TIDEWATER CANAL
SEDIMENT ABATEMENT STUDY
Prepared for
Sarasota County
Navigable Waterways
Maintenance Management
Program
Prepared by
GPI Southeast, Inc.
13097 N. Telecom Parkway
Tampa, Florida 33637-0926
August 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.0
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
6.0
7.0
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2
SITE CONDITIONS........................................................................................................... 4
Outfall TD1......................................................................................................................... 4
Outfall TD2......................................................................................................................... 4
Outfall TD3....................................................................................................................... 11
Outfall TD4....................................................................................................................... 11
Outfall TD5....................................................................................................................... 11
Outfall TD6....................................................................................................................... 18
POLLUTANT LOADING ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 20
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................ 26
Outfall TD1....................................................................................................................... 27
Outfall TD2....................................................................................................................... 27
Outfall TD3....................................................................................................................... 27
Outfall TD4....................................................................................................................... 27
Outfall TD5....................................................................................................................... 27
Outfall TD6....................................................................................................................... 27
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 28
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 30
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Sarasota County’s Navigable Waterways Maintenance Management Program (NWMMP)
routinely conducts feasibility studies for maintenance dredging of residential waterways
throughout the unincorporated coastal regions of the County. In parallel with the feasibility
projects, Sarasota County contracted GPI Southeast Inc. (GPI), formerly known as Berryman &
Henigar, Inc. (BHI), to perform a series of sediment abatement analyses. As sedimentation is a
significant concern to citizens residing along waterways, the purpose of these studies is to
determine if opportunities exist for reducing future land-based sediment accumulation in the
waterways. Waterfront residents in Sarasota County are fully assessed for the costs of canal
maintenance dredging.
This report is the seventeenth in a series of sediment abatement studies being conducted by GPI
for the County. The areas previously examined include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Baywood Canal
America Drive Canal
Phillippi Cove
South Creek
Hidden Harbor
Cedar Cove
Phillippi/Pinecraft
Grand Canal
Baywood Avenue D
Forked Creek Neptune
Sea Plume Way
Lyons Bay Sunaire Estil
Lyons Bay Inlets
Dale Lakes
Brucewood Bayou
Pirates’ Pass
Additionally, other areas being examined include:
•
•
Phillippi/Tuttle to Hyde Park
Curry Creek
2.0 BACKGROUND
The subject project area is the Tidewater Canal (waterway) located west of Riverview Drive, east
of Sarasota County’s Legacy Trail (Rails to Trails), and north of Florence Street. The waterway
discharges directly to Shakett Creek (see Figure 1 for the project location).
One concern voiced by waterfront owners is the possibility of future sedimentation from
stormwater runoff, which can cause a decrease in canal depth after the expense of the dredging
operation. To address this concern, the County engaged GPI to analyze the stormwater systems
2
entering the canal and estimate the effects these systems may have on future sediment
accumulation.
Figure 1
General Location Map
3
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
Canal sedimentation can be the result of many factors, including stormwater discharges, upland
erosion, illegal discharges, algae build up from low dissolved oxygen and/or high nutrient levels
in the canal, wind blown currents, or tidal influences. Most canals are influenced by a
combination of these factors. A careful investigation is required to determine the cause(s) of
sedimentation prior to recommending actions to reduce sedimentation in canal systems.
GPI staff performed field investigations of the Tidewater Canal waterway on July 3rd and July
17th, 2007. The waterway is mostly bordered by single-family and multi-family residential
properties. Some waterfront property owners are using seawalls but vegetation for slope
stabilization is prominent throughout the waterway. Most yards along the bordering streets were
well vegetated, maintained, stabilized, and showed no significant sedimentation sources.
The drainage basin around the waterway is bordered by Sarasota County’s Legacy Trail (Rail to
Trails) to the west, Padua Court to the north; River Boulevard to the east; and Colonia Lane to
the south. The drainage basin consists of over 77 acres of mostly single-family and multi-family
residential property. See Figure 2 for the six sub-basins within the study area.
Soils in the area consist predominantly of Floridana and Gator Soils, and Holopaw, Tavares,
EauGallie and Myakka fine sands. The soils are nearly level, very poorly drained, poorlydrained, or moderately well drained.
Most of the streets bordering the waterway have no gutters, but some have very shallow and/or
small swales and driveway culverts. The rear portions of all lots bordering the waterway drain
directly to the canal via sheet flow, and the fronts of the lots drain to the street. Site photographs
show most yards and streets are clean and well maintained.
There are six stormwater outfalls discharging to the waterway. The outfalls are shown on Figure
3, and are identified and discussed below.
3.1
Outfall TD1
Outfall TD1 discharges through a series of swales and culverts along Padua Court, Coquina
Court and Pompano Lane to the waterway. This outfall drains over 15 acres of multi-family
residential property (Figures 4 through 8). The drainage basin for this outfall is being treated by
the series of swales. The swales discharge below the water line, but no sediment build-up was
observed at the outfall.
3.2
Outfall TD2
Outfall TD2 discharges through a series of swales and culverts along Frances Street to the
waterway. This outfall drains over two acres of multi-family residential property (Figures 9
through 12). The drainage basin for this outfall is being treated by the series of swales. The
swales discharge above the water line and no sediment build-up was observed at the outfall.
4
Figure 2
Existing Features Map
5
Figure 3
Existing Conditions Outfall Map
6
Figure 4
Looking south on Pompano Ln. upstream of outfall TD1
Figure 5
Looking north on Pompano Ln. upstream of outfall TD1
7
Figure 6
Looking east on Padua Ct. upstream of outfall TD1
Figure 7
Swales on Pompano Ln. discharging to outfall TD1
8
Figure 8
Close-up of swales on Pompano Ln. discharging to outfall TD1
Figure 9
Looking east on Frances St. upstream from outfall TD2
9
Figure 10
Looking west at outfall TD2
Figure 11
Outfall TD2 at Tidewater Canal
10
Figure 12
Looking north at Tidewater Canal
3.3
Outfall TD3
Outfall TD3 discharges through a series of swales and culverts along Florence Street and
Riverview Drive to the waterway. This outfall drains over 15 acres of mostly multi-family
residential property (Figures 13 through 16). The drainage basin for this outfall is being treated
by the series of swales. The culverts discharge above the water line, but no sediment build-up
was observed at the outfall.
3.4
Outfall TD4
Outfall TD4 discharges through a series of swales and culverts along Aljohn Street, Matland
Street, and Riverview Drive to the waterway. This outfall drains almost 27 acres of mostly
single-family residential property (Figures 17 through 21). The drainage basin for this outfall is
being treated by the series of swales. The culverts discharge above the water line, but no
sediment build-up was observed at the outfall.
3.5
Outfall TD5
Outfall TD5 discharges through a dry retention pond to the waterway. This outfall drains almost
six acres of mostly low-intensity commercial property (Figures 22 through 25). The drainage
basin for this outfall is being treated by the dry retention pond. Sedimentation build-up along the
shoreline at this outfall could not be verified due to heavy vegetation.
11
Figure 13
Looking north on Riverview Dr upstream of outfall TD3
Figure 14
Looking south on Riverview Dr upstream of outfall TD3
12
Figure 15
Looking west on Riverview Dr upstream of outfall TD3
Figure 16
Looking west on Riverview Dr at outfall TD3
13
Figure 17
Looking south on Riverview Dr upstream of outfall TD4
Figure 18
Looking east on Florence St. upstream of outfall TD4
14
Figure 19
Looking west on Riverview Dr upstream of outfall TD4
Figure 20
Looking north on the western side of Riverview Dr upstream of outfall TD4
15
Figure 21
Outfall TD4
Figure 22
Outfall TD5
16
Figure 23
Outfall TD5
Figure 24
Outfall TD5
17
Figure 25
Outfall TD5
3.6
Outfall TD6
Outfall TD6 discharges through a ditch just east of Sarasota County’s Legacy Trail (Rail to
Trails) to the waterway. This outfall drains over seven acres of mostly commercial and services
property (Figures 26 through 27). There are no stormwater treatment systems within the
drainage basin of this outfall. The ditch discharges below the water line, but no sediment buildup was observed at the outfall.
18
Figure 26
Debris at ditch on outfall TD6
Figure 27
Exotic vegetation at ditch on outfall TD6
19
4.0 POLLUTANT LOADING ASSESSMENT
A pollutant loading analysis was performed to quantify potential land-based sediment and other
pollutant loadings entering the canal. The analysis used a spreadsheet-based simple model, with
loading estimates based on land uses from the Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System (FLUCCS) GIS coverage,
drainage basin boundaries obtained from Sarasota County that were modified with further
discretization around the outfalls, stormwater treatment efficiency rates for Best Management
Practices (BMPs) (ASCE, 2001), and annual pollutant loading unit rates (ERD, 1994). Table 1
summarizes the loading rates used in the analysis. BMP treatment efficiencies are shown in
Table 2. Land uses were field verified. Figure 28 shows the land use within the drainage area.
This type of planning-level analysis does not take into account short-term erosion from sources
such as construction sites or leaking pipe joints.
Although it is not standard practice to account for pollutant reduction for roadside swales, where
swales are well established with grass and they are broad, the large contact area could provide
filtration of pollutants in all but the largest storms. For these reasons grassed swale pollutant
reduction factors were used where appropriate.
Pollutant loadings were estimated by multiplying the total acreage in each drainage basin by a
composite annual loading rate. The composite loading rate was developed by weighting the land
use specific loading rates by the relative proportion of basin area in that land use. Where
appropriate, the gross loadings were adjusted to account for BMP reduction factors to estimate
the net pollutant loadings by parameter.
The existing conditions pollutant loadings are presented in Table 3. Loadings were calculated
for total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), and total nitrogen (TN). While TSS can
account for sediment build up in a canal, nutrients from TP and TN can lead to algae blooms and
vegetation growth, with subsequent muck accumulation in water bodies. The assessment for the
drainage basin estimates total current TSS loading at 7,354 kg/year, TP loading at 74 kg/year,
and TN loading at 454 kg/year.
Using a typical unit weight for sandy silt of 90 lb/cubic foot (Dunn et. al., 1980), the estimated
16,213 lb annual sediment load could contain a volume of approximately 180 cubic feet (6.7
cubic yards). Under field conditions, the sediment would tend to accumulate near the outfalls,
although tidal and stream flows would disperse the sediment throughout the canal and into
Shakett Creek.
20
Figure 28
Land Use Map
21
Table 1
Summary of unit pollutant loading rates for central
and south Florida (ERD, 1994)
LAND USE
CATEGORY
Low Density Residential
Single-Family
Multi Family
Low-Intensity Commercial
High Intensity Commercial
Industrial
Highway
Agricultural
a. Pasture
b. Citrus
c. Row Crops
d. General Agriculture
Recreational/Open Space
Mining
Wetland
Open Water
TOTAL N
UNIT LOADING RATE (kg/ac-yr)
ORTHO-P TOTAL P
BOD
TSS TOTAL Zn TOTAL Pb
2.88
4.68
8.51
5.18
13.0
7.30
6.69
0.169
0.335
0.924
0.157
1.52
0.519
0.361
0.320
0.594
1.72
0.650
1.96
1.24
1.32
7.63
14.3
38.4
36.1
79.3
39.5
21.9
31.9
56.1
256
343
435
383
182
0.06
0.122
0.188
0.511
0.782
0.543
0.508
0.052
0.083
0.299
0.635
0.985
0.872
0.727
4.54
2.91
2.84
3.62
1.07
2.21
1.81
3.23
0.732
0.123
0.421
0.380
0.003
0.131
0.204
0.130
0.876
0.197
0.595
0.551
0.046
0.281
0.222
0.273
7.99
3.60
--5.80
0.956
18.0
4.96
4.02
126
21.9
--74.0
7.60
176
11.2
8.05
--------0.005
0.229
0.009
0.073
--------0.021
0.378
0.039
0.065
22
Table 2
BMP selection guide (ASCE, 2001)
BMP
Design Factor
Type of Pollutant
Land
Area
Needed
Distance Above
Groundwater
Soil Type
Needed
Cost
Maintenance
Total
Nitrogen %
Removal
Total
Phosphorus%
Removal
Suspended
Solids %
Removal
Heavy
Metals %
Removal
Floating
Trash
Removal
Dry Retention
Online
Dry Offline
Retention or
Detention
Wet Detention
High
Low
A or B
High
Medium
60-98
60-98
60-98
60-98
High
High
Low
A or B
High
Medium
60
85
90
65-85
High
High
High
Any
High
Low
26
65
75
25-70
High
Wet Detention
With Filtration
Dry Detention
High
Low
Any
High
High
25
65
85
60-85
High
High
Low
A or B
High
Medium
15
25
70
35-70
High
NA
NA
High
Medium
50
90
90
80-90
0
C or D
High
High
****
****
High
High
High
High
31-47
50-65
70-87
20-84
N/A
Ponds
Alum System
Constructed
Wetlands
Sand Filters
High
0 ft.
Austin Sand
Filter
D.C.
Underground
Sand Filter
Delaware Sand
Filter
Alexandria
Stone Reservoir
Trench
Texas Vertical
Sand Filter
Peat Sand Filter
Medium
2 ft.
Washington
Compost Filter
System
Medium
High
Medium
2 ft.
High
Medium
7 feet
N/A
Medium
200
4 feet
N/A
N/A
High
47
41
57
45.2
N/A
High
47.2
63-72
79-84
***
N/A
High
N/A
High
N/A
High
N/A
41
95
75.8
N/A
S.F/cfs
Other
Baffle Boxes
Low
NA
NA
Medium
Medium
0
30-40
20-90
Unknown
Low
Vegetated
Swales
Buffer Strips
Medium
Low
A,B, C
Medium
Low
0-25
29-45
60-83
35
Low
Low
1 ft-2 ft
A,B,C
Medium
Low
20-60
20-60
20-80
20-80
Low
Infiltration
Trenches
Inlet Devices
Low
2-4 ft
A or B
Medium
High
45-70
50-75
75-99
75-99
High
None
NA
NA
Low
High
**
**
Low-Medium
Low
High
** Traps particulate phosphorus and nitrogen in the form of leaves and grass - not effective for dissolved
nutrients
*** No Data Available
**** Varies widely
23
Table 3. Tidewater Canal Pollutant Estimates
Existing Conditions
% TSS
Reduction
TN
Loading
Rate
(kg/ac-yr)
TSS
Loading
(kg/yr)
TP
Loading
(kg/yr)
TN
Loading
(kg/yr)
256.0
1.72
8.51
3,874.1
26.0
128.8
1,084.7
16.4
112.0
526.2
3.5
17.5
147.3
2.2
15.2
Area (ac)
Land Use
1
15.13
Multi Family
None
1
15.13
Total Basin
Land Use
Swales
2
2.06
Multi Family
None
2
2.06
Total Basin
Land Use
Swales
3
0.13
Single-Family
None
56.1
0.59
4.68
7.3
0.1
0.6
3
15.24
Multi Family
None
256.0
1.72
8.51
3,901.2
26.2
129.7
3
15.37
Total Basin
Land Use
Swales
1,094.4
16.6
113.4
4
18.88
Single-Family
None
56.1
0.59
4.68
1,058.9
11.2
88.3
4
2.69
Multi Family
None
256.0
1.72
8.51
689.1
4.6
22.9
4
5.16
Low-Intensity
Commercial
None
343.0
1.72
5.18
1,768.3
8.9
26.7
4
26.72
Total Basin
Land Use
Swales
984.6
15.6
120.0
5
0.18
Multi Family
None
256.0
1.72
8.51
46.0
0.3
1.5
5
5.53
Low-Intensity
Commercial
None
343.0
1.72
5.18
1,896.8
9.5
28.6
5
5.71
Total Basin
Land Use
Dry Pond
408.0
2.1
6.3
37
% TN
Reduction
TP
Loading
Rate
(kg/ac-yr)
Basin No.
72
% TP
Reduction
TSS Loading
Rate
(kg/ac-yr)
Type of
Treatment
System
13
256.0
72
72
72
79
37
37
37
79
1.72
8.51
13
13
13
79
24
Table 3. Tidewater Canal Pollutant Estimates
Existing Conditions (continued)
% TSS
Reduction
% TP
Reduction
% TN
Reduction
TSS Loading
Rate
(kg/ac-yr)
TP
Loading
Rate
(kg/ac-yr)
TN
Loading
Rate
(kg/ac-yr)
TSS
Loading
(kg/yr)
TP
Loading
(kg/yr)
TN
Loading
(kg/yr)
Basin No.
Area (ac)
Land Use
Type of
Treatment
System
6
0.11
Single-Family
None
56.1
0.59
4.68
6.4
0.1
0.5
6
1.91
Multi Family
None
256.0
1.72
8.51
489.3
3.3
16.3
6
5.47
Low-Intensity
Commercial
None
343.0
1.72
5.18
1,875.3
9.4
28.3
6
7.49
Total Basin
Land Use
None
2,371.1
12.8
45.1
7
4.94
Multi Family
1,263.9
8.5
42.0
7
4.94
Total Basin
Land Use
1,263.9
8.5
42.0
7,354.0
74.1
454.1
256.0
None
TOTALS
25
1.72
8.51
5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Existing conditions land-based pollutant loadings to the waterway were calculated for total
suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), and total nitrogen (TN). The estimate loadings
are 7,354 kg/year for TSS, 74 kg/year for TP, and 454 kg/year for TN.
The estimated 16,213 lb annual sediment load for the drainage basin could contain a volume of
approximately 180 cubic feet (6.7 cubic yards). As stated previously, the sediment would tend to
accumulate near the outfalls under field conditions, although tidal flow may disperse the
sediment throughout the canal and into Shakett Creek.
It should be noted that nutrient control is an important element of water quality management.
Excess enrichment can result in algae blooms, excess aquatic vegetation growth, and subsequent
accumulation of detritus turning to muck.
The following discussion provides recommendations on how to reduce runoff-borne sediment
from entering the canal. Nutrients can become adsorbed onto sediment particles, so trapping
sediment also can reduce nutrient loading to the estuarine system.
In the Tidewater Canal watershed, all but one of the six drainage basins that discharge through
an outfall provide some level of stormwater treatment. It is recommended that regularly
scheduled maintenance of the existing swales be provided for them to function properly and to
provide stormwater treatment. Almost five acres directly discharges into the canal or are in rear
lots bordering the canal, where it is not generally feasible to install BMPs other than rear lot
swales.
Although not widely observed, some silt accumulation was noted on the bottom of the waterway
and could be indicative of dead end canals and a combination of muck from high nutrient levels
in the system, or sediment of marine origin. Potential nutrient sources include algae from the
bay, fertilizers, leaves, grass, organic yard debris, and pet wastes from local runoff. Inlet devices
and other land-limited BMPs can be effective in capturing TSS from runoff, but not nutrients.
There are several vault types of BMPs available which are effective in removing sediment, but a
baffle box is recommended for a few of these outfalls. An enhanced nutrient separating baffle
box, which has an added benefit of reducing nutrient loads by trapping grass, leaves, and organic
debris and keeping this material dry so that the nutrients do not leach out into the stormwater
would also be appropriate for these sites (BHI, 2004). Other vault-type BMPs do not have this
feature. An added feature of using this BMP is that it would help the County achieve nutrient
reductions recommended for Dona and Roberts Bay.
Reduction of nutrients in urban settings can be effectively accomplished with source controls.
Educating the homeowners in the area to reduce fertilizer use, prevent grass clippings from
entering the canals, and mowing less frequently would reduce the nutrient levels in the canals.
Small back yard swales to hold runoff instead of letting it run directly into the canal may also be
effective.
Although not widely observed there were some areas of grass clippings and leaves in the street
and in inlets that could end up in the canal. These nutrient sources affect the muck build up in
the canal. In addition, lawn mowers should blow the leaves and grass back into the yards instead
of into the street or the canal. It is therefore recommended that the County continue to provide
26
public education regarding methods of source control and single lot design that could reduce
sediment and nutrient loadings to the canal.
Specific discussions for each outfall are also included in this section. Each outfall to the canal is
discussed below.
5.1
Outfall TD1
Outfall TD1 discharges through a series of inlets and culverts along Padua Court, Coquina Court
and Pompano Lane to the northern portion of the waterway. GPI recommends the installation of
an enhanced nutrient separating baffle box at this outfall.
5.2
Outfall TD2
Outfall TD2 discharges through a series of swales and culverts along Frances Street to the
waterway. GPI recommends the re-grading of the existing swale for it to properly function and
provide the required stormwater treatment.
5.3
Outfall TD3
Outfall TD3 discharges through a series of inlets and culverts along Florence Street and
Riverview Drive to the southern portion of the waterway. GPI recommends the installation of an
enhanced nutrient separating baffle box at this outfall.
5.4
Outfall TD4
Outfall TD4 discharges through a series of inlets and culverts along Aljohn Street, Matland
Street and Riverview Drive to the southern portion of the waterway. GPI recommends the
installation of an enhanced nutrient separating baffle box at this outfall.
5.5
Outfall TD5
Outfall TD5 discharges through a dry retention pond to the waterway. No new BMPs are
recommended for this outfall as the pond is providing adequate treatment to this basin.
5.6
Outfall TD6
Outfall TD6 discharges through a ditch just east of Sarasota County’s Legacy Trail to the
waterway. One option would be for the ditch to be evaluated, cleaned, regraded, and possibly
converted into a swale. A second option could be to combine this outfall with outfall TD4 and
treat both with a treatment train. A third option, which GPI recommends, is the installation of an
enhanced nutrient separating baffle box at this outfall.
27
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
The Tidewater Canal has isolated areas of sedimentation problems typical of many residential
waterways along the coastline. Accumulations of sediment occur from natural erosion and
anthropogenic activities such as construction and land clearing. In addition, muck accumulates
in canal bottoms from algae blooms caused by elevated nutrient levels in the canal waters.
Stormwater runoff brings nutrients and other pollutants to the waterways and poor circulation
allows the pollutants to settle to the bottom. With the dredging project being investigated by the
County, it is natural that the affected property owners would inquire as to possible methods to
reduce future sedimentation and dredging expenses.
An analysis of the land uses and drainage basins contributing to the waterway was undertaken to
determine possible causes of sediment build-up. Outfall pipes to the waterway were inspected
for obvious joint leakage or erosion problems. There were no obvious signs of sediment in the
pipes themselves, indicating that there were no significant structural problems in the system.
To further examine potential pollution sources to the waterway, a pollutant loading analysis of
the stormwater runoff from the watershed was produced. TSS, TN, and TP loadings were
estimated using calculations accounting for the land areas, land uses, pollutant loadings, and
existing stormwater treatment systems. This analysis suggests that the highest pollutant loadings
originate in basin 6, which directly discharges to the waterway and has the following loadings:
TSS loading of 2,371 kg/year, TP loading at 13 kg/year, and TN loading at 45 kg/year.
There are six stormwater outfalls to the waterway. Based on the field investigations and analysis
in this report, GPI recommends the installation of baffle boxes in basins 1, 3, 4 and 6, and the regrading of the swale in basin 2. These recommendations are summarized in Figure 27. An
alternative option would be to combine the outfalls of basins 4 and 6 and treat both with a
treatment train. It is also recommended that regularly scheduled maintenance of the existing
swales be provided for them to function properly and to provide stormwater treatment.
One of the most important aspects of pollutant reduction is source control. At some locations it
was observed that residents or landscape maintenance crews were allowing grass clippings to
wash or blow into the inlets. A strong public education effort will inform residents that changing
their day to day activities can be one of the best methods of pollution control. By reducing
fertilizer application amounts and frequencies, reducing lawn sprinkling to twice a week,
reducing mowing, controlling disposal of grass and yard debris, and cleaning pet refuse, the
homeowners can take a large part in reducing nutrient loading to the canals and thereby reducing
muck accumulations in the waterway.
28
Figure 29
Recommended Sediment Abatement Facilities
29
7.0 REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2001. Guide for Best Management Practice Selection in
Urban Developed Areas.
Urban Water Infrastructure Management Committee’s Task
Committee for Evaluating Best Management Practices. Arlington, VA.
Berryman & Henigar Inc. 2004. Baywood Canal Sediment Abatement Study. Prepared for
Sarasota County Water Resources, Navigational Waterways Management. Sarasota, FL.
Dunn, I.S., L.R. Anderson, and F.W. Kiefer. 1980. Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis.
John Wiley and Sons. New York.
Environmental Research & Design, Inc. 1994. Stormwater Loading Rate Parameters for Central
and South Florida. Orlando, FL.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1991. Soil Survey of Sarasota County, Florida.
30