HomeMy WebLinkAboutSection 06 - Infrastructure ST. LUCI E COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT
Sanitary Sewer
Solid Waste
Drainage and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
Potable Water
Prepared by:
St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
Department of Community Development
January 9, 1990 INFRASTRUCTURE
INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pacre
A - Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element . . . . . . . . . . ~6 - A - 1
B - Solid Waste Sub-Element . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 1
C- Drainage and Natural Groundwater
Aquifer Recharge Sub-Element . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 1
D - Potable Water Sub-Element . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 1
January 9, 1990 INFRASTRUCTURE
PR$FACE
The Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water and
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element (Infrastructure
Element) has been prepared in accordance with Section 9J-5.011,
Florida Administrative Code (FAC). The element is divided into
four sub-elements: sanitary sewer; solid waste; drainage and
natural groundwater aquifer recharge; and potable water.
Drainage and natural groundwater aquifer recharge issues were
combined into one sub-element because the concerns for both areas
are inter-related and are best addressed in one unified approach.
.
January 9, 1990 INFRASTRUCTURE
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
SAI~TITARY SEWER SUB-ELEMENT
Prepared by:
St. Lucie County ~
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
Department of Community Development
January 9, 1990 SANITARY SEWER
SANITARY SEWER SUB-ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I NTRODUCTI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 1
BACRGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 1
Terms and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 1
Regul atory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 4
EXI STI NG CONDI TI ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 5
Existing Planning Documents . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 5
Regional Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 7
Package Treatment Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 8
Septi c Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 13
NEEDS ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 17
Capacity Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 18
The Savannas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 19
South Hutchinson Island . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 20
General Performance of Existing Facilities 6- A- 22
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for the
Unincorporated County . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 22
Sanitary Sewer Facility Replacement,
Expansion and New Facility Siting 6- A- 23
GOALS, OBJECTI VES, AND POLI CI ES 6- A - 2 4
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 32
APPENDI X
Cost Estimate of South Hutchinson Island 6- A- 33
i
LI ST OF FI GURES
Figure Paae
6 - A - 1 Sewer System Schematic . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 2
6- A- 2 Regional Service Areas--Sanitary Sewer . 6- A- 6
6- A- 3 Package Treatment Plant Locations 6- A- 9
6- A- 4 Septic Tank Concentration Areas 6- A- 14
6 - A - 5 General Soil Types. . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 16
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paae
6- A- 1 Wastewater Treatment Plants in
St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 10
6- A- 2 Projected Population and Flows for the
Savannas Area . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - A - 20
ii
ST. LIIQ g COIINTY
SANI TARY SS~TSR SQB-ELEMgNT
INTRODQCTION .
The Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element provides a description of the
existing sewage treatment and disposal methods in use in St.
Lucie County. The importance of the municipal regional systems
and on-site treatment facilities is noted.
BACHGROUI~ID
Terms aad Concepts
Wastewater treatment systems occur in many different types.
They may range from individual septic tanks and drainfields to
large regional systems which include gravity collection sewers,
lift stations, regional treatment plants, and effluent disposal
facilities.
Regional Facilities: Regional facilities are large-scale
sanitary sewage systems which generally provide service to
densely populated areas. These facilities are comprised of three
components which perform the basic functions of collection,
treatment, and disposal of domestic sewage. Some regional
facilities may also treat industrial waste on which pre-treatment
may have already been performed.
The collection system is composed of a network of gravity sewer
pipes which collect sewage from individual sources and convey it
to a central location for treatment. Figure 6-A-1, found on page
6-A-2, schematically represents a typical system.
A gravity system is normally made up of a branching system of
gently sloping pipes. Small pipes which come from an individual
source are called services. Small pipes which combine several
services are called laterals. A larger pipe which may combine
several laterals is callsd a main. Several mains may be combined
to form a trunk main. Large diameter sewers which normally flow
to treatment plants are called interceptors.
In South Florida, gravity sewers would become very deep long
before they reached regional treatment plants. Therefore,
collection systems usually contain several lift stations within
the system. These lift stations raise the sewage flow to a
higher elevation. They discharge into force mains (which may in
turn discharge into larger force mains), other lift stations,
other gravity sewer systems, or into a treatment plant. Lift
stations which receive flow from several sub-systems are often
called master lift stations. Large force mains, which receive
flow from several lift stations, are called manifolds.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 1 SANITARY SEWER
MAIN
TRUNK MAIN
~
INTERCEPTOR
TREATMENT PLANT
• ~
EFFLUENT ~ • ~
OUTFALL '
Sou~ce: Adapte~l From Land Use and the Pipe, Tabors, Et AI, 1976.
~epartment of Community Affairs
Model Element
FIGURE 6-A-1
S~W~f~ SYS~'~~Vf ~CHEAItAT1C
ST. LUCIE COUNTY , FLORIDA
January 9, 1990 6- A- 2 SANITARY SEWER
The treatment plant is the component of the regional sanitary
sewer facility which funations to remove solid and organic
materials from the sewage. There are a large number of processes
which can accomplish this, but they are generally grouped into
one of the following three categories depending on the proportion
of the material removed:
Primary Treatment: This refers to a removal of between 30~
to 35~5 of the organic materials and up to 50~ of the solids
from the sewage. This may also be referred to as physical
treatment, because screens and settling tanks are the most
common methods used to remove the solids.
Secondary Treatment: Secondary treatment processes remove
between 80~ and 90~ of total organi.c material and suspended
solids from sewage. This level of treatment generally
requi res multiple steps involvi ng at least one biological
process and one or more processes for removal of suspended
solids. The effluent from a secondary plant may also be
chemically treated and filtered. This is sometimes referred
to as enhanced secondary treatment.
Tertiary Treatment: Sewage may also contain large
quantities of synthetic organic compounds or inorganic
chemicals which may create pollution problems if not
removed. Tertiary or advanced treatment provides processes
to remove these pollutants. The most common tertiary
processes remove compounds of phosphorus and nitrogen,
nutrients which promote unwanted growth of biota in the
environment, which may remove oxygen necessary for desirable
environmental conditions. The effluent of advanced
treatment processes often approaches potable water purity.
The treated water produced by the wastewater treatment system is
known as effluent. Effluent disposal alternatives in St. Lucie
County include discharge to a water body, irrigation reuse,
percolation into the shallow groundwater, or in~ection into deep
aquifers.
The solid by-product, or residual, of the treatment process is
known as sludge. Prior to final disposal, sludge is usually
subjected to one or more additional processes to remove
pathogens, stabilize, and/or dewater. These processes allow for
a safe disposal and facilitate transportation and deposition.
Common disposal methods include burial in solid waste landfills,
land application as a soil conditioner for agricultural purposes,
and incineration.
Package Treataent Plants: Package treatment plants are
essentially small treatment systems which have a collection
network, treatment plant, and disposal system. In St. Lucie
County a few small package plants are actually very large septic
tanks with sand filters and chlorination. Package plants may be
designed to provide any level of treatment, but in St. Lucie
County plants providing, at a minimum, secondary treatment are
January 9, 1990 6- A- 3 SANITARY SEWER
used. Package plants are available in a range of capacities up
to one-million gallons per day. They are generally used to serve
isolated developments and are usually partially, or completely,
pre-assembled by the manufacturer prior to shipment to the site
of use.
Effluent disposal in package plants may take a variety of forms.
Most common in St. Lucie County are drainfields, percolation
ponds, and spray irrigation. Except for disposal by deep well
injection, all effluent from package plants must be chlorinated
for disinfection prior to disposal.
Small package plants usually do not require full-time attendance
by an operator, and many small package plants in the County are
run by operating services. Some small package plants only
require an operator for two or three non-consecutive visits per
week, totaling one to one and one-half hours per week. The
average small package plant has an operator on-site for only one-
half hour per day, five days per week. As a result, preventive
maintenance of the plant and/or collection system may be
neglected. Some of the larger package plants have their own
operators, usually for only a portion of the day.
Septic Tanks: Septic tank systems are usually used to serve
single housing units, although relatively large scale systems
have proven successful. The system consists of two components,
the septic tank and the drainfield. The tank receives wastewater
from the home and provides a period of settling, during which
time a significant portion of the suspended solids settle out.
The remaining liquids are discharged through underground
perforated drainage pipes into the drainfield and percolate into
the soil where micro-organisms and filtration processes purify
the liquids. Septic tanks generally require cleaning every two
to three years to remove accumulated solids. These solids,
called septage, are generally transported to regional sanitary
septage facilities for treatment prior to disposal.
Septic tanks can be adversely affected by a number of conditions.
These include high water table, poor drainage, lack of space, and
miscellaneous effects from other conditions euch as hydraulic
overloads from washing machines.
Regulatory Framework
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) is the
controlling national legislation relating to the provision of
sanitary sewer service. The goal of this act is the restoration
and/or maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the nation~ s waters. The act established the
national policy of implementing area-wide waste treatment and
management programs to ensure adequate control of courses of
pollutants. Under Section 201 of P1 92-500, grants are made
available to local governments to construct facilities to treat
"point sources" of pollution, which include effluent from sewage
January 9, 1990 6- A- 4 SANITARY SEWER
treatment processes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
responsible for implementing the act.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) is
responsible for ensuring that the State carries out
responsibilities assigned to it under PL 92-500. FDER has
adopted rules for the regulation of wastewater facilities in
Chapter 17-600, F.A.C. These rules apply to facilities which
treat flows exceeding 5,000 gallons per day for domestic
establishments, 3,000 gallons per day for food service
establishments, and where the sewage contains industrial, toxic
or hazardous chemical wastes.
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services
(HRS) regulates septic tank and drainfield installation within
the State. These requirements have been adopted by rule in
Chapter lOD-6, F. A. C.
Individual septic tanks are permitted by the County Health
Department and regulated in accordance with Chapter lOD-6, F. A. C.
When a privately or municipally owned utility serves a community
and charges on an individual basis, it is regulated by an
overseeing Commission or Authority. Until recently, this body
was the Public Service Commission. Recently, the St. Lucie
County Water and Sewer Authority (SLCWSA) has taken over the
functions of approving service areas, rate setting, fees, and
general policies governing privately owned utilities. The Public
Service Commission still regulates municipally owned systems.
ESI STI NG CONDI TI ONS
Flaisting Planainq Documente
St. Lucie County does not presently have an overall planning
document for wastewater facilities. The two ma~or urban areas of
the County, Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie, have regionalized
wastewater collection treatment and disposal systems. The City
of Ft. Pierce completed a master plan for water and wastewater in
1987. Figure 6-A-2, found on page 6-A-6, shows the intended area
of service for the syetems f n St. Lucie County.
The City of Port St. Lucie does not have a regional sewer system
of its own at this time. However, several regional systems exist
within the boundaries of Port St. Lucie. General Development
Utilities operates three wastewater treatment plants within Port
St. Lucie, and White Development Corporation began operating a
wastewater treatment facility in St. Lucie West in 1988. The
City has investigated acquisition of these regional systems and
has a planning document entitled Water and Sewer System Master
Planning and Evaluation (Montgomery, 1987).
January 9, 1990 6- A- 5 SANITARY SEWER
~ PoRr unu~,ES wrHOarr
xmr~ rnv ur.uis
INDIAN RIVEfl COUNTY
" " ` ~ ` ~ N - " ~ FORT PIERCE UTILITIES AUiHORITY
~
~ , , , ~ [ ~ i ~ oROPOSED SERVICE AREA
~
i Sai e~ d ~ r i_,_~~~ q
~ _ ~MA Sti-- _
- .
- - , - ,
I , ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ~ J"~~ ~ ° o \ ~ ~ GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTILIT1E51
i ---r~ ~ _ ST; LUCIE WESTlPORT 5T. UJCIE
, I , , , , „ „ ~ ~
x - - - yFp, ° NDflTH HUTCHINSON
~ ~ r > > t ~ 1U7~,1~ dR~ v. . ~ ~ o~ ? ~ ~.SERVICES ~ ,
' ~ ~ v n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y /
_ # ~ . ~ ~THE~RESEHVE UTILITY C0.
~ „ . n „ y ~ rI ~ 3~a
I y~, i" ~ f=~i'` b,/ ' FDRT PIEflCE
~ y p a ~ ~ INIFT
~ , 9 - ~ ~ii ' " Y ~ ~ i ~ j~~ ~ HOIJDAY PINES SERVICE COHP.
~ i . , ~ ~y ~E,i~a~ ~x ~a~N Yi:: # F'~t7~~1 '
i ~ -~ri ~ X
- 6 F~~. , ,~,i9~ `~I~; r
~ , o „ ~ , ~ ; w a
r
- - - ' - - - - - - ~ ,~~i , . S~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ' - - ~ ~ ~ . .
, i , ~ , ~ ~ ° _t ~ t , d~ \T- ~ ~ 9
I 1, pro n ! ,r ~ ' Z
'7 ~ "pl_ 1
} . n ~ e~ v ~ I ~ vv ~ ~GI . , a- i_ ~1 .
z w ~ ~e ~ ~ n „ . ~'1 i i 3eF y~ ~ a ' ~ ~ ° ~
n I r °
~ i : . . . . . ~
i ~ ~ s.•
~ i 3 ~ . . ~ ,jr ..F a ~ te ,
o - - I~- ,P ,
- 6 ~
~ > ~ r . ,1 I , r ~ ,h ~ ',.,mj ` . `
1 ~ ~ o
~ , ~ ~ ~
- I R t ~ \ ~ P'
w , * ,
~ ~ ~9
u ~ml , . , ~ ~ V'i , ~ ~ , ~ _ t'' i k~s~ ~ ~
.
m u.~. .uo _ . . . ~ ~g ~ I
, , m
O I _ - . ~ ~ ~ M 4~',
,
i ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~s ~ r__ ~ ' ~
w i~ i ' w n~~~ ~ - i' i
o - ~ ~ i S.: Z
w n n i a ' E -i__' i'_'
r.4„
•I ~ ! _
Y ~ ~v--a { ~
° ~ n ~ ~ , ~ ~ Y~ ~ ~ i ~ r _ ' n
e . ' ~-t ~ ~
° i i
n
n 3 ~ , ~ _ ~ r ~ „
b „ . o : „ , n ~ - ~ ' _ ~ ~
~ ~ / . ( . ° 1_"_L"'
F - i
n v H „ . ~ ~ ~ ll `~'~s. .i ; 4 ; _ . ~ i i
~ ~ i~ ~ - _ f~ i "
~',d # - ~ -
i i
_
, ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ . . ~ , ~ ~ s~ _ ~ _ i
- ' ~
~ ~ - = _ ~ ~
a t ~
I , ~ . ~ , o ~ , ~ ~ _ _ ' » ~
- ..,r ~
~ ~ni
d ~ 3 .
~I ~ ~ ~ , . , ~ ' _ ~ -
f ~ Il ~ 1 ~ ~ ~f ~ ' ~ ' ~
k
. „ ` ~ ~ „ „ ~ ~ ~ » „ i p ~ „ { ~ ~ ~ I ~'Ir : FIGURE 6-A2
~ ~ „ A~ , Regional Service Areas - Sanitary Sewer
• ~ ~ _ j ~ ~ . Sq111CE:VNIqUS UTW1tES
- ty 6
i ~ w u ~ i y i 7 ~ s? Y': e
L' " ° " . , " " " ~ " _ ST. LUCIE COUNTY , FI,ORIDA
- - - ~
,o ~ ~ ~ w ~
I ~ E R b E
A1 ARTIN COUNTY
: i
i
6-A-6
Regional Facilities
Figure 6-A-2, found on page 6-A-6, outlines general areas of
service for the major regional facilities now operating in the
County, which are described below. These areas were franchised
by the Publia Service Commission (PSC).
Other sub-regional franchises also operate in the County, but
their area is usually limited to a single development or
relatively small area. These sub-regional franchises are listed
with the package plants.
Ft. Pierce IItilities Authority (FPUA): The Ft. Pierce Utilities
Authority maintains a 9.0 MGD (million gallon per day) wastewater
treatment plant on the southwest extremity of Causeway Island on
the Indian River in Ft. Pierce. Currently, FPUA has a Temporary
Operating Permit from FDER which rates the wastewater treatment
plant at a flow of 9.0 MGD (maximum month) to serve the City of
Ft. Pierce through the year 2000 with an estimated existing
service area population of 40,867. (Camp, Dresser and McRee,
Inc., 1988) At present this plant has approximately 4 MGD of
excess capacity with the highest maximum month average flow of
5.103 MGD determined trom historical wastewater flows from 1983
to 1989. Planning is underway to expand this facility, but at
the time of this writing, the proposed ultimate size had not been
finalized.
The FPUA has extended its wastawater service beyond the
boundaries of the City'~of Ft. Pierce, and presently serves many
areas in unincorporated St. Lucie County. The Reserve Area
Study sets a preliminary study area for extension of sewer
service into the County. (City of Ft. Pierce, 1987)
The Master Plan for Water and Wastewater further defines the
service areas. (Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1988) Initial
3.ndications are that the sewer service area will be smaller than
the water service area. However, the service areas are based on
ssveral growth scenarios and they may be modified.
General Development Utilities: General Development Utilities,
Inc. (GDU), a subsidiary of General Development Corporation
(GDC), currently provides water and wastewater service for
certain areas of the City of Port St. Lucie. This is allowed
under a City franchise agreement dated November 14, 1961, which
expires in 1991. The St. Lucie County Water and Sewer Authority
governs the practices and policies of General Development
Utilities. Currently, some parts of the City have water service,
while others have water and wastewater service.
Potable water is provided by a 6 MGD treatment plant. The
waterwells used by GDU only have a capacity of about 4.5 MGD,
which is a limiting factor in the ability to increase the number
of customers. Average daily flow presently exceeds 3. 5 MGD.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 7 SANITARY SEWER
Wastewater service is presently provided by three (3) separate
wastewater treatment plants. The Northport plant has installed
an injection well, with concurrent elimination of previous spray
irrigation. The permitted capacity has increased from .75 MGD to
2.0 MGD. Hietorical flow data from 1980-85 indicates that this
plant is operating near its rated oapacity. The Southport plant
is rated at 2.2 MGD with an average daily flow ot approximately
1.0 MGD, leaving an excess capacity of 1. 2 MGD. The Westport
plant has a rated capacity of 0.5 MGD with approximately 0.35 MGD
excess capacity.
At this time GDU serves parts of River Park Subdivieion in the
unincorporated County and has plans for a force main from the
Northport plant down Prima Vista and north on US #1. If this
occurs, some package plante in the unincorporated County would
tie into the system. In addition, there are several County
pocket areas which occur within the City of Port St. Lucie which
may benefit from future service by the regional system.
In May, 1989, the County contracted with a team of consultants to
r~view the feasibility and ~o~t of acquir~rig GDU.
St. Lucie ~Pest: St. Lucie West is a large development area in
the western part of Port St. Lucie. This system~s franchise area
is entire].y within the City limits. It contains no County
~oekets an~. w~ll, t~e~e€c~~~, ne~ be add~ess~~ in this
Comprehensive Plan. St. Lucie West has its own water,
wastewater, and was~ewater reuse sgstems.
The wastewater treatment plant is a 1.0 million gallon per day
activated sludge plant with 6 million gallons of effluent storage
(irrigation quality water). A ten-inch in~ection well is
available for alternate disposal.
North Hutchineon Servi.ces: North Hutchinson Services offers
wastewater colleotion and treatment for North Hutchinson Island
from North AlA/Royal Palm Way north to Pepper Park. Many private
paakage plants also operate in the area.
Reserve IItility Corporation: This utility is intended to serve
the area j ust west of Port St. Lucie known as The Reserve. A 1. 2
MGD wastewater facility was permitted by the DER and is
operational. The Reserve has finished the DRI and County
approval process and is in the implementation stage of the DRI.
Final service areas within the Reserve have not been determined.
Package Treatment Plants
Package treatment plants make up a large portion of the
wastewater treatment capacity in the County. Figure 6-A-3, found
on page 6-A-9, shows wastewater treatment plants throughout the
County i ncl udi ng package treatment pl ants . Tai~l e 6-A-1,
beginning on page 6-A-10, lists the plants by name and groups
these plants by land use. The table shows the location of the
plants, the design capacity, operating capacity, percentage of
January 9, 1990 6- A- 8 SANITARY SEWER
I / D ! 1 p A I ~ E A ( 0 N A f I
P]i l R% t e 39 [ A ~o [
~ i t ~ ~ ~ ptl
6
~ ~
c '1 z 11 1 ~ ~
y-G ~ ~
~ ' a• ~ 1
' d ~ ~ ~0 1 ~
I ~ ° ~e Y ~
~ T'~ e ewo ° ~
w I I
' ~ i ~ v ~yy~ ^ (,l. ryy~ 5~
(l d si
~ I ~ 9 'D ' VUWG~~UUQII~IIU
,l 9
I g n ~ ~ ~ ~
` ! „~~x~ ~~~Q~~~~
~ I SUNSHIXE St~tE P,1NNMnT ~ ~ y ,
~i
j ~ e
, 6, ~~„~~Q p~Q~l~ d0(~Q~~Oa~
° I ~y ' r :i u~i
o ~q B1lGfF
iNN~AA 9lu AIIW N~6LE POI~ 1 ~lk p
y Y
~ ~I 0 h = ~vF. 9
s`
I E AVEN~k E17EISION ~ ~ y p~~ ~g " A ~
o s ` s~ P
_ I__ ~ ' ~ ` ~ nm _ _ _
_ _ , g _ nms -.,o-- ~ ~ nnrc4 _ sy _
I ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~
s g ~ e r a d'
~ ~ ; z o
I YI xn. ~ ~4~~~ ~ ~
I uI~ ~ „i E Pa~ ~M a ({i .
~ I _ T
~I s 3 „ y
i ON-A~IAS R9 ~ ~
r ~ ~
~
~E PBEE
p ~ ~ MiDMAY ftWD ~ od c
o I n
o mn
euy~
_ ..[xs[w m 5
~ .-o
s
~ a 1 _ _ 0 0.
0 61 s~. ~ fa
. .
'
~ ~
„ ' < f ' w ~
w
w '
~ ~ d ~ > i r $
" ww o-n ~ ~ ' ~
f_._.::~_::. ~ r t
r n i n . a y
y ~ I 5 cS~ ~ r ~
' a ~,T~l,~ Y N L
y !lW IIS~ 16 ~ ~
fi ~
e I 1 ~ 1 \ d wMU Vi ~ 9 ~ ~
b 7
I fON AA. 1
~ I ~ 8 1
1
NEfiLE i
i " o ]SIMIU
~t1 6~ B 1
I N ~ f
PA dY ~ ie
~ r.i, ~
I '
~
S y A ~ I [
~
~ ~
: ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~°Q°~
~ ~ ~ ' ~
i Y4 ~ ~ ST tli~ +~I
i , v e~a[a an~o f I NJ U. ~~`l7 !S IS lJ O~ uU ~ ll
~ u.,~ ~r ffd~~d~A
P~ E B ~ k
fl,~
F A 36 E
Y A A 1 ~ 0 C 0 0 8 T ~
6 - A - 9
~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~a
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~$~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
8
~ 88888888°8~~~~8888888888888888888888888888~
o~
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~~~~s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'a,~~~~~~~~~~~~~`~s,~o~~~~
w ~ ~
~
~
~ Q~ N N ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C
~ ~ ~ Q~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ : . ~ .
~ ~ ~
~ ~
.~~.:a~
~ ~ ~ . ~ a ~
~ ~ ~
. ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~e~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ ~ . ~ $ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
Q~~~~~~~
~ .-INMd'~f1lOt~WQ~OO~f~c~.-~,`~`,._,°~~°,._,~'~3~1~1"~1N~NtVN~M~MM~~~MM~d~~d'~
~
~
January 9, 1990 6- A- 10 SANITARY SEWER
~`~~`"~~s~~~~~~~
~ *~x**~*~~~*x: :x::
~
~ ~~x*x~*~**~~~
~
~
~ ~
~~g~~g ~
8
°88888888888 °88888$888888 8888
~ ~
~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ro'~~
~ ~ ~~~s
~ ' ~
~ ~ v
~ ~~~~~g~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~oo~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
.
~ ~ ~
M
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ a~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ v~~.~ ~ a
. ~ ~ a~
~ . ~ ~ . ~
~ ~ ~ ~
. . . . . ~ .
F ~
~ o
~ ~
~ ~ ~ o~
~
~
January 9, 1990 6- A- 11 SANITARY SEWER
r~o~e~~' ~ ~ ~~y~ ~
H ~ A •
~ ~ ~
****x ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ . d~~ ~ ~
. ~
do ~
~ ~ « « * ~ ~ ai
~c x x x ~ ~ ~ ~
~ . . ~ .
~ ~
~ ~ ~
Gl ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~
8 d~~ ~ ~ a
~ . ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
o-g o ~ - ~ ~ ~
° g ~ ~ ~ ' ~ v y
. ~ ~
~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ „ d, . . ~ .s . ~ ~
~ . ~ . ~ ~
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ai ~ ' ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ . ~ ~ ~
~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 ~ ~ . ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ d~ ~ . ~ ~
~ ~ ~~~`~w
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ . ~ ~
~
~ ~ . ~
~
. . . ~ ~
fi• ~ ro
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~v-~~• - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
G ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ d ~ .-1 N
~ ro~ ~
~0 A U 'II N w ~ +~c
~ ~ ~ ~
January 9, 1990 6- A- 12 SANITARY SEWER
capacity allocated for the unincorporated County, current
number of people served, pro~ected 1995 and 2000 population
served and the current level of service. Many of these package
plants are concentrated in South Hutchinson Island, North
Hutchi ns on I s 1 and, the Whi te Ci ty area, and the I ndri o Road area.
There are presently 72 package wastewater treatment plants in the
County and urban areas. Some of these plants have experienced
difficulties in effluent disposal, especially on South Hutohinson
Island, where disposal systems have failed.
Septic Tanl~,s
Septic tank systems are used principally for the treatment of
wastewater from individual residences. In rural areas they are
also used for establishments such as schools, motels, rural
hotels, trailer parks, housing projects, camps and others. It is
impossible to determine the current number of septic tanks in the
County since prior to 1984 the rules and regulations were
different and some septic tanks were installed without permits.
Acaording to the Environmental Health Section of the County's
Public Health Unit, from 1984 to March, 1989, 11,044 septic tanks
were permitted (10~ of permitted septic tanks are never
installed). Approximately 280 septic tanks are permitted each
month and 77~ of all permitted septic tanks are south of Midway
Road. Figure 6-A-4, found on page 6-A-14, indicates the areas
within St. Lucie County with the greatest concentrations of
septic tank systems.
Septic tanl~ systems were developed in France with the first
appearing in the U. S. in the 1890' s. These systems treat
wastewater by allowing the solids to settle out of the waste and
permitting a clarified effluent to be discharged. Although
single chamber tanks are often used, two or more chambers in
series are preferable. In a dual-chamber septic tank, the first
compartment provides for sedimentation, sludge digestion, and
sludge storage. The second compartment provides additional
sedimentation and sludge storage capacity and thus serves to
protect against the discharge of sludge and other material that
might escape the first chamber.
Septic tanks designed for residential use generally have a 24-
hour detention period. For larger installations serving multiple
families or institutions, a shorter detention period may be
permissible. In either case, it is essential that adequate
storage capacity be provided so that the deposited sludge remains
in the tank for a suf£icient length of time to undergo
decomposition or digestion before being withdrawn. In general,
sludge should be removed every 2 to 3 years. Tanks are normally
pumped out by a septage hauling company when contacted by the
septic tank owner.
St. Lucie County is presently served by several privately owned
sewage/septage hauling companies. A few of the companies are
located in Martin County and haul septage back into Martin County
where it is disposed of at their septage treatment facility. The
January 9, 1990 6- A- 13 SANITARY SEWER
$ ~ ~
~ z :
a s o ~ ~ G ~
~ k " ~
s
~ S ~ ~a ~ a ~ ~
~ y ° ~ o u"~. ~
s ~ ~ m - ~
:
~ Q ~ F ~
~ z ~
~
; , w o ~
~ ~ U O
.I ~ ~ ~ ~ w
__a___
N ~ 1 ~
E P • ' a ; ° _
Q C ~ w J_"'1"__ ~ .S~
" ~ 'T _ ~ ~ ' W Q n„~
1 F ~ ' I
T 1 C i ; a i a i , ~ F
~ ,
.
N ' '
Yt P ~ cn
~ ~ ~
~
~ a`~'~ P ~ ~ i . i : p i ' . •
~ ~ ~ .
~ a ~
~z -
- -`--~-II- ~ , I „I E a• ; - ' . 1
~ ~ i , . R, ~ ~ d ~
~ • -~---;--~,~-a--; - ,.r!`" > ~ ;
~ ' . ~ ~ p • , x r ? z" p _
~ ~ ~ b u ~ , d+~. a ~ ~ + ; ~ : ~
~ - , ~ ~ ~ ' _ , w
; --t-4--~-----r~ `~a^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ i~,,~..~ a i : a R a ~~i@ 1~~' x~ W g
r • - ~-6- 1----f- ~ ~ ~
~ ~ I . . ~ ~ i ~ ' 1
„ sa r~ ? F Q i ' ' S fi x~ 1 ~
~ I ~ ° h • ' ' Y::' 1' p ~ ~ ~
" '_'J'_m' -a'f~"_ y S Z
~ ~ ~ , ` ~ 4 ~ ( s a~
i i R a~ a ~.A p ~ R a~ ' r
~ ~ Y 1~ j
_ M t
~ r" YW1 4~ . 8 Y ' M1; O
" ~ R~ a) <.; ,F a ~ it ~ # ~.y° M ~ ~I w
~ l . 1 . ! ii ~
1 w C ~ w
0.2 ~ 1
I^ J A ~ :f~ 4 j~ _ ~ ~ u~ ~ I N
Wu ~ II
~ ,
t 1 . 3 ^ ~ r ^ _ . ~ fl ~ , _ . F ~ I
~ a •_"_~o.o- _~'1~ X A-'_ ' _ ^ ~ A ~~j~ s. aYli
. , . a.. _
I::..... - t~. ~
i
..a. ~
t ~ - t
^ ~ y _ C S ~ Y p ~ " ~ '
~ d,.. "
y ~ ~ q I x 1 _ ~ x
R ~ ^ ~ " ^ • I
_ "
- - R
¦ . . F ^z a - .,F~ _a _ ~ ~ ~ _ a . . _ a n a °
/ - ~ ~ :.~.~~r
~ ~
Y ~ ' R R q " R ~ ~~e . ~
~ _ R a _ R R q T
Z A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Z
- 1-
_ ^ . . .i ' 3' _ A • ^ _ _ A ~
~
O ' O
U .
~ " ~ F ; " _ ^ ~ Q x _ _ ~ A a ' . _ . F a U
I
d, - } ' w r Z
~ - ^ . x a _ _ , z a ^ _ . ~ a ~
i
W ^ z ~ A -
- - - - - - ~
i ~ _ _ . ~ ~
~ . _ , a . z~ s p x s _ a s F . x a
_ ~ 3 - - A ~
< a • • _ F A A • _ cp 2 • S r. R a, • • S R a
~ ~ aw
Z ^ . ~
R L A _ R ' A~ N w . ~ R R ~ ^ . .
_ R a
I o
. _ . N F • - A F n ~ N R • ^ ~
_ ~ _ _ _ q
vr ' _ G t ' - ^ A a~ _ .
I Z~ ' " " G 7{ - ~ A 1t I
, < ` _
v~~ ~ - a x a ^ ~ A R R ~ c a ^ c
~ ~ . R A - R A
I
^ q _ C . ; ^ _ C G ~ ~ _ fi x ~ ^ 3 _ 17 . x
~ _ _j " _ _ J n
r • , c A 7 ' . c A ~ y • F A q . ' - F A ~ C
- - _._eY
" . - R C A ^ . R a ~ p ^ . _ R R a
- .r I
' - ~ I
^ _ • • A _ ' YA _ F _ _ M 5 ' ~ ' A ..J
t sc t t ce i - _ _ _
t rt t s~c i
A 1 N fl 0~ 3 3 B 0 H~ 3 3 N 0
remaining haulers are located in St. Lucie County and dispose of
their septage in St. Lucie County. An agreement exists between
the County and a private party for the treatment and disposal of
septage. The County has leased 2 acres at the Glades Road
landfill for the receiving and treatment (lime stabilization) of
septage collected within the County. The treated septage is then
"land spread" on pasture land in the County.
Effluent from septic tanks is normally discharged to a drainfield
where it is allowed to percolate into the ground. Soil
permeability and depth to the wet season water table are limiting
factors on septic tank drainfield performance and may require
construction of elevated drainage field grounds to ensure
adequate performance. Figure 6-A-5, found on page 6-A-16,
indicates the general soil types present in St. Lucie County as
identified in the Soil Survey o£ St. Lucie County. (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1980) As this figure indicates,
virtually all soils withi n the County, excluding a small area
located on the ridgeline east of the Intracoaetal Waterway, have
moderate or severe limitations for septic tank drainage fields.
Due fo the unsu3tability of the soil, the St. Lucie County Health
Department, whioh permits all septic tank eystem installations in
the Caunty, requires 95 percent excavation of the drainfield area
and backfilling with acceptable material.
af the areas with high concentrations of septic tank systems
shown on Figure 6-A-4, found on page 6-A-14, all, excluding The
Reserve development located west of I-95, have been experiencing
some drainfield failures. These drainfield failures are caused
by one or any combination of the following:
1. Hydraulic Overloading: This involves the application
of septic tank effluent at rates greater than the rate
at which the effluent can percolate through the soil in
the draintield.
2. Suspended Solids Clogging: This clogging occurs when
the septic tank is not operating properly and a portion
of the solids which normally settle out in the tank
flow to the drainfield in the effluent.
3. High Groundwater Table: In some areas of the County,
poor drainage allows the groundwater table to reach
levels which intersect with the percolation area of
septic tank systems thus lowering the drainfield
capacity.
4. Proximity of Drainfields: In several areas noted,
drainfislds are in some cases located within 10 feet of
each other. This circumstance causes the groundwater
in the area of these drainfields to be higher than if a
greater separation of the drainfields existed.
Ultimately this higher groundwater level reduces the
drainfields' capacity to dispose of effluent.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 15 SANITARY SEWER
' ' ° ' ° ° " ' " ` ° ' " ° ' ' 11, 12 R GENERA! SOIL TYPES
A ~ ` - - - 5a _ ~ _ _
LEGEND
Wl~t IX 1~[ 1xm ~llli
J 8 6 ~ 5 3 5,~ ~ ` , 4,.~, ,.n~ „ .w.,.
, <..,w
a~~ ~~-~,.w„
~ 7 8 8 6 " 1 p ~ ~ ,K ,a
2 ~.~<~..~.y.n~w: ~.K~ a ,~~~r
, w,..<r,~..,,«.,~,..,,.,,,<wn.~R.w,.~,.~~:._..~~,
~ I ~ ~ ~ ~~.wi.n. w. ..neiii i~~ ri. . ko~n a a ~.n.~. w
9 .a,,,.~.~„~a..~~
- x 5 3 ~ ~.k,.~{..~ 4.,~, .e,~.
- " I u.,M....,,,...,~,.~~~~
4 7 ° ° t a `.,~~..v~.l....~: p..~r w,~M ~w~
~ ° ~ n.s.n: ~k ~w..u i,..ni,.~mN i,ri~.~
, g 5 ~.~,,......a.~: .w,.,, „
, ~ 7 f F~ g ~ 1 ...,r. r ; ,M „n
' ' I ~ WtX1a+~bt1M
+ t NG~ Slllr e
19C~rY ~ 1 Y"
~ ~ 6 v.w~.~ir..: ~.~ir i...i. om,~r tn..e ~an~: u. ~w«n ,.n w
.wr u~k .w.. rn m ~w i. u. ie..r ~.n ws n..~. .
~ 3 ; A
~ ~ x.u , ~ • u~. ' ~ u~riamii vxr.. uivas. m mi ~er wus nur uc suua m mo~K
- ~ • 7 n~..u~o.,vnn~.i ~<..~r i.Ri. eo..ir a~i.e wnc ~k .w.u
~ 8 7 6 9 ~ 6 - ° u„ ~ ~ a ~ .a ~M ,R. ~n
~ \ ° ~ ~r e.,
I 8 vua..+ms.: r.ab wtr r.iMe ~xi~: eM iwv .r,.~i n
FISAC§ .+w..a+~.rmw~n..nww..anw.rm.~wwr~
on.~cE ~~[xu[ rnE.sta
~ ~ .a. 9 a~ w.ir ~wi i r~.i w n u..w.an i~ r.~ .
I ' ~ . 10 s.wi m.rt+b+ ~ ~ ~ w<nr wn.N wn, mi _
4 ~ _ 5_ T 8 5 8 < 1 , w _
_ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ . _ _ o. . # _ . . 11 nw.a~ w c~e. t i i «r o.>i~ a..i.a ,.u~. w~e -
i.i~ ~ 'c, .R..Y~~u~~.w...~.~...~~e~<iu.R.~~wm<W
n ~ . 3 i, NrLLSY1XC11YlYfAS
q ~ I~e ~ ~ f ~2 loq~a Yrt1utL119~ Vvlul{wm~l: Xewll 1<rtl b pitll aiM1y.
~ ~ IY y µlls~os~ nfls f W ««plv~ Ne ao.e ~ ae Ic~la~lk ~~iqc~yM
I 8 ~ ~ w,.K,~,.,~..~.«,.,,.~k,~,o.rt
,
^ _ ,
, .
~ i ~ ~~n i ° 9
. ~ `
e ~ . 6 ~ z
~ I 5 ~ ~ 5 6x I,
:
o ( 8 5 .p.~ $ R~ 6 ,
~ 5 5
_ ~ 7
7 g ~ _
~ , ;
i 4
~ h ( P
~ . ~ , ° 4 , , 6 3 ~
II
, ~ 5 i ~
~ 3 5 ~
o , ~,W, 8 ~9
~ ~
- M 5 ~
O l FUVE~
1 ~
I 9 7 ~ 1
,3 ,
I 7 ~~:Fa „~na ~ a
, ~ ~ _ ,
A ~1 (
,o g s
~ 3 ~ ~~w~~ ~ roAr sr. sun¢ ~
6 3 6 ~~<<,~ (~0~~~1~1~
I ~ _ 5~1
~a~~ l , 8 3 ff~§RP,§A
~ ~
4 ~ ti
~ = ~ FIGURE 6-A-5
l_ 2 ~ =~E. .
- _ . ~ - -
a.r< a:,,
~ r A r t . c o u e r v SOURCC~ JDii_ bGP,virDr,SCAVn !;r,,S[FV C( , i937~Ira
6-A-16
In these areas that are experiencing failures, there exists the
distinot possibility of groundwater contamination. However, the
Public Health Unit has no verified cases of well contamination by
septic tanks (December, 1989). This steme from the fact that in
many of the developments located in these areas, the home septic
tank system and potable water well are all constructed on a 1/4
acre lot. As these developments approach 100 percent build-
out, the possibility o£ non-disinfected septic tank effluent
reaching a potable water well increases. It is a well-
documented fact that domestic wastewater carries bacteria and
virus capable of causing serious illness, and therefore well
contamination has severe health implications.
It is therefore reasonable to pro~ect that areas of high septic
tank ooncentration will experience an inCreasing number of septic
tank system failures as growth occurs. Additionally, those areas
with private well water supplies could see cases of well
contamination by septic tanks.
NSEDS ASSRSSIKSNT
The unincorporated County presently has wastewater service
provided by one major municipal utility (Ft. Pierce Utilities
Authority), one major private utility (General Development
Utilities), several medium sized private utilities, small package
plants, and septic tanks. This section examines the needs of
those areas in the County which are not included in the two major
utila.ties or in the service areas now identified by those
utilities.
The areas of growth in the unincorporated County directly
corresponds to the urban service areas for water and sewer
service. The area west of this growth area of the County is
planned as agricultural.
The most intense development in these areas is expected to occur
along the I-95 corridor with concentrations at the Gatlin
Boulevard I-95 Intersection, mid-County, and the north County
area.
Other areas of the unincorporated County exhibiting needs include
North Hutahineon Island, now served by North Hutchinson Services,
the Savannah Club area extending north past Tilton Road to Easy
Street, and South Hutchinson Island.
Of the wastewater treatment plants in the un3ncorporated County
only Nettles Island on South Hutchi nson Island, Spanish Lakes One
Mobile Home Park in the Savannas area, and Spanish Lakes Fairways
in the area of Indrio and I-95 have a capacity of 200,000 gallons
or above (200, 000, 294, 000, and 300, 000 gallons respectively).
With a few exceptions, all of the package plants were designed to
serve a small community, condominium, or aommercial area. These
plants are designed with a specific capacity in mind, determined
by the proposed size of the development and the standards set by
January 9, 1990 6- A- 17 SANITARY SEWER
the DER for flow per unit. Therefore, these developments neither
have apprsciable excess capacity, nor do they exhibit appreciable
needs beyond their initial design capacity.
Because the smaller plants require daily attention, tend to wear
out with time, and occupy increasingly valuable land, many are
candidates for connection to a regional system within the next 20
years. With areas of proliferation of the small plants a County-
supported regional system would be a viable improvement in the
future. South Hutchinson Island is therefore identified as an
area in need of a regional system.
Capacity Assessment
A level of service for wastewater facilities has been defined by
the FDER at 100 gallons per day of capacity per capita. This
makes some allowance for infiltration. Treatment faailities
should be in planning for expansion when they reach 80~ of their
flow capacity, and under construction at 90~ of their flow
capacity.
The level of service standard for sanitary sewer systems other
than those owned and operated by Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority
shall be 100 gallons per day per capita. Upon completion of the
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, any necessary changes in the level of
service standard will be made through a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
The level of servioe standard for those areas of the
unincorporated County served by Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority '
shall be 130 gallons per capita per day (Ft. Pierce Utilities
Authority 1988 Water & Wastewater Master Plan, July, 1988).
Many of the wastewater treatment plants in St. Lucie County are
small package plants intended to serve individual communities,
businesses, and condominiums. This type of facility has no
significance in a capacity assessment, since it is not large
enough to provide service to an expanded service area. Table
6-A-1, beginning on page 6-A-10, lists the average operating
capacity for treatment plants. These figures were obtained from
FDER records.
The following particular observances are made:
The Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority, at 56~ of capacity, is
capable of receiving flow from their expanded service area.
Of the Hutchinson plants, the following are noteworthy:
o Island Dunes is presently under capacity, but
construction is now under way for two condominium
towers, with another one planned.
o Nettles Island Resort is at approximately 80~ of
capacity, but not yet built out.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 18 SANITARY SEWER
o Islandia Condominium (29~ capacity) is planning
addi ti anal uni ts .
Meadowood Country Club (3~ of capacity) is far
underutilized, but is designed to serve a specific
development. Although conti nued development has not been
significant, future use of this plant as additional
development does take place is likely.
North Hutchinson Services is not able to handle present
flows during the winter. A new plant to be constructed in
1990 is intended to resolve this problem.
Reserve Utility Corporation (11% of capacity) is adequate
for present needs, and is planning to expand as development
takes place inside The Reserve.
St. Lucie West is a new plant (3% of capaeity), capable of
handling growth in its service area and planned to grow with
the development.
Spanish Lakes Country Club Village (70~ of capacity)
is built out.
Spanish Lakes One Mobile Home Park (54~ of capacity) is
built out.
General Development Utilities, which operates three plants
in Port St. Lucie (Northport, Southport, and Westport) has
adequate capacity for incoming flows (21~, 47~, 29~ of
capacity, respectively) and for growth, the Northport plant
has recently expanded to 2.0 MGD.
The above analysis indicates in general a capacity for growth in
the municipal service areas, newer planned developments in the
uni ncorporated County ( e. g. , The Res erve and s ome of the
Hutchinson Island communities.
Growth in all of the other unincorporated areas of the County
will require additional wastewater transport and treatment
facilities.
The Savanna.s
Table 6-A-2, found on page 6-A-20, indicates the projected
population and sewage flows for The Savannas area. Many of the
existing plants in the area are nearing capacity, too small to be
significant, or designed only for businesses, with no plans for
expansion. Newer planned communities in the area (The Savannah
Club, Vista St. Lucie, The Grove) have adequate capacity for
their present growth.
The area is generally low and flat, so effluent disposal could
become a problem. It is also an area where septic tanks must be
January 9, 1990 6- A- 19 SANITARY SEWER
used with special care, and a limit exists on the size and number
which aan be expected to function in the area.
A solution to the tuture capacity deficiency problem and the
effluent disposal problem in this area would be a wastewater
treatment system of regional or sub-regional size. Prior to this
system, the possibility exists that the County aould acquire one
or two of the large existing package plants and expand them to
handle the flow from the existing developments which are
presently experiencing effluent disposal problems. Although a
prime candidate for a public system, this is unlikely to be
needed before 1995.
T~BLE 6-~-2
PROJECTBD POPIILATION ~IiD FLOWS FOR THS SAV~NNAS gRS~
1985 l995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Resident
Population 6, 884 11, 320 13, 548 15, 776 18, 004 20, 232
Average Daily
Flow 688. 4 1, 132. 0 1, 354. 8 1, 577. 6 1, 800. 4 2, 023. 2
(1000 gpd)
Commercial
Flow 130 180 180 180 180 180
(1000 gpd)
Total Flow 818. 4 1, 312 1, 534. 8 1, 757. 6 1, 980. 4 2, 203. 2
(1000 gpd)
Source: Rimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. and SLCMPO, 1988
South Hutchinson Island
Average daily flow is based on the level of service standard of
100 gpd. This area has minimal commercial flow, which is
estimated at 25,000 gpd. It is assumed that no additional
commercial development will take place on this portion of the
island.
The FDER has issued 3 or 4 consent orders to wastewater utilities
not conforming with present FDER standards and several others are
January 9, 1990 6- A- 20 SANITARY SEWER
in the works. Some plants are operating under a Temporary
Operating Permit. FDER will requi re utilities to connect to a
regional system should one become available.
An economical solution to this problem on the island is not
readily apparent. Proposed changes to FDER reg~alations (FAC 17-
6) will make golf cour~e irrigation feasible again. This will
allow continued land application at Island Dunes (wastewater
reuse), the only facility now disposing effluent by irrigation
(although some modifications may be necessary). Approximately
100,000 gal/day can be handled in this manner.
Other on-island possibilities would be shallaw injection well
disposal or deep well in~ ection. The shallow in~ ection well
option is not being considered due to the faot that this type of
disposal is presently not being allowed by the FDER. The deep
well option would be very expensive. Additionally, there is a
faulted zone in the Floridan aquifer in this area that may also
disallow use of injection wells (REP/Inc., 1985).
Several possible options are currently bein~ explor8~ by tha
County. They inClude:
OPTI ON 1:
Canaect~ay ~.~.th ~t. ~i~r~e IIt~~it~.es ~uthor~t~: The 201 Facil~ty
Plan for Ft. Pierce/St. Lucie County, April 1979, made provisions
for the FFUA Wastewater Treatment Plant to have the capacity set
aside to serve ~he developments on the South Island. This would
involve running a sewer force main from the South Island north to
the FPUA plant. This plant currently has excess capacity and
would be able to treat effluent from the South Island.
OPTI ON 2:
Connecting ~3.th Martin County: St. Lucie County etaff has met
with staff from Martin County to discuss the possibility and
technical feasibility of jointly providing sewer service to South
Hutohinson Island. This could involve running a sewage force
main from the developments on South Hutchinson Island across the
Jensen Beaah Causeway to the new Martin County (DeBartolo)
Wastewater Treatment Plant. As of this writing, no conclusions
have been reached on a~oint Martin County/St. Lucie County
proj ect.
Transportation of raw sewage to a Martin County Plant could be an
alternative, with some treatment and disposal taking place at
Island Dunes. The proposed project is envisioned as about three
miles of 6", 8", and 12" force main, combining with the Martin
County flow into an approximately 16" force main to the North
Martin County plant. A repump atation would probably be required
somewhere in that force main.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 21 SANITARY SEWER
OPTI ON 3:
Formation of a MSTU or 1~ISBU: The County is currently looking
into the possibility of a MSTU or MSBU for sewer service to the
southern portion of South Hutchinson Island. The service area
would begin at the Nuclear Power Plant and run south to the
County line. This would involve the building of a treatment
facility by the County in this area. Prior to the formation of a
MSTU or MSBU, a study would need to be conducted to determine the
feasibility of and costs associated with the building of a
regional system on South Hutchinson Island including those areas
i n Marti n County.
A preliminary estimate of costs, given in the Appendix, totals as
follows:
Option 1: $8, 151, 000.
Option 2: $6, 518, 000.
Option 3: $ to be determined by feasibility study
The project fhat is chosen should be comple~ed about i~g3 with
financing based on revenue from connection fees.
Currently, there is no Master Plan for sewer facilities for the
County. The two large systems, Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority
and ueneral Development Uti3.ities, each have their own Master
Plans, but these do not address the entire County. To approach
service options in a rational manner, a Master Plan for the
County is needed.
General Performance of Sai.sting Facilities
As can be seen in the preceding data, with the exception of Fort
Pierce Utilities and General Development Utilities, all other
treatment faailities in the County are project specific.
Information was not readily available in which to analyze the
general performance of these facilities which serve the
unincorporated County, evaluating the adequacy of the current
level of service provided by the facilities, the general
condition and expected life of the facilities, and the impact of
the facilities upon ad~acent natural resources. Because in part
of the lack of information for these facilities, the County has
committed to prepare a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for the
Unincorporated County. As this information becomes available as~
a result of the master planning effort it will be incorporated
into this subelement through the plan amendment process.
Sani.tary Sewer l~iaster Plan for the IInincorporated County
Because ~of the importance that the provision of sanitary sewer
service will play in the development of the County and also
significant pressures for the County to enter into the provision
of such services, $250,000.00 has been identified for FY 91-92 to
fund a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan for the unincorporated County.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 22 SANITARY SEWER
This study will analyze existing systems, identify overall needs
and lay out a program for the orderly provision of this service.
Upon completion of this master plan, pertinent information will
be incorporated into this subelement through the plan amendment
process.
Sani.tary Sewer Facility Replacement, Expansion and New Facility
Siting
Not having an overall plan for the provision of this service or
even having the necessary data base for such a plan, and with
those facilities which do exist being designed to be pro~ect or
area specific, there is not a clear direction for the overall
provision of sanitary sewer systems in the urban areas of the
County. Therefore, there is not a set of criteria which may be
rationally applied in replaoement, expansion or eiting of new
facilities. It is intended that these deficiencies will be
addressed through the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. Upon
completion of this Master Plan, pertinent information will be
incorporated into this subelement through the plan amendment
gr~c~es.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 23 SANITARY SEWER
GOALS, OBJI3CTI VES, ANll POLI CI ES
GOAL 6~. 1: PRU~PI DE NREDED PIIBLI C QTI LI TI ES I N A MANNSR
WHICH PROVIDES THE 1~iOST SFF$CR*IVS,
ECONOI+I+II C, WASTB W~TSR TRS~Z'1~NT SYSTSl~i AND
PROHOTSS ORDERLY, COIKPACT IIRSAN GROWTH.
Objective 6A.1.1: Sanitary sewer facilities shall be provided
by the County in a manner that it shall not
promote urban sprawl.
Policy 6A. 1. 1. 1: The utility service areas, to be delineated
in the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan by October,
1993, will be determined on the basis of
economy and efficient operation but will not
promote linear or leapfrog development.
Policy 6A. 1. 1.2: Provision of centralized (not ~.ncluding
package treatment plants) sanitary sewer
service shall be limited to the utility
service areas to be determined in the
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and which shall
be adopted throuqh an amendment to this
Plan by January, 1994. The utility service
areas will be within the urban service area
boundaries as determined in the Future Land
Us e El ement.
Obj ective 6A. 1. 2: By 1993, the County will identify and
establish uti.lity service areas whi.ch will
ensure that when a development permit is
is~sued, adequate facility capacity is
available or will be available When needed to
serve the development_ The identification of
these utility service areas will be
determined by the Sewer l~~iaster Plan.
Policy 6A. 1.2. 1: Levels of service for on-site improvements,
including sewer connection lines, shall be as
required of the developer in the land
development regulations.
Policy 6A. 1.2.2: The level of service standard for those
areas of the unincorporated County served
by Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority shall
be 130 gallons per capita per day (Ft.
Pierce Utilities Authority 1988 Water and
Wastewater Master Plan, July, 1988).
Policy 6A. 1.2.3: The standards for level of service for
sanitary sewer systems other than those owned
January 9, 1990 6- A- 24 SANITARY SEWER
and operated by Ft. Pierce Utilities
Authority shall be 100 gallons per day per
capita; upon completion of the Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan, any necessary change in the
level of service standard will be made
through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Policy 6A. 1.2.4: Once facilities are established in the
recognized utility service areas, review all
improvements, expansions, or increases in the
capacities of facilities, to ensure
aompatibility with the established level of
service standards for the facility.
Policy 6A. 1.2.5: Prepare annual summaries of capacity and
demand information for each facility and
service area based on annual peak flows.
Policy 6A. 1.2.6: After the utility service areas are
determined in the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan,
development within these ar-eas will be
permitted when it ties into or makes
provision ta tie into a regional or sub-
regional system as determined in the Master
Plan.
Policy ~A. 1.2.7: Development orders will be conditioned to
provide that when a regional ~anitary sewer
system is available, the development will be
required to tie into it. Issuance of
development orders or permits will be
further conditioned on demonstration of
compliance with applicable federal, state and
local permit requirements for on-site
wastewater treatment systems.
Ubj ective 6A. 1. 3: The County will establish and mai.ntain a
five-year and twenty-year schedule of capital
improvement needs for sanitary sewer
facilities in recoqaized County service
azea~.
Policy 6A. 1. 3. 1: The following public facility improvements
within a facility type are to be considered
in the following order or priority, as
determined by the Board of County
Commissioners:
A. Replacement of obsolete or worn out
facilities, including repair, remodeling
and renovation of facilities that
contribute to achieving and/or
maintaining levels of service.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 25 SANITARY SEWER
B. New faoilities that reduce or eliminate
existing deficiencies in levels of
service.
C. New facilities that provide the adopted
levels of service for new growth during
the next five fiscal years, as updated
by the annual review of the Capital
Improvements Element.
D. Improvements to existing facilities, and
new facilities that significantly reduce
the operating cost of achieving and/or
maintaining levels of service.
E. New facilities that exceed the adopted
levels of service for new growth during
the next five fiscal years by either:
1) providing excess public facility
capacity that may_ be needed by
future growth beyond the next five
fiscal years, or
2) providing higher quality public
faoilities that are contemplated in
the County's normal design criteria
for such facilities.
F. Facilities not described in Subsections
A through E, above, but which the County
is obligated to complete, provided that
such obligation is evidenced by a
written agreement the County executed
prior to July 31, 1990.
G. All facilities scheduled for
construction or improvement in
accordance with this Policy shall be
evaluated to identify any plans of State
agencies or the South Florida Water
Management District that affect, or will
be affected by, the proposed capital
improvement.
H. Project evaluation may also involve
additional criteria that are unique to
each type of public facility, as
described in other elements of this
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 6A. 1. 3.2: In the event that the planned oapacity of
public facilities is insufficient to serve
all applicants for development orders, the
Board of County Commissioners will schedule
January 9, 1990 6- A- 26 SANITARY SEWER
capital improvements to serve developments in
the f ol l owi ng order of pri ori ty:
A. previously approved orders permitting
new devel opment,
B. new orders permitting redevelopment, and
C. new orders permitting new development.
Obj ective 6A 1_ 4: By December 31, 1990, the County will develop
and implement mandatory requirement~ for
design, operation, and maintenance of on-site
wastewater treatment systems.
Policy 6A. 1. 4. 1: Develop and implement guidelines for on-site
disposal systems. These guidelines will
include: establishing general requirements
for the construction, use, and abandonment of
on-site sewage disposal systems; providing
for permits with conditions and approvals;
providing for standards for the approval of
applications for an on-site sewage disposal
system; providing for conditions under which
on-site sewage disposal systems ehall not be
used; providing for system size
determi nation; providing for soil
classification data; providing for
peroolation tests; providing for alternative
systems; and, providing for permit fees.
Policy 6A. 1.4.2: Limit use of on-site wastewater treatment
syatems to the following conditions:
a) existing septic tank and package
treatment plants may remain in service
until such time as centralized service
is made available;
b) use of septic tank systems concurrent
with on-site potable water wells for new
single family detached residential
development shall be limited, depending
on soil and water table conditions, and
shall be in compliance with State
regulations;
c) use of small package treatment plants
shall be limited to use where central
facilities are not available in the
rural County area and shall be limited
to use in order to provide pre-treatment
of sewage where required for particular
industries or commercial uses prior to
discharge into regional systems in thee
January 9, 1990 6- A- 27 SANITARY SEWER
sanitary sewer areas if such a system is
available; and
d) interim wastewater plants may be used
for residential developments until
central sewer service is available; in
complianoe with Section 381. 272 ( 1),
F. S. , all appliaable guidelines shal.l be
followed and all subdivisions must
provide aewer utility easements and
rights-of-way and the developer should
give advance notice to purchasers of
lots.
Policy 6A. 1. 4. 3: Construction of new residential development
at densities greater than two units per acre
shall only be permitted when central water
(including package treatment plants) and
central sewer (including package
treatment plants) systems are available or
will be prov~e~ed eonc~rrent with the
impacts of development.
Policy 6A. 1.4.4: Coordinate with appropriate federal and
State agencies, and amend local ordinanaes
r~qt:ire ±h~t i~~?~.3?r?ra nf ~Prmits for
replacement or expansion of existing on-
site wastewater treatment systems is
conditioned upon complianee with current
regulatory requirements and water quality
standards.
Obj ective 6A. 1. 5: The County shall provide for the coordination
of the eatension or increase in the capacity
of eai.sting facilities as well as
the provision of new facilities to meet
future neeas through development and
adoption of a Sanitary Sewer lriaster Pla~
Prior to the completion of the ~Iaster
Plan, residential development in excess of
two uni.ts per acre and all other
development shall not be permitted if it
is intended to be served by on-site septic
systems.
Policy 6A. 1.5. 1: After August 1, 1990, the County shall
require that all building permit applicants
prior to permit issuance must verify that
sewer service can be provided in conformance
with the policies in this plan and that
adequate system capacity is available if a
central system is to be utilized.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 28 SANITARY SEWER
GOAL 6A 2: BY THE YS~R 2000, ST. LIIQR CODNTY ~fTILL
~ASTSW~TSR SERQICg FOR SIIB-RSGIONAL OR
RSQ ONAL ARS~S TO ME$T Egt STI NG ~liiD
PROJECTSD DE1KA1~iDS IN TAOS$ gRE~S.
Obj ective 6A 2_ 1: The Caunty will develop a County-wide
master plan for wastewater in the
unincorporated County areas.
Policy 6A.2. 1. 1: Commission a master plan study for
wastewater by 1992. The master plan will
i ncl ude the f ol1 owi ng:
1. An inventory of the existing package
plants in the unincorporated area to
assess their current flow, committed
flow, condition, useful life, ability to
expand, and general need to conneet to a
regi onal s ys tem.
2. Establish potential service areas.
3. Provide population pro~ections for the
service areas based on the high
popul ati or. pra~ G~ti on~ ~ rc^: th~ BurQau
of Economic and Business Research at the
University of Florida.
4. Size the necessary treatment facilities.
5. Suggest general locations for the
facility.
6. Identify potential utility acquisitions.
7. Provide general budget cost information
for the necessary capital improvements.
8. Examine wastewater service rates and
connection fees throughout the region to
determine an estimate of potential
revenues generated by a particular
construction project.
9. Estimate operating aosts for the
facilities.
10. Fi nanci ng opti ons .
i l. Implementation guidelines.
Policy 6A.2. 1.2: By December 31, 1990, decide whether a
regional sewage system may be provided to
South Hutchi ns on I s 1 and, and purs ue that
January 9, 1990 6- A- 29 SANITARY SEWER
manner of eervice. Develop revenue source
and include in the County's update of the
Capital Improvements Element.
Obj ective 6A. 2. 2: The foll_owing locations, which are located
outside ~of any established utility service
area, are targeted for higher iatensity
development or are cusrently eaperiencing
problems with esistinq sewer systems and
shall have central sanitary sewer service
provided:
a) That area s urroundi. nq the I- 9 5-I ndri o
Road Interchange.
b) That area surrounding the I-95-~Yhite
City Road Interchange, west of I-95.
c) That area surrounding the I-95-Gatlin-
SaOage Houl e~~rd I nterchaage.
d) That area along II.S. 1 in the Savannas
area.
~2 cn Sauth Hu~~h~.~as~~ Isla~~
south of the FPDA servi.ce area.
f) That azea along County Road 707 between
the Savannas State Reserve and the
I ndian River Lagoon.
g) That azea alonq A1~ on North Hutchinson
Island.
The date by which service will be provided
will be determined in the Sani.tary Sewer
Haster Plan. IIpon completion of that Plan,
i.n October, 1993, the dates for the
provision of service will be incorporated
into this subelement through the
co~prehensive plan amendment process_
Policy 6A.2.2. 1: Study the development areas listed in
Ob~ ective 2. 2, to establish growth
projections, required facility sizes, and a
schedule of capital improvements.
Policy 6A. 2. 2. 2: Undertake proj ects which shall be in
accordance with the schedule of capital
improvements.
Policy 6A.2. 2. 3: Give priority to projects needed to correct
existing deficiencies in the formulation
January 9, 1990 6- A- 30 SANITARY SEWER
and implementation of the annual work
programs.
Policy 6A. 2.2. 4: Consider initiating negotiations with the
appropriate utility authority to serve
those County areas that are encompassed by .
the authority's service area, either
existing or proposed.
Policy 6A.2.2.5: Initiate a study to identify possible
wastewater treatment and disposal options
for that area of South Hutchinson Island
south of that area served by the Ft. Pierce
Utility Authority. This study will address
the economic, Iegal, and environmental
aspects of all possible options.
Policy 6A. 2.2.6: The recipients of service shall be
responsible for its cost.
Obj ective 6~ 2. 3: IIpon completion of the County-Wide Sanitary
Sewer Facilities Master Plan, initiate
proqrams to acquire private utilities
serving the unincorporated area, which are
r~aFa~il p Qf eagansion and of sustaining
themselves with revenues.
Policy 6A. 2. 3. 1: Study those existing private utilities of
appreciable service area size to determine
their value and revenue-producing
potential. In addition, needed capital
improvements and service area expansion
potential should be considered.
Policy 6A.2.3.2: Consider for aaquisition those private
utilities which would benefit the public
welfare through acquisition by the County.
Policy 6A.2.3.3: Determine the feasibility of and cost
associated with the County acquiring
General Development Utilities.
Policy 6A.2.3.4: When areas previously served by paCkage
treatment plants are connected to a central
system, it shall not be the responsibility
of the central system to purchase these
package treatment plants.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 31 SANITARY SEWER
BI BLI OGRAPHY
1. Barker, Osha and Anderson, Ine. ,~'easibility Stu y -
Trpat-mcrit and Disposal of Sentaae Wastes for the Board of
o~n y Commissioners, St. Lucie CountS~. Florida, October,
1986.
2. Camp, Dresser, and McKee, ~'t. Pierce Utilities Authoritv
1988 Water and Wastewater Master Plan, July, 1988.
3. City of Ft. Pierce, Reserve Area Studv, 1987, January, 1987.
4. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Model Element for
~ani ary Sewer. Solid Waste. Drainaqe. Potable Water, and
~Tatural Groundwater Ac~iifgr Recharge Element, May 1987.
5. Montgomery, James M. , Ci~y of Port St. Lucie Water and Sewer
System Master Planning and Evaluation, March, 1987.
6. U. S. Bepartment of Agriculture, Soil SurveY of S~. Lucie
County Area. Florida, March, 1980.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 32 SANITARY SEWER
~Tr"r'i~'iI~
COST 8S~IIKATS - SODTH HUTCAI NSON I SLAND
January 9, 1990 6- A- 33 SANITARY SEWER
COST ESTIMATE
~ SOUTH HUTCHINSON ISLAND SEWER SERVICE
OPTION 1- Transport to Ft. Pierce
Quantity Item Cost Participation Budget Cost
Force Main
4,000 feet 6" Force Main $15 per foot 1009'. $60,000
4,000 feet 8" Force Main $18 per foot 100% $72,000
4,000 feet 10" Force Main $22 per foot 1009. $88,000
61,920 feet 12" Force Main $26 per foot 100X $1,609,920
2 Repump Station $500,000 each SOy. $500,000
$2,329,920
Treatment and Disposal
1 1.2 MGD Plant and $3 per GPD 100% $3,600,000
Disposal Capacity
Existing Pump Station Modifications
17 Pump Stations $20,000 per 100% $340,000
(at an average) lift station
$6,269,920
Engineering, Finance and Contingency (309: of total) $1,880,976
Total Option 1 $8,150,896
January 9, 1990 6- A- 34 SANITARY SEWER
OPTION 2- Transport to Martin County
Quantity Item Cost Participation Budget Cost
Force Main
4,000 feet 6" Force Main $15 per foot 100X $60,000
4,000 feet 8" Force Main $18 per foot 100y. $72,000
4,000 feet 10" Force Main $22 per foot 1007 $58,000
4,000 feet 12" Force Main $26 per foot 100Y. $104,000
25,000 feet 16" Force Main $40 per foot SOy $500,000
1 Repump Station $500,000 each 507. $250,000
$1,074,000
Treatment and Disposal
1 1.2 MGD Plant and $3 per GPD 100~ $3,600,000
~isposal Capacity
Existing Pump Station Modifications
i7 Yump 5tations ~i~,000 per iu0~. ~s"4~,GOu
(at an average) lift station
$5,014,000
Engineering, Finance and Contingency (30% of total) $1,504,200
Total Option 1 $6,518,200
OPTION 3 - MSTU/MSHU
To be determined by feasibility study.
January 9, 1990 6- A- 35 SANITARY SEWER
ST. LUCI E COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
SOLID WASTE SUB-ELEMENT
Prepared by:
St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
Department of Community Development
January 9, 1990 SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE SUB-ELEMENT
TABLE OF GONTENTS
I NTRODUCTI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 1
BACRGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 1
Terms, Concepts, and Definitions . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 1
Regulatory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 7
EXI STI NG CONDI TI ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 11
Soils Suitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 11
Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 12
Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 12
Natural Res ources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 12
Existing Solid Waste Disposal Facilities 6- B- 12
Existing Solid Waste Management Practices 6- B- 21
Facility Replacement, Expansion, and New
Facility Siting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 26
Hazardous and Infectious Wastes . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 26
NEEDS ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 29
Recomrnendations for Waste Flow Control 6- B- 29
Recommendations for Landfill Operations 6- B- 31
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 34
BI BLI OGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 3 9
APPENDICES ~
A, Summary of 1988 Solid Waste Management Act:
The Role of Counties and Cities 6- B- 40
B, Outline of Local Government Financial
Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 52
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Fiqure Paae
6- B- 1 Past and Present Landfill Sites 6- B- 13
6- B- 2 Existing Site Plan for Landfill 6- B- 16
6- B- 3 Proposed Site Plan for Landfill 6- B- 17
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paae
6- B- 1 Federal and State Regulatory Reviews
Applicable to Solid Waste
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 8
6- B- 2 Existing Land Use Acreage, 1988 6- 8- 15
6- B- 3 Planned Land Alloaation at Glades
Road Landfill . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 19
6- B- 4 Proposed Land Allocation at Glades
Road Landfill . . . . . . . . . . 6 - B - 19
6- B- 5 Glades Road Site Class I a~uild-Out. . 6- B- 22
6- B- 6 Glades Road Site Class III - Build-Out. 6- B- 23
6- B- 7 Solid Waste Projections Through 2015. . 6- B- 27
ii
sT. LIICIE cov~
SOLID WASTS SIIB-ELEMSNT
IP'1'RODIICTI ON
St. Lucie County has been operating its present landfill since
19 7 8. I n 19 8 6, the County retai ned the f i rm o f Barker, Os ha,
and Anderson (BOA) to prepare a Solid Waete Management Plan which
was delivered in December, 1986. This plan was used extenaively
for the preparation of this sub-element, with updates to include
ohanges between 1986 and 1988. An additional report used was
Build-Out Plan prepared by Camp, Dresser & McGee, July 21, 1989.
It should be pointed out that the 1986 management plan was based
on medium growth projections as prepared by the Bureau of
Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of
Florida, while for the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, a high
population projection was selected by the County and approved by
th~ D~ga~tm~nt af C~mmnnity 2~ffafrs (DCA) in 1987. For the~
purpose of this sub-~lement, the basic direction, as determined
by the Solid Waste Management Plan, has been used as a given with
a high population projection added to tabular data and a section
developed for the Solid Waste Management and Volume Reduction Act
V~ i soo. ~a~8 Slt'st3 uii.iis ~}'i8 ~SiCBii iii ~~6~'iaic~icr. vi 230i1~ i2~.^v~~~
and other fiscal documents that the correct projections are
utilized.
Recent developments in the implementation of the solid waste
program of St. Lucie County have included:
1. Closure of the Glades Road Phase I(Class I and III)
sanitary landfill.
2. Permitting of the Glades Road Phase II (Class I) 60 mil
lined sanitary landfill operation.
3. Permitting and construction of a Class III 40 mil lined
sanitary landfill section at the Glades Road landfill.
S~.CHGRODND
Ter~s, Concepts, and Defini.tions
The materials dealt with in this sub-element have recently been
redefined in amendments to Section 403.703, Florida Statutes.
The amended definitions are included herein in their entirety.
1. "Department" means the Department of Environmental
Regulation or any successor agency performing a like
function.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 1 SOLID WASTE
2. "County" or any like term, means a political subdivision of
the state established pursuant to s. 1, Art. VIII of the
State Constitution, and when s. 403.706(20) applies means
a special district or other entity.
3. "Municipality" or any like term, means a municipality
created pursuant to general or special law authorized or
recognized pursuant to s. 2 or s. 6, Art. VIII of the State
Constitution, and when s. 403.706(20) applies means a
special distriat or other entity.
4. "Person" means any and all persons, natural or artificial,
including any individual, firm, or association; any
municipal or private aorporation organized or existing under
the laws of this state or any other state; any county of
this state; and any governmental agency of this state or the
Federal Government.
5. "Recyclable material" means those materials which are
capable of being recycled and which would otherwise be
pr6~~ss~~. ~r di~goe~d af as s~lid waste.
6. "Recycling" means any process by which solid waste, or
materials which would otherwise become solid waste, are
collected, separated, or processed and reused or returned to
li6e i~'i i.'il~ iCi~ui vi ia'w iiia~8~ic'~i6 Ci~ ~~c~uilv~~.
7. "Recove~ed materials" means those materials which have known
recycling potential, can be feasibly recycled, and have been
diverted or removed from the solid waste stream for sale,
us e, or reus e, by s eparati on, coll ecti on, or proces s i ng.
8. "Solid waste management" means the process by which solid
waste is collected, transported, stored, separated,
processed, or disposed of in any other way, according to an
orderly, purposeful, and planned program.
9. "Resource recovery" means the process of recovering
materials or energy from solid waste, excluding those
materials or solid waste under control of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
10. "Solid waste management facility" means any solid waste
di spos al area, vol ume reducti on pl ant, trans f er s tati on, or
other facility, the purpose of which is resource recovery or
the disposal, recycling, processing, or storage of solid
waste. The term does not include facilities which use or
ship recovered materials unless such facilities are managing
solid waste.
11. "Solid waste disposal facility" means any solid waste
management facility which is the final resting place for
solid waste, including landfills and incineration facilitips
that produce ash from the process of incinerating municipal
solid waste.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 2 SOLID WASTE
12. "Resource recovery equipment" means equipment or machinery
exclusively and integrally used in the actual process of
recovering material or energy resouraes from solid waste.
13. "Solid waste" includes garbage, refuse, yard trash, clean
debris, white goods, special waste, ashes, sludge, or other
discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or
contai ned gas eous materi al res ul ti ng f rom domes ti c,
industrial, commercial, mi ni ng, agricultural, or
governmental operations.
14. "Volume reduction plant" includes incinerators, pulverizers,
compactors, shredding and baling plants, composting plants,
and other plants which accept and process solid waste for
recycling or disposal.
15. "Yard trash" means vegetative matter resulting from
landscaping maintenance and land-clearing operations.
16. "Transfer station" means a site the primary purpose of which
is to store or hold solid waste for transport to a
processing or disposal facility.
7~ u ~ e+-,~ e~ .~.1 ~~-i r? rlel~ri c~~ mcang mair,ori gl R
2 ~n4 ~.i~vr 4i ~n a~.3 d.,m.,~..
generally considered to be not water soluble and
nonhazardou~ in nature, inaluding, but not limited to,
steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt roofing material,
pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or
destruction of a structure as part of a construction or
demolition proj ect, and including rocks, soils, tree
remains, trees, and other vegetative matter which normally
results from land clearing or land development operations
for a construction or demolition site which is not from the
actual construction or destruction of a structure, will
aause it to be classified as other than construction and
demolition debris.
18. "Class I solid waste disposal area" means a disposal
facility which receives an average of 20 tons or more per
day, if scales ara available, or 50 cubic yards or more per
day of solid waste, as measured in place after covering, and
which receives an initial cover daily.
19. "Class II solid waste disposal area" means a disposal
facility whioh receives an average of less than 50 cubic
yards per day of solid waste, as measured in place after
covering, and which receives an initial cover at least once
every 4 days.
20. "Closure" means the cessation of operation of a solid waste
management faoility.and the act of securing such facility so
that it will pose no significant threat to human health or
the environment.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 3 SOLID WASTE
21. " Di s pos al" means the di s charge, depos i t, i n~ ecti on, dumpi ng,
spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or
hazardous waste into or upon any land or water so that such
solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof
may enter other lands or be emitted into the air or
discharged into any waters, including groundwaters, or
otherwise enter the environment.
22. "Generation" means the act or prooess of producing solid or
hazardous waste.
23. "Hazardous waste" means solid waste, or a combination of
solid wastes, which, because of its quantity, concentration,
or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may
cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or
incapacitating reversible illness or may pose a substantial
present or potential hazard to human health or the
~nvironment when ~mp~o~e~ly ~ra~spe~~ed, d~sposed. o~,
stored, treated, or otherwise managed.
24. " Hazardous waste facility" means any building, site,
structure, or equipment at or by which hazardous waste is
d~.~p~y~~? ~f, st~~s~~ ±,-o~ta~,
25. " Hazardous ~aaste management" means the systematie control of
the collection, source separation, storage, transportation,
processing, treatment, recovery, recycling, and disposal of
hazardous wastes.
26. "Manifest" means the recordkeeping system used for
identifying the concentration, quantity, composition,
origin, routing, and destination of hazardous waste during
its transportation from the point of generation to the
point of disposal, storage, or treatment.
27. "Opera.tion", with respect to any solid waste management
facility, means the disposal, storage, or processing of
solid waste at and by the facility.
28. "Storage" means the containment or holding of a hazardous
waste, either on a temporary basis or for a period of years,
in such a manner as not to constitute disposal of such
haz ardous was te.
29. "Transport" means the movement of hazardous waste from the
point of generation or point of entry into the state to any
off-site intermediate points, and to the point of off-site
ultimate disposal, storage, treatment, or exit from the
state.
30. "Treatment", when used in aonnection with hazardous waste,
means any method, technique, or process, including
January 9, 1990 6- B- 4 SOLID WASTE
neutralization, designed to change the physical, chemical,
or biological character or aomposition of any hazardous
waste so as to neutralize it or render it nonhazardous, safe
for transport, amenable to recoeery, amenable to storage or
disposal, or reduced in volume or concentration. The term
includes any activity or processing designed to change the
physical form or ohemical composition of hazardous waste so
as to render it nonhazardous.
31. "Hazardous substance" means any substance which is defined
as a hazardous substance in the United States Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980, 94 Stat. 2767.
3 2. " Guarantor" means any pers on, other than the owner or
operator, who provides evidence of financial responsibility
for an owner or operator under this act.
33. "Land disposal" means any placement of hazardous waste in a
landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, inj e~tion well,
land treatm~nt £ae~li~y, salt bed €o~ma~~on; sa3t dome
formation, or underground mine or cave.
34. "Special wastes" means solid wastes that can require special
handling and management, including, but not limited to,
~a ~ o nn a ~.~hnl c ti ~cc ~4a c n 1 t c cc fi r i t~,~ A
h t 3,,,,d~, 3 i~, m~t r ss a.~r__ r..,
lead-acid batteries, and biological wastes.
35. "Clean debris" means any solid waste which is virtually
inert and which is not a pollution threat to groundwater or
surface waters and is not a fire hazard, and which is likely
to retain its physical and chemical structure under expected
conditions of disposal or use. The term includes
uncontaminated conorete, including embedded pipe or steel,
brick, glass, ceramics, and other wastes designated by the
department.
36. "Processing" means any technique designed to change the
physical, chemical, or biological character or composition
of any solid waste so as to render it safe for transport,
amenable to recovery, storage or recycling, or safe for
disposal, or reduced in volume or construction.
37. "Sludge" includes the accumulated solids, residues, and
precipitates generated as a result of waste treatment or
processing, including wastewater treatment, water supply
treatment, or operation of an air pollution control
facility, and mixed liquids and solids pumped from septic
tanks, grease traps, privies, or similar waste disposal
appurtenances.
38. "White goods" includes inoperative and discarded
refrigerators, ranges, water heaters, freezers, and other
similar domestic and commercial large appliances.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 5 SOLID WASTE
~
39. "Biohazardous waste" means any solid waste or liquid waste
which may present a threat of infection to humans. The term
includes, but is not limited to: nonliquid human tissue and
body parts; laboratory and veterinary waste which contain
human-disease-causing agents; used disposable sharps; human
blood, and human blood products and body fluids; and other
materials which in the opinion of the Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services represent a significant risk of
infection to persons outside the generating facility.
40. "Biohazardous waste generator" means a facility or person
that produces or generates biohazardous waste. The term
includes, but is not limited to: hospitals; skilled nursing
or convalescent hospitals; intermediate care facilities;
clinics; dialysis CI~ri7.C8; dental offices; health
maintenance organizations; surgical clinics; medical
buildings; physicians offiaes; laboratories; veteri nary
clinics; and funeral homes.
41. " Bi ol ogi cal was te" means s ol i d was te that caus es or has the
capability af causi.ng ~lisease or inf~~ti6n an~. inclu~~~, ~ut
is not limited to: biohazardous waste; diseased or dead
animals; and other wastes capable of transmitting pathogens
to humans or ani mal s.
~C~ ti2^c ~ruiiri3^o2 Gi ~Y'ii$ ciciiiSil~~ VaiB L~iI'it °$viiu 'waa ~f.'~~ ZxCi i1uv~5
haza~dous waste and has been used to include the following
classifications which indicate general characteristics of the
materials and their sources of generation.
~esidential wastes are mixed household wastes, including
yard wastes, generated by the general population.
Commercial wasteg, are generated by the commercial and
institutional sectors. Physical characteristics of these
wastes are similar to those of residential wastes, in that
they consist largely of combustible materials in the form of
paper and food waste from offices, restaurants, retail.
establishments, schools, hospitals, motels, and churches.
Industrial wastes include wastes generated by industrial
processes and manufacturing operatians, excluding hazardous
wastes. These wastes also inalude general industrial
housekeeping and support acti vity wastes.
Special Wastes include wastes that have special
characteristics and/or that require special handling. These
wastes include bulky or oversized items, suoh as old storage
tanks, demolition materials, sewage sludges, tires,
asbestos, and, as of June, 1988, biohazardous wastes.
The primary focus of this element is to identify the facilities
and management plans whiah the County will need in order to
manage and dispose of the solid and hazardous wastes generated in
the County. For solid wastes, these include recycling programs,
January 9, 1990 6- B- 6 SOLID WASTE
transfer stations, processing plants, and landfills. For
hazardous waste, only transfer stations will be addressed since
disposal of such wastes within solid waste landtills is not
permitted in Florida by Section 403. 722, F. S.
The term "landfill" refers to the final disposal site of solid
wastes, and as it implies, involves burial of the wastes.
Landfills are classified for regulatory purposes according to the
characteristics of the wastes they are permitted to receive (DCA,
Model Element, 1987).
Regulatory Framewqrk
The potential environmental impaots of solid waste facilities
have led to the development of an extensive network of permitting
requirements at the federal and state levels. Impacts on air and
water quality are reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the F'lorida Department of Environmental
Regulation (FDER), and where dredging and filling might occur, by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The South Florida Water
~Ianagement Distric~ (SFWPID) al~o ~Srovi~~s ~tat~ lev~l review of
stormwater quality and quantity impacts through their permitting
and regulation processese Actual aonstruction and operation of
solid waste faailities requires further permits and review by
FDER. For processing plants which will generate electrical power
or require zaii eiimi~~i6i~ stdc;z~, ~tirther FC~~ and F23e~a1
Aviation Administration (FAA) review may be required. Theae
federal and state regulato~~ responsibilities are summarized in
Table 6-B-1, beginning on page 6-B-8.
For hazardous waste, the National Resource Conservation and
Recovery Aat (RCRA) of 1976 directed EPA to develop a national
program to regulate and manage hazardous waste and provide
incentives for states to adopt consistent programs. The national
Comprehensive Emergency Response and Compensation Liability Act
(CERCLA), passed in 1980 provided EPA with authority and funds to
respond to incidents requiring site clean-up and emergency
mitigation (the EPA "Superfund" Program). This act also defined
the liability of businesses engaged in hazardous waste
generation, transport and disposal, and provided enforcement
processes.
The Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act (Sec. 403.701,
F. S. passed in 1980, adopted federal guidelines and directed
FDER to develop and implement a hazardous waste management
program. This act provided for:
1) adoption of federal hazardous waste definitions;
2) a system to monitor hazardous waste from generation to
disposal;
3) an annual inventory of large hazardous waste generators;
January 9, 1990 6- B- 7 SOLID WASTE
T.ABLE 6-B-1
F$DERAL AND STATS RSGULATORY RSVIEWS
APPLI CABL$ TO SOI,I D WASTS FACI LI TI ES
ST. LOCI $ COIINTY
ACTIVITY WH$RE
AI R OIIALI TY ,AG$NCY REQI EW RS'~I RW I S APPLI CABLI3
New and Modified Source
Review Requirements
1. Prevention of FDER, EPA1 Air emissions in
Significant attainment areas
Deterioration
2. New Source FDER Air emission in non-
Review for attainment areas
Nonattainment
Permit to Construct Air FDER Construction of air
Pollution Sources pollution source
(subsequent to
testing)
Permit to Operate Air FDER Operation of air
Pollution Sources pollution source
(subsequent to
~es ti ng )
WATER OUALITY
Permit to Dredge and Fill FDER, COE2 Dredging and fil-
ling where possible
effect on water
quality
Permi.t to Construct FDER, EPA, Discharge into state
Wastewater Discharge SFWMD waters (construction
of point source)
WATER
OUALI TY AND OUANTI TY
Permit to Construct FDER, EPA Discharge into state
Wastewater Discharge SFWMD waters (operation),
NPDES permit
Consumptive Use Permit SFWMD Consumptive use of
surface and ground-
water and drilling of
wells
Surface Water SFWMD4 Drainage impoundments
January 9, 1990 6- B- 8 SOLID WASTE
TABLE 6-B-1
( CONTI PiI$D )
ACTI4I TY ~RS
SOLI D W~STE AGENCY RSVI I~W RSVI EA I S APPLI GABLR
Permit to Construct a FDER, SFWMD Construction of solid
Solid Waste Faoility waste facilities
Permit to Operate a FDER, SFWMD Operation of solid
Solid Waste Facility waste facilities
OTHER
Certification of FDER3 Any power plant over
Proposed Electrical 50 MW. Optional for
Power Generating Plant smaller facilities
Site
NotiCe of Construction FAA Construction of a
tall emissions stack
Environmental Impact EPA, COE EIS requirements de-
Statement Provisions or affected pendent upon federal
federal involvement
agency
NOTE: 1) FDER reviews permit and recommends to EPA the action
to take. Final determination issued by EPA.
2) Joint application between FDER and Corps of Engineers.
3) Use of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act
(PPSA) may preclude the need for individual permit
applications under Florida law since it serves as a
clearinghouse for these various permits. A
Memorandum of Understanding has been reached with EPA.
Their permit requirements may also be addressed under
the PP5A.
4) Local Water Gontrol Districts have review of
construction permitting and operation of solid waste
facilities that may impact their facilities.
SOURCE: Model Element for Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste,
Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural Groundwater
Aquifer Recharge Element; Fla. Dept. of Community
Affairs, May, 1987 and St. Lucie County Department of
Public Works, Solid Waste Disposal.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 9 SOLID WASTE
4) permit requirements regulating treatment, storage and
di s pos al of haz ardous was te;
5) funds for hazardous waste spill and site clean-up;
6) hazardous waste management facility site selection
procedures; and
7) fines and penalties for viol ators.
Amendments to the Florida Water Quality Assurance Act of 1983
provided direations and funds to establish a cooperative
hazardous waste management program among local, regional and
state levels of government. These changes included provisions
for County-level hazardous waste management assessments, regional
and statewide facility needs assessments, and site selection for
hazardous waste management facilities at the County, regional,
and state levels.
The June, 1988, Florida Solid Waste Management and Volume
Reduction Act requires each county to reduce the volume of
landfilled solid waste by 30~ by December 31, 1994. This act is
a complex set of laws designed to reduce the volume of solid
waste and to accelerate the degradability of many types of
packaging and containers. The FDER was required to have rules
enacted by March 1, 1989. As of December, 1989, approximately
75~ of these have been promulgated. An overview of key
provisions and dates of the act for local c~overnments is
presented in Appendix A.
Technical design criteria for solid waste facilities have been
codified by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
(FDER) in Chapter 17-701 through 17-722, Florida Administrative
Code (FAC) titled, "Resource Recovery and Management". The
following is a brief generalization of that section (as of
November, 1988). There are three alassifioations of landfills
that have different construction and operating standards.
Class I: 20 tons or 50 cubic yards per day of solid
waste, a liner is required, an initial daily
covering is required.
Class II: less than 20 tons or 50 cubic yards per day
of solid waste, a liner is required, initial.
cover required at least onae every four days.
Class III: receive only trash or yard trash, initial
cover required only once per week and may be
exempt from li ner, leaahate and gas aontrols.
Upon receipt of a Class I or Class II Landfill Permit
Application, the FDER forwards a copy to the appropriate water
management district which is required to prepare and submit a
report as to the impact(s) on water resources no later than 30
days prior to the deadline for final agency action by the FDER.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 10 SOLID WASTE
At the County level, the St. Lucie County Public Works Department
is responsible for planning and management of solid waste
facilities serving the County. This includes processing permit
applications for new facilities and ensuring that existing
facilities are operated in conformance with permit requirements
and in compliance with water quality objectives. The St. Lucie.
County Department of Community Development determines the land
use aompatibility of proposed landtill and transfer station
sites.
ffi STI NG CONDI TI ONS
Physical geography has an influence on the location and operation
of solid waste facilities. The U. S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service rates St. Lucie soils for suitability
for landfills and for daily cover.
Soils Suitability
The ratings are based on soil properties, site features, and
observed performance of the soils. Permeability, depth to
bedrock or to a cemented pan, a high water table, slope, and
flooding affect both trench and area types of landfill. Texture,
stones and boulders, highly organic layers, soil reaction, and
content of salts and sodium affect trench type landfills. The
ratings apply only to that part of the soil within a depth of
about 6 feet. For deeper excavations, a limitation rated slight
or moderate may not be valid, thus requiring on-site
investigation.
Daily cover for a landfill is the soil material that is used to
cover compacted solid waste. In an area-type sanitary landfill,
the soil material is obtained off-site, transported to the
landfill, and spread over the waste. Soil texture, wetness,
coarse fragments, and slope affect the ease of removing and
spreading the material during wet and dry periods. Loamy or
silty soils that are free of large stones or excess gravel and
have low permeability are the best cover for a landfill. Clayey
soils are sticky or cloddy and are difficult to spread. Sandy
soils are subject to soil blowing and have high permeability.
After soil material has been removed, the soil material remaining
in the borrow area should be thick enough to permit revegetation
or else the borrow area can be made into a lake. The soil
material used as final cover for a landfill should be suitable
for plants. The surface layer generally has the best
workability, more organic matter, and the best potential for
plants. Material from the surfaae layer should be stockpiled for
use as the final cover. (USDA, 1980)
Al1 soils in the County are rated as severely limited for area
and trench landfills, except for the Pendarvis soil series, which
is rated as moderately limited for area landfills. These soils
are found sporadically just east of the ocean ridge and
January 9, 1990 6- B- 11 SOLID WASTE
Savannas. Al1 soils of the County are rated poor for daily
cover.
Groundwater
Most of South Florida has a shallow depth to groundwater. In St.
Lucie County, the Atlantic Coastal Ridge is the only exception to
this. Trench type landfills, where a trench is excavated, filled
with solid waste and then covered with the excavated borrow
material, are no longer permitted in South Florida because the
solid waste can get into the groundwater and thereby pollute it.
The polluted groundwater can travel considerable distance and
pose as a significant health risk if used as a potable water
supply. Area type landfills where solid waste is piled on the
land surface and then covered with soil also produae a polluted
leachate from rainfall that eventually percolates into the
shallow aquifer if not lined with an impervious surface.
Groundwater characterization and protection are ma~or elements in
the FDER solid waste permitting process. Leachate collection and
treatment systems are now a mandatory part of the engineering
design in order to prevent the leachate from contaminating the
groundwater. Closure of a landfill ce~l inCludes a cover of low
permeability to reduce or eliminate the leachate that will be
generated.
Surface Rater
The surface water at landfill sites occurs from rainfall and in
deep borrow pits. There is stormwater run-off from closed
landfill cells, r~adway~, parking areas and soil stockpile areas
that is usually routed through a ponded borrow pit for primary
sedimentation control. However, there is a potential for other
contaminants to be conveyed with the stormwater. Although a
portion of the stormwater may be detained on-site, storm evsnts
that exceed the on-site storage capacity will discharge off-site
and may adversely affeot the receiving body of water (RBw). The
treatment standards for the stormwater discharge are governed by
the SFWMD olassification af the RBW.
Natural Resources
The numerous monitoring wells at the landfill site have not
indicated any contaminated plumes. The three drainage district
canals (96, 101 and 102) are sampled and checked for
contamination. The landfill has had no violations and adheres
strictly to FDER~s guidelines which are designed to protect the
natural resources from pollution from a landfill.
Eaisting Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Figure 6-B-1, found on page 6-B-13, illustrates the location of
past and present landfill sites in St. Lucie County. Currently,
solid wastes received by the County are disposed of at the Glades
Road site, which is the only landfill currently permitted in the
County. The County expects to continue to operate a landfill for
January 9, 1990 6- B- 12 SOLID WASTE
7 w o ~ a a p i r. A G o 7 a 1 1 `
_ F ~ ~ _.9 I' _ _ ~ -I, .
~N~
I ~ , « I i, Mv ~ K
I F
I ~I V C ~
[ ZI
i 3 tl- . >-E
( Y p V
. ~ U ~ tv ` i[
~ ~ ~ _ ~ (i?J $
F i ~ ~ = LEGENO
~ • io pe
~ s~t ltiCINEAATOR $fif - NOYI IACL
~ . 2. SEivIR R0~9 SIIE
a ~ ` po
RESf Sfi: OF A1ftP9R? -
_ I . ~ o CJ , NOM Wr'90Y AflEN4
~ q. PFNpND RO~D SfiE
V ~ I' : rmi ncen
c~i5 , ' ~'B ixEi 5. CENiEP, P.04D 9IE
. ~ 6. AIRPORi SI~E
~ `
' ; ~ ~ A?PLIN+tE ~iMl°
I ' ' - .
i ~ ~
I F ' y ~ 1 _ ~ fl. IENNA.pp P~~~ $IIE
! ri ~
y ~ ~ d 9. AIAOSO L FLORESIA
i0. 6LMP5 ROa~ CU9AEN1 SI1E
( + _ _ ~ . I~~~__ ' .r, ~ . . . . _ . . _ _
~ ~
. ~ RCE.; ~ 7 4
~ _ ~ ~ DI&
_ _ /
" 5 . ~ ~ i .
I g Q I i I.{ F 4• 2 ~1 ~
I ~ o ~
~ ~ s!` _ - „
~ e ~ i9 , I
~ j ~ i 1. 2~
O I P~ ~ ' f Un ' Ml
s ; j1
i
Y
~ ~ / '
a I ~ 9 ; , -
a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
f ~
~ ` ~ ~
o ~ i a 9 9
1 ~E I ~ ' i ~
~ ~.n
~
' ~
~
~ a~~~
~ f S . tUClh
_ ~ .
~ (B ' ~ ~ W:, ~r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i ~ f , .I
~ ' ~ PA~~ A~D PR~~I~~~ ~~~1Df~~~d ~Hpf~~
~
:
~ - - - - - - -
s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ t ~ ~ ~
g ~ p ~ I p 6 7 7 P 1 i g ¢q
. IlS~~9~1Q
6 - B - 13
the entire County indefinitely since the 1988 Solid Waste
Management Act discourages municipalities from operating such
faailities. The incorporated areas of the County have interlooal
agreements which allow them to use the County facility. The
current site, which was purchased with Federal Revenue Sharing
Funds in 1977, is located between the Turnpike and Interstate 95
in Sections 35 and 36, Range 39 East, Township 35 South.
Prior to development of the existi ng Glades Road site, the County
and municipaliti~ss operated a number of landfills. These.
included:
1. A small incinerator site used by the City of Ft. Pierce on
Virginia Avenue. It is now the site of Indian River
Community College.
2. A six-acre site on Selvitz Road where the County Youth Hall
is currently located. This site was operated by the County.
3. A 54-acre trench landfill site on the west side of St. Lucie
County IntErnational Airport where the Cowboy Arena is now
located, th~~ was operated by St. Lucie County. The County
is currently closing this site in conformance with FDER
requirements.
4. A 75-acre trench landfill site west of the St. Lucie County
international Airport that was operated by the City of Ft.
Pierce. The City is currently closing this site in
conformance w3.th FDER requirements. This is known as the
Hammond Road site.
5. A 10-acre trench landfill site one mile south of the St.
Lucie County International Airport that was operated by the
City of Ft. Pierce. This is known as the Center Road site.
6. A 150-aore trench landfill site in the northeast corner of
St. Lucie County International Airport that was operated by
St. Lucie County until 1978. The County is currently
closing this site in oonformance with FDER requirements.
7. A small site on South Hutchinson Island operated by St.
Lucie County. This site, known as Appliance Dump, was used
for white goods.
8. An unmonitored site on Lennard Road in Port St. Lucie
operated by General Development Company.
9. A building materials site in Port St. Lucie located
northwest of the intersection of Airoso and Floresta.
None of the former landfills were closed according to the current
rules of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
However, the County has applied for a closure permit for the 150-
acre airpor~t landfill and the City of Ft. Pierce will be applying
for closure of their landfills. Private haulers operated a
January 9, 1990 6- B- 14 SOLID WASTE
number of other landfills throughout the County which have since
either closed or become non-operational (Barker, Osha, and
Anderson, Inc. , 1986).
Glades Road Landfill Site: The present location of solid waste
disposal is a 251-acre parcel of land located southwest of the
City of Ft. Pierce. Figure 6-B-2, found on page 6-B-16, shows
the existing site plan for the landfill. The County is presently
negotiating to acquire an adjaoent 79-acre parael that was dredge
mined for future stormwater management (Camp, Dresser, and McGee,
1989). Figure 6-B-3, found on page 6-B-17, shows the proposed
site plan for build-out of the landfill which incorporates the
adj acent 79-aare parcel.
While a reduction in the waste stream due to recycling is the
goal of the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act, the landfill has
been able to handle the waste brought in to date.
The primary use of the landfill is municipal solid waste disposal
(residential and commercial). Table 6-B-2, taken from the Future
Land Use element, shows percentages of land use acreages.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
T.ABLE 6-B-2
Baci.sting Land II~e Acreage, 1988
Resourc~ Production 63,5~
Undeveloped Land 20.4%
Aquatic Preserve 4.7~
Transportation, Communication &
Utilities (i ncludes roads,
canals & drainage R-O-W) 4.4~
Residential 3. 6~
Other (water) 1.8~
I ndus tri al . 4~
Commerci al . 3 ~
Recreation . 3%
Extraction .1~
Public Services .1~
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
To determine the proportional capacity of the landfill allocated
to serve the municipalities and the unincorporated areas,
the population figures from 1988 were used with the level of
service standard set by the County in this element of 8.77
pounds/capita/day to estimate the amount of garbage produaed.
These numbers were then divided by the total garbage collected
for 1988 to determine the proporti onal capacity as follows:
January 9, 1990 6- B- 15 SOLID WASTE
1/
,
, ~
,
` ~
/ / -N"
/ / / / ~ `1 ` rH£ nwa'
/ \
/
~ \ \
~ /
I~ ~ ~ \ ~
/ 1 \
. _ . . _ . ~.~d~~~ `
. . . . . . . . . . _ _ ~
. - - _
~ ~ QBA PO . . . . ` . . . . . . _ . . _ . . . .
~ ~
~ ~ 1\\ `
/ ~ ~ U
~ ~ ~ ~o I
~ ~ ~r \
1 9 1
c~d c~fl \ ~
Z
\ F
~ ~
~ ~
~ ` ~ `
/ / ~a!vr n x
~ sr«w waro~ ~ `
/ P~1BfG
/ <AS AO
LBL~ISOdR `
/ ~ ~
/ ~ 1.9IFL~'d
~ `
/ ~T~ FIGURE 6-B-2
~ ~ ~ ~
~ 1 \
f n~uawroa ~ GLADES ROAD LANDFILL
/ ~sn no
EXISTING SITE PLAN
~rueam«r ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
w+uioz-----
- CDl~
6 - B - 16
. ~
i ~
i
I \ "N-
/ ~ 1 ~
/ /tI~Lr1Aff2 ~ r,~ n~v
/ ~ t~ \ \
~ \ \
/ /
~ ~ \
/ 1
~ / \
I~ ~ ~ ~
_ - ~ - - . . . _ / _ . _.~T00.4(F MQtO_. . ` ~ . . _ . . . .
. . . ~ \ .
~
~ / 1 ~O~
~ ~
m / ~ I~ 9.1 .
/ / ~ ~J~ ~ 1
~ ~l / ~ ~ 14~ \ ~ ~
~
~ 1j ~ ~ ~
~aa ao g~ggyg
uz°~ cn.aao ~ ~z
\ \
~ \
~ \
\
ee~m ~
/
~ / ~~~~m ~T~~ Qsnna \
Qoano
/
~
/ ~ \ \
~*dN WA1FA
~ ~ ~ \ FIGURE 6-B-3
i ii
ii ~ `
/ ~
au na ~ ~~cm
n~ca rn \
1 iv.rw ~
~ / ~ffi 1 \ GLADES ROAD LANOFILL
~ aono ~ PROPOSED SITE P~AN
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA
\ FOR
~ - - - - _ = rrm cnst~xr - - - - - -
CDR~
6 - B - 17
Ft. Pierce 28~
Port St. Lucie 31~
St. Lucie Village 1~
Unincorporated 40~
The level of service provided by the landfill in 1988 was 8.66
pounds/capita/day. This was determined by taking the total
garbage collected for 1988 and dividing it by the 1988 County
population.
Since there is only one landfill facility to serve the residents
of St. Lucie County, the landfill is not a useful tool to
discourage u:cban sprawl. This can best be addressed in other
sub-elements of the "Infrastructure" Element as well as in other
elements of this Comprehensive Plan.
Access to ths site is from Glades Cut-off Road. The landfill
area is plan~~ed in four phases in addition to other ancillary
areas. Table 6-B-3, found on page 6-B-19, indicates the
existing approximate size of each phase. Table 6-B-4, found on
page 6-B-19, ir.dicates the proposed size of each phase.
Phase I of thE Glades Road landfill consists of a 28-acre fill
area permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation under Permit No. SO-56-44642, dated July 22, 1982.
Because the Co~.~nty was directed by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation not to accept additional solid waste at
the Airport landfill and the Glades Road landfill site had not
been permitted or developed before the deadline, the County asked
for permi.ssion to accept solid waste at the Glades Road site
simultaneous with its design and construction (Barker,•Osha and
Anders on, I nc. , 198 6).
Closure has been completed for Phase I, including capping the
fill with a plastic liner. Phase II construction has been
completed and it is in use. At the present time the following
facilities are being utilized or are under construction:
Fill Area: The 25-acre Phase II (Class I) fill area was
developed from a low elevation of approximately 20 feet above
mean sea level. A 4-acre Class III area is also included in Phase
II. Phase II consists of two cells of equal area. Cover
material is being obtained from on-site and off-site borrow pits.
Location of Phase II is south of Phase I in the northerly portion
of the landfill site, bounded on the east by the Turnpike and on
the west by Interstate 95. Total capacity of the Phase II
(Class I) fill area is 1,390,000 cubic yards for waste and cover.
Prior to June 1, 1989, an estimated 484,000 cubic yards of the
Phase II capacity was filled (Camp, Dresser, & McGee, 1989). The
Phase II (Class III) area will hold 1,140,000 cubic yards. An
improved paved access road has been constructed along the
easterly side of the fill area from existing grade up to the top
of the waste mound.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 18 SOLID WASTE
T~BLE 6-B-3
PLANNSD LAND ALLOC~TION AT GLADES ROAD LANDFILL
ST. LIICI E COUN'1'Y
Planned IIse iz
Phase I Area (exist.) - Class I and III 28.0 acres
Phase II Area - Class I 25.0 acres
Phase II - Class III 4.0 acres
Phases III & IV - Class I 75.0 acres
Class III unlined cell 15.0 acres
Oxidation ponds 15.0 acres
Stormwater conveyance, On-site roads, 89.0 acres
Buffer, Retention/detention ponds, and
Maintenance and administration areas
TOTAL PLANNED AREA 251.0 Acres
Note: The design of Phases III and IV will be subject to
proposed federal regulations.
Source: St. Lucie County Solid Waste Section, 1989.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
T~IBLE 6-B-4
PROPOSED LAND Ar.r.cx~ATIpN AT GL~DgS RQBD LANDFILL
ST. LIICIE COIINTY
(reflects addition of 79-acre dredge mined parcel)
Planned IIse Size
Phas e I 2 8. 0 acres
Phase II 28.0 acres
Phase III 25.0 acres
Phas e I V 20. 9 acres
Construction/Demolition 17.7 acres
Stormwater Detention 111.6 acres
Maint/Admin & Recycling Facility 20.0 acres
Cover Material Storage 5. 0 acres
Yard Waste Incinerator 5.0 acres
Leachate Management 7.7 acres
Roads, Drainage, and Buffer Areas 61.1 acres
TOTAL PROPOSED AREA 330.0 acres
Source: Camp, Dresser, and McGee, 1989
January 9, 1990 6- B- 19 SOLID WASTE
Leachate Collection, Pumping, Treataent & Disposal: Phase I of
the Glades Road landfill includes a leachate collection, pumping,
treatment, and disposal system. The leachate collection system
consists of a series of fifty 4" diameter perforated polyethylene
pipe laterals located below the landfill. Each is constructed in
a gravel-filled trench below natural grade. The collector
laterals connect into two similarly constructed headers which
lead into a leachate pumping station.
The leachate treatment system is comprised of a lined holding
pond having a surface area of approximately 1.66 acres. Pond
volume is approximately 2.7 million gallons. The pond operates
on a primary biological oxidation principle. The leachate
disposal system is primarily by on-site evaporation.
Phase II also includes a leachate collector pumping treatment and
disposal system. It consists of a series of 4" diameter rigid
PVC laterals located on top of the liner. Each is constructed in
a gravel filled trench. The collector laterals connect into two
similarly constructed headers which lead into two leachate
pumping stations. The leachate pumping station is pumped to a
lined holding pond having a surface area of approximately 2.5
acres and operates in the primary bio principle. Phase II also
has collection under drains beneath the bottom liner which lead
to four independent manholes which are sampled to determine liner
leakage.
Groundwater 1rloaitoring: Monitoring wells were constructed on
site as a requirement of FDER permit applications. Samples from
these monitoring wells, oxidation ponds, pump station wet wells,
liner underdrain manholes and North St. Lucie River Water Control
District Canal 96 and the stormwater management system, are
analyzed at least four times per year.
Borrow Area: Earth cover for operation of the landfill is
obtained from on-site and off-site borrow pits. Currently, the
on-site borrow area occupies approximately seven acres.
Stora ~i/ater Control: Storm water from the landfill is routed
through a system of perimeter ditches and on-site retention
ponds. Retention is provided for a 72-hour, one hundred year
storm. Overflow is into the headwaters of Canal 96.
Access Roads: A paved off-site access road extends from Glades
Cut-Off Road north to the south boundary of the landfill site.
A paved on-site access road extends north from the south boundary
of the landfill site to the Phase II fill area. Other unpaved
access and maintenance roads exist on the landfill site.
Scale House and l~iai.ntenance Building: A 600-square foot scale-
house with adjacent weigh scales, a 2,250-square foot maintenance
building, and a modular building with administrative offices
exist at the landfill site. The practice of weighing incoming
refuse quantities was initiated January 1, 1986 (Barker, Osha,
and Anderson, 1986).
January 9, 1990 6- B- 20 SOLID WASTE
Glades Road Landfill Operations: Operation of the Glades Road
Landfill began in July, 1978. It is open for receipt of refuse
seven days a week, 358 days per year, from 7 a. m. until 6 p. m. ,
Monday through Friday, 7 a. m. until 4 p, m. Saturday, and 12 noon
until 4 p.m. on Sunday. Solid waste is weighed at the scale
house and directed to the fill area where it is discharged,
spread, compacted, and covered.
Landfill $quipment: Equipment used at the landfill for obtaining
and transporting cover for spreading and compacting solid waste
and earth cover, and for related support functions is owned by
the County. Most equipment is in fair condition (Barker, Osha,
and Anders on, I nc. , 198 6).
Schedule of Rates and Charges: The rates and charges for
disposal at the County landfill are periodically reviewed and set
by the County Commission.
Phase I Development: The Phase I fill area was closed in 1987.
The estimated remaina.ng life of the entire Glades Road Landfill
is to the year 2002 for Class I material and to the year 2006 for
Class III material. Tables 6-B-5 and 6-B-6, found on pages 6-B-
22 and 6-B-23, respectively, show cubic yards received and the
remaining available capacity (St. Lucie County Solid Waste
Section, 1989).
The FDER permitted finished height was 95 feet above existing
grade in addition to a three-foot access road dike on top of the
fill area.
Phase II Development: Phase II development includes two sub-
phases identified as II-A and II-B each occupying approximately
one-half of the Phase II area.
Ma~or differences in development of Phase II as compared to Phase
I is the use of perforated rigid PVC pipe under drains for the
leachate collection system rather than flexible polyethylene
pipe, and the installation of a 60 mil thickness synthetic liner
below the leachate underdrain system rather than use of in-place
s oi 1 ( Barker, Os ha, and Anders on, I nc. , 19 8 6). The Phas e I I-C
(Class III) cell has a 40 mil thickness synthetic liner.
gR;sting Solid Waste l~anagement Practi.ces
The review of existing solid waste management practices of St.
Lucie County, together with comments and recommendations, is
summarized from the Solid Waste Management Plan. (Barker, Osha,
and Anderson, 1986)
~aste Flow Control: Effective long-term waste flow control
requiring solid waste discharge into the County disposal facility
exists through landfill use agreements. The landfill use
agreements between the County and the cities, private haulers,
and other agencies provide that all solid waste collected within
St. Lucie County will be disposed of at the St. Lucie County
Landfill.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 21 SOLID WASTE
TABLE 6-B-5
GLADES ROAD SI T13
CLBSS I - BDILD-ODT
Year Event Capacity Added Capacity
or Subtracted Remaining
(Cubic Yards) (Cubic Yards)
July 1988 Phase II opens 1, 390, 000
1/2 1988 Waste Received (260, 659) 1, 129, 341
1989 Phase II-C opens 1, 140, 000 2, 269, 341
1989 Waste Received ( 538, 819 ) 1, 730, 522
1990 Waste Received (482, 025) 1, 248, 497
1990 Phase III opens 2, 503, 000 3, 751, 497
1991 Waste Received (482, 505) 3, 268, 992
1992 Waste Received (475, 525) 2, 793, 467
1993 Waste Received (466, 212) 2, 327, 255
1994 Waste Received (454, 567) 1, 872, 688
1995 Waste Received (472, 060) 1, 400, 628
1996 Phase IV opens 2, 134, 000 3, 534, 628
1996 Waste Received (488, 641) 3, 045, 987
1997 Waste Received ( 505, 221) 2, 540, 766
1998 Waste Received ( 521, 801 ) 2, 018, 965
1999 Waste Received ( 538, 382 ) 1, 480, 583
2000 Waste Received (517,965) 962,618
2001 Waste Received (534,150) 428,468
2002 Waste Received (428,468) 0
Notes: Class I and Class III material will be co-mingled through 1989,
at which time the Class III material from permitted construction
sites (approximately 12~ of volume) will be separated to an
unlined Class III cell. The Phase IIA and IIB cells became
operational in July, 1988.
Source: Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Disposal, October, 1989.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 22 SOLID WASTE
T~BLE 6-B-6
GLADES RQBD SI T13
CLASS III - BIIILD-ODT
Year Event Capacity Added Capacity
or Subtracted Remaining
(Cubic Yards) (Cubic Yards)
1, 013, 000 1, 013, 000
1990 Waste Received ( 57, 114 ) 955, 886
1991 Waste Received {57,572) 898,314
1992 Waste Received (56,739) 841,575
1993 Waste Received ( 55, 628 ) 785, 947
1994 Waste Received ( 54, 238 ) 731, 709
1995 Waste Received ( 56, 325 ) 675, 384
1996 Waste Received ( 58, 304 ) 617, 080
1997 Waste Received ( 60, 282 ) 556, 798
1998 Waste Received ( 62, 260 ) 494, 538
1999 Waste Received (64,239) 430,299
2000 Waste Received (61,803) 368,496
2001 Waste Received ( 63, 734 ) 304, 762
2002 Waste Received ( 65, 665 ) 239, 097
2003 Waste Received ( 67, 596 ) 171, 501
2004 Waste Received (69,527) 101,974
2005 Waste Received (71,458) 30,516
2006 Waste Received (30,516) 0
Notes: An unlined Class III cell for construction and demolition debris
from permitted construction sites is to be operational January,
1990 at the Glades Road Facility.
Source: Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Disposal, October, 1989
January 9, 1990 6- B- 23 SOLID WASTE
Landfill IIse Bgreements: Permits to operate garbage and trash
removal, collection, and disposal services are issued by the
County to the private solid waste collectors who serve the
unincorporated area of St. Lucie County. These permits do not
have termination dates. The permit requirements include proof of
a valid agreement with the County landfill, which is called a
landfill use agreement. These agreements are renewed annually
and give the permit holder a nonexclusive right to use the
landfill. The County also enters into landfill use agreements
with other agencies, Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie. One
provision of the agreement is for the posting of a bond so the
entity has a"charge account" with the County at the landfill.
Landfill Practices: Operating Hours: The landfill operates 7
days per week, 358 days per year, from 7 a. m. until 6 p. m. ,
Monday through Friday, 7 a. m. until 4 p. m. Saturdays, and 12 noon
until 4 p. m. c~~i Sundays. A review of waste quantities received
at the landfil~. site during the first six months of 1986 revealed
that an extreme~y small quantity of waste is received during the
Sunday operating period. During the six months review period, an
average of 13.7 tons of weighed material was received on Sunday,
with a maximu~ of 25. 7 tons and a minimum of 1. 6 tons. The
average amount received on Sunday was less than 0.6~ of that
received during the average seven-day week. Sunday operation of
the landfill iacility is not cost-effective, but it is a
convenience that may reduce littering or illegal dumping.
T~1ei.qhi-nq Opera~i.ons: Under the pres ent s chedul e of rates and
charges for disposal at the landfill, 100~ of the waste flow is
weighed. Disposal charges are paid on a tonnage basis except for
cars and pickup trucks on which flat rates are paid.
The Phase II landfill is used to dispose of: residential,
commercial and industrial solid waste; white goods; construction
debris; and some yard trash. Hazardous waste, infectious waste,
and junk cars are not accepted, but a special area is reserved
for asbestos disposal.
~orking Face Pra~ctice: Chapter 17-701 through 17-722 F. A. C. ,
requires that the unloading area at the landfill where waste is
discharged, spread, and compacted be maintained only wide enough
to reasonably accommodate vehicles. Excess working face area
serves to increase leachate generation, litter, and use of earth
cover. The number of vehicles to be accommodated determines the
actual size of the working face.
Litter Control: Litter control at landfills and approach roads
is highly desirable for aesthetic reasons and for maintenance of
a good neighbor policy. Chapter 17-701 through 17-722 F.A.C.,
provides that good litter control practices be included in
landfill operations and that devices such as litter control
fences be utilized.
~laste Type Security: Chapter 17-701 through 17-722, F. A. C. ,
prohibits the discharge of certain type wastes in sanitary
January 9, 1990 6- B- 24 SOLID WASTE
landfills. This includes hazardous waste or untreated infectious
waste. While agreements between the County, collectors and
municipalities prohibit the discharge of such waste at the County
landfill, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has
expressed concern that adequate security may not be provided in
order to mi.nimize the input of such prohibited waste flow into
the landfill. Infectious waste is disposed of by incineration at
hospitals or by private contract haulers for smaller facilities.
Leachate Containment: The Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation and St. Lucie County are working together to ensure
that all leachate generated from operation of the existing
landfill is being contained and collected by the leachate
collection system located below the waste mounds. Closure of
Phase I has reduced the generation of leachate in that phase.
Erosion Control: Exterior side slopes of the existing waste
mound suffer some erosion of earth cover, thereby exposing the
deposited waste. Repeated replacement of the cover has been
required in some locations. However, as the vegetative cover on
Phase I has become better established, erosion problems have
di mi ni s hed.
Trash and Yard Trash Disposal: Chapter 17.701 through 17.722,
F.A.C., provides for less stringent environmental control and
thereby less costly disposal of the trash and yard trash
component of the refuse stream as compared to the other
components. Trash and yard trash may be disposed of in a Class
III landfill, which is less costly than a Class I or a Class II
facility. The existing landfill site does include a Class III
facility.
Lan~d Clearing Debris Disposal: An agreement exists between the
County and a private party wherein the County has leased a five-
acre land parcel at the landfill site to the private party for
receiving and burning land clearing debris. Substantial
quantities of the debris have been received and burned on-site.
Septage Disposal: An agreement exists between the County and a
private party for the treatment and disposal of septage. The
County has leased 2 acres for the receiving and treatment (lime
stabilization) of septage collected within the County.
Visual Impact: Chapter 17. 701 through 17. 722, F. A. C. , provides
that landfills shall not be located in an area open to public
view from any major thoroughfare without proper screening where
it can practically be provided. The St. Lucie County landfill is
located immediately adjacent to and is visible from both the
Florida Turnpike and I-95, the two major limited access roadways
on the east coast of Florida. Screening is not adequate from I-
95, but would be difficult to achieve, given the elevation of I-
95 in that location.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 25 SOLID WASTE
Landfill Site Planning: Planned use of the existing 251-acre
landfill site provides for a total of 147 acres for use as waste
mound areas for both Class I and Class III waste material. Of
this amount, approximately 28 acres were included in Phase I, 29
acres in Phase II, leaving 194 acres for future use. Of this, 75
acres will be used for Phases III and IV and 15 acres will be
used for a Class III unlined cell. The remaining 104 acres are
to be used for ancillary purposes such as borrow areas, leachate
retention areas, preservation areas, buffer areas, and areas for
roads, structures and maintenance.
Proposed maximum landfill height is approximately 75 feet above
exi s ti ng grade.
Projected solid waste volumes are presented in Table 6-B-7,
beginning on page 6-B-27, based on high growth projections from
the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University
of Florida. Since the primary use of the landfill is municipal
solid waste (residential and commercial), waste stream
proj ections are based on population proj ections. The
projected amount for the year 2015 is .51 million tons with a
cumulative total from 1987 to 2015 of 10.5 million tons
using the high growth projection. This cumulative total takes
into consideration a waste reduction and recycling program as
required by the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act. The
County's Division of Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal has
determined that the current landfill site has a remaining
useful life through the year 2002 for Class I material and
through the year 2006 for Class III material.
Facility Replacement, Espansion, aad Hew Facility Sitinq
The remaining life of the existing landfill is the year 2002 for
Class I material and the year 2006 for the Class III material.
The County has begun searching for additional acreage. The
County advertised in papers of general circulation for a new
solid waste management facility site. The ad gave land owners
three months to respond. Only one valid offer was received.
This site appeared to be permittable, however, the owner withdrew
the site from consideration. Currently, a site has been
identified and preliminary negotiations are on-going for the
purchase of said site.
Hazardous and Infectious i~Tastes
Currently, there is no regular hazardous waste separation,
collection, and removal program in St. Lucie County. The Glades
Road Landfill does not permi.t hazardous waste to be disposed of
on site and there is no other central collection point for this
type of waste. Infectious waste as generated by hospitals, is
disposed of by incineration by the generator, or taken to an
approved disposal facility by a private hauler. Most recently
household and small quantity generator hazardous wastes were
collected and properly disposed of during Amnesty Days on June 9,
10, and 11, 1989.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 26 SOLID WASTE
TABI.E 6-B-7
QEaOITDCrED {~STE Z10AIl~LGE
1987 - 2015
ca ST. LUCIE CJO[~TL9t
W
~
~
A>
~ (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J)
K
NEtiV 88~ 88 e 12$ 12~ 88~ 12%
AI~iUAL RDCY. ArII~UAL ADII~I]AL AHI~OAL QASS I AAIlVIIAL QASS III CGA.SS I QA.SS III
t~1S'I'E RID. ADJIISTm ViOI.CIdE CY Wi'iH CY WITH CCkI. (.'IIN.
~ YEAEt POP[JIATION 110I~IIQAiGE $ 1~OAII~AGE ( CY ) QAS.S I (7Df7FR QA.SS I I I ~VER ( CY ) ( CY )
~
O
1987 128,415 205,531 0 205,531 411,063 411.063 493,275
1988 135,715 217,Z15 0 217,215 434,431 434,431 521,317 260,658
1989 143,134 229,090 2 224,508 449,016 449,016 538,819 799,477
1990 151,700 242,800 6 228,232 456,463 401,688 482,025 54,776 57,514 1,281,502 54,776
1991 158,600 253,843 10 228,459 456,918 402,088 482,505 54,830 57,572 1,764,007 112,347
1992 165,500 264,887 15 225,154 450,308 396,271 475,525 54,037 56,739 2,239,532 169,086
1993 172,400 275,931 20 220,744 441,489 388,510 466,212 52,979 55,628 2,705,745 224,714
1994 179,300 286,974 25 215,231 430,461 378,806 454,567 51,655 54,238 3,160,312 278,952
1995 186,200 298,018 25 223,513 447,027 393,383 472,060 53,648 56,325 3,632,372 335,277
°1 1996 192,740 308,485 25 231,364 462,728 407,200 488,641 55,527 58,304 4,121,012 393,581
~ 1997 199,280 318,953 25 239,214 478,429 421,01? 505,221 57,411 60,282 4,626,233 453,863
~ 1998 205,820 329,420 25 247,065 494,130 434,834 521,801 59,296 62,260 5,148,035 516,123
1999 212,360 339,887 25 254,916 509,831 448,651 538,382 61,180 64,239 5,686,416 580,362
~ 2000 218,900 350,355 30 245,248 490,497 431,637 517,965 58,860 61,803 6,204,381 642,165
~v 2001 225,740 361,303 30 252,912 505,824 445,125 534,150 60,699 63,734 6,738,531 705,898
~ 2002 232,580 372,250 30 260,575 521,150 458,612 550,335 62,538 65,665 ~,2a8,865 771,563
2003 239,420 383,198 30 268,238 536,477 472,100 566,519 64,377 67,596 7,855,385 839,159
2004 246,2G0 394,145 30 275,902 551,803 485,587 582,704 66,216 69,527 8,438,089 908,687
2005 253,100 405,093 30 283,565 567,130 499,074 598,889 68,056 71,458 9,036,978 980,145
2006 265,500 424,939 30 297,458 594,915 523,525 628,230 71,390 74,959 9,665,209 1,055,104
2007 267,900 428,781 30 300,146 600,293 528,258 633,909 72,035 75,637 10,299,118 1,130,741
20~8 275,300 440,625 30 308,437 616,874 542,849 651,419 74,025 77,726 10,950,537 1,208,467
2009 282,700 452,468 30 316,728 633,456 557,441 668,929 76,015 79,815 11,619,467 1,288,283
2010 291,100 465,913 30 326,139 652,278 574,005 688,806 78,273 82,187 12,308,272 1,370,470
2011 295,810 473,451 30 331,416 662,832 583,292 699,950 79,540 83,517 13,008,223 1,453,987
2012 301,520 482,590 30 337,813 675,626 594,551 713,461 81,075 85,129 13,721,684 1,539,115
~ 2013 307,230 491,729 30 344,211 686,421 605,810 726,973 82,611 86,741 14,448,657 1,625,857
p 2014 312,940 500,868 30 350,608 701,216 617,070 740,484 84,146 88,353 15,189,140 1,714,210
H 2O15 318,650 510,007 30 357,005 714,010 628,329 753,995 85,681 89,965 15,943,135 1,804,175
d
10,508,749 7,817,547 15,635,094 13,914,224 16,697,069 1,720,870 1,806,914 15,943,135 1,804,175
~
~
H
~
ti
~ TABLE 6-B-7 continued
~ PROJECTED 4~1STE 7~ONNAGE
~ 1987 - 2015
K ST. LUCIE 00Ul~TTY
k
~O
t-+ '
~ (A) Population: University of Elorida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, and the St. Lucie County Department of
~p Comr~unity Develo~xnent
~ (B) Annual Tonnage: Based on St. Lucie County Division of Solid Waste historical data of 8.77 lbs. per capita day
(C) Recycling Red~tion Percentage: As projected by the St. Lucie County Division of Solid Waste
(D) Annual Volimie (cubic yards): Based on St. Lucie County Division of Solid Waste cc~mpaction rate of 1,000 lbs. per cubic yard
(E) Annual Class I(cubic yards): Based on St. Lucie County Division of Solid Waste historical data of 88% of annual volume
beginning 1990
(F) Annual Class I(cubic yardsl with cover: Based on St. Iucie County Division of Solid Waste historical data of 1.2 times
annual Class I volimie
(G) Annual Class III (cubic yards): Based on St. Lucie County Division of Solid Waste historical data of 120 of annual volume
beginning in 1990
~ (H) Annual Class III (cubic yards) with cover: Based on St. Lucie County Division of Solid Waste historical data of 1.05 times
annual Class III voliune beginning 1990
~ (I) Class I Glmualative beqinning at start of Phase II in July, 1988
~ (J) Class III (.`~miulative beginning in June 1990 when separate Class III unlined cell operational
~ Source: St. Lucie County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Disposal, October, 1989
N
OD
~
~
r
H
C7
~
~
H
t~1
N$EDS ASSESSMENT
The most immediate need is to develop a solid waste recycling
program and have it operational by July 1, 1989, to comply with
the 1988 Florida Solid Waste Management Act. The options are
summarized in Appendix A, Part IV B found on page 6-B-44. Use
of the air curtain incinerator presently provides some volume
reduction of yard trash and demolition materials.
Documentation of the volume and types of waste tires was in
progress prior to December, 1988. Two facilities have been
recycling tires from St. Lucie County. The facility in St. Lucie
County produces trawler net drags for commercial fishing boats.
The facility at Indiantown in Martin County reclaims base
chemical materials through pyrolysis of tires.
An additional landfill site will be needed. However, the
thirty percent volume reduction required by 1995 will
affect the projected and actual solid waste volumes to be
landfilled. Grant monies from FDER will be needed to fund
new sQlid waste management plans and the availability of
these funds is an essential part of implementing solid waste
management plans. An outline of financial assistance prepared
by FDER is presented in Appendix B, beginning on page 6-B-52.
The status of the applicable FDER grants is as follows:
Recycling and Education
awarded $208,000 for the first year
pending $276,000 for the second year
Waste tire
pending
Used Oil
awarded $21, 850
Household Hazardous Waste
pending $100, 000
The following recommendations are extracted from the Solid Waste
Management Pian. (Barker, Osha and Anderson, 1986)
Recosmendati.ons for Aaste Flow Control
Control of solid waste flow from generation points to the
disposal facility is an essential part of effective solid waste
management. Implementation of control includes a three step
process which involves: (1) enhanced assurance that the refuse
will move from the generators into collection vehicles; (2)
enhanced assurance that the collection vehicles will discharge
the refuse at the designated receiving facility; and (3) enhanced
assurance that the owner/operator of the refuse receiving
facility will receive timely payment for processing and disposal
January 9, 1990 6- B- 29 SOLID WASTE
of the refuse. Long-term waste flow control is also essential
for long-term revenue bond financing, or other types of financing
except general obligation bonds. It is projected that major
solid waste financing will be required by St. Lucie County
whether the existing conventional landfill disposal practice is
continued, modified volume reduction and landfill disposal
practice is implemented, or resource recovery facilities are
provided. It is recommended that St. Lucie County initiate
implementation of an effective long term waste flow control
program which may include long-term interlocal agreements,
adoption of local ordinances including mandatory collection and
disposal, franchised collection service, County rate control, and
appropriate enabling legislation, or a combination of these. The
St. Lucie County Solid Waste Advisory Committee presentation at
the September 17, 1987, meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners recommended mandatory solid waste collection, that
property owners pay their fair pro-rata share of landfill
operation costs and that a separate charge be made for
transportation to the landfill. These recommendations have been
drafted into an ordinance that will be presented to the St. Lucie
County Commission.
Interlocal ~qreeaents: The Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act
provides power for the County and other political entities to
enter into agreements for various mutually beneficial purposes.
Where such agreements which impact on long term financing are
entered into, long term agreements may be required.
Local Ordinances: Local ordinances may be adopted by a political
body or bodies which will assist and enhance waste flow control
and for payment of the cost of solid waste management facilities.
Mandatory collection and disposal ordinances adopted by the
County may be a highly effective means to improve long-term waste
flow control. Under these ordinances all properties within the
County may be required to use County solid waste facilities
except those granted special exemption by the County. Rather
than using a gate charge for revenue generation, special
assessments levied on non-exempt properties may be used. Palm
Beach County and Brevard County, as well as other Florida
counties, have a mandatory collection ordinance and use an annual
assessment to support revenue generation.
Franchised Collection Services: A political body may award
franchises to privately owned waste collection services to
collect, transport, and dispose of refuse from a specifically
designated service area. Under this procedure, the County would
be divided into one or more districts and competitive bids
received to provide the collection and transport service within
each district. Typically, the franchise time period would
correspond with that time required for the collector to
reasonably amortize his equipment purchase. Where exclusive
franchises are awarded, rate regulation by the political body is
essential in order to protect the public interest.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 30 SOLID WASTE
Special Enabling Legislation: Counties may eeek to acquire
special enabling legislation from the Florida Legislature which
will provide power not available under the general grant of power
given by the state to counties. Such special power may relate to
financing matters, political body composition, use of facilities,
waste collection regulation, and other matters of interest to
local authorities.
Recommendations for Landfill Operations
The 1986 Solid Waste Management Plan identified a number of
needed improvements specific to landfill operations. These are
summarized below.
Operatinq Hours: It was recommended that the County continue
with Sunday operation of the County landfill until mandatory
solid waste collection ordinances are in place.
Fleighiag Operations: It was recommended that the County weigh
all refuse incoming to the landfill in order that the most
accurate waste generation quantities and rates may be determined.
This is now being done.
~orking Face Practice: It was recommended that the County review
working face practice at the landfill with a view toward
maintaining the face only wide enough to accommodate vehicle
traffic. This is now being done.
Litte= Control: It was recommended that the County review
present litter control practice with a view toward improved
litter reduction at the landfill and access roads.
i~Taste Type Security: It was recommended that the County review
present practice with regard to disposal of prohibited waste. It
is recognized, however, that total control of unauthorized waste
flow is difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish under normal
operating conditions. Nevertheless, Chapter 17-701 through 17-
722, F.A.C., requires that best security practices be followed.
Leachate Treatment and Disposal: It was recommended that the
County review existing leachate retention facilities with a view
toward maintaining treatment and effluent quality that meets all
applicable water quality standards of the receiving waterbody.
Recycling treated leachate by using it as an irrigation source
for the Phase I and Phase II cover should be considered. This is
now bei ng done.
$rosion Control: Stabilization of the existing waste mound side
slope was recommended in order to reduce erosion of the earth
cover. Such stabilization may include reshaping the exterior,
grassing and installation of improved storm drainage facilities.
This has been done.
Trash and Yard Tra.sh Disposal: Present operating practice is to
dispose of Class III refuse in the new Class III refuse (garbage)
January 9, 1990 6- B- 31 SOLID WASTE
waste mound. This practice should be continued in conjunction
with the air-curtain incinerator. This has been done.
Land Clearing Debris Disposal: The existing agreement between
the County and the private party operating the leased on-site
land clearing disposal facility stipulates that an approved
burning device was to be installed by the private party to
incinerate the debris. This is an effective volume reduction
method and it should be continued. The burning device has been
installed and is operational.
Visual Impact: It was recommended that the County develop an
appropriate landscape plan for implementation which will serve to
reduce the visual impact of existing and future landfill
operations from adjacent properties and roadways. This has been
addres s ed.
~ Landfill Site Planning: It was to be recognized that active use
. of a land parcel as a sani.tary landfill is of an interim or
; temporary nature, and that following site closing, the land may
be used for other purposes. Therefore, prior to development of a
landfill site developed on the basis of pre-determined future use
plans, the location, size and shape of borrow pits, waste mounds,
preservation areas, and related facilities should be established
to best accommodate future land use. This is currently being
addres s ed.
Should St. Lucie County implement a thermal volume reduction
program and continue existing conventional landfill practices for
disposal of incinerator by-pass refuse and ash, it is anticipated
that the existing 251-acre site will also not be adequate for a
25-year landfill site life and for construction of the resource
recovery facility.
It is recommended that St. Lucie County determine the proposed
course of action for refuse disposal most appropriate for the
. County and proceed to acquire the required additional acreage
wi thout del ay ( Barker, Os ha, and Anders on, I nc. , 19 8 6).
. In addition, the following items need to be addressed:
1. The Solid Waste Management Plan needs to be updated to
include the requirements of the Florida 1988 Solid Waste
Management and Volume Reduction Act. This will be done
during fiscal year 1989. This will include the recycling
and volume reduction programs needed to achieve the thirty
percent reduction in solid waste by December 31, 1994. This
has been addressed in the plan prepared by Camp, Dresser,
and McICee, 1989.
. 2. Funding for the many programs in the Solid Waste Management
, plan will need to be evaluated. Grant money, tipping fees,
payment for recycled materials, and franchise fees are
viable funding sources, but they must be quantified.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 32 SOLID WASTE
3. Applications for grant monies should be made as soon as the
forms are available.
4. Development of a public education program for recycling and
volume reduction will need to be coordinated with the St.
, Lucie County School Board and the municipalities.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 33 SOLID WASTE
. GOALS, OBJ]3CTI VES, AND POLI CI ES
GOAL 6B. 1: PROVI DE THR 1rIOST COST-SFFECTI VS SOLI D WASTS
MAN~GEIKENT, TRANSPORT~TI ON ~IiiD DI SPOSAL
FACI LI TI ES FOR ST. LIICI g COIIN7.'Y_
OBJgCTIVS 6B_ 1. 1: By the year 1990 the Cowaty will have updated
the Solid Waste 1Kanagement Plan for St. Lucie
County with data avai.lable in the
Comprehensive Land IIse Plans for other local
governments and the County.
Policy 6B. 1. 1. 1: Establish the following standards for level
• of service for the County's solid waste
facilities:
A. 8.77 pounds of solid waste per capita
County-wide per day at the landfill;
B. Two years of landfill lined cell
- disposal capacity at present fill rates;
C. Eight years of landfill raw land
capacity at present fill rates.
Policy 6B. 1. 1.2: Establish interlocal agreements between the
County and all municipalities within the
County to establish waste flows.
Policy 6B. 1. 1.3: By 1990 the County will determine the
feasibility of establishing mandatory solid
waste collection, and if feasible, by 1991
establish and implement an ordinance to this
e nd.
Policy 6B. 1. 1.4: Establish methodology to determine the
composition and percentage of all solid
wastes to be disposed of in the County.
OBJSCTI~S 6B. 1.2: By the year 1990, the County will have
established the probable useful life of the
Glades Road Landfill and the variable factors
that will affect that useful life_
Policy 6B. 1.2. 1: Implement the most cost effective
alternative solid waste management practices
that would extend the useful life of the
landfill. These alternatives include, but
are not limited to: resourae recovery,
volume reductions by solid waste generators,
volume reduction at transfer stations,
January 9, 1990 6- B- 34 SOLID WASTE
separation of solid wastes at the source,
composting recycling centers, public
information programs, and operational changes
which could improve efficiency.
OBJECTIVS 6B. 1.3: By the year 1995 the County wi.ll have
established the feasibility of providing a
facility to utilize resource recovery.
Policy 6B. 1. 3. 1: Inventory the different types of solid waste
to determine the volumes of combustibles and
recoverables and their relative value for
being recycled to new products or converted
to energy.
Policy 6B. 1.3.2: Determine the feasibility and cost
effectiveness of the construction of a
Thermal Volume Reduction Plant for Co-
Generation of electric power, individually
via Municipal Revenue Bonds or as a joint
venture with private industry participation.
OB.7$CTIVS 6B. 1. 4: By 1993, determine the amount of landfill
neetls for the Cowaty by the year 2015_
Policy 6B. 1.4. 1: Evaluate the costs of resource recovery,
extended landfilling, and the combination of
other alternatives to establish a 25 year
horizon need.
Obj ective 6B. 1. 5: By 1994 pursue iatergovernmental agreements
to establish a multi-county centrally located
waste to energy plant.
Policy 6B.1.5.1: The County shall participate with other
appropriate governmental agencies in fair
share funding of a regional resource recovery
feasibility study. Such a study would
evaluate potential economies of scale and
include draft interlocal agreements for
implementation, if determined feasible.
OBJECTIVE 6B.1.6: By 1993, additional acreage shall be
acquired for the ezpansion of the landfill_
Pol i cy 6 B. 1. 6. 1: By 19 9 3, approval s s hal l be obtai ned f rom al l
regulating agencies for the expansion of the
landfill site.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 35 SOLID WASTE
GOAL 6B. 2: PROVI DE FOR THE RBDIICTI ON OF THR SULI D W.~STS
S`~Ra?~ BY THIRTY PERCENT ( 30$ ) BY VOLQME BY
DECEMBER 31, 1994.
OBJ$CTIVE 6B_ 2_ 1: The amount of solid waste requiring ultimate
disposal at a landfill or resource recovery
facility in the County will be reduced by 30~
by 1995.
Policy 6B. 2. 1. 1: Through the development of educational and
operational programs, actively encourage the
removal of recyclables from the solid waste
streams in the County to the maximum extent
practicable.
Policy 6B. 2. 1. 2: Develop and implement incentive programs at
the landfill by 1990 for the removal of
recyclable materials by both individuals and
corporati ons .
Policy 6B.2. 1.3: Establish convenient collection areas or
collection agencies for the entire County for
the separated recyclables.
Policy 6B.2. 1.4: By 1990, apply for FDER grant assistance
which they have available for the following
programs: recycling and education; home
owner used oil collection; waste tire
processing; and home owner and small quantity
generator hazardous waste storage.
OBJRCTI4E 6B.2.2: Increase reduction of waste stream as
technologies allow it to happen.
Policy 6B.2.2. 1: Establish the feasibility of designing
composting or shredding facilities to meet
FDER standards by 1995 and encourage private
industry to construct and operate the
facility.
Policy 6B.2.2.2: If a composting or shredding facility is
established, the County shall use composted
or shredded material whenever practicable.
Design County landscape nurseries,
landscaping and road shoulder mulching around
the use of County-provided compost or
shredded yard trash.
Policy 6B. 2. 2. 3: Offer shredded yard trash or compost to the
municipalities in the County if sufficient
quantities are available.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 36 SOLID WASTE
Policy 6B.2.2.4: If a composting or shredding facility is
established, determine the cost effectiveness
of marketing the shredded or composting
material.
GOAL 6B_ 3. : DEVELOP AND IMPLEI~NT ~ HAZARDOIIS ~TA~STS
~GEPIBNT PL~iN FOR THE COD'N`i'Y.
OBJECTIVS 6B. 3_ 1: By the year 1995, the County will have
designated a site and a hazardous waste
storage/transfer facility will be constructed
for use by public emergency manaqement
aqencies, the household qenerator and small
quantity qenerators.
Policy 6B. 3. 1. 1: Site suitability and selection shall be done
in conjunction with FDER and will consider
safeguards to both health and environmental
impact.
Policy 6B. 3. 1. 2: Incorporate data presented in the St. Lucie
. County Planning Department's County
Government Hazardous Waste Management
Assessment for St. Lucie County, 1986, data
from septage analyses, FDER permit records,
and/or other empirical data to establish the
volumes and types of hazardous waste
generated in the County.
Policy 6B.3.1.3: Continue the current FDER mandated Hazardous
Waste Verification program which is a joint
proj ect of the County' s Public Health
Unit/Environmental Health Section and the
Department of Community Development and
assess its validity.
Policy 6B.3. 1.4: Determine the feasibility and cost
effectiveness of funding the Hazardous Waste
Verification Program by an Occupational
License Hazardous Waste Verification
Assessment Fee.
Policy 6B.3. 1. 5: Determine the feasibility and cost
effectiveness of a County-wide cooperative
education program focusing on informing the
public about household hazardous waste,
proper disposal methods and less
environmentally harmful substitutes for these
products. This could be done in conj unction
with Amnesty Day awareness notification.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 37 SOLID WASTE
Policy 6B. 3. 1. 6: Consider and explore alternate funding
sources for the construction/operation of a
hazardous waste storage/transfer facility
including the use of a state-certified
hazardous waste contractor.
OBJRCTIVE 6B.3.2: By the year 1991, the County will have
developed and implemented the methodologies
to egclude hazardous waste from the Glades
Road Landfill.
Policy 6B. 3.2. 1: Use an inspection or screening system to
exclude obviously suspect items from the
landfill. Drums, tanks from unknown sources,
waste pesticides, or chemicals and residues
from spill clean-ups are a few of the
normally suspect items.
Policy 6B.3.2.2: Continue regularly scheduled "Amnesty Days"
collection programs for household hazardous
wastes that may include other public or
private small quantity generators.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 38 SOLID WASTE
BI BLI OGRAPHY
1. Barker, Osha and Anderson, Inc. ; Solid Waste Management Plan
for St. Lucie County, Florida; 1986.
2. Camp, Dresser & McKee; Build-Out Plan for Glades Road
Sanitarv Landfill. St. Lucie County Florida• July 21, 1989.
3. Florida Department of Community Affairs; Model Element for
~anitary Sewer Solid Waste Drainaqe Potable Water and
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element; May, 1987.
4. St. Lucie County Department of Community Development; County
~overnment Hazardous Waste Assessment for St Lucie County;
1986.
5. State of Florida; Florida Solid Waste Management and Volume
Reduction Act, June, 1988.
6. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of St. Lucie
County Area, Florida; National Cooperative Soil Survey;
March, 1980.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 39 SOLID WASTE
~PPENDI% A
SD1~II~RY OF 1988 SOLID
W~STE M~GEMENT ACT:
TH$ ROLE OF CODNTI$S ~ND CITIES
Florida ~ssociation of Counties
January 9, 1990 6- B- 40 SOLID WASTE
THE LOCAL SOI~Ill ~SiE MArFY,~r PIAN:
~ERDLEOF~~~pQfi~
bY
Glenn L. Ray
Iegislative Coo~inator
Florida .~ssociation of ~ties
Presented to the
Florida As~~ociation of Cbunties~
C'~ooci GavennnPnt Series Workshop
SOI.ID T~SI~ .
~ ~ and I~l~zting
the 1988 Solid Wast.e Manaqem~nt A~t
Septe~nber' 7-8, 1988
Ha~our Island Hotel
H~7lsboro~ o~.mty, Florida
~ outline is int':er~ded to present an avezview of the most iu~ortarit
re~g~i ~ments of the 1988 Solid Waste Act as the~, pe~~ ~ l~l
goverrmients. Zbpics are organized in the same sequet'~oe er~.uZtered in the
copy of the law (criapter 88-130) which is inclur3ed in your note~k_
Referen~s within the cutline are to the s-~ecific I~age(S) arr3 section(s) of
Chapt,er 88-130 being s~anarized. "For more informatian:" refers to other
autlines (bY spe~r) in Your notebook where the tc~pic is either disc~ssed
in more detail or f~tr~ a different gerspect.ive.
I would li.k,e to acJax7wledge the staffs of the Senate Natural Res~uz~ ~
Conservation Cc~unitt~, the Ha.LSe Natural R~saut~s Ck~mitt'.ee and the
Florida Advisory Co~mcil on IntergavezTUr~~tal Affairs who have previo~sly
su¢~m~rized the law.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 41 SOLID WASTE
2
I. LDGISIATZVE FII~IDINGS AND INI'~Nr (pQ- 5-8, s. 403.702)
For mor~ inforn~ation: Wilkins, Swil~art
A. Firr3ings.
l. Solid ~ manageirn~t has beoca~ a problem statewide in
scope and necessitates state assistanoe to local gwesrm~nts.
2_ riaxinn~n r~scxzroe r~ecavery, rec-Ycling and reuse must be
considered priority goals of the state.
B. Intent.
1. Manage solid wast:~ in the a~t cast-effective and
envirornnentally safe manner.
2. Require ootuities and cities to plan and provide efficient
solid waste services and r+equiz~e c~u~ties to plan for
hazardau.s waste manage~~t.
3. Require t review for the constiuction and closur~ of
facilities, in addition to c~erational pezmits.
4. Prmnote reduction, in addition to recycling and reuse of
wast.~.
5. Pi~amote the traini.ng of solid waste professionals.
6. ~7~courage waste reductio~/rec.ycli.ng through technical
assistance, grants and other ince~tives_
7. R~uii~e axu~ties (not cities) to i~lem~zt rec.ycling
P~~-
8. Require counties and cities to de~ne the full cost of
providiux~ solid wast.e management sezvices.
9. Dncaurage gave.rrm~ental entities to contsact with the private
sect~or if cost-effectzve. No mandatozy pri~ratization.
II. DER L7U~~SS~~I R~QG~I~1II~fI5 ON QO[JNI'~S (pp. 13-17, s. 403.704 &
403.7043)
For more information: Swihart, Keith
A. Require a Class II landfill to have at least one monitoring well.
B. Cc~xist prodt~oed by a ccxuity or city u.*~der a contract effective
prior to l0/1/88 neeci nc7t meet new DER ~t standards for 10
years.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 42 SOLID WASTE
3
C. A local gwernlms?t which has a written agr~ml~t to build a
o~t facility as of 10/1/88 shall be alla,~ci to piroa._,cd.
III. FtTLL 006T AC~UNI'ING (pp. 19-20, s. 403.7049)
For more information: Swihart, Neron, Nabors
A. By 10/1/89 or within 1 year after DII2 pr~carnLlgates a rule, each
local gwe.nrm~ent trnLSt determine the full oost of 4raste management
within its sesvice area (not jurisdiction) , ar~d shall annually
~c3ate the co~t. Local goveirm~ents ar~e not requir~ed to c~perate
on an enterprise fimd basis.
B. By 10/1/89 , Within their service area.s, cities and oa.uities mvst
inform, at least anrn~ally, each user of his share of the full
cost inc~irred.
C. Cities and caunties may not requiz~e a private contractor to mak~
these calculations or pravide the information to the public
unless the franchi..~ee agr+~.
D. In addition to any other fees allawed or requii.~ed by law, a
coiuzty or city may levy fees for:
1. Solid waste di.sposal, which may be ba.sed on any relevant
factor. ~
2. Developing and i~lesnenting a rec.ycli.ng program for which
the non-ad valorem process of Chp. 197 may be tised.
E. A local gaverrnnent may provide grants, loans or other inc~ntives
to aid lcxa-ir~ne pezsons.
IV. L1~CAL GOVERI~A'gNr SOLID i~SI'E RESRk~SIBn7'T'~=S (pp. 22-27, s_ 403.706)
Without question this is the most i~ortant section of the law frcen
the perspec-tive of local goverrm~nt ooor3ination. It shauld be be
carefvlly read in its entirety for a fuli urr3.
A. Flaw control/operation of facilities.
1. Counties have the r~sponsibiiity to provide di.s~.~o6a1
facilities for use by both oounty and city residents.
2_ Pznhibition against city~xaned facilities. Unless a~Qroved
by interlocat agr~nt or special act, cities may not
aperate disposal facilities unless the city proves by a
pr~ondeiance of the evidenoe that use of the co~.uzty's
facility plaoes a significantly higher and disQroportionate
fin~~cial tx~cden on the city residents ~az~ed to a11 ather
resid~ts within the cotuZty and outside of the city, exc~t:
January 9, 1990 6- B- 43 SOLID WASTE
4
a_ Faciliti~ ~~mi.tted on or prior to 10/1/£38, or
b_ Rcsource z~avery arx~ related onsite facilities, if the
city can demonstrate by a pm~orr~eranoe of the evidence
that operation of s~xc~~ faciiity will rx~t significantly
in~air financial o~n.itments made by the axulty or
result in siqnificantly hi~er costs to the re~~aininq
per,sons within the ax.mty not served by the city's
facility. If the city subsequently abarxions their
facility, they sha_ll be r~-ponsible for the payment of
any c~ital e~ansion neeessazy to a~~~oc3ate their
c,rast.e stream at the ~cty`s facility.
3. Flow oontrol acrass caunty bamdaries . Purs~.3artt to thi.s
section and notwithstandirx~ any other section of this
chapter (chp. 403, F.S.), Caunties shall have the authority
to adopt ordinanoes r«~ulatir~g disposal at caunty facilities
of ~ generated outside of the c~inty.
4_ City c~ollection and transportation res-ponsibility. Cities
are required to collect solid wa~~-te within theis
j urisdictions and trarL~ort such waste to the d is-Fx~sal
facility designated by the oaunty.
5. Oounty disposal fees. Cbunties may c~~an~e re.asonable
dis~xisal fees for the prnoessing of wastJe but the fees
c~x~ea to cities shall 'riot be greates- than tne fees c~zazgea
to other users of the facility exc~t as provided in s.
403.7049(4}, the full cost acoounting section of the act,
which allows axuYties to cha~e fees b~.~sed on relevant
factors associated with wa~~ manageme~it. Fee.s collect.ed
axuztywide must be ~sed to fzu~d servicas ccx.uztywide.
B. Recycli.r~g r~,~-ponsibilities.
1. Each cauntY must initiate a reeYclirx~ pr+oqram bY Julv 1,
1989 ('IY~at's less than 10 months frcan the date of this
w~rksYiap) Cbunties ar~d cities are enoouraged to fonn
co~perative prngratns but cities are not reciui~d to
directlY set~ rec-Y~li.r~g Prog~a~ns -
2. Marxiatory recycliryg.
a. ~nstructiori and de~lition debris aaist be
disposed at a segarate permitt,ed location, i_e.,
it caruiot be disposed within the lined portion of
a larxifill _
b_ At a miniurnun, a ma~oritv of i-?ew5-pat~s, altnnirnun
cans, glass and plastic bottles must be segarated
arid offered for L~ecycli.ng_
January 9, 1990 6- B- 44 SOLID WASTE
5
3. Optional re~.-ycling. LACal gwerr~nts ar~e enoauraged to
se~aYate all plastics, tr~etal, and all grades of paper
for Y-ecycling, arri to r~cycle yard traslz ar~d other
a~table material into ocx~ost_
4. ~ty authority. Counties shal.l ensure, to the maxirmm,
ext~nt po~sible, that cities garticipate in the desi~
and ia~l~ztation of rec,~ycling and waste management
Prngiams throug~i interloca_t agre~n~its or other means
provided by law_ (7amties do not have the authority to
interfere in the city's internal collection syste~.
5. Recvclirxt Goals. ~e c~inty's waste r+eduction/recycliux~
plan must be designed to adzieve a 30~ r~~ction bv
12 j31/94 of the amoiuit dis-~Sed at either the larxifill
or iricir~erator. Zhe amault of reduction is determined
in the follawir~g mann~s:
a. The percP~tage rechiction is calculated relative to
the amaunt of total w~ste that wcx.Lid have been
disposed if no reductior~/recyclir~g progiams w~
in place. In effect, thi,s alla~rs for either
gmwth in the per capita rate of wast.e genexation
or an autric~t increa~~e in pc~ulation. Zhe
reqtiired reduction is relative to the cx~rrent
total municigal solid wast~ stre,am.
(1) ~le: Year = 1995, Total amcxmt of
M5W/year = 100,000 tons, r+equired reduction
= 300, In order to r+each goal, 30,000 tons
of waste m~LSt be reduced/r~cycled.
(2} bcang~le: Year = 2000, tc~t.al am~ult of
MSF7/year = 150, 000 torLS, r~gui~t~ed reduction
= 300, 45,000 tons of waste mu_~t be
redu~rec,-ycled.
b. Partial ir~ligibility of cP~tain rec,yclables. In
the a}~vve calculation of the r~.tiz~ed reduction
gaal. no a~re than one half of the tat.al (15~) may
be attributed to: yard tzash, white goods,
cor~truction and de~nolition debris, arxi tires.
For e~n~le, you can ocxuit all of yaur segt~egated
yat-3 tra~sh taward yaur rec~uction goal as long as
it doesn't exoeQd 15% of yaur total M5W w~ste
stream. But if yau did, none of yaur white goods,
construction and d~nolition debris, or tit~es could
be caunted toward the goal_
January 9, 1990 6- B- 45 SOLID WASTE
6
c_ Zbtally i nel ig ible ~raste cca~g~onents _ Zhe law' s
defiuution of "nn.uiicipal solid c,raste" specifically
Pxcludes: sludge and wast,e frcan industrial,
miniux~, ar~d agricu:ltural aperations. Any rec.ycled
material frcgn these sauroes w~uld nat apply to the
recycling goal.
C. DII2 di_SC..-retion. DF~2 may r~ice or modify b~t not Fraive, a
county's re~duction goal if it determines that:
1_ Achieve~~t of the goal w~a~ld adversely iag~ir a
financial abligation relat.ed to a ocxuzty cx~meci or
c~iated Graste-to-enex~y plant, aryd
2. Zhe ~LStible material to be remaved is needed to
maintain a sufficient amaint of fuel for the plant.
D_ Reporti~ requir~_nts to DER. BeAinninct with 10/1/89, each
ayuntv must ret~ort annuallv to DER, the pmgres.s made toc,rat~i
the re~.ycling goal. Zhis re}~ort mu..~t iriclude:
1. 'Ihe ca~zty's public education program on rec.yclir~g.
2. Zhe amounts of wast~ di.s-~~sed by the follawir~g ty~es:
yard tra_sh, white goods, clean debris, tires, ar~d all
o~her.
3. Amount and type of materials z~ec~avex~xi for rec.ycling.
4. Percentage of pc~ulation participating in progzam.
5. Zhe percent reduction ac~ieved.
6. Description of the rec.ycling activities atte~ted, their
succes.s rates, reasons for suocess or failure, and
evaluation of activities that are ongoirx~ and mos-t
successful_
7. For the first r+e~~ort (10/1/89 any recycl ing progzams
alreadY in Pro~ress-
E. axuities arxi cities may contract with ather persoizs to perform
these r+aqui~nts _
F. Rights of exi ,~-ting frandzi_sees_ For cu~side oollection
P~~, the local gwerrm~~t uaLSt enter into negotiations
with the fr~n~hisee_ If within 60 days no agree~nent has beQn
reached, the lo~al gaverrm~~t may solicit offers frcan ather
venclors for the curbside collection of segaiated recyclable
materials.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 46 SOLID WASTE
~
G. Privatization of s~~vices. Local gavei-rumnts are ~raged
to utilize ex.isting profit and rx~n-profit organizations to
mc~t the rec.yclir~g goal.s. No maix~atory privatization.
H. Joint co~~ty/city re~ycling programs. For a county and city
to jointly develop a rec.ycliux~ progr-am, they nn~st have a
written agr~~t. If a city choo6es nat to pazticipate (ar~d
the law does rwt require thc~i to) , thP~ the ccxuzty may r+equire
information on any r~ec,ycling efforts by the city.
I. Ucxuzty i~ortir~g to cities. ~x.inties mus-t provide written
notice to all cities when rec.ycling program developm~~t begl R~
ar~d per'iodic written Pra~.~ess r~eports.
J. Stricter local ts. C'Ynmties and cities may adapt
stricter rec.ycling r~egulations than reguired by the state.
K. Appar~lt GLITI'C~i with r~ect to flaw oontLrol and r~ional
authorities_ Subsection (15) of s. 403.706 (p. 26) contains
slightly modified old laix~uage and it a~peaxs to contradict
the new flow contirol larx.3uage in S~bsection (1). It states
that no city or county may be ~11ed to participate in any
regional authority 1mless approved by the local goverrnn~~t,
and that cities may use any permitted dis~osal facility.
L. Mar~datory scales at dispasal facilities. By 7/1/89, all
op~rators of dis~al facilities with a life e~~~cy
grnater than one year, must install scales ar~d weigh all
Wast.e as received. Zhe scale ~St meet ~apter 531, F.S.,
requirements .
M. F~cisting r~rce ~vezy plans. Counties •~ired to sukxnit
a r~rce recavery program st~all revise its plan to bring it
into oa~lianoe with this new act.
N. Re.s-ponsibility of other entities with waste manag~ent
res~nsibilities. If a s-pecial district or other entity has
previvusly been dele~gated Fra.ste managa~zt re5-ponsibilities,
then the ts of this section shall apply to such
entity. Likewise, the entity is eligible for any grants
pn~vided by the act.
o_ P~alties. Any local gaverrm~ent which does riot cce~ly with
the of the recycling program and wa.ste reduction
goals shall not be eliQi.ble for c~rants frtixn the Solid Wast-~e
Management TnLSt Ftmd, ar~d DF~t may rec~iest the Stat,e ZYe.~surex
to withhold fiux9s gayable to the local gove~~t by DII2 frc~
the General Revernie FZmd unless such furxis have beP~ pledged
for bonds_ In order to avoid the ~~tty, the local Quve~nt
mu.st de~nonstrate qood faith efforts toc,rard acc~u~lishir~ the
requir~~ts or that the monev is beirxt used to correc.t a
nnzl.tijurisdictional pollution pnx~ram
January 9, 1990 6- B- 47 SOLID WASTE
8
V_ OF F'f~IXJCIS WI'IIi RECYCIF~ QO{Jl'FNr (pQ. 27-28, s.
403.7065)
For more inforntiation: Judge
Unless pravided otherwise by rules of the De~artirn~it of General
S~_rvices (DGS), anY gaverrunental entity within the state (including
ages~cies of local goven~nents) or their contractors, who are
P~~~! materials or products with state ftux3.s, ~~t procure
products with rec,ycled conte~t if they are available. DGS
specifications will debermine availability and a~le price
starxlanis .
VI. DER P~5 (pp.28-30, s. 403_707) .
A. Required ~*?nit conditions_ Effective 10/1/89, DER may
include permit conditions neoessazy to bring a facility into
cce~lianoe with the recycling pravisions of this act.
B. Activities not re~irir~g pennits. In addition to a rnmiber of
private activities not ~.iri~ permits, DER does not ~>i ~
a pexmit for facilities limit.ed strictly to cr~stz~ction ar~d
desnolition debris as long as certain safeguaz-ds are taken.
C. Resource z~ecavezy pennits. An applicant m~st de:signate
~~mrY ~~~P or processes to be ~sed in the
event of primazy facility failure.
VII. PROF~BITIONS (pp. 31-34, s. 403.708)
For more information: Hinkley
'rfii~ section of the act pznhibits or rnstricts the sale or use of a
rnunber of materials, mostly variaus plastics. Its application is
primarily to the ~~cial sector. Hawever, it does i~~act local
gwerrmients to same extent.
A_ Transport~~.s of bid~azardaus wast.e must register with DER_
B. In aooord~nce with the follawing dates, no verson shall }mowir~lv
disz~ose of the follawir.g in landfills:
l. I~ad-acid batteries after 1/1/89. (C:an't be dis~~~a.~ecl in
~,~raste-to-~,.nergy plarYt_s eithPS)
2_ Used oil aftrer 14/1/88 (less than one month from naa).
3_ Yard tr~sh after 1/1/92, exc~t in pe~Litteci tmlined
landfills or a ~ting site.
4_ White good_s after 1/1/90_
January 9, 1990 6- B- 48 SOLID WASTE
9
C_ Prior to the effective dates abwe, UEF2 stiall identify and
assist in developing altern~tive dispos~l, processing, or
r~c.ycl ing options .
VI I I_ 11PPLICATION ~R RDC'YQ~3G C~2AN'I'S ( pQ . 3 5-3 9, s.
403.7095)
For more information: Yaung, Elligett
Zhis section d~cribes the grant progzai~s to local gaverrurn~ts for
recr-ycling and related public ech~cation, and it li_sts a rnm~bPx of
criteria that ~LSt be a~~eci within ariy application for such
grants. Zhe criteria are too rnm~is to list in this autline, bist
you should be ac~rar~e that the req~iest-.ed docznn~ntation is z~echioed for
FY 88-89 grants b~t ~gr~.atly e~anded for FY 89-90 giartts. Taken
together, the at~lication would constitute the equivalent of a
ocA~rehens ive "r+ec~-ycl irxx business t~lan" .
It is oonceivable that for sca~~ small arants, the averall oo~t of
ar.~nlication mav exceed the be~efits derived. On the athFS harrl,
sam~ du~lication of labor might be saved if DFR can integrate this
grant application prncess with the reqtu.red annual report (p. 24, s.
403.706) arxi/or inforniation required for the solid Grast.e eletrn~t of
the local cxm~rehensive plan. ~
LACal gaverrnrn~ts shauld carefiilly evaluate this section prior to
next legislative ses.sion and suggest any labor-saving pr~cedures
that might be appropriate.
?x. Z~21~1~TSPORT OF SOLID 4~.S2~/ LAW (pp. 39-40, s. 403.713) _
Pes.sibie GLrI'CH. zhis old language seems to contradict'the flaa ~
control ax~romise reached by FAC and FLC during the ses.sion. It
permits flow control only with respect to re~~ r~ecavesy
facilities while specifically forbidding the regulation of waste
acrns.s axuity bcxu~daries .
X. OPIIZATOR TRAINING (p. 48, section 39)
Aft~s 1/1/90, a. peison may nort perform the duties of an c~erator of
a solid wasts mar~agement facility unl~ss he has vca~letsd an
apprapriate trainiix~ caurse appraved by DIIt, ar~d ownPxs of sudi
facilities may not ~lay an inx~ualified pesson.
XI. LANDFILL . ES~T ACO~[JNr (pp_ 48-49, ~ection 40)
For more information: Neron, Nabors
Each awner of a landfill is jointly ar~d severally liable for
i~roper op~ation and closvre. Owne.rs shall establish a fee or
January 9, 1990 6- B- 49 SOLID WASTE
10
sur~t~e on existing fees or pravide financial guarantees suitable
to p~vvide for the evenbaal closing of the larydfill. DER shall
write i.~le~mnting rules with no spc~cific date given.
After closure, anY surPlus furxis revert to the awne.r of the
landfill.
XII . FI~SZ~ TIRE RD~CT~NIS (p - 49 , section 41)
For more info~mation: Hinkley, Elligett
By 3/1/89, 'Ilze aaner or operator of a Gra..~ tire site shall pn7vide
DER with information on the location, size and rnnnber of tires
acam~ulated and initiate cce~lianoe with new DER waste tire rules.
7~iII. USE OF PRIVATE SF~TIC~S (p. 71, section 62)
Use of private services is encouraged but not requir.~ed.
Notwit-hstanding any s-pecial or general law to the ~ontrary, no local
gc~verrn~nent shall adont or enforoe ~lations that discriminate
acrainst privatelv cx~n'ied solid c,raste facilities. How~ver, _ no~thirx~ in
this section sha11 interfere with local gwerrIInPnt flaw control.
XIV . 0'I~~t SECTIONS OF Il~TI'~S'T 'iU L~X'AL GOti~IS
In addition to those parts of the act which have be~1 outlined here,
there are several sec,~tions of this law which are of major interest
tA many local gaverr~nents. Zhey are referns~ced . and briefly.
described at this point. Scxiie of them are d.isaa_~sed by other
spea}c~t,s at this w~rkshaP-
A. OOOPg2ATION/RF~IO~~L, ALfIHORITIES (p. 54, s. 163.01)
~xis the pawers of the Florida IntPSlocal Qoaperation
Act of 1969, includitx~ e~ninerit dc~nain, to r~ional
authorities oca~x~sed of local gaverrm~ents.
B. AWANC~D FUNDIl3G OF FIA.STE~IX}-II~2G'Y PZ1~NI5 (pp. 61-54, s.
395.0101)
Directs the Public Se~cvice C~unission to write rules
ex~7tir~g solid waste facilities (WI'E plants) frcan
risk-related discaints for ~-gy p~h~ced a.-x3 sold to
utility cca~~anies, and authorizing levelized gayments
(constant annual payments) to awnezs of stx~ facilities
calculated on an "avoided cast" basis.
January 9, 1990 6- B- SO SOLID WASTE
11
C. ~~pRIpA gF~1U~'IFIJI,, INC- (pp• 64-66, sc~ction 55)
Establishes the non-profit organization, Kee~ Florida
Beautiful, Inc. to deal with litter prnblc~ within the
state. Bath FAC and FI~ will be represent:ed on the
board of direcr,ors.
p. FLDgIpA LITI'ER LAW (pp_ 66-70, section 403.413)
Qecriminalizes minor litt~' infractions and
sic~ificantly in~ses per~lties for major d~ir~g
violations. Enforc~~.ble by local goverrnnents•
E. N~N
AD VAIDF2EM QOI~DCI'ION OF SOLID FIASTE ~PP•
71-80, sections 63-70, Crip. 197, F.S.)
For more information: Nabors
A major e~aizsion of the authority of cot.uities or cities
to collPCt non-ad valorem fe~s via the prnperty tax
notice.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 51 SOLID WASTE
gPPENDI % B
ODTLI NS OF LOGAL GOVSRNI~ISNT
FINANCIBL ASSISTANCE
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
January 9, 1990 6- B- 52 SOLID WASTE
oE ~c~`~'~Hf4
S ~ Florida .De~Uart~nent o.f Frlviroj2~nentc~l Regulation
-
ZS l:vin Towers OCFice [3tdg. • 2600 i3lair Sco~~e i:oad •"I:iilah:isse~, Elorida 32399-2400
' [3<~b ~t~r~inrz, Gu~cmor D~Ic T~~•~chtm~~in, Srcret~r~ JOh~ Shnrcr, Assisum Srcrcnry
~F OF FLO~ID~"
OUTLINE OF REMARKS
"LOCAL GOYERNMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE"
Margaret Elligett
Environmental Supervisor
Solid Waste Section
Department of Environmental Regulation
Presentation to the
Florida Association of Counties Workshop on
Solid Waste Flanagement:
Understanding and implementing
the 1988 So7id Waste Management Act
September 7-8, 1988
Narbor Island Notel
Tampa, Florida
l. SOLIO WASTE MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND
* The act created the Solid Waste i~lanagement Trust Fund and
eight new grant and award prograns, seven of which are to be
managed direct7y by the Oepartment through the trust fund
accounts.
2. REVENUE SOURCES
* Rollback on saies tax dea7er collection allowance and
creation of registration fees for business paying sales tax:
generates ~15 million first year; $22 million/year thereafter.
* Waste tire disposal fee of ~.50/tire purchased at retaii
beginning 1/7/89; $7.00/tire beginning 1/1/90; generates ~3.75
million in FY 89; $11.25 in FY 90 and $15 million/year
thereafter.
* Newsprint disposal fee of ~.10/ton; credit for recyc7ing;
generates $350,000/year.
* To supplement first year funding, ~19 million transferred
into Solid Waste Management Trust fund fror~ Oil Overcharge
("Exxon") Fund, subject to U.S_ DOE approval.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 53 SOLID WASTE
3. GRANTS SUMMARY
* Law provides $38 million/year in grants.
* Recyclinq & Education grants have complex funding
formula.
* Total of eight separate grant programs:
-Annual: Recycling, Education, Waste Tires,
Small County Base Grants, litter.
-One-time: Used Oil, Awards for existing recycling
programs, private sector Innovative
Technologies.
* DER currently drafting rules; striving to keep simple.
4. RECYCLING GRANTS:
* 20 million per year through 1993 to all counties and to cities
with populations greater than 50,000, to establish recycling
programs for papers, glass, plastic bottles, yard trash, white
goods, construction demolition debris, and metals.
* The first rule draft will be complete in August. A tentative
rule adoption is scheduled for December.
* Funds may be available for distribute by January, 1989.
* The bill specifies 3 application scineriors which do not
require matching funds and 3 sciurios that do requir.e 50%
matching funds.
* Rule under development. ,
* Tentative adoption i~ December, i988.
5. EDUCATION GRANTS
*~5 million per year through 1993 to all counties and to cities
with populations greater than 50,000. Education grants shall
provide funds to local governments to promote recycling,
volume reduction, the proper disposal of solid wastes, and
market development for recyclable materials.
* Rule under development.
* Same time scheudle applies.
6. SMALL COUNTY GRANTS
* b675,000 per year through 1993 for counties with populations
of less than 30,000. Each will get ~25,000. The first year
grant must be used to buy landfill scales for those without.
No exceptions allowed. Once this requirement is met the money
can be used for annual solid waste management program
operating costs, planning, construction, and maintenance of
solid waste management faci7ities or recyciing facilities,
solid waste management education for employees or the public,
or recycling demonstration projects.
* Application forms were distributed in July.
* Rule under deve7opment.
* Same time schedule applies.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 54 SOLID WASTE
7. RECYCLING AWAROS FOR EXISTING PROGRAMS
*~750,000 on a one time basis to reward local governments which
have instituted a recycling program in operation prior to
October 1, 1988.
* Funds are for assisting local government recycling programs_
* Eligibility: Covers at least 3~ of the residential garbage
customers for at least two materials. Covers at least 8~ of
the customers for at least one material.
* Policy has been established.
* Application will be distributed upon request in September.
8. WASTE TIRE GRANTS
* An estimated ~3.75 million in the first year. b11.25 mi]lion
in the second year and $15 million in the third and subsequent
years for grants to counties for the collection, processing
and recycling or disposal of waste tires.
* Rule under development.
* Tentative adoption in December, 1988.
9. INNOVATIYE TECHNOLOGY GRANTS
*~750,000 for grants to private businesses for innovative
recycling technologies.
* Rule initiated in early 1989.
10. USEO OIL GRANTS
*~l million for used oil grants and incentives to local
governments to encourage the collection, reuse, and proper
disposal of used oil.
* Eligible projects shall receive up to ~25,000.
* Rule under development
* Tentative adoption in December, 1988.
11. KEEP FLORIDA BEAUTIFUL LITTER CONTROL 6RANTS
* The Legislature created a non-profit organization known as
"Keep Florida Beautiful, Incorporated", composed of interested
state and 1oca1 age~cies, public and private organizations and
interests, for the purpose of developing a plan to solve the
litter problems in Florida. The Legislation also created
within the Department of Tra~sportation, the "Clean Florida
Commission, which is responsib]e for coordinating a statewide
litter prevention program, This commission is responsible for
providing grants to local governments and non-profit
organizations.
* bl million has been appropriated for the Department of
Transportation to carry out these responsibilities.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 55 SOLID WASTE
12. APPLICATION SCHEDU~E
Grant Application Form Return Contracts Possible
Program Available By Established Disbursement
Recycling Jan. 89 Feb. 89 March 89 April 89
S20 million
Education Jan. 89 Feb. 89 March 89 April 89
~5 million
Small Ju7y 88 Oct. 88 Oec. 88 Jan. 89
County
~650,000
Awards Sept. 88 Jan. 89 Feb. 89 March 89
~750,000
Waste Tire March 89 April 89 May 89 June 89
~3.75 million
Used Oil March 89 April 89 hlay 89 June 89
. $1 million -
Innovative Technology Grants: Ruies Initiated, early 1989
litter Grants: Managed by Department of Transporation.
January 9, 1990 6- B- 56 SOLID WASTE
ST. LUCI E COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
DRAINAGE AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER
AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB-ELEMENT
Prepared by:
St. Lucie County ,
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
Department of Community Development
January 9, 1990 DRAINAGE
DRAINAGE AND NATURAL GROUNDWATER
AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB-ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
I NTRODUCTI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 1
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 1
Surface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 1
Man-Made Drainage Systems . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 2
Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 14
LOCAL DRAI NAGE I SSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 21
General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 21
St. Lucie County Stormwater
Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 23
Aquati c Pres erves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 2 3
100 - Year Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 28
LEVELS OF SERVI CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 2 8
Existing Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 28
Future Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 30
NEEDS ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 30
Organizational Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 30
Performance Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 31
Facility Replacement, Expansion and ,
New Facility Siting . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 33
Existing Ordinances and Regulations Which
Govern Land Use and Development of
Natural Drainage Features . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 34
Exi s ti ng Ordi nanc es and Regul ati ons Whi ch
Govern Land Uses and Development of
Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Areas 6- C- 36
Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 37
GOALS, OBJECTI VES, AND POLI CI ES . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 3 9
BI BLI OGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 4 5
APPENDI X
A, An Atlas of St. Lucie County Surface
Water Management Basins, SFWMD, 1988 6- C- 47
i
LI ST OF FI GURES
Figure Pa e
6 - C - 1 C-25 Basin Location Map . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 3
6 - C - 2 C-24 Basin Location Map . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 4
6 - C - 3 C-23 Basin Location Map . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 5
6- C- 4 North Fork St. Lucie Basin Location Map . 6- C- 6
6- C- 5 C-59 (Nubbin Slough) Basin Location Map . 6- C- 7
6 - C - 6 The C-25 Basin Details . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 8
6 - C - 7 The C-24 Basin Details . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 9
6 - C - 8 The C-23 Basin Details . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - i l
6- C- 9 The North Fork of the St. Lucie
River Basin Details . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 12
6- C- 10 The C-59 (Nubbin Slough) Basin Details 6- C- 13
6 - C - 11 Water Control Districts . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 15
6- C- 12 Major Water Conveyance Facilities 6- C- 16
6- C- 13 Intermediate Water Level Contour Map 6- C- 18
6- C- 14 Low Water Level Contour Map 6- C- 19
6- C- 15 Very Low Water Level Contour Map 6- C- 20
6- C- 16 North Fork, St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve . 6- C- 24
6- C- 17 Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve
North of Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 26
6- C- 18 Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve
South of Inlet . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 27
6 - C - 19 100 - Year Floodplain . . . . . . . . . . 6 - C - 29
ii
ST. LIICI E COIINTY
DRAtNAGE AND NAZ'QR~L GROIINDW~TSR
AQDIFER RECH~RGl3 SUB-ELRMENT
INTRODIICTION
This sub-element of the Infrastructure Element addresses issues
related to drainage and natural groundwater aquifer recharge for
St. Lucie County as outlined in Rule 9J-5. 011 F. A. C. The
drainage and aquifer recharge issues are interrelated to such an
extent that they have been combined in this one sub-element.
The sub-element begins with a background description of the
drainage and aquifer recharge issues in the County, followed by a
description of specific existing conditions. A needs assessment
is presented, followed by goals, objectives, and policies.
B~CKGROIIND
Surface Water
Prior to man's alteration, the areas that presently comprise St.
Lucie County had drainage patterns that were controlled by the
County's primary topographic feature, the Atlantic Coastal Ridge
and the more subtle features such as the Green Ridge
(south/central County); the Osceola Plain (southwest County); and
Ten Mile Ridge (north/central County). Overall, the County
gently slopes from west to east. Elevations range from about 60
feet, in the western portion, to sea level along the Atlantic
coastal beaches, with scattered peaks associated with above
described ridges. The alignment of these surface ridges
parallels the existing coastline and serves to impede east/west
sheetflow.
The St. Johns Marsh, Allapattah Flats, and the Savannas areas are
wetlands formed by these natural impediments. The Allapattah
Flats area is located in the southwestern portion of the County.
This area drains, predominantly, to the south/southeast,
discharging into the area now oacupied by the C-23 Canal.
Portions of the St. Johns Marsh drain to the south into what is
now the C-25 Canal basin. Water entering the Savannas normally
percolated through the Atlantic Coastal Ridge to the Indian
River, but during extremely high water stages there could be
overflow to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River (NFSLR),
through Platts Creek and several smaller sloughs. These wetland
marshes store water and are believed to provided recharge to the
shallow aquifer. The remaining central portions of the County
serve as the watershed for the upper reaches of the North Fork of
the St. Lucie River.
There are other minor drainageways where the Atlantic Coastal
Ridge has been breached, such as Moores Creek in Ft. Pierce, but
January 9, 1990 6- C- 1 DRAINAGE
the areas drained are not very large and of no major significance
on the overall drainage system for the County.
The areas east of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and along the
barrier island are not included within any of the major drainage
basins of the County. Stormwater discharge in these areas is
essentially direct to the primary receiving body, the Indian
River Lagoon or Atlantic Ocean.
The stormwater detention time for most of St. Lucie County, prior
to man's alteration, was extremely long. The natural features
and drainageways are still apparent on satellite imagery.
However, today, the North Fork of the St. Lucie River still
serves as the major, and least altered, natural drainage feature
in the County.
l~ian-made Drainage Systems
Maj or surface drainage modifications to St. Lucie County
commenced with the formation of the North St. Lucie River Water
Control District (1917) and the Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control
District (1919). These Districts were created for the purpose of
agricultural drainage and irrigation, with a secondary purpose
being flood control activities.
During the 1940's the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
channelized portions of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River in
an effort to improve its water carrying capacity and to
accelerate its speed of discharge into the Atlantic Ocean.
During the 1960' s, the COE constructed Canals C-23, C-24, and
C-25, along with their control structures. With the construction
of this Primary Canal system for the South Florida Water
Management District, the County was then divided into a series of
Sub-Basins. Figures 6-C-1 through 6-C-5, beginning on page 6-C-3,
indicate these basins.
The C-25 Basin, (Figure 6-C-6, found on page 6-C-8) is located in
northwestern St. Lucie County and extends into parts of
Okeechobee and Indian River County's. This area is dominated by
agricultural uses consisting of either citrus or ranching
activities. The canal system in this area was designed to
support agricultural activities. Although not the case in St.
Lucie County, the western portions of this overall basin do not
have any significant flood control protection, which could in
times of extreme rainfall have detrimental effects in the
downstream areas. With the absence of any significant urban
development, local flooding is not presently a major problem in
that on-site design requirements meet the current need. However,
as elaborated further in this element there is a need for a
County-wide review of this communities future drainage management
requirements and this review will have to include the portions of
this that lie outside of the County.
The C-24 Basin, (Figure 6-C-7, found on page 6-C-9) is located in
the Central and West-Central portions of the County. This basin
January 9, 1990 6- C- 2 DRAINAGE
INDfAN RIVER COUNTY
y ST. ~UCIE COUNTY
W
~
~ ~
~ O ~
K ~
(D
~
~
~ •
~ ~ N
~
o ,
~
~ rt o 1 2 3 a s
a MILES
~
~
rn rt
~ ~
~ N rt NO ORK ~
c~ . T. I E ~
~ N G RIVE
o m n
o
~ ~ ~ F'
~
i"-' U~ U
~ ~ w~ M C-~4
u
~ ~ J
a ~ N
ft
~
~
C'~~
t7 ~
F..~.i C-68
~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY
~ MARTIN COUNTY
h7
C-25 BA81N LOCATION b1AP ~ C-25 BA81N
y tN01AN R1VER COUNTY
p~ ST, LUCIE CQUNTY
~ ~
w ~
~C ~ C-25 "
~
~ ~ ~
tD ~ N
~ w
o
~ ~
rr
a~rt 0 1 2 3 4 S
N ~ MILES
~
~ o ~
rn - rn
i 2 tn
~ F10 T. K ~
H
~ ~ ~ RIYE ~
~ m
rn
i
~ o n
~ ~ i
pp N
~ ~ F~-
' Z
U ~
3 W w
~ ~ u
N ~ ~
i
a ~
rr °
~
n
C-23
t~
H C-6o
Z ST. LUCIE COUNTY
~ MARTIN CQUNTY
~
t~J
C-24 BA81N LOCATION I~AAP Q~ C-24 BA81N
~ INDIAN RtVER COUNTY
a ST. IUCIE COUNTY `1
~ r
~
w
n o
~ c-zs
~ ~
~
~
~ N
o a
w
~ ~
0 1 2 3 4 S
~ ~ MILES
~n a
o, cn
cn o
~ - rt,
n C rt ~~T. ~EK
~ r ~ RIYE H
`n ~ n C
ft [,~TJ
~ O ~
~
4~0 ~ j
• ~C u ~
W
~ W Ci-Z4
r o
w z
u
N w
Y
O
a
rt
~
n
v
~
H c-ae
z
~
~ MARTM COUNTY
t~J
C-23 BA81N LOCATION MAP ~ C-23 BA81N
4 (NDIAN R(VER COUNTY
A~
~ ST. LUC[E COUNTY
~
N
h ~
~ O
~ ~ C-25
N
~
~ ~ ~
~O
o a ~ N
~ ~
'~y, 0] 2 3 4 5
a ~ MILES
a, m a
u~
~ ~n o~
H
~ C rt G~
~
rn
°i ~ G
i
cu n n
!-t i
~
~ n
~ O
~ ~ r
00 ~ z
~ p ~
tJ p
~ u
~ c-2~t
W
Ri H
~ ~ ~
n J
N W
~ a N
rt
m
n
C~ C-23
~
H
~ C-69
~ ST. LUC1E COUNTY
~ F1ART(N COUNTY
NORTH FORK 8T. LUCIE
BA81N LOCATION MAP ~ NORTH FOflK 8T. L.UCIE BA81N
~ ^ L.~,A.~~.,,,~,~,,,~~ lND1AN RIVER COUNTY
p~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY
~
~ O
N
~c ~ c-2s
c~
~
~ a ~ N
o ~
~ ~
rt
0 1 2 3 4 5
a MILES
~
a, m o
. r-i,
i
~ C rt NO ORK H
T. IE ~
~ r" RIYE
c~ ~
~ ~ a~
~
~ O ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ Z
~ U p
~ U
C-24
w
w
a o ~
n u ~
N W
a o '
~r
m
n
C-23
t~
~
H
~ ST. LUCiE COUNTY
~ MARTIN CWNTY
~
C-58 (NUBBIN B~OUGH)
BASIN LOCA710N MAP PTT~ITi] C-59 BA81N
~
ti
~
~
~
~ C-25 BASIN
n
~
~ o
~
~ n
~o rn
~
0
~
a~ IND[AN RNER COUHTY H
~ . ~ l\.`\ ST. LUC1E CUUNTY ~
~ . LTi
~ ~ I f~~ ~
~ rt~, C4y\~ ST' FT. PIERCE n
((¢~~7 I ~ . ~
~ u' a ~ ROAD I \•,~Pp~; J~HNS DRAIHAGE DISTRICT ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MARSH
~ a DRAINS ro c-e~
i - r-r, ~ W
~ ~ rt q \ j~~1K~ D~YHSTRENI pF 5-30
C . ey ~f ,'ti.
S C-27 CXTENSIAN ~
~ n ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ 5-99 -
~ C-es nai
~ '
ly ~ i r~ ic ruN.~ ^S-50
TD [-c~
( [IRANGE AVENUE CANAL x t~
I-~ C~
~ ~ SR68/QRANGE AVEMfE I. e1 ~ T}1JS AREA
~rt
,,C ~ 4 HAY BC PUMF'ED ~QEND
~ o~ TO C-ES
BAS1N
~ N -----CANAL
n u R(VER
(D
a - - - LEVEE N
r..f ROAD SCALE
1~y _ _ COUNTY ~
d IINE MiLES
~ ~ SPILLVAY
H
z ~ cu~vEar
(,~j Q VE1P.
~ ~ PUHPiNG
STATION
TNE C-25 BA81N
I
~ ~
~ ~ C-24 BASIN
n ~
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ rt ~ ~
~
~
° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i--~ `t ra-r Fn-~• ~p' n~ (
~ ~ ~ ~ SR68/URANGE AVEt1UE u
~ N ~ N -8l
~
N
~ ~ 'T1
H
~ g q ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
. ~
~p ~ N (7
~ U J
pD~
~N
G-7
C-E4CDIVERS[ON CANAL).
I..EQEI~ ~ ~
~ BASIN N z ~ y ~i
N ~ ~
CANAI p< < H
~i' R[VER ~ ~
- ~EvEE G-79 `A.~
- R[lA0 H '~,-l r~~
- - CUUNTY SCAI.E m
S-~9
LINE ~ ~ ~ P
d SPILLVAY NILES ~~}:V Ff~
,b t~ WIYERT 4 •
H •
r-Z ~ VCIR ~ ~h
~ ~ PUHPMG
~ 5(ATIUH C `~f'p!'~;.,~
e~
THE C-24 6A81N
may further be divided into three subgroups: emerging urban (east
1/3), citrus (central 1/3) and ranching ( west 1/3). One of the
primary purposes of this basin is to regulate the level of ground
water, through the controlling effects of the 5-49 structure and
to prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the local groundwater
supplies. When initially constructed, this basin was designed to
accommodate the agricultural needs of the area. The emergence
of significant urban development may possibly cause a negative
downstream impact, affecting the ability to efficiently move the
water from the upper reaches of the Basin.
The C-23 Basin, (Figure 6-C-8, found on page 6-C-11) is located
in the south and southwestern portion of the County. This basin
serves the agricultural needs of the southwest area. However, a
significant portion of the basin is located in Martin County.
This area is at present used for agricultural purposes, although,
its eastern edges face the potential impacts of future urban
development. These emerging areas will have to be accommodated
for through the development of interlocal agreements between all
effected parties addressing the issue of urban discharge.
The North Fork of the St. Lucie River Drainage Basin, ( Fi gure
6-C-9, found on page 6-C-12) is located in the most populous part
of St. Lucie County. This drainage basin includes within it the
North St. Lucie River Water Control District, along with portions
of the City of Port St. Lucie. As mentioned previously, in the
1940's the main river course was channelized by the Corp of
Engineers. This channelization was effective in increasing the
rate of water removal from the basin, but it also allowed for the
increased collection and transmission of silt and other debris,
affecting not only the long term carrying capacity of the North
Fork itself, but also contributing to the accelerated siltation
of the lower reaches of the St. Lucie River.
The North Fork basin can be characterized as dominated by urban
uses. What agricultural activities remain are in the western
reaches of the district. However, it should be noted that
although the basin serves an urban environment, the drainage
design of this basin is based upon agricultural needs. This area
has been the focus of several studies, evaluations and
demonstration projects in recent years attempting to improve upon
its overall efficiency. As discussed later in this element,
these efforts need to be continued and expanded.
The Taylor Creek-Nubbins Slough (C-59 Basin), (Figure 6-C-10,
found on page 6-C-13) basin area is located in extreme
southwestern St. Lucie County. This basin affects only 9. 5
square miles of the County. Activities in this area are either
ranching or undeveloped/vacant. There is effectively no impact
upon the balance of the County by this basin since its flows are
to the west and the Lake Okeechobee area. However, as addressed
in the goals, objectives and policies portion of this element
attention to this area is needed on water quality issues.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 10 DRAINAGE
~ C-23 ~ASIN o
~ ~
~ n
'C ~ SR 70 !D
v
b0 Ul
~ ~I~ u~ a
~ p i y (L G rt 'T1
~ ~ I ~-23_ ~ ~ ~
o G-79 ~ a r C7
~J q
~I~ ~ N ~ ~ '
U: Z~(D ~
~ ~ ~i o a ~
' c~P-10 ~ N(rtD O rt H
~ ~ ~i G F-~ ~
~ ( G-7e ~ ~ a
, (D ~ tt Ul ~
~ ~ ~I h ~ ~ ~ i
a ~n i~
C~ , ~ ~ W o0
( ~O (D
~ AI.I.APATTAFI
~ F ~ A T S ~ rt f:.:.:::•.•.::
P~' '
4~`~- .~o
~'a
LEGEND - _ . . _ ST. LUC(E COUNTY C-23 _ T
.~.~....~........~v.c-i v~.v....r...r...~~.,~~ t/~
,~t,
~ eASIN HARTIN C~UNTY ~ 5-97 G.~ . ~
S-~d "
o '
.n ~ ' P..
CANAL a
RfVER y
- - - LEVEE
ROAD
C~UNTY
LiNE N
~ SPILI.VAY SCALE
d ~ CULVERT ~
~ 0
H Q VEIR MILES
~ ~ PUHPING
~ SiATItlN
t~J
TNE C-23 BA81N
FIGURE 6-C-9
NORTH FORK OF THE ST. LUCIE RIYER BASiN
i
~
,
I _ ~-Z~
- -
-
I ~ tsas .au r.r
a~ ?wo
l ~ THL AREA ~ ~ N
~ ~ sCA1.E
KAY BE PtA1PtD
< < ~
~ TD t-23 MLLES
~ i ~
! ;
q~ '
`
_
~
~
~
( ~
I •r
• '
' ' Q
Gy
V
LEGEND
; e BASIN
I CANAL
I
.v- RIV~R
- LEVEE s-,9 c-ra sr:~uc~
HARTIIJ CDId~lTT
RDAD i
I _ _ CDUNTY N''~ ~
9 ~
LINE ~
~
~ SPILLVAY - _
T:
~ CULVER7
~ W rIR - c-~ - ~ ' ' :
~ °UHPING \ A ~ ~
STATIQN
Source: SFWMD, An Atlas of St. Lucie ~
County Surface Water Management
Basins, November, 1988.
THE NORTH FORK OF THE ST. LUCIE RIVER BAS1N
January 9, 1990 6- C- 12 DRAINAGE
FIGURE 6-C-10
C-59 BASiN
R~~``~-
~G
,~,0
~P
I Q R
~
a'~
ao
_ RRpV ~
L-53r~ ~ Q(
~i
3
~ Q
~
Op
D
n
fF'4' oc
N
s?"~ ~'1
? ~ i 2 ~„'10 ~
~tt1.LS - _ QJ` a i n
L-63fd `yr~ ~ ~
la W
~LiGi~ILJ • ~ Wi~
-c .
h
~ BASIN QKEECH? EE '~°cR ~ ~ ~ W~H
CANAL 1~
RIVER S-t S-t43 ~
- - - L~/EE ~.0~' . . '
RDAD . . • C`\ (
COUN7Y S-191 ' - , 6~~ ~
LINE ~ ~ ~ ~
~ SPILLVAY ~ ~
~ CULVERT L A K E i~~.,\ E~v~
, u
~ vEIR Q K E E C H Q B E E ~
~ PUFtPING ' ~ ~
STATION ' T ~
~ LDCK Source: SFWNID, An Atlas of St. Lucie
County Surface Water Management
Basins, November, 1988.
~ THE C-59 BASIN
i
January 9, 1990 6- C- 13 DRAINAGE
Except for those efforts in Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie, almost
all of the surface drainage modifications that have taken place
have been designed for agricultural land uses, or approximately a
10-year - 24-hour storm event. As these agricultural lands have
become more urbanized, the volumes of stormwater have increased
and run-off times have decreased resulting in more frequent
periodic local flooding.
Figures 6-C-11 and 6-C-12, found on pages 6-C-15 and 6-C-16,
respectively, indicates the drainage district boundaries and
major water conveyance facilities in the County. Because the
more urbanized areas of the community are located in the
downstream areas of much of the drainage system, the potential
for urban area flooding has increased.
Groundwater
There are two distinct sources of groundwater in St. Lucie
County: the shallow unconfined or semi-confined aquifer, and the
deep artesian floridan aquifer. These aquifer systems are
separated by a layer of relatively impermeable green clay known
as the Hawthorne Formation, which is about 400 feet thick and
starts at approximately 150-180 feet below the average land
surface.
The shallow aquifer system is comprised of one (1) to five (5) ~
feet of fine-grained sands and silts of the Pamlico Sand that
overlie the Anastasia Formation. The Anastasia Formation
consists of interbedded layers and lenses of sand, shell beds,
sandy limestone, and sandstone. Beds and lenses tend to be
elongated in a direction that parallels the coast. Most of the
permeable zones, which are primarily shell beds, are thin and, as
a res ul t, wel l yi el ds are 1 ow to moderate. ( USGS, 19 7 2. )
Water quality is variable in the shallow aquifer due to natural
and artificial causes. Water quality ranges from fair in the
southeast mainland part of the County to brackish in the
northwestern part of the County. The poorer water quality has
been associated with the use of the brackish artesian aquifer for
irrigation of citrus. However, drilling records and well water
analysis indicate that there is also an area of connate saltwater
that extends from the vicinity of St. Lucie Village to the
northern and eastern shores of Lake Okeechobee. The
concentration of minerals in the connate water increases with
depth to the base of the shallow aquifer and at that point it
exceeds the mineral content of the artesian aquifer.
The artesian aquifer system is part of an extensive carbonate
rock aquifer system that underlies most of Florida. In St. Lucie
County, the artesian floridan aquifer has three distinct
producing zones of different hydrologic properties and water
quality separated by semi-permeable zones. The upper producing
zone, or Zone I, has the best water quality, but it is too
brackish for domestic or public water supply. The water from
Zone I is suitable for stock watering and some crops, most
January 9, 1990 6- C- 14 DRAINAGE
~ ~
I l E fl C 0 U N 1 f I
x o N " e ~~yi
_-i : .~~'j3~~ ~ _ 7 `^"C
~I~r~
' , fi ~ _ _ ll
' FORT PIERCE FAI3MS ~ j ~ ~ ` ° ~
I WATER CONTRO~ DISTRIC f ~ ws~,' ~
I ~ ~ .l~1.
~ ~ ~ ~ a ~
( . ~ : 1~~~= ~ ~
~ :~~,~~y.'~.:;._ y
; t
~ > ~t :L J ~
~ ~ c::n : a . ; :Q s~%~` . ` ~ . ` o
, I wK nnur ~ a ww:.~.~
~ z. e ~ a
o I : r '~w'~"' _ k ~;9 i p
r
u i ~ ~ - ! .''rA n
- ~
l -
j y ,..~u
i r
~ f~ -
l ~ '
/
~ NORTH ST. LUCIE RIVE : / o
~ WATER CONTROL DiSTRICT " J~ I i.- ~ ~;~w~ ~ I
I / ` ' m
~ ~ ; - ~
1 y
; ~ ~i ~ ~ ,
w , ,F ~f . `
1 9
, ~
W 1 f ~ l~ ~ ~
°l ,
~ r£
~ ~ r -
, ~ .
i
Y ~A ~ ( ~
I }
1
~W ~ t ' ~
1..~
' P R~ T. LUCIE '
W R MAN GE ENT DISTRICT ST LUClE COUNTY
o ~
I , ~..`F FLORIDA
1,I
I - ~ - ~ FIGURE 6-C-11
I -r - -
L~~.~- T I N ~I C 0 u N~, T ~..~..a-~aa~.w
WATER CCNTROL DISTP,ICTS
6-C-15
8Q1S~ 40~ }S' y0~ 2~~ 20~ iS'
z~°35 i ed~i°~s
INOI~N RIV[R COUNT• ) ~
~ LV~i
~
m al, -r:.- . - - ~ O
~ S ST. LUCIE COUNTY ~ q
~ G w._ ` _ i
O
Js
y \ fOTT PlfRCE fA~tMS ~~r ~ S T. L U U E ~
I i } O~v~nv/6E D/STnrC'T ~ ~ COUNTY
•i: f-
-RAOEBA(~GH CONTROI.~ + I \ 2
3d ~ ~6-72~ CULVERTS) r_~ • ,y'1• a Q 30
I -~z
CIMAL-?'.:
~ OELCNEN CANA ~'-23 , ~
I ::.1~+r.oiXi.i. '.+:'a'~~~ . a` ...t'`ALs~.:;. ~
~ ONANGC t ~vE, ~ FOR T ~
Oa~N~E avE.- ' r ~ ~ p 1 E R C E -
i CONTRO~ ; - - •
n
r ~ V/RG/ALa AVf.
25 ~ I b' ` MORTH ST. L!/GE A/V£R Gq~yA~ 2y'
z~ t~ i, DAA/NAGE OVf7RICT ~s.;;,. . .
O ~ i?a t f- C,~~ . ~1
u i o _i i ~ ~ , ' ~`c*, ~ ~EVEE
I y
W ' ~ ~Gr08£F- ~s- _ J~~~
` ~ ra.-~ D~ . a O
°o I u ~KE 1~? + ~ ~ c~
x 1 ~ •
~ J ,
~ PC-32 - ~ ~ Q ~
1 ~ L
.y. ~
W I C-IJ "~i
~.L. _ +~s' •
z Y N , I, N 2 zO'
o CONTROL p~
i (2-60~ CUIYERTSj r 1 ~ ~ 9<
~ .~zZ•
~ CONTRO~ ? ,y~ ' .
( ( i-r2" cu~vEaTS ) `o:
j ~ I I'. `
/ ~ O
~ I ` + a{:
, ` ' : ,
~ ~ -
' ' POpT T. ~ tJ S-s91~ 1• I EXPLANATION i5'
I 5 L u c E ,
~~a " BOUNOPAY ~ ~ ,~~Y ' i
~ ~ r, ( CANA~ ANO CONTROL
i 1 , ~
Z' DIRECTION OF
~ ~--a-~~~-~~ - ~ SURFICIAL FLOW
~ trAwTIN COUNTY S•97 5-18
e i r i.~~~s
2 790 2 7 ~~0
eo°.s~ ~0 33~ 30 25' 2p ~S' e0io
Source: ~NR, Bureau of Geology, Report of Investigations, No. 62
FIGURE 6 - C -12
a
~ NtA.IOR W~?TER CO~V'~Y~.i~CE
Fi4?CSLIa'~~ES
ST_ LUCIE COUNTY , FLORIDA
January 9, 1990 6- C- 16 DRAINAGE
notably citrus. Most of the estimated 1300 artesian wells in the
County are developed in Zone I of the floridan aquifer. There is
no natural groundwater recharge to the floridan aquifer in St.
Lucie County. Producing zones, water quality, and other
technical data are more extensively described in SFWMD Technical
Map Series 79-1. (SFWMD, 1979)
Agricultural drainage impacts between the urbanized coastal area
and Canals C-23 and C-24 have impacted the major sources of
groundwater recharge to the shallow aquifer and lowered the water
table. Areas such as the St. Johns Marsh and the Allapattah
Flats, which previously stored a large ~mount of water above the
land surface to provide the hydraulic gradient needed to recharge
the slightly permeable surficial aquifer, have in recent years
been drained for agricultural purposes. The Allapattah Flats
west of the SFWMD canals and the remaining portions of the St.
Johns Marsh still provide some degree of recharge, but the major
sources for St. Lucie County are the St. Johns Marsh in Indian
River County and the Orlando Ridge extension of the Osceola Plain
(a marine terrace) in southwestern St. Lucie County and eastern
Okeechobee County. The impacts of the construction of the canal
drainage system on the groundwater contour levels in the County
is illustrated in Figures 6-C-13 through 6-C-15, beginning on
page 6-C-18.
From inspection of these diagrams it can be seen that the
groundwater flow from the western half of the County is
. effectively being intercepted by these major canals. This
interception is then depriving the wellfields in the central and
eastern regions of the County from a source of replenishment. As
a result recharge areas will need to be located, and protected
near the centers of the drainage basins to optimize their
effects.
Construction of new drainage works by General Development
Corporation, farms, and other development has been completed
since the groundwater contour maps used in this plan were
compiled in 1968. In order that the County and water management
authorities may properly and correctly assess the impacts of this
development, it should be an objective of St. Lucie County to
encourage the South Florida Water Management District to conduct
the necessary reviews, data collection and analysis to update
this information as soon as possible.
The distance between water-level contours, when matched with the
hydraulic gradient of topographic relief, indicates the relative
permeability of the surficial aquifer: the greater the distance
between contours, the higher the permeability. This is
exemplified in the area bounded by SFWMD C-23 and C-24 canals,
where the land surface has little relief and the water level
contours are miles apart.
Many secondary drainage systems ~have been constructed for
agricultural drainage. However, most of these secondary systems
January 9, 1990 6- C- 17 DRAINAGE
80°~S~ a0~ 35~ 30~ :S~ 20~ ~5~ p
2 ~JS 8~~z7°3S.
IM014N RIVER COUNTY
57. \CIE COUN7Y ~ $r'
~ : 2
( ,r` ? `
i ~ ~
I 24 2
30 ~ ~ ~ D 30
I - - _ Zs~ ~ -r
~ ~ GAN~C r
I BELCHE~v CAN ~ C-Z,s
e
5~ ~ ~ Z
~ ORANGE ~ l a ~ ~ AvE. << FOR T D~
~ o ,n Q,1~n,' ~ERCE, -
~ ' ~V y - ` f1
Y ~ Z \ ~ ~ ~ ~
25 ~ N ~ 25~
~ , N` N ~ R~' p - ~
O I N CqE ~
U 2 W Z ~
1 ~ O
O t ~
u u LHp9Ef' ,`y /~O ~ ~ O
o aKF-f' ~ ~ c1
_ + ~ N ~ t*~
W ~ - ? ~y ~ , ~ D D
W~ N 'IS G I r c~D O
2O Y N 22 ~a'9 ~ Z 2O~
O ~ CD N
o
i "
~ 2a ~
I/~ ' ~ , 0
~ ~ } ~
c ~
1 ' 2628 ' ~ - - -
13' • v - EXPL~ANA710N ~S'
~ \ I
o~'~~ ~'~~•,I CANAL AND CONTROL
. I ~`y~ ~~O ~ pl~ 20
, ~ ~2 ' WATER LEVEL CONTOUR
- - _ FEET MEAN SEA LEVEL
~ANTIN COUNTY C'23 5-97 5-48
o ~ : anua
~
2T90 27°IO
80°s5~ s0 35~ JO 25~ 20 IS~ 8010'
Source: DNR, Bureau of Geology, Report of Investigations, No. 62.
FIGURE 6-C-13
a fNT~RiIVSED1Ai'E ~OVAT~~ L~V~~.
i
CO~l7'OI~R ~VfAP
ST. LUCIE COUNTY , FLORIDA
January 9, 1990 6- C- 18 DRAINAGE
eo +s' do' 3s' 3 0' zs' zo' i5•
Z~°~5
e ~~~~ss'
INOIAN RIVER COUNTY
I ~ ' -
i ~ G ST, I.UCt E C\Y ~ ` _
I 24 i ' z
~ ss o
I x
~
30 I ~0 0 ~ a 30
22 ~ V~ -1
I ~ CAN/C ' ~
1 M BELCHE~4-'CAN ( ZS
j • a
G S'9'9 \ ` ' -50 0 2
ORANGE g ~1 avE, FOR T ~
~ ~o ~ m; PIERCE~_ -
` y~, ti ~ ~ c~
25 = I ` ~p-- i 25~
~ ~ ~ N ~ p . pE - -
O ~ N ~
" ~ c ~ ~
O ti t
W ~ gE,E = t~ ~ B
W ~ ELNa ~ ' a ~
o ~KE ~ < ~
x ~ ~ ~6` ~ ~ v. m
„Ur N ti 'TJ C•II P~`~ ~1~~ D~ p ~ ~
20 0 ~ Z ~8 ~c? 2 20~
~ N ~J
I Q ~
~ N ZZ
~ ; 4
I~ I `
O ~ r Q
24 s C
H 5 ~
? 26 ~ ~
~S~ ~ 5_49 I EXPLANATION
~ IS'
~ I oQ.`° .r~~' CANAL ANO CONTROL
. I E~ p 20
~ , WATER-LEVEI CONTOUR
FEET MEAN SEA LEVEL
c-zJ
MAR71N COUNTY 5•97 5-48
O 1 2 ]Yll[~ .
~
27°0 27~10
eC°45 40 7S ~0 2S~ 20 IS~ 8Q10
Source: DNR, Bureau of Geology, Report of lnvestigations, No. 62.
FIGURE 6-C-14
Low waz~~ ~FV~~.
a
~ co~azou~ n~~~
ST_ LUCIE ~COUNTY , FLORIDA
January 9, 1990 6- C- 19 DRAINAGE
2~79'3~ ~o' ss' s0' 25' 20' ~S' e~1p
Z7•]3~
INOIAN R~VER COUNT~
_Si.'~~~~E- ~~NT~_ _T~_ _
`y \24
I J 2 , Z
~ s / o
~ ?
I ~
~d 2
i ~ 22 ~ ~ ' 30'
.
a
~ r
i sEC ~+E CAHA C-?3 CAaA~ -
e y
s-9v 1 - p Z
oA~HGE _ a avE. ~'L ^+0 FOR T ~
~ ~ r PIERCE -
v r~ O A 1 _ ~
~ y
zs' ~ ~ Z ` ~ ~ ~
_ ' t, u " ~ Z S'
O ~ N N~ t ~t0• pE _ _
V = N N ~
~ ~ ~ = 1
t
00 f' v B ~ o
= ~ oK~E`H E t \ A ~
~ ~~N ~ ~ ~iw cn
z
u
2 u I ~~N ~ ,1 ~~Z ~ ~ n a D
o "'o i8 ~6 ~ ~ 2 2~~
~ ~
I ZO
N 22
I v ?
N '
7 r
~ Q
9 ^
y ` Z 26 :
IS' O
I EXPLANATION i5'
N ~
~ O ~
~ ~ ~ ~
I E~ y~~ ? CANAL ANO CONTROL
~ 1 ~ ~ 20
- - WliTER-~EVEI. CONTOUR
YARTIN couNrr ~'ZJ 5-97 s-se FEET MEAN SEA LFVE
o ( a ~ ~~tts
279d 27~i0
eo°as' ad ~ ss' jo' n' zo ~s' eo
io'
Source: DNR, Bureau of Geology, Report of Irtvestigations, No. 62
FIGURE 6-C-15
v~~Y Low ~w~zE~ ~~v~~.
a
~ Ct~~i~'OIDR IVfAP
ST. LUCIE COUNTY , FLORIDA
January 9, 1990 6- C- 20 DRAINAGE
are shallow and their impacts on groundwater are by way of
preventing ponding.
Because of the lack of recharge and the low permeability of the
soils, the shallow aquifer provides insufficient water for
irrigation during the extended dry season. SFWMD Canals C-23, C-
24, and C-25 serve as linear storage reservoirs and provide
irrigation supply for many areas although in extreme periods of
drought, they too may only be used in a minimal capacity due to
the lack of surface water. To compensate for this, many
agricultural operations will use the floridan aquifer for much
of their irrigation demand. The problem associated with the use
of this aquifer area is that irrigation return (excess) flows
from the floridan aquifer water are mineralized. These flows in
turn mineralize the receiving canals. Since flood irrigation is
a common practice, the volume of return flows can be significant
and the canal waters become excessively mineralized for some uses
such as wellfield recharge, which results in their uselessness
for such purposes.
Currently, there are no defined aquifer recharge areas in the
County. South Florida Water Management District has not
developed a topographic map depicting prime groundwater recharge
areas for St. Lucie County. Consequently, the data is not
available that would enable the County to define these areas.
The County will continue to monitor the Water Management District
as they work to define these areas. However, the Interim
Wellfield Protection Ordinance does protect the recharge areas of
designated public potable water supply wells.
Additionally, the Floridan aquifer is not recharged within St.
Lucie County, but rather primary recharge of that aquifer occurs
in the more central portions of the State.
LOCAL DRAINAGE ISSIIES
General
On the average, St. Luaie County receives about 53 inches of rain
per year, most falling during the period form June to October.
It is recognized that from time to time, portions of the County
will experience flooding problems as a result of heavy rainfall.
Much of the local flooding that occurs can be attributed to
development carried out before the advent of contemporary
stormwater management practices. Most of the drainage problem
areas are located in the North Fork Drainage Basin. However,
there are documented problems in other parts of the County as
well.
In an effort to address two of the more immediate problems
relative to local drainage, St. Lucie County has commenced work
on two drainage improvement projects that are designed to provide
relief to small areas of the community. These improvements are
not intended to be a comprehensive cure for the problem because
January 9, 1990 6- C- 21 DRAINAGE
they are limited in the areas they impact. The improvements are
not system-wide and as such will have little wide ranging impact.
However, if successful, they should provide a degree of
intermediate relief of limited scope and duration to the
afflicted area.
I. Lalcewood Parl~ Improvement Proj ect
The Lakewood Park Subdivision, platted in the late 1950's,
is located in the northern section of St. Lucie County. The
total area of the subdivision is approximately 1,700 acres.
The design of the subdivision includes a system of back-lot
swales that are adequate to meet the demands as a stormwater
collection system. The street swales, which are intended to
act as the distribution system, are hydraulically inadequate
and haphazardly networked with many undersized and/or
improperly installed driveway culvert inverts. The result
of this inadequacy is the problem of localized flooding in
peri ods of heavy rai nf all .
In recognition of this problem, a Municipal Service Benefit
Unit (MSBU} has been established for the design and
construction of a surface water management system for this
area. The design has been completed, permitted and
construction of Phase One (of Ten) is scheduled to begin in
the Summer of 1989. The upgraded system, when completed, is
expected to provide roadway flood protection against the
10/year-24/hour storm and greatly reduce the high water
duration period. These improvements, if successful, should
serve to address the immediate Lakewood Park needs.
However, missing from the complete solution of this matter
is the fact that the base receiving drainage network, Ft.
Pierce Farms, is not designed for the receipt of urban rates
of storm-water run-off. Until such time as modifications
are made to the base system itself, or there are alternative
actions taken, the issue of localized flooding in these
areas could persist.
II. 10-Kile Creek Restoration Proj ect
Ten-Mile Creek is both a major canal for the North St. Lucie
River Water Control District system and a natural stream
course feeding the North Fork of the St. Lucie River.
Portions of the creek have been "channelized" or
straightened by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1940's
for flood control and water movement purposes. Maintenance
of this stream bed as a canal has been essentially non-
existent, which has resulted in large areas of sediment
deposition and shoaling. These constrictions in the river
have resulted in the loss of water carrying/storage capacity
and have in recent years precipitated flooding of low lying
areas along the river.
The County is presently applying for mai ntenance dredging
permit approvals from the appropriate governmental
January 9, 1990 6- C- 22 DRAINAGE
authorities. The County is proposing to restore this stream
to the hydraulic removal capacity that it had with the
completion of the 1940' s dredging. This restoration proj ect
is expected to relieve the backwater flooding problems in
the area.
St. Lucie County Stormwater Ma~naqement Plan
No effective County-wide stormwater management plan presently
exists for St. Lucie County. Specific areas with little or no
drainage and/or overtaxed conveyance systems have been studied
and improvements have been proposed, but obtaining community
cooperation and funding resources has been a problem in the past.
Those area-specific studies conducted to date have focused on:
the unincorporated area of the County referred to as White City
east of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River (Beindorf and
Associates, 1970); the flood plain of the North Fork of the St.
Lucie River (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972); the capacity
and flood routing of canal C-25 (Camp, Dresser, and McRee, 1985);
the C-131 Flow-Way to connect Lake Okeechobee through canals C-
23 and C-24 for irrigation and water availability in canals and
shallow sediments. (USGS, 1972)
The SFWMD is presently reviewing the conclusions and
recommendations concerning the C-25 Basin and the C-131 Flow-Way
under the title of Taylor Creek - Nubbin Slough Diversion Project
as a means of reducing nutrient loadings to Lake Okeechobee. In
addition to the engineering requirements for water storage and
conveyance, the review will consider the environmental impacts of
discharging larger quantities of fresh water through C-25 and
Taylor Creek into the Indian River Lagoon near Ft. Pierce Inlet.
A by product of this study may include the decision to develop
one or more water reservoir areas in the western portions of the
County to serve both as an agricultural water source and to
improve the water quality in the eastern portions of the County
by regulating the introduction of the agricultural waters.
The lack of a comprehensive drainage program for the County,
particularly the eastern urban regions, is emerging as an issue
that if left unaddressed, will significantly, and detrimentally,
effect the quality of life for both existing and future
residents. As an objective of this element, St. Lucie County
should embark upon a program to develop and implement a County-
wide master stormwater management program designed to address
existing problems and to avoid future problems.
Aquatic Prese3rves
From a point just north of West Midway Road the North Fork of the
St. Lucie River has been designated by the State of Florida as an
Aquati c Pres erve, Chap. 2 5 8. 5 9( 12 F. S. , ( Fi gure 6-C-16, f ound
on page 6-C-24). With the Aquatic Preserve designation these
waters also carry the classification of Outstanding Florida
Waters. With the exception of the Northwest Fork of the
Loxahatchee River, no other river in this region has as much of
January 9, 1990 6- C- 23 DRAINAGE
f
~
~ NORTH FORK, ST. LUCIE
Q AQUATIC PRESERVE
J
~O ~ .
~
9 ~
a
5
I
~ m ~
Q a
tiii~'~~: s I
~
~l.l ~
O ~
~ ~ pe~' ~
~ l
~sl elv ' r
~:::~:o ~~5
~1
y :
. ~
:
.
. .
FIGURE 6-C-16
~
.
. ' :::::sr:::~::~:::.
:::...p.:.
a ::..IG~:~
~~e ~~C~~L~ o ~
~OC~~~ '
o~
~ . ~L~Oo~~DQ
January 9, 1990 6- C- 24 DRAINAGE
its floodplain within such a designated area. The combination of
subtropical climate, unusual vegetation mixture, and wilderness
qualities in the midst of a major emerging urban area make this
preserve distinctive.
The Florida Department of Natural Resources has prepared a
Resource Management Plan for this area. This plan was adopted by
the State in May of 1984. This plan contains programs oriented
to the enhancement of water quality. The Aquatic Preserve
Management Plan prepared by the FDNR includes major program
policy directives that describe the maintenance of water quality.
This plan, though noble in its goals, may be in conflict with
some of the objectives of the small water management and control
districts that discharge to the North Fork of the St. Lucie
River. The areas of greatest conflict are relative to the design
of the local drainage systems which utilize the North Fork as the
only discharge route available, and the objective of the
management plan to preserve the quality and character of the
River. All water collected in this district must pass through
this preserve in order to be discharged to the Atlantic, the
ultimate receiving body. Stormwater discharges to the North Fork
of the St. Lucie River carry sediment, nutrients and pesticides
into the aquatic preserve where deposition of fine clays and
organic materials may create environmental problems. Although
sedimentation of rivers and estuaries is a natural process, it is
being accelerated by urbanization and artificial drainage (SFWMD,
1988a). An objective of this element should be that St. Lucie
County, while recognizing the need for preservation and
enhancement of the North Fork, should remain in a position to
utilize the river as a point of discharge for its up stream
development. Water quality issues related to this discharge are
a separate concern that is addressed further in the Conservation
Element.
The Indian River Lagoon in St. Lucie County, north and south of
the corporate limits of the City of Ft. Pierce, has been
designated as part of The Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve
(Figures 6-C-17 and 6-C-18, found on pages 6-C-26 and 6-C-27,
respectively). The lagoon is a long, shallow estuary important
in this region for its value to recreational and commercial
f i s hi ng, boati ng, and pri me res i denti al devel opment. The
preserve is located in a rapidly growing urban area affected by
both agriculture and residential drainage. The majority of the
shore line is mangrove fringed, with development being mostly
residential. The lagoon is bounded on the west by the Florida
mainland and on the east by barrier islands. The Intracoastal
Waterway runs the length of the lagoon, which is designated as a
wilderness preserve. Water quality studies by the FDER (FDER,
1985), SFWMD (SFWMD, 1987a) and others, indicate that inland
drainage discharges in areas of the Indian River with poor
circulation (i.e., between inlets) result in the degradation of
water quality in the lagoon, especially along the western shore.
January 9, 199o 6- C- 25 DRAINAGE
~ /
~ ~
Aquatic Preserve
~ ~
~
,
~ VIKIN ~
1~~ S
N
1NDRI0 ROAD
'€5~~~;~~~~
nF ~
CO
` tih~' PEPPEP, ,
PARK
c~
P
ST
gQ8 ST. IUCIE 6LVp.
P~P
0
~
W FORT PIERCE
Y a
~ INLET
ANGLE ~ ,~„°~,.E,. \ o
~,9 ~n "S P P ~ C~
~
cD ~~SE'~iS~t~1~~ ~t.
~ ~ AVE. D
;o
FIGURE 6-C-17
Indian River Lagoon ~uatic Pr~seive, St. Lucie County
( FDM2, 1985a ) .
January 9, 1990 6- C- 26 DRAINAGE
sr ~uu[ L -
9
f ' P
~y ~
~ i
G
' ~~y~~ ~
° ' Aquatic Preserve
~ ys. ~
" ~.-;'.p l O
f~
~
.v1~+~~
~
~ ~
r~ % ~
~ ~ ~ I
~
~ ~ ~
y / i ~ 7" ~
7
- ~ N
~
~
~
_s
~
~
. ° ~
~
~
~ -
~
~ ~ ~
~
FIGURE 6-C-18
T ian River Lagoon Ag3atic Pres~zve, St. Lucie
County ( FU[~Il2, 1985a ) .
~ U o L~ V V~ L~ ~ O~ I~ Ll ~J ~ U
~(~OG°3~DQ
,
January 9, 1990 6- C- 27 DRAINAGE
100-year Floodplain
The 100-year floodplain, as identified and discussed in the
Future Land Use Element, is found on page 6-C-29, Figure 6-C-19.
L$VSLS OF SERVICE
RYi stinq Level of Service
As mentioned above, a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan
has not been prepared for St. Lucie County. As such, an
objective of this sub-element should be the completion of such a
plan as well as for the implementation of the recommendations of
that plan through the County's Land Development Regulations and
practices.
When considering the establishment of levels of service for
drainage, it is first necessary to define the basic structure of
the drainage system. The recommended definitions to be used are:
PRIMARY NRTFfORH: The primary network would be those surface
waters including natural water courses, which serve as the final
path of conveyance from the secondary and local drainage network
to the ocean or other maj or inland receiving area, i. e. Lake
Okeechobee. Examples of the primary network would be the South
Florida Water Management District canals and the North Fork of
the St. Lucie River.
SECONDARY NST6+TORR: The secondary network would be those
facilities that serve as transmission ways from the local or
tertiary network into the primary network. Examples of the
• secondary system would the local drainage canals of the local
water control districts.
LOC~PiL NS7.'~TORH: The local network would consist of those canals,
drainage swales, detention/retention ponds that serve to
collect/store the local rainfall before it is discharged into
the secondary system. These systems typically have little or no
intermediate or long term storage capacity and must be
maintained for maximum efficiency. These facilities should be
designed in such a manner that they provide for the "first flush"
treatment of sediments and pollutants, keeping them from the
secondary and primary system. If possible, no local network
system should discharge directly into a primary network or
ultimate receiving body.
When viewed as a whole, stormwater drainage is not presently a
significant problem in St. Lucie County. As mentioned, it is
acknowledged that certain areas of the County are experiencing
flooding problems during periods of heavy rain. These problems
are more the result of a failed local system or construction that
is not in accordance with current design standards, than with
overall system failure. However, St. Lucie County is rapidly
approaching the crossroads where definitive action must be taken
January 9, 1990 6- C- 28 DRAINAGE
I 2 9 I i ) F 1 . E [ C D U { i 1 ~ ~ ,
r.., :
~1~
[ ~ l ? L ~
.5~~~~Tl
GENERALIZED
I . . ~ .
I 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
3
i ^ \ I t i
` r I ~ ,.~~a P ~
- I ~ - oy
- ; I ; 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
, i
~ ~~~a
V i ~ _ - ' reirn
~•V
I ~
t
I s~~~~ NOTE: FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
I r e~ ~ ~ h
'n " ' . IIERCE: r~« n.`~«,.`~
ON ~fHE LOCATION OF TNE Y00 YEAR FL80D
~ ,
R: ~
~ ~ _
_ _ . A ~ , _ - - _ . : _ _ e,S.- ~ - . , . : _ . , . _ s
~ . , PLAIN, PLEASE REFER TO FEMA • 1984
~ ~ ~
~ ~'Y FLOC~D INSURANCE RATE MAPS FOR
W I _ i „
, i - ~ a~~ ~ ~ Sr. ~
i
iriF rp~NTY
~ ~ x ~ - ~
i f ; :
e
f ~ an
_ ~
i ,
en r _ ~r .
~ RI -
~ I j
i
~ ~ i
,
o i _ ,r~
t "y ~
~
~
~ ~ _ f FIGURE 6-C-19
I ~ (.y l ' 4 ` u..~ ~
~ i ~ . ; .
~ ~ 1 11...f ^ . ~S
~ ~ ~ 9 S . LUCIE 1,~t `~S \L~
t
,-.I • ' „ ~ ~ '~..:'~~*v<~,~~~ ~ NJ~ . ~~~~IS ~OO VOV~ U
I - ~ ~~1 ~~~Rx~a
, a _ ,
I ~ ~ ~ _ ~
, , .
- - - - - - .
- - _ - a ~ q
R ~ a
< , u z r r
B Y R I 1 tl I~~~ '
~ ' 6
in regard to a County-wide stormwater review so that as
urbanization continues, the present marginally adequate,
agriculturally designed, secondary system can be expanded and
upgraded.
Future Level of Service:
In the absence of specific quantitative information on the
carrying capacity of the County's current drainage network, the
County has set a level of service standard for drainage of the 10
year/1 day storm event. The two Water Control Distriots use the
1~ year/1 day storm event for their facilities. Also, the SFWMD
uses the 10 year/1 day storm event for the drainage basins of
the C-23, C-24 and C-25 canals. A more refined level of service
standard will be determined by the Stormwater Master Plan and
will be adopted through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Such a
study on the overall drainage in the County that meets
more than current needs, is beyond the immediate scope of
this Plan. ( 9J5. 005 ( 2)(b) )
NEEDS ~SSESSI~~ENT
The primary drainage systems (South Florida Water Management
District, Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District, and North St.
Lucie River Water Control District) have the capability of inter-
basin and inter-district transfer of stormwater, but as
mentioned, an overall plan for St. Lucie County remains to be
developed. Part of the difficulty in developing a County-wide
master plan is lack of discharge data and records for many
systems such as North St. Lucie River Water Control District, Ft.
Pierce Farms Water Control District, and the Cities of Ft. Pierce
and Port St. Lucie. Gauging/recording devices could provide
empirical data to establish flows and system capacities, improve
stormwater routing, and reveal existing or potential shortcomings
of elements in each system. In reviewing the Taylor Creek-Nubbin
Slough Diversion Project, the SFWMD needs to include all of St.
Lucie County, as well as other affected regions, to clarify their
plan and satisfy other drainage needs or concerns.
Orqaai.zati.onal Assessment
Drainage in St. Lucie County is the responsibility of many
entities. This fact, coupled with a lack of funding, have been
major impediments to the development of a surface water
management master plan. Therefore, an intergovernmental
organi.zation with representatives from the County, local and
regional water management districts, the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulations, and the Florida Department of Natural
Resources should be considered to provide the information,
coordination, and implementation to develop a master plan. The
South Florida Water Management District would be the agency to
organize and lead such an effort.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 30 DRAINAGE
Perfor~ance Bssessment
County Master Drainage Plan Development: The principal purpose
of a Master Drainage Plan would be to define flooding problems on
a basin by basin basis. Once the problems, if any, are defined,
it will then be possible to develop model solutions. These
solutions could, as one option, propose that a variable level of
service ratio be employed for each basin, recognizing that
certain basins may have topographic conditions that are more
conducive to ground water absorption than others, resulting in
reduced rates of run-off and high rates of aquifer recharge.
The Master Drainage Plan development should include, but not be
limited to, the following:
1. Coordination with all stormwater agencies and concerns
that affect the County's watersheds and with all the
past and present stormwater study efforts;
2. Retrieval of all hydrologic, drainage system data, and
other related data. This data will be entered on the
County's Geographical Information System (GIS) and will
consist of such items as soils maps, vegetative cover,
land ,use, municipal boundaries, reoharge zones, water
table elevations, wetlands and lakes, streams and
canals, topography, watersheds, roads, flood prone
areas, zoning, water level recorder locations, and all
major control and conveyance structures.
'3. The Master Plan will have an operational model of each
basin that will be capable of performing "dynamic"
modeling of the existing hydrologic/hydraulic system
such that the problem areas can be defined.
4. The Master Plan, or another study to be undertaken
within the same time period, will address the extent
of the siltation of the North Fork of the St.
Lucie River. At this time, the County is unable to
document this. Results from the Master Plan or other
studies will be added through a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
Stormwater Drai.nage Facilities: The St. Luci e County Engi neer
has documented isolated drainage problems in many areas of the
County. The apparent causes for many of these problems are
inadequate conveyance systems; pumped drainage at the upstream
reaches of creeks and canals; urbanization; and inadequate
f l oodpl ai n pl anni ng.
These apparent problems may have different causes. Inadequate
conveyance can be caused by overgrowth of canals/ditches,
inadequate canal depths and/or cross-sections or shoaling from
sedimentation as in the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. In
addition, pumped drainage from farms can drastically shorten
concentration times and may surcharge the receiving drainageway.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 31 DRAINAGE
Also, urbanization increases run-off and decreases concentration
times. In general, floodplain planning has not kept pace with
the changes in hydrology in St. Lucie County.
The original design of the primary drainage systems by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers used thirty percent of the one-day/100-
year project storm, or approximately a one-day/10-year storm, as
the conveyance capacity for canals C-23, C-24, and C-25 (SFWMD,
1988a) to serve agricultural drainage needs. However, the
eastern parts of the drainage basins are becoming urbanized and
the SFWMD design standard for urban areas is presently a three
day/25-year storm.
The isohyetal maps found in Appendix A, show the rainfall amounts
and special variation of rainfall in the County for the above-
referenced storm events. For the area immediately west of the
Turnpike, this difference between design storm events is an
additional four inches of rainfall in the urban area. Therefore,
the newer urban drainage systems discharging to the older primary
drainage systems may not function properly unless retention
and/or detention is provided in the urban design or the primary
system is upgraded. Consequently, development projected in the
Future Land Use Elements of the County and the municipalities
needs to be used as a data source for developing a County-wide
stormwater management plan.
Agricultural drainage of marshes and wetlands has removed the
stormwater storage capacity of these areas and thereby has added
, to the overall volume of stormwater discharged through the
urbanized areas. Concurrently, removal of this storage capacity
has removed the major sources of groundwater recharge with a
resultant increase in dry season irrigation demand.
Surface water quality in the modified natural systems has been
acceptable, but there is little data concerning flood flows.
Man-made drainage systems contain nutrients from agricultural and
urban run-off as documented by the SFWMD. (SFWMD, 1988b) Canal
C-25 has seasonal high levels of dissolved minerals from floridan
aquifer irrigation return flows. The issue in this regard is
that this canal serves as a recharge source for one of the City
of Ft. Pierce' s primary wellfields.
Groundwater Systems: Abandoned free-flowing or leaking artesian
wells are a source of contamination for the shallow aquifer. To
abate this problem, St. Lucie County, in a cooperative effort
with the SFWMD, is engaged in a program to plug these free-
flowing or damaged wells.
Deeper zones of the floridan aquifer have cavernous regions, or
boulder zones of extremely high transmissivities that are
generally considered suitable for deep well injection of domestic
secondary wastewater effluent and some industrial wastes. The
injection zones, at depths of 2500-3500 feet, have a system of
confining layers above them that severely limit or prevent
migration of inj ected fluids to upper parts of the aquifer. A
January 9, 1990 6- C- 32 DRAINAGE
domestic waste injection well is presently in service in Port St.
Lucie and additional in~ection wells are being considered at
other locations.
Facility Replacement, Expansion, and New Facility Siting
Once the Drainage Master Plan is completed, the County will be
able to adequately address facility replacement, expansion, and
new facility siting. Until that time, the County will continue
with the existing programs set out below:
1) Lakewood Park Improvement Project
(as discussed on page 6-C-22);
While this is a MSBU project, the County has budgeted the
following under "Roads: Other County (Non-LOS)" for the
County' s share of this proj ect. This is a combination
road/drainage project: $500,000 each year for fiscal years
89-90, 90-91, and 91-92.
2) 10-Mile Creek Restoration Project
(as discussed on page 6-C-22);
The County has budgeted $75,000 for fiscal year 89-90 for
this project. This amount is shown under Maintenance
Dredgi ng.
3) Land Acm,;sition
There is a need for diversion canals, outfall canals,
reservoirs and oxbows or widening of existing canals. These
types of projects will require additional land and are
necessary to control both quantity and quality of stormwater
runoff into the Indian River Lagoon. Using a base price of
$25,000 per acre and assuming (as per the SWIM study) that
approximately 25 to 30 acres could be purchased at the
confluence of the 5-Mile and 10-Mile creeks, the total cost
of $750,000 spread over 6 years, beginning with fiscal year
89-90, would be $125, 000 per year. In addition, there is a
need for secondary canal systems with their right-of-way of
approximately 10 acres per year and total land acquisition
would be $1,000,000 over a 6 year period. For fiscal years
89-90, 90-91, and 91-92, $150,000 has been budgeted each
year. For 92-93 and 93-94, $180,000 has been budgeted each
year and for 94-95, $190,000 has been budgeted.
4) Maintenance Dredging
The 10-Mile Creek north of Midway Road needs to be dredged.
The County has budgeted $75,000 for this project for fiscal
year 89-90 which is for the 10-Mile Creek Restoration
Project. (see page 6-C-22 for a discussion of this project)
This project is a County responsibility even through it is
January 9, 1990 6- C- 33 DRAINAGE
the outfall for the North St. Lucie River Water Control
District' s system.
In the future, the County will be owning and operating
canal systems in the western sections of the County. These
canal systems, as they grow in number, will require
maintenance. Until a County-wide storm drainage utility is
created, the County will most likely bear the brunt of these
start-up costs. The County has budgeted $40,000 for fiscal
years 90-91, 93-94, and 94-95. For fiscal years 91-92 and
92-93 the County has budgeted $20,000.
5 ) $ngineering Studies
Ongoing in-depth analysis of the entire surface water and
groundwater quality and quantity will need to be conducted.
The County has budgeted $50,000 for fiscal year 91-92 and
$60,000 for fiscal year 94-95. Additions and amendments to
both the inventory of the hydrologic system and updating and
calibration of the hydrologic and hydraulic computer inputs
will need to be conducted.
6 ) $m~; pment
Maintenance and replacement of large equipment is needed on
a continuous basis. The County has budgeted $50,000 for
fiscal year 89-90 $60,000 for fiscal year 90-91, $70,000 for
fiscal year 91-92, $80, 000 for fiscal year 92-93, $90, 000
for fiscal year 93-94, and $100,000 for fiscal year 94-95.
As the County constructs more canals the equipment costs
will increase.
7) 1Kaster Drainage Plan
(as discussed on page 6-C-31)
The County has budgeted $300,000 for fiscal year 89-90 for
this proj ect.
$si.sting Ordina.nces and Regulations Which Govern Land IIse and
Development of Hatural Drainage Features
Following are the current ordinances and regulations that govern
land use and development of natural drainage features in St.
Lucie County:
1) Standard Speci£ications for Paving, Sidewalk and Drainage
Construction (Resolution ~78-49)
This resolution lists the specifications for minimum design
and construction criteria for roads, sidewalks and drainage.
There is a definite need to update this resolution. When
this was originally adopted, the County.was not as urbanized
as it is today. When preparing the new Land Development
Regulations, to be adopted by August 1, 1990, this
January 9, 1990 6- C- 34 DRAINAGE
resolution should be updated to better reflect the needs of
the County. The new Stormwater Management Ordinance,
currently in the works, should further expand on the
drainage section of this resolution.
2) Driveway Ordinance (Resolution ~87-13)
Al1 residents must get a permit to install a culvert. The
purpose of this is to monitor elevations at which culverts
are set to assure that existing flow lines are maintained.
This ordinance establishes the diameter, depth and length of
culverts. While this ordinance was approved recently, some
changes are needed to cover unanticipated situations. These
changes will be done during the development of the Land
Development Regulations, to be adopted by August 1, 1990.
3) Subcii vi s i on Requl ati ons ( Cha.pter 1-19, St. Luci e County
Code)
These regulations contain the technical requirements for
subdivisions and the definitions for what constitutes a
subdivision. ~is the area continues to urbanize, these
regulations need to be updated. The development of the Land
Development Regulations, to be adopted by August 1, 1990,
will incorporate revisions to the Subdivision Regulations.
4) Flood Damaqe Prevention (Chapter 1-8_5, St. Lucie County
Code)
The purpose of this Code is to: control the alteration of
natural floodplains, stream channels, and natural protective
barriers which are involved in the accommodation of
floodwaters; control filling, grading, dredging and other
development which may increase erosion or flood damage; and,
prevent or regulate the construction of floor barriers which
will unnaturally divert floodwaters or which may increase
flood hazards to other lands. This Code adequately
addresses the issue of flood damage prevention and does not
need any revisions at this time.
5) Drainaqe and $rosion Control Ordinance, Chapter 1-7_5,
A*t; cle II, St. Lucie River, St. Lucie County Code
The purpose of the St. Lucie River Code is to improve the
quality of surface water run-off by limiting the amount of
natural vegetation removed within 50' of the water. This
50' is not a setback. Construction is allowed if a permit
is obtained. This code also assists the natural drainage
features by cutting down on the erosion and siltation. In
the Future Land Use Element of this Comprehensive Plan, new
distances have been proposed. A 75' setback for all
cons tructi on, as propos ed, woul d i mprove on the exi s ti ng
code.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 35 DRAINAGE
6) St_ Lucie County Zoni.ng Ordinance
Landscaping and Screening Regulations, Section 3.2.600
These regulations require a 10~ landscaping strip on
the perimeter of the property between residential and
non-residential zoning and adjacent to public
ri ghts -of -way.
Offstreet Parking and Loading, Section 3.2. 500
These regulations allow multi-family dwelling units to
utilize stabilized grass parking for 50~ of the total
parking requirement. For religious facilities,
auditoriums, stadiums, racetracks, and related uses 75~
of the total parking requirement may be stabilized
gras s parki ng.
The County's Zoning Ordinance will be revised while
developing the Land Development Regulations, which will be
adopted by August 1, 1990.
RYisting Ordinances and Regulations Whi.ch Govern Land IIses and
Development of Groundwater Am~ifer Recharge ~reas
Following are the current ordinances and regulations that govern
land use and development of groundwater aquifer recharge areas in
St. Luci e County:
1) Interim wellfield Ordinance
The "Interim St. Lucie County Public Wellfield Protection
Ordinance" provides criteria for regulating deleterious
substances and contaminants which may impair public water
supply wells that are operated by utilities with a minimum
permitted withdrawal capacity of 100,000 gallons per day.
No development approval may be issued for any nonresidential
activity which stores, handles, produces or uses any
regulated substance within one thousand (1,000) feet of any
public utility public water supply well. Regulated
substances generally include those on Federal and State
hazardous, toxic, and restricted use pesticide lists.
Special exemptions may be issued for activities which
provide precautionary measures such as inventories,
containment, and monitoring.
The ordinance was drafted by a countywide committee. It was
also adopted by the City of Ft. Pierce, City of Port St.
Lucie, and St. Lucie Village. Prior to issuance or denial
of special exemptions, the County and municipalities must
request comments and recommendations from the County's
hydrogeologist. The committee oontinues to work on a
permanent ordinance.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 36 DRAINAGE
2) Florida ~dmi.ni.strative Code, Chapter lOD-6
Standards for Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems
An Onsite Sewage Disposal System Construction Permit is
required prior to the installation of a septic tank or other
onsite sewage disposal system. There is a 5' setback from
all property lines and a 10' setback from other septic
tanks. This Code requires a 75' separation from private
potable water wells, a 200' separation from public potable
water systems, and a 50' separation from non-potable water
wells. The Code lists criteria concerning size and location
of septic tanks.
Chapter 10D-6 is administered by the St. Lucie County Public
Health Unit, Environmental Health Section and is currently
being revised.
3) Florida Admi.aistsative Code, Chapter lOD-4
Water Systems
This Code requires a 75' separation between private water
systems wells and septic tank or drainfields (also in
Chapter lOD-6). This Code lists criteria concerning
construction, operation and maintenance of water systems.
The St. Lucie County Public Health Unit, Environmental
Health Section administers this Code. Currently a permit is
not required to install private water wells. However, the
Environmental Health Section verifies the separation
distance required when inspecting the septic tank. •
Currently, this Code is being revised to require a permit to
install a well. These revisions should be in place
sometime in 1990.
S»~ma*~ and Reconmendations
Steps should be taken to revise the County drainage
regulations with regard to existing or proposed standards,
floodplain planning, hazardous material management, and
as s oci ated f uture 1 and us e pl anni ng. I n addi ti on, the
revised regulations should be in the form of an ordinance.
Projects by the SFWMD could have a wide range of impacts in the
County and a framework for the County Master Plan must be
available to properly assess these impacts. A better inventory
of discharge data needs to be developed for the interconnected
drai nage s ys tems .
Small area drainage studies need to be conducted followed by
implementation plans that include funding, permitting, right-of-
way acquisition, and construction plans. Funding, which has
always been the constraining factor, may be necessary from a
January 9, 1990 6- C- 37 DRAINAGE
variety of sources that may include the following: SFWMD;
special assessments districts; special taxing districts; State
and federal grants or matching funds; and public bonds.
A supply of fresh water for irrigation and aquifer recharge is
needed to replace the brackish water presently being withdrawn
from the floridan aquifer. Continued use of the floridan aquifer
will mineralize the shallow aquifer to the extent that
agricultural productivity will decline and the City of Ft. Pierce
wellfield along the C-25 Canal may not be usable. The SFWMD
needs to assess the impact of irrigation return flows as part of
the well permitting process.
The proposed SFWMD Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Diversion Project
(formerly the C-131 Flow-way Project) may be a viable means of
providing the needed water supply. Locating this proj ect' s
storage reservoirs in St. Lucie County would provide a
groundwater recharge source that would help to displace
mineralized groundwater. Since increased freshwater discharges
into the Indian River Lagoon via the C-25 Canal have potential
negative impacts, consideration should be given to the
possibility of "pulsing" releases of drainage from this canal
into the Lagoon, in the same manner as has been done successfully
for the St. Lucie Canal by the South Florida Water Management
District. By doing this, natural freshwater releases are more
closely mimicked. Another possibility to be considered in order
to avoid detrimental impacts to the Lagoon from C-25 drainage is
the timing of drainage releases coincidentally with the outgoing
tides of the Ft. Pierce Inlet.
The use of treated domestic wastewater effluent to supplement
irrigation supplies and recharge the shallow aquifer should be
further investigated. The seasonal irrigation requirements
necessitate the use of storage or disposal of unneeded effluent.
However, facilities using deep well injection for effluent
disposal are, in fact, storing the effluent and a significant
portion of the effluent could be recovered for irrigation use.
Effluent irrigation on the barrier island should also be
considered where setbacks from water supply wells and/or the
Indian River Lagoon would permit it. This would provide effluent
disposal and reduce the demand on potable water supplies.
In addition to conserving the use of groundwater by using
irrigation quality (IQ) sewage effluent or surface water
supplies, aquifer recharge through stormwater retention and/or
detention needs to be considered for both area-wide and
individual project applications. Retention by impoundment may be
used for future irrigation needs by agricultural facilities and
retention lakes in urban areas will reduce the volume of
stormwater run-off.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 38 DRAINAGE
GOALS, OBJI3CTI VSS, AND POLI CI RS
GOAL 6C. 1: I T I S THE GOBL OF ST. LIICI $ COIINTY TO ~AiSIIRS
THE PROVTSION OF ~N ADLQIIATS STORMWATSR
DRAINAGE AND MANAGSMENT SYSTS1rI THAT IS BOTH
T13CffidI CALLY AND ECOHOI~II CALLY FI~SI BLE I N
I~EETI NG THE ~ STI NG AND FDTORS NEEDS OF TIiS
CO1~IIrIiJHI TY.
OBJRCTIVE 6C_1_1: By January 31, 1991 the County shall have
commenced the development, to be completed by
January 31, 1992, of County-wide Stormwater
1Kaster Plan, the purpose of which is to
identify problems, propose solutions, and
determine costs_
Policy 6C. 1. 1. 1: Upon the completion of the stormwater master
plan for the County, the County shall
establish minimum levels of service for each
defined drainage basin and shall incorporate
those levels of service into this
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 6C. 1. 1. 2: As a part of the development of the County' s
Land Development Regulations, the County
s hal l i ncorporate; ~as appropri ate, the bes t
management practices of the South Florida
Water Management District as interim drainage
standards until the completion of the
Stormwater Master Plan.
Policy 6C. 1. 1.3: The level of service standard for drainage
shall be the 10 year/1 day storm event; a
more refined level of service standard will
be determined by the Stormwater Master Plan
and will be proposed through a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment by August 1,
1991.
Policy 6C. 1. 1.4: When the level of service standard is
established for drainage subsequent to the
completion of the County-wide Stormwater
Master Plan (as indicated in Policy
6C. 1. 1. 1), the level of service standard
shall include performance standards for water
quality and flood control. Appropriate local
and state regulations specifying stormwater
quality standards shall be incorporated by
reference into the drainage level of service
standard to measure performance of systems
which are designed to remove pollutants from
run-off. Appropriate regulations specifying
January 9, 1990 6- C- 39 DRAINAGE
ambient water quaiity standards shall be
referenced to prevent further degradation of
surface and groundwaters by run-off from
stormwater facilities built prior to
stormwater quality regulations taking effect
in 1982.
Policy 6C. 1. 1.5: The level of service standard in Policy
6C. 1. 1.3 shall be applicable to all
commercial, industrial and residential.
development activities within the
unincorporated St. Lucie County.
Policy 6C. 1. 1. 6: The County shall include as an amendment to
the Land Development Regulations, no later
than August 1, 1993, a public assistance and
information program for complying with the
required drainage facility programs.
Policy 6C. 1. 1.7: The County shall continue to coordinate
efforts with all appropriate authorities in
regard to water storage and capacity
enhancements for the North Fork of the St.
Lucie River, including those portions within
the designated aquatic preserve.
OBJECTIVS 6C. 1.2: By January 31, 1991, the County will have
defined the floodprone areas within its
j uri.s di ction. •
Policy 6C. 1.2. 1: The County Engineer shall maintain an
inventory of flooding complaints, and each
January lst provide a report to the Board of
County Commissioners identifying any problem
areas and include any recommended corrective
actions.
Policy 6C. 1.2.2: Request the South Florida Water Management
District, North St. Lucie River Water Control
District and Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control
District establish system-wide water level
monitoring stations in order to provide the
data base necessary for the development of
adequate stormwater management programs.
Obj ective 6C_ 1. 3= By ~ugust 1, 1990, the County shall enact
Land Development Regulations which support
the protection and mai.ntenance of the natural
functions (flow and storage) of the 100-year
floodplain and other natural drainage
features.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 40 DRAINAGE
Policy 6C. 1. 3. 1: The County shall incorporate into its Land
Development Regulations specific criteria
regulating construction standards within the
100 year flood plain.
Policy 6C. 1. 3. 2: The County shall, as an appendix to the Land
Development Regulations, prepare a public
informational handout explaining the purpose
for the regulations set forth in Policy
6C. 1. 3. 3.
Policy 6C. 1. 3. 3: The County shall incorporate into its Land
Development Regulations specific criteria
regulating land use and development to
protect the functions of natural drainage
features.
OB.T$CTIVS 6C.1.4: By January 31, 1991, the County, in
conjunction with the South Florida Water
1rlanagement District, shall begin to review
and evaluate existing drai.nage studies and
plans within the County' s jurisdiction to
determine their relevance to the current
stormwater requlations.
Policy 6C. 1.4. 1: The County shall request the South Florida
Water Management District to immediately
commence an update~' of its inventory of
groundwater levels within the County and the
impacts of the development activities, since
1970, on these levels.
Policy 6C. 1.4.2: In conjunction with Objective 6C. 1. 1, the
County shall coordinate with the South
Florida Water Management District to
establish drainage service areas tied to the
identified drainage basins.
Policy 6C. 1.4.3: All development will be specifically
conditioned on the availability of services
necessary to maintain level of service
standards as adopted within this
Comprehensive Plan.
GOAL 6C. 2: I T I S THE GOAL OF ST. LIICI S COIINTY TO
I MPLEMENT A COIINTY-WI DE DRAI NAGE SYST131rI FOR
DRBAN AND NONURBAN ARRAS_
Objective 6C_ 2_ 1= By December 31, ~Z992, the County will have
commenced implementation of the master
drainage plan developed in Obj ective 6C. 1. 1_
January 9, 1990 6- C- 41 DRAINAGE
Policy 6C. 2. 1. 1: Seek funding from State/federal grants and/or
assessments in the area served by drainage
improvements.
- Policy 6C.2. 1.2: No development authorizations shall be
issued unless there is provided to St. Lucie
County assurance that all required drainage
improvements will be provided for both on-
site and off-site.
Policy 6C.2. 1.3: No final certificate of occupancy, as may
be further defined in the Land Development
Regulations, shall be issued until all
drainage improvements, both on-site and
off-site, for the particular development
have been inspected and approved by St.
Lucie County, or other appropriate
authori ty.
GOAL 6C. 3: I T I S THS GO~L OF ST. LIIQ $ CODNTY TO ENSIIRS
TfiAT THE SIIRFICI~L GROIIND~TSR ~IATSR QIIALITY
IS THE HIGHI3ST POSSIBLE FOR POTABI.g PDRPOSES.
Obj ective 6C. 3. 1: To improve the water quality level of areas
that fai.l to meet potable standards, and to
prevent the further contamination of the
surficial am~i fer.
Policy 6C. 3. 1. 1: As a part of the Land Development
Regulations, include regulations governing
the protection of potable wellfields from
possible sources of contamination.
Pol i cy 6C. 3. 1. 2: To i ncl ude wi thi n the Land Devel opment
Regulations by December 31, 1991, surface
water quality standards to prevent the
further degradation of the surficial
wellfields.
Pol i cy 6C. 3. 1. 3: The Land Devel opment Regul ati ons s hal l
require wastewater reuse plans for new sewage
treatment plants operating abave 250,000
gallons per day. Any new reuse plan shall be
approved by FDER.
Policy 6C. 3. 1.4: To encourage the development of a series of
agricultural reservoir areas to reduce the
impacts of agricultural fertilizers and other
related chemical applicants on the existing
potable wellfields in the eastern portions of
the County.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 42 DRAINAGE
Policy 6C.3. 1.5: To continue to cooperate with the South
Florida Water Management District in the
identification and closure of free flowing
artesian wells.
Policy 6C.3. 1.6: The development of County Land Development
Regulations shall address comprehensive
stormwater management including consideration
of the following:
a. the use of stormwater detention and/or
retention;
b. streambank and shoreline buffer zones:
c. general design and construction
standards for onsite stormwater
management.
Policy 6C.3. 1.7: Request reviews and comments from the Ft.
Pierce Watershed Action Committee and the St.
Lucie Watershed Action Committee on
appropriate stormwater management initiatives
for unincorporated areas which may impact or
be beneficial to other areas within the
watersheds.
Obj ective 6C. 3. 2: To include in the Land Development
Regulations, to be adopted by August 1, 1990,
criteria for regulatinq land use and
development to protect the functions of
natural groundwater recharge areas.
Policy 6C.3.2. 1: The County will protect the functions of
natural groundwater aquifer recharge of
designated public potable water supply wells
by adopting a permanent Wellfield Protection
Ordinance by August 1, 1992.
Policy 6C. 3. 2. 2: The County will continue to work with the St.
Lucie County Public Health Unit,
Environmental Health Section, by verifying
the issuance of the septic tank permit before
a building permit is issued.
Policy 6C. 3. 2. 3: The County will continue to assist the St.
Lucie County Public Health Unit,
Environmental Health Section, with the
Hazardous Waste Verification Program by
continuing to require all Occupational
License applicants (except Home Occupations)
receive Public Health Unit approval prior to
issuance of an Occupational License.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 43 DRAINAGE
Pol i cy 6C. 3. 2. 4: No Condi ti onal Us es f or s and mi ni ng and no
rezonings to Industrial, Extraction (IX) will
be granted within public potable water supply
recharge areas designated through the
Wellfield Protection Ordinance; when the
information is available to designate aquifer
recharge areas, this policy will be revised
through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
include those areas.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 44 DRAINAGE
BI BLI OGRAPHY
Beindorf and Associates, Inc., Preliminary Report for Water
Control in and Around White City Florida, December, 1970.
Camp, Dres s er and McKee, I nc. , C- 2 5 Canal Bas i n Hvdrol ogi c
StudY, June, 19 8 5.
Coordinating Council on the Restoration of the Rissimmee River
Val l ey and Tayl or-Creek Nubbi n Sl ough Bas i n, Sy~pos i um
Summarv. Reaional Influence of Drainage on the Hydroloaic
Cycle in Florida, July, 1982.
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, IFAS, University of
Florida, David P. H. Tucker, Citrus Irrigation Management,
Circular 444, N. D.
Florida Department of Community Affairs, Model Element for
Sanitary Sewer Solid Waste Drainaae Potable Water and
Natural ~Groundwater Aquifer Recharae Element, May 1987.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulations, Indian River
Water Ouality Survey, 1984-1985 1985.
Florida Department of Natural Resources, North Fork--St. Lucie
River Aquatic Preserve Management Plan, May, 1984.
Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology,
Geoloaical Bulletin No 51 Geomorphology of the Florida
. Peninsula, 1970.
Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology, Wa r
Available in Canals and Shallow Sediments in St Lucie
County, Florida, 1972.
South Florida Water Management District, An Atlas of St Lucie
County Surface Water Management Basins, November, 1988a.
South Florida Water Management District, Technical Publication
88-9, An Assessment of Urban Land Use/Stormwater Run-Off
Oualitv Relationshins and Treatment Efficiencies of Selected
S~ormwater Manaaement Systems, July, 1988b.
South Florida Water Management District and St. Johns River Water
Management District, Indian River Lagoon Joint
Reconnaissance Report, 1987a.
South Florida Water Management District, Frequency Analvsis of
Rainfall Maximums for Central and South Florida, 1981a.
South Florida Water Management District, SFWMD Local Governmen
Assistance Proaram, Data Documentation for St Lucie Countv,
July 8, 1987b.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 45 DRAINAGE
South Florida Water Management District, anagement of Water Use.
Permit Information Manual Volume III, June, 1985a.
South Florida Water Management District, Proiect Planninq and
Construction Summary FY 85-86, October, 1985b.
South Florida Water Management District, Technical Map Series
79-1, Hydrogeolic Reconnaissance of the Floridan Aauifer
~vstem Ugner East Coast Planning Area, 1979a.
South Florida Water Management District, Technical Publication
81-3. Frequencv Analysis of Rainfall Maximums for Central
and South Florida, May, 1981b.
South Florida Water Management District, Technical Publication
85-1, Short Term Effects of a Freshwater Discharge on the
Biota of St. Lucie Estuary, Florida, March, 1985c.
South Florida Water Management District, UAner East Coast Water
Ouality Studies, 1983.
South Florida Water Management District, Proiect Planning and
Construction Summary, 1986.
South Florida Water Management District, Non-Agricultural Water
Use in the Ugner East Coast Planning Area, 1979b.
South Florida Water Management District, An Evaluation of
• Wastewater Reuse Policy Options for the South Florida Water
Management District, 1984.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Information. North Fork
St. Lucie River, St. Lucie County. Florida, November, 1972.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Rainfall Frequency Atlas. Alabama. Florida, Georaia and
South Carolina for Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and
Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years, June, 1973.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Soil
Survey of St. Lucie County Area, Florida, March, 1980.
U. S. Geological Survey, Florida Bureau of Geology, Water
Available in Canals and Shallow Sediments in St. Lucie
County, Florida, FBOG Report of Investigations No. 62, 1972.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 46 DRAINAGE
APPENDI X A
AN ATLAS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT BASINS, SFWMD, 1988.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 47 DRAINAGE
TECHNiCAL MEMORANDUM
AN ATLAS OF ST. LUClE COUNTY
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT BASINS
By
Richard M. Cooper
and
Terry W. Ortel
November 1988
Water Resources Division
Resource Planning Department
Sovth Florida Water Management District
January 9, 1990 6- C- 48 DRAINAGE
AN ATLAS OF ST. LUCiE COUNTY
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT BASlNS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This atlas contains information about the surface water management basins in
St. Lucie County, Florida. The South Florida Water Management District (District)
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have primary authority over water
management in these basins. The District has sponsored publication of this atlas to
make available up-to-date non-technical descriptions of the su~face water
management basins in St. Lucie County to District personnel, to local governments
in St. Lucie County, and to other interested persons. Text, maps, and tables of
information are used to define and locate basins within the county. Canals, levees,
and control rtructures within each basin and under the management of the District
or the COE are located and are described and discussed with regard to their
operation and management.
The surface water management basins of St. Lucie County were first
delineated in the 1950's by the COE in thei~ General Desi n Memorandum (GDM)
for the Centraf and Southern Florida Flood Control Project Project . Base on the
hydrology of the basins, the COE designed and ~constructed a system of canals,
levees, and control structures to provide fiood protection for southern and centrat
~ Florida. The Project is dynamic, with new works being constructed and old ones
being modified to meet the changing needs of southern Florida. Most of the works
constructed under the Project are now under the management of the District.
Five basins are described: the C-25, C-24, C-23, the North Fork of the St. Lucie
River, and the C-59 basins.
The Project canals in St. Lucie County serve a variety of functions. The primary
function of all the canals is to provide flood protection for the basins in which they
are located. Secondary uses of the canals include (and drainage for agriculture and
urban or residential development and regulation of groundwater table elevations
to p~event intrusion of saltwater into focal groundwater. Most of the canals supply
water for irrigation du~ing periods of low natural flow.
The Project control structures in St. Lucie County regulate the ffow of water in
the canals. In general they are used to discharge excess water from the basins
during flooding and to maintain minimum water levels in the canals during drought
periods. Some structures are usuaily closed to prevent water from passing from one
basin to another, but can be opened to supply~water from one basin or canal to
ar,other as necessary. The coastal structures have the additional function of
preventing saltwater from a tidal or storm surge from entering those canals
ciischarging to tidewater.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 49 DRAINAGE
A bibiiography is included with the atlas. it lists publications concerning
hydrology and hydraulics, water use, water quality, and land use in St. Lucie County.
For the reader unfamiliar with some of the concepts and words used in these
descriptions, the appendices contain a discussion of basic hydrologic and hydraulic
concepts, and a glossary of terms.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 50 DRAINAGE
~
w
~
~
w
n
~ SUMMARY INFORMATION
~
CSFFCP~ CSFFCP~ Design Level
~ Basin Canals Control of Fiood Primary Uses
o Structures Protection
C-25 •C-25 5-50 30% SPFz • Flood protection
'C-25 South 5-99 (1-10 Year) • Drainage
Leg G-81 • Water supply
•C-25 • Control saltwater intrusion into local
~ Extension groundwater
' C-24 •C-24 5-49 30% SPFZ ~ Flood protection
~ •C-23 G-78 (1-10 Year) • Drainage
~ G-79 ~ Water supply
N G-81 • Contro) saltwater intrusion into local
~ groundwater
C-23 •C-23 5-Q8 30% SPF2 • Flood protection
5-97 (1-10 Year) • Drainage
G-78 • Water supply
• Control saltwater intrusion into local
groundwater
North Fork •C-23A 5-49 30% SPF2 • Flood protection
St. Lucie ~C-24 (1-10 Year) ~ Orainage
C-59 •C-59 5-191 30% SPF2 • Flood protection
(Taylor Creek- •L-63S/L-64 5-192 (1-10 Year) • Drainage
Nubbin Slough Borrow Canal G-106 • Water supply
~L-63N Borrow
d Canal
~
H
~z, ~Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project
~ ZStandard Project Flood
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Su m ma ry i
ListofFig ures v
ListofTables v
Acknowledgements vi
Abstract vi
Introd uction 1
Sasin Descriptions:
C-25 (Belcher~Cana!) Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
C-24 (Diversion Cana!-Rim Ditch Canal) Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
C-23 (~ounty Line Canal) Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
North Fork St. Lucie River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
C-59 (Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough) Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Bibliography 30
Appe~dices
1 Basic Concepts 34
2 Glossary 38
January 9, 1990 6- C- 52 DRAINAGE
L1ST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. St. Lucie County Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. C-25 Basin Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3. C-25 Basin Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. ~-24 Basin Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. C-24 Basin Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. C-23 Basin Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7. C-23 Basin Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
8. North Fork St Lucie River Basin Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
9. North Fo~k St. Lucie River Basin Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
10. ~-59 Basin Location Map 27
11. C-59 Basin Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. ~-25 Basin Structures- Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2. C-24 Basin Structures - Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. C-23 Basin Structures - Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. C-59 Basin Structures - Design Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
January 9, 1990 6- C- 53 DRAINAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This atlas was compiled under the supervision of Richard Tomasello,
Supervising-Professional Engineer, Water Resources Division, Department of
Resource Planning. The authors wish to extend their thanks to the many people
who contributed to the completion of this atlas: to Alan Hall whose suggestion it
was to publish the atlas as a Technical Memorandum, to 1im Lane fo~ his many
suggestions and comments, to Joel Van Arman for producing the tables and for
supplying most of the citations in the bibliography, to Nettie Winog~ad for
preparing the manuscript for ~eview and for publication, and to the many people
who reviewed the manuscript and offered their comments and suggestions. Our
speciai thanks go to Dawn Reid and Barbara Brown fo~ creating the excellent maps
used in this atlas. Without Dawn's and Ba~bara's patient and painstaking efforts,
this atlas could not have come into being~.
AB STRAtT
An atlas of the surface water management basins of St. Lutie ~ounty is
presented. Five basins are destribed by text, maps, and tables of information. For
each basin the canals and control structures of the Central and Southern Flood
Control Project located within that basin are described and are discussed with
regard to their operation and management. The 9 canals and 1 J control structures
discussed provide flood protection to 453 square miles of St. Lucie County. The
design level of flood protection for all of the basins is 30 percent of the Standard
Project Flood (SPF~. In addition to flood protection, the canals and control
structures provide d~ainage, contrib~te to agricultural water supply, pravide
navigable waterways, and in the case of the coastal structures, provide protection
from saltwater intrusion into groundwater.
January 9, 1990 6- C- 54 DRAINAGE
AN ATLAS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT BASINS
INTRODUCTION
This atlas contains information about the surface water management basins in
St. Lucie County, Flo~ida. The South Florida Water Management District (District)
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) have primary authority over water
management in these basins. The District has sponsored publication of this atlas to
make available up-to-date non-technical descriptions of the surface water
management basins in St. Lucie County to Dirtrict personnel, to {ocal governments
in St. Lucie County, and to other interested persons. Text, maps, and tables ot
information are used to define and locate basins within the county. Canals, levees,
and control structures within each basin and under the management of the District
or the COE are located and are described and discussed with regard to their
operation and management.
The surface water {nanagement basins of St. Lucie County were first
delineated in the 1950's by the ~OE in their General Desi n Memorandum (GDM)
for the Central and Southern Florida F(ood Control Project Project . Presented in
the GDM were the COE's analysis of the hydrology of each basin and an assessment
of the flood risk for a rtorm of specified intensity and duration. Based on the
hydrology of the basins, the COE designed a system of canals, levees, and control
structures to provide some desired level of flood .protection for each basin. Designs
of these works were presented in the GDM and in the Detailed Desiqn
Memorandum for the Project. Most of the worfcs constructed un er t ie Project are
now un ert e management ofthe District.
The Project is dynamic. As the population in South Florida has grown, and as
land use and water demands have changed, the Project has evolved in ~esponse to
the~e changes. Some parts of the original Project were never built, other parts have
been rebuilt or modified, and as the need has arisen, new structures have been
designed and constructed. In some cases, the basins themselves have been
redefined. As the COE cannot always participate in construction of new works, the
District has occasionalfy assumed responsibi(ity for the design and construction of
additions or modifications to the Project.
This atlas describes the five surface water management basins in St. Lucie
County, F(orida, and the Projectworks associated with each.
Following the basin descriptions is a bibliography of publications related to
the surface water management basins in St. Lucie County. A variety of subjects are
included: hydrology, hydraulics of canals and structures, water use, water quatity,
and land use. Included under hydrology and hydraulics are publications describing
various statistical and mathematical models used by the District to predict rainfall,
runoff, and canal flow.
Although the basin descriptions are not technica(, the reader unfamiliar with
the hydrology of lands within the county and with t~asic water resources
engineering may need some words and concepts defined. Where this is the case,
the reader is referred to the appendices. Appendix 1 is a discussion ofthe important
January 9, 1990 6- C- 55 DRAINAGE
concepts with which the reader should be familiar to understand the basin
descriptions. Appendix 2 is a glossary of terms, abbreviations, and acronyms used in
these descriptions. Aiso defined in the giossary are the District's designations for
the various Project and District works: canals, levees, and control structures.
Using the Basin Descriptions
Surface water management basins (hereafter drainage basins) in St. Lucie
County are identified by the same designation as the major Project canal focated in
that basin. For exampie, C-24 is a canal draining centra( St. Lucie County. The
drainage basin is named the C-24 basin. The exception to this rule in St. Lucie
County is the North Fork of the St. Lucie River basin which is named for the major
natural water channel in the basin afthough there is a short Project canal, ~-23A, in
the basin. In some cases, a canal also has a common name by which it is known. Fo~
example, C-25 is known as the Belcher Canal. The common name is given
parenthetically in the chaptertitles following the Projectdesignation fo~the canal.
The drainage basins in St. Lucie County are shown in Figu~e 1. Map A(folded
and placed in the pocket of the fly(eafl is a large map showing the basin boundary,
canals, levees, and control structures relative to local roads and landmarks. This
map shoufd be referenced to precisefy locate basin bounda~ies and District and
Project works within the county. D~ainage basins that do not have Project works
located within their boundaries are not discussed in this atlas.
Each description contains three parts. The first part is a written discussion of
the basin and is d;vided into two sections. The first section, Destription of the Basin,
provides a general description of the basin and its Project and District works: the
drainage area; the general location ofthe basin within the county; the pu~pose and
~ general operation of canals in the basin; the aIignment of and direction of water
flow in these canals; tfie .location of inlets and outlets to the canals; and the
location, purpose, and operation of rtructures controlling flow in the canals. The
second section, Commentr on Design and Histotic Operation, provides tommentary
on a variety of topics related to the basin: the design storm (see Design Storm under
BAS1C CONCEPTS); significant changes to the basin and its works (e.g., urban
development or enlargement of a canal) since the GDM was written, particularly
with regard to any changes in flood protection fo~ the basin; and proposals under
consideration to redeTine the basin orto modify any canals or control structures.
The second part of each basin description is a set of two maps. The first map
locates the basin relative to other basins in St. Lutie County. The second map is a
schematic drawing of the basin and its canals and control structures. I~ is intended
that these maps should be used in conjunction with the written descriptions to
understand the layout and operation of canals and structures in the basin. Major
roads and landmarks are included on the schematic maps to help the reader iocate
the basin within the county. Precise location of canafs or structures witFiin the basin
can be obtained by reference to Map A.
The third part of each basin description is a table presenting information
about Project and District control structures (see ~ontrol Structu~es under BASIC
CONCEPTS) located in the basin. The ta5les provide a Qhysical description of each
structure: type of structure, method of controlling water flow, and pertinent
dimensions or elevations. Where a structure has been designed to pass a certain
discharge under specified conditions of upstream and downstream water levels, this
2
January 9, 1990 6- C- 56 DRAINAGE
information is included as the design discharge, design headwater stage, and design
tailwater stage, respectively. The specified discharge is generally the flood
discharge expected to pass the structure for the desig n storm.(see Design Storm
under BASIC CONCEPTS). In some cases, however, the design discharge may refer to
water passed through the structure to supply downstream users or to maintain a
specified water level in a canal downstream. If a structure was designed to be used
:o maintain a specified upstream water level under normal non-flooding conditions,
this information is included as the optimum headwater stag~. Peak water levels
upstream and downstream of the structures, and peak discharges through the
structures, are also given for those structures where this information has been
recorded. Other information about the structures may be given if relevant.
3
January 9, 1990 6- C- 57 DRAINAGE
INDlAN RIVER COUNTY
S7. LUC(E COUNTY
N
~
~ •
A~
~ C-25
K
~
r
~ N
~
0
0 1 2 3 4 S
MILES _
~
~ NO ORK
n T. IE
i R1VE
~
00
~
z
„~b
z
U p
u
C-24
N
q U
uw J
Y y
C-23
C7
~ c-a~
Z ST. l.UC1E COUNTY
~ MARTIN COUN7Y
~ •
~
FIOURE i. ST. LUCIE COUNTY DRAINAOE 8A81N8
C-25 (BELCHER CANAL) BASIN
Description of the Basin
The C-25 basin is approximately 164.8 square miles in area and is located in
northwest St. Lucie County (41.8 square miles, Figure 2), eastern Okeechobee
County (117.0 square miles), and southern Indian River County (6.0 square miles).
The basin boundary in St. ~ucie County relative to local roads and landmarks is
shown on Map A. A schematic map showing the basin boundary, canals, and
control structures for the C-25 basin is given in Figure 3.
The Project canals and control structures in the C-25 basin have three
functions: (1) to remove excess water from the C-25 basin, (2) to supply water to the
C-25 basin and under some conditions to the C-24 basin, and (3) to maintain a
groundwater table elevation west of 5-50 adequate to p~event intrusion of salt
water into (ocal groundwater. Excess water may be discharged from the basin to
tidewater by way of 5-99 and S-S0, or to the C-24 basin by way of G-81. Water
surface elevations in C-25 are regulated by S-SO and 5-99. In general the only water
supply to the C-25 basin is from locaf rainfall and from pumping of groundwater
from the Floridan Aquifer.
There are three Project canals in the C-25 basin: C-25, C-25 South Leg, and the
C-25 Extension.
C-25 is aligned east-west, parallel to and 1.5 miles north of Orange Avenue
from a point one mile east of Minute Maid Road to the Intracoastal Waterway.
Flow in C-25 is to the east, with discharge to tidewater in the Intracoastal Waterway
(Indian River) west of the Fort Pierce Inlet.
C-25 South Leg is aligned north-south, parallel to and 0.7 of a mile east of
Minute~Maid Road from Orange Avenue to C-25. At its north end, C-25 South Leg
makes an open channel connection with the west end of C-25. At its south end, C-25
South leg is connected to C-24 by way of the divide structure G-81. Flow in C-25
South Leg is to the north to C-25.
The C-25 Extension parallels Florida's Turnpike from a point about 1.5 miles
west of Minute Maid Road to a point about 0.7 of a mile east of Minute Maid Road.
There the canal turns to the south, paralleling Minute Maid Road to the confluence
of C-25 and C-25 South Leg. The confluence of C-25, the C-25 Extension, and C-25
South Leg is about 1.5 miles north of Orange Avenue. Flow in the C-25 Extension~is
to the south to C-25.
There are two non-P~oject canals serving the western C-25 basin that are of
interest: the Turnpike canal and the Orange Avenue borrow canal. These canals
provide flvod p~otection and drainage to the western part of the basin. They are
tributary to Project canals in the basin. The Turnpike canal is a(igned parallel to and
just south of Florida's Turnpike. ' It is continuous with the C-25 Extension and
extends eight miles to the west along the Turnpike. The Orange Avenue borrow
canaf is aligned parallel to and just north of Orange Avenue. At its east end, the
Orange Avenue borrow canal makes an open channel connection with C-25 South
Leg. The Orange Avenue borrow canal extends seven miles to the west along
Orange Avenue.
5
January 9, 1990 6- C- 59 DR.AINAGE
There are three Project control structures regulating flow in the C-25
basin: S-S0, 5-99, and G-81. Design criteria for the structures in this basin are given
in Table 1.
S-SO is a fixed crest weir located in the alignment of C-25 near U.S. Highway 1.
If flow in the canal is adequate, the weir ma~ntains a stage greater than 12.0 ft
NGVD in the lower reach of C-25, adequate to prevent saftwater intrusion to local
groundwater.
5-99 is a gated spillway located in the alignment of C-25 at Godwin Road. lt
controls water surface elevations in ~he upper reach of C-25, and it controls
discharge to the lower reach of C-25. When there is sufficient water, the structure is
operated to maintain a headwater stage between 19.2 and 20.2 ft NGVD during the
wet season (i.e., May 15 to October 1 S) and between 21.5 and 22.5 during the dry
season (i.e., October 15 to May 15).
G-81 is a steel sheet-pile dam with a gated.weir.~ It is located in the ~alignment
of C-24 at Orange Avenue. The structure is normally closed, and functions as a
divide between the G24.and C-25 basins (i.e., C-24 and G25 South L-eg). Normal
flows north of the structure are to the north, and no~mal flows south of the
structure are to the south. G-81 can be opened fortwo reasons: (1) to supply water
from the C-25 basin to the C-24 basin during the dry season when the stage in C-24
at 5-49 is below optimum (see Table 2) and is mo~e than 1.5 feet lower than the
stage in C-25 at 5-99; and (2) to pass flood discharges from one basin to the other ifi
additional ffows will not create a flood condition in the receiving basin. This
structure does not have a design flood discharge. Uncontrolled flow from one basin
to the other occurs when the stage on either side of the structure exceeds the crest
elevation of 23.0 ft NGVD.
Comments on Design and Historic Operation
~-25 and 5-99 were designed to pass thirty percent of the Standard Project
Flood, and to meet irrigation delivery requirements for the basin. However, much
of the western part of the basin has almost no flood protection. Landowners in the
area rely on on-site retention forfiood protection and drainage.
With District approval, two areas in the North Fork St. Lucie basin can be
pumped to C-25 to mitigate flooding in the North Fork St. Lucie basin: (1) an
eighteen square mile parcel in the northwest co~ner of the North Fork St. Lucie
basin which normally drains to Ten Mile Creek by gravity flow; and (2) a three
square mile parcel in the northeast corner of the North Fork St. Lucie basin which
normally drains to Five Mile Creek by gravity flow.
Water can be diverted from C-25 to the Fort Pierce Farms Drainage District for
irrigation during the dry season. The Fort Pierce Farms Drainage District drains by
gravity flow to C-25 befow 5-50 (i.e., to tidewater).
6
January 9, 1990 6- C- 60 DRAINAGE
There are a large number of citrus growers in the basin, and the demand for
water is high. At the present time, the only source of water is local rainfall and
artesian-well water from the Floridan Aquifer. This well water has a high mineral
content and is generally mixed with surface water before it is used as irrigation
water. In order to have an equitable distribution of the available surface water
supply, the inverts of irrigation supply culverts and irrigation pump intakes are
limited to a minimum elevation of 14.0 ft NGVD.
7
January 9, 1990 6- C- 61 DRAINAGE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ST. IUCIE COUNTY '
~
W
~
G
A~
n
~
~
~ N
~
~
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
MILES
~
NO aRK
~ T. IE
n RIYE
i
rn
N
N
r
E-
z
U ~
u
C-24
W N
J
U '
N
O ~
C-Z,
C7
C-6fl
H ST. LUC[E CQUNTY
~ MARTIN COUNTY
G~
~
FIOURE 2. C-25 BA81N LOCATION Fr1AP Q~ C-25 BASIN
w
~
~ C-25 BASIN
~
n
~
~
~
~
~
INDIAN R[VER CQUNTY
~
~ T~. ST. LUCIE COUHTY
I \
' ~l~c'• ST,
I Ry\~ FT. PIERCE
~
~ ROAD I~ \Pp~; J~HNS DRAINAGE DISTRICT
~ 8 MARSH
n ~ ORAINS TO C-E?
I Q c~ 3 ~ TURNPJKE DOYNSTRE/W OF 5-30
~ ~ c-z~ cx~arw, Q x
~ ~ ! - -
w ~ ~ S 5-99 ^ _ _
' s r c-es n"a~`'c
~i
u~
n r?r~a s-So
_ ~ ~ ~ j
~ QRANGE AVENUE CANAL = ~
SR6B/URANGE AVEMIE ( ~8~ THIS AREA
~ 4 HAT BE PUNPED ~(~ND
o~ TO C-23 BAS1N
~ + ---CANAI
N
~ .-.i~ RIVER
u
- LEVEE N
ROAD SCALE
_ _ COUNTY o~---~~" Z
LINE M1LES
d ~ SPILI.VAY
~ ~j CULVERT
VEIR
~
~ ~ PUHPING
tIJ
FIDURE 3. TNE C-25 BA81N STATION
ti
w
~
~ .
a
n
K
~
~
~
~
0
TABLE 1. C-25 Basin Structures - Design C~iteria
Peak Stage
pesign Design Design (ft NGVD) Date of
Structure Type HW Stage TW Stage Optimum Stage Discharge Peak
~ (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) ~ft NGVD) fs~ . ~ischarge Peak
~ (cfs)
n 5-SO Fixed Crest Weir 16.0 0.7 Passes ow 3800
Stage divide cresclych- 126ft hen HW> 12.0
i Crest elev ~ 12.Oft NGVO
5-99 Gated Spillway, 20.0 19.5 ay 15 to OCt 1 S 3860 HW = 23.A0 6/15/86
Stage Divide 2 gates ~ 19.2 5 HW 5 20.~
~ 15.4 ft highx 25.8ftwlde Ct15 t0 Ma 15 Q= 2709 8/28/64
Netcrestlgth•5o.oft ~ 21.5 5 HW 5~2.~`
rest elev ~ 5.6ft NGVO
G-81 SteelSheet-Pile Dam,
(Orange Ave. Structure) 3-timber gates on Depends on
Water Supply fromC•25 concrete welr, COt1dIt10f15
to C-24 9.Sft high x 5.7 ft wlde
Net crest Igth - I S.Oft
Flood Discharges Irom Crest elev -13.Stt NGVD
C-25 to C-2Q or irom
C•24 to C•25
in - inches Igth.l.ength CMP•Corrugatedmetalpipe HW•Headwater ds-downstream
It -(eet TW ~ Tall water RCP • Relnforced concrete pipe CFS ~ Cubic leet per second ups ~ upstream
elev . elevation Q• discharge in cfs ft NGVD. Feet relative to National Geodetic Vert(cal Datum
C7
~
H
z
~
~
~
C-24 (DIVERSlON CANAL-R1M DITCH CANAL) BASIN
Description of the Basin
The C-24 basin is approximately 166.6 square miles in area and is located in
central St. Lucie County (139.0 square miles, Figure 4) and east-central Okeechobee
County (27.6 square miles). The basin boundary in St. Lucie County relative to local
roads and landmarks is shown on Map A. A schematic map showing the basin
boundary, canals, and control struct~res for the C-24 basin is given in Figure 5.
The Project canals and control structures in the C-24 basin have three
functions: (1) to remove excess water from the C-24 basin, (2) to supply water to the
basin, and (3) to maintain a groundwater table elevation west of 5-49 adequate to
prevent intrusion of salt water into local groundwater. Excess water may be
discharged from the basin to tidewater by way of.S-49.or to the C-25 basin. by way of_
G-81. Water surface elevations in C-24 are regulated by 5-49. In general the only
water supply to the C-24 ~basin is from local rainfall and from pumping of
groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer, but, if available, water can be supplied to
the basin from the C-23 basin by way of G-78 or from the C-25 basin by way of G-81.
There are two Project canals in the ~-24 basin: C-24 and a portion of C-23.
C-24 comprises two canals: the Rim Ditch ~anal and the Diversion Canal. The
Rim ~itch Canal is that section of C-24 aligned no.rth-south, parallel to and west of
Rim Road. At its north end, the Rim Ditch Cana! is connected to t-25 South Leg by
way of the divide structure G-81. At its south end, the Rim Ditch Canal is connected
to C-23 by way of G-79 and to the Diversion Canal by an open channel. The
confluence of the Rim Ditch Canal and C-25 South Leg is at Orange Avenue, and the
confluence of the Rim Ditch Canal, Diversion Canal, and C-23 is two mi(es sou~h af
State Road 70. Flow in the Rim Ditch Canal is usually to the south. If G-81 is opened
to discharge water to the C-25 basin, flow in the Rim Ditch Canal may be to the
north. The Diversion ~anal is aligned east-west and extends from. its intersection
witfi the Rim Ditch Canal on the west to Shinn Road on the east. From Shinn Road
to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, the Diversion Canal is aligned northwest to
southeast. Flow in the Diversion Canal is to the east with discharge to tidewater in
the North Fork of the St. Lucie River just south of the town of Port St. Lucie.
The portion of C-23 in the C-24 basin extends two miles to the west from its
confluence with C-24 and thenthree milesto the south to Germany Canal Road_
C-23 enters the C-23 basin at Germany Canal Road by way of G-78. Water surface
elevations in this section of C-23 are maintained at a higher level than in C-24. G-79
controls water surface elevations in this section_ Fiow of water in this part of C-23 is
to the north to C-24.
There are four Project control structures regulating flow in the C-24 basin:
5-49, G-78, G-79, and G-81. Design criteria for the structures in the basin are given in
Table 2.
S-4y is a gated spillway located in the alignment of C-24 one mile west of
Florida's Turnpike. I~controls the water surface elevations in C-24, and it controls
the discharge from C-24 to tide water. When flow in the canal is adequate, a
11
January 9, 1990 6- C- 65 DRAINAGE
headwater stage is maintained by 5-49 adequate to prevent salt water intrusion to
local groundwater. During the wet season (i.e_, May 15 to October 15), the
headwater stage at 5-49 is maintained between 18.5 and 20.2 ft. NGVD, and during
the dry season (i.e., October 15 to May 15), the headwater stage is maintained
between 19.5 and 21.2 ft NGVD if flow in the canal is adequate.
G-78 is a gated culvert located in the alignment of C-23 at the end of Germany
Canal Road, 3.6 miles southwest of the confluence of C-23 and C-24. Control of
water flow is by riser and flashboards. The flashboards are normally all in place, and
the structure functions as a divide between the C-23 and C-24 basins. Under normal
conditions the section of C-23 north of G-78 is in the C-24 basin with flows to the
north to ~-24. Normal flows in C-23 south of G-78 are to the south. G-78 can be
opened for two reasons: (1) to discharge excess water from C-23 to C-24 during a
storm event if C-24 has sufficient capaaty to accept additional flows; and (2) to
supply water during periods of low flow, from the C-23 basin to the C-24 basin when
C-24 is below optimum and there is sufficient water in C-23. Although G-78 may
occasionally be used to pass excess water from the C-23 to the C-24 basin, it was not
designed to pass flood flows and is not considered to provide flood p~otection to
the C-23.
G-79 is a culvert in the alignment of C-23 at the intersection of C-23 and C-24.
Water flow is controlled by a riser and flashboa~ds. The structure is operated as a
weir to maintain relatively high stages in C-23 south to G-78. Water passed from
C-23 through G-78 to C-24 are also passed through G-79. The fiashboards are set at
21.0 ft. NGVD during the wet season and at 22.0 ft NGVD during the dry season. !f
the headwater (i.e., C-24 side) stage exceeds 23.0 ft NGVD, boards are pulled as
necessary to maintain a maximum headwater stage of 23.0 ft NGVD.
G-81 is a steel sheet-pile dam with a gated weir. It is located in the alignment
of C-24 at Orange Avenue. The structure is r~o~mally closed and functions as a divide
between the C-24 and C-25 basins (i.e., C-24 and C-25 South Leg). Normal flows
north of the structure are to the north, and normal flows south of the structu~e are
to the south. G-81 can be opened fortwo reasons: (1) to supply waterfrom the C-25
basin to the C-24 basin during the dry season when the stage in C-24 at 5-49 is below
optimum (see Table 2) and is mcre than 1.5 feet lower than the rtage in C-25 at
5-99; and (2) to pass flood discharges from one basin to the other if additi~onal flows
will not create a flood condition in the receiving basin. This structure does not have
a design flood discharge. Uncontrolled flow trom one basin to the other occurs
when the stage on either side of the structure exceeds the crest elevation of 23.0 ft
NGVD.
Comments on Design and Historic Operation
C-24 and 5-49 were designed to pass thirty percent of the Standard Project
Flood and to meet irrigation delivery requirements forthe basin.
There are a large number of citrus growers in the basin, and the demand for
water is high. At the present time, the only source of water is local rainfall and
artesian-well water from the Floridan Aquifer. This weil water has a high mineral
content and ;s generaily mixed with surface water before is used as irrigation water.
In order to have an equ~table distribution of the available surface water supply, the
inverts of irrigation suppfy culverts and irrigation pump intakes are limited to a
minimum elevation of 14.0 ft NGVD.
12
January 9, 1990 6- C- 66 DRAINAGE
_ _ _
[NDIAN RIVER COUNTY
~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY
W
~
~
W
K
K C-25
~
~ N
~
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
MILES
~
~ NO ORK
n T. IE
RIY~
i
~
~
~ ,
Q j i
u o
W u
w W
U
C.1 J
W
~ N ~
C~Z~
C-6~
ST. LUC1E COUNTY
MARTIN COUNTY
FICiURE 4. C-24 BA81N LOCATION MAP ~ C-24 BASIN
~
~
C-24 BASIN
~
~
n
~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~
0
SR68/[]RANGE AVENUE 'u)
-8l
~ ~ ~
~ Q
~ ~ ~
~
~ Y
~ N
~ ~ L~1
~
I
G-~
~ C-24CDIVERS[ON CANAL>.
I..EQEND ~
~
q ~
BAS1N v ~ ~ y ~'1~
~ ~ ~
ClkIAL w ~ tn
RIVER ~
- LEVEE G-78
- Rnnn N p.'i ''1~
CqUNTT SCALE tJ o S-19 ~
LINE ~ ~ `a
d ~ SPILLYAY ~ MILES E ~~f/v
~ f~ CIAVERT k
'Z d vf(R /
~ ~ PUFIPING ' ~
~ STATION P~
FIQURE 5. THE C-24 BA81N
~
w
~
~
w
n
~c
~
~ TABLE 2. C-24 Basin Structures - Design Criteria
~o
~ Peak Stage
° Design Design Design (ft NGVD)
Structure Type NW Stage TW Stage Optimum Stage Discharge Peak Oate of
(ft NGVD) (h NGVD) ~h NGVD) fs~ Discharge Peak
(cfs)
5-49 Gated spiliway, 16.3 2.4 May 15 to Oct 1 S 4680 HW = 22.39 3/9/69
Stage divide 2 gates, 18.5 5 HW 5 20.2
'15.7h high x 17.8ft wide OCt 1 S t0 May 1 S Q= 3857 8/28/64
a, Net crest Igth•34.Oft 19.5 5 HW 5 21.2
Crest elev a 4.4ft NGVD
' G-78 Culvert, ormaily Closed,
~ Divide Structure: C-23 and R~ser with ilashboards opened to
C•24 Basins 1-121n x SOh CMP supply WBtEf
~ Water 5 ~pply; G23 to G24 from 243 t0 C-
rn
~ G-79 Culvert, 22.0 22.9 195
(Carlton Road Structure) Risers with ilashboa~ds
Stage divide 2-60in x 61h CMP
Water Supply: C•23 to C-24 nvert. elev• 16.9ft NGVD HW < 23.0
(west end)
nvert. elev. 15.9Ft NGVO
(east end)
i-84in x 62h CMP
I~vert. elev• 1 S.1 h NGVD
G-g ~ Steel Sheet-Pile Dam,
(Orange Ave. Structure) 3•timber gates on Depends on
Water Supply (romC-25 ~ancrete weir, Conditions
to C•24 9.Sft high x 5.7 ft wide
Flood Oischar es Irom Net crest Igth • 15.Oft
9 Crest elev - 13.5(t NGVD
C•25 to C-24 or (rom
C-24 to C-25
~n . inc es gt- engt - orrugate meta pipe - ea water s- ownstream
ft • leet 1'W . Tail water RCP - Rei~lorced concrete pipe Cf5 - Cubic feet per second ups ~ upstream
elev ~ elevation Q- dischsrge in c(s ft NGVO• Feet relative to National Geodetic Vertical Datum
CJ "
~
H
z
~
c~
~
C-23 (COUNTY LINE CANAL) BAS1N
Description of the Basin
The C-23 basin is approximately 167.7 square miles in area and is located in
southwest St. Lucie County (82.7 square miles, Figure 6), eastern Okeechobee
County (14.0 square miles), and northern Martin County (71.0 square miles). The
basin boundary in St. Lucie County relative to local roads and landmarks is shown on
Map A. A schematic map showing the basin boundary, canals, and control
structures is given in Figure 7.
The Project canal and control structures in the C-23 basin have three functions:
{1) to remove excess water from the ~-23 basin, (2) to supply water to the C-23 basin
and occasionally to the C-24 basin du~ing periods of low natural flow, and (3) to
maintain a groundwater table elevation west of 5-48 adequate to prevent intrusion
of saltwater into local groundwater. Excess water in the basin may be discharg ed to
tidewater by way of 5-97 and 5-48, or occasionally, to the C-24 bas'rn by way of G-78. ~
Water surface elevations in C-23 are regu(ated by 5-48 and 5-97. In general, the only
water supply to the C-23 basin is from local rainfall and from pumping of
groundwater from the Flo~idan Aquifer.
C-23 is the only Project cana) in the basin. Its northern most end is in the C-24
basin and connects to C-24 at State Road 613 (Cariton Road) two miies south of
State Road 7Q. From State Road 613, C=23 extends to the wesi two miles and then to
the south to the Martin-St. Lucie County line. C-23 enters the C-23 basin on this
north-south leg at German~ Canal Road six ~iles north of the county line. Flow in
C-23 is divided between the C-23 and C-24 basins at Germany Canal Road by the
divide structure G-78. At the Martin-St. l.ucie County line, the canal turns to the east
to follow the county Iine to a point one miie east of Florida's Turnpike. The canal
extends another 1.5 miles to the southeart discharging to tidewater in the North
: ork of the St. Lucie River west of the City of Stuart. Normal fiow of water in the
north-south leg of C-23 south of G-78 is to the south, and flow of water in the east-
west leg of C-23 is to the east. If water is being discharged to the C-24 basin fo~
water supply or for flood control, flow of water in the north-south leg may be to the
north.
There are three Project rtructures controlling flow in the C-23 basin: 5-48, 5-97
and G-78. Design criteria for the structures in this basin are given in Table 3.
5-48 is a fixed crest weir located at the outlet of C-23 to the North Fork of the
St_ Lucie River. If flow in the canal is adequate, the weir maintains a stage greater
than 8.0 ft NGVD in the lower reach of C-23, adequate to prevent saltwater
intrusion to loca( groundwater.
5-97 is a gated spillway located at the Florida's Turnpike crossing of C-23. It
controls water surface elevations in the upper reach of C-23, and it regulates
discharge to the lower reach of C-23. If flow in the canal is adequate, the structure
is operated to maintain a headwater stage of between 20.5 and 22_2 ft NGVD
during the wet season (i.e., May 15 to October 15) and between 22.2 and 23.2 ft
NGVD during the dry season (i.e., October 1 S to May 15).
G-78 is a gated culvert located in the alignment of C-23 at the end of Germany
Canal Road, 3.6 miles southwest of where ~-23 joins C-24. Control of water flow is
16
January 9, 1990 6- C- 70 DRAINAGE
by riser and flashboards. A(I flashboa~ds are normally in place and the rtructure
functions as a divide between the C-23 and C-24 basins. G-78 can be opened fortwo
reasons: (1) to discharge excess water from C-23 to C-24 during a storm event if
C-24 has sufficient capacity to accept additional flows; and (2) during periods of low
flow, to supply water from the C-23 basin to the C-24 basin when C-24 is below
optimum and there is sufficient water in C-23. G-78 was not designed to pass flood
discharges. Although G-78 may occasionaily be used to pass excess water from the
C-23 to the C-24 basin, it was not designed to pass flood flows and is not considered
to provide flood protection to the C-23 basin.
Comments on Design and Historic Operation
C-23 and 5-97 were designed to pass thirty percent of the Standard Project
Flood and to meet irrigation delivery requirementsforthe basin.
There are a large number of citrus growers in the basin, and the demand fo~
water is high. At the present time, the only source of water is local rainfall. and
artesian-wel! water from the Floridan Aquifer. This well water has a high mineral
content and is generally mixed with surface water before it is used as irrigation
water. In order to have an equitable distribution of the available surface water
supply, the inverts of irrigation supply culverts and irrigation pump intakes are
limited to a minimum elevation of 14.0 ft NGVD.
17
January 9, 1990 6- C- 71 DRAINAGE
ca INDIAN R(VER COUNTY
~ ST. LUC(E CDUNTY
~
~
W
ri
C-25
~
~
~o
~ N
0
~
0] 2 3 4 S
MILES
~
n NO ORK
T. IE
~ RIVE
~
N
I
~ I
r ,
z
~
P
U
w C-'1~{
~
O
z
U
W
W
Y
O
i
d '
~
z c-se ;
~ ~
~ MART[N COUNTY
FIQURE 6. C-23 BA81N LOCATION MAP ~ C-23 8A81N
~
C-23 BASIN
~
~
~
'~C ~ ~ SR 70
~
I~ U ~
z a
~ a~ ti
v ~-23- =Z,
~
o ~ i ~ ~G.7 9
~ ~
o
0.1 ~
S
~ G-7B
a~ ,
i ~
n,
i
~ U
~
~ I A L ~ A P A T 7 A fl
~ {
c~' F L A T S r`:'.::'•:::
ti~
~,P .n .
F~"G `4,p~d •~•~4•::~.
ST, LUCIE COUNTY C-23 9i+
LEGEND - - - - .,.._...._,..._..,r.~: . ~ ~l ~
NARTIN COUNTY 5~97 S-4d
a,ast~~ ~ ~r ' P:.
CANAL ~ ~
r..i- R[VER y "
- - LEV~E
- RQAD
COUNTY
~tNE N
~ SPILI.WAY SCALE
d ~ I
~ ~ GUL.VERT p I
~ VEIR MI~ES
~ PUNPING
~ STATION
F1C3URE 7. THE C-23 BA81N
4
w
~
~
a
n
~
~ -
~
~o
.o
0
TABLE 3. C-23 Basin Structures - Design Criteria
Desi n Desi n Desi n Peak Stage
~ g g Optimum Stage g (ft NGVD) Date oF
i Slructure Type NW Stage TW Stage (ft NGVDj Discharge peak Discharge peak
(h NGVD) (h NGVD) (cfs) (cfs)
n 5-48 Fixedcrestweir 13.0 0.7 Passes ow 5035 Q= 3859 9/19/85
~ Stage divide cresc~yct,. tt3.oh when HW>8.0
Crest elev•B.Ok NGVD
~ 5-97 Gated 5pillway, 18.5 14.0 May 15 to Oct15 5035 HW 23.82 10/02/67
Stage Divide 2 gates 20.5 5 HW 5 22.2
14.2fthlghx22.eftwlde OctlStoMay 15 Q=3859 9/19/85
Net crest Igth • 44ft 22.2 5 HW 5 23.2
Crest elev - 7.8 ft NGVD
G_78 Culvert,
Oivide Structre~ C-23 1•121nx SBft~MP
and C-24 basins
m- inc es gt- engt - orrugate meta pipe ~ ea water s~ ownstream
h• feet 1~N - Tail water RCP• Refn(orced concrete plpe CFS - Cubic teet per second ups - upstream
elev - elevation Q• discharge In cls ft NGVD ~ Feet ~elatlve to Natlo~al Geodedc Vertical Oatum
t7
~
H
z
~
c~
~
NORTH FORK OF THE ST. LUC1E RIVER BASIN
Description of the Basin
The North Fork of the St.lucie River drainage basin is 191.6 square miles in
area and is Iocated in eastern St. Lucie County (180.7 square miles, Figure 8) and
northeastern Martin County (10.9 square miles). The basin boundary in St. Lucie
County is shown on Map A. A schematic map showing the basin boundary, canals,
control structures, and tributary streams is given in Figure 9.
The Project canals and control structure in the North Fork of the St. Lucie River
basin remove excess water from the North Fork of the St. Lucie River basin and from
the C-24 basin. Discharge of water into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River basin
from the C-24 basin is controlled by 5-49.
There are two Project canals in the North Fork of the St. Lucie River basin.
C-23A is a short section of canal in the lower reach of the North Fork of the St. Lucie
River. C-23A passes discharges from the North Fork of the St. Lucie River and fcom C-
24 to the St. Lucie estuary. A short reach of the C-24 canal extends from 5-49 one
mile west of Florida's Turnpike to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River just north of
C-23A. This reach of C-24 has no control and istidal.
5-49 is the only Project control structure regulating flow in the Nortti Fork of
the St. Lucie River basin. 5-49 is a gated spiliway located in the alignment of C-24
one mile west of Florida's Turnpike. It~controls the water surface elevations in C-24
(in the C-24 basin), and it controls. the discharge from ~C-24 to tide water (in the
North Fork of the St. Lucie River basin). A headwater stage is maintained by 5-49
adequate to prevent salt water intrusion to local groundwater. Specifically, 5-49 is
operated to maintain a headwater stage of between 18.5 and 20.2 ft NGVD during
the wet season (i.e., May 15 to October 15) and between 19.5 and 21.2~during the
dry season (i.e., October 15 to May 15).
Comments on Design and Historic Operation
C-23A was designed to pass thirty percent of the Standard Project flood from
the North Fork of the St. Lucie River basin and from the C-24 basin.
With District approva(, two areas in the North Fork St. Lucie River basin can be
pumped to C-25 to mitigate flooding in the North Fork St_ Lucie River basin: (1) an
eighteen sq uare mile parcel in the northwest corner of the North Fork St. Lucie River
basin which normally drains to Ten Mile Creek by gravity f(ow, and (2) a three
square mile parcel in the northeast corner of the North Fork St. Lucie River basin
which normally drains to Five Mile Creek by gra~ity flow.
The District and the COE are currently (1988) investigating plans to reduce
deposition of sediments in the St. Lucie Estuary. There are two significant
problems:
1. Deposition of coarse, sandy sediments at the outlet of C-4-4A to the South Fork
of the St. Lucie River creates shoals that restrict flow and are a hazard to
navigation.
21
January 9, 1990 6- C- 75 DRAINAGE
2. Deposition of fine cfays and organic materials eisewhere in the estuary may
create environmentai problems. in some cases, the fine materials promote
anaerobic conditions on the estuary bottom, an unsuitable environment for
the organisms typically inhabiting the estua~y. Additionally, these fine
materials may contain high concentrations of toxic materials (e.g_, heavy
metals and pesticides).
The sediments involved in these depositions result in part from scouring of
canal banks upstream along C-44. ~ontinuous scour in some areas has widened the
canal to the extent that purchase of additional right-of-way has been requi~ed. It is
believed that C-44A, the tributaries to both C-44 and C-44A, and Lake~Okeechobee
are also sources of sediments, but the relative contributions of these sources has not
yet been determined.
Several alternative plans have been suggested: (1) installation of rip-rap and
other structural materials along the banks of the canal, (2) stabilization of~the canal
banks through sloping and revegetation, (3) construction of a large settlement
basin, and (4) continuation of the current practice of periodic dredging of the
estuary. The COE is preparing a draft Genera! Design Memorandum which will
descnbe the various options and make recommendations for future work.
The District, the COE, the U. S. Department of Ag~iculture, the Martin County
Soil and Water Conservation District have sponsored a demonstration project to
evaluate the use of various structural materials and vegetation to stabilize the canal
banks. Three sites were chosen fo~ study: Site 1 is located just upstream of 5-80 and
is subjected to lowered water levels and high water velocities during regulatory
discharges. This site was stabiiized with farge rocks placed at or below the waterline
and various types of plants placed above the waterl~ne. Site 2 is located midway
between 5-80 and 5-308 near Indiantown. Little fluctuation in water levels occurs at
this site during regulatory releases. It was stabilized with vegetation. Site 3 is
(ocated just downstream of 5-308 in an area subjected to higher water levels and
high water velocities during regulatory releases. This site was stabilized with
various types of structural materials placed at and above the waterline.
22
January 9, 1990 6- C- 76 DRAINAGE
[NDIAN RfVER COUNTY
ST. lUC[E COUNTY
w
~
~
a
n c-2s
~
~
~ N
~
~
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
MILES
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
U p
u
C-24
W H
O J
W
W H
O ~
C~Z~
d
H C-59
z ST. LUCIE COUNTY
MARTIN COUNTY
~
~ FIDURE 8. NORTH FORK 8T. LUCIE
8A81N LOCATION MAP ~ NORTH FORK 8T. LUCIE Ba81N
i
NORTH FORK OF THE ST. LUCIE RIVER B~4SIN
i
~ _ C-Z5
i TiGS WtiJ~ MwY
1C ?Ik0
T'HlS AREA TII C-ts N
~ SCALE
~ '
~ F4AY BE PUMPED ~
~ ~ 0
~ TD C-23 ~S
~ ~ ~
R
~
py c
` _
~
! o
~ ~a
Y
~P
c
~
LEGEND
;f ~ BASIN
I CANAL ~
.~i- RIVER
LEVEE s-+s c-2~ sT: tuc~ _
KAiZ7?~1 CDUNT7
RQaII ' ~
~
~ ~ ~
I _ _ COUNTY N9 • ~
LINE
~
SPILLVAY
~ •~'T"
~ cuLVERT :
~ \?~IR - c-z.s - _ ' ~
~ PUMPING \ Q •
STa7IIIh
_
FiGURE 9. THE NORTH FORK OF THE ST. LUCIE RIYER BASIN
January 9, 1990 6- C- 78 DRAINAGE
C-59 (TAYLOR CREEK-NUBBIN SLOUGH) BAS1N
Description of the Basin
The C-59 drainage basin is approximately 187.9 square miles in area and is
located in eastern Okeechobee County (159.8 square miles), southwestern St. Lucie
County (9.4 square miles, =igure 10) and northwestern Martin County (18.7 square
miles). The basin boundary in St. Lucie County ~e(ative to local roads and
landmarks is shown in Map A. A schematic map showing the basin boundary,
~ canais and controi structures is given in Figure 11.
The Project canals and control structures in the C-59 basin have two
functions: (1) to remove excess water from the ~-59 basin, (2) and to supply water
to the 5-133 basin during pe~iods of low natural flow. Excess water is discharged
from the basin to Lake Okeethobee by way of C-59 and 5-191. Water surface
efevations in the canals in the basin are regulated by 5-191. Water supply to the
5-133 basin is made by way of G-106. Water supply to the C-59 basin is from local
rainfafl.
There are three Project canals in the C-59 basin: C-59, the L-53S/L-64 borrow
canal, and the L-63N borrow canal. The L-63N and the L-63S/L-64 borrow canals
are tributary to C-59.
C-59 begins at the confluence of the L-63N and the L-63S borrow canals
about five miles southeast of tf~e City of Okeechobee. C-59 extends to the
southwest approximately 1.2 miles and is connected to Lake Okeechobee via 5-191.
Flow in the canal isto the southwestto Lake Okeechobee.
The L-63S and the L-64 borrow canals drain the southeast portion of the
basin. The canals are continuous along the southwest boundary of the basin. The
L-63S borrow canal is aligned parallel to and south of State Road 710 from the
Florida East Coast Railway crossing of State Road 710 to the confluence of the
borrow canal with C-59. The L-64 borrow canal is parallel to and eart of the Florida
East Coart Railway from the railway's crossing of State Road 710 to a point about
eight miles north of C-44. A plug in the canal at that point separates the L-64
borrow canal from the L-65 borrow canal that continues to the south. This plug
acts as a divide between the 5-153 basin and the C-59 basin. Ffow south of the plug
in the L-b5 borrow canal is to C-44. Flow north of the plug in the L-64 and L-63S
borrow canals is to the northwest to C-59. Four streams are tributary to the L-64
and L-63S borrow canals. Myrtle Slough drains the portion of the basin in Martin
County. Henry Creek and Lettuce Creek drain the area near where Okeechobee,
Martin, and St. Lucie Counties meet. Nubbin Slough drains the eastern part of the
basin in Okeechobee County.
The L-63N borrow canal drains the north.west portion of the basin. The
canal intercepts Taylor Creek at 5-192, 1.3 miles north of the City of Okeechobee.
Upper Taylor Creek (i.e., north of the L-63N borrow canal) drains to C-59 by way of
the L-63N borrow canal. LowerTaylor ~reek (i.e., south of the L-63N borrow canal)
drains to 5-193 directly or to 5-133 by way of the L-D4 borrow canal. Mosquito
Creek, draining the central part of the basin, is tributary to the L-63N borrow
canal. In addition to its primary function as a drainage canal, the L-63N borrow
canal is also used to supply waterto the 5-133 basin by way of structure G-106.
25
January 9, 1990 6- C- 79 DRAINAGE
There are three Project control structures regulating flow in the C-59 basin:
5-191, 5-192, and G-106. Design criteria for the structures in this basin are given in
Table 4_
5-191 is a gated spiflway located in the alignment of C-59 atthe outlet ofthe
canal to Lake Okeechobee. The structure has two functions: (1) to maintain
opt+mum stages upstream in C-59, and in the L-63N and L-63S borrow canals, and
(2) to prevent a hurricane tide on Lake Okeechobee from entering the C-59 basin.
The gates are operated in so far as is possible to maintain a headwater stage in
the C-59 canal of 19.0 ft NGVD. The gates are closed if the tailwater stage (lake
side) reaches or exceeds the headwater stage.
5-192 is a gated culvert and pump station located in L-63N at the point the
levee crosses Taylor Creek (see insert, Figure 5). The gates on the culvert are
ordinarily closed so that the structure functions as a divide between the C-59 basin
and the 5-133 basin. The gates may be opened for two reasons: {1) to divert flows
from upper Taylor Creek and the L-63N borrow canal to .lower Taylor Cr.eek to
facilitate maintenance on the borrow canal; or (2) to augment flows in lower
Taylor Creek to mitigate (by dilution) the effects of the poor quality water that
occurs periodically in the (ower portion of the creek. The diversions to mitigate
the poor quality water are only made when Lake Okeechobee is below 14.0 ft
NGVD (i.e., when gravity discharge to the lake can occur through 5-193). When the
lake rtage is higher than 14.0 ft NGVD, 5-193 is opened to discharge enough water
to the 5-133 basin for dilution of the poor quality water in the creek. The same
quantity of water that is discharged to lower Taylor Creek by 5-193 is removed
from the 5-133 basin by the pump station at 5~192 and is discharged to the L-63N
borrow canal.
G-106 is a gated cuivert located in L-63N at the point where the levee crosses
Mosquito ~reek. This is about two and one=half miles east of the City of
Okeechobee. G-106 discharges to Mosquito Creek south of the levee. The gates
are occasionally open for water supply to the 5-133 basin, but are ciosed most of
the time.
Comments on Design and Historic Operation
5-191, C-59, and the L-63N and the L-63S borrow canals were designed to
pass 30 percent of the Standard Project Flood from the C-59 basin without
flooding occurring in the basin.
26
January 9, 1990 6- C- 80 DRAINAGE
~ ~ INDIAN R1VER COUNTY
~ ST, I.UCtE COUNTY
G
P~
fi
C-25
~
~
~o
N
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
MILES
~
~
NO ORK
T. IE
i RIYE
00
~
~
F-
z
~ r
u o
w u
C-24
w
R~ H
? U
z ~
W J
W
O ~
C-23
d
~
H
~ ST. LUCIE COUNTY
~ MART[N COUNTY
t~J
FIOURE 10. C-59 (NUBBIN S~OUCiN)
BASIN LOCATION MAP ~ C-59 BA81N
i ~
,
C-59 BAS1N
,~o
~P
. Q E~
~ ~
a'v~
~80
_ RR~V
L~53N~ ~a( ;
,
i
~ i
~ ~
~
~ a .
yr. i
O,n
~PF~ n
oc
N
~ ~
~ ~
t ~S l ~ 2' ~1~
ti~ ~I
, d
L-63N ~ W ~ c~
~ ~f~
a 2.~
LEGEND ~
~ . h ~ W~J
~ BASIN pKEECND EE pCSz ~ Y~'^
CANAL ~1~
RIVER S-t S-L93 ha W
---LEVEE ~,.0~ __~c,' ' ~G~'
' ROAD .S-t91 ~
_ _ C~UNTY s ! Cg
LINE , ~ ~
~ SPILLVAY ~ ~P
L A K E F~~'
~ CULVERT ~ II
u
~ vEIR Q K E E C H Q B E E j Z ~
~
~ PUMPING ~ ~ C~\
STA 7IDN
~ r
~ ~IICK 'I:::.. ?
:1 ~uc
: i
F{GURE 11. THE C-59 BAS1N
January 9, 1990 6- C- 82 DRAINAGE
~
~
~
G
w
n
~
~
~
.fl
.fl
0
TABLE 4. C-59 Basin Structures - Design Criteria
Design Design Design Peak Stage
Structure T e HW Stage TW Sta e Optimum Stage Dischar e (ft NGVD) Date of
yp (ft NGVD) (ft NGVDj ~ft NGVDj ~~fs~ g Peak Discharge peak
(cfs)
a~ 5-191 GatedSpiliway, 19,2 18.6 19.0 7440 HW = 23.08 7/1817A
Stage divide 3•gates 19.2 z HW z 18.8
~ 17.6(t high x 27.9 ft wide (Gate closed if Q= 3236 6/25/82
n Netcrestlflth.81.01t TW > HW)
Crest elev -1.4.It NGVD
~ $.192 ~atedCulvert 21,6 13.0 HW= 19.0 Normal y
Divide structure and 1-48in x 112(t CMP water su I
O0 Invert elev • B.Ott NGVD ~ PP y~ ~water supplyj TW = 14.0 tlosed, open
pump station, Waler Pump Statlon, (water suppiy) only for water
supply (rom L•63N borrow ~ unit: 13500 GPM SUpply
canal to Ta lor Creek
G-106 Gated Culvert Occasionally
Divide structure and water 1-36in x 901t CMP open f or
supply Irom L•63N borrow invert elev. . 1 S.Oft Wdter supply
canal to S•133 basin NGVD
in . inches Igth . length CMP . Corrugated metsi pipe HW • Head water ds • downstream
ft . leet 7W ~ Tail water RCP • Reintorced concrete pipe Cf5 • Cubic feet pet second ups • upstream
elev - elevation Q• discharge in cls 1t NGVD . Feet relative to National Geodetic Vertical Datum
d
~
H
z
~
c~
~
E3{E3LIUGKAPHY
Adams, B.P., D. Sampies and C. Woehlcke. 1984. An Eva(uation of Wastewater
Reuse Policy Options for the South Florida Water Management District. South
~forida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Publication 84-6.
59 pp.
Anderson, 1.R., E.E. Hardy, J.T. Roach and R.E. Witmer, 1976. A Land Use and Land
Cover Classification Syrtem for Use with Remote Sensor Data. Geological Survey
Professional Paper. No. 964. United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
22 pp.
Brown, M. and D. Reece. 1979. Hyd~ogeologic Reconnaissance of the Floridan
Aquifer System, Upper East ~oast Planning Area. South Florida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, Fl. Tech. Map Series, No. 79-1. 25 pp.
Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Inc. 1985. C-25 Canal Basin Hydrofogic Study. June
7985. Fort Lauderda(e, FL.
Dickson, K. 1980. SFWMD Water Quality Monitoring Network 1980 Annual Report.
South Florida Water Nlanagement District, Tech. Memorandum, October 1980.
Federico, T. 1983. Upper East Coast Water Quality Studies. South Fiorida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Publication 83-1. 87 pp.
Gregg, R. and M. ~ullum. 1984. Evaluation of tfie Water Management System at a
Single Family P,esidential Site. Vol 1-Hydrofogy and Hydraufics of Timbercreek
Subdivision in Boca Raton, F(orida. Vol. 2. Anafysis of selected Storm Events at
Timbercreek Subdivision in Boca Raton, Florida. South Florida Water Management
)istrict, West Palm Beach, F~. Tech. Publication 84-11. Vol. 1. 35 pp. Vol. 2. 99 pp.
Haunert, D. and J. R. Startzman. 1980. Some Seasonal Fisheries Trends and Effects
of 1000 cfs Fresh Water Discharge on the Fishes and Macroinvertebrates in the St.
Lucie Ertuary, Florida. January, 1980. Soutfi Fiorida Water Management District,
West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Pub(ication 80-3. 58 pp.
Haunert, D. and R. Startzman. 1985. Short Term Effects of a Freshwater Discharge
on the Biota of the St. Lucie Estuary, F~orida. South Florida Water Management
District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Publication 85-1. 36 pp.
Isern, L. and R. Brown. 1980. A Geographic Overview of 1977 Land Use ~'atterns in
the Lower West Coast P{anning Area of South Florida. South Florida Water
Man~agement Dirtrict, West Palm Beach, FL. Teth. Publication 80-8. 76 pp.
Khanal, N. 1981. Indirect Fiow Measuring Devices ror Agricultural Water Use Data
Collection. Paper presented at Moscow (U.S.S.R.) State University, June 1981.
Khanai, N. 1g80. Advanced Water Supply Alternatives for the Upper East Coast
Planning Area, Parts 1 and 2. South Fforida Water Management Disirict, West Palm
Beach, FL. Tech. Pubiication 80-6. 73 pp.
30
January 9, 1990 6- C- 84 DRAINAGE
Kuyper, W.H., J.E. Becker and A. Shopmyer. 1981. Land Use, Cover ~and Forms
Classification System--A Technicai Manual. State of Florida, Department of
Transportation, Tallahasee, Fiorida. May 1981. 67 pp.
Lin, S. 1982. Pre(iminary Report on the Rainstorm of April 23-26, 1982. South
F(orida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Memorandum,
May 1982. 31 pp.
Lin, S. 1984. Summary of 1983-84 Dry Season Hydrologic Conditions. South
Florida Water Management District, Wert Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Memorandum,
October 1984. 31 pp.
Lin, S. and Lane. 1982. Preliminary Report on Rainstorm, March 28-29, 1982.
South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech.
Memorandum, April 1982. 23 pp.
Lin, S., J. Lane and J. Marban. 1984. Meteorological and Hydrological Analysis of
the 1980-1982 Drought. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm
Beach, FL. Tech. Publication 84-7. 42pp.
MacVicar, T.K. 1983. Rainfall Averages and Selected Extremes for Central and
South Florida. South Florida Water Management District, Tech. Publication 83-2.
31 pp.
MacVicar, T.K. 1981. Frequency Ar~alysis of Rainfall Maximums for Central and
South Florida. South Florida Water Management District, Wert Palm Beach, FL.
Tech. Publication 81-3. 70 pp.
Mierau, R., R.L. Taylor, and W.V. Storch. 1974. Surface Water Availability in the St.
Lucie County Area. South Florida Water Management District, Memorandum
Report. luly 1974.
Morris, F.W. 1986. Bathymetry of the St. Lucie Estuary. South Florida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Pub(ication 86-4. 23 pp.
Morris, F.W..1986. Modeling of Hydrodynamics and Salinity in the St. Lucie Estuary.
South F(orida Water Management District. West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Publication
87-1. 71 pp.
Pfeuffer, R. 1985. Pesticide Residue Monitoring in Sediment and Surface Water
Bodies within the South F(orida Water Management District. South Florida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Publication 85-2. 41 pp.
Popa(zei, S. 1981. Agricultural Water Use in the Upper East ~oast Planning Area.
South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech.
Memorandum, November 1981.
Reece, D., S. Hynes and M. Brown. 1980. Hydrogeologic Data Collected from the
Upper East Coast Planning Area, South Florida Water Management District, May,
1980. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech.
Publitation 80-5. 6 pp.
Sculfey, S. 1986. Frequency Analysis of SFWMD Rainfall. South Florida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, FL_ Tech. Publication 86-b. 57 pp.
31
January 9, 1990 6- C- 85 DRAINAGE
South Florida Water Management District, Resource Planning Department. 1982.
Report on Tropicai Storm Dennis, August 16-18, 1981. South Fiorida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Memorandum, June 1982. 59 pp.
South Florida Water Management District, Resource Pfanning Department. 1984.
Summary of 1983 Hydrologic Conditions. South Florida Water Management
District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Memorandum, May 1984.
South Florida Water Management District, Resource Control Department. 1978.
General and Procedural Information, Permit Information Manual, Volume l. South
Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Fl..
South Florida Water Management District, Resource Control Department. 1983.
District Rules, Regulations, and Legislation, Permit Info~mation Manual, Volume II.
South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.
South Florida Water Management District, Resource Control Department. 1985.
Management of Water Use, Permit Information Manual, Volume III. South Florida
Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.
South Florida Water Management District, Resource Control Department. 1987.
Management and Storage of Surface Waters, Permit Information Manual, Volume
IV. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.
South Florida Water Management District, Resource Control Department. 1978.
Criteria of UtiliZation of Public Works and Lands, Permit. Information Manual,
Volume V. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.
South Florida Water Management Dirtrict, Resource Pianning Department. 1979. ~
Preliminary Report on the Severe Storm of Aprii 24-25, 1979. South Florida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Memorandum, June 1979.
36 pp.
South Florida Water Management District, Resource Planning Department. 1980.
Water Use and Suppiy Development Plan. Summary Status Report-Upper Eart
Coast. South Florida Water Management Dirtrict, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech.
Memorandum, October 1980. 60 pp.
South Florida Water Management District, Resource Planning Department. 1985.
Report ofTropical Storm Bob, July 22- 24, 1985. South Florida Water Management
District, West Pafm Beach, FL,. Tech. Memo~andum, August 1985. 61 pp.
South Florida Water Management District, Department of Land Management.
1986. Water Management Lands Trust Fund,~~Save Our Rivers Five Year Plan
Information Booklet. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm
Beach, FL. September 1986.42 pp.
Trimble, P. 1986. South Florida Regional Routing Model. South Florida Water
Mana~ement District, West Palm Beach, FL. Tech. Publication 86-3. 147 pp.
32
January 9, 1990 6- C- 86 DRAINAGE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Centrai and Southern Florida Control Project, Survey
Review Report. U.S. Army Engineer District, Jacksonville, Corps of Engineers,
lacksonville, FL.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Centrai and Southern Fiorida Control Project,
General and Detailed Design Memorandums. U.S. Army Engineer District,
Jacksonville, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL_
Wedderburn, L. and M. Knapp. 1983. Field Investigations in to the Feasibiiity of
Storing Fresh Water in Saline Portions of the Floridan Aquifer System, St. Lucie
County, .Florida. South Fiorida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.
Tech. Publication 83-7. 68 pp.
Woehlcke, C. and D. Loving. 1979. Non-Agricultural Water Use in the Upper East
Coast Planning Area. South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach,
FL: Tech. Memorandum, November 1979. 17 pp.
33
January 9, 1990 6- C- 87 DRAINAGE
APPENDIX 1 - BAS1C CONCEPTS
Runoff and Drainage - Several things can happen to rain after it fails to earth. At
the beginning of a rain event, the rain will most likely seep into, or "infiltrate", the
soil. As soil becomes saturated, however, the rain will tend to pool on the surface of
the ground in puddles or ponds. These detention areas have only a limited storage
volume, and when their capacity is exceeded, the excess water will flow downhill to
the nearest stream or canal. That part of the rainfall that "runs off" of the soil
surface to enter local streams is termed "surface runoff". Of the water that is
detained on the surface, some will evaporate and the balance will eventually seep
into the ground.
Water seeping into the ground enters a reservoir of subsurface water known
as groundwater. Since, in South Florida, many soils are very sandy and underlying
rock strata tend to be very porous, water flows easily between surface water and
groundwater. The surface of the groundwater is known as the "water table".
When the water table level is higher than local surface water levels, water will enter
the surface water from groundwater. When the water table is lower than the local
surface water level, flow is from surface water to groundwater. !n general,
groundwater supplements stream flow during periods of low rainfall, and surface
water recharges groundwater storage during pe~iods of high rainfall. Although
subsurface flow from groundw~ater to surface water is important to the long term
supply of water to a canal or stream (it is sometimes referred to as "base flow"), it
does not make significant contributions, if at all, to streamflow during storm events
with high rainfall.
In the context of these basin descriptions, the term drainage is used to refer to
the total surface and subsurface flows entering a canal from its d~ainage basin. It
may be useful to keep in mind, however, that during a rain event (especially one~
severe enough to cause flooding~, it is surface runoff that is the imporfant
contributor to this flow, and at times between rain events, subsurface flow from
groundwater to surface water is most important.
Runoff ~rom an area is influenced by severa( factors: how much rain has fallen
recently, the depth to the water table, and how the land in the area is used. The
amount of recent rain, and the depth to the water table dictate how much water is
in the soil. The degree to whicf~ the soil is saturated, in turn, determines how much
of the falling rain may infiltrate the soil, and thus, how much of the rain will run off
to local streams.
Land use has a large impa~t on the amount of surface runoff entering local
streams and canals. For example, much of the surface area in an urban area {e.g.,
rooft, roads, and parking lots) is impervious to water. Almost all the rain impacting
impervious areas becomes surface runoff. Some .water may be detained and will
evaporate, but the percentage of rainfall that "enters local canals or streams by
surface flow in an urban area can be quite high. As a result, urban areas are often
subject to high stream flows (flooding) during rain events.
A vegetated area can intercept and retain a large part of the rainfail, and
subsequent surface runoff from a rain event. This intercepted water has an
additional opportunity to evaporate or seep into the ground. In general, a smaller
percentage of the rain falling on a vegetated area will enter local streams and
34
January 9, 1990 6- C- 88 DRAINAGE
canals as surface runoff than a comparabie urban area_ As a resuit, stream flows in
vegetated areas are moderated compared to urban areas.
Drainage Basin - If rain falis over a large enoug h area, some of the runoff from that
storm will likely enter one stream, and some of it will enter another stream. It is said
that those streams "drain" different basins, that they are in different "drainage
basins". The drainage basin of a stream is all the land that contributes runoff to the
stream or its tributaries. It is usually specified as that land which drains to the
stream upstream of a given point, such as the mouth of the stream. The boundary
between drainage basins is termed a"divide". Runoff is divided along the
boundary, with runoff on one side of the boundary flowing to one stream and
runoff on the other side of the boundary flowing to another stream.
Water Surface Elevation - A water surface elevation in a canal is the distance from
the water's surface to some reference elevation or "datum". ln the District, all
elevations are ~relative to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Water
surface elevations are measured in feet (ft). Water surface elevations may also be
referred to as "stages".
Important water surface efevations are the headwater (upstream) stage, and
the taiiwater (downstream} stage at the control structures (see Control Structure).
The difference between these stages will affect the flow through or over the
structure. Gravity flow is always from the highest to lowest elevatio~ and, in
general, flow increases as the difference in elevation increases. Note that in some
basins, pumps are used to move water from lowerto higher elevations.
Water surface elevations elsewhere in the canal reach are also important.
Obviously, if the stage-exceeds the elevation of the top of the canal, flooding will
result. Not as obvious is the fact that the stage in the canal la~gely determines the
water table elevation of the local groundwater (see Runoff and Drainage). The
stage in the lower reaches (near the ocean) of some canals is maintained at levels
high enough to prevent intrusions of saltwater into the local groundwater.~ In other
areas, stages are maintained that keep water table elevations low enough to
prevent drainage problems in low lying areas.
Control Structures - The structures referred to in tf~e basin descriptions are devices
(e.g., weirs, spillways, and culverts) placed in the cana(s to control water surface
elevations (stage ciivide), amount of flow (stage divide or water suppfy structure), or
direction of flow (divide structure) in the canals. A structure may have more than
one function. In general, a stage divide controls water surface elevation upstream
of the rtructure, and it controfs water flow (o~ discharge) downstream of the
structure. A divide structure is usually located at or near a basin boundary. It
prevents water in one basin from entering the other basin. A water supply rtructure
is also usually located near a basin boundary. !t is used to pass water from one canal
to another (i.e., from one basin to another).
Hydraufic Analysis - A set of water surface elevations taken along the length of a
canal is known as the hydraulic profile of the canal. In general, water surface
elevations always increase ~n the upstream direction. The water surface elevations
are a function of the size and shape of the canal, the amount and location of inflow
to the canal, the roughness and slope of the canal, and -the downstream water
surface elevation of the canal (often determined by some control structure). Canals
are designed to pass a certain amount of flow without o_ver-topping their banks.
Designing a canal and its structures consists of selecting values for the factors listed
35
January 9, 1990 6- C- 89 DRAINAGE
above for which none of the water surface elevations of the resuiting hydraulic
profile exceed the elevation of the banks of the canal for the design discharge.
Since the design ciischarge is given, and to a large extent the slope of the canal ~s
determined by the topography of the basin, it is the size and shape of the canal, and
the downstream water surface elevation (to be maintained by some structure), that
are varied to achieve a successful design. (The downstream structure must also be
large enough to pass the design discharge.~ Because the factors that determine the
water surface elevations are e~ther known or can be reasonabiy estimated, it is
possible to calculate the hydraulic profile of a proposed canal design. In this way an
appropriate design can be selected. Similarly, calculation of the hydraulic profile,
can be used to determine the flood protect~on provided by a canal constructed
without regard ~fo a specific design storm, or for a canal that has been modified with
regard to its design specifications. For example, increasing the cross-sectional area
of a canal will, in general, allow the canal to pass a given flow at stages lower than
before enlargement (i.e., the hydrau(ic profile is lowered). Hydraulic analysis may
determine for this canal tF~at the flood protection has increased, that is, the canal
can now pass the runoff~from a rtorm more~severe than the design storm.
Design Storm - The design storm for a basin is the most severe rtorm for which the
canals and structures in the basin wiil accommodate that storm's runoff without
flooding occurring in the basin. Sometimes a basin is described as having "flood
protection" up to a certain design storm.
A severe storm is described by the frequency with which it may occur. On a
long term average, a rtorm of given intensity may occur, for example, once in every
ten years (i.e., the storm has a ten percent chance of occurring in any given year).
This is written as 1-10 year, and is read as one in ten yean. It must be emphasized,
however, that a storm of a given intensity can occur at any time regardless of the
frequency assigned to it. For example, two severe storms, of an intensity that occurs
on average only once in every one hundred yea~s (1-100 year storm), occurred in
northern Palm Beach County within three months of each other in the early 1980s.
The Army Corps of Engineers specifies a Standard Project Storm (SPS) for south
Florida. The rainfall amounts for the SPS are those fo~ a 1-100 year storm increased
by 25 percent. The storm is assumed to occur during the hurricane, or wet season,
when water tables are high and soils are wet. These conditions wifl maximize the
runoff from the rtorm. The runoff from the SPS is designated the Standard Project
Ffood (SPF). The capacity of a canal and its structures may be given as a percentage
of the SPF (e.g., 40 percent SPF). The sto~m that would generate this amount of
runoff is given by its recurrence interval (e.g., 1-10 years). Note that it is implicitly
assumed that these storms occur for antecedent weather conditions that will
maximize the runoff from the storm in the basin of interest_
A severe rtorm of a certain frequency may not generate the same amount of
runoff in different basins of the same size even when antecedent weather
conditions or water table elevatior~s for the basins are similar. Land use in the
basins will affect the relative amounts of surface runoff to be expected from the
basins (see Runoff and Drainage). Urban areas will often have more surface runoff
than will more vegetated areas.
36
January 9, 1990 6- C- 90 DRAINAGE
The amount of runoff to be expected per unit area for design storms at various
recurrence intervals, antecedent conditions, and land use can be found in the Army
Corps of Engineers' General Design Memorandum (GDM) for the Project. The
runoff calculated to occur for a given set of storm frequency, antecedent conditions,
and land use isthe design discharge.
37
January 9, 1990 6- C- 91 DR.AINAGE
APPENDIX 2 - G~OSSARY
Designations Given to District Works
C-XXX The letter C folfowed by a number designates a Central and Southern
Florida Flood Control Project canal. For exampie, C-111 reads as "Canal
111".
G-XXX The letter G followed by a number des;gnates a Central and Southern
Florida Flood Control Project structure {see Control Structures, under
Basic Concepts). For exampie, G-72 reads as "Control Structure 72". G
structures were built by the District.
L-XXX The letter L foliowed by a number, designates a Central and Southern
Fiorida Flood Contro! Project (evee. For example, L-38E reads as "Levee
38 east".
5-XXX The letter S followed by a number designates a Central and Southern
Fiorida Flood Controi Project control structure (see Contro( Structures,
under Basic Concepts). For example, 5-26 reads as "Control Structure
26". S structures were built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Terms
District ~
This refers to the South Florida Water Management Dirtrict (formerly the
Central and South Florida Flood Control District), the agency which
operates and maintains the Project.
Free Digging Contract
This refers to an agreement between the District and an outside party
whereby that party excavates a canal (or a portion of a canal). The
outside party receives the excavated material as payment for the
excavation. The material is gznerally used as fill for residentiaf and
commerciaf development.
General Design Memorandum
This is a document prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that
reports all work done preliminary to p~eparation of the final design of a
project. In the General Desiqn Memorandum for the Central and
Southern Florida F~ood Control Pro ect:
- the asins are elineate .
- a design storm is specified and the resuiting runoff is estimated for each
basin.
- the flood protection to be afforded each basin is identified.
- the size of canals, and the size and number of control rtructures is
determined.
The final design of the canals and s:ructures is given in the "Detailed
Design Memorandum."
38
January 9, 1990 6- C- 92 DRAINAGE
1-XXX Year
This designates the recurrence interval for a design storm (see Design
Storm, under Basic Concepts). For exampie, "1-100 year storm" reads as
one in one-hundred year storm.
Project This refers to the Central and South Florida Flood Control Project. The
Project has been responsibie for the construction of most of the major
canals and structures in south Florida.
Regulati~n Schedule
A regulation schedule specifies the level of water to be held in a
reservoir (e.g., Lake Okeechobee) as a function of the time of year.
Regulatory Release
A regulatory release is water discharged from a reservoir (e.g., Lake
Okeechobee) to lower the water level in the reservoir to the regufation
schedule.
39
January 9, 1990 6- C- 93 DRAINAGE
ABBREVIATiONS
cfs : cubic feet per second
ft : feet
GDM : General Design Memo~andum
NGVD : National Geodetic Vertical Datum (see Water Surface Elevation,
under Basic Concepts)
SPF : Standard Project Flood (see Desig~ Storm, under Basic
Concepts)
SPS : Standard Project Storm (see Design Storm,under Basic
Concepts)
WCA : Water Conservation Area
January 9, 1990 6- C- 94 DRAINAGE
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT
Prepared by:
St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
Department of Community Development
January 9, 1990 POTABLE WATER
POTABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I NTRODUCTI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 1
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 1
Terms and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 1
Regul atory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 2
EXI STI NG CONDI TI ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 2
Exi s ti ng Pl anni ng Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 2
Regional Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 3
Package Treatment Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 5
Water Supply Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 11
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 11
NEEDS ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 12
Areas Not in the Scope of This Plan 6- D- 12
Unincorporated County Areas not in Water
Service Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 13
Capacity Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 13
Savannas Area Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 15
South Hutchinson Island Needs . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 16
Central County Area Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 16
General Performance of Existing Facilities 6- D- 16
Potable Water Plan for the Unincorporated County . 6- D- 17
Potable Water Facility Replacement, Expansion
and New Facility Siting . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 17
GOALS, OBJECTI VES, AND POLI CI ES . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 18
BI BLI OGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 2 7
i
LI ST OF FI GURES
Figure Paae
6 - D - 1 Regional Service Areas . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 4
6- D- 2 Water Treatment Plant Locations 6- D- 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paae
6- D- 1 Water Treatment Plants, Including Package
Plants, and Their Capacities . . . . . . . 6 - D - 7
6- D- 2 Potable Water Demand in St. Lucie
County, 19 8 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - D - 14
ii
ST. LIICI$ CODNTY
POTABLE WATSR SIIB-$L$I~ENT
INTRODIICTION
The Potable Water Sub-Element provides a summary of existing
potable water supplies and treatment faailities in St. Lucie
County. The facilities include municipal regional systems and
area, or project, specific systems, in addition to systems for
individual residences. The needs for the County's future are
discussed, with goals, objectives, and policies focusing on
specific activities which will remedy those needs.
B~CSGROIIND
Terms and Concepts
A potable water supply system normally consists of a water supply
source, a treatment plant, and a distribution and storage
network. Either surface water, stored in natural lakes or man-
made reservoirs, groundwater, or some combination of the two
usually constitute the supply source for a system. The selection
of a source for any system must consider the type and quality of
sources available and the cost of developing the source for use.
Before being used for public consumption, all water must be
treated. Treatment removes impurities from the raw water in
order to improve its quality for either public health or
aesthetic reasons, or both. The treatment process adds to the
cost of supplying water, but it also expands the range of raw
water sources that can be utilized.
After treatment, the water is supplied to individual users in a
community by way of a network of pipes and storage reservoirs.
Large transmi.ssion lines, called distribution mains, carry water
to major demand areas and interconnect with a network of smaller
lines which eventually supply individual establishments. Both
the distribution mains and distribution network should be
interconnected to form flow loops to allow water to circulate
from various portions of the system to areas of highest momentary
demand.
Water is delivered under pressure within the distribution system
in order to ensure adequate flow to meet demands. Demand
fluctuates during each day, usually exhibiting peaks during the
morning and evening, corresponding to periods of highest
residential use. Localized demand peaks also occur when the
system is utilized for fire fighting purposes. In order to
provide adequate quantities and pressure to meet peak use and
fire flow demands, storage tanks are linked with the
distribution system at strategic locations. During low demand
periods these tanks are filled as water is pumped into the
January 9, 1990 6- D- 1 POTABLE WATER
system. During the peak demand periods, water flows from the
tanks back into the system to augment flows and maintain
pressure. Ground level and elevated storage tanks are both
commonly used. Elevated tanks (water towers) are the most
economi.cal. Many systems also include auxiliary pumps which
operate only during peak demand periods.
Requlatory Framework
The federal government has established quality standards for the
protection of water for public use, including operating standards
and quality controls for public water systems. These regulations
are provided in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Public Law 99-339.
This law directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
establish minimum drinking water standards. The EPA standards
are divided into "primary" (those required for public health) and
"secondary" (recommended for aesthetic quality) categories.
In accordance with federal requirements, the Florida Legislature
has adopted the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act, Sections 403.850
- 430. 864, F. S. The Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation (DER) is the State agency responsible for implementing
this act. In this regard, DER has promulgated rules classifying
and regulating public water systems under Chapter 17-550, 555 and
560 of the F.A.C. The primary and secondary standards of the
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act are mandatory in Florida.
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) is responsible
for managing water supplies to meet existing and future demands.
Regulation of consumptive use is achieved through a permitting
system, through which water resources are allocated among the
permitted consumers.
EgI STI NG CONDI TI ONS
Es.i. s ti ng Pl anni ng Documents
St. Lucie County does not presently have an overall planning
document for potable water facilities. The two major urban areas
of the County, Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie, have regionalized
potable water treatment and distribution systems.
The City of Ft. Pierce completed a master plan for water and
wastewater in 1988. The City of Port St. Lucie does not have a
regional potable water system of its own at this time. However,
several regional systems exist within the boundaries of Port St.
Lucie. General Development Utilities operate a water treatment
plant within Port St. Lucie, and White Development Corporation
began operating a water treatment facility in St. Lucie West in
1988. The City has investigated acquisition of these regional
systems and has a planning document prepared entitled, Water and
Sewer System Master Planning and Evaluation. (Montgomery, 1987)
January 9, 1990 6- D- 2 POTABLE WATER
Regional Facilities
Figure 6-D-1, found on page 6-D-4, outlines general areas of
service for the major regional facilities now operating in the
County. These areas were initially franchised by the Public
Service Commission (PSC), but with the exception of municipally
owned facilities, these are now under the regulatory jurisdiction
of the St. Lucie County Water and Sewer Authority. Many small
treatment facilities holding service area franchises also exist,
but their area is usually limited to a single development or a
relatively small area. The majority of these small facilities
are listed in the package plant portion of this sub-element.
Ft. Pierce IIti.lities Authority_ The Ft. Pierce Utilities
Authority (FPUA) maintains a 20 MGD (million gallon ger day)
potable water treatment plant. Raw water is obtained from
several municipal wellfields and is processed for potable use at
the Henry A. Gahn Treatment Plant located on 25th Street in Ft.
Pierce. The water distribution system currently contains over
206 miles of water mains.
The current method of disinfection with chlorammoniation requires
continual operation of both lime softening units to achieve the
20 MGD design flow. Because this does not allow for maintenance
down time, an effective maximum flow of 13 MGD is probably m.ore
realistic and in line with the currently available raw water
s uppl y.
This facility currently provides water service to the City of Ft.
Pierce and adj acent unincorporated areas, including some of South
Hutchinson Island to the Martin County line, and to areas north,
west, and south of the City limits. Although the line on the
South Island runs to one mile north of the Martin County line,
all of the taps have been purchased resulting in no additional
available capacity. The water service boundary is approximately
bounded by Midway Road to the south (and, on South Hutchinson
Island by the Martin County line); by Selvitz, Edwards, and
Jenkins Roads to the west; by St. Lucie Boulevard to the north;
and by the Atlantic Ocean to the east. This is an area in which
service could be provided given current capacity of the existing
system. Although the capacity exists to serve this entire area,
the majority of properties which are located adjacent to and
nearby the City are responsible for locating and maintaining
their own water supplies. These on-site water supplies normally
obtain their water from shallow aquifer wells.
A study has been prepared by the City of Ft. Pierce Department of
Development to evaluate system expansion possibilities. This
study, entitled "Reserve Area Study" defines the proposed service
area limi.ts. The 1988 Master Plan for Water and Wastewater, also
defines the extent of the proposed areas. (Camp, Dresser, and
McKee, 1988)
January 9, 1990 6- D- 3 POTABLE WATER
~ {EORT PIEF~E UTA.RIES AUIHOFITY.
~ WI1HN G1Y UMVTS
INDIAN RIYER COUNTY ' ~
~ m c ~ v c v°
~"l, z~r,,., FpRT pIEHCE UTILfTIES AUTHOAffY
--~NR ~ - - - ~ - ~ - ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~~i~.4~3~~I~'~;;>~;~I PROPOSED SFAVICE AREA_
f'
~ S F\ b
- - I ~ I
" g „ ~ r /~i ~ 'i '°Pl ~ GfNERAL DEUEIAPMENT UTll.fflESl
i - n , . ~ , , _ - e:. ~ .
Q ~ ST. LUCIE WESTlPORT ST. LUCIE
„I , ; , , „ „ i , „ s q~F ~ ~ ~ ~ s~.~ ~ u~~s
_ ~ ~ "°i~r -r NORTH HUTCHINSON
~ n ~ ~i t~ R .
, ~ ~ 6 D~~ ~ SENVICES
, k
rH 5~~~~
~ ~#~I
, " ' „ ~ a , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ n+e r+~sE~ unun co.
„ , ~ I t b ¢~w~,~kk`* ~ ~`f ~O ioR1 aintc[
1 n n u H n a ~ v I~..e. el ~ v 4' ~ ~j ; ~ ~ MLET
; - i~~~~ y~~~ tis p j ~ HOLIDAY PINES SERVICE CORP.
, 3 ~ ' ~
, ~ , ~ , . ' , , g ~ ~?s ~ s }'oBTI : i _ " ~ _ . .
3 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ . - - ~ -
. _ . . i. _ _ . .
. ~ ~ - o i~ N.~ ,..i ~ - ~ -
~ ~ . _ _ - - - ~~_7 E 3 ' ~i ~ . ~ ~ " ~ ~ 't
jt I ' $ NoRin¢fnrlelaVmnPS~ufMUn~AlulddlpR~mW
( u i EACE x~ t ~ n~e wimi caxrr ~e ox soum xuroa~sm au~n~
'F ~ E Iq~fYG, llro GlAQfY II[WV1f 10v PIrtVIL [ONMCfIM6
, a ~ e ~ . v ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ,,,a ~ ~ i~ i ~ ~ wxr .emsn+nunccecmewrnun.••
- ~ - - r T rq-,.',
m n „ ~ ~ . i s ~ •,~I ~,a ~ `,J,~ s ~ 7~''t~~, ~ ti ~i ' t~. Z
y ~ ~ ~ ~9 ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ [ ~ ~ ~ ~ -1
z x ~ , n , „ ~ ~ f „ . ~ .rv'i ~ ~ ' ~5,4 ~ ~
~ ~ I „ 3 ~ ~ _ / f ~ ~ C~
i -y ~ . r~ ~
~ - ~1~x . I ' ~ ~ d k', A ~ d3 ~k ~N iP ~
u r I I n I r v » r _ I I ~ y! ,.,,V ~~y 1 1~
~ --q ~d a ~ ~ o
~ I , Ft 3~~ 1~*a i~~
o , , , . , - Y f , „ ~ I ~ _ z'~ '~4,~?~~ ~ ~d ~p ~.i r
= I ' ' „ ~ , ~ i ~ 's - t ~ ~
~n ~,~3.~. - ,
W e ~ ; ~ it ' ~i _ 4 { i r> lp Z
S i
~ ~ ~ „ „ „ , a „ „ ,g~~ ~ ' ~ ~~~3
. ~
» v ~ uI A ig\ 3\ ._E ~ S': - ~ ~
. ~ . ~ ~ \ ~-t- ~
i „ i
p 8 , d ~ ~ ~ -
_,~'"...~~~....s ~l~ - - ~ „ ~
~
_E ~ ~ . 1 _L 4 ,
f r y H v v~ n ST 3 -3 ~ k~ ~ ~ ln•'
M J S f. r i ~ b
~ - ~F..u - ~ i ~t T E~ { ~ ~ R
~ j ~ ~ {~-a - `i~ ~ i ~NOTE 7.
~ ~ ~ ~
o , . . , ~ ~ T s , o i 't
~ , ' ' ~ ~ti--~ -'1~ `
m ~ ~ .F i
I r • ~ n n r • e ~ ' _ I 4.
I ~ F -1 _
- ~ _ ~ 1 - '
t
„ i -~--=r
~I ~r i i . " i ~ ~ I
~ ' ' , _ _
;j ~ ~d ~ FIGURE 6-D1
" ` n „ , ~ " » ,_i _ ~ ro ~
' n l~ , - / - ` ~ ~'j ~ eg al rv e Areas - Potable Water
' „ ~ „ , „ n , , ~ , - ~ R ion Se ic
, , n > > ~ ~ ~ '
p • n n, n 4
~ _ SOUPCE VMIOUSr IIIINIES
_ . k._ i
-r
' " ' ' = i $T. LUCIE COUNTY , FLORIDA ;
-~--M I
L_ - - -y,' -y--,~ - ~ ,o ~ ---r-=-~._ ~ w ~
~ R„~ ~
NARTIN COUNTY ~
~ ; o ,
:
~m
~ 6 - D - 4
General Development IItilities: General Development Utilities
(GDU), a subsidiary of General Development Corporation (GDC),
currently provides water and wastewater service for certain areas
of the City of Port St. Lucie. This is allowed under a city
franchise agreement dated November 14, 1961, which expires in
1991. The St. Lucie County Water and Sewer Authority governs the
practices and policies of General Development Utilities.
Currently, some parts of the City have water service, others
have water and wastewater service, and most have neither water
nor wastewater service. The water wells used by GDU only have a
capacity of about 4.5 MGD which is a limiting factor in the
ability to increase the number of customers. Average daily flow
presently exceeds 3.5 MGD. At this time, GDU serves River Park
Subdivision, but has no additional plans to serve areas of the
County outside the City limits; however, there are several
County pocket areas which occur within the City of Port St. Lucie
which may benefit from future service by the regional system.
In May, 1989, the County contracted with a team of consultants to
review the feasibility and cost of acquiring GDU.
St. Lucie Aest: St. Lucie West is a large development in the
western part of Port St. Lucie. This system's franchise area is
entirely within the City limits, and will therefore not be
addressed in this Comprehensive Plan.
St. Lucie West produces its water from the shallow aquifer, after
being treating by membrane softening. A 1 MGD reverse osmosis
plant is existing with plans to increase capacity to match the
needs of the development. The St. Lucie West plant discharges
its reverse osmosis concentrate to its own wastewater treatment
pl ant.
North Hutchinson Servi.ces: North Hutchinson Services offers
potable water to North Hutchinson Island from North AlA/Royal
Palm Way north to Pepper Park. It purchases its water from the
Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority and resells the water to its
customers on North Hutchinson Island. A few private package
plants also operate in the area.
Reserve IItility Corporation: This utility is intended to serve
the area j us t wes t of Port St. Luci e known as The Res erve. The
Reserve is a planned residential, commercial, and industrial
development. There will be 4100 residences, 240 acres of
industrial and 55 acres of commercial, with some residences
already in place. The water treatment plant has a permitted
capacity of .2 MGD which will serve approximately two-thirds of
the units.
Package Treatment Plants
Package treatment plants supply a large portion of the potable
water in St. Lucie County. Figure 6-D-2, found on page 6-D-6,
shows water treatment plants situated throughout the eastern half
of the County including package treatment plants. Table 6-D-1,
January 9, 1990 6- D- 5 POTABLE WATER
7Y?EiE fi-l)--1.
ItiPflI32 ~~'f1VC I'f:A[~i6
~
a ST. Iu7E CIINIY
~
~ Q~~z~t E'tnjaclt~d F~rojacta3
n Drsic~ Qrrat~i~ $ C~r~city # ot 1995 2000 (1~rt~rA.
C~~c'-ih' (~atY fi~ E~q~le Ii~zilatarn [~{ulatirn IC~6
~p M~~ [c~ [~titer Plarit ir~ntirn (1 Millirn (1 Millirn C~) [hiriacup. O~. Sered Sr>1~,d SPlut3 Qrl)
~
~D [d.`~~IIINI7~1[.
~
O
1 F3:~17a Vista ale Micarer Apts. OaryL-y .040 .0366 rtax. 100 30 30 30 307e
2 Dad~rn ~~bod l~EP (]~rrty .057 rot in file 100 134 134 L34 9f~
3 [~.ti.ea~ the 4~ters M~ a:xnty .04E rot in file 100 48 48 48 ~
4 ~yn [~c~r (Di~n TiornderocA) Oanty .144 .12 max. 100 1008 1214 1214 33~
5 ~lrny Club Nf~ Qzr~y .1L5 not in file 100 50 50 50 529e
6 ~y ~,e M~ C~r?ty .129 rot in file 100 296 296 296 100Pf
7 D& M MP PSL .057 rot in file 0 1G2 162 162 81~
f3 ERg1 @t. PiPSr~e 10.000 9.3396 a~. Xb X~' Xb }Cb 170~'
9 c~tJ PSL 6.000 3.5273 are. 18 568~ ?tC kC ti£3~
10 Glerdile Qiur~s aka H~gla~ ~y .171 rot in file 100 160 160 160 17~
a' ll Glai mics MP Systen 2 Oa.r~y mt in file rot in file 100 54 54 54 801e
i 12 ~e c~ue af Et. Pie~ae Q~a-~y .200 .Q39 a~e. 100 288 1t20 1120 1Q~
~ 13 H& H NFP ~y .036 rot in file 100 50 50 50 16~6~
14 [~.u~ Rid~ ~y .036 .120 max. 100 900 1520 1520 92e
~ 15 Fblid~y Pires Seivine a:up. ~urrt,y .188 .112 ac~. 100 595 595 5~ 188d
v 16 Indian Ri~r Iariding oax~t.y .090 .017 ma~c. 100 44 136 136 470~
17 Lal~ h~nor NfP au-~ty .100 rr~t in file 100 120 120 ]20 192e
18 I~l~.r~d Padc Sl~divisirn U~r~y .050 .059 rtex. 100 150 210 210 77~
19 N~od O~u-~y C1ub muzty .432 .059 atie. 100 30 100 500 1967~
20 N~ith H.~~ir~x? Seivic~s~ ~y sae FI~.g1 .525 nex. 100 498 498 498 17(Y1
ti. c~ ~~~t v~~ ~ .izo ioo ~ce ~c~a ~e ~
22 Orarr~ Cb. c~f Flarid3 ~y .144 rot in file 100 42 42 42 789e
23 Ordzid Acrr~ 'lYailer Pacic aaxd,y .0?25 .006 max. 100 150 L50 150 35~
24 Prirness Qxrb. ala h~jestac ~y .200 rot in file 100 380 380 380 12Le
25 Fai~ow aailer Q~ut ~y .036 .016 nax. 100 34 34 34 244e
26 `Ihe ~ser~e Utility Wrp. ~y .200 .073 a~e. 100 ?20 400 1000 332d
b 27 Rid~t MP ~y .046 rnt in file 100 364 364 364 29~
y 28 Rin del N~r NfP ~y .015 rnt in file 100 ]28 ]28 ]28 27'~
~ 29 St. Ii.~ie 4~st PS[. 1.000 .076 a~e. 0 185 1832 26335 4lld
r+ 30 S3rd Dol]ar []tilities Q~xp. ~y .OEO .0147 a~. 100 970 970 970 19~
~ 31 ~rdla~a~d F~tates 9iidivisia? ~y .030 rot in file 100 22 50 120 314e
~ 32 ~iani..~ Ial¢s Qar~y Chab Vil. ~y .]15 .1.a63 ~cax. 100 1200 1200 1200 22~
y ~enis~ Iai~ E~irsays ~Y .233 .OBO a~,e. 100 300 1000 1600 26i~
7~d 334,5 ~ ~Q~e M~' ~y .864 .241 a~. 100 1000 1000 1000 241d
~y .180 .0132 a~e. 100 316 316 316 42~
36 Vista St. Lr~e cxuf.y .183 .065 an~e. 100 924 924 924 7(l~
37 WZisperirg Qnelc Vi1]ar~ ~rd.y .064 rot in file 100 300 300 300 49~
! A 1 1 A! R! 1 F p C 7 U A i f ~
P k E R+9 [ A 10 t
A D C
~ - ~ 2 '
Ii
16 9 ~ NO MI
~ , s ~ a ~ ~ f
~
~ w a ~ b~ o ~ d~
~ ; ~ ~ ~ o o
~ i m v rt[
~ m a~ 9 ^ $
fi
j ~ s~ fi'„~, P°~ C~Q~[~G~ ~~C~Q~~1[~~~
~
. I ~ ` g
~ 0 5 ' 0 C~9 , ~~Q~~ ~OC~Q~~O~~
~ { SUNSx19[ S7erE PeeKUer y r, iaal dr.
~ ~ J a r ~
i ~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~,~~a
V ~ °~p GN~L C~i BfiqEP fi_ ~o ixn
3~NOAT RIk DP6i Ap ~NGL[ AO~D WESI • 'W~~ au
Y I~~ K'
~ w~ :o r~~~v~ , ~
I GE AVENUE E)TPNSlON ~ g n x~,~,¢F ~q Q
• o
o ~ ~ ~ - t
o ~
~ ~ 0 4 , ~ a
d
~ eY, 0 1~ riru e~ ~ ~ o~ IIlAtf~ ~ 9 . . . . . .
_ . . I . . . . _ . ° ~ . _ _ _ _ ~ -
; ~ ~
_ . ..v__ _ . nio-__ __n . _ M _ ~ . Q~ ~1
~ ~ ` j . a
I ~ S 6~ 2 c{'
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i o X~ .rvn. i Rp~O ~ ' EOVIR p CS~'
f _ ~ - I ~E~~ / ~ - ,
~ ~ ue au-~~.ws rto , ~ n y2
I ~ ~ J w ~ rv
i
y ~ w oB
I ~ ~ 41UVAY~UTA ~ w.r rn ~
u ~ c
0 aio~ ~_ce
e~ " ,
e.
~ t s
s ~ ` a.
~ ~ 93 +5 w fi ~
~ , ~4 p~ ~
_ ;
. ~ , ~ ~o: o ~ 6 ~ ~
~ . ~ h a`~ ~ ~s Tf r ~ .
r
~ ° G~ ~ w hsl ~ 9 L ~
V' f~
~ I ~ . 3 9 ~ dU97~ f
n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b 4~
~ ~ vlra w. ~ ~
' ~ ~ ~ I~IiL ~
p ~k
~ ~ ~ 16
~ 4nay ya.
I a
i o ~ ~ PSL Blv ~l~
~ tr
~
9AyA F ~i E
~ ~ 6
~ I ~ ,o a ~D°~
i ~ w ~ ,~G ~ ~
~ p ~ ~'~u „t
b
I ~ 0A SP UCI I M
I ffIXEP ADA~ N I G~ _ ~VVV~ "OvIIV~ u
ffd~~~~A
-
~ P 39 E A 1 I
~ p
3~ ~ P % E
m A A T~ A C A U N 1 I
6 - D - 6
•irti~~: t~-t~-~ t~t. ~
w~cn~ ~~s~c?r~r~r [i~rns
cnc m~rt[Y
~ anz~~ [3ojc~cl:c~d L3opcl~ auzt~t
~ Il~lc~ qr~atuxJ o~~tY # caf 1995 2000 [X~i.cn
~ ~br_i.ty (~~ocity for E~~le li~ulaLirn L~~11aLicn LLIb'9
~ M~~ (k~y 4~E3t~' Plard= Laat=ion (1 Millirn QD) (1 Millia~ Q'D) Chimorp. Cb. Sc_t~-d Setwd Succjd CiaCD
A~
fi
'~C
~ ciM~1~IX'J11[,
r, 38 E~n~~eLt's Aif:o Sales clzr~y .003 rot in file 100 50 ~
~ 39 IIill Slultz Clrviulct azr~y .216 rnt in file 100 152 1421
`0 90 7}ie el~ W~le C1~nLy .072 rot in file 100 230 313
~ 41 C7's ~lc Etzr~e Oard..y .002 rot in file 100 ~ ~
42 c~talaro M~t~~s/Eiidc Stacr ab~.rd,y .003 .0015 nax. 100 25 1~p
43 C~t-sza~'s E~du.al Savirx}s 2z~y .046 rot in file 100 5p g~p
44 ~n C~tea~ Nbt~s. Inc. O~t.y .002 rnt in file 100 5p qp
45 ~~c~ Nbtr~1 (Sbottis~ Imsl aax~y .006 .008 max. 100 96 ~
46 L~ln~uw's Italian F~sta.~-ar~ ~y .003 .001 aex. 100 5p 6p
47 R~ L~cQ 7m Oar~.y rot in file rot in file 100 25 ~{h
98 DLSabled Pm ~#s (uid~s a~st. ) PSL .00125 u-~der oaYSt. 0 0 13
49 D,~il E~q~le In~ Wi.r~y .0013 rot in file 100 Ep 16
50 Nant
11's Nbtei ~z.r~y .014 rnt in fi]e 100 45 3ll
~ 51 E`i.stnrnen 1bo Cxxxty .074 rot in file 100 25 2g6p
i 52 Eloi~ta ~a~t.er E~S[. .002 rot in file 0 5~
53 Eix-~an11e Plaza ~y .0"19 riot in file 100 25p 316
d 54 Et. P~nlr~e H~wling Ianes O~r~ty .057 riot in file 100 3qp 16g '
i 55 Et. Pietae Facic ~y mt in file .OOL572 nax. 100 125 xh
~ 56 Et. Pieine 1Yailer Pk. Qaar~ty .050 rot in file 100 75 ~
57 [t. PieJne Flyiny Serviae dux~y .093 rot in f.i.le 100 82 ~
58 Et. Pies~e Jai Alai ~y .100 rot in file 100 2500 qp
59 Ci~?'*~d Iarie I1xth ~y C3c~ ~y .0003 rot in file 100 99 3
60 c'ir,c~~~,.~ Iane Zbo [~y (~re PSC. .002 mt in file 0 75 ~'7
61 C3~lflarid C~lf ~ ~y rr~t in file rot in file 100 25 Xh
62 (~odfeliaws ~y .002 mt in file 100 6p ~
63 (~res Plaza II Oax~y .002 .023 max. 100 25 ~
64 Hilltcp I-bi~ E~.uart ~.y rot in file .0025 max. 100 275 xh
65 T~~ Plaza ~y .002 mt in file 100 5p qp
66 Iridrifl Se~~vir.~ Plaza_ ~y .00165 .0019 ma~e. 100 25 ~
'b 67 Irdrin 1Y~ Ualue C1ar~y .036 mt in file 100 25 1440
y 68 ,7dmy's C~xrer E~ni.ly E~st. O~u-ty .025 .025 max. 100 220 ll4
69 Ial~~nod Patic Plaza Oxr~y rot in file .001 max. 100 50 }~h
7~ I~ci~-cn 9~lies C~nt-Y .0015 mt in file 100 75 Zp
71 Ms~.y Zi~e [~y (~re ~_r ~z.rLy .002 , rnt in file 100 45 q~}
72 In~al ~r of M~e #?A8 U~a~t.y .OOll4 mt in file 100 200 . 6
~ 73 I3~ris's Plaoe f~r Rik:s ~y .010 rot in file 100 192 52
y 74 I3~rsa?an's E~~ar PSL .0036 .0074 trex. 0 30 ~p
~ 75 Ola3rr~r Bisir~ss Pa~c ~y .002 rot in file 100 50 qp
76 Ole~nd~ Cl~ild (~re Oa-~nr muty .Oll .0023 nax. 100 75 ~`1
77 PSG Ctn~ale~oa~ Oer~.er ~y .035 .044 irax. 100 qpp 8B
78 P5L I~ries Oai~.y .010 .009 max. 100 100 100
79 PSL h~dical ~t~ ~y .057 rot in file 100 300 1gp
80 PS[, 7~ade Qater PSL .002 rot in f~le 0 30 b7
' ~Intfl. tr-irt 1cuY;.~
FFCIIR '~TdY+(?MNl' ['i1Y115
S.' :i~ Q1NtY
(]~rte~-A~ P[t~jacted E'rojeCl~3 Quze~
f7~igi C}-rratirrj %~{xar_iLy # af 1995 2000 Q=siy~
w
~ ~i~h' ~l~h' for [Y~le [t.~ulaticn Ei~~ilatic7~ LL15`3
~ M~ [~_y lntitrr PL3rit Incalirn (1 Millirn Q~) (1 Ntillirn Q'D) [hun~. Cb. Suu~d Sr~~u~d S~sujd Q1D
fi
~
~ (I2T1:i~_IAI, (ci rt. )
` 41 E~~n Parc/Qin Div'i~~}-u~l Etnes P5L .005 .004 max. 0 25 zpp
~ Q2 Ct~d Idimr 7Y~n1 'Railer Pk Ctzrd.y .030 .168 tra~:. 100 500 6p
~ 83 S1aYF.#n~n [5L1 O~rd,y .020 rnt in file 100 250 g0
~ 84 ScyHay M~t-.el Oa.r4,y .036 not in file 100 30 12pp
85 9iallc,ood M7te1 O:zrd.y .028 rot in file 100 30 933
86 Srmr~i-~o's E~t-anart Q~a-~y .010 rot in file 100 150 b7
87 9~M~n Dell ~asdJy .Q36 rot in file 100 25 1440
88 9,en Plaza PSG .002 rot in file 0 26 77
89 ~,e lbadier's Plaoe C1ar~y .00194 .004 aex. 100 ?20 9
90 15~land (~rpg~uxd Ctzxity .030 .OQ39 max. 100 100 3pp
91 villac~ &}~ne ~ng ~y .020 .016 max. 100 225 89
92 4~ Plaza I/I~kxth Oar~y .012 rot in file 100 50 24U
93 4~ffle E~se Qzr~y .010 mt in file 100 100 100
rn 94 Wiite City Plaza/O~ura~s C1~u-~ky .006 .0039 ma~c. 100 30 167
~
d II~Ixsati~~i,
i
~ 95 Clas3 C~i~/~ o~la Ei~octs Q~z.nty .036 .004 me~c. 100 40 gpp
96 mlaval E]igirrar rirr~ d~s~t,y .122 rot in file 100 53 2302
97 Et. Pietne Ckx-a ~la Oax~Ly mt in file rot in file 100 34 }{h
98 [~cix~r ~r-dnd~ Etxz~tirn Q.u~y .050 rot in file 100 L59 314
99 E~t C~t-~ Paciorr~ 4-znty .024 rot in file 100 55 436
100 I~ian Ri~er Ebods, Inc. Q~xrt,y .L30 rot in file 100 34 3824
101 St. Ilacie Qax~-Y ~P~ ~~-Y .LLS rot in file 100 30 3833
102 St. L~ie E~dan9 ~P ~-Y .072 rot in file 100 60 120p
103 'I~ee 9,iaet Prodx~s ~y .200 rot in file 100 15U 1333
104 Trc~.urar~ Prodx~-s C]~r~y .316 mt in file 100 265 t192
~d
~ A~dC
H
~
t~., 105 Elom~ta F1e~ary ~iml Ps. .0'L`i rr~t in file o 850 2g
t~i 106 Lidian Ric~r Acadaty Cb~r~y .028 rnt in file 100 350 8p
107 Iaia~ood Pk F1erer~-ary 9~no1 Oa.rty .025 .034 max. 100 900 2g .
~ 108 Micl~ey R3. ~n~? af Chri.st Oar~t.y .001475 .006 tis~c. 100 80 lg
~7 109 PSL City E~11 Arrr~c PSi. mt in file .004 mex. 0 25 Xt?
~ ll0 FY~aI Arr~c, SPlvitz Eri. ~.y .00037 .0002 nax. 100 25 15
~h7
lll St. L.~ie ab. Agri ~plex U~.rty mt in file .0016 max. 100 25 x** Xh
ll2 St. I~ie ao. Ymath Ehll aur~.y rot in file rot in file 100 25 Xh
113 S~a-~tr-l~y Adc~sst 9:tno1 Qzr~.y .(r28 not in file 100 54 519
ll4 Sln C~ue hYx~ri 9~no1 Oax~.y .005 .0006 max. 100 ll5 q
ll5 Wzite City Paiic ~y .0072 rot in file 100 160 45
~
~
~
~ 7F1IIE 6-D-1 (mrt. )
A?
hi 4~2 'ff~Ir'II~II' PI]~i6
~ SP. II~LE CIINiY
~o
a [~bith t~rhir~rt ~rv;n~ I~oei~s its taler ftcm EHk~. ~e a.~-t~t IL~ stta,n is the IL~ ~t b~ the EFSR1 in the 1988 N~st~~' Plan.
~
~
`o b EAg1 data is k~asad rn a~rrec.~tinns. A aa~rec~irn aaiid k~e hod~d t}~ to a single-fardly trsick~oe or tn a ac~Uninitm with nm~us units. It is
~ le to det~lmim the exact n.nibecs with tlr_ inf,otmatirn a„::~~:;e. Al~ s~ r~;
~nP'ossib , ' ial u~?j.ts are oansidP~d crnnr~rrial dncj are jpcl~~bd
in the ''Ga~eial" categxy. E1rni S~ter~• 1989, the arxr~ectiai aant is: i~sida~-_iai insic]e ci.ty 9388; t~sicl~ial o~-side city 1805; c~er'al
iriside city ]972: arrl, c~~al oi.tsic~e city 372. Zhe Utalities Autharity estimeites the total ru?i~er c~f resida~ts s~i~~ed a.ffr~rtly (L~oer~er, 1989)
at 45,000. 'Ihe Fcnjer~icns for 1995 and 2000, tal~ fmn the 1988 EF[Y1 N~ter Plan, are 54,252 arrl 58,412, ~pea-.i~ely. ~e IL)6 af 170 cpod is
tal~~ ftcm the EFtR1 1988 hgster Plan.
~ C~U a.m~-1y se~~s a t~otal pqulaticn af 31,701 with 5,684 a.sta~rs tesidirr3 in the u~irnarpoiated ~ty. At this t~me, the Fxnjected s~.vic~e
~n~laticn for 1990 & 1995 ard the a.u-n~it ca~aci_h' a~lus/c~f;r-i~,r;, is ur~ai~able.
a C1nz~ I06 Has dF#ernuned b~ dividirg the a~erac~ aurert q~es'atin9 ~h' bi' the am~r~ n~er of peq~le se.t~.~d.
rn
i e a.~z~t ID6 Has detelmiried frIIn the follaaing er}atirn: (~si9~ (~eCitY) (E~d-or af 0.23)/Qurent # of peqale se~,ed. 7he factor Mas d~niried
~ f~m the tc~tal a~s-ac~ diffPrprr,o q~a~J ~t1' (e~lusi~e af E~[g1 ard ¢U) ard desi9~ ca~ar"-ih', for t1~r~ee plants data
c~as acrai]able rn bc~th r~acities.
t
f ~~rncJ1Y infl~necl bi' sa~l pq~ilatirn 60
o c~f the ya3r. Off-s~ycn p~ulaticn is a~xnocir?ately 65
o c~f a~~ nn~er af pac{~le ger~sd.
0
9 (]nz~t IL~6 tas ~nnnned itun the followirg egatirn: L~si9~ ~h'/(].m~t # oE peq~le serwd. U~e to ladc caf c~eratirx! c~paC'zty, in s:nt~
cases the IL1S will be high. ~ to the rrit~e af ocYnretcial, ;rrl~tr~al arid p~lic facilitic~, it is difficz~lt tn eual~ate the I06 ~ it is
c~t:eimined this aay.
h Qnz~t I06 rot dPtPr,t,;rwr] d~ to ladc af d~ig~ c~cih' d3ta.
Zhe 1995 arcl 2000 lxojected pq~ilatirn ~ns~ is ixt~nTai]able d~ tn ladc c~f c1Uta.
ro
0
~ 1) N~t in file refers to infometicn the 1«al EIII2 oLfiae tiazld rornnlly h~,e in their fil~s.
b7
r' 2) 0.~ to ]adc c~f 4~ffic-;r~ c13ta, it is rr~t pob.sible to c~#elmim the am~r~ qac-zh' suPlus or c~ficiaY,y.
~
~
H
t~
id
beginning on page 6-D-7, lists the plants by name and groups
these plants by land use. The table shows the location of the
plants, the design capacity, operating capacity, percentage of
capacity allocated for the unincorporated County, current number
of people served, projected 1995 and 2000 population served and
the current level of service. Many of these plants are
concentrated in North and South Hutchinson Island, the White City
area, and along US 1.
Water Supply Rells
The majority of the water supply wells in St. Lucie County draw
water from the shallow groundwater aquifer referred to as the
surficial aquifer. The wells located in this aquifer range in
size from 1 inch, for the low demand systems, such as a home or
small business, to 10 inches for the larger demand regional
systems. Also in service in the County are deep wells which are
fed from the Floridan aquifer.
A large number of the small wells are concentrated in residential
developments that are not served by any regional water or
wastewater facility. Many of these wells exist on 1/4-acre
lots which generally also have an on-site septic tank and
drainfield for their wastewater disposal.
The larger wells normally are used to supply water to package
plants and regional facilities. The regional facilities are as
previously described. The package plants are found throughout
the eastern portion of the County with the high concentration
areas being along U.S. 1 and on the barrier island. The Floridan
aquifer wells are generally located in the coastal areas. On the
North Island, Bryn Mawr uses a Floridan well and on the South
Island, Ocean Towers uses a Floridan well. Currently, FPUA is
looking into blending water from the Floridan aquifer with water
from the surficial aquifer.
~later Quality
As previously mentioned, most of the water supply systems in St.
Lucie County obtain their raw water from shallow supply wells
which extend into the surficial aquifer. A few of the water
supply systems obtain raw water from deep wells which extend into
the Floridan aquifer.
The quality of water in the surficial aquifer is generally good.
Bacteriological results indicate no bacterial problems now exist
although in some areas noncoliform bacteria are present. Iron
(Fe) and sulfates (S04) are problems in some areas. These areas
generally have a problem with either Fe or 504, but not both
although exceptions do exist. Sulfur dioxide (S02) is a frequent
problem. The total dissolved solids (TDS) content causes no
problems in this water. It ranges from 150-450 milligrams per
liter (mg/1) with the average being approximately 300. Certain
areas do exist in the County where, due to leaking flow wells
(artesian wells flowing from the Floridan aquifer), the TDS
January 9, 1990 6- D- 11 POTABLE WATER
content is uncharacteristically high for surficial aquifer wells
of this type. An additional source of Floridan aquifer water
originates from the use of these artesian wells as an alternate
source of irrigation water which ultimately infiltrates and
contaminates the potable surficial aquifer.
Water from the Floridan aquifer originates from two sources;
relict sea water, and rainwater from recharge areas. Remnant sea
water deposited along with the marine limestones of the Floridan
aquifer is characterized by high concentrations of dissolved
salts. The water quality in the upper portion of this aquifer in
St. Lucie County is fair to poor. Waters usually contain more
than 250 mg/1 of chloride ions and are therefore classified as
non-potable. Because of this poor water quality, the treatment
systems which utilize the Floridan aquifer for their source water
generally use a reverse osmosis treatment process.
NEEDS ASSESSISSNT
The County presently has potable water service provided by two
major utilities, several medium sized utilities, small package
plants, and domestic wells. This section examines the needs of
those areas in the County which are not included in a major or
medium-sized utility service area and which have been determined
to be potential high growth areas or areas with identified
probl ems .
Areas Not in the Scope of This Plan
Ft. Pierce Service Area: The Ft. Pierce Service Area is
identified as extending south to about Easy Street, west to about
North FCings Highway and north to about Indrio Road. This
encompasses a large area of unincorporated St. Lucie County. Ft.
Pierce Water Utilities has planned to serve these areas in their
water and wastewater master plan. An additional distribution
system is needed in this area, but is addressed in the Ft. Pierce
1988 Water and Wastewater Master Plan. (Camp, Dresser, and
McRee, 1988)
Port St. Lucie: The Port St. Lucie service area generally
encompasses everything south of Ft. Pierce Utilities, west to
Interstate 95, and south to the County Line. The City contains
several County pockets. Because of the density of these pockets
and the relatively small size, interlocal agreements will be
required to serve these areas with water. The exception may be
at Gatlin Boulevard just east of the I-95 Interchange, where a
County pocket of respectable size is located within about one
mile of the County service area. This area should be given
special consideration during the site review process to ensure an
adequate water supply.
January 9, 1990 6- D- 12 POTABLE WATER
Savannas Area: The Savannas area is generally defined as that
area bounded on the north by the northern boundary of sections
23, 24, and a small portion of 19 and 22; on the south by the
northern boundary of the Port St. Lucie City limits; on the east
by South Indian River Drive; and by an imaginary line located
approximately 1/2 mile west of U. S. 1.
IInincorporated County Areas not in Wate= Servi.ce ~reas
The future land use plan for St. Lucie County identifies several
higher density residential and commercial areas. Of the land
uses identified, classifications which would be dense enough to
require some form of regional or sub-regional public water supply
are medium and high density residential, commercial, industrial,
and mixed use.
Much of the area east of I-95 is served by North Hutchinson
Services, Ft. Pierce Utilities, Port St. Lucie (GDU and St. Lucie
West), with the notable exceptions of South Hutchinson Island,
the Savannas area, and that area north of the St. Lucie County
I nternati onal Ai rport ( I ndri o Road
The western area of the County is planned as agricultural,
leaving the central north-south strip to be considered. Most of
this strip is planned for low-density residential, which is
intended to have a minimal impact on the environment, and would
be uneconomical to serve with a public water system. Water
service to that area is expected to be provided by individual
wells.
Capacity Assessment
This assessment identifies facility requirements in the study
areas by estimating demand, assigning demand to the existi ng (if
any) facilities, and quantifying facility deficiencies. Demand
was estimated by applying a level of service standard for each
facility to the projected population and land use within the
study area, in order to estimate average flows for the planning
period. Resident population estimates and projections were based
on the Traffic Area Zone (TAZ) data provided by the St. Lucie
County Metropolitan Planning Organization. These TAZ data were
based upon the high projections from the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida for St.
Lucie County.
A range of per capita consumption was developed by the
SFWMD and this is presented in Table 6-D-2, found on page
6-D-14. The land uses for General Development Utilities, Inc.
and the small utilities reflect the proposed uses in the study
areas and a LOS of 120 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) or
120~ of sewage flow is used herein as a planning guide until the
latest update from the SFWMD is available in 1989. The level of
service standard for potable water systems other than those
operated by Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority shall be 88 gallons
per capita per day; upon completion of the Potable Water Master
January 9, 1990 6- D- 13 POTABLE WATER
TABLE 6-D-2
Potable Water Demand in St. Lucie County
1985
Water Usel
Supply Source Population Annual Daily Per
Capita
PUBLI C SUPPLY
Bryn Mawr2 918 37. 2 0. 102 111
Holiday Pines Svc. 375 29.2 0.080 213
Spanish Lakes C. C. 1, 710 54. 8 0. 150 88
Spanish Lakes MHP 2, 286 82. 6 0. 226 99
General Dev. Util. 26, 096 840. 4 2. 303 88
Ft. Pierce U. A. 42, 600 2, 907. 7 7. 966 192
SUBTOTAL 72, 985 3, 951. 9 10. 827 148
NON-PUBLIC SUPPLY 43, 625 2, 336. 0 6. 40 148
TOTAL 116, 610 6, 287. 9 17. 227 148
lAnnual and daily water use is in million gallons; per capita use
is in gallons per person per day.
2The Floridan system is used to meet this use.
Source: South Florida Water Management District, 1985 data
January 9, 1990 6- D- 14 POTABLE WATER
Plan, any necessary change in the level of service standard will
be made through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The level of service standard for those areas of the
unincorporated County served by Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority
shall be 170 gallons per capita per day. This figure comes from
the 1988 Water and Wastewater Systems Master Plan for the Ft
Pierce Utilities Authority. While the County realizes that this
figure is extremely high, it must be recognized that all FPUA
customers are given the same level of service standard. Since
commercial customers use a great deal more water than residential
customers the 170 gallons per capita per day is necessary.
Water treatment facilities are designed based on the maximum
daily flow expected, which is generally about 1.5 times the
average daily flow. Storage, distribution and pumping capacity
is based on the maximum hourly flow (generally 1.5 times the
maximum daily flow) or maximum daily flow plus a fire flow,
whichever is greater.
Distribution systems should be looped to minimize stagnation of
water, which makes proper disinfection difficult. Pipe sizes
should be determined with consideration to ultimate flows.
System pressures should be maintained at a minimum of 20 psi
under maximum (fire) flow conditions.
Treatment facilities should be in the planning phase for
expansion when flows reach 80~ of capacity, and under
construction at 90% of capacity.
A good master plan for system development is essential, as is the
commitment to follow the plan.
Savannas Area Needs
This area is expected to develop into a fairly high density area
with residential urban, residential medium, and commercial uses
represented. Although the existing water treatment plants are
expected to accommodate the existing developments for several
years, as the smaller treatment plants reach their useful life
and more demand is placed on the aquifer, and as septic tank and
treated effluent discharge to the groundwater become more common,
the need for a subregional system will be increased. It is
therefore anticipated that by the late 1990's a 1 MGD water
treatment plant with distribution system will be needed in this
area.
It is anticipated that a starter system would cost on the order
of $6 million. There are also possibilities for utility
acquisitions in this area.
January 9, 1990 6- D- 15 POTABLE WATER
South Autchi.nson Island Needs
South Hutchinson Island is currently served in part by the Ft.
Pierce Utilities Authority down to the St. Lucie/Martin County
line. A 12-inch water main runs the length of the island and at
the south end runs adjacent to a 12-inch line coming from Martin
County. These lines are not interconnected.
The population of Hutchinson Island is expected to grow only
slightly, if at all, due to environmental concerns. Average
daily flow is based on the 'level of service standard of 120 gpd.
This area has minimal commercial flow, which is estimated at
30,000 gpd. It is assumed that no additional commercial
development will take place on this portion of the island.
South Hutchinson Island does not have a drinking water capacity
problem, since apparent deficiencies are in reality served by
FPUA. The facilities with on-site reverse-osmosis (R-O) systems,
however, are presently limited in their expansion capabilities by
the new FDER policy of requiring an Industrial Waste (IW)
operating permit for the R-0 brine concentrate from new or
modified systems. Since the FPUA service is a single line only,
the service is at risk from line breaks and emergency demands.
Central County ~rea Needs
The central County area is generally identified as being all of
the area north of Indrio Road between the Indian River and
Interstate 95 and then the growth area west of North Rings'
Highway and Interstate 95 all the way south to the County line.
This long strip is expected to develop as residential urban,
residential medium density, and commercial in the eastern portion
and residential suburban in the western portion. The only water
treatment plants of appreciable size are at the Reserve and at
Spanish Lakes Country Club Village and Spanish Lakes Fairways.
The County at present does not have a water supply plan, which is
a pressing need and necessary planning tool, for this area.
Most of the growth from the east to I-95 has been served by the
existing municipal or private service areas. It is anticipated
that by 1996, population density, commercial uses, and other high
potable water demand uses will become apparent and require
regional and subregional systems whether provided by large
developers, private utilities, or by the County.
General Performance of Existing Facilities
As can be seen in the preceding data, with the exception of Fort
Pierce Utilities and General Development Utilities, all other
treatment facilities in the County are project specific.
Information was not readily available in which to analyze the
general performance of these facilities which serve the
unincorporated County, evaluating the adequacy of the current
January 9, 1990 6- D- 16 POTABLE WATER
level of service provided by the facilities, the general
condition and expected life of the facilities, and the impact of
the facilities upon adjacent natural resources. Because, in
part, of the lack of information for these facilities, the County
has committed to prepare a Potable Water Master Plan for the
Unincorporated County. As this information becomes available as
a result of the master planning effort, it will be incorporated
into this subelement through the plan amendment process.
Potable Water Master Plan for the IInincorporated County
Because of the importance that the provision of potable water
service will play in the development of the County and also
significant pressures for the County to enter into the provision
of such services, $250,000.00 has been identified for FY 90-91 to
fund a Potable Water Master Plan for the unincorporated County.
This study will analyze existing systems, identify overall needs
and lay out a program for the orderly provision of this service.
Upon completion of this master plan, pertinent information will
be incorporated into this subelement through the plan amendment
process.
Potable ~Tater Facility Replacement, B~pansion and New Facility
Sitinq
Not having an overall plan for the provision of this service or
even having the necessary data base for such a plan, and with
those facilities which do exist being designed to be project or
area specific, there is not a clear direction for the overall
provision of potable water systems in the urban areas of the
County. Therefore, there is not a set of criteria which may be
rationally applied in replacement, expansion or siting of new
facilities. It is intended that these deficiencies will be
addressed through the Potable Water Master Plan. Upon completion
of this Master Plan, pertinent information will be incorporated
into this subelement through the plan amendment process.
January 9, 1990 6- D- 17 POTABLE WATER
GOgLS, OBJ$CTI VSS, ~IiTD POLI CI ES
GOAL 6D. 1: PROVI DE NEEDI3D PIIBLI C UTI LI TI ES I N A 1d1ANNER
~ WHICH RRSIILTS IN THE IyIOST EFF$CTIVE, I~iCONO1~LC
POTABL$ TiIATSR SYSTSiwIS CONSI ST13NT WI TH PRSS$NT
DEMAND AND FDTURS GROATH RI~QDIRSMENTS AND
PRO1~iOTSS ORDERLY, COMPACT DRSAN GROWTH.
Obj ective 6D. 1. 1: The County shall provide potable water
facilities so that they do not promote urban
sprawl.
Policy 6D. 1. 1. 1: The utility service areas, to be determined
in the Potable Water Master Plan, will be
determined on the basis of economy and
efficient operation so that they do not
promote linear or leapfrog development.
Policy 6D. 1. 1.2: Provision of regional (not including package
treatment plants) potable water service shall
be limited to the utility service areas to be
determined in the Potable Water Master Plan.
The utility service areas will be within the
urban service area boundaries as determined
in the Future Land Use Element.
Obj ective 6D. 1. 2: By 1992, the County will establish and
implement procedures to form utility service
areas to ensure that when a development
permit is issued, adequate facility capacity
is avai.lable or will be available to serve
the development concurrent with the impacts,
in order to meet the adopted level of servi.ce
standards.
Policy 6D. 1.2. 1: All development will be specifically
aonditioned on the availability of services
necessary to maintain level of service
standards as adopted within this
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 6D. 1. 2. 2: The level of service standard for those areas
of the unincorporated County served by Ft.
Pierce Utilities Authority shall be 170
gallons per capita per day (Ft. Pierce
Utilities Authority 1988 Water and Wastewater
Master Plan, July, 1988 ) .
Policy 6D. 1.2.3: The level of service standard for
potable water systems other than those owned
and operated by Ft. Pierce Utilities
January 9, 1990 6- D- 18 POTABLE WATER
Authority shall be 88 gallons per day per
capita; upon completion of the Potable Water
Master Plan, any necessary change in the
level of service standard will be made
through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Policy 6D. 1.2.4: Once facilities are, established in the
recognized utility service areas, require
that all improvements, expansions, or
increases in the capacities of facilities, be
compatible with the established level of
service standards for the facility.
Policy 6D. 1.2.5: Prepare annual summaries of capacity and
demand information for each facility and
service area.
Policy 6D. 1.2. 6: After the utility service areas are
determined in the Potable Water Master Plan,
new development in these areas will be
required to hook up to a regional or sub-
regional system.
Policy 6D. 1. 2. 7: Require that developments of regional impact
determine the available quantity and quality
of water resources available for treatment to
potable water beneath the development;
determine the effect of withdrawal on
surrounding environment, users and potential
users; and make such information available to
the County.
Obj ective 6D. 1. 3: The County will establish and maintain a
five-year and twenty-year schedule of capital
improvement needs for the public facilities
in the recognized County service areas.
Policy 6D. 1.3. 1: Form a committee, composed of
representatives from the appropriate County
departments, for the purpose of evaluating
and ranking capital improvement projects
proposed for inclusion in the five-year
capital improvement schedule.
Policy 6D. 1. 3. 2: The following public facility improvements
within a facility type are to be considered
in the following order of priority, as
determined by the Board of County
Commissioners:
A. Replacement of obsolete or worn out
facilities, including repair, remodeling
and renovation of facilities that
contribute to achieving and/or
maintaining levels of service.
January 9, 1990 6- D- 19 POTABLE WATER
B. New facilities that reduce or eliminate
existing deficiencies in levels of
service.
C. New facilities that provide the adopted
levels of service for new growth during
the next five fiscal years, as updated
by the annual review of the Capital
Improvements Element.
D. Improvements to existing facilities, and
new facilities that significantly reduce
the operating cost of achieving and/or
maintaining levels of service.
E. New facilities that exceed the adopted
levels of service for new growth during
the next five fiscal years by either:
1) providing excess public facility
capacity that may be needed by
future growth beyond the next five
fiscal years, or
2) providing higher quality public
facilities that are contemplated in
the County's normal design criteria
for such facilities.
F. Facilities not described in Subsections
A through E, above, but which the County
is obligated to complete, provided that
such obligation is evidenced by a
written agreement the County executed
prior to July 31, 1990.
G. Al1 facilities scheduled for
construction or improvement in
accordance with this Policy shall be
evaluated to identify any plans of State
agencies or the South Florida Water
Management District that affect, or will
be affected by, the proposed capital
improvement.
H. Proj ect evaluation may also involve
additional criteria that are unique to
each type of public facility, as
described in other elements of this
Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 6D. 1. 3.3: In the event that the planned capacity of
public facilities is insufficient to serve
all applicants for development orders, the
Board of County Commissioners will schedule
January 9, 1990 6- D- 20 POTABLE WATER
capital improvements to serve developments in
the following order of priority:
A. previously approved orders permitting
new development,
B. new orders permitting redevelopment, and
C. new orders permitting new development.
Obj ective 6D. 1. 4: The County sha].1 take steps to insure that
entities in the uni.ncorporated County but
within existing service areas are adequately
s erved.
Policy 6D. 1.4. 1: Encourage interlocal agreement between FPUA
and Martin County for an emergency connection
at the County line on Hutchinson Island.
Policy 6D. 1.4.2: Areas of high septic tank concentration,
especially the White City area and south of
the St. Lucie County Airport, will be
evaluated for extension of water service in
the Potable Water Master Plan.
Objective 6D.1.5: The County shall coordinate the extension of,
or increase in the capacity of, facilities to
meet future needs by completi.ng a Potable
Water l~iaster Plan.
Policy 6D. 1. 5. 1: After August 1, 1990, the County shall
require that all building permit applicants
prior to permit issuance must verify that
water service can be provided in conformance
with the policies in this plan and that
adequate system capacity is available if a
central system is to be utilized.
GOAL 6D.2: AGGRSSSIVSLY IDEN'irIFY, PROTSCT, CONSERVS,
AND BI3ST UTI LI ZE THE COIINTY' S AVAI LASLE WATI3R
SIIPPLY RBSOIIRCES.
Obj ective 6D. 2. 1: By Auqust 1, 1992, the County will develop
a wellfield protection plan for public
potable water supply.
Policy 6D. 2. 1. 1: In conjunction with FDER, SFWMD, County
Environmental Health Unit, and existing
utility systems, determine the location of
existing public potable water supply wells
January 9, 1990 6- D- 21 POTABLE WATER
which are permitted to withdraw 100,000 gpd
or greater.
Policy 6D. 2. 1.2: In conjunction with FDER, SFWMD, County
Environmental Health Unit, utilities and
developers, establish the probable location
of public potable water supply wells in
proposed utility service areas.
Policy 6D. 2. 1.3: In conjunction with SFWMD, USGS, or other
agencies, establish the shallow aquifer
characteristics of proposed utility service
areas to allow approximation of the zones
of influence of public potable water supply
wells.
Policy 6D.2. 1. 4: Establish which land uses may not be
compatible with and may contribute to the
degradation of public potable water supply
wells.
Policy 6D. 2. 1. 5: Condition the issuance of development orders
or permits on demonstration of the
compatibility of the proposed land uses with
existing or future public potable water
supply wells.
Policy 6D.2.1.6: Establish a fee system to provide funding for
development and implementation of a wellfield
protection plan.
Obj ective 6D. 2_ 2: The County shall evaluate the feasibility of
a comprehensive water conservation program
incorporating, at a minimum, the following
policies by ~ugust 1, 1990.
Policy 6D. 2. 2. 1: The County shall continue to require water
saving devices in new construction, adding
additional requirements to the building code
as technological advances occur.
Policy 6D.2.2.2: The County shall evaluate the landscaping
portion of the existing zoning ordinance to
determine the feasibility of requiring more
exacting provisions for native landscaping
plants and xeriscaping by August, 1990.
Policy 6D.2.2.3: The Land Development Regulations shall
require wastewater reuse plans for new sewage
treatment plants operating above 250,000
gallons per day. Any new reuse plan shall be
approved by the FDER.
January 9, 1990 6- D- 22 POTABLE WATER
Policy 6D. 2. 2. 4: Encourage reuse and reclamation of water for
irrigation, agriculture, and industry as an
alternative to use of potable water supplies.
Policy 6D.2.2. 5: Provide for education of the public
concerning the need for water conservation.
Policy 6D.2. 2. 6: No Conditional Uses for sand mining and no
rezonings to Industrial, Extraction (IX) will
be granted within public potable water supply
recharge areas designated through the
Wellfield Protection Ordinance; when the
information is available to designate aquifer
recharge areas, this policy will be revised
through a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
include those areas.
Obj ective 6D. 2. 3: IIpon completion of the water avai.lability,
use, allocation, and management plan by the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council in
1992, amend the land development regulations
to identify water available and allocation
ra.tes to protect natural systems from
competinq water uses.
Policy 6D.2.3. 1: For normal, average rainfall years, water
availability, use, allocation, and management
plans shall prevent the increasing water
demands from reducing the important
ecological, recreational and navigational
values provided by the natural systems.
Policy 6D. 2. 3.2: Water use, allocation, and management plans
for emergency drought and flood situations
shall avoid irreversible impacts on
ecological systems and minimize long term
adverse impacts.
Policy 6D. 2. 3. 3: The County shall not rely upon water supply
sources outside its jurisdictional boundaries
to meet the water supply needs of new growth
and development until water availability,
use, allocation and management plans have
been adopted for the proposed source area
which specifically allocate water for such
use. In no case should water be transported
across the South Florida Water Management
District's boundaries.
GO~L 6. D_ 3: I NSTI TUT$ A PROGRAI~i TO I DEN'i~I FY, S$CIIRE
OWN~RSSI P AND OPERATI ON OF, AND D$TSR1~II NE
TRS~l2'1~AIT FOR TIiOSE W~TSR SDPPLI l3S RI~QDI RSD
January 9, 1990 6- D- 23 POTABLE WATER
TO PROVIDE FOR THE GROWTH NSBDS IN TH$
DI~TI NCORPORATSD COIINTY WAERE B~BI STI FG SERVI C$
ARS~S DO NOT ~ ST_
Obj ective 6D. 3. 1: In cooperation with the SFTAi1rID, the County
shall, by 1992, complete a master plan which
det~:rmi.nes and quantifies groundwate=
resou.rces available to growth areas in both
the surficial and Floridan aquifers,
eva].uates methods of treatment, considers
enva_ronmental iapact, considers alternative
financing options, and provides a schedule
for C.ounty acquisition of water service.
Policy 6D. 3. 1. 1: By 1992, identify potential service areas for
public water supplies through a Master Plan.
The Master Plan will include:
1. 7:dentification of areas of high growth
~otential which are (or will be)
isolated by existing service areas,
~~atural geographic boundaries, political
houndaries, low growth potential areas,
~ or other demarcations.
2. Projection of population growth in these
areas.
3. Inventory of existing water treatment
plants within the area, their condition,
and their potential for acquisition.
4. Establishment of needs of a public water
system, based on level of service,
provision of service by private systems,
and population as established above.
Policy 6D. 3. 1. 2: By 1992, as part of the Master Plan process,
authorize or cause to be authorized, a
treatment and transport study to determine
the recommended methods for supply water
treatment and transport, if necessary, for
each service area identified under Policy
6D. 3. 1. 1.
The studies will include:
1. A review of needs, based on proj ected
population and level of service.
2. An inventory of available water quantity
and quality data.
January 9, 1990 6- D- 24 POTABLE WATER
3. A recommendation for wellfield location,
configuration, source aquifer, number
and spacing of wells.
4. Recommended method of treatment.
5. An evaluation of environmental effects,
waste disposal considerations, and
costs.
6. Identification of transfer needs and
alternatives to deliver treated or raw
water from the source to the
distribution system.
An application to SFWMD for water
withdrawal from the selected aquifer(s).
Policy 6D.3. 1.3: Determine the feasibility of and cost
associated with the County acquiring General
Development Utilities.
Obj ective 6D. 3. 2: By 1994, the County shall provide, where
feasible, public water supply service in
selected water service area(s); the criteria
for evaluating the feasibility of providing
public water supply service and the data and
analysis to discu~s the establishment of, or
criteria for, selected water service' area(s)
will be a part of the Potable Water l~aster
Plan.
Policy 6D.3.2. 1: Authorize Service Area Master Plans and
financial studies for areas designated under
Policy 6D. 3. 1. 1. A Service Area Master Plan
will include:
1. Review of area needs and time frame for
development.
2. Confirmation of design parameters for
wellfield, treatment facility, transport
pipeli nes, and disposal facilities, if
neces s ary.
3. Distribution system layout, including
hydraulic network analysis.
4. Budget cost estimates and a schedule of
capital expenditure projects financial
considerations, including recommended
method of funding, rate structure and
revenue projections will be addressed in
a separate study or bond report.
January 9, 1990 6- D- 25 POTABLE WATER
Policy 6D. 3.2.2: The cost of all new potable water
infrastructure and distribution systems shall
be borne by those who directly benefit from
the improved facilities.
January 9, 1990 6- D- 26 POTABLE WATER
BI BLI OGRgPAY
1. Barker, Osha and Anderson, Inc. , Feasibilit~ Study -
Treatment and Disposal of Septage Wastes for the Board of
County Commissioners, St. Lucie County, Florida, October,
1986.
2. Camp, Dresser, and McKee, Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority
1988 Water and Wastewater Master Plan, 1988.
3. City of Ft. Pierce, Reserve Area Studv, 1987, January, 1987.
4. Florida Department of Community Af£airs, Model Element for
~anitary Sewer. Solid Waste. DrainaQe, Potable Water, and
Natural Groundwater Aauifer Recharge Element, May 1987.
5. Montgomery, James M. , Consulting Engineers, City of Port St.
Lucie Water and Sewer System Master Plannina and Evaluation,
March, 1987.
6. South Florida Water Management District, Non-Agricultural
W~ter Use in the Upper East Coast Planninq Area, Memorandum
Report, Nov. , 19 7 9.
7. United States Geological Survey and Florida Bureau of
Geology, Water Available in Canals and Shallow Sediments in
St. Lucie County, Florida, Tallahassee, 1972.
January 9, 1990 6- D- 27 POTABLE WATER