United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-84-118
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, N.E. April 1984
Agency Atlanta, QA 30365
&EPA Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
South Escambia and
Santa Rosa Counties, Florida
Wastewater Management
hr.;;onn,M;t'; : ' '..on Agency
..'-? *,Lk:w ?: •.'-'. -
'• ':\'c3t Jackson [•cii'.-.-.v!, 12thFloor
ii. 60604-3i)90
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
SOUTH ESCAMBIA AND SANTA ROSA COUNTIES, FLORIDA
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
This Draft EIS addresses proposed wastewater facilities for South
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida. Numerous wastewater
management alternatives have been evaluated with particular attention
to water quality in the area's surface and groundwater resources
and the impacts of projected population growth on the sensitive
natural and human resources of the area.
Comments and inquiries should be forwarded to:
Robert C. Cooper
Project Officer, NEPA Compliance Section
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
404 881-3776
Approved by:
s^V
fyts^c/ 3,7
larlj^s R. Jefci^r Date ^7 f '/
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables ill
List of Figures v
Executive Summary 1
I. Purpose and Need for Action
A. Purpose of the EIS 1-1
B. Background and Issues 1-1
C. 201 Facilities Plan Summary 1-4
II. Alternatives Development and Evaluation
A. Introduction II-l
B. Wastewater Flow Projections II-l
1. Sewer Service Areas II-l
2. Land Use and Development Compatibility I1-2
3. Population II-7
4. Wastewater Flow Projections 11-10
5. Effluent Limitations 11-10
C. Identification and Development of Wastewater Management 11-13
Alternatives
1. Wastewater Collection Systems 11-13
2. Wastewater Treatment Systems 11-14
3. Wastewater Disposal Systems 11-16
4. Sludge Treatment and Disposal Systems 11-20
5. On-Site and Small Community Systems 11-24
6. Nonstructural Controls 11-28
D. Wastewater Management Alternatives 11-34
1. Pensacola/Escambia County 11-34
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula 11-40
E. Evaluation of Wastewater Management Alternatives 11-47
1. Main Street 11-48
2. Avondale 11-51
3. Warrington 11-51
4. Northwest Escambia County 11-52
5. Southwest Escambia County ' 11-54
6. Scenic Hills 11-56
7. Gulf Breeze 11-58
8. Pensacola Beach 11-58
9. Navarre Beach 11-63
10. Gulf Breeze Peninsula 11-63
F. Final Screening of Alternatives 11-71
1. Escambia County 11-72
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula 11-72
III. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and
Mitigative Measures
A. Introduction . III-l
B. Existing Natural Environment III-l
1. Freshwater Resources III-l
2. Estuarine Resources III-4
3. Marine Resources III-6
4. Groundwater Resources III-9
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
Page
5. Terrestrial Systems 111-10
6. Sensitive Areas III-ll
7. Physiography 111-12
8. Air Resources 111-14
C. Existing Manmade Environment II1-15
1. Land Use 111-15
2. Development Controls 111-17
3. Community Services and Facilities II1-25
4. Economic Profile 111-29
5. Historic and Archeological Resources 111-32
6. - Wastewater Facilities 111-33
D. Description of Environmental Concerns and Mitigation 111-38
Associated with Alternatives
1. Land Use and Population 111-39
2. Noise 111-39
3. Odors 111-41
4. Air Quality 111-43
5. Geology and Topography 111-44
6. Soils 111-45
7. Groundwater 111-46
8. Terrestrial Ecosystems 111-47
9. Community Services and Facilities 111-48
10. Economic Resources 111-48
11. Historical and Archeological Resources 111-49
12. Public Health 111-49
E. Environmental Impacts Associated with Disposal 111-50
Alternatives
1. Estuarine Discharges 111-50
2. Land Disposal 111-51
3. Gulf Disposal . 111-51
F. Environmental Evaluation of Alternatives from Final 111-52
Screening
1. Escambia County 111-52
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula 111-53
G. Summary of Environmental Evaluation 111-54
IV. Selection and Description of the Preferred Alternative IV-1
V. EIS Coordination/Public Participation ° V-l
VI. List of Preparers VI-1
Appendix A - Water Quality Characteristics
Appendix B - Protected Species Lists
Appendix C - Soils Associations
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
II-l Carrying Capacity of Vacant Lands for Future On-Site II-9
Service.
11-2 Escarosa EIS - Wastewater Flow Projections 11-11
II-3 Effluent Limitations of Existing Wastewater Discharges. 11-12
II-4 Expected Quality of Treated Water from Land Treatment 11-20
Processes
II-5 Comparison of Design Features for Land Treatment 11-21
Processes
II-6 Comparison of Site Characteristics For Land Treatment 11-22
Processes
II-7 Types of Sludge Processing 11-23
II-8 Descriptions of On-Site and Small Community Systems. 11-29
II-9 Advantages and Disadvantages of Various On-Site and 11-30
Small Community Systems.
11-10 Summary of Alternatives. 11-38
11-11 Summary of Alternatives. 11-45
11-12 Main Street Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital and 11-49
Operating Costs and Present Worths (Thousands of
Dollars)
11-13 Avondale Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital, Operating 11-51
Costsand Present Worths (Thousands of Dollars)
11-14 Warrington Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital, Operating 11-53
Costs and Present Worths (Thousands of Dollars).
11-15 Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital, Operating 11-55
Costs and Present Worths (Thousands of Dollars)
11-16 Scenic Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital, 11-57
Operating Costs and Present Worths (Thousands of
Dollars).
11-17 Expanded Gulf Breeze Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital, 11-59
Operating Costs and Present Worth (Thousands of Dollars)
11-18 New Gulf Breeze Peninsula Wastewater Treatment Plant 11-60
Capital, Operating Costs and Present Worths (Thousands
of Dollars).
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES, Continued
Table Page
11-19 Pensacola Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital and 11-62
Operating Costs and Present Worth (Thousands of Dollars)
11-20 Navarre Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital, 11-64
Operating Costs and Present Worths (Thousands of
Dollars).
11-21 Santa Rosa Shores Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital, 11-66
Operating Costs and Present Worths (Thousands of
Dollars).
11-22 Gulf Isles Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital, Operating 11-67
Costs and Present Worths (Thousands of Dollars).
11-23 Wastewater Conveyance Facilities for Escambia County 11-69
Capital and Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars)
11-24 Wastewater Conveyance Facilities for Santa Rosa County 11-70
Capital and Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars)
III-l Land Management Mechanisms in the EIS Study Area. II1-19
III-2 Projected Water Demand by Service Area in the Escarosa 111-28
Study Area in Millions of Gallons per Day (mgd)
III-3 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Capacities 111-34
Greater Than 378 m3/day (0.1 MGD)
III-4 Average Effluent Characteristics for Domestic Wastewater 111-35
Treatment Facilities Capacities Greater than 378 m3/day
(0.1 mgd)
III-5 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Capacities of 111-36
378 m3/day (0.1 mgd) Or Less
V-l Agencies Involved with the EIS V-2
V-2 Members of the EIS Review Committee V-3
Appendix
B-l Protected Animals Likely to be Found in the Study Area.
B-2 Protected Plants Known from the Study Area.
C-3 Principal Characteristics of Soils in the Study Area.
IV
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 EIS Study Area 1-2
II-l Escambia County Sewer Service Areas I1-3
II-2 Santa Rosa County Sewer Service Areas II-4
III-l Generic Decision Tree Utilized in the Alternatives 111-40
Evaluation Procedure
Appendix
C-l General Soils Associations
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTH ESCAMBIA AND SANTA ROSA COUNTIES, FLORIDA
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Draft (X)
Final ( )
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Type of Action: Administrative Action (X)
Legislative Summary ( )
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART A - NEED FOR ACTION
This EIS is being prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Region IV to address the provision of federal funds for the construc-
tion of wastewater management facilities in South Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties, Florida. This area is located in northwestern coastal Florida,
adjacent to Alabama. Pensacola is the metropolitan center of the study area,
which also includes the incorporated area of Gulf Breeze, the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula, and two barrier islands: Santa Rosa Island and Perdido Key.
Alternatives have been developed and evaluated for this EIS based on the
existing sewer service areas in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Projected
sewer service areas have also been developed based on projected population
densities and proximity to existing service areas. The existing Escambia
County service areas that will be considered as components of wastewater man-
agement systems are:
o Pensacola - The Pensacola service area is defined as the city of Pensa-
cola plus those populated peripheral zones with collection and transpor-
tation facilities that utilize the Pensacola Main Street treatment and
disposal facilities and those populated peripheral zones not currently
sewered. The area is served by the Main Street plant operating at 50
percent of capacity with discharge to Pensacola Bay.
-------
o Pen Haven - Since the inception of the EIS, this treatment facility has
been phased out, with flows from the service area conveyed to the Main
Street plant.
o Avondale - An existing sewered area adjacent to Pensacola currently
served by a secondary treatment facility discharging to the Bayou Marcus.
Wastewater flow to the plant equals its capacity. This facility is under
a consent decree to close by September 1, 1985. Some flows are already
being diverted to the Main Street plant.
o Harrington - An existing sewered area on the southwest fringe of
Pensacola served by a secondary treatment facility with flow at 70
percent of capacity. Plant effluent discharges to Bayou Chico Creek.
o Moreno Courts - An existing sewered area on the southwest fringe of
Pensacola just south of the Warrington service area. This area is served
by a secondary treatment facility operating at approximately 60 percent
of capacity with discharge to percolation ponds adjacent to Bayou Chico
Creek.
o Scenic Hills - A sewered area just north of Pensacola served by a
secondary treatment facility operating at 30 percent of capacity with
discharge to land application.
Sewer service areas in Santa Rosa County are less extensive than those in
Escambia County; however, wastewater management needs are projected to
increase significantly by the year 2000. Santa Rosa County service areas
that will be considered as components of wastewater management systems are:
o Gulf Breeze - The Gulf Breeze service area is the major service area of
the Santa Rosa County portion of the study area, located on the western
end of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula. This service area encompasses the
incorporated area of Gulf Breeze and the adjacent unincorporated area and
is served by the Gulf Breeze treatment plant operating at approximately
50 percent capacity and discharging to Santa Rosa Sound.
o Pensacola Beach - Pensacola Beach represents the only relatively densely
populated service area on Santa Rosa Island. This area is served by a
secondary treatment plant currently operating at capacity and discharging
to Santa Rosa Sound. Although Pensacola Beach is located in Escambia
County, this service area is evaluated with the Santa Rosa County service
areas because of its location.
o Navarre Beach - The Navarre Beach service area is located in the eastern
portion of Santa Rosa Island and is served by a secondary treatment plant
discharging to Santa Rosa Sound.
o Santa Rosa Shores - The Santa Rosa Shores subdivision on the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula is served by a small-scale treatment plant with spray irriga-
tion to a local golf course.
In 1978, the local applicants completed preparation of a 201 Wastewater
Facilities Plan. The Plan proposed an extensive and costly regional system.
Two new regional plants were proposed, one in southwest Escambia County with
-------
discharge by outfall into the Gulf of Mexico and one in southern Santa Rosa
County with discharge by load application at Eglin Air Force Base. The plan
became controversial due to a high potential for growth in environmentally
sensitive areas. The most controversy centered on the barrier islands of
Perdido Key and Santa Rosa Island. The 201 Plan was based on the assumption
that extensive resort oriented growth would occur on these islands. This 201
Plan generated five central issues which are addressed in the EIS. These
issues are:
1. Concerns about the impacts of new development promoted by federally
supported wastewater facilities on environmentally sensitive coastal
areas, including wetlands, floodplains and two barrier islands
2. Inconsistencies in the population projections between the 201 Plan and
the approved 208 Plan
3. Concern over the construction and operation impacts of the 201 proposed
Gulf outfall for the developing southwestern portion of the study area
4. The viability of the 201 proposed land application site on the Eglin Air
Force Base to serve the Gulf Breeze peninsula and Santa Rosa Island
5. The protection of sensitive estuarine and recreational waters.
Because of the controversy surrounding the 201 Plan and potential impacts
to environmentally sensitive areas, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
decided to prepare an EIS with respect to wastewater management facilities to
serve South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Subsequently a Notice of
Intent to conduct the EIS was issued by the EPA Regional Administrator in May
of 1980.
PART B - DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Projected populations and wastewater flows were developed for the study
area. Feasible alternatives were then developed by combining wastewater
service configurations with treatment and disposal options. The remainder of
this section presents a description of the final set of alternatives for
wastewater management which were evaluated in the EIS.
1. Escambia County
Alternative 1
This alternative provides centralized wastewater service with a new
Southwest County treatment plant. This plant would have secondary treatment
with discharge by outfall to the Gulf of Mexico. This is the 201 Alternative
which includes the Avondale, Pen Haven, Warrington, Northwest, Perdido Key
and Southwest Escambia service areas with a combined flow of 7.7 mgd.
Alternative 2
This alternative provides centralized wastewater service with new treat-
ment plants for the Southwest County and Perdido Key areas. The Southwest
County treatment plant would have secondary treatment with discharge by land
-------
application. The capacity of this plant would be 0.54 mgd with 50 percent of
the area's population served. The Perdido Key treatment plant would have
secondary treatment with discharge by land application. Projected capacity
is 1.7 mgd with 100 percent of the population sewered. The Harrington, Avon-
dale and Moreno Courts treatment plants would be phased out with flows-
conveyed to the Main Street plant for treatment and disposal. Centralized
sewer service would be provided to the Northwest area with conveyance to the
Main Street plant for treatment and disposal.
Alternative 3
This alternative continues current wastewater management practices of use
of package plants and septic tanks in Southwest County, Perdido Key and North-
west County. The Warrington, Avondale and Moreno Courts treatment plants
would be phased out with flows conveyed to the Main Street plant for
treatment and disposal.
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula
Alternative 1
This is the 201 Plan Alternative. A new regional plant would be con-
structed on the eastern end of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula with disposal by
land application at the Eglin Air Force Base. Capacity of the plant would be
8.0 mgd with secondary treatment. The plant would treat flows from Gulf
Breeze, Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach.
Alternative 2
This alternative would convey flows from Pensacola Beach and Gulf Breeze
to the Main Street plant for treatment and disposal. Flows from Navarre
Beach would be treated at the existing treatment plant with land application.
Alternative 3
This alternative involves expansion of the Pensacola Beach plant to 2.4
mgd with the existing level of treatment and discharge point. Class 1 relia-
bility will be provided. The existing plant at Navarre Beach would remain at
its current capacity. The City of Gulf Breeze would continue treatment and
disposal at the existing location with expansion from 0.5 to 0.8 mgd. The
continued use of package plants and septic tanks is projected for the Gulf
Breeze Peninsula.
Alternative 4
This alternative conveys flows from Pensacola Beach and Gulf Breeze to
Pensacola Bay following treatment at Gulf Breeze. Flows from Navarre Beach
would be treated at the existing plant with discharge by land application.
PART C - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives described in Part B were evaluated in terms of cost,
operability, implementability, and environmental impact. A summary of the
evaluation is presented below:
-------
1. Cost
Escambia County:
Alternative 1 - $64.8 million
Alternative 2 - $25.3 million
Alternative 3 - $9.0 million
Santa Rosa County:
Alternative 1 - $36.9 million
Alternative 2 - $17.3 million
Alternative 3 - $7.4 million
Alterantive 4 - $10.8 million
2. Operability
Operability considerations do not eliminate any of the final alterna-
tives. If wastewater is conveyed to a regional facility rather than contin-
uing operation of several smaller treatment plants, both Operability and
reliability may be improved due to increased staff size and newness of the
facility. However, no significant long term problems have resulted from the
operation of the existing facilities.
3. Implementability
The Main Street treatment plant as well as the Avondale and Harrington
facilities are under the control of the Escambia County Utilities Authority.
Therefore, no implementation problems are involved with the diversion of
these flows to Main Street. The Moreno Courts treatment plant is under the
jurisdiction of the Pensacola Housing Authority but few implementation
problems are anticipated if the Authority chooses to participate in the
recommended action. Implementation of the Gulf outfall alternative will be
more difficult than other options due to the uncertainties associated with
siting and constructing the outfall. In the Santa Rosa area, the local
alternative is considered to be the most implementable because there would be
no need for coordination of facilities construction, expansion, or operation
with these other local authorities. The implementability of the 201
alternative is questionable due to the lack of a suitable site for land
disposal of the effluent.
4. Environmental Impacts
Based on the environmental analysis, extensive water quality problems
resulting from most existing discharges have not been documented. 'The
existing Avondale and Harrington treatment plants, however, are causing
problems now and will be eliminated under all the alternatives. Further,
data to assess fully the impacts of the Main Street plant on Pensacola Bay
are still being collected. The construction of new regionalized systems with
capacity for significant amounts of growth, could have the potential to
induce environmental impacts. The sensitive barrier island, wetland, and
estuarine environments would be subject to intensive developmental pressure.
The comprehensive land use and development controls which would be necessary
to protect environmental quality are not in place. The area most likely to
experience significant adverse environmental impacts is Perdido Key where
-------
Escambia County is projecting and encouraging a population increase from
3,432 to 36,710 over the next two decades.
PART D - DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
1. Escambia County
The conveyance of flows from the Harrington and Avondale service areas to
the Main Street plant is recommended. This option removes wastewater
discharges to Bayou Chico and Bayou Marcus Creek which will improve water
quality and meet the objectives of the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. Further, it is recommended that the Moreno Courts effluent also
be conveyed to Main Street given the elevated nitrogen levels observed in
percolation pond monitoring wells, proximity of percolation ponds to Jones
Swamp Creek-Bayou Chico, direction of groundwater flow toward the creek,
documented water quality problems in Bayou Chico and proximity of the Warring-
ton conveyance lines. Based on current flows and conveyances from the three
treatment plants recommended for action, the Main Street plant should have
sufficient capacity. This proposed action is not anticipated to exceed the
projected capacity of the Main Street plant and is not intended to lead to
such action. EPA funding will be made available for these water quality
improvement actions if within reach on the state priority list.
The. continuation of current wastewater management practices is recom-
mended for the Southwest County, Perdido Key and Northwest County areas. No
significant water quality or public health problems have been documented or
are projected in these areas assuming applicable permitting procedures are
followed. As the density of development increases, however, setback require-
ments and distances between percolation ponds will be more critical and these
factors should be emphasized by DER in their permitting process. The recom-
mended action avoids encouraging higher population densities which would
increase the stress on water quality, wetlands and the sensitive barrier
island environment. It is important to note that the assessment that current
practices are and should be adequate in the Southwest, Northwest and Perdido
Key areas, leading to the No Action decision, is based on 208 population
projections which are the basis for EPA decision making. Current wastewater
management practices might not be adequate for population levels greater than
projected by the 208 Plan.
2. Santa Rosa County
The continuation" of current wastewater managment practices is recommended
for Santa Rosa Island and the Gulf Breeze Peninsula. All discharges in this
area are currently meeting their effluent limits. No significant- water qual-
ity or public health problems have been documented which would justify the
construction of major new facilities. The provision of regional systems with
additional capacity could encourage growth and development of the sensitive
barrier island environment. Expansion of existing facilities at local
expense to accommodate growth is expected.
If future changes to effluent limits for Santa Rosa Sound require no
discharge or very stringent treatment levels that are not cost-effective to
meet at each small plant, conveyance of secondary effluent to Pensacola Bay
for discharge should be reconsidered. Should such a system be implemented in
the future, EPA should reassess the potential for significant stimulation of
development of sensitive areas in making grant participation decisions.
-------
CHAPTER I.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
-------
CHAPTER I - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
A. Purpose of the EIS
Concerns within the past decade for preservation of the integrity of the
environment led to the adoption of Public Law 91-190, the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Within this Act are the national environ-
mental policies and goals intended to mitigate mistakes of the past through
careful and coordinated planning efforts. As stated in the law the following
declaration was issued: "a national policy shall be established which will
encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment;
to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment
and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the
understanding of the ecological system and natural resources important to the
Nation..."
In striving to meet these above stated goals P.L. 91-190 stipulates:
"...include in every recommendation a 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 on the envir-
onmental impact of the proposed action; and adverse environmental effects
which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; and alternatives
to the proposed actions..." From this legislation arises the basic framework
for the use of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The purpose of this particular EIS is to inform the public of potential
impacts which may result from the proposed Federal action, and to enable
public participation in the decision making process. The EIS is intended to
resolve conflicts in the study area between wastewater disposal and the'
unique natural resources which exist in this area.
The EIS proposes to develop a preferred alternative for wastewater
facilities in the study area which will minimize environmental impacts
throughout the study area.
B. Background and Issues
This EIS is being prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region IV to address the provision of federal funds for the construc-
tion of wastewater management facilities in South Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties, Florida. This area is located in northwestern coastal Florida,
adjacent to Alabama. Pensacola is the metropolitan center of the study area,
which also includes the incorporated area of Gulf Breeze. This EIS was begun
in June-1980. Work proceeded smoothly through the completion of the Alterna-
tives Evaluation Report and Perdido Key Case Study by March 1982. Little
activity occurred during the following 18 months. Efforts to complete the
EIS resumed during October 1983, leading to action by the EPA Region IV Admin-
istrator in January 1984. Urbanization has occurred in recent years north-
east and northwest of Pensacola and along the coast, including the adjacent
barrier islands, Santa Rosa Island (Pensacola Beach) and Perdido Key. Large
portions of Southwest Escambia County are located in sensitive floodplains
and wetlands. The study area for this EIS includes the city of Pensacola and
the adjacent suburban areas, Southwest Escambia County, the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula, Santa Rosa Island, and the Florida portion of Perdido Key.
-------
SOUTH ESCAMBIA AND
SANTA ROSA COUNTIES E.I.S
Figure 1-1
EIS Study Area
• Existing Wastewater
Plants
SOUTHWEST.:- PENSACOLA
J .-•'• NAVALjy
TIO
GULF OF MEXICO
-------
Wastewater facilities planning studies were initiated in 1975 in
response to the projected population growth and wastewater management needs
of the Pensacola Region. Six governmental entities were involved in the
initial planning efforts:
o Escambia County, acting officially through its Commission
o Santa Rosa County, acting officially through its Commission
o City of Pensacola, acting officially through its Council
o City of Gulf Breeze, acting officially through its Council
o Santa Rosa Island Authority, acting officially through its Board of
Di rectors
o Santa Rosa County Beach Administration (later changed to the Navarre
Beach Advisory Council), acting officially through its Board of
Directors.
Through official enabling resolutions, the six governmental entities
formed a steering committee with responsibility for 201 planning policy
decisions and named the City of Pensacola as the lead agent for receiving and
disbursing federal grants. A consortium of five consultants was assembled to
prepare the 201 Facilities Plan. This consortium included:
o Consoer, Townsend & Associates (Escambia County)
o Baskerville-Donovan Engineers, Inc. (Santa Rosa County, City of
Gulf Breeze, and the Santa Rosa County Beach Administration)
o Flood & Associates, Inc. (City of Pensacola)
o Tom Justice & Associates (Santa Rosa Island Authority)
o Theta Analysis, Inc. (environmental consultants representing all
participants).
Actual wastewater facilities planning efforts were 'undertaken in early
1976, culminating in the completion of a Draft 201 Facilities Plan in April
1978.
The EIS was initiated in response to a number of issues raised by EPA
during review of the 201 Facilities Plan. A summary of these issues follows:
1. Impact of Federal Funding on Sensitive Coastal Areas—New policies
have been and are being established concerning development on barrier islands
and sensitive coastal areas, primarily floodplains and wetlands. Since
wastewater treatment systems act to support and in some cases initiate
development, they are important in the context of barrier island and coastal
development policy.
2. Population Projections—Discrepancies between population disaggre-
gations and projections in the 201 Facilities Plan and the 208 Areawide Water
1-3
-------
Quality Management Plan necessitated further review by EPA. Population
projections used in the 201 Facilities Plan for Southwest Escambia County and
the barrier islands were considered developmental in nature and did not ,
adequately reflect environmental concerns.
3. Viability of Septic Tanks and Percolation Ponds in Coastal
Areas—Further analysis was considered necessary by EPA to determine the
environmental acceptability of septic tanks and percolation ponds on barrier
islands and in adjacent coastal areas.
4. Gulf Outfall--A Gulf outfall was recommended for a new Southwest
Escambia Wastewater Treatment Plant proposed in the 201 Facilities Plan.
Before this alternative could be accepted, additional studies were considered
necessary to further evaluate the environmental impacts.
5. Land Application—Land application was recommended for a new South
Santa Rosa County Wastewater Treatment Plant proposed in the 201 Facilities
Plan. Further analysis was considered necessary to determine the avail-
abillity of suitable land application sites in this area before this alter-
native could be accepted.
C. 201 Facilities Plan Summary
The 201 Facilities Plan prepared for South Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties produced the following recommendations:
o Completion of construction of the Main Street (City of Pensacola)
Wastewater Treatment Plant with a design capacity of 20.0 mgd, ad-
vanced wastewater treatment, and disposal to Pensacola Bay. (This
work was completed in 1979.)
o Construction of a 11.3 mgd facility to serve Southwest Escambia
County, secondary treatment, and disposal via a Gulf outfall
o Construction of a 8.0 mgd facility to serve South Santa Rosa County,
secondary treatment, and disposal via low-rate landspreading
o Construction of required pumping stations and force mains to provide
service to the 201 planning area.
1-4
-------
CHAPTER II.
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
-------
CHAPTER II - ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
A. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a systematic development of all
reasonable wastewater management alternatives and to compare these alterna-
tives with the aim of identifying critical differences and selecting a prefer-1
red wastewater management alternative. Wastewater flow projections form the
basis for alternatives development and have been analyzed specifically for
this EIS. In addition, treatment, collection and disposal options have been
identified based on the existing environment and needs of the study area.
Finally, specific wastewater management alternatives have been developed
using the projected wastewater flow and identified options. Regional, Sub-
regional, and Local Alternatives have been developed separately for the
Escambia County and Santa Rosa County portions of the study area. No Federal
Action Alternatives have also been developed.
B. Wastewater Flow Projections
Wastewater flow projections are a key issue in any wastewater management
study because they affect the staging, siting and capacity of wastewater man-
agement facilities. Wastewater flows were developed specifically for this
EIS since population and development assumptions developed as part of the 208
Plan and incorporated into this EIS differed significantly from those used in
the 201 Facilities Plan. Wastewater flows are analyzed according to existing
and projected sewer service areas.
1. Sewer Service Areas
Alternatives have been developed and evaluated for this EIS based on the
existing sewer service areas in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Projected
sewer service areas have also been developed based on projected population
densities and proximity to existing service areas. The existing Escambia
County service areas that will be considered as components of wastewater man-
agement systems are:
o Pensacola - The Pensacola service area is defined as the city of Pensa-
cola plus those populated peripheral zones with collection and transpor-
tation facilities which utilize the Pensacola Main Street treatment and
disposal facilities and those populated peripheral zones not currently
sewered. The area is served-by the Main Street plant operating at 50
percent of capacity with discharge to Pensacola Bay.
o Pen Haven - Since the inception of the EIS, this treatment facility has
been phased out, with flows from the service area conveyed to the Main
Street plant.
o Avondale - An existing sewered area adjacent to Pensacola currently
served by a secondary treatment facility discharging to the Bayou Marcus.
Wastewater flow to the plant equals its capacity. This facility is under
a consent decree to close by September 1, 1985. Some flows are already
being diverted to the Main Street plant.
-------
o Harrington - An existing sewered area on the southwest fringe of
Pensacola served by a secondary treatment facility with flow at 70
percent of capacity. Plant effluent discharges to Bauou Marcus Creek.
o Moreno Courts - An existing sewered area on the southwest fringe of
Pensacola just south of the Harrington service area. This area is served
by a secondary treatment facility operating at approximately 60 percent
of capacity with discharge to percolation ponds adjacent to Bayou Marcus
Creek.
o Scenic Hills - A sewered area just north of Pensacola served by a
secondary treatment facility operating at 30 percent of capacity with
discharge to land application.
Figure II-l delineates the sewer service areas used for alternatives
development. The northwest and southwest areas are projected sewer service
areas, with Pen Haven, Avondale, Harrington, and Moreno Courts composing the
central area.
Sewer service areas in Santa Rosa County are less extensive than those in
Escambia County; however, wastewater management needs are projected to
increase significantly by the year 2000. Santa Rosa County service areas
that will be considered as components of wastewater management systems are:
0 Gulf Breeze - The Gulf Breeze service area is the major service area of
the Santa Rosa County portion of the study area, located on the western.
end of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula. This service area encompasses the
incorporated area of Gulf Breeze and the adjacent unincorporated area and
is served by the Gulf Breeze treatment plant operating at approximately
50 percent capacity and discharging to Santa Rosa Sound.
o Pensacola Beach - Pensacola Beach represents the only relatively densely
populated service area on Santa Rosa Island. This area is served by a
secondary treatment plant currently operating at capacity and discharging
to Santa Rosa Sound. Although Pensacola Beach is located in Escambia
County, this service area is evaluated with the Santa Rosa County service
areas because of its location.
o Navarre Beach - The Navarre Beach service area is located in the eastern
portion of Santa Rosa Island and is served by a secondary treatment plant
discharging to Santa Rosa Sound.
o Santa Rosa Shores - The Santa Rosa Shores subdivision on the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula is served by a small-scale treatment plant with spray irriga-
tion to a local golf course.
Figure II-2 delineates the sewer service areas in Santa Rosa County.
Navarre Beach and Santa Rosa Shores are included in the southeast service
area.
2. Land Use and Development Compatibility
An analysis of existing and future land use was conducted in relation to
several environmental parameters. This analysis provided an indication of
-------
,0\}UO
SOUTH ESCAMBIA AND
SANTA ROSA COUNTES EJ.S.
Figure II-l.
Escambia County
Sewer Service Areas
-------
SOUTH ESCAMBIA AND
SANTA ROSA COUNTIES E1S.
Figure II-2.
Santa Rosa County
Sewer Service Areas
SCALE IN MILES
m£
0 .5 1 2 3 4
-------
the extent of existing development in noncompatible areas (primarily flood-
plains and wetlands) and the ability of suitable areas to support projected
development. This analysis was further used to determine the areas suitable
for development with on-site wastewater management systems.
For this analysis, noncompatible land features, primarily floodplains and
wetlands, were mapped on clear plastic overlays using U.S. Geological Survey
topographic maps (1:24,000 scale) as base maps. Maps of the 100-year
floodplains were obtained from the National Flood Insurance Program of the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Wetlands were delineated
from land use maps obtained from the West Florida Regional Planning Council
in Pensacola. Lands having soils with severe limitations for development
because of excessive wetness, high water table, flooding, and/or steep slopes
were also delineated. Soils maps were obtained from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture soil survey reports for Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties (USDA
1960, 1980). Existing land use overlays were prepared from maps obtained
from the West Florida Regional Planning Council. These existing land use
overlays were then verified and updated from aerial photographs taken in
November 1979 and contained in the EPA Region IV Gulf Coastal Inventory
(EMSL-LV Project AMD 8028).
In order to facilitate graphic display of the above mentioned informa-
tion, the various data overlays were encoded in order to produce computer-
generated data maps. This exercise allowed greater flexibility and precision
in terms of data analysis and reproduction. In addition, accurate acreage
totals were derived from the various land use and environmental categories.
Identification of existing development in noncompatible areas is an
important consideration for wastewater facilities funding since several
federal regulations and policy directives preclude federal support or
subsidies in these areas. Executive Order 11990 (May 24, 1977) requires
special consideration of federally financed or assisted construction in
wetland areas. Executive Order 11988 (May 24, 1977) requires similar
consideration and protection of floodplains. EPA regulations implementing
the 201 Program and regulations implementing the NEPA also require that
impacts to sensitive areas be considered.
An analysis of computer-generated cross-tabulations indicates approx-
imately 6,384 developed acres in the Pensacola area are located within the
100-year floodplain, as delineated by the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development. An additional 501 developed acres are located in iden-
tified wetlands. The majority of these noncompatible developed areas are
located on the barrier islands (Santa Rosa Island and Perdido Key) and the
near-coastal areas of downtown. Additional flood hazard areas are adjacent
to Bayou Texar, Bayou Chico and Bayou Grande. These acreage figures do not
include government-owned or institutional lands such as golf courses,
military facilities and areas included in the Gulf Islands National Seashore.
A computer-generated, cross-tabulation of vacant areas, flood hazard
areas and soils with severe limitations provides an indication of vacant
areas suitable for development with on-site septic systems and sewers.
Vacant areas not located in flood hazard areas or in areas with severely
limited soils are considered suitable for development with septic tanks.
(Severely limited soils were mapped from U.S. Soil Conservation Service soil
II-5
-------
maps and include areas of severe slope, seasonally high water table, or other
limitations for on-site wastewater disposal). Vacant areas not located in
flood hazard areas but located in areas with severely limited soils are
considered suitable for development with sewers. Wetlands were automatically
excluded from consideration for development because vacant land and wetlands
were mapped on the same overlay and were, therefore, mutually exclusive.
A total of approximately 45,234 acres in the study area is classified as
vacant land suitable for development. Of this total, approximately 25,398
acres (56 percent) are suitable for on-site wastewater'disposal, based on
soils analysis. The majority of this vacant, developable acreage is located
in western and southwestern Escambia -County and the Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
Disaggregation of these acreage figures by centroid and a correlation with
existing sewer service areas indicate where future development can use
on-site wastewater disposal systems and where additional sewers and possibly
expanded treatment plants may be needed.
This analysis of areas suitable for future development illustrates the
necessity of development controls. Through zoning, development can be
directed into the most suitable areas: low-density, residential uses could
be zoned in areas suitable for on-site septic tanks, while higher density
uses could be zoned.in areas where sewers are available. Most vacant land in
the study area is currently unzoned.
The overlay analysis described above was used to provide an estimate of
population that could potentially use on-site systems in the year 2000, since
sewer service may be necessary where on-site service is not feasible. All
alternatives proposed have sufficient capacity so that projected populations
will have either sewer service or available land that is suitable for on-site
systems.
The following process provides an estimate of future population growth
that can be served by on-site systems on presently vacant land. Population
served by existing sewers, and related information were determined for each
centroid within each service area. Data computations, in sequence, consisted
of:
Total population for each centroid in a service area
Percent of developed area in a service area
Percent of area in a centroid which is served by sewers
Permanent population served by sewers
Percent of population served by sewers
Tourist population served by sewers
Total population served by sewers.
Subsequently, year 2000 populations in the service area were estimated by
multiplying total year 2000 populations by the percentage of populated areas
in each service area.
II-6
-------
The percentage of each centroid area in a service area was estimated and
applied to the centroid acreages that are suitable for on-site systems. The
sum of these gave the acreage available for on-site systems in each service
area. The additional (future) population that can be served by on-site
systems on presently vacant land results from the following calculation:
Acreage available x 4 houses per acre x people per household (based on
1980 census) x 0.8 (factor to allow for future commercial growth on
vacant land) = carrying capacity in service area for future on-site use.
In many areas, population growth will exceed available land suitable for
on-site disposal. Sufficient sewer service has been estimated for such areas
in order to preclude this. Table II-l presents the level of increased
populations in service areas between 1980 and 2000 and lists the additional
populations that can use on-site systems by service area. The bases for
population projections are discussed below.
3. Population
Since EPA population projections are given on a county basis, a method of
disaggregating the EPA projections into smaller planning or service areas was
required. For this EIS, a methodology was developed based on the population
disaggregations contained in the 208 Plan. The 208 population figures tend
to show future growth in those areas that are most capable of supporting new
growth. Locations that contain sensitive environmental areas or which pose
constraints to construction (high water table, wetlands) were considered less
suitable for growth. The general effect of this decision was to allocate
future growth toward the northern upland portions of the counties away from
the marginal lands found adjacent to the ocean and estuarine shorelines.
The disaggregation process used by the 208 program was used by this EIS,
since it incorporates elements which reflect federal policies concerning
development of floodplain and wetland areas. This disaggregation process
will tend to underestimate population in coastal centroids only if land use
planning is not instigated. Otherwise, this system represents a more judi-
cious development pattern. In contrast, the population figures used in the
201 Plan did rrot account for locally planned development but extrapolated
heavy development trends in the coastal area reflecting current trends on the
barrier islands. In fact, however, growth is continuing on the barrier
islands and in the near coastal areas. Local land use controls intended to
control growth in coastal areas will still allow a population increase on
Perdido Key from 3,432 to 36,710. This causes an inconsistency in actual
development trends and the trends proposed by the 208 Plan for the area,
which has been approved by EPA. As a result of the 208 Plan approval,
funding that would induce development contrary to that delineated by the 208
Plan (which attempts to consider the location of floodplains, wetlands and
other vulnerable or sensitive areas) would not be supported.
Continuing growth must be anticipated in coastal areas for secondary/vaca-
tion residences as the aesthetic values attract new seasonal residents to the
area. The wastewater treatment needs of this population segment are less
than the needs of permanent residents. Reduced total wastewater flows result
from seasonal use patterns and reduced daily flows since tourists do not use
II-7
-------
as much water as permanent residents. Seasonal development may therefore
require less capital intensive wastewater treatment facilis. Reduced total
wastewater flows result from seasonal use patterns and reduced daily flows
since tourists do not use as much water as permanent residents. Seasonal
development may therefore require less capital intensive wastewater treatment
facilities than areas dominated by permanent populations. Seasonal popula-
tion figures for the study area were disaggregated only for the year 2000.
Seasonal population figures were derived from the 1996 seasonal population
projections contained in the 201 Facilities Plan.
Reduced environmental impacts are not certain, however, unless reasonable
management practices are implemented at the local level. While the 208 and
EIS population figures show growth in compatible, attractive locations, this
is an assumption based on a willingness to protect critical environmental
areas. It may be necessary to draft and enforce local regulations which
promote wise use of natural resources in order to preserve the amenities
along the coastal area. Failure to do so may allow indiscriminate growth in
noncompatible locations, thereby increasing populations in areas where low
populations are predicted. This possibility could result in the construction
of facilities in sparsely populated areas where growth fails to materialize
as anticipated and could also result in a lack of adequate facilities in
marginal, fragile locations.
Once the EPA population projections were disaggregated into the centroids
delineated in the 208 Plan, the centroid figures were adjusted to correspond
to the sewer service areas delineated in the 201 Facilities Plan. The
percentage of the populated centroid area included in the 201 Plan service
area was determined using a population centroid map as an overlay on the
sewer service area map. A uniform density of population was assumed for each
populated centroid area in order to arrive at the population in the 201 Plan
service area. Then the percentage of the populated 201 Plan service area
that has existing sewers was determined. This was used to arrive at the
existing collection system service population. Seasonal (tourist) population
that is presently served was assumed to be the same percentage of the total
population as the year-round residents in each centroid. The total peak
population presently served is the sum of the served year-round population
plus the served seasonal population.
For purposes of determining future service capacities, additional popula-
tion data computations were required. It is recognized by U.S. EPA that
seasonal populations generate wastewater at a lower per capita rate than
permanent populations. Consequently, a population equivalent factor of 0.8
was applied to seasonal populations for the later purpose of determining
wastewater flows.
To determine future levels of served and unserved populations, the follow-
ing assumptions were applied with certain exceptions. Year 2000 served
populations are based on the assumptions that:
o All existing served population will continue to be served
o Fifty percent of the existing, unserved population will be connected
to sewers (based on existing trends)
o Fifty percent of the population growth will be connected to. sewers.
II-8
-------
Table 11-1. Carrying Capacity of Vacant Lands for Future On-Site Service.
Id
Service Area
Main Street
Harrington
Pen Haven
Avonda le
Scenic Hills
Gulf Breeze
Pensacola Beach
Southwest Area
Northwest Area
Navarre Beach
Navarre
Centrold 53
Gulf Isles
Santa Rosa Shores
Gulf Br. Peninsula -
undesignated
Midway
1980
Served
Population
70,475
5,497
3,746
6,446
1,489
2,768
11,658
-0-
74
1,719 .
-0-
-0-
889
896
-0-
..A —
1980
• Unserved
Population
67,445
17,962
3,121
12,034
9,405
6,460
-0-
6,775
19,063
-0-
2,156
922
553
-0-
328
1,310
Total
1980
Population
137,920
23,459
6,867
18,480
10,894
9,228
11,658
6,775
19,137
1,719
2,156
922
1,442
896
328
1,310
Total
2000
Population
176,631
26,064
9,294
24,535
14,905
12,421
15,930
11,090
26,072
2,612
2,387
1,461
2,581
1,560
355
2,387
Additional
Population
(4-3)
38,711
2,605
2,427
6,055
4,011
3,193
4,272
4,315
6,935
893
231
539
1,139
664
27
1,077
Additional Population
That Can be Served
on Vacant Land
35,813
811
279
14,328
1,977
3,068
*
18,569
22,320
*
19,246
5,491
**
*
**
**
* Proposed for 100? service by utilities
**Exceeds column 5
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
-------
Several exceptions are made to the above assumptions. In the case of
Harrington, the present strategy envisions a relatively high level of sewer
service. In this situation, future served population was projected at a
higher level. For the Pen Haven service area the above formula does not
provide sufficient sewerage based on available, suitable soils for on-site
disposal; therefore, sewer service was increased for this area. On Santa Rosa
Island and Gulf Breeze Peninsula, the Pensacola Beach, Navarre Beach, and
Santa Rosa Shores service areas are slated for 100 percent service in the
future. The Gulf Islands National Seashore, on the other hand, has no exist-
ing or projected sewer service areas.
More detailed information concerning the methodologies used for popula-
tion disaggregation and figures depicting the centroid locations and corres-
ponding populations can be found in the Alternatives Evaluation Task Report.
4. Wastewater Flow Projections
In order to evaluate the individual wastewater management alternatives,
wastewater flow projections were developed for each service area. Flow
projections for the year 2000 are based on the total residential, commercial
and industrial flows as well as infiltration/inflow into the systems.
Residential flows were developed by using the year 2000 equivalent peak
residential population (seasonal and permanent residents) and assuming a
wastewater generation rate of 80 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Seasonal
population projections were converted to permanent population by multiplying
the seasonal figures by 0.8. This factor was based on the relative differ-
ences in wastewater generation between seasonal and permanent populations.
Commercial flows for the year 2000 are the sum of commercial flows for
1980 and 9 gpcd allowed for the population growth that occurs between 1980
and 2000.
Future industrial growth is projected only for the Main Street facility.
Future industrial flow is represented by the existing industrial flow plus a
factor of 10 percent of the residential flow growth allowed for new industry.
Infiltration/Inflow projections are based on existing I/I, 30 percent
corrective measures for existing I/I and additional I/I for future systems.
In the case of the existing Main Street plant service area, a lower I/I
correction factor was used because the City of Pensacola has recently
completed a sewer rehabilitation program. Table 11-2 presents wastewater
flow projections.
5. Effluent Limitations
An important element of analyzing the feasibility and impacts of various
wastewater management alternatives is an evaluation of wasteload allocations
or effluent limitations. The allowable pollutant loads that can be discharg-
ed from a wastewater facility are termed effluent limitations. The regula-
tory program responsible for setting effluent limitations is the NPDES pro-
gram. The State of Florida establishes effluent limitations but has not been
delegated authority to issue NPDES permits. Table II-3 presents the Florida
DER effluent limitations for the major wastewater discharges in the study area.
11-10
-------
Table II-2. Escarosa EIS - Wastewater Flow Projections (All flows in million gallons per day)
Service Areas
Main Street
Scenic Hills
Avondale
Pen Haven
Warrington
Southwest Escambia Area
Northwest Escambia Area
Pensacola Beach
Gulf Breeze
Navarre Beach
Navarre
Cent ro id 53
Ft.Pickens & St. Park
Santa Rosa Shores
Gulf Isles
Midway
Gulf Breeze Peninsula
Undesignated
*Adjusted to account for
2000 Pop. 2000 less 1980 Total
Equivalent Pop. Equiv. Wastewater Residential
Served Served Flow Flows
120,793
8,097
15,386
7,429
20,226
5,196
12,874
13,660
7,405
2,298
1,523
0
0
1,543
1,662
1,348
281
the influence
51,788
6,619
8,966
3,698
14,735
5,196
12,800
-3,810
4,719
811
1,523
0
0
656
815
1,348
281
16.37
0.9
1.882
1.016
2.943
0.541
1.338
2.031*
0.797
0.252
0.159
0
0
0.169
0.181
0.140
0.028
9.66
0.648
1.23
.594
1.62
0.416
1.03
1.09
0.592
0.183
0.122
0
0
0.123
0.133
0.108
0.022
Commercial Flows Industrial Flows
kxist.
Major Add'l.
0.56 1.09
0.073
0.138
0.067
0.60 0.182
0.047
0.116
0.123
0.067
0.020
0.014
0
0
0.014
0.015
0.012
0.002
Exist.
Total Major
1.65 0.19
0.073 -
0.138 -
0.067 -
0. 782 -
0.047 -
0.116 -
-0.123 -
0.067 -
0.020 -
0.014 -
0
0
0.014 -
0.015 -
0.012 -
0.002 -
Add'l. Total
0.41 0.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Exist.
Major
3.68
0.08
0.38
0.30
0.32
-
-
0.246
0.067
0.037
0
-
-
0.022
0.021
0
0
(I/I)
Add' 1 .
0.78
0.099
0.134
0.055
0.221
0.078
0.192
0.057
0.071
0.012
0.023
0
0
0.010
0.012
0.020
0.004
Total
4.46
0.179
0.514
0.355
0.541
0.078
0.192
0.303
0.138
0.049
0.023
0
0
0.032
0.033
0.020
0.004
of day visitors
Flow Projections Footnotes
Column 3 = Column 4+7+10+13
Column 4 = 80 gpcd x Column 1
Column 6=9 gpcd x Column 1
Column 7 = Column 5 + Column 6
Column 9 = 10% x Column 2 x 80 gpcd
Column 10 = Column 8 + Column 9
Column 11 = Use 25 gpcd x 1980 population equivalent for Pensacola Beach, Gulf Breeze,
Column 12 = 15 gpcd x Column 2
Column 13 = Column 11 + Column 12
Navarre Beach, Santa Rosa Shores and Gulf Isles.
-------
Table II-3. Effluent Limitations of Existing Wastewater Discharges..
NPDES
State
BODs SS
Capacity (Ibs/ (Ibs/
Facility (mgd) (mg/1) day) (mg/1) day)
Main Street 20.0 30 2250 30 2250
Avondale 1.0 24 - 24
Harrington 2.0 10 166 10 166
Gulf Breeze 0.5 30 224 30 224
Pensacola BeachS 1.2 20 200 20 200
Navarre Beach 0.5 30 31 30 21
BOD5
Capacity (Ibs/
(mgd) (mg/1) day)
20.0
0.9
1.4
1.75
2.02
0.5
1.2
0.9
_ ,
20
10
10
10
15
10
5
1334
150
117
150
167
62
100
37.5
SS TN TP Phenol
(Ibs/ (Ibs/ (Ibs/ (Ibs/
(mg/1) day) (mg/1) day) (mq/1) dav) (mq/1) dav)
16
10
10
10
15
10
5
1334 - 1000 - 168 0.05 8.3
121
117 7 821 6 82
150 7 751 6 75 - -
167 5 841 5 84
62 - - 6 - - -
100 ------
37.5 9 67.5 5 37.5
iTKN rather than TN
2This flow only allowable after Pen Haven discharge removed
3Fecal coliform limitation of 200/100 ml
-------
EISs are based on an important assumption: Effluent limitations ade-
quately protect the uses assigned to a specific water body. Therefore, the
development and evaluation of alternatives is based to a large extent on the
availability and adequacy of effluent limitations. The State is responsible
for establishing effluent limitations that adequately protect uses of waters
of the U.S. and the EIS is dependent on this practice.
C. Identification and Development of Wastewater Management Alternatives
1. Wastewater Collection Systems
Three types of systems can be used for the collection of wastewater from
residential and commercial customers: gravity systems, pressure systems, and
vacuum systems.
The gravity sewage collection system is the most common type of collec-
tion system presently found in the United States. It consists generally of
only manholes and collection lines. Exceptions to this are where gravity
sewers are prohibitive physically, economically or ecologically; under these
circumstances pump stations are employed. The gravity system depends on
gravity to transport wastewater from one location to another. Pipes must be
laid in trenches with a continuous slope sufficient to maintain flow velocity
at 2 to 5 feet per second, in order to avoid settling of solids on the pipe
bottom. Pipes may be cast iron, clay, concrete, or asbestos cement and range
in size from 8 inches to greater than 12 feet in diameter.
Advantages and disadvantages associated with gravity collection systems
are as follows:
Advantages:
o Pumping may not be necessary
o Low operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
Disadvantages:
o High construction costs
o Deep excavation may be necessary
o Pump stations may be necessary in hilly or flat areas (high
construction and operation/maintenance (O&M) costs)
o High infiltration and inflow (I/I).
A pressure sewer system operates in the same manner as a water distribu-
tion system. The major difference is that a water system has only one source
and many outlets and a pressurized sewer has many sources and only one
outlet.
Pressure systems may be used to pump wastewater from house drains or,sep-
tic tanks to a treatment site, main sewer line, or a disposal field. Waste-
water pumps may be installed on existing septic tanks, or they may be in-
stalled in separate, small pumping stations. Pipe sizes for pressure systems
are fairly small; 1-1/4 to 6 inches in diameter is common.
11-13
-------
Pressure sewer systems have a number of advantages and disadvantages
compared to .conventional gravity sewer systems.
Advantages:
o Lower collection system construction costs
o Elimination of infiltration and inflow
Disadvantages:
o Higher waste concentrations
o Presence of hydrogen sulfide odors at a wastewater treatment plant
o Higher O&M costs particularly for pumps and leak detection
o Greater use of energy.
The vacuum system, like the pressure system, does not depend upon down-
ward sloping pipes for wastewater movement. Energy is provided by a central
vacuum source which draws wastewater from a large group of individual houses.
As with the pressure system, the vacuum system requires small-diameter pipes.
The advantages and disadvantages of vacuum sewers are similar to those of
pressure sewers.
Advantages:
o Lower collection system construction costs
o Less infiltration and inflow
o Reduced water consumption if vacuum toilets are utilized
Disadvantages:
o Component reliability - high O&M costs
o Insufficient prototypes and field testing
o Greater use of energy.
The pressure and vacuum sewer systems can be a viable alternative in
small communities and areas having high groundwater, hilly terrain, or severe
rocky conditions because of the shallow depths required for the collection
lines. They may carry wastewater directly to a small wastewater treatment
plant or they may discharge to a larger gravity system.
2. Wastewater Treatment Systems
Specific levels of wastewater treatment selected for use at a municipal
or regional treatment plant are largely dependent upon state and federal re-
quirements and the type of wastewater disposal alternative being considered.
The levels of wastewater treatment are:
o Primary treatment
o Secondary treatment
o Advanced secondary treatment
o Advanced wastewater treatment (AWT).
11-14
-------
The objective of primary wastewater treatment is to remove settleable and
floating materials in wastewaters. This is usually accomplished by some form
of settling tank following a trash rack (or bar screen) and a grit chamber.
Primary treatment will typically remove 60 percent of the suspended solids
and 35 percent of the five-day BOD in untreated wastewater. Primary treat-
ment itself will not provide enough treatment to satisfy state and federal
requirements. However, primary treatment is almost always the first step in
a wastewater treatment plant that provides additional forms of treatment.
The objective of secondary treatment is to remove soluble materials.
Most often, secondary treatment is equated with treatment processes that pro-
mote decomposition of organic matter by bacteria and other microorganisms.
The combination of primary and secondary treatment normally gives 90 percent
removal of both suspended solids and dissolved organic matter (technically re-
ferred to as biochemical oxygen demand - BOD). Nitrogen and phosphorus com-
pounds are not removed in a secondary treatment plant that is operating near
or above its capacity. Ninety percent removals of both suspended solids and
five-day BOD are the State of Florida's minimum allowable treatment require-
nents.
Advanced secondary treatment has come to be defined as secondary treat-
ment plus additional filtration and nitrification treatment processes. Fil-
tration media usually consist of various sizes of sand which remove suspended
and soluble materials such as metals and complex organic compounds. Nitrifi-
cation refers to the conversion of ammonia to nitrite and nitrate. Nitrifica-
tion is most effectively accomplished by certain forms of bacteria in the
presence of large amounts of oxygen.
s
Advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) is required when stringent water qual-
ity standards are applied to the receiving waters. AWT is defined by the
State of Florida as the series of treatment processes required to produce a
wastewater effluent with not more than five mg/1 of suspended solids, five
mg/1 of five-day BOD, three mg/1 of total nitrogen and one mg/1 of total phos-
phorous. In addition to secondary and advanced secondary treatment, AWT
often involves processes for the removal of nitrogen, phosphorus and/or addi-
tional organic compounds not otherwise removed from wastewaters.
Nitrogen, in its many forms, plays a fundamental role in the aquatic
environment. Excessive discharges of nitrogenous materials to natural water-
ways, however, can cause ecological imbalances in the natural environment.
Advanced treatment processes for removing nitrogen include biological nitrifi-
cation - denitrification, ammonia stripping, ion exchange, and breakpoint
chlorination. These processes convert the nitrogen forms in wastewater to
nitrogen gas which can be released to the atmosphere. As the atmosphere con-
sists of nearly 80 percent nitrogen, no air pollution problems will result.
Excess phosphorus discharges have also been shown to be a factor in the
disruption of ecological balances in water. Phosphorus removal is achieved
by adding chemicals such as alum, lime, or ferric chloride which cause solids
in the wastewater to coagulate or clump together to settle out faster. This
process is quite flexible; many variations are possible. In addition, this
process provides removal of BOD, suspended solids, heavy metals, bacteria and
viruses.
11-15
-------
Some soluble organics are resistant to biological breakdown and thus will
not be removed by secondary treatment. Activated carbon will attract and
accumulate these substances. Carbon adsorption is a frequently used process
which utilizes these properties.
3. Wastewater Disposal Systems
a. Surface Water Discharge
The most common type of wastewater disposal is direct discharge to sur-
face waters. Following secondary, advanced secondary, or advance'd wastewater
treatment, wastewater effluent is discharged to lakes, rivers, estuaries or
oceans. Here, nature takes over and continues the treatment of wastewater.
The assimilative capacity of receiving waters has to be assessed before
any wastewater discharges are made. The assimilative capacity is the maximum
capacity a water body has for self-purification. Other factors which must be
taken into account are the uses to which the waters are subjected, the
desires of the people, and the total economic, recreational and aesthetic
value of the receiving water system.
Discharges to estuaries and marine waters predominate in the EIS study
area. An estuary is the zone where a river contacts marine waters. The
water is neither completely saline nor fresh. Physical and chemical pro-
cesses occurring within an estuary are more complex than those occurring in a
river or stream. The rising and falling of tides in an estuary can cause
significant lateral mixing in the lower reaches of a river. Also, rising
tides often reverse the direction of flow in estuaries. In many estuaries,
tidal action actually increases the amount of mixing and dispersion of the
waste along its length. Estuarine waters are normally vertically stratified
during periods of low freshwater flows. Salt water is heavier than fresh
water and creates a layer system in estuaries where fresh water rests on top
of the salt water.
The chemistry of saline waters is more complex and differs greatly from
the chemistry of fresh waters. The presence of large amounts of sodium and
chloride ions makes the electrostatic forces between positively and nega-
tively charged particles significant. Processes such as coagulation, which
takes place in a water treatment plant, have been documented in estuarine
waters.
The disposal of wastewater into marine waters is normally carried out
through the use of a submerged outfall which extends some distance from
shore. At the end of the outfall is the diffuser section which is normally
placed perpendicular to the prevailing ocean currents. However, currents are
often not predominant in any one direction. In this circumstance, a Y-shaped
or V-shaped diffuser is generally used.
At the end of the outfall, wastewater is released and mixes with the sur-
rounding seawater. This mixture is called the sewage field and, being light-
er than seawater, rises to the surface, drifting with the ocean currents. At
the same time that the field is rising, it is diffusing outward into the
surrounding waters.
11-16
-------
The initial dilution from an efficient diffuser is so great that the re-
duction in dissolved oxygen at the outfall is usually insignificant. Bac-
terial, floatable material, nutrient and toxicity requirements will govern
design and location of most outfalls. As for bacterial numbers, 90 percent
decay rate can usually be obtained in two to six hours after release to
marine waters. This variation in time is dependent upon temperature,
salinity and pH.
Movement of marine waters is dictated by predominating currents and wind-
wave action. The chemistry of marine waters is dominated by the presence of
sodium and chloride ions as discussed previously for estuaries.
b. Wetlands Discharge
The term wetlands is a broad classification covering areas known as
marshes, bogs, wet meadows, peatlands, and swamps. They generally consist of
low-lying, usually level, saturated land, partially or intermittently covered
with standing water. In wetland discharge systems, wastewater is renovated
by the soil, plants, and microorganisms as it moves through the soil profile.
However, renovation action is usually more dependent on microbial and plant
activity than on soil chemistry.
Two categories of wetlands are available for municipal wastewater dis-
posal in the study area: (1) artificial wetlands and (2) existing wetlands.
Artificial wetlands may consist of a combination of wetland meadows, marshes,
or swamps, some of which may be man-made to treat wastewater in association
with the underlying soil profile. Existing wetlands, often composed of
hydrologically intermediate areas with plants adapted to periodic inundation
by water, are an emerging opportunity in wastewater management. Managed
wetlands, utilizing cypress domes, water hyacinths or other nutrient removing
crops, can facilitate high levels of wastewater treatment.
The expected quality of renovated wastewater that can be achieved from
disposal to an artificial wetland is presented below:
BOD = 7.0 m9/l
Suspended Solids = 6.0 m9/l
Total Nitrogen as N = 1.1 m9/l
Total Phosphorous as P = 3.8 m9/l
These values represent secondary effluent discharged to lagoons planted with
water hyacinths. (Process Desi.gn Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater, U.S. EPA, October 1977).
c. Well Injection
Wastewater can be added to the water table or to deep geological forma-
tions as a method of wastewater disposal. Most often, use of this disposal
method involves forced injection of wastewaters into subsurface areas. To
11-17
-------
determine the feasibility of an injection facility, the following factors
must be considered:
o Water table or aquifer characteristics such as size, water
pressures, permeability, clogging potential, water quality and
movement of ground- water in all direction
o Amount of wastewater that can be injected continuously into an
injection well
o Proximity of water supply formations
o Degree of wastewater treatment required prior to injection
o Energy costs and the proportion of energy costs to total costs
o Other disposal costs and environmental impacts.
The feasibilty of injecting wastewaters into wells is highly dependent on
local geological characteristics.
Shallow-well injection appears to be more attractive in coastal areas
where the underlying water table and aquifer have experienced salinity in-
trusion rather than in areas that have not experienced salinity intrusion.
Conceivably, any wastewater injected into the low chloride water table could
be reused for lawn irrigation or other non-potable water usages. However,
because most of the wells in the EIS study area draw water from the
relatively shallow sandand-gravel aquifer, public and private water supplies
could become contaminated as a result of shallow-well injection.
Deep-well injection has received favorable review within Florida,
because it removes the potential for surface water pollution. Its use is con-
sidered to be in the experimental stage. In addition, concerns about the
effects of wastewater injected into deep-wells in the Floridian Aquifer are
evident, particularly if wastewater is injected into non-saline geologic for-
mations. Despite these concerns, deep-well injection is being used at the
present time for industrial wastes just north of the EIS study area.
Monsanto, for example, discharges to a non-potable portion of the Lower
Florida Aquifer at a well depth of 1400 feet.
The Florida DER has established an Underground Injection Program to in-
vestigate the feasibility of deep-well injection and to supervise its opera-
tion in Florida. Conversations with this group have revealed that for deep-
well injection to be considered, DER requires that two basic criteria be met:
1. A saline formation must be identified that has a concentration of
dissolved solids greater than 10,000 mg/1. Preferably two confining
geological layers should be present between this saline zone and a
freshwater zone.
2. Reasonable transmissivities (rate of flow into aquifer) must be
available.
d. Land Application
Pre-treated wastewater can be applied to the land in order to provide
further treatment or to eliminate a direct discharge of effluent to surface
waters. Treatment is provided by natural processes as the applied wastewater
moves through the natural filter provided by the soil, plants, and related
11-18
-------
ecosystem. Part of the wastewater is lost by evapotranspiration, while the
remainder returns to the hydrologic cycle through runoff or via the ground-
water system.
The three principal types of land application of wastewater are slow
rate irrigation, rapid infiltration, and overland flow. All three methods re-
quire the prior treatment of wastewater to levels adequate to protect public
health, preclude odor problems, and prevent clogging of soils or the distribu-
tion system due to excessive solids. A level of secondary treatment is suffi-
cient for these purposes. Each technique has its advantages and disadvan-
tages; selection of the most suitable technique for a given area is dependent
upon site-specific conditions and objectives. Tables II-4, II-5 and II-6
provide a summary of the expected quality of the renovated wastewater for
these techniques, a comparison of the typical design features and major site
characteristics.
Slow rate irrigation is the predominant land application technique in
use today. It involves the application of pre-treated wastewater onto the
land either by sprinkler or by surface flooding in order to support plant
growth. The wastewater is "lost" to plant uptake, to the air by evapotrans-
piration, and to the groundwater by percolation. Wastewater which percolates
through the soil matrix is renovated by physical, chemical, and biological
processes. A well-drained soil is preferred. In general, soils ranging from
clays to sandy loams are suitable.
Slow rate irrigation is generally capable of producing the best results
of the land treatment systems. Organics are substantially reduced by biologi-
cal oxidation within the top few inches of the soil. Suspended solids and
fecal coliform are filtered as the wastewater passes through the soil matrix.
Nitrogen is primarily removed by vegetative uptake; phosphorous is removed
from solution by fixation processes in the soil and by vegetative uptake.
'In rapid infiltration systems, pre-treated wastewater is applied to the
land at high rates (4 to 84 inches per week) by flooding in surface basins or
high-rate sprinkling. Renovation of the applied wastewater occurs as it
passes through the soil matrix. The renovated wastewater can be used for (1)
groundwater recharge, (2) natural treatment followed by recovery of the per-
colated wastewater through pumped withdrawal or collection by underdrains,
(3) natural treatment with renovated waters moving vertically and laterally
through the soil and recharging nearby surface waters, or (4) temporary stor-
age in the aquifer. Subsoil and aquifer characteristics must be known in
order to control the wastewater after it infiltrates the surface and perco-
lates through the soil matrix. Recharge should not be attempted without
specific knowledge of the movement of the water in the soil system and the
groundwater aquifer.
Overland flow involves the application of pre-treated wastewater over
the upper reaches of sloped terraces. The applied wastewater is allowed to
flow across the vegetative surface to runoff collection ditches. As the
wastewater flows down the slope in a thin sheet, it is renovated by physical,
chemical, and biological processes. The collected wastewater may either be
discharged to surface waters or recycled back to the land.
11-19
-------
Table II-4. Expected Quality of Treated Water from Land Treatment Processes3
(mg/1 unless otherwise noted)
Slow rateb
Rapid
Infiltrations
Overland flowd
Constituent Average
BOD <2
Suspended solids <1
Ammonia nitrogen as N <0.5
Total nitrogen as N 3e
Total phosphorus as P <0.1
Upper
Range
<5
<5
<2
<8e
<0.3
Average
5
2
0.5
10
1
Upper
Range
<10
<5
<2
<20
<5
Upper
Average Range
10 <15
10 <20
<4 <8
5f <10f
4 <6
Fecal coliforms,
No./lOO ml
10
<200
200
<2,000
a. Quality expected with loading rates at the mid to low end of the range
shown in Table II-5.
b. Percolation of primary or secondary effluent through 1.5 m (5 ft.) of
unsaturated soil.
c. Percolation of primary or secondary effluent through 4.5 m (15 ft.) of
unsaturated soil; phosphorus and fecal coliform removals increase with
distance.
d. Treating comminuted, screened wastewater using a slope length of 30-36 m
(100-120 ft.).
e. Concentration depends on loading rate and crop.
f. Higher values expected when operating through a moderately cold winter or
when using secondary effluent at high rates.
Source: Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater,
USEPA, October 1977.
4. Sludge Treatment and Disposal Systems
Sludge is composed of any floatable or settleable materials collected in
the sedimentation processes at wastewater treatment plants. Satisfactory
treatment and disposal of sludges can be technologically complex and costly.
Six different types of sludge processing are available. They include
concentration, digestion, conditioning, dewatering and drying, incineration
and wet oxidation, and disposal. Table II-7 contains a description of each
type of process along with a list of commonly used processes within that
category.
An important consideration in the analysis of sludge treatment and dis-
posal methods in the EIS study area will be the availability and capacity of
existing facilities. The Main Street incinerator, for example, is currently
slated to handle processed sludges from other treatment plants in Escambia
County.
11-20
-------
Table 11-5. Comparison of Design Features for Land Treatment Processes
Principal Processes
Feature
Slow Rate
Rapid Infiltration
Overland Flow
Application Techniques
Annual application rate, m
Field area required, hab
Typical weekly loading
rate, cm
Minimum preapplication
treatment provided in
the United States
Disposition of
applied wastewater
Need for vegetation
Sprinkler or surface3
0.5-6
23-280
1.3-10
Primary
sedimentation**
Evapotransp i rat i on
and percolation
Required
Usual Iy surface
6-125
3-23
10-240
Primary
sedimentation6
Mainly percolated
percolation
Optional
Sprinkler or surface
3-20
6.5-44
6-40 c
Grit removal and
comminution6
Surface runoff and
evapotranspI rat ion
with some percolation
Required
a. Includes rIdge-and-furrow and border strip.
b. Field area in hectares not including buffer area, roads, or ditches for 3,785 m3/d (1 Mgal/d) flow.
c. Range includes raw wastewater to secondary effluent, higher rates for higher level of preapplIcation
treatment
d. With restricted public access; crops not for direct human consumption.
e. With restricted public access.
Source: Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October, 1977.
-------
Table 11-6. Comparison of Site Characteristics For Land Treatment Processes
Principal Processes
Feature
Slow Rate
Rapid Infiltration
Overland Flow
Grade
Soil
permeabiIity
Depth to
ground water
Less than 20% on
cultivated land;
less than 40? on
noncultivated land
Moderately slow to
Moderately rapid
0.6-1 m (minimum)'3
Not critical; excessive
grades require much
earthwork
Rapid (sands, sandy loams)
1 m during flood cycle
1.5-3 m during drying cycle
Finish slopes 2-8#a
Slow (clays, si Its,
and soils with
impermeable barriers)
Not critical0
ro
ro
Climatic restrictions
Storage often needed for
cold weather and during
heavy precipitation
None (possibly modify
operation in cold weather)
Storage usually needed
for cold weather
a. Steeper grades might be feasible at reduced hydraulic loadings.
b. Underdrains can be used to maintain this level at sites with high ground water table.
c. Impact on groundwater should be considered for more permeable soils.
Source: Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October, 1977.
-------
Table 11-7. Types of Sludge Processing
Type Description
Names of Processes
i
N>
CO
Concentration
Digestion
Condition ing
Dewatering and
drying
Incineration and
wet oxidation
Sludge disposal
Separating water and
sludge to reduce sludge
voIume
Processes that reduce odors,
numbers of pathogens and
sludge volume
Preparing a sludge for
dewatering processes
Separating water and
sludge to reduce sludge
voIume
Reducing organic content
and volume of sludge at
elevated temperatures
Permanent transfer of
sludge to land or water
Air flotation or thickening
Gravity thickening
Aerobic digestion
Anaerobic digestion
Sludge lagoons
Chemical addition
Elutriation
Freezing (experimental)
Heat treatment
Centrifugation
Drying beds
Pressure filtration
Vacuum filtration on belt
filter press
Vibration
Incineration
Wet oxidation
Dump!ng
Fertilizer, soil conditioner
or composting
Lagoons
Landfill
Spreading of liquid sludge
to soil, stream, lake or
coastal waters
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., 1981.
-------
5. On-Site and Small Community Systems
Projected low development densities and environmental limitations will
preclude the installation of sewers in many areas within the study area. In
addition, certain areas may be effectively served with alternative on-site
systems and package plants without the need for expensive capital improve-
ments or treatment plant construction. Therefore, it is important to
consider septic tanks and package plants as viable alternatives in certain
locations.
An analysis of soils in the study area indicates several areas where
on-site soil absorption systems are feasible. Package plants serving higher
density areas and disposing of effluent via subsurface or surface land dis-
posal, or surface water discharge may also be considered feasible in certain
areas. These alternatives are discussed in the following sections.
a. On-Site Systems
On-site wastewater management systems if properly installed and
maintained, can be effective options to centralized systems. Soil type and
depth to groundwater are the most important determinants. Several types of
on-site systems exist and their use depends on soil type, slope and other
hydrologic or geomorphologic characteristics. Some systems such as mounds
can be used in areas typically considered unacceptable for conventional
on-site systems, such as areas characterized by impermeable soils.
Two different soils characteristics can limit the use of on-site systems.
If soils are relatively impermeable, the effluent is not able to flow pro-
perly through the drainfield leading to system failure through backing up in
the system or ponding on the surface. In either case, the effluent does not
achieve the degree of treatment desired. Soils that are extremely permeable,
such as sand with little clay or silt, also do not provide a sufficient
degree of treatment under some conditions. Water quality concerns associated
with highly permeable soils are usually addressed by set-backs from surface
waters and the degree of allowable development density. Public health
concerns under such conditions are important primarily where private wells
used for potable water are proximal. Under other conditions, the potential
concerns associated with highly permeable soils are not as important.
In either case presented, water quality or public health problems can be
prevented if proper management techniques are followed. These techniques
include siting, selection of the best system for the given conditions, proper
installation, and periodic maintenance. If these procedures are followed,
on-site systems can be effectively utilized in most areas. On Perdido Key
and Santa Rosa Island some private wells are still used for drinking water.
As development occurs near these wells, however, the Northwest Florida Water
Management District policy requires property owners to connect to the public
water supply. This practice should prevent potential public health problems
associated with on-site or small community systems.
Little documentation of any adverse effects of on-site and small
community systems in the area has been compiled. Reports from authorities
representing the City of Gulf Breeze have indicated that septic tanks are
suspected to cause local flooding during periods of intense rainfall. At
11-24
-------
these times the potential for public health problems increases as septic tank
effluent flows to the surface. This problem, however, has not been
documented by water quality data collected during such conditions.
The capital expenditures associated with septic tanks and other on-site
systems are considerably lower than centralized systems. For a barrier
island which is exposed to storms and potential flooding, on-site systems may
be an optimal solution to centralized systems since storm damage to a central
facility and its interceptors would not only interrupt service drastically
but would also require large repair or replacement costs. If properly con-
structed and monitored, on-site systems have lower capital expenditures and
result in diffused rather than point sources of effluent. Properly con-
structed systems would provide renovation of effluent in the soil profile
prior to discharging to surface waters. Further, groundwater quality would
not be detrimentally impacted if densities, construction, and inspections
were adequate.
Generally, in order to achieve satisfactory renovation of wastewater
effluent, deep, permeable and fine texture soils are required. Soils of this
nature exist in many of those areas in Escambia County where low density
residential development is anticipated. The region in the vicinity of
Saufley Field has large parcels of deep, well-drained, moderately permeable
Norfolk and Lakeland loamy sand that have only minor limitations regarding
their use for on-site soil absorption systems. Conventional soil absorption
systems have a high potential for use in these areas, even after considera-
tion of local subsurface disposal regulations. Where soils are found only
moderately permeable, the size of the drainfield could be increased
accordingly to avoid hydraulical overloading.
Several areas in Southwest Escambia County that are still undeveloped
also appear to have a high potential for soil absorption system use. Many
areas along Gulf Beach Highway consist of Lakeland fine sands that have essen-
tially no limitations for soil absorption systems except for rapid permeabil-
ity, whereby a small amount of fine textured fill may be utilized to lower
the percolation rates. Many private residences on Perdido Key use on-site
systems without any reported evidence of problems.
The Gulf Breeze Peninsula is also suited in many areas for soil absorp-
tion systems as indicated by the general soils map (see Appendix C) which
shows large patterns of the moderately well-drained and excessively-drained
Ortega and Kureb soils on the Peninsula. Proper design of an on-site system
should easily overcome potential problems of a fluctuating water table in the
Ortego series. In summary, much of the high and undeveloped area along U.S.
Highway 98 on the Gulf Breeze Peninsula has a high potential for the use of
on-site treatment and disposal systems.
b. Small Community Systems
Some areas in South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties are potentially
ideal locations for package treatment plant systems coupled with either a
land surface or subsurface disposal technique. Package treatment units
capable of treating flows from 500 to as much as 200,000 gallons per day are
available from commercial sources. These units can produce a quality efflu-
ent which can be additionally treated and disposed of by subsurface sand
filters or chlorinated and discharged to surface waters.
11-25
-------
Package treatment plants are a potential treatment alternative for
environmentally sensitive areas, more densely populated rural areas or as a
corrective measure for alleviating problems stemming from improper
performance of individual on-site systems. This alternative is best suited
for those areas with deep, well-drained and developed soils. Where these
conditions do not naturally occur, the site could be modified and an absorp-
tion system constructed above ground in a mound configuration. Small commun-
ity systems are currently used on Santa Rosa Island, Gulf Breeze Peninsula
and in Southwest Escambia County, including Perdido Key.
As previously indicated, limited data have been collected on the impacts
of on-site and small community systems on groundwater quality. Further,
little is documented about near-surface groundwater movement in coastal areas
of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. This was recognized early in the EIS
and emphasis was placed on collecting such data. This data collection acti-
vity, however, was outside the scope of the EIS. The West Florida Regional
Planning Council has also been interested in documenting the influence of
on-site and small community wastewater systems on groundwater quality. As a
result, a study was undertaken during 1983 to assess the small-community
wastewater systems on Perdido Key. This study was conducted by the Northwest
Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD) for the West Florida Regional
Planning Council as part of the 208 Continuing Planning Program. This
assessment is the best information available in the study area to assess the
influences of" small community systems on groundwater and adjacent surface
waters. The following discussion is taken from the conclusions of the study
report.
The discharge of package sewage treatment plant efflu-
ent by means of percolation ponds and drainfields was
investigated in an effort to establish minimum setback
distances from coastal surface water bodies. Specifical-
ly, the investigation was concerned with defining: 1)
the principal receiving body for package sewer treatment
plant (PSTP) effluent; 2) the distribution of plants with-
in the project area and the pertinent physical parameters
for each plant including soil type, effluent discharge
rate and proximity to surface water; 3) establishing mini-
mum setback distances from surface water bodies; and 4)
establishing minimum spacings between facilities to pre-
vent hydraulic interference and overlapping of contaminant
plumes. Below is a brief summary of the investigation:
1. In southern Okaloosa, Santa Rosa and Escambia
Counties, the surficial zone of the sand-and-gravel
aquifer is the primary receiving body for package
plant effluent. The effluent discharge does not
impact the lower main producing zone of the
sand-and-gravel aquifer significantly owing to the
presence of low permeability confining beds below the
surficial zone.
11-26
-------
2. Current regulations recommend minimum surface water
setback distances and maximum water-table elevations
for discharge facilities. In many instances, parti-
cularly Perdido Key, these recommendations have not
been followed.
3. Eighteen of the 22 active or proposed facilities are
in southern Escambia County. Thirteen facilities are
on Perdido Key, a coastal barrier island bounded by
Old River, sound and the Gulf of Mexico. At least
four additional facilities are proposed for Perdido
Key.
4. Water quality data from facility monitoring wells
indicate that contaminants from the discharge
facilities are entering the groundwater. Nitrate
nitrogen ranges from 0.51 to 10.53 mg/1 with a mean
value of 3.36 mg/1 at facilities for which data was
available.
5. To determine the effects of PSTP discharge on the
surficial zone of the sand-and-gravel aquifer, a
digital computer model was used to simulate changes
in groundwater flow and the migration of contami-
nants. A fine grid model was used to examine in
detail the flow and mass transfer characteristics in
the immediate vicinity of a single facility and a
coarse grid model to examine the composite effects of
several facilities. Because rainfall recharge
attenuates the contaminant plume by dilution, two
different recharge conditions were simulated. These
included long-term normal recharge and a short-term
low recharge condition.
6. As expected, the shoreline concentration of contam-
inants is sensitive to the facility discharge rate
and the setback distance. On the basis of the
computer model simulations, appropriate setback
distances were identified for a practical range of
discharge rates that would reduce the shoreline
nutrient concentrations to less than 1 mg/1. At
higher discharge rates, the minimum setback distance
cannot be realized on Perdido Key because of the
limited width of the land mass. In these areas, the
only feasible means of reducing the facility impacts
on surface water is to limit the effluent discharge
rate for future facilities.
7. The mounding effect in the vicinity of the discharge
facilities has been shown to be on the order of two
to four feet at discharge rates of from 0.024 to
0.058 Mgal/d. The minimal mounding is attributable
to the high permeability of the soils and their
11-27
-------
characteristically rapid drainage rate.
8. Under low rainfall recharge conditions, shoreline
concentrations tend to increase as a result of
decreased dilution. Further increasing the setback
distances will aid in alleviating this problem.
9. On Perdido Key, some overlapping of contaminant
plumes from individual facilities has occurred. With
an increasing number of facilities, consideration
should be given to establishing a minimum spacing
between facilities. As with the surface water
setback line, recommended spacings have been listed
based on the facility discharge.
For this study, a nutrient value of 1 mg/1 was arbitrarily chosen to
assess the impacts of percolation pond discharges on nearby surface waters.
The value is not meant to indicate that 1 mg/1 of nitrogen or phosphorus will
or will not cause water quality problems but is a benchmark for comparative
purposes. The study should prove valuable to the regulatory agencies
responsible for wastewater management.
Tables II-8 and II-9 describe various on-site and small community systems
and 1-i.st their general advantages and disadvantages.
6. Nonstructural Controls
Effective and functional nonstructural control mechanisms for wastewater
management can be an important adjunct to the structural collection and
treatment facilities. Nonstructural considerations include a variety of
regulatory, administrative, and educational procedures that can be used to
supplement structural water quality control techniques. While the applica-
tion of nonstructural methods may provide a means of lessening the magnitude
of structural facilities required for attainment and maintenance of water
quality standards, the construction of wastewater treatment plants or indi-
vidual on-site systems remains a major technique for effectively controlling
water pollution. Therefore, the "principal focus of nonstructural alterna-
tives' is their use in supporting and supplementing structural alternatives
and solutions.
a. Water Conservation
The benefits of water conservation and flow reduction techniques can
include reducing treatment operating costs, relieving overloaded wastewater
treatment and collection facilities, reducing the capacity required for new
facilities or eliminating the need for expansion of existing facilities.
Several nonstructural measures are available and can be used within the
study area for reducing water use and wastewater flow. They include:
o Plumbing code implementation and enforcement
o Educational programs
o Water and wastewater pricing.
11-28
-------
Table II-8. Descriptions of On-Site and Small Community Systems.
System Description
Septic Tank
Filter
Extended Aeration
Lagoon
Rotating Biodisk
Soil Absorption
Sand Mound
Irrigation
Lagoon
Evapotranspiration Bed
An enclosed sedimentation tank through which untreated sewage flows slow enough to
permit settling of solids. Sludge and scum are reduced in volume and volatility as
they sit in the bottom of the tank.
A surface of sand usually 24 to 30 inches thick. Pretreated wastewater is applied
intermittently and collected by drains at the bottom of the filter. Rates of waste-
water application can vary between 1 and 15 gallons per day per square foot. Some filter
systems incorporate recircitation of wastewater.- Rocks or other large solid
particles can be used also.
A biological treatment system utilizing high microorganism concentrations. Oxygen Is
supplied by aeration. Settling of solids follows aeration. Portions of the settled solids
are recycled to the treatment unit.
Ponds that are constructed to receive wastewater and allow biochemical wastewater
treatment. Lagoon systems normally consist of four or more ponds in series. Lagoons can
be mechanically aerated.
Settled wastewater Is contacted with a rotating disk that has a biological film.
and bacterial action result in treatment of wastewater.
Disposal Systems
Adsorption
Shallow excavated areas partially filled with coarse rock. Perforated piping is placed
over the rock to distribute the wastewater. These systems are usually entirely buried.
Loading rates depend upon soil characteristics. Ultimate discharge is to the groundwater
table. Two or more absorption fields can be operated in turn. A pump can be used to
apply the wastewater evenly across the field.
Elevated sand mound provided to treat wastewater in areas where soil absorption systems are
unsuitable. Wastewater is dosed onto the mound by a pump or siphon. Ultimate discharge
is to the groundwater table.
Soil is irrigated via spraying, ponding or overland flow. Ultimate disposal is to the
groundwater table or receiving stream. These systems are analagous to systems used at
large treatment plants.
One or more ponds constructed to receive wastewater. Ultimate disposal is via
evaporation and transpiration by plants or to the groundwater table.
Lined or unlined excavation partially filled with rock, distribution piping and sand. Pre-
treated wastewater is discharged and is forced to the ground surface. Evaporation and plant
transpiration take place at or near the soil surface. Lined excavations are used in areas
where groundwater and surface water contaminatoin are concerns.
-------
Table 11-9. Advantages and Disadvantages of Various On-SIte and Small Community Systems.
Treatment Systems
System
Septic Tank
Approximate
Cost (1977 dollars)
$600 per home p 1 us
$40-$60. each time
septage is pumped
Operation and
Mai ntenance
Inspection and pumping
every 1 to 8 years
Energy
Use
None
Rel iabil ity/
Implementabl 1 ity
Very reliable particularly with
periodic inspection and maintenance.
Approx. 50 percent removal of 5-day
BOD. Commonly used throughout the
U.S. and Florida. Disposal of septage
is important.
FiIter
Extended Aeration
i
OJ
o
Lagoon
Rotating Blodisk
SoiI Absorption
$5 to $15/sq. ft.
of surface area
plus $1/sq. ft./yr.
Pump or siphon may be
needed to dose filter or
recycle effluent. Top 2
to 4 inches of sand re-
quire periodic replacement.
F11ter may need to be
rested occasionally.
$1,500 to $2,500/
1,000 gal. for house-
hold unit, plus $60-
$120/yr. for labor,
pI us power costs (5-
10 KWH/day).
$0.30 to $0.50/1,000
gal Ions of waste-
water treated per
year.
Not given
Semi-skilled person
needed for frequent
Inspection and operation
Variable depending on
whether effluent is re-
circulated, chemicals are
added, plants are har-
vested, or ecological
communities within a pond
are control led.
Little maintenance
requirements
Disposal Systems
$1.15 to $1.50/sq.
ft. for construction.
$600 per home for
only pump and tank,
if pump is used.
Little. Periodic resting
of system prolongs life.
Pump maintenance is needed
If pump Is used.
Low, possibly
for pumping.
High, aeration
and pumping
PossIbIy for
pumping waste-
water to the
pond or If ponds
ponds are
aerated.
Low power
Low. Pumping may
be used to
spread effluent
evenly onto ab-
sorption field
and improve per-
formance.
Pretreatment is usually provided by
septic tanks. Effluent usually has
less than 10 mg/l of 5-day BOD and
SS. Filter sizes limit use to on-
slte and small community locations
because of land and labor requirements,
High seasonal groundwater table can
be a problem.
715 to 90 percent removal of 5-day
suspended solids and pathogens.
Poor maintenance can cause odors.
Disposal of sludge is Important.
Greater than 90 percent removal of
5-day BOO and suspended sol Ids
Is possible but unlikely. Land
requirements and potential odors
are limitations to usage. For
treatment, lagoons are sensitive
to climate conditions.
Susceptible to climate and damage unless
housed.
Restricted to areas with deep and moderately
to well-drained soils. Use during wet season
is further restricted. Additional treatment
takes place as effluent percolates through
the soiI.
-------
Table 11-9. Continued.
Treatment Systems
System
Approximate
Cost (1977 dollars)
Operation and
Maintenance
Energy
Use
Rel lability/
Implementabi 1 ity
Sand Mound
Irrigation
i
CO
Lagoons
EvapotranspI rat i on
Bed
$0.75 to $3.00/sq.
ft. of basal area for
construction of
mound and pumping
chamber. Approx.
cost is $2,000/home
instalI at ion.
Costs per unit volume
of treated effluent
are higher than for
larger, municipal
flows.
$0.30 to $0.50/1,000
gallons of wastewater
disposed.
Pump or siphon mainte-
tenance and periodic
rep Iacement of top two to
four inches of sand.
Variable depending on type
of irrigation system.
Variable
$1.00 to $1.50/sq. ft. Periodic removal of bed
of bed area for deposits
construction.
Moderate if pump
i s used.
Variable de-
pending on type
of irrigation
system.
Possible for
pumping waste-
water to the
pond.
Possibly for
pumping waste-
water to the bed.
Use is not as restricted as use of soil
absorption systems. Additional treatment takes
place. Principal application has been for single
homes and businesses. Size of a system is only
limited by site conditions.
Restricted to areas with deep and moderately
to well-drained soils. Use during wet season is
further restricted. Additional treatment takes
place as effluent percolates. Irrigation systems
are used by small communities more than individual
res idences.
Land requirements are the biggest limitation.
Odors and pests can be a problem particularly
if wastewater is not pretreated.
Particularly suitable in areas where soil perco-
lation is unsuitable and evapotranspiration rates
are high. Size of a system is limited only by site
conditions. Less suitable during rainy months.
-------
Flow reduction techniques, as listed above, can be expected to have the
greatest impact on growth areas due to the ease with which these measures can
be implemented in new construction.
Plumbing codes can be the most effective regulatory means of implementing
the use of flow reduction plumbing fixtures in all future developments and
wherever replacement fixtures are needed. The following are examples of
amendments to plumbing codes that might be considered for flow reduction
purposes.
o Tank-type toilets to be of a design that provides a maximum flush not to
exceed 3 1/2 gallons. This would reduce water flow from toilets by 30 to
50 percent.
o Water-saving shower heads to limit flow to a maximum of three and one
half gallons a minute. Presently, most showers have flow rates of six
gallons per minute.
o Water-saving faucets to limit flow to a maximum of three gallons a minute
with self-closing devices on faucets at commercial or industrial estab-
lishments.
o Installation of pressure-reducing valves on the incoming service to all
structures for all properties _when the incoming water pressure is
expected to exceed 60 pounds per square inch (psi). This valve should
provide adjustment of the pressure for the household service to within
the range of 50 to 60 psi.
o Floor drains should not be connected to the sanitary sewer system. When
floor drains are installed, they must be discharged to an approved storm
drain. All buildings erected with cellars or basements in areas known to
have a water table above the basement floor would be required to have
foundation drains around the outside of the building with a satisfactory
point of discharge other than to the sanitary sewer system.
Citizen education programs, if pursued aggressively, can have a benefi-
cial effect and can be approached in two stages. Public advertising alerts
the citizens to the issue. Water companies and/or municipalities can then
provide low cost water conservation .kits to interested citizenry.
Easy-to-install flow reduction devices for shower heads and toilet tanks are
presently available to water customers at low cost in a number of communities
throughout the United States.
A water and wastewater pricing technique that may be effective is increas-
ing block rates. Under this technique, water charges are kept at a uniform
rate per gallon until consumption reaches a certain level, when a higher
price rate is specified for consumption within the next level or block and so
on. Water use must be metered in order for an increasing block rate struc-
ture to be usable.
The effective implementation of water conservation in the study area dur-
ing the planning period is uncertain. In an area where water supplies appear
to be abundant and where water rates are not excessive, the motivation for
conservation is not great. Plumbing codes for new construction would appear
11-32
-------
to be the most promising technique.
Based on the uncertainties of success of water conservation, it has been
assumed that there would likely be no more than a 10 percent overall average
reduction in commercial and residential flows in the year 2000 under this
non-structural alternative. Because of the non-removable infiltration/in-
flow, 5 percent and 10 percent reductions in consumption would only result in
approximately a 3.7 and 7.2 percent reduction, respectively, in total
planning area wastewater flow. This would not have any effect on pipe dia-
meters. Treatment plant sizes would not be measurably decreased, since about
90 percent of the planning area flows will likely be treated at existing
plants, and various peak flow producing conditions could largely offset the
effects of conservation. As a result of year-round conditions, however,
operating costs would be reduced to reflect reduced flows.
b. Land Use and Development Controls
The EIS study area is a sensitive, coastal region. As the population
increases, there will be pressure to convert currently undeveloped land to an
assortment of uses such as residential, commercial, recreational, industrial,
and streets and highways. This development would generate increased storm
runoff, which may significantly degrade surface water quality depending on
the type and location of development. In addition, wastewater generated by
this new development must be assimilated by a limited land and water system.
Development controls are used to influence the type, pattern, and overall
density of development. They can also be used to limit or prohibit develop-
ment in areas which have been determined as unsuitable, such as floodplains
and wetlands. When coupled with a formal capital improvements plan, devel-
opment controls can be used to guide development to areas which can be
efficiently served by public utilities, thus avoiding untimely and costly
utilities expansion and potential environmental problems.
A large portion of the study area is located in jurisdictions which have
adopted zoning ordinances and other specific development controls. Pensa-
cola, the Santa Rosa Island Authority, and Gulf Breeze have adopted extensive
land use regulations and development controls. .Escambia County and Santa
Rosa County have also adopted limited controls applicable in certain areas.
In addition, the state has enacted several regulatory programs concerning
construction in the coastal area. However, it should be noted that the two
areas in the Escarosa study area with the greatest development potential,
Southwest Escambia County and the Gulf Breeze Peninsula, are not covered
under any zoning ordinance and are minimally affected by other development
controls. A zoning ordinance was adopted in July 1983 for Perdido Key and is
discussed in greater detail in Chapter III.
Environmentally sensitive areas such as floodplains and wetlands could be
avoided by zoning for low density residential use (minimum lot size: 5
acres) or agricultural use. Considering the availability of public
utilities, environmentally compatible areas could be zoned at higher
densities in order to make sewer extensions or package plants economically
feasible. In addition, areas suitable for on-site disposal systems could be
zoned for appropriate densities in order to utilize this wastewater treatment
11-33
-------
alternative and avoid uneconomical sewer extensions. Prepared in a
comprehensive manner, zoning in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties could
optimize the use of existing wastewater treatment facilities and the natural
assimilative capacity of certain areas while protecting environmentally
sensitive areas.
Alternative development techniques can also be encouraged through local
ordinances to permit development patterns that are more responsive to environ-
mental considerations. Cluster development and planned unit development are
two alternative development techniques that provide the flexibility necessary
to vary project density and protect environmentally sensitive land. Modifi-
cation of existing zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations or the adop-
tion of specific ordinances may be necessary to institute these alternative
development techniques. In the case of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, new
zoning ordinances can be prepared giving consideration to cluster development
and planned unit development.
With alternative development techniques, the entire development site
(usually several acres or more) is viewed as a complete unit, rather than on
a lot-by-lot basis. Overall project density may be established through zon-
ing; however, the developer is given the flexibility to cluster the homes or
mix a variety of uses and preserve other areas of the site as common, open
space. Depending on the specific content of the ordinance, the local govern-
ing authority may retain the right to designate unbuildable areas prior to
development. In this way, the developer is given a specific set of con-
straints prior to development (overall project density and unbuildable areas)
and the flexibility to adjust the site plan accordingly.
Alternative development patterns also directly affect the feasibility of
certain wastewater management techniques. The higher densities allowable
through clustering can be more efficiently served by. centralized collection
and treatment facilities than can traditional single-family subdivisions. In
addition, by clustering development, developers can set aside land for a
community package plant or septic tank system without having to lower the
total number of housing units.
D. Uastewater Management Alternatives
Wastewater management alternatives have been developed for South Escambia
and Santa Rosa Counties based on existing collection, treatment and disposal
facilities and projected needs. These alternatives involve varying levels of
treatment and disposal options, generally less regional in scope than the 201
Facilities Plan. Alternatives were developed separately for Escambia County
and Santa Rosa County due to the geographical and institutional barriers to
combined alternatives.
1. Pensacola/Escambla County
Four regional concepts for wastewater management were developed and eval-
uated for Pensacola/Escambla County, including the 201 Facilities Plan recom-
mendations. In addition, a local alternative with no expansion and a No
Federal Action scenario were developed and evaluated. These alternatives are
described in greater detail below.
11-34
-------
a. 201 Facilities Plan
The 201 Facilities Plan proposes the use of three wastewater treatment
facilities for the area:
1. The existing Main Street plant would serve the Pensacola franchise
area. It would discharge AWT level effluent to Pensacola Bay.
2. The existing Scenic Hills plant would serve the Scenic Hills area.
Secondary level effluent would be disposed of by land application.
3. A new, phased construction 11.3 mgd southwest plant, with secondary
level effluent disposed by a Gulf outfall, would receive wastewater
flow from all of southwestern Escambia County, Perdido Key, and the
present service areas of Avondale, Pen Haven and Warrington. The
existing facilities of the latter three communities would be
gradually phased out.
b. Regional Alternative I
The Main Street facility presently has the capacity to treat 20 mgd at an
AWT level. With a decrease in treatment level, the capacity of the facility
could be increased. Alternatively, with acquisition of adjacent land, the
facility could be expanded and continue treatment at an AWT level. Two facil-
ities are proposed under Regional Alternative I. These are:
1. Main Street facility expanded to serve Pensacola and all areas
except Scenic Hills with treatment/disposal options of
- Advanced wastewater treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Secondary treatment with discharge by Gulf outfall
2. Scenic Hills facility continuing to operate at secondary level of treat-
ment with disposal by land application.
c. Regional Alternative II
A variation of Regional Alternative I, this alternative will evaluate the
use of existing smaller treatment plants to treat the volume of wastewater
which cannot be handled at the Main Street plant without expansion. Priority
for use of existing facilities in this scheme will be established on the
basis of the following criteria:
o Physical condition of the facility •
o Quality of effluent in context of the environmental impact on the
receiving stream
o Proximity to service area needs
o Capacity.
Three facilities are proposed under Regional Alternative II. These are:
1. Main Street facility operating at capacity to serve all areas except
Scenic Hills with treatment/disposal options of
- Advanced wastewater treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Secondary treatment with discharge by Gulf outfall
11-35
-------
2. Scenic Hills facility continuing to operate at secondary level of
treatment with disposal by land application
3. Avondale facility expanded to serve the remaining areas not served
by Main Street facility with treatment/disposal options of
- Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
- Advanced secondary treatment with surface water discharge
- Advanced secondary treatment with deep-well injection.
d. Regional Alternative III
This alternative is similar to Alternative I and II. It includes, how-
ever, a subregional treatment and disposal facility to serve Southwest
Escambia County and Perdido Key rather than conveyance facilities to the Main
Street facility for these areas. Thus the cost effectiveness of treatment
and disposal for the southwest area versus conveyance to the Main Street
facility is evaluated.
Three facilities are proposed under Regional Alternative III. These
are:
1. Main Street facility expanded to serve Pensacola and all areas
except Scenic Hills and southwest with treatment/disposal options
of
- Advanced wastewater treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Secondary treatment with discharge by Gulf outfall
2. Scenic Hills facility continuing to operate at secondary level of
treatment with disposal by land application
3. New southwest facility built to serve Southwest Escambia County
with treatment/disposal options of
- Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
- Advanced secondary treatment with discharge to Perdido Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment with discharge by deep-well
injection.
e. Local Alternative with No Expansion
Under this alternative the existing treatment facilities would not be
expanded and would resemble various elements of Regional Alternatives I or
II.
Four facilities are proposed under the Local Alternative. These are:
1. Main Street facility operating to capacity (20 mgd) to serve the
Pensacola franchise area and receive surplus flows from other areas
in the county, with treatment/disposal options of
- Advanced wastewater treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Secondary treatment with discharge by Gulf outfall
2. Scenic Hills facility continuing to operate at secondary level of
treatment with disposal by land application
11-36
-------
3. Avondale facility continuing to operate at capacity with
treatment/disposal options of
- Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
- Advanced secondary treatment with discharge to Perdido Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment with deep-well injection
4. Harrington facility continuing to operate at secondary level of
treatment with disposal by land application
5. On-site and small community systems continued for Southwest Escambia
County area.
f. No Action
The No Action Alternative is a scenario in which current wastewater
management practices would continue.
Until 1981, the wastewater management needs over most of the area were
provided by the City of Pensacola and the Escambia County Utility Department.
These two entities owned and operated multiple wastewater treatment plants
and collection systems. Although they were separate governmental units, they
cooperated in providing wastewater service with portions of the county contri-
buting flows to the city's treatment plants. In 1981, in order to further
their ability to serve the wastewater (and water) needs of the area, the city
and county formed the Escambia County Utilities Authority that is responsible
for all wastewater management needs in Escambia County, except Santa Rosa
Island, which has a separate Authority.
Based on this background, it is concluded that in the event of no federal
action, the wastewater needs of the area would be responsively served by the
new Authority. However, the lack of federal funds could reduce the
feasibility accomplishing needed capital improvements on existing facilities.
Under the No Action Alternative, the Main Street wastewater treatment
plant would be used to maximum capacity through increased service needs and
through closing of the Pen Haven, Avondale, Moreno Courts, and Warrington
treatment plants. In fact, flows from the Pen Haven plant (closed prior to
October 1, 1983) and a portion of the Avondale flows are already conveyed to
the Main Street plant. Moreno Courts discharges to percolation ponds; hence
they have removed their discharge to Bayou Chico. Wastewater service would
be extended to the northwest area of the study area with treatment at the
Main Street facility as development dictates. The Scenic Hills plant would
continue to operate, as in the case of the other management alternatives.
The southwest area will most likely be served through on-site systems and
small package plants funded by private developers. The Avondale and Warring-
ton plants cannot continue under existing conditions since Florida DER has
determined these discharges must be eliminated.
This scenario is essentially the same as Regional Alternative III except
for the method of serving the southwest area and the probable phasing in
constructing certain wastewater facilities.
Table 11-10 summarizes the treatment and disposal options associated with
each wastewater management alternative for Pensacola/Escambia County.
11-37
-------
Table 11-10. Summary of Alternatives.
Escambia County
Structural Alternative
Treatment Level/Disposal Location
GO
CO
1. 201 Facility Plan
a. Pensacola - Main Street WWTP
b. Scenic Hills - Scenic Hills WWTP
c. All other areas - Southwest WWTP
2. Regional Alternative I
a. Pensacola and all areas except Scenic Hills •
Expanded Main Street WWTP
b. Scenic Hills - Scenic Hills WWTP
3. Regional Alternative II
a. Pensacola and all areas except Scenic Hills •
Main Street WWTP to operational capacity
b. Scenic Hills - Scenic Hills WWTP
c. Avondale and areas not served by Main Street
and Scenic Hills - Avondale STP
AWT - Pensacola Bay
secondary - Land Application
secondary - Gulf Outfall
- AWT - Pensacola Bay
- advanced secondary - Pensacola Bay
- secondary - Gulf Outfall
- secondary - Land Application
- AWT - Pensacola Bay
- advanced secondary - Pensacola Bay
- secondary - Gulf Outfall
- secondary - Land Application
- secondary - Land Application
- advanced secondary - Perdido Bay discharge
- advanced secondary - Deep well injection
-------
Table 11-10. Continued
Escambia County
Structural Alternative
Treatment Level/Disposal Location
4. Regional Alternative III
a. Pensacola and all areas except Scenic Hills
and Southwest - Main Street WWTP
b. Scenic Hills - Scenic Hills WWTP
c. Southwest - New Southwest WWTP
•—t
i—i
-------
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula
Four regional concepts for wastewater management were also developed for
Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula, including the 201 Facilities Plan
recommendations. In addition, two subregional alternatives, a local alterna-
tive, and a No Federal Action scenario were developed and evaluated. These
alternatives are described in greater detail below.
a. 201 Facilities Plan
The 201 Facilities Plan for the Gulf Breeze Peninsula and Santa Rosa
Island has several major components:
1. Wastewater collection and conveyance from Gulf Breeze and Pensacola
Beach via a force main east along U. S, Highway 98 to the regional
treatment facility in South Santa Rosa County
2. Wasteflows from Santa Rosa Shores, Wood!awn Beach and Navarre Beach
would be connected via small force mains into the major force main
for conveyance to the regional facility
3. The regional facility would treat wastewater to the secondary level
with disposal of effluent by land application at a site adjacent to
Eglin Air Force Base on the peninsula (proposed site indicated in
the 201- Facilities Plan is not available).
b. Regional Alternative I
Regional Alternative I has three major components that vary from the con-
cept presented in the 201 Facilities Plan. It has been determined through
investigations during the EIS that land application from a regional facility
to a site on Eglin Air Force Base is not viable due to the unavailability of
land. Consequently, the following regional concept is proposed:
1. Conveyance of wastewater flows from Gulf Breeze, Pensacola Beach,
Santa Rosa Shores, Gulf Isles, and western Gulf Breeze Peninsula to
Main Street facility with treatment/disposal options of
Secondary treatment with discharge to Pensacola Bay
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Pensacola
Bay
Secondary treatment with Gulf outfall
2. Continuance of Navarre Beach facility to capacity with treatment/dis-
posal options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
3. Continuance of on-site and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
c. Regional Alternative II
Regional Alternative II will evaluate the treatment and discharge options
for a regional Gulf Breeze treatment plant and the existing Navarre Beach
11-40
-------
treatment plant while continuing the on-site and small community systems for
other areas. The following regional concept is proposed:
1. Conveyance of wastewater flows from Gulf Breeze, Pensacola Beach,
Santa Rosa Shores, Gulf Isles, and western Gulf Breeze Peninsula to
Gulf Breeze facility with treatment/disposal options of
Secondary treatment with land application
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with discharge to Pensacola Bay
Areas outside this regional system would be handled as in Regional
Alternative I:
2. Continuance of Navarre Beach facility to capacity with
treatment/disposal options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa
Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
3. Continuance of on-si.te and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
d. Regional Alternative III
Regional Alternative III will evaluate the treatment and discharge
options for a new regional eastern Gulf Breeze treatment plant and the
existing Navarre Beach treatment plant while continuing the on-site and small
community systems. The following regional concept is proposed:
1. Conveyance of wastewater flows from Gulf Breeze, Pensacola Beach,
Santa Rosa Shores, Gulf Isles, and western Gulf Breeze Peninsula to a
new Eastern Gulf Breeze facility with
Secondary treatment with new discharge to Pensacola Bay
Secondary treatment with land application
Areas outside this regional system would be handled as in Regional
Alternative I
2. Continuance of Navarre Beach facility to capacity with
treatment/disposal options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa
Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
3. Continuance of on-site and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
11-41
-------
e. Subregional Alternative I
Subregional Alternative I will combine Gulf Breeze and Pensacola Beach
into a single treatment facility. The remaining areas of the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula and Santa Rosa Island will be assumed to be too sparsely populated,
with population centers too far apart to warrant combination of facilities.
The following Subregional concept is proposed:
1. Conveyance of wastewater flows from Gulf Breeze and Pensacola Beach
to the Main Street facility with
Secondary treatment with land application
Advanced secondary treatment with discharge to Pensacola Bay
Secondary treatment with discharge to Pensacola Bay
Secondary treatment with Gulf outfall
2. Continuance of existing Santa Rosa Shores facility at secondary level
of treatment with disposal by land application
3. Continuance of existing Gulf Isles facility at secondary level of
treatment with discharge to percolation pond
4. Continuance of existing Navarre Beach facility with treatment/dis-
posal options of
- Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
- Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa
Sound
- Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
5. Continuance of on-site and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern and western Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
f. Subregional Alternative II
Subregional Alternative II will evaluate the treatment and discharge
options for an expanded Gulf Breeze WWTP and the existing Navarre Beach WWTP
while continuing the operation of small existing WWTPs and on-site systems.
The following Subregional concept is proposed:
1. Conveyance of wastewater flows from Gulf Breeze and Pensacola Beach
to the Gulf Breeze facility with treatment/disposal options of
- Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa
Sound
- Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound.
- Secondary treatment with discharge to Pensacola Bay.
Areas outside this Subregional service area would be handled as in
Subregional Alternative I.
2. Continuance of Navarre Beach facility to capacity with
treatment/disposal options of
- Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa
Sound
- Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
11-42
-------
- Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
3. Continuance of on-site and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
g. Local Alternative with No Expansion
Five facilities are proposed under this alternative. These are:
1. Continuance of Gulf Breeze facility at secondary level of treatment
with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
2. Continuance of Pensacola Beach facility with treatment/disposal
options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
3. Continuance of Santa Rosa Shores facility at secondary level of
treatment with disposal by land application
4. Continuance of Gulf Isles facility at secondary level of treatment
with discharge to percolation pond
5. Continuance of existing Navarre Beach facility with treatment/dis-
posal options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
6. Continuance of on-site and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern and western Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
h. No Action
The No Action Alternative is one in which current wastewater management
practices would continue. Wastewater service in Santa Rosa Island and the
Gulf Breeze Peninsula has been provided in several independent and
self-sufficient modes:
o Public institutions - City of Gulf Breeze, Santa Rosa Island
Authority (Pensacola Beach), and the Santa Rosa County Beach Admin-
istration (Navarre Beach)
o Private institutions - Gulf Isles and Santa Rosa Shores
o Individual on-site systems - most of the eastern Gulf Breeze
Peninsula.
Currently, independent of other planning efforts, the Santa Rosa Island
Authority is undertaking an engineering study for expansion of the Pensacola
Beach wastewater treatment plant in response to service needs in that
community.
11-43
-------
It is expected that in the absence of federal funding the current
practice of independently serving each local community would continue. This
scenario would essentially be the same as the Local Alternative. However,
without federal funding the existing treatment plant discharges into Santa
Rosa Sound would probably continue without change at Navarre Beach and'
possibly Pensacola Beach. This would require local expenditure of funds to
meet any increased FDER permit requirements.
Table 11-11 summarizes the treatment and disposal options associated with
each wastewater management alternative for Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze
Peninsula.
11-44
-------
Table 11-11. Summary of Alternatives.
Santa Rosa Island/GuIf Breeze Peninsula
Structural Alternatives
Treatment Level/Disposal Location
i
•£=•
CJi
1. 201 Facility Plan - All areas, regional WWTP
2. Regional Alternatives
a. Gulf Breeze, Pensacota Beach, Santa Rosa
Shores Gulf Isles, and Western Gulf
Breeze Peninsula - regional WWTP at Gulf
Breeze or eastern peninsula
b. Navarre Beach - Existing WWTP
c. Navarre, Eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula
3. Subreglonal Alternatives
a. Gulf Breeze and Pensacola Beach - subregional
WWTP at Gulf Breeze
b, Santa Rosa Shores - Existing WWTP
c. Gulf Isles - Existing WWTP
d. Navarre Beach
e. Navarre, Eastern Gulf Breeze
Peninsula, and Western-Gulf Breeze
Pen insula
4. Local Alternative
a. Gulf Breeze - Gulf Breeze WWTP
- secondary - Land ApplIcation
- Convey to advanced secondary Main St. WWTP -
Pensacola Bay
- secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound
- secondary - land application
- advanced secondary - present discharge, Santa
Rosa Sound
- secondary - Pensacola Bay discharge
- secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present discharge, Santa
Rosa Sound
- secondary - land application
- on-site, small community systems
- convey to advanced secondary Main St. WWTP -
Pensacola Bay
- secondary - land application
- secondary - Santa Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound \
- secondary - Pensacola Bay
- secondary - land application
- secondary - percolation pond
- secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound
- secondary - land application
- on-site, small community systems
- secondary - present discharge, Santa
Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present discharge,
Santa Rosa Sound
- secondary - Pensacola Bay
-------
Table 11-11. Continued
Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula
Structural Alternatives
Treatment Level/DisposeI Location
b. Pensacola Beach - Pensacola Beach WWTP
c. Santa Rosa Shores
d. Gulf Isles
e. Navarre Beach
f. Navarre and Eastern Gulf Breeze
Peninsula and Western Gulf Breeze
Peninsula
5. No Action
'01
- secondary - present and new discharge point,
Santa Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present and new discharge
point, Santa Rosa Sound
- secondary - land application
- secondary - percolation pond
- secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present discharge, Santa
Rosa Sound
- secondary - land application
- on-site, small community systems
same as local alternative except that all
facilities will discharge to present
location
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
-------
E. Evaluation of Wastewater Management Alternatives
The evaluation of alternatives involves the consideration of several cri-
teria including costs, implementability, operability/reliability, energy
consumption, and environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation
of costs, implementability, reliability and energy consumption for all alter-
natives by service area and treatment facility. Environmental impacts and
associated mitigation measures are discussed in Chapter III.
Costs are determined only for capital expenditures, operation and main-
tenance, and total present worth costs of the wastewater management facili-
ties. Costs are not calculated for potential benefits or degradation of the
environment. The present worth analysis task establishes a total cost value
of the capital expenditures and operating costs of each alternative over the
duration of the planning period. The present worths for the wastewater
management alternatives are developed for a 17-year planning period ending in
the year 2000 using an interest rate of 7 3/8 percent. In accordance with
EPA guidelines, allowances are made for salvage values at the end of the
planning period. Capital and annual operating costs have been estimated for
the collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal systems that constitute
the alternatives. The unit costs have been estimated in 1981 dollars from
literature and actual data available to Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpen-
ter, Inc., and from EPA handbooks. Capital costs include the costs of
equipment and construction plus 30 percent for engineering, inspection,
financing, rights-of-way, and contingencies.
The prospects for successful implementation of a wastewater treatment
alternative must be addressed in view of both public and institutional
realities within the study area. To evaluate the implementability of
alternative wastewater management systems, factors such as public accep-
tability, institutional concerns, and planning flexibility are considered.
The reliability of a wastewater management system may be defined as a
measurement of the ability of a system to perform its designated function
without failure. Failure in this situation would be the inability to
consistently achieve and maintain the effluent quality standards for which
the system was designed. Three reliability classes are associated with
wastewater treatment facilities (USEPA 1974):
Reliability Glass I—Treatment facilities that discharge into navi-
gable waters that could be permanently or unacceptably damaged in
only a few hours by poor quality effluent. Requirements for Class I
facilities are some type of surge-control device, back-up units for
all major pieces of equipment, and standby power.
Reliability Class II—Treatment facilities that discharge into navi-
gable waters that would be permanently or unacceptably damaged by
long-term (several days) effluent-quality degradations. For second-
ary treatment systems, requirements for Class II facilities are
similar to those for Class I facilities.
Reliability Class III--A11 other treatment facilities not covered
under Class I and Class II. Some standby power is required, as are
certain basic redundancy requirements, such as extra pumps and
blowers.
11-47
-------
1. Main Street
a. Costs
The costs of operation for the Main Street treatment plant have been
developed for each of the alternatives based on a detailed analysis of
current operating practices and cost experience. Certain capital improve-
ments required to operate at high flow rates were also priced. The costs for
the Main Street plant are displayed in Table 11-12. The major component of
the present worth of the plant is the operating cost. Due to significant
fixed costs of operation, the increased utilization of this facility results
in greater overall economy of operation.
Also displayed in the table are the costs of disposal, including con-
struction of the Gulf outfall as an alternative. The overall cost evaluation
indicates that the discharge to the Gulf of Mexico is the most costly
solution.
b. Implementabillty
The Main Street treatment plant will be under the control of the Escambia
County Utilities Authority, and any modifications required can be undertaken
by the Authority. Implementation of the Gulf outfall alternative will be
more difficult than other options due to the uncertainties associated with
siting and constructing the outfall. The use of the existing plant for
advanced wastewater treatment is not considered feasible; the experience
nationwide with the processes employed has not resulted in effective advanced
treatment, although once considered proper for this application.
c. Operability/Reliability
The Main Street treatment plant is currently operated effectively with a
full complement of operations and maintenance personnel. The reliability of
the plant in an advanced secondary or secondary treatment level mode is
considered to be good. Because of the complex mechanical design of this
plant, its operability rates are lower than others, but with proper staffing
this is not a problem.
d. Energy Commitment
The processes employed at the Main Street treatment plant are generally
energy intensive. The oxygen generation equipment alone consumes approxi-
mately one-third of the total plant power, and it cannot efficiently operate
at low plant flows. Numerous in-plant pumping steps require electric power,
and the sludge processing equipment is energy intensive. However, various
process operation changes have been implemented to reduce costs, including
energy costs. Foremost among these changes was the change in chemical
addition, resulting in less inert sludge to be processed in the incinerators.
This has resulted in an autogenous (requiring no supplemental fuel) burning
of sludge in the incinerators.
The most significant conclusion to be drawn is that maximizing the use of
this treatment plant will reduce the unit cost of operation and the unit
11-48
-------
Table 11-12. Main Street Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital and
Operating Costs and Present Worths (Thousands of
Dollars)
Treatment Level
Disposal Alternative
Secondary9
Gulf Outfall
Adv. Secondary
Pensacola BaylO
Outfall
Treatment Plantl
Capital Cost
Annual 0 & M
Present Worth
Disposal Facilityl
Capital Cost
Annual 0 & M
Present Worth
Total Present Worth
23.6 mgd capacity1
16.4 mgd capacity2
20.5 mgd capacity3
20.9 mgd capacity4
24.1 mgd capacity5
26.3 mgd capacity6
26.8 mgd capacity7
27.3 mgd capacityS
947
3,526
30,188
32,804
332
29,595
59,783
56,502
57,705
57,804
60,423
62,532
62,714
62,865
1,087
4,763
40,553
2,699
8
2,244
42,797
37,174
39,336
39,511
43,561
45,332
45,515
45,712
iBased on 23.6 mgd capacity associated with Alternative III
2201 Facility Plan
3Local Alternative
Alternative II
5Alternative I
^Alternative III combined with Santa Rosa Sub Regional
'Alternative I combined with Santa Rosa Sub Regional
Alternative III combined with Santa Rosa Regional
^Alternative I combined with Santa Rosa Regional
90utfall costs based on 10,000 ft. unburied pipe
100utfall costs for unburied pipe
11-49
-------
commitment of energy. In addition, more thorough evaluations of the plant
process mode may result in additional economies.
2. Avondale
a. Costs
The capital and annual operating costs associated with the Avondale treat-
ment plant, along with present worths for the various treatment and disposal
options, are presented in Table 11-13. The costs of conveyance of Avondale
flows to the Main Street plant include the conveyance costs presented in
Table 11-23.
b. Implementability
The creation of the Escambia County Utility Authority increases the imple-
mentability of those alternatives which propose routing flows to the Main
Street treatment plant. Since this plant is operating with a temporary
permit, is slated for phase out in 1985, and is already conveying a portion
of its flows to the Main Street plant, total phase out with conveyance of all
flows to the Main Street plant appears most implementable.
c. Operabi1i ty/Reli abi1i ty
Escambia County has maintained efficient operation at the Avondale waste-
water treatment facility, with no history of water quality violations. The
reliability class -associated with the present operation is Reliability
Class 2. Adequate attention to operation is anticipated whether the plant is
operated at capacity or expanded.
d. Energy Consumption
The contact-stabilization process currently used at the Avondale facility
requires an average energy and resource commitment for this size of facility.
Treatment of all Avondale flows at Main Street, however, would require less
energy and resource consumption than operating an expanded Avondale facility
because there would be no duplication of facilities and unit processes.
Conversely, continuing to operate the Avondale.facility at existing capacity
while routing excess flows to Main Street would require greater energy and
resource consumption than operating an expanded facility.
3. Harrington
The Moreno Courts wastewater treatment facility has been included in the
Warrington service area. However, they have maintained their own facility
and currently discharge to percolation ponds adjacent to Jones Swamp Creek.
This 210,000 gpd activated sludge facility is 40 years old and has an average
flow of only 70,000 gpd. The Warrington facility has a temporary operating
permit, valid until December 1, 1984. Plans are under way to convey its
flows to the Main Street plant.
a. Costs
The
facility
a. UOSIS
The capital and operating costs of continuing to operate the Warrington
lity at the existing capacity are included in the summary presented in
11-50
-------
Table 11-13. Avondale Uastewater Treatment Plant Capital, Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars)
Local Alternative
Regional Alternative II
Capacity (mgd) 1.0
3.22 Treatment Level Secondary
Secondary Secondary Adv.
Disposal Method Spray Irrigation
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost 0
Annual 0 & M 117
Present Worth 879
Disposal Facility
Capital Cost 3,998
Annual 0 & M 65
Present Worth 3,676
Total Present Worth 4,555
1.0
Adv. Secondary!
Secondary1 Adv.
Perdido Bay Dis.
1,400
218
2,850
1,050
15
777
3,627
1.0
Adv.
Secondary
Deep Well Injection
1,400
218
2,850
1,352
23
1,324
4,174
3.22
Spray Irrigation
6,600
243
7,580
13,782
176
12,227
19,807
3.22
Perdido Bay Dis.
9,870
1,270
11,500
1,477
20
1,429
12,929
Deep Well Injection
9,870
1,270
11,500
2,568
74
2,797
14,297
^Outfall costs for unburied pipeline
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
-------
Table 11-14. The costs of conveyance of Warrington flows to
included in the conveyance costs presented in Table 11-23.
Main Street are
b\ Implementability
No serious implementability problems exist with either of the alter-
natives proposed for the Warrington service area. In the past, Escambia
County has been responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Warring-
ton treatment plant. The Escambia County Utilities Authority has taken over
the operation of the wastewater systems once operated by the City of Pensa-
cola and Escambia County. The creation of this Escambia County Utility
Authority increases the implementability of both alternatives because each
proposes routing flows to the Main Street plant.
The alternative which proposes routing all Warrington flows to Main
Street is considered to be more implementable because under Regional Alter-
native II, no expansion of Main Street is expected, and under Regional
Alternatives I and III, the expected expansion of Main Street would also
provide capacity for other areas of Escambia County. The Local Alternative,
which proposes continued operation of the Warrington facility, is less
implementable in the Warrington service area because of the necessity of land
application and the long lead time associated with that construction. In
addition, a suitable site for land application is approximately six miles
from the plant.
c. Operabi1i ty/Reli abi1i ty
Escambia County has maintained an efficient operation at the Warrington
wastewater treatment facility, with no history of water quality permit viola-
tions. The reliability class associated with the present operation is
Reliability Class 2. It is anticipated that adequate attention to operation
would continue to be provided in the future.
Operability/reliability will be higher, however, if all wastewater flows
from the Warrington service area are routed to the Main Street facility
because of increased staff size and centralization of effort.
d. Energy Consumption
The extended aeration process, currently used at the Warrington facility,
is considered to require an approximately average energy and resource commit-
ment for.this size of facility. Treatment of all Warrington flows at Main
Street, however, would require less energy and resource consumption than
operating the existing facility, because there would be no duplication of
facilities and unit processes.
4. Northwest Escambia County
Sewer service is currently not extensive in the .Northwest. It is expect-
ed that one-half of the currently unserved population and one-half of the
population growth will have sewer service by the year 2000. The served
population will be mostly located in the southeastern portion of this North-
west service area. Sewer service is expected under all alternatives. Ordi-
narily, flows were to be routed to either the Avondale facility or Main
11-52
-------
Table 11-14. Warrington Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital,
Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars).
Capacity (mgd) 2.01
Treatment Level Secondary
Disposal Method Land Application
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost 0
Annual 0 & M 195
Present Worth 1,465
Disposal Facility
Capital Cost x 10,313
Annual 0 & M 147
Present Worth 9,422
Total Present Worth 10,887
llocal Alternative
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
11-53
-------
Street. Since the Avondale facility is to be closed in 1985, however, flows
will need to be routed to the Main Street facility. This could affect ordi-
nances and development alternatives influencing the generation, conveyance
and treatment of wastewater from this area.
a. Costs
The costs of conveyance of Northwest flows are included in the summary
presented in Table 11-23.
b. Implementabi1i ty
No serious imp!ementabi1ity problems are associated with conveying flows
from the Northwest to an existing treatment facility. The Escambia County
Utilities Authority would have jurisdiction over the service area. The crea-
tion of the Escambia County Utility Authority increases the implementabi1ity
of routing Northwest flows to Main Street.
c. Operability/Reliability
No serious operability/reliabil ity problems are associated with conveying
flows from the Northwest to an existing treatment facility.
d. Energy Consumption
Treatment of Northwest wastewater at a centralized treatment facility
represents an efficient use of energy and resources because there would be no
duplication of facilities and unit processes.
5. Southwest Escambia County
Several alternatives have been considered for Southwest Escambia County.
The 201 Facilities Plan proposes a regional 7.7 mgd plant with a Gulf outfall
in the Southwest which would serve all of Escambia County in the study area
except the city of Pensacola. Regional Alternative III proposes a subregion-
al 0.54 mgd facility which would only serve the Southwest. Disposal options
for this facility include discharge to Perdido Bay, deep-well injection, and
land application. Sewer service to the Southwest is also proposed in the
other two regional alternatives where flows from the Southwest facility are
routed to Main Street. Finally, in the Local Alternative, no major sewer
service is proposed for the Southwest. Rather, the area is expected to con-
tinue using on-site systems and package plants for wastewater service. Perdi-
do Key is considered separately and as part of the larger Regional Alterna-
tives as well. It is considered separately for funding considerations since
it is a barrier island and involves more issues than most mainland areas.
a. Costs
The capital and annual operating costs along with present worth of the
various treatment and disposal options are presented in Table 11-15. The
costs of conveyance of southwestern flows to Main Street are included in the
summary presented in Table 11-23.
11-54
-------
en
en
Table 11-15. Southwest
(Thousands
Capacity (mgd)
Treatment Level
Disposal Method
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost
Annual 0 & M
Present Worth
Disposal Facility
Capital Cost
Annual 0 & M
Present Worth
Total Present Worth
Wastewater Treatment
of Dollars)
201 Plan
7'7 i
Secondary1
Gulf Outfall
13,700
585
16,295
11,319
108
10,057
26,352
Plant Capital ,
Operating Costs and Present
Regional Alternative
0.5 0.5
Secondary Adv. Secondary ^
Land Application Per. Bay Outfall
2,100
31
2,058
1,611
21
1,511
3,569
2,920
94
3,250
497
14
542
3,792
Worths
III
0.5
Adv. Secondary
Deep Well Injection
2,920
94
3,250
910
15
886
4,136
iQutfall cost based on 10,000 ft. unburied pipeline
20utfall costs for unburied pipeline.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
-------
b. Implementability
This area is also under the jurisdiction of the Escambia County Utilities
Authority. The most implementable alternative for Southwest Escambia County
would be the Local Alternative because no major construction is proposed and
the long lead times associated with that construction would be avoided. The
next most implementable alternative would be routing the Southwest Escambia
County flows to Main Street. Conversely, the least implementable alternative
would be that which proposes the greatest amount of new construction—the
regional 7.7 mgd facility.
c. Operability/Rellability
The level of operabil ity/reliabil ity will be higher for those
alternatives which propose the use of regional treatment plants because of
increased staff size and centralization of effort.
d. Energy Consumption
If sewer service was not provided to Southwest Escambia County and
on-site systems were the major type of wastewater service utilized, the local-
ized alternative would have the least requirement for energy and resources.
Of the regional alternatives, however, those alternatives which propose con-
veyance of the southwest flows to Main Street would require the least commit-
ment of energy and resources, because there would be no duplication of
facilities and unit processes.
6. Scenic Hills
Under all alternatives the Scenic Hills facility will continue in opera-
tion. Projected year 2000 flow is 0.90 mgd which could be accommodated by
the existing capacity.
a. Costs
Because costs of continued operation of the Scenic Hills facility would
be the same for every alternative, they would have no impact on a comparative
economic analysis of the alternatives. The costs are shown in Table 11-16.
b. Implementability
At the present time 70 percent of the Scenic Hills treatment plant's
excess capacity is allocated to one developer. Depending on future events,
this may or may not be an obstacle to utilizing this capacity.
c. Operability/Rellability
The City of Pensacola has maintained an efficient operation at the Scenic
Hills wastewater treatment facility, with no history of permit violations.
The reliability class associated with the present opeation is Reliability
Class 2. It is anticipated that adequate attention to operation will
continue to be provided in the future.
11-56
-------
Table 11-16. Scenic Hills Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital,
Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars).-
Treatment Level Secondary
Disposal Method Land Application
Required Capacity 0.90 mgd
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost 0
Annual 0 & M 66
Present Worth 496
Disposal Facility
Capital Cost 0
Annual 0 & M 38
Present Worth 362
Total Present Worth 858
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
11-57
-------
d. Energy Consumption
The treatment process currently utilized at the Scenic Hills facility
requires an average energy and resource commitment for this size of facility.
Spray irrigation requires a higher energy commitment than surface water
discharge.
7. Gulf Breeze
a. Costs
The capital and annual operating costs for the different treatment
facility and disposal options are presented in Table 11-17. Present worths
of these costs are also displayed in the table. Similar costs are shown for
the potential East Gulf Breeze plant in Table 11-18. The costs of conveyance
associated with transmission of the wastewater to Main Street are presented
in Table 11-24.
b. Implementabllity
All the areas proposed to be served under the Regional Alternative
(except Midway) and the Subregional Alternative currently have wastewater
treatment facilities which are operated and maintained by local authorities.
The Local Alternative is considered to be the most implementable because
there would be no need for coordination of facilities construction, expan-
sion, or operation with these other local authorities. The alternatives
involving joint treatment with other local authorities are considered the
least implementable for the aforementioned reasons and due to the long lead
time that would be required to construct a joint wastewater treatment
facility.
c. Operability/Rellability
The City of Gulf Breeze maintains an efficient operation at the waste-
water treatment facility. The reliability class associated with the present
operation is Reliability Class 2. It is anticipated that a facility expanded
to 0.80 mgd would continue to receive adequate attention to operation. If,
however, wastewater is conveyed to a regional facility, both operability and
reliability may be improved due to increased staff size and newness of the
facility.
d. Energy Consumption
Energy consumption to treat wastewater could cost less at a regional
facility since there would not be a duplication of facilities and unit pro-
cesses. However, the current process used in this facility requires an
average energy and operating resource commitment for the size of facility.
8. Pensacola Beach
In all alternatives, the Pensacola Beach service area is expected to be
completely served. The variation will be in location of treatment facility
and effluent discharge. Depending on the alternative, treatment will be
either at the existing site; existing Gulf Breeze facility; a new facility
I 1-58
-------
Table 11-17. Expanded Gulf Breeze Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital, Operating Costs and Present Worth
(Thousands of Dollars)
Treatment Level/ Secondary Secondary(4) Advanced Secondary(4) SecondaryU)
Disposal Alternative Land Application Pensacola Bay Santa Rosa Sound Santa Rosa Sound
(1) (2) (1) (2) (2) (1) (3) (2) (1) (3)
Capacity 2.83 mgd 3.32 mgd 2.83 mgd 5.32 mgd 3.32 mgd 2.83 mgd 0.8 tngd 3.52 mgd 2.83 mgd 0.8 mgd
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost 5,700 6,600 5,700 6,600 8,000 7,000 1,900 6,600 5,700 1,400
Annual 0 & M 207 264 207 264 414 340 162 264 207 61
Present Worth 6,525 7,737 6,525 7,737 11,700 10,000 3,580 7,737 6,525 1,678
i—i
i—i
cji Disposal Facl I Ity
vo
Capital Cost 26,960 27,825 1,170 1,170 1,006 1,006 634 1,006 1,006 634
Annual 0 & M 199 230 19 22 19 15 14 19 15 14
Present Worth 23,237 24,157 1,154 1,529 1,020 978 659 1,020 978 659
Total Present Worth 29,762 31,894 7,679 9,266 12,720 10,978 4,239 8,757 7,503 2,337
(1) Sub Regional Alternative.
(2) Regional Alternative
(3) Local and No Action Alternative
(4) Outfall costs for unburied pipeline.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
-------
Table 11-18. New Gulf Breeze Peninsula Wastewater Treatment Plant
Capital, Operating Costs and Present Worths (Thousands
of Dollars).
Treatment Level Secondary1 Secondary2
Disposal Alternative Land Application Land Application
Capacity 3.75 mgd 3.32 mgd
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost
Annual 0 & M
Present Worth
Disposal Facility
Capital Cost
Annual 0 & M
Present Worth
Total Present Worth
8,100
282
9,160
15,332
202
13,927
23,087
7,400
264
8,416
13,627
183
12,312
20,728
1201 Facility Plan
2Regional Alternative
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981
11-60
-------
for the City of Gulf Breeze; a new facility on the eastern Gulf Breeze
Peninsula; or at Main Street. Disposal options consist of land application,
discharge to Pensacola Bay, and discharge to Santa Rosa Sound (existing and
new disposal sites).
a. Costs
The capital and annual operating costs for the different treatment facil-
ity and disposal options are presented in Table 11-19. Present worths are
also displayed in the table. The costs of conveyance associated with trans-
mission of the wastewater to Guld Breeze, Main Street, or other alternative
treatmetn sites are presented in Table 11-24.
b. Implementability
Under the Local Alternative and the No Action scenario, the Pensacola
Beach facility would be expanded. Under the 201 Facilities Plan, the
Regional Alternative and the Subregional Alternative, the Pensacola Beach
facility is abandoned and wastewater is conveyed elsewhere for treatment.
The implementability of the various alternatives must consider this basic
difference.
The existing Pensacola Beach wastewater system is operated and maintained
by the Santa Rosa Island Authority which also provides other services in
Pensacola Beach. This enables coordinated services in the community in
response to needs. In this regard, the Authority is currently undertaking an
independent engineering evaluation to determine the most expeditious and
cost-effective means of providing required additional wastewater disposal
capacity. Recent upgrading of the system has occurred.
Because of the Authority's apparent desire to maintain responsive control
of the services in Pensacola Beach, it is considered most implementable to
undertake the alternatives involving local treatment and disposal. The alter-
natives involving joint treatment with other local municipalities are consid-
ered least implementable for the aforementioned reasons and due to the long
lead time that would be required to construct a new joint wastewater treat-
ment facility.
c. Operability/Rellability
The Santa Rosa Island Authority maintains an efficient operation at the
wastewaer treatment facility, which has a history of water quality compli-
ance. The reliability class associated with the present operation is
Reliability Class 1. It is anticipated that an .expanded facility would
continue to receive adequate attention to operation. If, however, wastewater
is conveyed to a regional facility, both operability and reliability may be
improved due to increased staff size and newness of the facility.
d. Energy Consumption
Energy consumption to treat Pensacola Beach wastewater would cost less at
a regional facility since there would not be a duplication of facilities and
unit processes. The current process used in this facility requires an
average energy and operating resource commitment.
11-61
-------
Table 11-19. Pensacola Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital and Operating Costs and
Present Worth (Thousands of Dollars)
Treatment Level
Disposal Alternative
Capacity = 2.03 mgd
Secondary!
Santa Rosa Sound
E. of Bridge
Secondary^
Santa Rosa Sound
W. of Bridge
Adv. Secondary^
Santa Rosa Sound
E. of Bridge
Adv. Secondary!
Santa Rosa Sound
W. of Bridge
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost
Annual 0 & M
Present Worth
Disposal Facility
Capital Cost
Annual 0 & M
Present Worth
Total Present Worth
2,0002
270
4,300
800
14
800
5,100
2.0002
290
4,300
1,0002
18
1,000
5,300
4,320
265
4,340
800
14
800
5,140
4,320
265
4,340
l.OOO2
18
1,000
5,340
!|_ocal and No Action Alternative. Outfall costs for unburied pipe.
2Cost estimates provided by Santa Rosa Island Authority for expansion to a 2.4 mgd facility.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
-------
9. Navarre Beach
a. Costs
The capital costs, annual operating costs and present worths of these
costs for Navarre Beach are presented in Table 11-20. As illustrated by the
table there is no difference in operating cost for the use of existing
facilities at the existing treatment level or at the advanced secondary
levels. The costs of conveyance across Santa Rosa Sound to a regional waste-
water treatment plant are presented in Table 11-24.
b. Implementabillty
Navarre Beach will essentially retain their existing wastewater treatment
plant in all alternatives except for the 201 Facilities Plan. The minor
operational revisions required to operate the existing treatment plant as
advanced secondary could be implemented without major problems. The 201
Facilities Plan, which calls for transporting the wastewater across Santa
Rosa Sound, is an expensive alternative and probably would not be implemented
without substantial federal funding. On the other hand, it is anticipated
that FDER will issue a zero discharge order for this portion of Santa Rosa
Sound, and therefore it may not be possible to continue local discharge
within the regulations.
c. Operability/Rellability
The Santa Rosa County Beach Administration currently operates a very
reliable facility with minimal water quality violations. The reliability
class associated with the present facility is Reliability Class 2. It is
anticipated that the facility will continue to operate as it has in the past.
If, however, wastewater is conveyed to a regional facility, both operability
and reliability may be improved due to increased staff size and newness of
the facility.
d. Energy Consumption
Energy consumption to treat Navarre Beach wastewater would cost less at a
regional facility since there would not be a duplication of facilities and
unit processes. However, the current process used in this facility is con-
sidered to require average energy and operating resource commitments for this
size of facility.
10. Gulf Breeze Peninsula
Both the 201 Facility Plan and the Regional Alternatives propose to
abandon the existing Santa Rosa Shores and Gulf Isles treatment plants.
Under these alternatives, a regionalized treatment plant would be built
either at Gulf Breeze or at the 201 Facility Plan site in the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula.
The 201 Facility Plan treatment plant would serve all of the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula in addition to Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach. The wastewater
treatment capacity required is estimated to be 3.75 mgd.
11-63
-------
Table 11-20. Navarre Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant
Capital, Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars).
Treatment Level1
Disposal Alternative
Capacity = 0.25 mgd
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost
Annual 0 & M
Present Worth
Disposal Facility
Capital Cost
Annual 0 & M
Present Worth
Total Present Worth
Secondary
Land
Application
0
24
180 -
2,764
40
2,320
= 2,500
Secondary
Santa Rosa
Sound
0
24
180
0
2
19
199
Advanced Secondary
Santa Rosa
Sound
154
24
615
0
2
19
333
alternatives except 201 Facility Plan
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
11-64
-------
The regional alternative proposes to transport wastewater to Main Street
or to build a new treatment plant either at the 201 Facility Plan site or at
Gulf Breeze. This alternative would serve the same service areas as the 201
Facility Plan except for Navarre Beach and Navarre. Estimated wastewater
production is 3.32 mgd for the regional alternatives.
Subregional, Local, and No Action Alternatives propose to keep the Gulf
Isles and Santa Rosa Shores treatment plants in operation through the year
2000. These alternatives project wastewater flows of 0.18 mgd for Gulf Isles
and 0.17 mgd for Santa Rosa Shores.
The 1981 peak monthly flow to Gulf Isles was 0.15 mgd, which is well
within the 0.35 mgd plant capacity, as is the projected year 2000 flow of
0.18 mgd. The peak monthly flow to Santa Rosa Shores was 0.203 mgd, which
exceeds the existing plant capacity of 0.13 mgd. All flows in excess of
Santa Rosa Shores plant capacity are assumed to be transferred to Gulf Isles
during the planning period, raising the year 2000 flow to Gulf Isles to 0.22
mgd.
Disposal options consist of the existing disposal by land application for
Santa Rosa Shores and discharge to percolation pond for Gulf Isles. The
regional alternatives disposal options consist of land application, discharge
to Pensacola Bay, and discharge to Santa Rosa Sound.
a. Costs
The capital and annual operating costs for the different treatment facil-
ity and disposal options are presented in Tables 11-21 and 11-22. Present
worths of these costs are also displayed in the tables. The costs of con-
veyance associated with transmission of the wastewater to Gulf Breeze, Main
Street, or other alternative treatment sites are presented in Table 11-24.
b. Implementabllity
Under the Local Alternative, Subregional Alternative, and the No Action
scenario, the Santa Rosa Shores and Gulf Isles treatment plants will remain
essentially the same except for a conveyance line between them to take the
excess flows from Santa Rosa Shores to Gulf Isles. This plan would need to
be acceptable to both facility owners to be implementable. Since these al-
ternatives require limited new construction, they may be easily implemented.
The 201 Facilities Plan and regional alternative propose to construct
major conveyance lines and new or expanded treatment plants. Since these
alternatives would involve coordination of new facilities construction and
operation with other municipalities, these alternatives are considered the
least implementable.
c. Operability/Rellability
Santa Rosa Shores' treatment plant is hydraulically overloaded period-
ically and occasionally has water quality violations. Gulf Isles, on the
other hand, has capacity in excess of the projected year 2000 flows. The
transportation of the Santa Rosa Shores excess flows to Gulf Isles is
11-65
-------
Table 11-21. Santa Rosa Shores Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital,
Operating Costs and Present Worths (Thousands of Dollars),
Treatment Level
Disposal Alternative
WWTP Capacity Required = 0.17 mqd
Secondary
Land
Application
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost
Annual 0 & M
Present Worth
0
16
120
Disposal Facility
Capital Cost
Annual,0 & M
Present Worth
0
20
190
Total Present Worth
310
iSubregional, Local and No Action Alternatives. Flows in excess
of existing plant capacity of 0.13 mgd are assumed to be routed
to Gulf Isles Facility.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
11-66
-------
Table 11-22. Gulf Isles Wastewater Treatment Plant Capital,
Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars).
Treatment Level 1 Secondary
Disposal Alternative Percolation
WWTP Capacity = 0.18 mgd Pond
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost 0
Annual 0 & M 17
Present Worth 128
Disposal Facility
Capital Cost ' 0
Annual 0 & M 17
Present Worth 159
Total Present Worth 287
l-Subregional, Local and No Action Alternatives. May
also treat up to 0.04 mgd excess flow from Santa Rosa
Shores Plant.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981,
11-67
-------
expected to improve the reliability of the Santa Rosa Shores plant. The
reliability class associated with the present operation of the Santa Rosa
Shores plant is Reliability Class 2. If wastewater is conveyed to a regional
facility rather than continuing operation of both treatment plants, both
operability and reliability may be improved due to increased staff size arid
newness of the facility.
d. Energy Consumption .
Energy consumption to treat Gulf Breeze Peninsula wastewater would cost
less at a regional facility since there would not be a duplication of facili-
ties and unit processes. However, the current process used in both Santa
Rosa Shores and Gulf Isles facilities requires an average energy and
•operating resource commitment for this size of facility.
11-68
-------
Table 11-23. Wastewater Conveyance Facilities for Escambia County
Capital and Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars)
Annual
Capital Cost
201 Plan
Regional Alternative I
Regional Alternative II
Regional Alternative III (1)
(a)
(b)
Local Alternative
No Action
48,648
11,848
13,433
8,782
5,433
8,434
2,873
Operating Cost Present Worth
280
237
243
175
131
98
51
38,484
11,881
13,208
8,921
5,716
6,370
2,878
(1) (a) - Disposal of effluent from proposed southwest plant to Perdido Bay.
(b) - Disposal of effluent from proposed southwest plant via spray irrigation,
Note: Conveyance costs for Avondale and Warrington are based on data provided by
the Escambia County Utilities Authority.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
11-69
-------
Table 11-24. Wastewater Conveyance Facilities for Santa Rosa County
Capital and Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars)
Annual
Capital Cost Operating Cost Present Worth
201 Plan
Regional Alternative (1)
(I)
(II)
(III)
Subregional Alternative (2)
(I)
(II)
Local Alternative
No Action
16,765
13,367
6,715
13,392
3,298
9,539
629
629
200
178
118
175
52
106
9
9
13,813
12,723
6,702
12,779
3,078
8,668
603
603
(1) I - Treatment at Main Street
II - Treatment at existing Gulf Breeze plant site
III - Treatment at eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula plant site
(2) I - Treatment at existing Gulf Breeze plant site.
II - Treatment at Main Street.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
11-70
-------
F. Final Screening of Alternatives
The alternatives presented in previous sections represent those most
likely to be considered for implementation. Numerous factors affect the
evaluation process, including environmental impacts, costs, implementability
and effluent limitations. An additional factor in this EIS is the combi-
nation of City of Pensacola and Escambia County Utilities into the Escambia
County Utilities Authority. The development of the Utilities Authority
placed all Escambia County wastewater facilities (except Santa Rosa Island)
under their jurisdiction. This significantly influences the implementability
of regional alternatives conveying effluent to the Main Street plant. Addi-
tionally, the Utilities Authority proceeded under consent decrees imposed by
the State DER to close Pen Haven and begin planning the phase out of the Avon-
dale and Warrington plants. The least costly alternative of those available
to the Authority was to plan conveyance to the Main Street facility.
The Santa Rosa Island Authority also proceeded independently with plans
to upgrade and increase the size of their wastewater facility on Santa Rosa
Island. Upgrading has been completed and expansion is now being planned.
These measures were taken due to increased flows from an expanding population
and requirements of DER.
Perdido Key has been served historically by on-site and small community
systems. With increased development pressure, however, the Escambia County
Utilities Authority is considering sewer service to the area. A District I
Master Wastewater Plan concerning the conveyance and treatment of wastewater
generated from southwest Escambia County, including Perdido Key, was
completed in January 1984.
These factors are all important in the final screening of alternatives.
Some alternatives not considered past the development phase of the EIS have
been pursued by the wastewater management authorities. For example, location
of a treatment facility on Perdido Key to serve Perdido Key was ruled out by
the EIS due to location in the 100-year floodplain and other environmental
considerations. However, the Authority is considering this alternative as an
option.for servicing the Perdido Key area. Therefore, this alternative is
included in the final screening of alternatives for comparative purposes with
other alternatives more fully considered by the EIS. The final comparison of
alternatives includes:
1. The 201 Plan alternatives
2. The alternatives currently being considered by the wastewater
management authorities
3. The alternatives considered most cost-effective and environmentally
' acceptable based on EIS.
The present worth costs shown on the following pages are based predomi-
nantly on costs developed during the Alternatives Evaluation phase of the
EIS. More current cost data have become available for conveyance of Avondale
and Warrington flows to the Main Street plant and expansion of the Pensacola
Beach plant. These figures have been incorporated into the total present
worth costs. Costs for the continued operation and maintenance and, if
necessary, expansion of the Main Street and Scenic Hills plants are not
included in the total present worth costs for Escambia County alternatives.
11-71
-------
The addition of these figures would have little effect on the relative
differences in the costs as presented.
1. Escambia County
The Escambia County portion of the study area includes the Northwest,
Scenic Hills, Main Street, Avondale, Pen Haven, Warrington, Southwest and
Perdido Key subareas (see Figure 11-1}. All alternatives include the mainte-
nance of current wastewater management practices for Scenic Hills. All alter-
natives include maintenance of the Main Street plant at its existing 20 mgd
capacity.
Alternative 1
This alternative provides centralized wastewater service with a new
Southwest County treatment plant. This plant would have secondary treatment
with discharge by outfall to the Gulf of Mexico. This is the 201 Alternative
which includes the Avondale, Pen Haven, Warrington, Northwest, Perdido Key
and Southwest Escambia service areas with a combined flow of 7.7 mgd.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $64.8 million,
Alternative 2
This alternative provides centralized wastewater service with new treat-
ment plants for the Southwest County and Perdido Key areas. The Southwest
County treatment plant would have secondary treatment with discharge by land
application. The capacity of this plant would be 0.54 mgd with 50 percent of
the area's population served. The Perdido Key treatment plant would have
secondary treatment with discharge by land application. Projected capacity
is 1.7 mgd with 100 percent of the population sewered. The Warrington and
Avondale treatment plants would be phased out with flows conveyed to the Main
Street plant for treatment and disposal. Centralized sewer service would be
provided to the Northwest area with conveyance to the Main Street plant for
treatment and disposal.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $25.3 million.
Alternative 3
This alternative continues current wastewater management practices of use
of package plants and septic tanks in Southwest County, Perdido Key and North-
west County. The Warrington and Avondale treatment plants would be phased
out with flows conveyed to the Main Street plant for treatment and disposal.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $9.0 million.
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula
Alternatives for Santa Rosa County address Santa Rosa Island and the Gulf
Breeze Peninsula including the Gulf Breeze, Pensacqla Beach and Navarre Beach
service areas (See Figure II-2). The options considered range from regional
to on-lot systems.
11-72
-------
Alternative 1
This is the 201 Plan Alternative. A new regional plant would be con-
structed on the eastern end of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula with disposal by
land application at the Eg!in Air Force Base. Capacity of the plant would be
8.0 mgd with secondary treatment. The plant would treat flows from Gulf
Breeze, Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $36.9 million.
Alternative 2
This alternative would convey flows from Pensacola Beach and Gulf Breeze
to the Main Street plant for treatment and disposal. Flows from Navarre
Beach would be treated at the existing treatment plant with land application.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $17.3 million.
Alternative 3
This alternative involves expansion of the Pensacola Beach plant to 2.4
mgd with the existing level of treatment and discharge point. Class 1 relia-
bility will be provided. The existing plant at Navarre Beach would remain at
its current capacity. The City of Gulf Breeze would continue treatment and
disposal at the existing location with expansion from 0.5 to 0.8 mgd. The
continued use of package plants and septic tanks is projected for the Gulf
Breeze Peninsula.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $7.4 million.
Alternative 4
This alternative conveys flows from Pensacola Beach and Gulf Breeze to
Pensacola Bay following treatment at Gulf Breeze. Flows from Navarre Beach
would be treated at the existing plant with discharge by land application.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $10.8 million.
11-73
-------
CHAPTER III.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
-------
CHAPTER III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES
A. Introduction
This chapter summarizes the existing natural and man-made environment of
the study area, the environmental impacts of the alternatives and possible
measures to mitigate these impacts. The information was compiled based on a
literature search, interviews with local, state and federal officials, input
from the EIS Review Committee and other concerned citizens, and field
sampling and survey programs.
B. Existing Natural Environment
1. Freshwater Resources
Freshwater resources in the study area may be potentially impacted by the
disposal of treated wastewater and by increased development, leading to alter-
ation of existing drainage patterns. In a coastal area such as South Escam-
bia and Santa Rosa Counties, freshwater resources also play an integral role
in the estuarine systems and in the formation of environmentally sensitive
floodplains and wetlands.
a. Hydrology
Freshwater hydrology in the study area is dominated by four major river
basins that drain into the Perdido and Pensacola Bay systems. These are the
Perdido, Escambia, Blackwater and Yellow River basins. Additionally, there
is some localized, coastal drainage. This includes the East Bay River,
draining into Escambia Bay, as well as overland flow from the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula, Perdido Key, Garcon Peninsula, and the eastern portion of the
Pensacola Peninsula.
Prior to entering Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, the four river basins
drain approximately 15,650 square kilometers (6,000 square miles) and bring
an average of 287 cubic meters per second, cms (6.5 billion gallons per day,
bgd) into the two counties. Within the counties, the streams accumulate an
additional 73.9 cms (1.7 bgd) and 3,470 square kilometers (1,400 square
miles) of drainage area. Coastal drainage and small stream flow into the
bays account for an average of 9.64 cms (220 mgd).
The Perdido River forms the boundary between Florida and Alabama and
drains into Perdido Bay. It has a total drainage area of 2396 square kilo-
meters (925 square miles) and an average flow of 49.1 cms (1,120 mgd). It is
the only major basin in the study area that does not drain into the Pensacola
Bay system. The Escambia River basin has a total drainage area of 10,963
square kilometers (4,233 square miles) and an average flow of 198.9 cms
(4,540 mgd). It drains into Escambia Bay and accounts for more than one-half
of the stream flow into the Pensacola Bay system. The Blackwater River basin
has a total of 2,227 square kilometers (860 square miles) and an average flow
of 42.1 cms (960 mgd). It drains into Blackwater Bay and is the smallest of
the four basins. The Yellow River basin has a total of 3,535 square
kilometers (1,365 square miles) and an average flow of 71.0 cms (1,620 mgd).
-------
It drains into East Bay and is the second largest river basin that drains
into the bay system.
b. Quality
Recent trends indicate an enhancement in water quality of the rivers
entering the Pensacola Bay system. However, substantial improvement will be
required before all Class III water quality standards are met. This is
especially true in the case of coliform bacterial counts, which must be
substantially lowered to make these waters safe for water contact sports.
General conclusions to be drawn from water quality data of the tributaries
draining into the Pensacola Bay system are:
1. Dissolved oxygen levels meet or exceed state criteria at sampling
stations throughout the freshwater drainage basin of the Pensacola
Bay system. ..
2. Where comparisons are available, average nutrient values seem to
have decreased substantially since the 1960's and 1970's. These
decreases become less obvious as one moves down river. The values
fall well within freshwater water quality screening criteria estab-
lished by FDER for Class III waters in all tributaries into the
Pensacola Bay system.
3. While concentrations of these nutrients are low,- the loading of
these parameters and other pollutants into the receiving estuarine
environment causes concern. The build-up of these pollutants in the
bottom muds of the system within the EIS study area can have long
term, adverse impacts on estuarine water quality.
4. Violations of heavy metal criteria exist in stretches of the Escam-
bia River and the Yellow River.
5. Violations of Class III water criteria continue to occur for total
coliform bacteria in the Escambia River, Blackwater River and Yellow
River, making these waters unsafe for contact sports.
6. There is a gradual decrease in macroinvertebrate community health
moving downstream and accelerating as one approaches the estuarine
environment. This is attributable to the stressful conditions of
the interfacing fresh/saltwater environment as the river systems
enter the estuaries, to pollution from increasing municipal and
industrial discharges, and to concentrations of urban populations.
Water quality in the Perdido River shows trends improving in recent years
relative to nutrient screening criteria developed by FDER for Class III
waters. Bacterial violations and dissolved oxygen violations continue to
exceed Class III criteria. Heavy metal violations have also been recently
identified at the Barreneau Park station. Improved macroinvertebrate commun-
ities confirm improvements in water quality. An evaluation of the water
quality of the Perdido River is presented below:
III-2
-------
1. Historical (1960-70)/Recent (1978-79) Permanent Network Station
Pollutant estimates, based on comparing the highest mean values
from stations located between the confluence of the Perdido and
Styx Rivers, indicate a major decrease in total phosphorus
concentrations and nitrite/nitrate concentrations, of 0.51/0.13
mg/l-P (4.26/1.08 Ib/mgal-P) and 0.33/0.17 mg/l-N (2.75/1.42'
Ib/mgal-N), respectively. Insufficient data exist to compare
historical and recent water quality trends in TKN or total nitrogen
concentrations.
2. In recent times (1978-79) both total phosphorus as P and total
nitrogen as N show tendencies to meet Class III water quality
criteria developed by FDER (1980).
3. At Barreneau Park, the only station sampled for heavy metals,
cadmium, lead and mercury have periodically violated Class III
criteria. What impact these pollutants might have on loading into
Perdido Bay is unknown.
4. Dissolved oxygen violations continually occur in the Perdido River.
It is not known if these are based on early morning or random
samplings. If random, the frequency of violations would be
expected to increase.
5. Total and fecal coliform counts continue to violate Class III cri-
teria; however, trends over the last few years are not readily
identifiable. High counts are attributed to agricultural runoff.
6. Macroinvertebrate diversity and indices imply improvement in commun-
ity structures in recent years.
c. Ecology
The quality of the water and the abundance of general habitat types can
be expected to determine the types of aquatic communities that exist in the
study area. In general, the freshwater aquatic communities that exist in the
Perdido River, Escambia River, "Big Coldwater Creek, Blackwater River, Eleven
Mile Creek, Eight Mile Creek, and Marcus Bayou Creek are in good condition.
Some degradation from nonpoint source run-off and industrial and urban devel-
opment has occurred, but the types of aquatic insects and fish found are
fairly typical of blackwater systems (Ross and Jones 1979, Tunning pers.
comm.).
All of the rivers and creeks in this study area can be termed as
blackwater, caused from the abundant humic acids dissolved in the water from
the surrounding swamps and bogs. In general, these blackwater systems are
heterotrophic and dependent on transport of organic material from outside the
system for production of fish and invertebrates to occur. Detrital input to
these systems is essential, and these freshwater systems have detritus based
food chains.
The freshwater subhabitats include sand sediment, mud sediment, sub-
merged snag habitat, submerged aquatic vegetation, rock/gravel, depositional
litter, and open water. The sand sediment, snag habitat, and submerged
III-3
-------
aquatic plants are the dominant habitat types in blackwater rivers and
streams of this area.
2. Estuarine Resources _--
The estuarine resources of the South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties
study area constitute a complex system impacted by freshwater inflow, non-
point runoff, and tidal currents. The area's estuaries play an important
role in the life-cycle of many aquatic and terrestrial organisms and are also
an important component of the area's recreation and tourist industries.
Since the area's estuaries are also used for wastewater discharges and
proposed alternatives may result in increased or relocated discharges, a
thorough analysis-of the estuarine resources is a necessary-basis for-the
evaluation of existing and potential impacts.
a. Hydrodynamics
Circulation in the estuaries of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties depends
on numerous factors including river flow, tides, and wind. The circulation
patterns of the Perdido and Pensacola Bay systems vary from two-layer flow
with stratification to two-layer flow with vertical mixing (USEPA 1975, 201
Supplement 1978). The mean water transport in these bays is in a seaward
direction for the upper layer and riverward in the lower layer. Under most
conditions these systems show stratification, with little if any mixing. The
result is that the flushing rate for these estuarine bays can be extremely
low (200 days when river inflow is at ten-year low of 61 m3/sec) (USEPA
1975).* Local wind patterns can cause a current reversal to occur in these
bays causing the upper layer to flow riverward and the lower layer seaward.
The result of these reversals is that pollution sources are trapped in the
estuaries for longer periods of time.
The tidal energy in the estuaries of these two counties is also
relatively weak because of the low mean tidal range of 0.5 meters (1.5 feet).
In addition, these tides are diurnal (one tidal cycle per day). The tidal
cycle occurs approximately every two weeks from 0.8 meters (2.5 feet) during
tropic tides, to 0.2 meters (0.5 feet) during equatorial tides (USEPA 1975).
This low tidal range also serves to reinforce the weak circulation patterns.
The low flushing rate of these estuaries under normal conditions can lead
to degraded water quality conditions. The low flushing rates also limit the
amount of industrial and wastewater effluent that can be assimilated (USEPA
1975). Estuaries of this type tend to exhibit water quality problems and
degraded biological communities. Further, weak circulation patterns lead to
concentration of pollutants in sediments due to settling (USEPA 1975).
b. Quality
Even with great expenditures of funds to. control point source pollution
in the early 1970's, water quality in the Pensacola Bay system, though
showing some improvement, is far from pristine. Nutrient concentrations
continue to exceed established water quality screening criteria and, in some
instances, show signs of increasing. The Pensacola Bay system remains in
excess of its assimilative capacity for these nutrients. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations in bottom waters continue to violate Florida water quality
III-4
-------
criteria of 4.0 mg/1 (33.4 Ib/mgal) during the saline-stratified conditions
of the summer and early fall. This is attributed primarily to the residual
effects from the buildup of organic materials in the bottom muds that require
oxygen upon their decomposition. Secondary impacts from anaerobic conditions
in the bottom waters may include the increased release of nutrients into the
water column, stressed conditions for macroinvertebrate and dimersal (bottom)
fish populations, and the buildup of toxic hydrogen sulfide in bottom muds.
Toxic substances, such as PCBs, pesticides and heavy metals, appear to be
stored in sufficient quantity in the bottom muds to bioaccumulate and pos-
sibly result in lethal or sublethal effects on organisms. Additional
research is needed in this area. A recent study in upper Escambia:Bay indi-
cates, however, a return of some pollution intolerant organisms. Addition-
ally, the number of reported fish kills and the number of fish deaths per
kill are well below the early 1970's figures. Since this is only the number
of reported fish kills, caution must be used in interpreting this informa-
tion. Perhaps the most dramatic indication of water "quaTity is seen in
commercial shrimp landings. Because of the economic infeasibility of fishing
in bay waters, most larger concerns are converting over to ocean-going ves-
sels. Bay boats, with increasing frequency, are having to travel outside of
the Pensacola Bay system in order to catch economical yields of shrimp.
Oysters have not been in sufficient quantities to commercially harvest since
the early 1970's.
Current water quality in Perdido Bay remains about the same as it was in
the early 1970's. Based on limited information, no major trends were iden-
tified that indicated violations of water quality criteria. Macroinverte-
brate community diversity is low for a Florida estuary and, most importantly,
commercial shrimp landings have not been recorded for this area since 1975.
Most of the total nitrogen and BOD5 loading into Perdido Bay enters via the
Perdido River and originates from point and nonpoint source pollution. Most
of the total phosphorus loading into Perdido Bay originates from point
sources within the immediate drainage areas of the bay.
In an attempt to compare the contribution of pollution from point and
nonpoint sources, average calculated land use-related nonpoint source
pollutant loadings and average point source NPDES loading limitations from
1975 were compared to in situ loading estimates calibrated from average
historical (1960-70) and recent (1978-79) water quality data and stream flows
maintained by FDER and the USGS, respectively. FDER Permanent Network Sta-
tion water quality data for 1978-79 and 1960-70 and average USGS stream flows
were taken from the 305b Report (FDER 1980). This water quality data com-
pares statistically, (t-test for group comparison, 95 percent level of
confidence) with recent values collected by consultants (CH2M/Hill C1980) in
the mouth of the Escambia River. Based upon this statistical relationship,
it .is assumed that water quality data abstracted from the FDER (1980) 305b
report is sufficiently representative of current water quality from tribu-
taries entering the Pensacola Bay system to determine recent loading
estimates.
Water quality data for the Escambia River and water quality data, as well
as stream flow data, for the Blackwater and Yellow Rivers were estimated from
the 305b Report for monitoring stations located within 48-65 kilometers
(30-40 miles) of the river mouths. Average flows for Escambia River, both in
III-5
-------
historical and recent times, were based on USGS stream gauging stations at
Century, Florida. These were adjusted to account for the average contribu-
tion from the downstream portion of the watershed.
c. Ecology
Estuaries are complex ecosystems and are extremely difficult to character-
ize. These areas a re-naturally enriched from the transport of organics from
adjacent terrestrial areas, natural nutrient recycling in component estuarine
subsystems, and transport of nutrient material from the freshwater rivers.
These ecosystems are extremely important to the marine shellfish and finfish,.
because they provide not only a great abundance of food but also a breeding '
and nursery ground .for many of the-commercially-important species.
The type of estuarine communities found in the Escambia-Santa Rosa County
EIS study-area-are-dependent-mostly on water quality and the general abun-
dance of habitat types. The-communities that existnnthe~estuaries of Per-
dido Bay, Pensacola Bay, East Bay, and Escambia Bay indicate a wide range in
physical and environmental conditions. Numerous factors (e.g., salinity,
toxic wastes, and point and nonpoint pollution sources) determine the quality
and type of community that can be found in estuaries. The estuaries in the
EIS study area are represented by communities which are in an intermediate
stage between natural undisturbed systems and those that are polluted, which
show the characteristic degradation in normal production of shellfish and
finfish.
3. Marine Resources
The hydrodynamics, water quality and ecology of the Gulf waters are_
related to the estuarine resources and have an important bearing on the
proposed Gulf outfall. For these reasons, a thorough analysis of the study
area's marine resources is essential for the complete evaluation of potential
environmental impacts.
a. Hydrodynamics
Marine hydrodynamics are represented by a complex network of current loop
patterns which are in a state of constant change due to numerous factors
(Smith 1974). The main loop currents located in the offshore area of Escam-
bia and Santa Rosa Counties are the Mississippi-Alabama Shelf Loop, the West
Florida Loop, and the Gulf Loop. Each of these current loop patterns will
either reinforce the others or create a zone of transition with little or no
movement (Smith 1974, Jones et al 1973). The West Florida Loop and the Mis-
sissippi-Alabama Loop are responsible for the longshore drift in a westerly
direction along the barrier islands of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties
(Jones et al..!973). In the area where these two current loops meet, an eddy
loop is created since these loops are in direct opposition (Mississippi-Ala-
bama current inshore and West Florida current offshore) to each other. This
relationship and resulting transition zone and eddy current change during the
year. In the deeper offshore Gulf area, the Gulf Current Loop operates and
serves to reinforce these nearshore current patterns. This offshore Gulf
Loop also exhibits seasonal characteristics.
III-6
-------
Major factors that can change the normal patterns include the tropical
storms and hurricanes that frequent this area of the Gulf. The tidal surge
from these storms causes massive amounts of water to build up along the
coast, and normal water circulation patterns are altered. The tides are
another factor in the movement of water and are diurnal in nature (Smith
1974). This means that, typically, one high and one low tide occur per day.
Tides in the Escambia-Santa Rosa County area have a mean of only 0.3 meters
(1.1 feet) (USEPA 1975). The tides along with the Gulf Loop are probably
responsible for the upwellings along the shelf area. While the tides are
small in this area of the Gulf, during the time of tropical storm activity
the tides and tidal surge will change the nearshore sediment zones and thus
change current patterns.
b. Quality
Significant data gaps exist in our understanding of the current state of
water quality of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the study area. The most com-
prehensive study took place in August and September 1971. This study, con-
ducted by Florida State University and the Florida Coastal Coordination
Council, provides most of the available information for this region. The
main thrusts of the investigations were to determine the levels of pollutant
occurrence within the Gulf and bay systems and to determine the sources of
origin.
The results of the marine investigation indicate that tidal discharges
from the study area bay systems are influencing the surface territorial
waters south of the entrance to Pensacola Bay to a certain degree. The re-
sults of analyses from investigations of trace element distribution, pesti-
cide distribution, sedimentary parameters and wind/water dynamics, however,
have led to the conclusion that the principal measured effects in the Florida
territorial sea off the study area coast are the result of a major influence
outside the study area and to the west. The most likely source is considered
to be Mobile Bay. Additional contributions appear to be from the Mississippi
River delta and the Perdido and Escambia River systems.
c. Ecology
The type of marine communities that' can be expected offshore Escambia and
Santa Rosa Counties are dependent mostly on the sediment type, season, and
general water quality. In general, offshore marine systems are more diverse,
in terms of invertebrate and fish species, than the estuarine systems. How-
ever, while species diversity is high, the relative abundance (number/m2) is
lower than that of estuarine systems. This general diversity/abundance rela-
tionship is true for the soft sediment offshore areas, but where reef
communities occur, diversity, abundance, and productivity are all high.
For the purpose of this report, the marine environment is divided into
four zones:
The nearshore benthic community consists of numerous species of burrowing
invertebrates and associated bottom feeding fishes. Small areas of reefs are
located on patches of limestone outcroppings. These nearshore sediment areas
are important to the local finfish and shellfish.
III-7
-------
The nearshore waters consist of a plankton-based community and associated
plankton-feeding fish. Phytoplankton consist of a few species of diatoms and
dinoflagellates. These organisms are preyed upon by small crustacean groups,
which are in turn preyed upon by commercially important fishes.
The offshore sediment zone has extensive areas of reef development.
These areas are rich in invertebrate and fish communities. While soft sedi-
ment areas are dominated by burrowing species,-reef areas are dominated by
sessile species. These are supporting many commercially important finfish.
The offshore waters are dominated by pelagic fish species which are
commercially important. Many of the nearshore plankton and fish species can
also be found in this area. The plankton-based food chain-in-the open waters
is not as extensive as that of nearshore plankton systems due to nutrient lim-
itations.
d. Topography/Geology/Sediments ^
The area offshore of Santa Rosa and Escambia Counties is known as the
Mississippi-Alabama shelf. It is a flat topographic feature except for the
relief associated with the shelf edge and upper continental slope. The shelf
extends some 100 kilometers (62.1 mi) offshore, and reaches depths of almost
60 meters (197 feet). South of Pensacola Bay, the Mississippi-Alabama shelf
pinches in to form the head of the DeSoto Canyon. The canyon has very steep
slopes, similar to those of a deeply incised river. Erosion of the eastern
side and deposition on the western side have slowly shifted the canyon east-
ward. The ocean floor off Perdido Key is 10 m (33 ft) deep at a distance of
2500 to 3000 m (8200 to 9840 ft) from shore, whereas this depth is reached
only 650 to 950 m (2,130 to 3,120 ft) offshore from Santa Rosa Island. The
slope then becomes more gentle off Santa Rosa Island and 20 m (66 ft) depths
are found 2500 to 4500 m (8,200 to 14,765 ft) offshore. The estuaries along
the Gulf are drowned mouths of river valleys, and hence have the same general
geomorphology. They are broad, U-shaped valleys which would, if sea level
were lower, resemble existing river valleys in the area.
The geologic origin of the Gulf of Mexico is uncertain, and the depth to
the base of the carbonate platform is unknown. A marked stratigraphic
discontinuity is found at the DeSoto Canyon. It is here, offshore from
Pensacola, that the carbonate sedimentary province of the Florida Platform
(west of the Florida Peninsula) gives way to the clastic deposits of the
northern Gulf Coast. Beneath the unconsolidated marine sediments lie
limestones, dolomites and shales similar to the formations seen in onshore
wells. A major geologic difference is .that the Mississippi Interior Salt
Dome Basin extends into western Florida. Salt domes are geologically stable
and have been explored primarily for the oil with which they are often
associated.
The Mississippi-Alabama shelf is overlain by terrigenous sediments con-
taining less than 30 percent CaC03. They are primarily sand, silty sand,
sandy silt, and sand-silt-clay, collectively known as the Mississippi-Alabama
sand facies. Facies are a part of a rock body different from other parts by
appearance or composition. Generally, sediments west of the DeSoto Canyon
consist of finer-grained silt, clayey silt, silty clay and clay, while east
of the Canyon, calcareous sands containing shells, algae, coral and oolites
III-8
-------
may be found. The calcareous reef facies becomes a narrow shelf edge reef
facies. The DeSoto Canyon sediments are primarily globigen'na, or petropod
ooze, and calcareous silts and clays.
Because the sediments are primarily derived from the continental land
mass, there are few limestone facies present. The rivers emptying into the
Gulf from the Pensacola area generally do not carry many sediments. River
gradients are low, and velocity of the waters is too low to carry large
particle sizes. The largest particles that make it to the Gulf are sand
sized. These are dropped once the rivers enter the Gulf. Smaller particles
are carried even further out until they, too, are deposited by slow-moving
currents.
4. Groundwater Resources
The two major aquifers in the study area are the Floridan aquifer, which
is found at depths that generally exceed 300 meters - (1,000 feet), and the
shallower sand-and-gravel aquifer. The sand-and-gravel aquifer is near the
surface and contains a large quantity of freshwater. It is for these reasons
that most of the water supply wells are drilled into the upper aquifer. As a
result, most of the available water quality data are for this aquifer.
The Floridan aquifer within the study area is composed of porous and per-
meable coquina (limestone). Water from the aquifer could serve many water
supply purposes; however, concentrations of certain constituents have some-
times exceeded desirable limits for certain specific uses. Dissolved solids
in the upper limestone of the Floridan aquifer typically range from 500 to
over 1,000 mg/1 (4,172 to over 8,345 Ib/mgal) in the study area. In portions
of northwest Florida, values as high as 4,000 mg/1 (33,380 Ib/mgal) have been
recorded in coastal areas. In southern Escambia County, chloride values have
exceeded 1,000 mg/1 (8,345 Ib/mgal). Fluoride values exceeding 0.6 mg/1 (5.6
Ib/mgal) have been recorded in the southern half of Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties.
In the sand-and-gravel aquifer, the dissolved solids concentrations are
generally low since there is relatively little soluble material in the sands
and gravels. The groundwater is, however, more mineralized than surface
waters since it remains in contact with rocks and soils for much longer
periods. The water from this aquifer contains dissolved carbon dioxide that
originates primarily from the decay of soil organic matter, as well as from
the atmosphere. The dissolved carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid that
encounters little buffering action and has strong corrosive effects. This
corrosion is further enhanced by the generally low iron content of the water,
which is 0.06 to 4.9 mg/1 (0.50 to 40.9 Ib/mgal).
Hydrogen sulfide in the sand-and-gravel aquifer is present in trace
amounts in South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. The prime source of
hydrogen sulfide here is decaying organic material buried in the aquifer.
The low concentration has not been detected by chemical analyses, but rather
by its characteristic odor. Well water samples taken from wells located near
the bays show the presence of sodium and chloride. Salt water intrusion into
this portion of the aquifer could be due to excessive pumping by the wells.
III-9
-------
Water levels in wells range from below sea level in the area from the
Naval Air Station to downtown Pensacola to approximately 80 feet above sea
level near the junction of S-196 and S-95A. Water levels below sea level are
caused by excessive pumping from large capacity wells. Where several heavily
pumped wells are close together, the cones of depression coalesce and lower
the water below sea level. Many perched water tables are located within the
study area. Currently, some private wells are used for water supply on the
barrier islands but as development infringes on areas served by private
wells, property owners are required to connect to the public water supplies
available on both Perdido Key and Santa Rosa Island.
The natural direction of groundwater movement in the study area is away
from the topographic highs towards low lying rivers and bays. Groundwater
movement is generally rapid through the sandy soils, its rate being deter-
mined by the soil porosity and permeability. The static water level in the
aquifer slopes generally from north to south, indicating that the water
discharge pattern is the~Gulf~of Mexico; ~
5. Terrestrial Systems
A complete inventory of land-based resources is critical to the evalua-
tion of wastewater management impacts. Impacts to terrestrial systems may
result from several factors including the implementation of land application
systems or increased development induced through the provision or expansion
of wastewater facilities.
a. Ecology
South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties contain a wide variety of terres-
trial plant and animal species. However, the terrestrial ecology of the
study area is best understood in terms of the existing vegetation patterns.
Vegetation communities are not only highly visible but are relatively stable
and largely determine the occurrence of wildlife populations. Eight vege-
tation communities occur in South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties.
Comprehensive species lists of woody and herbaceous plants for all of the
local community types may be found in the 201 Facilities Plan (1978). This
report may also be referred to for more complete lists and scientific names
of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds known from the study area. Other
important references describing the terrestrial ecology of the study area
include works by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR 1975),
Hartman (1978), Monk (1965, 1968), and the National Park Service (NPS 1976,
1978).
b. Protected Species
The study area region is known to contain as many as 44 species of pro-
tected animals. The most important terrestrial habitats for protected
animals are wetlands (salt marshes, freshwater marshes, and swamps) and the
coastal dune/beach community. All of the aquatic habitats (freshwater
streams, estuaries, and marine waters) are important habitats for protected
animals, but estuaries are particularly valuable. Recently, the Perdido Key
beach mouse has been proposed for inclusion on the federal list of endangered
species along with the designation of critical habitat in Escambia County,
Florida, and Baldwin County, Alabama.
111-10
-------
Protected plants are covered by state laws only. A conservative estimate
totals at least 50 protected plant species for the study area. Swamps, ./
hardwood hammocks, and wet pine platwoods are the most important habitats.
6. Sensitive Areas
Sensitive areas are environmental features which warrant particular
consideration for reasons such as uniqueness, rarity, hazardous conditions,
high ecological value, and low tolerance to perturbations. Sensitive areas
which are especially important to this study area include barrier islands,
estuaries, off-shore marine reefs, wetlands, hardwood hammocks, habitats for
protected species, floodplains, and groundwater recharge areas.
A critical issue considered by this study is the possibility of induced
development on barrier islands resulting from the extension of wastewater
treatment services to these areas- Barrier islands are sensitive to devel-
opment for a number of reasons: extreme vulnerability to storms with their
associated high winds and floodwaters; continual erosion and accretion
processes along island shorelines;- and the presence of other sensitive
features such as wetlands, protected species habitats, and historic sites.
Additionally, barrier islands form an important protective zone by shielding
estuaries and mainland shores from the effects of storm events and normal
erosional processes.
Estuaries are considered sensitive because of the ecological importance
and vulnerability of this ecosystem. The high biological productivity of
estuaries make these systems valuable to terrestrial and marine wildlife for
food sources, breeding areas and nursery grounds. The vulnerability of these
estuaries to water pollution is increased by natural stresses resulting from
the mixing of salt waters and fresh waters and the presence of Class III
waters and aquatic preserves. Of particular concern within the estuarine
ecosystem are the communities of submerged seagrass beds, oyster beds, and
salt marshes; these habitats are extremely high in ecological value,
invaluable to local fisheries, and vulnerable to perturbations such as
dredging, filling, pollution and siltation.
Offshore marine reefs are extremely productive and provide habitats for
many commercial fish species. Reef communities are extensive in the shallow
submerged shelf areas of the Gulf of Mexico within 25 miles of the study
area. However, accurate mapping of reefs near the study area does not
currently exist. Marine reefs are potentially vulnerable to impacts from
near-shore water quality problems, offshore oil drilling operations, and
marine outfall disposal of wastewater effluents.
Wetlands are considered sensitive areas because of their high ecological
value and indirect economic importance. Some of the more valuable functions
of wetlands include: high biological productivity; providing food, habitat,
and reproductive areas for many animal and plant species; maintaining natural
drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, salinity distributions, and
other hydrologic functions; shielding land areas from wave action, erosion,
and storm damage; providing storage areas for storm and flood waters; and
purifying water through natural filtration processes.
III-ll
-------
Many plant community types found within the study area are considered
wetlands: swamps,, wet pine flatwoods, freshwater marshes, salt marshes, and
submerged grassbeds.-Although originally the climax vegetation on-upland
sites in north Florida, hardwood hammocks are currently limited in extent
within the study area. Hammocks are valuable habitats for many plants and
wildlife, including a number of protected species.
Habitats for protected species are considered especially sensitive to
impacts although such areas are included within many of the previously
discussed sensitive features. This vulnerability to impacts is due to the
large number of protected species known from the study area region (at least
44 animal species and- 50 plant species) and the widespread occurrence of
potential habitat conditions. Protected species are regulated by federal and
state laws, the most important of which are the federal Endangered Species
Act of 1973,. and- the state Rules Relating to-Endangered-.-.and-Threatened
Species and the Preservation of Native Flora of Rlorida Act.~
Groundwater is a major resource to the Pensacola area, as most drinking
water supplies are derived from groundwater. To maintain the viability of
aquifers, major aquifer recharge areas,must be_ protected. As development
occurs, the natural hydrologic cycle is disturbed. Water which would have
percolated into the aquifer instead enters streams and other receiving water
bodies due to increased impervious areas associated with development, which
increases runoff and decreases percolation. This decreases the amount of
water available for drinking water supplies. Therefore, major recharge areas
are considered sensitive and in need of protection.
The 100-year floodplain is ^considered a sensitive area from the stand-
point of vulnerability to flooding. It includes that area which would be
flooded by a storm with a 100-year return period, which means, statistically,
likely to occur once in 100 years. However, such a storm could occur two
years in a row since it is based on long-term statistics. Development of such
areas is considered undesirable due to the flood potential. Furthermore,
many of the sensitive wetland areas occur within the 100-year floodplain.
7. Physiography
Information about topography, geology, and soils of the area is important
in establishing wastewater management alternatives. The terrain and slope of
land affects pumping of sewage and potential land application and on-lot
sites. Surface and subsurface geology also affects the placement of inter-
ceptors, groundwater resources, deep-well injection potential, land appli-
cation, and on-site systems. Of most importance to the latter two are soils.
Characteristics such as permeability, porosity, grain size, and organic
content all have effects on the applicability of certain wastewater treat-
ment/disposal systems.
a. Topography/Geology
The study area lies within the Gulf Coastal Lowlands of the Coastal Plain
physiographic province. These relatively undissected, level plains usually
lie less than 30 meters (100 feet) above mean sea level. The peninsula
areas, the Escambia River Valley and the barrier islands are all parts of the
111-12
-------
Lowlands. North of the Lowlands, and the study area, are the Western High-
lands. This is a southward sloping plateau into which a number of streams
have incised valleys. While the study area is generally flat, there are
isolated areas of short and steep slopes. Those which are not due to the
formation of marine terraces are naturally-occurring streambanks cut into the
terrace sediments. They are found primarily around Elevenmile Creek, Marcus
Bayou, the Perdido River and the Escambia River.
The barrier islands are most noticeable features, recent geological
deposits of sand that are formed and changed by wave energy, nearshore
currents and sand supply. During the summer, beaches gradually widen and
become steeper. During the winter and in large summer storms, larger, more
closely spaced waves and a strong backwash remove sand from the beach to. form
bars slightly offshore and a narrow, flatter beach profile results. This
simple pattern is complicated by variations in wave direction, tides, and
length and intensity of storms. Beaches are usually found in some sort of
temporary equilibrium. In addition to the sand movement perpendicular to the
water line, sand also moves parallel to the water line by a process known as
littoral drift. This can usually be seen in the formation of hook-shaped
spits at the downdrift ends of the barrier islands. In the study area,
littoral drift is primarily from east to west.
Santa Rosa Island is about 80 kilometers (50 miles) long and less than
0.80 kilometer (0.50 mile) wide in most places. It has a fairly continuous
dune ridge along its entire length that is much more extensive on the eastern
one-fifth of the island. It experiences a local washover during heavy
storms. The island has a relatively steep foreshore slope of nine to ten
degrees. Perdido Key is shorter than Santa Rosa Island and is almost connect-
ed to the mainland by a small marshy area behind Gulf Beach through which the
Intracoastal Waterway is dredged. The Key is similar to Santa Rosa Island in
its dune line and slope.
b. Soils
In the upland regions of the study area, soils developed from thick beds
of unconsolidated acid sands and clay parent materials. Many different soils
developed in this region due to topographic factors and diverse kinds of
parent material. The Gulf Coastal Lowland sections of the study area are
characterized predominantly by moderately well-drained to very poorly drained
soils, with high groundwater tables. Poor drainage characteristics associ-
ated with soils, particularly in the southwest part of Escambia County,
seriously limit both agricultural and urban uses of these soils. Presently,
large parcels support scattered long leaf and slash pines and undergrowth of
various water-tolerant herbs and grasses.
The Environmental Inventory Task Report, describes the general soils
associations occurring in and adjacent to the study area portions of Escambia
and Santa Rosa Counties. These associations represent groups of defined and
named taxonomic soil units occurring together in an individual and
characteristic pattern.
111-13
-------
8. Air Resources
Air resources are described by four components: climate, air quality,
odor, and noise. For the analysis of wastewater management alternatives,
climate is the most important. Odor serves primarily as an indicator of
problems with existing facilities and can impact alternatives development-
Odor complaints in the Pensacola area are received infrequently and are not
considered a problem by Florida DER. Air quality and noise levels are cur-
rently acceptable, although the air quality standard for ozone was nearly
reached in 1980. Neither air quality nor noise is affected by primary
impacts of wastewater management, but both can be affected by secondary
impacts.
The climate of the Pensacola area places few restrictions on alterna-
tives. Freezing, which can be a major problem affecting the type and
efficiency of sewage treatment and disposal, is not a problem for this area.
Precipitation patterns are also important. In this regard, thunderstorm
activity and periodic heavy raitts- must be considered in- the -development of
alternatives. High winds, rain, and storm surges resulting from hurricane
activity must also be taken into account.
In the Pensacola area, climatological data have been collected since
1879. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -{1979} has
summarized the climate as follows:
Pensacola1s nearness to the Gulf of Mexico, about six miles
distant, gives it the full benefit of the moderating effect of
that body of water, tempering the cold "Northers" of winter and
causing cool sea breezes during the daytime in summer.
Records indicate the average temperature for the summer months
(June, July, and August) is 27.0°C (80.7°F), with an average
daily range of 6.9°C (12.5°F). Temperatures of 32.2°C (90°F)
or higher occur on the average of 39 times yearly, but a tem-
perature of 37.7°C (100°F) or higher has been recorded only 11
times. The average winter temperature, considering the months
of December, January, and February, is 12.4°C (54.3°F) with an
average daily range of 8.7°C (15.7°F). On the average, the
temperature goes to freezing or below on but nine days of the
year. The average date of last freezing temperature in spring
is February 20, and the average date of earliest in autumn is
December 9, making the average growing season 292 days. Severe
cold waves are rather infrequent.
Rainfall is usually well distributed through the year, and on
the average, measurable amounts occur on 112 days annually, the
greatest frequency normally being in July and August. The
monthly rainfall average is greatest in July and least in Octo-
ber. A considerable part of the rainfall in summer occurs dur-
ing the daylight hours, comes in the form of thundershowers,
and is often excessive, while the rains of winter are more
often less heavy but extend over longer periods. Snow has
occurred in 28 of 84 years of record, but there have been only
eight years of measurable amounts.
111-14
-------
March is the windiest month of the year on the basis of average
hourly velocity, while August has the lowest average wind velo-
city of any month. A moderate sea breeze usually blows off the
Gulf of Mexico during most of the day in summer. .There is art -
average of 343 days during the year in which sunshine occurs.
C. Existing Man-Made Environment
1. Land Use
Present and future land use patterns are primary factors in wastewater
management planning. Present land use analyses are necessary to identify
current wastewater treatment problems and indicate the-type and location of
treatment and disposal facilities required. Future land use projections
based on current trends and land suitability are necessary to accurately
develop and evaluate proposed wastewater management alternatives. .
a. Present Land Use
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties contain approximately 1,215,167 acres.
The portion of the two counties involved in the study area encompasses approx-
imately 160,000 acres of land (both mainland and coastal islands).
The majority of developed land within the study area is located within
the city of Pensacola and adjacent areas of Escambia County. Of the 57,129
acres of developed land, Pensacola contains 20.4 percent (11,654 ac.),
Escambia County 69.3 percent (39,590 a*c.), and Santa Rosa County 10.3 percent
(5,884 ac.). Pensacola is 76 percent developed whereas Escambia County is
only 53 percent developed.
Approximately one-third of the area of Escambia County within the study
area is in residential use. Most residential development is at a density of
more than two dwelling units per acre and the general concentrations occur
northwest and southwest of the city. The existing pattern is the result of
sprawl in a westerly direction from the city. Pockets of open space are lo-
cated throughout the area, which indicate that development "leap-frogged" due
to natural or economic constraints such as wetlands or land marketability.
Commercial uses are concentrated in the central business district of the
city and along major thoroughfares leading to the suburbs. Commercial
development accounts for 9 percent of the area of the city and only 3 percent
of Escambia County. However, total commercial acreage is greater in the
county.
Industrial activity is not a dominant factor in the study area and repre-
sents only 2 percent of the developed land within the city and within the
county. Most of the industrial operations within the study area are older,
light-to-medium industries. The newer operations have located outside the
study area generally north of Escambia and Blackwater Bays.
Public/semi-public uses represent 16 percent of Escambia County. The
Pensacola Naval Air Station occupies approximately 5000 acres of land along
Pensacola Bay. Fort Pickens represents about 1300 acres on the western-most
111-15
-------
part of Santa Rosa Island. These areas are dominant features of the study
area and preclude future development unless otherwise changed.
The majority of undeveloped land -in Escambia County is categorized as
vacant/forested. From an environmental standpoint, the northwest portion of
the county is considered the most appropriate for development due to large
areas of forest. In contrast, the southwest portion is largely wetlands and
uplands and is-environmentally not preferred for development*
The Santa Rosa Island Authority was created as an agency of Escambia
County through an act of the state legislature in June 1947. The act gave
the Authority general powers to develop and improve Santa Rosa Island for
beach, resort, and recreational purposes. The portio.n of the island known as
Pensacola Beach has been developed by this Authority. Most of the land in
Pensacola Beach is already developed or is committed to development by lease
agreements. The Authority.,, however, -retains control of approximately 40
percent of the available vacant land in dune preservation areas or unleased
lots.
In February 1956, the Authority entered into an agreement with the Santa
Rosa County Board of Commissioners wherein the Authority agreed to lease to
Santa Rosa County four miles of the island, located in the east end of the
island property at or near Navarre, Florida. This portion of the island has
been named Navarre Beach and is being developed' under the management of the
Navarre Beach Advisory Council (formerly the Santa Rosa County Beach Adminis-
tration). The development of Navarre Beach was slow for many years with
activity increasing recently. Approximately three fourths of the total land
in the Navarre Beach jurisdiction is presently undeveloped.
»
Of the 76,704 total land acres of Santa Rosa County in the study area,
approximately 43,100 acres are dedicated to the Eglin Air Force Base/Eglin
Reserve. This represents a large amount of land which cannot be considered
as having development potential. Additionally, 11,235 acres of water and
wetland areas are classified as "No-Build". The remaining area of the county
in the study area which is developed or buildable equals about 21,322 acres
(27.8 percent).
The major node of developed land in the Santa Rosa County portion of the
study area occurs in and around the city of Gulf Breeze. The primary land
use in this area is single-family residential. As of January 1, 1977, there
were approximately 1,760 single-family residences, three apartment complexes
with a combined total of 272 units, and two motels with a combined total of
205 units. The city contains a small medical clinic and three public schools
serving a large portion of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula. Only minor commercial
activities occur along major thoroughfares due to the city's proximity to the
city of Pensacola.
Approximately 70 percent of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula is currently unde-
veloped but is experiencing growth along the Bay and Santa Rosa Sound. The
area is attractive due to its relative calmness caused by the Santa Rosa
Barrier Island. The area contiguous to the Eglin Reserve is predominately
wetlands and will not likely be developed.
111-16
-------
b. Future Land Use
Future growth and development within the study area will generally occur
adjacent to existing-development. Escambia County is not expected to
register as large a decrease in percentage undeveloped as is Pensacola, but
the 8 percent decrease from 50 percent to 42 percent represents a total of
5,000 acres which will become developed. The greatest acreage expected to
develop will also be the less than two dwelling units per acre category. The
land use plan shows this growth occurring in the northwest segment of the
study area where sparse development makes available the most accessible land.
Commercial uses will likely expand along major thoroughfares.
Based on the amount of undeveloped land in the city of Pensacola in 1981
(24 percent), undeveloped acreage is projected to decrease to 6 percent by
1996. The largest change is anticipated in the residential category, less
than two dwelling units per acre, which will increase from 528 acres (3
percent of total) in 1981 to 2.160 acres (14 percent of total)-by 1996. This
increase will occur by in-filling the vacant areas outside the central busi-
ness district as well as redevelopment of existing areas. Also, transporta-
tion/utilities/communications will experience a 700-acre (5 percent) increase
over the same period.
Development in Southwest Escambia County, including Perdido Key, is also
likely to increase based on current trends. The 208 population projections
indicate less development will occur in this area due to the presence of
floodplains, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. In
practice, this requires local land use planning that has only recently
addressed this problem at all. Based on current trends, development in these
coastal areas will continue at a rapid pace with few controls.
Santa Rosa Island will remain virtually the same as in 1981 with the
exception of residential and commercial development around Pensacola Beach.
Much of the island is not available for development because of public
ownership or environmental constraints. The area around Navarre Beach is
also expected to experience some development.
Santa Rosa County, large portions of which are dedicated to military use,
has 14,000 acres of undeveloped yet buildable land within the study area.
While growth is expected to continue near Gulf Breeze, limited access to
commercial and employment opportunities of the region could hamper
large-scale development of this area. The portion of Santa Rosa County in
the study area is not expected to experience significant growth by 1996. The
land use pattern will continue to be dispersed residential use on the
peninsula with Gulf Breeze retaining its nodal characteristics for that area.
2. Development Controls
Laws, ordinances, and regulations at the federal, state and local levels
place numerous restrictions on the use of the natural environment in the
study area. These restrictions effectively limit development in certain
areas and have a dramatic impact on the pattern and density of development.
Regulations concerning wastewater treatment are particularly important
determinants of land use patterns and density. The State of Florida has been
particularly progressive in terms of environmental protection. State laws in
111-17
-------
Florida protect a variety of environmentally sensitive areas including sub-
merged lands, beaches, wetlands, and coastal waters. Florida is one of the
few states to mandate local planning and require local comprehensive plans.
The State has also established Areas-of Critical-State Concern and identified
Developments of Regional Impact in order to minimize potential adverse im-
pacts of large-scale development. State regulations also control the use of
septic tanks and establish standards for wastewater treatment and disposal.
In most cases state regulations-are more stringent than federal regulations.
a. Land Use Regulations
Numerous legal devices are used by municipal and county governments to
assure that land development and construction practices consider the health,
safety, and welfare of all citizens. Many local control measures are insti-
tuted in response to state and federal initiatives that provide policy
direction and financial assistance to participating-local governments. An
example of: this -type of control is the Coastal Zone Management Program.
Other locally instituted resource management measures seek to encourage the
expansion of the local economy in a wise and practical manner through such
mechanisms as floodplain regulations and the designation of historic
districts.
Table III-l shows a matrix of land use management techniques currently in
use by the local governments and authorities in the study area. These local
regulations and ordinances provide the major conservation mechanisms for
resource protection in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. These protective
measures have been legislated at the various levels of government because of
the realization that long term economic development is directly dependent on
the conservation of natural resources. These resources must be conserved to
assure that the natural functions they serve, on which man is dependent, will
continue to provide a sound economic base for future development in the EIS
study area.
An ordinance establishing zoning regulations on Perdido Key was passed by
the Board of County Commissioners on July 21, 1983. The declared purpose and
intent of the ordinance, as stated in Article 'IV, is to implement the Perdido
Key Land and Resource Management Plan, a subelement of the Escambia County
Comprehensive Plan. Article IV sets forth the objective of maintaining,
restoring and enhancing the environmental quality of the island and recog-
nizes the unique characteristics of barrier islands and their vulnerability
to hurricanes and storm surges. It is significant to note, however, that
this ordinance will allow the locally projected population to increase from
3,432 to 36,710. The ordinance itself provides some tools to help accomplish
this, but other tools such as building codes are equally important but
absent. The Santa Rosa Island Authority, for example, has instituted strict
building codes to help offset the effects of hurricanes and other wind-driven
storms.
The island has been divided into three residential, one outdoor recrea-
tion and one commercial district. Residential districts are basically
defined in terms of development density, i.e., the permitted number of
dwelling units (DU) per acre:
111-18
-------
Table III-l. Land Management Mechanisms in the EIS Study Area.
Santa Rosa Santa Rosa
Escambia Co. Pensacola Is. Authority County - Gulf Breeze
Zoning
Ordinances X(l)
P.U.D.
Provisions
Buffer Zone
Requirements
Landscape
Ordinance
Site Plan
Review Process X
Flood Plain
Process X
Subdivisions
Regulations X
Sedimentation
Erosion Con-
trol Ordinance X
Tree
Ordinance
Airport Zoning
Ordinance
Estuarine/
Wetland Set
Back Ordinance
Historical
Preservation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
(1) Perdido Key
111-19
-------
District Density DU/Acre Building Height Maximum Lot Coverage
R-l - Low 0-4 2.5 stories or 35 ft N/A
R-2 Medium 5-8 N/A 19-25%
R-3 High 9-14 N/A 19-25%
Within the above constraints, multi-family dwellings may contain any
number of stories. Most of the ocean frontage is zoned R-3. Nothing would
preclude a series of 20-story condominiums, providing density did not exceed
14 DU/acre and wastewater could be managed adequately.
Developers would be subject to the regulations of the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation and the Escambia County Health Department for the
permitting of small community systems or individual on-site systems. Al-
though the Perdido Key zoning resolution does not establish minimum lot
sizes, the state septic tank laws require minimum lot sizes of one-fourth
acre in subdivisions of 50 lots or less and one-third acre in subdivisions of
51-100 lots.
In several instances the zoning resolution declares that the ordinance
will regulate population densities. This statement is true only in a rather
general sense. What the zoning resolution does is regulate development
densities. It is possible to calculate the number of dwelling units that
could potentially be permitted given the existing zoning districts and
adopted map. An average number of bedrooms and their occupancy rate could be
calculated. These estimates, together with seasonal tourism fluctuations,
could produce widely varying figures. Thus, the ordinance does no more than
estimate a population range.
The zoning ordinance, together with state and local public health laws,
can be a significant tool in providing environmental protection. Good
coordination of state and local regulations and strict enforcement will be
the critical factors in minimizing environmental impacts.
b. Wastewater Facilities Regulations
Control methods for wastewater facilities in Santa Rosa and Escambia
Counties are used to protect environmentally sensitive areas and to effec-
tively dispose of wastewaters. Although local ordinances, by virtue of the
location of their administrators, can be the most effective means of dealing
with the developmental and environmental issues raised in the 201 process,
they are not often specific to wastewater facilities. Such facilities are
regulated at the state level.
A number of state acts have an impact on water quality and environmental
protection. They were legislated after the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969. Their effectiveness is related to the number of personnel and
financial resources available for implementation. Pertinent state acts for
wastewater disposal are listed below:
1970 Water Pollution Control and Sewage Treatment Plant Grant Act
1971 Environmental Protection Act
111-20
-------
1972 Water Resources Act
1972 Land and Water Management Act
1974 Environmental Reorganization Act
1975 Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act
1976 Proposed Rule on Land Application of Domestic Wastewaters, Third
Draft, December 14, 1976
1980 Chapter 10D-6, Standards for Individual Sewage Disposal Facilities,
Rules of State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services, Health Programs
1980 Chapter 17-6, Wastewater Facilities, Department of Environmental
Regulation, Third Draft, November 1980.
State regulatory programs are effective in protecting and maintaining
environmental quality in Florida, primarily because concern reaches all
levels of the government. Coastal areas, wetlands, barrier islands and
freshwater supplies are crucial issues in Florida .and receive special
consideration in state regulations. As regulations have been promulgated by
EPA, Florida has sought to make their own regulations specific to the
problems encountered in the state.
The State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services implemented
Chapter 10D-6 of the Florida Administrative Code, Standards for Individual
Sewage Disposal Systems. It explicitly states the conditions under which
on-site systems may or may not be installed. On-site systems may only be
installed in subdivisions of 50 or less lots, each 0.10 hectare (one-fourth
acre) in size or more, with a minimum property line dimension of 30.5 meters
(100 feet) where there are private wells. They may also be installed in
subdivisions of 100 or less lots, 0.135 hectare (one-third acre) in size or
more, with a minimum property line of 22.9 meters (75 feet), if public water
is supplied.
On-site systems may not be installed within one-quarter mile of a public
collection system; within 22.9 meters (75 feet) of a private system or 30.5
meters (100 feet) of a public water supply well; within the ten-year flood-
plain; or areas with a water table less than 0.91 meters (36 inches) below
the finished grade of the drainfield.
The regulations also determine how and where the disposal of septic tank
sludges may occur. Acceptable methods include burial, incineration, sanitary
landfill ing, and landspreading. Sludge may not be discharged to drainage
ditches or surface waters.
Chapter 17-6 of the Florida Administrative Code sets forth specific
criteria designed to protect and maintain water quality through regulation of
collection, treatment, and disposal policies. Major sections include design
and performance considerations for domestic wastewater facilities, operation
and maintenance of domestic wastewater facilities and compliance with per-
111-21
-------
mits. Water quality-based effluent limitations are determined based upon the
discharge characteristics and state water quality criteria and standards.
The regulations exclude .domestic wastewater facilities or septic tank drain-
fields of 7.57 m3/day (2000 gpd) flow per establishment, single connections
to pretreatment facilities, and collection systems laterals 25.4 centimete'rs
(ten inches) or less in diameter whose construction is under the independent
regulatory purview of a county or municipality.
Surface water discharges and land application are carefully regulated.
Discharges to Class I-A or II surface waters is prohibited. Land application
system regulations are based upon the method in which the land is used.
Application to fodder crops, forests and sod farms has different treatment
criteria than application to ~golf courses, parks and public access areas or
to pastures. No land application is permitted on crops intended for human
consumption.
The West Florida Regional Planning Council has provided a good synopsis
of existing regulations concerning package sewage treatment plants (small
community systems) and potential recommendations to improve existing
regulations. The synopsis, contained in Work Element No. C of the Continuing
Planning Program was prepared by the Northwest Florida Water Management
District and is included below:
Chapter 17-6, Part 1, Florida Administrative Code
establishes the authority, design criteria, effluent
limitations and effluent disposal methods for domestic
wastewater facilities including package sewage treatment
plants. Wastewater facilities are divided into three
classes based on the design average daily flow. These are
summarized below:
Type I Facility - A design average daily flow of
500,000 gallons per day or greater.
Type II Facility - A design average daily flow of
between 100,000 and 500,000 gallons
per day.
Type III Facility -A design average daily flow of
between 2,000 and 100,000 gallons
per day. All package plants in the
project area are Type III.
The effluent limitations established under paragraph
17-6.060 of the rule require that waste treatment at a
minimum will consist of secondary treatment with
appropriate disinfection and pH control. All package
plants in the project area were found to meet this require-
ment. The actual effluent limitation, however, varies con-
siderably depending on the effluent receiving body. Land
application and groundwater disposal have the least
stringent effluent limitations. Pre-disposal limitations
on biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended
solids are not specified. Additional effluent limitations
111-22
-------
are, however, set forth in the technical manual entitled
"Land Application of Domestic Wastewater Effluent in
Florida." This manual provides design, operation and
maintenance criteria for land application systems
discharging effluent to Class I-B groundwaters. As
defined in Chapter 17-3, F.A.C., Class I-B groundwaters
are those which have a total dissolved solids concentra-
tion of 10,000 mg/1 or less. Thus,- the sand-and-gravel
aquifer is a Class I-B water.
Percolation ponds, into which effluent is discharged
and allowed to percolate into the subsurface, are covered
under Chapter 2 of the manual. Following is a summary of
the pertinent requirements:
- The percolation ponds shall be divided into two or more
cells to allow for alternative loading and resting.
- Pre-disposal treatment shall result in the effluent
meeting secondary treatment and basic disinfection
levels.
- The nitrate content of the effluent prior to spreading
into the pond system shall not exceed 12 mg/1 unless
reasonable assurance is provided in the engineering
report that nitrate, as measured in any hydraulically
downgradient monitoring well, will not exceed 10 mg/1
or background levels in the receiving groundwater,
whichever is less stringent.
- A minimum separation of 500 feet is required between
the discharge facility and shallow water supply wells.
- A 500-foot separation is recommended between the
facility and Class I-A surface waters and Class II
waters approved or conditionally approved for shell-
fishing harvesting. The minimum distance to other
surface waters shall be established on a case-by-case
basis by the Department of Environmental Regulation (in
many instances, the recommended setback distance has
not been followed.)
- The physical characteristics of the unconsolidated
materials overlying bedrock shall be such that direct
rapid movement of the percolation pond effluent to the
underlying aquifers does not occur, unless treatment
prior to discharge is adequate to insure compliance
with groundwater quality provisions of Chapter 17-3 and
17-6 of the Florida Administrative code. A thin
section of high permeability sand overlying fractured
or cavernous limestone containing potential drinking
water supply is an example of the condition to be
avoided.
111-23
-------
- Areas with average depths to the water table of ten
feet or more are recommended for percolation ponds,
however, areas with lesser depth may be acceptable.
- Percolation ponds should be located such that lateral
subsurface movement of the effluent does not unpredict-
ably affect the percolation rates of cells within the
system.
- The design hydraulic loading (application) rate shall
be related to the permeability and transmissivity of
the geologic formations at the discharge facility and
shall be- evaluated, in depth, by the permittee-with
assistance from organizations or individuals qualified
by training or experience in soil science, geology and
hydrology.
- Hydraulic loading rates should be limited to three
inches per day, or 1.9 gal/d per square foot of cell
bottom on an annual average basis. Higher application
rates not to exceed nine inches per day, or 5.6 gal/d
per square foot of cell bottom may be considered if
hydrogeologically feasible.
- Hydraulic loading periods of one to seven days with
resting periods of five to 14 days to dry the. cell
bottoms are recommended.
- The application rate for individual percolation cells
shall not exceed 25 percent of the documented vertical
hydraulic conductivity.
The regulatory requirements for absorption fields and
drain fields are essentially identical to the requirements
for percolation ponds.
Detailed engineering reports are also required for all
wastewater facilities, including discussions of the
physical characteristics of the surface soil to a depth of
20 feet or at least 10 feet below the water table. Addi-
tional information is also required on the hydrogeology of
the project site including physical characteristics of the
aquifers (i.e., horizontal and vertical permeabilities,
porosity, thickne-ss, etc.), vertical heat gradient between
aquifers, water level elevations, direction and rate of
groundwater movement. For Type III facilities, however,
the manual allows for abbreviated reports on the soil
characteristics and hydrogeologic conditions based upon
the "best available" information. As discussed in a sub-
sequent section, little information is available at most
sites, particularly on the hydrogeologic conditions. As a
result, the engineering reports are of limited value for
assessing the impacts of Type III facilities.
111-24
-------
As in the case of ocean outfalls, Florida is writing its own regulations
for groundwater injection, which are likely to be more stringent than the
federal regulations. At the present time, Florida restricts deep-well injec-
tion to effluent which has received secondary treatment with tertiary filtra-
tion and chlorine disinfection. Wastewater may only be emplaced in aquifers
with concentrations of IDS greater than 10,000 mg/1, preferably one which is
separated from potable water supplies by two confining layers. Shallow well
disposal sites are not permitted into water table aquifers which are sources
of public water supplies except in the following circumstances: no other
alternative is available; the discharge will not violate drinking water
standards; the effluent has less than 1 JTU turbidity before disinfection;
total N is less than 10 mg/1 before discharge to the aquifer; and the
effluent has less than 1 mg/1 chlorine residual. . .-
3. Community Services and Facilities
Community services and facilities in the study area are currently.
considered adequate for the existing population, based on national and local
standards. However, community facilities must also be adequate to provide
for future growth in order to prevent critical deficiencies and eliminate the
need for hasty and costly expansion. Planning in the study area is currently
underway to provide for future needs.
Police protection, educational facilities, libraries, hospitals and
medical facilities, and administrative facilities are considered more than
adequate for the existing population and allow for moderate growth in the
Pensacola area. Fire protection in the study area, dependent primarily on
volunteer fire companies, is considered inadequate, based on national
standards. Solid waste disposal using sanitary landfill sites operated by
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties is currently adequate but in need of
improvement in the near future. Planned expansion of existing landfill sites
and the establishment of a new landfill site will provide for future growth.
Transportation facilities, while generally considered adequate, will require
continued maintenance and improvement as the need arises. Improvements to
the Port of Pensacola and the rail freight facilities are planned in response
to increasing port activity. Parks and recreation facilities are generally
adequate except in the area of neighborhood parks, where improvements are
currently scheduled. Private recreation facilities, dependent on a specific
market, will likely increase in response to increasing tourism and overall
leisure time.
Water supply and demand will probably be the critical issue in the
future. Currently, water supply, dependent primarily on the sand-and-gravel
aquifer, is keeping pace with water demand. However, as the demand for water
increases and the aquifer recharge capacity decreases (due to increased
development), saltwater intrusion may become a critical problem. Future
water demand will probably be met with a combination of increased pumping
capacity, new well sites, alternative (surface) water sources, and increased
conservation and recycling.
a. Water Supply
The sand-and-gravel aquifer and the upper Floridan aquifer supply most of
the potable water in the study area and will continue to be the major sources
111-25
-------
of potable water for the next 20 years. The sand-and-gravel aquifer is the
principal source of the Pensacola Water System, the Escambia County Water
System, the Peoples Water System, the Gulf Isles Utilities Company, and the
Santa Rosa Utilities. The upper Flortdan aquifer is used as the primary
water source in the eastern portion of the study area by the Midway Water
System, the Hoi ley/Navarre Water System, and the Navarre Beach Water System.
Most water systems in the study area are beginning to experience problems
related to increasing demand and water resource linn tationsv
Private wells are a minor source of potable water in the study area.
Based on population estimates provided by EPA and the Water System Study for
the city of Pensacola, approximately 7,130 persons in the Escambia County
portion of the study area are served by. private wells (3.3 percent of the
population). Most of the wells serve individual homes in the western and
southwestern portions of the county. Few private wells are located on Santa
Rosa Island or the Gulf Breeze.Peninsula. Limited use of private wells has
been authorized on Perdido Key; however, specific well locations and"
statistics are not readily available. Population projections indicate that
by 1990 less than one percent of the study area's population will be served
by private wells. In 1976, the Northwest Florida Water Management District
began permitting private wells. Most existing wells were in place prior to
the existing public water supplies and 1976. As a result, neither the Health
Department or the Water Management District have an accurate assessment of
the private wells on the barrier islands. However, as development encroaches
areas served by private wells the property owners are required to connect to
public water supplies.
The Santa Rosa Island Authority (SRIA), the Gulf Breeze Water Department
and Perdido Key are currently the only entities in the study area with water
supply limitations. Water supply to the SRIA is constrained by the size of
the pipeline from the city of Pensacola. The city of Gulf Breeze is limited
by the pumping capacity of the Midway Water System. The volume and pressure
of water supplied to Perdido Key is inadequate to provide fire protection on
much of the island due to increasing demand from medium- and high-rise con-
dominiums. Improvements will be necessary in the near future to sustain
growth in these, areas.
Expansion of water supply and distribution facilities has been proceeding
in several areas. New wells have recently been completed for the city of
Pensacola, Santa Rosa Shores Utilities, and the Midway Water System. A new
well for the Hoi ley/Navarre Water System is under construction and the Gulf
Isles Utilities is planning the development of a new well field. These new
facilities are needed to meet the projected demand on the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula.
Various engineering reports prepared for the water supply companies
provide water demand projections which indicate a 63 percent demand increase
in water demand by the year 2000 to a total demand of nearly 52 million
gallons per day (mgd). The projected demand can be met by either increased
pumping of existing wells or the development of new wells and distribution
facilities. Since increased pumping along the coastal areas is inhibited by
saltwater intrusion, increased turbidity and iron contamination (at some
locations), development of new well fields farther inland and expanded
distribution facilities will likely be necessary to meet increasing water
111-26
-------
demand in the coastal areas.
Additional studies have recently been conducted to provide more detailed
information about the study area's water resources and facilities. The U.S.
Geological Survey has conducted an analysis of the hydrologic budget of the
sand-and-gravel aquifer in Escambia County. The Northwest Florida Water
Management District (NWFWMD) has analyzed the public water supply facilities
and resources in the coastal areas of Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and
Walton Counties.
Table III-2 indicates the projected water demand for each of the service
areas in the study area.
b. Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste collection in the Escarosa study area is provided by a
combination of public-departments and-private contractors. Within the city
of Pensacola, trash and garbage collection is provided by the City's
Department of Public Services or a private contractor. Garbage collection in
the city of Gulf Breeze is provided by one private contractor, who is given
the exclusive franchise rights by the City Council. The Santa Rosa Island
Authority operates and maintains its own collection service for its
jurisdiction. Collection in other areas of the county is provided by fran-
chised collectors.
Solid waste disposal in the Escarosa study area is provided exclusively
by sanitary landfills operated by Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Solid
waste from the city of Gulf Breeze and the Navarre Beach area is disposed at
a Santa Rosa County-operated landfill site, Holley No. 2, located south of
Eglin Air Force Base. This landfill site is operated in compliance with
regulations established by the Florida Department of Environmental Regula-
tions. The only problem with this site is the long travel distance from the
city of Gulf Breeze (approximately 26 miles). Future plans call for the
expansion of the landfill at Holley No. 2 onto an additional 40-acre leased
tract.
Other jurisdictions in the study area use landfill sites owned and oper-
ated by Escambia County. Currently, the county's sites at Beulah and Klon-
dike have either reached or are rapidly approaching capacity. The landfill
at Beulah has been closed to all but wastewater sludge. The Klondike site
was recently expanded by the acquisition of additional acreage, allowing the
facility to remain open for an additional year.
In response to the need for additional landfill capcity, Escambia County
has purchased a 424-acre tract north of Interstate 10 and has acquired a
construction permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation. This
site is scheduled to open with the closing of the Klondike site and should
serve the needs of Escambia County for at least the next twenty-five years.
c. Recreation
Public, private and semi-private recreation facilities in the Escarosa
study area complement one another and offer a variety of facilities and
opportunities for residents and tourists. Public facilities owned and
111-27
-------
Table III-2. Projected Water Demand by Service Area in the Escarosa Study
Area in Millions of Gallons per Day (mgd)
1981
(existing) 1985
Pensacola
Peoples
Escambia Co.
District I
Escambia Co.
District IV
Gulf Breeze
Gulf Isles
Santa Rosa Shores
Midway
Holley/Navarre
SRIA
SRCBA
Source: City of
25.40
2.50
1.30
.74
.14
.23
.23
.31
.94
31.79
Pensacola,
26.92
3.01
1.09
-1.34
.85
.30
.33
.45
.47
.93
2.02
37.71
Water System
1990
28.61
3.71
1.19
1.44
.85
.30
.39
.61
.63
1.34
3.09
41.62
Study,
1995
31.71
3.33
1.27
1-.57
.84
.30
.39
.77
.79
1.74
4.18
46.89
2000
34.41
3.49
1.36
1.71
.83
.30
.39
.93
.95
2.14
5.26
51.77
Boyle Engineering Cor
tion, October 1980; Polyengineering Inc., 1980; Baskerville-Dono-
van, Inc., 1980, Claude Terry & Associates, 1981.
111-28
-------
operated by the various jurisdictions in the area are most adequate in the
categories of mini-parks, community parks and urban/regional parks. The
variety of facilities offered at these parks include ballfields, tennis
facilities, playgrounds and picnic areas. Additional public facilities offer
boat ramps and camping. The regional parks in the area provide large areas
of natural, undeveloped land suitable for camping, hiking and other outdoor
activities. These regional parks include Gulf Islands National Seashore,
Blackwater River State Park and Eglin Wildlife Reserve.
Private and semi-private facilities in the study area generally offer
recreation opportunities that are unavailable at public facilities. Golf
courses and racquetbal1 clubs are the primary private recreation facilities
in the Pensacola area. Marinas are also included in the category of private
recreation facilities since marinas in the area cater primarily to the recrea-
tional boating community. Boating and water-related sports are major recrea-
tion activities in the Pensacola area. The availability-and variety of
recreation facilities irr~the Pensacola area reflects the growing importance
of recreation. Locally, the importance of tourism -is also responsible for
the emphasis on recreation facilities.
4. Economic Profile
A regional economic profile involves the ananlysis of local economic
indicators, area industries and natural resources. An analysis of local
financial considerations can also be used to provide an indication of the
financial stability of the local governments. An economic profile of the
Pensacola region indicates a moderately diverse, stable economy with projec-
tions for slow, positive growth.
a. Economic Indicators
Civilian labor market, personal income and retail sales are often used
as indicators of an area's economic stability. In the Pensacola SMSA, these
indicators show a stable economy of regional prominence. Projections based
on current trends indicate a slow-growing economy relative to other urban
areas in the Florida panhandle as well as the state of Florida.
The civilian labor market in the Pensacola SMSA is estimated at approxi-
mately 95,900 employees. Major industries include government (26,000
employees), trade (23,000 employees) and services (18,300 employees). While
most industries have steadily increased employment since 1974, construction
(6,300 employees) and manufacturing (13,200 employees) have posted steady de-
creases in employment. Projections indicate the service industry will become
the major source of employment in the Pensacola SMSA.
Statistics for the Pensacola SMSA indicate declining per capita income
due to increased dependence on transfer payments (social security, unemploy-
ment payments) and rising employment in the services and retail trade indus-
tries. Effective Buying Income (a measure of buying power) is another mea-
sure of household income, and in 1979 median household EBI in the Pensacola
SMSA was below the median household EBI for both Tallahassee and Florida.
Projections indicate increasing EBI in the Pensacola SMSA, keeping pace with
the rest of the state but not improving its relative position.
111-29
-------
Retail trade statistics indicate that the Pensacola SMSA is the retail
center of the Florida panhandle in terms of dollar volume. While sales have
declined in several categories in the past two years (general merchandise,
furniture and appliances), other categories have shown increased sales. Pro-
jections of retail sales indicate modest growth for the Pensacola area,
lagging slightly behind other urban areas and the state of Florida.
b. Area Industries
The Pensacola area economy is supported primarily by three industries:
tourism, U.S. military, and manufacturing. While no one component is consid-
ered critical to the area economy, military expenditures and tourism comprise
the major economic base.
Tourism in the Pensacola area is considered a growing industry. Annual
increases in terms of number of tourists and total expenditures have been
realized since 1976. In 1979Y- an~ estimated 1,557,000-tourists contributed
more than $233 million to the area economy. The positive trends of the past
several years are expected to continue as local promotional activities have
been increased.
U.S. military involvement in the Pensacola area has a long history and
has become a major part of the local economy. The major military facilities
in Pensacola are owned by the U.S. Navy and include the Naval Air Station,
the Naval Air Rework Facility and several other naval airfields. Eglin Air
Force Base is another major military facility located within the study area.
While the future of several military facilities is uncertain, the recent
resurgence of concern about national defense indicates a positive trend for
military installations in the Pensacola area.
Manufacturing in the Pensacola area primarily involves the chemical and
paper industries. The two largest manufacturers in the area are Monsanto
(chemicals) and St. Regis Paper Company. Although still considered a major
economic factor, manufacturing is becoming less important in the local econ-
omy due to steady cut-backs in employment. Improved tax incentives and
increased industrial development activities are expected to reverse the
recent trends in manufacturing employment.
c. Natural Resources
Natural resources are natural features possessing actual or potential
economic value. The value of these resources may result directly from
primary exploitation, or indirectly from secondary economic benefits.
Quantitative figures showing the economic worth of natural resources are
often difficult to obtain and are best considered as estimates.
Fisheries are the most important natural resource within the study area.
Although many of the fish processed in local ports are landed in waters
outside the study area, a significant portion of this catch is from local
waters. For instance, local water quality problems in the late 1960's and
early 1970's have been associated with significantly decreased fisheries
landings in those years (USEPA 1975).
111-30
-------
Other regionally important natural resources include forestry, agricul-
ture and mining, but the primary exploitations of these resources occur in
the northern two-thirds of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. These resources
provide valuable secondary economic benefits to communities within the study
area.
d. Local Financial Considerations
The City of Pensacola and Escambia County are the primary jurisdictions
in the Escarosa study area. An analysis of their revenues and expenditures
indicates the financial status of the area and the capacity for increasing
revenue and services. The following analysis is based on figures from FY
1976, according to the 1977 U.S. Census of -Government.. . . ...
The two major categories of revenue are local sources (taxes, fees and
charges) and intergovernmental grants. For~tbe City of Pensacola, intergov-
ernmental grants account for approximately 45 percent of all revenue while
local sources contribute 55 percent. Of all local sources, taxes provide 40
percent and current charges provide 44 percent. The most underutilized
source of revenue in Pensacola is the property tax, which contributes only 7
percent of all revenue. In recent years the city has reduced the mi 11 age
rate as rising assessments have kept property tax revenue stable.
Expenditures of Pensacola are primarily for provision of municipal
services (68 percent) as opposed to capital outlays (32 percent). The major
expenditure in FY 1976 (according to the U.S. Census of Government) was for
sewage treatment (approximately 32 percent of total expenditures). A large
portion of this expenditure involved capital improvements. Interest on
general debt accounted for approximately 5.5 percent of total expenditures in
1976.
Revenues and expenditures for Escambia County differ from those of the
City of Pensacola. Intergovernmental grants account for only 30 percent of
all County revenue while tax revenue (property and sales) alone contributes
approximately 30 percent. Charges and miscellaneous sources provide the
other 40 percent of total revenues. Capital outlays account for less than
nine percent of all expenditures in Escambia County. The largest single
expenditure in Escambia County is for hospitals, approximately 21 percent of
all expenditures for FY 1976. Other major expenditures include police
protection (11.6 percent of total) and highways (8.9 percent of total).
Interest on general debt accounts for approximately 7.1 percent of total
expenditures.
Water and sewer rates are by far the major user charges in the Pensacola
area. The various jurisdictions and water companies necessitate a relative
comparison based on average estimated consumption. All jurisdictions have a
graduated rate structure for both water and sewer based on water consumption.
Based on a family of four with an average consumption of 100 gal/person/day,
the estimated water bills range from $7.39/month for the City of Pensacola to
$15.96/month for the City of Gulf Breeze. Sewer rates, based on water con-
sumption, range from $12.30/month for the City of Gulf Breeze to $16.28/month
for the City of Pensacola. Water users in Escambia County outside the juris-
111-31
-------
diction of Pensacola may receive their water from the city for a slightly
higher charge. Recently the City of Pensacola and Escambia County have
combined to create a special Water and Wastewater Authority based on -the
water service area. The water and sewer rates will be adjusted in the near
future to eliminate the current differential between city residents and
county residents. The new rate structure and average estimated charges are
not known at this time.
Solid waste collection is another municipal service funded by user fee.
Residents of Gulf Breeze, Pensacola and Santa Rosa Island pay an average of
$7.00/month for garbage collection.
Property taxes vary throughout the study area and also constitute a
major portion of homeowner costs. Residents of Escambia County pay county
property taxes of 16.35 mills on 100 percent of the assessed property value.
Residents of Santa Rosa County- pay county property - taxes--of: -9.2: mills.
Florida State Statutes establish a maximum municipal tax rate of 10.0 mills.
Both the City of Pensacola (3.81 mills) and the City of Gulf Breeze (2.0
mills) are well below the legislated limit. City property taxes represents
the most readily available source of increased revenue.
5. Historic and Archeological Resources
A number of known historic sites are found in the two-county area
(Tesar, pers. comm.) and are listed in the National Register of Historic
Places (U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service 1973). A list of the
most important sites is included in the 201 Facilities Plan (1978). Most of
these historic sites are associated with Pensacola and the barrier islands.
Some of the most important historic sites in the study area include Fort
Pickens (site of the major Civil War conflict), Fort George (site of the
siege of Pensacola in 1781), Christ Church (oldest building of worship in
northwest Florida), Light House (built in 1859 and marks the involvement of
U.S. Navy in the area), Seville Square Historic District (site of the
mid-eighteenth century settlement of Pensacola), and Battery San Antonio
(built 1803-1814 as a defense for Spanish forces). In addition, numerous
buildings in the area are listed as historic landmarks (201 Facilities Plan
1978).
Particular reference to actual archaeological sites for the Escambia-San-
ta Rosa areas is difficult because so much of this area has not been surveyed
at the present time (Tesar, pers. comm.). However, certain assumptions can
be made based on the ecotonal breaks (e.g., vegetation and soil type) for
this area (Tesar, pers. comm.; Lauderdale, pers. comm.).
Based on the 26 ecotonal types used by Louis Tesar in his study for the
Eglin AFB, the following statements are made for each of these zones. Most
of the 26 ecotonal types present a low frequency of occurrence for archaeolog-
ical sites and include: moving coastal dunes, rosemary sand pine scrub, sand
pine scrub, turkey oak-sand pine-longleaf pine, turkey oak-longleaf pine,
mesic hammock, hydric hammock, ravine forest, bayhead, stream banks, fluvial
swamps, bogs, ponds, fresh water and saltwater marsh, reforested areas, open
ranges, roadsides, and utility pole lanes. The areas with some likelihood of
111-32
-------
sites include sand pine-turkey oak with persimmon and magnolia, xeric ham-
mock, and stationary coastal dunes. The most important sites occur in the
xeric hammock ecotone.
6. Wastewater Facilities
Wastewater systems are generally divided into regional systems (Main
Street Plant), subregional systems (subdivision package plants), and on-site
systems (septic tanks). Each are represented in the study area but most
wastewater is handled by regional facilities. An important aspect of waste-
water management alternatives development and evaluation is an analysis of
existing and projected wastewater systems. An inventory of existing systems
provides data on remaining capacities of existing systems. -With regard to
on-site systems, the analysis indicates those areas where on-site systems
have proved successful and those areas (soils) where they have failed.
The Main Street. Wastwater Treatment Plant serving Pensacola is the
largest treatment plant in the study area. Currently completing a program of
expansion and modification, this plant is operating at an expanded 75,700
m3/day (20.0 mgd) capacity with multiple hearth incineration of sludge. The
plant is preparing to go on-line with advanced treatment. Table III-3 con-
tains a further description of this facility. Operating characteristics for
the Main Street Plant since expansion are shown in Table III-4.
Descriptions of other facilities in the study area with design capa-
cities greater than 378 m3/day^ (100,000 gpd) are also given in Table III-3.
These smaller plants generally'utilize some form of activated sludge treat-
ment and dispose of their sludge to a landfill after digestion. Except for
the Scenic Hills and Santa Rosa Shores Plants, which utilize spray irriga-
tion, all of the plants discharge their effluent to surface waters. Operat-
ing characteristics are shown in Table III-4. Some systems experience large
seasonal variations in flow.
There are 22 treatment plants with capacities of 378 m3/day (100,000
gpd) or less in the Escarosa study area. The majority of these package
plants make use of extended aeration treatment with disposal to percolation
ponds. Table III-5 contains descriptions of these systems. Seasonal
variations in flow are also experienced by many of these facilities.
Only one industrial wastewater treatment facility with capacity greater
than 3,785 m3/day (1.0 mgd) is located in the study area. Located at the
Pensacola Naval Air Station (NAS), this plant treats both domestic and indus-
trial wastewaters. Five industrial facilities located outside the study area
have the potential to affect water quality within the study area because of
their surface water discharges. There are three chemical companies: Air
Products, American Cyanamid, and Monsanto; a paper company, St. Regis; and a
power company, Crist Electric.
Individual on-site disposal systems are regulated by Chapter 10D-6,
State of Florida "Standards for Individual Sewage Disposal Facilities." The
use of these systems are regulated by the Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitation Services and the county health departments. Prior to the
111-33
-------
Table III-3. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Capacities Greater Than 378 m3/day (0.1 MGD)
Treatment
Plant
City of Pensacola
Main Street
Scenic Hills
Mainland
Escambia County
Avondale
Pen Haven
Harrington
Moreno Courts
Pensacola MAS
Industrial
Domestic
Saufley Field
Santa Rosa Island
Pensacola Beach
Navarre Beach
Santa Rosa County
Gulf Breeze
Santa Rosa
Shores
Owner or
Operating Authority
City of Pensacola
City of Pensacola
Escambia County
Escambia County
Escambia County
Pensacola Housing
Authority
U.S. Navy
U.S. Navy
U.S. Navy
Santa Rosa Island
Authority
Santa Rosa County
Beach Administration
City of Gulf Breeze
Santa Rosa Shores
Utility Company
Design Capacity,
m3/day (mgd)
75,708
(20.0)
3,785
(1.00)
. 3,785
(1.00)
1,136
(0.30)
7,571
(2.00)
795
(0.21)
3,785-4,732
(1.00-1.25)
11,356
(3.00)
795
(0.21)
4,542
(1.20)
1,703
(0.45)
1,893
(0.50)
492
(0.13)
Treatment Process
Wastewater/Sludge
Ad vancedl /incineration
i
Activated sludge/incineration
at Main Street
Contact Stabilization/Aerobic
digestion
Trickling Filter/Aerobic
digestion
Contact Stabilization/Aerobic
digestion
Extended aeration, package
plant/Anaerobic digestion
Aerated equalization, biological
treatment of phenols/sludge dry-
ing beds
Extended aeration/Aerobic
digestion
Trickling filter/Aerobic
digestion
Activated sludge/Sludge thick-
ening
Contact stabilization/Aerobic
digestion
Extended aeration <0.30 mgd,
Contact stabilization >0.30
mgd/Aerobic digestion
Extended aeration/Aerobic
digestion
Effluent
Disposal
Pensacola Bay
Spray irrigation
Bayou Marcus
Bayou Chico
Jones Swamp Creek-
Bayou Chico
Jones Swamp Creek-
Bayou Chico
Pensacola Bay
Pensacola Bay
i
Drainage ditch
to Perdido Bay
Santa Rosa Sound
i
Santa Rosa Sound
Santa Rosa Sound
Spray irrigation to
gol f course
Sludge
Disposal
Sanitary Landfill
Sanitary Landfill
Beulah Landfill
Beulah Landfill 2
Beulah Landfill2
Sanitary Landfill
Hazardous Waste
secured landfill
in Alabama
Landfill or land-
spread
Sanitary Landfill
i
Beulah Landfill2
Holly Landfill
Holly Landfill
Holly Landfill
1. Treatment includes phosphorus control, nitrification, denitrification, and ozonation.
2. Sludge to be incinerated at Main Street in the future.
Sources: "201 Facilities Plan for South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties"; 208 Supplement, "Residual Waste Management Work Element 530";
Owners and operating authorities. . ,
-------
Table III-4. Average Effluent Characteristics for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities Capacities Greater than
378 m3/day (0.1 mgd)
Average Concentrations, mg/1 (Ib/mgal)
Treatment
Plant
Main Street 1
Scenic Hills
Avondale
Pen Haven
Warrington
Moreno Courts
Pensacola NAS2
Saufley Field
Pensacola Beach
Navarre Beach
Gulf Breeze
Santa Rosa Shores
Average
Flow
Population m3/day BODs
Served (mgd) inf/eff
120,000 38,611
(10.2)
2,800 1,060
(0.28)
11,950 3,770
(0.996)
6,660 1.476
(0.390)3
18,000 4,921
(1.3)
2,100 447
(0.118)
10,220
(2.7)
216
(0.057)
8,240 2,760
(0.729)
1,250 481
(0.127)
2,100 821
(0.217)
1,138 534
(0.141)
279/10
(2328/83)
154/6
(1285/50)
210/8
(1752/67)
188/10
(1569/83)
188/2
(1569/17)
144/10
(951/83)
-/9.2
(-/80)
-/7.5
(-/62)
93/6
(776/50)
87/7
(726/58)
264/18
(2211/150)
260/14
(2170/117)
TSS
inf/eff
782/10
(6526/83)
146/4
(1218/33)
162/12
(1352/100)
168/12
(1402/100)
170/2
(1419/17)
49/9
(409/75)
-/11.6
(-/97)
°-/5.5
(-746)
96/6
(801/50)
81/5
(676/42)
306/16
(2554/134)
333/17
(2779/142)
Chlorine Range of
1 Residual Fecal Col i form
mg/1 Values per 100 ml
Nitrogen Total P , pH (Ib/mgalJ (Values per pint)
15(125) 4 7.4 1.2
(TKN) (33) (10.0)
6.8
7.2
6.8
6.8
6.8
2.3(19) 1.0 6.9-7.2
(TKN) (8.3) (Average
range)
6.3-6.6
(Average
range)
6.6
: 7.2
20(167) 4.6(38) 7.1
(Total N) ,
5.8
0.8
(6.7)
0.6
(5.0)
0.5
(4.2)
0.5
(4.2)
0.9
(7.5)
0.8
(6.7)
1.54
(12.8)
1.2
10)
0.6
(5.0)
1.1
0.8
(6.7)
2-25
(9.5-118)
0-5
(0-24)
2-228
(9.5-1079)
2-647
(9.5-3062)
0-13
(0-62)
0
2-16
(9.5-76)
0-11
(0-52)
3-28
(14-132)
2-93
(9.5-440)
2-1430
(9.2) (9.5-6768)
2
(9.5)
Sources: Florida DER Northwest District Office Files >
Department of the Navy, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
Period of record for this table - October 1979 through September 1980 •
1. Main Street is presently completing expansion and modification. Values cited represent operation since expanded
plant went on-line, 2-12-80, however, not all of the advanced treatment processes have been completed.
2. Pensacola NAS treats both domestic and industrial wastewaters; cited values are for combined effluent. Period
3. Severe infiltration problems.
-------
Table III-5. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Capacities of 378 m3/day (0.1 mgd) Or Less
Treatment
Facility
Escanibia County
Azalea Trace
Bayou Grande Vi Has
Beulah Elementary
Florida DOT 1-10
Fountain Blue MHP
Grande Lagoon
Grantwood Apartments
Lakeview Mobile Estates
Mariner Condominiums
Pensacola Greyhound
Park
Perdido Bay C.C.
Perdido Key
Condominium
Pine Forest Work Plant
Center
Sandy Acres MHP
Sundown Condominium
Timber! ake MHP
Design Capacity
ml/day, (mgd)
227
(.060)
155
(.041)
56.8
(.015)
56.8
(.015)
47.3
(.0125)
189
(.050)
62.4
(.0165)
227
(.060)
227
(.060)
90.8
(.024)
265
(.070)
94.6
(.025)
18.9
(.005)
15.1
(.004)
90.8
(.024)
114
(.030)
Treatment
Process
j
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Contact
stabilization
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Receiving
System
Percolation
pond
Bayou Grande
Percolation
pond
Drainage
ditch
Bayou Chico
Percolation
pond
Percolation
pond
Eight Mile
Creek
Percolation
pond
Drainfield
Percolation
pond
Drainfield
Drainfield
Subsurface
drainage
Percolation
pond
Bayou Marcus
Creek
Present Flow,
ml/day, (mgd)
under
26.5
(.007)
under
3.78
(.001)
37.8
(.010)
159
(.042)
18.9
(.005)
98.4
(.026)
155
(.041)
41.6
(.on)
174
(.046)
under
11.4
(.003)
7.57
(.002)
11.4
(.003)
94.6
(.025)
Percent BOD
Removal
construction
96
construction
96
92
97
97
96
97
96
92
construction
78
91
95
96
-------
Table III-5, Continued
Treatment
Facility
Escambia County
Vista Del Mar
Weekly Bayou
Windward Condominium
Santa Rosa County
Colonial Pines
Mobile Estates
Hoi ly-Navarre
Elementary School
Villa Veynce
Subdivision
Design Capacity
ml/day, (mgd)
189
(.050)
114
(.030)
227
(.060)
75.7
(.020)
34.1
(.009)
378
(.100)
Treatment
Process
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Contact
stabilization
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Extended
aeration
Receiving
System
Percolation
pond
Drainfield
Percolation
pond
Drainfield
Subsurface
drainfield
Percolation
pond
Present Flow,
ml/day, (mgd)
37.8
(.010)
159
(.042)
41.6
(.011)
34.1
(.009)
7.57
(.002)
170
(.045)
Percent BOD
Removal
97
94
99
95
98
94
Sources: "201 Facilities Plan for South Escarnbia and Santa Rosa Counties" and Florida DER.
-------
installation of any system, a permit from the Health Department must be
obtained. Presently, the health departments are in charge of issuing permits
for systems up to 18.9 cubic meters per day (5,000 gals, per day). Larger
systems are under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation.
All subsurface disposal systems must be permitted prior to construction.
Permit applications must contain information regarding individual system suit-
ability, including lot size and the results of investigations by qualified
professionals made during the wettest time of the year. These investigations
include consideration of percolation characteristics, soil profiles, water
table elevations, flood history, and the performance record for individual
systems -in adjacent areas. The state regulation also pronounces that if a
wastewater collector pipe is available within 30.5 meters (100 feet) of a
property line, on-site individual treatment systems are not to be used.
Septic tank-and absorption field construction standards are-specifically
given in the State Code. Required capacities of septic tanks for various
types of buildings are also given. Final inspection of in-place facilities
is required before covering with earth and placing into service. Only after
such an inspection is an operating permit issued by the county health
departments.
A widespread use of on-site disposal systems continues in the study area
where sanitary wastewater service is not available. Much of the new
multi-family development on Perdido Key continues to use subsurface sewage
disposal techniques as do other undeveloped sectors in the study area. Many
of the systems in use consist principally of conventional septic tanks and
disposal fields with trenchs or seepage beds. Alternate disposal techniques,
such as elevated sand mounds, are used less frequently to overcome minor
limitations with high water tables. No alternatives presently exist in the
state regulations to overcome limitations associated with slowly permeable
soils with measured percolation rates exceeding 5.90 minutes per centimeter
(15 minutes per inch).
The Escambia County Health Department recognizes several problem areas
within the study area. These are,'generally, the low-lying, poorly drained,
lowland sectors around Bayou Grande such as Beach Haven and Star Lake.
Several other problems have also been noted in the older sectors of the
Edgewater and Lakewood developments that are adjacent to Bayou Chico.
Portions of these areas are situated on poorly to very poorly drained soils
with seasonally high water tables. In general, periodic flooding problems
occur in the low-lying coastal areas whenever prolonged rainfall events cause
the already shallow water tables to rise and remain at or near the surface.
D. Description of Environmental Concerns and Mitigation
Associated with Alternatives
An environmental evaluation of alternatives involves data analysis,
assessment of impacts on the natural and man-made elements, and comparison of
impacts associated with alternatives. Important natural elements include air
quality, noise, odors, soils, geology, topography, water quality, aquatic
ecosystems, and terrestrial ecosystems. Important man-made factors include
111-38
-------
land use, population, community services, economic resources, and
historical/archaeological resources.
The decision tree methodology displayed in Figure III-l was developed to
distinguish environmental impacts of minimal concern from those impacts that
were considered essential in the comparison of alternatives. Impacts of
minimal concern are primarily minor or insignificant in magnitude, temporary
in duration, and localized in effect. These impacts are most likely to
result from the construction or operation of wastewater treatment facilities
and can usually be prevented or mitigated by standard design and management
practices. Examples of such impacts include noise and soil erosion from
construction activities and odor problems caused by temporary wastewater
treatment plant malfunctions.
Other impacts were considered minimal because they were insignificant or
negligible in relation to the resources of the affected parameters in the
study area as a whole. For instance, wastewater treatment plants typically
emit small amounts of air pollutants such as nitrous oxides. However, these
pollutants are easily assimulated by the surrounding atmosphere and are
usually inconsequential in relation to the amounts of air pollutants derived
from other sources, such as automobiles.
Impacts that were common to all of the alternatives were also considered
minimal from the standpoint of alternatives evaluation. Although these im-
pacts in some cases may be large in magnitude or duration, such common
impacts are of-little use in comparing the relative acceptability of differ-
ent alternatives.
The following sections describe environmental concerns common to most
alternatives and potential mitigation procedures for those concerns.
1. Land Use and Population
Before recent changes in Clean Water Act regulations deleted allowances
for future development and associated wastewater needs, land use and popula-
tion were a prime consideration in the evaluation of alternatives. The
recent changes, however, do not allow for the consideration of future devel-
opment but only for existing problems. Therefore, the influences on control-
ling land use development and population growth are minimized. Assessments
of land use and population remain important concerning environmentally
sensitive areas such as Southwest Escambia County and Perdido Key that are
not'sewered. If such areas exhibited major problems they could be resolved
by central sewer systems. Of course, in environmentally sensitive areas
other factors such as building in floodplains or wetlands usually limit the
development potential. The recent changes in Clean Water Act regulations
basically act to mitigate influences on land use and population.
2. Noise
Impacts on noise levels may be associated with all of the wastewater
management alternatives. The operation of equipment and vehicles during the
construction of wastewater treatment plants and conveyance lines will result
in elevated noise levels which should be temporary in duration and limited to
111-39
-------
Figure III-l. Generic Decision Tree Utilized in the Alternatives Evaluation
Procedure.
Terminate
Evaluation.
NO
Identify Evaluation Parameter
and Treatment/Disposal Alter-
native.
Is Data Base Adequate
Evaluate Parameter?
to
YES
Identify All Potential Im-
pacts to Parameter Associated
with the Alternative.
Are There Any Potential
Impacts to the Parameter?
^
YES
>
Are Impacts Significant in
Relation to Parameter Re-
sources in the Study Area?
•^
YES
x
Are Impacts Minor, Short-term,
and Localized in Effect?
NO
Are Impacts Significantly Dif-
ferent Than Those Associated
with All Other Alternatives,
Including No-Federal-Action?
of Minimal
(Section 2.3)
YES
Conduct Detailed Matrix
Evaluation of Key Impacts
Associated with the Alter-
native.
-------
daylight hours. Noise impacts of lower intensity but longer duration will
result from the operation of pumping stations, sprinkler heads and other
wastewater treatment facilities. In all instances, adverse impacts from
elevated noise levels should be minor in effect because they are localized.
A variety of standard methods are available for the mitigation or
control of noise problems. Leffel (1976) recommends that noise can be most
efficiently controlled at the source with the proper design and siting of
wastewater treatment facilities. Recommended techniques for mitigating
potential noise problems include architectural designs which absorb sound and
isolate loud equipment; use of mufflers and other noise reduction devices;
siting of plants in isolated locations; and use of vegetative screens and
buffer zones to absorb sounds.
3. Odors
Although odor problems can sometimes result in major impacts, for the
purpose of comparing alternatives such impacts were considered minimal. This
determination was justified because odor problems are generally short-term in
duration, localized in effect, and readily prevented or mitigated by proven
measures. Additionally, properly designed and operated treatment facilities
should not experience long-term odor problems. Any temporary odor problems
which may occur are generally non-predictable and may be associated with all
of the various wastewater management alternatives. Because odor problems
have been associated with the Main Street plant, however, the following
discussion is included.
Objectionable odors in the vicinity of wastewater treatment facilities
may result from three common sources:
1. Incomplete oxidation of organic material contained in wastewater,
causing the formation of malodorous compounds of sulfur and
nitrogen
2. Accumulation of slime, sludge or other organic waste deposits
resulting in the production of H2$ and other odorants
3. Release of H£S and other odorants from wastewaters at points of
turbulence, such as freefalls (Leffel 1976).
Other potential sources include oil, grease, fats and soaps from
industry, homes and urban runoff; gaseous emissions from treatment processes,
manholes, wells, pumping stations and leaks; chlorinated water containing
phenols; and dredged or excavated matter (Leffel 1976).
For a comprehensive review of odor control techniques, refer to the EPA
publication "Direct Environmental Factors at Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Works," (#MCD-20) by Leffel (1976). Some of the important design elements
and operational practices recommended by this publication include:
1. Locate the facility on a well ventilated site to prevent odor
accumulation, not in a hollow or where it will be closely
surrounded by trees.
111-41
-------
2. Provide for sufficient mixing to ensure scouring velocities over
the entire floor of aeration basins and to prevent sludge accumu-
lation in corners where velocities are low.
3. Enclose locations of turbulent flow where odorants or aerosols
might escape from anaerobic wastewater or sludge to prevent escape
of odorants and to collect them for oxidation before discharge to
the atmosphere. Such locations may include headworks, primary
clarifiers, trickling filters, sludge thickeners, sludge dewatering
tanks, and sludge holding tanks.
4. Provide high pressure connections for hoses for use in the daily
flushing of walls and corners to prevent any accumulation of slime
or sludge.
5. Provide adequate -slopes in all conduits, whether open or closed, to
ensure scouring velocities once a day.
6. Provide for mechanical cleaning of all closed conduits, if slopes
are not sufficient to ensure daily scouring velocities.
7. Provide for U-tube aeration of anaerobic wastewater in manholes
upstream of pumping stations or treatment facilities or provide a
means of adding hydrogen peroxide, chlorine, or hypochlorite, if
the sulfide problem is too much for simple aeration, to prevent
escape of odors at the pumping station or treatment facility
headworks.
8. Provide aeration in distribution channels to maintain aerobic
conditions as well as to ensure homogeneity of the organic material
in the wastewater.
9. Provide for returning a portion of the waste activated sludge to
the headworks to assist in reducing odors.
10. Provide for pneumatic or other enclosed transfer of screenings or
other odorous compounds to the disposal point.
11. Provide a vacuum cleaner truck for cleaning grease traps, screening
boxes, scum boxes, and catch basins and for carrying their odorous
contents in an enclosed tank to the disposal point.
12. Provide an adequate section in the facility operation and
maintenance manual on odor control. This should include procedures
for daily flushing to remove slime and sludge accumulations; for
checking for sufficient conditioning of sludge before its discharge
to open drying beds or use as fertilizer on lawns; for cleaning all
sludge discharge pipes and areas immediately after use; for
preventing overuse of treated wastewater for irrigation; and for
using sulfuric acid or caustic soda for removing slime or lime
encrustations.
13. Provide requirements in the sewer ordinance for removal or for
reduction to a treatable level of all industrial waste compounds
111-42
-------
which might cause odor problems at a properly operated wastewater
facility.
4. Air Quality
Impacts on air quality (excluding odors) from wastewater treatment
facilities are generally considered negligible if required air pollution
control equipment and management techniques are maintained. Incineration of
sewage sludge is the greatest potential source of air pollutants, with
unfiltered or improperly treated emissions containing particulates, metals,
and various gases (WPCF 1977). If properly operated, scrubbers are capable
of keeping such incineration emissions well within air quality standards
(WPCF 1977). Although gaseous emissions may contain hydrogen chloride,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide, sludge incineration
does not usually emit such pollutants ln-slgnifleant concentrations, and some
of these gases are further reduced by scrubbers (WPGF 1977). Accordingly,
any adverse impacts to air quality from sludge incineration are anticipated
to be negligible and may be mitigated by routine maintenance and monitoring
procedures.
Aerosols containing pathogens are another potential adverse impact to
air quality from wastewater treatment facilities. Such aerosols would be
generated in significant amounts only by sprinklers used in spray irrigation
systems. However, studies of such systems have shown no conclusive evidence
of increased incidence of diseases near such facilities (Leffler 1976) and
chlorination of secondary effluents would effectively mitigate any possible
hazards.
Construction activities will also result in minor, temporary
degradations of air quality localized in the vicinity of construction sites.
Such pollutants primarily consist of dust and exhaust emissions generated by
construction equipment. The following summaries of air quality problems and
control methods as recommended by Leffel (1976) and Carroll (undated) are
organized according to various construction activities:
1. Clearing, grubbing, and stripping. Control dust by water sprink-
ling and chemical treatment such as use of calcium chloride.
Seeding may be effective. Light petroleum or bituminous surface
treatment may be used. Vegetative buffer zones maintained around
construction sites can trap a substantial amount of fugitive dust.
2. Excavation, stockpiling earth, and embankment placement. Control
dust by water sprinkling and chemical treatment. Seeding may be
effective. Light petroleum or bituminous surface treatment may be
used.
3. Blasting, quarry drilling, and rock crushing. Use coverings or
enclosures, and restrict operations to low wind conditions.
4. Cement and aggregate handling operations at mixing plants. Enclose
operations and restrict to the most suitable location given land
use and prevailing wind.
111-43
-------
5. Cement or lime in soil stabilization operations. Select equipment
to contain dust within dispersing hopper and also to dispense
cement or lime with minimum dust.
6. Haul road construction and maintenance. Control dust by water
sprinkling and chemical treatment. If heavily used or
semi-permanent, paving may be justified. Trucks hauling fill
materials should be equipped with covers to prevent the scattering
of dust and dirt.
7. Sandblasting and gunite operations. Conduct operations in enclosed
space, properly vented, to trap aerosols. Enclosure may be by
temporary barriers.
8. Smoke from heaters during winter operations and from asphalt plant
heaters. Select better fuels"and'heaters to ensure, higher than
1,400° F temperature and essentially complete oxidation.
9. Paint spraying operations. Control hazards by proper venting of
work spaces. Reduce aerosols by use of proper application
techniques and properly maintained equipment. Specify alternative
coatings or applications.
10. Smoke from burning cleared growth and scrap material. Use pit
incineration to limit escape of particulates, especially if burning
is permitted for debris disposal.
5. Geology and Topography
Geology and topography are considered here together because of their
close interrelationship within the study area. The proposed wastewater
management alternatives are not likely to have any significant impacts on
geologic resources because the bedrock formations underlying the study area
are overlain by thick deposits of recent unconsolidated sediments. Any
excavations or alterations of geologic resources will be restricted to
surficial deposits of soils.
Topographic alternations are likely to occur at construction sites for
wastewater treatment facilities and conveyance lines. Construction of
wastewater treatment plants is likely to involve long-term changes of
topographic features, but such impacts should be minor because of the
relatively flat landscape of the study area and the small amounts of land
required. Excavation of conveyance lines would result in minor, short-term
impacts on topography because pipeline corridors should be returned to their
pre-existing topographic conditions following construction.
As a mitigation measure, topographic alterations should be designed and
constructed so that they result in minimal changes to natural drainage
conditions. In coastal regions of limited relief, such as southern Escambia
and Santa Rosa Counties, minor changes in topography and elevation can cause
considerable changes in drainage. Care should be taken to insure that
topographic alterations do not result in the drying of existing wetlands or
the saturation of presently dry areas.
111-44
-------
6. Soils
Minimal impacts to soils are associated with the various wastewater
management operations and are primarily related to construction activities.
Such impacts may result from soil compaction from heavy equipment, excava-
tions which alter soil profiles, and increased soil erosion. Impacts from
compaction and altered profiles are considered insignificant because of the
sandy soils prevalent in the study area and the limited amount of soils
likely to be affected.
Soil erosion resulting -from vegetative clearing and grading operations
is a potentially serious impact that is nevertheless considered minimal
because of the temporary duration of construction activities. Additionally,
a variety of standard mitigation measures for control ling erosion 'problems
are available, as summarized by Leffel (1976):
1. Plan development to fit drainage patterns, topography, and soils of
the construction site.
2. Avoid removal of trees and other vegetation whenever possible.
3. Provide temporary cover in critical erosion hazard areas and
establish permanent vegetative cover as soon as possible.
4. Minimize exposed land area and duration of exposure.
5. Construct impoundments or temporary holding basins to trap sediment
and reduce runoff peaks before flow leaves the construction area.
6. Bare slopes should receive cross-slope scarification prior to
mulching and revegetation. Contour plowing and/or terracing may
also be effective for some plantings.
7. Slope shaping is an erosion control technique to reduce erosion
rates and sediment yields. A concave slope will yield less
sediment, because the steepest part of the slope occurs where flow
is least. If a concave slope is not practical, a complex slope
(convex upper and concave lower) will reduce sediment yield.
8. Permanent mulching, crushed rock, paving, or revegetation can be
used to protect raw slopes and other critical erosion areas.
9. Interceptor dikes and diversions using soil ridges or furrows may
be constructed to carry runoff around exposed areas and slopes.
Consideration should be given to revetting or lining such dikes or
ditches (or providing check dams), if the ditches are expected to
be permanent.
10. Waterways may be sodded or lined with gravel, stone, concrete, or
asphalt.
11. Sediment traps made of hay bales or brush with wire fencing can be
placed in drainage channels to form a series of check dams.
111-45
-------
12. In some cases, underground conduits are best for carrying trapped
runoff from the site.
13. Care should be taken during design and construction to minimize the
amount of restoration work required.
Soils may also be adversely impacted by land application techniques
using secondary effluent. Secondary- effluent contains a relatively high
level of suspended solids that can clog soil pores if additional filtration
is not provided before application. This impact would be irreversible. How-
ever, mitigative measures can be applied, such as reducing application rates
or disking the topsoil to allow the soil to treat the effluent adequately.
With the use of mitigative measures, such impacts would be minor.-- Addition-
ally, such potential adverse impacts would be offset by beneficial impacts
resulting from increased soil fertility due to the additional moisture and
nutrients contained in wastewater effluents.
7. Groundwater
Potential impacts to groundwater resources are primarily associated with
alternatives utilizing land application disposal systems. Land application
of effluent would add to the groundwater supply, providing a minor beneficial
impact. The land parcels through which this water would be applied are not
large contiguous parcels, but they are adequate to increase groundwater
quantities in their immediate vicinities. In rapid-rate systems, most of the
applied effluent would reach the groundwater.
Under most conditions the influences of land application on groundwater
resources is minimal if such systems are properly sited, designed, installed,
operated and maintained. The extent of impacts to groundwater are related to
the quality of effluent before application, soil characteristics and depth to
groundwater in addition to the elements listed above. These statements also
pertain only to domestic effluent; commercial or industrial effluents must be
considered separately based on their wastewater characteristics.
As has been stated -previously, both wet soils and highly permeable soils
exist in the study area. Each condition , if excessive, can prevent the
utilization of land application systems. This is an important consideration
in siting a land application system as is the proximity to private or public
water wells, other land application systems and surface waters.
For any land application system monitoring wells are an important part
of assessing the ongoing and long-term impacts to groundwater. Wells are
also essential to mitigating any potential problems.
Impacts on groundwater due to deep-well injection of treated effluent
may be more significant; however, extensive research and testing may be
required before this alternative can be implemented and fully evaluated. The
Monsanto Company and the American Cyanamid Company currently use deep-well
injection into a saline aquifer to dispose of wastewater in northern Escambia
and Santa Rosa Counties. The long-term impacts of these discharges have not
been determined.
111-46
-------
Information on the depth to groundwater is limited for the study area.
Few wells have been continuously monitored and those that have been monitored
do not provide a sufficient network to map depth to groundwater. Assessments
can be made only on the Gulf Breeze Peninsula and the barrier islands. The
trends indicate:
o Depth to groundwater is less than five feet on the barrier islands
(except under dunes^
o Data are not sensitive enough to indicate areas of three feet or one
foot to groundwater
o Depth to groundwater approaches ten feet in many places on the
Peninsula except around low lying ares (wetlands) and streams.
Unfortunately, this discussion is as detailed as is possible given
existing data from the USGS and the Northwest Florida Water Management
District. Groundwater's main importance relates to use-of-the water table
aquifer for drinking water and septic tanks. Few private drinking water
wells exist in the study area, particularly in the coastal areas and
drainfields for septic tanks can be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. If
the water table is closer to the surface than permissible for septic tanks,
then mounds or other alternative systems could be implemented.
8. Terrestrial Ecosystems
Impacts to terrestrial ecosystems would result primarily from con-
struction activities required under the various wastewater management alter-
natives. The construction of new wastewater treatment plants, conveyance
pipelines and corridors, and land application sites would all result in the
loss or alteration of vegetation communities and their associated wildlife.
Although all of the wastewater management alternatives would involve
clearing of terrestrial communities, the resulting degree of impact is
dependent on the amount of lands affected, the types and maturity of commun-
ities, and the duration of effects. Impacts to terrestrial ecosystems were
considered minimal if anticipated construction activities were limited to
sites which contained largely cleared or altered vegetation'communities and
did not contain sensitive areas such as wetlands or habitats for protected
species. For instance, impacts to terrestrial ecosystems were considered
minimal for alternatives proposing new conveyance lines which would be routed
through urbanized areas and/or along existing highway corridors.
Such impacts would be temporary in duration and would be effectively
mitigated by quickly revegetating construction sites. The-following measures
are recommended by Leffel (1976) to aid the revegetation of disturbed areas:
1. Spoil areas should be graded. If revegetation must be delayed,
areas should be temporarily covered with tarpaulins, burlap, or
mulch.
2. Dikes or ditches to control runoff may be required.
3. Several inches of the original or imported topsoil over scalped
soil is usually necessary, if seeding is to be effective.
111-47
-------
4. Development of adequate soil fertility, which denuded soils often
do not have, is essential. Irrigation with treated wastewater
often provides sufficient nutrients for good growth of vegetation,
and conditioned disinfected sludge is a good soil conditioner.
5. Shallow tillage of areas immediately prior to seeding will break
the crust, aid revegetation, and improve infiltration.
6. A seed mixture containing both slow and fast growing varieties
proved satisfactory for the site conditions is desirable. Fast
growing temporary varieties (such as rye) will protect slower
growing permanent varieties (such as bluegrass or fescue).
7. Mulching of seeded or planted areas is most important for speeding
revegetation of dredged land.
8. Supplemental .controlled irrigation is often required until growth
is well underway.
9. Community Services and Facilities
Impacts to most community services and facilities will be minimal with
any of the proposed wastewater treatment alternatives. Impacts are asso-
ciated primarily with construction activities and induced development and are
common to all alternatives, varying only in location and extent.
Construction of treatment plants and conveyance lines may necessitate
the temporary closing of specific roads and the disruption of traffic flow.
This may impede the delivery of certain community services such as police and
fire protection and garbage collection. These potential impacts will, how-
ever, be temporary and can be readily mitigated by scheduling road closings
for off-peak hours and providing alternative access for emergency vehicles.
Increased development supported by federally-funded wastewater treatment
facilities will result in increased demand for all community facilities and
services. Proper planning and management can eliminate any adverse impacts
associated with increasing demand for services, provided the level of service
and number of facilities are increased as the service population increases.
Recreation resources and public water supply are two community facility
elements that may be more significantly impacted in the study area. These
specific elements are discussed in greater detail in later sections.
10. Economic Resources
Economic resources which may be impacted by wastewater treatment
decisions include employment, tax base, and revenues. Considering the
existing level of sewer service and the extent of the employment base and tax
base, impacts on the area's economic resources from any of the wastewater
treatment alternatives will be minimal.
Increased employment opportunities will be associated with construction
of wastewater treatment and collection facilities. These employment oppor-
II1-48
-------
tunities will be temporary, however, and will be Insignificant considering
the extent and diversity of the existing employment base.
Property values are often enhanced with the provision of sewers since
densities can be increased and potential problems with the operation and
maintenance of septic tanks are avoided. In the Pensacola area, however,
property values are primarily related to the proximity~to the beacfres and the
market demand for coastal housing. Even where sewers are currently not
available, as on Perdido Key, market demand has resulted in high property
values and development can be supported by package treatment plants. The
demand for housing further inland can be met with low density development
served by septic tanks, and the provision of sewers in these areas will not
significantly affect property values. The minimal impact on property values
will result in minimal impacts to the area's tax base.
Extension of trunk lines, tnterceptors~~ancT collector-s will lead to
increased sewer revenue through additional user charges. In instances where
excess treatment plant capacity is available, as with the Main 'Street plant,
increased revenues may be necessary in order to make the sewerage system
financially viable. In the Pensacola area, however, reports indicate that a
significant number of homes within the sewer service area are still operating
on-site septic tanks or community package plants. Revenues could be
increased by requiring these homes to connect to the sewer system through
local ordinances, without having to construct extensive interceptors. In
addition, the recent formation of the Escambia County Utilities Authority
will probably lead to more optimum use of the treatment capacity at the Main
Street Plant as currently unsewered areas in the county are connected to the
system. Therefore, increased sewer revenues through additional customers
will be likely regardless of whjch alternative is selected, including the No
Federal Action Alternative.
11. Historical and Archaeological Resources
Potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources are of
minimal concern in the study area. Significant historical resources have
been identified in the study area and are primarily outside the area of
direct impact for all wastewater management alternatives. The extent of
development in the study.area makes it likely that major archaeological
resources have already been identified or disturbed. Potential disruption of
historic and archaeological resources from any new construction can be
avoided or reduced by conducting an archaeological survey of the conveyance
line corridors and construction sites prior to construction. Identified
resources can then be removed from the site or avoided.
12. Public Health
Public health concerns will be of minimal importance in the study area
with any of the regional alternatives. All regional alternatives in Escambia
County provide for either expansion of the Avondale, Pen Haven and Warrington
treatment plants or connection to the Main Street plant. In these instances,
it is assumed that areas with failing septic tanks (Bayou Chicp and Bayou
Grande) .will be provided with sewers, thus elininating a potential source of
public health problems.
111-49
-------
Regional alternatives in Santa Rosa County do not eliminate all on-site
systems; however, no public health problems have been documented in these
areas. The City of Gulf Breeze has reported some surfacing of septic tank
effluent during wet periods, although associated problems-have not been docu-
mented.
Public health problems are also not associated with any of the discharge
points from the existing or proposed wastewater treatment plants. Effluent
from all of the treatment plants (secondary, advanced secondary, and advanced
treatment) will be chlorinated before discharge, resulting in the removal of
most pathogens. The extent of pathogen removal is directly related to the
level of treatment and the operating efficiency of the chlorination process.
The nature of the receiving water bodies also limits the potential for
public health problems. Perdido Bay, Pensacola Bay, Santa Rosa Sound and the
Gulf of Mexico have sufficient dilution capacity to minimize-potential public
health problems."- In., addition,--the-lack of a viable shellfishing industry in
these waters and the complete reliance on groundwater for public water supply
eliminate the potential for public health problems due to shellfish or
drinking water contamination from surface water discharges.
E. Environmental Impacts Associated with Disposal Alternatives
One of the major issues of this EIS is ultimately how and where to
dispose of wastewater. The study area has a large centralized system, in the
Main Street treatment plant, to handle the wastewater of most, if not all, of
Escambia County. The main limitation is its disposal location within the Pen-
sacola Bay system. The other existing treatment plants dispose their
effluent to bayous and other estuarine systems. On the barrier islands,
Perdido Key is served by small commum'ty/on-site systems whereas Santa Rosa
Island is served primarily by a centralized system, disposing to Santa Rosa
Sound.
Prime consideration was given to impacts resulting from wastewater man-
agement alternatives on sensitive coastal areas and barrier islands. Given
the sensitivity and value of these areas, great care must be exercised to
institute proper planning and decision-making processes. While federal fund-
ing can help solve wastewater management problems, local planning must be
coordinated and implemented to result in effective solutions. Otherwise,
federal funding could lead to accelerated environmental problems and may be
unwise, particularly in light of potential replacement costs of facilities on
barrier islands.
Certain attributes and detriments are associated with each of the
disposal options in the study area. The following sections discuss the major
environmental considerations associated with these options.
1. Estuarine Discharges
Estuarine discharges are those which enter brackish (part salt water,
part fresh water) water bodies, including the bayous and bay. Due to the
topography of the area, with few rivers and the peninsula and barrier
islands, effluent would have to be pumped long distances to either fresh
water or the Gulf. Estuaries are critical as hatcheries, nursing grounds,
111-50
-------
and as a food source for many aquatic organisms, including most commercial
species. While they are adapted to undergoing large fluxes in salinity and
other components,"they"remain sensitive to pollutant sources due largely to
slow flushing. Due to their sensitive nature and important function,
estuarine discharges are probably the most undesirable environmentally.
This poses a dilemma for the Pensacola area since nearly all wastewater
is discharged to estuarine systems. One of the alternatives posed by this
study would remove all estuarine discharges in Escambia County other than
Main Street and Pensacola Beach. This has some attributes, but they need to
be weighed relative to the assimilative capacity of the increased load to
Pensacola Bay.
Other alternatives involve discharging to land systems or the Gulf,
which could relieve some of the loadings to the estuarine systems.
2. Land Disposal
Land disposal systems include spray irrigation, septic tanks and sand
mounds, and percolation ponds. Each of these offers potentially positive
alternatives to estuarine discharges.
Spray irrigation sites were Identified throughout the study area but,
due to their location relative to existing facilities, are not feasible in
nany cases. They are practical only for Navarre Beach and Avondale unless it
is desired, or necessary, for environmental purposes to pump effluent several
miles. Revenues can be realized from sale of crops which could increase its
cost-effectiveness and it is an environmentally preferred alternative.
•
Septic tanks and sand mounds, if properly constructed, inspected, and
monitored, can be an effective wastewater treatment/disposal system for the
barrier islands. Many upland areas elsewhere in Santa Rosa and Escambia
Counties would also support on-site systems. This could take a large burden
off discharging to Pensacola Bay. The key to successful use of on-site
systems is their proper construction and service.
Percolation ponds associated with small community package plants can
also be a sound option. However, like on-site systems they must be properly
constructed and adequately monitored. Elevated nitrogen levels have been
observed from the monitoring wells of some percolation ponds. The
implications of these levels on water quality or public health have not yet
been thoroughly evaluated. At current densities, percolation ponds on the
barrier islands have not led to documented water quality or public health
problems. In most cases, adequate mitigation techniques are available to
solve potential problems. '
3. Gulf Disposal
The impacts of a Gulf disposal off the coast of Pensacola is uncertain
without detailed information on tide and current patterns, benthic habitats,
and substrate. Ocean outfalls have been used for various communities around
the United States but outfalls do not exist off the Florida Gulf coast. With
tourism and beaches one of the economic mainstays of the region, great care
must be taken if an outfall is recommended. However, based on studies con-
111-51
-------
ducted in other coastal areas and scientific knowledge of estuarine versus
open ocean systems, a Gulf outfall might be preferrable, environmentally, to
an estuarine outfall. This statement is based primarily on the slower
flushing characteristics in estuaries and the critical nature of estuaries as
feeding and nursing grounds for many marine species. Ultimately, however,
implementability of the alternative rests on other environmental
considerations (e.g., required mitigation of a Gulf outfall), costs, and
availability of other acceptable alternatives that are least costly.
F. Environmental Evaluation of Alternatives from Final Screening
Alternative impacts vary, dependent on the magnitude of flows, level of
treatment, and type and location of disposal. Removal of discharges from
creeks, bayous, rivers and estuaries by conveying effluent to the Main Street
plant reduces loads to these systems but increases loads to Pensacola Bay.
Analyses are required to determine- relative impacts and benefits before
alternatives can be selected. The following sections provide s general
description of the predominant environmental impacts associated with the
final screening of alternatives (see Section II-F).
1. Escambla County
Environmental impacts associated with these alternatives relate primarily
to water quality. Aquatic and terrestrial ecology are also issues, as
wetlands are common in the Southwest Escambia area. Population and develop-
ment demands are the primary man-made environmental concerns. While few
water quality (Perdido Bay, Bayou Chico and Bayou Marcus) or other environ-
mental problems have been documented, the sensitivity of the area must be
recognized by local and state officials and incorporated into planning and
design-making processes if the area's resources are to be adequately
protected in the future. The extent and type of impacts resulting from the
development of this area rest on local and state decision making. See
Section II-D for a description of alternatives. All the alternatives include
continuing the existing level of treatment at the Main Street Plant with
discharge to Pensacola Bay. The plant capacity is projected to remain at 20
mgd (for advanced treatment) although 26 mgd can probably be treated at the
advanced secondary level of treatment. Sampling programs have been ongoing
for the past few years to determine the appropriate level of treatment
necessary to protect the water quality of Pensacola Bay. To date studies
have proved inconclusive and additional data are being collected to reconcile
this issue.
a. Alternative 1
Adverse impacts could result to the marine environment from the
construction and operation of the outfall; however, many of these could be
mitigated. Additional surveys would be required to locate the outfall to
minimize these impacts. Also, impacts to beaches and areas surrounding the
new plant site caused by construction, pipelines and induced development need
to be considered.
This alternative would eliminate the discharges from the Avondale and Pen
Haven plants which are causing water quality problems in Bayou Marcus Creek
and Bayou Chico. However, these areas have already been committed to the
111-52
-------
Main Street plant, which would make this alternative difficult to implement.
No other significant water quality or public health problems have been
documented.
This alternative would provide federal support for developmental projects
with growth-induced impacts to water quality, wetlands and barrier islands.
Additional pressure to develop these resources would" res git as well as
increased nonpoint source runoff due to higher densities surrounding Back
River, Big Lagoon and Perdido Key.
b. Alternative 2
No water quality or public health problems have been documented in the
Southwest County, Perdido Key, or Northwest County areas. Likewise no
problems are projected if 208 population projections and state permitting
procedures are- followed that adequately -account for pollutton~^sources and
protect designated uses. Beneficial water quality impacts would result from
removing wastewater d-ischarges from Bayou Marcus and Bayou Chtco ^(Avondale,
Warrington and Moreno Courts).
This alternative would promote development with growth-induced impacts to
.area water quality, wetlands and a sensitive barrier islands environment. In-
creased water quality impacts would occur from nonpoint sources due to higher
dens.ity development.
c. Alternative 3
*
Beneficial water quality impacts, would result from removing the Avondale,
Warrington and Moreno Courts discharges from Bayou Marcus Creek and Bayou
Chico. No other significant water quality or public health problems in this
area have been documented or are projected if state permitting procedures are
followed. Growth related impacts would not be as significant as with
Alternatives 1 and 2.
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula
Population densities, development pressure and recreation resources are
the nan-nade environments primarily impacted by these alternatives. With
most alternatives resulting in surface water dischargess water quality/eco-
logical issues are also important. While few problems have been documented
at current flows, water quality and recreation resources could be signifi-
cantly impacted by projected increasing loads from discharges into Santa Rosa
Sound. This situation should be monitored closely as it develops.
a. Alternative 1
No significant water quality or public health problems are documented for
this area. Implementation problems would be associated with obtaining suit-
able land at Eg! in AFB. Local attempts to reach agreement have not been
successful.
This alternative would promote a higher rate and density of development.
Greater pressure would be exerted to develop wetland, barrier island, flood-
plain and other sensitive areas. Higher density development would result in
111-53
-------
greater nonpoint pollutant loadings to area waters, including Escambia Bay,
East Bay and Santa Rosa Sound.
b. Alternative 2
This alternative would contribute Santa Rosa County loadings to the
Escambia County Main Street plant and use capacity which could otherwise be
used for other parts of Escambia County. This situation could present a
significant implementation problem.
This alternative could promote a higher rate and density of development.
Greater pressure would be exerted to develop wetland, barrier island
floodplain and other sensitive areas. Higher density development would
result in greater nonpoint pollutant loadings to area waters.
c. Alternative 3
No significant public health or water quality problems have been docu-
mented for this area. Implementation of this alternative would support
additional development and higher density with associated growth-induced
impacts to the sensitive barrier island environment. These impacts, however,
would not be as significant as those in Alternatives 1 and 2.
d. Alternative 4
This alternative removes all municipal discharges from Santa Rosa Sound.
While that could result in water quality improvements in the Sound, it would
also increase loads to Pensacola Bay. No existing adverse impacts to Santa
Rosa Sound from these discharges have been, documented. Implementation of
this alternative would support additional development and higher density with
associated growth-induced impacts to the sensitive barrier island environ-
ment. These impacts, however, would not be as significant as those in
Alternatives 1 and 2.
G. Summary of Environmental Evaluation
The evaluation of environmental impacts and associated considerations
(i.e., induced impacts, barrier island policy) for Southwest Escambia County
indicates that the local alternative or a hybrid is most acceptable. How-
ever, there are constraints to this or any other alternative. If on-site/
small community systems are recommended, implementation of policies governing
installation, maintenance, and inspection is critical. It is also possible
that this alternative would not support the population levels which the local
agencies apprarently are encouraging on Perdido Key.
If sewer systems were utilized to convey sewage to the Main Street or
southwest plant, impacts from induced development would likely have negative
impacts on the environment. To reduce such impacts, conveyance systems could
be sized to serve only a predetermined populace that may relate to an
accepted carrying capacity. Without local land use planning and more
thorough implementation of ordinances or regulations, negative environmental
impacts could result from any wastewater management alternative due to
inherent problems of unplanned development in sensitive areas.
111-54
-------
For the remainder of Escambia County, the most acceptable environmental
solution involves removal of effluent from smaller streams and estuaries.
This would give impetus to the regional alternatives which centralize
wastewater at the Main Street facility. This does not imply an absence of
environmental problems resulting from the Main Street plant but considers
primarily the assimilative capacities, existing conditions and potential for
improvement of the receiving waters in question.
For the Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula area, the environmental
evaluation shows no significant water quality or public health problems
documented in the area. All discharges in the area are meeting their permit
limits and are eligible based on EPA and FDER regulations to have their
permits renewed. The expenditure of large amounts of funds to construct a
larger more regionalized system would promote additional growth with asso-
ciated adverse impacts to the area's sensitive barrier island, wetland,
floodplain and surface water resources;;---•-
111-55
-------
CHAPTER IV.
SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
-------
CHAPTER IV. SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
The conveyance of flows from the Harrington, Avondale and Moreno Courts
service areas to the Main Street plant is recommended. The continuation o'f
existing wastewater management practices is recommended for all remaining
areas. Alternatives selected to receive federal funds are limited to
Escambia County. Funds will be made available to help connect the Avondale
and Warrington .treatment facilities to the Main Street plant. Both plants
have been designated for closure by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. Funds will also be available for conveyance of Moreno Courts
flows to the Main Street plant. Funds are not being made available for
treatment costs but for conveyance alone. Further, funds will be available
for interceptors and necessary pump stations based on existing flows.
No Action is the alternative selected for the areas outside the Avondale,
Warrington and Moreno Courts service areas; Southwest Escafflbia,-PeFdido Key,
Santa Rosa Island and the Gulf Breeze Peninsula. This decision is based on
two major -determinants. First, portions of these areas are sensitive to
development due to their proximity to 100-year floodplains, wetlands or
estuaries. While wastewater management options in these areas might not
promote development in all situations^ such options could act to support
development'and associated populations in sensitive areas. This would be
contrary to state and federal policies- and regulations that are intended to
protect such areas. Second, few water quality, ecological or public health
problems have been documented to date. Some areas might be able to receive
funding in the future if such problems develop. Proper planning, however,
should prevent these problems from developing.
The environmental advantages of the selected alternatives are based on
removal of discharges from Bayou Marcus and Bayou Chico, both of which have
shown evidence of water quality degradation due to the discharges. The
funding decision was based on the water quality data base available and the
stance of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, indicating that
the additional wastewater added to Pensacola Bay from these discharges was
preferred to continuing discharges to the bayous.
Impacts to other natural or man-made environments are anticipated to be
minimal. Detrimental impacts can be mitigated in most cases. Siting and
construction activities associated with conveyance lines can be mitigated, as
'indicated in Chapter III. Existing rights-of-way can likely be used for nost
conveyance lines. Some development could be supported by new interceptors,
but proper planning can mitigate any potential problems resulting from such
development. Current methods of sludge disposal are sufficient throughout
the study area and should continue to be adequate.
Protected species and archeological resources surveys will be conducted
where necessary to assure these resources are adequately protected. The
Perdido Key beach mouse has been proposed for inclusion on the federal endan-
gered species list along with its habitat designation of critical habitat by
the Department of Interior. With the importance of the area as an early
settlement with various periods of occupation, historical and archeological
considerations must be thoroughly examined. Several areas along the barrier
islands have been designated as National Seashore and other stretches have
been set aside by local governments. Development contiguous to these areas
should be undertaken cognizant of the value of these resources.
-------
CHAPTER V.
EIS COORDINATION/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
-------
CHAPTER V. EIS COORDINATION
A. Introduction
This chapter describes the activities undertaken to inform and interact
with governmental agencies and public interests potentially affected by this
EIS. Coordination activities included:
1. A public scoping meeting
2. Formation of a Review Committee encompassing a broad spectrum of public
and private interests
3. A series of Review Committee meetings open to the public
4. Placement of EIS documents in the public library
5. News releases
6. Newsletters
7. Meetings with local officials, interest groups and agency
representatives.
Each of these has been an important part of the coordination program to
inform interested and responsible parties and to obtain their comments on the
progress and findings of the EIS.
B. Coordination with Local, State and Federal-Agencies
A required element of the EIS is interaction with agencies that have
responsibilities with wastewater management and the associated planning
processes. Table V-l lists the agencies involved with the EIS. Their
comments have been incorporated as appropriate into the Draft EIS, and these
agencies will be involved through the completion of the Final EIS.
C. Public Participation
The first public participation meetings were public scoping meetings,
held on July 15 and 16, 1980, in Gulf Breeze and' Pensacola, respectively.
The purpose of these meetings was to discuss the EIS process, review 201
activities, and gain an understanding of local issues and concerns. After
this meeting, interested persons, agencies, and special-interest groups were
identified, and an EIS advisory committee was formed.
The EIS Review Committee is composed of representatives from local gov-
ernments, public agencies, universities, and private organizations in the
study area. Its main purpose is to provide input on local concerns and
interests, review EIS outputs, and perform liaison functions between EPA and
the community.
Table V-2 lists the organizations and interest groups which comprise the
Review Committee. An attempt was made to have a cross-section of economic,
business, institutional, public and private interests represented on the
-------
Table V-l. Agencies Involved with the EIS.
Local Agencies
City of Gulf Breeze
City of Pensacola
Escambia County Health Department
Escambia County Utilities Authority
Midway Water System
Pensacola Chamber of Commerce
Santa Rosa Island Authority
West Florida Regional Planning Council
State Agencies
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Florida-Department of State (-Division of Archives, History and Records
Management)
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Gulf Breeze Research Laboratory)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service)
U.S. Department of Interior (Gulf Islands National Seashore)
V-2.
-------
Table V-2. Members of the
Representative
EIS Review Committee.
Organization
1. Tom Bell
2. Bill Blaskis
3. Sylvia Bourke
4. Michael Brim
5. J. D. Brown
6. Tillman Burks
7. Edith Carter
8. Judy Coe
9. Alfred Cuzan
10. Richard Dunlap
11. Sue Gentry
12. W. F. Hampton
13. Ann is Henry
14. Jennifer Hodnette
15. Jack Hornbeck
16. L. A. Hunsley
17. Robert Montgomery
18. Norn Morrisette
19. Tom Morton
20. Richard Radford
21. Dwaine Raynor
22. Ton Serviss
23. Jin Sheffer
24. Steve Sheinbaun
25. Buck Thackeray
26. Muriel Wagner
27. Chuck Wigley
Home Builders Association of West Florida
City of Gulf Breeze
Self
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Bream Fisherman Association
Association of"General"Contractors of
America (N.W. Florida Chapter)
League of Women Voters-
Sierra Club
Coastal Zone Studies Program, University
of West Florida
Escambia County Health Department
Concerned Citizens of West Escambia County
Southwest Escambia Improvement Assoc., Inc.
Perdido Key Development Association
Self
Pensacola Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Bayous Association
Pensacola Board of Realtors
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
Santa Rosa County Attorney
Midway Water System
West Florida Regional Planning Council
County Forester
Santa Rosa Island Authority
Florida Gatne and Freshwater Fish Conmssion
Gulf Islands National Seashore
Save Our Beach
Escambia County Utilities Authority
V-3
-------
committee. For each committee meeting, the Nominal Group Technique was used
to maximize participation from each member of the Review Committee.
The first EIS Review Committee meeting was held on November 20, 1980.
This meeting was convened to review the Plan of Study and discuss those areas
of concern which should be emphasized in the study. Comments received from
the committee were addressed as appropriate by the Final Plan of Study.
The second meeting of the Review Committee was held May 27, 1981.
Eighteen of the 27 committee members were present. The major topics of dis-
cussion were the Environmental Inventory and Alternative Development Reports.
Specifically discussed were county population figures, water quality in
Pensacola Bay and wasteload allocations for the water bodies receiving munici-
pal wastewater discharges.
The third meeting of the committee was held December 10, 1981. Sixteen
of the committee members were present with ten additional observers. The
meeting was held to discuss the Alternatives Evaluation Report and associated
issues of concern. The major topics discussed were state and federal environ-
mental policies, general environmental impacts of the various alternatives,
population issues, development trends and local controls, costs and implement-
ability of conveyance/treatment, and disposal options.
The fourth Review Committee meeting was held February 15, 1984. Eleven
of the 27 members attended. After the 18 month hiatus experienced during the
project, the list of committee members was updated. Most members remainded
on the committee. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the alternatives
selected to receive EPA funding, the status of the EIS and the schedule for
the remainder of the project. Questions from the committee centered on water
quality conditions in the area and changes in EPA regulations. The Review
Committee expressed agreement with the Alternatives selected to receive EPA
funding.
In April 1981, a newsletter was sent to the entire mailing list origi-
nally compiled for the EIS. This document summarized activities from the
beginning of the study through the process of Alternatives Development. The
newsletter was intended to inform all interested individuals and agencies of
the progress and direction of the EIS.
V-4
-------
CHAPTER VI.
LIST OF PREPARERS
-------
CHAPTER VI - LIST OF PRERARERS
Project Personnel
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert B. Howard Chief, NEPA Compliance Section
F. Theodore Bisterfeld EPA Project Officer
June 1980 - October 1983
Robert C. Cooper EPA Project Officer
October 1983 - Present
Wayne Garfinkel - EPA Project Engineer
June 1980 - October 1983
Leonard Nowak EPA Project Engineer
October 1983 - Present
Claude Terry & Associates, Inc.
Claude E. Terry President
R. Gregory Bourne Project Director/Environmental
Engineer
Michael Brewer Environmental Scientist
James C. Hodges Environmental Scientist
Thomas C. Mather Environmental Scientist
Louise B. Franklin Environmental Planner
Craig Wolfgang Environmental Planner
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Thomas M. Rachford Senior Project Manager
Frank J. Swit 'Project Manager
James C. Elliott Environmental Engineer
Robert J. Fisher Environmental Engineer
Sara F. Frailey Environmental Engineer
John W. Jacobs Soils Scientist
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
1. Estuarlne Hater Quality
Pensacola Bay System. Based upon comparison of average 1975 land use
related loading calculations with 1978-79 average loading calculated from
Permanent Network Station in situ data, total loading estimates into the
Pensacola Bay System are quite similar for total nitrogen-N and-total
phosphorus-P respectively: 1975/1978-79, 19,980/21,362 kilograms per day
(44,048/47,095 pounds per day) total nitrogen-N and 2,727/1,973 kilograms per
day (6,012/4,34-9 pounds per day) total phosphorus-P. These loading
relationships on a bay by bay basis between 1975/1978-79 are not as close.
loadings, however, appear to have increased significantly since
1975 and/or the land use loading relationships are incorrect. Loading
estimates for this parameter in 1975/1978-79 are 38,632/85,246 kilograms per
day (85,167/187,932 pounds per day) under average conditions. It may very
well be that the 1975 land use loading relationships are low since recent
in-stream average BODs values used to calculate loadings are very low, 2 to 5
mg/1 (16.7 to 41.7 Ib/mgal). It is doubtful that BODs concentrations and
riverine flows were significantly lower than recent values.
Excarnbia Bay. Based upon 1975 land use related loading rates, under
average conditions only 15, 19 and 5 percent, respectively of BODs, total
nitrogen-N and total phosphorus-P loadings can be contributed to point source
loadings originating from within the EIS study area. The major source of
pollutants comes from point and nonpoint source, pollution entering the Bay
via the Escambia River. This source of pollutants contributes 83, 80, and 93
percent respectively of the total loading into Escanbia Bay from the above
nentioned pollutants based on 1975 estimates.
Land use related loading rates (1975) compared to historical loading
rates (1960-70) indicate decreased loading into Escambia Bay from Escanbia
River by 68 and 84 percent, respectively of total nitrogen-N and total
phosphorus-P. Recent loading (1978-79) estimates compared to 1975 estimates
indicate that only total phosphorus loading from Escambia River may be
decreasing while total nitrogen and BODs loading are on the rise. Based upon
the accuracy of the calculations and the lack of confidence limits, total
nitrogen and total phosphorus loading differences nay not be significant;
however, the 133 percent increase in BODs can be considered substantial.
Insufficient data exists, however, to assess the accuracy of the 1975 land
use related calculations.
Blackwater/East Bays. There are no point source discharges into
Blackwater/East Bays. Based upon 1975 land use related estimates only 4, 2
and 5 percent respectively of BODs, total nitrogen-N and total phosphorus-P
entering these bays originate from within their immediate drainage areas
under average flow conditions, and all of this is nonpoint source in origin.
The remainder comes from point and nonpoint source pollution entering via the
Blackwater and Yellow Rivers.
Based on actual stream data, total phosphorus-P loading in 1978-79 is
about the same as historical data from the 1960's; it appears that calculated
1975 land use related loadings are high. Total nitrogen-N loading in recent
-------
(1978-79) times are well below historical (1960-70) loadings and 1975 loading
estimates. Although no historical records exist for comparison, 1978-79 BOD5
loadings have more than doubled since 1975. The relevance of this statement
depends on the accuracy of the 1975 land use related loadings and, as
mentioned, the fact that they actually lie somewhere between background and
average as loading estimates.
Santa Rosa Sound/Big Lagoon. Based upon 1975 estimates, 52, 85 and 85
percent, respectively, of BOD5, total nitrogen-N and total phosphorus-P
loading originating from within the immediate drainage areas of Big Lagoon
and Santa Rosa Sound, can be attributed to point source pollution. Neither
of these bodies of water has a major stream entering them. Contribution of
pollutants from the upper bays has not been accounted for.
Perdido Bay. Based upon 1975 estimates, point source pollution within
the immediate drainage area of Perdido Bay accounts for 24, 18 and 55 percent
respectively, of total BODs, total nitrogen-N and total phosphorus-P loading
rates into Perdido Bay. These loading estimates have the same limitations as
discussed for the Pensacola Bay system. These point sources do not enter the
Bay directly but are for the most part attributable to discharges into Eleven
Mile and Marcus Creeks. Point and nonpoint source pollution from the Perdido
River accounts for 60, 70 and 33 percent, respectively, of BOD5, total nitro-
gen-N and total phosphorus-P loadings. Nonpoint source pollution from within
the immediate drainage area of the Perdido Bay is of little consequence.
While decreasing significantly since the 1960's, recent total phosphorus-P
loadings have not decreased significantly since the early 1970's. Total
nitrogen loadings appear to have decreased slightly since 1975, while BODs .
loadings have increased three-fold since 1975: from 5,072 kilograms per day
(11,181 pounds per day) of BODs in 1975 to 17,319 kilograms per day (38,182
pounds per day) in 1978-79. It is not possible, based on available data, to
assess the quality of 1975 land use-related loading estimates.
2. Near Shore Marine Water Quality
Salinity. The salinity distribution in the surface waters south of the
entrance of Pensacola Bay indicates that the surface waters flowing out of
the system extend a considerable distance, 11-13 kilometers (7-8 miles), off
shore in a fairly well defined tongue. The bottom waters, however, show
little such distribution.
Nutrients. Strong negative correlations were noted between inorganic
phosphorus-phosphate and distance offshore, indicating the influence of the
Escambia Bay System on the near shore surface waters during maximum outflow.
In statistical terms, a negative correlation indicates that a relationship
exists between two parameters. The negative correlation coefficient between
distance offshore and nitrite-nitrogen indicates that the waters flowing out
of the Escambia system exert an influence on the distribution of nitrite-ni-
trogen for the offshore surface waters; however, the major source of
nitrite-nitrogen appears to originate from west of the study area. For the
most part, the correlation between nitrate-nitrogen in both surface and
bottom waters and distance offshore was positive, indicating that the waters
originating in the Escambia system had little effect on the Gulf waters at
the time of the study.
-------
Silica. Strong negative correlation existed between silica and distance
offshore in the surface waters during periods of maximum outflow. The concen-
trations of_silica were- general ly higher in the surface than in the bottom
waters and tended to decrease in concentration as distance increased from the
shore. Surface waters entering the region from the northwest and southeast
contained high concentrations of silica.
Trace Metals. The correlation coefficient between cadmium and distance
offshore was moderate to weak In the surface waters and no consistent
relationship with distance and time was found for the bay system. The bay
system does not appear to contribute lead to the Gulf since a strong positive
correlation was found at maximum tidaloutflow between lead in the surface
water and distance offshore. There is inflow of lead into the area from the
northwest. The correlation coefficients between copper and distance offshore
showed poor relationships. The surface waters emerging from Escambia and
Perdido Bays, however, contained;elevated"conceritrat-ions^of~:copperv-- With
regard to chromium, the findings were inconclusive. ~A relationship may exist
between chromium and flow from the bay .system. At -maximum -outflow, -the
surface waters flowing out of the Escambia system were shown to exert an
influence on the distribution of zinc in the in-shore system. This did not
hold true, however, for bottom waters. There is inflow of zinc into the area
from Perdido Bay and the northwest. Strong negative correlations were
observed between distance offshore and manganese concentration in the surface
waters, indicating an influence by the bay system on near shore waters during
the period of maximum outflows. There is also inflow .of manganese into the
area, from the west and northwest and Perdido Bay. •
It was concluded in the ESCAROSA I study that little if any sediments in
the Escambia Bay and Perdido River Systems are moving out of the bay.
Evidence for this was obtained frorrrthe~ lowered trace "element content of the
sedinents near the mouth of the two systems. It appears that the materials
settle out in the bay system before reaching the territorial waters.
Pesticides. The data for pesticides were not as complete as those for
the trace elements; however, concentrations of pesticides in near shore Gulf
waters were found to be significant. The major concern with pesticides is
that, while levels detected in the water might be low, phytoplankton and
other organisms in the food chain can concentrate pesticides. This can
ultimately provide organisms higher in the food chain, including hunans, with
relatively high pesticide concentrations in- their food.
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-I. Protected Animals Likely to be Found in the Study Area.
Species
Common Name
Status*
Federal/State
Habitat(s)**
Comments**
AMPHIBIANS
Hyla andersonii E
Pine Barrens Treefrog
Rana areolata
Florida Gopher Frog
REPTILES
Al1igator mississippiensis T
American Alligator
Caretta caretta T
Loggerhead Sea-turtle
Chelonia mydas E
Green Sea-turtle
Dernochelys coriacea E
Leatherback Sea-turtle
Eretmochelys imbricata E
Hawksbill Sea-turtle
Lepidochelys kempl E
Ridley Sea-turtle
Gopherus polyphemus
Gopher Tortoise
Drynarchon' corals couperl T
Indigo Snake
BIRDS
Anmodramus savannarun
florldanus
Florida Grasshopper Sparrow
Ammospiza maritima
Seaside Sparrow
Aranus guarauna
Li [Tip kin
Canpephllus principalis E
Ivory-billed Woodpecker
ssc
ssc
T
E
E
E
SSC
SSC
Wet pine flatwood;
freshwater marsh
Sandhill,-sand pine
scrub
Known from Eglin
AFB in Okaloosa Co.
Freshwater marshes,
lakes & streams, swamps
Estuarine & marine
waters
Estuarine & marine
waters
Estuarine & marine
waters
Estuarine & marine
waters
Estuarine & marine
waters
May nest on coastal
beaches & dunes
May nest on coastal
beaches & dunes
May nest on coastal
beaches & dunes
May nest on coastal
beaches & dunes
May nest on coastal
beaches & dunes
Sandhills, sand pine Coastal dune popula-
scrub, coast dunes tions extinct or
nearly so
Sandhills, sand pine Near edge of range
scrub
Grasses u palmettos Winter visitor
in pine flatwoods
Salt marshes
Resident; breeds
SSC Swamps, freshwater
marshes
E Mature swamps
Probably extinct
-------
Table B-l. Continued
Species
Common Name
Status*
Federal/State Habitat(s)**
Comments
Charadrius alexandrinus
tenuirostris
Cuban Snowy PI over
Cistothorus palustris
marianae
Marian's Marsh Wren
Dichromanassa rufescens
Reddish Egret
Egretta thula
Snowy Egret
Falco peregrinus
Peregrine Falcon
Falco sparverius paulus
Southeastern Kestrel
Florida caerulea
Little Blue Heron
Grus canadensis pratensis
Florida Sandhill Crane
Haematopus pal 1iatus
American Oystercatcher
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Bald Eagle
Hydranassa tricolor
Louisiana Heron
Mycteria americana
Wood Stork
Pelecanus occidentalis
carolinensis
Eastern Brown Pelican
Picoides boreal is
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Sterna albifrons
Least Tern
E Coastal dunes, Resident; breeds
beaches, tidal flats
SSC Freshwater and Winter visitor
brackish marshes
SSC Salt marshes,
estuaries
SSC Salt marshes,
estuarine bays
E Near rivers and
coastal waters
T Open areas,
farmland
Visitor
Winter visitor
Resident; breeds
SSC Freshwater marshes Summer resident;
and ponds
breeds
Freshwater marshes, Winter visitor
wet, grassy flatwoods
SSC Salt marshes,
coastal beaches
& dunes, estuaries
Visitor
T Near rivers, lakes, Resident; breeds
marshes & seacoasts
SJSC Swamps, fresh & salt Summer resident;
marshes, estuaries breeds
Swamps, marshes
Coastal beaches,
estuaries
Pine flatwoods,
sandhills
Coastal beaches I
dunes, estuaries
Visitor
Visitor
Mature pine
forests only
Summer resident;
breeds
-------
Table B-l. Continued
Species
Status*
Common Name
Sterna dougallii
Roseate Tern
Vermivora bachmanii
Bachrnan's Warbler
TERRESTRIAL MAMMALS
Pel is concolor coryi
Florida Panther, Cougar
Peromyscus polionotus
trissyllepsis
Perdido Bay Beach Mouse
Tamias stn'atus
Eastern Chipmunk
Ursus americanus flon'danus
Florida Black Bear
MARINE MAMMALS
. Balaenoptera physalus
Finback Whale
Physeter catodon
•Sperm Whale
Trichechus manatus
Florida Manatee
FISH
Acipenser oxyrhynchus
Atlantic Sturgeon
Ammocrypta asprella
Crystal Darter
Etheostoma histrio
Harlequin Darter
Etheostona okaloosae
Federal/State Habitat(s)**
T
E E
E E
T
SSC
T
E • E
E E
E E
SSC
T
SSC
E E
Comments
Coastal beaches &
dunes, estuaries
Swamps, mature Transient
hardwood hammocks
Remote swamps Probably extirpated
and forests in study area region
Coastal dunes Perdido Key only
Hardwood hammocks Known only from
Okaloosa Co.
Swamps, dense
'forest's
Marine waters
Marine waters
Estuarine and
marine waters
Marine, estuarine Anadronous
and fresh waters
Fresh waters, sand Known only fron
or gravel bars £ Escanbia River
pools in large rivers.
Freshwater, shallow Known only from
riffles in streams Escambia River
with mod. -swift cur-
rents & gravel bottoms
Freshwater, small- Known from Eqlin
Okaloosa Darter
medium streams,
clear water, swift
current, sandy
bottoms
AFB- in Okaloosa
Co.
-------
Table B-l. Continued
Species
Common Name
Status*
Federal/State
Habitat(s)
**
Comments
Fundulus jenkinsi
Saltmarsh Topminnow
Moxostoma carinatum
River Redhorse
SSC Salt, brackish or
fresh waters in
Estuarine marshes
SSC Large freshwater
rivers
Known from Perdido
Pensacola, Escambia,
and East bays
Known only from
Escambia River
*Status: E = Endangered, T = Threatened, SSC = Species of Special Concern.
**Sources: Pritchard (ed.) 1978. Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida; Bull and
Farrand. 1977. The AudUbon Society Field Guide to North American
Birds; 201 Facilities Plan. 1978.
-------
Table B-2. Protected PI
Species or Group
ants Known from the Study
Common Name Status*
Area.
Habitats (Comments)**
Aristolochia tomentosa
Calycantnus floridus
Ceratlola ericoides
Cercls canadensis
Chlonanthus vlrglnicus
Corn'us florlda
Eplgaea repens
FILICINEAE-(Class)---
Gordom'a lasianthus
Ilex spp. (Genus)
miciun floridanum
Kalmia hirsuta
K. latifolia
L111 1 urn catesbaei
Lobelia cardinal is
Malus angustifolia
ORCHIDACEAE (Family)
Dutchman's Pipe
Strawberry Bush
Rosemary, Sand Cedar
Redbud
Fringetree
Flowering Dogwood
Trail ing Arbutus
Fern Families —
Loblolly Bay
Hollies
Florida Anise
Wicky
Mountain Laurel
Pine Lily
Cardinal Flower
Crabapple
Orchid Family
Pinckneya pubens Fevertree
Rhododendron austrinum Orange Azalea
R. vlscosum Swamp Azalea
ARECACEAE (Family) Palm Family
Sarracem'a spp. (Genus) Pitcherplants
Smilax smallii Jackson Vine
Zephyranthes atanasco Atamasco Lily
Zephyranthes spp. (Genus) Zephyr Lilies
T Swamp
T Hamnock
T Scrub, Coastal Dune
T Hammock
T Hammock
T Hammock
T Hammock, Sandhill
T Hammock,-Swamp (All native farms
except Qsmunda spp. and Pteri-
dium aquilinium.)
T Swamp
T Hammock, Swamp, Flatwoods,
Coastal Dune (All native species
except I. glabra.)
T Swamp
T Flatwoods, Coastal Dune
T Hammock, Swamp
T Wet Flatwoods
T Fresh Marsh, Swamp
T Hammock
T Hammock, Flatwoods, Swamp
(All native species.)
T Swamp
E Swamp
T Swanp
T Hammock (All native species
except Serenoa repens)
E Wet Flatwoods (All native species)
T Hammock, Swamp
E Wet Flatwood, Marsh
T Wet Flatwood, Marsh
*Status: T = Threatened, E = Endangered.
**Sources: Ward. 1973. In: Pritchard (ed.) Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida:
201 Facilities~Tlan. 1978. '
-------
APPENDIX C
Table C-3. Principal Characteristics of Soils in the Study Area.
Soil Association
Series
Natural
Drainage
Depth
to
Groundwater
Meters
Feet
Permeabil
in/hr
Cm/hr.
ity
•
In/hr.
Norfolk-Ruston-Savannah
Norfolk
Ruston
Savannah
Good
Good
Moderately good
3.05
3.05
3.05
10+
10+
10+
1.52-5.08
1.52-5.08
0.51-1.52
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.2-0.6
Tifton-Carnegfe-Faxevf Tie
Tifton
Carnegie
Faceville --
Lakeland-Eustis
Lakeland
Eustis
Klej-Leon
Mej
Leon
Plummer-Rutlege
Rutlege
Plunmer "
Good
Good
Good
Somewhat Excessive
Somewhat Excessive
Somewhat poor
Somewhat poor
.
Poor
Poor
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
0.31-0.61
0.31-0.61
0.0-0.31
0.0-0.31
10+
10+
-.10+
10+
10+
1-2
1-2
0-1
0-1
1.52-5.08
0.51-1.52
1.52-5.08 -
50.80
15.24-50.80
15.24-50.80
50.80
15.24-50.80
5.08-15.24
0.6-2.0
0.2-0.6
0.6-2.0
20
6.0-20
6.0-20.0
20
6.0-20
2.0-6.0
Huckabee-Kalnia-Izagora
Huckabee
Kalnia
Izagora
Lakewood-Lakeland
Lakewood
Lake! and
Lakeland, Ruston,
Lake! and
Ruston
Norfolk
Sunsweet
Carnegie
Cuthbert
Ortega-Kureb
Leon
Rutl ege
Pactolus
Kureb
Ortega
Good
Moderately good
to good
Moderately good
Excessive
Sonewhat Excessive
1.82
0.61-0.91
0.61-0.91
3.05
3.05
6+
2-3
2-3
10+
10+
5.08-15.24
1.52-5.08
1.52-5.08
15.24
50.80
2.0-6.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
6.0
20
Norfolk, Sunsweet, Carnegie, Cuthbert
Sonewhat Excessive
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Somewhat Poor
Poor
Somewhat Poor
Excessively Drained
Moderately
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
3.05
1.82
0.31-0.61
0.0-0.31
0.46-0.76
1.82
1.06-1.52
10+
10+
10+
10+
10+
6+
1-2
0-1
1.5-2.5
6
3.5-5.5
50.80
1.52-5.08
1.52-5.08
0.51-1.52
0.51-1.52
0.51-1.52
50.80
15.24-50.80
15.24-50.80
50.80
1.52-5.08
20.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.2-0.6
0.2-0.6
0.2-0.6
20.0
6.0-20.0
6.0-20.0
20.0
-------
Table C-3. Continued
Soil Association Natural
Series Drainage
Depth to
Groundwater
Meters
Feet
Permeability
in/hr.
cm/hr
In/hr.
Pactolus-Rutlege-Mulat
Albany
Garon
Johns
Lynchurg
Leon
Donovan
Pamlico
Pactolus
Mulat
Rutlege
Somewhat Poor
Somewhat Poor
Poor to Moderate
Somewhat Poor
Somewhat Poor
Very Poor
Very Poor
Very Poor
Very Poor
Very Poor
0.46-1.06
0.46-1.06
0.46-0.91
0.30-0.61
0.30-0.61
0.30-0.76
0.30-0.61
0.46-0.76
0.30-0.76
0.30-0.61
1.5-3.5
1.5-3.5
1.5-3
1-2
1-2
1-2.5
1-2
1.5-2.5
1-2.5
1-2
5.08-15.24
1.52-5.08
0.6-2.0
1.52-5.08
50.80
1.52-5.08
1.52-5.08
15.24-50.80
0.51-1.52
15.24-50.80
2.0-6.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
20
0.6-2.0
0.6-2.0
6.0-20.0
0.2-0.6
6.0-20.0
Source: Soil Survey Staff. Guide for Interpretation, Engineering Uses of Soils, Soil
Conservation Service, USDA.
-------
SOUTH ESCAMBIA AND
SANTA ROSA COUNTES ELS.
Figure C-l
General Soils Associations
t ltd and Troup' Neirly level to Strongly sloping sills;
sane are excessively drained and sandy throughout, in)
sane are well drained and have at least 40 Inches of und
over a loamy subsoil.
Ortega-Kureb Nearly level to gsntly sloping, Hferitcly
well drained ind excessively drained soils that art
sandy throughout
Pactoliis-Bullege-Hul«t Level to gently sloping lOMH
poorly drained and very poorly drained soil; th*t ire
sandy and louy throughout.
Dorovan-rannto Nearly level, v
e undertaken by study and low uteri*
Savannah
Gray Sands, very sandy subsoil*, *
Bray or *ery dark gray fine i,
rlunner-ltutltw
-------
-2-
Written comments should be forwarded to:
Robert C. Cooper, Project Officer
Environmental Assessment Branch
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
404/881-3776
Copies of the South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties Draft
EIS will be available for review at the following location.
West Florida Regional Library
200 W. Gregory Street
Pensacola, Florida 32501
Additional copies of the Draft EIS are available from EPA's
Environmental Assessment Branch at the address given above.
-------
. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\*
f*' •*" REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
May 3, 1984
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS AND
CONCERNED CITIZENS:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 19, 1984, to
receive public and agency comments on the South Escambia
and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida Wastewater Management
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The public
hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council
Chambers on the second floor of the Pensacola City Hall
at 330 S. Jefferson Street.
Both written and oral comments will be accepted and a
transcript of the hearing will be made. Lengthy or tech-
nically complex statements should be summarized for the
oral presentation. If possible, copies of the statements
should be presented prior to the oral presentation. The
Hearing Officer reserves the right to fix reasonable
limits on the time allowed for oral statements.
A Final EIS will be published after the close of the Draft
EIS public comment period. EPA does not intend to reprint
the entire Draft EIS as part of the Final EIS. The Final
EIS will consist of the Agency's decision, a summary of
the Draft EIS, any pertinent additional information or eval-
uations developed since publication of the Draft, revisions
to the Draft, comments received and EPA's responses, and
the transcript of the public hearing. A copy of the Draft
EIS should be retained if a complete evaluation of the
project is desired.
The hearing record will remain open and additional written
comments may be submitted until June 29, 1984. All
additional comments that are received during the comment
period will be considered as part of the hearing record.
------- |