l REUBIN O'D. ASKEW
State of lord RICHARD (DICK) STONE
Stateoflorida Secretary of State
ROBERT L. SHEVIN
S ,s *Attorney General
S/ FRED 0. DICKINSON, JR.
THOMAS D. O'MALLEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DOTNCNER
Commissioner of Agriculture
FLOYD T. CHRISTIAN
RANDOLPH HODGES LARSON BUILDING / TALLAHASSEE 32304 / TELEPHONE 224-7141 Commissioner of Education
February 12, 197
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 4970
Jacksonville, Florida 32201
This is in response to your request of January 11, 1974, for
comments on the proposed plan for the Lower Hillsborourh Flood
Detention Area of the Four Rivers Basins project.
Interested offices of this Department have reviewed the proposal.
The Coastal Coordinating Council and the Division of Interior
Resources have submitted comments, which are enclosed for your
information and guidance. Your consideration of these comments
Thank you for offering this department the opportunity of
reviewing and commenting on the proposed plan.
cc: Executive Director
Southwest Florida Water
DIVISIONS / ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PROTECTION INTERIOR RESOURCES
MAP "" n~-CiJRCES RECREATION AND PARKS
State of Florida
SDEPAIATMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
February 4, 1974
TO: H. J. Kelly 7
Administrative Assistant /l
FROM: R. 0. Vernon, Directory ,/ N
Division of Interior -Resourc s
SUBJECT: Lower Hillsboroug Flood Detention Area
The proposed project should provide for protection of Tampa from
the damages resulting from any flood not larger than the design
flood. Maintaining the natural flow conditions during nonflood
periods is also considered a desirable feature of this project.
The weak point in the system appears to be the emergency spillway
at structure S-155 which would discharge extreme floodwaters into
the Hillsborough River, which would give rise to flooding in
Tampa. Consideration should be given to routing extreme flood-
waters through another area, if possible. Perhaps this could be
Sl accomplished by routing through Lake Thonotosassa and C-132 where
flooding would cause less damage. We recognize fully that this
Problem would only occur if the design flood is exceeded.
We concur with the project as'designed and offer the preceding
comments for consideration deemed appropriate.
9 0 State of Florida
kH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
February 5, 1974
TO : H. J. Kelly, Administrative Assistant
FROM : Bruc TnEr~e Coordinator
Coastal Coordinating Council
SUBJECT: Four Rivers Basin EIS
The staff of the Coastal Coordinating Council has previously
reviewed this project (see attached comments). It does not
appear that these comments have been considered as fully as
possible and for this reason, we will reiterate them.
There is particular concern over comment #3. Nowhere is there
an indication that serious thought has been given to the many
problems associated with opening up wet, low-lvina. flood i lain
areas to urban development. This is still our chief concern.
Even the minimal modifications associated with this project will
serve to attract new development into flood prone areas. The
result will likely be not only biological degradation of valuable
natural resources but the increased potential for human disaster
Until this complex problem is addressed by the responsible local,
regional, state, and federal interests, we still cannot approve
of its implementation.
4, State of Florida
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
June 28, 1973
TO : J. Kellv, Administrative Assistant
CoasLtal Coordinating Council /
SU,,TJECT: SAI No. 73-1167-1,1
The staf. L: Coastal CoorditnaLing Council has reviewed the
attached project anrd ,has the following comments:
1. WJe are concerned uvel the various canal depths. It appears
LiaL most of the depths will range between 20 and 30 feet.
'This seems extreme and would likely have significant negative
effects on the productivity of the various streams to be
2. It is stated that this project will alleviate pollution in
McKa..y Bay and Upper Hillsborough Bay by improving flushing:
action. This obviously means that any lessening of pollution
in. McKay and Upper Hillsbororouqh Bays will be at :he expr'rse
o.: the comparatively clean waters of Lower Hillsborough an'l<
T'a'vmp.a BaI-s since these areas will be thle receiving bodies for
the Ilushed pollutants. We do not see this as a particularly
becne.fici. al. trade-off since the sources of pollution that have
trans orme d McKay and Upper Hillsborough Lays into cesspools
will continue to pollute these water bodies regardless of
3. It is also stated that this project will provide protection
for present and future development in the flood plain and
l.ow lvinur 1,r',",: ",, aT Ociq-,d wi th thC I~li1l c-,
Sits tributaries. We question the basic premise that intensive
development is of a flood plain, particularly
in areas sue a Harney F'lat It is fatuous to ignore the
fact t Cth.is pro t completed, will generate intensive
e clopimient pressures in flood prone areas. Ade(!uate controls
over flood plain development in Hillsborough County are non-
existent. The expressed need for this project is proof of
EjD S 'N)
o u UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'tO4 O P REGION IV
1421 PEACHTREE ST., N. E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
February 14, 1974
U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Re: SAJWH Proposed Plan for Lower
Hillsborough Flood Detention Area,
Four River Basins, Florida
This is in reply to your letter of January 11, 1974, requesting our
views on the proposed project.
The subject project which includes the construction of levees 112(N)
and 112(S), section 4B of canal 135, the Hillsborough Floodway structure 155,
Cow House Creek structure 163 and the operation of structure 159 is part of
an overall plan to prevent flooding of the highly developed areas along the
Hillsborough River in and around Tampa, Florida.
The project has been reviewed by this office for its effect on water
quality and the associated environment. The Environmental Protection Agency's
views with regard to the overall plan were expressed in our letter of June 19,
1973, in response to a request for the review of the draft environmental
statement for C-135 and Lower Hillsborough River Basin, Four River Basins,
Florida. Most of the statements made in this review are applicable to this
portion of the project.
We believe that the following items are pertinent to the overall en-
Svironment and should be given consideration in the development of the project.
1. There is danger of adversely affecting the quality of the ground-
water in the area through the construction of the canals either by piercing
the impervious layers lying above the Floridan aquifer or by penetrating
the aquifer itself. This could result in an inflow of surface water which
could contaminate the aquifer and groundwater during dry weather conditions.
If a confined artesian aquifer were pierced, it could result in uncontrolled
loss of valuable groundwater through flow into the canal with costly remedial
* measures being required.
2. The water quality in Hillsborough Bay is dependent upon several
interrelated items. The Environmental Protection Agency's report of
December 1969 on Hillsborough Bay made several recommendations to improve
water quality in the Bay. It was found that when chloride concentrations
were reduced below 6 g/l there was a die off of Gricilaria (algae) which
upon decay was the prime cause of odors in Upper Hillsborough Bay. System
simulations indicated that this condition could be prevented if the fresh
water flow entering the upper Bay from the Hillsborough River were con-
trolled so as not to exceed 2000 cfs. Extending the storm sewers to a
3 foot depth m.s.l. to reduce the affects of this localized source of
fresh water was also recommended together with the control and reduction
of nutrients entering the Bay from industrial and domestic sources. We,
therefore, believe that the Tampa bypass canal system, of which this system
is a part, should be designed with sufficient capacity to leave a residual
flow of not more than 2000 cfs in the Hillsborough River for a once in
10 year flow.
3. It should be realized that the waters diverted from the Hills-
borough River to the Tampa bypass canal system contain considerable nitrogen,
phosphate and pesticides from farm runoff and they will not receive the
purification afforded by the flood plain environment of the Hillsborough
River. Thus, an additional load of nutrients may be placed into Hillsborough
Bay through the bypass canal system.
4. The optimum allocation of fresh water discharge should be based
on a management model which considers both flood control and water quality.
5. Aquatic weed growths have been a nuisance in the Tampa water supply
reservoir and will probably be a nuisance in the canals and at control
structures in the bypass system. A plan to control the growth of aquatic
weeds within the project area is recommended, otherwise the capacity of
the system will be severely impaired. If nuisance weeds cannot be prevented
from growing, then mechanical harvesting with remote disposal is the pre-
ferred control procedure.
6. Where possible, plugs should be left in the ends of the canal
sections as they are excavated to prevent siltation downstream and thereby
preserve water quality.
Water quality in the bypass system can be improved by ending C-135
Sat Cow House Creek and by keeping the canalization of the bypass system at
a minimum. However, this will probably cause less water to be diverted
to the bypass system and as a result cause more fresh water to flow into
Upper Hillsborough Bay. However, S-155 could be constructed so as to com-
pensate for the difference between canal flow and overland flow through
the marsh controlled only by L-112. As previously mentioned, it is desired
to keep this flow under 2000 cfs as a once in 10 year flow if possible.
Although the proposed project will probably place some additional
pollution load on McKay Bay and the east side of Hillsborough Bay, it
should improve conditions in Upper Hillsborough Bay.
Arthur G. Linton
Federal Facilities Office