-------
- iv-
Alternative _4_;
Alternative 4 consists of two regional plants. The Glades Road
Plant capacity would be increased to 21 MGD from its existing
10 MGD. The treatment and the disposal technique used would be
the same as for Alternative 1. This plant would serve
subbasins A, B, and F.
A West Regional Plant would be constructed. This plant woulo
employ activated sludge and chlorination attaining secondary
treatment. The plant would be designed with a capacity of 9
MGD. Effluent disposal would consist of deep well injection.
This plant would serve subbasins C, D, E, I, G, and H.
Alternative 5;
This alternative consists of two regional treatment
facilities. One regional treatment facility would be the
existing Glades Road Plant expanded to 21 MGD.
A West Regional Plant would also be constructed. Effluent from
the plant would be disposed through spray irrigation. Also,
the plant would be connected to the Glades Road Plant via a
30-inch outfall. This outfall could transport flow into the
Glaces Road Plant where it could be ultimately disposed of by
ocean outfall. The outfall would serve as a backup to the
spray irrigation system proposed tor the West Plant.
Alternative 6;
This alternative consists of three regional treatment
facilities located at Glades Road, Sanaalfoot Cove, and
American Homes. Treatment capacity at Glades Road would
increase from 10 to 17.5 MGD. Treatment capacity at Sandalfoot
would increase from 3 to 6 MGD. American Homes capacity would
increase from 1.5 to 6 MGD. Disposal of wastewater from all
three treatment facilities would be by ocean outfall. A
30-inch diameter line would be required to convey treated
effluent eastward.
Alternative 7;
Alternative 7 consists of one regional plant at Glades Road
with the same type of treatment, capacity, discharge, and
pumping station configuration as Alternative 1. No centralized
service would be provided to the land classified as unique
agricultural lano. Densities in the other parts of the County
service area were assumed to increase so the total population
level would be the same as for the other alternatives.
-------
-v-
Alternative 8 :
This alternative is the no Federal action alternative in which
no Federal 201 grant money would be given tor construction in
the Planning Area. It is estimated that the City and the
County would expand the existing facilities in the area with
100% local funding if this alternative is chosen. This would
mean expansion of the Glades Road Plant to 17.5 MGD to serve
the City's service area. The three County plants would
probably remain in service until their capacities were reached
between 1988 and 1990. These plants coulo then be expanded to
6 MGD each at banoalioot ana American Homes and 0.7 at Pheasant
Walk with discharge to percolation ponds or to the City's ocean
outtall. A third alternative for the County would be pumping
all wastewater to the Glaoes Road Plant for treatment and
disposal. An agreement would have to be reached between the
City and County concerning the appropriate option for
implementation.
Alternative 9;
Alternative 9 is designed to serve as a potential disposal
option which could oe used in conjunction with any of the other
alternatives. Disposal would be cy means of a dual water
system tor residential irrigation.
Alternative 10;
Alternative 10 consists of constructing a system with
configuration, treatment level and type of disposal identical
to Alternative 1. The pump station, force main to the Glades
Road Plant, and the ultimate size of the treatment plant would
be aownsized so as not to serve that part of the population
projected to settle on unique agricultural lands as deiineo by
the SCS.
Part C; Evaluation of Alternatives
The alternatives described in Part B were evaluated in terms of
cost, environmental impact and implementability. The
evaluation of the alternatives with respect to these categories
is summarized in Table 1.
-------
TABLE I
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION SUMMARY
Alternative
Number
Description oC
Alternative
Total Present
Worth (Smillions;
Environmental Effects
Implementabiiity
1. 1 plant
2. ocean outfall
26.80
1. 1 plant
2. ocean outfall &
spray irrigation
39.60
1. 1 plant
2. ocean outfall
3. no service to
subbasins F &
26.80
1. No discharges to Biscayne
Aquifer.
2. Continued successful use of the
ocean outfall.
3. No water recycling.
4. Conversion of most unique
agricultural lands to urban uses.
5. Continued and expanded strain on
community services & facilities.
6. Not in conformance with County
Comprehensive Plan for Subbasins
F i I.
7. Increased urban runoff to
Biscayne Aquifer.
1. Continued successful use of the
ocean outfall.
2. Some recycling of treated
wastewater.
3. Conversion of most unique
agricultural lands to urban uses.
4. Continued b expanded strain on
community services & facilities.
5. Not in conformance with County
Comprehensive Plan for Subbasins
P & I.
6. Increased urban runoff to Biscayue
Aquifer.
1. No discharges to Biscayne Aquifer.
2. Continued successful use of the
ocean outfall.
3. No water recycling.
4, Conversion of most unique
agricultural lands to urban uses.
5. Continued & expanded strain on
community services & facilities.
6. This Alternative is in conformance
with County Comprehensive Plan
recommendation not to serve
Suboasins P & I.
7. Increased urban runoff to Biscayne
Aquifer.
Agreement needed between
City 4 County outlining
terms of City agreement
to treat & dispose of.
County wastewater.
Agreement needed between
City s. County outlining
terms of City agreement
to treat & dispose of
County wastewater.
Agreement needed between
City & County outlining
terms of City agreement
to treat & dispose of
County wastewater.
-------
TABLE I
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION SUMMARY
Alternative
Number
Description o£
Alternative
Total Present
Worth (SmiHioris)
Environmental Effects
Implementability
1. 2 plants
2. ocean outfall &
deep well injection
36.25
1. 2 plants
2. ocean outfall &
spray irrigation
48.98
1. 3 plants
2. bcean outfall
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
•2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Adverse effects to groundwater
undetermined until test well
could be implemented.
Continued successful use of
ocean outfall.
Possible recycling of deep well
effluent at a later date.
Conversion of most unique
agricultural lands to urban uses.
Continued and expanded strain on
community services & facilities.
Not in conformance with County
Comprehensive Plan for Subbasins
F & I.
Increased urban runoff to Biscayne
Aquifer.
Continued successful use of the
ocean outfall.
Some recycling of treated
wastewater.
Conversion of most unique
agricultural lands to urban uses.
Continued & expanded strain on
community services & facilities,
Not in conformance with County
Comprehensive Plan for Subbasins
F & I. ,,.""•> ... ..-;.
Increased urban- r.xc.-o-f.f.. to Biscayne
Aquifer. , - ' , , •-,.
No new agreements or
interaction needed
between City & County.
Agreement needed between
City & County outlining
terms of City agreement
to dispose of County
wastewater.
No discharges to ' B-iijreaitffie^ -.Aquifer.
Gontinu'ea successful use of"*the. .
ocean outfall. "''•"
No water recycling.
Conversion of most unique
agricultural lands to urban uses.
Continued & expanded strain on
community services & facilities.
Not in conformance with County
Comprehensive Plan for Subbasins
F & I.
Increased urban runoff to Biscayne
Aquifer.
Agreement needed between
"City ii, Count^-'outlining
terms -'of City agreement
to dispose of County
wastewater.
-------
TABLE I
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION SUMMARY
Alternative
Number
Description of
Alternative
Total Present
rforth ; Snu 11 ions)
Environmental Effects
Implementability
10
1. 1 plant
2. ocean outfall
3. no service to
agricultural lands
26.80
1. 4 plants
2. ocean outfall &
percolation ponds
28.90
1. Dual water supply
system
1. 1 plant
2. ocean outfall
3. no service to
agricultural lands
21.60
*Exact cost not calculated for Alternative 9. This Alternative
includes a distribution system for treated wastewater for
residential and other purposes as used in St. Petersburg,
Florida. The total costs would exceed those of disposal by
ocean outfall or conventional spray irrigation. (supplements
other alternatives)
1. No discharge to Biscayne Aquifer.
2. Continued successful use of the
ocean outfall.
3. No water recycling.
4. No more conversions of unique
agricultural lands to urban uses.
5. Continued & expanded strain on
community services & facilities.
The higher densities & decreased
sprawl associated with this
Alternative will lessen the costs
needed to construct additional
services & facilities.
6. Increased urban runoff to Biscayne
aquifer.
1. No Federal funding to service
growth & development.
2. No Federal funding to encourage
the conversion of unique
agricultural lands to urban uses.
3. No Federal funding to encourage
increased-strain on the area's
community services & facilities.
4. Continued discharge to Biscayne
Aquifer from percolation ponds.
5. No Federal encouragement of
increased urban runoff to' Biscayne
Aquifer.
1. Maximum water recycling.
2. Other impacts depend upon what
other alternatives this one is
supplementing.
1. No discharge to Biscayne Aquifer.
2. Continued successful use of the
ocean outfall.
3. No water recycling.
4. No funding for conversion of
unique agricultural lands to
urban uses.
5. The Alternative supports less
additional strain on the area's
community services & facilities
than the full service alternatives,
Agreement needed between
City & County outlining
terms of City agreement
to treat and dispose of
County wastewater.
No new agreements needed
in first phase. Second
phase may require
agreement by City to
treat & dispose of
County wastewater.
Residents may express
concern over direct
recycle.
Agreement needed between
City & County outlining
terms of City agreement
to treat & dispose of
County wastewater.
-------
-IX-
Cost
As shown in Table 1, there are significant differences among
the alternatives with regard to cost ($26.8 million to $48.98
million for the full service alternatives). Alternative 10
costs only $21.8 million. However, this alternative does not
provide service for the full 20 year population projection.
These figures clearly indicate that the alternatives involving
spray irrigation are more expensive than those associated with
the outfall. This is due to the high cost of land in the area
and the fact that the outfall is already in .existence.
'-'' V «
Environmental Impacts
Provision of service throughout the unincorporated portion of
the Planning Area would promote the conversion of most of the
area's unique agricultural lands to urban uses. Alternatives
1, 8 and 10 do not impact these agricultural lands. However,
County land use policy supports the conversion of most of these
lands to urban uses. It is doubtful that the lack of Federal
funds for wastewater treatment and disposal wS.ll alter this
policy. ;:;
The large increases in population levels projected for the
Planning Area will lead to increased strain on the already
overcrowded system of community services and facilities.
County land use policy indicates that these population levels
will be reached no matter which alternative is selected.
Alternatives 8 and 10 would not provide Federal funding to
promote this growth and development.
-------
-x-
The biscayne Aquifer is the principal source ot arinking water
supply in the area. It has been declared a sole source aquifer
unaer provisions of the Sate Drinking Water Act. Alternative 8
is the only alternative which will maintain the existing
percolation ponas discharging into the aquifer. Current
monitoring data collected by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation and the Palm Beach County Health
Department as well as EPA's monitoring report presented in
Appendix A of this EIS do not indicate any water quality
problems associated with these discharges. The large
population increase projected tor the area will increase the
runoff associated with urban land use such as heavy metals, and
lawn fertilizers. Runoff from agricultural fertilizers should
decrease as more agricultural lands are converted to urban uses.
The demand on the area's potable water resources will continue
to expand with the increase in population. Alternatives 2, 4,
5, 8 and 9 involve some form ot recycling. The other
alternatives discharge all wastewater through the ocean outfall.
impleroentability
Most ot the alternatives require an agreement between the City
and the County outlining terms of Boca Raton's agreement to
treat ana dispose of Palm Beach County's wastewater. All
alternatives require such agreements except Alternatives 4 and
8. It is expected that equitable arrangements could be worked
out between these two local governing bodies.
Part D: Description of Preferred Alternative
EPA has selected a modification ot the no Federal action
alternative, Alternative 8, as the preferred alternative tor
the Draft EIS. This alternative is shown in Figure 11-13. EPA
would fund the expansion of the Glades Roao facility to 17.5
MGD to serve subbasin A. This alternative would have a present
worth cost of approximately $13.2 million.
EPA would not fund any expansion in the County portion of the
Planning Area. Capacity currently exists at the Sandalfoot
Cove, American Homes, and Pheasant halk Plants to last until
1988-1990. These plants could then be expanded to 6 MGD each
at Sandalfoot Cove ano American Homes and 0.7 MGD at Pheasant
Vvalk with discharge to percolation ponos or to the City's ocean
outfall. A third alternative for the County would be pumping
all wastewater to the Glades Road Plant tor treatment and
disposal. An agreement would have to be reached between the
City and the County concerning the appropriate option for
implementation.
-------
-xi-
Florida DER and the Palm Beach County Health Department will
continue their monitoring programs at the percolation ponds and
water supply wells in the future. It a buildup of nitrate
levels becomes evident, an alternate form of wastewater
disposal may become necessary. In this eventuality, Federal
funding may be available to address this need.
Part E; Public Participation
In this EIS, the public participation process included the
establishment of an Environmental Review Committee, a Technical
Advisory Committee, a public scoping meeting, a public meeting
on alternatives, and a public hearing on the Draft EIS. A
large majority of the input received t'hrough this process
supported the alternative which was selected as the preferred
alternative in this EIS.
The public hearing on the Draft EIS was held in Boca Raton on
November 17, 19fai. Written comments on the DEIS were received
from the following agencies and interested groups:
Federal Agencies
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Soil Conservation
Service
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
Public Health Services
U.S. Department of Defense: Department of the
Air Force
State Agencies
Office of the Governor of Florida
Florida Department of State
Fioriaa Department of Environmental Regulation
-------
-Xll-
Local Agencies
Palm Beach County
City of Boca Raton
Interested Groups and Individuals;
Federation of Boca Raton Homeowner Associates
Part F: Basis for Decision
The underlying theme ot this E1S is the selection of a
wastewater management pro9ram tor the Southern Region of Palm
Beach County that is compatible with the protection of the
area's sensitive resources, particularly the unique
agricultural lands and the Biscayne Aquifer, while recognizing
the existing extensive development pressure. In light of
projected impacts ot growth and development in the Planning
Area and the demonstratea lack of existing water quality
problems, EPA selected the modified no action approach
described above as the preferred alternative. Local land use
policy is the appropriate means for accomplishing protection
and development of the resources in the Planning Area.
-------
X 11 1
CHAPTER
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHERN REGION, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Part A: Need for Action i
Part B: Description of Alternatives iii
Part C: Evaluation of Alternatives v
Part D: Description of the Preferred
Alternative x
Part E: Public Participation xi
Part F: Basis for Decision xii
I PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION I -1
II ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND COST EVALUATION II-l
Part A: Introduction II-l
Part B: Identification and Development
of Wastewater Service
Configurations II-3
Part C: Identification of Applicable
Treatment & Disposal Methods 11-4
Part D: Identification of Applicable
Methods of Disinfection 11-7
Part E: Non-Structural Wastewater
Management Systems Il-li
Part F: Development of Alternatives 11-12
Part G: Cost Evaluation 11-30
Part H: Implementability 11-32
Part I: Sludge Management 11-33
III AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES &
MITIGATIVE MEASURES III-l
Part A: Introduction I II-l
Part B: Affected Environment and
Environmental Consequences of the
Alternatives II1-1
Part C: Mitigative Measures 111-48
IV DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IV-1
-------
XIV
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)
V CHANGES TO THE DRAFT V-l
VI EIS COORDINATION & PUBLIC PARTICIPATION VI-1
Part A: Introduction VI-1
Part B: Coordination With Local, Regional
State, and Federal Agencies VI-1
Part C: Public Participation Program VI-3
Part D: Written Comments on the Draft EIS VI-24
Part E: Public Hearing Transcript VI-7
Part F: Responses to Comments VI-59
VII LIST OF PREPARERS VII-1
APPENDIX A SOUTH PALM BEACH COUNTY
SAMPLING STUDY A-l
APPENDIX B NITRATE MONITORING RECORDS B-l
APPENDIX C WILDLIFE OF SOUTH PALM BEACH COUNTY C-l
-------
XV
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
I
II-l
II-2
II-3
II-4
II-5
II-6
II-7
II-8
II-9
11-10
11-11
11-12
11-13
11-14
I II-l
III-2
III-3
STUDY AREA
SUBBASIN BOUNDARIES
ALTERNATIVE I SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE I
ALTERNATIVE II LAND APPLICATION
SITES
ALTERNATIVE II SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE III
ALTERNATIVE IV
ALTERNATIVE V SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE V
ALTERNATIVE V LAND APPLICATION
SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVE VI
ALTERNATIVE VII
ALTERNATIVE VIII
ALTERNATIVE IX
1980 GENERALIZED LAND USE
UNIQUE AGRICULTURAL AREAS
2000 GENERALIZED LAND USE
PAGE
ii
II-2
11-14
11-15
11-16
11-17
11-19
11-20
11-21
11-23
11-24
11-25
11-27
11-28
11-29
III-5
III-8
III-ll
-------
XVI
LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.)
III-4 WATER RESOURCES III-23
III-5 CHARACTERISTICS OF SOILS 111-39
III-6 VEGETATION I11-44
IH-7 SENSITIVE AREAS 111-46
-------
XV11
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
I
II-l
II-2
II-3
II-4
III-l
III-2
III-3
III-4
III-5
II1-6
III-7
III-8
III-9
111-10
III-ll
VI-1
VI-2
B-l
B-2
B-3
B-4
C-l
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION SUMMARY
COMPARISON OF DESIGN FEATURES FOR
LAND TREATEMENT PROCESSES
PRESENT WORTH OF ALTERNATIVES
SLUDGE PRODUCTION
COST SUMMARY
DISAGGREGATION OF ESTIMATED FUTURE
POPULATIONS
LAND USE PROXIMITY (1980)
SUMMARY OF SELECTED IMPACTS
RESIDENTIAL WATER AND SEWER RATES
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS - MI LLAGE RATES
PUBLIC SERVICE EXPENDITURES
GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES
PROJECTED ELECTRIC POWER CONSUMPTION
AIR QUALITY OF THE SOUTHERN REGION
PALM BEACH COUNTY 201 AREA
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
EIS REVIEW COMMITTEE
SANDALFOOT COVE MONITORING WELL DATA
SANDALFOOT COVE DRINKING WATER WELL DATA
PHEASANT WALK MONITORING WELL DATA
PHEASANT WALK DRINKING WATER WELL DATA
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
PAGE
Vi
II-5
11-31
11-36
11-44
III-2
111-12
111-16
111-17
111-18
111-19
111-21
111-29
1 11-32
111-34
111-36
VI-2
VI-4
B-l
B-2
B-3
B-4
C-3
-------
-------
CHAPTER I - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The Southern Region Palm Beach County 201 Facilities Planning
Area Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared to
address the provision ot wastewater facilities for the City of
Boca katon and a portion of Palm Beach County. Sewerage
facilities which currently service the Planning Area are
provided by the City ot Boca Raton and Palm Beach County. The
area is experiencing extensive growth and development which
will soon begin to tax the capabilities of the existing
treatment and disposal systems. This EIS addresses the
planning undertaken to determine the needed wastewater
facilities and their probable impact on the environment.
This Planning Area is located on the southeastern coast of
Florida as shown in Figure 1. This EIS is being undertaken
concurrently with the development ot the 201 Plan. Through
this process, the two separate consultants are hired to do the
EIS and the 201 Plan respectively. The Plans ot Study ana the
two report's were coordinated to avoid duplication. In the
alternatives evaluation, the EIS consultant performeo the
environmental evaluation while the 201 consultant did the cost
analysis. The City oi Boca Raton, Palm Beach County, the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and EPA
have all worked together throughout this process to direct the
two studies. Major outputs of the 201 Plan are available
concurrently with the issuance of this Draft EIS. The Final
EIS will be issued with the approval of the completed 201
Plan. The boundaries of the Planning Area were established by
the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The
Planning Area was divided into the County service area and the
Boca Raton service area for planning purposes.
The major population center within the Planning Area is the
City ot Boca Raton. The 1980 population estimate of the City's
service area is 62,596. Interceptor and collector systems are
present throughout most of the developed portions oi this
area. Wastewater is treated at the City of Boca Raton's
treatment facilities located on Glades Road. This facility
provides secondary treatment with the treated effluent
discharged into the Atlantic Ocean. Scattered areas in the
City are served by septic tanks.
-------
1-2
The Palm Beach County service area had a 1980 population
estimate of 13,557. Until recently, the South Palm Beach
Utilities Corporation (SPBUC) provioed most of the wastewater
service in this part of the Planning Area with a collection
system leading to two small plants both of which provide
secondary treatment with discharge to percolation ponds. The
County recently purchased the SPBUC and will now operate these
facilities along with the Pheasant Walk Plant which also
provides secondary treatment with discharge to percolation
ponds.
The Palm Beach County Health Department will approve septic
tanks at a density of one per acre where a private well is
present and one per half acre where no well is present.
Scattered homes and low density residential developments
throughout the County are served by septic tanks.
The Clean Water Act of 1977, represents the major legislative
action for water pollution abatement in the United States.
Under this legislation the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
has been given responsiblity for the administration of the law
including the funding of wastewater facilities.
The principal mechanism in P.L. 95-217 which provides for the
construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants is
Section 201. This section provides grant funds for planning,
design and construction of wastewater facilities. Under the
provisions of Section 201 any wastewater facility which is
newly proposed or under consideration tor upgrading and/or
expanding which will use federal funds for construction must
first proceed with a 201 Facilities Planning Study.
In 1978, EPA granted Step I funding for preparation ol the
Southern Region Palm Beach County Area 201 Facilities Plan.
The City of Boca Raton has been coordinating the 201 Facilities
Plan for the Planning Area. Camp, Dresser, & McKee of Fort
Lauderdale, Florida is preparing the 201 Plan.
EPA made the decision to prepare an EIS in conjunction with the
201 Facilities Plan for several reasons. These reasons
included a request by the City of Boca Raton and the potential
adverse impacts of projected population and development.
Stottler & Stagg was authorized to begin preparation of the EIS
in February, 1979.
-------
1-3
This EIS is being done to comply with the provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190.
The purpose ot this act is to encourage all Federal agencies to
direct their policies, plans, and programs to protect and
enhance environmental quality. To comply with this Act,
Federal agencies, in consultation with the public and other
Federal, State, and local agencies, will assess in detail the
potential environmental impacts of all major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The objective of the EIS and 201 Facilities Plan process is the
selection of the most cost-effective, environmentally sound,
socially acceptable and implementable wastewater management
system for the Planning Area. To meet this objective, certain
major goals were determined to be significant.
1. Preservation of the area's unique natural resources.
2. Implementation of the Florida Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act throughout the Planning
Area.
3. Ensure that water quality standards are achieved and
prevent any further degradation of surface water
quality.
4. Protection of potable water supplies.
5. Ensure the availability of adequate public facilities
and services for future populations.
6. Reuse of treated wastewater.
7. Maintenance of the quality ot life.
8. Avoidance of undue financial burden on the community.
9. Increase cooperation among Federal, State, and local
units of government within the Planning Area.
-------
1-4
Public participation was encouraged throughout the 201 planning
process through the establishment of an Environmental Review
Commmittee, public meetings, and local news coverage. The
Review Committee included representatives of all local
governments, environmental groups, regional regulatory and
planning agencies and private citizens. Meetings of the Review
Committee were held at key intervals in the planning process
and committee members were provided with a series of Task
Reports which presented detailed information on principal parts
of the study. Following the selection of a recommmended plan,
a public meeting was held to afford interested citizens an
opportunity to comment en the plan.
-------
-------
CHAPTER &NDMST EVAUJATION
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a systematic
development of all reasonable alternatives for the attainment
of the P objectives of this project. The alternatives are then
compared and critical differences identified. A preferred
alternative is then selected.
This chapter presents a range of structural engineering
alternatives and non-structural considerations for the solution
of wastewater management problems. In addition, ^ternatives
are evaluated for their relative cost and implementability.
?he environmental evaluation of the alternatives is Presented
in Chapter III. The structual alternatives identified include
tne construction of new wastewater treatment and conveyance
facilities or the upgrading of existing facilities.
Non-siruc?ual wastewater considerations discussed include
optimum use of existing facilities, flow and waste reduction
measures, land and development controls.
EPA regulations require the use of population projections
developed and approved for the Areawide Wastewater Management
Plan (208 Plan) in the 201 planning process. Projections made
In April" 1979 have been approved by the City, County, FDER and
EP\fP Tnese projections indicate that the total Population
within the Planning Area will increase from 76,153 in 1980 to
257 566 in 2000. These projections have been disaggregated to
the service area subbasins shown in Figure II-l for the purpose
of developing flow projections. The per capita flow
DrojectionsP to be used are 89 and 100 gallons per capita per
day ?gpc£* for the areas east and west °f the Turnpike,
respectively. Total wastewater quantities estimated for the
yea1T2000elaYre approximately 18 MGD in the Boca Raton service
area and approximately 10 MGD in the County service area.
The needs and expenditures for wastewater facilities could I be
substantial and, therefore, many technically feasible
Alternatives were evaluated for immediate and future
requirements throughout the planning period.
All potential alternatives were evaluated based on capital and
annuaT costs. The costs evaluations identified several
SSst-effective alternatives for the Boca Raton service area and
S County service area. The cost-effective *lternatives were
evaluated further with respect to overall economic,
environmental, and administrative and implementative
characteristics to select the recommended plan.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
II-3
Part B: Identification and Development of
Wastewater Service Configurab ions
The Planning Area was divided into three service areas
consisting of the Boca Raton service area, the Palm Beach
County service area west of Boca Raton, and the Pheasant Walk
service area which is also operated by Palm Beach County.
Large portions of the Boca Raton service area (subbasin A) are
currently served by wastewater collection and treatment
facilities. The Glades Road Plant has a current: capacity of 10
MGD and provides secondary treatment with discharge by ocean
outfall. Because of the extent of the existing collection and
treatment facilities, no other service configurations were
developed for the Boca Raton service area. :
Portions of the Palm Beach County service area west of Boca
Raton (subbasins C, D, E, F, G, H, and I) are currently
serviced by a collection system and two small treatment plants
providing secondary treatment with discharge to percolation
ponds. Treatment configurations developed for this area
include continued use of the existing facilities, construction
of pumping stations at the existing plant sites with
construction of a force main to the Glades Road Plant for
treatment and construction of two new plants in the area.
The Pheasant Walk service area (subbasin B) is currently served
by a small treatment plant providing secondary treatment with
discharge to percolation ponds. Treatment configurations
considered for this service area include continued use of the
existing facilities and pumping to the Glades Road facility for
treatment.
-------
11-4
Part C; Identification of Applicable Treatment
and Disposal Methods
Treatment and Discharge to Surface afaters
tfastewater treatment and discharge to surface waters is the
most commonly used wastewater management technique. It
consists of treating wastewater by a combination of physical,
chemical and/or biological processes and discharging the
effluent to surface waters via an ocean outfall.
The City's Glades Road Plant discharges secondary treated
effluent to the Atlantic Ocean. EPA has identified no
significant problems resulting froia the operation of this
outfall or any of the other ocean outfalls in southeast
Florida. JJo other surface waters in the area were considered
to be viable as surface water discharge alternatives.
Treatment and Discharge By Land Application
Land application of treated wastewater provides for further
removal or reduction of pollutants by physical and/or
biological processes which occur in the soils. The successful
operation of a land application system is dependent upon the
characteristics such as soil structure and chemistry,
topography, geology, hydrology, climate and vegetation. The
land-treated wastewater is removed from the soil by
evapotranspiration and is returned to surface streams by runoff
or percolates downward through the soil to the groundwater.
Land treatment of wastewater is a broad term that can be broken
down into three prinicipal processes. These processes are as
follows:
o Slow Rate
o Rapid Infiltration
o Overland Flow
Comparison of design features and site characteristics for each
of the processes are tabulated in Table II-l. The major
difference between slow rate and rapid infiltration processes
is principally in the rate of application. Rapid infiltration
application rates are in the order of ten to thirty times the
application rate of a slow rate system.
-------
TABLE. II - 1
COMPARISON OF DESIGN FEATURES FOR LAND TREATMENT PROCESSES
FEATURE
Application techniques
Annual application rate, ft.
Field area required, acres
Typical weekly application rate, inches
Minimum preapplication treatment
provided in United States
Disposition of applied wastewater
Need for vegetation
SLOK RATE
PRINCIPAL PROCESSES
RAPID INFILTRATION
Sprinkler or
surface3
Usually surface
Primary
sedimentation
Evapotranspiration
and percolation
Required
Primary
sedimentation
Mainly
percolation
Optional
OVERLAND FLOW
Sprinkler or
surface
2 to 20
56 to 560
0.5 to 4
20 to 560
2 to 56
4 to 120
10 to 70
16 to 110
2.5 to 6C
6 to 16d
Screening and
grit removal
Surface runoff and
evapotranspi rati on
with some percola-
tion
Required
Includes ridge-and-furrow and border strip.
bField area in acres not including buffer area, roads, or ditches for 1 Mgal/d (43.8 L/s) flow.
cRange for application of screened wastewater.
dRange for application of lagoon and secondary effluent.
eDepends on the use of the effluent and the type of crop.
1 inch = 2.54 cm
1 foot = 0.305 m
1 acre = 0.405 ha
SOURCE: EPA Process Design Manual for Land Treatment of Municipal Effluent
-------
11-6
Overland flow application rates are about one to three times
the application rate of a slow rate system. A conventional
overland flow system uses mildly sloping land and vegetation as
its prinicipal tools. Treatment is rendered by the vegetation
as wastewater flows "over the land". A minor portion of the
wastewater is lost to percolation into the soil and
evapotranspiration, however, most of the flow is usually
collected and then disposed of oy appropriate methods. Slow
rate and rapid infiltration systems, on tne other hand, rely on
percolation through the soil for treatment. Percolating water
may augment the groundwater supply or meet the consumptive
demands of crops toeing grown.
Slow rate infiltration is generally accomplished by the spray
irrigation of effluent. This technique applies treated
wastewater to a vegetated area wnere a portion of the water is
treated as it percolates slowly through the soil to the
groundwater table, while the remainder of the water is reiaoved
by evapotranspiration. Soil conditions within the Planning
Area generally appear to be adequate to warrant investigating
the possibility of using spray irrigation slow rate land
application systems to i.ieet wastewater treatment needs of the
Planning Area.
Percolation ponds are a means of land application of wastewater
which is used in this Planning Area. When this technique is
used, treated wastewater is disposed of into a large unlined
pond and gradually percolates into the surrounding
groundwater. Little or no treatment is accomplished in the
soils utilizing this method of disposal.
On-site and community systems are also" alternatives which
discharge by land application. These systems include:
o Septic Tank/Soil Absorption Systems
o Aerobic Treatment/Absorption Bed
o Septic Tank/Mound System
o Septic Tank/£vapotranspiration System
o Pressure Sewers
o Vacuum Sewers
o Small Diameter Gravity Sewers
-------
II-7
All individual, and on-site systems have been identified as
Alternative Technology by current Federal guidelines. Under
the Individual Systems Regulation (CPR 35.918-1, 35.918-2,
35.918-3) individual and on-site systems are eligible for a 4
percent set aside of state funding allocations by EPA. In
addition, on-site systems are eligible for 85 percent funding
because they are identified as alternative technology.
The use of on-site or community systems is most commonly seen
in smaller communities or lower density areas in larger
coiomunities. This results because the cost to the individual
homeowner is generally less for on-site systems in less densely
populated areas. However, costs are not the only constraints
used to define the feasibility of community and on-site
systems. Constraints used to assess the feasibility of
community and on-site systems are:
o Siting restrictions in terras of terrain
o Total System Cost
o System performance including removability and
reliability
Deep rtell Injection
Another possible means of wastewater disposal is deep well
injection. Deep wells require no discharge to surface waters
and are a potential means of water reuse in the future. The
main problem with deep well injection is that until a well is
actually drilled and tested it is unknown if a suitable
injection zone exists; thus making the technique very costly.
Part D; Identification of Applicable Methods of Disinfectien
Chlorine
Chlorine is a common disinfecting agent that has widespread use
in water and wastewater treatment. However, recently there has
been a resurgence of concern about the toxic potential of
certain by-products of chlorination. These by-products are
formed when trace organics combine wich chlorine. The most
widely publicized compounds of public health concerns are the
trihalomethanes. As a result of this knowledge, alternative
disinfectants have been evaluated.
-------
II-3
Chlorine is reported to be an effective bacteriacide under most
conditions. When chlorine is dissolved in water it can undergo
various transformations. It first disassociates into acid
forms, known as hypochlorous and hydrochloric. The
hypochlorous fona is considered to be the raost effective
disinfectant. Other forms which are not as efficient in
disinfecting are hypochlorite and chloraraines. Chloramines are
compounds of chlorine and ammonia present in solution.
Research has shown that with the exception of one species of
virus, it takes 3-10 times more chlorine to kill viruses than
common pathogenic bacteria. In general, the inactivation rate
of viruses by chlorine increases with time of exposure, lower
pH (6.0 or less), and increase in temperature.
Of further concern is the recent knowledge that chlorine
by-products and naturally occuring organic acids combine to
form detrimental by-products. The first concrete evidence of
these by-products, called trihalomethanes, surfaced in New
Orleans in 1974. It was concluded in subsequent studies that
trihalomethane formation was a direct result of chlorination of
waters. Trihalomethane formation is occasionally of concern
where prechlorination of wastewater brings chlorine compounds
into contact with high concentrations of organic materials.
Post chlorination of effluent is not considered to be a
significant problem except in cases of direct recycling of
wastewater as a drinking water supply with little or no
dilution.
Costs for utilizing chlorine vary based on geographical area
and many other factors. In general, however, chlorine is more
economical if purchased in large quantities. For example, the
approximate cost of chlorine varies from 11 cents per pound to
5 cents per pound for ton cylinder systems and tank car
systems, respectively. Tnese cost estimates are based on
January 1976 cost figures.
Ozone
Ozone is another compound that can act as a disinfecting agent
in water and wastewater although its use for disinfecting
purposes has not been as common in tne United States. Europe
and Canada have had much more experience with ozone
disinfection. According co the 201 Plan, there are almost
1,000 installations in Europe using ozone for disinfection of
water.
Ozone is a ver/ unstable coiapound and it is tnerefore very
difficult to store. As a result, it becomes necessary to
produce it on-site. Since its first use at the turn of the
century, ozone generation has become reliable and much more
economical.
-------
11-9
Ozone is a very powerful disinfectant and strong oxidizing
agent and there is no doubt of its superiority over chlorine as
a viricide/ even when employed against resistant strains.
Besides being a very good viricide, ozone can oxidize organic
compounds and reduce color and odor. Reportedly, ozone has
been found to oxidize phenol and remove nitrate.
Advantages of using ozona are its effective viricidal and
bacteriocidal quality, its ability to oxidize organic
compounds, and its residual-free decomposition. UnliKe
chlorine, ozone decomposes rapidly but leaves no residuals
except dissolved oxygen.
The disadvantages of using ozone are also reported in tne
literature. One disadvantage is the inability to rapidly check
its effectiveness. Unlike chlorine, analytical methods for
ozone are not specific or sensitive enough to control the
feeding of this chemical with a relatively hign degree of
accuracy.
Another disadvantage of using ozone is the difficulty
encountered wnen trying to compensate ozone feed rates to the
variations in ozone demand. Also, solubility of ozone
decreases when temperature and humidity are hign because of the
inherent characteristics of the production process. Because of
its very unstable nature, ozone does not provide residual
disinfecting action when utilized as a water or wastewater
disinfectant. It is reported that the half-life of ozone under
general conditions is about 20 minutes. Therefore, no lasting
residual disinfecting action can be expected when using ozone.
Capital and operating costs for ozone, as well as electrical
energy requirements for on-site production are somewhat higher
than for using chlorine and thus nake chlorine more cost
effective under most conditions. As an exariple, the total
energy requirements for chlorination is about 30 kilowatt nours
per million gallons. On the other hand, the total energy
requirements for ozone production is about 550 Kilowatt hours
per million gallons.
-------
11-10
Iodine
Iodine is an alternative disinfectant to the comraonly employed
chlorine and ozone. Iodine is less reactive with organic
compounds so it is considered more stable in low residual
concentrations. The advantage of this characteristic is that
the products of organics with otner disinfectants produce
odors, whereas iodine does not. There are reports of iodine
imparted taste in concentrations as low as 1.5 to 2.0 rag/1, but
it is reported as unobjectionable.
Iodine's bacteriocidal action has been found somewhat inferior
to chlorine under controlled conditions. However, with respect
to higher organisms such as cysts and spores, iodine exhibited
very good disinfecting power. Quick destruction of cysts and
spores has been reported in waters with iodine concentrations
of 5-10 mg/1.
rtnen compared to chlorine, the baseline of disinfectants in the
field, iodine has one narked advantage. Namely, its failure to
react with nitrogen compounds such as ammonia, does not rob it
of its effectiveness as a viricide or oacteriacide. However,
it is unlikely that it could substitute for chlorine because of
its higher cost and restricted availability.
Bromine
Bromine is another nalogen that is considered a disinfectant in
water. It exhibits chemical characteristics like that of
chlorine. For example, it hydrolizes to acid forms and reacts
with ammonia to form oromamines. Its bacteriacidal capability
has been found similar to chlorine. Unlike chioraniines,
however, brornamines do not create toxic conditions in fish
laden waters.
In spite of these advantages, it is unlikely that bromine can
substitute for chlorine as a disinfectant in treatment
facilities because of its greater cost and its lesser
availability. In addition, there have been no large scale
projects implemented to test the use of bromine.
-------
11-11
Part E; Non-Structural Wastewater Management.Systems
Flow and Waste Reduction
The use of water conservation and flow reduction techniques is
an important non-structural technique. Where a treatment plant
is already overloaded, a reduction in wastewater flows could
significantly improve wastewater treatment.
The reduction of flows could have several affects upon a
community's wastewater system. First, treatraent could be
improved with reduced flows. Secondly, the community could
possibly avoid the cost of constructing a new or expanded
treatment plant with the reduction of flows into the existing
plant or prolong the design life of plants presently being
designed or constructed.
Domestic sewage production may be decreased by certain
techniques for reducing water consumption which evolved over
the past several decades. Increasing water costs may oe
expected to induce such conservation of water by residential
users; however, most of the reduction in consumption will be
limited to residential uses such as lawn watering and car
washing, which will not affect the overall sewage flows.
Concern about adequate water supply and water conservation has
led to the development of numerous devices for reducing
residential water usage. Included are such items as toilets
which require considerably less water for flushing and shower
hands which need less flow to produce the same washing and
rinsing effects.
Reduced wastewater production by water conservation snould
continue to be encouraged. Reduction of the volume of
wastewater, however, will have little effect on the quantity of
waste constituents.
Land Use and Development Controls
Land use controls which provide for planned development may
limit potential adverse impacts on water quality (and other
environmental amenities) from uncontrolled growth. Limiting
the density of development or preventing development within
unique agricultural lands are specific applications of this
type of control.
-------
11-12
In order to effectively plan and manage land use there are a
variety of land management tools and techniques that are
available to the local governments in the Planning Area. These
techniques include:
Comprehensive plans.
Zoning ordinances.
Subdivision and land development regulations.
Easements.
Fee simple acquisition of land.
- Staged growth policies.
Conservation zoning district.
Model zoning ordinance.
Transfer of development rights.
Land use control mechanisms may be of limited use in the Palm
Beach County portion of the Planning Area since extensive
development approvals have already been given at the local
level.
Part F; Development of Alternatives
Initial alternatives were developed by combining wastewater
service configurations and treatment and disposal techniques as
discussed earlier in this chapter. This section presents a
description of each of these alternatives. A more detailed
analysis can be found in the South Palm Beach County Facility
Plan. Third Interim Submittal.
-------
11-13
Alternative 1:
Alternative 1 consists of one regional facility with year 2000
capacity of 29 MGD located at the existing site of the Glades
Road Plant to provide service for the entire Planning Area.
This would require an increase of 19 MGD over the current
capacity of 10 MGD. An activated sludge process, providing a
secondary level of treatment followed by chlorination, would be
used.
Effluent disposal would occur through the existing ocean
outfall. To effectively use the outfall, flow equalization is
proposed for this alternative. The estimated volume of
equalization storage needed is 3 million gallons. However, two
tanks would be used with equal or nearly equal volume. This
volume would be utilized to store peak flows beyond the plant's
planned treatment capacity of 29 MGD. Projected peak flows for
the year 2000 are approximmately 56 MGD. A schematic for
Alternative 1 is presented in Figure II-2.
Three regional pump stations would tie needed to pump wastewater
to the Glades Road facility. One regional pumping station
would be located at the Sandalfoot COVG Wastewater Plant, one
at the American tlones Plant and one at the Pheasant Walk Plant
as shown in Figure I1-3.
Alternative 2:
Alternative 2 consists of one regional treatment facility at
the site of the Glades Road Plant. This plane would provide
service for the entire Planning Area. Sfflueut disposal would
be a combination of ocean outfall and spray irrigation. Based
on the screening process performed as part of this study, spray
irrigation would be linitad to golf courses, parks, and open
areas. The layout of tne spray irrigation is as shown in
Figure 11-4.
Treatnent at tns Glades Road facility would consist of
secondary treatment using activated sludge for that portion of
the flow discharged to the ocean. Por that portion of the flow
use,! for spray irrigation, a treatment process consisting of
secondary treatment plus coagulation-f iltration-ciilorination is
proposed. The treatment capacity of the Glades Road Plant
would be increased from 10 /iGD to 29 M'Jb by the year 2000. An
equalization volume of 8 million gallons would be used in this
alternative to dampen peax. flow rates. A schematic for
Alternative 2 is presented in Figure 11-5.
-------
RAW
WASTEWATER
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
29 1460
PEAK FLOW TO STORAGE
UNIFORM
RATE TO
OUTFALL
RETURN DURING OFF-HOURS
8 MJG.
a
42 MGD
EFFLUENT
PUMPS
FLOW EQUALIZATION
TANK
EXISTING OCEAN OUTFALL
SCHEMATIC FOR ALTERNATIVE I
GLADES ROAD
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
Fiaum II -_
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TO SPRAY
IRRIGATION
PEAK FLOW RATES
OR IRRIGATION
SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS
RAW
WASTEWATER
COAGULATION
FILTRATION
CHLORINATION
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
29 MGD
SECONDARY
EFFLUENT
RETURN LINE
8 MJG.
FLOW EQUALIZATION
AND STORAGE TANK
REUSE
WATER
PUMPS
25 MGD
42 MGD
EFFLUENT
PUMPS
EXISTING OCEAN OUTFALL
SCHEMATIC FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
GLADES ROAD
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
FlttlMft
II - 5
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
COAGULATION
FILTRATION
RAW
WASTEWATER
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
9 MGD
6
18 MGD
EFFLUENT
PUMPS
CHLORINATION
J 7 MGD I _
^^1 I1"""" ~
RETURN LINE
3 M.G.
/
1
FLOW EQUALIZATION ?!
AND STORAGE TANK J,
WATER
WEST REGIONAL
TREATMENT PLANT
30 - INCH
OUTFALL
ALONG
GLADES ROAD
RAW
WASTEWATER
SECONDARY
TREATMENT
21 MGD
COAGULATION
FILTRATION
CHLORINATION
GLADES ROAD
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT
SCHEMATIC FOR ALTERNATIVE 5
43 MGD
EFFLUENT
PUMPS
TO
SPRAY
IRRIGATION
TO SPRAY
1 RRIGATION
REUSE
WATER
FLOW EQUALIZATION
AND STORAGE TANK
25 MGD
EXISTING OCEAN OUTFALL
FIGURE II - 8
-------
11-22
A Vvest Regional Plant would be constructed. This plant, would
be planned to dispose oi its effluent b^ spray irrigation. The
Piant wouia be located ^ust west 01 btate Road 7 would employ
secondary treatment using activated sludge and
coaguiation-tiitration-chionnation ot wastewater. The plant
would be designed for a capacity ol 9 MGD; suitable to meet
year 2000 flow projections. This plant would be connected to
the Glades Road Plant via a 30-inch outfall as shown on Figure
11-9. This outrail wvuid transport flow into the Glades Roao
Plant so it could be discharged through the existing ocean
outfall. This outfail serves as a backup to the spray
irrigation system proposed tor the West Plant. Selected sites
lor spray irrigation and the proposed delivery system tor this
alternative are shown on Figure 11-10.
because additional flows need to be handled by the Glades Roao
effluent pumping systen: the equalization storage must be
increased to 8 minion gallons for this alternative. The
proposed equalization tank serves a dual purpose. Located
downstream ol the eoagulation-liltration-chlor ination process,
the equalization tank would serve as a buffer against peak
flows and as a source of storage lot litigation water. Treated
effluent stored in the equalization tank would have received
the adoed treatment making it suitable tor spiay irrigation.
However, there would be flexibility in the design of the
equalization tank to allow discharge ot stored wastewater
through the outfall.
Alternative 6^
This alternative consists ot three regional treatment
facilities located at Glaces Roao., Sanoairoot Cove, ano
American Koines. Treatment capacity at Giades Roac would
increase front 10 to 17.5 MGD. Treatment capacity at Sanoaltoot
would increase from 3 to 6 MGD. American homes capacity would
increase from 1.5 to b MGD. Disposal of wastewater from ail
three treatment facilities would be by ocean outfall. A
30-inch diameter line would be required to convey treated
effluent eastward. This alternative is depicted in Figure
11-xi.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
11-26
Alternative 7:
Alternative 7 consists of one regional plant at Glades Road
with the same type of treatment, capacity, discharge, and
pumping station configuration as Alternative 1. No centralized
service would be provided to the land classified as unique
agricultural land in Figure 11-12. Densities in the other
parts of the County Planning Area were assumed to increase so
the total population level would be the same as for the other
alternatives.
Alternat.iye _8
This alternative is the no Federal action alternative in which
no Federal 201 grant money would be given for construction in
the Planning Area. It is estimated that the City and the
County would expand the existing facilities in the area with
100% local funding if this alternative is chosen. This would
mean expansion of the Glades Road Plant to 17.5 MGD to
accommodate the City's service area. The three County plants
would probably remain in service until their capacities were
reached between 1988 and 1990. These plants could then be
expanded to 6 MGD each at Sandalfoot and American Homes and .7
MGD at Pheasant Walk with discharge to percolation ponds or to
the City's ocean outfall. A third alternative for the County
would be pumping all wastewater to the Glades Road Plant for
treatment and disposal. An agreement would have to be reached
between the City and County concerning the appropriate option
for implementation. This alternative is depicted in Figure
11-13.
Alternative 9
Alternative 9 is designed to serve as a potential disposal
option which could be used in conjunction with any of the other
alternatives. This alternative was developed to include a dual
water system as used in St. Petersburg, Florida. The
configuration for the system is presented in Figure 11-14.
Alternative 10
Alternative 10 consists of constructing a system with
configuration, treatment level and type of disposal identical
to Alternative 1. The pump station, force main to the Glades
Road Plant, and the ultimate size of the treatment plant would
be downsized so as not to serve that part of the population
projected to settle on unique agricultural lands as defined by
the SCS. The ultimate capacity of the Glades Road Plant would
be 23 MGD.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
11-30
Part G: Cost Evaluation
A summary of the present worth costs for each alternative is
presented in Table II-2. A detailed cost analysis for each
alternative can be found in the Southern Region, Palm Beach
County 201 Plan.
A major conclusion of the cost analysis is that the
alternatives involving spray irrigation are more expensive than
those associated with the outfall. This is due to the high
cost of land in the area and the fact that the outfall is
already in existence.
-------
11-31
TABLE II-2
PRESENT WORTH COST OF ALTERNATIVES
TOTAL PRESENT
ALTERNATIVE WORTH ($MILLIONS)
1 26.80
2 39.CO
3 26.80
4 36.25
5 48.98
6 34.43
7 26.80
8 28.90
10 21.80
-------
11-32
Part H: Implejnentability
All the alternatives except 4 and 8 require an agreement
between the City of Boca Raton and Palm Beach County outlining
terms of Boca Raton's agreement to dispose or treat and dispose
of Palm Beach County's wastewater. It is expected that the
agreements required under each of the alternatives could be
worked out to the satisifaction of both local governments.
It is believed that implementability is not a critical element
in the selection of the preferred alternative. Each alternaive
has been determined to be fully implementable. Clearly,
however, alternatives involving land application would be more
difficult to implement due to the difficulty in acquisition of
land.
-------
11-33
PART I: Sludge Management Alternatives
Existing Treatment Facilities
Sludge treatment in South Palm Beach County takes place at
existing wastewater treatment plants serving the area. The
sludge treated is strictly a domestic type sludge that is
generally stabilized and hauled away to a landspreading site in
the southwestern part of the service area or a County
landfill. Most of the hauling and disposal of sludge is
performed by private companies.
Four existing treatment plants treat and process excess sludge
within the study area. These are the Glades Road Plant, the
Pheasant walk Plant, the Sandalfoot Cove Plant and the American
Homes Plant.
The Glades Road Plant is owned and operated by the City of Boca
Raton and provides secondary treatment of wastewater using a
conventional activated sludge system. The wastewater treated
is a domestic type wastewater with small quantities of
compounds associated with industrial processes.
The waste sludge produced at the Glades Road facility consists
of a stabilized activated sludge. The plant does not provide
primary treatment so all excess sludge originates from the
biological treatment process. The waste sludge is aerobically
digested and until recently was either hauled away in liquid
form or land applied to the grounds adjacent to the plant.
However, land application has now been discontinued because
there has been evidence of high nitrate concentrations in
monitoring wells around the spreading site. Currently, all
waste sludge is hauled away in liquid form by a private company.
The Sandalfoot Cove Plant provides secondary treatment of
wastewater using the contact-stabilization process, and it
produces a sludge very similar in nature to the Glades Road
Plant. There are no significant quantities of industrial
by-products.
The waste sludge produced at the Sandalfoot Cove Plant
undergoes stabilization in the form of aerobic digestion before
it is hauled away in liquid form. Since no primary treatment
is provided at the plant, all the waste sludge comes from the
activated sludge system. This sludge is hauled and disposed of
in privately-owned landfill sites.
-------
11-34
The American Homes Plant provides secondary treatment plus alum
addition for suspended solids removal in tertiary filters and
lime addition for phosphorus removal. Effluent is used to
irrigate nearby golf courses.
The waste sludge produced at this plant consists of a
combination of biological sludge produced by a conventional
activated sludge system and a chemical sludge generated by
addition of lime and alum to the plant effluent for suspended
solids and phosphorus removal.
The combined sludge is aerobically digested and then hauled
away to a sludge disposal site.
The pheasant Walk Plant provides secondary treatment using
conventional activated sludge. No primary treatment is used at
this facility. Excess sludge produced from the treatment
process is aerobically digested and dewatered in sludge drying
beds. Dewatered sludge is hauled to the Lantana landfill in
West Palm Beach.
Solids Characterization
An estimate of the expected quantities of wastewater solids has
been developed by the 201 consultant in order to evaluate costs
and to determine the need for other resources to process these
quantities.
The general procedures devised to estimate future solids
quantities involved the use of existing data and trends.
Sludge production quantities are reported on a yearly average
basis and a maximum 30-day basis. The latter is used as design
criteria for sizing sludge treatment and disposal processes.
Estimated sludge production through the year 2000 is based upon
the following criteria:
a. Projected flow, BOD, and SS concentrations reported in
the Third Interim Submittal.
b. Effluent quality based on providing a minimum of
secondary treatment for ocean disposal.
c. Primary sludge production is based on 50 percent
removal of suspended solids.
-------
II-3!
d. Secondary sludge production is based on 0.87 Ib. of
waste solids/lb. of BOD removed for the activated
sludge process.
e. Volatile solids content of the sludge is 75 percent.
Anaerobic digestion achieves a 40 percent reduction of
volatiles, resulting in 0.7 dry Ibs. of digested
sludge/dry Ib. of raw sludge.
Sludge production estimates for Alternative 1 and
Alternative 8 are presented on Table II-3.
Alternative 1 consists of complete regionalization,
further defined as centralization of all treatment at
the existing Glades Road Plant. Alternative 8
consists of facilities serving the City of Boca Raton
service area exclusively. Based on the trends in
flow, BOD, and SS concentrations exhibited during the
period 1977-1981 the sludge production during the
maximum month is expected to be substantially greater
than the yearly average solids production as shown on
Table II-3.
Sludge characteristics were also, considered in
evaluating sludge management alternatives because they
could dictate special treatment and disposal
practices. Of utmost concern on the Federal and State
level are such parameters as heavy metals and PCB.
Heavy metal quantities for the sludges inthe study
area are expected to be low compared to other cities
in the country. The low heavy metal concentrations
can be attributed to the lack of industry in the study
area. The heavy metal concentration of the City of
Boca Raton sludge is typical of a domestic type
wastewater and within Federal and State guidelines for
heavy • metals. Based on State of Florida
classification for heavy metals, the sludge generated
within the study area is expected to be Class I or II
depending on the treatment rendered.
Final Disposal Options
The final sludge disposal or utilization scheme is important
and takes precedence in the planning process because it usually
dictates what particular solids handling processes are
feasible. To determine which final disposal alternatives would
be selected for the study area a number of possible
alternatives were investigated. First, however, a discussion
of existing disposal practices and existing facilities is
presented.
-------
11-36
TABLh I1-3
SLUDGE PRODUCTION FOR SOUTH PALM BEACH PLANNING AREA
(DRY TONS PER DAY)
1985 1990 1995 2000
1. Average Yearly
Production
A. Alternative 1 6.6 10.1 12.9 15.0
Service to
entire study
area.
B. Alternative 8 4.9 6.7 7.8 8.9
Service to
subbasin A.
2. Maximum Monthly
Production
A. Alternative 1 11.6 17.8 22.7 26.4
Service to
entire study
area.
B. Alternative 8 8.7 11.9 13.9 16.3
Service to
Subbasin A.
-------
11-37
The South Palm Beach County area, as well as most of Palm Beach
County disposes of residual solids generated in treatment
plants in county operated landfills or in private land through
contracts with private haulers. There are currently two county
landfills. The Lantana Landfill, the southernmost of the two
landfills and nearest to the study area, is only expected to
operate through 1982. Due to problems in obtaining sites for a
replacement landfill, no immediate plans for a south county
landfill are in progress.
The North County landfill, called the Dyer Landfill, will
require upgrading and expansion to meet service area needs
through 2000. Plans are underway to expand the Dyer Landfill.
A private hauling contract is feasible as long as the costs of
hauling liquid sludge do not become excessive and provided the
private haulers meet all government regulations for land
disposal of liquid sludge. The City of Boca Raton as well as
many other surrounding municipalities have liquid sludge
hauling contracts with private firms. private haulers are not
equipped to haul dewatered sludge.
Final sludge options were listed and scrutinized in order to
develop appropriate treatment schemes for each respective final
disposal option. The final disposal options took into account
existing conditions as well as recommended plans for the local
area. Also considered were local, State, and Federal
guidelines affecting the disposal/utilization of residual
solids from treatment plants.
Final disposal/utilization options considered for further
screening are:
1. Landfilling
2. Dedicated land disposal
3. Co-disposal
4. Land reclamation
5. Land application on agricultural land (nonedible crops)
6. Distribution as soil amendment
7. Horticulture
-------
11-38
A summary of the initial screening process follows:
(a) Landfilling
Landfilling meets all the criteria for a reliable,
feasible final disposal alternative. The landfill to
be used would be the upgraded Dyer Landfill in Palm
Beach County. This landfill is approximately 35 miles
from the Glades Road Treatment Plant in Boca Raton.
Although the Palm Beach County 1979 Comprehensive
Solid Waste Management Plan recommended a South County
landfill, efforts to site this landfill west of Delray
Beach have not materialized due to heavy public
opposition. For purposes of this study, therefore,
landfilling operations are assumed to take place in an
upgraded Dyer Landfill.
(b) Dedicated Land Disposal
Dedicated land disposal is not considered acceptable
as a reliable long-term disposal option. It is
estimated that at least 800 acres would be needed for
dedicated land disposal. This option is not
considered acceptable because sites to accomodate such
a facility are not readily available, and purchase
costs would be prohibitive (over $15 million) due to
the high purchase costs for land in the Boca Raton
area.
For purposes of this study tracts currently being used
by private firms to spread sludge are considered to be
dedicated land disposal. This type of operation is
presently reliable but its long-term reliability and
cost effectiveness are questionable in light of
expected future costs of fuel and land and expected
land development pressure. Dedicated land disposal is
therefore dropped from further consideration in the
analysis.
-------
11-39
(c) Co-Disposal
Co-disposal is considered an attractive option of
final disposal and will be evaluated in further
detail. Discussion with City of Boca Raton
representatives revealed that the City is seriously
considering incineration of refuse and sludge,
economies of scale can be achieved so co-disposal is
an attractive alternative. It is also attractive
because of the sludge volume reductions achieved, in
light of expected long hauls to the disposal site.
This system can be reliable, and space requirements
for such a facility are available at the Glades Road
Complex. Therefore, it will be considered in the more
detailed analysis.
(d) Land Reclamation
Land reclamation is considered to have potential as a
parallel or secondary system. This option does not
meet criteria for reliability. The criteria requires
an option to be reliable at all times under all
circumstances. The characteristics of the study area
are not such that a large scale long-term land
reclamation project can exist. This option will be
considered to have potential as a parallel or
secondary system. Possible land reclamation projects
are pedestrian footpaths and bikepaths for the City of
Boca Raton.
(e) Land Application
Land application is not considered acceptable as a
disposal option for various reasons. First, costs for
purchase of the required land is expected to be in the
millions. Secondly, potential sites do not exhibit
adequate physical characteristics. Lastly, the costs
of transporting sludge to potential sites is expected
to be high because of the distance between the plant
and potential sites.
-------
11-40
and operation
safe for less
with City of
revealed that
i ) Distribution as a Soil Amendment
Distribution as a soil amendment is considered to have
some potential as a parallel utilization option. The
initial or pilot phase of such a program would be
controlled by a municipal entity until enough testing
of the system established the by-product
controlled distribution. Communication
Boca Raton Parks and Recreation staff
the first phase of this program could
perhaps be supported by the Parks and Recreation
Department and local golf courses. This utilization
option would parallel processes which utilize
landfilling as the final disposal option. Those
processes which use cc—incineration are considered
incompatible with a parallel composting system.
(g) Horticultural Use
Use of properly stabilized sludge as a soil amendmant
in home gardening is only considered as a potential
parallel or secondary option with some reservations.
A soil amendment distribution program on low human
contact areas should precede a horticulture program to
determine any potential hazards of the product.
Controlled distribution would be limited to moderate
contact areas owned by municipal entities or area golf
courses.
Based on the initial screening conducted the following
disposal/utilization options are considered adequate for
long-term use for the study area.
o Landfilling; preceeded
i ncineration
by dewatering as well as
o Co-disposal; with resource
reclamation of residue
recovery and possible land
Potential secondary or parallel systems considered adequate for
seasonal short term yearly use are:
o Land reclamation of ash residue on City bikepaths;
o Distribution of compost as a soil amendment on
City-County lands with minimum human contact. This
would be phased from an initial full scale pilot
program of controlled distribution on City land arid
area golf courses.
-------
11-41
Solids treatment processes considered in this report were
tailored around disposal/utilization options considered
adequate herein for long-term use and those parallel, secondary
options.
The 201 Plan describes in detail final disposal/utilization
options and solids handling processes considered compatible
with final disposal/utilization options.
Solids Management Alternatives
Solids management alternatives were formulated based on final
disposal/utilization options considered adequate for long-term
use. They include landfilling, preceeded by dewatering as well
as incineration, and co-disposal, with resource recovery.
Solids management alternatives are grouped according to
series. Series I alternatives provide solids treatment and
disposal/utilization of solids for the entire service area at
one regional facility at the existing Glades Road complex, in
Boca Raton. Series II alternatives provide solids treatment
and disposal/utilization for just the City of Boca Raton
service area at the Glades Road complex.
The preferred alternative in this EIS consists of a
configuration that renders service exclusively to the present
City of Boca Raton service area. This' configuration would be
eligible for federal grant funds. Service to the County areas
outside of Boca Raton service area is not completely ruled out
in EPA's EIS but would not be grant eligible.
For purposes of the solids management alternatives, however,
the two series of alternatives were evaluated.
Series I alternatives represent a scenario where the City and
the County have reached an agreemnet to regionalize wastewater
treatment at the Glades Road complex. This configuration has
certain economic advantages to those users who ultimately pay
for its inception and operation. Besides centralization of
facilities, which promotes a more efficient system, economies
of scale are realized. This means that the unit cost per
customer is less than if several smaller facilities with a
total treatment capacity equal to the larger facility were
built and operated. This economy of scale is inherent to
wastewater treatment facilities and is well recognized as one
advantage of regionalization.
-------
11-42
Series II alternatives represent a scenario where the City of
Boca Raton would receive federal funds to expand its treatment
facilities in order to serve its existing service area only .
Service to Palm Beach County areas would be excluded from the
regional treatment plant at Glades Road. Palm Beach County
would treat its own wastewater at existing plants throughout
the area. As growth ensued, these plants would be expanded
without federal funding, or the County could contract with the
City of Boca Raton to treat its wastewater at the Glades Road
complex. Any required upgrading attributable to the County
growth, however, would not be eligible for federal funding.
Series II solids management alternatives are identical in
process configuration to their counterpart letter identifier in
Series I. A lesser quantity of solids is evident, however, in
Series II because the number of people served is less.
Even though Series I and II counterparts are identical, both
series of alternatives were analyzed to ensure that solids
management alternatives considered did not exhibit any obvious
diseconomies for increases or decreases in design capacity.
Some equipment exhibits certain economic benefits at certain
treatment capacity so there can be some economy or diseconommy
of scale between different sizes of the same type of equipment.
The ultimate goal of this analysis was to select a
cost-effective solids management alternative from Series I and
II.
Series I and II Alternatives
Alternatives 1A, IB, 1C, and ID employ thickening-anaerobic
digestion-dewatering and landfilling. Composting is considered
a secondary utilization alternative because it does not meet
reliability criteria established in the analysis. Resource
recovery of methane gas would be employed for alternatives 1A,
IB, 1C, and
Alternatives IE and IF employ thickening-heat
conditioning-dewatering-incineration and landfilling.
Incineration would take place in fluidized bed reactors. Ash
and residual would be hauled to Dyer landfill. Steam generated
from the incineration process would be used in the heat
treatment conditioning and to generate electric power through
use of steam turbines.
-------
11-43
Alternatives 1G and 1H would employ thickening, conditioning by
use of heat, dewatering and co-disposal. Co-disposal of sludge
and refuse would take place in modular combustion units
(MCU's). Steam generated from the co-disposal process would be
recovered to produce electric power and to heat condition
sludge. Ash and residual from the MCU's would be landfilled or
used as subbase for bicycle paths throughtout the City as part
of a resource recovery process. Alternatives 1G and 1H differ
only in the amount of refuse processed. Alternative 1H has a
1:1 ratio of wet sludge to refuse while Alternative 1G has a
2.3:1 ratio of refuse to wet sludge. These cases were
considered to illustrate the economy of scale gained in
co-disposal for sludges when the refuseisludge ratio increases.
Alternative ll employs thickening-chemical
conditioning-dewatering-co-disposal of sludge and refuse. A
wetter cake, however, is delivered to co-disposal, requiring
larger MCU's. The sludge to refuse ratio used is 1:2. This is
the minimum ratio considered acceptable by the 201 consultant.
Resource recovery of steam from the co-disposal process would
be used to produce electricity.
Series II alternatives are identical to Series I alternatives
with the only exception that solid quantities are less because
service is limited to the City servie area only, instead of the
entire service area.
Cost-Effective Analysis of Solids Management Alternative
A cost effective analysis of alternatives in Series I and
Series II was performed to enable selection of alternatives
with lowest-cost characteristics. Table II-4 represents cost
data on the least-cost alternatives for solids management from
each series. The table shows the least-cost alternative, the
total capital cost, annual operating and maintenance costs, and
unit costs for sludge processing.
Table 11-4 shows that in either series, alternatives using
centrifuge or belt filter press dewatering followed by
co-disposal or landfilling have the lowest cost.
Alternatives employing heat conditioning were not found
competitive because of the high costs of purchase and
installation associated with the equipment and largely due to
the expectation that titanium heat exchangers in heat treatment
units will be needed to prevent chloride corrosion.
-------
Ii-44
TABLE II-4
COST SUMMARY FOR LOWEST COST
SOLIDS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
SERIES 1
1A
IB
II
DESCRIPTION
SITE
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COST
Digestion-Belt Glades
Filter Press (BFP) Road WWTP
Dewatering-
Land Filling
Digestion-
Centrifuge
Dewatering-
Land Filling
BFP Dewatering-
Co-Disposal
Glades
Road WWTP
Glades
Road WWTP
$11.8
$11.4
ANNUAL TOTAL
$11.5 $0.53 $258
$0.56 $268
$0.78 $263
UNIT
O&M UNIT COST,., COST
COST $/j3RJLIPJi RATIO
1.0
1.04
1.02
SERIES 2
2A
2B
21
(1)
Digestion-Belt Glades
Filter Press (BFP) Road WWTP
Dewatering-
Land Filling
Digestion-
Centrifuge
Dewatering-
Land Filling
BFP Dewatering-
Co-Disposal
Glades
Road WWTP
Glades
Road WWTP
$ 7.9 $0.36 $294
$ 8.8 $0.37 $310
$ 7.9 $0.59 $321
1.0
1.05
1.09
Includes resource recovery.
-------
11-45
Alternatives employing heat conditioning were not found
competitive because of the high costs of purchase and
installation associated with the equipment and largely due to
the expectation that titanium heat exchangers in heat treatment
units will be needed to prevent chloride corrosion.
Cost effective alternatives employing resource recovery of
steam and/or methane has are even more attactive than Table
11-4 shows because certain hidden advantages are not apparent
in the cost-effective analysis. One advantage not readily
discernible from the cost data is the expected increases in
electrical cost. The analysis did not consider the effect of
inflation. Those alternatives generating electrical power
through resource recovery of steam and/or methane will become
even more attractive as electrical costs increase with time.
Therefore, cost effective alternatives with resource recovery
present additional incentives for selection.
Siting of Facilities for Solids Management Alternatives
in the development of Solids Management Alternatives, the
siting requirements of facilities were evaluated to insure the
feasibility of each alternative.
Both series I and II Solids Management Alternatives involve the
expansion of the Glades Road Wastewater Treatment Plant to some
degree. This discussion, therefore, concentrates on the
suitability of the Glades Road Site for siting of proposed
sludge treatment facilities.
The Glades Road complex is situated just east of 1-95 and north
of Glades Road in Boca Raton. The complex contains both water
and wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the
City of Boca Raton, The entire parcel of land contains
approximately 57 acres. The City is presently considering the
purchase of an additional 8 acres bordering on the northwest
corner of the property. The land is bordered by Florida
Atlantic University to the east, the Boca Raton Airport to the
north, 1-95 to the west, and Glades Road to the south.
Land available for siting of treatment facilities includes
about 4 acres to the southwest of the existing aeration tanks
and about 10 acres northwest of the aeration tanks. An
additional 8 acres of land could be made available to the City
if negotiations to buy adjacent land are successful. The land
is considered adequate to support proposed liquid and sludge
treatment facilities, miscellaneous requirements such as access
roads, greenspace, buffer areas, and parking.
-------
11-46
Recommended Solids Management Alternative
The recommended solids management alternative was selected from
Series I and Series II alternatives. Alternatives with total
costs within 15 percent of each other are considered equal for
purposes of this study.
The Environmental Protection Agency has selected a
configuration consisting of a modified "no-action" alternative
as the desired alternative for this region. The desired
alternative consists of funding only wastewater facilities
needed to serve the City of Boca Raton service area. County
areas outside the City's service area will not be eligible for
federal funding when new treatment facilities are constructed.
Even if the County contracts for treatment with the City, there
will be no federal funding eligibility for any associated
expansion at Glades Road needed to serve the County.
The County has two choices with regards to the future of their
wastewater facilities. Existing facilities can be upgraded to
meet future growth in their service area, or existing
facilities can be abandoned and the County can contract with
the City for treatment and disposal. Since federal funding
will not play a role in either option, other considerations
such as in-house economic impacts, environmental impact,
implementability, and staffing requirements should be used by
the County to select which option is most attractive.
The recommended sludge management plan consists of Alternatives
2A, 2B or 21. These three alternatives are considered equal in
cost-effectiveness.
If the City of Boca Raton decides to install MCU's to handle
solid waste it is recommended that Alternative 21 be
implemented. This alternative consists of thickening waste
activated sludge, storage of blended thickened waste activated
sludge and primary sludge in covered tanks, dewatering on belt
filter presses and centrifuges, and co-disposal. This
alternative has a slightly higher cost than alternatives 2A and
2B, but its resource recovery potential (steam) is much
greater. The cost difference can be made up by resource
recovery of steam many times over if electric energy inflation
rates prevail.
-------
11-47
If the City does not elect to implement MCU's in their solid
waste program, alternatives 2A or 2B are the recommended plan
based on their overall cost-effectiveness. The only difference
between these alternatives is the dewatering method employed.
Alternative 2A employs belt filter presses for dewatering while
alternative 2B employs solid bowl centrifuges. Dewatered
sludge is landfilled in both alternatives. Pilot studies
should be conducted to select between these two alternatives
and to acquaint the operating staff with actual operational
results.
If for any reason the County decides to contract with the City
in the future for wastewater treatment the Series 2 solids
management alternative would serve as the core for a larger
system.
The same sludge treatment train as recommended in alternatives
2A or 2B would be utilized for the scenario where the City and
County contracted for treatment at Glades Road. No
diseconomies were found between the same process alternatives
in Series I, so an expansion of Series II alternative 2A or 2B
to higher capacity (1A or IB) would still represent a cost
effective system.
If a program to construct modular combustion units does not
materialize for the City, composting of dewatered sludge should
be tested for its marketability as a secondary
utilization/disposal option alongside landfilling. The
advantages of composting are the reduction in volume of sludge
delivered to the landfill, hence a savings in tipping fees, and
potential for use as a soil conditioner. The finished compost
could perhaps be marketed to produce revenues.
-------
-------
CHAPTER III - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
~ OF ThE ALTERNATIVES ANL- H1TIGATIVE MEASURES
Part A; introduction
inis chapter sumiaanzes the existing natural ana
environment ot the Planning Area, oiscusses the environmental
impacts of the alternatives ana proposea possible measures to
mitigate these impacts. 1he purpose ot the environmental
setting summary is the establishment or existing baseline
conditions in the area. The impacts ol the various
alternatives, including the no Federal action alternative, are
gauged against these existing conditions.
Part B: Ariected Environment ana Environmental
Consequences ol the Alternatives
Population
The rate ot population growth in Palm Beach County has
consistently exceeded that oi Florida ana the United States tor
the last three decades. This arowth, which exceeds national
growth by 40% ana state growth by 15%, is primarily due to
i n-nngration.
The fastest growing segment ot the County's population is the
over 65 age group with approximately one in every live county
residents falling into this category. This compares with one
in every ten nationally.
About 3 percent ol boca Raton's residents art black as compared
to 13 percent tor the County and 15 percent -tor the State.
Very tew Hispanic residents are present within the Planning
Area.
Total population tor tne Planning Area was estimates to be
76,153 in 1S»80. This was divideu between t2,bi?6 in tne city
service area ana 13,557 in the County service area. Total
population is expected to grow to 257,566 in the year 2000.
This will include 158, j.51 within the City service area and
99,415 within the County service area.
Disaggregations ot future population estimates by the
sub-basins shown in Figure II-1 are presented in Table III-l.
-------
TABLE III-l
HTSAGGREGATIONS OF ESTIMATED FUTURE POPULATIONS
Estimated Subbasin Population For Future Years
Subbasin^
A
B
C
0
E
F
G
H
I
Total
1980
62,596
374
10,397
382
696
679
141
669
219
76,1 53
1985
86,485
709
15,946
606
3,166
2,454
836
3,342
994
114,538
1990
119,179
2,689
24,917
1,042
9,961
4,698
1,854
7,054
3,129
174,523
1995
138,758
4,891
30,857
1,240
17,328
7,973
2,605
9,784
5,442
218,878
2000
158,151
5,493
34,352
4 1,315
24,721
9,932
3,361
12,477
7,764
257,566
(1)
Sot Figure II-l for subbasin locations.
-------
All of the alternatives will provide 75% Federal funding for
the total year 2000 population projections except Alternatives
3, 8, and 10. All of these alternatives would provide for less
population on the unique agricultural lands in Palm Beach
County. However, Pain Beach County land use control policy nas
so far encouraged alnost total conversion of these agricultural
lands to urban uses. Most of the area has already been zoned
for residential development at densities which would require
centralized sewer service. Even some areas projected for less
extensive development in the Palm Beach County Comprehensive
Plan have been given development approvals. A continuation of
the current development policy in the County will lead to
alnost complete development of the Planning Area within the
next 20 years.
It is doubtful that the County or major developers would let
the lack of Federal funding for wastewater treatment and
disposal alter tnis growth rate. It is likely that any
necessary facilities to service the full projected population
level would be provided by 100% local funding.
It is likely that the population densities and locations as
well as the total population levels discussed above will be the
same whichever alternative is selected. Alternative 7 attempts
to preserve some of the unique agricultural lands by increasing
densities in otner areas to equal the lacK of increased
population on the agricultural lands. However, County
development policy rias already committed much of the
agricultural lands to urban development and there is no reason
to expect any major changes in the direction of this policy.
Economic _Co_nditions
The CIS study area is part of a larger economic region which
includes much of southeast Florida, especially Broward and Palm
Beach counties. The trade sector is the largest employer in
this area while services and trade are the largest sources of
wage and salary income. The largest individual employers in
the area are IBM and the Boca Katon Hotel and Club. Over half
of the income within the planning region comes from sources
other than employment. These include income from dividends
interest and rent, and transfer payments. Tnese two
indications identify the economy of the area as oasically
tourist-retirement in nature.
-------
111-4
An important economic trend is the decline in agriculture in
tiie two counties. Over the past two decades, agricultural
activity has steadily uoved out of Broward and the urbanizing
portions of Palra Beach County. This nas resulted in a decline
in the percentage of total incoine and employment from
agriculture in these two counties.
Tne continued expansion of the wastewater treatment system is
necessary for the continuation of the current nigh level of
residential and associated construction activity. This
expansion would be provided in all the alternatives except
Alternative 3, the no Federal action alternative. The
implementation of Alternatives 7, B, and 10 would help to slow
the continued decrease in econonic activity related to the
agricultural industry. However, the development strategy
currently being carried out Dy local government in the area
will almost certainly lead to continued development throughout
the Planning Area. Tnis will mean continued expansion of the
construction industry and local service economy and continued
decline in the agricultural industry.
Land Use
The existing land use pattern is shown in Figure III-l. In
areas where land uses are nixed, only the predominant use is
shown. Large residential development project land uses are
snown as the. average residential density for the particular
•iroject. Areas where construction is underway are shown as
being completed. This figure, as well as subsequent ones
witain in tnis section, is broadly generalized. Detailed
information regarding specific land use classification within
large mixed use developments is available from the local
planning departments.
Existing urban development is concentrated east of 1-95.
High-density residential development predominates along the
sourthern portion of A1A. There are smaller areas of
high-density residential use in the northeast portion of the
city, adjacent to the south side of Spanish River Par*, in the
Sandalfoot area and in Century Village.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
111-6
Medium-density residential development within the City is
located south of Florida Atlantic University (FAU), adjacent to
the central easiness district and within the U.S. 1-Dixie
Highway corridor. The central Reserve Area has medium-density
developments closely associated with large open space areas.
There are also medium-density areas adjacent to Century Village
and Sandalfoot. As of February 1979, there were 674 duplex
dwelling units and 10,837 multi-family dwelling units within
the Boca Raton limits.
Low-density residential development is the principal land use
in the developed areas. The area west of the Turnpike has
several large single-family subdivisions under development,
generally in close proximity to U.S. 441. The Reserve Area is
characterized by housing developments interspersed within
semi-public golf courses and other recreation facilities. The
Pheasant '.Valk subdivision has completed 146 homes as part of a
1,500-unit project.
Single-family development dominates most of Boca Raton. The
largest concentrations are in the southern and eastern portions
of the City. High-value housing is generally located around
waterways, principally the Intracoastal Waterway, open spaces
and tna beach. As of February 1979, there were 10,837
single-family dwelling units in Boca Raton.
The average prica of a new dwelling unit in the area in 1978
was $75,000.
Commercial land uses ars directly associated with major
tnorougnfares. The Sandalfoot area has strip neighborhood
commercial uses along U.S. 441. There is a neighborhood
commercial area at the intersection of Glades Road and the
Turnpike. A major office center and general commercial area is
under development at Glades Road and Military Trail. An office
center-shopping center development is expanding at 1-95 and
Palmetto Park Road. There are a wide variety of office
buildings, typical strip commercial uses, and four major
snooping centers on the seven-mile strip of U.S. 1 within the
Planning Area. There are three large hotels located in close
proximity to the Inlet.
In 19o7, tne City had 3.51 acres of commercial land use per
1000 population. In 1973, there were 3.55 acres of cornnuaercial
Land use per 1000 population. Based on this information, 2,203
acres of commercial land will be needed in the year 2000.
Approximately 1376 acres of existing and zoned commercial land
currentJi/ exists.
-------
III-7
Industrial uses are located between Nrt Second Avenue and the
F.E.C. Railroad between 51st Street and Palmetto Park Road.
IBM, the study area's largest employer, has a light
manufacturing-office facility on ¥"amato Road west of 1-95.
Four light uanufacturing facilities are scattered throughout
the developing industrial park north of the IBM facility.
There are no industrial land uses elsewhere in the Planning
Area.
In 1967, there were 6.01 acres of industrial land use per 1000
population within Boca Raton. By 1973 this ratio had declined
to 5.30 acres per 1000 population. Based on this information,
1,494 acres of industrial land will be needed in the Year
2000. Approximately 1,345 acres of industrially built and
zoned land currently exist.
The major institutional land use is FAU, a state-supported
institution with the fall range of graduate and undergraduate
programs. The current enrollment approximates 8,000 on its
1,200-acre campus. There are numerous religious institutions
scattered tnroughout tne area with the Bibletown development
adjacent to the Community Center being tne largest.
All of the public recreation facilities, with the exception of
the Loxanatchee National Wildlife Refuge and a small
neignborhood park in University Park, are located east of 1-95
between 40th Street and Palmetto Park Road. There are 325
acres of par* and playfield facilities. In addition, the City
owns 177 acres of beacnfront property and the County has
acquired an 11-acre park site adjacent to tne south side of the
Inlet.
There are 11,000 acres (1978) of land with agricultural
exemptions in tne western and north-central portions of the
Planning Area. Pasture lands predominate west of the
Sandalfoot area except for the southwesternmost portion of the
Planning Area. Approximately 4,000 acres of the 11,000 acres
are occupied by winter vegetable crops. The Palm Beach County
Cooperative Extension Service has estimated that the value of
the winter vegetable crops in the Planning Area alone exceed
$20 million annually. Eastern Palm Beach is the northernmost
limit of the Florida winter vegetable crop. See Figure III-2
for a map of unique agricultural lands as identified by the
Soil Conservation Service.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
III-9
Existing planning ana iana development control is vested in the
City ana the County. Both agencies have a variety of land use
development regulations that provide ror drainage, tree
protection, recreation sites ana other similar considerations
within their subdivision and zoning ordinances.
Both boca Raton and Palm Beach County have adopted
Comprehensive Plans. These Plans promulgate policies that
control the development ol lend uses, housing, transportation,
recreation, sanitary sewtr, solid waste, drainage, potable
water a rid utilities. The Plans also include Conservation,
Intergovernmental Coordination and Coastal Zone Protection
policies.
The planning efforts ot the City and tne County are
supplemented by the Area Planning Board of Palm Beach County
(APB) and the Ireasure Coast Regional Planning Council
(TCRPC). both organizations are funded by Federal, state, and
local sources. TCRFC includes Palm Beach, Martin, Indian
River, St. Lucie and Ukeechobee Counties.
By tar the most significant future land use trend is the almost
total destruction of winter vegetable crop production. The
County's Comprehensive Plan shows that only the
southwesternmost seven square miles of the Planning Area will
remain in agricultural use. That portion of the area north of
the Hilisboro canal is used as pasture while the portion south
of the Canal is primarily used for winter vegetable crops.
An examination ot available data shows that there are enough
existing units and dwelling units within approved projects to
accommodate more than the year 199b projected population. The
County has approved ano recommended bi current zoning 30,347
more units than necessary to accomodate the Year 2000
population.
The reader should be aware that projects often do not build out
to their authorized capacity. The respective comprehensive
plans are not necessarily limiting their recommendations to the
Year 1000. That is, at least in the case of Boca Raton, the
limit is a desired population level which may be reached after
the Year 2000.
-------
111-10
Future commercial land uses will till in the remaining vacant
Federal Highway frontage. A regional shopping center was
recently completed at Glaaes Koau and Military Trail. Several
ot the large land developments have neighborhood/convenience
areas within the projects.
Fiqure 111-3 graphically depicts the anticipated land use
patterns tor the Year 2000. The reader is cautioneo that these
maps represent summarization ot information provided by the
City and the County and should not be usea for site analysis.
'Ihe following statements summarize the land use section:
o Approved ana projected development will convert 11,000
acres ot unique agricultural to urban use.
o Lxisting ana approved projects contain more dwelling
units than the projected needs tor the year 1995.
o The total number of units in the Planning Area exceeds
the projected year 2000 needs.
The total number ot dwelling units will accomodate a
population ot 336,456 or a 23 percent increase above
the current population projections tor the Year 2000
assuming ail the projects builo out to the extent
planned.
Table 111-2 shows the approximate number ot residences in 19bO
within 500, 1000, 2000 ana 3000 teet of the regional pump
stations and treatment plant sites. The estimates were
developed by using January 1979 aerial photography and
winoshielo verification in February 1980. The estimates
presentea are accumulative. The Sanaaltoot plant has some
strip commercial uses within 3000 teet ot the plant. The
Pheasant Vvalk plant has eight light industrial uses within 3000
teet ot the site.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
ITI-12
Table IiI-2
LAtfD USE PROXIMIT/ (1930)
30
13
12
— _
122
294
49
— _
334
1527
101
123
525
3040
191
632
500 Ft. 1000 Ft. 2000 Ft. 3000 Ft.
UPS 1 (American Homes)
RPS 2 (Sandalfoot)
RPS 3 (Pheasant rtalK)
rtrfTP (Glades Road)
Source: January 1979 Aerial Photography
SSA Windshield Survey, February 1980
The couipatibility of tne construction and operation of the
facilities required by these alternatives is an '.important
consideration. Site clearing, grading and excavation will
generate nuisance conditions such as dust, noise and debris.
However, these nuisances are temporary conditions and will be
limited to the areas adjacent to the construction of the force
raains. Since the regional pump stations and treatment plants
are on existing sites, no significant site construction will be
necessary.
The implementation of any of the alternatives will ultimately
result in development reflecting the future land use shown in
Figure III-3. Local land use policy indicates that this will
De true even if the preferred alternative of no Federal action
in tne County portion of the Planning Area is implemented.
This land use plan shows extensive increases in the amount of
residential and commercial development in the area. The major
adverse impact of this development will be tne conversion of
large tracts of unique agricultural land to this residential
and associated development.
Three million acres of agricultural land are converted to urban
uses each year. A continuation of this trend to the end of the
century will seriously effect our traditional role as an
exporter of food. Palm Beach County now has inajor acreage
devoted to agricultural production. This County is now coming
under increasing development pressure. The County's
Comprehensive Plan recommends the protection of some of these
areas. Tne South County area, however, is slated for
development rather than protection.
-------
111-13
Commmunity Services ana Facilities
There are three elementary schools, one middle school, ana one
high school located in the Planning Area. The three elementary
schools contain 21.8, 14.7, ana 13.8 students per instructional
staff member respectively. The middle school and high school
have 22.2 and 21.5 students per instructional staft member
respectively. The high school began double sessions in the
1979-80 school year. Land has been dedicated for the
construction of a new high school in Northwest Boca Raton.
Law enforcement for the study area is provided by both the City
ot boca Raton ana the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department.
In 1980, the City and County both had 1.6 officers per thousand
population. It is generally accepted that 2.0 ofricers per
thousand population is a reasonable standard.
Fire protection for the incorporated area ot Boca Raton is
provided by the Boca Raton Fire Department, which operates out
of tour stations. It has an American Insurance Association
fire rating ot four. Fire protection for the unincorporated
portion ot the study area is provided by the independent
Del-Trail Fire District. Funds for the District come from an
ad valorem tax in the area. Three stations serve the area.
The fire insurance rating for the district is nine. Fire
insurance ratings are Cjiven on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being
the best.
The Planning Area is served by two libraries. The Boca Raton
Public Library is located at 200 N.Vv. Second Ave. and serves
only the residents ot the City. The Southwest Branch of the
Palm Beach County Library System is located in Sandalfoot Cove
Shopping Center.
Refuse waste collection and disposal is provided for residents
within the corporate limits of boca Raton by the City of Boca
Raton. Residents in the unincorporated area are served by a
private contractor. The City provides twice-a-week backyard
collection service for garbage and bi-monthly service for yard
trash. The City disposes of approximately 40,000 tons of
refuse annually.
-------
111-14
Currently, trie City doas not operate any solid waste disposal
facilities but hauls its solid waste to the Lantana landfill
and a disposal sita near Ponpano Beach. Both disposal sites
are located outside of the Planning Area. Maintenance
facilities for the City's sanitation service are located at
Northwest First Avenue and Northwest 25th Street. The City has
a total sanitation worKforce of 70.
The Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority was established to
plan for development and management of solid wastes in the
County. The Plan, adopted in 1979, established a policy of
accepting municipal sludge, but will not accept septic tank
sludge. A new disposal site between the Turnpike and U.S. 441
north of the Planning Area is being considered. However, no
firm plans have been made at this time.
Tnere are no public health or welfare facilities located in the
Planning Area. Palm Beach County operates a health facility
and welfare facility in Delray Beach and residents of the study
area are serviced by these facilities. Boca Raton Community
Hospital is a non-profit hospital located at 800 Meadows Road
in Boca Raton. Boca Raton Community Hospital is a fully
accredited hospital providing inpatient, outpatient and
ancillary services.
Municipal administrative facilities for the City of Boca Raton
are currently decentralized, with administrative centers
located primarily at City Hall, the City Hall Annex, Haggerty
Building, Garage Complex and the Fiscner Building. These
facilities house general administrative-type functions such as
personnel, community development, and public works.
County administrative facilities are located outside the
Planning Area. There is a south county courthouse annex
located in Delray Beach, which houses general
administrative-type functions such as building permits, welfare
services, housing assistance, health department functions,
court services, and licensing services.
-------
111-15
The rate of population growth which is projected for the
Planning Area will cause a tremendous increase in the demand
for community services and facilities. Table III-3 shows the
increases in these services and facilities which would be
required to keep pace with current capacities per resident. A
very significant investment of financial resources would be
required to even come close to meeting these needs. The most
severe problems in meeting demand will be in the transportation
and education systems. If these needs are not met, the
overcrowding problems which are now evident will become
significantly worse.
existing land use policy and market conditions in the Planning
Area indicate tnat these population figures will be met no
natter which alternative is selected. The County appears
willing to provide the wastewater facilities to support this
level of growth with 100% local funding if necessary. This
policy decision will require extensive public investments in
facilities and services in tnis Planning Area.
Taxejs and Budgeting
Table II1-4 shows the charges for water and sewer services for
th» City of Boca Raton system, the Pheasant Walk system and the
South Palm Beach Utilities Company (SPBUC) system. For
comparative purposes, only tne residential rates are shown.
A two-bedroom dwelling unit that uses 10,000 gallons of water
in a montn will be charged $27.55 in the Pheasant Walk system,
$23.34 in the SPBUC system and $9.88 in tne Boca Raton system.
Two general purpose governments exist within tne Planning Area;
the City of Boca Raton and Palm Beach County. Additionally,
the study area is serviced by the South Florida Water
Management District, the Palm Beacn County Library District,
the Del Trail Fire Control District and the Lake Wortn Drainage
District. Other jurisdictions in the Planning Area are tne
Boca Del Mar II Sew Community District, the Greater Boca Raton
B~ach Taxing District and the Palm Beach Solid Waste Disposal
Authority. Table II1-5 shows these units of government and
their FY 1977-73 raillage rates. Table III-6 shows the units of
government and their expenditures per community service. Table
III-7 shows governmental revenues for Boca Raton and Palm Beach
Count/.
-------
Table III- 3
Summary of Selected Impacts
1980 2000
Average Daily Trips 1$T72~44 728,912
Neighborhood Parks (acres) 36 210
•
Community Parks (acres) 250 699
Metropolitan Parks (acres) 196 1,395
Regional Parks (acres) 287 1,953
Elementary Schools 4 18
Middle Schools 1 5
Senior Schools 1 4
Hospital Beds 1,047 1,030
Electricity Consumption
(KWH Millions Annually) 293 991
Solid Waste (tons/yr) 53,100 221,950
Law Enforcement Officers 134 515
Firemen 144 487
Library-volumes 66,000 257,566
Library-space 11,792 154,540
Source: Baseline Report, January 1980
PBC Planning, Building and Zoning Dept. April 1979
-------
TABLE III-4
RESIDENTIAL WATER AND SEWER RATES
Boca Raton
Water and Sewer Monthly Rates:
Basic Charge (water) $ 2.03
Each Thousand Gallons 0.44
First Bathroom (sewer) 2.30
Each Additional Bathroom 1.15
South Palm Beach Utilities Company
Water Monthly Rate:
First 3,000 Gallons $ 7.20
Each Thousand over
first 3,000 1.32
Sewer Monthly Rate 11.90
Pheasant Walk
Water and Sewer Monthly Rates:
First 4,000 Gallons $ 15.75
Each Thousand over first
4,000 up to 10,000 2.00
Each Thousand over first
10,000 I'30
Sources: Palm Beach County Utilities Department, June 1979.
South Palm Beach Utilities Company, May 1979.
Boca Raton Billing Method Public Information Handout,
May 1479.~~
-------
TABLE III-5
GOVERNMENTAL UNITS - MILLAGE RATES
General Purpose Mlllage Rate
Palm Beach County 5.981
Boca Raton 6.107
Independent Special Districts
Regional:
South Florida Water Management District 0.375
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 0.000
Local:
Greater Boca Raton Beach Taxing District 1.374
Lake Worth Drainage Qlstrict special assessment
Palm Beach Solid Waste Authority 0.000
Boca Del Mar II New Community District 0.000
Pain Beach Soil and Water Conservation
District 0.000
Palm Beach County School Board 8.300
Dependent Special Districts
Del Trail Fire Control District 1.700
Library District 0.370
Municipal Taxing District 0.000
Source: Local Government Financial Report. FY 1977-78. State
of Florida, Department of Banking & Financing.
-------
TABLE III-6
Public Service
Transportation;
Boca Raton - Streets & Roads
Palm Beach County -
Streets & Roads
Palm Beach County -
Transit Systems
Airport
Public Safety;
Boca Raton - Police
Palm Beach County - Sheriff
Boca Raton - Fire
Del Trail F1re D1str1ct(3)
Sanitation:
Boca Raton
Palm Beach County
Libraries:
Boca Raton
Palm Beach County
Parks & Recreation:
Boca Raton
Palm Beach County
Beach Taxing D1str1ct(5)
PUBLIC SERVICE
Total
Expenditures
955,815
8,620,129
3,561,056
-0-
3,233,950
14,518,456
1,849,412
1,216,200
2,100,170
1,401,386
209,836
1,691,189
579,124
4,082,785
1,664,976
EXPENDITURES
Study Area
Expenditures
955,815
1,070,999
442,211(3)
-0-
3,233,950
484,399
1,849,412
361,515
2,100,170
173.963
209,836
93,990
579,124
507,281 ,
1, 644,976(3)
$ per
Capita
16.39
60.05
6.86
N/Ap
55.45(2)
27.16
31.71(2)
20.27
36.01
9.75
3.60
5.27
9.93
28.44
25.83
Total %
of Budget
6.5
4.0(2)
N/Ap
13.6
7.8
10.9
3.3(4)
8.9
1.1
0.9
0.9
2.4
3.9
100.0
Continued Next Page
-------
-.
PUBLIC SERVICE EXPENDTURES
Total Study Area $ per Total X
Public Service Expenditures Expenditures Capita of Budget
Health and Welfare:
Boca Raton -0- -0- N/Ap 0.0
Palm Beach County 17,328.786 2,152.623 120.70 5.2
Schools;
Palm Beach County 128.131.504 N/Av 1,734.65(6) N/Av
Private contractor leases from F.A.U.
(2) Based on Boca Raton Population - 58.318; (1980)
Palm Beach County Study Area Population - 17,835.
Based on population of 64,459
(4) County aggregates several districts In budget.
(5) Area East of Turnpike.
(6) Countywlde Average.
Sources: Local Government Finance Report. FY 1977-1978. State of Florida. Department
of Banking and Finance.
Stottler Stagg & Associates. Estimates, July 1979.
The Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education. 1977-78. Florida
Department of Education.
-------
TAXES
Property taxes
Franchise taxes
Utility service taxes
LICENSES & PERMITS
Professional/occupational
Building permits
Others
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE
Federal grants
Federal shared revenue
Federal payments in lieu
State grants
State shared revenue
Local grants
Local shared revenue
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
General government
Public safety
Physical environment
Transportation
Human services
Culture & recreation
Other
FINES & FORFEITURES
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE
Interest earnings
Rents & royalties
Special assessments
Compensation for losses
Contributions & donations
Other
TOTAL REVENUES
TABLE III-7
GOVERNMENTAL REVENUES
1977-78
PALM BEACH
COUNTY
Dollars %
39.9%
$ 49,665,833
500
-0-
BOCA RATON
Dollars %
43.9%
7,663,609
1,140,838
2,114,046
0.1%
47,456
-0-
41,466
40.2%
35,184,827
3,006,094
18,360
2,364,041
9,107,226
296,379
-0-
14.0%
4,454,931
1,123,964
4,998,606
5,057,645
1,048,018
277,316
341,926
277,016
0.3%
2,928,664
106,308
251,313
595,925
2,007,200
357,194
124,597,828
5.0%
3.7%
116,955
726,139
19,385
18.8%
303,811
356.412
-0-
266,499
1,747.729
1,373,496
651,107
21.7%
26,671
62,736
5,061,349
-0-
631
213,414
85,322
213,414
0.8%
1,057,505
-0-
-0-
-0-
1,656,461
113,989
24,991,798
11.2%
Sources: Local Government Finance Report. FY 1977-78. State of
Florida, Department of Banking and Finance.
Stottler Stagg & Associates, Estimates, July 1979
The Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education,
1977-78. Florida Department of Education.
-------
111-22
The extensive increases in community services ana facilities
required to avoid extremely overcrowaea conditions will require
the expenditure ot significant amounts or public tunas. These
expenditures will probably require increased taxes, even though
the tax base will be expanding. The location and rate of
development within the unincorporated area is now being
controlled by market forces rather than a financially viable
public improvements planning program. Similar high growth
areas throughout the country have historically been forceo. to
significantly increase taxes it they wished to keep pace with
the increased demana on their services and facilities.
Water Quality and guanitity
The majority of the area drains into the Hillsboro Canal which
has an average flow ot 212 MGD. The northeastern portion of
the Planning Area a i a ins into the C-lb Canal. Both canals
discharge into the Intracoastal Waterway. A comprehensive
system of lateral canals was established by the Lake Worth
Drainage district tor irrigation and flood control purposes.
The major north-south canals connect the laterals to the
Hillsboro and C-15 Canals. All ot the canals are
hydrologically linkea to the groundwater supplies and are
designated as Class III waters. The location ot these canals
is shown in Figure II1-4.
Figure III-4 also shows the general location of the Biscayne
ana Turnpike (shallow) Aquifers. Although the evidence is not
yet conclusive, it is generally thought that the Biscayne and
Turnpike Aquifers are interconnected. This situation may be
disproven by the results ot a more thorough study currently
being conducted by the USGS.
A stuoy published in February 1976 stated that the Turnpike
Aquifer supplies more than 90 percent of the potable water used
in the eastern halt ot the County. The Aquifer ranges in depth
from 125 feet below sea level near the Conservation Area to 250
feet below sea level along the coast. It is primarily
recharged by local rainfall. The concentration ot dissolved
solids is generally less than the 500 mg/1 State standard for
drinking water. The bottom ot the Aquifer ranges from 225 feet
below sea level near the Conservation Area to 400 feet below
sea level near the coast. The bottom ot the Aquifer is formed
by an impervious formation ot green clay approximately 1500
leet thick. Below this formation is the highly salted Floridan
Aquifer.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
111-24
The EPA recently designated the Biscayne Aquifer and its
tributaries as a "sole source aquifer" under provisions of the
Safe Drinking Water Act. This designation means that all
federally funded programs will be carefully examined to protect
against possible contamination of this resource. The
administrative rules to implement this designation are
currently under preparation.
Control structures near the Intracoastal Waterway are used to
regulate the release of canal water from the major canals
during the dry season and to maintain the aquifer at the levels
required to prevent saltwater intrusion. Consequently, during
the dry season, zero flow is frequently recorded in many of the
canals. These structures also function as flood control
devices during wet conditions.
The mean discharge recorded in the Hillsboro Canal near
Ueerfield Beach is 332 cfs, based on 35 years of record. A
flow of 3700 cfs in April 1979 and a minimum flow of 0.0 cfs
was recorded for several days in 1939, 1940 and again in 1959.
These flows, however, represent regulated, managed flows.
Flows in the other canals in the system are smaller than the
Hillsboro Canal and their water levels and flows also reflect
the water management operations as controlled by numerous
control structures and pumping within the drainage district.
Flow in these canals is minimal during the dry season. The
seven-day, ten-year low flow (7/Q/10) for these canals is 0.0
cfs.
Water quality data for the canals indicate only marginal
quality. Violations of the State water quality criteria are
common as is the occurrence of nuisance aquatic plant growth.
The Hillsboro and C-15 Canals frequently violate the dissolved
oxygen (D.O.) minimum criterion of 4 mg/1. In the Hillsboro
Canal, violations of the D.O. standard occur more frequently
during the wet season than in the dry season. This situation
is a common occurrence in South Florida canals and is generally
thought to be due more to groundwater influences.
-------
III-2S
While there were no firm numerical criteria established for
nutrients, guidelines were suggested in the 208 Plan for
nitrogen and phosphorus forms which are considered to be
adequate for the control of nuisance growth. The Hillsboro
Canal exceeas the recommended nutrient levels in both wet and
dry seasons. Measurements taken at the Deerfield Lock showed a
mean nitrogen concentration of 1.22 mg/1 and a mean phosphorus
concentration of 0.10 mg/1. These measurements compare to the
208 recommended guidelines of 1.0 nig/1 of nitrogen and 0.07
mg/1 of phosphorus (208 Plan, pg. 3.6-134).
Nutrient data tor the urbanized areas of the Hillsboro Canal
Basin show a steady increase in average concentration over
time. The less urbanized areas show high, but relatively
stable nutrient concentrations. Heavy metals and pesticides
have been detected but are generally well below recommended
levels for the major canals.
The quality of the secondary canals is of particular interest
oue to the proximity of municipal well fields. The City's two
well fields are located in proximity to the E-3 and El Rid
Canals. Tne wells are located near the canals since the canal
system itself is the primary source of recharge during the dry
season. Figure 111-4 shows the approximate locations of these
wells.
Since these canals are the immediate recharge ot the drinking
water aquifer, heavy metals ano pesticides are also monitored
by the 'u.S.G.S. On October 20, 1977, U.S.G.S. conducted a
chemical analysis of water samples taken from the E-2 ano E-3
Canals. The results ot the analysis exceeded the water quality
criteria tor Class III waters. However, compared with the 1972
EPA raw drinking water quality recommendations, the following
pollutants exceeded the recommended levels: detergents;
toxaphene; 2,4-D; dielurin; phenoloc compounds and silvex.
Chemical analysis ot raw water samples taken irom two city test
wells showed the same increasing treno for total lead even
though concentrations were still below the allowable limits.
Again, comparing the results with the EPA raw drinking water
criteria, the following constituents were found to equal or
exceed the recommended levels: iron, silvex ano phenols. In
addition, trace amounts of mercury and 2,4-D were detected.
-------
111-26
Pesticides and herbicides are contributed through both urban
and rural runoff. In addition, the use of herbicides to
control aquatic weed growth is an additional source of these
toxics. tfhile the concentrations for most toxics do not exceed
the recommended levels, a large variety has been detected in
the surface waters, including some 16 pesticides, 2 herbicides,
PCBs and mercury.
In 1972, EPA published a report which evaluated several
alternative wastewater disposal methods in South Florida.
Aiaong the alternatives evaluated was disposal by outfall. This
study found that this technique was a viable method of disposal
provided that:
1. The outfall alignment minimized disturbance to the reefs.
2. The outfall extends beyond the third reef or at the 90
feet below sea level mark.
3. The effluent receives secondary treatment. Secondary
treatment was defined as 100* removal of floatable and
settleable solids; 90% removal of suspended solids; 90%
removal of the BODs; and, chlorination of the effluent.
The City of Boca Raton prepares quarterly reports that monitor
the effluent at the outfall. The City also makes visual
inspection of the discharge area of the outfall on an annual
basis. DER also requires monthly operating reports of the
effluent at the plant. In addition, the Palra Beach County
Health Department quarterly samples bacteriological conditions
along the public beaches. None of these monitoring efforts
have determined any adverse impacts from the outfall.
i-Jo adverse point source impacts to surface water quality will
be caused by the implementation of any of the alternatives.
The preferred alternative provides for continued discharge by
the ocean outfall. As discussed above, no adverse impacts have
been identified related to the operation of the ocean outfall.
Mo discharges to surface waters otner than the ocean are
proposed in any of the alternatives.
An increase in non-point source runoff to surface waters will
probably result from the increased population wnich will occur
whichever alternative is implemented. The character of the
runoff will change in the unincorporated area from being
agricultural in nature to urban with more heavy metals
resulting frora the extended transportation system and a higher
overall total runoff resulting from tne increase in impervious
surfaces.
-------
111-27
Alternatives 2, 5 and 9 include discharge of treated wastewater
by spray irrigation. This is a well proven technique with
limited adverse impacts to groundwater anticipated.
Alternative 8, the preferred alternative, involves the
continued use of percolation ponds for discharge. Existing
monitoring records indicate that no problems currently exist.
A continued monitoring program will be in place to insure that
no excessive nitrate build-up occurs in the future.
Alternative 4 involves the use of deep well injection as a
disposal technique. A test well would have to be tried before
this alternative could be implemented.
The alternatives involving the use of the ocean outfall will
dispose of up to 29 i«!GD of treated wastewater into tne ocean.
Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 involve some form of recycling
of treated wastewater. Because of high land costs, all of
these alternatives except for the continued use of the existing
percolation ponds are not cost effective at this time. In the
long term however, water supply problems may cause the
re_evaluation of these alternatives in the entire southeast
Florida area.
Potable Water
The City obtains its water from two wellfields. The east
wellfield includes 25 wells, spaced from south to north along
Northwest 2nd Avenue and El Rio Canal. Most of these wells
have pumps rated at 1 MGD each (iVells 1 to 23). Wells 24 and
25 have pumps rated at 2 MGD each. Thus, the total capacity of
the east wellfield is theoretically 27 MGD. Normally, the
production is liioited to 17 MGD, of which not more than 3 MGD
is pumped from vVells 1 to 9, because of the potential for
saltwater intrusion into this area.
The west wellfield included 10 wells, as of October 1978, each
having a pump rated at 2 MGD, making the total capacity of 20
MGD. vVells 1 to 9 are spaced from north to south along tne E-3
Canal, to the soutn of Glades Road. Well 10 is located at the
Glades Road tfater Plant. Two new wells, rtos. 11 and 12, are
being constructed in the vicinity of the water treatment plant,
each rated at 2 MGD. Afhen the new wells are in operation, the
total capacity of the west wellfield will theoretically be 24
MGD. However, normal production is expected to be limited by
plant capacity to 20 MGD.
-------
111-28
Accordingly, the combined capacity of the City's east and west
wellfields at the beginning of 1979 was considered to be 37 MGD
at tiie east wellfield and 20 MGD at the west wellfield.
However, the existing treatment capacity of botn plants is 33
MGD. The City's system serves virtually all of Boca Raton and
a limited portion of the Reserve Area.
The South Palm Beach Utilities Company (SPBUC) serves all of
the residences west of the Turnpike tnat are on a central
system. Tne SPBUC estimates that there were 7,200 connections
as of March 1979. The capacity of the system is 6.5 MGD. The
existing flows in the area are 2.3 MGD. SPBUC's wellfields are
in the Sandalfoot Golf Course.
The County operates a water and sewer system in tne Pheasant
rfalK area. There are three wells tied to a reverse osmosis
treatment plant with a capacity of 0.35 MGD. The plant is
presently expanding to 1.08 MGD. //ell tfo. 1 is a 100' deep, 6"
well producing 0.24 MGD; well No. 2 is a 80' deep, 6" well
producing 0.24 MGD and well No. 3 is a 10" well, 120' deep
producing 0.48 MGD.
The increase in population expected in the Planning Area will
cause a substantial increase in tne demand for potable water.
Future potable water needs in five year increments until the
year 2000 are shown in Table III-8. All of these needs can be
met by existing and proposed wellfields in the Planning Area to
the year 2000.
Alternatives 2, 5r and 9 would decrease demand for potable
water to some degree througn the implementation of spray
irrigation systems. These same alternatives, with the addition
of alternatives 4 and 3, provide sorae degree of recycling.
Alternatives 8 and 10 will not provide Federal funding to
service this expanded demand.
-------
TABLE III-8
PROJECTED WATER DEMAND
(MGD)
East of West of
Year
1980
1980
1980
1985
1985
1985
1990
1990
1990
1995
1995
1995
2000
2000
2000
Demand
Average Daily Demand
Maximum Daily Demand
Production Required
Average Daily Demand
Maximum Daily Demand
Production Required
Average Daily Demand
Maximum Daily Demand
Production Required
Average Daily Demand
Maximum Daily Demand
Production Required
Average Daily Demand
Maximum Daily Demand
Production Required
Turnpi ke
17.9
29.5
33.0
26.4
43.6
48.8
37.9
62.5
70.0
45.9
75.7
84.8
54.4
89.8
100.6
Turnpike
2.3
3.8
4.2
4.1
6.8
7.6
7.8
12.9
14.4
10.9
18.0
20.2
13.6
22.4
25.1
Total
Study Area
20.2
33.3
37.2
30.5
50.4
56.5
45.7
75.4
84.4
56.8
93.0
105.0
68.0
112.2
125.7
Source: Baseline Environment Report, Jaunary 1980
-------
111-30
Cultural Resources
The Spanish explorers probably stayed in the Boca Raton area as
early as the late 1500s. For the next two or three centuries,
pirates used Lake Boca Raton as a camp or hiding place during
their escapades in the area. The Seminole Indians settled in
the area in the early 1800's, and the first permanent resident
was probably Joshua Bowen, in the late 1870's.
The Boca Raton area aid not develop until Henry Flagler
extended the railroad (now known as the Florida East Coast
Railroad) to Miami in the late 1890's. Around the turn of the
century, T.M. Hicharos began selling land tor growing
pineapples. The area prospered as a winter vegetable region
through the early 1900's.
The Florida Division of Archives, History and Records
Management indicates that the last two surveys conducted in the
area were completed in 1955 and 1980 with the cooperation of
the Historical Preservation Board of Boca Raton. Both surveys
concentrated in the eastern portion of the Planning Area.
All of the archeologicai sites listed have been excavated or
disturbed. The Barnhill Mound site at U.S. 1 and Yamato Road
is included within the site of a proposed subdivision. Since
the western area has been disturbed by agricultural operations,
it is doubtiul that any historical or archeologicai sites of
significance remain.
There are no definite local government programs or regulations
to protect Historical or archeologicai resources. However,
both the City and County are in the process of developing such
programs. A proposal to designate Floresta as a historic
district is under consideration by the City.
Construction activities associated with wastewater treatment
facilities and with projected growth and development may
destroy historical and archaeological resources unless
appropriate precautions are taken. Any direct impacts from the
construction of facilities associated with any of these
alternatives should be minimal since almost all of the
construction proposed will be on already disturbed
rights-ot-way. Appropriate consultation has been undertaken
with the Florioa State Historic Preservation Officer. A copy
of the State's letter to us is presented in Chapter VI.
-------
111-31
Recreational Resources
The major existing and proposed outdoor recreation facilities
are listed in Table I1I-9. Indoor recreation is provided at
the Boca Raton Community Center, the Community
Center/Clubhouses in most ot the large land development
projects, and at many of the schools.
An' analysis of the planned unit development (PUD) throughout
the Planning Area shows that an abundance of both indoor and
outooor recreation opportunities have been supplied by the
private sector. These developments typically provide one or
more golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, bicycle
paths, and a wide variety of indoor facilities.
Both the City and the County require open space to be provided
within PLJDs. These requirements are 40 percent and 35 percent,
respectively. Subdivisions are also required to provide
recreational facilities. It is difficult to determine the
exact amount of recreational facilities that have been provided
through these mechanisms because not all open space is usable
tor recreation.
The large projected increase in population will require
additional recreational facilities to avoid overcrowding of
existing facilities as shown in Table III-3. The impacts to
these facilities will not be as severe as to others such as
schools and transportation since the existing recreational
facilities are largely adequate. Also, open space is being
provided in the new PUD developments in the Planning Area.
Transportation
The predominant transportation characteristic ot the area is
its north-south orientation. The major highways (U.S. 441, the
Florida Turnpike, 1-95, U.S. 1 and SR AIA), the Intracoastal
Waterway and the two railroads follow this pattern. There is
no single roadway that completely traverses the area in an
east-west direction.
Initially, these facilities allowed travelers to pass through
the area with Miami-Ft. Lauderoale as their destination. As
that area developed, these facilities have acted as funnels for
the northward expansion of urban development. The completion
of 1-95 northward through the area resulted in further
acceleration of this treno. It provides easy access to the
major employment centers outside the 201 planning area.
-------
TABLE ni-9
OUTDOOR RECREAT
Facility Name
Boca Island
Por-la-Mor Park
Hughes Park
Meadows Park
Sanbourn Square
Silver Palm Park
University Woodlands Park
Silver Palm Park
Memorial Park
Unnamed (W. Palmetto Park Road)
South Beach Park
Spanish River Park
Lake .Wyman Tract.
Harrison Tract
Schine Tract
South Inlet Park
Boca Raton Country Club
Boca Raton Hotel & Club
Boca Teeca Golf Club
Royal Palm Yacht & Country Club
Boca Raton Municipal Golf Course
Broken Sound Golf Club
Southern Manor Golf Course
Hillsboro Country Club
Sandal foot Country Club
Boca West Facil ity
Boca Del Mar Facil ity
Mitchell School - Joint Use
Boca Raton High School
Boca Middle School
Addison Mizner School
Boca Elementary School
Sources: Recreation/Open Space Pla
Government; Area Planning
ION FACILI
Size
facres)
1.5
0.5
5.0
12.0
0.5
2.0
15.0
2.0
18.0
13.0
98.0
79.0
60.0
187.0
67.0
11.0
56.0
121.0
210.0
145.0
13.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20.0
20.0
20.0
15.0
6.8
nning - A
Board of
TIES
Ownershi p
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Unknown
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Boca Raton
Palm Beach
Private
Private
Pri vate
Private
Boca Raton
Private
Private
Pri vate
Private
Private
Private
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Palm Beach
Guide For Local
Palm Beach County
County
County
County
County
County
County
, June
1978.
Boca Raton Comprehensive Plan, April 1979
-------
111-33
SK 808 (Glades Road) remains the only access point to the
Turnpike within the study area. This highway provides the only
continuous east-west access between U.S. 441 and U.S. 1. Its
recent widening east of the Turnpike v/as completed in response
to its importance as an east-west access route.
There will likely be disruption of traffic during construction
of the force mains. All of the force mains will be built
within the right-of-ways of major roads. Therefore,
surrounding land uses will not be directly affected by the
construction.
The construction of the regional force main from U.S. 441 along
Glades Road to the treatment plant will likely cause the most
traffic disruption of all the force' main construction
activities since the right-of-way under the Turnpike is
extremely narrow. There are plans to four-lane this section of
Glades Road in the near future. This section of the roadway
will undergo sever distruption during the widening. Therefore,
it would be prudent to construct the force main at the same
time the road is widened.
A large increase in area traffic is projected based upon the
expected increase in population. The anticipated impact of
this increase on the projected number of trips is shown in
Table III-3. This increase in number of trips will result in
more congested driving conditions on all major highways in the
area unless significant improvement are made to the area's
highway system.
Resource Use
Electric power for all of the southeast Florida area is
supplied by the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL). FPL
facilities are part of a cooperative statewide power supply
interconnection system. Natural gas is supplied to the area by
a pipeline from Texas.
There will be sufficient lead time to plan for new facilities
should it become necessary in the future. The Florida Power
Plant Siting Act (Chap. 403, Part II) requires all electric
power companies to prepare a 10-year master plan for new
facility needs. These are annually updated in April.
Table 111-10 depicts the projected power consumption throughout
the study period. The estimates were determined by utilizing
data contained within the Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan
1978-87 submitted by FPL in April 1973.
-------
TABLE 111-10
PROJECTED ELECTRIC POWER CONSUMPTION
(millions of KWH)
Year
1978
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Residential
251.90
292.90
440.50
671.20
842.50
990.60
Commercial
168.00
195.00
294.00
447.00
561.00
660.00
Industrial
7.30
8.46
12.80
19.40
24.40
28.70
Total
427.30
496.40
747.30
1137.60
1427.40
1679.30
Percent
Increase
N/Ap
14
34
34
20
15
Source: Stottler Stagg & Associates Estimates, June 1979.
-------
111-35
Air Quality
The Southern Region Palm Beach County 201 Area is located in.
Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) 50 which includes Dade,
Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. The Palm Beach County Health
Department, Air Pollution Section, administers the air quality
of'Palm Beach County through a series of monitoring stations,
three of which are located in Boca Raton. The parameters
monitored in the Planning Area are total suspended
particulates, benzene soluable organics, sulfates, nitrates,
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, total oxidants, and
hydrocarbons. Table III-ll presents specific air quality data
collected in Boca Raton during 1977. The primary source of air
pollution in the Planning Area is the motor vehicle. So heavy
industry is present.
The future air quality of the Planning Area will be similar
whichever alternative is selected for treatment and disposal.
This is due to the fact that air quality degradation in this
area is basically a product of the increased traffic conditions
being generated by the the population increase. The year 2000
population projections are expected to be similar under all of
the alternatives, including no Federal action. The high levels
of projected population increase will cause a decrease in air
quality conditions. However, no significant problems are
expected. Favorable wind conditions in the area will likely
keep air quality conditions within acceptable ranges.
Noi s e
There is no comprenensive noise monitoring program in the
area The City of Boca Raton does, however, have a noise
control ordinance. The most prominent noise generators in the
area largely involve transportation facilities. These include
the Boca Raton Airport, the Railroad Corridor, Federal Highway,
1-95, Florida's Turnpike, Glades Road, and Palmetto Park Road.
The Planning Area has relatively lo* ambient noise levels.
Short-term noise impacts can be expected with pipeline and
facility construction and are caused by movement of heavy
equipment, possibly blasting and ditch digging. Facility
operation and maintenance noise includes operation of
mechanical aerators and some increase in venicular traffic. rfo
significant noise problems have been identified at the existing
facilities and none are expected in the future as a result of
this project.
-------
TABLE in.ii
AIR QUALITY OF THE SOUTHERN REGION PM.M BEACH COUNTY 201 AREA
(Boca Raton, Florida}
Suspended Participates
Arithmetic Average ug/m3
Monitoring Station
Location Total
Boca Raton Fire 39.3
Station #1
College of Boca Raton 29.8
Florida Atlantic ND
University
Organlcs
Benzene
Sol uable
1.79
1.76
ND
Sulfur
Dioxide
Sul fates Nitrates ppma
5.52 1.56 0.010
5.52 1.36 NDe
ND ND NO
N1 trogen
Dioxide
ppm°
0.024
ND
0.006
Total
Oxidants
ppmc
0.032
ND
ND
Hydro-
carbons
ppmd
4.2
ND
ND
Source: Palm Beach County Health Department, Division of Environmental Science and Engineering, Air Pollution
Control. [19787] Annual Report, 1977. Palm Beach, Florida. 77 pp.
aMean of 24-hour maximums taken at intermittent periods during the year.
bMean of arithmetic means taken at intermittent periods during the year.
cMean of 8-hour maximums taken at intermittent periods during the year.
dMax1mum ambient concentration over an 8-hour period.
eNo data, parameter not monitored at this station.
-------
111-37
Od_qrs_
The Southern Region Palm Beach County 201 Area has no heavy
industry and very little light industry which produce odors.
In general, the land use plan for Boca Raton separates
industrial areas from residential areas. Odor has not
historically been a significant problem.
This Planning Area nas had very few odor problems in the past
frou any sources. It is not expected that any of these
wastewater management alternatives will lead to any significant
problems in the future. The alternatives with two and three
treatment plants will have a slightly greater chance of
operation and maintenance problems leading to odor episodes.
Any odors related to sludge management will be addressed in the
Final EIS.
Topography and Geology
The Southern Region Palra Beach County 201 Area lies within
three physiographic provinces of south Florida-Coastal Ridge,
Sandy Flat lands, and Everglades. The area is quite flat with
elevations seldom exceeding 25 feet. The highest elevations
occur on the Coastal Ridge which slopes downward towards the
flat western portion of the Planning Area.
The region has no major streams or rivers as the drainage
pattern south of Lake Okeechobee has historically been by sheet
flow through the Everglades. However, developmental pressure
by man has required that the water level be managed by a
network of canals to maintain water level during dry periods
and facilitate .drainage of excess water during wet periods.
The South Florida Water Management District and the Lake Worth
Drainage District have responsibility for the extensive canal
network in tne Planning Area. The primary canals are the C-15
and Hillsboro Canals which flow into the Atlantic Ocean.
Several second-order canals, oriented in a north-south
direction, flow into the C-15 and Hillsboro, and numerous
smaller canals and ditches extend perpendicularly to the system
described above. At present, the canal system is very
extensive and no new water management facilities are planned
except to update or replace existing structures.
-------
111-38
The Florida Peninsula is the exposed riage portion of a broaa
extension from the North American continent. It consists of a
mantle o± marine sediments (approximately 15,000 feet thick in
the stuay area) overlying a core of metamorphic and igneous
rocks. The dilferent marine sediments are signiticant not only
as exposed surface material, but also because their
differential permeabilities are responsible tor the aquifers
which provide most of South Florida with its water supplies.
The geology will therefore be discussed in some detail.
The shallow non-artesian Biscayne Aquifer, from which the City
of Boca Raton currently draws its water supplies, includes the
Pamlico Sand, Anastasia Formation, Miami Oolite, Fort Thompson
Formation, and Caloosahatchee Marl. The relatively impervious
Tamiarai Formation and Upper portions of the Hawthorn Formation
form an aquicluce beneath the Aquifer.
The surface geology of the Southern Region Palm Beach 201 area
is uncomplicated: only two formations are present. Miami
Oolite occurs in the south and west of the Planning Area; in
the northeast it intergrao.es into the Anastasia Formation.
Both are generally covered by either Pleistocene Pamlico Sand
(on the coastal ridge) or organic soils (in the low-lying areas
to the west), so actual outcrops are very rare.
Geology imposes no constraints on or difficulties in
construction within the Planning Area. Soils, features closely
related to and derivative from the geology, however, do require
careful consideration and planning for construction.
No significant impacts are expected from any of the
alternatives to the geology or topography of the Planning Area.
Soils
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) published the Soil Survey
for Palm Beach County in December 1978. Figure III-5
summarizes these limitations in graphic form. It also shows
the aepth of the seasonal high water table. For graphic
simplicity's sake, this latter limitation is shown for only
those soils west of 1-95.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
111-40
The term slight limitation means that the soil properties and
features are generally favorable for that use and that the
limitations that are present are nanor and can be easily
overcome. Ihe term moderate limitation means that the soil
properties and features are generally unfavorable tor that use,
but can be overcome or minimized by special design and
planning. The term severe means that the soil properities and
features are generally so unfavorable and difficult to correct
or overcome that major soil reclamation, special design or
intensive maintenance is required.
The Soil Survey also states that "in many of the soils that
have moderate or severe limitations for use as septic tank
absorption fields, it may be possible to install a special
system to lower the seasonal water table or to increase the
size of the absorption field so that performance is
satisfactory" (P9- 76). This report also states that
"imprevious soil that is at least 4 feet thick is required for
the lagoon floor and sides tc minimize seepage and
contamination of local groundwater. Soils that are very high
in organic matter content and have stones and boulders are
undesirable. Unless the soil has very slow permeability,
contamination of local groundwater is a hazard in areas where
the seasonal high water table is above the level of the lagoon
floor. If the. water table is seasonally high, seepage of
groundwater into the lagoon can seriously reduce the capacity
for liquid waste" (pg. 76) .
A seasonal high water table is the highest level of a saturated
zone more than 6 inches thick held in soils tor a continuous
period of more than 2 weeks during most years. The depth to a
seasonal high water table applies to unarained soils at the
site in question. Therefore, Figure III-5 shows that, with the
exception of a few areas, all of the soils west of 1-95 have a
depth of less than 6 feet to the seasonal highwater table. In
tact, virtually aj.1 ot the soils west of 1-95 have a depth of
less than 2 feet to the seasonal high water table.
The months ot the year that the high water is commonly present
is also an important limitation. The soils shown as having a
depth to the water table ot less than 6 feet generally have
high water conditions from June through November and often
through February. Thereiore, the soils in these areas
experience high water conditions six or more months out of the
year.
-------
111-41
The reader should be cautioned to remember that the Soil Survey
is generalized over the entire Planning Area. The results of
that document are further generalized for purposes of this
study.
The County Comprehensive Plan projects service by septic tanks
in subbasins F and I of the Planning Area. Proper testing by
the Palm Beach County Health Department and proper maintenance
procedures by the customers should preclude any significant
adverse impacts.
Vegetation
The vegetation of Boca Raton is nighly diverse in number of
species and biotic communities. Such diversity is directly
correlated with diversity of abiotic environmental features:
topographic, geologic, pedologic, hydrologic, climatic, and
physiographic. Although the warm, humid subtropical climate is
generally favorable for plant growth, local
topographically-deteruined variations in hydrology and pedology
provide" very different environments. Moisture availability
varies from extremely hydric (wet) to extremely xeric (dry),
salinity from highly saline to fresh, and soils from very
organic (peat) to very mineral (white sand). Variations in
these and" other environmental factors create a diversity of
habitats to which various plant species and associations are
adapted. Distribution of faunal species in the area is in turn
determined by shelter, food, and nesting resources provided by
the plant associations. These interdependent associations of
biota are termed biotic communities.
Thus, a biotic community represents a significantly different
and recognizable combination of abiotic features (clinate,
geology, pedology, hydrology, topography, and pnysiography) and
bioti? features (flora and fauna) which have a strong
correlation among themselves and a much lesser connection with
features of adjoining areas. Biotic community boundaries are
rarely sharp, and relatively arbitrary decisions are sometimes
necessary where a continuum exists between two different
associations.
-------
111-42
It should be stressed that environments and biotic
couimuni titles are dynamic; natural events, such as tidal
inundation, storm flooding, sediment deposition, and fire,
strongly influence the abiotic and biotic elements of the
biotic community. Disturbances related to man, such as
development, drainage, sewage, water draw-down, fire,
introduced species, and agriculture, also have profound effects
on biotic communities. All of these factors, considered
through time, will produce successional change in community
distribution and condition.
Successional patterns are complicated in tne Planning Area by a
variety of natural and man-induced factors: fire, hurricanes,
droughts, drainage, lowering of the water table, mechanical
disturbance, and aggressive introduced species. Coastal
Harauocfc and Low Hammocfc would appear to be the "true" climaxes
in upland situations in the absence of fire. However, fire is
naturally so frequent in this habitat that "true" cliraaxes are
Much more the exception than the rule. More frequently, the
successional trend toward this arborescent community is halted
permanently or semi-permanently by periodic fire, and scrub,
dry prairie, or pine flatwood communities persist. These
communities nay be termed topo-edaphic climaxes, and are just
as important and natural a part of the vegetation as the "true"
clinax.
Natural conditions in southern Florida are extremely dynamic;
the geological youth of the area, sea level variations,
periodic drought, fire, and catastrophic events such as
hurricanes have created continuously shifting vegetation
patterns in the area. Since man's influx into the area in the
20th century, environmental change has been vastly accelerated,
to the point where even those areas which have not been
directly affected by construction and disturbance have been
strongly modified by watertable draw-down (resulting in a
greater frequency of fire), ditching and drainage, and
aggressive invasion by various introduced species. Development
and other less direct disturbances of the natural environment
are currently taking place at such a rate that few first-rate
examples of the native vegetation remain in the Planning Area.
-------
111-43
The vegetation map F'igure III-6 is based on the Boca Raton
Comprehensive Plan, and limited field reconnaissance and
verification by Coastal Zone Resources biologists. Since much
ot the existing information is several years old and
development is occurring at a very rapid rate, many of the
areas shown as native vegetation may at this time or at some
time in the near future be changed to "Urban Disturbed
Built-Up". Much of the agricultural land in the western half
of the Planning Area is already committed tor residential
development. Some portions of the map are already out of date;
others will unaoubteoly become so in the next tew years.
Ideally, most relatively intact and undisturbed areas of native
vegetation should be protected from further development for a
variety of reasons:
1. They provide valuable recreational ana open-space lana in
an increasingly urbanized area.
2. They provide valuable wildlife habitat.
3. They provide habitat for a relatively large number of
rare, endangered, endemic, and unique animal and plant
species, found nowhere else in the United States.
4. They have high scientific and educational value.
5. They have been reduced to a small fraction ot their extent
prior to this century.
6. Wetlands reduce contaminant loading, aid in nutrient
cycling, protect other areas from erosion and flooding
damage, and have a high biological productivity.
7. Uplands are critical tor aquifer recharge and reduction of
storm run-off.
The projected population and land use changes discussed earlier
in this chapter will significantly decrease the amount of
undeveloped land in the Planning Area. This will lower the
diversity and amount of vegetative species. No appreciable
difference is expected among the alternatives with respect to
this impact.
Wildlife
The Planning Area has a wide range of wildlife habitats
including urban, scrub, swarnps, freshwater canals and ponds,
and estuarine waters of the AIWW and adjacent finger canals.
The ranges of certain animals are restricted by very specific
habitat requirements, but many species, especilly birds and
mammals, are highly mobile and may utilize several of the plant
communities reqularly. Appendix C characterizes the animal
species found in the Planning Area.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
111-45
No primary impacts are expected to occur as a result of this
project, since most possible construction areas have already
been disturbed. The decrease in vegetative habitat discussed
above will lead to a concurrent decrease in the wildlife
present in the project area.
Sensitive Areas
The section regarding sensitive areas is intended to identify
those areas or sites which will require special attention
during the impact analysis phase. Such areas include the
beach; the habitat of the manatee; the archeological,
historical and recreational sites noted previously; water
recharge areas; the butter zone along the Conservation Area;
floodprone sites; scattered wetland areas; and the winter
vegetable croplands. Most of these areas are shown in Figure
III-7.
As mentioned, the manatee regularly inhabits the Intracoastal
Waterway, particularly during the winter months. Sea turtles
nest during the late spring and early summer along the Boca
Raton teaches. The marine grass beds in Lake Wyman and Lake
Boca Katon have been identified as significant natural
resources.
Mangrove communities exist in the Lake Wyman area and the 40th
Street-Intracoastal waterway area. Other significant
vegetative communities are found in the marsh area around the
confluence of the El Rio Canal and the C-15 Canal, as well as
along the Conservation Area levee.
Tne Schine tract and the Lake Wyman tract represent important
areas that contain a variety of threatened and endangered
species. The proposed regional park sites at Boca Teeca, Patch
Reef and west of U.S. 441 are potential recreation resources.
Most of the archeological sites have been disturbed on one or
more occasions. The historic areas represent sites worthy of
nomination to the National Register of Historical Places. A
more complete description of the threatened and endangered
species and their habitats is found in the wildlife section of
this chapter.
The winter vegetable cropland area described earlier in this
chapter is shown in Figure III-2. It is projected that, if
Palm Beach County land use policies remain unchanged, all of
these lands will be converted to urban development by the Year
2000 with the exception of the area within the County, south of
the Hillsboro Canal.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
111-47
The major impact to the sensitive areas discussed above is the
conversion of the unique agricultural lands to urban
dvelopment. These impacts are discussed in the land use
section of this chapter.
Impacts to other specific sensitive areas may result from the
projected conversion of most of the Planning Area to urban land
uses. Local land use decisions will determine the extent of
these impacts.
-------
111-48
Part C; Mitigative Measures
Iritruouction
The most significant in.pacts which were identified in Part B or
this chapter include; a continuea high rate ot development
throughout the unincorporated area, continued in-filling in the
alreaoy urbanized areas, the loss ot unique agricultural lands,
an increase in the overcrowding ot community services and
facilities, increased demand on the limited water supply
capacity, and increased point and non-point source discharges
to the biscayne Aquiter. Other more minor impacts are related
to construction activities and facility operation.
A significant part of the tIS process is the evaluation of
measures which may be used to mitigate these potential
impacts. Mitigative measures may be structural or
non-structural in nature. For example, reducing the system
capacity to preclude sewer service to Subbasins F ano I is a
structural niitigative measure. Non-structural mitigative
measures are applied lanu management related practices. They
include public acquisition of land ano development rights,
provision ot incentives to encourage the protection ot unique
agricultural and environmentally significant lands, and land
use regulation. The following mitigative measures are selected
from an extensive array of techniques. The selected measures
are presented because ot their relevance to the identified
i mpacts.
The committed nature oi much ot the Planning Area limits the
ettectiveness of some of the suggested mitigative measures.
The purpose here is to provide a list ot possible structural
ana non-structural actions that may be used to mitigate the
impacts cited previously.
Non-Structural Mitigative Measures Relating to In-filling
The principal impacts resulting from in-tilling urbanized areas
are the loss of desirable open space in the form ot potential
park and recreational sites, environmentally sensitive lands,
and historic ana archaeological sites, as well as an increased
buraen on public facilities. Appropriate non-structural
mitigative measures include: (1) impact tees and dedication
requirements, (2) identification and protection of significant
historical and archaeological sites, (3) density transfers and
density bonuses, ana (4) land banking.
-------
111-49
Impact fees and dedication requirements are typical measures
utilized by. local governments to reduce the impacts of
in-filling in urbanized areas. Impact fees are charges paid to
a local government by new users for the privilege of gaining
access to the public services and facilities. The rate charged
is the prorata share of the expense incurred by the local
government in providing the public service or facility.
Dedication requirements provide for the transfer to a local
government of lands to be used as sites for public services and
facilities.
Dedications operate on the same principal as ir.ipact fees. The
increased burden upon public services and facilities created by
new residents is offset by the developer providing land for
additional schools, fire and police stations, or public parks
and recreation facilities.
Impact fees and dedication requirements are included in local
government land use regulations. PUD approval or final plat
approval is often made contingent upon satisfaction of the
dedication requirements or fee-in-lieu of payment.
The City of Boca Raton presently requires developers to
dedicate land for parks and recreation purposes or pay a
fee-in-lieu of the dedication. Developers of PUD's in Boca
Raton may be required to dedicate land for community
facilities, such as schools or government offices, if the City
Council determines that these services are needed. In
addition, impact fees are assessed for connecting to the City
sewer and water systems. The Boca Raton impact fee and
dedication requirements could be amended to specifically
require the dedication of environmentally sensitive lands and
significant historical or archaeological sites.
Protection of significant historic and archaeological sites is
the process of identification, registration, protection,
enhancement and management of culturally valuable sites or
properties. It is the policy of the Federal government, the
State, and the City of Boca Raton to protect significant
historical and archaeological sites. For example, for every
major federal action affecting the natural and man-made
environment, Section 101(b)(4) of the National Environmental
Policy Act directs the involved federal agency to "coordinate
federal plans, functions, programs, and resources....preserve
important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our
national heritage...." Chapter 267, F.S., the Florida Archives
and History Act, provides for the protection of historic and
-------
111-50
archaeological resources on state lands and encourages their
protection on privately-owned land. Chapter 79-255, Laws of
Florida, provides a means for the State to purchase valuable
historic and archaeological properties and bring them under the
protection of the Archives Act. If preservation of significant
sites is not feasible, provision is made for the recording of
data contained in the objects, sites, or structures.
Significant sites are those properties which are listed, or
determined eligible for listing, in the National Register of
Historic Places, in accordance with 36 CFR, Part 60 ("National
Register ofHistoric Places; Nominations by State and Federal
Agencies").
To protect unknown sites, the City and the County could require
a developer to request from the Florida Division of Archives,
History and Records Management a determination of the
likelihood of presently unknown sites or properties occurring
on the subject property. If the Division determines that the
probability is high, then the performance of an historic and
archaeological site assessment survey could be required as a
condition precedent to development plan approval. Discovery of
a significant site or property, as determined by the City or
County upon recommendation from the Division, provides the
basis to require private preservation by restrictive covenants,
dedication for public purpose, public acquisition, recording of
data or removal of artifacts.
A density bonus is a grant of additional density given to a
developer in exchange for dedicating a parcel of land for a
public purpose. The grant of additional density is an
incentive to provide park and recreational sites, and to
preserve environmentally sensitive lands, and historic and
archaeological sites.
For a land dedication of any portion of a parcel of land, the
City or County could allow a transfer of the maximum number of
dwelling units allowed for the dedicated area to any other
portion of that parcel, or any other parcel of land, within the
City. To the extent that the dedication exceeds any existing
standard, the City may allow a density bonus resulting in a
total transfer of up to a designated factor (i.e., two (2)
times the maximum number of dwelling units designated for the
dedicated area) to any other portion or parcel within the City
or County.
-------
111-51
A aensity bonus may be awarded according to a sliding scale
that ranges between one hundred percent (100%) and two hundred
percent (200%) of the maximum number of dwelling units
allowable on the designated parcel. The amount of the Density
bonus is determined according to the quality, location,
quantity and value of the land dedicated. Density bonuses
should be permissible only for (a) lands dedicated in
perpetuity for a public purpose, (b) lands which exceed
stanaard dedication requirements, and (c) lands not included in
dedications for other public purposes such as road
right-of-ways, utilities and other community facilities.
Density bonuses are additionally useful in protecting
environmentally sensitive lanos located in the western portion
of the Planning Area.
Lano banking involves public acquisition of undeveloped land
tor a designated public purpose. Acquisitions may be made for
the purpose of permanently holdinc property for present or
future use as a public park or recreation facility. Land
banking preserves open space ano environmentally sensitive
ianos as well as historic ano archaeological sites from being
consumed by the process of in-filling.
The process of establishing a lano banking operation involves
selecting a local administrative agency to serve as the land.
banking institution, conducting a survey to identity, assess
and determine specific parcels of land or development rights to
be acquired, negotiating the purchase of desired sites or,
possibly, commencing eminent domain proceedings to condemn the
property, issuing municipal bonos or establishing other means
of financing the acquisitions, taking title to the property,
and implementing a management program.
Land banking implements the policies of the Boca Raton
Comprehensive Plan, which recommenos: acquisition and
development of park sites based on environmental, social, ano
economic considerations, preservation of historic ano
.archaeological features, and minimal or no development or
redevelopment in areas designated "preservation" in order to
protect the most significant natural and cultural features.
Implementation of the Comprehensive: Plan would satisfy the
reasonable necessity requirement for public acquisition. The
power of eminent domain might be unavailable to condemn land
tor a future purpose, unless the power is useo to implement an
aoopteo plan of acquisition and conversion of the land to the
public use is reasonably imminent.
-------
111-52
The existence of a Comprehensive Plan can provide the basis for
a public acquisition program where the power of eminent domain
might otherwise be unavailable. By amending the Comprehensive
Plan to designate specific parcels of land for future open
space use, the current status of land would be maintained until
the landowner initiated negotiations for public purchase or
inverse condemnation proceedings.
Non-Structual Measures Relating to Unique Agricultural Lands
and Envirqnmentally Sensitive Land •
The principal impacts in the unincorporated portion of the
study area are the continued conversion of productive
agricultural lands to other uses. By not providing sewer
service to Subbasins F and I and to unique agricultural lands,
Alternatives 3, 7, 8, and 10 induce a lower rate of land
development than the other alternatives. The selection of one
of these alternatives would assure that Federal funds would not
be used to promote the loss of unique agricultural and
environmentally sensitive lands.
The non-structural mitigative measures addressed in this and
the next sections could effect a significant limitation on the
exercise of development rights. Adoption of a future land use
plan element under the Florida Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Act would be a prerequisite to successfully
implementing a management program to protect unique
agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands. The
consistency requirement of the Act provides the legal basis for
establishing a management system that limits the exercise of
development rights. In Florida, conducting specific area
studies, sometimes called neighborhood studies, sector studies,
or critical area studies, has proven valuable in legally
defending moratoria and conservation and environmental
protection programs.
Area studies critically assess the different use-values and
competing interests in a specific geographic area. They
establish land management guidelines and principles to a much
greater degree of specificity than those contained in a Future
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
-------
111-53
In Metropolitan Dade County the Board of County Commissioners
is empowered to declare certain lands to be "areas of critical
environmental concern." In designating such areas, the
Commissioners must specify by ordinance the boundaries of the
area, the reasons why the particular area is a critical
environmental concern to the County, the dangers that would
result from uncontrolled or inadequate development of the area,
and the advantages that would be achieved from the development
of the area in a coordinated manner. The ordinances must also
establish specific land use regulations, which may be in
addition to any existing zoning, to ensure the protection of
the area. The regulations provide environmental performance
standards relating to such matters as site alteration, water
control and flood protection, wastewater disposal and
development clustering. The ordinances may also establish site
alteration permit requirements and procedures for variances.
In many respects, the County program is patterned after the
"Areas of Critical State Concern" program contained in Chapter
380, F.S., the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management
Act of 1972.
The Dade County program differs from the original State Act in
the crucial aspect that the critical areas are designated by
the County legislative body. Undertaking an area study should
be considered as an aid in implementing a land management
program.
Agricultural zoning is zoning to preserve agricultural use. As
an exclusive use zone, permitted development in agricultural
districts is restricted to farming activities. The
classification permits farm-related housing and
agricultural-oriented industry, such as mechanized harvesting,
processing and pacKing procedures. To be effective,
agricultural zoning should correspond to existing agricultural
land holding pattern. For example, if the predominant
character of holdings is fifty (50) acres, the agricultural
zoning should establish a one (1) unit per fifty (50) acres
minimum area requirement. The assumption is that current land
holdings maintain farm productivity and economic efficiency.
By applying an agricultural zoning classification to a specific
area identified in an area study as unique agricultural land,
agriculturally productive parcels might be assembled and
preserved.
-------
111-54
Agriculturally productive land may lie fallow because it is
being held for development. Where necessary, down-zoning could
induce the land back into agricultural use. Although intensive
development of the land would be prohibited, the remaining
agricultural use may afford a landowner reasonable beneficial
use of the property. Generally, down-zoning is more legally
defensible where the least amount of committed development is
present.
Public acquisition of development rights can assist in
assembling agricultural lands, especially where down-zoning is
not useful. Development rights represent the development
potential of the land. Development rights are purchased by the
government, giving it the right to restrict that acreage to
agricultural uses. Ownership of the agricultural land remains
with the property owner, as does the right to use the property
for agricultural purposes. Private markets for the purchase
and sale of development rights to agricultural land are created
by a Transferable Development Rights Plan.
Transferable Development Rights (TDR) is a concept that permits
a shifting of density from land less suitable for development
to land which is suitable for more intensive use. The
conceptual basis of TDR is that the value of a parcel of land
is measured by both its existing use and its development
potential. Development potential for the purposes of TDR is
determined by the maximum allowable density assigned to a
particular tract of land. A TDR plan is established by a TDR
ordinance designed to accomplish a particular objective. New
York and Chicago enacted TDR ordinances to protect historic and
architectural landmarks. The TDR Ordinance of Collier County,
Florida is designed to preserve the semitropical swamps which
comprise much of the undeveloped land in the County. Bucks
County, Pennsylvania uses a TDR plan to preserve agricultural
lands. The most effective uses of TDR have been to preserve
environmentally sensitive and agriculturally significant land.
A TDR plan can be designed specifically for the purpose of
preserving unique agricultural lands.
-------
111-55
Prior to enactment of a TDK ordinance, a planning authority
would designate restricted zones and transfer zones.
Restricted zones are selected on the basis of their
agricultural significance. The development rights of property
located in the restricted zones can be transferred to areas
suitable for higher density use. The TDK ordinance would
designate agricultural uses as the exclusive classification in
the restricted zones. The amount of land which can be
preserved for agricultural use is a function of the maximum
additional dwelling units which a receiving area, called
transfer zones, can accommodate. The maximum density the
transfer zones can accommodate less their existing allowable
density determines the maximum additional dwelling units that
can be transferred. The maximum additional dwelling units are
then allocated among the acreage in the restricted zones .to.
deteriaine the development rights ratio.
The development rights ratio is the amount of dwelling units
attributed to each acreage of restricted lands. If, for
example, there are 3,000 maximum additional dwelling units that
can be accommodated by the transfer zones and 1,000 acres of
land to be preserved, then the development rights ratio is
three (3) dwelling units per one (1) acre of restricted land.
The development rights ratio is affected by land values. For a
TDK program to work, landowners mast be compensated for the
loss of development potential. The value of the allocated
dwelling units must equal the value of the lost development
potential. In addition, the value of the development rights is
determined by the ability of the transfer zone to absorb them.
The transfer of development rights should be managed to avoid
exceeding the capacity of the transfer zone.
Participation in a TDR program may be mandatory or voluntary.
The TDR plan in Collier County, Florida is a mandatory program
that has operated effectively since 1974. The Collier County
Plan provides that owners of restricted land designated "ST"
(Special Treatment) must apply for a development order before
they can proceed with a plan of development. If the County
finds the proposed use to be in conflict with the ecological
balance to be preserved by the TDR ordinance, the development
order is denied. The landowner is compensated for this loss of
development potential by the issuance of development rights.
-------
111-56
The holder of development rights can sell all or part of those
rights on the open market or transfer the density to other
parcels owned in the transfer zone. Development rights
transferred to receiving parcels are recorded in the same
manner as deeds or easements.
Title to the land in the restricted zone can remain with the
original owner; however, it is subject to an agricultural use
deed restriction. The deed restriction is created by the
County and it is amendable to allow future generations to
intensify the land use. In Bucks County, Pennsylvania, where
TDR is used to preserve agricultural lands, the TDK ordinance
provides landowners in the restricted zones with rights to
develop one (1) house per twenty-five (25) acres, or the right
to develop .5 dwelling units per acre in a cluster using ten
(10%) percent of the parcel.
Marketability of TDRs is essential to the effectiveness of this
program. If market analysis reveals that the demonstrated
deinand for TDRs is low, then the program should be designed to
preserve only the most significant agricultural land in the
study area. In defining the areas of most productive land, the
economies of scale which accompany conventional farming
techniques should be considered.
The designated environmentally sensitive lands are susceptible
to environmental degradation. Uses should be permitted that do
not adversely affect the productivity of the area.
Productivity can be protected by establishing environmental
performance standards and an environmental assessment
requirement. Environmental performance standards identify the
values that must be protected, but they do not necessarily
provide how the results will be achieved. The following
examples of environmental performance standards are taken from
the Dade County Development Master Plan (1975):
"The following guidelines are considered minimum
guidelines and apply to all of Dade County except where a
greater degree of protection is offered by a guideline
with a specific environmental protection zone or subzone.
Within impacted hammocks (40-60% exotic plants)
construction is, to the maximum extent possible, to be
confined to area characterized by exotic vegetation. A
maximum 50% site alteration is permitted.
rfithin all areas of allowable site alterations, the
existing native vegetation is to be incorporated into the
landscape plan of development to the maximum extent
possible."
-------
111-57
Environmental performance standards require the developer to
demonstrate that the proposed development will not adversely
affect the environmental integrity of the area. Maximum design
flexibility should be allowed when incorporating the standards
into the plan of development. An environmental or community
impacts statement provides the mechanism for assessing the
impacts of the project and achieving resolutions to internalize
or mitigate those aspects. Impact analyses serve to
rationalize the public purpose to preserve environmentally
sensitive lands and the private purpose to make reasonable
beneficial use of land.
Mitigative measures also include financial techniques and
incentives to reduce adverse impacts. Financial techniques
include the public acquisition by fee-simple purchase, purchase
of development rights or purchase of easement3 to historic and
archaeological sites and unique agricultural and
environmentally sensitive lands. In certain cases, the public
might acquire the development rights to prime agricultural land
where a TDR plan is not useful. With the purchase of
development rights or aasements, ownership of the property
remains in the private sector and on the roles.
Incentives can be provided to the public sector to encourage
tne voluntary protection of unique agricultural and
environmentally sensitive lands. Incentives may accomplish the
protection objectives without placing substantial costs on
either the property owner or the local government. Incentives
include tax relief and increased flexibility in site
development, such as clustering, density transfer and density
bonuses.
The most common form of tax relief is preferentially assessing
agricultural land. This technique relieves some of the
development pressure felt by the farmers who own land along the
urban fringe, even though the tax advantage afforded
agricultural land may be marginal. Further tax incentives are
available under S704.06, F.S., which encourages the donation or
sale of conservation easements. Conservation easements are
perpetual interests intended to retain land and water areas in
their natural, scenic, open or wooded condition to serve as
suitable habitat for fish, plants, or wildlife. The sale of
conservation easements is more attractive to the landowner than
dedication of such easements. The tax advantages associated
with conservation easements may be marginal when compared to
the sale price of developable land.
-------
111-58
The federal income tax laws encourage individuals and
corporations to donate private resources to public use. Tax
benefits are attainable through the long-terra capital gains and
charitable donation provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.
3y properly managing long-term capital gains and charitable
donations, taxable income can be substantially reduced.
An out-right conveyance in fee-simple usually provides the
greatest tax benefit to the donor. Restrictions on future use
and management may be included in the deed of transfer. The
retention of a life estate as part of an outright donation of
land permits the donor to retain the right to live on the
property for the rest of his life. If the donor reserves a
life estate and the property is a personal residence or a farm,
the value of the gift is discounted by the computed value of
his life estate. Testamentary gifts, wills, and living trusts
are methods by which a donor's wishes for use of the land can
be carried out after his death. A donor's intent to protect
the property nay be accomplished through restrictions placed in
the deed of transfer. Restrictions reflect the retention of
certain rights and may decrease the fair market value of the
transferred property.
A sale-and-leaseback arrangement involves the acquisition of
land by purchase or gift and the subsequent leasing of the land
to the grantor for a specific purpose. A bargain sale, which
is a combination of selling and donating, or selling for less
than full market value, can provide a federal income tax
deduction equal to the difference between full market value and
the actual selling price and may allow for a reduction in
federal capital gains tax.
Mitigative Measures Reflated to the
ProvisTon of Cqnunuhity^ Services and Facilities
A development timing ordinance postpones the issuance of
development permits until an area is adequately served by
public facilities and services. Tied to a public capital
improvements program, development proceeds in a logical pattern
of phased growth. Applied to the unincorporated portion of the
Planning Area, a development timing ordinance channels growth
into those areas which are prepared for development.
-------
111-59
Ramapo's (New York) development timing ordinance is the model.
The Ramapo ordinance requires developers to apply for a
"special use permit". The issuance of a "special use permit",
authorizing residential development, is contingent upon the
proposed development satisfying a fifteen (15) "development
point" requirement. Development points are calculated and
awarded on a sliding scale from zero (0) to five (5). The
closer the development site is to the following public
facilities and services, the higher the number of points
awarded:
1. Public sewers or approved substitutes,
2. Drainage way,
3. Improved public park or recreational facilities,
including public school sites,
4. State, county, or town roads improved with curbs and
sidewalks, and
5. Fire houses.
The ordinance further provides for a public capital
improvements program to be completed within a maximum of
eighteen (18) years. Developers may accelerate the permitting
of their site by providing the requisite facilities and
services themselves. The Rarnapo plan has received judicial
approval from the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court
in the state.
Local government authority to deny access to public facilities
to control growth is unsettled in Florida. Alternatives 3, 7,
8, and 10 would deny service to Subbasins F and I and to unique
agricultural lands. The Local Government Comprehensive
Planning Act requires local governments to establish and
iroplement a comprehensive planning program to guide and control
future development. A development timing ordinance may be a
permissible means of implementing a growth control plan.
Holding zones are barriers to intensive residential
development. Agricultural zoning and large-lot zoning are
means of establishing holding zones. Both types of zoning
create low-density residential patterns of development,
generally single-family homes on lots ranging from a minimum of
one (1) to six (6) or more acres. Establishing holding zones
reduces the rate at which agriculturally and environmentally
sensitive lands are converted to mors intensive uses.
-------
111-60
It is taost important that, once a Comprehensive Planning
Program is in effect, the local governing body be consistent in
the administration of its provisions. Community facilities and
capital budgeting plans can never be effective if the timing
and density of development is allowed to change because of
development pressures. A local government in a high growth
area which does not implement a development strategy keyed to
its ability to provide needed facilities and services for this
growth may have to force its citizens to bear the burden of
ever-increasing taxes in an attempt to alleviate overcrowded
facilities.
Implementation of mitigative measures may be limited by the
legal doctrines of vested rights, equitable estoppel, and the
"taking" issue. The doctrine of vested rights derives from
provisions of the United States and the Florida Constitutions.
It focuses upon whether a contemplated use has "ripened" into a
property right. A property right cannot be destroyed or
iinpaired by subsequently enacted land management regulations
without due process of law.
The doctrine of equitable estoppel was incorporated as part of
the jurisprudence of the United States and of the State of
Florida. iSquitable estoppel is raised as a defense to the
application of land management regulations. To establish the
defense, the developer must demonstrate that by relying in good
faith or upon some act or omission of the government he has
m?ide such a substantial change in position or incurred such
extensive obligations that it would be highly unjust to destroy
the right he has acquired.
Thesa doctrines may be invoked in an effort to defeat a land
management program or the application of mitigative measures to
a particular parcel of land. To protect a land management
sys'tem from legal attack, it is important to clearly define the
public purpose to be served; to carefully relate land
management techniques to the public purpose; to continually
refine the guidelines and standards for implementing the
techniques. It is also important to base land use decisions
upon competent data and to avoid legal contests by
internalizing conflict within local administrative procedures.
For instance, a vested rights determination should first be
made by the local government at the administrative level rather
than the judiciary. Local administrative processes should be
established to attempt to resolve the issues without litigation.
-------
111-61
Mi t i ga t i ve Meas u_r e_s _Re^lj^ted to the Bis cayne Aqu .if er
The implementation of Alternative 8 would lead to the increased
discharge of treated wastewater to the Biscayne Aquifer. A
continuing monitoring program would be required to determine
any future need for further action.
Increased growth and development will occur whichever
alternative is selected. This will lead to increased non-point
sources urban infiltration to the Aquifer. Implementation of
runoff controls presented in the Palm Beach County 208 Plan
would be effective in mitigating these impacts.
Mi t i g_a tive Measures^ ^Related to
The continued increasing demand on the areas drinking water
resources has led to awareness in the area of the need for
conservation. The installation of water saving devices for the
home should be a top priority. Reuse of wastewater has been a
part of several alternatives in this EIS. Some of these
measures, such as spray irrigation within the City of Boca
Raton and dual water systems, which are not now cost effective
may become more viable in the years to come. Backpumping to
the conservation area may also be a future possibility.
M^tiqative Measures Jle 1 a ted _to J2.QI Fac i 1 i ty Cons t ruction
The impacts of noise will be noticeable only during
construction activities. Long-term impacts of noise will be
associated with treatment plant and pump station operation but
should be minimal. Construction impacts can be mitigated by:
1. Requiring sound control devices on construction
equipment.
2. Limiting construction acitivities to normal business
hours .
The major soil impact will be through soil erosion during
construction. This impact can be reduced by:
1. Limiting the size of the pipeline corridor to the
minimal possible areas of disturbance.
2. Prepare and strictly enforce construction plans which
require the rapid stabilization and revegetation of
construction areas.
-------
III-6?
3. Institute best management controls in order to reduce
the amount of non—point runoff from construction sites.
There is a potential that undetected archaeological and/or
historical resources could be present within areas of planned
construction. Construction of pipelines could ruin the value
of these resources. In order to mitigate or avoid any adverse
impacts to historic and archaeological resources, a qualified
archaeologist should perform a standard archaeological and
historic sites survey prior to construction, if requested by
the State Historic Preservation Officer and State Archaeologist.
A vegetative survey of all planned construction areas can help
mitigate impacts to unique vegetative communities. This is a
standard procedure in 201 projects.
-------
-------
CHAPTER IV - DESCRIPTION OF TKL PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The underlying theme of this EIS is that the selection of a
wastewater management program for the Southern Region of Palm
Beach County should be compatible with the protection of the
area's sensitive resources, particularly the unique
agricultural land ana the Biscayne Aquifer recognizing the
extensive development pressure on this area.
In light of the impacts of growth ana development in the
Planning Area ana the demonstrated lack of existing water
quality problems, EPA has selected a modification or no Federal
action as the preterred alternative. This approach as shown in
Figure 11-13 is described below.
EPA woulo fund the expansion of the Glades Road Facility to
17.5 MGD to serve subbasin A. Treatment at Glades Road would
consist of secondary treatment using activated sludge.
Disposal of wastewater would be by ocean outfall. Flow
equalization of treated effluent would be employed at Glades
Road in this alternative. A more detailed description of this
alternative can be touno in the 201 Plan. Present worth cost
would be approximately $13.2 million.
EPA would not funa the provision of any wastewater facilities
in the Palm beach County portion of the Planning Area. Under
this alternative, it is expected that the existing facilities
will continue to be utilized and expanded with 100% local
funding in the future.
The three County plants woula probably remain in service until
their capacities were reached between 1988 ana 1990. These
plants coulo then be expanded to 6 MGD each at the Sandalfoot
ana American Homes anc .7 at Pheasant Walk with discharge to
percolation ponds or to the City's ocean outfall. A third
alternative tor the County woula be pumping all wastewater to
the Glaaes Roac Plant for treatment ano disposal. An agreement
would nave to be reached between the City and County concerning
the appropriate option for implementation. Approximate cost of
County action under any of these options woula be $21 million.
-------
1V-2
As fart of this EIS, EPA initiated a more detailed monitoring
program to determine the impact ot the percolation ponas on the
Biscayne Aquiter. The results ot this sampling program are
presented in Appendix A in this Final EIS.
Florida DER and the Palm Beach County Health Department will
continue their monitoring programs at the percolation ponds and
water supply wells in the future. If a buildup of nitrate
levels becomes evident, an alternative form ot wastewater
disposal such as Boca Raton's ocean outfall, may become
necessary. In this eventuality, Federal funding may be
available to the County.
The tlb analysis has found two sludge disposal alternatives to
be cost-eftective and environmentally souno. One of these
involves the co-disposal ot sludge ana refuse and would take
place in modular combustion units. Steam generated from the
co-disposal process would be recovered to produce electric
power and to heat condition sludge. Ath and residual from the
MCU's woulc be landfilled or used as subbase for bicycle paths
throuynout the City as part of a resource recovery process.
The second alternative involves using centrifuge or belt filter
press oewatering followed by landtilling at an approved Palm
Beach County facility. The final selection will be made in the
Final 201 Plan.
-------
-------
CHAPTER V - CHANGES TO THE DRAFT
Two major additional pieces of information have been developed
since publication of the Draft EIS. The first involves an
analysis of alternatives for sludge treatment and disposal
which has been completed by the 201 Consultant, Camp, Dresser
and McKee. This analysis identifies two alternatives,
land-filling and co-disposal, as cost effective and
environmentally suitable. The complete development and
evaluation of sludge management alternatives is presented in
Part I of Chapter II.
The second major addition is the completion of the sampling
report on the effects of the existing percolation ponds. The
Plan of Study for this sampling program was presented in the
Draft EIS. Because of the extremely small flow at the Pheasant
Walk Percolation Pond, that facility was excluded from the
sampling program. The results of the sampling program at the
Sandalfoot Cove wastewater treatment plant indicate that there
are no significant water quality problems related to the
operation of this facility. The complete results of the
sampling program are presented in Appendix A of this Final EIS.
A small number of corrections have also been made to the
content of the Draft EIS as a result of the written comments
received. These comments and the appropriate responses are
presented in Chapter VI.
None of the additional information which has been generated
since publication of the Draft EIS affects the selection
process for the preferred alternative. In fact, the results of
the sampling report reinforce EPA's previous conclusion that
the percolation ponds are having no adverse impacts upon water
quality.
-------
-------
CHAPTER VI - EIS COORDINATION
Part A: Introduction
Public participation is an important part of the EIS process.
It provides for active public involvement beginning with the
development of the EIS Plan of Study and continuing throughout
the process to the actual publication of the Final EIS. In the
Southern Region EIS, this process inducted coordination with
local, regional, state, and federal agencies; the establishment
of a Technical Advisory Committee; a Public Scoping Meeting;
establishment of an Environmental Review Comittee; a public
meeting on the alternatives; and a public hearing on the Draft
EIS.
Part B; Coordination With Local, Regional, State,
and Federal Agencies
Throughout the EIS process, many agencies were involved in the
review of all interim outputs and the compilation of needed
data. Most of this input was generated by the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAG) . This Committee met periodically
throughout the study and provided input into such matters as
implementability of the alternatives, environmental impacts of
the existing outfall and percolation ponds, and the adequacy of
the existing water supply for the projected population. Table
VI-1 identifies the members of the TAG.
-------
VI-2
TABLE VI-1
MEMBERSHIP LIST
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAG)
Robert E. George
Department of Commmunity Development
City of Boca Raton
Arthur G. Turner, Jr.
Richard D. Stalker
Palm Beach County Area Planning Board
Harry King
Palm Beach County Planning, Building & Zoning Department
James Stallings
Public Utilities Department
City of Boca Raton
Norman Cortese
Arvida Corporation
Richard Gregg and Steve Reel
South Florida Water Management District
Warren Strahm and Herbert Zebuth
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
-------
Vl-3
Part C; Public Participation Program
Public Scoping Meeting
A public scoping meeting was held in Boca Raton on October 19,
1978 to explain the EIS process and discuss with the public the
major issues which should be addressed in the EIS. The major
issues raised by the public concerned the effects of providing
wastewater facilities on growth and development and the pros
and cons of various means of wastewater treatment and disposal.
Environmental Review Committee
The establishment ot an Environmental Review Committee (ERC)
was an important aspect of the Southern Region EIS public
participation program. The ERC was formed with the express
purpose of focusing the attention of local residents and public
agencies on the EIS. The Committee consisted of 18 members and
was representative of a cross-section of local interests. See
Table VI-2 for a list of the ERC members. Each member of the
group was asked to review and comment on all study materials,
as well as to offer any other input during the course of the
study. Several Committee Meetings were held throughout the
s tudy.
The first meeting of the ERC was held on March 22, 1979. The
major purposes of this meeting were to explain the role of the
Committee in conducting the EIS and discuss the Plan of Study.
There were no objections offered by the ERC members to the
orientation of the EIS.
The next ERC meeting was held on August 1, 1979. The purpose
of this meeting was to discuss the Draft Baseline Environment
Task Report which had been distributed in early July. A
videotape summary of the report was presented. Questions were
raised concerning the approved 208 population projections and
the eftect of the EIS in controlling development in the
Planning Area. It was explained that EPA has no authority or
desire to control growth and development. This is the job of
the local governments in the area. Several additional
questions were raised concerning the alternatives to be
considered for wastewater treatment and disposal. This issue
was to be the major topic of the next few meetings.
-------
MEMBERSHIP LT-F
EIS REVIEW COMMITTEE
Mr. William E. Bowman, Jr.
Vice President, Palm Beach County
Farm Bureau
Route 1, Box c97
f)elray Beach, FL 33445
305/499-3305
ALTERNATE:
Mr. Robert A. Hutzler
Palm Beach County Farm Bureau
I'. 0. Box 3B9
Del ray Beach, FL 33444
J05/391-4800
Mr. Norman Cortese
Vice President, Arvida Corporation
998 South Federal Highway
lioca Raton, FL 33431
305/395-2000
Mr. Myron Oarmohray
Chairman, Environmental Development &
Zoning Board. City of Boca Raton
Z01 West Palmetto Park Road
Boca Raton, FL 33432
305/395-4144
Mr. F. A. Garrity
Citizens for Reasonable Growth
7/7 S.W. 7th Street
Boca Raton, FL 33432
3;b/J91-0845
Mr Pochard Grimes
Mc,-iber, Boca Raton Board of Realtors
Florida Vantage, Inc.
•1295 N.W. First Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33432
305/391-9900
ALTERNATE:
Mr. James Firley
Member, Boca Raton Board of Realtors
2?? S.E. First Avenue
Boca Raton, FL ^3432
Mrs. Homer Gwinn
Member, Boca Raton Garden Club
17/4 N.E. Second Court
Uoca Raton, FL 33431
j05/39"5-0934
Ms. -Judith G. Hanley
Member, Florida Atlantic Builders
Association
Costain Florida, Inc.
181 N. Crawford Boulevard
Boca Raton, FL 33432
305/368-7510 "
Ms. Suzanne Hunter
Environmental Control Officer, Palm Beach
County Health Department
901 Evernia Street
West Palm Beach, FL 33409
305/837-3136
Mr. Carey Lockman (Interim)
Palm Beach County School Board
3323 Belvedere Road
West Palm Beach. FL 33406
305/683-0050
Dr. Alex Marsh
Department of Biological Sciences
Florida Atlanta University
Boca Raton, FL 33432
305/395-5100
Mr. A. H. liattson
Chairman, Water & Sewer Committee
Federation of Boca Raton Homeowners Assn,
570 N.L. Golden harbour Drive
Boca Raton, FL 33432
305/395-7367
Mr. Warren Newell
Boca Associates, Inc.
7000 W. Camino Real Road, Suite 240
Boca Raton, FL 33433
305/391-8300
Mrs. Constance Nunnally
League of Women Voters of South Palm
Beach County
1599 SW 7th Terrace
Boca Raton, FL 33432
305/368-G753 or 482-7200
-------
Mr. Alan Parmalee
President, Royal Palm Audubon Society
4765 N.W. Sixth Court
Del ray Beach, FL 33445
30b/272-0996 or 832-7454
Mr. John A. Pollock
Manager, Facilities Engineering &
Maintenance, IBM, Dept. 71A
P. 0. Box 1328
Boca Raton, FL 3343?
305/994-3303
ALTERNATE:
Mr* James F. Armater
Manager, Facilities Services, IBM
P. 0. Box 1323
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Ms. Vickie Prinz
Field Representative, Florida
Wildlife Federation
4U80 N. Haverliill Road
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
305/683-2328
ALTERNATE:
Mr. Pete Aldrich
Administration Aide, Florida
Wildlife Federation
4080 N. Kaverhill Road
West Palm Beach, FL 33407
305/683-2328
Members
Mr. Robert Cooper
EPA Project Officer
EIS Branch Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
404/881-7458
Mr. Charles D. Cashman
Administrator, Utilities Services
Department, Palm Beach County
P. 0. Box 16097
West Palm Beach, FL 33406
305/686-3813
Mr. J. Scott Benyon
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
P. 0. Box 3858
West Palm Beach, FL 33402
305/689-5800
Mr. Larry 6. SI ayback
201/EIS Coordinator
201 W. Palmetto Park Road
Boca Raton, FL 33432
305/395-1110 or 392-5342
Mr. J. (Lyn) Stevens
Greater Boca Raton Chamber of Commerce
Stevens Corporation
156 N.W.16th Street
Boca Raton, FL 33432
305/392-3263
Mr. Richard L. Wolf
Environmental Control Officer, Inspection
Division, Public Service Department
690 Kingsbridge Street. Apt. 8
Boca Raton. FL 33431
305/395-1110 X230
-------
VI-6
The third meeting of the ERC was held on September 12, 1979 to
discuss the 201 Consultant's Alternatives Development Report.
This report emphasized alternatives using the existing ocean
outfall for disposal of wastewater. Numerous questions were
raised at the meeting concerning the lack of detail explaining
the conclusions of the report and the lack of consideration of
more innovative means of wastewater disposal. Due to these
concerns, two additional meetings were held with the ERC to
discuss the development of alternatives. On September 19, 1979
the 201 consultant presented more details concerning his
alternatives development work.
In response to the outcome of the two previous ERC meetings, a
meeting of the ERC was scheduled by EPA on October 31, 1979 to
describe the final list of alternatives selected for detailed
evaluation. EPA expanded the list originally submitted by the
201 consultant to include alternatives involving the use of
land application of wastewater for ultimate disposal. In
addition, an expanded scope for the environmental evaluation of
alternatives was discussed.
Two ERC meetings were held to discuss the detailed evaluation
of alternatives. On April 30, 1980 the 201 Consultant's
Evaluation Report was discussed; and on May 7, 1980 the EIS
Consultant's Evaluation Report was considered. Both meetings
produced wide-ranging discussions concerning the projected
impacts of the alternatives.
Public Meeting on Alternatives
A public meeting was held on May 15, 1980 to receive public
reaction to the proposed wastewater management system
alternatives. Presentations were made by both consultants
summarizing their work to date with emphasis on the detailed
evaluation of alternatives. Comments from the public centered
on the potential adverse impacts of population growth upon
community services and facilities, particularly water supply;
Palm Beach County Land Use Policy; and potential impacts of the
ocean outfall.
Public Hearing on the Draft EIS
A public hearing was held on November 17, 1981 to receive
public reaction to the Draft EIS. Comments from the public
were favorable to the proposed action selected in the Draft
EIS. The transcript of the public hearing is presented in Part
E of this chapter. Part F presents responses to comments made
at the public hearing as well as responses to the written
comments received on the Draft EIS which are presented in Part
D. The comments which are answered in Part F are numbered in
the right hand margins of Parts D and E.
-------
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
George Firestone
Sri rrtdp* ot Stdtr
November 3, 1981
In reply refer to:
Mr. Louis Tesar
Historic Sites Specialist
(904)487-2333
Mr. John E. Hagan, in. P.E.
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, Northeast
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Re: Cultural Resource Assessment Request
Draft EIS, Selected Alternative for Southern Region
Palm Beach County Area 201, Florida
SAT FL8110280534E
Dear Sir:
In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 C F R
Part 800 ("Procedures for the Protection of Historic and*
Cultural Properties"), we have reviewed the above referenced
project for possible impact to archaeological and historical
sites or properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the
National Register of Historic Places. The authorities for
these procedures are the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 (Public Law 89-665) as amended by P.L. 91-243 P L
93-54, P.L. 94-422, P.L. 94-458, and P.L. 96-515 and Presiden-
tial Executive Order 11593 ("Protection and Enhancement of the
Cultural Environment").
A review of the Florida Master Site File indicates that
no archaeological or historical sites are recorded for the
project area. Furthermore, because of the location of the
project, it is considered hiqhly unlikely that any significant,
unrecorded sites exist in the vicinity. Therefore, it is the
opinion of this office that the proposed project will have no
effect on any sites listed, or eligible for listing, in the
National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of national,
state or local significance.
FUORIDA-State of the Arts
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
November 3, 1981
Page Two
On behalf of Secretary of State George Firestone, thank you
for your interest and cooperation in the protection of Florida's
irreplaceable historic resources.
Sincejrely, /
/•'/ —, - ' ^'
.
George Wv Percy //
Deputy State Historic /.
Preservation Officer
GWPrTeh
cc: Ron Fahs
tffi-f. •••••.;• ... v .^f.;CF JTATtWENT
j^; NOV091981 i
O)T» -r.1 — 'T"'TfT- . T~1
JlELJLtsU U Lbliy
KF.OION IV LPA
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
Southeast Region / Suite 1384
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W. / Atlanta, Ga. 30303
ER-81/2000 November 24, 1981
Mr. John E. Hagan, III, P.E.
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Court!and Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Sir:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for Wastewater
Facilities, Southern Region Area, Palm Beach County, Florida, and have
the following comments.
General Comments
The proposed project will not adversely affect any existing, proposed,
or known potential units of the National Park System, or any local
recreation areas of our mandated interest or jurisdiction.
Also, we find that it adequately describes the potential direct and
indirect effects of the proposed wastewater facilities on fish and
wildlife resources. Examination of our records indicates no impact on
the mineral industry will occur should the recommended plan be imple-
mented. However, for completeness, we suggest a summary of the mineral
resources of the area be included in the report. Limestone, sand, and
gravel resources occur near the proposed facility. Possible restric-
tions on future mineral exploration and development that may arise due
to project implementation should also be addressed.
Specific Comments .
Page III - 31. paragraph 6
The first sentence of paragraph 6 states that "Construction activities
associated with wastewater treatment facilities and with projected
growth and development may destroy historical and archeological re-
sources unless appropriate precautions are taken.' These precautions
-------
should include continued consultation with the State Historic Pres-
ervation Officer (documented in the final environmental statement) to
prevent or minimize adverse impacts. In the event of emergency dis-
covery of cultural resources during construction, the Secretary of the
Interior should be notified through the Departmental Consulting Arche-
ologist, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 20240 (telephone
202/272-3750).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this statement.
Sincerely,
James H. Lee
Regional Environmental Officer
/;'/ —
uLlLsHv;
• .' i.
_ '•"(
j;
-------
United Slates
Department of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
P. 0. Box 1208
Gainesville, FL
32602
subject: [,;vx - Draft Environmental Impact Statements
Date: November 13, 1981
TO: John E. Hagan III, P. E.
Chief, EIS Branch
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
File Code:
We have no comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on proposed
Wastewater Facilities for Boca Raton, Florida.
frames W. Mitchell
State Conservationist
cc: Norman Berg, National Office
• t :>4
The Sol Conservation Service
* *n agency ot the
Department of Agriculture
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service
Centers for Disease Control
Atlanta. Georgia 30333
(404) 262-6649
November 19, 1981
John E. Hagan, III, F.E.
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Hagan:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Wastewater
Facilities, Southern Region, Palm Beach County, Florida. We are responding on
behalf of the Public Health Service.
It is our understanding that although sludge treatment and management are
not discussed in the Draft EIS, the Final EIS will address this issue. We
also understand that EPA is initiating a more detailed monitoring plan to 3
determine the impacts of the percolation ponds on the Biscayne Aquifer and
that these study results will also be presented in the Final EIS.
Implementation of the preferred alternative, Alternative 8, will lead to
increased discharge of treated wastewater to the Biscayne Aquifer and a con-
tinued monitoring program will be required. The Final EIS should describe the
monitoring program that will be followed to determine future need for further
action.
Since some of the area that is affected by this project is farmland, the Final
EIS should state whether or not the project conforms to the Council on Environ-
mental Quality's and the Department of Agriculture's joint memorandum of
August 30, 1976, concerning the effect of the project on prime and unique
farmland.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS. Please
send us a copy of the Final EIS when it becomes available. If you should
have any questions about our comments, please contact Mr. Lee Tate of my
staff at 262-6649.
Sincerely yours,
Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D.
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division
Center for Environmental Health T1TCU
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEi
BRANCH
NOV 2 0 1981
TTEl
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
REGIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER, EASTERN REGION (HQ AFESC)
526 TITLE BUILDING. 3O PRVOR STREET. S.W.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303O3
BEPUV TO
»TTM OF:
ROV2
30 September 1981
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) - Wastewater Facilities,
Southern Region Area, Palm Beach County, Florida
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Attn: Mr. John E. Hagan, III, P.E.
Chief, EIS Branch
3^5 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georp-ia 30365
1. We have reviewed the subject DEIS and find that development of the
proposed project will not impact Air Force operations in Florida.
2. Thank you for the opportunity to review this DEIS. Our point of
contact is Mr. Winfred G. Dodson, telephone number 221-6821/6776/5313.
Cy to: USAF/LEEV
THOMAS D. SIMS
Chief
Invironmental Planning Division
ENVlRCNMfM.li ,
-------
FEDERATION OF BOCA RATON
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS
TTT „ ra November 29, 1981
Mr. JohnB. Hagan III, P.E.
Chief, BIS Branch
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
404/881-7458
Dear Mr. Hagan:
This is to clarify our oral comments at the November 17, 1981, hearing
on the Draft BIS for the Wastewater Facilities for the Southern Region
Area of Palm Beach County, speaking on behalf of the Water & Sewer Com-
mittee of the Federation of Boca Raton Homeowner Associations.
Alternatives 2, 5, and 9, as described on pp. iii, iv, & v are imprac-
tical because of the costs, compared to the limited benefits of "nseful"
water which would be such a trivial fraction of the area's rainfall.
e.g., 29 ogd of canal water, available almost everywhere, could be fil-
tered and used for irrigation much less expensively, and with less pub-
lic apprehension.
Alternative 10, page v, is undoubtedly best for the long-range welfare
of South County residents, as well as least costly to them, but it is
also completely impractical. There is no indication whatsoever that
much of the "unique agricultural lands" will not continue to be aoned
for housing, at densities so high that individual septic systems will
neither be safe nor practical. Moreover, it would result in the County
abendoniiig its $20,000,000 investment in S. Palm Beach Utilities Co.,
wtich will happen the day after the second coming.
The latter problem rules ou* Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 7, also.
Thus, only Alternative 6 and 8, pp. iv & v, really need be considered
further. 8 must actually be considered as 8a, 8b, & 8c. These are
8a: enlarged existing plants with ponds for the western plants;
8b: enlarged existing plants with discharge through Boca Raton's outflall;
8c- "pumping all wastewater to the Glades Road Plant for treatment and
disposal" sounds just like Alternative 1, but deferred until about 1988.
8c is out, like 1, since the County won't abandon its plant. 8b and 6
differ only in that 6 abandons the Pheasant Walk plant, while 8b re-
tains it.
The remaining Alternatives, namely 6, 8a, and 8b, all leave no real
choice but that Boca must expand its own treatment capacity from about
10 mgd to about 17 mgd, within a few years. Despite the hope of par-
tial federal financing, it would probably end up to be most economical
and expeditious if the City "goes it alone" on this effort, particularly
because of the uncertainly of federal funding as to both amount and
timing. It's most doubtful if the City can afford to wait scarcely at
all, before starting engineering drawings.
-------
federation Comments on his Draft - Page 2
In the absence of County iniatives to provide "implementability" as
noted on pp. vii and viii, it just has to be Alternative 8a for the
moment. After that, the increased use of Boca's outfall, namely, im-
plementing Alternative 6 or 8b, should depend on whether the County will
pay for outfall enlargement or "cushioning" with holding ponds if
necessary, and pay a fee commensurate with the value of the outfall in
reducing the cost of County treatment.
*****
Col. Paul VanThielen, Second Vice-Chairmcm of the federation, has pointed
out that under some weather conditions, and perhaps coupled with de-
ficient plant operation, the outfall has a visible and odoriferous im-
pact on nearby beaches.
*****
Finally, Mr. i\ A. karrity, First Vice-Chairman of the Federation, poses
the following additional questions:
An important statement occurs on page 33, Technical Reference Document II
Alternatives Analysis, April 1900, "The conversion (Waste water treatment
plants to waste water pump stations) will lessen; the impacts of these
facilities on surrounding land uses because the minimal amount of noise
and odor that typically emanates from such facilities will be decreased
as a result cf conversion." Are we to assume that the collective noises
and. otior:: of th« Sandalfoot Cove, American Homes-Century Village, and
Pheasant Walk treatment plants v/ould be concentrated at the City's
Glades Read treatment plant which would bf necessity be expanded to
triple its current capacity and would in addition require two (2) eight
million gallon raw sewage holding tanks?
No guarantee to the City of Boca Raton appears in any of the alternatives
that "cost effectiveness" vital to the unincorporated areas unserved by
the City's Waste -uis^osul System will not take precedence over Boca
Raton's increasingly j.nrcacted esthetic qualities, odor-noise pollution,
lessened property values and other local environmental qualities. Does
such a ^uarantee exist or is one envisioned? Explain please.
The two (2) rav: sewage holding tanks witn a total capacity of 16 MG re-
quired for alternatives 1,2,3,4,7,9 & 10 and one (1) 6 MG required for
alternatives 5 and 6 woulo. occupy considerable space on the currently (
limited Glades Road plant property. Are provisions contemplated to
acquire additional property in this area? At whose expense? How will
the deleterious effect on surrounding property values from unattractive
holding tanks and objectionable noise/odor problems be overcome?
Sludge disposal is already a serious and expensive problem, please out-
line the proposals for disposal of the increased volume and how said
disposal will be financed.
-------
Federation Comments on EIS Draft - Page 3
Since the proposed raw sewage force mains from the west of the turnpike
ar^ sized at 30" (Page 11-22, 3.I.S. Draft, September 1981) to handle
the anticipated western flow, how can the 30" portion of the City's
ocean outfall under the Intracoastal be expected to accomodate the
western flow, the additional Pheasant Walk flow as well as the increas-
ing demands from Boca Raton's current service area?
Most of the alternatives listed require the Boca Raton ocean outfall to
ac?omodate double or triple volume of treated effluent what current or
anticipated plans have been made to protect marine life in the vicinity
of the end of the outfall and/or the possibility of pollution to Boca
Raton's beaches?
ncerely yours,
Jbltn Gilroy.MJhairmsi
Water & Sewer Committee
JG/lhg
BRANCH
DFC03 1981
RtGlON IV - tPA
-------
<&,<,£&
ff '
C|TY HALL • 20J WEST PALMETTO PARK ROAD • BOCA R ATOM ,FLOR I D A 33432 • PHONE: (305) 39S-1 I 10
November 25, 1981
Mr. Robert Cooper
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
E.I.S. Division
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Re: Draft "Environmental Impact Statement, Wastewater Facilities, Southern
Region Area, Palm Beach County, Florida, September 1981"
Dear Mr. Cooper:
The following comments of the staff of Boca Raton concern typographical and
geographical errors only. Many of the statistics on this "Draft" are from 1978
and 1979. Wherever possible, these statistics should be updated to available
1981 data.
Figure 1
- Very poor quality, can hardly read the street names
- Lake Rodgers should be LAKE ROGERS
Figure II-l Legend for "Boca Raton Service Area" is missing the cross-
hatching
Figure II-l There are two Figure II-l in this draft report. The second
one should be Figure II-2
Page 1-1
Paragraph 2, line 7, preformed should be PERFORMED
Paragraph 2, line 9, comma after Boca Raton _,_
Page III-l
Population - Paragraph 3, this information needs to be updated if
possible
Page 111-6
Paragraph 1 - update to 1981 the information regarding number of
dwelling units
Paragraph 3 - last sentence - repeats information provided in last
sentence of paragraph 1
Paragraph4 - update 1978 housing prices to 1981 housing prices
Page III-9
Paragraph 5, sentences 2 and 3 should be eliminated as it refers to the
dwelling unit limit that was declared illegal by the courts
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
Mr. Robert Cooper (continued)
Page 111-10
Paragraph 1, update information regarding shopping center under construc
tion. The Town Center has been completed.
Page 111-13
Paragraph 4, update information regarding fire insurance rating
Page 111-15
Paragraph 1, update information regarding number of sanitation workers
Page 111-16
Taxes and Budgeting
Paragraph 2, update this information if possible
Figure 1 1 1-9
- Very poor quality, can hardly read the letters
-ft) is in wrong location - should be East of 441
Table III - 3 Summary of Selected Impacts
Hospital beds for 1980 is 1,047 but for the year 2000, it states 1,030,
a 17 bed decrease. Is this an error?
Page III - 48
Last paragraph, first sentence, is an incomplete sentence
Page III - 55
Last paragraph, "Implementation" is spelled erroneously
Page V - 3
Citizens Review Committee should be updated to Environmental Review
Committee and
Table V-ll refers to it as "EIS Review Committee". This inconsistency
should be rectified.
Page V-6
Paragraph 4, sentence 2, "both by" should be "by both"
If you have any questions or need clarification on any of the above-referenced
comments, please call me at (305) 393-7790.
Sincerely,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Jesse^W. Moore, Director
c ,,,.,,
EN,!#j\MrfJ''V . IMiv
Vicky. Newson
Project Planner/Coordinator
ft DFO03 1981 l\l
. .
VLNtVS RCGIGN IV - EPA
vs
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
ffiffo of (itterwir
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE 323O1
BOB GRAHAM. December 11, 1981
GOVERNOR
Mr. John E. Hagan, III, P.E.
Chief, EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, Northeast
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Hagan:
In reference to your Draft Environmental Impact Statement
related to Wastewater Facilities Southern Region Area, Palm
Beach County, Florida, SAI #FL811028Q534E, please be advised
that of this date we have not received any substantive comments
from the reviewing agencies. If we receive any comments from
the agencies concerning this document we will advise you
immediately.
Thank you very much.
Walter O. Kolb
Sr. Governmental Analyst
WOK/jkc
cc: Mr. John Outland
Mr. Art Wilde
Mr. Louis Tesar
Mr. Dwynal Pettengill
Mr. Leonard Elzie
Mr. Brad Hartman
Mr. Hugh Boyter
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
South Florida Water Managment Dist.
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
BOB GRAHAM
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING /&^-^~*-^& GOVERNOR
2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD ff'^^-^^^^. VICTORIA J TSfHINKFI
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 323O1 /£, =^^- )\fc\ 8EWIETAHY
November 20, 1981
Mr. John E. Hagan, III, P.E.
Chief, EIS Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Re: Cl20635010 (Step 1) - Boca Raton
South Palm Beach County - Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Hagan:
The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) has reviewed and offers the
following comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement:
1. Selection of the modified Alternative 8 is justified. We agree with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) stance of not funding facil-
ities which would tend to promote rapid growth and development in environ-
mentally sensitive areas, in areas of unique agricultural land, and in areas
that would result in unacceptable stress being placed on other community
services.
2. Land application should be encouraged on a cost-effective basis at all
plants in the Southern Region as water conservation/recycling methods.
Considering the water supply problems South Florida is experiencing, it
would appear prudent to find an appropriate means of recycling or reuse
of this highly treated effluent; however, recycling or reuse may not be
the most cost-effective means of disposal. If percolation ponds are shown
not to be degrading the Biscayne Aquifer, then continued and additional
usage of this effluent disposal method appears to be in line with the goals
of recycling. The DER suggests that the community consider the possibility
of developing a series of rapid infiltration ponds in lieu of the eight-
mi 11 ion-gallon flow equalization tank in order to possibly reduce the surface
water discharge while maximizing ground water recharge. Similar systems
should also be considered at other plants if flow equalization becomes
necessary as part of future effluent disposal alternatives. The rapid
infiltration ponds could be designed as to also serve the purposes of a
flow equalization basin. A monitoring program in accord with Chapter 17-6,
Florida Administrative Code, (F.A.C.) will be necessary.
3. In order to lessen concern over implementability, a firm allocation of the
Glades Road Ocean Outfall capacity should be obtained from Boca Raton. This
allocation should reserve capacity for the other plants in the Southern
Region 201 Area to discharge effluent.
Protecting Florida and Your Quality of Life
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III, P.E.
November 20, 1981
Page Two
4. The coagulation-filtration-chlorination capability, as indicated, should
provide the pathogen- free effluent required by Chapter 17-6, F.A.C., for
application to areas of public access. This, or other processes of like
capability, should be added to all treatment trains designed to supply
effluent for spray irrigation on land with public access (golf courses,
parks, etc.)
5. An investigation of the fate and movement of viruses after discharge to
percolation ponds should be added to the EPA study of the effects of
effluent on the Biscayne Aquifer (if not already included). Details
such as placement of the monitoring wells, well depth and construction
should also be included. The DER would appreciate receiving a copy of
the specific details of the EPA sampling program when it becomes avail-
able.
Please do not hesitate to call David H. Scott at 904/488-2582 if you have any
questions or desire further information.
Sincerely,
Richard W. Smith, P.E., Chief
Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants
RWS/dsm
Enclosure (Chapter 17-6, F.A.C.)
cc: Robert Jourdan - EPA
David Peacock - EPA
James W. Zumwalt - City Manager/Boca Raton
Robert Ortiz - Camp, Dresser & McKee/Ft. Lauderdale
Walter Kolb - Governor's Office
John Outland - DER
Herbert H. Zebuth - DER/West Palm Beach
NOV25 19Bi
REGION IV • EPA
-------
Board of County Commissioners
Frank Foster, Chaum.in
Noiman Greqory, Vice Chairman
Poq<)y B. Ei/citt
Dennis P. KoeMt*
Bill Bailey
County Administrator
John C. Sansbury
Deparin _iit of Planning, Zoning, & Building
Robert E. Basehart
Director
November 19, 1981
Mr. John E. Hagan, III, P.E.
Chief, EIS Branch
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Planning Division staff have reviewed the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement: Wastewater Facilities, Southern Region Area,
Palm Beach County, Florida. I wish to thank the consultant and
members of your staff for their efforts concerning the develop-
ment of the draft EIS. In light of the public hearing and request
for comments, I believe that this is an appropriate time to
reiterate certain concerns of Palm Beach County for the preserva-
tion of unique agricultural lands and to update you in relation to
the adoption of the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan. Our
concerns for sections of Chapter III have been long standing as
cited in the attached letter to Mr. Bob Cooper of January 15,
1981, dealing with the draft procedures to impliment the EPA
Policy to Protect Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands.
As had been expressed previously, the concern of Palm Beach
County is to establish "preservable" unique agricultural lands in
a manner similar to the outline in Chapter 111-56. Subsequent to
the drafting of Figure III-2, Palm Beach County did adopt the
Comprehensive Plan that instituted a program for the preservation
of unique agricultural land north of Clint Moore Road and west of
the Loggers Run Planned Unit Development west of Florida's Turnpike.
This program is currently being implemented through the adoption
of zoning Code amendments to provide for the Transfer of Develop-
ment Rights and the Agricultural Preservation District. These
ordinances were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on
November 10, 1981, and draft copies are attached for your
information.
BOX 1548 . WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402 - (305) 837-3300
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III, P.E.
November 17, 1981
Page 2
I would suggest that the Draft EIS,particularly portions of
Chapter III, be revised to reflect the July 22, 1980, adoption of
the Comprehensive Plan, the implementation of the agricultural
preservation program and the participation of Palm Beach County
in the United States Soil Conservation Service, "Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Viability Assessment System". The latter
item is currently being organized as documented in the attached
208 Responsiveness Summary Form. Page 3 summarizes the program
and its relationship to the South-Central Region 201 Facilities
Plan. I am enclosing this to indicate that the Southern Region
is not the only area of Palm Beach County where the concern for
preservation of unique agricultural lands exists. As the system
details are formulated with the Soil Conservation Service, I will
be most happy to provide greater information.
Sincerely,
Harry W. King
Principal Planner
HWK:cjs
Encl.
cc: Stan Redick
Bob Basehart
Don Lockhart
Jim Fleishman, APB
Vicky Newson, Boca Raton
„._ ,,-•* '••»'••• •
p^ir- •-- ••.:"
i i __}»»=*-• .•-.•-.'- -.-.
RFC' •'.':•: ".'
-------
VI -24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DRAFT EIS PUBLIC HEARING
Noveaber 17, 1981
City Council Chamber*
Boca Raton, Florida
7:30 o'clock P.M.
APPEARANCES:
PAUL TRAINA
ROBERT COOPER
HERB 2EBUTR
ALSO PRESENT:
GRACE JOHNSON
PAUL R. VAN THIELEN
JOHN GILROY
AUGUST H. MALTSON
ROBERT ORTIZ
JAMES STALLINGS
Taken before JOAN
and Notary Public in and for
Large'
1S» ALMEIHA
CCMIAI. CABUn. fl. *»1M
nWHUTAWH* tiMffil) ni"'%irm-|
DICK O'CONNELL ft ASSOCIATES
IIKOISTMKD PMOPCSSIONAL MKPOMTVIIS
«O«-OEN ..LKS
BtHLDIMa
BUH.DINO
t- MAUUAM»»L« BCACH •LVD.
-------
i Thereuponi
2 The following proceedings were held:
3 MR. TRAINAj I call the hearing to order,
4 please. Good evening. I would like to welcome all
5 of you to the public hearing on the draft environmental
6 impact statement on proposed wastewater facilities
7 for the City of Boca Raton and surrounding areas
0 of palm Beach County, Florida.
8
9 First, let me introduce the panel here.
10 I'm Paul Traina, Director of the Water Management
n Division for the united States Environmental Protection
12 Agency in Atlanta, Georgia. On my right is Mr.
13 Herb Zebuth, who is with the Nest Palm Beach County
District Office of the Florida Department of
1^9 I
15 Environment Regulation, and on my left is Hr.
16 Robert Cooper, who is the U8EPA in Atlanta and he
17 is the project officer for the BIS.
,g The purpose of this evening's hearing is to
19 receive public and other agencies comments on the
20 wastewater management proposal contained in the
21 draft environmental impact statement for the
Southern Region of Palm Beach County, Florida.
„ Let me say that we have an extensive summary of
2J
that statement, together with the actual draft report,
25 which is the blue bound copy. This BIS is being
,« AL-M.A AV«. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES OOLDCN ISLES
COftAU CABLE*. FL MIM PROFESSIONAL. BU1LDINO
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL. REPORTERS
DAM now iit-ftr~ itto x. HALLANDALE BEACH BL.VO.
•HOWARD <»OB> •U.IBM HALUANDALE. FL MOO*
-------
VI-26
1 prepared on wastevater facilities on the 201 facilities
2 plan prepared for the City of Boca Raton and Pain Beach
3 County, Florida by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Port
4 Lauderdale, Florida.
5 The preparation of this EIS is authorized by the
6 Clean Water Act and the National Environmental Policy
7 Act. The Clean Water Act enables EPA to fund up to
8 seventy-five percent of the eligible cost of the
9 planning, design, and construction of wastewater
10 facilities.
11 The planning phase of this process results in
12 preparation of a facility plan. In this instance the
13 City of Boca Raton has been designated as the
14 local agency responsible for facility planning in
15 this area.
16 The National Environmental Policy Act requires
17 federal agencies to prepare an environmental
18 impact statement on major federal actions
19 significantly affecting the quality of human
20 environment.
2i Because of the environment eovplexities of the
22 water quality issues involved, BPA made the decision
23 to prepare an environmental impact statement on the
24 201 facility plan.
25 Accordingly, in September of 1978 the notice
,« AU.««A AV«. DICK O'CONNELL a ASSOCIATES OOLDEN ISLES
COHAl *A»LCS. PL 391*4 PROFESSIONAL BUILDINO
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
I tim MOO IMO E. MALLANDALC BCACH BLVD.
•ItOWAHD OOM M*-fU*
-------
VI-27
l of intent to prepare an BIS was issued. Pursuant to
2 the guidelines of the President's Council on
3 Environmental Quality and the rules and regulations
4 of the EPA, with regard to the regulations of the
5 EIS's. This public hearing is being held to receive
6 comments on the draft T.HS. The draft EIS on the
7 facility plans is being discussed in a public forun
8 to encourage public participation in the federal
9 decision-waking process and to develop a true public
10 understanding of the federally funded projects.
n In this regard, the draft document was made
12 available to the public and EPA's Office of Federal I
13 Activities on — That's in Washington, on September 17th,
14 1981, and it was listed in the Federal Register on
15 September 25th, 1931.
The draft EIS comment period will be extended
17 until November 30th, 1991. The comments received during
13 this evening and during the comment period will
19 becone part of th« record.
2Q Before we receive testimony from the public,
2, 1 would like now tc call on Mr. Robert Cooper, who
22 will provide us with a brief summary of the project.
23 MR. HOOPER t Thank you, Paul.
24 As Mr. Traina said,, I am the EPA, Eli project
25 nanaqer for this project. What I would like to do is
.v«. DICK O'CONNELL ft ASSOCIATES ao<-DEN •«•«•
. ,. MI*. PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
•.MISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS ^ ^ ^^.^ .„„„ .LVO.
.HOWARD »0.) •*•.!•»* HALLANDALB. FL »«OO9
-------
VI-28
. go over the alternatives which were developed by the
201 consultant, who is Camp, Dresser and McKee out
of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and by the EIS consultant,
*J
who was Stattler, Stagg and Associates out of
4
Orlando, Florida, who helped us with this project.
Before I go into the alternatives, I would Ilka
6
to briefly aay that the City of Boca Raton currently
operates the Glades Poad wastewater facility, which haa
8
a current capacity of ten million gallons par day
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
j providing secondary treatment with discharge Toy ocean
outfall. Pain Beach County now operates three
small treatmsnt facilities with discharge in perco-
lation ponds. The County recently purchased th*
South Palrr Beach Utility Corporation, which had bean
operating in that area. Starting on page three of your
handouts, there is a list of the alternative* for
wastewater treatment and disposal which were evaluated
in this 201 KI? process. Briefly I will go over
them.
The first three alternatives are all one plant
alternatives serving the entire planning area of th«
City and the County, which has a total capacity —
Which would have a capacity of twenty-nine million
gallons per day, if it was all severed.
Alternatives for disposal involve combinations
,M AU...HA AV«. DICK O'CONNELL ft ASSOCIATES «<>'•'»'' '•«•«
COHAk CABLES, ri. **l>4 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
c«Mb •MI... n » REOISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS „..,«„,» .,«.„ «. «„
DAME OO0I 44S-4MOO tMO «, HALUMfBMJC ftCACH BLVD.
•WOWAHD
-------
VI-29
1 of the ocean outfall and spray irrigation.
2 Additionally, concepts consisting of two and three
3 regional plants are also considered along with deep
4 well injection and spray irrigation, along with the
5 existing ocean outfall.
6 Also, the no Federal action alternative involving
7 both the City and the County, and just the County
8 were also evaluated.
9 Specific environmental concerns which were
10 looked at in our selection process include the
11 presence of unique agricultural lands throughout the
12 County portion of the planning area and also the
13 presence of the designation of the Biscayne aquifer
14 as the sole source of drinking water.
15 Following the cost and environmental evaluation
16 of these alternatives, which is described later on
17 in your handout, EPA selected a modified no action
18 as the preferred alternative for the BIS. This
19 alternative involves the recommendations of federal
20 funding for the expansions of the Glades Road facility
21 to 17.5 gallons per day to serve sub-basin A, which
22 is the City's current service area.
23 EPA would not fund any expansion into the county
24 portion of the planning area. Capacity currently existi
25 at Sandalfoot Cove, American Homes and Pheasant Walk Planti
'- *"•«"'» *«• DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES GOLDEN ISLES
COMAL «ABL». Ft. MiM PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
DADS 1*0*) 44B-4BOO It to E. HALLANDALE BEACH BLVD.
BKOWARD (BOB) BBB-IBB* HALUANOALr. PL SSOOB
-------
VI-30
l to last until 1990. These plants are the one* in the
2 County service area. These plants could then be
3 expanded to six MGD each at Sandalfoot and American
4 Homes and .7 MGD at Pheasant Walk with a discharge
5 to either percolation ponds or the City's ocean
6 outfall by the County, with one hundred percent
7 local funding, if they so desire.
8 The third alternative for the County would be
9 pumping all wastewater to the Glades Road plant for
10 treatment and disposal. Any agreement on any of those
11 alternatives would have to be before any of these
12 alternatives could be undertaken and an agreement would
13 have to be reached between the City and the County.
14 The underlying theme of the EIS is a
15 selection of the wastewater management program for
16 this region. It is compatible with the protection
17 of the area's sensitive resources , particularly the
18 Biscayne Aquifer and the unique agricultural land,
19 while recognizing the existing extensive development
20 pressures .
2i In light of the projected impact of the growth
22 and development and especially with the demonstrated
23 lack of existing water quality problems, EPA selected
24 the modified no action approach described above a», the
25 preferred alternative. It is hoped that local lead
'- «"""'* ™ DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES «°«-DEN '«-»
COKAL. •ABLCS, FL 331 M _ PROFESSIONAL
BABE ,^» ______ REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS •'""•'•-WOPMU.
OABC MOM • «• MQO IMO E. HALLANDALI *KACH BLVD.
•HOWARD
-------
VI-31
} use policy will — Which is — Which will affect the
2 protection of the sensitive resources much more than
3 this decision here, will be geared with the protection
4 of those resources in mind for the foreseeable
5 future.
6 MR. TRAIMAt Thank you, Mr. Cooper.
7 z would like to ask Mr. Zebuth, representing the State,
8 if he has any comments to make.
9 MR. ZEBUTHt I have some comments here that are
10 a combination of our district and Tallahassee office
11 input.
12 The Department of Environmental Regulation
13 offers the following comments on the draft and
14 environmental impact statement! Selection of a
15 modified alternate eight is justified. We agree with
16 the United States Environmental Agency's stand or
17 not funding a facility vhich would tend to promote
18 rapid growth and development in environmentally
19 sensitive areas, in the areas of unique agricultural
20 land and in the areas that would result in stress
21 being placed on other community services.
22 The land application should be encouraged at
23 all plants in the southern region as a wastewater
24 conservation recycling method.
25 considering the water supply problem South Florida
... ALM..IA AV*. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES GOLDEN ISLES
CORAL. MABLH PL 33.14 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
CORAL •A.m.. PL 33.14 REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
uiLLiMBi. E «.ACH .. vo
1MO C. H ALLAN DALE •BACH BLVD.
0ADC OOVI <« MOO
•HOWARD cao.1 n*.is»* MAUUAHDALB. Ft. woo*
-------
VI-32
is experiencing, it would appear prudent to find
2 an appropriate means of recycling or reuse of this
3 highly treated effluent. Recycling or reuse may not
4 be the most cost effective means of disposal. However,
5 communities must weigh- the value of these resources
6 against factors other than solely a monetary one.
7 Percolation ponds shall not be degrading to the
Biscayne Aguifer and continued and additional effluent
o
9 disposal method appears to be in line with the goals
10 of recycling.
, 1 The continued monitoring program in accordance
12 with Chapter 176, Florida Administrative Code will
13 be necessary. We had asked that the community consider
14 the possibility of developing a series of rapid
15 infiltration ponds in lieu of eight million gallons pro
16 equalization tanks with an eye towards recycling surfaef
17 waters discharge while maximising ground level recharge,
18 Sewer systems should also be considered at all
]9 other plants if full equalization becomes necessary as
20 part of the future effluent disposal alternatives.
21 Rapid infiltration ponds may be designed ae to
22 al*o serve the purpose of a flow equalisation basin.
23 In other to lessen concern over implementability a
24 firm allocation of the Glades Road ocean outfall
25 capacity should be obtained from Boca Raton. This
,M .U...HA AY*. DICK O'CONNELL d ASSOCIATES GOLDEN ISLES
FU M1M PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS „„ -Lyo
»*OWAMD
-------
VI-3J
allocation should reserve capacity for the other
1
plants in the southern region, the 201 area to a
2
discharge effluent during wet weather and emergency
3
conditions as a backup to their land operation
4
percolation pond method.
The coagulation infiltration chlorination
6
capability as indicated should provide the virus-free
7
effluent required by Statue 176 of the Florida
8
Administrative Code of the applications in areas
9
of public access.
10
These or other processes of like capability
11
shoulder be added to all treatment plants designed
12
to supply effluent for spray irrigation on land with
13
public access, such a golf course, parks, et
14
cetera.
15
And investigation of the fate and movement of
16
viruses after discharge to percolation pond should
17
be added to the EPA study of the effects of the
18
effluent on the Biscayne Aquifer, if not already
19
included. Details such as placing of monitoring wells,
20
well depth and construction should also be included.
21
The DER would appreciate receiving a copy of
22
specific details of the EPA's program when it become*
23
available. Thank you.
24
MR. TRAINA: Thank you, sir.
25
,M A,.-.,,. AVE. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES OOLDEN ISLES
-,>.*. ...ir. m. »
-------
VI-34
1 At this point, I turn it over to all of you out
2 there and I will ask, as I call your name, if you
3 will come up and identify yourself.
4 I think there is a speaker that you can speak
5 from, so you can get into the P.A. system.
6 Give us your name and if you represent anyone
7 who you represent, and I will ask if you have not
8 already, please sign —- Fill out the yellow card.
9 Mis Johnson is here to receive those cards.
10 That* will tell our bosses vhen we get back to oar
11 offices in Atlanta, that someone in fact did cone and
12 we have a record of those pccple. It will also
13 give you a chance to get on cur mailing list to
14 receive information, fte are, as you can see, tran-
15 scribing the hearing, so if you do have a — If you hatvji
16 an extra copy of what you're going to say, I'm sure
17 the court reporter, Miss Corrparato, would be happy
18 to receive that.
19 So, with that, let me ask you Mr. Paul
20 Van Thielen, to come, please.
2i MR. VAN THEILEN: Ky name is Paul Van Thielen
22 and I reside at 7071 Northeast 6th Street. That's
23 about a quarter of a mile from the ocean and I an
24 President Emeritus of the Riviera Civic Association,
25 which extends from Palmetto Park Road north for about
'" *L"«"IA *VI DICK O'CONNELL a ASSOCIATES GOLDEN ISLES
COKAL CABUH. n. 9*1*4 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
«» ,_. *^_~ REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS ™°r«»ionAL "WR.DINO
DADS (MB) «M MOO |MO K. HALLANDALC BIACH BLVD.
BMOWAKD (MB> BCB.IBM
MALLANPALB.
-------
12
VT-35
1 a mile and a half along the ocean and along the
2 New Shine Track (phonetic) to Riviera Beach.
3 In the past when the choppers of the Glades
4 Road plant were not operating properly and the Gulf
5 Streai* was out further east, we've had numerous occasions
6 when we had deposits on the beach and vile odors
7 which indicate that the present outfall, the length of
8 the present outfall is marginal and it appears that any
9 additional use of the outfall would result in a rather
10 hazardous condition, and what I'm afraid of, there
11 be no recognition made to extend the outfall to
12 accommodate additional flow.
13 From studies in the past indicated that extendinf
14 the outfall by a quarter to three eighths of a mile,
15 which we require for any additional use, even by Boca
16 Raton, and the uses that are prepared here for the entire
17 area certainly indicate that the three eighths of
j
18 j a mile extensive outfall further into the Gulf Stream
19 to accoranodate the variances of the flow of the
20 Gulf Ftrean going north is definitely required.
2i Thank you.
22 MP.. TRATNA: Thank you very much, sir.
23 Mr. John Gilroy.
24 MP. HILROY: John Gilroy. 1052 Southwect 12th
25 Terrace, Boca Raton.
,« AUM..IA AV«. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES «OLDEN ISLES
CO..U ...u... „. „,„ „„.„„„ p^SSiONAL «.0*™ "«0«.S,ONAU BU.LD.NO
DADC (*M> tn tuna trao i. HALLANDALI »CACH BLVD.
•HOWARD (MM MS-IBM HALLANMLK. FL MOO*
-------
1 I'm speaking tonight as chairman of the
2 Water and Sewer Committee of the Federation of the
3 Boca Raton Homeowner's Association, which is an
4 association made up of individual homeowners'
5 associations, for the number of about twenty-one and
6 in fact includes roost of the active homeowner groups
7 within the city. Their membership in turn giv««
8 it contact with approximately half of the population
9 of the city.
10 I'm sorry that we're not prepared with written
11 comments tonight. I will ~ The date caught up with
12 us accidentally, so to sneak, and we were preoccupied
13 with other matters. I will endeavor to have noee
14 carefully considered written comments within your
15 hands within the time of consideration.
16 Meanwhile. I think our general pattern i*
17 fairly clear.
18 Alternatives two, five and seven are essentially
19 impractical because of the cost compared to the
20 limited benefits. Since — Since useful water i«
2i such — These are the alternatives that call for
22 treating wastewater, finally, and using it for
23 irrigation. Useful water frora this direction is
24 such a trivial fraction of r&infall in the area, that
25 I don't think it's worthwhile and the maximum available
— •"««'• »«• DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES OOLDEN IM.KS
COKAL •*BU». n. MIS* PROFESSIONAL BUfLDlNfi
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
DAME 00*1 «m«oo ino •. HALLANDAU MACH BLVD.
MOWAIIB <*om •n.iva* HALLANDALC, PL
-------
VI-37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is something in the region, presumably of twenty-nine
million gallons a day and twenty-nine million gallons
a day of canal water could be filtered and used for
irrigation much less expensively and with considerable
human cry, I think.
So, I think those alternatives essentially
disappear "from reality. Alternative ten, the handling
of the effluent from a single plant and not including
the agricultural land, I think is undoubtedly the
best for the long range welfare of south County
residents, as well as the least costly to them, but
I'm afraid it is also completely impractical.
There is no indication whatsoever that much
of the quote unique agricultural land unquote will
not be zoned for housing at densities so high that
individual septic systems will be safe or practical.
As it is going, that land is going to have to be sewerwl
as best as we can see it would be much better, if such
was not the case for everyone involved.
There will be water problems as well as sewer
problems and traffic problems and everything else,
but it is coming. Moreover, it would result in the
company abandoning its twenty million dollar investment
in the South Palm Beach Utilities Company and that
will happen the day after the second coming. The s
IB. ALMC.IA AVC. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES GOLD™ ISLES
CORAL CABLES, FL MIM PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
DADC (MM «<• MOO IBfO E. HALLANDALE BEACH BLVD.
BftOWAMO <*OB> BU-1BM HALLANDALE, FL MOO*
-------
VI-38
1 problem of abandonment of an extensive facility,
2 which I think is really improbable really rules out
3 alternatives one, three, seven, and really also
4 alternative four. All of these — In visualising
5 abandoning facilities, comparable to cost and I don't
6 think there is any possibility it will happen.
7 So, really only alternatives six and 8-A and 8-B
8 really need to be considered. Now, eight is really
9 three alternatives since there are variations in there
10 and I'm going, for instance, to call 8-A the existing
11 plants with ponds for the western plants; 8-B
12 the existing plants with discharge through the City's
13 outfall and 8-C, quoting "pumping all wastewatar
14 to the Glades Road plan for treatment and disposal."
15 I think 8-C is just like alternative one, to
16 the best I interpret the language there, but deferring
17 alternative one until about 1988 rather than adopting
18 it as a policy now, and 8-B, that is putting the discharge
19 to the City's outfall and alternative six differ* only
20 in that six abandons the Pheasant Walk plant while 8-B
2) retains it.
22 Mow, both six and 8-A, which I think are the
23 only possibilities really that have any prospect of a
24 choice, call for the City to expand its own treatment
25 capacity from about ten million gallons a day to about
... AU....A AV«. DICK Q'CONNELL a ASSOCIATES OOLDEN ISLES
COHAL SABLH. tt. MIS4 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
DAME MOW »•» I.OO I MO K. HAI.LANDAUC BEACH BLVD.
BROWAUD (MB> BBB'IBM HALLANDAUE. Fl_ MOM
-------
VT-39
seventeen million gallons a day, and dispute the
2 possibility of the federal financing on a regional
3 basis, it will probably end up to be the most
economical and expeditious, if the City goes along on
5 this effect, particularly because of the uncertainty
6 of the federal funding, as to both of the amount and
7 time.
8 The consultants to the City indicate that it's
9 doubtful if the City can really afford to wait at all
10 without running into problems of insufficient capacity
11 before new construction can be on line.
12 So, I feel that it just has to be what I've called
13 alternative 8-A for the moment; that is, to say the
14 use of ponds with the western plants and an expansion
15 of the City plant with or without federal funds and
16 perhaps because of the time element.
17 After that, the use of the outfall, the alteraati
18 six or 8-B, I think should depend on whether the
19 County will pay for an enlargement or cushioning of
20 holding ponds if necessary to enable the outfall to
21 take care of loads since that is a doubtful matter at thf
22 present time.
23 i think if the outfall is to be used for the
24 entire area and if the County is willing to pay a fee
25 commensurate with the value of the outfall in
„
DICK °'CONNELL * ASSOCIATES
«ai«TE«0 PROFES8.0NAL REPORTERS ^ _ HAULANDAL£ ,,ACH >LVO.
.HOWARD 00.. W.I.M MALUANDAL... Fi. MOO.
-------
14
22
.17
reducing the cost of the County treatment — Now, it
2
probably sounds as if I'm somewhat pessimistic about
the County's cooperation and I think there is •
4 reason for that.
5 As far as I'm aware, the County has not proposed
6 to enter into or consider seriously any of these
7 alternatives. The City has had rather — I would say
8 I will call it an unfortunate experience with the
9 County environmental impact problems in the Palmetto
10 Park pretzel, which was a terrible traffic mess,
11 which was generated despite the protest of Boca Raton
12 citizens by the County engineer and we have
13 another one of a similar nature, where the environ-
mental impact is bad, I think, and a good many of the
15 residents to think, on the Dixie Highway.
6 Instead of widening the streets alongside the
railroad tracks, they chose to widen it over
18 people's front yards and leave a strip of essentially
19 miserable territory between the widened road and
20 the railroad tracks. So, as I say, there is, X think,
21 considerable reason to be unhappy with the prospect
of excellent county cooperation.
23 Again, the City has, as you probably are
24 l««d this area of the countryside in attempting
25 to bring in sensible planning, particularly 00 far
'- *"•"'* *«• DICK O'CONNELL ft ASSOCIATES GOLDEN ISLES
COWAL flABLKS. FL. **1M PROFESSIONAL BUf1_BIMa
DAK <»ii ~ REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
DADC IMW «M^WO ,,. ine „. MAULAKDALI BKACH BLVD.
•HOWARD Ma.iu.
HALLANDAL.. n.
-------
VI-41
1 density of housing, which again has an enormous
2 impact on the water and sewerage requirements.
3 The County has gone the other way, even if specific
4 instances where the City has recommended otherwise;
5 I also have a memo from Mr, Garrity, who is a member
of our committee, and is a vice-chairman of the
Federation of the Boca Raton Homeowners, who could
8 not be here this evening. It is not too long and I
9 will read that. We would — We would reconsider this
10 and put it in the record subsequently or a version of
11
12 An important statement occurs on page thirty-thr»«
13 technical reference document two, Alternatives Analysis L
|4 April 1980. "The conversation that is from wast«water
15 treatment plants to wastewater pump stations will lessen
16 the impact of these facilities on surrounding land
I7 uses because of the minimal amount of noise and
18 odor that typically emanates from such facilities
,9 will be decreased as a result of the conversion."
20 Are we to assume that the collective noises and
2, odor of Sandal foot Cove, Century Village, Pheasant
jj Walk treatment plants would be concentrated at the
23 City's G lades Road treatment plant, which of necessity
24 would be expanded to triple its current capacity and
25 would in addition require two eight million gallons
<«»>
DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES
•vatATgrHCB PROFESSIONAL MKPORTERS _ .._
RKwIVTKHKW r-wwr »90iwnm«- »»»•- JWW K. HAL.LANDALC »KACH BLVD.
HALLANDALK. PC 99OO9
-------
VI-42
1 raw sewage holding tanks?
2 No guarantee to the City of Boca Raton appears
3 in any of the alternatives that cost effectiveness
4 vital to the unincorporated areas unserved by the
5 city's waste disposal system will not take precedence
6 over Eoca Raton's increasingly impacted aesthetic
7 quality, odor, noise pollution, lessened property value
8 and other local environmental qualities. Does
9 such a guarantee exist?
10 The two rav sewage holding tanks with a total
11 capacity of sixteen million gallons required for alter-
12 native one, *:wo, three, four, seven, nine, and ten and
13 sixteen and a half million gallons required for alterna
14 time five/ and six would occupy considerable space on
15 the currently limited Glades Road plant property. Our
16 provisions contemplate to acquire additional property J
17 this area or double with the others, and who expense,
18 how it will affect sxirroundimr property value from
19 unattractive holding tanks and objectional noise and
20 odor problem be overcome. The sludge disposal i» already
2i an expensive problem. Please outline the proposals for
22 disposal for increase volume and how that disposal
23 would be financed.
24 We have just been faced from the City with an
25 enormous cost of disposal — Cost increase, excuse me.
— »•>«»•* *v«. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES OOLD.N ISLCS
COftAL OABLO, FL S*1M __ PROFESSIONAL BUH.DINO
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL, REPORTERS
DADC <*MI ll» Urn IMO C. HALLANDALC BBACH BLVB.
•MOWAJID (MM MS-tM* MALLANBAU. FL
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
VI-43
Since the proposed raw savage force mains from the west
of the turnpike are sized at thirty inches to handle
the anticipated western flow, how can the thirty inch
portion of the City's outfall under the Intracoastal
be expected to accommodate the western flow, the
additional Pheasant Walk flow, as well as the increased
demand in the Boca Raton current service area?
Most of the alternatives listed require that
Boca Raton —- Ocean outfall to accommodate, double,
or triple volume or drug treated effluent. What
current or anticipated plans have been made to
protect marine life in the vicinity of the end of tlwi
outfall and the possibility of pollution to Boca Raton
beaches?
Outlined in the opinion of some residents, their
16 eyes and noses tell them that this problem still
17 exist, although its really not gone into, I think
18 rather properly so, because apparently there was no
19 adequate record of this available to you folks.
20 Finally, alternative 8 the no federal action quotji
21 alternative indicates only local city, county — City
22 or county funds would be available to expand existing
23 facilities. Under whet circumstances would there be
24 an advantage to the City in this arrangement over
25 Boca Raton's continued sole operation of this
c^TU'Lr*,. M.~ DICK °'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES OOUDEN ISLES
OAOB MOM itt'«»oo REOISTEREO PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
•HOWARD nen MS.ISM "*° *' "*"•*"'»*'•« ««*CH BUVO.
HALLANOALK, rL MOO*
-------
VT-44
l currant service area, since the County would apparently
2 finance only that portion of the expanded City
3 that would connect to the City's ocean fall —
4 ocean outfall, excuse me?
5 This is again fro» Mr. Garrity. Thank you for
6 your patience and I will be free to answer any
7 questions .
8 MR. TRAINA: If you will give us those coewents
9 in writing — They will be in the record, but
10 included in the BIS with appropriate responses,
n and I would secondly ask you, I assume that the tae
12 builders' association that you represent includes)
13 only those home builders in the City of Boca?
14 MR. GILROYi It's the homeowners.
15 MR. TRAINA: I think you answered the seooai
16 question.
17 MP. (5ILROY: I don't think our contact with the
18 others outside of the City is very limited. They
19 do not have a federation corresponding to ours, so
20 as far as I know, their homeowners' association
21 outside of the City have no specific way of exchanging
22 viewpoints and so far have just not been — I don't
23 know, had the extensive background that ours had.
24 we have been at it about fifteen years.
25 MR. TRAINA: If I can make a suggestion, if
,M AU.M.A AV«. DICK Q'CONNELL a ASSOCIATES OOLDBN ISLES
COMAi. SABLE*. FL S*1M PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
(•Ml *Ut HOP IMO *. HALLANBALK MMCM BLVD.
•MOWAMD (MM MS-IM* MALLANDALK. FL 1»00»
-------
VI-45
1 you can possibly tap those homeowners in the County,
2 because we're very much concerned, as I think we wish
3 to share your concern with, regarding this encroach-
4 went question and we realize that our decision will
s only affect federally financed projects and does not
6 preclude the County or the City from doing whatever
7 they want with local funds.
_ MR. GILROY: I happen to be the president of the
8
9 citizens for Reasonable Growth, which again, is a
10 City organization only; which is — Stress the
n necessity of low density housing as compared to the old
12 plan for this City, which called for extensive
13 areas of fifty or eighty per acre and that organiza-
tion also has made recommendations that the City
J5 should go its own direction, so, within the City,
16 I'm quite sure that this feeling is very widespread.
17 outside of the City, I don't know.
18 MR. TRAINA: Well, Mr. Gilroy, for the moment
19 i thought you were representing the home builders.
i
2Q MR. GILROY: No.
MR. TRAINA: But, I do thank you for coining.
MR. GILROY: Thank you.
MR. TRAINAs That concludes the individuals
24 that indicated they wanted to talk. I would like
to as* you, is there anyone else, having heard what
25
,«AU,«*,A A»«. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES OOLDEN ISLES
CORAL CABLES, ru 3*1*4 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
CORAL .A.L». FU »i~ REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS u
DAM CMWI «• MOO I MO E. HALLANDALE BEACH BLVD.
-------
VI-46
1 they have said that wish to come up and identify
2 yourselves and who you represent?
3 MR. MALTSON: My name is August Maltson. X
4 have, at 570 Northeast Golden Harbor Drive. I
5 represent myself, even though I an a member of the
6 Water and Sewage Committee of the Federation.
7 On page five — Roman numeral five, under
8 alternative eight, the last — The tail end of
9 that paragraph, "A third alternative for the
10 County would be pumping all wastewater to the Glades
11 Road plant for treatment and disposal.*
12 I think we have to have a definition of what
13 the — what you mean by wastewater and what you mean
14 by treatment, because if we are thinking about waste-
15 water coming through the outfall, it's already been
16 treated, so that paragraph .or that sentence there
17 needs some explanation, in my opinion.
18 Then, I'm also a member of the BIS committee,
19 and the thing I'm interested in is the big switch
20 that we have had from — Everyone was selling
21 alternative one until the last meeting and it's been
22 a long time since we had any meeting on the BX8
23 committee.
24 I notice that Stattler and Stagg is not even
25 represented here and X see our friend, Mr. Ortiz, over
... »L««A .v«. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES ao"«N '»•-«
COHAL. >A.LM. ru Ml»» PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
COHA1. .A.L». n. »IM REOISTBHED PROFESSIONAL MEFOKTVMS
DARK fJMW) 44sVe*0O IMO K.
•MOWAMD ao»i M».i»aa MAIXAMOALK. PL MOO*
-------
VI-47
here from the enoineering group, but everyone was
2 for alternative one and there was only a small group
3 that was against alternative one and for alternative
4 eight.
5 What caused the switch?
, MR. TRAINA: I don't know what did it, but
o
I guess you've won.
MR. V£],TRON: I mean, whv did everyone — Because
8 - .
it --- Heeause of Peaaan's economic program?
10 Everyone switched and then the other thing —
•
, , MH. TRAINA: If vou're going to get me to say
1 1 -
12 I would rather fight than switch, forget it.
HP. MALTSCXM: On the original alternative eight,
there would be no funding. Now, we have alternative
14
._ eight being recommended with funding, what is the
chance of gettino the funding? Is that something
17 that is just on a piece of paper or what is the
13 reality?
MR. T^.PTA: I will ask Mr. Cooper if he would
like to consent on vour Mrst question and then I
can address the fundino question for you
Okay, -^bout switching, EPA never
22
favored at the time you're talking about, alternative
one or any alternative. T'htrre r-ay have been some
24
people involved in the process as it went along favored
DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES
BBAUSHOVt 19
-------
VI-48
one alternative or another one. We don't make our
2 i decision until all of the alternative analysis,
3 the costs, the environmental analysis is all completed.
4 So, I don't believe — I don't know what impres-
5 sion I gave you or anyone else from EPA gave you, but
. we didn't change our minds because we didn't make
o
7 our minds up.
MR. MALTSON: I'm not talking about EPA.
8 •
9 I'm talking about the consulting engineer and
10 Stattler and Stagg. They were all selling alterna-
jj tive one strongly all along and all of a sudden we
]2 don't even hear from them.
13 MR. TRAIN A: Let me suggest that that would be
J4 a subject of discussion after the hearing.
15 The results are indicated that the agency has made
16 its determination that it's alternative number eight.
17 MR. COOPER: Let me say one thing about your
18 question about treatment and disposal. In selecting
19 no action for the County portion of the area, we are —
20 Our decision is that we are not recommending providing
2, federal funding. The rest of these discussions
22 are possibilities for the County to use for treatment
23 and disposal, if they continue their growth policy,
24 which would mean extensive growth and development in
25 the area with an extended need for treatment and —
,« »L-«M AV«. QJCK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES OOLOEN ISLES
CORAL CABLE*, rt. 3*IM _ PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS "furtwionAi. BUILDING
DADC now
•MOWAMD
-------
VI-49
1 MR. MALTSON: What do you mean?
2 MR. COOPER: The things we mentioned here are
the expansion of the plants out there or — Or taking
w
it or treatinq it out there and taking it to the
4
outfall for disposal or takirtq it to the Glades Road
treatment plant and then disposal through the outfall.
6
These are all alternatives that would have to be
worked out between the City and the County, since
it would be all local funding.
MR. MALTSON: So, actually that weans that the
suggestion that the City of Boca Raton at the
Glades Road plant would actually treat the effluent
from the areas of Pheasant Walk and the areas we«t
IO
of the turnpike?
Is that what that sentence means?
MR. COOPFR: That is saying it's a possibility,
16
._ but again, we're not — we're recommending.
18
I MR. MALTSON: It's an alternative, but is that
, what that lancruage means?
MR. COOPER: Yes.
20
MR. MALTSON: Actuallv treat it?
21
MR. COOPFR: Yes.
22
MR. MALTSONj How would they treat it?
23
MR. COOPER: The same process they're using
to treat it now.
25
"•AUM™'*AVE DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES GOLDEN ISLES
CORAL CABLES. PL SSIM PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS rnuressionAL BU1L.DINO
DA OK MOW •»• ««OO
IBIO E. HALLANDALE BEACH BLVD.
-------
VI-50
1 MR. MALTSON: How would all the solids be —
2 The solids would be removed out west then?
3 MR. COOPER: No, not if it's treated at Glades
4 Road.
5 MR. MALTSON: It says wastewater. You're not
6 talking about — You're talking of the wastewater
7 meaning total sewage?
g MR. COOPER: Right.
9 MR. VAN THIELEN: If this is alternative one,
10 we're gettina into effect in 1988 instead of now.
11 MR. COOPER: Right, but with total local funding.
12 it would be an agreement between the City and the
13 County.
14 MR. MALTSON: So, it would be total sewage and
15 not wastewater? Wastewater is something that
16 is — That's the effluent? If waatewater is total
17 sewage —
18 MR. COOPER: Right.
19 MR. MALTSON: I didn't read it that way. Well,
20 that, of course would — As far as I'm concerned,
21 that would be absolutely out.
22 MR. COOPER: Again, what the Eis is saying is
23 that our preferred alternative is to provide
24 federal funds for expansion of the Glades Road plant
25 for the City service area and we're recommending
DICK
•HOWARD
-------
VI-51
1 no federal funding for the County portion of the
2 service area.
3 That is EPA's decision. Anything beyond that is
4 a local decision.
5 MR. MALTSON: It's agreement. Thank you kindly.
6 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, sir. Any other comment*?
7 Would anyone like to get back up and re-conmnt?
8 MR. CTLROV: May T ask —
9 MT>. TRAINA: For the benefit of the young woman
10 here, we wo\jld appreciate yoxi getting up.
11 MR. GILROY: I am troubled with a question. I
12 don't see a County representative here and as I say,
13 j the record, as far as 1'n aware, indicates they have-
14 not shown any — tfhat shall we say, any urgent desire
15 to participate*
16 Is that impression valid or is there more than
17 meets the eye?
18 MR. TRAINA j I don't know. I can't make any
19 comments on that. I would like to — Yes, I mentioned
20 I would comment back to you about the funding question
2i you had asked, Mr. Maltson:
22 You asked about federal funding. Let me just
23 reiterate what Mr. Cooper said and that is what the
24 whole process, what they're concluding here,
25 shortly after we go through this public hearing.
... ALME«,. AVE. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES GOLDEN ISLE*
CORAL OA«LE«. FL 33114 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
DADE (3O0I «1« Itlnff I9IO E. HALLANDALE BEACH BLVD.
• HOWARD (SOS) >t*-l*33 NALLANDAUE. FL
-------
VI-52
1 they're only affecting the federal government's
2 decision for funding and tentatively we determined
3 that there would be federal funds only available for
4 the expansion of the City's plant and none of that
5 would go to the expansion of the County, a part of that
6 What is done beyond that between the City and the
7 County is outside the purview of the federal government
8 whatever you all at the City or County level decide to
9 do, you just go ahead and do it. We're going to
10 say what we pay for, what we1 re going to pay for.
11 Now, with regards to the funding picture, as I'm
12 sure you all know, things are a bit different and
13 considerable changes with regard to the construction
14 program of EPA and that's the program that we're
15 talking about funding, and as of now, the amount
16 of funds that have been composed by the administration
17 are considerably lass, approximately half than
18 in the past, vie have been up at the national
19 levels of operating at a five billion dollar a year
20 program and now the administration is talking about
21 cutting it to two point four billion, so there
22 would be fifty percent less money available.
23 Complicating that, the administration has proposed
24 changing allocation of the monies to different states
25 and it would be based more on the existing needs,
'" *LME"IA Av« DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES GOLDEN ISLES
COHAL 9ABLES. FL S3 IS* PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
».~ ,—, *^_~ REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS t»»i«i»AU BUILDINB
DAM (*OB> ««» MOO 19(0 E. HALLANDALE BEACH BLVD.
•MOW AHO <«0»l M*. ISSS
-------
1
2
projected needs.
O
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VI-53
rather than future. So, a state like Florida would
get less money because most of Florida's needs are
So, the funding picture crenerally is going to
be less and particularly in Florida it's going to be
less. How that relates to Boca Raton depends on how thi
State views Boca Raton's priorities, its own need* and
that is the State's determination.
8
EPA does not get involved in that. Th« State
decides which communities are going to have the
higher priority.
MR. MALTSON: My question was in two parts.
The first part tvas the original alternative eight had
no funding and then now it's suggestive that it
be funded. So, why did we change our minds and
secondly, you answered the second part, but you didn't
answer the first part.
MR. COOPER: We felt it was appropriate when
we got into the decision-making process to divide the
decision on federal funding.
Instead of looking at the whole 201 area, to
look atthe City service area, and County service area
separately and make separate decisions. That's
how that came about.
MR. TRAINS: Any other comments?
... *LM«,A AVE. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES GOLDEN I»LKS
CORAL GABLES FL 331*4 PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
CORA.. OABI.ES. Fi. »i». REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
DADC 00»> 448-4600 ncv«l= cntu rr. r s. )MQ £ HALLAliBllLB BKACH BLVD.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VI-54
MR. GILROYt Would you folks at all care to
on this tiro* element as I mentioned? The City's
consulting engineer, even though the City is not
anywhere near as yet utilising the full capacity of
its treatment facilities, have recommended that either
re-permitting and revision — Have recommended specifi-
cally that the revisions be undertaken vary promptly an<
additional capacity constructed in the rather near
future and expressed arrangements can be made for
review and financial participation by the EPA in
time for meeting the needs.
If I'm not stating it correctly, please correct
. me, or what comments —
MR. TRAIN A: Bob?
MR. ORTIS: My name is Bob Ortiz and I'm with
Camp, Dresser and McKee. He is correct to a certain
point and by that, I mean that the plant would reach
capacity a lot quicker if you started bringing in
areas to the west. We have done some projections at tho
plant, the Glades Road plant, if it treats just
the City service area to reach its capacity of ten
sometime in 1985. It's presently seventy-five percent
capacity, by the way.
So, if you back off it usually takes about three
years to construct a facility. You're talking about
... ALME..A AVE. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES GOLDEN ISLIS
CORAL •ABLE!, FL 931M PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
<.««..•. ...u», ru ~ REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
BADK «OB» «!• MOO •»•«•«•«« IMO E. HALLANDALE BBACM BLVD.
BMOWAHD
-------
VI-55
1 1982 bidding a project. You know, it's 1*81, so its
2 planning ahead it what —
3 MR. GILROY: No one has the drawing.
4 MR. ORTIZ: That would be needed to be done.
5 It usually takes six months. That's the rationale
6 that we use.
7 MR. TRAINA: Thank you, Mr. Ortiz.
8 MR. VAN THIELBN: Only five percent of the
9 City on septic tanks.
10 MR. TRAINA: Do you care to make a statement
ll for the record, sir?
12 MR. GILROY: My question basically remains, is
13 there time for the City to well, let's say, cooperation
14 and such with the arrangements for a funding by EPA,
15 assuming it's available and so on?
16 MR. ORTIZ: I don't know if I can answer that.
17 I would say there is time, but I think you're running
18 out of it pretty quickly. I think we have to get
19 moving to implement improvements, so you don't run
20 out of capacity. I think — Just to further that
2i question, I think the City has taken steps to see what
22 interim improvements can be made if there is a
23 possibility; that is if you start running out of
24 capacity — I think people within the City are looking
25 ahead.
,5. ALM«,* »vc. DICK O'CONNELL a ASSOCIATES GOLDEN ISLK*
COKAk OABLES. Fu 3313* PROFESSIONAL .BUILDINQ
COHAI. O..LJ.S. fu .»•.« REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
DADE (»0»> *M-MOO I»«0 E. HALuANDAU BBACH BLVD.
BMOWAHD 008) 0U.1S1* "»• ' AMIMI - .1 «-~v.
-------
VI-56
-t 9
1 MR. MALTSONi Let's not pull the thing we did
2 on the water. You're not going to say "Don't use
3 the John"?
4 MR. BEBOTH: Do you have a feeling that you
5 shouldn't say anything?
6 MR. TRAIN A: That happens all the time, but that
7 doesn't stop me.
8 MR. ZEBUTH: That's a lot of questions about
9 funding and I hate for people to get their hopes up
10 when things don't look all that encouraging.
11 The State has a priority system that they use
12 to rate the various requests front the communities
13 around the State.
14 It's complicated, but involves such things
15 as the river basin, in which the community is located,
16 the amount of pollution that exists, the amount
17 of pollution that is being contributed by the
18 facility that is collecting the funds, the population
19 in that area and there are a lot of cities in this
20 state requesting funds for a lot of different projects
21 and I wouldn't — I would say the prospect of
22 getting money to do that before 1982 is out would appa<
23 extremely dim concerning all of the situations that
24 exist around the state and as it exists here. That
25 doesn't mean that obviously that an attempt should not
-------
17
25
VT-57
1 be made, but we have to look at it realistically.
2 MR. GILROY: Thank you.
3 MR. TRAINA: Okay. As I have said earlier, we
will keep the record open until the 30th of November
4
and ask that you send us any written comments involving
those questions that we had. We would ask you to
6
address those to Mr. John E. Hagan. He is the
Acting Chief of the Environmental Assessment Branch.
8
EPA Region Pour, 345 Courtland Street, Atlanta, Georgia
30365, and I notice that the address is on the bottom
of the handout that you have. I want to thank you
all for coming this evening, for giving us the
benefit of your comments. We certainly will consider
them, as I say, they will be put into the Final
BIS with group responses and that Final EIS will
consist of the agency's final decision, a summary of
16
the draft EIS, any pertinent and additional developments
,o of the draft revision, comments, and the EPA's
10
responses to the transcript of this hearing.
Those of you who have come tonight and filled
20
out the little yellow caxdwill receive a copy of the
Final EIS when it is published.
22 j • .
Again, we want to thank you for your participation
23
and your coming this evening and this hearing is now
adjourned.
ALM»,A AV«. DICK O'CONNELL & ASSOCIATES SOLDEN ISLES
CORAL «ARLE«. Ft SUM
DA DC (30a> 44S-MOO
•HOWARD (MM MS.IU*
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
IMO E. HALLANDALC BBACH BLVD.
HALLANDALB. PI. MOO*
-------
1 CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY
2 STATE OF FLORIDA )
: SS.
3 COUNTY OF BROWARD )
4 I, JOAN COMPARATO, a Shorthand Reporter and
5 Notary Public, do hereby certify that a hearing of the
6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was held at the
7 city Council Chambers, Poca Raton, Florida, on the 17th
8 day of November, 1981; that I was authorized to and did
9 report in shorthand the proceedings of said hearing;
10 and that the foreqoing pages, numbered from 1 to and
11 including 34, represent a true and correct transcription
12 of ray shorthand report of said meeting.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set «y
14 hand and official seal this day of December, 1981.
15
16 H
Shorthand Reporter
17 and
Notary Public
18 ' I
My Commission expires: January 24, 198:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,M ALMC..A »v«. DICK O'CONNELL a ASSOCIATES OOLDEN ISLES
CORAL flABLES Fu M1M PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
CORAL aA.i«. FU «.« REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS ..........r. «ACH .LVD
DAK (MM) <•• •OOP 1MO C. HALLAMDAU MEACH V1.VO. I
-------
VI -
Part F; Responses to Comments
Response 1
As this comment letter indicates, limestone, sand, and gravel
resources occur near the proposed tacility. It is not expected
that the implementation of this project will impact these
resources in any way. The continued urban development which
will occur in the project area may eventually impinge upon some
of these mineral resource areas. Local land use and
development policy will most significantly effect how this
issue is resolved.
Response 2
The precautions recommended in this letter will be taken if the
need arises. Please refer to the comment letter from the
Florida Department of State to document our coordination to
date with the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer.
Response 3
The results of the EPA sampling program is presented in
Appendix A of this Final EIS. 1'he Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation will continue their on-going
monitoring efforts of groundwater near the percolation ponds.
This monitoring effort should identify any increases in nitrate
levels which might occur. The results of the most recent
monitoring reports are presented in the Draft EIS.
Response 4
Since no Federal funding is recommended for the unique
agricultural lands in the area, the project does conform to the
Council on Environmental Quality's and the Department of
Agriculture's joint memorandum of August 30, 1976, concerning
the effect of the project on prime and unique farmland.
Response 5
Appropriate design coupled with effective operation and
maintenance will mitigate against any excessive noise ana odors
which might otherwise occur. The residents surrounding the
Glades Road Treatment Plant should experience no significant
increase in noise and odor.as a result of plant expansion.
-------
VI-60
Response 6
The City currently owns enough land at the Glades Road facility
to provide service to the entire planning area through the year
2000. Additional land would be needed at some point beyond
2000.
Response 7
A discussion of appropriate sludge disposal techniques is
presented in Section I of Chapter II .
Response 8
The ocean outfall can accommodate all of the anticipated flow
for the entire planning area through the year 2000. It is not
anticipated that these flows would cause any severe adverse
impact to water quality. The 201 consultant is now evaluating
the possibility of adjusting the angle of the outfall to lessen
possible surfacing of material from the outfall.
Response 9
The errata comments from the City of Boca Raton have been
responded to throughout the text, where appropriate.
Response 10
At the request of Florida DER, the 201 consultant has evaluated
the possibility of developing a series of rapid infiltration
ponds in lieu of the eight MGD flow equalization tank in order
to possibly reduce the surface water discharge while maximizing
groundwater recharge. Land is currently not available at the
Glade Road site for this purpose. Additional land purchases
for this purpose would be very expensive and would forclose
options for treatment of flow from the Palm Beach County area
at a later date.
Response 11
EPA concurs that maximum flexibility, for planning treatment and
disposal of future flows should be maintained. It is up to the
City and County to come to any agreements on this matter.
Response 12
No increase in the length of the outfall will be necessary to
maintain water quality conditions.
-------
-------
CHAPTER VII - LIST CF PREPARERS
Project Personnel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert B. Howard Chief, NEPA Compliance Section
Robert C. Cooper EIS Project Officer
Karen L. Tasner Editor/Secretary
Virginia W. Buff 201 Planning Project Engineer
Linda A. Clemens Groundwater Project Officer
Consultants
Stottler Stagg and Associates
Roy F. Cowell Project Manager
Carl Gosline Deputy Project Manager
E. J. Kazmerczak Deputy Project Manager
James Nicholas Economist
Milledge and Hermeley Attorneys
Coastal Zone Resources Biologists
Camp Dresser and McKee
Phil Moses Senior Vice President
Robert Ortiz Project Manager
Dan Anderson Project Engineer
-------
-------
APPENDIX A: SAMPLING PROGRAM REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Palm Beach County Environmental Impact Statement Sampling Program
(PBC Sampling Program) is a supplemental study designed to provide background
information on existing groundwater quality and treatment plant effluent
quality in the study area. The program is short term in nature and provides
data on a one-time sampling basis.
1.1 Introduction
In September 1981 the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Southern Region, Palm
Beach County, Florida. The DEIS developed and evaluated ten wastewater
management alternatives for the city of Boca Raton, Florida and the adjacent
area of unincorporated Palm Beach County. A major concern of the EIS was the
quality of the area's surface and groundwater resources and the impacts of
the various wastewater management facilities on these resources.
EPA selected a modified No Federal Action alternative based on the
projected impacts of growth and development in the area and the lack of demon-
strated, existing water quality problems in the study area. This preferred
alternative includes the following components:
1. Federal funding would be used in the expansion of the Glades Road
facility to 17.5 mgd
2. No federal funding would be made available for the county portion of
the planning area
4. Existing capacity would be used at the Sandalfoot Cove, American
Homes, and Pheasant Walk plants until 1988-1990
5. (a) Sandalfoot Cove and American Homes plants could be expanded to 6.0
mgd each and Pheasant Walk to 0.7 mgd with either continued use of
percolation ponds or discharge to the city's ocean outfall. Funding
-------
would be local.
(b) Pump all wastewater to the Glades Road plant for treatment and
disposal. Funding would be local and an agreement would be required
between the city and the county concerning implementation.
As part of the DEIS, EPA required a monitoring program to determine the
impacts of the percolation ponds on the Biscayne Aquifer. A recommended Plan
of Study for this monitoring program was published as an appendix to the
DEIS. These recommendations have, by and large, been incorporated into this
sampling program.
1.2 Study Plan
1.2.1 Study Background
The recommended Plan of Study (POS) in the DEIS included sampling in two
development areas. The Pheasant Walk area is located north of Clint Moore
Road and east of Military Trail. The Sandal foot Cove area is southwest of
the Pheasant Walk site, south of Boca Raton West Road (Hwy 808) and west of
Florida's Turnpike (U.S. 1). The recommended sampling at both areas included
analyses of wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluent, monitoring wells,
ambient groundwater wells and drinking water wells.
1.2.1.1 Pheasant Walk System
The Pheasant Walk WWTP is a Palm Beach County facility. The WWTP has a
current design capacity of 0.1 mgd with an expansion to 0.4 mgd within the
next year. The plant is being operated as an activated sludge, extended
aeration, secondary treatment facility. The physical layout of the plant
consists of two separate treatment units with discrete inflows and outflows.
No combination of flows is possible without physical modifications to the
facility. The two units discharge to the easternmost two of the four
available percolation ponds (Figure 1).
-------
PHASE II RESIDENTIAL
FIGURE 1. PHEASANT WALK
FP - FILTRATION PLANT
EPP - EVAPORATION-PERCOLATION POND
WWTP - WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
MONITORING WELLS
O DRINKING WATER WELLS
-------
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) monitors
groundwater quality at three monitoring wells near the plant. The DEIS
reports that no water quality problems are currently experienced. The
effluent being discharged to the percolation ponds, as observed in the
preliminary site visit, formed a small pool approximately 0.5 to 1.0 meters
in diameter and was rapidly percolating into the sandy bed.
The Pheasant Walk Water Supply System is immediately adjacent to the
WWTP. The water supply system is a reverse osmosis system which is currently
exhibiting operational problems due to the lack of screening in the water
supply wells. The system has four wells only one of which is used under
normal circumstances although three of the four can be used at present
(Figure 1).
Pheasant Walk has been built with phased construction of housing areas.
The Phase I residential area was built prior to Phase II. The use of private
Wells (30'-40' deep) to supply water for non-consumptive use is common in the
area but much more prevalent 1n the Phase II residential area. The Phase II
area is hydraulically down gradient from the WWTP.
1.2.1.1 Sandalfoot Cove System
The Sandal foot Cove WWTP has been purchased by the county from the South
Palm Beach Utilities Corporation. The secondary treatment plant has an
existing capacity of 2.0 mgd with plans to expand the facility to 3.5 mgd.
Effluent is pumped to percolation ponds located east of the Sandal foot Cove
Golf Course (Figure 2). FDER monitors the groundwater near the percolation
ponds and the WWTP effluent. The Sandal foot Cove water supply wells are
located throughout the golf course (Figure 2). The WWTP/Water Filtration
Plant, golf course, and percolation pond areas are interspersed with
residential areas.
-------
S.W. 19TH STREET
FIGURE 2. SANDALFOOT COVE
* RESIDENTIAL WELLS • MONITORING WELLS
O DRINKING WATER WELLS
-------
1.2.2 Study Design
EPA decided to modify the recommended Plan of Study from the DEIS and
eliminated the testing program at the Pheasant Walk facility. Based on the
magnitude and nature of the waste flow at this facility, EPA concluded that
part of the program and the projected costs were not justified. EPA did
institute sampling and analysis program for the Sandal foot Cove facility.
1.2.2.1 Sample Sites
The program as designed by EPA included sampling at eight sites. Three
of these sites were the monitoring wells at the percolation ponds (MW-1,
MW-2, MW-3; Figure 2). Two sites were private residential wells 1n the
Immediate vicinity of the percolation ponds (RIM. RW-2; Figure 2). Two
additional sites were established at drinking water supply wells at the golf
course. One site (DW-1) was near the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), and
the other site was at the well nearest the percolation ponds (DW-5). Samples
were also taken of the WWTP effluent (TP composite). One site was added to
the program by the Field Manager during the sampling trip. The percolation
ponds are bordered by a French drain or drainage ditch on the south and east
sides. This ditch enters a culvert at the southwest corner of the facility,
inside the security fence. While vegetation prevented gauging activity, flow
into this culvert was substantial. Detailed construction reports on this
drainage system were not available.
1.2.2.2 Study Parameters
The study parameters varied according to sample type and included
nitrate, chlorophenoxy herbicides (2,4-D and 2,4,5-TP) and all EPA priority
pollutants (Table 1.1). All well samples and the French drain sample were
analyzed for nitrate and all priority pollutants. The WWTP composite sample
was analyzed for nitrates and all priority pollutants except purgeable com-
-------
pounds. Eight discrete samples from the WWTP were analyzed for the purgeable
(volatile) compounds. Herbicide analysis was only performed on MW-3, RW-2,
FD-1 and TP-C.
-------
Table 1.1. PBC Study Parameters and Analytical Methods.
Parameter Storet Number
Method Number*
Nutrients
Nitrate
Chloropheroxy Herbicides
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP
Metals
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmi urn
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Purgeable Halocarbons
Bromoform
Bromodichloromethane
Bromomethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chiorodlbromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Chioromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-01chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
l,2-(trans)-D1chloroethane
1,2-01chloropropane
l,3-(trans)-D1chloropropane
Fluorot ri chloromethane
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tet rach1oroethene
1,1,1-Tri chloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trfchloroethene
Vinyl chloride
00620
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP
Asbst
01010
01027
01034
01042
00720
01051
71900
01067
01147
01077
01059
01092
32104
32101
34413
32102
34306
34311
34576
32106
34418
32105
34496
34531
34501
34541
34541
34561
34475
34423
34475
34516
34506
34511
34506
39175
352
8.40**
8.40**
239***
210
213
218
220
335
239
245
249
270
272
279
289
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
601
-------
Table 1.1. Continued
Purgeable Aromatics
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-DiChlorobenzene
1,3-DiChlorobenzene
1,4-DiChlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Acrolein & Aerylonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Phenols
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
4,6-Di ni t ro-2-methy1 phenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Benzidines
Benzidine
3,3' Dichlorobenzidine
Phthalates
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Nitrosamines
N-ni trosodi-n-propylami ne
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-ni t rosodi pheny1 ami ne
Organochlorine Pesticides
Aldrin
Chlordane
4,4'-ODD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Dieldrin
34030
34301
34536
34566
34571
34371
34010
34210
32415
34452
34586
34601
34606
34657
34616
34591
34646
39094
34694
34621
39120
34631
39100
34292
34110
34596
34336
34341
34346
34428
34438
34433
39330
39350
39310
39320
39300
39380
602
602
602
602
602
602
602
603
603
604
604
604
604
604
604
604
604
604
604
604
605
605
606
606
606
606
606
606
606
607
607
607
608
608
608
608
608
608
-------
Table 1.1. Continued
Nitroaromatlcs & Isophorone
Isophorone
Nitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Polyiwclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene
Aceriaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1uoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene
Fluoranthene
F1uorene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Haloethers
Bi s(2-chloroethyl) ether
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bi s(2-chloroi sopropy1) ether
Bis(chloromethyl) ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chiorinated Hydrocarbons
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadi ene
Hexachloroethane
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene
2-chloronaphthalene
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin
TCCO
34408
34447
34611
34626
34205
34200
34220
34526
34247
34230
34521
34242
34320
34556
34376
34381
34403
34696
34461
34469
34273
34278
34283
34636
34641
34386
39700
34391
34396
34551
34581
34675
609
609
609
609
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
610
611
611
611
611
611
611
612
612
612
612
612
612
613
*EPA 1979a. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/4-
79-020.
or
EPA 1976b. Federal Register. December 3, 1979 - Vol. 44, No. 233 unless
otherwise noted.
**EPA 1980. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical
Methods. SW-846.
***USPHS/NIOSH. Membrane Filter Method for Evaluating Asbestos Fibers.
P & CAM 239.
-------
2.0 PROJECT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY
The Palm Beach County EIS Sampling Program is being conducted under an
existing contract between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Claude Terry & Associates, Inc. Dr. Claude E. Terry is the Project Director
for all projects done under this contract. As Project Director, Dr. Terry
has the overall responsibility for the series of studies, appoints the
Project Manager, structures the study team, is responsible for resolving any
potential personnel assignment conflicts and participates in the development
of the Plan of Study.
The Project Manager for the PBC Sampling Program is Robert Hunter. Mr.
Hunter has the responsibility for the direction of the study, preparation of
task elements, budget monitoring, liaison with the EPA Regional Office,
keeping the Project Officer informed of study progress, and satisfactory
completion of the study. Mr. Hunter also supervised all field activity,
including sampling.
The Quality Assurance Coordinator for the project is Carla Bahun. Ms.
Bahun is responsible for the management of the quality assurance control
program. In this capacity she is responsible for the review of the field and
lab QA reports and the preparation of QA management reports.
Laboratory analyses were conducted under the supervision of Anita
Patterson. Mrs. Patterson was responsible for the analysis of the samples
and the maintenance and documentation of the quality assurance procedures.
Table 2.1 lists the key CTA personnel assigned to the PBC sampling
programs. Resumes are included for these individuals (Appendix 7.2).
-------
Table 2.1. CTA Personnel Available for the PBC Sampling Program.
Personnel Job Classification
Claude Terry Project Director
Robert Hunter Project Manager
Anita Patterson Laboratory Director
Greg Broune Environmental Englneer/Hydrologist
Ruth Pappas Chemist
Carla Bahun Quality Assurance Coordinator
-------
3.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION
Samples were collected in the study area on November 7 and 8, 1981 accord-
ing to EPA procedures as outlined in the Plan of Study. Samples were
collected at the Sandalfoot Cove Treatment Plant, percolation pond monitoring
well, drinking water wells, residential wells and from the drainage system at
the percolation ponds. Sampling activity is summarized in Table 3.1. Field
data was noted for each sample and was recorded on standard forms (Appendix
7.3.1).
3.1 Wastewater Treatment Plant (TP)
Samples were collected of the Sandalfoot Cove TP effluent after the fil-
tration and chlorine contact units. Grab samples were collected every three
hours over a twenty-four hour period. All TP samples were collected with a
solvent-rinsed glass bottle. Eight discrete grab samples of three bottles
each were collected for volatile priority pollutant analyses. Volatile
sample containers were solvent-rinsed, 40-ml glass bottles with teflon lined
caps. In addition, separate grab samples were collected every three hours
for a composite sample. Sample containers for these samples consisted of
one-liter, acid-rinsed, solvent-rinsed glass bottles with teflon lined caps.
These effluent samples were transported to Atlanta, Georgia, where they were
flow proportionally composited. WWTP flow data is included in Appendix
7.3.2. All other sample containers were identical in composition and
preparation.
3.2 Percolation Pond Monitoring Wells
Monitoring well samples (MW-1, MW-2, MW-3) were collected by bailing
after well flushing. Each monitoring well was flushed for 10 minutes prior
to sample collection. Flushing was accomplished by using a portable electric
pump. Approximately 12 volumes of standing well water (volume of PVC pipe)
-------
Table 3.1. Summary of Sampling Activity-Palm Beach County EIS.
Lab Number
TP-1400
TP-1700
TP-2000
TP-2300
TP-0200
TP-0500
TP-0800
TP-1100
8298-1544
(RW-1)
22905-1637
(RW-2)
DU-5-0820
DU-1-0845
MW-1-0921
MW-2-0958
MW-3-1020
Date
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
Time
1400
1706
2001
2303
0200
0500
0800
1100
1554
1652
0820
0845
0921
0958
1020
Site Location
Sandal Foot Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sandal Foot Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sandal Foot Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sandal Foot Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sandal Foot Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sandal Foot Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sandal Foot Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sandal Foot Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant
Residential well @ 8298 SW 16th - South of
percolation ponds
Residential well 9 22905 SW 56th Ave. - West
of percolation ponds
Drinking water well 15 - well closest to
percolation ponds
Drinking water well fl - well closest to WWT
Monitoring well northwest of percolation
ponds
Monitoring well east of polishing pond
Monitoring well southwest of percolation
FD-1-1225 8 Nov 81
ponds
1245 French drain at culvert southwest of
percolation ponds
-------
were pumped from each well prior to sample collection (Table 3.2). Details
of the 2-inch PVC well construction are included in the field data sheets
(Appendix 7.3.1). All bailers (PVC) were solvent rinsed and then double
rinsed with well water prior to sample collection.
3.3 Water Supply Wells
The water supply or drinking water wells (DW-1, DW-5) are high volume
deep wells (Appendix 7.3.3). These 10"-12" wells are 100'-160' deep and
provide raw water to the Sandal foot Cove Filtration Plant adjacent to the
WWTP. Both DW-1 and DW-5 were in operation prior to and during sample
collection. Samples were collected from the in-place pump systems after
flushing the sampling spigot for five minutes.
3.4 Residential Wells
Water samples were collected from two private residential wells (RW-1,
RW-2) near the percolation ponds. As for the water supply wells, the
residential well samples were taken directly from the in-place pump system.
Wells were pumped for approximately five minutes prior to sample collection.
Construction information presented in the field data sheets is based on
interviews with the owners and was not verified with construction companies.
Information on RW-1 is probably accurate since the owner specified the depth
of the well to avoid odor problems.
3.5 Percolation Pond Area Drainage System
The presence of the French drain along the east and south periphery of
the percolation pond site was not considered in the initial study, design.
Samples were collected (FD-1) at the option of the Field Director. Flow was
not measured due to the heavy vegetation. No detailed engineering informa-
tion was available on the construction of the drainage system, but it .is
possible that the ditch is below the bottom level of the percolation ponds.
-------
Table 3.2. Well Operation and Flushing Data.
Well
MW-1
MW-2
MM-3
DW-1
DW-5
RW-1
RW-2
Daily Flushing Period
Operation (min. )
None
None
None
Scheduled
Scheduled
Intermittent
Intermittent
10
10
10
5
5
5
7
Flushing Rate
(gal. /min.)
2.44
2.51
2.42
—
—
—
•»••
Well Volume
(gal.)
1.98
2.16
1.87
415.6
415.2
13.2
6.43
Vol umes
Flushed
12.3
11.6
12.9
—
—
—
—
-------
The drainage flow is believed to run to the canal via a culvert, although no
outfall is visible.
Flow in the ditch was substantial and could be from either the perco-
lation ponds or rainfall. Local precipitation data for the period is
included in Appendix 7.3.4.
3.6 Sample Custody, Preservation, and Holding Times
Samples were in the possession of the Field Director from the time of
collection until shipping via air to Atlanta, Georgia. Samples were re-
trieved upon arrival at the airport by the Field Director and transported to
the CTA laboratory. All samples were maintained in a secured, refrigerated
area and signed over to the Laboratory Director the morning of November 9,
1981. The Laboratory Director maintained custody of the samples until
analysis.
Sample preservation was conducted in the field. Cyanide samples were
tested for oxidizing agents and preserved with NaOH to a pH of greater than
12.0. Metal samples were preserved with HN03 to a pH of less than 2.0. All
other samples were preserved by cooling to 4 °C during transit and in the
lab.
Sample holding times were in accordance with EPA recommendations (Federal
Register, 3 Dec. 79, Vol. 44, No. 233). Sampling was scheduled over the
weekend to facilitate the timely analysis of samples.
-------
4.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
Water samples were analyzed for nitrates, chlorophenoxy herbicides and
EPA priority pollutants according to EPA approved techniques (Federal Regis-
ter, 3 Dec. 79, Vol. 44, No. 233). Most organic analyses were performed
according to EPA methods on a Perkin-Elmer Sigma III B gas chromatograph, and
metals were analyzed on a Perkin-Elmer Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer.
Detailed procedures were included in the Quality Assurance Project Plan
submitted to EPA and approved prior to the initiation of sampling activity.
EPA approved technique reference numbers are included in Table 1.1. However,
EPA currently lacks an approved procedure for asbestos. Following consul-
tation with EPA, CTA selected a procedure approved by the U.S. Public Health
Service and ttif National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
(USPHS/NIOSH).
The levels of concern for the priority pollutants are often exceedingly
low. Therefore, the minimum detection limits for the analytical methodolo-
gies must also be quite low. Information concerning detection limits,
toxicity data, levels of human health concern, and criteria levels are
summarized in Table 4.1. The reported levels for detection limits are
conservative. The use of multi-parameter standards was used in the analysis
and these matrices produce detection limits of larger concentrations.
Detection limits were defined at a response of 10 percent of the full scale
peak as opposed to 2 percent as is often done. If peaks were noted below
confidence levels then testing was repeated with single parameter standards
to lower the detection limits below those in Table 4.1.
-------
Table 4.1. Detection Limits, Toxicity Data, and Human Health Criteria for Parameters of Analysis for the PBC Sampling Program (ug/1).
TOXICITY DATA
HUMAN HEALTH
Parameter
Nutrients
Nitrate
Detection Limit
0.1*
FRESHWATER MARINE I NCR CANCER RISK
Acute Chronic Acute Chronic 10-5 10-6 10-7 Criteria
10*
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides
2,4-D
2,4,b-TP
Metals
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium Hexa (VI)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Purgeable Halocarbons
Bromoform
BromodiChloromethane
Bromomethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Di chloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-(trans)-Di chloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3- (t rans)-Di chl oropropane
Fluo rot ri Chloromethane
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Tri chloroethane
Trichloroethane
20
20
100
100
100
100
20
100
1
100
2
100
100
100
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
N/A
130
((!))
Max 21
Max 5.6
Max 52
((3))
Max 0.0017
((4))
Max 260
((&))
1400
((6))
11,000
11,000
11,000
35,200
N/A
N/A
N/A
28,900
11,000
11,000
11,000
118,000
N/A
N/A
23,000
23,000
11,000
11,000
9,320
9,320
18,000
18,000
18,000
N/A
5.3
((D)
Avg 0.29
Avg (2)
Avg 3.5
((3))
Avg 0.00057
((4))
Avg 35
8.12
40
Avg 47
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,240
N/A
N/A
N/A
20,000
N/A
N/A
5,700
5,700
N/A
N/A
2,400
N/A
N/A
9,400
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.5
Max 1,260
Max 23
30
668
Max 3.7
Max 140
Max 410
Max 2.3
2.130
Max 170
12,000
12,000
12,000
50,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
12,000
12,000
12,000
113,000
N/A
N/A
10,300
10,300
12,000
12,000
9,020
N/A
31,200
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
59
Avg 18
Avg 4.0
2.0
25
Avg 0.025
Avg 7.1
Avg 54
N/A
N/A
Avg 58
6,400
6,400
6,400
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6,400
6,400
6,400
—
N/A
N/A
3,040
3,040
6,400
6,400
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
***
300,000
37 ug/1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
••—
1.9
1.9
1.9
4.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
9.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.9
1.9
I./
N/A
--
6.0
N/A
***
30,000
3.7
—
—
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
——
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.94
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.19
0.19
0.17
N/A
—
0.6
N/A
***
3,000
0.37
—
--
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.04
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.094
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.019
0.019
0.01/
N/A
—
0.06
N/A
100
10
10
50
(1.0*)
200
50
144**
13,4
10
50
13
(5*)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
18.4*
N/A
-------
Table 4.1. Continued
TOXICITY DATA
HUMAN HEALTH
FRESHWATER
Parameter Detection Limit
Vinyl chloride
Purgeable Aromatics
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Di Chlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Di Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
\crolein & Acrylonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Phenols
4-Chl oro-3-methy 1 phenol
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
£,4-l)i methyl phenol
4, 6-Oinitro-2-methyl phenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Jenzidines
Benzidine
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
^hthalates
Bis(2-ethylhexyl )phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
D1-n-octyl phthalate
Di ethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
1,2-Di phenylhydrazine
Nitrosamines
N-nitrosodi -n-propy 1 ami ne
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-ni t rosodi pheny 1 ami ne
0.4
20
20
6
6
6
20
20
20
20
15
5
5
5
20
15
5
20
20
5
10
0.5
0.5
5
5
5
10
10
10
20
2
2
2
Acute
N/A
5,300
250
1,120
1.120
1,120
32,000
17,500
68
7,550
N/A
4,380
2,020
2,120
230
230
230
230
55
10,200
N/A
2,500
N/A
940
N/A
940
N/A
940
940
N/A
5,«50
i.,850
b,850
Chronic
N/A
N/A
N/A
763
763
763
N/A
N/A
21
N/A
N/A
N/A
365
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.2
2,560
970
N/A
N/A
3
N/A
3
N/A
3
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MARINE
Acute Chronic
N/A
5,100
160
1,970
1,970
1,970
430
6,300
55
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,850
4,850
4,850
4,850
53
5,800
N/A
N/A
N/A .
2,944
N/A
2,944
N/A
2,944
. 2,944
N/A
3.3xl06
3.3xl06
3..3xl06
N/A
N/A
129
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
34
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I NCR
10-5
2.0
6.6
—
--
--
--
~
--
0.58
N/A
CANCER
10-6
2.0
0.66
—
..
—
~
—
—
0.058
N/A
RlSk
10-7
0.2
0.66
—
—
—
—
—
--
0.006
N/A
Criteria
~
~
488
400
400
400
1,4
14.3
320
--
N/A
(20)
(0.1)
—
—
—
3.09
(0.3)
(400)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
«
—
12
N/A
103**
N/A
N/A
N/A
b.O
14**
49
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
—
..
1.2
N/A
10.3**
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8
1.4**
4.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
—
--
0.12
N/A
1.03**
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.008
0.14**
0.49
70
70
N/A
N/A
0.1*
3.5
--
N/A
--
15*
N/A
34*
N/A
350*
313*
N/A
'
(30)
(0.3*)
-------
Table 4.1. Continued
TOXICITY DATA
HUMAN HEALTH
FRESHWATER
Parameter Detection Limit
Organochlorine Pesticides
Aldri n
Chlordane
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
Dieldrin
Nitroaromatics & Isophorone
Isophorone
Nitrobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f1 uoranthene
Benzo(ghi )perylene
Benzo(k )f 1 uoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene
Fl uoranthene
Flourene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Haloethers
Bis(2-ch1oroethyl ) ether
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl ) ether
Bis(ch1oromethyl ) ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Hexachlorocycl npentadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.04
10
10
1
0.2
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
1
. 1
2
2
2
1
10
1
1
2
2
2
2
5
5
0.2
0.04
Acute
3.0
Cr 2.4
N/A
1,050
Max 1.1
Cr 2.5
117,000
330
330
17,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3,980
N/A
N/A
2,300
N/A
N/A
238,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
360
360
/.O
N/A
Chronic
N/A
Cr 0.0043
N/A
N/A
Avg 0.0010
Cr 0.0019
N/A
230
230
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
620
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
.N/A
N/A
120
120
5.2
N/A
MARINE
Acute
1.3
Cr 0.09
N/A
14
Max 0.13
Cr 0.71
12,900
590
590
970
N/A
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
40
300
300
2,350
300
300
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7.0
N/A
Chronic
N/A
0.0040
N/A
N/A
Avg 0.0010
0.0019
N/A
N/A
N/A
710
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
16
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I NCR
16"- 5"
0.74**
4.6**
N/A
N/A
0.24**
0.71**
"•"•
1.1
1.1
—
N/A
28**
28**
28**
28**
28**
28**
28**
28**
—
28**
28**
N/A
28**
28**
0.3
N/A
37.6xl06
N/A
N/A
N/A
CANCER
10-61
0.074**
0.46**
N/A
N/A
0.024**
0.071**
*"-
0.11
0.11
--
N/A
2.8**
2.8**
2.8**
2.8**
2.8**
2.8**
2.8**
2.8**
—
2.8**
2.8**
N/A
2.8**
2.8**
0.03
N/A
3.76x66
N/A
N/A
N/A
RISK
10-7
0.0074**
0.046**
N/A
N/A
0.0024**
0.0071**
-..
0.011
0.011
—
N/A
0.28**
0.28**
0. 28**
0.28**
0.28**
0.28**
0.28**
0.28**
—
0.28
0.28**
N/A
0.28**
0.28**
0.003
N/A
0.376xl06
N/A
N/A
N/A
Criteria
-_
N/A
N/A
N/A
_.
—
5.2*
—
—
(0.02*)
N/A
—
^—
«
—
42
—
N/A
—
—
~~
34.7
N/A
N/A
206 (1)
N/A
-------
Table 4.1. Continued
TOXICITY DATA
HUMAN HEALTH
FRESHWATER
Parameter
Hexachl orobutadi ene
Hexachloroethane
1 ,2 ,4-Tri chl orobenzene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Detection Limit
2
2
0.2
0.2
Acute
90
N/A
N/A
1,600
Chronic
9.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
MARINE
Acute
32
N/A
N/A
7.5
Chronic
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
INCR
10-5
4.47
N/A
N/A
N/A
CANCER
10-6
0.45
N/A
N/A
N/A
RISK
10-7
0.045
N/A
N/A
N/A
Criteria
N/A
N/A
N/A
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxin
TCCO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
*mg/l
**ng/l
***# of fibers/1
(organoleptic data)
((#)) = see attached formula table
N/A = Not Available
((D)
Cadium - Freshwater
5 (In (hardness)) - 8.53
Total Recoverabl
24 hr avg = eU«
Max = e (1.05 (In (hardness)) - 3.73
Hardness as CaC03: (ug/1) 50 - 100 - 200
24 hr avg (ug/1): 0.012 - 0.025 - 0.051
Max (ug/1): 1.5 - 3.0 - 6.3
((2)) Total Recovi
Max = e( •
Hardness as CaC03"(ug/l): '50 - 100 - 200
Max (ug/1): 12 - 22 - 43
((3)) Total Recoverable Lead - Freshwater
24 hr avg = e,(2.35 (In (hardness)} - 9.48
Max = e(**22 ('n (hardness)) - 0.47
Hardness as CaC03 (ug/1): 50 - 100 - 200
24 hr avg (ug/1): 0.75 - 3.8 - 20
Max (ug/1): 74 - 170 - 400
;(4)) Total Recoverable Nickel - Freshwater
24 hr avg = el°-'b (ln (hardness)) + I.Ob
Max = e (0.76 (In (hardness)) + 4.02
Hardness as CaC03 (ug/1): 50 - 100 - 200
24 hr avg (ug/1): 56 - 96 - 160
Max (ug/1): 1,100 - 1,800 - 3,100
((5)) Total Recoverable Silver - Freshwater
Max = eU.72 (1n (hardness)) - 6.52
Hardness as CaC03 (ug/1): 50 - 100 - 200
Max (ugl): 1.2 - 4.1 - 13
((6)) Total Recoverable Zinc - Freshwater
Max - e^.83 (In (hardness)) + 1.95
Hardness as CaC03 (ug/1): 50 - 100 - 200
Max (ug/1): 180 - 320 - 570
-------
5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
The results of the sample analyses are summarized in the following
tables. Pollutant levels are generally very low and often below the
analytical detection limits.
-------
Table 5.1. Analytical Results - PBC - EIS.
Parameter
Detection Limit ug/1 TP Composite
RU-1
RW-2
DW-5
DW-1
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
FD-1
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Berylluim
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
5.0
1.0
100
100
100
100
20
100
1.0
100
2.0
100
100
100
BDL
BOL
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
20
BDL
1.7
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
32
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
200
BDL
2.0
ND
BDL
BDL
BOL
100
BDL
BDL
12
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
1.6
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
10
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
4.3
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
1.5
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
1.9
ND
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
BDL
100
BDL
BDL
BOL
100
Parameters
Purgeable Halocarbons
Bromoform
Bromodlchlororaethane
Bropmomethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Di chl orodi f 1 uoromethane
1,1-01 chloroethane
1,2-DiChloroethane
1,1-Dlchloroethene
1,2-(t rans)-D1chloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-(t rans)-Dichloropropane
Fl uorot ri chl oromenthane
Methylene chloride
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Tri chloroethane
1,1,2-Trichl oroethane
Tri chl oroethane
Vinyl chloride
Detection Limit ug/1 TP1400 TP1700 TP200Q TP2300 TP0200 TP0500 TP0800 TP1100 RW1 RW2 DM5 DW1 MW1 MW2 MW3 FD1
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL '
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BUL
BOL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDI.
BUL
BDI.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BUL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BUL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
RDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BUL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
-------
Table 5.1. Continued
Parameters
Detection Limit ug/1 TP1400 TP1700 TP2000 TP2300 TP0200 TP0500 TP0800 TP1100 RW1 RH2 DW5 DW1 MW1 MW2 MW3 FD1
Purgeable Aromatics
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,2-Di chlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Di chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Acrolein Acrylonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylonitri le
Phenols
4-Chl o ro-3-roethy 1 phenol
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Uichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
4,6-Dinitro-2-methy1phenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Benzi dines
Benzidine
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
Phthalates
Bis(2-ethylhexyl )phthalate
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Oiethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
1 , 2-Di phenyl hydrazi ne
Nitrosami nes
N-ni t rosodi -n-propy 1 ami ne
N-nitrosodiinetlr/lamine
N- ni t rosod i [>heny 1 ami ne
20
20
6
6
6
20
20
20
20
15
5
5
5
20
15
5
20
20
5
10
0.5
0.5
5
5
5
10
10
10
20
2
2
2
BDL BDL BOL
BDL BDL BDL
BOL BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL
BDL BDL BDL
TP Composite
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
RW-1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BUL
BUI.
BUL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
RW-2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BUL
BDL
bOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
DW-5
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BUL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
DW-1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BUL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
MW-1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BUL
BDL
BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
WW-2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
MW-3
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BUL
BUL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
FD-1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BUL
BUL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
BDL BOL
BDL BDL
BDL BDL
-------
Table 5.1. Continued
Parameter
Detection
OrganochloMne Pesticides
AldMn
Chlordane
4,4-DUD
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDT
DieldMn
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.04
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Nitroaromatlcs & Isophorone
Isophorone
Nitrobenzene
2,4-D1nitrotoluene
2,6-D1n1trotoluene
10
10
1
0.2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo
Benzo
Benzo
aianthracene
ajpyrene
b)fluoranthene
Benzo(gh1 )perylene
Benzo(k)f1uoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(ah)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
10
10
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
10
1
1
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
UUL.
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
ant
DL/L.
BDL
BDL
IJUL.
BDL
IsL/L.
BDL
BDL
out-
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Haloethers
B1s(2-ch1oroethyl) ether
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Bis(2-chloro1sopropyl } ether
Bis(chloromethy1 ) ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether
2
2
2
2
5
5
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
2-Chloronaphthalene
0.2
0.04
2
2
0.2
0.2
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BPL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BUL
-------
Parameter Detection Limit ug/1 TP Composite RH-1 RW-2 DU-5 DW-1 HW-1 MU-2 MW-3 FD-1
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dioxln
TCCD
Nutrients
Nitrate
Chloropheroxy Herbicides
2,4-D
2,4,5-TP
1
0.1 mg/1
50
5
BDL
2.06 mg/1
BOL
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
-------
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE DATA
Laboratory quality assurance methods followed EPA guidelines. At least
one method blank was run with each analysis. The method blank was carried
through the entire procedure with the samples. A minimum of three standards
for each organic parameter were analyzed at the beginning of each analysis.
One standard was analyzed at the end of each analysis. Standards were also
run when the instrument operating conditions were changed in any way. A min-
imum of one duplicate and one spike were analyzed for every ten samples
except for the purgeable organics. Because the integrity of these samples is
compromised when the container is opened, no spikes were analyzed. EPA check
samples were analyzed with the metal samples in addition to the standards,
spikes, and blanks.
-------
Table 6.1. Quality Assurance Data.
Samples Duplicates Spikes
Standards Blanks
Purgeable Halocarbons
Purgeable Aromatics
Acrolein & Acrylonitrile
Phenols
Benzi dines
Phthalates
Nitrosamines
Organochlorine Pesticides
Nitroaromatics & Isophorone
Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
Haloethers
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Nutrients
Chlorophehoxy Herbicides
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
16
16
16
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
-
-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
5
5
3
4
3
3
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
6
0
2
3
3
3
5
3
13
3
7
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
INVESTIGATOR R. Hunter
Well CZ3 _-
Point Source | X
Samples to:
Bact Biol
Station No.
(I)
Chem
1 + 3
Starting Date
Other Day Month Year
7
Nov.
81
Starting Time (24)
SC-WWTP
Sampl
e Depth (m)
1
4 1 0
Ending Date
Day Month
Surface
Lab Number
7
Nov
Ending Time
TP-1400-A,B,C,D
1
0
Year
81
(24)
4 |» |9
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
PH
x 1
Sample Temp. (°C)
DO (mg/1)
Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): Samples taken from tank after filtra-
tioa-and chlorine contact chamber. Sample site includes total flow from both
treatment units.
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION: Samples consists of one one-liter bottle for com-
posite sample (A) and three 40-ml bottles for volatile analysis (B.C.D).
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
INVESTIGATOR R. Hunter
Well |I
Point Source
Samples to: (#)
Bact Biol Chem Other
2 + 6
Station No.
SC-WWTP
Sample Depth (m)
Surface
Lab Number
TP-2000-(A-H)
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
X
Starting Date
Day Month Year
Sample Temp. (°C)
7
Nov.
81
Starting Time (24) DO (mg/1)
2
0
0
1
Ending Date
Day Month Year
Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
7
Nov
81
Ending Time (24) Turbidity (NTU)
2
0
1
1
PH
Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): Sjtme as (TP-14QO) - increased flow and
foam. _ _
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION: Two sets of samples taken: (A) & (B) are one-
liter glass bottles for the composite; (B.C.D) and (F.G.H) are 40-ml glass bottles
for volatiles analysis
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
INVESTIGATOR R. Hunter
Point Source
Samples to: (I)
Bact Biol Chem Other
1 + 3
Station No.
SC-WWTP
Sample Depth (m)
Surface
Lab Number
TP-1700-A,B,C,D
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
X
Starting Date
Day Month Year
Sample Temp. (°C)
7 I Nov
81
Starting Time (24) DO (mg/1)
1
7
0
6
Ending Date
Day Month Year
Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
7
Nov
81
Ending Time (24) Turbidity (NTU)
u cn
1
1
pH
Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): Same as (TP-1400) except an increase
in flow and a good deal of foaming Jn tank.
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION: Samples consist of one one-liter bottle for
composite sample (A) and three 40-ml bottles for volatile analysis (B.C,D).
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
INVESTIGATOR R" Hunter
•>"
Point
ce
Samples to: (I)
Bact Biol Chew Other
I I
Station No.
I SC-HWTP
Sample Depth (m)
| Surface
Lab Number
| TP-2300 (A-E)
Type of Sample
Crab Composite Other
m i
Sample Temp. (°C)
Starting Date
Dajf Month Year
] iT'l NO» I 81 I I II I I
Starting Time (24)
("9/n
3-1 0 |3| I I I I I
Ending Date
Daj Month Year
] I 7{ I Nov | 81 I
Gond. (uHHOS/CH)
I I I I I
Ending Time (24) Turbidity (NTU)
8
P«
I I I I I
Other
1 I I I I I l l l l l
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map w Reverse): Same as (TP-14001 - fla» discontinuous
- no flow at 2300 hours - flow from 2303 to 2307.
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION; Two sets of samples taken: (Al A fEl
liter glass bottles for the composite; (B). (C). i {D) are 40-ml olass bottle for
volatlles analysis. Sample tafcen directly from flow,not tank.
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
' PROJECT PBC - EIS
Well ||
INVESTIGATOR R.
Samples to: (#)
Bact Biol Chem Other
' " 1-3 1
Station No.
| SC-WWTP
Sample Depth (m)
Surface
Lab Number
TP-0200 (A-D)
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
X
Hunter
Point Source I X 1
Starting Date Sample Temp. (°C)
Da^ Month Year
a
Nov 81
1
Starting Time (24) DO (mg/1)
| Q |2 - 0 0 !
Ending Date Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
Day Month Year
B
Nov 81
. J
Ending Time (24) Turbidity (MTU)
Q
20 5 1
pHI Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): Sjrnie as (TP-1400). Flow continuous
over ten-minute period.
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION: One set of samples taken: (A) is a one-liter
L
glass bottle for the composite; (B), (C), & (D) are 40-ml glass bottles for vola-
tiles analysis.
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
Well |[
INVESTIGATOR R.
Samples to:
Bact Biol
Station No.
(*)
Chem Other
1 + 3
Hunter
Point Source IX 1
Starting Date
Day Month Year
| 8 Nov
81
Starting Time (24)
SC-WWTP
Sample Depth (m)
Surface
Lab Number
TP-0500 (A-D)
050
Ending Date
Day Month
8 Nov.
Ending Time
050
0
Year
81
(24)
8
Sample Temp. (°C)
DO (mg/1)
Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
pH
Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): Sanr.e as (TP-14QQ). Flow continuous
similar to (TP-0200).
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION: One set of samples taken: (A) is a one-liter
g 1 ass bottle for the composite; (B),(C), & (D) are 40-ml glass bottles for the
volatiles analysis.
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJ ECT PBC-EIS
INVESTIGATOR R. Hunter
Well OH
Point Source | |
Samples to: (#) Smarting Date
Bact Biol Chem Other pay Month Year
Sample Temp. (°C)
2 + 3
Station No.
SC-WWTP
Sample Depth (m)
^Surface
Lab Number
TP-0800
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
Nov
81
Starting Time (24) DO (mg/1)
Q
8
0
0
Ending Date
Day Month Year
Conci. (uMHOS/CM)
8
Nov
81
Ending Time (24) Turbidity (NTU)
0
8
0
4
Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): Same as (TP-1400); flow increasing
since (TP-0400). .
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION Two sets of samples taken: (A) & (E) are one-
liter glass bottles for the composite; (B),(C).&(D) are 40-ml glass bottles for
the volatiles analysis.
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
INVESTIGATOR R. Hunter
Well ||
Point Source
Samples to: (#)
Bact Biol Chem Other
|2
Station No.
SC-WWTP
Sample Depth (m)
Surface
Lab Number
TP-1100
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
I X
Starting Date
Day Month Year
Sample Temp. (°C)
|8
Nov.
81
Starting Time (24) DO (mg/1)
1
1
0
0
Ending Date
Day Month Year
Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
8
Nov
81
Ending Time (24) Turbidity (NTU)
1
1
0
7
Other
1 C
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): Same as (TP-14QO). Flow appears to be
at highest point during the 24-hour_samp1ing.
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION: Two sets of samples taken: (A) & (E) are one-
liter glass bottles for the composite; (B).(C).&(D) are 40-ml glass bottles for
the volatiles analysis.
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
INVESTIGATOR IT. Hunter
Samples to: (#)
Bact Biol Chem Other
Station No.
SCMW - 1
Sample Depth (m)
13 feet
Lab Number
MW-1-0921
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
Starting Date
Day Month Year
8 I Nov I 81
Well i~X~t
Point Source I I
Sample Temp. (°C)
Starting Time (24) DO (mg/1)
0
9
2
1
Ending Date
Day Month Year
Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
8'
Nov
81
Ending Time (24) Turbidity (NTU)
I 0 I 9 I 4
pH
Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map 041 Reverse): 25.2 feet deep—total
6.1 feet water depth
13 feet of hose in well for punping
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION: Pumping started at 0931; continued pumping to
0941 before sampling. A & B = one-gallon glass; C = one-liter glass; D = one-
liter PP; E.F,G = 40-ml glass; pumping rate = one gallon per 24.5 seconds & 24.6 seconds.
No sulfur smell.
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
INVESTIGATOR R. Hunter
Point Source 1 I
Samples to: (#)
Bact Biol Chem Other
Station No.
SCMW-2
Sample Depth (m)
17.0 feet
Lab Number
MW-2-0958
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
X
Starting Date
Day Month Year
Sample Temp. (°C)
8
Nov
81
Starting Time (24) DO (mg/1)
io
9
5
8
Ending Date
Daty Month Year
Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
8
Nov.
81
Ending Time (24) Turbidity (NTU)
1
0
1
3
PH
Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): 24.0 feet to bottom of well
3.2-feet to water : :
17.0 feet of hose in for purapinj
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION: Pumping started at 0958. Continued pumping to
1008 before sampling. A & B = one-gallon glass; C = one-liter glass; D = one-
liter PP; E,F,G = 40-ml glass
Pumping rate: one gallon per: 24.4 sec & 23.4 sec; sulfur smell
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
Well FT
INVESTIGATOR R. Hunter
Samples to:
Bact Biol
Station No.
(*)
Chem Other
7
Point Source [ J
f
Starting Date
Day Month Year
8 Nov.
81
Starting Time (24)
SCMW-3
Sample Depth (m)
I 15.5 feet
Lab Number
1 MW-3-1020
1 0 | 2
0
Ending Date
Day Month Year
8 Nov
Ending Time
104
81
(24)
3
Sample Temp. (°C)
DO (mg/1)
Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
pH
Other
1 x
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map op Reverse): 24.9 feet to bottom of well
6.9 feet to top of water >
15.5 feet of hose in for pumping
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION: Pumping srarted at 1025. Continued pumping to
1035 before sampling. A & B = pne-gallon glass; C = one-liter glass; D = one-liter
PP; E,F,6 = 40-ml glass. Pumpipg rate: one gallon per 24.7 sec & 24.9 sec.
Sulfur smell: Swale along south side of property which drains French Drain from
MH-2 to MW - 3 along east and south side. Discharges to canal. Also drains resi-
- """ L - X _ 1 - - 1 J_ _ •_. ^ _. - -- - • "- -» "I -.-•-- »- . -. - T ~« - - —1
dential area to south. Substantial flow.
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
Well ||
INVESTIGATOR R.
Samples to: (#)
Bact Bio! Chem Other
7
Station No.
SC-PP-FD-1
Sample Depth (m)
Surface
Lab Number
FD-1-1225
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
X
Hunter
Point Source | x 1
Starting Date Sample Temp. (°C)
Day Month Year
8
Nov 81
Starting Time (24) DO
1
22 5
~
(mg/D
Ending Date Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
Day Month Year
8
Endi
1
PH
Nov 81
ng Time (24) Turbidity (NTU)
245
Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): San-pie taken at southwest rorner-nf
Percolation Pond enclosure where French Drain enters underground conduit
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION:
C = one-liter glass bottle
A&B = one-gallon glass bottles
D = one-liter PP bottle
E,F,G = 40-ml glass bottles
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
Well
INVESTIGATOR R. Hunter"
Samples to: (#)
Bact Biol Chem Other
1 7
Station No.
RW-1
Sample Depth (m)
127 feet
Lab Number
8298-1544 ABCDEFG
Point Source | 1
Starting Date
Day Month Year
7
Nov
81
Starting Time (24)
1
5 5
4
1 5 5- 9
Ending Date
Day Month Year
7
Nov
Ending Time
1
6 1
81
(24)
3
Sample Temp. (°C)
DO (mg/1)
Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
Turbidity
(NTU)
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
PH
1 *
1
Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map op Reverse): Private residence.
8298 SW-16th __
127' deep—went to depth to avojd iron
2" PVC above ground—metal below
Gets some sulfur out of well
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION:
C—one-liter glass
A,B—one-gallon glass
D—one-liter pp
G,E,F—40-ml glass
Sulfur smell
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
P RO J E CT PBC - EIS
INVESTIGATOR R. Hunter
Point Source | |
Samples to: (#)
Bact Biol Chem Other
Station No.
RW-2
Sample Depth (m)
Unknown
Lab Number
22905-1637-(A-G)
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
X
Starting Date
Day Month Year
Sample Temp. (°C)
7
Nov
81
Starting Time (24)
D
DO (mg/1)
6
3
7
Ending Date
Day Month Year
Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
7
Nov.
81
Ending Time (24) Turbidity (NTU)
C
6
5
2
PH
Other
r
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): 22905 SW 56th Ave—model home.
lh PVC @ surface—unknown depth—lo^ks similar to other private wells (RH-8298-16th),
Estimate 90-110 ft
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION: A,B—one-gallon glass
C—one-liter glass
D—one-liter pp
E,F,G—40-ml glass
Less of a sulfur smell than 18298-16th—well flushed for seven minutes
-------
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
PROJECT PBC - EIS
Well FT
INVESTIGATOR R.
Samples to:
Bact Biol
Station No.
(#)
Chem Other
7
Hunter" Point: S
Starting Date S
Day Month Year
8 Nov 81
ource [_ |
ample Temp. (°C)
Star-ting Time (24) DO (mg/1)
DWW-1
Sample Depth (m)
170 feet
Lab Number
0 i 8 4 5
Ending Date Cond. (uMHOS/CM)
Day Month Year
8 | Nov 81
Ending Time (24) Turbidity (NTU)
DW- 1-0845
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
X
0 ] 8 5 9
pH • Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): Drinking water well #1—well closest
to treatment plant; sample was fakej directly from pumpline; well had been running
during morning.
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION:
C = one-liter glass
A.B = one-gallon glass
D = one-liter PP
E,F,G = 40-ml glass
-------
PROJECT PBC - EIS
CTA FIELD DATA SHEET
Well FT
INVESTIGATOR R.
Hunter
Point Si
Samples to: (#) Starting Date S
Bact Biol Chem Other Day Month Year
7
Station No.
OWW-5
Sample Depth (m)
116 feet
Lab Number
DW-5-0820
Type of Sample
Grab Composite Other
1 * 1
J LJL_
Nov 81 |
Durce II
ample Temp. (°C)
Starting Time (24) DO (mg/1)
" OL
820
Ending Date ConcL (uMHOS/CM)
Day Month Year
F
Endi
0
PH
Nov 81
ng Time (24) Turbidity (NTU)
835
1
Other
SAMPLE SITE DESCRIPTION (Map on Reverse): Drinking water well #5-well closest
to percolation ponds; sample taken diirectly from pumpline. Well had been running
during morning. .
SAMPLING ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION:
C = one-liter glass
A.B = one-gallon glass
D = one-liter PP
G,E,F = 40-ml glass
-------
7.0 APPENDICES
Appendix 7.3.2 Flow Reading^ (MGD) from Sandelfoot Cove WWTP - System #9.
Date Time Meter 3 Meter 4
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov HI
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
0000
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1.25
1.175
1.15
1.10
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.90
0.80
0.75
0.70
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.55
0.525
0.55
0.50
0.80
1.00
1.075
1.05
1.05
1.05
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.6
0.6
0.55
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.05
1.15
8 Nov 81 1100 1.20 1.15
*No values meter malfunction. Flow assumed equal to meter 3.
-------
7.0 APPENDICES
Appendix 7.3 Drinking Water Well Information.
Mason Well Drilling, Inc.
3328 N.E. llth Avenue
Oakland Park, Florida 33334
564-3419
DW-1: -10"/cased to 160'-total depth 170'
0'-18' sand & rock
18'-40' sand
40'-50' sand
50'-90' sand
90'-102' rock
102'-115' rock & sand
115'-155' sand & rock
15b'-170' rock
DW-2: 12"/cased to 105'~total depth 113'
0'-20' sand & rock
20'-85' sand
85'-100' rock & sand
100'-113' rock
DW-3: 12"/cased to 120'-total depth 129'
0'-20' sand & rock
20'-45' sand
45'-70' sand
70'-90' sand
90'-120' rock & sand
120'-129' rock
DW-4: 12"/cased to 109'.-total depth 115'
0'-15' sand & rock
15'-40' sand
40'-65' sand
65'-80' sand
80'-105' rock & sand
105'-115' rock
DW-5: 12"/cased to 111'-total depth 116'
0'-15' sand & rock
15'-35' sand
35'-60' sand
60'-85' sand
85'-110' rock & sand
llO'-lie1 rock
-------
DW-6: 12"/cased to 111'-total depth 117'
0'-20' sand & rod,
20'-45' sand
45'-65' sand
65'-90' sand
90'-110' rock & send
110'-117' rock
DW-7: 12"/cased to IH'-i^otal depth 126'
0'-20' sand & rock
20'-45' sand
45'-60' sand
60'-85' sand
85'-113' rock & saRd
113'-126' rock
-------
7.0 APPENDICES
Appendix 7.3.4 Precipitation Records for Sandalfoot Cove WWTP (inches/day),
Date Amount Date Amount
1 Oct 81
2 Oct 81
3 Oct 81
4 Oct 81
5 Oct 81
6 Oct 81
7 Oct 81
8 Oct 81
9 Oct 81
10 Oct 81
11 Oct 81
12 Oct 81
13 Oct 81
14 Oct 81
15 Oct 81
16 Oct 81
17 Oct 81
18 Oct 81
19 Oct 81
20 Oct 81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.05
0.00
0.00
1.60
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21 Oct 81
22 Oct 81
23 Oct 81
24 Oct 81
25 Oct 81
26 Oct 81
27 Oct 81
28 Oct 81
29 Oct 81
30 Oct 81
31 Oct 81
1 Nov 81
2 Nov 81
3 Nov 81
4 Nov 81
5 Nov 81
6 Nov 81
7 Nov 81
8 Nov 81
0.00
0.00
1.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.25
0.30
0.10
0.20
1.50
2.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
APPENDIX B: NITRATE MONITORING RECORDS
TABLE B-l
SOUTH PALM BEACH UTILITIES
SANDALFOOT COVE PLANT
Monitoring Well Dates
"ell
-------
B-2
TABLE B-2
Sandlefoot Cove Drinking Water Well
Monitoring Records
Nitrate Levels (mg/1)
Date
^— ••^——
4/13/77
10/24/77
2/14/78
9/1/78
2/15/79
9/13/79
:,/6/ao
9/18/80
Well 1
0.03
0.09
LT0.01
0.12
LT0.01
LT0.01
0.10
0.29
Well 2
LT0.01
0.06
LT0.01
LT0.01
LTO.ul
LT0.01
*
0.29
Well 3
LT0.01
0.06
LT0.01
LT0.01
LT0.01
LT0.01
0.10
0.33
Well 4
0.02
0.24
LT0.01
0.26
LT0.01
LTO . 0 1
0.10
0.33
Well 5
LTO. 01
0.02
0.29
LTO. 01
LTO. 01
LTO. 01
0.10
0.36
LT less than
* No Measurement Recorded
SCHEMATIC OF SANDLEFOOT COVE
WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES
NORTH
t
LEGEND
DRINKING WATER
WELLS
% inch = 100 feet
DIRECTION OF GROUND-
WATER FLOW IS SOUTH-
PAST
PERCOLATION
POND
-------
B-3
TABLE B-3
Pheasant Walfc Percolation Pond Monitoring Records
Nitrate Levels (mg/1)
Date
9/25/79
10/16/79
11/14/79
12/18/79
1/15/80
2/11/80
3/9/80
4/16/80
5/13/80
6/10/80
Well 1
0.8
6.1
6.9
2.7
1.1
0.7
0.8
1.9
4.8
7.1
Well 2
0.5
0.5
5.9
0.5
3.0
0.1
0.1
1.0
0.5
*
Well 3
0.4
0.3
9.2
0.2
2.8
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.7
*
Well 4
2.0
0.5
5.5
0.2
0.9
0.8
0.2
0.6
0.4
*
No Measurement Recorded
-------
TABLK B-4
Pheasant Walk Drinking Water Well Monitoring Records
Nitrate Levels (mg/1)
Date
9/77
9/78
3/79
4/79
9/79
3/80
4/80
Well 1
3.2
2.6
3.9
0.2
7.9
3.6
*
Well 2
7.1
2.6
7.9
0.2
3.1
*
*
Well 3
*
4.4
*
0.1
*
*
4.3
No Measurement Recorded
SCHEMATIC OF PHEASANT WALK WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES
WATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
o
PERCOLATION
POND
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
NORTH
DRINKING WATER m
WELLS
h inch » 100 feet
DIRECTION OF GROUND-
WATER FLOW IS SOUTH-
-------
APPENDIX C - WILDLIFE OF SOUTH PALM BEACH COUNTY
Common terrestrial majnmals that are likely to occur throughout
the project area are Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
eastern cottontail (3ylvilagus floridanus), hispid cotton rat
(Sigmodon hispidus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house
mouse (Mus_ musculus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Examples of
reptileswhich occupy various habitats are green anole (Anolis
carolinensis), glass lizards (Ophisaurus spp.)f yellow rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata), and eastern coral snake
(Micrurua fulvius fulvius). Mouring dove, bobwhite, and
starling are examples '"of birds that may be found in many of the
vegetative communities.
Whereas the species described above are typically found in a
variety of habitats, other organisms such as the Florida mouse
(Peroroyscus floridanus), Florida scrub lizard (Sceloporus
woodi), Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta caretta caretta), and
scrub jay are normally found only in a single habitat type.
Except for a very limited amount of quail, deer, and waterfowl
hunting, none of the terrestrial species are of direct economic
importance, and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission does not actively manage wildlife in the project
area.
The AIWW and adjacent finger canals provide habitat for
numberous estuarine and marine fish and benthic species.
Many of the species present such as sheepshead (Archsargus
probatocephalus), jack crevalle (Caranx h ippos), snook
(Centropomus pectinatus), ladyfish (Slops saurus), tarpon
(Melgalops atlantica), croaker (Micropogon undulatus), flounder
(Syacium spp.) and pompano (Trachinotus spp.) are economically
important as food or game fish for sport fishermen.
Additionally, two mammaliam species are present from time to
time—the bottle-nosed dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the
endangered manatee.
Both the Mangrove and Maine Grass Bed vegetative communities
occur in salt water. These two vegetative types provide the
major extent of vegetative cover for reproductive and nursery
areas for the fish species present. Although tne extent of
both of these communities has been seriously reduced by
dredging and development of water front property, both perform
a variety of ecological functions supporting the fauna
present. Plant material in the form of detritus covered with
protein rich bacteria is the primary food of many invertebrate
-------
C-2
species such as worms and crustaceans (shrimp and crabs), which
in turn are eaten by larger organisms, such as sheephead,
Altantic croaker, and flounder. The plants also provide cover
for egg laying and protection from predators.
Benthic (bottom) habitats support a variety of invertebrate
species. The substrate in these habitats is typically sandy to
silty, and vegetation may be sparse or dense. The density of
benthic organisms present ranges to over 500 organisms per
quarter square meter, and lowest densities occur in the finger
canals benthic organisms present are Paraprionospio pinnata,
Streblospio benedict, Ampelicca abdicta,Grandidierella
bonnieroides, and Mulina lateralis. Oysters arepresentTn
harvestable quantities,and clams to a lesser extent, but due
to unpredictable bacteria levels, collection is illegal. Crabs
in limited amounts are caught for human consumption.
The extensive canal system of the area serves as the most
important freshwater fishery in the Planning Area, although
biological productivity is relatively low. In descending
order, the primary species caught by fishmermen are bream,
including warmouth (Lepomis spp.), catfish (Ictalus spp.),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), redfin pickerel (Esox
americana americana), gars (Lepisosteus spp.), and mudfish or
bowfinfAmia calva). However, the Florida Game and Fresh Water
Fish Commission does not manage the fishery resources in the
canals.7
The primary groups of benthic organisms in the mucky, peaty
substrate of the canals are amphipods, gastropods, and aquatic
insects such as dragonflies and damselflies. Although water
quality varies greatly over an area the size of Southern Region
Palm Beach County 201 Area, the benthos indicate that water
quality is fairly good.
A list of rare, threatened, and endangered species that may
occur in the Southern Region Palm Beach County 201 Area is
presented in Taole C-l. Many of the organisms in the list are
ecologically restricted by fairly strict habitat requirements
and have not been able to successfully cope with habitat
modification, habitat loss, and/or man's presence. Many of the
species in Table C-l require habitats either in or adjacent to
water (mangroves, beaches, marshes, etc.) or the dry, sandy
scrub of the coastal ridge.
-------
TABLE £-1
ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES OF THE SOUTHERN REGION PALM BEACH COUNTY 201 AREA
Species
Federal
status
State
status
b, c
Habitat and local status
ANIMALS
Florida gopher frog (Rana areolata
aesopus)
Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia mydas
mydas)
Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)
Atlantic loggerhead (Caretta caretta
caretta)
American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis)
Peregrine falcon
Brown pelican
Bald eagle
Species of
Special
Concern
Endangered Endangered
Species of
Special
Concern
Threatened Threatened
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Species of
Special
Concern
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered Threatened
Sand Pine scrub habitats; range includes the
project area.
Marine and coastal strand; nests on beach
strand of the project area during summer
months.
Sand pine scrub, hammocks; historic range
includes the study area.
Marine and coastal strand; nests on beach
strand of the project area during summer
months.
Marshes, swamps; relatively abundant in
Florida
Marshes, ponds, sloughs; winter resident.
Marine and estuarine waters; although a
permanent resident, it does not nest in
Palm Beach County.
Marshes, ponds, sloughs; does not nest in
Palm Beach County.
-------
TABLE c-1 (Continued)
Species
Federal
status
State
status
b, c
Habitat and local status'
American kestrel
American oystercatcher
Least tern
Florida scrub jay
Roseate spoonbill
Sherman's fox squirrel (Sciurus nlger
shermani
Florida mouse (Peromyscus floridana)
Threatened
Species of
Special
Concern
Threatened
Threatened
Species of
Special
Concern
Species of
Special
Concern
Threatened
Semi-open areas; permanent resident of Palm
Beach County.
Coastal beaches, mudflats; rare locally
along Florida's east coast.
Coastal beaches; nests colonially in Palm
Beach County.
Oak scrub habitats; reported to inhabit Boca
Raton area.
Coastal bays, brackish ponds; does not nest
in Palm Beach County.
Pine flatwoods; Its range extends southward
to the Boca Raton area.
Sand pine scrub; recorded just north of Boca
Raton.
Manatee (Trlchechus manatus latirostris) Endangered Endangered Marine, estuarine, and fresh waters.
PLANTS
Leather fern (Acrostichum danaeaefolium)
Observed 1n C-15 and HUlsboro Canals.
Threatened Reported from swamps, marshes, and mangrove
swamps in the project area.
-------
IMLE c-l (Continued)
Species
Federal
status8
State
status
b, c
Habitat and local status
Bay cedar (Surlana maritime)
Shield fern (Thelypterls interrupta)
Shield fern {The!ypter1s normal 1s)
Shield fern (Thelypterls reticulata)
Air-plant (Tillandsia balbisiana)
Air-plant (Tillandsia fasciculata)
Air-plant (TUlandsIa utriculata)
Sea-lavender (Tournefortla gnaphalodes)
Shoestring fern (Vittaria lineata)
Coontle (Zamla integrifolia)
Threatened Reported from coastal dune-dry sand habitats
in the project area.
Threatened Reported from swamp and low hammock habitats
1n the project area.
Threatened Reported from swamp and low hammock habitats
In the project area.
Threatened Reported from swamp and low hammock habitats
in the project area.
Threatened Reported from swamp and low hammock habitats
1n the project area.
Endangered Reported from swamp and low hammock habitats
1n the project area.
Threatened Reported from swamp and low hammock habitats
in the project area.
Threatened Reported from coastal dune-dry sand habitats
in the project area.
Threatened Reported from swamp and low hammock habitats
in the project area.
Threatened Reported from pine/oak scrub habitats in the
project area.
-------
TABLE c-i (Continued)
Species
Federa]
status
State
status
b, c
Habitat and local status
Pondapple (Annona glabra)
Blechnum fern (Blechnum serrulatum)
Lance fern (Campyloneurum phyllitidis)
Sand cedar (Ceratiola erlcoides)
Shell orchid (Encyclia tampensis)
Redberry (Eugenia confusa)
Dahoon (Ilex cassine)
Golden polypody (Phlebodium aureum)
Resurrection fern (Polypodium
polypodioides)
Palmetto (Sabal palmetto)
Scaevola (Scaevola plumleri)
Threatened Reported from swamps In the project area.
Threatened Reported from low hammock, pine flatwoods-dry
prairie, and wet prairie habitats 1n the
project area.
Threatened Reported from low hammock and swamp habitats
in the project area.
Threatened Common 1n pine-oak scrub in the project area.
Threatened Reported from swamp habitats in the project
area.
Threatened Reported from coastal hammock habitats in the
project area.
Threatened Reported from swamp habitats in the project
area.
Threatened Occurs In coastal hammock, low hammock, and
swamp habitats of the project area.
Threatened This abundant species 1s known from swamps
and low hammocks In the project area.
Threatened This abundant species occurs in coastal
hammocks, low hammocks, and swamps in the
project area.
Threatened Reported from coastal dune-dry sand habitats
In the project area.
-------
C-7
Three species which are on the federal list of endangered
species either reproduce or are permanent residents in the
Planning Area—the Atlantic green turtle (Chelonia my das
mydas), the brown pelican, and the manatee. Twoendangered
birds, the peregrine falcon and bald eagle, probably occur in
the area intermittently. In addition to the endangered
species, two threatened species occur. The Atlantic loggerhead
(Carretta caretta caretta) nests on the beaches, and the
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is a permanent
resident in canals, swamps, and marshes.
The remaining animals in Table C-l are classified as threatened
or of special concern in the state of Florida (Florida Statutes
Chapter 39-27). These species are provided legal protection by
the Florida Endangered and Threatened Species Act of 1977, as
well as such - individual acts as the Florida Panther Act,
Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act and Endangered and Threatened
Species Trust Fund Act. These laws prohibit any activity which
may be detrimental to listed species unless authorized by
permit from the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.
The federal list of endangered species names no endangered and
no threatened plants for the Planning Area (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior 1979a, 1979b).
However, a number of plant species that are likely to occur in
the Planning Area ar* protected by the Preservation of Native
Flora of Florida (Florida Statutes Chapter 78-72, Section 1,
Section 581.185).
-------