SHINGLE CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN MASTER ...

transcript

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION

DISCLAIMER

Any information, including but not limited to, software and data, received from Orange County Public Works is provided "as is" without warranty of any representation of accuracy, timeliness or completeness. The burden of determining accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and suitability for use rests solely on the User. The User acknowledges and accepts the limitation of the Data, and assumes the entire risk as to the results and performance of any information obtained from Orange County Public Works. There are no implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

The Data provided herein is static and reflect current conditions at the time of study. Furthermore, this study does not address the level of detail required to perform design level engineering.

Contact: Orange County Stormwater Management Division, (407) 836-7990

SHINGLE CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN

MASTER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY

Prepared For: Orange County Board of County Commissioners

4200 S. John Young Parkway Orlando, Florida 32839-9205

(407) 836-7939

Prepared By: Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc.

1505 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32803

(407) 896-0594

e DRMP #9j-OO33.OOO May 1997

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A report of this magnitude requires the cooporation of many people to bring it to a successful completion. The continued interest and support of the Board of County Commissioners is gratefully acknowledged. The direction, assistance and guidance of the Stormwater Management Department throughout the project development were greatly appreciated. Special thanks are extended to the staff of the Valencia Water Control District and Orlando Central Park for their eagerness in suppling information.

Orange County Board of County Commissioners

Linda W. Chapin, Chairman

Bob Freeman, District 1

Tom Staley, District 2

Mary I. Johnson, District 3

Clarence M. Hoenstine, District 4

Ted B. Edwards, District 5

Mable Butler, District 6

Orange County Staff

Ajit M. Lalchandani, P.E., Director, Public Works Division

William P. Baxter, P.E., Deputy Director, Public Works Division

M. Krishnamurthy , Ph.D., P.E., Manager, Stormwater Management Department

Rodney J. Lynn, P.E., Senior Engineer, Stormwater Management Department

Deodat Budhu, P.E., Senior Engineer, Stormwater Management Department

David Pearce, P.E., Engineer 111, Stormwater Management Department

Joseph C. Kunkel, P.E., Chief Engineer, Public Works Engineering

Tom Perrine, Drainage Coordinator Highway Maintenance Department

David Fleming, Drawing Archives

Linda Jennings, Laboratory Supervisor, Environmental Protection Department

Other Contributors

Alan Leavens, Staff Engineer, South Florida Water Management District

Kevin McCann, City of Orlando, Stormwater Utility Bureau

Robert P. Andrew, P.E., Director, Valencia Water Control District

Frank P. Lindrum, P.E., Vice President of Planning and Engineering, Orlando Central Park, Inc.

Donald Paeglow, Property Manager, Orlando Central Park, Inc.

Kara Adams, Permit Engineer, Florida Department of Transportation

Frank Dollison, Contract Manager, Turnpike Authority

Dan Williams, Lockheed Martin

PROJECT TEAM

Prime Consultant

Dyer, Riddle, Mills and Precort, Inc. Engineers, Surveyors Planners

1505 East Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32853-8505

(407) 896-0594

Technical Support and Water Quality Investigation

Apex Engineering, Inc. The Koger Center

930 Woodcock Road, Suite 216 Orlando, Florida 32806- 1223

(407) 897-8575

Water Quality Investigation

Hydrologic Associates U. S. A., Inc. 109 Bayberry Road

Altamonte Springs, Florida 327 14 (407) 788-1355

Ecological Consulting Services

Yvonne I. Froscher Environmental Consultant

P.O. Box 195303 Winter Springs, Florida 3277 19-5305

(407) 327-2020

Surveying Services

Jones, Hiechst & Associates,. Inc. Professional Surveyors and Mappers

130-E South Park Avenue Apopka, Florida 32703

(407) 884-55 12

Mike Galura, P.E., Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc.

Alfred B. Pinnell. P.E., Singhofen & Associates, Inc.

Mark E. Jacobson, P.E., Bowyer-Singleton and Associates, Inc.

Kerry D. Brown, P.S.M., Vice President, Aerial Cartographics of American, Inc.

Carol D. Comer, P.E., Vice President, Miller-Sellen Associates, Inc.

SHINGLE CREEK Master Stormwater Management Study

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................. 1.1 1.2 Report Organization ........................................................... 1-4 1.3 Drainage Basin Characterization ........................................... 1.5

1.3.1 Existing Drainage Patterns .......................................... 1-12 . ........................ 1.3.1.1 Shingle Creek Main Channel 1-12

1.3.1.2 LakeFran ................................................. 1-14 1.3.1.3 TurkeyLake .............................................. 1-14 1.3.1.4 LakeTyler ................................................ 1-15 1.3.1.5 Lake Ellenor ............................................. 1-16 1.3.1.6 Majorcenter ............................................. 1-16

................... 1.3.1.7 Orlando Central Park (Southpoint) 1-17 1.3.1.8 Lockheed Martin ........................................ 1-18 1.3.1.9 Newover Canal .......................................... 1-18 1.3.1.10 Whisperwood Canals ................................... 1-19

........................................... 1.3.1.11 Big Sand Lake 1-20 ...................... 1.3.1.12 Valencia Water Control District 1-20

........................................... 1.3.1.13 Whisper Lakes 1-21 .......................................... 1.3.1.14 Hunter's Creek 1-21

1.3.1.15 LakeBryan ............................................... 1-22 1.3.2 Climate ................................................................. 1-22 1.3.3 Topography ............................................................ 1-23 1.3.4 Geology and Physiography .......................................... 1-24 1.3.5 Soils ..................................................................... 1-25 1.3.6 Land Use ............................................................... 1-28 1.3.7 Water Quality Characterization .................................... 1-30

......................................... 1.3.8 Ecological Characterization 1-35 1.3.9 FEMA Floodplains ................................................... 1-40

....................... 1.4 Regulatory and Intergovernmental Framework 1-40 .................................................................... 1.4.1 Local 1-40

............ ........................................................ 1.4.2 State : 1-41 .................................................................. 1.4.3 Federal 1-42

2.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... -2-1 2.1 Stormwater Model Framework ............................................ -2-1 2.2 Water Quantity Modeling .................................................... 2.2

2.2.1 Hydrologic Model ...................................................... 2.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.2.2 Basin and Sub-Basin Delineations ................................... 2.3 2.2.3 Hydrologic Model Parameters ........................................ 2-7

.................................................. 2.2.4 Hydraulic Modeling 2-17 ................................................ 2.2.5 Hydraulic Parameters 2-17

............................................................. 2.2.6 Calibration 2-22 ................................... 2.3 Water Quality Analysis and Modeling 2-23

.......................................... 2.3.1 Analysis of Available Data 2-23 .................. 2.3.2 Phosphorus and Nitrogen Loads at Kissirnmee 2-27

......................................... 2.3.3 Constituent Load Modeling 2-27 ................................................... 2.4 Problem Area Definitions 2-35

................ 2.5 Evaluation of Preferred Best Management Practices 2-37 .................................................... 2.6 Alternatives Evaluations 2-39

.................................................................................. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 3.1 Main Shingle Creek ........................................................... 3-1

.......................................... 3.1.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3.2 .................................... 3.1.1.1 Available Information 3.2 .................................... 3.1.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3.7

........................................ 3.1.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3-15 ...................................... 3.1.1.4 Simulation Results 3-16

................................ 3.1.1.5 Water Quality Analysis 3-24

................................ 3.1.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3-45 .............................. 3.1.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3-46

............................................. 3.1.2 Proposed Improvements 3-49 ....................... 3.1.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3-49

......................... 3.1.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3-59 ...................................................................... 3.2 Lake Fran 3-60

........................................ 3.2.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3-60 .................................. 3.2.1.1 Available Information 3-60 .................................. 3.2.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3-65

........................................ 3.2.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3-66 ...................................... 3.2.1.4 Simulation Results 3-68

................................ 3.2.1.5 Water Quality Analysis 3-70

................................ 3.2.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3-83 .............................. 3.2.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3-83

............................................. 3.2.2 Proposed Improvements 3-84 ....................... 3.2.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3-84

......................... 3.2.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3-85

TABLE OF CONTENTS

................................................................. 3.3 Turkey Lake 3 - 8 6 ........................................ 3.3.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3-86

.................................. 3.3.1.1 Available Information 3-86

.................................. 3.3.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3-90 ........................................ 3 .3.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3-92

3.3.1.4 Simulation Results ...................................... 3-93 3.3.1.5 Water Quality Analysis ................................ 3-95

............................... 3.3.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3- 107 ............................. 3.3.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3-108

............................................ 3.3.2 Proposed Improvements 3-108 ...................... 3.3.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3-109

........................ 3.3.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3-109 .................................................................... 3.4 Lake Tyler -3-1 lo

....................................... 3.4.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3-110 ................................. 3.4.1.1 Available Information 3-110 ................................. 3.4.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3-115

....................................... 3.4.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3-120 .................................... 3.4.1.4 Simulation Results -3-121

............................... 3.4.1.5 Water Quality Analysis 3-123

............................... 3.4.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3-130 ............................. 3.4.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3-131 .. . .

............................................ 3.4.2 Proposed Improvements 3.13 1 ...................... 3.4.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3.13 1

........................ 3.4.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3.132 .................................................................. 3.5 Lake Ellenor 3-133

....................................... 3.5.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3.133 ................................. 3.5.1.1 Available Information 3-133 ................................. 3 S.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3-136

3.5.1.3 WetlandAnalysis ....................................... 3-138 ..................................... 3.5.1.4 Simulation Results 3.138

............................... 3.5.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3.140 ............................. 3.5.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3.14 1 . .

............................................ 3.5.2 Proposed Improvements 3.141 ..................... 3.5.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations -3-141

........................ 3.5.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3-146

TABLE OF CONTENTS

................................................................. 3.6 Major Center 3-147 ....................................... 3.6.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3.147

................................. 3.6.1.1 Available Information 3.147

................................. 3.6.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3-15 1 ....................................... 3.6.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3-153 ..................................... 3.6.1.4 Simulation Results 3.155

............................... 3.6.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3. 160 ............................. 3.6.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3. 161

........................................... 3.6.2 Proposed Improvements -3- 161 ...................... 3.6.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3-161

........................ 3.6.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3-166 ..................................... 3.7 Orlando Central Park (Southpoint) 3-170

....................................... 3.7.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3.170 ................................. 3.7.1.1 Available Information 3.170 ................................. 3.7.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3-173

....................................... 3.7.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3.175 ..................................... 3.7.1.4 Simulation Results 3.176

............................... 3.7.1.5 Water Quality Analysis 3.178

............................... 3.7.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3.178 ............................. 3.7.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3.178

............................................ 3.7.2 Proposed Improvements 3.179 ...................... 3.7.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3-179

........................ 3.7.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3.179 ........................................................... 3.8 Lockheed Martin -3-180

....................................... 3.8.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3.180 ................................. 3.8.1.1 Available Information 3.180 ................................. 3.8.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3. 182

....................................... 3.8.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3-184 ..................................... 3.8.1.4 Simulation Results 3.185

............................... 3.8.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3.187 ............................. 3.8.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3. 188

............................................ 3.8.2 Proposed Improvements 3.188 ...................... 3.8.2.1 Water Quantity considerations 3- 188

........................ 3.8.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3.189

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.............................................................. 3.9 Newover Canal -3-190 3.9.1 Existing Condition Analysis ....................................... 3.190

3.9.1.1 Available Information ................................. 3.190 3.9.1.2 Sub-Basin Description ................................. 3.192 3.9.1.3 Wetland Analysis ....................................... 3.194 3.9.1.4 Simulation Results ..................................... 3.196 3.9.1.5 Water Quality Analysis ............................... 3.199 3.9.1.6 Water Quality Loadings ............................... 3.199 3.9.1.7 Identified Problem Areas ............................. 3-200

............................................ 3.9.2 Proposed Improvements 3-200 3.9.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations ...................... 3-200 3.9.2.2 Water Quality Considerations ........................ 3-201

....................................................... 3.10 Whisperwood Canals 3-202 ....................................... 3.10.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3.202

................................. 3.10.1.1 Available Information 3-202

................................. 3.10.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3-205 ....................................... 3.10.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3.208 ..................................... 3.10.1.4 Simulation Results 3-208

............................... 3.10.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3.209 ............................. 3.10.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3.211

............................................ 3.10.2 Proposed Improvements 3.2 11 ...................... 3.10.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3.212

........................ 3.10.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3.212 ................................................................ 3.11 Big Sand Lake 3-213

....................................... 3.11.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3-213 ................................. 3.11.1.1 Available Information 3.213 ................................. 3.1 1.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3.217

....................................... 3.1 1.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3.219 ..................................... 3.11.1.4 Simulation Results 3.219

............................... 3.11.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3-234 ............................. 3.11.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3.234

............................................ 3.1 1.2 Proposed Improvements 3.235 ...................... 3.11.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3.235

........................ 3.1 1.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3-235

TABLE OF CONTENTS

......................................... 3.12 Valencia Water Control District 3.236 ....................................... 3.12.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3-236

................................. 3.12.1 -2 Sub-Basin Description 3.239 ....................................... 3.12.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3-242 ..................................... 3.12.1.4 Simulation Results 3-243

............................... 3.12.1 . 5 Water Quality Analysis 3-244

............................... 3.12.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3-244 ............................. 3.12.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3-246

............................................ 3.12.2 Proposed Improvements 3-246 ...................... 3.12.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3-247

........................ 3.12.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3-247 ............................................................... 3.13 Whisper Lakes 3-248

....................................... 3.13.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3-248 ................................. 3.13.1.1 Available Information 3.248 ................................. 3.13.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3-251

....................................... 3.13.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3.252 ..................................... 3.13.1.4 Simulation Results 3.254

............................................ 3.13.2 Proposed Improvements 3-258 ...................... 3.13.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3.259

........................ 3.13.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3-259 ............................................................... 3.14 Hunter's Creek 3-260

....................................... 3.14.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3-260 ................................. 3.14.1.1 Available Information 3-260 ................................. 3.14.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3-262

....................................... 3.14.1 . 3 Wetland Analysis 3-266 ..................................... 3.14.1.4 Simulation Results 3-266

............................................ 3.14.2 Proposed Improvements 3-274 ...................... 3.14.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3-274 ....................... 3.14.2.2 Water Quality Considerations. 3-274

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.................................................................... 3.15 Lake Bryan 3.275 ....................................... 3.15.1 Existing Condition Analysis 3.275

................................. 3.15.1.2 Sub-Basin Description 3.278 ....................................... 3.15.1.3 Wetland Analysis 3.280 ..................................... 3.15.1.4 Simulation Results 3.282

............................... 3.15.1.6 Water Quality Loadings 3-289 ............................. 3.15.1.7 Identified Problem Areas 3.289

............................................ 3.15.2 Proposed Improvements 3.290 ...................... 3.15.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations 3-290

........................ 3.15.2.2 Water Quality Considerations 3.290

.................................................................. 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION 4.1 ................................................................... 4.1 Prioritization -4-3

............................................................. 4.2 Public Information 4.8 ............................................................ 4.3 Program Schedule 4-10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Table 1-1 Table 1-2 Table 1-3 Table 1-4 Table 1-5 Table 1-6

Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Table 2-4 Table 2-5 Table 2-6 Table 2-7 Table 2-8 Table 2-9 Table 2-10 Table 2-1 1 Table 2-12

Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Table 3-4 Table 3-5 Table 3-6 Table 3-7 Table 3-8 Table 3-9 Table 3-10 Table 3-1 1 Table.3-12 Table 3-13 Table 3-14 Table 3-15 Table 3-16 Table 3-17 Table 3-18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

................................................................. Basin Summary 1-10 ........................................................................ Soil Type 1-25 ....................................................................... Soil Name 1-27

........................................................................ Land Use 1-30 ..................................... National Wetland Inventory Summary 1-37

............................................................ Trophic State Index 1-39

...................................................................... Aerial Maps -2-3 ............................................... Storm Event Rainfall Quantities 2-8

.......................... Curve Number Antecedent Moisture Condition 2-14 ......................... Manning's Coefficient for Stormwater Conduits 2-18

Normal High Water Elevations ............................................. 2-20 ........................................ Shingle Creek Boundary Conditions 2-22

FDEP Water Quality Standards ............................................. 2-24 ........................................... Water Quality Parameter Ranges 2-25

..................................................... Water Quality Land Uses 2-30 ............................................. Parameter Concentration Range 2-31

..................................................... Rainfall-to-Runoff Ratios 2-32 ................................ Average Removal Efficiency by Land Use 2-34

..................................... Main Shingle Creek Contributing Areas 3.7 Main Shingle Creek Stormwater Conveyance Features ................. 3-11

.................... Main Shingle Creek Maximum Hydrographs Flows 3-16 ..................................... Main Shingle Creek Maximum Stages 3-19

Main Shingle Creek Average Site Values For 1990-1995 .............. 3-45 Main Shingle Creek Water Quality Loadings ............................. 3-45

......................................... Bridge Low Chord Problem Areas 3-46 ............................................ Bridge Heuristic Problem Areas 3-47

....... Regulation Schedule Alternative Pond 40 Storage Relationship 3-53 .............. Westside Manor Regulation Schedule Stage Comparison 3-55

.............. .................... Westside Manor Storage Relationships :. 3-56 .................. Westside Manor Increased Storage Stage Comparison 3-57 ................ Westside Manor Increased Pumping Stage Comparison 3-58

.................................. Lake Fran Available Water Quality Data 3-64 ................................................ Lake Fran Contributing Area 3-65

............................. Lake Fran Stormwater Conveyance Features 3-67 .................................. Lake Fran Maximum Hydrograph Flows 3-68

................................................. Lake Fran Maximum Stages 3-69

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table 3-19 Table 3-20 Table 3-21 Table 3-22 Table 3-23 Table 3-24 Table 3-25 Table 3-26 Table 3-27 Table 3-28 Table 3-29 Table 3-30 Table 3-31 Table 3-32 Table 3-33 Table 3-34 Table 3-35 Table 3-36 Table 3-37 Table 3-38 Table 3-39 Table 3-40 Table 3-41 Table 3-42 Table 3-43 Table 3-44 Table 3-45 Table 3-46 Table 3-47 Table 3-48 Table 3-49 Table 3-50 Table 3-51 Table 3-52 Table 3-53 Table 3-54 Table 3-55 Table 3-56 Table 3-57

@ Table 3-58

Lake Fran Average Site Values For 1990-1995 .......................... 3-82 Lake Fran Water Quality Loadings ......................................... 3-83 Turkey Lake Available Water Quality Data ............................... 3-90 Turkey Lake Contributing Area ............................................. 3-90 Turkey Lake Stormwater Conveyance Features .......................... 3-91 Turkey Lake Maximum Hydrograph Flows .............................. 3-93 Turkey Lake Maximum Stages ............................................. 3-94 Turkey Lake Average Site Values For 1990- 1995 ...................... 3. 107 Turkey Lake Water Quality Loadings ..................................... 3.108 Lake Tyler Contributing Area .............................................. 3.115 Lake Tyler Stormwater Conveyance Features ........................... 3.118 Lake Tyler Maximum Hydrograph Flows ................................ 3.121 Lake Tyler Maximum Stages .............................................. 3.124 Lake Tyler Average Site Values For 1990-1995 ........................ 3.130 Lake Tyler Water Quality Loadings ....................................... 3.130 Lake Ellenor Contributing Area ............................................ 3.136 Lake Ellenor Stormwater Conveyance Features ......................... 3.137 Lake Ellenor Maximum Hydrograph Flows ............................. 3. 138 Lake Ellenor Maximum Stages ............................................ 3. 139 Lake Ellenor Water quality Loadings ..................................... 3.140 Bonnie Brook Stage Comparisons ......................................... 3.145 Major Center Contributing Area ........................................... 3.151

........................ Major Center Stormwater Conveyance Features 3.154 ............................. Major Center Maximum Hydrograph Flows 3.156

Major Center Maximum Stages ........................................... 3.158 ..................... Major Center Average Site Values For 1990-1995 3-160

Major Center Water Quality Loadings .................................... 3.160 ...................... Tangelo Park Canal Widening Stage Comparison 3-165

........................................ Vanguard Street Detention Facility 3.166

........................................ Vanguard Street Pond Comparison 3.169 ................................. Orlando Central Park Contributing Area 3.173

.............. Orlando Central Park Stormwater Conveyance Features 3.175 ................... Orlando Central Park Maximum Hydrograph Flows 3.176

................................. Orlando Central Park Maximum Stages 3.177 .......................... Orlando Central Park Water Quality Loadings 3.178

...................................... Lockheed Martin Contributing Area 3.183 ................... Lockheed Martin Stormwater Conveyance Features 3.184

........................ Lockheed Martin Maximum Hydrograph Flows 3. 185 ....................................... Lockheed Martin Maximum Stages 3. 186

............................... Lockheed Martin Water Quality Loadings 3.187

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table 3-59 Table 3-60 Table 3-61 Table 3-62 Table 3-63 Table 3-64 Table 3-65 Table 3-66 Table 3-67 Table 3-68 Table 3-69 Table 3-70 Table 3-71 Table 3-72 Table 3-73 Table 3-74 Table 3-75

Q Table 3-76 Table 3-77 Table 3-78 Table 3-79 Table 3-80 Table 3-81 Table 3-82 Table 3-83 Table 3-84 Table 3-85 Table 3-86 Table 3-87 Table 3-88 Table 3-89 Table 3-90 Table 3-91 Table 3-92 Table 3-93 Table 3-94 Table 3-95 Table 3-96

Newover Canal Contributing Area ........................................ 3.193 Newover Canal Stormwater Conveyance Features ...................... 3.195 Newover Canal Maximum Hydrograph Flows .......................... 3.196 Newover Canal Maximum Stages ......................................... 3.198 Newover Canal Water Quality Loadings ................................. 3.199 Whisperwood Canals Contributing Area ................................. 3.205 Whisperwood Canals Stormwater Conveyance Features .............. 3.207 Whisperwood Canals Maximum Hydrograph Flows ................... 3.209 Whisperwood Canals Maximum Stages .................................. 3.210 Whisperwood Canals Water Quality Loadings .......................... 3.211 Big Sand Lake Available Water Quality Data ........................... 3.217

.......................................... Big Sand Lake Contributing Area 3.217 Big Sand Lake Stormwater Conveyance Features ....................... 3.218 Big Sand Lake Maximum Hydrograph Flows ........................... 3.219

.......................................... Big Sand Lake Maximum Stages 3-221 Big Sand Lake Average Site Values For 1990-1995 .................... 3-230 Big Sand Lake Water Quality Loadings .................................. 3-234 Valencia Water Control District Contributing Area .................... 3.239 Valencia Water Control District Stormwater Conveyance Features . 3.241 Valencia Water Control District Maximum Hydrograph Flows ...... 3.243 Valencia Water Control District Maximum Stages .................... 3.245 Valencia Water Control District Water Quality Loadings ............. 3-246 Whisper Lakes Control District Contributing Area ..................... 3.251 Whisper Lakes Control District Stormwater Conveyance Features .. 3-253 Whisper Lakes Control District Maximum Hydrograph Flows ...... 3.254

..................... Whisper Lakes Control District Maximum Stages 3.256 Valencia Water Control District Water Quality Loadings ............. 3.258

......................................... Hunter's Creek Contributing Area 3.263 Hunter's Creek Control District Stormwater Conveyance Features . 3.267

...... Hunter's Creek Control District Maximum Hydrograph Flows 3.268 .................... Hunter's Creek Control District Maximum Stages 3.271

Hunter's Creek Water Quality Loadings ................................. 3.273 ............................................. Lake Bryan Contributing Area 3.279

.......................... Lake Bryan Stormwater Conveyance Features 3.281 ............................... Lake Bryan Maximum Hydrograph Flows 3.282

............................................... Lake Bryan Maximum Stages 3.283 ...................... Lake Bryan Average Site Values For 1990-2 1995 3.285

...................................... Lake Bryan Water Quality Loadings 3.289

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS follow in^ P a ~ e

.................................................................... Exhibit 1-1 Location Map -1-6 ............................................................. Exhibit 1-2 Basin Location Map 1.7

............................................................... Exhibit 1-3 Major Basin Map .1.9 ................................................................. Exhibit 1-4 Sub-Basin Map 1-13

.............................................................................. Exhibit 1-5 Soils 1-26 .................................................................. Exhibit 1-6 Land Use Map 1-29

..................................... Exhibit 1-7 National Wetland Inventory Summary 1-38

................................ Exhibit 2-1 Velocities for Shallow Concentrated Flow 2-11 .............................. Exhibit 2-2 Non-Dimensional Unit Hydrograph K = 484 2-13

......................................... Exhibit 2-3 Time-Stage Tailwater Relationship 2-21

Exhibit 3-1 Exhibit 3-2 Exhibit 3-3

0 Exhibit 3-4 Exhibit 3-5

. Exhibit 3-6 Exhibit 3-7 Exhibit 3-8 Exhibit 3-9 Exhibit 3- 10 Exhibit 3-1 1 Exhibit 3-12 Exhibit 3-13 Exhibit 3-14 Exhibit 3-15 Exhibit 3-16 Exhibit 3-17 Exhibit 3-1 8 Exhibit 3-19 Exhibit 3-20 Exhibit 3-21 Exhibit 3-22 Exhibit 3-23 Exhibit 3-24 Exhibit 3-25 * Exhibit 3-26

........................... Main Shingle Creek Border and Nodal Diagram 3.3 L . B . McLeod Road Water Quality Data .................................. 3-26

.......................... Conroy-Windermere Road Water Quality Data 3-30 ....................................... Sand Land Road Water Quality Data 3-34

Central Florida Parkway Water Quality Data ............................. 3-37 U.S. Route 192 Water Quality Data ......................................... 3-42

...................................... Westside Manor - Existing Condition 3-48 .................................... Westside Manor - Improved Condition 3-54 ..................................... Lake Fran Border and Nodal Diagram 3-61

Lake Mam Water Quality Data ............................................. 3-72 Clear Lake Water Quality Data ............................................. 3-76

.................................... Lake Lorna Doone Water Quality Data 3-79 .................................. Turkey Lake Border and Nodal Diagram 3-87

........................................... Turkey Lake Water Quality Data 3-97

.......................................... Lake Marsha Water Quality Data 3-101 ............................................. Lake Cane Water Quality Data 3-104

................................... Lake Tyler Border and Nodal Diagram 3-111 ....................................... Lake Catherine Water Quality Data 3-127

Lake Ellenor Border and Nodal Diagram ................................ 3-134 ........................................ Bonnie Brook - Existing Condition 3-142 ...................................... Bonnie Brook - Improved Condition 3-144

................................ Major Center Border and Nodal Diagram 3-148 .......................................... Tangelo Park Existing Condition 3-162

.................. Tangelo Park Canal Widening - Improved Condition 3-164 .................... Tangelo Park Pond Creation - Improved Condition 3-167

...................... Orlando Central Park Border and Nodal Diagram 3-171

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Exhibit 3-27 Exhibit 3-28 Exhibit 3-29 Exhibit 3-30 Exhibit 3-3 1 Exhibit 3-32 Exhibit 3-33 Exhibit 3-34 Exhibit 3-35 Exhibit 3-36 Exhibit 3-37 Exhibit 3-38

Appendix A Appendix B

m Appendix C Appendix D

Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Appendix J Appendix K Appendix L

Lockheed Martin Border and Nodal Diagram .......................... .3-18 1 Newover Canal Border and Nodal Diagram ............................ .3- 19 1 Whisperwood Canals Border and Nodal Diagram ..................... .3-203

.............................. Big Sand Lake Border and Nodal Diagram 3-214 Spring Lake Water Quality Data ......................................... .3-223 Little Sand Lake Water Quality Data .................................... .3-227 Big Sand Lake Water Quality Data ...................................... .3-23 1

...... Valencia Water Control District Border and Nodal Diagram.. .3-237 .............................. Whisper Lakes Border and Nodal Diagram 3-249

Hunter's Creek Border and Nodal Diagram ............................ .3-261 Lake Bryan Border and Nodal Diagram ................................. .3-276 Lake Bryan Water Quality Data.. ......................................... .3-286

APPENDICES

Basin Areas Nodal Diagram Soil Names By Basin Land Uses By Basin Nation Wetland Inventory Summary Facilities Inventory Table Summary of Existing Stages and Flows adICPR Input Information adICPR Sinlulation Results Selected Wetland Location Assessments Flood Profiles Engineering Cost Estimates

Shingle Creek Master Stormwater Management Study

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc. contracted with Orange County in August 1995 to

prepare the Stormwater Management Master Plan for the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin.

This report addresses water quantity (flood analysis and management), water quality

(constituent analysis and pollutant load reduction) and ecological impacts to wetlands

within the watershed. This management plan will provide recommendations and an

associated implementation schedule to assist the County in providing improved levels of

service and in meeting their desired goals. The scope of work within the Shingle Creek

Watershed included the following tasks: Data Collection and Evaluation, Existing System

Evaluation, Water Quality Data and Evaluation, Water Quantity Evaluations (Modeling),

a Alternative Evaluation and Recommendations, Construction Cost Estimates, Final Draft

Report and Documentation, Public Information Pamphlet, Public Hearings and Final

Report.

The portion of the Shingle Creek Watershed within Orange County is approximately 80.7

square miles (51,638 acres) in size and is located in the south-central portion of the County

as shown in Exhibit 1-2. The topographic relief is mild with a combination of nearly level

to rolling plains and relatively mature Karst surfaces with intermittent ponds, swamps and

marshes.

The watershed consists of one main riverine system, Shingle Creek, and 14 tributaries

flowing into Shingle Creek. Shingle Creek ultimately outfalls into Lake Tohopekaliga in

Osceola County. The headwater of Shingle Creek is the Westside Manor Pump Station

located between State Road 50 and Old Winter Garden Road. This pump station conveys

stormwater from the Lake Venus and Lake Mars systems to the beginning of the Shingle

Executive Summary

Creek channel just south of Old Winter Garden Road. From this point, Shingle Creek runs

south parallel to and approximately 1,500 feet east of Kirkman Road, under Raleigh Street,

Lararnie Trail and L. B. McLeod Road, to a point approximately opposite the Turkey Lake

outlet channel, a distance of about 2.5 miles. It then flows easterly for a distance of

approximately 0.3 miles and then southeasterly under Conroy-Windermere Road, Orlando-

Vineland Road and Interstate 4 for a distance of approximately

1.5 miles to a point just north of Americana Boulevard between John Young Parkway and

Interstate 4. Shingle Creek then flows south for 2.7 miles passing under Americana

Boulevard, Oak Ridge Road, the Florida's Turnpike and Sand Lake Road. From Sand

Lake Road, Shingle Creek flows in a southerly direction for approximately 2.0 miles

where it passes under the Bee Line Expressway. Continuing southward, the creek

0 traverses an additional 5.3 miles, crossing Central Florida Parkway, the GreeneWay and

Town Center Boulevard. Shingle Creek travels another 7.5 miles in Osceola County

before discharging into Lake Tohopekaliga. To simplify the master planning effort the

basin has been delineated into the following 15 sub-basins: Lake Fran, Turkey Lake, Lake

Tyler, Lake Ellenor, Major Center, Orlando Central Park (Southpoint), Lockheed Martin,

Newover Canal, Whisperwood C-11 and C-12 Canal, Big Sand Lake, Valencia Water

Control District, Whisper Lakes, Hunter's Creek, Lake Bryan and Main Shingle Creek

Channel.

The stormwater analysis model is comprised of two separate parts utilizing individual

methodologies and computer programs. These two parts consist of identifying water

quantity or flooding problems and water quality or pollution-related problems. A brief list

of the priority recommendations resulting from this study is presented below.

Executive Summary

Priority Recommendations

1. Data Collection

Water quantity and quality data collection programs should be enhanced.

Continuous stream gauges, measuring the flow and stage of Shingle Creek should

be installed at several locations (Raleigh Street, Conroy-Windermere Road, Sand

Lake Road and the GreeneWay). Water quality sampling should also be initiated at

Lake Ellenor and Little Sand Lake.

2. Bonnie Brook Subdivision:

The Lake Ellenor Canal is predicted to overtop its banks during the 100-yearl24-

hour storm event, flooding 108 houses and 120 yards. It is recommended that a

2,000 foot section of the Lake Ellenor Canal be widened by 17 feet to correct the

flooding problem in the Bonnie Brook Subdivision caused by the high water

condition of Shingle Creek. A study of the subdivision should be conducted to

determine the sufficiency of the internal conveyance system.

3. Westside Manor

The inundation of Westside Manor is predicted during the 100-yearl24-hour storm

event, flooding an estimated 90 houses and 35 mobile homes. The flooding of

these houses is based on one-foot contoured aerial maps, which allowed the finished

floor elevation of the structures to be estimated. A detailed survey of the finished

floor elevations of the affected houses should be performed to verify the extent of

flooding and the adeq~~acy of the solution. This new information can then be used

to finalize the design. It is recommended that the pond area be expanded and the

pump be activated at a lower elevation. The pond area is proposed to expand into

the vacant land in the northeast corner of the subdivision. Additionally, the bottom

95-0033.000lReport/execsumm.Doc ES-3

Executive Summary

elevation of the ponds needs to be lowered by one foot to elevation 73.0 (based on

Orange County records). The pump station also must be modified to allow

pumping to occur at elevation 74.0. A regulation schedule designed to lower the

water level in the ponds to elevation 74.0 prior to a large storm event should be

developed and implemented for the Westside Manor Pump Station, reducing the

risk of flooding to the surrounding houses.

4. Vanguard Street Overtopping

Vanguard Street at the tributary crossing is flooded during the 25-yearf24-hour

storm event. It is recommended that the culvert under Vanguard Street be upgraded

to two 5-foot by 7-foot concrete box culverts from two 60-inch reinforced concrete

pipes. Additionally, the channel north of Vanguard Street must be widened by ten

feet for a distance of 3,600 feet.

5. Lake Hiawassee

This study does not predict any structure flooding within the Lake Hiawassee area

during the 100-year storm event, The County has, however, received several

complaints of flooding due to recent storm events. As a result of this conflicting

information, it is recommended that a detailed study of the Lake Hiawassee basin

be initiated to determine what effects development trends will have on the water

surface elevation within this landlocked lake. Additionally, as the County's

stormwater plan indicates that a hydraulic connection between Lake Hiawassee and

Turkey Lake is to be constructed, the proposed Lake Hiawassee study should

investigate this, as well as other possible solution alternatives.

Executive Summarv

6. Lake Sandy

Lake Sandy has the worst water quality of any sampled lake in the Shingle Creek

Watershed. It is recommended that action be taken to intercept the pollutants prior

to their entering the lake. Several actions can be taken to minimize the problem: 1)

increase flow through the lake, 2) chemical treatment 3) baffle boxes 4) sediment

sumps 5) ponds and 6) swales. A Municipal Services Taxing Unit should be

implemented, ensuring that those receiving the benefits from the improvements

contribute to the solution.

7. Culvert North of Carter Street

The collapsing 84-inch by 48-inch arched corrugated metal culvert at this location

should be replaced with an 84-inch by 48-inch arch reinforced concrete pipe. This

recommendation is purely a maintenance issue.

8. Lake CatherineILake BuchananILake Holden

The control structures on Lake Catherine and Lake Buchanan should be investigated

to ensure adequate flood control. The Lake Holden Report should be referenced in

regard to the proposed outfall from Lake Holden into this system. This Shingle

Creek study relied heavy on the input and recommendations from the Lake Holden

Report prepared by others in making this recommendation. It should be noted that

the analysis conducted as part of this study did not identify any roadway or

structure flooding in this area.

9. Excessive Estimated Pollutant Loads - Lake Ellenor Sub-Basin

Based on land use characteristics and published pollutant load values, the Lake

Ellenor sub-basin exhibits excessive estimated pollutant loads. As this problem

identification is based on literature values, it is suggested that discharges to the

Executive Summary

waterbodies be sampled to verify the existence and extent of the problem, to

quantify the effectiveness of existing systems and to prioritize improvements.

During this sampling process those individuals or businesses in violation of current

stormwater regulations could be identified, allowing the County to monitor the

correction of the problem. Assuming that the sampling program verifies the

existence of a problem, it is recommended that action be taken to intercept the

pollutants prior to their entering the receiving water bodies. Several actions can be

taken to minimize the problem: 1) swales; 2) baffle boxes; 3) sediment sumps; and

4) ponds. Specifically, a swale around the perimeter of Lake Ellenor should be

constructed to collect the "first-flush" of runoff. In addition, a regional stormwater

facility could be constructed west of Lake Ellenor in association with the John

Young Parkway stormwater pond.

Excessive Estimated Pollutant Loads - Major Center Sub-Basin

Based on land use characteristics and published pollutant load values, the Major

Center sub-basin exhibits excessive estimated pollutant loads. As this problem

Executive Summary

4) ponds. Several areas remain undeveloped at this time, which would allow the

construction of a regional facility.

11. Excessive Estimated Pollutant Loads in Lake Tyler Sub-Basin

Tyler sub-basin exhibits excessive estimated pollutant loads. As this problem

4) ponds. Specifically, a regional stormwater system for the area should be

constructed utilizing vacant land south of Lake Tyler.

12. Bridge Flooding

Several bridges along Shingle Creek are endangered during the 100-year storm

event. It is recommended that the low chord elevation be raised to 3 feet above the

100-year design storm maximum elevation when traffic or structural conditions

dictate the replacement of these bridges. The affected bridges include: Americana

Boulevard, Bee Line Expressway, Central Florida Parkway, Oak Ridge Road, Road

ID', Conroy-Windermere Road, Lararnie Drive, L. B. McLeod Road, Road 'El, Sand

Lake Road and Florida's Turnpike.

Executive Summary

Implementation Priority

Determining a priority for implementation is difficult in a watershed of this size with

multiple independent problem areas. Education, maintenance and data collection activities

should be enhanced during the next two years. The education initiative should be

undertaken to enlighten the community as to the benefits of stormwater management and to

present the specific actions the County is proposing to alleviate any stormwater-related

problems. General maintenance activities should continue to be a primary objective within

this mostly developed watershed. Collection of both water quantity and quality data will

enable Orange County to anticipate needs and allow for more detailed analysis in the

future. Implementation of these programs early in the process will allow the County to

0 effect noticeable improvements in flooding conditions. In addition to these basin wide

programs, one visible "early-out" project should be initiated within the first two years. This

project will show that the County is committed to solving the stormwater problems of this

basin.

- To assist in planning and budgeting, the proposed order of the projects was presented

previously in this section. This previous listing is based on the severity of the problem and

input from Orange County staff. A majority of the recommendations are not hydraulically

connected, therefore any improvement could be constructed at any time without adversely

impacting upstream or downstream developments. As a result of this lack of hydraulic

connectivity the improvements could be implemented in a different order as time, funding

or public opinion dictate.

Section 1 .O: Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The 1991 Orange County Comprehensive Policy Plan requires that Orange County, in

cooperation with the Water Management Districts, perform a Master Stormwater

Management Study for the major watersheds within the County. The identified watersheds

are the Lake Apopka Drainage Basin, Wekiva River Drainage Basin, Little Wekiva River

Drainage Basin, Howell Branch Drainage Basin, Little Econlockhatchee Drainage Basin,

Reedy Creek Drainage Basin, Cypress Creek Drainage Basin, Shingle Creek Drainage

Basin, Boggy Creek Drainage Basin, Lake Hart Drainage Basin (Lake Mary Jane),

Econlockhatchee River Drainage Basin and the St. Johns River Drainage Basin. In August

1995, Orange County contracted with DRMP Inc. to prepare the Stormwater Management

Master Plan for the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin. This report addresses water quantity

(flood analysis and management) and water quality (constituent analysis and management)

within the watershed. This management plan provides recommendations and an associated

0 implementation schedule to assist the County in meeting the desired goals.

1.1 Purpose and Scope This report takes an in-depth look at the hydrology and hydraulics of the Shingle Creek

Basin. It focuses primarily on the identification and solutions to the existing flooding

problems, the water quality problems and the ecological changes occurring within the

basin.

Task 1: Data Collection and Evaluation This task concentrates on identifying and quantifying existing hydraulic elements and water

quality data for the Shingle Creek Basin. The primary system is generally defined by

lakes, wetland systems, creeks and canals. Information was obtained, reviewed and

categorized from the following agencies:

Section 1.0: Introduction

Orange County

City of Orlando

Valencia Water Control District

Turnpike District

Florida Department of Transportation

Orlando Central Park

Orlando Plaza Partners

Lockheed Martin

OrlandoIOrange County Expressway Authority

East Central Florida Regional Planning Council

South Florida Water Management District

United States Geological Survey

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Various Consultants

Task 2: Evaluate Existing System The existing primary drainage systems were investigated and inventoried using information

obtained in Task 1 and additional field survey information. The location, type, number

and invert elevations of all structures (culverts, bridges, weirs, drop structures, channels,

pump stations, etc.) that were incorporated into the model have been provided.

Task 3: Water Quality Data and Evaluation Existing water quality data were obtained and reviewed to determine historical trends. The

basin was modeled to determine the anticipated constituent loads generated from the basin

and the impacts that any best management practices may have on the generated loads.

Task 4: Water Quantity Evaluations (Modeling) The Advance Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing Model (adICPR Version 2.02) was

used to perform water quantity analyses for the Shingle Creek Watershed. This simulation

effort included identifying structures, locating and quantifying storage areas, delineating

basins, computing hydrologic parameters for the model (curve numbers and times of

concentration), investigating the appropriate peaking factor and trouble-shooting the model.

Once the model was stabilized, the primary system within the watershed was modeled

using the existing land use condition for the 10-yearl24-hour; 25-yearl24-hour; and 100-

year/24-hour storm events.

Task 5: Alternative Evaluation and Recommendations Alternative drainage improvement plans have been prepared and the flooding conditions

evaluated. One Stormwater Management Master Plan that addresses the existing flooding

a condition has been developed. This recommended alternative should be permittable by the

South Florida Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental

Protection.

Task 6: Construction Cost Estimates Estimated construction costs, along with a phased schedule for the implementation of the

Stormwater Management Master Plan, are presented.

Task 7: Final Draft Report and Documentation The Shingle Creek Watershed Stormwater Management Master Plan Final Draft Report has

been prepared and submitted to the County.

Task 8: Public Information Pamphlet A brief public information pamphlet summarizing the purpose of the report, outlining the

recommended alternatives and discussing the conclusions has been prepared.

Task 9: Public Hearings Two public meetings were held to discuss the Shingle Creek Watershed Stormwater

Management Master Plan; one geared toward a public presentation, and a second to

present the findings to the Board of County Commissioners.

Task 10: Final Report Ten copies of the Shingle Creek Watershed Stormwater Management Master Plan have

been submitted to the County.

Task 11: Additional Information The basins, sub-basins and contributing areas, along with the floodplain for the 10-yearl24-

hour, 25-yearl24-hour and 100-yearl24-hour storm events, have been delineated on 1 inch

equals 1200 feet scale aerial photography. Additionally, all survey books have been

0 returned to the County. The computer diskettes containing all electronic input and output

files from the Advanced Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing computer simulation

have been submitted to the County.

Task 12: Conceptual Approval A Conceptual Permit Application was to be obtained from the South Florida Water

Management District. However, after meeting with District staff, it was determined that a

permit would not be beneficial to this project, as the proposed improvements are separate

and discrete and wetland jurisdictional lines were not determined. Therefore, this task was

removed from the scope of work.

1.2 Report Organization This report has been organized to meet the future planning needs of Orange County.

Sections 1 and 2 include background information, modeling methodologies and database

formulation for the project. Section 3 provides information related specifically to the sub-

basins within the Shingle Creek Basin, including existing sub-basin boundaries, drainage-

ways and waterbodies, associated maximum condition stage and flow data and water

quality data. The problem areas are also defined and recommended solutions are

95-0033 .ooO~eponiSec I .Do.

discussed. Section 4 recommends implementation priorities, suggests construction

schedules and emphasizes public involvement. An Executive Summary and Summary of

Recommendations are provided at the beginning of this report.

1.3 Drainage Basin Characterization The Shingle Creek Watershed located within Orange County is approximately 80.7 square

miles (51,638 acres) in size and is located in the south-central portion of Orange County as

shown in Exhibits 1-1 and 1-2. The watershed within Orange County is bordered by the

Osceola County line to the south, and generally by State Road 441 on the east, State Road

50 to the north, and Apopka-Vineland Road to the west. The northern portion of the

watershed lies within the corporate limits of the City of Orlando. Additionally, the

Valencia Water Control District is located in the south-central portion of the watershed,

south of the Bee Line Expressway.

a The watershed consists of one main riverine system, Shingle Creek, and 14 tributaries

flowing into Shingle Creek. Shingle Creek ultimately outfalls into Lake Tohopekaliga in

Osceola County. The headwater of Shingle Creek is the Westside Manor Pump Station

located between State Road 50 and Old Winter Garden Road. This pump station conveys

stormwater from the Lake Venus and Lake Mars systems to the beginning of the Shingle

Creek channel just south of Old Winter Garden Road. From this point, Shingle Creek runs

south parallel to and approximately 1,500 feet east of Kirkman Road, under Raleigh Street,

Laramie Trail and L. B. McLeod Road, to a point approximately opposite the Turkey Lake

outlet channel, a distance of about 2.5 miles. It then flows easterly for a distance of

approximately 0.3 miles and then southeasterly under Conroy Road, Orlando-Vineland

Road and Interstate 4 for a distance of approximately

1.5 miles to a point just north of Americana Boulevard between John Young Parkway and

Interstate 4. Shingle Creek then flows south for 2.7 miles passing under Americana

Boulevard, Oak Ridge Road, the Florida's Turnpike and Sand Lake Road. From Sand

Lake Road, Shingle Creek flows in a southerly direction for approximately 2.0 miles

where it passes under the Bee Line Expressway. Continuing southward, the creek

traverses an additional 5.3 miles, crossing Central Florida Parkway, the GreeneWay and

I 95-0033.OOO/ReporVSec 1 .DOC

5/20/95 GCR

ORORAN COUNTY BOUNDARY LINE

MAJOR DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY

SHINGLE CREEK BASIN

Town Center Boulevard. Shingle Creek travels another 7.5 miles in Osceola County

before discharging into Lake Tohopekaliga. To simplify the master planning effort the

basin has been delineated into the following 15 sub-basins:

Lake Fran

Turkey Lake

Lake Tyler

Lake Ellenor

Major Center

Orlando Central Park (Southpoint)

Lockheed Martin

Newover Canal

Whisperwoods C-1 1 and C-12 Canal

Big Sand Lake

Valencia Water Control District

Whisper Lakes

Hunter' s Creek

Lake Bryan

Main Shingle Creek Channel

These study areas will be the basis of discussion throughout the report and will be

discussed in greater detail in the following sections. Exhibit 1-3 and Table 1-1 identify the

representative size and location of the systems.

TABLE 1-1 Basin Summary

Sub-Basin Name

Main Shingle Creek Lake Fran Area Turkey Lake Area

Lake Ellenor Area 1 1,143.6 1 2.2

Area* (Acres) 11,657.8 6,123.6 3,998.3

Lake Tyler Area

Percent (%I

22.6 11.9 7.7

Major Center Area Orlando Central Park (Southpoint) Lockheed Martin Area

Whisper Lakes Area 1 1,453.6 1 2.8

3,252.2

Newover Canal Area Whisperwoods C-1 1 and C-12 Canals Area Big Sand Lake Area Valencia Water Control District Area

Hunter's Creek Area 1 1,780.2 1 3.4

2,925.6 2,165.3 1,376.3

5.7 4.2 2.7

1,705.3 1,648.0 5,066.7 2,469.2

*From previous reports and GIs analysis, 0.026% error compared to GIs information

3.3 3.2 9.8 4.8

Lake Bryan Area TOTAL

In addition to the 14.6 mile riverine system, the watershed also contains a several lakes.

The larger lakes include: Clear Lake LakeMam Turkey Lake Philips Pond Lake Catherine Lake Buchanan Lake Cane Lake Marsha

4,871.9 51,637.6

Lake Ellenor

95-0033.000/Report/Sec 1 .Doc

9.4 100.0

Lake Tyler Spring Lake Little Sand Lake Big Sand Lake Lake Hiawassee Lake Willis Lake Crowell Little Lake Bryan Lake Bryan

The smaller lakes within the basin include:

Lake Geyer

Charter Lake

Geyer Lake

Lake Cathy

Lake Pamela

San Susan Lake

Lake Venus

Lake Mars

Sunset Lake

Lake Lorna Doone

Hidden Lake

Lake Prosper

Lake Eve

Sandy Lake

Lake Pat

Lake Fran

Orange County records the stages of Big Sand Lake, Lake Cane, Clear Lake, Lake

Ellenor, Little Sand Lake, Lake Mam, Lake Marsha, Spring Lake, Lake Tyler, and Lake

Willis within the watershed on a monthly basis. The City of Orlando records the lake

levels for Sandy Lake, Lake Pat, Lake Fran, Lake Kozart, Lake Richmond, Lake

Hiawassee, Lake Pamela, Turkey Lake, Clear Lake, Lake Mam, Sunset Lake, Rock Lake,

and Lake Lorna Doone monthly. The South Florida Water Management District has one

rain gauge and two stage and flow data recorders located within the basin. These stage,

flow and rainfall .data are collected in the southern portion of the watershed at the Orlando

Utilities Commission power line easement and at Central Florida Parkway. Orange

County also has two rain gauges within the Watershed. One located north of Spring Lake

and another located at the intersection of Shingle Creek and Conroy-Windermere Road.

In addition to the many lakes, two large wetlands also exist within the watershed. The

northernmost wetland is located along Shingle Creek between Florida's Turnpike and a

point one-half mile south of Sand Lake Road. The southern wetland area is located

between International Drive and the Osceola County line.

1.3.1 Existing Drainage Patterns As stated previously in Table 1-1, the watershed has been divided into 15 sub-basins.

Each system ultimately discharges into Shingle Creek, which flows southward to Lake

Tohopekaliga. In an effort to accurately simulate the design storm events, the sub-basins

were further divided into contributing areas. This resulted in the delineation of 343

contributing areas as shown on Exhibit 1-4. Elevations referenced in this report are to

National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929.

1.3.1.1 Shingle Creek - Main Channel This sub-basin includes 57 contributing areas and covers 11,657 acres (18.2 square miles)

or 22.6 percent of the total watershed as summarized in Appendix A. The contributing

areas range in size from 9 to 907 acres. The individual contributing areas are depicted on

Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 3-1. This sub-basin is encompassed by contributing areas that

drain directly into Shingle Creek, landlocked lakes and the headwaters of Shingle Creek.

The main channel of Shingle Creek is traversed by 14 bridges as it meanders in a north to

south direction for over 14.6 miles. The Shingle Creek sub-basin also includes several

landlocked lakes: Charter Lake, Claypit Lake, Geyer Lake, Lake Cathy, Lake Geyer,

Lake Hiawassee, Lake Pamela and Lake San Susan. All of these lakes are modeled using

overland weirs, as no control structures are present. The last area classified as part of the

Main Shingle Creek is the headwaters. The headwaters include Westside Manor and the

associated pump station. L&s Vemi$ aad Mrrs dra outhward toward the pump station

though a series of weirs and canals. The pump begins discharging 70 cfs at elevation

75.51 through a 48-inch force main under Old Winter Garden Road into Shingle Creek

after being manually activated by County staff. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a

high of 140 feet at the northwest corner of the basin to a low of 70 feet at the Osceola

County line. A map locating the Main Shingle Creek Area is shown in

Exhibit 1-3. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

1.3.1.2 Lake Fran This sub-basin includes 14 contributing areas and covers 6,123 acres (9.6 square miles) or

11.9 percent of the total watershed as summarized in Appendix A. The contributing areas

range in size from 111 to 2,086 acres. The individual contributing areas are depicted on

Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 3-9. This sub-basin is characterized by several large lakes and two

primary drainage canals. The two main lakes are Lake Mann and Clear Lake. Lake Mann

discharges into Lake Mann Canal via 1,500 feet of 60-inch RCP and an associated weir.

Lake Mann Canal then flows south for 1,300 feet and west for an additional 2,700 feet,

crossing under Willie Mays Parkway, until it merges with Lescott Ditch. This combined

flow turns southwest, flowing 100 feet, through a canal section until it enters Lake Fran.

Clear Lake discharges into Clear Lake Canal via 265 feet of 60-inch RCP and an

associated weir. It then flows west for 8,000 feet and then north for 1,800 feet, crossing

under Bruton Boulevard and Willie Mays Parkway, until it discharges into Lake Fran.

0 Lake Fran discharges to the south through a drop structure which utilizes four 60-inch

RCP culverts with flap gates to allow one-way flow only. This flow travels west for

2,825 feet before it enters Shingle Creek. This sub-basin also includes the following lakes:

Lake Notasulga, Rock Lake, Lake Lorna Doone, Sunset Lake, Lake Kozart and Lake

Richmond. The first four listed lakes are landlocked, with overland weirs to simulate

possible overtopping. The remaining two lakes discharge into Lake Mann Canal and Clear

Lake Canal, respectively. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of 105 feet at

north of Rock Lake to a low of 85 feet at Shingle Creek. A map locating the Lake Fran

Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

1.3.1.3 Turkey Lake This sub-basin area includes 15 contributing areas and covers 3,998 acres (6.2 square

miles) or 7.7 percent of the total watershed as is summarized in Appendix A. The

contributing areas range in size from 23 to 1,783 acres. The individual contributing areas

are depicted on Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 3-13. This area is characterized by four large

lakes, multiple small bowl-like depressional areas and a large wetland. Stormwater runoff

from the entire sub-basin flows toward Turkey Lake which outfalls into Shingle Creek

north of L. B. McLeod Road. The major lakes within this area are Lake Marsha, Lake

95-0033.000/Report/Scc 1 .DOC

Cane, Philips Pond, and Turkey Lake. Both Lake Marsha and Lake Cane discharge to

Lake Cane Swamp. Lake Cane Swamp then flows under Conroy-Windermere Road and

the Florida's Turnpike before ultimately draining into Turkey Lake. Phillips Pond is a

landlocked basin; however, if stages were to increase sufficiently, it would sheet flow to

Turkey Lake. Turkey Lake outfalls to Shingle Creek via a combination of a canal and pipe

system, crossing under both Kirkrnan Road and a small access road enroute. Elevations in

the sub-basin range from a high of 170 feet west of Philips Pond to a low of 90 feet at

Shingle Creek. A map locating the Turkey Lake Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3. An overall

nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

1.3.1.4 Lake Tyler This sub-basin includes 51 contributing areas and covers 3,252 acres (5.1 square miles) or

6.3 percent of the total watershed as is summarized in Appendix A. The contributing areas

range in size from 1 to 771 acres. The individual contributing areas are depicted on

0 Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 3-17. This area is characterized by four large lake systems and

two extensive canal systems. The first major lake and canal system is Lake Tyler and its

outfall to Shingle Creek, more commonly known as the Americana Canal. Lake Tyler

outfalls 4,000 feet to the southwest, crossing Americana Boulevard and Rio Grande

Boulevard. At this point Americana Canal passes under Texas Street and continues

directly west for an additional 10,600 feet, traversing John Young Parkway before it

discharges into Shingle Creek. The Lake Buchanan and Lake Catherine systems discharge

to the south along John Young Parkway, crossing Americana Boulevard before joining

with the Americana Canal just west of John Young Parkway. This combined lake system

was modeled using multiple hydrographs and reaches obtained from Orange County's Lake

Holden Report (Singhofen, 1996). Only a portion of nodes modeled in this area are shown

on the nodal diagram in Appendix B. The large Interstate 4 Pond south of the Orange

County Public Works Complex is also included in this sub-basin. The pond outfalls

southward to Shingle Creek through a 15-inch CMP drop structure. The upstream area is

modeled using information obtained from the "Orange County Public Work Complex:

Stormwater Management Alternative Designs" prepared by DRMP, Inc. in 1988. As with

the Lake Catherine area, this area is modeled using multiple hydrographs and reaches not

95-0033.000/Rep0rt/Sec 1 .Doc 1-15

shown on the nodal diagram. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of 105 feet

north of Lake Catherine to a low of 80 feet at Shingle Creek. A map locating the Lake

Tyler Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

1.3.1.5 Lake Ellenor This sub-basin includes 5 contributing areas and covers 1,143 acres (1.8 square miles) or

Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 3-19. This area is characterized by Lake Ellenor, one primary

drainage canal, and a golf course. Lake Ellenor discharges directly west through a 10 foot

by 9 foot concrete box culvert drop structure under Chancellor Drive. From this point, the

canal continues west for an additional 5,500 feet, crossing under John Young Parkway,

before discharging into Shingle Creek. Additionally, the Bonnie Brook subdivision pump

a station discharges into the Lake Ellenor Canal approximately 1,000 feet east of its

confluence with Shingle Creek. Cannon Gate Golf Course discharges to the north for over

5,000 feet conveying water under Oak Ridge Road, before joining the Lake Ellenor Canal

1,400 feet west of John Young Parkway. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of

103 feet east of Lake Ellenor to a low of 80 feet at Shingle Creek. A map locating the

Lake Ellenor Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in

Appendix B.

1.3.1.6 Major Center This sub-basin includes 32 contributing areas and covers 2,925 acres (4.8 square miles) or

Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 3-22. This area is characterized by two large lakes (Sandy Lake

and Lake Pat), a commercial area, and two theme parks. Sandy Lake, also known as the

Wet-N-Wild Lake, discharges east to Kirkman Road through 1,800 feet of 36-inch RCP.

Lake Pat's control structure allows the water to flow south, before it is collected in the

Kirkrnan Road intersection ditch. At this point, Sandy Lake and Lake Pat discharge joins

and crosses under Kirkrnan Road. This combined flow travels 8,100 feet to the northeast,

9M033.000meponiScc l .Doc 1-16

crossing Greenbriar Parkway, Municipal Drive and Vanguard Street, before discharging

into the Major Center Canal 2,800 feet south of Oak Ridge Road. The Major Center

Canal originates at Universal Studios' discharge point under Kirkman Road. From

Kirkman Road, Major Center Canal travels southeast 2,700 feet collecting stormwater

runoff from Major Center and Belz Factory Outlet Malls before flowing under Oak Ridge

Road. South of Oak Ridge Road the area is undeveloped. The flow continues in a

southeasterly direction for 5,800 feet, crossing under two maintenance utility roads before

intersecting with Shingle Creek south of the Florida Turnpike. Universal Studios was

modeled using information obtained from "Universal City: Surface Water Management

Staff Review Summary and Appendix B" prepared by Ivy, Harris and Walls, Inc. in 1995.

As such, multiple hydrographs and reaches used in the model are not shown on the nodal

diagram. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of 145 feet near Universal Studios

to a low of 80 feet at Shingle Creek. A map locating the Major Center Area is shown in

1.3.1.7 Orlando Central Park (Southpoint)

This sub-basin includes 8 contributing areas and covers 2,165 acres (3.4 square miles) or

Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 3-26. This area is characterized by four detention facilities and

one slough area. Two of the detention facilities are located north of Sand Lake Road.

These ponds discharge to a common canal before crossing under Florida's Turnpike and

joining with Shingle Creek. The remaining systems are located south of Sand Lake Road.

The detention facility discharges west under the Florida's Turnpike before turning north

and entering Southpark Slough. After attenuating the flow, Southpark Slough crosses

under John Young Parkway on its way toward the final detention facility. This pond

primarily provides water quality treatment before discharging the flow into Shingle Creek.

Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of 110 feet on the east side of the basin to a

low of 75 feet at Shingle Creek. A map locating the Orlando Center Park (Southpoint)

Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3 An overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

1.3.1.8 Lockheed Martin This sub-basin includes 7 contributing areas and covers 1,376 acres (2.1 square miles) or

Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 3-27. This area is characterized by one major tributary traversing

the center of the Lockheed Martin plant and four depressional areas discharging into the

canal. The channel begins near the main Lockheed Martin building and flows southeast

for 12,000 feet until it joins Shingle Creek. The canal crosses under four private roadways

before entering Shingle Creek. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of 110 feet

near the main complex to a low of 80 feet at Shingle Creek. A map locating the Lockheed

Martin Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix

1.3.1.9 Newover Canal This sub-basin includes 21 contributing areas and covers 1,705 acres (2.7 square miles) or

Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 3-28. This area is characterized by one major, well-defined

channel section known as the Newover Canal and ten ponds and three depressional areas

that discharge into the canal. Newover Canal begins just south of Sand Lake Road and

east of Republic Drive. Newover Canal flows south for 7,700 feet, crossing under two

maintenance roads. At this point, the canal turns and flows directly east, parallel to the

Bee Line Expressway, for 9,000 feet until it discharges into Shingle Creek. The 16

depressional areas discharge to Newover Canal either by drop structure or overland flow.

Hotels and the new Orange County Convention Center are located within this area.

Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of 130 feet west of Newover Canal to a low

of 75 feet at Shingle Creek. A map locating the Newover Canal Area is shown in Exhibit

1-3. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

1.3.1.10 Whisperwood C-11 and C-12 Canals This sub-basin includes 12 contributing areas and covers 1,648 acres (2.6 square miles) or

Exhibit 1-4 and Exhibit 3-29. This area is characterized by two large lakes (Lake

Whisperwood and Lake Prosper), four detention facilities and three tributaries. The first

tributary of interest has its beginning at Whisperwood subdivision and flows into the

Valencia Water Control District's C-11 Canal. The C-11 canal flows west for 6,000 feet,

crossing under John Young Parkway and flowing through an Amil Gate structure, before

ultimately discharging into Shingle Creek. Lake Whisperwood flows into the C-11 Canal

via overland sheet flow at elevation 85 feet. The Valencia Water Control District's C-12

Canal is the next major tributary in the system. The C-12 Canal begins at Orangewood

Subdivision at State Road 441 and flows northwest through 4,600 feet of canal and two

Amil Gate structures. The C-12 Canal then turns to the south and travels 4,000 feet until

it converges with the C-11 Canal just east of John Young Parkway. A large slough area

discharges into the C-12 Canal 600 feet south of its confluence with the C-11 Canal. The

final tributary is located within Orlando Central Park. It begins at Lake Prosper on the

east side of the Florida's Turnpike and flows 3,400 feet in a westerly direction until it

intersects with Consulate Drive. In between these two points, the tributary conveys water

under a Florida's Turnpike ramp, Florida's Turnpike, and State Road 441. From

Consulate Drive the canal turns to the southwest and flows 4,800 feet until it meets the C-

12 Canal. Enroute, the canal crosses Principle Row and Investor Row. Additionally,

three detention facilities flow into this tributary. Two join the canal at its confluence with

the C-12 Canal. The remaining pond is a borrow pit associated with the construction of

the Bee Line Expressway and discharges just to the west of Consulate Drive. Elevations in

the sub-basin range from a high of 95 feet near Prosper Lake to a low of 75 feet at Shingle

Creek. A map locating the Whisperwood Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3. An overall nodal

diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

1.3.1.11 Big Sand Lake This sub-basin includes 7 contributing areas and covers 5,067 acres (7.9 square miles) or

9.8 percent of the total watershed as summarized in Appendix A. The basins range in size

from 90 to 2,664 acres. The individual contributing areas are depicted on Exhibit 1-4 and

Exhibit 3-30. This area is characterized as a cascading lake system comprised of five large

lakes. Spring Lake is the headwaters of the system. Spring Lake flows south under Sand

Lake Road into Little Sand Lake. Little Sand Lake, Lake Crowell and Lake Willis all

discharge into Big Sand Lake from the north, west and south, respectively. Big Sand Lake

discharges east into the Valencia Water Control District via an open channel; culverts

under Turkey Lake Road and Interstate 4; and a storm sewer along Central Florida

Parkway to the Valencia Water Culvert District canals. Elevations in the sub-basin range

from a high of 155 feet northwest of Spring Lake to a low of 90 feet east of Big Sand

Lake. A map locating the Big Sand Lake Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3. An overall nodal

diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

1.3.1.12 Valencia Water Control District This sub-basin includes 19 contributing areas and covers 2,469 acres (3.8 square miles) or

from 16 to 369 acres. The individual contributing areas are depicted on Exhibit 1-4 and

Exhibit 3-34. Sea World and multiple hotels are located within this area. The flow from

Big Sand Lake enters this sub-basin and is conveyed through a series of channel and piping

systems until it outfalls into the swampy area to the south. The information for this

portion of the model was obtained from the "West Valencia Drainage District: Application

for Surface Water Management Permit and Conceptual Approval of Master Drainage Plan"

prepared by Gee & Jenson Consulting Engineers in 1981. The stage-area-discharge

relationships were used to model this area; as such, the actual channel sections or control

structures are not modeled. The Shadow Wood and Waterview Subdivisions are also

associated with this area. Newover Canal is connected to the Shadow Wood System by a

culvert under the Bee Line Expressway. Open channel flow continues eastward 6,500 feet

where the channel discharges into the Waterview detention ponds. The control structures

of these ponds contribute stormwater to Shingle Creek. Elevations in the sub-basin range

from a high of 120 feet in the northwest comer of the basin to a low of 75 feet at the

southern swamp area. A map locating the Valencia Water Control District Area is shown

in Exhibit 1-3. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

1.3.1.13 Whisper Lakes This sub-basin includes 20 contributing areas and covers 1,454 acres (2.3 square miles) or

Exhibit 3-35. This area is characterized by one primary tributary and one cascading lake

system. Sub-divisions in this area are Sky Lake, Whisper Lakes, Ginger Mill and Pepper

Mill. Sky Lake Subdivision forms the headwaters of the main canal. This canal flows

south for 2,800 feet where it accepts stormwater from Pepper Mill and Ginger Mill. From

this point, the canal turns west for 4,000 feet until it ultimately discharges into Shingle

Creek. The natural bay head in Ginger Mill Subdivision flows north into Ginger Mill's

detention facility. From this pond, the water is directed through over 3,300 feet of pipe

into Pepper Mill's detention pond. At this location, Pepper Mill discharges into the

Whisper Lakes Canal System. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of 95 feet at

the northeast corner of the basin to a low of 75 feet at Shingle Creek. A map locating the

Whisper Lakes Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in

Appendix B.

1.3.1.14 Hunter's Creek This sub-basin includes 61 contributing areas and covers 1,780 acres (2.8 square miles) or

Exhibit 3-36. This basin area is entirely contained within the Hunter's Creek

Development, which is divided into five subdivisions: Hunter's Creek Far West Village,

Hunter's Creek West Village, Hunter's Creek Northwest Village, Hunter's Creek

Northeast Village and Hunter's Creek 315 Parcel. Each of these subdivisions is modeled

using the Hunter's Creek model information prepared by Bowyer-Singleton & Associates,

Inc. As a result of the detail in this area, the actual reaches and nodes are not depicted on

the nodal diagram. The sub-basin eventually discharges into Shingle Creek via controls on

detention facilities internal to the development. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a

high of 90 feet on the east side of the basin to a low of 70 feet at Shingle Creek. A map

locating the Hunter's Creek Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3 An overall nodal diagram is

depicted in Appendix B.

1.3.1.15 Lake Bryan This sub-basin includes 14 contributing areas and covers 4,872 acres (7.6 square miles) or

from 13 to 2,770 acres. The individual contributing areas are depicted on Exhibit 1-4 and

Exhibit 3-37. This area is characterized by three large lakes (Lake Bryan, Little Lake

Bryan, and Lake Eve) which discharge into Shingle Creek either through a defined channel

system or a swamp. Lake Eve discharges south under International Drive into a swampy

0 area. The flow continues south through the swamp for an additional 11,000 feet ending at

the GreeneWay. After crossing underneath the GreeneWay, the flow continues south to

the County Line for an additional 2,500 feet. The second system within this area is the

Lake Bryan system. This area is a cascading lake system with Little Lake Bryan flowing

into Lake Bryan via an overland flow. Lake Bryan then discharges south under

International Drive, GreeneWay and an Orlando Utilities Commission easement for 6,200

feet, where it cross the Osceola County line. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high

of 130 feet north of Little Lake Bryan to a low of 85 feet at the Osceola County line. A

map locating the Lake Bryan Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3. An overall nodal diagram in

1.3.2 Climate The climate with the Shingle Creek Watershed is subtropical. The summers are long,

warm, and humid, but thundershowers that occur almost every afternoon prevent

temperatures from becoming extremely high. Winters are short and mild; many of the days

are bright and sunny, and there is little precipitation. The average annual temperature is

71.8 degrees Fahrenheit. In winter the average temperature is 61.1 degrees, and in

summer 81.1 degrees. (SCS, 1989)

@ 95-0033.0OO/ReprUSec l .Doc

Abundant rainfall is characteristic of this area, with 57 percent of the rainfall occurring

during the rainy season, June through September. Another major threat from rainfall

comes from the tropical storms and hurricanes experienced between August and

November. The average annual rainfall for the Shingle Creek Watershed area is 48.11

inches as measured at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) recording site at McCoy Airport. The average annual rainfall, as read from the

isopluvial maps prepared by the St. Johns Water Management District Publication SJ 90-3,

is 51 inches. The wet season normal rainfall (June through October), also based on

Technical Publication SJ 90-3, is 31 inches. Based on these data, 60.8 percent of the

annual rainfall occurs during the four months associated with the rainy season.

In additional to the NOAA and SJRWMD information cited above, Orange County also

a maintains two rainfall gauges within the Shingle Creek Watershed. The gauges record data

in 15-minute intervals and are located at Shingle Creek near Comoy Road and at Spring

1.3.3 Topography Elevations in the Shingle Creek watershed range from a high of approximately 175 feet,

NGVD, west of Lake Cane to a low of 70 feet where Shingle Creek crosses the Osceola

County line. The areas adjacent to Shingle Creek range from a high of nearly 100 feet at

Old Winter Garden Road to 80 feet at Sand Lake Road and 70 feet at the Osceola County

The topography of the northwest, northeast and western region is nearly level to rolling

plains with slopes between 0 and 8 percent. The ridges within this area represent a

relatively mature Karst surface that varies widely in elevation. The southern portion of the

basin is characterized by nearly level ground, with many intermittent ponds, swamps,

marshes and a few permanent lakes.

1.3.4 Geology and Physiography Orange County is located within the central physiographic zone of Florida.

Characteristically this zone has discontinuous highlands that form subparallel ridges. The

watershed lies within two major physiographic divisions: the Central Highlands and the

Coastal Lowlands. The Central Highlands include the Mount Dora Ridge and the Orlando

Ridge. The Coastal Lowlands include the Osceola Plain. A majority of the Shingle Creek

watershed is located within the Osceola Plain, which is characterized by very gently

sloping, low ridges, with changes in elevation that are so gradual as to be barely

perceptible. Ponds, swamps, marshes and permanent lakes are found in this area. Most of

the areas are connected by sluggish streams or by wide shallow sloughs. These sloughs or

swamps drain ultimately to Lake Tohopekaliga. The northeastern boundary of the

watershed is within the Orlando Ridge. The Mount Dora Ridge contains the western

boundary of the watershed. Both of these regions are similar to the Osceola Ridge. The

soil in these regions slope between 0 and 8 percent, however, in areas near sinkholes the

slope may approach 25 percent.

The geology of the region is composed of undifferentiated unconsolidated sandy soils on

the surface. Beneath these soils is the Hawthorn Group, followed sequentially by the

Ocala Group and Avon Park Limestone. The undifferentiated soils are technically

considered part of the Upper Eocene limestone units. The deposits in this unit are very

fine or fine grained, chalky and porous, and have a cream color. The Hawthorn group

includes interbedded and interfingering sand, clayey sand, sandy clayey, phosphatic

sediment, dolomite and limestone.

1.3.5 Soils The soils within the Shingle Creek Watershed are predominately poorly drained, black to

gray sandy soils, commonly characterized as type 'BID' or ID' by the Nature Resources

Conservation Services. Over 73 percent of the soils in the watershed are type "BID' or

'D' as shown in Table 1-2 and Exhibit 1-5. Additionally, over 27 percent of the soils are

Smyrna fine sand as presented in Table 1-3. The slopes of Smyrna fine sand smoothly

range from 0 to 2 percent. The soils are generally found on broad flatwoods being nearly

level and poorly drained. A detailed description of the soils within each individual basin

can be found in Appendix C.

TABLE 1-2 Soil Type

Soil Area* Percent (Acres) (%)

I BID 1 31,667 1 6 1 . 3

I Water I 3,664 1 7.1

I TOTAL

*From GIs information

51,623 100.0

TABLE 1-3 Soil Name

Soil Code

1 2 i~rchbold Fine Sand,, 0 to 5 percent slopes I I I

I I I I

I 6 I ~ a n d l e r - ~ ~ o ~ k a fine sands, 5 to 12 percent sloped I A 372 0.7

Soil Name

Arents, nearly level

A 1 1,029 3 4 5

I I I I I 10 l~hobee fine sandy loam, frequently flooded BID 2 0.0

Hydrologic Group

Basinger fine sand, depressional Candler fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Candler fine sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes

I I I I

1 13 l~e lda fine sand BID 234 0.5

Area* (Acres)

Candler-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Candler-Urban land complex, 5 to 12 percent slopes

I I 1 I I 19 l~ontoon muck BID 180 0.3

Percent (%I 0.9

15 @ I 16

I I I I

1 20 l~rnrnokalee fine sand BID 1 2,136 4.1

3,560 522 60

I I I I

I 22 l~ochloosa fine sand I C 546 1 1.1

6.9 1 .O 0.1

Felda fine sand, frequently flooded Floridana fine sand, frequently flooded

1 24 I ~ i l l h o ~ ~ e r - u r b a n land complex, 0 to 5 percent slope I A 1 422 1 0.8

156 47

0.3 0.1

1 34 l~omello fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes I C 1 1 , 5 3 5 1 3.0

26 27 29

0.0 0.1

Ona Fine sand One-Urban land complex Florahome-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slope

35 37 38 39

1-sula muck I I I

B/D BID A

Pomello Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes St. Johns fine sand St. Lucie fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes St. Lucie-Urban complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes

BID 41 42 43

309 1 0.6

57 1 564 5 6

C B/D A A

* 95-0033.00OiRepolflSec 1 .Doc 1-27

Samsula-Hontoon-Basinger association, depressional Sanibel muck Seffner fine sand

1.1 1.1 0.1

161 3,639

983 455

BID BID C

0.3 7.1 1.9 0.9

2,904 1,793

5.6 3.5 0.3

TABLE 1-3 Soil Name

(Continued)

Soil 1 Code I Soil Name

44 45 46 47 48 50 51 52 53

Hydrologic Area Percent 1 Group 1 (Acres) I (%) Smyrna fine sand Smyrna-Urban complex Tavares fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Tavares-Millhopper fine sands, 0 to 5 percent slopes Tavares-Urban land complex, 0 to 5 percent slopes Urban land Wabasso fine sand Wabasso-Urban land complex Wauberg fine sand

54 55 99

BID 2,190 4.2

- Zolfo fine sand Zolfo-Urban land complex Water

1.3.6 Land Use Land uses within the watershed have been classified into 16 categories. The predominant

land uses within the watershed are medium-density residential and commercial

development, accounting for 18.8 percent and 1 1 .7 percent of the watershed, respectively.

Additionally, wetlands and waterbodies jointly account for 21.1 percent of the watershed.

This statistic illustrates the important role that water plays in this watershed. A summary

of the watershed land uses is presented in Exhibit 1-6 and Table 1-4. A detailed

description of the land uses within each individual basin can be found in Appendix D. The

areas and percentages detailed in these tables are based on the 1995 RED1 Maps and the

South Florida Water Management District's geographic information system data.

51,623 100.0

TABLE 1-4 Land Use

Land Use Description I Area* 1 Percent

Brush Commercial Fallow Forested Golf Groves High Density Residential

(Acres) 5,538 6,049

3 8 5,673

Industrial Institutional

6) 10.7 11.7 0.1

11 .O 1.5

1,141 2,005

Low-Density Residential Medium-Density Residential

2.2 3.9

1,074 804

Open Pasture

2.1 1.6

633 9,736

Transportation Water

1.2 18.8

2,165 3,290

Wetland TOTAL

1.3.7 Water Quality Characterization

4.2 6.4

1,800 4,113

Water quality within the Shingle Creek Watershed is of special importance as water and

wetlands cover over 20 percent of the basin. The basin contains over 30 large lakes and

3.5 8.0

6,790 51,623

numerous small lakes and depressional areas. Ten water quality parameters have been

13.1 100.0

reviewed and analyzed to determine the current state of the water quality within the basin

and to assist in developing a plan to conserve the natural water resources for future

generations. Characterizations of the listed parameters are presented in the following

paragraphs: Secchi-disk depths, turbidity, solids, conductance, dissolved oxygen,

biochemical oxygen demand, phosphorus, nitrogen, chlorophyll-A and fecal coliform.

95-0033.000/Report/Sec 1 .Doc 1-30

Twelve Lakes within the Shingle Creek Watershed have been sampled for a sufficient time

to allow conclusions to be drawn. The lakes have been divided into Urban, Sub-Urban and

Rural for ease of discussion. The categorization of the lakes is as follows:

Urban Lakes Lake Lorna Doone

Lake Mann

Clear Lake

Lake Catherine

Sub-Urban Lakes Turkey Lake

Lake Cane

Lake Marsha

Lake Palm

Rural Lakes Spring Lake

Little Sand Lake

Big Sand Lake

Lake Bryan

Creek Sites Shingle Creek at L. B. McLeod Road Outfall

Shingle Creek at Conroy Road

Shingle Creek at Sand Lake Road

Shingle Creek at Central Florida Parkway

Shingle Creek at U. S. 192

Average Secchi-disk depths in the basin vary from 4.5 meters to 0.25 meter. Rural and

sub-urban lakes are the clearest lakes in the basin. As would be expected, the urban lakes

and creek sites have low visibility, with depths averaging less than two meters. The

median values for the statewide data are 0.8 meter for both lakes and streams, compared to

1.07 meters for the Shingle Creek Watershed. As such, the overall clarity of the lakes

within the watershed is acceptable. However, Lake Lorna Doone, Lake Mam, Clear Lake

and Little Sand Lake exhibit a decreasing trend and should be closely monitored.

Turbidity values range from slightly above zero to 25 NTU. Turbidity is directly

associated with development as these data support. Rural lakes have the lowest turbidity,

followed by sub-urban lakes and finally urban lakes. Statewide median values are 5.0 JTU

for lakes and 4.2 JTU for streams. Median value for the basin data is 4.5 NTU. The

waterbodies within the watershed are generally comparable to those throughout the state.

Action may be required at Lake Lorna Doone, Lake Mam, Clear Lake and Palm Lake as

turbidity is increasing.

Average solids ranged from about 75 mg/L to 250 mg/L. Sub-urban lakes appear to have

the lowest values. The rural lakes appear with the next higher values, followed by urban

lakes and then creek sites. The following urban lakes have solid values lower than

expected: Rock Lake, Lake Cane, Lake Pat and Walker Lake. Sandy Lake, a suburban

lake, has the highest of all solids concentrations, about 250 mg/L. Lakes Clear, Cane,

Marsha, Spring, Little Sand, Big Sand and Bryan have increasing total solid values and

should be watched carefully to prevent further degradation.

Average conductance values range from 100 microsiemens/cm (uS/cm) to 425

microsiemens/cm, with the highest conductance attributed to Sandy Lake. The sub-urban

lakes, creek sites and urban lakes are characterized as having low, medium and high

conductance values, respectively. Statewide median values are 188 uS/cm for lakes and

366 uS/cm for streams. The basin median value is 182 uS/cm. As these two data are only

differentiated by 6 uSlcm, the basin is within the statewide average.

Average dissolved oxygen values range from above 5 mg/L to nearly 10 mg/L. The urban

lakes have the highest values; the lowest values are a mixture of urban lakes and suburban

lakes. The rural lakes appear in the middle and lower values. The creek sites have the

lowest values. Statewide median values are 8.0 mg/L for lakes and 5.8 mg/L for streams.

Median value for the basin is 8.01 mg/L, with all sites in the basin having an average more

than the FDEP standard of 5 mg/L. The average for the basin is equal to the statewide

average, as such fish should not be threatened and algae blooms should not be a significant

problem.

Average biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) values vary from about 1 mg/L to 4 mg/L.

The creek sites are dominant at the high values; the low end of the distribution has a

mixture of rural and sub-urban lakes. The median basin value is 2.36 mg/L, while

statewide medians are 1.7 mg/L for lakes and 1.5 mg/L for streams. The basin average is

e 39 percent higher than the state average.

Average phosphorus values range from about 0.01 mg/L to 0.17 mg/L. Rural and sub-

urban lakes have the lower values; small urban lakes and creek sites have the higher

values. The large urban lakes are in the middle of the distribution. Sandy Lake has an

abnormally high value. Median values for the statewide data are 0.07 mg/L for lakes and

0.11 mg/L for streams. The median value for the basin data is .044 mg/L. Phosphorus

appears to be limited within the basin and shows no significant threat to a majority of the

lakes in the watershed.

Average total nitrogen values range from about 0.3 mg/L to 1.7 mg/L. Rural and sub-

urban lakes have the lowest values; small urban lakes and creek sites are at the high-value

end of the distribution. The bigger urban lakes and two creek sites are in the middle of the

distribution. Sandy Lake's data are in the high portion of the distribution. Median value

for the basin is 0.89 mg/L, while for the statewide lakes is 1.4 mg/L and for the statewide

streams is 1.2 mg/L. Similar to phosphorus, nitrogen is not a problem within the basin,

except at a few points such as Lake Sandy.

Average chlorophyll-A values range from about 2 to 45 mg per cubic meter. Large rural

lakes and creek sites appear at the low end; while the high end is characterized by small

rural lakes. Sandy Lake is also in the high-value end. The median values for lakes and

streams statewide are 18.5 mg per cubic meter and 5.5 mg per cubic meter, respectively.

For the basin data, the median value is 9.6 mg per cubic meter. Chlorophyll-A is below

the statewide average, however this presents no foreseeable complication to the Shingle

Creek Basin.

Average fecal coliform values range from about 0 to 350 Most Probable Number per 100

mL. The sub-urban lakes and rural lakes are at the low-value end of the distribution; small

urban lakes, creek sites, and Sandy Lake are at the high-value end. Median values for the

statewide lakes and streams are 9 and 100 MPNIlOOmL, respectively. The basin average

is 77 MPN1100 mL. Fecal coliform appears to be a problem in the basin when compared

to state averages. Lakes Lorna Doone, Mam, Catherine, Cane, Sandy and Little Sand are

@ experiencing an increasing trend. These lakes should be targeted to decrease the fecal

coliform levels.

Phosphorus and nitrogen loads were calculated at Kissimmee, Florida, just three miles

downstream from the point at which Shingle Creek crosses the Orange County line.

Therefore, load data at Kissimmee should be very similar to the load at the Orange County

Phosphorus loads at Kissimmee were relatively low in 1980 and 1981 because of low

rainfall, and hence, low discharge. For 1982, the annual load was about 50,000 kilograms

(110,250 pounds; 302 pounds per day). From 1982 to 1988, the annual load decreased,

reaching equilibrium in 1988. Since 1988, the average annual load has been about 10,000

kilograms ( 22,000 pounds, 60.4 pounds per day). With these figures in mind, it appears

that the phosphorus load in Shingle Creek at Kissimmee has decreased by a factor of 5

since 1982. The decrease is most likely due to increased treatment of the sewage, because

the decline started in 1982, and does not show any large drop in 1987 when the waste-

water treatment plants were converted to land application.

95-0033.000/Report~Sec 1 .Doc

In general, the nitrogen species loads at Kissirnrnee are greatest in 1982 and 1983 (about

150,000 kg) and then begin to decrease, reaching a base level about 1988 (about 60,000

kg). This is nearly a three-fold drop in nitrogen load. Loads are high in 1994 due to

increased runoff. Organic nitrogen load made up about half of the total nitrogen load from

1980 to about 1984; nitrate a little less than half the load. In 1985 and 1986 the organic

nitrogen load and nitrate loads are about the same. In 1987, the nitrate load dropped

dramatically when the plants were taken off-creek, and from then on organic nitrogen

accounts for about three-quarters of the total nitrogen load.

Calculations of constituent loads from the Shingle Creek Basin produced the following

results. Total nitrogen yield was calculated to be about 85,000 kilograms, which is in

agreement with the U. S. 192 data; total phosphorus yield was calculated to be about

12,000 kilograms, which also agrees with the U. S. 192 data. With this calibration, the

calculated yields were about 2,000,000 kilograms of solids; 299,000 kilograms of

biochemical oxygen demand; 3,700 kilograms of lead; and 2,700 kilograms of zinc.

1.3.8 Ecological Characterization

Uplands Approximately 30,000 acres of the Shingle Creek Drainage Basin consists of uplands.

However, much of the existing habitat has been converted into urban residential

development and pasture lands. Historically, large tracts of scrub and xeric communities

were located along a ridge on the eastern portion of the basin but have now been converted

into commercial and low- to medium-density residential communities. Along the

southwest portion of the basin, several large tracts of forested broad-leaved deciduous and

evergreen communities still remain.

Wetlands The Shingle Creek Watershed's wetlands are generally limited to small systems associated

with lakes and isolated depressions that are scattered throughout the basin. However, in

the southern central portion of the basin, a large wetland system exists that consists

primarily of bald cypress. This area is poorly drained and the water level tends to be at or

above the soil surface. As a result, bald cypress is often the only plant which occurs in

significant numbers in these areas. In addition to cypress stands, bay swamp communities

are scattered throughout this wetland. The bay swamp communities are dominated by

evergreen vegetation consisting of loblolly bay, red bay, red maple, swamp bay,

blackgum, pond pine and sweet bay. The soils associated with these communities are

nearly level and are typically peat sandy soils over limestone. Despite the development

that is occurring in this area, much of this system still remains buffered by natural forested

habitat. The only exception occurs along the eastern portion of this wetland which has

e been drained and converted into pasture lands.

Approximately 9,500 acres of the Shingle Creek Watershed are classified as palustrine

emergent wetlands by the National Wetland Inventory lists established by the U. S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. These systems occur throughout the basin and are typically

associated with lakes and depressional areas. They are characterized by the presence of

emergent soft-stemmed aquatic plants such as cattails, arrowheads, pickerel-weed, reeds

and several species of grasses and sedges. The primary ecological value of these systems

is their ability to protect lakes from eutrophication by serving as outfalls and functioning as

filter systems. Although these systems encompass a large portion of the basin, a

significant segment of what was historically present has been drained and converted into

agricultural land and residential communities. A summary of the National Wetland

Inventory within the Shingle Creek Watershed is presented in Table 1-5, Appendix E and

Exhibit 1-7. The Trophic State Index as prepared by the Orange County Environmental

Protection Department can be found in Table 1-6.

TABLE 1-5

National Wetland Inventory Summary

National Wetland Inventory Attribute

LlOW L2AB NA PAB PEM

Wetland Description

Lacustrine, Limnetic, Open Water

I I - I

Area* (acres) 3 .028

Lacustrine, Littoral, Aquatic Bed Not Classified Palustrine, Aquatic Bed Palustrine, Emergent

PFOl I~alustrine, Forested. Broad Leaved Deciduous PF02 PF03 PF04 PF06

Ip I I , A I

PSS 1 I~alustrine. Scrub-Shrub. Broad Needle Deciduous I 133

98 2,406

24 9.518

I PSS3 I~alustrine. Scrub-Shrub. Broad Leaved Evergreen I 109

Palustrine, Forested. Needle Leaved Deciduous Palustrine, Forested. Broad Leaved Evergreen Palustrine, Forested. Needle Leaved Evergreen Palustrine, Forested. Deciduous

I I w I

R2AB4 I~iverine. Lower Perennial. Aauatic Bed. Floated Leaved I 6

1,773 503 194

2.302 I

PF07 POW

I I , A I

R2UB I~iverine. Lower Perennial. Unconsolidated Bottom I 26

Palustrine, Forested. Evergreen Palustrine. O ~ e n Water

64 1 1.400

U Total

Upland 29,268 51.623

Table 1-6 Trophic State Index

1 I Little Sand Lake 1 8 1 Oligotrophic I P limited I Ranking

2 I Big Sand Lake I 11 I Oligotrophic I P limited I

Lake Name

I I I I

TSI Value

3 I I 1 I

4 I 1 I I

I I I I

7 Lake Bryan 35 I Oligotrophic I P limited-1

Trophic State

I Spring Lake

5 I I 1 I

Nutrient Condition

12 I Oligotrophic I P limited

I Lake Marsha

24 1 Oligotrophic I P limited

I Lake Cane

I I I I

I I I I I

*From the Orange County Environmental Protection Department 1993 Annual Report

28 I Oligotrophic I P limited

I Turkey Lake

8 I I I I

Critical Habitat for Listed Species The natural habitat remaining in the Shingle Creek basin provides a wide range of potential

3 3 I Oligotrophic I P limited

habitat for Federal and State agency listed plant and animal species. There are 18 listed

I Clear Lake

endangered plant species which could potentially occur within the basin. Some of these

56 I Eutrophic I P non-limited

I Lake Mann

include the very rare Scrub Lupine (Lupinus aridorurn), Fall-Flowering Ixia (Nemastylis cfloridana), Florida Beargrass (Nolina brittoniana) and the Yellow Fringeless Orchid

65 1 Eutrophic I P non-limited

(Platanthera integra) .

Threatened and endangered animal species in the basin have been documented including the Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), Southern Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), and Gopher Frog (Rana areolata aesopus). Additional threatened and endangered species which could potentially occur within the basin include the Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis), Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) and the Bachrnan's Sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) .

Section 2.0: Methodology

TABLE 2-5 Normal High Water Elevations

Lake Name Lake Bryan

The final element for which nodes are used in the model is to set boundary conditions. In

Lake Buchanan Lake Cane Lake Catherine Clear Lake Lake Crowell Lake Eve Lake Hiawassee Lake Mann Lake Marsha Philips Pond Big Sand Lake Little Sand Lake Spring Lake Lake Tyler Lake Willis Turkey Lake Lake Ellenor Little Lake Bryan

order to accurately model the Shingle Creek Watershed, a stage-time relationship is needed for

Normal High Water Elevation 99.5

Shingle Creek at the Osceola County Line, the boundary of this study. The Reynolds, Smith

Source Orange Countv Lake Index

92.5 98.8 90.4 94.6

100.5 103.0 78.4 91.7

128.5 122.8 90.0 95.5 98.7 94.4

104.5 92.0 95.0

and Hills 1974 report entitled "Inventory of Existing Flooding Conditions - Shingle Creek" and

" . Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Orange County Lake Index Turkey Lake Road Report USGS Quadrangle Map Overland Overtopping Elevation

the "Vista Palms Southwest Quadrant Methodology" 1991 report prepared by Donald W. McIntosh Associates, Inc. were utilized to develop the tailwater condition. The maximum stage and the time of peak flow were taken from the Reynolds, Smith and Hills report. This

information, along with the shape of the tailwater curve one mile upstream provided by the Vista Palms Report, allowed the tailwater to be computed for the 10-yearl24-hour, 25-yearl24-hour, and 100-yearl24-hour storm events. Table 2-6 and Exhibit 2-3 depict the time-stage tailwater relationships.

1.3.9 FEMA Floodplains The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided mapping outlining the

aerial extent of flooding within the Shingle Creek Watershed. These maps are labeled

Community Panel Numbers 120 l79-0200-B, 120 179-0375-D, and 1201 79-0525-B in the

unincorporated areas of Orange County, Florida and 120 186-0020-D and 120 186-00 10-D

in the City of Orlando, Florida. These maps can be reviewed at Orange County's Public

Works Complex and the United States Geological Survey.

1.4 Regulatory and Intergovernmental Framework Implementation of this study must be accomplished in accordance with defined regulatory

constraints. The management of surface water within Orange County is regulated at the

Federal, State and local levels by a variety of agencies. The agencies have jurisdiction

over stormwater-related issues within the Shingle Creek Watershed and the nature of their

jurisdictions is discussed in detail in this section.

0 1.4.1 Local The following divisions of Orange County participate in Stormwater Management:

Stormwater Management Department: This section of the Public Works Division performs

projects and construction management duties on County stormwater management projects

including master drainage and basin studies. This department is responsible for planning

and implementing the County's stormwater management program.

Highway Maintenance Department: This section of the Public Works Department

performs maintenance on stormwater facilities within the County.

Development Engineering Department: This department reviews and grants stormwater

management applications based on the Land Development Code Ordinance (94-4). This

ordinance includes Stormwater Management and Flood Hazard Articles implemented to

protect the citizens and water resources of the County.

Environmental Protection De~artment: This department is responsible for implementation

of environmental monitoring, enforcement and regulatory programs related to pollution

control and natural resources management.

1.4.2 State

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP): The FDEP has historically

regulated dredge and fill and stormwater discharge quality under Chapters 17-302 (Water

Quality), 17-4 (Permits), 17-3 12 (Dredge and Fill), 17-550 (Drinking Water) and 17-25

(Regulation of Stormwater Discharge), Florida Administrative Code (F. A.C.). In

addition, FDEP administers State water policy through Chapter 17-40, F.A.C., which has

been revised to require watershed-specific approaches to protect water resources and to

prevent degradation of surface water quality. FDEP has delegated much of its stormwater

discharge quality permitting and some of the dredge and fill permitting to the South Florida

Water Management District (SFWMD).

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD): The SFWMD is responsible for

groundwater and stormwater management under Chapters 40E-2 (Consumptive Use),

40E-3 (Well Construction), 40E-4, 40E-40, 40E-41 40E-42 and 40E-400 (Management and

Storage of Surface Waters, MSSW), 40E-5 (Artificial Recharge), 40E-6 (Works of the

District), 40E-43 (Siliculture), F.A.C. In addition, the responsibilities of the SFWMD

include lead agency for local stormwater improvement (SWIM) projects and regulation of

some dredge and fill permitting in order to prevent flooding and protect water quality.

Florida Department of Communitv Affairs (FDCA): The FDCA is the implementation

agency for the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187, Florida Statues). Counties and

municipalities must prepare stormwater management elements of the comprehensive plan

that meet minimum standards. Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., outlines local comprehensive plan

elements which are submitted to the FDCA after receiving comments from the local

regional planning council (such as the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council).

The requirements of Chapter 9J-5 are met or exceeded by Water Management District

andlor County requirements. Therefore, compliance with the SFWMD andlor County

regulations will ensure compliance with the local and State comprehensive plan

requirenlents.

Florida Department of Trans~ortation (FDOT): The FDOT has traditionally been the

highway construction. operation and maintenance agency in Florida. The FDOT has been

delegated stornlwater pernlitting authority for stormwater discharges which impact State or

Federal roadways. This ohen occurs when a transportation connection to an FDOT

roadway is sought. or when roadside con\-eyance systems are used to move stormwater

from one location to another.

It is often desirable to coordinate Capital Improvement Programs with the FDOT projects,

where possible. since major stornnvater management infrastructures are often contained in

1) FDOT projects.

1.4.3 Fcdcral U. S. Environmental Protection Acency (11. S. EPA): The U. S. EPA was mandated by

Congress. tlirougli Section 4-5 of the Water Quality Act of 1957, to promulgate a National

Pollutant Discharge Elin~ination Systeni (NPDES) permitting program for municipal

stornlwater discharges. Municipalities are grouped by population to determine whether

and when a permit may be required.

U. S. A r w Corns of Enaineers (U. S. ACOE): The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers does

not mandate stonn\\utcr mnnngcmcnt: liowe\w. it does regulate dredge and fill as well as

navigation and tlood control projxts. The spccitic responsibilities of the U. S. ACOE are

outlined in Public Lnv 92-500. Sect ion 404,

U. S. Dc'~;~rtn~ent OS Il~usirrc and [lrlxln Dcvc.lopn~cnt: The Nationill Flood Insurance

Progran~ is :~dininistcrcd by this dcp:~rt~i~cnt. It requirts designated flood-prone

conimunitics to u~lcicrt;~kc sould 1:1nd use pl:ltrrring to n~iuimizc potential tlood damage to

2.0 METHODOLOGY

This section outlines the procedures. computer methods and assumptions utilized to assess the

existing stormwater management system within the Shingle Creek Watershed and to quantify

the improvements which would result from proposed modifications.

2.1 Stormwater h Iodel Framework The stormwater analysis model is comprised of two separate conlponents utilizing individual

methodologies and computer progr'uns. These two modules consist of identifying water

quantity or flooding problems and Lvater quality or pollution-related problen~s. A brief

description of the water quantity and quality models is presented helow.

Water Quarrtity Model

To analyze the impacts of flooding. a computer nlodel of the Shingle Creek Watershed was

developed. The Advanced Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing (adICPR) Program,

Version 2.02. was used to model the watershed. Three individual design storms were

simulated as a part of this study. The nlodel estimates the hydraulic responses to these storm

events based on the hydraulic elenlents in the basin including the lakes. wetlands, depressions,

channels and roadway crossings. Stages and flows at various Iwntions throughout the basin

can then be determined for each mcdeled design storm. Additiunnlly, altcr;~tions to the

stormwater system can be modeled showing the improved stages and tlows.

Water Quality Model

Since the pollutants carried in stonnwttcr runoff tend to degrade the receiving downstream

water bodies. a pollutant load model was developed to estimate the amoimt of harnlfi~l

pollutants tlowing to such water bodics on a ycnrly hasis. This n~odcl utilizes n computer

spreadsheet (Quatro-Pro) which orgsnizcs imponnnt d:ttn such ns I : I I I ~ use c l : ~ and loading

rates within cach sub-hasin. It should Ill: notcd that the modcl p ~ ~ s c n t s typic;ll pollutant loads

which are uscful for conlp:lrison hetween sub-basins.

2.2 Water Quantity Model AdICPR was originally developed in 1982 by Advanced Engineering Technologies, Inc.

AdICPR is capable of calculating urban stormwater runoff and its effects on open and closed

stormwater management systems, interconnected lake systems and open channel systems.

AdICPR simulates historical and design storm events based on rainfall amounts,

meteorological conditions and basin characteristics.

AdICPR is divided into two distinct areas, hydrology and hydraulics. The hydrology sub-

routine generates surface runoff based on rainfall hyetographs, antecedent conditions, land use,

soil type, topography, and area which lead to the development of curve numbers and times of

concentration. The hydraulic sub-routine performs sophisticated hydraulic routing,

incorporating conveyance data and storage information.

@ 2.2.1 Hydrologic Modeling AdICPR's hydrologic sub-routine quantifies the amount of rainfall that becomes surface runoff

during a simulated storm event. In order to perform these calculations, information on the

following parameters must be collected and quantified:

Contributing Area Land Cover Soil Type Land Slope Land Surface Roughness Peak Rate Factor Rainfall Curve Number Time of Concentration

2.2.2 Basin and Sub-Basin Delineations The first step in developing a stormwater model is delineating the land areas which contribute

runoff to that particular part of the conveyance system that is being studied. These

contributing areas are called sub-basins or contributing areas. The structures within the

system must also be considered including lakes, bridges, roadway culverts and open channels.

Topographic information is necessary to determine stormwater runoff flow paths. The sources

of topographical data that were used in the Shingle Creek Watershed Plan were one-foot aerial

contour maps prepared for Orange County (Scale: 1 inch equals 200 feet) as listed in

Table 2-1. In addition to these maps, the following United State Geological Survey (USGS)

Quadrangle Maps were used: Kissimrnee, Lake Jessamine, and Orlando West.

TABLE 2-1 Aerial Maps

bection l~ownshi~l Range I Photo Date 1 Basin I 1 24 1 22s I 28E 1 12/90 ISJRWMD Lake A ~ o ~ k a and Johns Lake I

I I I I - 1 25 1 22s 1 28E I 12/90 ~SJRWMD Lake Avo~ka and Johns Lake I I I I I * 1 26 1 22s I 28E I 12/90 ~SJRWMD Lake A ~ o ~ k a and Johns Lake I

34 3 5 3 6 1 2 3

10 11 12 13 14 15 22 23

22s 22s 22s 23s 23s 23s 23s 23s 23s 23s 23s 23s 23s 23s

2 8 ~ 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E

12/90 12/90 12/90

S J R W M D ~ ~ ~ ~ Apopka and Johns Lake SJRWMD Lake Apopka and Johns Lake SJRWMD Lake A ~ o ~ k a and Johns Lake

05/81 03/82 03/82 03/82 03/82 05/81 05/81 03/82 03/82 03/82 03/82

Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin

Shingle Creek Master Stonnwater Management Study

TABLE 2-1 (continued)

bection l~ownshid Range 1 Photo Date 1 Basin I

1 29 1 22s I 29E 1 11/81 (ACOE Shingle Creek Basin I

1 30 1 22s I 29E 1 11/81 (ACOE Shingle Creek Basin I 1 31 1 22s I 29E 1 11/81 (ACOE Shingle Creek Basin I

24 25 26 27 34 35 3 6

10 11 12 13 14 15 22 23 24 25 26 27 34 3 5 36 19 20 28

1 32 1 22s I 29E I 1 118 1 ~ACOE Shingle Creek Basin I

- 23s 23s 23s 23s 23s 23s 23s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 22s 22s 22s

- 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 28E 29E 29E 29E

05/81 05/81 03/82 03/82 03/82 03/82 05/81 05/81 03/82 03/82 03/82 03/82 05/81 05/81 05/81 03/83 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 0218 1 02/81 1 118 1

Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Big Sand Lake Drainage Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Cypress Creek Sub-Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin SJRWMD Little Wekiva Drainage Basin SJRWMD Little Wekiva Drainage Basin ACOE Shingle Creek Basin

6 1 23s I 29E 1 11/81 ~ACOE Shingle Creek Basin I

Section 33 4 5

7 1 23s I 29E I 1 1/81 IACOE Shingle Creek Basin I I

- 8 1 23s 1 29E 1 11/81 ~ACOE Shingle Creek Basin I

Township 22s 23s 23s

9 1 23s I 29E I 11/81 ~ACOE Shingle Creek Basin I 1 17 1 23s 1 29E 1 11/81 IACOE Shingle Creek Basin I

Range 29E 29E 29E

- 1 19 1 23s I 29E 1 11/81 ~ACOE Shingle Creek Basin I

Photo Date 11/81 11/81 11/81

Basin ACOE Shingle Creek Basin ACOE Shingle Creek Basin ACOE Shingle Creek Basin

1 31 1 23s I 29E I 05/81 lorange County Shingle Creek Basin I

20 21 28 29 30

) 32 1 23s 1 29E 1 05/81 lorange County Shingle Creek Basin I

29E 29E 29E

23s 23s 23s

1 33 1 23s I 29E 1 05/81 lorange County Shingle Creek Basin I

23s 23s

11/81 11/81 11/81

- ACOE Shingle Creek Basin ACOE Shingle Creek Basin ACOE Shingle Creek Basin

29E 29E

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 15 16 17 18

05/81 05/81

Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin

24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s 24s

29E 29E 29E 29E 29E 29E 29E 29E 29E 29E 29E 29E

05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81 05/81

Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin

Section 2 .O: Methodology

l~ection l~ownshipl Range 1 Photo Date 1 Basin I

1 21 1 24s I 29E 1 05/81 lorange County Shingle Creek Basin I 1 22 1 24s I 29E ( 05/81 lorange County Shingle Creek Basin I

- 29E 29E

1 28 1 24s 1 29E 1 05/81 lorange County Shingle Creek Basin 1

24s 24s

1 29 1 24s 1 29E 1 05/81 lorange County Shingle Creek Basin 1

05/81 05/81

[ 30 1 24s I 29E 1 05/81 lorange County Shingle Creek Basin I

Orange County Shingle Creek Basin Orange County Shingle Creek Basin

1 31 1 24s I 29E 1 05/81 lorange County Shingle Creek Basin I 1 32 1 24s I 29E 1 05/81 lorange County Shingle Creek Basin I 1 33 1 24s I 29E 1 05/81 lorange County Shingle Creek Basin I

The Shingle Creek Watershed sub-basins were delineated utilizing both surface topography and

stormwater inventories. Information was obtained from Orange County and other pertinent

sources specifying the location of pipes and tributaries and their connections within the

watershed. The gathered information was field verified to ensure model accuracy. These

facilities were then located on the topographic maps and basin boundaries were established.

The watershed was divided into the following 15 major sub-basins and is depicted in Exhibit

Main Shingle Creek Lake Fran Turkey Lake Lake Tyler Lake Ellenor Major Center Orlando Central Park (Southpoint) Lockheed Martin Newover Canal Whisperwood C-1 1 and C-12 Canal Big Sand Lake

Valencia Water Control District Whisper Lakes Hunter's Creek Lake Bryan

In order to further develop the stormwater model to estimate flood stages and flow rates, the

sub-basins were each subdivided into smaller individual contributing areas. Individual

contributing areas were delineated by identifying runoff storage areas and the conduits that

connect these storage areas. Contributing areas to each conduit were then identified using the

same principles as the main sub-basin delineation.

2.2.3 Hydrologic Model Parameters

The curve number and time of concentration parameters are based on land use and soil type.

Land use is used in the determination of percent of impervious cover, Manning's coefficient,

@ and initial abstraction. Soil type aids in soil storage calculations. Land use within the

watershed was obtained from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)

Geographic Information System and confirmed with the 1996 TRW RED1 Maps. Land use

data were obtained and simplified into 16 individual land uses based on similar hydrologic

characteristics. These land use categories are brush, commercial, fallow, forested, golf

courses, groves, high-density residential, industrial, institutional, low-density residential,

medium-density residential, open ground, pasture, transportation, water and wetlands.

The soil types within the watershed were also obtained from SFWMD Geographic Information

System. This information was verified using the "Soil Survey of Orange County, Florida",

issued in 1983 by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) now known as the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS). The soil types are presented in Table 1-3.

Only one value for curve number can be input for each contributing area, therefore, an

average value must be calculated based on land use and soil type. These average values are

weighted according to the areal extent of each type of soil or land use within the sub-basin. In

other words, the land use map was electronically overlaid on the soils map and the area of the

@ resulting polygons was calculated and labeled by the computer. The Geographic Information

System program called ArcCAD was utilized to determine the amount of each type of land use

or soil type within each sub-basin. Since the subsequent calculations that were utilized to

determine an area weighted average parameter are repetitive, the Geographic Information

System output was incorporated into a spreadsheet program. In other words, the spreadsheet

sums each product of land use or soil type area and its related curve number. An area

weighted average is generated when this sum is divided by the contributing area.

Rainfall Intensities and Quantities Rainfall data used in the Shingle Creek Watershed model were determined by specifying storm

duration and storm depth, with depth predicated on recurrence interval. The following storm

scenarios were analyzed in this study: 10-yearl24-hour storm, 25-yearl24-hour storm and

100-yearl24-hour. The rainfall depths and distributions were obtained from the Orange

County Stormwater Management Department. Rainfall quantities for the three design storm

@ events are shown in Table 2-2.

TABLE 2-2

Storm Event Rainfall Quantities

In order to estimate the runoff that would be generated from each basin, some standard

hydrologic parameters must be determined. These parameters define the average runoff

characteristics found within each basin and are defined as basin area, time of concentration,

and curve number.

Storm Frequency (Years)

Storm Duration (Hours)

Storm Depth (Inches)

Shingle Creek Master Stormwater Management Smdy

Contributing Area The location for each contributing area was delineated using one-foot contour maps. The

contributing areas were further refined by investigating new developments and modifying the

areas accordingly.

Time of Concentration The time of concentration is the length of time it takes a drop of water to flow from the most

hydraulically distant point in the basin to the basin outfall without unreasonable delay. This

parameter controls how far into the storm event it is until the entire basin is contributing

runoff.

The total time of concentration may actually be broken into three components. These

components include sheet flow, shallow concentrated flow and conveyance flow. Sheet flow is

I) assumed to occur for a maximum of the first 300 feet and includes all friction factors acting on

the water. The kinematic equation used to compute sheet flow is presented below.

Where:

T, = Sheet flow time in hours

n = Manning's coefficient

L = Flow length in feet

P2 = 2-yearl24-hour rainfall amount in inches

S = Land slope in feetlfeet

The use of this equation assumes a 24-hour rainfall duration.

After the first 300 feet, maximum, the flow is considered to be shallow concentrated flow.

This time component can be calculated by determining the flow velocity using Exhibit 2-1 and

the following equation:

Where:

T, = Shallow concentrated flow time in hours

L = Flow length in feet

V = Average velocity in feetlsecond

3600 = Conversion factor from seconds to hours

The final element needed when computing the time of concentration is conveyance flow.

Conveyance flow is characterized as gutter, gully, channel or pipe flow. The shallow

concentrated flow equation is used to compute the time associated with this type of flow.

However, the velocity of the water flowing through the system is typically assumed from

historical averages instead of using Exhibit 2-1

The sum of all time components for the longest path within the basin determines the time of

concentration.

Each of these methods contains variables that are greatly affected by urbanization. In

undeveloped conditions, runoff flows through vegetated and uneven ground whereas in urban

areas, runoff flows through conveyance systems consisting of channels, gutters, and storm

sewers. These urban systems are designed to remove runoff from basin areas as quickly as

possible and to convey it downstream in an efficient manner. All of these factors contribute to

lowering the time of concentration and increasing the peak runoff.

Average ve l o c i ty, f t / s e c

~rorn: (21 0-VI-TR-55, AVERAGE VELOCITIES Exhibi. Second Ed., June 1986)

FOR SHALLOW ENGINEERS. w R v E Y o R s . PLANNERS CONCENTRATED FLOW 2-1

The degree to which the tirne of concentration is affected by urbanization is directly related to

the type of development contained within the basin. Highly impervious developments, such as

commercial and industrial sites, act to decrease the tirne of concentration to a greater extent

than less impervious sites such as low-density residential sites.

The peak rate factor (Kt) is critical for the determination of peak discharge. The peak rate

factor is used to represent the effect of watershed storage on hydrograph shape. The factor

generally varies from 100 to 600. High values represent little or no storage with steep land

slopes. Lower values are used for watersheds with significant ponding effects due to very

little or no slope and contain abundant surface storage. Four characteristics affect the choice

of the peak rate factor: slope, drainage works, surface depressions and landscape. Steep

slopes suggest a high factor, and conversely, gentle slopes suggested a low factor. Drainage

works, such as ditches and piping systems, convey the water more quickly producing a higher

@ peak discharge than in the undeveloped state. Therefore, where drainage works are present, a

higher peak rate factor is recommended. Surface depressions will decrease peak discharge; as

a result, a lower factor should be used in areas with significant depressional areas. The type

of landscape also affects the factor. Forested areas will receive a lower factor than pasture

land. A peak rate factor of 484 was used for the entire Shingle Creek Watershed. This

decision was based on the existence of wide-spread development within the watershed and the

fact that most surface depressions that would tend to decrease the factor were modeled.

Therefore, the effect of these depressional areas was accounted for in the modeling effort.

Exhibit 2-2 depicts the non-dimensional unit hydrograph that was utilized in this study.

Non-Dimensional Unit Hydrograph for K = 484

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Non-Dimensional Time

Curve Number The curve number is an indication of the type of soil, land cover and impervious area present

within the basin. It commonly ranges from 30 to 98 with 30 representing unpaved, highly

infiltrative areas and 98 representing highly developed, impervious areas. The NRCS has

developed the following guidelines for estimating the curve number for a particular site based

on the existing soil conditions and land use.

The antecedent moisture condition is an index of the runoff potential in the five-day period preceding a storm occurrence, AMC I1 represents the average condition on which the curve numbers shown in Table 2-3 are based. An AMC I condition represents a condition in which

the runoff potential is low and is normally characterized as no rain having occurred during the preceding five-day period, producing dry moisture-absorbent soils. AMC 111 represents a high potential for runoff. A storm event has probably just occurred, and the soil is already saturated, causing more rainfall to be converted to runoff. Table 2-3 is a representation of

how the existing antecedent moisture condition may affect the curve number and, therefore, the potential runoff from a basin.

Table 2-3 Curve Number - Antecedent Moisture Condition

National Engineering Handbook 4, March 1985 U . S. Department of Commerce

. - 5 1 63 78

- AMC 111

22 AMC I

4 AMC I1

AMC = Antecedent Moisture Condition

70 80 90

85 9 1 96

The average condition (AMC 11) was used during the development of this model. AMC I1 is

the industry standard in the Central Florida area, and no information exists to suggest that any

other condition would be used in this area. Furthermore, AMC 11 produces an accurate model

that can easily be compared with other studies.

The initial abstraction, "Ia", is a variable which is directly related to both the curve number

and the antecedent moisture condition. Initial abstraction is a percentage of the maximum

potential storage available for a given soil complex. This maximum potential storage,

designated S, is provided by interception, infiltration, and depressional storage. The initial

abstraction is that percentage of the total storage which must be filled by rainfall before any

runoff from the basin occurs. Storage, S, is related to the curve number by:

1,000 C N = -

S + 10

Through experimentation, the SCS has determined that the initial abstraction is 20% of the

maximum storage potential as shown in the following empirical relationship:

This means that 20% of the total potential soil storage will be utilized before any runoff from

the basin occurs but this, too, can vary depending on conditions within the basin. For

example, as the moisture content in the soil decreases, the potential for infiltration increases.

This means that the percentage of the initial abstraction will increase above the estimated 20%,

and the estimated runoff will be less than anticipated. The reverse will be true for those areas

with a high existing moisture condition.

The ability of the soil to infiltrate, store and transmit moisture is related to its hydrologic soil

classification. These classifications were developed by the SCS as an indication of the soil's

drainage ability. The classifications are described as follows:

Group A:

Group B:

Group C:

Group D:

Group BID:

Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) even when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Soils having a moderate infiltration rate even when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

Soils having slow infiltration rate even when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils having a moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) even when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a permanent high water table, soils that have a hardpan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

Soils having a dual soil classification type exhibit both soil characteristics under different conditions. BID soils on urban development with drainage systems, would act like B type soils. However, highly saturated soils with no drainage system would typically act like D type soils.

Shingle Creek Master Stormwater Manazement Study

2.2.4 Hydraulic Model The hydraulic model conveys or "routes" the hydrographs through the pipes, channels and

lakes which constitute the stormwater system. This model calculates flow rates. water depths,

and elevations within the stormwater system. The conceptual representation of the drainage

system is based on the -link-node" concept. The links represent structures designed for

stormwater conveyance such as pipes, channels. bridges. drop structures and pumps. The

nodes represent storage areas such as lakes. channels and ponds. as well as connections or

transitions between two dissimilar pipes or ch,mels. They also provide a computation point

that is used to determine water surface elevations within the primary storm system.

Links and nodes are combined and connected to represent the configuration of the actual storm

system. The link-node diagram for the Shinzle C m k Watershed is presented in Appendix B.

A detailed description of the hydraulic conduits used in this model can be found in Appendix

2.2.5 Hydraulic Parameters

Conduits The first step was to identify the location of all trihut:~ries and culverts on topographic maps.

This helps identify culvcrts under roadways and nukes the data collection and verification

phase more efficient.

Research was then performed to deternline the sources and extent of available information

including: previous studies; survcy data (supplied by Orange County); and, photographs and

survey data for the Shinglc Creek Mnstor Plnn. This infcmn:\tion was obtained. rcviewed and

categorized from the following entities:

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Florida Department of Transportation Florida Turnpike Authority

e Lockheed Martin Orange County Orlando Central Park Orlando/Orange County Expressway Authority Orlando Plaza Partners South Florida Water Management District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) U.S. Geological Survey Valencia Water Control District

In addition to the reports and plans listed above, eight areas of the Shingle Creek system were

surveyed. Several field visits were made to verify and photograph culverts and channel

0 sections in the area. A list of these sources is included in the Bibliography.

Table 2-4 presents the Manning's coefficient for the various pipe sizes that were obtained from

literature sources based on type, size and pipe material.

TABLE 2-4 Manning's Coefficient for Stormwater Conduits

I Reinforced Concrete 1 36" to 48" I 0.012 I

Pipe Type

Reinforced Concrete

A complete inventory of all data relating to the stormwater system conduits is presented in

Appendix F.

Reinforced Concrete

Corrugated Metal

Manning's Coefficient

54" and above

0.01 1

Nodes Within the Shingle Creek Watershed adICPR model, nodes represent lakes and storage areas

and also separate dissimilar pipes or channels. As discussed in the previous section, several

important parameters must be entered into the model to correctly utilize the nodes.

Data concerning available storage were assigned to each node. For non-storage nodes, either

"no storage" or "minimal storage" was assigned to the node. No storage was assigned to

nodes which connected reaches containing storage, such as channels. Minimal storage was

attributed to nodes that connected non-storage reaches, such as pipes and weirs.

For storage nodes which represent lakes or ponds, the actual elevation~surface area

relationships were entered into the model. These were generated using the topographic aerial

maps starting with the lowest contour surrounding the lake or pond and progressing to the

highest contour. The area defined by the contours was calculated by digitizing aerial contour

Another requirement is the initial water elevation for the lake or drainage area being simulated

by the node. This water elevation is the elevation at which a water body is expected to be

found prior to a storm event. This elevation, or normal high water elevation, is presented in

the 1995 Orange County Lake Index and was used when available. Table 2-5 lists the normal

high water elevations for lakes within the Shingle Creek Watershed. For lakes not listed in the

index, the source of the initial water level is identified in Table 2-5. It is believed that slight

changes in these initial water levels will have minimal effect on stages and flows at Shingle

Creek.

Initial water levels within Shingle Creek were set using water elevations measured by the

ACOE. In some cases, this elevation was extrapolated upstream in order to prevent an

unrealistic initial backflow condition in the adICPR model.

Exhibit 2-3 Time - Stage Tailwater Condition

Time in Hours

TABLE 2-6 Shingle Creek Boundary Conditions at Osceola County Line

2.2.6 Calibration Calibration is the process by which a computer model simulation is compared to an actual

event to determine the accuracy of the simulation. Adjustments are made to various model

parameters so that the simulation matches the results of the actual event. Data for an actual

event can include lake levels, stream levels and flow rates. These data can be representative

of specific times throughout the actual event (for example, every 30 minutes throughout a 24- hour event) or simply representative of peak or maximum values. It is desirable to utilize data

at many different locations throughout the watershed to ensure accurate calibrations.

10-Yearl24-Hour Storm

Information within the Shingle Creek Watershed is sparse concerning lake levels and flow

rates. No complete gauging stations (which measure depth and flow rates) are in place within

the watershed. Additionally, only monthly lake elevations are recorded for a majority of the

lakes within the watershed. This lack of data precludes the performance of a detailed

calibration effort. The flows and stages were, however, reviewed to ensure that the values

returned by the computer model were realistic and reasonable.

Time 0.00

Stage 71.55

25-Yearl24-Year Storm Time 0.00

100-Yearl24-Hour Storm Stage 71.55

Time 0.00

Stage 71.55

2.3 Water Quality Analysis and Modeling

2.3.1 Analysis of Available Data An abundant amount of water quality data is available for the Shingle Creek Watershed. The

available data were compiled into a water quality computer database. The analysis of the data

was then performed using spreadsheet and statistical software. The final database contained over 50 constituent and characteristic values for over 4,400 water quality samples. The

information presented in this database was compiled from the following sources:

Orange County

City of Orlando Florida Department of Environmental Protection

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (STORET)

U.S. Geological Survey Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission

After the data were compiled into one database, the long-term trends of the data were

reviewed. The trend analysis was limited to twelve lakes and five creek sites which contained

over ten years of data. Ten representative water quality constituents were plotted in order to

analyze the site trends. The trend analysis consisted of searching for consistent changes in

data values (slope) when the data are plotted over several years. The ten water quality

parameters were then plotted as a function of time and manually reviewed for any consistent

patterns.

The ten parameters chosen for analysis make up five characteristics of the water quality

scenario at each site. The Secchi-disk depth and turbidity describe the clarity of the water.

Analyzing conductance and total solids provides insight into the dissolved substances within

the water. Dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand describe the oxygenation state

within the water body column. Nutrient content is described by total phosphorus and total

nitrogen contained in the water. The last group, chlorophyll-A and fecal coliform provide an

overview of the biology of the lake.

While analyzing the long-term data for trends, an attempt was also made to analyze the relative

magnitude of the constituent concentrations. The initial intention was to compare the

concentrations to Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) standards.

However, few Class I11 water quality standards exist for the ten parameters analyzed. In fact,

of the ten parameters analyzed, only dissolved oxygen was ever found below those standards.

The standards are presented in Table 2-7.

Table 2-7

FDEP Water Quality Standards

Parameters

Secchi-Disk

Turbidity

Solids

Conductance

Dissolved Oxygen

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Phosphorus

Nitrogen

Chlorophyll-A

Fecal Coliform

FDEP Class I11 Water Quality Standard

Not reduced by more than 10 percent

29 units above natural background conditions

500 mg/L for Class I waters; none for Class I11

1,275 uS/cm

5 mg/L

No standard

No standard for nitrate 10.0 mg/L

No standard

Since FDEP standards were unavailable for use as a benchmark against which the sites could

be compared, it was necessary to develop a new classification scheme. Therefore, each

parameter range was divided into three sub-ranges defined as poor, normal or good. These

ranges do not relate to any standard or threshold value. Poor, normal and good only reflect

approximately the bottom, middle and top one-third levels of the data collected, respectively.

The values chosen to differentiate among the three levels for each of the ten parameters are

presented in Table 2-8.

Table 2-8 Water Quality Parameter Ranges

Turbidity 1 < 4 1 4 - 8

Parameters

Secchi-Disk

Solids 1 <I50 1 150 - 250

Conductance 1 <I00 1 100 - 150

Normal

Phosphorus 1 <0.05 1 0.05 - 0.10

Dissolved Oxygen

Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Nitrogen

Fecal Coliform I <I00 1 100-200

0.7 - 1.3

Meters

minimum, mg/L

mglcu meter

MPNI100 rnL

In addition to the analysis of present trends, current data from the present time period were

observed for any significant changes. Statistics for the water quality parameters for a recent

time period were compare to statistics calculated for a much longer time period, usually the

period of record. Changes between the two time periods were then compared.

This process involved calculating the average of each water quality parameter for the time

period 1990 through 1995. The average values for the period of record, which could be as

high as 25 years, were also calculated. As an indication of the movement of the parameter

from a greater concentration or a lower concentration, the average for the recent five-year

period was divided by the average for the period of record. If this ratio is greater than one,

then values are increasing (usually higher concentrations). If the ratio is less than one, then

the values are decreasing (usually lower concentrations). For ratios from 0.95 to 1.05, the

values are considered to be unchanging.

In order to acquire an understanding of how the sites compare and to further observe the total

range of the average data for each parameter, an exceedance analysis was performed. The

data values (either in ascending or descending order) were plotted against site name as

exceedance curves. From the exceedance curves developed, it was possible to observe both

the mean value for any particular site and, also, to compare values for various sites.

The exceedance analysis was further developed by using the same average values calculated

for sites within the Shingle Creek Watershed and comparing them to data from many other

sites throughout Florida. Data for the Florida sites were taken from "Typical Water Quality

Values for Florida's Lakes, Streams and Estuaries ", a report written by Mark Friedemann and

Joe Hand of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection in July 1989. This report

contained data for nine of the ten parameters compared in this Shingle Creek Study. In the

FDEP report, suspended solids were analyzed rather than total solids.

2.3.2 Phosphorus and Nitrogen Loads at Kissimmee Constituent mass, or load, is calculated by combining discharge and constituent concentration

data. The data necessary to calculate constituent loads were available from the United States

Geological Survey, which gauges the discharge at the Kissimmee site, and the Orange County

Department of Environmental Protection which collects water quality samples at the site.

Discharge data are available on either a daily or 15-minute basis, while the sample

concentrations are normally collected monthly. Even though the concentration data are

aperiodic, equations can be fitted to the concentration data, making it possible to estimate

concentrations on a daily basis. Daily loads are computed by multiplying daily discharge by

daily concentration. The daily loads can then be summed to calculate any period load desired,

usually annual load.

2.3.3 Constituent Load Modeling

@ Constituent annual loads in stormwater runoff were calculated for numerous contributing areas

within the Shingle Creek Watershed using a spreadsheet model. Constituents loads calculated

include nitrogen, phosphorus, solids, biochemical oxygen demand, lead, and zinc. The

purposes for using the model are first, to estimate chosen constituent loads that were delivered

from the basin as well as loads from the main tributaries; and second, to develop parameter

values for the model under present conditions so that the model could be used to estimate loads

for future conditions.

The spreadsheet modeling is composed of several steps, all utilizing basin-specific information

and generalized information available in the literature on stormwater runoff. The first step is

to calculate the annual volume of runoff. Annual rainfall is converted to annual volume of

runoff through the use of runoff-to-rainfall ratios, which vary by land use type. Land use for

the various sub-basins was obtained from Geographic Information System information.

Once the volume of runoff is calculated, it is multiplied by average stormwater constituent

concentrations found in the literature in order to calculate load or mass of constituents.

Constituent concentrations could be determined within the basin by sampling, but are more

commonly determined through literature searches. Many research studies are available with

concentration values of various stormwater constituents.

A majority of these research studies determine the constituent concentrations of stormwater, as

it runs off of the surface of the basin, before any detention treatment can take place.

Therefore, it is necessary to adjust these stormwater loads for treatment. This is accomplished

by estimating the treatment efficiency that can be attributed to various treatment facilities such

as retention and detention areas, and reducing the loads accordingly. The final estimate of the

annual basin load for each constituent is determined by summing all of the sub-basin loads for

the different land uses. * Model Background

The basic background for this modeling effort comes from a model, Eutromod, developed by

Reckhow (1990) at Duke University. Many changes have been made to the Eutromod model

structure, so the present model is patterned after it, but it is not the original model.

The primary purpose of Eutromod is to predict the effect of basin runoff on a lake by

calculating the runoff load and then, through an equation relating lake concentrations to runoff

concentrations, calculating its effect on the lake's water column. In the present model, no

attempt is made to calculate the effect on the lakes' water.

Physical changes were made to Eutromod in order to add clarity to the presentation. The

altered model contains ten tiers of information. The data and calculations needed for

determining surface runoff are at the top of the model. The second tier consists of basin

characteristic, septic tank and treatment plant data. The third tier contains the constituent

concentration treatment and storage values that take place in the basin followed by three tiers

of runoff concentrations and three tiers of load calculations - one each for dissolved load,

particulate load, and total load. The tenth and final tier is the summing of the component

loads according to land use type and for the sub-basin as a whole.

Another difference between the original Eutromod model and the present model is the units

used. Eutromod used only standard international (SI) units; the present model uses units

common to engineering practice in the United States such as inches of rainfall and runoff,

acres, cubic feet, and kilograms of mass.

Calibration of the Model A calibration of the model was accomplished using runoff and load data available for the

station at U.S. 192 at Kissimmee. Discharge data are available from the United States

Geological Survey for runoff calibration, and the load data calculated in a previous section of @ this report are available for load calibration.

Data for the gauging station at Kissimmee show that the average annual runoff for the basin is

11.27 inches per year; lately runoff has been about 12 inches per year. Therefore, runoff

calibration was achieved by adjusting the WR (runoff/rainfall) ratios until the model output for

the total basin was between 11 and 12 inches. The adjustment was done in a relative sense in

that more densely developed land uses were assigned a larger ratio than less densely developed

land uses. The final calibration run produced a basin runoff of 11.44 inches.

Load calibration is performed by adjusting storage treatment values and constituent

concentrations until the mass that is calculated by the model agrees with the loads calculated at

the Kissimmee station. Load calibration was not necessary for the model; once runoff was

calibrated, load values for nitrogen and phosphorus were within the range calculated at

Kissimmee .

Data for Land Use and Average Concentrations Land use for the basin was determined for use in both the quantity and quality models. 16

separate land uses were determined for each of the contributing areas within the Shingle Creek

Watershed. Several of the 16 land uses were combined, leaving eleven land uses in the water

quality spreadsheet model. These land uses and associated drainage areas for the Shingle

Creek Basin are presented in Table 2-9.

Table 2-9 Water Quality Land Uses

Land Use 1 Area (acres)*

I CommerciallIndustrial

1 Grove

High-Density Residential

Institutional/Golf

Low-Density Residential

Medium-Density Residential

PasturelOpen/Fallow

Transportation

Wetland

51,623

Average constituent concentrations were extracted from a report prepared by Harper (1994) of

Environmental Research & Design, Inc. entitled "Stormwater Loading Rate Parameters for

Central and South Florida. " This report is an assimilation of numerous research studies

involving the sampling of stormwater runoff from various land uses. Harper's report

summarized the concentration values for 7 constituents and 15 land uses. Concentrations for

each constituent varied by land use. The constituents, in mg/L, used in the model are

presented in Table 2-10.

Table 2-10 Parameter Concentrations

I Land I Nitrogen I Use I mg/l

Phosphorus TSS BOD Lead Zinc mg /l mgll mg/l mg/l mg/l

0.30 90 10.00 0.200 0.130 @

Taken from Stormwater Loading Rate Parameters for Central and South Florida by Environmental Research and Design

Cornmercial/Industrial ForestIBrush Grove High-Density Residential Institutional/Golf Low-Density Residential Medium-Density Residential

1.80 2.42 2.05 2.42 1 r25 1.77 2.29

Other Model Parameter Values Several other parameters used within the model required the determination of values. These

include the annual rainfall, the R/R ratios, and the storage treatment percentages for each land

use and each contributing area.

The rainfall depth used in the model for both calibration and present conditions was 50 inches

which is the typical annual rainfall depth observed in Central Florida.

R/R ratios were determined, as described previously, by runoff calibration of the model.

These ratios were used for all contributing areas and are presented in Table 2-1 1.

Table 2-11 Rainfall-to-Runoff Ratios

I High-Density Residential 1 0.35 I

Land Use

ComrnerciallIndustria1

ForestIBrush

Rainfall-to-Runoff Ratios

1 Wetland I 0.65 1

Low-Density Residential

Pasture/Open/Fallow

Transportation

Storage treatment values were varied by land use and, to a lesser degree, by age of

development. Land uses of forestlbrush, groves, and pasture/open/fallow were assigned

treatment values of 0.0 meaning no stormwater facilities intercept the runoff before it enters

the primary conveyance system. As such, 100% of the pollutants carried in the runoff reach

the receiving water body. Institutional/golf land use was always assigned a treatment value of

0.1; the value was not varied with age of development. This value indicates that one-tenth of

the pollutants carried in the runoff from a golf course would be removed before discharging

into the receiving water body. Water falling directly onto wetlands and water was assigned a

treatment value of 0.5; it is assumed that half of these loads, which are mainly in the dissolved

phase, are retained within the water body. Treatment values for cornrnercial/industrial, high-

density residential, low-density residential, medium-density residential, and transportation

were assigned values from 0.0 to 0.2, depending on age of development. Typically, those

sub-basins in the northern section of the watershed were developed first, have little detention

and, therefore, have the lowest treatment values. The southern portion of the basin has been

developed during the past 15 years and contains stormwater treatment facilities. In general,

the age of development decreases in the downstream direction and therefore, treatment values

increase in the downstream direction. Table 2-12 identifies the average removal efficiency of

various land use types.

Table 2-12 Average Removal Efficiency by Land Use

I commercial Industrial I 0.0 I 0.2 I

Land Use

Forest/Brush

Groves

Pasture/Open/Fallow

Institutional/Golf

Wetlands

I Hieh-Density Residential I 0.0 1 0.2 I I Low-Density Residential I 0.0 I 0.2 I

Older Developments

New Developments

One last assumption was made with regard to sub-basins whose surface waters were collected

into a lake or wetland. If a large part of the sub-basin contributed runoff to a lake or wetland

just before the water drained from the sub-basin, the treatment for all land uses within the sub-

basin were assigned a value of 0.3. This essentially states that if a sub-basin's waters were

detained by a lake, pond, or wetland, then 30% of the load was retained.

Transportation

2.4 Problem Area Definitions An objective of this study was to identify water quantity and water quality problem areas. In

order to accurately identify, rank and prioritize problems in these areas, a working definition

of what constitutes a problem needs to be developed. The following discussion clarifies what

a problem is and distinguishes between a serious and nuisance problem.

Water Quantity Serious Problem Area: A serious problem, as defined in this study, is any condition which represents imminent

threat to public safety, property, or human life. This would include the blocking of

evacuation routes, hindering of emergency vehicle movement and flooding of homes or

businesses. The criteria for a serious water quantity problem are as follow:

1. House or business flooding during the 100-yearl24-hour design storm

2. Roadways overtopped in design storm events of 25-yearl24-hour duration or less

Nuisance Problem Area: Problem areas which do not affect public health and safety. Such problems would

include minor street flooding resulting in traffic delays, inconveniences and temporary

blockage of secondary non-essential roadways.

Water Quality Serious Problem Area: A serious problem, as defined in this study, is any condition which violates Chapter

17-302, Florida Administrative Code, causes excessive degradation of wetland habitat

or threatens the use of lakes. The criteria for a serious water quality problem are as

follows:

1. Excessive Estimated Pollutant Loads If the summation of the ordinal rankings of Nitrogen, Phosphorus,

Solids, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Lead and Zinc are greater that 50,

then the entire sub-basin is classified as a problem area. For example,

the Lake Ellenor sub-basin is ranked 11 for nitrogen, 15 for phosphorus,

15 for solids, 15 for biochemical oxygen demand, 15 for lead and 14 for

zinc, resulting in a total of 85 (11+15+15+15+15+14=85)

2. Poor Ambient Water Quality

If three or more of the following water quality parameters exceed the

state average: Secchi-Disk Depth, Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen,

Chlorophyll-A and Fecal Coliform, the lake itself is considered a water

quality problem area.

Nuisance Problem Area: A nuisance water quality problem area is defined as minor natural changes in color,

odor or turbidity as defined within Chapter 17-302, FAC. Additionally, a water

quality problem area is a water body having constituent concentrations mainly in the

poor range as described in a previous section.

2.5 Evaluation of Preferred Best Management Practices Best Management Practices (BMPs) are designs, philosophies and techniques which limit the

adverse impact man has on his environment. To reduce the concentrations and the loads of

pollutants reaching the receiving waters, various BMPs have been developed. These BMPs

fall into the following two primary categories: 1) non-structural BMPs which include the sub-

categories of pollution prevention BMPs and source control BMPs; and, 2) structural BMPs

which include facilities constructed to passively treat urban stormwater runoff before it enters

the receiving waters. The following BMPs, as discussed in the FDEP Manual and the Urban

Storm Drain Design Manual, represent the variety being applied in the study area.

Structural Stomwater Controls Extended Detention Basin (Dry)

Retention Ponds - On-Line and Off-Line (with a Permanent Pool)

Exfiltration Trenches

Irrigated Grass Buffer Strips

Grass-Lined Swales

Alternative Pervious Parking Surfaces

Water Quality Inlets (Baffle Boxes)

Underdrains and Stormwater Filter Systems

Alum Injection Systems/Chemical Treatment

Aeration

Constructed Wetlands

Modular Block Porous Pavement

Parking Lot Storage

Rooftop Runoff Disposal

Increase Flow-Through Potential

Surface Absorption Systems

Increase Culvert Size

Increase Pumping Capacity

Non-structural Source Controls Stormwater quality control planning for new developments and redevelopment

Adoption of stormwater BMP criteria and standards, including standards for erosion and sediment control during construction

Guidelines and educational programs covering the proper disposal of household waste, litter, pet waste, yard waste and toxic waste

Guidelines for pesticides, herbicides and fertilizer application

Suggestions on monitoring and elimination of illicit discharges, management of spills and illegal connections to storm sewer systems

Landscaping and Vegetation Practices

Street Sweeping

Aquifer Recharge and directly connected impervious area minimization

Lake Set-Back Requirements and Buffer Zones

Harvesting of Lake Vegetation

Regulations restricting the development within landlocked and threatened areas

This section presents a comparison of BMPs considered for use in the Shingle Creek

Watershed for the treatment and management of stormwater runoff. The use of each specific

BMP will be based on the site constraints and desired goals, either water quality or quantity

control. A combination of non-structural and structural controls will yield the best results.

Mixing and matching various BMPs is recommended to obtain the maximum benefit.

2.6 Alternative Evaluations The problems that need to be alleviated within the watershed are of both quantity and quality.

In order to adequately develop and prioritize possible solutions, several factors were identified

as being important in this decision making process. Five of these factors are discussed below.

1. Technical Feasibility - The project nust lie within currently acceptable and reliable standards. The technology should solve as many quantity and quality problems as possible. Risks to the public should be nlininlized in every instance by making public safety a priority.

2 . Socio-Political Acceptability - The project should abide by all regulatory standards and be supported by the public it is intended to serve.

3. Economic Analysis - The project should achieve a maximum benefit from the expenditure of public funds. The cost-benetit ratio must be greater than unity.

4 . Environrtlental Consistency - The environn~ental goals of the community should be considered in every action taken. ensuring that the environment is protected to the extent desired by the conln~unity.

5 . Financial Feasibility - Eiich project should be within the constraints of the comn~unity 's budget.

The following considerations were incorpor:\tcd in the dcvclopment of alternatives:

1. Realistic, technic;llly fensihlc nltcrnativcs were selected. Where a less con~plex alternative was available. it was chosen over the more co~nplcx alternative.

2. Regulatory agency guidelines and public opinion of a project were considered in the selection of the project.

3. The most cost-effective alternative was selected based on the level of service obtained for both water quantity and water quality.

4. The response of the environmental and wetland communities was reviewed in the selection process.

5. The ability to pay for each project was considered in the selection process.

These considerations are intended to be used for evaluation of structural improvement

alternatives only, even though the overall recommendation for the improvement of the Shingle

Creek Watershed includes both structural and non-structural management approaches.

Section 3.0: Results

3.0 RESULTS

The Shingle Creek Watershed (see Exhibit 1-2) is approximately 80.7 square miles in size

and is located in the south-central portion of Orange County. The watershed consists of

one main riverine system, Shingle Creek, and 14 tributaries flowing into Shingle Creek.

There are 31 major named lakes in the watershed with water covering over one-fifth of the

drainage area. Appendix G summarizes the existing stages and flows for all modeled

stormwater elements.

This chapter is divided into 15 sub~sections, with each sub-section describing a major basin

within the Shingle Creek Watershed. The basins are generally presented in the direction of

flow, north to south. The following sections include the availability of information,

analysis of existing water quantity and quality conditions, pollutant loading, problem areas,

a and recommendations.

3.1 Main Shingle Creek The Main Shingle Creek group is located in the central portion of the Shingle Creek

Watershed. The Main Shingle Creek sub-basin includes 57 contributing areas and covers

11,657 acres (18.2 square miles) or 22.6 percent of the total watershed as summarized in

Appendix A. This sub-basin is encompassed by contributing areas that drain directly into

Shingle Creek, landlocked lakes and the headwaters of Shingle Creek. The main channel

of Shingle Creek is traversed by 14 bridges and serves as a discharge point for 14

tributaries as it meanders in a north to south direction for over 14.6 miles. The headwaters

include Westside Manor and the associated pump station. Lakes Venus and Mars drain

southward toward the pump station though a series of weirs and canals. After being

manually activated by County staff, the pump begins discharging 70 cfs at elevation 75.51

through a 48-inch force main under Old Winter Garden Road into Shingle Creek.

Significant lakes within the group are Charter Lake, Claypit Lake, Geyer Lake, Lake

Cathy, Lake Geyer, Lake Hiawassee, Lake Pamela, Lake San Susan, Lake Venus, Lake

Mars and Lake Orlo. The following major subdivisions contribute stormwater runoff to

the Main Shingle Creek system: Westside Manor, Orlo Vista Terrace, Fleming Heights,

Kirkman Park, Sunkist Park, MetroWest, Fairway Cove, Westmont, Lake Hiawassee

Terrace, Harbor Point, Frisco Bay, Summer Lakes, Ridgemore, Florida Center, Cypress

Creek, Southwood and Camellia Gardens. The Main Shingle Creek group is generally

bordered by S.R. 535 on the west, Osceola County line to the south, Orange Blossom Trail

on the east and S.R. 50 to the north as presented in Exhibit 3-1.

3.1.1 Existing Condition Analysis

Data collection is perhaps the most important aspect of a stormwater master planning

effort. The information gathered becomes the basis for all analyses and recommendations.

The following sections outline the data sources and summarize their content.

3.1.1.1 Available Information

For ease of discussion, available information has been divided into three categories:

hydrological data, development reports and plans, and water quality data. * Hydrological Data

Orange County records monthly lake levels on Lake Orlo. The City of Orlando records

lake levels for Lake Hiawassee.

Lake Orlo's maximum elevation as recorded by the Orange County Survey Department

was 85.20 feet in August 1973. Neither a normal high water elevation nor a 100-year

flood elevation has been established for this lake.

The Orange County Board of County Commissioners adopted elevation 78.40 as the

normal high water elevation for Lake Hiawassee in April 1983. The maximum recorded

stage on Lake Hiawassee is 82.36 and occurred in November 1960. The Federal

Emergency Management Agency's 100-year design storm elevation is 83.50. Lake

Hiawassee is a landlocked system. Portions of Lake Hiawassee and the surrounding

property lie within the City limits of Orlando.

Orange County Engineering established 78.40 as the normal high water elevation for

Geyer Lake in January 1987. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's 100-year

design storm elevation is 83.50. Stage has not been regularly recorded, therefore no

maximum recorded elevation is available. Geyer Lake drains overland to the south into

Lake Hiawassee.

normal high water elevation for Lake San Susan in April 1982. The maximum recorded

stage on Lake San Susan is 11 1.77 and occurred in August 1960. The Orange County

Engineering Department's 100-year design storm elevation is 115.80. Lake San Susan is a

landlocked system with its only outlet through a drainwell.

No information was located for the remaining lakes within this sub-basin: Lake Geyer, * Lake Pamela, Claypit Lake, Lake Charter, Lake Venus and Lake Mars.

Development Reports and Plans Drainage information and development plans were obtained from a variety of different

sources for the Main Shingle Creek group for the time period though October 1996. The

information consisted of roadway construction plans, development plans, stormwater

studies and "as-built" drawings. A complete listing of the sources referenced during the

process of completing this study can be found in the Bibliography at the conclusion of this

report.

The headwater of Shingle Creek is the Westside Manor Pump Station. Construction plans

and studies were obtained for this area. The "Orange County Stormwater Management

Department Pump Station Analysis: Westside Manor Pump Station Shingle Creek Drainage Basin" prepared by Orange County Engineering in January 1991 was the most all inclusive

source located. In addition to this report, the "Westside Manor and Dwaq LQke

Construction Plans " prepared by Glace & Radcliffe, Inc. in March 1983 were reviewed.

Information related to Florida Center and the Cypress Creek Community were also

reviewed. The "Florida Center: Qpress Creek Golf Course Residential and Commercial Area, Plat No. 6: Stormwater Management Calculations" report prepared by DRMP, Inc.

for the City of Orlando in July 1986 was utilized in this effort.

Information for Tropical Lake, located south of Americana Boulevard at Interstate 4, was

obtained from "Schrimsher Southwest: Tropical Lake Drainage Analysis" report prepared

by DRMP, Inc. in March 1993.

The remaining sources of information relate to the cross sections used to model Shingle

Creek. The information was obtained from five different sources: U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Orlando Central Park, Project ABC and Hunter's Creek.

The Army Corps of Engineers survey "Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood

Control and Other Purposes, Part II, Supplement 20 (Revised), General Design Memorandum, Initial Drafi Report" prepared by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Jacksonville District in September 1989 was used for comparative purpose only, as the

datum (NAD 83) used for the survey was different from that used in the other studies.

Additionally, a cost-effective mechanism to convert these data into a usable format was not

discovered.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency survey, revised by DeGrove Surveyors, Inc.

in early 1992, was a primary source of cross sectional information. The cross sections

extend from Lake Tohopekaliga north to Raleigh Street, at approximately 3,000 feet

increments. Even though this survey includes the entire length of Shingle Creek, it was

only used between Oak Ridge Road and Raleigh Street. Bridge information was also

included in the survey. The cross section at each bridge and the low chord elevation of the

bridge was obtained from this report for all of the bridges traversing Shingle Creek

between Raleigh Street and the Osceola County line.

The cross section from an "Orlando Central Park - Letter of Map Revision" HEC-I1 model

prepared by Singhofen & Associates, Inc. in September 1991 was used to simulate Shingle

Creek from Oak Ridge Road to the Bee Line Expressway.

Additional channel cross sections were obtained from "Project ABC: Calculations for A No Rise Certzfication for Proposed Development within Shingle Creek Floodway, " submitted to Orange County on August 30, 1991. The cross sections from this report were

incorporated into the Shingle Creek model between the Bee Line Expressway and a point

18,000 feet (3.4 miles) upstream of the Osceola County line.

The last piece of cross sectional information was obtained from the "Town Center

Boulevard/Far West Village, Vicinity of Hunter's Creek PD, Orange County, Florida" Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prepared by Professional Engineering

Consultants, Inc. between March 1995 and November 1995. The cross sections from this

study were used from the Osceola County line to a point 18,000 feet (3.4 miles) upstream

of the County line.

The Orange County Building, Lands and Facilities Manual 80-01 dated November 1, 1980,

Orange County Lake Index and OUSWMM were reviewed to determine the location and

size of any drainwells within the watershed. The only drainwell located within this sub-

basin is associated with Lake San Susan. Information related to the size and depth of the

drainwell was not located during the research conducted for.this study. At the request of

Orange County drainwells were omitted from the modeling effort to depict a worst-case

condition of drainwell failure. The presence of the drainwells is incorporated into the

model through the starting water level.

Field surveys of structures or other drainage facilities not included in the plans and reports

outlined above were conducted by Jones, Hoechst & Associates, Inc. as part of this

investigation.

In addition to the plans and reports discussed above, photogrammetric mapping was used

to delineate drainage basin boundaries, define stage-area relationships for lakes and natural

depression areas, and determine overflow elevations for lakes and undeveloped areas.

Water Quality Data Research failed to locate any water quality data for lakes in this region. However, Orange

County does have long-term water quality data at five sites on the channel: L. B. McLeod

Road outfall, Conroy-Windermere Road, Sand Lake Road, Central Florida Parkway, and

U.S. Route 192.

3.1.1.2 Sub-Basin Description

The Main Shingle Creek group is the largest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek

Watershed. It contains ten of the larger lakes in the watershed: Charter Lake, Geyer

Lake, Lake Cathy, Lake Geyer, Lake Hiawassee, Lake Pamela, Lake San Susan, Lake

Venus, Lake Mars and Lake Orlo. The area is primarily composed of residential

developments and wetlandlopen lands. The sub-basin is made up of 57 contributing areas

ranging in size from 9 to 907 acres as depicted in Table 3-1 and

Exhibit 1-4.

Table 3-1 Main Shingle Creek Contributing Areas

Sub-Basin Area Curve Name (acre) Number

15 95.4 83 15-41 169.3 . 78 ,

16 227.5 80

Time of Percent Con~trat ion / (a:

(Continued)

Sub-Basin Area Curve Time of Percent Name (acre) Number Concentration (%)

CATHY 150.0 55 75 1.3 CHARTER 181.6 74 57 1.6 CLAYPIT 50.5 5 8 40 0.4

CYPRESS 433.3 77 25 3.7 DEER 284.7 57 86 2.4 DF5 209.8 78 30 1.8 DF7 58.3 78 15 0.5 ENOGT 137.5 7 1 30 1.2 FC- 1 313.0 84 19 2.7

(Continued)

Sub-Basin I Area 1 Curve I Time of I Percent I

I I I I

SNORGAT 16.7 1 66 30 0.1 1

Name SEC40US

This sub-basin consists of one main riverine system, Shingle Creek. Shingle Creek also

accepts runoff from 14 tributaries which will be discussed in detail in the following

sections. Shingle Creek ultimately outfalls into Lake Tohopekaliga in Osceola County.

The headwater of Shingle Creek is the Westside Manor Pump Station located between State

Road 50 and Old Winter Garden Road. This pump station conveys stormwater from the

0 Lake Venus' and Lake Mars' systems to the beginning of the Shingle Creek channel just

(acre) 155.7

WS-60 WS-70 Z12C Z1A 22

Number 75

52.5 33.3 67.0

115.7 34.6

11,657.8

Concentration 137

7 1 80 79 80 88

(%) 1.3

191 120 69

0.5 0.3 0.6 1 .O 0.3

south of Old Winter Garden Road. From this point, Shingle Creek runs south parallel to

and approximately 1,500 feet east of Kirkman Road, under Raleigh Street, Laramie Trail

and L. B. McLeod Road, to a point approximately opposite the Turkey Lake outlet

channel, a distance of about 2.5 miles. It then flows easterly for a distance of

approximately 0.3 miles and then southeasterly under Conroy-Windermere Road, Orlando-

Vineland Road and Interstate 4 for a distance of approximately 1.5 miles to a point just

north of Americana Boulevard between John Young Parkway and Interstate 4. Shingle

Creek then flows south for 2.7 miles passing under Americana Boulevard, Oak Ridge

Road, the Florida's Turnpike and Sand Lake Road. From Sand Lake Road, Shingle Creek

flows in a southerly direction for approximately 2.0 miles where it passes under the Bee

Line Expressway. Continuing southward, the creek traverses an additional 5.3 miles,

crossing Central Florida Parkway, the GreeneWay and Town Center Boulevard. Shingle

Creek travels another 7.5 miles in Osceola County before discharging into Lake

Tohopekaliga.

In addition to Shingle Creek, this sub-basin also includes several lakes. Lakes Geyer,

Charter, Cathy and Geyer Lake would overland flow into Lake Hiawassee during storm

events greater than the 100-yearl24-hour storm event. The receiving water body, Lake

Hiawassee, is landlocked. Two of the lakes, Claypit and San Susan, are also landlocked.

If the water level were to rise above elevation 115.5 (this would require greater than a 100-

yearl24-hour storm), Lake San Susan would overland flow into Westside Manor. Lake

Pamela, located within Valencia Community College property, discharges into Shingle

Creek through a 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe. Table 3-2 and Appendix F present the

conveyance elements used to model the stormwater system. It should be noted that the

bridges along Shingle Creek were modeled using irregular shaped weirs, as the adICPR

2.0 bridge sub-routine introduced unacceptable levels of instability into the model. The

adICPR computer input information is contained in Appendix H. A map locating the Main

Shingle Creek Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3 and Exhibit 3-1. An overall nodal diagram is

0 depicted in Appendix B.

Table 3-2 Main Shingle Creek Stormwater Conveyance Features

Reach Name I Location I

RCATHY loverland Flow from Lake Cathy I CATHY RCHARTER loverland Flow from Charter Lake I CHARTER RCLAYPIT Overland Flow from Clay Pit CLAYPIT RGEYERL Overland Flow from Geyer Lake GEYERL RHIAWSE Overland Flow from Lake Hiawassee HIAWSE RLGEYER Overland Flow from Lake Geyer LGEYER RS-SUSN Overland Flow from San Susan Lake S-SUSN

RPAMELA Lake Pamela Outfall at Kirkman Road PAMELA

R53494 Shingle Creek 53494 R54994 Shingle Creek 54994 R55544 Shingle Creek 55544 R56724 Shingle Creek 56724 R57994 Shingle Creek 57994 R58794 Shingle Creek 58794 R59334 Shingle Creek 59334 TOWNCB Town Center Boulevard Bridge 51921

RENOGT Eastern Northgate Pond Control Structure ENOGT

To Node -

HIAWSE HIAWSE S-SUSN HIAWSE HIAWS-

CHARTER

(feet) Description

180' Weir at 89.4 1 0 20' Weir at 110.0 1 0 120' Weir at 123.5 1 0 130' Weir at 81.1 1 0 50' Weir at 110.0 1 0 100' Weir at 110.5 1 0 120' Weir at 115.5

160 DIS 42" RCP wl 10' Weir at 109.5

(Continued)

Reach Name I Location

RFC-2 Northgate Channel FC-2 2-8 RLB-2 L. B. McLeod East of Shingle Creek LB-2 Z-11

RDF5 l ~ e e r Field Outfall Structure I DF5 l I I I

RDF7 Deer Field Outfall Stmcture DF7 58794 I I I

BLINE lBee Line Bridee I P1003 1 19-2 - I

CFP Central Florida Parkway Bridge 1741 1 6-44

R15 Shingle Creek 15 59334

R15-2 Shingle Creek 15-2 15-42

R15-41 Shingle Creek 15-41 15

R15-42 Shingle Creek 15-42 15-41

I 1 3250 Irregular Channel Section 1 87 36" RCP

100' Weir at 96.48 DIS 18" RCP wl 1' Weir at 9 DIS 30" RCP wl3 ' Weir at 9

48" RCP 100' Weir at 100.8

Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section

20' Weir at 78.5 Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section

Irregular Channel Section 500' Weir at 89.6

Irregular Channel Section

Low Chord = 87

DIS 60" RCP wl 10' Weir at 84.5 -

1 300 DIS 80" RCP wl3' Weir at 84.5

1 0 Low Chord = 83.9 Low Chord = 80.6

(Continued)

Reach Name

R16 l~hingle Creek I 16 R16-41 l~hinele Creek 16-41

RCYPRESl lcypress Golf Course I CYPRESS I I

RCYPRESS ICypress Golf Course I CYPRESS

No. To of Length

Node Pipes (feet) Description

16-5 1 820 Irrermlar Channel Section

SECSZDS 1 0 Low Chord = %. 1

SEC36DS 1 0 Low Chord = 90.0 I I I

Z1 1 1 1 660 1 Irregular Channel Section I I I -

SEC47 1 50 DIS 78"~54" ECMP W/ 10' Weir at 93.0

SEC47 ) 1 I 0 I 50' Weir at %.5

(Continued)

Reach Name

RFC-3 RFC3A

RJYPMIT RLB- 1

RRALEIGH RSEC34 RSEC35 RSEC35-1 RSEC35-2 RSEC36 RSEC36UW RSEC38 RSEC39 RSEC40 RSEC40UW RSEC41 RSEC42

RSEC43UW RSEC44 RSEC45UW RSEC46 RSEC47 RSEC48 RSEC48UW RSECSO RSEC51 RSEC52 RSEC52UW

RSEC53 RSEC54

RSEC54UW RSEC55 RSEC56 RSEC57 RZ1

RZl A RZlA3 RZlW

Location

Florida Center Florida Center JYP Mitigation Area at Bonnie Brook Overland Flow from Western Wedand Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek

Shingle Creek's Connection to JYP Mit. Shingle Creek's Connection to JYP Mit. Shingle Creek Oak Ridge Road Bridge Overtopping Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Americana Boulevard Bridge Overtopping Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Interstate 4 Bndge Overtopping Shingle Creek

Orlando-Vineland Road Bridge OT Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Conroy-Windermere Road Bridge OT Shiigle Creek Shingle Creek

Shingle Creek L. B. McLeod Road Bridge Overtopping Shingle Creek Shingle Creek

Laramie Bridge Overtopping Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Culvert near Carter Street Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Culvert Near Carter Street Overtopping

Length (feet)

1130 1400

2300 620 0

670 488 0

0 283 2360 364 0

204 2100 2166

0 566 1252

1000 3400

32 2120

3800 0

From Node

FC-3 FC3A

JYPMIT LB-1

RALEIGH SEC34

SEC35 SEC35 SEC35

SEC36DS SEC36US

SEC38 SEC39

SEC40DS SEC40US

SEC41 SEC42DS

SEC43US SEC44

SEC45US SEC46 SEC47

SEC48DS SEC48US

SEC5O SEC51

SEC52DS SEC52US

SEC53 SEC54DS

SECWUS

SEC55 SEC56 SEC57

Z 1 Z1A Z1A

Description

10' Weir at 96.0 10' Weir at 100,O 600' Weir at 89.0 50' Weir at 96.5

Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section ~ r r e g u k Channel Section

40' Weir at 88.5 600' Weir at 89.0

Irregular Channel Sect~on Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section

500' Weir at 95.4

Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section

500' Weir at 103.4

Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Sect~on

500' Weir at 103.7 Irregular Channel Sect~on

500' Weir at 98.33 Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section

500' Weir at 99.4 Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section Irregular Channel Section

84"x48" ACMP Irregular Channel Section

Trapezoidal Channel Section 100' Weir at 97.5

To Node

SEC51 FC-1

P3300 SEC52US

Z1A P3300 SEC34

JYPMIT JYPMIT

SEC35 SEC36DS SEC36US

SEC38 SEC39

SEC40DS

SEC40US SEC41

SEC42DS SEC43US

SEC44 SEC45US

SEC46 SEC47

SEC48DS

SEC48US SECSO SEC51

SEC52DS SECS2US

SEC55 SEC56

RALEIGH 22

LESCOTT RALEIGH

No. of

Pipes 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

(Continued)

Reach Namt

RZ2-w2

VINELAND

RWS-40-C RWSmA

Location

I~aleiah Street Culvert I Z2 1 2 3

~ a l e i ~ h Street Culvert I LESCOTT I z3

Westside Manor Pump I PUMP I CARTER

Raleigh Street Overtopping

Shingle Creek

Vineland Road Bridge

Florida Center Pond Control Structure

Deer Creek Subdivision

Westside Manor - North of E-W Expy. I WS-10 I WS-30

SEC45US

TIMBER1

CYPRESS

96" RCP

Westside Manor - North of E-W Expy.

Westside Manor - South of E-W Expy.

Outflow from E-W Expressway Pond

Westside Manor - South of E-W Expy. Westside Manor - South of E-W Expy.

WS-30 Westside Manor - North of E-W Expy. DIS 36" RCP wl 12' Weir at 82.13

WS-40 WS-40

WS-60 WS-70

WS-40 WS-60

PUMP WS-60

3.1.1.3 Wetland Analysis

Many wetland communities flourish adjacent to Shingle Creek. Development has occurred

up to the bank of Shingle Creek in the area north of Florida's Turnpike. This development

has destroyed any wetlands which may have existed prior to construction. South of

Florida's Turnpike, however, many low lying areas remain in their natural state. Three

primary wetlands are within this vicinity: 1) south of Florida's Turnpike; 2) between Sand

Lake Road and Central Florida Parkway and 3) south of the Valencia Water Control

District / Hunter's Creek. The area south of Florida's Turnpike is comprised of over 97

1 0 1290

75' Weir at 100.6

220' Weir at 97.0

Low Chord = 98.4

15' Weir at 95.7

15' Weir at 80.5

70 CFS Pump

130 1 0

72" RCP

25' Weir 79.17

48" RCP 200' Weir at 78.3

10" RCP for Drawdown

25' Weir at 75.6

500' Weir at 80.0

54" RCP

200' Weir at 82.5 42" RCP

acres of palustrine wetlands. The area's primary classification, covering 58 acres, is

palustrine, forested, deciduous, semipermanent. The second area is a strip of wetlands

adjacent to Shingle Creek between Sand Lake Road and the Central Florida Parkway. This

289 acre wetland is comprised of lacustine, riverine and palustrine species. Palustrine,

forested. deciduous, semipermanent is the largest group with over 133 acres. The third

wetland area, located north of Hunter's Creek, contains approximately 880 acre of low

lying lands. Palustrine, forested, deciduous, semipermanent is also the largest group

within this wetland with over 640 acres. The next largest group, with 133 acres, is

palustrine, forested, needle leaved deciduous, semipermanent. Exhibit 1-7 depicts the

historic wetlands in the Shingle Creek Watershed according to the National Wetland

Inventory prepared by the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission. Various

wetland areas throughout the Shingle Creek Watershed were investigated for storage

potential, treatment efficiency and wetland functionality. The results of this analysis are

presented in Appendix J.

3.1.1.4 Simulation Results

Advanced Interconnected Channel Pond Routing (adICPR version 2.02) was used to

simulate the existing condition water elevations. The model produces both hydrologic and

hydraulic output information. Table 3-3 summarizes the maximum unrouted flows

generated by the 57 contributing areas within the Main Shingle Creek sub-basin.

Table 3-3 Main Shingle Creek Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

Basin Name

10-yearl24-hour (cfs) 92

25- yea^-124-hour (cfs) 107

(Continued)

Basin Name

SC-3 HUNTER-2 SC-10 SC-9 SC-8 CYPRESS FC-3 FC-3A FC- 1 LB- 1 PAMELA CARTER 0-RIDGE TROP-E AMERICANA LF-C8-2 LF-C8-1 LF-C8 TROPICAL

10-yearl24-hour (cfs) 59 164 186 635 203 530 177 178 433 84

295 120 306 119 140 171 125 171 89

CARTER2 RALEIGH VDDSWP DEER 1-4 ENOGT FC-2 LB-2 SNORGAT WNOGT SL-S SL

25-yearl24-hour (cfs) 69 193 228 75 1 236 624 204 205 501 104 346 142 369 148 167 199 146 199 104

100-yearl24-hour (cfs) 90 250 3 14 985 303 812 257 258 636 147 449 184 501 210 221 257 188 257 -~ 136

120 46 890 165 5 3 146 408 154 15 77

460 27 1

142 5 3

1028 209 65 175 466 182 19 92 544 32 1

184 67

1303 303 89

234 58 1 238 26 121 712 425

(Continued)

Basin Name 10-yearl24-hour 25-yearl24-hour 100-yearl24-hour kfs) (c fs) (cfs)

FTP- 1

CATHY I 82 I 104 I 154 CHARTER I 193 I 230 I 306 CLAYPIT I 34 I 44 I 63 GEYERL I 116 I 140 I 187

HIAWSE I 929 I 1112 1,481 LGEYER 63 77 106 S-SUSN 140 170 232

Table 3-4 summarizes the maximum stages reached during the various design storm events.

The storms were simulated assuming that a normal water condition existed prior to the

occurrence of the design storm. Detailed information relating to the time of maximum

stage, inflow and outflow can be found in Appendix I. A nodal diagram for the area is

located in Appendix B. It should be noted that the flows predicted at Shingle Creek are

over 50 percent less than those previously published by FEMA. This difference in flow is

attributed to more detailed hydrologic methods and hydrodynamic modeling, including

smaller basins, updated land use and soils maps, increased watershed storage, and more

current and all inclusive structure information.

Main Shingle Creek Maximum Conditions Node Name

100-yearl24-hour Stage I Flow

Description

Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek

Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek -

Town Center Boulevard Bridge Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Shingle Creek

Flows Updated due to Instabilities in the Model ** Decreasing Flows with Higher Frequency Storms or Negative Flows due to

U/S stage and D/S stage changing at various rates for different storm events

Main Shingle Creek Maximum Conditions -

Node Description Name

58794 Shingle Creek

25-yearl24-hour Stage Flow 78.9 200 1 78.9 1900 79.2 1970 79.1 1966 79.1 1965 80.7 1973 81.7 2080

Stage I Flow 78.4 1 1645 -

59334 * khinele Creek I u

15-2 l~hingle Creek 15-41 IShingle Creek

Shingle Creek 16-41 1 Shingle Creek 16-42 I~hin i le Creek

16-42AD 1swan-i~ Area west of Shingle Creek near VDD - - -- -

16-42W Swamp Area west of Shingle Creek near VDD 16-43 Shingle Creek

16-43W Swamp Area west of Shingle Creek near VDD 16-44 Shingle Creek

16-44W Swamp Area west of Shingle Creek near VDD Road 'El Bridge Central Florida Parkway Bridge

17-41W Swamp Area west of Shingle Creek near VDD Shingle Creek

18-2W Swamp Area west of Shingle Creek near VDD Road 'D' Bridge

18-5W I Swamp Area west of Shingle Creek near VDD 19-2 Shingle Creek u

5 1344W l~hingle Creek CARTER I Shingle Creek CATHY Overland flow from Lake Cathy

CHARTER Overland flow from Charter Lake CLAYPIT Overland flow from Clay Pit CYPRESS Cypress Gold Courses

UIS stage and D/S stage changing at various rates for different storm events

Main Shingle Creek Maximum Conditions

DF7 ENOGT

Description 1 10-year/24-hour

Deer Creek Subdivision 1 82.0 1 84 Deer Field Outfall Structure Deer Field Outfall Structure Northgate Eastern Pond Control Structure 1 9 5 . 7 1 3 Florida Center Pond Control Structure 1 96.5 1 31 Northgate Channel Florida Center Florida Center 1 102.5 1 177

GEY ERL HIAWSE JYPMIT

Overland flow from Geyer Lake Overland flow from Lake Hiawassee John Young Parkway Mitigation Area Depressional Area North of L.B. McLeod Road LB- 1 L.B. McLeod East of Shingle Creek 1 96.4 1 48 Overland flow from Lake Geyer Bee Line Bridge - Shingle Creek Shingle Creek

Shingle Creek Shingle Creek 1 84.3 1 1742 Shingle Creek 1 84.8 1 1571 Shingle Creek Shingle Creek --- Shingle Creek Sand Lake Road Bridge Shingle Creek 1 85.2 1 1806 Shingle Creek 1 85.2 1 1679 Shingle Creek ( 85.2 1 1814

* Flows Updated due to Instabilities in the Model ** Decreasing Flows with Higher Frequency Storms or Negative Flows due to

TAB 9 13 3-4 Main Shingle Creek Maximum Conditions -

Node I Description I 10-yearl24-hour Name I

I - I2500 IShingle Creek 1 85.3 1 1776 -

P2600 lshingle Creek 1 85.8 1 1851 P2800 lFloridals Turnpike Bridge 1 86.5 1 1229 P3300 l~hingle Creek 1 87.7 1 1263

PAMELA Lake Pamela Outfall at Kirkman Road PUMP Westside Manor P u m ~

RALEIGH I Shingle Creek S-SUSN Overland flow from San Susan Lake SEC34 Shingle Creek SEC35 Shingle Creek

SEC36DS Shingle Creek 1034 -

SEC36US 10ak Ridge Road Bridge I 90.5 i 1034 SEC38 IShingle Creek 1 91.5 1 906 SEC39 l~hingle Creek 1 92.5 1 906 -

Shingle Creek 1 92.5 i 758 - Americana Boulevard Bridge Shingle Creek Shingle Creek 92.8

- -- - - SEC43US llnterstate 4 Bridge

SEC44 [Shingle Creek 1 93.2 1 586 SEC45US kineland Road Vridge 1 93.4 1 584

I SEC46 Shingle Creek .. - - - --

SEC47 Shingle Creek 94.3 5 82

- -- SEC48US l ~ o n r o v Road Bridge 1 94.4 / 532

Shingle Creek Shingle Creek

Flows Updated due to Instabilities in the Model ** Decreasing Flows with Higher Frequency Storms or Negative Flows due to t

Stage I Flow

UIS stage and DIS stage changing at various rates for different storm events

Main Shingle Creek Maximum Conditions 25-yearl24-hour Stage I Flow

I SEC52US ~L.B. McLeod Bridge

Node Name

SEC52DS

Description

Shingle Creek

I SEC55 IShingle Creek

I SEC56 l~hingle Creek

Shingle Creek Shingle Creek Laramie Drive Bridge

I SEC57 l~hingle Creek

I SNORGAT TROPICAL

Northgate southern Pond Control Structure Tropical Lake Northgate Western Pond Control Structure I WNOGT

I WS-10 IWestside Manor Pump Station Area I WS-20 l~es t s ide Manor Pump Station Area

WS-30 I Westside Manor Pump Station Area I WS-40 Westside Manor P u m ~ Station Area I WS-50 l~es t s ide Manor pump Station Area I WS-60 ** l~es t s ide Manor Pumb Station Area I WS-70 l~es t s ide Manor Pump Station Area

Z-10 Culvert of L.B. McLeod Z-11 1- Channel south of L.B. McLeod Road 2-8 I Northgate Channel Z-9 Northgate Channel

I Z l ** ICulvex-t near Carter Street I Z1A l~hingle Creek 1 22 l~aleigh Street Culvert - 1 2 3 khinele Creek

Floodplain maps have been delineated and are available in both mylar and electronic

(AutoCAD) format from the Orange County Stormwater Management Department.

The flood profiles have also been prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed. The flood

profiles for the portion of Shingle Creek located within Orange County and the Northgate

Canal are presented in Appendix K and are also available in both mylar and electronic

format from the Orange County Stormwater Management Department.

3.1.1.5 Water Quality Analysis

wetlands cover over 20 percent of the basin. Ten water quality parameters have been

generations. The parameters are Secchi-disk depth, turbidity, solids, conductance,

dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, phosphorus, nitrogen, chlorophyll-A and

fecal coliform. None of the lakes within this sub-basin has been sampled for a sufficiently

long enough time to allow conclusions to be drawn. However, analysis of the creek site is

possible. More detailed information concerning water quality can be found in the report

entitled "Water Quality Analysis of Shingle Creek Basin. "

Shingle Creek at North of L. B. McLeod Road No Secchi-disk data exist for this site. Therefore, Secchi-disk data for this site were taken

from the site 'above L. B. McLeod Road Sewage Treatment Plant outfall'. Nitrogen data

from 'above L. B. McLeod Road Sewage Treatment Plant outfall' were also added to this

site's nitrogen data.

The Secchi-disk data values seem to be less than 1.0 meter for all observations. Two

possibilities for these low values exist - large dissolved and suspended matter or a shallow

water depth which does not allow for large depths before the disk comes to rest on the

channel bed. Turbidity is high (relative to lake values). Through 1985, most values are in

e the low and normal ranges with some in the high range. In 1986, turbidity seems to

experience a step increase. From that time on, almost all the data points are in the high

range. The reason for this change in turbidity levels, which occurs about one year before

the sewage treatment plant was taken off creek, is unknown.

Conductance shows a horizontal trend through 1986. Then in 1987 the conductance

experiences a declining trend. At the same time, the scatter in the conductance data

decreased. The timing of this change suggests that it is associated with removal of the

sewage treatment plant effluent from the creek. Total solids exhibits a pattern that is fairly

constant about the delineation line between the normal and high ranges. There may be a

slight increase in mean value after 1987, forcing the data almost wholly up into the high

range.

Dissolved oxygen exhibits a pattern that appears to change about 1983. Until that time the

scatter of the data is quite large with very low values. About 1983 and after, the very low

values are not present. There may be a lowering of the high values, also. Biochemical

Oxygen Demand shows no trend and no prominent change in pattern. The majority of the

data throughout the collection period is in the high range, with some data in the normal

range, and a few points in the low range.

Nitrogen does not exhibit any trend. Many values are in the high range and the normal

range. Total phosphorus does show a pattern that changes at the end of 1986, an increase

in the mean values and a step decrease in the scatter of the data. Prior to 1987, the base,

or lower values occur in the low and normal ranges. Since 1987, the base values of the

phosphorus data have risen to the normal level and extend into the high range.

Chlorophyll-A data appear to show a raising of its base level starting in 1987, moving

from the low range into the normal range. The scatter of the data also increases. In

contrast, fecal coliform values appear to start increasing shortly after 1975 and continue

increasing throughout the period of record. The scatter of the data increases with time

also, and may have a step increase about 1988. These data are presented graphically in

Exhibit 3-2.

I 1/1/75 1/1/80 1/1/85 1/1/90 1/1/95

N. of McLeod Rd. Date

Exhibit 3-2 - Time data for Shingle Creek at North of McLeod Road

i Date I

10 I nnn I . 1

I 0 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1/1/70 1/1/75 1/1/80 1/1/85 111 190 1/1/95 I

I Date

1 Date

Exhibit 3-2 (cont.) - Time data for Shingle Creek at North of McLeod Road

-1 E 1000- 0 - 0 .- 800- 2 -

I . . .. Fecal Coliform

.-C 400 - . 200 : 2 - . .. . . 6 0 1 I I ' ' I 1 ' 1 i : - ~ I

Exhibit 3-2 (cont) - Time data for Shingle Creek at North of McLeod Road

Shingle Creek at Conroy-Windermere Road Plots for this site are composed of data from the site at Conroy-Windermere Road and the

site 'Orlando #2, 300 yards downstream'. For most plots, a few data exist near the year

1975 and for the period 1988 to 1995. A few plots have additional data for 1983 and

Insufficient Secchi-disk data are available for this site. Turbidity data appears mostly in

the high range with values as high as 40 NTU. Data after 1993 show some promise for

lower values. Scatter of the data is also great.

Conductance has data available from the mid 1980s. The 70s and the mid 80s show very

high values, almost totally in the high range. With the continuation of data collection in

1988, a large step decrease occurred in both the data values and in the scatter.

Conductance values at present appear stable and are in the normal range. Total solids

show higher values with larger scatter in the early 1970s data. But again, with the later

data, both the mean values and the scatter have decreases. At present, the data appear to

be astride the delineation line between the high range and the normal range.

Dissolved oxygen shows a decrease in the scatter of the 1988-to-present data; the very low

values are not present. The early Biochemical Oxygen Demand data are few in number,

but the data available show large scatter. The latter data show large scatter, with data

appearing in all three ranges.

Total nitrogen data show a decreased mean value and scatter in the data from the first data

set to the second. Data from the 1990s is located mostly in the normal range. Phosphorus

data show extremely high values and large scatter in the 1970s data set. The values are so

high that the phosphorus data are plotted to two different scales. Much lower values occur

in the mid-1980s data, and even lower values occur in the 1990s data. Values for the

1990s data are mostly in the normal and high ranges.

Secchi-Disk Oepth

( Conductance I

I i Date

a- Date

Exhibit 3-3 - Time data for Shingle Creek at Conroy Road

I Date j

Exhibit 3-3 (cont) - Time data for Shingle Creek at Conroy Road

I i 1.0 . . -

C . a .

High Values Not Shown -. ..

C . 0. - . . . I

0 . . . a 9: * a * * - 0.2 . .

I . ... -. . - . . 0.0 I I I I 1 1 1 l ~ 1 1 l 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 (

1 11 180 1/1/85

Exhibit 3-3 (cont.) - Time data for Shingle Creek at Conroy Road

Chlorophyll-A has few data available in the mid 1970s. Data available after 1987 show

higher values and greater scatter; concentrations are almost wholly in the low and normal

ranges. Insufficient data are available for fecal coliform to reach any conclusions on

pattern or changes. But the 1990s data set show large scatter with data in all three ranges.

These data are presented graphically in Exhibit 3-3.

Shingle Creek at Sand Lake Road Secchi-disk depth data collected from 1980 through 1995 show no trend. Values are in the

low range with two values in the normal range. No turbidity data are available.

Conductance data were collected between 1983 and 1985 and again in 1994 and 1995. A

large drop in conductance appears to occur between the two time periods, but only seven

values were collected in 1994 and 1995. Between 1983-1985, data values were mostly in

the high range. The 1990s data show less scatter occurring in the normal range. No data

exist for total solids.

No data exist for either dissolved oxygen or biochemical oxygen demand.

Total nitrogen data were collected starting in 1984. A large drop in values occurs in 1987,

which is the time the sewage treatment plant was taken off creek. Since that time, nitrogen

values are mostly in the normal range with some values in the low range. Total

phosphorus data exist only for the 1983 to 1984 period. All values are in the high range,

and scatter is quite large. Post-1987 data would be expected to show much lower values as

can be seen in the data of the following two sites.

No chlorophyll-A data or fecal coliform data exist. These data are presented graphically in

Exhibit 3-4.

Shingle Creek at Central Florida Parkway This data set includes data found under two station names - TaftIVineland Road and

Central Florida Parkway. As with the previous site, the data were not collected

a continuously but in three periods that are generally 1973-1974, 1983-1985, and 1988-1995.

Secchi-Disk Depth

i 111 no 1/1/75 1/1/80 1/1/85 1/1/90 1/1/95

Exhibit 3-4 - Time data for Shingle Creek at Sand Lake Road

1/1/80 1/1/85

E F E l Date

Exhibit 3-4 (cont) - Time data for Shingle Creek at Sand Lake Road

Only two Secchi-disk depth data are available for this site; both are in the low range.

Turbidity values are large, and the 1970s data do not differ significantly from the 1990s

data, except that the early data set has three very high values.

For conductance, the 1970s data appears about the same as the 1980s data. But then the

1990s data, starting in 1989, is much reduced both in value and in scatter. Data for this

period are mainly in the normal range. Total solids data decrease in both value and scatter

from the 1970s data to the 1990s data. The latter data are in the normal range and slightly

higher. It appears as though the values may be decreasing over the last five years.

Dissolved oxygen values show a dramatic change from the 1970s data to the 1990s data.

During the 1970s, the values are very low, nearly all in the low range. Then in the 1990s

data, the values are higher, and show a nice range although some low values are still

present. Biochemical oxygen demand values increased in both mean values and in scatter

from the 1970s data to the 1990s data. For some reason, the removal of the treatment

plant's effluent from the creek has an inverted effect on biochemical oxygen demand.

Both nitrogen and phosphorus values decrease from the 1970s data to the 1990s data. No

nitrogen data are available for the 1980s, but values and scatter decrease significantly from

the 1970s data to the 1990s data. All of the early data are in the high to extremely high

range. Concentrations of the 1990s data set are mostly in the normal range with some in

the low range. Phosphorus data are so much reduced over the data-collection period that

two scales are needed to plot the data. Concentrations in the 1970s are extremely high; but

some portion of each high value may be due to reporting unit used. Values from 1983 to

1985 are much reduced from 1970s, and then by 1987 the values and scatter are even

further reduced. By the 1990s, the majority of the data are in the normal range.

Chlorophyll-A does not show any significant trends or changes although a small reduction

may be present starting in 1990. Nearly all of the data appear in the low range. Likewise

fecal coliform doesn't show any significant trend. Values are in the low and normal range

0 except for outliers in the high range during both time periods. These data are presented

graphically in Exhibit 3-5.

I I 1/1/70 1/1/75 1/1/80 1/1/85 1/1/90 1/1/95 I I Date I i

Exhibit 3-5 - Time data for Shingle Creek at Central Florida Parkway

Dissolved Oxygen E

1/1/80 1/1/85

Central Florida Parkway I Date

Exhibit 3-5 (cont.) - Time data for Shingle Creek at Central Florida Parkway

( Phosphorus (

1/1/80 1/1/85

Date -

Central Florida Parkway

Exhibit 3-5 (cont.) - Time data for Shingle Creek at Central Florida Parkway

Shingle Creek at U.S. Route 192

Secchi-disk depth data show a horizontal pattern from 1980 to 1995; all data are in the low

range. Turbidity shows no apparent trend. There is a heavy collection of data points in

the low range with a light scatter of points in the normal and high range. Larger values,

outliers, appear after 1990.

Conductance shows a drop in average values and a drop in scatter starting with 1987. The

average values drop from the high range into the normal range with a few data points into

the low range. Likewise, total solids shows the same changes starting with 1987. All

concentrations are in the normal range.

Dissolved oxygen shows a change in variance, or scatter, about 1981. The average value

might be increasing from about 1988 to 1992: but the change is so small that it may be due

simply to collection times. Any changes in biochemical oxygen demand are not obvious. @ Periods of large scatter are present around 1980 and 1990.

Total nitrogen values and scatter dropped in 1987, like some of the constituents previously

discussed. Further explanation of total nitrogen can be observed in the components of total

nitrogen as shown in the section 'Load calculations at Kissimmee,' Figures 56 through 59

of the "Water Quality Analysis of Shingle Creek" Report. Organic nitrogen started a

gradual decline in 1982, perhaps in timing with phosphorus. Ammonia stayed constant

throughout the period of record showing no change in 1987. But nitrate dropped very

significantly in both value and scatter in 1987. Total phosphorus shows patterns different

from those previously discussed for this site. Starting in mid 1981, the phosphorus

concentrations drop an extreme amount in both average values and in scatter. From 1981

through 1985, the phosphorus concentrations follow a curvilinear decay, probably

exponential in form. There is no apparent change in 1987 as found in the other constituent

concentrations. Further analysis of the phosphorus data can be found in the section 'Load

calculations at Kissimmee' of the "Water Quality Analysis of Shingle Creek" Report.

Chlorophyl-A shows no trend, but scatter of the data may have decreased in 1987. All but

two values are in the low range. Fecal coliform shows no change in value with time, and

no apparent change in scatter. Most values are nearly evenly distributed in the normal and

low range, with some values in the high range. These data are presented graphically in

Exhibit 3-6.

Average Site Values for 1990-95 Average values for the channel sites within the sub-basin based on data from 1990 through

1995 are shown in Table 3-5. Numerous sites have average parameter values in

exceedance of the median values for streams throughout the state. Secchi-disk depth is not

of significance because depth of water may be a factor. But turbidity for six sites exceed

the statewide value of 4.2 NTU. None of the conductance values exceed the statewide

stream median value, but this parameter is probably a reflection of groundwater inputs

rather than surface water quality. Five of the six sites having dissolved oxygen data are @ below the median of 5.8 mg1L All six sites had biochemical oxygen demand values above

the statewide stream median value of 1.5 mg/L. Phosphorus had four of six sites above

the median value of 0.11 mgIL, and nitrogen had four of seven sites above the median

value of 1.2 mg/L. Chlorophyll-A values decrease in the downstream direction with three

of the six sites having average values above the statewide median value of 5.5 mglcubic

meter. All but one of the channel sites, one of six, had fecal coliform values greater than

the statewide median value of 100 MPN1100 mL.

If the questionable parameters of Secchidisk depth, solids, conductance and dissolved

oxygen are not considered, then of the 37 average values 28 exceed the statewide median

values. Turbidity, biochemical oxygen demand and fecal coliform have high exceedance

numbers.

- E c 8- .- Secchi-Disk Depth I B n 6-

I 2 I 5 4 q - E 2 0 0 ..............*. .................. ................. .. e *

.:. 0)

I , , , 1 8 1 1 , I l l I , , , I I I I ( I

Date I

Exhibit 3-6 - Time data for Shingle Creek at US-192

i Dissolved Oxygen - 1 d 1 1 8- . I .r - . . . - . . * * = . . . *. .

c' 6-8 . . . *. . . . . . ..:= - . . - .. . . 9 . . .=. . . . .. . .

0 . . . . . . C . -

1/1/75 1/1/80 1/1/85 1/1/90 1/1/95

~ Date

1 Date I

1 1/1n0 1/1/75 1/1/80 1/1/85 111 190 1/1/95

I Date

a/[ US-192 1 Date

Ex hibit 3-6 (cont.) - Time data for Shingle Creek at US-192

80- E - 2 so- . E" - c 40- .-

f 2,- * ! s 0 a .\ *.. .-. I e 0 1 1 i i t I I I i I - - J - ~ o I . - * i

! E 1/1/70 0

1/1/75 111180 1/1/85 111190 111195 1 i Date

j pG-I Date

Table 3-5 Main Shingle Creek Average Site Values for 1990-1995

3.1.1.6 Water Quality Loadings

The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced from the Main

Shingle Creek sub-basin are presented in Table 3-6. The last column in the table is the

rank of this sub-basin among the 15 sub-basins.

Statewide Stream Values

Table 3-6 Main Shingle Creek Water Quality Loadings

Parameter 1

SDD (meters)

Turb (NTU)

Nitrogen

Phosphorus

Total Solids

13,269

336,125

39,440

T Solids (mg/L)

DO (mg/L)

Cond (uSlcm)

BOD (mg/L)

T Phos (mg/L)

F Col (hIPN1100 mL)

100.00

TSitro (mg/L)

Chlor-A (mglcu m)

Rankings for all parameters from this sub-basin fall in the top half, from 4th to 6th among

the 15 sub-basins.

3.1.1.7 Identified Problem Areas

Quantity Five of the bridges crossing Shingle Creek are in danger of being overtopped during the

25-yearl24-hour design storm event. Table 3-7 identifies the bridges for which the

predicted water elevation is above the low chord elevation. This added stress could cause

a bridge to fail and the orifice-like characteristic of the flow would decrease the

conveyance capabilities of the creek under a bridge. The Road 'D' bridge is the only

bridge for which the creek elevations overtop the roadway section. Fortunately this bridge

is abandoned. However, if the bridge were to fail, then the creek blockages and floating

debris would cause major problems.

Table 3-7 Bridge Low Chord Problem Areas

In addition to the bridges which are in immediate danger, the low chord elevation of six

bridges is within two feet of the 100-year design storm event elevation. This two feet

clearance is recommended by Orange County and the Florida Department of

Transportation and is a standard practice during the design of new bridges. Without this

clearance, large floating debris, such as large tree limbs, would be unable to pass under the

bridge and could cause the bridge to fail. Table 3-8 identifies these bridges and their

relevant characteristics.

Bridge Description

Americana Boulevard Bee Line Expressway Central Florida Parkway Oak Ridge Road

,Road 'D' I

Invert Elevation

(feet) 83.0 64.6 70.1 81.6 65.5

Low Chord Elevation

(feet) 92.5 83.9 80.6 .

90.0 82.1

100-Year Elevation

(feet) 94.0 84.5 83.1 91.7

, 84.1

Amount over Low Chord

(feet) 1.5 0.6 2.5 -

1.7 2.0

Roadway Elevation

(feet) 98.3 89.9 87.6 93.3

I 83.8 ,

Table 3-8 Bridge Heuristic Problem Areas

Westside Manor continues to experience house flooding during the 100-yearl24-hour

design storm event as depicted in Exhibit 3-7. In the 1960s, the houses in this area were

flooded to a depth of over seven feet. Since that time, storage has been added and a pump

station has been installed. These constructions significantly reduced the flooding

experienced. However, over 90 houses within Westside Manor and 35 mobile homes are

still predicted to be flooded. In addition, over 100 homeowners will be inconvenienced by

yard and roadway inundations.

Bridge Description

Conroy- Windermere Road

Laramie Drive L. B. McLeod Road 'El Sand Lake Road

Florida's Turnpike

Quality

Based on the analysis of estimated pollutant loads, no overall problems within the sub-

basin were identified. However, three water quality problem areas exist based on actual

water quality data collected. The following sample locations along Shingle Creek

represent problem areas: North of L. B. McLeod Road site, Orlando #2 site (near Conroy-

Windermere Road) and Conroy-Windermere Road site. These sample sites are located in

the northern portion of the watershed, where development is older and fewer stormwater

treatment facilities are in place. The sample sites in the southern portion of the watershed

exhibit better water quality.

Invert Elevation

(feet) 83.8 85.0 84.9 56.6 77.4

Low Chord Elevation

(feet) 96.0 96.7 96.1 82.1 87.0

100-Year Elevation

(feet) 95.2 95.9 95.7 80.6 86.2

Amount under Low Chord

(feet) 0.8 0.8 0.4 1.5 0.8

Roadway Elevation

(feet) 100.2 100.1 98.3 83.5 92.7

3.1.2 Proposed Improvements

The Main Shingle Creek area and its headwater are experiencing a wide variety of roadway

flooding, house inundation and water quality problems. Improvements for water quality

and water quantity are addressed in the following sections.

3.1.2.1 Water Quantity Considerations

A regular inspection and maintenance schedule should be developed and implemented to

ensure the continued operation of Orange County facilities within this sub-basin at the

following locations: culverts and control structures within Westside Manor, Westside

Manor Pump Station, culverts under the access road near Carter Street and Raleigh Street

and the bridges associated with Laramie Drive, L. B. McLeod Road, Conroy-Windermere

Road, Orlando-Vineland Road, Interstate 4, Americana Boulevard, Oak Ridge Road,

Florida's Turnpike, Sand Lake Road, Bee Line Expressway, Road 'D', Central Florida

a Parkway, Road 'E', GreeneWay and Town Center Boulevard. Shingle Creek should be

inspected annually, and excessive debris and vegetative growth should be removed.

Additionally, all control structures, piping systems and channels should be inspected

annually.

Bridge Flooding The roadway elevation of one bridge is exceeded during the 100-yearl24-hour design storm

event. The low chord elevation of four bridges is being exceeded, but the roadway is not

overtopped. Additionally, six bridges are within two feet of exceeding the low chord

elevation of the bridge.

Road "'D' is the one bridge whose roadway is overtopped. This bridge is not used for

vehicular traffic. Therefore, the immediate concern of the bridge failing with vehicles on

it is small. However, the concern over the bridge collapsing and blocking the flow of

Shingle Creek or debris from the failure causing another bridge to experience problems is

real. It is recommended that this bridge be removed to eliminate the possibility of these

problems arising.

The second set of problems related to bridges is the exceedance of the low chord elevation

on four bridges. (See Table 3-7) The bridges are associated with Americana Boulevard,

Bee Line Expressway, Central Florida Parkway and Oak Ridge Road. Road 'D' has

already been discussed. When the water level exceeds the low chord elevation of the

bridge, the hydraulic characteristics of the channel are decreased due to the conversion

from open channel flow to orifice flow. This decrease in flow has the potential to cause

upstream flooding. In addition to the flooding possibility, structural failure is possible as a

result of the added hydraulic stress and from floating debris colliding with the bridge. It is

recommended that bridges be raised so that the low chord elevation of the bridge is at least

two feet above of the 100-year elevation. Based on the degree of predicted flooding

Central Florida Parkway should be retrofitted first, followed by Oak Ridge Road and

Americana Boulevard and then by the Bee Line Expressway. Because the replacement of a

bridge requires a large expenditure of funds, this construction should be performed in

conjunction with a traffic improvement to the bridge in order to provide for a cost sharing

mechanism.

The third set of problems associated with bridges is the bridges which are outside the

standard tolerances for low chord clearance. These bridge, presented in Table 3-8, are

considered minor problems as the low chords are not currently predicted to be exceeded.

Therefore, when traffic or other needs dictate the improvement of these bridges, the low

chord elevation should be set at least two feet above the 100-year design storm elevation.

Culvert near Carter Street Shingle Creek flows through an 84-inch by 48-inch arched corrugated metal pipe under an

access road near Carter Street and south of Old Winter Garden Road. Maintenance is

required on the culvert to adequately convey the flow. The pipe has been crushed during

years of use and neglect. This pipe should either be removed or replaced. The preferable

alternative is to remove the pipe, restoring the natural channel cross section in this area.

However, as this crossing appears to be under one ownership and business is taking place

on both sides of the creek, the removal of this structure may not be possible. In this case,

the pipe should be replaced with an 84-inch by 48-inch reinforced concrete pipe increasing

the conveyance and life of the pipe.

Lake San Susan Lake San Susan is a landlocked lake in the northern portion of the Shingle Creek Watershed. The 100-year storm event is predicted to come within inches of flooding homes in this area. However, as no flooding is currently predicted, improvements are not recommended. The stage in this lake is controlled by a drainwell. It is imperative that this drainwell be maintained and kept in operation to safeguard against future flooding around this lake.

Lake Hiawassee Lake Hiawassee was included in this model at a macro scale, to determine the flooding potential in this area. The findings of this study located no problem areas. However, given the fact that the lake is landlocked and development continues to occur in this basin, a detailed basin study for Lake Hiawassee is recommended. This study should focus on the secondary flooding of streets and subdivisions, as well as the determination of flooding levels on Lake Hiawassee on a micro scale. As the area is landlocked, outfalls to adjacent lakes, in particular Turkey Lake, should be investigated. As an immediate step to safeguard the lake, regulations limiting the volume discharged to Lake Hiawassee to the 100- yea^-124-hour pre-development volume may be advantageous. This recommendation is included at the request of Orange County staff in order to maintain continuity with past studies and as a result of recent flooding complaints surrounding the Lake Hiawassee.

Shingle Creek Maintenance A regular maintenance schedule needs to be developed to ensure the continued proper operation of Shingle Creek. A majority of the creek is well maintained, especially in the northern sections. Two historically unmaintained areas of Shingle Creek are the area beginning 2,000 feet north of Florida's Turnpike and extending to Sand Lake Road and the area from 1,000 feet north of the Bee Line Expressway to the Orange/Osceola County line. Both of these areas are natural and swampy making maintenance difficult. As the threat of flooding is minimal in this vicinity, the cost (fiscal and environmental) of maintaining this section should be weighed against the potential for flooding. Additionally, the permitting associated with clearing and maintaining the creek through the natural wetland will be difficult. If water management permits can be obtained and cost effectiveness proven, then clearing can be accomplished through easement acquisition and standard removal practices, or a clearing machine (Menzi-Muck) which "walks" the center line of the creek could be incorporated to perform the sediment, debris and vegetative removal.

Westside Manor Four alternatives have been developed to prevent the flooding of houses in Westside Manor

and Orlo Vista Terrace. The f ~ s t is to develop a regulation schedule for the existing pump

station. The second is to increase the storage by expanding the area of the ponds within

the Westside Manor system. The third alternative is to increase the pumping capacity.

The fourth option is to lower the groundwater table, thereby increasing the storage

potential without increasing the top area of the ponds. Before any action is taken in this

area, the finished floor elevations of the effected houses should be surveyed to ensure that

homes are protected and that the project is not over designed.

Of the four alternatives listed above, the most practical, cost effective, and permittable is

the development of the regulation schedule for the pump station. This alternative requires

that 1) the starting water level of the Westside Manor ponds be lowered to elevation 74.0

feet prior to a major storm event occurring; 2) the pump station be retrofitted to allow * pumping to begin at elevation 74.0 feet and 3) six acres of vacant land in the northeast

corner of Westside Manor be converted into additional storage.

The normal water level in the ponds is anticipated to remain at elevation 75.5 feet,

minimizing any groundwater withdrawals that may be associated with the pumping

activity. Prior to a major storm event, pumping would be initiated to lower the water level

in the ponds to elevation 74.0 feet. Pumping at 70 cfs for eleven hours would be required

to lower the water level the needed 1.5 feet, assuming no groundwater inflow. This is an

accurate assumption given the poor soil conditions and short duration. In addition to the

time involved to lower the ponds, the bottom elevation of the ponds must be determined.

The ponds were designed to have a bottom elevation of 74.0 feet. This elevation would

need to be excavated by two feet to elevation 72.0, in order for the water to drain

uninhibited to the pump station. A survey of the area should be performed to identify the

need for excavation.

The existing pump station would require some retooling to accomplish the pumping at a

lower elevation. The sump area and intake need to be adjusted to allow the water to flow

into the pump. Additionally, the pump station should be automated, allowing for remote

access and personnel reassignment.

This scenario also requires that six acres of vacant land in the northeast comer of Westside

Manor be purchased and converted into a ponding area. This addition to Pond 40

represents a 17 percent increase in area and a 14 percent increase in volume as shown in

Table 3-9. This alternative would require an environmental resource permit and possibly a

consumptive use permit. The location of the existing ponds and floodplain, are illustrated

in Exhibit 3-7. A comparison of the existing and proposed stages associated with this

alternative is presented in Table 3-10. The revised floodplain resulting from the regulation

schedule is depicted in Exhibit 3-8. The engineering cost estimate for this scenario is

0 $1,208,000, excluding soil disposal. A detailed cost estimate can be found in Appendix L.

Table 3-9 Regulation Schedule Alternative Pond 40 Storage Relationship

Pond 40 Existing Pond 40 Proposed

Elevation (feet)

74 75 78 80 8 1 82

Cumulative Volume

(acre-feet)

0 39 161 248 298 354

Area (acres)

32.8 33.6 36.3 39.2 49.2 56.8

Incremental Volume

(acre-feet)

0 39 122 87 50 56

Elevation (feet)

74 75 78 80 8 1 82

Incremental Volume

(acre-feet)

0 33 105 75 44 53

Area (acres)

38.6 39.4 42.1 45.0 55 .O 56.8

Cumulative Volume

(acre-feet)

0 3 3 138 214 258 311

SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED - WBSTSIDE MANOR EXISTING FLOODING CONDITIONS

Shingle Creek Master Stomwater Management Study

Table 3-10 Westside Manor Regulation Schedule Stage Comparison

The regulation schedule alternative can be taken one step further. The ponds could remain

at their current sizes and the starting water elevations lowered to elevation 73.0 feet. At

this starting water elevation, the houses would be protected during the 100-yearl24-hour

storm event. The bottom of the ponds and the groundwater table are at elevation 74.0.

Therefore, the risk of pumping groundwater is greater than in the original scenario. As a

result of these more in-depth issues related to groundwater movement, pond bottom and

permitting, this alteration to the chosen alternative is not recommended.

Node PUMP WS-10 WS-20 WS-30 WS-40 WS-50 WS-60 WS-70

The second alternative investigated was-the -expansion of the top area of the ponds to

increase storage. This scenario requires that all property within Orlo Vista Terrace be

purchased and converted into a ponding area. This conversion would cause the

displacement of 35 mobile homes. In addition to the expansion into Orlo Vista Terrace, it

is also proposed that the northeastern pond be extended to the northeast displacing two

houses. These two additions to Pond 40 represent a 42 percent increase in area and a 36

percent increase in volume as shown in Table 3-11. The location of the existing and

proposed ponds, along with the existing floodplain, is illustrated in

Exhibit 3-7. Pond 40 dramatically increases in size at the expense of Pond 60's (Lake

Orlo's) floodplain storage. Lake Orlo was not assimilated into Pond 40 in order to

Description Westside Manor Pump Westside Manor Pond 10 Westside Manor Pond 20 Westside Manor Pond 30 Westside Manor Pond 40 Westside Manor Pond 50 Westside Manor Pond 60 Westside Manor Pond 70

Goal Elevation

81 .25 89.20 86.50 84.00 81.25 85.60 81.25 81.25

100-Year Stage Existing

82.2 89.0 86.2 82.3 82.2 82.3 82.2 82.2

Proposed 81.2 88.9 85.8 81.2 81.2 81.8 81.2 81.2

Differenc 1 .O 0.1 0.4 1 .O 1 .O 0.5 1 .O 1 .O

preserve the natural lake system. Pond 70, the southeastern pond, is also proposed to be

expanded. The pond would be extended to the south increasing the area of the pond by 8

acres and volume by 39 acre-feet as shown in Table 3-11. This construction would cause

the displacement of three houses adjacent to the pond. A comparison of the existing and

proposed stages is presented in Table 3-12. The revised floodplain resulting from the

increase storage is depicted in Exhibit 3-8. The engineering cost estimate for this scenario

is $2,191,000, excluding soil disposal. A detailed cost estimate can be found in Appendix

TABLE 3-11 Westside Manor Storage Relationships

Pond 40 Existing

Elevation (feet)

Pond 40 Proposed

Area I Volume I Volume (acres) I (acre-feet) I (acre-feet)

Pond 60 Existing

Elevation (feet)

75 80 85

Pond 60 Proposed

Area (acres)

2.7 6.4 12.4

Elevation (feet)

75 80 8 1 82

Incremental Volume

(acre-feet)

0 11 3 3

Area (acres)

1.6 2.8 3.2 3.6

Cumulative Volume

(acre-feet)

0 11 14 17

Incremental Volume

(acre-feet)

0 23 47

Cumulative Volume

(acre-feet)

0 23 70

Pond 70 Existing Pond 70 Proposed

I I ~ncremental 1 Cumulative I 1 ~ncremental Elevation 1 Area / Volume / Volume / Elevation / Area I Volume

(feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (feet) (acres) (acre-feet)

Cumulative Volume

(acre-feet)

Table 3-12 Westside Manor Increased Storage Stage Comparison

Elevation

Westside Manor Pond 20 86.50 Westside Manor Pond 30 84.00 Westside Manor Pond 40 81.25 Westside Manor Pond 50 85.60 Westside Manor Pond 60 81.25 Westside Manor Pond 70 81.25

100-Year Stage

The third alternative is to increase the pumping capacity. The existing pump discharges 70

cfs beginning at elevation 75.5 feet. A 400 cfs pumping system would be needed to solve

the house flooding in the Westside Manor and Orlo Vista Terrace area. This proposed

pumping system would include the two existing pumps (35 cfslpump) and the addition of

two larger pumps (165 cfslpump). A comparison of the existing and proposed stages is

presented in Table 3-13. The engineering cost estimate including pump installation and

force main replacement is $2,911,000, excluding soil disposal. A detailed cost estimate

can be found in Appendix L.

The feasibility of this alternative is questionable. The actual size of the pumps is very

large. The pump house would need to be remodeled to accommodate the new pumps and

the outfall force main would require replacement. The pumps would be located within a

power line easement. The power company may not allow the building to be remodeled or

the larger pumps to be placed in such close proximity to the power transmission lines. In

,addition to the feasibility and logistical issues presented above, the flow discharge from the

pump increases 330 cfs or over 425 percent. Without the construction of a storage facility

directly downstream of the pump outfall, this project could not be permitted due to

attenuation issues. The cost of this attenuation facility is not even included in the $2.9

million estimate. As such, the project is neither cost effective nor feasible.

Table 3-13 Westside Manor Increased Pumping Stage Comparison

1 WS-30 /westside Manor Pond 30 1 84.00 1 82.3 1 80.7 1 1.6

Node PUMP WS-10 WS-20

I I I I I I WS-70 ]westside Manor Pond 70 1 80.25 1 82.2 1 80.2 1 2.0

Description Westside Manor Pump Westside Manor Pond 10 Westside Manor Pond 20

WS-40 WS-50 WS-60

The fourth alternative involves the lowering of the groundwater of the existing ponds in

order to provide additional storage when a storm event occurs. The current normal water

Goal Elevation

81.25 89.20 86.50

Westside Manor Pond 40 Westside Manor Pond 50 Westside Manor Pond 60

level in the ponds is 75.5 feet. This elevation would need to be lowered one to two feet to

effect any change in the maximum elevations in the ponds. The small pump would be

100-Year Stage

80.25 85.60 80.25

required to run continuously to maintain the lower groundwater elevation. This scenario

was presented to the South Florida Water Management District and Orange County

Difference 3.0 0.1 0.2

Existing 82.2 89.0 86.2

82.2 82.3 82.2

Engineering. Neither entity believed this alternative to be a viable solution given the

Proposed 79.2 88.9 86.0

80.2 81.8 79.5

2.0 0.5 2.7

extensive impacts to groundwater levels. Given the negative response, this option is

presented simply to document that this alternative had been explored. Even though, at the

present time, this alternative does not appear to be favored, future conditions could require

further review of this scenario.

3.1.2.2 Water Quality Considerations

The creek sites which exceed statewide averages are the northern most creek sampling sites

in the watershed. As Shingle Creek flows south, the creek's water quality improves either

through treatment or dilution. One solution will not solve the water quality problems

within Shingle Creek. A combination of the best management practices listed in Section

2.5 of this report must be used to combat this problem.

Westside Manor, Lake Fran sub-basin, Turkey Lake sub-basin and creek-side

developments are the primary runoff contributors. The Lake Fran flood control project

has recently been completed by the City of Orlando. Even though this project's main

emphasis is on water quantity, a by-product is improved water quality. Prior to

construction, untreated stormwater runoff from the entire Lake Fran sub-basin discharged

directly into Shingle Creek. After the construction, all stormwater runoff passes through

Lake Fran, where it can obtain treatment before being discharged into Shingle Creek. This

project alone will have a significant impact on the water quality of Shingle Creek.

Westside Manor treats the stormwater- before-pumping it into Shingle Creek. Likewise,

Turkey Lake is the ultimate receiving waterbody for the Turkey Lake sub-basin. As such,

Turkey Lake acts as a treatment facility prior to discharging into Shingle Creek.

The last remaining untreated discharges to Shingle Creek are associated with developments

adjacent to Shingle Creek. Baffle boxes or sediment sumps or ponds could be constructed

at outfalls into the creek. Additionally, homes could be purchased to construct treatment

ponds. The construction of swales adjacent to the creek where practical would assist in

treating the "first-flush" of runoff. As this area is significantly built-out, non-structural

controls will provide minimal benefit. However, buffer strips and setbacks should be

e pursued in this area.

3.2 Lake Fran The Lake Fran group is located in the northeast portion of the Shingle Creek Watershed.

The Lake Fran sub-basin includes 14 contributing areas and covers 6,123 acres

(9.6 square miles) or 11.9 percent of the total watershed as summarized in Appendix A.

Lake Fran is the ultimate receiving water body for the entire region and controls the

discharge to Shingle Creek. Lake Mann Canal and Clear Lake Canal provide the primary

stormwater conveyance to Lake Fran which also accepts runoff through multiple outfalls

from the Carver Shores subdivision. Significant lakes within the group are Lake Mann,

Clear Lake, Lake Kozart, Lake Richmond, Lake Fran, Sunset Lake, Lake Lorna Doone,

Rock Lake, and Lake Notasulga. The following major subdivisions contribute stormwater

runoff to the Lake Fran system: The Villages at Timberleaf, Carver Shores, Washington

Park, Ivey Lane Estates, Lake Mann Shores, Richmond Estates, Richmond Heights, Isle of

Catalina, and Clear Lake Cove. The Lake Fran group is generally bordered by Shingle

Creek on the west, L. B. McLeod Road to the south, Orange Blossom Trail on the east and

Old Winter Garden Road to the north as presented in Exhibit 3-9.

hydrological data, development reports and plans, and water quality data.

Hydrological Data Orange County records monthly lake levels on Lake Mann and Clear Lake. The City of

Orlando records lake levels for Clear Lake, Lake Mann, Lake Fran, Kozart Lake, Lake

Richmond, Sunset Lake, Lake Lorna Doone and Rock Lake.

WETLAND

t( CULVERT

SHINGLE CREEK BASIN - MAJOR SUB-BASIN MAP I EXHIBIT LAKE FRAN BASIN

normal high water elevation (NHWE) for Clear Lake in October 1982. The maximum

recorded stage on Clear Lake is 97.05 and occurred in August 1991. The Federal

Emergency Management Agency's 100-year design storm elevation is 97.20. Clear Lake

is controlled by a weir which discharges into the Clear Lake Canal. Portions of Clear

Lake and the surrounding property lie within the City limits of Orlando.

normal high water elevation (NHWE) for Lake Mam in October 1982. The maximum

recorded stage on Lake Mann is 94.32 and occurred in September 1960. The Federal

Emergency Management Agency's 100-year design storm elevation is 95.00. Lake Mam

is controlled by a weir which discharges into the Lake Mam Canal. Portions of Lake

Mam and the surrounding property lie within the City limits of Orlando.

The remaining lakes are located entirely within the City limits of Orlando. Therefore,

normal high-water elevations have not been established by the County for these lakes. The

100-year FEMA elevations for Lake Lorna Doone and Lake Sunset are 101.70 and 98.90,

respectively. The City of Orlando's Lake Level Determination documents identify the

100-yearl24-hour peak stage of the following lakes as: Kozart (96.25), Richmond (95.20),

and Rock (99.69) Lake Fran's 100-year elevation as presented in "Lake Fran Flood Control Project; Permit Application Report, " is 94.59. Information on the peak stage of

Lake Notasulga was not discovered during the preparation of this report.

Development Reports and Plaris Drainage information and development plans were obtained from a variety of different

sources for the Lake Fran group for the time period through October 1996. The

report.

Construction plans for Willie Mays Parkway were obtained from the City of Orlando and

Orange County as both have jurisdiction over different sections of the roadway. These-

plans contain culvert information and overtopping elevations for the roadway. Raleigh

Street improvement plans were obtained from the City of Orlando and reviewed. These

plans show a hydraulic connection between Shingle Creek and Timberleaf Canal via a

piping system. Construction plans from the Lake Mann control structure and Clear Lake

control structure were obtained from the Orange County Stormwater Management

Department. Additionally, the construction plan sets for the Villages at Timberleaf were

obtained from DRMP files.

The Orlando Urban Storm Water Management Manual (OUSWMM), prepared for the City

of Orlando by DRMP, was a main source of information for the portion of Shingle Creek

located within the City. OUSWMM contains detailed basin delineations, piping

inventories, flow paths and historic water quality data.

Orange County Lake Index and OUSWMM were reviewed to determine the location and

size of any drainwells within the watershed. Lake Mann has two drainwells. One is

located on the west side of Florence Avenue, 200 feet south of the lake. The drainwell is

16 inches in size, extends to a depth of 398 feet and is encased for 140 feet. The second

drainwell is located of the north side of Lake Mann and is 12 inches in diameter. Clear

Lake basin has four drainwells, three 8-inch wells and one 12-inch well. All of the

drainwells are located away from the lake. Lake Richmond has one 20-inch drainwell.

Drainwells were omitted from the modeling efTort;to depict a worst-case condition of

drainwell failure. The presence of the drainwells is incsrporated into the .model through

the starting water level.

The "Lake Fran Flood Control Project; Permit Application Report" prepared for the City

of Orlando by DRMP, Inc. in December 1990 was the most all-encompassing reference

found. This report details the conveyance system from Lake Mann to Lake Fran and also

Clear Lake to Lake Fran. The adICPR (Version 1.40) computer simulation model

developed for the Lake Fran report was utilized in this Shingle Creek study. The

construction of the project was completed by the City of Orlando in September 1996.

Therefore, the improved condition system from the Lake Fran report was used as the

existing condition in the Shingle Creek study.

investigation.

depression areas, and determine overflow elevations for lakes and undeveloped areas.

Water Quality Data Nine lakes within this sub-basin have data available. The lakes along with their respective

beginning of record and frequency of sampling are presented in Table 3-14.

Table 3-14 Lake Fran Available Water Quality Data

Lake Name

Mann Clear Lorna Doone Walker Rock Sunset Kozart Richmond Beardall

Beginning Record

1970 1970 1973 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990

Frequency

A~eriodic

Available From

Orange Countv and Citv of Orlando Aperiodic Aperiodic Aperiodic Aperiodic Aperiodic Aperiodic Aperiodic A~eriodic

w . Orange County and City of Orlando

City of Orlando City of Orlando City of Orlando City of Orlando City of Orlando City of Orlando Citv of Orlando

The Lake Fran group is the second largest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek Watershed.

It contains two of the larger lakes in the watershed: Lake Mam and Clear Lake. The area

is primarily composed of residential developments, a majority of which have no

stormwater treatment facilities. The sub-basin is made up of 14 contributing areas ranging

in size from 11 1 to 2,086 acres as depicted in Table 3-15 and Exhibit 1-4.

Table 3-15 Lake Fran Contributing Areas

Sub-Basin Name

2,085.5

Time of Concentration

Percent

KOZART

LESCOTT 1

NOTASUL

RICHMOND

SUNSET

This area is characterized by several large lakes and two primary drainage canals. The

two drainage ways are the Lake Mann Canal and Clear Lake Canal, named for their

headwaters. Lake Mann discharges over a weir and then through 1,500 feet of 60-inch

RCP which discharges into the Lake Mann Canal. Lake Mann Canal then flows south for

1,300 feet and west for an additional 2,700 feet, crossing under Willie Mays Parkway,

until it merges with Lescott Ditch.

This combined flow turns southwest, flowing 100 feet, through a canal section until it

enters Lake Fran. Clear Lake discharges into Clear Lake Canal via 265 feet of 60-inch

RCP drop structure. It then flows west for 8,000 feet and then north for 1,800 feet,

crossing under Bruton Boulevard and Willie Mays Parkway, until it discharges into Lake

Fran. Lake Fran discharges to the south through a drop structure which utilizes four 60-

inch RCP culverts with flap gates to allow one-way flow only. This flow travels west for

2,825 feet before it enters Shingle Creek. Lakes Notasulga, Rock, Lorna Doone and a Sunset are landlocked. Overland weirs are used to simulate possible outflow from the

lakes. The elevations of the overtopping weirs were derived from aerial topographic maps

or quadrangle sheets. Lake Kozart discharges in the Lake Mann Canal through 300 feet of

channel. Lake Richmond flows through a drop structure with 420 feet of 48-inch CMP

into the Clear Lake Canal. Table 3-16 and Appendix F present the conveyance elements

used to model the stormwater system. The adICPR computer input information is

contained in Appendix H. A map locating the Lake Fran Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3 and

The majority of the historic wetlands within the Lake Fran sub-basin were emergent

palustrine, meaning forested areas existed in this vicinity. Today, most of these natural

areas have been developed into medium- and high-density residential communities.

Several natural wetland areas still exist adjacent to Lake Mann and Clear Lake. A former

wetland area has been revived by the City of Orlando. The new wetland is associated with

Lake Fran and provides water quality treatment, flow attenuation and 100-year storage

volume for the sub-basin and Shingle Creek Exhibit 1-7 depicts the historic wetlands in

the Shingle Creek Watershed according to the National Wetland Inventory prepared by the

Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission. Various wetland areas throughout the

Shingle Creek Watershed were investigated for storage potential, treatment efficiency and

wetland functionality. The results of this analysis are presented in Appendix J.

Table 3-16 Lake Fran Stormwater Convevance Features

Reach Name I Location o m I To Node Node (feet) Description

265 DIS 60" RCP wl24' Weir at 0-2 7 RCLEAR Clear Lake under John Young Parkway

RCLEAR-1 Overland Flow from Clear Lake

RFRAN Lake Fran Control Structure

RFRAN1 Lake Fran Berm Overtopping

RKOZART Lake Kozart Control Structure

RLESCO'IT Lake Mann Canal RLF-C 1 Lake Mann Canal

CLEAR LF-C3

FRAN LF-C7

KOZART LF-C2

LESCOTT FRAN LF-C 1 LF-Z4

LF-C2 LF-Z5

LF-C3 LF-Z 1 LF-C4 LF-C5

0 I - 300' Weir at %.5

1 DIS 60" RC:;: 32' Weir at

800' Weir at 95.8

300 I Traoezoidal Channel Section

1.250 Trawzoidal Channel Section RLF-C2 I Lake Mann Canal

RLF-C3 I Clear Lake Canal

RLF-C4 I Clear Lake Canal 1,700 1 Irregular Channel Section 600 1 Trapezoidal Channel Section

RLF-C5 Clear Lake Canal

LF-CS I LF-Z6 1.150 1 Trapezoidal Channel Section

L E F z ; 1 FRAN

1800 1 Trapezoidal Channel Section

2,825 1 Trapezoidal Channel Section

RLF-Zl 1 Bruton Boulevard Culvert

RLF-Zl W I Bruton Boulevard Overtoooine

LF-ZI LF-Z2 114 1 60" RCP

0 1 400' Irregular Weir at 97.86

3.700 1 Irreeular Chamel Section RLF-Z2 I Clear Lake Canal

RLF-Z3 I Clear Lake Canal 1,300 1 Trapezoidal Channel Section 80 1 60" RCP RLF-Z4 I Willie Mav's Parkwav Culvert - North 0 I - .lo' Weir at 94.26

40 1 72" RCP

72 1 120" x 29" CBC 72 1 120" x 24" CBC

0 I 100' Weir at 94.45 0 I 1.000' Weir at 101.5 RLORNA 1 Overland Flow from Lake Lorna Doone 1 LORNA-Z

LORNA-Z CLEAR

LF-C 1

RLORNA-Z I S.R. 408 Culvert I

100 1 42" x 22" ECMP -

DIS 60" RCP wl SO' Weir at 91 .O RMANN I Lake Mann Control Structure

RNOTASUL ( Overland Flow from Lake Notasulga I

0 I 200' Weir at 101.8 DIS 48" CMP wl6' Weir at

90.0 RRICHMON I Lake Richmond Control Structure I

RROCK 1 Overland Flow from Rock Lake 0 I 50' Weir at 103.5

0 I 50' Weir at 100.9 0 I 100' Weir at.97

RSUNSET I Overland Flow from Lake Sunset

RTIMBElW Timberleaf Area

RTIMBERl Timberleaf Area 433 1 48" RCP -

360 DIS 60" RCP wl 3' Weir at 90.07 RTIMBER2 I Timberleaf Area

generated by the 14 contributing areas within the Lake Fran sub-basin.

Table 3-17 Lake Fran Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

Basin Name

CLEAR FRAN KOZART LESCOTTl LF-C2 LF-C5 LF-C6 LORNA MANN

10-yearJ24hour (cfs)

NOTASUL RICHMOND

Table 3-18 summarizes the maximum stages reached during the various design storm

events. The storms were simulated assuming that a normal water condition existed prior to

the occurrence of the design storm. Detailed information relating to the time of maximum

located in Appendix B.

2,735 398 162 408 150 360 275 243

ROCK SUNSET

25-yearl24-hour (cfs)

365 246

100-yearl24-hour (cfs) . .

3,157 458 190 478 174 422 322 283

1,872 I

290 216

3,995 576 247 - 619 222 547 414 362

2,386 42 1 285

534 36 1

342 252

446 322

Lake Fran Maximum Conditions Node Description Name

CLEAR ** Clear Lake, John Young Parkway Culvert

FRAN l ~ a k e Fran Control Structure I

KOZART l ~ a k e Kozart Control Structure LESCOTT * l ~ a k e Mann Canal

LF-C1 ** Lake Mann Canal LF-C2 ILake Mann Canal LF-C3 ** l ~ l e a r Lake Canal LF-C4 IClear Lake Canal LF-C5 b e a r Lake Canal LF-C6 l ~ l e a r Lake Canal - LF-C7 l ~ l e a r Lake Canal -

LF-Z1 ** Bruton Boulevard Culvert LF-Z2 ** l ~ l e a r Lake Canal LF-Z3 IClear Lake Canal LF-Z4 ** IWillie May's Parkway Culvert - North LF-Z5 l~escot t Ditch Culvert LF-Z6 I Willie May's Parkway Culvert - South

LORNA Overland flow from Lake Lorna-Doone LORNA-Z ~S.R. 408 Culvert ,

MANN ** ILake Mann Control Structure NOTASUL I Overland flow from Lake Notasulga

RICHMOND Lake Richmond Control Structure ROCK I Overland flow from Rock Lake

SUNSET Overland flow from Lake Sunset TIMBER1 I Timberleaf TIMBER2 Timberleaf

The flood profiles have also been prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed. Lake Mann

Canal and Clear Lake Canal flood profiles are presented in Appendix K and are also

available in both mylar and electronic format from the Orange County Stormwater

Management Department.

fecal coliform. Only three of the nine lakes within this sub-basin have been sampled for a

sufficiently long enough time to allow conclusions to be drawn. A discussion of these

three lakes, Lake Mann, Clear Lake and Lake Lorna Doone, in regard to historical trends

is presented. More detailed information concerning water quality can be found in the

report entitled "Water Quality Analysis of Shingle Creek Basin. "

Lake Mann The Secchi-disk depth data for Lake Mann has been decreasing since 1980, stabilizing at

approximately one meter in the late 1980s. A majority of the data is classified in the low,

or poor range since 1984. Turbidity has been increasing since about 1986. The increase is

4 NTU over a 10-year period. Turbidity was predominantly in the low (or good) range

until about 1987; from 1992 to 1994, concentrations moved from the low range into the

high range.

The conductance pattern has a large amount of scatter in the data, and no slope is apparent.

The level of the data lies scattered across the line delineating the high and normal ranges.

Total solids increased from 1970 to about 1980, and since then have been relatively

constant along the line delineating the normal range and high range.

Dissolved oxygen is relatively high with little data in the low range. The biochemical

oxygen demand increased after 1986. The data are in the low and normal ranges prior to

1986; since then the bulk of the data is in the normal and high ranges.

Total nitrogen shows no apparent trend and has been steadily in the normal range during

the period of record. A few high concentrations occur between 1980 and 1987. Total

phosphorus shows a slight increasing trend until 1988, and since then a small decrease.

Nearly all of the data appear in the low range.

Chlorophyll-A shows both an increasing trend and an increasing variance in the data.

Until about 1988, the data were in the low and normal ranges. Since 1987 the data have

moved into the normal and high ranges. Fecal coliform concentrations are in the low

range with no trend. A few high values occurred in 1987. These data are presented

Clear Lake Secchi-disk depth shows a general decrease with time. Large scatter of data is present

through 1980, and then a tight-pattern, gradual decrease occurs. Since 1980 the data have

been in the low, or poor range. Turbidity increased in the lake from 1980 until the present

with a large variance present since 1990. A majority of the data were in the low range

through 1985. Since 1990 most of the data have been in the high, or poor range.

Conductance and total solids data move in unison for the lake and do not show a trend.

They exhibit a peak at the end of 1981, a valley about 1984, and perhaps another peak in

1989 and 1990. These peaks and valleys could be associated with rainfall. In general, the

data for the two parameters are in the normal range.

Dissolved oxygen does not show any trend, and variance of the data is large. Low values

occurred from 1979 until 1985. Biochemical oxygen demand increased from 1980 through

1990. During that time, less data appear in the low range, and more data appear in the

high range. Concentrations may be decreasing since 1990.

Date, in years

I P - . . 1 4-1

- I # . . I... I. ..,I :. .*I

. . 0 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

l l l ~ f i ~ l

1/1/70 1/1/75 1/1/80 1/1/85 1/1/90 1/1/95 i I I Date, in years

Date, in years

Date. in years - Exhibit 3-10 - Time data for Lake Mann

a . lo - ' I - . . E : -*. I . . . . = - -. c 8- = * I .

8 * = * .#I. , * = . . . .- . I . . . * . a . . . . * . . . . , . a . d 6 - . . . - ,

'. . .- 4 :

. 0 . w Dissolved Oxygen 0 2- 1 - . a 1/1/70 111 /75 111 180 1/1/85 1/1/90 1/1/95

Date, in years

C " 3- i a - 0, 0 2 - L - 2

- . . * - - -. I

m I-! - I \ - * . - . . .. L.

. *. ..' . - 0 -

, I , , 1 1 1 1 , I I I I , , , , I , ,

1/1/70 1/1/75 1/1/80 111185 1/1/90 1/1/95

Date, in years

Exhibit 3-1 0 (cont.) - Time data for Lake Mann

Date, in years

1 Fecal Coliform

- 1/1/70

Lake Mann

1/1/80 1/1/85

Date, in years

Exhibit 3-1 0 (cont) - Time data for Lake Mann

Total nitrogen and total phosphorus show no trends. Nitrogen is fairly constant in the

normal range, with a few high values about 1986 through 1990. Phosphorus is within the

low and normal ranges since 1980.

Chlorophyll-A and fecal coliform both show increasing values and increasing scatter with

time. Chlorophyll-A started moving into the high range about 1985. Most of the data

have been in the high range since then. Fecal coliform data were in the low range until

about 1991. Since then about half the values are in the high range. These data are presented graphically in Exhibit 3-1 1.

Lake Lorna Doone A decisive trend in neither the Secchi-disk depth nor turbidity for this lake was observed.

Overall, the Secchi-disk depth is relatively small, placing it in the poor range. Turbidity

covers both the normal and good range.

Total solids and conductance each form a fairly tight pattern, but no slope is apparent.

Both variables are in the normal range.

Dissolved oxygen and biochemical oxygen demand show large variables, but do not exhibit

any trends. Dissolved oxygen is in the high range, with some low dissolved oxygen data

during the 1980s. Biochemical oxygen demand covers both the high and normal range.

The two nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, show a decrease with time. The nitrogen

slope is about 0.5 mg/L over 15 years; the phosphorus slope is about 0.05 mg/L per 15

years. Nitrogen concentrations are in the normal range and may be approaching the low,

or good, range. Phosphorus currently is in the low, or good range.

Both chlorophyll-A and fecal coliform show a scatter of data with no definite trends.

Chlorophyll-A covers all three ranges. Around 1988 to 1990 the data show concentrations

to be in the low range, but since 1990 some high values are present. Fecal coliform data

have been predominantly in the low range with a scattering in the normal range but, since

1988 concentrations, have appeared in the high range. These data are presented

i Date, in years

Date, in years

Date, in years I Clear Lake 1

Exhibit 3-1 1 - Time data for Clear Lake

Date, in years

5 5- C .- . .. 0 4-

. . . . .. . , . * . .:- . - . = = . . . . . . 0 - I * I .-

I ' = e . Z

2-; . . - : . '- .: . I - . . : I '

, 0 1 1 1 1 ) 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~

1/1/70 1/1/75 1/1/80 1/1/85 111 190 !

1/1/95 ,

Date, in years j I

2- I g 8 5 . 2.' .* ' , - : .. .#-.em - ' * . . . - - . .

I = . -

m I - , C

. . I ,2 - I = . I 0 I l l 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~

I 1/1/70 1/1/75 1/1/80 1/1/85 1/1/90 1/1/95 I I

I Date, in years

I Phosphorus I

@ ; F l Date, in years

Exhibit 3-1 1 (cont) - Time data for Clear Lake

0 ate, in years

! [ Clear Lake 1 Date, in years

Exhibit 3-1 1 (cont.) - Time data for Clear Lake

Secchi-Disk Depth

Date, in years

: .g 300- i pi 1 0

I = 200- my : . * * .:.I .. . , , - - , l-0 a * f-.. . . ... " .. - .: - * , . . - 0 I .

i 2 100-

0 I 1 l I j I I I I ~ l I 1 l ) I I I 1 j l l l l ~

1 1/1/70 111l75 111 180 111185 111190 111195 I I Date, in years

Date, in years

Ex hibit 3-1 2 - Time data for Lake Lorna Doone

I 250 1 - i, 200-

I E I .= 150 - i i 5 100 I rn - - i a so- I : -

. . 8 : . :. . a m . 8 . . . * - .

' - : ..' . , . . . . = - . .. -8 .

i 0 , 1 1 1 I l l 1 I l l 1 1 1 1 I l r ' I

lll/70 1/1/75 111180 lllla5 111 190 111195

I I 12 . . 8

a . 3 ' . .... . . - .* . . . . . . . . . . .* ,. . . ... .. . . ..... I . a . .: * . ' I . .

: I . -. r . - - -

8 ' : *

. . . .. 0

I I I I , 1 1 1 , I , I 1 1 1 ,

1/1/70 1/1/75 111 180 1/1/85 1/1/90 111 195

I Date, in years

Date, in years

Lake Lorna Doone Date, in years

Exhibit 3-1 2 (cont.) - Time data for Lake Lorna Doone

z - 80- i? - . 60- . .

4 . - 40-

. . . C . .- -,

F 20- . . . - I* I* - .* 9 -

2 . . 0 2

I I I I 1 1 1 1 I l l 1 l i l t 1 1 1 1

illno .c lIlfl5 1/1/80 111185 111190 111 195 0

Date, in years

Lake Lorna Doone 1 Date, in years

Ex hibit 3-1 2 (cont.) - Time data for Lake Lorna Doone

Average Site Values for 1990-95

Average values for the lakes within the basin based on data from 1990 through 1995 are

shown in Table 3-19. Values that exceed the median site value (50% exceedance) for

statewide data are shaded. Water clarity is a problem with lakes in this sub-basin with 7 of

the 14 values found under Secchi-disk depth and turbidity shaded. Conductance is also a

problem, but this characteristic is so highly related to groundwater inflow that it probably

does not represent a surface water variable that can be altered. Another class of

characteristics that appear to be a problem is the biological factors, chlorophyll-A and fecal

coliform. Of the 22 values, only three were not worse than the median value statewide.

Table 3-19

Lake Fran Average Site Values for 1990-1995

Statewide Lake Values

County Lake Sites

SDD (meters)

Lake Lorna Doone Lake Mann Clear Lake

Turb (NTU)

4.52 5.03 9.04

0.88 0.93 0.69

T Solids (mg/L)

114.94 155.57 147.24

Cond (uSlcm)

188.00

176.92 237.44 210.41

DO (mg/L)

6.66 737 736

BOD ( m a )

3.62 3.03 3.74

T Phos (mg/L)

0.044 0.034 0.062

T Nitro (mg/L)

1.07 1.05 1.07

Chlor-A (mgtcu m)

29.59 26.13 34.71

F Col (hlPN1100 mL)

142.28 27.95 138.65

The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced from the Lake Fran

sub-basin are presented in Table 3-20. The last column in the table is the rank of this sub-

basin among the 15 sub-basins.

Table 3-20 Lake Fran Water Quality Loadings

1 Nitrogen 1 20,994 1 2.20 1 15 1 Parameter

I Total Solids 1 512,789 1 53.8 1 8 1

Load (kg)

As seen from the rankings, nitrogen and biochemical oxygen demand are relatively high

for this sub-basin. The most desirable ranking is for total solids which is the median value

for the basin.

Quantity The water quantity model predicted no major flooding problems within the Lake Fran sub-

basin. Neither structure nor house flooding was predicted during the 100-yearl24-hour

storm event. Additionally, no County-maintained roadways were inundated during the

25-yearl24-hour storm event.

Unit Load (kglacre)

Ranking

77,105

Quality Based on the analysis of estimated pollutant loads, Lake Fran has a summation of 69,

indicating a sub-basin wide problem. In addition to the overall sub-basin problem, the

following lakes exceed the state wide average for at least three significant parameters:

Clear Lake, Lake Kozart, Lake Walker and Lake Richmond.

The Lake Fran area has relatively minor and routine maintenance issues. Improvements

for water quality and water quantity are addressed in the following sections.

The Lake Fran Flood Control Project was completed by the City of Orlando in 1996.

Prior to the construction of this facility, flooding of streets and houses was a routine

occurrence. The improvement removed the flooded homes from the 100-yearl24-hour @ storm event floodplain and decreased street flooding. Isolated street flooding is still

experienced in this area, however, these instances are due to inadequate drainage systems

and not as a result of the flooding of Shingle Creek or any of its tributaries. As this

project has already been completed and included in the existing condition analysis of the

watershed, no major flood control systems are proposed in this region. A regular

inspection and maintenance schedule should be defined to ensure the continued operation of

Orange County facilities. Maintenance on Clear Lake Canal and Lake Mann Canal should

be performed to remove sediment deposits and nuisance vegetation. The implementation

of an operating schedule for both Lake Mann and Clear Lake would assist in future flood

control in this area. Typically, the weirs are lowered when a storm event is expected and

raised when a dry period is anticipated. The control structures on the two lakes should be

inspected at least annually. Even though the construction of Lake Fran is complete, it is

still in need of erosion control. Sodding of exposed banks would greatly reduce the

sediment entering the lake. Additionally, culverts that are currently discharging into the

lake need to be maintained, particularly the culvert conveying the stormwater from Lescott

Ditch.

A majority of the developments within this sub-basin lack any stormwater treatment

facilities, resulting in poor overall water quality. The best solution to the problem is the

construction of source control best management practices. This alternative is also the most

costly and difficult to coordinate. A small swale around the circumference of Clear Lake,

Lake Mam, Lake Richmond and Lake Kozart would assist by providing some treatment of

the "first-flush" of stormwater. Furthermore, baffle boxes and sediment sumps at outfalls

into these waterbodies would greatly reduce the sediment and pollutants entering the lake.

In addition to the structural controls outlined above, it is recommended that a combination

of the non-structural best management practices listed in Section 2.5 of this report be

incorporated in the overall solution plan.

The pollutants exported from the sub-basin have recently been dramatically reduced due to

the construction of the Lake Fran Flood Control Project. All the stormwater runoff * generated by this sub-basin must pass through Lake Fran. Lake Fran acts as a large

detention facility, holding the water a significant portion of the time and controlling the

outflow during large storm events. This project is a regional treatment facility for the

area, therefore no additional regional work is proposed.

3.3 Turkey Lake The Turkey Lake sub-basin is located in the northwest portion of the Shingle Creek

Watershed. This sub-basin area includes 15 contributing areas and covers 3,998 acres (6.2 square miles) or 7.7 percent of the total watershed as summarized in Appendix A. Turkey

Lake is the ultimate receiving water body for the entire region, discharging under Kirkman

Road into Shingle Creek. A cascading lake system with connecting piping elements

provides the primary conveyance within the sub-basin. Significant lakes within the group

are Turkey Lake, Lake Cane, Lake Marsha and Phillips Pond. The following major

subdivisions contribute stormwater runoff to the Turkey Lake system: MetroWest, Monte

Vista, Brookhaven, Kirkman Oaks, The Woodlands, Park Springs, Winderlakes,

Wonderwood, Hidden Springs, Hidden Estates, Shadow Bay Springs, Lake Cane Hills,

Lake Marsha, Orange Tree, Sand Pines and Piney Oak Shores. The Turkey Lake group is

generally bordered by Kirkman Road on the east, Woodgreen Drive to the south, Dr.

Phillips ~oulevard on the west and MetroWest Boulevard to the north as presented in

Exhibit 3-13.

Hydrological Data Orange County records monthly lake levels on Lake Cane and Lake Marsha. The City of

Orlando records lake levels for Turkey Lake.

normal high water elevation for Lake Marsha in March, 1983. The Commission also

adopted elevation 98.8 as the normal high water level for Lake Cane in July, 1983. The

maximum recorded stage on various lakes within the sub-basin is: Lake Cane (99.81) in

August, 1960; Turkey Lake (96.85) in August, 1960; and Lake Marsha (129.94) in April,

1987. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's 100-year design storm elevations for

Lakes Cane, Turkey and Marsha are 100.2, 97.7 and 129.7, respectively. The 100-year

elevation for Phillips Pond was set at 124.9 by the Orange County Engineering

Department.

Several other smaller water bodies have been studied by Orange County. The pond at .

Hidden Springs West has a normal high water elevation of 142.5 as set by the Board of

County Commissioners in October, 1982. Additionally, the 100-year elevation for the lake

was established by the Orange County Engineering Department as 147.2. A maximum

stage of 143.38 was recorded at this pond in November, 1994 (Tropical Storm Gordon).

The northern pond of Hidden Springs has a normal high water elevation of 133.1 as stated

in the Orange County Lake Index.

sources for the Turkey Lake group for the time period through October 1996. The

report.

Construction plans for Conroy-Windermere Road, Turkey Lake Road, Kirkman Road and

Orlando-Vineland Road were obtained from Orange County. Additionally, Florida's

Turnpike plans were obtained from the Florida Turnpike Authority. These plans contain

culvert information and overtopping elevations for the roadway. The construction plan set

for MetroWest was obtained from the City of Orlando. The City of Orlando plans

prepared by DRMP for the Lake MarshaILake Cane interconnect were also reviewed.

The Orlando Urban Storm Water Management Manual (OUSWMM), prepared for the City

of Orlando by DRMP, was another source of information for the portion of this sub-basin

The "Turkey Lake Road: Application for Construction Approval Permit for Suvace Water Management" prepared for the City of Orlando by DRMP, Inc. in 1987 was the most all-

encompassing reference found. This report details the conveyance system from Lake

Marsha to Lake Cane through the Lake Cane Swamp and ultimately into Turkey Lake.

The report also addresses the Turkey Lake outfall to Shingle Creek. The adICPR (Version

1.40) computer simulation model developed for the Turkey Lake Road report was utilized

in this Shingle Creek study.

Based on the information collected during the course of this study, no drainwells exist

within this sub-basin.

investigation.

depression areas, and to determine overflow elevations for lakes and undeveloped areas.

Water Quality Data Three lakes within this sub-basin have data available. The lakes and their respective

beginning of record and frequency of sampling are presented in Table 3-21.

Table 3-21 Turkey Lake Available Water Quality Data

Lake Name

Turkey Lake

Lake Marsha

Lake Cain

The Turkey Lake group is the fifth largest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek Watershed.

Beginning Record

It contains four of the larger lakes in the watershed: Turkey Lake, Lake Cane, Lake

Marsha and Phillips Pond. The area is primarily composed of residential developments,

Frequency

the majority of which have no stormwater treatment facilities. The sub-basin is made up of

Available From

Aperiodic

15 contributing areas ranging in size from 23 to 1,783 acres as depicted in Table 3-22 and

Orange County and City of Orlando

Orange County

Exhibit 1 -4. Table 3-22

Turkey Lake Contributing Areas

This area is characterized by four large lakes, multiple small bowl-like depressional areas

and a swamp. Stormwater runoff from the entire sub-basin flows toward Turkey Lake,

which outfalls into Shingle Creek north of L. B. McLeod Road. Lake Marsha discharges

into Lake Cane Swamp through 5,258 feet of 15-inch RCP. Additionally, Lake Cane

flows overland at elevation 97.5 into Lake Cane Swamp. From the swamp, the water

travels under Conroy-Windermere Road and Florida's Turnpike through three 3 foot by

12 foot concrete box culverts before ultimately entering Turkey Lake. Phillips Pond is a

landlocked basin; however, if stages were to increase sufficiently, it would sheet flow to

Turkey Lake. Turkey Lake outfalls to Shingle Creek via four 4 foot by 10 foot concrete

box culverts under Kirkrnan Road and then through a single 30-inch CMP under the power

line easement berm. At times of peak stage, water from Shingle Creek backflows into the

lake. The 30-inch CMP controls this backflow of water into Turkey Lake so that flooding

is not experienced. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of 170 feet west of

Phillips Pond to a low of 90 feet at Shingle Creek. Table 3-23 and Appendix F present the

conveyance elements used to model the stormwater system. The adlCPR computer input

information is contained in Appendix H. A map locating the Turkey Lake Area is shown

in Exhibit 1-3 and Exhibit 3-13. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

Table 3-23 Turkey Lake Stormwater Conveyance Features

Reach Name From Node

CAIN C AIN

CNRYPND CONROY 1

CONROY 1

CSWAMP

HIDDEN LMHIGH

MARSHA

OCPARKl OCPARK2 OCPARK3

PHILLIP

Location

RCAIN RCAINl

RCNROYPN RCONROY 1

RCONROY2

RCSWAMP RCSWAMPl

RHIDDEN RLMHIGH RMARSHA

ROCPARKI ROCPARK2

ROCPARK3

RPHILLIP

No. To of Length Description

Node Pipes (feet) CSWAMP 1 0 100' Weir at 97.5 Overland Flow from Lake Cain

Overland Flow from Lake Cain Conroy Road Culvert

Conroy Road Culvert

Lake Cain Swamp Control Structure

Overland Flow from Hidden Lake Overland Flow from LM High Lake Marsha Control Structure

Overland Flow from Orange Co. Park 1 Overland Flow from Orange Co. Park 2 Overland Flow from Orange Co. Park 3 Overland Flow from Phillips Lake

Table 3-23 Turkey Lake Stormwater Conveyance Features

(Continued)

I Reach Nnm.

Location

I RTURKEY RTURKEY 1

The areas surrounding Turkey Lake historically was defined by emergent palustrine

wetlands, meaning forested areas existed in this vicinity. The remaining portion of the

sub-basin, near Lakes Marsha and Cane, is primarily classified as uplands. Today, most

of these natural areas have been developed into residential communities. Several natural

wetland areas still exist adjacent to Turkey Lake and Lake Cane. The north edge of

Turkey Lake supports lacustrine, littoral, aquatic bed wetlands, which basically means

natural shoreline wetland species can be found in this area. The area east of Lake Cane,

has been named Lake Cane Swamp. This swamp is primarily classified as palustrine,

forested. evergreen, saturated, meaning the areas is an established forested wetland with

evergreen trees. Exhibit 1-7 depicts the historic wetlands in the Shingle Creek Watershed

according to the National Wetland Inventory prepared by the Florida Game & Fresh Water

Fish Commission. Various wetland areas througliout the Shingle Creek Watershed were

investigated for storage potential, treatment efficiency and wetland functionality. The

results of this analysis are presented in Appendix J.

Turkey Lake Control Structure Kirkrnan Turkey Lake Overflow

RTURKY 1

RTURKY l A

RWINDER

RWINDERl

RWINDER;!

RZOCPARK

RZOCPAR

Access Road Culvert Access Road Overtopping

Florida's Turnpike Culvert

Florida's Turnpike Overtopping

Turkey Lake Road Culvert

Turkey Lake Road Overtopping

generated by the 15 contributing areas within the Turkey Lake sub-basin.

Table 3-24 Turkey Lake Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

Basin Name 10-yearl24-hour 25-yearl24-hour 100-yearl24-hou (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) . , . , . ,

CANE 256 307 408 UNIVER-W 158 187 245 -- - - - - -

CNRYPND 37 45 5 9 CONROY 1 30 3 6 46 CSWAMP 185 219 286 HIDDEN 65 82 118 LMHIGH 34 43 59 MARSHA 406 494 673 OCPARKl 32 40 55

PHILLIP TURKEY 1 1,183 I 1,431 1 1,948 TURKY 1 I 22 1 28 I 40 WINDER 1 200 1 239 1 317

located in Exhibit 3-13 and Appendix B.

Turkey Lake Maximum Conditions Node Description Name

CANE * Overland flow from Lake Cane CNRYPND Conroy Road Culvert

CONROY 1 konroy Road Culvert CSWAMP l ~ a k e Cane Swamp Control Structure HIDDEN loverland flow from Hidden Lake LMHIGH loverland flow from LM High MARSHA I Lake Marsha Control Structure OCPARKl Overland flow from Orange Co. Park 1 w

OCPARK~ loverland flow from Orange Co. Park 2 OCPAFX3 loverland flow from orange Co. Park 3 PHILLIP loverland flow from Philips Lake TURKEY l~urkey Lake Control Structure Kirkman Road -

TURKY 1 I Access Road Culvert WINDER Florida's Turn~ike Culvert

ZOCPARK l ~ u r k e ~ Lake ~ o a d Culvert

fecal colifornl. Three of the four lakes within this sub-basin have been sampled for a

sufficiently long enough time to allow conclusions to be drawn. A discussion of these

three lakes, Turkey Lake, Lake Marsha and Lake Cane, in regard to historical trends is

presented. More detailed information concerning water quality can be found in the report * entitled 7Varer Quality Analysis of Shingk Creek Basin.

Turkey Lake Secchi-disk depths begin to increase after 1986, showing an improvement in the clarity of

the water. During 1995 it appears that the data may be moving from the low range into

the normal range. The slope is about one meter per 10 years. Turbidity decreased in both

mean and variance from 1973 through 1980. Concentrations were in both the normal and

low range during this period; after 1980, all data are in the good range.

Conductance and total solids both show a tight pattern, perhaps with very slight increases.

The data for both parameters are located close to the low to normal delineation line.

Dissolved oxygen data show the expected high values. Low values were observed during

the second half of the 1980s. Biochemical oxygen demand data show no trend. The

majority of the values are in the low and normal ranges, with a few data points in the high

range throughout the data period.

Total nitrogen shows an apparent decrease between 1973 and the present; the slope appears

to be about 0.5 mg/L over 20 years. Concentrations since 1992 are mostly in the low or

good range. Total phosphorus shows no trend although a spike of high values are present

at the beginning of 1986. Concentrations are predominantly in the low range.

Chlorophyll-A shows several spikes but no trends. Concentrations during the 1970s were

highly scattered across the three ranges. Since 1985 concentrations have been mostly in

the low range. Fecal coliform values are low and mostly in the low range except for some

larger values in 1975. These data are presented graphically in Exhibit 3-14.

Lake Marsha Secchi-disk depth data show a general decline from about 1975 through 1986 with

stabilization occurring in 1986. Since 1986, the data are scattered about the delineation

line of the high and normal range. Turbidity values are in the low range and show no

trend.

Conductance and total solids data track each other. They have compact patterns with no

trend through 1985 and then an increase from 1985 through 1995. Slope for conductance

is about 75 microsiemens/cm over 10 years; for solids the slope is about 65 mg/L over 10

years. Both parameters appear to be leaving the low range and entering the normal range.

Dissolved oxygen has a fairly tight data pattern except for some low values in 1984, 1987

through 1988, and 1994. Biochemical oxygen demand is in the low range until about 1987

then an increase occurs, giving the data a higher variability from 1987 through 1994.

Total nitrogen shows no trend. Most of the data lie in the low range. Increased values are

present in 1981, 1984, and 1989 to 1990. A tight pattern is present since 1990. Total

phosphorus values are in the low range with no trend present. A few outliers (high values)

appear in 1988 and 1989.

( Secchi-Disk Depth 1

Date, in years

1 Turbidity I

1/1/80 1/1/85

Date, in years

a/ 7 1 Date, in years

Exhibit 3-1 4 ' - Time data for Turkey Lake

Date, in years

1 8- E - C -- 6 c' - al

Date, in years

. a I # t .. . . . I * . . .. . . . . : = = I I .

Dissolved Oxygen . - 0 g 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I l l 1

Date, in years

@! 7 1 Date, in years

Exhibit 3-1 4 (cont.) - Time data for Turkey Lake

[Nitrogen]

5 Date, in years

Date, in years

Exhibit 3-1 4 (cant.) - Time data for Turkey Lake

MAIN ~ ~ J A S I N

Chlorophyll-A and fecal coliform have low-values and tight patterns with no trends. For

chlorophyll-A, spikes are present in 1981 and 1989; for fecal coliform increased values are

evident in 1988 and 1989. These data are presented graphically in Exhibit 3-15.

Lake Cane Secchi-disk depth and turbidity show some variance with a slight trend. Secchi-disk depth

values were in the normal range through 1983 then dropped during the second half of the

1980s. Between 1992 and 1995, the depths were increasing indicating that the clarity of

the lake's water is improving. Turbidity values have been almost wholly in the low range

throughout the period of data collection.

Conductance and total solids both show well defined increasing patterns from 1970 to

1995. Slope for conductance is 75 microsiemens/cm over 20 years; slope for total solids is

55 mg/L over 20 years. Both parameters are moving from the low range into the normal

range.

Dissolved oxygen has a low variance except for the years 1981 through 1987 when

concentrations in the normal and low range were observed. A majority of the biochemical

oxygen demand data for the collection period are in the low range with some data in the

normal range and high range during 1985 to 1989. The biochemical oxygen demand data

have a low variance except for the years 1985 through 1989. No trend is apparent.

Total nitrogen and total phosphorus show no trends, although total nitrogen exhibits spikes

in 1981 and 1984. The majority of the data for both parameters is in the low ranges.

Chlorophyll-A and fecal coliform show no trends. Both parameters have a majority of data

in the low ranges. Fecal coliform is generally very low although some high values occur

about 1984. These data are presented graphically in Exhibit 3-16.

10 . . 9 . . . 9 ..= .. .. . . . . .

I l l 8 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I i

I ,. i f i f f 0 1/1/75 1 11 180 1/1/85 1/1/90 1/1/95

Date, in years

i Date, in years I I I

.E 3 0 0 ~ : g ; 5 200- I C -

! $ 100- . . .a. I . . . . :h . - 1 . . a . ' . . . * I I 0 I

' 0 0 1

L I I 1 I I I I I l l s I I I I

I I I I I

1/1/70 1/1/75 1/1/80 1/1/85 111190 1/1/95 1 i

Date, in years I i

1 I 250

, i I - I I g 200-

! ! E - I

I .-C 150 I I .

a - . .* I 1 0

1 100 - - rg\==\*:* . - ;;*. %U ' I V) 2. . I I i - .. , g 50- . ' * . I # . = #: 8 *a .

:.r.. . I - . . I . . I I *: a .

i 1 I- i . I

0 1 1 1 1 ( ~ 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1

1/1/80 1/1/85 1/1/90 1/1/95 I mno 1 1 m I i a,,.,.,,,,,. Date, in years i

Exhibit 3-1 5 - Time data for Lake Marsha

i - 10-1

. I i .

I I . - . d m # r . ..: " ' .. . . . . . I . 1 . - . . * ' . . . I .. +:I *+ -*:.. * . - . , .

1 . . . .* .

Dissolved Oxygen .

I Date, in years

1/1/80 1/1/85

Date, in years

, ,,,.,,,,,I Date, in years I I

Exhibit 3-1 5 (cant) - Time data for Lake Marsha

- I r 2- .- c

al I W

0 4 1-

2 , - m - - t o ; F o I

1/1/70 1/1/75 111 180 1/1/85 1/1/90 I

1 1/1/95 1 i I Date, in years I I I

. . , . # . -7- . = : I + -...:-., . . . 8 .:J.-

* -. . . I . . =.- : ., = a .

i 1 I i , , I , 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 I I 1

I , I I

0 Date, in years

Ll. Date, in years / I Lake Marsha I

Ex hibit 3-1 5 (cont.) - Time data for Lake Marsha

10 - E? Secchi-Disk Depth 2 8- z - .E 6 -

Date, in years

Exhibit 3-1 6 - Time data for Lake Cane

10-1 I

I * - - . .. I . - . . * - 8-

. I . . . = . f . 0 . , 0 .

c r ..I. - - I . . . - 9 . *'I I. ... . . . - - .

c- 6 0) - . - . . .

. P 2- 7 1 P - 0

. z 0 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I

, , I t I I I I " 1/1/70 1/1/75 . 1/1/80 111 185 1/1/90 111195

Date, in years

$ E 6- C .- . n 4- 0 . . .

2- . 1 . - a ... 9 - * . . . > . - = : @I .- , , . . ..:I - . :, I ) . := = * . .. * . . * * 0 I l 1 1 ) 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 I I I I l l l l i

Date, in years i i

Date, in years

el pixF, Date, in years

Exhibit 3-1 6 (cont.) - Time data for Lake Cane

1/1/80 1/1/85

Date, in years

Exhibit 3-1 6 (cont.) - Time data for Lake Cane

MAIN SUB-BASIN~J~SC~

p WATER

w WETLAND

g( WEIR

CULVERT

FLOW DIRECTION

I BRIDGE

1500' 75Q' 0

Average Site Values for 1990-95 Average values for the lakes within the Turkey Lake sub-basin, based on data from 1990

through 1995, are shown in Table 3-26. Values that exceed the median site value (50%

exceedance) for statewide data are shaded.

Table 3-26 Turkey Lake Average Site Values for 1990-1995

Statewide Lake Values 0.80 5.00 188.00 1 8.00 1.70 0.07 1.40

County Lake Sites

Turkey Lake 1.80 1.47 103.56 138.75 8.08 1.46 0.016 0.65 5.02 8.74

Lake Cain 3.00 1.92 100.75 159.95 8.07 1.64 00.015 0.52 5.92 22.14

Lake Marsha 4.14 00.65 82.04 124.28 7.83 1.50 0.008 0.45 3.16 6.20

I City Lake Sites I

Only two parameter values for the three lakes exceed the median of the statewide data.

They are dissolved oxygen for Lake Marsha and fecal coliform for Lake Cane. None of

the average values for Turkey Lake exceed the median value for the statewide data.

Turkey Lake I 1.84 I I 98.40 1 145.01 1

The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced from the Turkey

Lake sub-basin are presented in Table 3-27. The last column in the table is the rank of this

sub-basin among the 15 sub-basins.

1 0.023 1 0.69 1 4.37 1 4.73 I

Table 3-27 Turkey Lake Water Quality Loadings

Parameter

Nitrogen

This sub-basin ranks very high among the 15 sub-basins, second for nitrogen, phosphorus,

- Phosphorus Total Solids BOD Lead Zinc

solids, BOD, and zinc, and third for lead.

Load (kg)

Quantity The water quantity model predicted no major flooding problems within the Turkey Lake

sub-basin. Neither structure nor house flooding was predicted to occur during the 100-

yearl24-hour storm event. Additionally, no County-maintained roadways were inundated

during the 25-yearl24-hour storm event. It should be note, however, that waterbodies

within this area have experienced recovery problems in the recent past.

754 111,891 14,730

130 107

Quality Based on the analysis of estimated pollutant loads, no overall problems within the sub-

basin were identified. Lakes within this sub-basin also appear to be free of water quality

problems.

Unit Load (kglacre)

The Turkey Lake Area has relatively minor and routine maintenance issues. Improvements

Ranking

2 0.189

28.0 3.68 0.033 0.027

2 2 2 3 2

A regular inspection and maintenance schedule should be defined to ensure the continued

operation of Orange County facilities. Within this sub-basin the following locations should

be included: Kirkrnan Road, Lake Cane control structure and Lake Marsha control

structure. The Lake Cane Swamp outfall should be investigated for debris and excessive

growth. The piping system between Lake Marsha and Lake Cane Swamp should be

cleared of any sediment build-up. Given the small size of the culvert under the access

road, the culvert should be cleaned and checked for structural stability on a regular basis.

All control structures and piping systems should be inspected annually.

The Lake Cane Swamp is surrounded by developments and a majority of the stormwater

generated by this sub-basin must pass through the swamp. Currently, plant species which

are not tolerant of constant high water levels are threatened. Attention is necessary either

to control the water level at various levels or to plant new water tolerant species.

Water quality does not appear to be a significant problem within this sub-basin. As this is

the case, it is recommended that a combination of the non-structural best management

practices listed in Section 2.5 of this report be used to ensure the continued protection of

the lakes, ponds and creeks within this sub-basin.

3.4 Lake Tyler The Lake Tyler Group is located in the northeast portion of the Shingle Creek Watershed

south of the Lake Fran sub-basin. The Lake Tyler sub-basin contains 51 contributing areas

and covers 3,252 acres (5.1 square miles) or 6.3 percent of the total watershed as

summarized in Appendix A. Lakes Tyler, Catherine and Buchanan constitute the

headwaters of this sub-basin. The group ultimately discharges into Shingle Creek via the

Americana Canal (also called Lake Tyler Canal). In addition to Lake Tyler, Lake

Catherine and Lake Buchanan, the Interstate 4 Pond (borrow pit) is also a significant lake

within this group. The following major developments contribute stormwater runoff to the

Lake Tyler system: Winter Run, South Point, Park Central, Buchanan Bay, Americana

Plaza, Oak Hill Manor, Orange Blossom Terrace, Angebilt, Lyme Bay Colony, Alhambra

Club, Dunwoodie Place, Tymber Scan, Lake Catherine Gardens, Woodhaven and Orange

County's 33rd Street Complex. The border of the Lake Tyler group is presented in

Exhibit 3-17.

effort. The information gathered becomes the basis for all the analyses and

recommendations. The following sections outline the data sources and summarize their

content.

Hydrological Data Orange County records monthly lake levels on Lake Tyler. Lake levels were recorded

sporadically for Lakes Buchanan and Catherine between 1960 and 1982, however, recent

water levels have not been recorded by Orange County. All the lakes are within Orange

County therefore the City of Orlando does not maintain any records for them.

normal high water elevation for Lake Tyler in October, 1982. The maximum recorded

stage on Lake Tyler is 94.98 and occurred in April 1993. The Orange County Engineering

Department's 100-year design storm elevation is 96.50. Lake Tyler is controlled by a weir

which discharges into the Americana Canal.

normal high water elevation for Lake Catherine in January, 1983. The maximum recorded

stage on Lake Catherine is 93.48 and occurred in August 1960. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency's 100-year design storm elevation is 93.80. Lake Catherine is

controlled by a drainwell and overland flow to the Americana Canal via a series of pipe

and ditch sections.

normal high water elevation for Lake Buchanan in November, 1982. The maximum

recorded stage on Lake Buchanan is 93.05 and occurred in October 1978. The Orange

County Engineering Department's 100-year design storm elevation is 95.0. I A e

Buchanan is controlled by a drainwell, overland flow and a weir. The latter two discharge

into the Americana Canal via a series of pipe and ditch sections.

Information related to the historic characteristics of the Interstate 4 Pond is scarce,

therefore the 100-year elevation and the maximum recorded stage were unavailable.

Development Reports and Plans Drainage information and development plans were obtained from a variety of sources for

the Lake Tyler group for the time period through October 1996. The information

consisted of roadway construction plans, development plans, stormwater studies and "as-

built" drawings. A complete listing of the sources referenced during the process of

completing this study can be found in the Bibliography at the conclusion of this report.

Construction plans for Americana Boulevard and John Young Parkway were obtained from

Orange County. These plans contain culvert information and overtopping elevations for

the roadways. The reports associated with the construction of John Young Parkway were

also reviewed. Information related to culvert sizes at adjacent streets and canal cross-

sections was obtained from these reports. The new location of the Americana Canal was

obtained from "Geotechnical Services: Canal Relocation, Proposed Extension of John Young Parkway Extension, Orange County, Florida" report prepared by Jarnmal &

Associates.

The "Orange County Public Works Complex: Stormwater Management Alternative

Designs, " prepared for Orange County by DRMP, Inc. in September 1988 was used to

model a portion of the area. The "Application for Stormwater Permit Orlando Utilities

Commission Operations Center - Gardenia Avenue," prepared by Ivey, Harris & Walls in

July 1992 was used to model a majority of the Interstate 4 Pond. The adICPR model @ developed for the Orlando Utilities Commission was entered directly into the Shingle

Creek model to provide the most accurate simulation of this area. All of the basins and

reaches used to model this area are not shown on the exhibits. However, a complete

listing of the model input can be found in Appendix H.

The Park Central subdivision was modeled in its entirety, The "Park Central:

Texas/Holden Multi-Family Infrastructure for the Master Stormwater Systemr' study

prepared by Donald W. McIntosh Associates was obtained from Orange County. The

adICPR computer model from this study was entered directly into the Shingle Creek

simulation in order to provide a more accurate representation of this area. All of the

basins and reaches used to model this area are not shown on the exhibits. A complete

listing of the model input can be found in Appendix H.

A significant portion of the information used for the Lake Catherine and Lake Buchanan

area was taken from the "Lake Holden Report" prepared by Singhofen & Associates in

1996. The adICPR computer input from this study was entered directly into the Shingle

I ) Creek simulation in order to provide a more accurate representation of this area. A

complete listing of the model input can be found in Appendix H. The "Lake Catherine and

Lake Buchanan Drainage Outfall Project: Final Engineering Report" prepared by

Professional Engineering Consultants in December 1990 was used as back-up information

for the "Lake Holden Report".

The Orange County Building, Lands and Facilities Manual 80-01 dated November 1, 1980

and the Orange County Lake Index were reviewed to determine the location and size of

any drainwells within the watershed. Lake Catherine has three drainwells. One is located

west of Bartwater Lane in Tymber Scan apartment complex. The drainwell is 8 inches in

size, extends to a depth of 350 feet and is encased for 150 feet. The second drainwell is

located 200 yards southwest of the prison farm radio antenna south of 33rd Street and is 14

inches in diameter, extends to a depth of 777 feet and is encased for 263 feet. The final

drainwell is 8 inches in size, 350 feet deep and encased for 150 feet. This well is located

north of the Tymber Scan clubhouse. Two drainwells are located near Interstate 4 and the

Interstate 4 Pond. The sizes of these drainwells are 12 inches and 8 inches. A drainwell is

also used in association with the Lake Buchanan drainage system. At Orange County's

request drainwells were omitted from the modeling effort to depict a worst-case condition

of drainwell failure. The presence of the drainwells is incorporated into the model through

the starting water level.

investigation.

Water Quality Data Only one lake within this sub-basin has long term data, Lake Catherine. Data for this lake

were collected by Orange County during two separate periods, 1967 to 1977 and 1994 to

The Lake Tyler group is the sixth largest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek Watershed.

It contains four of the larger lakes in the watershed: Lake Tyler, Lake Catherine, Lake

Buchanan and Interstate 4 Pond. The area is primarily composed of residential

developments and open land. The sub-basin is made up of 51 contributing areas ranging in

size from 1 to 771 acres as depicted in Table 3-28 and Exhibit 1-4.

Table 3-28 Lake Tyler Contributing Areas

AMER 3.3 92 10 0.1 BUCH 49.3 98 10 1.5 BUCH 201.8 90 53 6.2 CATH 83.2 97 10 2.6 CATH 771.2 87 85 23.7 CFP 6.7 94 10 0.2 14-POND 1 18.9 93 14 0.6 14-POND 1 7.3 92 30 0.2 14-POND3 1.3 93 8 0.0 14-POND5 3.4 92 23 0.1 14-POND7 2.2 92 13 0.1 14-POND8 0.2 92 10 0.0 I4POND 56.7 93 10 1.7 I4POND 194.0 7 1 398 6.0 JYP 10.1 93 10 0.3 JYP 73.6 95 47 2.3 OAKHILL 162.8 74 24 5.0

OCSTM1 20.8 95 10 0.6

Table 3-28 (Contimed)

Sub-Basin 1 Area I Curve I Time of 1 Percent Name (acre) Number Concentration (%)

PARK- 1 1 1.8 88 8 0.1 I I I I

PARK- 12 0.5 I 89 8 0.0 I I I I

PARK- 14 2.7 1 89 8 0.1

I I 1 I

PARK-DEP 23.2 1 77 150 I 0.7

PARK-PC2 2.0 9 1 3 1 0.1

PARK340A 26.5 91 14 0.8

PARKPC26 0.8 9 1 8 0.0

PIT 1 27.8 98 10 0.9

PIT 1 80.0 85 5 1 2.5

SOUTHPT 157.5 68 183 4.8 I I I I

TYLER 93.0 1 8 1 45 I 2.9

Table 3-28 (Continued)

Sub-Basin I Area 1 Curve 1 Time of I Percent 1 Name

This area is characterized by four large lake systems and two extensive canal systems. The

first major lake and canal system is Lake Tyler and its outfall to Shingle Creek, commonly

known as the Americana Canal. Lake Tyler outfalls through a 60-inch RCP drop structure

which crosses under Americana Boulevard. After Americana Boulevard, the canal

continues for 1,900 feet where it flows through an 84-inch RCP under Rio Grande Avenue.

From Rio Grande Avenue, the channel flows an additional 1,900 feet until it crosses under

Texas Avenue through an 80-inch RCP. On the west side of Texas Avenue, the flow turns

south for 1,000 feet and then west for an additional 2,300 feet. At this point, Americana

Canal flows under John Young Parkway through a 12 foot by 8 foot concrete box culvert.

The canal continues directly west for an additional 7,200 feet before discharging into

Shingle Creek.

WNTR-R

ZTYLER

Lake Buchanan discharges to the west through a weir into a wetland area located east of

John Young Parkway. Lake Catherine flows into this same wetland by overland flow.

From this eastern wetland, the water flows under John Young Parkway to another wetland

(referred to as Lake Dale) located west of John Young Parkway. From Lake Dale the

water flows south crossing under Americana Boulevard before it joins with the Americana

Canal 2,000 feet west of John Young Parkway. This combined lake system was modeled

using multiple hydrographs and reach information taken from the Orange County Lake

(acre) 48.6

3,252.2

Number 97

Concentration 10

(%) 1.5

Holden Report (1996). The details of the Lake Holden Report are not included in this

report. The nodal diagrams used to describe this area are intended to show the macro

picture. The large Interstate 4 Pond west of the Orange County Public Works Complex is also included in this sub-basin. The pond outfalls southward to Shingle Creek through a

15-inch CMP drop structure. The upstream area is modeled using information obtained

from the "Orange County Public Works Complex: Stormwater Management Alternative Designs" prepared by DRMP, Inc. in 1988. As with the Lake Catherine and Buchanan

areas, this area is modeled using multiple hydrographs and reaches not shown on the nodal

diagram. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of 105 feet north of Lake

Catherine to a low of 80 feet at Shingle Creek. Table 3-29 and Appendix F present the

conveyance elements used to model the stormwater system. The adICPR computer input

information is contained in Appendix H. A map locating the Lake Tyler Area is shown in

Exhibit 1-3. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in Exhibit 3-17 and Appendix B.

Table 3-29 Lake Tyler Stormwater Conveyance Features

Reach Name Location From I Node To

14-POND7 14-POND8 14-POND7 14-POND1 . 14POND 14-POND5 14-POND7

SEC4 1 SEC4 1

14-POND7 PARK-I I

PARK-PC2 PARKPC26

PARK400 PARK3

PARK-I 1 PARK-I2 PARK-14 PARK-20

Pipes 1 I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Length (feet)

30 30 30 1 09 0 0

400 68 72 144 245 1139

110 105 770 356

Description

12" RCP 12" RCP 12" RCP 15" RCP

200' Weir at 94.0 20' Weir at 94.8

18" RCP 100' Weir at 95.8

18" RCP 30" RCP 48" RCP

54" RCP 30" RCP -

D/S 18" RCP w/ 10' Weir at 92.5

24" RCP 42" RCP 42" RCP 36" RCP 30" RCP

(Continued)

Reach Name

RPARK-3 RPARK-C2 RPARKl 1 A

RPARK2OO

RPAWOO

RPARK400

RPARKSOO

RPARK600

RPARK700

RPARK7IO

RPARKPC2

RPARPC23

RPARPC26

RPARPC2A

AMERWEIR

BUCHWEIR

CFPDROP

DROPBUCH

OCSTMI

OCSTM2

PIT1 WEIR

RAMER2

RDALEZ

ROAKHILL

RSOUTHPT

RTYLERI

RTYLER2

RTZ-4 1

RTZ-43

RTZ-44

RTZ-44A

RTZ-45

RTZ-46

RTZ-46W

RTZ-47

RWNTR-R

Location

Park Central Park Central

Park Central

Americana Boulevard Overtopping

Lake Buchanan Control Structure John Young Parkway

Lake Buchanan Control Structure

Orange County Facility Orange County Facility

Overland Flow from Bomw Pit

Swale along Americana Boulevard

Culvert along Americana Boulevard

Americana Boulevard Culvert

John Young Parkway Culvert ---- Lake Tyler Canal

Lake Tyler Control Structure

Lake Tyler Canal

South Texas Avenue Culvert

South Texas Aveune Overtopping

Lake Tyler Canal

Rio Grande Culvert

Rio GrandeOGrtopping

Lake Tyler Canal

From Node

PARK4 PARK-PC2

PARK-I IA

PARK-200

PARK300

PARK400

PARK-500

PARK-600

PARK-700

PARK-710

PARK-PC2

PARK-PC23

PARKPC26

PARK-PC2 AMEM

OCSTM 1

OCSTM2

OAKHILL

SOUTHPT

TZ-4 1

TZ-43 TZ-44

TZ-47 WNTR-R

To No. Length Description

Node (feet) pipes

PARK-400 1 120 18" RCP PARK-200 1 815 54" RCP

PARK-] I 1 60 48" RCP PARK-PC2 1 203 24" RCP

PARK-PC2 1 294 54" RCP

WET1 1 285 DIS 18" RCP w12' Weir at 91.5 PARK-12 1 292 42" RCP PARK-20 1 155 DIS 18" RCP w12' Weir at 93.18 PARK-24 1 88 30" RCP PARK-700 1 112 30" RCP PARK300 1 535 54" RCP PARK-320 1 88 30" RCP

PARK-PC23 1 98 30" RCP PARK340B I 68 54" RCP

DALEZ I 0 30' Weir at 94.5

WET1 1 0 30' Weir at 95.1

JYP 1 285 DIS 18" RCP w12' Weir at 91.5 WET1 1 56 DIS 15" RCP w/ 1.3' Weir at 94.91 JYP 1 850 DIS 18" RCP w14' Weir at 93.89

JYP I 52 DIS 18" RCP w12' Weir at 94.69

WET3A 1 0 30' Weir at 92.0

AMER2 1 470 Irregular Channel Section DALEZ I 40 36" RCP

WNTR-R 2 60 60" RCP

TZ-43 144" x 96" CBC OAKHILL 1 3300 Irregular Channel Section ZTYLER I 0 28' Weir at 93.43

ZTYLER 1 0 32' Weir at 93.93

SEC39 1 5200 Irregular Channel Section

TZ-4 1 1 2000 Irregular Channel Section

SOUTHPT 1 190 84" RCP

SOUTHPT 1 0 100' Weir at 95.0

TZ-44 1 1900 Irregular Channel Section

TZ-45 1 72 84" RCP

TZ-45 1 0 200' Irregular Weir at 92.85

(Continued)

Reach Name

RZTYLER RZTYLERW

STMl WR

STM2WR

WEIRCATH

WElRJYP WElRJYPl

WETlPIPE

WETZPIPE

WET2WElR WET3ACH

WET3AWR

WET3BCH

WET3BWR

WET4ACH

WET4AWR

WET4BCH

Americana Boulevard Culvert ZTYLER TZ-47 Americana Boulevard Culvert ZTYLER TZ-47

Orange Countv Facility OCSTM I JYP - Orange County Facility OCSTM2 JYP Lake Catherine Control Structure CATH WETI Lake Buchanan Area JYP WET1

Lake Buchanan Area JYP WETI Lake Buchanan Area WET1 PlTl

Lake Buchanan Area WET2 WET4B

Lake Buchanan Area WET2 WET4B Lake Buchanan Area WET3A WET3B

Lake Buchanan Area WET3B AMER Lake Buchanan Area WET3B WET4A

Lake Buchanan Area WET3B WET4A

Lake Buchanan Area WET4A WET4B

Lake Buchanan Area WET4B AMER

60" RCP 100' Weir at 93.09

I 0 30' Weir at 97.2 I 0 30' Weir at 97.6

1 0 50' Weir at 91.5 1 0 V-Notch at 9 1.5

I 0 126' Weir at 91.9

2 280 60" x 38" ERCP

1 220 18" RCP

1 0 30' Weir at 96.0 1 350 Irregular Channel Section

1 0 30' Weir at 93.7

1 350 Irregular Channel Section 1 0 50' Weir at 92.3

1 558 Irregular Channel Section

I 0 30' Weir at 92.3 1 742 Irregular Channel Section

The majority of the area within the Lake Tyler group is classified as either uplands or forested wetlands. The areas surrounding Lake Tyler and Lake Buchanan are also entirely considered uplands. The northern side of Lake Catherine historically was defined by emergent palustrine wetlands, meaning forested areas existed in this vicinity. Today, most of these natural areas have been developed into residential communities. One wetland area

still exists in the Lake Tyler sub-basin. This wetland is an old borrow pit on the west side of John Young Parkway north of Americana Boulevard. This wetland contains open water, palustrine-emergent and palustrine-scrub, shrub-broad leaved-evergreen. This

implies a forested wetland with some areas established with broad leaved evergreen species. Exhibit 1-7 depicts the historic wetlands in the Shingle Creek Watershed according to the National Wetland Inventory prepared by the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission. Various wetland areas throughout the Shingle Creek Watershed were investigated for storage potential, treatment efficiency and wetland functionality. The

results of this analysis are presented in Appendix J.

Advanced Interconnected Channel Pond Routing (adICPR Version. 2.02) was used to

generated by the 51 contributing areas within the Lake Tyler sub-basin.

Table 3-30 Lake Tyler Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

Basin Name 10-yearl24-hour 25-yearl24-hour 100-yearl24-hour (cfs) (cfs) (cfd

PARK- 1 1 3 3 4 PARK12 1 1 1 PARK14 4 5 6 PARK20 3 3 4 PARK200 16 19 23 PARK220 2 2 3 PARK24 2 2 3 PARK3 2 2 2 PARK710 5 6 7 PARK300 13 15 18 PARK320 14 16 20 PARK400A 12 13 17 PARK500 23 27 3 3 PARK600 24 27 34 PARK700 4 5 6 PARKOFFS 21 25 33 PARKPC2 3 3 4 PARK340 40 45 57 PA-PC26 1 1 2

Table 3-30 Lake Tyler Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

(Continued)

Basin Name

14- 1 14-2 14-3 14-5 14-7 14-8 I4POND I-4PONDA OUC-4 AMER BUCH BUCHBSN CATH CATHBAS CFP JYP

100-yearl24-hour (cf9 41 16 3 7 5 0

123 156 443

7 108 413 183

1438 15 22

10-yearl24-hour (cfd 29 11 2 5 3 0

78 288 131 986

JYPBSN OAKHILL OCSTM1 OCSTM2 PIT 1 PITlBSN SOUTHPT TYLER TZ-45 TZ-47 WET1 WET2 WET3 WET4 WINRUN ZTYLER

25-yearl24-hour (cfd 3 3 13 2 6 4 0

99 115 355

330 148

1137 12 18

11 1 187 32 23 44

108 106 118 279 203 76 45 28 8

182 1 64

126 222 37 26 50

125 130 138 327 237 86 5 1 32 10

215 191

156 293 45 32 6 1

158 177 177 422 305 107 - 63 40 12

28 1 247

located in Exhibit 3-17.

Flood profiles have also been prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed. The Americana

Canal flood profile is presented in Appendix K and is also available in both mylar and

electronic format from the Orange County Stormwater Management Department.

fecal coliform. Only one of the four lakes within this sub-basin has been sampled for a

sufficiently long enough time to allow conclusions to be drawn. A discussion of this lake,

Lake Catherine, in regard to historical trends is presented. More detailed information

concerning water quality can be found in the report entitled "Water Quality Analysis of Shingle Creek Basin. "

Lake Catherine As this lake has only been sampled sporadically in the past, trend detection is

inappropriate, but comments can be made about the relationship between the 1970s data

and the 1990s data. The large variance of data for most parameters during the early 1370s

is of particular significance.

Lake Tyler Maximum Conditions Node Description 10-yearl24-hour Name Stage Flow

AMER Swale along Americana Boulevard 93.3 27 AMER2 Americana Boulevard Overtopping 93.2 27 BUCH Lake Buchanan Control Structure 95.2 5 CATH Lake Cathrine Control Structure 93.8 257 CFP John Young Parkway 93.8 5

DALEZ Americana Boulevard Culvert 92.5 199 14-POND 1 1-4 Pond Area South of Orange County Complex 97.3 13 14-POND3 1-4 Pond Area South of Orange County Complex 97.3 2 14-POND5 1-4 Pond Area South of Orange County Complex 96.2 97 14-POND7 1-4 Pond Area South of Orange County Complex 96.4 101 14-POND8 1-4 Pond Area South of Orange County Complex 96.4 5 I4POND 1-4 Pond Area South of Orange County Complex 96.1 76

JYP Lake Buchanan Area 93.8 139 OAKHILL John Young Parkway Culvert OCSTM 1 Orange County Facility OCSTM2 Orange County Facility

OUC-4 Interstate 4 Culvert -

PARK-1 1 ** l ~ a r k Central - -

I PARK-1 1A ** IPark Central 1 94.6 1 -6 PARK-12 ** Park Central PARK-14 ** Park Central PARK-20 ** Park Central PARK-200 ** Park Central 95.0 PARK-220 Park Central 93.7 PARK-24 ** l ~ a r k Central 1 94.5 1 -14 PARK3 Park Central

PARK-300 * Park Central PARK-320 Park Central

PARK-400 Park Central 95.0 * Flows Updated due to Instabilities in the Model ** Decreasing Flows with Higher Frequency Storms or Negative Flows due to

Stage I Flow

Lake Tyler Maximum Conditions 10-yearl24-hour Stage I Flow

Description

Park Central

25-yearl24-hour 100-yearl24-hour Stage Flow Stage Flow 95.1 20 95.7 23 95.4 4 96.1 3 95 .O -17 95.7 -20 95.0 -8 95.7 -10 94.8 -7 95.4 -8 95.2 86 95.7 86

Node Name

PARK500 Park Central Park Central Park Central Park Central Park Central Park Central Park Central

PARK-710 ** PARK-DEP ** PARK-PC2 PARK340A PARK340B ** PARKPC23 ** PARKPC26 **

Park Central Park Central

PIT 1 SOUTHPT

Overland flow from Borrow Pit Lake Tvler Canal ! <

Lake Tvler Control Structure TYLER TZ-4 1 Lake Tyler Canal

Lake Tyler Canal Chancellor Drive Culvert Lake Tvler Canal s o drande Culvert Lake Tyler Canal Lake Buchanan Area Lake Buchanan Area Lake Buchanan Area Lake Buchanan Area Lake Buchanan Area Lake Buchanan Area

WNTR-R ZTYLER *

Secchi-disk depth seems to have decreased rapidly in the early 1970s; but the apparent

decrease may be due to limited data. By 1973 the depths were in the low, or poor range,

and the data for 1994 and 1995 are in the same range. Turbidity was in the high, or poor

range, from 1970 to 1975. Starting in 1975 the values are in the low and normal range.

Data from 1994 and 1995 cover the low and normal range with two observations in the

high range.

Conductance and total solids did not change significantly between the two data-collection

periods, but the scatter of the data for both parameters is large during the period 1970 to

1975. For the most part, the data for the two parameters are in the normal range.

For dissolved oxygen, the scatter is also greater during the first data period; low dissolved

oxygen values do not appear during the 1990s data period. For biochemical oxygen

demand, the scatter is slightly larger for the first data period than for the second. Data

during the 1990s covers the low, normal, and high ranges.

Nitrogen and phosphorus show significant decreases from the first data period to the

second; this is consistent with the characteristics of the other parameters. In the latter

period, nitrogen concentrations were observed in the low and normal ranges; phosphorus

data concentrations appear in all three ranges.

No changes in values or scatter can be observed for chlorophyll-A or fecal coliform. One

reason for no apparent change is the lack of.sufficient samples during the second data

period. These data are presented graphically in Exhibit 3-18.

Average Site Values for 1990-95 Average values for Lake Catherine on data from 1990 through 1995 are shown in

Table 3-32. Only two parameters for Lake Catherine have an average value in exceedance

of the median value for lakes state wide - biochemical oxygen demand and fecal coliform.

For BOD, the average value for the lake is 2.36 mg/L, while the statewide value is 1.7

mg/L. Fecal coliform in the lake averages 43 MPN/100 mL, while the median statewide

value is 9 MPNI100 mL.

Secchi-Disk Depth

Date, in years I

Date, in years

o ; I ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ I I ~ ~ 1 , ~ ~ 6 1 1 ~ t 1 1 1 !

I mno 1/1/75 1/1/80 1111a5 1/1/90 1/1/95

I Date, in years

Date, in years Lake Catherine

Exhibit 3-1 8 - Time data for Lake Catherine

Date, in years

1/1/80 1/1/85

Date, in years

.I Date, in years I Lake Catherine -

Exhibit 3-1 8 (cont.) - Time data for Lake Catherine

- L al - 80- E -

60- \ - 1 4 0 - c - ! .- 4 20-8 I- . = . = - . . > -. .. " ': .m

r ' I P- 0 I l l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I

2 g 1/1/70 1/1/75 1/1/80 1/1/85 1/1/90 111 195 0

Date, in years

Fecal Coliform 1

L i Date, in years

Lake Catherine

Exhibit 3-1 8 (cont.) - Time data for Lake Catherine

Table 3-32 Lake Tyler Average Site Values for 1990-1995

SDD Turb TSolids Cond DO BOD T Phos T Nitro Chlor-A F Col (meters) (NTU) (m*) (uSIcm) (mg/L) (m@) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mgku m) (MPN1100 mL)

Statewide Lake Values 0.80 5.00 188.00 8.00 1.70 0.07 1.40 18.50 9.00

County Lake Sites Lake Catherine 1 1.24 1 4.50 1 140.00 1 176.69 1 8.10 1 236 1 0.060 1 0.89 1 11.29 1 43.14

The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced in the Lake Tyler

Table 3-33 Lake Tyler Water Quality Loadings

Parameter Load Unit Load Ranking (kg) (kglacre)

Nitrogen 6.849 2.10 12 U

Phosphorus 1,075 0.329 13 Total Solids 185,104 56.6 10 BOD 25,533 7.81 10 Lead 298 0.091 9 Zinc 212 0.065 9

For all constituents, Tyler sub-basin ranked in the lower half of all sub-basins. For the

nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus the unit load is near the largest, 12th and 13th

respectively, out of 15 sub-basins.

Quantity The water quantity model predicted no major flooding problems within the Lake Tyler sub-

basin. Neither structure nor house flooding was predicted during the 100-yearl24-hour

storm event. Additionally, no County-maintained roadways were inundated during the 25-

yearl24-hour storm event.

Quality Based on the analysis of estimated pollutant loads, the Lake Tyler sub-basin has a

summation of 63, indicating a sub-basin wide problem. Lake Catherine was the only lake

within this sub-basin which had water quality data available. The analysis of these data

indicate that Lake Catherine is free of water quality problems. However, neither Lake

Tyler nor Lake Buchanan could be analyzed due to the lack of data.

Proposed Improvements

The Lake Tyler Area has relatively minor and routine maintenance issues. Improvements

A regular inspection and maintenance schedule should be developed and implemented to

ensure the continued operation of Orange County facilities. Within this sub-basin, the

following locations should be included: culverts under Americana Boulevard, Rio Grande

Avenue, Texas Avenue and John Young Parkway. Additionally, the outfall from Lake

Tyler should be examined for debris and excessive growth. The Americana Canal should

also have sediment and debris cleared on a regular basis.

The outfall structures from both Lakes Catherine and Buchanan require further study.

Currently, water flows overland from Lake Catherine before discharging through the

control structure. A system needs to be in place that will limit erosion from the overland

flow but still allow flood control for Lake Catherine and provide water to the wetland area.

During high water conditions (elevation 94), these two lakes act as one with the wetland

connecting the two. The wetland located west of John Young Parkway and north of

Americana Boulevard could be utilized to a greater extent. The flood protection, water

quality and ecological aspects of this wetland are marginal, and action should be taken to

maximize its potential. All controls structures, piping systems and channels should be

inspected annually.

A portion of the developments within this sub-basin lack any stormwater treatment

costly and difficult to coordinate. A small swale around Lake Catherine, Lake Buchanan,

Lake Tyler and the Lake Tyler Canal would assist by providing treatment of the "first-

flush" of stormwater. Furthermore, baffle boxes and sediment sumps at outfalls into the * waterbodies would greatly reduce the sediment and pollutants entering the lake.

Two wetland areas within this sub-basin are prime candidates for regional treatment

facilities. The first in located south of Lake Tyler. Additional stormwater could be

directed into the existing wetland thereby enhancing the wetland features and also

providing stormwater treatment. The same activity could be pursued in the wetland

located south of Lake Catherine and west of Lake Buchanan. The control of this wetland

could provide both flood protection and water quality treatment. In addition to the

structural controls outlined above, it is recommended that a combination of the non-

structural best management practices listed in Section 2.5 of this report be incorporated in

the overall solution plan.

3.5 Lake Ellenor

The Lake Ellenor Group is located in the east central portion of the Shingle Creek

Watershed. The Lake Ellenor sub-basin includes 5 contributing areas and covers 1,143

acres (1.8 square miles) or 2.2 percent of the total watershed as summarized in Appendix

A. Lake Ellenor, also known as Rattlesnake Lake, is the headwater of this system. From

this lake, the water flows through the Lake Ellenor Canal to Shingle Creek. Along the

route the lake and canal receive runoff from the following developments: Orlando Central

Park, Bonnie Brook, Cannon Gate Golf Course and multiple schools. The Lake Ellenor

group border is presented in Exhibit 3-19.

effort. The information gathered becomes the basis for all the analyses and

recommendations. The following sections outline the data sources and summarize their

content.

Hydrological Data Orange County records monthly lake levels on Lake Ellenor. This group is entirely within

Orange County, therefore the City of Orlando has no records for this area.

normal high water elevation for Lake Ellenor in November 1985. The maximum recorded

stage on Lake Ellenor is 96.00 and occurred in May 1973. In November of 1985 the

Orange County Board of County Commissioners adopted elevation 97.3 as the 100-year

design storm elevation for Lake Ellenor. Lake Ellenor is controlled by a weir which

discharges into the Lake Ellenor Canal.

Q WATER

VETLAND

SHINGLE CREEK BASIN - U J O R SUB-BASIN MAP EXHIBIT

ELLENOR BASIN ,

sources for the Lake Ellenor group for the time period through October 1996. The

report.

Construction plans for John Young Parkway and Chancellor Drive were obtained from

Orange County. These plans contain culvert information and overtopping elevations of the

roadways. Additionally cross-sections along Lake Ellenor Canal were provided by Jeff

Einhouse and Miller-Sellen & Associates. Construction plans from the Lake Ellenor

control structure were obtained from the Orange County Stormwater Management

Department.

The Bonnie Brook Pump Station Report prepared by Orange County in September 1990

was reviewed and incorporated into the study. A portion of the subdivision is now being

used as a mitigation area for John Young Parkway. The information associated within this

mitigation area was also obtained from Orange County and incorporated into the model. A

representative of Orlando Central Park was contacted in reference to this area, but no

pertinent information was obtained.

Based on the review of the Orange County Building, Lands and Facilities Manual 80-01

dated November 1, 1980 and the Orange County Lake Index, drainwells have not been

constructed in this area.

investigation.

Water Quality Data Research failed to locate any water quality data for lakes in this region.

The Lake Ellenor group is the smallest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek Watershed. It

contains one of the larger lakes, Lake Ellenor. The area is primarily composed of

commercial, industrial, golf and residential developments. The remaining developments

drain directly into Lake Ellenor. The sub-basin is made up of 5 contributing areas ranging

in size from 27 to 635 acres as depicted in Table 3-34 and Exhibit 1-4.

Table 3-34 Lake Ellenor Contributing Areas

This area is characterized by Lake Ellenor and one primary drainage canal. Lake Ellenor

discharges directly west through a 10 foot by 9 foot concrete box culvert under Chancellor

Drive. The canal continues west from this point for an additional 5,500 feet, crossing

under John Young Parkway before discharging into Shingle Creek. The Bonnie Brook

Subdivision pump station discharges into the Lake Ellenor Canal approximately 1,000 feet

Sub-Basin Name

BONNIEB C-GATE ELLENOR LE20 LE53 + 50 Total

Curve Number

Area (acre)

26.8 116.2 635.3 181.2 184.1

1,143.6

3 8 160

Percent (%)

2.3 10.2

125 137 72

55.6 15.8 16.1

east of Shingle Creek. Cannon Gate Golf Course discharges south for over 5,000 feet

conveying water under Oak Ridge Road, before joining the Lake Ellenor Canal 1,400 feet

west of John Young Parkway. Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of 103 feet

east of Lake Ellenor to a low of 80 feet at Shingle Creek. Table 3-35 and Appendix F present the conveyance elements used to model the stormwater system. The adICPR

computer input information is contained in Appendix H. A map locating the Lake Ellenor

Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3 and Exhibit 3-19. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in

Appendix B.

Table 3-35 Lake Ellenor Stormwater Conveyance Features

Reach Name I Location

RBONNIE2 Bonnie Brook Subdivision - Pump BONNIEB LEI0 1 0 Pump

RC-GATE Channel through Cannon Gate Golf C-GATE Z B - ~ 1 2500 Irregular Channel Section Course

RELLENOR Lake Ellenor Control Structure ELLENOR LE53+50 1 30 DIS 120" x 108" CBC wl24' Wei~ at 95.4

RLE-35-1 John Young Parkway Culvert LE35-1 LE35-2 1 264 120" x 96" CBC

RLElO Lake Ellenor Canal LElO LE5 1 500 Irregular Channel Section

RLElS Lake Ellenor Canal LE15 LElO 1 500 Irregular Channel Section

RLE20 Lake Ellenor Canal LE20 LE15 1 500 Irregular Channel Section

RLE30 Lake Ellenor Canal LE30 LE25 1 500 Irregular Chamel Section

RLE35-2 Lake Ellenor Canal LE35-2 LE30 1 500 Irregular Chamel Section

RLE40 I Lake Ellenor Canal I LE40 I LE35-1 I 1 1 500 1 Irregular Channel Section

RLE5 Lake Ellenor Canal LE5 P3300 1 500 Irregular Channel Section

RLE5O Lake Ellenor Canal LE50 LE45 1 500 Irre gular Channel Section

RLE53+50 Lake Ellenor Canal LE53+50 LE50 1 350 Irregular Channel Section

RZB- 1 Oak Ridge Road Culvert ZB-1 ZB-4 3 60 36" RCP

RZB-1A Oak Ridge Road Culvert ZB-1 ZB-4 1 60 72" RCP

RZB-1W Oak Ridge Road Overtopping ZB- 1 ZB-4 1 0 100' Weir at 93.3

RZB-4 Lake Ellenor Canal ZB-4 LE20 1 2500 Irregular Channel Section

The entire group is considered to be uplands, except for the lake itself and a small shore-

side wetland on the west bank. The wetland is comprised of 9.3 acres of palustrine,

emergent, persistent, semi-persistent and 10.4 acres of palustrine, forested, broad leaved

deciduous, seasonal. A small area of forested wetlands species of an urban decorative

nature exists on the west bank of Lake Ellenor. Exhibit 1-7 depicts the historic wetlands in

Advanced Interconnected Channel Pond Routing (adICPR Version 2.02) was used to

simulate the existing condition water elevations. The model produces both hydrologic and @ hydraulic output information. Table 3-36 summarizes the maximum unrouted flows

generated by the 5 contributing areas within the Lake Ellenor sub-basin.

Table 3-36 Lake Ellenor Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

Basin Name

BONNIEB C-GATE ELLENOR MCKOY OCP- 1

10-yearl24-hour (cfs) 34 83

795 163 245

101 908 194 282

138 1,132

257 356

TAB d A 3-37 Lake Ellenor Maximum Conditions

3LLENOR ILake Ellenor Control Structure Lake Ellenor Canal Lake Ellenor Canal

LE20 [ ~ a k e Ellenor Canal Lake Ellenor Canal

LE30 Lake Ellenor Canal LE35-1 LE35-2 LE40 Lake Ellenor Canal LE45 l ~ a k e Ellenor Canal LE5 ILake Ellenor Canal LE50 I Lake Ellenor Canal

LE53 +50 Lake Ellenor Canal p i o a k Ridge Road Culvert -

ZB-4 l ~ a k e Ellenor Canal

Flood profiles have also been prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed. Lake Ellenor

Canal flood profile is presented in Appendix K and is also available in both mylar and

Water quality data for this area was not available, therefore, no analysis was conducted.

Additional information concerning water quality can be found in the report entitled "Water

Quality Analysis of Shingle Creek Basin. "

The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced from the Lake @ Ellenor sub-basin are presented in Table 3-38. The last column in the table is the rank of

this sub-basin among the 15 sub-basins.

Table 3-38 Lake Ellenor Water Quality Loadings

Parameter

Nitrogen Phosphorus Total Solids

This sub-basin produces large unit loads, ranging last among all sub-basins for phosphorus,

total solids, BOD, and lead, and next to last for zinc. The ranking for nitrogen is 11th.

Load (kg)

BOD Lead Zinc

2,319 374

95,363

Unit Load (kglacre)

10,697 185 121

Ranking

2.08 0.335

11 15 15

9.58 0.166 0.108

15 15 14

Quantity Portions of Bonnie Brook subdivision are predicted to flood during the 100-yearl24-hour

design storm event and 108 houses and 120 yards are anticipated to be inundated during

this storm event as shown in Exhibit 3-20. Bonnie Brook is protected from flooding by

Shingle Creek and Lake Ellenor Canal for the 25-yearl24-hour storm by a berm which

surrounds the subdivision. However, internal conveyance elements are inadequate to clear

the stormwater runoff from the subdivision's roadway system, and roadway flooding is a

regular occurrence in this area. The correction of the internal roadway flooding is beyond

the scope of this project. The alternative solutions for the house flooding are presented in

the following sections.

Quality Based on the analysis of estimated pollutant loads, the Lake Ellenor sub-basin has a

summation of 85, indicating a sub-basin wide problem. None of the lakes within this sub-

basin, including Lake Ellenor, could be analyzed due to the lack of data. Therefore, given

that the Lake Ellenor sub-basin is the worst sub-basin in the watershed, the assumption can

be made that Lake Ellenor has poor water quality.

Improvements for water quality and water quantity for the Lake Ellenor areas are

addressed in the following sections.

operation of Orange County facilities. The following locations within this sub-basin

should be included: culverts under Chancellor Drive and John Young Parkway.

Additionally, the outfall from Lake Ellenor should be investigated for debris and excessive

growth. The Lake Ellenor Canal should also be cleared of sediment and debris annually.

All control structures, piping systems and channels should be inspected annually.

APPROXIMATE SCALE

1" =3009

Two alternatives have been developed to correct the house flooding in Bonnie Brook

during the 100-year design storm event. The first is to decrease the head loss in the Lake

Ellenor Canal by widening a 2,000 foot section of the canal. The second is to raise the

berm surrounding the subdivision preventing the canal water from flowing into the

subdivision.

The first, preferred alternative is to widen the channel on the south side of Bonnie Brook

to decrease to head losses in the channel lowering the peak stages. It is recommended that

Lake Ellenor Canal be widened by 17 feet for a distance of 2,000 feet. The widening

would extend from its confluence with Shingle Creek eastward 2,000 feet to its confluence

with the north-south tributary. The existing condition stage and flow at Shingle Creek,

Node P3300, are 88.4 feet and 2,199 cfs, respectively. The proposed condition stage and

flow at the same location are 88.4 feet and 2,183 cfs. Given that both the stage and flow

remain constant at Shingle Creek, no adverse downstream impacts are anticipated. A

comparison of the existing and proposed stages is presented in Table 3-39. The revised

floodplain resulting from the widening and the location of the proposed improvement are

depicted in Exhibit 3-21. The engineering cost estimate for this scenario is $144,000. A

detailed cost estimate can be found in Appendix L.

The second alternative is to raise the berm along the canal. The existing berm along the

south side of Bonnie Brook ranges from elevation 89.5 feet at Shingle Creek to 90 feet at

the southeast corner of the subdivision. Only minor contour changes will be required in

this area to contain the canal within its bank. The existing condition 100-year storm stage

ranges from 89.3 feet at Shingle Creek to 91.3 feet at the southeast corner of the

subdivision. The berm would need to be raised to elevations varying from 89.5 feet to

91.3 feet to prevent canal water from overtopping it and entering the subdivision. The

eastern side of Bonnie Brook is the most vulnerable to flooding from the canal. The

existing berm ranges from 90 feet at the southeast comer of the subdivision to 92 feet at

northeast comer. The existing condition 100-year storm stage is 91.3 feet on the east side.

The berm would need to be raised to a minimum elevation of 91.3 feet to prevent canal

water from entering the subdivision. A detailed study of hydraulics within Bonnie Brook

would need to be conducted before any berm is constructed. It must be verified that the

berm would not block any overland flows entering the canal and exacerbate the flooding

problem for more frequent storm events. Additionally, all hydraulic connections to the

canal must be inspected to ensure that canal water will not backflow into the subdivision

continuing to flood the houses.

Table 3-39

Bonnie Brook Stage Comparison

LElO I Lake Ellenor Canal I 89.5 1 89.8 1 89.0 1 0.8

Node BONNIEB C-GATE ELLENOR

Description Bonnie Brook Subdivision Cannon Gate Golf Course Lake Ellenor Control Structure

LEI5 LE20 LE25 LE30 LE35-1 LE35-2

Goal Elevation

90.0 95.0 98.3

Lake Ellenor Canal Lake Ellenor Canal Lake Ellenor Canal

LE40 LE45 LE5 LE50 LE53 + 50 P3300 ZB-1 ZB-4

Lake Ellenor Canal John Young Parkway Culvert Lake Ellenor Canal

100-Year Stage

89.8 90.0 90.0

Lake Ellenor Canal Lake Ellenor Canal Lake Ellenor Canal Lake Ellenor Canal Lake Ellenor Canal Confluence with Shingle Creek Oak Ridge Road Culvert Lake Ellenor Canal

Existing 89.4 93.8 98.0

94.1 96.2 96.2

90.8 91.3 91.3

98.2 98.9 89.5 98.8 99.0 90.0 93.3 92.8

Proposed 89.4 93.8 98.0

91.4 92.0 91.5

Difference 0.0 0.0 0.0

89.6 89.9 89.9

92.1 92.6 89.3 92.8 92.9 88.4 91.5 91.3

1.2 1.4 1.4

90.1 91.1 90.3

1.3 0.9 1.2

91.2 92.2 88.7 92.4 92.6 88.4 90.2 90.0

0.9 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.0 1.3 1.3

A majority of the developments within this sub-basin lack any stormwater treatment

costly and difficult to coordinate. A small swale around the circumference of Lake Ellenor

would help by providing some treatment of the "first-flush" of stormwater. Furthermore,

baffle boxes and sediment sumps at outfalls into Lake Ellenor would greatly reduce the

sediment and pollutants entering the lake.

Large regional projects are also possible in this area. The west side of Lake Ellenor has

some open spaces, which could used for treatment proposes. Additionally, the stormwater

pond east of John Young Parkway could be enlarged and the Lake Ellenor Canal redirected

to flow through the pond. The pond should be planted with native vegetation to promote

nutrient uptake. Either of these two projects would also provide excellent educational and

promotional opportunities through the creation of associated recreational areas and

stormwater related billboards. The Cannon Gate Golf Course could augment their water

features by retaining more stormwater runoff. The golf course ponds could also be

configured to received back-flow from Iake Ellenor Canal. In addition to the structural

controls outlined above, it is recommended that a combination of the non-structural best

management practices listed in Section 2.5 of this report be incorporated in the overall

solution plan.

Any solution implemented in this vicinity must take into account the groundwater

contamination which has occurred adjacent to Lake Ellenor. Even though it is not believed

that the contaminant plume has expanded into the area of the recommended solution, a

detailed analysis of the groundwater contamination in this area should be performed before

construction is initiated. The Orange County Environmental Protection Department can be

contacted for more detailed information on groundwater conditions surrounding Lake

Ellenor.

3.6 Major Center The Major Center group is located in the central portion of the Shingle Creek Watershed.

The Major Center sub-basin includes 32 contributing areas and covers 2,925 acres (4.8

square miles) or 5.7 percent of the total watershed as summarized in Appendix A. Major

Center conveys runoff from various commercial and residential areas through a channel

system which discharges into Shingle Creek just south of Florida's Turnpike. The Major

Center Canal and the Tangelo Park Canal provide the primary stormwater conveyance

from the area. Significant lakes within the group are Lake Sandy, Lake Pat and a borrow

pit east of the Interstate 4lFlorida's Turnpike intersection. The following major

developments contribute stormwater runoff to the Major Center system: Universal

Studios, Wet-n-Wild, Belz Factory Outlet Mall, Tangelo Park, Major Center Properties,

Shopper's World, Florida Center Properties and numerous hotel, retail stores and

restaurants along International Drive. The Major Center group is generally bordered by

Turkey Lake Road on the west, Sand Lake Road to the south, Shingle Creek on the east

and Orlando-Vineland Road to the north as presented in Exhibit 3-22.

Data collection is perhaps the most important aspect of a stormwater master plaming

Hydrological Data The City of Orlando records lake levels for Sandy Lake and Lake Pat. Orange County

does not collect information in this area. Information concerning the normal high water

elevation, maximum stages and the 100-year storm elevation for these lakes was not found

during the data search. However, this study's concentration is on Orange County water

bodies and an exhaustive search of the City of Orlando's files was not conducted.

- SUB-MSM BOUNMRI -- . ....... . -= AREA HBIE(DARY

7/G) FLOW DIRECTION

I BRIDGE

INCHES

Development Reports and Plans Drainage information and development plans were obtained from a number of different

sources for the Major Center group for the time period through October 1996. The

report.

Construction plans for Oak Ridge Road, Vanguard Street and the Republic DriveII-4

Interchange were obtained from Orange County and the Florida Department of

Transportation. These plans contain culvert information and overtopping elevations of the

roadway.

I "The Analysis of Drainage Channel and Culverts at: International Lakes, " prepared for

the City of Orlando by DRMP, Inc. in September 1985 was used to model the Major

Center Canal from Interstate 4 south to its confluence with Shingle Creek. This report

contained information pertaining to the channel cross-section shapes and culvert sizes and

inverts. The information contained in this report was field-verified and compared to other

existing information where applicable.

At the time of this study, Universal Studios was in the process of updating its stormwater

management system. The proposed system, as presented in the "Universal City: Suqace

Water Management Report, " submitted to the South Florida Water Management District by

Ivy, Harris & Walls in April 1995 was used to model the attraction. The adICPR model

developed for Universal Studios was entered directly into the Shingle Creek model to

provide the most accurate simulation of this area. All of the basins and reaches used to

model this area are not shown on the exhibits. A complete listing of the model input can

be found in Appendix H.

"The Final Engineering Report for Tangelo Park Subdivision-Stormwater Collection System Improvements" prepared for Orange County Public Works Division by John B. Webb &

Associates in November 1995 was the primary source of information detailing the flow

paths within Tangelo Park. This report assisted in the delineation of the subdivision's

basins and the routing of the runoff to the correct location.

The Orlando Urban Storm Water Management Manual (OUSWMM) prepared for the City

of Orlando by DRMP was a main source of information for the portion of Shingle Creek

Orange County Lake Index and OUSWMM do not indicate the presence of any drainwells

I within the area.

investigation.

Water Quality Data This sub-basin contains two lakes with significant amounts of data - Sandy Lake and Lake

Pat. Both lakes are sampled by the City of Orlando; the start of records for both lakes is

The Major Center group is the seventh largest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek

Watershed. It contains two lakes: Sandy Lake and Lake Pat. The area is primarily

composed of commercial developments with some residential areas. The sub-basin is made

up of 32 contributing areas ranging in size from 9 to 400 acres as depicted in

Table 3-40 and Exhibit 1-4.

Table 3-40

Major Center Contributing Areas

BELZ 188.6 80 99 6.4 KIRK-N 149.5 9 1 97 5.1 M-CNTR 177.4 89 20 6.1 ORNGE 400.5 69 117 13.8

82.2 84 48 2.8 PAT 76.6 88 2 1 2.6

I I I I

SANDY 1 384.9 1 90 3 1 1 13.3 TANGLO 1 63.9 1 88 1 14 1 2.2

TROP-W 132.2 1 7 1 30 4.5 U- A 69.6 98 22 2.4

U-B 69.4 97 15 2.4 U-C 61.3 87 36 2.1 U-D 74.1 92 3 8 2.5

U-D 1 30.6 97 12 1 .O

U-D2 10.5 97 10 0.4

U-D3 43.7 97 23 1.5

Table 3-40 Major Center Contributing Areas

(Continued)

I Sub-Basin ( Area I Curve I Time of I Percent Name

Total 1 2,925.6 1 I 100.0

(acre) 26.4

I I I I

This area is characterized by two lakes (Sandy Lake and Lake Pat), a commercial area, and

two theme parks. Sandy Lake, also known as the Wet n' Wild Lake, discharges east to

Kirkman Road through 1,800 feet of 36-inch RCP. Lake Pat is controlled by a drop

structure which allows the water to flow south before it is gathered into the Kirkman Road

intersection ditch. At this point, discharge from Sandy Lake and Lake Pat joins and

crosses under Kirkman Road via two 6 foot by 5 foot concrete box culverts. This

combined flow travels 4,300 feet to the east before crossing under Greenbriar Parkway

through two 8 foot square concrete box culverts. The water then flows an additional 950

feet where it crosses under Municipal Drive through two 8 foot square concrete box

UFDOTRW

Number 97

89.2 1 88

Concentration 10

216 1 3.0

(%) 0.9

culverts. At this point, the canal turns north and travels 2,400 feet. The stormwater then

flows through two 60-inch RCP under Vanguard Street. The canal continues north 1,200

feet and then east for 2,400 feet through a deep, wide channel before discharging into the

Major Center Canal 2,800 feet south of Oak Ridge Road.

The Major Center Canal begins where Universal Studios discharges under Kirkman Road

via two 48-inch RCP. From Kirkman Road, Major Center Canal travels southeast 2,700

feet collecting stormwater runoff from Major Center and Belz Factory Outlet Mall before

crossing under Oak Ridge Road, flowing through two 10 foot by 5 foot concrete box

culverts. South of Oak Ridge Road the channel extends 2,800 feet to the southeast through

an undeveloped area where it crosses under a utility easement via four 44-inch by 72-inch

ECMP. The flow continues in a southeasterly direction for 4,030 feet, crossing under

another utility road before intersecting with Shingle Creek south of the Florida's Turnpike.

I Elevations in the sub-basin range from a high of 145 feet near Universal Studios to a low

of 80 feet at Shingle Creek.

Universal Studios was modeled using information obtained from "Universal City: Surface

Water Management Staff Review Summary and Appendix B" prepared by Ivy, Harris and

Walls, Inc. in 1995; multiple hydrographs and reaches used in the model are not shown on

the nodal diagram. Table 3-41 and Appendix F present the conveyance elements used to

model the stormwater system. The adICPR computer input information is contained in

Appendix H. A map locating the Major Center area is shown in-Exhibit 1-3 and

The Major Center area is classified as uplands with several undeveloped low areas still in

existence. However, they have not been identified as wetlands. Exhibit 1-7 depicts the

1 presented in Appendix J.

Table 3-41 Major Center Stormwater Conveyance Features

Reach Name I Location From Node

RBELZ I Major Center Channel I BELZ RKIRK-N I Swale Flow from Kirkman Road I KIRK-N

RM-CNTR

RORNGE

Interstate 4 Culvert

Maior Center Channel

Lake Pat Outfall Lake Pat Overtopping at Lakehurst

RSANDY

RTANGLO RTANGLOW

RUFDOTRW

RZC-10 RZC-1OW

RZC-11

RZC-12 RZC-12W

RZC-13 RZC-14

RZC-14W

RZC-15

M-CNTR

PAT SANDY

TANGLO

UFDOTRW

ZC- 13 ZC-14

U-H U-D6

- - - Lake Sandy Outfall

Vanguard Street Culvert

Vanguard Street Overtopping

Kirkman Road Culvert

International Drive Culvert

Greenbriar Drive Culvert

Greenbriar Drive Overtopping

Tangelo Park Channel

Municipal Drive Culvert

Municipal Drive Overtopping

Trail East of Tangelo Culvert

Trail East of Tangelo Overtopping

Tangelo Park Channel Major Center Channel

Oak Ridge Road Culvert

OUC Easement Culvert

RZC-4- 1

RU-I 1

Major Center Channel

Universal Studios

To No- Length Node 1 O f 1 (feet) I

Description

Universal Studios

TANGLO 1 2400 Irregular Channel Section

ZC-15 1 4 1 72" CMP

U-JCT1

U-JCT2

Universal Studios

ZC-3 ORNGE

1 I I -

1 p O 1 Irregular Channel Section

1 1 0 I 10' Weir at 102.0

U-JCTl

U - J m

UFDOTRW

U-JCTl

100' Weir at 91.7

120" x 60" CBC

72" x 44" ECMP

4' Weir at 92.77

72" x 60" CBC Irremlar Channel Section

300 1500

54" RCP

190' Weir at 102.25

54" RCP

48" RCP DIS 60" RCP wl 10' Weir at 98.54

18' Weir at 94.0

54" RCP

DIS 36" RCP wl3' Weir at 106.83

DIS 48" RCP wl4' Weir at 103.90 -

Table 3-41 Major Center Stormwater Conveyance Features

(Continued)

Reach Name I Location To I I Node

RU- 19 Universal Studios U-SC3 U-D RU-20 Universal Studios U-D U-D4

Length Description

Pines - - r - -

1 950 60" RCP 1 6 0 0 54" RCP

48" RCP

54" RCP 60" RCP 60" RCP

DIS 48" RCP wl 10' weir at 131.83

DIS 48" RCP w l 15' Weir at 100.8:

DIS 48" RCP wl 3' Weir at 101.9

DIS 48" RCP wl8 ' Weir at %.21

60" RCP DIS 42" RCP wl 15' Weir at 100.0

100' Weir at 102

Rating Curve

generated by the 32 contributing areas within the Major Center sub-basin.

Table 3-42 Major

Basin Name

BELZ KIRK-N M-CNTR ORNGE TANG-S PAT SANDY TANGLO ZC-10 ZC-11 ZC-12 ZC- 13 TANG-E TANG-N TROP-W U-A U-B U-C U-D U-D 1 U-D2 U-D3 U-D4 U-D5 U-D6 U-E U-F U-G U-H U-I JCTl U-EXTRA

Center Maximum 10-yearl24-hour

(cfs) 205 195 261 323 109 11 1 568 93 93 93 93 93

106 99

140 109 109 86

110 48 16 68 46 41 14 4 1 78 79

121 3 8 59 88

Unrouted Hydrograph 25-yearl24-hour

(cfd 24 1 223 299 391 126 128 649 107 107 107 107 107 127 114 168 123 123 99

126 54 19 77 52 47 16 47 90 92

137 42 67

Flows 100-year124-hour

(cfd 313 280 374 532 161 160 81 1 134 134 134 134 134 171 144 225 152 152 125 157 67 23 95 64 5 8 20 5 8

115 119 169 52 83

Flood profiles have also been prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed. Major Center

Canal and the Tangelo Park Canal flood profiles are presented in Appendix K and are

Management Departmerit.

The two lakes within this group, Lake Pat and Lake Sandy, are both located within the

City of Orlando. The water quality data was only available between 1990 and 1995.

Therefore, no long term trend analysis could be conducted on these lakes. Detailed

information concerning water quality can be found in the report entitled "Water Quality

Analysis of Shingle Creek Basin. "

Average Site Values for 1990-95 Average values for the two lakes within the sub-basin, based on data from 1990 through

1995, are shown in Table 3-44. Lake Pat had one average value that exceeded statewide

value for lakes, fecal coliform. In contrast though, average values for Sandy Lake

exceeded statewide values for Secchi-disk depth, conductance, total phosphorus,

chlorophyll-A, and fecal coliform.

1 AUEE 3-43

Mayor Center Maximum Conditions - Description Node 25-yearl24-hour

Stage Flow 97.6 326 100.2 197 100.2 266 95.7 335 98.7 42 102.8 37 96.2 393

Name BELZ 1 Major Center Chamel

KIRK-N M-CNTR ORNGE

PAT SANDY

TANGLO TROP-W

Swale flow from Kirkman Road Major Center Channel Major Center Channel Lake Pat Overtovving at Lakehurst Drivc Lake Sandy Outfall Vanguard Street Culvert -

West of Tropical Lake Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios -T

U-DPHS

Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios Universal Studios

1 ADLm 3-43

Mayor Center Maximum Conditions I Node Description 10-year/24-hour

Stage I Flow 1 - Name Universal Studios Universal Studios

U-SC3 UFDOTRW

ZC-1 ** ZC-10

Universal Studios Kirkman Road Culvert International Drive Culvert Greenbriar Drive Culvert Tangelo Park Channel Municipal Drive Culvert Tangelo Park Channel Trail East of Tangelo Culvert Tangelo Park Channel Major Center Channel Oak Ridge Road Culvert OUC Easement Culvert Major Center Channel Kirkman Road Culvert Major Center Channel Major Center Channel

Table 3-44 Major Center Average Site Values for 1990-1995

Statewide Lake Values

City Lake Sites

The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced from the Major

Center sub-basin are presented in Table 3-45. The last column in the table is the rank of

I this sub-basin among the 15 sub-basins.

SDD (meters)

Sandy Lake Lake Pat

Table 3-45 Major Center Water Quality Loadings

Turb (NTU)

0.61 1.14

Parameter

BOD 1 26,914 8.68 14 I

TSolids (mg/L)

252.45 105.81

Load (kg)

Cond (uS/cm)

188.00

427.33 152.17

This sub-basin is a large producer of constituent loads, ranking last in zinc, and next to last

in phosphorus, total solids, BOD and lead.

Unit Load (kglacre)

13 14 14

- -. 1 - -

DO (mg/L)

0.119 0.042

Ranking

6,562 1,032

243,298

2.12 0.333

BOD (mg/L)

1.17 0.74

39.84 9.64

T Phos (mg/L)

295.05 57.1 1 -

Chlor-A (mglcu m)

TNitro (mg/L)

F Col (MP;Y/100 mL)

Quantity Vanguard Street is predicted to be overtopped during the 25-yearl24-hour design storm

event as shown on Exhibit 3-23. The roadway elevation is 95.4 feet, however the water

level peaks at 96.2 feet. This elevation places the roadway under 1.2 feet of water during

the 25-year storm event. This depth of water is neither passable nor safe, and action must

be taken to correct this problem. Kirkman Road is also predicted to be overtopped during

the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. However, the overtopping elevation used to determine

the flooding of the roadway was calculate by adding three feet to the obvert of the culvert.

The actual overtopping elevation could be much higher. As this is likely the case, and the

fact that this is a state road and not maintained by Orange County, Kirkman Road was not

deemed to be a problem area. Homes within the Tangelo Park subdivision are protected

from flooding during the 100-yearl24-hour design storm event.

1 Quality Based on the analysis of estimated pollutant loads, the Major Center sub-basin has a

summation of 84, indicating a sub-basin wide problem. In addition to the overall sub-basin

problem, the Sandy Lake exceeds the state wide average for at least three significant

parameters.

Improvements for water quality and water quantity for the Major Center area are addressed

in the following sections.

operation of Orange County facilities within this sub-basin at the following locations:

culverts under Kirkman Road, Greenbriar Parkway, Municipal Drive, Interstate 4 and Oak

Ridge Road. Additionally, the outfalls from Lakes Sandy and Pat should be investigated

for debris and excessive growth. Major Center Canal and Tangelo Park Canal should be

cleared of sediment and debris annually. All controls structures, piping systems and

1 channels should be inspected annually.

Two alternatives have been developed to prevent the overtopping of Vanguard Street. The

first is to increase the conveyance capacity under Vanguard Street and in the downstream

channel. The second, is to increase the conveyance capacity under Vanguard Street and

construct a detention facility on the downstream side of the culvert.

The headloss through the conveyance system in this area needs to be reduced in order to

prevent flooding of the roadway. It is recommended that the two existing 60-inch RCP

crossing under Vanguard Street be replaced with two 5 foot by 7 foot concrete box

culverts. This alone will not correct the problem. The downstream channel must be

widened by ten feet for a length of 3,600 feet in order to reduce the headlosses sufficiently

to correct the problem. The widening would begin just north of Vanguard Street and

continue until the Tangelo Park Canal intersects with the Major Center Canal. The

existing condition stage and flow at Shingle Creek, Node P2600, are 86.4 feet and 3,270

B cfs, respectively. The proposed condition stage and flow at the same location are 86.4 feet

and 3,265 cfs. Given that both the stage and flow remain constant at Shingle Creek, no

adverse downstream impacts are anticipated. A comparison of the existing and proposed

stages is presented in Table 3-46. The revised floodplain resulting from the widening and

the location of the proposed improvement are depicted in Exhibit 3-24. The engineering

cost estimate for this scenario is $433,000. A detailed cost estimate can be found in

Appendix L.

The second alternative is similar to the first except that instead of widening the

downstream channel a detention facility is proposed. The two existing 60-inch RCP

crossing under Vanguard Street are to be replaced by two 5 foot by 7 foot concrete box

culverts. After passing through the culverts, the flow is immediately directed to a

detention facility. The detention facility needs to be 15 acres in size at its top elevation

and six feet deep as presented in Table 3-47. The control structure consists of a 12-inch

orifice at elevation 89.0 feet and a 20-foot long weir at elevation 92.0 feet. The existing

condition stage and flow at Shingle Creek, Node P2600, are 86.4 feet and 3,270 cfs,

respectively. The proposed condition stage and flow at the same location are 86.3 feet and

3,154 cfs. Given that both the stage and flow remain relatively constant at Shingle Creek,

D no adverse downstream impacts are anticipated.

SHNGLCRK.DWG 1/26/97 GCR

SHNGLCRK.DWG 1 /26/97 GCR

I V I I \ YU.7b

25 YF? 93.72

VANGUARD STREW

BASE MAP' OBTAINED FROM TRW-RED1 MAPS FOR PPROXIMAT[

SCALE ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED -CANAL WIDENINC -

Table 3-46 Tangelo Park Canal Widening Stage Comparison

I Goal 1 100-Year Stage

BELZ 1 Major Center Channel 1 98.6 1 97.6 1 97.6 1 0.0

1 Node

KIRK-N I Swale flow from irkm man ~ o a d l 101.0 1 100.2 1 100.2 1 0.0

Description

Elevation

M-CNTR

I Lake Pat at Lakehurst Drive ( 101.1 1 98.7 1 98.7 1 0.0

Existing I ~ r o ~ o s e d l Differencl

ZC-10 I Greenbriar Drive Culvert I 102.3 1 96.9 1 96.3 1 0.5

TANGLO

Confluence with Shingle Creek

Lake Sandy Outfall

ZC-13 I Tangelo Park Channel 1 98.3 1 96.8 1 96.2 ( 0.5

Vanguard Street Culvert

International Drive Culvert

Municipal Drive Culvert

ZC- 15

m e m e n t Culvert

Trail East of Tangelo Culvert

ZC-9 I Major Center Channel 1 98.9 1 96.9 1 96.3 1 0.6

Oak Ridge Road Culvert

97.1 1 0.0

96.7 -

Table 3-47 Vanguard Street Detention Facility

I Stage 1 Area

A comparison of the existing and proposed stages is presented in Table 3-48. The revised

floodplain resulting from the proposed improvements are depicted in Exhibit 3-25. The

engineering cost estimate for this scenario is $1,437,000. A detailed cost estimate can be

found in Appendix L.

(feet) 95

The sub-basin as a whole has high unit pollutant loads and the water quality of Lake Sandy

is among the worst in the watershed. A small portion of the sub-basin is currently treating

its stormwater runoff. A combination of structural controls listed in Section 2.5 of this

report should be used to correct these problems. Three opportunities are available to

construct regional stormwater facilities within this sub-basin. This first is associated with

the water quantity pond solution presented above. If the pond alternative were

constructed, all the runoff from Tangelo Park and the International Drive area would

obtain treatment prior to discharging into Shingle Creek. The second alternative involves

the construction of a treatment facility in open land located in the southeast corner of

Section 19, Township 23 and Range 29. This pond would provide additional treatment for

the Belz Outlet Mall Area. The third proposal is the construction of a detention facility or

the augmentation of wetlands immediately west of the Major Centers Canal confluence

with Shingle Creek. This alternative would provide treatment to the entire sub-basin. If

permittable and cost-effective, the third alternative is recommended.

(acres) 15.0

The Lake Sandy problem will require different structural controls to better the situation.

The water quality of Lake Sandy is highly associated with the lake's hydraulics; that is, the

inflow, outflow, and internal circulation of the lake. Lake Sandy is a pollutant sink with

little opportunity for the pollutants that enter to lake to leave it, therefore, it may be

advantageous to increase the through flow of the lake. This may solve the Sandy Lake

problem by moving the pollutant downstream. This is not a desirable outcome. Another

option is to chemically treat the lake settling the pollutants to the bottom of the lake.

However, the use of Sandy Lake for recreational purposes by Wet n' Wild may preclude

the use of chemicals in the lake. The final alternative, and the least controllable, is to treat

the stormwater runoff before it enters the lake. This would be accomplished by retrofitting

existing systems is structural controls outlined in Section 2.5 of this report. Such controls

include baffle boxes, sediment sumps, ponds and swales, which could be used as a

treatment train process. In addition to the structural controls outlined above, it is

recommended that a combination of the non-structural best management practices listed in @ Section 2.5 of this report be incorporated in the overall solution plan.

The cost of these facilities will be expensive. It is recoinmended that a Municipal Services

Taxing Unit (MSTU) be created within this sub-basin to pay for the needed quantity and

quality related improvements.

Table 3-48 Vanguard Street Pond Comparison

Node BELZ KIRK-N M-CNTR ORNGE PAT

SANDY TANGLO ZC- 1

ZC- 14

Description IEl2;on 100-Year Stage

Existing 1 ~rooosed 1 ~ifference 1 Major Center Channel SwaleFlowfromKirkrnanRoad

" I I I I

Lake Pat at Lakehurst Drive I 101.1 1 98.7 1 98.7 1 0.0

Major Center Channel Maior Center Channel

I I . -

Confluence with Shingle Creek 1 90.0 1 86.4 1 86.3 1 0.1

98.6 101.0

Lake Sandy Outfall 1 103 1 102.8 1 102.7 1 0.0

100.5 96.0

97.6 100.2

I I I I

Greenbriar Drive Culvert 1 102.3 1 96.9 1 96.2 1 0.6

100.2 95.7

Vanguard Street Culvert International Drive Culvert

97.6 100.2

I I I I

Tangelo Park Channel 1 98.3 1 96.8 1 96.1 1 0.7

0.0 0.0

100.2 95.7

95.4 99.3

Tangelo Park Channel Munici~al Drive Culvert

Trail East of Tangelo Culvert 1 92.7 1 92.7 1 92.6 1 0.1

0.0 0.0

ZC-15 I Tangelo Park Channel 1 91.7 1 91.2 1 90.9 1 0.2

96.2 97.1

98.2 100.8

ZC-9 I Major Center Channel 1 98.9 1 96.9 1 96.2 1 0.7

95.3 97.1

96.8 96.8

- ZC-2 Major Center Channel ZC-3 Oak Ridge Road Culvert ZC-4 OUC Easement Culvert ZC-5 Major Center Channel ZC-7 Kirkrnan Road Culvert ZC-8 Major Center Channel

ZC-8A I Pond Control Structure 1 98.0 1 NA 1 94.2 1 NA

0.9 0.0

96.2 96.2

98.0 98.5 93.9 93.5

100.0 100.7

0.7 0.7

96.7 96.0 93.7 93.3 96.9 95.5

96.6 95.9 93.6 93.1 96.2 95.0

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.5

3.7 Orlando Central Park (Southpoint) The Orlando Central Park group is located in the east central portion of the Shingle Creek

Watershed. The Orlando Central Park sub-basin includes 8 contributing areas and covers

Appendix A. The area drains into multiple detention facilities before flowing into Shingle

Creek through a combination of pipes and channels. The only lakes present in the sub-

basin are man made and typically defined more as treatment facility than lakes. The

following major developments contribute stormwater runoff to the Orlando Central Park

system: South Park, Prosper Colony, Orlando Central Park developments, and AT&T.

The Orlando Central Park group is generally bordered by Shingle Creek on the west, Bee

Line Expressway to the south, Orange Blossom Trail on the east and Directors Row Road

to the north as presented in Exhibit 3-26.

0 3.7.1 Existing Condition Analysis

Hydrological Data Neither Orange County nor Orlando Central Park records lake levels for any water bodies

within this sub-basin, therefore no hydrological data was obtained.

sources for the Orlando Central Park group for the time period through October 1996.

The information consisted of roadway construction plans, development plans, stormwater

process of completing this study can be found in the Bibliography at the conclusion of this a report.

LEGimn - SUB-BASIP4 BOUNDARY .......,, CONTRBUTING AREA BOUNDARY

MAIN SUB-BASIN NAME

1 SHINGLE CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES

w WETLAND

CULVERT

1/G) nov DIRECTION

I BRIDGE

? I SCALE IN INCHES I I I I 1 I

SHINGLE CREEK BASIN - iU4JOR SUB-BASIN MAP EXHIBIT ORLANDO CENTRAL PARK BASIN

Construction plans for Florida's Turnpike and John Young Parkway were obtained from

the Turnpike Authority and Orange County, respectively. These plans contain culvert

information and overtopping elevations of the roadway.

The remaining information related to this sub-basin was obtained from Orlando Central

Park staff in the form of reports, discussions and site visits. The area north of Florida's

Turnpike and south of Sand Lake Road was detailed in "Area Water Control Plan,

Orlando Central Park, Phase 6: Preliminary Engineering Report" prepared by Reynolds,

Smith & Hills in November 1974. Phase 9 of Orlando Central Park's development is

located east of Florida's Turnpike and north of Sand Lake Road. Phase 9 is characterized

by two treatments ponds. Drainage system information for Phase 9 was obtained from

"Orlando Central Park Phase 9 East; Primary Drainage Facilities: Preliminary

Engineering Report" prepared by Reynolds, Smith & Hills in April 1982. The area north

of Sand Lake Road and west of Florida's Turnpike, identified as Phase 11, is also

associated with this group. The "Orlando Central Park Phase 11; Primary Drainage

Facilities: Preliminary Engineering Report" prepared by Reynolds, Smith & Hills in

August 1982 analyzed this area.

Orange County Lake Index did not identify any drainwells within this sub-basin.

investigation.

Water Quality Data Research failure to locate any water quality data for this region.

The Orlando Central Park group is the ninth largest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek

Watershed. It contains four treatment ponds and one slough. The area is primarily

composed of commercial developments, a majority of which have stormwater treatment

facilities. The sub-basin is made up of 8 contributing areas ranging in size from 121 to

567 acres as depicted in Table 3-49 and Exhibit 1-4.

Table 3-49 Orlando Central Park Contributing Areas

Sub-Basin Name

ATT- 1 ATT-2 OCP-2 OCP-3 OCP-4 SCPOND SCSWPl SPARK Total

Area 1 N C ~ ; ~ r (acre)

Time of Percent Concentration (%)

107 11.9 233 6.5 7 8 26.2 14 7.6

273 15.9 131 14.5 134 5.6

This area is characterized by four detention facilities and one slough area. Two of the

detention facilities are located north of Sand Lake Road. The northernmost of these two

ponds discharges over a drop structure and then through two 42-inch RCP. The south

pond also discharges over a drop structure and then into three 8-foot by 5-foot concrete

box culverts. The flow from these two ponds discharge to a common canal before crossing

under Florida's Turnpike via two 7-foot by 4-foot concrete box culverts. The flow then

travels approximately 1,500 feet before joining with Shingle Creek. The remaining

systems are located south of Sand Lake Road. The Phase 6 detention facility is controlled

by four 65-inch by 40-inch arched CMP. Once flowing out of the pond, the stormwater

discharges west under the Florida's Turnpike through one 8 foot by 4 foot concrete box

culvert before flowing northwest for 3,000 feet in an open channel and entering South Park

Slough. After attenuating the flow, South Park Slough outfalls under John Young Parkway

through two 8-foot by 3-foot concrete box culverts on its way toward the final detention

facility. This final pond primarily provides water quality treatment before discharging via

two 9-foot by 5-foot concrete box culverts into Shingle Creek. Elevations in the sub-basin

range from a high of 110 feet on the east side of the basin to a low of 75 feet at Shingle

Creek.

Each of the two AT&T ponds, located just north of the Bee Line Expressway, discharges

into a channel system via two 24-inch RCP. The combined flow crosses under John

Young Parkway through two 48-inch RCP before entering a swampy area adjacent to

Shingle Creek. The swamp area overland flows into Shingle Creek when the storage with

the swamp is exhausted.

Table 3-50 and Appendix F present the conveyance elements used to model the stormwater

system. The adICPR computer input information is contained in Appendix H. A map

locating the Orlando Central Park Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3 and Exhibit 3-26. An

overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

Table 3-50 Orlando Central Park Stormwater Conveyance Features

Description I DIS 24" RCP wl5 ' Weir at 88.5 DIS 24" RCP w l 5 ' Weir at 92.5

DIS %" x 60" w120' Weir at 84.1 DIS 42" RCP wl 10' Weir at 84.0

65" x 40" ACMP DIS 108" x 60" wl29' Weir at 82.3

10" x 10" RCP - Orifice

Trapezoidal Channel Section

%" x 36" CBC

48" RCP %" x 48" CBC

48" RCP %" x 60" CBC

84" x 48" CBC Trapezoidal Channel Section

The majority of the Orlando Central Park sub-basin is classified as uplands. However,

several substantial wetland communities still exist in the area. The primary wetland is

associated with South Park Slough. A portion of this slough is identified as palustrine,

emergent, persistent, saturated, excavated (22.3 acres). The remainder is classified as

palustrine, forested. broad leaved deciduous and evergreen, seasonal (18.8 acres), which

basically means it a forested wetland area. This area is a conservation area and is

incorporated into the development plan for this area. Another wetland area is located just

north of the Bee Line Expressway and east of Shingle Creek. This wetland is classified as

palustrine, forested, deciduous, semi-permanent (22.9 acres), meaning the area is forested

and well established. Some wetland areas adjacent to Shingle Creek have been excavated

as mitigation projects associated with the development. This wetland is classified as

palustrine, emergent, persistent, saturated, excavated (29.0 acres; the ground is generally

wet and moisture tolerant species are beginning to grow in this excavated area. Small

enclaves of palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad leaved evergreen and deciduous, seasonal

wetlands exist in the southeast portion of the group. These wetlands are isolated and have

a shrub like look. Exhibit 1-7 depicts the historic wetlands in the Shingle Creek

Watershed according to the National Wetland Inventory prepared by the Florida Game &

Fresh Water Fish Commission. Various wetland areas throughout the Shingle Creek

Watershed were investigated for storage potential, treatment efficiency and wetland

functionality. The results of this analysis are presented in Appendix J.

generated by the 8 contributing areas within the Orlando Central Park sub-basin.

Table 3-51 Orlando Central Park Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

Basin Name

ATT- 1

ATT-2 OCP-4 SCPOND SCSWPl SPARK OCP-2 OCP-3

10-yearl24-hour (cfs) 248 103 318 25 1 140 234 775 233

25-yearl24-hour (cfd 294

123 365 304 162 279 886 269

164 459 412 205 372

1,108 339

Orlando Central Park Maximum Conditions Node Description Name

ATT- 1 AT&T Property ATT-2 AT&T Property OCP-2 OCP Pond Control Structure near JYP OCP-3 ~OCP Pond Control Structure near JYP OCP-4 I OCP Pond Control Structure near FTP

SCPOND Shingle Creek Pond Control Structure Y

SCSWPl loutfall from AT&T Property - -

SPARK l ~ o h n Young Parkway Culvert from South Park ZE- 1 ISouth Park Circle Culvert

Florida's Turnpike Culvert ZE-3 ZE-2 I John Young Parkway Culvert ZE-4 ( ~ o h n young parkway Culvert ZE-5 I~lorida's Turnpike Culvert

- - - ---

ZE-6 khannel to South Park

The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced from the Orlando

Central Park sub-basin are presented in Table 3-53. The last column in the table is the

Table 3-53 Orlando Central Park Water Quality Loadings

Parameter

This sub-basin ranks 13th of 15 for total solids, lead, and zinc; and 12th for BOD. The

nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus rank 9th and loth, respectively.

Nitrogen Phosphorus Total Solids BOD Lead Zinc

Quantity The water quantity model predicted no major flooding problems within the Orlando

Central Park sub-basin. Nether house nor structure flooding was predicted during the 100-

yearl24-hour storm event. Additionally, no County-maintained roadways were inundated

during the 25-yearl24-hour storm event.

Load (kg)

4,204 663

168,811 18,252

329 217 .

Unit Load (kglacre)

Ranking

1.85 0.292

74.2 8.03 0.145

. 0.095

9 10 13 12 13 13 - -

Quality Based on the analysis of estimated pollutant loads, the Orlando Central Park (Southpoint)

sub-basin has a summation of 70, indicating a sub-basin wide problem. This area contains

no natural lakes, therefore no lake problems are identified.

The Orlando Central Park area has relatively minor and routine maintenance issues.

Improvements for water quality and water quantity are addressed in the following sections.

A majority of this area is maintained by Orlando Central Park consistent with a contract

with Orange County. Routine maintenance of the control structures and conveyance

elements associated with the Orlando Central Park stormwater system should continue to

be performed to remove sediment deposits and nuisance vegetation. Culverts under

Florida's Turnpike and John Young Parkway should also be inspected and cleaned on a

regular basis. Florida's Turnpike culverts require inspection and cleaning as soon as

possible.

The commercial land uses and density of their construction within the Orlando Central

Park sub-basin cause the unit pollutant load to be higher than in other sub-basins within the

Shingle Creek Watershed. A majority, if not all, of the developments within this sub-basin

have stormwater treatment facilities. Given that best management practices are already in

place within this area, no new structural controls are recommended. However, it is

recommended that a combination of the non-structural best management practices listed in

Section 2.5 of this report be used to ensure the continued protection of the lakes, ponds

and creeks within this sub-basin.

3.8 Lockheed Martin The Lockheed Martin Group is located in the west central portion of the Shingle Creek

Watershed. The Lockheed Martin sub-basin includes 7 contributing areas and covers

Appendix A. The runoff from this sub-basin flows into the Lockheed Martin Canal which

ultimately discharges into Shingle Creek. Four low-lying wetland areas exist in this area

though no natural lake system is present. Lockheed Martin is the major contributor of

stormwater runoff in this sub-basin. The Lockheed Martin group is generally bordered by

Republic Drive on the west, Newover Canal to the south, Shingle Creek on the east and

Sand Lake Road to the north as presented in Exhibit 3-27.

Hydrological Data Neither Orange County nor Lockheed Martin records lake levels for any water bodies

within this sub-basin, so no hydrological data was obtained.

Development Reports and Plans Drainage information and development plans were obtained from a variety of different sources for the Lockheed Martin group for the time period through October 1996. The

report.

L O C K H E E D / . T I N BASIN 1 ) 3-27 1

The "Conceptual Master Drainage Plan, Martin Marietta Orlando Aerospace" prepared by

DRMP was the primary source of information reviewed for this area. This report

contained information concerning stage-area relations, basin boundaries, pipe location and

sizes and inverts, along with cross sectional information.

investigation.

Water Quality Data

Research failed to located any water quality data for this region.

The Lockheed Martin group is the second smallest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek

Watershed. It contains three wetland areas which serve to attenuate the flow. The area is

primarily composed of industrial and forested land uses. The sub-basin is made up of 7

contributing areas ranging in size from 75 to 417 acres as depicted in Table 3-54 and

Exhibit 1-4.

Shingle Creek Master Storrnwater Management Study

Table 3-54 Lockheed Martin Contributing Areas

Sub-Basin 1 Area I Curve I Time of I Percent I Name (acre) Number Concentration (%)

MM- 1 95 .O 92 138 6.9

This area is characterized by one major tributary traversing the center of the Lockheed

Martin grounds and four depressional areas discharging into the canal. The channel begins

near the main Lockheed Martin building and flows east for 1,722 feet where it flows

through five 84-inch by 62-inch elliptical CMP under Lockheed Martin's entrance road.

From this point, the canal flows southeast for 3,700 feet collecting runoff from one

wetland area en route. After passing through five 72-inch by 48-inch arched CMP and

collecting runoff from a second wetland, the canal flows an additional 1,140 feet. At this

point the canal crosses under a remote access road via five 72-inch by 44-inch arched

CMP. The Lockheed Martin canal then flows east for 2,500 feet crossing through the

center of a natural wetland area. After the wetland the canal flows through four 48-inch

RCP under another remote access road. The canal traverses an additional 2,100 feet

before joining with Shingle Creek. Table 3-55 and Appendix F present the conveyance

elements used to model the stormwater system. The adICPR computer input information is

contained in Appendix H. A map locating the Lockheed Martin area is shown in

MM-3 MM-4 MM-5 MM-7 P1600 Total

Exhibit 1-3 and Exhibit 3-27. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

302.7 142.4 416.5 74.6 92.1

1,376.3

74 76 77 80 74

186 240 317 126 126

22.0 10.3 30.3 5.4 6.7

Table 3-55 Lockheed Martin Stormwater Conveyance Features

Lockheed Martin Control Structure

Lockheed Martin Control Structure MM-5 MM-7

To No. Length Description Node Of (feet)

Pipes PI400 1 800 Travezoidal Channel Section

The Lockheed Martin group is predominantly classified as uplands. The largest wetland

within this group is located 2,100 west of Shingle Creek. The Lockheed Martin Canal also

flows through this wetland system. The wetland contains 15 acres of open wetland which

is surrounded by 70 acres of palustrine, forested, deciduous, semi-permanent wetlands.

This wetland provides excellent treatment and attenuation opportunities for the Lockheed

Martin site. The remaining wetlands are west of the above referenced wetland. These

wetlands are classified as palustrine, forested, broad and needle leaved deciduous, seasonal

and semi-permanent and cover 49 acres. These wetlands are controlled by weirs which

overflow in the canal. Exhibit 1-7 depicts the historic wetlands in the Shingle Creek

Watershed according to the National Wetland Inventory prepared by the Florida Game &

Fresh Water Fish Commission. Various wetland areas throughout the Shingle Creek

Watershed were investigated for storage potential, treatment efficiency and wetland

functionality. The results of this analysis are presented in Appendix J.

0 hydraulic output information. Table 3-56 summarizes the maximum unrouted flows

generated by the 7 contributing areas within the Lockheed Martin sub-basin.

Table 3-56 Lockheed Martin Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

0 stage, inflow and outflow can be found in Appendix I. A nodal diagram for the area is

- -423- 379 165 426 117 131

25-yearl24-hour (cfs) 132 328 285 125 323 90 99

Basin Name

MM- 1 MM-2 MM-3 MM-4 MM-5 MM-7 MM-6

10-yeax-124-hour (cfd 116 280 238 105 272 77 83

TAB d 3-57 Lockheed Martin Maximum Conditions

Node Name

Description

LockheedIMartin Channel

100-year/24-hour Stage I Flow Stage I Flow

-%kt%- LockheedIMartin Remote Road LockheedIMartin Channel Lockheed/Martin Remote Road Lockheed/Martin Channel Lockheed/Martin Channel Martin Remote Road at Perimeter Rd LockheedIMartin Channel LockheedIMartin Channel LockheedIMartin Channel Lockheed/Martin Channel LockheedIMartin Culvert LockheedIMartin Channel LockheedIMartin Channel Lockheed/Martin Channel LockheedIMartin Channel LockheedIMartin Channel LockheediMartin Channel

MM- 1 LockheedIMartin Control Structure Lockheed/Martin Control Structure Lockheed/Martin Control Structure LockheedIMartin Control Structure Lockheed/Martin Control Structure Lockheed/Martin Control Structure

U/S stage and DIS stage changing at various rates for different storm events

The flood profiles have also been prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed. The

Lockheed Martin Canal flood profiles are presented in Appendix K and are also available

in both mylar and electronic format from the Orange County Stormwater Management

Department.

Additional information concerning water quality can be found in the report entitled "Water Quality Analysis of Shingle Creek Basin. "

3.8.1.6 Water Quality Loadings @ The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced from the Lackheed

Martin sub-basin are presented in Table 3-58. The last column in the table is the rank of

Table 3-58

Lockheed Martin Water Quality Loadings

I parameter I Load I Unit Load I Ranking

(kg) 2,266

355 89,332

Lead Zinc

(kglacre) 1.59 0.249

152 98

0.107 0.069

This sub-basin has rankings which vary widely. It produces large amounts of total solids,

lead, and zinc (llth, llth, and loth), is average in BOD, and low in nutrients nitrogen and

phosphorus (4th and 5th).

Quantity The water quantity model predicted minor flooding problems within the Lockheed Martin

sub-basin. Neither structure nor house flooding was predicted during the 100-yearl24-hour

yearl24-hour storm event. However, two private remote access roads were overtopped

during the 25-year storm event.

basin were identified. Water quality data on the lakes and wetlands within this sub-basin

were not available, therefore no determination of lakes problem areas can be made.

The Lockheed Martin area has moderate flooding problems with relatively minor and

routine maintenance issues. Improvements for water quality and water quantity are

addressed in the following sections.

A majority of this area is maintained by Lockheed Martin. Routine maintenance of the

control structures and conveyance elements associated with the Lockheed Martin

stormwater system should be performed to remove sediment deposits and nuisance

vegetation. Two remote access roads, located on the east side of the property, are

currently being overtopped during the 25-yearl24-hour storm event. These roads do not

provide access to any critical areas and the safety threat is minimal as the area is fenced.

The need does not exist for Orange County to take action to correct this deficiency.

3.9 Newover Canal The Newover Canal group is located in the central portion of the Shingle Creek

Watershed. The Newover Canal sub-basin includes 21 contributing areas and covers 1,705

A. Newover Canal is the primary conveyance element in the area, accepting runoff from a

number of developments before discharging into Shingle Creek. Ten stormwater treatment

ponds and three low-lying wetland areas are located in this area; no natural lake systems

are present. Plaza International is the only major contributor of stormwater runoff to the

Newover Canal system. The Newover Canal group is generally bordered by Interstate 4 on

the west, Bee Line Expressway to the south, Shingle Creek on the east and Sand Lake

Road to the north as presented in Exhibit 3-28.

Hydrological Data Orange County does not record any lake levels for any water bodies within this sub-basin.

Additionally, during discussions with Plaza International staff no hydrological data was

obtained.

Development Reports and Plans Drainage information and development plans were obtained from a variety of different sources for the Newover Canal group for the time period through October 1996. The

report.

MAIN SUI+- -

The primary source of information on Newover Canal and its associated treatment ponds

was Orlando Central Park staff. "Orlando Central Park Phase 8B, Permit Application #48-20698" (July 1979), "Orlando Central Park Phase 8B, Primary Drainage Facilities:

Preliminary Engineering Report" (March 1979) and "State of Florida, Joint Permit

Application, Dredge and Fill Structures" all prepared by Reynolds, Smith and Hills were

used extensively. The reports contained pond control structure information, pond stage-

area-volume relationships, and typical channel cross sections.

The construction of the Orange County Convention Center altered three of the ponds. The

"Orange County Convention Center, Phase N, Drainage Report" prepared by Brindley,

Pieters & Associates in October 1993 was obtained. This report and associated plans

detailed the new pond configurations and control structures.

investigation.

to delineate drainage basin boundaries, define stage-area relationships for lakes and nahlral

Water Quality Data Research failed to located any water quality data for this region.

The Newover Canal group is the fifth smallest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek

Watershed. It contains ten ponds and two wetland areas. The area is primarily composed

of commercial developments and attractions. The sub-basin is comprised of 21

contributing areas ranging in size from 4 to 172 acres as depicted in Table 3-59 and

rl) Exhibit 1-4.

Table 3-59 Newover Canal Contributing Areas

Sub-Basin Name

MM-10 MM-11 MM-9

I I I I

Area (acre) 172.8 122.0 40.1

NEWOVERl I 57.2 1 92 I 30 I I I

3.4 NEWOVERl 1 136.8 ( 89 I 77

PllOO PI-Z 1 PZI- 1 PZI-10 PZI- 1 1

PZI-8 27.9 92 10 1.6

PZI-9 74.7 92 10 4.4

Total 1,705.3 100.0

Curve Number

86 73 85

PZI-12 PZI- 13 PZI-2 PZI-3 PZI-4

This area is characterized by one major, well-defined channel section known as the

Newover Canal with many ponds and wetland areas discharging into it. Newover Canal

begins just south of Sand Lake Road and east of Republic Drive. Newover Canal flows

south for 2,000 feet before crossing under a maintenance road via two 7-foot by 7-foot

85.3 100.6 30.7 38.3

90 100 10

104.6 77.5 5.0 4.1

Percent (%) 10.2 7.3 2.3

69 8 1 89 83 69 72 7 1 76 69

147 167 107 10 123

130.1 ( 91

5.0 5.9 1.8 2.2 8.8

123 354 10 10

6.1 4.5 0.3 0.2 ;

15 7.6

concrete box culverts. The canal continues flowing south for 1,800 feet where it crosses

under another maintenance road through two 7-foot by 10-foot concrete box culverts. At

this point, the canal turns and flows directly east, parallel to the Bee Line Expressway, for

9,000 feet until it combines with Shingle Creek. In addition to flowing into Shingle Creek,

Newover Canal can also flow south into the Valencia Water Control District. The ten

ponds discharge to Newover Canal via flash board risers. The depressional areas overland

flow into the canal during large storm events. Table 3-60 and Appendix F present the

information is contained in Appendix H. A map locating the Newover Canal Area is

shown in Exhibit 1-3 and Exhibit 3-28. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in

Appendix B.

The majority of the Newover Canal area is uplands. A large wetland system exists along

the east shore of Newover Canal. The area contains 49 acres of palustrine, forested.

evergreen, saturated wetlands, meaning the soil is general!^ wet and forested evergreen

species exist. A 50 acres palustrine, forested. deciduous, semipermanent wetland exists on

the north side of the canal where the canal turns to the east. Newover Canal flows through

an undeveloped area as it approaches Shingle Creek. In this area the wetlands are

classified as palustrine, forested and scrub-shrub, broad and needle leafed deciduous,

semipermanent and seasonal. These wetlands cover approximately 20 acres. Exhibit 1-7

depicts the historic wetlands in the Shingle Creek Watershed according to the National

Wetland Inventory prepared by the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission.

Various wetland areas throughout the Shingle Creek Watershed were investigated for

storage potential, treatment efficiency and wetland functionality. The results of this

analysis are presented in Appendix J.

Table 3-60 Newover Canal Stormwater Conveyance Features

RNEWOVE3 Newover Canal NEWOVEIU

RNEWOVEA Newover Canal NEWOVER4

Plaza International Pond 5 Structure

Plaza International Pond 8 Structure PZI-8 I I

WZI-9 (plaza International Pond 9 Structure I PZI-9

To No. Node of

Pipes NEWOVER4 1

NEWOVER4 3

NEWOVER2 1

NEWlB 2

NEWlB 1

NEWOVER2 1

NEWOVER4 1

Pl 100 1

NEW3A 1

PI-Zl 1

NEWlA 1

NEWOVER3 1

NEW3A 2

NEWOVERS 1

NEWOVER6 1

PZI-13 1

PLZ2 1

SHADOW 2

PZI-2 1

NEWOVER4 1

NEWOVER6 1

NEW6A i

PZI-3 2

NEWOVERI 1

PZI-4A 1

PZI-5 2

PZES 1

NEWOVEW 3

NEWOVER3 2

PZI-8 1

PZI-9 1

Description

2,900' Weir at 95.0

DIS 84" x 84" CBC wl 14' Weir at 93.8 1

O 100' Weir at 102.63

2100 Irregular Channel Section

0 100' Weir at 95.8

950 Trapezoidal Channel Section

20 DIS 84" x 120" CBC wl20' Weir at 87.:

0 10' Weir at 84.15

325 96" x 84" CBC

40 DIS 36" CMP wl4' Weir at 119.89

0 10' Weir at 88.9

0 600' Weir at 91.7

0 200' Weir at 90.72

40 DIS 30" CMP wl5 ' Weir at 113.10

145 D.S 54" CMP wl 1' Weir at 102.4

0 18' Weir at 98.4

100 54" CMP

100 72" CMP

50 DIS 60" CMP wl5' Weir at 93.65

40 DIS 60" CMP wl 14' Weir at 93.65

630 DIS 48" RCP wl9' Weir at 96.3

680 DIS 113" x 72" ERCP w/ 35' Weir at 90.8

0 10' Weir at 89.5

generated by the 21 contributing areas within the Newover Canal sub-basin.

Table 3-61

Newover Canal Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

Basin Name 10-year/2dhour 25-year/24hour 100-year/24-hour (cfd (cfs) (cfs)

PI- 1 86 98 122 KIRKMAN 182 210 263 PZI-14 64 7 8 106 BEELIN-2 96 113 146 PZI- 1 3 8 44 55 PZI- 10 5 3 61 78 PZI- 1 1 120 145 197 PZI- 12 90 108 145 PZI- 13 4 1 49 67 PZI-2 6 7 9

Newover Canal Maximum Conditions Node I Description 25-yearl24-hour

Stage I Flow 10-yearl24-hour Stage I Flow Name

MM-10 LockheedIMartin Control Structure MM-11 ILockheedIMartin Control Structure

LockheedIMartin Control Structure ~ e w o v e r Canal Newover Canal l~ewover Canal

NEW6A 1 ~ewover Canal NEWOVERl INewover Canal

PI-Z 1 l~ewover Canal to VDD connection

NEWOVER2 NEWOVER3 NEWOVER4 NEWOVER5 NEWOVER6

Newover Canal Newover Canal Newover Canal Newover Canal Newover Canal

PZI-11 I Plaza International Pond 1 1 Control Structur PZI- 12 Plaza International Pond 12 Control Structur

PI-22 PZI- 1 PZI-10

PZI- 13 PZI-2

Newover Canal to, VDD connection Plaza International Pond 1 Control Structure Plaza ~nternational Pond 10 Control Structur

Newover Canal : Plaza International Pond 2 Control Structure - --

PZI-3 I Plaza International Pond 3 Control Structure PZI-4 Plaza International Pond 4 Control Structure

PZI-4A l~ laza International Pond 4 Control Structure Plaza International Pond 5 Control Structure Plaza International Pond 6 Control Structure I Plaza International Pond 17Control Structurt

PZI-8 l~ l aza International Pond 8 control-structure PZI-9 IPlaza International Pond 9 Control Structure

* Flows Updated due to instabilities in the Model ** Decreasing Flows with Higher Frequency Storms or Negative Flows due to

111s ctace and DlS ctalre chanpinp at varinuc ratcc fnr d i f f ~ r ~ n t ctnrm pvpntc

The flood profiles have also been prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed. The

Newover Canal flood profile is presented in Appendix K and is also available in both

mylar and electronic format from the Orange County Stormwater Management

Department.

The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced from the Newover

Canal sub-basin are presented in Table 3-63. The last column in the table is the rank of

Table 3-63 Newover Canal Water Quality Loadings

Parameter Ranking

Nitrogen

Phosphorus

Total Solids

Load (kg)

Unit Load (kglacre)

112,802

11,917

This sub-basin appears to generally rank just below the median of all sub-basins, with

nutrients ranking as 8th and 9th, BOD as l l th, and solids, lead, and zinc as 12th.

Quantity The water quantity model predicted no major flooding problems within the Newover Canal

Quality Based on the analysis of estimated pollutant loads, the Newover Canal sub-basin has a summation of 64, indicating a sub-basin wide problem. Water quality data on the lakes and

wetlands within this sub-basin were not available, therefore no determination of lakes

problem areas can be made.

The Newover Canal area has relatively minor and routine maintenance issues.

A majority of this area is maintained by Plaza International via a contract with Orange

County. Overall, Newover Canal is very well maintained. Routine maintenance of the

control structures and conveyance elements associated with the canal and ponds should

continue to be performed to remove sediment deposits and nuisance vegetation. A weir at

the outfall of Newover Canal into Shingle Creek was washed out several years ago. The

weir was not replaced and the water continues to flow directly into Shingle Creek. It may

be possible to store more water in Newover Canal and also treat the stormwater generated

in this area to a greater extent. A study of this area with various weir configurations is

recommended to establish the feasibility of expanding the use of this facility.

The commercial land uses and density of their construction within the Newover Canal sub-

basin cause the unit pollutant load to be higher than in other sub-basins within the Shingle

Creek Watershed. A majority, if not all, of the developments within this sub-basin have

stormwater treatment facilities. Given that best management practices are already in place

within this area, no new structural controls are recommended. However, it is

recommended that a combination of the non-structural best management practices listed in

Section 2.5 of this report be used to ensure the continued protection of the lakes, ponds

and creeks within this sub-basin.

CULVERT

SCALE IN MUES

SHINGLE CREEK BASIN - MAJOR SUB-BASIN MRP f XHIBIT I I I I I WHISPER WOOD BASIN 3-29

3.10 Whisperwood C-11 and C-12 Canals

The Whisperwood group is located in the east central portion of the Shingle Creek

Watershed. The Whisperwood sub-basin includes 12 contributing areas and covers 1,648

A. Three tributaries traverse the area. One is associated with Orlando Central Park and

flows to the southwest. The remaining two canals (C-11 and C-12) are associated with the

Valencia Water Control District drainage system. These two channels drain towards John

Young Parkway and then west to Shingle Creek. Significant lakes within the group are

Lake Prosper and Lake Whisperwood. The following major developments contribute

stormwater runoff to the Whisperwood system: Orlando Central Park, Orangewood

Planned Development and Prosper Colony. The Whisperwood group is generally bordered

by Shingle Creek on the west, Central Florida Parkway to the south, Orange Blossom Trail

on the east and the Bee Line Expressway to the north as presented in Exhibit 3-29.

Hydrological Data

Orange County does not record lake levels for any water bodies within this sub-basin.

Additionally, no information was discovered during the research for this report.

sources for the Whisperwood group for the time period through October 1996. The

report.

Construction plans for Florida's Turnpike and Florida's Turnpike connection with the Bee

Line Expressway were obtained from the Turnpike Authority and the Florida Department

of Transportation. Information related to John Young Parkway was also reviewed.

Additionally, the construction plan sets and reports for Orangewood were obtained from

DRMP files.

The Valencia Water Control District provided a majority of the information related to this

area. Two plan sets, "Canal Excavation and Road Embankment - Valencia Drainage

District" and "Bridges and Water Control Szructures - Valencia Drainage District"

prepared by Gee & Jenson in 1972, were a major source of information for this area.

These plans included culvert and cross section information. AdICPR computer input

information was obtained from the South Florida Water Management District, "Valencin

Drainage District Permit No. 48-00052-S. "

A portion of Orlando Central Park is also within this group. The area south of the Bee

Line Expressway and west of Florida's Turnpike is named Phase 10 by Orlando Central

Park. Phase 10 was sold to AT&T. The information related to this portion of the basin

was obtained from "Orlando Central Park Phase 10; Primary Drainage Facilities:

Preliminary Engineering Report" prepared by Reynolds, Smith & Hills in June 1984.

Orange County does not record lake levels for any water bodies within this sub-basin.

Additionally, 110 information was discovered during the research for this report.

investigation.

Water Quality Data * Research failed to locate any water quality data for this region.

The Whisperwood group is the fourth smallest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek

Watershed. It contains two lakes: Lake Prosper and Lake Whisperwood. The area is

primarily composed of industrial and commercial developments. The sub-basin is made up

of 12 cc

Exhibit

mtributing areas ranging in size from 55 to 286 acres as depicted in Table : 3-64 and

This area is characterized by two large lakes (Lake ~ h i s ~ e k w o o d and Lake Prosper), four

detention facilities and three tributaries. The first tributary of interest has its beginning at

Whisperwood Subdivision and flows into the Valencia Water Control District's C-11

Canal. The C-1 1 Canal flows west for 6,000 feet, crosses under John Young Parkway and

flows through an Arnil structure, before ultimately discharging into Shingle Creek. Lake

Whisperwood flows into the C-11 Canal via overland sheet flow at elevation 85 feet. The

Valencia Water Control District's C-12 Canal is the next major tributary in the system.

The C-12 Canal begins at Orangewood Subdivision at U.S. 441 and flows northwest for

4,600 feet crossing two Amil structures. The C-12 Canal then turns to the south and

travels 4,000 feet until it converges with the C-11 Canal just east of John Young Parkway.

A large slough area discharges into the C-12 Canal 600 feet south of its confluence with

the C-11 Canal. The final tributary is located within Orlando Central Park. It begins at

Lake Prosper on the east side of the Florida's Turnpike and flows 3,400 feet in a westerly

0 direction until it intersects with Consulate Drive. In between these two points, the

tributary conveys water under Florida's Turnpike Ramp (two 10 foot by 7-foot concrete

box culverts), Florida's Turnpike (two 10 foot by 7-foot concrete box culverts), and State

Road 441 (two 10 foot by 7-foot concrete box culverts). From Consulate Drive (two 7 feet

by 7-feet concrete box culverts) the canal turns to the southwest and flows 4,800 feet until

it meets the C-12 Canal. Enroute, the canal crosses Principle Row (three 12 foot by 5-foot

concrete box culverts) and Investor Row (three 12 foot by 5-foot concrete box culverts).

Additionally, three detention facilities flow into this tributary. Two join the canal at its

confluence with the C-12 Canal. The remaining pond is a borrow pit associated with the

construction of the Bee Line Expressway and discharges just to the west of Consulate

Drive. Table 3-65 and Appendix F present the conveyance elements used to model the

stormwater system. The adICPR computer input information is contained in Appendix H. A map locating the Whisperwood Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3 and Exhibit 3-29. An

overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

Table 3-65 Whisperwood Stormwater Conveyance Features

Reach Name Location

RBL-2 Bee Line Pond 2 Control Structure

S.R. 441 Culvert

Bee Line Pond 1 Control Structure

RBLPOND

RBLPONDW

RLKWHWD

RORNGWD

RPROSPER

Description

Bee Line Borrow Pit Culvert

Bee Line Borrow Pit Overflow

Overland Flow Lake Whisper Wood

Overland Flow from Orange Wood

Lake Prosper Control Structure

RPROSPEW

RWISP-1

RWISP-2

RZl lA

RZl lC

RZ12B2

RZF- 1

RZF-10

RZF-I 1

RZF- 12

, RZF-9

1 RZF-9A

441E Zl lA 1 100 72" x 60" CBC

BL-1 ZF-1 2 30 DIS %" x3 6" CBC wl 14' Weir at 84.5

BL-2 ZF-1 3 35 DIS 84" x 36" CBC wl20' Weir

Lake Prosper Structure Overtopping

Whisper Wood Pond 1 Structure

Whisper Wood Canal

Whisper Wood Control Structure

Whisper Wood Canal

Whisper Wood Control Structure

Whisper Wood Canal

Florida's Turnpike Access Ramp Culvert Whisper Wood Canal

Whisper Wood Canal

Consulate Drive Culvert

Whisper Wood Canal

Principle Road Culvert

Whisper Wood Canal

Inventors Road Culvert

Whisper Wood Canal

S.R. 441 Culvert

Florida's Turnpike Culvert

at 85.5 BLPOND ZF-6 1 40 30" CMP

BLPOND ZF-6 1 0 100' Weir at 92.6

LKWHWD Z12A 1 0 400' Weir at 85.5

ORNGWD Z l l A 1 0 100' Weir at 90.0

PROSPER ZF-12 2 100 DIS 60" x 40" ERCP wl 12.5' Weir I at 91.15

PROSPER 1 ZF-12 I 1 I 0 I 100' Weir at 96.19

ZF-12 ZF-11 1

ZF-2 ZF- 1 1

ZF-3 ZF-2 3

ZF-4 ZF-3 1

ZF-5 ZF-4 3

ZF-6 ZF-5 1

ZF-7 ZF-6 2

ZF-8 ZF-7 1

ZF-9 ZF-8 2

ZF-9A ZF-9 2

115 144" x 60" CBC

64 144" x 60" CBC

108 84" x 84" CBC

113 120" x 84" CBC

214 120" x 84" CBC

The majority of this area is classified as uplands. One wetland, located east of John Young

Parkway and south of the Beeline Expressway, exists within this sub-basin. The area

consists of 22 acres of palustrine, forested. needle leafed deciduous, semipermanent

wetlands, which indicates pine trees grow in the vicinity. Exhibit 1-7 depicts the historic

wetlands in the Shingle Creek Watershed according to the National Wetland Inventory

prepared by the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission. Various wetland areas

throughout the Shingle Creek Watershed were investigated for storage potential, treatment

efficiency and wetland functionality. The results of this analysis are presented in

Appendix J.

hydraulic output information. Table 3-66 summarizes the maximum flows generated by

the 12 hydrographs within the Whisperwood sub-basin.

The flood profiles have also been prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed. The C-11,

C-12 and Whisperwoods Canal flood profiles are presented in Appendix K and are also

Management Department.

Table 3-66 Whisperwood Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

Basin Name

441E BL-1 SOBT-2 BLPOND LKWHWD ORNGWD PROSPER WISP-1 WISPWD WISP-:! S&B SOBT-1

The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced from the

Whisperwood sub-basin are presented in Table 3-68. The last column in the table is the

10-yed24-hour (cfs) 172 92

113 21 1 72 45

266 198 86

130 60

25-year124-hour (cfs) 199 115 139 248 84 55

307 234 102 157 76 -

Whisperwood Maximum Conditions Node Description Name

441E S.R. 441 Culvert Bee Line Pond 1 Control Structure Bee Line Pond 2 Control Structure

BLPOND Bee Line Borrow Pit Culvert XWHWD loverland flow from Lake Whisper Wood 3RNGWD loverland flow from Orange Wood PROSPER Lake Prosper Control Structure Culvert

WISP-1 Whisper Wood Pond 1 Control Structure WISP-2 Whisper Wood Canal Z l lA Whis~er Wood Canal --

Z l lB 1 whisper Wood Control Structure Z l l C I Whisper Wood Canal Z l l D Whis~er Wood Canal

I - -- --

Z12A I Whisper Wood Canal Z 12B2 Whisper Wood Control Structure Z12C l ~ h i s p e r Wood Canal ZF- 1 (whisper Wood Canal

Whisper Wood Canal Florida's Turnpike Access Ramp Culverl Whis~er Wood Canal

Whisper Wood Canal ZF-3 l~onsulate Drive Culvert

Whisper Wood Canal ZF-5 zF-4 I ~ r i n c i ~ l e Road Culvert ZF-6 I ~ h i s L e r Wood Canal ZF-7 l~nventors Road Culvert ZF-8 Whisper Wood Canal ZF-9 -1 S.R. 441 Culvert - -

ZF-9A I~lorida's Turnpike Culvert * Flows Updated due to Instabilities in the Model ** Decreasing Flows with Higher Frequency Storms or Negative Flows due to

10-yearl24-hour 25-yearl24-hour 100-yearl24-hour Stage I Flow Stage I Flow Stage I Flow

Table 3-68 Whisperwood Water Quality Loadings

Unit Load I Rankine Parameter

Nitrogen

Phosphorus

Total Solids

BOD Lead

This sub-basin ranks very much in the middle of the 15 sub-basins, with a range of

rankings from 6 to 9.

Load (kg)

88,329

Quantity The water quantity model predicted no major flooding problems within the Whisperwood

sub-basin. Neither structure nor house flooding was predicted during the 100-year/24-hour

The Whisperwood area has relatively minor and routine maintenance issues.

Orlando Central Park maintains a portion of the northern canal system. Additionally, the

Valencia Water Control District maintains a portion of the southern canal system. The

area appears to be in good working order. Inspection and routine maintenance of the

control structures and conveyance elements associated with the tributaries and treatment

facilities should be continued to remove sediment deposits and nuisance vegetation.

Current information in this area was sparse. To better understand the water flow in this

area, a detailed drainage study (including survey) should be conducted.

3.11 Big Sand Lake The Big Sand Lake group is located in the west central portion of the Shingle Creek

Watershed. The Big Sand Lake sub-basin includes 7 contributing areas and covers 5,067

A. Big Sand Lake is the ultimate receiving water body for the entire region and controls

the discharge into the Valencia Water Control District. Significant lakes within the group

are Big Sand Lake, Little Sand Lake, Spring Lake, Lake Crowell and Lake Willis. The

following major subdivisions contribute stormwater runoff to the Big Sand Lake system:

Sand Lake Common, Sand Lake Point, Sand Lake Plaza, Somerset Shores, Bay View

Reserve, The Marketplace, Spring Lake Villas, Spring Bayvillas, Orange Tree Country

Club, Greenleaf, Lake Willis Camps, Bay Vista Estates and Granada Villas. The Big Sand

Lake group is generally bordered by Apopka Vineland Road on the west, Vineland Avenue

to the south, Interstate 4 on the east and Woodgreen Drive to the north as presented in

Exhibit 3-30.

Hydrological Data Orange County records monthly lake levels on Big Sand Lake, Little Sand Lake, Spring

Lake and Lake Willis.

normal high water elevation for Big Sand Lake in January 1985. The maximum recorded

stage on Big Sand Lake is 100.43 and occurred in December 1960. The Federal

Emergency Management Agency's 100-year design storm elevation is 101.4. Big Sand

Lake is controlled by two 48-inch culverts which discharge into the Valencia Water

Control District.

normal high water elevation for Little Sand Lake in April 1984. The maximum recorded

stage on Little Sand Lake is 101.81 and occurred in August 1960. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency's 100-year design storm elevation is 101.80. Little Sand Lake is

controlled by overland flow which enters Big Sand Lake.

The Orange County Board of County Commissioners adopted elevation 98.7 as the normal * high water elevation for Spring Lake in October 1982. The maximum recorded stage on

Spring Lake is 101.67 and occurred in September 1960. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency's 100-year design storm elevation is 102.1. Spring Lake is

controlled by a weir which discharges into Little Sand Lake.

normal high water elevation for Lake Willis in January 1991. The maximum recorded

stage on Lake Willis is 106.4 and occurred in August 1984. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency's 100-year design storm elevation is 107.9. Lake Willis is controlled

by a 30-inch RCP which flows into Big Sand Lake.

The Orange County Engineering Department established elevation 100.5 as the normal

high water elevation for Lake Crowell in April 1993. The maximum recorded stage on

Lake Crowell is 100.43 and occurred in September 1964. The Orange County Engineering

Department's 100-year design storm elevation is 102.7. Lake Crowell is controlled by

overland flow which discharges into Big Sand Lake.

sources for the Big Sand Lake group for the time period through October 1996. The

report.

Information concerning the Big Sand Lake and Spring Lake control structure was obtained

from the Orange County Stormwater Management Department. Plans detailing culvert

data for Sand Lake Road, Turkey Lake Road and Interstate 4 were obtained from Orange

County and the Florida Department of Transportation. Information related to the storm

system located east of Interstate 4 was obtained from the Valencia Water Control District.

All overland flow weir elevations were taken from photogramrnetric mapping.

investigation.

Water Quality Data Three lakes within this sub-basin have data available. The lakes along with their

respective beginning of record and frequency of sampling are presented in Table 3-69.

Table 3-69 Big Sand Lake Available Water Quality Data

Lake Name

The Big Sand Lake group is the third largest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek

Watershed. It contains five of the larger lakes in the watershed: Big Sand Lake, Little

Sand Lake, Spring Lake, Lake Crowell and Lake Willis. The area is primarily composed

Spring Lake

Little Sand Lake

Big Sand Lake

of residential developments. The sub-basin is made up of 7 contributing areas ranging in

size from 90 to 2,664 acres as depicted in Table 3-70 and Exhibit 1-4.

Beginning Record

Table 3-70

Big Sand Lake Contributing Areas

Frequency

BIGSANDL 1 2,663.5 1 80 1 162 1 52.5

Available From

Aperiodic

Sub-Basin Name

Orange County

WILLIS 1 374.4 1 76 1 98 1 7.4

Area (acre)

CROWELL LTSNDLK SL- 1 SL-2

SPRING

Total 1 5,066.7 1 I I 100.0

Curve Number

593.3 89.6

223.0 875.5

63 80 73

Percent (%)

63 136 30

30 191

4.9 11.7 1.8 4.4

This area is characterized as a cascading lake system comprised of five large lakes. Spring

Lake is the headwaters of the system. Spring Lake is controlled by a weir at elevation

97.38 feet. After flowing over the weir, the water continues south under Sand Lake Road

through two 40-inch by 66-inch elliptical CMP into Little Sand Lake. Little Sand Lake

discharges into Big Sand Lake via an overland weir at elevation 82.1 feet. Lake Crowell

also flows into Big Sand Lake through an overland weir at elevation 102.9 feet. Lake

Willis flows north under Interstate 4 through a 30-inch RCP into Big Sand Lake. Big Sand

Lake discharges east into the Valencia Water Control District via culverts under Turkey

Lake Road (two-48-inch RCP), Interstate 4 (27-inch by 48-inch concrete box culvert) and

Valencia Drainage District culverts (multiple 60-inch, 54-inch, 48-inch and 36-inch RCP).

locating the Big Sand Lake Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3 and Exhibit 3-30. An overall

Big Sand Lakl

Reach Name

Location

WILLIS

RBIGSAND

RCROWELL

RLTSNDL.K

Lake Willis Southern Outfall

Turkey Lake Road Culvert

Overland flow from Lake Crowell

Overland flow from Little Sand Lake

Overland Flow from Upper Big Sand Lake East of Interstate 4 Culvert

East of Interstate 4 Culvert

RSPRING

Table 3-71 ! Stormwater Convevance Features

East of Interstate 4 Culvert

Sand Lake Road Culvert

From To No. Length Node 1 Node I I (fixt) I Pi~es

RWILLISl

Description

WILLIS

BIGSANDL

CROWELL

LTSNDLK

1 LKEVE

BIGSANDL

SPRING

WILLIS

500' Weir at 108.5 2

BIGSANDL

V-STR52

48" RCP

500' Weir at 102.9 500' Weir at 101.0

72" x 48" CBC

140' Weir at 82.1 ,

60" RCP

DIS 66" x 40 ECMP wl5.5' Weir

48" RCP

36" RCP

54" CMP

48" RCP

LTSNDLK 1 2

260 at 97.38 30" RCP

The majority of this area is classified as uplands. Open water accounts for over 1,100

acres within the Big Sand Lake sub-basin. Over 130 acres of wetlands still exist adjacent

the Big and Little Sand Lakes. These wetlands areas are predominately palustrine,

emergent, persistent, meaning emerging forested areas exist in this vicinity. Exhibit 1-7

depicts the historic wetlands in the Shingle Creek Watershed according to the National

Wetland Inventory prepared by the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission

Various wetland areas throughout the Shingle Creek Watershed were investigated for

storage potential, treatment efficiency and wetland functionality. The results of this

analysis are presented in Appendix J.

generated by the 7 contributing areas within the Big Sand Lake sub-basin.

Table 3-72 Big Sand Lake Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

BIGSANDL I 2.530 I 2.976 I 3.871

SL- 1 I 76 I 94 I 131

CROWELL

LTSNDLK

SPRING I 665 I 798 1 1,069

The flood profiles have also been prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed. However, no

tributaries exist within this sub-basin, therefore no flood profiles have been developed.

fecal coliform. Three lakes within this sub-basin have been sampled for a sufficiently long

enough time to allow conclusions to be drawn. A discussion of these three lakes, Spring

Lake, Little Sand Lake and Big Sand Lake, in regard to historical trends is presented.

More detailed information concerning water quality can be found in the report entitled

"Water Quality Analysis of Shingle Creek Basin. "

Spring Lake Secchi-disk depth is fairly constant with no trend. The average value is higher than those

for previous lakes, and is near the high and normal delineation line. Turbidity data show

no trend, mostly because nearly all data are in the low range. In the early 1970s there was

some scatter, with values in the normal and high ranges.

TAB 9 3-73 Big Sand Lake Maximum Cinditions

Description

BIGSANDL Turkey Lake Road Culvert CROWELL Overland flow from Lake Crowell t LTSNDLK loverland flow from Little Sand Lake

SL- 1 I Interstate 4 Culvert SL-2 Overland flow from U D D ~ ~ Big: Sand Lake . . w

SLZ2 l ~ a s t of Interstate 4 Culvert SLZ3 l ~ a s t of Interstate 4 Culvert SLZ4 IEast of Interstate 4 Culvert

-~ - - -

SLZ5 East of Interstate 4 Culvert SLZ6 East of Interstate 4 Culvert SLZ7 East of Interstate 4 Culvert

SPRING Isand Lake Road Culvert WILLIS ILake Willis Outfall, Interstate 4 Culvert

UIS stage and D/S stage changing at various rates for different s!orm events

Both conductance and total solids show an increasing trend over the period of record. The

slope for conductance is about 60 microsiemens/cm over 20 years, and for total solids is

about 70 mg/L over 20 years. Conductance values are presently in the normal range, but

may be moving into the high range. Total solids values have moved from the normal

range into the high range.

Dissolved oxygen is high with less scatter than previous lakes. Some low values occur in

1980-81, 1988, and 1994. BOD shows no pattern, with most data in the low range. It

exhibits higher values and more scatter after 1987.

Total nitrogen and total phosphorus show no distinct trend. Most of the nitrogen values

are in the low range, with a significant number of points in the normal range. Nearly all

of the phosphorus data are in the low range, although a few outliers exist.

@ Chlorophyll-A and fecal coliform values are low and 'show no trend. All data for the two

parameters are in the low range. These data are presented graphically in Exhibit 3-3 1.

Little Sand Lake Data for Little Sand Lake are few. They are spread somewhat across the data-collection

period, and are not grouped.

Secchi-disk depth shows a fairly constant value without a trend. Values are near the high-

normal delineation line. Turbidity also does not show a trend. All values are within the

low range.

Conductance and total solids have no distinct trend. Conductance values are mainly in the

normal range, as are the total solids values.

Dissolved oxygen shows nearly all data in the high range; two values in 1987 and 1988 are

below the high range. Biochemical oxygen demand shows an increase in value after 1985,

but the number of data are too small to be conclusive.

Section 3 .O: Results

Bowyer-Singleton & Associates supplied all the information related to the Hunter's Creek

development. Hunter's Creek was designed in phases. The adICPR computer model

developed for the following phases was entered directly into the Shingle Creek model: Far

West Village South, Far West Village North, West Village, Northeast Village, Northwest

Village, Tract 3 10 and Tract 3 15. This direct transfer of information provides for a more

accurate representation of the area. All of the basins and reaches used to model this area

are not shown on the exhibits. A complete listing of the model input can be found in

Appendix H.

investigation.

In addition to the plans and reports discussed above, photograrnrnetric mapping was used

The Hunter's Creek group is the sixth smallest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek

Watershed. It contains one large mixed use planned development which discharges treated

stormwater into Shingle Creek. The sub-basin is made up of 61 contributing areas ranging

in size from 2 to 187 acres as depicted in Table 3-86 and Exhibit 1-4.

Table 3-86 Hunter's Creek Contributing Areas

LAKE345 16.8 93 15 0.9 LAKE345 20.0 9 1 20 1.1 LAKE345 25.0 93 10 1.4 NWlO 38.1 92 10 2.1 NWlO 47.7 92 10 2.7

Table 3-86 Hunter's Creek Contributing Areas

(Continued) Sub-Basin Area Curve Time of Percent

Name (acre) Number Concentration (%) S310-10 5.4 87 10 0.3

Table 3-86

Hunter's Creek Contributing Areas (Continued)

1 Total 11,780.1 1 I 1 100.4

This basin area is entirely contained within the Hunter's Creek Development which is

divided into five subdivisions: Hunter's Creek Far West Village, Hunter's Creek West

Village, Hunter's Creek Northwest Village, Hunter's Creek Northeast Village and

Hunter's Creek 315 Parcel. Each of these subdivisions is modeled in its entirety as taken

from Hunter's Creek model information prepared by Bowyer-Singleton and Associates.

All the hydrographs and reaches used to model this section have not been included on the

nodal diagrams as a macro picture is desired. The sub-basin eventually discharges into

Shingle Creek via controls on detention facilities internal to the development.

locating the Hunter's Creek Area is shown in Exhibit 1-3 and Exhibit 3-36. An overall

The majority of the historic wetlands within the Hunter's Creek sub-basin were palustrine,

meaning forested areas existed in this vicinity. This area contained over 1,300 acres of

palustrine, forested wetland areas. Today, most of these natural areas have been developed

into residential communities. Many of the open water areas still remain and conservation

easements preserve a portion of the "true" wetland areas. Exhibit 1-7 depicts the historic

wetlands in the Shingle Creek Watershed according to the National Wetland Inventory

prepared by the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission. Various wetland areas

throughout the Shingle Creek Watershed were investigated for storage potential, treatment

efficiency and wetland functionality. The results of this analysis are presented in

Appendix 3.

generated by the 61 contributing areas within the Hunter's Creek sub-basin.

Table 3-87 Hunter's Creek Stormwater Conveyance Features

Reach Name

R310-1

R310-3

R310-4

R310-6

R310PNDl

RLAKE345

RLK310

RLK310A

RS310-10

RS310-2

RS310-5

RS315-60

RS315-61

RS315-70

RFWSlO

RFWSlOA

RFWSll

RFWSZO

RFWS30

RFWS30A

RFWS40

Location

Hunter's Creek Northeast Village

Hunter's Creek Section 315

Hunter's Creek Far West Village South

Hunter's Creek Northwest Village S.

From Node

SEC310-1

SEC310-3

SEC3104

SEC310-6

3lOPND1

LAKE345

LAKE310

S310-10

SEC310-2

SEC310-5

S315-60

S315-61

S315-70

To Node

SEC310-3

SEC310-5

SEC310-3

S310-10

LAKE310

310PNDl

LAKE345

SEC310-3

S310-10

S315-70

pipes 1

Length (feet)

0 " 0 .

Description

DIS 36" RCP wl5 ' Weir at 87.5

DIS 60" RCP w112' Weir at 84.0

DIS 30" RCP wl4.5' Weir at 88.0

DIS 48" RCP w119' Weir at 87.5

66" RCP

V-Notch at 76

144" x 72" CBC

60" RCP

84" RCP

20' Weir at 77.0

20' Weir at 76.5

DIS 42" RCP 20' Weir at 75.6

66" RCP

30' Weir at 78.5

V-Notch at 77

DIS 48" RCP wl7.5' Weir at 86.9

20' Wier at 82.0

36" RCP

Table 3-87 Hunter's Creek Stormwater Conveyance Features

(Continued)

:each Name

WEST-1

WEST-10

WEST-1A

WEST-5

WESTdA

RWEST-7

RWEST-7A

RWEST-8

Table 3-88 - - Hunter's Creek Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows - -

Location

Hunter's Creek West Village

RWEST-8A

RWEST-9

RWESTlOA

From Node

WEST-1

WEST-10

WEST-1

WEST-3

WEST-6

WEST-7

WEST-8

To Node

WEST-6

WEST-8

WEST-7

WEST-8

WEST-9

WEST-10

WEST-9

No. Of

pipes 1

WEST-9

Length (feet)

Description

20' Weir at 79.9

38' Weir at 86.5

DIS 48" RCP wl7 ' Weir at 82

DIS 42" RCP wl7 ' Weir at 82

54" RCP

20' Weir at 81.33

4' Weir at 81.0

20' Weir at 80.5

1' Weir at 80.0

20' Weir at 79.0

0.33' Slot Weir at 79.0

Table 3-88 Hunter's Creek Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

(Continued)

SEClOl I 8 I 9 I 11 SEC 100 I 2 I 3 I 3

3E 5 8 66 83 3F 5 1 59 73 3G 43 49 60 4 5 1 59 76 5 3 3 4 5A 11 12 16 6 NA NA NA 3 15-600 22 25 32 315-601 28 3 3 41 TLOOP 6 7 9 S3 15-700 9 10 12

Table 3-88 Hunter's Creek Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

(Continued)

Basin Name

FWSlOO FWSllO FWS2OO FWS300 FWS400 NWlOO NW 101 NW200 NW201 NW202 NW300 NW400 NW500 NW501 NW600 NW700 W 10 W 100 W30 W40 7 1 82 104 W50 48 5 5 70

lo-yearl24-hour (cfs) 104 22

107 40 42 58 72 47 8

24 13 89 17 11 22 37

272 4 1

122 46 48 66 82 54 9

100-year124-hour (cfs) 148 32

153 57 5 9 82

102 67 12 34 18

20 12 25 42

3 12 47

25 15 32 53

39 1 60

123 155

TAB 9 3-89 Hunter's Creek Maximum Conditions

100-yearl24-hour Stage Flow

Node Name

310PND1 FWSlO FWSll FWS20 FWS30 FWS40

Description Stage I Flow

Hunter's Creek Northeast Village Hunter's Creek Far West Village South Hunter's Creek Far West Village South Hunter's Creek Far West Village South Hunter's Creek Far West Village South Hunter's Creek Far West Village South Hunter's Creek Northeast Village - Hunter's Creek Northeast Village Hunter's Creek Northwest Village Soutl NWlO 1: Hunter's Creek Northwest Village Soutl Hunter's Creek Northwest Village Soutl Hunter's Creek Northwest Village Soutl Hunter's Creek Northwest Village Soutl Hunter's Creek Northwest Village Soutl Hunter's Creek Northwest Village Soutl Hunter's Creek Northeast Village -

Hunter's Creek Section 315 Hunter's Creek Section 3 15 Hunter's Creek Section 3 15 Hunter's Creek Northeast Village Hunter's Creek Northeast Village Hunter's Creek Northeast Village -

Hunter's Creek Northeast Village Hunter's Creek Northeast Village Hunter's Creek Northeast Village Hunter's Creek West Village -

0 TABL 3-89 Hunter's Creek Maximum Conditions

Description

Hunter's Creek West Village Hunter's Creek West Village Hunter's Creek West Village Hunter's Creek West Village -

Hunter's Creek West Village Hunter's Creek West Village Hunter's Creek West Village

10-year/24-hour Stage I Flow

25-yead24-hour Stage I Flow

100-year/24-hour Stage I Flow

major channel reaches exists within this sub-basin, therefore no flood profiles were created

in this area.

The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced from the Hunter's

Creek sub-basin are presented in Table 3-90. These loads have been reduced to reflect the

treatment being provided within the Hunter's Creek Development. The last column in the

table is the rank of this sub-basin among the 15 sub-basins.

Table 3-90 Hunter's Creek Water Quality Loadings

This sub-basin was in the top half in producing nitrogen, but below the median in

producing phosphorus. The production of metals is quite low, 2nd for lead and 3rd for

zinc. Total solids and BOD were fairly low also, 4th and 5th respectively.

Quantity The water quantity model predicted no major flooding problems within the Hunter's Creek

a The Hunter's Creek area has relatively minor and routine maintenance issues.

operation of Orange County facilities. Stormwater facilities should be inspected to ensure

they are functioning properly. Additionally, major roadway crossings and inlets should be

inspected for sediment build-up. All controls structures, piping systems and channels

should be inspected annually.

3.15 Lake Bryan The Lake Bryan group is located in the southwest portion of the Shingle Creek Watershed.

The Lake Bryan sub-basin includes 14 contributing areas and covers 4,872 acres (7.6

square miles) or 9.4 percent of the total watershed as summarized in Appendix A. Little

Lake Bryan, the headwater of the system, flows into Lake Bryan. Lake Bryan discharges

through a drainage way to the south into Osceola County. A large wetland area also drains

to the south into Osceola County. Significant lakes within the group are Lake Bryan,

Little Lake Bryan and Lake Eve. The following major developments contribute

stormwater runoff to the Lake Bryan system: Lake Buena Vista: Walt Disney World

Properties, Bryan's Spanish Cove, Lake Bryan Estates and Vista Springs. The Lake Bryan

group is generally bordered by S.R. 535 on the west, the Osceola County line to the south,

Shingle Creek on the east and Interstate 4 to the north as presented in Exhibit 3-37.

Hydrological Data Orange County periodically records lake levels on Lake Bryan, Little Lake Bryan and

Lake Eve.

normal high water elevation for Lake Bryan in September 1982. The maximum recorded

stage on Lake Bryan is 99.30 and occurred in October 1969. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency's 100-year design storm elevation is 100.10. Lake Bryan discharges

overland into a drainage way.

MAIN -sl4sm

SHINGLE CRBEK BASIN - MAJOR SUB-BASIN MAP EXHIBIT , LUX BRYAN BASIN

SCALE IN INCHES

normal high water elevation for Lake Eve in October 1990. The maximum recorded stage

on Lake Eve is 106.6 and occurred in August 1960. Neither the Federal Emergency

Management Agency nor to Orange County Engineering Department has established an

100-year design storm elevation. Lake Eve would overland flow to the south if the stage

were to rise sufficiently, although it does not discharge during a 100-year design storm

event.

Neither Orange County nor the Federal Emergency Management Agency has established

any criteria related to Little Lake Bryan. The maximum recorded stage on Little Lake

Bryan is 102.0 and occurred in October 1969. Little Lake Bryan outflows overland into

Lake Bryan.

sources for the Lake Bryan group for the time period through October 1996. The

report.

The plan sets for International Drive and the Southern Connector (GreeneWay) were

reviewed for culvert data, basin delineations and cross-sectional information. The "Little

Luke Bryan: Development of Regional Impact, Application for Conceptual Approval, Revised Application" prepared by Ivey, Harris & Walls, Inc. in March 1993 was used to

determine the drainage area for Little Lake Bryan. Data from the "Luke Bryan Drainage

Study" prepared by DRMP, Inc. in March 1987 were also reviewed.

The "Southern Connector Extension" prepared by Greiner in July 1994 was also reviewed.

This report contained culvert information along with additional cross section from

International Drive to the Osceola County line.

Additional information concerning the area was also obtained from Miller-Sellen &

Associates. In their work relating to the Ireland Court Case, new survey information was

obtained and more detailed basins were delineated. The enhanced model created by

Miller-Sullen was then entered directly into the Shingle Creek model.

investigation.

Water Quality Data

This sub-basin has one lake with water-quality data, Lake Bryan. Orange County started

collecting water quality samples on this lake in 197 1.

The Lake Bryan group is the fourth largest sub-basin within the Shingle Creek Watershed.

It contains two of the larger lakes in the watershed: Lake Bryan and Little Lake Bryan;

one smaller lake, Lake Eve; and one large wetland area. The area is primarily

undeveloped. However, several residential developments are located within the sub-basin.

The sub-basin is made up of 14 contributing areas ranging in size from 13 to 2,770 acres

as depicted in Table 3-91 and Exhibit 1-4.

Table 3-91 Lake Bryan Contributing Areas

A2B 44.1 73 62 0.9 A2C 23.8 74 80 0.5 BRSECG 85.2 79 90 1.7

I LKBRYAN I I I I

1 715.6 1 8 1 96 1 14.7

I Total I I I

1 4,872.0 1 I 100.1

This area is characterized by three lakes and one drainage way, which drains to the south

into Osceola County. Lake Eve, the smallest of the three lakes, is landlocked for the 100-

yearl24-hour design storm event. If Lake Eve were to outflow, then it would discharge

south into a large wetland area. This wetland provides a substantial amount of storage and

treatment capacity. This wetland discharges under the GreeneWay through one-72-inch

RCP and two 53-inch by 34-inch elliptical RCP before entering Osceola County.

The second system within this area is the Lake Bryan system. This area is a cascading

lake system with Little Lake Bryan flowing into Lake Bryan via an overland weir at

elevation 100.5 feet. Lake Bryan overland flows into marsh areas before flowing south

under International Drive through ten-36-inch RCP and six 10-foot by 3-foot concrete box

culverts. The water flows south from this point for 2,300 feet. At this point, the

stormwater crosses under the GreeneWay via two 4-foot by 8-foot concrete box culverts

and six 48-inch RCP. The flow continues in a southeasterly directly for an additional

3,160 feet and then flows through a 36-inch RCP and over the Orlando Utility

Commission's easement into Osceola County. Table 3-92 and Appendix F present the

information is contained in Appendix H. A map locating the Lake Bryan Area is shown in

Exhibit 1-3 and Exhibit 3-37. An overall nodal diagram is depicted in Appendix B.

3.15.1.3 Wetland Analysis @ The majority of this area is classified as uplands. Several wetland communities still exist

within this sub-basin. A small strip of land (amounting to 51 acres) adjacent to Lake

Bryan contains palustrine, emergent, persistent species. The west side of Little Lake

Bryan supports a 42 acre wetland system consisting of palustrine, forested. needle leafed

deciduous and evergreen species.

One of the largest wetlands areas within the Shingle Creek Watershed is located east of

Lake Bryan and north of the GreeneWay. This wetland contains 131 acres of palustrine,

forested. needle leafed deciduous and evergreen, seasonal; 107 acres of palustrine,

forested. broad leafed evergreen, saturated; 163 acres of palustrine, forested. deciduous,

semipermanent; and 254 acres of palustrine, forested, evergreen, saturated. This wetland

system is connected to an even larger wetland area to the east. Exhibit 1-7 depicts the

Table 3-92 Lake Bryan Stormwater Conveyance Features

Reach Name

RA2C-1

RA2C-2

RBRSECD

RBRSECDl

RBRSECE

RBRSECF

RBRSECG

RBRSECH

RBRSECJ

RLKBRYAN

RLKEVE

RLTBRYAl

RLTBRYA2

ROUCEAS

ROUCEASl

RSCSWMPl

RSEClO

RZH3-1

RZH3-2

RZH4-1

Location

Lake Bryan Area

GreeneWay Culvert

South of GreeneWay

Overland Flow from Lake Bryan

Lake Eve Drop Structure

Overland Flow from L~ttle Lake Bryan

Overland Flow from Little Lake Bryan

OUC Easement Weir

Overland Flow to Osceola County

Outflow from Lake Bryan

GreeneWay Culvert

GreeneWay Overtopping Elevation

International Dnve Culvert

Internauonal Drive Culvert

To Node

BRSECE

BRSECF

BRSECG

BRSECH

BRSECJ

OUCEAS

SCSWMP

LKBRYAN

BRSECD

SCSWMPl

From Node

BRSECD

BRSECE

BRSECF

BRSECG

BRSECH

BRSECJ

LKBRYAN

LTBRYAN

OUCEAS

SCSWMPl

SCSWMP

Length (feet)

1 9 0 0

1 6 4 0

Description

100' Weir at 97.5

20' Weir at 99.0

31.7 Weir at 100

48" RCP

96" x 48" CBC

Irregular Channel Secuon

250' Weir at 99.5

DIS 18" RCP wl500' We~r at 106.5

800' Weir at 100.5

800' Weir at 101.0

36" RCP

62.5' Weir at 83.2

50' Weir at 75 0

Irregular Channel Sect~on

Irregular Channel Secuon

Irregular Channel Secnon

53" x 34" ERCP

72" RCP

30' Weir at 89.0

36" RCP

120" x 36" CBC

generated by the 14 contributing areas within the Lake Bryan sub-basin.

Table 3-93 Lake Bryan Maximum Unrouted Hydrograph Flows

A X 18 21 28 SCSWMP2 93 109 143 LKBRYAN 575 676 879 LKEVE 90 109 148 LTBRYAN 244 285 365 SCSWAMP 2,066 2,462 3,278 SCSWMPl 305 378 529

Lake Bryan Maximum Conditions Node Name

Description

Depressional Area South of Lake Bryan A2C

BRSECD BRSECE BRSECF BRSECG BRSECH BRSECJ

LKBRYAN LKEVE

Depressional Area South of Lake Bryan Floodway Southern Beltway Culvert Floodway Southern Beltway Culvert Floodway Southern Beltway Culvert Floodway Southern Beltway Culvert Floodway Southern Beltway Culvert Floodway Southern Beltway Culvert Overland flow from Lake Bryan Lake Eve Drop Structure

LTBRYAN Overland flow from Little Lake Bryan OUC Easement Culvert OUCEAS

SCSWMP Overland Flow Lake Eve to Osceola County SCSWMPl Overland Flow Lake Eve to Osceola County

SECl SEClO SEC2 SEC3 SEC4 SEC5

Lake Bryan Floodway S. of International Drivc Lake Bryan Floodway S. of 1nternatiGal ~ r i i Lake Bryan Floodway S. of International Drivc Lake Bryan Floodway S. of International Drivc Lake Bryan Floodway S. of International Drivc Lake Bryan Floodway S. of International Drivc Lake Bryan Floodway S. of International Drivc Lake Bryan Floodway S. of International Drivc Lake Bryan Floodway S. of International Drive - Lake Bryan Floodway S. of International Drivc International Drive Culvert

The flood profiles have also been prepared for the Shingle Creek Watershed. The Lake

Bryan Canal profile is presented in Appendix K and are also available in both mylar and

fecal coliform. One lake within this sub-basin has been sampled for a sufficiently long

time to allow conclusions to be drawn. A discussion of this lake, Lake Bryan, in regard to

historical trends is presented. More detailed information concerning water quality can be

found in the report entitled "Water Quality Analysis of Shingle Creek Basin. "

Lake Bryan

Secchi-disk depth data are widely scattered but may show a negative trend with a slope of

1.4 meters per 20 years. This observation should be taken in a general sense. Nearly all

of the data appear in the normal range. Turbidity values are all in the low range and the

data do not show any trend.

Both conductance and total solids show a general increase over the period of record; the

slope for conductance is 50 microsiemens/cm over 20 years, the slope for solids is 60

mg/L over 20 years. Nearly all of the conductance data are found in the low range; total

solids concentrations appear to be moving from the low range into the normal range.

Dissolved oxygen is relatively high with small scatter. This pattern is probably the best of

all lakes. Biochemical oxygen demand values increase over the period of record, along

with the scatter of the data. Because the scatter increases with time it is difficult and not

practical to calculate a meaningful slope value. Through 1988 the data are within the low

range. Since then the data cover all three ranges.

Total nitrogen and phosphorus values are relatively low and exhibit no trends. Nitrogen is

mostly within the low range. Values were highest in 1981 and 1982. Phosphorus values

are all within the low range except for one outlier in 1984.

Chlorophyll-A data are all within the low range; no trend is evident. Fecal coliform has

very little data. A large value occurs in 1976. These data are presented graphically in

Exhibit 3-38.

Average Site Values for 1990-95 Average values for Lake Bryan data from 1990-95 are shown in Table 3-95. One

parameter average exceeds the median for the statewide values, biochemical oxygen

demand. The lake value is 1.93 mg/L, while the statewide value 1.7 mg/L.

Table 3-95 Lake Bryan Average Site Values for 1990-1995

SDD Turb TSolids Cond DO BOD T Phos T Nitro Chlor-A F Col (meters) (NTU) (mg/L) (uSlem) (m-) (m-) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mglcu m) (MPN1100 mL)

Statewide Lake 0.80 5.00 188.00 8.00 1.70 0.07 1.40 18.50 9.00 Values

County Lake Sites Lake Bryan 1 2.97 1 1.48 1 94.42 ( 125.57 1 8.07 1 1.93 1 0.014 1 0.49 ) 0.10

10 - E Secchi-Disk Depth d 8- i! - c 6- -

Date, in years

[Conductance)

1/1/80 111185

Date, in years

Exhibit 3-38 - Time data for Lake Bryan

p 4-, 0

- 2- Dissolved Oxygen z

2 0 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~

Date, in years

8 I BOD I

Date, in years

Date, in years I I

Phosphorus I i

1 LakeBryan 1 Date, in years 1

Exhibit 3-38 (cont.) - Time data for Lake Bryan

0 Date, in years

Lake Bryan 1 Date, in years

Exhibit 3-38 (cont.) - Time data for Lake Bryan

The loads and unit loads (loadlacre) that are estimated to be produced from the Lake Bryan

Table 3-96 Lake Bryan Water Quality Loadings

This sub-basin produces the smallest unit loads for all 15 sub-basins, ranking 1st for each

of the 6 constituents.

Parameter

Nitrogen

Phosphorus

Total Solids

Quantity The water quantity model predicted no major flooding problems within the Lake Bryan

storm event. Additionally, no County-maintained roadways were inundated during the

25-yearl24-hour storm event.

Load (kg)

121,001

10,250

problems.

The Lake Bryan area has relatively minor and routine maintenance issues. Improvements

operation of Orange County facilities including culverts under International Drive and the

GreeneWay. Additionally, all controls structures, piping systems and channels should be

inspected annually.

3.15.2.2 Water Quality Considerations Water quality does not appear to be a significant problem within this sub-basin. As this is

Section 4.0: Implementation

4.0 IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation is perhaps the most difficult aspect of any capital project or program. The

political community must have a desire to undertake the program and the citizens must

support it. If either is averse to the proposed action, implementation is unlikely. The

following items were considered in the recommendation process:

1. Specific Flooding Concerns

The flooding of public infrastructure facilities (roadways, bridges, and pump stations)

and private structures (homes and businesses) were considered during the

recommendation process.

2. Initial Construction and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The project should achieve a maximum benefit from the expenditure of public

funds. The cost-benefit ratio must be greater than unity.

3. Ecological Concerns

The environmental goals of the community should be considered in every action

taken, ensuring that the environment is protected to the extent desired by the

community.

4. Water Quality Impacts

The ambient water quality of specific lakes and the amount of pollutants produced per

unit area from a particular basin is another basis on which to judge the prioritization

of a project. Lakes which exceed the statewide average and basins which produce the

Section 4.0: Im~lementation

most pollutants should be retrofitted first, reducing the pollutant load to the lake

system.

5. Implementation Considerations

Difficulty associated with construction, design and permitting were considered

during the recommendation process. The simplest alternative was selected when

possible.

6. Social Acceptability

The project should abide by all regulatory standards and be supported by the public

it is intended to serve.

0 7. Reliability

The project must lie within currently acceptable and reliable standards. The

technology should solve as many quantity and quality problems as possible. Risks

to the public should be minimized in every instance by making public safety a

priority.

- - - .

This study has identified several needed stormwater improvements within the Shingle Creek

Watershed. Given a well-planned public information process, the community will actively

support the proposed projects. It is recommended that a phased approach be followed with

education occurring first and then construction of one major high profile project, followed by

the remaining projects as time and money permit. The first major project should be

highlighted in the public information campaign in order to heighten the community's

awareness of stormwater-related issues and to show that Orange County is taking active

measures to solve the problems in their neighborhoods.

4.1 Prioritization

Determining a priority for implementation is difficult in a watershed of this size with

multiple independent problem areas. Maintenance and data collection activities should be

enhanced during the next two years. General maintenance activities should continue to be

a primary objective within this developed watershed. Collection of both water quantity

and water quality data will enable Orange County to anticipate needs and allow for more

detailed analysis in the future. Implementation of these programs early in the process (the

County has been working steadily to increase maintenance efforts) will allow the County to

effect noticeable improvements of flooding conditions. The subsequent recommendations

are for improvements to the primary stormwater system. The proposed order is based on

the severity of the problem and input from Orange County staff. As a majority of the

recommendations are not hydraulically connected, the improvements could be implemented

in a different order as time, funding or public opinion dictate.

Priority List

1. Data Collection

Water quantity and quality data collection- programs should be -enhanced.

Continuous stream gauges, measuring the flow and stage of Shingle Creek should

be installed at several locations (Raleigh Street, Conroy-Windermere Road, Sand

Lake Road and the GreeneWay). Water quality sampling should also be initiated at

Lake Ellenor and Little Sand Lake.

2. Bonnie Brook Subdivision:

The Lake Ellenor Canal is anticipated to overtop its banks during the 100-year

storm event, flooding 108 houses and 120 yards. It is recommended that a 2,000

foot section of the Lake Ellenor Canal be widened by 17 feet to correct the flooding

problem in the Bonnie Brook Subdivision caused by the high water condition of

Shingle Creek. A study of the subdivision should be conducted to determine the

sufficiency of the internal conveyance system.

Westside Manor

The inundation of Westside Manor is anticipated during the 100-year storm event,

flooding an estimated 90 houses and 35 mobile homes. A survey of the finished

floor elevations of the affected houses should be performed to verify the extent of

flooding and the adequacy of the solution. This new information can then be used

to finalize the design. It is recommended that the pond area be expanded and the

pump be activated at a lower elevation. The pond area is proposed to expand into

the vacant land in the northeast comer of the subdivision. Additionally, the bottom

elevation of the ponds needs to be lowered by one foot to elevation 73.0 (based on

Orange County records). The pump station also must be modified to allow

pumping to occur at elevation 74.0. A regulation schedule designed to lower the

water level in the ponds to elevation 74.0 prior to a large storm event should be

implemented for the Westside Manor Pump Station, reducing the risk of flooding to

the surrounding houses.

4. Vanguard Street Overtopping

Vanguard Street is flooded during the 25- yea^-124-hour storm event. It is

recommended that the culvert under Vanguard Street be upgraded to two 5-foot by

7-foot concrete box culverts from two 60-inch reinforced concrete pipes.

Additionally, the channel north of Vanguard Street must be widened by ten feet for

a distance of 3,600 feet.