HomeMy WebLinkAboutSection 07 - Coastal Management ST. LUCIE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE ~
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Prepared by:
St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
Department of Community Development
January 9, 1990 COASTAL
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I NTRODUCTI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 1
BOUNDARY OF THE COUNTY'S COASTAL AREA . . . . . . . . . 7 - 1
Oceanic and Estuarine Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 1
Riverine Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3
NATURAL RESOtJRCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3
Vegetative Cover (Uplands and Wetlands) . . . . . . 7 - 3
Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Habitats 7- 12
Living Marine Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 17
Areas Subject to Coastal Flooding . . . . . . . . . 7 - 22
LAND USE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 24
Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 24
Analysis of Conflicts Among Shoreline Uses 7- 27
Analysis of Need for Water-Dependent and
Water-Related Development Sites . . . . . . . 7 - 28
Identification of Areas in Need of
Redevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 30
Analysis of the Economic Base . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 30
Analysis of the Effect of Future Land Uses
on the Natural Resources of the
Coastal Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 31
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
OF THE COASTAL AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3 8
ESTUARI NE POLLUTI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3 9
General Features of the Indian River
Lagoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 3 9
Water Quality Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 46
Summary of Water Quality Data . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 49
Summary o f Exi s ti ng ICnown Poi nt
and Nonpoint Source Pollution
Probl ems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5 8
Identification of Actions Needed to
Remedy Existing Pollution Problems 7- 62
Assessment of the Impact of Development
and Redevelopment Including
Facilities Proposed in the
Future Land Use Element
of Water Quality, Circulation
Patterns, and Accumulation of
Contaminants in Sediments . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 64
Federal, State, Regional, and Local
Regulatory Programs to Reduce
Estuarine Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 66
BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 6 9
General Characteristics of the Beach
and Dune System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 69
i
Historical and Recent Trends in
Erosion and Accretion . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 70
Effect of Coastal and Shore
Protection Structures on the
Beach and Dune System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 70
Existing and Potential Beach
Renourishment Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 72
Measures to Protect or Restore
Beaches and Dunes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 74
NATURAL DI SASTER PLANNI NG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7 5
Hurricane Vulnerability Zone . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 75
Popul ati on at Ri s k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7 6
Analysis of Population Requiring
Shelter and Shelter Spaces
Avai 1 abl e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7 6
Evacuation Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 77
Future Si tuati on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7 9
Measures to Reduce Evacuation Times . . . . . . . . 7 - 79
Post-Disaster Planning Concerns and
Coastal High Hazard Areas . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 81
PUBLIC ACCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 84
Inventory of Existing Facilities . . . . . . . . . 7 - 84
Current and Future Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 88
COASTAL AREA INFRASTRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 90
Existing Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 90
Future Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 93
Special Restrictions on Siting
Facilities in the Coastal Area . . . . . . . . 7 - 95
SPECIAL COASTAL PLANNING EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 98
S UMMARY AND I DENTI FI CATI ON OF SI GNI FI CANT
I SSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 100
Land Us e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 101
Natural Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 101
Mos quito I mpoundments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 101
Seagrass Beds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 102
Endangered and Threatened Species
and Species of Special Concern . . . . . . . . 7 - 102
Estuarine Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 102
Beach and Dune System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 103
Hurricane Evacuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 103
Public Facilities and Coastal
Hi gh Haz ard Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 10 3
Public Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 104
GOALS, OBJECTI VES, AND POLI CI ES . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 10 5
BI BLI OGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 12 7
ii
APPENDICES
1, Seagrass Beds in the Indian River Lagoon,
St. Lucie County, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 1
2, Common Animals of the Beach Environment 7- A- 10
3, Animals Typically Occurring in or
Characteristic of the South Florida
Coastal Strand Ecological Community 7- A- 11
4, Animals Common to the Wetland Hardwood
Hammock Ecological Community . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 12
5, Animals Common to the Freshwater Marsh
and Pond Ecological Community . . . . . . . 7 - A - 12
6, Animals Common to the South Florida
Flatwood Ecological Community . . . . . . . 7 - A - 13
7, Animals Typical of the Sand Pine
Scrub Ecological Community . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 13
8, Animals Common to the Swamp Hardwood
Ecological Community . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 14
9, Animals Common to the Cypress Swamp
Ecological Community . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 14
10, Description of Algae, Invertebrates,
and Fish Associated with Bottom
Habitats in the Indian River Lagoon 7- A- 15
11, Bird Life Commonly Associated with
the Tidal Flats of the Lagoon Area 7- A- 16
12, Maj or Colonial Waterbird Rookeries 7- A- 16
13, Animal Life Commonly Associated with
the Mangrove Community . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 17
14, Animal Life Commonly Associated with
the Saltmarsh Grass Communities
• wi thi n the Lagoon Area . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 18
15, Description of Seagrass Bed
Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 19
16, Animal Life Found in Marine Grassbed
Areas or Generally Associated with
this Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 20
17, Description of Fish Characteristics 7- A- 21
18, Storm Surge Inundation Maps . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 23
19, Description of the Drainage Sub-Basins
wi thi n St. Luci e County 7- A - 3 4
20, Summary of Freshwater Discharges in
St. Lucie County in Cubic Feet Per
Second (CFS) for the Indian River
Lagoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 3 6
21, Surface Water Management Permits and
Receiving Waters in St. Lucie County 7- A- 36
22, Design Capacity and Actual Discharge
in Million Gallons Per Day (MGD) for
Eleven (11) Domestic Wastewater
Treatment Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 37
23, Effluent Quality and Limitations for
Eleven (il) Domestic Wastewater
Treatment Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 38
iii
APPENDICES Continued
24, Seasonal, Locational, and Daily
Water Quality Trends in the Indian
River Lagoon Between the Sebastian
Inlet (Indian River County) and
St. Lucie Inlet (Martin Countv) . . . . . . 7 - A - 39
25, Water Quality of Grouped Stations in
the Indian River Lagoon Between the
Sebas ti an I nl et ( I ndi an Ri ver County )
and St. Lucie Inlet (Martin County) 7- A- 41
26, Water Quality in the Southeast Florida
Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 46
27, Water Quality in the South Indian River
Lagoon Bas i n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 4 7
28, Yearly Mean Levels of Dissolved Oxygen,
Total Nitrogen, and Total Phosphorus
at Water Quality Stations in the South
Segment of the Indian River Lagoon 7- A- 48
29, Summary of Water Quality Characteristics
of the Indian River Lagoon,
St. Luci e County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 4 9
30, Summary of Water Quality Characteristics
of the St. Lucie River (SLR) and
Tributaries, St. Lucie Estuary, and
South Florida Water Management
District Canals, St. Lucie County 7- A- 50
31, Areas of Historical Erosion and
Accretion Along St. Lucie County
~ Beaches Between 1883 and to 1987 7- A- 51
32, Volumetric Changes (in Cubic Yards)
Associated with Erosion and Accretion
Along St. Lucie County Beaches
Between 1972 and 1987 . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 51
33, Predicted Storm Surge Heights in
Feet Near Ft. Pierce and White City,
St. Luci e County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 5 2
34, Estimated Evacuating Population in
St. Lucie County According to
Destination and Storm Intensity 7- A- 52
35, Public Shelter Demand and Capacity in
St. Luci e County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 5 3
36, Clearance Times in Hours for
St. Luci e County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - A - 5 3
37, Public Access Facilities and Features on
Hutchi ns on I s 1 and, St. Luci e County 7- A- 5 4
38, Boat Ramps Providing Access to Coastal
Waters in St. Lucie County, 1988 7- A- 55
39, Marina Inventory, St. Lucie County, 1988 7- A - 56
40, Non-Boat Fishing Access to the
Atlantic Ocean and Indian River
Lagoon, St. Luci e County, 19 8 8 7- A - 5 7
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Fiqure Paae
7-1 Coastal Area of St. Lucie County, Florida 7- 2
7-2 Natural and Urban Features within the
Unincorporated Areas of St. Lucie
County' s Coas tal Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 4
7-3 Rookery Areas within the Indian River
Lagoon, St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 16
7-4 Approved Shellfish Harvest Area in the
I ndi an River Lagoon, St. Luci e County 7- 21
7-5 Existing Land Use within the Coastal Area 7- 25
7-6 Physiographic Basin of the Indian
River Lagoon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 40
7-7 Physiographic Features of the Indian River
Lagoon within St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . 7 - 41
7-8 Physiographic Sub-Basins of the Indian
River Lagoon, St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . 7 - 43
7-9 FDER Water Quality Classifications in the
Indian River Lagoon, St. Lucie County 7- 47
7-10 Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve,
St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 50
7-11 North Fork, St. Lucie Aquatic Preserve,
St. Luci e County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 5 2
7-12 Water Quality in the Southeast Florida Basin 7- 55
7-13 Water Quality in the South Indian River Basin 7- 56
7-14 Nutrient Levels in the South Segment
of the Indian River Lagoon . . . . . . . . . 7 - 59
7-15 Oxygen Levels in the South Segment
of the Indian River Lagoon . . . . . . . . . 7 - 60
7-16 Ft. Pierce Feeder Beach (R35-R39) and Jensen
Beach (R103-R115) Project Locations . . . . . 7 - 73
7-17 Public and Private Access Facilities
to the Beach, Lagoon and River,
St. Luci e County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 8 5
7-18 Coastal Barrier Resource Units in
St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 96
v
LIST OF TABLES
T 1 Paqe
7-1 Vegetative Communities within the Coastal
Area of the Unincorporated Areas
of St. Lucie County, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7
7-2 Point Sources Which Contribute to
Pollution Problems in Coastal Area
Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 61
7-3 Predominant Land Uses Along Inland and
Coastal Area Water Bodies Which
Impact Nonpoint Source Pollution
in Coastal Area Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 62
7-4 Erosion and Accretion Characteristics
for Specific Sections of the
St. Lucie County Coastline . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 71
7-5 Projected Population at Risk in
St. Lucie County Based on Projected
Future Land Us e Popul ati ons and
Percentages of Population
Requi ri ng Evacuati on . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 7 9
7-6 Projected Demand for Public Shelters in
St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 80
7-7 Projected Public Shelter Net Capacity in
St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 - 80
7-8 Roadway Network, Functional Classification,
and Level of Service (LOS) within the
Coastal Area, St. Lucie County . . . . . . . . 7 - 91
vi
ST. LUCI E COUNTY
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
The statutory purpose of the Coastal Management Element is to
plan for and where appropriate restrict development activities
where such activities would damage or destroy coastal resources,
and protect human life and limit public expenditures in areas
that are subject to destruction by natural disasters (Chapter 9J-
5. 012, Fl ori da Admi ni s trati ve Code
It order to meet this requirement it was first necessary to
inventory and analyze the social, economic, and environmental
features of the coastal area. This element presents this
information in relation to existing and future land use, natural
resources, estuarine pollution, historic resources, natural
disaster planning, beach and dune systems, public access, and
infrastructure. The goals, objectives, and policies establish
the long-term ends, courses of action, and regulatory and
management techniques that are directed to meet the above coastal
management directives.
As will be seen, the coastal area plays an important role in the
economic and social structure of St. Lucie County. Its
environmental features are unique, sensitive to change, and
provide resources not only attractive to recreational and
commercial users, but also to those wishing to live withi n its
boundaries. However, it is also obvious that a discussion of the
coastal area must go beyond its defined boundaries since much of
what occurs inland impacts upon its resources.
SECTION 2. BOUNDARY OF THE COUNTY'S COASTAL AREA
Figure 7-1 shows the coastal area of the unincorporated areas of
St. Lucie County. It inaludes three (3) distinct oceanic,
estuarine, and riverine water systems - the Atlantic Ocean,
Indian River Lagoon, and the North Fork of the St. Lucie River,
respectively. The land area includes parts of North and South
Hutchinson Island, the mainland along the eastern shore of the
lagoon, and the mainland along river. The boundaries are
described as follows:
A. Oceanic and Estuarine Area
The western boundary is marked by U.S. 1 north of and the Florida
January 9, 1990 7- 1 COASTAL
Q a
~
~ OQ~ p o
Q
b
J °
Q a ~
~ ~
~ g
N ~ 4
p '~~~~~~'~~~~~~'~`~`~~i~~~,;;,ti
Q ~ '''r'~''~~'~'''0°'~''~,;i f; i ~
,
d ~ ' ~
~ ~~;~~~,;r,,;~~~;~,, ,
,
,
r,~,
~
p ~
„ „
~~rr, \
^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~~~ ~~~ti~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1 5
( j h ~7
_ _ _ ~''„~rr{ ~ M~'r'r~~l'~;~;~;~'r,;,,~;~;~;~
. . . . . . . _ . . . . . ~ d2~ § ~5~i
~ ~ I;~''r~~'r'r~~l~'r'r;~ ~ ~ I~~'~ ~
. _ _ _ _ _ . w . . . . . ~ ~2~'~{{'~ti i r'~ ti . _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ . . . . . .
U ~ ~p~ ~~~~~~1~ s ~
~j~F;l;'~~'r'r~ti~~ SpVP ~
„ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ti~~~~~; ,,11',' o
'r~~~I~~~~;;~r~i;~j~jr'~''~'~,~~r~~ ~{E' v~&J ,m,Tn P
~ i~~~~ i il,x~i . Z E1 i~i i
.fG ',i~~i!i !~~~~~i O ~71~1~'1',~u. ~~1'.1~,?\\ 4.
~ ~;i~;1; ~~;y ;i;~i;y.,,,,i,ii; i;~i j~~^,. ~
` < , S;~;rr~?;;~;FI;'~~'rl~l'~~~'r'~ ~I; ~I~~~~ti,~'~'''" ~ a ~ ` ~
,,,i~ ~ ~ 3 - a~o~ ~ s~ >
~ a 4 ~~~~~~~~~~ti~'~ ~ m~yf i
3 ,
~~~~r;~,~;~;, a N~fO a3AlIS q~ J
~ j~~~~~~
, ; ,~i . , ~
.~q a ~
^I'~ ~ o ~
, ;;,,;;;,~;;~i~,i~ ~~,~i~~,'~~i~i~~~~~,;~;~; a?~tii;;,;;,;i;;'~~' ~.'<e w ~
~
;~~i~i~i~i~i~i~;~;';i;;~i,;;;i'~'~'~'~'~'~~;;;,~;~;~,~,~ ~ st Is3uo~~ ~
,i~~;1 ,y i~ik+i;;;ki;i;~i;;~;;,~'?,~;,;;;,,;,,, ,r~ ~ o'~ Q ~S a3o Q z , SouTe~ ~ w
~1'~~ yi~i'~~~ i'i'iM~iS'i'i'~i„i~~~i~i~i~i~~~7i~~ r w ; SL ~ ~ I' i Y
~~~~~Vi~i~~,v,~~;~;;'r,'i'i~i~iy~,~'~'~ Q¢~ ~ W t,'~ ~ N1 W
si5 ~ w d \ ~p. m
~,ki';~;~0?!?!,,'';; ~ o ~ ais sz os ' ~ `
~ ~ ~ ~
> o 0
o A > ~ ~
, o ( \ / - 3 Z m « ' ~
' ~1 ~ _v ~ ~ ~ ~tlal3s ~ PnRKwar ~ I
~ w~ ~ ~ S a 3t~ni is i'~
.I ' p ~ SPt~ , b •
~ 'n NQ! . J
4~ z ~y5l~l = SAVONA
z S ~ Q
vU VO NO 1 • a ti Q ~
41L il!
9
osou 3iont„~s
o ~
3fIN3htl NOSN3W3 µ ~ ~ ob
_ Od, ~
3^ y 6
OV08 NOISNN f ~ y0 Od •
10~ fb~ Figuie 7-1. Coastal ax~a of St.
~ Lucie CotIDty~ Florida.
cw. w.nvca - w ~ S~ ~
b~
0
~
I
~-2
East Coast Railroad south of the incorporated limits of the City
of Ft. Pierce, respectively. Both transportation routes lie on
top of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, a high elevation sand ridge,
formerly a coastal dune. The northern and southern boundaries
are the respective county lines. The eastern boundary is the
Atlantic Ocean.
B. Riverine Area
The western and eastern boundaries are marked by the ten (10)
foot contour line of the USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps
exclusive of the incorporated limits of the City of Port St.
Lucie. The northern boundary is State Road 712 (Midway Road).
The southern boundary is the St. Lucie County - Martin Co~znty
line.
SECTION 3. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Vegetative Cover (Uplands and Wetlands)
Figure 7-2 shows the major vegetative cover in the coastal area
derived from the South Florida Water Management District's 1986
Land Use - Land Cover Maps (1986), as well as other natural and
urban features. Recreational and commercial marina water-
dependent uses may be found in Figure 7-17, Page 7-85, in the
Public Access section of this element. As noted in the
District's "Data Documentation for St. Lucie County" (SFWMD,
1987), the maps were based on aerial photographs, therefore some
of these lands may be substantially altered or degraded by
drainage, fire or development. They should only be used "as a
prelimi nary basis for planning decisions" regarding natural
resources. In some areas, Figure 7-2 has been updated to reflect
existing site conditions. Table 7-1 presents an inventory of the
vegetative communities within the coastal area. The descriptions
of each community are based on numerous reports prepared by state
agencies and consultants.
1. Description of Barrier Island:
Hutchinson Island contains several distinct environmental zones:
a) beach and dunes; b) upland areas; and c) mangrove forests
(Kimley-Horn, 1982).
a. Beach and Dunes
Pioneer vegetation within the beach area is specially adapted to
withstand drought, wind, heat, high salinities in soil and air,
and must be able to grow through drifting sands that might cover
them (Coastal Zone Resources, Inc., 1985). Typical pioneer
plants found within the beach zone are the same as for dunelands.
January 9, 1990 7- 3 COASTAL
Harbor Branch
Oceanographic lnstitute
a ~EGE~1D
~ _ ~ ~
r~; cnne ~ ; ,
: :a.
~y~~ ~wrs u~ :k ~ .
:j~~yi.~ ~ sl~tr.1RCM~GOK , ~
y, sr: ; • .
ie J,c ~ ~ Fk r.r
jy~ ~ UPLANDS
4lf rf: dp
,9:.
;~~~~i . ~ IRC . ~~t~ .
.3LL 3; II, 'K
~t ~ .
~~a ~K ~ ~ WETLANDS
~ Q e~~
: i«! ` , ~
~ , ,
URBAN LANDS
~ INDRIO~ 0 REEFS
INDRIO ROAD ~
. .;i u
~:r:• ~ ;
~ r~wrQU
ao~c .
9 ,s.
N ~ ~ O~
' ~ ~ '~PEPPCR
1 g PARK
9
- o •
, • .
~ , ST ~
sr, ~ucte IUCIE ~
~Q~ ~4D. 9 ~ ,
z° •
Y ~ , . FOF~T P.IERCE
i a
~ INLET
ANGLE ~ a y,,,~ P o
~q ~ P~~n ;
F -
r~sE'~,~5~,~'0 . ~
~ ~ A~E. ~ n ,
;o
Port of Ft. Pierce
Figure 7-2. Natural and urban features within the unincorporated
areas of St. Lucie County's coastal area.
7 - 4
i
~
Si ~°~tE I ~EGEND
9~ v\Q. .
~ P ~ ~
:'t';=t,'.
/ UPLANDS
+`Y'i~ '°i aw.n \Q, ~ ~ ' ~ ~
~a~ WETLANDS
~ ~ -
• ~.','~.~'~,'.'~~,'..'~,'.~,'~,'.r'~.,'~ U R BAN L AN D S
. ~
~ ~ ~ REEFS
~ , ~
, • .
~
~ _ .
~
,.3 -
. ~ ~ . ~
~ I'. ~ .
~ ! 'fi ~ ~ - ~ ' ~ . .
/ ~ _ ~
~
~a"' ' .
~ _ ~'r -
.
2 ;
wEATHEReEE
~
; '
~ ~
a.o. ~ ;
EIDR[D
f
O .
, ~ ~
Y tae
I • ~ •
~ ~ St. Lucie Power Plant
9
2ANKONA
v' • ~
; L :
a . ~
~ ~ Q
. ' G~
?L ~ ~
~ ~ .
MA~TON ~
~ ~
NET7L ~
ISLA
' . . EDEN •••WAVELAN
L~';.
~
Figure 7-2. Natural and urban features within the unincorporated
areas of St. Lucie County's coastal area.
I
I
a. L~ ~ ~ ~0'~JU~J~~ I
~L~OoG3~DQ
7 - 5
. ~EGE~D
~~;fi~~ UPLANDS
~
4::
~ ~ WEI~LANDS
~ URBAN LANDS
0 REEFS
~
~o
s
9 ~
~
~ I
O
S
h~ O
~ ~
O ~
~ ~Q~
~ I
PSL BLV ~
r
~~5
~ ~
~
~
~
, s, :
~GCr~
, Aj~Fq I
i (~nI1~(~j~ ~/J
` o L~ UV~ ~ L5 V~ ~JI~JUV~ Il
I
~ ~ ~ ~~OI~~D/~
Figure 7-2. Natural and urban features within the unincorporated
areas of St. Lucie Coun '
7 - 6
Table 7-1. Vegetative communities within the coastal area of
the unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County,
19861
Area Vegetative Communities
Wetlands Uplands
Barrier Island forested saltwater coastal dune
palmetto prairies
Australian pine
Mainland Along mixed forested freshwater old fields forested
the Lagoon forested saltwater pine/cabbage palm
pine flatwood
Mainland Along forested saltwater temperate hardwood
the River mixed forested pine flatwood
cypress freshwater non-coniferous
pine/wet prairie
Indian River seagrass meadows spoil islands
Lagoon drift algae
1In_ several areas the land cover data was updated to reflect
current onsite conditions.
Source: South Florida Water Management District, LULC, 1986
These plants catch and hold sand and their extensive roots help
them to spread, thereby serving to build and bind the beach and
dune system together.
The coastal dune (or dunelands) is fairly continuous in the
northern portions of both North and South Hutchinson Island east
of SR AlA; however, there are only several small areas in the
southern halves (SFWMD, LULC, 1986). The coastal dune is made up
of two (2) spatially limited vegetative communities: the dunes
and coastal strand (FGFWFC, 1982).
Typical vegetation along the beach and primary dune is salt
tolerant and includes sea rocket, railroad vine, sea oats, and a
low trailing growth form of sea grape (FGFWFC, 1982), as well as
saltmeadow cordgrass, dune panic grass, beach bean, morning
glories, inkberry, sea blite, beach elder, dune sunflower,
camphorweed, sea purslane, and beach croton (Kimley-Horn, 1982).
Secondary dune vegetation with increased cover and more woody
January 9, 1990 7- 7 COASTAL
plants includes sea grape, prickly pear cactus, Spanish bayonet,
saw palmetto, and cabbage palm (FGFWFC, 1982), as well as sea
grape, coco plum, gray nickerbean, bamboo vine, and gopher apple
(Rimley-Horn, 1982).
The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (1982) reported
that the coastal strand usually develops landward of the beach-
dune with eaw palmetto as the dominant plant, although numerous
other shrubs and trees are common such as marlberry, myrsine, sea
grape, tongue tie, wild coffee, white stopper, Spanish stopper,
blolly, coco plum, and shrub verbena. Other characteristic trees
and shrubs include wax myrtle, woody goldenrod, myrtle oak,
Chapman~s oak, and sea myrtle (Rimley-Horn, 1982) as well as
Australian pine, cabbage palm, coconut palm, sand live oak, bay
cedar, and inkberry ( SCS, 1980; 1987
In many instances, Australian pine has invaded both the dune and
coastal strand. This is particularly evident in the southern
half of North Hutchinson Island and in the area north of the St.
Lucie Power Plant on South Hutchinson Island (SFWMD, LULC, 1986).
The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (1982) reports
that invasion by Brazilian pepper and Australian pine is common
especially in areas of human disturbance such as filled areas or
spoil islands.
b. Upl ands
Upland scrub and hammock areas on Hutchinson Island have probably
developed where old dunelands stabilized and protection from salt
spray was possible (FCimley-Horn, 1982). Hammock communities can
vary from a mature canopy of oaks and palms with a sparse
understory of wild coffee and stoppers, and a dense ground cover
of ferns and vines, to a jungle-like community of tropical
hardwoods, vines, and shrubs, with a fairly open canopy of oaks
and palms (FGFWFC, 1982). Kimley-Horn (1982) reported that
redbay, cabbage palm, and sand live oak are typical of mixed
hammocks, such as the one which dominates the undeveloped upland
area west of SR AlA on North Hutchinson Island at the northern
county line. The scrub uplands south of the St. Lucie Power
Plant are palmetto prairie communities (SFWMD, LULC, 1986)
consisting of cabbage palm, sand live oak, saw palmetto, and sea
grape, which are usually a transition stage between the strand
community and mature hammock (Rimley-Horn, 1982).
c. Mangrove Forests
Forested saltwater wetlands, primarily red mangrove communities,
cover a majority (54~) of the land area on Hutchinson Island,
most of which are west of SR AlA (Gilio, 1985; SFWMD, LULC,
Z986). These areas were originally black mangrove and high salt
marsh halophyte communities that have evolved into red mangrove
dominated swamps through St. Lucie County Mosquito Control
District (SLCMCD) activities; nearly ninety-four (94) percent of
the approximately 4,800 total acres of mangrove swamp has been
January 9, 1990 7- 8 COASTAL
impounded. There were formerly forty-three (43) impounded
locations, i.e., all still have dikes, however a few of the dikes
have been breached and remain partially open to tidal flushing
( SLCMCD, pers onal communi cati on, 19 8 9). The remai ni ng mangroves
include fringes along unimpounded shorelines or overwash islands
(not including the spoil islands). Gilio (1985) reported an
extensive fringe of mostly red mangroves (66 miles) providing
extensive erosion control and detrital production.
The initial result of this impoundment process was to severely
restrict the exchange of water between the wetlands and the
lagoon and thereby the movement of marine life and nutrients. To
compensate for these restrictions, the St. Lucie County Mosquito
Control District initially installed culverts in the dikes to
increase tidal flushing. Over the last several years pumps and
tide gates have also been added to nearly seventy (70) percent of
the impoundments which allows water levels to be managed.
Usually between May through August each year the impoundments are
closed and flooded for mosquito control purposes (SLCMCD,
personal communication, 1989).
As noted above, several of the impoundments have had the dikes
breached as mitigation for development or by natural forces. In
these instances (i.e., Big Starvation Cove and Island Dunes) the
Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) has restricted the
St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District from managing the
impoundments. Depending on the outcome of on-going research, the
Mosquito Control District may request management of at least one
of the breached impoundments in 1994 (SLCMCD, personal
communication, 1989). Therefore, these impoundments do have
tidal flushing but produce enormous numbers of mosquitoes and
sand flies.
It was also noted above that, prior to construction of the
mosquito impoundments, the most prevalent wetland community was
made up of saltmarsh halophytes. These high marshes were tidally
flooded for short periods during the annual high tides. Typical
plants of the high salt marsh were saltwort, glasswort, salt
grass, and sea daisy, often with white and black mangroves. A
mixed community of saltmarsh halophytes and red mangroves now
exists in six (6) impoundments (SLCMCD, personal communication,
1989).
2. Description of the Mainland Along the Lagoon
Freshwater and saltwater (mangrove) wetlands are the major
vegetative communities along the lagoon shoreline north of Ft.
Pierce (SFWMD, LULC, 1986). The mangroves run along the
shoreline between the northern county line and St. Lucie Village.
The freshwater wetlands lie between the railroad and the
mangroves, except for a few areas along the shoreline in the area
of the Village. They are part of a mixed forest community
characterized by oak, pine, grasses, sedges, and rushes (SCS,
1980; 1987 ) .
January 9, 1990 7- 9 COASTAL
The land cover maps (SFWMD, LULC, 1986) indicate there are
several citrus groves in the northern area adjacent to the
wetlands, a small area of pine/cabbage palms northwest of the
citrus, and two (2) small areas of pine flatwoods, one along the
shoreline immediately north of North Bridge and another near the
south county line. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission (1982) reports that the pine forests are typically
sand pine, slash pine, and palmetto; live oak may also occur
(SCS, 1987). A small pine/oak area is found between U.S. 1 and
the railroad north of North Bridge (SFWMD, LULC, 1986), typical
of the sand pine scrub community (SCS, 1980, 1987).
3. Description of the Mainland Along the River
Forested saltwater (mangrove) and mixed forested freshwater
swamps are the prevalent vegetative associations along most of
the unincorporated shore of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River
(SFWMD, LULC, 1986). The predominant mangrove communities also
include salt grass, black needlerush, spike rush, cordgrasses,
glass wort, sea purslane, salt wort, and sea ox-eye (FDNR,
1984a). The freshwater swamps are made up of dense stands of
maple, water ash, sabal palm, sweet bay and laurel oak; the limbs
and understory in these areas are heavily vegetated in ferns,
vines, orchids, and bromeliads. In the southern stretch of the
river, pine and wet prairie freshwater wetlands and one (1) small
area of cypress surround the area of the Harbour Ridge
development. Virnstein and Cairns (1986) reported that
seagrasses barely penetrated into the St. Lucie River.
Two (2) small areas of mixed forested temperate hardwoods, old
fields, and several patches of coniferous (pine flatwood) and
non-coniferous forested uplands lie adjacent to the river or
surrounding wetlands; several areas of citrus are also
interspersed along the river or wetlands in a two (2) mile
stretch south of State Road 712 (Midway Road) (SFWMD, LULC,
1986). The temperate hardwoods support a luxurious growth of
vegetation with a diversity of species, characterized by cabbage
pal m, hawthorns , 1 aurel oak, 1 i ve oak, red bay, red mapl e,
sweetbay, sweetgum, water oak, and magnolia; the non-coniferous
uplands in the Harbour Ridge area are characterized by various
species of oak (SCS, 1980; 1987). As in the lagoon area, the
pi ne f ores ts are typi c al 1 y s and pi ne, s 1 as h pi ne, and pal metto
(FGFWFC, 1982), as well as live oak (SCS, 1987) and usually occur
landward of the swamps.
4. Description of the Indian River Lagoon
Several important vegetative communities occur in Indian River
Lagoon: a) seagrass beds; b) drift algae communities; and c)
spoil is~ands.
a. Seagrass Beds
Virnstein and Cairns (1986) surveyed the seagrass beds in 1986
January 9, 1990 7- 10 COASTAL
which are depicted in Appendix 1 and identified the following
seven (7) species between the Sebastian Inlet and St. Lucie Inlet
in order of abundance: manatee grass, shoal grass, Johnson's
seagrass, turtle grass, paddle grass, star grass, and widgeon
grass. The most extensive and iushest beds were found between
the Ft. Pierce Inlet and the southern end of Indian River County.
The St. Johns River Water Management District and South Florida
Water Management District (1987) provide the following
description of seagrasses:
"Seagrasses are totally submerged higher plants evolved from
land plants. They derive their nutrients from the sediment,
not from the water column as do algae. Flowers, pollen,
fruits, and seeds are all produced underwater. Because of
their sediment trapping ability, the protection they provide
from erosion, their high primary productivity, and the vast
quantities of trophically and commercially important
consumers, for which they provide food and shelter,
seagrasses are extremely important to the ecology and the
economy of the lagoon."
Other characteristics reported by Virnstein and Cairns (1986)
include turtle grass being most abundant in northern St. Lucie
County; Johnson's seagrass being abundant throughout the project
area although recently considered a new species only found
locally; and paddle grass being abundant although only reported
previously from deep water offshore reefs. However, the latter
two species are very small in size and may have been
inconspicuous during earlier surveys.
b. Drift Algae Communities
Unattached, free drifting algae communities are associated with
exposed sand-shell bottoms or rooted seagrass meadows;
aggregations are formed in response to wind, current, and
topography (FGFWFC, 1982). There are some sixty (60) species of
red, brown and green algae communities that occur throughout the
lagoon (FDNR, 1985a).
c. Spoil Islands
Spoil islands in the lagoon also provide vegetative cover (Figure
2). There are fourteen (14) spoil islands within the County's
portion of the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve (FDNR,
1985a). Most of them resulted from the deposition of spoil
material during the dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway in the
early 1900~s (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987), although a few were
natural islands on which dredged spoil was placed (FGFWFC, 1982).
Florida Department of Natural Resources also reported that they
are formed from the maintenance of the channel and inlets along
the lagoon (FDNR, 1985a). The shoreline of the larger islands
are fringed with red, black, white, and buttonwood mangroves and
scattered patches of smooth cordgrass, where there is little
January 9, 1990 7- 11 COASTAL
erosion from wind and boat wakes; Australian pine and Brazilian
pepper are the dominant upland vegetation with strangler fig,
stoppers, and other tropical plants as minor components (FGFWFC,
1982).
B. Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Habitats
Some wildlife habitats exist throughout the coastal area. The
following descriptions of habitat and the wildlife within them,
therefore, will be based on the habitats themselves, although
distinctions have been made between the barrier islands,
mai nl and, and I ndi an River Lagoon. Thes e des cripti ons were bas ed
on numerous reports by state agencies and consultants and cover
not only the terrestrial vegetative communities identified in
Section 3.A above but also aquatic habitats. Some wildlife
habitats are considered living marine resources including
mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses, drift algae, natural reefs,
oyster bars, fish, shellfish and crustaceans, marine mammals, and
reptiles and will be described in the Section 3.C below.
1. Terrestrial Upland Wildlife Habitats
a. Beach and Dune Habitats (Barrier Island)
The wildlife species which occupy the beach have adapted to the
constant change of beach environments (FGFWFC, 1982).
Reproductive strategies and feeding for many species are
specialized, for example, many invertebrates favor large broods
dispersed as plankton to ensure a reserve for recolonization.
Coastal Zone Resources, Inc. (1985) reported that invertebrates
exist in tidal and subtidal zones of the beach; coquinas (a
variety of mollusks), crustaceans (e.g., the molecrab), and
polychaete worms live beneath the sands; ghost crabs live in
burrows along the intertidal beach, and land crabs fill this
niche above the mean high water line. Animals reported by the
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (1982) that are
common to the beach environment are listed in Appendix 2. In
addition to the sea turtles listed in Appendix 2, Solin and
Associates, Inc. (1985) indicated that the hawksbill turtle may
also use the beach for nesting activities.
The dunes are divided into two (2) zones: primary (foredune) and
secondary (backdune) (FGFWFC, 1982). The secondary dunes are not
well developed and have been replaced by the coastal strand or
scrub community in some areas (see Section 3.A above). The sea
turtles listed in Appendix 2 also nest in the primary dune.
Other animals that forage or inhabit both dune areas include the
gopher tortoise, old-field mouse, eastern cottontail, raccoon,
skinks, anoles, coachwhip, and racer. Coastal Zone Resources,
Inc. (1985) reported that osprey occasionally hunt along dunes
and opossum and armadillo forage or live in the dunes.
January 9, 1990 7- 12 COASTAL
b. Mixed Forested Uplands - Coastal Dune and Cabbage
Palm/Oak Habitats (Barrier Island)
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS, 1987) classifies both the
coastal dune and cabbage palm/oak habitats within the South
Florida Coastal Strand ecological community. Appendix 3 lists
the animals that are known to occur in or are characteristic of
this type of area.
c. Scrub and Brush Uplands - Palmetto Prairie Habitat
(Barrier Island)
This scrub habitat located south of the St. Lucie Power Plant is
also classified within the South Florida Coastal Strand
ecological community (SCS, 1980; 1987). See Appendix 3 for
wildlife occurring in or characteristic of this community.
d. Mixed Forested Uplands - Pine/Cabbage Palm,
Temperate Hardwood, and Old Field Habitats
(Mainland)
A pine and cabbage palm upland habitat in the northern part of
the mainland coastal area is in an area supportive Wetland
Hardwood Hammock and Freshwater Marsh and Pond ecological
communities (SCS, 1980; 1987). Most likely the hardwood
community is dominant in this area since its supporting plants
(cabbage palms and oaks) are found in both drier and wetter
sites. The temperate hardwood and old field upland habitats
along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River are also in areas
supportive of wetland hardwood hammocks. Animals included in the
hardwood and marsh and pond communities are listed in Appendices
4 and 5, respectively.
e. Coniferous Uplands - Pine Flatwood Habitat
( Mai nl and )
The pine flatwood habitat adjacent to the wetlands along the
North Fork of the St. Lucie River and along the lagoon north of
Ft. Pierce and near the south county line are supportive of the
South Florida Flatwood ecological community although the soils
in the south county line area may be more supportive of the Sand
Pine Scrub habitat (SCS 1980; 1987). As can been seen from
Appendices 6 and 7, respectively, the flatwood community is more
diverse regarding wildlife but the sand pine community contains
more endangered and threatened plants and animals.
f. Non-Coniferous Uplands (Mainland)
In the south county area the identification of non-coniferous
habitat (in Section 3.A) was not plant specific along the western
shore of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. According to the
land cover classifications, the predominant plant species could
be any of the following: Australian pine, Brazilian pepper,
palms, scrub oak, or oak (SFWMD, LULC, 1986). The soils along
January 9, 1990 7- 13 COASTAL
the shoreline are supportive of the South Florida Coastal Strand
ecological community; those immediately behind indicate the Sand
Pine Scrub community (SCS, 1980; 1987). All but the Australian
pine and Brazilian pepper are characteristic plants of these
communities. The wildlife associated with these communities are
listed in Appendices 3 and 7, respectively.
2. Terrestrial Wetland Wildlife Habitats
a. Forested Freshwater Wetlands - Mixed Forested and
Cypress Habitats (Mainland).
The mixed forested freshwater wetlands north of Ft. Pierce along
the lagoon are most likely a mix of two (2) ecological
communities: the South Florida Flatwood and Freshwater Marsh and
Pond (SCS, 1980; 1987). The flatwoods are host to a diverse and
numerous wildlife population and larger animals are found where
these communities join other communities. These ecotones provide
nesting sites, den sites, food and cover. Animals that commonly
occur in these two (2) communities are listed in Appendices 5 and
6.
The mixed forested freshwater wetlands along the North Fork of
the St. Lucie River are most likely part of a Swamp Hardwood
ecological community (SCS, 1980; 1987). Animals in this
community are adapted to wet conditions and must withstand the
flooding that occurs periodically. Dense vegetation provides
good cover and food sources. Common wildlife species are found
in Appendix 8. ,
The cypress habitat identified in the vegetative cover section
south of the Harbour Ridge area is classified as a Cypress Swamp
ecological communi.ty (SCS, 1980; 1987). The most common wildlife
species within this community are listed in Appendix 9.
b. Mixed Forested and Non-Forested Freshwater
Wetlands - Pine and Wet Prairie Habitat (Mainland)
The pine and wet prairie habitat along the southern reach of the
North Fork of the St. Lucie River in the Harbour Ridge area
includes several ecological communities, predominantly Sand Pine
Scrub along the river north of Harbour Ridge and South Florida
Flatwoods south and west of Harbour Ridge (SCS, 1980; 1987).
Both communities are interspersed with the Freshwater Marsh and
Pond ecological community. Appendices 5- 7 list the animals
common to these communities.
3. Indian River Lagoon Habitats - Terrestrial and Aquatic
(Non-Living Marine Resources)
The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (1982) and
Florida Department of Natural Resources (1985a) provide an
overview of the general characteristics of this shallow estuarine
lagoon which includes many diverse wildlife habitats. Each
January 9, 1990 7- 14 COASTAL
will be described below or in the following section on living
mari ne res ources .
a. Exposed Sand-Shell-Mud Bottom Habitats (Aquatic)
Unvegetated shell and sand or sand and mud bottoms represent the
most abundant bottom type in the Indian River Lagoon (SJRWMD and
SFWMD, 1987). However, such habitats are rarely studied
specifically and there has been no comprehensive survey of
sediment types.
These habitats include the major benthic community in the lagoon
(FGFWFC, 1982). Substrate firmness, stability, and the
percentages of silt, sand, and shell material are extremely
variable. Bottoms that have been dredged and those along
mangrove fringes or islands are often anaerobic with high
organic, silt, and mud contents. Bottoms subject to regular wave
and current action are usually well sorted and firm.
Over the last two decades the occurrence of "muck" has been noted
in harbors and navigational channels throughout the lagoon
(SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). This bottom consists of fine-grained,
silt and clay dominated, organic sediment, derived from the
runoff of surface soils due to poor soil retention practices.
Additional information on muck is presented in Section 6.C on
estuarine pollution.
A description of the wildlife associated with bottom habitats is
presented in Appendix 10 which includes algae, invertebrates, and
fish. Bird life, dependent on tidal flats for feeding, some of
which surround colonial nesting sites, is presented in Appendix
il. Raccoons also use bottom habitats for feeding.
b. Spoil Island Habitat (Terrestrial)
.~lthough spoil islands are generally dominated by exotic
vegetation, they also provide shallow water habitat in fringe
areas for the growth of mangroves, seagrasses, and other native
wetland vegetation (FDNR, 1985a; SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). This
habitat is valuable to fish and wildlife, especially as possible
nesting sites for many wading and diving birds.
Two (2) such areas, County Line Spoil Islands and Bird Islands,
are considered major rookeries by the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission (1982) and are depicted in Figure 7-3;
species and numbers of nesting waterbirds are listed in Appendix
12. Breeding populations vary from year to year and smaller
colonies of great blue herons or species which often nest singly
such as green herons are not included in this list. Additional
information on waterbirds is presented in the Conservation
Element in regard to countywide occurrences (Section 2.K) and
those listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special
concern ( Section 2. L ) .
January 9, 1990 7- 15 COASTAL
/
~ /
~ s
County Line Spoil islands
caK o uo
0 Stafq?a NM
~ 9
C KI( ~
~ a /Q! ~
, :.u ~c
" N
vIKIN
1~~ S ~ `
D
(j ~o
INORIO
INDRIO ROAD
D ~
~ f,.~
CDN
~ ~
i~
` O R
~N~ u ~ p ~O
` ~ ~ tiy~' PEPPER
1 S PARK
~ 9
~
0
1 ST LUCIE ~
~Q~ 5~. LUCIE ~v0. 9
o P\P
~ Bird Islands
W FORT PIERCE
Y a
~ IN~ET
ANGLE ~0 - ~~a~. \P~o
9 ~ P
~ ~P~SE
,~5`~~ ~
Q ~ AVE. D ~
_ ,
Figure 7-3. Rookexy A~eas within ~ I~n g~~ ~~n, St. Lucie County
(FGFWF~, 1982).
7 - 16 ,
c. Open Water Habitat (Aquatic)
Inlets, channels, rivers, creeks and other deep water areas are
important to the lagoon's tidal flushing and allow predator fish
access to the lagoon (FDNR, 1985a). Phytoplankton, zooplankton,
and planktivorous fish communities have been identified in this
habitat (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). In separate surveys, the
planktivorous bay anchovie accounted for 78-87~ of the millions
of fish collected. Bottle-nosed dolphin and manatee are
important mammals potentially found in these areas (FDNR, 1985a).
d. Hard Surface Habitat (Aquatic)
Man-made structures, such as bulkheads, docks, bridges, and
marinas are the predominant hard surfaces in the lagoon which
provide wildlife habitat (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). Settlement of
fouling organisms (e. g. , barnacles, snails, algae, and bryozoans )
occurs also on natural surfaces such as mangrove prop roots,
oyster shells, and seagrass blades, but they only last a few
months. At least seventy-two (72) species of fouling organisms
have been identified. Many species occur only seasonally and
diversity is higher near inlets. These communities remove large
quantities of suspended material from the water column, however,
large quantities of sediment may be generated.
C. Living Marine Resources
A variety of living marine resources, oceanic and estuarine
plants and animals, occur within the coastal area of St. Lucie
County. The following will be described below: mangroves,
salt marshes, seagrasses, drift algae communities, natural reefs,
oyster bars, fish, shellfish and crustaceans, marine mammals, and
reptiles. Additional information is provided in the Conservation
Element on the commercial value of fisheries and shellfish
(Section 2.H) and the endangered and threatened sea turtles and
manatee ( Secti on 2. L).
1. Forested Saltwater Wetlands (Mangroves)
The mangrove habitat exists throughout the coastal area, on
Hutchinson Island and within the Indian River Lagoon and North
Fork of the St. Lucie River. Based on soils, this would be
classified under the Mangrove Swamp ecological community (SCS,
1987).
a. Fringe and Overwash Areas
The mangrove community in fringe and overwash areas, which
extends from above mean high water line into open waters of the
lagoon and river, is an extremely valuable fish and wildlife
habitat (FGFWFC, 1982~. The mangroves are the critical principal
source of detritus to the estuarine productivity process. This
nutrient base is utilized by nearly all the commercial and sport
January 9, 1990 7- 17 COASTAL
finfish and shellfish resources of the lagoon. Animals commonly
associated with the mangrove community are found in Appendix 13.
b. I mpoundments
Impoundment flooding has increased aquatic habitat by allowing
mangrove communities to expand (varying between the extremes of
open water systems and mangrove forests) (FGFWFC, 1982). This
expansion has led to increases in forage fish populations
although fish species diversity is generally less than in the
unimpounded marsh, and has created conditions favorable to wading
birds and waterfowl which frequently utilize impoundments in far
greater numbers than unimpounded high marsh. All of the area's
wading bird species have been observed in the impoundments,
sometimes in abundance. Woodducks, mottled duck, common
gallwales are year-round inhabitants; blue-winged teal, American
widgeon, pintail, and American coot are common in winter. Bird
nesting and over wintering areas on North Hutchinson Island have
also been reported for the roseate spoonbill, osprey, peregrine
falcon, and brown pelican (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). Year-round
flooding, however, isolates the impoundments from tidewater
thereby losing their value as estuarine nursery grounds and
nutrient sources for the lagoon (FGFWFC, 1982).
Seasonal management of the impoundments was initiated in 1982 by
only closing the impoundments to tidal access during the breeding
summer season (SLCMCD, personal communication, 1989).
Impoundments have become highly productive habitats for aquatic
life and wading birds where tidewater has access to interior
ditches (FGFWFC, 1982). When rotational impoundment management
(RIM) was initiated in 1984, the flood duration in the
impoundments was reduced further (May - August) which increases
the time the habitat may be utilized by wildlife (SLCMCD,
personal communication, 1989). The impounded flood level is also
lower in RIM which allows excess water to return to the lagoon
and detritus input to the lagoon is immediately available after
the summer mangrove litter production (Gilio, 1985).
2. Saltmarshes
The few remaining saltmarsh areas recycle nutrients, contribute
to estuarine productivity, and provide nursery grounds to fish
and shellfish and feeding grounds to wading birds (FDNR, 1985a;
FGFWFC, 1982). The ditches, natural channels and ponds, and
marsh of this aquatic habitat provides shelter and habitat to a
variety of animal life (see Appendix 14).
3. Seagrass Beds.
Seagrass beds, generally limited to depths under five (5) feet,
do not cover a large portion of the lagoon bottom, but are the
most important lagoonal biotype (FGFWFC, 1982) (see Appendix 1
for seagrass maps). In the Indian River Lagoon, most commercial
and sports fisheries depend on seagrass beds at some stage of
January 9, 1990 7- 18 COASTAL
their life cycle (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). Only five (5) species
of seagrasses were known to occur in the lagoon in 1980, however,
as noted earlier, seven (7) species have now been identified
(Virnstein and Cairns, 1986). Additional information on
distribution and water clarity; chemical, physical, and
biological functions; and the abundance of associated wildlife is
presented in Appendix 15. A list of animal life found in
seagrass beds is presented in Appendix 16.
4. Dri f t Al gae Communi ti es
These communities can be associated with both exposed sand-shell
bottoms or seagrass beds and occur throughout the lagoon,
although particularly large and persistent communities do not
occur between the Sebastian Inlet and Ft. Pierce Inlet (FGFWFC,
1982). Numerous invertebrate macrofaunae (amphipods, isopods,
copepods, gastropods, and juvenile shrimp) were collected in
drift algae communities associated with seagrass beds in greater
densities than in seagrass beds alone. The fish found are
typical of seagrass beds although species such as code goby and
gulf pipefish may have affinities for the community. The latter
characteristic may possibly be due to the algae providing better
refuge (FDNR, 1985a). The SJRWMD and SFWMD (1987) reports that
drift algae within seagrass beds at times can be more abundant
than the seagrass itself, and high densities may be important as
sinks or filters of nutrients and as a primary production source.
5. Natural Reefs
Limestone natural reefs are found both nearshore and offshore
within the coastal area of St. Lucie County (see Figure 7-2)
( U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986 The nearshore reefs or
hard bottom areas exist both north and south of the Ft. Pierce
Inlet. They are primarily coquinoid limestone, occur in
approximately 10 to 20 foot depths and extend from 150 feet out
to 2,000 feet offshore. Discontinuous pavements with ledges up
to 6 feet in relief parallel the shoreline. They continue
several miles south of the Inlet, but only exist as an extensive
intertidal wormrock reef near the St. Lucie Power Plant.
Offshore reefs with relief up to 15 feet are known parallel the
coastline in discontinuous patches at depths of approximately 45,
60, and 90 feet, and are similar to the nearshore reefs in
structure, flora and fauna.
The nearshore reefs support a dense and diverse cover of flora
and fauna (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986). Algae, sponges,
and soft and hard corals are a few of the dominant species that,
along with numerous other cover speoies, provide shelter and food
for invertebrates and over 225 species of fish. A study on the
animal comm~nity associated with the Oculina hard coral alone
found over 200 species of mollusks, 97 species of crustaceans,
and 21 species of echinoderms.
Immediately north and south of the Ft. Pierce Inlet, well
January 9, 1990 7- 19 COASTAL
developed sabellariid wormrock completely covers the nearshore
basal limestone (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986). The
formation of such worm reefs is typical along coastlines or
within inlets where there is sand movement due to waves or tidal
currents (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). Worm larvae initially settle
on hard surfaces near adults resulting in accumulations of tubes
of sand cemented together by the worms. These reefs provide an
abundance of animal habitats between reef heads and tubes and
within old tubes. High densities of amphipods and isopods and
nearly 100 species of crustaceans have been associated with the
reefs. Additionally, over 100 species of fish have been
identified (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986). Although the
biotic communities are less diverse, colorful or alive on the
south side of the Inlet, the reefs provide fishing and
recreational usage (FDNR, 1987a).
The worm reef that exists within the Ft. Pierce Inlet east of
Dynamite Point is particularly important, in addition to its
habitat value, in that it is used in an interpretive nature
program for the public at the adjacent Ft. Pierce Inlet State
Recreation Area (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986).
6. Oyster Bars
Oyster bars are essentially an exposed sand-shell biotype where
the shell component is dominant (FDNR, 1985a). Oyster bars are
common between the Sebastian Inlet and Ft. Pierce Inlet and
historically contributed to the commercial fishing industry at
Ft. Pierce, however, there are no commercially leased oyster beds
(FGFWFC, 1982) and there is only a relatively small area north of
Ft. Pierce and east of the Intracoastal Waterway that presently
has approved, open shellfish waters as depicted in Figure 7-4
(FDNR, 1985a). The oyster performs a valuable function in the
food web by converting plankton, detritus and possibly dissolved
organics into animal protein, which is then available to higher
predators. Attaching to dead shells or stony outcroppings, oyster
communities are self-perpetuating once established and provide
attachment sites and protective cover for a large number of
invertebrates including tunicates, bryozoans, amphipods,
decapods, and gastropods (FGFWFC, 1982). This secondary
community provides a forage base for opportunistic fishes, which
in turn support roving carnivores such as crevalle jack, gray
s napper, s nook, and red drum.
7. Fish
The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (1982) report
includes an extensive list of fish that are likely to occur in
the waters of the Indian River Lagoon between the Sebastian Inlet
and Ft. Pierce Inlet, but it is not based on formal research or
evidence of occurrence. Appendices 13, 14, and 16 list species
that are common to mangrove, salt marsh and seagrass habitats,
respectively. Appendix 17 provides information on fish
diversity, distribution, seasonality, density, and abundance.
January 9, 1990 7- 20 COASTAL
~
~ _ :
u~nE
~ o
~ Approved Shellf ish
~
a ~ Harvesting Area
~ vIKIN
1~~' S
o N
INDRIO
INDRIO ROAD
. o
CrY1R0 ir
~ F/SIl FQI
~ ~ ~a
~
9
O f~
i'u,~ ~ V p ~p
` ~ ~ tiy~' PEPPER
~ ~ PARK
~ 9
0
ST IUCIE ~
~Q~ sr. ~ucte e~vo. 9 P
o / P\ .
~
W ~ FORT PIERCE
Y '~~Q~ INLET
0
ANGLE a ~ i-
~ pu~ o~ P
'p~ ~ ' ~ ie0 Q,~ ~ ,
~9 _ P.~ ~
~ ~ CP~S~ lS~Pao
~ AVE . D ~
I , Figune 7-4. APP~ shell.fish xaniest Area in the Indi.an River
Lagoon, St. Lucie County. ( SJ~&d~ID and SFt~drID. 1987
7 - 21 ,
8. Shellfish and Crustaceans
The SJRWMD and SFWMD (1987) report that the hard clam (also
called quohogs) has dominated shellfish catches recently. These
include little necks (small ones), cherrystones, and chowders
(large ones). This fishery has increased about seventy (70) fold
since 1983, mostly due to the scallop industry in Brevard County.
It is not known whether this is a sustainable yield or a one time
harvest. The report also provides references for oyster yields.
Areas open for shellfish harvesting (Figure 7-4) are determined
largely by levels of coliform bacteria or the potential for such
contamination. Viruses are not routinely monitored. The
predominant crustacean harvested commercially is the hard stage
of the blue crab. Much smaller amounts of stone crabs are
harvested for their claws only. Shrimp are harvested for bait.
9. Mari ne Mammal s
The SJRWMD and SFWMD (1987) report that although a few studies on
dolphins have been conducted all others on marine mammals concern
the endangered manatee, mostly regarding their distribution and
congregation around power plants in the winter in order to avoid
cold water. Based on aerial photographs and marking and scar
studies, manatees migrate north and disperse throughout the
lagoon system (Volusia County to Palm Beach County) feeding
extensively on seagrass during the summer. Except for isolated
congregations around power plants, they migrate south during the
wi nter.
There are a number of sources of manatee mortality including, but
not limited to, wintertime cold, boat-barge collisions, and
natural causes. The Conservation Element (Section 2.L) provides
more detail regarding the manatee's endangered status and
protection efforts.
10. Reptiles
Limited study has been conducted on salt marsh snakes and
alligator; most research has been directed to marine turtles
which may utilize the lagoon system during their developmental
stage (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). The Conservation Element
(Section 2.L) provides information the sea turtles endangered and
threatened status and protection efforts.
D. Areas Subject to Coastal Flooding.
Chapter 9J-5.003(37) defines the hurricane vulnerability zone, or
areas subject to coastal flooding, as those areas requiring
evacuation in the event of a 100-year storm or Category 3 storm,
or those areas delineated by the regional or local hurricane
evacuation plan as requiring evacuation. Storm surge inundation
maps for St. Lucie County are presented in Appendix 18 for five
(5) categories of hurricanes (Treasure Coast Regional Planning
January 9, 1990 7- 22 - COASTAL
Council, 1988). As a storm-surge makes landfall, water will rush
over Hutchinson Island flooding into the Indian River Lagoon
basin. The lagoon will rise up the land mass along its western
bank to the approximate surge height. The topographic ridge
which extends 20-25 feet high near U.S. 1 serves as a natural
barrier obstructing the storm-surge from continuing westward.
Therefore, potential storm-surge flooding is essentially
constrained to Hutchinson Island, a few miles west of the lagoon,
and inland along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River.
The following Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale was used in the
classification of specific storm events (TCRPC, 1988):
* Category 1(74 - 95 mph maximum sustained winds)
* Category 2(96 - 110 mph maximum sustained winds)
* Category 3(111 - 130 mph maximum sustained winds)
* Category 4(131 - 155 mph maximum sustained winds)
* Category 5(over 155 mph maximum sustained winds)
Review of the storm surge maps show that the areas described
below would be vulnerable to specific storm events.
1. Hutchinson Island
In general, almost all of North Hutchinson Island would be
vulnerable to a Category 1 storm, except for State Road AlA which
would be impacted by a Category 2 storm. On South Hutchinson
Island, all of the island would be vulnerable to a Category 1
storm including State Road AlA, except for discontinuous strands
which would be impacted by Category 2 storms, probably near
higher dune elevations.
2. Mainland Along the Lagoon
a. North of Ft. Pierce
A majority of the land area between U.S. 1 and the lagoon would
be vulnerable to a Category 1 storm. Each successively greater
storm would extend the impact area further inland. U.S. 1 would
be the western limit from the area near St. Lucie Village south
to Taylor Creek. The Category 3 storm would also extend inland
several thousand feet along both sides of Taylor Creek, covering
an area of less than one (1) square mile (part of which would be
in the Ft. Pierce.
b. South of Ft. Pierce
Probably due to elevations, it would take storm-surges from
Category 4 and 5 storm events to reach and cover Indian River
Drive, respectively, for approximately the first 4- 5 mile
stretch south of the City. Apparently the even greater elevation
for the next several miles south is such that no storm surge from
any category storm event would rise up the bluff. However, in
the last few miles it would only take a Category 1 storm-surge to
January 9, 1990 7- 23 COASTAL
reach and cover the road and successively greater storm-surges
would extent inland up to fifteen hundred (1,500) feet.
3. Mai nl and A1 ong the Ri ver
There would be some surge flowing inland along the North Fork of
the St. Lucie River up to or near the ten (10) foot contour
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum elevation).
SECTION 4. LAND USE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
A. Existing Land Use.
The existing urban lands are shown on Figure 7-2 above (SFWMD,
LULC, 1986). In some areas, the figure has been updated to
reflect existing site conditions. The following descriptions are
divided into four (4) areas based on the actual land uses
(residential, commercial, industrial, etc. ) seen in Figure 7-5:
North Hutchinson Island, South Hutchinson Island, Mainland Along
the Lagoon, and Mainland Along the River.
1. North Hutchinson Island
Residential and undeveloped land uses are dominant in the
lower half of North Hutchinson Island. The residential use
consists of low density single family subdivisions, townhouses,
and highrise multifamily buildings. Commercial land use in
this area, although not evident in Figures 7-2 and 7-5, is
limited to a hotel, sales and services area and small shopping
center. There are two active parks within the Public
Service/Recreational land use: Pepper Park and Ft. Pierce Inlet
State Recreational Area. Jack Island is a State passive
recreational facility, made up of a nature trail through a
mangrove forest.
The upper half of North Hutchinson Island is a mix of residential
and undeveloped land uses. Except for several single family
residences near the north county line, the upper one and half (1
1/2) miles of the island is in a natural state made up of the
cabbage palm and oak hammock and coastal dune communities.
Multifamily, mobile home, and single family residences and a
restaurant lie south of this area, interspersed with remnants of
the same hammock.
2. South Hutchinson Island
Undeveloped land use is pre3ominant in the upper half of South
Hutchinson Island, much of which contains John Brooks Park and
Frederick Douglass Park. The St. Lucie Power Plant, a privately
owned nuclear generating facility, is within the Transportation
and Utility land use classification.
January 9, 1990 7- 24 COASTAL
c o t i ~ ~ / 1`
~ ~ . > i , z c i . , o ° •
' ' ::'1.' - ~ .
. ~ ~ ~ . i~
:_~.~F ~ . - = . ~
_ .T~- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • - • • :,..,:'~g,_.;~..:" _ _ ~
' ' . . . .-,•.•,•,•:•.'.•.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'r: . . ' - :
_ _
' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : i : _ • y_~ 7/_ > [
f E_-.•.•.-.•.-.•.~.~.•.-. . . . . : . <<
. . . . . . . . . . .
-3. : ~d ~
` : • ';F • ' t~
. l~ ~%e^~,_ d
' LEGEND: . .
I ~ ~r.. - _ • GENERAIIZED EXIS'~WG
F.' : : : : • K+,~ LAND USE DISTRIBUDONS,
~ „ ~L,• _ ~ ~ ~ PESDfN1ULLp) ~
r,~ . r. y' COHYAFAQAL ~.?~2Y~.G•','
L
- - ~ - _ - ~ ~ ~
. : .,e ~ ?IERC[ , T~
~ t, .1 . . . . s . ' y; rneucxm7sinnlnJ711Iv ~
. • iir
~ ;r'...' : .~s•.; ~ ' , 1+ -~so~m~ew~oucnoruu_
- 3 y : i ~~unwanvm
F.• " - _ ' ~
4. • S~ ' _ _ o - ' : ~ . .
~ ~c~ _ ,~r 111 I~UOES ALL TYIES
~ • • ~ : _ ' • u~ ~awes meus e ~u¢iwe ~cimr¢s
F 's.• ~ •
, _ ~ .
. - E: :
~ ~ ~ _ -
~ ~ ~ - - - - _ - . .o~ _ ;=f:
~ _ - -
, _ - - .
y ~ t ~ ~,x '
I•. •j.;. ~ - ~ . . ~
' • ~
; _ : ~
~ o •:=r::. ~ ~
I ` ' CUd15fAL AREA i~~~~~~i~~~~
I / ; : + ~ ' •
~ ~ . ,
I : 4 ,1 . ' ' .
I _ ~ r i : lqctE ~~y
, k_ ~ + ~ ; ~ - dNJ~~G (~0~~~~~i
_ = 4Y'* G~Q~%~A
. . . . . . . . . .
' . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ~
l~ . q. - _ • . I
~ . . . . . . ~ . . . . . .
h ' .4:.'.'. '.f ` ~ ~c• •--~+rr~ ~__.~'J'T
~ • • • ~ _ - (~IIIE 7-S. 1152 W1Y~]1R Yt1E
b-_' ~ ~ Fi F.~cisting land
• v ~ . . ' COaStdl alBa.
. c ~ n x i . ~ .
r. a r t c It
~ 7 - 25
There is a multifamily residential land use area within the two
(2) to three (3) mile stretch immediately south of the St. Lucie
Power Plant. Although not evident on Figures 7-2 or 7-5, a fire
station exists across from the residential area. The remaining
land in this area is undeveloped.
Most of the residential land use south of the power plant is in
the southern three (3) miles. The predominant residential use is
multifamily along both sides of State Road AlA. There are two
mobile home areas along the lagoon side and urban open areas
including a private golf course and private recreational
facility. Commercial uses are not evident on Figures 7-2 and 7-5
but include two hotel-motel establishments and two small sales
and services areas.
3. Mainland Along the Lagoon
Although designated undeveloped, there are a variety of land
uses north of Ft. Pierce. The following exist above St. Lucie
Village east of the railroad: citrus, truck crops, urban open
areas, a port facility (research), sales and services, and mobile
home - no one us e i s predomi nant. Between U. S. 1 and the
railroad (north of the Village) there are several commercial
areas (sales and services), several low density single family
residential areas, and urban open areas including two cemeteries
and one j unkyard.
There is also a mix of uses south of the Village where industrial
and commercial uses together are predominant. Commercial uses
include sales and services, entertainment, and two marinas.
Low density single family residential uses exist along the
shoreline and adjacent to the Village and Ft. Pierce. There are
several urban open areas classified as either under development
or undeveloped within urban open areas.
Located within the City of Ft. Pierce is the Port of Ft. Pierce.
At present it is privately owned and operated and specializes in
the export of fresh citrus. Future development and expansion of
the port comes under the jurisdiction of the St. Lucie County
Port and Airport Authority (County Commissioners) (Chapter 2-15,
St. Lucie County Code of Ordinances). As required by State law
(Chapter 163, Florida Statutes), the County has prepared a Port
Master Plan which may be found in a separate section of this
Comprehensive Plan. All port proposals will be reviewed by the
County's Development Review Committee for conformance with the
port and comprehensive plans.
Almost all of the residential land use south of Ft. Pierce (east
of the railroad) is low density single family residential except
for the mobile home residential area near the south county line.
4. Mainland Along the River
The predominant residential land use along the North Fork of the
January 9, 1990 7- 26 COASTAL
St. Lucie River is low density single family residential.
Interspersed along the shoreline or associated wetlands are the
following uses: mobile homes, medium density single family,
citrus, truck crops, and urban open areas.
B. Analysis of Conflicts Among Shoreline Uses
There are several areas of existing and potential conflicting
shoreline land uses within the coastal area.
Figures 7-2 and 7-5 above clearly show the predominant land use
as residential along the North Fork of the St. Lucie River and
Indian River Drive (south of Ft. Pierce). Most of lagoon' s
shoreline on Hutchinson Island and the mainland's shoreline north
of St. Lucie Village is undeveloped and exists in its natural
state. The Future Land Use Map foresees low density residential
land use (from 1 dwelling unit per five acres to 5 dwelling units
per acre) in most of these areas. Any greater intensity would be
considered a conflict. Nevertheless, the limited availability of
upland sites in these areas is a potential conflict with the
established state policy against altering wetlands to produce
additional upland waterfront sites. Additionally, the siting of
public use marinas in these areas would be difficult since they
are generally incompatible with residential areas. Water-
dependent and water-related recreational facilities, such as
shoreline access points, do not usually create conflicts when
located near residential units if the access point is designed
properly.
The need for water-dependent and water-related uses is recognized
by the County and foreseen on the Future Land Use Map by the
commercial, industrial, and mixed-use designations on the
mainland north of Ft. Pierce. These are the only existing
shoreline areas accommodating such uses, in particular marine-
related facilities. There are several existing or potential
shoreline land use conflicts in these areas. First, any non-
water-dependent or non-water-related activities existing or
allowed in these areas are or would be considered conflicts. The
existing non-water-dependent uses in the platted industrial area
are conflicts and any redevelopment should focus on water-
dependent uses. Second, the County is aware that appropriate uses
in these areas (water-dependent and water-related) must consider
the environmental sensitivity of these locations with regard to
stormwater management and the use, production, storage, or
handling of hazardous materials. Third, the potential conflict
between the mixed use designation (for the Harbor Branch
Oceanographic Institute) and low density residential designations
adjacent to it must be offset through transitional gradients and
the designation of specific intensities within the mixed use
area. Fourth, the lack of upland areas within the mixed-use
designation is a potential conflict with the state's established
wetlands policy.
January 9, 1990 7- 27 COASTAL
C. Analysis of Need for Water-Dependent and Water-Related
Development Sites
1. Water-Dependent Uses
Water-dependent uses are defined by the Department of Community
Affairs as those activities which, "can be carried out only on,
in, or adjacent to water areas because the use requires access to
the water body for: waterborne transportation including ports or
marinas, recreation, electrical generating facilities; or water
supply" (Chapter 9J-5. 003 ( 96 Florida Administrative Code
Within the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County, the St. Lucie
Power Plant, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Riverside
Marina and residential marinas, and the many County and State
beaches and parks located on the barrier island constitute the
only water-dependent uses. The Port of Ft. Pierce is a water-
dependent use located within the City of Ft. Pierce. The
location of the power plant, research institute, and port can be
found on Figure 7-2 above. The other facilities can be found in
Figure 7-17, Page 7-85, in the Public Access section of
this element.
The Public Access section o£ this element (Section 9) provides an
inventory of all public beaches, parks, and shoreline access
poi nts on Hutchi ns on I s 1 and, and al l mari nas, boat ramps , and
non-boat fishing access points (piers, bridges, jetties and open
shoreline) within the County. Additional information on some of
these facilities may be found in the Recreation and Open Space
Element. As will be seen in Public Access, the County currently
provides an adequate level of beach and lagoon frontage, however
improved lagoon access is needed. At present, there are deficits
for boat ramps and non-boat access provided by piers, bridges,
and jetties. Although the capacity of marina slips is greater
than current demand, there will be a need for additional wet
slips and dry docks based on the projected growth rate in demand
(64~ - 89~) from 1982 - 2005 (FDNR, 1985b). -
The Port of Ft. Pierce has potential for improvement and
expansion; however, funding for these activities has yet to be
obtained. The Port Master Plan prepared in 1985 recommended
improvements totaling over $14 million that include the deepening
of the turning basin and channel and the construction of a cargo
facility. A new Master Plan has been prepared for this
Comprehensive Plan which addresses needed improvements and goals,
objectives, and policies for their attainment. In summary, total
cost for proposed improvements over fifteen years would equal
$13,820,000 (exclusive of land acquisition cost) for
infrastructure, land development, cargo, cruise and recreational
facilities (Table 6-1, Port Master Plan). Revenue bonds are
proposed for financing the improvements for the first ten years
with Port revenues sufficient to cover the last phase of
improvements. Net revenue minus debt service is projected to
increase from a surplus of $213,300 in 1995-1996 to $1,228,300 in
2003-2004 (Table 6-7, Port Master Plan).
January 9, 1990 7- 28 COASTAL
At this time, the Riverside Marina in Ft. Pierce is the only
commercial fishing marina in the County. As will be seen in
Section 6.C on estuarine pollution, it is also one of the most
polluted areas within the lagoon. As there is little flushing
within its basin, improving the water quality within it would be
difficult. Without any improvement there may be a need to locate
more open areas that could be developed to meet the needs of the
County's commercial fishing industry, which accounts for a
tremendous portion of the coastal area's economic base (see
Section E. below) .
2. Water-Related Uses
The Department of Community Affairs has defined water-related
uses as those activities which, "are not directly dependent upon
access to a water body, but which provide goods and services that
are directly associated with water-dependent or waterway uses"
Chapter 9J-5.003(98), Florida Administrative Code). These uses
consist of beach parking and bathhouses, and upland services for
marinas including dry slips, parking, bait shops, and fuel sales.
As will be seen in Section 9, Public Access, most of the public
marinas provide some upland support services. However, one
marina alone accounts for 89~ of the dry dock storage capacity of
all the public marinas within the County. Considering the
expected 64~ - 89~ growth in demand for both wet slips and dry
docks between 1982 - 2005 in the County (FDNR, 1985b), there will
be a need to find additional dry dook storage space in the
future. It will also be seen ir~,Section 9 that the County
currently is in need of more parking for beach front access.
3. Recommendations for Siting Water-Dependent and Water-
Related Uses and Minimizing Shoreline Land Use
Conflicts
Future water-dependent recreation sites can be accommodated in
the residential land use districts if certain buffering is
provided. These sites can be acquired by direct purchase,
developer contribution, or through site planning requirements.
Public use marina sites can pose several coastal-related
problems. Public use marinas generally are not compatible with
residential uses and should be located in commercial areas.
Furthermore, the amount of potential upland waterfront sites
needed to support marinas is limited when Florida Department of
Natural Resources (FDNR) aquatic preserve marina siting criteria
addressing manatees, seagrasses, water depth, and dredging and
filling are considered (FDNR, 1985a). Most likely, all these
criteria could not be met and site specific criteria need to be
developed to balance the need for marinas with the need to
protect the resources of the coastal area.
January 9, 1990 7- 29 COASTAL
D. Identification of Areas in Need of Redevelopment.
Most of the buildings in the County have been built within the
last twenty years (see Housing Element). Within the coastal area
there are no large concentrations of dilapidated structures or
blighted areas. However, individual structures which should be
considered for condemnation or rehabilitation are scattered in
the coastal area. Therefore, no neighborhood redevelopment plans
need to be considered at this time.
An additional area that needs to be addressed is redevelopment of
existing structures or infrastructure when damaged by storms. It
is the intent of this element to address this subject in light of
the State's requirements for coastal high hazard areas in Section
8. G.
E. Analysis of the Economic Base
Most of the existing land use in the coastal area within the
County is residential except for the commercial and industrial
areas on the mainland north of Ft. Pierce. These latter
components, primarily tied to the commercial fishing industry, •
form the economic base of the coastal area along with tourism,
recreation fishing, and construction.
Within a four county area (Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, and
Martin), commercial finfish .~landings declined from 1982 - 1984
while commercial shellfish landings have steadily increased from
1979 - 1984 (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). However, within St. Lucie
County alone, dock side value of all species (finfish and
shellfish) landed increased from approximately $1,000,000 in 1970
to $1, 500, 000 in 1975 to $5, 000, 000 in both 1980 and 1985 (FDNR,
Division of Marine Resources, 1989). Although the dockside value
declined to approximately $3, 800, 000 and $3, 400, 000 in 1986 and
1987, respectively (National Marine Fisheries Service, 1989), the
County' s 1988 value nearly reached its former levels ($4, 757, 000 )
(FDNR, Division of Marine Resources, 1989).
The total primary economic impact (expenditures, sales, and
income) from commercial seafood harvesting in St. Lucie County
equalled $8,728,000 in 1984 which is thirteen (13) percent of a
four-county region (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). Utilizing the same
percentage for the seafood processing, wholesale and retail
sectors (including supplies and equipment), an additional 9.5
million dollars would have been generated in the County.
Recreational saltwater fishing would have generated another 6.1
million dollars of direct sales impact, not including supplies
and direct sales impact of fishing by tourists and non-County
residents. Without accounting for the marine service sector the
total economic impact from County's coastal area may have
reached, at a minimum, 24. 3 million dollars in 1984.
The marine service sector accounts for boat sales, rentals,
January 9, 1990 7- 30 COASTAL
engine and hull repair, launch facilities, dockage, commercial
and recreational fishing bait, tackle and supplies, charter and
head boats, yacht clubs, marine resort areas and other facilities
and services (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). Gross sales for boats
in St. Lucie County alone in 1988 equalled $18,468,667 (Marine
Industries Association of the Treasure Coast, personal
communication, 1989). It has been estimated that the total
marine industry impact for the County totals $80, 000, 000
including 900 employees with a payroll of $18, 000, 000.
Additionally, the waterborne cargo imported and exported at the
Port of Ft. Pierce varied between approximately 83,000 tons to
225,000 tons from 1981 to 1988 (Table 3-24, Port Master Plan) and
the exports were valued at nearly $28,000,000 in 1987 (Table 3-
34, Port Master Plan).
All these components are expected to remain the basis of the
coastal area's economy. However, it is clear that one aspect of
the commercial fishing industry, i.e., shellfish harvesting, lags
far behind the finfish sector, with the latter accounting for 99%
of the total harvest in most of the years documented above (FDNR,
Division of Marine Resources, 1989). Increases in the shellfish
harvesting may be possible from aquaculture activities.
F. Analysis of the Effect of Future Land Uses on the Natural
Resources of the Coastal Area
The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) estimates that 22,631
additional acres of land will be needed by 2015 to accommodate
residential, commercial and industrial requi rements in the
unincorporated County (FLUE, Table 1-5). The FLUE also
directs future development away from the environmentally
sensitive areas of the coastal and estuarine environments. If no
more than fifteen (15) percent of the population growth occurs in
the coastal area, an additional 3,395 acres the coastal area
would be developed by 2015.
The FLUE recommends the preservation, maintenance, and
enhancement of the County's natural resources including the
Indian River Lagoon, North Fork of the St. Lucie River, Savannas,
coastal barrier islands system, isolated inland wetland systems,
unique upland habitats, and aquifer recharge areas. This
philosophy is explained by the future land use designations
assigned to the coastal area.
As indicated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), almost the entire
coastal area is designated residential, most of which will be low
density:
* Residential/Conservation (1 du/5 ac)
* Residential Estate (1 du/ac)
* Residential Suburban (2 du/ac)
* Residential Urban (5 du/ac)
January 9, 1990 7- 31 COASTAL
The few Residential Medium (9 du/ac) and Residential High (15
du/ac) designations are in areas either fairly built out or
approved for development. Large tracts of the Conservation-
Public (preservation or limited recreation) designation are found
on both North and South Hutchinson Island. Commercial,
Industrial, and Mixed Use Development designations are along the
western shore of the Indian River Lagoon north of Ft. Pierce. On
South Hutchinson Island, there are several small Commercial
designations and Transportation/Utility for the St. Lucie Power
Pl ant.
The following analysis will focus on the impact of this projected
development on native vegetation and wetlands, areas subject to
coastal flooding, wildlife habitat, and living marine resources.
1. Native Vegetation (Uplands and Wetlands)
This analysis suggests that displacement of native vegetation
(uplands and wetlands) aan be held to a minimum with the proper
precautions and special focus on unique environmental communities
that were identified in the inventory in Section 3.A. above.
a. Hutchinson Island
The following vegetative communities need special focus in order
to preserve or conserve their unique environmental values:
1. coastal dune;
2. cabbage palm and oak; and
3. palmetto prairie.
As can be extrapolated from Figure 7-2 above, the barrier island
upland vegetative communities in the lower halves of both North
and South Hutchinson Islands have been lost to development or
remain in discontinuous pockets surrounded by development (urban
land on Figure 7-2); in some of these areas the community has
been displaced by the exotic Australian pine, typical in areas of
human disturbance. Fortunately, the coastal dune is fairly
continuous in the northern portions of each island and is
designated either Residential Urban or Conservation-Public.
Although displacement is expected to occur due to development in
the Residential Urban area, this impact can be limited through
strict enforcement of the Hutchinson Island Coastal Area
Protection Ordinance which requires that twenty-five (25) percent
of each native plant community must be set aside through
selective clearing and micrositing of buildings, and the recently
adopted Interim Vegetation Protection and Preservation Ordinance
which requires vegetation removal permits (land clearing and tree
removal). The Conservation-Public designation, intended solely
for preservation or limited recreational use, is assigned to two
(2) State-owned properties, the Avalon Tract on North Hutchinson
Island and John Brooks Park on South Hutchinson Island.
January 9, 1990 7- 32 COASTAL
The cabbage palm and oak community along the west side of State
Road AlA at the north county line covers approximately three
hundred fifty (350) acres. It is the only such community on
either North or South Hutchinson Island and exhibits a diversity
of plant and animal wildlife. Approximately fifty-five (55)
percent of this community is designated Conservation-Public, as
it is within the Avalon Tract. The remaining forty-five (45)
percent is designated Residential Urban. As with the coastal
dune community, at least twenty-five (25) percent of the cabbage
palm and oak community must be set aside during development and
permits are required for any removal.
The palmetto prairie scrubland community on South Hutchinson
Island runs south from the St. Lucie Power Plant in strands of
approximately twenty (20) to eighty (80) acres. As with the
cabbage palm and oak community, this scrubland is the only such
community on either island and supports the same uni.que animal
and plant life. The upper strand is on that portion of the St.
Lucie Power Plant property which the Florida Power and Light
Company must maintain as a buffer and is thereby designated
Residential/Conservation on the FLUM. (There may also be a
small strand of scrub within the actual FPL utility site.) The
middle strand runs along that part of State Road AlA where the
island is at its narrowest and is designated Residential High--at
least twenty-five (25) percent of the strand will have to be set
aside during development. The lower strand is within the County-
owned Dollman Tract, which is designated Conservation-Public and
also contains approximately seventeen (17) acres of the coastal
dune community.
Although sixty (60) percent of the private land on Hutchinson
Island is undeveloped (FLUE), much of it is wetlands
(predominantly impounded mangrove forests). Most of the wetlands
are designated either Conservation-Public or Residential Urban on
North Hutchinson Island, and Conservation-Public,
Residential/Conservation, or Residential Suburban on South
Hutchinson Island. Based on existing federal and state
wetlands regulations, and the County's Mangrove Protection
Ordinance, projected development may not have a large impact on
the island's wetlands. Furthermore, wetland alterations for
activities such as access or stormwater management will
usually require mitigation, such as the creation of new
wetlands, enhancement of existing wetlands, or restoration of
disturbed wetlands.
b. Mai nl and A1 ong the Lagoon.
1. North of Ft. Pierce
Except for some citrus and pine and cabbage palm areas, most of
the undeveloped land in the coastal area north of the St. Lucie
Village is freshwater or saltwater wetlands (see Figure 2).
Outside of two Mixed Use Development areas (including the Harbor
Branch Oceanographic Institute property), these wetlands have
January 9, 1990 7- 33 COASTAL
been designated Residential/Conservation along the shoreline
backed up by Residential Urban. Development in these areas (at 1
du/5ac and 5 du/ac, respectively) will be constrained by the same
federal, state, and County regulations that apply to the wetlands
on Hutchinson Island, therefore the impact could be minimal. The
Mixed Use Development areas will also have to comply with the
existing wetland regulations. The pine and cabbage palm area
will be the most vulnerable to future development in this part of
the coastal area since single family lots one acre or less are
exempted from the County's interim vegetation removal ordinance,
and activities which must receive a permit are not required to
replace vegetation. Considering it is only one of a few
undeveloped mixed forested upland communities in the County (see
Section III.A), displacement will have a relatively larger impact
than the loss of wetlands (which usually includes mitigation) or
other more common upland communities, such as the citrus. At this
time, the County continues to work on a permanent ordinance for
vegetation removal which is expected to address some of these
issues including preservation incentives.
South of St. Lucie Village are small pine flatwood and pine and
oak habitats. This area is designated Industrial on the FLUM
primarily due to existing land uses. Loss of these habitats
would be expected during development without preservation
incentives.
2. South of Ft. Pierce
There are no large areas of native vegetation in this part of the
coastal area although small pockets of the sand pine scrub or
pine flatwood ecological communities may exist (SCS, 1980; 1987).
It has been developed almost exclusively single family, much of
which has incorporated the natural vegetation into the
landscaping, and will continue as such based on the Residential
Suburban and Residential Urban designations on the FLUM.
c. Mainland Along the River
The major vegetative communities in this part of the coastal area
are saltwater and freshwater wetlands. For the most part,
Residential Suburban and Residential Urban have been designated
on the FLUM along the east side of the river in the
unincorporated areas south of Midway Road. The west side of the
river has been designated predominantly Residential/Conservation,
Residential Estate, and Residential Suburban, with a few small
areas of Residential Urban. Considering current regulations
regarding wetlands, the County's St. Lucie River Code (Chapter 1-
7.5, Article II) which promotes the preservation of riverine
vegetation (in order to reduce stormwater impacts and shoreline
erosion), and the criteria set out in the Future Land Use
Element, future development may not have a large impact in this
area. However, these land uses would need to be supported by
stronger upland protection regulations in order to limit future
development impacts upon the temperate hardwood, pine flatwood,
January 9, 1990 7- 34 COASTAL
and other forested uplands in the area. Several small citrus
areas could also be displaced by such development.
d. Summary
There are (2) major issues which need to be addressed in order to
minimize the impacts of future development on vegetative
communities. The first includes the lack of incentives for
preservation and replacement requirements, as well as exemptions
for single family lots one acre or less, in the interim
vegetation removal ordinance. The second involves the balancing
of wetlands protection versus unique uplands protection.
Regarding the former, the County is in the process of
developing a permanent vegetation removal ordinance which is
expected to address the deficiencies of the interim ordinance.
The latter issue may be one that the County has little
control over considering the existing federal and state
regulations on wetlands.
2. Areas Subject to Coastal Flooding
As seen in the inventory in Section 3.D above, different sections
of the coastal area would be impacted by different category storm
events. The Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map do
not propose increased development in these areas from existing
levels, and in some areas, lower density development is proposed.
Overall the projected increase in potential hurricane evacuees
(see Section 8, Natural Disaster Planning) should not be any
greater than expected from existing land uses.
3. Wildlife Habitat
The County's coastal area contains a variety of natural wetland
and upland habitats which are supportive of the following eight
(8) ecological habitats (as indicated above in Sections 3.B and
3. C):
* Coastal Strand;
* South Florida Flatwood;
* Sand Pine Scrub;
* Wetland Hardwood Hammock;
* Freshwater Marsh and Pond;
* Swamp Hardwood;
* Cypress Swamp; and
* Mangrove Swamp.
Residential land uses (Residential/Conservation, Residential
Estate, Residential Suburban, and Residential Urban) are the
predominant future land uses in the undeveloped portions of the
coastal area (see FLUM and Figure 2 above). The less intense
residential land uses [from 1 du/5ac to 1 du/ac] generally
coincide with the larger undeveloped ecological communities. The
major exceptions occur north of Ft. Pierce (Commercial,
Industrial, Mixed Use Development, and Residential Urban) and on
January 9, 1990 7- 35 COASTAL
North Hutchinson Island (Residential Urban and Residential
Medium) where fairly large wetland and upland communities are
still undeveloped. Even in the less intense areas, however,
future development will displace wildlife habitats. As seen in
Section 3.B above, these habitats support a diversity of plant
and animal wildlife. As will be seen in the Conservation Element
(Section 2.L), these habitats also support many species
considered endangered, threatened, or of special concern.
With adequate enforcement of existing regulations, large scale
disruption of wetlands is not expected, therefore, impacts of
future development on wetland fish, birds and mammals may be
mi ni mal . However, water 1 evel manipul ati ons do pos e a ri s k to
the woodstork. Additionally, stormwater management facilities
increase the risk of inbreeding between saltwater and freshwater
snakes and, in some cases, displace functional wetlands with non-
compatible deep water habitats.
Without a continuing focus on uplands protection and improvement
of existing regulations, wildlife habitat and the plants and
animals it supports will be displaced by future development. In
particular, the gopher tortoise will be at risk both on the
mai nl and and Hutchi ns on I s 1 and, as wel l as many bi rds that nes t
or hunt in the uplands on Hutchinson Island, including the
American kestrel and peregrine falcon. Although the Hutchinson
Island Coastal Area Protection Ordinance requires the
preservation of twenty-five (25) percent of all native habitats,
contiguous upland habitats will become discontinuous which will
likely reduce their normal functioning as native habitats.
Several areas of upland habitat on Hutchinson Island are
considered unique. The Dollman Tract is a County-owned beach and
dune-coastal hammock-mangrove system extending from the Atlantic
Ocean to the Indian River Lagoon, purchased with bonds to provide
beach access. There are also privately held lands near the north
county line that are similar to the Dollman Tract hammock,
although less tropical in nature. Along the lower reaches of the
North Fork of the St. Lucie River, unique scrublands have been
identified (FGFWFC, 1989); however, these may not be within the
ten (10) foot contour, i.e., the coastal area delineation along
the North Fork, and will therefore be addressed further in the
Conservation Element. Several types of unique uplands--scrub and
hardwood hammocks--also occur within the mainland defined coastal
area, on the west side of the Indian River Lagoon.
The need to protect the Dollman tropical hammock is evident by
the County's desire to develop it in a passive, or low use
intensity manner. Other upland protection efforts as set out in
this Comprehensive Plan include the continuing development and
adoption of a permanent vegetation removal ordinance by August 1,
1990, as well as objectives and policies requiring regulations
for the preservation of native plant communities, adoption of a
preservation acquisition manual by August 1, 1992, and the
establishment of an acquisition selection and finance committee.
January 9, 1990 7- 36 COASTAL
Although the beach and dune environment is well proteeted by the
State's Coastal Construction Control Line program, future
development can still impact its use as a wildlife habitat by
increased recreational use and lack of buffering between
permitted structures and its use as a natural habitat.
Conversely, past lighting impacts on sea turtles should be
reduced by enforcement of the County's sea turtle protection
regulations regarding new development. However, it is becoming
apparent that interior lighting from existing development is a
major cause of hatchling disorientation even though shades,
_ draperies or other such screens are required on beachfront
wi ndows .
4. Li vi ng Mari ne Res ourc es
Prominent living marine resources which may be affected by
future development, in addition to mangroves and saltmarshes
which were discussed in Sections 4. F. 1 and 4. F. 3 above, include
seagrass beds, natural reefs, marine mammals and sea turtles.
a. Seagras s Beds
As seen in Sections 3.A and 3.B above on vegetative cover and
wildlife habitats, respectively, the ecology of the lagoon and
the economic benefits of a healthy lagoon are tied directly to
the condition of seagrass beds. Based on Virnstein and Cairn's
(1986) survey, the condition of seagrasses in the County's area
seem to be in better condition than in other parts of the lagoon. .
However, two (2) points must be stressed: 1) some local beds have
been lost over the last few years; and 2) a survey only describes
conditions existing at a particular time. Since seagrass beds
are apparently very dynamic, i.e., characterized by continuous
change, it would be necessary to continually monitor their
condition in order to determine any impacts upon this resource.
To that end, the County has aontracted another survey which will
be completed this year.
Overall it would seem that declines in seagrass beds throughout
the lagoon are tied to water quality degradation, in the form of
increased turbidity from point sources, which reduces the
available light that is so important to the growth of these
plants (see Section 3.C above). Consequently, it is possible
that a continual increase in suspended solids would further
impact the seagrass beds in the area.
There are actions that can and are being taken by the County to
remedy existing pollution problems in the lagoon including
possible declines in seagrass beds. These activities will be
described below Section 6.
b. Natural Reefs
Short term impacts on the nearshore reefs can be expected during
the Ft. Pierce Inlet beach restoration project (FDNR, 1987), as
January 9, 1990 7- 37 COASTAL
well as on the Sabellariid worm reef from any inlet maintenance
dredging or deepening. Organisms colonizing the borrow source
area and nourishment site of the restoration project would be
lost or leave the area but the sessile benthic organisms would
probably recolonize the area. An alternative borrow source
material from the area located along the inlet's entrance channel
might have less impact on the nearshore reefs.
c. Mari ne Mammal s
Manatees may suffer the greatest direct impact from development,
especially from marinas and other boating facilities, as well as
secondary impacts from the loss of seagrass beds, unless adequate
marina criteria are enforced and sites identified that will
reduce their impact.
d. Sea Turtles
With effective enforcement of the County's Sea Turtle Protection
Ordinance and cooperation of the residents of Hutchinson Island
the impacts from future development should be less than in the
past. The Ft. Pierce Inlet and Jensen Beach beach restoration
projects could impact nesting and hatchling activity unless
appropriate safeguards are taken.
SECTION 5. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES OF THE
COASTAL AREA
Most of the known archaeological and historic resources of the
County occur in the coastal area. Two of the County's National
Historic Register sites are in the coastal area, as well as
several prehistoric sites and shipwreck sites. There are no
historic buildings or designated historic districts in the
coastal area of St. Lucie County. The County does not identify
or designate historic sites. The State Bureau of Historic
Preservation does not identify historic or archaeological
resources other than by U. S. G. S. section. This is done in order
to prevent the destruction of these sites by looters.
The listed archaeological and historic sites are protected to a
limited extent by Florida law. Those properties on state-owned
land or state-owned sovereignty submerged lands receive the
highest level of protection. In order for a privately-owned site
to receive state protection, the proposed project must be a
development of regional impact, an electrical power plant, or a
federally funded project; otherwise, private sites should be
considered endangered. The state may also buy historic properties
or designate an area of critical state concern based on historic
importance. The types of archaeological and historic sites that
may be located in St. Lucie County include submerged shipwrecks,
Spanish salvor sites on the barrier island and mainland, Indian
buri al grounds and I ndi an s hel l mounds .
January 9, 1990 7- 38 COASTAL
SECTION 6. ESTUARINE POLLUTION
A. General Features of the Indian River Lagoon
1. Overall Area
The Indian River Lagoon system is part of a physiographic basin
that extends 250 kilometers {155 miles) from the Ponce de Leon
Inlet in Volusia County south to the Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach
County as depicted in Figure 7-6 (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1988). The
lagoon itself is about 582 square kilometers (225 square miles)
in area, has an average depth of three (3) feet and a width that
varies from a half mile to five and one-half miles.
Physiographic features of the basin include coastal hills and
lagoons, barrier islands, natural and man-made inlets, the
Intracoastal Waterway, mosquito impoundments and drainage canals,
all of which affects the quality of the lagoon (SJRWMD and SFWMD,
1987).
2. St. Lucie County Area
All the natural and man-made features within the County affect
existing conditions in the lagoon. The lagoon~s biological
processes and water and sediment quality are influenced by the
tidal flushing action of the Atlantic Ocean through the Ft.
Pierce Inlet, as well as by wind driven circulation and
freshwater discharges (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1988). As a result of
urban and agricultural development, essentially all of St. Lucie ~
County is within the overall physiographic basin of the Indian
River Lagoon (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). Natural physiographic
features are depicted in Figure 7-7. Hutchinson Island, part of
the barrier island chain, protects the lagoon from the Atlantic
Ocean although there are two (2) man-made inlets in the St. Lucie
County area - Ft. Pierce Inlet and St. Lucie Inlet (in Martin
County). The Atlantic Coastal Ridge, formed when much of the
area was under water, is very narrow but ranges up to 24.5 meters
(80 feet) in elevation near Jensen Beach. Natural drainage from
the west side of the ridge into the lagoon occurs through Moores
Creek and the St. Lucie River. The river's headwaters are
located in flats behind the ridge. The western portions of the
County include valleys, flats and plains. Man-made features
include the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) which is maintained at
about a depth of 3. 5 meters ( 11. 5 feet), inlets, spoil islands,
and a port (within Ft. Pierce). These features were built to
improve navigation, or as a result of the improvements. The area
also contains mosquito impoundments which were constructed in
order to control mosquito breeding.
3. Drai nage
Historically, the western portions of the County did not drain
into the lagoon under normal situations. Over the years,
however, extensive agricultural drainage systems have been
January 9, 1990 7- 39 COASTAL
/f ~
~ • • C-
I I " -
~ ~ ,
j ` -Z F r ~
~ ) ~
I ~b . ~ ~~1
J ~ VOlVBIA ~ STUDY
~ ~ - - ~ t AREA
l : j
I ~ MOSQUITO
j ~ f-. LAGOON '
~ r..-------~ -
r 3E1~~E ~ . _
~ ~~xe I ~ ~-'L. _ . '1 ! . COAS A~L ,
' c~ RIOGE
~ p ` :r;~~°
~ O ~ ORAxGE s ~ ';'`:';r.
~ ~ BANANA RIVER
~ LAGOON
L--r"z---}-------- -------~q
I BARRtER ~
ISLANO
{
, , ~
osceo~~ 1 INDIAN
RIVER
~ ~ LAGOON
.
0~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` TEN MILE
~ RIOGE
_ ~ ,
EASTERN VALLEY ~Kp:~~K: '
_.1.,
SEBASTIAN
S ST. LUCIE FLATS
oKEECHOS~~~.. j~ : e7:~' 'E •
. O
OSCEOLA FLATS ~
\
. . m
ALLAPATTAH FLATS ~
:.ti
i ~ N{` R\\ Z
INOtAN RIVER L.IGOON ~
-
BASiN 80UHDARY '
- COUNTY BOUNDaRY ~
, GRECN RIOGE
Q r~~?+ EEACH LOXAHATCHEE
~ I KARST
Figure 7-6..Physiographic Basin of the Indian River Lagoon
(SJRWMD & SFWMD, 1987).
7 - 40
installed which discharge either into the lagoon or North Fork of
the St. Lucie River, thereby enlarging the drainage basin
boundaries of the lagoon. There are six (6) drainage sub-basins
within the County (one of which has two separate areas) which are
depicted in Figure 7-8. A brief description of each is presented
in Appendix 19 based on the SJRWMD and SFWMD (1987) report.
Two significant points can be made regarding the sub-basins
within the County both of which have direct impacts on the
County's coastal area and estuarine pollution. First, nearly all
of St. Lucie County's total population is concentrated within the
s ub-bas i ns al ong the 1 agoon ( I I I. C, I I I. D, I V. B. 1, and I V. B. 2),
especially within and surrounding Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie
which, in effect, affords less time for treatment of stormwater
runoff. Second, a large portion of the County historically did
not drai n i nto the 1 agoon ( I V. A, I V. C, and I V. D). Today the
whole County does by way of complex drainage systems and urban
and agricultural lands are, therefore, both potential sources of
estuarine pollution.
4. Surface Water Discharges
a. Freshwater
Freshwater discharge generated by rainfall enters the Indian
River Lagoon from overland flow (Hutchinson Island and along
Indian River Drive) and from point source streams and canals
(Moores Creek, St. Lucie River, Virginia Avenue canal and the C-
25 canal). As described in Appendix 19, freshwater discharge
into the lagoon is much greater than what the natural basin
produced due to interbasin diversion and pumpage of groundwater
for irrigation (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). The North Fork of the
St. Lucie River, which receives drainage from the C-23 and C-24
canals, Five Mile Creek, and Ten Mile Creek, is also a major
freshwater input to the lagoon. Appendix 20 summarizes the mean
and maximum discharges observed during the last twenty five (25)
years for canals C-23, C-24, and C-25. As can be seen,
discharges into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River (Canals C-
23 and C-24) account for 63% of the average freshwater discharges
into the lagoon with Canal C-25 accounting for the remainder.
b. Stormwater Discharges
As of 1987 there have been two hundred and eighteen (218) surface
water management permits issued in St. Lucie County by the South
Florida Water Management District (1987) for urban and
agricultural development and public and private utilities.
Appendix 21 presents the number and percent of systems
discharging into particular receiving waters. As can be seen,
sixty-one (61) percent discharge to drainage districts,
individual systems, and Canals C-23 and C-24.
January 9, 1990 7- 42 COASTAL
g01111f CAIUI
` SI 1511AN IMl[1
NORTH GHONG
SEBASTIAN R
S••iS1 ~
_ _ S-fi C-S1 _ p r
FELLSMEFE CANPL
. SOpUpTH
~ ~ . 3 AE~B~RSTIA~ /
III.A.5 . III ~ .1
- ~
- N
~
II .A.~ ~
II A." S -
NOAiH
~
.
v
~ ' 1
i , u?. _
~ I o_ ~ t~, s c
W ( . . uuEs
~ oi{~!s~
~ I.B L ~ ~ItIlOUEt(RS
~
~ - - - -
~
~
(
~
~ ~ III.C ~ ~
I OA1 Ot[RCE INl[i
!_f C-1S S-S
~
~ s~~i~ uooat
_ '
Figure 7-8. Physiographic Sub-basins of the Indian River Lagoon,
St. Lucie County (SJRWMD & SFWMD, 1987).
~ ,
~ ~g, a~~
' \
~ . -
:
~
~
, _ ~ . a
i~r.A '
I ~ 9~ lf s_~ ~T ?I[tC[ Mlti
~
I _ ' Y00~[
- - I - N
I
~
~ ~ IV.B.1 V.B.
~ ~ IV.C
~ i
~
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~
. ,
i ' ~~~c,
) u LL!~~
RILOYCI(~S
~ C-JI
~ s' ~ _
' ,
~ I
\ ' , I
- - - - - ~-t~ -ti ~i /
~ I
I
• • IM1 lUC1C iMl(T
.
Figure 7-8. Physiographic Sub-basins of the Indian River Lagoon, St. Lucie County
(SJRWMD & SFWMD, 1987).
i
i
i
i
i
~
r
~ c-» c-~~
~ s-~ •
I ~
I ~
~ ~ N
I- - - - - ti
~ (V,~ ~ ~
\ - SAINi IUC~I IMl[T
\ '
~V V. .
\ ~ . E 3
' I .
,p IV.E.4
c,,, e ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~
~ ~ s
oit~~s~
' ' ~ILOYC•(CI15 • •
I V . F tt `~`~p~
o~ttcNOett o'~~~~Npe
.
s-~o~ \ ^
- - - - - - - - - - ~
- - - - - ~ u?tl[A
c r
\
Figure 7-8. Physiographic Sub-basins of the Indian River Lagoon, St. Lucie County
(SJRWMD & SFWMD, 1987).
c. Sewage Treatment Plants Discharges
The St. Johns River Water Management District and South Florida
Water Management District (1987) report that there are eleven
(11) sewage treatment plants which discharge treated effluent to
the surface waters of the Indian River Lagoon basin within St.
Lucie County, as of July, 1986. ~Appendix 22 includes the design
capacity and actual discharge of these plants. The Ft. Pierce
Municipal plant is the only facility that disc~arges directly
into the lagoon after treatment and accounts for approximately
ninety-five percent (95~) of both the design capacity and actual
discharges.
Four (4) discharges are first routed through a percolation pond,
absorption field, or other type of pond. Another four (4) are
first routed through at least two (2) conveyances, such as ponds,
ditches, canals, and creeks (including Taylor, Five Mile, and Ten
Mile Creeks, and Belcher Canal). One (1) is first routed through
the North Fork of the St. Lucie River. The St. Lucie Power Plant
discharges to the Atlantic Ocean. Appendix 23 includes effluent
quality data and wasteload allocation for all eleven plants. As
can be seen, waste load allocations have been exceeded by five
( 5 ) of the plants.
d. Industrial Discharges ~
The SJRWMD and SFWMD (1987) also report that there are four (4)
industrial wastewater treatment facilities that discharge to
surface waters in the lagoon basin as of July 1986.
e. Summary of Discharges
According to Florida Department of Environmental Regulation there
are eighty-five (85) to ninety (90) permitted treatment plants
within St. Lucie County (Ft. Pierce Watershed Action Committee,
1988), as well as the two hundred and eighteen (218) stormwater
and four (4) industrial discharges referenced above. It would
seem that very little of the inland discharges spread out into
the lagoon as most of the discharges are routed through the Ft.
Pierce Inlet and St. Lucie Inlet to the Atlantic Ocean. Tidal
amplitude in the lagoon is less than 3.5 feet and tidal mixing is
restricted, seldom extending beyond one mile from the inlets
during a normal tidal exchange (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987).
Although there is some intrusion of water into the lagoon during
the change from an outgoing to incoming tide, it is probably
small during low and moderate discharge flows (FDER, 1985). The
most impacted area may be in the north part of the lagoon as a
result of discharges north of the County away from inlet
influences.
B. Water Quality Classifications
Figure 7-9 depicts the Florida Department of Environmental
January 9, 1990 7- 46 COASTAL
Intracoastal Waterway Channei
D~
_ ~,s,.~ ~
LlIRE
Class il Waters
~ :
Q ;:;':+~''fi:~'' ~
~ ~ Class iil
Waters
~ VIKIN ~,~r a~t;::::~ :::r,..
1`~ 5 ~~~r~;i:i;;';''`d`ip~:::~
•
:~~:f ~:~i;:~~:~
j:;::: ' . .
.;...:i~::~
~1;:~'~•:;;:~;:~~~~~;;~•• •
:~i~:1:i'~
jf~;;:~;~.' ''~J~ ~
lrf~. •
I N 0 R I ~
;
:
i ;
;
r
:
~ ~
:
INDRIO ROAD r:f
:;~:jrffr:
rj~
:•~i:•:.;::
.:?:?,r~
;:?i;::,.:.,'r~.
:'.'};:r:;;,
f:'rr;'::;
f ;j~~
r:
~1~~
l~`~:.
~ff;
ir~
r' ' ~isr
\ Zt m~[
~
9
O
9~~ ~ ~ p ~p
~ ~ tiy~' PEPPER
~ PARK
~ 9
0
,
51 LUCIE ~
8Q~ ST. IUCIE BlYO. 9
~P
/ P
o .
~
W ~~'~jf FORT PIERCE
Y o
~ INLET
ANGLE a %
~,n awn
'P~9 ~ ' ~~`„~p P~P ~k O
~ ~r~5~
~S~~o
~
~ " AVE. D ~
_ .
Figure 7-9. FDER Water (k~l ity Classifications in the Ind.ian River I,agoon,
St. Lucie County (FDER, 1985).
7 - 47
~ . .
Si ~uWE ~~~j ~
9 ~P .
P
~;;•,p ""«.d ~ O
.
,s „r °
~~'f~' ~ Class II Waters
~ „ o, " ~
~ P Class III Waters
~
~
~
n ~n ~ v
w~i
~
~r~r `~S~
2 ~ C~
i
° ~ N
WEATH ~r~•
•~~•~•~~t•i
~Z ~~ii~~1 !~i
t~~ •
.::t~::t:r~~:~rf
:
::;rtk
~oaeo :;~i
;~:i
;:r
~d
;i
J, ~''ir?;
:~:.:i:~:
~G ':t.:.~
~
Y i
j~
r
2 t.
x7' ~
~ ~O
~ ~
~ ~iWl(0lIA,• •I:~JIS.:'~~:. '
~ 'P ~
~
~ ~~c. ';;~';?7r~;;;;?::~~?::
~ . '.,e~'::"r'~r.~.~'~.' ~
•"S.tiiiir O
':i~::~::
~,s:::••:r:•g;:••.
°f '~:.~',r;;i:~li~=?:f?;; ~
•i:•::;;:::;3i:
r;:~}ir:i•;::,r.:r:••;'rr• t~'
••J.:•
'';:=f~~'~,~'.=;tr
::~?f:fi
:~r:i-
•A~TOH • ~
,~z
~
I •••••S•• ••r•• G%
:
EDEN ;~~bIY~P..
i
Figure 7-9. F~R Water c]~~al i{~ ~gsifications in the Indi.an
River Lagoon, St. Lucie County (~ER, 1985).
o L~ ~ ~ ~O~uV ~ u
(~(~OoG°3~DQ
7 - 48
Regulation (FDER) classifications of the Indian River Lagoon
wi thi n St. Luci e County:
* Class II water for shellfish propagation or harvesting
[Chapter 17-3.111, Florida Administrative Code
( F. A. C. ) ] ; and
* Class III water for recreation, propagation and
maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of
fish and wildlife (Chapter 17-3. 121, F. A. C.
Only a small portion of the lagoon has been approved by the
Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) for the harvesting
of shellfish (see Figure 7-4 above). The Department also manages
the aquatic preserves which exist within the coastal area
(Figures 7-10 and 7-11):
* Indian River Lagoon - Vero Beach to Ft. Pierce and
Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet (Chapter 258, Florida
Statutes); and
* North Fork, St. Lucie River (Chapter 258, Florida
Statutes).
These preserves have also been assigned the additional
classification of ~utstanding Florida Waters (Chapter 17-3.041,
F. A. C).
C. Summary of Water Quality Data
Three (3) reports are summarized below which contain water
quality and/or sediment quality data for the coastal area.
1. Indian River Water Quality Survey, 1984-1985 [Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER), 1985]
The purpose of this survey was to establish a data base for use
in evaluating the effects of future development on the mainland
and barrier island. The study area extended from the Sebastian
I nl et i n I ndi an Ri ver County to the St. Luci e I nl et i n Marti n
County. This data base focused on nutrient water quality and its
possible effects upon dissolved oxygen, without which there would
be no desirable aquatic life, regardless of water quality. The
data was presented in two formats (trends and grouped stations)
which are summarized below. Additional data analysis is
presented in Appendices 24 and 25.
a. Trends
The survey was set up so that locational, seasonal, and daily
trends might be established. Water quality in the southern
section of the study area (Ft. Pierce Inlet to St. Lucie Inlet)
appeared to be better - where nutrients, color and fecal coliform
January 9, 1990 7- 49 COASTAL
~ /
~ :
Aquatic Preserve
~ ~
e~ ~
~ vIKIN
S
N
INDRIO ROAD
~
~o
tiy~' PEPPER
~ PARK
~
ST
gQ~ sr. ~ucre e~v~. P
P~
o .
~
W FORT PIERCE
W ~~~o
Y a ~ INLET
ANGLE Q ~~,o~. ~ o
'p09 u~ ' ~s,x0 P P ~ n
~ cr~SE'~15~p~~~ P~.
~ " AVE . D ~
Figure 7-10. Indi,an River Lagoon Aglatic Presezve, St. Lucie County
I , ( F~Il2, 1985a ) .
7 - 50
ST ~uGE ~
9 p~p.
i
~ Aquatic Preserve
_
_ , r;-,p o
.
~
.uSE
~z
~
~ ~
%
i ~
s
~
g ~
~ ~
~
"~e~," ~ '
~ N
~
~
fs
~
~
o
~
, ~
;
~
~ ~
,
~ ~
Figure•7-10.. Indian River Lagoon ~g~atic Preseive, St. Lucie
Cownty ( F~IIt, 1985a ) .
~ ll o l~ ~J ~ O~ lu ll U~ U
' G~(~OG°3BDQ ~
~
7 - 51
I~ NORTH FORK, ST. LUCiE
,
Q AQUATIC PRESERVE
; J
/ '
~O ~
~
9 ~ •
: ~ ~
Q a
S
~
~ ~
~ i
~ pP ~
~
: ` : PSL Bl.v ~
~~5
~ :
~
:::M>~~........:c~::::::..
I
, :::::3~::~:~::::::
1~efE:~:::•
A
, ..::.~1~...
? ~N ~:::~e o ~ ~ ~ ~0~~~ Il
o
~ . ~ ~l~Of~~DQ
Figure 7-11. North Fbrk, St. Lucie Aquatic Prese~ve, St. Lucie County.
7-52
bacteria were all lower and dissolved oxygen higher - than in the
northern s ecti on ( Ft. Pi erce I nl et to Sebas ti an I nl et Thi s
could be due to less inland and urban drainage (SJRWMD and SFWMD,
1987). The water quality near the west shore north of Ft. Pierce
was generally lower (i.e., higher nutrients, color and turbidity)
than near the east shore. There were no dominant west to east
trends south of Ft. Pierce. Inlets also played a role in
defining locational trends in that average nutrient and oxygen
levels generally increased away from inlets, indicating the
consumption of nutrients by plants with the subsequent production
of oxygen. Higher nutrients, fecal coliform bacteria, color and
turbidity in residential canals, upland marinas and drainage
canals were also correlated with greater precipitation during the
wet season. Circulation, or lack of it, appeared to be the prime
factor for poorer water quality in the water bodies excavated
into the uplands. Water quality fluctuated seasonally and, in
general, was lower during the warm, wet season. The only
seasonal trend found with sewage treatment plants occurred for
total phosphorus which generally increased during the tourist
season. Dissolved oxygen was highest during the day and along
the shorelines particularly over grassbeds.
b. Grouped Stations
This analysis addresses water~ quality by adjacent land use or the
type of water body. Survey station groups included: developed,
western, and eastern shores; the mouths (proximal end) of
drainage canals; just outside the mouths of drainage canals; the
proximal and upper (distal) ends of developed canals; open and
closed marinas (i. e. , in open waters or enclosed in a basin);
sewage treatment plants; and an undeveloped canal.
By far the sewage treatment plants (large and small) had the
worst water quality with the highest levels of nutrients and
fecal coliform bacteria. Riverside Marina, a closed (commercial
fishing) marina, was second in poor water quality. Developed and
undeveloped canals and closed marinas had the lowest dissolved
oxygen levels. The drainage canals were also high in nutrients
and fecal coliform bacteria although the average dissolved oxygen
level was not that low.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation also prepared
indices which showed a prominent distinction between the
dissolved oxygen levels which were high in open areas and low in
closed areas. A second index showed that developed canals and
drainage canals were major sources of nutrients as compared to
shoreline areas. A third index indicates that sewage treatment
plants, the mouths of drainage canals, and Riverside Marina
effected major increases in fecal coliform bacteria.
The primary factor for most of the poor water quality was
nutrients; fecal coliform bacteria was a secondary factor for
drainage canals, closed marinas, and sewage treatment plants.
Low dissolved oxygen in developed canals and closed marinas was
January 9, 1990 7- 53 COASTAL
probably a result of poor circulation.
2. 1986 Florida Water Quality Assessment, 305(b) Technical
Report (Hand et al., 1986)
This report covered the Southeast Florida Basin (Ft. Pierce to
Homestead, Florida) and the South Indian River Lagoon Basin
(Sebastian Inlet to Stuart, Florida). Two indices were used to
classify the surface waters in these basins based on the average
overall water quality data in the 1970-1985 STORET
(storage/retrieval ) database. "Good" and " fair" water quality
classifications indicate that the waters "meet" or "partially
meet" their use designations (either Class II or III). The
authors acknowledged the general lack of long-term data for the
lagoon system and were unable to discern trends with any
reasonable confidence (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987). The results for
each basin are described below.
a. Southeast Florida Basin (Ft. Pierce to Homestead,
Florida )
The water quality in the northeastern portion of the basin was
relatively better than in other parts of the basin (Figure 7-12).
The major problems were in Five Mile Creek and Ten Mile Creek
which received runoff from citrus groves and exhibited lesser
water quality with high levels of pesticides than other areas
within the northeastern portion of the basin. Other parts of the
St. Lucie River watershed were impacted by runoff from
construction sites and urban development along the river. The
Savannas, a twenty-four (24) kilometer (15 mile) long freshwater
marsh, had very good water quality.
Five Mile Creek was classified with "fair" water quality, and Ten
Mile Creek, C-23, C-24, and the North Fork of the St. Lucie River
were classified with "good" water quality by the EPA Water
Quality Index for rivers and streams. The St. Lucie Estuary was
classified with "fair" water quality by the Florida Trophic State
Index for lakes and estuaries. Special studies in the area in
1981 in a canal leading from a sewage treatment plant to the St.
Lucie River and in 1985 in Ten Mile Creek near a citrus
processing facility indicated bioassays which were toxic.
Appendix 26 summarizes the results.
b. South Indian River Basin (Sebastian Inlet to
Stuart, F1 ori da )
Water quality within the South Indian River Basin (Figure 7-13)
was generally better south of Ft. Pierce. The main source of
pollution in this area was urban runoff from Stuart and from
other waterfront developments. Near Ft. Pierce, the lagoon
receives water from the C-25 Canal which drains citrus groves,
pasture land, and urban areas. Pollution problems, mainly in the
form of increased nutrients, are encountered in the northern part
of the basin (near the City of Vero Beach) due to several sewage
January 9, 1990 7- 54 COASTAL
SOUTHEAST FLORIDA BASIN CUPPER)
~ -------i
~ . ~
` PORT ST. CUCIE
i
i~ FIVEMILE •::~FT. PIERCE
? t CR_ ,,.:.=~,~o
~ . .ri. .
~ ~ ~
~ TENMILE CR.
~
~i TNE SAVANNAS
~ _ \ ir.rr
J ~L7
\
'i~' us~ T. LUCIE
- STUARY
; n3J~c~2~2 ,
~ ~ c :
: ~.o
~
`
~ c~
~
rr.o ST. LUCIE
CANAL
LAKE ~::---:.:•.L-8 ~OXANATCNE~~
1 .-_CANA~ RIVER BASIN 7~• ~ s-0
OKEECHOBEE 14•0
~
, . . .
. • ~
j /~i
\ z a.o ' o.ss
~
• :
\ OKEECH08EE WEST " WFST S0°
~ ~~l RIM , PALM BEACH PALM ~ WEST
` ~ ~~CANA~ CANAL BEACH ~E.~° ~BEACN
~ - ••?a.~ •.zo. ~~.TH ~
~
i ~ ILLSBOF2 (13rr~~;.
~ . - • . c
` CANAL ' :
1 )j,p ~s: ~f: qr;:; '~.a7
i :,?3a :.C~ .
2Zo 70a ~p •s'
~=::~~voRrH ~ aoca
' EW RIVER ~ RA70N
. :MCANAL '.'`:CANA~ ..'a~.o %'3~ . a.o
~ :
~
1 Iqo ` ;j.. :
x HI~LS80R~ ~ ` ~ =
~ " •'zzo CANAL ~ :..z~.o-~--:
.
- =.'.zzo
AVERAG'c OVERALL UATER OUALITY
1970-1985 STORET OATA
RIVERS/STREAMS ~AKES/ESTUARIES
~ ~aoo ~ 1~~
FAIR . 3 f 1 d .
. -''J
. . : j
' f'UOR ~ .
. .....__:.~'1
UNKNOU~J 1
J
Map Locatioii
EPR UATER f~OFtIOA TROPHIC
QUALITY INOEI( AN~ STAfE INOE7(
Figure 7-12. Water Quality in the Southeast Florida Basin
(Hand et al., 1986).
7 - 55
INDIAN RIV~R SOUTH
r - - - - ~
( ~
1 {
I ~
1 ~
~ t
~ `
~ ~
~ ,
~
~ ~
~ \
~ ` - - SEBASTIAN
~ SEBASTIAr~ / IN~ET
` - - - - - ~CR _ NOQTH ~~:oo
~ PRONG -
~ -
~ SEBASTIAN CR.
~ SOUTH PRONG:.:: s
.
~
~ aruiNric
` - } ~ 03080203 ~ERO OCEAN
1
~ BEACH
~
(
___t
~ INDIAN '
~ RIVER
~
.
~
' ~ ~ oae . -
~ BELCNER . -
Fla. . ~ CANAL
- ~ - - - ti-g FT. -
~ PIERCE
Hap Location ~ INLET
~
`
- \ ~
,~vEanGE uvEaa~~ uatEa QUALITY
1970-1985 S70RET OATA •
RLV£RS/S7REAt'!S ~ LAKES/ESTUARIES IN~IAN
RIVER ~
+-~-r-~ ~ooo
. _I
~l;
FAIR - -
STl7AR7 t~ ~
.a.3~~1s..i~:.,C:'~3tY ~.n:^ f
~x~ POOR ~ z:..:-"` ST _ I
~>:.~..s; STP
. IUCIE (
uracnour:C ~ INLE i
EPA IJATER FI.ORIOA ~kOPHIC y~ I
OUALI7Y It1DcX ANO ~TqTE It1DEX ~
~
Figure 7-13. ~nlater Quality in the South Indian River Basin
(Hand et al., 1986).
7 - 56
treatment plants, urban runoff and poor flushing.
The lagoon within this basin was classified with "fair" water
quality at two (2) locations north of Vero Beach and just south
of the Ft. Pierce Inlet according to the Florida Trophic State
Index for lakes and estuaries. The Ft. Pierce area was very
close to good water quality due to flushing from the inlet. About
halfway between the Ft. Pierce Inlet and St. Lucie Inlet, the
lagoon was classified with "good" water quality. Appendix 27
summarizes the results.
As seen from Appendix 27 special studies in the area in 1980 and
1985 indicated bioassays which were non-toxic near the sewage
treatment plant at the Ft. Pierce Inlet. However, more recent
testing indicates toxicity to some indicator marine organisms and
modification of effluent disposal is under consideration.
3. Indian River Lagoon Joint Reconnaissance Report (SJRWMD
and SFWMD, 1987)
This report included a review of literature and data bases and
found a deterioration of water and sediment quality near
population centers as the result of the intensification and
expansion of human activities, as well as a lack of understanding
of natural processes as they influence water and sediments.
Freshwater inflows, sedimentation, nutrient fluxes, biotic uptake
and releases of materials, and the disposal of manufactured
substances have major impacts on lagoon quality. The following
summaries either apply lagoon-wide or to specific segments of the
1 agoon.
a. Lagoon-Wide Application
The occurrence of "muck", fine-grained, silt and clay-enriched
organic sediment during the last twenty (20) years seems to be
largely confined in harbors and navigational channels. Muck
contributes to turbidity and reduced light penetration in the
water column. Recent studies indicate that a large portion is
derived from the runoff of surface soil due to poor soil
retention practices. Analysis of this sediment shows increasing
levels of pollutant metals.
Phytoplankton production rates in the lagoon were higher than
other primary production components (seagrass, associated
epiphytic flora, and benthic microalgae), which suggests that
nutrient enrichment may result in the shift from benthic plants
to phytoplankton.
Freshwater discharges may lead to ecosystem changes, such as:
* dilution of saline water;
* water temperature modification;
* delivery of authochthonous (indigenous) materials;
* alteration of osmoregulation in organisms;
January 9, 1990 7- 57 COASTAL
* impact on horizontal or vertical movement of organisms;
* inhibition or stimulation of seasonal migration; and
* impacts on distributions or populations of nuisance
organisms;
b. South Central Segment (Sebastian Inlet to Ft.
Pierce Inlet)
It has been suggested that reduced salinities, increased
temperatures, and reduced light levels (caused by tannins from
freshwater runoff) regulate seagrass productivity, as seen in
the reduction in seagrass beds near Vero Beach.
c. South Segment (Ft. Pierce Inlet to Jupiter Inlet)
Most long-term monitoring has been conducted in the St. Lucie
River sub-basins. Appendix 28, Figure 7-14 and Figure 7-15
include results and study areas of an on-going program by the
South Florida Water Management District.
Total nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations were comparably high
in Canals C-23 and C-24 which discharge to the North Fork of the
St. Lucie River. Mean annual nutrient concentrations in C-25,
however, appeared to be as low as concentrations in other parts
of the lagoon in the north central segment. There has been a
gradual decrease in total nitrogen levels from 1980 to 1985 at
all three (3) canals. No such improvement has occurred for total
phosphorus. The decrease in total nitrogen was attributed to a
reduction in the organic nitrogen fraction. Seasonal means
(Figure 7-14) indicated that the highest nutrient levels occurred
during the fall in all the canals.
Dissolved oxygen levels were low in these canals relative to
most sites in the north and north central segments of the lagoon.
Season means (Figure 7-15) showed depressed levels during the
summer and fall, between 5.0 and 6.0 mg/1 in C-23 and less than
4.0 mg/1 in C-24 and C-25.
4. Summary of Water Quality Characteristics
Appendices 29 and 30 provide summaries of the major water quality
characteristics in the lagoon and river watersheds based on the
data presented in the three reports described above. This
information is used to discuss point and non-point source
pollution problems within these watersheds.
D. Summary of Existing Rnown Point and Nonpoint Source
Pollution Problems
This section provides a concise outline of known point and
nonpoint sources which contribute to pollution in coastal area
waters.
January 9, 1990 7- 58 COASTAL
~
~
.,A1
~ /
SOUTH INDIAN RIVER LAGOON SYSTEM
rJ
- .
~ ~•o..~ q.a
' o N
~
i `
t
s
c
~
s
ro•• ~
sT ~unt
'o
s
,~'I.~ ~ H~SO+~I r[~rf
i
c. o I/~o - H~1
' ~ ' ~ COMC[~T~~iqM71~C/LI
?w I ~ iOt~l w~iw06C•
_ ~OtK MOi~wO~vi
I
..~I 1 n +i I
r awr
+•r '
siL~Rf
w l«~. rr. ~
. _
u
Ne
l
Figure 7-14. Nutrient Levels in the South Segment of the
Indian River Lagoon (SJRWMD & SFWMD, 1987).
7 - 59
. '
~~~1~..,
~ .
_
SOUTN INOIAN f21VER LAGOON SYSTEM
~
' ~ t_
~ .,,e_~~~.~
N
i ~
f ~
c
i
ront i
ai ~ucK o
` x.se..a .K..s
r. ~
. ~~~o - ~~~f
~ • ~ ~ CO~Ur~ur~~ Iti~ll
~ ~ O~ffOlKO O[~KM
1
~ 1
lr• i
i
`
t t1Wrtf
a~~ - '
N~
I
~
I
I
I
I
l
~
Figure 7-15. Oxygen Levels in the South Segment of the Indian
River Lagoon (SJRWMD & SFWMD, 1987).
7 - 60
1. Known Point Source Pollution Problems
Point source pollution comes from any discernible, confined, and
discrete conveyance from which pollutants are discharged. Table
7-2 below lists the numerous point sources in St. Lucie County
which contribute to the major pollution problems that were
identified above in Section 6.C in the Indian River Lagoon and
St. Lucie River coastal area waters.
Table 7-2. Point sources which contribute to pollution
problems in coastal area waters.
Basin Point Sources Problem
Indian Closed marinas D. O. , nutrients, f. coli
River Sewage treatment plants nutrients f. coli
Lagoon Drainage canals nutrients~, f. coli, muck
Residential canals2 nutrients 1, D. O.
Moores Creek f. coli
Canal C-25 D. 0. , nutrients 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
St. Five Mile Creek citrus runoff, pesticides
Lucie Ten Mile Creek runoff
River Canal C-23 nutrients4, D.O.
Canal C- 2 4 nutri ents 4, D. O.
NFSLR urban/construction runoff
1Particularly inorganic forms
2Includes developed and undeveloped
3Tota1 phosphorus
4Total phosphorus and total nitrogen
D. O. : di s s ol ved oxygen
f. coli: fecal coliform bacteria
NFSLR: North Fork of the St. Lucie River
Source: St. Lucie County Communi.ty Development Department,
1989
2. Rnown Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems
Most nonpoint source pollution problems stem from stormwater
runoff and are, therefore, dependent on land use. Both coastal
and inland land uses contribute to the nonpoint source pollution
problems in the coastal area waters of the County. Since canals,
rivers and creeks are stormwater conveyances for the land
surrounding them, the pollution problems associated with them (as
seen in Table 7-2) are the same pollution problems associated
with known nonpoint sources. Table 7-3 below associates
January 9, 1990 7- 61 COASTAL
Table 7-3. Predominant land uses along inland and coastal
area water bodies which impact nonpoint source
pollution in coastal area waters.
Discharge Area Water Body Land Use
Basin
Indian Coastal Developed shoreline residential
River Western shoreline residential
Lagoon Eastern shoreline residential
Developed canal residential
Undeveloped canal vacant
Inland Canal C-25 citrus/pasture
Moores Creek urban
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
St. Coastal NFSLR residential
Lucie
River Inland Five Mile Creek residential
Ten Mile Creek citrus/pasture
Canal C-23 citrus/pasture
Canal C-24 citrus/pasture
NFSLR: North Fork of the St. Lucie River
Source: St. Lucie County Community Development Department,
1989
predominant land uses along these coastal and inland water bodies
which contribute to nonpoint source pollution problems in coastal
area waters.
E. Identification of Actions Needed to Remedy Existing
Pollution Problems
Review of the above sections on water quality in coastal area
waters indicates numerous pollution problems both in the Indian
River Lagoon and St. Lucie River. Although there are several
types of point sources which contribute to these problems, the
impact of nonpoint source pollutants is far greater. Improvement
in coastal area waters can probably be best effeated by focusing
on a reduction in nonpoint source pollutants. Nevertheless,
point sources should not be ignored and will also be discussed
bel ow.
1. Nonpoint Sources
To effect a reduction in nonpoint source pollutants to coastal
January 9, 1990 7- 62 COASTAL
area waters, two primary areas need to be addressed: 1)
shoreline areas; and 2) inland areas.
a. Shoreline Areas
The above analysis suggests that shoreline development on both
sides of the lagoon contribute nutrients to coastal waters,
although the problem appears to be worse along the western shore.
One possible action to reduce this impact would be the
implementation of a natural shoreline stabilization project that
includes shoreline revegetation which will not only aid in
reducing nutrients but also provide protection against erosion.
Another possible action would be the application of the
appropriate shoreline policies recommended in the Interim Indian
River Lagoon Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan
(SJRWMD and SFWMD, August, 1988). A third possible action would
be the continued support of the St. Lucie County Mosquito Control
District in their efforts to improve tidal flushing to the
impoundments within the County. A fourth possible action would
be increased efforts to control illegal dumping, make proper
disposal more convenient, clean up illegally dumped trash, and
require homeowners to dispose of grass clippings and yard trash
and debris properly.
b. Inland Areas
The most prominent action that can be taken to effect a reduction
i~n nonpoint source pollution from inland areas is the continued
support and appropriate implementation of SWIM program
initiatives. At present the County is party to a Cooperative
Agreement with the South Florida Water Management District which
is considered a demonstration project under the Indian River
Lagoon SWIM plan. The agreement is directed to identifying
possible point and nonpoint pollution sources to Five Mile Creek,
Ten Mile Creek, Moores Creek, and the Virginia Avenue Canal,
developing possible solutions for each conveyance to improve
water quality from potential sources, and evaluating the
feasibility of the possible solutions. The above phase is in
progress by a consultant for the County which has been funded by
the District. A second phase of the agreement involves
implementation of at least one feasible solution. The County
should continue to assist the District in this phase to the
greatest extent possible. Possible improvement mechanisms which
result from tliis proj ect should be considered for the other
feasible solutions and incorporated into land development
regulations to address new development.
Another possible action by the County would be the development
and adoption of a stormwater management ordinance based on the
model ordinance developed by the South Florida Water Management
District. Better soil retention practices should be included in
this action since increased suspended sediments to the lagoon
have been linked to the buildup of muck bottoms and increased
turbidity. Increased efforts to control illegal dumping into
January 9, 1990 7- 63 COASTAL
drainage facilities could be addressed in the ordinance.
A third possible action would be support of a South Florida Water
Management District project with appropriate assistance which
evaluates the feasibility of a water conservation reservoir in
the western parts of the County. One purpose of such a reservoir
would be the reduction of freshwater flows to the St. Lucie River
and Indian River Lagoon, which in turn would reduce nonpoint
source pollutants to these waters. Another aspect of this type
of project could be the feasibility of modifying canals to divert
all or part of their flow into wetlands.
A fourth possible action would be to increase the implementation
of urban and agricultural best management practices (BMPs). Some
agricultural BMPs include fencing live stock out of defined water
courses (drainage ways, sloughs, etc. preventing overgrazing of
pastures, rotating pastures, and leaving buffer strips of
undisturbed vegetation between pastures and water courses. Other
more complex and costly practices for both urban and agricultural
areas could be the construction of runoff detention facilities at
areas of most intense use or retrofitting existing drainage
canals with retention facilities.
2. Point Sources
The major point source problems are sewage treatment plants and
closed marinas in the lagoon and citrus processing plants
discharging to the river. The County should support the
identification of alternative methods for disposal of effluents
from sewage treatment plants and the removal of surface water
discharges that have documented water quality problems. New
surface water outfalls should be located carefully to prevent
contamination of approved shellfish harvesting areas and Class II
waters. The County should also support the enforcement of
standards and restrictions on marina discharges or runoff related
to sewage pumpout facilities and boat maintenance practices.
Regarding the SWIM demonstration project discussed above, the
County should support identified solutions to any bacterial and
nutrient problems associated with the citrus processing plants.
F. Assessment of the Impact of Development and Redevelopment
Including Facilities Proposed in the Future Land Use Element
on Water Quality, Circulation Patterns, and Accumulation of
Contaminants in Sediments.
1. Impact of Proposed Land Uses and Facilities on Coastal
Waters
a. New Point Sources
For the most part, residential land uses are proposed on the
Future Land Use Map within the coastal.area. There is some
Industrial, Commercial, and Mixed Use Development land uses
January 9, 1990 7- 64 COASTAL
proposed for portions of the coastal area north of Ft. Pierce
which is expected to be marine related. Most of the
residential development within the mainland coastal area will be
single family. Proposed residential land uses on Hutchinson
Island will be a mix of single and multifamily. The General
Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, Potable Water, and Natural
Ground Water Aquifer Recharge Element (Infrastructure Element)
does not propose any new facilities within the coastal area which
discharge directly to coastal waters. Possible impacts from this
development are related to marina sites, sewage treatment plant
effluents, and stormwater treatment conveyances.
In Section 9, Public Access, an increase in demand for marina
slips has been projected. It is obvious from the water quality
data above ( Secti on 6. C) that cl os ed mari nas are maj or
contributors to estuarine pollution and, therefore, should not be
permitted. Al1 marinas, however, are potential point sources of
pollution via petroleum spills, improper disposal of sewage, and
sediment contamination by metals. Strict adherence to the marina
policies adopted as part of this element will reduce the risk of
marina pollution. A marina siting element should also be
prepared and adopted as part ot the Comprehensive Plan which
identifies siting and design criteria to reduce impacts on
coastal waters.
Sewage treatment plant effluents are potential point source
pollution sources and strict adherence to State rules is
necessary to reduce possible impacts, especially to the Class II
Waters and approved shellfish harvesting areas, aquatic
preserves, and Outstanding Florida Waters within the coastal
area. In the past, poor operating and maintenance, as well as
insufficient State enforcement personnel, has contributed to
pollution incidents, particularly on South Hutchinson Island. At
this time the County and residents on South Hutchinson Island are
considering the establishment of a tax district so that a central
treatment facility can be built and the effluents from the
package plants can be discontinued.
Stormwater management facilities are also potential point sources
of pollution to coastal waters especially when inadequately
operated and maintained. If new facilities function properly
most pollutants will be removed prior to discharge to coastal
waters .
b. New Nonpoint Sources
The major impact from development proposed on the Future Land Use
Map may be from nonpoint pollution sources. The impact from
coastal area development should be comparatively minimal with
improved stormwater management and shoreline stabilization,
relative to potential inland area impacts, since most of the
projected land use in the FLUE will occur within inland areas.
(The FLUE, Table 1-5, estimates that 17,936 residential acres,
2440 commercial acres, and 2255 industrial acres will be needed
January 9, 1990 7- 65 COASTAL
to meet projected development.) Additionally, the increase in
citrus acreage from 1966 to 1985 (see Water Use in the
Conservation Element) has been increasing at an even greater
rate over the last ten years (Agricultural Extension Agent,
personal communication, 1989). Without effective stormwater
water management systems for all development, increased loading
of nutrients, suspended solids, metals, pesticides and other
pollutants can be expected.
2. Circulation Patterns
This Comprehensive Plan does not propose any new facility that
would be expected to alter the circulation patterns within the
Indian River Lagoon. Maintenance dredging of the port basin,
inlet, or IntracoastaZ Waterway would probably have the most
impact on circulation. An additional bridge in the vicinity of
Walton Road would not be expected to utilize a causeway.
3. Contamination in Sediments
There are at least four areas that probably will continue to
contribute to the increase in sediment contamination seen in
coastal waters - residential, industrial, agricultural, and
marina development - unless effective point and non-point source
management initiatives are implemented. Marinas can add
hydrocarbons, metals, and sewage to surface waters; pesticides
and metals can come from the other areas.
G. Federal, State, Regional, and Local Regulatory Programs to
Reduce Estuarine Pollution
State pollution regulation is largely vested in the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) which regulates the
dredging and filling waters and wetlands under state
jurisdiction. Dredge and fill permitting is also carried out by
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation also regulates discharges of pollutants
into natural or artificial bodies of water, establishes and
enforces water quality standards, sets minimum treatment
requirements, issues permits for the operation of wastewater
treatment plants, administers construction grants for sewage
treatment plants, and regulates discharges of stormwater. A
special permit program can be used to obtain long-term permits
for dredging deep water ports.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the South
Florida Water Management District regulate the withdrawal,
diversion, storage, and consumption of water, with the water
management district responsible for most of the permitting and
operational aspects. The Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation certifies the siting of any power plants and must
consider the cooling water needs and environmental impacts of any
proposed power plant.
January 9, 1990 7- 66 COASTAL
The Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) is also
involved in controlling estuarine pollution through
responsibilities which include selling or leasing state owned
submerged lands that are not contrary to the public interest.
The proposed use of the conveyed or leased submerged land must
not interfere with the conservation of fish, marine life, or
wildlife, or other natural resources. Deeds or leases may
contain restrictions on dredging and filling.
The Florida Department of Natural Resources is the designated
lead agency in the Florida Coastal Pollutant Spill Contingency
Plan, with nine other departments and the Florida Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission (FGFWFC) on the state response team.
As part of this plan, the Department is also responsible for
certification of terminal facilities storing pollutants.
The Florida Department of Natural Resources is also responsible
for managing the aquatic preserves throughout the state. These
preserves are state-owned submerged lands which the state wishes
to maintain in an essentially natural condition. Special
requirements pertain to the sale or lease of state owned
submerged land within the aquatic preserves. Most of the Indian
River Lagoon in St. Lucie County has aquatic preserve status as
does the North Fork of the St. Lucie River south of Midway Road.
A management plan for each preserve within the County has been
prepared. The Florida Department of Natural Resources also
regulates exploration, drilling, and production of oil, gas, or
other petroleum products, including drilling in estuaries.
The Florida Department of Natural Resources is the chief land
purchasing agent and land manager for the state. The state,
through several land acquisition programs, often purchases
environmentally sensitive lands which are vital for estuarine
water quality.
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
(HRS) administers the mosquito control program. This program
sets limits on the types and amounts of oil and chemicals used to
control mosquitoes. Special exceptions to state dredge and fill
requirements are given to mosquito control projects. The program
also provides financial aid to counties or mosquito control
districts. The St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District is
responsible for managing approximately 94~ of the nearly 4,800
acres of mangrove swamps in the County. Management policy and
techniques include the installation of culverts and tidegates for
tidal matching and seasonal (winter) tidal exchange, excess
cross-flow pumping for water quality improvement and inverted
tide gates for improved impoundment circulation. The County
Public Health Unit, as part of HRS, administers septic tank
regulations and utility hook-ups and enforces the state plumbing
code.
The principle regional agency involved in controlling estuarine
pollution is the South Florida Water Management District. The
January 9, 1990 7- 67 COASTAL
District is responsible for major flood control and drainage
structures, thereby affecting the quantity and timing of much of
the fresh water delivered to the Indian River Lagoon and North
Fork of the St. Lucie River. The District is also responsible
for certain regulatory activities delegated from Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation. Chief among these is
stormwater permitting.
The South Florida Water Management District is also assigned ~
responsibility for regulating agricultural activities in wetlands
under the Warren Henderson Act of 1984. The District has a land
acquisition program called Save Our Rivers which allows the
District to purchase environmentally sensitive lands and by
preserving them, improve the quality of fresh water entering the
lagoon and North Fork of the St. Lucie River. The current five-
year land acquisition plan does not include lands in St. Lucie
County.
The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA), have some control
over land use and development through local comprehensive plan
reviews and the Development of Regional Impact (DRI) program.
Should the comprehensive regional policy plan call for stringent
controls of pollution, then the consistency requirements between
the regional and local plans would invoke strong local controls
of pollution. The DRI process can require reviews of large
development impacts on significant state and regional resources
such as aquatic preserves or Outstanding Florida Waters. The
impacts can be mitigated through conditions in the development
order issued by the local government. The TCRPC has appeal
rights if the council feels that the development order does not
adequately address the regional concerns.
The St. Lucie County Soil and Water Conservation District is a
countywide taxing district established by State law. The
District's purpose is to control soil erosion. Their erosion
prevention efforts assist in maintaining estuarine water quality
by reducing the sediment and nutrient loads of waters flowing
into the estuary.
St. Lucie County through its police power regulates numerous
activities which impact estuarine water quality. The County
regulates stormwater and drainage and mangrove alteration and
trimming, controls the disposal of domestic solid waste
including yard debris, regulates land use through zoning and
comprehensive planning, and enforces site planning and
subdivision requirements. Additionally, the purpose of the St.
Lucie River Code (Chapter 1-7.5, Article II) is to prevent
erosion and runoff into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River by
preserving shoreline vegetation.
January 9, 1990 7- 68 COASTAL
SECTION 7. BEACH AND DUNE SYSTEM
A. General Characteristics of the Beach and Dune System
St. Lucie County has approximately twenty-one (21) miles of
beachfront shoreline, six (6) miles on North Hutchinson Island
(or North Beach) and fifteen (15) miles on South Hutchinson
Island (or South Beach) (Coastal Zone Resources, Inc., 1985}.
North Beach and South Beach are separated from each other by the
Ft. Pierce Inlet. General characteristics of the beach and dune
system are provided below.
1. Beach
Coastal Zone Resources, Inc. (1985) reported that the width of
the beach berm (from the water's edge to the dune) ranges from
forty (40) to one-hundred and forty (140) feet, with seventy-five
(75) and eighty-five (85) foot averages on North Beach and South
Beach, respectively, although there are numerous exceptions.
Extreme conditions exist within the one (1) mile area immediately
south of the Ft. Pierce Inlet where there is no beach and dune
line due to erosion (FDNR, 1988). The average elevation of the
berm is two (2) to five (5) feet above mean high water (MHW).
2. Dunes
Coastal barrier dune systems generally consist of a series of
active dunes, sand ridges, troughs and flats which extend '
landward from the beach (Rimley-Horn, 1982). The dune system in
St. Lucie County, however, is considered atypical in that it is
characterized by a single primary dune in most areas. Most of
North Beach and south of the St. Lucie Power Plant on South Beach
also include landward overwash areas lacking defined secondary
dunes and ridges.
The widest and strongest dunes are found on North Beach probably
due to a supply of sand from littoral drift (Coastal Zone
Resources, Inc. 1985). Dune widths vary from about two hundred
(200) feet immediately north of the inlet to being nearly
nonexistent at the north county line, but most are between fifty
(50) and one hundred (100) feet. The dune on North Beach ranges
in height from ten (10) to (15) feet. As noted above, there is
no dune line immediately south of the inlet (FDNR, 1988). There
is a stronger dune south of this area which ranges in width from
twenty (20) to fifty (50) feet (Coastal Zone Resources, Inc.,
1985). Continuing south are several areas with no dune including
the St. Lucie Power Plant area which is subject to overwash.
From one (1) mile south of the inlet a low dune appears which
eventually reaches fifteen (15) feet near the south county line.
January 9, 1990 7- 69 COASTAL
B. Historical and Recent Trends in Erosion and Accretion
1. Historical Trends
The Ft. Pierce Inlet is an improved inlet with jetties which was
dredged in 1921. It plays a dominant role in the dynamics of the
County's beach system by interrupting longshore sediment
transport (littoral drift) with resulting accretion to the north
and erosion to the south (FDNR, 1988). Net longshore transport
has been estimated to be both 140,000 cubic yards per year (FDNR,
1987a) and 200,000 to 250,000 cubic yards per year (FDNR, 1988).
Appendix 31 provides a historical overview of these processes
from 1883 to 1987.
The area of accretion on North Beach resulted from the closing of
an inlet in Indian River County and the subsequent opening of the
Ft. Pierce Inlet. The greatest area of erosion occurred
immediately south of the Ft. Pierce Inlet (for approximately 3.6
miles) averaging 4.9 feet per year between 1928 and 1966 despite
beach renourishment and other local measures.
2. Recent Trends
Erosion and accretion during the last fifteen (15) years
generally follow historical trends (FDNR, 1988). Appendix 32
provides volumetric changes associated with these processes which
indicates net accretion on North Beach (544,000 cubic yards) and
net erosion on South Beach (325,000 cubic yards). An estimated
loss of 181,000 cubic yards from 1972 to 1987 for the County's
beaches as a whole during this period was also reported despite
the accretion north of the inlet and renourishment south of the
inlet.
Erosion rates of 16 feet/year along the Ft. Pierce beachfront and
1 foot/year for the rest of South Beach were reported in a 1981
University of West Florida study. The study also reported that
local officials and residents perceived the erosion problem in
these two areas to be moderate and severe, respectively, while
the opposite held true in professional studies. No problem was
perceived for North Beach.
It is believed that erosion problems are primarily effected by
severe storms and the inlet (FDNR, 1987a). More recent
information on trends, rates and amounts of erosion and accretion
along the coastline is provided below in Table 7-4.
C. Effects of Coastal and Shore Protection Structures on the
Beach and Dune System
As noted above, the Ft. Pi erce I nl et pl ays a domi nant rol e i n the
dynamics of the County's beach and dune system. The stone jetties
were constructed to stabilize the inlet (Coastal Zone Resources,
Inc., 1985), i.e., to protect it from wave and hydrodynamic
January 9, 1990 7- 70 COASTAL
Table 7-4. Erosion and accretion characteristics for specific
sections of St. Lucie County coastline.
Area Trend or Data
Recession - point along inlet's south shore 450 ft
- average for 3.2 mile reach 300 ft
Erosion - 3.2 mile reach south of inlet Critical
5. 6 ft/yr
Erosion - 2.37 mile reach south county 1.5 ft/yr
Accretion - north of inlet 2- 6.5 ft/yr
All but a 3.4 mile reach north of inlet/ Continual erosion
1.5 mile reach at middle of South Beach from 1972 to 1984
Estimated natural annual rate of erosion 2.9 ft/yr
from sea level rise and winter storms
Estimated man-induced average erosion rate 7.5 ft/yr
Estimated impact of inlet along southern 68~ of erosion
reach (6,800 feet)
Estimated impact of inlet along next 46% of erosion
southern reach (4,200 feet)
Overall estimated impact of inlet 2 miles
(southern reach)
Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1987a
forces. As a result, the normal longshore current created by
waves approaching at an angle to the shore is interrupted (FDNR,
1988). Since the current is responsible for sediment transport
along the coast, the estimated north to south net littoral
transport of 140,000 to 250,000 cubic yards per year is also
interrupted by the jetties.
Very little structural erosion control measures have been
implemented along the County's beachfront shoreline (FDNR,
1987a). Some rubble and bulkheads had been placed in the
critically eroded area south of the inlet but were covered over
by a 1970 nourishment project. The few sand fences that have
been used in other areas have not been successful in trapping
sand. Recently, two sand-filled container structures (backshore
sill) have been employed.
January 9, 1990 7- 71 COASTAL
D. Existing and Potential Beach Renourishment Areas
1. Existing
Early restoration efforts included a U.S. Army Corps of Engineer
(COE) 1970-1971 South Beach project adjacent to and south of the
inlet (FDNR, 1987a). The beach was widened an average of 342
feet over a 1.3 mile area with 718,000 cubic yards of sand
obtained from a borrow area 2,000 feet offshore in 20 feet of
water. Shoreline recession averaged 42 feet per year from
profile readjustment and erosion losses. This area also received
33,000 cubic yards of sand in 1974 and 74,000 cubic yards in 1978
from maintenance dredging operations. A 1980 renourishment
project was performed due to continued severe erosion. Since
then small quantities of beach material have been trucked to this
area to protect the boardwalk south of the jetty. Pre- and post-
construction surveys indicate an average annual loss of 49,000
cubic yards and, four years after the 1970 proj ect, 27°a of the
fill had been lost.
2. Potential
A Beach Restoration Management Plan has been prepared by the
Florida Department of Natural Resources (1987a). The pl.an
evaluated project areas in immediate need of erosion control
measures, sand source compatibility, and the economic
justification of the proposed projects. .
Two (2) erosion control projects were identified:
* Ft. Pierce Feeder Beach project (0. 76 miles ) from
marker R-35 to R-39; and
* Jensen Beach project (2.37 miles) from marker R-103 to
R-115).
The locations are shown on Figure 7-16. Both projects are
pending Florida Department of Natural Resources authorization as
of August 1, 1989. The Ft. Pierce proj ect includes renourishment
in an area deemed critically eroded and, although historical
erosion rates are considered low for the Jensen Beach project
(see Table 7-4 above), recent trends indicate accelerated erosion
(4 cubic yards per foot) along the primary dune.
Since the Ft. Pierce project area has to be periodically
renourished the management plan also identified a sand transfer
plant as an alternative which would provide a long-term solution
for continuous nourishment to South Beach. This was the only
aspect of the Ft. Pierce project which was authorized by Florida
Department of Natural Resources in the management plan.
January 9, 1990 7- 72 COASTAL
~
N-
w
~
n
m
~
~
rn
ER 70
(D rt
a' NORTfI /ORK !T. LUCI[ I11V[R FLOl11DA~t TUlIN~IK[
~ b
I-'•
^ lp
7d ~i
~ n fl1 70 311 713
O (D
u s ~
i sn ce
~ ~ F i. O.
~ R' PORi /SL WCIf PIERC ~ / V
v u~ (D
~i ~ ~ p ~ n ~o~ us ~ ~ Q-
~ O' ~
n c~u C~ - - - - - - - s n e o e ~
w o a INOIAN RIVEl1 ~ 2'
u. n / O AIA ~ ~ _
(D ~
rt ~ A U O
r W Q ~ R-I10 R-100 R-90 R_80 R-70 R-60 R-50 R-40 R-30 ~
O ui ~ R-20 R-10 / R-I
a ~
rt w HUTCNINlON ISLAND fT. PICRCf IMLET
F-'• ~
O
~
a , o ~ e kILCS
~ a ATLANTIC OCEAN sc~~c
d~
2 cD
~ ~
. N
cD
N ~
~
~
v
a
ST. LUC (~E COUNTY
E. Measures to Protect or Restore Beaches and Dunes
1. State
The Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) program administered
by the Florida Department of Natural Resources is the primary
state effort to protect the beach and dune system (Chapter 161,
Florida Statutes). In the fall of 1988, a new line for St. Lucie
County was adopted by the State which is adjacent to or east of
AlA within the unincorporated areas of Hutchinson Island. Any
construction seaward of the CCCL line must be permitted by the
State. Additionally, the State generally will not permit a
structure that would lie within a projected thirty (30) year
erosion line if seaward of the CCCL. The State also prohibits
driving on the beach and dunes and picking sea oats.
2. County
The are several County laws which apply to beach and dune
protection or restoration. One is the St. Lucie County Beach
Preservation Act (Chapter 61-2755, Laws of Florida), a special
act adopted by the State legislature to provide the County with a
beach restoration and preservation program. Preservation
includes erosion control, coastal flood control, regulation of
shoreline and beach use, and regulation of work and activities
likely to affect adversely the physical condition of the beach.
A second law is the Hutchinson Island Coastal Area Protection
Ordinance, adopted by the St. Lucie County~Environmental Control
Board (County Commission) in January, 1988, which established
policies and procedures for evaluating and minimizing the impacts
of development within the unincorporated areas of Hutchinson
Island. The ordinance only allows shoreline protection, beach
access, and other beach dependent or public uses between the mean
high water line and the western edge of the primary dune (or area
characterized by beach and dunelands in the Rimley-Horn, 1982,
report). Erosion control measures must not interfere with normal
littoral processes or sea turtle activities, or negatively impact
coastal resources. Additionally, the ordinance also requires
dune restoration as part of a development proposal when the
elevation of the existing dune is not one (1) foot greater than
the minimum required flood elevation or equal to the height of
the adjacent dune. At a minimum, a restored dune must be eight
(8) feet in height. Any dune landscaping must use native site
specific vegetation. The ordinance also prohibits motor vehicles
on the beach and dune system unless authorized by the State.
However, as noted earlier, the dune system is atypical in the
County; in places it is backed up by the coastal strand
ecological community rather then secondary dunes. Therefore
motor vehicles have caused erosion in many places not subject to
the ordinance.
Another ordinance is the County Coastal Construction Code which
requires buildings to be sited so as to not interfere with
January 9, 1990 7- 74 COASTAL
natural shoreline fluctuations and diminish storm buffering
capability and stability of the dune system.
3. Analysis
As erosion continues along most of the County's beachfront areas,
it would seem that a long term solution to the erosion problems
must be implemented, such as the feeder beach project, in order
for the above measures to be effective. Additionally, the
regulations against motor vehicles on the dune system needs to be
strengthened, as it is very difficult to discern the boundaries
of the primary dune and therefore hard to enforce the County law.
Additionally, erosion from vehicles behind the primary dune
impact natural dune rebuilding processes (see below) as well as
destroy unique coas~al habitat.
A related issue is expected sea level rise, which the EPA (1988)
estimates at 4.9 and 7.5 feet along the east coast of Florida
between 1980 and 2100. The historic rate in this area is 0.06 to
0.08 feet year. Under natural conditions, barrier islands
migrate landward as sand is transferred from oceanside to lagoon
side through overwash areas. Development requires efforts to
prevent this natural process and, in doing so, prevents the
sediment buildup of lagoon side marshes. Therefore, attempts to
buffer sea level rise may lead to higher water elevations along ~
the lagoon shoreline.
The State seems to be heading toward a statewide beach
nourishment program to protect beachfront structures from storm
induced and inlet caused erosion as well as forestall sea level
rise. The most serious problem the County may face may occur
when beach erosion begins to effect beachfront structures.
SECTION 8. NATURAL DISASTER PLANNING
This analysis of hurricane evacuation planning in St. Lucie
County is based on the Treasure Coast Region Hurricane Evacuation
Study, Update Report (TCRPC, 1988) and information obtained from
the St. Lucie County Office of Emergency Management. Projecting
population (at risk) and clearance times past 1990 was not deemed
prudent in the regional study due to inaccuracy of forecasting
population increases and roadway improvements beyond this point.
This reasoning is also deemed appropriate when projecting future
conditions (Section E. below) which will not go beyond 1995.
A. Hurricane Vulnerability Zone
The hurricane vulnerability zone is that area delineated by the
regional or local hurricane evacuation plan as requiring
evacuation. At a minimum, the zone shall include areas
requiring evacuation during a 100-year storm or Category 3 storm
January 9, 1990 7- 75 COASTAL
event. Section 3.D of this element described areas subject to
coastal flooding, otherwise known as the hurricane
vulnerability zone, and presented storm surge inundation maps for
the five (5) hurricane classifications in Appendix 18. This zone
is dependent on the potential height that storm surge can
achieve, the distance to which storm surge can penetrate inland
upon making landfall, and the number and distribution of
population within the area at risk. Appendix 33 presents the
estimated storm surge heights for St. Lucie County which range
from 4.6 feet to 14.7 feet depending on the location, track and
category of hurricane. Because of topography, a worst case
hurricane making landfall in the region would flood the barrier
island, but would not produce a significant storm surge west of
U.S. 1(as seen in the storm surge inundation maps).
B. Popul ati on at Ri s k
The population at risk was developed for levels of hurricane
intensity by relating storm surge, freshwater flooding, and wind
threats to the population and housing distributed within twenty-
nine (29) Evacuation Zones. Mobile and manufactured homes were
included in the estimated population at risk, as well as all
residents of the barrier island. The population recommended for
evacuation in St. Lucie County, based on 1990 Traffic Analysis
Zone population projections (1980 Census data and 1985 estimates
supplied by the County), is listed below.
* Category 1- 2 Hurri cane: 5 8, 7 2 8
* Category 3-5 Hurricane: 103,922
C. Analysis of Population Requiring Shelter and Shelter Spaces
Available
1. Destinations of Evacuating Population
Four (4) general evacuation destinations were identified in a
behavioral analysis (in order of decreasing use):
friends/relatives; out of County; public shelters; and
hotel/motel. Appendix 34 presents evacuating population by
destination and storm intensity. Public shelters would be used
by 17.4~ and 18.6~ of the evacuating population for Categories 1-
2 and Categories 3-5 hurricanes, respectively. Regarding
transportation, typical responses in a behavioral survey
indicated that persons evacuating their homes intended to leave
within two to six hours of perceiving personal risk and seventy-
eight (78) percent of available vehicles would be used for
transport to safer shelters.
2. Sheltering Inventory and Demand
The availability of public sheltering was based upon a listing of
confirmed shelters provided by the American Red Cross and St.
January 9, 1990 7- 76 COASTAL
Lucie County Office of Emergency Management (OEM). At the time
of the regional study, there had been eleven (11) primary
shelters (school facilities) and three (3) auxiliary shelters
(facilities provided by churches and other organizations) in St.
Lucie County with a total capacity of 14,394 spaces, based on the
recommended forty (40) square feet per person per space.
Appendix 35 provides shelter availability versus demand at the
recommended spacing, as well as at the less preferred but
acceptable twenty (20) square feet per person per space in cases
of extreme need or urgency. Currently, at the recommended
spacing, there is a net capacity of 4,192 spaces for the expected
demand of 10,202 from Categories 1-2 hurricanes and a net
deficit of 4,945 spaces for the expected demand of 19,339 from
Categories 3-5 hurricanes. However, at the lower spacing, there
would be a net capacity of 18,586 and 9,449 for Categories 1-2
and 3-5 hurricanes, respectively.
Since the above analysis was conducted, one (1) auxiliary shelter
with three hundred (300) spaces has been deleted from the list by
the OEM due to the liabilities associated with private shelters.
Therefore, the actual number of shelter spaces available is
14,094 at the recommended spacing and the excess capacity
referenced above would be sliqhtly less. Moreover, projected
deficit of shelter spaces would be slightly greater.
New schools and the National Guard Armory were inspected by the
OEM and found to be lacking design features needed for use as a
. public shelter. These included possible roof failure from rain
surcharge, window glass exposure, and inadequate sanitary
facilities.
D. Evacuation Constraints
1. Evacuation Times
Clearance times, i.e., the time it takes for all evacuating
vehicles to clear the evacuation network, were produced for both
parallel and perpendicular hurricane tracks. Response time is
how rapidly the population at risk will respond to an evacuation
advisory and enter the roadway network. The regional study used
typical slow (9 hour), medium (6 hour), and rapid (4 hour)
response times in the analysis. Appendix 36 summarizes the
clearance times for various storm scenarios which ranged from a
1 ow o f 7. 2 5 hours to a hi gh o f 2 2. 5 hours . The hi gh 2 2. 5 hours
can be reduced to 16.25 hours if the northbound Florida Turnpike
traffic uses three of the four lanes out of the Southeast Florida
and Treasure Coast Region instead of the normal two of four
lanes.
2. Evacuation Network and Critical Links
The County~s evacuation road network includes the major north-
south and east-west arterials, as well as roads that would be
January 9, 1990 7- 77 COASTAL
used to gain access to the major arterials. There are seventy-
one (71) evacuation road network links in St. Lucie County. The
Jensen Beach Bridge in Martin County is also a network link which
would be used by a small portion of the population south of the
St. Lucie Power Plant--approximately 1/3 of the evacuees from the
southernmost Evacuation Zone, i. e, 609 people. In general, each
link is one segment of a road. The following roadway segments
with the highest volume to capacity ratios were identified as
critical links, listed in the order of severity:
1. Port St. Lucie Boulevard at Florida Turnpike;
2. Port St. Lucie Boulevard at U. S. 1 intersection;
3. Florida Turnpike north of Port St. Lucie Boulevard
4. Prima Vista Boulevard and Airoso Boulevard;
5. Seaway Causeway and U. S. 1 intersection;
6. Airoso Boulevard at Port St. Lucie Boulevard intersection;
7. State Road AlA south of Seaway Causeway;
8. I-95 north of Midway Road (and on-ramps);
9. North Beach Causeway; and
10. Midway Road.
These links control the flow of evacuation traffic and are key
areas for special control.
Other critical transportation links identified by the OEM include
the bridge approaches for both North Bridge and South Bridge.
They are subj ect to early flooding, five ( 5) to eight ( 8) hours
before the peak of the storm surge, due to the funnel effect of
the inlet. Jensen Beach Bridge is a lesser problem since it is
further from an inlet and flooding would not occur as soon as at
the other bridges. The OEM may issue an evacuation order for the
barrier island twelve (12) hours earlier than for the mainland
depending on storm and tide conditions.
3. Other Evacuation Concerns
The OEM has identified two (2) other concerns regarding
evacuation. One concern is the potential for wind blown trees to
block roadways. Many sections of State Road AlA are extremely
vulnerable to such blockage.
The other concern is for elderly, handicapped and medical
patients. Westwood High School with a capacity of 875 persons
has been designated a special medical facility for evacuation of
these special needs groups. It will be staffed with the
appropriate medical service personnel and will be available on a
first come first serve basis. Persons bedridden or hospitalized
must seek admittance to a hospital through their doctor. As of
November, 1988, only Lawnwood Medical Center in Ft. Pierce was
accepting evacuation patients in this manner, and continuation of
this service is not assured.
January 9, 1990 7- 78 COASTAL
E. Future Situation
As seen above the projected 1990 population at risk for
Categories 1-2 and 3-5 hurricanes is 58, 728 and 103, 922,
respectively, which represents 36~ and 63% of the regional
study' s proj ected population of 164, 7 i 0. Assuming these
percentages remain the same, future population at risk is
presented in Table 7-5 below for 1995 based on the population
projection in the Future Land Use Element (186,200). As noted
above in the introduction to Section 8, projecting population
past 1995 is not deemed prudent due to inaccuracy of forecasting
population increases.
Table 7-5. Projected population at risk in St. Lucie County
based on projected future land use population and
percentages of population requiring evacuation.
Storm Event 19901 1995
Category 1-2a 58, 728 67, 032
~ategory 3-Sb 103, 922 117, 306
From Appendix 34.
aProjections are based on 36% of projected population.
bProjections are based on 63% of projected population.
Source: St. Lucie County Community Development Department,
1989
As noted above in Section 8. C, 17. 4~ and 18. 6% of the population
at risk would seek public shelters for Categories 1-2 and
Categories 3-5 hurricanes, respectively. Table 7-6 below
presents the projected future demand on public shelters based on
these percentages and the projected population at risk in Table
7-5.
Table 7-7 below presents the projected net capacity of public
shelter spaces in St. Lucie County based on the spacing ratio of
40 square feet/person/space, the corrected 1990 net capacity of
14, 094 (see Section 8. C. 2), and the projected public shelter
demand (Table 7-6). Greater efforts to provide additional
shelter space shall include the incorporation of shelter
designs in new publicly owned buildings and a requirement for
new residential development in areas subject to coastal
flooding to provide for some shelter space.
F. Measures to Reduce Evacuation Times
Of the ten (10) critical links identified in Section 8.D.2 above,
January 9, 1990 7- 79 COASTAL
Table 7-6. Projected 1995 demand for public shelters in St.
Lucie County.
Storm~Event 19901 1995
Category 1-2a 10, 202 11, 664
Category 3-5b 19, 339 21, 819
1From Appendix 35.
aProj ecti ons are bas ed on 17. 4% of popul ati on at ri s k
requiring public shelters.
bProj ecti ons are bas ed on 18. 6~ o f popul ati on at ri s k
requiring public shelters.
Source: St. Lucie County Community Development Department,
1989
Table 7-7. Proj~ected public shelter net capacity in St. Lucie
County for 1995.
1990 1995
Hurricane Capacityl Demand2 Net Capacity
Category 1-2 14, 094 11, 664 +2, 430
Category 3-5 14, 094 21, 819 -7, 725
1Corrected 1990 net capacity of available shelter space (Section
8. C. 2 ) .
2From Table 7-6.
Source: St. Lucie County Community Development Department,
1989
five (5) are identified in the County's approved 5-year Traffic
Improvement Plan (TIP) or have already been improved. Port St.
Lucie Boulevard will be 6-laned from U.S. 1 to the Florida
Turnpike (FY 92-93). The intersection of U. S. 1 and Port St.
Lucie Boulevard was improved last year to its maximum
configuration. Prima Vista Boulevard will be 5-laned from U.S. 1
to Airoso Boulevard (FY 89-90). The intersection of Prima Vista
Boulevard and Airoso Boulevard has already been improved. The
intersection at Airoso Boulevard and Port St. Lucie Boulevard
January 9, 1990 7- 80 COASTAL
will be improved (FY 92-93). Midway Road will be 4-laned from
U. S. 1 to I-95 by the year 1995. Additionally, an interchange
justification report has been completed for I-95 and St. Lucie
Boulevard (Airport Road) and right-of-way acquisition for the 4-
1 ani ng of St. Luci e Boul evard i s al s o i n the TI P.
For 2015, all of the critical links have been identified in the
needs analysis of the Traffic Circulation Element, as well as an
additional bridge over the Indian River Lagoon.
Hurricane clearance time for the worst case scenario is 22.5
hours (or 16.25 hours if 3 of 4 turnpike lanes are used for
northbound traffic) as seen Section 8.D.1. Without implementing
measures to reduce clearance time, it will continue to increase
as the population increases.
Over time each of the improvements noted in the 5-year TIP above
could effect the maintenance or reduction in hurricane
clearance time. Unfortunately, there are no estimates of how
much clearance time will be improved by each project. However, a
revised estimate of maximum hurricane evacuation time will take
into account these improvements and be prepared by December 31,
1990 as set out in Policy 7.2. 3.8 of this element.
Other more speculative improvements for maintaining or reducing
clearance time could include elevating the approaches to the
North Bridge and South Bridge causeways to reduce flooding and
allow quicker crossings and removing obstructions such as
Australian pines from evacuation routes to reduce traffic delays.
The former could be done in phases each time the approaches were
widened or repaved.
An additional improvement which is also speculative at this point
in time is a new bridge in the vicinity of Walton Road which
could also help maintain or reduce clearance time. However, due
to fiscal constraints, such as the prohibition of federal and
state funds for infrastructure in coastal barrier resource
units (see Section 10.C), it is probable that the County can
only undertake a study to determine the feasibility and
location of an additional bridge. Such a study should include
the determination of economic, environmental impact, and
justification statements.
G. Post-Disaster Planning Concerns And Coastal High Hazard
Areas
Following a major natural disaster such as a hurricane there is
a period of cleanup and rebuilding. The typical reaction by a
community is to rebuild to prestorm conditions which may be
inappropriate and result in repeated damage to the same
structures. The vulnerability of certain areas to damage by
hurricanes or other storms cannot be ignored and should be
considered when making land use decisions.
January 9, 1990 7- 81 COASTAL
1. Coastal High Hazard Areas
The area projected to experience the most severe hurricane-
related damage is the coastal high hazard area which includes all
areas seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL),
Ft. Pierce Inlet, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
designated V Zones. The area increased considerably when the
CCCL was reset by the State in September, 1988. In most places
the line was moved west from 80' to 120' or 150' to 170',
although there were several places where it moved from 190' to
240'. On Hutchinson Island, the V Zones are all seaward of the
CCCL. Most of the western 1500 to 3000 feet of the Indian River
Lagoon south of Ft. Pierce lies within the V Zones as does one
small area on the western side of the St. Lucie River near the
South County Line.
a. Exi s ti ng Condi ti ons
An inventory of public facilities within the coastal high hazard
area was made by reviewing the 1988 control line maps and field
verification. Public facilities on North Hutchinson Island
include:
* State Road AlA at three locations (totaling 6,150
f eet ) ;
* FPL overhead transmission lines (6,200 feet);
* public water mains (3, 300 feet);
* sewer lines (2, 400 feet);
* dune crossings in Pepper Park (4);
* dune crossings (2) and a shower and restroom in the Ft.
Pierce Inlet State Recreational Area; and
* North Jetty.
Public facilities on South Hutchinson Island within the coastal
high hazard area include:
* dune crossings at the Middle Cove Access (1);
* dune crossing at Normandy Beach (1);
* dune crossing at Waveland Beach (2); and
* cooling water intake and discharge structures at the
St. Lucie Power Plant.
Additionally, there are 7,100 feet of roadway, water mains and
sewer lines along State Road AlA and the south jetty within Ft.
Pierce. Although not in the coastal high hazard area, the Ft.
Pierce Utility Authority's ground storage and repump drinking
water system and the County Fire Station, south of the St. Lucie
Power Plant, are vulnerable to storm damage from flooding.
Technically it is possible to relocate some of the infrastructure
further west. On North Hutchinson Island, however, condominiums,
an R/V park, and a sewage treatment plant occupy 3,000 feet of
the necessary right-of-way. Additionally, relocation costs would
be hi gh.
January 9, 1990 7- 82 COASTAL
Private structures within the coastal high hazard area were also
inventoried. Those on North Hutchinson Island include:
* single family residences (7);
* low rise apartments (4);
* high rise condominiums (5); and
* a restaurant (1).
Private structures on South Hutchinson Island include:
* 1 ow ri s e mul ti f ami 1 y bui 1 di ngs ( 13
* hi gh ri s e mul ti f ami 1 y bui 1 di ngs ( 3 2);
* restaurants (2); and
* hotels /motels ( 2 ) .
There are no public or private structures within the coastal high
hazard areas along the western side of the Indian River Lagoon or
St. Lucie River, since these areas basically do not extend
landward of the shorelines.
b. Proj ected Conditions
Although the Future Land Use Plan proposes residential land use
within most of the privately owned coastal high hazard area, the
intensity of use may be limited because of the coastal
construction control line. Additionally, the only public
facilities proposed in this Comprehensive Plan are public access,
recreational facilities, and beach restoration.
2. Post-Disaster Redevelopment Alternatives
Of particular concern regarding potential storm damage is the
area south of the St. Lucie Power Plant where there are many high
rise condominiums. As seen from Hurricane David in 1979,
northeasters, and the Thanksgiving Day Storm in 1984, severe
damage has occurred in this area (FDNR, 1987a). The net average
erosion from the Thanksgiving Day Storm itself was 3.5 cubic
yards/foot and 18 emergency permits for St. Lucie County had to
be issued. Unless this area is renourished or coastal or shore
protection structures are constructed, the potential for
structural damage from severe storms is high.
One way to avoid a recurrence of storm damaged structures within
the coastal high hazard area would the establishment of a damage
threshold above which reconstruction in the same location would
not be permitted. Current State law considers repair or
rebuilding in the same location or a more landward relocation on
a case-by-case basis (Chapter 161.053, Florida Statutes). One
established standard in the National Flood Insurance Program that
could be used is 50~ of the structures value.
Another way would be the acquisition of damaged structures but, •
even if this were limited to those that were severely damaged, it
January 9, 1990 7- 83 COASTAL
would be expensive. For example, the total property value within
the proposed Jensen Beach renourishment project area is
$363, 369, 000, of which $335, 829, 000, or 92~, is structure value
(FDNR, 1987a).
The roads, causeways, and bridges near the Ft. Pierce Inlet are
vulnerable to storm surge and flooding. Structural damage to the
bridges from storm-tossed debris is possible, but washout of
roads and/or causeways is more likely. Loss of these critical
links, even temporarily, would present an extreme hardship on the
ability of barrier island residents to evacuate. Raising
elevations of the causeways and roads during any planned
improvements is one alternative to avoid this hazard.
SECTION 9. PUBLIC ACCESS
This section provides an inventory and analysis of the existing
and projected public facilities that provide access to the beach,
Indian River Lagoon, and North Fork of the St. Lucie River.
A. Inventory of Existing Facilities
1. Public Access Facilities
Appendix 37 lists the public facilities on Hutchinson Island
which provide access to the beach or lagoon shoreline along with
features of each facility. Their locations are shown on Figure
7-17. There are twenty (20) beach and seven (7) lagoon access
points - some provide access to both areas for a total of twenty-
three (23) facilities. Four regional facilities range in size
from 250 to 958 acres, two of which are undeveloped and under
development. Six of the seven community parks range in size from
6 to 52 acres, the seventh which is undeveloped contains 144
acres. Most of the twelve neighborhood and pocket parks range in
size from less than an acre to 4 acres; one other contains 14
acres. As seen in Appendix 37, nine of the facilities are
provided with parking spaces totaling 569. Most are located at
beachfront facilities; parking for lagoon access can be found at
the North Causeway, South Causeway and Pepper Park facilities.
2. Boat Ramps
Appendix 38 lists the boats ramps available to the public for
access to the Indian River Lagoon or St. Lucie River. Figure 7-
17 depicts their locations. Additionally, there are unimproved
launching areas on the North and South Beach Causeways that are
variable in their ability to accommodate boat trailers and a
shellrock ramp in the middle of Blue Hole Cove. Four (4) of the
facilities are privately run, each with one ramp; three provide
access to the lagoon, one to the river. There are eight (8)
January 9, 1990 7- 84 COASTAL
~ /
~ ~ ~ ~
tnRE
PHS
Q7iC G QJC
~ sawr~nw cv~e
S' ~ P - Parks
O duC ~
~ IQ! ~
n.
~ VjKIN B- Boat Ramps
~ g2 ~ P3
S Q
~ P18 M - Marinas N
P20
Q ~o
INDRIO ROAD INDRIO S- Shoreline, Brid es
, D 9
~
\ \ ~/110 I~
Piers, or Jetties
` F,w
~ m~c
9
~ o ~ ~1
V o ~o
' ~ ~ ti`~~' PEPPEP,
1 ° • P8PARK
~ 'p 1 9
0
Si IUCIE ~
~Q~ ST. IUCIE 81v0. ` 9
P~P P19
o ~
1 P23
~ I~
W S S4 P FORT PIERCE
~ P~~ a ~ INLET
ANGLE ~ , 9 '
Q ~ ~ sNrr awt~ P\P ~ O
9 _ ~ ~ n
~ tD ~P~SE ~S~P~~~
" AvE. D
_
Figure 7-17. Public and Private Access Facitities to the Beach, I,agoon and
River, St. Lucie County.
I
7 - 85 '
ST ~UCIE ~ ~
9 ~P
P
_ ~ 5
P - Parks
ss 5
B I S7 M3 p g~
, ~ B - Boat Ramps
~ ~
- P14 ~
~ y P4 ~ M - Marinas
~ ~ ~
z P5 ~ S- Shoreline, Bridges,
a ~
~ Pis Piers, or Jetties
2
wEATHEReEE
EIDRED
~ so P 13
G~
s ~ P 7
~ ~
o
~
2~wcoru
v, ~
~ ~ ~ ~7 $
~ a~ G P 15 ~
~L ~
~
4 ~ P17 ~
«~~TON ~
/
~ P9
NETTL
ISLA
~
EDEN WAVELAN f] ' A
r- c
~
Fiqi:u~e,7-17. Public and Private Access Facilities to the Beach,
Lagoon and River, St. Lucie County.
~ ll a L~ ~~7 ~ O~ U V IJ LJ
~L~OG°3~DQ
7 - 86
y• P - Parks
Q
B - Boat Ramps
M - Marinas
~a
~o~, ~ S - Shoreline, Bridges, N
9
3 Piers, or Jetties
5
~
~ ~ '
~ ~ ~ 5
o
W ~
~
0
~ D~ ~
~
B6 ~
a
~1
r
~
M i2
Ns r I
~q
/ b ~I ~
G~~F
AfG
(
? ~N `rt` i o ~ ~ ~ ~0~~~~
o ~
~ . ~ ~1~0I~~DQ
~ Figui+e 7-17. Public and Private Acoess Facilities to the Beach, I
La9oon and River, St. Lucie County.
7 - 87
facilities open to the public with one to six ramps each for a
total of twenty ramps; six facilities provide access to the
lagoon, two to the river.
3. Mari nas
Appendix 39 lists the fourteen (14) marinas and their features
within St. Lucie County including the Cities of Ft. Pierce and
Port St. Lucie. Their locations are depicted on Figure 7-17.
The seven (7) commercial and public marinas potentially account
for 73~ of the total 1,122 wetslips (not all of the Harbourtown
Marina slips have been built pending monitoring of manatee
occurrences in the area). Five of these facilities provide fuel,
three provide repair services, and two provide sewage pump out
facilities. Except for Harbourtown Marina which is new, all have
an 80~+ occupancy rate, as compared to four of the seven private
facilities which have rates from 40~ to 79~. Eighty-nine (89)
percent, or 600, of the total 678 commercial dry docks are
located in the Taylor Creek Marina.
4. Non-Boat Fishing Access
Appendix 40 presents the eleven (11) non-boat fishing access
points to the Atlantic Ocean and the Indian River Lagoon. Figure
7-17 depicts their locations. Bridges, piers, and jetties
provide 7, 350 feet of access. Open shorelines total 25, 300 feet,
most of which (77~) are unimproved. ,
B. Current and Future Needs
The analyses of current and future public access needs is based
on general State guidelines. They provide hypothetical estimates
of the amounts of resuurces and facilities that are required to
support a given total population. They do not take into account
the percentage of a given total population which may actually use
• the resource or facility, therefore the results of the analyses
below must only be used in the broadest planning terms; actual
excess capacity or deficits can only be determined by adjusting
the State's guidelines to account for more defined local user
demand.
1. Shoreline, Boating, and Non-Boating Access
As the County's permanent population increases so will the
use of the coastal area's natural resources. One guideline
to gauge the adequacy of public beach frontage is the
State's median guideline of one mile of beach per 100,000 in
population (FDNR, 1987b). The existing improved beachfront
access in the County (approximately 2.2 miles) would be
adequate for a population of 220,000, which is projected to
occur around the year 2000 (Future Land Use Element). Another
1.6 miles of public beachfront is unimproved which could
January 9, 1990 7- 88 COASTAL
accommodate an additional population of 160,000. Together
this frontaga (3.8 miles) would carry the County beyond the
current planning period (2015). It is felt that the large
improved facilities provide adequate parking as will newly
developed facilities; however, there is a need for parking at
the small pocket park access points. Additional parking in
the Jensen Beach Restoration Project area could also increase
the amount of the project that would be eligible for State
involvement (FDNR, 1987a).
Spacing beach access points at every mile is another guideline
(FDNR, 1987b) which may be more relevant to the adequacy of beach
access opportunities. This could help prevent overcrowding at
any one particular area, as well as provide more local
opportunities and thus reduce transit time.
The potential for public access to the lagoon shoreline is also
good in that public land is available for future preservation or
limited recreational use (see the Conservation - Public land use
designation on Hutchinson Island on the Future Land Use Map).
However, present needs are only being met by a few improved
facilities (Jack Island and Pepper Park on North Hutchinson
Island). Some residents may be taking advantage of the
opportunities provided by the unimproved non-boat fishing access
points on South Hutchinson Island. ~
A total of twenty (20) public boat ramps provide direct access to
the North Fork of the St. Lucie River (4) and Indian River Lagoon
(16). Based on the State's median guideline of one ramp per
4,700 in population (FDNR, 1987b), these ramps could only
accommodate a population of 94,000. This amounts to a total
deficit of nine (9) ramps for the County's 1988 population for
both the lagoon and river. As the permanent population
increases, the deficits increase to 20, 34, and 48 for the years
1995, 2005, and 2015. (As noted above, this analysis does not
account for the actual user group.) The impact of these boat
ramp deficits is presently greater for river where only 20~ of
the total number of ramps are located.
As a start to improving this situation, the County should look at
the possible use of the right-of-ways of drainage canals of both
the South Florida Water Management District and the North St.
Lucie Water Control District.
There may also be a current deficit of piers, bridges (catwalks),
and jetties for non-boat fishing access. Based on the State's
median guideline of eight hundred (800) feet per 5,000 in
population (FDNR, 1987b), the current supply (7,350 feet) is only
adequate for a population of 45,938 which is only 34% of the 1988
permanent population (135,715) (Future Land Use Element).
The current supply of access points would only accommodate
14~ of the projected 2015 population (318,650) (Future Land
Use Element). (As noted above, this analysis does not account
for the actual user group.)
January 9, 1990 7- 89 COASTAL
2. Marina r acilities
This anaiysis is basad on the Sta~ce'~ est~mat2d demand as a
percentage of capacity and estimaTsd percent growth in demand
{FDNR, 1985b). With the oper_ing of a new commercia? marir_a in
1988 and the potential construction oi all its planned slips, the
total number oi wet and dry slips in St. Lucie County would be
1806 {public, condominium/~nultifamily, ~r=vate, miscelianeous,
and co~mercial). Demand, estimated at 78. 3°s of capacity, would
be 1,414 slips, which ieav~s ar_ excess of 392 slips.
Future demand, based on the Florida Department of Natural
Resources estimated 64~ to 89% growth rate b~tween 1982 and
2005, would be 2, 319 to 2, 673 slips. Therefore, an additional
513 to 867 wet and dry slips would be required by 2005.
ror wet sl~ps alone, the Florida Department of Natural Resourcas
growth rate in future deman~. has been estimated at 48% to 63%
between 1982 and 2005 which would be 2,093 to 2,305 slips.
Therefore, 226 to 368 of the total number of wet and dry slips
required by 2005 would be wet slips.
SECTION 10. COASTAL AREA INFRASTRUCTURE
This section provides a summary of existing infrastructure and
future infrastructure needs within the coastal area. This
information is analyzed in greater detail in the Traffic
Circulation Element; the General Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste,
Drainage, Potable Water, and Natura? Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
Element; and earlier sections of this element.
A. Existing Facilities
1. Roads, Bridges, and Causeways
The Traffic Circulation Element provides a detailed inventory of
transportation infrastructure and Level of Service (LOS) within
the County. Table 7-8 lists the primary roadways and their LOS
within the coastal area which shows that most of the roadways are
at adequate levels for normal traffic flow.
As seen in Section 8.D of this element, however, the following
critical links to hurricane evacuation were identified:
* vorth Bridge;
* Soutn Bridge;
* South AIA;
* Jensen Beach 3ridge {for South Island County
rasidents;;
* Port St. Lucie Bouleva~d;
Januar:r 9, 1990 7- 90 CCASTAL
* Prima Vista Boulevard;
* Florida Turnpika;
* Ai ros o Boul evard,
* I-95; and
* Midway Road.
Table 7-8. Roadway network, functional classification, and
level of service (LOS) within the coastal area,
St. Luci e County.
Roadway Classification LOS Comment
SR AlA (North) Minor Arterial A
Old Dixie Hwy Collector -
U. S. 1 Limited Access C AlA - St. Lucie Blvd.
(north of FP} Principal Arterial A St. Lucie Blvd. -
north county line
SR AlA (south) Minor Arterial A To south of FPL
E Near south county line
South Indian Collector A
River Drive
Source: Traffic Circulation Element
2. Sanitary Sewage Facilities
All development in the unincorporated coastal area is served by
package sewage treatment and disposal facilities. The on-site
facilities range from septic tanks for single family or small
multi-family units to package treatment plants of varying types,
efficiencies, and dependability for larger projects.
The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation has found that
many of the package sewage treatment plants on Hutchinson Island
have had malfunctions that lead to poor effluent quality or that
some of these plants have not been upgraded to conform to
revisions in Department regulations, particularly a 500' setback
of disposal facilities such as percolation ponds from Class II
Waters. A map of the locations of sewage treatment plants and a
listing of their capacities is presented in the Sanitary Sewer
sub-element of this Comprehensive Plan. Enforcement by the
Department is peing pursued to corract deficiencies in these
package plants, but some of the facilities face difficulty in
complying with setback requirements and other aspects of effluent
disnosal.
January 9, 1990 7- 91 COASTAL
Several options are being explor~d ~y St. Lucie County to resolve
the problems with the existi~g package plants which will be
discussed in the next section on future needs.
3. Potable Water Facilities
Most of the coastal area of the laaoon is supplied with potable
water by municipal water sys~ems, primarily the Ft. Pierce
Utilities Authority (FPUA). Normally, developments have their
own internal water distribution systems that are maintained by
the homeowners. However, areas on the mainland north of Ft.
Pierce use private, (single family), semi-public, (commercial
and community (Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute) water
systems.
On Hutchinson Island, in addition to the FPUA system, there are
five private community water systems using the reverse-osmosis
(R-O) treatment process. Combined they serve one residential
subdivision, six multi-family high-rise developments, and one R-
V park. The three R-O systems south of the St. Lucie Power Plant
were constructed for high-rise developments while FPUA had
imposed a moratorium on new water connections. The two R-O
systems north of Ft. Pierce Inlet that serve a residential
subdivision (Queen's Cove) and an RV-park/condominium complex
(Bryn Mawr) were constructed before municipal water was
available. The single family residences in coastal areas of the
North Fork of the St. Lucie River are served by individual wells.
4. Drainage Facilities
The maj or drainage facilities within St. Lucie County include
Canal C-25 and the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, which
receives flow from Five Mile Creek, Ten Mile Creek, and Canals C-
23 and C-24. Additionally, Moores Creek drains part of the
unincorporated area west of Ft. Pierce. Any flooding in the area
of the Indian River Lagoon has been due primarily to unusual tide
conditions rather than drainage inflow. However, the coastal and
inland areas of the North Fork of the St. Lucie River do
experience flooding problems that are due to stormwater and a
combination of stormwater and tides.
Hutchinson Island has numerous water management systems which
discharge to the Indian River Lagoon following moderate (3
year/24 hr.) and severe storm events. Some older developments
discharge for any storm event.
5. Beach Renourishment Projects
As seen in Section 7.D of this element, renourishment areas just
south of the Ft. Pierce Inlet and near the south county line have
been identifisd :.n the State's Beach Restoration Management Plan
(FDNR, 1987a). At the time of the plan, only the sand transfer
aspect of the first project had received authorizat~on by the
Florida Department of Natural Resources.
January 9, 1990 7- 92 COASTAL
B. Future Needs
1. Roads, Bridges, and Causeways
The Traffic Circulation Elsment provides detailed information on
the needs of the coastal area, the costs involved, and the
funding alternatives that could be used. A general summary of
these needs and constraints on implementation is presented in
this alement.
St. Lucie County adopted the Hutchinson Island Residential
District (HIRD) ordinance which scheduled roadway improvements in
phases for the barrier island. The phases are established by
development levels and the accompanying traffic generation. A
summary of roadway improvements from the "Barrier Islands Access
Study" (BIAS) (Rimley-Horn, 1986) includes the following:
a. Commencement Level
* Left-turn lane on North Beach Causeway at SR AlA.
* Right-turn lane on SR AlA at North Beach Causeway.
* Left-turn lane on Ocean Boulevard at Binney Drive.
* Right-turn lane on Binney Drive at Ocean Boulevard.
* Improve Seaway Drive to four lanes between bridge and Binney
Dri ve.
b. Level 2
* Improve SR AlA to four lanes north of North Beach Causeway.
* Improve North Beach Causeway to four lanes.
c. Level 3
* A second left-turn lane on North Beach Causeway at SR AlA.
* A second left-turn lane on U.S. 1 at Seaway Drive.
d. Level 4
* Improve SR AlA north of North Beach Causeway to six lanes.
A new bridge between the barrier island and mainland near
Walton Road has been identified in the needs analysis for
the year 2015 in the Traffic Circulation Element. Traffic
analysis favors the Walton Road location, but environmental
factors are likely to determine the location. As noted above
in Section 8.F, fiscal constraints may prohibit construction
of such a bridge to a coastal barrier resource unit. Therefore,
it would be premature to plan for any more than a study to
determine the economic, environmental impact, and
justification statements to be completed by 2000. If a bridge is
deemed feasible, any new bridge design should not include a
causeway.
The Jensen Beach Bridge in Martin County has been an essential
January 9, i990 7- 93 COASTAL
part of the traffic circulation system for the southern portion
of St. Lucie County`s south island. As noted in the BIAS
(Rimley-Horn, 1986), development in this portion of the south
island will not be allowed beyond the c~mmencement level without
either the construction of the Walton Road Bridge or improvements
to structures in Martin County. However, since most of the
undeveloped land in this portion of the island can be developed
at the commencement level and,. in fact, is mostly developed to
date, greater dependence on the Martin County structures is not
anticipated.
2. Sanitary Sewage Facilities
As discussed in preceding portions of this element and the
Sanitary Sewer, Potable Water, Solid Waste, Drainage and Natural
Groundwater Recharge Element, the FPUA does not generally provide
sewage service outside of its corporate limits. Developments in
the coastal area generally provide on-site treatment/disposal,
except that North Hutchinson Services provides central sewage
treatment for several developments in the southern portion of
North Hutchinson Island.
The south end of South Hutchinson Island needs a central sewage
collection and treatment system because of the high density land
uses and the poor performance history of package plants. The
options being explored by St. Lucie County to resolve the
problems with the existing package plants include connections to
the Ft. Pierce Utility Authority, connections to a plant in
Martin County, and formation of a MSTU.or MSBU to construct a
new pl ant. _
Other areas of the unincorporated coastal area will continue to
provide on-site sewage treatment and disposal.
3. Potable Water Facilities
No new public water supply facilities are presently planned in
the coastal area. However, single family and small multi-family
developments may use on-site domestic wells on the mainland. New
developments will have their own water distribution system.
4. Drainage Facilities
Drainage improvements to remove shoaling of the North Fork of the
St. Lucie River are being studied by the South Florida Water
Management District. However, due to the aquatic preserve status
of this part of the coastal area, permitting processes will be
extensive and time consuming.
Drainage improvements on Hutchinson Island will be on a project
by project basis. An updated St. Lucie County surface water
management plan or ordinance is needed to address these projects.
January 9, 1990 7- 94 COASTAL
5. Coastal or Shore Protection Structures and Beach
Renourishment Projects
As discussed in Section 7 of this element, a sand transfer
station has been proposed for the Ft. Pierce Inlet by the Florida
Department of Natural Resources. During the recent 1989
legislative session, the State` s share for the project ($400, 000)
was appropriated (Florida Shore and Beach Preservation
Association, 1989).
The Jensen Beach Restoration Project is being held in a pending
status to determine more precisely the need for restoration in
the area and to further analyze potential sand sources (FDNR,
1987a). Additionally, the State is concerned by the lack of
beach access within the entire pro;ec± area. As noted in Section
7 of this element, development of the Dollman Beach Access site
with at least fifty (50) parking spaces could increase the amount
of the pro~ect that would be eligible for State involvement.
No other public coastal protective structures are proposed at
this time.
C. Special Restrictions on Siting Facilities in the Coastal
Area
Recent changes in Federal and State law have placed restrictions
on funding public facilities in the coastal area. The United
States Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act which
prohibits the use of federal funds to build new infrastructure or
expand existing infrastructure in designated parts of barrier
islands. St. Lucie County contains two such designated units as
depicted in Figure 7-18 (U.S. Department of Interior, 1987). One
is on North Island and extends from the north county line to the
Queens Cove subdivision, exclusive of some existing development;
the other is on South Island and extends from the southern limits
of Ft. Pierce to the Nettles Island area; exclusive of some
existing development including the St. Lucie Power Plant.
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act only restricts the use of
federal funds; thus facilities could be built with state or local
funds. However, the restrictior~s on federal funds extend to
those provided to the state, including disaster assistance.
Without federal disaster assistance, the full cost of repairing
and replacing new or expanded facilities will fall upon the
county. Therefore, benefits and costs associated with expansion
of facilities within the two coastal barrier resource units
should be evaluated.
Former Governor Graham's Coastal Zone Executive Order formulated
a coastal infrastructure policy, banning the use of state funds
to build facilities in coastal high hazard areas, unless such
expenditure was consistent with the local comprehensive plan.
Through a series of cross referencas and consistency
January 9, 1990 7- 95 COASTAL
i
I I
i
~
~ /
~ ~~~~i
cnnt
iv~r `
Q:::::::::~k:::::::::.:~:::::::.~::: CBRA Units
~
.
P .i''~~'iiii~:.:~~i ~:~.:iiiii.'F;
8 ~:Ytfii~.ii~.i~..:i iic:iiii.~~~:
~ t!`~ a ~XLti :iiii::ii...:iiiiiiiii::.. t
~ Biue Hole - PIO - A
. .
~
VIKIN
::~:::::::::a?~~:::::"::~ :
~
~ : ittE:::::::::.:
::i':::1~:::::~: ~CILY.~~
N
Q~
~ INORIO
INDRIO ROAD
o:
~
~ ~
~
~
~ o
~ d o ~o
' ~ I tih" PEPPER
g PARK
~ 9
0
ST ~UCIE ~
6Qg sr. ~ucre e~vo. 9 P
P~
a
~
W FORT PIERCE
Y ?~~~~0
a ~ INI.ET
ANGLE ~ ° ~„o«~. \P o
~49 ~ ,~"~o P c~
~ j
~ ~~5ti'~
S~p~~~~~.
~ AVE. ~ ~
,
~
~
~ Figure 7-18 . Coastal ~m Pr Resource Units in St . Lucie County ~
; ( U. S. ~~T-*R~?nt of Interior, 1987
;
7 - 96 '
i
~
I
9 P\~
I, ST1 ~UCIE ~ ~ ~ .
~ ~~~i /
~
I
I „o, a.." '\p, ~ p
~
I u'F'+
S ~
I
I ~
.
~ ~ CBRA Units
, ~
,1
~
~
.
~ ~~~~~~~~~~a~ ~ ~ Hutchinson Island
~ ~ P-11
: ~
a~ ~
~~:::::~f::~:'~~: ~ :
N
ti~
.
WEATHERBC .
ELORED
~ ~O ~
. . .
~
y ':siii'.~~~ '~:~~,s
~ ~ w.~.i~
Q
~ Z . ~ ~~~il..~l.~
AlYtONA ::~ww::
r~ ......'ri.....
N . :
~
~ ' ,~L
~ ~ . .
~ ~
o~~ G ~
~ ~
~ YAITON ~ " : ~
V
~ ~
~ NETT~
ISLA
EOEN WAVEI
i
~I
~
~ Figure 7-18 . Coastal ~a~ Pr ~ Units in St . LuCie County
I (U.S. Degarbnent of Interior, 1987).
~I ~ ~;o i
~J ~ a L7 ~ ~:J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I
'~~~G°3~~Q ~
~ ~
~
7-97
requirements, the revised planning iaws require that local
comprehensive plans limit development in coastal high hazard
areas. Therefore, the County will evaluate thoroughly any
recommendations for new or expanded publicly owned facilities in
coastal high hazard areas.
SECTI~N 11. SPECIAL COASmAL PLANNING EFFORTS
The coastal area of the County has been the subject of many
special multi-county planning and implementation initiatives
including the following:
* The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Plan;
* The Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserves Management Plan;
* The Indian River Lagoon Field Committee' s Report to the
Governor with Recommendations for Resource Management in the
Indian River Lagoon;
* The North Fork, St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve Management
P1 an,
* The Interim Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM)
Plan - Indian River Lagoon, and
* The Watershed Action Committees.
The first document addresses growth management on two barrier
islands spanning three counties. The next two documents provide
a management plan for the Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve
and multicounty recommendations and initiatives for consistent
management and improvement of the lagoon, respectively. The
fourth document provides a management plan for the North Fork,
St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve. The fifth document proposes a
mix of further research projects and, most importantly,
implementation projects to improve the lagoon. The sixth
initiative was the creation of Watershed Action Committees
lagoon-wide as a means to coordinate implementation mechanisms
among local taxing and regulatory bodies, such as drainage
districts, state environmental agencies, and municipalities
within each watershed.
It is important to consider these initiatives because protection,
conservation and use of the County's coastal resources are
related to activities of local governments and regulatory bodies
within the County and in other counties. Events by all these
bodies can have substantial impacts on resources in St. Lucie
County, especially the barrier island and the lagoon. These
initiatives provide a framework for multi-jurisdictional resource
management. Following is a brief description of each initiative.
January 9, 1990 7- 98 COASTAL
The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Plan was
prepared by a governor-appointed committee including state,
regional, local, and private sector representatives (Hutchinson
Island Resource Planning and Management Committee, 1983). The
plan developed specific policies for shoreline alteration,
shoreline use, shoreline access, beach and dune stabilization,
sea turtle protection, water quality, potable water supply and
waste water treatment, capital improvements programming, and
transportation. A timetable and spec~fic measures of progress
were used to ensure implementation of the plan. The County has
complied with the requirements of the olan.
The Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserves Management Plan was
developed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR)
to guide decision making in two aquatic preserves in the southern
portion of the Indian River Lagoon (FDNR, 1985a). The area
covered by this plan includes all of the lagoon in the County
except within the corporate limits of the City of Ft. Pierce.
The plan contains 24 major policies. In addition, the Department
intends to classify and map Resource Protection Areas within the
preserve. The basis of the classification is the quality of the
natural resources in the preserve. Management decisions will
then be based, in part, on these classifications, with the most
pristine areas receiving the greatest protection. This
management plan calls upon Department staff to work with local
governments during development of local comprehensive plans and
subsequent land development regulations to ensure maximum
compatibility with the Aquatic Preserves Management Plan.
The Indian River Lagoon Field Committee's Report to the Governor
With Recommendations For Resource Management in the Indian River
Lagoon represents the efforts of state agencies, regional
agencies, counties, municipalities, and several other parties to
develop integrated management of the system of lagoons stretching
from Volusia County to Palm Beach County (FDER, 1986). General
recommendations are listed in the executive summary of the
report. Specific recommendations were also prepared in the form
of policies for incorporation into the comprehensive plans of the
approximately fifty local governments along the lagoon, thereby
ensuring uniform treatment of the problems in the lagoon system.
The North Fork, St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve Management Plan
was also prepared by the Florida Department of Natural Resources
to guide decision making in this riverine system (FDNR, 1984a).
The major objectives of the aquatic preserve management program
are to manage the preserve to ensure maintenance of essentially
natural conditions, and to restore and enhance those conditions
which are not in a natural condition. Management will also be
directed to ensure public recreational opportunities while
assuring the continued propagation of fish and wi~dlife. This
task will be guided by the identification and mapping of natural
resouress and habitats necessary to meet these objectives. An
additional management objective is the review and comments on
applications for the use of state-owned submerged lands. This
January 9, 1990 7- 99 COASTAL
will require, in a fully implemented management program, the on-
site investigation of these proposed uses by field personnel
assigned to the aquatic preserve. These field personnel are
critical to the realistic management of this aquatic preserve.
The SWIM Plan for the Indian River Lagoon was prepared by the St.
Johns River Water Management District and South Florida Water
Management District (1988), with assistance of most local
governments and regulatory agencies with jurisdiction in the
lagoon, as a result of the SWIM Act (Chapter 87-97, Laws of
Florida) passed by the State Legislature in 1987. The plan
provides for research and implementation projects with state
funding for enhancement of the environmental value of the lagoon.
Through a cooperative agreement with the South Florida Water
Management District, the County has provided pro~ect management
for a pilot project to identify ways to improve the quality of
surface water discharges to the lagoon within the County.
Continued support for such projects will further improve the
value of the resources provided by the lagoon.
The creation of the Ft. Pierce Watershed Action Committee and the
St. Lucie Watershed Action Committee is an attempt to coordinate
local activities affecting the lagoon. The two committees which
cover the County as well as part of Martin County include
representation from state agencies, local governments, drainage
districts, mosquito control district, and other taxing or
regulatory bodies which have jurisdiction within the area. Their
work this past year has included the identification of discharge
outfalls to surface waters within the County and assistance in
the development of the South Florida Water Management District's
model stormwater management ordinance. Continued use of these
committees can provide necessary coordination in the development
and implementation of local activities impacting the lagoon.
St. Lucie County shares its coastal resources with many other
governmental entities and the responsibilities of preserving or
enhancing the natural resources are likewise shared. The ability
of any one entity to effectively manage the coastal area is
doubtful, but a cooperative effort through intergovernmental
coordination that uses common goals, objectives, and policies is
likely to succeed.
SECTI ON 12. SUMMARY AND I DENTI FI CATI ON OF SI GNI FI CANT I SSUES
For the purposes of this Comprehensive Plan, the coastal area is
generally that portion of the County east of the Atlantic Coastal
Ridge and those lands adjacent to the North Fork St. Lucie River.
However, hurricane evacuation and estuarine pollution are
discussed countywide.
January 9, 1990 7- 100 COASTAL
A. Land Us e
The predominant land use in the coastal area is residential. The
majority of water-dependent uses are water-oriented recreation
and marinas. Other water-dependent uses include a marine
research facility (Harbor Branch Oceanographic Znstitute), a
nuclear generating facility (St. Lucie Power Plant), and,
although not within the County's coastal area, the deepwater Port
of Ft. Pierce which comes under the jurisdiction of the Port and
Airport Authority, i.e., the St. Lucie Board of County
Commissioners. Major land use issues are development
intensities, protection of natural resources, particularly
uplands protection, shoreline land use conflicts, and the
provision of appropriate sites for marinas, boat ramps, and other
public access facilities.
B. Natural Habitats
The more predominant natural habitats of the coastal area in
terms of size or scarcity and value include the beach and dune,
coastal strand and uplands, mangrove and riverine swamps,
seagrass meadows, and natural reefs. Major man-influenced
habitats are fill areas, exotic plants such as Australian pine,
and mos~quito impoundments.
C. Mosquito Impoundments
Restoration of tidal exchange to the mosquito impoundments is an
important habitat consideration. The construction of the
impoundments, the largest wetland habitat in the coastal area,
had eliminated a major source of plant detritus and important
nursery areas frorn the lagoon. The St. Lucie County Mosquito
Control District has developed an effective management plan, part
of which has been implemented, that provides mosquito control and
restoration of the marshes and has reduced the amount of
pesticides used for mosquito control. However, when natural
tidal exchange has been restored through breaches in mosquito
control dikes, a conflict between the reestablishment of natural
systems and public health has arisen, i.e., betwesn keeping the
breach open and closing it for mosquito control - the latter
through a management plan which attempts to simulate natural
conditions. Current state policy prohibits mosquito control
practices that require habitat modification or manipulation
unless failure to conduct such practices would result in a threat
to public health (FDNR, 1985a). Continued cooperative
initiatives as in the current research on existing restoration
efforts betwesn the State and County are needed to evaluate the
future efforts of the Mosquito Control District to integrate the
obj ectives of marsh restoration and mosquito cor_trol.
January 9, 1990 7- 101 COASTAL
D. Seagrass Beds
Seagrass beds are another i~portant habitat under stress lagoon
wide. Once these beds have beer~ mapped and defined as to species
and concentration a second time, which is in progress, their
increase or decline can be better measured and evaluated. It is
also important to continue this periodic monitoring so that the
impact of any improvement in quality of surface water discharges
to the lagoon, pursuant to SWIM or local initiatives, on seagrass
conditions can be evaluated.
E. Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Special
Concern
Numerous species with special protective status inhabit the
coastal area of the County. The most endangered species are the
manatee, woodstork, and threa species of sea turtles. The
manatees require special protection from boats. Such protection
may include locating marina sites away from areas where the
manatees congregate, posting the congregating areas, posting and
enforcing speed limits in parts of the lagoon, and cooperating
with the State in develop a public information program to advise
the public of new protective regulations and educate them in the
history and value of the manatee. Presently, the County is
preparing a speed zone plan; criteria for the siting of marinas
can be expected in the future.
Woodstorks, which require a more natural fluctuation of water
levels in wetlands, and other wading birds would benefit from
preservation or enhancement of wetland areas. Although not
documented, the Mosquito Control District has noted hundreds of
feeding and nesting birds, including waders and ducks, in various
impoundments and feel that their management changes have improved
these wetlands (SLCMCD, personal communication, 1989).
Accordingly, a study would be warranted to inventory the users of
the impoundments, both day and night, which may aid in future
management decisions by the State.
The loggerhead, leatherback, and green sea turtles nest on County
beaches. Local ordinances are directed to protect their nesting
habitat and reducing light emissions from both existing and new
development (Hutchinson Island Coastal Area Protection Ordinance
and Sea Turtle Protection Ordinance). Continued evaluation of
light reduction modifications are necessary annually.
F. Estuarine Water Quality
Different parts of the Indian River Lagoon and St. Lucie Estuary
have been classified by the FDER with fair water quality
according to a water quality index. Pollution problems include
1ow dissolved oxygen and 'nigh bact2rial, turbidity and nutrient
levels. Drainage discharges, sewage treatment plants (lagoon-
January 9, 1990 7- 102 COASTAL
wide), dead-end canals, and closed ma~inas all contri~uted to
pollution loads, although stormwater runoff may be the major
problem.
G. Beach and Dune System
The beach and dune system is under severe stress throughout the
County. Much of the beach erosion ~s a result of the inlet
jetties interrupting the natural southern littoral drift of
sand, although storms have contributed to the problems.
Beach restoration is needed in several locations, as well as a
sand transfer station at the north jetty. The County has set
aside 400,000 for its share of the latter project. The primary
dune, nonexistent or very low in some locations, has also been
impacted by storms and lack of sand, but an additional
problem is unrestricted vehicular and pedestrian traffic
which primarily destroys dune vegetation leading to increased
erosion. Dune restoration including vegetation and additional
dune crossings are needed. The recent relocation of the
Coastal Construction Control Line should reduce the impacts of
new development on beaches and dunes, as well as local programs
to restore dunes and the traffic upon them.
H. Hurricane Evacuation
Based on the regional hurricane evacuation plan, that portion of
the projected 1990 populatior estimated to be at risk from
Category 3-5 and Category 1-2 hurricanes would be 103,922 and
58, 728, respectively. Similar proj ections for 1995 are 117, 306
and 67,032, respectively. Estimated evacuation times for 1990
ranged from approximately 7 hours to 22 hours depending on storm
intensity and track, response time, and evacuation network.
Improvements to the evacuation network are needed to maintain
these times. There is a current deficit of almost 5,000 shelter
spaces for the more intense hurricanes which is estimated to
increase to 7,725 by 1995 if additional shelters are not found.
For the less intense hurricanes, estimated excess capacity
decreases from 4,000 spaces in 1990 to 2,430 in 1995.
I. Public Facilities/Coastal High Hazard Area
The more vulnerable public facilities within the coastal high
hazard area include recreational and access structures such as
boardwalks and dune crossings and parts of SR AlA. Less
vulnerable facilities within this hazard area include water,
sewer and electric lines. Private structures are especially
vulnerable in the south county area where the erosion rate seems
to be increasing.
January 9, 1990 7- 103 COASTAL
J. Public Access
The County is well provided with some public access facilities,
such as recreational parks, but many of these areas have yet to
be improved. Additional access points with parki ng and boat
ramps to the lagoon are needed. Non-boat fishing areas such as
piers are also needed. Some mosquito im~oundment dikes could be
used for fishing access if impravements were made. Access to the
North Fork of the St. Lucie R~ver, especially through boat ramps,
may be the greatest need at this time. As demand for marina
slips grows, existing excess capacity will be used up.
January 9, 1990 7- 104 COASTAL
GOALS, OBJBCTIVES, A~iD POLICiES
GO2,~, 1: BALANCING GROWT~I AATD COASTAL RESOIIRCES. AI.L
DEVSLOPI~NT PROPOSI~D I~i THE FUTQRS I.AN1) IISE
ELEA~ISNT I N THE C~ASTAL AItBA SHALL OCCIIR I N A
1KANNSR ~HICH PROTSCTS, CONSERVSS, OR ENH~NCES
THg N~TU~RAL RES~IIRCES OF THE CQASTAL AREA AND
THB $I~iPI RON1~3~1'.r.AL, SOCI ~L, AND ECON~I~IC C
B$NEFI TS ATTRI BUTSD TO THR1K.
Obj ective 7. 1. 1: Futu.=e Development in the Coastal Area_ St.
Lucie County shall continue to protect the
natural resources of the coastal area
from adverse impacts caused by future
development by strengthening and/or adopting
environmentally related laws by August 1,
1990.
Policy 7. 1. 1. 1.: Future development in the coastal area shall
be limited to those land uses which are
resource dependent or compatible with the
physical and environmental characteristics of
the coastal area, or to those uses which can
occur without degradation of important
environmental values or interference with
legally used public access to coastal area
shorelines.
Policy 7.1.1.2: All land development regulations adopted
pursuant to this element shall be consistent
wi th:
a. The Future Land Use Element and Map;
b. The County's Hutchinson Island
Residential Development Ordinance;
c. Vested development rights;
d. The County' s Hutchinson Island Coastal
Area Protection Ordinance, the Mangrove
Protection Ordinance, and the Sea Turtle
Protection Ordinance; and
e. The goals, objectives and policies of
this element and the Conservation
Element concerning the protection,
appropriate use, and conservation of
natural resources.
Policy 7. 1. 1. 3: Erosion control measures shall be limited to
January 9, 1990 7- 105 COASTAL
those that do ~ot i~terfere with the natural
resources and ~rocesses of the coastal area
based on locally determined criteria that is
consistent w~t~ Federal and State
regul ati or.s .
Policy 7. 1. 1. 4: St. Lucie County shall continue to carry out
its responsibilities under the Hutchinson
Island Resource Planni ng and Management Plan.
Policy 7. l. 1. 5: r^uture development or redevelopment within
the coastal area shall provide infrastructure
to service the devslopment or redevelopment
at the Level of Service standards adopted in
the appropriate elements of this
Comprehensive Plan, and which is consistent
with the coastal resource protection, access,
and safe evacuation requirements of this
Comprehensive Plan, and as further provided
for in the Capital Improvements Element.
Policy 7. 1. 1. 6: The County shali continue to coordinate with
appropriate state agencies in meeting the
goals and policies of the Indian River Lagoon
Aquatic Preserves Management Plan, the North
Fork of the St. Lucie River Aquatic Preserve
Management Plan, and the Indian River Lagoon
Surface Water Improvement and Management
Plan. Coordination will consist of, at a
mi nimum, conti nual parti cipati on on
applicable committees and task forces as well
as the provision of administrative and fiscal
support.
Objective 7. 1.2: Protecting Ti~etlands and Wildlife Habitat. The
County shall support the protection,
conservation, or enhancement of ~oastal
uplands and wetlands. The County sha11
include within its Land Development
Regulations criteria and standards for the
protection and creation of the remai.ning
native plant communities within the County.
For the purpose of this plan, Native Plant
Communities to be preserved shall be as
defined in the Treasure Coast Regional
Planni.ng Council' s, Regional Policy Plan,
Regional Policy 10_ 1. 2. 2, preserved in
viable condition `,rith intact ground cover,
understory and canopy'. There shall be no
net loss of ezisting wetlands which are
regvlated by federal and state ageacies for
deve3opment proposals in wetland areas_ The
land development regulati~o~as shall include
January 9, 1990 7- 106 COASTAL
open space requirements and clustering of
»n; ts as means to pratect egisting wetlands.
Policy 7. 1. 2. 1: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact
land development regulations that require the
use of native or drought tolerant vegetation
adapted to existing soil and climatic
conditions in landscaping in the coastal
area.
Policy 7. 1. 2. 2: By August 1, 1990 ~he County shall enact land
development regulations which require the
removal of all nuisance and exotic vegetation
such as Australian pine, Brazilian pepper,
and Melaleuca during construction of new
development and replacement with plant
species that are consistent with Policy
7. 1. 2. 1.
Policy 7. 1. 2. 3: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact
land development regulations which require a
minimum fifty (50) foot buffer zone of native
upland and transitional vegetation along
rivers, creeks, and estuaries, to be
maintained from the landward extent of state
waters or from mean high water of the rivers,
creeks, and estuaries, whichever is greater.
However, setbacks for the North Fork of the
St. Lucie River shall be governed by those
set out in the Land Use Element to the extent
that those requirements may be more
res tri cti ve.
Policy 7. 1. 2. 4: A buffer zone of native upland edge (i. e. ,
transitional) vegetation shall be provided
and maintained around isolated wetlands and
deepwater habitats which are constructed or
preserved on new development sites. The
buffer zone may consist of preserved or
planted vegetation but shall include canopy,
understory, and ground cover of native
species only. The edge habitat shall begin
at the upland limit of any wetland or
deepwater habitat. As a minimum, ten (10)
square feet of such buffer shall be provided
for each linear foot of wetland or deepwater
habitat perimeter that lies adjacent to
uplands. This upland edge habitat shall be
located such that no less than fifty (50)
percent of the total shoreline is buffered ~y
a minimum width of ten {10) fest of upland
habitat. The upland buffer requirement does
not apply ~o drainage cana~s or stormwater
conveyance systems requiring periodic
January 9, 1990 7- 107 COASTAL
maintenance.
Policy 7. 1. 2. 5: By December 31, 1994, all mosquito
impoundments shall be assessed to determine
if they provide multiple functions of marine
fisheries habitat, water quality enhancement,
and adequate mosquito control. Particular
attentior. shall be given to the differences
between imvoundments that are managed versus
those that are breached or unmanaged.
Policy 7. 1. 2. 6: By August 1, 1950, the County shall enact
land development regulations which require
the following information on site plans for
new development:
a. The location and extent of wetlands
located on the property; and
b. Measures to assure that normal flows and
quality of water will be provided to
maintain wetlands after development.
Policy 7. 1.2.7: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact
land developrnent regulations which provide
criteria for:
a. The evaluation of proposed wetland
alteration for reasonable use of
property; and
b. The mitigation of wetlands alteration
which consider, but are not limited to,
the restoration of disturbed wetlands,
creation of additional wetlands, or
enhancement of funetions and values
provided by existing habitats.
Pol i cy 7. 1. 2. 8: Eros i on probl ems al ong I ndi an R.i ver Dri ve
south of Ft. Pierce shall be evaluated and
erosion control measures, where applicable,
shall be consistent with Policy 7. 1. 2. 3.
Obj ective 1. 3: Protection of Living Irlarine Resources_ St_
Lucie County shall protect, conserve, or
enhance living marine resources and enact
regulations to reduce adverse impacts
caused by development_ By 1995, a
comprehensive mana.gement program shall have
been implemented including, at a mi.nimum, the
regulations and programs set out in the
following policies_
January 9, i990 108 COASTAL
Policy 7. 1. 3. 1: The existing sea tur~~le protection ordinance
shall be modified by August 1, 1990, to limit
beach renourishment in sea turtle nesting
areas to the months or November 1 through
April 30 or by implementing a~proved Florida
Department of Natural Resources conservation
measures.
Policy 7. 1. 3. 2: In order to protect manatees, the County
shall enact regulations which provide locally
determined criteria which are consistent
with State and Federal regulations. At a
minimum, appropriate protection measures
shall address boating speed limits, critical
habitats, and the construction of marinas.
Policy 7. 1. 3. 3: Specific and cumulative impacts of
development or redevelopment upon wetlands
shall be limited by implementation of the
policies under Obj ective 7. 1. 2.
Policy 7.1.3.4: Based on the 1986 and 1989 aerial photographs
and reports on seagrass beds, St. Lucie
County shall evaluate the need to continue
periodic monitoring of seagrass bed
conditions within the County.
Policy 7. 1. 3. 5: St. Lucie County shall assist FDNR upon
request in establishing well marked stacking
and mooring areas for ships and boats in
order to protect reefs and seagrass beds.
Policy 7. 1.3.6: Specific and cumulative impacts of navigation
improvements to the Ft. Pierce Inlet upon the
Sabellariid worm reefs shall allow for the
maintenance of viable natural and
educational functions of the reefs. By
December 31, 1992, the County shall map the
natural reefs abutting the Atlantic Ocean
shoreline and establish appropriate
protective measures for these reefs.
Policy 7. 1.3. 7: Spoil islands shall be retained in public
ownership and modified to serve as green
areas, bird roosting, nesting, and feeding
areas and, when appropriate, water-dependent
recreation areas. In the event new islands
are created, they should be designed to serve
recreation, wildlife, and other public uses,
and shall not constrict water circulation.
Revegetation efforts on all spoil islands
will utilize 100 percent nativ~ vegetation
adapted to existing soil ard cli;natic
conditions and will include the elimination
January 9, 1990 7- 109 COASTAL
of eYOZ_c s~~cies if required by t~e
appro~riate State agency. The disposal of
spoil m~aterial shail ~e consistent with
Policy i. 4. 5.
Policy 7. 1. 3. 8: Efforts betwesr~ the County and local interest
groups shall be made to designate the St.
Lucie Nearshore a:~d Oculina Reefs federal
marine sanctuaries in accordance with the
Federal Marine Sanctuary Program.
Policy 7. 1. 3. 9: By December 31, 1993, the County shall
identify coastal areas that provide habitat
for known endangered and threatened species.
Protection measures shall be established
that are consistent with Policies 8. 1. 8. 2
and 8. 1. 8. 3 i n the Cons ervati on El ement.
Policy 7. 1. 3. 10: Alternative sources for borrow material for
the Ft. Pierce Feeder Beach Restoration
Proj ect s hal l be eval uated, i ncl udi ng the us e
of the inlet entrance as a borrow source,
with respect to potential impacts on the
natural reefs.
Obj ective 7. 1. 4: $stuarine Water Quality. St. Lucie County
shall strive to obtain or maintain water
quality and trophic state indez
classifications of `good' for the Indian
River Lagoon, Five Mile Creek, Ten 1Ki.le
Creek, and the North Fork St. Lucie River by
2000. The County shall enact appropriate
regulations which provide for the maintenance
or improvement of water quality.
Policy 7. 1. 4. 1: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact
land development regulations which include
locally determined drainage criteria which
are consistent with those of the South
Florida Water Management District and the
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulations and which at a minimum shall
prohibit new point source discharges of less
than the 25-year storm event.
Policy 7. 1.4.2: In order to reduce the impact of effluent
from sewage treatment plants on the lagoon,
highest priority shall be given to sawage
treatment plants that are or have been in
violation of r^lorida Department of
Environmental Regulation treatment standards,
or setback stand.ards from Class II waters.
These ~lants shall be required to connect
January 9, 1990 7- 110 COAST~L
to r.ew or existizg ~ublic or private
cantralized sewage treat~ent plants when such
plants or ~ervices are provided within the
applicable ser~~~ce areas.
Policy 7. l. 4. 3: New causeways across the Indian River Lagoon
shall be prohibited in order to reduce
further constriction of water circulation.
Policy 7. 1. 4. 4: In order to reduce ncn-point source pollutant
loadings and i:~prove the functioning of the
County's drainaga system, the dumping of
debris of any ki:~d, including yard clippings
and trimmings, into drainage ditches,
stormwater control structures, the Indian
River Lagoon, North Fork of the St. Lucie
River, Five Mile Creek, Ten Mile Creek, and
tributaries shall be prohibited.
Policy 7. 1. 4. 5: All spoil from the dredging of the lagoon
shall be placed on uplands except as
otherwise authorized by all appropriate
Federal and State agencies.
Pol i, cy 7. 1. 4. 6: By the year 19 9 5, a pl an s hal l be prepared
and adopted for the central collection,
treatment, and disposal of effluent from all
developments on the barrier island that are
not currently serviced by~such facilities.
Policy 7. 1. 4. 7: The Ft. Pierce Watershed Action Committee and
the St. Lucie Watershed Action Committee
shall be requested to convene an Indian River
Lagoon Planning Task Force which shall
include representatives from each county and
municipality within the committees areas to
discuss those methods to be incorporated into
the comprehensive plans and management plans
of each organization for the protection of
the lagoon flora and fauna and to identify
those areas most suited for the development
of public access and water-dependent and
water-related uses.
Policy 7. 1. 4. 8: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact
land development regulations which provide
for the prohibition of shoreline alteration
and construction which degrades existing
estuarine productivity with excepiions such
as necessary access to marine resources, the
abatement of serious and significant erosion,
and projects which are not expected to
result in long-term or permanent degradation
of water quality or habi ~at t~a~ue.
January 9, ?990 7- 111 COASTAL
Policy 7. 1. 4. 9: By Decem~er 31, 1991, the County shall
priori~ize any point and non-point source
pollu~ion problems :.dentified in the data ana
analysis section of th~s element which have
not been adequately addressed, with the
assistance o~' the South Florida Water
Management District and the Florida
Department of ~nvironmental Requlation. The
County shall request assistance from
appropriate agencies in addressing high
priority problems through Surface Water
Improvement and Management, Coastal
Management Grant, and other such programs.
Policy 7. l. 4. lfl: The County shall continue to address
pollution problems identified in the data and
analysis section of this element through:
a. continual cooperation in SWIM programs;
b. the adoption of a stormwater management
ordinance by August 1, 1990;
c. adoption of regulations to improve
control of illegal dumping into canals,
ditches and waterways, and increase
implementation of urban and agricultural
best management practices; and
d. support of a western reservoir that is
economically and environmentally
feasible to reduce freshwater flows into
the lagoon.
Obj ective 7. 1. 5: Beaches and Dunes. St. Lucie County shall
provide for the protection and restoration of
beaches and dunes. A comprehensiae beach
and dune management program shall be
adopted by 1995 which enhances the natural
functioning of the beach-dune system while
reducing unnatural distnrba.nces of the
primary dune_
Policy 7. 1. 5. 1: By ~ugust 1, 1990, the County shall enact
land development regulations which prohibit
construction seaward of the Coastal
Construction Control Line including
construction of coastal or shore protection
structures, except where the Florida
Department of Natural Resources has issued
the applicable permit authorizing that
cons ~ructi on.
January 9, 1990 7- 112 COASTAL
Policy 7. 1. 5. 2: Techniques for inlet maintenance which
provida for long-te~m beach stability through
facilitation o~ r~ormal littoral processes
shall be supported.
Policy 7. 1. 5. 3: The beach renourishment proj ects currently
recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and Flor~da Department of Natural
Resources shall be supported and the County
shall act as local sz~onsor if necessary.
Policy 7. 1. 5. 4: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact
land developmer.t regulations which pro~ide
locally determined criteria for the provision
of public access to beaches renaurished at
the publ i c' s expens e.
Policy 7. 1.5.5: The County shall request that the Florida
Department of Natural Resources re-establish
the Coastal Construction Control Line every
five years.
Policy 7. 1. 5. 6: The County shall request that the Florida
Department of Natural Resources reaffirm
the priority status of the Ft. Pierce Feeder
Beach Project and the overall Beach
Restoration Plan for St. Lucie County.
Appropriate State legislators shall be
requested to reintroduce and consider funding
for the feeder beach project during the 1991
legislative session.
Policy 7. 1. 5. 7: The County shall enact regulations which
p~ohibit motor vehicles on public lands
within the coastal strand and scrub upland
habitats that lie east of the Coastal
Construction Control Line, unless authorized
by the appropriate Federal, State, or local
agency. The regulations shall apply to
private lands where consistent with Chapter
161. 58, Florida Statutes, as may be amended.
The regulations shall consider measures to
improve enforcement and restrict access by
prohibited vehicles to such public areas, as
well as incentives for private property
owners to restrict the use of motor vehicles
on undeveloped lands.
Obj ective 7. 1. 6: Historic Resources. The County sha11 enact
regu3a~ions that provide for the
protection, preservation, or sensitive reuse
of historic resousces in the caastal area,
January 9, 1990 7- 113 COASTAL~
including the adoption af a historic
preservation ordi~.ance by 1993.
Policy 7. 1. 6. 1: As an al ~ernative to preserving nistoric or
archaeological sites, excavation of a site
conducted by the r^lorida Division of Historic
Resources or their approved alternate prior
to development shaii be allowed. Should a
site ~e scientifically excavated, ther.
developmPnt may proceed without preserving
the site.
Policy 7. 1. 6.2: In the case of historic or archaeological
sites, vegetation removal shall be prohibited
unless the vegetation to be removed is a part
of a bona fide scientific excavation or is a
part of an approved development plan.
Policy 7. 1. 6. 3: Donations of historic or archaeologicai sites
shall be accepted.
Policy 7. 1. 6. 4: By August 1, 1991, the criteria for
the identification of historic resources
shall be developed for incorporation into the
Historic Preservation Ordinance required
pursuant to the Future Land Use Element.
Policy 7. 1. 6. 5: By August 1, 1992, the following shall
be accomplished:
a. The identification, designation, and
mapping of any structures or sites that
mest the criteria developed pursuant to
Policy 7. 1. 6. 4, for incorporation into
the Historic Preservation Ordinance
required pursuant to the Future Land Use
Element; and
b. The submission of a list of any such
designated historic resources to the
U. S. Department of the Interior for
inclusion on the National Register of
Historic Places.
Policy 7. 1. 6. 6: A list of historic resources shall be
continually updated as appropriate.
Obj ecti ve 7. 1. 7: The County s hal l enact regul ati ons whi ch
establish criteria for prioritizi~g shoreline
uses, giving priority to water-dependent
uses, and for reducing shoreline land us~
conflicts.
January 9, 1990 7- 114 COASTAL
Policy 7. 1. i. 1: The ~ollowing cri ~sria shal~ be appl~ ed to
all proposed mari:~as during ~he preparation
of marina siting plans:
a. Preference snali be given to sites which
have been legally disturbed or
identi~ied as suitable in local marina
siting plan elements as opposed to
sensitive areas.
b. Non-Taater deper_dent uses (such as bait
and tackle, restaurants, etc.) shall be
situated on up?ands (but not dunes).
c. Marinas shall demonstrate that they have
sufficient upland area to accommodate
all needed utilities and marina support
facilities.
d. Docking facilities shall only be
approved which require minimal or no
dredging and/or filling to provide
access by canal, channel, or road,
unless otherwise permitted by the
appropriate federal and state agencies.
e. Marina basins shall only be approved
when the locations have adequate depths
to accommodate the proposed boat use.
• f. Dock and decking design and construction
shall ensure light penetration
sufficient to support existing shallow
water habitats.
g. Sewer pump-out service shall be made
available at all marinas capabla of
servicing or mooring boats for
liveaboard purposes or boats which
require pump-out service.
h. In the event marina fueling facilities
are developed, adequate and effective
measures shall be taken to prevent
contamination of area waters from
spillage or storage tank leakage.
i. Prior to operation of marina fueling
facilities, the developer shall
concurrently submit to the County a copy
of the application for a terminal
facility and the applicable porLion o~
the FDNR "Flor?da Coastal Pollutant
Spill Contingency Plan." The ~lan shall
January 9, 1990 7- 115 COAS'"AL
describe ~~a me~hods o~ fuel storage,
personnel t-a~ning, methods to be used
to dispens2 fuel, and all the
procadures, metnods, materials and
emergency ~esponse contractors to be
used in tne event of a spill.
j. Marina areas shall be compatible with
the r^uture Land Use Map and applicable
land developmezt regulations in terms of
the types ar.d intensities of uses tnat
ara permitted.
k. Landscape buff.ers and setbacks shall be
included to mitigate impacts upon
adj acent land uses.
1. Marinas shall include a hurricane
contingency plan which shall include
those methods to be taken to secure
property and facilities at the marina,
the time period necessary to complete
the security preparations and the safe
evacuation of all marina personnel and
those who rent or own space at the
mari na.
m. Marinas shall identify which docking
facilities are to be rented and which
are to be sold. Areas available to the
public shall be identified and
maintained as such.
n. All applications for marinas shall
include a market study indicating the
need, market area, and user profile of
the marina and shall include projected
costs and revenues proving the economic
feasibility of the marina.
Pol i cy 7. 1. 7. 2: The County shall enact regul azi ons that
require public, commercial, and private
marinas with more than ten (10) wetslips to
prepare a marina hurricane evacuation plan.
The plan shall be submitted to the St. Lucie
County Office of Emergency Management for
review and shall be approved by 1995.
Policy 7. 1. 7. 3: A marina siting element shall be developed by
December 31, 1991 for incorporation into this
element. The marina siting element shall be
consistent with the applicable policies under
this objective or, based on locally
determinad criteria, include proposed
Janua~y 9, i990 7- 116 COASTAL
amendments to these policies ror
consideration by the County Commission.
Po1=cy 7. 1. 7. 4: By Augus ~ l, 1990, the County shall enact
land development regulations to protect the
citizens and natural resources of the coastal
area ~rom shoreiir.e land use conflicts based
on locally determined criteria. At a
minimum, the criLeria shall address the
f ol 1 owi ng:
a. Limiting redavelopment to water-
dependent or water-related uses in areas
of shoreline land use conflicts and low
density residential development;
b. Reducing conflicts between residential
and mixed use developments;
c. Protecting the natural resources of the
coastal area from hazardous substances
and stormwater runoff, and utilizing the
County hydrogeologist in the developmert
review process, as appropriate; and
d. Prioritizing shoreline land uses.
GOAL 7. 2: RSDUCI NG VIILNER~BI LI TY TO HIIRR.Z CAN73S. ST.
LIICIB COQNTY SH~iLL STRIVE TO PROTECT THE
P$OPLE AND PROPERTY IN ST. LIICI}3 COIIN`I'Y FROAI
TH$ F3FFBCTS OF HURRI CANS STOR24 D1~AiAGE_
Obj ective 7. 2. 1: The County shall address development and
redevelopment in the coastal area by enacting
land development regulations by A.ugust 1,
1990 which:
a_ Mini.mize the danger to life and
property from hursicanes and floods,
and;
b. Restrict building and population growth
in coastal high hazard areas.
Pol i cy 7. 2. 1. 1: The coas tal hi gh haz ard area s hal l be de f i ned
as ali of those properties located ~aithin V
zones as designated by the r^ederal Emergency
Management Agency and those pronerties
lying east of the Coastal Construction
Cont~ol Line as designated by the Florida
Department of Natural Resources.
January 9, ?990 7- 117 COASTAL
Policy 7. 2. 1. 2: New aanitary sewer facilities in the
hurricane vulnerability zone shal'_ be flood-
proofed zo pret~ent inflow and insure that raw
sewage does not leak from them during flood
events.
Policy 7. 2. 1. 3: The construction of County-funded public
facil~ties in the coastal high hazard area
shall be prohibited, unless the facility is
necessary for public access, natural
resource restoration or enhancement, or to
provide for recreational facilities and other
appropriate water dependent facilities.
Policy 7. 2. 1. 4: New development and redevelopment within V or
A flood zones as designated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall employ
building construction techniques which are
consistent with the requirements of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood
Insurance Program.
Policy 7.2. 1. 5: By August l, 1990, the County shall enact
land development regulations which establish
criteria for obtaining additional road and
utility right-of-way or easements, where
necessary, through the development approvals
process for the future relocation of
facilities located within the coastal high
hazard area.
Policy 7. 2. 1. 6: Beginning in 1991, an annual pre-hurricane
tree trimming program shall be instituted in
which a survey of potential windthrown
hazards is conducted and appropriate trees
removed or trimmed.
Policy 7. 2. 1. 7: The County shall enact regulations that
prohibit the use of public funds for
infrastructure expansion or improvements in
coastal high hazard areas unless such funds
are necessary to:
a. Provide services to existing development
(structures approved for development
prior to the ado~tion of this
Comprehens i ve °1 an ) ;
b. Provide adequate evacuat~.on in the event
of emergency; or
c, 9rovide for recreat_onal r:eeds and ocher
a~brobriate water deber.dent uses
January 9, _990 7 - ?18 COASTAL
inciuding the restoration or er.hancsment
of naturai resoarces within the coastal
area.
Policy 7. 2. 1. 8: The County shall develop cr~ ~eria for use in
the implementation of the regulations
requi red i n Poi i cy 7. 2. 1. 7 above.
Obj ective 7. 2. 2: The County shall promote the construction of
publiciy owned buildings that can be safely
utilized as public hurricane shelters.
Policy 7. 2. 2. 1: County-funded buildinqs shall include the
function of public hurricane shelter in their
design. Some of the elements to be
considered in the design are:
a. Floodin5 potential;
b. Accessibility;
c. Rain surcharge on roofs;
d. Window/door glass exposures;
e. The use of dedicated roll up/down
hurricane shutters;
f. Adequate sanitary facilities;
g. Emergency power supply; and
h. Emergency water supply.
Policy 7. 2. 2. 2: Request in writing that other governmental
entities in the County use Policy 7. 2. 2• 1
in the design of new buildings when
practicable and that they ask the County's
Emergency Management Director to review
and comment on proposals for new public
bui 1 di ngs .
Policy 7. 2. 2. 3: Structural and functional designs of County
buildings shall be reviewed and retrofitted
for public shelters where it is cost
effective and/or practical.
Policy 7. 2. 2. 4: All new residential development in excess of
fifty (50) units in areas subject to coastal
flooding shall provide shelter space for
twenty ~{20) percent of the residents at a
spacing requirement of forty (40) square feet
per person, or demonstrate the availability
of the shelter space.
Obj ective 7. 2. 3: The County shall maintain the worst case
22.5 hour hurricane evacuation time.
Policy 7. 2. 3. Midway Road, Port St. Lucie Boulevard, and
Janua~y 9, 1990 7- i19 CCASTAL
Prima Jista Baulevard s'r~al ~ be improved by
1995 so as to aclz~.eva and maintain a Level of
Service D.
policy 7. 2, 3. 2: Prior to tne cornpletion of the improvements
described ~n Policy 7. 2. 3. 1, the direction of
traffic flow for one eastbound lane of each
of these ~oadways (Midway Road, Port St.
Lucie ~oulevard, and Prima ~ista Boule~~ard)
shall be reversed during per~ods of emergency
evacuation.
Policy 7. 2. 3. 3: By the year 1997, the approacnes to North
Bridge and South Bridge shall be improved to
decrease their probability of being flooded
during pre-landfall storm surge flooding.
Policy 7. 2. 3. 4: The County shall conduct a study by the year
2000 tn determine the feasibility and
location of a bridge across the Indian River
Lagoon in the general vicinity of Walton
Roacl. The study shall include economic,
environmental impact, and justification
statements.
Policy 7. 2. 3. 5: All hurricane evacuation studies and plans
conducted by or for the County shall be
provided to the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council, nearby counties, and all
municipalities within St. Lucie County for
review for consistency with regional and
local plans. Conversely, St. Lucie County
shall request for purposes of review, all
hurricane evacuation studies and plans for
nearby counties, municipalities within St.
Lucie County, and the Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council.
Policy 7. 2. 3. 6: In order to provide the basis for determining
adequate hurricane evacuation times for
existing and future development, the C~unty
shall request from the appropriate agency,
with appropriate administrative and fiscal
support by the County, that the hurricane
vulnerability zone be redefined based on the
expected Future Land Use patterns adopted in
this Comprehensive Plan. The project should
include project=ons on population at risk,
s:~elter space needs, and shelter space
deficits or excess capacities, ~ased or~ tne
redefined '~urricar_e -JU~ ne~abil~ ty zone.
Policv 7. 2. 3. i: Request in wr~t'_ng ~hat ~he or; da
Dapa~~~~ne~t o~ ^'ransportat~~.on des~.ynate ~hree
January 9, i990 7-'_20 COASTA~,
of the four lanes of the Florida Turnpike ror
travel in the direction needed for
evacuation, :~hen an evacuation order =s
gi ven.
Policy 7. 2. 3. 8: By December 31, 1990, prepare a revised
estimate Qf maxini~am hurricane evacuation time
that will take into accour_t programmed
improvements in critical transpar~ation links
as described in th~s element.
Policy 7. 2. 3. 9: If the Florida Department of Transportation,
in con;unction with Martin County, decides to
widen the Jensen Beach Bridge to South
Hutchinson Island, discuss possible St. Lucie
County participation in the project with the
appropriate parties.
Objective 7.2.4: The County shall provide immediate response
to post-hurricane situations through the
implementation of post-disaster response and
redevelopme~t plans to be prepared and
adopted by Deceffiber 31, i991.
Policy 7.2.4.1: The current Local Peacetime Emergency Plan
shall be modified to comply with the policies
under this obj ective, and to contain step-
by-step details for post-disaster recovery
operations.
Policy 7. 2. 4.2: After a hurricane, but prior to re-entry or
the population into evacuated areas, a
special meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners shall be convened to hear
prelimi nary damage assessments, appoi nt a
Recovery Task Force, and consider a temporary
moratorium on building activities not
necessary for the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
Policy 7. 2. 4. 3: A Recovery Task F~rce shall be named to
include the Community Development Director,
Emergency Management Director, County
Engineer, and Sheriff, and other members as
directed by the Chairman of the County
Commission. Staff shall be provided by the
de~artmer_ts ~ahose directors sit on the Task
Force. The Task Force shall be disbanded
after implementing its responsibiiity.
Policy 7. 2. 4. 4: The responsibilities of the Recovery Task
Force shali inc~ude: ~e~iew and issuance ef
e:ner~ency bu; i d_~g perm~ ~s; coordinatior. wi
January 9, i990 7- 121 COASTAL
state and federa' of~icials ~o prepare
disaster assistance appl~cations; analysis
and recommendation of hazard mitigation
opt~ons to the Cou~ty Commission, including
reconstruction or relocation oi damaged
public facilities; development of a
redevelopmer_t plan; and recommendat~on of
amendments to the Comprenensive Plan, Local
Peacetime Emergency °1 ar., ar.d other
appropr,_ate policies and procedures.
Policy 7.2.4.5: The following post-emergency activities shall
be pursued: immediate repairs to potable
water, wastewater, and power facilities;
removal of debris; stabilization or removal
of structures about to collapse; and m?nimal
repairs to make dwellings habitable. These
actions shall receive first priority in
permitting decisions. Long-term
redevelopment activities snall be postponed
until the Recovery Task Force has completed
its tasks.
Policy 7. 2. 4. 6: If appropriate to rebuild structures which
suffer damage in excess of fifty (50) percent
of their appraised value, current
requirements shall be met including those
enacted since construction of the structure
including the Coastal Constructior Control
• Li ne.
Policy 7. 2. 4.7: Structures which suffer repeated damage to
pilings, foundations, or loadbearing walls
and are proposed to be rebuilt shall be
required to rebuild landward of their current
location or modify the structure to delete
the areas most prone to damage.
Policy 7. 2. 4. 8: Repair or reconstruction of seawalls shall be
accompanied by beach fill or other
appropriate material authorized by the
appropriate Federal or State permitting
agencies.
Pol i cy 7. 2. 4. 9 The County s hal l as s es s the val ue o f al l
structures in the coastal high hazard area
and the utility of the land for public
assess, and evaluatE tne potential for
acquisi ~ion, relocation, or ot: er appropriate
measur2s in lir_e with fiscal constraints when
pos t di s as ter opportuni ti es ari s e.
Policy 7. 2, 4. 10: The Recovery Task r^ores sha' 1 review ali
intera~ency haza~d mit~gat_on reports as '~~ey
January 9, i9a~ 122 CO~STAL
are producad a^d ma:~e recommendations for
amendments to the comprehensive plan
ac cordi ngl y.
GOAL 7. 3: PIIBLI C ACCESS. THE Ai~OIIN'P Oi~ PIIBLI C ACCESS
TO OCE~S C, E~3'IIA~I i~L, Ai+~D RI VERI NS COASTAL
R1~SOIIRCES SH~I,L IhCR~ASE BY Ti3E YEAit 2flU0.
Obj ective 7. 3. 1: The County sha11 not ezperience a net 1QSs
of public beach, lagoon, and river access.
A comprehensiee public access program shall
be implemented which will include, at a
minimum, an increase in parking spaces,
improved lagoonal shoreline access, boat
ramps, and non-boat fis~i.ng access points
by the year 2000. Programs for the
acrn~isition of public access facilities
shall be consistent with the financing
ability of the County.
Pol i cy 7. 3. 1. 1: The County s hal l enact ragul ati ons whi ch
provide for the maintenance of existing
legally used public access to the beach and
lagoon shoreline by new development, and
require that existing legally used public
beach access ways be identified on the site
plans for new beachfront development with
continuation of the access way, relocation
of it on the site, or donation of it to the
County.
Policy 7. 3. 1. 2: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact
land development regulations F~hich require a
fishing catwalk for each new or replacement
bridge over the lagoon. By December 31,
1995, a study shall be conducted which
identifies areas for other non-boat fishing
access points such as piers or improved
mosquito control dikes. The study shall be
presented to the County Commissioners for
inclusion in the Capital Improvements Element
of this Comprehensive Plan and subsequent
implementation in a year decided upon by the
Commission.
Policy 7. 3. 1. 3: By August 1, 1990, tne County snall enact
land development regulations which require
parxing and access to a State or County road
with all public access facilities.
Policy 7. 3. l. 4: By ~ugust 1, 1990, ~he County shall enact
January 9, 1~90 7- 123 COAST~L
1ar~d developmer.~ regu~ations Hhich ~rov~d~
criteria for the donations and acce~tar.ce oi
shoreline lands suitable zor use as 1JUl~lic
access ~~.cili~ias.
Policy 7. 3. l. 5: By December 31, i995, a s ~udy of those ar2as
along Stat2 Road AlA where paved parkir.g
could be provided for access to either tne
beach or lagoon sha11 be completed. The
study shall be presen~ed to tne County
Commission for ~::clusion in the Capital
Improvements Element of this Comprehensive
Plan and subseQue~t implementation in a year
decided upon by the Commission.
Policy 7. 3. 1. 6: By December 31, 1995, a study of those areas
most appropriate for the location of
additional boat ramps for access to coastal
waters shall be completed. The study snall
be presented to the County Commission for
inclusion in the Capital Improvements Element
of this Comprehensive Plan and subsequent
implementation in a year decided upori by the
Commission.
Policy 7. 3. 1. 7: By December 31, 1992, those areas most
appropriate for the location of new marinas
and existing marinas most appropriate for
expansion shall be identified based on the
criteria developed in the Marina Siting
Element required pursuant to Policy 7. 1. 7. 3.
The study shall be presented to the County
Commission to be included as amendments to
this Comprehensive Plan and the appropriate
land development regulations which would
permit the development or expansion of
mari nas .
GOAI, 7. 4: PIIBLI C FACI LI TI rsS SHALI~ B$ ADEQII~,Tg AND
AV~iI LABLB TO SERVE THS RESI DENTS OF AZdD
pI SI TpRS TO THS COD3~ITY' S COASTAL AREA.
Objective 7.4. 1: The appropriate Level of Service standards
within this Comprehensive Plan {including
those in the Capita3 Iffiprovements Blement and
Traffic Circu3ation Element} and t~e
standards under this objective shall be
applied to infrastructure facilities during
the de~velopment approval process. The
service area and phasing o£ such facilities
shall be consistent with the goals,
~ar.uary 9, 199fl 7- 124 COASTAL
obj ectives, and policies of this and all
other eleffie~ts of this Cor~prehensive ~la~
Policy 7. 4. 1. l: The Coun`y sha~.l enact regulat:ons Lhat
prohibiL the use of public funds for
infras~ructure eYpansion or improvements in
coasta~ hi~h hazard areas unless such iunds
are necessary to:
a. Prov~de services to existing development
{structures approved for develepment
prior to tne adoption of this
Com~rehens i ve P1 an
b. Provide adequate evacuation in the event
of emergency; or
c. Provide for recreatior_al needs and other
appropriate water dependent uses
including the restoration or enhancement
of natural resources within the coastal
area.
Policy 7.4. 1. 2: The County shall develop criteria for use in
the implementation of the regulations
required in Policy 7.4. 1. 1 above.
Policy 7. 4. 1. 3: The County shall enact regulations which
provide criteria for beach renourishment
projects including the following level of
service standards:
a. Beach fill must include a protective
berm high enough to prevent overwash by
a ten-year storm event, and
b. Beach renourishment projects shall have
a design life of at least five years.
Policy 7. 4. 1. 4: By August 1, 1990, tha County shall enact
land development regulations which prohibit
development proposals that would reduce the
level of service provided by an adjacent
renourished beach below locally determined
criteria.
Policy 7. 4. l. 5: By August 1, 1990, the County shall enact
land developmant regulat~ons which li:ttit
future development within water and sewer
service areas to the capacity of ~~e
facilities to supply the appropriate Leve' of
Service standards estab~isned ~n this
Compre:^.ens~ ve Plan.
January 9, 1990 7- 125 COAST~L
Policy i. 4. 1. 6: By august 1, ~990, t:~e County shall enact
land development re5ulatior_s which require
turn lanes, ~ark;ng lanes, or other ~aved
areas, ~articula=ly at appropriate
intersec~ions, ror new or improved roads,
which can be used to increase the number or
traffic lanes for :zurricane evacuation.
Policy 7. 4. 1. 7: By Decem~er 31, 1995, drainage systems with~n
the coastal area that are operating below the
Level oi Service standards established in
this Comprehensive Plan shall be identified,
programs in line witn the administrative and
fiscal cor.straints of the County to restore
or enhance the drainage systems shall be
implemented, and programs to mitigate future
disruptions or degradations shall be
established.
Obj ective 7. 4. 2: St. Lucie County shall adopt as part of this
element the Port of Ft_ Pie=ce ~iaster Plan
including the goals, abj ectives, and policies
within it, which shall be found in a separate
section of this Comprehensive Plan.
Policy 7. 4. 2. l: The Board of County Commissioners, sitting as
the St. Lucie County Port and Airport
Authority, shall coordinate with the City of
Ft. Pierce and other governmental entities to
resolve problems related, but not limited, to
transportation, development and land use,
natural and man-made hazards and disasters,
and protection of natural resources.
Policy 7. 4. 2. 2: The Board of County Commissioners, sitting
as the St. Lucie County Port and Airport
Authority, shall provide notice to the City
of Ft. Pierce, with time for the City to
respond, on any Port and Airport Authority
activities related to the port that vary from
the Port Master Plan and/or which require
permitting by the City.
Policy 7. 4. 2. 3: All Port and Airport Authority activities
related to the port shall be consistent with
the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
January 9, 1990 7-? 26 CO~S'~'~~
BI ~I~ Q~RAPHY
Agricultural Extension Ager_t. °er~onai Communication. May 22,
1989.
CH2M Hill, Inc. 1985. PO?"L of Ft. Pierce Master Development
Plan. Ft. Pierce PorL ar.d Airport Authority.
Chapter 1-5. Article II. Buildir_g Cod2. Division 2. Coastal
Construction Code. St. Luc~.e County Code and Compiled
Laws .
Chapter 1-7. 5. Article II. St. Lucie River Ordinance. St.
~ Lucie County Code an~ Compiled Laws.
Chapter 1-7.6. Article II.1. Mangrove Protection Ordinance.
St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Law~.
Chapter 1-7.6. Article ~II. Sea Turtle Protection Ordinance.
St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws.
Chapter 1-7.6. Article V. Hutchinson Island Coastal Area
Protection Ordinance. St. Lucie County Code and Compiled
Laws .
Chapter 1-7. 6. Article V. Hutchinson Island Coastal Area
Protection Ordinance. St. Lucie County Code and Compiled
Laws.
Chapter 2-15. Port and Airport Authority. St. Lucie County Code
and Compiled Laws.
Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. Minimum Criteria for
Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and
Determination of Compliance. Adopted, February 14, 1986,
and amended September 30, 1986.
Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Water Quality
Standards. ~
Chapter 61-2755, Laws of Florida. St. Lucie County Beach
Preservation Act. (also Chapter 2-12. Article II. St.
Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws.)
Chapter 87-97, Laws of Florida. Surface Water Improvement and
Management Act.
Chapter 161,~ Florida Statutes. Beach and Shore Preservation.
Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Lar.d Development ~egulation
Act.
Chapter 258, Florida Statutes. State Parks and Preserves. Part
III. Aquatic Preserves.
Coastal Zone Resources, Inc. 1985. St. Lucie County Beach and
Dune Protection Ordinance Narrative Report. Jupiter, FL.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1985. Indian
River Water Quality Survey, 1984-1985. Port St. Lucie,
FL.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. 1986. Report to
the Governor with Recommendations for Resource Management
in the Indian River ~aaoons System. Indian River Laaoon
rieid Committee o~ the In~.eragency ~Ianagemer.L Committee.
Office of Coastal Management. Tailahassee, r^L.
Florida Department oi Natura~ Resources. 198~a. North r^ork, St.
Luci2 River ~quat~c Preserve Management ~1an.
r^~or,:.da Depa=tment of Natural Resources. 1985a. Indian R~ ver
Lagoon Aquatic PZ'258rV25 ~ianagement P' an. Vero Beach to
Ft. ~ierce and ~arsen Beach ~.o ~upi ~~r ~.nlet.
January 9, 1990 7- 127 COr~S~'a~
Florida Department of Natural R°sources. 1985b. Toward a
Proactive Statewide ~arina Sit~r.g Program. Division of
State Lands.
Florida Department oz Natura~ Resou=ces. 1987a. St. ~ucie
County Beach Restoration Management Plan.
Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1987b. Outdoor
Recreation in Florida. ~ ~omprehensive Program for
Meeting Florida's Outdoor Recreation Needs. Division oi
Recreation and Parks. Tallahasse~, r^L.
Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Coastal
Construction Control Line Review and Reestablishment Study
f or St. Luci e County. Tal l ahas s ee, FL.
Florida Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Division of
Marine Resources. Historical Ex-Vessel Values of Selected
Species from St. Lucie County. St. Petersburg, FL.
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 1982. The
Sebastian Inlet - Ft. Pierce Inlet Barrier Island. A
Profile of Natural Communities, Development Trends, and
Resource Management Guidelines. Vero Beach, FL.
Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association. 1989.
Shoreline (Monthly Publication). May - June, 1989.
Ft. Pierce Watershed Action Committee. November 17, 1988
Meeting. Ft. Pierce, FL.
Gilio, J. L. 1985. Mangrove Values, Impacts and Restoration in
St. Lucie County, Florida. Jensen Beach, FL.
Hand J., V. Tauxe and J. Watts. 1986. 1986 Water Quality
Assessment 305(b) Technical Report. Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation.
Hutchinson Island Residential District. Section 3. 3. 122.
Appendix A. Zoning Regulations. St. Lucie County Code
and Compiled Laws.
Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Committee.
1983. Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management
Plan. Florida Department of Community Affairs. Office of
the Secretary. Tallahassee, FL.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. 1982. St. Lucie County Barrier
Island Study. Analysis of Growth Management Policy Plan.
Kimley-Horn and Associates. 1986. Barrier Islands Access Study.
West Palm Beach, FL.
Marine Industries Association of the Treasure Coast, Inc. 1989.
Personal Communication. July 18, 1989.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1989. Southeast Fisheries
Center. Ex-Vessel Fisheries Landings. Miami, FL.
Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil Survey of St. Lucie
County, Florida. United States Department of Agriculture.
Soil Conservation Service. 1987. Twenty-Six Ecological
Communities of Florida. United States Department of
Agr~ culture. Gainesville, rL.
Solin and Associates, In~. 1985. Issues Confronting Sea Turtle
Protec~ion ir_ St. Lucie County. Analysis of zssues
Related to Proposed Ordinance. Revised April 13, 1986.
South Florida Watar Manag2ment District. Land Use Lar_d Cover
Maps. 1986. ~est Palm Beach, rL.
South Florida Water Manaaement Dist~ict. 1937. ~ata
Decumer.tation fo~ St. Lucie Courty. Wate~ Resou~ces ~a~a
~anuary 9, 1990 7- i28 COAS^A~
and Related Techr.ical Information to Assist Local
Government Planning. South rlorida Water Management
District, West Palm Beach, FL.
St. Johns River Water Management District and South rlorida Water
Management District. 1987. Indian River Joint
Reconnaissance Rep~rt. r^inal Report. Palatka, FL.
St. Johns River Water Management District and South rlorida Water
Management District. 1988. Interim Surface Water and
I mprovement ( SWI M} Pl an f or the I ndi ar. Ri ver Lagoon.
Palatka, r^L.
St. Lucie County Mosquito Control District. Personal
Communication. March 15, April 11, and Apri1 14, 1989.
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. 1988. Treasure Coast
Region Hurricane Evacuation Study Update Report. Palm
City, FL.
University of West Florida. 1981. Phase I Final Report of the
Comprehensive Erosion Control, Beach Preservation and
Hurricane Protection Plan for the State of Florida.
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1986. Ft. Pierce Harbor, Florida
Feasibility Report. Improvements for Navigation.
Jacksonville, FL.
U. S. Department of Interior. 1987. Report to Congress: Coastal
Barrier Resources System. Proposed Recommendations for
Additions to or Deletions from the Coastal Barrier
Resources System.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Greenhouse Effect,
Sea Level Rise and Coastal Wetlands. Office of Policy
Anal ys i s. Was hi ngton, D. C.
Virnstein, R. W. , and K. D. Cairns. 1986. Seagrass Maps of the
Indian River Lagoon. r^inal Report.
January 9, ?990 7- 129 COASTAL
APpENDICES
January 9, 1990 COASTAL
APPENDIX 1
SEAGRASS BEDS IN THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON
ST. LUCI E COUNTY, 198 6
(Virnstein and Cairns, 1986).
January 9, i990 7- A- 1 CO~STAL
i ~ ~ ; ~ i .
~ ~
~`~-~,y ~ ~ f
~ ~ I
. , ~
3 ~ '
~ c~ ~ '
~ . ~J
,
_ , ~ ~ ~
` ' .
_ ~ ~ 3 ' ~ ~ ~ 4' f 3 ,
~ ~ n~.~e ~ , R juno. ,
~ S± ~~~.e = = 5. ~ . .
~ C0~ ~ •,1~~' ~ ~ • • . , '
; 3 b- ~ . ~
.
~ ~ ~
Y, Z Z- ' . - ~
4~ ~ ~ • . ,
: .
= 3 . ~ sto.~a~~ ,
' c.o~~ ~ ,
, .
f i3 ~
.•?c••
. ~ 3 ~
r. . ~ • . ~
. 9 gI e ~
Pnr~CS~ ~ 4 Holt ' ~
CoVL' ,r , •
~t, ~ . ' ~ .
.
' ~ o~ ~ ' ~
, , • , ` ` ~'y° ~aor ~ ~ ~ ' • '
.a
. r~wµ , .
. ~ 1 ~
. . a- ; . :
~ . • ~ e,~„ '
~ ,
, tio, 3 . .
, 3.~ c v
i h, ~ . ; .
t ~ ( ~ , ~ ,
. . r~ ~ 1
I ` ' , ~ ,
~ , . -27
L . :n` :
; .
;r , . ~ . .
~
2 iDensity per^~.^.`..j •
; ~
class I cover ~
• t 0 ~ < 10 I • ~ ~
~C ~ , ~
. ~ 2 i 1 ~-40 , , ~
. ~ ~
' d j , 7,~ ~ s-
_ . ~ ' ~ i 3 ; C~-70 ~ . , . ~ r . '
~ ~ i~
~~,ALE i ~ -
. .
~ _ A _ 2 . _
, / ti~ , i
~ ~ , ~ ~ 3 ~,~j,.~ ; ~ ?
~
~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ' ~ ` ,
i 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ' y ,
~ ~ ~ 1 f,, ~
~ j . ' . ,
n
% I 5 ' . • • ~ ~
~ ~ '_~i,
, ~ ; . ~ , ~r., ,
, Y~
, t I ~ 1 , .
' I J ' ~ .
. ~ . l ~ ~ ' ~ ~
l ~ ~ r,• ~ ~11 J C ^ ~ . '
`J ~ ~j~ ~r • ~ ~o
A . ~ •
~3
3 ~
~outt , ~ ,
~
` '^d,, ~ •.~y ' ' ~ ~
s ~~~y . ~
/ ~1.V, ~
. Z ¢ 3 ¢ • ' .
. i • ~ ~
~ ~ ~ Q •t~_I ~1 , . * , .I,
~ ~ t`.~! ' , ,
~ ~ ~
~ l 0 '
3 m , ~ , .
. 7- ~ ~ /~e ~ r
. • • U'Y . . ' I
v,. 3 • ~ . ~ • . • ~ . , ' d\?
'f- 3"~ ~ ' ~ ~ j~~'e':t
~ 3 ~ ; ~ 1. . . , Y4e~,
~ ~ . 3ock ts. , . .
.
~ ~ ~ , -g
~ ~ ~ 3 j ' ,
~ ~ ~ . ~ ~
X 3 ~ " ~ , • .
~ ~ ~ ¢ ¢ ~ "~~-24
. ,r , , .
. ~ . ~
; i ~ . ~ . ' . .
f''y ~ i~2'1S 1 t~E."'Ce^ t
` .:ty: C~~SS CQV?t' ; • ~
/ , ~ • .
( ;t~'~~ ~ Q i ~ , ' ,
~ 4 1 ~ <10 j• , ~
~ ' ~ j 2 ~ ~ ` .
3 .
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
4 .1 1,~ d > 70 l~ ~1
.
. _
^ ~ _ A _ ~ . ,
~ ~ j ~ ' VY ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
' ~"'T~ ' r?- \ ~ ~
~ , .../~i i-~-
. ~ ~ ~ ~ _ .
~ i i \ - I
I I _ -~-C'~, ~ , ~ . . I
Y % ~ ,i,f + r , . , '
a ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ,
~ ~ ~S- ~ . , ~ ~ ~ ' ~
4 J ; r++ ~ + ; ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ ,
, . : . ~ , -4- . 2 .1.
x ' •
j ~
. .T4y~,, ~ _ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'ti~k ~ e '
. • ~ • . ; -
, . ' ~ Fort p;erce ~
(r,le .
. - ~t
. . ~ _ _ - ~ '
~ - . ' ~ ~ .
3 .
• ~ ~ • _ . . ~ . . - - - . . _ `
Cause~a;? I s. r
~Ot't ~ 3 " .
• ~ ~
~1~tC~ ~ y ~ ; -
. ~ ~ .ti• ,~J v
~ ti ~
~ ~ ~ .
a
-z g , ~ :
~s~' ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
3 ~
, .
, 3 ~ y
. ~
. ,
. . •
} ~ --21
. , . ~ ~ . .
3 .
.~,~Qti. ~enni~,~ z .
~ove
;Censity ~ Percent~:~
3 r ~ ~lass cove~ • ;
• ~ ~ 0 ~ .
' 7 <;u^
~ 2 I ~~_7~ ,
~ 3 ~ 0- 0 ~
S-- ~ 4 I > i 0 ' ,
' . , .
~ _ .
,
x, - , _ . ~ ~
. 7 A 4 _
i /
~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~
' i ~ ! ~ ~ /~l'
i~ \ /
r ~i ~ ~
;y. ~ ~ ~ j ,
/
~ ~ ( ~ ~
\ ~ 3 _ ~ .
/ ."Q~ P.~n.^
\ :
\ Jr
3 r , ~ove y~ .
~ ,
.
f~
~ 3 3 ~ :
. ~ ; '
_ ~
~
' 30 .Bear .
• z 2 ~ .
,
. - ~ .
3 ~ .
' ~S~ , - - "
~ .
3
; . ~
~ ,
,
. ~
~ ,
:
~
~ ~
. ~
, .
;
.
~ . ,
~ .
.
.
.
. .
3 ~
.
,
~ ~ . ~s
. ~ jDer nsity ?ercent ~ .
, ~ cidss ~ Cover I •
~ ~
~ < ,
' I ~ . .
~ 2 ~ l G-4 G ~ . ,"1: ! e ' .
3;z ~ ; a ; ~>,o~' + ~
. ~ . . ~ , .
~ ~ ~-A-s..
~ , ~ ~ ,
! , _
~ ~ ,
''i ' ~ '
i ; ~ I8
. ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
. ~ ~ ~ .
3 z : .
"'iddfe
, . j p-~. .
jr
. „
' ' r
' ~
. ~
~ ' .
'
~
;
. ' 3
. . Z t ~'k .
l
~ .
F~ n v . ~
A~~ .
i. ~
. ti
3
. ,
.
.
. •
A
. ~ ` •
{ 1 ~
~1
. ~
.
. ~ , .
. • • ~t
1J~
~ ~j fl ' ~ ~ ~.l~ei~
. • . ~ ' `:1
. y- . • .,,4~ ~
, . . ~?~,y'\ e~
/ ~4aQ:h
i , ~
~ 1, : ' ; 15
. ~Dens; ~y ?ercenti , •
~
' f ciass ( cover • •
, • 0 i ~ .
. ° , i o ; ~ ~
; 2 ~ '0-~0 i~ , • .
' ' 3 ' ~0-7~ ' : . I~ .
_ . , ~ ; ~ , ' r /
. ~':,;t-_ - . -';'0
. r
. . , , .
• 7 - A - 6 .
, -
/ i i' / ' '
' . , I t ~ ~ ; •
~ .
l ~
~
.
. , . ~
. ~ . ~ . . ,
• . . .
.
.
. . . .
. ~
. .
.
m,,; ~ ~ , ~ ,
.
~ ~
. . . . . y .
1'' ,i, , ~ k • , - G r ' ~ : i
, , • e~q M~''' ~
• ' ~ . •
. • '
~ ~ t Nucl~nr
' • . ~i
~ PowQ~ Flant ~
. , ~ :
3 ~ , . . . . . . . . ~
~ ~
a.,: ~ '
t . ~ ~ : ~
,
,
t ~
~
x
. ~ ~ .r: :
~ ~
. i. 4 2 ~ .y ,
. 3
~ ~
•
. !Density P~r~En}' ~ , ~ ~2
~ `i
~ c;ass cover !
' ~ <70 ~ ~
~ ' ~ I 2 ' ~ ~ "1 ~J i , ~ . 3
~ . ~ 4 1 ~>7~~ ~ ; ~
• ' A~ . _ ~
, ^a
3 t~~ ~ ' , .
' , ~ 7 - A - 7 .
~1
~ ~
I ~ 3 ; ~ ~
• i ~
~I rl~~ .
\ ~ ~ \
. ~
. ~ ~ .
~ ,
,
i .
~ ~
~ ~ .
3 ~ ~ .
.
a~ 1 .
r
3
~
~ ~ ~ 1 .
, . ~
~ .
,
,
. . ,
3 ; t ' ~ ~
. -
. . ~ ~ ~ I~
~f ~ ~
o ~k ~
~ ~ ~ , f.?
r~ . ~
. •.l~ Q ~j ~ y
. ; l ~ ti ^
t ` y 3
. , . . . . . ~ ,
i' ~ •I' ~ . • ~
. `b ~
, 9
, Ne~les~
~ Is. v .
-
, ;
, ~ ~ • ,
• ,
.
~ ' ~1 i~Jensity ~ Per~ent~ ~ '
' CldSS COVer ' r
. , ~ O ~ O ,
, i . ~
I '
• , 1 ( <10
, ~ ~ ~ 2 i , ~_y~ ~ ~ ~ .
,
1 i 3 a0-i0 i
) ~ y ~ ; a i >;o i ~ ~ ~ ~
. ; , ~ : . .
~-A-s
.~ww i ~ \ I ~~II _ j~~ ayl ~ ~ e S ~ ' ~
~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ; , 'y----~~ 'G
~ ~ 1 11 .
~i
' ; ~ • ,i
';I ~
.
.
/ ~ / ' ~
. Y , ~
l ~ ~ .
;
~ .
~ ~ ~
, ~ , ~ , .
~ / A'
' ~ ~
) ~
L. ~ ~ ,
~ + r
~ ~ , , , ~ \ ` S f ~ :
~ . ~ .
tD ~ ~ r~~e Co . . ,
n ~ Co . , ' .
7, ~ ~ • . .
,
1. 3 ~ ~
. 3 f. ~
. ~ .
,
k ~ ' ~ ,
`F~ _ .
, , ~ •
,
l . ~ 3 . '
,
~ ~ ' :
• • 1
~ .
. 3
4 _ f,~.
3 ~ ~ ~
, . ~ ~ ' .
~
. ,
' 6
I ~ . ' ` ~r\ ,
~ ~ ~Density Percen~~ 't, , ?4~~.
i ~~a$$ ~ C~Ve~ ~ . w%ta
~ ~ 0 ~ 1
i ~ ~ ,<1U 1
• ~ 2 ~ v-4l~ ~ y.
~ ~ ~ 4 ' ~0-'J ' ,
i >~v i ~
~ ~ ,1 . ` ~
7 - A - 9
_
A~apendix 2. Common ar_imals of the beach environment.
MAMMALS BIRDS
raccoons semipalmated plover
old-field mice ~iping plover
black-bellied plover
INVERTEBRATES ruddy turnstone
willet
ghost crabs least sandpiper
flatworms western sandpiper
copepods sanderling
common tern
REPTILES least tern
Royal tern
green turtle black skimmer
leatherback turtle herring gull
loggerhead turtle laughing gull
ring-billed gull
Source: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1982
January 9, 1990 7- A- 10 COaSTAL
_ _ _
Apbendix 3. Animals typical~y occurring in or characteristic of
the South Florida Coas~al Strand ecological
community.
BI RDS
spotted sandpiper Bachman's sparrow ruddy turnstone
cedar waxwing great horned owl red-tailed hawk
cardinal boat-tailed grackle turkey vulture
semipalmated plover willet snowny plover
killdeer mangrove cuckoo flicker
bobwhite quail ground dove black vulture
crow fishcrow blue jay
yellow-rumpet warbler peregrine falcon palm warbler
Southern bald eagle American oyster catcher little kestrel
loggerhead shriks ring-billed gull herring gull
red bellied woodpecker red headed woodpecker screech owl
crested flycatcher Eastern mockingbird English sparrow
downy woodpecker rufous-sided townee painted bunting
common grackle Eastern phoebe field sparrow
black-bellied plover rough winged swallow Royal tern
Carolina wren brown thrasher house wren
robin Eastern kingbird mourning dove
Arnerican kestrel pelicans
MAMMALS
armadillo opossum Florida panther
striped skunk white tail deer Florida mouse
beach mouse raccoon grey squirrel
spotted skunk rabbit grey fox
bobcat
*
REPTI LES
green anole black racer coral snake
loggerhead turtle leatherback turtle green turtle
hawksbill turtle rough green snake gopher tortoise
Atlantic ridley turtle island glass lizard skink
AMPHI BI ANS
Florida gopher frog
*The coastal strand may serve as a nesting ground for sea
turtles. ~dditionally, crustaceans sucn as crabs may be
numerous near ~he snoreline.
Source: Soii Conservation Service, 1987
January 9, 1990 7- A- 1? COASTAL
_ _ _
Appendix 4. Animals common to the Wetland Hardwood Hammock
ecological community.
MAMMALS
bobcat deer skunk
mi nk opos s um otter
raccoon wild hog grey squirrel
BI RDS
Mississippi kite owls turkey
red-shouldered hawk woodpeckers songbirds
REPTILES green anole
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
Appendix 5. Animals common to the Freshwater Marsh and Pond
ecological community.
MAMMALS
otter marsh rabbit mink
Florida water rat white-tailed deer raccoon
BI RDS
herons egrets bitterns
swallow-tailed kite sandhill cranes rails
limpkins gallinules snipe
killdeer Florida duck caracara
red-winged blackbirds marsh hawk ibis
red-shouldered hawk
REPTI LES
amphiuma dwarf salamander sirens
cricket frogs bullfrog leopard frog
mud turtle red-bellied turtle chicken turtle
horn snake water snaxe swamp snake
brown snake cottonmouth snake ribbon snake
alligator
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
January 9, 1990 7-?, - 12 COASTAL
Appendix 6. Animals comnon to the South Florida Flatwood
ecological community.
MAMMALS
armadillo co~ton rat deer
skunks raccoor. opossum
eastern cottontail rabbit
BI RDS
yellow-throated warblers Bachman's sparrow meadowlark
brown-headed nuthatch pileated woodpecker pine warblers
red-bellied woodpecker rufous-sided towhee bobwhite quail
REPTILES
Eastern diamondback rattlesnake yellow ratsnake
pygmy rattlesnake
AMPHIBIANS
pinewood tree frog oak toad chorus frog
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
Appendix 7. Animals typical of the Sand Pine Scrub ecological
community.
MAMMALS Florida mouse* deer
BI RDS
*
towhee great crested flycatcher scrub jay
Bachman's sparrow
REPTI LES
black racer gopher tortoise* scrub lizard
sand skink
*
AMPHIBIAVS gopher irog
*Species er_dangered, threater.ed, or of special concerrl.
Source: Soii Conservation Service, i987
January 9, 1990 7- a- 13 COASTAL
Appendix 8. Animals common to the Swamp Hardwood ecological
community.
MAMMALS
raccoon bobcat deer
gray squirrel mink otter
BI RDS
barred owl hawks horned owl
pileated woodpecker turkey wood duck
various songbirds
REPTILES
turtles various snakes
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
*********************************~r***********~*******************
Appendix 9. Animals common to the Cypress Swamp ecological
community.
MAMMALS
deer mink raccoon otter
BI RDS
pileated woodpecker anhinga barred owl herons
purple gallinule egrets limpkin wood duck
prothonotary warbler wood stork
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
alligator frogs turtles salamanders water snakes
Source: Soil Conservation Service, 1987
January 9, 1990 7- A- 14 COAS'~'aL
Appendix 10. Description of algae, invertebrate, and fish
associated witn bottom habitats in the Indian
River Lagoon.
Although lacking rooted macrophytes, exposed bottoms are
important to the lagoon through alga_1 production attached to
shell, rock, or other firm sur~aces (FGFWFC, 1982; rDNR, 1985a).
Eighty (80) species of attached algas have been identified in the
lagoon (FGr^WFC, 1982). Exposed bottoms in depths less than five
(5) feet provide potential sites for seagrass colonization as the
unconsolidated sediments stabilize.
The invertebrate community varies in species composition and
abundance, depending on bottom contours and substrate
characteristics (FGFWFC, 1982). Burrowing forms predominate
because of the lack of protective cover and scarcity of firm
surfaces for attachment. The mollusk, crustacean, and worm
communities feed on both the algae and materials from the other
plant communities of the lagoon (FDNR, 1985a). Dominant
macroinvertebrates north of the Sebastian Inlet include segmented
worms, brittle stars, bivalves, acorn worms, and gastropods
(FGFWFC, 1982). Nearly all of these species have been collected
between the Sebastian Inlet and Ft. Pierce Inlet and probably
occupy similar habitat types.
One hundred and thirty-four (134) species of fish have been
collected over exposed bottoms; characteristic species included
inshore lizardfish, sand stargazer, searobins, and flounders
(FGFWFC, 1982). Many species are characteristic of protected
habitats such as seagrass beds and inshore reefs, and were
collected during migrations or feeding forays.
January 9, 1990 7- A- 15 CO~ST~L
Appendix 11. Bird life commonly associated with the tidal flats
of the lagoon area.
brown pelican semipalmated plover white ibis
Wilson's plover great blue heron willet
roseate spoonbill spotted sandpiper redknot
greater yellowlegs least sandpiper dunlin
lesser yellowlegs western sandpiper least turn
Forster's turn sanderling Royal tern
Caspian tern shore-billed dowitcner sandwich tern
black-necked stilt black ~kimmer herring gull
fish crow ring-billed gull ruddy turnstone
laughing gull yellow-crowned night heron
Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1985a
*************************~r**********************************~****
Appendix 12. Maj or colonial waterbird rookeries.
Colony Location Species Average #
Breedi ng
~ Pai rs
County Line small island south double-crested
Spoil Island of County line cormorant 5
brown pelican 3
, great blue heron 1
Bird Islands 4 islands north cattle egret 1,500
of North Beach white ibis 1,000
Causeway snowy egret 800
Louisiana heron 500
brown pelican 250
great egret 240
double-crested
cormorant 100
great blue heron 50
little blue heron 50
black-crowned night
heron 20
anhinga 10
yellow-crowned nignt
heron 3
Source: r^lorida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, 1982
January 9, 1990 7- A- 16 COr~,ST~L
Abpendix 13. Animal life commonly associated with the mangrove
community.
COLONI AL BI RDS 1 BI RDS
brown pelican osprey
double-crested cormorant belted kingfisher
anhinga red-winged blackbird
wood stork wading birds
white ibis American egret
great blue her~n roseate spoonbill
little blue heron clapper rail
green heron fish crow
Louisiana heron northern parula warbler
yellow-crowned night heron yellow-rumped warbler
black-crowned night h~ron yellow-throated warbler
snowy egret prairie warbler
great egret
cattle egret
reddish egret
MAMMALS FISHES INVERTEBRATES
marsh rabbit tarpon mangrove tree crab
rice rat bay anchovy fiddler crab
raccoon rainwater killifish blue crab
bobcat sheepshead minnow oysters
otter mosquito fish shrimp
tarpon snook snails
gray snapper
REPTI LES
diamondback terrapin
1Colonial birds nest in mangroves.
Source: Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, 1982
Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1985a
January 9, 1990 7- A- 17 COASTAL
Appendix 14. Animal li~e ccmmonl_~ associated with saltmarsh
grass communities within the lagoon area.
:~IAMMALS BI RDS
bobcat
marsh rabbit great blue heron
rice rat tricolored heron
hispid cotton rat great egret
raccoon snowy egret
clapper rail
REPTILES least sandpiper
black-necked stilt
diamondback terrapin ring-billed gull
common garter snake laughing gull
Forster' s tern
FISHES least tern
black tern
bay anchovy tree swallow
rainwater killifish barn swallow
gulf killifish common yellowthroat
sheepshead minnow red-winged blackbird
mosquitofish sharp-tailed sparrow
striped mullet red-shouldered hawk
snook woodstorks
tarpon white ibis
INVERTEBRATES
shrimp
bluecrabs
Source: Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, 1982
Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1985a
January 9, 1990 7- A- i8 COASTAL
Appendix 15. Description of seagrass bed characteristics.
Distribution appears to be primarily a function of light
intensity {FGFWFC, 1982) and as rooted plants, seagrasses require
high levels of light (more than mos~ alqae) (SJRWMD and SFWMD,
1987). Thus, they are restricted to shallow water, with water
clarity determining the maximum depth to which sufficient light
penetrates for seagrass growth. Susper.ded solids in the water
column or extremely rich phytoplankton growth can limit light
penetration and restrict photosynthesis of rooted macrophytes
(FGFWFC, 1982). In addition to water clarity, Virnstein and
Cairns (1986) found that depth may have played a role in patterns
of distribution, moreso than any north-south pattern or distance
from inlet. No seagrasses were found in the intertidal zone;
they were found from depths just below the intertidal zone to six
(6) feet in areas of higher water clarity. In turbid areas,
these depths may be compressed such as in the Vero Beach area
where seagrasses were not found in waters greater than two (2)
feet.
The FGFWFC (1982) report presents an overview of the chemical,
physical, and biological functions of seagrass beds. Their
importance is tied to their high growth rate/productivity, use as
a food and detrital source, use as a substrate for other
organisms, role in nutrient release in sediments, role in
sedimentation of particulate matter, and prevention of sediment
erosion.
Studies have shown seagrass beds to possess the richest
macrofauna within the lagoon (FGFWFC, 1982). Two hundred and
three (203) species of macroinvertebrates and two hundred and
fourteen (214) species of fish have been collected from beds.
Juveniles composed eighty-three percent (83%) of the specimens
collected, including the economically important snapper, drum,
and grouper families. The beds serve as nurseries for pink
shrimp, stone crabs, spiny lobsters, and blue crabs and they are
an important food source for manatees. Many commercially
important fish spend at least part of their life in the lagoon's
grassbeds as seen in Appendix 16.
January 9, 1990 7- A- 19 COASTAL
Appendix 16. Animal life found in marine grassbed areas or
generally associated with this community.
MAMMALS FISHES
Atlantic bottle-nosed dolphin bullshark
manates ladyfish
tarpon
BI RDS s c al ed s ardi ne
striped anchovy
common loon sea catfish
horned grebe gafftopsail catfish
brown pelican rainwater killifish
double-crested cormorant gulf killifish
magnificent frigatebird longnose killifish
pintail sheepshead mi nnow
green-winged teal sailfin molly
blue-winged teal gulf pipefish
American widgeon crevalle jack
northern shoveler snook
lesser scaup gray snapper
ruddy duck pigfish
red-breasted merganser spotfin mojarra
osprey silver jenny
American coot silver perch
herring gull spotted seatrout
Forster' s tern spot
least tern southern kingfish
Royal tern red drum
Caspian tern ~ sheepshead
black skimmer pinfish
belted kingfisher striped mullet
white mullet
REPTILES tidewater silverside
lined sole
diamondback terrapin
I NVERTEBR.ATES
Northern quahog
Southern quahog
Source: Fiorida Department of Natural Resources, 1985a
January 9, 1990 7- A- 20 COASTAL
Appendix 17. Description of fish characteristics (SJRWMD and
SFWMD, 1987 ) .
The SJRWMD and SFWMD (1987) report provides an overview of
research that has been conducted on the diversity, distribution,
seasonality and trophic relationships within the lagoon. A
species list for the lagoon and associated freshwater (exclusive
of inlets) has been developed which includes three hundred and
seventy-one (371) species. A list of six hundred and eighty-two
(682) species has been developed for the region by habitat type
including the offshore continental shelf.
Species diversity is enhanced in areas with inlets which provide
direct access between the lagoon and ocean and a variety of
habitats. Diversity is also increased in seagrass beds that are
nearer to inlets.
The primary factor which determines fish species diversity is
habitat type. Within one region of the lagoon, only thirty-five
(35) species were collected from marsh impoundments (the poorest
habitat) versus two hundred and fourteen (214) from seagrasses
(the richest habitat). Density of fishes also varies greatly
among habitats.
Many species use several habitats and food sources during
different life stages. The snook first uses freshwater and marsh
habitats, then seagrass beds, and then a variety of estuarine and
marine habitats.
Seagrass habitats also have the highest density of fishes, up to
nine (9) greater than in adjacent bare sand. Marsh habitats,
poor in diversity, may be high in density. Opening impoundments
with culverts provides a tremendous increase in productivity,
increased animal use of the marsh, and far greater export of
marsh productivity to the lagoon.
Seasonal peaks in fish abundance are related to spawning events
and subsequent recruitment by large numbers of juveniles.
Spawning and recruitment are more common in spring but does occur
throughout the year and vary widely among species. Abundances,
usually lowest in winter, vary widely depending on habitat type.
The most abundant fish in the lagoon is the bay anchovy which
often comprises the majority of fish collected in seagrass and
open shore habitats. The scaled sardine is also a planktivore
and may be very abundant. The primary factor is habitat type:
detritivores may dominate in mangroves, carnivores in seagrass
beds. Even ior the same species, food type may va~y with fish
size, location, and season and hour of collection.
Several species o~ fish are harvested ror baiL ir~cluding, but not
January 9, 1990 7- a- 21 COASTAL
Appendix 17. Continued: Descript~on of fish characteristics.
limited to, pinfish, pigfish, and mullet.
There is very little data on sports fish. The decline in
seatrout, which are strongly associated with seagrass beds
throughout their life cycle, apparer.tly began in 1952 and
continues today. Large freshwater discharges have an impact on
fish, although it is greater on benrhic organisms.
January 9, 1990 7- A- 22 COASTAL
_ _
APPENDIX 18
STORM SURGE INUNDATION MAPS
CATEGORIES 1 - 5 HURRICANES
ST. LUCI E COUNTY
(TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, 1988)
January 9, 1990 7- A- 23 COASTAL
i ,
~ ~
.
~ -
' ~ .
~ `
~ ~
~ l
~ ~ ~
~
i~
i~
~ n ,
; ~ ~ , .
I ' ` ~
o~~,v R~iv~~ couN~r,Y ~ ~ _ ~ _
- - - _ ~
ST. LUC1E COUNTY \J/~ ~ . : ,
~ . •
~ . • . .
. , . _ . ~
~ ~ . . . : :
. . : . ~ F~,
. 5.
_ . , .
l•••' ~ ' . .:,1 xx~ Y
. ~ ' • • ~ • • • • ~ ~ • ~ • ~ ~ • ~ ~ I ~ •
~ , • ~ •
• • • • • • • • ~ • • • • 1 ry`}''~
~ • • • ~ • • • •
. ~ ~ • • ~ . ~ • ~
~ , l . , . : . . . •
• • • . • • ,
• : . . • ~ • ~
. 1 ~ , . , . •
J . .
= - ~ ~
Z . ~ . '
. ~ 7 ~ •
. ~ `r w / ~ ~ . : .
w~ ~ . • \ ~ ,
, ~ C.. • AtA
• '.1 ~ . . , , , .
. • ~ ' , . . ' , • . • ' • ~
' . I' ' ' ' ' , ~ : ~
. . ~ ~ • , ~ ' ~ , . • ' . \w
' ' ~y`' ' • ' • ' • ~ • ~ C~
J : . : . : ; . . .
~ , . ,
. . - . ;
; - ~ = . ~ . ~ , ,
' ' . . n~~~ c= t
, • • i` _l_ v~~j~'~. . : . , ~
_ • • • ~ ~ ~/-R~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ /11^V,~~~
1~r1I• , ~ • • • ~ • `~Kti.
_ .di~
~ • , ; ' .
. . . . , ~
~
~ . • ' : ' • ~ • ~ -;=-=r .
• : ' . ' • . . . .
~ • ' ~ . ~ / ~
• ~ • ' • • • • • • ~ ~ . ' `'~eaa:
• • ~ • . t• ~ • ~
. , ~ • • • y _
. . ~J . .
, . y . . . _
: ~ . • , . ~ ~ ' y6
y) .
. . . • • : . . • .
: ' .4tA
. ' • • • ~ ~ ~ +
• ' . : ' . _ .
. . ~ ~ . , , ~ . . , •
. • ~ ~ : . . . : . . ' . .
" ' . , . . : ' : j : ' ' , r
~ • , . . . , . . ~
Cr~ 1 , ~ • • ' • . ~ , .
G*v5 ~ ' ~ '
• . . .
i J /""'~~,I : y L
: ~ Cc l~
~tE~
. - Fp
' . ~i ' ~..T .1
: / . : _ ; ~ , ~j. r
~ ~ , : . , ' : ' . ' ~ , G
~sL~' ~ ~
. ~ - . . • . : ~ . : ~ : ' . . ~
_ ~ 5 . l t . • . ca
• . ~ ~ ' : . . : . ; f~-:~.;-:.. ' a
' • : . . ~ . • ~ = ~ N
. . . r
; .~,-t~ J
. ' - • • ' ~
: . , C.~ ~
~ ~ . . ~ • V .
~
. . . . ,1 =
' • , .
. .,3
'
_ 7 - A - 25
~ , ~
. . ~ . ' ' ~ •~,1
~ . • . ~ , ~
. . • ~ . • . .
. . . . , ' .1
• • , • ~ • . . • .
• • ~ . ' • • ~ • • • . • ~ • p _
. . ~ . ' ' . ' ~ . . ~ . ~ . , : •
• ~ . . • r ; ' . ~ • • • . . , • - y~+`d
~ • ~ • • • , • • ' . • • , ~ . . .
' ~ . , . / . '
• ' . ~ '
~ ~ • • I . 1
~ • . ~ '
. ~ . . ~ i
I~ • • . ' ~ • • • ~w ~
~ ' . • ~ ~
L • • . .?f , r r
~ • . ~ ~ - Q ,
, w
. • • rr
. ~ ~ ` • ' w
. • ' • ~ • ' ' r
. ' . . ~
• ~ ~ • r
. . . • • . Q
, • • , ~ • ~P
• • , • . . ~
• . ~ . . i
~ ~ +
~ • •
• • \
..1
f
3
. A\ . • ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ . ~af'
. ' 1
- _ . _ _2 a 7L _ _
~
1-~ • =
. .
, . . ' ; ~~:3
, . • _
" . • I •
~ . ~ ' ~ ~ ~~y
~ . . . . 7
. ~ • ` , ' ~ • • ' ~ . t
• • ~ • • • ~ / *~t,
~~I
~ ' ~ . ' • _ ~
' • . ~ • • • • 1. • ~ • • • .1 ? ~r
~ ~ ~ • ~
f~ . • • • ' • ,~•~••t~ O -
~ , , ~ • • • • , • , ' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ '':7!
. . ~ • ' ' ~
. . • . . • , , ~ • ~
~ • ~ ' ~ ~ ' ' • • ' ' • • , _ dC ~~~A
~ • ~ • • ' , ~i •..'.1~
, . . ~ • ' . ~ . , : , .t
. • ' ~ ' ' ~ ' • • ' .~,r~
. . , . ' . , . . ~
. • ~ , • • . . ' "Y• ,...k.
• • ' t • . • • . `
• ' ~ . ' ~ , `
, , ~ . . •
. , ~ : ~ ' , :
• ~ . ~ ' ' • ~
~ ~ . . . ~ ' 1 ' • .
• ~
F~~ NUC~;Ae~'?.O.`hi~4` r~_A~;yT , . ; .
, , ~ . . • . ' + ' . 1~ ~a
~
~ '
+ 1 ' • -
, . .
-
\ ~ • ~ ' ~
• • ~ '
- . • . • v `
~ ~ . -
- - - - - - - - ''~,""~f
- - -
' '
~ ~
• ~
A 1 A ~
. _
a
.
. ' ~
~
; . •
.Q , ~
. ~ . • . ~
9~ . . ; .
';~~L ' , . : ' '
. : ' . • , , i~~
. '
~ • . . , • . . . ~
• , ~ ' . ~ . _ , . . : ~ . ~
. .
. . . `
. • a
~ ~
r- : ' • ' , u'
y ~ Q
~ : ~cS,~C'3L~'~• . ' ~ , '
G~ `r • ' • ~
N : ' r
, . . a
.1\~, , .
~ . .
. ,
_ . ,
. . ' - ,
_ , . , ,
_
~
~C/ • • ; • ~ , -
• I . rJ
n~~'~'~. ~r ~ •
.
. '
~ . . .
~ \ ' ~ . ~
:"y~_ . ,
~i : ~~i
'~i' ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
~ . ~ . . .
w _ 8T, ~1JC3~ Cv^UNTY -
- - l . " . • . . • . • ~ « ~ ~ ~
~ ~
- : • ~ _:e~. ~
- MAA°3M CaUNTY ~
~
_ _ - - - t;;
- -
7 A - 2 8 ~
-
,
- ; ~
t, . , ~
4,' ~ ; • ' •
~ - ~ : ~ ~ ~
_ • ~ _
, ~
~ 1. - ~ . : . . . ."r
r~ - • . ~
t';;
= . : . . ~
` ' .
` ' ' • G/
. . ~
~ 'h+' ,
1 = .
, _ ,
- .
~ _ ' ' » : ~
. • • Q
_ . . '
i'~„ ' 7
, • •
. ' . ~ . • • • L
. '''i•~` = • , • , ~
1 ~ • ~ ~
~ ' ~ .
ti• . . . .
.~Z~~ , J
~ V ~ • . . ~ .
l' •
~ , .
~ • •
`<y1 ,r.- ' ,
*t
. u ~ ~ .
~ • ~ . ~
; _
.
, ~ / J • _
; ~ % ~ '
, • .
, - ~ ~ /j~„~. `ti ' . ~C c?
~ - ~ . ~,ti,~~:
. i . r. .
~
" ' % ~ ~ .
_ . ' - i~,~a
, . - ~ . ~ .
~ : ~1.~ i...~..~~ . _ ~ \1~ . .
~
M s - - - ~ ~'T'--- - ~ r ~ .1 . ~ '
~c+-~r'z- ^zs-=_ -=.=:i._ - . , =r ' i~ . .
- - = ' . - ~ ~ ~~T! ~ ~ ' . .
. ~ ~~r~~ 1''~ \ . . ,
/
Lc"~sc`,0 " ~~i ~C~`,~ ~ ~ ~
i ~-'fi~ ~ ' .
~ Cat~gor.~ 1 ~ ~ - • -
C3t~^Dr ? ~ !~~X~~
, " ~
~ / ~
~T ~~.i L ~ ~ 0 J ~ " ~ ~
Ca:=gOry .t ~
~ C3t2aory ~ ~OA~ ~1E~C~ .
. \ .
.,.~`;`~\~r~~ .
_ ~ : '
_ - - -
- ' ,~'';l .
,
~
FOAT ?fE~CE
y
To
~
N
1
.
\
\ `
~
. ~
u s , ,
~
,
.
\
~c.;~~ c.zac~., ,
: ~ ~-:s
. - _
~ - - - - _ ~ 7 0
: : ~r •~b~ ;ti,+~
. - s
:`t~ ~tr; \
~ ~'=_r~ _~sTi. ~ - ~ . ~ `
\ ~ L "E''~ ,
~ a-- ~ z~
~ - - -
~ LL3C;~~ i
~
~ Cdt~Qt"',
f +
~d ~~^DT';~ Z
'T~~ '~dt~'301^~
. ~ .r.3L°~CJ f 1
, ~ L.i ~2~C7'~ 7
\ - -
\ ~
~ ~
T '
1
f ~
~
~ ~
.
I ~
i
i
~ 1~`
~
~
T1~ ~ •
I
~ .
~W?11T~ C~TY .,;r• ~
I
I
~ ,
I
'w
,
l! 1 1 ,
~ , ~
. ~t ~
~
S~:.~l~ I.«~tl `~1
i : . - "~`i ~
~
1~'00 0 1000 ~p ~ S?.'9 o Yj :sr ~
..--3mz'~"
t y _ . . „f..=
~i"- ` .~.n~.z ~.~~'a3
~ L~~ c:yD
~ L~ CaL~gorv I
~ ~ CatPgory Z
• ~ C3tEgOrJ 3
~ «~S~ Cat..~~r~ 4
C~at~ary ~
\ 7
~
~ _
A ~
1
U3 1 ~
~
\
i
~ . ~C.~~ !
~ ~s
~ ~ _ 1•~--_,.___ - ~
1 z_._-~ 5 J' ,z..=
; "_a-- ~
~
~ ~ `r-rj~
~ •c
~ ~ C3t2~Ory ;
~ ~a ~.~gor~ Z
\ ~ Categor;r 3 ~
,
;
~~~~i r~ ~~~~r.: 1 ;
\ .3L~^C^' ~
\ .
~ A
~
\ ~ ' _ ~ - ~ - '
\ , ,
~
{
L
,
. ~
A1A -
_ ~
. ' 'e
- . ' ~
~ . ' . '
~ , ' • ~
A~ • _ - , ; .
G . . - ' ' ' , .
Cn'~ • : . • , i
f~ . ~ • • - \ ~ ~~j
f . ~ • I ' • , -'i
• ' ~ ' " • . ~
. ' ~ ~
. ~ ~
• . . • ' ~ • • ~
. ' • I
. . . . . . ~
• ' . ~I
. • • ~
. ~ • • . . Q
5~ C i ~ r
NEt . . • . ~ : , i~
. ~
. . ~
' A
1\ • . • . . C -
- '
~ _ - . - . ~
.
, ~ . , ~ -
- ' ~
_ . • .
• . . . _ _ -
~ ~l. ~ ~ • . ~ • " '
,
~ru~- - •
r .
'
..i,__ ~ . . . ~
~c-!.~ ~ '
~ • ' •
t ~ •
~ ' ~ , ' • ~ , - .
- . , . . . .
_ ~T. LLIC,c Cv^U,'VT`( . • . ' ~ =
_ e_.~ _ _ ~ ~ . , , •
~A~~~r, c~ur~~v ~ "
- ~ ` +
- - - - - - - -
7 - A - 33 "
Appendix 19. Description of the drainage sub-basins within St.
Lucie County (SJRWMD and SFWMD, 1987).
A location map for these sub-basins is presented in Figure 7-8 of
the text on Page 7-43.
1. Ft. Pierce Farms Water Control District (Sub-basin III.C)
Historically, this sub-basin was ve~y flat and poorly drained.
Drainage improved significantly when the marshlands were diked
and drained to support agricultural uses. Today drainage flows
south into the C-25 Canal, east of the 5-99 water control
structure.
2. Sebastian Inlet to Ft. Pierce Inlet (Sub-basin III. D)
This sub-basin is bordered by the Atlantic Coastal Ridge on the
west and Hutchinson Island on the east. The barrier island has a
mix of undeveloped areas and residential development. The
mainland section is very narrow, drains directly into the lagoon,
and includes residential, commercial, and industrial development.
3. C-25 Canal (Sub-basin IV. A)
Historically, this sub-basin was poorly drained with many
isolated wetlands and, under natural conditions, would not drain
into the lagoon. A complex system of canals exists in this basin
for agricultural drainage. Generally, runoff from the eastern
portion flows east through the 5-99 structure on the C-25 canal.
Stormwater in the western portion can be discharged into the C-24
canal through 5-311.
4. North St. Luci e( Sub-bas i n I V. B)
This sub-basin extends from the Ft. Pierce Inlet south to the St.
Lucie Inlet and west to C-24 canal. Although this sub-basin
naturally discharged into the lagoon, agricultural canals have
greatly improved drainage. It occasionally receives flow from
the C-24 canal. There are two (2) separate areas within the sub-
bas i n:
a. North St. Lucie Drainage District {Sub-basin IV.B.1)
This area drains primarily into the North Fork of the St. Lucie
River. The North Fork St. Lucie Drainage District is located in
the northern portion of this area and drains to the C-25 canal
from the north and to the C-24 canal from the west. South and
east of the district are several urban developments inclucling
Port St. Luci e.
January 9, 1990 7- A- 34 COASTAL
Appendix 19. Continued: Description of the drainage sub-basins
wi tni n St. Luci e Cour_ty.
b. Ft. Pierce Inlet to St. Lucie Inlet (Sub-basin IV. B. 2)
This sub-basin is bordered by the Atlantic Coastal Ridge on the
west and Hutchinson Island on the east. The barrier island is
heavily developed residentially in the northern (Ft. Pierce) and
southern sactions with tha St. Lucie Power Plant and undeveloped
areas in between them. The mainland section is very narrow,
drains directly into the lagoon, and includes mostly residential
development.
5. C-24 Canal (Sub-basin IV. C)
Historically, most of this sub-basin was outside the area that
drained ir_to the lagoon. Today it discharges into the North Fork
of the St. Lucie River through the 5-49 structure. Agricultural
canals have greatly improved drainage. The C-24 canal also
receives water from the western portions o£ both the C-25 Canal
and the North St. Lucie sub-basins.
6. C-23 Canal (Sub-basin IV. D)
Under natural conditions much of this area would not have drained
into the lagoon. Agricultural canals have improved drainage from
the area. Drainage is controlled by the 5-97 structure located
just west of the Florida Turnpike.
January 9, 1990 7- A- 35 COASTAL
Appendix 20. Summary of freshwater discharges in St. Lucie
County in cubic feet per second (cfs) for the
Indian River Lagoon
Discharge Mean --Maximum Recorded (Average) Discharge--
Points Discharge 1-day 7-day 14-day 30-day
C-25 Canal 153 1890 1040 850 520
C-24 Canall 139 2880 1630 1600 1240
C-23 Cana11 126 3190 1440 1360 1030
1Discharge into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River
Source: St. Johns River Water Management District and South
Florida Water Management District, 1987
Appendix 21. Surface water management permits and receiving
waters in ~t. Lucie County.
Receiving Water Number of Permits Percent of Total
Secondary or Tertiary Canalsl 71 32.6%
C-23 or C-24 62 28. 4%
St. Lucie River 23 10. 6%
St. Lucie River Creeks,
Coves, Sloughs, and tidal2 16 7.3%
C-25 15 6. 9%
Indian River Lagoon3 11 5.0%
Savannas 8 3. 7%
On-Site Wetlands, Lakes,
and Ponds/r^ields 6 2.8%
Other4 6 2• $ o
Z~~ 218 100. 1%
1Ft. Pierce Farms or North St. Lucie drainage districts and
individual agricultural or urban systems, ditches, and swales
2Five and Ten Mile Creeks, Howard Creek, Platts Creek, Britts
Creek, Kitchen Cove, Hog Pen Slough, and one tidal discharge
3Includes three (3) Intracoastal Waterway discharges
4Includes systems with no discharges (4), and discharges to
Nubbins Slough and Lake Okeechobee (1;
Source: South Florida Water Mar_agement District, 1987
January 9, 1990 7- A- 36 COASTAL
Appendix 22. Design capacity and actual discharge in million
gallons per day (MGD) for eleven (11) domestic
wastewater treatment facilities.
Facility Design Capacity Actual Dischargel
MGD MGD
Ft. Pierce Municipal 9. 0 5. 32
Tangl ewood MHP 0. 0 2 0. O 1
Bentonwood MHP 0. 008 0. 003
FPL Nuclear Power Plant #1 0.017 0.012
Lake Manor MHP 0.010 0.009
Ridgecrest MHP 0.020 0.006
Whispering Creex Village 0.025 NA
Spanish Lake MPH 0. 294 0. 140
Crossroads Hotel 0.006 0.003
Howard Johnson Motel 0.025 0. 020
Holiday Out Campground 0.061 0.045
TOTAL 9. 4 8 6 5. 5 4 8
lAverage from 5/85 - 2/86.
2The Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element of this Comprehensive Plan
references a maximum monthly average flow of 6.09 MGD from
1983 - 1986.
Source: St. Johns River Water Management District and South
Florida Water Management District, 1987
January 9, 1990 7- A- 37 COASTAL
Appendix 23. Effluent quality and limitations for eleven (11)
domestic wastewater treatment facilities.
EFFLUENT QUALI TY
Facility Effluent Qualityl
FC2 BOD3 SS4
(#/100) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Ft. Pierce Municipal 6-135 10-15 1-1?
Tanglewood MHP *1-3000 5-27 1-13
Bentonwood MHP *1-6100 6-14 1-5
FPL Nuclear Power Plant #1 10 8-27 1-8
Lake Manor MHP 10-100 6-13 1-6
Ridgecrest MHP 1-10 0.4-5 2-14
Whispering Creek Village NA NA NA
Spanish Lake ~IPH 10-100 12-27. 5 4-17
Crossroads Hotel 10-200 4-10 4-11
Howard Johnson Motel *1-TNTC 5-46 1-36
Holiday Out Campground *1 2-10 1-11
1Range of monthly average from 5/85 - 2/86.
2Fecal coliform.
3Biological oxygen demand.
4Suspended solids.
*Less than 1.
EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS UNDER WASTELOAD ALLOCATION (WLA)1
Parameter Wasteload Allocation
Fecal coliform 200#/100
Biological oxygen demand 20 mg/1
Suspended solids 20 mg/1
lAs determined by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
Source: St. Johns River Water Management District and South
Florida Water Management District, 1987
January 9, 1990 7- A- 38 COASTAL
Appendix 24. Seasonal, locational, and daily water quality
trends in the Indian River Lagoon between the
Sebas ti an I nl et { I ndi an Ri ver County ) and St.
Luci e I nl et ( Marti n Cour.ty
The data presented in this appendix are taken from the Indian
River Water Quality Survey, 1984-1985, by the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation (FDER), 1985.
1. North-South Trends
Table A24.1 below shows the general north-south water quality
differences between the northern Wabasso-Vero Beach and southern
Ft. Pierce-Sewells Point areas.
Parameter Wabasso-Vero Beach Ft. Pierce-Sewells Point
dissolved oxygen higher
nutrients twice as high
color higher
fecal coliform higher
conductivity higher
transparency higher
~ The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation attributed the
higher nutrient, color and fecal coliform levels and lower
conductivity levels in the northern area to drainage and sewage
effluent discharges.
2. West-East Trends
In general, the group of ambient stations near the west shore
showed lower nutrient water quality, an average of approximately
fifty (50) percent above midstream levels, than the ambient
stations near the eastern shore, an average of approximately
fifteen (15) percent above midstream levels.
The western stations had substantially higher average fecal
coliform bacteria and nitrite plus nitrate levels than the
eastern stations. The more numerous, near eastern stations had a
lower average level of fecal coliform bacteria than the midstream
stations and a fairly even percent differenca for the different
nutrient species between the eastern and midstream sta~cions.
The western stations also had higher levels of color and
turbidity, and lower levels of conductivity and dissolved oxygen,
than the eastern shore. However, even though there were
differences in nutrient, fecal coliform bacteria, color and
turbidity levels between the western, 2astern and mids~.ream
January 9, 1990 7- A- 39 COASTAL
Appendix 24. Continued: Seasonal, locational, and daily water
quality trends in the Indian River Lagoon between
the Sebas ti an ~ nl et ( I ndi an Ri ver County ) and St.
Lucie Inlet (Martin County).
station groups there were only small differences in the dissolved
oxygen averages with the western and eastern stations averaging
one (1) and two (2) percent below m~dstream, respectively.
South of Ft. Pierce, west to east nutrient trends were not
consistent nor dominant for dissolved oxygen. North of Ft.
Pierce, coinciding with mainland discharges, nutrients decreased
from west to east. No dissolved oxygen trend was found.
3. Inlets Trends
The survey found that average nutrient and oxygen levels
generally increased away from the inlets, which indicates that
the nutrients are being used up by planktonic and benthic plant
communities with the subsequent production of oxygen. FDER
states that this correlation could have been higher had it not
been for the north-south differences in nutrient and oxygen
levels as seen above in Table A24.1. The higher oxygen levels in
the southern area indicates that either oxygen production in the
northern area was depressed by less light penetration (because of
higher color and turbidity) and/or a greater portion of the
oxygen prodizced was consumed by the sediments and organic
materials in the water column.
4. Seasonal/Daily Trends
Nutrient curves for residential canals, upland marinas and
drainage canals showed some positive correlation with the
precipitation curve, i.e, higher nutrient levels occurred during
the wet season (May - September). In October, usually a wet
month, nutrient curves decreased along with precipitation. Fecal
coliform bacteria, color and turbidity were also higher in these
areas dur~ng wet months. Annual curves for sewage treatment
plants did not follow any ~easonal trends except for total
phosphorus which approximated the tourist season. Non-seasonal
influences, i.e., controlled canal discharges by water management
and water control districts, can also impact the lagoon.
Except for water level, daily cycles did not follow tidal cycles.
Water temperature and dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels generally
followed the solar cycle (high during the day, low at night).
Greatest D.O. differences were found nearer the shore
particularly over a grassbed which produces oxygen. Nutrient and
turbidity levels also indicate higher water quality over the
grass bed but fecal coliform bacteria levels indicate
contamination due to water fowl or tne adjacent developed shore.
Jar.uary 9, 1990 7- A- 40 COASTAL
Appendix 25. Water quality o~ grou~ed stations in the Indian
River Lagoor_ between the Sebas ti an I nl et ( I ndi an
River County) and St. Lucie Inlet (Martin County).
The data presented in this appendix are taken from the Indian
River Water Quality Survey, 1984-1985, by the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation (FDER), 1985.
This analysis addresses watar quality by adjacent land use or the
type of water body. Upon review of the data on dissolved oxygen,
turbidity, fecal coliform bacteria, and nutrients {nitrogen and
phosphorus), it was noted that Big Mud Creek and Riverside Marina
had inordinant influences on their respective groups (eastern
shore and closed marinas) and were evaluated separately from
thereon. A summary of the findings and the results of indices
f ol 1 ow.
1. Fi ndi ngs
Effluents from sewage treatment plants (municipal, resort and
mobile home parks) had the highest concentrations of nutrients
and fecal coliform bacteria. The small mobile home park
effluents accounted for almost half of the violations of the
State's fecal coliform standard (maximum of 800/100 milliliters)
and had the highest counts. Riverside Marina, used by commercial
fishermen, was second in poor water quality. It was high in
nutrients, particularly ammonia which is indicative of bacterial
decay of organic matter, and low in dissolved oxygen with
violations of the State' s minimum standard (4. 0 milligrams/liter)
seven (7) out of the twelve (12) times sampled.
Although the majority of the lagoon is approximately five (5)
feet deep, Big Mud Creek is over thirty-five (35) feet deep.
Water in the lower depths was stagnant, low in dissolved oxygen
and violated the State standard during seventy-five (75) percent
of the samplings. The distal ends of residential canals along
the lagoon, whether developed or undeveloped, were also low in
dissolved oxygen, as were upland marir_as. They both had average
dissolved oxygen levels approximately twenty-five (25) percent
below background levels; the developed canals and the closed
marinas violated the State's dissolved oxygen standard during
forty-three (43) percent and thirty-five (35) percent of the
samplings, respectively, and violations occurred most frequently
during the wet season. Only the marir.as had substant~ ally
elevated nutrient levels, which seemed to indicate that dissolved
oxygen levels were more dependent on circulation, than upon
nutrient leveis.
The drainage canals (water management district and water control
district) brought freshwater with high average cor.centra~ions of
nutrients [approxima~~ly four nur_dred (~00) percent above
January 9, 1990 7- A- 41 COASTAL
Appendix 25. Continued: Water quality of grouped stations in
the Indian River Lagoon between the Sebastian
I nl et ( I ndi an Ri ver County ) and St. Luci e I nl et
(Martin County).
backgroundJ, particularly am;~onia and nitrite+nitrate, to the
lagoon but the average dissolved oxygen level for them was only
six (6) percent below that for the middle of the lagoon. They
were also high in fecal coliform bacteria, second only to the
sewage treatment plants. Moores Creek, which drains a portion of
the city of Ft. Pierce, also contributed significant
concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria to the lagoon with
violations of the State's standard over half the time it was
s ampl ed.
2. Group Indices
In their data analysis, FDER {1985) prepared three (3) indices
using those parameters which have a more direct effect upon water
quality or provide a better indicator of water quality. The
indices were based on average differences from background levels,
i.e., from the midstream stations which are the most removed from
potential sources of water quality degradation. The first index
averaged nutrients and dissolved oxygen {D.O.); the second index
averaged nutrients, D.O., and fecal coliforms; and the third
index included D.O. alone. Table A25. 1 below includes ascending
group rankings of all the indices. The D.O. index is given first
since dissolved oxygen is the bottom line in nutrient water
quality.
The most prominent distinction in reviewing Index I is the
general break between open and closed areas, which may indicate
the influence of stagnant or deep waters on dissolved oxygen
levels.
With the addition of nutrients to Index III, shifting of group
rankings occurred. A general distinction that can be made is
that developed canals and drainage canals are major sources of
nutrients as compared to open shoreline areas. It is also
apparent that closed commercial marinas impact nutrient levels
far greater than other closed marinas, while open marinas was the
only group above background. Nutrients were also more prominent
along the western shore as compared to the eastern shore. As
would be expected by current treatment processes, the most
prominent nutrient source was sewage treatment plants.
Although prominent shifts in ranking did not occur ~ahen fecal
coliforms were added to Index II, this parameter did effect major
increases in levels below background for sewage treatment plants
and the mouth of drainage canals. Other fairly high increases
were observed for closed marinas, lagoon waters outside drainage
canal s, ar.d devel oped s hores .
January 9, 1990 7- A- 42 COASTA~
Appendix 25. Continued: Water quality of grouped stations in
the Indian River Lagoon between the Sebastian
I nl et ( I ndi an Ri ver County ) and St. Luci e I nl et
( Marti n County ) .
Table A25.1. Water quality indices for the Indian River Lagoon by land use or type of water
body, in percent below background.
Index III Index I Index II
Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen
Nutrients Nutrients
Fecal Coliform
4 Developed shore 0 8 Open marinas +5 8 Open marinas +9
2 Western shore -1 5 Undeveloped canal -13 5 Undeveloped canal -3
3b Eastern shorel -2 3b Eastern shorel~ -14 3b Eastern shorel -10
11 Drainage canals2 -2 4 Developed shore -16 3c Big Mud Creek -14
10 Drainage canals3 -6 3c Big Mud Creek -24 2 Western shore -b3
8 Open marinas -b 2 Western shore -49 4 Developed shore -101
6 Developed canals4 -8 9b Closed marinas5 -52 7 Developed canals6 -143
9b Closed marinas5 -21 7 Developed canals6 -86 6 Developed canals4 -150
Developed canals6 -23 11 Drainage canals2 -101 9b Closed marinass -180
Undeveloped canal -27 6 Developed canals4 -139 11 Drainage canals2 -191
9c Riverside Marina -30 10 Drainage canals~ -377 9c Riverside Marina -818
3c Big Mud Creek -37 9c Riverside Marina -725 10 Drainage canals3 -1432
12 STPs NA 12 STPs -33437 12 STPs -63765
1Without Big Mud Creek
2Lagoon waters just outside canal
3Mouth (proximal end)
4Mouth (proximal end)
SWithout Riverside Marina
6Distal end (most landward end)
Table A25.2 below presents the change in rank for each group
which helps to see the group distinctions and shifts in rank
noted above.
In evaluating the data, FDER (1985) summarized tne most
influential parameters for each group ~ahich are presented below
in Table A25. 3.
January 9, 1990 7- A- 43 COASTAL
Appendix 25. Continued: Water quality of grouped station~ in
the Indian River Lagoon between the Sebastian
I nl et ( I ndi an Ri ver County ) and St. Luci e I nl et
(Martin County).
Table A25. 2. Group rankings by Indices I, II, and III.
III I II
D.O. Nutri. Nutri.
D. O. D. 0.
Group F. C.
4 Developed shore 1 4 6
2 Western shore 2 6 5
3b Eastern shore (w/o Big Mud Cr) 3 3 3
11 Drainage canals (lagoon waters) 4 9 10
10 Drainage canals (mouth) 5 11 12
8 Open marinas 5 1 1
6 Developed canals (mouth) 7 10 8
9b Closed marinas (w/o Riverside) 8 7 9
7 Developed canals (distal) 9 8 7
5 Undeveloped canal 10 2 2
9c Riverside Marina 11 12 11
3c Big Mud Creek 12 5 4
12 STPs NA 13 13
January 9, 1990 7- A- 44 COASTAL
Appendix 25. Continued: Water quality of grouped stations in
the Indian River Lagoon between the Sebastian
Inlet (Indian River County) and St. Lucie Inlet
(Martin County).
Tabl e A2 5. 3. Pri mary f actors i n group ranki ngs .
# Group Factors
4 Developed shore FECAL COLIFORM
2 Western shore NUTRIENTS
3b Eastern shore NUTRIENTS
11 Drainage canals (lagoon waters) NUTRIENTSa
10 Drai nage canal s( mouth ) I NORG. NUTRI . b; F. COLI
8 Open marinas
6 Developed canals (mouth) N02+N03
9b Closed marinas (w/o Riverside) NH4; F. COLI; D.O.
7 Developed canals (distal ) NH4; N02+N03; D. O.
5 Undeveloped canal D.O.; NH4
9 c Ri vers i de Mari na N02 +N03; NH4; TKN; F. COLI
3c Big Mud Creek D•
12 STPs NUTRI ENTS; F. COLI
aParticularly N02+N03
bN02+N03, NH4, Orthophosphate
January 9, 1990 7- A- 45 COASTAL
Appendix 26. Water quality in the Southeast Florida Basin.
Reach Station Lake- Str~am Support
# Est~ary WQI Designated Use
TSI
St. Lucie 18.50 Fair(50) Good(10} Partial
River
NFSLR 18.70 Good(24)
Ten Mile 18.74 Good(28)
Creek
Five Mile 18.75 Fair(33) Partial
Creek
Canal C-23 18.80 Good(25)
Canal C-24 18.85 Good(25)
1Trophic State Index result
(0-49 is Good, 50-59 is Fair, and 60-100 is Poor)
2Water Quality Index result
(0-29 is Good, 30-59 is Fair, and 60-100 is Poor)
Source: Hand et al., 1986
January 9, 1990 7- A- 46 COASTAL
Appendix 27. Water quality in the South Indian River Lagoon Basin including pollution
sources, trends, and rDER cleanup actions.
Reach Station Lake Stream Support Pollution Water Water Quality Problems and
Estuary WQI2 Designated Sources Quality Cleanup Actions
TSI1 Use Trends
South 4.00 Fair Good Partial STP/NPS Better Poorly flushed estuary around
Indian (54) (13) Vero Beach. Lower total
River nitrogen in 1982-1985.
South 6.00 Fair Good Partial STP/NPS Better Very close to good water
Indian (50) (11) quality. Ft. Pierce area has
River good quality due to flushing
from inlet. Some STP and
nonpoint source input. Recent
bioassay studies.
G-25 6.50 Good(9)
Hutchin. 7.00 Good Good
Island (47) (9)
Prang 8.00 Fair Good Partial STP/NPS Better East side of Indian River at
Island (52) (11) Vero Beach. Possible recent
improvement.
1Trophic State Index result (0-49 is Good, 50-59 is Fair, and 60-100 is Poor)
2Water Quality Index result (0-29 is Good, 30-59 is Fair, and 60-100 is Poor)
STP: Sewage Treatment Plant
NPS: Nonpoint Source
Source: Hand et al., 1986
January 9, 1990 7- A- 47 COASTAL
Appendix 28. Yearly mean levels of dissolved oxygen, total
nitrogen, and total phosphorus at water quality
stations in the South Segment of the Indian River
Lagoon.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN (MG/L)1
Stations 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
C-25 at 5-50 4. 6 5. 6 4. 5 4. 8 4. 0 5. 6
C-24 at 5-49 5. 7 5. 4 3. 5 4. 3 3. 3 4. 2
C-23 at 5-48 5. 2 5. 8 5. 2 5. 5 5. 6 5. 2
TOTAL NI TROGEN ( i`~IG/L } 1
Stations 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
C-25 at 5-50 1. 5 1. 5 1. 6 1. 3 1.4 1.0
C-24 at 5-49 2. 2 2.0 2.0 1. 8 1. 8 1. 3
C-23 at 5-48 1. 9 1. 6 1. 5 1. 4 1. 4 1.0
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (MG/L)1
Stations 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
C-25 at 5-50 0.08 0.09 0. 14 0.09 0. 15 0.04
C-24 at 5-49 0. 23 0. 27 0. 24 0. 20 0. 30 0. 16
C-23 at 5-48 0. 13 0. 14 0. 14 0. 16 0. 20 0. 16
1Concentration is in milligrams per liter (or parts per million).
Source: St. Johns River Water Management District and South
Florida Water Management District, 1987
January 9, 1990 7- A- 48 COASTAL
Appendix 29. Summary of water quality characteristics of the
Indian River Lagoon, St. Lucie County.
West side overall quality less than east side
West/East sides nutrient quality less than middle
Sewage treatment highest in nutrients
plantsl highest in fecal coliform bacteria
Riverside Marina second overali poorest quality
Residential canals low in oxygen
Upland marinas low in oxygen; elevated nutrients
Drainage canals high nutrients
(outfalls) high bacteria (second to STPs)
Moores Creek outfall high bacteria
Wet Seasonal nutrients, bacteria, color, and
turbidity higher in residential canals,
marinas, and drainage canals
Tourist Season phosphorus higher at STPs
Ft. Pierce Inlet " fair" water quality index from STP and
nonpoint sources, though close to "good"
Between Ft. Pierce "good" water quality index, though close
Inlet/St. Lucie Inlet to "fair"
South of Ft. Pierce main pollution source is urban runoff
and waterfront developments
Lagoon wide occurrence of muck
possible shift from benthic plant
production to phytoplankton production
Freshwater inputs impacts organisms, material influx,
salinity, and temperature
1Sewage Treatment Plants: municipal, resort, and mobile hone
parks
Sources: Florida Department of Environmental Reguiation,
1985
Hand et al. , 1986
St. Johns River Water Management District and
South Florida Water Management District, 1987
January 9, 1990 7- A- 49 COASTAL
Appendix 30. Summary of water quality characteristics of the
St. Lucie River (SLR) and tributaries, St. Lucie
Estuary, and South Florida Water Management
District canals, St. Lucie County.
Overall SLR area Impacted by agriculture, construction,
and urban development
St. Lucie Estuary "fair" trophic state ~ndex
Five Mile Creek "fair" water quality index
Ten Mile Creek "good" water quality index, although
near " fair"
North Fork of the SLR "good" on water quality index
C-23 and C-24 Canals "good" on water quality index
nitrogen/phosphorus high compared to
other segments of the lagoon and high in
fall
dissolved oxygen low compared to other
segments of the lagoon and depressed in
the summer and fall
C-25 Canal dissolved oxygen low compared to other
segments of the lagoon and depressed in
the summer and fall
Sources: Hand et al. , 1986
St. Johns River Water Management District and
South Florida Water Management District, 1987
January 9, 1990 7- A- 50 COASTAL
Appendix 31. Areas of historical erosion and accretion along
St. Lucie County beaches between 1883 and 1987.
Area Trend
North Beach Northern 3 miles Erosion
Southern 3 milas Accretion
South Beach All but southern 0.6 miles Erosion
Southern 0.6 miles Accretion
Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1988
Appendix 32. Volumetric changes (in cubic yards) associated
with erosion and accretion along St. Lucie County
beaches between 1972 and 1987.
Area Trend Volumetric
Change
(cubic yards)
North All but northern 1.7 miles Accretion
Beach Northern 1. 7 miles Erosion 51, 000
Net Accretion = 544,000
South Northern l. 3 miles Erosion 40, 0001
Beach All but northern 1.3 miles Erosion *
Net Erosion = 325,000
1Despite placement of 400,000+ cubic yards
*Half this area eroded from 20 - 40 feet
Source: Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1988
January 9, 1990 7- A- 51 COASTAL
Appendix 33. Predicted storm_ surge heights in feet near Ft.
Pierce and White City, St. Lucie County.
Hurricane Track Location Category 1-2 Category 3-5
Parallel Ft. Pierce 5. 5- 6. 3 7. 3
to shore White City 4. 6- 5. 6 6. 8
Perpendicular Ft. Pierce b. 7- 7. 9 11. 3- 14. 7
to shore White City 6. 3- 7. 7 11. 1- 14.4
Source: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 1988
Appendix 34. Estimated evacuating population in St. Lucie
County according to destination and storm
i ntens i ty.
Destination Category 1-2 Category 3-5
Public Shelter 10, 202 19, 339
Friends/Relative 26, 709 47, 063
Hotel/Motel 3, 417 5, 660
Out of County 18, 400 31, 860
TOTAL 58, 728 103, 922
Source: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 1988
January 9, 1990 7- A- 52 COASTAL
Appendix 35. Public shelter demand and capacity in St. Lucie
County.
Hurricane Capacity Demand Net Capacity
Category 1-21 14, 394 10, 202 +4, 192
28, 788 10, 202 +18, 586
Category 3-51 14, 394 19, 339 -4, 945
28, 788 19, 339 +9, 449
1First row: 40 sft/person/space
Second row: 20 sft/person/space
Source: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 1988
Appendix 36. Clearance times in hours for St. Lucie Countyl.
Category 1-2 Storm Perpendicular Track Parallel Track
Rapid Response 8. 25 (7.25) 12 (8. 75)
Medium Response 9 (8) 13. 25 (9. 75)
Slow Response 10. 25 (9. 25) 15 (11)
Category 3-5 Storm Perpendicular Track Parallel Track
Rapid Response 13. 25 (11. 5) 19. 5 (14)
Medium Respons e 14 ( 12. 2 5) 20. 5 ( 15 )
Slow Response 15. 25 ( 13. 25) 22. 5 ( 16. 25)
1These figures are specific for a particular scenario which
includes mobilization time, travel time, and queing delay time.
They also reflect sending evacuees living south of Midway Road
to the Florida Turnpike to go out of the County. Those living
north of Midway Road were assigned to I-95. Times in
parentheses reflect northbound turnpike traffic using three oi
the four lanes out of the Southeast Florida/Treasure Coast
Region instead o= the normal two of four.
Source: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, 1988
January 9, 1990 7- A- 53 COASTAL
Appendix 37. Public access facilities and features on Hutchinson Island, St. Lucie
County, 1989
Facility ~ccess Acres Parking Shore Dune Shel- Rest Boat Showers
To Line Cross ters Room Ramp
REGIONAL FACILITY
Jack Island lagoon 95$.0 - - -
Ft. Pierce Inlet beach 250.0 - " - -
State Rec. Area
Avalon Tract both 332.1 V - - -
John Brooks Park both 406.8 - - -
COMMUNITY PARKS
Frederick Douglass beach 13.7 1,040 - 7 Y - '
Memorial Park
So. Bch. Boardwalk beach 5.8 94 1,240 - 4 Y - Y
Walton Rocks Beach beach 24.0 3,368 2 Y ' -
Pepper Beach both 52.4 254 1,380 3 12 Y - Y
Dollman Beach both 143.i 0 1,765 - - - -
No. Causeway Is. lagoon 11.5 30 - 9 Y Z -
So. Causeway Is. lagoon 16.6 30 - 11 Y 2 -
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Waveland Beach beach 3.6 70 270 1 Y - -
Blind Creek Access beach 14.0 500 - - - -
Exchange Pk. Access beach 4.3 45 265 - - - -
Herman's Bay Access beach 1.0 16 100 1 - - '
Middle Cove Access beach 1.0 16 100 1 - - -
Normandy Bch. Access beach 1.0 14 100 1 - - -
POCKET PARKS
Avalon Access beach 0.2 0 60 - - - -
Banyon Road Access beach 0.4 0 70 - - - -
Bryn Mawr Access beach 1.3 0 300 - - - -
Royal Palm Access beach 0.2 0 40 - - - -
Seminole Blvd Access beach 0.4 0 70 - - - -
Flamingo Blvd. beach 0.2 0 40 - - - -
Source: Recreation and Open Space Element, 1989
January 9, 1990 7- A- 54 COASTAL
Appendix 38. Boat ramps providing access to coastal waters in
St. Luci e County, 19 8 8.
Facility Use Location1~2 Ramp Lanes
Bryn Mawr Camp3 Private North AlA 1
Club Med3 Private Morningside Blvd. 1
(PSL) (NFSLR)
Bandstand Park Public 1 Ave. C(Moores Creek) 6
(FP)
Middle Cove Access Public South AlA {North oi 2
St. Lucie Power Plant)
North Bridge Public North AlA 2
(north side, east end)
North Bridge Public Little Jim Bridga 2
Pelican Yacht Club3 Private Seaway Drive (FP) 1
Prima Vista Park Public Prima Vista Blvd. 2
(NFSLR)
Rivergate Park Public Port St. Lucie Blvd. 2
(PSL) (NFSLR)
South Bridge Public Seaway Drive (FP) 2
(north side, west end)
South Bridge Public Causeway Island (FP) 2
Village Marina3 Private Seaway Drive (FP) 1
lAccess is to the Indian River Lagoon unless otherwise noted.
2PSL and FP refer to the Cities of Port St. Lucie and Ft. Pierce;
NFSLR refers to the North Fork of the St. Lucie River.
3Locations on Figure 15 are the same as for the marinas (Appendix
39).
Sources: St. Lucie County Community Development Department,
1988
City of Ft. Pierce Planning Division, 1987
January 9, 1990 7- A- 55 CCASTAL
Appendix 39. Marina inventory, St. Lucie County, 1988
Facility Fuel Sewage Repair Boat Wet Dry Percent Transient
Ramps Slips Docks Occupancy Docks
Rate
CITY/COUNTY
Ft. Pierce City Marina Y Y - 6 234 80+ 15
CONDO/MULTIFAMILY
Coconut Grove Marina Y - - - 50 $0+
Colonnades Condo Docks - - - - 58 6 40-59 10
Inlet Marina - - Y - 32 60-79
St. Lucie Harbour - - - - 32 80+
PRIVATE
Pelican Yacht Club Y - - 1 104 $
MISCELLANEOUS
Bryn Mawr Cmpgd - - - 1 12 40-59
'~~rbour House Rest. - - - - 10 40-59 1
COMMERCIAL
Harbourtown Marina Y Y Y - 412 New
Littie Jim Bait/Tackle - - - - 20 80+ 10
Riverside Marina Y - Y - 56 20 80+
Club Med Y - - 1 67 45 80+ 17
Taylor Creek Marina Y - Y - 600
Village Marina - - - 1 35 13 80+
TOTAL 10 1,122 684 61
Sources: Florida Department of Natural Resources, 1985b
St. Lucie County Community Development Department, 1988
January 9, 1990 7- A- 56 COASTAL
Appendix 40. Non-boat fishing access to the Atlantic Ocean and
Indian River Lagoon, St. Lucie County, 1988
Facility Location Type Length
(feet)
Big Starvation Cove West side AlA mQSquito control 8,000
Isvee/shoreline
Blue Hole Creek West side AlA mosquito control 6,500
levee/shoreline
North Bridge AlA bridge 1, 900
North Bridge AlA (east end) pier 20Q
North Bridge AlA Causeway open shoreline 3,80Q
(east end)
Little Jim Bridge AlA Causeway pier 50
Ft. Pierce Inlet No. Hut. Isl. jetty 3, 500
State Rec. Area (south side)
South Jetty Park So. Hut. Isl. jetty 1, 500
South Bridge AlA (east end) pier 200
South Bridge AlA Causeway open shoreline 2,000
{north side)
South A1A South of SLPP1 open shoreline 5,Q00
(west side)
TOTALS: Bridges/Piers/Jetties 7,350 feet
Shoreline 25,300 feet
Source: St. Lucie County Community Develcpment Department,
1988
January 9, 1990 7- A- 57 COASTAL