EPA 904/9-75-006

                         DRAFT

    ENVIRONMENTAL    IMPACT   STATEMENT
              City  of  Jacksonville, Florida

          Wastewater   Management  Facilities

            Arlington-East  Service  District
                     EPA PROJECT Cl20541
                               o
                               *
                       UNITED STATES
                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        REGION IV
                   1421 PEACHTREE ST., N. E.
                    ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309
^ DECEMBER 1975

-------
              SUMMARY SHEET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
                      IMPACT STATEMENT

               ARLINGTON-EAST SERVICE DISTRICT
              WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
               CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
                    PROJECT NO. C120541
Draft    (X)

Final    ( )
              Environmental Protection Agency
                         Region IV
                1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
                  Atlanta, Georgia   30309

1.  Name of Action

    Administrative Action     (X)

    Legislative Action        ( )

2.  The subject action of this Environmental Impact
Statement is the awarding of grant funds to the City of
Jacksonville, Florida for the preparation of plans and
specifications for regional wastewater treatment facilities
to service the Arlington-East District.  The project
consists of a 10.0 million gallon per day (mgd) wastewater
treatment plant located at Millcoe Road  (Alternative Iq) and
13,900 feet of outfall line terminating at the edge of the
maintained shipping channel in the St, Johns River.

3.  The project will provide for:

    (1)   The removal of inadequately treated wastewaters
from tributary streams.

    (2)   Treatment facilities to adequately service existing
and future sources of wastewater.

    (3)   Alleviation of existing adverse conditions
resulting from the operation of septic systems and small
package plants.

-------
    (4)  Allowance of orderly growth accord ina to the
Comprehensive nevelopnent Plan for lnr>fi.

    (r))  Provision of additional o^or and noise controls
since the publication of the DAS.

    (6)  Construction only on the part of the site f artist
from the nearby residential communitv and provision of a
buffer 7,one of 11^ acres adjacent to tho site.
    Adverse environnental effects are summari^d as  follows:
    a.  Construction Impacts

    The construction of treatment facilities and  interceptor
lines represent a lona-term commitment of  ^.nft acres  of
land for the treatment plant site with su^erruent loss o*
approximately half of this acreacre as wild life habitat.
Short-term impacts due to construction will be minor but
will include dust, noise, odor, vehicle emissions,  traffic,
and soil erosion.  Construction activity in Mill  Cove
cause the temporary disturbance of two acres o^ salt
and temporary impact on the aquatic animal community
sedimentation and turbidity.  A short-term period of panic
selling in the residential neighborhoods surroundino the
plant site may also occur before the nlant S into
operation.

    b.  Operational Impacts

    The operation of the waste treatment facility win cause
the discharge of initially 10 mod and ultimately  25 mad o*
secondary treated wastewater to the St. Johns T>iver a^d will
have other minor impacts related to resource
operational noise and odor, and the movement

    c.  Secondary Impacts

    Construction of the project will increase the potential
for development of areas set aside ^r>r preservation and
conservation and other sparsely populated  sections of  the
service district with concomitant impact to terrestrial
biota and wetland areas.  Associated with  t.Ms increased
nrowth potential is the need, for water supply,
transportation, parklands, recreationa1 areas, and
community services and facilities.
                              11

-------
4.  Structural system alternatives considered were:

    (Iq)  Millcoe Road site and transmission system with
Quarantine Island outfall.

    (lb)  Millcoe Road site and transmission system with
Blount Island outfall.

    (2q)  Dunes Area site and transmission system with
Quarantine Island outfall.

    (2b)  Dunes Area site and transmission system with Blount
Island outfall.

    (3)   Dame Point-Fort Caroline Freeway Interchange site
and transmission system.

    (4)   Site north of Craig Field and transmission system.

    (5)   Site east of Craig Field and transmission
system "A".

    (6)   Site east of Craig Field and transmission
system "B".

    (7)   Site inside eastern boundary of Craig Field and
transmission system "A".

    (8)   Site inside eastern boundary of Craig Field and
transmission system "B".

    (9)   Beacon Hills site and transmission system.

    (10)   Spanish Point site and transmission system.

    (11)   Quarantine Island site and transmission system.

    (12)   Site inside southern boundary of Craig Field and
transmission system.

    Non-structural systems, process subsystems, odor
control, noise control, and effluent and sludge disposal
alternatives are also analyzed in the statement.   In
addition, the "no action" alternative was given full
consideration.
                           111

-------
5.  The following Federal, State, and local agencies and
interested groups have been requested to comment on this
impact statement:
                      Federal Agencies
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

Coast Guard
Corps of Engineers
Council on Environmental Quality
Department of Commerce
Department of Health, Education
  and Welfare
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
Economic Development
     Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Fisheries & Wildlife Service
Food and Drug Administration
Forest Service
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Soil Conservation Service
                    Members of Congress
Honorable Lawton Chiles
United States Senate
Honorable Richard Stone
United States Senate
Honorable Charles E. Bennett
U. S. House of Representatives
Honorable Bill Chappell
U. S. House of Representatives
                           State

Bureau of Intergovernmental
  Relations

Coastal Coordinating Council
Dept. of Environmental Regulation
Dept. of Natural Resources

Honorable Reuben O'D. Askew, Governor

Honorable Daniel A. Scarborough
Florida Senate
Department of State
Environmental Regulation
     committee
Geological Survey
Honorable Mattox Hair
Florida Senate
                            IV

-------
                           Local

City Pollution Control
Department of Pollution Control
Department of Public Works

Environmental Protection Board
Office of the Mayor
Jacksonville Area Chamber
  of Commerce
Jacksonville Area Planning
     Board
Office of City Council
Office of Intergovernment
     Affairs
                     Interested Groups

Audubon Society of Duval County
Beacon Hills Harbour
Citizens Advisory Committee to
  Jacksonville Area Planning Board

Citizens Committee of 100

Clifton Civic Association
Colony Cove Civic Association
Greater Arlington Civic Council
Holly Oaks Community Club
League of Women Voters
N. E. Fla. Air Conservation
     Council
St. Johns River Water Mgmt.
     District
Southeast Environmental Council
The Council of Clean Air
6.  This draft environmental impact statement was made
available to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)  and
the public on December 26, 1975.
                              v

-------
                     TABLE OF COT7TEIITP
CHAPTER                                                Pace Tn.

I.   Introduction ----------------------------------
II.  The Environment VJithout  the Proposed  Action ---      5
     A.  natural Environment ----------------------       5
         1.   Atmosphere --------------------------       -*
              a.   climate ------------------------       5
              b.   Air Onality ----------------- • ---
                        '
                                                         1 Q
                                                         ^- -^
              d.   Odor ---------------------------      30
         O    T arm— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —      33
         " •   jjdna—     —  ~                             ^^
              a.   Physical and Chemical ----------
                   1)   Topography ----------------      33
                   2}   Geology -------------------      ^
                   3)   Soils ---------------------      M
              b.   Biota --------------------------      Jv
                   1)   Terrestrial Plants --------      ^
                   2)   Terrestrial Fauna ---------      ^
         3.   Wetlands and Water/Land Interface ---      53
              a.   .Physical and. Chemical ----------      ^
              b.   Biota --------------------------      ^7
         4.   Water -------------------------------       '
              a.   Physical and Chemical -------- —
                   1)   General
                   2)   Water Quantity
                        a)   Fur face Water
                        b)   C-roundwater
                   3)   Water Quality
                        a)   Surface TT^ter
                        b)   Groundwater ----------
              b.   Biota ---------------------------
                   1)   Plants --------------------
                   2)   /cmatic Fauna -------------
     B.  Ilan-'lade Environment ----------------------
         1.   Demography and Economics ------------
              a.   Current Population Data --------
              b.   Employment and  Income ----------
              c.   Economic Projections -----------     117
              d.   Population Projections ---------
         2.   Land Use ----------------------------
              a.   Existing Land Use --------------     1  ,
              b.   Future Land Use ----------------     1?7
              c.   Land Use Planning  and  Control s-
                                 VI

-------
         3.   Archeological, Cultural,  Historical
                   and Recreational  Resources	
              a.   Historical and  Cultural
                        Properties	           129
              b.   Archeological Sites	           131
              c.   Recreational Facilities	           131
         4.   Transportation	           133
              a.   Existing Transportation
                        Facilities	           133
              b.   Proposed Transporation
                        Facilities	           138
         5.   Resource Use	           140
         6.   Water Programs	           141
              a.   Wastewater Systems	           141
              fc.   Water Quality Planning and
                        Regulations	           145
              c.   Potable Water Systems	           145
         7.   Other Community Services  and
                   Facilities	           148
              a.   Schools and Libraries	           148
              b.   Public Safety	           150
              c.   Solid Waste	           150
              d.   Health Facilities	           150
         8.   Taxes and Capital Budget	           151
         9.   Other Projects, Programs  and  Efforts
              a.   Federal	           152
              b.   State	           154
              c.   Regional	           156
              d.   Local	           156
    C.   Sensitive Areas	           158
         1.   Natural Areas	          158
         2.   Man-made Areas	          160
III.     Alternatives	          162
    A.   General	           162
    B.   Development of Viable Subsystem Alternatives
         1.   Non-Structural Alternatives	           162
              a.   Waste Management  Systems	           162
              b.   Land Use Development Controls
                   and Management  Practices	           163
              c.   Wastewater Generation Reductions          164
              d.   Water and Sewer Rate Structure
                        Alterations	            165
              e.   Project. Phasing	           165
         2.   Structural Subsystems	           166
              a.   Treated Effluent  Disposal	           166
                   1)   Direct Reuse	           166
                   2)   Soil Systems	           167
                        (a)  Septic  tanks	            167

-------
CFAPTTR                                                   Paae r!o.


                        (b)   Land spreading	          168
                   3)    Well  Injection	           169
                        (a)   Deep Well Injection—          169
                        (b)   Shallow Well Injection         171
                   4)    Surface Water Outfalls	          171
                        (a)   Ocean Disposal	         171
                        (b)   Disposal To Local Estuarine
                                  Waters	          172
             b.    Plant Locations and Interceptor
                             Alignments	         173
             c.    Treatment  Processes	          195
                   1)    Pretreatment	          197
                   2}    Primary Treatment	          197
                   3)    Secondary Treatment	          197
                        (a)   Biological Treatment-          197
                        (b)   Physical-Chemical	          200
                   4)    Advanced Waste Treatment	         200
                   5)    Disinfection	          200
             d.    Sludge Treatment and Disposal—          200
             e.    Odor Control	        203
                   1)    Currently Proposed Odor Control     204
                   2)    Additional Odor Controls—          219
                        (a)   Structural Alternative         219
                        (b)   Nonstructural Alternatives     228
                   3)    Summary	          229
             f.    Noise Control	          230
                   1)    Currently Proposed Noise Control    230
                   2)    Additional Noise Controls
                        Alternatives	          250
                   3)    Summary	          254
   C.   Development of Viable System Alternatives          257
   D.   Description of Alternative Impacts	          264
        1.   Air  Quality	          264
        2.   Odor	          270
        3.   Noise	          273
        4,   Topography	          274
        5.   Soils	          276
        6.   Terrestrial Vegetation	          277
        7.   Terrestrial Animals	          282
        8.   Water Quality	          284
        9.   Aquatic Flora and Fauna	          291
       10.   Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands	          292
       11.   Impacts to Salt Marshes	          293
       12.   Demography	          293
       13.   Land Use	          294
       14.   Archeological,  Historical and
                   Recreational	          303
       15.   Transportation	          304
                                  Vlll

-------
 CHAPTER
        16.   Water Supply	       310
        17.   Community  Facilities	       310
        18.   Resource Use	       311
    E.   Alternatives Evaluation	       312
IV. Project Description	       326
V.  Environmental Effects of  the Proposed Action--       329
    A.   General	       329
    B.   Environmental Effects	       329
         1.   Primary Effects	       329
              a.   Natural  Environment	       329
                   1)    Atmosphere	       329
                         a)    Air Quality	       329
                         b)    Noise	       331
                         c)    Odor	       332
                   2)    Land	       332
                         a)    Physical and Chemical       332
                              (1)   Topography	       332
                              (2)   Soils	       332
                         b)    Biological	       333
                              (1)   Terrestrial
                                   Vegetation	       333
                              (2)   Terrestrial
                                   Animals	       334
                   3)    Water-Land Interface	       334
                         a)    Physical and Chemical       334
                         b)    Biological	       334
                   4)    Water	       335
                         a)    Physical and Chemical       335
                         b)    Biological	       336
                              (1)   Aquatic Plants—       336
                              (2)   Aquatic Animals-       336
                   5)    Sensitive Natural Areas	       337
                         a)    Mill Cove--	       337
                         b)    Big Pottsburg Creek—       337
              b.   Man-Made Environment	       337
                   1)    Land  Use	       337
                   2)    Archeological, Cultural,
                         Historical and Recreational      339
                   3)    Transportation	       340
                   U)    Resource Use	       340
                   5)    Water Programs	       341
                   6)    Taxes and Budgeting	       341
                   7)    Other Projects, Programs
                              and Efforts	       342
                   8)    Sensitive Man-Made Areas—       342
         2.   Secondary  Impacts	       342
              a.   Man-Made Environment:	       342
                   1)    Demography and Economics--       342

-------
                        a)   Population	      342
                        b)   Economics	      343
                   2)   Land Use	      344
                   3)   Archeological, Cultural,
                             Histroic, and
                             Recreational
                             Resources	      345
                   4)   Transportation	      345
                   5)   Resource  Use	      345
                   6)   Water Programs	      346
                   7)   Other Community  Services
                             and  Facilities	      346
                        a)   General	      346
                        b)   Schools  and Libraries      346
                        c)   Public Safety	      347
                        d)   Solid Waste	      347
                        e)   Health Facilities	      347
                   8)   Taxes and Budgeting	      347
              b.   Natural Environment	      348
                   1)   Atmosphere	      348
                        a)   Air  Quality	      348
                        b)   Noise	      348
                        c)   Odor	      349
                   2)   Land	      349
                        a)   Physical and  Chemical
                              (1)  Topography	      349
                              (2)  Soils	      350
                        b)   Biological	      350
                   3)   Water-Land Interface	      350
                   4)   Water	      351
                        a)   Physical and  Chemical      351
                        b)   Biological	      352
              d.   Sensitive Areas	      352
                   1)   Cypress Swamps East  of
                             Craig Airport	      352
                   2)   Salt Marsh Surrounding the
                             Service  District	     352
                   3)   Live Oak  Hammock Areas
                             Surrounding Fort
                             Caroline Park	      353
                   4)   Big and Little Pottsburg Creeks 353
VI. Adverse Impacts  Which Cannot  Be Avoided  and
    Available Mitigative  Measures	      354
    A.   Adverse Impacts	      354
    B.   Mitigative  Measures to Adverse  Impacts	      356
VII.     Public, Federal, State,  and  Local
         Governments' Comments and Participation—      361
    A.   Public Meeting,  November 14, 1974	      362

-------
 CHAPTER                                                Pacre  T7O,
    B.   Additional Comments  on Written Communication
         Received by  EPA	          366
         1.   Public	          366
         2.   Federal Agencies	          367
         3.   State Agencies	          367
    C.   Citizens Committee Impact	          368
References	          377
                                XI

-------
                      LIST OF FIOURTS


TTo.   -                       ^itle                         Page

1-1      Millcoe Road Site and "ransmission  System          3

2-1      Jacksonville Wind "Rose                             6

2-2      r/!ajor Air Pollutant Point Sources                 15

2-3      Air Quality Sampling Stations in Duva!  Co.        16

2-4      Sources of Familiar Sounds and Associated
           Intensities                                     24

2-5      Day-TTight Sound Levels at Typical
           Locations  (1^73)                                26

2-6      Land Surface Slope of Duval crmnty                35
2-7      Principle Drainarre Pjasins  in  the
           East Service District                           37

2-3      Topographic Pelief of the  Service  District        38

2-9      Generalized Oeoaraphic Cross-Section  Across
           Southern Duval county                           40

2-10     Areal Distribution of Soils in  the Arlington-
           Fast Service District Boundary                  44

2-11     Arboristic Cover Types in  the Arlincrton-F.ast
           Service District                                48

2-12     Wetlands and Interface Areas  in the vicinity
           of the Service District                         55

2-13     Flood Prone Areas                                 58

2-14     Estuarine Shore Zone Stations Sampled by
           Frederick ^one, August 1^72                    59

2-15     Harsh Flora Sampled by Tone,  August 1°72         64

2-16     Depth to the Top of the Artesian Anuifor in
           the Jacksonville Area                           68
                          Xll

-------
No.                                                         Pnrre


2-17     Possible Recharge Areas to the Floridan  ."auifer     70

2-18     Principle Areas of Water Quality Problems  in
           Duval County                                      79

2-19     Dissolved Oxygen Profile, Lower Ft. Johns
           River (1972)                                      81

2-20     Seasonal Trends of Average Dissolved Oxycren
           Concentrations in the St. Johns  "liver  at
           Jacksonville  (1959-68)                            81

2-21     Principle Industrial Outfalls  in Duval Co.          83
2-22     Septic Tank Areas Including Chronic
           Areas in Duval County                             85

2-23     Aquatic Faunal Stations  Sampled  by Frederic!"
           Tone, August 1972                                104

2-24     Corps of Engineers, Renthic ?*aoro-invertnbrate
           Stations "(1974-75)                               HI

2-25     Population Density, 1970                          113

2-26     Population Projections  for Duval County           118

2-27     Projected Population  Density,  1990                 120

2-28     Existing Land Use,  1972                            123

2-29     Development Plan, 1990                             125

2-30     Existing "oning                                    128

2-31     Archeological, Historic, and  Recreational
           Sites in the Arlington-East Service District    130

2-32     "raffic Volumes,  1971                             135

2-33     Volume to Capacity  Ratio 1972 for "horoughf are
           Segments                                         137

2-34     Private Water and Sewer Service  Areas             143

2-35     Public Water and  Sewer  Service Areas              144

2-36     Community Facilities  in the  Arlington-East
            Service  District                                149
                             Xlll

-------
 °1.                                                    rage


2-37     Sensitive Areas                                159

.3-1      Millcoe P.oad Site and Transmission  System     174

3-2      Dunes Area Site and Transmission  System        175

3-3      Danes Point-Fort Caroline Freeway Site and
           Transmission System                          176 x

3-4      Site North of Craig Field and Transmission
           System                                       177

3-5      Site East of Craig Field and Transmission
           System "A"     "                              178

3-6      Site East of Craig Field and Transmission
           System "B"                                   179

3-7      Site Inside Eastern Boundary of Crairr Field
           and Transmission System "A."                  180

3-n      Site Inside Eastern Boundary of Craig Field
           and Transmission System "B"                  181

3-9      Beacon Hills Site and mransntission  System     182

3-10     Spanish Point Site and Transmission  System     183

3-11     Quarantine Island Site and Transmission
           System                                       184

3-12     Alternative Sites and Future Land Use          185

3-13     Activated Sludge Treatment Process
           Modifications                                199
3-14     Projection of Odor Impact o-^er Distance        213

3-15     Jacksonville Wind Pose                         218

3-16     Generalized Impact Model
           Percent of People Who Will Identify
           Plant as Major Source of Odors               220

3-17     Ventilation Duct Over Primary Clarifier        222

3-18     Ventilation r>ucts and Plovers                  223
                              xiv

-------
No.                                                    Page


3-19     Hypochlorite Mixing System for Wet
           Scrubber                                     224

3-20     Packed Lower Wet Scrubber                      225

3-21     Flow Diagram of Recommended Odor Control
           for Arlington-East Regional Sewaae
           Treatment Plant                              226

3-22     Proposed Arlington-East Flow Schematic         231

3-23     Heat Treatment Reactor and Heat Exchanger      236

3-24     Multiple Hearth Incinerator Ash Conveyor       238

3-25     Incinerator Ash Disposal                       239

3-26     Proposed Site Plan with Major Noise Sources    243

3-27     Worst Case Noise Model for AFSTP               248

3-28     Noise Model for AESTP with Mitigative          249
           Measures
4-1      Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant            327
                              xv

-------
                       LIST OF TABLES
NO.                     TITLE                                 PAGE


2-1      Priority Classification Criteria	•	     9
2-2      National Primary and Secondary Ambient
              Air Quality Standards	    11
2-3      State of Florida Ambient Air Quality Standards	   12
2-4      Major Air Pollutant Point Sources and Their
              Emissions	   17
2-5      Average Concentrations of Pollutants Measured at
              12 Ambient Air Sampling Stations in
              Jacksonville	   18
2-6      Average Air Pollutant Concentrations for Sampling
              Stations Within the Arlington-East Service
              District	  20
2-7      Yearly Average Equivalent Sound Levels Identified as
              Requisite to Protect the Public Health and
              Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety	   28
2-8      Sound Level Limits of the Jacksonville Noise
              Ordinance	   29
2-9      Soil Associations of the Arlington-East Service
              District..	   45
2-10     Intertidal Invertebrates Sampled by Tone; August 1972 61
2-11     Shallow Water Seining Performed by Tone; August 1972  62
2-12     Marsh Fauna Collected by Tone; August 1972 	   66
2-13     Florida Pollution Control Board Criteria for
              Class II and III Waters	   77
2-14     Estimated Flows of Principle Industrial Discharges
              in Duval County	   84
2-15     Total Coliform Counts in the St Johns River and
              its Tributaries, Duval County	    89
2-16     Fecal Coliform Counts in the St. Johns River and
              its Tributaries, Duval County, October 1973
              through August 1975	   90
2-17     Public Works Department Sewage treatment Plants
              Located in the Arlington-East Service District   92
2-18     Private Utility Sewage Treatment Plants in the
              Arlington-East Service District	   93
2-19     Summary of Dissolved Oxygen Levels in Tributary
              Streams Located in the Arlington-Fast Service
              District (June 1973—.Mid-Summer 1975)	   95
2-20     Analysis of Water from Five Department of Public
              Works Artesian Wells in Downtown Jacksonville
              July 1973	   97
                                 xvi

-------
2-21     Trends in Rough Fish and Cane Fish Production	        99
2-22     Phytoplankton from the St. Johns River and Tributaries
              near the Proposed Route of the Southside Rlvd.
              Extension, Jacksonville, Florida,
              "arch 21-2?, 1973	       102
2-23     Nekton Trawls Performed by mone; August 1972	      107
2-24     Hill Netting Performed by Tone; Aumist 1072	       108
2-25     Benthic Macro-invertebrate Population Collected on
              January 24, 197^ at Ouarantine Island,
              Jacksonville, Florida	       110
2-26     Employment Croups by Standard Industrial1
              Classification	       114
2-27     Arlington Population Projections	       119
2-28     Major Municipal Well Fields Located in the Arlington-
              Fast Service Area	       146
2-29     Hew T'7ater and Sewer Rate Structure	       147
2-30     Old Water and Sewer Rate Structure	       148


3-1      Differences in Frequency of Response, mest and
              Control Groups	       208
3-2      Odor Impact Cross-Tabulation of Responses
              to Questions	       209
3-3      Difference in Frequency of Response between Canton
              Respondents Uho Identified mest Plant as a
              Source of Odor and the Control Croup	       212
3-4      Impact of a Proposed Sewage Treatment Plant as a
              Function of Distance fron the Proposed Site	       214
3-5      Distribution of Survey Responses by Azimuth	       216
3-6      Percent Frequency of Atmospheric Inversions	       217
3-7      Uet Scrubber System Conceptual nesian Parameters	       227
3-3      Assumed Sound Power Levels and Directivity Indices
              For Arlington-Fast Sewage Treatment Plant
              Hoise Propagation Model	       244
3-9      Increase in Rackground Tloise Levels Due to
              Worst Case Modeling (dRA)	       246
3-10     Increase in Rackground Noise Levels Duo to ''iticrated
              Case Model (rRA)	       246
3-11     I stimated Sound Transmission Losses	       254
3-12     Potentially Viable Subsystems	       256
3-13     Comparative Resident Populations	       258
3-14     Persons Identifying Plant as Major Odor Source	      262
3-15     Viable System Alternatives	       265
3-1T,     Present Land Use Uithin 3900 Feet of Proposed Sites
              in Acres	       296
3-17     Projected 1990 Land Fse "ithin 3000 Feet of Proposed
              Sites in Acres	       300
3-1R     Assistance Committee Members - ^rlington-^ast	       314
                               xv i i

-------
3-19     Arlington-East Assistance Committee Tfpighted  Criteria
3-20     Environmental Inpact Ratings	       317
3-21     Impact Rating Work Sheet	       318
3-22     Cost Summarization	       322
3-23     Environmental Panking and Project Cost	       325

•1-1      Project Costs for 10 and 25 mgd Stages	       326

7-1      Total Ranking	       369
7-2      /iffected Group	       370
7-3      City Group	       371
7-4      Others	       372
7-5      Average of Total Site Rankings	       373
7-6      Monetary Costs and Environmental rffects  nankinq	       376

-------
                     LIST OF APPENDICES
                                             Page
Appendix I

Appendix II


Appendix III

Appendix IV


Appendix V


Appendix VI


Appendix VII


Appendix VIII


Appendix IX


Appendix X


Appendix XI
Additional Ambient Noise Information

Letter from the Florida State
  Archeoloqist to EPA

Letter from the COE to EPA

Letter from Florida Department of
  Natural Resources to EPA

Letter from Flood & Associates to
  Jacksonville Dept. of Public Works

Letter from Florida Department of
  Natural Resources to EPA

Letter from Florida Game and Fresh
  Water Fish Commission

Letter from U. S. Fish & Wildlife
  Service to EPA

Jacksonville Times Union News Article
  November 5, 1975

Inventory of Plant Species of the
  Arlington-East District

Inventory of Animals of the Arlington-
  East District
383

394


395


398


401


406


408


409


412


413


418
                                xxx

-------
I•  Introduction

    Section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy
Act states "the Federal Government shall include in every
recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and
other major Federal actions significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by
the responsible official..."  This statement shall describe
11 (1) the environmental impact of the proposed- action, (2)
any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
should the proposal be implemented,  (3)  alternatives to the
proposed action,  (4) the relationship between local short-
term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity, and (5)  any
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
which would be involved in the proposed action should it be
implemented. "

    The EPA, in response to this mandate, determined that
the issuance of funds for design of the proposed Arlington-
East Sewage treatment plant is a major Federal action
significantly affecting the guality of the human
environment.  Accordingly, the EPA issued a "Notice of
Intent" to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on
October 8, 1974.

    The applicant for the funds to construct the proposed
facilities is the City of Jacksonville, Florida.  The grants
project number for the Arlington-East facilities is C120541.

    The purpose of the proposed action is to preserve and/or
enhance the water resources of the Arlington-East area.
This purpose is attained by the provision of control of
sources of pollution to surface and groundwater resources
while conforming with other major environmental and
developmental objectives in the area.

    The sources of pollution to be affected in the
attainment of project objectives include  (1)  the upgrading
of  existing discharges or total removal of such discharges
presently causing violations of water quality standards in
local waterways,  (2) the preservation of high quality waters
for recreational, fish and wildlife and aesthetic purposes,
and  (3) the alleviation or prevention of groundwater
cont amin at ion.

-------
    Examples of other environmental and developmental
factors which are incorporated as secondary project
objectives include (1) conformance with land use planning
objectives, (2)  alleviation of existing nuisance conditions
from malfunctioning septic tank installations and small
package plants,  (3)  maintenance and enhancement of a high
guality of life in the Arlington-East area, (4)  minimization
of direct adverse effects on the environment,  and (5)
minimization of secondary adverse effects induced or
supported by the project.

    The project area may be seen on Figure 1-1 along with
the proposed locations of interceptors, pumping stations,
treatment facilities and sludge disposal sites.   The
proposed plant is to be  constructed  at Millcoe
Road (Alternative Ig) with an initial capacity of 10 million
gallons per day(mgd)  and an ultimate capacity of 25 mgd.
The wastewater will be treated by screening, preaeration,
grit removal, primary settling, activated sludge aeration,
secondary settling, sludge return facilities,  and effluent
chlorination.

    Sludge processing includes holding, centrifuging, heat
treatment, vacuum filtration, multiple hearth incineration,
and ash disposal.

    The proposed treatment plant site is a 46.98 acre tract,
located between Merrill Road and Monument Road, on the east
side of the proposed Millcoe Road.  The closest residential
area, Holly Oaks, lies to the east of the plant site.  The
nearest residence is approximately 1500 feet from the
property line.

    The site is located in a predominantly well-drained area
approximately 40 feet above mean sea level.  A 200-foot wide
buffer zone and vegetative screen will be retained on the
north, west and south sides.  Additionally, a 114-acre
wooded area will be purchased by the City and dedicated as a
recreational area.

    Treated plant effluent will be discharged through 13,900
feet of 48-inch force main, including 7,500 feet of
subaqueous line, north across Mill Cove and Quarantine
Island to the main channel of the St. Johns River.

    The costs for the proposed system, first phase, are
summarized below:

-------

                               Hi  JACKSONVIUi
                                       BiACH
Sewage Treatment Plant Site
Plant Outfall, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing City
  Owned Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
  as Noted
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing Private
  Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
  as Noted
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Service District Boundary
                     FIGURE 1-1
                ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
Ml LLCOE ROAD SITE AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

-------
         Sewage Treatment Plant             27,167,500
         Force Mains                         7,227,200
         Pumping Stations                    4,325,000
         Eng., Legal, Conting., etc. 22.8%   8,828,091
         Land, 46.96 acres a) $63.00 plus
              114 Acres a) $63.22            -J
                   Project Cost             48,559,307

    The Environmental Protection Agency finances 75 percent
of eligible project costs.  Certain appurtenant costs, not
related to the treatment plant itself, are not eligible for
Federal funding.  The city and Federal contributions to the
total project in dollar amounts and percentage of costs
borne by each are given below.
                                Federal            Tot-al
Dollars       23,538,040     25,021,367        48,559,307

Percentage      48.5%           51.5%             100%

-------
II. The Environment Without the Proposed Action

    A.   Natural Environment

         1.   Atmosphere

              a.   Climate

    Jacksonville, located only seven degrees north of the
torrid zone, has a climate often more tropical than
temperate.  The city is located about sixteen miles inland
from the Atlantic Ocean and this location, combined with the
largely level surrounding terrain and prevailing easterly
winds, produces a maritime influence that moderates seasonal
temperature changes.

    Jacksonville's mean annual temperature is between 69 and
70 degrees.  Average temperatures in the hottest months are
above 80 degrees.  Afternoon thundershowers or sea breezes
usually occur on clear hot days; consequently, temperatures
exceed 95 degrees only about ten times per year.  Night
temperatures in summer rarely stay above 80 degrees.  The
coldest winter months average in the middle fifties but
temperatures do fall to freezing or below about twelve times
per year.  The average relative humidity is about 74 percent
and ranges from about 90 percent in early morning to 55
percent during the afternoon.

    Prevailing winds are northeasterly in the fall and
winter and southwesterly in spring and summer.  Wind
movement  averages slightly less than 9 mph overall, and less
than  25 mph for 99 percent of the year.  Surface winds have
a well-defined diurnal variation, being generally higher
during the day with maximum speeds in midafternoon, and
lower at night with minimum speeds near sunrise.
Seasonally, wind speeds are slightly higher in spring than
in other  seasons.  A wind rose showing freguency and
direction of winds at Jacksonville International Airport is
included  as Figure 2-1.

    Rainfall in the Jacksonville area averages 53.4 inches
per year.  The greatest amount of rainfall—averaging over
33 inches--occurs during the late summer months primarily in
the form  of local thundershowers.  Measurable precipitation
during this period may be expected one day in two.  Rainfall
of an inch or mora in 24 hours occurs about 14 times per
year.  Heavy rains, associated with tropical  storms, occasional""y
reach amounts of several inches over a 24-hour poriori.

-------
                  Figure 2-1

                  Wind Rose
Source:  U.S. Weather Bureau - Imeson Airport
     Jacksonville, Florida, 1951 - 1959

-------
    During the period 1900-1960, seven hurricanes have come
within fifty miles of the Jacksonville area.  All of these
caused wind speeds of less than hurricane force in the
Jacksonville area except for Hurricane Dora which passed
just south of the city in September 1964 producing 82 mph
winds from the north.  In general, most hurricanes reaching
this latitude tend to move parallel to the coastline,
keeping well out to sea, or lose much of their force moving
over land before reaching the area.  "Nor-easters"
infrequently occur along the northeast Florida coast and are
characterized by winds of 20-30 mph, low stratus clouds, and
drizzle.  These occur mainly in late summer and fall, and
sometimes persist for several days.

              b•  Air Quality

    The Clean Air Act of 1970 required the Administrator of
EPA to define air pollutant levels having an adverse effect
on public health and welfare and whose presence in the
ambient air results from mobile or stationary sources.
These criteria were subsequently used in the establishment
of national primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards.  The National Primary Ambient Air Quality
Standards define levels of air quality which are judged
necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the
public health.  National Secondary Ambient Air Quality
Standards define levels of air quality which are judged
necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or
anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.  To implement,
maintain, and enforce these standards, each state has been
required to develop an implementation plan for submission to
EPA.  To further define air quality needs, each state has
been subdivided into Air Quality Control Regions  (AQCR)
which are classified on a priority basis for each of five
pollutants.  The priority classifications range from I to
III, I being the highest and representing violation of the
National Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.  Priority
II indicates a violation of Primary Ambient Air Quality
Standards while priority III represents levels of pollutants
lower than primary air quality standards.  ^Classifications
were based upon measured ambient air quality data where
available or, where data did not exist, upon estimated
ambient air quality.

    The priority classification for particulates and sulfur
dioxide is divided into these three categories while those
for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and photochemical

-------
oxidants are divided into only two, the reason being that
only one ambient air quality standard has been promulgated
by EPA for these pollutants.  These latter three are defined
as Priority I or III based on the air quality that was
recorded in the local AQCR during the period July through
September 1971.  Criteria used to define priority
classifications appear in Table 2-1.

-------
                                      Table 2-1!

                           PRIORITY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA
Pollutant



I.'
Greater Than

-------
    Upon completion, the classifications became part of the
State Implementation Plan.  Duval County is a focal point of
the Jacksonville-Brunswick AQCR whose overall priority
classification is as follows:

         Pollutant           Priority Classification

    Sulfur Dioxide  (SO2)               II
    Particulate Matter                 I
    Carbon Monoxide (CO)               III
    Photochemical Oxidants             I
    Nitrogen Dioxide  (NO2)             III

    The federal ambient air quality standards represent
minimal values to be maintained; the states, however, may
set more stringent standards for the entire state or any
portion thereof.  Table 2-2 shows the National Standards and
associated information and Table 2-3, the State of Florida
Ambient Air Quality Standards.  The state and Federal
standards are basically similar; Florida has not, however,
defined primary and secondary standards according to
protection of public health and public welfare,
respectively.  Rather, maximum limiting levels have been
established as necessary to protect both human health and
welfare collectively.

    Each National and State standard specifies an averaging
time, an allowable frequency of occurrence, and a maximum
allowable concentration.  Averaging times are 1, 3, 8 and 24
hours, and 1 year.  Frequency parameters specify either
annual maximum concentrations for averaging times of 24
hours or less, or an arithmetic or geometric mean for a one-
year period.
                              10

-------
                                             Table  2-2
                     NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Photochemical
Oxidants
Particulate
Matter


Sulfur Dioxide

Hydrocarbons
Type of
Standard
Primary and
secondary
Primary and
secondary
Primary and
secondary
Primary

Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary and
secondary
Averaging
Time
1 Hour
8 Hour
1 Year
1 Hour
24 Hour
24 Hour

24 Hour
24 Hour
1 Year
3 Year
1 Year
24 Hour
3 Hour
(6-9 A.M.)
Frequency
Parameter
Annual Maximum^
Annual Maximum^-
Arithmetic Mean
Annual Maximum
Annual Maximum^
Annual Geometric
Mean
Annual Maximum
Annual Geometric
Mean2
Annual Maximum^
Arithmetic Mean
Annual Maximum-'-
Arithmetic Mean
1 *3
Annual Maximum-1-'-3
Annual Maximum
Concent
ug/m-*
40,000
10,000
100
160
260
75

150
60
365
80
1,300
60
260
160
iation
ppm
35
9
0.05
0.08
—

—
0.14
0.03
0.5
0.02
0.10
0.24
1 Not to be exceeded more than once per  year.




2 Guide to be used in assessing implementation plans  to  achieve the 24-hour standard.




3 Guide to be used in assessing implementation plans  to  achieve the annual standard.

-------
                                   Table 2-3
                 STATE OF FLORIDA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide
Averaging
Time
1 Hour
8 Hour
Frequency
Parameter
Annual Maximum:"
Annual Maximum
Concentration
ug/mj
40,000
10,000
ppm
35
9
Nitrogen Dioxide

Photochemical
 Dxidants

Particulate
 Matter
Sulfur Dioxide
Hydrocarbons^
 1 Year
 1 Hour
24 Hour
 3 Hour
 1 Year
24 Hour

 3 Hour
 (6-9 A.M.)
Arithmetic Mean         100
Annual Maximum          160
Annual Maximum          150
Annual Geometric Mean    60

Annual Maximum         1300
Arithmetic Mean          60
Annual Maximum-*-         260

Annual Maximum^         160
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.02
0.10

0.24
 Not to be exceeded more than once per year.

r\
 Measured and corrected for interference due to nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.

^Guide to be used in devising implementation plans to achieve oxidant standards.  To be
 measured and corrected for methane.
                                         12

-------
    Although a major source of air pollution, Jacksonville's
industries account for a small portion of the total
emissions produced by all sources in the area.  In the
Consolidated City of Jacksonville, transportation sources
accounted for 83 percent of total air pollution emissions
for 1970, while industrial process emissions, refuse
disposal, solvents, and fuel combustion from stationary
sources accounted for the remainder.  Transportation sources
produced by far the greatest amount of total carbon monoxide
(97.4 percent), nitrogen oxides (68.5 percent), and
hydrocarbons  (77.9 percent) from all sources, while
stationary sources accounted for most sulfur oxides (89.6
percent) and industry for the greatest portion of
particulates  (52.7 percent).  The initial impression might
be that transportation sources account for the greatest
portion of Jacksonville's air quality problems.  Some
pollutants, however, are less of a problem to man and the
environment than others; the Findex weighting system
suggests that transportation sources account for less than
half of the local air pollution problem.  Automobiles are
the major source of carbon monoxide; that parameter
however, is not considered a major problem in the
Jacksonville area, as affirmed by its priority III
classification in the Jacksonville-Brunswick AQCR.

    Jacksonville's major industries are food processing,
power, pulp and paper, chemicals, shipping, and shipbuilding
and repair.  As of October, 1974, there were 42 industrial
point source facilities in Duval County emitting  (or capable
of emitting, assuming no pollution controls) 100 tons per
year or more of any single pollutant for which a national
ambient air quality standard has been established.   Table
2-4 lists the area's major industrial sources and their
actual emissions in tons per year for 1973.  Relative
locations are shown on Figure 2-2.  It should be noted that
the St. Regis Paper Co.  has greatly reduced its SO2 and
particulate emissions since 1972 but test figures are not
yet available.

    In general, the overall air quality in Jacksonville is
poor but improving and is  relatively good when compared to
many other cities.  For example, the annual geometric mean
reported by EPA in Air Quality Data for 1967  (revised 1971)
for suspended particulate  concentrations in 12 major eastern
cities  shows Jacksonville  second only to Miami in lowest
concentrations.

-------
    Ambient air quality surveys are regularly conducted by
Jacksonville's Bio-Environmental Services Division at the
permanent sampling stations shown on Figure 2-3.   Average
total suspended particulate, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
dioxide concentrations for all stations for 1974 and the
first four months of 1975 are shown in Table 2-5.

-------
           01   2  3   4  5  mi
Union Camp Corporation
Warren Brothers Company
American Celcure Company
Anheuser Busch Company
Glidden-Durkee
U . S. Gypsum Company
Eastern Seaboard Petroleum Co.
Alton Box Board Company
Jacksonville Electric Authority (Talleyrand)
Kerr-McGee Company
Maxwell House Coffee Company
Jacksonville Electric Authority (Southside)
Warren Brothers Company
Simples Industries, Inc.
Dickerson, Inc.
St. Regis Paper Company
Jacksonville Electric Authority (Northside)
Kaiser Gypsum Company
Anchor Hocking Glass Co.
Automotive Disposal Corp.
Florida Smelting
Southern Wood Pidemont
Trumbull Asphalt Co.
Sirianni Forest Products

-------
                                                                                     	I
Figure 2-3  - Air Quality Sampling Stations in Duval County

-------
                                       Table  2-4
                 MAJOR AIR POLLUTANT POINT SOURCES AND THEIR EMISSIONS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
SOURCE
Union Camp Corporation
Warren Brothers Company
American Celcure Company
Anheuser Busch Company
Glidden-Durkee Company
U. S. Gypsum Company
Eastern Seaboard Petroleum
Company
Alton Box Board Company
Jacksonville Electric
Authority (Talleyrand)
Kerr-McGee Company
Maxwell House Coffee Company
Jacksonville Electric
Authority (Southside)
Warren Brothers Company
Simplex Industries, Inc.
Dickerson, Inc.
St. Regis Paper Company
Jacksonville Electric
Authority (Northside)
Kaiser Gypsum Company
Anchor Hocking Glass Co.
Automotive Disposal Corp.
Florida Smelting Corp.
Southern Wood Piedmont
Trumbull Asphalt Company
Sirianni Forest Products, Inc.
SOx
158
0
0
591
2,931
0
37
1,922
10,801
0
4
15,335
73
55
48
7,280
23,468
608
108
0
42
28
0
7
NOx
68
0
0
222
371
98
58
796
'4,412.5
0
84
4,412.5

38
0
2,009
8,825
102
172
0
524
49
0
5
HC
0
0
0
6
13
1
0
106
177
0
63
323
0
14
0
163
191
5
0
0
0
9
0
37
CO
0
0
0
6
26
5
0
2,412
269
0
5
485
0
41
0
195
289
7
0
0
0
10
0
50
PARTICULATE
3
-14
- 1
48
213
453
4
1,500
453
-22
229
475
- 9
8
-29
5,100
667
541
129
-40
1
88
-38
40
TOTAL EMISSIONS, MAJOR SOURCES:   63,496




       (Tons/Year)
22,246
1,113
3,800
10,105
                                        17

-------
                                           Table 2-5




AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF POLLUTANTS MEASURED AT 12 AMBIENT AIR SAMPLING STATIONS IN JACKSONVILLE




                                              1974
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1974 AVERAGE

January
February
March
April
4-MONTH AVERAGE
TSP
55.0
53.5
63.6
55.3
45.6
42.8
42.9
47.9
36.7
64,3
59.7
48.8
51.3

52.6
55.9
62.1
57.7
57.1
SO 2
12.6
13.1
11.6
13.2
11.9
12.5
7.5
8.3
11.3
14.3
16.1
11.8
12.0
1975
18.4
14.1
11.0
6.6
12.5
NO,
32.2
30.4
12.2
27.7
13.3
18.3
23.7
25.5
17.9
28.5
27.4
20.2
23.1

37.6
26.4
30.2
39.5
33.4
        —ALL FIGURES IN ug/m3.
                                             18

-------
    Carbon monoxide and ozone are monitored by the Division
at the Hemming Park Station.   Recent data appears below:
                    Carbon Monoxide              Ozone
                   8 HR. Avg.,  uq/m         1 HR.  Ayg.^ug/m

   1972            Not Available                  294
   1973               10,000                      284
   1974               15,700                      392
    Of the twelve sampling stations maintained in the area,
three—Jacksonville University, Arlington River Drive, and
Sandalwood Avenue--are located within the Arlington-East
Service District.  Tables 2-6  (a) , (b) , and (c)  show average
and maximum recorded concentrations of measured pollutants
at these three stations for 1974 and the first four months
of 1975.

    The most critical area of air guality concern in the
Jacksonville area is located around the Gator Bowl complex,
particularly with regard to SO2 concentrations.  With the
exception of the area immediately to the north of the
Complex, air guality improves noticeably as one moves
outward into the less populous areas.

              c.

    There is little doubt that as a by-product of our power-
oriented technology, the environment is experiencing a rise
in noise level.  Based upon very limited historical data in
areas of the United States where land use has not
significantly changed, this increase has averaged
approximately two decibels per decade.  In comparison, it
has been found that between 1938 and 1958, street noise in
sections of the German cities of Berlin and Dusseldorf had
risen at double that rate.

    "The large city and especially its central business
district is so characteristically a place of noise that a
sudden wave of silence freguently proves to be oppressive to
the urbanite for he is accustomed to distracting sounds of
all kinds.  Screeching brakes, screaming trolley cars,
rumbling trucks, rasping auto horns, barking street vendors,
shouting newsboys, scolding traffic whistles, rumbling
elevated trains, rapping pneumatic hammers, open cut-outs,
and now advertising sound trucks anr1 aircraft with radio
amplifiers, when added together, constitute a general din
for which it would be difficult to find a precedent  in the
history of cities."

                              19

-------
                                 Tables 2-6 (a),(b),(c)
                 AVERAGE AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR SAMPLING STATIONS
                        WITHIN THE ARLINGTON EAST SERVICE DISTRICT
                                      Table 2-6 (a)

                           Total Suspended Particulates (ug/m^)


                                           1974
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

1974 Average

1974 Max. Average
Jacksonville
 University

     47
     49
     59
     41
     41
     34
     36
     36
     33
     45
     38
     37

     44

     73
Arlington River
	Drive	

     47
     43
     59
     42
     36
     40
     47
     40
     30
     62
     64
     49
     47

     91
Sandalwood
  Avenue

   34
   40
   42
   35
   29
   25
   31
   23
   17
   36
   27
   27
   31

   63
                                           1975
January
February
March
April

1975 Average
   (4 Months)

1975 Max. Recorded
   (4 Months)
     37
     44
     46
     39

     42
     62
     49
     56
     68
     48

     55
     83
   32
   30
   42
   34

   35
   58
                                               20

-------
                             Table 2-6 (b)
                         Sulfur Dioxide  (ug/m3)
                                  1974
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
                     Jacksonville
                      University

                        13.2
                        17.8
                        15.5
                        14.6
                         5.9
                         6.2
                        11.0
                         6.0
                         3.5
                         5.6
                        21.9
                        10.4
1974 Average            11.0

1974 Max. Recorded      38.8
Arlington River
	Drive	

     9.7
     6.1
    10.9
    24.8
     3.3
     3.1
     5.2
     2.0
     0.2
     5.4
     7.5
     6.4

     7.1

    41.9
                                                                    Sandalwood
                                                                      Avenue
(D
O
O
l-t
O<
(D
(X
                                                                    Not Available

                                                                    Not Available
                                  1975
January                 12.4
February                14.5
March                   18.1
April                    6.9

1975 Average            12.0
 (4 Months)

1974 Max. Recorded      37.8
 (4 Months)
                                                  5.3
                                                  3.1
                                                  9.8
                                                  7.1

                                                  6.3


                                                  24.8
                         W 55
                         (D O
                         O rt
                         O
                         (-!
                         CU
                         (D
                         eu
                      Not Available
                      Not  Available
                                     21

-------
                                      Table 2-6 (c)
                                 Nitrogen Dioxide  (ug/m3)
                                           1974
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

1974 Average

1974 Max. Average
Jacksonville
 University

   28.3
   19*9
   10.4
   19.2
    7.9
    4.1
    4.8
   13.6
   11.5
 Voided
   16.3
   15.6

   13.8

   42.7
Arlington
  Drive

  24.2
  27.8
   9.7
  26.5
   6.7
  17.2
  21.2
  13.9
  13.0
 Voided
  31.0
  19.0

  19.1

  35.4
                                                                             Sandalwood
                                                                              Avenue
    0s
    n-
    CD
    o
    O
    K.
Not Available

Not Available
                                           1975
January
February
March
April

1975 Average
 (4 Months)

1975 Max. Recorded
 (4 Months)
   27.3
   23.3
   24.1
   27.2

   25.5


   40.2
  38.0
  17.6
  27.4
  40.4

  30.1
  56.0
  8?
  8 &
  it rt
  &.
  s.
Not Available
Not Available
                                            22

-------
    The above quote is not a portion of the preamble to the
"Noise Control Act of 1972."  Rather, it is taken from a
1937 report by Congress.  As our society evolves
technologically, the sources of noise increase in number and
variety.  Increasing noise levels bring about increasingly
severe effects on society yet, at the same time, society
requires more machinery, operating at higher speeds with
greater power output.  Aircraft, for example, have continued
to grow in number and noise level.  Trucks and construction
equipment require increasingly powerful engines to move more
goods, materials, or earth faster and more economically.
Wastewater treatment plants, not surprisingly, have also
grown in size and complexity in order to treat greater and
greater amounts of municipal wastes at higher treatment
levels.  Unfortunately, the noise levels often generated by
these important services frequently become annoying,
disturbing, and even, in some cases, intolerable.  It is the
purpose of this section to provide a discussion of ambient
noise levels in the proposed project area as well as a very
basic survey of the mechanics of sound and its acceptable
limits in various situations.  This information is to be
used to provide a baseline and give greater meaning to the
construction and operation noise sections which follow
later.

    Sound is generated by vibrating sources such as vocal
cords, drums, and exploding gases.  This vibration causes
nearby air molecules to vibrate in turn, producing a
variation in atmospheric pressure in the form of waves
similar to ripples in a clear pond.  These waves spread out
radically and decrease in amplitude with travel distance.
When they reach the ears of humans and animals, they actuate
several processes which culminate with their perception by
the brain as sound.  Human response to these pressure waves
is normally restricted to within a frequency range of 1,000
to 6,000 hertz  (one hertz being equal to one cycle per
second).  The human ear responds logarithmically to sound
pressure within this frequency range and, therefore, when
measuring sound levels, measurements are weighted more in
the frequency of human response.  The logarithmic unit of
measurement is the "A" weighted decibel  (abbreviated dBA).
A 10 dBA increase in noise level is perceived
logarithmically as a doubling of loudness.  Consequently, a
noisy  factory at 90 dBA seems twice as loud as  a ringing
alarm  clock from 2 feet  (80 dBA) and four times as loud as a
vacuum  cleaner  (70 dBA).  Figure 2-4 compares various
sources of familiar sounds and their associate^  intensities
in dBA.
                                23

-------
           Source/Distance
dB(A)
                                                               Source/Distance
Rocket Engine (1,000')	
Hydraulic Press (3')	

Large Pneumatic Riveter (!•)•')	

Pneumatic Chipper (51)	

Overhead Jet Aircraft,  k engine  (500')

Unmuffled Motorcycle	

Chipping Hammer (3')	


Annealing Furnace (V)	

Rock and Roll Band	
Subway Train (20')	

Heavy Trucks (20')	
Train Whistles (500')	

10 H.P. Outboard (50')	
Smaller Trucks Accelerating (30')	


Light Trucks in City (20')	

Autos (20' )—		

Dishwashers	

Conversation Speech (31)	
                                                 	Threshold of Pain
                                            130  —Boiler Shop
                                            120  	jet Engine  Test Control Room
                                            110  	Construction Noise  (Compressors
                                                       & Hammers)  (10')
                                                 	Wood Working Shop
                                                 	Loud Power Mower
                                            100
                                             90  —:
                                             70
                                             60
           'Inside Subway Car
           Food Blender
           •Noisy Factory
          -Inside Sedan in City Traffic

          -Heavy Traffic (2k1 to 50')
          -Ringing Alarm Clock (2')
          -Office with Tabulating Machines
                                                  —Vacuum Cleaner in Private Residence
                                                  —Average Traffic (100')
                                                  —Accounting Office
                                                 	Wijidow Air Conditioner

                                             50  	Private Business Office

                                                 —Light Traffic (1001)
                                                 	Average Residence
                                             ^°	Quiet Office

                                                 —Soft Whisper (5')
                                             30
                                             20  —
                                             10
          -Broadcasting Studio (Music)

          -Rustling Leaves

          -Average Threshold of Hearing
From "Noise Sound Without  Value  , Federal Council for Science and Technology
                                    Figure 2-4

       Sources  of  Familiar  Sounds  and  Associated Intensities

-------
    Noise levels will decrease with distance from the source
and also as a result of obstructions that block the pressure
waves.  However, noise levels may be increased by
obstructions that reflect the sound pressure waves (as in
the occurrence of echoes) .

Most noise environments are characterized by day to day
repetition with some variation imposed by differences
between weekday and weekend activity, as well as some
seasonal variation.  For those situations where people are
affected by environmental noise for extended periods of
time, the logical choice duration is the 24-hour day.  The
symbol for equivalent sound level is L(eq); the equivalent
sound level for a 24-hour period is thus represented as
L(eq) (24).

    In determining daily environmental noise, it is
important to account for the difference in response of
people in residential areas to noises that occur during
sleeping hours as compared to waking hours.  At night,
exterior background noises generally drop in level from
daytime values.  This, coupled with the decreased nighttime
activities of most households, causes noise events to become
more intrusive at night.

    A number of different noise magnitude assessment methods
have been developed to account for the differences between
daytime and nighttime exposures.  Generally, nighttime noise
is characterized as more severe than corresponding daytime
events; that is, a weighting factor is applied that
increases recorded values commensurate with their severity.
One method of doing this involves* dividing the 24-hour day
into two periods, the waking and sleeping hours, with
daytime extending from 7 A. M. to 10 P. M. and nighttime
from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M.  Daytime and nighttime equivalent
sound levels  (symbolized as L(d) and L(n), respectively) are
combined into a 24-hour A-weighted average sound level
 (symbolized as L(dn)) with a 10 decibel weighting applied to
nighttime sound.  Examples of 1973 day-night noise levels
computed with this method at typical locations are given in
Figure 2-5.
                              25

-------
QUALITATIVE
DESCRIPTIONS
                 Ldn
             DAY-NIGHT
             SOUND LEVEL
              DECIBELS
               —90—
CITY NOISE
(DOWNTOWN MAJOR   4-"
METROPOLIS)
     VERY NOISY
      NOISY URBAN
                  —70-
                  —60--^-
      SMALL TOWN A —50^
     QUIET SUBURBAN 3:
      OUTDOOR LOCATIONS

 LOS ANGELES - 3rd FLOOR APARTMENT NEXT TO
	           FREEWAY
 LOS ANGELES- 3/4 MILE FROM TOUCH DOWN AT
	      MAJOR AIRPORT
                             LOS ANGELES - DOWNTOWN WITH SOME CON-
                            	    STRUCTION ACTIVITY
                             HARLEM - 2nd FLOOR APARTMENT
                             BOSTON - ROW HOUSING ON MAJOR AVENUE
                             WATTS - 8 MILES FROM TOUCH DOWN AT
                            	   MAJOR AIRPORT
                          NEWPORT-3.5 MILES FROM TAKEOFF AT
                                        SMALL AIRPORT
                          LOS ANGELES - OLD RESIDENTIAL AREA
                             FILLMORE-SMALL TOWN CUL-de-SAC
                          SAN DIEGO -WOODED RESIDENTIAL
                             CALIFORNIA-TOMATO FIELD ON FARM
                         Figure 2-5

                  Day-Night  Sound Levels
                at Typical Locations (1973)
                            26

-------
    Noise pollution standards for non-occupational noise
exposures have been suggested TO guard against hearing loss.
These standards specify relatively short exposure times; the
shorter the exposure time, the higher the sound level which
can be tolerated.  For example, 70 dBA may be safely
tolerated over an exposure time of 16-24 hours while 115 dBA
may be safely endured for only 2 minutes daily.  The long-
term health and welfare effects of noise on the individual,
however, are related to the cumulative noise exposure
received over a lifetime.  This, cf course, is a function of
lifestyle and the physical setting in which the exposure
takes place.  Thus, adeguate protection of the public
against involuntary exposure to environmental noise reguires
special consideration of the physical setting.  Table 2-7
identifies noise levels determined by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency to be reguisite for
protection of public health and welfare with an adequate
margin of safety for both activity interference and hearing
loss.  Areas are classified according to the primary
activities that are most likely to occur in each.
Eguivalent sound levels are presented as yearly averages of
daily levels.

    The City of Jacksonville has proposed a noise ordinance
to "prevent noise which may jeopardize the health or welfare
of its citizens or degrade the guality of life."  Four
occupancy use classifications—Residential, Commercial,
Industrial Light, and Industrial Heavy—have been assigned
to the area of jurisdiction for the purpose of establishing
maximum permissible continuous sound levels caused by
stationary sources of noise.  Any area not classified must
conform to Commercial standards.  Table 2-8 sets forth sound
level limits for occupancy use categories which shall not be
exceeded more than 10 percent of any measurement period.
This interval shall not be less than 10 minutes when
measured at the property boundary or at any point within the
property affected by the noise.

-------
                                                    TaUe 2-7


                           YEARLY AVERAGE  EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVELS IDENTIFIED AS REQUISITE
                                                 TO PROTECT THE
                            PUBLIC HEALTH  AND WELFARE WITH AN ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY
                                             Indoor
                                                                                     Outdoor
Activity To Protect
Measure Inter- Hearing Loss Against Both
ference Consideration Effects (b)
Residential With
Outside Space and
Farm Residences
Residential With
No Oatside Space
Commercial
Inside Trans-
portation
Industrial
Hospitals
Educational
Recreational
Areas
Farm Land and
General Un-
populated Land
Ldn
Leq(24)
Ldn
Leq(24)
Leq(24)
Leq(24)
Leq(24)(d)
Ldn
Leq(24)
Leq(24)
Leq(24)(d)
Leq(24)
Leq(24)
45
45
(a)
(a)
(a)
45
45
(a)

70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70

45
45
70(c)
(a)
70(c)
45
45
70(c)

Activity To Protect
Inter- Hearing Loss Against Both
ference Consideration Effects (b)
55

(a)

(a)
55
55
(a)
(a)
70

70

70
70
70
70
70
55

70(c)

70(c)
55
55
70(c)
70(c)
Code:

a.  Since different types of activities appear to be associated with different levels,  identification of
    8 maximum level for activity interference may be difficult except in those circumstances where speech
    communication is a critical activity.  (See Figure D-2 for noise levels as a function of distance which
    allow satisfactory communication.)

b.  Based on lowest level.

c.  Based only on hearing loss.

d.  An Leq(8) of 75 dB may be identified in these situations so long as  the exposure over the remaining  16
    hours per day is low enough to result in a negligible contribution to the 24-hour average,  i.e.,  no
    greater than an Leq of 60 dB.

NOTE:  Explanation of identified level for hearing loss:   The exposure period which results  in hearing loss
       at the identified level is  a period of 40 years.

-------
                         Table 2-8
    OCCUPANCY USE                           SOUND LEVEL LIMIT
    	CATEGORY	       	TIME	             IL(10) dBA)	

    Residential      7 A.M. to 10 P.M.              60
                    10 P.M. to  7 A.M.              55

    Commercial       7 A.M. to 10 P.M.              70
                    10 P.M. to  7 A.M.              65

    Industrial       7 A.M. to 10 P.M.              75
     Light          10 P.M. to  7 A.M.              75

    Industrial       7 A.M. to 10 P.M.              80
     Heavy          10 P.M. to  7 A.M.              80
    Further, stationary sources of noise are prohibited
which create noise levels greater than 75 dBA for
Residential occupancy use, 85 dBA for Commercial occupancy
use, 90 dBA for Industrial Light occupancy use, and 95 dBA
for Industrial Heavy occupancy use for more than one percent
of any measurement period.  This interval shall not be less
than 10 minutes when measured from the property boundary.

    Each of the occupancy use classifications is represented
in the Arlington-East Service District.  Most of the eastern
half of the district has been zoned Open Rural which is not
classified according to the four occupancy use
classifications of the local noise ordinance.  This area,
conseguently, must conform to Commercial occupancy use
classification standards.  The much more developed western
half of the service district has had Residential occupancy
use assigned to most of its area.  Commercial and Industrial
Light classifications follow in the western service
district, each having been assigned to approximately the
same percentage of area and distributed primarily along
Atlantic, University, and Beach Boulevards, the Arlington
Expressway, and to Craig Airport itself.  The Industrial
Heavy classification has been assigned to very small areas
of the western service district in the northwest and south
central vicinities.

    A noise survey to determine baseline levels was
conducted in the Jacksonville area in 1973 by the U. S.
                             29

-------
Department of Transportation.* One-hour measurements were
taken at various locations, five of which are located within
the Arlington-East Service District.  One of these, a site
near Corporate Square in the southwest area and 100 feet
from Southside Boulevard, was evaluated at peak and off-peak
hours.  At the peak hour of 4:15 to 5:15 P.M., the L(10)  was
measured at 66 dBA, and between 9:50 and 10:50 P.M. at 60
dBA.

    Two sites in the service district's northwest area were
evaluated to obtain representative background noise levels
in residential areas with nearly complete absence of highway
noise.  Mid-afternoon L(10) levels were found to be 52 and
53 dBA.

    Another northwest area site was evaluated during the
peak traffic hour approximately 100 feet from Merrill Road.
The measured L(10) of 62 dBA is considered representative of
the peak highway noise in that area.

    The last site evaluated in the service district is
located in the extreme western section near the Arlington
River and 100 feet from Alternate 1.  The high midafternoon
L(10)  level of 69 dBA recorded was due to the large volume
of traffic on Alternate 1 in the downtown area.

    Overall, the 1973 study found L(10)  dBA levels near most
major arteries to range from the mid to upper sixties during
peak hours.  Near major thoroughfares in the downtown area,
however, peak hour levels were in the high sixties and low
seventies.  In residential areas away from major arteries,
the noise level was essentially background with L(10)  dBA
levels ranging over the low fifties.

    Craig Airport is located in The north central area of
the service district.  It is, due to its very nature, a
source of noise to the area.  However, no noise level
studies have been performed and none are planned for the
airport or its approaches.

              d.   odor

    Point sources of annoying odor in the Jacksonville area
are largely industrial.  Five companies have been found to
be primarily responsible, although in varying degrees.  Of
these, three--the Union Camp Corp., the Glidden-Durkee Co.,
and Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.--are engaged in chemical
                              30

-------
processing or production, and two—the St. Regis Paper Co..
and the Alton Box Board Co.--produce paper and packaging
materials.  All have continuous odor emissions and, with the
exception of St. Regis, all are located in or near downtown
Jacksonville.  Their relative locations, with the exception
of Reichhold Chemicals, may be seen by referring back to
Figure 2-2.

    The two paper companies produce crude sulfate turpentine
(CST)  and dimethyl sulfide (DMS)  as by-products which
results in a sometimes nauseating sulfide odor at each
plant.  It should be noted that St. Regis has only recently
greatly reduced its odor problem with the installation of a
noncondensable gas system.  The CST and DMS produced by the
paper plants are used as feedstocks in the operations of
Union Camp which produces food flavorings, and Reichhold
which manufacturers polyester and paint resins.

    Reichhold's resinous odor emissions are slight and
localized.  Union Camp, however, has a greater problem in
that its odor problem affects a larger area and has been
described as pungent and penetrating, not unlike that of
burned oil.  Odors at both plants result primarily from
spills and loading-unloading operations.

    The Glidden-Durkee Co. produces perfumes and at times
emits a strong odor of turpene.

    The State Ordinance, as well as the Air Pollution
Control Board Rules of the City of Jacksonville Code, state:
"No person shall cause,  suffer, allow, or permit the
discharge of air pollutants which cause or contribute to  an
objectionable odor."  In March 1975, the Jacksonville
Division of Bio-Environmental Services began a daily odor
survey of all three chemical plants at various locations
surrounding each.  A summary of the number of days on which
odor was detected during the period March through June 1975
is as follows:

                         Faint  Moderate  Strong

Reichhold                  30      14        4
Union Camp                 9      28       25
Glidden-Durkee             22      50        6
                               31

-------
    Another industrial point source of odor, although not
generally considered annoying, is the Maxwell House Division
of General Foods Corporation.  The company is located in
downtown Jacksonville as shown on Figure 2-2 and emits a
generally continuous odor of coffee.

    The two greatest municipal point sources of annoying
odor in the Jacksonville area are the Buckman Street and
Sewer District No. 2 regional sewage treatment plants
located across the St. John's River approximately west and
southwest, respectively, of the Arlington-East Service
District.  Odor emissions have caused sporadic citizen
complaints; more so for Buckman Street than for Sewer
District No. 2.  These complaints, however, are not
generally caused by the odor of sewage but by the industrial
wastes which these plants treat.  The Buckman Street plant's
odor problems are caused primarily by waste slugs from the
Glidden-Durkee Co. which produce an odor not unlike that at
the Glidden-Durkee site.  Annoying odors at the Sewer
District No. 2 plant are caused chiefly by the discharge of
the Anheuser-Busch, Inc. brewery and are characterized by
the odor of wet mash.

    There are no major municipally-caused odor problems in
the Jacksonville area although scattered complaints are
received from time to time by the Bio-Environmental Services
Division concerning odors from various smaller plants around
the city.  These complaints are summarized for 1974 and the
first six months of 1975 as follows:

                        1974      1975 (thru June)

    Arlington Area        5         5
    Remainder of County  28        15

The above figures include only those against sewage
treatment plants and not against broken sewer lines, or
sewage in ditches.  Three complaints were received against
the Buckman Street plant and none against the Sewer District
No. 2 plant during the 18-month period.  In addition, there
were 20 complaints county-wide concerning overflowing lift
stations.

    The Monterey sewage treatment plant is the largest
existing treatment facility in the Arlington-East Service
District and has not been the subject of any citizen
complaints during the period of record.
                              32

-------
         2,
Land
              a.    Physical and Chemical

                   1)   Topography

    The Florida peninsula is divided into three
physiographic zones separated along trans-peninsular lines;
the Southern or Distal Zone, the Central or Mid-Peninsular
Zone, and the Northern or Proximal Zone.  These zones are
further divided into distinct physiographic sub-areas.
Duval County covers approximately 840 square miles in the
extreme eastern portion of the Proximal Zone and is
primarily within the Coastal Lowlands subdivision, a region
characterized by flat, undissected terrain with streams
generally flowing in shallow channels essentially at the
level of the surrounding land.  The county's topography is
largely defined by a series of ancient marine terraces
formed by the advance and recession of the sea earlier in
the Pleistocene Epoch.  Each time the sea fell to a lower
level, a part of the sea floor was left exposed as a level
plain or terrace which today is usually marked by a low
scarp or beach ridge at its landward edge.  In the
Jacksonville area, the terraces trend parallel to the
present Atlantic shoreline and become progressively higher
from east to west although their original shorelines and
level plains have been modified by stream erosion from
higher and older terraces.

    These terraces have been studied in considerable detail
with differing interpretations.  The elevations of those
generally recognized as occurring within Duval County are as
follows:

         Coharie  (170-215 ft. above mean sea level—MSL)
         Sunderland (100-170 ft. above MSL)
         Wicomico  (70-100 ft. above MSL)
         Penholoway (42-70 ft. above MSL)
         Talbot  (25-42 ft. above MSL)
         Pamlico  (10-25 ft. above MSL)
         Silver Bluff  (0-10 ft. above MSL)

    The Coharie terrace is the oldest and is found in the
extreme southwest corner of the county.  Its highest
altitude in Duval County is 190 ft. MSL and occurs along the
eastern slope of a prominent topographic feature  known  as
                              33

-------
Trail Ridge.  The Ridge is the only remnant of the Coharie
remaining in the county.

    The Sunderland is also found only in the southwest
corner of the county.  It has been extensively eroded;
remnants consist chiefly of rolling hills.

    The Wicomico terrace trends northwestward and forms an
area of extensive uplands in the western portion of the
county.

    Due to severe erosion and dissection by numerous
streams, the Penholoway and Talbot terraces are not well
defined in this area.  Remnants consist of a series of long
and narrow sand ridges--known as the coastal ridge--between
the St. Johns River and the coastline.  The coastal ridge
ranges from 25 to 70 feet MSL and extends through north-
central and southeastern Duval County.  Ancient dunes on the
ridge form a series of narrow, sandy, and small ridges also
oriented parallel to the coast but interspersed with low-
lying, swampy areas.

    Land surface slope of Duval County is shown on  Figure
2-6. The county's land surface is largely in slope of less
than one percent; that is, there is a change of less than
one foot in duration per 100 feet of horizontal distance.
Much of the central and eastern portions of the county
consist of a low coastal plain formed by remnants of the
Pamlico and Silver Bluff terraces.  This plain is quite
flat, its maximum elevation being about 25 feet above MSL.
Some dunes along the coast, however, exceed 50 feet MSL but
these are relatively unstable features formed independently
of the marine terraces.  In the central and southern
portions of the county, where the coastal ridge is more
pronounced, the coastal plain slopes toward the St. Johns
River west of the ridge and toward the ocean east of it.  In
northern
                              34

-------
             COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
                         for
THE CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
     JACKSONVILLE AREA PLANNING  BOARD
                              35
ST JOHNS COUNTY
                                                                                                                                       FIRURE  2-6

                                                                                                                                 LAND SURFACE
                                                                                                                                        SLOPE
                                                                                                                                OF DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

                                                                                                                                        LEGEND
                                                                                                                                SCOPES ON THIS MAP ARE EXPRESSED (N PERCENT
                                                                                                                                A CHANGE OF 4 FEET IN ELEVATION PER 100 FEET OF
                                                                                                                                HORIZONTAL DISTANCE EQUALS 4 PERCENT SLOPE.
                                                                                                                                         LESS THAN 1 %
                                                                                                                                         1 TO 4%
                                                                                                                                         4 TO 8%
                                                                                                                                         GREATER THAN 8 X
                                                                                                                                SOURCi U S GEOLOGIC SURVEY WATER RESOURCES
                                                                                                                                    DIVISION IN COOPERATION WITH JAPB
                                          JUNE 1973
                                THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCIALLY AIDiD
                                THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
                                HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, UNDER THE URBAN
                                PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY SECTION
                                70) OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS AMfNOED

-------
Duval County, however, the plain slopes only eastward.

    Surface drainage in the county is largely directed by
the ancient marine terraces.  Remnants of their beach
ridges, paralleling the ancient shorelines, direct runoff so
that the major streams flow roughly parallel to them.
Principal drainage basins are shown in Figure 2-7.

    Drainage in the western and central portions of the
county is through the St. Johns and Nassau Rivers and their
tributaries.  The St. Johns is tidal throughout its length
in Duval County and its tributaries are tidal in their lower
reaches.  It receives drainage on the west from tributaries
flowing off the upland terraces and on the east from streams
flowing away from the coastal ridge.  East of the ridge,
sluggish and brackish streams drain either into the channel
of the Intracoastal Waterway or directly into the ocean.  In
the flat and marshy areas of the northeastern part of the
county, formed by the Pamlico and Silver Bluff terraces,
drainage is sluggish and the streams form a dendritic
pattern.  Because of the low relief over this area, so
little erosion has occurred that it is often difficult or
impossible to define drainage divides.

    Of the seven ancient marine terraces found in Duval
County, the four lowest in elevation—Penhaloway, Talbot,
Pamlico, and Silver Bluff—are represented in the Arlington-
East Service District.  As is true for the county as a
whole, the topography and drainage of the service district
is largely defined by the terraces and the erosional forces
which have modified them.  The district is bounded almost
completely on three sides by water; the Intracoastal
Waterway on the east, the St. Johns River and Mill Cove on
the north, and the St. Johns for a portion of the western
boundary.

    Topographic relief is shown on Figure 2-8.  The
easternmost portion of the service district is part of the
coastal plain with drainage away from the coastal ridge
toward the Intracoastal Waterway and the St. Johns River.
The coastal ridge comprises the central and northwest
portions of the district with elevations generally from 30
to 50 feet MSL but exceeding 70 feet at the highest point.
This relatively high area accounts for the largest portion
of the service district.  The southwest portion is lower
than the coastal ridge but somewhat higher than most of the
coastal plain.  Elevations are generally from 20 to 30 feet
MSL with several streans occupying shallow channels an^
flowing fron the coastal ridge to the St. Johns T>iver.

-------
                                         Arlington - East Service District Boundary
Figur* 2-7    -  Princioal Dra

-------
4 r t A N f IC O'°>"1<< Surf'»
 •«*CM
        FIGURE 2-8
 TOPOGRAPHIC
                               EI3
                      MAP
                           laps

-------
    Approximately 90 percent of the service district's land
surface is in slope of less than one percent.  Small and
isolated areas with slope from 1 to 8 percent occur along
the St. Johns River shoreline.  More extensive areas with
slope greater than 8 percent occur as bluffs across the
northern portion of the district, generally paralleling the
St. Johns River and Mill cove and reflecting the northern
boundary of the coastal ridge in this area.  Other areas of
slope exceeding 8 percent also occur along the western slope
of the coastal ridge and along the stream channels of the
southwest portion of the district.

                   2)    Geology

    Much of the Jacksonville area geomorphology has of
necessity been included in the topography discussion.  One
last comment, however, has to do with the orientation of the
area's most important surface hydrologic feature, the St.
Johns River.  The river flows north for approximately 200
miles and then, at Jacksonville, its terminal reach turns
perpendicular to the coast.  This deflection seaward is
caused by the delta of the St. Mary's River, a network of
meandering sediment laden streams superimposed on the
Coastal Plain.

    Fresh water supplies in Duval County are obtained
entirely from wells drilled into the geologic formations
that compose the three local aquifer systems.  Detailing
these systems provides a comprehensive description of the
underlying geology in the Jacksonville area to a depth of
about 2,100 feet below mean sea level, the lowest penetrated
depth of the Floridan aquifer in the area.

    The three types of aquifers are the surficial sand beds;
the relatively thin limestone, shell, and sand beds between
50 and 150 feet below the surface; and the thick limestone
and dolomite beds below 300 to 600 feet.  The latter beds
comprise the Floridan aquifer which is the principle source
of potable water in the area.  The overlying beds are
utilized primarily for domestic supplies, some air
conditioning, and lawn sprinkling.

    Each of the three aquifer types is found in the
Arlington-East Service District.  Figure 2-9 shows a
generalized geologic cross-section across the southern
portion of Duval County; geology of the service district may
be seen in the eastern half of the section which is an east-
west line roughly paralleling Atlantic anr> Beach nonlevards.

                              39

-------
1200—'
                                 LEGEND


                 Pleistocene and Recent Deposits   j§



                | Upper Miocene or Pliocene Deposits [A



                j Hawthorn Formation           ||



                3 Crystal River Formation         [_



                 Williston Formation
Vg Inglis Formation




xTl Avon Park Limestone
"	J



HH] Lake City Limestone




~~| Oldsmar Limestone




   Water
                                   SCALE
                              Figure 2-9



       Generalized  Geologic  Cross-Section Across

       Southern  Duval  County (after Leve, 1966)
                                40

-------
    Surficially, the service district, as well as the county
as a whole, is covered with undifferentiated marine and
estuarine terrace deposits of Pleistocene and Recent age.
Except for areas where they have been completely eroded by
streams, these sediments comprise the surficial sand
aquifer.  They consist primarily of medium to fine-grained
loose quartz sands and average about 20 feet in thickness in
this area.  The sands contain several heavy minerals which,
in the past, were strip-mined along the coastal ridge.

    The thin limestone, shell, and sand aquifer beds are
believed to be Pliocene and upper Miocene in age.  They
comprise a distinct aquifer system separated from the
Floridan aquifer by the relatively impermeable and confining
Hawthorn Formation.  In some places, these beds are absent
or not sufficiently thick to supply usable quantities of
water.  In the service district, however, they average about
80 feet in thickness and occur to depths of 100 feet below
mean sea level.

    The Hawthorn Formation of middle Miocene age consists
mainly of clays, sands, pebbles, and sandy limestone and
occurs, in the service district, at depths averaging about
80 to 100 feet below mean sea level and in thicknesses
averaging about 300 feet.  It serves throughout most of
northeast Florida primarily as a confining layer which
retards upward movement of water from the underlying
Floridan aquifer.  However, in parts of eastern Duval
County, zones of pebbly sand within the formation are topped
by wells.

    The Floridan aquifer is composed of limestone and
dolomite formations which unconformably underly the Hawthorn
Formation and generally dip to the north and east in Duval
County.  It is locally composed of seven formations—the
Ocala Group (Crystal River, Williston, and Inglis
Formations), the Avon Park Limestone, Lake City Limestone,
Oldsmar Limestone, and a portion of the Cedar Keys
Limestone.  All are Eocene in age except the Cedar Keys
which is Pal eocene.  Most of -the water drawn from the
Floridan Aquifer in the Jacksonville area comes from the
five youngest formations; the Ocala Group, Avon Park, and
Lake City collectively comprise the area's principle source
of potable water as well as the primary source of
groundwater used for municipal, utility, and industrial
purposes.  The Oldsmar limestone is relatively impermeable
but is used for water supply to some extent.  The Cedar Keys
                              11

-------
Limestone, the oldest formation of rhe Floridan Aquifer,
contains highly mineralized water below depths of about
2,100 feet below mean sea level.  Water in the Floridan
Aquifer system is artesian throughout most of Duval County.

    The major structural feature of the area is a north-
south trending fault which underlies the St. Johns River
Basin in Southern Duval County.  The fault is clearly seen
in Figure 2-9; the upthrown side is to the west with a
vertical displacement of about 125 feet to the Ocala Group
and the Avon Park Limestone.  The vertical displacement of
the fault decreases to the north and probably does not
extend beyond northern Duval County.  Its principle economic
effect is that it has somewhat increased the depth to the
major water bearing formations of the Floridan Aquifer
located on its downthrown side.  There is also some
speculation that it may be blocking a portion of the
recharge from the southwest.
                   3)   Soils

    A knowledge of soils in the project area is necessary
for three primary reasons.  First, their physical properties
will directly affect the location, construction design, and
cost of the proposed facilities.  Second, their drainage and
chemical characteristics will influence the location,
method, and effectiveness of land disposal alternatives.
Finally, their drainage, chemistry, and extent will affect
the size of facilities needed or even the choice of planning
alternatives.  For example, the occurrence of soils suitable
for septic tank absorption fields, in combination with other
factors, such as anticipated growth, might obviate the need
for treatment facilities altogether.

    Eleven soil associations have been recognized and
documented in Duval County.  A soil association represents a
group of soils that occur together in nature to form a
distinctive landscape.  It consists of one or more major
soils and at least one minor soil, and is named for the
major soil (s).  In Duval County, these associations have
been evaluated for limitations and features which affect
their suitability for selected uses.  Their overall rating
is based on the rating for the dominant soil and is
expressed as slight, moderate, or severe.  Slight means that
soil properties are generally favorable for the rated use or
that limitations are minor and easily overcome.  Moderate
                              42

-------
means that some soil properties are unfavorable but may be
overcome or modified by special planning and design.  Severe
means that properties are so unfavorable and so difficult to
correct or overcome that major soil reclamation, special
designs, or intensive maintenance is required.  Table 2-9
describes the six soil associations found in the Arlington-
East Service District along with their suitability ratings
for pertinent uses.  Their areal distribution is shown on
Figure 2-10.

    Soil properties considered in evaluating suitability for
septic tank absorption fields are those that affect both
absorption of effluent and construction and operation of the
system.  Absorption is affected by permeability, depth to
water table or rock, and susceptibility to flooding.
Construction and operation is influenced by slope in
connection with facility layout, risk of soil erosion,
lateral seepage, and downslope flow of effluent.  Properties
considered in evaluating suitability for shallow excavations
are good soil workability, moderate resistance to sloughing,
gentle slope, absence of rock outcropping or large stones,
and relative freedom from flooding or the absence of a high
water table.  Soil properties to be considered in the
construction of industrial or other large facilities are
those that affect load-supporting capacity and settlement
under load, such as wetness, flooding, texture, plasticity,
density, and shrink-swell behavior.  In addition, properties
affecting excavation, such as wetness, flooding, slope and
depth to bedrock, are considered.
                              43

-------
                                         Arlington - East Service District Boundary
Figur* 2-10   - Areal Distribution  of  Soils in rhp Ar-Hr

-------
                                              Table 2-9

                       SOIL ASSOCIATIONS OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST SERVICE DISTRICT
                                                                            Degree of  Limitation
Map
Symbol
Association
Name
Description
Septic Tank
Absorption Fields
Shallow
Excavation
Light
Industry
        Lakeland-Tavare s,
        Tavares,  Variant-
        Leon
        Leon-Pomello,
        Variant-Rutlege
        Waba s so,  Thermic,
        Variant-Leon
10
11
        Fresh Water Swamp
        Salt Water Marsh
Broad ridges of exces-       Slight
sively drained and
moderately well-drained
yellow sands.

Nearly level to              Moderate
gently sloping,
moderately well-drained
soils, sandy throughout
and poorly drained sandy
soils with weakly
cemented sandy subsoil.

Nearly level to gently       Severe
sloping, poorly drained
and moderately well-
drained sandy soils with
weakly cemented sandy
subsoil, and very poorly
drained soils, sandy
throughout.

Nearly level to gently       Severe
sloping, poorly drained
sandy soils with a weakly
cemented sandy subsoil
layer underlain by loamy
subsoil, and poorly drained
sandy soils with weakly
cemented sandy subsoils.

Nearly level, very poorly    Severe
drained soils subject to
prolonged flooding.

Level, very poorly drained   Severe
soils subject to frequent
flooding by tidal waters.
Severe
                                                                              Severe
Slight
               Slight
                                                                              Severe
               Severe
                                                                              Severe
                                                                                             Severe
                                                                              Severe
                                                                              Severe
                                                                                             Severe
                                                                                             Severe

-------
    The largest part of the service district is for the most
part, poorly drained.  Extensive areas of well or moderately
well drained soils do, however, occur in the northern and
western portions of the district.  In addition, smaller
tracts of well-drained sandy soils are found in the central
portion alonq the coastal ridge.  Existing and planned
development, as well as relatively shallow depths to the
water table, combine to eliminate most of the larger areas
of good drainage from consideration as feasible sites for
land disposal (i.e., spreading) of sludge.  There are,
however, at least two undeveloped areas which deserve
consideration as land-spreading sites.  The abandoned strip-
mine areas in the north central and south central service
district consist primarily of the Fripp Series of dry and
sandy soils.  These soils typically have grayish-brown fine
sand surface layers underlain by pale yellow and very pale
brown fine sand which grades to white at lower depths.  The
topmost layers, having been stripped off the mined areas,
are presently covered with pale yellow to white fine sand --
the lower portion of the Fripp Series now exposed.  Left
undisturbed, these ridges could support a bayberry-palmetto
vegetative community.  Presently, however, the strip-mined
areas are barren.  This misuse combines with adeguate
acreage and excellent drainage to warrant consideration for
improvement through land spreading of sludge from the
proposed Arlington-East sewage treatment plant.

    The primary physical process which is changed when
sewage sludge is applied to soil is retention of soil water.
Sewage sludge and sewage compost increase the retention of
soil water at any tension but most effectively in coarse-
textured, singlegrained soils such as sands.  When applied
to these otherwise inert soils, the sludge serves as a
conditioner by its presence as a surface-active and water-
absorbing additive.  Nutrient absorption capabilities are
increased, resulting in a much more productive soil.

    Soil structure, particularly aggregation, affects soil
water, soil air, mechanical impedence, and root
distribution.  Organic matter, through the activity of
microorganisms, increases soil aggregration; application of
sewage sludge has been shown to increase stable aggregrates
by 16 to 33 percent.

    Finally, erosion, the end result of dislodgement and
transport of soil particles, can be reduced markedly by the
addition of organic matter such as sludge.  Infiltration can
                             46

-------
be increased, thus reducing the amount of water available
for soil particle transport.

              b.  Biota

                   1)  Terrestrial Plants

    Five dominant arboristic cover types are found in the
Arlington-East Service District.  Figure 2-11 shows these
cover types as well as areas presently developed, strip-
mined areas, salt water marshes, and water.  Aerial
photographs taken January 14, 1975 for the Florida State
Department of Transportation were used to prepare this map.
Stereoscopic coverage enabled more accurate study of the
area.  Trained foresters from the Jacksonville District
Office, Florida Division of Forestry, assisted with ground
truth identification and photo interpretation work.
                               47

-------
48

-------
    The five readily distinguished cover types found within
the Arlington-East service district are the hammock,
longleaf-turkey oak flatwood, slash pine flatwoods, hardwood
swamp, and cypress swamp.  These were named according to the
species most dominant in the existing tree canopy.  Land
under cultivation, or pastureland, was considered developed.
Pine plantations were considered a natural cover type even
though they are altered areas.

    The hammock is found in upland areas with well-drained
sandy soils.  It is dry but not quite as dry as a sand dune
situation.  A climax association exists due to an absence of
fire.  The dominant species found here is live oak.  Sub-
dominants include laurel oak, magnolia, mockernut hickory,
and scrub live oak.  The live oaks provide 90-100 percent
shade cover.  Understory species include cabbage palm, saw
palmetto, and staggerbush.  When fire or logging removes the
larger climax types, a scrub will exist in low thickets.
Species here are dwarf live oak, scrub live oak, sand-post
oak, bluejack oak, turkey oak, myrtle oak, persimmon, and
some long-leaf pines.  This cover association is highly
desirable for parks and home development.

    Two pine flatwood associations exist within the service
area; the slash pine and the longleaf pine/turkey oak.  They
can be closely associated.  An example is along the unigue
"finger ridges" which lie on a north-south line in the
eastern area of the service district.

    Longleaf pine/turkey oak association is found at higher
elevations than the slash pine.  Other species evident here
are bluejack oak and myrtle oak with ground cover of saw-
palmetto and ground oaks.  Few large stands of longleaf pine
remain due to logging, a situation which permits the slower
growing oaks to become dominant.

    Slash pine is the dominant cover species within the
entire service district.  It is a hearty, vigorous grower
planted extensively for pulpwood and has replaced the
longleaf in this respect.  Where pulpwooding has removed
large pines and where fire has been removed as a control, a
mesic hammock will exist within the flatwoods.  This is a
nearly pure stand of hardwoods but difficult to
differentiate because fast growing slash pines integrate it.

-------
    4& *°
   Or^v
     *****
      <*$£* * o^4^!^^
^ *V
 *{ "^ "'xQ-   Of ^S"^ ^""^ 1    ^ —. ~ <-* " "V C* ""* .^ 'rf9"" -«. \^ ^^ " Iv*'

•<^  XVA X  ^l aS 1*< ^ ^>5 *&
-O   -G** ').'3f o'3'   "" '^ '^* A -^ -"•'* '^ -K • *^ -^
   ,6°r ^-*
^v*
  .•^
 x»ir^ x^
 ^ ^5f^:V:«"^^>^  x^t'^0^^
   <:^\:>^v:^< <^   —K:^ ^ -v
   £5& 0 ^C" ^ '-^O1 >«- :^'
            .<
     ^-^"tv®^"-^ «   tv"V* <
     •O- • r* •> .-o    « *"\o'p ^Ot-
      <6  AV*   o<5c o*WiO> .^>'x o "" % ®*  /- '•* ^ l"r,s x^$€^f<>o <>$*
         X:^^^   -fl^^^^vtv
         V J
          ^  ^


            .^-^^
                          Or* A ®
                          * «
                          ~&^
                                     &
                               <>?
                         & o ^0C
     ^s%^:.ii-v
       •^ 0V /-."S^ XV> <>%'_/-,   x-O^ «<€• ,o^
                         .^'
               ^ X . #fvt ^
                     ^pc
           •^ *" .** >-A°6

-------
    The following is a list of plants extracted from the
state list of protected plants, Senate Bill No. 233, Section
865.06, Preservation of Wild Trees, Shrubs, and Plants.
These plants occur or probably occur within the Arlington-
East area.

         Sevenoa serrulata (saw palmetto)
         Sarracenia minor  (pitcher plant)
         £amia spp,  (coontie)
         Qercis canadensis (Redbud)
         Erythrine Arborea (Cherokee or coral bean)
               (Possible on high dry sites)
         Gelsemium sempervirens (yellow jasmine)
         Gordonia lasianthus  (loblolly-bay)
         Ilex cassine (dahoon holly)
         Ilex myrtifolia  (myrtle leaved holly)
         Ilex opaca  (American holly)
         Lobelia cardinalis  (cardinal flower)
         Rhododendron austrinum (azalea)
         Rhododendron caneseens (azalea)
         Pinckneva pubens  (fever tree) along flowing streambanks.
         S alpingostvlis coelestina
         Vjerna baldwinii  (dwarf clematis)
         Cornus florida (dogwood)
         Cornus alternifolia  (dogwood)

              2)    Terrestrial Fauna

    Although developing rapidly, the service district
provides varied habitats for numerous animals.  It is
difficult to characterize the fauna of the five vegetative
zones because considerable overlap occurs due to seasonal
changes in food, shelter, or migratory behavior.  However,
some generalizations may be stated.

    Dry hammock areas are inhabited by species able to exist
where standing ground water seldom accumulates.  The gopher
tortoise, an armored, nocturnal reptile, is a common
inhabitant.  Ground cover is prevalent enough to attract
many snakes, lizards, rats, mice, rabbits, toads, and the
gopher frog.  Sguirrels, sparrows, predacious hawks and
owls, along with common scavenger vultures utilize the high
live oak canopy.

    Pine flatwoods have a greater ground cover and sparse
canopy unlike the hammock.  Palmetto, wire grass, gallberry,
and numerous grasses and sedges provide excellent cover for
                              51

-------
terrestrial animals.  Many herbivores and omnivores attract
natural predators such as the bobcat, hawks, owls, and
numerous snakes.

    Animals and birds of the lower hardwood swamps and
cypress stands are not uncommon in the flatwoods areas.
Some exceptions are those which require or prefer standing
surface water.  Egrets, herons, turtles and water snakes are
common in cypress stands.  Many animals which frequent drier
areas are attracted to the hardwood swamp and cypress areas.
A need for water, seasonal foraging, or abundant aquatic and
terrestrial prey cause these lowland areas to be essential
to numerous species.

    The wetlands of the hardwood swamp and cypress stand are
utilized by waterfowl.  Seasonally flooded areas in the
hardwood swamp where wetland vegetation is present on the
ground could attract migrating waterfowl.  Cypress swamps
are particularly important to waterfowl during times of
drought.  At these times the cypress swamps are the only
shallow fresh water available.
    Appendix XI inventories the species of amphibians,
reptiles, birds, and mammals found in the service district
according to six habitat areas.  For birds, the seasonal
occurrence is provided to consider the migratory movements
of many species.  Species which appear on the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or Florida Fish and Game Commission lists
as being endangered or threatened are so indicated.
    Endangered Species - Animal species presented here
include those listed as threatened by extinction according
to the United States Department of the Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service.  Some have not been sighted for years but
are included since the service district is within the
species' geographical area and habitat does exist which
could support them.

    Alligator  (Alligator rnissjssippiensis)

    The alligator does occur in Duval County and quite
possibly in or around the service district wetlands.
Sightings have been made in a sawgrass marsh in upper Dunn
Creek, north of the service district.
                              5?.

-------
    Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Dendrocopos borgalis)

    This species prefers large, old pine trees for nesting
sites.  This type habitat does exist within the service
district.

    Southern Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
    Probably one of the most intolerant birds to the
presence of man.  It tends to inhabit remote areas close to
its preferred hunting areas such as marshes and freshwater
swamps.  The bird nests in the highest trees where the nest
is used year after year.

    Brown Pelican fPelecanus occidentalis)

    Frequently seen in the project area.  It stays close to
its fishing waters, open coastal waters, river deltas and
can be seen in "flying armadas" patrolling the ocean
beaches.
    Florida Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris)

    A mammal, this endangered species ranges throughout the
state.  Its numbers are now limited but it does occur in the
St. Johns estuary.  Recent sightings near Mill Cove indicate
that manatees frequent the lower estuary as well as
freshwater reaches.

    Florida Panther (FeLis concolor coryi)

    This predator is usually restricted to large uninhabited
areas in central and south Florida, particularly in the
Everglades.  It is not likely to be found in the project
area.
              3.   Wetlands and Water/Land Interface

    Extensive wetlands and water/land interface areas exist
in and around Duval County and the Arlington-East Service
District.  Primary areas of concern are the Atlantic beaches
and dunes, the estuarine reach of the St. John's River and
its tributaries, the coastal salt marshes, and the
                              53

-------
freshwater swamps located inland from the coast.   These
areas are shown in the vicinity of the service district area
on Figure 2-12.

              a.   Physical and Chemical

    Of the above areas, those that will receive the greatest
direct impact from the planned project are the estuaries and
coastal marshes.  The marshes constitute a transition zone
between the terrestrial, freshwater, and marine
environments.  In many cases, they have been subjected to
man-made changes (such as artificial introduction of
nutrients)  which alter their natural condition.  Such
changes may then influence the surrounding estuarine area.

    Tidal marshes depend in large part for their biological
richness on the normal guantity and quality of nutrients
from inland or upland sources.  However, when nutrient rich
effluents enter a marsh-estuarine system, the nutrients are
effectively topped by the tidal circulation pattern and
efficient vertical mixing of fresh and salt water.  Ideal
conditions are thus created for the cycling of nutrients
between sediments and water and their ultimate assimilation.
Marsh-estuarine ecosystems have developed adaptations to
high nutrient levels and have a large capacity to buffer
nutrient changes.  Sediments act as both source and sink,
effectively neutralizing the effects of, for example, large
additions of phosphate to the ecosystem.  On the other hand,
untreated organic materials greatly stress the marsh-
estuarine aguatic system.  Detailed waste assimilation
analyses have shown that marshes and estuaries are
particularly vulnerable to the artificial introduction of
large amounts of organic matter; naturally high in organic
detritus, their dissolved oxygen levels are undesirably
reduced when subjected to these effluents.  If, however,
large BOD loadings are reduced through secondary treatment,
the natural systems at work in the estuarine environment can
effectively carry out tertiary treatment without appreciable
reduction in water quality.

-------
                                                   Figure 2-12
and Interface Area in the vicin-
ity of the Service District

-------
    Natural siltation is an integral process in the coastal
marsh-estuarine environment.  These deposits are partly
organic and partly inorganic.  They are either
autochthonous, having been formed in the estuary itself by
life or physical-chemical processes, or allochthonous,
having been introduced from outside the estuary by inflowing
water.  Due to density differences and the reduced velocity
of water movement where fresh and salt waters meet,
suspended materials generally cause a high degree of
turbidity in the estuary.

    High turbidity levels limit light penetration and thus
excessive growths  (blooms)  of dinoflagellates are less of a
problem than in correspondingly enriched but less turbid
waters.  In the St. John's estuary, however, the marshes are
threatened by direct deposition of dredge spoil and by
excessive siltation due to dredge and fill operations and
runoff of solids.  Siltation rates presently vary from nine
inches per month at the Talleyrand Docks to a foot per year
in Back River.

    The single most important physical factor in the estuary
and coastal marshes is the tide.  Tides affect the exchange
of water and their vertical range determines the extent of
tidal flats which may be exposed and submerged with each
tidal cycle.  At high water, chemicals and minerals and
organic matter are converted into food for aquatic life
through photosynthesis.  At low water, the solids, filtered
through the grasses, settle into rich sediments.

    In most estuaries there is a net discharge of water from
the estuary equal to the amount of river discharge.  Because
of tidal action, however, the exchange of water in large
estuaries such as the St. John's is not completed in a
single tidal cycle and several days or tidal cycles may be
required for a given particle of river water to reach the
sea.  Indeed, the average net or freshwater flow at
Jacksonville is about 14 percent of the average tidal
induced flow.  Sea water, moving upstream from the mouth of
the St. John's River mixes with the fresher water already in
the river channel to form a zone of transition.  This zone
moves upstream when insufficient fresh water is stored in
the estuary to keep its level higher than that of the ocean.
Chloride concentrations in this zone vary from that of sea
water to that of the freshwater imput.  During a particular
tidal cycle, the magnitude and range in chloride
concentration in the river at Jacksonville depends on the
                             56

-------
length and gradient of the zone of transition and on the
volumes of the tidal flows.  About 80 percent of the time,
the chloride concentration at the Main Street Bridge exceeds
250 milligrams per liter.

    At the mouth of the St. John's River, the tidal range
averages 4.9 feet.  The tidal generates progressive tidal
waves which move up the river in cycles accompanied by tidal
currents.  The amplitude of these waves gradually
diminishes, causing the tidal range at the Main Street
Bridge in Jacksonville to be only 1.2 feet.

    Extensive flood-prone areas exist in Duval County.
Available information depicting areas which are inundated by
the 100-year frequency flood is shown on Figures 2-13.
         b.   Biota

    The configuration of the shoreline along the Lower St.
Johns River has been considerably altered.  Bulkheads have
replaced gradual sloped beaches and, in some areas, marshes.
Bulkheads do support a unique biological community of
encrusting or attached animals and plants.  However,
pollutional factors and constant harbor wave turbulence
renders the port terminals' bulkheads unsuitable for many
marine species.  At present, the East Arlington service
district has less than 5 percent of bulkhead shoreline.

    Estuarine access depends on the preservation of natural
shorelines.  Extensive migratory movements by juvenile
fishes and invertebrates are along shallow near-shore areas.
This behavior is primarily for protection from larger
predacious fish which are restricted to deeper water.

    Most background data for land-water interfaces was
extracted from a two-part estuarine survey performed by
Frederick Tone in 1972 for -the Blount Island EIS.  August
sampling work compares stations in Mill Cove with other
stations in the Blount Island area.  Figure 2-14 locates
shore zone stations.

    Littoral Fauna - The beach zone between high and low
tide is the littoral zone.  It can be a high energy area
where wave action and shore currents cause a continual
movement of beach material.  For this reason, a high energy
beach is usually devoid of any attached vegetation.  Few
aquatic species can exist here and those  that do must
tolerate regular exposure to air.  Consequently, thp henthir
populations are expected to be minimal.
                              57

-------
                                                                                                                           FLOOD PRONE
                                                                                                                                AREAS
                                                                                                                           100 YEAR FREQUENCY
                                                                                                                          FLOOD PRONE AREAS
                                                                                                                         NOTE EXTENT OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION IS DEPICTED
                                                                                                                            BALANCE OF AREA SHALL BE DEPICTED WHEN IT
                                                                                                                            BECOMES AVAILABLE
                                                                                                                         SOURCE U S GEOLOGIC SURVEY FLOOD PRONE AREA
                                                                                                                             QUADRANGLE SERIES
            COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
                        for
THE CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED
THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, UNDER THE URBAN
PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY SECTION
701 Of THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
     JACKSONVILLE AREA  PLANNING BOARD

-------
              Figure 2-14




Estuarine shore zone stations sampled




  by Frederick Tone, August 1972.

-------
    Frederick Tone surveyed the littoral beach zone for
benthic invertebrates.  Mill Cove was found to be marginally
productive while three other sites not as near to Arlington-
East were unproductive.  Data for this 1972 work is shown in
Table 2-10.  Certain amphipods such as those obtained in the
survey (Haustoriidae family) are common in large numbers in
clumped distributions.  Another family, Oedicerotidae, can
be expected in this zone in similar aggregations.  Fiddler
crabs (Uca sp) also quite common, were collected at a Mill
Cove station.  Littoral areas on mud flats adjacent to marsh
vegetation offer a better habitat for invertebrates.  The
substrate is more stable and has more organic content for
deposit feeding worms and mollusks.  Some crustaceans, such
as -juvenile crabs, penaid shrimp, or the common grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes pugio), frequent the area at high tide.

    Even though benthic populations can be insignificant in
the beach zone, the near-shore waters are extremely
important to the nekton.  Seining will sample juveniles and
smaller fish species that utilize the near-shore area for
protection from larger fish.  Shore zone seining, performed
by Tone, yielded a good diversity of fish.  The survey
yielded 23 species, indicating the great importance of the
shallow, near-shore areas to the productivity of the
estuary.  This work was a comparative survey of several
areas in the lower estuary.  Collections were dominated by
the Atlantic  silversides, striped killifish, striped mullet
and redege mullet.  Complete seining data at four stations
samples are in Table  2-11.


    Benthic infauna and the sizable migrations of juvenile
fish fall  prey to birds in  the beach zone.  Terns,  plovers,
sandpipers and herons  all feast  on schools of juvenile fish.

    Marsh  Flora - Salt marshes,  those areas which come undei
some degree of tidal  influence,  are known to be more
biologically  productive in  terms of grams of carbon per unil
area than  the most  intensively worked  farmland.  Many
benefits  are  derived  from salt marsh areas; biological
productivity, water table recharge, and  filtration  are
considered vital  to the rest  of  the estuary.
                           60

-------
      Table  2-10
INTERTIDALINVERTEBRATES  (Sampled by  Tone;  August 1972)

      Organisms/M

                                   Clapboard    Brown's
           Back River   Mill Cove     Creek       Creek

Annelida
Polychaeta
Capitellida
Capitellidae
fragments
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Neogastropoda
Nassariida
I Ivan ass a .ob^_ole_^a
Bivalvia
Keterodontida
Solecurtidae
Taselus plebeius
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Amphipoda
Kaustor&dae
Decapoda
Palasisonidae
Palemonetes sp.
Ocypodidae
lie a sp.
TOTAL NUMBER ORGANISMS
TOTAL NUMBER SPECIES
A























0
0
B























0
0
E



48













3376




16
3440
2
F


16
48









32






32


128
3
G























0
0
H '









32













32
1
I























0
0
J






















128
128
1
           61

-------
                                                Table  2-11

                       Shallow Water  Seining  Performed by Tone; August,  1972
                              BACK R1VFR
                                     B
                                                      MILL COVE
INVCRTF.RRATC SPECIES

Calli niTlc-s sapiiluc       3
Panatus f]uvi»lilis     123
           40.0
40.0
Key
     No. - numbi-r
     A.T.L.  - average  total length
                                                              E
                                                 CLAPBOARD CREEK
                                                             11
   BROW'S CREEK
I             J

FISH SPECIES
Brevooiti.i p.itrunus
Dorosona ceju'tli ^nun\
Ancli >a hepsclus
Anchos raitchilli
Uroj.l'ycis fjrllJ
Stroiip.yliira maiiiia
Cyprinodon varlepatus
Fundulus chryscttus
Fundulus hcterocll tus
Fundulus ruijalis
Men i d i a mo n i d i a
Eucinos tomus gula
Eucinostomus lefroyi
Gerres cinereus
Laj',odon rhomboldes
Bairdiella chrysura
Cynoscion recalls
Leiostomus xanthuius
Micropogon undulatus
Mugil cephalus
Mugil curema
Mugil gaimardianus
Sphaeroides maculatus
TOTAL NUMBI'R

Nu.





1


1

189


5


2
4
1
449



652
A.T.L. A.T.L.
mra No, nin





26.0


39.0

45.8


44.2


45.0
78.8
69.0
60.9









1 36.0


329 38.1

5 103.0









108 43.0

j 443

No.

1


1

2
2
33
5
20

1




15

67



A.T.L.
mm

T43


98

31.0
31.0
38.9
47.6
60.7

55.0




76.1

53.5



148
A.T.L.
No. [TJH

1 56.0

6 45,3
85 58.2




1 123.0

93
A.T.L. A.T.L.
No. mm No. nim
1 141.0
12 52.9
4 48.3


126 50.9
1 larvae
2 118.5
31 92.4



177

2 54.5*



10 60.1
10 larvae


2 106.0

1 larvae
25
A.T.L. A.T.L.
No . mm No . mm '





42 54.1





3 larvae
45
1

1 45
1 45.0
3 34.3
290 49.0
2 26.0



' 84.0

298
                                     10.0
                                                                             35
                        78.0

-------
    It is estimated that 6 percent of Duval County is salt
marsh.  The service district is bordered by considerable
marsh.  Two wetland types are predominant according to
circular 39, "Wetlands of the United States."  Type 18, the
low marsh is that portion which is regularly flooded by
diurnal tidal cycles.  Dominant vegetation is Spartina
alterniflora, the most abundant salt tolerant emergent
species on the east coast of the U. S.

    Type 17 is the high marsh portion which is infreguently
flooded at lunar tides or by freshwater floods.  The
dominant species is salt tolerant, black needlerush (Juncus
roemerianus) .

    About 85 percent of Mill Cove is bordered by marshgrass.
The intracoastal waterway, the eastern boundary of the
service district, and Chicopit Bay, at its confluence with
the St. Johns, are bordered by the same two common species
of grass.  Quantities of Spartina decrease southward along
the intracoastal waterway away from the greater tidal
fluctuations close to the St. Johns River.

    Big Pottsburg Creek drains a heavily populated portion
of the southwestern sections of the service district.
Sections of shoreline have been dredged and bulkheaded.
Some energent grass does remain in the lower reaches of the
creek near Atlantic Boulevard.  The marshgrass directly
benefits residents on the creek by functioning as a filter
for run-off.  Culverting or otherwise rapidly channeling
this water into the creek has defeated its purpose.

    Emergent vegetation has been retained in Little
Pottsburg Creek.  Black needlerush is the dominant species.

    Productivity of salt marsh areas in the lower estuary
was measured by Frederick Tone, August 1972.  The results
shown on Figure 2-15 compare dry weight biomass measurements
at four sites, including one in Mill Cove.  The randomly
selected sites are so few that this data does not indicate
species distribution or differences within the Jacksonville.
area.  it does, however, indicate small differences in
productivity from marsh to marsh.

    Type 12, wetlands coastal shallow fresh marshes are
present around creek headwaters.  This area typically exists
on the landward side of saltmarsh grasses and is adjacent to
the hardwood swamp.  Sufficient freshwater input enables
sawqrass, threesqnares, and cattails (^ypha latifolia) to
exist.

-------
10
                                                               9,259
                                               B.736
          7,414
                                7,646
               1
         Bock River
                         1.624
                                II
    I
Mill  Cove
                                        4,517
     I
Clapboard
  Creek
Brown s
 Creek
                       Juncus  roemerianus

                       Spartina alterniflora
                                Figure  2-15

             Marsh  Flora  Sampled by  Tone; August,  1972

-------
    Numerous animal species have life histories
interconnected with wetlands.  The fauna associated with the
inland freshwater swamp is mentioned with terrestrial animal
life because of a closer association with these inhabitants.

    To the animals of the estuary, phytoplankton is a major,
basic source of food supply but not the only one.  Detritus,
dead plant material from marsh plants especially saltmarsh
cordgrass is another readily available food for animals of
the estuary.  Many animal species will frequent the marsh,
but few directly consume the living plant material.  First,
the plants are decomposed to the usable detrital form.  Even
then only a small fraction of it is consumed by
invertebrates within the marsh.  Most detritus is washed
into the water to be available to aquatic forms.

    High and low salt marsh areas provide only minimal food
sources for migratory waterfowl.  Most of the hunted species
are uncommon or rare in Duval County, even though extensive
wetlands are present.  Many other birds are dependent on
salt marsh areas as the species inventory. Table 2-12,
plainly indicates.  Sixty-seven species known to exist in or
near the service district prefer salt marshes as transient,
seasonal, or permanent residents.

    The abundant salt marshes provide habitat for many
intertidal animals.  Numerous invertebrates, especially mud
crabs, mollusks, juvenile shrimp, and insect larvae exist
here.  The August 1972 Tone survey sampled area salt marshes
for invertebrates living in the highly organic substrate.
The fiddler crab, Uca sp., was most abundant in the Spartina
bordering on Mill Cove.  Mill Cove stations had healthy
populations of Nereis succinea, a common polychaete worm.
With these two exceptions, populations do not vary
significantly between the four sites he surveyed near
Quarantine Island.  Survey data is shown in Table 2-12.

    In addition, numerous amphibians, reptiles, and mammals
that are at least partially dependent on the marsh
frequently enter it in search of food.  These three classes
of vertebrates are inventoried with habitat preference in
Appendix XI.
                              65

-------
                                     TaBle 2-4L2
B
    to
    u>
    en
ft
i-i
O
3
C
tn
                                   MARSH FAUNA (Collected  by Tone; August, 1972)


                                  Organisms/M2*


                                      Back River   Mill  Cove  Clap.Creek  Brown's Creek

Annelida
Polychaeta
Phyllodocida
Nereidae
Nereis succinea
Capitellida
Capitellidae
fragments
Mollusca
Bivalva
Pteroconchida
Mytilidae
VnH^' o"l '1C /^prn-^ejc^Q
Heterodontida
Solecurtiaae
Tagelus divisus
Arthropoda
Crustacea
Isopoda
Anthuridae
Cyataura sp.
Amphipoda
Gainmaridae
Decapoda
Xanthidae
Panooeus herbstii
Grapsidae
Gesarma reticulum
Ocypodidae
Uca sp.
TOTAL NUMBER ORGANISMS
TOTAL NU>2^ER SPECIES
A












128














16

112
256
3
B






16






















112
128
2
E




32


32







A"8











16

256
384
4
F



64
34


64






















162
2
G




















16








192
208
2
H












16












32

64

112
224
4
I






















16






112
128
2
J



























96

123
224
2

-------
              4.   Water

                   a.   Physical and Chemical

                        1)   General

    The dominant surface water body in the project area is
the St, Johns River.  Draining an area of some 9,430 square
miles, the St. Johns discharges about one tenth of the
average daily surface runoff from the State of Florida.  At
Jacksonville, the river is part of a tidal estuary that may,
for practical purposes, be considered to end at Lake George,
106 miles upstream.  From the ocean to Jacksonville, it
ranges in width from about 1,250 feet at the Main Street
Bridge to more than 2 miles at Mill Cove.  The U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers maintains a navigation channel in the
river which, from the ocean to Jacksonville, is 3U feet deep
and 400 to 900 feet wide.  Principle uses of the river in
the project area are waste disposal, transportation, heat
disposal, fisheries, and recreation.

    The physical make-up of the bottoms of the streams and
marshes in the area is largely reflective of the diverse
sedimentation conditions found in the marsh-estuarine
environment, most particularly salinity and velocity.  Local
sediments consist chiefly of organic matter, sands, and
clays.  In general, the estuarine sediments have a much
higher sand content than the marsh or freshwater sediments
since the river channels are subject to swift currents that
wash away slowly settleable particles.  More quiet areas,
such as Back River, enable the finer silts and organic
materials to settle out of the water column, resulting in
fine-grained, high moisture content, low sand sediments.
Recent core borings show the sediment in Back River to vary
in thickness from 3 to 8.5 feet.  Areas within the river-
estuary environment itself which are susceptible to fine
silting are creeks and boat slips having relatively deep
water with little current.  Most notable in this respect are
the marine facilities near downtown Jacksonville.  The most
detrimental alteration to the physical make-up of the
bottoms of local waterways is undoubtedly to the St. Johns
River bed through the downtown area.  Here, sludge blanket
deposits cover portions of the bottom of the river as a
cumulative result of over 70 years of raw municipal and
industrial wastewater discharge.  Both the shallow and
Floridan aquifer underlie the entire area of Duval County.
Approximate depths to the top of the Ploriclan Aquifer in
Jacksonville area are shown on riaure 2-16.

-------
                                                FIGURE 2-16


                                      DEPTH TO THE TOP  OF  THE

                                      ARTESIAN  AQUIFER IN THE

                                         JACKSONVILLE  AREA



                                                LEGEND
                                                       200 - 400

                                                       400 - 500

                                                       5OO - 7OO
                                        SOURCE. LEVE.G.W., U.SG.S IN
                                               COOPERATION WITH THE
                                               FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL
                                               SURVEY, JACKSONVIilE'S
                                               WATER, LEAFIET NO.6,1945
ST. JOHNS   COUNTY

-------
    Recharge to the shallow aquifer system is primarily from
local rainfall.  Water levels respond rapidly to rainfall
and are highest during the rainy season (June to October)
and lowest during the dry season (November to May).   Ten to
sixteen inches of rainfall annually is estimated as
necessary to recharge the shallow-water aguifer in Duval
County.  The main recharge areas are the regions of highest
altitude in the western third of the county and along the
high sand ridges east of Jacksonville.  Discharge is through
springs and seeps, by evapotranspiration,  by pumping from
wells, and by downward percolation to the Floridan Aquifer.

    The principal recharge area of the Floridan Aquifer
system in northeast Florida is located southwest of Duval
County in western Putnam and Clay Counties and eastern
Alachua and Bradford Counties.  Within this recharge area
water enters the aquifer through leaches in the aquiclude
caused by sinkholes, by downward leakage where the aquiclude
is thin or absent, and directly into the aquifer where it is
exposed at the surface.  Duval County is primarily a
discharge area of the Floridan Aquifer system principally
through the numerous wells which penetrate it and possibly
through some natural discharge from the aquifer system into
the Atlantic Ocean off the coast.  However, extensive areas
of possible recharge do occur in the county as noted above
where the potentiometric surface -- the imaginary surface to
which water from an artesian aquifer will rise in cased
wells that penetrate the aquifer -- is relatively high.
These possible recharge areas and their relationship to the
potentiometric level of the Floridan Aquifer are shown in
Figure 2-17.
                              69

-------
     BAKER COUNTY
I'  I   DUVAL COUNTY    "\^
iSi
                         iff
                                 >  1 D >
                                 5 «| IS 1
                                     I i" §  G>
                                     slip  g
                                     s Ei:  o
                                                    S
    J£


79  m
1^  ^O

to  Q
                                                 S 5S

                                                 5 z

-------
              2)    Water Quantity

                   a)    Surface Water

    In the estuary of the lower St. Johns River, the current
flows both upstream and downstream.  The current first
increases in one direction from zero velocity (slack water)
to maximum velocity, then decreases to slack water once
again.  The process is then repeated in the opposite
direction with the entire local tidal cycle (from one low
tide to the next low tide)  occurring over a period of
approximately 12.5 hours.  Thus, there are generally two
high and two low tides each day.  Peak velocities in the
estuary average approximately 1.6 knots for the incoming
tide and 2.2 knots for the ebb tide.  Variations in river
discharge, such as runoff from a high intensity storm, will
exert short-term effects on the tidal currents.   However,
the maximum tidal current between Blount Island and the
ocean exceeds 3.0 knots only a few times annually.

    The greatest influence on the flow regime of the St.
Johns River at Jacksonville is the tide.  Various non-tidal
factors such as wind, rainfall, and evapotranspiration act
in combination to continually affect the flow but are
virtually self-cancelling and have no significant cumulative
effect on the flow of the river.  The only factor having
such an effect is freshwater drainage from the river basin
(the net oceanward flow).

    Upstream conditions in the estuary may sometimes combine
to produce a net upstream flow per tidal cycle.   During
these times, storage in the estuary is relatively small and
losses by evapotranspiration are high.  More water is thus
permitted to flow upstream into the estuary than flows out.
During the period 1956 through 1966, there were 21 months
during which the average net flow was upstream.   Except for
February 1966, which followed the very dry year of 1965,
these all occurred during the dry season in exceptionally
dry years.

    Selected flow and volume statistics for the St. Johns
River at Jacksonville computed by the U. S. Geological
Survey (USGS) and based on records for the period March 1,
1954 to September 30, 1966, are as follows:
                               71

-------
                                      Downstream
Average discharge, cfs*                  46,419         40,536
Average net discharge, cfs                5,883
Max. daily net flow, cfs                 87,000
Min. daily net flow, cfs                    -           51,500
Average volume per tidal cycle, mcf**     2,076          1,812
Average net volume per tidal cycle, mcf     263
Max. volume per tidal cycle, mcf          5,280          4,410
Min. net volume per tidal cycle, mcf           0             0

*cubic feet per second
**million cubic feet
    The expression of minimum flow occurrence in the St.
Johns River for purposes of waste assimilation capability
must consider tidal flows as well as upstream and downstream
movement.  The total volume of moving water in the estuary—
be it upstream or down—is nearly always very great.  In
general, however, more water moves downstream with greater
frequency than upstream.  For example, the average
recurrence interval of monthly minimum upstream flow of zero
per tidal cycle at the Main Street Bridge in Jacksonville is
about 96 months while that for downstream flow per tidal
cycle of 500 million cubic feet or less is greater than 16
years.

    Limited flow data is available from the USGS for several
smaller streams in Duval County.  For the majority of
streams in the county, however, the seven-day average low
flow reoccurring once in a ten-year period approaches zero.
In the Arlington-East Service District, available records
show a seven-day once-in-ten low flow of 0.20 cfs for Jones
Creek and 0.26 cfs for Pottsburg Creek.

                   a)   Ground Water

    Water from the shallow-aquifer system is used for
domestic, industrial, commercial, and agricultural purposes.
Most of the water withdrawn is used for washing, toilets,
drinking, swimming pools, and lawn irrigation.  The most
common industrial use is for heat-exchange units in large
air-conditioning systems.  The shallow aquifer system is
present throughout all of Duval County but without benefit
of the shallow limestone beds in the Arlington area and
along the coastline from Mayport to Ponte Vedra.  From
55,000 to 65,000 wells penetrate this system in the county
with a total discharge of 10 to 25 million gallons per day
                             72

-------
(mgd).   These wells range in depth from 20 to 200 feet and
are most commonly privately owned and 2 inches or less in
diameter.  Most obtain water from highly permeable limestone
except in the Arlington area where many obtain water from
coarse sand and shell beds 75 to 100 feet below the surface.

    The thickness and lithology of the components of the
shallow water aguifer vary both vertically and laterally,
thus making the amount of water available from them
dependent on the location and depth of the wells.  The
surficial sand beds generally yield about 10 to 25 gallons
per minute  (gpm) to small diameter wells and the deeper
limestone, shell, and sand beds between 15 and 20 gpm.
Locally, however, a 2-inch well may yield as much as 80 gpm
where the limestone or shell aguifer is relatively thick.

    Groundwater of the shallow aquifer system is generally
nonartesian but some shallow wells in low areas immediately
adjacent to the St. Johns River and its tributaries do yield
artesian water.  Artesian heads range from a few inches to
more than 20 feet above land surface.  Some wells do not
flow during the dry season when the potentiometric level is
below land surface.

    The Floridan aguifer system is the principal source of
fresh water in northeast Florida; all public water and most
industrial and private water supplies in Duval county are
drawn from it.  Jacksonville is one of the largest cities in
the world to obtain its entire water supply from deep
artesian wells.  Some 92 wells with depths of approximately
1,000 to 1,500 feet presently supply public water to the
city.   In 1974 they produced an approximate average of 58
mgd as compared with a withdrawal of some 27 mgd in 1950.
This figure, however, includes some wells taken over by the
city after its consolidation.  In addition, a number of
privately owned water utilities in the area, each of which
has at least one artesian well, draw from the Floridan
Aguifer.  Other users of the aguifer in the area such as
naval installations, pulp and paper mills and other
commercial facilities, the smaller municipalities, and
numerous private users combine to bring the total estimated
average discharge from wells in the vicinity of Jacksonville
from 150 to 200 mgd.  An additional 50 to 70 mgd is drawn
from artesian wells at Fernandina Beach.

    The yield of wells in the Floridan aguifer system in
Duval County depends upon well construction and depth,
                              73

-------
artesian pressure head, and water transmitting capacity of
the zones penetrated.  Wells drilled into the deeper zones
of the aquifer system generally yield more water, under
higher pressure, than those in the shallower zones.  The
major water-bearing zone in the Jacksonville area is in the
Lake City Limestone at depths between about 950 and 1,200
feet.  This zone has yielded 50 to 90 percent of the water
produced by selected test wells in Duval and Nassau
Counties.  Well diameters range from 2 inches in small
domestic wells to 20 inches in some industrial wells.  The
average yield of the smaller wells between 2 and 6 inches in
diameter is generally less than 500 gpm but some 6-inch
wells do yield as much as 1,000 gpm.  Wells 8 to 12 inches
in diameter generally average less than 2,000 gpm; although
some 10 and 12-inch wells in the deeper zones may yield as
much as 6,000 gpm.  These are all natural flows which are by
no means constant.  Some 14 to 20-inch industrial wells in
Fernandina Beach and in the vicinity of Jacksonville
continually yield 1,000 to 5,000 gpm with the aid of deep
turbine pumps.
    A general decline in artesian pressures in northeastern
Florida is attributed primarily to a great increase in the
use of artesian groundwater and, to a lesser extent, to a
relatively long-term decline of rainfall on the Floridan
aquifer recharge areas in north-central Florida.  Several
major cones of depression have formed in the potentiometric
surface of the Floridan aquifer system in Duval and Nassau
Counties as a result of discharging wells which lower the
artesian head and create a hydraulic gradient toward the
area of discharge.  Water-level records show that the
irregular but continual decline in artesian pressure in
these areas exceeds the general decline as these cones
deepen and enlarge.  In the Jacksonville area, the
potentiometric surface has generally been depressed to less
than 30 feet msl.  Test wells have shown an artesian
pressure decline of about 12 to 22 feet during the period
1946 to 1963.  The greatest declines in pressures are in
wells closest to the center of the cone of depression which,
in Jacksonville, is located adjacent to the southwest corner
of the Arlington-East Service District.  The potentiometric
surface has been depressed to about 20 feet msl in the
center of this cone but may be leveling off as development,
with attendant demand for groundwater, moves out from the
central city area.
                              74

-------
    Artesian pressure in the area will continue to decline
if withdrawals of water continue to increase.  The rate of
decline will be faster during years of below average
rainfall.  Above average rainfall may cause the pressure to
stabilize or even increase.  However, if the rate of
discharge continues to increase, the artesian pressure will
most likely decline even during periods of maximum recharge.
At the present rate of decline of approximately 0.5 to 2.0
feet per year, it will take 100 to 400 years to lower the
water 200 feet in most Floridan aquifer wells.  The wells
would not then cease to yield water but would reguire
pumping to bring it to the surface.

              3)    Water Quality

                   a)   Surface Water
    Surface Water - The Florida Pollution Control Board has
established that the following minimum conditions are
applicable to "all waters, at all places, and at all times."
Within the territorial limits of the State of Florida, all
such waters shall be free from:

    1)   Settleable Substances - substances attributable to
municipal, industrial, agricultural, or other discharges
that will settle to form putrescent or other objectionable
sludge deposits.

    2)   Floating Substances - floating debris, oil, scum,
and other floating materials attributable to municipal,
industrial, agricultural, or other discharges in amounts
sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious.

    3)   Deleterious Substances - materials attributable to
municipal, industrial, agricultural, or other discharges
producing color, odor, or other conditions in such degree as
to create a nuisance.

    4)   Toxic Substances - substances attributable to
municipal, industrial, agricultural, or other discharges in
concentrations or combinations which are toxic or harmful to
human, animal, plant, or aquatic life.

    In order to develop a "comprehensive program for the
prevention, abatement, and control of the pollution of the
waters of the State," all waters of the State of Florida
                              75

-------
have been classified in five classifications made in
accordance with most beneficial present and future uses and
are briefly described as follows:
         Class   I
         Class  II
         Class III

         Class  IV

         Class   V
Public water supplies
Shellfish harvesting
Recreation - Propagation and
management of fish and wildlife
Agricultural and industrial
water supply
Navigation, utility, and
industrial use
    Pursuant to the criteria of water classifications I
through V, the waters of the State are classified by river
basins or sub-basins as Class III with individual exceptions
to that class listed within each basin.  The entire St.
Johns River Basin and all its sub-basins within Duval County
are thus classified as Class III.  The only exception to
this classification in the vicinity of the proposed project
is the Intracoastal Waterway and its tributaries from the
confluence of the Nassau and Amelia Rivers, south to
Flashing Marker 72, thence eastward along Ft. George River
to Ft. George Inlet and including Garden Creek, and both
prongs of Simpson Creek.  These reaches are classified as
Class II.  In addition, the above described Class II and III
waters are further designated as having "Special Stream
Classifications" which means that they shall be maintained
at a minimum dissolved oxygen level of 5.0 milligrams per
liter.  The criteria for Class II and III waters are
presented in Table 2-13.
                               76

-------
                                                 Table  2-13

           FLORIDA POLLUTION  CONTROL  BOARD  CRITERIA  FOR CLASS II AND  III WATERS
                   CLASS  II


      The  following criteria are for classification of
 waters in areas  which either actually or protentially
 have the  capability  of supporting  recreational  or
 commercial  shellfish  propagation  and  harvesting.
 Harvesting may only occur in areas approved by the
 Division of Health, Florida Department of Health and
 Rehabilitative Services.
      (1) Bacteriological Quality,  Coliform Group —
 areas classified  for shellfish harvesting,  the median
 coliform  MPN  (Most Probable Number)  of  water
 cannot  exceed seventy  (70) per hundred (100) ml.,
 and not more than ten (10) per cent of the samples
 ordinarily exceed an MPN  of two hundred,and thirty
 (230) per one hundred (100) ml. in those portions of
 areas most probably exposed to fecal contamination
 during    most   unfavorable   hydrographic   and
 pollutional conditions.
      (2) Sewage, Industrial Wastes, or Other Wastes
 —  any  industrial wastes  or  other wastes  shall  be
 effectively treated by the latest modern technological
 advances as approved by the regulatory agency.
      (3) pH  — of  receiving waters shall not  be
 caused  to  vary  more  than one (1.0) unit  above or
 below normal pH of the waters; and lower value shall
 be  not  less than six (6.0)  and upper value not more
 than eight and one-half (8.5). In cases where pH may
 be,  due to natural background  or  causes, outside
 limits stated above, approval of the regulatory agency
 shall be  secured prior to introducing such material in
 waters of the state.
      (4) Dissolved  Oxygen — the concentration in
 all  surface waters shall not average less than 5 mg/1 in
a 24-hour period and never less than 4 mg/1. Normal
daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall
be  maintained. Dissolved oxygen  concentrations in
estuaries and tidal tributaries shall not be less than
4.0 mg/1 except in  naturally dystrophic  waters. In
those cases where background information indicates
prior existence under unpolluted conditions of lower
values  than required above,  lower limits  may be
utilized  after approval by  the regulatory authority.
Sampling shall  be  performed according  to the
methods approved by the  Florida  Pollution Control
Board.
     (5) Toxic  Substances — free from  substances
attributable to  municipal,  industrial,  agricultural or
other discharges in concentrations or combinations
which  are  toxic or  harmful to humans,  animal or
aquatic life.
     (6) Odor — threshold  odor number  not to
exceed 24 at 60°C as a daily average.
                                               77
                     CLASS  IIZ

      The following criteria are for classification of
 waters to be used for recreational purposes, including
 such body  contact  activities as swimming and water
 skiing; and for the  maintenance of a well-balanced
 fish and wildlife population. All surface waters within
 and  coastal  waters  contiguous  to   these  basins,
 including off-shore waters, not otherwise classified
 shall be classified as Class III; however, waters of the
 open ocean shall be maintained at a dissolved oxygen
 of not less than five (5.0) ml/1. Streams specifically
 listed  in Section  17.3.21 by  a separate  listing
 designated  as  "Special  Stream  Classification" shall
 similarly be  maintained at  a  minimum  dissolved
 oxygen level of five (5.0) ml/1.
      (1) Sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes
 —  any  industrial  waste or  other wastes shall  be
 effectively treated by the latest modern technological
 advances as approved by the regulatory agency.
      (2) pH  — of receiving  waters  shall not  be
 caused to vary more than one (1.0) unit above or
 below normal pH of the waters; and lower value shall
 be not less than (6.0), and upper value not more than
 eight and one-half (8.5). In cases where pH may be,
 due to natural background or causes outside limits
 stated above, approval of the regulatory agency shall
 be secured prior to introducing such material in
 waters of the state.
      (3) Dissolved  Oxygen — the concentration in
 all surface waters shall not average less than 5 mg/1 in
 a 24-hour period and never less than 4  mg/1. Normal
 daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall
 be maintained.  Dissolved oxygen concentrations in
 estuaries  and  tidal tributaries shall not be less than
 4.0 mg/1 except in naturally  dystrophic  waters. In
 those cases  where background information indicates
 prior existence under unpolluted conditions of lower
 values  than  required above,  lower  limits may be
 utilized  after  approval by the regulatory  authority.
 Sampling shall  be  performed  according to  the
 methods  approved by the Florida Pollution Control
 Board.
      (4) Bacteriological  —   in  those  waters
 designated for body contact recreation, fecal coliform
 shall not exceed a monthly average of 200 per 100 ml
 of  sample, nor exceed 400 fecal coliform per 100 ml
 of  sample in 10 percent of the samples, nor exceed
 800 fecal coliform on any one day, nor exceed a total
 coliform  count  of 1,000 per  100 ml as a monthly
 average,  nor exceed  1,000 per 100 ml in more than
 20  percent  of the samples examined during any
 month; nor exceed 2,400 per 100 ml  on any day. In
 those waters  not normally used for  body contact
 recreation, fecal coliform shall  not exceed a monthly
 average of 500 per 100 ml of sample, nor exceed 750
 fecal coliform per 100 ml of sample in 10 percent of
 the samples. Monthly averages  shall be expressed as
 geometric means based on a minimum of 10 samples
 taken over a 30 day period. MPN of MF counts may
 be utilized.
      (5)  Toxic substances  —  free from substances
attributable  to municipal, industrial, agricultural or
other discharges in  concentrations or combinations
which are toxic  or  harmful to  humans, animal or
aquatic life.
      (6) Deleterious  —  free  from   materials
attributable  to municipal, industrial, agricultural, or
other  discharges producing color,  odor  or  other
conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance.
      (7)  Turbidity  — shall  not  exceed fifty  (50)
Jackson   units  as   related  to  standard  candle
turbidimeter above background.

-------
    Discussion of surface water quality in the project area
will be limited primarily to the problems of dissolved
oxygen and coliform bacteria.  Dissolved oxygen—the amount
of free oxygen in the water--is, in general, directly
related to overall quality and necessary for the self-
purification of streams.  Low levels of dissolved oxygen
adversely affect fish and other aquatic life and its total
absence will lead to the development of anaerobic conditions
with attendant odor and aesthetic problems.  Generally, the
range of 3 to 6 milligrams per liter (mg/1) is the critical
level of dissolved oxygen for nearly all fish.  Below
approximately 3 mg/1, further decreases are important only
insofar as the development of local septic conditions is
concerned.  In other words, the major damage to fish and
aquatic life will already have been done.  Available data
indicate that dissolved oxygen depletion is a serious
problem in the St. Johns River and an acute problem in its
tributaries.  Figure 2-18 shows areas of severe dissolved
oxygen depletion in the major tributaries.

-------
                                                    Figure 2-18
WATER QUALITY
Principle Areas of Water
Quality Problems in Duval
County.
O Minor Source of Pollution
• Major Source of Pollution
iffim 35,000 Bacteria per 100 Ml.
     15,000-35,000 Bacteria per 100 ml.
      3,000-15,000 Bacteria per 100 ml.
      1,000-  3,000 Bacteria per 100 ml.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
      Pink signifies 3.4 ppm or less
          79

-------
    Dissolved oxygen concentrations of less than 4 mg/1 have
at times been measured on the main stem of the St. Johns
River from the confluence of the Ortega River downstream to
Blount Island—a distance of nearly fifteen miles.  In
summer, levels at the Main Street Bridge are depressed with
regularity to below 4 mg/1 and have been measured as low as
2.9 mg/1.  An oxygen profile was measured from Palatka to
the ocean during a three-day sampling program in July 1972.
Figure 2-19 plots this profile showing a pronounced
dissolved oxygen dip throughout the downtown reach of the
river and subsequent recovery in the vicinity of Blount
Island.  Seasonal trends of average dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the St. Johns River at Jacksonville under
ebb tide conditions for 1959 and 1968 are shown in Figure 2-
20.  Major contributing factors to these depressed levels
are the biochemical oxygen demand  (BOD)  from a number of
industrial discharges and raw municipal sewer outfalls.  In
addition, a significant number of small package treatment
plants and other municipal sewage treatment plants discharge
either directly to this 15-mile sector of the river or to
tributaries that feed it.  Since the July 1972 survey,
however, the new Buckman Street secondary sewage treatment
plant has eliminated many of the Core District raw outfalls
and the St. Regis Paper Company—the largest single
wastewater producer in the county—has opened its secondary
treatment facility.  More than any other single pollution
abatement activity in the county, the implementation of this
facility has aided in reducing the BOD loading to the St.
Johns River.

-------
—  6
\
o<
e
o
>
X
o

Q
UJ
O
(ft
Introcoostal
Waterway
Jacksonville
Zoo
Naval Air

Station
Green Cove

Springs
••""

1
Blount
Island
r ill'
Main Street
Bridge
• 1 il ,

Mandarin
ill 1 1


f 1
                   10      15       20      25     30      35      40

                 DISTANCE  FROM  MOUTH OF ST.  JOHNS  RIVER (MILES)



                                    Figure 19



                           Dissolved Oxygen Profile



                         Lower  St. Johns  River  (1972)
                                                                       45
                                                                      50
           10
         o>
         e
        z
        UJ
        o

        x
        o

        0
        UJ
                    I
                    I       I        I       I
                               I
                   FEB
                           APR
                                  JUN
                                          AUG
                                                 OCT
                                                         DEC.
                                 Figure 2-20


        Seasonal Trends  of Average Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations


             in the St. Johns River at Jacksonville  (1959-68)

-------
    Approximately 64 major industries within the county now
dispose of their waste via private industrial outfalls. -In
some instances, pre-treatment is performed at the plant
prior to discharge.  Many industries will be picked up by
the Core District sewering program scheduled for completion
by 1990.  Figure 2-21 shows the location of principal
industrial outfalls in Duval County and Table 2-14
summarizes their estimated flows.

    Several less obvious sources of water pollution exist in
the Jacksonville area which have not received the relative
emphasis afforded the treatment of domestic and industrial
wastes.  One of these is stormwater runoff — the
precipitation striking a surface during a storm which
exceeds the absorption or holding capacity of that surface.
The characteristics of this runoff can be a significant
factor in causing undesirable effects in waterways draining
individual watersheds.  The effect of a major storm in
Jacksonville is to dump more BOD into the St. Johns River
than can be generated by all the secondary treatment
facilities in Duval County in one day.  This loading does
not occur as frequently as the continuous point source
loadings.  However, a nitrogenous oxygen demand generated by
storm runoff takes several weeks to die out and may extend
to the next storm event.  Based on conditions in other
cities, the monthly contribution of stormwater runoff to the
receiving waters of Duval County is estimated to be about 16
percent of the total BOD loading.  Urban creeks are the most
visibly damaged receiving bodies and, due to the impact of
urban runoff, it is doubtful that water guality standards
could be met in many of these creeks receiving large
quantities of runoff even if present sewer discharges were
removed.

    A second less obvious source of warer pollution in Duval
County is septic tank effluent.  Over 171,900 people, or
about 34 percent of the county's population, were estimated
to discharge their sanitary sewage to some type of septic
tank system in 1970.  At that time, over 50 percent of the
total dwelling units in the North, Arlington, Mandarin, and
East Districts were connected to septic tanks.  The major
septic tank problem area within the county is, ironically,
situated within the 80 percent sewered Core District.  Other
major acute problem areas are located within the Southwest
District.  Septic tank areas, including chronic problem
areas from a public health and water pollution standpoint,
are shown in Figure 2-22.

-------
ST. JOHNS COUNTY

-------
                            Table 2-14




ESTIMATED FLOWS OF PRINCIPLE INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES IN DUVAL COUNTY
NAME OF INDUSTRY
St. Regis Paper Co.
Alton Box Board Co. - Kraft
Union-Camp Corp.
Simplex Industries
Florida Publishing
U . S . Gypsum
Kerr-McGee Chemical
Anchor Hocking
Southern Wood Piedmont
Pepsi-Cola Bottling
Container Wire
Reichhold Chemicals
Painters Poultry
Roux Laboratores
Asphalt Contracting
Sheffield Dairy
Florida Wire and Cable
Buffalo Tank
Cleaners Hangers
Union Carbide
Woo ton Fibre
Mid-States Steel
Kaiser Gypsum
Jax. Elec. Authority— Kennedy
JTT A W/^-vi-Vve*-! A £1
. £J.A. — jMortnside
JTJl A Grt»i +• V» f>-1 A f*
• IL.A. — ooutuside
TOTALS
MAP
OUTFALL
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
9/i
ZH-
OC
ZD
O£
Z.O

PROCESS
WASTEWATER
(MGD)
16.677
5.300
0.298
0.326
0.138
0.700
0.380
0.473
0.010
0.138
0.098
0.083
0.794
0.028
0.050
0.039
0.233
0.019
0.042
0.016
0.013 .
0.021
0.088
Onnn
• UUU
Onnn
• \j\j\j
Onnn
. uuu
26.182
SANITARY
SEWAGE
(MGD)
0.023
0.013
0.002
0.003
0.030
0.010
0.015
0.016
0.002
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.014
0.002
0.0003
0.0006
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.004
0.002



0.159
COOLING
WATER
(MGD)
72.000
14.000
3.870
1.380
.020
0.200
0.400
0.190
0.020
0.003
	
0.570
0.030
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.010
	
0.010
0.020
0.000
0.300
0.010
9/.Q nnn
£mj . uuu
OQQ nnn
JQQ . \J\J\J
OCQ Afin
j3o . uuu
1086.150
RECEIVING
WATER
St. Johns River
St. Johns River
Six-Mile Creek
Broward River
St. Johns River
St. Johns River
St. Johns River
McCoys Creek
Baldwin Bay
Cedar Creek
Cedar River
Cedar Creek
Cedar River
Cedar River
Deer Creek
Rushing Branch
Cedar Creek
Cedar Creek
Cedar River
McCoys Creek
Ribault River
San Carlos Creek
St. Johns River
Cf- TdVlnG R-117GT
OL. JULLLLO K..LVfciL
C t- Tl"lllT"IC T?"11TOT*
OL. tJUilllo I\.-LVcI.
Of- T/~»liT1o T^T^raT"
oc. junno ixj-vcx


-------
ffl
            01  2345 mi.
                     CLAY




       LEGEND




            Septic  Tank  Areas
       iSiiiiii  Septic  Tank Problem Areas
                                                                                                      -A.	I

-------
    Septic tank problem areas in Jacksonville are due
largely to the shallow water table and flooding during
periods of heavy rain.  System failure is caused by
temporary inundation.  Under these conditions, the normally
unsaturated soil zone is no longer available for removal of
bacteria, viruses, and organic material.  Effluent from the
septic tank is then able to contaminate contiguous surface
ditches and waterways which interact with the shallow water
aquifer.  Large areas of the urban city west of the St.
Johns River have a chronic high groundwater problem.   This,
coupled with small lot sizes, renders thousands of septic
tank drain fields inoperative.  Effluent from the tanks
either flows to the surface or seeps from the ground into
the nearest drainage ditch or waterway.  These receiving
ditches are invariably septic and are a source of noxious
odors and contaminated water as well as being aesthetically
disagreeable.

    From the layman's viewpoint, the worst pollution of the
St. Johns River is probably the visual impact of floatables.
Since they are generally insoluble in water, a quantitive
floatable determination is very difficult.  A nonmeasurable
clutter of cans, paper, plastics, and grease mars the
shoreline of downtown Jacksonville.  However, the major
floatable problem on the lower St. Johns has for years been
the mobile rafts of water hyacinths which float down from
above.  In the past, these plants have been observed to
cover the river from bank to bank at the Main Street Bridge.
They are a hazard to small craft and an aesthetic irritant
in addition to representing a potential threat to the
remaining dissolved oxygen in the river as they die and
decay in the brackish/salt water of the lower river.   The
United States Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for
keeping the navigable waters from the ocean to Lake Barney
free of these plants.  This is accomplished by chemical
spraying upstream in the winter and early spring and by
mechanical means to control the plants that do float
downstream.  Responsibility for controlling the hyacinths in
the upper St. Johns basin and in the upper reaches of
tributaries within Duval County is given to the Florida Game
and Freshwater Fish Commission and Duval County authorities,
respectively.  The severity of the problem varies from year
to year; in 1975 the plants had not been a problem in Duval
County at least through the month of August.

    Oil pollution at one time constituted a major threat to
the water resources of the St. Johns River.  Recent

-------
legislation providing for more stringent containment and
enforcement procedures has combined with better personnel
training to reduce the amount of oil spilled.  Total
incidents have not decreased, however, but the majority are
now smaller spills coming from private sources.  The U. S.
Coast Guard estimates that 4,000 gallons of petroleum
products were spilled in the navigable waters of Duval
County in 1974.  For the period January through August 1975,
gallons spilled totaled about 5,000.  This is somewhat
misleading, however, as it includes a spill of some 4,000
gallons from a single incident.

    Another recently improved source of pollution to the
lower St. Johns River is waste from watercraft.  In 1972,
commercial, military, and pleasure craft contributed an
estimated average .1 mgd of raw sanitary waste to the river.
Under authority of the Federal Water Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency issued
standards in June 1972 for halting discharge of sewage from
vessels into navigable waters of the United States.  Coast
Guard regulations subseguently issued govern the design,
construction, installation, and operation of marine
sanitation devices such as holding tanks, macerators,
incinerators, and self-contained recirculation devices.

    From a public health standpoint, the most pressing water
quality problem of the river is its high level of
bacteriological contamination.  Coliform bacteria levels are
exceeding State bacteriological standards for Class III
waters in virtually all parts of the river from the Ortega
River to Blount Island.  From this point to the ocean,
levels are relatively low due to increased mixing with ocean
water.  Figure 2-18 shows the approximate distribution of
these concentrations.  The Jacksonville Bio-Environmental
Services Division monitors total and fecal coliform on a
monthly basis  at four points in the main channel of the St.
Johns River and also in the lower reaches of several of the
major tributary systems in Duval County.  Results of these
analyses for the period, October 1973 through August 1975,
are summarized in Tables 2-15 and 2-16.  Main  stem and
tributary  data are grouped together since water guality of
the lower  tributary reaches is heavily influenced by that of
the St. Johns  River due to tidal mixing.  Total and fecal
coliform data  are presented  separately because, although
fecal coliform concentrations may be  seen to be undesirably
high, sampling frequencies dictate  that only the total
coliform data  may be compared with  applicable  State of

-------
Florida Class III standards (no more than 2,400 most
probable number  (MPN) or membrane filter (MF)• per 100
milliliters (ml)  in any one sample).   A comparison of fecal
counts with the State standard of no more than 900 on any
one day in those waters normally used for body contact
recreation, however, illustrates their relatively high
concentrations throughout the downtown reach of the St.
Johns River.

-------
                                            Table  2-15

           TOTAL COLIFORM COUNTS IN THE ST. JOHNS RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, DUVAL COUNTY

                       OCTOBER 1973 THROUGH AUGUST 1975  (MPN or MF per 100 ml)
 Location
Highest
 Count
Lowest
Count
Average
 Count
Geometric
  Mean
Total No.
Samples
St. Johns
River, Mid-
stream at
Main St.
Bridge
 49,000
 3,100
 12,391
11,000
  19
                                                                              19
St. Johns
River, Mid-
stream at
Talleyrand
Docks
 61,000
 1,300
 11,098
 5,750
                                                             20
                   16
St. Johns
River, Mid-
stream between
Broward R. &
Dunn Cr.
110,000
   490
  9,164
 2,000
                                                             20
St. Johns
River, Mid-
stream at
Fulton Point
  7,000
   120
  1,405
   540
                                                             18
Ortega River
at Timuquana
Road
  9,300
   200
  2,384
 1,700
                                                              19
 Cedar River
 at  Blanding
 Blvd.
130,000
 1,100
  28,829
13,000
                                                              20
                                                                19
Arlington
River  at
University
Blvd.  Bridge
 34,000
 1,300
   6,166
 4,900
                                                              20
                                                                16
 Trout  River
 at  U.S.  17
 Br idge
  70,000
    330
  10,771
  4,900
                                                              21
                                                                15

-------
                                         Table 2-16

      FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS IN THE ST. JOHNS RIVER AND ITS TRIBUTARIES, DUVAL COUNTY

                  OCTOBER 1973 THROUGH AUGUST 1975  (MPN or MF per 100 ml)
Location
Highest
 Count
Lowest
Count
 Average
  Count
Geometric
   Mean
Total No.
Samples
St. Johns
River, Mid-
stream at
Main St.
Bridge
15,000
 700
 3,516
 2,300
  19
St. Johns
River, Mid-
stream at
Talleyrand
Docks
33,000
 100
 4,679
 1,975
  20
St. Johns
River, Mid-
stream between
Broward R. &
Dunn Cr.
92,000
  90
 5,684
   445
  20
St. Johns
River, Mid-
stream at
Fulton Point
  4,900
  50
   776
   215
  18
Ortega River
at Timuquana
Road
  1,300
                314
                   310
                    19
Cedar River
at Blanding
Blvd.
130,000
 150
11,313
 4,700
  20
Arlington
River at
University
Blvd. Bridge
  4,900
  50
 1,844
 1,500
  18
Trout River
at U.S. 17
Bridge
 35,000
  20
 4,844
                              1,100
                    21

-------
    Due to their smaller surface area, shallower depths,
poor tidal flushing and small freshwater flow, the tributary
streams of Duval County have a much smaller waste
assimilation capacity than does the St. Johns River.   During
low flow conditions occurring during dry weather periods,
very little fresh water flow is available for dilution.
Brackish water, originating from the St. Johns, is often the
only dilution water present in the lower reaches of most of
the area's waterways.  The background dissolved oxygen of
this water as it flows in from the river ranges from about 4
to 6.5 mg/1.  Further, the flushing capacity of the water in
these lower reaches cannot be compared to the main stem of
the St. Johns River.  These characteristics notwithstanding,
most of the county's 470-odd sewage treatment plants empty
into the nearest tributary.

    Of the 34 sewage treatment plants operated by the Public
Works Department, only three discharge directly into the St.
Johns River.  In the Arlington-East Service District, there
are six Public Works treatment plants all discharging to the
tributaries.  These are shown in Table 2-17; all but Laurina
Village and Sandalwood will be phased out to the proposed
Arlington plant.

    There are 34 private utility sewage treatment plants
located in the county with seven discharging directly to the
St. Johns.  Thirteen of these private utility plants are
located within the service district with eight discharging
to tributaries.  These are shown in Table 2-18.  There are
currently no plans for the connection of any of these plants
to the Arlington Sewage Treatment Plant; most approaching
design capacity are slated for expansion and those unable to
meet State standards will be abandoned.

    The BODS removal efficiency rates of the public works
sewage treatment plants in the Service District is
relatively good and ranges from about 78 to 98 percent.  The
same is generally true for the priva-te utility plants with
removal rates usually in the 85 to 99 percent range.
However, assimilative capacity analyses have in many cases
shown the necessity for removal efficiencies of 98 or 99
percent for discharges to the tributaries, particularly  in
view of the State requirement for a 5 mg/1 minimum dissolved
oxygen level.

-------
                                     Table  2-17
              PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS LOCATED IN
                              THE ARLINGTON-EAST SERVICE DISTRICT
Plant Name
Design Capacity (MGD)	Current Flow (MGD)
                    Receiving Waterway
*Arlingwood


*Center Park


 Grove Park


 Laurina Village


*0akwood Villa


 Sandalwood
       0.210
       0.750
0.198
0.750
1.000
0.040
0.160
0.700
0.040
0.160
       0.245
0.200
Strawberry Creek


Cedar Swamp


Pottsburg Creek


Silversmith Creek


Strawberry Creek


Pablo Creek
*Connection Planned to Arlington STP.

-------
                                         Table 2-18
  PRIVATE UTILITY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS LOCATED IN THE ARLINGTON-EAST SERVICE DISTRICT
  Plant Name'
Design Capacity (MOD)
Current Flow (MGD)
Receiving Waterway
*Beacon Hills &
Harbor
**Brookview (South-
side Estates)
**Ft. Caroline
Club Estates
**Holiday Harbor
*Holly Oaks
**Lake Lucina
*Monterey
*0ak Harbor
c**Regency Lakes
Apartments
**Regency Square
**Royal Lakes
*University Park
*Woodmere (Reddi-
0.310
0.385
0.500
0.250
1.000
0.600
4.500
0.110
0.080
0.100
0.300
0.750
0.500
0.095
0.300
0.450
0.110
0.020
0.441
2.480
0.120
0.063
0.085
0.291
0.380
0.035
St. Johns River
Jones Creek
St. Johns River
Hogpen Creek
Mill Cove
New Castle Creek
St. Johns River
Pablo Creek
Jones Creek
Jones Creek
Swamp to Pottsburg
St. Johns River
St. Johns River
   Point)
   *NO PLANS (STATUS QUO)




  **PLANNED EXPANSION




' ***PLANNED ABANDONMENT OR TIE-IN WITH OTHER PRIVATE PLANT

-------
    The problem is further compounded by the approximately
400 package treatment plants currently in operation in Duval
County, most of which discharge to the tributaries.  The
average flow of these plants ranges from 0.006 to 0.012 mgd
with an optimal BODS removal efficiency of more than 90
percent.  This rate, unfortunately, is rarely achieved in
practice; actual removal rates are estimated to be 75 to 85
percent.

    Over 100 of these package plants exist in the Arlington
and San Jose service districts.  Those in Arlington have
nearly 2,000 residential connections and probably can
continue to discharge to the tributaries provided that many
are upgraded.  In most instances, a conventional secondary
package plant fails to remove sufficient BOD to protect the
minimum 5 mg/1 dissolved oxygen requirement.  There are no
raw sewage outfalls within the Arlington-East Service
District although there are some 15,000 septic tank systems.
However, these are, for the most part, operating
satisfactorily.

    Nutrient enrichment problems in the county are almost
exclusively limited to waterways draining to the St. Johns
River.  Much evidence exists from sampling and visual
monitoring that these streams are over enriched and contain
high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous.  In
addition, bacteria levels exceed the State bacteriological
standards for water contact sports in most parts of the
tributary system and commercial shellfishing is prohibited
throughout the county except for one isolated area in the
northeast.

    Dissolved oxygen deficiencies are prevalent in both
winter and summer in many of the tributaries.  Certain
waterways, such as the Trout River, reach zero dissolved
oxygen levels during the summer months and gross violations
of dissolved oxygen standards have been observed on several
other major tributary systems including the Arlington River.
In the Arlington-East Service District, the Jacksonville
Bio-Environmental Services Division has measured the
dissolved oxygen levels in the major tributary systems on a
year-round basis.  Twelve to fifteen samples were measured
at each station each year.  Results of these analyses for
the period June 1973 through mid-summer 1975 are summarized
in Table 2-19.
                               04

-------
                                 Table 2-19
SUMMARY OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS IN TRIBUTARY STREAMS LOCATED IN THE
     ARLINGTON-EAST SERVICE DISTRICT (JUNE 1973 - MID-SUMMER 1975)
Stream
Arlington
River
Strawberry
Creek & Tribs.
Silversmith
Creek
Pottsburg
Creek & Tribs.
Little Potts-
burg Creek
Oldfield
Branch
New Castle
Creek
Jones Creek
Ginhouse
Creek
Cowhead
Creek
Intracoastal
Waterway
Hogpen Creek
Sherman Creek
No . Stations
Sampled

1

14

2

22

15

2

2
4

4

2

19
1
5
High Level
(mg/1)

9.8

8.6

7.2

11.0

11.0

7.0

5.6
6.2

7.8

8.5

10.2
3.2
6.4
Low Level
(mg/1)

4.4

0.4

1.8

0.0

0.0

4.8

1.6
0.2

0.4

3.2

0.8
1.5
0.0
Average Level
(mg/1)

6.8

3.7

5.5

4.0

4.2

5.8

3.7
3.4

3.1

5.9

5.2
2.4
3.9
                                         95

-------
                   b)    Groundwater

    Water of the shallow aquifer system is generally of good
quality and within U.  S. Public Health1 Service standards
for drinking water.  It is generally suitable for domestic
use and for most industrial uses.  In most places, water of
the shallow Aquifer system has less mineral content than
water from the Floridan aquifer.  In eastern Duval and
Nassau Counties, however, the water in both aquifer systems
is similar due to mineralization of the shallower aquifers
by mixing with bodies of brackish surface water or sea
water.  Water of the shallow aquifer system does not
generally require treatment although water from wells in
certain areas of the county, primarily the northeast and
southwest, regularly contains iron in excess of the .3 mg/1
Public Health Service drinking water standards.  Water from
at least two wells in the southeast portion of the
Arlington-East Service District regularly contains iron in
concentrations greater than 1.0 mg/1.  Such concentrations
may impart a bad taste as well as stain household equipment
(particularly porcelain) and clothes.  Aeration or
chlorination followed by filtration has been used with some
success to remove this iron.

    A few shallow aquifer wells, deeper than 60 feet, yield
water having a moderate to strong hydrogen sulfide odor.
Hydrogen sulfide is undesirable in drinking water due to its
objectionable odor and corrosivity to pipes and fixtures.
However, since it is a gas, it is easily removed by
aeration.

    Except in a few deep wells in Fernandina Beach, water
from the Floridan Aquifer system in Duval and Nassau
Counties is suitable for domestic and most industrial uses.
In general, it contains more dissolved minerals and less
iron than that of the shallow aquifer system.  Locally, one
or more of the U. S. Public Health Service standards for
drinking water, notably chlorides and dissolved solids, may
be exceeded.  The sulfur odor indicative of hydrogen sulfide
is usually present in the water from wells in the Floridan
Aquifer system in the area and hardness is nearly always
classed as hard to very hard (more than 100 parts per
million calcium carbonate).  An analysis of water from five
department of public works artesian wells in downtown
Jacksonville appears as Table 2-20.
                              or,

-------
                                     Table  2-20
       ANALYSIS  OF  WATER FROM FIVE DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC WORKS  ARTESIAN WELLS
        In Downtown Jacksonville   JULY  1973   (Parts  per Million)
Parameter
Turbidity
Color
Chloride
Hardness (CaCo-j)
Iron
Manganese
Copper
Aluminum
Silica (Si02)
Calcium
Magnesium
Bicarbonate (HC03)
Sulfate
Fluoride
Sodium & Potassium (Na)
pH
Total Dissolved Solids
High
3
5
20
280
.01
.00
.00
.00
15
72
24
171
150
.20
12.6
8.2
447
Low
3
5
12
172
.01
.00
.00
.00
4
32
20
119
68
.20
1.0
7.7
276
Average
3
5
15.4
238
.01
.00
.00
.00
11
58
22
148
106
.20
7.1
7.9
369
Specific Conductance
   @ 25° C
566
374
487
                                           97
                                          ":

-------
    The major water quality problem facing users of the
Floridan aquifer system in the Jacksonville area is increase
in chloride content from salt water intrusion.   During the
period 1940 to 1962, chloride content in most artesian wells
in the area increased from 2 to 14 parts per million.   This
increase generally correlates with the decline in artesian
pressure and indicates that salt water is gradually moving
into these zones of reduced pressure.  However, the
relatively low chloride content of water samples from most
wells in the area indicates that serious contamination is
presently restricted to the deeper wells at Fernandina Beach
where, in many cases, chloride levels increased about 20 to
1,320 parts per million between 1955 and 1962.   Chloride
content in artesian wells generally decreases toward the
recharge area to the southwest.  Proceeding from Fernandina
Beach, where the potentiometric surface is lowest, levels
decrease to less than 10 parts per million in southwestern
Duval County where the potentiometric surface is highest.
Further salt water intrusion can be retarded and even
prevented if future artesian wells are properly spaced and
their discharges controlled to prevent excessive lowering of
pressure.
              b.

    There is no question that an estuary is an intregral
component of the aquatic domain.  Jacksonville harbor, near
the mouth of the St. Johns River, is at the lowest reach of
the estuary.  As such, it is the vital link between fresh
and marine habitats.  A large number of invertebrates and
vertebrates utilize this reach in their migratory movements.
Anadromous and catadromous fish alike could not exist if
this area of the St. Johns becomes impassable.  Following
larval stages, many invertebrates will complete the
remainder of their life history in this estuarine zone.
Regardless of phylogenetic position, nearly every group from
microbiota to fish and aquatic mammals are dependent on the
estuary.

    Estuaries are quite resilient to natural phenomena such
as storms and associated tidal flooding.  However, the St.
Johns River has received a considerable amount of man-made
alterations.  Because this estuary must continue to function
biologically concurrently with its industrial use, the
impacts on remaining biologically sensitive areas need to
receive continual public concern.
                              98

-------
    Biologically, the St. Johns River is functioning as a
prime resource even though it is in a degraded state.  The
commercial and sport fishing activities continue, however,
trends indicate an increasing eutrophic condition.  Near
Blount Island, 56 fish species were collected in August 1972
by the Frederick Tone survey, indicating the great
importance of the area as a fishery.  The value of all
fishery products harvested in the St. Johns commercially in
1971 was approximately $1.5 million.  However, rough fish
and game fish production is decreasing as shown in Table 2-
21.  While the value of the commercial fishery is
increasing, each year the estuary is being more intensively
fished.  This means that the fisheries catch realized by
each fisherman is decreasing for equal time spent.

                         TABLE 2-21
       TRENDS IN ROUGH FISH AND GAME FISH PRODUCTION
                                  Mean Pounds     Percent

                                            1948-1953
Species

Freshwater
Gamefishes  (Grouped)

Gizzard shad and
Garfish (Grouped)
  937
  650
     100
     100
                                            1967-1969
Freshwater
Gamefishes  (Grouped)

Gizzard shad and
Garfish  (Grouped)
  464
3,672
50%  decrease
465% increase
 Source:  Water Quaity Management Plan
                              99

-------
    Little Pottsburg Creek suffers from excessive run-off as
does Big Pottsburg Creek.  Barrow pits created during
expressway construction exist close to the headwaters of
this creek.  Earthen dikes have given way during heavy rain
causing the barrow pits to drain anoxic water into the
creek.  This has caused minor kills cf mostly menhaden fish.

    Big Pottsburg Creek is subject to a sewage discharge
from the Grove Park Sewage Treatment Plant.  The creek is
sluggish in its upper reaches increasing the wastewater
retention time, thus degrading water guality.  The creeks
effectiveness as a nursery for aquatic juveniles could be
suffering.  However, at certain times of the year sport fish
frequent the lower creek as evidenced by increased fishing
activity.

                   1)   Plants

    Phvtoplanton - The primary producers in the aquatic food
web are the phytoplankton.  High estuarine productivity is
dependent on a beneficial level; but large concentrations
indicate a state of excessive eutrophication.  Commonly
called blooms, high concentrations can severely limit
dissolved oxygen during periods of low photosynthetic
activity.  The most sensitive animal life will be the first
casualties with more resistent forms dying later as
microbial activity further lessens available oxygen levels.

    Dinoflagellates, a motile order of phytoplankters, have
been known to reach "bloom" proportions in smaller
tributaries of the St. Johns where water movement is
minimal.  The result has been depressed dissolved oxygen
concentrations.  However, no large fish kills have been
linked to this group in the area.

    A plankton survey of the lower St. Johns River by
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., in March 1973,
showed diatoms  (Bacillariophyceae) composed 96 percent of
the population.  Typical marine littoral inhabitants,
Skeletonema, CocinQdiscus, and Cyclotella were the dominant
genera.  Table 2-22 shows this data for four selected
stations, two at the ship channel  (Dames Point) and two in
Mill Cove.  A diversity index was applied to this data.
Both sample sites are quite healthy based on this index.

    Submerged Va'scular Vegetation - Grassbeds, which remain
submerged during low tides, are a prime habitat for numerous
                              100

-------
invertebrates and juvenile fish.  Grass types which might be
present in the zone immediately below the littoral zone are
Halodule wrightii, Thalassia testudinum, or Ruppia maritima.
Grassbeds are unique habitats which should be considered
sensitive areas due to their short supply in the lower St.
Johns.  At present, no submerged grassbeds are known to be
inside Mill Cove.

    Floating Plants - Another group of plants present in the
waters surrounding the service district are the floating
aquatic plants.  In Duval County, these plants are
considered nuisance types due to their rapid proliferation
beyond quantities utilized by wildlife.  Moderate growths of
the water hyacinth are beneficial to wildlife.  They absorb
excess nutrients in the water preventing algal blooms, which
result in depressed oxygen levels.  They provide cover for
fish especially during hot sunny periods.
                              101

-------
Table 2-22    Phytoplankton from the St. Johns River and tributaries near
               the proposed route of the Southside Boulevard Extension,
               Jacksonville, Florida, March 21-22, 1973.
Station
BACILLARIOPHYCEAE
Achnanthes
exigua var. heterovalveKrasske
lanceolata (Breb.) Grun.
Actinoptvchus sp.
Anorthoneis hyalinaHust.
Amphora ovalisKutz.
Asterionella japonica Cl .
Atthevea sp..
Blddulphia
alternans (Bail.) V.H.
dubia (Brightw.) Cl.
laevis Ehr.
Cocconeis sp.
Coscinodiscus
lacustrisGrun
lineatus Ehr.
rothii (Ehr.) Grun.
Cvclotella sp.
Diploneis
didyrr.a (Ehr.) Cl.
smithii (Breb.) Cl.
Epithemia sp.
.Eunotograrima sp.
Fragilaria leptostauron (Ehr.) Hust,
Gyrosigna
balticum (Ehr.) Rabh.
fasciola (Ehr.) Griff & Henfr.
Melosira
granulata (Ehr.) Ralfs
italica (Ehr.) Kutz.
moniformis (Mull.).
Navicu'ia
capita ta var.hungarica(Grun)Ross
meniscoides Host.
mutica var. undulata(Hilse)Grun.
normal is Hust.
peregrina (Ehr.) Kutz.
pupula Kutz.
Unidentified Naviculoides
Nitzschia
cf. angustata (W.Sm.) Grun.
closterium w. Sm.
hybridaefortnis Hust.
nav, cblaris (Breb.) Grun.
paracoxa (Gir.el.) Grun.
parvula Levis
punctata (W.Sm.) Grun.
trybliciella Hantz.
Unidentified Nitzschia
Pleurosigrna sp.
Pinnularia temitina (Ehr.) Pat.
Rhaohoneis archiceros Ehr.
Skeletoned cos ta turn (Grev.) Cl.
Synedra
fasciculata (Ag.) Kutz.
pucnella Ralf ex Kutz.
Sunrel ia sp.
Dunn
1
7.9
3.2
1.6
»
3.2
17.4
4.7
11.0
3.2
1.6
1.6
7.4
13.7
1.6
Creek
2
7.9
1.6
7.9
3.2
71.0
6.3
1.6
3.2
1.6
1.6
12.6
3.2
4.7
11.1
12.6
18.9
15.8
18.9
23.7
3.2
Dame
3
6.3
1.6
9.3
79. Q
94.8
4.7
3.2
4.7
12.6
25.3
4.7
1.6
1.6
4.7
7.9
7.9
6.3
7.9
15.8
6.3
17.4
6.3
1.6
4.7
79.0
Point
4
9.4
1.6
1.6
3.2
1.6
1.6
4.7
3.2
3.2
75.8
77.4
4.7
9.5
3.2*
1.6
1.6
6.3
7.9
22.1
6.3
1.6
53.7
3.2
1.6
3.2
3.2
9.5
9.5
4.7
6.3
4.7
1.6
167.0
7.9
1.6
Mill
5
1.6
3.2
15.8
3.2
12.6
120.0
91.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
7.9
15.8
9.5
1.6
1.6
25.3
15.8
3.2
3.2
3.2
9.5
14.2
9.5
6.3
7.9
120.0
1.6
1.6
1.6
Cove
6
1.6
4.7
12.6
12.6
17.3
120.0
79.0
7.9
1.6
1.6
3.2
9.5
1.6
20:5
1.6
3.2
31.6
1.6
6.3
3.2
4.7
7.9
3.2
1.6
S4.8
7.9
1.6
                                        102

-------
Table 2-22 Phytoplankton from the St.  Johns River and tributaries near
(Cont'd)   the proposed route of the Southside Boulevard Extension,
           Jacksonville, Florida, March 21-22, 1973.

Station
CHLOROPHYCEAE
Closteridium sp.
Scenedesmus sp.
Tetraedron sp.
Tetrastrum
heterocanthum (Nordst.) Chod.
Dunn Creek
1 2
1.6
3.2
Dame Point Mill Cove
3456
6.3
1.6 	
1.6
DINOPHYCEAE
Glenodinium sp.                      40.1  455.0     25.3    -	     1.6
Exuviaella compressa Ostenf.         —    30.0     —     —     —     —

CRYPTOPHYCEAE
Cyanomonas americana                160.0  297.0     73.0
Cryptomonas sp. 1                    40.1   23.7     15.0    4.7     3.2     7.9
Rhodomonas sp.1                     120.0   94.8    120.0    6.3    14.2     3.2

CYAN3PHYCEAE
Anacystis marina                 23,355.5    —     —     —     —     —
Oscillatoria
   cf. limnetica Lemm.           24,760.2
Microcoleus sp.                      40.1    —     —     —     —     —

Unidentified Green Cells             94.8  120.0     25.3

TOTAL NUMBER OF CELLS
PER MILLILITER                   48,889.1 1255.9    672.4  535.3   533.S   463.2

SHANNON-WEAVER SPECIES
DIVERSITY  INDICES TO THE
BASE  2.                             1.153  2.994    3.867  3.593   3.577   3.428
                                        102(a)

-------
    Aquatic plant species present in Duval County include:

         Eichornia crassipes           Water hyacinth
         Altermanthera philoxeroides   Alligatorweed
         Pistia stratioties            Water lettuce
         Hvdrilla verticulata          Hydrilla plant

    All these tend to generate profuse growth by the
presence of excessive nutrients in the water.  They are
freshwater plants that usually reproduce vegetatively.  They
can be either rooted or free floating and all, except
Hydrilla, protrude above the water surface.  Hyacinth,
alligatorweed, and water lettuce are capable of surviving
long drought.  Hydrilla, however, is strictly a submersed
plant and cannot withstand drying.

    Any of these aguatic plants could be periodically
present in the waters near the service area because they
quite commonly become detached from aggregations upstream
and rhese "floating islands" are transported downstream.
Nearby small creeks have some of these species in their
headwaters.

                   2)   Aquatic Fauna

    Most background aguatic faunal data on estuarine waters
was obtained by Frederick Tone in 1972 for the Blount Island
EIS.  Figure 2-23 shows the sampling locations.
    Zooplankton - Zooplankters, one of the lowest forms of
consumers, are free living microscopic animals whose
locomotion is almost completely under tidal influence in the
lower St. Johns River.  Populations in this group are quite
naturally very irratic.  Copepods tend to dominate the
planktonic animal life.  They consume the largest quantity
of phytoplankton.  Unlike the copepods, many other
invertebrates spend only a fraction of their lives as
planktonic larval forms.  These would also be present in
varying degrees in the St. Johns River.
                               103

-------
            Figure 2-23




Aquatic faunal stations sampled




by Frederick Tone, August 1972.
               104

-------
    Mill Cove sampling yielded higher populations than
Brown's or Clapboard Creeks in the Tone survey, 1972.  A
mid-depth sample in the St. Johns had the highest population
sampled anywhere.  This indicates that the lower St. Johns
can be highly productive.  Diversity of Mill Cove did not
differ much from other sampling sites.  That survey did not
yield larvae of the commercially harvestable blue crabs and
white shrimp at any sampling site.  However, it is known
that these species would be found here at certain times of
the year.

    Nekton - A group which consists of the shrimp, swimming
crabs, and fish is called the nekton.  Their life histories
include larval planktonic stages which develop into larger
forms capable of self-locomotion.  They are the major
consumers in the upper aquatic trophic levels.

    Shrimp are abundant and commercially harvestable in the
St. Johns estuary.  Brown, white and some pink shrimp all
utilize the St. Johns estuary.

    Shrimp use the estuary much the same way as other
estuarine species.  They spawn offshore and the post-larvae
enter the estuary to mature.  Young shrimp seek shallow
brackish areas preferring submerged grassbeds for protection
and food sources.  As they mature, they seek deeper more
saline waters, eventually entering the ocean.  Studies by
the Florida Dept. of Natural Resources found that the St.
Johns River is probably the most important asset to the
entire shrimp fishery along the Northeast Florida Coast.

    Shrimping within the estuary generally produces smaller
shrimp; as such, these catches are part of the bait fishing
industry.  Substantial catches do occur.  A peak run
recorded 50,000 pounds per day at Buckman Bridge, valued at
$40,000 in 1971.

    Frederick Tone sampled the Nekton with trawl nets in
1972.  Five sites were sampled; results are shown in Table
2-23.  This data is quite applicable because it compares
Mill Cove with the main St. Johns River and three other
sites of varying environmental conditions.  Results showed
Mill Cove and the St. Johns Station #5 to be highest in
biomass.  Mill Cove was one of the two sites having the
highest diversity.  Gill net sampling for nekton was also
performed at two nearshore stations in four feet of water.
                               105

-------
These data, Table 2-24, show the great diversity and biomass
of fish collected in Mill Cove.
                                106

-------
                                                      Table  2-23
                            Nekton  Trawls Performed by  Tone;  August,  1972
          STATIONS
KIS11 SPECIES

Dasyatis centroura
El ops saurus
Brcvoortia smltlil
Dorosoira cepcdlanum
Vichoa liepst'tus
Ict.ilurus rcelas
lingre rnarinus
Opsanus tau
Cyprinodon vatiegatus
Pom.'i toipus saltatrix
EuclnostoF"j«.  Itfroyi
llaenulon parral
Cynoselon nebulosua
Cynosclon regalia
Leiostoir.us xanthurus
Micropogon undulatus
Pogoniua chromls
Sciaenops ocellata
Trlchiurus lepturus
ScorrberoBorous  cavalla
Utropus crossotus
Paralichthys  dentatus
Piralichthys  oblongus
Trtnecces maculatus
Syanpliuvus plaglusa
TOTALS
HACK RIVER
    2
ST. JOHNS RIVER
       5
HILL COVE
   18
BROWN'S CPEEK
     22
CLAPBOARD CREEK
     25
A.T.E.. T.W.
No. nm Ibs.

1 245
13 216 3.25
m 1 240 t .50
h 55
270 80 3.00


tus
X
yi

3
us 1 165
us 11 133 .75


s
alia 1 170
4 93
tus
gus
s

306 7.50

No.





6






10
4
280


2

31
1
1
2
I
338
A.T.I... T.W.
PCT Ibs.





235 1.50






311 7.50
135 .75
155 22.50


850

96 1.00
185
198
72
i08
33.25

No.
1

26
14
10
125
9





1
16
62
3
3
I

26
3

1

301
A.T.L.
nrn
480

158
282
54
180
165





250
196
141
185
279
183

104
192

121


T.W.
Ibs.
.25

3.50
7.50

12.00
1.25





.50
4.00
5.00
1.50
2.00


1.00
2.00



40.50

So.





14




2

1
5
1
10
4


4

1


42
A.T.L.
rm





183




77

272
165
290
291
350


113

192



T.W.

Ibs. No.
	 i 	








1
2.00 j 83
1 1





.75
1.00
1.00
9.00
3.50


.25

.50


18.00
1
1
2

4
1
12
1
1



5
I
4


118
A.T.L.
Tran




50
169
175
80
280
245

197
290
182
240
290



72
190
215



T.W.
Ibs.





7.00


1.25
. .80

1.50

2.75

1.25





1.00


15.55
i.'U'i::ur.jRAi"E SPECIES
Ca 1 linectes sapidus
Panaeiis fluvlatilis
                     18
                     12
                                                                  .25
                                                                          49
                                                                                      2.00
Key:  No.  - number
      A.T.L.  - average  total length
      T.W.  -  total weight

-------
                                                      Table 2-24
                                     Gill Netting Performed by Tone; August,  1972
o
oo

STATIONS


FISH SPECIES
Brevoortia patronus
Brevcortia smith!
Brevoortia tyrannus
Dorosoma cepedtanum
Ictalurus melas
Bag re marinus
Strongylura marine
Pcmatomus saltatrix
Caranx hippos
Trachinotus carolinus
Cynoscion nebulosus
Cynoscion regalis
Leiostomus xanthurus
Micropogon undulatus
Sciaenops ocellata
Mugil sp.
Scoraberomorous cavalla
Peprilus triacanthus
TOTAL
INVERTEBRATE SPECIES
Callinectes sapidus
Panaeus fluviatilis




No.
8
52
29
3
10
3
1
2
4
1

1
32
23
1
6
2
2
180

5




A.T.
HEQ
309
219
256
357
262
318
540
189
284
198

290
183
192
330
264
207
185




MILL COVE BROWN'S CREEK
-tO A ••
18 21
L. T.W.
Lbs.
6.00
13.00
13.00
4.00
6.25
3.00
.75
.25
3.50
.25

.50
3.00
5.25
1.00
3.25
.25

68.25



A.T.L. T.W.
No. mm Lb3.

18 248 9.00
1 273 1.00
1 275 1.00






4 318 3.00



1 290 1.00



25 15.00


13 .50
               Key:  No. - number
                    A.T.L. - average total length
                    T.W. - total weight

-------
    The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris)  has
been declared an endangered species.  The species is often
observed in the lower estuary specifically in the
Jacksonville Mill Cove area.  It commonly moves from the
Palatka area all the way to the lower estuary being
attracted to warmer waters here in winter.  It feeds on
various submerged freshwater and brackish vegetation and
readily substitutes floating aguatic types for food.

    Benthos. - Benthic infauna, an important constituent in
the food web, has been widely used as an indicator group of
its habitat.  Background data exists from the Frederick Tone
survey in 1972 and the Corps of Engineers in cooperation
with the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974-75.

    Tone sampled the silty sediments of Mill Cove and found
no benthic invertebrates.  A deep water sand sediment
station in the St. Johns above Blount Island had 357
individuals distributed amongst five species.  Five
different areas in the lower estuary were sampled in the
Tone survey and the overall trend was an increase in
diversity and individuals with increasing sediment particle
size.

    The Corps has completed four samplings at several
stations in Mill Cove.  This is part of their monitoring
program in connection with spoil sites located on Quarantine
Island.  Seasonal sampling of the benthos from January 1974
through January 1975 is presented in Tables 2-25
(a) , (b) f (c) , and  (d) .  Location of stations is shown in
Figure 2-24.  Twenty-two samplings were in Mill Cove below
mean low water and not in the marsh.  These stations
averaged seven species or taxa and 2144 individuals at each
station for the one-year sampling program.  This monitoring
although not exhaustive, indicates a good population of
benthic invertebrates exists in Mill Cove sediments.  An
abnormally high rate of siltation is occurring and an
alteration of the benthic community will result.
Differences between the earlier Tone survey and the COE work
might reflect environmental changes from 1972 to 1975.
                              109

-------
        TABLE  2-25   (a)

Benthic Macro-Invertebrate Populations collected on 24 January 1974
           at Quarantine  Island,  Jacksonville, Florida
Transect 1
Station la lb-
Location 150 yds .from 50 yds from
shore shore
Substrate silt and shell sand, silt,
shell
Depth in feet 5 7
Tide Flooding Flooding
No grabs 1 1
TAXA No/m2 % No/m2 %
Neniatoda
Polychaeta
Nereidea 57 3.7 38 2.1
Nephthydidas
Owen i i Jae
Spionidae 855 56.2 1178 65.9
Copepoda
Cyclopoida
Calanoida
Kysidaces
NecOT^sis ?r-ericana 57 Z.I
Cumacaa
Cvcl_3$Dis. sp. 19 1.2 57 3.1
TanVidacea"
Leptocephalia rapax
Isopocla
Cyathura polite 75 5.0 19 1.0
CMi-iriotea caeca
E^ssiJis^a lunlfrsns
Gai.,-*ridca 132 10.0
Ceapcdd
Macri-ra
Palaeronidae
PdUerametes pugio
Bracnyura
Ocypcdidae
Mollusca
Gastropoda
Snail unidentified
species
Bivalvia
Ranaia cuneata 19 1.2
Tagelus gibbus 19 1.2
Modiolus tulipa
Small unidentified
species 266 17.5 494 27.6
Insecta
Diptera
Chironomidae
Dicrotendipes sp.
Polypediluir sp.
Total Number of Taxa 9 5
Total Density 1520 1786
Transect 2
Ic 2a 2b 2c 3a
Adjacent to 150 yds from 50 yds from in 125 yds from
Spartina shore shore Spartina shore
sand, silt, silt, silt, silt and silt
plant material fine sand fine sand plant material
2-1/2 5535
Slack High Slack High Slack High Ebbing Ebbing
11111
No/m2 % No/m2 I No/m2 % No/m2 % No/m2 %


19 3.4 228 4.4 19 1.5

95 8.0 475 9.2
247 20.9 513 93.1 1102 95.0 4085 79.9 1197 98.4








665 60.8 133 2.6

38 3.2 38 0.74
19 0.37
19 1.6










19 1.6

19 3.4 19 1.6
76 6.4 133 2.6




19 1.6 38 3.2
8337 2
1178 551 1159 5111 1216
Transect 3
3b 3c 3d
50 yds from 15 yds from In emerging
shore shore Spartina
silt sand, silt silt and
plant material
3 1 1/2
Ebbing Ebbing 3/4 Ebbed
1 1 2
No/m2 * No/m2 % No/m2 *
656 4.4

38 1.0 219 1.4
10 0.06
3230 21.9
1330 97.2 3249 88.6 209 1.4

10 0.06
29 0.19

19 1.3



9871 66.9

38 1.0 10 0.06

33 0.25
57 0.33



29 0.19

10 0.06





19 1.3
342 9.3
19 0.12
152 1.0



209 1.4

3 4 16
1368 3667 14,758

-------
              TABLE     2-25  (b)
Benthtc Macro-Invertebrate Populations collected 18-19 April 1974
          (tt Quarantine Island, Jacksonville, Florida
Transect I
Station u ,od ib ic .
Substrate ,tu ,nd ,hell sand, silt, and
plant material

Depth in feet 4 1/2-1
Tid« slacklov slacklow
Humber of grabs j 2
™* •»/•/ X Bo/m2 I
Kematoda 903 9.5
Polyehaeta 7>I77 97.4 5,415 57,4
Copepoda
Cslanoida
Clrrlpedla
Balsnus sp. IB n.l
Cutnac«a
Cyclaspla ap. 114 1.5 tg o.2
Oxyuroitvlls smith!
Tanaidscea
Leptochelia rapax fa ^ i i ggj jo o
Isopoda
Cysthura poltta 4g 0.5
Ca»< discs lunifrons 29 03
Aophipoda
Ganaoaridae yj n.l 1,036 10.9
HausEorlldae
Caprellld.a
Cspcella sp.
Keoeivsis amerlcana jft g j \§ 0,2
Decapo^a
Penacidea
Vicller faxoni
Erachyura larvae 19 0.1 10 0.1
HolUcca
ilvalvla
Ranzia cunesta in n.l
Taje'.uj Dlebeins <«ib»usi 4» n.^
Type B 19 0.2
Type C
Type D
Insects
Diptera
Chlronomldae
Dlcrotendlpes sp.
Cr.aeto^nacha
heuichorda
Balanoglossus sp.
Total Kuoker of T«a a 11
Total Denaity 7,470 9,428
Tranaect 2 Tranaect 3
2a and 2b 2c 3a anc 3b 3d
silt and shell sand, silt, and silt act shell sand, silt, and
plant material plant material

3-4 1/2 :-' 1/2
ebbing ebbing f looi ing flooding
2222
Ko/m2 1 So/B)2 1 No/ra2 X Mo/a2 X
257 3.1 390 1.7
1,615 88.9 580 7.0 1.587 90.1 789 3.6

19 0.2 10 0.5 1,805 6.2

114 0.5

76 4.1 67 3.8 10 0.0<>


38 0.2 5,729 69.4 18,449 84.2

10 0.1 38 0.4 19 1.0 5* 0.3
19 0.2 57 0.3

19 1.0 1,520 18.4 10 0.5 171 0.8



19 1.0 10 0.5 10 0.04






19 1.0 10 0.5
19 1.0 67 0.8
19 1.0 19 0.08
19 1.0




10 0.1 29 0.12
10 0.1 10 0.04

10 0.5
8 10 10 13
1,815 8,249 1,7«1 21,910

4a
sand, shell,
and rock

1/2
alackluw
2
No/n2 X

827 65.8

10 0.8



V6 6.0
29 2.3

95 7.6

29 2.3
10 0.8

57 4.5
38 3.0










48 3.8
19 1.6






19 1.6


12
1,257
Transect 4
4b and 4c 4d
sand, silt sand
shell, oily
material
2-3 1/2
slacklov alacklov
2 2
«o/m2 X Ho/B2 5
86 0.6
10,403 78.5 865 47.5

95 0.7 10 0.5



1.311 9.9 19 1.0
38 0.3

19 0.1 352 19.3

10 0.5
10 0.5


342 2.6 181 V.9
10 0.05

10 0.05
105 0.8 10 0.5


10 0.05
57 0.4 48 2-6



542 4.1 219 12.0
133 1.0
86 0.6 10 0.5
86 4.7




10 0.05


16 12
13,257 1,820

-------
               Table 2-25  Cc)

Bsnthie llaoro-lnv«rt»brat»  Populations collected on 23 August  1974
          at Quarantine Island, JaoicsonTille,  Florida

Station
Substrata
Depth in fast
Tide
lumber of grabs
TAXA

leutoda
Poljchaeta
Oligoehaeta
Hirudinea
Oatraeoda
Podocopa
Copepoda
Calanoida
Cirripedia
Tanaidaeea
Isopod*
Cjathnra polita
Casaiiir.ldea lunlfrons
CMridotea ca«ca
Caaccaridae
Talitridae
Unidentified
fyaidacea
Uraidcnsis bimlowi
XantEidu
Penaaidae
Traehvnsr.euj sp.
TJnidsr.tiJied
Kollu^ca
BlT»lria
3Ar:xia cuneata
Tslljra sp.
ifodloltu at.
Gastropoda
Insect*
Diptera
Cilronoaidaa
Dicroteii tves SB.
Total Suber of Taxa
Total 3*nsitj-
Transsat 1 Transsot 2

la and 1b 1o 2a and 2b 2o
'i silt silt and sand silt and shsll silt and sand
5 1.5 - 4 2
slaelthigh slaokhlgh flooding flooding
2 222
«o/»2 < So/i.2 < Ho/a2 < »o/m2

1,131 6
637 95-5 570 84.3 352 94.6 13,310 72
10 1.4 38 5.6 228 1


10 1.4 171
19

38 5.6 3,069 16
10
133
10 1.4
43

10 1 .4

19

10



10 1.4 10 2.6 10
10 1.4 33
10
19


10 2.6 152
4 6 3 16
667 676 372 18,377
Transact 3
Transect 4
3a and 3b 3o 4a 4o
silt and shell sand and silt silt, sand, silt and shsll
plant debris and rock
5136
flooding flooding slaokhigh ebbing

^

.1
.4
.2


.9
.1

.7
.05
.7
.2



.1

.05



.05
.2
.05
.1


.8


2
Ho/m2 4 Ito/m2

1,150
931 91.3 2,642
10 .9


19
29 2.8 10
10
18,468
19
418
67
29
19 1.8
10 .9


10
* y
19


10 .9
10 .9
124
10
29


504
7
1,019 23
2 1 1
4. fr/fl2 < 1o/m* <
19 .8
4.8
11.2 1,995 84.0 760 90.9
114 4.8


.08
.04 19 2.2
.04
78.4 57 2.4
.08
19 .8 38 4.5
.2
.1

19 2,2


.08
.08



.5
.04 19 .8
.1 19 .8


2.1 133 5-6
16 8 - 4
,537 2,375 836

41
sand
1
ebbing
1
Io/«? *

171 20.4
513 61. J
19 2.2





76 9.0





19 2.2








38 41 5



6
636

-------
                                                             Table 2-25
                                            Banthio Macro-Invertebrate Populations oolleoted on 9 January 1975
                                                        at Quarantine Island, Jacksonville, Florida
Station
Location

Substrate

Depth
Tide
Number of grabs
TAXA
Nemertea
Namatoda
Polychaeta
Qligoohaeta
1a and 1b
75-150 yards
from shore
fresh silt
from dredge
3 ft.
slacklow
2
No/m2 $>
19 5.8

143 44.0
76 23.3
1o
10 yards
from Spartina
silt & aand

1 ft.
slacklow
1
No/m2 4


1,957 57.8
1,311 38.7
2a and 2b
50-100 yards
from shore
ailt It shell

2 ft.
slacklow
2
No/m2 4


67 43.5
19 12.3
2o
20 yards
from shore
silt & fine
sand
8 in.
slacklow
1
No/m2 H>
19 .1

3,914 32.1
8,037 66.0
3a and 3b
50-100 yards
from shore
silt & shell

3 ft.
slaoklow
2
No/m2 4
29 7.9

257 70.7
19 5.2
3o
10* from shore
near oysters
silt, shell,
fine sand
6-8 in.
slacklow
2
No/m2 . *
67 1.8

1,710 46.1
1,748 47.1
   Calanoida
Cumacea
     OT.yarostylis aaithi
Tanaidacea
     IiBptpchelia rapax
Azcphipcda
   Garr.m«i.ridae
   Corophiidae
   Unidentified
Mysidacsa
                bigelowi
Da capo da
  Palaemonidaa
     Palaemonetes sp.
Mollusoa
  Bivalvia
     Tellina sp.
     Rangla cunaata
     Jorax sp.
     Unidentified sp.
  Gastropoda
     Pyraoiidella sp.
                sp.
                      B
Insecta
 Diptera
   CairoKomidae
     Polypedilum ep.-
     Chlronomus sp.

Total Number of, Taxa

Total Density
                                 19
5.8
                                 29
8.9
19
38
                                                    19
 .5
1.1
10

19
 6.4

12.3
                                                                                          19
19
57
.1
.4
                                                                                                             10
10
                                                                            2.7
2.7
                                 10
3.0
                                      19
                                                                                                  .1
                                                  38    10.4
10      .2



10      .2

76     2.0
                                                         10
                                                           .2
29 18.8
10 3.0
19 ?.8 10 6.4 19
19

38 1.1 19
19
8 6 6 11
325 3,382 154 12,160


.1
.1

.1
.1
6
363


29
29
10

10
11
3,709


.7
.7
.2

.2



-------
                                                             FIGURE 2-24
                                                             Corps of Engineer, Benthic Macro-Invertebrate
                                                             Stations   Jan., April, August 74
                                                                        Jan. 1975
O
A
24 JAN 74 STATIONS
19 APRIL 74 STATIONS
23 AUG. 74 STATIONS
 9 JAN 75 STATIONS
                                         NOTE
                                          SOUNDINGS SHOWN ARE DEPTHS AT MEAN
                                            LOW WATER

-------
    B.    Man-Made Environment

              1.   Demography and Economics

                   a.   Current Population Data

    The population of Duval County was 528,865 in 1970.
This was an increase of 16 percent from the 1960 population
of 455,308.  Principal changes of population distribution
during this period were a major decline of population in the
core area and higher growth rates in the east and southeast
portion of the county.  The county-wide population density
for 1970 is shown on Figure 2-25.

    These population trends were reflected in the 60 percent
growth rate of the Arlington service area.  The 1960
population of 53,310 had increased to 85,384 by 1970.  Three
major factors appear to be responsible for the southeasterly
shift of the population center.  First, like most other
Florida cities, Jacksonville is growing toward the ocean.
Residence in the Arlington area provides for quick access to
the principle recreational and aesthetic attractions of
Duval County.  The area also contains large tracts of vacant
usable land for residential and commercial use.  Relatively
good access to Jacksonville's major downtown employment
centers are provided by way of the Arlington Expressway and
the Hart Bridge.

    The balance between males and females in Duval County
has remained almost constant since the 1960 census with a
slight increase in the ratio for males.  The average age has
increased with substantial increases for age groups above 45
years and a significant decrease in the population of the
under five age group.  This decrease has been caused
primarily by a decrease in the birth rate and average family
size.  The persons per household ratio dropped from 3.40 in
1960 to 3.14 in 1970.  This ratio is expected to continue to
decline because of the national trend of later marriages and
fewer children.  Future population is expected to be added
ar. a ratio of 2.35 persons per household.
                               112

-------
             COMPREHENSIVE  PLAN
                          for
THE CONSOLIDATED CITY  OF JACKSONVILLE

      JACKSONVILLE AREA PLANNING BOARD
                                  113

                                                                                                                                          FIGURE  2-25



                                                                                                                                  POPULATION  DENSITY

                                                                                                                                            1970

                                                                                                                                     PERSONS PER ACRE GROSS

                                                                                                                                          LAND AREA


                                                                                                                                            LEGEND

                                                                                                                                      NUMBER OF PERSONS
                                                                                                                                      RANGE GROUPS-

                                                                                                                                      ^1     17.57   &  over

                                                                                                                                              11.36   10  17.56

                                                                                                                                      [""]     5.15   to  1135

                                                                                                                                      I  |     3.79   to  514

                                                                                                                                      [^     I 93   to  3 78

                                                                                                                                      |  [       0   to  1.92

                                                                                                                                      CITY AVERAGE 1 06
                                                                                                                                   NOTE THE PURPOSE OF THIS ILLUSTRATION IS TO
                                                                                                                                      SHOW THE GENERALIZED RELATIONSHIP OF
                                                                                                                                      DMA UY CENSUS TRACT AND NOT THE
                                                                                                                                      LOCATION DENSITY THEREIN ON A NET
                                                                                                                                      BASIS
                                                                                                                                   SOURCE JAPB
         JUNE 1973
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED
THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT Of
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, UNDER THE URBAN
PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED fff SECTION
701 OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

-------
                   b.   Employment and Income

    Table 2-26 shows employment by standard industrial
classification for Duval County in 1970.  The largest
increases came in services and transportation and utilities
which showed over 40 percent growth rates during the last
decade.  The labor force has increased at an average annual
rate of 4,900 workers from 1950 to 1972.

                         TABLE 2-26
  Employment Groups by Standard Industrial Classification*


Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries                        592
Mining                                                     (D)
Contract Construction                                   13,219
Manufacturing                                           25,036
Transportation & Other Public Utilities                 15,008
Wholesale Trade                                         19,081
Retail Trade                                            35,288
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate                     19,402
Services                                                31,575
Unclassified Establishments                                (D)
                                                       159,201
    *Does not include government workers
    and self employed.

    (D) - Figures withheld to avoid disclosure of
          operations of individual reporting units.
    The Arlington service area is made up largely of
residential land uses with relatively few employment
centers.  The two largest are the Boulevard Center Office
Park and Regency Sguare.  Smaller employment centers include
Fields Plaza, Regency Plaza, Jacksonville University,
Florida Junior College and the University of North Florida.
New employment centers currently under development are
Century 21 Office Park on Atlantic Boulevard and Corporate
Square Office Park on Southside Boulevard.  Most of the
                              114

-------
remaining employment in the area is located in the form of
strip commercial development along Arlington Expressway,
University Boulevard, Atlantic Boulevard, Beach Boulevard,
Arlington Road and Southside Boulevard.

    Manufacturing employment in the service area is minimal.
Less than 600 out of the county's 25,000 manufacturing
employees work here.

    The percentage of families in Jacksonville with real
personal incomes exceeding 10,000 dollars per year increased
from 12.4 percent in 1959 to 41.1 percent in 1969.  During
the same period, families with incomes below the poverty
level declined from 21.4 percent of total families to 14.1
percent.  The average family income in Arlington in 1969 was
almost 11,000 dollars per year.  58.9 percent of the 21,000
families in the service area had incomes of over 10,000
dollars.  The unemployment rate in Jacksonville has been 40
to 50 percent below the national average during the past
decade.

              c.   Economic Proiections

    The number of jobs in Jacksonville is expected to
increase from the 1970 level of 196,000 to over 401,000 in
2002.  Large increases in employment are forecast in several
industrial classifications by the Jacksonville Area Planning
Board.  Projections for 1990 are as follows:
                              115

-------
              Employment in services to increase from 31,575
              to 71,000.

              Employment in retail trade to increase from
              35,288 to 62,000

              Employment in wholesale trade is expected to
              increase from 19,402 to 33,100.

              Employment in transportation and utilities is
              expected to increase from 15,008 to 30,300.

              Manufacturing employment is expected to
              increase from 25,036 to 45,700.

              Contract construction employment will increase
              from 13,219 to 22,900.

              Financial insurance, and real estate
              employment will increase from 19,402 to
              31,000.

              Government employment will increase from
              34,200 to 57,000,

    The largest single new employer will be the Westinghouse
Company's Offshore Power Systems  (OPS)  project which is
projected to employ up to 14,000 people in the mid 1980's.
In addition, indirect employment created by the OPS project
will exceed 20,000.  OPS operational demands will create
7,750 of these new jobs and personal consumption
expenditures.  O.P.S. employees will create 12,265 new jobs.

    Ihe actual implementation of the project has been in
some doubt over the last several months.  Presently,
however, plans are progressing for project development.
Population projections and waste treatment facilities
construction staging and sizing for the period beyond 1980
should be reviewed carefully if plans for OPS are not
implemented.

    Large increases in employment are not forecast for the
Arlington area.  Development is expected to continue as
mainly residential.  Some increases will be evident in the
strip commercial and office park areas already discussed.
In addition, a small industrial area will be developed south
of Craig Field.
                               116

-------
              d.    Population Projections

    Figure 2-26 shows population trends for Duval County
since 1950 with projections to 2002.  The OBERS base-line
projections are based on historical demographic data from
1940 to 1970 and represent an estimate of what will occur if
present trends continue.  These projections are meant to be
used as a basis for evaluating locally developed
projections.

    The projections developed by the Jacksonville Area
Planning Board (JAPB) deviate significantly from the OBERS
base-line projections.  These projections are based upon the
assumption that economic activity will greatly increase in
the future.  Jacksonville's growth rate during the 1960's
was 10 percent greater than the national rate.  An economic
study by Gladstone Associates forecasts a total civilian
employment of almost 295,000 by 1980.  This would constitute
an increase of more than 77,000 since 1970.  Employment
projections made by the JAPB, discussed in the Economic
Projections section of this chapter, also forecast large
increases in employment.

    The recent economic history of the Jacksonville area
makes it a reasonable assumption that Jacksonville will grow
at a rate exceeding the base-line projections.  The expected
operational level of the OPS project will make the JAPB
projections for 1990 realistic even with the expected
decrease in persons per household.  Barring any additional
projects of OPS magnitude, the rate of population growth
should decrease somewhat after 1990,  A projection of
929,000 for 2002 is a reasonable long range projection.
This figure can be adjusted as intervening events warrant.
                             117

-------
                                                          100,000 PERSONS
00
                         T)
                         O
                         O


                         IT)
                         0>
                         n
o
3
CO
                          o
                          H
                          n
                          o
                          e
                              00


                               l-f
      to

      S3
      ON
                                    o
                                    u>
                                    o
                                    10
                                    01
                                    o
                                I      I      I      I      I      I      I

-------
    The population of the Arlington service area should
continue to grow at a faster rate than that of the city as a
whole.  The amount of attractive vacant land available and
the nearness to the beach will continue to act as strong
inducements to residential settlement in the Arlington area.
Table 2-27 shows the projected population increases for the
Arlington service area and their relations to the county-
wide projections.  Figure 2-27 shows how the expected 1990
population will be distributed throughout the service area.
                           TABLE 2-27


               ARLINGTON POPULATION PROJECTIONS


Year       	Area	       Population           % of Total
1960       Arlington           53,310                11
1960      Duval County        455,308
1970       Arlington           85,384                16
1970      Duval County        528,865

1980       Arlington          119,442               18
1980      Duval County        660,000

1990       Arlington          181,377               21
1990      Duval County        850,000

2002       Arlington          219,850               23
2002      Duval County        925,000
                              119

-------
             COMPREHENSIVE  PLAN
                          for
THE CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE

      JACKSONVILLE AREA  PLANNING  BOARD
                                                                                                                                       FIGURE 2-27
                                                                                                                                 PROJECTED POPULATION


                                                                                                                                      DENSITY -  1990


                                                                                                                                     PERSONS PER ACRE GROSS

                                                                                                                                          LAND AREA



                                                                                                                                            LEGEND

                                                                                                                                      NUMBER OF PERSONS

                                                                                                                                      RANGE GROUPS:

                                                                                                                                      PJg    17.57  S  over

                                                                                                                                             11.36  to  17.56

                                                                                                                                      [~~]     5.15  to  11.35

                                                                                                                                      PT^I     3.79  to  5 14

                                                                                                                                      fffl     1 93  to  3 78

                                                                                                                                      |   |      0  to  1.92

                                                                                                                                      CITY AVERAGE 1 76


                                                                                                                                   NOTE THE PURPOSE OF THIS ILLUSTRATION IS TO
                                                                                                                                      DATA BY CENSUS TRACT AND NOT THE
                                                                                                                                      LOCATION DENSITY THEREIN ON A NET
                                                                                                                                      BASIS

                                                                                                                                   SOURCE.JAPB
         JUNE 1973
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED
THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AKJ URBAN DEVELOPMENT, UNDER THE URBAN
PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY SECTION
701 OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED.

-------
    Since the Arlington service area will act primarily as a
residential community for people working elsewhere in
Jacksonville, the population projections for this area are
directly related to the city-wide employment forecasts and
the availability of convenient transportation access.  The
long range projections beyond 1980 are particularly
dependent upon the OPS project and the proposed Dames Point
Bridge.  The implementation of the OPS project will provide
14,000 jobs just across the St. Johns River to the north.
The area adjacent to the OPS land on the north side of the
St. Johns River is wetlands, which are recommended for
preservation in the 1990 Development Plan of the JAPB.  This
makes the Arlington area the closest large area projected
for residential development.  The long range population
forecasts for Arlington will need to be reassessed if either
of these projects are not constructed.
                             121

-------
    2.    Land Use

              a.    Existing Land Use

    Approximately one-third of the 55,000 net dry acres of
land in the Arlington service area are developed (see Figure
2-28).   The developed portion of the service area is
generally bounded by the St. Johns River to the north and
west,  the service area boundry to the south, and Craig Field
to the east.

    A little over half of this land is in residential
development, about five percent in commercial use, and less
than one percent in industrial use.  All other uses such as
streets and highways, Craig Airport, governmental
facilities, and utilities, make up the remaining third of
the developed land.  Approximately 1,000 acres of the
undeveloped land is part of an old titanium strip mining
operation.

    Over 70 percent of all land zoned for residential
purposes is at a density of less than five dwelling units
per acre.  This land is generally spread throughout the
developed portion of the service area, excluding land
adjacent to the right-of-ways of the major transportation
corridors such as Arlington Expressway, Atlantic Boulevard,
and Beach Boulevard.  Less than five percent of these units
were built before 1940.  Most of them were constructed
between 1950 and 1965.  One small area located between
Atlantic Boulevard and the Arlington Expressway is
undergoing neighborhood rehabilitation.

    Since the mid-sixties, residential trends in the service
area have changed to include more multi-family rental
apartments.  In the period, 1970-73, over 1,200 acres of
land in the service area were zoned for residential
development.  Over 90 percent of it was for density over
five dwelling units per acre.  Most of these units are being
located near the major transportation arteries such as Beach
Boulevard, Atlantic Boulevard and the Arlington Expressway.
                              122

-------
                                                                                                                                     FIGURE  2-28
             COMPREHENSIVE  PLAN
                         for
THE CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
     JACKSONVILLE AREA  PLANNING  BOARD
                                                                                                                               LAND USE-1972
                                                                                                                                       LEGEND

                                                                                                                                RESIDENTIAL
                                                                                                                                 SINGLE FAMILY
                                                                                                                                 MULTIPLE FAMILY
                                                                                                                                 MOBILE HOME PARKS
                                                                                                                                COMMERCIAL
                                                                                                                                INDUSTRIAL
                                                                                                                                CULTURAL & INSTITUTIONAL
                                                                                                                                PARKS & RECREATION
                                                                                                                                MILITARY
                                                                                                                               SOURCE JACKSONVILLE AREA PLANNING BOARD
         JUNE 1973
THE PREPARATION Of THIS MAP WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED
THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, UNDER THE URBAN
PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY SECTION
701 OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

-------
    Most of the commercial activity in the service area is
in the form of strip development along the major arterials.
In addition, there are a number of major clustered
developments including Boulevard Center Office Park, Regency
Square Shopping Center, Town and Country Shopping Center,
and Arlington Plaza Shopping Center.  Major proposed
shopping centers included locations at the intersection of
J. Turner Butler Expressway and Southside Boulevard, and on
Beach Boulevard north of the University of North Florida.  A
few small neighborhood shopping centers are also present
throughout the service area.

    Very little industry of any type is located in the
service area.  A small ship manufacturing facility, located
along the Intracoastal Waterway at Atlantic Boulevard, is
the only heavy industry.  A few small light industrial
establishments such as warehouses and auto repair shops are
scattered through the area along the major arterials.

    The remainder of the developed land in the service area
is made up of various uses such as transportation
facilities, governmental and community facilities, and
utilities.  These land uses act as support facilities for
the residential, commercial and industrial uses already
discussed, and as such, are scattered throughout the
developed portion of the service area.  The following
governmental and community facilities are now present in the
service area: 18 schools, two public parks and other outdoor
recreational facilities  (including mostly school
playgrounds), eight private recreational facilities, five
fire stations, seven health facilities, one library, three
colleges, one sanitary landfill, and eight other public
buildings.

              b.   Future Land Use

    Most of the land in the service area is expected to be
developed by 1990 (see Figure 2-29)  at about the same ratio
of land uses as is new present  (residential over 50 percent,
commerical about five percent, industrial less than one
percent, governmental, transportation, utilities, etc.,
about one-third) .
                               124

-------
      COMPREHENSIVE  PLAN
                 for
CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
JACKSONVILLE AREA  PLANNING BOARD
                  125
DUVfll
ST. JOHNS COUNTY
                                                                                                          FIGURE 2-29
                                                                                                     DEVELOPMENT
                                                                                                      PLAN - 1990
                                                                                                           LEGEND
                                                                                                   RESIDENTIAL
                                                                                                          RANGE  GROUP
                                                                                                      DWELLING UNITS PER GRO
                                                                                                   10-15
                                                                                                   15 & OVER
                                                                                                   COMMERCIAL
                                                                                                   INDUSTRIAL
                                                                                                   AIRPORTS
                                                                                                   CULTURAL & INSTITUTIONAL
                                                                                                   PARKS  & RECREATIONAL
                                                                                                   MILITARY
                                                                                                   PRESERVATION
                                                                                                   CONSERVATION
                                                                                                   SOURCE JAPB
                                                                                                                      B
                                                                                                                      cu
                                             CD
                                             SI

-------
    Major factors leading to increased development in the
area will continue to be the desirability of living near the
beach and the availability of tracts of vacant land
appropriate for development.  Added impetus will be provided
by an increase in employment opportunities through such
projects as OPS, and the construction of the Dames Point
Bridge.  If the expected development of OPS and the Dames
Point Bridge do not occur, development will proceed in the
Arlington service area at a much slower rate than presently
expected.

    Residential development is projected to be present
throughout the eastern section of the service area by 1990.
The new development should provide a mix of densities with
the higher ones (over five dwelling units per acre) being
located adjacent to major transportation arteries and the
universities.  The existing low density character of the
area adjacent to the right-of-way of the Dames Point
Expressway north of Atlantic Boulevard will change to higher
density following the completion of that project.  This
change could extensively affect the character of the
surrounding low density neighborhood through increased
traffic, visual impacts, etc.

    Low density (less than five dwelling units per acre)
development will occur only in areas away from the major
arterials except near the Intracoastal Waterway where low
density development is expected along Atlantic and Beach
Boulevards.  Areas east of Craig Field, near the St. Johns
River and near the Intracoastal Waterway, which are the most
environmentally sensitive, are proposed to be developed at
densities not greater than one dwelling unit per acre.

    Land devoted to commercial uses will gradually expand as
the population demand warrants it.  Most of this development
should occur along the major arterials with the exception of
a few small neighborhood shopping centers.

    The service area will continue to have very little
industrial development.  One area of light industry is
forecast adjacent to the southern edge of Craig Airport.   No
other areas of industrial development are forecast.

    The remainder of the developed land in the service area
will be made up of various uses such as transportation
facilities, governmental and community facilities, and
utilities.  These land uses should be scattered throughout
                              126

-------
the service area as development warrants to avoid the
overcrowding of existing facilities.

              c.   Land Use Planning and Controls

    Extensive land use planning is now being accomplished in
Jacksonville by the Jacksonville Area Planning Board.  The
JAPB has assembled a vast amount of information on the
critical factors necessary for effective land use planning
such as soil conditions, flood prone areas, water guality,
air guality, community facilities loading, transportation,
demographic data, and socio-economic conditions.  This
information has been used for preparing two principle
planning documents; The 1990 Comprehensive Development Plan
and The_1974-1979 Short Range Development Plan.  These two
plans provide a focus and direction for efficient land use
development for the protection of environmentally sensitive
areas, and for proper phasing of required community
facilities.

    The Consolidated City of Jacksonville currently has two
major land use control ordinances that can be used to guide
development to coincide with the JAPB plans.  The first of
these is a zoning ordinance.  This ordinance  (see Figure 2-
30) controls how land can be used and what density.  The
proper use of this tool will be essential if a guickly
growing area such as Arlington is to develop in an orderly
manner, protect the character of its existing neighborhoods,
and avoid disturbance to environmentally sensitive areas.
If zoning decisions in the area are based largely on the
JAPB planning documents, efficient land development with
minimal damage  to sensitive natural and man-made areas
should result.

    Subdivision regulations are also in effect in
Jacksonville.   This ordinance acts  as a quality control on
new development by governing the process of converting raw
land into building sites.  Aspects  of development which are
controlled  include the  safety and adequacy of the water
supply and  sewage disposal systems  and the proper design and
construction of new streets, utilities, and drainage
systems.
                              127

-------
                                                                                                                               FIGURE  2-30
            COMPREHENSIVE  PLAN
V''^.''  ,•   •      •     for
 THE CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
--,-'"  L, ' ' < ,  '      ''
 "     JACKSONVILLE AREA PLANNING  BOARD
                                                                                                                        EXISTING ZONING
                                                                                                                                 LEGEND

                                                                                                                           RSE.RS-1. RS-2
                                                                                                                           RTF
                                                                                                                           RM. RG1.RG 2.RG 3
                                                                                                                           RMOI CN-CPO
                                                                                                                           CSC Cl CCBD CHT
                                                                                                                           CM ACRI CG
                                                                                                                           IH IW
                                                                                                                           ILW
                                                                                                                           OR
                                                                                                                           GU
                                                                                                                           PUD
       DECEMBER 1972
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED
THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE DEPARTrVEN1 Or
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE URBAN
PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY SECTION
701 OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954 AS AMENDED

-------
              3.   Archeological, Cultural, Historical and
                   Recreational  Resources

                   a.   Historical and Cultural Properties

    Duval County currently has ten sites which are included
in the National Register of Historic Places (see Figure 2-
31).  These sites are as follows:

         Jacksonville, Broward, Napoleon Bonaparte House,
         9943 Heckshire Drive

         Jacksonville, Catherine Street Fire Station,
         14 Catherine Street

         Jacksonville, Epping Forest, Christopher Point,
         Off San Jose Boulevard

         Jacksonville vicinity, Grand Site,
         North of Jacksonville

         Jacksonville, Kingsley Plantation,
         Florida AIA

         Jacksonville Old St. Lukes Hospital,
         314 Palmetto

         Jacksonville, Red Banks Plantation,
         1230 Greenridge Road

         Jacksonville, Riverside Baptist Church,
         2650 Park Street

         Jacksonville vicinity. Fort Caroline National Memorial,
         10 Miles East of Jacksonville

         Jacksonville vicinity. Yellow Bluff Fort,
         South of Florida 105 on New Berlin Road

    Only one of these sites, the Fort Caroline National
Memorial is located within the project service area.  This
Fort is located along the south shore of the St. Jones River
near St. Johns Bluff.  It was originally settled in 1664 by
French Huguenots.
                               129

-------
                                                        BEACH  BLVO
KEY

             Sites

 O  Archeological  Sites

     Porks and Recreational
Source: JAPB and  Florida Dept. of State



• •••    Arlington - East  Service  District Boundary
0         5         10
          i
  Thousands of  Feet

-------
              b.   Archeolggjcal Sites

    Seven archeological sites have been recorded within the
project area by the Florida Bureau of Historic Sites and
Properties of the Florida Department of State.  All of these
sites except one are prehistoric Indian burial mounds.  Five
of them were excavated, partially or wholly in the late
1800's by an early archeologist named Clarence B. Moore. The
remaining site is a village site with evidences of both
prehistoric and historic period occupations.  The Bureau of
Historic Sites and Properties asked that the locations of
these properties not be circulated because the public
availability of such information could lead to further
destruction of the sites through the activities of amateur
artifact hunters.

              c.   Recreational Facilities

    The largest public park in the service area is the 5
acre Bruce Park located at the intersection of Arlington
Road and Rogero Road.  This park is now intensively used and
is considered inadeguate in size.

    A ten-acre recreation area for retarded and handicapped
children is also located within the service area.  This is
the Sunny Acres playground located on McCormick Road.

    Most of the other recreational facilities in the area
are located adjacent to public school sites.  One public
boat landing facility, on the St. Johns River at the end of
Arlington Road, is located in the service area.

    One Federal facility is also located within the area.
This is the Fort Caroline National Memorial located near St.
Johns Bluff.  This facility has been included in the
National Register of Historic Places.

    According to national standards, the area is deficient
by 700 acres in public recreational facilities.  The Short
Range Development Plan prepared by the JAPB proposes several
new facilities to help remedy this situation.  These are as
follows:
                               131

-------
         Arlington Sports Plaza:  Located south of Ft.
         Caroline Road, the 10-acre site is an old sanitary
         landfill facility, being converted into a public
         park.  It is recommended that the completion of
         improvements here should be expedited.

         Pottsburg Creek Park:  This is a new community park
         recommended on a presently vacant piece of property
         located between Holiday Road and Pottsburg Creek.
         Approximately 40.0 acres in the area, the site has
         a sloping terrain and part of the land is in the
         flood-prone area.  Surrounded by urban development
         and close to a principal arterial highway, the site
         is well suited for this purpose.  Its location
         along a navigable water course makes it possible to
         incorporate water related recreation facilities in
         the park.

         Memorial Park:  About 11.75 acres in the area, this
         site is located on Lone Star Road.  Presently lying
         vacant, the property is dedicated to the State (of
         Florida)  for use as a cemetery.  It is located next
         to "Tree Hill" and is in an area which is badly
         deficient in public open space and recreation
         facilities.

         Fort Caroline Park:  This is a 14-acre vacant tract
         of land located on Quitina Drive adjacent to Ft.
         Caroline Elementary and Ft. Caroline Junior High
         schools.   With good accessibility, the site is
         proposed for a community park to serve the
         residential development around this area.

    An additional 246 acres in recreational facilities are
recommended to be scattered throughout the region to help
bring the area up to recommended standards.

    The Plan also recommends the preservation of several
unique and sensitive natural areas as open space.  One of
these is a 50.4-acre tract located north of Ft. Caroline
Road between Cowhead Creek and Jones Creek on Mill Cove.
This area is primarily marshland located along the
Intracoastal Waterway.

    The Plan also recommends the preservation of a 46.3-acre
area on Lone Star Road for preservation.  This area, known
as Tree Hill, is envisioned as a native site.
                              132

-------
    Other low-lying wetland areas along most of the creeks
and Mill Cove are also recommended as open spaces.   The
exact location of these areas are depicted on the future
land use map  (Figure 2-29).

    4.    Transportation

         a.   Existing Transportation Facilities

    The discussion of streets and highways in this section
is based upon the nomenclature used in the Jacksonville
Urban Area Transportation Study.  The definitions of major
facilities used in the study are as follows:

    Freeways, Expresswavs, and Parkways.  These limited
access facilities are designed for high traffic service.
They primarily serve longer trips which require relatively
high operating speeds.  Generally, freeways include those
facilities with complete control of access through the use
of grade separation and interchanges.  An expressway is a
major facility with full or partial control of access.
Relatively few, if any, at-grade crossings or private
driveway connections are permitted on expressways.   A
parkway is a route having full or partial access within a
park-like development.

    Arterial_Streets. The arterial street system, together
with limited access facilities, serves as the principal
network for high volumes of traffic.  Arterial streets
provide some land service but should serve predominantly as
traffic service facilities.  Intersections with other
streets are usually at grade; and, when traffic volumes
through the intersections are large, traffic signals are
employed.

    Collector Streets. The collector street system is
designed primarily to collect and distribute traffic between
local streets or areas and the arterial streets.  Collector
streets are used primarily for traffic movement into, from,
and within residential, commercial, and industrial areas
rather than through such areas.  A high proportion of
traffic on segments of collector streets indicates land
service demand which, in turn, necessitates direct access to
abutting properties.

    Local Streets. The majority of streets within the
community primarily serves adjacent land uses.  These
                              133

-------
streets constitute the minor street network and need not be
designed for high volumes of traffic.   As a general rule,
intersections of local streets with ma-jor streets should be
minimized.   Local traffic should be directed to collector
streets and then to the major street network.

    The major streets and highways in the service area are
listed below by functional classification:

    Name of Facility                        Functional Classification

    Commodore Point Freeway                       Freeway
    Arlington Expressway                          Expressway
    Southside Boulevard                           Expressway
    J. Turner Butler Expressway                   Expressway
    Beach Boulevard                               Principal Arterial
    Atlantic Boulevard                            Principal Arterial
    University Boulevard                          Minor Arterial
    St. Johns Bluff Road                          Minor Arterial
    Merrill Road                                  Minor Arterial
    Fort Caroline Road                            Major Collector
    Rogero Road                                   Major Collector
    Arlington Road                                Major Collector
    Lone Star Road                                Major Collector
    Cesary Boulevard                              Major Collector
    Townsend Boulevard                            Major Collector

    The major streets and highways and traffic volumes in
the service area can be seen on Figure 2-32.  Five major
highways serve the area in an east-west direction.  Atlantic
and Beach Boulevards traverse the entire service area
providing the only highway access between the beach and the
rest of the County.  The other major east-west highways,
Arlington Expressway, Commodore Point Freeway, and J. Turner
Butler Expressway serve only the urbanized part of the
service area.  North-south access is provided by St. Johns
Bluff Road, Southside Boulevard, Arlington Road, Rogero
Road, and University Boulevard.
                             134

-------
              COMPREHENSIVE  PLAN
                            for
THE CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE

      JACKSONVILLE AREA PLANNING BOARD
                                135
      COUNTY
STTOHNS COUNTY
                                                                                                                                                  FIGURE  2-32



                                                                                                                                              TRAFFIC  VOLUMES

                                                                                                                                                     1971

                                                                                                                                            24 HOUR ANNUAL AVERAGE

                                                                                                                                                  DAILY  TRAFFIC



                                                                                                                                                    LEGEND

                                                                                                                                              24 HOUR ANNUAL VOLUME

                                                                                                                                             __         0 - 19,999

                                                                                                                                             —      20,000 - 39,999

                                                                                                                                             _      40,000- 59,999

                                                                                                                                             •—•      60,000-79,999

                                                                                                                                             —      80,000 &OVER


                                                                                                                                          MOTE TRAFFIC VOLUMES DEPICTED ARE FOR EX-
                                                                                                                                             ISTING MAJOR HIGHWAYS,ARTERIAL5,AND
                                                                                                                                             SOME MAJOR COLLECTOR STREETS
                                                                                                                                          SOURCE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA-

                                                                                                                                               TION AND JACKSONVILLE TRAFFIC ENGI-

                                                                                                                                               NEER'S OFFICE
                                   THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED
                                   THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
                                   HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, UNDER THE URBAN
                                   PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BT SECTION
                                   701 OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

-------
    Many components of the major highway network are
overloaded. (See Figure 2-33.)  This is causing traffic
congestion and accidents, particularly during peak hours.
The two worst intersections in the service area are the
intersection of Arlington Expressway, Atlantic Boulevard,
and Southside Boulevard  (Arlington Triangle)  and the
intersection between University Boulevard and Atlantic
Boulevard.  A major factor in the congestion problem is the
limited access Arlington residents have with the rest of the
County.  Access to the west and north is blocked by the St.
Johns River, while access to the east is limited by the
Intracoastal Waterway.

    The Mathews and the Hart Bridges provide the most direct
access from the service area to the downtown area.  Access
to three other bridges crossing the St. Johns to the west is
provided by Atlantic Boulevard and Beach Boulevard.  All of
these bridges except the Hart Bridge are carrying traffic
greater than their design capacity.

    Access from the service area across the Intracoastal
Waterway to the beach communities is provided by Atlantic
and Beach Boulevards.  There is no direct connection between
the service area and the north side of the St. Johns River.

    This limited access is especially important because most
of the people living in Arlington work outside the area.
The Demography and Economics section of this chapter
demonstrates the small percentage of jobs in Arlington.  The
largest employment center in the county is currently the
downtown area.  Work and home trips between Arlington and
downtown travel on the Mathews and Hart Bridges,  The
average daily travel on these bridges in 1974 was 44,900 on
the Mathews Bridge and 23,400 on the Hart Bridge.  As the
residential population of Arlington increases in the future,
traffic on these bridges will increase as more commuting
trips are made out of the service area.  Completion of the
Dames Point Bridge and the OPS project will lead to a large
number of commuting trips between Arlington and the north
side of the St. Johns River.
                               136

-------
             COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
                          for
THE CONSOLIDATED  CITY OF JACKSONVILLE     \

     JACKSONVILLE AREA PLANNING BOARD
                                                                                                                                      FIGURE  2-33


                                                                                                                                 VOLUME TO  CAPACITY

                                                                                                                                     RATIO -1972

                                                                                                                               FOR THOROUGHFARE SEGMENTS
                                                                                                                                        LEGEND

                                                                                                                              RATIO RANGE GROUPS FOR STREET SEGMENTS

                                                                                                                                —          0.90 to 1.00%

                                                                                                                                —           1.01 re 1.25%

                                                                                                                                —          1.25S& OVER
                                                                                                                              SOURCE JAPB.JUA1
         JUNE 1973
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP VMS FINANCIALLY AIQfO
THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, UNDER THE UMAN
PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED ir SECTION
701 OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED.

-------
    Mass transportation to the service area is provided by
several bus routes operated by the Jacksonville
Transportation Authority.  This service is available only to
the most populated portions of the service area and along
the major routes to the beach.

    Airport service is provided by Craig Airfield which is
operated by the Jacksonville Port Authority.  The airfield
is used exclusively for general aviation (non-commerical)
purposes.  It is equiped with two 4,000 feet runways and a
helicopter pad.  The facility is currently servicing
approximately 95,000 flights per year.

              b•   Proposed Transportation Facilities

    Highway plans for Jacksonville were made in the
Jacksonville Urban_Ar_eaTransportation Study (JUATS) r
completed in 1972.  Many major new facilities were planned
for the Arlington area to serve the expected population
increase and to ease existing congestion.  Major elements of
the plan were as follows:

    1.   Extend the Commodore Point Freeway to serve the
         east-west corridor between the Hart Bridge and the
         beaches.

    2.   Build James Point Freeway and Bridge to provide
         access from existing Southside Boulevard to 1-95 on
         the north side of the St. Johns River.  This
         facility will provide access from Arlington to the
         Blount Island industrial area.

    3.   The J. Turner Butler Expressway will be extended to
         connect University Boulevard with the south
         Jacksonville beach area.

    4.   The Fort Caroline Freeway is proposed to provide
         circumferential traffic service by connecting 1-295
         in the south and the Dames Point Freeway in
         northeast Arlington.  It will also connect the
         service area to the western side of the St. Johns
         River at the 20th Street Expressway.

    Since tne completion of the JUATS study, local officials
and citizens in Jacksonville have been questioning the need
for the large number of new highway facilities recommended
in the plan.  For this reason, the plan has not been
                              138

-------
officially adopted by the City and a reevaluation of its
recommendations is now underway.

    The construction of the Dames Point and Fort Caroline
projects would have a marked effect on the existing low
density residential character of the area surrounding their
proposed interchange.  Development pressure from these
projects is expected to lead to higher density residential
development in the area made up largely of apartment
complexes  (See Figure 2-29).  The planned four-laning of
Merrill Road would also add to these development pressures.
The surface streets in the surrounding neighborhoods can
expect increased traffic volumes resulting from these
expected increases in population density.

    A long range mass transportation system study for
Jacksonville has been completed.  Major recommendations for
the system in this service area are as follows:

    1.   A fixed guideway route along Beach Boulevard.

    2.   A fixed guideway route branching off from the above
         at University Boulevard where it turns north to
         Arlington Expressway and then east to St. Johns
         Bluff Road.

    3.   An express bus route, running east along Atlantic
         Boulevard from St. Johns Bluff Road to the beach
         and west from the beach along Beach Boulevard to
         Southside Boulevard.

    4.   An express bus route on the proposed Dames Point
         Freeway going north  from Regency Square.

    5.   A network of feeder  buses, running along major
         streets and connecting with the proposed fixed
         guideway and express bus systems.

    Airport service will  continue to be provided by Craig
 Field.   In a 1972 study,  a 20-year  flight projection  of
 230,000  was made along with a recommendation  for a  new  3,700
 foot  runway.   Because of  the  ensuing energy crisis. Port
 Authority  officials  are now reassessing this  projection.   A
 relocation of  runway 1331,  2,000  feet to the  southeast  is
 also  under consideration  because  of a noise problem in  an
 adjacent residential area.
                               139

-------
         5.
Resource Use
    Electric use in the project service area is expected to
require approximately 198 MVA in 1975.  The Jacksonville
Electric Authority (JEA)  projects this need to increase to
358 MVA by 1984.  Based upon the population projections
presented earlier in this chapter, electric needs should
increase to approximately 681 MVA by 2002.

    Eight substations currently serve the area.  One
additional substation is projected to come on line in 1977.
The planned capacities of the substations serving tne area
through 1984 are as follows:
    2    Neptune        1975 - 67 MVA
    3    St. Caroline   1975 - 67 MVA
    4    Merrill        1975 - 67 MVA
    5    Arlington      1975 - 67 MVA
    7    Hunter         1975 - 67 MVA
    8    San Souci      1975 -100 MVA
    9    Robinwood      1975 - 67 MVA
   12    University     1975 - 50 MVA
   98    Oakwood Villa  1975 -  0 MVA
                          1977 - 100 MVA
                          1980 -100 MVA
                          1977 - 50 M¥S78 -100 MVA
    No formal planning has been done by JEA beyond 1984.
Approximately 300 MVA in additional power will be needed in
the service district between 1984 and 2002 if population
projections are correct and power consumption per customer
does not markedly change.  This additional power demand
would be met with a combination of additional transformers
at existing substations and new substations.  The ultimate
size of substations usually ranged between 100 and 150 MVA.
Each transformer generally supplies either 33 or 50 MVA of
power.  Each su'bstation generally maintains enough reserve
power to operate with no loan of service if one of its
transformers is! out of service.

    If power use increases throughout Jacksonville at its
expected rate, a new 400 to 500 megawatt generating station
may be necessary in the early 1980's.  This facility could
probably supply the city's increased power needs until the
mid 1990's.

    The JEA does not feel that the addition of new
transformers and substations will cause any increase in
electric rates.  It is felt that the increase in power
consumed would pay for the new facilities.  A new major
                              140

-------
generating station may, however, lead to a rate increase.
The successful rate of bonds to pay for such a facility is
dependent upon the JEA's financial condition.   Higher rates
may be deamed necessary to insure the redemption of the
bonds.

    The current rate structure of the JEA has been in effect
for 10 years.  The higher users of electric power are
rewarded with lower rates along a sliding scale.  Monthly
residential rates are as follows:

    4.552 per KWH for first 100 KWH
    1.780 per KWH for next 250 KWH
    1.500 per KWH for next 500 KWH
    1.250 per KWH for next 650 KWH
    1.100 per KWH for all over 1500 KWH

    Although the rate structure has remained constant for 10
years, customers' bills have gone up significantly.  This
has been caused by a fuel adjustment charge which increases
with the price of fuel.  The JEA currently uses only oil
fired boilers.  A close approximation to the fuel oil
adjustment is to add 1.8 mills/KWH to each bill for every
$1.00 increase in fuel oil per barrel above $1.86/bbl.  This
charge is applied to all bills in this way with no sliding
scale as the rate schedule employs.

    There are currently no major resource users or major
resources being extracted from the project area.  Titanium
was formally mined in the area using strip mining
techniques.  Stretches of white sandy soil remain where the
mining activity took place.  The area stretches southward
along Southside Boulevard from Merrill Road to the southern
edge of the service area.

    6.   Water Programs

         a.   Wastewater Systems

    Wastewater collection and treatment is fragmented among
several small private and public utility systems, package
plants, and septic tanks.  The  private and public utility
systems are shown on Figures 2-34 and 2-35.  The septic tank
service areas are shown on Figure 2-22.

    The total average wastewater flow in the service area is
now approximately 10 mgd.  Just over 2 mgd is  served by the
                               141

-------
existing city-owned treatment plants while about 5 mgd is
served by private treatment plants.  (See Tables 2-19 and 2-
20.) The remainder of the flow is in the septic tank service
areas.  The study on infiltration and inflow prepared by the
city has not yet been received by EPA.   Conversations with
the city's consultant indicate that an insignificant portion
of this flow is caused by infiltration and inflow.

    Peak flows to these facilities range between 2.5 and 4.0
times as great as the average flows.  Generally, if a
facility's average flow is greater than 1 mgd the peak is
approximately 2.5 times as great, while an average flow of
less than one usually means a peak flow approaching <4 times
as great.
                              142

-------
              COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
                            for
THE CONSOLIDATED  CITY OF JACKSONVILLE

      JACKSONVILLE AREA PLANNING BOARD
                                                                                                                                                 FIGURE  2-35
                                                                                                                                              NON-PRIVATE
                                                                                                                                         WATER  AND  SEWER
                                                                                                                                            SERVICE  AREAS
                                                                                                                                                   LEGEND


                                                                                                                                                 FACILITIES IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
                                                                                                                                                           WATER PLANT
                                                                                                                                                           SEWER PLANT
                                                                                                                                                   WATER AND  SEWER PLANTS

                                                                                                                                                       WATER SERVICE AREA

                                                                                                                                                       SEWER SERVICE AREA

                                                                                                                                                 WATER AND SEWER SERVICE AREAS
                                                                                                                                          NOTE SEBVJCE AREAS SHOWN ABE GENERALIZED AND ARE
                                                                                                                                            CONSIDERED TO BE PRELIMINARY IN NATURE
                                                                                                                                            WBULAflOWAl fACILimS BV FACILITY IDENTtflCATJON
                                                                                                                                            NUMBERS ARE PRESENTED IN TEXT
                                                                                                                                          SOURCE JACKSONVILLE  DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
          JUNE 1973
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP MAS FINANCIALLY AIDED
THROUGH A FEDERAL QUANT FtOM THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, UNDER THE URBAN
PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY SECTION
701 OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED.

-------
THE
        COMPREHENSIVE  PLAN
                      for
CONSOLIDATED CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
                   A DP A 01 AMMlMfi
U;';  /T" ,^14

 \  i._.r>^'r"'	""^
                                                                                                                                               FIGURE  2-34





                                                                                                                                                PRIVATE


                                                                                                                                       WATER  AND  SEWER


                                                                                                                                          SERVICE  AREAS






                                                                                                                                                  LEGEND

                                                                                                                                         n    SERVfCE AREA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
                                                                                                                                               FACILITIES IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
                                                                                                                                         a                WATER PLANT
                                                                                                                                         3                SEWER PLANT
                                                                                                                                         •         WATER AND SEWER PLANTS

                                                                                                                                         gggg         WATER SERVICE AREA

                                                                                                                                         ^ ^j         SEWER SERVICE AREA

                                                                                                                                         BHH   WATER AND SEWER SERVICE AREAS
                                                                                                                                        DIES SERVICE AREAS SHOWN ARE GENERALIZED, AND ARE
                                                                                                                                          CONSIDERED TO BE PRELIMINARY IN NATURE
                                                                                                                                          TABULAIiONAl FACILITIES BY FACILIIY IDENTIFICATION
                                                                                                                                          NUMBERS ARE  PRESENTED IN TEXT
                                                                                                                                       SOURCE UTILITY REGULATORY BOARD
                                                                                                                                                        JUNE 1973
THE PREPARATION OF THIS MAP WAS FINANCIALLY AIDED

THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, UNDER THE URBAN

PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY SECTION

701 OF THE HOUSING ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED

-------
    Figure 3-1 shows the projected peak flows in the service
area for the design year of 2002.  The population forecasts
discussed earlier in this chapter were used to develop these
flow projections.  The red lines denote the first priority
for interceptor construction.  These lines will connect the
existing city-owned facilities with the proposed regional
plant.  This will improve water guality in the Arlington
River system while allowing for continued commercial and
residential development in that portion of the planning
area.  The existing privately owned systems, shown in green,
will be added to the regional system as they are acquired by
the city.  Areas now being served with properly functioning
septic tank systems will not be reguired to join the
regional system.

    No combined wastewater collection systems exist in the
service area.  The old residential neighborhoods in the
northwestern section of the service area have the only
extensive storm water collection systems.

              b.   Water Quality Planning and Regulations

    In 1972, the Jacksonville Area Planning Board was
awarded a grant by EPA to develop a Water Quality Management
Plan  (WQMP) for Jacksonville.  The service area boundary for
the Arlington East District was developed in the Plan.  The
WQMP was officially adopted by the Florida Pollution Control
Board in October of 1974.  At this time, the Florida
Department of Pollution Control ruled that no new point
source water pollution loads would be allowed to enter
polluted streams.  This order, in effect, banned the
construction of new sewage treatment plants in the Arlington
area unless effluent is retained on site or an outfall is
constructed to the St. Johns River.  The expansion of
existing treatment plants is also prevented.

              c.   Potable Water Systems

    All potable water in the Arlington area is supplied from
groundwater either through private wells or public and semi-
private water systems.  These systems are shown on Figures
2-3U and 2-35 respectively.  These service areas correspond
closely with the currently urbanized portions of the service
area.

    In 1974, the water for the Jacksonville municipal system
came from  92 wells in 11 well fields which produced an
                               145

-------
approximate average of 58 mgd.  Four well fields with 13
wells now serve the Arlington area  (See Table 2-28).  The
city also owns several smaller wells through the purchase of
private systems in the area.  An average of approximately
10 mgd of water is produced for use in the Arlington service
area by the public and private systems.

                         TABLE 2-28

                Ma-jor Municipal Well fields
         Located in the Arlington East Service Area
    Name of
    Well Field
    River Oaks


    Love Grove


    Arlington


    Oak Ridge
Number of
  Wells
Location
of Field
Treatment
               River Oaks Rd.
               Baker Street
               Sprinkle Dr,
               Beachwood
               Blvd.
                Chlorination
                     and Aeration

                     Chlorination
                     and Aeration

                     Chlorination
                     and Aeration

                     Chlorination
                     and Aeration
    Future plans  call  for the continued purchase of private
water supply systems and the continued expansion of the
municipal systems to serve newly developing areas.  By 2002,
virtually all of  the Arlington  East  project area will be
served by the municipal water systems.  Water consumption
will increase to  approximately  27 mgd by the year 2002.  The
current well fields should be sufficient to supply this
demand.

    The city is currently in the process of revising its
water rate structure.  If it receives final approval from
the Jacksonville  City  Council and EPA, the new rate
structure as shown in  Table 2-29 go  into effect.
                               146

-------
                     TABLE 2-29
Commodity Charge - For water
used in excess of the minimum
allowance

Monthly consumption
                          Rates per-r 100 cubic fee-1
                           $
First
Next
Next
Next
All over
      300 cubic feet
    2,700 cubic feet
   47,000 cubic feet
  950,000 cubic feet
1,000,000 cubic feet
Minimum Charge - For the first
300 cubic feet or less monthly

Meter Size
     inches

     5/8
     3/4
    1
    1-1/2
    2
    3
    4
    6
    8
   10
   12
   20
Minimum Charge
      0.40
      0.36
      0.29
      0.22
                          MonthlY Charge
                                3.50
                                3.85
                                4.90
                                6.30
                              10.00
                              40.00
                              50.00
                              75.00
                             100.00
                             135.00
                             160.00
                             700.00
The  existing  rate  structure  is  as  shown in Table  2-30.
                           147

-------
    Monthly Consumption
    First          800 cu. ft.
    Next         4,200 cu. ft.
    Next       15,000 cu. ft.
    Next      980,000 cu. ft.
    All Over 1,000,000 cu. ft.
                              Rates Per
                              100 Cu.  Feet

                              Minimum Charge
                                    $0.25
                                    0.22
                                    0. 18
                                    0. 14
                      Minimum Charges
             (For First 800 Cubic Feet or Less)
Meter
 Size
Inches

   5/8
   3/4
  1
  1-1/2
  2
  3
  4
Monthly
 Charge
	$	

  3.00
  3.50
  4.00
  5.00
  6.00
 10.00
 15.00
Meter
 Size
Inches
  10
  12
  16
  20
Monthly
Charge
	$	

 27.00
 40.00
 50.00
 60.00
 80,00
100.00
         7.   Other Communj.ty Services and Facilities

              a.   Schools and Libraries

    The service area now contains thirteen elementary
schools, three junior high schools, and two senior high
schools, on approximately 300 acres of land  (see Figure 2-
36) .  These schools have a capacity of about 8,700
elementary school students, 3,800 junior high school
students, and 4,000 high school students.

    Additional educational facilities include the Southside
Campus of Florida Junior College, Jacksonville University
and the University of North Florida.

    There is now one branch of the public library in the
service area.  Located on Regency Sguare Boulevard, the
facility occupies approximately one acre of land.  This
facility is now adequately servicing the area.
                              148

-------
                                   CRAIG
                                   AIRPORT
                            BEACH LELVD.
                                                                              KEY
                                                                                    Schools
                                                                              |   |   Colleges and Universities
                                                                               •    Fire
                                                                              A   Health
                                              Source: JAPB
0         5         10
  ^?t
  Thousands of  Feet
Arlington - East  Service  District Boundary
Figure 2-36  - Community Facilities in the Arlington - East Service District

-------
              b•    Public Safety

    Five fire stations are currently located in the service
area.  These are as follows:
         Fire Station_#                Location

              19                  Arlington Road
              20                  Beach at University Blvd
              28                  Southside Boulevard
              29                  St. Johns Bluff Road
              27                  Ft. Caroline Road
    One additional station is currently needed to service
the newly developed area around Regency Square.

    Police services to the area are provided from the
downtown police facility.  There is no immediate need to
provide any precinct stations in the service area.
              c.   Solid Wasre

    Solid waste in the service area has been disposed of at
a sanitary landfill site south of Ft. Caroline Road.   This
site, however, is now full and another site, located between
Girvin Road and Greenfield Creek, south of Singleton Road,
has been selected by the Jacksonville Department of Public
Works to service the area.  The possibility of installing an
incinerator to serve the area's long-term needs is also
being investigated.
              d.   Health Facilities

    Two public health clinics are currently operating in the
service area.  These are located on Arlington Road and on
Jasper Avenue.  Both of these facilities are currently
overcrowded and need expansion.  Three private health
facilities are also present.  These are Hope Haven
Children's Hospital on Atlantic Boulevard, Southside Rest
Home for the Aged on Atlantic Boulevard, and the Trowbridge
Nursing Home on Jasper Avenue.  The service area has two
private hospitals.  These are St. Johns River Hospital on
                             150

-------
Beach Boulevard and Jacksonville Memorial Hospital on
University Boulevard.

         8.   Taxes and Capital Budget

    All of the community facilities and services discussed
above are the basic responsibility of local government with
the exception of state and Federal highways.  The provision
of these services and the collection of revenue to finance
them are simplified in Jacksonville since the city and
county governments have been consolidated.  For this reason
most locally provided services including water supply,
wastewater treatment and disposal, public safety, public
works, health and welfare, and libraries are provided by the
single Consolidated City of Jacksonville.  Only the schools
are run by a totally independent agency, the Duval County
School Board.

    The Fiscal Year 1974-75 budget for Jacksonville totals
$529.3 million.  This money will be divided up among several
funds.  These funds are fiscal and accounting devices which
are used to keep track of revenues and expenditures.  The
largest of these funds is the $88.6 million General Services
District Fund.  Expenditures for health and welfare, public
safety, public works, recreational facilities and libraries,
all come from this fund.  The major sources of revenue for
this fund are the following:

         Ad Valorem Taxes              28.2%
         Revenue Sharing               23.0%
         Jacksonville Electric
           Authority                   20.1%
         Utility Service Tax
            (other than JEA)            17.5%
         Charges for Services           6.0%
         Gasoline Taxes                 4.4%
         Licenses and Permits           3.6%
         Other Sources                 12.0%
         Interagency Transfers       - 14.8%
                                      100.0%

    Money  from three other funds is contributed to services
which are  discussed in this report.  The Water Utility Fund
contains 7.2 million dollars.  The money from this fund
comes from water charges and income on investments and goes
to water service costs.  The Sewer Utility Fund contains
                              151

-------
6.2 million dollars.  The money comes from sewer charges and
goes to sewer service costs.  The Sanitation Fund contains
8 million dollars.  The money comes from disposal fees and
contributions from other funds and provides solid waste
collection and disposal.

    The City's budget also contains 150 million dollars for
the Duval County School Board.  This money comes largely
from ad valorem taxes, interagency transfers, and state and
Federal funds.

    Most of the state money coming into the City is used for
education, welfare, and state roads.  The major sources of
money for the educational and welfare funds are the state
sales tax and revenue from horse and greyhound racing and
jai alai.  State roads are paid for out of gasoline tax
revenue, as are Federal roads.  Other Federal money comes
largely through the income tax.  Most of this money is being
spent as part of the general operating budget rather than
being earmarked for specific projects.
         9.   Other Projects, Programs and Efforts

              a.   Federal

    The Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA, through the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, has
authority to improve water guality by administering a
program of grants for research, planning, engineering and
construction of wastewater treatment facilities and their
appurtenances.  The Amendments also authorize EPA to
establish the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System, under which EPA establishes a permit system for the
discharge of any pollutant into the waters of the United
States.

    Section 208 of the Amendments provides for the
development of an areawide multifacet wastewater management
plan in areas with complex point and non-point source
wastewater problems.  The 208 Plan will include controls for
municipal and industrial point source waste systems, for
pollution emanating from diffuse sources, for protection of
the groundwater and for disposal of residual wastes.  This
program also includes the use of non-structural technigues,
including the control of the use of land for water guality
                              152

-------
management.  The initiation of a 208 planning program in the
Jacksonville area is now under active consideration at both
the local and Federal levels.

    The EPA, through the mandate of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, is author of this
environmental impact statement.  NEPA provides that a
detailed statement be prepared by the responsible official
on major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.  In the present context, the
issuance of grant funds for construction of the proposed
project is considered a significant Federal action.

    Through section  (300) of Public Law 86-660, EPA can
provide fifty percent of the project monies for the
preparation of Water Quality Management Plans  (WQMP).  The
purpose of the plans is to foster the achievement and
maintenance of water quality standards by developing the
most cost effective Regional Water and Sewer Plan.  In early
1972, the Jacksonville Area Planning Board was awarded a
grant by EPA to develop a WQMP for Jacksonville.  The
service area boundary for the Arlington-East area was
developed in the WQMP.

    The Jacksonville District of the Corp of Engineers has
permitting responsibility for any construction activity in
the St. John's River pursuant to Section 10 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1899  (33 U.S.C. 403)  and Section 404(b) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33
U.S.C. 1344) .

    A COE permit based upon this authority will be required
for the outfall line from the proposed waste treatment plant
into the St. John's River.

    Other COE activities related to this project are the
continuing use of Quarantine Island for fill operations, the
proposed channeling of Mill Cove, and the Blount Island
Development project.  It is necessary that the outfall from
the proposed project be constructed so it will have no
significant adverse impact upon these projects as well as
safe navigation and proper flow in the St. John's River.

    The COE is also now in the process of beginning an urban
study in the Jacksonville area.  This three-year study will
involve analysis of hydrology, water supply, flood control,
flood plain management, and urban runoff.  The major
                             153

-------
objective of the study is to develop recommendations to
improve drainaqe patterns in the area.  The Arlington River
drainage basin is one of six major water sheds which will
receive significant attention in this study.

              b.   State

    A reorganization of state environmental agencies was
adopted by the 1975 session of the Florida State
Legislature.  Effective July 1, 1975, the legislation
consolidated various state environmental responsibilities
into two major agencies - the Department of Environmental
Regulations  (DER) and the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) .

    The Department of Environmental Regulations will be
responsible for the enforcement of Florida's currently
existing pollution control and environmental laws and
regulations.  All state environmental permitting authority,
including that needed by the City of Jacksonville to
construct this project, will be centered in this department.

    The Department will be organized into three divisions.
The Division of Environmental Permitting, including duties
and programs relating to power plant certification,
processing of permits, licenses, certificates and
exemptions, enforcement and supervision of district
operations.  The Division of Environmental Programs includes
administration and coordination responsibilities and
supervision of programs relating to planning, grants, air
quality, water quality and quantity, noise and solid waste
management.  The Division of Administrative Services include
personnel, fiscal, purchasing, education and information
activities.

    Five environmental districts are being established by
the DER.  Processing of applications for most permits,
licenses, certificates and exemptions will be accomplished
at the district  level centers as well as related field
services and inspection activities.

    Incorporated into the new agency will be the current
responsibilities and duties of:

         Department of Pollution Control  (except for
         regulation of open burning in connection with rural
         land clearing, agriculture and forestry operations
                               154

-------
         which was  transferred to the Department  of
         Agriculture) .

         Bureau of  Sanitary Engineering of the Florida
         Department of  Health and Rehabilitative  Services
         (except for responsibilities relating to interstate
         common carrier water facilities,  public  swimming
         pools and  bathing areas and the regulation  of
         shellfish).  Provisions were also made for
         interagency agreements with the Division of Health
         or County  Health units for delegating permitting,
         monitoring, serveillance and enforcement, where
         applicable, with respect to public water supply and
         sewage treatment and disposal facilities.

         Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust
         Fund relating to the issuance of permits,
         certificates,  licenses and exemptions, and
         enforcement activities.

         Bureau of  Water Resources of the Department of
         Natural Resources as well as all DNR duties and
         activities relating to permits, licenses and
         exemptions under Chapter 253 F.S. and duties
         relating to water management under Chapter  373 F.S.
         (Water Management Districts) and Chapter 298 F.S.
         (Drainage and Water Management) .

         Division of State Planning which relate to  the
         development of data for the environmental quality
         portions of the State Comprehensive Plan.

    The Division of Natural Resources will maintain  most of
its existing function except for its permitting authority.
These include programs in land management, marine resources,
and beaches and shores protection.  Duties and
responsibilities of the Board of Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund that were not assigned to DER were
transferred to the Department of Natural Resources as were
duties of the Coastal Coordinating Council and the sea
resources section of the Bureau of Sanitary Engineers.

    The DNR will also have the power to review and approve
the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission  (FGFWFC)
budget, however, the FGFWFC will otherwise remain a  separate
entity.
                              155

-------
              c.   Regional

    The Jacksonville Area Planning Board is the regional
planning authority for the project area.  The Board also has
responsibility in the area for the Coastal Zone Management
Program.  The Board has approved the proposed project as
consistent with regional planning objectives.  Further, if a
208 study is undertaken in Jacksonville, the Jacksonville
Area Planning Board will be the designated planning agency
for the project.

              d.   Local

    In October 1973, the Bio-Environmental Services Division
of the Jacksonville Department of Health, Welfare and Bio-
Environmental Services was officialy designated to be a
recognized local program by the Florida Department of
Pollution Control.  As such, the Water Pollution Control
Activity Section of Bio-Environmental Services became the
local agent for processing Construction and Operation
Permits for water pollution sources.

    Application to construct or operate a water pollution
source or applications to construct sewage
collection/transmission systems for projects in Duval County
are now filed with the local program.  If a thorough
engineering review indicates proposed construction is
acceptable, and if plants are meeting standards, permits are
made and forwarded to the Northeast Regional Office of the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulations  (formerly
the Florida Department of Pollution Control).

    The local agency maintains a continuous update of
loadings on all treatment plants, both  from data obtained
from monthly reports and  from data provided by approved
collection systems.  No further connections are allowed to
plants when they become loaded or when  they are not meeting
standards.

    As part of the Water  Quality Management Plan described
under EPA programs, present waste loadings were calculated
for all streams in Duval  County and based upon a computer
model, reduced  allocations through improved treatment  were
figured for each  source.  When all sources meet new, reduced
waste-loading allocations, the waterways of  Duval County
will meet water quality standards.  No  provision was made
for adding new  sources to streams since all  future
                              156

-------
development was projected to be served by the regional
system.

    New waste-load allocations assigned to existing sources
are now tied to the NPDES permit program.  All sources are
required to obtain their Federal permits and the permits
will require sources to upgrade to the new wasteload
allocations by 1977 or discharge into the Regional System.

    In February of 1974, the Florida DPC and Bio-
Environmental Services began requiring all proposed new
water pollution sources to design for treatment levels
required for existing sources in 1977.  These new
requirements increased BOD reduction beyond the 95% levels,
and called for nitrification in order to reduce the ultimate
oxygen demand on the receiving stream.  An alternative to
plant nitrification was allowed if plant effluent was
retained on site for at least 20 days.

    In October 1974, the Florida Pollution Control Board
formally adopted the Jacksonville Area Water Quality
Management Plan.  Full water quality standards were
implemented for Duval County and the Florida DPC indicated
that no new point source water pollution loads would be
allowed to enter polluted streams.  Since virtually all of
the streams in Duval are polluted, including those in the
Arlington service area, no new sewage treatment plants can
now be approved unless effluent is retained on site or an
outfall is constructed to the St. John's River.  These
regulations also prevent expansion of existing sewage
treatment plants.

    Since most municipal and private utility treatment
plants are at capacity and since construction of new or
expanded plants is limited by water quality standards, many
areas of Jacksonville, including the Arlington service area,
are facing a virtual moratorium on building.  Since private
utilities cannot expand their plants and thereby increase
their revenue base, they are reluctant to upgrade plants to
meet 1977 NPDES permit conditions.  Thus, the growth rate in
some sections of the city may be significantly decreased
until the regional treatment system is completed.

    The Bio-Environmental Service Division is also the local
agency responsible for air pollution activities  (see Air
Quality Section of Chapter II).  The Air Pollution Control
Activity Section was created to deal with air pollution
                              157

-------
problems in Jacksonville.  The local agency is placing
increased emphasis on the proper maintenance of control
equipment.  Since March 1973, fourteen notices to correct
have been issued for the failure to maintain pollution
control equipment.  In late 1963, the local agency assumed
responsibility for the administration of the state permit
system.  An engineering review of each permit application is
made to check its compliance with all rules and regulations
before a permit is issued.  All new sources are also
reviewed to insure compliance with EPA new source
performance standards or the local best technology rule
before a construction permit is granted.

    The future emphasis of the agency will be to maintain
the improved air quality obtained by the State
Implementation Plan through enforcement of the maintenance
of control equipment rule, and the implementation of the
AQMA Plan.

    Jacksonville's noise and odor control programs are also
the responsibility of the Bio-Environmental Services
Division.  These programs are discussed in the Noise and
Odor Sections of Chapter II.

    C.   Sensitive

         1-   Sensitive Natural Areas

    Areas within or adjacent to the service district known
to perform a critical environmental function and which have
been proven to be relatively intolerant to manfs
modification are considered to be sensitive, natural areas
(Figure 2-37).
                              158

-------
0          5         10

  Thousands of  Feet
Arlington - East  Service  District  Boundary
                                                                                                                                            /
                                                                                                                             LEGEND

                                                                                                                                  Historic Sites

                                                                                                                                  Arcneoloqicol Sites
                                                                                                                               A  Park And Recreational
                                                                                                                              •• Areas
                                                                                                                              	Heavily Used
  Corridors
  Single Family
  Residential Areas

j Estuaine  Nursery

Tl
j Live  OaK Hammock

» Cypress  Swamp
                                                            FIGURE   2-37
                                                          SENSITIVE  AREAS

-------
              a.   Cypress Swamp  East of Craig Field, and
similar freshwater hardwood swamp areas lying between the
"finger ridges" east and south of Cedar Swamp.  They drain
higher flatwoods and retain nutrients and moisture.

              b.   Estuarine Salt Marsh     Particularly
those around Mill Cove, Chicopit Bay, and along both sides
of the Intracoastal Waterway.  Low marsh areas, type 18,
usually vegetated by Spartjj.na alternifloraf are extremely
valuable.  High marsh, type 17, where Juncus roemerianus
dominates the vegetation, is similarly valuable to the
estuary.

              c.   Hammock Areas surrounding Fort Caroline
Park The magnificant stands of old live oak trees and the
60-80 foot high bluffs overlooking the St. Johns River
constitute a unigue natural area within the service
district.

              3«   Big and Little Pottsburg Creeks.     These
tributaries are unable to assimilate the excessive amounts
of waste they presently receive.  Brackish creeks are sought
by numerous juvenile marine species seeking food and cover.

         2.   Sensitive Man-made Areas

    The sensitive man-made areas in the Arlington-East
District are shown on Figure 2-37.  These areas are as
follows:

              a.   Historical and Archeologjgal Sites

    Once destroyed, historical and archeological resources
cannot be renewed.  If the limited sites still in existence
are not protected, we are in danger of losing the unique
scientific, aesthetic, and recreational benefits which they
can provide.

              b-   Recreational Sites

    In a rapidly urbanizing area such as Arlington, land
which can be used by the general public for outdoor
recreational activity becomes more limited every day.  Thus,
it is necessary to protect existing facilities as well as
develop new ones if future generations are to enjoy the
benefits of parklands and other outdoor recreational
facilities.
                              160

-------
              c.   Single-family Residential Conununities

    The attractiveness of single-family residential
communities is largely dependent upon the degree of impact
of many aspects of the urban environment such as traffic
congestion, noise, odor, and crime.  This attractiveness
becomes more difficult to maintain as the urban environment
expands to include existing residential communities.  An
effective, comprehensive planning process is needed to
maintain existing community character while, at the same
time, providing for the expanded needs of the region as a
whole.

              d.   Heavily Used Traffic Corridors

    The functioning of a modern urban community is dependent
upon the proper operation of its transportation facilities
for the movement of goods, services, and people.  It is
essential for the economic well-being of the community and
for the expeditious movement of local citizens that suitable
transportation facilities be constructed and maintained.
                               161

-------
Ill Alternatives

    A.    General

    This chapter on Alternatives contains a systematic
development of all feasible alternatives for the attainment
of the project objectives and a rational comparison of these
alternatives leading to the selection of one over the
others.  Much general information included in this chapter
of the EIS has been excerpted from The Water Quality
Management Plan for Duval County^ Florida and the
Environmental Assessment Statement for the Arlington-East
Service District.  The development and evaluation of the
alternative systems has been performed independently.

    B.    Development of Viable Subsystem Alternatives

    The development of feasible alternative systems is
divided into four major steps.  First, major subsystems and
possible subsystems alternatives have been identified.
Secondly, the objectives of the project are examined and
subsequent alternatives incapable of meeting the objectives
have been eliminated.  Thirdly, identified constraints to
these alternatives have been applied to reduce the number of
subsystems considered.  Finally, the remaining subsystems'
interactions have been evaluated to further limit feasible
alternatives.

    Possible subsystems to reach project objectives include
both structural as well as non-structural measures.
Structural measures include all facilities constructed.

    Non-structural measures include all other efforts which
can be taken to approach the project's objectives.

         1.   Non-Structural Alternatives

              a)   Waste Management Systems

    The two basic types of waste management systems are
regional and non-regional.  A regional system brings all, or
most of, the service area's wastes into one centralized
location for treatment and disposal.  A non-regional system
decentralizes waste treatment and disposal among a variety
of public and private facilities throughout the service
area.
                               162

-------
    The construction of a regional system in the Arlington-
East service area would obtain the project objective of
removing all discharges from the polluted tributaries of the
St. Johns River.  This type of system would also provide
maximum operational efficiency.  Only a small number of
trained plant operators would be required and monitoring of
plant operations could be easily accomplished.

    A non-regional system in Arlington East could not remove
all discharges from the tributary streams.  It would require
many more plant operators, would be much harder to monitor,
and would be hard-pressed to meet shock episodes.  For these
reasons, the development of a non-regional system would not
successfully obtain the objectives of this project.

              b)   Land Use Development Controls and
                   Management Practices

    Land use and development controls are the tools through
which a community's development policy is carried out.  in
Jacksonville, a zoning ordinance and a subdivision
regulation ordinance are the major tools used to guide
development into the form recommended in the Comprehensive
Development Plan.

    Since the first phase of the project is designed to
serve existing needs, land use controls would not influence
the attainment of project objectives.  These tools could,
however, affect future growth in the area, and accordingly
affect future production of wastewater.

    If the regional system is constructed, water quality
will not act as a constraint to land use decisions made by
the local government.  These land use decisions cannot be
dictated by this impact statement and can change as new
officials are elected to office.  For these reasons, land
use controls are not considered as part of the solution to
projected wastewater treatment needs assuming
regionalization is implemented.

    If the regional system is not constructed, water quality
constraints will limit development in the area.  State water
quality regulations and local septic tank restrictions would
limit potential growth in the area.   In this case, land use
controls must be used to allocate the use of the limited
land which could be put into development.  In this case, a
limited growth policy in the Arlington area alone would
                              163

-------
simply channel this potential qrowth into developments in
other areas of the city which might not be as appropriate
for urban growth  (e.g., areas north of the St.  Johns River
designated for conservation and preservation and areas in
the southern and western ends of the city which are farther
from employment centers).

    The regional system as proposed is based upon the growth
forecasts in the Comprehensive Development Plan for the
Consolidated Cit^ of Jacksonville, 1990 with population
projections extended from that report to the year 2002.  The
proposed regional system will obtain project objectives if
development in the service area proceeds as this plan
forecasts.

    The continuance of a non-regional system would require
an extensive reduction in the growth forecasts by the
Comprehensive Plan to conform to water quality and septic
tank restrictions.  If this occurs, a much more extensive
use of land use controls will be required to help limit and
allocate growth.

              c)   Wastewater Generation Reductions

    A household of four persons will use an average of 255
gallons per day  (gpd) with toilet flushing being the major
element at 100 gpd.  A number of devices both for initial
installation and/or for later modification are available to
reduce domestic water use, with the greatest potential
savings in the toilet flushing area.  It is estimated that a
savings of 10 gpd can be realized by a broad program of
installing water saving devices.

    While this savings would be significant, it would not
negate the need for additional structural treatment
facilities.  The possible decrease of 1 mgd of flow with no
decrease in BOD would still leave a significant need for
additional treatment facilities.  It is also important to
note that these devices have not yet been technically
perfected.  In many cases, two flushes may be required which
negates the water savings and may actually increase the
total wastewater generated.
                              164

-------
              d)    Water and Sewer Rate Structure Alterations

    Numerous studies have revealed that people are more
careful in their use of water when they know that they will
have to pay by the amount used (metering as against flat
rates).  Studies also indicate that increases in rates for
excess water use over what is considered essential use can
lead to a proportional reduction in water consumption.

    Jacksonville currently uses a metering system with a
descending rate structure (i.e., as total use increases, the
price per cubic foot of water used decreases).  A proposed
increase in water and sewer rates is currently under
consideration.  This proposal would maintain a descending
rate structure.  This increase should encourage people to
conserve.  A change to an increasing rate structure (i.e.,
as total use increases, the price per cubic foot increases)
could lead to additional savings of water.  This savings,
however, would be largely felt in "non-essential" outdoor
uses such as watering lawns and car washing, and, as such,
would not be related to the waste water system.  Therefore,
this type of restructuring would not significantly help in
obtaining project objectives.

              e)    Project Phasing

    The project's phasing is the division of its
construction schedule into different time periods based upon
a study of current and projected needs.  The first two
phases of the Arlington-East project are the construction of
a 10 mgd wastewater treatment plant and an interceptor
system to serve areas now served by small city owned plants.
These phases are scheduled for immediate construction to
service existing needs.  The next phases of the project
consist of purchasing existing private systems, extending
interceptors to nearby developing areas, and expanding the
plant to 25 mgd.  The need for plant expansion is based upon
the population projections of the JAPB.  These projections
are based to a significant extent on the completion of the
Dame Point Bridge and the development of Blount Island.  If
these development do not occur as expected, and population
does not grow as projected, the latter phases of the project
can be delayed or cancelled, giving flexibility to the
proposed project.
                              165

-------
         2.    Structural Subsystems

    The structural subsystems to be evaluated include a)
treated effluent disposal, b) plant locations and
interceptor alignments, c) treatment processes, d) sludge
treatment and disposal, and e) odor and f) noise control.

              a)   Treated Effluent Disposal

    There are six major alternatives for disposing treated
effluent.  These include reuse, soil systems, well
injection, ocean outfall, estuarine outfall, and river
outfall.

                   1)   Direct Reuse

    The reuse of wastewater effluent has many advantages,
including saving a valuable resource and solving the
effluent disposal problem.  In the Jacksonville area,
wastewater could potentially  be directly reused as public
water supplies and for industrial process water, cooling
water, and steam generation.

    At present, neither the public nor EPA is encouraging
the direct reuse of  treated wastewater effluent for drinking
water supplies.  Major areas  of concern regarding this
alternative include  failsafe  control of viruses and
inorganic solids  (heavy metals, etc.) It is  EPA*s opinion
that direct reuse of wastewater for drinking water supplies
in the Jacksonville  area  at this time is not a viable
alternative.

    Reuse as an influent  water for cooling purposes, process
water, or steam generation is a desirable additional use of
a resource where the saving of a more valuable resource  may
be realized for a reasonable  cost.  Certainly, each gallon
of water that is used by  an  industry that otherwise would
have to be pumped from the Floridan aquifer  is one gallon
available for an alternative  use.

    Excluding transportation  costs, the cost of reclaiming
wastewater for  industrial reuse should be in the  range of 25
to 30£ per 1,000 gallons.  This cost is approaching the  cost
for effluent treatment and disposal for certain facilities,
particularly the major pulp  and paper industries  in
Jacksonville.   However, the Arlington-East  service area  is
isolated from any major industrial water  users, and the
                               166

-------
potential benefits from reuse in this area cannot be
realized without excessive costs in transporting the
wastewater to the facilities.

                   2)   Soil Systems

    Utilization of local soil systems is to be considered as
an economical, environmentally sound, and mutually
beneficial means of disposing of septic tank discharge
and/or treated effluent.  To be favorably considered in this
regard, the soils to be utilized must possess proper
physical, chemical, and drainage characteristics, as well as
adequate areal distribution.

                        (a)   Septic tanks

    The most common septic tank system combines the tank
itself with a soil leaching or absorption field which
receives the overflowing liquid wastes from the tank after a
period of detention.  About half of the particulate solids
in the sewage settle out and are retained in the septic
tank.  The liquid portion of the waste, plus non-settleable
solids, overflow the tank into an underground perforated
pipe network which distributes the wastes over a large soil
area by allowing percolation into the soil and ultimate
entry into the groundwater regime.

    Under controlled circumstances, septic tank systems have
a place in Jacksonville's wastewater disposal program.
There are specific locations within the county where these
systems have been functioning satisfactorily for years
without a public health or water pollution problem.  These
areas are characterized by large lot sizes, sandy soils, and
a water table deeper than three feet below ground surface.
Figure 2-22 shows the largest concentration of these
satisfactorily functioning areas to be located in the
western half of the Arlington-East Service District.  The
remainder of the Service District is characterized by poorly
drained soils including stream flood plains and extensive
marshlands that cannot support septic tank systems  (refer to
Figure 2-10 and Table 2-9) .

    The soil and drainage constraints in the Arlington-East
area preclude the choice of septic tank sewage disposal
techniques as a viable alternative for some new residential
construction.  However, in the county as a whole, septic
tank disposal systems will be used extensively to service at
                              167

-------
least a portion of new single family housing during the next
30 years.  In the county, and in Arlington-East, new septic
tank permits for residential and commercial installations
should continue to be issued if technical and legal
guidelines are satisfied and if connecting to a conventional
sewage treatment system is not feasible.

                         (b)   Land spreading

    In Duval County, effluent disposal through land
spreading has been evaluated for the purposes of groundwater
recharge and crop irrigation.

    Large quantities of secondary treated effluent are being
used in other areas of the county for groundwater recharge.
Moreover, long-term monitoring of water quality effects on
the receiving groundwater aquifers has verified the safe
public health aspects of these operations.

    Wastewater spreading in shallow basins is usually
carried out in an intermittent wetting and drying cycle;
that is, a string of basins will be supplied with effluent
for three to five days, then dried for fifteen to twenty
days.  At the start of the wetting cycle, the groundwater
table should be at least 25 to 30 feet below the bottom of
the spreading basins.  Such a series of shallow basins could
be constructed in much of the undeveloped land surrounding
the urban centers of Duval County.  However, since almost
all of the county is underlain by a groundwater table less
than five feet from the surface, operational problems would
undoubtedly occur in a very short period of time and would
probably result in stagnant ponds of sewage effluent.  This
is not to say that land treatment in Duval County is
impossible.  Studies have shown that if the effluent were
piped to remote areas of the county and spread on
extraordinarily large tracts of land, effective treatment
could result.  The costs for such a scheme are prohibitively
high, however, and one of the prime purposes of the
operation—that of groundwater recharge—cannot be
effectively accomplished in Duval County by such means in
any case since the shallow aquifer in this area does not
recharge the Floridan aquifer.  Large scale land spreading
of effluent for the purpose of groundwater recharge has thus
been shown not to be a feasible alternative in the county,
and certainly, in the Arlington area.
                               168

-------
    Another variation of land spreading is crop irrigation
through the use of sewage effluent.  Common irrigation
practices are used, but the land area required is invariably
large due to necessarily large unit loadings.  As in shallow
basin spreading, the main process of wastewater renovation
is the chemical, biological, and physical interactions with
the soil.

    The utilization of sewage effluent for crop irrigation
requires that the system be located in a geographical area
where year-round crops can be grown.  If there is a dormant
season, as in north Florida, the waste must be stored or
disposed of elsewhere.  Moreover, the land requirements
necessary to make irrigation function in northern Florida's
relatively wet climate are impractical since about 160 acres
of irrigated land would be required for one million gallons
per day of effluent.  Further, the physical problems to be
encountered are much the same as described for shallow basin
effluent spreading.

    These factors, combined with the fact that there are no
irrigated agricultural lands under cultivation in Duval
County  (and, therefore, no need for irrigation waters),
render land spreading for crop irrigation a non-viable
alternative in Arlington and in the county as a whole.

                   3)   Well Injection

                        (a)  Deep Well Injection

    Subsurface injection of partially treated wastes into
saline aquifers is considered by many governmental agencies
and private groups as an attractive alternative for final
disposal.  To ensure protection against pollution and other
environmental damage, the EPA has established a policy on
subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection which, in
general, provides for protection of the subsurface
environment by proper design, testing, and monitoring of
deep well injection systems and by plugging and abandoning
such systems if they fail or when new or better techniques
for fluid disposal are developed.

    A prime consideration in subsurface waste disposal is to
ensure that the injected waste will not pollute potable
water supplies or damage other subsurface resources.  This
is largely a function of local geology; idealy, there should
be a permeable zone containing saline water below the fresh
                               169

-------
water aquifer, and the two must be separated by relatively
impermeable confining layers to prevent the upward movement
of injected waste into the overlying fresh water supplies.
Inspection of logs from three deep wells in the Jacksonville
area indicates that geologic and hydrologic conditions may
be favorable to deep well liquid injection systems.  Here
the Floridan aquifer extends to about 2,100 feet below mean
sea level and is separated from 400 to 500 feet of probably
permeable beds of limestone and dolomite by about 1,000 feet
of relatively impermeable gypsum, anhydrite, and dolomite
beds.  Another permeable zone consisting of basal calcareous
sandstone beds lies between 3,700 and 4,500 feet below mean
sea level.

    Determining the feasibility of a deep liquid waste
disposal system in Duval County would involve drilling a
test well into these deep zones and conducting injection
quantity tests.  Additional wells would then have to be
drilled into the injection zone and into the overlying
Floridan aquifer to monitor the movement of effluent.

    Previous experience in Florida indicates that 5 to 10
mgd per well can be injected into limestone and dolomite
strata.  Emplacement of secondary treated wastewaters
through wells into the limestone and dolomite strata below
the Floridan aquifer must thus be considered a potential
viable disposal alternative in Jacksonville.  Three basic
areas of concern, however, remain to be adequately
addressed:

                   1)   that such waste emplacement is
                        physically possible on a long-term
                        basis,
                   2)   that it will not interfere with
                        present or potential use of the
                        Floridan aquifer, and
                   3)   that it is the best waste disposal
                        alternative in terms of overall
                        environmental protection.

    Based on the present available technology, lack of
adequate knowledge of the local geohydrologic regime, and
economic advantages of other wastewater effluent disposal
methods, deep well injection is considered non-viable for
immediate and large-scale applications in Duval County.
                              170

-------
                        (b)   Shallow Well Injection

    The shallow water aquifer underlying Duval County
consists of thin limestone, shell, and sand beds separated
from the Ploridan aquifer by the relatively impermeable
Hawthorne Formation.  Nowhere in the project area are these
beds of sufficient thickness to allow consideration for
large-scale shallow well injection of effluent.  In
addition, the morphology of the shallow water aquifer would
undoubtedly allow injected wastewaters to move without
benefit of adequate filtration.  Thus, such wastewater could
be withdrawn with little change in quality by domestic
supply wells using the aquifer.  Even if the local geology
were favorable for shallow well injection, a higher level of
treatment than is now proposed would be needed for the
protection of the shallow aquifer as a potable water supply.
For these reasons, shallow well injection of effluent is not
considered viable for immediate or large scale applications
in the project area.

                   4)   Surface Water Outfalls

    Two basic methods of disposal by dilution in surface
waters have been examined in the Jacksonville area.  These
alternatives are ocean disposal and discharge to local
estuarine waters.

                         (a)  Ocean Disposal

    Discharge of liquid wastes to the ocean is one of the
most obvious means of disposal available to a coastal area.
It is accomplished by submarine outfalls that consist of a
section of pipe to transport the effluent some distance from
the shore and a diffuser section to insure adequate dilution
with seawater.

    In the Jacksonville area,  some of the disadvantages of
waste disposal into  inland waterways would be overcome by
the use of ocean outfalls at the expense of the ocean
environment.  The primary environmental constraints to this
alternative are the  adverse impacts attendant to pipeline
construction in estuarine and.littoral waters.  The
overriding constraint, however, which eliminates ocean
disposal  from consideration for immediate local application
is costs.  For the Arlington-East plant, these costs remain
prohibitive even when ocean disposal is considered in
combination with other regional treatment plants.
                             171

-------
                         (b)  Disposal To Local Estuarine
Waters

    In Duval County there are two main classes of available
receiving waters—the St. Johns River and the streams
tributary to it.

    Discharge to the Tributaries— For purposes of this
discussion, the tributaries include all local surface
waterways other than the main stream of the St. Johns River,
including the Intracoastal Waterway.  As noted in Chapter
II, the drainage areas of these streams are small; fresh
water inflow during dry weather is quite limited; gradients
are flat; and tidal action is prevalent.  Notwithstanding
these constraints, it is not impossible to continue
discharging wastewater effluent to the tributaries provided
that many of the existing systems are expanded and upgraded.

    Certainly the only method of tributary disposal in
Arlington and in the county as a whole, which can be at all
considered, would be that from a decentralized treatment
plan.  However, tributary disposal puts the effluent close
to urban areas, hence the reliability of treatment must
weigh heavily in the consideration of this alternative.  An
additional and very significant adverse effect of promoting
a decentralized treatment scheme is the perpetration of a
large number of separate point sources of waste disposal
with attendant monitoring and enforcement hardships.
Finally, such a system requires a heavy investment in
treatment  facilities and associated operation and
maintenance costs.  For these reasons, effluent discharge to
the tributaries is considered a non-viable alternative in
the project area.

    Discharge to the St. Johns River - Effluent discharge to
the St. Johns River is the only acceptable method of
estuarine  disposal available to regional treatment plants in
Jacksonville.  The river's flushing dynamics, as described
in Chapter II, are extremely complex.  In general, however,
it may be  said that:

                         (1)  About  10 percent of the outflow
                             of the St. Johns River is
                             returned to the river system
                             during successive tidal
                             reversals.
                               172

-------
                        (2)   The dynamics of ebb and flood
                             tidal periods could result in
                             liquid wastes discharged to the
                             river being delayed in their
                             passage to the ocean.   However,
                             the tremendous dilution volumes
                             available within the Duval
                             County reach of the river act
                             to suppress adverse dissolved
                             oxygen reactions from organic
                             loadings.

                        (3)   The existing benthic demand in
                             combination with periodic input
                             of storm water pollutants
                             creates an oxygen demand far in
                             excess of the BOD of projected
                             wastewater from secondary
                             treatment.

    Disposal of wastewater from the Arlington-East plant to
the St. Johns River would result in a substantial
improvement of the water quality in the tributaries of the
Service District.  In addition, the Water Quality Management
Plan has demonstrated that organic waste loads surpassing
those expected by the year 2002 can be assimilated by the
St. Johns River without violation of current stream water
quality standards and meeting prevailing effluent criteria.
Moreover, secondary treatment and St. Johns River discharge
has been determined to be by far the most cost-effective of
all the fundamental treatment/disposal options evaluated by
the WQMP.  Consequently, this alternative is considered the
most viable for immediate local application.

         b.   Plant Locations and Interceptor Alignments

    Twelve alternative sites and interceptor systems have
been identified in the Arlington-East Area as potential
wastewater treatment plant sites.  These sites and systems
are shown individually on Figures 3-1 through 3-11 with the
exception of Alternative 12 for which graphics are not
available.  Figure 3-12 shows the locations of all
alternative plant sites collectively.
                              173

-------
                                                                     B   £ ,  I,  SCALE    IK   THOUSANDS    Of    F
 Sewage Treatment Plant Site
 Plant Outfall, Diameter and Length as Noted
 Transmission System for Existing City
   Owned Systems
 Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
   as Noted
 Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing Private
   Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
   as Noted
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Service District Boundary
                    FIGURE  3-2

                ALTERNATIVE NO. 2

DUNES AREA SITE AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

-------
Sewage Treatment Plant Site
Plant Outfall, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing City
   Owned Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity ijjj
   as Noted
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing Private
   Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
   as Noted                             DAME POINT - FORT CAROLINE FREEWAY INTERCHANGE SITE
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Service District Boundary
          FIGURE  3-3
     ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

-------
Sewage Treatment Plant Site
Plant Outfall, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing City
  Owned Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
  is Noted
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing Private
  Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
  a: Noted
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Service District Boundary
                          FIGURE  3-4
                     ALTERNATIVE NO. 4
SITE NORTH OF CRAIG FIELD AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

-------
                                                                                                                                           Si  I   SOU   IN   IHOUSSHDS   OF    fEtl
                                                                      Sewage Treatment Plant Site
                                                                      Plant Outfall, Diameter and Length as Noted
                                                                      Transmission System for Existing City
                                                                        Owned Systems
                                                                      Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
                                                                        as Noted
                                                                      Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
                                                                      Transmission System for Existing Private
                                                                        Systems
                                                                      Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
                                                                        as Noted
                                                                      Force Main, Diameter and Leng* as Noted     SITE EAST OF CRAIG FIELD AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM "A"
                                                                      Service District Boundary
     FIGURE 3-5
ALTERNATIVE NO. 5
178"

-------
                                                                     Sewage Treatment Plant Site
                                                                     Plant Outfall, Diameter and Length as Noted
                                                                     Transmission System for Existing City
                                                                       Owned Systems
                                                                     Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
                                                                       as Noted
                                                                     Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
                                                                     Transmission System for Existing Private
                                                                       Systems
                                                                     Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
                                                                       as Noted
                                                                     Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
                                                                     Service District Boundary
                          FIGURE  3-6
                      ALTERNATIVE NO. 6
SITE EAST OF CRAIG FIELD AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM "B"
179

-------
                                                                          SCALE   IN   THOUSANDS   OF    FEET
                                                                           ATLANTIC
                                                                            gSACH
Sewage Treatment Plant Site
Plant Outfall, Diameter and Length as Noted     i
Transmission System for Existing City
  Owned Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
  as Noted                             '•«'
                                                                                JACKSON VUIE
                                                                                   BEACH
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing Private
  Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
  as Noted
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Service District Boundary
                     FIGURE  3-7
                ALTERNATIVE NO. 7
SITE INSIDE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF CRAIG FIELD
         AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM "A"

-------
                                                                                       SCUt   IN   THOUSANDS   OF    FEET
          Sewage Treatment Plant Site
          Plant Outfall, Diameter and Length as Noted
          Transmission System for Existing City
            Owned Systems
          Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
            as Noted                              ««
          Force Main,  Diameter and Length as Noted
          Transmission System for Existing Private
            Systems
          Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
            as Noted
          Force Main,  Diameter and Length as Noted
• • •   Service District Boundary
                 ALTERNATIVE NO. 8
SITE INSIDE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF CRAIG FIELD
          AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM "B"

-------
                                                                              SCftlE    III   THOUSANDS   Of    FEE!
Sewage Treatment Plant Site
Plant Outfall, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing City
  Owned Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
  as Noted
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing Private
  Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
  as Noted
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Service District Boundary
                     FIGURE  3-9
                ALTERNATIVE NO. 9
BEACON HILLS SITE AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

-------
                                                                             SCALE    IN   IHDUSSUDS   OF    FEE1
                                                                                   JACKSONVILLE
                                                                                      BEACH
Sewage Treatment Plant Site
Plant Outfall, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing City
  Owned Systems
Pumping Station, Identification end Capacity
  as Noted                             fll
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing Private
  Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
  as Noted
Force Main, Diameter and Length as Noted
Service District Boundary
                  FIGURE  3-10

             ALTERNATIVE NO. 10

SPANISH POINT SITE AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

-------
                                                                                                                                                      JACKSONVILLE
                                                                                                                                                         BEACH
Sewage Treatment Plant Site
Plant Outfall, Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing City
  Owned Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
  as Noted
Force Main,  Diameter and Length as Noted
Transmission System for Existing Private
  Systems
Pumping Station, Identification and Capacity
  as Noted
Force Main,  Diameter and Length as Noted
Service District Boundary
                                                                                                                                       FIGURE 3-11
                                                                                                                                 ALTERNATIVE NO. 11
                                                                                                              QUARANTINE ISLAND SITE AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
184"

-------
                                                                                                             Commerc
                                                                                                   ATLANTIC

                                                                                                    • f ACH
                                                                                                    ,          FIGURE 3-12

                                                                                                  ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PLANT SITES

                                                                                                       ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
185

-------
    The twelve alternative systems are identified as
follows:

    Alternative                                   Figure
    	Number	         Description              Number

         Iq        Millcoe Road  (System A)          3-1
         Ib        Millcoe Road  (System B)
         2q        Dunes Area Site    (System A)     3-2
         2b        Dunes Area Site (System B)
         3         Dame Point-Fort Caroline
                   Freeway Interchange              3-3
         14         North of Craig Field             3-4
         5         East of Craig Field (System A)   3-5
         6         East of Craig Field (System B)   3-6
         7         Inside Craig Field (System A)     3-7
         8         Inside Craig Field (System B)     3-8
         9         Beacon Hills                      3-9
        10         Spanish Point.                     3-10
        11         Quarentine Island                 3-11
        12         Inside Southern Boundary of
                   Craig Field

    These alternatives were identified by the City, by the
public, and by the EPA.  The sites, except site No. 3, are
assumed to be rectangular in shape, 1000 feet X 2000 feet,
containing approximately 45.9 acres.  Site Number 3, the
Dame Point-Fort Caroline Freeway site, is assumed to require
a larger site since it must accommodate highway interchange
structures as well as the treatment facilities.  For this
alternative, a rectangular site, 1000 feet by 3000 feet,
containing approximately 69 acres is assumed.

    A brief description of each alternative is given below.

              1)    Alternative la - Millcoe Road System

                   (a)  Plant Location

    The Millcoe Road site is a 46.98 acre tract of land
located between Merrill Road and Monument Road, on the east
side of Millcoe Road right-of-way.  The closest residential
area. Holly Oaks, lies to the east of the plant site, at a
distance of no less than one-quarter mile from the property
line.
                                186

-------
    The site is located in a generally well-drained wooded
area at an average elevation 40 feet* above mean sea level.
There are some wet areas on the north edge of the plant
site.  A 200-foot wide buffer zone and screen would be
retained on the east side and a 100-foot wide buffer zone on
the north, west, and south sides.  In addition, a 98-acre
wooded area on the north and east side between the plant
site and the Holly Oaks development, would be purchased by
the City of Jacksonville and reserved as a park type
recreational area.

    Treated plant effluent would be discharged through
13,800 feet of 48-inch force main, including 7,500 feet of
subaqueous line, north across Mill Cove and Quarantine
Island to the main channel of the St. Johns River.

                    (b)  Pressure Manifold System

    The pressure manifold system serving the Arlington-East
District and tributary to this site would consist of 32
pumping stations, and 245,500 feet of force main ranging
from 6-inch to 54-inch in diameter.

              2)   Alternative Ib  - Millcoe Road  (System B)

    This alternative is the same as 1A, except that the
outfall line is rerouted along Fort Caroline Road and
discharges into the St. Johns River in the ship channel
opposite the eastern end of Blount Island.  This disposal
location will require approximately 20,000 feet of 48-inch
force main, including 200 feet of subaqueous line.

              3)   Alternative 2q - Dunes Area System

                    (a)  Plant Location

    The Dunes Area plant site is located on the northeast
corner of the projected intersection of Lone Star and
Gilmore Heights Roads.

    Projection of the future Southside Boulevard extension
 (Dame Point Freeway) through this area must be considered.
The northeast corner of the intersection was selected  for
study since it is further from existing residential areas
than other locations.  There is  no natural screening in the
strip mine areas, since the dunes area is almost completely
devoid of vegetation.  A plant in this location would  be
                                187

-------
within a lake and marsh area, and groundwater is high.  Sand
in the dunes area has been so "mined" in the past that all
minerals and organic materials have been removed, and the
sand itself is of such "ball-bearing" nature as to be of
poor quality foundation material.

    Treated plant effluent would be discharged through
17,700 feet of 48-inch force main, including 7,500 feet of
subaqueous line, across Mill Cove and Quarantine Island to
the main channel of the St. Johns River.

                    (b)  Pressure Manifold System

    The pressure manifold system tributary to the Dunes Area
Plant would be guite similar to that serving the Millcoe
Road site.  This system was estimated to require 32 pumping
stations, including 2 master pumping stations, and 248,100
feet of force main ranging from 6-inch to 54-inch in
diameter.

              1)   Alternative 2b - Dunes Area Site
                    (System B)

    This alternative is the same as 2g except that the
outfall iine is rerouted along Merrill and Fort Caroline
Road and discharges into the ship channel in the St. Johns
River opposite the eastern end of Blount Island.  This
disposal location will require approximately 25,000 feet of
48-inch force main, including 200 feet of subaqueous line.

              5)   Alternative 3 - Dame Point/Fort Caroline
                   Freeway

                    (a)  Plant Location

    It was proposed that the Arlington-East District Sewage
Treatment Plant be located beneath the intersection of the
proposed Fort Caroline Freeway and the Dame Point Freeway
(northwest of the Millcoe Road site), the intersection being
of the elevated type over the plant area.  In addition to
treatment plant costs, it is estimated elevated roadway
support structures would cost an additional $16,000,000 in
order to accommodate plant structures constructed beneath.
Also, approximately 24 additional acres of land would need
be purchased, over the basic 47 acre area contemplated, for
clearance purposes.
                             188

-------
    Treated plant effluent would be discharged through
11,200 feet of 48-inch force main, including 4,300 feet of
subaqueous line, north across Mill Cove and Quarantine
Island to the main channel of the St. Johns River.

                   (b)  Pressure Manifold System

    The pressure manifold system tributary to this location
would, for the most part, be similar to that used for the
Millcoe Road system.  It is estimated this system would
require 33 pumping stations, including three master pumping
stations, and 250,100 feet of force main, ranging from 6-
inch to 54-inch in diameter.

              6)   Alternative 4 - North of Craig Field

                   (a)  Plant Location

    Investigation was made of a plant site on the north side
of Craig Field, south of Monument Road, east of and adjacent
to Derringer Road.  This location would not be in the flight
path of aircraft using Craig Field, although height
restrictions would need be observed.  This location is in an
area of high groundwater as evidenced by palmetto growth and
cypress swamps.  Average ground elevation is 40^ feet above
mean sea level.

    Treated plant effluent would be discharged through
17,800 feet of  48-inch force main, including 200 feet of
subaqueous line, north to the main channel of the St. Johns
River.

                    (b)  Pressure Manifold System

    The pressure manifold system for this location would be
a further modification of the Millcoe Road system.  It is
estimated this  system would require 33 pumping stations,
including three master pumping stations, and 253,500 feet of
force main, ranging from 6-inch to 54-inch in diameter.
1,200 feet of 54-inch line would need be installed on pile
supports because of swamp conditions.
                               189

-------
              7)    Alternative 5 - East of Craig Field,
                   System "A"

                   (a)   Plant Location

    Investigation was made of a plant site on the east side
of a power line easement extending in a north/south
direction and one-half mile east of the east boundary of
Craig Field.  This is in an area of relatively high ground,
40+ feet above mean sea level, between Mt. Pleasant Creek on
the east side, and Possum Head Swamp on the west.
Approximately 3,000 feet of access road would be required to
reach the plant site from Atlantic Boulevard.

    Treated plant effluent would be discharged through
21,500 feet of 48-inch force main, including 200 feet of
subaqueous line, north to the main channel of the St. Johns
River.

                   (b)   Pressure Manifold System

    Under System "A", tributary to the site east of Craig
Field, sanitary sewage from those areas on the north side of
the Arlington-East District would be collected and brought
in by force main around the north side of Craig Field and
south along the power line to the plant site.  The southern
areas of the District would be collected into a 54-inch
pressure line routed around the south side of Craig Field
and north along the power line to the plant site.

    It is estimated this system would require 34 pumping
stations, including five master pumping stations, and
254,300 feet of force main, ranging from 6-inch to 54-inch
in diameter.  Approximately 21,000 feet of 54-inch force
main would be required for this system.  It is estimated
some 4,000 feet of 36-inch line would require pile bent
supports, and 9,000 feet of 54-inch line would require pile
bent supports.

              8)   Alternative 6 - East of Craig Field,
                   System "B"

                   (a)   Plant Location

    Plant location and facilities including the outfall line
would be the same as in System "A" for the site east of
Craig Field.
                                190

-------
                   (b)   Pressure Manifold System

    This system is similar to System "A" discussed above,
except that the southern areas of the Arlington-East
District were collected to a point on the west side of Craig
Field, then carried in a 54-inch line across the center of
Craig Field to the plant site.  It may be necessary to shut
down this airfield while such construction was taking place.

    It is anticipated this pressure system would require 34
pumping stations, including five master stations, and
258,000 feet of force main, 6-inch to 54-inch in diameter.
Special casing or tunnel liner would be required for
construction beneath the runways.  Because of swamp
crossings, some 4,000 feet of 36-inch line and 5,000 feet of
54-inch line would require pile bent supports.

              9)   Alternative 2 ~ Inside East Boundary,
                   Craig Field, System "A"

                   (a)   Plant Location

    As an alternate to the plant site located adjacent to
the power line east of Craig Field, a site was investigated
inside and adjacent to the east boundary of Craig Field.
This site would be in a swamp area known as Cedar Swamp.  In
order to provide suitable support for plant facilities, it
would be necessary for the entire area within the plant's
perimeter road, exclusive of building structures, to be
demucked and backfilled with suitable material to a depth of
five feet.  Areas around building structures, 10 feet beyond
the building line, would be demucked and backfilled with
suitable material to a depth 15 feet below ground surface.

    Plant access road would be extended across Cedar Swamp
east to the power line easement area, then south to Atlantic
Boulevard for a total of approximately 4,300  feet.  Treated
plant effluent would be discharged through 25,400 feet of
48-inch force main, including 200 feet of subaqueous line,
east across Cedar Swamp to the power line area, thence north
along the power line easement and to the main channel of the
St. Johns River.  Because of the swamp crossing, it is
estimated 1,400 feet of this outfall will require pile bent
supports.
                                 191

-------
                    (b)  Pressure Manifold System

    The pressure manifold system for System "A" tributary to
this site inside Craig Field is the same as System "A" for
the site located east of Craig Field along the power line.
Plant influent lines  (as well as the effluent line)  would be
routed along the power line easement, in order to stay out
of the swamp area between McCormic Road and Atlantic
Boulevard (Cedar Swamp).  Approximately midway between these
two roads, all lines would be routed west from the power
line, across 1,400+. feet of swamp to the plant site.  It is
anticipated this system would require 34 pumping stations,
and 259,500 feet of force main, ranging from 6-inch to 54-
inch diameter.  Also, it is estimated 5,400 feet of 36-inch
and 10,400 feet of 54-inch line will require pile bent
supports.

              10)  Alternative 8 - Inside East Boundary,
                   Craig Field, System "B"

                    (a)  Plant Location

    Plant location and facilities, including the outfall
line, would be the same as in System "A" for the site inside
the east boundary of Craig Field.

                    (b)  Pressure Manifold System

    As an alternate to routing the 54-inch force main around
the south side of Craig Field and along the power line
easement, an investigation was made of routing this 54-inch
trunk through the center of Craig Field from the west.  It
probably would be necessary to shut down the airfield while
such construction was taking place.

    It is anticipated this pressure system would require 34
pumping stations, including five master pumping stations,
and 256,700 feet of force main, ranging from 6-inch to 54-
inch diameter.  Special casing or tunnel liner would be
required for construction beneath the runways.  A total of
17,100 feet of 54-inch force main would be required under
this system, as compared to 3,700 feet for the Millcoe Road
system.  Because of swamp conditions, it is estimated 1,400
feet of 42-inch and 3,600 feet of 54-inch force main will
require pile bent supports.
                               192

-------
              11)  Alternative 9 - Beacon Hills System

                   (a)   Plant Location

    An investigation was made of a plant site location
northwest of the Beacon Hills Development, on the north side
of Mill Cove Road and approximately 1600 feet west of Fulton
Road.  This site, adjacent to the St. Johns River, is in a
very low area, less than 10 feet above mean sea level, and
would require either perimeter diked construction, or a
considerable amount of fill to raise the general level above
the high water elevation.  Groundwater would also be a major
problem of construction.  However, the plant effluent
pumping station required at all other previously discussed
locations could be deleted and the 48-inch pressure outfall
replaced with a 60-inch gravity line.  Plant effluent would
be discharged through 2,000 feet of this 60-inch gravity
line, including 500 feet of subaqueous line, north to the
main channel of the St. Johns River.

                   (b)   Pressure Manifold System

    The pressure manifold system tributary to this plant
location would essentially be a modification of the Millcoe
Road system.  Additional master pumping stations would be
required at the intersection of Lone Star Road and Monument
Road; and at the intersection of Monument and McCormick
Roads.  It is estimated this system would require 34 pumping
stations, and 261,600 feet of force main ranging from 6-inch
to 54-inch diameter.  In this system, 31,600 feet of 54-inch
force main would be required.

              12)  Alternative 10 - Spanish Point System

                   (a)   Plant Location

    The Spanish Point plant site is located approximately
500 feet east of Mt. Pleasant Road and just north of Mud
Flats Creek.  Plant site elevations range from 10 to 40 feet
above mean sea level, and groundwater is high in certain
areas.

    Treated plant effluent would be discharged through
14,000 feet of 48-inch force main, including 300 feet of
subaqueous line, extending north and west along Mt. Pleasant
Road and Fort Caroline Road, thence north through the Beacon
Hills area to the main channel of the St. Johns River.  This
                              193

-------
routing was selected in order to bypass the large sand dunes
along the St. Johns River and the Fort Caroline Memorial.

                    (b)  Pressure Manifold System

    The pressure manifold system tributary to this plant
location would also be essentially a modification of the
Millcoe Road system, as was the Beacon Hills system.  It is
estimated this system would also reguire 34 pumping
stations, including 4 master pumping stations, and 262,800
feet of force main ranging from 6-inch to 54-inch diameter.
In this system, 28,000 feet of 54-inch force main would be
required.

              13)   Alternative 11 - Quarantine Island System

                    (a)  Plant Location

    The Quarantine Island plant site is located on the east
end of the island, center point of the site being located
approximately 2,000 feet due west from the center of the
"weir" between Quarantine Island and Reed Island on the
mainland.  Road access to this site would be through Beacon
Hills, and would reguire construction of some 9,000 feet of
new roadway plus 800 feet of bridge across to the island.

    The Quarantine Island site is a very low area, less than
10 feet above mean sea level, of poor foundation material,
and, as the area is surrounded by the St. Johns River, would
require special dewatering facilities, piling support, and a
considerable amount of sand fill to raise the plant site
perimeter road and the area within to elevation 10 feet
above mean sea level.  This elevation is considered the
minimum safe elevation above high water for building
construction.  Because of the proximity of the river, the
perimeter slope of the sand fill should be covered with
riprap to a depth of two feet.

    The plant effluent pumping station reguired at all other
locations, except the Beacon Hills site, could be deleted
and the 48-inch pressure outfall replaced with a 60-inch
gravity line.  Plant effluent would be discharged through
2,200 feet of this  60-inch line, including 1,200 feet of
subaqueous line, north to the main channel of the St. Johns
River.

                    (b)  Pressure Manifold System
                                194

-------
    The pressure manifold system tributary to this plant
location would essentially be a modification of the Millcoe
Road system.  An additional master pumping station would be
required at the intersection of Millcoe Road right-of-way
and Fort Caroline Road.  The 54-inch force main serving
present City utilities and the 36-inch force main required
to serve present utilities in the west and northwest areas
of the Arlington-East District, would cross over to
Quarantine Island on the west side of Mill Cove, while the
force main required for present private utilities in the
northeast area of the District would pass through Beacon
Hills and come into the Quarantine Island site from the east
side.

    It is estimated this system would require 33 pumping
stations, including three master pumping stations, and
262,200 feet of force main ranging from 6-inch to 54-inch
diameter.  In this system, 20,800 feet of 54-inch force main
would be required.

              14)  Alternatjy e_ 12 - Inside the Southern
                   Boundary of Craig Field.

                   (a)  Plant Location

    This site is located on the southern edge of Craig Field
in an area presently proposed to be for expansion of Craig
Field facilities.  The site has good access from Atlantic
Boulevard.  The site is generally well drained with pockets
of wet areas.  There is a residential area located
approximately 900 feet to the south across Atlantic
Boulevard.

    Treated plant effluent would be routed north across the
eastern edge of Craig Airport property and then up Monument
Road and Fort Caroline Road with a discharge into the St.
Johns shipping channel opposite the eastern edge of Blount
Island.  Approximately 30,000 feet of 48-inch force main
including 200 feet of subaqueous line would be required.
              c.   Treatment Processes

    A complete facility for treatment of wastewater includes
many component parts, each to some degree dependent on the
previous component to perform properly.  The various
processes can be broken down into pretreatment, primary
                                195

-------
treatment, secondary treatment, advanced treatment, and
disinfection.  The treatment components used and overall
system design is dependent on the allowable pollutant
concentrations.  In the Jacksonville Arlington-East area,
all viable disposal alternatives, outfalls to the St. Johns
River, are "effluent limited."  This means that if secondary
treatment is provided for the wastewater, no violations of
water quality will result.  Therefore, the effluent is
limited to the minimum allowable by law, which is secondary
treatment.

    Secondary treatment is defined as:

                        1)   Biochemical oxygen demand  (BOD)
                             shall be limited to a monthly
                             average of 30 mg/1 and a weekly
                             average of 45 mg/1.

                        2)   Suspended solids shall not
                             exceed 30 mg/1 as a monthly
                             average and 45 mg/1 as a weekly
                             average.

                        3)   Fecal coliform counts shall not
                             exceed 200 per 100 ml as a
                             monthly average and 400 per 100
                             ml as a weekly average.

                        4)   pH shall be within 6.0 and 9.0.

    Biochemical Oxygen Demand is the amount of oxygen per
unit volume of wastewater (usually mg/1) utilized to degrade
that wastewater for a specified length of time  (usually five
days) .

    Fecal coliforms are an indicator organism for
contamination by untreated sewage.  Fecal coliforms are
found in all raw sewage, and are more resistant to
destruction than practically all pathogens (disease causing
organisms).  For these reasons, fecal coliforms are
considered an appropriate indication of the presence of
pathogenic bacterial contamination from sewage.
                                196

-------
                   1)   Pretreatment

    Practically all wastewater treatment systems require
some form of pretreatment to make the wastewater more
amenable for primary treatment.  These processes may include
aeration, chlorination, screening, qrit removal, and flow
equilization.  Aeration and chlorination are used to oxidize
reduced compounds to eliminate nuisance odors.  Screening is
utilized to remove larger objects.  Grit removal involves
the deposition and removal of larger particle size sand.
And flow equilization is utilized to even out the loading on
a sewage treatment plant.

    The proposed Arlington-East Plant includes all of the
above pretreatment processes except flow equilization, which
will not be a problem in the Arlington-East Area.  No
further evaluation of these alternatives is considered
necessary in this project since the proposed pretreatment
system represents the best approach to attain project
objectives and minimize adverse environmental effects.

                   2)   Primary Treatment

    Primary treatment is an integral part of most wastewater
treatment systems.  This process removes floatables and some
solids by detaining the wastewater in a basin for a
sufficient time to allow settling, and by skimming the
surface to remove floatable matter  (oils, solids, etc).
This process removes solids and 35 percent of the BOD of the
wastewater.  The Arlington-East facilities will contain
primary treatment and no alternatives to this process are
considered viable.

                   3)   Secondary Treatment

    Secondary treatment processes may basically be divided
into two major classifications:   (1) biological and  (2)
physical-chemical.   Individual waste properties and costs
for treatment determine which  treatment method is
appropriate.

                         (a)  Biological Treatment

    Biological treatment is subdivided into three major
processes: activated sludge, trickling filters, and
lagooning.  Activated sludge utilizes aerobic biological
oxidation of wastes.  This oxidation can be accomplished by
                                 197

-------
conventional aeration (completely mixed or plug flow),
contact stabilization, step aeration, and pure oxygen
aeration (Figure 3-13)).  Each of these systems can be
designed to meet reguired BOD and suspended solids effluent
limitations.  Cost factors have indicated conventional
aeration is appropriate.  Typical BOD removal percentages
are 90 percent and above, which meets State and present EPA
secondary treatment standards.  Trickling filters utilize
fixed film aerobic biological oxidation, which is less
efficient,  and reguires greater land area than do activated
sludge facilities.  Lagooning is not a reasonable
alternative in this area due to the large land area
reguired.  Further, trickling filters and lagooning
generally do not meet State and EPA secondary treatment
reguirements and, therefore, are not further considered.
                               198

-------
PRIMARY
INFLUENT
A. PLUG  FLOW
B. COMPLETELY MIXED
PRIMARY
INFLUENT
                  RECYCLE SLUDOE
C. CONTACT STABILIZATION
 PRIMARY
 INFLUENT
D. STEP  AERATION
     FIGURE 3-13

          ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT

          199   PROCESS MODIFICATIONS

-------
                        (b)   Physical-Chemical

    These processes are primarily chemical additions to aid
settling (flocculation) and sedimentation.  The addition of
alum, lime, ferric chloride or other flocculents can
increase solids, BOD, and phosphorus removals.  High
operating costs, increased sludge solids, and, in the case
of lime, pH controls are major drawbacks.  This alternative
is not recommended in this case.

                   4)   Advanced Waste Treatment

    All viable alternatives for disposal of wastewater in
Jacksonville will require only secondary treatment.  A
further discussion or analyses of advanced waste treatment
processes is not warranted.

                   5)   Disinfection

    There are two major methods used for disinfection of
wastewater in the U. S.  These are chlorination and
ozonation.   Each method utilizes basically the same
principal that is to oxidize the bacterial organism and
viruses and either kill or make them inoperative.  Current
information indicates that ozonation is stronger than
chlorination although each has been shown to be effective.
At the present time, high power requirements are the major
drawbacks to utilization of ozonation.  Costs for
chlorination are presently significantly lower than for
ozonation and since each meets effluent standards,
chlorination is the chosen alternative.

              d.   Sludge Treatment and Disposal

    Sludge is a broad term used to describe the various
suspensions of solids encountered and generated during
sewage treatment.  The nature and concentration of these
solids control the processing characteristics of the sludge.

    Processes used in the treatment and disposal of sludges
are categorized as follows:

                   1)   Thickening  (Blending) - The process
whereby solid concentrations are increased.  Thickening may
occur as the objective of a separate process or as a
secondary effect of a process provided essentially for a
                               200

-------
different purpose.  Commonly used methods are gravity,
flotation, and centrifugation.

                   2)   Stabilization - The process which
converts raw (untreated) sludges into a less offensive form
with regard to odor, putrescibility rate, and pathogenic
organism content.  Major process types are anaerobic
digestion, aerobic digestion, lime treatment, chlorine
oxidation, heat treatment, and composting.

                   3)   Dewatering - Any process which
removes sufficient water from sludge so that its physical
form is changed from essentially that of a fluid to that of
a damp solid.  Methods used are best described by the
equipment employed.  Some major types are rotary vacuum
filters, centrifuges, drying beds, filter presses,
horizontal belt filters, rotating cylindrical devices, and
lagoons.

                   4)   Reduction - Processes which
primarily yield a major reduction in the volatile sludge
solids.  Principal methods employed are incineration, wet
air oxidation, and pyrolysis.

                   5)   Final Disposal - The ultimate
disposition of sludge in liquid, cake, dried, or ash form,
as a residue to the  environment.  Principal methods are
cropland application, land reclamation, power generation
 (with solid waste),  sanitary landfill, ocean disposal, and
incineration  (followed  by landfill).

    To meet the unique  conditions of specific design
situations, alternative methods available to carry out the
above unit processes must be considered, modified, and
applied as appropriate.  Each unit process must be evaluated
as a part of the  total  system.  In the Arlington-East plant,
sludge treatment  and disposal methods have been selected as
follows to arrive at the most viable subsystem:

              Unit Process             Selected Method

         Sludge thickening             Centrifugation
         Sludge stabilization          Heat treatment
         Sludge dewatering             Vacuum filtration
         Sludge reduction              Multiple heat  incineration
          Final disposal               Landfill
                               201

-------
    An option in the selected method of at least two unit
processes warrants further consideration; that being the
elimination of the incineration process and the use the
thickened, dewatered, and heat-treated sludge for a
combination land spreading and land reclamation operation.
Chapter II described the extensive and barren strip-mined
areas which exist in the Arlington-East area.  Sludge from
the Buckman Street and Sewer District #2 sewage treatment
plants, as well as several smaller satellite plants, is
currently being used as a soil conditioner to reclaim a
portion of this land in the area of Regency Square.  The
operation has thus far been successful in permitting a
vegetative cover to grow on heretofore completely sterile
sand.  Sixty additional acres which will be adequate for two
more years of sludge disposal have recently been graded for
spreading.  This operation, however, will cease after that
time when the Buckman Street incinerator, currently under
construction, is completed and is used to incinerate the
sludge now being land spread.

    Certain adverse factors are inherent in this land
spreading operation as it is currently being performed.
First, the cost of transportation of liquid-digested sludge
from the west side of the city to the east side is high and
made even higher by the tolls encountered in crossing the
St. Johns River.  Second, a certain degree of odor has at
times been associated with the operation.  The degree of
odor and its effect on people in the area varies with wind
direction, condition of the sludge, and climatological
factors.  Odor has not generally been a problem, however.
This is notable since the sludge is not heat-treated and is
not tilled into the sand.

    Not operating the incineration process at the Arlington-
East plant, and using the sludge to continue this land
spreading operation, will have several advantages.  First,
the benefits of using this resource for purposes of land
reclamation are obvious.  Second, transportation costs would
be decreased over what they are now since the strip-mined
areas are relatively close to the plant.  Transportation
costs will also be less because the Arlington-East sludge
will be dewatered and heat-treated before hauling, thus
reducing the volume of sludge produced per gallon of
influent treated.  Third, heat treatment using the proposed
Zimpro or Porteous processes greatly reduces the sludge's
potential for odor.  The very disagreeable odor of raw
sludge under adverse conditions is primarily produced by
                            202

-------
hydrogen sulfide.  Heat treatment, breaks down the sulfur
compounds found in raw sludge and, in fact, commonly reduces
the potential of sludge to generate disagreeable sulfur
related odors by 1000 times.  The very small degree of
residual odor remaining has been described as ranging from
that of wet paper to that of chocolate.  The primary
potential for disagreeable odor from heat-treated sludge
results from a lack of storage and vacuum filtration after
heat teatment.  In the Arlington-East plant this potential
will be eliminated as both of these processes are planned.
Further, if the thickened, heat-treated, stored, and vacuum
filtered sludge is tilled into the sand, the potential for
odor will be extremely slight and even more so if an
adequate buffer zone is provided between the land spreading
operation and the nearest residents.  Soil conditioning
projects in which heat-treated sludges are tilled have been
extremely successful in this regard.
    Several other methods of final sludge disposal have been
studied for use in Duval County.  These methods--lagooning,
underground disposal, composting, and ocean disposal—have
been rejected for local use for various environmental and/or
cost considerations.  Landfilling of dewatered sludge is
currently being practiced in the county and is a relatively
inexpensive method if distance from the treatment plant to
the disposal site is short.

    In summary, by land spreading the sludge the costs of
constructing and running the incinerator and the effects on
air quality may be avoided.  The major obstacles to this
operation are cost of transport, cost of tilling the
resource into the soil, a commitment of lands for this
purpose, and the possibility of odors if not properly
tilled.

              e.   Odor Control

    Potential sources of odor problems at the proposed
Arlington-East Regional Sewage Treatment Plant are as
follows:
                               203

-------
         *    Bar Screen
         *    Grit Chamber/Preaeration Tank
         *    Primary Clarifiers
         *    Centrifuge and Sludge Blending Tank
         *    Vacuum Filter and Vacuum Pump
         *    Poor Operation and Maintenance of Entire
              Treatment Plant

    Hydrogen sulfide produces a detectable odor at levels as
low as 0.05 ppm (by volume).  A disagreeable level may be
detected at any range between 0.1 ppm and 2.0 ppm.  The
sulfide content of the wastewater reaching the Arlington
treatment plant is estimated to range from zero to 20 ppm.
Because of the potential for levels of hydrogen sulfide in
this range, the unit processes preceding the activated
sludge aeration basin are potential odor sources.

    These components include the bar screen, the grit
chamber/preaeration tank, and the primary clarifiers.  The
potential exists for the preaeration tank to strip out
hydrogen sulfide and ammonia rather than oxidize it, due to
the short maximum detention period in the tank.  Secondary
sources of odors from these units may result from products
of decomposition from organic debris, scum, slimes, and grit
that are not properly handled by the operators.  Odors may
also be released by turbulence caused by the flumes and
overflow wiers.  Excess solids build-up in the primary
clarifier may also be a cause of odor.

    The potential for odor from sewage treatment plants is
wholly due to the possible occurrence of malodorous
inorganic  (sulfides and ammonia) and organic (mercaptans)
chemical compounds in reduced states; such compounds occur
during periods of septicity when dissolved oxygen
concentrations in sewage are depressed to the point that
oxygen is absent.  In the presence of some dissolved oxygen,
sulfur exists in the oxidized sulfate or sulfite form and
nitrogen in the oxidized nitrate or nitrite form; compounds
containing these chemical radicals are odorless or
inoffensive.

                   1)   Currently Proposed Odor Control

    Within the sewage treatment plant's process sequence,
points, where septicity and consequent odor problems are
most likely to occur, are the raw sewage influent and solids
handling processes.  The proposed process design for the
                               204

-------
Arlington-East Disrrict treatment plant includes an aerated
grit chamber -- preaeration tank as the first process unit.
Introduction of diffused air into the incoming sewage flow
in this unit will correct septicity, oxidize any reduced
compounds of sulfur and/or nitrogen, and alleviate any odors
prior to passage of the flow to open tankage in liquid-phase
treatment units within the plant process sequence.

    Solids removed from the plant's liquid flow stream
include screenings, grit, and primary and secondary sludges.
Screenings will be lifted by mechanical bar screens to a
trough above the screen channel; screenings will be allowed
to drain while on the trough with excess water dropping back
by gravity to the channel below.  Dewatered screenings will
be removed to covered storage containers periodically by
manual forking and removed from the plant site routinely in
covered containers for disposal by burial.  The screen and
dewatering trough are enclosed in a steel housing which will
minimize and localize any resultant odors.

    Velocities and turbulence will be controlled in the grit
chamber by diffusion of compressed air into the liquid
flowing through; selective sedimentation takes place therein
with heavy inorganic solids  (grit) settling out to grit
collection hoppers and lighter organic sewage solids
carrying through in suspension.  Periodically grit will be
removed from storage hoppers by water jet eductors and piped
to an enclosed overhead storage tank.  Hydraulic design of
eductor discharge piping is such that the grit is washed
during transfer to the storage tank with organic solids
being returned to the sewage flow with "spent" eductor
water.  Grit will be removed periodically from the overhead
storage tank through a hopper bottom to dump trucks for
removal from the plant site.  In keeping with present State
law, dump trucks will be covered by tarpaulin when hauling
grit from the site.  Inasmuch as the grit chamber is
aerated, septicity and odors will not occur in normal
operations; eductor discharge piping and grit storage are
enclosed systems so that escape of any odor is physically
prevented.  Clean washed grit is non-odorous, being used
widely as sand fill in treatment plant yards without
creation of nuisance.  Even if some traces of organics
remain in grit being trucked away, escape of odors to the
atmosphere will be physically prevented by the canvas cover.
Condition of grit will be such that it can be landfilled
without nuisance.
                                205

-------
    Primary and cosettled waste activated sludges will be
withdrawn from thickener compartments (hoppers)  in the
bottoms of primary claifiers by means of closed primary
sludge pumping - piping systems.  Suction arm clarifier
mechanisms will be used in secondary clarifiers, which
mechanisms will withdraw secondary sludge to a well open to
the atmosphere from which return sludge will be returned by
pumping to the aeration tanks and waste sludge will be
pumped to the primary clarifiers for thickening by
cosettling.  Even though the sludge well in each secondary
clarifier will be open to the atmosphere, odor will be
minimal because the rapidity with which sludge will be
collected and lifted to the well precludes the possibility
of its becoming septic.

    From the primary sludge pumps, thickened cosettled
sludge will be transferred via enclosed piping system to
covered sludge holding tanks.  Anaerobiosis, development of
septicity, and generation of potentially malodorous gaseous
digestion products will occur in the sludge holding tanks.
Gases produced in holding tanks will be passed through a
catalytic incinerator for oxidation to non-odorous chemical
states prior to venting to the atmosphere.  Sludge will be
withdrawn routinely from holding tanks via enclosed piping
systems to a heat treatment system for conditioning prior to
dewatering by vacuum filtration and disposal by multiple
hearth incineration.  The heat treatment process will
produce an essentially sterile sludge devoid of biological
organisms which could otherwise further anaerobic
decomposition, septicity, and malodorous gas production.
Because of its sterility, sludge will be free from odors in
those handling, treatment and disposal processes following
heat treatment, i.e., vacuum filtration, incineration, and
ash disposal.

    In summary, the combined vapor from centrifuges, vacuum
pumps and filters, and sludge-blending tanks are proposed to
be routed to the inlet air fan of the multiple hearth
incinerator.  When the incinerator is in operation, this is
an excellent means of odor control.  However, normal
operating procedures will inevitably result in the
incinerator being out of operation, while the rest of the
sludge handling equipment is still in use.  During these
periods, no odor control would be utilized.

    Vapors from the sludge storage and sludge decant tanks
are the most concentrated of all sources.  The present
                             206

-------
method of oxidation by catalytic incineration is an
effective system for control of those odors although no
backup system is proposed.

    Four basic areas of odor impact from the proposed sewage
treatment plant operation have been addressed as follows:

    *    Increase in intensity of odors
    *    Increase in frequency of odors
    *    Variation in odors with distance from the plant site
    *    Variation in odors with direction from the plant site

    Evaluation of impact is somewhat subjective because of
the difficulty in quantifying odors analytically and
correlating it with effects on human physiology.  The
primary tool that was used in developing the evaluation was
a public opinion survey.  Additional tools were provided by
engineering evaluation of odor control technology currently
in use as well as climatological information.

    In order to determine the degree to which odor would
increase, comparisons were made between the survey responses
from Holly Oaks and the combined responses from Can-ton and
Ft. Lauderdale.  This approach provides a reasonable
assessment of  'before1 and  'after' reactions.  Holly Oaks
was labelled the 'control' group and the combined responses
from Ft. Lauderdale and Canton were labelled the 'test1
group.

    Although no precise incremental adjustment can be made
to the baseline responses from Holly Oaks, Table 3-1
presents an approximation of the increase in response
frequencies which might be  expected due to differences in
survey results between the  test and control groups.
Preliminary analysis of the trend of all responses indicates
that a 10 to 20 percent increase in degree and frequency of
odor pollution annoyance would be a reasonable estimate  of
impact from the proposed  sewage treatment plant on the Holly
Oaks community.

    Inasmuch as the test  group percentages presented in
Table  3-1 represent responses to any and all odor sources
from the test  site, a refinement of this group to eliminate
that inherent  bias is required.  This  may be accomplished by
eliminating all respondents except those who identified  the
plant  as the major source of odor  (A7H) from analysis.   Table 3-2
presents how respondents, who  identified the plant  as  a  source of
odor,  answered pertinent  survey questions.
                                207

-------
Table 3-1       Differences in Frequency of Response, Test and
                Control Groups
                                             Test    Control    Percent
                                             Group*   Group*    Difference
 1.   Respondents who noticed and
     were bothered by odors
     (Q7A & Q7E)                             44.6  -  33.3   =  +11.3

 2.   Respondents who were bothered
     much or very much
     (Q7A & Q7E)                             19.1  -   9.1   =  +10.8

 3.   Respondents who were bothered
     one-half or more of the time
     (Q7A & Q7E)                             29.6  -  12.1   =  +17.5

 4.   Respondents who felt odor pollu-
     tion has reduced the value of
     their homes
     (Q9A)                                   18.9  -   0.0   =  +18.9

 5.   Respondents who ever seriously
     considered moving away because
     of odor pollution
     (Q10)                                   11.9  -   0.0   =  +11.9

 6.   Respondents who have requested
     action by some authority or
     government agency
     (Q14A)                                  12.9  -   0.0   =  +12.9

 7.   Respondents who were willing
     to sign a complaint concerning
     odor pollution
     (Q15A)                                  31.3  -  27.3   =  + 4.0
*"Test" group is Fort Lauderdale and Canton, combined.
 "Control" group is Holly Oaks
                                 208

-------
Table  3-2      Odor Impact Cross-Tabulations of Responses to
                Questions
                                 (Q7H)  Respondents who identified
                                        plant as a source of odor (by %)


(QD





(Q3A)





(Q7E)






(Q7F)







(Q9A)




(Q10)







In general , how
would you rate
your area of
the city as a
place to live?

How would you
rate the air
pollution prob-
lem in your area
of the city?

How much have
these odors
bothered you?




How often have
these odors
bothered you?





Do you feel that
odor pollution
has reduced the
value of your
home in any way?
Have you ever
seriously con-
sidered moving
away from here
because of odor
pollution?


Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Don't Know
Serious
Somewhat
Serious
Not Serious
Don't Know
No Answer
Very Much
Much
Moderately
Little
Very Little
Don't Know
No Answer
Very Often
Often
About half
the time
Infrequently
Very Infreq.
Don't Know
No Answer
Yes
No
Don't Know


Yes
No
Don't Know



Canton,
Ohio
26.3
63.2
10.5
-
-
-
15.8

31.6
50.0
2.6
-
13.2
23.7
28.9
13.2
15.8
-
5.3
7.9
10.5

18.4
57.9
-
-
5.3
36.8
60.5
2.6


18.4
81.6
-



                                                Ft.  Lauderdale,
                                                   Florida	

                                                    12.5
                                                    17.2
                                                    46.9
                                                    15.6
                                                     6.2
                                                     1.6

                                                    26.6

                                                    25.0
                                                    45.3
                                                     1.6
                                                     1.6

                                                    35.9
                                                     7.8
                                                    28.1
                                                    10.9
                                                     9.4

                                                     7.8

                                                    21.9
                                                    23.4

                                                    26.5
                                                     3.1
                                                     1.6

                                                     7.8

                                                    32.8
                                                    54.7
                                                    12.5
                                                    25.0
                                                    68.7
                                                     6.3
Holly Oaks,
  Florida	

   45.5
   45.5
    6.1
    3.0
    6.1

   24.2
   69.7
    6.1
    3.0
    6.1
   15.5
   76.3
    0.0
    6.1

    6.1
   88.8
    0.0
  100.0
    0.0
  100.0
                                  209

-------
  Table 3-2       (Continued)


                               (Q7H)   Respondents  who  identified
                                      plant as  a source  of  odor  (by%)

                                       Canton,    Ft. Lauderdale,     Holly  Oaks,
                                        Ohio        Florida	      Florida

(Q14A)  Have you ever re-  Yes            34.2          17.2              0.0
       quested any agency
       to  take action con-
       cerning odor pollu-
       tion in your area
       of  the city?

(Q15A)  Would you be will- Yes            42.1           40.6             27.3
       ing to sign a com-
       plaint about odor
       pollution?


                              BASES      38            64               33
                                 210

-------
    Several interesting observations can be made from
evaluation of Table 3-2.   A solid majority of respondents
from Canton who identified the test plant as a source of
odor, indicated tha-c they felt that their area of the city
was an excellent (26.3 percent) or a good (63.2 percent)
place to live.  Yet of this group, 18.4 percent seriously
considered moving because of odor pollution from the sewage
treatment plant and 36.8 percent felt that the value of
their homes had been reduced.  This latter figure closely
matches 36.9 percent who indicated that odors bothered them
much or very much.  These odors have bothered 36.8 percent
of these same respondents over half of the time.
Compensation for baseline response by the control group
indicates an 18 to 37 percent increase in frequency of
response to four pertinent questions as shown in Table 3-3.
Evaluation of the data in Tables 3-1 through 3-3 indicates
that there is a definite increase in both frequency and
intensity of annoyance in sample groups influenced by
existing sewage treatment plants over the control group.
                              211

-------
Table  3-3      Differences in Frequency of Response between Canton
                Respondents Who Identified Test Plant as a Source
                of Odor and the Control Group.
                                            Canton   Control     Percent
                                             Group    Group     Difference
1.   Respondents who were bothered
    much or very much
    (Q7A & Q7E)
36.9  -   9.1
+27.8
2.  Respondents who were bothered
    one-half or more of the time
    (Q7A & Q7F)
36.8  -  12.2
+24.6
3.  Respondents who feld odor
    pollution had reduced the value
    of their home
    (Q9A)
36.8  -   0.0
+36.8
4.  Respondents who ever seriously
    considered moving away because
    of odor pollution
    (Q10)
18.4  -   0.0
+18.4
                             212

-------
    Correlation of Odor impact^With Distance

    In order to predict the impact of projected odors over
distance, a least-squares linear regression was performed on
the ratios presented in Figure 3-14.  The result, as shown
below, is represented by the equation: y= -.000557 X +2.65
and has a correlation coefficient of r + -.6658.

                            FIGURE 3-1 <*.

              Projection of Odor Impact Over Distance
                Ratio
                            123456

                              Distance (1000 ft)

    The plot shows how the people who identified the plant
as the major source of odor are likely to be distributed
over distance.  It further indicates that people will
identify the plant as the major source of odor up to a
distance of 4750 ft.  Based on the data in the previous
section, a conservative assumption that the proposed
Arlington-East Sewage Treatment Plant will result in a 20
percent increase in the frequency and intensity of odor
annoyance is reasonable.  Based on the calculated
distribution, the percent increase in annoyance responses
due to the plant for each 500-foot interval at any site is
presented in Table 3-4.

    Correlation of Odor Impact With Azimuth

    In order to determine the impact of odors based on
direction, the survey responses from Ft. Lauderdale and
Canton were matched with the corresponding meteorological
data from each site.  The distribution of responses by
                             213

-------
                   TABLE 3-4

   IMPACT OF A PROPOSED SEWAGE TREATMENT  PLANT
AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCE FROM THE PROPOSED SITE
                    Percent of People  in  Each
                    Interval  who  will  identify
Interval	Plant as  Major Source of Odor
    0- 500                     39.9%
  500-1000                     35.5%
 1000-1500                     31.0%
 1500-2000                     26.5%
 2000-2500                     22.1%
 2500-3000                     17.8%
 3000-3500                     13.3%
 3500-9000                     8.9%
 4000-4500                     4.4%
 4500-5000                     0.0%

                        199
             Average =   	  =19.9%
                         10
                   214

-------
aximuth are shown in Table 3-5 along with the corresponding
frequency of occurrence for wind.

    Since r, the coefficient of correlation, is quite low at
each test plant, there is no means of accurately projecting
odor impact as a function of direction from the proposed
site.  This lack of correlation between odor response and
wind frequency of occurrence simply means that other factors
such as site topoqraphy and atmospheric stability are
dominating the dispersion of the odor.

    Impact Analysis of MillcQe_Road Site

    The percent frequency of atmospheric inversions and low
nocturnal surface winds for the area is shown in T'able 3-6.
The wind rose for the Jacksonville area is shown below,
Figure 3-15, indicating the percent of time wind blows from
each of the specified directions.
                               215

-------
                TABLE 3-5

           DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY
            RESPONSES BY AZIMUTH
Octant
N
NE
E
SE
S
SW
W
NW
CANTON,
Responses
(Percent)
18.0
4.5
0.0
10.7
8.6
22.1
11.2
24.9
OHIO
Wind Freq.
To (Percent)
14.6
21.8
14.5
14.5
7.3
9.1
7.3
10.9
FT. LAUDERDALE
, FLA.
Responses Wind Freq.
(Percent) To (Percent)
16.0
11.0
17.2
13.5
11.1
9.8
11.4
9.8
7.8
5.9
15.7
10.8
4.9
7.8
21.6
25.5
Y = -.699 X +21.9

r = -.397
Y = -.0365 X +12.9

r = -.0994
                  216

-------
                    TABLE  3-6

   PERCENT FREQUENCY OF ATMOSPHERIC INVERSIONS
                (UNDER 500 FEET)
JACKSONVILLE U.S.  NAVAL AIR STATION (HOSLER,  1961)
                                                PERCENT OF
     LOCAL STANDARD TIME                        TOTAL  TIME
SEASON
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
NOCTURNAL
0700 2200
59
61
56
71
69
53
38
51
DAYLIGHT
1900 1000
44
10
11
37
27
4
1
12
TOTAL
TIME
40
28
23
41
NOCTURNAL SURFACE
WIND < 7 MPH
60
63
75
63
                    217

-------
NW
SW
               N
NE
 SE
             FIGURE 3-15



        JACKSONVILLE WIND ROSE
                218

-------

    The relatively high probability of nocturnal inversions
and low velocity surface winds (28 to 60 percent)  supports
the use of an odor model in which frequency of annoyance
varies with distance rather than aximuth.  Fortunately, the
results df the public opinion survey are such that it was
possible to develop this type of model and calibrate it to a
reasonable fit with the survey data from two test sites.

    An increase in percentage of annoyance due to the sewage
treatment plant will be observed out to a distance of 4500
feet from the center of the plant.  It should be noted that
this increase is based on the conservative assumption that
the difference in response between the test and control
group was 20 percent.

    A generalized model for identification of treatment
plant odor with distance has been developed.  The projected
percentage of people within each 500-foot interval who will
identify the plant as the major source of odor is shown in
Figure 3-16.

                   2)   Additional Odor Controls

    Good housekeeping is perhaps the most effective means of
controlling odors at a sewage treatment plant.  Wiers, grit
hoppers, bar screens and so forth must be constantly cleaned
to minimize odor generation.

    Two odor control strategies to mitigate the potential
emission of odorous gases from the proposed Arlington-East
Regional Sewage Treatment Plant are evaluated as follows:

         *    Modify plant design to prevent odor detection
              outside plant boundaries.

         *    Develop measures to control odor episodes
              without modifying plant design.

                         (a)  Structural Alternative

    Physical confinement of odors through the use of
enclosures has been shown to be effective at wastewater
treatment plants in Florida and throughout the United
States.  Once the odors have been confined they may be
controlled by incineration, scrubbing, adsorption,
ozonization, additives, and dilution.  Depending on the
source, volume, and concentration of odors
                                219

-------
                    5000 Ft
              FIGURE 3-16

        Generalized Impact Model
Psrcent of People Who  Will  Identify Plant
        hs Major Source of Odors
                 220

-------
the cost effectiveness of one or more of these alternatives
may be evaluated.

    Based on this evaluation, two design alternatives for
mitigative measures are presented:

         Alternative 1:  This alternative recommends
         enclosing the bar screen/preaeration tank in a
         building and covering the primary clarifiers with
         fiberglass domes with enclosed walkways.  A wet
         scrubbing system similar to that illustrated in
         Figures 3-17 through 3-20 will be required to treat
         the vapors.  The collection devices of such a
         system include air collection devices such as hoods
         (Figure 3-17), and blowers  (Figure 3-18), mixing
         and monitoring equipment (Figure 3-19)  and counter-
         current packed tower scrubber  (Figure 3-20).

         Alternative 2:  This alternative recommends a
         backup wet scrubbing system for the combined vapors
         from centrifuges, vacuum pumps and vacuum filters,
         and sludge blending tanks.

    A schematic flow diagram for the two alternatives is
shown in Figure 3-21.  Conceptual design parameters are
shown in Table 3-7.

    There is no precedent for predicting the reduction in
odor response which will result from the implementation of
mitigative measures.  A survey taken before and after the
proposed action would have to be conducted at a selected
site over an interval of several years to develop guidelines
for evaluation of the effects of odor control technology.

    A reasonably accurate prediction can be made, however,
of source reductions of odor emissions due to odor control
measures.  The implementation of Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 in combination with the odor controls
previously planned for the Arlington Treatment Plant should
result in all major potential odor sources being brought
under control.  An estimated 90 percent of potential odor
emissions should be removed by these treatment techniques.
Minor sources of potential odor emissions should be
effectively controlled by good operational and maintenance
practices.
                               221

-------
VENT1L
    FIGURE  3-J7



:ON  DUCT OVER PRIMARY CLARIFIER
                     222

-------
        FIGURE 3-18



VENTILATION DUCTS AND BLOWERS

-------
              FIGURE  3-19




HYPOCHLORITE MIXING SYSTEM FOR WET SCRUBBER

-------
IBM U3M01
oz-e aansu

-------
ALTERNATIVE 1
Bar Screen/Preaeration Building    1300 CFM
Primary Clarifiers
         800 CFM
                                              2100  CFM
                                  WET
                               SCRUBBER
                                  # 1
ALTERNATIVE 2
Centrifuge Vent
Vacuum Pump Discharge
Vacuum Hood Vent
Sludge Blending Tanks
Negligible
       1800 CFM
       4800 CFM
        400 CFM
                                              7600 CFM
   WET
SCRUBBER
   # 2
                                             Multiple
                                              Hearth
                                            Incinerator
                           FIGURE  3-21

           Flow Diagram of Recommended Odor Control For
           Arlington East Regional Sewage Treatment Plant
                               226

-------
Table 3-7
Wet Scrubber System Conceptual  Design  Parameters
                          Wet Scrubber
                               # 1
                            2100 CFM
                                 Wet  Scrubber
                                      # 2   . ...
                                    7600 CFM
Design Flow
Maximum Sulfide
Concentration
H2S Removal
Type

Material

Packing Material
Height of Packing
Diameter of the
Scrubber
Diameter of the
Duct
Length of Duct
              2
Chemical Usage
            20 ppm
            99.9%
    Counter-current packed
    tower
    Reinforced fiberglass
    body with corrosion-
    resistant internal
    Plastic media
            10 Ft
             3 Ft

         1  1/6 Ft
            40 Ft
    50% NaOH @ 2/gal/day
                                                   20 ppm

                                                   99.9%
                                             Counter-current
                                             packed tower
                                             Reinforced fiberglass
                                             body with corrosion-
                                             resistant internal
                                             Plastic media
                                                   10 Ft
                                                    6 Ft

                                                    2 Ft
                                                  180 Ft
                                             50% NaOH @ 4 gal/day
1
 Based on maintenance of negative pressure for closed  systems  and
 three air changeovers/Hr in working areas.
2
 Hypochlorite may also be used in place of NaOH.
                               227

-------
    A very low, yet detectable, odor will probably be
noticeable on the plant site for short periods of time under
certain atmospheric and plant operating conditions.  This
type of odor episode would be generally due to operator
error, equipment failure, or a maintenance oversight, and
should be correctable once detected.  It is not possible to
completely eliminate these types of minor odor episodes.
However, they may be mitigated by proper operator responses.

                         (b)  Wonstructural Alternatives

    The alternatives available to control potential odor
episodes without significant modification of the plant were
evaluated.  This type of strategy includes, at a minimum,,
the following elements:

         *    Rigorous and frequent maintenance of all
              equipment

         *    Steady state wastewater inflow with no surges
              in hydraulic or constituent loading

         *    Elimination of hydrogen sulfide in influent
              wastewater.

         *    Continuous clean-up of all process equipment.

         *    Frequent use of chemical deodorizing agents
              throughout the treatment plant.

         *    Sufficient operator control to eliminate
              process upsets.

         *    Development of a rapid response odor episode
              contingency plan.

    This type of control strategy is extremely difficult to
implement because of the complexity of the treatment plant,
the infinite number of operational and maintenance problems
which will arise as the plant is brought into service, and
the ever present potential for a process upset due to
influent loading variations.  For example, deodorizing and
masking chemicals around the qrit chamber and the
preaeration tank may provide excellent control over a period
of time.  However, a surge of high hydrogen s.ulfide
concentration in the wastewater influent would render a
chemical dosing operation ineffectual.  If a constituent in
                              228

-------
a surge of wastewater were phenol, for example, a chlorine
based odor control chemical would react to form highly
malodorous chlorophenols.

    A control strategy based solely on operator dependent
measures, such as those discussed, will not control
potential odors from the Arlington-East Regional Sewage
Treatment Plant below the threshold of annoyance in the
surrounding community.  In-plant survey results indicate
that the techniques discussed above are essential to good
odor control, and that they are effective a high percentage
of the time.  However, plant conditions frequently occur
which make such controls ineffectual for varying periods of
time.

    A well operated and maintained sewage treatment plant
will generate a minimum amount of odors at a low frequency
of occurrence.  However, the proximity to nearby residents,
the inherent variability in a control strategy based
entirely on human operator control, and the potential for
odo'r episodes due to wastewater influent surge loadings and
past experiences of three similar sewage treatment plants
indicate that this control strategy will not substantially
reduce potential odor emissions at the source and
consequently will not substantially mitigate the potential
impact of the Arlington-East Regional Sewage Treatment
Plant.

                        3)   Summary

    Since odors from the plant without additional controls
are anticipated, all sites which have the potential for
residents experiencing nuisance odors will include the
additional odor controls described herein.

    These controls include enclosing the bar
screen/preaeration tank in a building and covering the
primary clarifiers with fiberglass domes.  Also, a wet
scrubbing system will be required to treat vapors.  The
collection devices of this system will include air
collection devices, mixing and monitoring equipment, and a
countercurrent packed tower scrubber.  A backup wet
scrubbing system for the combined vapors from centrifuges,
vacuum pumps and vacuum filters, and sludge blending tanks
will also be included.
                                 229

-------
         f.   Noise Control

    Potential noise source in sewage treatment plants are
air moving devices (fans, blowers, and compressors), liquid
control equipment  (pumps, valves, and vents, process
machines (grinders, centrifuges), materials handling systems
(conveyors, belts, hoppers, chutes, lifts), power
transmission systems  (gears, shafts, drives, and clutches),
mechamical and electrical power systems (turbines, engines,
boilers, transformer, and electrical motors), combustion
systems (flare stacks, incineratiors), and miscellaneous
machine shop and hand tool use.  In addition, the truck
traffic involved in chemical deliveries, and sludge or ash
hauling are intermittent noise sources.

    These sources generate noise due to impact phenomena,
gas flow phenomena, perturbations in liquid flow, friction,
dynamic imbalance, and combustion.  Types of noise
frequently differentiated are continuous noise and impulsive
noise.  Continuous noise may be further classified according
to type of exposure as either steady-state  (such as water
noise from aeration basins or weirs or electrical substation
hum), fluctuating noise  (such as process machinery noise,
and traffic noise), or intermittent noise  (such as truck
traffic, aircraft, and construction noise).

              1)   Currently Proposed Noise Control

    The following discussion identifies potential noise
sources and describes planned noise controls for the
Arlington-East Sewage Treatment Plant.  The flow schematic
for the plant treatment processes is presented in Figure 3-
22.

    Bar Screen and Preaeration Tank

    Noise will ge generated by two blowers located in the
concrete enclosure below the bar screen, the pintle type
chains used to continuously clear the bar screen, and water
perturbation at the influent sluice gates, preaeration tank,
by-pass channel, and associated weirs.  Intermittent noise
will be generated by the motor controlled sluice gates, and
the regular removal of grit hoppers by truck.

    The bar screen is completely enclosed in a steel
housing.  All motors and blowers are rigidly mounted and the
blowers are equipped with inlet filter silencers.  Access to
                                 230

-------
Figure  3-22   Proposed Arlington  East Flow Schematic.
    Bar Screen     Screenings
   Aerated Grit
     Chamber
     Primary
    Clarifiers
     Diffused

     Aeration

      Basins
    Secondary
    Clarifiers
         I
  Primary Sludge
     Waste
Activated Sludge
    Chiorination
       Effluent
     Pump Station
                                                ±1
                                            Raw Sludge Tank
                      r
  —i—-
                                              Centrifuge
                                            Heat Treatment
                                                Vacuum
                                              Filtration
                            Multiple
                             Hearth
                          Incineration
I	
                                                        Ash
                          Heat Treated
                             Sludge
                            Storage
                                     231

-------
the blower room is through one 3-foot wide door below ground
level.  Noise from removal and washing of grit by water jet
eductor should be effectively contained in the enclosed
overhead system.

    Primary Clarifiers

    The primary clarifiers will generate steady-state water
noise from the weirs, and intermittent noise from two sludge
pumps with motors.  The drive units  (1/2 hp, 1750 RPM
Motors), sludge collection arms, and skimming devices will
run continuously.
                                   232

-------
    The clarifiers will be constructed of concrete with the
surface above ground and open to the atmosphere.   The drive
units will be enclosed in fabricated steel housing; main
gear and worn gear assemblies will be enclosed in cast iron
housings and all gears and bearings will run in oil.   The
sludge punrps and motors will be located in the enclosed pipe
gallery.

    Reuse Water Pump Station

    This pump station supplies the plant with reuse and
washdown water and contains the Parshall flume for effluent
flow monitoring.  Reuse water is pumped by two 800 gpm pumps
(60 hp motors) located in a concrete walled enclosure below
ground level.  However, it is open to the atmosphere.
Scrubber water is pumped by two 2000 gpm pumps and motors
(150 hp) fully enclosed by the concrete structure.  The
flume channel is open to the atmosphere.

    Noise control at this pump station consists of locating
the reuse pumps and the flume channel below ground level and
enclosing the scrubber water pumps.

    Effluent Pump Stations

    Noise sources include four effluent pumps  (11,574 gpm,
100-ft TDK)  powered by 400 hp, 720 RPM motors, the effluent
channel and wet well, and miscellaneous heating and
ventilization ducts and roof fans.

    The circular building fully encloses the motor room,
pump room, and chlorination room.  The building will be
constructed with ten-inch double cavity walls with four
inches each of lightweight concrete block and  face brick.
The roof will be built-up concrete on a four-inch concrete
slab.

    Wet Well Pump Station

    Potential noise sources at this point are the two 2222
gpm, 46 ft. TDK pumps used to return centrate, filtrate, and
scum to the influent splitter box.  The pump and the motor
will be totally enclosed below ground.
                                233

-------
    Chlorine Handling Facility

    Although roofed, this structure is open to the
atmosphere.  Impact noise and intermittent noise will be
generated due to handling of chlorine cylinders.

    Aeration Basins

    Aeration basins will generate steady-state water
perturbation noise produced by intorducing diffused air into
the aeration basins and water flow in distribution and
collection troughs and the effluent channel.  Other
potential noise sources from this source include sludge and
scum pumps and motors.  If mechanical aeration is used in
place of diffused aeration, the aerator motors would be an
additional noise source.

    Sludge and scum pumps will be located in an enclosed
pipe gallery.  The aeration tanks will be constructed above
ground and are open to the atmosphere.  Their configuration
will tend to direct much of the noise vertically.

    Blower Building

    The blower building supplies air for the diffused
aeration basins and is the primary potential noise source in
the wastewater treatment chain.  It will house three multi-
stage centrifugal blowers  (13,000 CFM each) with motors
(3600 RPM).  Inlet air enters through louvers at ground
level at the southwest corner of the building.  Other noise
sources include three roof fans  (2 hp, 13,600 CFM each) and
ventilation inlet louvers on the east end of the building.

    Each blower will have a 24-inch straight through
absorption type silencer on the intake line and a 20-inch
silencer on the discharge line.  In addition, an inlet air
baffle chamber is planned to reduce direct propagation of
blower noise through the inlet louvers.  The building itself
will be constructed with ten-inch thick cavity walls made of
four inch lightweight concrete block and four-inch face
brick with an air space in between.  Aluminum roll-up doors
and louvers are not specified.  The roof is to be built-up
over concrete double tee sections.
                                234

-------
    Secondary Clarifiers

    The construction and configuration of the secondary
clarifiers is similar to that of the primary clarifiers.
The clarifiers will be equipped with four return sludge
pumps  (4629 gpm, 7 ft TDK) located inside the adjoining
galley structure powered by motors (15 hpr 495 RPM) located
outside the structure.  Two waste sludge pumps  (340 gpm,
24.34 ft TDK)  will also be located inside the structure.
Eight roof fans  (1/2 hp, 700 CFM) with two drive motors  (3/4
hp) will utilize 26 square feet of inlet and exhaust louvers
are specified.  Louvers are nor specified to have the
acoustic dampening characteristics.

    Sludge Storage and Control Building•

    Sludge from primary and secondary clarifiers will be
pumped to a covered storage tank prior to heat treatment.
The sludge control building houses the following noise
sources:  two sludge transfer pumps  (200 gpm, at 30 ft TDK),
two sludge recirculation pumps (350 gpm at 17 ft TDK), four
roof fans totaling 22,600 CFM, and a 200 SCFM catalytic
incinerator vented through a roof stack to the atmosphere.

    All of this equipment is located within the control
building.  The building will be constructed with a ten-inch
cavity wall and a built-up roof on a four inch concrete
slab,

    Heat Treatment and Incineration Building

    This three-story building is the major potential noise
source on the Arlington-East Sewage Treatment Plant site due
to the large equipment access doors and the high noise
levels generated by sludge handling equipment located in the
building.  Significant noise sources within the building
include:

         *    Boilers

         *    Centrifuges

         *    Sludge conditioning equipment  (grinders,
              compressors, high  pressure pumps, heat
              exchangers, safety valves)-see Figure 3-23.
                               235

-------
t-0
Co
                                                          Figure   3-23

                                          Heat Treatment  Reactor  and  Heat  Exchanger

-------
Multiple hearth incinerator  (cooling air fan,
induced draft fan, auxiliary combustion fan,
exhaust gas scrubber).

Vacuum filters  (vacuum pumps, sludge cake
conveyors)

Ash conveyors (screw and bucket elevator)--see
Figures 3-24 and 3-25.

Sludge blending tanks and pumps.
                  237

-------
              Figure 3-24
Multiple Hearth Incinerator Ash Conveyor
              238

-------
M
U)
                             ;> f
',' ';: :!•':"".!• '   -%V:f
 'E fcilW ii- ,o ','^1 li^
'WW^
  '                 "
                                                      i.-.ii.-h   -
                                                       .'i:.  l-''.'.-iv'
                                                     •» '-! : , j.{ , 1 .',*'','" *"
                                                        -s"%! Mijt-i,;;  »,
                                                              '    -

                                       Figure  3~25

                                   Incinerator Ash Disposal

-------
         *    Heating and ventilation equipment.

    Noise qenerated within the buildinq may be transmitted
to the outside primarily by the two 16 ft x 49 ft equipment
access doors on the east wall.  Minor sources include a
boiler stack, a furnance and by-pass stack, the opening for
the ash bucket elevator in the south wall, several access
doors on the ground floor, and miscellaneous roof vents and
fan outlets.

    Although enclosed conveyors and hoods over the vacuum
filters provide some noise control, the primary noise
abatement consists of enclosure of all the above equipment
within the heat treatment building.  The building will be
constructed with exterior walls of precast concrete double
tee panels hung on a structural steel frame, the roof will
be built-up lightweight concrete on a corrugated metal deck
and the roll-up doors will be aluminum.  With the exception
of the central room, there are no apparent acoustical
controls planned in the process equipment areas of the
building.

Included Traffic

    The volume of light vehicular traffic qenerated by plant
operational and maintenance personnel will be insignificant;
it is not anticipated either the volume or character of such
traffic will noticeably alter present ambient noise levels,
even on residential streets.  The access road to the Millcoe
Road site has not been routed yet.

    The magnitude of heavy truck traffic resulting from
chemical delivering; ash, grit, and screenings disposal; and
septic tank and portable toilet tank truck emptying has been
estimated at the equivalent of 30.14 and 48.66 one-way trips
daily for plant flows of 10 mgd and 25 mgd, respectively.
The noise impact of this induced traffic will be
proportionate to the routes travelled and time of deliveries
relative to normal traffic loads.

    Operations and Laboratory Building, Shop Building

    Operation of these facilities may be expected to have a
noise impact similar to that of a typical garage or service
station.  Noise sources will include office and laboratory
heating and air conditioning, machine tool use, and hand
tool use.
                               240

-------
    No special noise controls are planned.   This building
will be constructed with a ten-inch cavity wall, a built up
concrete tee section roof, and aluminum roll-up doors.

    Electrical Substations

    The three electrical substations could be potential
sources of electrical hum typical of the pure tones
generated by such equipment.  However, all three substations
are located in concrete block buildings with only one access
door.

    Survey and Modeling Results

    Four basic areas of noise impact from the proposed
sewage treatment plant have been addressed as follows:

         *Frequency and degree of potential annoyance based
         on public opinion survey results.

         *Percent of time that existing background noise
         levels will be exceeded.

         *Degree of increase in background noise levels.

         *Variation in noise intensity as a function of
         distance and direction from the plant site.

    Impact on Level of Annoyance Caused by Noise

    Evaluation of the public opinion survey results from
Canton and Fort Lauderdale yielded the conclusion that it
was not possible to use the survey results to quantitatively
predict perceived response to noise in the area surrounding
a proposed plant site.  The public opinion survey indicated
that 37.2 percent of respondents living in both survey areas
felt that noise in the community was a problem but that only
2.4 percent identified the sewage treatment plant as the
source of that noise.  Traffic was identified as the source
of noise by 61.3 percent and aircraft as the source by only
3.7 percent of all respondents.

    The control group in Holly Oaks had only 27.2 percent
indicate that noise was a problem, however, 50 percent of
those respondents identified aircraft as the major source of
noise while none identified traffic.
                                 241

-------
    It was determined that the traffic noise impact on
respondents at both test plant sites was so great that the
survey results cannot be modeled and applied to Holly Oaks.
The Holly Oaks survey does indicate, however, that the
najority of respondents feel that aside from the intrusive
periodic influence of aircraft that the community has no
substantive noise problems.

    The impact of noise on the Holly Oaks community was
evaluated for two quantitative noise models of the proposed
sewage treatment plant.  The first is for a worst case
situation with the plant constructed as designed and
operated with no regard given to control of environmental
noise.  The second is for a mitigated situation where
certain design modifications were made and operational
criteria tightened to achieve a higher degree of control
over environmental noise.

    Figure 3-26 illustrates the site plan of the proposed
plant with the seven projected noise sources identified.
Table 3-8 shows the baseline criteria utilized in applying
the two noise models.
                              242

-------
                  FIGURE  3-26

               PROPOSED SITE PLAN
           WITH MAJOR NOISE SOURCES
                                                      -N-
7A
                       7B
                                                7C
            1  = Heat Treatment & Incinerator
            2  = Blower Building
            3  = Catalytic Incinerator
            4  = Catalytic Incinerator
            5  = Effluent Pumping Station
            6  = Water Reuse Pumping Station
           7A  = Primary Clarifiers
           7B  = Aeration Basins
           7C  = Secondary Clarifiers
D
                          243

-------
                           TABLE 3-8
      ASSUMED SOUND POWER LEVELS AND DIRECTIVITY INDICES FOR
   ARLINGTON EAST SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT NOISE PROPAGATION MODEL

      Noise Source                     Worst Case            Mitigated Case
1.  Heat Treatment and
    Incineration Building
    A.  East side                 A.  Lw = 115, DI = 6    A.   Lw =  100, DI =  6
    B.  West side                 B.  Lw = 100, DI = 3    B.   Lw =  100, DI =  3
2.  Blower Building
    A.  South side                A.  Lw = 108, DI = 6    A.   Lw =  101, DI =  6
    B.  North side                B.  Lw = 99, DI = 3     B.   Lw =  99, DI = 3
3.  Catalytic Incinerator         Lw = 88, DI = 3         Lw = 88,  DI  = 3
4.  Catalytic Incinerator         Lw = 88, DI = 3         Lw = 88,  DI  = 3
5.  Effluent Pumping Station      Lw = 94, DI = 3               None
6.  Water Reuse Pumping Station   Lw = 86, DI = 3               None
7.  Aeration Basins/Clarifiers    Lw = 101                Lw = 101
                                244

-------
    For the purpose of estimating the community response  to
increases in background noise level, the following criteria
were followed:
       Increase in dBA
   Over Existing Background
   	Sound Level	

            0

            5


           10


           15
         Estimated
      Community Response

No reaction

Sporadic complaints and widespread
increase in annoyance

Widespread complaints and severe
community annoyance

Severe complaints and strong com-
munity action
    Impact  of Worst Case Model on
       Oaks
    The  increase on background levels at three  selected
sites  due  to worst case modeling assumptions  is shown in
Table  3-9.   Sites B and C are located in the  nearby Holly
Oaks residential community.  Site A may be  considered to be
located  at the plant boundary.  Application of  the estimated
community  response criteria to the increases  in levels
demonstrates that for the worst case model  people living in
the Holly  Oaks community will experience significant
increases  in background noise levels.  Increases in the
L(10)  level may cause cumulative night time levels to equal
or exceed  the 55 dBA sound level limit of the proposed
Jacksonville noise ordinance.  Increases of L(90)  levels
ranging  from 8.5 dBA in the day to 13 dBA at  night may cause
widespread complaints and severe community  annoyance.  Since
the increase in L (neq)  is greater than L(deq) it is probable
that most  of the annoyance will be experienced  during the
night  and  that it may result in sleep interference for
sensitive  people.
                               245

-------
               TABLE -3-9

INCREASE IN BACKGROUND  NOISE  LEVELS DUE  TO
        WORST CASE MODELING (dBA)
Background
Noise Level
(dBA)
LIO
L50
L90
Ldeq
Lneq
Ld/n

Day
7
11
17
9.5
—
5

A
11
6
12
18
-
n
.5

Site
B
ght Day Night
.3 2.5 3.5
7 6
12 13
4
6
2
TABLE 3-10
INCREASE IN BACKGROUND NOTSE LEVELS
MITIGATED CASE MODEL (dBA)
Background
Noise Level
(dBA)
LIO
L50
L90
Ldeq
Lneq
Ld/n
Day
1.5
2.6
0.85
2.6
--
1
A
Ni
1
2
0
-
2
.0
Site
B
ght Day Night
.2 --
.2 0.85 0.68
.68 2.6 3.0
_
.6 — 0.68
--
C
Day Night
0.5 2
4 5
8.5 10
2
5
1.5

DUE TO
C
Day Night
0.52
1.5 2.2
--
0.52
--
                   246

-------
    Figure 3-27 represents the generalized model for noise
propagation from the proposed plant for the worst case
model.  Equal level isopleths to the north, south, and east
extend farther than to the west due to the orientation of
buildings and location of openings.

    Impact of Mitigated Case Model on Holly Oaks

    The increase in background noise levels at the three
receptor sites due to the mitigated case model is shown in
Table   3-10.  It is immediately obvious that there is no
increase in L(10) , L (d/n) , or L (deq) levels at the two
receptors located in the Holly Oaks community,  (sites B and
C).  There may be a slight increase in both the L(50) and
the L(neq) levels and a definite increase in the L(90)
level.  However, the degree of even the largest increase
does not appear sufficient to provoke significant community
annoyance.

    There will continue to be increases in all levels at the
plant boundary  (site A), but the increases are less than 3
dBA in all cases.  There would be no violation of the
proposed Jacksonville noise ordinance.

    The generalized noise propagation model for the
mitigated case presented in Figure  3-28.  The directive
characteristics of the noise sources on the site are still
obvious, however, the intensity of the levels as a function
of distance is much lower.
                                247

-------

diS3V HOJ  13QOW  3SION 3SVD ISMOM
          a-e  ay no i j

-------
                  FIGURE 3-28


        NOISE MODEL FOR AESTP WITH MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Lake  t  ' -V
We
                     2^\\ v^ten i -irar
                     '>M\W4 :U  ^V*^
                     ifai&Littj*-!  i:;. i-s-.i. -sii'.ss-srts
X ^( ~^ /'
/^e,//,'
                                                .
                                       1:1  •'/• ~^A .-.-
                                 Scale 1 in. = 1758 ft
                     249

-------
    Summary
    The Arlington East Sewage Treatment Plant is well
 lesigned from the standpoint of control of environmental
 loise.  Enclosure of clarifier and aeration pumps within
 sipe galleries, and the use of blower building air duct
 silencers are several design features which have the
 potential to diminish noise levels generated by the system.
 ^11 buildings are structurally designed so that noise
 transmission through walls shoild be minimal.  Walls
 generally will be ten-inch cavity with four inches each of
 olock and brick and a two-inch air space.  There are a
 minimum number of openings in each building.

    There is a potential for significant radiation of noise
 from buildings which are designed to provide equipment
 access aluminum roll-up doors.  It has been observed to be a
 common operating practice to leave these doors at least
 partially open.  This will result in a significant
transmission of noise energy out through the open door.
 Enery will also be transmitted through the low density doors
when they are closed and radiated to the surrounding
community.  Those areas in which louvers are provided for
 air movement create a similar noise radiation problem.  Both
of these are directional sources which propagate
 perpendicular to the wall of the building in which they are
 located.  In addition, roof mounted ventilation fans are a
 potentially significant noise source.

                   2)    Additional Noise Controls
                        Alternatives

    Two noise control strategies are presented to reduce the
noise impact to the levels approximated by the model
 developed for the mitigated case.
                                                     i
    *Re-evaluate design specifications for buildings and
    major process equipment to develop low noise
    specifications where feasible.  Also evaluate potential
    for noise reduction through operational modifications.
    This engineering evaluation should consider frequency
    distributions as well as weighted sound pressure levels
    in developing revised specifications.

    *Construct plant with as many of the above design and
    operational modifications made as practical to mitigate
                                250

-------
    identified noise sources.  Then follow-up with an
    operational noise monitoring program to identify
    oversight noise problem areas, if any, and to develop
    final solutions.

    Re-evaluation of Design Specifications and Operational
    Practices

    There is one operational practice which will
substantially mitigate noise emissions if vigorously
enforced.  The simple act of keeping all openings on all
buildings closed will have a significant mitigating effect
on noise levels.  The transmission loss (TL)  in dB of any
wall or barrier is significantly reduced by any openings.
The maximum attenuation possible when openings are present
is dependent on the percentage of open area and may be
approximated by the following:

                   TL + 10 log (Total area)
                               (open area )

    This relationship is conservative because it does not
take frequency into consideration.  Low frequencies will be
attenuated by smaller openings more than this equation would
predict.  For example, the TL for the solids handling
building is reduced to a maximum value of eight  (8) when
both equipment access doors are open.  This represents a
decrease in sound attenuation for that wall of the building
of at least 400 percent.

    The second operational modification would be to schedule
practices such as ash removal, chlorine drum transfers, grit
hopper removal, and bar screen hopper removal during periods
of the day with a high background noise levels.

    Design modifications that should be considered in the
effort to reduce environmental noise may also have an impact
on operator noise exposure.  Consequently the most efficient
utilization of resources would be to consider Occupational
Safety and Health Act  (OSHA) requirements when developing
noise generation specifications for process equipment.

    Design modifications may be considered to fall into two
categories as follows:

    *Equipment or building modifications to attenuate direct
    propagation of noise energy from the plant.
                               251

-------
    *Equipmervt or building modifications to reduce overall
    sound levels inside the sludge heat
    treatment/incineration building and the blower building.

    Modifications -bo Attenuate Direct Noise Propagation

    As can be seen from Table 3-8, the sludge heat
treatment/incinerator building, the blower building, the
water reuse pumping station, the effluent pumping station,
aeration/clarification components as well as several other
buildings have several noise sources which radiate noise
energy directly to receptors off the plant.  Modifications
common to all these sources include the following:

    ^Specify low noise level ventilation fans and blades
    such as centrifugal air foil or centrifugal reverse
    curved fan blades.

    ^Specify sound absorbing roll-up doors in place of sheet
    metal doors.

    *Minimize area of openings in walls of all buildings for
    roll-up doors, windows, and louvers.

    *Totally enclose all motors, especially the water reuse
    pump motors and other motors outside the pipe gallery,
    or specify low noise level motors.

    *Specify acoustically absorbent louvers.

    *Enclosure of the bar screen, preaeration tank and
    primary clarifiers would attenuate noise, as well as
    control odors, provided blowers were located with the
    instruct ure.

    ^Evaluate installation of acoustically absorbent
    material in blower building intake structure.
                               252

-------
    *Site the access road from Memorial Road to minimize
    traffic near Holly Oaks.

    *Plant heavy evergreen barriers as close to noise
    sources as possible (see Figure 3-26)  to provide maximum
    noise attenuation and visual obstructions.

    Eliminate flashy signs and expanses of well cut grass in
    order to keep a low profile with the surrounding
    community.

    Modifications to Reduce Sound Levels Inside Buildings

    Several design modifications should be considered for
the sludge heat treatment/incineration building and the
blower building to control the level of noise generated by
the equipment within those buildings.  Noise generated by
machinery contained within a building can radiate to outdoor
areas by transmission through walls and openings in the
building.  Sound radiating through a wall will be attenuated
by the transmission loss typical of the materials used to
build the wall and the frequency of the sound.

    The material properties which affect transmission loss
are the mass and internal stiffness.  Estimated sound
transmission losses for the three most commonly used wall
constructions designed for the facility are found in Table
3-11.

    It is obvious from Table 3-11 that aluminum roll-up
doors will transmit more sound energy to the outside
environment than cavity or concrete walls.  Measures to
reduce sound pressure levels inside the parts of the
buildings where the roll-up doors are located could
significantly decrease effective radiated noise power from
the building.  Design modifications applicable to the solids
handling building and/or the blower building are as follows:

    Construction of internal walls to isolate high noise
    components such as centrifuges, compressors, grinder
    pumps, solids pumps, vacuum pumps and blowers.

    *Specification of low noise motors.

    *Specification of low noise blowers and compressors.
                              253

-------
    *Construction of enclosures to isolate high noise
    components mentioned above.

                           TABLE 3-11

             ESTIMATED SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSSES
                             Sound Transmission Loss
Octave Band Frequency (HZ)    63	125	250	500	1000	20(30	4000	8000

Aluminum Roll-up Doors       14   20   26   29    29    29    29    35

10" Cavity Wall              33   34   36   39    49    59    69

Lightweight Concrete
 Tee Panel                   33   33   33   33    39    45    51    57


    Post-operational Noise Evaluation Program

    Many of the operational and design modifications
outlined in the previous section may be implemented with
minimal additiona 1 cost and substantial noise reduction
benefits.  However, many modifications may be of marginal
utility at this point.  The reason for this is that
evaluation of noise sources and the development of specific
noise controls for many noise problems cannot be made until
the equipment and/or plant is operational.  It is simply
impossible to theoretically model and predict all
significant noise sources in a complex industrial facility
in a cost—effective manner.  The attenuation of primary
noise sources--such as blower inlet louver noise--frequently
allows a slightly lower intensity noise source to become a
subsequent problem.

    Therefore, a very important and integral part of this
noise abatement program is a vigorous post-operational noise
evaluation program to identify problem areas, if any, and
expedite the development of a solution.

                   3)   Summary of Noise Impact

    A significant noise impact on the Holly Oaks community
may occur if the proposed plant is located and constructed
                               254

-------
as planned and operated in a manner similar to the two test
plants.

    Since a comparable effect can be expected at all site
locations either on present residents or on future
residents, all plant sites will have the preceding noise
control measures taken.

    These control measures include modification to design
specifications to include such things as low noise level
ventilation fans, sound absorbing roll-up doors, total
enclosure of all motors, and enclosure of the bar screen,
preaeration tank and primary clarifiers.  Modification of
operational practices will also have a significant effect
upon noise emissions.  Keeping all openings on all buildings
closed and scheduling all truck traffic during peak
background noise periods will have a significant mitigating
effect upon noise levels.  Final controls will be
implemented after the plant is operational.  At that time,
an extensive post-operational noise evaluation program will
be conducted to identify problem areas, if any, and expedite
the development of solutions.
                                255

-------
                                 TABLE 3-12

                      POTENTIALLY VIABLE SUBSYSTEMS
      Subsystem

    Effluent Disposal
    Treatment Plant Locations
    Treatment Processes
    (a)   Pretreatment
    (b)   Primary Treatment

    (c)   Secondary Treatment
    (d)   Advanced Waste Treatment
    (e)   Disinfection

    Sludge Treatment and Disposal
    (a)   Sludge Thickening
    (b)   Sludge Stabilization
    (c)   Sludge Devratering
    (d)   Sludge Reduction
    (e)   Final Disposal
                                               Viable Alternatives

                                          St. Johns River Outfall  (proposed)
                                          Septic Tank Drainfields  (proposed)

                                          Millcoe Road  (A)  (proposed)
                                          Millcoe Road  (B)
                                          Dunes Area  (A)
                                          Dunes Area  (B)
                                          Dames Point/Ft. Caroline Intersection
                                          North of Craig Field
                                          East of Craig Field  (A)
                                          East of Craig Field  (B)
                                          Inside East Edge of Craig Field  (A)
                                          Inside East Edge of Craig Field  (B)
                                          Beacon Hills
                                          Spanish Point
                                          Quarentine Island
                                          Inside Southern Edge of Craig Field
                                          Individual Septic Tanks
                                          Package Plants
                                          Aeration  (proposed)
                                          Chlorination  (proposed)
                                          Screening  (proposed)
                                          Grit removal  (proposed)
                                          Sedimentation  (proposed)
                                          Skimming  (proposed)
                                          Conventioanl Activated Sludge  (proposed)
                                          None
                                          Chlorination  (proposed)
                                          Centrifugation  (proposed)
                                          Heat Treatment  (proposed)
                                          Vacuum Filtration  (proposed)
                                          Incineration  (proposed)
                                          Landfill  (proposed)
                                          Land Spreading
6.
Odor Control
 (a)  Currently Planned Odor Control  (proposed)
 (b)  Additional Odor Controls Alternative

Noise Control
 (a)  Currently Planned Noise Controls  (proposed)
 (b)  Additional Noise Controls Alternative
                                 256

-------
    c.    Development of Viable System Alternatives

    The preceding description of subsystems has left various
potentially viable alternatives (Table 3-12).  These
subsystems must now be combined into viable system
alternatives.  Interaction between subsystems are discussed
and certain combinations excluded which do not reach project
objectives or are eliminated by other constraints on the
project.

    Certain non-structural subsystems are incorporated into
the various system alternatives.  However, nonstructural
alternatives to the subsystems are not expected to
significantly affect attainment of project objectives other
than the "no action" alternative.  Therefore, no additional
non-structural evaluation is proposed other than for the "no
action" alternative.

    There are some alternative outfall disposal locations
which are worthy of consideration.  These involve a routing
of the outfall along Fort Caroline Road up to a disposal
point located opposite Blount Island.  The Millcoe Road and
Dunes Area sites appear to be the only sites for which these
alternatives appear viable.  The Dame Point-Fort Caroline
alternative would involve a considerably longer outfall line
and will not be evaluated.

    The discussion of sludge treatment and disposal has
provided an alternative to incineration of the sludge, land
spreading.  The option of land spreading is available for
all site alternatives and is included in each.  With land
spreading of the sludge, however, the incinerator must be
built as a backup since there is no assurance that land
would be provided by landowners for this purpose.  The
inclusion of land spreading in the environmental analysis is
meant to help determine the desirability of this option and
the effort that should be made to implement this sludge
disposal method.

    From data on the present and potential future residents
living within certain distances of the proposed plant sites
 (Table  3-13), and the data given covering the percentage of
persons identifying the plant as a major odor source  (Figure
3-16)r the number of persons at each site identifying the
plant as a major source of odor without the additional
controls has been calculated and is given in Table 3-14.
                               257

-------
    The East of Craig Field and Quarentine Island sites have
the least number  (0) of persons who have been calculated to
identify the plant without additional controls as a major
odor source.  Inside the eastern boundary of Craig Field is
a close third with one.  Following in order are the Dunes
Area (17), Spanish Point (23), North of Craig Field (30),
Inside the southern boundary of Craig Field (72), Dames
Point-Fort Caroline (91) , Millcoe Road  (117) and Beacon
Hills  (151).  The primary impact of odor production from the
proposed plant would therefore be proportional to the number
of persons affected.  There would be substantial secondary
impacts also from operating the plant without additional
odor controls.  Future residents would be subjected to odor
as indicated in Table 3-13.  For the preceding reasons, all
viable alternatives will include odor controls excepting the
Quarentine Island Site which is sufficiently isolated to
preclude the need for controls.

    Structural subsystems which remain as viable
alternatives are listed in Table 3-12.  These subsystems are
then combined to give viable system alternatives.  The
system alternatives have been divided first by plant site
and then subdivided by process subsystems.  Table 3-15 lists
the identified system alternatives.

                         TABLE 3-13

              COMPARATIVE RESIDENT POPULATIONS
        Present

   Millcoe Road

   On site   -      0
   0 -1,000  -     18
1,000-2,000  -    329
2,000-3,000  -    217
                                  Potential
                             displaced by site -    624
                             0 -1,000          -  3,208
                             1,000-2,000       -  4,981
                             2,000-3,000       -  6,323
         Total
                  564
Total
14,512
                               258

-------
2.   Dunes Area
    On site   -      0
    0-1,000   -      4
 1,000-2,000  -     32
 2,000-3,000  -     49
          displaced by site -     861
          0-1,000           -   4,038
          1,000-2,000        -   7,249
          2,000-3,000        -   7,890
         Total      85

3.  Dame Point-Fort Caroline
    On site
    0-1,000
 1,000-2,000
 2,000-3,000
  0
 95
 98
200
                    Total     19,177
displaced by site -  1,991
0-1,000           -  6,825
1,000-2,000       -  6,497
2,000-3,000       -  7,059
         Total     393

4.  North of Craig Field

    On site   -      0
    0-1,000   -     14
 1,000-2,000  -     18
 2,000-3,000  -    105


    Total          137

5.  East of Craig Field
    On site
    0-1,000
 1,000-2,000  -
 2,000-3,000  -
  0
  0
  0
  0
                    Total     22,372
          displaced by site -  1,341
          0-1,000           -  3,456
          1,000-2,000       -  2,941
          2,000-3,000       -  2,855
                    Total      9,252
displaced by site -     80
0-1,000           -    367
1,000-2,000       -    514
2,000-3,000       -    609
    Total
                    Total
                     1,490
                                 259

-------
6.  East of Craig Field
    On site
    0-1,000
 1,000-2,000  -
 2,000-3,000  -
  0
  0
  0
  0
displaced by site
0-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
 80
367
514
609
         Total       0

7.  Craig_Field inside East Boundary
                    Total
    On site
    0-1,000
 1,000-2,000  -
 2,000-3,000  -
  0
  0
  0
  7
displaced by site
0-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
                     1,490
  0
  0
 134
429
         Total       7

8.  Craig Field inside East Boundary
                    Total
    On site
    0-1,000
 1,000-2,000  -
 2,000-3,000  -
         Total

9.  Beacon Hills

    On site
    0-1,000
 1,000-2,000  -
 2,000-3,000  -
  0
  0
  0
  7
  0
 28
210
525
displaced by site
0-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
                    Total
displaced by site
0-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
                       563
  0
  0
 134
429
                       563
 80
286
221
256
         Total
763
          Total
763
                             260

-------
10.  Spanish Poirvt

    On site
    0-1,000
 1,000-2,000  -
 2,000-3,000  -
  0
 11
 35
 63
         Total     109

11. Quarantine Island
    On site
    0-1,000
 1,000-2,000  -
 2,000-3,000  -
  0
  0
  0
  0
displaced by site
0-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
                    Total
displaced by site
0-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
    0
  139
  921
1,939
                     2,999
     0
     0
     0
     0
         Total       0                 Total

12. Craig Field inside South Boundary
    On site   -      0
    0-1,000   -      0
 1,000-2,000  -     98
 2,000-3,000  -    277
          displaced by site
          0-1,000
          1,000-2,000
          2,000-3,000
                                    0
                          0
                        120
                      2,488
                      4,138
         Total
375
          Total
6,746
                              261

-------
                                   TABLE 3-14

                PERSONS IDENTIFYING HjftNT J&S mJOR ODOR SOURCE
      Site         ^Present Residents       tFuture Residents       #Mded Residents

1.  Millcoe Road

    On site        -       0
     0-1,000       -       6
 1,000-2,000       -      72
 2,000-3,000       -      39

               Total     117                   3,957                    3,840

2.  Dunes Area

    On site        -       0
     •0-1,000       -       1
 1,000-2,000       -       7
 2,000-3,000       -       9

               Total      17                   4,772                    4,755

3.  Dames Point-Fort Caroline

    On site        -       0
     0-1,000       -      33
 1,000-2,000       -      22
 2,000-3,000       -      36

               Total      91                   5,885                    5,794

4.  North of Craig Field

    On site        -       0                     536
     0-1,000       -       5                   1,210
 1,000-2,000       -       6                     647
 2,000-3,000       -      19                     514

               Total      30                   2,907                    2,877

S.  East of Craig Field

    On site                0                      32
     0-1,000       -       0                     128
 1,000-2,000       -       0                     113
 2,000-3,000       -       0                     HO

               Total       0                     383                      383

6.  Craig Field inside East Boundary

    On site                0                       0
     Orl,000               0                       0
  1,000-2,000               0                      29
  2,000-3,000       -       1                      77

               Total       1                     106                      105

                                        262

-------
                           TABLE 3-14  (Cont'd)


Site          iPresent Besidents       ^Future B6siderits      Afldded Residents
7. Beacon Hills
On site
0-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
Total
8. Spanish Point
On site
0-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
Tofcil
9. Quarantine Island
On site
0-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
Total
10. Craig Field Inside
On site
0-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
0
10
46
95
151
0
4
8
11
23
0
0
0
0
South Boundary
e
0
22
50
                                              227                  76
                                              601                  578
                                                0
                                                0
                                                0
                                                0
       Total         72                     1,334                1,262
                                   263

-------
    D.   Description of Alternative Impacts

    As may be seen from Table 3-15, there are many
alternatives.  Further, for each alternative there are
construction effects, operational effects, and secondary
effects.  In order to simplify the impact description, the
impacts are divided initially by environmental categories;
secondarily, by construction impacts; operation impacts and
secondary impacts, thirdly, by site alternative, and
finally, by subsystem alternative.

    Construction and operation are readily understood terms
and no discussion of these is necessary.  Secondary effects,
however, require some explanation.  Secondary impacts are
those effects whicy may occur indirectly or be stimulated to
occur due to the project.  Usually, it is difficult to
quantify the actual secondary effect of the project since a
number of other factors may also contribute to this effect.
In some instances though, the realization of a primary
impact of the project may remove a limiting factor and cause
other factors to exert more influence.

    An example of this situation may be helpful.  The
location of a municipal airport in a rural area will
directly change the use of that site.  A secondary impact of
this placement would be the stimulation of commercial or
industrial development on adjacent properties.  Certainly in
this case, the primary impact of the airport is to provide
air transport facilities.  As a result, decreasing transport
costs at the adjacent properties, plus the combined effect
of other factors such as market demand, resource
availability, land availability, adequate labor force, etc.,
may allow the property to be economically desirable for
development.

    It should be noted that the effect on certain
environmental categories may not change due to varying the
treatment plant site and/or varying certain subsystem
alternatives.  For these categories, a discussion of the
common impact and a statement that the impacts are not
expected to vary with the alternative will be made.

         1)   Air Quality

    Sources of air pollution related to sewerage
construction include construction dust, construction vehicle
and equipment exhaust emissions, and smoke from burnina of
cleared vegetation, rubbish an<3 debris.
                              264

-------
                                                       TABLE  3-15
                                                 VIABLE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE
IA1
IA2
IB1
IB 2
IIA1
IIA2
IIB1
IIB2
III1
III2
IV!
IV2
VI
V2
VII
VI2
VIII
SITE
Millcoe Rd.
Millcoe Rd.
Millcoe Rd.
Millcoe Rd.
Dunes Area
Dunes Area
Dunes Area
Dunes Area
Dames Point/
Fort Caroline
Dames Point/
Fort Caroline
Borth of
Grate Field
North of
Eraig Field
East of
Craie Field
East of
Craie Field
East of
Crais Field
East of
Craig Field
Inside East
Craig Field
EFFLUENT
DISPOSAL SITE
Quarentine Island
Quarentine Island
Blount Island
Blount Island
Quar. Is.
Quar . Is .
Blount Is .
Blount Is .
Ouar. Is.
Ouar. Is.
Blount Is.
Blount Is.
Blount Is.
Blount Is.
Blount Is.
Blount Is .
Blount Is.
SLUDGE TREATMENT
& DISPOSAL
Incineration (ING)
Land Spreading (LS)
IKC
LS
INC
LS
INC
LS
INC
LS
INC
LS
INC
LS
INC
LS
INC
INTERCEPTOR
ALLIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Off Craie Field
Off Craie ifield
On Craie Field
On Craig Field
Off Craig Field
S3

-------
                                                        TABLE 3-15
                                               VIABLE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES  (CONT'D)
ALTERNATIVE
VII2
VIII1
VIII 2
1X1
1X2
XI
X2
XII
XI2
XIII
XII 2






SITE
Inside East
Craig Field
Inside East
Craig Field
Inside East
Craig Field
Beacon Hills
Beacon Hills
Spanish Point
Spanish Point
Quarentine Isl.
Quarantine Is .
Southern Edge
Craig Field
Southern Edge
Craig Field






EFFLUENT
DISPOSAL SITE
Blount Island.
Blount Island
Blount Island
Blount Island
Blount Island
Blount Island
Blount Island
Quarentine Is.
Quarantine Is .
Blount Is .
Blount Is .






SLUDGE TREATMENT
& DISPOSAL
LS
INC
15
INC
LS
INC
LS
INC
LS
INC
LS






INTERCEPTOR
ALLIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE
Off Craig Field
On Craig Field
On Craig Field
__
— —
—
— —
__
»
___
__






NJ

-------
    Clearing, excavation, and grading on treatment, plant and
pumping station sites and along pipeline routes, may be
expected to generate some dust problems.  The degree of
impact caused by wind erosion of disturbed soils will be
related to soil type.  For example, soils of larger particle
size, as in sand hill locations, are less susceptible to
wind transport than are smaller and/or lighter, organic
particles as are more common in low-lying areas.  The degree
of dust problems attendant to plant construction can be
expected to be less at sites 1,3,5-6, and 10, which are
predominately sandy, than at sites 4,7-8, and 12, which are
swampy.  Based on this rationale. Table 3-13, a comparison
of population proximity densities, shows site 12 to have the
greatest potential for exposure of the public to
construction generated dust, followed by sites 4 and 7-8.
In all cases, however, construction specifications will
reguire the spreading of calcium chloride as needed on
disturbed earth areas as a dust control measure.

    The extent of dust problems associated with transmission
system construction will be directly related to the number
of pumping stations and total footage of pipeline
constructed.  These factors do not vary drastically among
the alternatives.  Depending on the alternative chosen, the
number of pumping stations to be constructed will be 32 to
34, and the total length of force main needed will be
245,500 to 262,800 feet.

    Smoke from burning of cleared vegetation, rubbish, and
debris will not be a problem under any alternative since
open burning will be prohibited by construction
specifications.  The contractor will be required to haul
debris to a disposal site designated by the city.  Cleared
vegetation may either be hauled to that site or chipped and
spread on the construction site.

    During construction, a certain amount of unavoidable
traffic will be needed to move construction and process
eguipment, and construction labor and materials to the sites
and to remove debris from the sites.  The amount of such
traffic is essentially independent of which site is selected
since the treatment plant will be largely the same
regardless of site.  Some site-dependent variations will
doubtless occur, however.  For example, subsoil and soil
conditions might necessitate the use of piling or fill and
thus induce greater truck traffic to move these materials.
Therefore, the impact of truck and equipment emissions is
                               267

-------
proportional to the density proximity figures although
Little actually noticeable effect is anticipated from these
smissions.

    The "no action" alternative would necessitate, at
ninimum, expansion and upgrading of existing package plants
in the service district.  Undoubtedly, similar construction
sffects would therefore occur at each of these smaller sites
at different times.  Such actions would probably affect a
greater proportion of the population over a greater length
of time than would construction of a regional plant and
interceptors.

    All alternatives considered presently include multiple
hearth incinerators for sludge disposal.  The incinerator
will be the primary source of air emissions and, since no
operational incinerator is completely efficient, its
operation jfill result in unavoidable discharge of some
particulate  (fly ash) and gaseous (oxides of sulfur and
nitrogen, and carbon monoxide) pollutants.  Incinerator
operations and emissions, however, will conform fully to all
provisions of Federal, State, and local air quality
standards, codes, and permits.  Dry gas emissions will be
limited to .02 grains per standard cubic foot of dry gases
corrected to 12 percent C02.  Based on an initial plant
capacity of 10 mgd, the plant incinerator operating five
days per week would result in an average yearly production
of 5,070 Ibs. particulate matter.  By way of comparison with
total particulate emissions for the entire city, this figure
represents less than 0.02 percent of existing emissions.
Ultimate plant capacity of 25 mgd will result in particulate
emissions representing approximately 0.045 percent of total
existing emissions for the city.

    Particulate fallout per unit acre resulting from
incinerator operation will not be significant even under
critical operational and meteorological conditions.
Assuming that these critical conditons are:   (1) larger
particulate size  (10 microns) than actually anticipated,
which would result in inordinantly large fallout per unit
acre surrounding the plant,  (2) no thermal updraft, and  (3)
year 2002 emission rate of 12,675 Ib./year, the calculated
fallout rate surrounding the source would be 0.0297 Ib. per
acre per year within a radius of 33,000 feet surrounding the
source when wind is 3.0 mph or less  (18.4 percent of the
time).  Further, when wind velocity is between 3.0 and 12.0
mph and critical conditions are assumed, fallout will occur
                                268

-------
33,000 to 132,000 feet from the source.  Based on wind
records, the greatest percentage of time (6.6 percent) this
fallout will occur lies in an arc of 22.5 degrees oriented
toward a southwest compass reading.  (See Figure 2-1; wind
rose).  Under these conditions, a calculated fallout rate of
0.0114 Ib. per acre per year would result.   Since all
alternative sites are located relatively close together with
respect to overall dimensions of fallout areas, it is
concluded that air pollution effects will not vary greatly
in degree of significance among the alternatives.

    Not utilizing the incineration facilities would
eliminate by far the largest portion of operational
emissions.  This option would, of course, entail an
alternate means of sludge disposal such as land spreading.
This alternative method of sludge disposal will result in
significantly less air emissions, such as those produced by
trucks used to haul sludge to land spreading sites.

    Under the "no action" alternative, there would obviously
be no emissions of air pollutants from a regional treatment
plant in Arlington.  However, sludge disposal procedures
would still need to be carried out for existing package
plants.  The volume of sludge to be disposed would
undoubtedly increase as these small plants underwent
expansion and upgrading.  Should it be decided to incinerate
the sludge at another incinerator rather than landfill it,
air emissions would still result.

    Population projections discussed in Chapter II show that
with implementation of a regional wastewater treatment
system, the population of Arlington will continue to grow at
faster rates than that of the city as a whole.  Projections
show the Arlington population nearly doubling in the period
1980-2002.  By permitting this growth to take place,
implementation of the proposed project will induce a certain
degree of change in air quality of the area through
secondary effects, most notably by permitting the
development of areas; heretofore not favorable to
development due, for example, to septic tank limitations.
The project will thus induce an increase in air emissions in
the service area brought on by the functions and services
attendant to newly developed areas.  For example, given a
1980 service area population of 19,000, particulate
emissions from automobiles in the Arlington-East district
will amount to approximately 204 tons per year.  However,
assuming a 2002 service area population of 220,000 with the
                                269

-------
project, particulates from automobiles will increase to
approximately 377 tons per year.  Since all alternatives
will encourage the same amount of growth as forecasted by
the Regional Land Use Plan, secondary effects on air quality
will not significantly vary with alternative choice.

    It is predicted that the "no action" alternative would
bring about an approximate 25 percent reduction in the
growth rate for the service area with a regional treatment
system.  The secondary effects on air quality brought about
by population increase may thus be assumed to be
proportionately less for the "no action" alternative
regarding total quantities of emissions.  However, since the
"no action" alternative will probably cause increased
pressure for development at higher densities where package
plants may be constructed, notably the northern section, the
potential for increases in emissions in these areas exists.

         2)   Odor

    Sources of construction-related odor will be primarily
exhaust emissions of construction equipment and vehicles and
odors emanating from organic materials in soils (primarily
muck)  excavated during construction.  Exhaust emissions
should not vary markedly from alternative to alternative.
The extent of nuisance odors associated with much
excavation, however, will vary markedly from site to site.
Those alternatives involving plant site locations generally
on sand hills, i.e.. Alternatives 1,3,5,6 and 10, generally
entail no demucking and hence no potential for related
odors.  Those sites located in freshwater swamp areas, i.e.,
Alternatives 4,7,8 and 12, will entail disturbance of
existing muck deposits and the potential for related odor.
If construction in the freshwater pond portion of the Dunes
Area site  (Alternative 2) involves demucking as is
suspected, nuisance odors could result therefrom.  Placement
of fill on the Quarantine Island site (Alternative No. 11)
and the Beacon Hills site  (Alternative 9)  could perhaps most
economically be accomplished by spoiling dredged materials
from channel maintenance dredging on these sites.  It is
known that bottom deposits in portions of the harbor, more
particularly in the vicinity of downtown Jacksonville,
contain significant amounts of organic solids.  Such
material could be quite malodorous when spoiled.  However,
such material would not be as satisfactory as would sand for
plant construction purposes and every attempt would be made
to have any material so placed be relatively clean sand.  In
                              270

-------
that case there would be little potential for nuisance odors
during the spoiling  (site filling)  operation.

    The degree of severity of construction odor is directly
related to the degree of public exposure.  Exposures of
resident populations and transient populations,
respectively, to plant construction activity and odor, are
generally in keeping with residential density proximity
figures. Table 3-13, and proximity to thoroughfares of the
various alternative sites.  The effects of construction odor
will be totally short-term in duration, limited to the
construction period.  No long-term effects are anticipated.

    The odor production from operation of the controlled
plant is expected to result in no detectable nuisance odors
noticeable off the plant site.  The implementation of
controls should result in all major potential odor sources
being brought under control.  An estimated 90% of potential
odors from the proposed plant should be removed by these
treatment techniques.

    A very low, yet detectable, odor will probably be
noticeable on the plant site for short periods of time under
certain atmosphereic and plant operating conditions.  This
type of odor episode would be generally due to operator
error, equipment failure, or a maintenance oversight.

    Even with these unusual breakdowns, several backup
systems will work conveniently to preclude noticeable odors.
First, the wastewater is chlorinated, thereby reducing most
odor production; secondly, the wastewater is aerated,
thereby further reducing potential odors by assuring the
wastewater does not become septic; thirdly, all gases from
all processes through the primary sedimentation basin will
be treated at the wet scrubber.  Following primary
sedimentation comes the activated sludge aeration units
which will keep high dissolved oxygen content in the waters.
The very low probability of all wastewater treatment systems
being down simultaneously, along with the reception of an
unusually septic influent at the plant, makes the occurrence
of an odor episode due to these processes highly unlikely.

    The additional process of routing the combined vapors
from sludge centrifuges, vacuum pumps, and filters, and
sludge blending tanks to the inlet air fan of the multiple
hearth incinerator,  provides excellent control of these
sources during incinerator operation since operating
                                271

-------
temperatures of 1400 degrees F will cause complete oxidation
of all odors.  The provision of a second wet scrubber for
periods when the incinerator is not in operation gives
additional control of these odors.  Finally, the catalytic
incineration of vapor from the sludge decant tanks provide
complete oxidation of these odors.  The combination of these
systems provide the best control systems for odor known
today.

    Nevertheless, should a highly unlikely episode occur,
which also would very likely be an odor of low intensity,
the degree of impact would be proportional to the density-
proximity table and the "Persons Identifying Plant as Major
Odor Source" table.   (Tables 3-13 and 3-14)

    Secondary effects due to odor production are related to
the changes in human usage of lands which are subjected to
odor episodes.  One means of quantifying the relative
effects is by looking at the future increase in residential
populations that has been calculated to identify the plant
as a major odor source according to the comprehensive plan
for Jacksonville.  Certainly some effect or change of usage
of these lands could result if offensive odors were present.
As stated before, all alternatives will* have excellent odor
control measures taken and no adverse effect is anticipated.

    Nevertheless, Table 3-14 gives, ranked in order, the
additional populations for each alternative site that might
be affected according to the comprehensive plan should an
odor episode occur.

    Implementation of the "no action" alternative could be
expected to have substantial secondary odor effects.  The
increased usage of package plants in close proximity to
residential areas would have great potential to adversely
affect surrounding residents, since odor controls would
probably not be included, overloads would be more common,
breakdowns more frequent, and maintenance more difficult.
Further, there would be an increase in septic tank
malfunctions and the associated odors since lands that are
marginally suitable for septic tank installation may be
pressured into development.  Further, the plants which are
proposed to be closed after construction of the regional
plant would remain, and odors associated with operation and
occasional septic discharges would continue to occur.
                               272

-------
         3)    Noise

    Sources of construction noise will be operational noises
of construction equipment and vehicles.  These noises are
unavoidable.  Their adverse impacts will be mitigated by
having construction specifications require that particularly
noisy operations such as pile driving be carried out only
during normal daylight working hours.  The degree of impact
occasioned by pursuit of various alternatives will be
dependent on the resident population density-proximity
figures and on proximity to traffic thoroughfares.

    For each plant site, operational noise control measures
will be required.  From Figure 3-28, it can be seen that
very minimal effects on noise levels in communities
surrounding any proposed site would result.  Further the
additional requirement of a followup on noise levels
measurements and the taking of corrective actions will
provide an excellent post construction control strategy
should some noise source be overlooked in initial control
efforts.

    By varying the sludge disposal from incineration to land
spreading the noise generated by the incinerator would be
eliminated while the noise generated by trucks would be
increased  (20 more trucks per day).  The trucks would
operate during daylight hours and  should not appreciably
increase noise levels for sites with good arterial access.
Further, there would not be an appreciable decrease in sound
levels should incineration be eliminated.  Therefore, little
difference between these alternatives is expected other than
for sites with poor access.
    Secondary effects of implementing the regional system as
proposed versus the "no action" alternative may be
considered a direct function of human occupation and use
since the major sources of noise in the Arlington-East Area
are aircraft and automobiles.  The difference in noise
levels, therefore, may be estimated to correspond to the
difference between the amount and location of population
growth for each case.  The estimated difference in
population growth is 25 percent less under the "no action"
alternative.  Further, the general location of the growth is
not expected to be significantly different under "no
action." Noise levels, therefore, are not expected to be
significantly different under the two alternatives.
                                273

-------
         4)   Topography

    Effects of plant construction on topography will be
minimal and will not differ greatly with each alternative
Most of the alternative plant sites occupy land parcels
which have slopes of less than one percent and should thus
require a minimum of grading and land surface alteration.
Sites 1,3 and 10, however, consist of land with slope
generally greater than eight percent and may thus require
somewhat more grading.

    Due to the relatively flat topography throughout the
Service District and general similarities between
alternative interceptor plans, alterations to the land
surface brought about by interceptor construction will not
be significant and will not vary greatly with alternative
choice.

    The "no action" alternative would eliminate grading
procedures for construction of a wastewater treatment
system.  This action, however, does not eliminate the
possibility of grading at the alternative sites should they
ultimately be used for private construction.  Further, while
the "no action" alternative eliminates the considerations
attendant to a regional system, it will probably cause the
eventual construction of additional package plants in the
service area along with necessary  (and decentralized)
alterations to the landscape.

    Operational effects as related to topography center
around the visibility of the treatment facilities at the
alternative plant sites.  Due to lack of vegetation at plant
sites 2 and 11, facilities constructed there would be most
visible at the greatest distances.  Other sites will vary in
visibility from being nearly completely hidden by existing
vegetation to being partly visible from thoroughfares both
existing and proposed.

    To determine the visibility of the proposed 74-foot
incinerator stack at site 1, two approximately three-foot
diameter helium-filled balloons were raised at the sight—
one to a height of 85 feet and the other to 100 feet—and
observations made at various surrounding locations.  From
the highest elevation to be found north of the site  (about
2,800 feet away) the 85 foot high balloon was not able to be
seen and the 100 foot high balloon was barely visible at
treetop level.  The same was also true at the highest
                              274

-------
elevation to the east (about 2,000 feet away).  From the
highest elevation to be found south of the site (about 3000
feet away), the 85 foot high balloon was barely visible at
treetop level and the 100 foot high balloon was plainly
visible.  It is to be remembered, however, that the proposed
incinerator stack will be only 74 feet high and 4 feet in
diameter at the top.  The balloon observations indicated
that an incinerator stack at site 1 will, for practical
purposes, not be visible by residents.  Moreover, at any
wooded plant site under consideration, the incinerator stack
should not be visible at distances greater than 500 feet
provided that a suitable buffer of existing vegetation is
left standing.  Reference to Table 3-13 showing population
proximity densities for the various alternative sites, will
facilitate an understanding of aesthetically affected
residents.

    Another operational effect to be considered is that
which would result from the land-spreading alternative used
in lieu of incineration for sludge disposal.  It is probable
that a land spreading operation would necessitate a certain
amount of grading to facilitate the process.  The net result
would be to generally flatten or smooth out the area to be
used.  This effect, however, would be more than offset by
the benefits to be derived from subseguent soil enrichment.

    The "no action" alternative would, of course, obviate
the need for aesthetic concerns at the alternative sites
since no plant would be constructed.  This is not to say,
however, that some other type of private construction would
not be undertaken at one of these sites which would
ultimately prove more visible to the public than a regional
wastewater treatment facility.  For example—the removal of
surrounding vegetation and construction of high density
residences.

    Since drainage is largely a function of topography,
possible secondary effects relating to changes in the
surface and shallow groundwater regime of the service area
are to be considered.  As has been stated, there are
extensive areas in Arlington which are unsuitable for
development because of septic system  limitations but which
will probably be opened up for development by the
installation of a regional treatment  system.  As this
occurs, it is possible that areas which are now  fairly wet
could be partially or completely drained for  development
with the concomitant physical and biological  effects of
                                275

-------
changing from a wet to a dry regime.  The "no action"
alternative would probably limit such a situation by
contributing to the confinement of future development to
naturally well-drained areas.

              5)   Soils

    While cleared and under construction, all sites will be
subject to erosion by wind and water.  The latter can be
contained on site by temporary berms and/or ditches.  In
addition, the generally flat to moderately sloping terrain
at all sites will help to minimize erosion by water.

    The potential for land erosion damage is, in part, a
function of soil particle size and specific gravity of
disturbed soils.  Larger and inorganic particles tend to
have more resistance to wind and water erosion while smaller
particles and lighter organic soils are more easily eroded.
Those alternate plant sites, where sand hill type and/or
dune type vegetative cover predominates, are characterized
by relatively coarse sandy surface soils.  Conversely, those
sites where terrain is swampy have finer surface soils with
higher organic content.  On this basis, soil erosion is a
greater potential problem at sites H, 7-8, and 12 than at
the others.  While predominately large soil particle
diameters at some sites will tend to minimize amounts of
soil eroded by wind, contract specifications will require
the contractor to spread calcium chloride as needed to
further reduce wind erosion.  In addition, the contractor
will finish, grade, and regrass disturbed areas as soon as
possible both at the plant and pump station sites and along
pipeline routes.

    The potential for land erosion is related in degree to
the area cleared during construction.  Land requirements for
all alternative plant sites are the same  (46 acres) except
for site 3 which requires 69 acres.  This larger area is
necessitated by accommodation of both the plant site and an
expressway interchange.  Areal clearing requirements for
transmission system construction are related directly to
length of pipeline and number of pumping stations
constructed.  As stated earlier, these factors do not vary
significantly with alternative choice.

    In summary, soil erosion during construction is not
considered a major impact and does not vary greatly among
the alternatives.
                                 276

-------
    The "no action" alternative would result in no regional
treatment system construction and no construction-related
soil erosion.  Once again, it does not preclude the
possibility of private construction at an alternate site
with attendant erosion.  It might, however, necessitate the
construction of additional package plants, some of which
might have potential for an erosion problem.

    All pipeline routes will be required by contract
specification to be returned to a condition comparable to
their preconstruction state.  No long-term effects on land
erosion are anticipated under any alternative system during
the period of operation.

    Chapter II described soil conditions in Arlington and
related them to the very limited area available for land
disposal of sludges.  Should the option of land spreading of
sludge from the Arlington-East plant on the strip-mined
areas be chosen, the soils of these barren areas would
continue to benefit greatly.  Should the incineration option
be selected in Arlington, there will be no continuance of
the program after completion of the Buckman Street
incinerator in 1977.

    Since all pipeline routes will be returned to their
preconstruction state, no improvement over operational
erosion conditions would result from the "no action"
alternative.  This alternative would also preclude the
possibility of continuing land spreading operations in
Arlington.  Probably the greatest role of soils in the
service area under the "no action" alternative, however,
would be that of limiting development in poorly drained
areas unsuitable for septic systems.

    Possible secondary effects on soils as a result of
regional treatment system implementation are related to
drainage and have been discussed in the previous section on
topography.

              6)   Terrestrial Vegetation

    Short term primary impacts of the treatment system
involve construction of the plant and the interceptors.
Site specific impacts are mentioned.
                                 277

-------
    Two major cover types exist on site 1.  The southern
lalf has higher elevations where the dominant species is
turkey oak (Quercus laevis) ,  20 to 30 ft.  tall.  Numerous
foung long leaf pines are evident everywhere but most 'are
still in the "grassy stage",  1 or 2 feet tall.  Some
magnolia trees are located around an abandoned house on the
east side.  Ground cover is predominatly wire grass.  Other
species are pawpaw, lopsided indian grass, huckleberry, and
muscadine vine.  According to projected limits of clearing,
grubbing, and grading by Flood and Associates, all will be
done on this cover type.

    The northern half of the site is about ten feet lower
than the southern half.  A low slash pine flatwoods with
several areas of hardwood swamp cover this half.  Dense
scrub and ground cover exists here especially near a creek
which flows west to east.  Projected clearing would not
extend into this hardwood swamp.

    Approximately 25 acres of longleaf pine/turkey oak
forest would be eliminated.  Twenty-three acres of low slash
pine flatwoods and considerable amounts of hardwood swamp is
not projected to be cleared on the north half of the site.
    Barren strip-mined sand covers nearly all of site 2.  A
strip mine pond covers the northern quarter of the site.
Sparse scrubby vegetation, such as red cedar exists on the
fringe of the water.  This is the only vegetation present on
the site so no real impact would occur to the terrestrial
vegetation if this site is chosen.


    Site 3 is situated nearly parallel to Ft. Caroline Road.
A small dirt road bisects the site.  The area southeast of
this road has higher elevations with longleaf pine/turkey
oak the predominant cover type.  Northeast of this road a
low flatwoods of slash pine exists with characteristic
palmetto in the understory.  Within this flatwoods a small
stand of cypress and freshwater swamp, about 160 feet wide,
occupies the lowest elevation at this alternate site.

    This site is larger than the other alternatives because
a highway interchange is also planned at this location.  If
the treatment plant is constructed here, about one half the
affected area is longleaf pine/turkey oak, and half slash
                             278

-------
pine flatwoods with one half acre of cyprus swamp also
eliminated.
    Site 4 is immediately to the north of Craig Field.  A
dramatic fringe effect is evident with the vegetation.  Two-
thirds or about 31 acres of this site is cypress swamp.  It
is concealed behind a fringe of slash pine and a few
hardwoods, such as sweetgum and red maple.  Both the cypress
stand and slash pine fringe are composed of mature
specimens.  A thick understory composed of holly and other
low scrub is present.

    Selection of Site H would eliminate 31 acres of cypress
swamp and 15 acres of a mixed slash pine and hardwood
fringe.
    Sites 5 and 6 occupy nearly the same ground area.
Location is 1.5 miles east of Craig Field runways.
vegetation cover type is predominantly longleaf pine/turkey
oak.  However, small live oak and small laurel oak are
common.  Wire grass is the dominant ground cover with
muscadine vine clinging to low scrubby growth.  A small
creek runs along the eastern side of the site through a 50
to  80-foot wide hardwood swamp assemblage..  Species in this
area are sweetgum, yellow poplar, small live oaks, black
cherry, water oak and sassafras.

    Ninety-five per cent of this site is the abundant
longleaf pine/turkey oak cover type which would be lost if
this alternative is selected; but a small hardwood area
would probably need to be cleared.


    Alternative sites 7 and 8 occupy almost the same ground
area for the treatment plant.  Location is 2000 feet east of
the confluence of the Craig Field runways.  The entire site
is  covered by cypress.  Surface water normally stands over
this area.  Several species of bay trees are present under
taller cypress.  The site is within the largest cypress
swamp area in the service district.  Selection of this site
would necessitate raising the elevation by filling in about
46  acres of cypress swamp plus that needed for access roads.
                               279

-------
    Site 9 is east of Mill Cove and 700 feet inland from the
3t. Johns River.  It is a ruderal area since it has received
dredged spoil from time to time hindering proliferation of
natural vegetation.  Diked spoil ponds are nearby but the
alternate site has not received dredged material for at
least eight years.

    A minimal amount of biologically valuable vegetation
would be lost if the plant were to be put here.  A small
area, about 1.8 acres, of hammock vegetation on the Beacon
Hills side of the site would be sacrificed.  The remainder
of the area is low scrub; wax myrtle, 10 to 15 feet high, is
the most common plant present.  Palmetto and a few red cedar
are also present.  Most of the site has no scrubby cover
only grasses, some cactus, and other ground cover plants,
somewhat characteristic of coastal dunes.
    On site 10, arboristic cover type is hammock.  Three
species of mature oaks dominate the canopy with nearly 95%
cover.  Many of these oaks, especially the live oak, Quercus
virginiana are greater than 2.5 feet dbh and heavily laden
with Spanish moss.  Some mature red bays and hickorys are
also present in the canopy.  Sufficient light penetrates to
bush palmetto, holly, and partridge berry underneath.

    Plant location at this alternative would eliminate +46
acres of mature hammock, the cover type least abundant
within the service district.  Maturation time is also very
slow compared to the pine species.
    The Quarantine Island site (site 11)  is another ruderal
area.  It has received periodic use as a spoil site, several
places quite recently.  Vegetation is similiar to site 9,
where wax myrtle is the dominant shrubby plant.  Elevations
are lower than site 9.  Therefore, some high marsh salt-
tolerant scrub vegetation such as Baccharis halimifQlia
exists adjacent to the site.  Coastal dune grasses cover
ground area not recently spoiled upon.


    Site 12 is inside Craig Field property about 1400 feet
south of the confluence of the runways.  Tree cover is
mostly slash pine flatwoods.  The eastern third is a
freshwater swamp which once had tall cypress trees.  Tall
cypress and slash pines have been removed to comply with FAA
                                280

-------
height restrictions.  A small stand of cypress exists on the
southwest corner of this site.

    Selection of this site would eliminate young slash pine
along with a portion of young cypress.  Twelve acres of
disturbed freshwater marsh would be lost through fill work.
    Construction of the waste treatment facility will
permanently remove a certain number of acres of natural
vegetation from the biological system since the site will
not be allowed to reforest.  No action obviously eliminates
this commitment of a resource.
    The technique of sludge disposal is currently being
practiced on the strip-mined area east of alternate site 2.
Barren, non-nutritive sand is being enriched and is
currently supporting a healthy grass cover.  Gradually, the
organic content of the soil will increase.  Soil
conditioning started with sludge application renders a
viable substrate from which more substantial vegetation
could grow.  From an agricultural and aesthetic standpoint
the land is more valuable to man and wildlife.
    Regardless of where the treatment plant is built long-
term secondary impacts pertain to more land rendered
suitable for development.  The Jacksonville Area Planning
Board has  projected  residential  development for portions of
the service district which could not develop with septic
tanks for  disposal.  Low  flatwoods  and hardwood stands will
be acutely affected.  Hardwood areas,, of maples, sweetgums
and hickorys, where  septic tanks could not be used, are
prime lands for  housing development with sewerage systems.
There will be a  loss of scenic beauty as naturally vegetated
hardwood stands  are  sub-divided  and developed.

    The no action alternative will  keep many of these low,
wet areas  in a natural state.  But  in general, development
will only  be postponed.
                               281

-------
         7 )    Terrestrial Animals

    Extensive acreage of longleaf pine/turkey oak areas
 xist adjacent to site 1 and elsewhere within the service
 .istrict.  Displaced species able to relocate could find
 uitable habitat elsewhere.  The gopher tortoise (Gopherus
            appears on the Florida Fish and Game
 :ommission*s list of threatened species in the State.  It
 >refers this habitat and could be present since suspect
 mrrows recently excavated were seen.  The indigo snake
 [Drvmarchon cgrais couperi)  appears on this same list and
 xrobably is present at. this same alternative as well as all
 Jthers.  Partridge pea, a favorite food of game fowl, was
 plentiful.  Quail and dove were seen on the site.

    Some evidence was seen of small animal activity at site
 2.  However, no significant wildlife habitat will be altered
 as a result of treatment plant construction.
    Three different habitat areas would be affected if site
3 were chosen, longleaf pine/turkey oak, slash pine
flatwoods, and a small cypress  swamp.  More animals are
directly dependent on the cypress swamp habitat than the
others so it is considered most biologically important even
though it is quite small.
    Beneficial use by numerous animals and birds can be
expected on site 4 since both the slash pine-hardwood fringe
and cypress swamp have good forage and cover available in
the understory thickets.  Additionally, about one-third of
site 4 is open slash pine area which has less suitable
wildlife cover.  If the plant were to be located here,
animals would either die or move away from the cleared area.
Similar cypress swamp habitat having excellent ground cover
is available immediately to the east of this site.  Animals
which prefer slash pine flatwoods could easily seek that
type since the flatwoods are the most abundant cover type in
the service district.  Species able to relocate to a
favorable habitat could do so from site 4.
    Many signs of wildlife are evident on sites 5 and 6
primarily because the site is so remote.  Ground cover is
quite good.  Partridge pea, a favorite food of game fowl,
was noticeably plentiful.  The hardwood assemblege near the
                                282

-------
creek provides a variation in habitat for animals that
prefer cool, dense thickets.  The creek is a close water
source.

    This site and sites 7 and 8 are the most remote.   As
such these areas have the best potential for supporting the
black bear  (Ursus americanus floridanus)  which Florida Fish
and Game biologists believe might inhabit the southern
portion of the service district.  It presently appears on
the threatened list within the state.
    The cypress stand habitat (sites 7 and 8)  supports the
most diverse assemblage of amphibian, reptile, and mammalian
species.  Many species common elsewhere are at least
indirectly dependent on the existence of cypress swamps.
Water, food supply, and good ground cover attracts
herbivores and carnivores.  The cypress swamp is remote
enough to allow these wildlife communities to function with
minimal disturbance by man.

    About 46 acres of this prime habitat would be lost if
this site is chosen.  Those species that could move could
find suitable habitat nearby, however.


    Terrestrial animals inhabit site 9 but few require this
specific type of vegetative cover.  Most species could exist
elsewhere with equal success.  Minimal effects would be felt
by the animal community.  Ruderal areas, because they have
been altered, tend to lack sufficient cover to support
numerous animals.  Aerial predators, the hawks and owls,
hunt these areas where cover is a limiting factor for ground
inhabitants especially mice and rats.  The animal community
is in a state of transition as the normal vegetative
succession proceeds.
    Numerous animals, especially tree dwellers (aviafauna)
utilize the extensive tree canopy located on site 10.
Several owl species and crows prefer the highest vantage
points, the tall oaks provide.  This cover type is in
shortest supply of the five terrestrial types within the
service district.  Therefore, species favoring this area
would be limited in relocation possibilities.  It is
possibly the most aesthetically pleasing area to man within
the service district.
                               283

-------
    Value to terrestrial animals is limited in site 11, as
in site 9 having similiar vegetation.  Utilization is
primarily for nesting by wading birds, particularly terns.
These birds lay their eggs directly on sand dune-like areas.
The eggs are best camouflaged on recent dredged spoil.  The
island restricts encroachment on nesting areas by man.
    Most of site 12 is cut-over slash pine being of minimal
value to wildlife.  The freshwater swamp, although devoid of
its tall cypress, still supports considerable wildlife.

    Elimination of habitat at this site would have a reduced
effect on animals because the tall vegetation has been
removed and will continue to be harvested.
    Without construction of the facility, a certain acreage
of habitat would remain available to resident wildlife.
    As development increases, secondary impacts will occur.
Wildlife habitat will be lost.  Animal behavior patterns are
forced to change as more animals are crowded into fewer
acres of needed habitat.  Many natural predators and
omnivores (racoons, bobcats, foxes, hawks and owls)  are
sensitive to development.  Man's mere presence will preclude
the use of the area by the endangered bald eagle.  They will
be removed resulting in their natural prey (rats, mice, and
some snakes) to increase.  This process results in a loss of
species diversity as natural habitats are replaced by
cultured ones.

    Increased road accessibility to the more remote
southeastern portion of the district will cause more road
kills.  At first animals will avoid this increased noise and
light but gradually they will get accustomed to it and kills
will increase.

              8)   Water Quality

    Erosion and sedimentation in streams can be caused by
treatment plant construction or by pipeline construction
which entails stream crossings.  With three exceptions, no
alternative treatment plant sites are so located as to
create any potential for significant erosion sedimentation
impacts on surface waterways.  The exceptions are the
                             284

-------
Quarantine Island site. Alternative 11; the Beacon Hills
site. Alternative 9; and the Spanish Point site, Alternative
10.  No other sites are traversed by, or are contiguous to
streams, other than extremely small localized tributaries
and/or ill-defined "runs" of swampy areas.  In the former
case, streams are so small that temporary berms and/or
ditches could be used to contain erosion sedimentation
effects within plant site boundaries.  In the case of
swamps, the ill-defined channels, extreme flat gradients,
and heavy natural vegetative cover along such "streams" will
tend naturally to minimize erosion and will cause
redeposition of temporarily suspended sediments quite close
to their sources.  Effects would, therefore, be confined to
plant sites.

    The Quarantine Island site is located on Quarantine
Island in the St. Johns River estuary between Mill Cove, a
shallow, poorly flushed, tidal basin, and the Dame Point
Cutoff, the dredged shipping channel.  The Quarantine Island
site is very low with elevations on the eastern end of the
island generally below ten feet msl.  The U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers has conducted flood frequency studies of the
St. Johns River estuary and has determined that tidal stages
of approximately ten feet msl can be anticipated in the
vicinity of Quarantine Island at a frequency of once in
fifty years.  Regulatory agency requirements and the
dictates of good design practice will necessitate that the
sewage plant be designed and constructed at elevations not
subject to flooding.  This consideration would dictate that
the Quarantine Island site be filled to an elevation above
maximum anticipated fifty-year flood tide stage.  Required
fill could be most economically provided on this site by
spoiling dredged material from river channel deepening
and/or maintenance dredging activities on the treatment
plant site.  This procedure could be pursued as a
complementary adjunct to needed harbor improvement and
maintenance dredging activites; such dredging has been
hampered in the recent past by lack of available feasible
and environmentally acceptable spoil sites.  The placement
of dredge spoil on Quarantine Island to bring surface
elevations to those required for development as a sewage
plant site could result in introduction of significant
quantities of sediment into both Mill Cove and the Dame
Point Cutoff as material was spoiled near existing
shorelines.  The Dame Point Cutoff is a narrow, deep channel
with tidal currents of significant velocity such that
sedimentation should be a minimal problem.  In contrast,
                             285

-------
     Cove is a shallow, poorly flushed, tidal basin where
siltation is a major problem already.

    The Beacon Hills site is located northwest of Beacon
Hills Subdivision and adjacent to the Dame Point Cutoff.
Existing ground elevations in portions of the site are such
that filling will be required to bring the plant elevations
above maximum flood tide stage.  Portions of the site are
sufficiently high that filling of lower areas could be
accomplished by on-site grading.  An alternative would be
spoiling of dredged materials in lower portions of the site
to bring them to minimum required finished grade elevations.
In either event, unt-il such time as fill material placed
near the shoreline could be consolidated, compacted, graded
and grassed, erosion and resulting turbidity in contiguous
waters could be a problem.  Because of the geometric and
hydraulic characteristics of the maintained channel in the
Dame Point Cutoff, as described in the prior discussion of
the Quarantine Island site, sedimentation is not considered
a major impact.

    The Spanish Point site encroaches into saltwater
marshlands bordering tidal creeks which are tributary to
Chicopit Bay, a shallow tidal embayment with openings to
both the St. Johns River and the Intracoastal Waterway.
While most likely development on this site can be restricted
to higher elevations without actual construction in the
marsh, heavy rains during construction could wash
significant loads of sediments from disturbed areas into the
marsh.

    Among the alternatives considered, 1 and 2 entail
construction of effluent pipelines either directly across
Mill Cove or generally parallel to Fort Caroline Road and
entering the St. Johns River near the southeast corner of
Blount Island.  Alternative 3 provides for construction of
an effluent pipeline across the narrowed portion of Mill
Cove.  In each of these three cases, the subaqueous crossing
would be approximately 6,600 linear feet in length.
Alternative 11  (plant site located on Quarantine Island)
would entail construction of a raw sewage force main
crossing of Mill Cove. Length of the subaqueous portion of
the required crossing is approximately 3,200 linear feet.
Practical design considerations, specifically low initial
flows, high ultimate flow rates, the sag in the raw sewage
force main crossing profile, and the need to design force
mains to flow at scouring -velocities to prevent deposition
                            286

-------
of raw sewage solids and consequent stoppages in the
pipelines led to the decision that the Mill Cove crossing
should consist of two parallel force mains.  Further,
considerations of feasibility led to the design decision
that one crossing should be installed initially to convey
sewage collected by the immediate transmission system
construction program (intended to collect sewage from
subdivision type systems, presently owned and operated by
the City, to permit abandonment of existing small treatment
plants and cessation of effluent discharge therefrom to
small tributary streams).  The second crossing's
construction should feasibly be deferred until such future
date as the City acquires present privately owned systems,
constructs transmission system elements to phase out their
treatment plants, and flows increase to the extent that a
parallel force main and its capacity are needed.  The
construction impacts of the Mill Cove crossing under
Alternative 11, thus, would be exerted twice, separated in
time by several years.

    A significant short-term construction-related effect
will be the increased turbidity in Mill Cove associated with
the installation of the outfall pipe or raw sewage force
main.  Placement of piling and/or entrenchment may be
necessary to seat the pipeline adequately.  This operation
will result in an increased concentration of oxidizable
suspended solids, hence lower dissolved oxygen content in
the immediate waters.  However, only about 50 feet of
easement will be utilized during the preparation and
installation operations, therefore, any adverse effects to
the shoreline and marshes will be held to a minimum.  Once
the installation operations have been terminated, the
turbidity will begin immediately to decrease and the waters
should revert back to preconstruction state within a short
period of time.

    An additional characteristic unique to the Quarantine
Island site is the necessity for constructing an access
bridge and raw sewage force main across the narrow channel
between Reed Island and Quarantine Island.  It is through
this channel that much of the limited tidal flushing of Mill
Cove occurs.  Access bridge design would be such that only
piling would be  installed in the channel  so as to impair
existing current and flushing patterns as  little as
possible.  Also  the required 18-inch raw sewage force main
crossing should  be constructed by suspending the pipeline
from the bridge  rather than by subaqueous  trenching  and
                               287

-------
)ackfill.  In summary, design and construction practices
fould be such as to minimize any blocking or constriction of
:his channel and impairment of currents so as to minimize
temporary additional incremental siltation problems in Mill
    The treatment plant outfall, under all alternatives,
     be extended into the main shipping channel of the St.
Johns River to provide dilution and dispersal of the
discharged effluents.  The length of subaqueous outfall in
the channel is short and is similar (1,000 feet or less)
under all alternates.  There will be turbidity and
sedimentation problems attendant to the trenching and
backfilling required for installation of the subaqueous
piping.  The large available dilution flow rates, strong
prevalent currents and proximity to the river mouth are
expected to result in good dispersal of resuspended
sediments and prevent major localized sedimentation
problems.  The magnitude of such problems is expected to be
generally the same under all alternatives; however, special
care must be taken during design and construction to assure
that the outfall at the shoreline (transition from land
portion to subaqueous portion)  is protected from future
erosion by currents and wave action.  This will be
accomplished by burying the pipeline deeply enough to remove
it from the zone of surface scouring, by providing concrete
anchor blocking as required, and by providing riprap along
the completed trench at the shoreline where wave and current
erosion is a potential problem.

    The transmission force main system is generally similar
under the several alternatives and will entail construction
of several stream crossings under each.  With the exception
of the Villa Armada force main crossing of Big Pottsburg
Creek, the streams to be crossed are generally small,
narrow, shallow, and are of value primarily for aesthetics
and for drainage of small localized drainage areas.
Aesthetic considerations will favor installation of buried
pipelines rather than installation of elevated pile-
supported crossings.  Excavation in stream beds will be
required and will present a potential for erosion, turbidity
and sedimentation problems during the construction period.
However, because of the general short lengths of subaqueous
crossings, construction time required for each crossing is
expected to be brief and the streams should revert quickly
to their preconstruction states.  The exception is the Big
Pottsburg Creek crossing of the Villa Armada force main; the
                               288

-------
creek is approximately 150-200 feet wide at the point of the
proposed crossing.  Big Pottsburg Creek is used extensively
for pleasure boating and waterskiing.  It is considered
essential that the pipeline crossing be buried in the
streambed so as not to create an obstruction and safety
hazard for boat traffic and skiers.  Disturbance of bottom
sediments, turbidity and subsequent resedimentation are
considered to be necessary and unavoidable construction-
related impacts; their duration will be limited to the
construction period and the time required subsequent to
construction for resedimentation to occur.  Siltation
curtains and/or turbidity screens will be required of the
construction contractor.

    Appropriate protective measures, concrete anchor
blocking, riprap and/or sodding will be provided at points
where pipeline construction crosses stream banks to minimize
long-term erosion by stream currents and wave action.

    In summary, stream erosion and sedimentation are
expected to be significant short-term construction-related
impacts under any alternative.  With regard to treatment
plant construction, their degree will be maximum under those
alternatives  (9, 10, and 11) which require or may require
earthwork in shoreline or island sites.  Those alternatives
(1, 2, and 3) requiring subaqueous outfall construction
across Mill Cove will have more significant problems than
will outfall construction under other alternatives.
Localized problems will result from construction of
transmission system force main stream crossings under all
alternatives; these would be much more extensive under
alternative 11, which entails two pipeline crossings of Mill
Cove, than under any other alternative.  No significant
long-term impacts are anticipated under any alternative.

    The "no action" alternative would, of course, eliminate
all the previously described short-term construction effects
on local waters.  Additional options for disposal of spoil
from harbor improvement and maintenance dredging  (as in the
Quarantine Island alternative) would also be precluded.  In
addition, the "no action" alternative would, as mentioned
earlier, undoubtedly necessitate expansion and upgrading of
existing package plants as well as construction of some new
ones.  Certainly this situation would result in at least a
number of them^and more decentralized short-term episodes of
stream damage resulting from construction of treatment
                               289

-------
plants, and, in some cases, new outfalls to the St.  Johns
River.

    All alternatives considered will meet water quality
objectives for the St. Johns River as established by the
Water Quality Management Plan.  Under all alternatives,
effluent will be discharged to the maintained shipping
channel of the river.  Large available dilution factors,
thorough mixing as afforded by strong tidal currents, and
the ability of pollutants to exit the estuary on ebb tidal
cycles because of location of point of discharge near the
river mouth, will assure maintenance of accepted water
quality standards.  The implementation of any alternative
will have beneficial impacts on water quality in tributary
streams in that existing small treatment plants located on
the tributaries will be phased out and their effluent
discharges terminated.

    Diversion of effluent flows from the tributaries will
represent a major reduction of inflow in dry weather in many
such cases where treated effluent now constitutes a major
part of dry weather inflow.  Such diversion, however, will
result in anticipated improvements in present water quality
in the tributaries as noted in the preceding paragraph.  No
significant effects on stream stage are anticipated; stage
is a function primarily of tidal height because of flat
stream bed gradients and open connection to the ocean via
the St. Johns River, rather than of rate of inflow.

    Operation of the facilities included under any
alternative will not result in groundwater contamination.
Moreover, construction of any of the wastewater treatment
collection systems would minimize the need for future
installation of septic tank systems with attendant frequent
contamination of shallow aquifers.

    The "no action" alternative would obviate the
requirement for a regional treatment plant outfall. Water
quality of the tributaries would eventually improve although
not as much as with the regional system since existing
package plants would undergo required expansion and
upgrading to meet standards.  However, it is to be noted
that it would be more difficult to feasibly incorporate such
a decentralized treatment system in any future plan for
attainment of more stringent, water quality objectives.
Finally, the "no action" alternative would maximize the need
for future installation of septic tank systems.  Pressure
                               290

-------
would undoubtedly be created to install new septic tank
systems in areas of the county not entirely adequate for
their proper operation.  The possibility of seepage to
surface water bodies and/or contamination of shallow
aquifers would thus be increased.

    By permitting Arlington development to take place in
keeping with the forecasts outlined in the Comprehensive
Development Plan for Jacksonville, the proposed project will
indirectly cause an increase in urban runoff which will
doubtlessly accompany the growth.  Such an increase —
though difficult to quantify — would probably be less under
the "no action" alternative.  "No action", however, would
likely tend to concentrate a somewhat smaller degree of
development into a disproportionately smaller area,
resulting in disproportionately higher concentration of
pollutants in the urban runoff.

                   9)   Aquatic Flora and Fauna

    A major reason for areawide wastewater treatment
facilities is to remove inadequately treated waste loads
presently entering waters not capable of assimilating them.
Pottsburg Creek and Jones Creek are receiving waters where
the regional proposal should enhance water quality and the
aquatic biota.

    Construction effects on aquatic life would primarily be
from excavation of interceptor and outfall pipeline trenches
in aquatic habitats.  Pipeline construction under Mill Cove
as required under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 11 is the major
area of impact on aquatic biota.  Similar impact would occur
in Big Pottsburg Creek but to a lesser degree.  Localized
sedimentation and downstream increases in turbidity will
cause mortality in filter feeding and deposit feeding
invertebrates.  Many are quite sensitive to localized
depression of dissolved oxygen levels which will undoubtedly
occur from construction.  Such effects are not irreparable
since affected benthic organisms will recolonize the
pipeline area soon after completion of construction.

    Effluent discharge will be to the St. Johns River to
meet water quality standards in receiving waters.  Discharge
will be at the bottom of the 38-foot deep ship channel to
assure quick mixing.  Three outfall discharge points along
the ship channel are proposed.  They are:  the Quarantine
Island location for alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 11; opposite
                                 291

-------
the eastern tip of Blount Island for 4 through 8, 10 and 12;
and the discharge from alternative 9.  The effects on
aquatic flora and fauna from the three alternate outfall
locations will not vary significantly.

    Operational effects on biota are unavoidable.  First,
the chlorinated effluent will cause a very localized
planktonic kill.  Second, the peripheral area of the mixing
zone will be enriched above ambient river conditions by
effluent nutrients.  Since there are high rates of flow in
the St. Johns River, rapid dilution and mixing of the
wastewater will eliminate the likelihood of any significant
biostimulation.  Fish species will be attracted to the
outfall plume, however momentary contact will not be
detrimental.

    If the "no action" alternative is adopted, the aquatic
communities within small effluent receiving streams would
certainly be adversely affected by not up-grading or tying
these local waste treatment plants into the regional system.
Accelerated eutrophication has no benefit to the aquatic
biota.  Obviously the short-term construction effects
mentioned above will not occur.

    More people living within the service district will
increase the recreational use of aquatic resources.
Shrimping and sport fishing will increase within the small
tidal creeks, Intracoastal Waterway, and the St. Johns
River.  The distribution of the nekton in the estuarine
waters may occur due to greater activity in and on these
waters.  Man's waste such as heavy metals, pesticides, oils,
and greases will elude treatment and ultimately enter
surface waters.  They can interfer with the internal
functioning of aquatic animals affecting behavior and
reproduction.  These stresses will favor a community of
stress-tolerant species.

                         (10) Impacts to Freshwater Wetlands

    Several treatment plant alternatives would severly
impact inland marshes.  Sites 7 and 8 would remove 46+ acres
of wetland habitat.  Portions of sites 3, 4, and 12 are
marsh but the quantity is not nearly as significant as in
sites 7 and 8.  Pipeline corridors will intercept freshwater
marsh areas.  Modification in routings can minimize the
occurrences.
                               292

-------
    Cattail marsh, although not as extensive as salt marsh,
borders land which will be developed.  Long-term stresses
upon it would be from urban runoff carrying excess nutrients
and the oils and greases from additional areas of road
pavement.  Closer proximity of development to remote inland
cypress swamps will affect animals intolerant to man's
presence.  Animal diversity will decrease.

                        (11)  Impacts to Salt Marshes

    Alternative 10 includes a portion of salt marsh adjacent
to Mt. Pleasant Creek.  No other alternative is in salt
marshland.  Construction of the plant on Quarantine Island
would have the most primary effect on salt marsh which
borders the island.  A 50-foot easement corridor will also
be impacted within marsh areas for outfall pipeline
construction.  If the organic marsh soil is properly
replaced over the trench, revegetation will slowly occur.
The outfall site crossing Quarantine Island would impact
more salt marsh area than the other proposed outfall point
near Beacon Hills.  The alligator, a nationally endangered
species is found in this type habitat although the alligator
is not likely to be found in Mill Cove due to the presence
and activities of man in this area,  if they are encountered
during construction, effects to the animals would be minimal
if they are relocated in suitable habitat elsewhere.

    Florida development in the past has encroached upon
saltwater wetlands.  Better knowledge of the environmental
values of these areas along with increased protective
jurisdiction by the Corps of Engineers and EPA will
undoubtedly help preserve salt marshes.  Increased
recreational use of marshlands for hunting will undoubtedly
occur in the future.  Aesthetic appeal of marshes for just
enjoying nature can remain with increased conservation of
them.

              12)   Demography

    The location of the plant on any of the proposed sites
will not cause the relocation of any people (see Tables 3-
13) .  Likewise, the location of all proposed interceptor
lines, outfalls, and sludge disposal sites will not directly
affect population.  The "no action" alternative will have no
primary impacts upon current population.
                              293

-------
    The project will have two major secondary impacts upon
population.  The first relates to project phasing.
Alternatives 1-4 will serve population growth as projected
by the Jacksonville Area Planning Board.  Alternatives 5-12,
however, will encourage population growth in areas east of
Craig Field sooner than the Comprehensive Plan recommends.
This encouragement will result from early phasing of lines
connecting these sites with the heavily populated section of
the service area.

    The second major impact to population concerns the total
population which can be supported by the wastewater
treatment system selected.  All of the twelve regional
system alternatives will support the 2002 population
forecast of 219,000 by the JAPB.  The "no action"
alternative, however, will constrain the population increase
to perhaps no more than 185,000.  This will happen because
of two factors.  First, existing waters quality regulations
prohibit additional discharges into the surface water of the
service area other than the St. Johns River.  This will
somewhat limit the ability of package plants and private
systems to serve the same population which the regional
system could serve.  Second, existing regulations limit
septic tank development to areas with a water table of at
least 36 inches and a minimum lot size of 1/3 acre.  The
maximum size office development allowed cannot have a
discharge of greater than 2,000 gpd.

    These regulations will guide population growth in the
service area away from the region east of Craig Field which
is identified in Figure 2-10 as being largely unsuitable for
septic tank use.

    Population will be guided toward the northern section of
the service area which can be served by package plants
discharging into the St. Johns River.  The distance south of
the river which can be served by package plants discharging
into the St. Johns will depend upon economic considerations.
The more valuable the land the greater the likelihood that
disposal can be provided.

               13)  Land Use

    All of the proposed sites for plant location are
currently vacant of urban uses  (see Table 3-16).  The
Comprehensive Development Plan does, however, forecast urban
uses for most of the sites by 1990 if the treatment plant is
                                  294

-------
not. constructed on them.  Sites 1, 2, 3, and 4 would have
medium to high residential development while sites 5-6 and 9
would have low density residential development.  Sites 10
and 11 are designated for conservation and preservation
while sites 7-8 and 12 would remain as undeveloped airport
property.  The construction of a treatment plant on any of
these sites would pre-empt the use of the site and supersede
the use forecast in the Comprehensive Plan.  The "no action"
alternative would allow all the sites to develop as
projected.

    The compatibility of a sewage treatment plant located on
each of the alternative sites with the surrounding land uses
must also be considered.  Table 3-15 shows what types of
land uses now surround each site.  As can be seen on the
table, most of this development is low density single-family
residential.  Sites 1, 3, 9, and 12 are closest to the
largest amounts of residential development.  Sites 2, 4, and
10 are close to a smaller amount, and sites 5-6, 7-8, and 10
are close to almost no surrounding development.

    The compatibility of the construction and operation of
the proposed plant with the surrounding land uses will be
determined
                              295

-------
  Site
                                                                        TABLE 3-16

                                             PRESENT LAND USE WITHIN 3000 FEET OF PROPOSED SITES IN ACRES

                                Residential  d.vu/ac
3.
                            0-1
                                 1-5
5-10
10-15
	                                    Cultural &      Parks &
15+.  Commercial  Industrial Airports   Institutional   Recreation
                                                                                                                                      Water
    MILLCOE ROAD
Site
0-1,000'
1,000-2,000'
2,000-3,000'
—
2.0
31.0
20.0
—
—
0.4
16.3
— 	
—
—
8.0
2.   DUNES AREA

    Site
    0-1,000'
    1,000-2,000'
    2,000-3,000'
                                 1.0
                                 3.0
                                 5.0
DAME POINT-
FORT CAROLINE AREA
Site
0-1,000'
1,000-2,000'
2,000-3,000'
—
g.O
10.0
19.0
— — —
0.8
14.6
16.2
	 	
	 	
4.9
102.6
4.  NORTH OF CRAIG FIELD

    Site
    0-1,000'
    1,000-2,000'
    2,000-3,000'
                                 2.0
                                 2.0
                                10.0
                                                   3.0
                                                  64.3
                                                 161.1
                                                 235.6
                                                                                                       16.3
                                                                             1.

-------
                                                                           TABLE  3-16 (Cont'd)

                                                PRESENT LAND USE WITHIN 3000 FEET OF PROPOSED SITES  IN ACRES

 Site                               Residential d.u./ac	                                    Cultural &       Parks  &
                            0-1     1-5     5-10     10-15	154-   Commercial   Industrial Airports   Institutional    Recreation    Water

5.&6. EAST OF CRAIG
      FIELD

    Site
    0-1,000'
    1,000-2,000'
    2,000-3,000'             —      —      —         —        —         —           —      17.6


7.& 8.CRAIG FIELD-
    INSIBE E. BOUNDARY

    Site                     —      —      —         —        —         —           —      45.9
    0-1,000'                 —      —      —         —        —         —           —     124.7
    1,000-2,000'             —      —      —         —        —         —           —     197.0
   ,2,000-3,000'             —      —      —         —        —         —           —     214.3


9.  BEACON HILLS
Site
0-1,000'
1,000-2,000'
2,000-3,000'
—
	 0 f\ __ 	 	
J . \J
20.0
50.0
—
—
15.8
127.9
—
13.0
135.9
134.6
10. SPANISH POINT

    C-^t-g                     	      	„      		       __        _,__           __       	           	             	          	
    0-1,000'                 —      1.0
    1,000-2,000'             —      3.0     —        —       --        —           —       —           —             —          6.2
    2,000-3,000'             —      6.0     —        —       --        —           —       —           —             1.7        26.5

-------
NJ
U5
00
                                                                                 TABLE 3-16  (Cont'd)

                                                      PRESENT LAND USE WITHIN 3000 FEET OF PROPOSED  SITES  IN ACRES
        Site
       11.  QUARANTINE  ISLAND
Residential d.u./ac
                                                                                                             Cultural &
                         Parks &
                                  0-1     1-5     5-10     10-15     15+   Commercial   Industrial Airports    Institutional    Recreation    Water
Site
0-1,000'
1,000-2,000'
2,000-3,000'
—
— — — — — — — — __
14.1
91.2
	 	
48.2
272.2
314.0
       12. CBAIG FIELD-
          INSIDE SOUTH BOUNDARY

          Site
          0-1,000'
          1,000-2,000'
          2,000-3,000'
  9.0
 26.-
                                       5.9
 45.9
128.5
207.7
246.5
                                                                        13.2
                                                                              3.

-------
primarily by the noise, odor, visual and other direct
impacts of the plant.  The probable severity of these
impacts is discussed in detail in those sections.  The
results of these analyses are the basis upon which any
lasting effects upon property values can be judged.

    The choice of interceptor and outfall routes should have
no primary impact upon land use.

    The secondary impacts of the various site alternatives
on land use patterns (Table 3-17) can be broken down into
three major groups; alternatives 1-4, alternatives 5-12 and
the "no action" alternative.  The first group of
alternatives  (1-4) would encouarge growth in the same
pattern and sequence as forecast in the Comprehensive Plan.
The second group  (5-12) would encourage growth near them
sooner than projected.  This would be because of the
construction of transmission lines in the first phase which
would otherwise be put off until the second phase.

    Construction of the "no action" alternative would
significantly alter the pattern of land development forecast
in the Plan.  Because of water quality and septic tank
regulations, development would be limited, particularly east
of Craig Field where soil conditions are not suitable for
septic tank construction.  Larger densities than are now
forecast in the Plan would likely appear along the northern
boundary of the service area because of existing limitations
on new discharges into streams other than the St. Johns
River.  The same pressures for development that led to the
JAPB's forecast of growth in the Arlington service area
would still be present.  But all of this pressure for
development would be put on the land that was not limited in
development potential because of wastewater treatment
constraints.  Thus development densities greater than those
considered desirable because of other factors (e.g.,
transportation facilities, soil characteristics, vegetation,
accessibility to community services, and existing
neighborhood character) would probably result.

    Increased development pressures would also be felt in
other areas of the city to absorb people who would otherwise
be living in Arlington if the "no action" alternative were
not instituted.  Of particular concern are the wetlands
north of the St. Johns River which are designated for
preservation in the Comprehensive Plan.  The development of
Blount Island as an industrial area will make these wetland
areas attractive to residential development.
                                299

-------
                                     TABLE  3-17




PROJECTED 1990 LAND USE WITHIN 3000 FEET OF PROPOSED SITES IH ACRES




Residential d.u./ae



Site
1.
I'-ILLCOE
Site
0-1

ROAD
0-1,000'


2.

1,000
2,000
DDliES
Site
'-2
'-3
,000' 24.3
,000' 65.8
1-5

28.7
107.9
146.7'
152.0
5-10

17
102
181
194

.2
.0
.3
.6
tn-Ti 15+ Commercial Industrial Airports Institutional Recreation Preservation Conservation Water


—
—
30


—
0.4 — — -- — — 1.5
.8 — 16.3 -- -- — — — 30.8 8.0
AREA

	
	
0-1,000'
1,000-2,

3.


2,000
DAME
FORT
Site
'-3
000'
,000'
30.3
195.0
45
201
255
152
.9
.7
.0
.2
	
8.
68.
95.
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
2 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
g 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
6 — 55.5
POINT -
CAROLINE AtEA

0-1,000'


4.

1.000
2.000
NORTH
Site
'-2
f-3
OF

0-1,000'


1,000
2,000
'-2
'-3
—
9.8
.000' 104.4
,000' 83.9
CRAIG FIELD
—
37.1
,000' 89.4
,000' 128.5
—
—
2.3
41'. 3

—
—
21.8
50.8
—
35
176
271

—
—
—
—

.4
.5
.0





63.
196.
95.
44.

42.
108.
81.
67.
7 — 5.2
6 — 13.2 — — 0.8
4 — 1.9 — — 14.6 — — — 4.9
7 — — — — 0.8 — — — 102.6

9 — — — 3.0
5 __ _.- __ 64.3
8 •— — — 161.1
1 -- — — 235.6 16.3
                                   1.

-------
                                                                                 TABLE  3-17 (Cont'd)




                                            PROJECTED 1990 LAND USE WITHIN 3000 FEET OF PROPOSED SITES IN ACRES
                                            Residential d.u./ac
                                                                                                          Cultural &    Parks &
u
p
— — 	 T-? 	 ZTS 	 T7T-TH TTOT~ r-«™,Q^000'
7. &
8. CRAIG FIELD -
INSIDE E.. BOUNDARY
Site
0-1,000'
1S000'-2,000'
2,000'-3,000'
9. BEACON HILLS
Site
0-1,000'
1,000'-2,000'
2, 000 '-3 ,,000'
10- SPANISH POINT
Site
0-1,000'
1,000'-2,000'
2,000-3,000'


45.9
209.9
293.8
310.4 6.3 -- — — — -- 17.6



45.9
124.7
76.3 — — — — — — 197.0
232.6 — — 0.7 — — — 214.3

Ac n
H J • y — • "~~ ~ 	 	
163 .7
126.1 — — ~ — — 15 . 8
146 .2 -- -- — — — 127 .9

	 	 	 	 	 , 	 , 	 	 _„
c o c; A T
Jj.J 4-.J ~ ~~ ~ ~ — ~ 	
%Q7TC_ __ _ „
«://-L«j
143.5 160.8


	 	 	
—
60.3
164.0



	 	 	
"85.2
80.8
50.7

	 	 	
33.2
76.3
89.6

35.3 10.6
92.1 60.0
102.2 77.3
1.7 70.7 95.1


	
—
-,—
—



	
—
—
—

	
13.0
135.9
134.6

	
—
6.2
26.5
                                                                            2.

-------
                                     TABLE 3-17  (Cont'd)




PROJECTED 1990 LAND USE WITHIN 3000 FEET OF PROPOSED SITES IN ACRES




Residential d.u./ac
0-1 1-5 5-10 10-15 15+ Commercial
Silt! ~ ~ - • "
11. QUARAHTINE ISLAND
Site
0-1,000
1,000'-2,000'
2,000'-3,000'
12. CRAIG FIELD-INSIDE
SOUTH BOUNDARY
Site
0-1,000' — -- 6.4
1,000-2,000' — — 80.4 — 19.6
2,000-3,000' — 43.0 97.9 — 37.0 5.9
Industrial Airports Institutional Recreation Preservation Conservation Water

14.1
91.2

45.9
75.0 128.5
46.4 207.7
31.8 247/5 ;3/2

45.9
161.7
67.8
93.1

23.0

48.2
272.2
314.0

—
                                   3.

-------
This attractiveness will increase if Arlington is not able
to develop as it otherwise would because of wastewater
disposal constraints.

              14)  Archeological, Historical and
Recreational

    A search of the records of the Division of Archives,
History and Records Management of the Florida Department of
State and a preliminary survey by a staff archeologist of
the same agency indicate no known archeological or
historical sites present upon any of the plant, interceptor,
outfall, or sludge disposal sites.  When alternative
selection is finally made, a detailed archeological survey
will be conducted on the plant site, interceptor lines,
outfall line, and sludge disposal site.  The most likely
sites for archeological remains are along the St. Johns
River in the northern end of the service area.

    The major secondary impact of significance would be the
destruction of archeological and historic sites because of
increased growth and development.  This would probably be
most likely if the "no action" alternative were instituted
since this would lead to more development in the northern
section of the service district where the sites are
concentrated.  No difference in impacts should be felt among
the 12 regional system alternatives since they all were
based primarily upon the 1990 Comprehensive Plan.  None of
the proposed sites will be located on land which is
currently designated for park and recreational use.
However, most of Site 10 is located in an area designated
for preservation.  This area might someday be used for
passive recreational facilities if it is allowed to stay in
its natural state.

    Site 10 is the only site with a recreational facility
within 3,000 feet of the site boundary.  1.7 acres of the
Camp Wil-Le-Ma Camp Fire Girls facility is between 2,000 and
3,000 feet of the proposed site.  Possible impacts to this
facility from plant location will be determined primarily by
the noise and odor impacts of the plant.  The probable
severity of these impacts is discussed in the noise and odor
section of this chapter.  The construction of the plant on
Site 1 would entail the provision of a 114-acre buffer zone
which will be used as a passive recreational area in the
future.  The "no action" alternative should have no primary
impact upon recreational facilities.
                               303

-------
    No impacts should be felt to recreational lands from the
Location of the interceptor lines, the outfall line, or the
sludge disposal site.

    All twelve of the regional alternatives would improve
the ability of the tributary streams to safely support body
contact recreation because of improvements to water quality.
The "no action" alternative would not have any beneficial
effect on the existing water quality of the tributary
streams.

    The major secondary impact to recreational facilities
will be the increased demand for use of these facilities
caused by population growth.  As was stated in Chapter II,
there is already a lack of adequate recreational facilities
in the service area.  The 12 regional system alternatives
will all provide a similar impact since they all will
support the growth projected by the JAPB.  The "no action"
alternative will have less of an impact since less new
growth could be supported in the service area, thus, it will
cause less demand for use of recreational facilities.

              15)  Transportation

    During construction, traffic to and from construction
sites will be induced by virtue of the need to move
construction equipment, process equipment, and construction
labor and materials to the sites and to remove debris from
the sites.

    With regard to treatment plant sites, the amount of such
traffic is considered to be essentially independent of which
specific site is selected.  Of more concern should be the
type of streets and highways over which such traffic must be
routed.  For instance, movement of heavy trucks and
construction machinery is a common occurrence on freeways
and major highways and may not be considered as
objectionable as would be the same type traffic on
residential streets which are normally lightly traveled.

    For purposes of this report, transportation facilities
in the vicinity of alternative sites were considered to fall
into one of three categories — highways, local arterials,
and residential streets.  Atlantic Boulevard  (State Route
10) was considered to be the only highway where induced
traffic of heavy construction vehicles would be least
objectionable.  Such traffic would be somewhat more
                               304

-------
objectionable on local arterials.  Fort Caroline Road,
Merrill Road, Lone Star Road, Mill Creek Road, St. Johns
Bluff Road, Monument Road, Mt. Pleasant Road, and Girvin
Road are considered local arterials.  Heavy traffic is
considered most objectionable on residential streets.

    Among the alternatives, access tc three sites
(Alternatives 5-6, 7-8, and 12)  could be gained directly
from Atlantic Boulevard.  Two sites, Alternatives 9 and 11,
could be reached only by routing all construction traffic
through residential streets in the Beacon Hills Subdivision
from Fort Caroline Road.  Access roads into all other sites
could connect directly to local arterials.

    Construction traffic attendant to transmission system
construction would be a function of the number of pumping
stations and total length of force mains built.

    The alternatives are compared on this basis below (these
differences are not considered major):

    Alternative    Number of      Total Length
    System NO.      Stations      of Force Main

         1              32        245,500
         2              32        248,100
         3              33        250,300
         4              33        253,500
         5              34        254,300
         6              34        258,000
         7              34        259,500
         8              34        256,700
         9              34        261,600
         10             34        262,800
         11             34        262,200
         12             *            *
    transmission systems are not specifically laid out for
this alternative; number of pumping  stations and overall
force main lengths are  similar to Alternatives 7 and 8.

    Operation of a wastewater treatment plant on any site
considered will generate traffic.  Light vehicular traffic
will be generated by  ingress and egress of plant operational
personnel as they come  to and leave  their place of
employment.  Volume of  such traffic  will be light because of
                              305

-------
the relatively small number of personnel involved.
Moreover, it is anticipated that most, if not all, personnel
will travel by passenger auto or light truck (pickup or
small van).  It is not anticipated that either the volume or
character of such traffic would be aesthetically
objectionable even on residential streeets.

    Of more significance will be heavy truck traffic.  Such
traffic will result from the hauling of treatment chemicals
(chlorine) to the plant site, traffic by septic tank trucks,
and temporary portable toilet trucks to the treatment plant
for discharge thereto, and traffic caused by screening and
grit disposal.  The magnitude of such traffic is estimated
as follows:

    Chemical deliveries:  In accordance with dictates of
good design and operational practice, chlorine will be
delivered in minimum quantities of one-week supplies.
Delivery truck traffic will thus consist of one round trip
weekly or 0.2 trips per day based on a normal five-day work
week.

    Septic tanks and temporary toilets:  The number of      i
septic tanks serviced at 1973 levels will be 17,426 and at
2002 levels is 25,426.  Assuming three years as normal
septic tank cleaning frequency, 2.5 tanks pumped per truck
hauled and 260 working days  (52 five-day weeks)  per year,
average septic tank truck traffic volume at present is 8.94
round trips per day with year 2002 volume projected at 13.04
round trips daily.

    Portable toilet truck trips are estimated at
approximately one-third the traffic volume of septic tank
truck traffic, i.e., 3.0 round trips per day in 1973 and 4.3
round trips in 2002.

    Grit and screening production:  No definite data is
available relative to grit and screenings production and
disposal practices.  For purposes of this estimate, it is
assumed that grit volume is equivalent to 20 percent of ash
volume, thereby necessitating 0.32 and 0.80 trips daily for
disposal at 10.0 and 25.0 mgd flows respectively.  It is
assumed that one screenings disposal trip will be made daily
because of the putrescible nature of screenings regardless
of the volume of screenings or flow of sewage involved.
                               306

-------
    The operation of an incinerator for sludge disposal will
generate a significant amount of ash which must be
transported off the site.  Ash production figures for the
treatment plant at initial 10.0 mgd and ultimate  (year 2002)
25.0 mgd capacity are as follows:
DESCRIPTIONS                           PLANT CAPACITY
                                     10.0 mqd   29.0 mqd

Primary Sludge, Ib/dry
    solids/day                      12,510        31,275
Waste Activated Sludge, Ib/dry
    solids/day                       7,110        17,775
Scum, Ib/dry, solids/day                60           150
Total Dry Solids, Ib/day             19,680        49,200
Total Dry Solids, tons/day            9.84          24.6
Total Ash, tons/day, average          2.46           6.15
Total Ash Volume, cu.yd/day
    average                           4.6           11.4
Ash Volume, cu.yd/day  (5-day week)    6.44          15.6
Daily Haul, Trips by 5-yd
    Dump Truck,  80% average load
    (5-day week)                      1.61           3.99
    The use of land  spreading for  sludge disposal will
generate some truck  traffic between  the treatment plant site
and the land spreading  site.  It is  estimated that
approximately six times the amount of  trips generated by ash
disposal would be generated by  land  spreading.  This would
be io trips daily for 10.0 mgd  and 24  trips daily for 25.0
mgd in the same  capacity trucks used for ash disposal.

    The total traffic generated for  the operation of a
regional wastewater  system in the  Arlington East service
area will be as  follows:
                                307

-------
    Traffic Sources
Chemical Delivery
Ash Disposal (Sludge disposal)
Grit Disposal
Screenings Disposal
Septic Tank Truck
Portable Toilet Truck

Total, Truck Round Trips

Total, One-Way Trips
     Round Trips Daily

First Stage         Ultimate
   0.20
   1.61 (10.00)
   0.32
     ,00
 0.20
3.99
0.80
1.00
13.04
4.30
(24.00)
  15.07 (23.46)

  30.14 (46.92)
24.33 (44.34)

48.66 (86.88)
    The impact this traffic will have again depends largely
upon the types of roads over which it will travel.  Access
to three sites (Alternatives 5-6, 7-8, and 12) could be
gained directly from Atlantic Boulevard which is considered
a highway-access to sites 1, 2, 3, 4 and 10 and could be
reached from local arterials including Fort Caroline Road,
Merrill Road, Lone Star Road, Mill Creek Road, St Johns
Bluff Road, Monumnet Road, Mt. Pleasant Road, and Girvin
Road.  Alternatives 9 and 11 can be reached only by routing
all traffic through residential streets in the Beacon Hills
Subdivision from Fort Caroline Road.

    The possible effects of the project on air
transportation facilities is also an important factor to
consider.  Craig Field, a general aviation airport, owned
and operated by the Jacksonville Port Authority, is located
within the Arlington East District.  Craig Field occupies a
site of 1300 acres east of St. Johns Bluff Road and north of
Atlantic Boulevard.  The airport is extensively used for
governmental  (Florida National Guard) and general civilian
aviation.  In 1972 it had three times as many general
aviation aircraft, accommodated 2.2 times as many general
aviation aircraft operations, and had as many total aircraft
operations as did Jacksonville International Airport.

    The significant impacts of constructing a large-scale
municipal treatment plant at the airport are twofold.
First, land resources are diverted for use as a sewage
treatment plant.  Alternatives 7-8 and 12 are both on land
designated for future airport use in the 1992 Airport Master
Plan Study.
                              308

-------
    The second potential impact is construction of
structures where elevations encroach into clear zones on
approach zones in violation of minimum air safety standards.
The controlling structure in the proposed sewage treatment
plant would be an incinerator building and stack  (59-foot
building height plus 15-foot stack, height totals 74-foot
overall height).  Two sets of regulations, one local and one
Federal, govern building heights in the vicinity of the
airport.

    Local regulations, as set forth in Part II, Chapter 708
of the Jacksonville Zoning Code, establish maximum building
heights in concentric zones around all local airports.  Two
such zones, centered around Craig Airport and the U. S.
Naval Air Station at Mayport, affect the Arlington-East
District.  The Jacksonville Zoning Code would prohibit
erection of any building taller than 50 feet anywhere on
Craig Field.  Location of the plant on airport property with
an incinerator would necessitate obtaining a variance of the
zoning code, which it is the prerogative of the Jacksonville
city government to grant.

    Federal regulations pertinent to air space around
airports are promulgated by the Federal Aviation
Administration  (FAA).  Approach surfaces and transition
zones were constructed graphically to determine in what
locations, inside the southern and eastern property lines,
buildings whose top elevations were 75 feet above runway
elevations could be constructed without violating FAA
regulations.  Areas where such buildings could be located
include the treatment plant sites under consideration in
alternatives 7-8 and 12.

    Two alternatives, numbers 6 and 8, propose construction
of a 54-inch transmission system force main crossing of the
airport.  The route would cross Runway 13-31 and  its
parallel taxiway.  In the interest of safety, both of air
travelers and of construction personnel, this runway should
be closed to aircraft operations during the construction
period.  Even if it were subsequently determined  that such
closure was not necessary, construction activity  on the
field in the vicinity of hangars, aprons, taxiways, and
runways would undoubtedly be guite disruptive of  normal
airport usage.  The economic value of the total volume of
usage for military training, general business, pleasure
flying, and civilian pilot training is significant.  The
economic impact of any major disruption of normal usage must
                               309

-------
 ilso be considered significant.  Effects of pipeline
 :onstruction would be temporary, their duration being
 Limited to the period of actual construction.
    The secondary impacts of the proposed project on
transportation are related to the iirpact that growth
supported by the project will have on use of the service
area's transportation facilities.  All twelve of the
regional system site alternatives will have essentially the
same impact upon transportation.  The demand on the areafs
transportation facilities will double by the year 2002 as it
grows more or less in proportion to the population increase.
Traffic volumes will increase significantly, especially in
the areas near major home-to-work trip corridors.

    The 'no action" alternative would limit the total demand
on transportation facilities because of the limiting of
population.  The decrease in added demand would be
especially felt in the area east of Craig Field where septic
tank restrictions would limit growth.  However, more traffic
would probably be felt in the area near the St. Johns River
because of the increased densities projected under the "no
action" alternative.

              16)  Water Supply

    There should be no significant primary effects to the
Jacksonville water supply system caused by any of the
proposed site locations or subsystem alternatives.  This is
also true in regard to the "no action" alternative.

    The major secondary impact to the water supply system
will be the increased demand caused by growth in the area.
The growth supported by the regional system and forecast by
the JAPB will approximately double the water supply demand
now present.  The "no action" alternative will cause a
decrease in this added demand proportionate to the decrease
in additional population.

              17)  Community Facilities

    There will be no significant construction impacts to any
community facilities and services caused by any of the
proposed site locations or subsystem alternatives.  This is
also true for the "no action" alternative.
                               310

-------

    One of the alternative sites, site 3, is within 3,000
feet of a school.  The possibility of any operational
impacts to this site can be determined from the noise and
odor sections and is not considered significant.

    Secondary impacts from the proposed project will consist
of increased demands for the use of community facilities and
services.  Demands for these facilities and services should
more than double by the year 2002 if any of the proposed
regional alternatives are chosen.  The "no action"
alternative will cause a decrease in this added demand
proportionate to the decrease in additional population
growth.

              18)  Resource Use

    Construction of a plant on any of the proposed sites
will cause a permanent and irrevocable commitment of
resources in the form of materials used in construction.
Treatment plant construction entails commitment of material
resources in the form of cement, mineral aggregates,
structural and reinforcing steel, pipe materials and valves,
manufactured process equipment and pumps, electrical
equipment and wiring, and building construction materials.
Similar materials, though in lesser quantities, are utilized
in pumping station construction, while pipeline construction
utilizes piping, values, concrete, and pavement replacement
materials.  Also, during construction, fuels and consumable
supplies are required for operations of vehicles, equipment
and machinery.

    Differences in value of materials used in construction
does not vary with the different site alternatives,  The "no
action" alternative would, of course, require the use of no
construction materials.  However, additional package plants
would probably be built to discharge into the St. Johns
River if no regional plant were built.

    Differences in quantities of materials used in
construction of the transmission system depends largely upon
the differences in length among the various alternatives.
These lengths range from 245,500 for alternative 1 to
262,800 for alternative 10.  The complete list is presented
in the transportation section of this chapter.  The  "no
action" alternative will require no transmission line
construction.
                                311

-------
    The major resources used in plant operation will be
electricity and chlorine.  The incinerator will use number 2
fuel oil in its operation.  Land spreading will require no
major outlays of energy.

    The electrical use required for the operation of' the
alternative transmission systems is as follows:

    System Number            KWH of Power

              1                   4,823,333
              2                   4,858,666
              3                   5,191,666
              4                   4,972,666
              5                   5,876,333
              6                   5,966,000
              7                   6,070,333
              8                   5,850,333
              9                   6,318,000
             10                   6,684,666
             11                   6,034,000
             12                   5,850,333

    Secondary impacts of the project on resource use consist
of the materials used in the construction of new development
and in the electricity and other fuels used to support this
development.  This impact should be the same for all of the
12 regional system alternatives since they will all support
the same amount of development.  Resource use should,
however, be somewhat less for the "no action" alternative
since there would be less people and development to demand
resource use.

    E.   Alternatives Evaluation

    The alternatives evaluation process involves comparing
the total environmental effects and monetary costs of each
alternative.  The environmental analysis follows the same
format as the previous description of impacts.  Each
alternative is rated in each category according to the
associated effect, positive or negative.  The rating is
given according to the combined effect of its construction,
operation, and secondary impacts.  An arbitrary scale of 0-
10 is used where:

         0 = highly undesirable effect
         2 = moderately undesirable effect
                                312

-------
         4 = slight undesirable effect
         5 = neutral effect
         6 = slight desirable effect
         8 = moderate desirable effect
        10 = highly desirable effect

    In order to sensitize the criteria used in this
evaluation process, a citizens committee was assembled to
provide input into the alternative analysis procedure.  The
committee members are listed in Table 3-18.  The committee
was requested to help identify appropriate environmental
categories, and to rate these categories as to their
significance in the Arlington-East area.
                                 313

-------
                         TABLE 3-18


^ssist-ance Committee Members - Arlington East

(City)

Herb Underwood, Chief, Intergovernment Affairs

C. C. Holbrook, Director, Public Works

Mr. Ed Baker, Chairman, Jacksonville Area Planning Board

Mr. Don Brewer, Councilman, Arlington Area

(Affected)

Mr. Charles Morgan, Holly Oaks Community Club

Dr. Bette J. Soldwedel, Univ. of N. Florida

Robert Wilkins, Citizens Advisory Committee to Jacksonville
                 Area Planning Board

Mr. David Evans, Past President
                 Holly Oaks Community Club

Del Revels, Greater Arlington Civic Council

(Others)

Mrs. Charles Platt, III, League of Women Voters
    Alternate - Mrs. Tess Durant

Thomas Brewer, Jacksonville Area Chamber of Commerce

Jack Merrion, St. Johns River Water Mgt. Board

John Powers, Urban Designer, Stockton, Whitley,
              Davin and Co.

Ted Pappas, President AIA
                              314

-------
    The following criteria were agreed -to and used in the
evaluation procedure:

1.  Air Quality
2.  Noise
3.  Odor
4.  Topography
5.  Soils
6.  Terrestrial Vegetation
7.  Terrestrial Animals
8.  Water Quality
9.  Aquatic Flora and Fauna
10. Freshwater Wetlands
11. Salt Marshes
12. Demography
13. Land Use
14. Archeological. Historical, Cultural and Recreational
15. Transportation
16. Water Supply
17. Community Services
18. Resource Use

    A rating of 0-10 was given to each category where zero
indicates a topic of no importance and ten indicates one of
maximum importance.  The weights that were assigned by each
committee member were normalized by dividing the sum of all
the category weights into each category value and multiplied
by 100 to give that category its percent importance to the
area's total environment.

    The committee category weightings are given in Table 3-
19.  These weightings were used in the evaluation of
alternatives by multiplying the rating given to each
alternative in each category by the appropriate category
weighting.  The resultant weighted rankings in each category
were added for each alternative to give a final
environmental score.

    The ratings given to each category for each alternative
by the EIS preparation team are shown in Table 3-20.  The
input from the community group was fully considered prior to
rating the alternatives.  The rationale for these rankings
are given in the discussion of impacts found in this
chapter.  A summary of the ratings and rankings is given in
Table 3-21.
                               315

-------
                          TABLE 3-19

                   ARLINGTON-EAST ASSISTANCE


                   COMMITTEE WEIGHTED CRITERIA                                   ,


 1,   Air Quality	   8,35

 2.   Noise	   5.7

 3.   Odor	   7.0
                                                                                 j
 4,   Topography	   3.7                           :

 5.   Soils	   3,3                           i

 6.   Terrestrial Vegetation 	   4.6
                                                                                 I
 ?.   Terrestrial Animals	   3.9

 8.   Water Quality	   8.5                           '

 9.   Aquatic Flora & Fauna	   5.1                           ',

10.   Freshwater Wetlands	   4,85

11.   Salt Marshes	   5,5                           I

J.2.   Demography	•	—   5,2

13.   Laad Use	  6.9
                                                                                 i
                                                                                 i
14.   Archeological, Historical, Cultural
       and Recreational	—	  4.3

15.   Transportation	  4.5

16.   Water Supply	  7.1                          !
                                                                                i
17.   Community Services 	  4.5                          '
                                                                                i
18.   Resource Use	•	  4.4
                            316

-------
                        TABLE 3-20
            EPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RATINGS


   ALTERNATIVE                                   RATING       RANK

       IQ      	    480.35  	   6
       IB      	    490.30  	   2
       2Q      	    479.25  	   7
       2B      	    489.20  	   3
       3       	    476.05  	   8
       4       	    473.40  	   10
       5       	    481.60  	   5
       6       	    486.00  	   4
       7       	    442.60  	   13
       8       	    447.00  	   12
       9       	    455.40  	   11
       10      	    405.70  	   14
       11      	    474.90  	   9
       12      	    492.40  	   1
 INCINERATION  	    468.75  	
LANDSPREADING  	    540.80  	
  NO ACTION    	    375.80  	   15
                            317

-------
        TABLE  3-21
EPA IMPACT RATING WORK SHEET
ALTERNATIVE
1Q
IB
2Q
2B
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
INCINERATION
LAND SPREADING
NO ACTION
AIR QUALITY
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
A
4
5
5
ODOR
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
U
6
4
2
NOISE
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
S
5
5
5
TOPOGRAPHY
4
4
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
SOILS
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
TERRESTRIAL
VEGETATION
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
5
1
5
5
5
10
6
TERRESTRIAL
ANIMALS
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
5
1
5
5
5
7
6
WATER
QUALITY
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5_
4
2

-------
                                                         TABLE 3-21
                                             EPA IMPACT RATING WORK SHEET (CONT'D)
ALTERNATIVE
LAND USE
AQUATIC FLORA
   & FAUNA

-------
                                              TABLE 3-21

                                     EPA IMPACT RATING WORK SHEET  (CONT'D)
ALTERNATIVE
1Q
IB
2Q
2B
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
INCINERATION
LAND SPREADING
NO ACTION
RECREATIONAL
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
5
6
5
5
4
TRANSPORTATION
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
5
5
5
4
WATER
SUPPLY
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
COMMUNITY SERVICES
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
RESOURCE USE
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
5
2
10
4
U)
N5
O

-------
  The costs for each alternative system are aiven in Table
3-2?.  Table 3-23 summarizes the project costs and
environmental rankings for each alternative.  The cost per
household is calculated assumina 100,000 Arlington residents
will pay for the entire amortized project costs  (includina
Federal funds), and for operation and maintenance.

  As may be seen fron the environmental effects ratings,
Alternative 12 (South edge of Craig Field) appears most
desirable, followed very closely by Alternatives 3. (f'illcoe
Road), 2  (Dunes Area), 4 and 5  (Fast of Craig Field), 1
(Dames Point-Fort Caroline Freeway), 11  (Quarantine  Island),
and 4 (North of Craig Field).  With regard, to costs, the
Millcoe Road, Dunes Area, and Dames Point-Fort Caroline
alternatives are all within approximately five percent of
each other.  South of Craig Field, Quarantine Island, and
North of Craig Field are approximately ten percent higher in
costs.

  As may be seen from Figure 3-23, the proposed project
(1Q) ranks sixth and an alternate at the same site (IB)
ranks second.  In view of the substantially greater  cost of
systems 12, IB, 2B, 6 and 5 and the relatively close
environmental ratings of these  alternatives, alternative 1Q
is considered a reasonable and  cost effective solution to
the problem of wastewater treatment and disposal for the
Arlington-Fast area.
                        321

-------
                                  TABLE 3-22

                               COST SUMMARIZATION
1.  Millcoe Road

    Total Project Cost                                       $48,559,307.00
    Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                       1,588,165.46
    Total Annualized Cost (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                 for 20 years)                 5,864,949.22
    Total Annual Cost per Household (Based on 100,000
                          population or 32,258 households)           181.81

2.  Dunes Area

    Total Project Cost                                       $50,615,077.00
    Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                       1,575,635.46
    Total Annualized Cost (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                 for 20 years)                 6,033,477.89
    Annual Cost Per Household (Based on 100,000
                          population or 32,258 households)           187.04

3.  Dames Point/Fort Caroline

    Total Project Cost                                       $52,364,776.00
    Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                       1,748,226.85
    Total Annualized Cost (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                 for 20 years)                 6,360,171.24
    Annual Cost Per Household (Based on 100,000
                          population or 32,258 households)           197.17

4.  North of Craig Field

    Total Project Cost                                       $56,308,903.00
    Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                       1,782,508.89
    Total Annualized Cost (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                 for 20 years)                 6,741,825.99
    Annual Cost Per Household (Based on 100,000
                          population or 32,258 households)           209.00
5.  East of Craig Field- System "A"

    Total Project Cost                                       $62,699,047.00
    Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                       1,948,299.38
    Total Annualized Cost (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                 for 20 years)                 7,470,418.25
    Annual Cost Per Household (Based on 100,000
                          population or 32,258 households)           231.58
                                 322

-------
                                 TABLE 3-22

                            COST SUMMARIZATION (Continued)
 6.   East  of  Craig Field  -  System "B"

     Total Project Cost                                        $57,887,620.00
     Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                      '  1,875,765.06
     Total Annualized Cost  (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                  for  20 years)                  6,974,125.15
     Annual Cost  Per Household  (Based  on 100,000
                           population  or 32,258  households)            216.20

 7.   Inside East  Boundry  of Craig Field -  System "A"

     Total Project Cost                                        $63,709,227.00
     Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                        1,983,028.33
     Total Annualized Cost  (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                  for  20 years)                  7,594,117.20
     Annual Cost  Per Household  (Based  on 100,000
                           population  or 32,258  households)            235.42
 8.   Inside East Boundry Craig Field - System "B"

     Total Project Cost                                       $58,363,620.00
     Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                       1,806,895.30
     Total Annualized Cost (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                  for 20 years)                  6,947,178.33
     Annual Cost Per Household (Based on 100,000
                           population or 32,258  households)            215.36

 9.   Beacon Hills

     Total Project Cost                                       $64,971,606.00
     Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                       2,137,966.57
     Total Annualized Cost (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                  for 20 years)                  7,860,237.46
     Annual Cost Per Household (Based on 100,000
                           population or 32,258  households)            243.67

10.   Spanish Point

     Total Project Cost                                       $62,707,688.00
     Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                       2,080,809.05
     Total Annualized Cost (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                  for 20 years)                  7,603,688.97
     Annual Cost Per Household .(Based on 100,000
                           population or 32,258  households)            235.71
                                      323

-------
                                    TABLE 3-22

                              COST SUMMARIZATION (Continued)
10. Spanish Point

    Total Project Cost                                       $62,707,688.00
    Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                       2,080,809.05
    Total Annualized Cost (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                 for 20 years)                 7,603,688.97
    Annual Cost Per Household (Based on 100,000
                          population or 32,258 households)           235.71

11. Quarantine Island

    Total Project Cost                                       $56,772,182.00
    Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                       1,943,517.94
    Total Annualized Cost (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                 for 20 years)                 6,943,637.60
    Annual Cost Per Household (Based on 100,000
                          population or 32,258 households)           215.25

]2. Southside Craig Field

    Total Project Cost                                       $55,749,995.00
    Total Annual Operation & Maintenance                       1,655,355.79
    Total Annualized Cost (Based on 6 1/8% interest rate
                                 for 20 years)                 6,565,447.96
    Annual Cost Per Household (Based on 100,000
                          population or 32,258 households)           203.53
                                    324

-------
              TABLE 3-23




Environmental Ranking and Project Costs
EIS
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13

14
15

12.
I.E.
2.B.
6.
5.
l.Q.
2.Q.
3.
11.
4.
9.
8.

7.

10.
13.
System, STP
Location
Southside Craig Field
Millcoe Road (Blount)
Dunes Area (Blount)
E. of Craig, 3ys. "B"
E. of Craig, Sys. "A"
Millcoe Road (Quarantine)
Dunes Area (Quarantine)
Dames Point /Ft. Caroline
Quarantine Island
N. of Craig Field
Beacon Hills
Inside E. Craig,
(Sys. "B")
Inside E. Craig,
(Sys. "A")
Spanish Point
NO ACTION
EIS
Ratings
492.40
490.30
489.20
486.00
481.60
480.35
479.25
476.05
474.90
473.40
455.40
447 .00

442,00

405.70
375.80
MONETARY
Plant
Cost
38,094,179
37,032,984
39,440,031
35,883,702
35,883,702
34,373,206
36,780,183
33,242,115
34,245,873
35,895,000
36,621,384
37,592,000

37,592,000

35,326,358

COSTS
Project
Cost
55,749,995
51,219,085
53,274,925
57,887,620
62,699,047
48,559,307
50,615,077
51,364,776
56,772,182
56,308,903
64,971,606
58,363,620

63,709,227

62,707,688

                325

-------
IV. Project Description

    The proposed project consists of a sewage treatment
plant, outfall, interceptors, and pumping stations.   The
general layout of the project may be seen in Figure 3-1.
The layout of the treatment plant for the proposed project
and the expansion is shown in Figure 4-1.  The first phase
of the system includes a 10 million gallon per day treatment
plant and interceptors to hook up presently city-owned small
treatment facilities.  The proposed system and future
expansions are shown in Figure 3-1.  The ultimate size of
the system is proposed to be 25 million gallons per day.
Expansion of the plant will be necessary prior to 1990.

    Costs for the proposed project and future expansion are
given in Table 4-1.
                         TABLE 4-1
                        10 mgd              25 mgd

Plant                 22,178,700          5,499,500
Outfall                2,455,800
Plant Pumping
  Station              2,380,000
Access Road              153,000
Force Mains            7,227,200          6,614,000
Pumping Stations       4,325,000          7,444,500
Eng., Legal, Cont.     8,828,091
Land                   1,011,516
      TOTAL           48,449,307         24,017,224
                               326

-------
i-v san&iz

-------
    Sludge handling and treatment for the Arlington-East
project consists of a centrifuge for initial dewatering to
four percent solids, sludge holding tanks, heat treatment to
condition the sludge, vacuum filtration to further dewater
the sludge to 35% solids and finally incineration.  The ash
resulting from the sludge incineration will be landfilled.

    Additionally, the sludge may be used as a soil condition
following heat treatment.  The sludge after this process is
an odorless, sterile material particularly suitable for use
as a conditioner.  Provisions for loading sludge following
the heat treatment step are to be provided.

    Effluent disposal will occur approximately 500 feet off
Quarantine Island in approximately 38 feet of water.  The
outfall will cross Mill Cove, Marian Island and Quarantine
Island.  Approximately 6300 feet of 48" outfall will be
placed on land and approximately 7500 feet will be placed
under water.

    The flow characteristics at the discharge location are
complex and involve tidal flows.  The volume of water
passing the outfall location due to tidal fluctuations and
river flow will provide considerable dilution of the
discharge.  The depression of dissolved oxygen concentration
and the increase in nutrient levels due to the discharge
will be insignificant.

    The wastewater treatment plant facilities schematic is
shown in Figure 3-22.  Facilities include prechlorination,
screening, aeration, grit removal, primary clarifiers,
skimming, activated sludge treatment, secondary clarifiers,
return sludge facilities, and effluent chlorination.  The
design capacity of the first phase is 10 mgd.  This capacity
is sufficient to serve existing populations in the service
area.  Many of the existing septic tank installations in the
Arlington-East area may remain in operation and it is
estimated that the proposed facility will be adequate for
approximately ten years.  Operation and maintenance costs
for the facility are presented and discussed in the resource
use section of Chapter V.

    Considerable noise and odor control features have been
incorporated into the plant and have been described in
detail in Chapter III.  Additionally, pumping stations will
have aerated wet wells to control odors in the interceptor
lines and pumping stations.
                            328

-------
V.  Environmental Effects of the Proposed Action

    A.   General

    The beneficial and detrimental environmental effects of
the proposed action described in Chapter IV are discussed in
detail in this chapter.  The discussion is divided into
natural and man-made categories similar to those appearing
in Chapter II — "The Environment Without the Proposed
Action" — to facilitate a direct comparison.

    B.   Environmental Effects

         1.   Primary Effects

              a.   Natural Environment

                   1)   Atmosphere

                        a)   Air Quality

    Primary sources of air pollution resulting from project
construction will be construction dust and construction
vehicle and equipment exhaust emissions.  Smoke from burning
of cleared vegetation, rubbish, and debris will not be a
source since open burning will be prohibited by contract
specifications.  The contractor will be required to haul
debris to a disposal site designated by the City.  Cleared
vegetation will either be hauled to a designated site and
burned in accordance with the requirements of an open-
burning permit, or chipped and spread on the construction
site.

    Some unavoidable dust problems are expected to be
generated by clearing, excavation, and grading on the
treatment plant and pumping station sites and along pipeline
routes.  The degree of impact caused by wind erosion of
disturbed soils is related to soil type, particularly
particle size.  This impact will be minimal at the plant
site due to the sandy and larger particle soil types found
there.  The same will also hold true for construction along
most  of the proposed interceptor system.  Although the
proposed plant site has residences approximately one-fourth
of a mile away, soil types will combine with the vegetative
buffer zone to minimize the effects of construction related
dust.  Further, construction specifications will require the
                               329

-------
spreading of calcium chloride as needed on disturbed earth
areas as a dust control measure.

    During the period of construction, a certain amount of
unavoidable traffic will be needed to transport construction
and process equipment as well as labor and materials to the
site and to remove debris from the site.  Although
proportional to the density and proximity of surrounding
residents, the impact of exhaust emissions from this
traffic, as well as from construction equipment, is
anticipated to have little actual noticeable effect.

    The principle source of operational air emissions from
the proposed facility will be the multiple hearth sludge
disposal incinerator.  No operational incinerator is totally
efficient and, as a result of incomplete combustion, the
resulting emission of air pollutants must be considered an
adverse environmental effect.  Such materials commonly
considered pollutants include particulate matter (fly ash),
oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, and carbon monoxide which, in
the Jacksonville-Brunswick Air Quality Control Region, have
received a priority classification of I, II, III and III,
respectively.  In this context, it is interesting to note
that the City's application to the State of Florida
Department of Pollution Control to construct a sludge
incinerator at the Buckman Sewage Plant to burn sludges from
both the Buckman and District 2 Plants listed each of these
pollutants as constituents of the stack emission.  However,
the subsequently issued permit limited only particulate
emissions with respect to total weight  (216 pounds per day),
grains per standard cubic foot  (0.05), and particulate size
(0 to 5 microns) from 302 tons per day of dry sludge
incinerated, a volume far in excess of that actually
expected from the Buckman Plant (approximately 70 tons per
day).  This compares to projected particulate emissions from
the Arlington-East incinerator of 19.5 pounds per day, 0.02
grains or less per standard cubic foot of dry gases
corrected to 12 percent  CO2, and particulate size of 0 to 5
microns.

    In the context of comparing the proposed Arlington
incinerator with the Buckman installation, it should be
noted that the sludges to be burned at Buckman are largely
of industrial origin while those at Arlington will be
totally domestic in character.  This means that the
Arlington sludge will more nearly approach complete
combustion by virtue of its more volatile and readily
                             330

-------
oxidizable nature.  Further, there is no potential for heavy
metal concentrations in the Arlington incinerator stack
emissions because no sludges of industrial origin will be
burned.  Inasmuch as the Buckman incinerator emissions
conform to pertinent State standards and the sludge from
Arlington-East is more readily conbustible, it is concluded
that emissions from the Arlington incinerator stack will
consistently fall well within emission limitations as set
forth in State air quality standards for both initial and
ultimate plant capacities.  However, just as no real
incinerator installation attains the ideal of perfect and
complete combustion, neither does any stack emission
scrubbing device achieve total removal of air pollutants.
In the absence of totally efficient scrubbers, some
pollutants will exit the system in stack emissions.  Chapter
III provided background data against which the magnitude of
particulate emissions from the proposed incinerator could be
evaluated.  A description of particulate fallout per unit
acre resulting from incinerator operation was also given.
It was concluded that the ultimate plant capacity of 25 mgd
will result in particulate emissions representing an
insignificant percent of total existing emissions for the
City.  Further, it was calculated that even under critical
operational and meteorological conditions, particulate
fallout per unit acre will be quite minor and have no effect
on the surrounding resident population.

                        b)   Noise

    Construction noise is generated totally by the operation
of construction equipment and vehicles.  These noises are
unavoidable but their adverse impacts will be moderated by
construction specifications which will require that
particularly noisy operations be carried out only during
normal daylight working hours.  Further, the high and well-
drained nature of the plant site will not necessitate pile
driving, the potentially noisiest construction operation.

    Noise impact from construction vehicles using Monument
Road, the primary access route, is expected to be minor
since it is a secondary arterial which already bears a
significant amount of traffic.  Noise at the construction
site itself will at times be noticed by the surrounding
resident population but its impact is not expected to be
significant due to the large buffer zone between the site
and the nearest residents.
                               331

-------
    A minimal noise impact on the surrounding community
rould be realized from operation of the proposed facility.
Phis impact has been described in detail in Chapter III.

                        c)   Odor

    The primary source of construction-related odor will be
sxhaust emissions of construction vehicles and equipment.
Little impact is expected due to the already substantial
amount of traffic on the primary access road and the
extensive buffer zone between the construction site itself
and surrounding residents.  Nuisance odors associated with
demucking operations will not be a problem since
construction at the proposed site will not require
demucking.

    Operation of the controlled plant is expected to result
in- no noticeable nuisance odors off the plant site.
Operational odor impact, as well as rationale and control
systems, have been detailed in Chapter III.

                   2)   Land

                        a)   Physical and Chemical

                              (1)  Topography

    The 46-acre treatment plant site is essentially divided
into a lower northern and a higher southern half separated
by a ten to twelve foot embankment whose slope is, for the
most part, in excess of eight percent.  The facilities
themselves will be constructed on the higher portion of the
site and will require a minimum of grading and land surface
alteration.  The embankment will be affected only minimally
and the lower northern portion will not be altered at all.

    Effects of plant operation on topography center around
visibility of the facilities.  On-site studies to determine
the visibility of the highest plant component—the 74-foot
incinerator stack—have been described in Chapter III.  In
summary, observations have indicated that the incinerator
stack will, for all practical purposes, not be visible by
residents surrounding the Millcoe Road plant site.

                              (2)  Soils
                                 332

-------
    While cleared and under construction, the plant site
will be subject to erosion by wind and water.  Erosion by
water will be minimized by the flat to moderately sloping
terrain of the construction site while erosion by both wind
and water will be minimized by the larger and inorganic soil
particles prevalent at the site.  Temporary soil erosion
during construction, although an adverse environmental
impact, is not expected to be a significant problem.

    No long-term effects on land erosion are anticipated as
a result of the operation of the proposed facilities.
Disturbed areas at the plant and pump station sites will be
graded and regrassed and all pipeline routes will be
returned as closely as possible to a condition comparable to
their preconstruction state.

                        b)   Biological

                             (1)  Terrestrial Vegetation

    Primary impacts evolve from construction of the plant on
the Millcoe Road site, installation of interceptors and
effluent pipe, and system operation.

    Approximately 25 acres of longleaf pine/turkey oak
forest will be eliminated.  Most of the pine has been
timbered out.  The dominant turkey oaks are mature and 20 to
30 feet in height.  No unusually large or rare species of
trees exist on the area to be cleared.  Clearing, grubbing,
and grading plans do not include the clearing of the low
flatwoods on the northern half of the site.  Further,
expansion of the facilities to 25 mgd capacity can be
accomplished within the initial clearing limits.

    An estimated 95 percent of the interceptor sewer length
is to be installed along existing roadway easement.  Only
two lines will measurably impact established natural
vegetation; 4000 feet east of St. Johns Bluff Road on the
Atlantic Boulevard line, and 5600 feet of the University of
North Florida line.  Both are presently planned to impact
cypress swamp.  These routings, however, can be slightly
modified to impact less biologically sensitive terrain.

    The effluent outfall line will impact a 50-foot wide
corridor of low slash pine flatwoods from the plant site
north to Fort Caroline Road.  The interceptors and effluent
line corridors along roadways will be returned to natural
                               333

-------
jrade and seeded to minimize erosion and encourage natural
vegetation.

                             (2)   Terrestrial Animals

    The sandhill habitat to be cleared for the treatment
plant will permanently preclude its use by wildlife.
Notably, bobwhite quail and doves utilize the good ground
cover and forage of the sandhill.  Two species appearing on
the state list of threatened animals, the gopher tortoise
and indigo black snake, could possibly be present on the
site.  Animals able to move will find suitable habitat
adjacent to the site.  An unquantifiable segment of the
community will perish as a direct result of construction.
During construction, the animals near the site will be
temporarily disrupted.

    Once the plant is in operation, surrounding wildlife
habitats should be virtually unaffected by localized
activity and noise from pumping stations and the plants.
The quantity of naturally vegetated interceptor corridor
lost to wildlife by the project is minimal and temporary.

                   3)   Water-Land Interface

                        a)   Physical and Chemical

    The primary effects of project construction on the
water-land interface will be to aquatic flora and fauna as
discussed below.  Operational effects to the interface
areas, however, will be more far reaching in relation to
both the physical and chemical and biologic aspects of these
areas.  Those interface areas which will receive the
greatest direct benefit are the estuaries and coastal
marshes.  These marshes have, in many cases, been subjected
to various man-made changes, such as the artificial
introduction of nutrients, which have altered their natural
condition.  Such changes then influence the contiguous
estuarine areas.  These processes and induced changes have
been described in more detail in Chapter II.  However, by
reducing or removing large biologic oxygen demand loadings
from the water-land interface areas, the proposed project
will directly contribute to an increase in water quality of
these areas.

                        b)   Biological
                               334

-------
                           	H L']'!	 L1 	I !_	.	'.	L_	.	 __  __ 	_j
    The most significant impact to the salt marsh is
attendant to construction of the outfall line.  2.1 acres of
salt marsh cordgrass will be destroyed in the crossings of
Quarantine Island and Marian Island in Mill Cove.  The
invertebrate community associated with the marsh is expected
to perish.  Higher forms of marsh dwellers will seek
adjacent marsh and be relatively unaffected.

    A very small segment of marsh will be altered by the
installation of the Villa Armada force main across upper Big
Pottsburg Creek.

    Freshwater swamp will not be affected by construction.

                   H)   Water

                        a)   Physical and Chemical

    The primary effects to surface water bodies by
construction activities are erosion and sedimentation.
These effects have been described in Chapter III for both
treatment plant and interceptor construction.  In summary,
however, erosion and sedimentation are expected to be
significant short-term construction related impacts
particularly in association with subaqueous outfall
construction across Mill Cove.

    Operational impacts to surface water quality will be
caused by diversion of effluent flows from the tributaries
and creation of a new municipal discharge to the St. Johns
River.  Effluent flow diversion from the tributaries will
represent a major reduction of inflow in dry weather in many
such cases where treated effluent is now a major part of dry
weather inflow.  However, implementation of the project will
have overwhelmingly beneficial effects on tributary water
quality by phasing out existing small treatment plants and
terminating their effluent discharges.

    Discharge of the Arlington-East effluent to the
maintained shipping channel of the St. Johns River will
affect water quality parameters in the vicinity of the
discharge point.  However, large available dilution factors,
thorough mixing as afforded by strong tidal currents, and
the ability of pollutants to exit the estuary on ebb tidal
cycles, will assure minimal effect on water quality and
maintenance of water quality standards.
                               335

-------
    Project implementation will not contribute to increased
incidence of flooding.  The plant site is not located in the
flood plain of any stream and thus will not bring about any
reduced hydraulic capacity.  In addition, the effluent
discharge is not significant in comparison with receiving
stream flows and will not directly contribute to increased
incidence of downstream flooding.  Effluent flow will be
10.0 mgd initially and 25.0 mgd ultimately as compared with
an average natural stream flow  (net discharge) in the St.
Johns River of some 5,880 cfs.  Moreover, because of its
open connection to the ocean, river stage in the lower St.
Johns is almost totally a function of tide height rather
than of stream flow.

    Operation of the proposed facilities will not directly
result in any groundwater contamination or quantity
variations,

                        b)   Biological

    The greatest direct and long-range beneficial impact —
that of significantly reduced nutrient loadings — will be
experienced by the aquatic communities of the tributaries
and Intracoastal Waterway.

                              (1)  Aquatic Plants

    Construction effects on aquatic plants will be
insignificant from excavation of the outfall pipeline across
shallow Mill Cove.  Turbidity levels will increase around
the subaqueous trench limiting  light penetration to
phytoplankton.  No submerged estuarine grassbeds are known
to exist along the outfall corridor.

    Certain operational effects are unavoidable.  The
chlorinated effluent will inhibit or kill phytoplankton in
the immediate discharge area.  A potential for planktonic
blooms exists in the periphery  of the mixing zone.  The
occurrence of these two events  is not expected since the
freshwater effluent will be discharged at the bottom of the
ship channel where phytoplanktonic activity is negligible
and mixing potential is best.
                              (2)  Aquatic Animals
                                 336

-------
    Construction effects will result from excavation of
interceptor and outfall pipeline in subaqueous areas.  The
outfall line across Mill Cove is the major area of aquatic
impact.  Similar but lesser impact will occur by traversing
Big Pottsburg Creek for the Villa Armada force main.
Because plans specify a The pipeline construction across
Quarantine Island could necessitate breaking a spoil dike
allowing contaminated dredged spoil to re-enter water
courses.  If this is the case, a realignment will be done
away from active spoil sites.  14-foot deep trench, a huge
quantity of spoil will be placed to either side of it.  The
benthic invertebrate community will be smothered under this
spoil.  Currents will carry suspended sediment an unknown
distance from actual construction causing difficulty to
filter-feeding mechanisms and gills.  Shrimp and many
smaller invertebrates are filter feeders.  Clumps of
oysters, also filter feeders, are abundant on the mud flats
south of Quarantine Island.  Those along the outfall line
will perish.  Such effects are not irreparable because
affected areas should begin to recolonize soon after
construction is terminated.  Complete restoration will not
occur, however, until a seasonal cycle has ended.

    The chlorinated effluent will cause a localized kill of
the animal segment of the plankton.  Nektonic animals,
particularly fish, will be attracted to the outfall plume
but momentary contact with treated effluent will not be
detrimental.

                   5)   Sensitive Natural Areas

                        a)   Mill Cove

    The subaqueous area and peripheral marsh are productive
segments of the estuarine system.  They will receive short-
term adverse impact from outfall installation.

                        b)   Big Pottsburg Creek

    The crossing of the Villa Armada force main will result
in some short-term stress due to construction.

              b.   Man-Made Environment

                   1)   Land Use
                               337

-------
    The site of the proposed plant is currently vacant of
urban uses and will not cause the relocation of any people.
The land surrounding the site is made up largely of single-
family residential and vacant land.  There are approximately
564 people living on 53 acres of single-family residential
land within 3,000 feet of the proposed site.

    The compatibility of the construction and operation of
the proposed plant with the adjacent land uses will be
determined primarily by the noise and odor impacts of the
plant.  There may be some short-term adverse construction
noise noticeable in the surrounding neighborhoods.  However,
this noise will be limited to daytime working hours and
should not cause significant disturbance.

    The potential noise and odor impacts of plant operation
are discussed in detail in the appropriate sections of
Chapter III.  The results of this analysis indicate that
there will be no significant noise or odor impacts from the
operation of the plant in the surrounding neighborhoods.

    Despite the expected lack of substantive negative
impacts in the existing neighborhoods, a short-term lowering
of property values could occur if a significant number of
area residents sell their homes in fear of anticipated
adverse impacts.  This type of panic selling could depress
property values and potentially allow a deterioration of the
neighborhood during this transition period.  It is, however,
expected that any decrease in property values will be only
temporary.  When the plant becomes operational, it will be
clearly demonstrated that no significant noise and odor
impact will occur.  This will stabilize property values in
the area at a level compatible with what they are now.

    The construction of the 114-acre buffer zone adjacent to
the plant site should have a long-term positive impact on
residential property values.  This land is projected for use
as a passive recreational area for neighborhood residents.
It will provide aesthetic enjoyment as well as a buffer from
the treatment plant.

    It is also important to remember that construction of
the plant on this site will take up land that would
otherwise be used for some form of residential construction.
The 1290. Comprehensive Development Plan forecasts 624 people
would be living in low and medium density residential
development on the site if the plant is not built.  Added to
                               338

-------
this would be similar development on the 114-acre buffer
zone between the site and the surrounding community.  The
designation of this land for non-residential uses will
provide a buffer from the expected extensive development of
apartments along the Dames Point Freeway right-of-way.  This
will help maintain the character of the existing
neighborhoods.

    Some impact to property values might be expected on the
vacant land immediately adjacent to the western side of the
plant where no buffer is to be provided.  However, a leg of
the proposed Dames Point Freeway is planned to be
constructed on the western and southern sides of the
treatment plant site.  This road will come within 300-foot
of the plant site on its southwestern edge.  The use of this
land for highway construction will be very compatible with
the treatment plant and should negate any lowering of
property values which the treatment plant might otherwise
cause.

                        2)   Archeological, Cultural,
Historical, and Recreational

    Consultation with the State Historic Preservation
Officer  (see Appendix II) indicates that no historic
properties on or eligible to be included on the National
Register of Historic Places will be impacted by this
project.

    A search of the records of the Division of Archives,
History, and Records Management of the Florida Department of
State, and a preliminary survey by a staff archeologist of
the same agency, indicates no known archeological sites
present upon the plant site.  A detailed archeological
survey will be conducted on the plant site, interceptor
lines and outfall line to verify the preliminary survey.

    The proposed site is not located on land which is now
being used or is projected to be used for parkland or other
outdoor recreational activities.  The City has purchased a
114-acre buffer between the plant site and the surrounding
community which may be used as a passive recreational area.
The project will also have a long-term beneficial impact
upon water related recreational activities by helping the
tributaries to meet body contact recreational water quality
standards.
                               339

-------
                        3)   Transportation

    During construction, traffic to and from construction
sites will be induced by the need to move construction
equipment, process equipment, and construction labor and
materials to the sites and to remove debris from the sites.
Traffic .will enter the treatment plant site from Monument
Road which is a local arterial route.  Any objectionable
traffic induced by construction will be temporary and will
have very minor impact.

    The operation of the treatment plant will generate some
long-term heavy truck traffic.  This traffic will result
from the hauling of treatment chemicals (chlorine) to the
plant site, traffic by septic tank trucks, and temporary
portable toilet trucks to the treatment plant for discharge,
traffic caused by screening and grit disposal, and traffic
caused by the disposal of ash or sludge.  The magnitude of
such traffic is estimated as follows:

                                  Round Trips Daily
    Traffic Sources             First Stage   Ultimate

Chemical Delivery               0.20           0.20
Ash Disposal (Sludge Disposal)  1.61  (10.00)   3.99  (24.00)
Grit Disposal                   0.32           0.80
Screenings Disposal             1.00           1.00
Septic Tank Truck               8.94          13.04
Portable Toilet Truck           3.00          _JL-.30

Total, Truck Round Trips       15.07  (23.46)  24.33  (44.34)

Total, One-Way Trips           30.14  (46.92)  48.66  (88.68)

    The impact this traffic will have depends largely upon
the type of roads over which it will travel.  Traffic going
to and from the chosen site will use Monument Road which is
a local arterial route.  The type of traffic generated by
the operation of this plant should have minimum impact on a
road of this type.

                   4)   Resource Use

    Construction of the project will cause a permanent and
irrevocable commitment of resources in the form of materials
used in construction.  Treatment plant construction  entails
commitment of material resources in the form of cement.
                               340

-------
mineral aggregates, structural and reinforcing steel, pipe
materials and valves manufactured process equipment and
pumps, electrical equipment and wiring, and building
construction materials.  Similar materials, though in lesser
quantities, are utilized in construction of the 32 pumping
stations, while construction of the 245,000-foot length of
pipeline will utilize piping, valves, concrete, and pavement
replacement materials.  Also, during construction, fuels and
consumable supplies are required for operations of vehicles,
equipment and machinery.

    The treatment plant will incorporate mechanical
equipment which during operation will utilize large amounts
of electric energy.  Small quantities of energy obtained by
burning fuel oil will be expended in incineration.  The
operation of the pumping stations will require a significant
consumption of electric energy.  The transmission system for
the chosen site will use 4,823,333 kwh of power annually at
a cost of $248,000.  The only chemical which will be used in
significant quantities is chlorine used for treatment sewage
effluent disinfection.

    The total monetary resources used in system construction
will be $48,559.307.  Annual costs of system operation and
maintenance will be $1,533,165.  The total annualized cost
over the design period of the project will be $5,864,949.

    If this total cost was divided equally among the
residents of the service area, it would come to $181.80 per
equivalent household  (3.22 persons/household).

                   5)   Water Programs

    The proposed project will have no significant impact
upon the water supply system in the  service area.  None of
the effluent will be used on land in any manner.

    The project will have a long-term beneficial input on
tributary streams by helping them meet water quality
regulations through the elimination  of discharges.  The
water quality of the St. Johns River will not be
significantly affected by the effluent discharged from this
project*

                    6)   Taxes and Budgeting
                                  341

-------
    The local share of the proposed project cost will be
paid for entirely from user fees and, thus, will not require
any tax increase.

    Initial user fees will be based on the newly adopted
water and sewer rates described in the Taxes and Budgeting
Section of Chapter II.  Any additional increases in these
fees will be based upon future costs versus revenues for the
entire City system.

                   7)   Other Projects, Programs, and
Efforts

    The proposed outfall line across Mill Cove and
Quarantine Island will be constructed so as to avoid any
adverse impact to COE projects  (see Appendix III).  The
pipeline will be buried sufficiently to avoid any possible
future impacts related to the proposed small boat navigation
channel in Mill Cove and planned excavation on Quarantine
Island.  The exact location of the outfall discharge point
into the St. Johns River will be determined so as to avoid
any impacts with COE, dredging operations and ship traffic
in the navigation channels.

                   8)   Sensitive Man-Made Areas

    The proposed project will have no significant impact
upon the sensitive man-made areas identified in Chapter II.
The construction and operation of the project will not
affect any cultural resources, any parklands, any heavily
used traffic corridors, or any residential communities in
the service area,

         2.   Secondary Impacts

              a.   Man-Made Environment

                   1)   Demography and Economics

                        a)   Population

    The sizing and phasing of the proposed project is based
upon the population forecast for the service area by the
JAPB  (see Figure 2-26).  This forecast was made under the
•assumption that wastewater treatment would not be a
constraint to development in the areas.
                               342

-------
    If this type of system was not put in, the population
density which could be supported would be somewhat limited
because of water quality and septic tank restrictions.
However, the disposal of wastewater currently is a
constraint to population growth in parts of the service area
because of water quality and septic tank restrictions.
Construction of this system will remove this constraint and
allow growth to continue as it otherwise would.

    Construction of the first phase of interceptors will
allow population growth to continue west of Craig Field
without being limited by the ban on additional discharges
into the tributary stream of the St. Johns River.

    Construction of the second phase will allow development
to proceed in areas east and south of Craig Field which
would otherwise be restricted because of limitations to
septic tank development.

    The total long-term effect of not putting in the system
upon population growth is hard to quantify.  The exact
amount of acreage unsuitable for septic tank use is not
known, and the degree of development which would occur using
surface wastewater disposal into the St. Johns is also
unclear.  It is estimated, however, that not constructing
the system could constrain the population increase to
perhaps no more than 185,000.  Therefore, the major
secondary impacts of the project on population will be to
allow the increment from 185,000 to 219,000 to settle in the
area; and to allow the total population to distribute itself
in an orderly manner based upon transportation lines, the
location of community services, the location of shopping
areas, etc., rather than being based upon the one limiting
factor of wastewater disposal.

                        b)   Economics

    The construction of this project will provide the
greatest economic benefit to major land developers in the
service area.  The project will remove wastewater treatment
as a constraint to development and allow  it to proceed as it
otherwise would.  The major land holders  in the  service area
are as follows:

              Stockton, Whatley, and Davin

              Dan Trecnick
                              343

-------
              Buck and Buck

              •the Brent and Hodges families

              the Coppedge family

    These land owners will realize significant economic benefits,

                   2)   Land Use

    Currently, about one-third of the net dry acres of land
in the Arlington service area are developed.  The 19SK)
Comprehensive Development Plan forecasts almost complete
development of the area by 1990.  (See Figure 2-29)  The
proposed wastewater treatment system was designed to serve
the growth and development forecast in the plan.

    The first part of the service area to be impacted by the
project will be the area served by phase 1  (see Figure 3-1).
Major impact to land use in this area will be an
encouragement of growth of medium density residential and
office development, particularly in the area north of
Regency Square.

    The second phase of interceptor construction will
service areas to the east and south of Craig Airport.  Much
of this area is unsuitable for septic tank use  (see Figure
2-10)  and could not be extensively developed without the
presence of a regional system.  This area is projected for
low density residential use with some conservation and
preservation areas.  The interceptor system was designed to
service low density residential type of development.  It
could, however, support higher development densities and
development in areas set aside for conservation and
preservation because of the need to construct the system
based upon the interceptor lines being one-half full at peak
flow.

    The major control measure the City has to direct growth
in the pattern and density recommended in the Comprehensive
Development Plan is its zoning ordinance.  If future zoning
decisions of the City government are based upon the land use
plan,  growth will not be excessive.   However, possible
changes in public office holders and in local priorities
make future zoning decisions uncertain.
                                344

-------
                   3)    Archeological, Cultural,  Historic,
                        and Recreational Resources

    The increased growth and development induced by the
project may cause the distruction of some archeological and
historical sites.  This possibility is most significant
along the southern share of the St. Johns River and along
stream banks where most of these remains are located.

    According to national standards, the service area now is
deficient by 700 acres in public recreational facilities.
The growth supported by this project will allow the
population of the service area to more than double by the
year 2002.  This will mean a doubling of the need for
parkland and other outdoor recreational facilities and a
need for an additional 900 acres of recreational land.  If
these needs are not provided for, the demand on the already
inadeguate system will double.

                   4)   Transportation

    The population which the proposed system is being
designed to serve will more than double the use of
automobiles in the service area by the year 2002.  This
added demand will greatly increase congestion  on the area's
transportation facilities, especially on those facilities
leading to the bridges crossing the St. Johns River.  If the
new bridges proposed by the JUANTS study are built, this
demand will be somewhat dispersed.  If they are not, the
added demand will be focused on the Mathews and Hart Bridges
and on the thoroughfares leading to them.  The average daily
travel on these  bridges in 1974 was 44,900 on the Mathews
Bridge and 23,000 on the Hart  Bridge.  Major traffic
corridors and major overloaded thoroughfare segments are
shown on  Figures 2-32  and  2-33 in  Chapter II.

                   5)   Resource Use

    The population which will  be supported by  this  project
will increase electric consumption in the area by
approximately 450 MVA  by the year  2002.  This  additional
power demand will be met with  a combination of additional
transformers at  existing  substations  and new  substations.
The ultimate size of  substations usually range between 100
and 150 MVA.  Each  substation  is made up of transformers
which  generally  supply either  33 or 50 MVA of  power.   Enough
reserve  power  is maintained at each station to operate with
                                 345

-------
no loss of service if one of its transformers is out of
service.  No increase in electric rates is foreseen by JEA
because of the construction of transformers and substations.

    The need for a new generating station is based upon
growth in the entire Jacksonville area.  If power use
increases throughout Jacksonville at its expected rate, a
new 400 to 500 megawatt generating station may be necessary
in the early 1980's.  This facility could probably supply
the City's increased power needs until the mid 1990's.  This
projected generating station may require a rate increase
because of the need to sell bonds to finance it.

                   6)   Water Programs

    Demand for drinking water in the service area will more
than double in the next twenty-five years.  Water supply
service will need to be extended throughout the service area
as growth and development expand.

    No major problems are foreseen in the availability of
groundwater for use in the service area during the design
period of the project.  Salt water intrusion into the
aquifer, however, could become a problem in the future.  The
proper location and spacing of wells will be necessary to
preclude problems of this type from occurring.

                   7)   Other Community services and
                        Facilities

                        a)   General

    The expected doubling of population in the service area
in the next 25 years will cause great strain on the area's
community services and facilities.  If these services and
facilities are not increased to keep pace with the added
demand, the quality of public services will decrease
significantly.  The following discussion gives a general
idea of what additional facilities and services will be
required.  A much more detailed and specific analysis is
presented in the JAPB's Short Range Development Plan.,

                        b)   Schools and Libraries

    There are currently 13 elementary schools, 3 junior high
schools and 2 senior high schools in the district which have
a capacity of 16,619 students.  The expected 100 percent
                                346

-------
increase of population in -the service area will
approximately double the number of school age children.   In
turn, this will cause an approximate 100 percent increase in
the demand for educational facilities in the Arlington area.
This increased demand will be met through a combination of
new facilities and the expansion of existing facilities
which will, in essence, double the existing facilities and
staff.

    The one branch library now in the service area can
adequately serve the projected population if the size of the
book collection is increased.  A branch library should have
2 to 2.5 books per capita.  This will mean a need to
increase the size of the collection by between 200,000 and
250,000 by the year 2002.

                        c)   Public Safety

    One new fire station is currently needed to serve the
newly developing land around Regency Sguare.  As the
population of the service area continues to grow, additional
equipment will be needed at existing stations and new
stations may also be needed, particularly in the eastern
section of the service area.

    Police services will also have to be increased to serve
the projected doubling of population.  At this time, no
precinct stations are projected for the area.

                        d)   Solid Waste

    The new landfill site located between Girvin Road and
Greenfield Creek will serve the needs of the area in the
1980's.  An additional site will then be needed to serve the
long-term needs of the service area.

                        e)   Health Facilities

    Expansion of the two existing public health clinics and
construction of one new clinic will be needed to service
1980 population.  Additional expansions will be needed
beyond  these as the population of the service area continues
to grow,  By 2002 total space needs should be double what
they are today.

                   8)   Taxes and Budgeting
                                   347

-------
    The cost of provision of the additional community
services and facilities discussed in this Chapter will be
substantial.  As was shown in Chapter II, most of this cost
will be born by the City.  Generally speaking, the cost of
the provision of services to a largely residential community
such as Arlington is significantly greater than the
increased revenue collected in additional taxes.  However,
the taxes generated in industrial areas such as that
projected for Blount Island can be used to make up most of
this deficit.  Thus, at this time, it is difficult to tell
whether increased taxes will be needed to pay for the
governmental services needed by the expanded population of
the service area.

              b.   Natural Environment

                   1)   Atmosphere

                        a)   Air Quality

    In general, the overall air quality in Jacksonville is
improving although particulate matter and photochemical
oxidants still carry a priority classification of I and
sulfur dioxide a classification of II.  Much of the air
quality information presently available for Jacksonville has
been summarized in Chapter II.  To assess the effects of
projected significant growth and the potential for violation
of national primary or secondary air standards, the EPA is
developing an air quality model for the area.  Until such
time as this model is finished, little can be specifically
predicted regarding future air quality of Jacksonville or
the Arlington-East Service District.  What can be said,
however, is that with implementation of the proposed
project, the population of Arlington will continue to grow
at a rate faster than that of the City as a whole.  By
permitting this growth, the project will bring about the
potential for a degree of change in air quality brought on
by the functions and services attendant to the increased
development of urban areas.

                        b)   Noise

    Secondary effects of the project on noise may be
considered a direct function of human occupation and use.
The major sources of noise in the Arlington-East area are
aircraft and automobiles.  The difference in noise levels
and impact may be estimated to correspond to the amount and
                              348

-------
location of population growth induced by the project.  The
difference in population growth with the project as opposed
to without it is estimated to be 25 percent.  The general
location of this growth regarding increases in overall noise
levels is not expected to be significantly different with or
without the project.

                        c)   Odor

    Changes in the human usage of land subjected to nuisance
odors is the principal secondary effect of odor production.
For example, a decrease in real estate values could come
about should a neighborhood be subjected to a constant
level, or frequent episodes, of nuisance odors.  Due to the
very high level of odor controls proposed for the Arlington-
East plant, no such secondary effects are foreseeable as the
result of odors.

    An undoubtedly positive effect of the project on odors
will be the decreased usage of package plants in close
proximity to residential areas.  These smaller plants have
greater potential to adversely effect surrounding residents
since odor controls are usually not included, overloadings
are more common, breakdowns more frequent, and maintenance
more difficult.  Further, by decreasing the pressure for
development of lands marginally suitable for septic tank
operation, the project will decrease the incidence of septic
tank malfunctions and associated odors.

                    2)   Land

                        a)   Physical and Chemical

                              (1)  Topography

    There are extensive areas in Arlington which are not
suitable for development due to natural limitations on
septic system operation.  These areas, primarily in the
eastern portion of the service district, will be more
readily opened for development by the implementation of the
proposed regional treatment system.  As this occurs, areas
which are now fairly wet or where the water table is very
close to the surface could be partially or completely
drained for development with the physical, chemical, and
biologic effects which would accompany a change from a wet
to a dry regime.
                               349

-------
                             (2)  Soils

    Possible long-term secondary effects on soils are
related to the previously discussed changes in drainage.
Such soil changes may be physical (such as changes in
plasticity or shrink-swell potential)  and/or chemical and
will themselves have the potential for causing such tertiary
effects as influencing the kind and amount of vegetation
that can live in the area.

                        b)   Biological

    Secondary impacts to the terrestrial biologic community
will be caused by the increased land development expected as
a result of the proposed project.  The area of the proposed
Dames Point Expressway west of the Millcoe Road site is
planned for multi-family dwellings.   This development will
nearly eliminate natural areas of benefit to wildlife in the
vicinity.  The second phase interceptors — Mt. Pleasant-
Girvin, Atlanta Blvd., and Beach Blvd. will serve
considerable areas that would have been potentially
unsuitable for development due to septic system limitations.
These areas are the most valuable to the animal communities
because of their present remoteness to man.

    As development progresses, those animals most sensitive
to the presence of man will be excluded.  Exclusion of a few
top predators will ultimately affect the overall composition
of the animal community.  There will be a considerable loss
of scenic beauty as naturally vegetated hardwood stands are
sub-divided, although vegetation that is left remaining will
be more accessible for viewing following development.

                   3)   Water-Land Interface

    Secondary effects of the project on the physical and
chemical regime of the water-land interface are difficult to
quantify.  Some benefits will undoubtedly accrue, however,
from the decreased use of less efficient package plants and
septic systems in the service area.   It is to be remembered
that in the estuary of the St. Johns River, a primary threat
to the marshes is the direct deposition of dredge spoil and
excessive siltation due to dredge and fill operation and
runoff of solids.  The project will have no effect on
lessening the need for these operations.
                               350

-------
    Long-term adverse secondary effects are certain to occur
as the result of increased usage of salt and freshwater
marshlands by expanding populations in the area.  Past
development in Florida has severely encroached on saltwater
wetlands.  Some continued stress will be placed on these
areas but hopefully better environmental awareness will
limit destruction of these resources.

    More people in the area will increase the demand for
open area access, causing more roads to traverse marshland.
Wetlands will receive increased urban runoff containing
harmful biocides.  Cypress swamps will become less suitable
wildlife habitats with closer proximity to development.
Animal diversity will ultimately decrease.

    Development will entail filling and drainage alterations
in low areas.  This will ultimately be adverse to the
vegetation requiring a wet habitat as well as animals which
are acutely dependent upon freshwater swamps.

                   4)   Water

                        a)   Physical and Chemical

    Implementation of the proposed project will indirectly
cause an increase in urban runoff as a result of the
forecasted growth in Arlington.  The identification and
characterization of this runoff is difficult.   It is known,
however, that urban storm water runoff commonly contains
significant quantities of biologic and carbonaceous oxygen
demand,  suspended and dissolved solids, coliform bacteria,
and chlorides.   In the areas of Arlington for which
significant growth is forecasted, the effects of these
pollutants on surface waters will not approach the severity
of those caused  by runoff from, for  example, a  more
centralized urban area.  However, a  minor amount of
groundwater contamination is possible from induced runoff
since storm sewering will not be extensive and  since the
soil types and high groundwater table will probably combine
to assure relatively easy access to  the shallow water
aquifer.

    Secondary effects on groundwater quantity are  also  not
easily  quantified.  The general decline in the
potentiometric  surface and the  increase of chlorides  in the
Floridan aquifer in recent years has been documented  in
Chapter II.  These problems are caused  primarily by a
                                351

-------
current rate of groundwater withdrawal in excess of the rate
of aquifer recharge.  By permitting growth to increase in
Arlington at a faster rate than would otherwise occur, the
proposed project may indirectly cause an increased demand
for groundwater withdrawal.

    The project will have at least one indirect and
beneficial effect on the quality of the shallow water
aquifer in that it will decrease pressure for installation
of septic systems in areas only marginally suitable for
their operation.  The incidence of septic system malfunction
with subsequent pollution of the shallow water aquifer will
thus be decreased.

                        b)    Biological

    A long-term benefit to estuarine biota, especially in
the creeks tributary to the St. Johns, should be realized.
Removal of domestic wastes from them will enhance diversity
to the ultimate benefit to commercially important fisheries.

    The recreational and commercial use of aquatic resources
in and surrounding the district will increase with more
people.  Attendant to this will be increased use of aquatic
resources.  Unfortunately,  detrimental urban runoff will
enter area surface waters.   If water quality is not
maintained, these stress factors can become severe and
result in physiological changes in many organisms and a
community shift towards pollution tolerant dominants.

              d.   Sensitive Areas

                   1)   Cypress Swamps East of Craig Airport

    Long-term developmental pressures will alter the
wildlife community of this area and could seriously
jeapardize its function as a water retention and recharge
area.  The sensitive cypress swamp areas are much larger
than shown on the map of future land use (Figure 2-29).

                   2)   Saltmarsh Surrounding the Service
                        District

    Attendant to increased population in the service
district will be increased recreational use of the extensive
estuarine marshes in Duval County.  Increased proximity of
man to wetlands near the Intracoastal Waterway will affect
                              352

-------
migratory habits of waterfowl as well as the terrestrial- and
aquatic animal species.  Preservation of salt marshes will
ensure long-term direct economic benefits.

                   3)   Live Oak Hammock Areas Surrounding
                        Ft. Caroline Park

    This cover type is the least abundant of the dominant
terrestrial arboristic cover types within the service
district (refer to Figure 2-11).  Its existence is the
result of a long successional process; restablishment would
take a considerable amount of time.  This area could
potentially be of great value as a public park.

                   4)   Big and Little Pottsburg Creeks

    The removal of waste treatment plant effluents from
these receiving waters will have a beneficial result to this
segment of the estuary.  An accelerated rate of
entrophication is of no benefit to man or the animal
community in the long term.
                               353

-------
VI.  Adverse Impacts Which Cannot Be Avoided and Available

     Mitigative Measures

     A.   Adverse Impacts


          1)   Minor construction dust.

          2)   Minor construction vehicle and equipment
 exhaust emissions.

          3)   Emission of minor quantities of particulate
 and gaseous pollutants to the atmosphere as a result of
 operation of the multiple hearth sludge disposal
 incinerator.

          4)   Construction noise generated by vehicles and
 equipment.

          5)   Minor operational noise.

          6)   Odor caused by construction vehicle and
 equipment exhaust emissions.

          7)   Minor operational odors.

          8)   Grading and land surface alteration at the
 treatment plant site.

          9)   Minor aesthetic impact of the facilities.

         10)   Minor soil erosion by wind and water during
 construction and operation.

         11)   Commitment of 46.98 acres of land for the
 treatment plant site with subsequent loss of approximately
 half this acreage as wildlife habitat.  In addition, some
 wildlife habitat will be at least temporarily disturbed
 along the interceptor corridors during the period of
 construction.

         12)   Some disruption of wildlife habitat
 surrounding the plant site during the period of
 c on s tr uc ti on.

         13)   Temporary disturbance of two acres of Mill
 Cove salt marsh by outfall line construction.
                                354

-------
        14)   Slight water quality degradation in a small
mixing zone at the point of discharge in the St. Johns
River.

        15)   Some impact on the aguatic animal community by
sedimentation and turbidity as a result of disturbance of
bottom sediments in Mill Cove and Big Pottsburg Creek during
the period of construction.

        16)   Possible              panic selling before
plant goes into operation.

        17)   Potential archeological impacts.

        18)   Impacts to transportation facilities from
construction and operation.

        19)   Commitment of resources in construction and
operation.

        20)   Impact to preservation and conservation areas
from increased development pressure.

        21)   Increased usage of recreational  facilities.

        22)   Increased usage of transportation  facilities.

        23)   Increased use of  other community services  and
facilities.

        24)   Possible increase in  tax  rates to  fund
necessary community  services.

        25)   Slight changes  in air quality brought on by
increased development.

        26)   Increased potential for development  of
presently sparsely populated  areas  of the  service  district
with  concomitant  impact to terrestrial  biota.

        27)   Increased potential for urban impact (i.e.,
usage)  of wetland areas in and  surrounding the service
district.

        28)   Probable  increase in  urban  runoff as developed
areas expand.
                                355

-------
        29)   Decrease in -the potentiometric level and
increase in the chloride content of the Floridan aquifer as
a result of increased demand for groundwater.

    B.   Mitigative Measures to Adverse Impacts

    This section discusses measures capable, or potentially
capable, of mitigating the unavoidable adverse impacts
previously noted.  It includes not only those measures
proposed to be taken but also those which are less likely to
be taken as, for example, in areas where statutory authority
does not exist.  The distinction between measures actually
planned and those recommended is apparent in the discussion.
To facilitate cross-referencing, the order of presentation
corresponds directly to that of the adverse impacts listing.

         1)   Dust generated during construction will be
minimized by the spreading of calcium chloride as needed on
disturbed earth areas as a control measure.

         2)   Minor exhaust emissions from construction
vehicles and equipment at the plant site can be reduced only
marginally by such means as limiting unattended idling.  The
impact of emissions from vehicles going to and from
construction sites, however, may be lessened by requiring
these vehicles to use less populated and more heavily
traveled routes.

         3)   Further reduction of projected particulate and
gaseous pollutants which will be emitted to the atmosphere
as a result of incinerator operation is not possible with
current technology.  A precooler, scrubber, and other
appurtenant facilities will assure that these emissions are
well within the requirements of the Florida Department of
Pollution Control and the Environmental Protection Agency.

         4)   Adverse impacts of construction noise
generated by vehicles and equipment will be mitigated by
requiring that particularly noisy operations be carried out
only during normal daylight working hours.

         5)   Operational noise control measures have been
described in Chapter III.  These represent the most
effective means of mitigating foreseeable operational
noises.  However, the requirement of a followup
investigation on noise levels and the taking of feasible
corrective actions will provide an excellent post
                               356

-------
construction control strategy should some noise source be
overlooked in initial control efforts.

         6)   Minor odor caused by construction vehicle and
equipment exhaust emissions can be reduced only marginally
by such means as limiting unattended idling of machines.

         7)   Operational odor control measures have been
detailed in Chapter III.  The most effective means available
under current technology will be used to eliminate
operational nuisance odors.  Should equipment failure,
operator error, or maintenance oversight cause a highly
unlikely odor episode, however, several previously described
backup systems will be used to prevent noticeable odors from
leaving the treatment plant site.

         8)   There are no practical measures available to
mitigate a certain degree of grading and land surface
alteration at the treatment plant site.  These are
unavoidable engineering requirements.  Attendant effects
will be minimized, however, by confining this grading to the
southern half of the plant site.

         9)   Aesthetic impact of the treatment plant will
be minimized by leaving intact the vegetative buffer zone
between the plant site and nearest residents.

        10)   To reduce soil erosion during the period of
construction, the contractor will be required to spread
calcium chloride on disturbed areas as required (see also
 (1) above).  Available measures to minimize erosion by water
during construction include containment on site by temporary
berms and/or ditches and the chipping and spreading of
cleared vegetation on disturbed areas.  Required erosion
control measures after completion of construction will
consist of regrading and grassing disturbed areas as soon as
practicable.

        11)   There are no measures available to mitigate
the actual loss of approximately half of the 46.98-acre
plant site as undisturbed wildlife habitat.  Disturbed areas
along the  interceptor corridors, however, will be returned
as closely as is practicable to their preconstruction
condition.  In addition, a trained forester will walk all
naturally  vegetated interceptor corridors to determine if
any rare or exceptionally large trees will be impacted.  Any
such specimens encountered will be marked for preservation
                               357

-------
on the plans and specifications.  Results of this survey
will be included in the final environmental impact
statement.  Finally, should any sensitive natural areas be
encountered along proposed interceptor corridors, rerouting
through a less sensitive area will be investigated and
discussed in the final impact statement.

        12)    Disruption of wildlife habitat surrounding the
plant site during the period of construction will be
mitigated by leaving intact the previously discussed
vegetative buffer zone.

        13)    Decreasing the amount of salt marsh which will
be disturbed by outfall line construction could be
accomplished by rerouting the line to avoid Marian Island in
Mill Cove.  Reducing the degree of disturbance to the salt
marsh by outfall line construction can be accomplished by
not placing spoil on adjacent marsh grass.  In this context,
progressive backfilling as construction proceeds will
facilitate restoration and revegetation.  In addition,
progressive backfilling in lieu of piling spoil alongside
the trench and backfilling later would undoubtedly aid the
circulation of water in Mill Cove, particularly in the very
shallow areas.

        14)    The use of turbidity curtains can help lessen
the impact of construction activities on the benthic animal
communities of Mill Cove and Big Pottsburg Creek by helping
to contain suspended sediments.

        15)    Announcement of the construction of the
treatment plant could lead to some panic selling of homes in
the surrounding residential neighborhoods.  This panic
effect could be reduced to a minimum through an educational
program on the part of the City.  Local officials could
address neighborhood organizations and civic clubs to
explain the operation of the plant and the effects it will,
and will not, have.  Also, knowledgeable local officials
should make themselves available as much as possible at
their offices to answer specific questions which residents
might have.

        16)    At present there are no known significant
archeological sites endangered by the project.  In order to
insure that no culturally significant sites are destroyed, a
detailed surface survey of the plant site, outfall line, and
interceptor lines will be conducted by the Division of
                              358

-------
Archives, History, and Records Management of the Florida
Department of State prior to the issuance of the final EIS.
If any sites of significance are located, possible rerouting
to avoid artifacts or recovery of these resources will be
investigated and discussed in the final EIS.

        17)   Heavy construction and operation vehicles
coming to the plant site should operate during non-peak
daylight hours to minimize impacts of traffic congestion and
noise, respectively.

        18)   The use of material resources in plant
construction is being limited by the use of the alternative
with the smallest configuration of interceptor lines and
pumping stations.  The chosen alternative will also reguire
the smallest use of electric power of the twelve
alternatives considered.  Use of resources in the operation
of the incinerator can be eliminated if an acceptable site
can be found for the land spreading of sludge.

        19)   The Jacksonville Zoning Ordinance should be
used to protect from development those lands set aside for
preservation and conservation in the 1990 Comprehensive
Development Plan.  This ordinance is the most effective
regulatory means now available to protect these lands.

    Other means which could be used include direct purchase
and/or purchase of a development easement on the land by the
City, and a special tax incentive program to encourage no
development on the land.  These programs would all provide
some sort of financial relief to the property owners for not
allowing development on their land.
                                         *
        20)   The projected population increase for the
service area will more than double the use of parkland and
other outdoor recreational facilities by the year 2002.  To
meet this demand, the City should accelerate a program of
purchasing land for future recreational use in the service
area.  The Short Range Development Plan of the JAPB
identifies several specific areas which could be acquired
for this purpose.

        21)   The projected population increase for the
service area will more than double the use of the area's
transportation facilities by the year 2002.  The JUANTS
.Study has  identified specific corridors which are projected
to be overloaded.  The City should continue its efforts to
                                  359

-------
identify specific strategies to meet these problems and
begin to implement them.  Highway, bus, and rapid rail
alternatives should all be considered.

        22)   The projected population increase for the
service area will more than double the demand for other
community  services and facilities.  To help meet this
demand, new facilities and services such as those
recommended in the Short Rang_e Development Plan should be
instituted and planning of this type should continue.

        23)   The increased public services and facilities
which will be needed in Arlington may require an increase in
taxes.  The best way to avoid this increase is to institute
a program of advanced planning and implementation.  This
program should consist of identifying future needs,
projecting specific solutions, budgeting for the cost of the
solutions, and implementing the recommended program.  The
Short. Rancjji Development Plan of the JAPB incorporates this
type of planning.  The successful implementation of such a
program will greatly increase the ability of the city
government to effectively service expected growth at the
lowest cost possible.

        24)   The greatest potential for future changes in
air quality brought on by increased development will be from
transportation sources.  Decreases in vehicle usage should
be encouraged to minimize these effects.

        25)   Adherence to the Jacksonville Area Planning
Board's 1990 Comprehensive Development Plan will aid in
maintaining orderly development at densities compatible with
terrestrial biota.  In particular, the preservation of low
hardwood and cypress swamps will provide habitat for future
wildlife.

        26)   Developmental setback regulations in
combination with beneficial use by the citizenry should be
encouraged to provide for the preservation of wetland areas.

        27)   Ordinances to control increases in urban
runoff may be instituted as a mitigative measure to control
such increases attributable to urbanization.

        28)   Further localized decreases in the
potentiometric level of the Floridan aquifer can be mitiaater!
by decentralizing the withdrawal points of major water users.
                              360

-------
VII.     Public, Federal, gtate,, and Local Governments
         Comments and Participations

    The participation of the Federal, State, and local
governments and interested citizens and groups in the review
of the proposed action is of the utmost importance.  This
chapter lists comments made at a public meeting, November
14, 1974, also, written public, local, State and Federal
comments, and describes the citizens committee involvement
in the project.  Responses are given to each substantive
comment made but are not repeated once given.
                              361

-------
A.  Public Meetingf November 14, 1974


    On November 14, 1974, the EPA held a public hearing in
the Jacksonville City Hall to solicit comments on the
proposed Arlington-East Wastewater Treatment project.  A
synopsis of the comments of each speaker at the hearing are
presented below, together with responses to each comment
based upon information presented in this Environmental
Impact Statement.  Responses are not presented to comments
that have been previously answered.

    Comment 1 - George Spohrer, Jr. - A regional facility of
this magnitude cannot be a good neighbor to a residential
community.  The potential impacts of noise and odor should
be considered more important than cost savings.

    Response:  A detailed study of the effects of odor and
noise from similar plants was conducted as a part of this
EIS.  The results of this study indicated that, if
additional control measures were incorporated into plant
design, no significant adverse impacts to the surrounding
residential communities will occur.  The project was altered
to include these recommended controls.  Details of the study
are given in the noise and odor sections of Chapter III.

    Comment 2 - Bette Soldwedel - Attacked in detail, the
ranking system used for alternative analysis in the
assessment statement.  Felt much more emphasis should have
been given to environmental criteria.  Consider potential
impacts to quality of life and property values to be severe.
Indicated effects of raw sewage overflows could be
significant.

    Response - The criteria and ranking system used in this
EIS are completely different from those used in the
Assessment Statement.  The criteria developed by the EPA for
the environmental ranking of alternatives does not include
relative cost differences among the various alternatives.
The details of the environmental evaluation of alternatives
is presented in Chapter III.

    Potential impacts of the plant to quality of life and
property values are directly related to the noise, odor, and
visual impacts.  Detailed discussion of these impacts are
presented in Chapter III.
                                362

-------
    The chance of a raw or partially treated sewage overflow
is highly unlikely.  A system component breakdown at the
plant would cause a by-pass of that component and result in
a lesser degree of treatment, not an overflow.  Raw sewage
is pressurized in the force main underground.  A
construction accident or a road cave-in is a very remote
possibility.  Force main pumping stations and the treatment
plant have auxiliary power systems to prevent a total system
breakdown.

    Comment 3 - Robert Adams - Feels further noise and odor
study is needed.  Requests dye survey to study effects of
tital current on effluent disposal at the proposed location.

A Dye Study would be frustrated by the very complex
hydrologic phenomena of the lower St. Johns River.  At best,
such a study would have to be carried out over a long period
of time to account for the interactions of these phenomena.
In the event any valid conclusions were able to be drawn at
all, they would most certainly be of an academic nature
since excellent dilution and dispersion is already known to
be assured by -the huge volumes of water and rapid currents
in this area  (refer to Chapter II).  Further, significantly
faster average speed of these currents on the ebb tide than
on the incoming tide will facilitate transport of the
dispersed effluent to the ocean.

    Comment 4 - William Seigh - Challenged cost analysis in
the assessment statement.  Indicated costs for sites other
than Millcoe Road site were developed too quickly.
Questioned validity of the section in the Assessment
Statement discussing property values.  Stated that the one
mgd Grove Park facility is not comparable with a 10 mgd
regional facility.

    Response:  The location of the proposed site in the
center of service area population leads to the cheapest
possible system costs.  The extent of the added costs for
each of the other proposed alternatives was not a factor in
the conclusion of this EIS.  The EPA agrees that impacts
from the one mgd Grove Park facility are not comparable with
impacts from the proposed 10 mgd facility.  The long-term
impact on land values will be directly related to primary
impacts from the proposed plant.
                               363

-------
    Comment 5 - Helen O'Quinn - The plant will cause changes
in the existing character of the neighborhood.  Fears visual
pollution.

    Response: Previously discussed.

    Comment 6 - David Porter - Expressed concern about
possible negative impacts of air emissions, specifically
oxides of nitrogen and sulfur.  Also wants material balance
done on incinerator.  Expressed concern about defoliation
caused by stack emissions.

    Response: The air quality impacts analysis presented in
Chapters III and V indicate that no significant adverse
impacts will occur because of the operation of the
incinerator.  Previous experience with similar facilities
indicates that emissions will be well within air quality
standards.  Therefore, it is felt that a complex material
balance would be a time-consuming academic exercise.

    Comment 7 - Don Brewer, Jr. - Questioned the validity of
Millcoe Road as the population center of the service area.
Believes General Waterworks plants will never be tied into
system.  Feels plants should be located farther east.
Dislied rating scale used in Assessment Statement.

    Response:  The current and projected population
densities of the service area both show the center of
population to be well west of Craig Field  (see Figures 2-25
and 2-27).  The city expects to include the Monterey plant
owned by General Waterworks into the proposed system.
Projected time of aquisition is 1980.

    Comment 8 - Robert Hulsey - Indicated he will move out
of the area if the plant is put at the Millcoe Road site.
Feels noise and odor impacts will be significant.

    Response: Previously discussed.

    Comment 9 - W. Colville - Feels impacts to population
should be given top priority.  Fears noise and odor impacts
to residential communities.

    Response: Previously discussed.
                             364

-------
    Comment 10 - David K. Evans - Feels the cost of the
system is inflationary.  Feels the upgrading of existing
plants should be evaluated.

    Response:  The upgrading of existing plants is not a
feasible means of waste treatment since these facilities
discharge into the tributary streams which cannot take any
additional volume of wastewater (See Water Quality section
of Chapter II).  Also, the cost of one regional system using
economics of scale is less than the cost of several small
plants with duplicating facilities.

    Comment 11 - Charles Mann - Doesn't feel that a sewage
treatment plant is compatible with a residential community.

    Response: Previously discussed.

    Comment 12 - Reese Cruse - Does not like outfall
crossing of Mill Cove and discharge into St. Johns River.
Advocates ocean outfall discharge.

    Response:  Long-term adverse_ environmental impacts to
Mill Cove are minimal.  Certain short term effects from
construction are unavoidable but several mitigative steps
can be taken  (refer to Chapter VI).  An ocean outfall is
considered prohibitively expensive due to the long distance
to a suitable point of discharge.   (Refer to Water Quality
Management Plan for Duval County.)


    Comment 13 - Frederick Irving - Noise, odor, and visual
impacts need to be studied carefully.  No location is
perfect.  A plant needs to be built somewhere as quickly as
possible.

    Response:  Previously discussed.

    Comment 14 - Charles Harris - Questions desirability of
Mill Cove crossing.   Problems with  increased siltation, with
trench material, with possible COE  dredging, and with
possible redesign of  Quarantine Island.  Also questioned
possible damage to outfall pipe from  shipping in the St.
Johns channel.

    Response:  Increased siltation  with result during
construction  but can  be  reasonably  contained.  The pipe will
be  laid  and  the trench backfilled.  With minor design
                                365

-------
modifications, the Corps of Engineers foresees no problem
with the proposed outfall across Quarantine Island.

    B.   Additional Comments on Written Communication
Received by EPA

    Several letters commenting on the project have been
received by EPA from individual citizens and from State and
Federal agencies.  A summary of the comments of each letter
is presented below together with responses to each comment
based upon information presented in the EIS.  Citizen
letters which raised issues which were discussed in Section
A of this Chapter are not presented.

         1.   Public

    Comment 1 - Mrs, Robert Werder - Believes the plant will
affect the wildlife, especially birds, which frequent her
property.  Indicated that siting a treatment plant near
residential neighborhoods is establishing a precedent no
neighborhood could accept.

    Response:  Plant construction activity will remove
wildlife from the plant site to surrounding areas.  This
might disrupt daily feeding patterns of birds around Holly
Oaks.  However, normal plant operation will not affect
behavior of birds in the Holly Oaks area.  See Terrestrial
Animals Sections of Chapter V for more detail.

    Each proposed waste treatment plant is environmentally
evaluated separately.

    Comment 2 - Mr. James O. Buck - Indicated that if a
plant site east of Craig Field were chosen, this outfall
could be to the Intracoastal Waterway or north to the St.
Johns River.

    Response:  Outfall discharge to the St. Johns is
considered best because it has a greater flow to better meet
water quality standards.  Less naturally vegetated area,
especially wetlands, would be traversed with discharge north
to the St. Johns River.

    Comment 3 - Mr. Leslie C. Fowler - Believes undesirable
animal pests, especially noxious bugs would infest the area
of the waste treatment plant.
                              366

-------
    Response:  A modern treatment facility run by
professional operators is the most sanitary means of
disposal of waste.

         2.   Federal Agencies

    Comment 1 - U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Points
were made concerning the adverse impacts resultant to EPA's
proposed action to have the outfall pipe cross Mill Cove and
its contiguous marsh.

    Response:  Restoration of marsh destroyed in
construction is addressed under Chapter VI, adverse impacts
and mitigative actions.  Plans to restore original soils,
contour, and mechanically replant marsh grass are specified.

    Comment 2 - Corps of Engineers - Comments concerned the
use of Quarantine Island as a point of discharge into the
main shipping channel.  Interference with periodic dredging
activities and a potential hazard to navigation by the
effluent discharge are also pertinent issues involving the
proposed action.

    Response:  Latest communication with the COE indicates
that with minor modifications in the proposed action no
problems are foreseen.  The depth at which the pipeline will
be placed should preclude interference with continued use of
Quarantine Island for dredge spoil disposal nor interference
with navigation by pipeline or discharge.

         3.   State Agencies

    Comment 1 - Florida Department of Natural Resources -
Comments addressed the environmental desirability of
alternate  sites and questioned whether outfall effluent
could enter Mill Cove.

    Response:  Answers to these questions pertinent to the
proposed action are presented in a letter from the
engineering firm. Flood and Associates, Appendix    .  The
Department of Natural Resources comments were based solely
on generalized maps and were only to be used in a
preliminary  evaluation.

    Comment  2 - Florida Department of State Division of
Archives,  History and Records Management - A preliminary
•list of archeological and historical sites located near the
                              367

-------
project alternatives was presented.  A professional
archeological and historical survey of the chosen system was
recommended.

    Response:  A professional archeological and historical
survey of the chosen system will be done and the results
presented in the final EIS.

    C.   Citizens Committee Impact

    EPA, in order to increase the level of public
involvement in the Arlington-East wastewater treatment
project, organized a committee to provide input into the
analysis of alternatives.  This committee was selected to
involve those most likely to be affected by constructing a
sewage treatment plant at the proposed Millcoe Road site,
representatives of the City of Jacksonville and some
additional citizens.  Input from this committee was used to
weight the environmental categories and to help identify
impacts from the project.

    Three meetings were held on October 9, October 21, and
November 4, 1975.  The first meeting was used to describe
the alternative analysis system that would be used, and to
generally describe the environmental criteria being
proposed.  The committee members were asked to indicate the
relative importance to his or her quality of life of each
environmental category.  An arbitrary scale of 0-10 was used
where 0 indicates a category of no importance and 10
indicates a category of maximum importance.  These rankings
were added for each rater and the total divided into each
individual score to give a percent importance of that
category in relation to the rater's total environment.  The
combined average committee weightings are given in Table 3-
19.

    At the second meeting a discussion of each alternative
and that alternative's impact was given.  Rating sheets were
handed out and each committee member was asked to rate each
alternative in each category.  These ratings are summarized
in Table 7-1.

    At the third meeting, all previously performed ratings
were presented to the committee.  The results are given in
Tables 7-2 through 7-5.  Mr. Tom Brewer suggested that the
committee vote on recommending that alternative number 2,
the Dunes Area site, be considered the most acceptable site
                              368

-------
                                                            T7BLE  7-1





                                                          TOTAL RANKING
CITY GROUP




AFFECTED GROUP




OTHERS




          TOTAL




          RANKING
lq Ib 2q 2b
510.35
125.38
441.36
348.22
15
514.07
127.42
449.96
353.08
13
490.45
352.02
478.59
436.77
8
494.17
352.02
504.06
446.92
7
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Inc. l.S. N.A.
470.96
370.81
404.03
411.28
9
462.56
299.54
416.31
387.82
10
448.36
836.32
478.48
597.67
2
448.36
838.34
477.20
597.93
1
442.51
754.50
445.55
555.02
4
442.51
746.53
451.46
554.28
3
439.58
269.00
437.93
378.06
12
433.43
229.12
403.76
349.85
14
472.80
684.08
415.97
527.78
5
452.91
592.70
420.27
491.17
6
475.40
285.39
471.15
406.02

494.80
408.31
485.16
460.46

175.83
415,92
435.57
382.91
11

-------
                                                                    TABLE  7-2





                                                                   AFFECTED GROUP
Charles Morgan




Dr.  Bette Soldwedel




Robert Wilkins




David Evans




Del Revels




    Total




    Ranking
Iq lb 2q 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 inc. l.S. N.A.
80.70
80.70
80.70
98.7
200.90
125.38
14-15
80.70
80.70
80.70
98.7
211.10
127.42
14-15
330.70
413.15
335.55
332.00
348.70
352.02
9-10
330.70
413.15
335.55
332.00
348.70
352.02
9-10
394.25
355.45
402.60
372.75
329.50
370.81
8
275.10
289.50
289.50
212.30
431.30
299.54
11
827.40
854.50
817.30
828.90
853.50
836.32
2
827.40
854.50
827.40
828.90
853.50
838.34
1
767.80
805.20
767.80
777.90
653.80
754.50
3
767.80
805.20
727.95
777.90
653.80
746.53
, 4
242.05
261.30
306.85
256.15
273.65
269.00
12
183.75
226.90
183.75
190.45
360.75
229.12
13
687.90
686.50
687.90
725.10
633.00
684.08
5
551.45
712.15
940.10
547.00
612.80
592.70
6
266.65
229.55
263.25
258.65
408.85
285.39

396.35
301.65
391.95
436.35
515.25
408.31

361.73
428.80
424.10
476.20
388.80
415.92
7

-------
                                                                    "V\BLE  7-3
                                                                     CITY  GROUP
Herb Underwood




C. C. Holbrook




Ed Baker




Al Hammack




Don Brewer




   Total




   Ranking
Iq Ib 2q 2b 3 4 56 7 8 9 10 11 12 inc. l.S. N.A.
534.10
592.00
460.15
455.15
NOR

510.35
2
544.30
597.50
460.15
454.35
E S P 0

514.07
1
503.50
561.70
447.05
449.55
N S E

490.45
4
513.70
567.20
447.05
448.75

494.17
3
503.50
525.65
414.05
440.65

470.96
6
503.50
526.55
395.89
424.30

462.56
7
442.75
531.55
397.15
422.00

448.36
9-10
442.75
531.55
397.15
422.00

448.36
9-10
469.80
500.85
385.25
414.16

442.51
11-12
469.80
500.85
385.25
414.16

442.51
11-12
428.20
530.75
377.05
422.35

439.58
13
442.20
519.55
369.95
402.05

433.43
14
522.05
522.45
415.25
431.45

472.80
5
482.50
500.85
399.15
429.15

452.91
8
483.05
492.50
456.50
469.55

475.40

599.35
471.60
477.75
430.50

454.66

42.6
266.50
415.05
379.20

~279'. 83"
15

-------
                                                             T7APLF 7-4




                                                                OTHERS
Ted Pappas




Jack Merrion




Mrs. Charles Platt




John Powers




Thomas Brewer




    Total




    Ranking
Iq Ib 2q 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 inc. l.S. N.A.
445.15
441.80
387.90
526.50
405.45
441.36
8
444.35
463.00
387.90
533.0
421.55
449.96
6
425.45
458.55
456.05
549.15
503.75
478.59
2
424.65
479.75
456.05
565.65
519.85
504.04
i
414.35
413.95
381.95
474.20
335.70
404.03
14
426.10
417.00
363.28
546.10
329.10
416.31
12
398.70
437.60
561.35
601.95
392.80
478.48
3
406.50
437.60
561.35
601.95
378.60
477.20
4
413.20
364.63
472.20
584.55
393.20
445.99
7
402.80
364.63
472.20
569.75
447.95
451.46
5
420.65
354.75
392.40
614.95
406.90
437.93
9
420.65
377.10
312.90
519.45
388.60
403.74
15
418.15
330.25
436.25
601.75
290.95
415.47
13
417.35
345.70
399.90
518.50
419.90
420.27
11
469.55
	
46«.60
478.20
476.25
471.15

4'30.70 1
	
564.15
461.20
484.60
485.16

351,60
423.10
429,15
487.00
487,00
435.57
10

-------
        TABLE 7-5
AVERAGE OF TOTAL SITE RANKINGS
14 Ib 2q 2b 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 N.A.
Ted Pappas
Jack Merrion
Mrs. Charles Platt
Del Revels
Herb Underwood
C. C. Holbrook
Ed Baker
Al Hammack
Charles Morgan
Dr. Bette Soldwedel
Robert Wilkins
David Evans
Tom Brewer
John Powers
Don Brewer
Total
Rankings
15
12
5.5
1
14
14
14.5
15
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
8
5

110
9
14
14
5.5
2
15
15
14.5
14
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
11
6

117
8
12
13
10.5
5.5
10
12
12.5
13
6.5
7.5
6.5
6.5
14
8

137.5
4
11
15
10.5
5.5
12
13
12.5
12
6.5
7.5
6.5
6.5
15
9

142.5
3
6
7
4
4
10
7
9
11
9
6
8
8
3
1

93
11
13
8
3
9
10
8
3
8
5
5
4
4
2
7

89
12-12
2
10.5
14.5
14.5
4.5
10.5
6.5
5.5
14.5
14.5
14
14.5
6
13.5

145.5
2
4
10.5
14.5
14.5
4.5
10.5
6.5
5.5
14.5
14.5
15
14.5
4
13.5

146.5
1
5
4.5
12.5
12.5
6.5
3
4.5
3.5
12.5
12.5
13
12.5
7
11

120.5
7
3
4.5
12.5
12.5
6.5
3
4.5
3.5
U,5
12.5
12
12.5
12
10

121.5
6
10
3
7
3
2
9
2
7
4
4
5
5
9
15

85
14
9
6
1
7
3
5
1
2
3
3
3
3
5
4

55
15
8
1
9
11
13
6
11
10
11
1Q
11
11
1
12

.25
5
7
2
2
10
8
3
8
9
10
11
10
10
10
3

103
10
1
9
8
8
1
1
10
1
8
9
9
9
13
2

89
12-13

-------
considering both environmental and monetary aspects of the
project.  The vote was as follows:

1.  Herb Underwood           NO
2.  C. C. Holbrook           No
3.  Ed Baker                 No
4.  Al Hammack               No
5.  Don Brewer               Yes
6.  Charles Morgan           Yes
7.  Bette Soldwedel          Yes
8.  Robert Wilkins           Yes
9.  Dave Evans               Yes
10. Mrs. Charles Platt       Yes
11. Thomas Brewer            Yes
12. Jack Merrion             Yes
13. Del Revels               Yes
14. Ted Pappas               No
15. John Powers              No
                              374

-------
    The results of the vote were published in the
Jacksonville Times Union November 5, 1975, Page B-l
(Appendix IX).

    It should be noted that this committee was not a
representative sampling of citizens in the Arlington-East
area since there were no citizens on the committee that
lived close to the Dunes Area Site or any of the other
alternative sites.

    The weightings of the committee for each environmental
category were used to perform the EPA alternative analysis.
The ratings given by committee members were fully considered
prior to giving the impact ratings for each alternative.
The scores given by the citizens group indicate a fear that
there will be adverse effects on the Holly oaks community
due to construction and operation of the proposed sewage
treatment plant.  The ratings prepared by EPA indicate the
knowledge that the plant will not produce offensive odors,
noise or be visually offensive to the surrounding community
(see Table 7-6).
                              375

-------
TABLE 7-6
Monetary Costs and I
MONETARY COSTS
System, STP
I. a. Millcoe Road
(Quarantine)
l.b. Millcoe Road
(Blount)
2. a. Dunes Area
(Quarantine)
2.b. Dunes Area
(Blount)
3. Dames Point/
Ft. Caroline
4. N. of Craig Field
5. E. of Craig, Sys."A"
6. E.-of Craig, Sys."B"
7. Inside E. Craig,
(Sys. "A")
8. Inside E. Craig,
(Sys. "B")
9. Beacon Hills
10. Spanish Point
11. Quarantine Island
12. Southside Craig Field
13. NO ACTION
Plant
34,373,206
37,032,984
36,780,183
39,440,031
33,242,115
35,895,000
35,883,702
35,883,702
37,592,000
37,592,000
36,621,384
35,326,358
34,245,873
38,094,179

Project
$48,559,307
51,219,085
50,615,077
53,274,925
51,364,776
56,308,903
62,699,047
57,887,620
63,709,227
58,363,620
64,971,606
62,707,688
56,772,182
55,749,995

Annual Cost
Ppr HmisehnTd
$181.81
189.75
187.04
194.95
197.17
209.00
231.58
216.20
235.42
215.36
243.67
235.71
215.25
203.53

>.vironrental rffpcts Banking
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
City
Hating
510.35
514.07
490.45
494.17
470.96
462.56
448.36
448.36
442.51
442.51
439.58
433.43
472.80
452.91
275.83
HollyOaks
Rating
125.38
127.42
352.02
352.02
370.81
299.54
836.32
838.34
754.50
746.53
269.00
229.12
604.08
592.70
415.92
Others
Rating
441.36
449.96
478.59
504.06
404.03
416.31
478.48
477.20
445.55
451.46
437.93
403.76
415.97
420.27
435.57
Average
.Rating
348.22
353.08
436.77
446.92
411.28
387.82
597.67
597.93
555.02
554.28
378.06
349.85
527.78
491.17
382.91
Average
Rapking
15
13
8
7
9
10
2
1
4
3
12
14
5
6
11
EIS
Ratines
480.35
490.30
479.24
489.19
476.06
473.40
481.60
486.00
442.00
447.00
455.40
405.70
474.90
492.40
375.80
EIS Br.
Ranking
6
2
7
3
8
10
5
4
13
12
11
14
9
1
15
City
Rankins
2
1
4
3
6
7
9-10
9-10
11-12
11-12
13
14
5
8
15
HollyOaks
Rankine
14-15
14-15
9-10
9-10
8
11
2
1
3
4
12
13
5
6
7

Others
Ranking
8
6
2
1
14
12
3
4
7
5
9
15
13
11
10

-------
                         REFERENCES
Air Pollution Control Association, Western Pennsylvania
Section; "Proceedings - State-of-the-Art Odor Control
Technology Specialty Conference,"  March 1974.

Aurand, Don;  "The Seasonal and Spatial Distribution of
Nitrate and Nitrite in the Surface Waters of Two Delaware
Salt Marshes,"  (Masters Thesis, University of Delaware),
June 1968.

Bragdon, Clifford R., Ph.D.: "Community Noise: A Status
Report".

Brockman, T. B., Jacksonville Electric Authority; Written
Communication,  July 15, 1975.

Captain of the  Port, U. S. Coast Guard, Jacksonville;  Oral
Communication,  August 1975.

Carroll, Joe, U. S. Fish  & Wildlife Service, Vero Beach,
Florida; Oral Communication, August 1975.*

City of Jacksonville; "Financial Summary 1974-75,"  1974.

City of Jacksonville; "Subdivision Regulations," 1973.

City of Jacksonville; "Zoning Regulations,"  1974.

Copa,  William M., Ph.D.,  Zimpro, Inc.;  Oral and Written
Communications, October 1975.

Dutton, Douglas, Florida  Department of  Environmental
Regulations; Oral Communication, October 1975.

Ehlers, James,  Florida  Division of Forestry, Jacksonville
District Office; Oral Communications, August 1975.

Environmental  Science and Engineering,  Inc., "Evaluation of
Potential  Odor  and  Noise  Production from the Proposed
Arlington-East  Sewage Treatment Plant", September  1975.

Federal Register, Volume  40,  No.  24,  Part  II;  Advisory
Council on  Historic Preservation,  "National  Register  of
Historic  Places," February 4,  1975.
                              377

-------
Flood and Associates, Inc.; "Master Sewerage Report for the
City of Jacksonville, Florida," June 1968.

Flood and Associates, Inc., and Reynolds, Smith and Hills,
Inc.; "1990 Comprehensive Plan for Water and Sewerage
Systems for the City of Jacksonville, Florida," July 1969.

Flood and Associates, Inc.;  Oral Communications, 1975.

Florida Bureau of Comprehensive Planning; "The Florida
General Soils Atlas for Regional Planning Districts III and
IV," July 1974.

Florida Bureau of Geology; "The Geomorphology of the Florida
Peninsula,"  (Geological Bulletin No. 51), 1970.

Florida Publishing Company; "Census Tract Data for Duval
County," November 1973.

Freeman, Robert, U. S. Army Corps of Engineeers,
Jacksonville; Oral Communication, June 1975.

Garland, Jim, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville;
Oral Communication, November 10, 1975.

Geological Society of America, Joel W. Hedgpeth, Editor;
"Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleoecology, Volume 1-
Ecology," December 1957.

Glaser, James R.; "Air Pollution from Sewage Treatment"
(Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Texas at Austin),
January 1969.

Graves, Lem, Jacksonville Public Works Department; Oral
Communication; October 1975.

Hampton, John, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Jacksonville;  Oral Communication, October 1975.

Harland Bartholomew and Associates, Inc.; "Comprehensive
Plan for Streets and Highways, Jacksonville Urban Area
Transportation Study,"  March 1974.

Harris, Frederic R., Inc., and Jacksonville Area Planning
Board; "Water Quality Management Plan for Duval County,
Florida," September 1973.
                                378

-------

Hill, Frank S., Florida Division of Forestry, Jacksonville
District Office; Written Communication, September 1975.

Irving, Fred and Powers, John, Stockton, Whatley, Davin &
Co.; Oral Communications, October 1975.

Jacksonville Area Planning Board; "Comprehensive Plan for
the Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Development Plan,
1990," June 1974.

Jacksonville Area Planning Board; "Short Range Development
Plan," June 1974.

Jacksonville Department of Health, Welfare and Bio-
Environmental Services; "Jacksonville, Florida—Five Year
Environmental Status Report, 1970-1975," January 1975.

Jacksonville Magazine, Volume 12, No. 1; "Red Flag
Charrette: An Environmental Land Use Study," 1975.

Joyce, Edwin A. Jr., "The Commercial Shrimps of the
Northeast Coast of Florida," Professional Papers Series
Number 6, Florida Board of Conservation, 1965.

Joyce, Joe, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville;
Written Communication, September 1975.

King Helie Planning Group, Inc.; "Economic Impact of the
Offshore Power Systems Manufacturing Facility on Blount
Island," January 1974.

King, Gordon T., Jacksonville Department of  Public Works;
Written Communication, September 23, 1975.

Mehta, Balraj K., Jacksonville  Area Planning Board; Oral
Communications,  1975.

Morrell, T. Ross, State Archeologist; Written Communication,
June 10, 1975.

Office of the  Director, Jacksonville International Airport;
Oral Communications, June  1975.

Parker, Wallace; "General  Economic Impact on Jacksonville  of
Offshore Power  Systems Plant"  (Jacksonville  Area Chamber of
Commerce) , 1972.
                               37y

-------
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell, and Company; "1992 Airport Master
Plan of Study", prepared for the Jacksonville Port
Authority, March 1974.

Phillippi, Clayton, Florida Game and Fish Commission; Oral
Communication, September 1975.

Powell, James A., Florida Game and Fish Commission; Written
Communication, October 15, 1975.

Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc.; "Consolidated City of
Jacksonville, Municipal Water Facilities, 1974 Annual Review
and Report", January 1975.

Schlosser, Douglas, Jacksonville Department of Health,
Welfare and Bio-Environmental Services Division; Oral and
Written Communications, May 1975.

Stanwyx-Hay, William, Jacksonville Department of Public
Works;  Oral Communications, 1975.

State of Florida, Coastal Coordinating Council; "Florida
Coastal Zone Management Atlas-A Preliminary Survey and
Analysis", December 1972.

Stone, Roy, U. S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Jacksonville; Oral Communication, July 1975.

Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc., and Flood &
Associates, Inc.; "Environmental Assessment Statement for
Wastewater Management Facilities in the Arlington-East
Service District,11  September 1974.

Sverdrup 6 Parcel and Associates, Inc.; Oral Communications,
1975.

Urban and Regional Development Center, University of
Florida; "The Value of the Tidal Marsh"  (Work Paper No. 3),
May 1973.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville; "Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Blount Island
Development," August 1973.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville; "Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Maintenance Dredging of
Jacksonville Harbor," April 1975.
                             380

-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service;
"Soil Survey—Special Advanced Report, Duval County,
Florida," May 1974.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census;  "County
Business Patterns, 1970,"  1971.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census; "Number
of Inhabitants, 1970,"  July 1971.

U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration and the State of Florida Department of
Transportation, Lake City District; "Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Southside Boulevard Extension, Duval
County, Florida," November 1973.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; "Evaluation of Land
Application Systems," March 1975.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; "Final Environmental
Impact Statement, "Ocean Outfalls and Other Methods of
Treated Wastewater Disposal in Southeast Florida," March
1973.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; "Impact
Characterization of Noise Including Implications of
Identifying and Achieving Levels of Cumulative Noise
Exposure,"  July 1973.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; "Information on
Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public
Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety," March
1974.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; "Noise From
Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment,
and Home Appliances,"  December 1971.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Process Design
Manual for Sludge Treatment and Disposal," October 1974.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; "Public Health and
Welfare Criteria for Noise," July 1973.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al; "Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land,"  (Joint Conference
Proceedings), July 1973.
                              381

-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; "Water Quality
Management Planning for Urban Runoff," December 1974.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of
Florida Pollution Control Board; "Water Use Classifications
and Water Quality Criteria for the State of Florida,"
December 1974.

U. S. Geological Survey; "Ground Water in Duval and Nassau
Counties, Florida"  (Report of Investigations No. 43), 1966.

U. S. Geological Survey; "Water Resources Data for Florida,
Part 1—Surface Water Quality Records, Volume 1—Streams of
Northern and Central Florida," 1974.

U. S. Geological Survey; "Water Resources Data for Florida,
Part 2—Surface Water Quality Records," 1974.

U. S. Geological Survey and Florida Board of Conservation;
"Production and Utilization of Water in the Metropolitan
Area of Jacksonville, Florida,"  (Information Circular No.
58) , 1969.

U. S. Geological Survey and Florida Bureau of Geology; "The
Shallow-Aquifer System in Duval County, Florida", (Report of
Investigation No. 59), 1972.

U. S. Geological Survey, Florida Department of Natural
Resources, and Consolidated City of Jacksonville; "Flow and
Chemical Characteristics of the St. Johns River at
Jacksonville, Florida," (Information Circular No. 82) 1973.
                            382

-------
                              Appendix I

                 Additional Ambient. Noise Information
                             Developed by
              Environmental Science and Engineering,  Inc.
Sound waves propagate outdoors from source to receptor through an atmosphere
which has highly variable acoustic properties.  Turbulence, temperature and
wind gradients, viscous and molecular absorption, and reflection from the
earth's surface vary the attenuation and refraction of sound waves and conse-
quently affect the amplitude of the sound level perceived at a receptor.

The ESE survey team observed several municipal, commercial, and natural
events and activities in the Jacksonville area which have the potential to
generate noise impacting the Holly Oaks community.  These exisitng sources
of noise include a variety of vehicular traffic on major highways, local
arterials, and residential streets, aircraft noise associated with Craig
Municipal Airport, Jacksonville International Airport, and the U.S. Navy
air stations in the area, and urban noise contributed by air conditioning,
lawn mowers, street lights, and transformers.  Animal noise, particularly
noticeable in residential areas, included sounds contributed by pets, and
a variety of birds, frogs, and insects.  Recreational noise from school
playgrounds and several parks was also noted.

The predominate aircraft noise is due to single and multi-engine planes
and helicopters during landings and takeoffs from Craig Field, located
approximately one mile from Holly Oaks.  Spot readings at 15 locations in
the Holly Oaks area produced short-term sound pressure level readings in
excess of 80 dBA for short periods of time due to these aircraft operations.
This source of noise was not significantly attenuated by barriers, trees,
and ground plantings.

Heaviest vehicle traffic noise was observed on roads to the west and south
of the Holly Oaks area during daylight hours.  However, Monument Road and
Merrill Road have heavy passenger vehicle traffic until midnight.  In
addition, Monument Road is subject to heavy tank truck traffic servicing
the Dunes area sludge farming operations.  Between four and six tank trucks
per hour'were observed arriving at the sludge landfill.  During quieter
periods on Fort Caroline Road, Monument Road traffic noise becomes more
noticeable, and at night, U.S. 90 (Arlington Expressway) vehicle traffic
becomes distinctly audible.  Averages of dBA spot readings during daylight
hours with and without aircraft noise included indicate traffic and air-
craft noise have approximately equal impact on average noise levels in
Holly Oaks community although the intensity of aircraft noise is much
higher than traffic noise.

Residential air conditioning, electrical transformers and street lights
represent relatively steady-state ongoing noise sources.  Spot sound-
pressure level averages excluding aircraft durinq night hours ranged from
42 dBA to 52 dBA when the above sources dominated background noise levels.
In addition to vehicle and aircraft noise, lawn mowers have a significant
short term impact on residential noise levels.
                                  383

-------
Animal noise observed by the field survey team included pets, birds, frog
and insect noise.  Bird noise decreases markedly after sundown, and frog
and insect noise sources declined rapidly to very low levels in the early
morning hours.  Except for dogs, which may cause local annoying sound
pressure levels, animal noise cannot be considered a significant or
objectionable noise source.

None of the industries listed in Section V of Volume 1 was observed to
have a significant noise impact on the Holly Oaks community.  The Fort
Caroline Road area near Mill Cove also experiences a noise impact from
powerboats that could not be estimated in the course of the field survey.

Site Specific Background Noise Survey Results

The 14 sites chosen for background noise level spot readings are presented
in Figure V-l .  At least 20 discreet dBA sound pressure level readings,
taken at 15 second intervals, were performed both at night (2200 to 0700 hrs.)
and during the day (0700 to 2200 hrs.).  The spot sound pressure level
readings are summarized in Table V-l.  Weighted dBA background levels
during the day are significantly affected by traffic noise because of the
proximity of monitoring sites to local arterials and residential streets.
Weighted dBA day noise levels ranged from 43 to 66 dBA.  Night monitoring
at the same sites produced weighted noise levels between 35 and 54 dBA.
Sites F, G, I, and L produced higher night weighted levels than their day
weighted levels, due to traffic influences at the time of the spot readings.

Sound pressure levels monitored at sites A, B, and C over a 24 hour period
are summarized in Table V-2 and Figures V-2, 3, and 4.  These figures
present the frequency of occurrence of the sound pressure levels recorded,
and include histograms showing the percent occurrence of 3-dB ranges for
both day and night.

Noise levels that were exceeded 10, 50, and 90 percent of the time are
plotted by day and night and designated L-JQ, I_5Q, and Lag.  To quantify
environmental noise in a manner that correlates well with various modes of
human response, equivalent A-weighted sound pressure levels were calculated
for day and night periods and designated as Ldeq and Lnen in d^A-  Since
the primary interest for evaluating environmental  noise for residential
and similar land use is a 24-hour period, a Day-Night Equivalent Level,
designated Ld/n, was calculated for each of the sites.   A 10 db weighting
is applied to nighttime  noise levels in calculating this level.  Table  V-2
presents the observed and calculated equivalent sound levels in tabular
form.

The envelope of minimum and maximum noise levels observed at sites A, B,
C were plotted against time and are graphically presented in Figures V-5, 6,
and 7.  Day, night, and 24-hotir equivalent weighted noise levels are
superimposed on these plots.
                                 384

-------
         FIGURE V-l

AESTP NOISE  MONITORING SITES
                                     •>. ^  ^m ,.— -«j -•••«•••*
                                   tv^vu'isnrfjiin^
                                   « \/\N^//  -.* ••"••--•--
                             Scale  1  in. =  1758 ft
          385

-------
                            TABLE V-l

                           SPOT READINGS
              AT SELECTED SITES  SURROUNDING THE AESTP
                   (Sound Pressure Levels - dBA)
Site
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q

Minimum
39
43
38
38
41
42
49
39
38
39
47
38
42
46
Day
Maximum
80
62
63
58
62
51
60
46
44
44
60
46
60
65

Weighted -|
Background
66
56
55
51
55
47
56
44
42
42
56
43
54
58

Minimum
43
50
52
41
42
49
45
40
45
—
41
—
34
—
Night
Maximum
47
51
56
60
45
50
50
43
46
—
43
—
36
—

Weighted _
Background
45
51
55
54
44
50
48
42
46
—
42
—
35
—
^Based on 40 readings.
2Based on 20 readings.
                                  386

-------
                   TABLE V-2



AESTP TWENTY-FOUR HOUR BACKGROUND NOISE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
NOISE LEVEL
(dBA)
L10
L50
L90
Ldeq
Lneq
Ld/n
Day
49
44
38
46
--

A
Night
50
43
37
—
44
51
Day
54
47
41
51
--

SITE
B
Night
52
48
40
—
48
55
Day
59
49
43
53
—

C
Night
53
48
41
—
48
56
                    387

-------
        L90
                                FIGURE V-2

                          AESTP BACKGROUND NOISE
                          FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
                                  SITE A
                                     DAY
36
48
51
                                    dBA
                                 388

-------
                                FIGURE  V-3

                          AESTP  BACKGROUND NOISE
                          FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
                                 SITE  B
                                    DAY
39
                                 389

-------
                                FIGURE  V-4
                  -90
                          AESTP BACKGROUND NOISE
                          FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
                                  SITE C
                                        DAY
39     42     45     48     51
             -90
 39
                            54     57     60     63
                             dBA
66
69
72
                                        NIGHT
42
66
                                  390

-------
Co
           54-
           4f
           3F
                       A = 1  observation
                       B = 2  observations
                          Ld/n  •
                            -neq
                                                                                             FIGURE V-5

                                                                              TWENTY-FOUR HOUR SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS
                                                                                               SITE A
--Ld/n

                                                                     Time-Hours

-------
                                                                                                                'o
                                                                                                                «o
                                                                                                                !•*
                                                                                                                ,(XJ
      CO
      a:
      Q-
o:
        : co
      O LLJ
=3    CO I—
CS       H-I
i—i    a: co
Ll_    13
      o
       I
      >-
                       S-  S-
                       d)  O)
                       t/>  l/l
                       J3 JO
                       O  O

                       l— CVJ
                                                                                                                10
                                                                                                                :§
                                                                                                              _;§
                                                                                                              -*
-------
            70 +
Co
VO
GJ
            b2
            54
46
                                          FIGURE V-7


                        TWENTY-FOUR  HOUR SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS
                                             SITE C
                     A = 1 observation
                     B = 2 observations .
            38
                                                                                                                                           neq
2400      0200      0400     0600      0800      1000

                                         Time-Hours
1200
                                                                                1400
1600
                                                                                                             1800
                                  2000
                                                                                                                  2200
                                                                                                                                       2400

-------
                            Appendix II
                            STATE OF FLORIDA
                       irpartmrw of
                              THE CAPITOL
                            TALLAHASSEE 32304
BRUCE A. SMATHERS                                      ROBERT WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR
  SECRETARY OF STATE                                       DIVISION OF ARCHIVES, HISTORY, AND
                          June J.U ,  J.y/D              RECORDS MANAGEMENT

                                                        (904) 488-1480


                                              IN REPLY REFER TO:
Mr. Robert C. Cooper
Environmental Planner
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree St. N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Re:  Arlington Wastewater Management Facility, Jacksonville,
     Florida, Duval County.

Dear Mr. Cooper:

     We have reviewed the above project for possible impact  on
arhcaeological , historical,  and National Register properties, and
have the following comments.

     Seven sites are recorded within the service district boundary
in locations which indicate  impact by one or more of the proposed
alternates.  These locations are shown on the enclosed maps.
It can be seen that all  alternates seem to endanger sites, numbers
9, 10, and 11 more significantly than the others.

     This information is based on recorded sites only, and there
is little doubt that additional sites exist in areas which have never
been surveyed.  The present  assessment, then, should be considered
preliminary in nature.   After alternatives have been narrowed to
one or several likely plans,  the proposed transmission routes and
pumping station locations should be subjected to a professional
archaeological and historical survey in order to adequately  assess
project impact.  We would be pleased to prepare a proposal and
estimated budget for the project, or the work could be done  by  any
other professional archaeologist in the State.  In the latter case
we request that the survey effort be coordinated with this office
to insure the adequacy of the work and the mitigation of impact.

     The opportunity to  comment is appreciated.

                              Sincerely ,
                              L- Ross Morrell
                      *-*>      State Archaeologist  & Chief
                              Bureau of Historic Sites  & Properties

LRM/Msh
                            394

-------
                             Appendix III
SAJEE                                                 15 July 1975
United States Environmental
  Protection Agency
ATTIf:  Mr. Robert B. Howard, EIS Branch
Region IY
1421 Peaehtree Street, H, E.
Atlanta, GA   30309
Dear Mr. Howard:

This is in reply to your letter dated 27 May 1975 concerning alternative
site selection for the proposed Arlington East Wastewater Facilities in
Jacksonville, Florida.  In view of the preliminary nature of the
alternative analysis and lack of some engineering data, we offer the
following ctvnments baaed upon the assumption that the outfall pipeline
extends into the St. Johns Elver Navigation Channel,  We foresee some
possible problems with each alternative that will necessitate further
coordination.

    Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 11 - The pipeline aa depicted in referenced
letter, transects Mill Cove and Quarantine Island with outfall into the
St. Johns River ship channel.  Below we have listed pertinent aspects
to be considered for plans Involving Mill Cove and Quarantine Island
crossings.

    a.  The Jacksonville Harbor - Mill Cove Model Study, which is
underway at this time, may determine that modifications to Quarantine
Island are necessary to promote increased circulation of water through
Mill Cove.

    b.  Quarantine Island has been created through the deposition of
dredged materials from the Jacksonville Harbor ship channel.  Pipelines
considered under the alternatives would cross the Island where this
District maintains a perpetual disposal easement.  The Island is
designated as a permanent raainteaande disposal area for use by the Corps
of Engineers in maintenance dredging of the Federal Jacksonville Harbor
                              395

-------
 SAJEE                                                 15  July 1975
 Mr,  R.  B. Howard

 deep draft  navigation project.   Acceptable upland disposal  areas  in this
 area are scarce; Quarantine  Island is  presently being  operated as an
 environmentally acceptable upland disposal site.   Since excavation  by
 heavy equipment will  be  done in the future on  the island  to build and
 raise retention dikes, the pipeline crossing would have to  be buried
 suitably to prevent damage.

     c.  Alternate 11  would appear contrary to  Quarantine  Island's
 designated  purpose by preventing usage as  a perpetual  disposal area and
 the  ultimate planned  development of the  area into a public  recreational
 site.

     d.  Concerning the Mill  Cove crossing,  it  should be noted that  a
 snail boat  navigation channel along the  south  side of  the cove is being
 studied for possible  Federal authorisation.  The  pipeline would need to
 be buried to provide  for at  least a 12-foot deep  by 100-foot  wide channel
 should  it be authorized  and  constructed.   The  pipeline in this case
 should  be at least 6  feet below the channel to avoid damage to the  pipe
 by dredging operations.

     St.u Johns Elver Outfall  Mecharge  -  All alternatives  have effluent
 discharge into  the St. Johns River.  The following points should  be
 considered:

     a.  The outfall pipeline should not  protrude  into  the present
 Federal Jacksonville  Harbor  navigation channel or planned enlargement.

     b.  Congress  has  authorized the Corps of Engineers to study the
 feasibility of  providing a 45-foot  deep  channel in Jacksonville Harbor.

     c.  A turning basin requested by the Jacksonville  Port  Authority
 is currently under study and if  authorized will be located near the
westerly end of Blount Island.   If  the turning  basin is provided, the
outfall could interfere with ships maneuvering  In the  basin if the  outfall
were to be  located in or near the main ship channel.   Extension of  the
outfall pipeline  Into the channel would be a hazard to ships  and  also
could be damaged  by dredges  working  in the area.

     d.  Any outfall discharges  into  the main ship channel could create
cross-currents that could become  a hazard to navigation.

     e.  Rather than constructing  a  submerged outfall which could  Interfere
with shipping, channel maintenance or channel deepening,  It may be
advantageous to construct an outfall structure  located at or near shore,
utilizing a spillway  or other methods to disperse the  effluent.   Such a
structure may be more economical  than laying pipe underwater  to depths
as great as 50 feet.  Data obtained  for the Jacksonville Harbor ~ Kill
Cove Model Study  indicates that adequate mixing would occur if the
                                J96

-------
SAJEE                                              15 July 1975
Mr. R. 3, Howard

effluent were discharged at or near the surface, cloae to shore.
Velocity measurements In the vicinity of the area of interest, collected
at depths of 3 feet during June 1974, had a mean flood tide velocity
of 2.26 f.p.s. and a mean ebb tide velocity of 1.90 f.p.a.  During
November 197A, a mean flood tide velocity of 2.30 f.p.s. and a mean ebb
tide velocity of 2.62 f.p.a. were observed.  These velocities should be
sufficient to provide adequate mixing and dispersal.

    f.  Information is not provided on solids loadings and removal
efficiencies for the proposed sewage treatment facility.  Bnisslon of
substantial quantities of solids could cause a continuous shoaling
problem in the navigation channel, requiring costly maintenance dredging.

        Other specific comments center upon the requirement for &
Department of the Army permit to construct an outfall structure in
navigable waters.  The sewage treatment plant outfall lines discharging
into the St. Johns River that are being considered would require a DA
permit and each site vould have to be evaluated on the specific merits of
that location.  Since we have not at this time received a permit applica-
tion giving the details of the outfall and proposed routing, our comments
on the various alternatives could only be given in general term*.  We
suggest that Alternatives 4 through 10 would have more likelihood of
obtaining a permit without undue objection since those plans involve a
minimum amount of underwater disturbance.  Alternative 11 would have to
be analyzed to determine its effect upon plans for disposal of dredged
material on Quarantine Island and future recreational development*
Alternative 11 also involves a crossing of the eastern entrance channel
from Mill Cove into the Oases Point - Fulton Cut-off,

We trust these points will be of value in alternative selection.  Upon
project designation it must be realized that a full public Interest
review of the outfall location would have to be made by Issuance of a
public notice and review of all comments received thereon, including our
complete evaluation of the proposed work In detail.

                                    Sincerely yours,
                                    JAMES L. GARLAND
                                    Chief, Engineering Division
                               397

-------
                                   Appendix IV
       State of Florida
DEPARTMENT  OF NATURAL RESOURCES
 HARMON W. SHIELDS
  Executive Director
CROWN BUILDING / 202 BLOUNT STREET / TALLAHASSEE 32304
                                         June 25, 1975
                                            REUBIN O'D. ASKEW
                                             Governor
                                            BRUCE A. SMATHERS
                                             Secretary of State
                                            ROBERT L. SHEVIN
                                             Attorney General
                                            GERALD A. LEWIS
                                             Comptroller
DOYLE CONNER
 Commissioner of Agriculture
RALPH D. TURLINGTON
 Commissioner of Education
PHILIP P. ASHLER
 Treasurer
            Mr. Robert B.  Howard
            EIS Branch
            United  States  Environmental
               Protection  Agency
            Region  IV
            1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
            Atlanta,  Georgia  30309

            Dear Mr.  Howard:

            This will respond to your letter of May 27, 1975,
            enclosing information on the proposed Arlington
            East Wastewater Facilities in Jacksonville, Florida.

            Pursuant  to your request, comments on the proposal
            are provided as follows:

              Coastal Coordinating Council Staff

              1.  The staff recommends against Alternates
                  1,  2 and 3.  These alternates have in
                  common a proposed outfall in or quite
                  close to Mill Cove.  At present, Mill
                  Cove is  suffering serious sedimentation
                  problems due to constrictions at either
                  end caused by continuous maintenance
                  spoiling associated with the adjacent
                  ship channel.  Navigation charts less
                  than 10  years old indicate depths of
                  greater  than 15 feet throughout the
                  Cove while the actual existing depth
                  probably does not exceed minus 6 feet
                  except in isolated spots.  The staff is,
                  therefore, concerned about additional
                  sediment build up in the Cove as well
                  as  possible pollution problems associated
                  with the extremely poor circulation of
                  the Cove if these alternates were imple-
                  mented .
                                       393

                  ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES • ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PROTECTION • INTERIOR RESOURCES
                                 MARINE RESOURCES • RECREATION AND PARKS

-------
Mr. Robert B. Howard
Page Two
June 25, 1975
  2.  The staff recommends against Alternates
      5, 6, 7 and 8.  According to the Coastal
      Zone Management Atlas of 1972, these
      alternates would necessitate significant
      modification of a large freshwater swamp
      immediately east of Craig Airfield.  Because
      of the water retention, filtration, recharge,
      and wildlife habitat functions of large
      swamps, it appears that the environmental
      trade-offs involved in destroying the
      integrity of this habitat could override
      the benefits of an integrated sewage system
      for this area of Jacksonville.

  3.  The staff recommends against Alternates 9,
      10 and 11.  Again, the Coastal Zone Management
      Atlas indicates that in all cases the treat-
      ment plant itself would be located in the
      hurricane flood zone.  The amount of investment
      necessary to protect such a large public work
      does not seem to be warranted.

  In summary, the Coastal Coordinating Council staff
  recommends Alternate No. 4.  The plant itself
  would be located adjacent to Craig Airfield, out-
  side the hurricane flood zone.  It is the staff's
  view that the two uses would be most compatible
  and the plant itself is amply removed from the
  hurricane flood zone to be safe with a minimum
  of land site preparation.  Moreoverr the attendant
  pump stations, force mains, and laterals skirt
  the previously mentioned freshwater swamp and the
  outfall is well east of Mill Cove, thereby insuring
  adequate flushing.

  Division of Interior Resources Staff

  The actual outfall sites selected in the proposals
  differ very little with respect to water quantity
  effects.  Cost factors and system efficiencies
  will enter into consideration here.  Without further
  information pertaining to expected environmental
  impacts, it is difficult to make any recommendation.
  The staff prefers to see the prepared environmental
  impact statement before making final comment.
                           399

-------
Mr. Robert B. Howard
Page Three
June 25, 1975
  The use of a larger diameter outfall pipe (48")
  would reduce discharge velocities for the expected
  flows.  This would appear to be a desirable
  factor.  Other comments will be directed to
  specific items in the impact statement.
                              Sincerely,
                              James 6. Smith
                              Administrative Assistant
JGS:rt
                          400

-------
                                     Appendix V
                                  FLOOD  & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                   Consulting Engineers
                                                                        OFFICERS
                                                                JOHN H. FLOOD, JR., P.E.
                                                                  BILL L. BRYANT, P.E.
                                                               ROBERT L. BATES, JR., P.E.
                                                                 JAMES S. ENGLISH, P.E.
                                                                       ASSOCIATES
                                                             ROBERT E. DELOACH, JR., P.E.
                                                               L. THOMAS HU3BAHD. P.E.
                                                                  TED B. MALINKA. P.E.
                                                                         OFFICES
                                                                     JACKSONVILLE
                                                                        ATLANTA
                                             July 16,  19 ' 5              PENSACOLA
Mr. Joe H. Hyatt, P.E.
Deputy Director
Department of Public Works
City Hall
220 East Bay Street
Jacksonville, Florida  32202

Re-   Environmental Assessment Statement
       Wastewater Management Facilities
       Arlington East District
       Comments  of Department of Natural Resources

Dear Mr.  Hyatt:

We refer to your letter of July 1,  1975,  requesting that we provide you with written
responses to  comment made relative to the subject in a letter from the Florida
Department of Natural Resources to the E. I. S. Branch of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency dated June 25,  1975,  a copy of which you forwarded to us.  We
have  reviewed said letter and are providing our responses herein; format is a
comment - response format.  In general, we agree with your observation that the
comments must be based on limited and somewhat narrow data.  Specific comments
and responses are as follows:

Coastal  Coordinating Council Staff
Comment;
"1.  The staff recommends  against Alternates 1,  2 and 3.  These alternates have in
common a proposed outfall in or quite close to Mill Cove.  At present, Mill Cove
is suffering serious sedimentation problems due to constrictions at either end caused
by continuous maintenance  spoiling associated with the adjacent ship channel.
Navigation charts less than  10 years  old indicate depths of greater than. 15 feet
throughout the Cove while the actual existing depth probably does not exceed minus
6 feet except  in isolated spots.  The staff is, therefore, concerned about additional
                                   - continued -

                                      401
   904/724-3990    P.O. BOX 8868   6501 ARLINGTON EXPRESSWAY   JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32211

-------
Ir.  Joe H. Hyatt, P.E.
'age Two
uly 16, 1975
ediment build up in the Cove as well as possible pollution problems associated
dth the  extremely poor circulation of the Cove if these alternates were implemented. "

;esponse;
(either Alternative No. 1,  2 nor 3, proposes a point of discharge in Mill Covej under
11 three alternatives,  the outfall would discharge in the main shipping channel of
le  St. Johns River on the opposite (north) side of Quarantine Island from Mill Cove.

'he possibility that outfall  construction or operations would materially contribute
D the "constrictions" at either end of Mill Cove is considered non-existent.   The
utfall construction would be located 2000 feet, more or less, west of the eastern
ntrance and several miles from the western entrance to Mill Cove.  Further,
edimentation attributable to the outfall would be limited to the period during and
nmediately following construction and would be limited solely to resettling  of
xisting local sediments suspended during construction.  The outfall's construction
nd continuing operations will not introduce additional solids directly into  Mill Cove.
fithin the River channel proper, introduction of effluent suspended solids w*il be
nly a negligible incremental increase over existing background turbidity. At
ssumed critical conditions: (1)  plant effluent flow rate of 25 MGD (ultimate design
.ow); (2)  effluent suspended solids concentration of 20 nag/1; (3) average river flow
qual to freshwater inflow rate of 5, 360 MGD; the additional increment to natural
ackground turbidity is 0. 09 mg/1.

lomment;
2.   The staff recommends against Alternates 5, 6, 7 and 8.  According to the
Coastal Zone Management Atlas  of  1972, these alternates would necessitate significant
lodification of a large freshwater swamp immediately east of Craig Airfield.  Because
f the water retention, filtration, recharge,  and wildlife habitat functions of large
wamps, it appears that the environmental trade-offs involved in destroying the
itegrity of this habitat could override the benefits of an integrated sewage system for
lis area of Jacksonville. "

esponse;
Iternative No.  5 is totally out of place in the grouping included in this comment;
onstruction of neither the plant, tributary major force  mains,  nor the plant outfall
ould encroach  at all into  Cedar Swamp nor Possum Head Swamp, the wetland area
Long the eastern edge of Craig Field to which the comment alludes.  Rather,  under
Iternative No.  5, construction would be confined to a fairly high, well drained
Ldge along an existing electric power transmission line east of Possum Head Swamp.
                                -  continued -

                                    402

-------
Mr. Joe H. Hyatt, P.E.
 Page Three
July 16,  1975


 The quantification "significant" as applied to "modification of a large freshwater
 swamp" in the comment is somewhat nebulous and ill-defined.  Under Alternatives Nos.
 7 and 8, the modification would be somewhat more "significant" in that the plant site
 (46 acres more or less) and a 5, 500^ L. F. pipeline crossing would be constructed in
 the wetland area (if clearing  were limited to 50-foot width, some 6. 3 acres would be
 cleared for pipeline construction).  Under Alternative No.  6, the plant  site is on high
 ground east of the swamp,  with only the pipeline crossing (6.  3 acres impacted area
 as above) being constructed in the wetland area.

 It is thought the allegation that such construction would "override the benefits of an
 integrated sewage system for this area of Jacksonville" is totally false  and erroneous
 for Alternative No. 5, is a gross overstatement for Alternative No.  6,  and is
 questionable for Alternatives Nos.  7 and 8»

 Comment:
 "3.  The staff recommends against Alternates 9, 10 and  11.  Again, the Coastal
 Zone Management Atlas indicates that in all cases the treatment plant itself would
 be located in the hurricane flood zone.  The amount of investment necessary to  pro-
 tect such a large public work does not seem to be warranted. "

 Response:
 Plant sites under all three alternatives are located adjacent to shorelines and/or
 edges of tidal marshes; thus,  all would be essentially unprotected from hurricane
 winds.   Sites under Alternatives 9 and 11 also are totally low ground (elevations
 less than 10 feet M. S. L. )  such that conceivably they might be flooded by maximum
 hurricane tides.   The ground surface elevations on the Spanish Point site (Alternative
 No.  10), however, vary from about 10 feet to more than 40 feet M. S. L. It would
 be feasible to locate plant  structures near the western (higher) end of the site and
 do a moderate amount of earthwork and grading on-site to protect a plant on this
 site from hurricane flooding.

 Comment;
 "In summary, the Coastal  Coordinating Council staff recommends Alternate No. 4.
 The plant itself would be located adjacent to Craig Airfield, outside the hurricane
 flood zone.  It is the staff's view that the two uses would  be most compatible and the
 plant itself is amply removed from the hurricane flood zone to be safe with a minimum
 of land site preparation.  Moreover,  the attendant pump stations, force mains,  and
 laterals skirt the previously mentioned freshwater swamp and the outfall is well
 east of Mill Cove, thereby insuring adequate flushing. "

 Response:
 The southern portion of the plant site (1/3 to 1/2 of total area) is located in a fresh-
 water swamp (so indicated by U. S. G. S.  1:24, 000 quadrangle  map and verified by

                                 - continued -
                                    403

-------
 Mr. J. H. Hyatt, P.E.
 Page  Four
 July 16,  1975
 site inspections in which cypress,  gum, and bay - all typical freshwater swamp
 species - were observed to be the dominant vegetation).   The endorsement of this
 site by this comment is totally at variance with comment No. 2 above.

 The summary comment,  too, appears totally to  ignore socio-economic and cultural
 factors.  The Environmental Assessment  Statement (Table No.  4-2 and  Figure 4-2)
 shows that construction on the Derringer Road site (Alternative No. 4) would have
 fourth most severe impacts on nearby future populations among all alternatives
 considered.  This conclusion is based on Area Planning Board population and land
 use projections and by equating severity of socio-economic and cultural impacts to
 resident population-proximity figures..

 Already, in the past two to three years,- major developments of multi-family housing
 have been constructed along  Monument Road immediately adjacent to the northern
 end of the plant site under Alternative No.  4.

 Division of Interior Resources Staff
 Comment;
"The actual outfall sites selected in the proposals differ very  little with respect to
 water quantity effects.  Cost factors and system efficiencies  will enter into consid-
 eration here.  Without further information pertaining to expected environmental
 impacts, it is difficult to make any recommendation.  The staff prefers  to see the
 prepared environmental impact statement  before making final comment.  "

 Response;
 The alternatives differ not at all in regard to water quantify effects, if it may be
 assumed that the  District system's service area and population will be the same
 regardless of the plant site chosen.   With  regard to water quality  effects, the
 differences, if any, among alternatives should be negligible in that the same treat-
 ment process sequence will be employed prior to effluent discharge regardless of
 where the plant is located.  The only possible variable with regard to water quality
 would seem to be the exact point of effluent discharge.  The point of discharge, in
 all cases is the maintained shipping channel of the  St.  Johns River, depth 34 to 38
 feet,  total River width less than 2000 feet.  Alternatives Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 11 would
 result in effluent  discharge some 2000 feet west of the eastern entrance of Mill
 Cove  while  the remaining Alternatives would result in effluent discharge some  6, 000
 to 9, 000 feet east of said entrance.   Water quality  effects, thus, would be dependent
primarily on^any  differences  in localized mixing-dispersal patterns in proximity
to specific points  of discharge.  No detailed information is readily available'to us
on such patterns,  but, overall, mixing-dispersal is not thought to  vary markedly.
                                  - continued -


                                      404

-------
Mr. Joe H. Hyatt, P. E.
Page Five
July 16, 1975
CoTnment;
"The use of a larger diameter outfall pipe (48") would reduce discharge velocities
for the expected flows.  This would appear to be a desirable factor.  Other comments
will be directed to specific items in the impact statement. "

Response;
Two alternatives, Nos.  9 and 11, (Beacon Hills and Quarantine Island sites) would
provide for a 60-inch gravity outfall.  All other alternatives provide a 48-inch
effluent force main.  The exact reason for the commentator's request for a larger
outfall is not clearly understood. At  the  smaller diameter (48"), ultimate average
daily effluent flow rate of 25 MGD,  and  extreme short-term  peak flow rate of 200%
of average daily flow rate,  exit velocity from a 48" pipe is 6. 16 f. p. s. (3. 65 knots).
Inasmuch as this velocity is very similar to prevalent tidal current velocities in
the vicinity of the point of discharge,  the  rationale for the comment is unclear.

Summary;
In summary,  as you are aware,  several of the sites discussed herein were pro-
pounded by parties other than the Department of Public Works and  its consultants,
notably the public-at-large and E.P. A.   The Environmental  Assessment Statement
attempted honestly, on the basis of best available  information,  to assess both
assets and liabilities, positive and negative attributes of each site.   It is tfiought
that the E. A. S. addressed those valid weaknesses of each alternative as are noted
in the foregoing comments.  However, as was noted in your  transmittal letter of
July 1, we would agree that certain of the comments were based on less than fullest
and best available information.  These comments have been  refuted in our responses
thereto.

Should you have questions or desire additional discussions of any of the points made
herein, please do not hesitate to contact us.

                                                   Very truly yours,

                                              FLOOD & ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                                Consulting  Engineers
                                                Robert L, Bates, Jr., P. E.
                                                Project Manager
RLBjr/le
                                    405

-------
       State of Florida
                                   Appendix VI
DEPARTMENT  OF NATURAL  RESOURCES  T
                                           REUBIN O'D. ASKEW
                                           Governor
                                           BRUCE A. SMATHERS
                                           Secretary of State
                                           ROBERT L. SHEVIN
                                           Attorney General
                                           GERALD A. LEWIS
                                           Comptroller
                                           PHILIP F. ASHLER
 HARMON W. SHIELDS
  Executive Director
CROWN BUILDING / 202 BLOUNT STREET / TALLAHASSEE 32304
DOYLE CONNER
 Commissioner of Agriculture
RALPH D. TURLINGTON
 Commissioner of Education
                                         August 22,  1975
           Mr. Robert B. Howard
           EIS Branch
           U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency
           Region IV
           1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
           Atlanta, Georgia  30309

           Dear Mr. Howard:

           This will respond to  your  July 24  letter concerning
           comments submitted  by the  Department on the proposed
           Arlington-East Wastewater  Facilities in Jacksonville,
           Florida.

           Original comments provided your office by our letter
           of June 25,  1975, were made  based  on information
           indicated on charts provided by you and on staff's
           general knowledge of  the area  concerned.  These should
           have been considered  purely  preliminary comments
           subject to change based on the case made by the
           Environmental Impact  Statement. As you are no doubt
           aware, the Department is not staffed to make special
           studies of each matter presented for review.  We do
           try to comment on items when requested to do so by
           other agencies however.

           From reading the consultant's  letter, it appears that
           he is under  the impression that our staff had access
           to the Environmental  Assessment Statement during our
           review.  In  fact, as  you are aware, our staff had
           eleven generalized  maps of the area in question with
           which appeared to us  to be concept designs of the
           various alternatives.  Primary tools used by our staff
           in our review were  USGS quadrangles, soils information,
           1973/74 infra-red and black  and white aerial photographs
           and the Coastal Zone  Management Atlas of 1972.  Given
             DIVISIONS /
                  406

  ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES • LAW ENFORCEMENT • MARINE RESOURCES
        RECREATION AND PARKS • RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

-------
Mr. Robert B. Howard
Page Two
August 22, 1975
more detailed information on the various alternatives,
we may have reached different conclusions  and provided
different comments.

If you are interested in further discussion on the
project, our staff would be available to meet with
you and the Jacksonville Department of Public Works
consulting engineers at your convenience in our offices
in Tallahassee, Florida.  Please advise whether or not
such a meeting is desired.

                              Sincerely,
                                    G. Smith
                              Administrative Assistant
JGS:rt
                                      EPA -IMPA6T STATEMENTS
                                               ms
                                      REGION IV. ATLAKW, «l
                      407

-------
                                              Appendix VII



                FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH  COMMISSION

HOWARD ODOM, Chairman    OGDEN M. PHIPPS, Vice Chairman    E. P. "Sonny" BURNETT    O. L. PEACOCK, JR.    JAMES B. WINDHAM
     Marianna                   Miami                   Tampa             Ft. Pierce            Jacksonville

                                           j^m^
                DR. O. E. FRYE, JR., Director         /y^JBJraSfo,        WILDLI FE RESEARCH PROJECTS
              H. E. WALLACE, Assistant Director       fffJSiSQK'SH            40°5 S' Main street
                                                   ""           Gainesville, Florida 32601
                                                                Phone: (904) 376-6481


                                      October 15, 1975
        Mr. Theodore Bisterfeld
        United States Environmental Protection Agency
        1421 Peachtree St., N.E.
        Atlanta, GA 30309

        Dear Mr. Bisterfeld:

             Your letter of 24 September to Major Martin has been referred to this
        office.  A cursory examination of the site as indicated on your map showing
        that the area enclosed in red would certainly contain alligators, Indigo
        Snakes, fox squirrels and at least in the Southern portions of the area
        the possibility of Black Bear.  Portions of the area are unpopulated enough
        by humans to occasionally harbour various migratory species which could be
        considered threatened.  If further information is required, please advise.
                                                     Sincerely,
                                                     Wildlife Biologist
        JAP/vg
        cc:  Martin
                                          408

-------
                               Appendix VIII


         United States Department of the Interior

                   FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
                      17 EXECUTIVE PARK DRIVE, N. E.
                       ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30329
                                                          JUL  ig
Regional  Administrator
Environmental  Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street,  NE., Suite 300
Atlanta,  Georgia  30309

Dear Sir:

In response to a May 27, 1975, letter from Mr. Robert B.  Howard  of your
Environmental  Impact Statement Branch, the Fish and Wildlife Service
has reviewed the proposed  alternative plant sites and outfall  locations
for the Arlington-East  Service District, Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
Jacksonville,  Duval  County, Florida.  We offer the following comments
concerning this project.

According to the above  letter and attachments, 11 alternative treatment
plant sites and outfall line routings are under consideration.   The
proposed treatment facilities will provide secondary treatment for a
10 MGD flow of sewage,  with an ultimate flow of 25 MGD by 2002.

Biologists from our Vero Beach,  Florida, field office visited the project
area on June 11 and 12, 1975.  Because of the general nature of  the maps
supplied, the precise location of plant and outfall facilities was often
difficult to determine. Consequently our comments are based on  obser-
vations of areas which  our biologists believe to approximate facility
sites.  We will be glad to provide more specific additional  comments
when precise plans are  formulated.

Treatment plant site alternatives 1, 3, 5, and 6 are located in  upland
areas vegetated predominately by scrub oak communities with scattered
pines.  Alternative site 2 is located in an old mine area where  little
vegetation currently exists.  Alternatives 4, 7, and 8 appear to be  in
lower areas, subject to frequent or periodic inundation and vegetated
by water-tolerant tree  species including cypress and bay.  Alternative
10 is a dune area of extreme relief bounded by salt marsh.  Dune ridge
vegetation is predominately live oak, magnolia, and cabbage palm with
lower areas dominated by wax myrtle and palmetto.  Alternative site  9,
northeast of the Beacon Hills subdivision, is a lower dune area  vegetated
by wax myrtle, other shrub species, and scattered red cedar.  An existing
                                              EPA-IMPACT STATEMENTS
                                            npSE
                                            •jjJUL 1 6 7975
                                            JUE15E
                                              REGION IV, ATM
                               4oy

-------
sewage treatment facility occupies portions of this location.  Alternative
site 11 is located on the east end of Quarantine Island.  The higher
elevations of Quarantine Island are forested, sloping to dune communities,
then to a narrow mud flat on the north side of the island along Dame Point
Cutoff, and to quite broad salt marsh bordering Mill  Cove on the south.

Alternative plans 1, 2, 3, and 11 propose construction of the outfall
line or transmission lines across Mill Cove to Quarantine Island with
the outfall point in Dame Point Cutoff.  Alternatives 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 10 appear to entail construction of the outfall line entirely in
upland areas reaching the St. Johns River main channel just east of
Shipyard Creek.  The outfall for alternative 9 would  traverse a short
upland route to an outlet point in the St. Johns River approximately
1 mile east of Shipyard Creek.

Obviously, the construction of the treatment plant in any area which
involves removal of existing vegetation will have some adverse effect
on wildlife resources utilizing the area.  Based on treatment plant
site location alone, alternative 2 appears to be the  least damaging,
since little or no vegetation is present in this area. Alternatives 1,
3, 5, and 6 located in the oak pine vegetation would  provide the next-
least-damaging treatment plant sites.

Although alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are among the least damaging treatment
plant sites, we are concerned about the effects of outfall line con-
struction across Mill Cove and Quarantine Island that would be involved
in these alternatives.  These concerns would also hold true for alter-
native 11.  The salt marshes along the south side of  Quarantine Island
are productive and provide habitat and feeding areas  for many fish and
wildlife species.  Telephone conversations with personnel of the city
of Jacksonville, Department of Public Works indicate  that the installa-
tion of outfall pipe across these marshes may require the use of a barge,
which would require dredging a channel 30 to 40 feet  wide into some of
the marsh areas.  This dredging and spoil removal would result in the
destruction of several thousand square feet of productive marsh.  How-
ever, we believe that the adverse effects of any construction would not
be permanent if surface contours in the marsh and bay are restored to
preproject conditions after completion of work.  Restoration of marsh
areas could be hastened by the replanting of marsh grasses.

We do not favor to the selection of alternatives 4, 7, or 8 since they
appear to involve construction in freshwater swamp areas.  These areas
provide high quality wildlife habitat and assimilate  nutrients from
upland runoff.  We also recommend against selection of alternative 10,
because of the uniqueness and esthetic values of the  hardwood-vegetated
dune area.
                                 410

-------
Alternative 9 is located in a dune area.  However, because of previous
modification of portions of this area, construction impact would be
reduced.  Some portions of alternative 9 appear to be subject to flood-
ing by extreme high water conditions and may therefore require filling.

We believe the treatment plant site, as proposed in alternative 11, is
inadvisable because of the multiple pipeline crossings of Mill Cove
and salt marsh.  Crossing these areas would require extensive filling
to elevate the pipeline above flood levels.  We also understand that
portions of Quarantine Island are being considered for recreational
use.  Although this area of the St. Johns River is highly developed,
treatment plant siting on Quarantine Island would detract from a quality
recreational experience and may reduce the land available for recreation.

In summary, we believe that the least biologically damaging alternative
would involve construction of the treatment plant at the unvegetated
strip mine area ors secondly, on one of the sites vegetated by the scrub
oak-pine community.  The least damaging outfall line route would be
along an entirely upland alignment to the St. Johns River.  If construction
across Mill Cove and associated salt marsh is considered, construction
plans and cost calculations should include restoration of preproject
contours in all areas and replanting of marsh vegetation to minimize
adverse effects.

We hope that these comments are helpful in project planning and con-
struction.  Thank you for soliciting our comments during the early
stages of planning.
                                        Sincerely yours,
                                        Regional Director
                                  411

-------
                                                Appendix  IX
                           AREA NORTH  OF  REGENCY SQUARE

 Dunes   Favored  for   Sewage   Plant
         By BILL MIDDLETON, Times-Union Staff Writer

   A citizens committee is recommending as the most acceptable site for
an Arlington East sewage treatment plant the dunes area north of Regency
Square.

   The Arlington East Assistance Committee voted 9 to .4 at a meeting
Tuesday night at City Hall to suggest the site to the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency over 11 other possible sites for the plant.

   "The  ultimate decision will rest in the hands of EPA," said Bob How-
ard. "A public hearing will be held in January and a decision will b© pro-
posed at that time." Howard  is the head  of  the Environmental  Impact
Statement branch of the federal Environmental Protection Agency's Atlan-
ta office.

   The committee includes five city officials, five representatives of the
Holly Oaks area and five other  Duval citizens.  The committee members
completed rating sheets on which each member gave a weighting on a
scale of one to 10 the importance of environmental factors and the positive
or negative impact of each factor on each proposed site.

   The factors  ranking highest included air quality, 8.35; odor, 7.0; water
quality, 8.5; water supply, 7.1 and land use, 6.9,

   Howard said the total project cost of the dunes area plant is estimated
at $50,615.077.

   Estimated costs of the other sites ranged from a low of $48,559,307 for
the Millcoe Road site, to a high of $64,971,606 for the Beacon Hills site.

   Th© sites under  consideration include Millcoe Road, Dame Point-Fort
Caroline, north of Craig Field, east of Craig Field, system A; east of Craig
Field, system B; inside east boundary of Craig Field, system A; inside the
east boundary of Craig Field, system B; Beacon Hills, Spanish Point, Quar-
antine Island and Southside Craig Field.

-------
                                 APPENDIX X

                           :'.H5S 0" TilE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
 Ro''.atIvtt Abmvl

 A - Abundnnt:
 C - Cordon
 U r  Uncoiiir.iO!)
 0 = Occasional
          -FERNS-

Boston Fern
  Neghrolepis exaltat
Cinnamon Fern
  Osmunda cinnamonea
Royal Fern
  Osmunda regalis
Resurrection Fern
  Polypodium polypodioides
Bracken Fern
  Pteridium aquilinum
Wood Fern
  Thelypteris normalis
Chain Fern
  Woodwardia virginica

          -VINES-

Cat-claw Vine
  Bignonia unguis-cati
Japanese Honeysuckle
  Lonicera japonica
Virginia Creeper
  Parthenocissus quinquefo1ia
Poison-Ivey
  Rhus radicans
Catbrier
  Smilax sp.
Summer Grape
  Vitis aestivalis
Muscadine Vine
  Vitis rotundifolia

          -HERBACEOUS-

Alligator Weed
  Alternanthera philoxeroides
Jack-in-the-pulpit
  Arisaema •triphyllum
Wire Grass
  Aristida stricta
Treadsoftly
  Cnidoscolus stimulosus







^
o
o
g
3
CD
a




A















^
01
<3
•H
PH &
cfl
4-1 O
cfl

•H 0)
DO r^
pj Vi
O S
^ H




A













A
C





£ CO
•rl t3
P-i O
O

CO 4J
Cfl Cfl
r-l H
tn fn
U
U

U


U


C
U
C
C
C
U
C

U
C
U
p.
Q
Co
^
o^

r£j
o
o
^
i^
^i
Cfl
W
C
C
C
C

C
C


C
C

C
C
U
C
U
C



T)
13
cfl

w

CO
CO
0)
S-J
ex

u

C



C
C






C


U







rC
CO
Vl

jjrj

4-J
rH
Cfl








1
I











                                   413

-------
                                 APPENDIX  X

                  PLANT SPECIES OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
 Relative Abundance:

 A = Abundant
 C = Common
 U = Uncommon
 0 = Occasional

  (Continued)
White-top Sedge
  Dichromena sp.
Sundew
  Drosera brevifolia
Pipewort
  Eriocaulon sp.
Marsh Pennywort
  Hydrocotyle umbellata
Rush
  Juncus sp.
Bog Moss
  Mayaca aubletii
Maiden-cane
  Panicum hemitomon
Arrow Arum
  Peltandra sagittaefolia
Pickerel-weed
  Pontederia cordata
Mermaid-weed
  Preserpinaca sp.
Beak Rush
  Rynchospora sp.
Duck Potato
  Sagittaria sp.
Hooded Pitcher Plant
  Sarracenia minor
Lizard-tail
  Saururus cornuus
Spanish-moss
  Tillandsia uspeoides
Bladderwort
  Utricularia sp.
Seven-lobed Violet
  Viola septemloba

    -TREES & SHRDBS-

Box Elder
  Acer negundo
Red Maple
  Acer Rubrum
Red Buckeye
  Aesculus pavia





































T^
O
o
c4
1














C





^
a)

P4 ^
a
m o

i-l 
-------
                                 APPENDIX X

                 PlANf SPECIES Or1 TUR ARLlftOTO^-EAST DISTRICT
Relative Abundance;

A = Abundant
C — Common
U = Uncommon
0 = Occasional
TContinuedT"

Devil's Walking Stick
  Araiia spinosa
Red Chokeberry
  Aronia arbutifolia
Pawpaw
  Asimina sp.
Saltbush
  Baccharis halimifolia
American Hornbean
  Carpinus caroliniana
Pignut Hickory
  Carya glabra
Mockernut Hickory
  Carya tomentosa
Sugarberry
  Celtis laevigata
Buttonbush
  Cephalanthus occidentalis
Rosemary
  Ceratiol'a ericoides
Gopher Apple
  Chrysobalanus oblongifolius
Flowering Dogwood
  Cornus florida
Florida Dogwood
  Dornus foemina
Haw
  Crataegus sp.
Persimmon
  Diospyros virginiana
Ash
  Fraxious sp.
Loblolly Bay
  Gordonia lasianthus
St. John's Wort
  Hypericum sp.
Large Gallberry
  Ilex coriacea
American Holly
  Ilex opaca
Virginia Willow
  Itea virginica
Southern Red Cedar
  Juniperus silicicola






^
0
o

K



















U

U

0)
C
•H
p ! *«?
cd
M-J O

CU E>}
r-l CU
f? M
o s

0
C






C
U



C



U






CU
fi CO
•H T3
p4 O
o
rG j5
CD 4J
cd cd
rH iH
0
U
U

\J
C
C
U

0

U
U
U
C



U
U

U
ft
1
^
CO

T3
o
o
£
T3
S-i
A

u

U
0
C

u
C




u

C
C



A
u

13
C!
0)
4-1


CO
CO
0)
VJ
u



C




U







C
0







^f-J
' CO
J-J
m
j-^1

^j
ca
CO



C



















































                                  415

-------
                                  APPENDIX X

                  PLANT SPRC1JU". OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
 Kel ,'• tive Abundance:

 A = Abundant
 C - C'JiiiiTon
 U = Uiiccwraon
 0 = Occasional
(Continued)

Sweetgum
  Liquidambar styraciflua
Staggerbush
  Lyonia ferruginea
Fetterbush
  Lyonia lucida
Magnolia
  Magnolia grandiflora
Sweet Bay
  Magnolia virginiana
Red Mulberry
  Morus rubra
Wax Myrtle
  Myrica cerifera
Black Tupelo
  Nyssa sylvatica
Wild Olive
  Osmanthus americana
Redbay
  Persea borbonia
Slash Pine
  Pinus elliottii
Spruce Pine
  Pinus glabra
Longleaf Pine
  Pinus palustris
Chickasaw Plum
  Prunus angustifolia
Black Cherry
  Prunus serotina
Chapman Oak
  (juercus chapmanii
Bluejack Oak
  Quercus incana
Turkey Oak
  Quercus laevis
Laurel Oak
  Quercus laurifolia
Water Oak
  Quercus nigra
Live Oak
  Quercus,virginiana
Winged Sumac
  Rhus copallina








































0
o
g
w
0
U


U














U
A

^
cu
C
•H
J"> j K^
CO
4H O
(fl
CU >
,-1 0)
fi M
,35

U








C

C
U
U
C
C
A
C

C
C




cu
rt to
•rl 13
PU O
o
r£ ?
CO 4-1
ctf cd
E^S
C
C
C
C
U



U

A
U
U

U



U
U

C
P.
8
ra
IS
CO

""O
o
o

£.4
w
C


TJ

U
U
C

C
C
U






C


C

13
C

4-J
C/}

CO
CO
0)
ft
°.-


u
C
C

0
0

U
0







U







^f^
CO
f_J
1
4J
H
C8
CO






















                                       416

-------
             APPENDIX  X



PLANT SPECIES OF THE AJ'L!KGTl'X--EAST DISTRICT
Relative Abundance :



A r~ Abundant
C ~ Ccin-.nnn
U = UncowTiion
0 - Occasional
(Continued)
Blackberry
Rubus sp.
Blue Stem Palmetto
Sabal minor
Cabbage Palm
Sabal palmetto
Coastal Plain Willow
Salix caroliniana
Elderberry
Sambucus simpsonii
Sassafras
Sassafras albidum
Saw-palmetto
Serenoa repens
Pond Cypress
Taxodium ascendens
Bald Cypress
Taxodium distichum
Basswood
Tilia. caroliniana
American Elm
Ulmus americana
Blueberry
Vaccinium sp.






M
o
o
£





A




















a
S
•rl
fl-i *S>
cd
"-H O
0)
0) S*.
i-H 0)
B H
O 3
i-4 H





























(U
d u
-rl T3
Pj 0
O
fl &
CO 4J
co n)
i-l iH
Crt f^

C









u

C







U




"I
^

?
w
13
O
0
45
M
&



u

u

u

u



u





u

u




T3
C
CS
4J
w
00
01
01
M
p.
5-















A

A





0





f^
CO
V)

•w
tH
n)
en




























































                  417

-------
           APPENDIX XI  (a)



AMPHIBIANS  OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
AMPHIBIANS :
Greater Siren
Siren lacertina
Lesser Siren
Siren intermedia
Dwarf Siren
Pseudobranchus striatus
Amphiuma
Amphiuma means
Flatwoods Salamander
Ambystoma cingulatum
Mole Salamander
Ambystoma talpoideum
Tiger Salamander
Ambystoma tigrinum
Central Newt
Notephthalmus viridescens
Striped Newt
Nptophthalmus per striatus
Dusky Salamander
Desmognathus Fuscus
Slimy Salamander
Plethodon glutinosus
Mud Salamander
Pseudotritoir montanus
Dwarf Salamander
Manculus quadridigitatus
Spadefoot Toad
Scaphiopus holbrooki
Southern Toad
Bufo terrestris
Oak Toad
Bufo quercicus
Southern Cricket Frog
Bufo quercicus
Green Treefrog
Hyla cinerea
Spring Peeper
Hyla crucifer
Piney Wood Treefrog
Hyla femoralis
Least Treefrog
Hyla ocular is

Hammock
X
X
Longleaf-Pine/
Turkey Oak
X
X
X
Slash Pine 1
Flatwoods 1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hardwood Swamp
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cypress Stand
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X.
X
X
X
x:
X
X
X
X
X
X
A
to
VJ
£
4-1
r- 1
a
C/3



              418

-------
            APPENDIX XI  (a)
AMPHIBIANS  OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT


AMPHIBIANS:







(Continued)
Squirrel Treefrog
Hyla squire! la
Gray Treefrog
Hyla versicolor
Barking Treefrog
Hyla. gratiosa
Chorus Frog
Pseudacris nigrita
Easter Narrow-mouth Toad
Gastrophryne carolinensis
Gopher Frog
Rana areolata
Bullfrog
Rana catesbeiana
Bronze Frog
Rana clamitans
Pig Frog
Rana grylio
River Frog
Rana heckscheri
Southern Leopard Frog
Rana sphenocephala

419



^
o
o


CO
K



X

X



















C
-J j

T n
<-; C

ou >
f 0
to ^
C S-

2 £

X

X

X



X

X



X










Zj
C. CO
*"* O
'Z °

"5 iJ
7^ C
— ^
-JO i.

X

X

X

X

X















1
CO

^
c
3
"^
i_
r*
=

X

X

X

X

X









X

X



—
^
V.
3;
y;
oi
p
c<
^.
-

X

X

X

X

X



X



X

X

•"•




^
w
u
•^
2:

•i-J
—
c
en





























































-------
          APPENDIX XI (b)




REPTILES OF  THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
REPTILES :
St Ue American Alligator
Alligator mi s s i s s ipp lens is
Snapping Tortoise
Chelydra serpentina.
St Gopher Tortoi^
Gopherus polyphemus
Stinkpot
Sternothaerus odoratus
Mud Turtle
Kinosternon bauri
Box Turtle
Terrapene Carolina
Diamondback Terrapin
Malaclemmys terrapin
Yellow-bellied Turtle
Pseudemys script a.
Florida Cooter
Pseudemys floridana
Chicken Turtle
Deirochelys reticularia
Florida Softshell
Amyda ferox
American Chaemeleon
Anolis carolinensis
Six-lined Racerunner
Cnimidophorus sexlineatus
Ground Skink
Lygosoma laterale
Red-tailed Skink
Eumeces egregius
Five-lined Skink
Eumeces inexpectatus
Slender Glass Lizard
Ophisaurus attenuatus
Island Glass Lizard
Ophisaurus compressus
Eastern Glass Lizard
Ophisaurus ventralis
Eastern Fence Lizard
Sceloporus undulatus
Green Water Snake
Natrix cyclopion
Broad-headed Skink
Eumeces Xaticeps
Hammock




X

















X

X

X

X

X



X



X

X

X

Long leaf Pine/
Turkey Oak




X





X











X

X

X

X

X

X

X



X



X

Slash Pine
Flatwoods










X











X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X



x
Hardwood Swamp
X













X

X

X

X

X



X

X







X



X


1
1
Cypress Stand


X



X

X





X

X

X

X

X .



X

X







X







,13
0>
M
4J
rH
CO
CO
X











X












































































             420

-------
                                 APPENDIX XI  (b)




                        REPTILES OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
St
REPTILES:
(Continued)
Red-bellied Water Snake
Natrix erythroquster
Glossy Water Snake
Natrix rigida
Florida Water Snake
Natrix sipedon pictiventris
Brown Water Snake
Natrix taxispilota
Black Swamp Snake
Seminatrlx pyjjaea
Brown Snake
Storeria dekayi
Red-bellied Snake
Storeria occipitomaculata
Eastern Garter Snake
Thamnophis sirtalis
Southern Ribbon Snake
Thamnophis sauritus
Rough Earth Snake
Haldea striatula
Smooth Earth Snake
Haldea valeriae
Striped Swamp Snake
Liodytes alleni
Eastern Hognose Snake
Heterodon pla£yrhinos
Southern Hognose --Snake
Heterodon simus
Ringneck Snake
Diadophis punctatus
Mud Snake
Farancia abacura
Black Racer
Coluber constrictor
Coachwhip
Masticophis f lagellum
Rough Green Snake
Opheodrys aestivalis
Indigo Snake
Drymarchon corais

Hammock
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Longleaf-Pine/
Turkey Oak
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Slash Pine
Flatwoods
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hardwood Swamp
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cypress Stand
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
en
^
1
4-1
rH
CO
W



                                      421

-------
           APPENDIX XI  (b)




REPTILES Of THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
REPTILES:
(Continued)
Corn Snake
Elaphe guttata guttata
Yellow Rat Snake
Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata
Pine Snake
Pituophis melanoleucas
Eastern Kingsnake
Lampropeltis getulus
Scarlet Kingsnake
Lampropeltis doliata
Mole Snake
Lampropeltj calligaster
Scarlet Snake
Cemophora coccinea
Crowned Snake
Tantilla coronata
Coral Snake
Micrurus fulvius
Cottonmouth
Ancistrodon piscivorus
Pygmy Rattlesnake
Sistrurus miliarfus
Eastern Mamondback
Cro talus adamanteus

Hammock
X
X
X
X
X
01
a
•H
m o
B VJ
Q 3
hJ H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Slash Pine
Flatwoods
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
en
0
0
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'B
a
4-1
CO
CO
(U
(H
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
4J
r-H
cti
en
X


              422

-------
                                  APPENDIX XI  (c)




                          BIRDS OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
Season of Occur ence: Abundance:
PR = Permanent Resident C = Common
SR = Summer Resident FC = Fairly Common
WR = Winter Resident U » Uncommon
T = Transient R = Rare
Common Loon
Gavia immer
Red-throated Loon
Gavia stellata
Horned Grebe
Podiceps auritus
Pied-billed Grebe
Podilymbu-s podiceps
Brown Pelican
Pelecanus occidentalis
Gannet
Morus bassanus
Double-crested Cormorant
Phalacrocorax auritus
Anhinga
Anhinga anhinga
Mallard
Anas platyrhynchos
Pintail
Anas acuta
Gadwall
Anas strepera
American Widgeon
Mareca americana
Shoveller
Spatula clypeata
Blue-winged Teal
Anas discors
Green-winged Teal
Anas carolinensis
Wood Duck
Aix sponsa
Redhead
Aythya americana
Canvasback
Aythya valisineria
Ring-necked Duck
Aythya collaris
Greater Scaup
Aythya marila
423

Season of
Occurrence
WR
WR
WR
PR
PR
WR
PR
PR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WA
PR
WR
WR
WR
WR


Abundance
U
U
FC
FC
C
C
C
C
TJ
U
U
U
U
FC
U
R
R
R
U
R


Hammock
















ni
Longleaf Pin<
Turkey Oak

















Slash Pine
Flatwoods
















a
Hardwood Swan




X





X






Cypress Stanc




X





X






CO
rH
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X



















St He

-------
       APPENDIX  XI (c)



BIRDS OF  THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
Season of Occur ence: Abundance:
PR = Permanent Resident C = Common
SR = Summer Resident FC = Fairly Common
WR = Winter Resident U « Uncommon
T = Transient R = Rare
(Continued)
Lesser Scaup
Aythya af finis
Common Goldeneye
Bucephala clangula
Bufflehead
Bucephala albeola
Ruddy Duck
Oxyura jamaicensis
Red-breasted Merganser
Mergus serrator
Hooded Merganser
Lqphodytes cucullatus
Turkey Vulture
Cathartes aura
Black Vulture
Coragyps atratus
Cooper's Hawk
Accipiter cooperii
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Accipiter striatus
Marsh Hawk
Circus cyaneus
Red- tailed Hawk
Buteo jamaicensis
Red-shouldered Hawk
Buteo lineatus
Osprey
Pandion haliaetus
Sparrow Hawk
Falco sparverius
Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
Common Egret
Casmerodius albus
Snowy Egret
Leucophoyx thula
Cattle Egret
Bubulcus ibis
Great Blue Heron
Ardea heirodias
/. o/.

Season of
Occurrence
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
WR
PR
PR
PR
WR
WR
PR
PR
PR
WR
PR
PR
PR
SR
PR-


Abundance
C
R
U
FC
C
TJ
C
FC
U
U
FC
U
U
C
fl
\J
R
C
C
ri
FC


Hammock

















^^
0)
-fl
to AS
cd
m o
cd
0) >~.
H CD
60 &
a M
33




X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X






Slash Pine
Flatwoods




X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X





ft
Hardwood Swat












X
X

X

13
C
CO
4-1
CO
CO
CO
0)
S-i
PH
>>
U

X










X
X

X


,£
m
>-i
1
4-1
r-i
CO
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X


X

X
X
X
X





















-------
       APPENDIX  XI (c)




BIRDS OF  THE ARLINGTON-EAST  DISTRICT
Season of Occurence: Abundance:
PR = Permanent Resident C = Conmon
SR = Surfer Resident FC = Fairly Cordon
WR = Winter Resident U « Unconmon
T = Transient R = Rare
(Continued)
Louisiana Heron
Hydranassa tricolor
Little Blue Heron
Florida caerulea
Green Heron
Butorides virescens
Black-crowned Night Heron
Nycticorax nycticorax
Yellow-crowned Night Heron
Nyctanassa violacea
American Bittern
Botaurus lentiginosus
Least Bittern
Ixobrychus exilis
Wood Ibis (Stork)
Mycteria americana
White Ibis
Eudocimus albus
Virginia Rail
Rallus limicola
Sora
Porzana Carolina
Clapper Rail
Rallus longirostris
King Rail
Rallus elejgans
Common . Gallinule
Gallinula chloropus
American Coot
Fulica americana
American Oyster Catcher
Haematopus palliatus
American Avocet
Recurvirostra americana
Black-necked Stilt
Himantopus mexicanus
Piping Plover
Charadrius melodus
Wilson's Plover
Charadrius wilsonia


Season of
Occurrence
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
WR
SR
PR
SR
WR
WR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
T
SR
WR
SR


Abundance
C
C
C
C
FC
R
FC
C
FC
U
U
C
U
FC
U
U
R
U
U
U


Hammock



















a
Longleaf Pin
Turkey Oak




















Slash Pine
Flatwoods



















P.
Hardwood Swai
X
X
X
X
X


X
X











tt
Cypress Stani
X
X
X
X
X


X
X



X








J3
CO
M
1
•U
rH
td
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X























-------
       APPENDIX XI  (c)




BIRDS OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST  DISTRICT
Season of Occur ence: Abundance:
PR = Permanent Resident C = Common
SR = Summer Resident FC = Fairly Common
WR = Winter Resident U - Uncommon
T = Transient R = Rare
(Continued)
Killdeer
Charadrius vociferus
Whimbrel
Numenius phaeopus
Spotted Sandpiper
Actitis macularia
Greater Yellowlegs
Totanus melanoleucus
Lesser Yellowlegs
Totanus flavipes
Stilt Sandpiper
Micropalama himantopus
Short-billed Dowitcher
Limnodromus griseus
Ruddy Turnstone
Arenaria interpres
Pectoral Sandpiper
Erolia melanotos
Knot
Calidris canutus
White-rumped Sandpiper
Erolia fuscicollis
Common Snipe
Capella gal linage
Great Black-backed Gull
Larus marinus
Herring Gull
Larus argentatus
Ring-billed Gull
Larus argentatus
Laughing Gull
Larus atricilla
Bonaparte's Gull
Larus Philadelphia
Least Tern
Sterna albifrons
Common Tern
Sterna hirundo
Forster's Tern
Sterna forsteri
426

Season of
Occurrence
PR
T
WR
WR
WR
T
WR
PR
T
T
T
WR
PR
PR
PR
PR
WR
SR
WR
WR


Abundance
FC
U
U
U
U
R
FC
FC
R
U
R
FC
FC
FC
U
C
FC
C
U
c


Hammock
X


















Longleaf Pine
Turkey Oak



















Slash Pine
Flatwoods


















P.
Hardwood Swam



















Cypress Stano






•












&
CO
M
g
4J
i-l
n)
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X






















-------
        APPENDIX  XI (c)




BIRDS OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
Season of Occur ence: Abundance:
PR = Permanent Resident C = Common
SR = Summer Resident FC = Fairly Common
WR = Winter Resident U « Uncommon
T = Transient R = Rare
(Continued)
Sandwich Tern
Thalasseus sandvicensis
Gull-billed Tern
Gelochelidon nilotica
Caspian Tern
Hydroprogne caspia
Black Tern
Chlidonias niger
Black Skimmer
Rynchops nigra
Mourning Dove
Xenaidura macroura
Ground Dove
Columbigallina passerina
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
Screech Owl
Otus asio
Great Horned Owl
Bubo virginianus
Barred Owl
Strix varia
Chuck-will ' s-widow
Caprimulgus carolinensis
Whip-poor-will
Caprimulgus vociferus
Common Nighthawk
Chordeiles minor
Yellow-shafted Flicker
Colaptes auratus
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Centurus carolinus
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Sphyrapicus varius
Downy Woodpecker
Dendrocopos pubescens
Eastern Kingbird
Tyrannus tyrarinus
Western Kingbird
Tyrannus yerticalis
427

Season of
Occurrence
T
SR
WR-
T
PR
PR
PR
SR
PR
PR
PR
SR
WR
SR
PR
PR
WR
PR
SR
WR

Abundance
C
FC
FC
C
C
FC
FC
FC

U
FC
FC
U
C
C
c
c
FC
U
R

Hammock



X
X

X
X

X





^
0)
.5
PM^J
cti
M-IO
ca
0) >>
iH Q)
ex>^
dn
0 3
i-4H



- X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X

0)
eitn
•i-W
frd
*z
CO 4-1
cticd
r-M
c/3Pn



X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
Hardwood Swam




X

X
X


X
X
X
X


Cypress Stand





X
X





X



,C
CO
}-i
1
4-1
<-<
Cfl
co
X
X
X
X
X





























-------
      APPENDIX  XI (c)




BIRDS OF  THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
Season of Occur ence: Abundance:
PR = Permanent Resident C = Common
SR = Summer Resident FC = Fairly Common
WR = Winter Resident U • Uncommon
T = Transient R = Rare
(Continued)
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Polioptila caerulea
Golden-crowned Kinglet
Regulus satrapa
Ruby-crowned Kinglet
Regulus calendula
Water Pipit
Anthus spinoletta
Cedar Waxwing
Bombcilla cedrorum
Loggerhead Shrike
Lanius ludovicianus
Starling
Sturnus vulgaris
White-eyed Vireo
Vireo flavifrons
Black and White Warbler
Mniotilta varia
Worm-eating Warbler
Helmitheros vermivorus
Orange-crowned Warbler
Vermivora celata
Cape May Warbler
Dendroica tigrina
Myrtle Warbler
Dendroica coronata
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Dendroica caerulescens
Yellow-throated Warbler
Dendroica dominica
Blackpoll Warbler
Dendroica striata
Pine Warbler
Dendroica pinus
Prairie Warbler
Dendroica discolor
Palm Warbler
Dendroica palmarum
Ovenbird
Seirus aurocapillus
Red-eyed Vireo
Vireo Olivaceus

Season of
Occurrenrp
PR
WR
WR
WR
WR
PR
PR
PR
WR
T
WR
T
WR
T
PR
T
T
T
WR
T
WR

Abundance
FC
R
C
FC
C
C
C
C
U
U
U
U
c
U
U
U
U
FC
C
U
U

Hammock
















X
X



09
Longleaf Pin
Turkey Oak

X
X


X

X




X



X
X




Slash Pine
Flatwoods

X
X

X
X
X


X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

I*
Hardwood Swa




X


X
X

X



X

X
X
X

X
*vt
8
CO
+J
CO
en
CO
0)
$-1
P.
t^
U




X



X

X





X
X
X

X

ff
CO
j-i
1
j->
rH
CS
00
X


X









































-------
      APPENDIX XI  (c)




BIRDS OF  THE ARLINGTON-EAST  DISTRICT
Season of Occurence: Abundance:
PR = Permanent Resident C = Cosmon
SR = Summer Resident FC = Fairly Common
WR = Winter Resident U - Uncocsson
T = Transient R = Rare
(Continued)
Great Crested Flycatcher
Myianrchus crinitus
Eastern Phoebe
Sayornis phoebe
Eastern Wood Pewee
Contopus virens
Barn Swallow
Hirundo rustica
Tree Swallow
Iridoprocne bicolor
Purple Martin
Progne subis
Blue Jay
Cyanocitta cristata
Common Crow
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Fish Crow
Corvus ossifragus
Carolina Chickadee
Parus carolinensis
Tufted Titmous
Parus bicolor
House Wren
Troglodytes aedon
Carolina Wren
Thryothorus ludovicianus
Long-billed Marsh Wren
Telmatodytes palustris
Short-billed Marsh Wren
Cistothorus platensis
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos
Catbird
Dumetella carolinensis
Brown Thrasher
Toxostoma rufum
Robin
Turdus migratorius
Hermit Thrush
Hylocichla guttata


Season of
Occurrence
SR
WR
SR
T
WR
SR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR1
WR
PR
PR
WR
PR
WR
PR
WR
WR


Abundanc e
FC
C
U
C
C
FC
C
C
C
FC
FC
FC
C
C
FC

C
FC
C
FC


Hammock

X

X

X
X
X





X
X
X




Longleaf Pine
Turkey Oak

X


X
X
X
X





X
X

X



Slash Pine
Flatwoods
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X


Hardwood Swamp
X
X

X

X



X

X

X
X
X

X


Cypress Stand
X


X

X



X



X
X
X




,c
CO
s-l
1
4J
H
ca
w



X


X
X




X
X




























-------
       APPENDIX XI  (c)



BIRDS OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
Season of Occur ence: Abundance:
PR = Permanent Resident C = Common
SR = Summer Resident FC = Fairly Common
WR = Winter Resident U - Uncommon
T = Transient R = Rare
(Continued)
Northern Waterthrush
Seiurus noveboracensis
Louisiana Waterthrush
Seiurus motacilla
Yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas
American Redstart
Setophaga ruticilla
House Sparrow
Passer domesticus
Bobolink
Dolichonyx oryzivprus
Eastern Meadowlark
Sturnella magna
Red-winged Blackbird
Agelaius phoeniceus
Boat-tailed Crackle
Cassidix mexicanus
Common Crackle
Quiscalus quiscula
Summer Tanager
Pirnaga rubra
Cardinal
Richmondena cardinalis
Indigo Bunting
Passerina cyahea
Painted Bunting
Passerina ciris
Pine Siskin
Spinus pinus
American Goldfinch
Spinus tristis
Rufous-sides Towhee
Pipilo erythrophthalmus
Savannah Sparrow
Passerculus sandwichensis
Sharp-tailed sparrow
Ammospiza caudacuta
Vesper Sparrow
Pooecetes gramineus
430

season ot
Occurrence
T
T
PR
T
PR
T
PR
PR
PR
PR
SR
PR
T
SR
WR
WR
PR
WR
*TR
rfR


Abundance
TJ
U
C
FC
U
U
FC
C
C
U
T
-I
FC

R
FC
FC


Hammock


X







r
L



0)
S
PM ^J
cd
4-1 O
cd
0) >^
H CD
bD^i
C H
O 3
J H





X




X



blash Pine
Flatwoods


X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


Hardwood Swamj
X
X
X
X

X

X



X



Cypress Stand
X
X
X

X
X

X



X



rC
CO
M
£
4-1
rH
cd
W


X
X
X
X






X

















-------
      APPENDIX XI  (c)



BIRDS OF  THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
Season of Occurence: Abundance:


PR = Permanent Resident C = Common
SR = Summer Resident FC = Fairly Common
WR = Winter Resident U - Uncommon
T = Transient R = Rare


(Continued)
Slate-colored Junco
Junco hyemalis
Field Sparrow
Spizella pusilla
White-throated Sparrow
Zonqtrichia albicollis
Chipping Sparrow
Spizella passerina
Swamp Sparrow
Melospiza georgiana
Song Sparrow
Melospiza melodia
Purple Finch
Carpodacus purpureus
431


CD
4H O
o c
CD
fi M
O Vl
CD 3
CO 0
Q) O
CO O


WR

WR

WR

WE

WR

WR

WR





CU
o
cfl
a
3
£
>
H Q)
bO^i
Pi >-i
0 3
-J H

X



x







X





0)
C a
•H T:
PM c
CO £
cd n
i~H r~
CO [i

X

X



x



x




ft
§
l>
CO
o
o
13
J-l
cfl
33









x







a
cfl
4J
CO
CO
0)
OH

O









x









co
1
4-)
H
cfl
CO









































-------
        APPENDIX XI




MAMMALS OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
MAMMALS:
(Continued)
Cotton Mouse
Peromyscus gossypinus
St Florida Mouse
Peromyscus floridanus
Eastern Woodrat
Neotoma floridana
Rice Rat
Oryzomys palustris
Cotton Rat
Sigmodon hispidus
Norway Rat
Rattus norvegicus
Black Rat
Rattus ratfus
House Mouse
Mus musculus
Cottontail
Sylvilagus floridanus
Marsh Rabbit
Sylvilagus palustris
Feral Hog
Sus scrofa x Sus vittatus
I W?
'f
St -State threatened ^list |->|^f'T!R,f "ff "f^^
Ue -U.S.' endangered list .- *^r -•=*•--'•
JAN 2 8, 1976
Federal Activities
Vs 3.-=,,,-- arv
i
I
a
o












FOl
WI]



X





?




, •
I
Longleaf -Turkey
Oak

X

X

X



X


ND i,
H HI



X






a)
C 03
•H T3
fM O
O
03 4J
rt rt
H iH





X



X


N AS
MAN



X

X

X


|
k
1




J
Hardwood Swamp







X

X


SOCI
HABI



X

X

X







]



1
Cypress Stand





X

X

X


ATIO
TATI



X

X
01
ctf







X

X


N
ON







X







1







)































              433

-------
                               APPENDIX XI  (d>




                       MAMMALS OF THE ARLINGTON-EAST DISTRICT
MAMMALS:
Opossum
Didelphis marsupial is
Nine-banded Armadillo
Dasypus novemcinctus
Southeastern Shrew
Sorex longirostris
Eastern Mole
Scalopus aquaticus
Least Shrew
Crypto tis parva
Shorttail Shrew
Blarina brevicauda
Bats
Whitetail Deer
Odocoileus virginianus
River Otter
Lutra canadensis
Longtail Weasel
Mustela frenata
Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Spotted Skunk
Spilogale putorius
Striped Skunk
Mephitis mephitis
Bobcat
Lynx ruf us
Gray Fox
Uracyon c iner eoar gent eu s
Gray Squirrel
Sciurus carolinensis
Fox Squirrel
Sciurus niger
Flying Squirrel
Glaucomys volans
Southeastern Pocket Gopher
n -,*.0'vr> Harvest House
Hammock
X
X
X
X
Sff
X
X
X
X
X
X
i
Longleaf -Turkey
Oak
X
X
X
X
X
X
era.'.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
\
Slash Pine
Flatwoods
X
X
X
X
X
X
spc
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
$
X
Hardwood Swamp
X
X
X
cies
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cypress Stand
X
X
X
all
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
4->
rH
CO
C/l
X
hat
X
X
1

itats
1
St
                                                       -
     Oldf ield *««

-------