channel


Depth
(ft.)


Impoundment
basin


$7,313,059
$2,452,420


$2,567,637

1.9 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


Width Length
(ft.) (ft.)

400 1,800












LOCALITY
Boca Raton Inlet, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Clearwater (Spoil
Disposal), Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Fort Pierce Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

IWW, Jacksonville to
Miami (Ft. Pierce to
Miami Beach), Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

IWW, Miami to Key
West, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Jupiter Inlet, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Miami Harbor (Miami
River Cleanup)
(Jacksonville District)

Miami Harbor Channel,
Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

North Lake Channel,
Hollywood, Florida.

Okeechobee Waterway
Side Channel and
Turning Basin at
Clewiston, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Palm Beach Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Sebastian Inlet, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


Navigation Studies


PURPOSE
Improvements in the interests of small-craft navigation and
allied purposes.

Develop plan for maintenance dredging disposal in Clear-
water area.


Enlargement of existing 25-foot project to 40-foot depth.


Deepening from 10 to 12 feet of the Ft. Pierce-to-Miami
reach.



Authorized IWW project has not been completed. Study
would develop current justification.


Improvements for small-craft navigation.


Cleanup of Miami River for aesthetic, environmental, and
navigational purposes.


Consider deepening and widening existing Federal project
for deep-draft navigation.


Consider dredging a small-boat channel and turning basin.


Small-craft side channel and turning basin at Clewiston.





Federal maintenance of harbor extension dredged by local
interests.

Improvement of inlet for small-craft navigation.


APPROXIMATE DATE
TO BE COMPLETED
Indefinite; not funded.


Initial funding FY
1985.


1985.


Study deferred
indefinitely.



Indefinite; not funded.



Initial funding FY
1985.

Funded for completion
FY 1985.


Study underway.



Study underway under
Section 107 Program.

Indefinite; not funded.





Review by Chief of
Engineers.

Indefinite; not funded.









Flood Control Projects


Central and Southern Florida Project
The Central and Southern Florida Project involves an area
of about 16,000 square miles, which includes all or part of 18
counties in central and southern Florida. It embraces Lake
Okeechobee, its regulatory outlets, a large portion of the
Everglades, the upper St. Johns and Kissimmee River Basins,
and the lower east coast of Florida.
The project is one for flood relief and water conservation
and provides principally for an east coast protective levee ex-
tending from the Homestead area north to the eastern shore
of Lake Okeechobee near St. Lucie Canal; three conservation
areas for water impoundment in the Everglades area west of
the east coast protective levee, with control structures to ef-
fect transfer of water as necessary; local protective works along
the lower east coast; encirclement of the Lake Okeechobee
agricultural area by levees and canals; enlargement of portions
of Miami, North New River, Hillsboro, and West Palm Beach
Canals; enlargement of existing Lake Okeechobee levees and
construction of new levees on the northeast and northwest
shores of the lake; increased outlets capacity for improved con-
trol of Lake Okeechobee; floodway channels in the Kissimeee
River Basin, with suitable control structures to prevent over-
drainage; and facilities for regulation of floods in the Upper
St. Johns River Basin. The project provides water control and
protection from the recurrence of devastating flood waters from
the Everglades and local sources for the highly developed ur-
ban area along the lower east coast of Florida and for the pro-
ductive agricultural areas around Lake Okeechobee (including
the towns around the lake), in the upper St. Johns and Kissim-
mee River Basin, and in south Dade County. Another impor-
tant project function is the conservation of floodwaters for
beneficial uses during dry seasons. The project also includes
seven navigation locks, 20 feet wide and 90 feet long in the
Kissimmee River Basin; six locks, 20 feet wide and 60 feet
long in the St. Johns River Basin; and the necessary channel
excavations and bridge alterations to provide needed facilities
for additional recreational boating use.
The Central and Southern Florida Project, first phase, was
authorized by the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948. Phase
1 consisted of most of the works necessary to afford flood pro-
tection to the productive agricultural development south of Lake
Okeechobee and to the highly developed urban area along the
lower east coast of the State.
Phase 2, consisting of all remaining works of the original
Comprehensive Plan, was authorized by the Flood Control Act
of September 3, 1954. Improvements in Hendry County and
in Nicodemus Slough (just west of Lake Okeechobee) were
added to the project by the Flood Control Acts of July 3, 1958,
and July 14, 1960, respectively. Improvements in Boggy Creek,
Cutler Drain Area, Shingle Creek, South Dade County, and
West Palm Beach Canal were added to the project by the Flood
Control Act of October 23, 1962.
Improvements in Southwest Dade County were added to the
project by the Flood Control Act of October 27, 1965; the same


act modifying the 1958 authorization for the Hendry County
improvements.
The Flood Control Act of 1968 expanded the project to pro-
vide for increased storage and conservation of water and for
improved distribution of water throughout much of the pro-
ject area. Flood control measures for Martin County were add-
ed. The 1968 modifications would also facilitate increased
delivery of water to the Everglades National Park.
In December 1970 small-craft recreational facilities were
authorized by the Committee of Public Works of the U.S. House
of Representatives.
The authorizing acts require that local interests shall pro-
vide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way; pay for reloca-
tions of highways (with certain exceptions), highway bridges,
and public utilities which may be required for construction of
project works; hold and save the United States free from
damages resulting from construction and operation of the
works; maintain and operate all works (except certain major
regulating structures) after completion and make a cash con-
tribution for each part of the work prior to its initiation. In
1949, the Florida State Legislature created the Central and
Southern Florida Flood Control District and authorized it to
act for local interests in complying with those conditions of
local cooperation and in all other matters relating to the project.
Authorized project facilities include 30 pumping stations,
196 control and diversion structures, 990 miles of levees, 978
miles of canals, 25 navigation locks, and 58 railroad reloca-
tions (bridges).
Construction was begun in January 1950. The project as a
whole is about 77 percent completed for scheduled work.
The estimated cost of new work is $829,000,000 Federal
funds (excludes $2,256,000 for Coast Guard) and $225,000,000
local cash contributions. In addition, the estimated cost to local
interests for lands, rights-of-way, relocations, and review of
Plans and Specifications was $222,900,000. Through
September 30, 1980, Federal allocations have amounted to
$277,656,000 and cash contributions by local interests have
amounted to $52,830,167
The current estimates of average annual benefits from the
project are summarized as follows:


Type of Benefit
Flood control
Recreation
Water supply
Agriculture
Urban
Fish and wildlife
Navigation
Redevelopment benefits
Total annual benefits


Estimated average
Annual Benefits
$243,890,000
10,935,000

20,941,000
17,538,000
266,000

2,025,000
$295,595,000


Total estimate of flood damages prevented by the completed
works of this project between January 1950 and September 1983
amounts to about $472,065,000.

-r









Flood Control Studies


The Senate and House Public Works Committee have authoriz-
ed review of the Comprehensive Plan for Central and Southern
Florida (H. Doc. 643, 80th Cong., 2nd Sess.) with a view to
determining the economic justification of modifications of the


original plan to provide flood and water-control works at a
number of additional localities. The need for such works was
not foreseen when the plan was prepared in 1947. Pending in-
vestigations are listed below:


LOCALITY
Greater Miami Area
(Area B)
(Jacksonville District)

Hillsboro Canal East
of Conservation Areas
Nos 1 and 2
(Jacksonville District)
Kissimmee River
(Jacksonville District)


Shark River Slough
(Jacksonville District)

South New River
Canal, C-11
(Jacksonville District)

Wekiva River Basin
(Jacksonville District)


C&SF- Water Supply
(Jacksonville District)


PURPOSE
Improvements in the interest of flood and water control.



Improvements in the interest of flood and water control.


To determine if existing flood control and navigation project
needs modification for water quality, fish and wildlife, recrea-
tion and other environmental matters.

Feasibility of improving overland flow into the Shark River
Slough Area of the Everglades National Park.

Improvements in the interest of flood and water control.



Improvements in the interest of flood and water control.



Feasibility of alternative sources of water supply for industrial
and municipal use in south central Florida.


APPROXIMATE DATE
TO BE COMPLETED
Indefinite; deferred;
not funded.


Indefinite; not
scheduled.


1985.



1985.


Indefinite; to be
rescheduled.


Indefinite; inactive
status.


1986.









Beach Erosion Control Projects


Brevard County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Brevard County is on the east coast of Florida about the mid-
point of the peninsula and encompasses the Cape Canaveral
area. A beach erosion study, authorized by Congress in 1963
and completed in 1967, determined that much of the ocean
shore throughout the county is eroding. Federal participation
in a beach erosion control project for the City of Cape
Canaveral and for Indialantic and Melbourne Beach was subse-
quently authorized by Congress. The project provides for a
level berm 50 feet wide at elevation 10 feet above mean low
water and gentle seaward slopes and for periodic nourishment
of the project segment at Indialantic and Melbourne Beach.
Nourishment for the Cape Canaveral reach is to be provided
from maintenance dredging for Canaveral Harbor entrance
channel.
Construction of the northerly two miles of the Cape
Canaveral reach was completed in March 1975, as a cooperative
effort between local officials and the Corps of Engineers us-
ing sand obtained during construction of the Navy Trident Sub-
marine Basin inside Canaveral Harbor. Suitable material for
beach restoration excavated from the Trident Basin was plac-
ed in the beach project area, resulting in a wider beach than
initially required, thus reducing future nourishment re-
quirements. The project at Indialantic and Melbourne Beach
was completed in January 1981. The source of beach fill
material was the Upland Disposal Area for material excavated
for construction of the Trident Basin.
A plan was also developed for beach erosion control along
11 miles of Federally-owned shore in Brevard County, including
part of Patrick Air Force Base, and for hurricane protection
of the entire 32 miles of Federally-owned shore north of
Canaveral Harbor. Improvement of those shores would be ac-
complished by the Federal agencies involved, subject to their
own justification and funding.

PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act

Estimate (1984) costs:


Federal (C of E)
Non-Federal


Estimated
Cost of
Project
$8,220,000
$8,220,000


River and Harbor
Act of 1968

Cost
Through
Fiscal
Year 1984
$2,346,500
$2,262,000


Design
width
(ft.)


Feature


(1) Protective
beach at
City of Cape
Canaveral
(2) Protective
beach at
Indialantic
and Melbourne
Beach


Design
length
(miles)


Sand deposition
(cu. yd.)
Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment


180 2.8 776,000


180 2.0 690,000


58,000


*Annual nourishment for City of Cape Canaveral segment to
be provided from maintenance dredging for Canaveral Har-
bor navigation project.




Broward County And Hillsboro Inlet, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Four separate problem shore areas totaling 8.8 miles are in-
cluded in the authorized beach project for Broward County on
the east coast of Florida, about 30 miles north of Miami. The
project also provides for periodic nourishment of those and
other eroding shores in the county as needed, and for a naviga-
tion improvement at Hillsboro Inlet. The navigation feature is
inactive due to local non-project improvements. Local interests
initially completed a 3.2-mile project segment at Pompano
Beach in 1970 at a cost of $1,758,800, 1.5 miles of beach at
John U. Lloyd State Park in 1976 at a cost of $2,908,000, and
5.2 miles of beach at Hollywood/Hallandale in 1979 at a cost
of $7,743,000.
The first periodic nourishment of 5.3 miles at Pompano and
Lauderdale-By-The-Sea was completed in August 1983 by local
interests at a cost of $8,754,000.

PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act

Estimated (1984) costs:


Federal (C of E)
Non-Federal


River and Harbor
Act of 1965


Estimated
Cost of
Project
$13,800,000


Cost
Through
Fiscal
Year 1984
$11,026,800


$21,100,000 $11,328,800





Design
width
Feature (ft.)


Design
length Sand deposition
(miles) (cu. yd.)
Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment


Active
Feature


Design
width
(ft.)


Design
length
(miles)


Protective beach


100 8.9 3,670,000 310,000


(1) Haulover Beach Park:
Protective Beach 75


(2) Government Cut to
Bakers Haulover In-
Dade County, Fla. let: Protective beach
(Jacksonville District) and dune 250
(Jacksonville District)


1.2 700,000 20,000


9.3 13,500,000


185,000


A beach study completed in Dade County in 1965 determined
that (1) the ocean shore of the county north of Government Cut
had seriously eroded, (2) little or no protective beach exists
in the general area where many existing seawalls are subject
to direct wave action, and (3) remedial measures are warranted
for the 10.5 miles of problem shore north of the Miami Har-
bor entrance channel (Government Cut). The northerly 1.2
miles of the reach comprises Haulover Beach Park, a major
bathing beach and fully-developed county park intensely used
by permanent residents and hundreds of thousands of seasonal
tourists. Several smaller public parks exist throughout the 9.3
miles of ocean shore north of Government Cut. That reach also
represents the most densely-concentrated resort area of hotels,
motels, and condominiums of the luxury class in the world.
Shore protection improvements subsequently authorized by
Congress provide for beach erosion control fill along 1.2 miles
of shore at Haulover Beach Park, and for combined beach ero-
sion control and hurricane (tidal flooding) protection fill for
9.3 miles of shore between Government Cut and Bakers
Haulover Inlet.

Bal Harbour Village officials, due to advanced erosion, com-
pleted early construction of their 0.85-mile project reach in
July 1975. They obtained congressional authorization for that
project work and for future reimbursement of the Federal share
of related costs.
Project construction was initiated in 1977. The first of five
contracts was completed August 1978. The second contract was
completed in August 1979. The third contract was completed
in October 1980. The fourth contract was completed in
December 1981. The last contract was completed in January
1982.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act



Estimated (1984) costs:


Flood Control Act of 1968
modified by Water Resources
Development Act of 1974


Estimated
Cost of
Project


Federal (C of E)
Non-Federal


Cost
Through
Fiscal
Year 1983


$50,400,000 $32,644,000
$42,400,000 $24,704,000


Fort Pierce, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Fort Pierce Beach Erosion Control Project extends 1.3
miles south of Ft. Pierce Inlet, on the east coast of Florida
about 120 miles north of Miami. The project fill was initially
completed by local interests in 1971, using offshore borrow
material. Prior to the nourishment, severe shorefront reces-
sion had destroyed a private residence and threatened other
residences and a State road. Local interests were reimbursed
the Federal share of the initial project construction cost. Federal
participation in future project nourishment is authorized for
an initial 10-year period. The project is also periodically
nourished with suitable material obtained from operational
maintenance of the nearby Fort Pierce Federal Navigation Pro-
ject. The project was renourished in the summer of 1980.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act
Estimated (1984) costs:


Federal (C of E)
Non-Federal


Active
Feature


Protective Beach


River and Harbor Act of 1965


Estimated
Cost of
Project
$3,370,000
$3,150,000


Design
width
(ft.)


Design
length
(miles)


Cost
Through
Fiscal
Year 1984
$1,175,400
$773,000


Sand deposition
(cu. yd.)
Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment


200 1.3 651,000


60,000


Palm Beach County, Fla, From Martin County
Line to Lake Worth Inlet and From South Lake
Worth Inlet to Broward County Line, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The beach erosion control project for Palm Beach County
on the east coast of Florida about 70 miles north of Miami,
provides for Federal aid in (1) initial improvement at four dif-
ferent locations totaling 12.2 miles outside Palm Beach Island,
(2) nourishment of those and other eroding shores as needed
throughout the county, and (3) operation and maintenance


Sand deposition
(cu. yd.)
Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment





(O&M) costs of the existing sand-transfer plant at South Lake
Worth Inlet following initial improvement of the project beach.
Project construction has been limited to initial beach fill for
a 2.6-mile segment at Delray Beach by local interests in August
1973 at a cost of $1,170,000. This section of beach was first
renourished by local interests in 1979 at a cost of $811,000. The
second renourishment at Delray Beach, under construction in
September 1984 by local interests, is estimated to cost
$4,230,000.


Active
Feature


Design
width
(ft.)


Protective beach


Design
length Sand deposition
(miles) (cu. yd.)
Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment


100 15.6 7,900,000 450,000


River and Harbor Act of 1962


Estimated
Cost of
Project
$7,300,000
$21,100,000


Design
length
(miles)


Cost
Through
Fiscal
Year 1984
$2,130,800
$2,067,400


Sand deposition
(cu. yd.)
Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment


100 12.2 5,690,000 232,000


Palm Beach County from Lake Worth Inlet to
South Lake Worth Inlet, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The beach erosion control project for Palm Beach Island,
located in Palm Beach County on the east coast of Florida about
70 miles north of Miami, provides for Federal aid in (1) initial
restoration of 15.6 miles of eroded shoreline on Palm Beach
Island, (2) nourishment of those eroded shores as needed (3)
construction and operation of the sand-transfer plant at Lake
Worth Inlet.
Project construction to date has been limited to construc-
tion and operation of the sand transfer plant at Lake Worth
Inlet. The sand transfer plant was completed by local interests
in 1958 at a cost of $577,000. The Federal share was $111,000
(19.3%). The total cost of plant operation thru 1968 was
$8,400,000. The Federal share of the cost of plant operation
was $84,000 (20.9%). The operation and maintenance of the
sand transfer plant since 1968 has been local responsibility.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act:

Estimated 1984 costs:


Public Law 85-500,
July 3, 1958


Estimated
Cost of
Project


Cost
Through
Fiscal
Year 1984


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act:
Estimated 1984 costs:


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act
Estimated (1984) costs:


Federal (C of E)
Non-Federal


Active
Feature
(1) Protective beach
on Virginia Key
(2) Groins on
Virginia Key (13)


River and Harbor Act of 1962


Estimated
Cost of
Project
$4,240,000
$1,810,000


Design
width
(ft.)

variable


Design
length
(miles)


Cost
Through
Fiscal
Year 1984
$1,667,200
$714,500


Initial
sand deposition
(cu. yd.)


1.8 290,000


,Federal (C of E)
Non-Federal


(3) Protective beach
on Key Biscayne variable


1.9 120,000


Virginia Key and Key Biscayne, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
A beach study completed in 1962 determined that existing
beaches on the islands, although adequate for protective and
recreational purposes, required stabilization to prevent con-
tinued erosion losses. Corrective measures recommended in-
cluded future nourishment of the problem beaches as needed
together with provisions for groins as required to reduce ex-
cessive erosion losses.
The beach project subsequently authorized by Congress was
constructed along the northerly 1.8 miles of shore on Virginia
Key and northerly 1.9 miles of shore on Key Biscayne. Initial-
ly completed in 1969, the project fill on Key Biscayne has func-
tioned well with no structures or additional nourishment re-
quired. The project fill on Virginia Key eroded rather rapidly,
primarily due to unusual exposure to waves and strong
alongshore currents from nearby inlets at each end of the island.
Project nourishment, together with provision of a groin field
to reduce otherwise excessive beach losses, was completed in
1974 in connection with the project deepening of Miami Har-
bor. About 110,000 cubic yards of suitable material excavated
from the inlet was used to replenish the beach on Virginia Key.
Both projects are highly developed and serve as unique recrea-
tional areas for nearby metropolitan Miami.
A small project report was completed in 1984 for initial beach
fill and periodic nourishment of the southern 2.3 miles of shore
at Key Biscayne. An anchor groin, with additional rock to be
placed as subtidal habitat is included in the proposed plan for
the southern limit of the initial beach fill.


Federal (C of E)
Non-Federal


Active
Feature


Design
width
(ft.)


Protective beach









Beach Erosion Control Studies


Brevard County, Fla
(Jacksonville District)
The initial beach erosion control study for the 72 miles of
shore front of Brevard County, completed by the Corps of
Engineers in 1967, determined that protective beach fills along
2.8 miles of the City of Cape Canaveral and 2.0 miles at In-
dialantic and Melbourne Beach were warranted. The beach fill
project at Cape Canaveral was initially constructed along 2.0
miles of shore in 1975. The project at Indialantic and Melbourne
Beach was constructed in 1981. Local interests recently ex-
perienced erosion problems along the shorefront of Satellite
Beach and Indian Harbour Beach and requested a review study
to determine the necessary measures to control beach erosion
along these shores. A review study was authorized in 1982 and
funded for initiation in 1984 to determine the advisability of
modifying the existing project with particular reference to pro-
viding beach erosion control works in the Satellite Beach and
Indian Harbour Beach area, and extending the period of Federal
participation in the cost of periodic nourishment of the authoriz-
ed project.


Broward County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Broward County, next to Dade County and a few miles to
the north of Miami Beach, has authorized Federal Beach Ero-
sion Control Projects as described under Beach Erosion Con-
trol Projects.
The study, authorized by Congress in 1977, will review the
provisions of the authorized Broward County Beach Erosion
Control Project with particular reference to the advisability
of extending project authorization of unfunded segments of the
project and the period of Federal participation in periodic
nourishment costs. The study has not been funded.


Dade County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Dade County is located on the southeast part of the Florida
peninsula and is most notably identified as the popular Miami
Beach resort area. Federal Beach Erosion Control and Hur-
ricane Surge Protection Projects have been authorized for cer-
tain reaches of the county's beaches as described under Beach
Erosion Control Projects.
The study is concerned primarily with the need and feasibili-
ty of extending authorized beach improvements from the nor-
therly end of Haulover Beach to the north county line (3.8


miles) and the advisability of extending the period of Federal
participation in periodic nourishment costs of the authorized
beach project for Dade County. Local interests recently in-
dicated that serious beach erosion continues north of the park,
and desire the authorized shore protection project be extend-
ed northerly as needed. The study was authorized by House
Public Works Committee resolution adopted September 23,
1976, and the study was completed in 1982.
The study findings recommend construction of a protective
beach along 2.5 miles of shore north of Haulover Beach Park
(Sunny Isles) and periodic nourishment of the new beach. The
recommended plan also provides for extension of the period
of Federal participation in the cost of nourishing the existing
Dade County project from 10 years to the life of the project.


Indian River County, Fla.
(Jacksonville Florida)
A study of 22 miles of ocean shore in Indian River County
was authorized by Congress in 1965. It was initiated with funds
provided in 1970. The study area is on the east coast of Florida
about 125 miles north of Miami. Continued shorefront reces-
sion has undermined residences and damaged protective struc-
tures and public roads. The investigation considers the
economic feasibility of providing a protective and recreational
beach and associated structures, as needed, for known pro-
blem areas south of Sebastian Inlet and at Vero Beach.


Martin County, Fla
(Jacksonville District)
A beach study of the 23 miles of ocean shore in Martin Coun-
ty, completed by the Corps of Engineers in 1968, determined
that improvements needed for 5 miles of shore on Jupiter Island
were not warranted as a Federal project due to predominantly
private ownership of the shorefront. Also, improvements need-
ed for two public parks north of St. Lucie Inlet could not be
economically justified due to the relatively short reaches of
shore involved.
Local interest subsequently acquired additional public ac-
cess to the beach at one-half-mile intervals between the two
public parks north of St. Lucie Inlet. In 1973, Congress
authorized a restudy to determine if beach improvements are
now warranted in Martin County. The study was continued in
1984 to address the economic feasibility of a continuous beach
fill between the public parks under new methods of analysis
for recreational benefits.









Small Beach Erosion Control Projects


Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Recreation Area,
Key Biscayne, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Bill Baggs Cape Florida Recreation Area (formerly called
the Cape Florida State Park) is fully developed and occupies
the southerly 1.2 miles of Key Biscayne. In 1966, State park
officials requested an investigation under small projects authori-
ty to determine remedial measures needed to prevent under-
mining and damage to the historic lighthouse at the southerly
end of Key Biscayne. The study was subsequently completed


and a protective revetment authorized in 1967. Under existing
law, Federal aid was limited to initial construction of the struc-
ture. Non-Federal interests are required to maintain the revet-
ment completed in 1968.


Project Data
Authorizing Act
Actual (1969) cost:
Federal
Non-Federal
Length of revetment


By OCE in 1967

$33,848
$13,818
280 feet


Small Beach Erosion Control Studies


Key Biscayne, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Dade County officials in 1971 requested a small projects in-
vestigation of beach erosion problems along the southerly half
of the ocean shore of Key Biscayne. The approximate northerly
half of the 2.3-mile reach is privately owned and highly
developed with residences, condominiums, and hotels. The
southerly half is comprised of the fully developed Bill Baggs
Cape Florida State Recreation Area. The study findings in 1984
which were updated from an initial report completed in 1977
recommend 2.3 miles of initial beach fill and periodic nourish-
ment with a 150 foot anchor groin at the south limit of the fill
and a subtidal rock habitat along the groin.


E. G. Simmons Park, Hillsborough County, Fla.
The study is being conducted under the authority of Section
103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962 at the request of
Hillsborough County. This county park encompasses 2,000 feet
of shorefront on the southeastern shore of Tampa Bay that ex-
periences erosion which reduces the available beach width.
The initial reconnaissance report findings recommend beach
fill and periodic nourishment along the 2,000 foot shorefront
and stabilization with two training groins, one at each end of
the beach fill.









Recreation Projects


Port Mayaca Recreation Area
(Jacksonville District)
This area is strictly a day-use facility located at Port Mayaca
Lock on the eastern edge of Lake Okeechobee at its intersec-
tion with the St. Lucie Canal and is slated for construction
in the near future. The development will consist of picnic areas,
boat ramps, picnic shelters, trails, bank fishing walks, a fishing
pier and several restrooms. The project is the result of coopera-
tion on a 50/50 cost sharing basis between the South Florida
Water Management District and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.


Miami Beach International Sunshine Pier
(Jacksonville District)
The Miami Beach Fishing Pier is the result of joint coopera-
tion, on a 50/50 cost sharing basis, between the city of Miami
Beach and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the code
710 Recreational Development Program. The project consists
of a concrete fishing pier, a walkway and a restroom on the


southern tip of Miami Beach. The pier is 450 feet long and
12 feet wide and has three fishing platforms each containing
a fish cleaning table with running water making it a prime area
for the fishing sportsman. Since the facility is located adja-
cent to the entrance channel to Miami Harbor, it not only adds
to the pleasure of fishermen but also the sightseers (especially
the elderly and the handicapped) who now have a safe facility
to fish from and observe the various vessels and pleasure boats
entering and leaving the harbor.


Project Data
Authority for study:






Federal Cost
Non-Federal Cost
Total Cost
Federal Expenditures to Date


(Code 710 Project) Section
4 of 1944 Flood Control
Act as amended by sections
4, 209, and 207 of Flood
Control Acts of 1946, 1954,
and 1962 also PL 88-578
and PL 89-72
$306,464.21
$306,464.21
$612,928.42
$306,464.21


Recreation Studies


Central and Southern Florida
The Upper St. Johns General Design Memorandum (GDM)
includes a recreation resource appendix recommending fur-
ther study and construction of approximately ten recreation
sites. The Upper St. Johns Water Management District is the
proposed cost-sharing sponsor. The proposed sites vary in size
and include both lakeside county parks and rural airboat ac-
cess areas. Upon approval of the GDM, and with indications
of support from local and state agencies, a recreation master
plan and Feature Design Memorandum will be prepared.


Others
(Jacksonville District)
At Port Everglades a fishing walkway, on top of the jetty,
a restroom and parking areas are planned adjacent to the John
U. Lloyd Beach State Recreation Area. This development is
cost shared with the Florida Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Recreation and Parks.
Also in the early planning stages are three day-use recrea-
tion areas on the St. Johns River in Jacksonville, one at Fort
George Island at the mouth of the St. Johns River, one at Red-
die Point in northeast Jacksonville and another one at the little
jetties in Mayport. These projects would be cost shared with
the City of Jacksonville.























C f


mM


$04CVILLE




-. I _

-L '^E16


lA


c'


0
C-


VICINITY MAP
SCALE IN MILES
50 0 50
1-


ST AUGUSTINE


SCALE IN MILES
20 0 20 40


Lower St. Johns


t
I"
n
c-'
C


e-.


redcsnnen~~






Lower St. Johns and North Coastal Area


Jacksonville Shipyards









Introduction


This area includes that part of the St. Johns River Basin from
Lake Harney downstream and those areas east and north of
the St. Johns River. The St. Johns River begins in a broad,
swampy area just west of Ft. Pierce in St. Lucie County, about
300 miles from its mouth at Mayport. The St. Johns is one
of the few northerly-flowing rivers in the United States. It is
the largest river system located entirely within the State of
Florida, draining an area of 9,430 square miles. Some 1,900
square miles of this area are upstream of Lake Harney and
referred to as the Upper St. Johns River Basin.
The St. Johns Rivet and its principal tributary, the Oklawaha
River, receives part of its flow from ground water seepage,
including a number of large perennial springs, which are among
Florida's many tourist attractions. The fall of the Upper St.
Johns River from its mainstream headwaters to Lake Harney
is only about 25 feet. From Lake Harney to its mouth, a river
lying the distance of about 190 miles, the river bottom is below
mean sea level and can be influenced by ocean tidal effects.
Tidal influences are regularly noticeable upstream from the
mouth over 100 miles to the vicinity of Lake George. Approx-
imately two-thirds of the drainage area in the St. Johns River
Basin, including the Oklawaha River Basin, lies west of the


main stem. Drainage in the coastal strip between the St. Johns
River Basin and the Atlantic Ocean is into lagoons, formed
by barrier islands, and to the ocean. The altitude of most of
the area is less than 50 feet above mean sea level, although
altitudes along the western drainage divides generally range
from 75 to 200 feet and exceed 300 feet in the upper Oklawaha
River Basin.
No major improvements have been made to the St. Johns
River navigation system south from the Osteen Bridge just
above Lake Monroe at river milepoint 169.5. From Lake
Monroe downstream, the river mainstream is used for naviga-
tion throughout its length. The existing project provides for
a channel from Lake Harney downstream to Jacksonville, with
depths of 13 feet from Jacksonville to Palatka, 12 feet to San-
ford, and 5 feet to Lake Harney. From Jacksonville to the
ocean, a channel ranging from 34 to 42 feet accommodates
large ocean-going vessels. For its entire length, the St. Johns
River and its tributaries are heavily used for recreational pur-
poses. Part of the Upper St. Johns River Basin is an important
agricultural area that has been protected, principally by local-
ly constructed levees and canals, for flood control and water
management purposes.









Navigation Projects


Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Betweel
Va. and St. Johns River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The segment of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterw
Virginia to St. Johns River, Florida, which is in
ville District's area was completed in 1941. The p
commercial and recreational vessels. The average
fic from 1978 to 1982 has been about 859,000 tor
traffic was about 559,472 tons.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act


1938 River and
ar


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal

Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1983
Total authorized project length


Channel


Depth (ft.)
12


Cross Florida Barge Canal, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Cross Florida Barge Canal Project was ai
Public Law 675, 77th Congress, dated July 23, 19
ject would provide a barge waterway route bet\
Johns River at Palatka and the Gulf of Mexico at
a distance of about 107 miles. The project would i
dams, five locks, a channel 12 feet deep and 15
Construction of the project was started in Febru,
terminated by the President in January 1971, af
miles of channel, three of the five locks, the thn
four bridges were completed. The President orde
their construction be halted to prevent potential
vironmental damage and directed that work in pro
minated in an orderly manner to leave the affec
a safe condition. Approximately $74 million has b
in completed works and lands for the project.
The appropriation of funds and the requirement
of Engineers to undertake restudy of the partial
project resulted in Public Law 92-405 passed
January 31, 1974, Judge Harvey M. Johnsen, Se
Judge of Eighth Circuit sitting by designation, I
District Court, ruled in part that appropriate studied,
should be prepared. Preparation of the required
initiated in July 1974 with completion of a Plan o
studies included updating engineering designs, c(
and economics, and a complete detailed enviro


n Norfolk,


vestigation. Those studies and reports were completed in
February 1977 at a total cost of about $2.5 million.


The final Environmental Impact Statement was filed with
ay, Norfolk, the Court in February 1977. In releasing the final reports and
the Jackson- making his recommendations to the Secretary of the Army,
project serves the Chief of Engineers concluded the following: that construc-
annual traf- tion of the canal is feasible from an engineering standpoint;
is. The 1983 that the economic justification must be considered marginal
until such time as significant transportation savings or regional
economic development benefits can be clearly supported in ex-
cess of their associated costs; and that the adverse environmen-
Harbor Act tal impacts are not so severe as to demand a decision against
id prior acts completion of the project if it were economically justified by
an ample margin. When the marginal economic justification
is combined with the potential adverse environmental impacts,
$361,225 the combined total effect does not favor completion. He
recommended that all activities leading toward completion of
the project be terminated, a supplemental study be made to
determine the best disposition and use of the existing facilities
$4,831,654 and lands, and that the Corps continue to operate the canal
21.9 miles facilities pending further congressional action.
Width (ft.) On May 23, 1977, in conjunction with his environmental
90 to 150 message to Congress, President Carter directed the Secretaries
of Army and Agriculture to review, with other appropriate
Federal agencies and the Governor of Florida, available studies
and findings and make recommendations on alternatives for
restoration of the Oklawaha River portion of the CFBC pro-
ject and for disposition of lands and facilities outside the
Oklawaha River area. An Alternatives Report was prepared
authorized by in response to the President's directive. That report and the
42. The pro- recommended restoration plans were forwarded to the Presi-
veen the St. dent on February 27, 1978. On July 28, 1978, and again on April
Yankeetown, 11, 1979, the Secretaries of Army and Agriculture forwarded
include three draft legislation for restoration of the Oklawaha River and
0 feet wide. disposition of other lands and facilities outside the Oklawaha
ary 1964 and River area. Congress has not enacted this legislation.
ter about 25
ee dams and The House of Representatives Appropriations Committee
red that fur- report which accompanied the 1982 Supplemental Appropria-
serious en- tions Act directed an economic reanalysis of the Cross Florida
sgress be ter- Barge Canal using $450,000' from available funds. Before in-
:ted areas in itiating such a study, the Jacksonville District was asked by
aeen invested the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works to prepare
a plan of study, which was done. The plan of study included
correspondence from the Governor of Florida indicating that
for the Corps the State does not support the project. In June 1984, the Con-
y completed gressional House of Representatives defeated an amendment
in 1972. On to deauthorize the project by a vote of 204 to 201, with 28 not
nior Circuit voting. In November 1984 the Corps was directed to do an eco-
Jnited States nomic restudy, and this effort is scheduled for completion the
s and reports end of 1985.


studies was
f Study. The
)st estimates
inmental in-


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act


Public Law 675, 77th Congress
approved July 23, 1942.





Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1983
Total authorized project length


Channel


Depth (ft.)


Locks
Number
Depth over sill
Width
Length
Note: (1) Does not include cost of lands and ri;


Jacksonville Harbor, Fla.
$62,860,810 (Jacksonville District)

The deepening of channels to mile 20 in Jacksonville Har-
bor to 38 feet was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of
$14,250,203 1965. The existing 34-foot depth from mile 20 to Commodore's
107 miles Point and the 30-foot depth from there to the Florida East Coast
Railway Bridge at Jacksonville were authorized by prior acts.
Width (ft.) The 38-foot deepening has been completed to mile 20. The
150 U. S. Navy maintains a channel 42 feet deep from the authoriz-
ed harbor entrance channel to its turning basin at Mayport.
5 The average annual traffic over the past 10 years, 1978 to
14 feet 1982 has been about 15,037,173 tons and 2,200 passengers. The
84 feet 1983 traffic was 11,760,221 tons.


ouu reet
ghts-of-way.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act


1965 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts


Fernandina Harbor, Fla
(Jacksonville District)
The authorized project provides for a 34-foot-deep channel
through the jetties from the Atlantic Ocean into Cumberland
Sound, then a 32-foot-deep channel south along the alinement
of the Intracoastal Waterway through the Amelia River past
the town of Fernandina.
A turning basin is provided near the upstream end of the
project. The authorized project is presently inactive. The ex-
isting channel to Fernandina is 34 feet in the entrance and 28
feet in the inner harbor area. The project is used by both com-
mercial and recreational craft. The most recent construction
was completed in Fiscal Year 1979. To accommodate the U.S.
Navy Kings Bay project in Cumberland Sound, the entrance
channel is maintained to a depth of 40 feet; the inner channel
to 38 feet.
In FY-87, the entrance channel will be deepened to between
42 and 50 feet and widened from 400 to 500 feet to accom-
modate the Navy Trident submarines from Kings Bay. The
deepening will be funded by the Navy with the Corps doing
the engineering and construction management.
The average annual traffic from 1978 to 1982 has been about
302,207 tons. Traffic for 1983 was 142,410 tons.
PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act 1950 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts


Cost of existing project to dal
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and mainter
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length

Channel
Entrance channel
through jetties
Inner Channel to
Calhoun St.
Above Calhoun St.


Cost to date:
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channel
Ocean to mile 20

Mile 20 to
Commodore's
Point
Commodore's Point
to Florida East
Coast Railway
Bridge at
Jacksonville


$47,596,278'
$ 799,300

$47,356,798
26.1 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)
38 Varies
400-1200


Varies
400-900


'Excludes $102,800 for rehabilitation


Lake Crescent and Dunns Creek, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


$4,095,082
$4,095,082 The project provides a channel from the St. Johns River
through Dunns Creek and into Lake Crescent and terminates
at Crescent City. Three cutoffs in Dunns Creek were not needed
$19,893,045 because of reduced usage by commercial craft, and have been
7 miles deauthorized. The project is used primarily by recreational
craft. The project was completed in 1915.


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


Turning basin 32


No traffic was reported in 1983.


400 PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act
400
Cost
300 Federal
800 Non-Federal


1913 River and Harbor Act


$10,276





Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channel


Depth (ft.)


Oklawaha River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Oklawaha River project consists of providing a 6-foot
deep channel from the intersection with the St. Johns River
to the head of Silver Springs Run and maintaining a depth of
4 feet to Leesburg. The portion of the 6-foot channel from the
head of Silver Springs Run to its intersection with the Oklawaha
River, a distance of 5.4 miles, is in an inactive category.
The active portion of the project was completed in 1925.
No traffic was reported in 1983.

PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act 1934 Permanent Appropriation
Appeal Act; 1916 River and
Harbor Act and prior acts


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal

Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channel Feature
Oklawaha River
Channel from
intersection of
St. Johns River
to intersection with
Silver Springs Run
Oklawaha from
intersection of
Silver Springs Run
to Leesburg


Depth (ft.)


$315,264


$ 9,035
15.3 miles


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


Federal operation and maintenance
Width (ft.) costs to September 30, 1984
100 Total authorized project length


Feature
Entrance channel
Through the inlet
North fork
South fork


Depth (ft.)


$1,953,277
$2,415,600

$8,632,159
4.8 miles

Width (ft.)


Rice Creek, Putnam County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Rice Creek rises in north central Putnam County, Florida
and flows easterly 10 miles through generally low, swampy and
densely forested areas to empty into the St. Johns River about
3.5 miles north of Palatka and 43 miles south of Jacksonville.
The project serves commercial and recreational vessels. It was
completed in October 1956. The 1983 traffic was about 103,329
tons.

PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act
Cost
$1,988,815 Federal
85.7 miles Non-Federal


Width (ft.)


Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channel
St. Johns River
50 to mouth of
Rice Creek
Rice Creek to


Varies


1954 River and Harbor Act


$85,208
$93,000


$17,777
3.8 miles

Width (ft.)


100


Depth (ft.)


12


access channel
of Hudson Pulp
and Paper Corp.


Ponce De Leon Inlet, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The project provides a 15-foot-deep channel across the ocean
bar and through the inlet, thence a 12-foot-deep channel south
through the Indian River to the Intracoastal Waterway and a
7-foot-deep channel north through the Halifax River to the In-
tracoastal Waterway. Ocean jetties are included on the north
and south sides of the inlet; and a weir in the north jetty with
an impoundment basin inside the jetty. The project was com-
pleted in 1972. No traffic reported for 1983.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act


1965 River and Harbor Act


St. Augustine Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The St. Augustine project was completed in 1957.
It serves commercial fishing, commercial cargo, and recrea-
tional boats. The 16-foot-deep bar channel follows the best
natural alinement as may exist from time to time across the
new inlet bar and a 12-foot-deep inner channel extends to the
Intracoastal Waterway. A 10-foot deep channel then continues
in the San Sebastian River from the Intracoastal Waterway to
the King Street Bridge in St. Augustine. In addition to the chan-
nels, the authorized project provides for a jetty on the south
side of the entrance channel on Conch Island parallel to the





existing north groin. The 1983 commerce amounted to 10,911
tons.


The average annual traffic from 1978 to 1982 has been about
1,503,673 tons. The 1983 traffic was 482,253 tons.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act

Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


1950 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts

$1,476,434
$ 137,500


Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channel
Bar channel
Entrance to
Intracoastal


Depth (ft.)


Waterway
In Sebastian River from
Intracoastal Waterway to
King Street Bridge


St. Johns River, Fla.,
Lake Harney, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


$4,251,343


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act

Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


1946 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts


Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984


4.1 miles Total authorized projectlength


Width (ft.) Channel Feature
200 St. Johns River
Jacksonville
to Palatka
Palatka to
200 Sanford
Sanford to
Lake Harney


Jacksonville To


The project for the St. Johns River from Jacksonville to Lake
Harney serves commercial and recreational vessels.


Side Channels
Channel in
Lake Munroe
at Sanford
to town of
Enterprise
Alternate
approach channel
to Sanford


Depth (ft.)


13

12

5





12


$1,171,243



$959,243
161.5 miles

Width (ft.)


200


- --


Fishing on the St. Johns River









Navigation Studies


LOCALITY
Jacksonville Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)





Jacksonville Harbor (Mill
Cove), Fla.

St. Augustine Harbor &
Vicinity, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

St. Johns River,
Jacksonville to Lake
Harvey, Patatka, Fla.
Side Channel
(Jacksonville District)

Blount Island
Turn Widener,
Jacksonville Harbor,
Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Rockhouse Creek, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


PURPOSE
Enlargement of authorized 38-foot depth to greater depth.






Correct Mill Cove siltation and water circulation
problems related to the Jacksonville Harbor Project.

Improvements to provide a safe, usable harbor.



Barge channel extending from shore to existing 13-foot
project.




Provide a wider turn from main harbor channel to the
channel on west side of Blount Island.




Consider a more direct access from Ponce De Leon Inlet
through Rockhouse Creek to commercial fish terminal on
the Intracoastal Waterway


APPROXIMATE DATE
TO BE COMPLETED
Study of deepening
Jacksonville Harbor
deferred pending
receipt of local infor-
mation to complete
economic analysis.

Final report in
Congress.

Indefinite; not funded.



Indefinite: not funded.





Study underway under
Section 107 Program.




Study underway under
Section 107 Program.


Flood Control Studies


LOCALITY
Black Creek,
Clay County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Orange Lake Basin, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Streams in St. Johns,
Flagler, and Putnam
Counties, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Streams in Brevard and
Volusia Counties, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


PURPOSE
Improvements in the interest of flood and water control.



Improvements in the interest of flood control.


Improvements in the interest of flood control.




Improvement of Sykes Creek for drainage and flood
control.


APPROXIMATE DATE
TO BE COMPLETED
Indefinite; not funded.



Indefinite; deferred
status.

Indefinite; deferred
status.



Indefinite; inactive
status.









Beach Erosion Control Projects


Duval County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Duval County is on the upper east coast of Florida, within
20 miles of the Florida-Georgia line. Storms of the early to
mid-1960's eroded most of the recreational and protective beach
previously existing along the county shore south of the St. Johns
River entrance. Emergency measures constructed with Office
of Emergency Preparedness funds provided temporary protec-
tion for extensive shorefront development. Congress authorized
a study in 1963, at the request of local officials, to determine
the most practicable remedial measures for beach erosion con-
trol and the degree of Federal aid possible.
The study was completed in 1964 and Congress subsequently
authorized Federal participation in a beach project for the pro-
blem area. The project provides a level berm 60 feet wide at
elevation 11 feet above mean low water and gentle seaward
slopes, together with periodic nourishment of the improved
beach as needed to compensate for future erosion losses along
10 miles of shore from the St. Johns River south to the Duval-
St. Johns County line. The project was initiated in 1977 and
was completed in 1980. The project was constructed with
material from maintenance dredging of the Jacksonville Har-
bor Federal Navigation project and the first and second con-
tracts for dredging initial beach fill from the offshore borrow
area, which were completed in September 1978 and October
1980, respectively. The project provided protection to shorefront
property and development during Hurricane David in
September 1979 and the severe northeaster of October and
November 1981. The study completed in 1984 for the first
periodic nourishment of the project, determined that the most
effective plan consisted of nourishing 7 miles of shorefront


south of Kathryn Abbey Hanna Park and controlling wind-
blown sand with sand fences and beach grass. A contract was
awarded in September 1984 to dispose of suitable material from
maintenance dredging of about one million cubic yards of
material from the Jacksonville Harbor project for renourish-
ment of about 2.5 miles of shorefront south of Kathryn Abbey
Hanna Park. The remainder of the 1.6 million cubic yards of
material needed to complete renourishment to the south coun-
ty line will be dredged from the offshore borrow area beginn-
ing in April 1985.
PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act River and Harbor Act of 1965
Estimated 1984 costs:


Estimated
Cost of
Project


Federal (C of E)
Non-Federal


Active
Feature


Cost
Through
Fiscal
Year 1984


$14,100,000 $7,068,900
$12,400,000 $4,342,400


Design
width
(ft.)


Protective
beach


Design
length
(miles)


Sand deposition
(cu. yd.)
*Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment


180 10 2,250,000 260,000


*Does not include advance nourishment.


Pumping sand Atlantic Beach









Beach Erosion Control Studies


Flagler County, Fla
(Jacksonville District)
Flagler County is located on the northeast coast of Florida
about midway between the Georgia-Florida State line and Cape
Canaveral, Florida. The county's ocean frontage, which ex-
tends from south of Matanzas Inlet, located south of St.
Augustine, Florida, is unbroken by inlets or passes to the ocean.
The barrier beach is separated from the mainland by Matan-
zas River on the north end of the county, Smith Creek in the
south, and the land cut canal portion of the Intracoastal Water-
way in the middle of the county.
The Congress, at the request of the City of Flagler Beach
and the State of Florida, authorized a study of the beach ero-
sion problem areas in the county in 1978. The study was fund-
ed for initiation in 1980.
A reconnaissance report, completed in 1980, recommended
a reorientation of the study effort towards optimization of non-
structural alternatives in a coastal zone management plan to
meet the study objectives. Economic analyses of structural
alternatives indicated that the scope of existing development
would not provide sufficient economic justification for
authorization of a Federal beach erosion control or hurricane
protection project. The feasibility study is not currently funded.


Nassau County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Amelia Island comprises the entire 13-mile ocean shore of
Nassau County at the northeast boundary of Florida. A
previous beach study, completed by the Corps of Engineers
in 1960, determined that remedial measures needed to avoid
continual shore erosion at Fernandina Beach near the northerly
end of the island were not economically feasible. The general
area was further damaged by Hurricane Dora in 1964. Office


of Emergency Preparedness funds provided 3.6 miles of tem-
porary protective revetment at Ft. Clinch, Fernandina Beach
and American Beach.
At the request of local officials, Congress in 1972 authoriz-
ed a restudy of beach problems in Nassau County. The study
was completed in 1984. The feasibility report recommends
sandtightening 1,500 feet of the south jetty, initial restoration
of 3.6 miles of eroded beach north of Safler Road, and periodic
nourishment of 4.3 miles of shore south of the jetty.

St. Johns County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Following severe storm damage in 1962 and 1964, temporary
protective measures were provided with Office of Emergency
Preparedness funds at St. Augustine Beach, Crescent Beach,
and Summer Haven. A beach erosion control study, completed
by the Corps of Engineers in 1965, determined that im-
provements were needed and warranted for 5 miles of eroding
shore at three different locations in St. Johns County. The pro-
blem areas, including South Ponte Vedra Beach, St. Augustine
Beach, and Crescent Beach, are on the east coast of Florida
about 40 miles south of Jacksonville. Local officials advised,
however, that they could not provide the non-Federal share or
related costs and an unfeasible report was subsequently
submitted.
Continuous shorefront recession, especially at St. Augustine
Beach, where shorefront residences and a county road are
threatened, prompted local interests to request an investiga-
tion to determine corrective measures now warranted. A beach
erosion control restudy authorized by Congress in 1973, initiated
in 1975, and completed in 1978, resulted in a favorable recom-
mendation for a beach erosion control project.
The recommended plan consists of 2.5 miles of initial beach
fill and periodic nourishment. The study findings are under
consideration for inclusion in a water resource bill.









Small Beach Erosion Control Studies


Fort Clinch State Park, Nassau County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, re-
quested the small projects study of beach erosion control and
related problems at Fort Clinch State Park which is located
at the northernmost shore of Amelia Island at the St. Marys
River. The study is being conducted under the authority pro-
vided by Section 111 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962. Tidal
currents at the St. Marys River entrance and erosion due to
storm waves have caused continual shoreline recession that en-
dangers the northern fortification walls.
One of the finest military-nature-seaside parks in the nation,


Fort Clinch is strategically located on 1,086 acres and is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. The park takes
its name from the Federal military installation, Fort Clinch,
which was constructed in 1847. At this time, the fort's architec-
ture is outstanding and in an excellent state of preservation.
The study was initiated in 1980. The detailed project report
was completed in 1984 and recommends 2,500 feet of initial
beach fill with periodic nourishment stabilized by restoration
of five historic groins as the plan of improvement. All the state
permits have been issued and construction of the project will
commence when the authority to proceed is granted.
The project is in the design stage.


Recreation Projects


Fort Clinch Fishing Pier
(Jacksonville District)
The Fort Clinch Fishing Pier in Fernandina Beach is the
result of joint cooperation, on a 50/50 cost-sharing basis, bet-
ween the Florida Department ofNatural Resources, Division
of Recreation and Parks and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
under the Code 710 Recreation Development Program.


The project consists of a 1,500-foot concrete fishing pier on
the north side of the south jetty of the inlet to Fernandina Har-
bor. There is also an elevated 900-foot-long concrete walkway,
and an elevated wooden boardwalk over the sand dunes, which
connects the pier to the restroom and parking area. A con-
tract was awarded for $1,315,560 and construction was com-
pleted in 1980.


Fort Clinch Fishing Pier in Fernandina Beach










1 JACKSONVILLE,

O ArND


TAMPA C%
IL





o o
I 7-


C11


VICINITY MAP















SCALE IN MILES
















20 0 20 40
Northwest Florida
PANAMA
CITY


PORT ST. JOE b /ST. MARKS
















SCALE IN MILES
20 0 20 40





Northwest Florida





Northwest Florida









Introduction


This area includes the portion of Florida west of the Suwan-
nee and St. Johns River Basins, as shown on the map. That
part of the area from the Alabama state line to the eastern limits
of the St. Marks River Basin is in the Mobile Engineer District
and the remainder is in the Jacksonville Engineer District. This
section of Florida is generally characterized by rolling hills
and sandy soils.
Immediately south of the Alabama and Georgia lines are
three small geographic areas known as the Western Highlands,
the Marianna Lowlands, and the Tallahassee Hills. The Western
Highlands, stretching eastward from the Perdido River, con-
sist of a plateau sloping gently southward and crossed by several
streams which flow in deep flat-bottomed valleys. In Walton
County near the Alabama line is the highest point in the State,
with an elevation of 345 feet above mean sea level. The Marian-
na Lowlands, lying between the Western Highlands and the
Apalachicola River, comprise a flat or gently-rolling area
underlaid by limestone and dotted with "sinks" containing
pdnds or small lakes. The Tallahassee Hills, extending from
the Apalachicola River eastward for about 100 miles, are roll-
ing hills with the highest point about 300 feet above mean sea
level. These are largely farming areas.
Bordering the coast are the Coastal Lowlands, flat plains less
than 100 feet above the mean sea level. Pine forests cover much
of the region. With the exception of the Apalachee Bay area,
the coastline consists mostly of wide sandy beaches is backed
by dunes ranging from 10 to 15 feet above sea level.
The economy of the area is based mainly on tourism, farm-
ing, pulpwood production, logging, commercial fishing, and
manufacturing, with primarily industrial centers at Port St. Joe,
Panama City, and Pensacola. Crude oil production from an
oil field near Jay, Florida, also contributes to the economy.
Tallahassee, the capital of Florida, is the largest city in the area.
Major river systems draining to the Gulf of Mexico, pro-


dressing from west to east, are the Escambia, Blackwater, and
Yellow Rivers, which drain through the Pensacola Bay system;
the Choctawhatchee, draining into Choctawhatchee Bay; the
Apalachicola, which empties into Apalachicola Bay; and the
Ochlockonee, which drains through Ochlockonee and
Apalachee Bays.
The beach zone along the Gulf is frequently backed by
sounds or bays and is occasionally broken by tidal inlets. Tidal
marsh occurs along much of the shoreline of the bays and
sounds. Most of the beach material is fine white sand com-
posed of about 98 percent quartz. Beach erosion is a problem
in parts of the area. Navigation channels cut through the san-
dy beaches usually require extensive protective measures, such
as rubble-mound jetties. Even with these, the natural instability
of the beach material requires frequent maintenance dredging
and special attention to problems of sand transport and beach
nourishment. Tropical hurricanes occasionally cross the
coastline in this area, and a few low-lying populated areas are
subject to flooding from storm tides.
The Apalachicola River, part of a multiple-purpose water-
way development serving Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, has
been improved for barge navigation. Navigation channels are
also maintained on the lower reaches of Blackwater and Escam-
bia Rivers.
The Gulf Intracoastal Waterway parallels the coastline by
way of numerous bays and sounds with connecting land cuts
where necessary. Several local navigation projects provide
small-craft channels connecting towns or river systems with
the waterway and with the Gulf of Mexico. Deep-draft chan-
nels and harbors are maintained at Port St. Joe, Panama City,
and Pensacola.
Projects that are completed, authorized but not constructed,
and under study are described on the following pages.























41









Navigation Projects


Apalachicola Bay, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The existing project, exclusive of improvements at Two Mile,
was authorized by the River and Harbor Acts of 1954, 1958,
and prior acts, and improvements at Two Mile were authoriz-
ed November 21, 1963, by the Chief of Engineers under authori-
ty of Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960. The
project provides for: (a) a channel 10 feet deep and 100 feet
wide from the 10-foot depth in Apalachicola Bay across St.
George Island to within 300 feet of the gulf shore, thence in-
creasing uniformly in width to 200 feet at the shore and continu-
ing with that width to the 10-foot depth in the Gulf of Mexico,
with twin jetties extending from the dune line to the outer end
of the channel; (b) an inner bar channel 10 feet deep and 100
feet wide in Apalachicola Bay; (c) a boat basin 200 by 880
feet and 9 feet deep and 80 feet wide through Scipio Creek
to Apalachicola River; (d) a channel known as Link Channel,
10 feet deep and 150 feet wide in Apalachicola Bay; (e) a chan-
nel generally parallel to the shore at Eastpoint, 6 feet deep,
100 feet wide, about 6,000 feet long, with a connecting chan-
nel 6 feet deep and 100 feet wide to water of the same depth
in St. George Sound; (f) a channel 9 feet deep and 100 feet
wide through Bulkhead Shoals, connecting Apalachicola Bay
with St. George Sound (no longer maintained because of lack
of use); and (g) a 6-by 100-foot connecting channel to water
of the same depth in Apalachicola Bay. Overall length of the
project is about 12 miles. Modifications for the Two-Mile pro-
ject approved in February 1975, included breakwaters with a
total length of 6,150 feet and 1.6-mile extension of the 6-by
100-foot channel. This modification was completed in
September 1977.
Modifications for the Eastpoint project approved in August
1983, included breakwaters with a total length of 5,300 feet.
This modification was completed in March 1984.
The project was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of
1954 and was completed in 1959, including reimbursement to
local interests for approved work as authorized by the River
and Harbor Act of 1958. Improvements at Two Mile were com-
pleted in 1964 for the initial authorization. The total cost of
new work to date has been about $3,098,250 and the cost of
maintenance has been about $2,818,900. The 1983 traffic was
about 9,456 tons.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act:
Existing Project


River and Harbor Acts of
1954 and 1958 and prior acts.


Authorizing Act: Two Mile
Chief of Engineers under authority of Sec. 107,
1960 River and Harbor Act.


Cost
Federal
Federal maintenance costs
to September 30, 1984


$3,098,250


Feature
East Jetty
West Jetty
Entrance channel
across St. George Island
Inner bar channel
Scipio Creek
channel
Boat basin in
Scipio Creek
Link channel
Eastpoint channels
Breakwaters at Eastpoint
Two Mile channels
Breakwaters at Two Mile
(2)
(a) Maintained at 12 by 15
coastal Waterway.


Depth Width Approx.
(ft.) (ft.) length
950 ft.
1,000 ft.

10 100-200 .8 mi.
10(a) 100(a) 4.0 mi.

9 80 .8 mi.


9 200


880 ft.


10 150 1.2 mi.
6 100 1.3 mi.
5,300 ft.
6 100 4.4 mi.

6,150 ft.
feet as part of the Gulf Intra-


Apalachicola River Industrial Park
Channel, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The Apalachicola River Industrial Park Channel project was
authorized under the Continuing Authorities Program to pro-
vide a channel 9 feet deep and 100 feet wide from the authorized
project channel in Apalachicola River opposite Blountstown
Landing to a point past the Rysco Shipyard launching slip, for
a total distance of about 0.4 mile. Also, an earthfill dike with
a total length of about 0.5 mile was constructed to eliminate
the problems caused by overwash. This work was completed
in 1981 at a cost of about $286,000.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act


Chief of Engineers under
authority of Sec. 107,
1960 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal:
Federal Maintenance
Costs to September 30, 1984


$286,000


Approx.
Depth Width Length
(ft.) (ft.) (miles)
9 100 0.4


Feature
Channel


$2,818,900 Earthfill Dike





Bayou Texar, Fla.
(Mobile District)
Emergency dredging of the navigation channel at Bayou Texar
in Pensacola, Florida was accomplished under authority of Sec-
tion 3 of the River and Harbor Act of 1945. This project con-
sisted of removing a shoal in the entrance channel of Bayou
Texar created by Hurricane Frederic in 1979 and restoring chan-
nel dimensions of 6 feet deep and 60 feet wide from comparable
depths in Pensacola Bay for a distance of 600 feet into Bayou
Texar. Removal of the shoal required hydraulic dredging of ap-
proximately 8,000 cubic yards of predominantly sandy material
and disposal in an upland site adjacent to the channel. The pro-
ject was approved by the Office of Chief of Engineers in August
1982 and construction was completed in December 1982 at a
Federal cost of $48,275. Maintenance of this project is the
responsibility of the City of Pensacola.


Blackwater River, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The existing project, authorized by the River and Harbor Act
of March 3, 1905, provides for a channel 9 feet deep and 100
feet wide from the mouth of Blackwater Bay to Milton, Fla.,
a distance of about 12 miles, to be obtained by dredging at
necessary points. The project was completed in 1916 at a cost
of about $41,650 for new work. Cost of maintenance has been
about $266,000. The 1983 traffic was about 153,172 tons.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act
Cost
Federal
Federal Maintenance costs
to September 30, 1984:


Feature
Channel to Milton


1905 River and Harbor Act


Depth Width
(ft.) (ft.)
9 100


of barge tows and vessels engaged in the seafood industry. Cost
of new work to date has been about $481,600 and cost of
maintenance has been about $379,400. The 1983 traffic was
about 1,640 tons.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act


1937 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts


Authorizing Act:
Chief of Engineers under authority of Sec. 107, 1960
River and Harbor Act
Cost


Federal:
Federal maintenance costs
to September 30, 1984:


Feature
Entrance channel
Harbor channel
Turning Basin


$481,600

$379,400


Depth Width Approx.
(ft.) (ft.) length
27(a) 200 3.6 mi.


25(a)
25(a)


150 5.0 mi.
500 500 ft.


Channel above basin 10 80-100 3.6 mi
(a) Authorized depth not maintained because no deep-draft
vessels currently visit harbor.


Choctawhatchee River, Fla. and Ala.
(Mobile District)


The existing project, authorized by the River and Harbor
$41,650 Act of 1874 and subsequent acts, provides for improvement of
Cypress Top Outlet and maintenance of a navigable channel
$266,000 at low water from the mouth of the river to Geneva, Ala., 96
miles upstream, by removing snags and overhanging trees, and
for a channel for low-water navigation 3 feet deep and 60 feet
Approx. wide between Geneva and Newton, Ala., a distance of 44 miles,
Length to be obtained by removing hard, blue-clay obstructions, snags
S and overhanging trees and by rock excavation. The project was
12 completed in 1906 at a cost of about $171,900. Cost of
maintenance has been about $291,700.


Carrabelle Harbor, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The existing project provides for a channel 200 feet wide and
27 feet deep from the Gulf of Mexico to a point west of Dog
Island, thence 150 feet wide and 25 feet deep through St.
George Sound and Carrabelle River to a turning basin 500 feet
square and 25 feet deep at the town of Carrabelle, and a chan-
nel 100 feet wide and 10 feet deep from the turning basin to
U.S. Highway bridge and thence 80 feet wide and 10 feet deep
to the confluence of New and Crooked Rivers. The channels
about the turning basin were authorized in May 1965 by the
Chief of Engineers under authority of Section 107 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1960. Other features of the project were
authorized by the River and Harbor Acts of 1937 and 1954,
and prior acts. Overall length of the project is about 12 miles.
The project was completed in September 1965.
Since deep draft vessels no longer use the harbor, the chan-

nels are maintained for current traffic, which is made up largely


Commercial traffic in recent years has been negligible, and
no regular maintenance has been performed since 1948.
PROJECT DATA
Acts authorizing portion of project in Florida:
1874 and 1902 River and Harbor Acts


Cost
Cost for Florida portion of project not
maintained separately
Federal maintenance costs
to September 30, 1984


Feature
Snagged Channel


-$291,700.


Approx. length in Florida
88 miles


East Pass Channel From Gulf of Mexico into
Choctawhatchee Bay, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The existing project, authorized by the River and Harbor





Act of 1965, consists of a channel 12 feet deep, 180 feet wide,
and 1.5 miles long from the Gulf of Mexico into Choctawhat-
chee Bay via East Pass and a spur channel 6 feet deep and 100
feet wide from the main channel into Old Pass Lagoon to the
harbor at Destin, a distance of about .2 mile. An 1800-foot
extension of the 6-by 100-foot channel was authorized by the
Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1981
(P.L. 96-367) and completed in 1983. The main entrance chan-
nel from the Gulf is protected by two converging rock jetties,
spaced 1,000 feet apart at the seaward end; the west jetty is
provided with a low weir section 1,000 feet long to permit the
passage of littoral drift into a dredged deposition basin 500
feet wide and 1,500 feet long located between the west jetty
and the navigation channel.
The existing project was completed in January 1969. The
cost of new work has been $1,314,700 including $398,000 con-
tributed in cash by local interests. The cost of maintenance in-
cluding the maintenance project existing prior to the modifica-
tion authorized in 1965, has been $5,573,300. The 1983 traffic
was 4,400 tons.
PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act
1951 and 1965 River and Harbor Acts


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal maintenance costs
to September 30, 1984:


$916,700
$398,000

$5,573,300


of Escambia River. The River and Harbor Act approved July
3, 1958, authorized adoption of the channel as dredged by local
interests and the channel dimensions were restored in 1960 at
a cost of approximately $90,163. Total cost of new work, in-
cluding work on the previous project, has been about S208.500.
Maintenance costs have amounted to about S1,092,000. The
1983 traffic was about 1,775,404 tons.
PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Acts:
1880, 1907 and 1958 River and Harbor Acts
Cost of Florida portion of project not maintained separately
Federal: S208,500


Federal maintenance costs
to September 30, 1984:



I
Feature

Channel from Escambia
Bay to river mile 7

Channel from Mile 7 to
Alabama state line

(a) No longer maintained.


S1,092,000


Approx.
)epth Width Length
(ft.) (ft.) (miles)

10 100 12.5 mi.


- 51 mi.


Feature
East jetty
West Jetty
Dredged deposition basin
Main channel
Spur Channel to Destin


Depth Width Approx.
(ft.) (ft.) length


12
6


Escambia And Conecuh Rivers,
(Mobile District)


Grand Lagoon, Panama City, Fla.
(Mobile District)


Grand Lagoon, an arm of St. Andrew Bay, is about 3 miles
2,270 ft. southwest of Panama City, Florida. The waterway is used ex-
4,850 ft. tensively by charter fishing boats and private recreational craft.
500 1,500 ft. The existing project was authorized in March 1967 under
authority of Section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960.
180 1.5 mi. It provides for a channel 8 feet deep and 100 feet wide in Grand
100 7 mi. Lagoon from St. Andrew Bay to a point about 2,400 feet east
of State Highway 392 bridge, with branch channels to serve
terminal facilities on both sides of the lagoon, and with both
branches terminating in a connecting channel parallel to the
Fla. And Ala. highway and bridge. A width of 150 feet is authorized for the
connecting channel and reaches opposite the terminal facilities.


This is a single stream called Conecuh River in Alabama
and Escambia River after it crosses the Florida line. The ex-
isting project, authorized by the River and Harbor Acts of 1880,
1907, and 1958, provides for a channel 10 feet deep and 100
feet wide from the 10-foot depth in Escambia Bay to the mouth
of the Escambia River, a distance of 5.5 miles, and thence up
the Escambia River to a point about 7 miles above the mouth;
a channel thence 5 feet deep to the Florida State line, a distance
of 51 miles; and an improved channel thence up the Conecuh
River to the mouth of the Patsaliga Creek, a distance of 80
miles. The total length of the project, including the portion
in Escambia Bay, is about 143 miles.
The River and Harbor Act of 1880 authorized improvement
of the stream to mile 293; this work was completed in 1882
at a cost of about $118,000. The River and Harbor Act of 1907
established the upstream limit of the project to be maintained
at Patsaliga Creek. In 1953, local interests dredged a channel
10 feet deep at Escambia Bay to a point 7 miles above the mouth


The project was completed in January 1972 at a total cost
of about $128,000 for new work, including $80,000 in con-
tributed funds. The 1983 traffic consisted of about 339,314
passengers in fishing parties, and about 150 commercial tons.
PROJECT DATA

Authorizing Act:
Chief of Engineers under authority of Sec. 107,
1960 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal maintenance costs to September 30, 1984:
Included as part of Panama City Harbor project.


$48,000
$80,000


. o





Approx.
Depth Width Length
(ft.) (ft.) (ft.)
8 100 3,260
8 100-500 2,190
8 100 2,060
8 150 965


Gulf Intracoastal Waterway Between
Apalachee Bay, Fla.,
and the Mexican Border
(Mobile District)
The existing project, authorized by the River and Harbor
Acts of 1942, 1943, and 1966, provides for a through water-
way with minimum dimensions of 12 by 125 feet from
Apalachee Bay, Fla., to the Mexican border via coastal bays,
sounds and land cuts, and for a tributary channel, known as
the Gulf County Canal, 12 feet deep, 125 feet wide, and about
6 miles long connecting the Intracoastal Waterway at White
City, Fla., with St. Joseph Bay. In Florida, the waterway has
been completed from the Alabama line as far east as Carrabelle,
a distance of about 210 miles.
The authorized extension of the waterway from Carrabelle
to Apalachee Bay was deferred for restudy some years ago.
A restudy completed in 1969 determined that the most feasi-
ble route from navigation and economic standpoints would be
through St. George Sound, Alligator Harbor, a land cut across
St. James Island, then via Ochlockonee Bay and Apalachee
Bay to St. Marks River. However, it was found that dredging
along the proposed route would have an adverse effect on the
ecology of the area, particularly in Alligator Harbor, and fur-


Feature
Entrance channel
North channel
South channel
Connecting channel


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act
main channel from Apalachee
Bay, Fla., to New Orleans, La.:
Authorizing Act
Gulf County Canal, Fla.:
Cost
Costs for Florida portion of
ed separately
Federal maintenance costs


to September 30, 1984:



Feature
Main channel from Ala.
state line to
Carrabelle
Gulf County Canal


1942 River and
Harbor Act and
prior acts
1943 and 1966 River
and Harbor Acts

Waterway not maintain-


$36,528,300


Approx.
Depth Width Length
(ft.) (ft.) (miles)


12 125 210
12 125 6


Recreational boating is excellent on the GIWW


their consideration of the extension was terminated. The pro-
ject remains in the deferred-for-restudy category.
The existing project between Carrabelle and New Orleans
(Mobile District, Carrabelle, Fla., to the Rigolets, La.), ex-
clusive of the Gulf County Canal, was completed in 1957 at
a cost of $5,940,500.
The Gulf County Canal was completed to present dimen-
sions in 1969 at a cost of $494,200. Total cost of new work,
including work on the previous project had been $6,480,300.
About $36,528,300 has been expended on maintaining this sec-
tion of the waterway. The 1983 traffic for the portion of the
waterway between Pensacola Bay and Mobile Bay was 7,243,491
tons.





Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (St. Marks
to Tampa Bay, Fla.)
(Jacksonville District)
The authorized Intracoastal Waterway between St. Marks and
Tampa Bay provides for a route skirting the shoreline from St.
Marks to the Anclote River, and thence along the alinement
of the existing 9-foot channel through the coastal lagoons in
the reach between Anclote River and Tampa Bay. The project
also provides for minimum basic recreational facilities required
for public health and safety. It would assure safe public access
to gulf waters at or near 15 existing sites with essential basic
facilities such as water supply and sanitary facilities, boat laun-
ching ramps, vehicular parking areas, and limited facilities for
picnicking and overnight camping. The project is about 234
miles long.
No work has been accomplished on this authorized project
to date.
An economic restudy of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway bet-
ween St. Marks and Tampa Bay is underway. The restudy in-
dicates that without the Cross Florida Barge Canal and the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway segment between Carabelle and St.
Marks, economic justification will be lacking. Economic and
environmental studies have been completed on the Cross
Florida Barge Canal, and further action on the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway between St. Marks and Tampa Bay is being held in
abeyance until the future of the barge canal is resolved.


PROJECT DATA
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1980
Total Authorized project length



Channel


Federal maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984


Feature
Channel to
Freeport
Turning basin
at Freeport


$79,000


Depth Width Approx.
(ft.) (ft.) length

12 100 5.9 mi.


12 200


400 ft.


Panacea Harbor, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The project, as authorized on August 14, 1962 by the Chief
of Engineers under authority of Section 107 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1960, provides for a channel 8 feet deep and
100 feet wide from the town of Panacea through Dickerson Bay
to water of the same depth in Apalachee Bay, an overall length
of 3.7 miles.
Construction was initiated in December 1962, and completed
in February 1963 at a cost of approximately $122,400, exclusive
of $7,000 contributed by local interests. Maintenance has cost
about $92,300. The 1982 traffic was about 266 tons.


Panama City Harbor, Fla.
(Mobile District)


$38,900 The project as presently maintained comprises a channel
about 2.6 miles long extending from deep water in St. Andrew
nce Bay across Lands End peninsula to the Gulf of Mexico, 300
feet wide and 32 feet deep in the bay and across Lands End,
and 450 feet wide and 34 feet deep in the approach channel
234 miles in the Gulf. The Gulf end of the cut is protected by two rub-
blemound jetties, each over 2,000 feet long. The project also
Depth (ft.) Width (ft.) includes maintenance of a channel in Watson Bayou 10 feet deep
and 100 feet wide across from St. Andrews Bay to the highway
12 150 bridge across the bayou about 1.8 miles above its mouth.


LaGrange Bayou, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The existing project, authorized by the River and Harbor
Acts of 1922, 1935, and 1950, provides for a channel 12 feet
deep, 100 feet wide, and about 6 miles long from the 12-foot
contour in Choctawhatchee Bay to Freeport, Fla., and a turn-
ing basin 12 feet deep, 200 feet wide, and 400 feet long at
Freeport. The project was completed to the authorized dimen-
sions in May 1963 at a total cost of $289,500. Cost of
maintenance has been about $79,000. The 1983 traffic was
112,696 tons.

PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act:
1950 River and Harbor Act and prior acts
Cost
Federal $289.500


The project was authorized by the 1948 River and Harbor
act and prior acts. Modification of the existing project was
authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House Public Works
Committees adopted in June 1972, under provision of Section
201 of the 1965 Flood Control Act. Those modifications would
provide for an entrance channel 42 feet deep and 450 feet wide
in the Gulf of Mexico, thence 40 feet deep and 300 feet wide
across Lands End peninsula to deep water in St. Andrews Bay,
with branch channels 38 feet deep and 300 feet wide to the
Port Authority terminal on the west and maneuvering areas
of 55 acres opposite the Port Authority terminal and 42 acres
opposite Bay Harbor, and an anchorage and loading basin 40
feet deep and 177 acres in area in St. Andrews Bay near the
inner end of the main entrance channel.
During advanced engineering and design it was found that
construction costs for the authorized modifications had increas-
ed considerably due both to inflation and to necessary changes
in dredged material disposal plans, while antipicated benefits
had decreased due both to changes in evaluation criteria and
to changes in shipping patterns at the port. The result of these
changes was that the work could not be economically justified.





Accordingly, construction of the authorized improvements has
been deferred.
The project as presently maintained was commenced in 1933
and completed in 1949. Repairs to the jetties, authorized by
the Chief of Engineers in 1961, were completed in 1968. Costs
for new work, including work on a previous project and jetty
rehabilitation, amounted to $1,638,000. Maintenance costs have
aggregated about $5,034,600. The 1982 traffic was 1,642,930
tons.

PROJECT DATA
Existing project authorized by 1948 River and
Harbor Act and prior acts. Subsequent
modifications were authorized in 1967 and 1972.


Cost
Federal existing project:
Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984


Feature
Entrance Channel
East jetty
West jetty
Watson Bayou channel


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act:
1962 River and Harbor Act and prior acts
Cost
Federal
Federal maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984


Feature
Entrance channel
Bay channel
East approach
channel


Depth
(ft.)
35(a)
33


Width
(ft.)
500
300


33 300


$1,638,000 West approach
channel


$5,034,600


Depth Width Appro-
x.
(ft.) (ft.) length


3:


Inner harbor channel
Muscogee wharf
channel (b)
Bayou Chico
channel (c)


30 250


$1,469,700

$6,010,000

Approx.
length
5.0 mi.
3.3 mi.

.8 mi.

1.3 mi
.8 mi.

1.0 mi.


14-15 75-100 1.9 mi.


Bayou Chico
2-34 300-450 2.6 mi. turning basin (c) 14 500 500 ft.
- 2,075 ft. (a) Greater dimensions provided by U. S. Navy for aircraft car-
rier based at U. S. Naval Air Station, Pensacola.


10


- 2,700 ft.
100 1.8 mi.


Pensacola Harbor, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The project, authorized by River and Harbor Acts in 1902,
1935, 1937, and 1962, provides for: (a) An entrance channel
35 feet deep, 500 feet wide, and about 5 miles long from the
Gulf of Mexico to deep water in lower Pensacola Bay; (b) a
bay channel 33 feet deep and 300 feet wide; (c) two parallel
approach channels 33 feet deep and 300 feet wide to opposite
ends of the inner-harbor channel; (d) an inner-harbor channel
500 feet wide, 33 feet deep, and 3,950 feet long; (e) an ap-
proach channel to the pier-head line south of Muscogee wharf
30 feet deep and 250 feet wide; and (f) an entrance channel
into Bayou Chico 15 feet deep and 100 feet wide and thence
a channel 14 feet deep, 75 feet wide, and about 4,400 feet long
to a turning basin 14 feet deep and 500 feet square. Overall
length of the project is about 14 miles.
Modification of the Bayou Chico project to provide for
enlarging the entrance channel to 21 by 100 feet and the bayou
channel to 20 by 100 feet and deepening the turning basin to
20 feet, as authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1945,
has been deferred for restudy.
All new work, with the exception of the modification defer-
red for restudy, was completed in May 1965. The cost of new
work completed, including funds spent under a previous pro-
ject, has been $1,469,700, and the cost of maintenance has been
$6,010,000. The 1983 traffic was about 1,773,728 tons.


(b) No longer maintained.
(c) Bayou Chico channels and basin maintained at a depth of
12 feet, which is considered sufficient for present traffic.
Authorized enlargement has been deferred for restudy.



Port St. Joe Harbor, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The existing project, authorized by the River and Harbor....
Acts of 1912, 1937, 1945, and 1954, provides for: (a) An en-
trance channel 37 feet deep, 500 feet wide at its outer end,
and diminishing progressively in width to 400 feet at the first
bend, a distance of 3.6 miles, thence continuing at a depth of
37 feet and a width of 400 feet through the second and to the
third bend, a distance of 3.3 miles, thence continuing at a depth
of 35 feet and a width of 300 feet, a distance of 2.4 miles to
a point in St. Joseph Bay where the entrance channel joins the
North Channel, a total overall distance of 9.3 miles, thence
continuing in the North Channel at a depth of 35 feet and a
width of 300 feet to the north end of the turning basin at Port
St. Joe, a distance of about 4.7 miles; (b) a turning basin 32
feet deep, 1,000 feet wide, and 2,000 feet long, and a harbor
channel therein 35 feet deep, 250 feet wide, and 2,000 feet
long adjacent to the water-front at Port St. Joe; and (c) a chan-
nel 27 feet deep, 200 feet wide, and about 1 mile long leading
from the south end of the turning basin to deep water in St.
Joseph Bay.
The project was completed to the latest authorized dimen-
sions in July 1962 at a total cost of about $1,981,000, including
$20,000 in contributed funds. Cost of maintenance has been
about $2,215,000. In 1983 traffic was about 68,780 tons.





PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act:
1954 River and Harbor Act and prior acts
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984


Feature
Entrance channel
in Gulf
Entrance channel
in Bay
North channel
Turning basin at
Port St. Joe
Waterfront channel
in basin
South channel(a)
(a) Not maintained
current use.


Depth Width
(ft.) (ft.)


deep and 125 feet wide from Apalachee Bay to St. Marks; (b)
a turning basin at St. Marks 12 feet deep and 300 feet square;
(c) a channel 12 feet deep and 100 feet wide, extending ap-
proximately 3,400 feet upstream from the turning basin; and
(d) removal of snags and similar obstructions from the existing
$1,961,000 channel between St. Marks and Newport. Length of the dredg-
$ 20,000 ed channel is about 10 miles.

The project was completed to its present dimensions in July
$2,215,000 1964, at a total cost of approximately S1,710,800, including new
work on previous projects. Cost of maintenance has been about
Approx. $84,115. The 1983 traffic was 726,662 tons.


length


PROJECT DATA


37 400-500 6.9 mi. Authorizing Act:
1960 River and Harbor Act and prior acts


2.4 mi.
4.7 mi.


32 1,000 2,000 ft.


35 250 2,000 ft.
27 200 1.0 mi.
as prevailing depth is sufficient for


St. Marks River, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The project, authorized by the River and Harbor Acts of
1930, 1937, 1945, and 1960, provides for (a) A channel 12 feet


Cost
Federal
Federal maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984


Feature
Channel from
Apalachee Bay to
St. Marks
Turning basin
at St. Marks
Channel above
turning basin
Snagged channel
to Newport


S1,710,800


S84,115


Depth Width Approx.
(ft.) (ft.) length


12 125 9.3 mi.


12 300


300 ft.


12 100 3,400 ft.


- 2.7 mi.









Multiple Purpose Projects


Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers,
Fla. and Ga.
(Florida Portion)
(Mobile District)
Introduction
The River and Harbor Acts of 1945 and 1946, as modified by
a resolution adopted May 19, 1953, by the House Committee
on Public Works, approved a comprehensive plan for develop-
ment of the entire basin and authorized certain dams and reser-
voirs for the initial and partial accomplishment of that plan.
The initial development, which is now completed, consists of
channel improvement in Apalachicola River; a navigation-
power dam (Jim Woodruff) on Apalachicola River just below
the confluence of Chattahoochee and Flint Rivers, near Chat-
tahoochee, Fla; a navigation dam (George W. Andrews) on
Chattahoochee River near Columbia, Ala.; a navigation-power
dam (Walter F. George) on Chattahoochee River near Fort
Gaines, Ga., and a flood-control-power dam (Buford) on Chatt-
ahoochee River northeast of Atlanta which provides regulated
flow for navigation and other uses. The initial development
provides flood control for the upper Chattahoochee Valley, over
850,000,000 kilowatt-hours of electric energy a year, a 9-foot
deep barge canal from the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway at
. Apalachicola, Fla., to Bainbridge, Ga., on Flint River, and
to Columbus, Ga., on Chattahoochee River, and other benefits.
Construction of a flood-control-power-recreation dam on the
Chattahoochee River at West Point was authorized by the Flood
Control Act of 1962; construction of this dam was essentially
completed in 1975. Construction of flood control-power dams
on the Flint River south of Atlanta was authorized by the Flood
Control Acts of 1963 and 1965; planning for the projects was
suspended in 1973 following withdrawal of State support by the
Governor of Georgia.
Two elements of the development, the Apalachicola River
channel and the Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam, lie in Florida.
The remainder of this discussion is concerned primarily with
the Florida portion of the overall basin plan.


Apalachicola River

The Florida portion of the river channel is 9 feet deep by
100 feet wide from the intersection of the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway at Apalachicola to Jim Woodruff Dam, about 104
miles. New work in Apalachicola River, consisting of dredg-
ing, snagging, and some channel rectification, was completed
in 1957. However, as often happens with such new channels,
considerable difficulty was encountered in maintaining the
desired depth. Additional work to stabilize the river channel,
including contraction works and channel realignment, was com-
pleted in December 1970. A study considering the feasibility
of constructing a lock near Blountstown to achieve more depen-
dable navigation conditions is basically complete. Structural


improvements are considered economically feasible, but are
not acceptable to the State of Florida.
Approximate cost of the Jim Woodruff development has been
$47,974,448, including $1,511,500 for recreational facilities pro-
vided after completion of the project. Approximate cost of the
initial Apalachicola River improvement was $1,257,000, and
the additional river work cost a total of about $3,231,000. Dur-
ing the past 5 years, operation, ordinary maintenance, and
rehabilitation costs have averaged $3,300,300 for Jim Woodruff.
Maintenance costs for the Apalachicola River portion of the
project are presently averaging about $3,700,000 annually. The
1982 traffic was 825,591 tons.



Jim Woodruff Dam and Lock
Jim Woodruff Dam consists of a concrete, fixed-crest
spillway, a lock with inside chamber dimensions of 82 by 450
feet and a lift of 33 feet; a concrete spillway containing 16
vertical-lift gates, a concrete powerhouse containing three
10,000 kilowatt generators, a switch yard on an earth fill, and
a long earth over-flow dike rip-rapped with stone. The reser-
voir extends 47 miles up Flint River and 47 miles up Chat-
tahoochee River, covering a total of 37,500 acres and having
a shoreline 250 miles long. The dam creates a navigable depth
up Flint River to Bainbridge, Ga., and up Chattahoochee River
to Columbia, Ala., and produces an average annual energy out-,
put of about 250,000,000 kilowatt-hours. Construction of the
Jim Woodruff Lock and Dam was commenced in 1947 and
essentially completed in 1957. The lock was opened to naviga-
tion in 1954 and power generation was begun in 1957. A total
of about 233,308,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity (net) was
generated at the dam during FY 1983, ending on September
30, 1983. The bulk of this was sold by the Southeastern Power
Administration to the towns of Chattahoochee and Quincy, four
local electric cooperatives, and the Florida Power Corpora-
tion for a total of approximately $2,273,000 (net). The two-
pronged reservoir, which has been named Lake Seminole, has
become a popular recreation area and a major tourist attrac-
tion, with a total of approximately 4,258,000 visitors in CY
1983.
As a part of the Corps of Engineers water quality control
program, an automatic monitoring station immediately below
the dam constantly checks the water released froin the lake
as to the amount of dissolved oxygen, temperature, degree of
acidity or alkalinity, conductivity, and turbidity so that any
change in the quality of water can be detected immediately.
PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act
1946 River and Harbor Act
Authorized project purposes:
Navigation, power and recreation
Completion date: 1957





Federal first cost: $47,974,450 (including
additional recreation facilities)

Federal cost of additional recreational facilities
provided after completion: $1.511,500.
Federal operation and maintenance
cost thru September 30, 1984: $41,054,100

Type of Construction: Concrete gravity lock, gated
spillway and powerhouse in river channel with long concrete
fixed-crest spillway section on west bank and long earth dike
on east bank.

Total length of dam (all structures): Over 1 mile

Height of gated spillway access bridge above river
bed: 98 feet.
Power installation:
3 units with a total capacity of 30,000 kilowats.


Size of lock:
Inside chamber dimensions: 82 by 450 feet
Water depth over sills: 14 feet
Maximum lift: 33 feet

Size of lake at normal summer level (el. 77.0 m.s.l.)
Area: 37,500 acres
Length: Flint River, 47 river miles; Chattahoochee River,
47 miles
Length of shoreline: 250 miles

Number of lockages in CY 1983: 1,026

Power generated in FY 1983 (net): 233,308,000
Power revenue in FY 1983 (net): $2,273,000

Public visitation in CY 1983: 4,258,000


1 4 7 5- ._


Recreational facilities are part of many multi-purpose projects






Navigation Studies


LOCALITY
Alligator Harbor, Fla.
(Mobile District)




Apalachicola Bay, Fla.
(Mobile District)



Apalachicola, Chattahoochee
and Flint Rivers
(Mobile District)


Gulf IWW, Carrabelle to St.
Marks, Fla.
(Mobile District)

Joe's Bayou,
Choctawhatchee Bay, Fla.
(Mobile District)


Mexico Beach, Fla.
(Mobile District)


Old Pass Lagoon, Fla.
(Mobile District)



Peach Creek, Eastern and
Redfish Lakes, Fla.
(Mobile District)

Pensacola Harbor, Fla.
(Mobile District)


Panacea Harbor
(Mobile District)



Shell Point-Oyster Bay, Fla.
(Mobile District)


Waterway from East Bay,
Fla. across Santa Rosa
Peninsula (Mobile District)


PURPOSE
Small-craft channel stabilization
around northwest end of Alligator
Point, Franklin County



Investigate the feasibility of deepening
the existing channel from Gulf of Mex-
ico through St. George Island to the
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

Investigate navigation, flood control,
water supply, recreation and other
water use needs and solutions of the
river system.

Alternate route in lieu of authorized
route, which is between Carrabelle,
Crooked and Ochlockonee Rivers.

Navigable channel for small-craft
across bar at mouth of bayou and in
upper portion of bayou.

Deepen existing waterway from the
Gulf to the town to accommodate
vessel traffic as determined feasible.

Improve small-craft channel from ex-
isting East Pass project channel into
and along waterfront inside Old Pass
Lagoon.

Small-craft channels from the Gulf of
Mexico into Choctawhatchee Bay.
(Project would require jetties.)

Greater depths in existing-project
channels.


Small-craft channel from the Gulf
through Philips Inlet and Powell Lake,
thence about 2 /2 miles to Gulf IWW
(jetties would be required).

Investigate navigation problems affec-
ting operation of small craft in area.


Channel for small-craft from East Bay,
across Santa Rosa Sound, and across
Santa Rosa Island to Gulf of Mexico.


APPROXIMATE DATE
TO BE COMPLETED
Detailed Project report initiated in
October 1977. Study has been ter-
minated due to unwillingness of
sponsor to furnish items of local
cooperation.

Survey report authorized by resolu-
tion of November 1977 and April
1978 has not been funded for study
as of September 1984.

This study is a resumption of the
section 308 reporting authority and
is scheduled for submission late in
FY 1988.

Deferred for restudy; not funded.



Indefinite; not funded.


FY 1986.


Study has been terminated due to
lack of need for a deeper channel.



Funding for the survey report has
not been made thru FY 1985.


Indefinite; final action deferred at re-
quest of local sponsor.


Indefinite; deferred for study
management purposes. Not funded.



Detailed Project Report initiated in
FY 1980 and scheduled for comple-
tion in late 1984.

Indefinite; final action deferred at re-
quest of sponsor. Not funded.









Flood Control Projects


Jackson County, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The project was authorized March 11, 1958, under authority
of Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, to alleviate
flood conditions in a 15-square-mile lime sink region in eastern
Jackson County adjacent to Lake Seminole. It consists of 8
canals draining 15 ponds into the lake. Construction was com-
pleted in March 1959 at a cost of about $129,000.
During the 26 years of its operation (January 1959 through
September 1984, the project has provided flood control benefits
amounting to about $183,400-about $59,100 from reduced
damages and $124,300 from changes in land use.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act
Chief of Engineers under authority of Sec. 205, 1948
Flood Control Act
Federal: $129,000
Drainage area: 15 square miles
Number of drainage canals: 8
Number of ponds drained: 15


Beach Erosion Control Projects


Valparaiso, Fla.
(Mobile District)
The city of Valparaiso is in Okaloosa County on the west bank
of Boggy Bayou, an embayment which indents the north shore
of Choctawhatchee Bay about 10 miles northeast of Fort Walton
Beach, Florida. A beach erosion control study for protection
of Bayshore Drive was conducted and a favorable report was
submitted in July 1980 under authority of Section 14 of the
Flood Control Act of 1946, as amended.
The shoreline protection consists of a stone disk placed on
filter fabric and blanket material and backfilled with local sand.
This protection fronts Bayshore Drive for a distance of about
900 feet and protects an eroded embankment with elevations
up to 15 feet. The embankment behind the stone dike was
backfilled and grassed.
Construction of the shoreline protection was initiated in
February 1982 and completed in April 1982 at a total Federal


cost of $242,125. Operation and maintenance of the projec-
tion will be performed by local interests at an estimated average
annual cost of $600.



Santa Rosa Island, Fla.
(Mobile District)
Construction of shoreline protection works to protect the
wastewater treatment plant for the City of Pensacola Beach,
Florida was approved by the Chief of Engineers in April 1976
under authority of Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act.
The project provides for the protection of the shoreline on the
north side of Santa Rosa Island in the vicinity of the wastewater
treatment plant with about 625 feet of rubble revetment. The
project was constructed in FY 1977 at a Federal cost of S98.554.
Maintenance of the project is the responsibility of the City of
Pensacola Beach.







Flood Control Studies


LOCALITY
Blackwater and Yellow
Rivers, Fla. and Ala.
(Mobile District)

Coastal streams between
Suwannee and Apalachicola
Rivers, Fla.
(Mobile District)

Choctawhatchee River and
Tributaries, Fla. and Ala.
(Mobile District)


PURPOSE
Water-resource improvements, in-
cluding reservoirs and local flood-
protection works.

Local flood protection along coastal
streams between Suwannee and
Apalachicola Rivers.


Improving and developing waterway
for navigation and other water uses, in-
cluding flood control, power and
recreation.


APPROXIMATE DATE
TO BE COMPLETED
Indefinite; awaiting studies by En-
vironmental Protection Agency and
funds.

Indefinite; not funded.




Study funded in 1980 and the Divi-
sion Engineer's notice of report com-
pletion was issued in August 1984.


Beach Erosion Control Studies


LOCALITY
Liza Jackson State Park,
Ft. Walton Beach, Fla.
(Mobile District)


Santa Rosa Island, Fla.
(Mobile District)



Valparaiso, Fla.
(Mobile District)


PURPOSE
Study erosion problems affecting
beach at Park to determine beach pro-
tection if feasible.


Restore beach on about 2.5 miles of
Santa Rosa Sound shoreline to offset
erosion and provide a recreation
beach.

Consideration for erosion control
structure for protection of shoreline
along Boggy Bayou.


APPROXIMATE DATE
TO BE COMPLETED
Detailed Project Report completed in
1984. Detailed design and construc-
tion will begin when funds become
available.

Initial appraisal to be completed in
1985. Conduct of more detailed
studies contingent upon availability
of funds.

Astudy of erosion problems along
Boggy Bayou was initiated in 1983
under authority of Section 103 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1962. Study
will consider protection of the
shoreline by construction of rubble
stone revetment. Detailed Project
Report scheduled for completion in
early 1985.











CLAK OKLAWAHA
RI VER


W/THLACOOCH
RIVER




.OA09 CITY4
T A R P S P R *, r
LAKELAND
CLEARWATER *TAMPA *


*ST PETERS"


SEBRING
0


ADIA

GORDA


ADES


KEY WEST* -


Southwest Florida Area


z

P.,


i?
u.








Introduction


The southwest area of Florida includes the Four River Basins
project, which drains about 6,000 square miles, and a wide
band along the southwestern part of the State that includes
Everglades National Park, Key West and the lower part of the
Florida Keys.
The four main streams which cover most of the Four River
Basins area-Hillsborough, Withlacoochee, Oklawaha, and
Peace Rivers-are inter-related in that all have common head-
waters in the region known as the Green Swamp. All four
streams have similar problems, such as flood control, major
drainage, and water conservation, the solution for which
depends partly on what plans might be developed for Green
Swamp. Brief descriptions of each of these watersheds are given
below.
GREEN SWAMP. This area, known locally as Green Swamp,
is the highest land in the Four Rivr Basins area. The exact
boundaries are indefinite, but it consists of about 850 square
miles of swampy flatlands and sandy ridges varying in eleva-
tion from about 200 feet in the eastern part to about 75 feet
in the stream valleys in the western part.
HILLSBOROUGH RIVER, which drains about 690 square
miles, originates at the edge of Green Swamp, north of
Lakeland, Florida, and flows southwesterly about 54 miles to
Hillsborough Bay at Tampa.
.OKLAWAHA RIVER has its source in two chains of lakes and
drains about 2,100 square miles. The Oklawaha River proper
flows 75 miles northerly from Lake Griffin and joins the St.
Johns River 77 miles upstream from Jacksonville.
WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER rises in Polk County in the


Green Swamp area and flows northwesterly about 160 miles
to the Gulf of Mexico at Yankeetown. The river drains about
1,980 square miles.
PEACE RIVER has its source in a number of small lakes east
of Lakeland, Florida. It flows southward about 120 miles and
empties into Charlotte Harbor, an arm of the Gulf of Mexico.
Other major streams in this area include the Myakka River,
which begins in Manatee County and flows generally southward
to empty into Charlotte Harbor; the Alafia, which begins in
Polk County and flows generally southwesterly about 24 miles
to enter Tampa Bay; Little Manatee and Manatee Rivers, which
begin in Manatee County and flow into Tampa Bay. Little
Manatee River is about 39 miles long and Manatee River is
about 35.5 miles long.
The Tampa-St. Petersburg metropolitan area is the second
largest urban population center in Florida with a 1980 popula-
tion exceeding one million. The rapid growth in this area has
placed a severe strain on available water supplies for both
domestic and industrial uses. Associated with the increased
uses of water are pollution problems stemming from wastewater
disposal, urban storm-water runnoff, and other sources of
regional water supply contamination.
Some of the larger municipalities in the area include Tam-
pa, St. Petersburg, Lakeland, Clearwater, Sarasota, and Ft.
Myers. Authorized improvements provide for control of floods
and improvement of drainage, and for water conservation
through construction of necessary canals, levees, reservoirs,
and control structures. Projects authorized for this area pro-
vide also for preserving the beaches and for navigation im-
provements. These will be discussed separately.







Southwest Florida Area


Ybor Channel terminals











Navigation Projects


Anclote River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The project provides a channel from the Gulf of Mexico up
the Anclote River to and including a turning basin at the town
of Tarpon Springs. Both commercial and recreational boats use
the project. The channel was completed in 1938 and the turn-
ing basin was completed in 1958.
The 1983 traffic was about 566 tons.
PROJECT DATA


Charlotte Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Charlotte Harbor project serves ocean-going cargo
vessels to the port at Boca Grande. The channel from Boca
Grande to Punta Gorda serves primarily commercial fishing
and recreational boats. The average annual traffic from 1978
to 1982 has been about 1,375,899 tons. The 1983 traffic was
938,461 tons.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
costs to September 30, 1984


Total authorized project length
Feature
Channel
Turning Basin


1945 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts


$267,427


Authorizing Act
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


- Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984


$607,465


8.5 miles
Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)
9 100
9 300-850


Total authorized project length
Channel
Gulf of Mexico to Port
Boca Grande
Port Boca Grande


1950 River and Harbor Act


$533,169
$ 15,600

$9,582,019
29.5 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


Cedar Keys Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Cedar Keys project, located near the mouth of the
Suwannee River, was completed in 1965 except for removal
of rock in Middle Ground Channel. That portion of the pro-
ject is not considered essential to the interest of navigation and
has been placed in an inactive category. The project serves com-
mercial fishing and recreational boats. The 1983 traffic was
2,224 tons.
PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act Section 107 of 1960 River
and Harbor Act, and 1884
River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channel
Main ship channel from Gulf
of Mexico through Middle
Ground Channel to Cedar
Keys
Northwest Channel


$168,569
$ 1,500


Clearwater Pass (Little Pass), Clearwater Bay,
Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Clearwater Pass is on the west coast of Florida and connects
Clearwater Bay with the Gulf of Mexico about 25 miles north
of Tampa Bay and 14 miles south of Anclote River. The ex-
isting project is used principally by recreational craft. It was
completed in 1961. No traffic reported in 1983.

PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


1960 River and Harbor Act


$46,349
$42,800


Federal operation -and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984


$60,362 Total authorized project length
11 miles Channel


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.) Gulf of Mexico through Clear-
water Pass
Clearwater Pass to Intracoastal
10.5 200 Waterway
Side Channel from inner chan-
8 100 nel to Clearwater Marina


$1,192,532
3.2 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)





Crystal River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The project provides a channel from the Gulf of Mexico
through the Crystal River to the town of Crystal River. The
project was completed in 1906. The 1983 traffic was about 1,591
tons.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


Federal operation and maintenai
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length

Channel


1902 River and Harbor Act


Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984


Total authorized project length
Feature
San Carlos Bay into Matanzas
Pass
Matanzas Pass Channel to up-
per shrimp terminal


$679,741


2.5 miles
Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


$25,000


Homosassa River, Fla.
nce3,309 (Jacksonville District)
Smiles The Homosassa River project, located in Citrus County,
Florida, was completed in 1936. It serves primarily recreational
Depth (ft.) Width (ft.) boats but does handle a small amount of commercial traffic.
6 60 The 1983 traffic was 1,632 tons.


Everglades Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The project provides a channel from the Gulf of Mexico
through Indian Key Pass and Chokoloskee Bay, then 1.5 miles
up the Barron River to the town of Everglades. A turning basin
is located near the upper end of the project. The channel is
used primarily by recreational craft and fishing boats. The pro-
ject was completed in 1963. The 1983 traffic was 607 tons.
PROJECT DATA


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


1935 River and Harbor Act


Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984


Total authorized project length


Channel


$3,999
SI,000

$23,248


0.7 miles
Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)
5 40


1938 River and Harbor Act

$221,509 Hudson River, Fla.
$ 36,000 (Jacksonville District)


Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984


Total authorized project length
Feature
Entrance Channel
Turning basin


Depth (ft.) W
8
8


Fort Myers Beach, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Fort Myers Beach Channel was initially completed for
a distance of 2.1 miles in 1961. A 2,000-foot extension to the
project in Matanzas Pass was completed in 1973. The project
serves commercial fishing boats and recreational boats. The
1983 traffic was 29,032 tons.
PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act 1960 River and Harbor Act
and Section 107 of 1960
River and Harbor Act


For Matanzas Pass


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


Although authorized in 1950, no work has been done on the
$49,106 Hudson River project, located in Pasco County, Florida, and
9.2 miles it is now in an inactive category. No traffic reported for 1983.
idth (ft.) PROJECT DATA
60 Authorizing Act 1950 River and Harbor Act
200x200 Cost of project to date: s9,889(')


Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


3.3 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)
6 75


Channel


NOTE: (1) For 1973 economic restudy; no funds have been
spent for construction work.



Intracoastal Waterway, Caloosahatchee River to
Anclote River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


extension The existing project between Tarpon Springs and Fort Myers
provides a channel from the Caloosahatchee River to the
$158,140 Anclote River, generally along inside protected waters; deepen-
$ 1,100 ing the existing channel at Casey's Pass (Venice Inlet); improve-


Authorizing Act
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal





ment and maintenance of a channel (Cats Point Channel) along
the southeastern side of Boca Ciega Bay past Frenchman Creek
and Gulfport; improvement and maintenance of Sunshine
Skyway Channel; and maintenance of bulkheads, revetments,
and two jetties built at Casey's Pass. The project is complete.
The 1983 traffic was about 1,398,631 tons.


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act


1960 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Feature
Channel
Casey's Pass Channel
Cats Point Channel


$8,112,557
$ 14,500

$5,639,850
160 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)
9 100


PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Feature
Main ship channel
Northwest Channel
Inner channel
opposite wharfs


1962 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts; Section 107
of 1960 River and Harbor Act


$1,548,892
$ 35,400

$531,366
23 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


Varies


Fleming Key to
100 Garrison Bight
80 Main ship channel to
Key West Bight


Johns Pass, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Johns Pass project, located north of Treasure Island,
Florida serves commercial fishing and recreational boats. It
was completed in 1968. No traffic reported in 1983.
PROJECT DATA
Authorizing Act Section 107 of
1960 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Feature
Entrance channel
Inner channel


$81,755
$53,700

$796,976
2.6 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


Largo Sound Channel, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The authorized Largo Sound project provides for a channel
from Hawk Channel through South Sound Creek and into
Largo Sound. It serves commercial and recreational vessels.
The project was completed in 1965. No traffic reported in 1983.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


Section 107 of the
1960 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


150
100 Channel


$117,443
$ 86,700

$41,340
3.2 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)
6 50


Key West Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Key West Harbor project serves commercial and recrea-
tional vessels. In addition to the channels, the project also
authorizes two jetties in Northwest Channel to reduce wave
action, and an 800-foot-long granite breakwater in Key West
Bight. The entire project is complete except the jetties at the
entrance of Northwest Channel which are only partially con-
structed. Completion of these jetties is considered unnecessary
at this time because present traffic is able to use the channel
under existing conditions without experiencing navigation prob-
lems. The 1983 traffic for Key West Harbor was 156,966 tons.


Longboat Pass, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The authorized project provides for an entrance channel 12
feet deep by 150 feet wide from the Gulf of Mexico to the
Longboat Bridge near Cortez, Florida. The channel dimen-
sions then reduce to a 10-foot depth and 100-foot width from
the Longboat bridge to the Cortez Bridge. Construction was
completed in December 1977. Traffic was 4,018 tons in 1983.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


Section 107 of the
1960 River and Harbor Act





Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Channel
Gulf to Longboat
Pass Bridge
Longboat Pass
Bridge to
Cortez Bridge


$1,020,233
$ 172,300

$831,892
2.6 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


Channel
Interior channel from
Big Marco Pass to
Doctors Bay
Gulf of Mexico to
Gordon Pass
Gordon Pass through
Naples Bay to 400
feet south of U.S.
Highway 41 Bridge
Remaining 400 feet to
U. S. Highway 41 Bridge
Turning Basin
Upper Naples Bay


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)
10 150 by 200


Manatee River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The Manatee River project, located near Bradenton, Florida,
was completed in 1915 except for removing a small amount of
rock in the entrance of the channel from Tampa Bay to McNeil
Point. This work is not considered essential for safe naviga-
tion and has been deauthorized. The project serves commer-
cial and recreational craft. No traffic reported for 1983.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act

Cost
Federal
Non-Federal

Federal operation and maintenar
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length
Entrance channel
Inner channel


1916 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts

$123,350


New Pass, Sarasota, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The project provides an entrance channel from the Gulf of
Mexico through New Pass and into Sarasota Bay with inner
channels leading to turning basins at Payne Terminal and City
Pier. The project was completed in 1964. The 1983 traffic was
89 tons.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


Cost


Sec. 107
1960 River and Harbor Act


Federal
Non-Federal
$184,221 Federal operation and maintenance
27.8 miles cost to September 30, 1984
150 Total authorized project length


S45,811
S45,811

S2,138,411
4 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


Entrance channel
Inner channel


Channel from Naples to Big Marco Pass, and
Channel at Gordon Pass, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Two separate channels, Naples to Big Marco Pass and Gor-
don Pass, combine to form one project. The interior channel
from Big Marco Pass to Doctors Bay south of Naples is about
10.15 miles long and the channel through Gordon Pass to Naples
is 4.5 miles long. Both channels serve primarily commercial
fishing and recreational boats. The project was completed in
1963. The 1982 traffic was 3,900 tons.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


1960 River and Harbor Act
1938 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


$305,290
$160,000

$921,698
14.7 miles


Ozona, Fla., Channel and Turning Basin
(Jacksonville District)
The project, located near the town of Ozona, provides a chan-
nel in St. Joseph's Sound from the Intracoastal Waterway,
Caloosahatchee River to Anclote River, Fla., to and including
a turning basin at the town of Ozona. The project was com-
pleted in 1962 and is used primarily by recreational craft.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


1950 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal

Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


S105,527



S14,783
1.3 miles


100 Feature





Feature
Channel
Turning Basin


Pass-A-Grille Pass, Pinellas County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The project, located in Pinellas County, provides a channel
from the Gulf of Mexico through Pass-a-Grille Pass to the In-
tracoastal Waterway in Boca Ciega Bay. It was completed in
1966 and primarily serves recreational boats.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


Section 107
1960 River and Harbor Act


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


150 by 150


$41,297 Except for dredging the full 24-foot depth channel and basin
$41,297 from Tampa Bay to Bayboro Harbor from 21-foot depth to the
authorized 24-foot depth, the project has been completed.
$53,665 The average annual traffic from 1978 to 1982 has been about
184,474 tons and about 3,683 passengers. The 1983 traffic was
3.4 miles about 293,499 tons.


Feature
Entrance channel
Inner channel


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


PROJECT DATA


150 Authorizing Act


1950 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts


Pithlachascotee River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The project, near New Port Richey, provides a channel from
the Gulf of Mexico up to the Pithlachascotee River, past Millers
Bayou, to and including a turning basin at the town of Port
Richey. In 1962, the project was reclassified to the deferred-
for-restudy category as a result of changed conditions. As a
result of an economic restudy, the Chief of Engineers on May
17, 1966, reclassified part of the project from "deferred" to
the "active" category. The active part of the project consists
of a channel 6 feet deep and 75 feet wide from the Gulf of
Mexico to and including a basin 200 feet in maximum width
and 730 feet long at Port Richey. The length of the project is
about 3.2 miles. It was completed in February 1973. The re-
maining 25-foot width of the authorized channel was
reclassified as inactive. No traffic reported in 1983.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


1945 River and Harbor Act


Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Feature
Channel-authorized
Channel constructed


Depth (ft.) V


$400,000
$215,728

$253.516


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal

Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984


Total authorized project length
Feature
Entrance channel
(south)
Bayboro Harbor
Channel
Bayboro Harbor
Basin
Salt Creek
Channel
Entrance channel
(north)
Westward channel


$255,608



$1,536,606


8.9 miles
Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


Tampa Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


Tampa Harbor is a large natural indentation on the Gulf of
3.2 miles Mexico about midway up the west coast of the Florida penin-
idth (ft.) sula. The existing project comprises channels in Tampa Bay
from the Gulf to terminals at Tampa. Present controlling dimen-
sions are generally 34 feet deep and 400 feet wide, about 8
75 miles northeasterly at the Skyway Bridge where the last seg-


The project provides the following:
a. An entrance channel from Tampa Bay southwesterly and
thence westerly along the south side of Port of St. Petersburg
Basin to Bayboro Harbor;
b. A 24-foot depth in the port basin and in the area between
the entrance channel and the Maritime Service south bulkhead;
c. A channel in Bayboro Harbor along the southwesterly 300
feet of the Maritime Service bulkhead;
d. A basin in Bayboro Harbor;
e. A channel 300 feet long in the mouth of Salt Creek;
f. An entrance channel extending northerly about 5.5 miles
from deep water in lower Tampa Bay, and thence a channel
leading westward to the 24-foot depth entrance channel.


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.) St. Petersburg Harbor, Fla.
6 80 (Jacksonville District)





ment is being constructed. Work should be in progress from
May '84 thru Dec. '85.
Construction of the main channel portion of the deeper pro-
ject authorized by the River and Harbor Act of 1970 began in
1976. The Port Tampa Channel, Sparkman and Ybor Chan-
nels (branch channels on the authorized harbor project, Sec-
tions 7 & 6) have not been funded by Congress to date. The
project modification will provide the following:
1. The channel from the Gulf of Mexico to the junction of
Hillsborough Bay and Port Tampa Channel will be deepened
to 43 feet (45 feet in the Gulf entrance) and widened to 500
feet (up to 700 feet in the Gulf entrance).
2. Port Tampa Channel will be deepened to 41 feet at its ex-
isting 400-foot width from the junction with Hillsborough and
Tampa Bay Channels. The Port Tampa turning basin will be
deepened to 41 feet, but keep its 2,000-foot length and 900-foot
width.
3. Hillsborough Channel will be deepened to 43 feet and widen-
ed to 500 feet.
4. Port Sutton Entrance Channel will be increased to a 43-foot
depth and 400-foot width. Its turning basin will be enlarged
to a 1,200-foot diameter.
5. An added approach channel in East Bay will be made
available with a 43-foot depth and 300-foot width, and have
a turning basin with a 1,200-foot diameter.
6. Sparkman Channel will be deepened to 41 feet at the ex-
isting 400-foot width.
7. Ybor Channel will be deepened to 39 feet at a width of 300
feet
8. Port Sutton Terminal Channel will be maintained at a depth
of 43 feet after it has been dredged to that depth by local
interests.
As of 1984, there have been 10 contracts awarded on the main
channel of the authorized project. This is approximately 90
percent of the main channel work. It is planned to complete
the main channel by December 1985.
Some of the material which has been dredged since 1976 was
placed to nourish the Mullet Key beaches and placed to con-
struct dikes around open water disposal areas in Hillsborough
Bay for future maintenance disposal.
Tampa Harbor is the largest port in the State of Florida and
ranked 8th in the nation as far as tonnage handled in 1982.
The primary commodities handled by the port on a volume
basis are bulk phosphate rock, phosphate products, petroleum
products, and sulphur.
Average annual traffic from 1978 to 1982 has been about
45,329,064 tons. The 1983 traffic was about 41,434,462 tons.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


1970 River and Harbor Act(')
and prior acts


Estimated (1980) Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


$165,926,660
$ 842,666

$18,790,328
67 miles


(')The bottom 1 foot of the authorized project is in an in-
active category.


Feature
Egmont Channel
Mullet Key
Port Tampa Channel (2)
Port Tampa Basin
Tampa Bay Channels
& Gadsen Cut (3)
Turning Basin
Hillsborough Channel
Port Sutton
Entrance Channel
Port Sutton
Turning Basin
Port Sutton Terminal
Channel
East Bay Approach
East Bay Turning Basin
Garrison Channel
Sparkman Channel (1)
Seddon Channel
Ybor Channel (1)
Alafia Channel


Alafia Basin


Depth (ft.)
45
43
41


Width (ft.)
700
600
400


41 900 x 2000


900 x 2000
500


1200 D.wr


300
1200 o...Z.
300
400


30 700 x 1200


Notes:
(1) Section 6 work Planning & Engineering
1 t funds in FY '84 Budget
(2) Section 7 work for these Sections
(3) Contract awarded March 1984 to construct Sec. 3B
& 2C. Work scheduled for completion Dec. 1985.



Withlacoochee River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The existing project, located near the town of Inglis, pro-
vides for a channel from the Gulf of Mexico to Port Inglis,
about 4.1 miles; thence a practicable channel to the steam-
electric plant at Inglis, about 6.4 miles; and removal of shoals
and other obstructions to obtain a draft of 2 feet for about half
the year in the upper river as far as Croom, about 78.6 miles.
All work was completed in 1946 with exception of the entrance
channel to Port Inglis, which has been dredged only 85 feet
wide in lieu of the authorized 100-foot width which has been
deauthorized. The project is about 88 percent completed. There
has been no traffic reported since 1976.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


1946 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts





Cost
Federal
Non-Federal

Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Feature
$614,412 Entrance channel to
Port Inglis
Port Inglis to town
$365,858 of Inglis
89.1 miles Inglis to Croom


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


Shrimp boats are prime users of waterways in Southwest Florida









Navigation Studies


LOCALITY
Charlotte Harbor,
Port Boca Grande, Fla
(Jacksonville District)

Dunedin and Hurricane
Pass, Clearwater, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Gulf Coast Passes, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)



IWW, Caloosahatchee
River to Naples Bay, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Key West Harbor (Stock
Island), Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Little Gasparilla Pass
Charlotte County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Manatee Harbor, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


Midnight Pass, Sarasota
County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

St. Petersburg Harbor,
Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Tampa Harbor (Big
Bend Channel and Alafia
River), Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Tampa Harbor (East Bay
Channel & Turning
Basin), Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


Port Sutton Channel,
Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Big Sarasota Pass,
Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Pasco County Small Boat
Channels, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


PURPOSE
Deepening existing project.


Navigation channel for small boats through Hurricane
Pass and Dunedin Pass. Study under small navigation
program (Section 107).

Determine if at least 6 passes should be incorporated in
the IWW, Caloosahatchee River to Anclote River.



Existing IWW, Caloosahatchee River to Anclote River,
Fla., to be extended southward to Naples Bay, Fla.


Federal Maintenance of channel and navigation aids to
Safe Harbor, a privately dredged car-ferry and shrimp-
boat harbor, about 5 miles east of Key West.

Federal improvement for Little Gasparilla Pass, including
jetties.


Federal maintenance of channel and turning basin which
has been deepened by local interests.


Navigation channel for small boats through Midnight
Pass.


Deepen ship channel to authorized depth of 24 feet.



Federal maintenance and/or deepening for these two
channels and turning basins.



Federal maintenance for this area which has been
deepened at local expense. Area is between and con-
tinguous to authorized Federal harbor project and Tampa
Bypass Channel.


Enlargement of existing local channel
for deep-draft navigation.


Dredging of small-boat channel from the Gulf of Mexico
through Big Sarasota Pass to the IWW.


Dredging of a small-boat channel from the Gulf of Mex-
ico to local facilities at Hudson, Florida.


APPROXIMATE DATE
TO BE COMPLETED
Study deferred indef-
initely at request of
local sponsor.

Study complete,
recommending only
Hurricane Pass.

Study terminated.
Passes being con-
sidered under Section
107.

Indefinite; not funded.



Indefinite; not funded.



Indefinite; not funded.



Completed, in
Congress.


Included in Gulf Coast
Passes study.


Economic restudy
deferred indefinitely.


Deferred at request of
sponsor.



Final report in
Congress.


Study underway,
scheduled completion
FY 1985.


Section 107


Study deferred.









Flood Control Projects


Four River Basins, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The existing project, authorized by the Flood Control Act
of October 23, 1962, encompasses a 6,000 square-mile area
within 17 counties in central and southwest peninsular Florida.
It includes all or portions of the drainage basins of four major
streams-Hillsborough, Oklawaha, Withlacoochee, and Peace
Rivers- and three smaller west coast watersheds-
Pithlachascotee River, Anclote River and Lake Tarpon. The
plan of improvement consists primarily of stream improvements
and a system of canals, flood detention areas, and auxiliary
water-control structures designed to prevent a recurrence of
the disastrous flooding experienced in the past and to permit
temporary storage of excess water.
The authorizing act requires that local interests furnish all
lands, easements, and rights-of-way; provide alterations or
replacements of public and private utilities, roads, bridges (ex-
cept railroad bridges), etc.; hold and save the United States
free from damages; operate and maintain all project works after
completion; construct and maintain such associated works as
are necessary to realize benefits made available by the project
works; and make a cash contribution for each part of the work
prior to its initiation. In 1961, the Florida State Legislature
created the Southwest Florida Water Management District to
represent local interests in meeting the requirements of local
cooperation and other matters relating to the project.
Construction was begun in April 1966. The project is 96 per-
cent completed for scheduled work only. Works within the pro-
ject already completed are:


Tampa Bypass Canal & Lower Hillsborough Flood
detention area
Moss Bluff Lock and Dam
Levee 212 (Oklawaha River)
Masaryktown Canal
Lake Tarpon Outfall Canal
Lake Tsala Apopka Works
Brooker Creek Park Recreational Area
The estimated cost of new work is $197 million Federal funds
and $132.1 million non-Federal funds ($41.3 million cash con-
tribution and $90.8 million for other costs).
Through September 30, 1984, Federal allocations have
amounted to $67,471,000 and cash contributions by local in-
terests have amounted to $11,805,200.
The current estimates of average annual benefits from the
project are summarized as follows:


Type of Benefits


Prevention of flood damages
Increased land use
Fish and wildlife
Recreation
Area redevelopment benefits
Total annual benefits


Estimated Average
Annual Benefits
(1984 Prices)
$11,354,000
$10,167,900
497,500
9,594,000
562,000
$32,175,400


This is a long range project which will require a number
of years to complete. Completion date is dependent on the ap-
propriation of funds by Congress.









Beach Erosion Control Projects


Key West, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
In 1960, local interests initially completed the westerly half
of the beach project authorized for the southeasterly shore of
Key West. They were reimbursed for the Federal share of
related costs. Work has not yet begun on the remaining pro-
ject reach.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act
Estimated (1978) costs:


Federal (C of E)
Non-Federal


River and Harbor Act of 1960


Estimated
Cost of
Project
$1,460,000
$1,560,000


Cost Through
Fiscal
Year 1984
$100,100
$192,200


Design
width
(ft.)


Feature


(1) Gasparilla protec-
tive beach
revetment
(1;2,400 ft.) groin
(1;500 ft.)
(2) Captiva Island
protective beach
(3) Estero Island
protective beach


Design
length
(miles)


Sand deposition
(cu. yd.)
Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment


2.7 700,000 60,000



4.7 1,800,000 80,000


4.6 325,000 120,000


Design Design
width length Sand deposition
(ft.) (miles) (cu. yd.)
Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment
150 1.2 219,000 20,000


Lee County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
This shore protection project includes beachfill and
associated structures, as needed, for problem beaches on
Gasparilla, Captiva, and Estero Islands. Shorefront houses,
roads, and protective structures are threatened by continuing
erosion. Existing beaches are inadequate for resident and for
annual tourist visitation at several resort areas. Seasonal adverse
weather caused substantial damages to beaches and existing
development along the inadequately protected shores.
A study is currently being conducted in response to a Con-
gressional Committee directive to update the economic analysis
for the remaining nourishment of the southern 2.8 miles of the
project at Captiva Island. The northern 1.9 miles of the pro-
ject was constructed in 1981 by local interests.


Lido Key, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
Coolidge Park on Lido Key is fully developed and serves
as one of the most popular recreational facilities of the City
of Sarasota. Following congressional authorization of a beach
study for Sarasota County, the city requested the Federal
Government to make an expeditious and separate determina-
tion of remedial measures for Lido Key. The interim study mas
made and a beach project authorized. The city completed the
north half of the initial project fill, that part along Coolidge
Park, in 1970. The improved beach, which is periodically
nourished with material obtained from maintenance dredging
at the Federal navigation project at New Pass. has functioned
well and is extensively used.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act
Estimated (1984) costs:


Federal (C of E)
PROJECT DATA Non-Federal


River and Harbor Act of 1970


Estimated
Cost of
Project
$1,670,000
$3,030,000


Cost
Through
Fiscal
Year 1984


Authorizing Act


Estimated (1984) costs:


Federal (C of E)
Non-Federal


Estimated
Cost of
Project
$2,950,000
$19,850,000


Senate and House
resolutions in 1970

Cost Through
Fiscal
Year 1984
-0-
-0-


Feature



Protective beach


Design Design
width length
(ft.) (miles)


Sand deposition
(cu. yd.)
Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment


180 1.2 636,000


Active
Feature


Protective beach


67,000





Manatee County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
A beach study was completed for Manatee County in 1972.
It was favorable for provision of about 3 miles of protective
and recreational beach along the middle Gulf shore of Anna
Maria Key, and for future nourishment of the Gulf shore of
the island as needed. The improvements were authorized by
Senate and House Public Works Committee Resolutions
adopted in 1974 and 1975. Preconstruction planning and design
of the project improvements was completed in 1980.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


Senate Resolution of 1974
and House Resolution of 1975


Estimated (1984) costs:


Federal (C of E)
Non-Federal


Estimated
Cost of
Project
$8,700,000
$8,700,000


Cost
Through
Fiscal
Year 1984
$217,600
-0-


The project authorization provides that the various island
segments can be constructed together or independently as
separate projects. The initial beach fill was constructed at
Treasure Island in 1969, and the fourth periodic nourishment
was completed in 1983. The initial beach fills were completed
in 1973 at Mullet Key, and in 1980 at Long Key.
A review study of the existing conditions for the entire Gulf
shore-front of Pinellas County was authorized in 1976 and com-
pleted in 1984. The scope of this study included Honeymoon
and Caladesi Islands and evaluated the current needs of the
beach erosion control projects authorized in 1966. The review
study recommendations consist of: initial beach fill and
periodic nourishment of 4,500 feet of Honeymoon Island;
periodic nourishment of 11,100 feet of Caladesi shorefront, in-
itial beach fill and periodic nourishment of 5,000 feet of Clear-
water Beach Island; initial beach fill along 38,500 feet with
periodic nourishment of the entire shore-front at Sand Key as
needed, and extension of the period of Federal participation
in renourishment of the existing project at Clearwater Beach
Island, Sand Key, Treasure Island, Long Key and Mullet Key.
The study findings are under review at the office of the Chief
of Engineers.

PROJECT DATA


Design
width
(ft.)


Design
length
(miles)


Sand deposition
(cu. yd.)
Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment


Protective beach 100 3.9 1,308,000


55,000


Pinellas County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The beach erosion control projects authorized in 1966 for
Pinellas County of the Gulf Coast of Florida adjacent to Tam-
pa provide for Federal aid in improving and protecting the
shorefront by restoration of: 5,000 feet of shore on Clearwater
Beach Island; 49,000 feet of shore on Sand Key, 9,200 feet of
shore on Treasure Island, nourishment of 5,600 feet of shore
on Long Key and construction of 600 feet of revetment on Long
Key; 6,750 feet of shore on Mullet Key; and periodic nourish-
ment of each island as needed.


Authorizing Act
Estimated (1984) costs:


Federal(C of E)
Non-Federal


River and Harbor Act of 1966


Estimated
Cost of
Project
$19,400,000
$21,000,000


Design
width
(ft.)


Feature


Treasure Island
Long Key
Mullet Key


Design
length
(miles)


Cost
Through
Fiscal
Year 1984
$3,240,000
$2,185,000


Sand deposition
(cu. yd.)
Annual
Initial Nourish-
fill ment


114 1.7 865,000 50,000
114 1.1 243,000 50,000
60 1.3 274,000 30,000


Feature









Beach Erosion Control Studies


Charlotte County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The study area extends throughout the 14-mile Gulf shore
of Charlotte County, about 90 miles south of Tampa. Ac-
celerated erosion threatens upland development north of Stump
Pass. The State has acquired the southerly mile of that island
for future development as a public park. That reach is rather
low and is breached by high tides during adverse winter
weather. The shore south of Stump Pass is sparsely developed
and parts are accessible only by boat.
A beach study, authorized by Congress in 1971, was com-
pleted in 1980. The recommendations resulting from the study
consist of 1.2 miles of initial beach fill and periodic nourish-
ment along Port Charlotte Beach State Recreation Area with
a 1250 foot long anchor groin at the southern end of the beach
fill at Stump Pass. The study findings are under consideration
for inclusion in a Water Resource Bill during the second ses-
sion of the 98th Congress.


Collier County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The authorized beach study for Collier County on the lower
Gulf coast of Florida was essentially complete in 1974. The
considered plan at that time would provide a protective and
recreational beach for the 5.6-mile Gulf shore of Naples. The
study is not funded.



Monroe County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
A beach erosion control project was authorized by Congress
in 1960 for 1.2 miles of the southeasterly shore of Key West.
Local interests initially completed the westerly half of the pro-
ject in 1960. Significant erosion is occurring generally
throughout the ocean shore of the Florida Keys, with the most
serious erosion experienced along the southerly shores of Key


UAW .*- wJ i.




k-t






- .w
f.
rk--, i~


Coastal beaches get heavy usage.





West, Vaca Key, and Key Largo. A beach study of all the
Monroe County Keys was authorized by Congress in 1972, and
completed in 1983. This study reviewed the previous beach ero-
sion control study of the southerly shore of Key West, com-
pleted in 1958 and investigated the other problem areas to deter-
mine the need and feasibility of additional remedial measures.
The study findings recommend that the plan of improvement
include 8770 feet of initial beach fill and periodic nourishment
with two terminal groins and mitigation measures consisting
of filling nearshore depressions and transplanting sea grasses.
The feasibility report was submitted for Washington level co-
ordination in 1985.



Pinellas County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
This is a review study concerned primarily with the ad-
visability of extending the period of Federal aid in periodic
nourishment costs of the authorized beach project for Pinellas
County. Pinellas County extends northeast about 39 miles from
the entrance to Tampa Bay. The county shoreline consists of
numerous keys or barrier islands. Local officials desire the ad-
ditional Federal aid, especially for the Treasure Island project
segment initially completed in 1969 and where Federal par-
ticipation expired in 1984. The review of the project was
authorized by Senate Public Works Committee resolution dated
March 4, 1976 and the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation of the House of Representatives resolution dated
2 December 1970. The study was initiated in 1978, and com-
pleted in July, 1984.
The purpose of the review study was to make recommenda-
tions on the current needs of the beach erosion coastal pro-
jects authorized in 1966 for Clearwater Beach Island, Sand Key,
Treasure Island, Long Key, and Mullet Key. The scope of the
study was expanded to include Honeymoon and Caladesi


Islands. The review study findings recommend the following
selected plans for improvement based upon existing conditions:
Initial beach fill and periodic nourishment of 4500 feet of
Honeymoon Island; periodic nourishment of Caladesi Island;
initial beach fill and periodic nourishment of 5,000 feet of
Clearwater Beach Island; initial beach fill of 38,500 feet of
Sand Key with periodic nourishment of the entire shorefront
of Sand Key as needed; and continued nourishment of Treasure
Island, Long Key, and Mullet Key. The feasibility report is
under review at the office of the Chief of Engineers.



Sarasota County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The study was initiated in 1966 and an adequate plan of pro-
tection for the study was formulated. County officials in 1969
requested a delay in finalization of study findings to evaluate
planned local improvements.
An interim report on the Lido Key part of the study was
prepared, and improvements for Lido Key were authorized by
the 1970 River and Harbor Act. Local interests have constructed
the northerly half of the project.
County officials recently expressed concern over accelerated
beach erosion at the southerly end of Lido Key and on Casey
Key and Manasota Peninsula. The study was authorized by Sec-
tion 110, Rivers and Harbors Act of October 23, 1962, Senate
Public Works Committee resolution dated August 21, 1964, and
House Public Works Committee resolution dated September
3, 1964.
The study was resumed in 1978, and completed in 1984. The
study findings indicate economic justification for 2.4 miles of
initial beach fill and periodic nourishment at Longboat Key,
and for 5.6 miles along the city of Venice and Casperson Beach
County Park. The feasibility report is under review at the of-
fice of the Chief of Engineers.









Small Beach Erosion Control Studies


Dunedin Bay Shoreline, Pinellas County, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
A small projects authority study was requested by the City
of Dunedin to determine the remedial measures required to
control shorefront erosion.


The findings of the section 103a detailed project report com-
pleted in 1984 indicated that the appropriate plan of improve-
ment consisted of a 4,100 foot long revetment to prevent fur-
ther loss of land and provide damage protection to upland
development. The project is in the design stage.


Recreation Projects


Brooker Creek Park
(Jacksonville District)
Brooker Creek Park is a 250 acre recreation park located
on the southern tip of Lake Tarpon. The project is cost shared
on a 50/50 basis with the Pinellas County Park Department
and will be operated by them strictly as a day-use area.
A unique opportunity presented itself at Brooker Creek Park
by the combination of various natural elements. The project
was therefore designed with nature, ever mindful of the 'ex-
isting environment. The architectural theme in keeping with
the elements of natural materials and forms existing on the site
is basically "rustic." On the southern end of the project a
natural rookery populated by ospreys, white and blue herons
and egrets has been set aside to be preserved in its natural
habitat. A native study area with trails and an elevated board-
walk through the cypress swamp has been provided. The park
was dedicated and opened to the public on October 18, 1979.
PROJECT DATA


Authority for study:


(Code 710 Project) Section 4 of 1944
Flood Control Act as amended by Sec-
tions 4, 209, and 207 of Flood Control
Acts of 1946, 1954, and 1962 also PL
88-578 and PL 89-72


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


Federal Expenditures
to date


$2,410,900
$2,342,000

$2,410,900


Moss Bluff Recreation Area

The Moss Bluff Recreation area is located on both sides of
Moss Bluff Lock and Dam on the Oklawaha River. This is a
day-use area consisting of boat ramps, a small wooden fishing
pier, picnic areas with shelters and restrooms. The project is.
cost shared with the St. Johns River Water Management
District.


PROJECT DATA
Authority for study: (Code 710 Project) Section 4 of 1944
Flood Control Act as amended by Sec-
tions 4, 209, and 207 of Flood Control
Act of 1946, 1954, and 1962 also PL
88-578 & PL 89-72


Cost
Federal
Non-Federal
Federal Expenditures
to date


S517.100
S377,700

S56.000


Wilderness Park
(Jacksonville District)
The Wilderness Park consists of 6 recreation sites. One-day
use area is located on the Tampa Bypass Canal, 3 day-use areas,
1 primitive group camping area and 1 large camping area for
the general public are located in the Lower Hillsborough River
Flood Detention Area which is northeast of Tampa.
This park is the result of joint cooperation, on a 50'50 cost
sharing basis, with Hillsborough County and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Total estimated cost is about 56.000.000.


St Lucie Lock Park
(Jacksonville District)
At St. Lucie Lock the Corps operates a fee campground and
day use area. On the south side of the St. Lucie Canal there
is also a boat ramp and play area, with equipment, for children.
The north side of the park contains a nature trail and individual
and group picnicking. The park is manned by a gate attendant
who collects user fees and provides park security.


W. P. Franklin Park
The Corps operates W. P. Franklin Park, which is located





on both sides of the Caloosahatchee River at the W. P. Franklin
Lock. The south side park contains a boat ramp, day use area
and swimming area.
The north side park contains a boat ramp and a fee cam-
pground manned by a gate attendant.


Ortona Lock Park
Ortona Lock Park, operated by the Corps of Engineers, is
located on both sides of the Caloosahatchee River at Ortona
Lock. On the north side there is a boat ramp, and free cam-
pground. On the south side is a fee campground along with
a fishing pier.


Rodman Park
Located on Lake Oklawaha, about 2 miles west of State Road
19, this park, operated by the Corps of Engineers contains a


fee campground, picnic area, boat ramps and amphitheater.
In addition a portion of the Florida Trail traverses the park.


Oklawaha Park

This area is located below Rodman Dam and provides a
fishing pier, bank fishing and a boat ramp accessing the lower
Oklawaha River.


Kenwood Park

This multi-purpose park operated by the Corps is located
off State Road south of Interlachen. Kenwood provides pic-
nicking and a boat ramp for launching into Lake Oklawaha.
In addition, there is a free campground with spaces lying under
overhanging oaks and providing a loading area where campers
may leave boats overnight.


Kenwood Park picnic area.








Special Studies and Projects


Fort Jefferson National Monument
(Jacksonville District)
This project consists of foundation appraisal and rehabilita-
tion of the counterscarp wall for Fort Jefferson National Monu-
ment located on Garden Key, a part of Tortugas, Florida. The
site is located in the Gulf of Mexico west of Key West, Florida.
Fort Jefferson is an early American brick fort; the major por-
tion was constructed between 1846 and 1875.
After the Civil War, the fort was used as a prison and quaran-
tine station and later as a refueling facility for the U.S. Navy.
In 1936, Fort Jefferson came under the jurisdiction of the Na-
tional Park Service as part of the Fort Jefferson National
Monument.


Over the years, the low wall forming the moat around the
fort, known as the counterscarp wall, has weathered; and due
to wave action on the sand foundation has failed in several loca-
tions. The moat has become damaged and shoals have
developed in some areas. The counterscarp rehabilitation will
consist of restoring the collapsed portions of the wall, providing
a secondary tide gate opening, and filling all voids and eroded
areas below the counterscarp wall with Tremie concrete.
The estimated total cost of all investigation, special studies,
and construction of the recommended plan is $867,000. The
National Park Service has authorized expenditures of $97,0W00
to date.


Fort Jefferson




















WITHLACOOCHEE
RIVER


ALAPAHA


MADISON
*


* LIVE OAK


LAKE*
CITY


MAYO *


. . . . ... 0'
. . . I 5.

r..:l


IN MILES
20


Suwannee


LAKE
BUTLER


STARKE
a


SCALE
0


_I --





Florida Portion of Suwannee River Basin









Introduction


Suwannee River is the stream made famous by Stephen
Foster in his immortal song of southern lore "Old Folks at
Home." The Suwannee River flows out of the Okefenokee
Swamp near Fargo, Georgia, and flows generally southwesterly
about 222 miles where it empties into the Gulf of Mexico
through two channels about 12 miles north of Cedar Key. It
drains about 11,000 square miles of Georgia and Florida; about
4,300 of which are in Florida. The entire basin is in the
Jacksonville District.
North of the Georgia-Florida State line, in the western part
of the basin, are the.low, rolling hills of the- Georgia portion
of the Upper Coastal Plain. This area, which is drained by the
Alapaha and Withlacoochee Rivers, rises gradually from an
elevation of about 120 feet at the State line to about 460 feet
along the northern divide. Slopes here are generally steeper
than in the other parts of the basin. Diversified agriculture is
carried on throughout the area.
Okefenokee Swamp lies on the easterly side of the basin.
It is fed by several small streams and totals about 1,100 square
miles. The Suwannee River drains about 800 square miles of
the swamp, and the St. Marys River drains the remainder. The
swamp varies in elevation from 100 to 200 feet above mean
sea level, in the Lower Coastal Plain. A low dam, or sill, on
the Suwannee River at the swamp outlet controls the water level
in much of the swamp to about elevation 115.
Extending from the Florida State line and Okefenokee
Swamp flatlands southward to the Gulf of Mexico is an area,


largely in the Upper Coastal Plain, drained by the Suwannee
and Santa Fe Rivers. It is characterized generally by less relief,
lower elevations, and fewer tributary streams than the rolling
lands of Georgia.
The Okefenokee or "Land of the Trembling Earth" was so
named by the Seminole Indians because of the unstable nature
of its soil. The swamp is one of the largest fresh-water
swamplands in the United States and by far the most signifi-
cant inland body of water in the Suwannee basin. About two-
thirds of the swamp, including 331,000 acres in Suwannee basin,
have been set aside as a wildlife refuge administered by State
and Federal agencies for wildlife preservation, recreation use,
and to maintain its unique beauty and environment.
Short stretches of tidal marsh along the Gulf of Mexico ad-
jacent to the river mouth are the only direct exposures to salt
water.
The Suwannee basin encompasses some 7 million acres in
a thinly-populated area. More than two-thirds of the basin is
forested. More than half of the forest is pine, and one-fourth
is bottomland hardwoods. Pure upland hardwood stands and
hardwoods mixed with occasional pines are scattered
throughout the basin. About 119,000 acres of the basin forest
land are in the Osceola National Forest, northeast of Lake Ci-
ty, Florida.
The Suwannee basin has a generous supply of good quality
water from both groundwater and surface sources.









Navigation Projects


Horseshoe Cove, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The project provides a channel from the Gulf of Mexico to
and including an irregular-shaped turning basin at the town
of Horseshoe. The project was completed in 1959. No traffic
reported for 1983.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act
Cost
Federal
Non-Federal


1950 River and Harbor Act

$347 5 1


Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
Total authorized project length


Feature
Channel


nee River to the town of Ellaville, Florida. The project is about
25 percent complete. Work remaining to be done includes
widening the channel through Derrick Island Gap and at several
localities in the river and dredging several rock shoals be!ow
Ellaville. Remaining work is now considered non-essential and
has been deauthorized. No traffic reported for 19S3.
PROJECT DATA


Authorizing Act


Cost


1890 River and Harbor Act
and prior acts


._ Federal
Non-Federal

$136,808 Federal operation and maintenance
cost to September 30, 1984
1 0 -_ 1 -_*


1.0 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)
6 75


Total authorized project length
Feature
Channel through
Derrick Is. Gap(')


S76.418



S195.972
139 miles


Depth (ft.) Width (ft.)


Suwannee River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)
The project provides a channel through Derrick Island Gap,
located near Cedar Key, Florida, at the south end of Suwan-
nee Sound to the mouth of the river, then through the Suwan-


River entrance
to Bradford 5
Bradford to Ellaville 4
(')This channel closed to navigation about 1970. Vessels
use West Pass.


LOCALITY


Cedar Island-Keaton
Beach, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


Suwannee River, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


Navigation Studies


PURPOSE
Channels in the Cedar Island area for small craft navigation.
Study under small navigation projects program (Section 107)


APPROXIMATE DATE
TO BE COMPLETED
Study underway. Com-
pletion pending state
issuance of Water
Quality certification.


Improvements for navigation in vicinity of mouth of Suwan- Indefinite; not funded.
nee River.






Flood Control Studies


LOCALITY
Fenholloway River
Basin, Fla.
(Jacksonville District)

Suwannee River,
Ga. and Fla.
(Jacksonville District)


PURPOSE
Improvements in the interest of flood control.


APPROXIMATE DATE
TO BE COMPLETED
Indefinite; inactive
status.


Prevention of flood damage.


Name
Bayou Chico (Pensacola
Harbor) channel enlarge-
ment (Mobile District)

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway
extension, Carrabelle to
Apalachee Bay
(Mobile District)


Inactive Projects


Date Date Cost to September 30, 1984
Authorized Completed Constr. Maint.


*41,413


1893


Holmes Creek
(Mobile District)


8,600 36,800


Status
Deferred for restudy.



Deferred for restudy


Commercially inactive; no
longer maintained.


NOTES:
*Expended on restudy.









Aquatic Plant Control


Plant control operations by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
in Florida are performed under two separate authorizations.
One is an operation and maintenance project for the control
of nuisance aquatic plants and the other is a comprehensive
program for the control and progressive eradication of
waterhyacinth and other obnoxious aquatic plants. The initial
authorization for the maintenance projects was by the River
and Harbor Act of March 3, 1899. The Corps of Engineers
has been controlling hyacinth in the St. Johns River since that
time. During this 85-year period, the Corps of Engineers has
studied and tried numerous mechanical, chemical and
biological methods to control the water-hyacinth. To maintain
control over so large an area, it is necessary to use a combina-
tion of controls, consistent with the safety of man and the
environment.
The primary means of control is to spray the plants with
chemical from airboat and/or aircraft. The herbicides currently
used are those approved by the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy for use in aquatic environments. Recently, various
mechanical systems also have been shown to provide an ac-
ceptable level of control and are being used for the control of
the submerged weed hydrilla.



Aquatic Plant Control Program
An expanded pilot program was authorized by the 85th Con-
gress on July 3, 1958. This law provided a comprehensive ef-
fort to provide for control and progressive eradication of the
waterhyacinth, alligatorweed, and other obnoxious aquatic plant
growths from the navigable waters, tributary streams, connec-
ting channels, and other allied waters in the States of North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas in the combined interest of
navigation, flood control, drainage, agriculture, fish and
wildlife conservation, public health, and related purposes, in-
cluding continued research for development of the most effec-
tive and economical control measures. The 1958 Act provided
that 70 percent of the costs of the comprehensive project would


be borne by the United States and 30 percent by local interests.
The River and Harbor Act of 1962 modified the project to pro-
vide that planning costs prior to initiation of operations and
all research costs shall be borne fully by the United States and
shall not be included in the cost to be shared by local interests.
This initial pilot program ended in FY 1968.
A new program was authorized by the River and Harbor Act
of October 27, 1965. The law authorized a comprehensive pro-
gram for the control and progressive eradication of
waterhyacinth, alligatorweed, Eurasian watermilfoil, and other
obnoxious aquatic plant growths where such growths constitute
or pose major economic problems in any of the states. Pro-
gram cost sharing of 70 percent Federal and 30 percent by local
interests will continue except that research costs and planning
costs prior to start of operations would not be included in the
cost to be shared by local interests.
Corps of Engineers personnel and equipment have conducted
operations in the Lower Oklawaha River watershed, and Up-
per St. Johns River.
The State of Florida, representing local interests, has con-
ducted operations in the Withlacoochee, upper St. Johns, up-
per Oklawaha, Myakka, Peace, Suwannee, and Santa Fe Rivers,
Alafia, Manatee and Little Manatee Rivers, Kissimmee River,
Lake Trafford, and in the panhandle area of west Florida.
Passage, in July 1974 of Chapter 74-65, Laws of Florida, of
an Act relating to nonindigenous aquatic plants and other nox-
ious aquatic plants provided for cooperation between the
Department of Natural Resources and other State Agencies.
The cost of the program to September 30, 1984 in Florida,
excluding research, has been about $20,347,400 Federal and
non-Federal funds (River and Harbor Acts of 1958, 1962, and
1965).
Federal expenditure is not to exceed $10,000,000 annually
for the United States. Federal funds appropriated are allocated
by the Chief of Engineers on priority basis, as determined by
local conditions and the availability of local funds. The Chief
of Engineers also supervises research for the country as a
whole.


An airboat crew sprays chemicals on unwanted aquatic plants.





Removal of Aquatic Growth Throughout Florida

The project authorized by the River and Harbor Act of March
3, 1899 and following Acts, provided for the destruction or
removal of plants from the navigable waters of Florida, so far
as they are or may become an obstruction to navigation and
commerce, by any mechanical, chemical, or other means not
injurious to cattle. Operations have been confined to keeping
the principal navigable waterways open for navigation. The ma-
jor waterways where operations are presently being conducted
are the Lower St. Johns River, the Withlacoochee River, Crystal
River, Lake Okeechobee, and the Caloosahatchee River. Con-
trol methods are the same as those being used in the Aquatic
Plant Control Program.

The Corps of Engineers, in cooperation with the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, released the waterhyacinth weevil
Neochetina eichhornia during 1976 and 1977. The weevil has


now become established in every major watershed in Florida.
Also, releases of the waterhyacinth moth Sameodes albigut-
talis were made in September 1977 and during the spring of
1978.
The cost to date for such operations has been about
$22,437,900 (maintenance funds only).
The waterhyacinth is considered the principal aquatic plant
problem in Florida. However, another plant, the submersed
weed Hydrilla verticillata appeared in 1960 in a Miami canal
and in springs near Crystal River. Hydrilla has now infested
vast water areas over the entire State of Florida. Limited con-
trol operations for hydrilla commenced during FY 1978. Ma-
jor research efforts by the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, State of Florida, universities and private
industry are continuing to find solutions for the control of
hydrilla. All conceivable methods, including mechanical,
chemical, and biological, are being studied.


A mechanical harvester at work clearing aquatic plants from a lake.









Flood Plain Management


General

The Flood Plain Management Services (FPMS) Program
makes available to Federal, State, and local agencies and private
parties flood hazard related information and advice to improve
planning for prudent use of the Nation's flood plains. Activities
under the FPMS Program include Flood Plain Management
Studies, Technical Services, Planning Assistance, and Guides
and Pamphlets. The FPMS Program uses Corps of Engineers
technical expertise in water resources planning to provide in-
formation on floods and flood plain related activities. Within
personnel and funding capabilities, requests from outside the
Corps are honored from states, communities, other Federal
agencies, private organizations, and individuals. Program ser-


vices for private organizations are normally limited to providing
readily available information or data.
Flood Plain Management Studies have included Flood Plain
Information, Special Flood Hazard Information, Expanded
Flood Plain Information, Flood Insurance, and Flood Emergen-
cy Evacuation Plan Studies. Technical Service activities may
include map interpretation of flood hazards for private in-
dividual properties, dissemination of published flood plain
management information, preliminary guidance to individuals
and governments regarding flood proofing and flood damage
mitigation measures, and assessments of the appropriateness
of measures being considered. Program services normally will
not involve extensive field investigations and mapping, and in-
volvement of requesters in Program activities are encouraged.


Flood Plain Information

Flood Plain Information studies have been completed for the areas listed below:

Title
Blackwater Bay and River, Milton, Fla.
Boggy Creek, Orange and Osceola Counties, Fla.
Broward County, Fla.
Charlotte and North Lee Counties, Fla.
Choctawhatchee Bay, Fort Walton Beach Vicinity, Okaloosa County, Fla.
Cypress Creek near Orlando, Fla.
Destin, Okaloosa County, Fla.
Lake Monroe at Sanford, Fla.
Levy County Coastal Areas, Fla.
Little Wekiva River, Orange County, Fla.
Little Wekiva River, Seminole County, Fla.
Martin County Coastal Areas, Fla.
Mill Slough at Kissimmee, Fla.
North Fork, St. Lucie River, Fla.
Northeast Volusia County, Fla.
Northwest Putnam and Southwest Clay Counties, Upper Etonia Creek Basin, Fla.
Palm Beach County, Fla.-Tidal Areas
Perdido Bay, Ala. and Fla.
Polk County, Saddle Creek and Peace River, Fla.
Ponce de Leon, Sandy and Blue Creeks, Fla.
St. Johns River, Jacksonville, Fla.
St. Lucie County Coastal Areas, Fla.
Sarasota County Coastal Areas, Fla.
Sarasota County, Elligraw Bayou, Catfish Creek, North Creek, and South Creek, Fla.
Seminole, Lake, and Orange Counties, Wekiva River, Fla.
Southeast Palm Beach County, Fla.
Southeast Volusia County, Fla.
Sumter County, Withlacoochee River, Fla.
Sumter and Marion Counties, Withlacoochee River (Dunnellon to Rutland), Fla.
Vicinity of Pensacola, Escambia, and Santa Rosa Counties, Fla.
Volusia and Lake Counties, St. Johns River and Lake Berisford, Fla.


Completion
Date
1974
1976
1965
1968
1971
1971
1970
1971
1973
1970
1970
1973
1973
1972
1971
1975
1969
1975
1974
1975
1969
1972
1973
1973
1974
1970
1972
1974
1975
1972
1974


District
Mobile
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Mobile
Jacksonville
Mobile
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Mobile
Jacksonville
Mobile
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Mobile
Jacksonville






Special Flood Hazard Information

Special Flood Hazard Information studies have been completed for the areas listed below:
Completion
Title Date District
Boggy Creek 1970 Jacksonville
Canal 17, Palm Beach County 1977 Jacksonville
City of Hastings 1972 Jacksonville
City of Naples 1971 Jacksonville
City of Palm Beach Shores 1971 Jacksonville
City of Pampano Beach 1972 Jacksonville
Econlockhatchee River 1970 Jacksonville
Hogans Creek, Jacksonville 1971 Jacksonville
Howell Creek Basin 1974 Jacksonville
Lake Istokpoga, Highlands County 1976 Jacksonville
Manatee and Braden Rivers 1972 Jacksonville
Monroe County Keys 1972 Jacksonville
Ochlockonee River, Lake Talquin to Allen Landing 1971 Mobile
Okaloosa Island Beaches on Santa Rosa Island 1971 Mobile
Philips Inlet to St. Andrew Bay 1974 Mobile
Reedy Creek Basin 1976 Jacksonville
St. Johns River, Brevard County 1976 Jacksonville
Shingle Creek 1970 Jacksonville
South Lee County Coastal Areas 1970 Jacksonville
Suwannee River 1974 Jacksonville
Upper Wekiva Lake Region 1970 Jacksonville
Withlacoochee River, Nobleton to Gulf of Mexico 1976 Jacksonville



Expanded Flood Plain Information

An Expanded Flood Plain information study has been completed for the area listed below:
Completion
Title Date District
Boggy Creek, Orange and Osceola Counties 1978 Jacksonville



Flood Emergency Evacuation Plan

Flood Emergency Evacuation Plan studies have been completed for the areas listed below:
Completion
Title Date District
Lee County 1978 Jacksonville
Lower Southeast Florida (Broward, Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach counties) 1983 Jacksonville
Tampa Bay Region (Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, and PInellas counties) 1981 Jacksonville









Flood Insurance Studies


In an attempt to provide adequate flood protection and
relief to victims of flood disasters, Congress, in 1968, sign-
ed into law legislation creating the National Flood Insurance
Program. This federally subsidized program was designed
to protect property owners who up to that time were unable
to get flood insurance coverage through the private insurance
industry. The program, for the first time, made flood in-
surance available to individuals at affordable rates. In return
for the Federal subsidy, state and local governments were
encouraged to adopt certain minimum land use measures
to reduce or avoid future flood damage within their flood
prone areas.
The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 greatly expanded
the available limits of flood insurance coverage and impos-
ed two new requirements on property owners and com-
munities. First, after March 1, 1974, property owners in
communities where flood insurance is being sold were re-
quired to purchase flood insurance to be eligible for any
new or additional Federal or federally related financial
assistance for any buildings located in areas identified as
having special flood hazards. Federal and federally-related


financial assistance is interpreted as all forms of loans and
grants, including mortgage loans and disaster assistance
loans, from either a Federal agency, such as FHA, VA. or
Small Business Administration, or banks or savings and loan
institutions. Second, all identified flood-prone communities
were required to enter the program by July 1. 1975. or else
they became ineligible for federally related financing for
projects that would be located in identified flood hazard
areas.
Under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (Public Law
90-448), the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) was authorized to establish and carry out a Na-
tional Flood Insurance Program. Under this Act, FEMA
may make studies and investigations to establish the risk
premium rates for flood insurance in communities and, in
carrying out its responsibility, is authorized to use the ser-
vices, on a reimbursable basis, of the Department of the
Army, the Department of the Interior, the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of Commerce. and the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority to the maximum extent feasible. The
Corps of Engineers assists FEMA in this program.


Flood Insurance Studies


Completed Studies


Study
Altamonte Springs, Seminole County
Apopka, Orange County
Belle Isle, Orange County
Casselberry, Seminole County
Cocoa, Brevard County
Cooper City, Broward County
Dania, Broward County
Deerfield Beach, Broward County
Eatonville, Orange County
Edgewood, Orange County
Fort Lauderdale, Broward County
Hallandale, Broward County
Hastings, St. Johns County
Hollywood, Broward County
Kissimmee, Osceola County
LaBelle, Hendry County
Lake Mary, Seminole County
Lake Tarpon, Pinellas County
Longwood, Seminole County
Maitland, Orange County
Malabar, Brevard County
Melbourne, Brevard County
Melbourne Village, Brevard County
Miramar, Broward County


Completion
Date
April
July
July
April
January
March
July
October
July
July
September
September
November
October
July
March
November
November
January
December
February
January
January
March


1978
1977
1977
1978
1978
1976
1976
1976
1977
1977
1976
1976
1971
1976
1979
1980
1977
1974
1978
1977
1978
1978
1978
1976


District
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville-
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville





Monroe County Keys May 1971 Jacksonville
Moore Haven, Glades County October 1979 Jacksonville
Naples, Collier County May 1971 Jacksonville
Oakland Park, Broward County March 1976 Jacksonville
Ocoee, Orange County August 1977 Jacksonville
Orlando, Orange County April 1978 Jacksonville
Oviedo, Seminole County January 1978 Jacksonville
Palm Bay, Brevard County March 1978 Jacksonville
Palm Beach Shores, Palm Beach County April 1971 Jacksonville
Pembroke Pines, Broward County March 1976 Jacksonville
Plantation, Broward County March 1976 Jacksonville
Pompano Beach, Broward County October 1969 Jacksonville
Rockledge, Brevard County January 1978 Jacksonville
Sanford, Seminole County February 1978 Jacksonville
Sea Ranch Lakes, Broward County August 1975 Jacksonville
St. Cloud, Osceola CountyMarch 79 Jacksonville
Tamarac, Broward County March 1976 Jacksonville
Tampa, Hillsborough County August 1972 Jacksonville
Temple Terrace, Hillsborough County October 1975 Jacksonville
Unincorporated Broward County March 1976 Jacksonville
Unincorporated Glades County October 1980 Jacksonville
Unincorporated Hendry County October 1980 Jacksonville
Unincorporated Highlands County June 1980 Jacksonville
Unincorporated Hillsborough County September 1972 Jacksonville
Unincorporated Lake County June 1980 Jacksonville
Unincorporated Okeechobee County March 1979 Jacksonville
Unincorporated Orange County May 1979 Jacksonville
Unincorporated Osceola County February 1980 Jacksonville
Unincorporated Seminole County January 1979 Jacksonville
Unincorporated Sumter County May 1980 Jacksonville
West Melbourne, Brevard County January 1978 Jacksonville
Wildwood, Sumter County December 1979 Jacksonville
Wilton Manors, Broward County October 1976 Jacksonville
Winter Garden, Orange County July 1977 Jacksonville
Winter Park, Orange County December 1977 Jacksonville
Winter Springs, Seminole County August 1978 Jacksonville































83







NAVIGATION
PROJECT

Bakers Haulover Inlet

Canaveral Harbor
Courtenay Channel
Eau Gallie Harbor
Fort Pierce Harbor



Intracoastal Waterway
Jacksonville to Miami
Intracoastal Waterway
Miami to Key West


Kissimmee River
Melbourne Harbor
Miami Harbor
New River
Okeechobee Waterway


Palm Beach Harbor
Port Everglades Harbor


SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL DATA

LOCA- RESPONSE. EARLIEST LENGTH WIDTH TONNAGE COST TO
TION DISTRICT AUTHOR. (miles) (feet) 1982 DATE (1) REMARKS


1


Jacksonville

Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville


July 14, 1960

March 1, 1945
June 20, 1938
June 20, 1938
March 4, 1931


1,2 Jacksonville Jan. 21, 1927

1,4 Jacksonville Aug. 30, 1935


Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville



Jacksonville
Jacksonville


June 13, 1902
Aug. 26, 1937
July 3, 1930
March 2, 1945
June 26, 1934


July 3, 1930
July 3, 1930


158 90


109
0.6
15.3
7.9
154.6


1.6
1.6


30
100
500-200
100
80-100


400-300
500-300


364,898




0
483
3,160,633
1,150
633,990


1,696,237
11,487,539


29


$ 47


11
39,


258,272 Waterway between Miami and
Cross Bank complete. The re-
mainder of the project is
inactive.
112,500 Project completed in 1909.
95,228 Project completed in 1938.
,096,646 Project completed in 1975.
60,074 Project completed in 1956.
,840,485 Project completed in 1962 ex-
cept for a turning basin at
Stuart.
,979,492 Project completed in 1967.
592,429 Prior project completed in
1964. Current project com-
pleted April 1984.


LEGEND
I Central and Southern Florida area.
2 Lower St. Johns and North Coastal area.
3 Northwest Florida area.
4 Southwest Florida area.
5 Florida portion of Suwannee River Basin area.


1.0 200-100 360 $ 523,594 Project completed in December
1964.
11.5 400-125 2,536,585 35,106,568 Existing project 60% complete.
1.7 100 0 41,100 Project completed in 1940.
0.5 100 0 94,541 Project completed in 1939.
3.5 350-200 137,311 3,818,773 Dredging completed in 1938.
Fishing walkway completed in
1968.
370 125 1,103,955 43,382,875 Completed in March 1965.









SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL DATA


NAVIGATION
PROJECT

St. Lucie Inlet


Atlantic Intracoastal Water-
way between
Norfolk, Va. and
St. Johns River
Cross Florida Barge Canal
Fernandina Harbor





Jacksonville Harbor

Lake Crescent and Dunns


Oklawaha River
Ponce de Leon Inlet
Rice Creek

St. Augustine Harbor
Apalachicola Bay
Apalachicola River

Blackwater River
Carrabelle Harbor
Choctawhatchee River


LOCA-
TION

1


RESPONSE.
DISTRICT

Jacksonville


EARLIEST
AUTHOR.

March 2, 1945


2 Jacksonville March 4, 1913


Jacksonville July 23, 1942
Jacksonville June 14, 1880


2 Jacksonville March 2, 1907

2 Jacksonville March 4, 1913


Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville

Jacksonville
Mobile
Mobile


Sept. 19, 1890
Oct. 27, 1965
Sept. 3, 1954

June 20, 1938
1880
1828


Mobile
Mobile
Mobile


LENGTH
(miles)

1.9


WIDTH
(feet)

200-100


21.9 90-150


TONNAGE
1982

3,247



361,518


COST TO
DATE (1)


REMARKS


2,059,784 Prior project completed in 1948.
Deepening completed in October
1982.
5,192,879 Project completed in 1941.


107 150 0 77,111,013 About 30% complete.
7 400-300 90,192 31,679,408 The 1945 authorized project is
complete. The 1950 project is in-
active. Entrance channel deepen-
ed in 1979 to 40' for Navy
(Kings Bay).
26.1 400-1,200 12,707,273 87,703,564 38-foot depth completed to mile
20.


15.3 100-0


50
200-100
100-75

200-100
80-200
100

100
80-200
snagging


12
12
88
(in Fla.)


19,311 3 cutoffs not
constructed
and
inactive.
0 2,285,972
1,319 10,259,020
15,565 195,985


8,944
5,869
825,591

150,533
1,256
0


5,790,992
$ 5,917,150
35,145,400

307,650
861,000
see remarks


Silver Springs Run is inactive.
Project completed in July 1972.
Project completed in October
1956.
Project completed in 1957.


Cost estimated; maintenance
costs not maintained separately.


Commercially inactive; no longer
'maintained; costs for Florida not
maintained separately.


1





SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL DATA


NAVIGATION
PROJECT


LOCA-
TION


3


East Pass


Escambia & Conecuh
Rivers



Grand Lagoon


GIWW


RESPONSE.
DISTRICT


Mobile


3 Mobile




3 Mobile


3 Mobile


EARLIEST
AUTHOR.

1930


1833


LENGTH WIDTH TONNAGE


(mile


(in I


COST TO


--


LaGrange Bayou
Panacea Harbor


Panama City Harbor

Pensacola Harbor
Port St. Joe Harbor

St. Marks River
St. Johns River, Jackson-
ville to Lake Harney
Cedar Keys


Mobile
Mobile


113,940
266


3 Mobile


4.4 100-450 1,642,931


Mobile
Mobile


3 Mobile


Jacksonville March 3, 1899
Jacksonville- July 5, 1884


14 75.500
15.4 200-500

12.7 100-125

161.5 200-50
11 200-100


1,713,935
103,833

647,631

1,118,148
3,056


368,500
221,700 Cost includes $7,000 con-
tributed by local interests.
7,752,600 Cost includes $80,000 con-
tributed by local interests.
7,479,700
4,196,000 Cost includes $20,000 con-
tributed by local interests.
1,794,915 Only lower 10 miles dredged.


2,096,897
219,405


Project completed in 1949.
Rock from Middle Ground
Channel not removed. Re-
mainder of project completed in
1965.


3 Jacksonville Aug. 26, 1937 4.8 150-100


Steinhatchee River


353 175,509


es) (feet) 1982 DATE (1) REMARKS

1.7 100-180 8.945 6,888,000 Also 994,360 passengers. Cost
includes $390,000 contributed
by local interests.
63.5 100 max 1,578,019 1,300,500 Only lower 12.5 miles now
la.) commercially active; costs for
Florida not maintained
separately.
1.6 100-150 657 see remarks Also 339,314 passengers. Cost
included as part of Panama
City Harbor Project.
216 125 6,947,189 see remarks Traffic between Pensacola Bay
and Mobile Bay only. Costs for
Florida not maintained
separately.









SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL DATA


NAVIGATION
PROJECT

Gulf Intracoastal Water-
way (St. Marks to Tampa
Bay)
Horseshoe Cove
Anclote River
Bayport
Charlotte Harbor
Clearwater Pass (Little
Pass) Clearwater Bay
Crystal River
Everglades Harbor
Fort Myers Beach

Homasassa River
Hudson River
Intracoastal Waterway
Caloosahatchee River to
Anclote River
Johns Pass
Key West Harbor

Largo Sound Channel
Longboat Pass
Manatee River



Channel from Naples to
Big Marco Pass and chan-
nels at Gordon Pass


LOCA-
TION

3,4,5


3
4
4
4
4

4
4
4

4
4
4



4
4

4
4
4


RESPONSE.
DISTRICT

Jacksonville



Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville

Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville

Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville


Jacksonville
Jacksonville

Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville


EARLIEST
AUTHOR.

Aug. 13, 1968



May 17, 1950
March 3, 1899
July 1, 1960
July 25, 1912
July 14, 1960

June 13, 1902
July 14, 1960
July 14, 1960

Aug. 30, 1935
May 17, 1950
March 2, 1945


July 14, 1960
Sept. 19, 1890

July 14, 1960
Apr. 20, 1976
Aug. 2, 1882


LENGTH
(miles)

234



1.8
8.5
4
29.5
3.2

9
9.2
2.5

0.7
3.3
160



2.6
23

3.2
2.6
27.8


4 Jacksonville June 20, 1938


WIDTH
(feet)

150


75
100
75
300-100
150-100

60
60
150-125

40
75
100-80


150-100
300-100


50
15-100
100-75


14.7 100-70


TONNAGE COST TO
1982 DATE (1)

0 $ 38,350


1,615
799
0
877,126
0


1,268
1,241
28,866

1,303
0
1,199,899


470,368
874,892
58,495
9,092,715
1,285,230

115,889
306,615
821,661

1,589
$ 9,899
12,956,306


REMARKS


Project dependent on outcome
of Cross-Fla. Barge Canal.

Project completed in 1959.
Project completed in 1958.
Project completed in 1958.
Project completed in 1959.
Project completed in 1961.

Project completed in 1906.
Project completed in 1963.
The 2,000-foot channel exten-
sion was completed in 1973.
Project completed in 1936.
Deferred for restudy.
Completed in 1965.


0 895,012 Project completed in 1968.
181,741 2,103,521 Complete except for completion
of northwest entrance jetties.
0 245,483 Project completed in 1965.
4,639 2,020,495 Project completed in 1977.
3,462 307,557 Project 90% complete in 1915.
Rock removal in entrance chan-
nel remains to be done.

3,900 1,386,988 Project completed in 1963.







NAVIGATION
PROJECT

New Pass (Sarasota)
Orange River
Ozona Channel and Turn-
ing Basin
Pass-a-Grille Pass Pinellas
County
Pithlachascottee River

St. Petersburg Harbor

Tampa Harbor

Withlacoochee River
Suwannee River


LOCA- RESPONS.


LOCA-
TION

4
4
4

4

4

4

4

4
5


NOTE: (1) Total first cost plus operation and maintenance costs both Federal & Non-Federal.
Costs to September 30, 1983.


RESPONSE.
DISTRICT

Jacksonville
Jacksonville
Jacksonville

Jacksonville

Jacksonville

Jacksonville

Jacksonville

Jacksonville
Jacksonville


SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL DATA

EARLIEST LENGTH WIDTH
AUTHOR. (miles) (feet)

July 14, 1960 4 150-100
June 13, 1902 5.7 50
May 17, 1950 1.3 80

July 14, 1960 3.4 150-100

March 2, 1945 3.2 100-75

March 4, 1929 8.9 300-75

March 3, 1899 55 700-500

March 3, 1881 89.1 100-85
June 14, 1880 139 150-60


TONNAGE COST TO
1982 DATE (1)

89 2,230,033
0 25,567
0 120,310

0 133,171

0 869,244

99,786 $ 1,778,598

38,079,856 185,096,421

0 980,770
0 272,377


REMARKS

Project completed in 1964.
Project completed in 1903.
Project completed in 1962.

Project completed in 1966.

Additional 25-foot width of pro-
ject is inactive.
Complete except for 24 ft.
channel.
Harbor deepening in progress.
Sch. comp. Dec. 85.
Project 88% complete.
Project 25% complete.









SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL DATA

No. Cont.
Str. No. of
Flood Control Loca- Respons. Earliest Miles Miles Planned & Pumping Acres B/C Damages Est. Tot. *Cost
Projects tion District Author. Levees Canals Auth. Stations Con. Pool Ratio Prvntd Cost* To Date Remarks

Central and 1 Jacksonville 1948 990 978 196 30 1,115,000 $327,976,000 $1,279.2 $319.2 Local interests
Southern Florida responsible for
part of
maintenance.
Jackson Co. Basin 3 Mobile 1958 0 8 0 No pool 1.8 to 1 59,100 0.13 0.13 Local interest
responsible for
maintenance.
Four River Basins 4 Jacksonville 1962 101 120 42 0 No pool 329.1 83.4 Local interests
responsible for
maintenance.

*Costs are in millions to September 30, 1984.





Hyrdo Visita-
Multi-purpose Respons. Dam Dam Lake Miles Storage Hydro Pow. Revenue Percent tions *Cost
Lakes Purposes District Height Length Acreage Shoreline Capacity Capacity thru FY 83 Complt. CY 83 to Date Remarks

Lake Seminole nav. Mobile 98' 6,181' 37,500 25 367,320 30,000 $38,052,234 4,258,000 $89,028,550 Behind Jim Woodruff
(el. 77.0 msl) power ac. ft. kw L&D in NW Fla.; lake
extends into Ga. and
Ala.


*Costs, revenues and damages to September 30, 1984. Costs includes $47,974,450 first cost and $41,054,100 for operation and maintenance.





SUMMARY OF STATISTICAL DATA

Percent
Shore Protection Loca- Respons. Length Earliest Complt. Federal Local *Cost
Projects tion District (Miles) Author. (Initially) Share Share To Date Remarks


Brevard County, Fla.






Bill Baggs Cape
Florida State Recrea-
tion Area, Fla.
Fort Pierce, Fla.

Palm Beach County,
Fla. Martin County
Line to Lake Worth
Inlet, etc.
Palm Beach County,
Fla., Lake Worth Inlet
to South Lake Worth
Inlet

Broward County, Fla.


1 Jacksonville






1 Jacksonville



1 Jacksonville


4.8 1968






0.05 1967



1.3 1965


1 Jacksonville 12.2 1962


1 Jacksonville





1 Jacksonville


1958





10.5 1968


$8,220,000 $8,220,000 $4,608,500


33,848


13,818 47,666


Initial construction of 2.0
miles of Cape Canaveral seg-
ment completed in March
1975. Construction initiated on
Indialantic and Melbourne
beaches.
Construction complete.


3,370,000 3,150,000 1,948,400 Initial construction complete.
Renourished in 1980.
7,300,000 21,100,000 4,198,200 Initial construction of 2.6 mile
Delray Beach segment com-
plete and renourished in 1979.


- 976,300


Data shown only for com-
pleted sand transfer plant;
15.6-mile beach improvement
feature is inactive due to lack
of local support (inactive).


13,800 21,100,00 22,355,600 Initial construction of 3.2-mile
Pompano Beach segment, 1.5
miles at John Lloyd State Park
complete, and 5.2 miles at
Hollywood/Hallandale.


Dade County, Fla.


1 Jacksonville


10.5 1968


50,400,000 42,400,000


57,348,000 Bal Harbour segment initially
completed July 1975.
Reconstruction planning of re-
maining project is complete.
Construction underway.