United States Region 4 EPA 904/9-84 122
Environmental Protection 345 Courtland Street, NE September 1984
Agency Atlanta, GA 30365
SEPA Environmental Final
Impact Statement
South Escambia and
Santa Rosa Counties, Florida
Wastewater Management
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
SOUTH ESCAMBIA AND SANTA ROSA COUNTIES, FLORIDA
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
This Final EIS addresses proposed wastewater facilities for South
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida. Numerous wastewater
management alternatives have been evaluated with particular attention
to water quality in the area's surface and groundwater resources
and the impacts of projected population growth on the sensitive
natural and human resources of the area.
Comments and inquiries should be forwarded to:
Robert C. Cooper
Project Officer, NEPA Compliance Section
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
404 881-3776
Approved by:
R. Jetei
Regional Administrator
ix
¦J~2/ /iet-
jpSSWjj
OCT 15 1984
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTCCi'ICN AGENCY
filJU HOHIOC
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables iii
List of Figures iii
Executive Summary 1
A. Need for Action 1
B. Description of the Alternatives 3
C. Evaluation of Alternatives 4
D. Description of the Preferred Alternative 6
E. Draft EIS Comments ^
I. Purpose and Need for Action 1-1
A. Purpose of the EIS 1-1
B. Background and Issues 1-1
C. 201 Facilities Plan Summary 1-4
II. Selection and Description of Preferred Alternatives 11-1
III. Draft EIS Summary III-l
A. Background of the Study III-l
B. Wastewater Flow Projections III-l
1. Sewer Service Areas III-l
2. Land Use and Development Compatibility 111-2
3. Population 111-5
4. Wastewater Flow Projections III-8
5. Effluent Limitations 111-8
C. Wastewater Management Alternatives 111-11
1. Pensacola/Escambia County 111-11
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula 111-14
D. Existing Natural Environment 111-21
1. Freshwater Resources 111-21
2. Estuarine Resources 111-26
3. Marine Resources III-27
4. Groundwater Resources 111-28
5. Terrestrial Systems III-28
6. Sensitive Areas 111-29
7. Physiography III-29
8. Air Resources 111-29
E. Existing Manmade Environment III-30
1. Land Use 111-30
2. Development Controls III-31
3. Community Services and Facilities 111-33
4. Economic Profile 111-33
5. Historic and Archeological Resources 111-33
6. Wastewater Facilities 111-33
F. Environmental Impacts Associated with Disposal
Alternatives III-34
1. Estuarine Discharges 111-37
2. Land Disposal 111-37
3. Gulf Disposal 111-38
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
G. Evaluation and Final Screening of Wastewater
Management Alternatives 111-38
1. Escambia County 111-40
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula 111-42
H. Summary of Environmental Evaluation 111-44
IV. Revisions to the EIS IV-1
V. EIS Coordination/Public Participation V-l
A. Introduction V-l
B. Coordination with Local, State and Federal Agencies V-l
C. Public Participation V-l
D. Written Comments and Responses V-5
E. Oral Comments and Responses V-9
F. Public Hearing Transcript V-l0
G. Written Comments Received on Draft EIS V-32
VI. List of Preparers VI-1
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
III-l Carrying Capacity of Vacant Lands for Future On-Site
Service 111-6
111-2 Escarosa EIS - Wastewater Flow Projections III-9
111-3 Effluent Limitations of Existing Wastewater Discharges 111-10
III-4 Summary of Alternatives 111-15
111-5 Wastewater Conveyance Facilities for Escambia County
Capital and Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars) 111-17
111-6 Summary of Alternatives 111-22
111-7 Wastewater Conveyance Facilities for Santa Rosa County
Capital and Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars) 111-24
111-8 Land Management Mechanisms in the EIS Study Area III-32
111-9 Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Capacities
Greater Than 378 m3/day (0.1 MGD) 111-35
111-10 Average Effluent Characteristics for Domestic Wastewater
Treatment Facilities Capacities Greater than 378 m3/day
(0.1 mgd) 111-36
V-1 Agencies Involved with the EIS V-2
V-2 Members of the EIS Review Committee V-3
LIST OF FIGURES
Fi gure Page
1-1 EIS Study Area 1-2
111-1 Escambia County Sewer Service Areas 111-3
111-2 Santa Rosa County Sewer Service Areas 111-4
iii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTH ESCAMBIA AND SANTA ROSA COUNTIES, FLORIDA
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
Draft ( )
Final (X)
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Type of Action: Administrative Action (X)
Legislative Summary ( )
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART A - NEED FOR ACTION
This EIS is being prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Region IV to address the provision of federal funds for the construc-
tion of wastewater management facilities in South Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties, Florida. This area is located in northwestern coastal Florida,
adjacent to Alabama. Pensacola is the metropolitan center of the study area,
which also includes the incorporated area of Gulf Breeze, the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula, and two barrier islands: Santa Rosa Island and Perdido Key.
Alternatives have been developed and evaluated for this EIS based on the
existing sewer service areas in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Projected
sewer service areas have also been developed based on projected population
densities and proximity to existing service areas. The existing Escambia
County service areas that will be considered as components of wastewater man-
agement systems are:
o Pensacola - The Pensacola service area is defined as the city of Pensa-
cola plus those populated peripheral zones with collection and transpor-
tation facilities that utilize the Pensacola Main Street treatment and
disposal facilities and those populated peripheral zones not currently
sewered. The area is served by the Main Street plant operating at 50
percent of capacity with discharge to Pensacola Bay.
1
-------
o Pen Haven - Since the inception of the EIS, this treatment facility has
been phased out, with flows from the service area conveyed to the Main
Street plant.
0 Avondale - An existing sewered area adjacent to Pensacola currently
served By a secondary treatment facility discharging to the Bayou
Marcus. Wastewater flow to the plant equals its capacity. This
facility is under a consent decree to close by September 1, 1985. Some
flows are al ready being diverted to the Main Street plant.
o Warrington - An existing sewered area on the southwest fringe of Pensa-
cola served by a secondary treatment facility with flow at 70 percent of
capacity. Plant effluent discharges to Bayou Chico Creek. This facility-
is under a Temporary Operating Permit and is to be phased out.
o Moreno Courts - An existing sewered area on the southwest fringe of
Pensacola just south of the Warrington service area. This area is
served by a secondary treatment facility operating at approximately 60
percent of capacity with discharge to percolation ponds adjacent to
Bayou Chico Creek.
o Scenic Hills - A sewered area just north of Pensacola served by a
secondary treatment facility operating at 30 percent of capacity with
discharge to land application.
Sewer service areas in Santa Rosa County are less extensive than those
in Escambia County; however, wastewater management needs are projected to
increase significantly by the year 2000. Santa Rosa County service areas
that will be considered as components of wastewater management systems are:
0 Gulf Breeze - The Gulf Breeze service area is the major service area of
the Santa Rosa County portion of the study area, located on the western
end of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula. This service area encompasses the
incorporated area of Gulf Breeze and the adjacent unincorporated area
and is served by the Gulf Breeze treatment plant operating at approxi-
rnately 50 percent capacity and discharging to Santa Rosa Sound.
o Pensacola Beach - Pensacola Beach represents the only relatively denselv
populated service area on Santa Rosa Island. This area is served by a
secondary treatment plant currently operating at capacity and discharg-
ing to Santa Rosa Sound. Although Pensacola Beach is located in
Escambia County, this service area is evaluated with the Santa Rosa
County service areas because of its location.
o Navarre Beach - The Navarre Beach service area is located in the eastern
portion of Santa Rosa Island and is served by a secondary treatment
plant discharging to Santa Rosa Sound.
o Santa Rosa Shores - The Santa Rosa Shores subdivision on the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula is served by a small-scale treatment plant with spray irriga-
tion to a local golf course.
In 1978, the local applicants completed preparation of a 201 Wastewater
Facilities Plan. The Plan proposed an extensive and costly regional system.
2
-------
Two new regional plants were proposed, one in southwest Escambia County with
discharge by outfall into the Gulf of Mexico and one in southern Santa Rosa
County with discharge by land application at Eglin Air Force Base. The plan
became controversial due to a high potential for growth in environmentally
sensitive areas. The most controversy centered on the barrier islands of
Perdido Key and Santa Rosa Island. The 201 Plan was based on the assumption
that extensive resort oriented growth would occur on these islands. This 201
Plan generated five central issues which are addressed in the EIS. These
issues are:
1. Concerns about the impacts of new development promoted by federally
supported wastewater facilities on environmentally sensitive coastal
areas, including wetlands, floodplains and two barrier islands
2. Inconsistencies in the population projections between the 201 Plan and
the approved 208 Plan
3. Concern over the construction and operation impacts of the 201 proposed
Gulf outfall for the developing southwestern portion of the study area
4. The viability of the 201 proposed land application site on the Eglin Air
Force Base to serve the Gulf Breeze peninsula and Santa Rosa Island
5. The protection of sensitive estuarine and recreational waters.
Because of the controversy surrounding the 201 Plan and potential impacts
to environmentally sensitive areas, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
decided to prepare an EIS with respect to wastewater management facilities to
serve South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Subsequently a Notice of
Intent to conduct the EIS was issued by the EPA Regional Administrator in May
of 1980.
PART B - DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Projected populations and wastewater flows were developed for the study
area. Feasible alternatives were then developed by combining wastewater
service configurations with treatment and disposal options. The remainder of
this section presents a description of the final set of alternatives for
wastewater management which were evaluated in the EIS.
1. Escawbla County
Alternative 1
This alternative provides centralized wastewater service with a new
Southwest County treatment plant. This plant would have secondary treatment
with discharge by outfall to the Gulf of Mexico. This is the 201 Alternative
which includes the Avondale, Pen Haven, Warrington, Northwest, Perdido Key
and Southwest Escambia service areas with a combined flow of 7.7 mgd.
Alternative 2
This alternative provides centralized wastewater service with new treat-
ment plants for the Southwest County and Perdido Key areas. The Southwest
3
-------
County treatment plant would have secondary treatment with discharge by land
application. The capacity of this plant would be 0.54 mgd with 50 percent of
the area's population served. The Perdido Key treatment plant would have
secondary treatment with discharge by land application. Projected capacity
is 1.7 mgd with 100 percent of the population sewered. The Warrington, Avon-
dale and Moreno Courts treatment plants would be phased out with flows
conveyed to the Main Street plant for treatment and disposal. Centralized
sewer service would be provided to the Northwest area with conveyance to the
Main Street plant for treatment and disposal.
Alternative 3
This alternative continues current wastewater management practices of use
of package plants and septic tanks in Southwest County, Perdido Key and North-
west County. The Warrington, Avondale and Moreno Courts treatment plants
would be phased out with flows conveyed to the Main Street plant for
treatment and disposal.
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula
Alternative 1
This is the 201 Plan Alternative. A new regional plant would be con-
structed on the eastern end of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula with disposal by
land application at the Eglin Air Force Base. Capacity of the plant would be
8.0 mgd with secondary treatment. The plant would treat flows from Gulf
Breeze, Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach.
Alternative 2
This alternative would convey flows from Pensacola Beach and Gulf Breeze
to the Main Street plant for treatment and disposal. Flows from Navarre
Beach would be treated at the existing treatment plant with land application.
Alternative 3
This alternative involves expansion of the Pensacola Beach plant to 2.4
mgd with the existing level of treatment and discharge point. Class 1 relia-
bility will be provided. The existing plant at Navarre Beach would remain at
its current capacity. The City of Gulf Breeze would continue treatment and
disposal at the existing location with expansion from 0.5 to 0.8 mgd. The
continued use of package plants and septic tanks is projected for the Gulf
Breeze Peninsula.
Alternative 4
This alternative conveys flows from Pensacola Beach and Gulf Breeze to
Pensacola Bay following treatment at Gulf Breeze. Flows from Navarre Beach
would be treated at the existing plant with discharge by land application.
PART C - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives described in Part B were evaluated in terms of cost,
operability, implementability, and environmental impact. A summary of the
evaluation is presented below:
4
-------
1. Cost
Escambia County:
Alternative 1 - $64.8 million
Alternative 2 - $25.3 million
Alternative 3 - $9.0 million
Santa Rosa County:
Alternative 1 - $36.9 mi 1 lion
Alternative 2 - $17.3 million
Alternative 3 - $7.4 million
Alterantive 4 - $10.8 million
2. Operabi1ity
Operability considerations do not eliminate any of the final alterna-
tives. If wastewater is conveyed to a regional facility rather than contin-
uing operation of several smaller treatment plants, both operability and
reliability may be improved due to increased staff size and newness of the
facility. However, no significant long term problems have resulted from the
operation of the existing facilities.
3. Implementability
The Main Street treatment plant as well as the Avondale and Warrington
facilities are under the control of the Escambia County Utilities Authority.
Therefore, no implementation problems are involved with the diversion of
these flows to Main Street. The Moreno Courts treatment plant 1s under the
jurisdiction of the Pensacola Housing Authority but few implementation
problems are anticipated if the Authority chooses to participate in the
recommended action. Implementation of the Gulf outfall alternative will be
more difficult than other options due to the uncertainties associated with
siting and constructing the outfall. In the Santa Rosa area, the local
alternative is considered to be the most implementable because there would be
no need for coordination of facilities construction, expansion, or operation
with these other local authorities. The implementability of the 201
alternative is questionable due to the lack of a suitable site for land
disposal of the effluent.
4. Environmental Impacts
Based on the environmental- analysis, extensive water quality problems
resulting from most existing discharges have not been documented. The
existing Avondale and Warrington treatment plants, however, are causing
problems now and will be eliminated under all the alternatives. Further,
data to assess fully the impacts of the Main Street plant on Pensacola Bay
are still being collected. The construction of new regionalized systems with
capacity for significant amounts of growth, could have the potential to
induce environmental impacts. The sensitive barrier Island, wetland, and
estuarine environments would be subject to Intensive developmental pressure.
The comprehensive land use and development controls which would be necessary
to protect environmental quality are not in place. The area most likely to
experience significant adverse environmental Impacts 1s Perdido Key where
5
-------
Escambia County is projecting and encouraging a population increase from
3,432 to 36,710 over the next two decades.
PART D - DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
1. Escambia County
The conveyance of flows from the Warrington and Avondale service areas to
the Main Street plant is recommended. This option removes wastewater
discharges to Bayou Chico and Bayou Marcus Creek which will improve water
quality and meet the objectives of the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. Further, it is recommended that the Moreno Courts effluent also
be conveyed to Main Street given the elevated nitrogen levels observed 1n
percolation pond monitoring wells, proximity of percolation ponds to Jones
Swamp Creek-Bayou Chico, direction of groundwater flow toward the creek,
documented water quality problems in Bayou Chico and proximity of the Warrlna-
ton conveyance lines. Based on current flows and conveyances from the three
treatment plants recommended for action, the Main Street plant should have
sufficient capacity. This proposed action is not anticipated to exceed the
projected capacity of the Main Street plant and is not Intended to lead to
such action. EPA funding will be made available for these water quality
improvement actions if within reach on the state priority 11st.
The continuation of current wastewater management practices Is recom-
mended for the Southwest County, Perdido Key and Northwest County areas. No
significant water quality or public health problems have been documented or
are projected in these areas assuming applicable permitting procedures are
followed. As the density of development increases, however, setback require-
ments and distances between percolation ponds will be more critical and these
factors should be emphasized by DER in their permitting process. The recom-
mended action avoids encouraging higher population densities which would
increase the stress on water quality, wetlands and the sensitive barrier
island environment. It is important to note that the assessment that current
practices are and should be adequate in the Southwest, Northwest and Perdido
Key areas, leading to the No Action decision, is based on 208 population
projections which are the basis for EPA decision making. Current wastewater
management practices might not be adequate for population levels greater than
projected by the 208 Plan.
2. Santa Rosa County
The continuation of current wastewater managment practices 1s recommended
for Santa Rosa Island and the Gulf Breeze Peninsula. All discharges in this
area are currently meeting their effluent limits. No significant water qual-
ity or public health problems have been documented which would justify the
construction of major new facilities. The provision of regional systems with
additional capacity could encourage growth and development of the sensitive
barrier island environment. Expansion of existing facilities at local
expense to accommodate growth is expected.
If future changes to effluent limits for Santa Rosa Sound require no
discharge or very stringent treatment levels that are not cost-effective to
meet at each small plant, conveyance of secondary effluent to Pensacola Bay
for discharge should be reconsidered. Should such a system be Implemented In
6
-------
the future, EPA should reassess the potential for significant stimulation of
development of sensitive areas in making grant participation decisions.
E. DRAFT EIS COMMENTS
Either written or oral comments on the Draft EIS were received from the
following sources:
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of the Air Force, Eastern Region Civil Engineer
U.S. Department of the Army, Mobile District Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Assocation
U.S. Department of the Interior, Southeast Region
State Government
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Florida Department of State
Florida Department of Transportation
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
Northwest Florida Water Management District
Office of the Governor
Local/Regional Government
City of Gulf Breeze
City of Navarre Beach
Escambia County
Escambia County Utilities Authority
West Florida Regional Planning Council
Interest Groups
Frances M. Western Audubon Society
Perdido Key Development Association
7
-------
CHAPTER I
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
-------
CHAPTER I - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
A. Purpose of the EIS
Concerns within the past decade for preservation of the integrity of the
environment led to the adoption of Public Law 91-190, the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Within this Act are the national environ-
mental policies and goals intended to mitigate mistakes of the past through
careful and coordinated planning efforts. As stated in the law the following
declaration was issued: "a national policy shall be established which will
encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment;
to promote efforts Mich will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment
and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the
understanding of the ecological system and natural resources important to the
Nation..."
In striving to meet these above stated goals P.L. 91-190 stipulates:
"...include in every recommendation a report on proposals for legislation and
other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on the envir-
onmental impact of the proposed action; and adverse environmental effects
which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; and alternatives
to the proposed actions..." From this legislation arises the basic framework
for the use of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The purpose of this particular EIS is to inform the public of potential
impacts which may result from the proposed Federal action, and to enable
public participation in the decision making process. The EIS is intended to
resolve conflicts in the study area between wastewater disposal and the
unique natural resources which exist in this area.
The EIS proposes to develop a preferred alternative for wastewater
facilities in the study area which will minimize environmental impacts
throughout the study area.
B. Background and Issues
This EIS is being prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Region IV to address the provision of federal funds for the construc-
tion of wastewater management facilities in South Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties, Florida. This area is located in northwestern coastal Florida,
adjacent to Alabama. Pensacola is the metropolitan center of the study area,
which also includes the incorporated area of Gulf Breeze as indicated by
Figure 1-1. This EIS was begun in June 1980. Work proceeded smoothly
through the completion of the Alternatives Evaluation Report and Perdido Key
Case Study by March 1982. Little activity occurred during the following 18
months. Efforts to complete the EIS resumed during October 1983, leading to
action by the EPA Region IV Administrator in January 1984. Urbanization has
occurred in recent years northeast and northwest of Pensacola and along the
coast, including the adjacent barrier islands, Santa Rosa Island (Pensacola
Beach) and Perdido Key. Large portions of Southwest Escambia County are
located in sensitive floodplains and wetlands. The study area for this EIS
includes the city of Pensacola and the adjacent suburban areas, Southwest
Escambia County, the Gulf Breeze Peninsula, Santa Rosa Island, and the
Florida portion of Perdido Key.
1-1
-------
-------
Wastewater facilities planning studies were initiated in 1975 in
response to the projected population growth and wastewater management needs
of the Pensacola Region. Six governmental entities were involved in the
initial planning efforts:
o Escambia County, acting officially through its Commission
o Santa Rosa County, acting officially through its Commission
o City of Pensacola, acting officially through its Council
o City of Gulf Breeze, acting officially through its Council
o Santa Rosa Island Authority, acting officially through its Board of
Di rectors
o Santa Rosa County Beach Administration (later changed to the Navarre
Beach Advisory Council), acting officially through its Board of
Di rectors.
Through official enabling resolutions, the six governmental entities
formed a steering committee with responsibility for 201 planning policy
decisions and named the City of Pensacola as the lead agent for receiving and
disbursing federal grants. A consortium of five consultants was assembled to
prepare the 201 Facilities Plan. This consortium included:
o Consoer, Townsend & Associates (Escambia County)
o Baskervi1le-Donovan Engineers, Inc. (Santa Rosa County, City of
Gulf Breeze, and the Santa Rosa County Beach Administration)
o Flood & Associates, Inc. (City of Pensacola)
o Tom Justice & Associates (Santa Rosa Island Authority)
o Theta Analysis, Inc. (environmental consultants representing all
participants).
Actual wastewater facilities planning efforts were undertaken in early
1976, culminating in the completion of a Draft 201 Facilities Plan 1n April
1978.
The EIS was initiated in response to a number of issues raised by EPA
during review of the 201 Facilities Plan. A summary of these Issues follows:
1. Impact of Federal Funding on Sensitive Coastal Areas—New policies
have been and are being established concerning development on barrier Islands
and sensitive coastal areas, primarily floodplains and wetlands. Since
wastewater treatment systems act to support and 1n some cases Initiate
development, they are important in the context of barrier island and coastal
development policy.
2. Population Projections—Discrepancies between population disaggre-
gations and projections in the 201 Facilities Plan and the 208 Areawlde Water
1-3
-------
Quality Management Plan necessitated further review by EPA. Population
projections used in the 201 Facilities Plan for Southwest Escambia County and
the barrier islands were considered developmental in nature and did not
adequately reflect environmental concerns.
3. Viability of Septic Tanks and Percolation Ponds in Coastal
Areas—Further analysis was considered necessary by EPA to determine the
environmental acceptability of septic tanks and percolation ponds on barrier
islands and in adjacent coastal areas.
4. Gulf Outfall--A Gulf outfall was recommended for a new Southwest
Escambia Wastewater Treatment Plant proposed in the 201 Facilities Plan.
Before this alternative could be accepted, additional studies were considered
necessary to further evaluate the environmental impacts.
5. Land Application--Land application was recommended for a new South
Santa Rosa County Wastewater Treatment Plant proposed in the 201 Facilities
Plan. Further analysis was considered necessary to determine the avall-
abillity of suitable land application sites in this area before this alter-
native could be accepted.
C. 201 Facilities Plan Sunury
The 201 Facilities Plan prepared for South Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties produced the following recommendations:
o Completion of construction of the Main Street (City of Pensacola.)
Wastewater Treatment Plant with a design capacity of 20.0 mgd, ad-
vanced wastewater treatment, and disposal to Pensacola Bay. (This
work was completed in 1979.)
o Construction of a 11.3 mgd facility to serve Southwest Escambia
County, secondary treatment, and disposal via a Gulf outfall
o Construction of a 8.0 mgd facility to serve South Santa Rosa County,
secondary treatment, and disposal via low-rate landspreading
o Construction of required pumping stations and force mains to provide
service to the 201 planning area.
1-4
-------
CHAPTER II
SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
-------
CHAPTER II - SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
The conveyance of flows from the Warrington, Avondale and Moreno Courts
service areas to the Main Street plant is recommended. The continuation of
existing wastewater management practices is recommended for all remaining
areas. Alternatives selected to receive federal funds are limited to
Escambia County. Funds will be made available to help connect the Avondale
and Warrington treatment facilities to the Main Street plant. Both plants
have been designated for closure by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. Funds will also be available for conveyance of Moreno Courts
flows to the Main Street plant. Funds are not being made available for
treatment costs but for conveyance alone. Further, funds will be available
for interceptors and necessary pump stations based on existing flows.
No Action is the alternative selected for the areas outside the
Avondale, Warrington and Moreno Courts service areas; Southwest Escambia,
Perdido Key, Santa Rosa Island and the Gulf Breeze Peninsula. This decision
is based on two major determinants. First, portions of these areas are
sensitive to development due to their proximity to 100-year floodplains,
wetlands or estuaries. While wastewater management options in these areas
might not promote development in all situations, such options could act to
support development and associated populations in sensitive areas. This
would be contrary to state and federal policies and regulations that are
intended to protect such areas. Second, few water quality, ecological or
public health problems have been documented to date. Some areas might be
able to receive funding in the future if such problems develop. Proper
planning, however, should prevent these problems from developing.
The environmental advantages of the selected alternatives are based on
removal of discharges from Bayou Marcus and Bayou Chico, both of which have
shown evidence of water quality degradation due to the discharges. The
funding decision was based on the water quality data base available and the
stance of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, indicating that
the additional wastewater added to Pensacola Bay from these discharges was
preferred to continuing discharges to the bayous.
Impacts to other natural or man-made environments are anticipated to be
minimal. Detrimental impacts can be mitigated in most cases. Siting and
construction activities associated with conveyance lines can be mitigated,
following standard procedures. Existing rights-of-way can likely be used for
most conveyance lines. Some development could be supported by new Intercep-
tors, but proper planning can mitigate any potential problems resulting from
such development. Current methods of sludge disposal are sufficient
throughout the study area and should continue to be adequate.
Protected species and archeological resources surveys will be conducted
where necessary to assure these resources are adequately protected. The
Perdido Key beach mouse has been proposed for inclusion on the federal endan-
gered species list along with its habitat designation of critical habitat by
the Department of Interior. With the importance of the area as an early
settlement with various periods of occupation, historical and archeologlcal
considerations must be thoroughly examined. Several areas along the barrier
islands have been designated as National Seashore and other stretches have
been set aside by local governments. Development contiguous to these areas
should be undertaken cognizant of the value of these resources.
II-l
-------
CHAPTER III
DRAFT EIS SUHMARY
-------
CHAPTER III - DRAFT EIS SUMMARY
A. Background of the Study
This EIS was initiated in 1979 by EPA Region IV to assess the 201
Facilities Plan proposed for South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. The 201
study began in 1975. The issues leading to the initiation of the EIS are
outlined in Chapter I.
The Draft EIS is summarized in this chapter. More detailed information
on the background, data and evaluation techniques leading to the decisions in
the Final EIS is found in the Draft EIS which is available from EPA.
B. Wastewater Flow Projections
Wastewater flow projections are a key issue in any wastewater management
study because they affect the staging, siting and capacity of wastewater man-
agement facilities. Wastewater flows were developed specifically for this
EIS since population and development assumptions developed as part of the 208
Plan and incorporated into this EIS differed significantly from those used in
the 201 Facilities Plan. Wastewater flows are analyzed according to existing
and projected sewer service areas.
1. Sewer Service Areas
Alternatives have been developed and evaluated for this EIS based on the
existing sewer service areas in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Projected
sewer service areas have also been developed based on projected population
densities and proximity to existing service areas. The existing Escambia
County service areas that will be considered as components of wastewater man-
agement systems are:
0 Pensacola - The Pensacola service area is defined as the city of Pensa-
cola plus those populated peripheral zones with collection and transpor-
tation facilities which utilize the Pensacola Main Street treatment and
disposal facilities and those populated peripheral zones not currently
sewered. The area is served by the Main Street plant operating at 50
percent of capacity with discharge to Pensacola Bay.
o Pen Haven - Since the inception of the EIS, this treatment facility has
been phased out, with flows from the service area conveyed to the Main
Street plant.
0 Avondale - An existing sewered area adjacent to Pensacola currently
served by a secondary treatment facility discharging to the Bayou Marcus.
Wastewater flow to the plant equals its capacity. This facility is under
a consent decree to close by September 1, 1985. Some flows are already
being diverted to the Main Street plant.
0 Warrington - An existing sewered area on the southwest fringe of
Pensacola served by a secondary treatment facility with flow at 70
percent of capacity. Plant effluent discharges to Bauou Marcus Creek.
III-l
-------
o Moreno Courts - An existing sewered area on the southwest fringe of
Pensacola just south of the Warrington service area. This area is served
by a secondary treatment facility operating at approximately 60 percent
of capacity with discharge to percolation ponds adjacent to Bayou Marcus
Creek.
0 Scenic Hills - A sewered area just north of Pensacola served by a
secondary treatment facility operating at 30 percent of capacity with
discharge to land application.
Figure 111-1 delineates the sewer service areas used for alternatives
development. The northwest and southwest areas are projected sewer service
areas, with Pen Haven, Avondale, Warrington, and Moreno Courts composing the
central area.
Sewer service areas in Santa Rosa County are less extensive than those in
Escambia County; however, wastewater management needs are projected to
increase significantly by the year 2000. Santa Rosa County service areas
that will be considered as components of wastewater management systems are:
o Gulf Breeze - The Gulf Breeze service area is the major service area of
the Santa Rosa County portion of the study area, located on the western
end of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula. This service area encompasses the
incorporated area of Gulf Breeze and the adjacent unincorporated area and
is served by the Gulf Breeze treatment plant operating at approximately
50 percent capacity and discharging to Santa Rosa Sound.
o Pensacola Beach - Pensacola Beach represents the only relatively densely
populated service area on Santa Rosa Island. This area is served by a
secondary treatment plant currently operating at capacity and discharging
to Santa Rosa Sound. Although Pensacola Beach is located in Escambia
County, this service area is evaluated with the Santa Rosa County service
areas because of its location.
o Navarre Beach - The Navarre Beach service area is located in the eastern
portion of Santa Rosa Island and is served by a secondary treatment plant
discharging to Santa Rosa Sound.
o Santa Rosa Shores - The Santa Rosa Shores subdivision on the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula is served by a small-scale treatment plant with spray irriga-
tion to a local golf course.
Figure 111-2 delineates the sewer service areas in Santa Rosa County.
Navarre Beach and Santa Rosa Shores are included in the southeast service
area.
2. Land Use and Development Compatibility
An analysis of existing and future land use was conducted in relation to
several environmental parameters. This analysis provided an indication of
the extent of existing development in noncompatible areas (primarily flood-
plains and wetlands) and the ability of suitable areas to support projected
development. This analysis was further used to determine the areas suitable
for development with on-site wastewater management systems.
111-2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
The percentage of each centroid area in a service area was estimated and
applied to the centroid acreages that are suitable for on-site systems. The
sum of these gave the acreage available for on-site systems in each service
area. The additional (future) population that can be served by on-site
systems on presently vacant land results from the following calculation:
Acreage available x 4 houses per acre x people per household (based on
1980 census) x 0.8 (factor to allow for future commercial growth on
vacant land) = carrying capacity in service area for future on-site use.
In many areas, population growth will exceed available land suitable for
on-site disposal. Sufficient sewer service has been estimated for such areas
in order to preclude this. Table III-l presents the level of increased
populations in service areas between 1980 and 2000 and lists the additional
populations that can use on-site systems by service area. The bases for
population projections are discussed below.
3. Population
Since EPA population projections are given on a county basis, a method of
disaggregating the EPA projections into smaller planning or service areas was
required. For this EIS, a methodology was developed based on the population
disaggregations contained in the 208 Plan. The 208 population figures tend
to show future growth in those areas that are most capable of supporting new
growth. Locations that contain sensitive environmental areas or which pose
constraints to construction (high water table, wetlands) were considered less
suitable for growth. The general effect of this decision was to allocate
future growth toward the northern upland portions of the counties away from
the marginal lands found adjacent to the ocean and estuarine shorelines.
The disaggregation process used by the 208 program was used by this EIS,
since it incorporates elements which reflect federal policies concerning
development of floodplain and wetland areas. This disaggregation process
will tend to underestimate population in coastal centroids only if land use
planning is not instigated. Otherwise, this system represents a more judi-
cious development pattern. In contrast, the population figures used in the
201 Plan did not account for locally planned development but extrapolated
heavy development trends in the coastal area reflecting current trends on the
barrier islands. In fact, however, growth is continuing on the barrier
islands and in the near coastal areas. Local land use controls intended to
control growth in coastal areas will still allow a population increase on
Perdido Key from 3,432 to 36,710. This causes an inconsistency in actual
development trends and the trends proposed by the 208 Plan for the area,
which has been approved by EPA. As a result of the 208 Plan approval,
funding that would induce development contrary to that delineated by the 208
Plan (which attempts to consider the location of floodplalns, wetlands and
other vulnerable or sensitive areas) would not be supported.
Continuing growth must be anticipated in coastal areas for secondary/vaca-
tion residences as the aesthetic values attract new seasonal residents to the
area. The wastewater treatment needs of this population segment are less
than the needs of permanent residents. Reduced total wastewater flows result
from seasonal use patterns and reduced daily flows since tourists do not use
111-5
-------
Table II1-1. Carrying Capacity of Vacant Lands for Future On-Site Service.
Service Area
1980
Served
Popu1 at1on
19B0
Unserved
Population
Total
1980
Population
Total
2000
Popu 1 at Ion
Additional
Popul ation
(4-3)
Additional Population
That Can be Served
on Vacant Land
Main Street
70,475
67,445
137,920
176,631
38,711
35,813
Warrl ngton
5,497
17,962
23,459
26,064
2,605
811
Pen Haven
3,746
3,121
6,867
9,294
2,427
279
Avondale
6,446
12,034
18,480
24,535
6,055
14,328
Seen 1c H111s
1,489
9,405
10,894
14,905
4,011
1,977
Gulf Breeze
2,768
6,460
9,228
12,421
3,193
3,068
Pensacola Beach
11,658
-0-
11,658
15,930
4,272
*
South Mast Area
-0-
6,775
6,775
11,090
4,315
18,569
North west Area
74
19,063
19,137
26,072
6,935
22,320
Navarre Beach
1,719
-0-
1,719
2,612
893
*
Navarre
-0-
2,156
2,156
2,387
231
19,246
Centroid 53
-0-
922
922
1,461
539
5,491
Gulf Isles
889
553
1,442
2,581
1,139
»*
Santa Rosa Shores
896
-0-
896
1,560
664
•
Gulf Br. Peninsula -
-0-
328
328
355
27
«•
undesignated
Midway
-0-
1,310
1,310
2,387
1,077
»•
* Proposed tor 100t service by utilities
""Exceeds column 5
Source: Gannett Fleming Cord dry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
-------
as much water as permanent residents. Seasonal development may therefore
require less capital intensive wastewater treatment facilities. Reduced
total wastewater flows result from seasonal use patterns and reduced daily
flows since tourists do not use as much water as permanent residents. Sea-
sonal development may therefore require less capital intensive wastewater
treatment facilities than areas dominated by permanent populations. Seasonal
population figures for the study area were disaggregated only for the year
2000. Seasonal population figures were derived from the 1996 seasonal
population projections contained in the 201 Facilities Plan.
Reduced environmental impacts are not certain, however, unless reasonable
management practices are implemented at the local level. While the 208 and
EIS population figures show growth in compatible, attractive locations, this
is an assumption based on a willingness to protect critical environmental
areas. It may be necessary to draft and enforce local regulations which
promote wise use of natural resources in order to preserve the amenities
along the coastal area. Failure to do so may allow indiscriminate growth in
noncompatible locations, thereby increasing populations in areas where low
populations are predicted. This possibility could result in the construction
of facilities in sparsely populated areas where growth fails to materialize
as anticipated and could also result in a lack of adequate facilities in
marginal, fragile locations.
Once the EPA population projections were disaggregated into the centroids
delineated in the 208 Plan, the centroid figures were adjusted to correspond
to the sewer service areas delineated in the 201 Facilities Plan. The
percentage of the populated centroid area included in the 201 Plan service
area was determined using a population centroid map as an overlay on the
sewer service area map. A uniform density of population was assumed for each
populated centroid area in order to arrive at the population in the 201 Plan
service area. Then the percentage of the populated 201 Plan service area
that has existing sewers was determined. This was used to arrive at the
existing collection system service population. Seasonal (tourist) population
that is presently served was assumed to be the same percentage of the total
population as the year-round residents in each centroid. The total peak
population presently served is the sum of the served year-round population
plus the served seasonal population.
For purposes of determining future service capacities, additional popula-
tion data computations were required. It is recognized by U.S. EPA that
seasonal populations generate wastewater at a lower per capita rate than
permanent populations. Consequently, a population equivalent factor of 0.8
was applied to seasonal populations for the later purpose of determining
wastewater flows.
To determine future levels of served and unserved populations, the follow-
ing assumptions were applied with certain exceptions. Year 2000 served
populations are based on the assumptions that:
o All existing served population will continue to be served
o Fifty percent of the existing, unserved population will be connected
to sewers (based on existing trends)
o Fifty percent of the population growth will be connected to sewers.
111-7
-------
Several exceptions are made to the above assumptions. In the case of
Warrington, the present strategy envisions a relatively high level of sewer
service. In this situation, future served population was projected at a
higher level. For the Pen Haven service area the above formula does not
provide sufficient sewerage based on available, suitable soils for on-site
disposal; therefore, sewer service was increased for this area. On Santa Rosa
Island and Gulf Breeze Peninsula, the Pensacola Beach, Navarre Beach, and
Santa Rosa Shores service areas are slated for 100 percent service in the
future. The Gulf Islands National Seashore, on the other hand, has no exist-
ing or projected sewer service areas.
More detailed information concerning the methodologies used for popula-
tion disaggregation and figures depicting the centroid locations and corres-
ponding populations can be found in the Alternatives Evaluation Task Report.
4. Wastewater Flow Projections
In order to evaluate the individual wastewater management alternatives,
wastewater flow projections were developed for each service area. Flow
projections for the year 2000 are based on the total residential, commercial
and industrial flows as well as infiltration/inflow into the systems.
Residential flows were developed by using the year 2000 equivalent peak
residential population (seasonal and permanent residents) and assuming a
wastewater generation rate of 80 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Seasonal
population projections were converted to permanent population by multiplying
the seasonal figures by 0.8. This factor was based on the relative differ-
ences in wastewater generation between seasonal and permanent populations.
Commercial flows for the year 2000 are the sum of commercial flows for
1980 and 9 gpcd allowed for the population growth that occurs between 1980
and 2000.
Future industrial growth is projected only for the Main Street facility.
Future industrial flow is represented by the existing industrial flow plus a
factor of 10 percent of the residential flow growth allowed for new industry.
Infiltration/Inflow projections are based on existing I/I, 30 percent
corrective measures for existing I/I and additional I/I for future systems
In the case of the existing Main Street plant service area, a lower I/I
correction factor was used because the City of Pensacola has recently
completed a sewer rehabilitation program. Table 111-2 presents wastewater
flow projections.
5. Effluent Limitations
An important element of analyzing the feasibility and impacts of various
wastewater management alternatives is an evaluation of wasteload allocations
or effluent limitations. The allowable pollutant loads that can be discharg-
ed from a wastewater facility are termed effluent limitations. The State of
Florida establishes effluent limitations but has not been delegated authority
to issue NPDES permits. Table 111-3 presents the Florida DER effluent limita-.
tions for the major wastewater discharges in the study area as well as the
NPDES effluent limitations established by EPA, Region IV. Since the effluent
limitations established by the State are more stringent than the NPDES permit
limits, they are the limits enforced.
111-8
-------
Table 111-2. Escarosa EIS - Wastewater F low Projections (All flows In million gallons per day)
2000 Pop.
2000 less 1980
Total
Commercial Flows
Industrial Flote
(l/l)
Equivalent
Pop. Equlv.
Wastewater
Residential
Exist.
Exist.
Exist.
Service Areas
Served
Served
Flow
FlOkS
Major
Add' 1.
Total
Ma j or
Add*1.
Total
Major
Add • 1.
Total
Ma 1n Street
120,793
51,788
16.37
9.66
0.56
1.09
1.65
0.19
0.41
0.60
3.68
0.78
4.46
Seen 1c H11 Is
8,097
6,619
0.9
0.648
-
0.073
0.073
-
-
0
0.08
0.099
0.179
Avondale
15,386
8,966
1.882
1.23
-
0.138
0.138
-
-
0
0.38
0.134
0.514
Pen Haven
7,429
3,698
1.016
.594
-
0.067
0.067
-
-
0
0.30
0.055
0.355
Warrlngton
20,226
14,735
2.943
1.62
0.60
0.182
0.782
-
-
0
0.32
0.221
0.541
Southwest Escambia Area
5,196
5,196
0.541
0.416
-
0.047
0.047
-
-
0
-
0.078
0.078
North west Escambia Area
12,874
12,800
1.338
1.03
-
0.116
0.116
-
-
0
-
0.192
0.192
Pensacola Beach
13,660
3,810
2.031*
1.09
-
0.123
-0.123
-
-
0
0.246
0.057
0.303
Gulf Breeze
7,405
4,719
0.797
0.592
-
0.067
0.067
-
-
0
0.067
0.071
0.138
Navarre Beach
2,298
811
0.252
0.183
-
0.020
0.020
-
-
0
0.037
0.012
0.049
Navarre
1,523
1,523
0.159
0.122
-
0.014
0.014
-
-
0
0
0.023
0.023
Centroid 53
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
-
-
0
-
0
0
Ft.Plckens & St. Park
0
0
0
0
-
0
0
-
-
0
-
0
0
Santa Rosa Shores
1,543
656
0.169
0.123
-
0.014
0.014
-
-
0
0.022
0.010
0.032
Gulf Isles
1,662
815
0.181
0.133
-
0.015
0.015
-
-
0
0.021
0.012
0.033
Midway
1,348
1,348
0.140
0.108
-
0.012
0.012
-
-
0
0
0.020
0.020
Gulf Breezs Peninsula
281
281
0.028
0.022
-
0.002
0.002
-
-
0
0
0.004
0.004
Undesignated
•Adjusted to account for the Influence of day visitors
Flow Projections Footnotes
Column 3 ¦ Column 4 + 7+10+13
Column 4 * 80 gpcd x Column 1
Column 6-9 gpcd x Column 1
Column 7 » Column 5 ~ Coluim 6
Column 9 ¦» 100 x Column 2 x 80 gpcd
Column 10 * Column 8 + Coluim 9
Column 11 • Use 25 gpcd x 1980 population equivalent for Pensacola Beach, Gulf Breeze, Navarre Beach, Santa Rosa Shores and Gulf Isles.
Column 12 * 15 gpcd x Column 2
Column 13 * Column 11 + Column 12
-------
Table 11.3 Permit Limitations tor Existing Wastewater Discharges.
NPDES
BODc
SS
Capacity (lbs/ (lbs/
Facl I Ity (mqd) (mg/l ) day) (mg/l) day)
Stat®
BODc
SS
TN TP Phenol
Capacity (lbs/ (lbs/ (lbs/ (lbs/ (lbs/
(mqd) (wg/l) day) (mg/l) day) (wg/l) day) (mg/l) day) (inq/l) day)
Main Street
Avonda1e
Harrington
Gulf Brees
Pensacola Beach
Navarre Beach
20.0
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.2
0.5
30 2250 30 2250
24 - 24
10 166 10 166
30 224 30 224
20 200 20 200
30 31 30 21
20.0
0.9
1.4
1.75
2.02
0.5
1.2
0.9
- 1334
20 150
10 117
10 150
10 167
15 62
10 100
5 37.5
- 1334
16 121
10 117
10 150
10 167
15 62
10 100
5 37.5
1000
7 82
7 75
84
6
6
5
6
168 0.05 8.3
82
75
84
9 67.5
5 37.5
'TKN rather than TN
o
This flow only allowable after Pen Haven discharge removed
^Fecal co 11 form limitation of 200/100 ml
-------
C. Wastewater Management Alternatives
Wastewater management alternatives have been developed for South Escambia
and Santa Rosa Counties based on existing collection, treatment and disposal
facilities and projected needs. These alternatives involve varying levels of
treatment and disposal options, generally less regional in scope than the 201
Facilities Plan. Alternatives were developed separately for Escambia County
and Santa Rosa County due to the geographical and institutional barriers to
combined alternatives.
Pensacola/Escambia County
Four regional concepts for wastewater management were developed and eval-
uated for Pensacola/Escambia County, including the 201 Facilities Plan recom-
mendations. In addition, a local alternative with no expansion and a No
Federal Action scenario were developed and evaluated. These alternatives are
described in greater detail below.
a. 201 Facilities Plan
The 201 Facilities Plan proposes the use of three wastewater treatment
facilities for the area:
1. The existing Main Street plant would serve the Pensacola franchise
area. It would discharge AWT level effluent to Pensacola Bay.
2. The existing Scenic Hills plant would serve the Scenic Hills area.
Secondary level effluent would be disposed of by land application.
3. A new, phased construction 11.3 mgd southwest plant, with secondary
level effluent disposed by a Gulf outfall, would receive wastewater
flow from all of southwestern Escambia County, Perdido Key, and the
present service areas of Avondale, Pen Haven and Warrington. The
existing facilities of the latter three communities would be
gradually phased out.
b. Regional Alternative I
The Main Street facility presently has the capacity to treat 20 mgd at an
AWT level. With a decrease in treatment level, the capacity of the facility
could be increased. Alternatively, with acquisition of adjacent land, the
facility could be expanded and continue treatment at an AWT level. Two facil-
ities are proposed under Regional Alternative I. These are:
1. Main Street facility expanded to serve Pensacola and all areas
except Scenic Hills with treatment/disposal options of
- Advanced wastewater treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Secondary treatment with discharge by Gulf outfall
2. Scenic Hills facility continuing to operate at secondary level of
treatment with disposal by land application.
c. Regional Alternative II
A variation of Regional Alternative I, this alternative will evaluate the
use of existing smaller treatment plants to treat the volume of wastewater
III-ll
-------
which cannot be handled at the Main Street plant without expansion. Priority
for use of existing facilities in this scheme will be established on the
basis of the following criteria:
o Physical condition of the facility
o Quality of effluent in context of the environmental impact on the
receiving stream
o Proximity to service area needs
o Capacity.
Three facilities are proposed under Regional Alternative II. These are:
1. Main Street facility operating at capacity to serve all areas except
Scenic Hills with treatment/disposal options of
- Advanced wastewater treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Secondary treatment with discharge by Gulf outfall
2. Scenic Hills facility continuing to operate at secondary level of
treatment with disposal by land application
3. Avondale facility expanded to serve the remaining areas not served
by Main Street facility with treatment/disposal options of
- Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
- Advanced secondary treatment with surface water discharge
- Advanced secondary treatment with deep-well injection.
d. Regional Alternative III
This alternative is similar to Alternative I and II. It includes, how-
ever, a subregional treatment and disposal facility to serve Southwest
Escambia County and Perdido Key rather than conveyance facilities to the Main
Street facility for these areas. Thus the cost effectiveness of treatment
and disposal for the southwest area versus conveyance to the Main Street
facility is evaluated.
Three facilities are proposed under Regional Alternative III. These are:
1. Main Street facility expanded to serve Pensacola and all areas
except Scenic Hills and southwest with treatment/disposal options of
- Advanced wastewater treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Secondary treatment with discharge by Gulf outfall
2. Scenic Hills facility continuing to operate at secondary level of
treatment with disposal by land application
3. New southwest facility built to serve Southwest Escambia County with
treatment/disposal options of
- Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
- Advanced secondary treatment with discharge to Perdido Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment with discharge by deep-well
injection.
111-12
-------
e. Local Alternative with No Expansion
Under this alternative the existing treatment facilities would not be
expanded and would resemble various elements of Regional Alternatives I or
II.
Four facilities are proposed under the Local Alternative. These are:
1. Main Street facility operating to capacity (20 mgd) to serve the
Pensacola franchise area and receive surplus flows from other areas
in the county, with treatment/disposal options of
- Advanced wastewater treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment and discharge to Pensacola Bay
- Secondary treatment with discharge by Gulf outfall
2. Scenic Hills facility continuing to operate at secondary level of
treatment with disposal by land application
3. Avondale facility continuing to operate at capacity with
treatment/disposal options of
- Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
- Advanced secondary treatment with discharge to Perdido Bay
- Advanced secondary treatment with deep-well injection
4. Warrington facility continuing to operate at secondary level of
treatment with disposal by land application
5. On-site and small community systems continued for Southwest Escambia
County area.
f. No Action
The No Action Alternative is a scenario in which current wastewater
management practices would continue.
Until 1981, the wastewater management needs over most of the area were
provided by the City of Pensacola and the Escambia County Utility Department.
These two entities owned and operated multiple wastewater treatment plants
and collection systems. Although they were separate governmental units, they
cooperated in providing wastewater service with portions of the county contri-
buting flows to the city's treatment plants. In 1981, in order to further
their ability to serve the wastewater (and water) needs of the area, the city
and county formed the Escambia County Utilities Authority that 1s responsible
for all wastewater management needs in Escambia County, except Santa Rosa
Island, which has a separate Authority.
Based on this background, it is concluded that in the event of no federal
action, the wastewater needs of the area would be responsively served by the
new Authority. However, the lack of federal funds could reduce the feasi-
bility accomplishing needed capital improvements on existing facilities.
Under the No Action Alternative, the Main Street wastewater treatment
plant would be used to maximum capacity through increased service needs and
through closing of the Pen Haven, Avondale, Moreno Courts, and Warrington
II1-13
-------
treatment plants. In fact, flows from the Pen Haven plant (closed prior to
October 1, 1983) and a portion of the Avondale flows are already conveyed to
the Main Street plant. Moreno Courts discharges to percolation ponds; hence
they have removed their discharge to Bayou Chico. Wastewater service would
be extended to the northwest area of the study area with treatment at the
Main Street facility as development dictates. The Scenic Hills plant would
continue to operate, as in the case of the other management alternatives.
The southwest area will most likely be served through on-site systems and
small package plants funded by private developers. The Avondale and Warring-
ton plants cannot continue under existing conditions since Florida DER has
determined these discharges must be eliminated.
This scenario is essentially the same as Regional Alternative III except
for the method of serving the southwest area and the probable phasing in
constructing certain wastewater facilities.
Table 111-14 summarizes the treatment and disposal options associated
with each wastewater management alternative for Pensacola/Escambia County.
Table 111-5 indicates the costs associated with each alternative.
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula
Four regional concepts for wastewater management were also developed for
Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula, including the 201 Facilities Plan
recommendations. In addition, two subregional alternatives, a local alterna-
tive, and a No Federal Action scenario were developed and evaluated. These
alternatives are described in greater detail below.
a. 201 Facilities Plan
The 201 Facilities Plan for the Gulf Breeze Peninsula and Santa Rosa
Island has several major components:
1. Wastewater collection and conveyance from Gulf Breeze and Pensacola
Beach via a force main east along U. S. Highway 98 to the regional
treatment facility in South Santa Rosa County
2. Wasteflows from Santa Rosa Shores, Woodlawn Beach and Navarre Beach
would be connected via small force mains into the major force main
for conveyance to the regional facility
3. The regional facility would treat wastewater to the secondary level
with disposal of effluent by land application at a site adjacent to
Eglin Air Force Base on the peninsula (proposed site indicated in
the 201 Facilities Plan is not available).
b. Regional Alternative I
Regional Alternative I has three major components that vary from the con-
cept presented in the 201 Facilities Plan. It has been determined through
investigations during the EIS that land application from a regional facility
to a site on Eglin Air Force Base is not viable due to the unavailability of
land. Consequently, the following regional concept is proposed:
1. Conveyance of wastewater flows from Gulf Breeze, Pensacola Beach,
Santa Rosa Shores, Gulf Isles, and western Gulf Breeze Peninsula to
Main Street facility with treatment/disposal options of
111-14
-------
Table I 11-4. Summary of Alternatives.
Escambia County
StructuraI AIternat i ve
1. 201 Faclllty Plan
a. Pensacola - Main Street WWTP
b. Scenic HI I Is - Scenic Hills WWTP
c. All other areas - South nest WWTP
2. Regional Alternative I
a. Pensacola and all areas except Scenic Hills
Expanded Main Street WWTP
b. Seen Ic Hills - Seen i c Hills WWTP
3. Regional Alternative II
a. Pensacola and all areas except Scenic Hills
Main Street WWTP to operational capacity
b. Seen Ic Hills - Seen Ic Hills WWTP
c. Avondale and areas not served by Main Street
and Scenic Hills - Avondale STP
4. Regional Alternative III
a. Pensacola and all areas except Scenic Hills
and South »est - Main Street WWTP
b. Seen I c H11 I s - Seen i c Hills WWTP
e. South test - New Southwest WWTP
5. Local Alternatives with no expansion
a. Pensacola - Pen Haven; areas
not served by Avondale, Warrington and
Scenic Hills - Main Street WWTP
Treatment Level/Disposal Location
AWT - Pensacola Bay
secondary - Land Application
secondary - Gulf Outfall
AWT - Pensacola Bay
advanced secondary - Pensacola Bay
secondary - Gulf Outfall
secondary - Land Application
AWT - Pensacola Bay
advanced secondary - Pensacola Bay
secondary - Gulf Outfall
secondary - Land Application
secondary - Land Application
advanced secondary - Perdldo Bay discharge
advanced secondary - Deep wall Injection
AWT - Pensacola Bay
advanced secondary - Pensacola Bay
secondary - Gulf Outfall
secondary - Land Application
secondary - Land Application
advanced secondary - Perdldo Bay discharge
advanced secondary - Deep wsil Injection
AWT - Pensacola Bay
advanced secondary - Pensacola Bay
secondary - Gulf Outfall
-------
Table 111-4. Continued
Escambia County
Structural AIternatlve
b. Seen Ic Hills - Seen Ic Hills WWTP
c. Avondale - Avondale WWTP
d. Warrington - Existing HWTP
e. South test
6. No Action
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981,
i
t—*
CTl
Treatment Level/Disposal Location
secondary - Land Application
secondary - Land Application
advanced secondary - Perdido Bay discharge
advanced secondary - Deep tell Injection
secondary - Land Application
Individual on-lot and small community systems
same as Regional Alternative III except that
the South west area ml 11 be served by Individual
on-lot and small community systems, and Implemen-
tation may be phased.
-------
Table 111-5. Wastewater Conveyance Facilities for Escambia County
Capital and Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars)
Capital Cost
201 Plan 48,648*
Regional Alternative I 11,848
Regional Alternative II 13,433
Regional Alternative III **
(a) 8,782
(b) 5,433
Local Alternative 8,434
No Action 2,873
Annual
Operating Cost
280
237
243
175
131
98
51
Present Worth
38,484
11,881
13,208
8,921
5,716
6,370
2,878
*Costs for the 201 Plan included a Gulf outfall for a proposed Southwest
Escambia wastewater facility. A minimum depth of 30 feet was used for
location of discharge ports. The 30 foot depth was based on other outfall
studies conducted in the Gulf. This required an outfall of approximately
10,000 feet in length. If this alternative was considered further,
detailed examination of current patterns, reef locations, and impacts to
beaches and marine grassbeds would be required to determine the minimum
outfall length.
**(a) - Disposal of effluent from proposed southwest plant to Perdido Bay.
(b) - Disposal of effluent from proposed southwest plant via spray
i rrigation.
Note: Conveyance costs for Avondale and Warrington are based on data
provided by the Escambia County Utilities Authority.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
111-17
-------
Secondary treatment with discharge to Pensacola Bay
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to
Pensacola Bay
Secondary treatment with Gulf outfall
2. Continuance of Navarre Beach facility to capacity with treatment/dis-
posal options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
3. Continuance of on-site and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
c. Regional Alternative II
Regional Alternative II will evaluate the treatment and discharge options
for a regional Gulf Breeze treatment plant and the existing Navarre Beach
treatment plant while continuing the on-site and small community systems for
other areas. The following regional concept 1s proposed:
1. Conveyance of wastewater flows from Gulf Breeze, Pensacola Beach,
Santa Rosa Shores, Gulf Isles, and western Gulf Breeze Peninsula to
Gulf Breeze facility with treatment/disposal options of
Secondary treatment with land application
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with discharge to Pensacola Bay
Areas outside this regional system would be handled as 1n Regional
Alternative I:
2. Continuance of Navarre Beach facility to capacity with
treatment/disposal options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa
Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
3. Continuance of on-site and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
d. Regional Alternative III
Regional Alternative III will evaluate the treatment and discharge
options for a new regional eastern Gulf Breeze treatment plant and the
existing Navarre Beach treatment plant while continuing the on-site and small
community systems. The following regional concept 1s proposed:
1. Conveyance of wastewater flows from Gulf Breeze, Pensacola Beach,
Santa Rosa Shores, Gulf Isles, and western Gulf Breeze Peninsula to
III-18
-------
a new Eastern Gulf Breeze facility with
Secondary treatment with new discharge to Pensacola Bay
Secondary treatment with land application
Areas outside this regional system would be handled as in Regional
Alternative I
2. Continuance of Navarre Beach facility to capacity with
treatment/disposal options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa
Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
3. Continuance of on-site and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
e. Subreglonal Alternative I
Subregional Alternative I will combine Gulf Breeze and Pensacola Beach
into a single treatment facility. The remaining areas of the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula and Santa Rosa Island will be assumed to be too sparsely populated,
with population centers too far apart to warrant combination of facilities.
The following subregional concept is proposed:
1. Conveyance of wastewater flows from Gulf Breeze and Pensacola Beach
to the Main Street facility with
Secondary treatment with land application
Advanced secondary treatment with discharge to Pensacola Bay
Secondary treatment with discharge to Pensacola Bay
Secondary treatment with Gulf outfall
2. Continuance of existing Santa Rosa Shores facility at secondary
level of treatment with disposal by land application
3. Continuance of existing Gulf Isles facility at secondary level of
treatment with discharge to percolation pond
4. Continuance of existing Navarre Beach facility with treatment/d1s-
posal options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
5. Continuance of on-site and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern and western Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
f. Subregional Alternative II
Subregional Alternative II will evaluate the treatment and discharge
options for an expanded Gulf Breeze WWTP and the existing Navarre Beach WWTP
while continuing the operation of small existing WWTPs and on-site systems.
111-19
-------
The following subregional concept is proposed:
1. Conveyance of wastewater flows from Gulf Breeze and Pensacola Beach
to the Gulf Breeze facility with treatment/disposal options of
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa
Sound
Secondary treatment with discharge to Pensacola Bay.
Areas outside this subregional service area would be handled as in
Subregional Alternative I.
2. Continuance of Navarre Beach facility to capacity with
treatment/disposal options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa
Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
3. Continuance of on-site and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
g. Local Alternative with No Expansion
Five facilities are proposed under this alternative. These are:
1. Continuance of Gulf Breeze facility at secondary level of treatment
with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
2. Continuance of Pensacola Beach facility with treatment/disposal
options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
3. Continuance of Santa Rosa Shores facility at secondary level of
treatment with disposal by land application
4. Continuance of Gulf Isles facility at secondary level of treatment
with discharge to percolation pond
5. Continuance of existing Navarre Beach facility with treatment/dis-
posal options of
Secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa Rosa Sound
Advanced secondary treatment with existing discharge to Santa
Rosa Sound
Secondary treatment with disposal by land application
6. Continuance of on-site and small community systems for Navarre and
eastern and western Gulf Breeze Peninsula.
111-20
-------
h. No Action
The No Action Alternative is one in which current wastewater management
practices would continue. Wastewater service in Santa Rosa Island and the
Gulf Breeze Peninsula has been provided in several independent and
self-sufficient modes:
o Public institutions - City of Gulf Breeze, Santa Rosa Island
Authority (Pensacola Beach), and the Santa Rosa County Beach Admin-
istration (Navarre Beach)
o Private institutions - Gulf Isles and Santa Rosa Shores
o Individual on-site systems - most of the eastern Gulf Breeze
Peninsula.
Currently, independent of other planning efforts, the Santa Rosa Island
Authority is undertaking an engineering study for expansion of the Pensacola
Beach wastewater treatment plant in response to service needs in that
community.
It is expected that in the absence of federal funding the current
practice of independently serving each local community would continue. This
scenario would essentially be the same as the Local Alternative. However,
without federal funding the existing treatment plant discharges into Santa
Rosa Sound would probably continue without change at Navarre Beach and
possibly Pensacola Beach. This would require local expenditure of funds to
meet any increased FDER permit requirements.
Table 111-6 summarizes the treatment and disposal options associated with
each wastewater management alternative for Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze
Peninsula. Table 111-7 indicates the costs associated with each alternative.
D. Existing Natural Environment
1. Freshwater Resources
Freshwater resources in the study area may be potentially impacted by the
disposal of treated wastewater and by increased development, leading to alter-
ation of existing drainage patterns. In a coastal area such as South Escam-
bia and Santa Rosa Counties, freshwater resources also play an integral role
in the estuarine systems and in the formation of environmentally sensitive
floodplains and wetlands.
a. Hydrology
Freshwater hydrology in the study area is dominated by four major river
basins that drain into the Perdido and Pensacola Bay systems. These are the
Perdido, Escambia, Blackwater and Yellow River basins. Additionally, there
is some localized, coastal drainage. This includes the East Bay River,
draining into Escambia Bay, as well as overland flow from the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula, Perdido Key, Garcon Peninsula, and the eastern portion of the
Pensacola Peninsula.
111-21
-------
Table 111-6. Summary of Alternatives.
Santa Rosa IsIand/GuI
Structural Alternatives
1. 201 Facility Plan - Alt areas, regional WWTP
2. Regional Alternatives
a. Gulf Breeze, Pensacola Beach, Santa Rosa
Shores Gulf Isles, and Western Gulf
Breeze Peninsula - regional WWTR at Gulf
Breeze or eastern peninsula
b. Navarre Beach - Existing WWTP
c. Navarre, Eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula
3. Subreglonal Alternatives
a. Gulf Breeze and Pensacola Beach - subreglonal
WWTP at Gulf Breeze
b. Santa Rosa Shores - Existing WWTP
c. Gulf Isles - Existing WWTP
d. Navarre Beach
e. Navarre, Eastern Gulf Bree»
Peninsula, and Western Gulf Breeze
Peninsula
4. Local Alternative
a. Gulf Breeze - Gulf Breeze WWTP
Breeze Peninsula
Treatment Level/Disposal Location
- secondary - Land Application
- Convey to advanced secondary Main St. WWTP -
Pensacola Bay
- secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound
- secondary - land application
- advanced secondary - present discharge, Santa
Rosa Sound
- secondary - Pensacola Bay discharge
- secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present discharge, Santa
Rosa Sound
- secondary - land application
- on-site, small community systems
- convey to advanced secondary Main St. WWTP -
Pensacola Bay
- secondary - land application
- secondary - Santa Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound
- secondary - Pensacola Bay
- secondary - land application
- secondary - percolation pond
- secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound
- secondary - land application
- on-site, small community systems
- secondary - present discharge, Santa
Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present discharge,
Santa Rosa Sound
- secondary - Pensacola Bay
-------
Table 111-6. Continued
Structural Alternatives
Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula
Treatment Level/Disposal Location
4. Local Alternative
a. Gulf Breeas - Gulf Brees WWTP
b. Pensacola Beach - Pensacola Beach WWTP
c. Santa Rosa Shores
d. Gulf Isles
e. Navarre Beach
f. Navarre and Eastern Gulf Breeza
Peninsula and Western Gulf Breeze
Peninsula
5. No Action
- secondary - present discharge, Santa
Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present discharge,
Santa Rosa Sound
- secondary - Pensacola Bay
- secondary - present and new discharge point,
Santa Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present and new discharge
point, Santa Rosa Sound
- secondary - land application
- secondary - percolation pond
- secondary - present discharge, Santa Rosa Sound
- advanced secondary - present discharge, Santa
Rosa Sound
- secondary - land application
- on-site, small community systems
same as local alternative except that at I
facilities will discharge to present
location
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
-------
Table III-7. Wastewater Conveyance Facilities for Santa Rosa County
Capital and Operating Costs and Present Worths
(Thousands of Dollars)
Capital Cost
Annual
Operating Cost Present Worth
201 Plan 16,765
Regional Alternative (1)
(I) 13,367
(II) 6,715
(III) 13,392
Subregional Alternative (2)
(I) 3,298
(II) 9,539
Local Alternative 629
No Action 629
200
178
118
175
52
106
9
9
13,813
12,723
6,702
12,779
3,078
8,668
603
603
(1) I - Treatment at Main Street
II - Treatment at existing Gulf Breeze plant site
III - Treatment at eastern Gulf Breeze Peninsula plant site
(2) I - Treatment at existing Gulf Breeze plant site.
II - Treatment at Main Street.
Source: Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. 1981.
111-24
-------
b. Quality
Recent trends indicate an enhancement in water quality of the rivers
entering the Pensacola Bay system. However, substantial improvement will be
required before all Class III water quality standards are met. This is
especially true in the case of coliform bacterial counts, which must be
substantially lowered to make these waters safe for water contact sports.
Historically the major source of pollution to the bay systems in the study
area has been industrial discharges. In some bayous as well, industrial
discharges have been responsible for degraded water quality. Water quality
has generally improved but continued discharges and releases from sludge
accumulated from previous discharge practices have left the bays and bayous
sensitive to pollutants. General conclusions to be drawn from water quality
data of the tributaries draining into the Pensacola Bay system are:
1. Dissolved oxygen levels meet or exceed state criteria at sampling
stations throughout the freshwater drainage basin of the Pensacola
Bay system.
2. Where comparisons are available, average nutrient values seem to
have decreased substantially since the 1960's and 19701s. These
decreases become less obvious as one moves down river. The values
fall well within freshwater water quality screening criteria estab-
lished by FDER for Class III waters in all tributaries into the
Pensacola Bay system.
3. While concentrations of these nutrients are low, the loading of
these parameters and other pollutants into the receiving estuarine
environment causes concern. The build-up of these pollutants in the
bottom muds of the system within the EIS study area can have long
term, adverse impacts on estuarine water quality.
4. Violations of heavy metal criteria exist in stretches of the Escam-
bia River and the Yellow River.
5. Violations of Class III water criteria continue to occur for total
coliform bacteria in the Escambia River, Blackwater River and Yellow
River, making these waters unsafe for contact sports.
6. There is a gradual decrease in macroinvertebrate community health
moving downstream and accelerating as one approaches the estuarine
environment. This is attributable to the stressful conditions of
the interfacing fresh/saltwater environment as the river systems
enter the estuaries, to pollution from increasing municipal and
industrial discharges, and to concentrations of urban populations.
c. Ecology
The quality of the water and the abundance of general habitat types can
be expected to determine the types of aquatic communities that exist in the
study area. In general, the freshwater aquatic communities that exist in the
Perdido River, Escambia River, Big Coldwater Creek, Blackwater River, Eleven
Mile Creek, Eight Mile Creek, and Marcus Bayou Creek are in good condition.
Some degradation from nonpoint source run-off and industrial and urban devel-
opment has occurred, but the types of aquatic insects and fish found are
fairly typical of blackwater systems (Ross and Jones 1979, Gunning pers.
-------
2. Estuarlne Resources
The estuarine resources of the South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties
study area constitute a complex system impacted by freshwater inflow, non-
point runoff, and tidal currents. The area's estuaries play an important
role in the life-cycle of many aquatic and terrestrial organisms and are also
an important component of the area's recreation and tourist industries.
Since the area's estuaries are also used for wastewater discharges and
proposed alternatives may result in increased or relocated discharges, a
thorough analysis of the estuarine resources is a necessary basis for the
evaluation of existing and potential impacts.
a. Hydrodynamics
Circulation in the estuaries of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties depends
on numerous factors including river flow, tides, and wind. The circulation
patterns of the Perdido and Pensacola Bay systems vary from two-layer flow
with stratification to two-layer flow with vertical mixing (USEPA 1975, 201
Supplement 1978). The mean water transport in these bays is in a seaward
direction for the upper layer and riverward in the lower layer. Under most
conditions these systems show stratification, with little if any mixing. The
result is that the flushing rate for these estuarine bays can be extremely
low (200 days when river inflow is at ten-year low of 61 m3/sec) (USEPA
1975). Local wind patterns can cause a current reversal to occur in these
bays causing the upper layer to flow riverward and the lower layer seaward.
The result of these reversals is that pollution sources are trapped in the
estuaries for longer periods of time.
b. Qual1ty
Even with great expenditures of funds to control point source pollution
in the early 1970's, water quality in the Pensacola Bay system, though show-
ing some improvement, is far from pristine. Nutrient concentrations continue
to exceed established water quality screening criteria and, in some in-
stances, show signs of increasing. The Pensacola Bay system remains in
excess of its assimilative capacity for these nutrients. Dissolved oxygen
concentrations in bottom waters continue to violate Florida water quality
criteria of 4.0 mg/1 (33.4 Ib/mgal) during the saline-stratified conditions
of the summer and early fall. This is attributed primarily to the residual
effects from the buildup of organic materials in the bottom muds that require
oxygen upon their decomposition. Secondary impacts from anaerobic conditions
in the bottom waters may include the increased release of nutrients Into the
water column, stressed conditions for macroinvertebrate and dimersal (bottom)
fish populations, and the buildup of toxic hydrogen sulfide in bottom muds.
Current water quality in Perdido Bay remains about the same as 1t was 1n
the early 1970's. Based on limited information, no major trends were iden-
tified that indicated violations of water quality criteria. Macroinverte-
brate community diversity is low for a Florida estuary and, most importantly,
commercial shrimp landings have not been recorded for this area since 1975.
Most of the total nitrogen and BOD5 loading into Perdido Bay enters via the
Perdido River and originates from point and nonpoint source pollution. Most
of the total phosphorus loading into Perdido Bay originates from point
sources within the immediate drainage areas of the bay.
111-26
-------
c. Ecology
The type of estuarine communities found in the Escambia-Santa Rosa
County EIS study area are dependent mostly on water quality and the general
abundance of habitat types. The communities that exist in the estuaries of
Perdido Bay, Pensacola Bay, East Bay, and Escambia Bay indicate a wide range
in physical and environmental conditions. Numerous factors (e.g., salinity
toxic wastes, and point and nonpoint pollution sources) determine the quality
and type of community that can be found in estuaries. The estuaries in the
EIS study area are represented by communities which are in an intermediate
stage between natural undisturbed systems and those that are polluted, which
show the characteristic degradation in normal production of shellfish and
fi nfish.
3. Marine Resources
The hydrodynamics, water quality and ecology of the Gulf waters are
related to the estuarine resources and have an important bearing on the
proposed Gulf outfall. For these reasons, a thorough analysis of the study
area's marine resources is essential for the complete evaluation of potential
environmental impacts.
a. Hydrodynanrics
Marine hydrodynamics are represented by a complex network of current
loop patterns which are in a state of constant change due to numerous factors
(Smith 1974). The main loop currents located in the offshore area of Escam-
bia and Santa Rosa Counties are the Mississippi-Alabama Shelf Loop, the West
Florida Loop, and the Gulf Loop. Each of these current loop patterns will
either reinforce the others or create a zone of transition with little or no
movement (Smith 1974, Jones et al 1973). The West Florida Loop and the Mis-
sissippi-Alabama Loop are responsible for the longshore drift in a westerly
direction along the barrier islands of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties
(Jones et al. 1973). In the area where these two current loops meet, an eddy
loop is created since these loops are in direct opposition (Mississippi-Ala-
bama current inshore and West Florida current offshore) to each other. This
relationship and resulting transition zone and eddy current change during the
year. In the deeper offshore Gulf area, the Gulf Current Loop operates and
serves to reinforce these nearshore current patterns. This offshore Gulf
Loop also exhibits seasonal characteristics.
b. Quality
Significant data gaps exist in our understanding of the current state of
water quality of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the study area. The most com-
prehensive study took place in August and September 1971. This study, con- "
ducted by Florida State University and the Florida Coastal Coordination
Council, provides most of the available information for this region. The re-
sults of analyses from investigations of trace element distribution, pest1-~
cide distribution, sedimentary parameters and wind/water dynamics, however
have led to the conclusion that the principal measured effects in the Florida
territorial sea off the study area coast are the result of a major influence
outside the study area and to the west. The most likely source is considered
111-27
-------
to be Mobile Bay. Additional contributions appear to be from the Mississippi
River delta and the Perdido and Escambia River systems.
c. Ecology
The type of marine communities that can be expected offshore Escambia
and Santa Rosa Counties are dependent mostly on the sediment type, season,
and general water quality. In general, offshore marine systems are more
diverse, in terms of invertebrate and fish species, than the estuarine
systems. However, while species diversity is high, the relative abundance
(number/m^) -jS lower than that of estuarine systems. This general diver-
sity/abundance relationship is true for the soft sediment offshore areas, but
where reef communities occur, diversity, abundance, and productivity are all
high.
4. Groundwater Resources
The two major aquifers in the study area are the Floridan aquifer, which
is found at depths that generally exceed 300 meters (1,000 feet), and the
shallower sand-and-gravel aquifer. The sand-and-gravel aquifer is near the
surface and contains a large quantity of freshwater. It is for these reasons
that most of the water supply wells are drilled into the upper aquifer. As a
result, most of the available water quality data are for this aquifer.
The Floridan aquifer within the study area is composed of porous and per-
meable coquina (limestone). Water from the aquifer could serve many water
supply purposes; however, concentrations of certain constituents have some-
times exceeded desirable limits for certain specific uses.
In the sand-and-gravel aquifer, the dissolved solids concentrations are
generally low since there is relatively little soluble material in the sands
and gravels. The groundwater is, however, more mineralized than surface
waters since it remains in contact with rocks and soils for much longer
periods. The water from this aquifer contains dissolved carbon dioxide that
originates primarily from the decay of soil organic matter, as well as from
the atmosphere. The dissolved carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid that
encounters little buffering action and has strong corrosive effects. This
corrosion is further enhanced by the generally low Iron content of the water,
which is 0.06 to 4.9 mg/1 (0.50 to 40.9 lb/mgal).
5. Terrestrial Systews
A complete inventory of land-based resources is critical to the evalua-
tion of wastewater management impacts. Impacts to terrestrial systems may
result from several factors Including the Implementation of land application
systems or increased development Induced through the provision or expansion
of wastewater facilities.
a. Ecology
Comprehensive species lists of woody and herbaceous plants for all of
the local community types may be found in the 201 Facilities Plan (1978).
This report may also be referred to for more complete lists and scientific
names of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds known from the study area.
111-28
-------
Other important references describing the terrestrial ecology of the study
area include works by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR 1975)
Hartman (1978), Monk (1965, 1968), and the National Park Service (NPS 1976
1978).
b. Protected Species
The study area region is known to contain as many as 44 species of pro-
tected animals. The most important terrestrial habitats for protected
animals are wetlands (salt marshes, freshwater marshes, and swamps) and the
coastal dune/beach community. All of the aquatic habitats (freshwater
streams, estuaries, and marine waters) are important habitats for protected
animals, but estuaries are particularly valuable. Recently, the Perdido Key
beach mouse has been proposed for inclusion on the federal list of endangered
species along with the designation of critical habitat in Escambia County,
Florida, and Baldwin County, Alabama.
Protected plants are covered by state laws only. A conservative esti-
mate totals at least 50 protected plant species for the study area. Swamps,
hardwood hammocks, and wet pine platwoods are the most important habitats.
6. Sensitive Areas
Sensitive areas are environmental features which warrant particular
consideration for reasons such as uniqueness, rarity, hazardous conditions,
high ecological value, and low tolerance to perturbations. Sensitive areas
which are especially important to this study area include barrier Islands,
estuaries, off-shore marine reefs, wetlands, hardwood hammocks, habitats for
protected species, floodplains, and groundwater recharge areas. These are all
represented in the study area and have been carefully examined. All
wastewater management actions should fully consider these resources.
7. Physiography
Information about topography, geology, and soils of the area is import-
ant in establishing wastewater management alternatives. The terrain and
slope of land affects pumping of sewage and potential land application and
on-lot sites. Surface and subsurface geology also affects the placement of
interceptors, groundwater resources, deep-well injection potential, land
application, and on-site systems. Of most importance to the latter two are
soils. Characteristics such as permeabi1ity, porosity, grain size, and
organic content all have effects on the applicability of certain wastewater
treatment/disposal systems.
8. Air Resources
Air resources are described by four components: climate, air quality
odor, and noise. For the analysis of wastewater management alternatives,*
climate is the most important. Odor serves primarily as an indicator of
problems with existing facilities and can impact alternatives development.
Odor complaints in the Pensacola area are received infrequently and are not
considered a problem by Florida DER. Air quality and noise levels are cur-
rently acceptable, although the air quality standard for ozone was nearly
reached in 1980. Neither air quality nor noise 1s affected by primary
111-29
-------
impacts of wastewater management, but both can be affected by secondary
impacts.
E. Existing Man-Made Environment
1. Land Use
Present and future land use patterns are primary factors in wastewater
management planning. Present land use analyses are necessary to identify
current wastewater treatment problems and indicate the type and location of
treatment and disposal facilities required. Future land use projections
based on current trends and land suitability are necessary to accurately
develop and evaluate proposed wastewater management alternatives.
a. Present Land Use
The majority of developed land within the study area i? located within
the city of Pensacola and adjacent areas of Escambia County. Of the 57,129
acres of developed land, Pensacola contains 20.4 percent (11,654 ac.),
Escambia County 69.3 percent (39,590 ac.), and Santa Rosa County 10.3 percent
(5,884 ac.). Pensacola is 76 percent developed whereas Escambia County is
only 53 percent developed.
Of the 76,704 total land acres of Santa Rosa County in the study area,
approximately 43,100 acres are dedicated to the Eglin Air Force Base/Eglin
Reserve. This represents a large amount of land which cannot be considered
as having development potential. The major node of developed land in the
Santa Rosa County portion of the study area occurs in and around the city of
Gulf Breeze. The primary land use in this area is single-family residential.
b. Future Land Use
Based on the amount of undeveloped land in the city of Pensacola in 1981
(24 percent), undeveloped acreage is projected to decrease to 6 percent by
1996. The largest change is anticipated in the residential category, less
than two dwelling units per acre, which will increase from 528 acres (3
percent of total) in 1981 to 2160 acres (14 percent of total) by 1996. This
increase will occur by in-filling the vacant areas outside the central busi-
ness district as well as redevelopment of existing areas. Also, transporta-
tion/utilities/communications will experience a 700-acre (5 percent) increase
over the same period.
Development in Southwest Escambia County, including Perdido Key, is also
likely to increase based on current trends. The 208 population projections
indicate less development will occur in this area due to the presence of
floodplains, wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. In prac-
tice, this requires local land use planning that has only recently addressed
this problem at all. Based on current trends, development in these coastal
areas will continue at a rapid pace with few controls. The ECUA has plans to
serve in excess of 30,000 people in Southwest Escambia County, located primar-
ily on Perdido Key.
Santa Rosa Island will remain virtually the same as in 1981 with the
exception of residential and commercial development around Pensacola Beach.
Much of the island is not available for development because of public
111-30
-------
ownership or environmental constraints. The area around Navarre Beach is
also expected to experience some development.
Santa Rosa County, large portions of which are dedicated to military use,
has 14,000 acres of undeveloped yet buildable land within the study area. '
While growth is expected to continue near Gulf Breeze, limited access to
commercial and employment opportunities of the region could hamper
large-scale development of this area. The portion of Santa Rosa County in
the study area is not expected to experience significant growth t>y .1996. The
land use pattern will continue to be dispersed residential use on the
peninsula with Gulf Breeze retaining its nodal characteristics for that area.
2. Development Controls
Laws, ordinances, and regulations at the federal, state and local levels
place numerous restrictions on the use of the natural environment in the
study area. These restrictions effectively limit development in certain
areas and have a dramatic impact on the pattern and density of development.
Regulations concerning wastewater treatment are particularly important
determinants of land use patterns and density. The State of Florida has been
particularly progressive in terms of environmental protection. State laws in
Florida protect a variety of environmentally sensitive areas including sub-
merged lands, beaches, wetlands, and coastal waters. Florida is one of the
few states to mandate local planning and require local comprehensive plans.
The State has also established Areas of Critical State Concern and identified
Developments of Regional Impact in order to minimize potential adverse im-
pacts of large-scale development. State regulations also control the use of
septic tanks and establish standards for wastewater treatment and disposal.
In most cases state regulations are more stringent than federal regulations.
a. Land Use Regulations
Table III-8 shows a matrix of land use management techniques currently in
use by the local governments and authorities in the study area. These local
regulations and ordinances provide the major conservation mechanisms for
resource protection in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. These protective
measures have been legislated at the various levels of government because of
the realization that long term economic development is directly dependent on
the conservation of natural resources. These resources must be conserved to
assure that the natural functions they serve, on which man is dependent, will
continue to provide a sound economic base for future development in the EIS
study area. Only Pensacola and Pensacola Beach have implemented adequate
land use management tools to date. The unincorporated areas of both counties
have insufficient land use regulations to adequately control development 1n
environmentally sensitive areas.
b. Wastewater Facilities Regulations
Control methods for wastewater facilities in Santa Rosa and Escambia
Counties are used to protect environmentally sensitive areas and to effec-
tively dispose of wastewaters. Although local ordinances, by virtue of the
location of their administrators, can be the most effective means of dealing
with the developmental and environmental issues raised in the 201 process,
111-31
-------
Table 111-8. Land Management Mechanisms in the EIS Study Area.
Santa Rosa Santa Rosa
Escambia Co. Pensacola Is. Authority County Gulf Breeze
Zoning
Ordinances
X(l)
X
X
X
P.U.D.
Provisions
X
X
X
Buffer Zone
Requirements
X
X
Landscape
Ordinance
X
X
Site Plan
Review Process
X
X
X
X
X
Flood Plain
Process
X
X
X
X
X
Subdivisions
Regulations
X
X
X
X
X
Sedimentation
Erosion Con-
trol Ordinance
X
X
X
X
Tree
Ordinance
X
X
Airport Zoning
Ordinance
X
X
Estuarlne/
Wetland Set
Back Ordinance
X
X
Historical
Preservation
X
(1) Perdido Key
111-32
-------
they are not often specific to wastewater facilities. Such facilities are
regulated at the state level.
3. Co—unity Services and Facilities
Community services and facilities in the study area are currently
considered adequate for the existing population, based on national and local
standards. However, community facilities must also be adequate to provide
for future growth in order to prevent critical deficiencies and eliminate the
need for hasty and costly expansion. Planning in the study area is currently
underway to provide for future needs.
Water supply and demand will probably be the critical issue in the
future. Currently, water supply, dependent primarily on the sand-and-gravel
aquifer, is keeping pace with water demand. However, as the demand for water
increases and the aquifer recharge capacity decreases (due to increased
development), saltwater intrusion may become a critical problem. Future
water demand will probably be met with a combination of increased pumping
capacity, new well sites, alternative (surface) water sources, and increased
conservation and recycling.
4. Economic Profile
A regional economic profile involves the ananlysis of local economic
indicators, area industries and natural resources. An analysis of local
financial considerations can also be used to provide an indication of the
financial stability of the local governments. An economic profile of the
Pensacola region indicates a moderately diverse, stable economy with projec-
tions for slow, positive growth.
5. Historic and Archeologlcal Resources
A number of known historic sites are found in the two-county area
(Tesar, pers. comm.) and are listed in the National Register of Historic
Places (U.S. Dept. of Interior, National Park Service 1973). A list of the
most important sites is included in the 201 Facilities Plan (1978). Most of
these historic sites are associated with Pensacola and the barrier islands.
Some of the most important historic sites in the study area include Fort
Pickens (site of the major Civil War conflict), Fort George (site of the
siege of Pensacola in 1781), Christ Church (oldest building of worship in
northwest Florida), Light House (built In 1859 and marks the involvement of
U.S. Navy in the area), Seville Square Historic District (site of the
mid-eighteenth century settlement of Pensacola), and Battery San Antonio
(built 1803-1814 as a defense for Spanish forces). In addition, numerous
buildings in the area are listed as historic landmarks (201 Facilities Plan
1978).
6. Wastewater Facilities
The Main Street Wastwater Treatment Plant serving Pensacola 1s the
largest treatment plant in the study area. Currently completing a program of
expansion and modification, this plant is operating at an expanded 75,700
m3/day (20.0 mgd) capacity with multiple hearth incineration of sludge. The
plant is preparing to go on-line with advanced treatment. Table III-9 con-
111-33
-------
tains a further description of this facility. Operating characteristics for
the Main Street Plant since expansion are shown in Table 111-10.
Descriptions of other facilities in the study area with design capaci-
ties greater than 378 m3/day (100,000 gpd) are also given in Table 111-9.
These smaller plants generally utilize some form of activated sludge treat-
ment and dispose of their sludge to a landfill after digestion. Except for
the Scenic Hills and Santa Rosa Shores Plants, which utilize spray irriga-
tion, all of the plants discharge their effluent to surface waters. Operat-
ing characteristics are shown in Table 111-10. Some systems experience large
seasonal variations in flow.
There are 22 treatment plants with capacities of 378 m3/day (100,000
gpd) or less in the Escarosa study area. The majority of these package
plants make use of extended aeration treatment with disposal to percolation
ponds. Seasonal variations in flow are also experienced by many of these
facilities.
Only one industrial wastewater treatment facility with capacity greater
than 3,785 m3/day (1.0 mgd) is located in the study area. Located at the
Pensacola Naval Air Station (NAS), this plant treats both domestic and Indus-
trial wastewaters. Five industrial facilities located outside the study area
have the potential to affect water quality within the study area because of
their surface water discharges. There are three chemical companies: A1r
Products, American Cyanamid, and Monsanto; a paper company, St. Regis; and a
power company, Crist Electric.
Individual on-site disposal systems are regulated by Chapter 10D-6,
State of Florida "Standards for Individual Sewage Disposal Facilities." The
use of these systems are regulated by the Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitation Services and the county health departments. Prior to the
installation of any system, a permit from the Health Department must be
obtained. Presently, the health departments are in charge of issuing permits
for systems up to 18.9 cubic meters per day (5,000 gals, per day). Larger
systems are under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation.
F. Environmental Inpacts Associated with Disposal Alternatives
One of the major issues of this EIS is ultimately how and vrtiere to dis-
pose of wastewater. The study area has a large centralized system, in the
Main Street treatment plant, to handle the wastewater of most, if not all, of
Escambia County. The main limitation is its disposal location within the Pen-
sacola Bay system. The other existing treatment plants dispose their
effluent to bayous and other estuarine systems. On the barrier islands,
Perdido Key is served by small community/on-site systems whereas Santa Rosa
Island is served primarily by a centralized system, disposing to Santa Rosa
Sound.
Prime consideration was given to impacts resulting from wastewater man-
agement alternatives on sensitive coastal areas and barrier Islands. Given
the sensitivity and value of these areas, great care must be exercised to
Institute proper planning and decision-making processes. While federal fund-
ing can help solve wastewater management problems, local planning must be
II1-34
-------
Table 11 1-9. Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Capacities Greater Than 378 nrVday (0.1 MGD)
Treatment
Plant
Owier or
Operating Authority
Design Capacity,
m3/day (mqd)
Treatment Process
Waste teter/S1udqe
Ef f1uent
Disposal
S ludge
D1sposaI
City of Pensacola
Ma 1n Street
City of Pensacola
75,708
(20.0)
Ad va need Vine! nerat i on
Pensacola Bay
Sanitary Landf 111
Scenic Hills
City of Pensacola
3,785
(1.00)
Activated sludge/incineration
at Main Street
Spray irrigation
Sanitary Landf 111
Mat ntand
Escambia County
Avondale
Escambia County
3,785
(1.00)
Contact Stabilization/Aerobic
digestion
Bayou Marcus
Beufah LandfII I2
Pen Haven
Escambia County
1,135
(0.30)
Trickling Filter/Aerobic
digestion
Bayou Chlco
Beulah LandfIII2
WarrIngton
Escambia County
7,571
(2.00)
Contact Stabilization/Aerobic
d i gest i on
Jones Swamp Creek-
Bayou Chi co
Beulah Landf 11 I2
Moreno Courts
Pensacola Housing
Authority
795
(0.21)
Extended aeration, package
piant/Anaerobic digestion
Jones S temp Creek-
Bayou Chi co
Sanitary Landfill
Pensacola NAS
1ndustrial
U.S. Navy
3,785-4,732
(1.00-1.25)
Aerated equalization, biological
treatment of phenols/sludge dry-
ing beds
Pensacola Bay
Hazardous Waste
secured landfill
In Alabama
Domestic
U.S. Navy
11,356
(3.00)
Extended aeration/Aerobic
digestion
Pensacola Bay
Landfill or land-
spread
Saufley Field
U.S. Navy
795
(0.21)
Trickling fI Iter/Aerobic
digestion
Drainage ditch
to Perdldo Bay
Sanitary Landf 11 1
Santa Rosa Island
Pensacola Beach
Santa Rosa Island
Author 1ty
4,542
(1.20)
Activated sludge/Sludge thlck-
eni ng
Santa Rosa Sound
Beulah Landf ill2
Navarre Beach
Santa Rosa County
Beech Administration
1,703
(0.45)
Contact stab i11zat1on/Aerob t c
d1gestIon
Santa Rosa Sound
Holly LandfII1
Santa Rosa County
Gulf Breeze
City of Gulf Breeze
1,893
(0.50)
Extended aeration <0.30 mgd.
Contact stab 111 »t Ion >0.30
mgd/Aeroblc digestion
Santa Rosa Sound
Holly Landf111
Santa Rosa
Shores
Santa Rosa Shores
Utl1ity Company
492
(0.13)
Extended aeration/Aerobic
digestion
Spray irrigation to
golf course
Hoi 1 y Landf 11 1
J. Treatment Includes phosphorus control, nitrification, deoltrlfIcatIon, and ozonation.
2, Sludge to be Incinerated at Main Street In the future,
Sources: "201 Facilities Plan for South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties208 Supplement, "Residual Haste Management tforfc Element 530";
0vters and operating authorities.
-------
Table 111-10, Average Effluent Characteristics for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities Capacities Greater than
378 m*/day (0.1 mgd)
Average Concentrations, mg/l (Ib/mgal)
Treatment
Plant
Population
Served
Average
Flow
nr/day BOD*
(mgd) Inf/eff
TSS
inf/eff
Chlorine
Residual
mg/l
Nitrogen Total P pH (Ib/mqal)
Range of
Fecal Collform
Values per 100 ml
(Values per pint)
Ma 1 n Street'
120,000
38,611
(10.2)
279/10
(2328/83)
782/10
(6526/83)
15(125) 4 7.4
(TKN) (33)
1.2
(10.0)
2-25
(9.5-118)
Scenic HI 1 Is
2,800
1,060
(0.28)
154/6
(1285/50)
146/4
(1218/33)
6.8
0.8
(6.7)
0-5
(0-24 J
Avondale
11,950
3,770
(0.996)
210/8
(1752/67)
162/12
(1352/100)
7.2
0.6
(5.0)
2-228
(9.5-1079)
Pen Haven
6,660
1.476
(0.390)*
188/10
(1569/83)
168/12
(1402/100)
6.8
0.5
(4.2)
2-647
(9.5-3062)
Warrington
18,000
4,921
(1.3)
188/2
(1569/17)
170/2
(1419/17)
6.8
0.5
(4.2)
0-13
(0-62)
Moreno Courts
2,100
447
(0.118)
144/10
(951/83)
49/9
(409/75)
6.8
0.9
(7.5)
0
Pensacola NAS^
10,220
(2.7)
-/9.2
(-/80)
-/11.6
(-/97)
2.3(19) 1.0 6.9-7.2
(TKN) (8.3) (Average
range)
0.8
(6.7)
2-16
(9.5-76)
Saufley Field
216
(0.057)
-/7.5
(-/62)
-/5.5
(-/46)
- - 6.3-6.6
(Average
range)
1.54
(12.8)
0-1 1
(0-52)
Pensacola Beach
8,240
2,760
(0.729)
93/6
(776/50)
96/6
(801/50)
6.6
1.2
10)
3-28
(14-132)
Navarre Beach
1,250
481
(0.127)
87/7
(726/58)
81/5
(676/42)
7.2
0.6
(5.0)
2-93
(9.5-440)
Gulf Breeze
2,100
821
(0.217)
264/18
(2211/150)
306/16
(2554/134)
20(167) 4.6(38) 7.1
(Total N)
1.1
2-1430
(9.2) (9.5-6768)
Santa Rosa Shores
1,138
534
(0.141)
260/14
(2170/117)
333/17
(2779/142)
5.8
0.8
(6.7)
2
(9.5)
Sources: Florida DER Northwest District Office Flies
Department of the Navy, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
Period of record for this table - October 1979 through September 1980
1. Main Street is presently completing expansion and modification. Values cited represent operation since expanded
plant »ent on-line, 2-12-80, however, not alt of the advanced treatment processes have been completed.
2. Pensacola NAS treats both domestic and industrial wastewaters; cited values are for combined effluent. Period
3. Severe infiltration problems.
-------
coordinated and implemented to result in effective solutions. Otherwise,
federal funding could lead to accelerated environmental problems and may be
unwise, particularly in light of potential replacement costs of facilities on
barrier islands.
Certain attributes and detriments are associated with each of the
disposal options in the study area. The following sections discuss the major
environmental considerations associated with these options.
1. Estuarine Discharges
Estuarine discharges are those which enter brackish (part salt water,
part fresh water) water bodies, including the bayous and bay. Due to the
topography of the area, with few rivers and the peninsula and barrier
islands, effluent would have to be pumped long distances to either fresh
water or the Gulf. Estuaries are critical as hatcheries, nursing grounds,
and as a food source for many aquatic organisms, including most commercial
species. While they are adapted to undergoing large fluxes in salinity and
other components, they remain sensitive to pollutant sources due largely to
slow flushing. Due to their sensitive nature and important function,
estuarine discharges are probably the most undesirable environmentally.
This poses a dilemma for the Pensacola area since nearly all wastewater
is discharged to estuarine systems. One of the alternatives posed by this
study would remove all estuarine discharges in Escambia County other than
Main Street and Pensacola Beach. This has some attributes, but they need to
be weighed relative to the assimilative capacity of the increased load to
Pensacola Bay.
Other alternatives involve discharging to land systems or the Gulf,
which could relieve some of the loadings to the estuarine systems.
2. Land Disposal
Land disposal systems include spray irrigation, septic tanks and sand
mounds, and percolation ponds. Each of these offers potentially positive
alternatives to estuarine discharges.
Spray irrigation sites were identified throughout the study area but,
due to their location relative to existing facilities, are not feasible in
many cases. They are practical only for Navarre Beach and Avondale unless it
is desired, or necessary, for environmental purposes to pump effluent several
miles. Revenues can be realized from sale of crops which could Increase Its
cost-effectiveness and it is an environmentally preferred alternative.
Septic tanks and sand mounds, if properly constructed, inspected, and
monitored, can be an effective wastewater treatment/disposal system for the
barrier islands. Many upland areas elsewhere in Santa Rosa and Escambia
Counties would also support on-site systems. This could take a large burden
off discharging to Pensacola Bay. The key to successful use of on-site
systems is their proper construction and service.
Percolation ponds associated with small community package plants can
also be a sound option. However, like on-site systems they must be properly
111-37
-------
constructed and adequately monitored. Elevated nitrogen levels have been
observed from the monitoring wells of some percolation ponds. The
implications of these levels on water quality or public health have not yet
been thoroughly evaluated. At current densities, percolation ponds on the
barrier islands have not led to documented water quality or public health
problems. In most cases, adequate mitigation techniques are available to
solve potential problems.
3. Gulf Disposal
The impacts of a Gulf disposal off the coast of Pensacola is uncertain
without detailed information on tide and current patterns, benthic habitats,
and substrate. Ocean outfalls have been used for various communities around
the United States but outfalls do not exist off the Florida Gulf coast. With
tourism and beaches one of the economic mainstays of the region, great care
must be taken if an outfall is recommended. However, based on studies con-
ducted in other coastal areas and scientific knowledge of estuarine versus
open ocean systems, a Gulf outfall might be preferrable, environmentally, to
an estuarine outfall. This statement is based primarily on the slower flush-
ing characteristics in estuaries and the critical nature of estuaries as
feeding and nursing grounds for many marine species. Ultimately, however,
implementability of the alternative rests on other environmental considera-
tions (e.g., required mitigation of a Gulf outfall), costs, and availability
of other acceptable alternatives that are least costly.
G. Evaluation and Final Screening of Wastewater Management Alternatives
The evaluation of alternatives involves the consideration of several cri-
teria including costs, implementabi1ity, operability/reliability, energy
consumption, and environmental impacts. This section provides a summary of
these criteria as they affect the final screening of wastewater management
alternatives.
Costs are determined only for capital expenditures, operation and main-
tenance, and total present worth costs of the wastewater management facili-
ties. Costs are not calculated for potential benefits or degradation of the
environment. The present worth analysis task establishes a total cost value
of the capital expenditures and operating costs of each alternative over the
duration of the planning period. The present worths for the wastewater
management alternatives are developed for a 17-year planning period ending in
the year 2000 using an interest rate of 7 3/8 percent. In accordance with
EPA guidelines, allowances are made for salvage values at the end of the
planning period. Capital and annual operating costs have been estimated for
the collection, conveyance, treatment and disposal systems that constitute
the alternatives. The unit costs have been estimated in 1981 dollars from
literature and actual data available to Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpen-
ter, Inc., and from EPA handbooks. Capital costs include the costs of
equipment and construction plus 30 percent for engineering, inspection,
financing, rights-of-way, and contingencies.
The prospects for successful implementation of a wastewater treatment
alternative must be addressed in view of both public and institutional
realities within the study area. To evaluate the implementabi!ity of
111-38
-------
alternative wastewater management systems, factors such as public accep-
tability, institutional concerns, and planning flexibility are considered.
The reliability of a wastewater management system may be defined as a
measurement of the ability of a system to perform its designated function
without failure. Failure in this situation would be the inability to
consistently achieve and maintain the effluent quality standards for which
the system was designed. Three reliability classes are associated with
wastewater treatment facilities (USEPA 1974):
Reliability Class I--Treatment facilities that discharge into navi -
gable waters that could be permanently or unacceptably damaged in
only a few hours by poor quality effluent. Requirements for Class I
facilities are some type of surge-control device, back-up units for
all major pieces of equipment, and standby power.
Reliability Class II--Treatment facilities that discharge into navi-
gable waters that would be permanently or unacceptably damaged by
long-term (several days) effluent-quality degradations. For second-
ary treatment systems, requirements for Class II facilities are
similar to those for Class I facilities.
Reliability Class III--A11 other treatment facilities not covered
under Class I and Class II. Some standby power is required, as are
certain basic redundancy requirements, such as extra pumps and
bl owers.
The alternatives presented in previous sections represent those most
likely to be considered for implementation. Numerous factors affect the
evaluation process, including environmental impacts, costs, implementablHty
and effluent limitations. An additional factor since the inception of this
EIS is the combination of City of Pensacola and Escambia County Utilities
into the Escambia County Utilities Authority. The development of the
Utilities Authority placed all Escambia County wastewater facilities (except
Santa Rosa Island) under their jurisdiction. This significantly influences
the implementabi1ity of regional alternatives conveying effluent to the Main
Street plant. Additionally, the Utilities Authority proceeded under consent
decrees imposed by the State OER to close Pen Haven and begin planning the
phase out of the Avondale and Warrington plants. The least costly
alternative of those available to the Authority was to plan conveyance to the
Main Street facility.
The Santa Rosa Island Authority also proceeded independently with plans
to upgrade and increase the size of their wastewater facility on Santa Rosa
Island. Upgrading has been completed and expansion is now being planned.
Tnese measures were taken due to increased flows from an expanding population
and requirements of OER.
Perdido Key has been served historically by on-site and small community
systems. With increased development pressure, however, the Escambia County
Utilities Authority is considering sewer service to the area. A District I
Master Wastewater Plan concerning the conveyance and treatment of wastewater
generated from southwest Escambia County, including Perdido Key, was
completed in January 1984.
II1-39
-------
These factors are all important in the final screening of alternatives.
Some alternatives not considered past the development phase of the EIS have
been pursued by the wastewater management authorities. For example, location
of a treatment facility on Perdido Key to serve Perdido Key was ruled out by
the EIS due to location in the 100-year floodplain and other environmental
considerations. However, the Authority is considering this alternative as an
option for servicing the Perdido Key area. Therefore, this alternative is
included in the final screening of alternatives for comparative purposes with
other alternatives more fully considered by the EIS. The final comparison of
alternatives includes:
1. The 201 Plan alternatives
2. The alternatives currently being considered by the wastewater
management authorities
3. The alternatives considered most cost-effective and environmentally
acceptable based on EIS.
The present worth costs shown on the following pages are based predomi-
nantly on costs developed during the Alternatives Evaluation phase of the
EIS. More current cost data have become available for conveyance of Avondale
and Warrington flows to the Main Street plant and expansion of the Pensacola
Beach plant. These figures have been incorporated into the total present
worth costs. Costs for the continued operation and maintenance and, if
necessary, expansion of the Main Street and Scenic Hills plants are not
Included in the total present worth costs for Escambia County alternatives.
The addition of these figures would have little effect on the relative
differences in the costs as presented.
Environmental impacts associated with wastewater management alternatives
vary, depending on the magnitude of flows, level of treatment, and type and
location of disposal. Removal of discharges from creeks, bayous, rivers and
estuaries by conveying effluent to the Main Street plant reduces loads to
these systems but increases loads to Pensacola Bay. Analyses are required to
determine relative impacts and benefits before alternatives can be selected.
The following sections provide a general description of the predominant
environmental impacts associated with the final screening of alternatives.
1. Escambia County
The Escambia County portion of the study area includes the Northwest,
Scenic Hills, Main Street, Avondale, Pen Haven, Warrington, Southwest and
Perdido Key subareas (see Figure 111-1). All alternatives include the mainte-
nance of current wastewater management practices for Scenic Hills. All alter-
natives include maintenance of the Main Street plant at its existing 20 mgd
capacity.
Environmental impacts associated with these alternatives relate primarily
to water quality. Aquatic and terrestrial ecology are also Issues, as
wetlands are common in the Southwest Escambia area. Population and develop-
ment demands are the primary man-made environmental concerns. While few
water quality (Perdido Bay, Bayou Chlco and Bayou Marcus) or other environ-
mental problems have been documented, the sensitivity of the area must be
recognized by local and state officials and incorporated into planning and
design-making processes if the area's resources are to be adequately
111-40
-------
protected in the future. The extent and type of impacts resulting from the
development of this area rest on local and state decision making. All the
alternatives include continuing the existing level of treatment at the Main
Street Plant with discharge to Pensacola Bay. The plant capacity is
projected to remain at 20 mgd (for advanced treatment) although 26 mgd can
probably be treated at the advanced secondary level of treatment. Sampling
programs have been ongoing for the past few years to determine the
appropriate level of treatment necessary to protect the water quality of
Pensacola Bay. To date studies have proved inconclusive and additional data
are being collected to reconcile this issue.
Alternative 1
This alternative provides centralized wastewater service with a new
Southwest County treatment plant. This plant would have secondary treatment
with discharge by outfall to the Gulf of Mexico. This is the 201 Alternative
which includes the Avondale, Pen Haven, Warrington, Northwest, Perdido Key
and Southwest Escambia service areas with a combined flow of 7.7 mgd.
Adverse impacts could result to the marine environment from the construc-
tion and operation of the outfall; however, many of these could be mitigated.
Additional surveys would be required to locate the outfall to minimize these
impacts. Also, impacts to beaches and areas surrounding the new plant site
caused by construction, pipelines and induced development need to be
considered.
This alternative would eliminate the discharges from the Avondale and Pen
Haven plants which are causing water quality problems in Bayou Marcus Creek
and Bayou Chico. However, these areas have already been committed to the
Main Street plant, which would make this alternative difficult to implement.
No other significant water quality or public health problems have been
documented.
Alternative 1 would provide federal support for developmental projects
with growth-induced impacts to water quality, wetlands and barrier islands.
Additional pressure to develop these resources would result as well as
increased nonpoint source runoff due to higher densities surrounding Back
River, Big Lagoon and Perdido Key.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $64.8 million.
Alternative 2
This alternative provides centralized wastewater service with new treat-
ment plants for the Southwest County and Perdido Key areas. The Southwest
County treatment plant would have secondary treatment with discharge by land
application. The capacity of this plant would be 0.54 mgd with 50 percent of
the area's population served. The Perdido Key treatment plant would have
secondary treatment with discharge by land application. Projected capacity
is 1.7 mgd with 100 percent of the population sewered. The Warrington and
Avondale treatment plants would be phased out with flows conveyed to the Main
Street plant for treatment and disposal. Centralized sewer service would be
provided to the Northwest area with conveyance to the Main Street plant for
treatment and disposal.
111-41
-------
No water quality or public health problems have been documented in the
Southwest County, Perdido Key, or Northwest County areas. Likewise no
problems are projected if 208 population projections and state permitting
procedures are followed that adequately account for pollution sources and
protect designated uses. Beneficial water quality impacts would result from
removing wastewater discharges from Bayou Marcus and Bayou Chico (Avondale,
Warrington and Moreno Courts).
This alternative would promote development with growth-induced impacts to
area water quality, wetlands and a sensitive barrier islands environment. In-
creased water quality impacts would occur from nonpoint sources due to higher
density development.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $25.3 million.
Alternative 3
This alternative continues current wastewater management practices of use
of package plants and septic tanks in Southwest County, Perdido Key and North-
west County. The Warrington and Avondale treatment plants would be phased
out with flows conveyed to the Main Street plant for treatment and disposal.
Beneficial water quality impacts would result from removing the Avondale,
Warrington and Moreno Courts discharges from Bayou Marcus Creek and Bayou
Chico. No other significant water quality or public health problems in this
area have been documented or are projected if state permitting procedures are
followed. Growth related impacts would not be as significant as with
Alternatives 1 and 2.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $9.0 million.
2. Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula
Alternatives for Santa Rosa County address Santa Rosa Island and the Gulf
Breeze Peninsula including the Gulf Breeze, Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach
service areas (See Figure 111-2). The options considered range from regional
to on-lot systems.
Population densities, development pressure and recreation resources are
the man-made environments primarily impacted by these alternatives. With
most alternatives resulting in surface water discharges, water quality/eco-
logical issues are also important. While few problems have been documented
at current flows, water quality and recreation resources could be signifi-
cantly impacted by dramatically increased loads from future discharges into
Santa Rosa Sound. This situation should be monitored closely as it develops.
Alternative 1
This is the 201 Plan Alternative. A new regional plant would be con-
structed on the eastern end of the Gulf Breeze Peninsula with disposal by
land application at the Eglin Air Force Base. Capacity of the plant would be
8.0 mgd with secondary treatment. The plant would treat flows from Gulf
Breeze, Pensacola Beach and Navarre Beach.
111-42
-------
No significant water quality or public health problems are documented for
this area. Implementation problems would be associated with obtaining suit-
able land at Eglin AFB. Local attempts to reach agreement have not been
successful.
This alternative would promote a higher rate and density of development.
Greater pressure would be exerted to develop wetland, barrier island, flood-
plain and other sensitive areas. Higher density development would result in
greater nonpoint pollutant loadings to area waters, including Escambia Bay,
East Bay and Santa Rosa Sound.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $36.9 million.
Alternative 2
This alternative would convey flows from Pensacola Beach and Gulf Breeze
to the Main Street plant for treatment and disposal. Flows from Navarre
Beach would be treated at the existing treatment plant with land application.
Loadings from Santa Rosa County would be contributed to the Escambia
County Main Street plant and use capacity which could otherwise be used for
other parts of Escambia County. This situation could present a significant
implementation problem.
Further, this alternative could promote a higher rate and density of
development. Greater pressure would be exerted to develop wetland, barrier
island floodplain and other sensitive areas. Higher density development
would result in greater nonpoint pollutant loadings to area waters.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $17.3 million.
Alternative 3
This alternative involves expansion of the Pensacola Beach plant to 2.4
mgd with the existing level of treatment and discharge point. Class 1 relia-
bility will be provided. The existing plant at Navarre Beach would remain at
its current capacity. The City of Gulf Breeze would continue treatment and
disposal at the existing location with expansion from 0.5 to 0.8 mgd. The
continued use of package plants and septic tanks is projected for the Gulf
Breeze Peninsula.
No significant public health or water quality problems have been docu-
mented for this area. Implementation of this alternative would support
additional development and higher density with associated growth-induced
impacts to the sensitive barrier island environment. These impacts, however,
would not be as significant as those in Alternatives 1 and 2.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $7.4 million.
Alternative 4
This alternative conveys flows from Pensacola Beach and Gulf Breeze to
Pensacola Bay following treatment at Gulf Breeze. Flows from Navarre Beach
would be treated at the existing plant with discharge by land application.
111-43
-------
All municipal discharges from Santa Rosa Sound would be removed by this
alternative. While that could result in water quality improvements in the
Sound, it would also increase loads to Pensacola Bay. No existing adverse
impacts to Santa Rosa Sound from these discharges have been documented.
Implementation of this alternative would support additional development and
higher density with associated growth-induced impacts to the sensitive
barrier island environment. These impacts, however, would not be as
significant as those in Alternatives 1 and 2.
The present worth cost of this alternative is $10,8 million.
H. Summary of Environaental Evaluation
The evaluation of environmental impacts and associated considerations
(i.e., induced impacts, barrier island policy) for Southwest Escambia County
indicates that the local alternative or a hybrid is most acceptable. How-
ever, there are constraints to this or any other alternative. If on-site/
small community systems are recommended, implementation of policies governing
installation, maintenance, and inspection is critical. It is also possible
that this alternative would not support the population levels which the local
agencies apprarently are encouraging on Perdido Key.
If sewer systems were utilized to convey sewage to the Main Street or
southwest plant, impacts from induced development would likely have negative
impacts on the environment. To reduce such impacts, conveyance systems could
be sized to serve only a predetermined populace that may relate to an accept-
ed carrying capacity. Without local land use planning and more thorough
implementation of ordinances or regulations, negative environmental impacts
could result from any wastewater management alternative due to inherent
problems of unplanned development in sensitive areas.
For the remainder of Escambia County, the most acceptable environmental
solution involves removal of effluent from smaller streams and estuaries.
This would give impetus to the regional alternatives which centralize
wastewater at the Main Street facility. This does not imply an absence of
environmental problems resulting from the Main Street plant but considers
primarily the assimilative capacities, existing conditions and potential for
improvement of the receiving waters in question.
For the Santa Rosa Island/Gulf Breeze Peninsula area, the environmental
evaluation shows no significant water quality or public health problems
documented in the area. All discharges in the area are meeting their permit
limits and are eligible based on EPA and FDER regulations to have their
permits renewed. The expenditure of large amounts of funds to construct a
larger more regionalized system would promote additional growth with asso-
ciated adverse impacts to the area's sensitive barrier island, wetland,
floodplain and surface water resources.
111-44
-------
CHAPTER IV
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS
-------
CHAPTER IV - REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS
As has been stated in Chapter II conveyance and associated funding is
recommended for transporting the flows from the Avondale, Warrington and
Moreno Courts wastewater treatment plants to the Main Street plant. Due to
pressure from Florida DER to terminate the Avondale and Warrington
discharges, work has already begun to phase out the Avondale facility. As a
result, funding assistance will not be needed for that action. Funding
assistance is desired by the Escambia County Utilities Authority (ECUA) for
phasing out the Warrington plant.
Another recent development is the plan by the ECUA to build wastewater
facilities serving Perdido Key and Southwest Escambia County. The current
plans include the following:
Plant Size
Anticipated
Start-Up
Location
Pi sposal
0.3 mgd
1.0 mgd
October 1984
Spring 1986
Perdido Key - adjacent
to Vista Del Mar
facility
Same as above
Percolation ponds
Filtration with
disposal via perco-
lation ponds and
land application
2.0 mgd
1987-1988 Mainland - tenta-
tively sighted south
of New Gulf Beach Hwy
near the intersection
with Bauer Rd.
Same as above
Both wastewater facilities on Perdido Key are planned as Interim plants
although their period of operation has not been specified. Disposal methods
listed are those currently envisioned by ECUA. These actions are being taken
independent of this EIS.
IV-1
-------
The following
Location
revisions to the Draft EIS should be noted:
Change:
From
To
P. 11-20
(under Source
to Table 11-4)
P. 11-35
(under a.3.)
P. 11-42
(under e.l.)
P. 11-45
(under 3.a.)
P. 111-7
P. 111-19
(Table III-l)
P. II1-27
(under b.,
para. 3)
(para. 4)
USEPA,
October 1977.
11.3 mgd
delete "secondary
treatment with land
application"
delete "secondary -
land application"
The tidal surge....
add an "X" under
Escambia County for
P.U.D. Provisions,
Buffer Zone Requirements
and Estuarine set back.
The landfill at
Beulah... wastewater
sludge.
The K1ondike site...
for an additional
year.
This site is
scheduled... next
twenty-five years.
USEPA, 1981
7.7 mgd
The storm surge...
The landfill at Beula.i
will not accept sludge
after June 25, 1984.
The Klondike site is
no longer in use.
This site, the Perdido
Landfill (a 424-acre
tract north of Interstate
10) has been in operation
since July 1981 and
should serve the needs of
Escambia County for many
years.
IV - 2
-------
CHAPTER V
EIS COORDINATION/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
-------
CHAPTER V - EIS COORDINATION/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A. Introduction
This chapter describes the activities undertaken to inform and interact
with governmental agencies and public interests potentially affected by this
EIS. Coordination activities included:
1. A public scoping meeting
2. Formation of a Review Committee encompassing a broad spectrum of public
and private interests
3. A series of Review Committee meetings open to the public
4. Placement of EIS documents in the public library
5. News releases
6. Newsletters
7. Meetings with local officials, interest groups and agency
representatives.
Each of these has been an important part of the coordination program to
inform interested and responsible parties and to obtain their comments on the
progress and findings of the EIS.
B. Coordination with Local, State and Federal Agencies
A required element of the EIS 1s Interaction with agencies that have
responsibilities with wastewater management and the associated planning
processes. Table V-l lists the agencies involved with the EIS. Their
comments have been incorporated as appropriate into the Draft EIS, and these
agencies will be involved through the completion of the Final EIS.
C. Public Participation
The first public participation meetings were public scoping meetings,
held on July 15 and 16, 1980, in Gulf Breeze and Pensacola, respectively.
The purpose of these meetings was to discuss the EIS process, review 201
activities, and gain an understanding of local issues and concerns. After
this meeting, interested persons, agencies, and special-interest groups were
identified, and an EIS advisory committee was formed.
The EIS Review Committee is composed of representatives from local gov-
ernments, public agencies, universities, and private organizations 1n the
study area. Its main purpose 1s to provide input on local concerns and
interests, review EIS outputs, and Derform liaison functions between EPA and
the community.
Table V-2 lists the organizations and Interest groups which comprise the
Review Committee. An attempt was made to have a cross-section of economic,
business, institutional, public and private interests represented on the
v-l
-------
Table V-l. Agencies Involved with the EIS.
Local Agencies
City of Gulf Breeze
City of Pensacola
Escambia County Health Department
Escambia County Utilities Authority
Midway Water System
Pensacola Chamber of Commerce
Santa Rosa Island Authority
West Florida Regional Planning Council
State Agencies
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Florida Department of State (Division of Archives, History and Records
Management)
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Gulf Breeze Research Laboratory)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service)
U.S. Department of Interior (Gulf Islands National Seashore)
V-2
-------
Table V-2. Members of
Representative
the EIS Review Committee.
Organization
1. Tom Bell
2. Bill Blaskis
3. Sylvia Bourke
4. Michael Brim
5. J. D. Brown
6. Tillman Burks
7. Edith Carter
8. Judy Coe
9. Alfred Cuzan
10. Richard Dunlap
11. Sue Gentry
12. W. F. Hampton
13. Annis Henry
14. Jennifer Hodnette
15. Jack Hornbeck
16. L. A. Hunsley
17. Robert Montgomery
18. Norm Morrisette
19. Tom Morton
20. Richard Radford
21. Dwaine Raynor
22. Tom Serviss
23. Jim Sheffer
24. Steve Sheinbaum
25. William Spriggs
26. Buck Thackeray
27. Muriel Wagner
28. Chuck Wigley
Home Builders Association of West Florida
City of Gulf Breeze
Self
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Bream Fisherman Association
Association of General Contractors of
America (N.W. Florida Chapter)
League of Women Voters
Sierra Club
Coastal Zone Studies Program, University
of West Florida
Escambia County Health Department
Concerned Citizens of West Escambia County
Southwest Escambia Improvement Assoc., Inc.
Perdido Key Development Association
Self
Pensacola Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Bayous Association
Pensacola Board of Realtors
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
Santa Rosa County Attorney
Midway Water System
West Florida Regional Planning Council
County Forester
Santa Rosa Island Authority
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
Escambia County Utilities Authority
Gulf Islands National Seashore
Save Our Beach
Escambia County Utilities Authority
V-3
-------
committee. For each committee meeting, the Nominal Group Technique was used
to maximize participation from each member of the Review Committee.
The first EIS Review Committee meeting was held on November 20, 1980.
This meeting was convened to review the Plan of Study and discuss those areas
of concern which should be emphasized in the study. Comments received from
the committee were addressed as appropriate by the Final Plan of Study.
The second meeting of the Review Committee was held May 27, 1981.
Eighteen of the 28 committee members were present. The major topics of dis-
cussion were the Environmental Inventory and Alternative Development Reports.
Specifically discussed were county population figures, water quality in
Pensacola Bay and wasteload allocations for the water bodies receiving munici-
pal wastewater discharges.
The third meeting of the committee was held December 10, 1981. Sixteen
of the committee members were present with ten additional observers. The
meeting was held to discuss the Alternatives Evaluation Report and associated
issues of concern. The major topics discussed were state and federal environ-
mental policies, general environmental impacts of the various alternatives
population issues, development trends and local controls, costs and implement-
ability of conveyance/treatment, and disposal options.
The fourth Review Committee meeting was held February 15, 1984. Eleven
of the 28 members attended. After the 18 month hiatus experienced during the
project, the list of committee members was updated. Most members remainded
on the committee. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the alternatives
selected to receive EPA funding, the status of the EIS and the schedule for
the remainder of the project. Questions from the committee centered on water
quality conditions in the area and changes in EPA regulations. The Review
Committee expressed agreement with the Alternatives selected to receive EPA
fundi ng.
In April 1981, a newsletter was sent to the entire mailing list origi-
nally compiled for the EIS. This document summarized activities from the
beginning of the study through the process of Alternatives Development. The
newsletter was intended to inform all interested individuals and agencies of
the progress and direction of the EIS.
The Public Hearing was held June 19, 1984 in the City Council Chambers of
the Pensacola City Hall. A portion of the Public Hearing was designated for
public comment, during which three comments were made and questions were
asked by the local press representing both television and newspaper media.
The period for receiving written comments was open until June 29, 1984.
Twenty agencies and organizations submitted written responses (see Section E
Executive Summary). The following two sections summarize the major comments'
of the letters received, and where appropriate, EPA responses.
V-4
-------
D. Written Contents and Responses
1. Mr. William B. Spriggs, Manager of Engineering, Escambia County
Utilities Authority, Letter of June 22, 1984.
a. Comment: The Escambia County Utilities Authority has reviewed the
draft EIS and generally agrees with the document as presented.
Response: No response needed.
2. Hon. Joseph Reynes, Mayor, City of Gulf Breeze, Letter of June 26, 1984.
a» Comment: We question the population figures on page 11-9. In 1980
the entire city population was less than 5,500 (Census) and about
600 living units were served by sewer.
Response: The population figures referred to are based on the 1978
EPA approved projections for Santa Rosa County. Projections were
based on the previous census and growth trends. The discrepancy
highlighted by this comment is the difference between using projec-
tions and actual (Census) population figures. The disaggregation
process required to disaggregate county projections to centroids,
and the service areas, also can lead to some variances. These
variances did not affect the decisions of the EIS.
3. Mr. Rodney I. Kendig, County Administrator, Escambia County, Letter of
June 15, 1984.
a. Comment: The use of 208 population projections as a basis for EPA
decision making would seem to be erroneous. These projections were
developed in 1976 and 1977 and are now outdated and without
validity.
Response: Population projections for 208 studies are determined by
using state and EPA approved county-wide population figures and dis-
aggregating, or distributing, that population throughout the
county. This disaggregation process is based on the best informa-
tion available concerning population and development trends within
the county, and awareness of the environmental sensitivity of
areas, such as wetlands, floodplains and barrier islands. The EIS
used the 208 population figures because they most appropriately
acknowledged the concept of carrying capacities in these sensitive
areas. For the 208 population figures to ever be accurate, how-
ever, the environmental factors incorporated into the projections
must also be incorporated into the local decision making processes
that control development. If not the 208 projections will not be
accurate regardless of the time frame. Therefore, 1t is still
quite valid to use the 208 projections as a benchmark. Growth
greater than that indicated by the 208 figures in environmentally
sensitive areas is an indicator that an increased probability of
environmental degradation is likely to occur 1n these areas. The
EIS re-evaluated the population after the results of the 1980
census were made available and determined that while growth in the
Pensacola area was not as great as projections had previously
V-5
-------
indicated, the figures used were still valid for wastewater plan-
ning purposes. It was also evident that growth in environmentally
sensitive coastal areas did not reflect and had exceeded the 208
projections, indicating that the type of development controls
envisioned to protect important near-coastal areas had not been
implemented. Nonetheless, the 208 figures were still valid as an
indicator of the level of population growth that adequately
considers the unique qualities of wetlands, floodplains and barrier
islands in the Pensacola area. It is against standard EPA policy
to provide funds for projects based on population projections above
the approved 208 levels.
b. Comment: If the Agency's final decision is to be based on old and
now quite inaccurate data contained in the draft EIS, that decision
may prove to be no more valid than the data on which it will be
based.
Response: Information required to make the decisions necessary for
completion of the EIS were updated through discussions with local
agencies and Florida DER.
4. Mr. James H. Lee, Regional Environmental Officer, Southeast Region, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Letter of June 18, 1984.
a» Comment: We believe the EIS should contain a complete environ-
mental and economic analysis of the Gulf outfall alternative.
Response. The Gulf outfall alternative was evaluated in the early
stages of the EIS. For several reasons this alternative was not
examined past the preliminary analysis. Because of the high cost
of constructing outfalls, it was not considered a viable option for
small treatment plants such as Navarre Beach. Preliminary cost
estimates for a 10,000 foot outfall from a barrier island facility
was in excess of $10 million. A Gulf outfall from the Main Street
plant would be approximately five times longer and more costly than
this. The analyses necessary to place an outfall properly (e.g.
determining the distance required to prevent public health problems
on beaches, avoidance of reef habitat, etc.) are themselves expen-
sive; therefore, a strong case for the necessity of an outfall is
needed. For small discharges other means of disposal are much more
cost-effective and all discharges had alternatives other than
surface water disposal available to them. In the case of the Main
Street plant, sufficient data have not been collected to assess the
need to remove its discharge from Pensacola Bay. Certainly if
operating at its advanced treatment potential, the need for a Gulf
outfall is reduced. Although over many years of operation the cost
of a Gulf outfall could approach that of advanced treatment, one of
the major cost elements has already been incurred since the plant
already exists. Further, it has yet to be proven what level of
treatment will be required by the plant to maintain a high level of
water quality in the Bay. It should be noted that the determina-
tion of effluent limits is the responsibility of the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation. No indication was provided
by Florida DER during the course of the EIS to suggest that the
V-6
-------
Main Street plant could not operate at a level to protect water
quality in the Bay. If that occurs in the future, other
alternatives, including a Gulf outfall, would then have to be
considered.
b. Comment: The EIS should also address the impact of long-term
discharge of secondarily treated sewage effluents of volumes of 20
million gallons daily or more into Pensacola Bay.
Response: See response to 4.1. Also, sampling of Pensacola Bay
water quality was identified at the beginning of the EIS as outside
the scope of the EIS due to the responsibilities of other agencies
and the time and cost of such an endeavor. The need for a compre-
hensive program remains, however.
Mr. Richard J. Hoogland, Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch, South-
east Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, Letter of June 27, 1984.
a. Comment: We believe that updating the facilities at the main
street plant, including an open Gulf outfall, would be the least
environmental damaging and the most long-term cost effective alter-
native.
Response: For the reasons stated in 4.a. above and from the prelim-
inary analyses conducted, we find no basis for a Gulf outfall being
considered "the most long-term cost-effective alternative." The
Main Street plant is an advanced treatment facility. It's effec-
tiveness can only be improved through operation of the sophisti-
cated treatment process it contains. The EIS clearly states that a
properly sited Gulf outfall could be an environmentally sound
alternative. However, no data to date have given cause to remove
the Main Street plant discharge.
Ms. Muriel W. Wagner, President, Francis M. Weston Audubon Society,
Pensacola, Letter of June 27, 1984.
a. Comment: We question the conclusion that there are "few documented
problems to date."
Response: The statement "few documented problems to date" refers
to problems emanating from municipal wastewater facilities. Where
problems have been identified by Florida DER (Bayou Marcus and
Bayou Chico), the EIS has recommended action be taken and funds
made available. Consistent documented problems have not been
observed at other discharges to estuaries and sounds in the area.
The EIS notes, however, that monitoring programs to detect such
problems have been limited.
b. Comment: It is our understanding that the Santa Rosa Island sewage
facility will soon be expanded. Is their NPDES permit current and
valid? Is anyone monitoring Santa Rosa Sound?
Response: The Santa Rosa Island facility has a permit extending to
1989. The Sound has been monitored on an intermittent basis by the
Santa Rosa Island Authority and Florida DER.
V-7
-------
Mr. James W. Mitchell, State Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service,
Letter of June 18, 1984.
a. Comment: This EIS did not consider the impact that would occur to
prime and important farmlands which are located in the northern
upland portion of Escambia County.
Response: Farmlands in northern portions of the county are outside
the EIS study area. In the southern portion of the county, the 208
population disaggregations placed people out of low-lying areas
such as wetlands and floodplains and into higher, drier areas. No
EPA funds are being provided for growth anywhere in Escambia
County.
Mr. D. T. Raynor, Environmental Director, West Florida Regional Planning
Council, Letter of June 18, 1984.
a. Comment: The(se) 208 figures do not reflect the actual populations
that are being experienced and are not adequate for a study being
completed in the summer of 1984.
Response: See response to comment 3.
Mr. Dale Adams, Administrative Assistant, Florida Department of Natural
Resources, Letter of June 26, 1984.
a. Comment: Clarification is needed on one issue: determination of
the project's impact on shellfish waters and an estimation of the
size of a closed safety zone around the outfall.
Response: The discharges available to receive funding will be
treated and discharged by the Main Street plant which discharges
into Class III waters. The Santa Rosa Island and Navarre Beach
discharges are near Class II waters (those designated for shellfish
harvesting) but Florida DER has continued to permit these dis-
charges indicating that they are meeting Florida legislative code
requirements. The Santa Rosa Island facility recently upgraded to
Reliability Class I to meet requirements.
Mr. J. William McCartney, Executive Director, Northwest Florida Water
Management District, Letter of July 17, 1984.
a. Comment: This (EIS recommendations) conflicts with the 201
faci1ity plans which recommend regional systems in both planning
areas.
Response: The purpose of the EIS was to evaluate the 201 Plan.
The 2UI"~Plan is not a recommended course of action until it is
approved for funding. The EIS determined that criteria for
receiving federal funding to build regional systems, in addition to
those already in operation, were not met. See the response to
comments 3.a and 4.a.
V-8
-------
b. Comment: Lack of regional utility systems does not appear to limit
growth in the coastal area. The result is a proliferation of small
treatment plants in a uncoordinated, unplanned fashion without any
clear long-range plan.
Response: These comments assume that small treatment systems inher-
ently are unacceptable. Recent advances in the state-of-the-art
for small community wastewater systems provide adequate treatment,
often at much lower costs than conventional systems.
c. Comment: As regards the statement that wastewater management
options (regional systems in this case) could support development
and would be contrary to state policies, one of Governor Graham's
Resource Management and Planning Committees is currently giving
strong consideration to the development of regional water supply,
wastewater and solid waste system in coastal Ukaloosa and Walton
Counties. This would indicate, at the least, that consideration of
such systems is not contrary to state policy under the proper cir-
cumstances.
Response: According to comments received by Mr. Walter Kolb,
Senior Governmental Analyst, Office of the Governor, "Our review
found that your recommended actions are essentially in accord with
relevant state goals and objectives."
E. Oral Coaments and Responses
,Hon. Joseph Reynes, Mayor, City of Gulf Breeze.
a. Comment: See the letter submitted by Mayor Reynes (Section G.) as
well as the comment and response section in Section D, Number 2.
Mr. Richard Doyle, Perdido Key Development Association.
a. Comment: See transcript of Public Hearing (Section F.).
Response: ECUA, through its current wastewater management plans,
intends to support the projected population exceeding 30,000
people.
Mr. David Morris, Baskervilie-Donovan Engineers, Representing Navarre
Beach.
a. Comment: See transcript of Public Hearing (Section F.).
Response: No response needed.
Member of the Press.
a. Comment: See transcript of Public Hearing (Section F.).
Response: No response needed.
-------
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
WASHINGTON, D.C.
PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA Order Number: 4R-1140-TNSA
Minutes of the South Escambia and Santa Rosa Coun-n
Florida Wastewater Management Draft FIS Public 6
Hearing, held on June 19, 1984, at 7:00 o'clock rj
in the City Council Chambers on the Second Floor *m*'
of the Pensacola City Hall, 330 South Jefferson gt
Pensacola, Florida. re
APPEARANCES:
ROBERT C. COOPER
Environmental Protection Specialist
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
William R. Whitson
EPA Headquarters
Office of Regional Operations
Washington, D.C.
Also Present:
Norman Morrisette (not present)
JORDaX'V1 IDOI, INC.
(•04) 431-1141 VERBATIM SHORTHAND R(PORT«R* UNtACOLA. ».
.—n.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
2 3
24
2 5
HEARING CHAIRMAN COOPERs Ladles and
gentlemen, I'd like to call this public hearing to
order. I would like to welcome you here tonight on
behal£ of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
First of all, I'd like to tell you that my
name is Robert Cooper. I am the project officer on
this project. I work in the NEPA Compliance
Section of Region 4 in Atlanta.
With me tonight on my right is William
Whitson of our Office of Regional Operations in our
headquarters office in Washington, D.C.
The purpose of this hearing is to develop
a record and to receive comments on the draft
environmental impact statement which was recently
issued relative to waste treatment facilities in
the southern Escambia and Santa Rosa counties.
1 want to welcome all of you to the
hearing. I want you to understand that this is
your hearing, and it's for the purpose of
information, and I want you to feel free to
participate.
If you have not filled out a card when you
came in, and indicated your interest in making a
statement at this hearing, I would ask you to
JORDAN & EDGE, INC. V_11
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
Ifi
17
18
19
20
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
25
3
please do so. Even if you do not wish to make a
statement, you should fill out a card, because this
becomes part of our permanent record and enables us
to notify you, enables us to send you a copy of the
final EIS when that is issued.
here to discuss tonight is being prepared to
evaluate alternatives for waste water facilities in
southern Escambia and Santa Hosa counties. The
expenditure of federal funds for waste water
facilities and the preparation of EIS's are
authorized by the Clean Water Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act, Known as NEPA. The
planning phase ot this process results in the
preparation of a facilities plan. The facilities
plan prepared for this area proposed two new waste
water treatment plants with extensive new treatment
capacity and a new discharqe pipe to the Gulf of
Mexico.
requires federal agencies to prepare an EIS for
major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment. Because of
environmental complexities involving gro wth-relate
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
'¦J
10
11
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
2 2
23
24
25
4
involved in this project, EPA made the decision to
prepare the EIS on this 201 plan.
Accordingly, in June of 1980, a notice of
intent to prepare an E1S was issued.
Following initiation of the EIS, existing
environmental conditions in the area were evaluated.
No significant adverse environmental problems were
associated with the existing treatment facilities
with the exception ot the discharges to bayou Chico
and Bayou Marcus Creek.
In addition, no significant public health
or water quality problems have been documented
related to percolation ponds or on-lot systems in
the area. Concurrent with the evaluation of
existing conditions, projected populations and
waste water flows were developed for the study area,
feasible alternatives were then developed by
combining waste water service configurations with
treatment and disposal options. The final set of
alternatives which was evaluated in the £IS
includes, first, in Escambia County, the first
alternative provided for centralized waste water
service with a new southwest county treatment plant.
This plant would have secondary treatment with
discharge by outfall to the Gulf of Mexico. This
JOKDAN fc EDGE, INC. 1
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
13
19
20
21
22
2 3
2 4
25
5
is the original 201 alternative, which included the
Avondale, Pen Haven, Warrington, northwest Perdido
Key and southwest Escambia service areas, with the
combined through of over 7 million gallons per day.
The second alternative which was evaluated
provides centralized waste water service with new
treatment plants for the southwest county and
Perdido Key areas. The southwest county treatment
plant would have secondary treatment with discharge
by land application.
The capacity of this plant would be .54
MGD with 50 percent of the area's population served.
The Perdido Key treatment plant would have
secondary treatment with discharge by land
application. Projected capacity of this plant
would be 1.7 MGD with 100 percent of the population
sewered. The Warrington, Avondale, and Moreno
Courts treatment plants would be phased out with
flows conveyed to the Main Street plant for
treatment and disposal. Centralized sewer service
would be provided to the northwest area, with
conveyance to the Main Street plant for treatment
and disposal.
The final alternative for the Escambia
County portion of the service area involved
JORDAN ft EDGE, INC. V-14
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
i o
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
J 8
19
20
21
2 2
2 3
2.4
2'j
6
continued current waste water management practices
of the uae of package plants and septic tanks in
southwest county, Perdido Key# and northwest county.
The Warrington# Avondale and Moreno courts
treatment plants would be phased out with flows
conveyed to the Main Street plant for treatement
and disposal .
The four alternatives were evaluated for
Santa Kosa Island-Gulf breeze Peninsula portion of
the study area. Alternative one# again# was the
original 201 plan alternative. This involved a new
regional plant to be constructed on the eastern end
of Gulf breeze peninsula with disposal by land
application at Eglin Air force Base. The capacity
of the plant would be eight million gallons we
would have with secondary treatment. The plant
would treat flow from Gulf Breeze# Pensacola Beach,
and Navarre beach.
The second alternative for this area
involved conveyance of flows from Pensacola Beach
and Gulf breeze to the Main Street plant for
treatment and disposal of flows from Navarre Beach
would be treated at the existing plant with land
application.
Tne third alternative involved expansion
JORDAN & EDGE, INC. w"1,
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
u
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
lb
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
2b
7
of the Pensacola Beach plant to 2.4 MGD with the
existing level of treatment and discharge point.
Class one reliability would be provided. The
existing plant at Navarre Beach would remain at its
current capacity.
The City of Gulf Breeze would continue
treatment and disposal at the existing location,
with expansion from .5 to *8 MGD. The continued
use ot package plants arid septic tanxs is projected
for the Gulf Breeze peninsula.
Alternative four involves conveyance of
flows from Pensacola Beach and Gulf Breeze to
Pensacola Bay following treatment at Gulf Breeze.
Flows from Navarre Beach would be treated at the
existing plant with discharge by land application.
The alternacives described above were
evaluated in terms of cost, operability, implement
ability and environmental impact. The cost of the
three Escambia County alternatives wore $64 million
for alternative one, $25 million tor alternative
two, and 09 million for alternative three.
The four Santa Rosa County alternatives
were costed at $16 million for alternative one,
517 million for alternative two, $7.5 million for
alternative three, and $10.8 million for
JOKDAN fi, EDGE, INC. *-¦»
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
h
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
11
IB
l y
20
21
22
2 3
2 4
25
P
alternative lour.
Operability considerations do not
eliminate any of the final alternatives. If waste
water is conveyed to a regional facility rather
than continuing operation of several smaller plants,
both operability and reliability may be improved
due to increased staff size and newness of the
facility. tlowever, no significant long-term
problems have resulted from the operation of the
existing facilities.
Implement ability: The Main Street plant,
as we 11 as the Avondale and Warrington facilities,
are under the control of the Uscambia County
Utilities Autnority. Therefore, no implementation
problems are involved with the diversion of these
flows to Main Street. The Moreno Courts treatment
plant is operated by the Pensacola Housing
Authority, but few implementation problems are
anticipated if this authority chooses to
participate in the recommended action.
Implementation of the Gulf outfall
alternative would be more difficult than other
options, due to uncertainties associated with
siting and constructing the outfall.
In the Santa Kosa County area, the
JORDAN & LOG £, INC. 1
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
'J
10
11
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
alternative is considered to be the most — the tnird
alternative is considered to be the most impl etnen t a b 1 e
because there would be no need for coordination of
facilities construction, expansion, or operation of
these with the other local facilities. The
implement ability of the 201 alternative is
questionable, due to the lack of a suitable site
for land disposal of the effluent.
Environmental impacts: Based on the
environmental analysis, extensive water quality
problems resulting from most existing discharges
have not been documented.
The existing Avondale and Warrington
treatment plants, however, are causing problems now,
and will be eliminated under all the alternatives.
further, data to assess fully the impacts
of the Main Street plant on Pensacola Bay are still
being collected.
The construction of new regionalized
systems with capacity for significant amounts of
growth could have the potential to induce
environmental impacts.
The sensitive barrier island, wetland and
estuarine environments would be subject to intense
developmental pressure. The comprehensive land use
JORDAN & EDGE, INC. V"18
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
u
10
n
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
1 0
and development controls which would be necessary
to protect environmental quality are not in place.
The area most likely to experience significant
adverse Impacts is Perdldo Key, where Escambia
County is projecting and encouraging a population
increase of from around 3500 to more than 35,000
over the next two decades.
After the systematic evaluation of all
alternatives, the following alternatives were
selected as the proposed action* For Escambia
County. The conveyance of flows from the
Warrington and Avondale service areas to the Main
Street plant is recommended. This option removes
waste water discharges to £ayou Chico and Bayou
Marcus Creek which will improve water quality and
meet the objectives of the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation.
further, it is recommended that the Moreno
Courts effluent also be conveyed to Main Street,
given the elevated nitrogen levels observed in
percolation pond monitoring wells. The proximity
of these ponds to Jones Swamp Creek, Bayou Chico,
the direction of ground water flow toward the creek,
documented water quality problems in Bayou Chico,
and the proximity of the Warrington conveyance
JORDAN & EDGE, INC. 1
Pensacola, Horida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
.17
lb
19
20
21
22
2 3
2 b
~I
ii
lines.
Based on current flows and conveyances
from the three treatment plants recommended for
action, the Main Street plant should have
sufficient capacity. The proposed action is not
anticipated to exceed the projected capacity of the
Main Street plant and is not intended to lead to
such action. EPA funding will be made available
for these water quality improvement actions if
within reach on the state priority list.
The continuation of current waste water
management practices is recommended for the
southwest county, Perdido Key, and northwest county
areas. No significant water quality or public
health problems have been documented or are
projected in these areas, assuming applicable
pe rmitting procedures are followed.
As the density of development increases,
however, setback requirements and distances between
ponds will be more critical and these factors
should be emphasized by DER in their permitting
process.
The recommended action avoids encouraging
ijigher population densities which would increase
stress on water quality, wetlands, and the
_ _ _ ________
JORDAN £, EDGE, INC.
Pensacola, fclorida 32501 (904) 433—2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
l o
11
1 2
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
sensitive barrier island development. It is
important to note that this assessment is based on
cur rent--pardon me. It is important to note that
this assessment is based on the assumption that
current practices are and should be adequate in the
southwest, northwest, and Perdido Key areas leading
to the no-action decision. This is based on the
208 population projections which are trie basis for
t,PA decision making. If these projections are
exceeded, and it is quite likely that they will be,
then current waste water management practices may
not be adequate for increased population levels
greater than those projected by the 208 plan.
aanta Hosa County: The continuation of
current waste water management practices is
recommended for Santa Hosa island and the Gulf
breeze peninsula. All discnaryes in this area are
currently meetiny their effluent limits. No
significant waste quality or public health problems
have been documented which would justify the
construction of major new facilities. The
provision of regional systems with additional
capacity could encourage growth and development of
trie sensitive barrier island environment.
Expansion of existing facilities at local expense
JORDAN & EDGE, INC. *~C1
Pens
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
r
10
11
1 2
1 3
14
15
16
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
2 3
24
2 5)
1 3
to accommodate growth is expected.
If future changes to effluent limits for
Santa Rosa Sound require no discharge or very
stringent treatment levels that are not cost effective
to meet at each small plant, conveyance of
secondary effluent to Pensacola Bay for discharge*
should be reconsidered. Should such a system be
implemented in the future, EPA should reassess the
potential for significant stimulation of
development of sensitive areas in making grant
participation decisions.
Pursuant to the guidelines of the
President's Council on Environmental Quality, the
rules and regulations of the Environmental
Protection Agency with regard to preparation of Elsie
"i
this public hearing is being held to receive
comments on the draft tis. This draft tlii is being
discussed in a public forum to encourage public
participation in the federal decision-making
process, and to develop public understanding of
federally-funded projects. In this regard, the
draft Elb was made available to the public on May
3rd, 19 8 4, and is listed in the federal register on
fray 11, 1934. The a r a £ t EIS comment period will
extend until June 29th, 1984. The comments
- ~ 7722
JORDAN & EDGE, INC.
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
y
10
i l
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
2 4
2 5
14
received during this evening and during the comment
period following, will be part of the record.
With that in mind, we will now begin the
public comment portion of the program. 1 would
like to remind any of you who wish to speak to fill
out one of the cards on the back table if you have
not already done so. In order that everyone who
would like to speak is given an opportunity to do
so, you are requested to limit your testimony to
five minutes, and if you have a written text, we
would like for you to submit a copy to the panel,
to enable us to follow your remarks more closely,
and also to ensure that your remarks are accurately
included in the record.
Members of the hearing panel may ask
questions of tne person presenting oral statements
when it is felt necessary to clarify the nature of
the substance of the comment being made. However,
I would ask that the audience do not ask questions
of people making comments, nor should questions be
asked of the hearing panel. The reason for this is
not to foreclose discussion, but to move ahead with
the purpose of the hearing# which is to receive
comments.
All statements made here tonight will be
_ __
JORDAN i EDGE, INC.
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
2
15
responded to in the final environmental impact
sta teraent.
Before you make your statement, please
identify yourself by name, and if appropriate, the
group or organization which you represent. Please
make your comments at the microphone available, to
ensure that your remarks are audible to th®
audience and the court reporter, as well as
recorded on our tape*
Okay, we will now begin. As of now, I
only have one person who wishes to comment. Joe
Haines, Gulf breeze?
(Reynes)
MR. P i . i. o: You can tell I'm a politician
because I'm going to put on my coat first, right,
g uy s ?
I'm going to be very, very brief, because
I notice the ten minutes tor your introductory
remarks have stretched to 25. The City of Gulf
Breeze will, in fact, send you a letter inside the
period.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Reynes)
MR. fc* do want to call your
attention to a few things.
One, your population figures for the City
of Gulf Breeze are grossly incorrect and we will
—
JORDAN & EDGE, INC.
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
'¦}
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
2 5
16
tell you what they are and where you can find them.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to allow us
here, but I thought the EIS was dated, and 1
thought it was dated to what was going on around
here in 1980, and I know that you have some
constraints and we do, too, but I wanted you to be
aware that we in local government need systems that
make sense economically* that we can afford. The
days of the big grants and Uncle Fed funding are
long gone. We have to support our systems locally,
with rare exception*
And then the other thing that 1 thought
was apparent, and 1 don't know who to blame and
maybe there isn't any blame, is 1 felt that you tie
this to old technologies, and I personally feel and
1 thinK there are others in the area that are
interested in what's going to happen to waste water
in the future, that there are some technological
changes coming here in the Gulf Coast that will be
affordable, that will be permitable and one of they
will I'll just throw out is deep well injection. I
think that's coming. 1 don't see that here, and
I'm a little concerned about it. As 1 expect Uncle
fc'ed , in their environmental analysis, to be way in
front of the local folks.
V-25
JORDAN & EDGE, INC.
Pensacola, Horida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
1 1
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
2 5
17
Thank you very much.
HEARING CHAIRMAN COOPER: Okay, thank you.
Aa I said, we will respond specifically to all
comments made here in the final impact statement.
That is the only person we have here —we have a
card on who said they wanted to speak. Is there
anyone else in the audience who wishes to make a
statement?
MR. DOYLE: I am Richard Doyle, and I live
on Perdido Key and I represent the Perdido Key
Development Association, and there is just one
figure in this document that leaps out at us, is
the projected population in the next two decades at
Perdido Key as 36,000 and small change, and the
preceding statement says Escambia County is
encouraging this development. Believe me, we put a
great deal of effort into controlling this
development. We started with the water tap
restrictions and control, and we've put a lot of
effort into the waste water, which brings me here,
which is a limiting factor, but we wonder who is
the elements of Escambia County that are, that is
encouraging this runaway development of a thousand
percent, in two decades.
HEARING CHAIRMAN COOPER; Anyone else wisr*
JORDAN & EDGE, INC.
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 >
2 4
2 5
13
to comment?
MK. MORRIS: My name is David Morris. I'm
with Baskerville-Donovan Engineers, and I am here
representing Navarre Beach as their engineer, and
in reviewing the report briefly, I noticed that the
information contained in the report in reference to
Navarre Beach is outdated. We do have a permit to
expand the plunt to .9 MGD from the .45 MGD that's
in the report and in study of secondary treatment,
we're essentially an advanced waste treatment plant
down there, so 1 would like to see the report
updated to reflect this information, the discharge
to Santa Rosa sound.
HEARING CHAIRMAN COOPER: Would you mind
sending us, at the address listed in the E I S, a
copy of your new permit, and the treatment, the
level of treatment, the type ot treatment that you
are now using, just to be sure we have that correct?
MR. MORRIS: I sure will. ThanK you.
HEARING CHAIRMAN COOPER: Anyone else?
Okay, well, if--
MEMBER OF THE PRESS: Could the press ask
a question or two?
HEARING CHAIRMAN COOPER: Go right ahead.
MEMBER OF THE PRESS: what happens to the
]U21
JORDAN & EDGE, INC.
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
2b
19
EIS now? What*s the next step in the process, and
who eventually approves the recommended suggested
changes ?
HEARING CHAIRMAN COOPERi Okay, after the
comment period is over on the 29th of June, we will
specifically answer each comment and prepare the
final CIS. The regional administrator of Region 4
in Atlanta, Charles Jeter, whose name appears on
the front o£ the dralt statement, will also issue
the final statement. As you know, I mean as far as
effect, this affects potential federal funding.
MEMBER OF THE PRESS! Yes.
HEARING CHAIRMAN COOPER: AS you know, it
does not, you Know, everything we recommend in here
doesn't have to happen. This relates most directly
to federal funding--
MErtfcER OF THE PRESS: Yes.
HEARING CHAIRMAN COOPER: —to what we say
is eligible for federal funding, but that is the
principal part of this, and then after this is
finalized, the utilities authority will b« able to
yet funding for, if this decision is not changed,
the utilities authority would be able to get
funding tor Avondale and Warrington, or for most
specifically for Warrington, and as far as other
v-?a
JORDAN & EDGE, INC.
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 C
21
2 2
2 3
2 A
2 5
20
areas 90, it would mainly be local planning would
take over, as has already been happening and the
ball would be carried there.
MEMBER OF THE PRESS: All right. Thank
you.
HEARING CHAIRMAN COOPER* Any other
quest ions?
Okay, X would like to remind you all that
trie public record will remain open until June 29tii.
All written comments received will be considered as
part of the record* and should be forwarded to EPA
at the address listed in the hand-out.
We would like to thank each of you for
participating tonight, and the comments you have
made and all written comments which we receive
during the comment period will be specifically
responded to in the final E1S.
Thank you very much.
JORDAN & EDGE, INC.
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
•j
10
11
12
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
2 0
21
22
2 3
2 A
2 b
21
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) SS .
COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA)
I« J. BRYAN JORDAN, Shorthand Reporter and
Notary Public in and for the State of Florida, do
hereby certify:
That the I was present at the foregoing
hearing at the time and place therein specified;
That the said proceeding was taken before
me as a Notary Public at the said time a rid place
and was taken down in shorthand writing by me;
That the said proceeding was thereafter
under my direction transcribed into
computer-assisted transcription# and that the
foregoing transcript constitutes a full, true, and
correct report of the proceedings which then and
there took place;
That I am a disinterested person to the
id action.
V-3Q
JORDAN i EDGE, INC.
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2
1 3
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
2 2
2 3
2 4
25
22
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
subscribed my hand and affixed my official seal
this 28th day of June* 1984.
J. BRYAN JORDAN, Shorthand Reporter
and Notary Public,
State of Florida at Large.
My commission Expires:
March 15, 1988.
V-31
JORDAN & EDGE, INC.
Pensacola, Florida 32501 (904) 433-2141
-------
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #809
Washington, DC 20004
^ 3 0 i
t.
Mr. Robert C. Cooper
Project Officer, NEPA Compliance Section
Region IV
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street NE.
Atlanta, GA 30365
REF: Wastewater Management Plan, South Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties, Florida
Dear Mr. Cooper:
We have received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the referenced proposal. Since the DEIS contains commitments
from EPA to ensure that archeological survey work will be conducted in
specific sewer line construction corridors and at construction sites
specified in the selected alternative plan, we have no substantive comments
EPA should continue to consult with the Florida State Historic Preservation
Officer, and prior to any Step III construction, follow the remaining steps
in the Council's regulations (36 CFR Part 800) to ensure compliance with
the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions about
these comments or wish assistance, please contact Staff Archeologist Ronald
D. Anzalone at 202-786-0505 (an FTS number).
Dan L.rKlima
CHief,I Eastern Division
|bf Project Review
-------
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Soil
Conservation
Service
State Office
*~01 S. E. First Avenue
Gainesville, Florida 32601
June 18, 1984
Sub: ECOL SCI - Environmental Assessment
ISSFSSMENT BltANtll
To: Robert C. Cooper . •-'VfV!" flfp
Project Officer !
EPA, Region IV _ .,
3^5 Courtland Street, N.E. ) J1 n-'J '<•'
Atlanta, Georgia 30365 ~T1*E»
? . Vt4 IV
"A;
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on South
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida Wastewater Management.
This report makes good use of Soil Conservation Service soils data
and incorporates elements which reflect federal policies concerning
development of floodplain and wetland areas. The methodology chosen
tended to, in their words, "allocate future growth toward the
northern upland portions of the counties..." (p. 11-7)- This EIS
did not consider the impact that would occur to prime and important
farmlands which are located in the northern upland portion of
Escambia County.
I believe this impact should be considered.
Jatries W. Mitchell ' U/'
State Conservationist
The Soil Conservation Service
t V is an agency of Hie
Department ol Agriculture
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
REGIONAL CIVIL ENGINEER, EASTERN REGION (HQ AFESC)
926 TITLE BUILDING. 30 PRYOR STREET. S.W.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30301
REPLY TO
attn of R0V4 7 June 1984
subject; Environmental Impact statement (EIS), South Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties, Florida, Wastewater Management
TO U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Attn: Mr. Robert C. Cooper
Project Officer
NEPA Compliance Section
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
The Air Force Regional civil Engineer - Eastern Region, as the responsible
Air Force office for intergovernmental activities in Region IV, has reviewed
the subject report and offers no comments. Our Point of Contact is
Mr. Dan Lane, commercial telephone (404) 221-6776.
iWk.
THOMAS D. SIMS cc: USAF/LEEVX
Clief AFESC/DEMV
Environmental Planning Division AD/DEEV
-------
reply to
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
MOBILE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 22BS
MOBILE, ALABAMA 3662B
June 22, 1984
ATTENTION OFl
Environmental Quality
Section
Mr. Robert C. Cooper
Project Officer
Environmental Assessment Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Cooper:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida, Waste-
water Management, as requested by letter of May 3, 1984. We
have no comments on the document.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this draft
document.
Sincerely
Willis E.Ruland
Chief, Environment and Resources
Branch
r 4* ~
f
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington, D C. 20230 8
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
July 5, 1984
Mr. Robert C. Cooper
Project Officer
Environmental Assessment Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Mr. Cooper:
This is in reference to your draft environmental impact statement for
South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida wastewater management.
Enclosed are comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
We hope our comments will assist you. Thank you for giving us an
opportunity to review the document. We would appreciate receiving four
copies of the final environmental impact statement.
JUL 6 jgg4
~'LK,ai0lf iv
h IU i A .
Si ncerely,
:Cdoyce M. Wood
Chief, Ecology and
Conservation Division
Enclosu re
DC:das
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southeast Region
9450 Koger Boulevard
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
June 27, 1984 F/SEE11/EK
813-893-3503
Mr. Robert C. Cooper
Project Officer
Environmental Assessment Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland St. HE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Mr. Cooper:
The National Marine Fisheries Service has received the draft environmental
Impact statement, South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida Wastewater
Management for review and content.
We have reviewed the subject document and offer the following general
consents.
General Comments
In our opinion, the document Is poorly written, is lscktng in sound
biological or scientific data, and does not fully consider all available
outfall alternatives.
We believe that updating the facilities at the main street plant. Including
an open Culf outfall, would be the leaet environmental damaging and the most
long-term cost effective alternative. la this regard, full consideration
should be given to these alternatives prior to selection of a "Preferred
Alternative."
Sincerely yours,
Richard J. Hoogland
Chief, Environmental Assessment Branch
-------
,,1^'Cc.
/ V \
'1TIJ O'
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Washington, D.C. 20230
THE ADMINISTRATOR
July 12, 1984
Mr. Robert C. Cooper
Project Officer
Environmental Assessment Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Cou rtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Enclosed are additional comments from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration on your draft environmental impact statement for
South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida, wastewater management.
We hope our comments will assist you. Thank you for giving us an
opportunity to review the document.
Si nee rely,
'* fiu >>u.u ^
Joyce M. Wood
Chief, Ecology
Conservati on
Encl osu re
DC:das
; ;*"¦
X
' *• • u ¦¦¦
f:
and
Di vision
10TH ANNIVERSARY 1970-1980
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
A young agency with a historic
tradition of service to the Nation
-------
TO: PP2 - Joyce
FROM: N - Paul M. Wo
SUBJECT: DEIS 8405 .09
Florida, Wastewater
Agency)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
Washington, D.C. 20230
July 10, 1984
N/MB21:VLS
d /V r
L *
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties,
lanagement (Environmental Protection
The subject statement has been reviewed within the areas of
the National Ocean Service's (NOS) responsibility and expertise, and
in terms of the impact of the proposed action on NOS activities and
projects.
Our Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment (OMA) questioned
the writer's application of the term "tidal surge" to the discussion
of sea level changes arising from storms and hurricanes (page III-7,
first paragraph). It is suggested that the term "tidal surge" be replaced
with "storm surge" because the term "tidal" refers to effects caused
by the astronomic tide producing forces.
In addition, our Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM) has been in contact with Mr. Walt Kolb of the Florida State
Department of Environmental Regulation. Based on a preliminary review
of the DEIS, Mr. Kolb states that the project appears consistent with
the State CZM program.
% Si
mm
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
Southeast Region / Suite 1360
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W. / Atlanta, Ga. 30303
Telephone 404/221-4524 - FTS: 242-4524
JUN1 8 GM
ER-84/625
Robert C. Cooper, Project Officer
NEPA Compliance Section
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
j-Kmmi. msifn-y. ¦
|j'>| JUN2 0 1984
^' tTSBEDTJT-
¦fA-Rfifi' ojf TV ~
, GA':
Dear Mr. Cooper:
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the draft Environmental
Impact Statonent (EIS) on Wastewater Management for South Escambia and
Santa Rosa Counties, Flor ida, and has the following comments.
The EIS adequately addresses the details and economics of an array of
project plans and alternatives; however, the ^statement lacks a
comprehensive analysis of the alternative of extending and relocating
the Main Street outfall to the Gulf of Mexico with a discharge of
secondarily treated effluent. A Fish and Wildlife Service letter
dated, June 15, 19 81, from the Ecological Services field office in
Panama City to your agency specifically addressed the need for the
above analysis. We believe the EIS should contain a complete
environmental and economic analysis of the Gulf outfall alternative.
The EIS should also address the impact of long-term discharge of
secondarily treated sewage effluents of volumes of 20 million gallons
daily or more into Pensacola Bay. This discharge vould likely
jeopardize the biological recovery and future productivity within the
bay, since other pollution sources, such as massive urban storn*»ter
runoff, will continue to increase.
According to the EIS, Federal funds will only be provided to divert
the Avondale and Warrington service area effluents to the Main Street
Plant. Funds will not be made available to t^jgrade the currently
operating secondary treatment system at the plant. Advanced
wastewater treatment techniques and/or tertiary treatment techniques
are costly. However, in view of the impacts of all pollution sources
now entering and that will enter the Pensacola Bay system, such
treatment levels may be required in the future to assure adequate
water quality within the Bay. Therefore, we recommend that in the
analysis referred to above, one section include a comparison of the
costs to discharge secondarily treated effluent to the Gulf of Mexico
to the costs for advanced wastewater or tertiary treatment with
-------
continued discharge to Pensaoola Bay. The long-term costs of advanced
wastewater car tertiary treatment aould far exceed the initial costs of
installation of a Gulf outfall. The significant fish and wildlife
resources that would be favorably impacted by this alternative should
also be considered in this analysis.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide oaroments on the draft
document. We would like to discuss our concern with you prior to
preparation of the final EES.
2
-------
/ O o\
I ^2. ifiOw J FL0RIDA DEPARTMENT of agriculture e CONSUMER servi
c0«-sov
S ^ o<
STATE OF FLORIDA g
DOYLE CONNER COMMISSIONER * DIVISION OF FORESTRY / XKKOOteMiHXK&XX
/ XKttX^XaGHMKiXX /
3125 Conner Blvd.
TALLAHASSEE
323(
DATE: May 21, 1984
Mr. Walter Kolb
Office of Planning and Budgeting
Office of the Governor
Ths Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Dear Walt:
We have reviewed the EIS referral transmitted in your letter of May 9
on SAI Project # *See Below ai*d are arvising you that the Division of
Forestry has no adverse comment.
If we can be of further assistance, please give us a call.
Sincerely yours,
George L. Reinert
Chief, FREP Bureau
488-6591
*FL 8405071185E - South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties
Florida Wastewater Management
-------
STATU OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
DIVISION OF LOCAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
hOBURAHAM
u.vemor
X-GROVE
Secretary
:'ir. J. Roil Fahs, Director
In tor qovernr.enta 1 Coord i nation
F.xocut i ve Office of the Governor
Vho Capitol
i i 1 .a !ia ssee , Florida 32301
: -a.- i-on; SUBJECT: /~/L
In accordance with the prescribed project review procedures,
1 ho department cf Community Affairs has completed its staff review
of the o i ted document.
have <.:i U i mined that the application does not duplicate
any i>t" the Do; a rtir.ent1 s plans or proqrams, and that the substance
- appl icat icn is not i nconsistent with the Department of
Com!:" ui: i tv Affairs' principles and policies.
If you have any questions concerninq our review of this project,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
:s;i LXbCl'TIVH I tSTUK CIRCLE, EAST • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 (904) 488-2356
-------
. J U.
July 6, 1S84
Mr. Ron Fahs, Coordinator
State Clearinghouse
Executive Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Re: C1205891010 (Step 1) - South Escambia/Santa Rosa Counties
Facilities Plan
Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Fahs:
The Department of Environmental Regulation has re-evaluated the South
Escambia/Santa Rosa County Wastewater Management Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. Based on recent conservations within the department
and other state governmental agencies, it has been determined that the
plan is consistent with the Florida Coastal Management Program. The
department does not have any adverse comments on the Environmental Impact
Statement.
If you have any questions or require further information, please call
Mr. George Aase at 904/408-8163.
Sincerely,
David W. York, Ph.D., P.E., Administrator
Facilities Planning Section
Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants
DWY/gad
cc: Robert C. Cooper - EPA/Atlanta
John Outland - DER
Robert Kriegel - DER/Pensacola
U'alt Kolb - Governor's Office
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
TWIN TOWERS OFFICE BUILDING
2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301-8241
VICTORIA J. TSCHINKEL
SECRETARY
BOB GRAHAM
GOVERNOR
May 18, 1984
Mr. Robert C. Cooper, Project Officer
Environmental Assessment Branch
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Re: DEIS for South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Because the Preferred Alternative is: "No action", for Santa Rosa
County (the only area for which application by land spreading had been
considered), and because the Preferred Alternative for Escambia County
is secondary treatment followed by ocean outfall, the Groundwater Section
has no adverse comment at this time regarding subject document.
Donald S. Kell
Groundwater Section
DSK/ek
Protecting Florida and Your Quality of Life
-------
State of Florida
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DR. ELTON J. G1SSENDANNER
Executive Director
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32303
BOB GRAHAM
Governor
GEORGE FIRESTONE
Secretary of State
JIM SMITH
Attorney General
GERALD A. LEWIS
Comptroller
BILL GUNTER
Treasurer
DOYLECONNER
Commissioner of Agriculture
RALPH D. TURLINGTON
Commissioner of Education
June 26, 1984
MEMORANDUM
TO : Walt Kolb, Senior Governmental Analyst
Office of Planning and Budgeting
FROM : Dale Adams, Administrative Assistant
Division of Resource Management
SUBJECT: Draft EIS for Escambia and Santa Rosa County Wastewater
Management, FL 8405071185E
I have reviewed the attached report and have an overall favorable view
on it. The proposed action is intended to address the increasing
demands on wastewater facilities and make system improvements. This
is a positive approach rather than proposing no action to a developing
problem. In this sense, the project would be consistent with the
Department's responsibilities under CZMP, except clarification is
needed on one issue:
Determination of the project's impact on shellfish waters and
an estimation of the size of a closed safety zone around the
outfall.
While the purpose of this project is to improve wastewater
management, I did not see the above issue specifically addressed.
Prior to a final sign-off, I would like clarification on this issue.
JDA/ljh
nivrsiONS / ADMINISTRATION BEACHES AND SHORES LAW ENFORCEMENT MARINE RESOURCES
DIVISIONS / AU^™e'at,on and pARKS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STATE LANDS
-------
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
George Firestone
Secretary of State
DIVISION OF ARCHIVES.
HISTORY AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT
The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8020
(904)488 1480
June 11, 1984 In Reply Refer to:
Mr. Frederick P. Gaske
Historic Sites Specialist
(904) 487-2333
Mr. Walter O. Kolb
Division of State Planning
Department of Administration
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
RE: Your Memorandum of May 9, 1984
Cultural Resource Assessment Request
SAI FL8405071185E; Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Proposed Wastewater Management Plan, South Escambia
and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida
Dear Mr. Kolb:
In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 C.F.R., Part
800 ("Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Proper-
ties") , 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
Presidential Executive Order 11593 ("Protection and Enhancement of
the Cultural Environent").
In our letter of December 14, 1977 (see enclosure), we reviewed
the potential impact of the above referenced project to archaeological
and historical sites and properties listed, or eligible for listing,
in the National Register of Historic Places, or otherwise of national,
state or local significance. In this letter, we identified those areas
-------
Mr. Walter 0. Kolb
June 11, 1984
Page Two
within the project area deemed to contain archaeological and historic
sites, and recommended that these areas be subjected to a systematic
professional archaeological and historic survey prior to the initiation
of ground disturbing activities.
On page 111-4 9 of the above cited document, it is stated that:
Potential disruption of historic and archaeological
resources from any new construction can be avoided or
reduced by conducting an archaeological survey of the
conveyance line corridors and construction sites prior
to construction. Identified resources can then be re-
moved from the site or avoided.
Additionally, on page IV-1, it is stated that "archaeological resources
surveys will be conducted where necessary to assure these resources are
adequately protected".
Once the resultant survey reports have been received by this
office, we will then be able to complete our review of the project's
impact on significant archaeological and historic resources. in the
event that significant cultural resources are located during the course
of these surveys, it will be the recommendation of this office that
those sites be avoided. If avoidance is not possible, then other
appropriate mitigation would be recommended to reduce adverse impacts
on these cultural resources.
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please do
not hestiate to contact us.
Your interest and cooperation in helping to protect Florida's
archaeological and historical resources are appreciated.
Sincerely
George W. Percy
State Historic
Preservation Officer
GWP/Gkp
Enclosure
cc: Robert C. Cooper
-------
e>
BRUCE A. SMATHERS
!>l< II1AHY Of STATi
STATE >i I LOMIDA
Drpiirlmnit nf ^tair
THE CAriTOL
TALLAHASSEE 32304
December 14, 1977
ROBERT WILLIAMS. DIRECTOR
DIVISION OF ARCHIVES, HISIORV. ANO
RECORDS MANAGEMENT
(»04) 4II-UI0
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Mr. James R. Burkhalter
Theta Analysis, Incorporated
2100 Olive Road
Pensacola, Florida 32504.
Re: November 10, 1977 Letter and Subsequent Communications
South Escambia-Santa Rosa Counties 201 Facilities Plan
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida
Dear Mr. Burkhalter:
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 proceduresare 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, and P.L. 94-458, and Presidential Executive
Order 11593 ("Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment").
A review of the Florida Master Site File indicates that four
archaeological sites (8SR11, 8SR36, 8SR61, and 8SR64) are recorded
for the Naval Live Oaks portion of Gulf Islands National Seashore
in an area that may be impacted by the installation of the pro-
posed pressure sewer pipe line unless it is placed within the
existing U.S. Highway 98 prism. In addition, another four archaeo-
logical sites (8SR16, 8Sr26, 8Sr31, and 8Sr32) are located along the
east side of East Bay within the area of the proposed pressure sewer
pipe line. However, much of the area to be impacted by implementa-
tion of the proposed 201 Facilities Plan has never been subjected
to a systematic, professional survey for such sites. For this
reason, the lack of recorded sites is not considered significant
Since data from environmentally similar areas which have been sur-
veyed indicate that the density of historic and archaeological sites.
-------
Mr. James R. Burkhalter
December 14, 1977
Page Two
especially the latter, may be quite high in the selected physio-
graphic areas within the project vicinity, it is the opinion of
this office that there is a reasonable probability of project
activities impacting one or more sites of National Register
quality. While it is reported that "most of the pipes to be
installed in Santa Rosa County are to be placed within established
presently-cleared road rights-of-way", it is noted that only the
central road prisms are considered completely disturbed. Thus,
while past clearing of the area lying between the prism and the
outer edge of the road rights-of-way may have already exposed
and superficially disturbed previously unreported archaeological
sites, significant undisturbed portions may yet remain within
the zone to be impacted by the proposed project.
Therefore, it is our recommendation that, prior to any ground
disturbing activities, those areas with a reasonable archaeological
site occurrence probability to be impacted by the present project"
be subjected to a professional archaeological and historical survev
(see map attachment). The general location of those areas recom-
mended for survey within the present South Escambia-Santa Rosa
Counties 201 Facilities Plan area include:
1. The northern edge of the Big Lagoon State Recreation
-Area;
2. The south shoreline of the northeast end of Perdido
Bay;
3. The area adjacent to SR292 and north of the Pensacola
Naval Air Station;
4. The pressure sewer line on the south side of U.S. Highwav
98 through the Naval Live Oaks portion of Gulf Islands
National Seashore. (Note: Its proximity to known sites
is mentioned above);
5. The short stretch along U.S. Highway 98 which crosses
the intermittent creek drainage midway between (4) and (6) j
6. The pressure sewer pipe line area (indicated on the map)
bordering U.S. Highway 98 and proceeding northward from
there, including the Peninsula Wastewater Treatment Plant
to the proposed Eglin Spray Irrigation site; *
-------
Mr. James R. Burkhalter
December 14, 1977
Page Three
7. The area along U.S. Highway 98 and west of Navarre,
where the highway crosses a series of intermittent
drainage creeks;
8. The area along U.S. Highway 98 east from Navarre
bridge to Wynnehayen Beach;
9. The proposed 920-acre Eglin Spray Irrigation site;
10. The area from and including the Pace Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant to the Pace Spray Irrigation site;
11. The proposed 239-acre Pace Spray Irrigation site; and,
12. Any new lines placed in the Blackwater Bay Peninsula area.
(Note: The plans for this area have not yet been developed
and were not available for study).
The remaining pipe line routes within the present project need
not be surveyed because (1) they are planned for installation in
already disturbed road prisms or (2) they are planned for areas
having a very low probability of site occurrence.
The_ purpose of this archaeological* and historical survey will
be to identify properties potentially eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. and to determine what impact,
if any, the present project will have on them. If it is determined
that the project will adversely impact a site deemed eligible for
listing in the National Register, it will be necessary to avoid or
mitigate the adverse impact through a professionally capable agency.
•
If you have any questions about our comments, or about federal
historic preservation regulations, please feel free to contact us.
Your interest and cooperation in preserving Florida's historic
resources are appreciated.
L. Ross
Deputy State historic
Preservation Officer
LRM:Teh
enclosure (map)
-------
Florida
BOB GRAHAM
GOVERNOR
Department of Transportation
Haydon Burns Building. 605 Suwannee Street. Tallahassee Florida 32301-8064. Telephone (904) 488-6541
PAULN. RAPRAS
SECRETARY
May 16, 198W-
MAY - 1934
Mr. Walter 0. Kolb
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Dear Walter:
Our review of the EPA Draft, Environmental Impact Statement, for South
Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida Wastewater Management, indicates no
adverse impact on this Department's transportation facilities.
Since
vrk.
Ed McNeely, Administrator
Surface Transit Planning
EM: tk
-------
FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION
C.TOM RAINEY D.V.M.
Chairman, Miami
THOMAS L. HIRES SR.
Vice-Chairman, Lake Wales
WILLIAM G. BOSTICK JR.
Winter Haven
J.H. BAROCO
Pensacola
ROBERT M. BRANTLY, Executive Director
F.G. BANKS, Assistant Executive Director
Mr. Walt Kolb
Office of the Governor
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL 32301
0
\
MRS. GILBERT W. HUMPHRE
Miccosulcee
FARRIS BRYANT BUILDING
620 South Meridian Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904)488-1960
June 14, 1984
'—I :
1 8 1984
ciJLbu d
iU
RE: FL8405071185E, DEIS
S. Escambia & Santa Rosa
Counties, FL Wastewater
Management
Dear Mr. Kolb:
The Office of Environmental Services has reviewed the referenced project
and has no comments.
If we may offer further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Douglas B. Bailey
Assistant Director,
Office of Environmental
Services
DBB/ms
ENV. 1-3-2
-------
JVckt/iwebt Sfouda
fyifateb jUana
-------
"No Action is the alternative selected for the areas outside the
Avondale, Warrington and Moreno Courts service areas: Southwest
Escambia, Perdido Key, Santa Rosa Island and the Gulf Breeze
Peninsula. This decision is based on two major determinants.
First, portions of these areas are sensitive to development due
to their proximity to 100-year floodplains, wetlands or estuaries.
While wastewater management options in these areas might not pro-
mote development in all situations, such options could act to
support development and associated populations in sensitive areas.
This would be contrary to state and federal policies and regulations
that are intended to protect such areas. Second, few water
quality, ecological or public health problems have been documented
to date. Some areas might be able to receive funding in the
future if such problems develop. Proper planning, however, should
prevent these problems from developing."
The first "determinant" 1s difficult to defend based on past
experience. Lack of regional utility systems does not appear to limit
growth in the coastal area. The result is a proliferation of small treatment
plants in a uncoordinated, unplanned fashion without any clear long-range
plan. The second determinant provides funds to alleviate problems as they
occur. In the end, a reactive approach such as this will be more costly
than careful long-term planning. It also provides solutions to problems
only after some environmental damage has occurred.
(2) As regards the statement that wastewater management options
(regional systems in this case) could support development and would be con-
trary to state policies, one of Governor Graham's Resource Management and
Planning Committees is currently giving strong consideration to the develop-
ment of regional water supply, wastewater and solid waste system in coastal
Okaloosa and Walton counties. This would indicate, at the least, that con-
sideration of such systems is not contrary to state policy under the proper
ci rcumstances.
y. William McCartney
Executive Director
iWMc/mc
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA
ffiffo of tl|e dufemtm:
THE CAPITOL
TALLAHASSEE 32301
Hon Graham
GOVERNOR
July 6, 1984
f
.iVJl *'
v
Mr. Robert C. Cooper l. 1
Project Officer, NEPA Compliance Section
EPA, Region IV *
34 5 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Reference your request, this Office reviewed and
circulated for State review your Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for South Escambia and Santa Rosa
Counties, Florida, Wastewater Management. The
document addresses proposed construction of wastewater
facilities for two Florida counties. Several alterna-
tives for wastewater management are evaluated.
Recognizing that Florida's west Gulf coast area is
environmentally sensitive and subject to considerable
growth pressures, Governor Graham recently appointed
a Resources Planning and Management Committee. This
Committee is examining growth induced problems in the
adjacent counties of Okaloosa and Walton. Escambia and
Santa Rosa county's coastal areas may be subject to
study by this Committee in the near future.
Our review found that your recommended actions are
essentially in accord with relevant state goals and
objectives. The Departments of Environmental Regulation
and Natural Resources find your proposals to be consistent
with their statutory responsibilities and those statutes
as defined in the federally approved Florida Coastal
Management Program. As appropriate, we request that you
respond to the concerns identified in the attached letters
from the Departments of Environmental Regulation,
Natural Resources and State.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on
this draft document. We appreciate you granting this
:.u*m ASSESSMENT MURK
fi'fPiTarpnn nr?|
An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
iPsiEinrE
'"PA-FEUION IV
-------
Mr. Robert C. Cooper
Page 2
Office our request for additional review time.
Sincerely, J i
Walter 0. Kolb
Sr. Governmental Analyst
WOK/jkc
cc: George Reinert
Ed McNeely
George Percy
Dale Adams
David York
Douglas Bailey
George Gould
Deborah Walker
Betty Rosser
-------
tXVlMKMUnU. KSEXm
MAYOR
Joseph Reynes
COUNCILMEN
t-- •
atu: w i.
manager
William Blatkia
Lara Gilchrist
Ed Gray
Carol Wilbum
John Fox
(Etig of dmlf freeze
CITY CLERK
T- P. Schlichting
Post Office Box 640
GULF BREEZE, FLORIDA 32561
CITY ATTORNEYS
John T. Pamham
Paul A. RaamuMm
Phone (904) 933-3544
June 26, 1984
Mr. Robert C. Cooper, Project Officer
Environmental Assessment Branch
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Sir:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental
Impact Statement both at the Public Hearing and in writing.
We question the population figures on page II-9. In 1980
the entire city population was less than 5,500 (census) and about
600 living units were served by sewer.
While many of the alternatives are solutions local govern-
ments can "live with" in terms of real solutions my perception
was that these alternatives "froze" technology to what was
possible in the past decade. Please let us keep our minds open
to current and future technologies.
Sincerely,
Joseph\Reynes
\ Mayor
JR:msr
-------
Escambia County, Florida
PHILLIP M. (PHIL) WALTRIP, DISTRICT ONE
223 PALAFOX PLACE
P.O. BOX 1591
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32597-1591
TEL (904) 436-5783
(SUNCOM) 237-5783
KENNETH J. KELSON, DISTRICT TWO
WILLIE J. JUNIOR, DISTRICT THREE
MAX L DICKSON. DISTRICT FOUR
GRADY ALBRITTON, DISTRICT FIVE
RODNEY L KENOIG, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
June 15, 1984
Mr. Robert G. Cooper
Project Officer,
NEPA Compliance Section
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
At!anta , GA 30365
Dear Mr. Cooper:
After reviewing the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the South Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida Wastewater
Management, prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
the following comments are offered:
1. The use of 208 population projections as a basis for EPA decision
making would seem to be erroneous. These projections were
developed in 1976 and 1977 and are now outdated and without
valid i ty .
2. The Land Management Mechanisms in the EIS Study Area, Table 111 -1 *
pg. 111 -19 of the EIS document are inaccurate for Escambia County.
Escambia County has P.U.D. provisions, an Estuarine Setback on
Perdido Key, and Buffer Zone Requirements.
3. Under Solid Waste Disposal, pg. 111 -2 7; Klondike Landfill is
no longer in use, the Beulah Landfill will no longer accept
sludge after June 25, 1984, and the Perdido Landfill (a 424
acre tract north of Interstate 10) has been in operation
si nee July , 1 981 .
4. in several instances the water systems in Escambia County are
referred to as the City of Pensacola Water System and the
Escambia County Water System. These two syste.^pt)h.^.y,e,,.b.een
incorporated into an agency known as the Escambia "C6'unt-v*ri' ^*8
11 j. • t ' j. w n ., 4. u ~ ^ ,
Utility Authority
EPA-REGIC"
ATLANTA, •;
-------
June 15, 1984
Mr. Robert G. Cooper
Page 2
Prior to publishing a final EIS, EPA should update the data base
of the draft EIS. If the Agency's final decision is to be based
on old and now quite inaccurate data contained in the draft EIS,
that decision may prove to be no more valid than the data on which
it will be based.
County Administrator
RLK/DC/bm
c: Escambia Co. Utilities Authority
Dwaine Raynor, West Fla. Regional
Planning Council
-------
''•? "/rare
c
vu
Escambia
County
Utilities
Authority
June 22, 1984
Mr. Robert Cooper
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Re: Draft of EIS Issued May 1984 and
Public Hearing Held June 19, 1984
Dear Mr. Cooper:
k tf,
- vl/i,
JUN2 V 1984
lElSEDTTE
i:
EPA-REGION IV
ATLANTA, GA.
¦j* -4 i k
The Escambia County Utilities Authority has reviewed the draft
EIS and generally agrees with the document as presented. We also
believe that this document fairly, accurately and adequately states
the position of EPA with respect to the Warrington and Avondale
Sewage Treatment Plants and the need for their phase out. Further,
the document points out the need to remove the final effluent dis-
charge from Bayou Chico and Bayou Marcus Creek respectively, and
introduce these to Pensacola Bay via the Main Street Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
It would seem that the proposed schedule for completion of the
Final EIS occurring in September 1984 would compliment other efforts
of the ECUA with respect to developing and presenting an application
package for federal grant assistance.
The phase out of the Moreno Court Wastewater Treatment Plant
should be a simple matter to include in the Warrington STP phase
out. This is because the Moreno Court Plant is on an adjacent site
to the Warrington Plant.
Sincerely,
Wm, B. Sprlggs^'
Manager of Engineering
WBS:pd
xc:
Mr,
Mr,
Mr,
Mr.
Mr,
Greg Bourne, Claude Terry & Associates
William Whitson, EPA
C. H. Wigley, Jr.
Ken Evans
A1 Garza
POST OFFICE DRAWER 15311 • PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32514 • PHONE (904) 476-5110
-------
WEST FLORIDA
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
1190 WEST LEONARD STREET, SUITE 6 • POST OFFICE BOX 486
PENSACOLA, FLORIDA 32593-0486 • PHONE (904) 433-1459
Daniel F. Krumel
Executive Director
18 June 1984
Mr. Robert G. Cooper
Project Officer
NEPA Compliance Section
U.S. EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
RE: South Escambia and South Santa Rosa Counties,
Plan
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Thank you for offering the Council staff an opportunity to review the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the above referenced 201
planning area. The following comments/remarks are offered for your review
and use:
1. This 201 study has been in progress for a long time and has
received considerable attention from the news media and citizens
of West Florida. The WFRPC has strongly supported the 201 study
for Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties and has provided a great
deal of support to the EPA 201 Project Officer and to the EPA
EIS consultants. The WFRPC staff has participated throughout
the entire 201 and the EIS development, from the time that it
was first discussed to the rather empty conclusion.
2. This 201 study began with a great deal of energy and was characterized
by quality work. Somewhere, the entire study seems to have been
allowed to degenerate into a document that has been prepared for
the purpose of "closing the books". It is difficult why such
an expensive and lengthy study has yielded so little.
3. The population forecasts used by the 201 study were derived from
the population projections developed for the 208 Clean Water Plan
for Escambia, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties, Florida, these—
projections were generated in the mid 1970's using totally different
EPA guidance. These 208 figures do not reflect the actual populations
that are being experienced and are not adequate for a study being
completed in the summer of 1984. The 208 population projections
Charles H. Carlan
Chairman
Larry Anchors
Vice Chairman
Florida 201 Facilities
serving Escambia, Santa Ro»a, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay. Holm«s and Washington Counties, and their municipalities."
-------
WEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
Mr. Cooper
18 June 1984
page 2
are no longer realistic for certain critical areas such as Perdido
Key. The fact that the population forecasts used for the 201 study
EIS may be too low is not really significant, however it is significant
that the "Preferred Alternative" may not provide "...for the preservation
of the integrity of the environment..." and may fail to accomplish
the 201 study's purpose "...to develop a preferred alternative for
wastewater facilities in the study area which will minimize environmental
impacts throughout the study area."
4. Is the "Preferred Alternative" preferred by any of the 201 Advisory
Committee members?
5. The summary of the events of this 201 study contained in the EIS is
well done.
It is unfortunate that the vigor and attention that was applied by
EPA personnel to the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan effort
was not applied to the 201 planning effort for South Escambia and South
Santa Rosa Counties.
Sincerely
D.T. Raynor
Environmental Director
cc: Charles Jeter
-------
i
/'
**»n
SsaiJSBtt.,
iii
ii<
>r-t
t ':¦
- 4
W. We, ton JiuJul on. Sociel
J-ra ncii
P.O. Box 17484, Pensacola, Fl. 32522
June 27, 1984
Draft EIS (EPA 904/9-84-118) Wastewater Management, South Escambia
and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida
The Francis M. WestonAudubon Society appreciates the efforts and
intent of the study of wastewater management facilities for
these two counties. The document is designed for 3 purposes:
to provide information for the public, to provide for public
participation, and to resolve conflicts. The method of organ-
ization and gathering of information in the document provices
some excellent background information which can be used in the
future.
We understand and support the rationale behind the "No Action"
conclusion for portions of the study area. We agree that tax
dollars should not be expended for public service which encourage
growth in environmentally sensitive areas. We regret that there
was so much delay in issuing the two final documents, possibly
influincing development in the areas under study.
Our organization agrees that problems could occur in the future
which can be avoided by proper planning. It is precisely that
lack of planning which generated the public outcry which initiated
the study originally. It is that samepublic pressure which has
established zoning on Perdido Key by special act of the Florida
Legislature, not the local government.
We question the conclusion that there are "few documented problems
to date". The local newspaper has in the last few days listed
as it does annually water quantity problems on Santa Rosa Island,
water pollution problems in Bayou Grande, closing Bayou ChicQ to
swimming and fishing, groundwater pollution from Reichhold Chemical
Company. Not long ago a series of newspaper articles discussed
declining harvests of fish and shellfish for commercial and recreation
a problem which your document mentioned. Your own document
pointed to contaminants entering the groundwater, overlapping
plumes and the mounding effect of contaminants on Perdido Key.
You noted that the Oensacola Bay system is in excess of its assimilative
capacity. The Perdido River, which is listed as Outstanding
Flroida Waterm has violations of bacteria, BOD, coliform, and
heavy metal levels. Overall, you stated that the estuarine
areas are on an interim between polluted and undisturbed - whatever
that means.
Locally, we have been contacted by a new resident, a former
environmental official from another state whose 8 years of experience
was in supervision of sewage treatment systems. His daily drive
-------
F. M. Weston Audubon Society
page 2
takes him by the Main Street Plant where he says there may be
buildup of methane gas overnight almost daily.
Your study did not give sufficient data on the value of fisheries.
Both the National Marine Fisheries and the Organized Fishermen of
Florida have this information. We suggest it be included, since
state figures indicate that recreational and commercial fisheries
area $5 million annual source of funds in Florida.
Our organization notes that the federal government has already
invested considerable funds in this area: the Main Street
Plant, Gulf Islands National Seashore, several Navy facilities
and other capital investments. They are bought, built, or funded
with tax dollars from citizens of the United States. With rapidly
occuring development we recommend that federal agencies take a
more active interest in activities which affect these investments.
Since our bays and estuaries are an important part of the Gulf
of Mexico system, one of the more viable areas in the United
States, we recommend that all efforts be expended to protect
this valuable source of food.
There are some serious concerns with the Main Street Plant which
is presently operating at half its design capacity. The functional
design is not being properly or efficiently used. We recommend
that the training of operators be upgraded so they may more
aptly deal with the industrial waste which will be accepted and
then disposed of into the bay.
It is our understanding that the Santa Rosa Island sewage facility
will soon be expanded. Is their NPDES permit current and valid?
Is anyone monitoring Santa Rosa Sound?
Our organization also points out that the following waters all
within the study area have been designated by the state DER
to have the HIGHESTprotection: Big Lagoon State Recreation
Area, Perdido Key Sate Preserve, Perdido Key Environmentally
Endangered Land, Ft. Pickens (now Gulf Islands National Seashore),
Yellow River Marsh, and the Perdido River. It appears that the
state and federal governments have ample reason to be very concerned,
as we are, with the rapid and apparently unplanned developments
which profoundly effect these areas.
(X ihuU 'Y) .
Muriel W. Wagner, President
-------
P.O. Box 1748A
Pensacola, Fl. 32522
Robert C. Cooper. Project Officer
NEPA Compliance Section
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland St. N.E.
Atlanta, Ga. 30365
Due to typographical error on my part I gave erroneous information on the value
of fisheries ratches in Florida. It should have read that the annual dollar
amount is five (5) BILLION dollars. Please include this correction in our
statement. Thank you for your assistance.
Ml .
Francis M. Weston AudubonSociety
iSiESjyf/; r-,i
.I"'-'-
JUL 6 1984 ]
^yiuiuL-
•A-n enow iv
LA.r .a, GA.
-------
CHAPTER VI
LIST OF PREPARERS
-------
CHAPTER VI - LIST OF PREPARERS
Project Personnel
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert B. Howard
F. Theodore Bisterfeld
Robert C. Cooper
Wayne Garfinkel
Leonard Nowak
Claude Terry & Associates, Inc.
Claude E. Terry
R. Gregory Bourne
Michael Brewer
James C. Hodges
Thomas C. Mather
Louise B. Franklin
Craig Wolfgang
Chief, NEPA Compliance Section
EPA Project Officer
June 1980 - October 1983
EPA Project Officer
October 1983 - Present
EPA Project Engineer
June 1980 - October 1983
EPA Project Engineer
October 1983 - Present
President
Project Director/Environmental
Engineer
Environmental Scientist
Environmental Scientist
Environmental Scientist
Environmental Planner
Environmental Planner
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Thomas M. Rachford Senior Project Manager
Frank J. Swit Project Manager
' >;nes C. Elliott Environmental Engineer
Kooert J. Fisher Environmental Engineer
Sara F. Frailey Environmental Engineer
John W. Jacobs Soils Scientist
VM
------- |