Title: Letter from Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation to SWFWMD re Four River Basins Flood Control Project, enclosing Preliminary Works Appropriations
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00052430/00001
 Material Information
Title: Letter from Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation to SWFWMD re Four River Basins Flood Control Project, enclosing Preliminary Works Appropriations
Physical Description: Book
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00052430
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text

Shark River Slough

Estimated Federal Cost $369,000

Estimated Non-Federal Cost 0

Federal Funds Through FY-80 121,000

Non-Federal Funds Through FY-80 0

Estimated Federal Funding Requirements FY-81 248,000

Project Sponsor: South Florida Water Management District

Project Description:

Shark River Slough is one of the three principle surface water inflows
for Everglades National Park. The Park receives water through the Slough
from Conservation Area 3. The other two inflows are through the Faka-
hatchee Strand into the south-western areas of the Park from the Big
Cypress and from the southern part of the central ridge by way of Taylor
Slough into the eastern part of the Park.

The Shark River Slough Reconnaissance Study is designed to analyze alterna-
tives for re-establishing or approximating natural sheet flow conditions
in the upper reaches of Shark River Slough, in Dade County. The study
will focus only on water quantity aspects of the project since the East
Everglades 208 Study is already addressing the water quality aspects of
re-establishing sheet flow. Among the major points to be addressed by
the study are:
1) Feasibility of spreading water presently delivered to the
Everglades National Park through the S-12 structures over
the entire Slough;

2) Potential for modifying the flood deliveries to the Slough
by Central and Southern Florida Flood Control (C&SFFC)

3) Effects of removing or modifying Levee 67; and

4) Possibility of utilizing structures smaller than the four
existing S-12 structures.

Funds requested would allow completion of the study effort.

Project Justification:

At this time the bulk of present water flow from the north is released
through west of the upper Shark River Slough area and is routed down


C-18, Loxahatchee River Survey Review Report

Estimated Federal Cost $636,000

Estimated Non-Federal Cost 0

Federal Funds Through FY-80 333,000

Non-Federal Funds Through FY-80 0

Estimated Federal Funding Requirements FY-81 200,000

Project Sponsor: South Florida Water Management District

Project Description:
Purpose of the study is to determine flood control improvements that
should be made to provide adequate flood protection and water con-
trol in the Loxahatchee Canal drainage area. The study will also
examine drainage facilities within Jupiter Inlet, to include require-
ments for channel improvement in Jupiter Inlet, and will determine
what project improvements are feasible to prevent or minimize erosion
on the adjacent shorelines. Plan of study will be developed in FY-79
and FY-81 funding required to continue necessary field investigation.

Project Justification:

The Loxahatchee Canal was originally designed and constructed to serve
an area which was expected to be entirely agricultural. However, the
area served by this canal has experienced a rapid urban and industrial
development since installation of C-18. With this increased development,
the authorized project works serving this area do not provide adequate
flood protection and water control. Because of the rapidly changing
land use patterns from agricultural to urban and industrial in the
project area, and the flood damages that have resulted in the Jupiter
Inlet-Loxahatchee River area, a study is desired to determine the need
for flood control and shore protection, and the feasibility and cost of
providing such protection. As the study has been authorized for some
time, the study scope would have to be reviewed to include the flood
plain analysis, environmental and economic data needs to develop the
alternatives ^or the area. This study was authorized by House Resolutions
of July 22, 1958, and June 7, 1961, and Senate Resolutions of June 6, 1958,
and December 19, 1960.


Funding is recommended.



Estimated Federal Cost $612,000,000

Estimated Non-Federal Cost 287,400,000

Federal Funds Through FY-80 247,466,000

Non-Federal Funds Through FY-80 46,700,000 (cash
and lands)

Estimated Federal Funding Requirements FY-81 12,500,000

Benefit Cost Ratio: 5.0: 1

Project Sponsor: South Florida Water Management District

Project Description:

The project encompasses an area of about 16,000 square miles which includes
all or part of 16 counties of central and south Florida as shown on the map.
It embraces Lake Okeechobee, its regulatory outlets, a large portion of the
Everglades, Kissimmee River Basin and the lower east coast of Florida. In-
cluded are a series of levees, canals, water conservation areas, control
structures and other similar works designed to guard against flooding, to
provide protection from hurricane damage and to provide optimum conservation
management and use of water resources within the project area.

Project Justification:

This project is vital to the protection of the highly urbanized lower east
coast region from flooding and hurricane damage. By control of water and
through the use of protective works, it provides flood protection and opti-
mum management of water in the agricultural interior area and provides a
source of augmenting fresh water supplies to the Everglades National Park.
Funds in the amount requested will be used for: (1) raising the level of
Lake Okeechobee; proposed modifications in the Nicodemus Slough area, under
the State supported Plan "G" alternative, involve the construction of a
levee to protect the agriculturally developed lands south of the slough
that might be inundated when the Lake is at the upper regulation level
and the modification of control structures to allow water management poten-
tial in the Slough area; (2) water supply to Everglades National Park and
South Dade; in the South Dade County area, plans call for enlarging various
sections of project canals, constructing new pump stations, modifying
existing structures, and constructing short canal connectors which, when


Project Justification: (Continued)
combined, will allow the Flood Control Project to provide minimum water re-
quirements to the ENP as directed by Congress. Additional water will be
conveyed to South Dade County for secondary water supply and for prevention
of salt water intrusion. (C-103 Enlarg., S-331, L-24 and L-25 Hump Removal,
L-18 and L-19 Hump Removal, S-131, C-304, S-332, S-339, S-340); (3) Hendry
County flood protection; the plan involves the enlargement of the borrow
canal (C-139) for existing levees 1, 2, 3 and 4, and construction of related
control structures, which is designed as a mitigative effort to eliminate
or substantially reduce flooding during the once in ten year flood. (C-139
Part, C-139 Rem., C-139S, S-239, S-243); (4) Miscellaneous construction;
involves replacing the antiquated facilities constructed between 1913 and
1929 near the east end of C-51 with a new automatic control structure
(S-155), thereby reducing the high operation and maintenance cost. The plan
includes alterations to protect the existing Florida East Coast Railroad
Bridge (B-127) upstream of S-155. The spillway structure (S-155) will main-
tain optimum water levels in the C-51 canal preventing danger of overdrainage
of the C-51 basin by structure failure and provide design capability to
discharge flood and regulation flows. Buttonwood Plug is designed to elevate
fresh water levels and reduce the amount of salt water that enters Whitewater
Bay through an existing canal.

The status of Environmental Impact Statements is as follows:

a. The Everglades National Park and Lower East Coast
Backpumping -EIS is completed and on file
b. The EIS for raising Lake Okeechobee is completed
and on file.
c. The Hendry County Flood Protection EIS is completed and
on file.
d. The Nicodemus Slough EIS is scheduled to be filed
in late 1979.
e. The Buttonwood Lock EIS was filed in July, 1979.


Full funding is recommended for the Central and Southern Florida Project.
Funding is recommended for the Hendry County portion of the overall project
provided certain conditions relative to resolution of State permitting re-
quirements are met by the local sponsor. Funding is recommended for the
"Plan G" alternative for Nicodemus Slough.



46sAL.6 L-76 L
"4 s I-/t/ M A R T I N
s/ .S&l < T LuC
L A K E -E/ S AY

7 1 J PITE"/

"$.t no., 1-1 .0 16 -
C-1o me$. N.O 441 -/1 ; P A L M
eNs5. 3W S
i i ' BEACH


IVl If 1 1 t 9-12
S7 C-1 SCO S E T0 I Y t
G L'- E A, N - 1
,,. I s BEA-


OL/ A- 0 V -lx;-



Pinellas County Drainage Improvements
(Continuing Authority)

Estimated Federal Cost To Be Determined

Estimated Non-Federal Cost

Federal Funds Through FY-80

Non-Federal Funds Through FY-80

Estimated Federal Funding Requirements FY-81 $50,000

Project Sponsor: Pinellas County

Project Description:

This project proposes improvements in the major county drainage systems
necessary to accommodate the 25-year storm runoff. The proposed project
would reduce periodic property losses and social disruption caused by
flooding in the County. Components of this project to be considered
will include the widening of existing ditches, reworking and realigning
existing outfalls, and the construction of new pipes and box culverts
under existing roads.

The Master Drainage Plan for Pinellas County has identified more than
50 separate basins. The County considers the Curlew Creek, Alligator
Creek, Starkey Road, McKay Creek, Joe's Creek, and Bear Creek basin to
be a priority in fiscal year '81. Estimated total cost of desired im-
provements is $126,912,275.

Project Justification:

Historically, Pinellas County has had a problem with stormwater drainage.
For example, a storm in May 1979, caused 8 deaths and 33 million dollars
in property loss. The primary benefit from the improvements of this
project is the prevention of economic impact of periodic flooding in the
basin. Right-of-way and other material has been contributed. The local
municipalities will contribute their share of construction cost within
their respective municipal boundaries.

The Pinellas County Drainage Improvement Project interfaces well with
current national environmental objectives by providing suitable natural
areas for retention to enhance quality of runoff water, reducing insect
breeding areas, abating saltwater intrusion and preserving existing wet-
lands, yet providing reasonable flood protection.

The Corps of Engineers has stated that previous information they reviewed
indicated that a few of the Pinellas Drainage Basins might qualify for
Corps Study under Section 205. A more detailed review of the individual
proposals will be necessary before a final determination is made.


y LCorrespondence Action and Routing
Executive Director
County Liaison__
Asst.Ex.Di rector______ Asst.Ex. Dir.
Attorney_ Attorney
Dir.Data Proc. Dir.D.Proc.
Dir.Employee Rel. ____ Dir.Emp.R.
Dir.Field Service __ _V_ Dir.Fd.Ser.
Dir. Finance /.. Dir. Finance
Dir.Gen.Ser._____ Dir.Gen.S.
Dir.Regulatory /i ^ r Dir.Reg.
Dir.Res.Dev. / j, Dir.Res.D.
I.A.Coord.__ I.A.Coord.
Ed Hoyt ,__ ____ Hoyt
Exec.Asst. Ex.Asst._
Other Other
Public Information '1t- Public I._
L.M.Blain __
Chairman,Gov.Bd. SUSPENSE:
Vice Chairman,G.B. REMARKS:
District Board
Basin Board


NO 71979


Estimated Federal Cost $156,000,000

Estimated Non-Federal Cost 28,200,000 (cash count)

Federal Funds Through FY-80 56,194,000

Non-Federal Funds Through FY-80 9,100,000 (cash cont)

Estimated Federal Funding Requirements FY-81 9,000,000

Benefit Cost Ratio: 2.1: 1

Project Sponsor: Southwest Florida Water Management District

Project Description:

Four River Basins includes a number of flood detention areas designed to
detain excess runoff during periods of heavy rainfall until such time as
it is assured that the downstream conveyance capacities of the respectively
involved rivers will not be exceeded. In conjunction with the flood de-
tention areas where water is retained only temporarily in order to preserve
existing natural biological communities, the project involves a system of
water control structures, canals and levees designed to facilitate conveyance
of excess runoff during heavy rainfall periods, as well as helping to pre-
serve and augment existing water tables and artesian levels during periods
of drought.

Project Components completed as of January 1, 1979:

Canal 531 (Lake Tarpon Outfall)
Structure 551 (Lake Tarpon Outfall)
Canal 135, Section 1A (Tampa Bypass)
Canal 135, Section 18B (Tampa Bypass)
Canal 135, Section 1C (Tampa Bypass)
Canal 135, Section 2 (Tampa Bypass)
Canal 135, Section 3A (Tamoa Bypass)
Structure 160 (Tampa Bypass)
Canal 331 (Lake Tsala Apopka Outfall)
Structure 353 (Lake Tsala Apopka Outfall)
Moss Bluff Lock and Dam (on J. D. Young Canal)
Levee 212, Section 1 (J. D. Young Canal)
Levee 212, Section 2 (J. D. Young Canal)
Canal 231 (J. D. Young Canal)
Railroad Bridge 194 (Tampa Bypass)
Railroad Bridge 195 (Tampa Bypass)
Railroad Bridge 196 (Tampa Bypass)

Withlacoochee River Region Water Supply

Estimated Federal Cost $300,000

Estimated Non-Federal Cost 0

Federal Funds Through FY-80 100,000

Non-Federal Funds Through FY-80 0

Estimated Federal Funding Requirements FY-81 150,000

Project Sponsor: Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority

Project Description:

The purpose of this study is to determine the water supply sources
and demands for the Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority
(WRWSA) area. The phenomenal growth of the WRWSA area and the concern
of local officials about the wise planning of present and future
water supply needs led to the creation of the WRWSA pursuant to
Chapter 373,1962, Florida Statutes. There have been similar studies
performed by the SWFWMD and the WCRWSA; however, these studies utilized
different geographic units and which left gaps of information in the
WRWSA study area. Thus, there exists the need for a comprehensive
and intensive study of the specific water needs of the WRWSA area

The major study tasks to be carried out under this current funding
request is for a water sources and supply evaluation of the study
area; coordination of existing and projected water supply systems;
and the development of alternative plans for water use and demand
needs. Typed of general solutions to be evaluated include:
Water supply sources their feasibility for use and develop-

The assessment of short- and long-range critical shortage

Existing or projected saltwater intrusion or other environmental
issues of concern;

Alternative water supply systems that meet existing and future

Project Justification:

The study area is faced with serious water resource problems that must
be addressed in order to plan for future conditions.

Pinellas County Drainage Improvements
(Continuing Authority)


Funding is recommended for the preparation of the Feasibility Study and
Environmental Impact Statement only. The project sponsor must obtain
all necessary Federal commitments.






a Water
October 31, 1979

Mr. Don Feaster, Executive Director
Southwest Florida Water Management District
5060 U.S. Highway 41, South, FoIX
Brooksville, Florida 33512

RE: Four River Basins Flood Control Project

Dear Don:

This is to keep you advised of the status of the above referenced project that was
submitted by you at the FY-81 Water Resources Conference held last March 7.

Each project submitted to the Department was reviewed by the State's A-95 Clearing-
house as well as the Department staff. These reviews were based on such criteria as
conformance with applicable Federal Water Policy, the State's Comprehensive Plan,
the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act, comments by local, State and Federal
agencies as well as other environmental and economic considerations.

Based on these reviews, this Department has recommended that the above referenced
project be included in the State's Preliminary Public Works Program as presented to
the Office of Management and Budget on October 9. This recommendation is subject
to the following understandings: the Environmental Impact Statement for Lake
Thonotosassa should adequately address the costs, benefits and impacts of all
alternatives. However, based on our recent discussion with the State A-95 Clearing-
house agencies, Alternatives E and F, appear to be the most desirable alternatives
and therefore, should receive extensive evaluation in the EIS. A draft document
should be made available for State agency review by January, 1980 in order to provide
sufficient time prior to formalization of the State's Final Program to be submitted
to Congress.

original typed on 100% recycled paper

Project Description: (Continued)

Canal 534 (Masaryktown Canal)
Railroad Bridge 594 (Masaryktown Canal)
Canal 136 (Harney Canal)
Structure 161 (Harney Canal)
Canal 135, Section 3B (Tampa Bypass)
Structure 162 (Tampa Bypass)

Project Justification:

General objectives of overall project are to provide flood protection during
heavy rainfall periods for the heavily populated Tampa Bay and other areas
including rural areas, and to complement water conservation during periods
of low rainfall in natural surface and sub-surface storage areas.

Specific objectives to be achieved by FY 81 construction are to complete
the Tampa Bypass Canal and Lower Hillsborough Flood Detention Area making
available the related significant flood control benefits for which these
two major components are designed to provide to the heavily populated Tampa
Bay Area (S-159 North, S-159 South, S-159 Middle). Additionally, construc-
tion is scheduled for the Lower Hillsborough Wilderness Park located in the
Lower Hillsborough Flood Detention Area to further the goals of multi-
purpose developments when feasible. Construction should initiate on the
Thonotosassa Bypass Canal (C-132) which will provide flood control benefits
in the Lake Thonotosassa area.

The Corps of Engineers estimates that the General Design Memorandum should
be complete by early CY 1980 and detailed plans and specifications to follow
in time to qualify for FY 1981 funding.

Cash contributions toward construction equal to 17% of the construction cost
are submitted to the Corps upon request; lands necessary for construction
are certified to the Corps before contracts are advertised; relocation re-
quirements are coordinated by the local sponsor as required by scheduled
project construction. Four River Basins has been under construction since
1966 and will require a number of additional years to complete.

Federal authorization was obtained in 1962.

Before any specific aspect of the project is built, an environmental impact
assessment is prepared by both the local sponsor and the federal government
which is then widely distributed by the Governor's Office to all
interested governmental agencies as well as private organizations concerned
with protection of the environment. Following this statewide review the
Corps' Environmental Impact Statement for the Tampa Bypass and Lower Hills-
borough Flood Detention Area was submitted to the Council on Environmental j
Quality on November 8, 1974.

Full funding for the Four River Basins project is recommended. Inclusion
of the Lake Thonotasassa project (C-132) is conditional on a favorable
review of the Environmental Impact Statement for the selected alternative.

'? 12

Withlacoochee River Region Water Supply

Project Justification: (continued)

There is the problem of rapid growth and the need to understand the
present and projected water supply sources and demands of the WRWSA
area. The WRWSA area has increased in population from 132,825 persons
in 1970 to 209,484 persons in 1977, representing a 58% increase in
population for the seven (7) year period. This phenomenal growth and
expansion has resulted in rapid increase in water use in the high
growth areas of the WRWSA region. For example, Citrus and Hernando
Counties have become the first and third fastest growing counties in
the state. Citrus County has experienced a 101% growth rate for
1970-77 while Hernando County has experienced a 90% growth rate for
the same seven (7) year period.

Already this extremely rapid growth has brought about significant
water shortages in the Crystal River, Homosassa and Ozello areas of
Citrus County and the probability that shortages will occur in other
coastal areas of the region. Without a plan for dealing with water
shortages throughout the region or for projecting water sources and
demands for the remainder of the WRWSA area, wise decisions can not
be made about the water use of the region.
The rapid growth and resultant immediate demands for additional
water are occurring in the fragile coastal areas of the WRWSA area.
This problem along with the potential problem of saltwater intrusion
to existing wells necessitates a plan to deal with the water demands
and also with the critical location of the future wells.

Overall, there is a need to have a comprehensive and intensive analysis
of the water supply sources and demands of the WRWSA areas. Previous
studies have not focused on the specific needs of the newly created
WRWSA area nor have those studies dealt with the entire geographic
area encompassed by the WRWSA. Thus, there is the need to have a
water resources study specifically tailored to the unique needs
and demands of the WRWSA area.

Recommendati on:
Funding is recommended.


4 -

Page Two
October 31, 1979

We have enclosed a copy of the State's Preliminary program for your information.
Inclusion of any project in the Public Works Program should not be interpreted as
having satisfied any applicable local or state permitting requirements. This remains
a separate function that must be pursued by the local sponsor through established

Since ly,

C les B. Littlejohn
Chief, Bureau of Water Management



cc: Jacob D. Varn
Wi lliam Townsend
Steve Fox
Walt Kolb
Ed Salem

Upper St. Johns

Estimated Federal Cost See Project Justification
Estimated Nen-Federal Cost

Federal Funds Through FY-80

Non-Federal Funds Through FY-80

Estimated Federal Funding Requirements FY-81 500,000

Project Sponsor: St. Johns River Water Management District

Project Description:
The original Upper St. Johns River Project was authorized by Congress in
1962 and sponsored by the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control
District through its early construction stages. Construction was halted
on this project by the Corps of Engineers in order to meet the require-
ments of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The subsequent
Environmental Impact Statements prepared for this original project
were processed through the A-95 Review Coordination and the State of
Florida found this project unacceptable. Attempts by the Corps of
Engineers to reconsider project alternatives have been hampered by the
jurisdictional transfer of this basin from the Central and Southern
Florida Flood Control District to the St. Johns River Water Management
District, which was mandated by the 1972 Water Resources Act of Florida.
This transfer of jurisdiction was executed on December 31, 1976 and on
that date the St. Johns River Water Management District officially
assumed responsibility for local sponsorship of the existing works in
this basin, as well as a new program for water management related
construction. All binding local sponsorship contracts between the
USCOE and the SJRWMD for this project have been signed.
The project area of the upper St. Johns River basin encompasses some
2000 square miles and consists of approximately 60 individual contri-
buting subbasins. The project design alternatives under consideration
in this study area will be organized to optimize a valley floodplain
configuration which will provide a reasonable increment of floodplain
storage for storm runoff management and additional marsh conservation
storage for ecosystem enhancement, maintenance of downstream stage
and flow during low rainfall periods and regulated allocations of
surface water for municipal and agricultural uses. The existing
project works designed originally for permanent upland conservation
storage and temporary flood storage will be modified to eliminate
permanent storage and alternative operational schedules to only use
these works for short-term detention of high intensity storm runoff
will be offered. The basic concept inherent in all designs will be
management of floodplain wetlands through ownership, easement or


Golden Gate Estates Water Resource Redevelopment

Estimated Federal Cost $436,000
Estimated Non-Federal Cost 0
Federal Funds Through FY-80 157,000

Non-Federal Funds Through FY-80 0

Estimated Federal Funding Requirements FY-81 150,000

Project Sponsor: Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water
Management District

Project Description:

A study is proposed to examine the feasibility of redeveloping the water
management system of the Golden Gate Estates (GGE) area in Western
Collier County. A redevelopment of this system is considered to be
absolutely mandatory in order to mitigate continuing and severe disrup-
tions to the water and land resources of not only the GGE area itself,
but also areas contiguous to it--the Fahkahatchee Strand, prime agri-
cultural areas north of GGE and estuarine areas of southwest Florida,
particularly Fahka Union Bay and Neples Bay. Potential adverse effects
may also be felt by other areas near the GGE area, including Corkscrew
Sanctuary and some estuarine areas of Everglades National Park, if the
present canal system in GGE is not significantly modified.
The water management system of the GGE area consists of a series of
canals constructed during the 1960's and early 1970's, for the purpose
of lowering water levels to allow residential and commercial develop-
ment and prevent flooding in the 100,000+ acre GGE development. The
GGE canal system drains to the Gulf of Mexico by way of two principal
outlets: the Golden Gate Canal and the Fahka Union Canal. During
high flow there is also some local run-off into the Henderson Creek
and Cocohatchee River Canals. The Golden Gate Canal and Fahka Union
Canals average approximately 100 feet wide and 8 feet deep; the
Henderson Creek and Cocohatchee River Canals, about 25 feet and 5
feet deep (McCoy, 1972). In all, there are 183 miles of canals and 24
water control structures in the system. Black, Crow and Eidsness
(1974) and McCoy (1972) provide detailed analyses of the hydrologic
functioning of the system.

In spite of an extensive drainage system and some 813 miles of access
roads, GGE is virtually uninhabited at present. However, there are an
estimated 50,000 landowners within the GGE area.









S^ ^ y



Upper St. Johns

Project Description: (continued)

regulation to provide reasonable levels of flood control and water
conservation storage in the upper St. Johns River valley.

The partially completed works of this project consist of the fol-
lowing components.

1. Jane Green Reservoir System Five reservoirs interconnected by
Canal #C-57b.

a. Taylor Creek Reservoir Levee 73 Water Control Structure
#S-164, fully impounded and operational.
b. Cox Creek Reservoir Levee 73 Gated Culvert #222, fully
impounded and operational.
c. Wolf Creek Reservoir Levee 73 Water Control Structure
#S-163, incomplete gap in levee.
d. Pennywash Creek Reservoir Levee 73 Gated Culvert #221,
incomplete gap in levee.
e. Jane Green Creek Reservoir Levee 73 Water Control
Structure #S-161 and Canal #C-58, incomplete gap in levee.
2. Sebastian Relief Canal consists of a 7.5 mile long canal #C-54
with Water Control Structure #S-96 at the west end receiving waters
from the St. Johns Marsh and discharging to the Sebastian River
on the east end through Water Control Structure #S-157.
3. Approximately 140,000 acres of fee simple and flowage easement
lands have been acquired for flood and water conservation

On November 17, 1976, the Governing Board of the St. Johns River Water
Management District unanimously approved the sale of the 9626 acres of
fee simple ownership in the originally proposed Blue Cypress Detention
Area back to the original owners of record. These monies, some
$2,808,080.00 will be paid into a special trust account over the next
five years at 6.0% interest to the credit of the SJRWMD. This account
will be administered by the Department of Administration and the
Department of Environmental Regulation and these funds will be used
to acquire additional floodplain marsh in the valley of the upper St.
Johns River basin in conjunction with the District's new management plan.

Project Justification:
The FY 1981 federal funding request will continue construction to
structurally modify part of the existing Levee 73 of the Jane Green
Reservoir System as temporary detention areas for flood water storage
and to provide for complete drawdown capability of the Taylor Creek
Reservoir. These modifications will be completed in the area of Water
Control Structure #S-164 (Taylor Creek Pool), #S-163 (Wolf Creek Pool)
and #S-161 (Jane Green Creek Pool). Following modifications at S-163

Golden Gates Estates Water Resource Redevelopment

Project Description: (Continued)
It is intended that the feasibility study would include:

1) a review of previous studies of the GGE and surrounding
areas (Gee & Jenson, 1970; Klein et al, 1970; McCoy, 1972;
Odum et al, 1973; Black, Crow& Eidsness, 1974, Tropical
Bio-IiUustries, 1976; McElroy and Alvarez, 1975; Lehman,
1976; Swayze in print; and others).

2) collection of additional hydrologic and other data neces-
sary for a full evaluation of the GGE area;

3) review and analysis of existing redevelopment proposals
(particularly Gee & Jenson, 1970; Black, Crow & Eidsness,
1974; Tropical Bio-Industries, 1974); and
4) recommendation of a redevelopment plan to mitigate existing
water resource and environmental problems; provide for flood
control, recreation and other benefits; and insure maximum
utilization of non-structural alternatives.
While it is intended that the feasibility study would concentrate on
an assessment of water resource and environmental problems of the GGE
area, and formulate a redevelopment plan to solve these problems, it
must of necessity be undertaken in concert with other non-resource
management decisions as part of the redevelopment effort. While it is
not clear how existing land ownership patterns will be impacted by
redevelopment, some impact will most likely occur. Such impacts could
in turn, lead to significant legal problems. Similarly, a resource
based redevelopment plan must be supported by a logical implementation
strategy which includes distribution of political and financial respon-
In sum, the feasibility study most likely cannot specifically address
these non-resource problems, but it must be developed within the con- J
text of these problems, and coordinated with those local, state and
federal agencies which are attempting to solve these problems.

Project Justification:
The water resource and environmental disturbances which have resulted
from the GGE canal system are substantial and well documented. They
can be summarized as follows:


Shark River Slough

Project Justification: (continued)

the Levee 67 Extension borrow to the Shark River Slough at the east
boundary of the Park. The National Park Service contends, however,
that overland flow entering the Slough northeast of the Park boundary
has been altered by development and Project works, so that historical
flow no longer exists. In addition, there is pressure for future
development in the southwest Dade County area in and adjacent to the
Shark River Slough east of the Park boundary. Such development activity
could further adversely impact the National Park through groundwater
level control, water quality degradation, and surface and groundwater
flow changes.

This study was authorized by resolution of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works dated April 4, 1978.


Full funding is recommended.


Upper St. Johns

Project Justification: (continued)
and S-161, Wolf Creek and Jane Green Creek will fellow unimpounded
through Levee 73 during normal stages. When preestablished high water
stages arise in the St. Johns River downstream from these two detention
areas, these new structures would be individually closed and temporary
impoundment of flood water would be begun in the appropriate detention
area. Modification of S-164 at Taylor Creek Pool would result in an
operational capability to draw down this permanent impoundment for
purposes of water quality, aquatic weed or fish management. After
complete modification, the Jane Green Reservoir System will provide
in excess of 200,000 acre ft. of flood storage from five western
tributaries of the upper St. Johns River. This temporary upland flood
storage capability will result in significant valley flood stage re-
duction and, therefore, greatly decrease flood damages incurred to
property and agricultural productivity. These modifications can also
result in the ability to move water out of storage in the Taylor Creek
Reservoir into the Lake Washington public water supply via Canal 57
and S-161 during a declared water shortage. This would result in
municipal and industrial water supply benefits and increase the annual
reliability of this surface water supply.
The individual benefits of the Levee 73 modification will accrue dis-
proportionately to the residents of the District and the State. Flood
control benefits and water supply benefits will principally relate to
areas in the Upper St. Johns River Basin; however, partially regulated
river stages and, therefore, flood control and water supply benefits,
will be propagated downstream of the project area. Water quality bene-
fits and, therefore, diminished aquatic weed problems, will extend
downstream from the project area as well. Fish and wildlife and public
recreation benefits will be available to the resident and non-resident
citizens of the Statelat large.

A supplement to the original Environmental Impact Statement will have
to be prepared and reviewed by the appropriate agencies and organiza-
tions. The staff of the St. Johns River Water Management District is
currently working in conjunction with the Corps of Engineers to display
viable alternatives consistent with overall water management objectives
of the State. These alternatives will form the basis of the EIS as
well as General Design Memorandum necessary to justify Federal partici-
pation in the project.
The environmental impart of the proposed construction will be restricted
to the three specific levee locations where new gated culverts will be
implaced in the existing Levee #73. The drawdown of Taylor Creek Im-
poundment necessary for the construction will result in the loss of this
no public access for reservoir fishery. Periodic use of these detention
areas following modification and revegetation of the previously impounded
areas will result in inundation damage to woody and herbaceous plants.


Golden Gate Estates Water Resource Redevelopment

Project Justification: (Continued)
1) Disruption of natural drainage basin flow patterns and
major transfers of waters from one basin to another (Black,
Crow & Eidsness, 1974; Tropical Bio-Industries, 1976).

2) Wet season water tables have been lowered two to four feet,
depending on the area (McCoy, 1972; Tropical Bio-Industries).

3) The hydroperiod in GGE has been reduced two to three months
as a result of drainage; for approximately seven months of
the year, the water table has been lowered below the caprock,
breaking capillarity with overlying sands, resulting in in-
creased soil dryness, soil subsidence, frequent and severe
wildfires and a succession from scrub cypress to pine and
panicum grasslands (Tropical Bio-Industries, 1976).

4) In terms of wildfires in particular, during the period
1963-70, when the GGE canals were under construction, an
average of 8,800 acres burned per year in the County; during
the period 1971-75, after completion of the canal system, an
average of 100,000 acres, or about 10% of the total Collier
County land area, burned each year (Lehman, 1976).

5) Mean annual runoff from the GGE area is approximately 500,000
acre-feet per year, which is two to three times greater than
before construction (Black, Crow & Eidsness, 1974). This has
resulted in huge losses of fresh water which would have re-
charged shallow aquifers, and has stressed estuarine areas
into which discharges occur--especially Naples Bay and Fahka
Union Bay. Carter et al (1973) describe in detail impacts on
Fahka Union Bay and compare this system to neighboring Fahka-
hatchee Bay, a relatively undisturbed area.

6) A study by the U.S.G.S. (Swayzy, in print) suggests a hydrologic
interconnection between the Fahka Union Canal system and the
Fahkahatchee Strand, and indicates a drainage of portions of
the strand by the easternmost canal of the Fahka Union system.
Other U.S.G.S. studies have demonstrated that during high flows
the Fahkahatchee Strand is hydraulically connected to the Ever-
glades National Park with some water from the strand entering
luwer estuarine regions of the Park.

7) Lowered water tables have resulted in the abandonment of farm-
lands in the northern part of GGE, formerly used for production
of green peppers, cucumbers, tomatoes, and other truck crops
(Tropical Bio-Industries, 1976).






Central and Southern Florida $ 12,500,000 7
Four River Basins 9,000,000 11
Upper St. Johns 500,000 15


Brevard County Urban Study 400,000 21
Central and Southern Florida Water Supply 200,000 23
C-18, Loxahatchee River Survey Review 200,000 27
Withlacoochee River Region Water Supply 150,000 29



Port Everglades 19,015,000 35
Port Manatee 1,000,000 39
St. Lucie Inlet 1,210,000 43
Tampa Harbor 25,000,000 47


Bayou Texar 150,000 53
Canaveral Harbor 15,000 55
Gulf Coast Passes 334,000 57
Jacksonville Harbor 233,000 59
Jupiter Inlet 50,000 63
Port of Palm Beach 15,000 67



Dade County 6,500,000 71
Manatee County 1,000,000 75
Palm Beach County 500,000 79
Panama City 600,000 83
Pinellas County 2,500,000 87

Upper St. Johns

Project Justification: (continued)

Every attempt to minimize the frequency and duration of these habitat
losses will be made by optimal discharges to reduce the stages in these
detention areas following impoundment of flood waters.

Cost figures for the Upper St. Johns Works are included in the Central
and Southern Florida Construction project, which is also a part of
this program. The Federal funds requested here are in addition to those
identified for that project and will be matched by funds appropriated
from State General Revenue and local ad valorem taxes.


Full funding is recommended.


Golden Gates Estates Water Resource Redevelopment

Project Justification: (Continued)

In addition to the problems discussed above, the GGE canal system could
have other potentially adverse effects on the region's land and water
resources. The City of Naples presently relies on a shallow coastal
aquifer for its water supply (McCoy, 1972). However, increasing demand
is forcing the city to look elsewhere for its water supply. Present
plans are to develop wellfields within the GGE area. It is not known
to what extent loss of freshwater due to surface drainage could impair
this supply. Tropical Bio-Industries (1976) speculate that the potential
for saltwater intrusion from both the Floridan Aquifer and the Gulf is
high. In developing a water budget for Collier County, Lehman (1976)
notes that surface runoff from the Golden Gate and Fahka Union basins
historically may have accounted for 10 to 15% of the total water budget
for those areas, while now, surface runoff via canals accounts for 65%
of the water outflows in the Golden Gate Basin and 32% of the Fahka Union
Basin. )

Water quality data for components of the GGE canal system as reported by
McCoy (1972) and Carter, et al (1973) do not presently indicate serious
water quality problems. However, GGE is virtually undeveloped to date,
and water quality problems can be anticipated if development occurs.
Carter et al do indicate that canals receiving runoff from developed areas
showed aibuTld-up of metals in bottom sediments, and Fahka Union Bay had
concentration of metals two to three times greater than near by Fahka-
hatchee Bay, which does not receive direct canal runoff.

In spite of the major alterations which have been made in the overall
hydrology of the region by the GGE canals for the purpose of drainage and
flood control, the system nevertheless does not presently provide adequate
flood protection to the GGE area. In their analysis of the GGE canal
system, Black, Crow & Eidsness (1974) concluded that the hydraulic capa-
city of the existing canal network is inadequate and that minor flooding
will occur from a ten-year flood, and major flooding from a fifty-year
flood. The poor hydraulic performance of the canal system is further
aggravated by extensive aquatic weed problems, particularly in the smaller
canals of the system (Black, Crow & Eidsness, 1974).

Thus, in summary, while the existing GGE canal system has resulted in ex-
tensive environmental problems both within the boundaries of the development
itself and in adjacent areas, it nevertheless fails to provide adequate
flood protection.

Full funding is recommended.




Flagler County $ 150,000 89
Mexico Beach 50,000 91.
Pinellas County 44,000 95
Sarasota County 134,000 97



Biscayne Bay 100,000 101 )
Golden Gate Estates 150,000 105
Kissimmee River Valley 800,000 111
Shark River Slough 248,000 115
Six Mile Cypress 50,000 119


City of Dania (Section 205 Flood Control) 50,000 125
(Act of 1948, as amended )

City of Largo (Section 205) 50,000 129

Pinellas County (Section 205) 50,000 131

APPENDIX A, Governor and Cabinet Resolution 135
Cross Florida Barge Canal


Estimated Federal Cost $686,000

Estimated Non-Federal Cost 0

Federal Funds Through FY-80 375,000

Non-Federal Funds Through FY-80 0

Estimated Federal Funding Requirements FY-81 200,000

Project Sponsor: South Florida Water Management District

Project Description:

The Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate directed that the
report of the Chief of Engineers on Water Resources for Central and Sodthern
Florida and other pertinent reports be reviewed. This review was to determine
whether any modifications of the recommendations in the Chief of Engineers
report are advisable, in order to provide alternative sources of water supply
for industrial and municipal use in south-central Florida, to augment the
supply presently being furnished and contemplated to be furnished by the
Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. Such alternatives
shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of desalinization of salt
and brackish water, ground water, and imports. Current schedules call for
completion of the Plan of Study in August, 1979. Subsequent funding will
allow initiation of the Stage II phase which will include data collection;
environmental, economic and hydrologic studies; and public involvement.

Project Justification:

At the time when the Corps of Engineers proposed the 1968 report on the Water
Resources for Central and Southern Florida, the concept of deep aquifer storage
and retrieval was recognized as having possibilities, but needed additional
research. Research and planning studies since that time have progressed to
the point that the feasibility of this alternative requires evaluation.
Authority to investigate such alternatives is provided under existing authori-
zation. This study should initially investigate the costs and feasibility of
the use of deep well storage and retrieval as an alternate water supply source
and water management option in Central and Southern Florida. On-going re
search studies are being conducted to evaluate the hydrologic and geochemical
factors pertaining to the utilization of saline aquifers for the ultimate
recovery and use of freshwater. The results of studies to date, which
indicate the potential for recovering significant quantities of water so stored
and the potentially high efficiencies in comparison to other alternatives
being investigated as a part of the Flood Control District District's water
supply development planning, are sufficiently encouraging to warrant engineering


Golden Gate Estates Canal System

L 'A j. a . .
S0 2 3 4 MILES I
\ I \
^ -- - r-{ j _

cl* I.; moss "c-sw M"~NM AJW;

"-., "I . .. .- '- -i

: .. r -1 ,,, I,,

9 i'. In"' J
S" .... : a r =1 .......... e J LiI il
I I >

0 l 11. I Iy I lU

; I 'I
,*, ,- -t-' "1 -
GpD i I"'Ja I I l
*C-3! ;, -;GATE C-3e21 ,
L __.
NAPLEVS, : -- -0


.TATE r, I
--.,-.e_ r.. I GRANT,


C-38, Kissimmee River Valley

Estimated Federal Cost $1,800,000

Estimated Non-Federal Cost 0

Federal Funds Through FY-80 750,000

Non-Federal Funds Through FY-80 0

Estimated Federal Funding Requirements FY-81 800,000

Project Sponsor: South Florida Water Management District and Department
of Environmental Regulation, in conjunction with the
Coordinating Council on the Restoration of Kissimmee
River Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin

Project Description:

Review of the report of the Chief of Engineers on Central & Southern
Florida published as House Document Numbered 643, Eightieth Congress,
and other pertinent reports, with a view to determining whether any
modification of the recommendations contained therein and of the
system of works constructed pursuant thereto is advisable with respect
to questions Of the quality of water entering the Kissimee River and
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough and Lake Okeechobee, flood control, recrea-
tion, navigation, loss of fish and wildlife resources, other current
and foreseeable environmental problems and loss of environmental amenities
in those areas. Funding requested would allow continuation of the study

Project Justification:
Channelization of the Kissimmnee River has been accompanied by a series of
adverse environmental impacts reflected in the continuing degradation
of water quality in the Kissimmee River (C-38) and Lake Okeechobee.
These unforeseen adverse impacts include: intensified agricultural land
uses resulting in increased nutrient loading; secondary drainage and
increased irrigation demand; residential encroachment in flood-prone
areas; loss of wildlife and environmental amenity values; and inter-
mittent periods of anaerobic conditions.

In addition, certain anticipated developments, such as expanding urbani-
zation in the upper chain of lakes headwaters area, have had negative
impacts on the environment and water quality which were not considered,
and which presently represent a clear potential danger to the Kissimmee
River and Lake Okeechobee.




Central and Southern Florida

Four River Basins

Upper St. Johns


Brevard County Urban Study

Central and Southern Florida Water Supply

C-18, Loxahatchee River Survey Review

Withlacoochee River Region Water Supply


Project Justification: (Continued)
cost and feasibility studies as proposed under this project.


Funding is recommended.


C-38, Kissimmee River Valley

Project Justification: (Continued)
Prepatory to this request, the State of Florida has invested approxi-
mately $2,000,000 in addressing problems related in varying degree to
the channelization of the Kissimmee River. These expenditures were for
the "Special Project to Prevent the Eutrophication of Lake Okeechobee"
($1,500,000) and for the work of the Coordinating Council on the Restora-
tion of the Kissimmee River Valley and Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin
($500,000). The Chief of Engineers has concurred in the need for this
survey review, and has made an initial cost estimate of over $1,000,000.
The requested survey review study (restudy) is the direct result of
legislative direction given to the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation and the South Florida Water Management District in the pro-
visions of Committee Substitute for Senate Bill Numbered 936, unani-
mously adopted by the 1977 Florida Legislature, and is cognizant of the
sentiments expressed by the Florida House of Representatives in House
Resolution Numbered 2092.
The relevant committees in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representa-
tives have both adopted resolutions authorizing the Corps of Engineers
to undertake the requested survey review. The Survey Review formally
began in November, 1978. Recognizing the accelerated funding schedule
(a total of $600,000 for the first year of the project), the Corps
began planning immediately for fish and wildlife and land use/economics
baseline studies, component studies that normally would not begin until
considerably later in a survey review. A pubic participation program
and topographic surveys (more typical early survey review studies)
are currently in progress. In an effort to take full advantage of the
wealth of existing information pertaining to the project, the Corps
has been collecting and reviewing this information.
Perhaps the most significant development during the early part of the
Survey Review was the Corps' decision to accelerate the project as much
as possible. The District Engineer has acknowledged the large amount of
available information and the accelerated funding and now anticipates
completion by late 1981. The funds requested for the Kissimmee River
Survey Review during FY-81 will be required for the timely completion of
the investigation. A reduced level of funding would lead to a protracted
effort and less timely completion.
The Coordinating Council, operating on non-federal funds, has three on-
going research efforts, complementing the Survey Review: the Upland
Detention/Retention Demcstration Project; the Taylor Creek Headwaters o)
Project; and the Animal Waste Resource Recovery Project. All three
investigations are aimed at reducing non-point nutrient loadings to surface
waters from agricultural lands in the basin. Total funding for these
projects for FY-79 was approximately $660,000, and a similar amount has
been budgeted for each of the next two fiscal years. The results of these
studies will complement the results of the Survey Review.

Full funding is recommended.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs