United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
EPA 904/^5-84-123
October 1984
oEPA Environmental Draft
Impact Statement
Southwest Orange
County, Florida
Wastewater Management
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
This Draft EIS addresses proposed wastewater facilities for
Southwest Orange County, 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:
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF MAPS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PAGE
iv
A. Need for Action 1
B. Description of the Alternative 2
C. Evaluation of Alternatives 5
D. Description of the Preferred Alternatives 9
E. Basis for Decision H
BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND ISSUES 1-1
1-1
1-5
A. Background
B. Purpose *-~J
C. Major Issues 1-6
II. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION II-l
A. Introduction II-l
B. Population, Land Use, and Wastewater Flow II-l
Evaluation
1. Population and Land Use
2. Wastewater Flows II-2
C. Identification of Available Structural H-6
Alternatives
1. Service Area/Interceptors II"io
2. Wastewater Disposal
3. Wastewater Treatment Facility Options I*""20
4. Sludge Treatment/Disposal II"~?
5. On-Lot Treatment/Disposal Alternative 11-2A
6. No Federal Action Alternative 11-24
D. Identification of Available Nonstructural 11-25
Alternatives
1. Land Use and Development Controls 11-25
2. Water Conservation Measures 11-26
3. Optimum Use of Existing Wastewater Facilities 11-26
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
E. Cost Evaluation 11-27
1. Methodology 11-27
2. Alternative Costs 11-27
P. Operability/Implementability Evaluation 11-27
III. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL III-l
CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES AND
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
A. Introduction III-l
B. Affected Environment and Environmental III-l
Consequences of the Alternatives
1. Surface Water Resources ill-l
2. Groundwater Resources III-7
3. Land Resources 111-12
4. Ecological Resources 111-15
5. Population, Land Use and Economy 111-20
6. Community Service and Facilities 111-29
7. Archaeological/Historical Resources 111-31
8. Air Quality/Odor/Noise 111-33
9. Major Concerns 111-37
IV. SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED iv-1
ALTERNATIVE
A. Basis of Decision IV-1
1. Cost-Effectiveness IV-1
2. Important Environmental Considerations IV-1
B. Description of the Preferred Alternative IV-2
1. Service Areas/Interceptors IV-2
2. Wastewater Treatment Facilities IV-4
3. Effluent Disposal IV-4
4. Sludge Management IV-9
C. Environmental Impacts of the Preferred IV-14
Alternative
1. Surface Water Resources IV-14
2. Groundwater Resources IV-15
3. Land Resources IV-18
4. Ecological Resources IV-19
5. Population and Land Use IV-20
6. Archaeological/Historical Resources IV-21
7. Air Quality/Odor/Noise IV-21
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page
D. Mitigative Measures IV-21
1. Proposed Mitigative Measures IV-21
2. Measures Incorporated in the Final Plan IV-29
E. Orange County EIS Grant Condition IV-31
V. EIS COORDINATION V-l
A. Introduction V-l
B. Coordination with Local, State and Federal V-l
Agencies and Organizations
C. Public Participation Program V-l
VI. LIST OF PREPARERS VI-1
Project Personnel VI-1
APPENDIX A
Projected Population and Wastewater Flows
APPENDIX B
Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals
APPENDIX C
Resolutions Concerning the Design and Operation
of Rapid Infiltration Basins
APPENDIX D
Standard Citrus Irrigation Agreement
ill
-------
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
1 Alternatives Evaluation Summary 6
II-l Quantity of Solids Produced at Proposed 11-23
Treatment Facilities
II-2 Alternatives Cost Analysis 11-28
II-3 Least Cost Wastewater Transmission 11-29
Treatment and Disposal Options
II-4 Septic Tank and Small Community Systems 11-30
Alternative
II-5 Federal No-Action Alternative 11-31
II-6 Operability/Implementability Analysis 11-32
III-l Florida Ambient Air Quality Standards 111-34
III-2 Summary of Major Findings 111-38
Service Area/Interceptor Alternatives
III-3 Summary of Major Findings 111-39
Effluent Disposal Alternatives
IV-1 Summary of Year 2000 Design Populations IV-7
and Flows
IV-2 Rapid Infiltration Basin IV-8
Design Effluent Quality Standards
IV-3 RIB Site Design Data IV-13
IV-4 Groundwater Monitoring Parameters IV-24
IV-5 Surface Water Monitoring Parameters IV-26
IV-6 Selected Wildlife Plants Found in IV-27
Central Florida
V-l Agency Coordination List V-2
V-2 201 Technical Advisory Committee V-3
V-3 Southwest Orange County 201 EIS V-5 '
Citizens Review Group
iv
-------
LIST OF MAPS
NUMBER TITLE PAGE
1 Southwest Orange County 201 Planning Area 10
and Selected Plan
1-1 Southwest Orange County 201 Planning Area 1-2
I-2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities 1-4
II-l Traffic Zones II-3
II-2 Existing Land Use II-4
II-3 Future Land Use Policy Guide II-5
II-4 Service Area/Interceptor Recommended II-8
Improvements - Sand Lake Road WWTP Area
II-5 Service Area/Interceptor II-9
Alternative 1A1 and 1B1
II-6 Service Area/Interceptor 11-10
Alternative 1A1 and 1B2
II-7 Service Area/Interceptor 11-11
Alternative 2A1 and 2B1
II-8 Service Area/Interceptor 11-12
Alternative 3A1 and 3B1
II-9 Service Area/Interceptor 11-14
Alternative No. 4
11-10 Citrus Irrigation Alternative 11-16
11-11 Rapid Infiltration Alternative 11-18
11-12 Combined Citrus Irrigation/Rapid Infil- 11-19
tration Alternative
II-13 Groundwater Conservation Alternative 11-21
III-l Drainage Basins III-2
III-2 Terrestrial Communities 111-16
III-3 Locations of Archaeological/Historical 111-32
Sites
IV-1 Selected Service Areas IV-3
v
-------
LIST OF MAPS
(Continued)
NUMBER TITT-K PAGE
IV-2 Proposed Interceptor System Modifications IV-5
IV-3 Sand Lake Road Wastewater Treatment IV-6
Facility Expansion Area
IV-4 Selected Plan IV-10
IV-5 Projected Irrigation Distribution Network IV-11
IV-6 Proposed Rapid Infiltration Basin Sites IV-12
vi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PART A - NEED FOR ACTION
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Southwest Orange
County 201 Wastewater Facilities Planning Area addresses
alternate wastewater management facilities and the potential
impacts of these facilities on the environmental resources of the
area. The study area for the EIS includes the southwestern
quarter of Orange County with the exclusion of the Reedy Creek
Improvement District (RCID) as shown in Map 1-1. Southwest Orange
County is one of the most rapidly developing areas in the U.S.
Growth in the area has been spurred by the development of the
tourist and manufacturing industries. The Orlando area is the
number one tourist destination in the world. Major tourist
attractions and large hotels are located in the southwestern
portion of the Planning Area.
Centralized wastewater collection systems within the 201 Planning
Area are owned and operated by Orange County, the City of Orlando
and the City of Winter Park. Orange County and the City of
Orlando own and operate the two centralized wastewater treatment
facilities located in the 201 Planning Area. Discharge of
treated wastewater effluent from these facilities is to Shingle
Creek. Twenty-five package plants with design flows equal to or
less than 0.75 mgd and utilizing on site land disposal also
exist. On-lot septic tank systems provide service to most of the
rural and urban fringe areas.
The EPA has determined that nutrient loadings from the Orange
County Sand Lake Road and City of Orlando McLeod Road treatment
plants are transported by Shingle Creek to Lake Tohopekaliga in
Osceola County and have contributed to the eutrophication of the
lake. The value of Lake Tohopekaliga as a recreational
sportfishery is being jeopardized as a result of deteriorating
water quality, in accordance with recommendations of various
federal, state and regional water quality studies, NPDES Permits
issued by the U.S.E.P.A. for both facilities state that in the
future no discharge to surface waters will be permitted. Both
plants have been operating for several years under temporary
operating permits from the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation (FDER) until plans to eliminate the discharges can be
completed and implemented.
It was concluded from the drilling and evaluation of potential
discharge zones of a deep (6,192 feet) test well by Orange County
in 1977 that deep well injection was not a viable option in
Southwest Orange County. Subsequently, Orange County agreed to
act as lead applicant for a grant from EPA to prepare a 201
Facilities Plan for the Southwest Orange County 201 Planning
Area. In May 1978 Orange County and EPA signed a Memorandum of
Understanding which provided that a "piggy-back" Environmental
Impact Statement would be prepared "in connection with the
1
-------
planning, design and construction of treatment works in Orange
County...". In the Notice of Intent, EPA stated that the major
issues which were to be addressed in the EIS include the means of
effluent disposal, effects on area water resources and economic
impacts of secondary growth.
PART B - DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Feasible alternatives were developed in the 201 Plan to provide
for wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Centralized
systems were considered only in the area designated for the
provision of urban services in the approved Growth Management
Plans (GMPs). The majority of land in the 201 Planning Area is
designated as Rural Service Area. Publicly owned wastewater or
water supply systems are, by policy, not to be provided in the
Rural Service Area. Projected Year 2000 wastewater flows of
about 43 million gallons per day were estimated for the Urban
Service Area portion of the Planning Area based on population
projections developed for the Orange County and City of Orlando
GMPs.
Growth management policies encourage low density residential land
uses in the Rural Service Area, and high density residential,
industrial and commercial land uses in the Urban Service Area to
reduce the cost of providing public services. Therefore, the 201
Plan addresses centralized wastewater management only in the
Urban Service Area portion of the Planning Area. Although
various service area and interceptor alternatives were
considered, the potential area to be served by publicly owned
systems remained constant. The potential use and cost-
effectiveness of septic tanks in the Urban Service Area was also
evaluated in the 201 Plan. The remainder of this section
presents a description of each of the final set of wastewater
treatment and disposal alternatives for the service area and
interceptor alternative considered to be most cost-effective.
Maps depicting these alternatives are presented in Chapter II of
this EIS on Maps 11-10 through 11-13. The most cost-effective
service area/interceptor alternative is depicted on Maps II-4 and
II-9.
Discharge to Shingle Creek
This alternative involves the continued discharge of wastewater
effluent from the Orange County Sand Lake Road and City of
Orlando McLeod Road treatment facilities at their existing
discharge locations. Inclusion of this alternative is for the
sole purpose of determining the level of EPA grant funding. This
is because Orange County and the City of Orlando have agreed to
eliminate the discharges of wastewater effluent to Shingle Creek
from their respective facilities. To determine the level of
grant funding,the EPA required, through its Advanced Treatment
Review Process that two levels of treatment and nitrogen and
phosphorus removal be evaluated. These are as follows:
2
-------
a) Secondary treatment plus nitrogen and phosphorus control to
3 mg/1 — total nitrogen and 0.2 mg/1 — total phosphorus; and
b) Secondary treatment plus phosphorus control to 0.2 mg/1 --
total phosphorus.
Shallow Well Injection
This alternative, called the Groundwater Conservation Program
(GCP), involves the injection of highly treated wastewater
effluent into the upper zone of the Floridan Aquifer. Reclaimed
wastewater would be pumped from the treatment plants to injection
areas and then distributed to injection wells. The injection
wells would be spaced linearly at 1,000-foot intervals to
minimize build-up of aquifer potentiometric levels. Each well
would inject from 1.8 to 3.0 million gallons per day (mgd).
Potential injection zones were selected based on proximity to
existing wells, existing and projected land use, and
hydrogeologic considerations. The concept of this alternative
was developed during a drought period as a means of replenishing
the aquifer.
Citrus Irrigation
This alternative involves the slow rate irrigation of about
10,000 acres of existing citrus groves in western Orange County
and eastern Lake County. The wastewater treatment level required
for this alternative involves secondary treatment followed by
filtration and high level disinfection. Under this alternative,
land would not be acquired nor irrigation systems funded for
citrus irrigation. Instead, renovated wastewater would be
provided under pressure to the property lines of the groves. The
grove owners would be responsible for the construction, operation
and maintenance of their individual irrigation and distribution
systems. Renovated wastewater from the treatment facilities
would be pumped to a distribution center located near the center
of the area of the proposed irrigation target area. A reserve
storage reservoir, located south of the distribution center and
east of Lake Ingram, would also be needed due to short-term
minimum and peak irrigation and freeze protection requirements
and scheduling. Required storage volume would range from about
900 to 2400 acre-feet. The reservoir would, therefore, require
from 170 to 420 acres at a depth of about 5.5 feet. Average
annual citrus irrigation rates were estimated to range from 26 to
72 inches, depending on local conditions.
Rapid Infiltration Basins
This method of effluent disposal involves application of treated
effluent to infiltration basins located in the well-drained sandy
soils of western Orange County. The infiltration basins would be
constructed as long, narrow channels following the existing
topography of the proposed sites. Effluent would be applied to
3
-------
flood the basins for a period of one to two weeks. The basins
would then be allowed to dry for about the same period, or
longer, before beginning the next wetting/drying cycle. Effluent
percolating through the basins would enter the water table and
move downward and/or laterally away from the site. Secondary
treatment followed by filtration and high level disinfection was
determined to be the required treatment level for this disposal
method. This treatment level has been found to be an effective
method of inactivating viruses and bacteria in wastewater
effluents.
Deep Well Disposal
This alternative involves the injection of treated effluent into
a highly transmissive rock zone containing waters saturated with
salt. Potential injection zones must be separated from
freshwater aquifers by confining layers which would prevent or
significantly retard upward movement of the injected effluent.
Potential injection areas were identified in extreme eastern
portions of Orange and Osceola Counties, and in Brevard County.
Specific sites were not identified due to the lack of adequate
data regarding potential injection zones. A testing program
would be required as an initial step in implementation of this,
alternative. If results of the testing program were
satisfactory, actual sites for injection wells would be
determined.
Combined Citrus Irrigation/Rapid Infiltration
This alternative involves the use of a combination of the citrus
irrigation and rapid infiltration alternatives. The distribution
center and citrus irrigation target area proposed under the
citrus irrigation alternative are also proposed under this
alternative. Wells would be used for satisfying peak citrus
irrigation and freeze protection demand, eliminating the
requirement for the storage reservoir. Rapid infiltration sites
are identical to those proposed for the rapid infiltration
alternative. However, fewer sites would be required under this
alternative approach. These sites would be used to dispose of
the renovated wastewater not directed to the citrus irrigation
system. The treatment required is secondary treatment followed
by filtration and high level chlorination.
On-Lot Disposal
This alternative involves the use of the combinedcitrus
irrigation/rapid infiltration alternative, with on-lot systems
(septic tanks) servicing about 2.3 mgd of the. projected Year 2000
wastewater flow. Total flow to the citrus irrigation/rapid
infiltration system would be reduced to approximately 41 mgd.
Septic tanks would be used in projected low density residential
development areas within the Urban Service Area having suitable
soils.
4
-------
No Federal Action
This alternative involves the use of septic tanks and locally
funded subregional treatment facilities to treat the projected
wastewater flow in excess of the existing design capacities of
the Sand Lake Road and McLeod treatment facilities, i.e. 15 and
13 mgd, respectively. Approximately 2.3 mgd of the projected
Year 2000 flow would be handled by septic tanks. Two subregional
treatment facilities would be constructed to treat the remaining
Year 2000 projected flow of 13 mgd. One of these subregional
facilities (Northwest Subregional) would be located in the
northwestern portion of the 201 Planning Area having a treatment
capacity of 6 mgd. The other subregional facility would be
constructed at the site of the existing Orangewood Lift Station
located south of the Sand Lake Road facility. Treated wastewater
effluent from the McLeod Road, Sand Lake Road and Orangewood
Subregional plants would be pumped to the citrus irrigation/rapid
infiltration facilities proposed in the combined alternative.
The effluent from the Northwest Subregional facility would be
disposed of by rapid infiltration at sites in the vicinity of the
plant. Secondary treatment followed by filtration and high level
disinfection is the treatment required at each facility.
No Action
This alternative would involve no action on the part of the 201
participants. The existing facilities would remain at their
present capacities and allow continued discharge of effluents to
Shingle Creek. This would result in the continued eutrophication
and degradation of Lake Tohopekaliga. New development within the
existing service area would be allowed to connect to the sewer
system until the plant capacities were reached. Any additional
development would provide their own wastewater treatment and
disposal facilities. These would include septic tank systems and
package wastewater treatment facilities. This alternative is not
acceptable to either the state and federal regulatory agencies or
the 201 participants. It would also result in serious conflicts
with the Orange County Growth Management Policy's objective of
using the provision public services to direct and guide growth.
The no action alternative is not considered a viable option, but
is used for purposes of comparison with the "action"
alternatives.
PART C - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives described above were evaluated in terms of cost,
operability, implementability and environmental impact. The
evaluation of the alternatives with respect to these categories
is summarized in Table 1.
5
-------
TABLE 1
UTEMTIVES EM.UHTKM SUtWY
PKSEXT NORTH
COST (MLLIIM
BMMIBmL IHPOCTS
¦isdiarft to 9>>n|to CM
i) Mtroiw I Rua^iorss Control K3L(i
U HiitiiOw Control 2B.26
1. Cmtiaatd aad increasing loots of niter mora to sarfact
aater discharge.
2. Eitart of lata Tohopefcaliga «ater quality iqnmwii wca-tain.
3. Hi^i electrical mrgr camaqition.
4. Incrcaud sladgt prodection ad disposal qaantitits.
dwnlnilT GaMrvatioa Prograa
329.62 1. Greatest potaatial for flooding iapacts to adjactat residential
properties do to imaad late aid groandMatar levelv
2. terms potaatial for untfioli drvelopaent i» a-ba* nw.
X Iwcfoiwd ilnnlir rwoff in areas of indmd higher aatar
tables.
V. Inrrmei rediarge to mtar sapply aqeifer by not of renovated
efflamt.
5. Eliminates diidur)> to Shinglt fratk/Laba Tohopekaliga.
Citrw Irrigation
177.3
1. Niniaias load raqairad for land application of ranewtad Mstr-
& El iai nates discharge to Shinglt Qratk/Labt Tofeopabaliga.
3. Iiriean rtdwgt to altar aqaifer.
A. Increases it arse late levels ad alter tables.
5. Eafcans prodKiivity Md nihility of citnB iedastry.
bpU Iafiltratko lasins
lfil.a 1. hnaa » ana lika levtls arf aatar tables my affect
property win.
2. Eliminates discharge to Single Crok/lakt Tohoprtaliga.
3. Inereaees utatlil fir siaMiole dmlopaaat in raral am.
< Iarrum netrient M to akjaceat lain vi> gw*n>ir flea.
5. Inrraim ridurgt to artar sapply aqaifer.
ilkll
£16.71 1. Coatiaead ad incveaing loom of alter rtaoaie to noo-potable
aqaifsi (racUiaug mf ta poasibla ia fatarel.
& Eliainatal discharge to Single CraaUlata Tohooetaliga.
3. Lad rtgaiirt it aiaiaal.
IWmPffflBIlITY
MSWB1LITY
1. Not acceptable to 2(1 1. Increased DIM r*q«iraants.
participant! or r*g«- 2. Sophisticated traataant
latory agencies. systen and controls.
Regulatory constriiits
encertaiiw
Public acceptance doubt-
fal.
1. Incraasad OH requirements.
2. SotfiiiticatRj treated*
systeas and controls.
L. Acceptable to ragalitory
agencies.
2. Hi on I tilling ta accept
monated aastaaatar for
irrigation.
Usa of mooted nast Mater
conditioned on effluent
quality.
Cyclic irrigation daaand
requires large storage
voleaes for ainiav and
Traataant systeas aid controls
ganeilly reliable aid not
Naples.
Acceptable to regelatory
Hill its.
Local acceptance of Ilk
aay reqaira project aodi-
ficatioaa.
Treatnent systas and controls
imrally raliablt.
Hydraalic and ramatiyt
capability of basira aay
raqairc aodification to pro-
ject after coaancing opera-
tion.
1. hqairas location of
saitable injection
mM art test all
Traatamt systas and controls
reliable.
-------
TABLE 1
BLTEMTl&S EVALUATION SUHAW
(Continued \
PRESENT WORTH
fllTSRHMWE OST miU-igNS) EWIPCWC^TAL IHPftCTS
to Hell Oisoosal
(Continued)
Citrus Irrigation/Rapid
Infiltration Basins 1163.43 1. Decreases potential level of adverse ivpacts of total
rabid infiltration basin alternative.
2. Eliminates discharge to Shingle Creek/Lake Tohooekaliga.
3. Increases recharge to Mater supply aouifer.
4. Enhances productivity and viability of citrus industry.
5. Aesthitic iipacts of ftlfis on surrounding properties could
inoact jroperty values.
OrrLot Systems 165.66 1.
2.
3.
Conflicts with Qranoe County Growth Management Policy
in Urban Service Area.
Septic tank usage in Ion and sediw ootential soils could
inact like nater quality.
Soaenhat reduces impacts of citms irrigation/rapid infiltra-
tion basin alternatives, otherwise sisilar iapacts anticioated.
No Federal Action J75.19 1. Significant increase in sever user fees and develooaent costs.
2. Potential conflicts with Orange County Growth fluiKiiarnt Policy
dee to location of Hfcrthagt Subregional plant and interceotor
systea, and seotic tank tsage in Urban Service hta.
3. Aesthetic ianacts of Ormeewood Subregional olant on existing
land tses.
4. Sasewhat reduces iaaacts of citrus irrigation/raoid infiltration
basin alternative, otherwise siailar iaoacts anticipated.
5. Seotic tank usage in Iom and aediua potential soils could ieoact
late Mater quality.
MUSKIB&UJy
oksabjuty
2. Generally acceotable to
regulatory aoencics,
exceot for tiue rcouired
to iiolnent.
1. Acceotable to regulatory
agencies.
2. local acceetance of RlBs
¦ay reouire project aod-
ifications.
3. Growers Milling to
accept renovated wste-
water for irrigation.
U Dual disoosal systeas
increases reliability
and flexibility of
disoosal systea.
2. Treatment systeas and
controls generally reliable.
1. Acceotable to regulatory
agencies.
2. Local acceotsnce of fUBs
¦ay require project Mod-
ifications.
3. SroMers Milling to acceot
renovated Mastenater for
irriffatioru
*. Increased usage of seotic
tanks in Urban Service
frea «ay be unacceptable
to County.
1. Dual disposal systea
increases reliability
and flexibility of
disoosal.
2. Treataent systems and
controls generally reliable*
1. kxeotible to regulatory
agencies.
2. Increased usage of seotic
tanks in Urban Service
Area aay be vvcceotable
to County.
X local acceptance of RIBs
nay reouire project not-
ifications.
4. ft tali's Milling to acceot
renovated wastewater for
irrigation.
1. Increase in OM reauired
due to increase in nuaber
of treatnent facilities
and seoarate disoosal
facilities for Xorthwest
Subregional system,
2. Dual disoosal systems
increases reliability and
flexibility of disoosal.
3. Treatment systeas and
controls generally reliable.
-------
Cost
As can be seen from Table 1# the difference between the highest
alternative present worth cost (i.e. groundwater conservation
program) is more than twice the lowest alternative present worth
cost (i.e. rapid infiltration basins). Three alternatives
present worth costs are within 10 percent of the lowest present
worth cost, and can be considered to be essentially equivalent
based on the level of precision of the cost analysis. Pour
alternatives, therefore, could have been selected for
implementation based on the cost analysis. These are: (1) rapid
infiltration basins; (2) citrus irrigation/rapid infiltration;
(3) on-lot systems; and (4) no federal action. The latter three
alternatives incorporate the combined citrus irrigation/rapid
infiltration disposal method.
Operability
Review of the operability summary of Table 1 leads to the
conclusion that the least flexibility would be afforded by the
rapid infiltration basins alternative. Also, the no federal
action alternative would increase the scale and complexity of the
operation and maintenance effort required to treat and dispose of
the projected wastewater flow. This is because two additional
subregional treatment facilities and an additional disposal area
would be required.
Implementability
With the exception of the no federal action alternative, all of
the four least cost alternatives would be equally implementable.
The no federal action alternative would result in significantly
increased user charges or development costs, or both. Public
acceptance of significantly increased user charges would be very
doubtful. Modifications or enhancement of project design
criteria would be anticipated to be necessary with respect to
potential aesthetic and property value impacts of the proposed
RIBs on adjacent areas. Other obstacles to implementation would
not be anticipated for these alternatives. The no federal action
alternative would be anticipated to be the only alternative with
significant implementation problems due to the public and
development interests impacts of increased user charges.
Environmental Impacts
Hydrogeologic modeling efforts conducted during the 201 planning
effort indicated that the rapid infiltration basin alternative
would result in a greater level of impact on lake and groundwater
levels than those of the citrus irrigation alternative. This
general category of impact is expected for all four least cost
alternatives. Impacts on land uses, associated with increased
groundwater and lake levels, would be anticipated to be less
8
-------
severe for the alternatives utilizing the combined citrus
irrigation/rapid infiltration basin disposal method than the
rapid infiltration basin alternative.
The most significant differences in the least cost alternatives
incorporating citrus irrigation/rapid infiltration basins are
associated with the no federal action alternative. This
alternative includes two additional subregional treatment
facilities, i.e. the Northwest Subregional and Orangewood
Subregional treatment facilities.
The proposed location of the Northwest Subregional plant is in
the Clarcona area of rural west Orange County. This plant site
is outside the Urban Service Area and could create development
pressure in the rural area adjacent to the site and along the
interceptor corridor to the plant. The provision of sewer
service to development in these areas would conflict with the
Orange County Growth Management Policy.
The Orangewood Subregional treatment facility would be located at
the site of the existing Orangewood Lift Station south of the
Sand Lake Road facility. This is an existing residential area.
Aesthetic and odor impacts to this area could occur.
Selection of the no federal action alternative, therefore, could
result in potential adverse aesthetic and odor impacts on an
existing residential community and potential conflicts with the
Orange County Growth Management Policy due to induced growth. In
addition, a relatively significant increase in sewer user charges
would result.
PART D - DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based on a systematic evaluation of the above alternatives and
numerous subalternatives not discussed above, the citrus
irrigation/rapid infiltration basin alternative was selected as
the most cost-effective and environmentally sound alternative.
This alternative was selected over the rapid infiltration and on-
lot disposal alternatives on the basis of operational flexibility
and cost, respectively. The 201 Planning Area and selected plan
are depicted on Map 1.
Thft citrus irrigation/rapid infiltration basin alternative
provides for the productive reuse of renovated wastewater on
privately owned citrus groves in west Orange County and east Lake
County. Utilization of this renovated wastewater is planned for
both crop growth and freeze protection. Rapid infiltration
basins will be used to dispose of the renovated wastewater which
is not utilized for citrus irrigation. Peak irrigation and
freeze protection demands will be supplemented using a system of
about 56 supply wells strategically located throughout the
renovated wastewater distribution system.
Q
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY 201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAP 1
SOUTHWEST
ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLANNING AREA
AND SELECTED PLAN
LEGEND
— PLANNING AREA
gfggf URBAN SERVICE AREA
TRANSMISSION MAIN
CITRUS IRRIGATION TARGET AREA
'///////y. RIB SITES
-------
Federal funding will be requested for expanding and upgrading
the Orange County Sand Lake Road and City of Orlando McLeod Road
treatment facilities. Subregional systems for developing areas
south of the Sand Lake Road facility are planned to be served by
developer financed facilities to be owned and operated by Orange
County. The flows from within the Urban Service Area portion of
the 201 Planning Area will be transported to the two treatment
facilities by a system of existing upgraded and new interceptors.
A common 15.5 mile, 54-inch effluent transmission main will be
utilized after the junction of two individual transmission mains
from the two treatment facilities. Federal funding will be
requested for the transmission mains and all remaining facilities
which relate to effluent disposal.
The terminal point of the transmission main is the distribution
center located near the Lake County line in western Orange
County. Approximately 20 million gallons of renovated wastewater
will be stored at the distribution center and pumped, as needed,
to the citrus irrigation and rapid infiltration basin
distribution system. The distribution system will supply the
renovated wastewater, under pressure, to the grove owners
property line. Construction, operation and maintenance of all
required irrigation equipment and distribution piping on the
grove owners property will be the responsibility of the
individual grove owners.
The final sites selected for rapid infiltration basins are
depicted on Map IV-6. Less than 20 percent of the land area will
be used for actual basin construction. Reforestation of the
remaining site areas is planned in conjunction with retention of
existing productive citrus and vegetated areas. Landscaped
buffers are also planned in the immediate area of individual
basins for visual screening purposes.
Management and costs of the proposed collection and treatment
facilities will be the responsibility of Orange County and the
City of Orlando. Capital costs for jointly used facilities will
be shared equally by the entities in accordance with an
interlocal agreement dated July 28, 1983 between Orange County
and the City of Orlando. Operation and maintenance costs of the
joint facilities will be allocated to the entities in proportion
to their flow contributions. Increases of $8.50 and $4.50 per
month in the average single family residential service charges
are anticipated to be required for users in the County and City
systems, respectively.
PART E - BASIS FOR DECISION
The EPA Headquarters Advanced Treatment Task Force has documented
the need to upgrade the existing wastewater effluent discharges
to the Shingle Creek/Lake Tohopekaliga basin. Cost analysis
accomplished through the 201 Facilities Planning process
11
-------
indicated that land disposal options would be less costly to
implement on a twenty-year present worth basis than upgrading the
treatment levels and continuation of surface water discharge.
These cost analyses also indicated that four alternatives could
be considered as having essentially equal twenty-year present
worth costs. Of these four alternatives, the combined citrus
irrigation/rapid infiltration basin alternative was determined to
provide the greatest flexibility for disposal. This alternative
was also found to be the most environmentally acceptable
alternative. Treatment will be provided at the expanded and
upgraded Sand Lake Road and McLeod Road treatment facilities and
will consist of secondary treatment followed by filtration and
high level disinfection,suitable for irrigation with unrestricted
public access and human contact.
After the selection of this alternative, several project
modifications were incorporated into the design of the project to
mitigate the potentially significant impacts identified in this
EIS and at public meetings and hearings. These modifications
related to the location of the proposed disposal sites, control
of lake and groundwater level increases, disposal site
aesthetics, and loss of productive citrus areas.
Property owners adjacent to the originally proposed rapid
infiltration sites were opposed to these sites because of their
close proximity to their community. In addition, concern was
expressed that the proposed use of these sites would decrease the
value of their properties due to visual aesthetics and odors. As
a result of their concerns, the proposed disposal sites were
relocated to more acceptable locations, and a Reforestation Plan
developed. The Reforestation Plan provides for the retention of
existing naturally vegetated areas and productive citrus groves,
the reforestation of barren areas, and provision of vegetated
buffers around the individual basins. This is foreseen to
effectively mitigate the potential aesthetic and odor impacts by
enhancement of the existing vista.
Detailed geohydrologic modeling of the impacts of the proposed
rapid infiltration basins on groundwater and lake levels was
accomplished. This resulted in the establishment of an official
County policy regarding maximum acceptable lake level increases
for lakes adjacent to the disposal sites and a schedule of
remedial actions. Lake level increases to a point eighteen
inches below the 100-year flood level of the affected lakes was
established as the elevations at which remedial operational
procedures would commence. Evaluations of the results of the
refined model and proposed operational procedures indicate that
the impacts of concern can be effectively mitigated.
12
-------
The state and federal regulatory agencies have indicated their
concurrence with the EIS findings and the importance of the
project. Implementation of the project is expected by mid 1986.
13
-------
CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND ISSUES
-------
A. Background
The Environmental Impact Statement for Southwest Orange County,
Florida, is being prepared in order to address the impacts
associated with wastewater transmission, treatment and disposal
facilities proposed in the Southwest Orange County 201 Facilities
Plan. Participants in the project include Orange County, the
City of Orlando, the City of Edgewood, the City of Belle Isle and
the Town of Windermere.
The Southwest Orange County 201 Facilities Planning Area lies
entirely within Orange County, Florida. Map 1-1 shows the 201
Area and its location within Orange County. The 201 Planning
Area includes the western portion of the City of Orlando and
three other incorporated communities: the Town of Windermere and
the Cities of Belle Isle and Edgewood. The 201 Area extends west
to the Orange-Lake County line and south to the Orange-Osceola
County line. The Reedy Creek Improvement District has been
excluded from the study area because wastewater collection and
treatment for the district is provided by Reedy Creek Utilities,
Inc.
The climate of the 201 Planning Area is subtropical, with a mean
annual temperature of 72.5°F in Orlando. Rainfall is relatively
high, with an annual average of 50.27 inches. Most of the rain-
fall occurs during the summer months, typically as afternoon
thundershowers. Evapotranspiration is also relatively high in
the planning area. Annual lake evaporation averages 47 inches
which means that 93 percent of the average annual rainfall on
lakes is returned to the atmosphere.
The land encompassed by the 201 Area includes a wide range of
physical features. The western and northern portions of the
planning area are typical of central Florida with numerous lakes
interspersed among rolling hills. The soils are sandy and well-
drained, and much of the land is covered by citrus groves.
The eastern and southern portions of the 201 Area are more typi-
cal of Florida's coastal lowlands. The landscape consists of
broad open plains, pine flatwoods, and wetlands. The soils are
sandy but tend to be poorly drained. The open plains are gen-
erally used for cattle grazing. The wetlands areas consist
primarily of hardwood swamps. An extensive network of drainage
channels has been developed to lower the water table and remove
stormwater runoff in order to accommodate the development that
has occurred.
Water is one of the most important natural resources of central
Florida and southwest Orange County. Groundwater from the Flor-
idan aquifer is used for potable, agricultural, and industrial
1-1
-------
i
LEGEND
— PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY 201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY I J
SOUTHWEST
ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLANNING AREA
-------
water supplies. Surface waters provide a variety of recreational
opportunities. The drainage divide between the St. Johns River
and Kissimmee River basins crosses the 201 Area. The northern
part of the planning area lies within the St. Johns River basin
and includes large areas that have no surface outflow. Drainage
is to the self-contained lakes in the area or to groundwater.
The southern portion of the 201 Area drains south to the Kissim-
mee basin via Reedyr Shingle, or Boggy Creeks.
Southwest Orange County is one of the most rapidly developing
areas in Florida and the United States. Growth in the area has
been spurred by the development of tourist and manufacturing
industries. One of the major industries in the area is citrus
agriculture. However, the dominant factors in the area's growth
during the 1950's and 1960's were the development of the aero-
space industry at Cape Canaveral and the construction of the
Martin-Marietta plant in southwest Orange County. Tourism emer-
ged as a major industry in the late 1960's with the development
of Walt Disney World.
On May 20, 1980, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
adopted the Orange County Growth Management Policy. The Growth
Management Policy provides a management process that encourges
growth in highly developable areas corresponding to Orange Coun-
ty's ability to supply the necessary services. As a result of
the policy, Orange County's 1000 square miles were divided into
two major areas - the Urban Service Area and the Rural Service
Area.
Wastewater collection, treatment and disposal within the 201 Area
is accomplished by a combination of privately and publicly owned
systems. The privately owned systems include domestic sewage
treatment facilities and industrial waste treatment facilities.
The publicly owned facilities are operated by Orange County and
the City of Orlando. The City of Winter Park also owns and
operates a small collection system in the planning area. Map 1-2
shows the locations of the treatment facilities.
Orange County has two large central collection systems within the
201 Area. The Northwest Service Area collects wastewater from
the Pine Hills, Lake Lawne, and Orlo Vista areas and pumps it
into Orlando's McLeod Road System for treatment under a wholesale
agreement with Orlando. The Southwest System collects wastewater
from developed areas south and southwest of Orlando's McLeod Road
service area. This wastewater is treated at the County's Sand
Lake Road Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Sand Lake Road
facility is an activated sludge plant with a design capacity of
15 mgd. The plant presently discharges to Shingle Creek, and is
the only County facility which discharges to surface waters.
1-3
-------
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
LEGEND
• McLEOD ROAD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
¦ SANDLAKE ROAD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
GO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY 201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I MAP 1-2 1
-------
The City of Orlando Westerly Collection System serves essentially
all developed areas of the Southwest 201 Area within the Orlando
City limits. In addition, wastewater from Orange County's North-
west sewer system and the City of Winter Park's Asbury Park
service area are pumped to the City's Westerly system for treat-
ment. The wastewater from the Westerly Collection System is
treated at Orlando's McLeod Road Wastewater Treatment Facility.
The plant, which has a design capacity of 12 MGD, consists of a
complete-mix activated sludge system followed by trickling
filters for effluent polishing. The treated wastewater effluent
is discharged to Shingle Creek.
Lake Tohopekaliga is the eventual receiving body for the waters
of Shingle Creek. A great deal of attention has been focused on
the trophic condition of the lake and the impact of point source
discharges on the lake water quality. The Florida Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission (FG & FWFC) has concluded that because
of the deteriorating water quality in Lake Tohopekaliga, the lake
will not be capable of supporting the recreational sportfishery
at existing levels. FDER, as well as the Florida Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission, determined that high nutrient
loadings in Shingle Creek caused by wastewater treatment plant
effluent were contributing to the eutrophication of Lake
Tohopekaliga. In response to the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation's (FDER) "no discharge" requirement,
both the City and the County have agreed to eliminate their
discharges to Shingle Creek by 1988. A 201 Facilities Planning
Program was begun to provide quality wastewater collection,
treatment and disposal facilities in the planning area.
EPA determined that sufficient data were available to adequately
establish discharge constraints for Lake Tohopekaliga. The EPA
Headquarters Advanced Treatment Review Task Force evaluated the
lake's water quality and determined effluent requirements.
Further studies of water quality in Shingle Creek and Lake
Tohopekaliga as part of the 201/EIS program were not necessary.
B. Purpose
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Public Law
91-190, requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for "major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment." The purpose of
the impact statement is to ensure that environmental and social
factors are considered in addition to economic and technical
factors during the decision-making process. To that end, the
environmental impact statement is to present a detailed
description of the environmental impact of the proposed action,
any unavoidable adverse impacts that would occur if the action is
implemented, and alternatives to the proposed action.
In the Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS on the Southwest
Orange County 201 Plan, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
stated that the purpose of the study "is to ensure integration of
environmental and economic considerations at the earliest stage
1-5
-------
of facilities planning." In the Directive of work for this
project, EPA further stated that "resolution of the issues of
effluent disposal and user charges is required to avoid delay in
Step 2 funding and project implementation."
For these reasons, this EIS was prepared concurrently with the
201 Facilities Plan. The "piggy-back" EIS approach allowed the
environmental impacts of alternatives to be evaluated and
considered during the selection of the proposed action. This
approach helped avoid delays in project implementation after the
201 Plan was completed.
C. Major Issues
As stated previously, Southwest Orange County is one of the most
rapidly developing areas in Florida and in the U.S. Growth in
the area has been spurred by the development of the tourist and
manufacturing industries. The area is also attractive for
residential development around the lakes and in citrus groves.
In the Notice of Intent to prepare the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Southwest Orange County 201 Facilities Plan,
EPA stated that "major issues to be addressed include means of
effluent disposal, effects on area water resources, and the
environmental and economic impacts of secondary growth." Some
additional aspects of these major issues are discussed in the
following paragraphs.
The disposal of wastewater has become one of the key issues in
the 201/EIS project. With the ban on further discharge to
Shingle Creek, land application became the primary alternative
for wastewater disposal. Other alternatives which were
considered include ocean outfall, deep well injection in eastern
Orange County, and shallow well injection to the Floridan
aquifer.
Water is perhaps the most important natural resources of Central
Florida. Therefore, protection of the area's water resources is
of primary concern in evaluating wastewater disposal
alternatives. Residual pollutants in treated wastewater effluent
can affect the quality of surface water or groundwater unless
proper care is exercised in disposing of the wastewater. With
the emphasis on land application for wastewater disposal, the
potential impacts on groundwater quality had to be carefully
considered. However, treated wastewater effluent represents a
valuable resource, if properly managed. Effluents have been used
in some areas of the country, to recharge groundwater aquifers
and lakes, thereby replacing water withdrawn for water supplies
This possibility could be applicable in Orange County where low
rainfall and increased pumping have lowered the potentiometric
level of the Floridan aquifer during the past slvera years
Lake levels have also receeded and resulted in decreased
recreational usefulness of some lakes. ecreasea
1-6
-------
There is little doubt that additional sewage treatment capacity
would encourage growth in Southwest Orange County. New
development in western Orlando and southwest Orange County has
recently been limited by the availability of sewage treatment
capacity. Orlando's McLeod Road Wastewater Treatment Facility is
approaching its design capacity of 12 mgd. Connections to the
Orange County Sand Lake Road Wastewater Treatment Facility have
been limited under the agreement with the FDER and the Consent
Decree by EPA. The limitations on sewage treatment capacity has
resulted in increased pressure on the County and City to allow
the use of package wastewater treatment plants and septic tanks
in this part of the County. These practices could result in
unacceptable environmental and public health impacts when they
are not properly maintained.
Additional development in the Planning Area could result in
secondary environmental impacts, such as the conversion of
natural areas and unique agricultural areas to urban uses, and
increase the demand for community services and facilities in
Southwest Orange County. Increases in groundwater withdrawals
for water supply to support this growth could result in further
declines in groundwater and lake levels. Surface and groundwater
quality could also be affected. The socioeconomic environment,
including property values, could be impacted by any significant
impact to the water resources of the Planning Area. With the
desire of existing residents to maintain the present quality of
life in this part of Orange County, the secondary environmental
impacts of the growth to be accommodated by the proposed
facilities has been a major issue in this study.
1-7
-------
CHAPTER TWO
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
*r '
> i
to
—rm
-------
A. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the wastewater
management alternatives considered in the 201 planning process.
Also included are a summary of the wastewater flow projections
for the 201 Facilities Planning Area and a comparison of costs,
operability and implementability, as determined in the 201 Plan.
A summary of the environmental impacts evaluation performed for
these alternatives is provided in Chapter III.
Although a wide range of alternatives was considered for the 201
Planning Area, some existing constraints were present which
served to limit these alternatives. These constraints involved
Orange County's Growth Management Policy and the lack of
acceptable alternates for discharge to surface receiving waters.
The Growth Management Policy discourages urban service such as
centralized sewer service and, therefore, encourages on-lot
systems at low densities in the Rural Service Area. Surface
water discharge is a constraint because area lakes have very
limited assimilative capacity, and area stream flows approach
zero during the winter dry season. However, alternatives for the
continued surface discharge to Shingle Creek were evaluated.
Wastewater management alternatives that were evaluated in the 201
Plan included on-lot systems and regional or subregional
treatment/disposal facilities utilizing land application,
subsurface injection and discharge to Shingle Creek. Non-
structural wastewater management considerations included water
conservation, land use and development controls and optimum use
of existing facilities.
A "no federal action" alternative was also considered for the
Planning Area. This alternative represents the federal option to
provide no funding assistance for the construction of expanded
wastewater treatment capacity. No federal action would not
necessarily limit growth in the Planning Area because local
and/or private funding of wastewater facilities i,s not precluded
by this alternative.
The "no action" alternative, which would involve continued dis-
charge of wastewater by the Sand Lake Road and McLeod Road treat-
ment facilities to Shingle Creek at existing treatment levels is
considered unacceptable because it would result in an increased
rate of eutrophication of Lake Tohopekaliga. Therefore, the "no
action" alternative was not considered as a viable alternative
for the 201 Planning Area.
B. POPULATION, LAND USE AND WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
Projected wastewater flows for the Planning Area in the Year 2000
are generally a function of the projected population, land use
and per capita water use. These will be discussed below.
II-l
-------
B.l Population and Land Use
Population projections for the Planning Area were derived through
the input and involvement of various agencies The process of
nrolectincr population involved the use of state-derived
projections by county. These projections are utilized by the 208
Aaencv (the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council )
as control numbers to develop regional projections. This is
accomplished by city and county planning officials in association
with the 208 Agency.
There are 140 traffic zones, or portions of traffic zones, lo-
cated in the 201 Planning Area. A total of 122 of these traffic
zones are wholly or partially within the Urban Service Area. The
traffic zones and Urban Service Area boundary are shown on Map
II-l Existing and future land use projections for the 201
Planning Area are shown in Maps II-2 and II-3. These were
estimated and classified into residential, commercial and
industrial land uses.
Table A-l of Appendix A presents the 1980 and projected resident
and transient (tourist and seasonal) populations for traffic
zones in the Planning Area, in five-year increments, to the Year
2000. The resident population in the Planning Area is projected
•to increase from 181,542 in 1980 to 295,740 m the Year 2000.
Transient population is expected to increase from 25,945 to
69,211 during this period.
B.2 Wastewater Flows
Wastewater projections were accomplished using the population
projections and an estimated per capita wastewater generation
rate. Non-excessive infiltration/inflow and industrial flows
were added to base flow figures. Flow projections were developed
on an equivalent population basis. Equivalent population was
defined as the permanent residential population plus 80% of the
transient population. Contributions from domestic, commercial,
institutional and small industrial sources are accounted for in
the average daily base flow (ADBF) generation factors.
Allowances for significant industrial wastewater flows were
developed separately and added to the average daily base
wastewater flows. Industrial wastewater projections were broken
into three parts: (1) existing; (2) known planned increases-
and (3) unplanned increases. Unplanned increases were accounted
for by traffic zone using the greatest of either 5% of the sum of
the ADBF, I/X and known industrial flows, or 25% of the known
industrial flows in accordance with EPA procedures.
Total ADBF, I/I and industrial Year 2000 projected flows bv
traffic zone are provided in Table A-2 of Appendix A. Projections
for nine of the traffic zones were adjusted in the 201 Plan to
account for existing and committed growth in their areas because
existing flows were greater than the flows projected for the Year
2000. A total of 43.1 Billion gallons per day 'of wastewater from
II-2
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY MAYE8. SUDDERTH ft ETHEREDQE
uvLh
i
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
within the Urban Service Area portion of the 201 Planning Area is
anticipated to be generated in the Year 2000. In conformance with
County Growth Management Policies, this does not include any
existing or projected wastewater generated in the Rural Service
Area portion of the 201 Planning Area. Wastewater generated in
this area is to be treated and disposed of by on-lot or other
privately financed systems.
C. IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
Structural alternatives were developed for four major components
of wastewater management: (1) wastewater collection; (2) waste-
water treatment; (3) effluent disposal; and (4) sludge treat-
ment and disposal. Combinations of the components generated
several alternatives that were considered in the 201 Facilities
Plan. Many of these alternatives were eliminated from considera-
tion due to feasibility and economics. The alternatives that
were developed fully for possible implementation are described in
this section.
The wastewater collection system alternatives include service
areas, major pump stations and interceptors. Wastewater
treatment alternatives were developed to provide the required
effluent quality for each of the effluent disposal alternatives
because they are dependent on the effluent disposal alternative
being considered. Quantities and types of sludges generated by
wastewater treatment will vary depending on the treatment level
and process and, therefore, are also related to the effluent
disposal alternatives. The following discussion of structural
alternatives will begin with service areas/interceptors, followed
by effluent disposal alternatives, wastewater treatment
alternatives, and sludge treatment/disposal alternatives. The no
federal action alternative is discussed separately.
C.l Service Areas/Interceptors
The Urban Service Area portion of the 201 Planning Area was
divided into ten sub-areas to simplify the process of developing
alternative service area configurations. Rural Service Area
portions of the 201 Planning Area were not considered for the
provision of publicly owned wastewater collection systems.
Interceptor system alternatives were developed for each of the
four service area alternatives in the Draft 201 Alternatives
Analysis (October 1, 1982). These systems were screened based on
feasibility and costs to select an interceptor configuration for
each of the service area alternatives.
During the 201 alternatives screening process, it was decided
that the area south of the existing Sand Lake Road Wastewater
Treatment Facility (WWTF) service area would be served by
developer-built subregional plants because the flows from this
area would be from new growth. Based on these decisions, the
Sand Lake Road WWTF service area was split into four individual
service areas, with newly developing areas to be served by
developer-built subregional facilities, i.e. the Peppermill,
II-6
-------
Vistana and Cypress Walk subregional wastewater treatment
facilities. This and the existing Sand Lake Road and McLeod Road
facilities service area boundary served to constrain the Sand
Lake Road facility service area to the configuration shown on Map
II-4.
The Sand Lake Road service area and interceptor requirements are
the same for each service area/interceptor alternative. The
interceptor improvements are primarily to upgrade existing lines
to provide additional capacity. Parallel force mains in two
areas and modifications to six pumping stations were found to be
necessary to meet future flow requirements. The total projected
flow to the Sand Lake Road Treatment Facility would be
approximately 23 mgd.
Alternatives for serving the remaining portions of the Urban
Service Area involved use of the existing McLeod Road Water
Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) and a potential Northwesterly
Subregional treatment facility located west of the Clarcona area.
The most cost-effective interceptor configuration was determined
for each of the four service area alternatives.
For Service Area Alternative lr the wastewater from the area
generally north of Silver Star Road would be routed to the
Northwest Subregional Treatment Facility, which would be designed
for a projected flow of 5 mgd. The McLeod Road treatment
facility would be expanded for a projected Year 2000 flow of 16
mgd and would treat the wastewater from the area generally south
of Silver Star Road to the Sand Lake Road service area. Two
alternative interceptor routes were developed in the McLeod Road
service area for this service area configuration* as shown in
Maps II-5 and II-6.
For Service Area Alternative 2* the wastewater flow from the Pine
Hills-Orlo Vista area and the area around Lake Orlando would be
routed to the Northwest Subregional plant* which would be
designed for a projected Year 2000 flow of 10 mgd. The
wastewater from these areas is presently treated at the McLeod
Road facility. The flow from the remainder of the service area
would be routed to the McLeod Road facility* which would remain
at its existing capacity and treat a projected flow of 11 mgd.
This alternative is presented on Map II-7.
The interceptor system proposed for Service Area Alternative 3
would be similar to the previous alternative# except that the
wastewater flow from the area around Lake Orlando (formerly Lake
Wekiva) would be routed to the McLeod Road treatment facility.
The McLeod Road plant would be designed for a projected flow of
14 mgd while the Northwest plant would be designed for 7 mgd.
Except for the area around Lake Orlando* the interceptor system
tributary to the Northwest plant would be the same as for Service
Area Alternative 2. This alternative is illustrated on Map n-8.
For Service Area Alternative 4, all of the wastewater flow from
the northern portion of the 201 Area would be treated at the
II-7
-------
LEGEND
N
201 AREA BOUNDARY
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
PROPOSED GRAVITY MAIN
EXISTING LIFT STATION
PROPOSED LIFT STATION
EXISTING WWTP
PROPOSED WWTP
0 1/2 I
SCALE IN MILES
SERVICE AREA/INTERCEPTOR
RECOMMENOED IMPROVEMENTS
SAND LAKE ROAD WWTP AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY MAYES, 8UDDERTH ICTHEREDOE
UULD
-------
201 AREA BOUNDARY
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
PROPOSED GRAVITY MAIN
EXISTING LIFT STATION
PROPOSED LIFT STATION
EXISTING WWTP
PROPOSED WWTP
SERVICE AREA/INTERCEPTOR
ALTERNATIVE IAI a IBI
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES |j fl U fl
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOENCY
BY MAYES, SUDDERTH & ETHEREOQE
-------
l"\ \ / Ch
J]/
\/ M*r«i I ~• > i|J *—
o°. &V"«" J " j
201 AREA BOUNDARY
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
PROPOSED GRAVITY MAIN
EXISTING LIFT STATION
PROPOSED LIFT STATION
EXISTING WWTP
PROPOSED WWTP
SCALE< I IN.. I Ml.
SERVICE AREA/INTERCEPTOR
ALTERNATIVE IAI ft IB2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOENCY
BY MAYE8, 8U00ERTH 1 ETHEREpQE
uiiLn
-------
-------
201 AREA BOUNDARY
SERVICE AREA BOUNOARY
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
PROPOSED GRAVITY MAIN
EXISTING LIFT STATION
PROPOSED LIFT STATION
EXISTING WWTP
PROPOSED WWTP
SERVICE AREA/INTERCEPTOR
ALTERNATIVE 3AI ft 3BI
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATE*
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY MAYES. SUDDERTH & ETHEREDGE
raj
-------
McLeod Road plant, which would be designed for a projected flow
of 21 mgd. The Northwest Subregional plant would not be
constructed under this alternative, as shown on Map II-9 .
C.2 Wastewater Disposal
Four distinct categories of wastewater disposal options were
identified and considered in the development of the 201
Facilities Plan: (1) surface water discharge; (2) land
application; (3) groundwater injection and (4) ocean outfall.
Using these four categories, seven disposal alternatives were
chosen during the initial Phase 1 screening process of the
facilities planning program. These alternatives were developed
further and evaluated during Phase 2. The seven alternatives
within their respective disposal categories are summarized below.
Surface Water Discharge
The alternative of continued discharge to Shingle Creek
involved identification of acceptable discharge criteria
as described in the EPA Advanced Treatment (AT) Task
Force Evaluation. These EPA discharge options were
analyzed only from the standpoint of determining the EPA
funding level for the project because the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) will not
permit continued discharges to Shingle Creek. In 1981,
the County entered into a consent decree with the
U.S.E.P.A., et. al, to cease surface water discharge of
effluent to Shingle Creek on a schedule beginning in
1985, and resulting in zero discharge by March, 1988.
The City of Orlando entered into a negotiated schedule
with FDER, et. al, to cease surface water discharge of
effluent to Shingle Creek on a similar schedule.
The evaluation of alternatives for discharge to Shingle
Creek involved advanced treatment for total nitrogen and
total phosphorus control (TN«3 mg/1 and TP»0.2 mg/1) or
advanced treatment for total phosphorus control (TP«0.2
mg/1). If the present worth of zero discharge or newly
developed biological processes for removing both TN and
TP is greater than 115 percent of that for TP control to
0.2 mg/1, then only the cost for removal of TP would be
justified. An additional alternative identified for
evaluation by the AT review was a combination of land
treatment and Shingle Creek discharge; i.e. seasonal
agricultural reuse combined with advanced treatment and
discharge to Shingle Creek.
Land Application
Land application alternatives identified and considered
in the development of the 201 Plan included: (l) spray
irrigation using a cover crop; (2) spray irrigation on
citrus groves; and (3) rapid infiltration basins. The
11-13
-------
201 AREA BOUNDARY
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN
PROPOSED GRAVITY MAIN
EXISTING LIFT STATION
PROPOSED LIFT STATION
EXISTING WWTP
PROPOSED WWTP
SERVICE AREA/INTERCEPTOR
ALTERNATIVE NO. 4
2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
80UTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY 1
201 PLAN
PRBPARBD FOR THS UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOINOY
BY MAYBS, SUODBRTH I BTHBRBDOB
Ulld
-------
purchase of land for slow-rate spray irrigation was
eliminated from further consideration due to excessive
costs based on evaluations performed in the
Southwest Orange County Land Spreading Feasibility Report
of March, 1981. Spray irrigation on citrus groves and
rapid infiltration basins were determined to be the most
viable options for consideration.
(1) Citrus Irrigation
The citrus irrigation alternative would involve
distributing filtered, highly disinfected effluent to
citrus groves. Highly treated reclaimed wastewater may
be used on, over or under citrus trees if the citrus is
to be processed. For citrus sold as fresh fruit, only
under-tree systems would be allowed.
The effluent disposal system for the citrus irrigation
program would include a transmission system to carry the
effluent from the Sand Lake Road and McLeod Road
treatment facilities to a distribution center in west
Orange County. From the distribution center, the
effluent would be pumped to the citrus growers* property
lines for irrigation. A schematic diagram of this
alternative is provided in Map 11-10. The distribution
system would not provide piping for on-farm irrigation
systems. The growers' existing irrigation systems would
be utilized for application of the reclaimed effluent.
The average irrigation demand for citrus groves has been
estimated at approximately one inch per week. During
certain times of the year, when irrigation demands are
low, storage areas for holding approximately 30 to 90
days of flow may be needed to contain excess effluent.
During other periods, the irrigation demand may exceed
one inch per week.
The required treatment level for citrus irrigation is
secondary treatment for BOD, suspended solids removal to
5 mg/1, and high level disinfection.
(2) Rapid Infiltration
This alternative would utilize land application via
rapid infiltration basins (RIBs). Rapid infili-r-*< ««
basins (RIBs) are high rate systems which
alternately wetted and allowed to drv.
loadings of 20 to 400 feet per year have been used on
other rapid infiltration basins. However, the fdfr
not allow rates in excess of 9 inches per dfv £ I
gallons per day per square foot). Wetting and drv?««
cycles are used in RIB operation to help maintain Ihl
infiltration capacity of the soils. Occasional
is also required to restore the infiltration }ilag5
the surface layer soils. This land applicationmethld
H-15
-------
-------
can provide a relatively high degree of effluent
renovation with proper site conditions and careful
operation.
The 201 evaluation of site specific soils identified a
total of 4,260 acres for RIBs and a total estimated
effluent capacity of approximately 43.1 mgd. Sites
identified for RIBs in the alternatives evaluation
process are depicted on Map 11-11. The sites considered
in the alternatives evaluation process were modified
after the evaluation of alternatives. This and the
following chapter evaluates the originally proposed
sites. Treatment levels required for RIB disposal were
set by the FDER and are identical to those of the citras
irrigation alternative.
(3) Combined Citrus Irrigation - Rapid
Infiltration
These alternatives were combined so as to utilize the
benefits of citrus irrigation while providing for
variations in irrigation needs. The rapid infiltration
basins would eliminate the need for surface storage
reservoirs. In addition, the amount of land required
for rapid infiltration basins would be significantly
reduced. This alternative illustrated in Map 11-12
would provide greater flexibility than either of the
individual alternatives. The required treatment level
would be identical to those of the individual disposal
alternatives.
Groundwater Injection
(1) Deep Well Injection
Deep well injection entails the pumping of treated
wastewater into nonpotable aquifer zones havinq a total
dissolved solids content greater than 10,000 mo/l a
deep test well was drilled in 1977 to a total deDth of
6,193 feet near the Sand Lake Road WWTF to invefiHfl»ta
the viability of deep well injection. This test well
terminated in dense basement rock. Subsequent testina
revealed that the permeability of deep potential
injection zones (containing saline water) was low and
the zones were highly susceptible to plugging. The' deeD
well disposal of wastewater within the 201 Area was
therefore, determined to be uneconomical due to the hiah
pressures required. Further analysis outside the 201
Area led to the selection of two potential areas located
approximately forty miles east and sixty miles southMaf
of the Sand Lake Road WWTF, in Brevard and Indian Rive
Counties, respectively. The required level of treai-mon*
would be secondary treatment. Cffienc
(2) Groundwater Conservation
11-17
-------
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE UNITED 8TATE8
ENVIRONMENTAL protection aoency
BY MAYES. SUDDERTH A ETHEREOGE
Scale in miles
COMBINED
CITRUS IRRIGATION/
RAPID INFILTRATION
ALTERNATIVE
LEGEND
% Wastewater Treatment Plant
CJ Rapid Infiltration Site
0 Distribution Center
Potential Transmission Route
-------
Shallow well injection of highly treated wastewater into
the potable Floridan aquifer was also considered in the
201 Plan under the Groundwater Conservation Program
(GCP). In Orange County, the Floridan aquifer generally
consists of two zones. The lower zone is the primary
producing zone where the major water supply wells obtain
their supply. About 400 existing storm water drainage
and lake level control wells discharge into the upper
zone of the aquifer. This zone was selected as the
receiving zone for this alternative.
Existing data and regulations associated with the
discharge of highly treated effluent into the
groundwater were reviewed extensively. Some of the
existing data evaluated included hydrogeologic features,
water quality, existing drainage and supply well
samples. Sampling and testing programs were performed
on existing wastewater influent and effluent, as well as
in the lower and upper zones of the aquifer. Unit
treatment processes and potential treatment methods were
analyzed for cost effectiveness.
Preliminary design criteria for the injection wells
included; a linear well configuration; consideration of
water table buildup from adjacent wells; maximum upper
zone pressure buildup of 20 feet of water; maximum water
table elevation buildup of 15 feet; flow equalization at
the treatment plant for constant pumping rate
capabilities; well spacing of 1,000 feet; and an
allowance of 100 feet of controlled area surrounding
each well (i.e. a wellfield 200 feet wide). Total
wellfield area required was estimated to be
approximately 103 to 112 acres. The wellfields would be
located as close as possible to the treatment facilities
in order to minimize water transmission costs. The
potential injection zones for this alternative are shown
on Map 11-13. Advanced treatment to meet primary and
secondary drinking water standards would be the required
treatment level for this alternative.
Ocean Outfall
Construction of an ocean outfall, directing effluent
into the Atlantic Ocean, would involve a 68 mile
pipeline with pipe sizes ranging from 66 to 108 inches.
This alternative was eliminated following the
preliminary analysis due to relatively high costs and
complex implementation issues resulting from the wide
variation in flow and correspondingly large pipe sizes.
c* 3 Wastewater Treatment Facility Options
There were three wastewater treatment facilities evaluated for
the Southwest Orange County 201 Facility Plan. The Sand Lake
11-20
-------
GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION
ALTERNATIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY MAYES, SUDDERTH & ETHEREDQE
UXd
-------
Road Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) is situated east of
Interstate 4 on Sand Lake Road adjacent to the Martin-Marietta
industrial complex. The McLeod Road Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF) is located to the east of State Road 435 and
south of McLeod Road. The proposed Northwest Subregional WWTF
was to be located west of the Clarcona area. Proposed developer-
built subregional facilities will be located south of the Sand
Lake Road WWTF service area.
Wastewater treatment alternatives were developed for each of the
feasible combined service area/interceptor and wastewater
disposal options. Five basic treatment levels were considered:
(1) secondary; (2) secondary followed by filtration and high
level disinfection (3) secondary with nitrification,
denitrification and phosphorus removal to 0.2 mg/; (4) secondary
with phosphorus removal to 0.2 mg/1; and (5) advanced treatment.
These treatment levels are related to the method of disposal and
are included in the summaries of each of the disposal
alternatives.
Wastewater treatment unit process alternatives were developed for
each of the above mentioned treatment levels. The least cost
treatment alternative was selected from a present worth analysis
for each effluent requirement.
C.4 Sludge Treatment/Disposal
The amount of solids produced by each of the alternatives asso-
ciated with the Sand Lake Road, McLeod Road and Northwest Sub-
regional facilities are detailed in Table II-l. Depending on the
wastewater treatment process selected, the sludge will be primary
plus either biological and/or chemical. Chemical sludges would be
produced only with those alternatives associated with surface
water discharge because of the lime treatment required to remove
phosphorus. Sludge process alternatives evaluated include a
combination of thickening, stabilization, conditioning %nd
dewatering.
The least cost sludge processing method for wastewater treatment
alternatives at the Sand Lake Road and Northwest facilities is
centrifuge thickening of the biological waste activated sludge
followed by anaerobic digestion and dewatering by a belt filter
press. The least cost method for the lime sludge would be
gravity thickening followed by vacuum filter dewatering.
The least cost organic sludge processing method for the McLeod
Road WPCF would depend on its design flow. For design flows of
15.5 mgd and 20.5 mgd, gravity thickening of primary sludge,
centrifuge thickening of secondary sludge, anaerobic digestion of
thickened sludges and dewatering of digested sludge using a belt
filter press would be the preferred treatment train. At flows of
10.9 mgd and 13.7 mgd, the least cost processing method would be
centrifuge thickening of secondary sludge and dewatering of
digested sludge using belt filters. For inorganic sludge, the
least cost method for all flows includes sludge storage and
11-22
-------
TABLE Il-t
QUANTITY OF SOLIDS PRODUCED AT PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITIES
LIQUID TREATICXT PBOCESS LEW. SAW LAKE ROAD WTF
Secondary 46,000
Secondary ~ Filtration 47,050
Secondary «/Nitrification/
Denitrification + P (0.2 «o/l> 136,000
Secondary * P (1.8 a/1) 176,200
Advanced Treatmit 34,000
HCLEOD ROAD UPCF
S.A.Alt. 1 S. A. Alt.2 S. A. Alt. 3
(15.5 nd) 111.9 id) (13.7 aod)
NORTHWEST SUBflEGIONAL UUTF
38,
38,800
21,1
21,«
24,SN
24,500
S.A.Alt.4
120.5 end)
50,900
50,900
S.A.Alt.1 S.A.Alt.2
I 5.0 wdl ( 6.8 rod!
10.000
10,200
13, £00
13,900
S. A. Alt.3
( 9.6 nd)
19,200
19.650
133.200
90,200
104,400
174,800
29,550
40,200
57,750
127,400
86,700
101,400
168,500
38,300
52,100
73,500
43,600
23,000
26.000
57,200
7,400
10,000
14,200
Least cost alternatives for specified levels of solids nrocessiiu/disposal (all quantities in lbs. dry solids/day).
2
Quantity of solids oroduced at the Sard Lake Road UUTF is the saae for all service area alternatives.
3
Service Area alternative.
Sown: So«th«est Oranae Coenty. Florida
201 Facilities Plan, Draft; October, 1983;
Tables 5-5,5-4,5-7
11-23
-------
dewatering by vacuum filtration.
Several sludge disposal options were considered: (1) landfill;
(2) incineration/landfill; (3) co-incineration/landfill; (4)
landspread; (5) heat dry/market; and (6) compost/market. Of
these, landfill at the Orange County Model Sanitary Landfill was
chosen as the least cost method.
C.5 On-Lot Treatment/Disposal Alternatives
Several alternatives were considered for on-site and small system
treatment methods. These include (1) septic tanks and drain
fields; (2) intermittent sand filters; (3) aerobic treatment
units; (4) disinfection units; and (5) wastewater segregation
and recycle systems.
The septic tank option was the only alternative evaluated in
detail in the 201 Plan. This was because septic tank systems are
widely used, have cost advantages over other on-lot systems, and
are traditionally accepted in the area. It was determined that up
to 2.3 mgd of the projected wastewater flow from the Urban
Service Area could be treated by septic tanks. This was based on
serving low density residential development located in suitable
soil conditions within the Urban Service Area. The remaining
wastewater flows in the Urban Service Area would be collected,
treated and disposed of via centralized systems. Treatment and
disposal would be accomplished using the combined citrus
irrigation/rapid infiltration alternative.
C.6 No Federal Action Alternative
The no federal action alternative would involve the use of septic
tanks and locally funded subregional treatment facilities to
treat the projected wastewater flow in excess of the existing
design capacities at the Sand Lake Road and McLeod Road treat'ment
facilities. The combined citrus irrigation/rapid infiltration
alternative would be used for disposal of the effluent from the
Sand Lake Road, McLeod Road and subregional treatment facilities.
In this alternative, all of the proposed improvements would be
funded locally with no federal grant participation.
Septic tanks would be used for wastewater disposal for projected
low density residential development in the Urban Service Area. A
total of 12,169 new septic tank systems were considered feasible
in the Urban Service Area. The areas chosen were based on soils
with high or medium potential for septic systems, as well as the
distance from a centralized collection system. Approximately 2.3
mgd of the projected Year 2000 wastewater flow could be
accommodated by septic tanks. The remainder of the flow would be
collected and treated at the existing treatment plants or at the
new subregional treatment facilities.
11-24
-------
The Sand Lake Road and McLeod Road treatment facilities would be
allowed to reach their existing flow capacities of 15 and 13 mgd,
respectively. Both plants would provide secondary treatment
followed by filtration and high level disinfection. The
effluent would be pumped through a common transmission line to
the distribution center in west Orange County, as proposed for
the combined citrus irrigation/rapid infiltration alternative.
The Northwest Subregional Treatment Facility would be constructed
to provide secondary treatment plus filtration and high level
disinfection for a design flow of 6 mgd, and the effluent would
be disposed of by rapid infiltration in the vicinity of the
facility. A subregional treatment facility would be constructed
at the site of the existing Orangewood Pumping Station, south of
the Sand Lake Road facility, to provide a similar treatment level
for a design flow of 7 mgd. The effluent would be pumped through
an existing force main to the Sand Lake Road WWTF where it would
be repumped along with the Sand Lake Road Plant effluent to west
Orange County for disposal by citrus irrigation/rapid
infiltration.
Approximately 25 mgd of the filtered and disinfected effluent
from the Sand Lake Road, McLeod Road and Orangewood treatment
facilities would be routed to the citrus irrigation distribution
system, as proposed for the combined citrus irrigation/rapid
infiltration alternative. The remainder of the effluent (about
10 mgd) would be disposed of by rapid infiltration basins located
in the western part of Orange County.
D. IDENTIFICATION OF AVAILABLE NONSTRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
Nonstructural alternatives include land use and development
controls, water conservation measures, and changes in
operational practices of the existing treatment plants.
D.l Land Use and Development Controls
The Orange County Growth Management Policy was developed to guide
growth in the unincorporated areas of the County. One of the
most important aspects of this growth guide was the designation
of the Urban and Rural Service Areas. The County adopted
policies regarding the level of public services which would be
provided within these geographical areas. Services normally
provided to urban areas, such as centralized water supply and
sewer services, are to be provided only in the Urban Service
Area. Development in the Rural Service Area would rely on
individual systems or developer financed and operated systems
The policy's intent is to support the Land Use Policy Guide which
advocates encouraging generally high density development in the
Urban Service Area while discouraging high density develooment in
the Rural Service Area. Minimizing the costs of providing urban
services is the goal of this policy.
11-25
-------
Based on the policies and goals of the Orange County Growth
Management Policy, the Southwest Orange County 201 Facilities
Plan was developed to serve only the Urban Service Area portion
of the 201 Planning Area. The Rural Service Area would not be
provided publicly-owned centralized sewer service.
This nonstructural alternative is an integral component of the
entire 201 Facilities Planning process.
In addition to the above, the Orange County Growth Management
Policy contains policies which have as their goal the orderly
extension of public services to undeveloped portions of the Urban
Service Area. These policies include provisions for the
development of 5-year capital improvements plans for the
expansion of water and sewer systems. Development which occurs
outside of the planned system expansions requires constructing
and financing interim facilities, or assisting in the financing
of system extensions which are not included in the 5-year capital
improvements plan. Implementation of these policies minimizes
the economic impact to the County and serves to effectively guide
growth.
D.2 Water Conservation Measures
In Orange County, it is estimated that water conservation meas-
ures could reduce wastewater flows by 2 to 3 mgd, with the major-
ity of the reduction coming from residential users in new homes.
In the City of Orlando, the estimated reduction in flow could be
750,000 gallons, with 500,000 gallons coming from residential
users in new homes and 250,000 gallons coming from industrial
users. Each new home could utilize limiting flow shower heads,
faucet aerators, and toilet volume displacement. Reduction in
wastewater due to retrofitting in existing homes is considered
insignificant. The majority of the wastewater coming from the
industries in the City of Orlando consists of process, cooling
and boiler feed water. The 250,000 gallon reduction in'flow
occurs by diverting the essentially unpolluted cooling and boiler
feed water discharges to storm sewers. This method may not be
cost-effective due to the extensive piping modifications and
possible cooling pond requirements. An alternative to diversion
is recycling and reuse of the cooling and boiler feed system
water. The implementation of this alternative has the advantage
of reducing industrial water requirements, resulting in lower
operating costs.
D.3 Optimum Use of Existing Wastewater Facilities
Various nonstructural alternatives were evaluated in the 201 Plan
for each of the existing treatment plants. All of the treatment
Plant alternatives considered utilize the existing treatment
facilities. The 201 Plan evaluated modifications that would
utilize the existing treatment units as much as possible. The
purpose of these modifications was to reduce costs by making
optimum use of the existing facilities. In addition to the
11-26
-------
above, the proposed elimination of excessive infiltration and
inflow into the existing collection systems will make it possible
to make optimum use of capacities in existing collector and
interceptor sewers, and reduce hydraulic loadings to the
treatment facilities.
E. COST EVALUATION
E.l Methodology
The four service area/interceptor alternatives were combined with
treatment (liquid and solids) and effluent disposal alternatives
into 28 complete systems. Table II-2 provides the present worth
costs of the 28 systems using capital, operation, maintenance and
replacement costs. The present worth analysis is assumed to be
sensitive to within 10%. Therefore, alternatives with a present
worth within 10% of the least cost alternative are considered to
have equivalent costs.
E.2 Alternative Costs
A present worth analysis of the 28 alternative systems yielded
eight combined systems within 10% of the least cost alternative.
These eight systems are listed in Table II-3. The alternatives
consist of either the two or three plant option, with effluent
disposal via rapid infiltration basins or combined citrus
irrigation/rapid infiltration basins.
The present worth cost of the septic tank and small community
systems alternative is detailed in Table II-4. Table II-5
depicts the present worth analysis of the no federal action
alternative. Individual on-site and small community systems were
determined to be less cost-effective than the selected
alternative.
F. OPERABILITY/IMPLEMENTABILITY EVALUATION
Operability addresses the ease of operating a particular system.
Items considered in the evaluation are special control systems,
number of operations, personnel and sophisticated treatment
systems. Implementation refers to the ability of governmental
agencies and other affected parties to agree upon and implement
the selected alternative.
The 201 Draft Alternative Analysis (October 1, 1982) evaluates
the rapid infiltration and combined citrus irrigation-rapid
infiltration methods using two plant and three plant
alternatives. This evaluation is provided in Table II-6 In
addition to the above criteria, reliability and flexibility are
also taken into consideration. These factors consider how
dependable an alternative is in maintaining treatment and
disposal objectives, and how flexible it is with regard to
11-27
-------
TABLE H-2*
ALTERNATIVES COST ANALYSIS
(MILLION DOLLARS)
COLLECTION COSTS
TREATMENT/SLUDGE COSTS
DISPOSAL COSTS
TOTAL
MCOOMAD
SM9URIMM
ii—rrmwii
TOTAL
wdcoo roao
SAND UKt ROAO
SUMCOONAL
TOTAL
TW
UcLEOO MOAD
Sand lake aoao
SUOREClONAt
TOTAL
TOTAL
ALT.
COSTS
a#.
OM |
p.w.
Ill
o».
Oto
P.W.
It!
CJ#.
0AM
P.w.
IV
CAP.
0AM
W*.
Ill
a>
CAP
OAM |
p.w.
in
c~l
OAM
p.w.
ni
cap.
oam : p.w.
" it)
c"
OAM
».w.
(11
CAP.
OAM
P.W.
PI
CAP.
OAM P.W.
Itl
CAK
OAM
P.W.
P»
CAP.
OAM
P.W.
ID
CAP.
OAM
P.W.
(1)
IIM
IN
U.M
IL04
2©2
».M
.4«| IS.M
M42
OOP
f
tlOSO
2.4*
127 74
t A
«7.M
6 76
*
•
t *
¦IS*
US
!)W
IL04
2 02
SOM
tjm
.40 { IS.M
k««
>«
MA2
1
TS.S3
1 09
64 46
to
ISO 61
S 99
*4 09
*
m.
1
KM
L«4
nn
IT.S4
23.
4132
M.4I
37 ' 17.30
4S.SS
4. At
1 .
60 S3
ITS
7009
1C
I3I.SO
M M
«e 76
ta ••
10.44
ITS
»«
• «
.40; O.M
30.27
3.30
AL7S
1 ^
TOO?
to
1
ta
36
nn
IM
30 1
&»?
as«
34
MU
»««
MO!
/•.i.
9
I2S.M
S.99
171.35
i
c
S0S4
ssso
4S.O
—
00.70
17 JS
LM ! SLM
112 AO
DM
2AS4
wv*a
•V*
0
0
o
0
O
0
~
-
-
o
o
0
IE
130.24
11.47
24135
as
226
1 so
•S I •
f
STM
SSS|T*4»
39.63
4-SS
63.70
17.26
I3S : 2&7S
HiO
S3t
«2.4«
una
m
0
o
0
0
O
o
-
—
-
O
o
0
\f
11934
962
211.47
i
3631
S.79
1171
SS 72
M«i
23«i4«.n
IISOS
#6 *271 OS
09
22 94
S SS
4T3S
2 37
34
4-35
2S3S
231
si.ro
10
IM 94
1
t
I
1
1
1
1
i -• •• •
:''x i • •
= i
,
1
tJO
AO
90O
K04
tot
MU
30 ( ILK
2737
3.90
M4
no so
249
I2T74
2*
149.43
630
22* 22
I
1
i
M.M
WCU.
*
!
2J0
930
no4
MAS
30 2I3C
2737
3.W
IU#D
m.
•
71.10
u,V
MAO
163 OO
'
1 ;
*•
•104
.
Ui
e*i
1734
2.SI
4162
IT«
l.M 213
4130
43C
•&J4
AO 09 | 130
2C
I323S
7^5
I
»
191.33
*
tN
1ST
Ml
37
SOM
39
S4«4
2J0
30
« 00
«.44
ITS
M.C
KBJ
MO 2134
2737
337
SIM
t
un
230
0063
20
12720 6.14
174 33
2
IMS
• »
t
E
31.76 1 154
u.«
4SiS
4SC
0079
27.7T
27* S«.4«
04«C
D3*
200S7
*m*ct
K-n
0
0
O
o
o
0
-
-
_
0
O
0
2E
SS42
1130 24401
| M
!«**:
*3 '
4S.I
f
22 SI
»«
4647
SMS
4.SS
0170
29-iS
2A2 4»»
«.SI
»3
•030
uv*a
w\
0
0
0
o
0
0
-
-
-
o
0
o
tf
122.27
930
214.94
(mco ,
, MCO
2130
4JT
¦ C1JS
53.^2
• 47
129S0
»»
4.48 m.*
1*430
I7.«2
27S04
OCF
1 I -
20.6A
2.31
4232
«»
1.43
2S.04
2«S
S2.4S
2C
I4S.M
1
J I *
J
i';xV
; I:,;.-.'
i i
•• '
. i
\ }
SJS
.M
: s.43
tL04
: 2.02
SOM
,
AS < lf «
20 SI
s.cs
AS.Si
o
: •
l«50
2.49
12774
SA
6.01
«4 4»
—
«ai.
i i
1
U)
; &4S
M.04
tot
U4
33 I7«
2«3l
S33
AS SI
1 !
7U2S
IJO
M4t
12907
i
•n.
(
!
nn
LIS
1734
231
; 41.62
M.IS
37 22OS
42.24
431
OCJI
7131
SC
13179
'
! i
730
VST
*67
1 **
: it*s
I 39
VN
M34 : AS 17.*
17.74
S34
Sltt
: " .
4A.S
2.0
7TM
I2SJ0
16931
MO
« *
fx.
! i
so
i
S
SMT
4J4
[nsr
4&.IS ' 430
M7S
22 JS
j 23 4234
0C32 «3t |2OA0
mm
0
0
0
o
0
0
-
-
-
O
O
0
X
IS6JS
...»
|24376
ai
su
i
i «3
4X1
r
29JI
M
!>»*»
3939
; 433
•170
223*
| 133:37.13
M3S
032 |m0l70
una
m
0
o
0
0
°
0
—
-
-
o
0
0
12036
u
21334
MCA
us{tuo
SS72
i e.47
I2*3«
SOjCS
! S32.A2 79
• ItM
17 04
20S40
i
*
M-t-
UM
*.42
«S33
S3S
2S.SS
231
S233
JfT M
2
sis
j
s
27. M
. ICS
Dfff
UOlSO
2.49
127.74
4A
671
2*6.70
S2J4
JU.M
f
Mi
KlOO
ttM
H04 | US
2730
3AS
Mtm
74.00
10)
7130
40
12730
S3l
«024
*
IM
JO.M
•n.
ItM
1ST
1734
>31
4L02
4000
4.40
•274
S73I
174
MCO
4C
ISO 13
1
3
41*
141
044
¦» jsuo
2C33
330
9432
70.33
2j04
00S7
1030
m
SAT
_
_
_
SS34
3T
hm
****
/•X
C
CSjOS
ta
ass*
4SIS
'*
0079
-
10034
0.77
212.41
uv*a
J4
0
M
o
0
0
_
_
-
J4
0
3
4E
13134
itl34
!230M
«0l9
tt«
411
r
4«J}
4J»
H41
IMS
«sn
-
M30
032
17*31
una
M
J4
0
»
o
0
0
-
-
J4
0
3
4f
NL70
>39
I0S26
MM
MCO
AM
S372
—
10037
IS 41
24.43
204
SO>4
.
24.4S
244
9174
4G
199 24
23 64
32932
*
*
1' "
*" i -
•
wi«-
*4
i
wiu MMm«eRMMaMaMCOMTfnsauM(«ui
Bium ^ wowmw cm
A SCCOWMT OM.r(BC(r c
a UCMMmrONLTlRII MSfOSAL) f
c KCOWtfT «nLTKATlON (CrTIIUS MtPOMl) 0
• MCMOMT »/ MINFICTXW AT 0fSTJIIOur*Q« S'TC
(CITNVS/MI DitfOIAll
KtcwmoN
seconoaat « wTMncATiONyocMmvcATtoN - «o.« (surface oischarce)
SCCONOAAY . *0.2) ISUNflCC DIICNIKC OUf«$*l)
«cr • A0VANCSO WASTEWATER TREATMENT -IMOUROwATER DISPOSAL)
* Ssarc*: lartlMtt Oraag* Co*fy 201 Fact I It)** Plaa,
¦kvft Utmatlim Octokar, isn Tabl* »-l.
11-28
-------
TABLE 11-3 *
LEAST COST WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL OPTIONS
Design Flow (MGD)
Effluent
McLeod Road Sand Lake NW Sub- Disposal
Alt. No. WPCF Rd. WWTF reg.WWTF Method
4B 20.5 22.6 0 Rapid In-
filtration
Basins
2B 10.9 22.6 9.6 Rapid In-
filtration
Basins
3B 13.7 22.6 6.8 Rapid In-
filtration
Basins
4D 20.5 22.6 0 Citrus/Rapid
Infiltration
Basins
IB 15.5 22.6 5.0 Rapid In-
filtration
Basins
30 13.7 22.6 6.8 Citrus/Rapid
Infiltration
Basins
ID 15.5 22.6 5.0 C1trus/Rap1d
Infiltration
Basins
20 10.9 22.6 9.6 C1trus/Rap1d
Infiltration
Basins
H-29
~Source: Southwest Orange County, Florida
201 Facilities Plan, Draft; October,1983; Table 5-8.
-------
TABLE 11-4*
SEPTIC TANK AND SMALL COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ALTERNATIVE
COSTS (Million $)
ITEM
CAPITAL
O&M
P.W.
Transmission
22.84
0.57
25.94
Treatment/Sludge
McLeod Road (19.2 mgd)
Sand Lake Road (21.6 mgd)
14.43
10.12
1.26
1.66
26.39
26.40
Disposal
70.33
2.08
80.57
Septic Tank System
7.30
(0.15)
5.78
125.02
5.42
165.08
Note : (1) Septic tank capital cost is the difference in cost
for a septic tank system versus a collection system.
The O&M cost reflects a $12/year/unit savings for
septic tank system versus collection systems. Col-
lection system O&M costs were taken from the Asbury
Park I/I Report and are $0.3188/1000 gallons. Based
on 70 gpcd and 2.7 people/unit, the collection system
O&M cost is $22/unit/year. Septic tank 0&M costs are
$10/unit/year resulting in a net 0&M savings at
$12/unit/year.
*Source: Southwest Orange County 201 Facilities Plan,
Draft Alternatives Analysis; October, 1982; Table 10-3.
11-30
-------
TABLE 11-5*
FEDERAL NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
COSTS (Million $)
ITEM
CAPITAL
O&M
P.W.
Transmission
29.31
0.69
33.16
Treatment/Sludge
McLeod Road (13 mgd)
Sand Lake Road (15 mgd)
N.W. Subregional (6 mgd)
S.W. Subregional (7 mgd)
3.98
5.61
10.44
10.89
0.74
1.17
0.63
0.59
11.29
17.30
16.20
16.18
Disposal
64.01
2.04
75.19
Septic Tank System
7.30
(0.15) (1)
5.78
124.24
5.71
175.10
Note : (1) Septic tank capital cost is the difference in cost
for a septic tank system versus a collection system.
The O&M cost reflects a t'12/year/unit savings for
septic tank system versus collection systems. Col-
lection system O&M costs were taken from the Asbury
Park I/I Report and are $0.3188/1000 gallons. Based
on 70 gpcd and 2.7 people/unit, the collection system
0&M cost is $22/unit/year. Septic tank O&M costs are
$10/unit/year resulting in a net O&M savings at
$12/unit/year.
~Source: Southwest Orange County 201 Facilities Plan,
Draft Alternatives Analysis; October, 1982; Table 10-4.
11-31
-------
TABLE II-6
OPERABILITY/IMPLEMENTABILITY ANALYSIS*
TREATMENT CONFIGURATION DISPOSAL
TWO THREE RAPID CITRUS IRRIGATION/
FACTOR PLANT PLANT INFILTRATION RAPID INFILTRATION
Implementation
Capability
+1
-1
-1
+1
Operability
+1
0
+1
0
Reliability
0
+1
0
0
Flexibility
_0
+1
_0
+1
TOTAL
+2
+1
0
+2
Positive Factor +1
Non-Significant 0
Negative Factor -1
Source: Southwest Orange County 201 Facilities Plan,
Draft Alternatives; October, 1982; Tables 9-3,9-4.
H-32
-------
changes in wastewater characteristics and flows, ability to
accommodate less than expected performance, and the ability to
expand using different disposal systems.
Based on the operability/implementability evaluation, the two-
plant combined citrus irrigation/rapid irrigation alternative was
selected as the preferred alternative. This alternative was
determined to have the advantages of the individual disposal
methods, plus a high degree of flexibility.
11-33
-------
CHAPTER THREE
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES AND
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
-------
A. INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains a discussion of the environmental impacts
associated with the 201 wastewater management alternatives in
order to identify critical differences that might lead to the
selection of one alternative over another. The environmental
impacts are evaluated with respect to each category of the
natural and man-made environment to determine whether any
alternatives may have impacts that are environmentally
unacceptable or "over-riding".
B. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF
THE ALTERNATIVES
B.1 Surface Water Resources
B.l.a Background
There are two major river basins draining the Southwest Orange
County 201 Planning Area. These are the Kissimmee and St. Johns
River Basins. The basin divide generally occurs at or south of
the State Road 50 corridor which traverses the county in the
east-west direction.
Within the 201 Area, the St. Johns River Basin includes the Big
Wekiva, Little Wekiva, Lake Apopka and a small portion of the
Howell Branch drainage basins. The St. Johns River drains north
toward Jacksonville where the river discharges to the Atlantic
Ocean, within the Planning Area, most surface drainage in the
St. John's Basin is generally to the groundwater aquifer and/or
land locked lakes.
The south half of the 201 Area is within the Kissimmee River
Basin and includes the Reedy Creek, Cypress Creek, Bonnet Creek,
Shingle Creek, and Boggy Creek drainage basins. Surface Hater
within the Kissimmee Basin drains to the south and eventually
discharges to the Atlantic Ocean via a system of drainage canals
in South Florida. Map III-l shows the surface water drainage
basins in Orange County.
There are 34 land locked lakes in the 201 Planning Area. These
lakes have neither surface inflow nor outflow and rely on
rainfall or groundwater inflow to replenish the water lost by
evaporation.
Surface water quality within the 201 Area has been significantly
degraded by stormwater runoff from urban areas and by discharges
of wastewater effluent. The additional loadings of organic
materials and nutrients to surface waters within the 201 Area has
resulted in low dissolved oxygen levels in streams and
accelerated eutrophication of lakes. These problems are
particularly severe in the Shingle Creek basin. Extensive
III-l
-------
LITTLE yi
WEKIWA rj
HOWELL
BRANCH
BIG
WEKIWA
- ,
| Tl
LAKE
APOPKA
SHINGLE
CREEK
DRAINAGE BASINS
LEGEND
— BASIN BOUNDARY
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY 201 PLAN
-------
channelization has reduced the natural assimilative capacity of
Shingle Creek, further aggravating the water quality problems
caused by urban runoff and wastewater discharges.
Orlando's McLeod Road Water Pollution Control Facility and Orange
County's Sand Lake Road Wastewater Treatment Facility are the
only two remaining domestic wastewater treatment plants which
discharge to surface waters within the 201 Area. Their
discharges have contributed to the severely degraded water
quality of Shingle Creek, causing violations of dissolved oxygen
criteria and excessive nutrient levels.
Lake Tohopekaliga is the eventual receiving body for the waters
of Shingle Creek. Based on the results of water quality studies
in the Lake Tohopekaliga basin, the Florida Game and Freshwater
Fish Commission has concluded that nutrient loadings from sewage
treatment plants are directly responsible for the deterioration
of the lake water quality. In addition, the U.S. EPA Advanced
Treatment Task Force completed an evaluation in January, 1983 of
the condition of Lake Tohopekaliga. The Task Force found that
the lake is exhibiting signs of increased eutrophication. Based
on the evaluation, EPA recommended the substantial reduction of
nutrients, particularly phosphorus, from point source discharges
and the control of existing and future nonpoint sources within
the lake's drainage basin in order to improve the water quality.
Existing water quality conditions in other surface waters
essentially eliminate the possibility of an alternative discharge
site within the 201 Area. There are no streams or lakes with
adequate size or assimilative capacity to receive the discharge
of such large volumes of wastewater effluent without seriously
degrading water quality.
B.l.b Anticipated Impacts of Alternatives and Mitigative
Measures
An evaluation was performed in order to determine the effects of
the alternatives on the adjacent surface waters. The effects on
both the quantity and quality of the flows to surface waters were
of concern. This evaluation was based on the results of a
preliminary screening analysis conducted by the 201 consultants,
and should not be considered sufficiently accurate for the
evaluation of specific alternatives. The analysis was useful,
however, in order to compare the potential inpacts of the
alternatives. These impacts are described in the following
paragraphs.
Significant beneficial impacts (e.g. decreased entrophication
rate of Lake Tohopekaliga, increased aquifer recharge, etc.)
would be expected to result from wastewater disposal depending on
the specific alternative chosen. If any one of the proposed land
disposal methods was selected (e.g., citrus irrigation, rapid
III-3
-------
infiltration, or groundwater conservation), the wastewater flow
presently discharged to Shingle Creek would be reduced or ter-
minated.
Quantity
One of the potential impacts of most concern was the effect of
effluent disposal on lake levels. Groundwater mounding caused by
land application or the groundwater conservation alternatives
could increase surface water elevations in the proximity of the
areas of discharge. The degree to which surface water levels/
flows would be affected depends upon the land disposal technique
selected. Preliminary models were developed as part of the 201
planning effort to screen the alternatives and qualitatively
compare the impact of the rapid infiltration, groundwater
conservation and citrus irrigation alternatives on groundwater
and lake levels. No increase in lake levels is expected to
result from continued discharge to Shingle Creek.
Preliminary modeling efforts conducted for the 201 alternatives
development and evaluation process were accomplished primarily to
allow a comparative analysis of the alternatives. Simplifying
assumptions (e.g. regarding leakage through subsurface confining
layers and outflow from affected lakes to other surface water
bodies) were used in this preliminary modeling effort due to the
large areas of land involved and the lack of adequate site
specific information. Therefore, specific numerical outputs of
the preliminary modeling effort are presented below only for
comparative, and not quantitative, evaluation. Results of
detailed modeling and evaluation of the selected alternative
using information obtained from detailed field studies at the
proposed sites are described in Chapter IV of this EIS.
Preliminary modeling of the alternative of using only rapid
infiltration basins indicated significant lake level increases in
landlocked lakes near RIB sites. Increases of the magnitude
estimated would be expected to have a substantial impact on
adjacent land uses. For 15 of the 33 lakes modeled, however
the projected increases were less than one foot. More detailed
evaluation during operation and, possibly, adjustment of
application rates would be required to assure acceptable levels
of impact.
For the groundwater conservation disposal option, the »n«i«o4.
indicated a potential impact on 42 lakes, of this total 33 were
projected to experience an increase of less than one foot Th«
maximum increase modeled was 2.2 feet. While it is anti i *¦ a
that increases of such small magnitude would have no
impact, each lake should be examined in detailtoinsure^hat
proposed increases are acceptable. e inax:
For the citrus irrigation option, the model indicated a
cant increase in lake levels within the citrus irrigation t«ge^
III-4
-------
areas, based on projected application rates of 26 to 72 inches
per year. It is anticipated that judicious selection of irriga-
tion sites, combined with appropriate application rates, would
maintain lakes at acceptable levels. No significant impacts
would be expected for lakes outside the irrigation target area.
The same types of impacts and mitigative measures would be
expected for the combined citrus irrigation/rapid infiltration,
on-lot, and no federal action alternatives.
Quality
The principal concern with respect to surface water quality was
the potential for the wastewater disposal methods to result in
increased nutrient loadings to area lakes via groundwater flow.
These nutrient loadings could accelerate the eutrophication of
these lakes. A preliminary analysis of selected area lakes
indicated a potential for rapid infiltration to produce
detrimental impacts on surface waters by increasing the nutrient
loadings. Groundwater monitoring, as required by FDER, would be
performed quarterly throughout the operation of the proposed
rapid infiltration basins. Surface water monitoring of
potentially affected lakes would also be accomplished
periodically to detect any adverse impacts to lake water quality.
This would ensure that if nutrient removal rates were not
adequate, corrective action could be taken before significant
adverse impacts occurred to adjacent surface waters.
The reclaimed wastewaters entering the water table and upper
Ploridan aquifers for the groundwater conservation and citrus
irrigation options would be of very high quality and should have
no significant detrimental impact on lake quality. This is
because of the high level of treatment required for the ground-
water conservation program. Also, citrus irrigation will allow
nutrient uptake by the trees and reduce the fertilizer require-
ments for the irrigated groves. It is possible, however, that
increases in groundwater table levels could decrease the amount
of rainfall infiltrating into the groundwater system and thereby
increase surface runoff rates as a result of implementation of
the groundwater conservation alternative. This could result in
an increase in sediment and nutrient loadings to surface waters.
Care in recharge site location and design could minimize this
impact.
The combined citrus irrigation/rapid infiltration alternative
calls for reduced flows to both the rapid infiltration and citrus
irrigation disposal sites, as compared with the individual alter-
natives. For the citrus irrigation portion of the combined
alternative, the level of impact on surface water would be
expected to be similar to that of the citrus irrigation alterna-
tive, although the reduced area requirement would probably allow
use of only the more desirable irrigation sites, or diversion to
the rapid infiltration basins. Selection of rapid infiltration
III-5
-------
basin sites which are remote from lakes would substantially
decrease the potential negative impacts on surface water quality,
and could eliminate those impacts entirely.
The alternatives involving continued discharge to Shingle Creek
would require high levels of treatment to avoid adverse effects
on surface water quality. Both Shingle Creek and Lake
Tohopekaliga currently demonstrate significant quality degrada-
tion, attributable in part to existing wastewater discharges.
Two alternative treatment approaches were developed which might
allow continued discharge with acceptable water quality impacts.
These approaches were developed for cost comparison and funding
eligibility purposes only, as Orange County and the City of
Orlando have agreed to adopt the "no discharge" approach.
The alternative treatment levels for the continued discharge
alternative are total phosphorus removal to 0.2 mg/1, or total
phosphorus removal to 0.2 mg/1 combined with total nitrogen
removal to 3.0 mg/1. Phosphorus reduction to Lake Tohopekaliga
would equal approximately 46 percent of the present rate, or
about 3 percent less than the zero discharge option. Removal of
both phosphorus and nitrogen would reduce the total nitrogen
loading by about 15 percent, as compared with about 21 percent
removal for zero discharge. Evaluation and implementation of a
non-point source control strategy would be required to provide
additional protection of water quality in Lake Tohopekaliga.
The no federal action (funding) alternative would be very similar
to the combined rapid infiltration/citrus irrigation alternative,
except that the former includes the future continued use of
individual septic tanks in low density residential areas to treat
and dispose of about 2.3 mgd of wastewater from within the Urban
Service Area. Septic tank disposal could impact the water quality
of some lakes. Both nitrogen and phosphorus may cause water
quality impacts from high density septic tank usage in low and
medium potential soils where the leachate could travel laterally
to surface waters. Based on the results of that evaluation, the
use of septic tanks at high densities in areas contributing
subsurface flows to lakes could cause water quality degradation,
and would need to be evaluated in much more detail. However,
this preliminary evaluation was not based on actual field data
and it is anticipated that careful design, operation and
regulation of septic tank disposal could minimize potential
adverse impacts. Continued use of existing septic tanks in the
201 sewer service area at low densities would generally not be
expected to result in significant impacts to major lakes and
streams. The water quality of one small lake (Lake Floy) would
be anticipated to be potentially impacted by existing septic
tanks within its drainage area. Detailed on-site evaluation of
septic tank pollutant loadings is required to more precisely
define the extent of water quality impacts.
III-6
-------
No significant impacts among the service area/interceptor
alternatives would be anticipated with respect to development -
induced erosion and stormwater runoff. The impacts that would
result would be temporary, construction-related erosion and
runoff. There would also be no significant water resource or
water quality impacts resulting from the construction
and operation of the wastewater treatment and effluent
transmission facility alternatives.
B.2 Groundwater Resources
B.2.a Background
Groundwater is the source of potable water in Orange County and
occurs under both nonartesian and artesian conditions. Artesian
conditions prevail in West Orange County and occur where the
water is confined and rises in wells above the point at which it
is first encountered. The heights to which water rises in
tightly cased wells that penetrate an artesian aquifer define its
confined potentiometric head. The confined potentiometric head
may be above, below, or at the same level as the water table,
depending on local conditions.
B.2.a.(l) Floridan Aquifer
The Floridan aquifer is the most productive aquifer in the 201
Planning Area. In Orange County the Floridan is artesian and
includes several geologic formations, including the permeable
parts of the overlying Hawthorn formation that are in hydraulic
contact with the rest of the aquifer. The clayey sand of the
Hawthorn Formation retards the vertical movement of water between
the water table aquifer and the underlying limestone of the
Floridan aquifer.
The aquifer stores large quantities of water in caverns or solu-
tion channels. It also acts as a conduit, conveying \gater
through cavities from areas of recharge to areas of discharge.
In Orange County, the aquifer contains two major producing zones
separated by a relatively impermeable zone, which lies 600 to
lfOOO feet below the land surface. The water supply wells for
the Cities of Orlando and Winter Park are developed in the lower
zone. Many domestic and small public supply wells withdraw water
from the upper zone. Although the relatively impermeable zone
yields much less water than the producing zones above and below
it, in many parts of the country it would be considered a good
aquifer, it contains some water-bearing layers, but very few
wells are developed in it.
Most of the recharge to the Floridan aquifer in Orange County
originates as rainfall within the County. Some recharge occurs
by underground flow from Southeastern Lake County and North-
eastern Polk County. Recharge occurs whenever the water table is
III-7
-------
above the confined potentiometric surface. Additional recharge
is provided by approximately 400 drainage wells in Orange County.
Potentiometric levels of the Floridan aquifer in Orange County
fluctuate significantly in response to extremes of precipitation.
Increased rainfall can be offset by increased pumpage. There has
been a definite long-term trend of decline in potentiometric
levels due, possibly, to increased pumpage and reduced
precipitation.
Major discharges from the Floridan aquifer in Orange County
include: spring outflows; upward leakage into the St. John's
Marsh and Rock Springs Marsh; outflow into northern Lake County,
Seminole County, and Brevard County? and pumpage within the
County. Spring outflows are located primarily in Northwest Orange
County and Southwest Seminole County.
The water quality of the Floridan aquifer has been monitored
closely because of the extensive use of the aquifer as a source
for public water supplies. The water quality within the aquifer
appears to be relatively constant with location and depth beneath
the 201 Area. The water contains moderate levels of hardness,
dissolved solids, and chlorides beneath the 201 Area, but the
levels increase in eastern Orange County as a result of residual
salt water in the aquifer. Dissolved solids and chloride
concentrations in the Floridan aquifer increase to approximately
2,000 mg/1 and 1,500 mg/1, respectively, near the St. Johns River
in eastern Orange County.
B.2.a.(2) Secondary Artesian Aquifers
In Orange County, several secondary artesian aquifers occur
locally within the confining beds of the Hawthorn Formation and
less extensively within the formations above the Hawthorn. These
aquifers are usually found at depths ranging from about 60 to
more than 150 feet below the land surface and are composed of
discontinuous shell beds, thin limestone lenses or permeable
sand-and-gravel zones.
The potentiometric level of the secondary artesian aquifer
fluctuates slightly less than 5 feet, similar to the magnitude of
the fluctuation in the nonartesian aquifer. Response of the
potentiometric surface to rainfall is less rapid than the
response of the water table but in general, both rise and decline
similarly during wet and dry seasons. Recharge to the secondary
artesian aquifers in Orange County is by downward leakage from
the nonartesian aquifer in most parts of the County or bv ununH
leakage from the Floridan aquifer. p
The quality of water in the secondary artesian aquifer varies
depending on the location, composition, and depth of the
formation. In most areas of Orange County, the potentiometric
surface of the secondary artesian aquifer is below the water
III-8
-------
table, allowing water to leak downward from the water table
aquifer. As a result, the water quality in the secondary
artesian aquifer is similar to that of the water table aquifer,
in certain areas where the potentiometric level of the Floridan
aquifer is greater than that of the secondary artesian aquifer,
upward leakage will occur from the Floridan aquifer. In these
areas, the water quality of the secondary artesian aquifer will
be similar to that of the Floridan aquifer.
Generally the water in the secondary artesian aquifer is less
mineralized than that of the Floridan aquifer, but more
mineralized than that of the water table aquifer. The dissolved
solids concentration in the secondary artesian aquifers usually
range from 100 to 400 mg/1.
B.2.a.(3) Nonartesian Aquifer
The nonartesian or water table aquifer extends over the majority
of the County and is composed mainly of quartz sand with varying
amounts of clay, hardpan and shell. In most parts of Orange
County, the base of the aquifer is approximately 40 feet below
the land surface. However, in parts of the highlands region
(western Orange County), the nonartesian aquifer may extend to
greater depths. Its permeability and thickness and,
consequently, its productivity vary. In some local areas its
yield is low.
The water table in Orange County ranges from approximately zero
to 20 feet below the land surface except below some of the sand-
hills in the western part of the county where it may be consider-
ably deeper. In the lowlands and flatwoods sections, the water
table is usually within a few feet of the land surface. The
water table conforms in a general way to the configuration of the
land surface, but it is usually at greater depths under hills and
may be above the land surface in low swampy areas.
The water table fluctuates in response to changes in recharg'e and
discharge in a manner similar to the fluctuation in the levels of
lakes and reservoirs. Fluctuations of the water table range from
a few feet in flat areas to 15 feet or more in hilly areas of the
County.
Natural recharge to the nonartesian aquifer in Orange County
primarily comes from rain within or near the County. Most of
Orange County is blanketed with permeable sand which allows rain
to infiltrate rapidly. In much of the western part of the
County, the water table is far below the surface except in
depressions. The surface sand can absorb rainfall at high rates
with little or no direct surface runoff.
Water quality data for the nonartesian aquifer in the 201
Planning Area are very limited. The available data indicate that
in western Orange County, where rainfall percolates directly into
III-9
-------
the soil, the nonartesian aquifers contain water that is soft and
low in minerals. In these areas, the aquifer could be
susceptible to pollution from septic tank leachate and the
application of fertilizers and pesticides.
B.2.b Anticipated Impacts of Alternatives and Mitigative
Measures
As with the surface water impacts evaluation, the major concerns
relating to groundwaters in the Planning Area involve both
quantity and quality. The evaluation of groundwater impacts was
based on a preliminary analysis conducted for the 201 Plan and
should not be considered sufficiently accurate for the final
evaluation of a specific alternative. The information generated
in the preliminary alternative analysis was adequate and,
therefore, used only for a comparison of the alternatives. These
impacts are discussed below. Results of detailed modeling and
evaluation of the selected alternative using information obtained
from detailed field studies at the proposed sites are described
in Chapter IV of this EIS.
Quantity
A significant degree of groundwater mounding would be expected to
be associated with each of the proposed disposal alternatives
with the exception of discharge to Shingle Creek. The ground-
water conservation alternative would have the greatest effect on
present groundwater conditions. This alternative would involve
the injection of highly treated wastewater into the upper zone of
the Floridan aquifer, creating a "bubble" of water lying above
the less permeable layer separating the upper and lower zones of
the Floridan aquifer. This bubble would spread out within the
zone, recharging the aquifer, and forcing waters within the zone
to move laterally away from the injection site and, to some
extent, downward into the lower zone of the Floridan aquifer.
The hydrostatic pressure produced near the injection point would
probably also result in two other effects: (1) an increase in
the elevation of the upper surface of the saturated zone in the
water table aquifer, resulting in a reduction in depth from the
ground surface to the water table; and (2) an increase in the
rate of "leakage" from the upper zone to the lower zone across
the confining layer which separates the two zones.
Design criteria for the groundwater conservation alternative
provide for a maximum increase of 12 feet in the surface water
table elevation. Analyses performed for the proposed design
indicate that an increase of 12 feet near the recharge sites
would result in a water table increase of about 3.7 feet at a
distance of 5,000 feet from the site, and the water table impact
would cease to be noticeable at a distance of about 10 000 feet
While some impact on development compatability and'property
values could result in the immediate vicinity of the recharge
sites, appropriate design of recharge systems and site selection
should minimize any detrimental influences. selection
111-10
-------
The initial groundwater mounding analysis in the 201 Facilities
Plan predicted significant increases in groundwater levels.
Initial 201 predictions of increases in groundwater levels for
the citrus irrigation program were also significant, but of a
lesser extent than rapid infiltration.
The combined citrus irrigation/rapid infiltration,
federal action alternatives would use application rates similar
to the rapid infiltration and citrus irrigation alternatives,
resulting in similar magnitudes of groundwater {J®
lesser flow rates associated with each disposal "®**®f _f®*
combined, on-lot and no federal action alternatives would reduce
land requirements for each method and lead to a reduction in the
areal extent of impact. Additionally, it is
less land is required for each disposal method, only well suited
sites would be selected.
Based on the information available concerning the alternative
disposal methods, there would be a potent**1 f°r ®**®J?*][®
groundwater mounding due to the land applica
with the attendant negative impacts on property Y®*"®?'
levels and surface water quality. However, consideration of
groundwater mounding effects in system design criteria
effectively mitigate any potential adverse impacts.
Beneficial impacts of increased recharge and potentiometric
levels of the Floridan aquifer are expected with the rapid
infiltration, citrus irrigation, groundwater ®onserv®**®"'
combined citrus irrigation/rapid inf
federal action alternatives. This would help maintain existing
potentiometric levels and protect the water supply aquifer
against salt water intrusion.
environmental impacts are anticipated with these increases.
Quality
Prior to implementation of any land application °P*i®" tJ®
Planning Area, assurance of adequate quality
essential. This is because groundwater is the v.tion
area's notable water supply. The groundwater conservation,
""us Krigiti" .ndXSiS infiltration b.sin .Iterative,
require sDecific levels of treatment in order to safeguard
groundwater quality. Advanced wastewater ^r®a^e^A°kfnq ^ater
effluent which meets primary and secondary J*f®J;
standards is required for the groundwater
alternative. The resulting quality of
expected to be similar to that of the
may result in a slight improvement in J^alitY ***£ *®®£®\* *
some constituents in the upper zone of the pl°rida* a<*
Treatment levels required for citrus irrigati°n andrapid
infiltration are identical and involve secondary
followed by filtration and high level disinfection,
treatment of the applied effluent would be provided in the soil
III-ll
-------
matrix. The extent of additional renovation would be expected to
be greater with citrus irrigation than rapid infiltration basins
due to the application rates involved. Primary and secondary
drinking water standards would be met by both of the land
application options. No significant impacts to groundwater
quality are expected from implementation of the three
alternatives discussed above.
The projected impacts of the combined citrus irrigation/rapid
infiltration alternative would be the same as those given above
for the individual disposal techniques. There were no significant
impacts with respect to groundwater quality expected to result
from the continued discharge to Shingle Creek option.
The no federal action alternative would utilize disposal through
individual septic tanks in several residential areas, and use of
the combined rapid infiltration/citrus irrigation option for
centralized disposal. As discussed above, use of the latter
technique would not result in significant groundwater degrada-
tion. Use of septic tanks as proposed, however, may have a
detrimental impact on groundwater quality in some locations where
drain fields are located in excessively well-drained soils.
While this problem represents a significant concern within the
Planning Area, careful site selection and process design, com-
bined with regulatory constraints, could minimize associated
impacts.
None of the service area/interceptor alternatives were found to
have potential adverse impacts on area groundwater. Continued
use of existing septic tanks within the proposed 201 sewer
serviceareas will also not significantly impact the groundwaters
of the Planning Area.
B.3 Land Resources
B.3.a Background
Planning Area topography is generally flat in the eastern portion
with gently rolling hills in the western portion. The flat lands
typically consist of swampy areas or have seasonally high water
tables. Due to their lack of topographical relief, they are
characterized by poor drainage. Generally, the western portion
of the Planning Area is characterized by sinkhole depressions and
lakes with good localized drainage.
The Orange County 201 Planning Area has been divided into the
following two topographic regions:
(1) intermediate regions where elevations are generally between
35 and 105 feet? and
(2) Highland regions where elevations are generally above 105
feet
111-12
-------
The intermediate region is characterized as exhibiting good to
very poor recharge potential. It has many lakes in some areas
and none in others. Surface streams in the intermediate region
usually recede to very low flow or are dry after relatively^ short
periods of drought. Good recharge areas generally occur in the
areas immediately adjacent to the highlands region. Areas of
very poor recharge potential generally occur in areas of 'the
southeast part of the Planning Area and between the Orlando and
Mount Dora Ridges.
The highland region is characterized by many lakes and
depressions with few surface streams. This region is generally
the most effective natural groundwater recharge area. The
highest land in the Planning Area occurs in the Lake Apopka
drainage basin at the Orange-Lake County line. A minimum
elevation in the Planning Area of about 60 feet (mean sea level)
occurs at various locations in the Big Wekiva and Little Wekiva
drainage basins.
Soils found in the Planning Area are typically fine sandy clays
and fine sandy loams, with some peats and muck. Most of
soils are very permeable; however, seasonal water tables are near
the surface in some parts of the 201 Area. Where long term water
tables have persisted, hardpan layers have developed and act
further to impede the downward movement of water. Various soils
in the uplands regions do not, however, contain hardpan layers or
clays in the upper five feet of their profiles.
B.3.b Impacts of Alternatives on Land Resources and
Mitigative Measures
There will be no long term environmenta1 impactson the
topography, geology and soils due to implementation of any of the
service area/interceptor alternatives. Short term construction-
related soil erosion impacts are anticipated butare not expected
to be significant with normal construct ion J relied to
the area Th^re are. however, potential impacts related to
construction and operation activities of the proposed treatment
plant, transmission line and e/f luent .a/sP°®^10Jieand< s'inkhole
impacts include land reshaping, soil erosion and sinkhole
formation. Soil erosion is the oniy pctential i^ct common ^
all the alternatives, and is not anticipated to be o a
significant n"Sre. Laid reshaping and sinkhole development i,
not of concern with respect to treatment and transmission
alternatives.
Land Reshaping
conservation* an<^n surface^ ^
alter the topography significantly and are not considered
further.
111-13
-------
The citrus irrigation alternative would require the construction
of a reserve storage reservoir to serve as a backup for the
distribution system requirements. Construction of the reserve
storage reservoir would impact the topography only slightly
because the embankment necessary to fulfill the storage
requirements would be relatively low in height. The maximum
length of the embankment would be slightly under 5000 feet,
ccrr&eponding to the largest reservoir size. Drainage patterns
and recharge in the vicinity of the reservoir should not be
al'-c* ed significantly.
Land reshaping would be required for construction of rapid
infiltration basins. However, rapid infiltration basins would
utilize a small percentage of the sites and would have little or
no impact on drainage patterns. Similarly, the combined rapid
infiltration/citrus irrigation alternative, including the no
federal action alternative, would have a similar impact on the
land resources. The difference would consist in the land area
affected by rapid infiltration basins, and the fact that a
reserve storage reservoir would not be necessary for the citrus
irrigation portion of the combined alternative. Therefore, the
only land resource impact relating to land reshaping would be
from the rapid infiltration portion of the combined alternative.
Sinkhole Formation
The potential for development of sinkholes would be increased by
all of the land treatment alternatives considered except the
citrus irrigation option. Rapid infiltration, including the
combined alternative and no federal action alternative, would
increase the downward flow of groundwater, which can transport
sediment from the unconsolidated strata into voids which are
present in the limestone/dolomite strata. The groundwater
conservation alternative would enhance sinkhole development
because reclaimed wastewater would be injected directly into the
carbonate rocks. Dissolution of the lime rock would occur,
causing the enlargment of existing caverns.
It should be noted that the development of sinkholes in the rural
areas associated with the rapid infiltration scenarios would most
likely not cause severe damage. This is primarily because most
of the lands are open space or agricultural. However, the
-------
over 4,000 acres. However, as the wetted area would be only 1000
acres, landscaping could reduce the potential impacts related to
the appearance of the sites after the basins are constructed.
Therefore, no significant secondary impacts on land resources
would be anticipated.
B.4 Ecological Resources
B.4.a Background
Terrestrial ecological communities in the 201 Planning Area
consists of various combinations of plant and animal. *
The natural vegetation in Orange County includes ®jixed hardwood
and pine forests located in areas with suitable soil and
characteristics. In other areas, where the sandy soils ®*® J®®P
and excessively drained, a scrubby vegetation ®**®ts,v ^
of scrub live oak, sand pine, a few turkey and blu®J^*
palmettos and grasses. The various terrestrial communities and
their locations are depicted on Map III-2.
The type of animal community present is significantly determined
by vegetation or human factors. Vegetation is the basis of the
food chain, and is consumed directly or i ndi rect1 y *£*11
animals. The human factors determining the an^alJ5? i!2
make-up include hunting and habitat alteratJ;?,J* 7®
most ecologically significant areas. ? j ,e „ of
majority of the different plant and animal species• 56* of
an tree specie. »nd 3t« o£ ^Vtiveiy'fewllantand ani."
are three wetland communities identified by the
Orange County Growth Management Policy (GMP). Thes®
extend into the Planning Area, and are as follows: ^iii Domes
and Strands; Freshwater Marshes; and Hardwood Swamp Forests.
Cypress domes are distinctive wetland w®Mnitiei ftfund
UyefelSws down°therpe?coUtion of^ter Jh* /°n"£
SSi?a8\?f P°n?eS ^his^teady release of water becomei
important " preventing 'adjacent soil. and the
they support from drying out, thus dimenishing the likelihood of
^ ^omes flr© sei
leitive^to lengthy artificial
=Sanr9e18Tnl8the??>wtter'Sg'.." or lowering the water
level of a pond beyond its natural limitsfor an unusually long
time can bring about changes in its floral characteristics,
thereby upsetting its ecological balance. Cypress Strands,
unlike cypress domes, are characterized by moving water, and
111-15
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
consist of a thin sheet of freshwater flowing through a shallow
forested depression. They are usually found in association with
marshes and cypress forests. Cypress trees grow very well in
moving water and consequently# they can attain large sizes in
this type of environment. Strands have an ecosystem similar to
that of cypress domes, and are controlled by a hydrocycle. The
influence of changing water levels has less of an effect on
cypress strands than it does on cypress domes.
Freshwater marshes cover only a small amount of land in the
Planning Area, and are found surrounding freshwater ponds, lakes,
and depressions in addition to the floodplains of streams and
rivers. Marshes consist of non-forested areas which are
subjected to permanent or prolonged periods of inundation or
saturation. Freshwater marshes are essentially ecotones, anc
have characteristics of both aquatic and terrestrial communities.
This combination results in excellent habitat for a diversity of
wildlife species. Marshes support a lush vegetation consisting
of shrubs, grasses and sedges, which make this community one of
the most productive ecosystems known. They are distinguished by
a lack of overstory vegetation, although a few small trees and
shrubs can be found in ecotones between marshes and adjacent
upland communities. They are formed when organic matter
accumulates along the edges of water bodies and hydrophytic
grasses become established. Marshes help retain water during
droughts and mitigate the effects of floodwaters by slowing down
floodwaters and buffering their erosional force. Marshes act as
filters for the adjacent water body by utilizing nutrients
dissolved in the water.
The hardwood swamp forest community is characterized by deciduous
trees and is found bordering rivers, streams, and lakes
throughout Florida. Hardwood swamp forests are subject to
periodic flooding, especially during the summer rainy seasoh.
Vegetation in hardwood swamp forests consists primarily of
overstory trees and understory trees and shrubs, with groundcover
being sparse to non-existent. The lack of ground cover is also
attributable to the periodic flooding which characterizes this
community. These communities protect water bodies by retaining
floodwaters and take up nutrients from floodwaters, thereby
reducing the nutrient load being borne by the water body. Their
importance as feeding and breeding grounds for both terrestrial
and aquatic animals is very significant, because of the number of
individuals involved and because of the diversity of life forms
involved. Not only do hardwood swamps utilize floodwaters, but
they are dependent on this type of hydrocycle and, if the
periodic flooding is interrupted either by continual flooding or
draining the swamp, the resident community will be replaced by a
community composed of lowland hardwoods which are less dependent
on flooded conditions.
Florida has developed a well diversified natural aquatic flora.
Aquatic plants commonly found in water bodies in the Planning
111-17
-------
Area include pickerel weed, water hyacinth, spatterdock, fanwort,
rushes, bladderworts, cattail, arrowroot, and emergent grasses.
Climatic conditions, which are so ideal for native plant growth,
also contribute to an aquatic weed problem which has developed in
the State's waterways over the years. In addition to the warm,
moist climate, other factors contributing to this problem are the
long growing season and the abundance of nutrient rich water
bodies. Not only is excessive growth of native aquatic plants a
problem in Florida, but exotic plants, which have been introduced
accidentally or on purpose, have created some of the most severe
infestations. For the most part, native plants are controlled by
natural controls which have developed over thousands of years,
such as other plants and animals or insects. However, plants
which have been introduced from outside of the United States such
as water hyacinth and hydrilla generally have no such controls or
are better able to compete for food and growing space.
Data collected by the Orange County Pollution Control Department
indicate that several nuisance plants are found in the Planning
Area and that some are creating problems. Probably the most
commonly reported nuisance aquatic plants are water hyacinth,
hydrilla, water lettuce, duckweed, and aquatic grasses Such as
arrowhead.
Aquatic vegetation is vital to the life of any water body. The
basic role of all green plants, including microscopic algae and
vascular macrophytes is to remove dissolved nutrients from their
aquatic environment, utilize these nutrients for growth and
respiration and produce oxygen. This process of photosynthesis
is one of the most important biological processes taking place in
any water body because the oxygen produced is essential to
aquatic animals and is necessary for chemical oxidation processes
which take place in the water body. Rooted and floating aquatic
plants (macrophytes) also provide food, surfaces for egg
attachment, and shelter for an array of aquatic animals. Over 46
species of fish have been identified as having a range which
includes the 201 Planning Area. Amphibians and reptiles are also
quite abundant.
None of the terrestrial communities existing in the Planning
Area, shown on Map III-2, are considered rare or unique. Lists
of species which are endangered, threatened or of special*concern
and which could occur in the terrestrial, wetland and aquatic
communities found in the 201 Area are presented in Appendix B.
B.4.b Anticipated Impacts of Alternatives on Ecoloqical
Resources and Mitigative Measures
Potential impacts to ecological resources are evaluated in the
following paragraphs. The primary impacts to be evaluated relate
to: (1) removal of vegetation for construction of the proposed
facilities and development to be accommodated by the Dro-iects and
(2) the potential impacts on ecological resources due to
111-18
-------
operation of the alternatives. Operational concerns are related
to the impact of increased lake levels, and nutrient impacts on
aquatic and wetland communities.
Project Construction
Impacts resulting from interceptor and transmission line
construction were evaluated with respect to plant, animal and
aquatic communities. All the alternatives, with the exception of
interceptor Alternative 4, were found to cause no significant
impacts on the ecological resources. Interceptor Alternative 4
involves paralleling an existing interceptor which crosses a
hardwood swamp forest wetland and would require drawdown of the
water table during construction. Hardwood swamp forest is
considered to be an ecologically significant vegetation type.
The destruction of this vegetation during construction would be a
potentially significant impact; however, because previous
construction through the area did not result in a permanent
change in vegetation, it is assumed that the proposed
construction would not permanently impact the vegetation.
Accommodated Development
Permanent impacts will result from projected urban development
due to the availability of wastewater treatment service.
However, none of the ecosystems in the portions of the Urban
Service Area which are planned to be developed are considered
rare or unique. Existing wetland areas were designated as
"conservation" areas in the County's Growth Management Policy.
Lake Levels
The impact assessment of the effluent disposal alternatives found
that, in general, they would have little or no significant impact
on the plant and animal communities. The rapid infiltration
basins are an exception in that they could significantly increase
the water level of nearby lakes. Lake level increases could cause
permanent changes in the aquatic ecosystem and adjoining
wetlands. These changes are not necessarily detrimental to
ecological resources. Over a period of several years, the
aquatic ecosystem would gradually change and approach a normal
lake ecosystem.If the topography around the lake is appropriate,
new wetlands may eventually form to replace those that were
inundated.
The combined rapid infiltration/citrus irrigation, no federal
action, and on-lot disposal alternatives would increase the
variation in the natural annual cycle of lake levels. The cyclic
changes in water levels could prohibit the development of new
rooted aquatic vegetation or wetlands. If this were to occur,
members of the animal community and fish could be reduced due to
the reduction in aquatic vegetation.
111-19
-------
Discharge to Shingle Creek
The alternatives involving continued discharge to Shingle Creek
were evaluated for nutrient impacts on aquatic ecosystems. These
alternatives would not completely eliminate the eutrophication
problem, but they would significantly improve upon existing
conditions. This is due to existing nonpoint sources (e.g.
agricultural runoff) and the availability of nutrients previously
deposited in bottom sediments.
B.5 Population, Land Use and Economy
B.5.a Population and Land Use - Background
The current resident or year round population distribution
throughout the 201 Planning Area varies considerably. Generally
speaking, the eastern portion of the Planning Area includes the
heaviest concentrations of population while the western regions
are sparcely populated. Table A-l in Appendix A contains
existing and projected population data disaggregated into small
geographic areas called traffic zones. Map II-l, in the previous
Chapter, illustrates the locations of these traffic zones.
The resident population of the 201 Planning Area in 1980 was
estimated by the Orange County Planning Department to be 181,425,
or 38.7 percent of the County total. Over the course of the 20
year planning period (1980-2000), total County resident
population is projected to increase by about 49.5 percent to
approximately 700,900. The corresponding projected Year 2000
total resident population for the 201 Planning Area is estimated
at 295,573, indicating an increase of 62.9 percent in the 201
district. Therefore, population growth is anticipated to occur
in the 201 Planning Area at a faster rate than that anticipated
for the County as a whole. The 201 Planning Area is projected to
accommodate approximately 42.2 percent of the total Countywide
population in the Year 2000.
Transient population includes all those persons who either reside
or visit the area for a short period of time, generally two to
three weeks. Total 1980 transient population in the 201 Planning
Area was estimated at 25,826. By the Year 2000, transient
population is forecasted to increase by 165.9 percent to a total
of 68,681. Unlike resident population, transient population is
not widely dispersed throughout the 201 Planning Area. It is
generally associated with areas heavily impacted by the local
tourist industry, particularly in the Florida Center/Inter-
national Drive areas. Table A-l in Appendix A also provides
disaggregations of existing and projected transient population by
traffic zone.
The 201 Planning Area comprises 149,639 acres. It has been
separated into an Urban Service Area and a Rural Service Area as
a result of the Orange County Growth Management Policy (GMP).
111-20
-------
The Urban Service Area is intended to have a full range of urban
services, including central water and sewer, fire protection,
transportation access, primary drainage, schools, libraries,
recreation, and health facilities, which either presently exist
or are planned to be available by the Year 2000. The Rural
Service Area is that area of the County which is not included in
the Urban Service Area. It generally contains agricultural and
rural residential development which do not require urban levels
of service. This area is characterized by the use of septic
tanks, individual wells, unpaved streets with stabilized bases,
and rural levels of police and fire protection.
The western half (west of Lake Down and Lake Tibet Butler) of the
201 Planning Area is rural with lakes scattered throughout the
landscape. Land uses vary between agricultural production of
citrus crops and vacant lands consisting of forests, wetlands and
other undeveloped lands. With the exception of the Reedy Creek
Improvement District, there are no public centralized water or
sewer systems in the western half of the Planning Area.
Scattered homes generally appear on lots of a minimum of one acre
in size. The only urban development is the City of Windermere
where homes are found generally on lots no smaller than one-half
acre. Commercial and industrial uses are extremely limited in
this western portion of the 201 Area.
Within the eastern half of the Planning Area, urban development
intensifies from the Butler Chain of Lakes into the City of
Orlando. Single family residential development is clustered in
subdivisions. Multifamily development extends to the limits of
sewer service areas. »
Various commercial and industrial areas exist throughout the 201
Area. Tourist-related businesses predominate in the vicinity of
the International Drive corridor. Other retail and general
commercial centers dominate arterial highways. Industrial areas
include the Lockhart area, the Community of Taft and the Orlando
Central Park industrial center. Other land uses, such as
institutional and recreational, are generally scattered
throughout the Planning Area.
New development in the Rural Service Area will be permitted at
gross densities less than or equal to one dwelling unit per 2.0
gross acres, except as may be otherwise provided in the GMP. The
Urban Service Area is expected to increase from 113,976 acres
(1978) to 157,310 acres in the Year 2000. Projected acreages for
each type of land use in the urban area are provided below:
111-21
-------
Land Use
1978 (Acres)
Year 2000 (Acres)
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Other Land Uses
Vacant Residual
TOTAL
Maps II-2 and II-3 in Chapter II display the locations of the
existing and future land use categories in the Planning Area.
B.5.b Impacts of Alternatives on Population and Land Use
Projections and Mitigative Measures
This section contains a summary of the evaluations conducted to
determine the potential impacts of the alternatives on existing
and planned land use. Primary impacts, i.e. those related
directly to the construction and operation of the alternatives,
as well as secondary impacts were considered. Secondary impacts
are those impacts which can be expected to occur as a result of
implementation, but are not direct effects. A primary example of
an adverse secondary impact is unplanned development of an area
as a result of access to an interceptor system.
Service Area/Interceptors
Interceptor routes and the provision of central sewer service
were the most important considerations in evaluating the primary
and secondary impacts of the service area/interceptor
alternatives. The 201 Plan considers the provision of
centralized sewer service only in the Urban Service Area. This
is in support of the County's Growth Management Policy (GMP).
The removal of agriculturally unique areas (citrus groves) for
development activities within the Urban Service Area will occur
under the County's approach to growth management within the urban
area. There were approximately 8,500 acres of unique
agricultural soils located in the Urban Service area portion of
the 201 Planning Area in 1978. Approximately 4,900 acres of
active citrus were located in these soil areas, with the
remaining acreage (i.e. 3,600 acres) primarily vacant land with
scattered residential uses. The Orange County GMP projected that
approximately 31 percent of the existing vacant and agricultural
soils areas would remain at the end of the twenty-year planning
period. According to Orange County tax assessment records, there
were 54,000 acres of citrus in Orange County in 1983, which is
47,875
7,069
2,258
23,575
33,199
113,976
71,366
13,215
6,187
17,115
49,427
157,310
111-22
-------
about 3,000 acres more than reported in the Orange County GMP for
1976. Therefore, regardless of the alternative selected,
including the no federal action alternative, the impact of this
planned land conversion is that certain agriculturally productive
areas will be removed from the economic base of the County while
other lands are converted to agricultural usage. By encouraging
urban development to stay within a defined boundary, the
provision and cost of providing urban services to an expanding
population becomes somewhat more manageable for County government
and agricultural land uses are promoted in the Rural Service Area
where development pressure is reduced.
All of the alternatives being considered potentially could have
the secondary impact of shifting or inducing growth within the
established service area, with the exception of the Sand Lake
Road Service Area/Interceptor Alternative. This relates
specifically to the interceptor corridors at the northern end of
Pine Hills Road, north to Beggs Road. This corridor is common to
all interceptor alternatives in this portion of the sewer service
area. Interceptor improvements in the Sand Lake Road service
area involve interceptor and pump station upgrading only and,
therefore, would encourage in-filling of existing developed areas
rather than encouraging new development areas.
It should be noted that any shifting of population and induced
growth levels into areas are not anticipated to exceed
recommendations outlined in the GMP. At best, areas presently
without central sewer service would be opened for new development
at potentially greater densities and intensities. It can be
expected that routes adjacent to vacant land with lower raw land
values along the urban fringe will become more attractive' to
development. But development of these areas is more a function
of market timing, location and the availability of all required
urban services, than the potential access to a sewer interceptor
alone. The planned phasing of interceptor improvements will
effectively mitigate these impacts.
Each of the alternatives utilizing the northwest subregional
plant site, which would be located outside the Urban Service Area
has a potential for significant secondary impacts by inducing
growth outside the established service area. If development
pressures were introduced due to the presence of a force main to
the treatment facility, housing densities and population could
increase, thus increasing the daily sewage load.
However, several factors would preclude these population impacts
from occurring. The interceptors will be designed under the 201
Facilities Plan to accommodate the projected Year 2000 growth in
the existing Urban Service Area. Also, interceptor lines arid the
proposed treatment will be constructed in staged increments.
Therefore, any available capacity within the interceptor system
will be shortlived until treated flows reach design flows.
Moreover, each of the alternatives assumes only the Year 2000
111-23
-------
urban area flows will be handled through the system
configurations, not additional flows from rural areas converted
to urban designation. Finally, it is questionable if the County
would allow other urban services to be provided in this rural
area, e.g. water.
Construction of interceptor routes under any of the alternatives
will have minor short-term impacts on adjacent land uses and
economic activities such as disruption of traffic, and
construction noise and dust. Commercial and industrial
activities are also not expected to be significantly impacted by
construction.
There are also benefits which would result from the selection of
any of the service area/interceptor alternatives. For the most
part, the proposed interceptor routes and service area
configurations support the concepts and policies outlined in the
County and City GMP's, in that expanded central sewer would be
made available within the defined area prescribed for future
urban development. More intense urban development would be
allowed to take place through "infilling", assuming related key
urban services were also available. Intensive
commercial/industrial development, which is a significant tax
revenue producer, would benefit from the expanded sewer service.
Finally, the accessibility to an expanded interceptor system
would have a beneficial effect by providing the development
market place with more viable options at mixed densities and
intensities, since the inventory of vacant developable land with
access to sewer service would increase.
Treatment, Transmission and Disposal
Alternatives related to wastewater treatment and effluent
transmission and disposal were evaluated with the exception of
the alternatives involving discharges to Shingle Creek. No
discernable impacts on population and land uses were expected
because these alternatives involved an improved treatment method
over the present disposal method.
respect to the transmission corridors for each of the
disposal options, no adverse impacts beyond the construction
stage would be anticipated. The construction of the transmission
alternatives, as well as the treatment and disposal alternatives,
would not cause long term impacts on residents or land use
activities. Temporary inconveniences due to dust, noise and
altered travel patterns will occur, but will not be of a
significant nature. Unlike the proposed interceptor routes,
which collect raw wastewater, transmission lines penetrating into
the rural service areas of Orange County cannot be accessed for
sewer service by nearby development. The transmission lines
transport only treated wastewaters.
111-24
-------
There would not be relocation impacts for any of the treatment
plant alternatives or for the effluent disposal alternatives
involving citrus irrigation, groundwater conservation and no
federal action. Furthermore, no residents or businesses would be
significantly impacted or relocated by transmission line
construction under any of the alternatives proposed. For the
rapid infiltration basin alternatives, no significant relocation
impacts should be encountered due to the types of land use
activities present on the proposed sites. The size of the
individual sites would allow flexibility in determining the
specific basin locations. Most of the sites would not experience
direct urban development pressure during the 201 Facilities
Planning period, with the exception of Sites 5A, 5C and 5D.
These sites are shown on Hap 11-11. Because of their location
within the urbanizing corridor between Silver Star Road and Old
Winter Garden Road, and the fact that urban development continues
to push west toward Winter Garden/Ocoee through this corridor,
Sites 5A, 5C and 5D could be completely surrounded by urban
development by the Year 2000. This could lead to long term
problems for development on the peripheral areas of the
designated site due to increased water tables and lake levels
resulting from RIB operations.
Construction and operation of RIBs adjacent to developed or
developing areas could impact property values of these adjacent
properties. Site design should consider the visual perception of
the sites and individual basins. Due to the level of
preapplication treatment to be provided, odor impacts are not
anticipated to be a potential problem for adjacent land uses.
Impacts from induced growth and population shifts would not be
expected for any of the transmission, treatment and disposal
alternatives.
No significant operational impacts would be anticipated for the
treatment alternatives. However, expected lake level increases
associated with the groundwater conservation and land disposal
alternatives would have both beneficial and negative impacts.
Although no significant land use changes would be anticipated,
such as widespread flooding of residential structures, lake level
increases could benefit property owners by increasing the lakes
recreational value and, therefore, the property values along
shorelines. Negative impacts due to Increased lake levels could
include property damage from inundation.
The possibility also exists for increased groundwater tables in
and around many of the rapid infiltration sites, potentially
leading to premature failure of existing septic systems and
increased development costs for newer septic systems installed
adjacent to the disposal areas. Of the no discharge
alternatives, the citrus irrigation and combined citrus
irrigation/rapid infiltration basin alternative, would have the
least impact on land use.
111-25
-------
An important consideration with respect to the citrus irrigation,
rapid infiltration and combined citrus irrigation/rapid
infiltration disposal alternatives involves the potential impacts
on agriculturally unique areas in western Orange County. An
estimated 19,000 acres of citrus groves could be irrigated within
the target areas being considered at the projected Year 2000 flow
rate. This would be a beneficial impact due to the increased
productivity of the groves and reduced fertilizer requirements.
There will be no appreciable impacts to citrus groves with the
Shingle Creek discharge and groundwater conservation
alternatives.
Alternatives involving rapid infiltration would utilize
approximately 1,065 acres of wetted area for disposal. Existing
areas of citrus groves are located within each of the rapid
infiltration basin sites. The exact amount of citrus acreage that
would be affected was not determined because the boundaries of
the individual basins were not provided in the alternatives
description. However, it is known that not all of the rapid
infiltration basin sites are in agriculturally unique areas.
Therefore, the net impact of removing portions of these citrus
groves to accommodate the basins would be negligible. Also, none
of these basins will be in areas that are now active groves.
Alternatives involving citrus irrigation, could beneficially
affect as many as 19,000 acres of citrus grove. Utilization of
these areas for citrus irrigation disposal would have an overall
beneficial effect for growers and for Orange County. Through the
use of this disposal method, citrus productivity should increase
within the groves, and the potential exists for reducing costs
for production of citrus fruit. Agriculturally based pursuits
would be encouraged to continue and these private properties
would remain on the County's tax rolls. Moreover, continued
private agricultural use and reduced irrigation and freeze
protection costs for these citrus areas would serve to provide
the County an important open space/greenbelt area consistent with
the goals of the County's GMP. Finally, the use of this disposal
method would reduce the overall land acquisition costs associated
with the 201 Program for disposal of effluent.
Alternatives involving a combined disposal approach with rapid
infiltration and citrus irrigation would affect an unknown
amount of agriculturally unique land. The combined approach was
developed to provide for the disposal of the excess renovated
effluent not irrigated on citrus. The rapid infiltration
component would utilize an estimated 464 acres of wetted area.
The actual amount of citrus area to be used for basin
construction cannot be determined because the actual basin
boundaries were not provided. The remaining land would be used
for citrus irrigation, and the impacts would be similar to those
described previously for the citrus irrigation alternative.
111-26
-------
In summary, some trade-offs exist within the disposal components
with respect to unique agricultural lands. Alternatives
involving citrus irrigation would serve to enhance these areas
and should provide an overall net beneficial effect for growers
and the County. Utilization of disposal components involving
rapid infiltration basins would, to some degree, involve the
removal from use of some of the County's unique agricultural
land.
B.5.c Economy - Background
It is anticipated that attendant employment in the 201 Planning
Area will increase both as a percent of the County-wide total and
in absolute number of available jobs. Attendant employment
provides a count of employment by place of work and represents,
in essence, the actual number of jobs within a specific area.
The 201 Planning Area relies heavily on the agricultural and
tourism industries. While the tourism industry has expanded, the
agricultural industry has held relatively stable. Mechanization
has limited job growth potential. In addition, due to an
increased emphasis on defense spending at the national level,
employment at the Martin-Marietta Orlando Aerospace Corporation
has increased. The presence of the aerospace industry in Orange
and Brevard counties laid the foundation for the area's best
growth potential, i.e. the electronics industry. Electronics
firms tend to cluster geographically to take advantage of the
interchange of ideas and personnel. The presence of a cadre of
skilled engineers and technicians in a quality environment has
attracted additional companies to the Orlando area.
Increases in nondurable goods manufacturing employment in Orange
County reflects the County's dominance in this sector. The
largest industry within the nondurable goods sector is the
manufacture of food and kindred products. Food industry
employment accounted for 40 percent of all area nondurable goods
manufacturing in 1980. Almost half of the area's food employees
are involved in the production of canned, bottled and frozen
fruits and vegetables. The area's location near highly
productive agricultural areas makes it a logical food processing
center. Almost one-tenth of Florida's food manufacturing
employees work in the Orlando Metro Area.
The services sector in the Orlando Metro Area has a very high
rate of growth. This rate is mdre than three times the national
growth rate. Included in this category are personal, repair and
business services; medical services; amusement, recreation and
entertainment services; hotels; and legal, educational and social
services. The most important subcategory is amusement services,
including employment at Disney World, Sea World and Circus World,
as well as at the many small tourist attractions. Hotels and
motels are also significant contributors to the area's economy.
The area's concentration of tourist attractions and services has
111-27
-------
made the Orlando area the world's number one vacation center. In
1979, Disney World alone attracted 13.8 million guests.
The concentration of Metro Area employment in tourist-related
industries makes the area very vulnerable to economic cycles and
energy shortages. With services increasing from 16.2 percent of
total area employment in 1970 to 23.4 percent in 1980, the area
would appear to be markedly susceptible to economic decline.
This was not the case, however, during the last recession.
B.5.d Economic Impacts of Alternatives and Mitigative
Measures
Economic impacts are closely related to the population and land
use impacts mentioned previously. Land conversion, resulting
from the development of citrus groves within the Urban Service
Area, causes productive agricultural areas to be removed from the
economic base of the County. However, this negative impact is
offset by the reduced costs of urban services and their becoming
more manageable for the County government because urban
development is encouraged to stay within a defined boundary. In
addition, intensive commercial and industrial development, which
is a significant tax revenue producer, will benefit from the
expanded sewer service.
The selection and implementation of any of the wastewater
management alternatives being considered will have a net economic
benefit to the County and the Region. Expansion of the economic
base can be expected as a result of capital, operational and
maintenance expenditures. These capital expenditures alone will
create in excess of 300 new construction jobs and produce a
significant revenue flow thoughout the construction period. As
discussed previously, utilization of agricultural areas for
citrus irrigation disposal would also be expected to have an
overall beneficial effect for growers and Orange County.
Construction and operation of the wastewater management
alternatives will have a major impact on the City and County
wastewater program budgets. A portion (55 to 75 percent) of the
capital costs could potentially be funded by an EPA grant. The
remainder of the capital costs and all of the operation and
maintenance costs would have to be financed locally.
Based on the estimated costs of the alternatives, minimum
increases in sewer service charges of $7 to $8 for a typical
Orange County customer and $4 to $5 per month for Orlando
customers would be required. These are based on a water use of
about 10,000 gallons per month. Resulting total average monthly
service charges would increase to about $21 and $30 for City and
County residents, respectively. These estimates are based on
1982 dollars and are likely to be higher when the system is
actually constructed and placed into operation. In addition,
111-28
-------
these projects do not include any costs for proposed wastewater
facility improvements in eastern Orlando and Orange County.
According to the Financial Capability Statement for the project
(Exhibit VI of the Financial Capability Guidebook), nine of the
eleven key financial indicators had strong indicator ratings, and
two had average indicator ratings. These ratings are an
assessment of a community's financial condition with the project.
The overall net debt outstanding as a percent of personal income
was estimated to be 0.67%. The condition rating for this
indicator is considered strong if below 4%. Based on the
Financial Capability Statement, the financial condition of the
area will remain strong with implementation of the project.
B.6 Community Service and Facilities
B.6.a Background
There are over 40 educational facilities located in the 201
Planning Area. These facilities are as follows: public,
private, higher and vocational. The Orange County Board of
Public Instruction has sole responsibility for the facilities and
services in public schools. Private facilities are owned and/or
operated by a church, private organization or corporation.
Long range planning for new and expanded school facilities is
accomplished on a five-year basis, with funding and approval at
the State Board level. State supported new facilities are
constructed only when excess capacity is not available County-
wide, or when balanced school populations would require long-
distance pupil busing.
Public library services are provided by the Orlando Public
Library System, which is funded on a Tri-County basis by Orange,
Seminole and Osceola County. The main library is located in
downtown Orlando, with three branch libraries located within the
Northwest and McLeod Road Service Areas. The remainder of the
Northwest Service Area is handled through a bookmobile service.
Law enforcement is primarily the function of the Orange County
Sheriff's Department and the Orlando Police Department. The
Sheriff is responsible for the unincorporated portions of the 201
Area, and currently provides a uniform level of service on a
County-wide basis. This uniformity of service is based upon
population distribution and workloads within the districts,
established by the Sheriff's Department. The Orlando Police
Department operates in the municipal portions of the Planning
Area, and provides services in a similar manner to the County's
chief law enforcement officer.
Like law enforcement, fire protection is provided by Orange
County and Orlando for their respective jurisdictions. Most of
the property within the Orlando fire service areas is adequately
111-29
-------
covered, and has central water with fire hydrants. Orange County
government has only been in the fire protection business for a
short time, having consolidated the six independent fire
districts within the 201 Service Area into a County-wide system.
At this time, Apopka maintains the only independent fire
district. Protection to the Planning Area is provided by the
Lockhart, Apopka, Pine Hills, Holden Heights, Orlo Vista, Pine
Castle and Taft fire stations. Some of these stations provide a
higher level of service, and future growth can probably be
handled with minimal impact, provided essential levels of urban
water service are also provided.
Brookwood Hospital, located on Mercy Drive, is the only hospital
within the service area. Over the last several years, three new
private health care facilities have been constructed on Silver
Star Road, Orlando-Vineland Road and Oak Ridge Road, which has
helped to provide outpatient services to residents in the areas
of new growth.
Water and wastewater services are provided within the service
areas by a combination of County, City and private utilities.
Solid waste collection is handled by the City of Orlando and
within the County by private franchise agreements. The County
maintains the Tropical Drive transfer station for solid waste,
which in turn is transported to the County's model sanitary
landfill on the east side of the County. Orlando owns the only
incinerator in the Planning Area which is adjacent to the McLeod
Road Water Pollution Control Facility.
Both Orange County and the City of Orlando have centralized their
administrative functions in downtown Orlando, although the County
does maintain three branch service centers for elected and
appointed officials outside the 201 Facilities Planning Area.
The administrative facilities are confined to North Hughey
Avenue on the eastern edge of the proposed McLeod Service Area.
This area contains the Orlando Municipal Justice, Federal and
State Governmental offices. The County maintains the Sheriff's
Operation and Detention Facility and Public Works offices at 33rd
Street.
B.6.b Impacts of Alternatives on Community Services and
Facilities and Mitigative Measures
Overall, construction and operation of any of the proposed
interceptor routes would not impact community facilities and
services. However, regardless of which alternative is selected
facilities and services would experience secondary impacts due to
population growth that will be served by the sewer svstems
Growth in service demands is not predicated on the availability
of sewer service, but a result of a growing population base All
of the essential community facilities and services are affected
by population shifts. Construction of the interceptor svstems
could have a significant impact on the City and County sewer
111-30
-------
service rates, depending on the alternative selected and the
phasing of construction.
No impacts on community services and facilities would occur as a
result of treatment plant location or transmission corridor
placement under any of the alternatives. In addition, it is
unlikely that any of the disposal alternatives would result in
significant changes to the community facilities and service
delivery patterns envisioned for the urban and rural areas, since
no significant changes in population growth would occur within
the disposal areas. Shifting of population could occur in small
numbers, with the potential relocation of some land use
activities, but this would not result in appreciable induced
growth in other portions of the County or the 201 Planning Area.
As stated previously, construction and operation of the
wastewater/sludge treatment, transmission and disposal
alternatives would have a major impact on the City and County
wastewater program budgets.
B.7 Archaeological/Historical Resources
B.7.a Background
A cultural inventory consisting of prehistoric and historic sites
was compiled from the background review for the 201 Facilities
Planning Area. The prehistoric sites currently are not
considered eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places. The historic sites, however, are eligible and
are considered potential National Register nominations. Map III-
3 depicts the locations of the sites.
It is generally agreed that the Orlando vicinity received
influences from the cultures of the Central Florida Gulf coast,
the St. Johns River basin, the Indian River area and north
central/south Florida aboriginal cultures. The type of
aboriginal site most commonly encountered is the habitation site
or area. These sites are of various culture periods, indicating
that prehistoric occupation of the area occurred over a long
period of time.
Habitation areas, as well as other types of sites, are commonly
located along sandy ridges near fresh water lakes. Site
distribution is closely dependent upon natural features such as
drainage, elevation and proximity to water, stream banks and the
terraces above them are also potential site sources. Additional
site discovery methods include the investigation of surface
evidence of aboriginal activity areas such as sand mounds or
areas where stone tools or pot sherds are scattered on the
ground. The historical sites are in the Orlando vicinity which
was the earliest settled area and the first commercial center in
Orange County.
111-31
-------
LOCATIONS OF
ARCHAEOLOGICAL/
HISTORIC SITES
LEGEND
* POTENTIAL SITES FOR NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
1 FORT GATLIN (8-OR-92)
2 MILITARY ROAD (8-OR-91)
3 JERNIGAN (8-OR-48)
4 PROPOSED DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT (8-OR-186)
• OTHER SITES WITHIN 201 AREA
5 BAY LAKE (8-OR-89)
6 WEST RIDGE 1,2, AND 3 (8-OR-51, 52 AND 53)
7 WEKINA1 (8-OR-90)
8 LAKE JENNIE JEWEL (80R-88)
GO
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY 201 PLAN
PftCPARfO fOR THE U S INVtAOMMf HTAl PftOICCItON AAtMCV
MAP IH-3
-------
B.7.b Potential Impacts of Alternatives on Archaeo-
logical/Historical Resources and Mitigative Measures
In general, little is known about the prehistoric and early
historic resources in the 201 Planning Area. When predicting the
presence or absence of archaeological sites for the four service
area/interceptor alternatives, assumptions are made with regard
to the area proposed for construction. Where construction of
wastewater treatment and transmission systems will occur in
upland areas near lakes or other permanent freshwater sources, a
moderate to high likelihood of impacting potentially significant
cultural resources is assumed. In flatwoods environments having
better drained, elevated land in association with a freshwater
swamp or other seasonal water source, a low to moderate potential
for sites can be predicted. In those areas where freshwater
sources are lacking, regardless of the topography and vegetation,
a low site expectancy can be posited.
The archaeological and historical background research for the
evaluation of alternatives for the Southwest Orange County EIS
was designed to evaluate impacts, both primary and secondary, on
known cultural resources, and to assess the potential for
disturbing unknown, significant prehistoric or historic sites
(i.e. sites considered to be potentially eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places) primarily through a
literature review. This wasaccomplished in the following
manner: 1) archaeological and historical information compiled
for the EIS was systematically evaluated; 2) other, more
recent cultural resource surveys in Orange County were reviewed;
3) personnel at the offices of the Florida State Historic
Preservation Office in Tallahassee were contacted for additional
data from the Florida Master Site File and information regarding
specific impacts which might result from construction of the
alternatives; 4) review of all pertinent planning documents
provided details regarding the alternatives; 5) consultation with
project engineers provided additional background information
about the project; and 6) a "windshield" inspection of selected
alternatives provided a firsthand look at some of the alternative
sites.
The systematic evaluation of the alternatives described above
indicated that no known archaeological or historical resources
would be impacted. Detailed archaeological research evaluations
for the selected plan were recommended and accomplished. These
are described in Chapter IV of this Draft EIS.
B.8 Air Qualltv/Qdor/Noise
B.8.a Background
Air quality in Orange County is required to meet the Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Florida. These standards are presented in
Table in-1. Photochemical oxidants are the major pollutants of
111-33
-------
TABLE 111-1
FLORIDA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
POLLUTANT
ANNUAL
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
MAXIMUM
24-HOUR
MAXIMUM
8-HOUR
MAXIMUM
3-HOUR
MAXIMUM
I-HOUR
CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION
Sulfur 60 ug/m' 260 ug/m' 1300 ug/m'
Dioxide 0.02 ppm 0.10 ppm 0.50 ppm
b 3 3
Particulates 60 ug/m 150 ug/m
(TSP)
Carbon 10 mg/m 40 mg^m'
Monoxide 9 ppm 35 ppm
Ozone 235 ug/m'
0.12 ppm
c 3
Lead 1.5 ug/ m
Nitrogen 100 ug/m'
Dioxide 0.05 ppm
ug * micrograms mg ¦ milligrams ppm ¦ parts per million
a - not to be exceeded more than once per year
b - annual geometric mean
c - maximum quarterly arithmetic mean
Source. Chapter 17-2.300, July 21, 1983, Ambient Air Quality Standards,
Florida Administrative Code.
111-34
-------
concern in Orange County. Ozone is the most common photochemical
oxidant, accounting for more than 90% of the group. It is
reported to be the most hazardous of the common gaseous
photochemical pollutants, impacting human health as well as that
of other animals and plants.
Hydrocarbons are essential to the formation of photochemical
oxidants, combining with nitrogen oxides in the presence of
sunlight to form these oxides. High level automobile use and
associated gasoline filling stations in the Orlando-Orange County
area are considered to be the cause of excessive hydrocarbon
production.
Major areas of odor complaints are related to sewage treatment
plants, sewage collection systems, hydrogen sulfide from well
water, and manufacturing and construction industries. Sources of
odor from sewage treatment facilities may include stale or septic
wastewater influent, improper operation or overloading of
treatment processes such as trickling filters or anaerobic sludge
digestion, open drying of sludge and sludge lagooning. Odors may
also result from sewage lift stations when the sewage becomes
septic, as may occur during equipment failure. Other potential
odor sources include industrial plants and water treatment plants
which use aeration to strip hydrogen sulfide to the atmosphere.
Very little information is available on noise levels associated
with wastewater systems in the 201 Area. Other sources of noise
problems were reviewed in order to provide a point of reference
for evaluating the impacts of wastewater facilities. These
sources typically include noise from industries, refuse
collection trucks and aircraft.
B.8.b Impacts of Alternatives on Air Quality/Odor/Noise and
Mitigative Measures
Impacts due to interceptor construction were evaluated and found
to be short-term and generally insignificant with respect to
dust, emissions, odor and noise. Noise and odor impacts
associated with the operation of pump stations and gravity sewers
would be insignificant with proper pump selection and sewer
design.
The effluent treatment, transmission and disposal alternatives
were evaluated for several anticipated impacts. As with the
interceptors, construction-related dust and emissions are short-
term, insignificant impacts. There would be no significant odor
problems associated with effluent transmission.
The potential for odors associated with the implementation of
wastewater treatment facilities was a major concerrf. Many odor
problems could be prevented by the inclusion of appropriate
control facilities during design to control odors at the source.
In general, flow velocities should be maintained such that
111-35
-------
deposition of solids does not occur, aeration facilities should
be provided as appropriate, detention times should be carefully
considered, and facilities encouraging good housekeeping should
be provided. Other odor control techniques applicable to
wastewater treatment facilities include the addition of chemicals
such as chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, ozone, and lime; adsorption
using activated carbon; chemical absorption or scrubbing; and
dispersion or dilution to reduce malodors below threshold levels.
There would be no significant odor problems associated with the
alternatives employing citrus irrigation. Potential odor sources
due to the rapid infiltration basin effluent disposal alternative
and combinations using rapid infiltration basins include applied
wastewater and deposited solids during the drying cycle; however,
problems should be minimal if proper operation and maintenance is
observed at both the wastewater treatment facility and the rapid
infiltration site Other factors which serve to mitigate any
pcteit^ iVactt include the hi,h level of treatment to be
provided and the presence of buffer zones.
Noise impacts generated during construction are due primarily to
the operation of major equipment, such as earth moving equipment
and material handling equipment. Noise from stationary equipment
is associated with the operation of the treatment facilities and
includes that due to pumps, generators and blowers. The noise
levels would not create a significant impact in the Planning
Area. Noise control measures can be taken to minimize the n°ise
of major equipment and system operation. In addition, the
wastewater treatment plant sites, transmission pipeline corridors
and effluent disposal sites are located in rural areas or
generally well buffered from developed areas.
The potential for aerosol formation would
near treatment facilities and overhead sprinklers used for the
citrus irrigation alternatives. Aerosols are a concern with
Aspect to the spread of bacteria and viruses Based on
information presented in EPA Process Design Manual for Land
Trpatmflnt of Municipal Wastewater (EPA ^3/1-81-013), epidemio-
logical studies indicate that there is no significant increase in
the disease rates of populations adjacent to activated sludge
facilities when compared with the general population. In
addition, EPA data show that aerosol fecal coliform
concentrations at slow rate land application facilities are less
than those at activated sludge plants. Based on this and the
high level of treatment and disinfection to be provided, neither
facility employees nor people living near treatment facilities
should be subjected to an increased risk of disease due to
aerosols. High level of treatment and chlorine disinfection
prior to rapid infiltration and citrus irrigation serve to
minimize the potential for any health problems due to aerosol
production.
111-36
-------
Fog formation may be a potential problem caused by citrus
irrigation and rapid infiltration basins. However, this would
not result in a significant impact. Spray irrigation is a
procedure that is already in use at many agricultural sites in
the area. Rapid infiltration basin sites would cover a much
smaller area than the 41,000 acres of existing Orange County lake
surface. In addition, fog formation at the rapid infiltration
basins would be further minimized by the use of buffer zones.
B.9 Major Concerns
A summary of the adverse impacts, potential mitigative measures
and beneficial impacts associated with the service
area/interceptor alternatives and effluent disposal alternatives
is provided in Tables III-2 and III-3, respectively. The
majority of the impacts identified are associated with the
implementation of the service area/interceptor alternatives and
the effluent disposal alternatives. Impacts occurring as a
result of the construction of the transmission lines and
operation of the wastewater treatment facilities would not be
expected to be significant. The alternative for continued
discharge to Shingle Creek was not included in Table III-3, since
this alternative was evaluated for funding purposes only and not
considered as an implementable alternative.
All of the alternatives listed in Table III-3 result in the
elimination of wastewater discharge to Shingle Creek. These
alternatives were developed in response to the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation's "no discharge" requirement. This
requirement was enacted to eliminate the high nutrient loadings
in Shingle Creek caused by wastewater treatment plant effluent.
The high nutrient loadings were contributing to the
eutrophication of Lake Tohopekaliga, the eventual receiving body
for the waters of Shingle Creek.
Comparing the negative and beneficial impacts of the effluent
disposal alternatives in Table III-3, it can be seen that the
combined citrus irrigation/rapid infiltration basin alternative
would be the most environmentally advantageous option considered
for effluent disposal. The combination of the two alternatives,
as opposed to the individual alternatives, reduces the
potentially adverse impacts, allows greater flexibility in
enacting mitigative measures and increases the number of
beneficial impacts. Through monitoring programs, adverse changes
in lake and groundwater levels and quality can be offset by
careful selection of sites and adjustment of application rates.
Only the most well-suited sites would be chosen for the RIBs and
the citrus irrigation areas because of the reduced land
requirements. In addition, the reduced land requirements due to
the utilization of privately owned citrus groves for irrigation
results in a decrease in overall costs. It is anticipated that
about 25 mgd would be recycled for citrus irrigation.
111-37
-------
TABLE I1I-2
Suoury of Major Findines
Service Area/Interceotor Alternatives
ftffectedEnvinxwnt
Potential Adverse Inoacts
Hiticative Measures
Pooulation and Law} Use
o Aooroxiaately 3.4M acres of area with agri-
culturally unioue soils are estimated to be
utilized for development within the Urban
Service Area during the olannirq oeriod.
o Shifting or inducement of growth nithin
the established service area; routes
adjacent to vacant land along the urban
fringe eill become aore attractive to
develooaent.
o Potential for induced growth outside the
established Urban Service Area for Horth-
uest Subreoional alternatives - increasing
the densities and Year 2M sewage flov.
o Unavoidable but necessary for
growth management.
o Unavoidable, but Mill not
exceed reco—ndations in GM>;
develooaent ootential is aore
a function of aarket tiaino,
location and urban service
availability.
o Strict adherence to MP guide-
lines.
Economy
o Areas with agriculturally mioue soils
nithin the Urban Service fees are removed
from the economic base of the County.
o Unavoidable but necessary
for erowth aaweaeut«
Archaeological/Historical o Moderate to high likelihood of cultural o Conduct a detailed archaeo-
resources near aalart lakes or other
pwaneiil freshwater sources; lou to wod-
erate likelihood in flatwood enviroaaents
having better drained, elevated land in
association with a freshwater mam or other
wesonil later source.
logical field study and
resource evaluation for the
selected elan.
Abbreviations
m - tbstewter
9V - Growth Hiiimamt Policy
•IBs- ftaoid Infiltration Basins
111-38
Beneficial Iaoacts
o Provide develooaent aarketolace with nore
viable ootions at uixeti densities a«l inten-
sities since vacant oevelooable land with
sewer services access would increase.
o Exoanded central sewer service Mould be
available nithin the defined area prescribed
for future urban develooaent; provision and
cost of urban services would thus be aore
manageable for the County ooverreent.
o Cu— I'i'ial and industrial develooaent would
benefit fraa the exoanded sewer service.
o More intense urban develooent allowed to
take place through "infilling" of Urban
Service Area (a result of staging
construction).
-------
TflfiLE ill - 3
t of tar Fimimj
EfflatM Disposal aiteraativa
lltmitiit
Citres Irriftfia
Batential Mara laaacts
o Increased nater table aM Ms lewis.
• Iwiin ia sadiaent ad natrient Mi*)
to «rfa rt« i d*e to an limn in
r Ml* leal* ad I
i ia arfi
Hitiative
o Carefel selection of sites:
Mjnt aaolicstioa rates.
o Alter irriaation Dattarra to
tun aaolicationa on areo-
la mas; diwrt snrface »
off to jraas itare nauff nil)
percolate into jrnaMnitar;
provide rataatia basiaa to orc
<¦( mff fr«e ateriif serf ace
mimm tj aha ti to (read- o Hjat systa design criteria.
a latiaaia ia aatwater aapt tar caatrac- o 35» - 7S of Ue camtal coats
tiea mi ¦a»a>iae, caald potaatiaily be W by
an EM prant.
¦hM Infiltration lasin a bcraaa ia aatar tlUa mi M* levels. . • Carefel select 10a af sites:
Mjast aaalicaliea rates.
ia aatriaat loadups to Mas via a Noaitor prmaAntar oeriod-
¦r. ically aviaf aaaratio* of
da; aodify aaeratiaa as
reaairad.
inadalad Oae ta |r»a*iitar o Mjest systa Sesipe criteria.
a Increased aotaatial for sialtol* o UnavoidaOle - loa orobab^itv
of ilaia da ta locatioa i*
ml
111-39
Baneficul iaaarts
o UU floa redveed or eliaiNted to Shinele
Greet.
o Miarae aad ootentioaetric level increases
ia the Florida* aaaifer.
o Increase in citra orodictio*.
o Possible redectioa in the csat of
citrat frait podactioa.
a Mactioa ia mall lad amaistio* cost
for land aoalieetioa af nnavilad aastaaater.
o Katntaiiuaa apricaltml ea of private
laoaitj mid tne aore attract iw to
{ram; uiaaly retained on Coaty ta rolls.
o knias a oaa sua ¦/¦ ealult area con-
sistaat mtk tfte Canty W.
a !¦ iai« in miaahail valves da ta lata
a Bhacaaat af aarpiaal atlad iraes da
ta iaereaa ia late levels.
o Hi floa radveed or eliaiated to Shingle
Mb
o Marfa ad aoteatioaetric level increases
ia til* Florida aaifar.
o Increase in recreational valve* doe to
life level increases.
o Miaiaid of aarfinal wtland area da
to increase in lake lewis.
-------
TABLE III-3
SuaMry of Naior Fincirms
§!I]y?20i sposal^AUernat iv?s
(Continued)
Alternative
Potential fldwrse laoacts
Riticative Neasures
Raoid Infiltration Basins © Odor oroblcas fna acolied uastr*
Mtir and deoosited solids during
the drying cycle of the RIBs««
o Long ten operational orobleas for
develofaent on the DIB oeriDheral
vms of Sites 5A, S end 9 (arban
dgveloacnt wessons).
o Preaatere failure of existing septic
systeas and increased develooaent costs
for waer seotic systeas due to increase
in srouNtaater table levels near Rids.
o Decrease in frooerty values in areas
surroondins AlBs doe to aesthetics,
odors and noise.*
o Increase in Msteaater budget due to
construction end ooeration.
o Peraaneni chances in the agnatic ecosystea
and adjoining uetlanos cue to increase in
lake levels.
o Prooer desicn, ooeration arc
Maintenance; hich level of
treataent: buffer zones (re-
forestation orocraa).**
o Flexibility in choosing sites
one to reduced area reocire-
¦nfcs.
o Careful selection of sites:
adjust aoolication rates.
o Procer design, ©aeration and
¦aintenance; high level of
treat«nt; buffer zones {re-
forestation orooraa).**
o 55*-75% of the caoital cost
could be ootentially funded
by an EM grant.
o Not necessarily detrieental -
over tint the aovatic ecosys-
tem Mill gradually dianee and
aooroaen norsal; if the toooc-
raahy around the lake is aooro-
sriate, icn wetlands aay event-
ually for*.
Citrus Irrigation/Basil!
Infiltration Basins o Increase in lake levels, though not anti- o Careful selection of sites;
cioated to be as significant as the raoie adjust aoolication rates,
infiltration basin alternative.
o Increase in nutrient loadings to lakes via o Monitor groundiater oeriod-
croundaater. ically during ooeration of
RIBs: aodify ooeration as
recuired.
111-40
Beneficial laoacts
o UU flow reduced or elieinated to Shingle
Creetu
o Less floN to KIBs reouces land reouireeents:
only Hell-suited sites are chosen.
o Recharge and ootentioptnc increases m tf>e
FloriCan acuifer.
-------
TABLE 1II-3
SvMry of *»>ar Fitdinp
Efflaent Disposal alternatives
(Continued)
Alternative
Potential ftlverse litis
Mtieative Heaseres
Citna bription/Saeid
Infiltration laiM
i Iaawsc w lldinat mi natrient loading
to aarfaa naters im to jn increase in
pwidater table levels and HMnneat
ircreaae in surface nngff rata.
« Mucad ra reoaireaent alloas
Kf of only ttw aore eesiraole
irriution or R1I sites reeote
fro* lakes.
• Mantial for sUUwte develaamt irr
cnari, ttMfk aat wticieatad to hi as
tqufioat ¦ tka rapid infiltration
altmative.
o Unavoidable - Ion probability
of taw dat to location in
raral araas.
• Imaaia u tfet variation of the Mtinl
aaaal cycle of lake levels - prohibits
the dniliSMnl of mm rooted emetic
vegetation or i«t lards, ceasing a redaction
in aaiaal mi fisb ooMutlts.
o Carefsl station of sites:
adject dedication rotes.
o Odor proUaas free aaaliad niitnil »r ad
danosited solids Aria) the dryin| cycle
of tkt IDs.*
o Tiiiiiih in astaatar badget dae to coar
stnctiaa mi eocratiw.
o Prooer design, operation an)
aaiatenaace; high level of
treataent; beffer tones (re-
fratatia oroerae).«
o 5S*-75< of tkt capital cost
coald be ootentialljr fMod
by an EM mat.
o flrooerty inaadatad dae to jrwaahatar
o Adjast systa design criteria.
a IVaaltart failnre of e»i sting saotic sy»-
taas mi increased develeoaent coats for
mar septic systees dot to inciem in
|riwdi«ter table levnls mm (Us.
• laiiMja in p ouaily villas in areas sar-
roaadinf tits dat to aesthetics, odors mi
aotse.*
o Carefs] abaction of sites;
adjest aoriicatioa rates.
o Prooer design, operation
and aaintenme; high level
of treataeat; baffar zones,
(rtfarastatioa aroenet.te
111-41
Beneficial laoarts
o Increase in citros oroduction.
o Redaction in overall land acouisition ccet
for land agolicaiion of renovated nasteaater.
o Raintaining aarin'.tinl ase of grivite
prootrty aosld becoae aore attractive to
jrsaars; orooerty retained on Goanty tax rolls.
o Increase in recreational valoas doe to lake
level inn eases.
o Bnhaieeent of aaroinal tetland areas die to
increase ia lake levels.
o Possible redaction in the cost of citras
fruit production.
o Provides an ooen saace/greenbelt area
consisted aith tkt Coanty BP.
-------
TA6L£ III-3
of Paw rittiincs
(CfifitllMtC)
Alternative
totential fldvtryf leoacts
Hitieative Measures
Groundwater Conservation
o Greatest increase :n lake levels imt re-
charge tones (ieoacts develovent cowoat-
ibility and srooerty values in the mediate
vicinity).
o Increase in sedieent and nutrient loading to
strface waters due to an increase in orouno-
Mater table levels and subseouent increase
in surface rwoff rates.
o Potential for sinkhole develooeent in-
creased - could cease severe tfanaoe in
oroiiBity of urban areas.
o Greatest potential for arooerty daeaae due
to groonduater woundirc.
o Detailed evaluation of eacn
affectao lake to ewrt jro-
owed increases are acceot-
able.
o Careful selection of recharse
site location and desion.
o Use of oredictive studies to
ainiauze location of cisttsai
fields in hioh siindtole risk
o Adjust systee design criteria.
No Federal Action o Increase in lake levels, though not antici-
oatcd to be as significant as the rasid
infiltration basin alternative.
o Careful selection of sites;
adjust asolication rates.
o Increase in sedisnt and nutrient loadino
to svface waters due to an increase in
sroMfcater table levels and subseouent in-
crease in surface netoff rates.
o Ikdeced area reouireuent allows
use of only the sore desirable
irrioation or RIB sites rente
o High density seetir tanii usage in low and o Arooer site selection, oesion,
aetfiu ootential soils, caesine an increase operation and regulation,
in nitrogen and fhosahorus loadings to
eroMMBter and lMes.
o Increased ootential for sinttiole develoo- o Univoidable - Jew vobability
nent, though not anticioated to be as of dan age to location in rural
significant as the raoid infiltration basin areas,
alternative.
111-42
Beneficial luoacts
o UU flow recucec or eliminated to Sninole
CreeK.
o fccharce and ooteniicoetric level increases
in tne rloridan aouifer.
o Increase in recreational values due to lake
level increases.
o Enhancement of uetland areas due to increase
in lake levels.
o Riniual land acouisition reouired.
o W flow reduced or eliuinated to Shingle
Creek.
o Less flow reduces land recuii1 mints: only
Nell-suited sites are chosen.
o Increase in arooerty values due to lane
level increases.
o Enhancement of Hrsinal wetland areas
doe to increase in lake levels.
o techaroe and oocentioeetric increases
in the Floridan aeuifer.
o Ircrease in citrus oroduction.
o Meet ion in otwrall lane acouisition cost
for land asolication of renovated wastewater-.
-------
TDBL£ III—3
SvMry of Hiior Fimines
Efflawt BimomI alternatives
(Coatiiwad)
"Hm
Ritiaatinn hum
lucrwat ia Hit variation of Hit notml
¦Mil cycle of late Imlt - prohibit*
tin tmtopMt of tm rooted aowtic
MfaUtias or ¦llili, ceanif • ml ¦.lion
» aial mi fi* camitieL
of a ¦eoeftry troataaat
ll Hf«JU< tapi«| Station
by reudaotiel Mar
o Careful selection of sites;
adjast aoelication rate*.
o Ikavoidible - no practical
eiti|ative i
IMar mfcta fraa «*lied i
daeotited aolidt darin| the drying cycle
of theOlk.e
j ooeratioa mi
; hi* lnel of
A; beffer zones (re-
forestation nral.H
o Mj«st systee desi|n criteria.
failare of eaistiaa ceotic sylt— • CMfal selection of sites;
costs for mm adjast apliolin rata.
1Mb Mr Ilk.
i nwil) «Ih ii erees mr-
rr—lin nk tm to ¦¦!!¦> in, eder* mi
¦Mfrtt tar
tin mi ill »l ii.
¦irtiwi hi|k lncl of
ftrestation proiral.M
o Unavoidable - nleas wm*
free iow Li oHt tin
¦fulfill isokteiaed.
Lm| tan apwll—1 praUaa tar dweloe- • Fleukility is davit* sites
¦t m tke ID fvi|M M of Sita tm to i
5ft, S mi 9 tarta ll iliiimt ¦«—»>.
If i»w in Mb Mt, ttwafk set anti- o Carefal selection of sites;
ciostad to bo as itpifint ¦ the nU adjeet aeelication rote*,
infiltration tatin or eitres Irrigation/
raeid iafiltratioa fcasia alternatives.
111-43
Beneficial laoacts
o Maintaining aoricelteral use of orivate
oroperty «mM becoaa ton attractive to
p moi' i, thereby retaining the oroperty on
Coanty tax rolls.
o ftrwides an ooan soKe/ereenOelt area con-
si stett nth the Coeaty BP.
o HI floa rrtmd or olimnatad to Aingle
Creek.
-------
TABLE IJI-3
Suawiry of Major Findings
Effluent Oisoosal Alternatives
(Continued)
Alternative
Potential Mverse luoacts
Hitieative Measures
On-Lot Disoosal/Citrus
Irrigation/Rapid
Infiltration Basins
o Increase in nutrient loadings to lakes via
groundwater.
o Monitor groundwater period-
ically during ooeration of
RIBs; aodify operation as
required.
0 Increase in sediaent and nutrient loading
to serf ace Haters due to an increase in
groundwater table levels and subsequent
increase in surface rwoff rates.
0 Reduced area reouireaent allows
use of only the aore desirable
irrigation or RIB sites reeote
froa lakes.
0 Potential for sinttole development in-
creased though not anticipated to be as
significant as the rapid infiltration
alternative.
0 Unavoidable - low probability
of daaage due to location in
rural areas.
0 Increase in the variation of the natural
annual cycle of lake levels - orohibits
the development of new rooted aquatic
tegetation or let lands, causing a reduction
in aniaal and fish coaaunities.
0 Odor orobleas froa aoplied wastewater and
deposited solids durim the drying cycle
of the ftlfc.*
o Increase in wastewater budget due to 1
structioa aid ooeration.
0 feoperty inwdated due to yowdwater
0 Careful selection of sites;
adjust aoolication rates.
0 Prooer design, ooeration and
aaintenance; high level of
treataent; buffer zones (re-
forestation orograal.M
o 55<-7S* of the caoital cost
of centralized systeas could
be ootentially funded by an
EPA grant.
0 Adjust systea design criteria.
failure of eiisting seotic sys-
tem and increased deveUnwurf costs for
*mt seetic systeas due to increase in
groundwater table levels near 119s.
1 in areoerty values in a
rowriifq Ills due to aesthetics,
0 Careful selection of sites;
adjust apolication rates.
0 tVoeei design, ooeration
and Maintenance; high level
of tree tan*; buffer zones
(reforestation oroeraa).*«
111-44
Beneficial I "pact s
0 Less flow to RIBs reduces land reouireaents;
only well-suited sites art chosen.
0 Recharge and ootentioaetric increases in the
Floridan aouifer.
0 Increase in citrus production.
o Reduction in overall land acouisition cost
for land application of renovated wastewater.
0 Maintaining agricultural use of private
prooerty would becoae aore attractive to
crowers: prooerty retained on County tan rolls.
0 Increase in recreational values due to lake
level increases.
0 Erfaiceaent of aaroinal wetland areas due to
increase in lake levels.
0 Possible reduction in the cost of citrus
fruit production.
0 Provides an ooen soace/greenbelt area
consistent with the County GMP.
-------
TMtf III-3
Saury of PUjor Fiadim
Efflamt CimoMil fllttrmtivw
(Continwd)
Mttnatiw
Matiil Mm Imcti
ItitiMtm
(fetst Usmal/Citra
Irri|*tio>>/te»id
I»filtrjtH» lain
• Hidmity MOtic tMk «ugt in Ion
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
-------
A. BASIS OF DECISION
This section will summarize the factors which led to the
selection of the preferred wastewater management alternative.
The decision to select the preferred alternative rather than one
of the other alternatives was made on the basis of cost-
effectiveness , anticipated operational reliability and
flexibility, and environmental suitability.
A.1 Cost-Effectiveness
Generally, EPA regulations allow a wastewater management
alternative to be considered cost-effective if its present worth
(life-cycle) costs are within ten percent of the least cost
alternative and would not result in significant degradation of
the environment. Other evaluative factors are also included in a
cost-effectiveness analysis. As discussed in Chapter II of this
EIS, there were eight wastewater management alternatives which
were determined to have equivalent (less than 10% difference)
present worth costs. Because it was concluded that the
environmental impact evaluation did not result in the
identification of potentially over-riding adverse impacts for any
of the alternatives, any one of the eight least cost alternatives
could have been selected for implementation.
The preferred alternative was not the least cost alternative.
Therefore, cost was not the primary basis for the selection of
the preferred alternative. Instead, operational flexibility and
environmental concerns were major reasons for selection of the
preferred alternative. Implementation of the combined citrus
irrigation/rapid infiltration disposal option provides the
beneficial reuse of the renovated wastewater by citrus
irrigation, while maintaining the flexibility and reliability of
an alternate disposal method. Environmental considerations which
were important in the selection of the preferred alternative are
discussed in the following section.
A.2 Important Environmental Considerations
Two important differences were notable among the least cost
alternatives. These were with respect to: (1) the effluent
disposal method; and (2) the number of treatment facilities
utilized. Six of the eight least cost alternatives included a
three plant configuration, with one of the three plants being the
potential new Northwest Subregional Facility. This facility was
to be located outside the Urban Service Area and foreseen to be a
source of developmental pressure and possible secondary growth in
the Rural Service Area. Although the two plant configuration was
selected because it does not require the design of a new
treatment plant and limits the effluent disposal to one
geographical area, its selection also eliminated the greatest
potential for induced growth outside the designated Urban Service
Area.
IV-1
-------
The combined citrus irrigation/rapid infiltration disposal option
provides for the beneficial reuse of renovated wastewater
associated with citrus irrigation. It also reduces the impact of
the operation of the rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) on water
table and lake levels, reduces the amount of land required for
the RIBsf and minimizes the amount of storage required for citrus
irrigation.
In general, the alternatives evaluation (Chapter III) determined
that the alternative selected has the least potential for
resultant environmental impact of all of the alternatives
evaluated. As with all of the land application alternatives
considered in the 201 Facilities Plan, predominately beneficial
impacts to area water resources are anticipated due to project
implementation. The selected alternative will, most notably,
eliminate the two most significant point source discharges to the
Shingle Creek/Lake Tohopekaliga drainage area, and result in the
recharge of area aquifers, including the Floridan. As a result
of the project, a decreased eutrophication rate of Lake
Tohopekaliga is anticipated and a significant amount of high
quality renovated wastewater will recharge one of the area's most
important water resources, the Floridan Aquifer. Although
potential adverse impacts to water resources (e.g. excessive
water table and lake level increases, lake water quality
degradation, etc.) have been identified to be associated with the
selected alternative in the previous chapter, subsequent
evaluations and mitigative measures (see Section C of this
chapter) incorporated into the design and operation of the
project have effectively dealt with these concerns. The selected
plan is expected to have the least adverse impact on area water
resources of the alternatives considered, and result in a
significant net beneficial impact on the water resources of the
County and region.
B. DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
B.l Service Areas/Interceptors
The Southwest Orange County 201 Planning Area is segregated into
three distinct service areas:
o Sand Lake Road Service Area
o McLeod Road Service Area
o Rural Service Area
These service areas are depicted in Map IV-1.
The Sand Lake Road Service Area encompasses approximately 15,000
acres. Design flow projections include allowances for
residential, commercial and industrial contributions, as well as
nonexcessive infiltration and inflow to the collection system.
Industrial wastewater flows are low in strength because the major
industries pretreat their flows prior to discharge to the County
system.
IV-2
-------
1
McLEOD road
SERVICE AREA
8ANDLAKE ROAD
SERVICE AREA
201 PLAN
WASTEWATER
SERVICE AREAS
LEGEND
CENTRALIZED SEWER SERVICE AREAS
• McLEOD ROAD TREATMENT FACILITY
¦ SANDLAKE ROAD TREATMENT FACILITY
HBB RURAL SERVICE AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY 201 PLAN
PRtPARtO FOR THE U S. CNVfHOW*C«TAL PROTECTION AC€MCV MAP IS" 11
-------
The McLeod Road Service Area encompasses approximately 38f000
acres and includes portions of the City of Winter Park's sewer
service area and unincorporated areas of Orange County. As in
the Sand Lake Road Service Area, design flow projections include
allowances for residential, commercial, and industrial
contributions, as well as nonexcessive infiltration and inflow
contributions.
The Rural Service Area will be serviced by septic tanks.
Developer financed subregional wastewater treatment facilities
will service new growth in the unincorporated southern portion of
the sewer services area.
Construction of force mains, gravity lines, pump stations and
expansion of some existing pump stations will be required in
order to convey the design flows from the Sand Lake Road and
McLeod Road Service Areas to their respective treatment
facilities. Interceptor system improvements required in the Sand
Lake Road Service Area involve the paralleling of approximately
17,900 linear feet of existing force mains and the expansion of
six existing pump stations. These are required to accommodate
anticipated development within the existing sewer service area.
The McLeod Road Service Area interceptor system will be upgraded
with new gravity lines and force mains, primarily along the
routes of existing lines, and new or expanded lift stations.
Sewer line capacity deficiencies currently exist in some areas of
the existing service areas. Map IV-2 shows the locations of the
proposed improvements for the McLeod Road and Sand Lake Road
wastewater collection system.
B.2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The improvements to the existing sewage treatment facilities will
include expansion of the present secondary treatment systems to
accommodate 23 mgd at the Sand Lake Road plant and 21 mgd at the
McLeod Road plant. The McLeod Road facility improvements will be
constructed on the existing plant site. An additional 26 acres
of land will be acquired south of the Sand Lake Road plant for
improvements to that facility. The location of the expansion
area is shown on Map IV-3. Table IV-1 gives a summary of the
design populations and flows for the two plants in the Year 2000.
Flow equalization, dual media filters, high level chlorination,
and additional sludge handling facilities will be constructed at
each treatment plant to provide advanced secondary waste
treatment. The projected effluent concentrations for the
modified treatment facilities, as well as the effluent
limitations set by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, are depicted in Table IV-2.
B.3 Effluent Disposal
The effluents from the two treatment facilities will be pumped
through 42-inch force mains to a junction point about 1.5 miles
west of the McLeod Road treatment plant. At that point, the two
IV-4
-------
PROPOSED INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM
MODIFICATIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES I fl ^ fl
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY MAYES, 3UDDERTH & ETHEREDGE
-------
R * 28 • E
R • 29 • E
ran
SAND LAKE ROAD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
EXPANSION AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATE8
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY MAYES. SUDOERTH 4 ETHEREDQE
MAP
m-3
-------
TABLE IV-1
SUMMARY OF YEAR 2000 DESIGN POPULATIONS AND FLOWS
SERVICE
AREA POPULATION FLOW, MGD
McLeod Road
City of Orlando 80,793 11.094
Orange County 66,453 8.479
Winter Park 7,010 .929
Total 154,256 20.502
Sand Lake Road
Orange County 133,456 22.634
Total 287,712 43.136
Source: Southwest Orange County, Florida,
201 Facilities Plan, Draft,
Orange County and City of Orlando,
October 1983
IV-7
-------
TABLE IV-2
RAPID INFILTRATION BASIN
DESIGN EFFLUENT QUALITY STANDARDS
Parameter
FDER Proiected Concentration (ma/1)
Limits Average Maximum
TSS
20 4
5
BOD5
20 10
20
Total Phosphorus
4
4
Total Nitrogen
16
20
Nitrate-Nitrogen
12 2
8
pH
6-8.5 7
8.5
Source: Rapid Infiltration Basins Design
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.; April
Development Report;
1984.
IV-8
-------
lines will be joined and a single 54-inch pipeline will be
constructed to the distribution center in West Orange County.
The route of the 15.5 mile force main is shown on Map IV-4.
At the distribution center, 20 million gallons of storage will be
provided and flows will be routed into the citrus irrigation
distribution network or rapid infiltration basins as demand
requires. At the time of this writing, commitments by grove
owners to receive renovated wastewater total 20.9 mgd. This
deihand has been estimated to increase to an average of about 30
mgd by the Year 2000. The actual demand will be determined by the
number of growers participating in the project. Any excess flow
will be routed to the rapid infiltration basins. The target area
for citrus irrigation is Southwest Orange County and Southeast
Lake County. A network of pipelines will be constructed to carry
the reclaimed effluent to citrus groves within the target area.
Map IV-5 shows the target area boundary for the citrus
distribution system and the initial alignment of the distribution
pipeline. Growers participating in the program will receive
specific amounts of water for irrigation according to a written
agreement with the City and County. The average application rate
will be approximately 1 inch per week. The actual rate will be
determined by the individual growers, due to variations in flow
requirements during periods of extended rainfall or drought. A
system of wells will be constructed along the route of the
distribution system to satisfy peak irrigation demands which
exceed the availability of renovated wastewater.
The rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) will be constructed on RIB
Sites 5,6,7 and 9 as shown in Map IV-6. Because the transmission
main passes through Site 6, take-off piping will be installed to
supply effluent directly to the site, thus bypassing the
distribution center. The take-off piping will be designed to
handle a peak flow of 75 mgd in order to provide for disposal of
effluent during emergency peak flow conditions. Average loading
estimates for each site are shown in Table IV-3. The RIBs will
be designed for infiltration rates of up to 6.4 inches per day,
with provisions for a wetting period of 7 days and drying period
of 7 days. The RIB berms outside of the basins will be sodded
with Bermuda grass, and a spray irrigation system will be added
for disposal of effluent. In addition to the aesthetic
considerations, Bermuda grass, if harvested, can utilize up to
400 lbs. of nitrogen per acre per year. Minimal reduction in
nitrogen loads would be anticipated, however, if the grass is not
harvested.
Sludge Management
Improvements or process modifications at the Sand Lake Road
Wastewater Treatment Facility include: chlorine feed to two 95
foot diameter gravity thickeners for control of odors; conversion
of existing aerobic digesters to anaerobic digesters, which
operate as closed systems with no venting to the atmosphere; and
installation of four belt presses for sludge dewatering to reduce
the need to dewater sludge on open drying beds during normal
IV-9
-------
SELECTED PLAN
LEGEND
— PLANNING AREA
WBB URBAN SERVICE AREA
— TRANSMISSION MAIN
CITRUS IRRIGATION TARGET AREA
V//////A RiB SITES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY 201 PLAN
| MAP DT-41
PREPAREO FOR THE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY MAYES. SUDOERTH * ETHEREDQE
LjuLji
-------
wbbbbM
PROPOSED
RAPID INFILTRATION
BASIN SITES „
LEGEND
PARCELS ELIMINATED
FOR RIB CONSTRUCTION
DISTRIBUTION
CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY
201 PLAN
PREPARED FOR the UNITED 3TATE3
BY MAYe|NIuL PR0TECTI0N AGENCY
BY MAYE8. SUDDEHTH & ETHEREDQE
JULJ]
-------
TABLE IV-3
RIB SITE DESIGN DATA
SITE AVERAGE FLOW (MGD)
5 1.03
6 10.22
7 3.14
9 1.49
Total 15.88
Source: Rapid Infiltration Basins Design Development Report;
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.; April 1984.
IV-13
-------
operations. In addition, the solids removal equipment for the
secondary clarifiers will be modified to provide for uniform
withdrawal of sludge. Stabilized solids will be trucked to the
Orange County Model Landfill for final disposal.
At the McLeod Road Water Pollution Control Facility, two
strategies for sludge handling are being considered. The first
would involve odor control# thickening, anaerobic digestion, belt
press dewatering and landfilling of sludge, all to be
accomplished by the City of Orlando. The second strategy being
considered is the privatization of sludge handling operations at
City treatment facilities whereby a full service vendor would
provide long-term sludge handling and disposal operations for the
City. Privatization could eliminate, modify or delay
construction of facilities that are currently under design for
the first approach. It is unknown at this time which sludge
management strategy will be implemented at the McLeod Road
facility.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
C.l Surface Water Resources
Implementation of the selected plan will eliminate the direct
discharge of effluent to Shingle Creek and should result in a
decreased rate of eutrophication in Lake Tohopekaliga. While
this accomplishes one of the primary objectives of the Southwest
Orange County 201 Facilities Plan, the potential effects of the
proposed action on other surface water resources were also
evaluated. Lakes are the primary surface water resource of
concern in the 201 Planning Area because they are natural
resources of important economic and recreational value. They
also serve as direct sources of recharge to the area's potable
aquifers.
Lake Levels
The average annual elevation of lakes located near the proposed
RIBs are expected to increase after RIB operation begins because
of the additional recharge to the water table aquifer This mav
result in relatively high lake levels during some unusuallv wet
years. However, Orange County has adopted a policy which will
prevent loading RIBs near lakes when those lakes approach th^ir
100-year flood level. With the proposed operational procedures,
wastewater would be diverted to citrus irrigation or to ribs
located further from lakes. Therefore, it is not antieinJJ
that RIB operation will cause flooding of lands which would not
have been flooded under pre-conatructicn conditions
frequent or continuous lake level monitoring may be reauired to
effectively implement the operational objectives: and RiBiotaim!
rates can be adjusted accordingly. Beneficial impacta win occu?
to Lakes Avalon, Ingram and Johns. These lakes havebeenml
lower than normal elevations during recent years an A » ^?
their levels should increase their rlcreational SUtulne...
IV-14
-------
Lake Water Quality
The potential impact on the water quality of lakes in the region
due to RIB operation is not expected to be significant. Five of
the six lakes nearest to the RIB sites (Lakes Hancock/ Hartley,
Speer, Johns and Avalon) appear to be phosphorus limited. These
lakes would be sensitive only to changes in phosphorus
concentrations, and not to changes in nitrogen concentrations.
Because an excess of nitrogen is already available in these
lakes, an increase in nitrogen levels would have no impact on the
rate of vegetative growth. Lake Black is apparently not
phosphorus limited, but may be light limited, and therefore, not
sensitive to nutrient enrichment.
A comparison of water quality in lakes and water table aquifer
shows that the concentration of total nitrogen in the water table
aquifer and in lakes is in the same approximate range. Most of
the nitrogen entering lakes from the water table aquifer remains
available in the water column for the growth of aquatic
vegetation. An increase in the concentration of nitrogen in the
water table aquifer could be expected to result in a nearly equal
increase in nitrogen concentrations in lakes. A comparison of
phosphorus concentration shows the phosphorus concentration of
the water table aquifer to be ten times that of lakes. It
appears that most of the phosphorus entering lakes from the water
table aquifer is rapidly consumed by algae and aquatic
vegetation, and therefore, not measureable in lake waters. This
further substantiates the assumption that the lakes are
phosphorus limited.
As stated above, nitrogen enrichment is not anticipated to be a
problem, even though nitrogen levels will increase above current
levels. The concentration of phosphorus in the water talkie
aquifer is not expected to increase as a result of RIB operation,
and may possibly decrease due to the advanced secondary treatment
of the wastewater. Because the phosphorus concentration of
groundwaters reaching lakes is not expected to be increased, it
is predicted that eutrophication of these lakes will not be
accelerated and no significant deterioration of water quality is
expected to occur.
c*2 Groundwater Resources
GroundwafrAv Levels
Groundwater movement in southwest Orange County is three*
dimensional due to the hydraulic connection of the Ploridan
aquifer and the water table aquifer. A three—dimensional US6S
model was utilized in developing the 201 Facilities Plan to
predict the mounding anticipated to occur with the initiation and
continued operation of wastewater disposal operations at the
Proposed rib sites. From the results of this model, 'it was
estimated that only a slight rise will occur in the
Potentiometric surface of the Floridan aquifer. A rise of a few
feet in the potentiometric surface is not considered a
IV-15
-------
significant impact.
The elevation of the surficial aquifer, which consists of the
upper soils of the region, will be increased in some areas as
compared to its normal level, due to RIB operations. The maximum
elevation of the water table will be closer to the land surface
beneath the RIB sites and in the immediately adjacent areas. In
addition, it is expected that the elevation of the water table
will vary more frequently and more rapidly as a result of RIB
operation. However, based upon hydrogeologic mathematical
models prepared for the area, it is not expected that the
shallower water table created will significantly affect existing
agricultural activities or other land uses on properties adjacent
to the RIB sites.
Groundwater Quality
Minor changes in the quality of groundwaters in the area may
occur due to RIB operation, but are generally not expected to be
significant. For example, the average concentration of some
chemical constituents, such as nitrogen, may be increased in the
groundwaters near the RIB sites. However, no significant impacts
on the quality of these waters is anticipated because these
constituents are expected to meet water quality standards at the
site boundaries. Based on data obtained during the 201 Planning
studies, the treated wastewater effluents from the Sand Lake Road
and McLeod Road treatment plants presently meet all primary and
secondary drinking water standards except for coliforms,
turbidity and iron. In addition, both the City and County have
developed industrial pretreatment programs to monitor and control
the discharge of industrial wastes into the sanitary sewer
systems.
The concentration of nitrogen in the groundwaters directly below
RIBs may increase to levels somewhat above those allowed for
drinking water. However, it is anticipated that mixing with
other groundwaters and percolating rainwater will occur and
reduce these concentrations to a level which will meet drinking
water standards. RIB Site 5 will be used for testing operational
procedures to control nitrate nitrogen levels in the groundwater.
A continuous monitoring program, as required by the PDER, will be
implemented to assure that the quality and elevation of the
groundwater are not significantly affected by the project. If
adverse impacts to the groundwater occur, further impacts could
then be avoided by reducing the RIB loading rates or changing
operational procedures.
The groundwater monitoring program has been designed to assess
the impact of the hydraulic loading of individual Rapid
Infiltration Basins (RIBs) on the surficial and Floridan aquifer
systems. The monitoring well network will be constructed prior
to the start of construction of the RIBs and will be designed to
IV-16
-------
measure water elevation and water quality changes within each RIB
site. Background water quality and water elevation data will be
monitored during the RIB construction period and prior to the
start of hydraulic loading of each RIB site. Background data
will be monitored in a series of surficial and deep monitoring
wells. Following the start of operations at each site,
background water quality data will continue to be monitored
hydraulically upgradient from the area of disposal at each site.
Additional monitoring wells will be provided along a boundary
which is defined by the zone of discharge around the periphery of
each RIB site and at several other interim points within the zone
of discharge. The zone of discharge for each RIB "site" as
defined by Chapter 17-4 of the Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.) is defined by a line which is located 100 feet outside
the outer most boundary of the individual RIBs within each area
(e.g., Sites 5, 6, 7 and 9).
The primary monitoring system for each RIB site is comprised of a
network of shallow monitoring wells within the upper surficial
aquifer. Individual wells are located along the outer zone of
discharge for each site in order to intercept the flow of
effluent from individual RIBs to offsite areas and provide
measurement of water quality impacts. The hydrogeology of the
area indicates that both external, offsite drainage and internal
onsite drainage is to be expected. Therefore, additional
intermediate monitoring wells have been provided within the zone
of discharge to monitor any anticipated drainage through
topographically low depressional areas into the deeper Floridan
aquifer system. This concept of the monitoring program
recognizes that for internally drained sites, the zone *of
discharge must be defined in a vertical as well as horizontal
orientation.
The impact of the hydraulic loading of individual RIBs on the
surficial groundwater system is measured in both water quality
and water elevation changes. In order to monitor the changes in
water elevation and to provide essential data to control the
operation and loading of individual cells throughout each
property, additional 2-inch monitoring wells have been provided
within each RIB site. In general, these wells are located along
potentiometric ridge lines and will be used to measure the change
in water table elevation which has a direct bearing on
operational decisions. Several low lying depressional areas are
found within each RIB site, many of which contain water year-
round. In order to monitor the change in surface water
elevation, staff gages will be provided within the predominant
depressional areas. The staff gages will be used to measure
water elevation changes and to provide input to operational
decisions regarding the loading of individual cells.
Although the Floridan aquifer is considered to be outside the
zone of discharge for each RIB site, as defined under Section 17-
IV-17
-------
4 F.A.C., monitoring wells in the Floridan aquifer will be
provided to measure water quality and water level changes.
Existing wells in the Floridan aquifer at Sites 5, 6 and 7 will
be used for measurement of water quality and water level changes.
A new 4-inch diameter monitoring well will be constructed
hydraulically downgradient from Site 9, also to measure water
level and water quality changes. In addition, existing wells
within the Floridan aquifer upgradient from Site 9 and
downgradient of Site 6 will be monitored on a regular basis to
detect any water quality changes at a regional scale.
Groundwater monitoring is not planned in the citrus irrigation
areas. Based on an agreement with FDER, the quality of the water
leaving the distribution center site will be monitored for pH,
fecal coliform and chlorine residual. However, if groundwater
monitoring at the RIB sites indicate water quality degradation,
monitoring in the citrus irrigation sites will be initiated.
This strategy is based on the fact that if there are not problems
at the RIB sites, where the loadings are greatest, then there
should be no problems in the citrus irrigation areas, where
loadings are minimal.
The University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences (IFAS) will conduct a monitoring program to determine
the impacts of the irrigation on citrus production. This program
will include an evaluation of the chemical characteristics of the
citrus leaves, fruit and soil during irrigation. Water quality
will be monitored at the point of application to the citrus
groves.
C.3 Land Resources
The environmental assessment of the proposed construction and
operation of the wastewater transmission, treatment and disposal
facilities involved three aspects of land resources, i.e.
topography, soils and geology. Only one impact was determined to
be potentially significant. This concerned the potential for
causing or increasing the likelihood of the formation of
sinkholes.
Evaluations of Sites 5,6,7 and 9 show the greatest potential for
sinkhole formation at Site 6. The geology of Site 6 contains
variable overburden thickness, Hawthorn thickness and Hawthorn
competency (competency of the Hawthorn Formation is based on the
number of blows per foot of a penetrating drill). site 6
contains a number of remnant sinkholes, and small and large
enclosed depressions. Groundwater modeling indicates that the
water table beneath the site will be raised by about 30 percent
above normal levels, causing an increase in the head differential
with the confined aquifer and an increase in the load on the
subsurface strata. However, if a sinkhole should develop it is
not expected to create a significant impact. Most of the Dast
sinkhole activity associated with Site 6 has occurred in the far
IV-18
-------
eastern portion of the site, where the nearest residents are
greater than one—half mile from active disposal sites. If a
sinkhole should occur in a basin during an application cycle, a
relatively small volume of water could enter the aquifer
directly. However, because of the high quality of the treated
effluent, no significant impacts on groundwater quality would be
expected.
C.4 Ecological Resources
Ecological field surveys were conducted to determine the impacts
which might occur due to construction and operation of the
proposed wastewater treatment, transmission and disposal systems.
These field surveys identified the major plant and animal
communities, as well as the presence or absence of rare,
endangered or threatened species in the affected area. Based on
evaluations of the findings, no rare or endangered species will
be affected, and it is anticipated that no long-term significant
ecological consequences pertaining to construction or operation
will result.
The gopher tortoise, a species of special concern, may be
temporarily affected during construction in that the burrows of a
few individuals are located in the vicinity of the proposed
transmission corridor. Relocation of these individuals may be
necessary if the construction affects their burrows. Various
types of natural vegetation may be removed or disturbed during
construction of the transmission system. The areas disturbed can
be replanted with the appropriate species* to minimize the extent
of the impacts.
The operational impacts associated with groundwater and lake
elevation changes may also cause a short-term ecosystem
adjustment. This is not necessarily an adverse i»pact, as the
changes will gradually occur over a long period of time. In
addition, the plant and animal communities will be able to adapt
to the iater level changes. The water level changes are
generally expected to be less than two feet and are not expected
C tlterthf!eatona?ity of the present water fluctuations. The
operational flexibility of the preferred alternative will also
permit the avoidance of changed water level patterns, should they
subsequently threaten to cause ecological impacts.
These conclusions differ from the findings reported in the
previous chapter of this BIS, which were based on preliminary
modeling efforts, as developed during the alternatives evaluation
process" which predicted substantial groundwater level increases.
Groundwater modeling efforts were subse^ently refined during the
design of the selected alternative. The impacts on lake levels
and water table elevations hased on the refined
substantially less than those predicted by the earlier models.
Therefore, the potential for adverse impacts to ecological
resources would not be as great as predicted previously.
IV-19
-------
C.5 Population and Land Use
The proposed project conforms to existing and planned land uses
and supports the goals and objectives of the Orange County and
City of Orlando Growth Management Policies (GMPs). Although
specific segments of the proposed interceptor system could cause
induced growth, the planned phasing of the system should be
adequate to control this potential growth. In addition, should
induced growth occur, it would have to conform with the
recommended densities of the adopted GMP. Therefore, no
significant adverse impacts related to conformance with existing
or planned land uses are anticipated as a result of
implementation of the proposed project.
During construction and operation of the selected plan,
disruption of existing land uses is anticipated to be the most
prevalent type of potential impact to occur. Normal short-term
construction-related impacts such as disruption of traffic
patterns, temporary access problems, and construction traffic,
dust and noise will occur during construction of the project.
These temporary impacts along segments of the interceptor and
transmission systems are unavoidable, and may be mitigated to
some extent, but are not anticipated to be of over-riding
significance. With respect to interceptors, the impacts are
considered to be necessary in order to avoid other potentially
more significant secondary growth impacts which could occur if
constructed in undeveloped areas.
Although the RIBs are located in areas of predominately
agricultural or vacant lands, some impacts to existing land uses
could occur. Disruption of an existing poultry farm adjacent to
RIB Site 7 could occur due to construction or operation of the
project. Project planning has included several modifications to
reduce impacts to residents adjacent to RIB Site 6. Construction
activities at the RIB sites are not anticipated to be
significant. There are approximately 700 acres of active citrus
groves on the RIB sites. Approximately 100 acres of active
citrus will remain on the RIB sites after construction and will
be leased for citrus management.
Operation of the RIBs may increase area lake levels. Although
this could be a significant beneficial impact to some of these
lakes, existing residential or agricultural areas could
potentially be adversely impacted at specific lake levels. The
effects of the project on water table and lake levels will be
continually monitored by the County and City. The County has
resolved to begin diverting wastewater to citrus irrigation or to
other RIBs if lakes adjacent to operating RIBs come to within 18
inches of their 100-year flood level. In order to evaluate the
potential impacts of increased lake levels, land uses with the
100-year flood plain of lakes adjacent to the RIB sites were
located using aerial photos and limited field checks. No
potential impacts to existing land uses within the Lake Avalon
IV-20
-------
100-year flood plain are anticipated. Small areas of citrus
groves could be impacted in the 100—year flood plains of Lakes
Johns, Speer, Hartley* Hancock# and Ingram. Residential
structures located within the 100—year flood plains of Lakes
Black, Johns and Ingram could also be potentially impacted. The
extent of the impact, even if the lake levels were to rise to the
100-year flood level, cannot be determined because the elevation
of the floor of these structures is not known. This is not
considered to be a potentially significant over—riding impact
because actual increases in lake levels cannot be adequately
determined prior to operation due to variables such as the nature
of potential citrus irrigation demand, weather conditions, and
the actual hydrogeologic response to the RIB loadings. Also, the
planned monitoring program combined with the operational
flexibility of the proposed systems is expected to preclude
significant impacts. More frequent monitoring of lake levels
than the proposed quarterly readings may, however, be warranted.
C.6 Archaeological/Historical Resources
An archaeological and historical site survey and assessment was
conducted in order to determine potential impacts of the selected
alternative. As a result of this assessment, four previously
unknown prehistoric sites were discovered. These sites represent
short-term, special use camps or limited activity sites, and are
relatively common in this and other archaeological regions. The
sites are badly disturbed due to past planting and maintenance of
citrus groves It was determined that there are no significant
prehistoric or historic sites eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places within the area designated
for construction of the proposed project.
C.7 Air Quality/Odor/Noise
An analysis of the effects of the selected plan was undertaken to
determine potential air quality, odor and noise impacts.
Temporary, highly localized noise and dust impacts will occur due
to construction, particularly in heavily developed areas along
interceptor and transmission main routes. However, these impacts
will cease after the construction phase, and will not create any
long-term problems. Odor problems currently occur at the
existing facilities, particularly at the treatment facilities,
and design improvements are being made to reduce this impact.
Upgrading of the facilities should reduce existing odor problems
and, therefore, result in a positive impact. There are no
significant adverse impacts anticipated related to air quality,
odor or noise.
D. mitigative measures
D.l Proposed Mitigative Measures
Several mitigative measures have been incorporated during the
IV-21
-------
development of the 201 Facilities Plan and design of the selected
alternative. Implementation of these mitigative measures began
during the alternatives evaluation process (e.g. revisions of RIB
site areas in response to EIS and public concerns). Other
mitigative measures are planned to further minimize the potential
impacts. These measures are described in the following
paragraphs.
D.l.l Mitigation of Water Resource Impacts
Lake Levels
In order to avoid property damage due to lake level increases, it
is recommended that detailed topographic surveys be conducted in
potentially affected areas to adequately assess the effects of
attaining 100-year flood levels. These surveys would determine
whether significant property damage would occur if the lakes
reached the 100-year flood level. Lake level monitoring is
incorporated in project planning in order to control lake level
impacts associated with operation of the RIBs. An Orange County
Commission resolution requires that mitigative measures be
initiated should lake levels rise above 18" below the 100-year
flood level. In order to ensure that these measures, if
required, are instigated immediately, it is recommended that
continuous lake level monitoring should be considered.
Continuous lake level recording to the operations center could
enhance the flexibility of operations and/or provide useful data
on the response of the lake levels to RIB loadings.
Groundwater Levels
Mitigative measures for impacts related to groundwater mounding
were developed in response to: (1) meetings with Lake Avalon
Home and Property Owners Association and other concerned citizen
and interest groups; and (2) restrictions imposed by PDER. As a
result of meetings with members of the Lake Avalon Home and
Property Owners Association, design guidelines were developed and
adopted by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners.
These guidelines, which were incorporated into the RIB design^
include measures that will minimize the impacts on the adjoining
property owners. The wetted perimeter of the RIBs will be
located not less than 100 feet from adjoining property lines, not
less than 500 feet from Dangler Road, and not less than 500'feet
east of the most western boundary of RIB Site 6.
Criteria established by the Florida DER also require that RIBs be
operated in such a manner as to preclude the breakout or pooling
of effluent in adjacent land areas at design loading rates.
Therefore, if the design loading rates are found to result in
seepage in low areas off the RIB sites, modifications will be
required to the effluent loading rates to eliminate such
occurrences. The County has developed a rigorous monitorino
program to assure successful operation of the effluent disposal
IV-2 2
-------
system, included in the monitoring program are groundwater
monitoring wells, effluent monitoring systems, the test basin and
associated instrumentation, and fully operational meteorological
stations at each site. In addition to these elements, the
monitoring program also includes the use of a computerized
management system called the "On-Going Management Tool" (OGMT).
The OGMT is being developed in conjunction with the design of
control systems for RIBs and will allow for operational
modifications based on monitoring and flow control data.
Groundwater Quality
A monitoring program will also be implemented to measure changes
in groundwater quality. The monitoring program will include
periodic sampling of shallow groundwaters (i.e. within the upper
10-50 feet of soil). The proposed location for RIB monitoring
wells are presented in the site-specific hydrogeologic reports
prepared by Jammal & Associates, Inc. and contained in Appendix C
to the Rapid Infiltration Basins Design Development Report,
revised April 1984.
For up to one year prior to the start of the RIB operations, an
initial monitoring of water quality in each well will be
conducted. Sampling will be on a quarterly basis. Once
operation of the RIBs commences, the water quality will be
measured quarterly, possibly measuring different parameters from
those of the initial monitoring program. The long-term
monitoring program will be refined based on the results of the
initial monitoring program. Additional parameters will be
measured annually in order to permit a complete characterization
of long-term groundwater quality changes. Table IV-4 lists the
various parameters and their corresponding frequency of analysis.
Ongoing evaluation of optimum operational procedures at the test
basin will be used to refine and improve upon nutrient removal
capabilities at the other RIB sites. Adequate storage is
provided in the treatment facilities to insure that effluent
pumped to the disposal system meets the requirements as specified
in the growers' agreements. Inadequately treated effluent will
not be discharged.
Lake Water Quality
Continuing surface water monitoring of Lakes Black, Hancock
Hartley, Avalon, Ingram, Johns and Speer will also be
accomplished by Orange County to identify any significant changes
in water quality which might occur. Both shoreline and in-lake
monitoring stations will be established at several points on all
lakes in the vicinity of the RIB sites. Monitoring station
locations will be fixed by an in-place water level staff gauge.
In order to monitor the effect of RIB operation on lake water
quality, a data base collected prior to construction of the RIBs
will be used for information on background parameter levels.
Monitoring stations on lakes upgradient of the RIB Sites will
provide additional background water quality data.
IV-2 3
-------
TABLE IV-4
GROUNDWATER MONITORING PARAMETERS
Parameter
Sampling Frequency
InitiallyQuarterly Annually
Five-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand X XX
Chloride X x
Conductance X X x
Coliform Bacteria X XX
Nitrate Nitrogen X X x
Nitrite Nitrogen X x x
Ammonia Nitrogen X
Organic Nitrogen X
Total Nitrogen X X x
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen X X x
Total Organic Carbon X X x
Phosphorus X x
Total Dissolved Solids X x
PH X X X
Temperature X X x
Water Level X X x
Priority Pollutants (including EDB) X x
Primary and secondary drinking water X x
quality parameters (FDER Section
17-22.104), excluding radionuclides.
Source: Chapter 10; Rapid Infiltration Basins Design Develocment
Report; Camp Dresser 6 McKee, Inc.; Revised, April 1984.
IV-24
-------
While FDER regulations do not specify the surface water quality
parameters to be monitored, for consistency those parameters
listed in the groundwater monitoring requirements will be
measured along with some additional parameters that are
particularly indicative of surface water quality. These
parameters are identified in Table IV-5. Initially, all
parameters will be measured on a quarterly basis in order to
quantify the seasonal variation in parameter values. Subsequent
sampling frequency will be adjusted appropriately based upon
initial results.
D.1.2 • Mitigation of Ecological Resource Impacts
Construction
Mitigation of construction impacts involves minimizing the
duration and total area of disturbance. The following specific
suggestions are provided for mitigation: (1) minimize the
destruction of plant and animal communities as much as possible;
(2) revegetate disturbed areas quickly to avoid erosion and
minimize disturbance of native species; (3) identify the presence
of qopher tortoise burrows and attempt to relocate any
individuals encountered in the construction zone to a habitat
similar to that from which they were removed; and (4) enhance
wildlife habitat adjacent to RIBs by selecting and planting
vegetation recognized as beneficial for food and cover for
wildlife Reveaetation of disturbed areas along the transmission
corridor'and at the RIB sites can be accomplished at little cost
to provide the habitat requirements for wildlife. Table IV-6
lists selected plants which can be planted in Orange CoUnty.
Surface Water Levels
An increase in lake levels could
btbo .ffert the existing natural vegetative areas.
Monitorino as described under Water Resources in the previous
section followed by adjustments in the design and/or operation
of the RIB flvstem, should prevent any significant permanent
destrurHon of shore-line vegetation. Other mitigative measures
destruction of snore xxn« * # permanent increase in water
i«w0iVe# 4-hj»n 2 5 feet above the historical and natural
frea^«if f»vel variations; (2) schedule maximum increases
Pattern of water level variati«»¦» */ ftColoaieal effects are
of water level for early ^hf" ^% rfcfAaMa ln the sorino
Jinim.1, (3) .void prolong prote'ctfon o^
^fS^thrOU?^ 4n the relative pattern of seasonality in
seedlings; (4) maintain required for the diversity of the
iev changes aetation growth patterns annually to
vS.d. such .. w.ter
hyacinth.
1V-25
-------
TABLE IV-5
SURFACE WATER MONITORING PARAMETERS
Parameter
Alkalinity
Five-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chloride
Conductance
Fecal Coliform
Total Coliform
Dissolved Oxygen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Nitrite Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Organic Nitrogen
Total Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Total Organic Carbon
Orthophosphate
Total Phosphorus
Total Solids
Total Suspended Solids
pH
Temperature
Source: Chapter 10; Rapid Infiltration BasinB Design
Development Report; Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.;
Revised, April 1984.
IV-26
-------
TABLE IV-6
SELECTED WILDLIFE PLANTS FOUND IN CENTRAL FLORIDA*
WOODY PLANTS
Pine (82)b
Bald Cypress (3)
Palmetto (9)
Greenbriar (33)
Wax Myrtle/Bayberry (36)
Willow (25)
Oak (96)
Elm (20)
Hackberry (48)
Mulberry (38)
Osage-Orange (3)
Saltbush (22)
Chokeberry (11)
Blackberry (97)
Wild Rose (24)
Wild Cherry (81)
Wild Plum (4)
Acacia (7)
Black Locust (4)
Sumac (50)
Holly (36)
Maple (33)
Grape (75)
Virginia Creeper (30)
Black Gum (33)
Blueberry (53)
Persimmon (19)
Beautyberry (10)
Buttonbush (11)
^antridge Berry (7)
Viburnum (25)
UPLAND WEEDS AND HERBS MARSH AND AQUATIC PLANTS
Fescuegrass (23)
Bluegrass (30)
Bermudagrass (5)
Crabgrass (22)
Paspalum (19)
Panicgrass (67)
Bristlegrass (77)
Pigweed (55)
Pokeweed (28)
Chickweed (36)
Strawberry (31)
Partridge-pea (4)
Clover (40)
Beggels-ticks (4)
Lespedezas (7)
Wood Sorrel (16)
Doveweed (21)
Jewelweed (7)
Spurge (15)
Violet (9)
Nightshade (45)
Ragweed (71)
Sunflower (60)
Dandelion (33)
Cattail (17)
Pondweed (40)
Arrowhead (19)
Wild Celery (16)
Rice Cutgrass (14)
Wild Rice (23)
Wild Millet (29)
Chufa and allies (23)
Bulrush (52)
Spikerush (29)
Sawgrass (14)
Duckweed (16)
Pickerelweed (4)
Smartweed (66)
Waterlily (17)
Cow Lily (8)
a8o>irce» Martin et al. 1551
relative number of bird and mammal species
»unt ,p*oi" throu®ho°t u* r*n9*-
IV-27
-------
Groundwater Levels
The ecological impacts resulting from groundwater mounding can be
partially mitigated by controlling the timing and duration of the
increases. If the duration of the increases is short (a few
weeks), then effects on vegetation will not be permanent. The
impacts on burrowing animals can be reduced if the groundwater
level does not rise during periods of extremely hot and cold
temperatures. The groundwater levels should also be controlled
during the early spring growing seasons to avoid adversely
affecting young plants. For citrus, the groundwater level should
be controlled as much as possible and not be allowed to rise
during very dry periods.
D.1.3 Mitigation of Air Resource Impacts
Odor
With regard to impacts on air resources, odor was determined to
have the highest potential impact if proper treatment facility
operation does not occur. Good housekeeping procedures should be
followed at all times, and potential odor causing material, such
as sludge, screenings, skimmings and grit should be properly
handled. Such material should not be stored for excessive
periods on-site prior to disposal. Careful attention should also
be given to proper operation of the various chlorination systems
to prevent odor problems from developing at the distribution
center and disposal sites.
D.1.4 Mitigation of Land Resource and Land Use Impacts
Land Resources
Mitigative measures for impacts on land resources due to
sinkhole formation are not available. However, if a sinkhole
does develop, operation of the particular basin would cease and
an alternate basin would be utilized.
Land Use
The increase in groundwater levels due to RIB operation could
adversely affect production of citrus in the affected areas. As
mentioned previously, monitoring of groundwater levels* and
careful operation of the RIBs should prevent an increase in
groundwater levels which might be detrimental to existing
vegetation. A reforestation program will be implemented in order
to mitigate impacts on land uses adjacent to the RIB sites
Construction impacts on the egg production at a poultry farm
adjacent to RIB Site 7 can be reduced by not parking construction
equipment near the farm and avoiding bright lights and loud
noises.
IV-2 8
-------
D.2 Measures Incorporated in the Final Plan
The 201 planning effort has been very responsive to EIS and
public concerns during the development of the selected plan.
Several measures designed to mitigate the potentially adverse
impacts identified during the development of the selected plan
were described in the previous subsection. A brief discussion of
the selected measures is presented below.
Lake Levels
Resolutions enacted by the City and County require that remedial
actions be implemented whenever lake levels in the RIB area reach
18" below their respective 100-year flood levels. Lake level
monitoring will be performed on a quarterly basis initially and
in conjunction with lake water quality monitoring. If lake
levels do exceed acceptable limits, the application rates or
scheduling of the RIBs involved will be adjusted accordingly.
Affected RIBs may also be removed from service, if necessary.
Groundwater Levels
Groundwater monitoring will be conducted to record changes in
groundwater levels and help prevent any potentially adverse
impacts that might occur due to groundwater mounding. Excessive
groundwater mounding could cause increased surface runoff rates,
septic tank malfunctions and property flooding. Mitigative
measures involve adjusting RIB application rates or utilizing
alternate RIBs. A computerized management system called the "On-
Going Management Tool" will be used in conjunction with disposal
control systems to allow for operational modifications based on
monitoring and flow control data.
Water Quality
Groundwater and surface water quality JImpacts will be oontinuaUy
assessed by instituting a monitoring program. The proposed
quarterly ™«pling
;h\%aep^r"et.0s%^"/efp" Piously, and therefore, Ifll'not be
discussed further.
Odor
_ ^ f-nT, the operation of the wastewater
Potential h avoided by using proper housekeeping and
treatment plants can be avoided Y y v McLeod Road and Sand
^r^rdla^mtirsU^nev^e existing odors, rather than
creating new odor sources.
IV-2 9
-------
Poultry Farm Production
Mitigative measures to prevent a decrease In egg production at a
poultry farm adjacent to RIB Site 7 include avoiding loud noises
and bright lights. This can be accomplished easily by not
allowing parking of construction equipment near the farm.
Constxuction
Norn/a1 construction practice for the area will offset any adverse
impacts caused during construction activities by immediate
revegetation of the affected areas. By planting various types of
foliage, wildlife activity in the area may increase from the
level prior to construction.
Aesthetics
RIB sites have been carefully selected so as to have minimal
environmental impact on the surrounding areas. Undeveloped areas
have been chosen, and a program to landscape and reforest the
portions of the site not planned for RIB construction will be
implemented to improve the site aesthetics and provide a buffer
from surrounding land uses. As was mentioned previously, design
guidelines adopted by the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners were incorporated into the RIB designs to ensure
that the RIBs are located at least 100 feet from adjoining
property lines, 500 feet from Dangler Road, and 500 feet east of
the most western boundary of Site 6. If seepage from the sites
should occur, modifications will be made to the effluent loading
rates, as required by FDER.
Summary
The mitigative measures described above will effectively reduce
or eliminate potential adverse impacts associated with the
selected plan. The selected plan thus meets the requirements set
forth by FDER and U.S. EPA by eliminating effluent discharge to
Shingle Creek, while implementing in its place a cost-effective,
environmentally sound wastewater treatment program.
Orange County and the City of Orlando have developed and signed
resolutions with home owners associations and standardized citrus
; rrigation agreements in order to implement the proposed project.
Commitment to various mitigative measures discussed above are
incorporated in these resolutions. Appendix C contains
resolutions by the County and City regarding design and operation
of the RIBs and mitigation of lake and groundwater impacts.
Appendix D contains a standard agreement between the City, County
and citrus grove owners participating in the project.
IV-30
-------
E. ORANGE COUNTY EIS GRANT CONDITION
If operation of the rapid infiltration basin system is shown to
cause unreasonable adverse impacts/ such as property flooding or
damage, crop flooding or damage, adverse water quality impacts to
area lakes, significant impacts to the area's groundwater quality
or adverse impacts from groundwater level rises, the following
mitigative measures shall be considered and the most appropriate
ones taken by the County or other operators of the grant funded
facilities to correct the problem:
1. Reduction in loading to specific basin sites.
2. Relocation of specific basin sites.
3. Expansion of the acreage of the basin sites.
4. Additional basin sites.
5. Increase use of irrigation operation.
6. Increase level of treatment prior to infiltration.
These measures have been found appropriate by the Environmental
Impact Statement to minimize potentially significant adverse
impacts. The condition will be in effect throughout the life of
the project.
IV-31
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
EIS COORDINATION
-------
A. Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to document the interactions and
communications which occurred during the preparation of this 201
and EIs between local, state and federal agencies, their
consultants, and affected members of the local community.
Various methods were utilized in order to present the 201 and EIS
findings and solicit comments from the groups involved. These
methods included meetings, public hearings, newletters, news
releases and the formation of a 201 Technical Advisory Committee
and Citizen's Review Group for the EIS.
B. Coordination with Local, State and Federal Agencies and
Organizations
Throughout the 201 and piggy-back EIS process, many agencies were
involved directly or indirectly in the development and review of
work products. The comments and/or concerns of these agencies
have been incorporated into the Draft EIS. Table V-l lists the
agencies involved. Close coordination between all parties
involved throughout the preparation of the 201 and EIS resulted
in the development of a selected plan which is environmentally
sound and acceptable to the general and affected public.
C. Public Participation Program
Public participation programs aremandatedby federal regulations
for the preparation of both 201 Facilities Plans and
Environmental Impact Statement. A public
was implemented during the preparation of the Environmental
Impact Statement for the Southwest Grangecounty 201 Facilities
Plan. The purpose of the program is to Provide^an opportunity
for public input and review throughout the preparation of the
EIS. P The program was a combined effort of EPA, Orange County and
the Els consultant.
* public meeting wa. held October 30, 1978 at the Windermere
SSSSfS «ve0r.\ £21
the 201 and piggy-back BIS, the further definition of the scope
of fhl «ni i citation of public input concerning the
Siw ? 2 an ir i«ue« rai.id at the meeting concerned
'"rp'ividil, centralized wastewater facWe. in
rural arill of the county and the need to conserve the water
resources of the area.
The County 201 Facilities planning effort
included ^h«narticioation of a Technical Advisory Committee
-------
TABLE V-l
AGENCY COORDINATION LIST
STATE OF FLORIDA
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission
Office of the Governor, Intergovernmental Coordination
State of Florida Department of Natural Resources
Florida Department of Administration, Division of State Planning
Department of State, Division of Archives, History and Records
Management
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division
of Forestry '
Florida Public Service Commission
Florida Department of Transportation
Florida Department of Commerce
Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters' AT Task Force
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey
Army Corps of Engineers
LOCAL ENTITIES/AGENCIES
Orange County
City of Orlando
City of Edgewood
City of Belle Isle
City of Winter Park
City of Winter Garden
Town of Windermere
East Central Florida Regional Planning Council
South Florida Water Management District
Southwest Florida Water Management District
V-2
-------
TABLE V-2
201 TECHNICAL
MEMBER
Mr. Gabe L. Delneky, P.E.
Chief Engineer
Mr. Howard W. Jewett, P.E.
Superintendent
Honorable Mauro C. Rigante
Mr. Harry Rodis
Assistant Subdistrict Chief
Mr. Donald J. Babair
Mr. Richard F. Hoffman
District Conservationist,S.C.S
Mr. Lee Miller
Mr. Vince Williams
Mr. David Peacock, Chief
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPRESENTING
Orange County Public Utilities,
Orange County
Wastewater Department, City
of Orlando
City Council, City of Belle Isle
U.S. Dept.of the Interior, Geolog
ical Survey - Orlando
Town of Windermere
City of Orlando
St. Johns River District, FDER
Orlando
Division of Fisheries, Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission -
Kissimmee
Florida/M.S. Facility Planning
Section, EPA, Region IV - Atlanta
V-3
-------
As part of the EIS program, a Citizen's Review Group (CRG) was
formed to provide an opportunity for public involvement in the
201/EIS process. Members of the CRG represented a cross-section
of community interests and are listed in Table V-3. The CRG was
the focal point of the public participation program. The
objective of the CRG was to ensure that the views and comments of
various interest groups and concerned individuals were considered
during the evaluation of environmental impacts/concerns. The CRG
provided citizens with an opportunity to assist in identifying
impacts or concerns associated with the alternatives considered
in the 201 process. All comments and suggestions by the CRG were
given full consideration in the development of the EIS.
The initial meeting of CRG was held August 26, 1980 at 7:00 PM in
the Orange County Courthouse# Orlando, Florida. Review of the
EIS plan of study, public participation plans and status of the
201 planning effort was accomplished at this meeting. The
purpose of the CRG and the role of EPA in the 201 and EIS process
was also explained at the meeting. All subsequent CRG meetings
were also held at the Orange County Courthouse.
The second meeting of the CRG was held April 30, 1981 at 7:00 PM.
The purpose of the meeting was to review and discuss the
Environmental Inventory Report. Other topics included the
project status, review of major environmental issues, and a
discussion of the future role of the CRG.
The next meeting of the CRG was held on September 14, 1981.
Discussions at this meeting related to the alternatives under
consideration. Members of the CRG were asked for their comments
and concerns related to the alternatives being considered. Some
of the issues and potential environmental impacts associated with
the alternatives that had previously been identified were also
described for the CRG members. A follow-up meeting was held on
October 28, 1982 at 3:00 PM to discuss the EIS plan of study for
the evaluation of effluent transmission/disposal alternatives.
The fifth meeting of the CRG was held on February 10, 1983. At
this meeting, the 201 Plan alternatives were again reviewed, and
the EIS impacts evaluation of the effluent disposal alternatives
was summarized and discussed. A considerable number of comments
were voiced by the CRG and focused on two major issues. These
were the impacts on water resources and odor problems adjacent to
disposal sites. The CRG members suggested that due to confusion
about the 201 Plan there needed to be a more intensive public
information program, especially in the area of the proposed
disposal systems.
Four days after the fifth CRG meeting, a public hearing was held
at the Orlando City Hall to review the 201 alternatives and
approve the recommended alternative. Another public hearing was
held on the following day at the Orange County Courthouse for the
same purpose.
V-4
-------
TABLE V-3
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY 201 EIS
CITIZENS REVIEW GROUP
MEMBER
Ms. Geraldine Aldridge
Colonel William E. Nix
William B. Boltin III
Mr. John M. Nabors
Mr. Corbin C. Ballentine
Mr. Bob Davis
Mr. John Cope
Mr. Ellias N. Chotas
Mrs. Kathy Wacker
Mr. James M. Thomas
Mr. Rick Amick
Ms. Agnes Foote
Mr. John Morrison
Mr. Art Cole
Mr. Roy Dye
Mr. John Lowndes
Ms. Carolyn Greer
Mr. Robert H. Elrod
Mr. Robert H. Freeman
President
Mr. Ralph Sias
Mr. Jon Ramer
REPRESENTING
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
BioScape
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
Bel-Aire Homes
Lowndes, Drosdick and Doster, P.A.
Windermere Realty
Windermere Realty
T.H. Freeman & Sons, Inc.
Private Citizen
Private Citizen
V-5
-------
TABLE V-3
SOUTHWEST ORANGE COUNTY 201 EIS
CITIZENS REVIEW GROUP
(Continued)
MEMBER REPRESENTING
Mr. Howard Mallen Private Citizen
Mr. John Rinehart Private Citizen
Mr. Henry Swanson Private Citizen
V-6
-------
A series of meetings with West Orange County residents in the
Lake Avalon area was initiated on February 23, 1983 to discuss
the project and the concerns of the residents. Continuing
refinements to the project resulted and County/City resolutions
adopted in response to these meetings and the continuing
dialogue.
A public meeting was held on April 18, 1983 by the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation at the W®st orange High
School to ascertain the position and concerns of the citizens of
the area regarding the recommended plan. The major concerns
expressed at this meeting related to water resource impacts,
odors from the disposal sites and impacts on property values.
Public hearinas for the purpose of adopting the selected 201 Plan
rebrVLldaonTuly016, iSs/.t OrlandoCity Hallandthe 0range
County Courthouse. There was no public opposition to the
selected plan voiced at either of the two hearings.
The last CRG meeting was held on September 27, 1984. The purpose
of the meeting was to review the Environmental Impacts Evalution
of 35 Selected Plan and measures which have or could be used to
mitigate projected adverse impacts.
V-7
-------
CHAPTER SIX
LIST OF PREPARES
-------
PROJECT PERSONNEL
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EIS Project Officer
Chief, NEPA Compliance Section
Robert C. Cooper
Robert B. Howard
Orange County, Florida
EIS Project Manager
Harold Hill
Mayes, Sudderth & Etheredqe, Inc.
Project Managers
Air Resources
Land Resources
Water Resources
Population/Land Use
Transportation/Energy Use
Water Resources Management
Community Services and Facili-
ties/Taxes and Budgets
Paul Wagner
Michael Cliburn
Paula McCullers
Jim Nissen
Steve Shugart
Robert Fuller
Steve Shugart
Steve McCullers
Robert Rutter
Paul Wagner
Karen Wieland
Ronald Manley
Robert Rutter
Jim Nissen
Robert Rutter
Ronald Manley
Michael Cliburn
Science Applications, Inc.
Ecological Resources
Richard Ambrose, Ph
Raymond McCord, Ph.
Don Powers, Ph.D.
^ychaeoloqjcal Consultants, Inc.
Archaelogical/Historical Resources
Marion Almy
Joan Demming
jLionomics, Inc.
Water Quality Sampling/Analysis
Richard Alt
VI-1
-------
APPENDIX A
PROJECTED POPULATION AND WASTEWATER FLOWS
-------
TABLE A-la*
SOUTHWEST 201 PLANNING AREA
RESIDENT POPULATION
TZ 'S PERCENT 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
*117 .20 297 367 391 438 520
*119- .80 199 299 399 499 599
*120 .40 276 338 348 358 368
X_3 772 1,004 1,138 1,295 1,487
265 2,062 2,359 2,657 2,955 3,253
266 1,992 2,545 3,098 3,651 4,205
267 355 882 1,408 1,935 2,462
II-2 4,409 5,786 7,163 8,541 9,920
*475.1 .95 48 48 48 48 48
*475.2 .95 91 91 91 91 91
475.3 14 " 14 14 14
476.1 96 ,96 96 96 96
*476.2 .90 33 33 33 33 33
*478.1 .95 114 H4 114 114
479.1 66 6® 66 6®
479.2 96 96 96 96 96
480 94 94 94 94 94
*483.1 .05 I7 I7 17 17 17
*484.1 .60 90 90 90 90 90
III-! 759 759 759 759 759
477.! 641 1,154 2,?08 2,833 3,335
478.2 148 148 152 156 156
482.1 360 368 375 382 390
482.2 882 934 987 1,039 1,092
IH_2 2,031 2,604 3,822 4,399 4,973
A-l
-------
TARLF. A-la*
SOUTHWEST 201 PLANNING AREA
RESIDENT POPULATION
(continued)
TZ ' S
PERCENT
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
288
174
174
174
174
174
*289
.85
26
90
235
300
365
290
233
636
771
1,033
1,510
291
343
796
947
1,249
1,778
292
2,783
3,008
3,513
3,738
3,963
293
627
985
1,790
2,148
2,506
294
718
.816
915
1,013
1,112
359
447
1,753
2,530
3,605
5,138
360. 2
139
312
371
486
688
482.3
447
528
556
611
706
III-3
5,937
9,098
11,802
14,363
17,940
360.1
1,660
2,870
3,273
4,079
5,491
393
1,242
3,040
3,595
4,838
6,936
411
849
1,592
1,841
2,335
3,203
478.3
1,248
2,533
2,569
3,818
5,317
III-4
4,999
10,035
11,278
15,070
20,947
392
321
425
525
600
650
394
000
000
000
000
000
395
81
155
17 8
220
245
397
1,968
2,015
2,055
2,076
2,100
408
368
368
368
368
368
409.1
10
10
10
10
10
409.2
7
7
7
7
7
410
7
7
7
7
7
III-5
2,762
2,987
3,150
3,288
3,387
412
2.406
6,463
8,492
9,30*
9,301
472.1
203
332
347
372
413
472. 2
54
54
58
58
5::
473.1
2,553
5,067
6,324
6,827
6,827
473.2
1,116
3,334
4,443
4,887
4,887
473.3
80
85
85
89
89
A-2
-------
TABLE A-la*
SOUTHWEST
201 PLANNING AREA
RESIDENT POPULATION
(continued)
TZ'S
PERCENT
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
ill .2
1,168
1,569
1,703
1,970
2,438
477.3
89
177
207
265
369
III-6
7,759
(117)
17,081
(133)
21,659
(139)
23,772
(149)
24,390
(167)
'474 .2
.15
62
62
62
62
62
III-7
62
62
62
62
62
296
3,710
3,777
3,928
3,995
4,063
298.1
2,364
2,613
3,175
3,424
3,674
298.2
2,741
2,885
3,212
3,356
3,501
299
145
238
448
542
635
300
1,817
1,966
2,305
-2,455
2,605
301
541
555
570
585
600
302
3,036
3,277
3,419
3,610
3,802
303
268
464
661
857
1,053
354
3,332
3,484
3,636
3,789
3,941
355
1,844
1,910
1,977
2,043
2,109
356
3,069
3,241
3,415
3,587
3,760
357
4,873
4,879
4,886
4,892
4,899
358
6,390
6,596
6,665
6,803
7,044
IV-1
34,130
35,835
38,297
39,938
41,686
308
669
761
792
854
962
309.2
836
928
959
1,021
2,-129
IV-2
1,505
1,689
1,751
1,875
2,091
310
2,898
2,948
2,966
3, QQCL
3,060
311
1,984
2,034
2,052
2,(186
2,246
352
1,276
1,486
1,532
1,660
2,884
353
2,359
2,701
2,815
3,044
3,443
IV-3
8,517
9,169
9,365
9,790
10,533
A-3
-------
TABLE A-la*
TZ'S
PERCENT
SOUTHWEST 201 PLANNING AREA
RESIDENT POPULATION
(continued)
1980 1985 1990
1995
2000
361
3,080
3,812
4,569
5,336
6,110
362
573
1,100
1,277
1,628
2,244
363
3,902
4,261
4,625
4,987
5,-349
364
000
000
000
000
000
390
6,685
7,600
8,516
9,431
10,346
391
3,053
3,627
3,819
4,203
4,873
396
1,670
1,761
1,852
1,943
2,034
398
819
857
896
935
973
IV-6
19,782
23,018
25,554
28,463
31,929
365
1,274
1,478
1,682
1,887
2,092
366
1,968
2,320
2,439
2,674
3,085
388
2,979
3,772
4,036
4,564
5,489
389.1
1,544
1,713
1,883
2,053
2,223
389.2
4,679
4,765
4,852
4,939
5,026
399
4,481
4,533
4,585
4,638
4,690
400
2,283
2,707
3,132
3,557
3,982
407.1
118
489
1,324
1,694
2,065
H
<
1
19,326
21,777
23,934
26,006
28,652
'384
.20
582
595
608
621
635
'385
.75
863
1,099
1,179
1,337
1,614
386
3,030
3,228
3,426
3,624
3,822
387
1,721
1,822
1,923
2,024
2,125
401
1,367
1,563
1,760
1,956
2,152
402
1,071
1,106
1,142
1,177
1,212
IV-8
8,634
9,413
10,038
10,739
11,560
406
566
535
469
440
410
407.2
25
25
25
25
2";
413
624
620
611
608
60
414
201
182
141
123
104
415
40
38
36
35
34
416
1,085
1,090
1,102
1,107
1,112
A-4
-------
TABLE A-la*
SOUTHWEST 201 PLANNING AREA
RESIDENT POPULATION
(continued)
PERCENT 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
471.1
9
9
9
9
9
*471.2
.30
8
8
8
8
8
IV-9
2,558
2,507
2,401
2,355
2/306
127
1,119
1,347
1,423
1,575
1,841
128
973
1,159
1,345
1,530
1,716
*129
.10
292
334
356
388
445
130
2,298
2,809
2,980
3,320
3,916
187
453
635
697
819
1,033
190
2,889
3,543
3,762
4,198
4,962
191
1,578
1,981
2,116
2,384
2,855
192
638
716
743
795
886
V-l
10,240
12,524
13,422
15,009
17,654
*131
.10
175
269
300
363
472
*185
.95
3,813
3,999
4,186
4,373
4,559
VI-2
3,988
4,268
4,486
4,736
5,031
188
1,054
1,204
1,254
1,354
1,529
189
1,196
1,376
1/437
1,558
1/769
201
985
1,387
1,790
2,193
2/595
202
4,494
4,889
5,285
5,681
6,076
203
3,727
3,893
4/060
4,226
4,392
204
2,385
2,731
2,847
3/078
3,482
205
462
909
1,917
2,36S'
2,812
251
92
92
92
92
92
252
119
119
119
119
119
253
718
953
1,228
1,384
1,541
254
34
34
34
34
34
255
4,204
4,672
5,141
5,610
6,078
256
531
523
534
536
538
257
3/011
3,555
4/099
4,642
5,186
258
2/593
2,661
2,731
2/800
2,869
259
1,766
1,857
1/948
2/039
2,130
A-5
-------
TABLE A-la*
SOUTHWEST 201 PLANNING AREA
RESIDENT POPULATION
TZ'S
PERCENT
1980
(continued}
1985
1930
1995
2000
260
1,996
2,177
2,359
2,540
2,722
261
1,756
1,756
1,756
1,756
1,756
262
1,901
2,008
2,117
2,224
2,332
263
1,562
1,562
1,562
1,562
1,562
264
1,223
1,382
1,542
1,701
1,861
29S
1,211
1,424
1,638
1,852
2,066
297
635
665
696
727
757
V-4
37,655
41,840
46,186
50,073
54,299
206
555
573
592
610
628
246
2,276
2,362
2,448
2,534
2,620
247
2,464
2,464
2,464
2,464
2,464
249
36
36
36
36
36
*250,1
.95
353
353
353
353
353
250.2
33
33
33
33
33
VI-5
5,717
5,821
5,926
6,030
6,134
TOTAL
181,542
217,277
241,563
266.563
295,740
•Indicates the traffic zones only partially within the 201 PlanninR Area
Ar-6
-------
TABLE A»lb*
SOUTHWEST 201 PLANNING AREA
TRANSIENT POPULATION
TZ'S
PERCENT
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
*117
.20
4
4
4
4
4
*119
.80
16
16
16
16
*120
.40
000
000
000
QOQ
000
1-3
20
20
20
2a
20
265
0
0
0
0
0
266
0
0
0
0
0
267
12
12
12
12
12
II-2
12
12
12
12
12
*475.1
.95
000
000
000
000
QQO
*475.2
.95
000
000
ooa
000
000
475.3
000
000
000
000
000
476.1
000
000
000
boo
000
*476.2
.90
000
000
000
000
000
*478.1
.95
000
000
000
000
000
479.1
000
000
000
ooa
000
479.2
000
000
000
000
000
480
000
000
000
ooa
000
*483.1
.05
000
000
000
000
000
*484.1
.60
000
000
000
000
000
III-l
000
000
0Q0
000
000
477.1
000
000
000
ooa
000
478.2
000
000
000
ooa
000
482.1
000
000
000
000
boo
482.2
000
000
000
000
000
III-2
000
000
000
ooa
000
288
000
000
000
000
000
*289
.85
000
000
000
000
000
290
000
000
000
000
000
2j>l v
30
30
30
30
30
292
000
000
000
000
000
293
It
18
18
18
18
294
000
000
000
000
000
A-7
-------
TABLE A-lb*
SOUTHWEST 201 PLANNING AREA
TRANSIENT POPULATION
TZ' S
PERCENT
1980
(continued)
1985
1990
1995
2000
359
000
000
00 0
000
000
360.2
000
000
000
000
000
482.3
000
000
000
000
o'oo
III-3
48
48
48
48
48
360.1
000
000
000
000
000
393
1.431
1,630
1,630
1,854
1,854
411
000
398
1,689
1,689
1,689
478.3
143
143
143
143
143
III-4
1,574
2,171
3,462
3,686
3,686
392
4,533
4,633
4,633
4,973
4,973
394
5,062
5,360
6,062
6,062
6,062
395
000
000
000
000
000
397
000
000
000
000
000
408
785
785
984
984
984
409.1
000
000
000
000
000
409.2
000
000
000
000
000
410
2,103
2,972
3,842
4,711
5,581
III-5
12,483
13,750
15,521
16,730
17,600
412
00 0
288
632
632
632
*472.1
298
603
993
1,325
1,325
472.2
000
95
95
95
95
473.1
000
10,500
21,365
25,092
28,819
473.2
000
000
000
000
000
473.3
000
000
000
000
000
477.2
000
000
000
000
000
477.3
489
954
954
1,511
1,511
III-6
787
12,440
24,039
28,655
32,382
*474.2
.15
610
729
819
944
944
III-7
610
729
819
944
944
-------
2000
000
000
o'oo
000
6§8
000
000
000
712
823
000
000
,185
000
107
107
000
42
213
000
255
000
608
455
000
314
000
000
,328
,705
TABLE A-lb*
SOUTHWEST 201 PLANNING AREA
TRANSIENT POPULATION
(continued)
PERCENT 1980 3.985 *99° J-995
ooo ooo ooo 000
ooo ooo ooo 000
000 000 ooo 000
ooo ooo ooo 000
ffl 888 888 688
ooo ooo ooo 000
000 000 ooo 000
000 ooo ooo 000
409 533 638 712
823 823 823 823
000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000
1,783 2,006 2,111 2,185
000 000 000 000
107 107 107 107
107 107 107 107
ooo 000 000 000
42 42 42
213 213 213
000 ooo 000
255 255 255
42
163
000
205
000
399
376
000
95
000
000
934
000 000 000
399 537 608
455 455 455
ooo ooo 000
95 179 3M
000 000 000
ooo ooo 000
1,133 1,133 1/328
1,804 2,082 2,304 2,705
A-9
-------
TABLE A-lb*
SOUTHWEST 201 PLANNING AREA
TRANSIENT POPULATION
(continued)
TZ'S PERCENT 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
365 553 692 745 793 793
366 48 48 48 48 48
388 85 85 85 85 "85
389.1 322 322 368 368 368
389.2 000 000 000 000 000
399 344 344 481 481 481
400 000 000 50 189 189
407.1 1,173 1,391 1,536 1,630 1,630
IV-7 2,525 2,882 3,313 3,594 3,594
*384 .20 000 000 000 000 000
*385 -75 000 000 000 000 000
386 24 24 24 24 24
387 000 000 000 000 000
401 1,443 1,443 1,642 1,642 1,642
402 000 000 000 000 000
IV-8 1,467 1,467 1,765 1,966 1,966
406 93 199 225 286 286
407.2 239 358 358 358 358
413 000 000 1J.9 119
414 000 000 60 139 240
415 000 000 000 000 000
416 000 000 000 000 000
471.1 000 000 000 000 000
471.2 .30 000 000 000 000 000
IV-9 332 557 762
127 000 000 000
128 14 14 14
*129 .10 222
130 40 40 40
187 000 000 000
19° 000 000 000
902 1,003
000 000
14 14
2 2
40 40
000 000
000 000
A-10
-------
T2 '!
191
192
V-l
*131
*185
V-2
188
189
201
202
203
204
205
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
295
297
V-4
PERCENT
TABLE A-lb*
SOUTHWEST 201 PLANNING AREA
TRANSIENT POPULATION
(continued}
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
000
000
OQO 000 000 000 000
000 000 000 OQO 000
56 56 56 56 56
>10 6 18 28 38 38
\95 560 755 755 938 938
566 733 783 976 976
000 000 000 000 000
Oqo 000 000 000 OQO
000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000
ooo 000 000 ooo
541 541 541 541
000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000
000 000 000 000
000 0°° 000 000
ooo ooo 000 000
000 000 ooo ooo
000 000 000
000 000 ooo 000
000 ooo 000 000
ooo ooo 000 000
1,121 1/121 1,121 1,121
1,662 l/6« 1,662 1,662
000
00 0
000
000
435
000
000
000
000
000
000
ooo 000
000
000
000
1,121
1,556
A—11
-------
TABLE A-lb*
SOUTHWEST 201 PLANNING AREA
TRANSIENT POPULATION
(continued)
T2 'S PERCENT 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
206 000 000 000 000 000
246 10 10 10 10 10
247 000 000 000 000 CT00
249 000 000 000 000 000
250.1 .95 000 000 000 000 000
250.2 000 000 000 000 000
V-5 10 10 10 10 10
25,945 41,027 57,049 64,513 69,211
*Source:
A-12
-------
aff
one
117
120
119
127
129
12B
130
187
131
185
188
190
191
192
189
206
205
204
202
201
203
265
258
257
251
252
246
247
249
250
250
253
255
2 59
260
256
26)
TABLE A-2a*
2000 PWa.lKCTKD OKANCE COUNTY
WASTKWATKR FLOWS
(gpd)
Avnrai'e Daily
Bane Flow
22523
7777
40400
f)3832
15453
75043
222301
3 7471
50702
514696
20604
62822
2 72397
12524
13332
5151
40299
1J5845
341380
121907
443592
310272
276639
350975
0
0
14544
0
0
0
0
6?317
407636
215110
;• 74*122
707
1773«
Tnfiltrntion/
Inflow
2230
7 70
4000
6120
1530
7410
16180
3710
5059
204241
2040
6220
66022
1240
1320
510
3990
40162
83096
12070
146283
11250
92MOO
90189
0
0
1440
0
0
0
0
6170
117810
64798
70
43751
Industrial Flow
0
14300
0
61050
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22000
110001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24200
31130
0
0
9977
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Wastewater
Flow
24753
22847
44400
131202
16983
82473
238481
41181
55761
718937
22644
69042
338419
13764
14652
27661
154290
176007
424476
133977
589875
321522
369439
441164
24200
31130
15984
0
9977
0
0
68487
525466
2649JT
356976
777
243107
A-13
-------
262
263
264
266
267
289
290
292
294
295
297
299
300
301
298
296
293
291
3S8
359
354
352
353
3S6
355
365
366
363
364
3BS
3t6
389
390
362
361
391
387
385
TABLE A"2a*
2000 l*HO.IKCTKD ORANCE COUNTY
WASTEWATER FLOWS
(gpd)
Average Daily
Bawe Flow
235532
94637
132 512
41'4 705
219069
14239
IS 1298
147258
90S97
1107«*7
8585
24 745
8787
1111
6'IS 29
19897
166953
126856
9191
246440
26462
111 10
82113
49591
1636
119382
133118
449652
0
484295
127462
254217
10 HitlSH
2 UKih4
"1*1794
442986
58176
75851
Inl'i It rut ion/
Inflow
75549
35061
28747
96723
19960
3390
12770
22166
22741
17595
850
2450
870
310
6290
1970
16530
12560
910
24400
2620
1100
8110
4910
360
21583
17912
111802
0
25100
7130
|9W»6
6114411
181H0
3940
111907
4040
7510
Induatrial Flow
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18348
1100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22000
0
0
0
0
0
0
55C0
0
0
0
11000
74251
0
0
0
Total Wa«t«watar
Flow
311081
129698
161259
521428
239029
37629
164068
169424
113338
146740
10535
27195
9657
3441
69819
21867
183483
139416
10101
270840
29082
12210
112243
54501
3996
140965
1510)0
563454
0
514893
134592
27338)
1640469
260064
117985
57689)
62216
83361
A-14
-------
TABLE A-2a*
2000 PKO.IKCTKD ORANGE COUNTY
WASTKWATKR FLOWS
Cgpd)
Traffic
. Zone
402
401
389.2
400
399
398
396
395
397
394
393
360.1
HO. 2
*78.3
^09.1
409.2
408
407.1
407.2
406
6
3
5
4
2
1
7.1
7.2
7.3
3.3
1.1
4.2
2.1
2.2
2
0
3.1
3.2
total
Average Daily
Base Flow
14141
273710
483992
40S9I9
4U8S37
197657
193112
54 54
15«l(l75
9 1122
8JH51
341905
36966
540653
1010
707
66357
340?69
9595
0
2727
7575
0
2H8M6
978690
451369
145743
102616
101505
909
0
76967
14H268
7979
3434
451672
3018082
380871
20898814
Inl'i Itration/
lilt low
14 10
7490
33177
61613
123090
14637
70565
540
168*190
142520
213120
34050
3660
40090
100
70
34816
23130
950
0
270
750
0
10750
74040
37050
14430
10160
10050
90
0
2670
14680
790
340
27830
273290
37710
4036558
Industrial Flow
7110598
Total Waat
Flow
1 5651
281200
517169
467532
611627
212294
383358
33494
328065
235642
1046471
377955
40626
580743
56111
24977
101193
363399
76546
97901
33797
179377
116051
448840
5255480
488419
160173
112776
111555
999
550
30187
162948
8769
3774
I864002
•3291372
418581
32045975
A-15
-------
TABLE A-2b*
2000 PROJECTED CITY OF ORLANDO
Wastewater flow?
(gpd) ~
Troffic
P
ADBF (2000)(,)
l/l (2000*2)
Industrial Flows (GPD)
Q (2000)
Zone
(2000)
(GPD)
(GPD)
•e
{'E^lncr.
'u(3)
'T
(GPD)
187
371
21,201
J 7,358
0
0
0
0
36,55?
188
871
49,774
48,964
0
0
0
0
9a,733
189
1,362
77,833
75,898
0
0
0
0
153,731
190
3,473
198,467
119,378
181,678
0
0
0
0
3S0,14 5
204
2,089
104,720
0
0
0
0
224,098
205
2,334
133,378
73,086
467,000
0
143,320
610,320
816,764
206
188
10,743
6,145
100,000
0
28,719
125.719
145,607
246
1,523
87,033
62,143
0
0
0
r*
'¦U
14?, i 76
247
2,192
125,264
92,746
0
0
0
o
218,010
249
9
514
296
0
0
13,197
13, l?7
14,007
250.1
17 6
10,058
5,792
0
0
0
0
15,850
250.2
22
1,257
309
0
0
0
0
1,566
251
46
2,629
1,514
210,000
75,000
31,558
316,558
320,701
253
385
22,001
12,277
0
0
0
0
34,278
254
34
1,943
477
0
0
0
0
2.420
255
2,473
141,322
106,543
0
0
0
0
2
-------
TABLE A-2b*
2000 PROJECTED CITY OF ORLANDO
UASILuATEH FLOWS
(9Pd)
JO
n
<
5"
t
a.
•n
a
u~
c
5
NO
CD
Traffic
P
ADBF (2000)(,)
l/l (2000<2>
Industrial Flows (GPD)
O (2000)
Zone
(2000)
(CPD)
(CPD)
IE
f'Ehncr.
«u(3)
>T
(GPD)
352
1,704
97,376
33,027
0
0
0
0
130,403
353
860
49,145
16,668
0
0
31,773
31,773
97,586
354
2,246
128,349
37,412
117,000
0
0
117,000
282,761
355
2,491
142,350
117,561
317,000
0
0
317,000
576,91 1
356
1,280
73,147
61,269
0
0
0
0
134,416
357
4,899
279,957
249,281
0
0
0
0
529,238
358
6,057
346,132
297,613
0
0
0
0
643,745
359
2,466
140,921
80,724
0
0
0
0
221,645
360.1
658
37,602
24,376
0
0
0
0
61,978
360.2
27
1,543
937
0
0
0
0
2,480
361
5,315
303,730
218,318
0
0
65,769
65,769
587,617
391
487
27,830
21,194
0
0
0
0
49.024
392
4,258
243,327 %
204,582 ,rv
0
0
0
0
447,909
39ft
3,928
1,263,000 M
650,000 (5)
0
0
0
0
1,913,000 (6)
395
164
3,372
6,163
0
0
39,852
39,852
55,387
396
122
6,972
5,781
0
0
172,748
172,7*48
185,501
397
525
30,002
26,110
61,000
0
0
61,000
117,1 12
Totals
80,793
5,655,510
4,562,340
1,272,000
75,000
528,243
1,875,243
11,093,093
<»>ADBF « P X 70 CPCD.
(2)|/| » P X 31 CPCD.
»>lu *«9rco*est of .05 (ADBF l/l ~ Totol Known Industry)
0.25 (Total Known Industry)
ABBREVIATIONS
" ADBF Average Daily Base Flow
l/l Infiltrotion/lnflow
IE Existing Industrial Flow (1980)
f'E?incr. Increased Industrial Flow over If 1980
'u* Unplanned Industrial Flow
it
p
Q
Wadbf = Commercio! Acreoge x 5690 GPD/Acre.
($hll = Commerciol Acreoge x 2930 GPD/Acre.
(6)q = CommercicI Acreoge x 8600 GPD/Acre.
Totol Industrial Flow
Equivalent Residential Population
Total Projected Flow
~Source: Southwest Orange County 201 Facilities Plan, Draft Alternatives Analysis; October, 1982.
A-17
-------
APPENDIX B
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND ANIMALS
-------
APPENDIX B
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Species
Legal Status^
GFWFC2 USFWS3
Amphibians and Reptiles
Short-tailed snake (Stilosoma extenuatum)
Gopher frog (Rana areolata)
Gopher turtle (Gopherus polyphenols)
Eastern indigo snake rPrymarchon corals
couperi) . .
American alligator (Alligator mississip-
piensis)
Birds
SCC
sec
SCC
halus) T E
E E
E E
Wood stork (Mvcteria americana) T
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Everglade kite (Rostrhamus sociaDi-i-_
Sog^eaetern kestrel (Falco searverlus t
paulus) , v E E
Peregrine falcon (Falco £?recf* jensis
Florida sandhill crane (Grus —
pratensis) ii-») scc
Little blue heron ( Florida caerulea gcc
Snowy egret (Egretta thula_) .__Trtri SCC
Louisiana heron (Hydranassa tricolor; gcc
Limpkin (Aramus quarauna) t
Least tern (Sterna albltrons)
Ivory-billed woodpecker (campephlxus E E
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoi|£|r|f|||ii|» T
Florida scrub Jay r »phelocom» rqeruleseen, ^
coerulescens) , u-^manii) E E
Bachman's warbler (Verroi-yora j -ju) E E
Kirtland's warbler 'nendrolca kirtian
-------
Species
Legal Status"
GFWPC
USFWS-
Mammals
Sherman's fox squirrel (Sciurus niqer
shermani)
Florida mouse (Peromyscus floridanus)
Florida black bear (Orsus americanus
floridanus)—except in Baker and
Columbia counties and Apalachicola
National Forest
Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi)
SSC
T
T
E
Plants
Curtis milkweed (Asclepias curtissii)
1. E=Endangered, T=Threatened, SSC=Species of Special Concern
2. Classification by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission
3. Classification by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
4. Classification by the Preservation of Native Flora of
Florida Act.
Sources
Federal Status: Endangered and threatened species of the
Southeastern United States, revised March 1984, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Region 4, Atlanta, Georgia.
State Status: Endangered and potentially endangered Fauna and
Flora in Florida, official lists, April 20, 1984, Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission.
-------
APPENDIX C
Resolutions concerning the design and operation op rapid
INFILTRATION BASINS
-------
RESOLUTION NO. 8J-SV-02
i lu ¦ j
A RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE LAKE AVALOH HOME AND PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION: PLEDGING COOPERATION AMD STATING
INTENT TO BE SENSATIVE TO THE CONCERNS OF THE ASSOCIATION;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
PREMISES
1. Orange County and the City of Orlando have joined In the evaluation
nd planning of * new concept for wastewater management, and this concept involves
eclaimed water storage and disposal through rapid infiltration basins and reuse for
ilruj irrigation.
2. Certain property and home owners in the Lake Avalon area have
"pressed concerns that the placement and design of rapid Infiltration basins might
ecome a nuisance by appearance or other impacts.
3. In the spirit of cooperation, these home and property owners have
aken the initiative to form an Association as a means to better communicate their
nterests and concerns regarding this concept and have offered their time and resources
or this purpose.
ACCORDINGLY, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE
OUNTY:
Section I. The staff of Orange County is hereby directed to communicate
'ith and consider the interests and concerns of the Lake Avalon Home and Property Owners
•ssociation, so long as the Committee has an interest in this concept, and staff shall
;eep the Board of County Commissioners advised of their interests and concerns.
Section 2. The staff Is likewise directed to design and implement the
:oncept in a way which is compatible with the residential and agricultural properties In
he lake Avalon area, utilizing at all times the soundest and most practical technology
:o ensure protection of public health and incorporat»ng aesthetically appropriate design
'or al) works proposed.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption.
RESOLVED THIS ISth DAY OF February 1983.
Lou Treadway, Chairman, Beard of County
Commissioners
WEST:
-------
RESOLUTION NO. &-S10-A2,
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE DESIGN AND OPERATION OF
RAPID INFILTRATION BASINS ("R.I.B.s") IN SOUTHWEST
ORANGE COUNTY; PROVIDING WATER QUALITY GUARANTIES AND
DESIGN STANDARDS PERTAINING TO THE WATER CONSERV II
PROJECT; PROVIDING LIMITS ON EFFLUENT DISPOSAL CAPACITY}
PROVIDING A MONITORING PLAN; PROVIDING PROTECTION FROM
ABNORMAL EVENTS; LISTING POSSIBLE FUTURE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVES; ADOPTING DESIGN STANDARDS; PROVIDING
GUARANTEES CONCERNING ON-SITE STORAGE FACILITIES;
PROVIDING LIABILITY AGAINST IMPROPER DESIGN AND
OPERATION; PROVIDING LIMITS ON CONDEMNATION; PROVIDING
FOR A SINGLE MANAGEMENT UNIT; RECOGNIZING THE AVALON
ASSOCIATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
PREMISES
1. On February 15, 1983, the Board of County Commissioners
of Orange County adopted Resolution No. 83-SW-04 selecting a pre-
ferred wastewater management alternative for 'Southwest Orange
County" regarding the Water Conserv II Project, which includes, a
combination of citrus irrigation and rapid infiltration basins,
and assures that productive citrus groves or dwelling units
located within "Southwest Orange County", as defined in Resolution
No. 83-SW-05, will not be the subject of condemnation proceedings
except as set forth therein.
2. The residents and other landholders of that community
have expressed, through the Lake Avalon Home t Property Owners
Association ("Avalon Association") , concerns about the implemen-
tation of the water Conserv II Project and the need for assuran-
ces concerning the safety, health and welfare of the residents in
the area, and the need to minimize potential adverse environmen-
tal impacts which may be caused by the Project.
3. The Growers' Executive Committee and the Avalon
Association have requested and received assurance that the Rapid
Infiltration Basins ("R.I.B.s") to be located within Southwest
Orange County will be designed and operated in an environmentally
and aesthetically acceptable manner.
4. The Avalon Association and property owners will rely
upon representations made by the City of Orlando and Orange
County as to the design and operation of the R.X.B.s for the
Water Conserv II Project.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGES
COt.STY s
SECTION 1. WATER QUALITY GUARANTEES. The quality of
effluent to be distributed to the R.Z.B.s shall meet all
1
-------
applicable standards established by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation ("FDER") contained in Fla. Admin. Code
Ch. 17-6, and in no case shall be less stringent than the
effluent disposal characteristics set forth in Exhibit "A*
attached hereto. In no event shall the disposal of treated
effluent cause a health or environmental hazard to the residents
of Southwest Orange County, or damage to commercial foliage
establishments or residential properties.
SECTION 2. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL CAPACITY. The Water Conserv II
Project shall deliver to Southwest Orange County, as defined in
Resolution No. 83-SW-05, no more than 50 million gallons per day,
average annual basis ("50 MGD") of treated effluent for both
citrus irrigation and R.I.B.s unless reasonable notice is first
given to the Avalon Association. Any increased flow above 50 MGD
for application in Southwest Orange County may be delivered only
as requested by a landowner for beneficial use and storage in
accord with delivery practices established by approved grower's
agreements referenced in above described Resolutions heretofore
adopted by the City of Orlando and Orange County.
SECTION 3. MONITORING PROGRAM. Regular testing as required
by the approved FDER Fla. Admin. Code Chs. 17-6 and 17-19 moni-
toring plans shall be done under the auspices of the FOER, and
the method, frequency, and results of the testing shall be
available for public inspection at the local office of FDER or
another location agreed upon to ascertain that the effluent does
not violate the standards set forth in Section 1 hereof, or that
the Project shall not cause health or environmental hazard to
groundwater located within the described Southwest Orange County.
If a violation of the above is detected, it shall be communicated
to the Liaison Committee Chairman of the Avalon Association
within 24 hours. In addition, a copy of the written FDER Report
of such violation shall be mailed to the Chairman of the Liaison
Committee of the Avalon Association.
SECTION 4. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL; ABNORMAL EVENTS. In the event
(a) the effluent does not neet the standards defined in Section
1 hereof, or (b) standing water or "bog effects" in areas are
2
-------
demonstrated to be a result of the R.I.B.s, the effluent shall
be disposed of in accordance with FDER provisions for abnormal
events.
SECTION 5. LAKE LEVELS. If the Project causes an overload
of the surficial aquifer which results in an increase in lake
levels to a point eighteen inches (IB") below the 100-year flood
elevation, then the Southwest 201 Project shall begin trans-
ferring flows to RIBs located more remote from those lakes being
impacted or may take such other actions, including those con-
templated in Section 4 hereof, to prevent effluent from contri-
buting to an exceedance of the 100-year flood elevation.
SECTION 6. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF EFFLUENT DISPOSAL. The
design of the pipeline system from the plants to the distribution
center located in Southwest Orange County shall include provi-
sions for utilization of rapid infiltration basins or other land
application methods along the pipeline route. The County and the
City will pursue the utilization of treated wastewater for the
benefit of homeowners, agricultural interests and other potential
users of irrigation, such as spray irrigation of highway rights-
of-way .
SECTION 7. DESIGN STANDARDS. The size and location restric-
tions contained in Orange County Resolution No. 83-SW-05 dated
April 11, 1983, and the design and construction of that portion
of the Water Conserv II Project within Southwest Orange County
shall be substantially in accordance with those provisions
outlined in the attached Exhibit *B", S.W. 201 Design Standards,
which are intended to preclude the project from becoming a public
health, environmental hazard, or creating a loss to neighborhood
property values.
SECTION 8. ON-SITE STORAGE FACILITIES. The City and the
County shall comply with all FDER requirements regarding the
suitability of on-site storage facilities within groves, farms or
other non-public lands, in relation to leakage, overflow, direct
penetration to the Floridan Aquifer, sink-hole development or
other public health or environmental hazards.
SECTION 9. LIABILITY FOR IMPROPER DESIGN AND OPERATION. Itie
City and the County agree to be responsible for all liability for
3
-------
damage to property or injury to persona within Southwest Orange
County resulting from improper design or operation of the Water
Conserv II Project by the City and the County. The City and the
County hereby waive immunity for such above-described liability
consistent with state statute. The prevailing party(ies) in any
lawsuit filed to enforce this Section shall be entitled to reaso-
nable attorneys' fees and court costs.
SECTION 10. LIMITS ON CONDEMNATION. The eminent domain or
condemnation restriction contained in Orange County Resolution
No. 83-SW-05 dated April 11, 1983, relating to dwellings and
producing groves shall apply to property on which there are com-
mercial improvements and substantial commercial activities are
regularly conducted. No condemnation proceedings for R.I.B.s to
be constructed in Southwest Orange County shall be instituted
after December 31, 19 86, in connection with the Water Conserv II
Project.
SECTION 11. SINGLE MANAGEMENT UNIT. The City and the County
agree to form a single management unit for the operation of the
Water Conserv II Project which shall receive and address all
grievances of the citizens of Southwest Orange County relating to
the operation and maintenance of said Project. This single
agency will serve as interface to the Liaison Committee of the
Avalon Association and all other involved agencies of both Orange
County and the City of Orlando in such manner that various other
agencies need not deal directly with every concern and that the
citizens need not first determine and then contact the particular
agency with jurisdiction of a particular matter.
SECTION 12. RECOGNITION OF AVALON ASSOCIATION. The County
and the City recognize the Avalon Association and its elected
Liaison Committee as an appropriate entity of the concerned citi-
zens of Southwest Orange County. The Board of Commissioners of
Orange County and the Orlando City Council shall make available
to said Liaison Committee all data pertaining to the Southwest
201 or Water Conserv II Projects, including and especially the
Water Quality Monitoring results whenever called upon by that
committee, in accordance with Chapter 119, Fla. Stat. The
4
-------
Liaison Committee shall have the right to periodically review the
basin design and provide comments to the County with regard to
the incorporation of warranted design improvements in the South-
west 201 Basin Design Standards as set forth in Exhibit "B".
Further, regular meetings shall be established, as needed, to
be held in the Avalon Community, and shall include the Project
Manager, representatives of the City of Orlando and Orange
County, the Liaison Committee of the Avalon Association, and
interested citizens, for the purposes of review of progress of
construction and, if the parties determine that it is necessary,
monitoring of performance after the Project is operational.
SECTION 13. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take
effect upon adoption.
RESOLVED this / ^ day of August, 1983
ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Commissioners
ATTEST: THOMAS H. LOCKER,
CLERK TO THE BOARB OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
5
-------
EXHIBIT A
RAP10 INFILTRATION EFFLUENT DISPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS
Kaxlmu*
Concentrations
Level,.,
Parameter (mq/1)'11
Arsenic 0.05
Barium 1.0
Cadmium 0.01
Chranlum 0.05
Lead 0.05
Mercury 0.002
Selenium 0.01
Silver 0.05
Fluoride 1.4-2.4
Endrln 0.004
Lindane 0.004
Methoxychlor 0.01
Toxaphene 0.005
2.4-0 0.10
2.4,5-TP 0.01
Coll forms <20
Ra 226 5pC1/l
Ra 228 5pCI/l
Chlorides 250
Copper 1.0
pH 6.5-8.5
Manganese 0.05
Sodium 250
Sulfate 250
Total Dlssslved Solids 500
Zinc 5
Biological Oxygen Demand 20
Total Suspended Solids 20
Phosphorus 10
Total Nitrogen 30
Unless Noted Otherwise.
-------
EXHIBIT B
SW 201 PROJECT DESIGN STANDARDS
I. INTENT
To establish aesthetic and functional design guidelines for
siting and construction of the Southwest 201 Water
Conservation Project (SW 201 Project) in Southwest Orange
County to ensure minimal impacts to the community and
environment resulting from implementation of the project.
II. SITE REQUIREMENTS
A. Buffer Requirements
The wetted perimeter of the Rapid Infiltration Basins
("RIBs") shall not be located less than 100 feet of an
adjoining property line; except for 500 foot buffers as
shown on Attachment II hereto.
E. Basin Overflow Requirements
The RIBs shall be designed with sufficient freeboard
above the normal wetting depth to allow foe containment
of excess precipitation. The RIB operating plan shall
provide contingencies for management of excess flows
above normal project quantities due to weather
conditions.
C. Mosquito Control/RIB Sites
The SW 201 Project will be designed, constructed and
operated in such a manner that no areas will encourage,
support, or provide the opportunity for the breeding of
mosquitoes. The regular use of pesticides is not con-
sidered a proper design control.
D. Flood Zone
The RIBS shall be designed and operated, and loading
rates developed based on site specific computer modeling
and operational monitoring in order to ensure that RIB
impacts are less than the 100-year flood plain
elevation.
1
-------
Basin Configuration
All RIBs shall be designed in a naturalistic manner.
Layouts shall follow existing land contours with the
intent of creating RIBs of irregular shapes and edge
patterns. The basin berms and landscaping shall be
designed to create amorphous basin edges.
F. Noise
Any and all permanent functions or installation appur-
tenant to the Project (excluding construction equipment
or other devices not normally in operation for more than
thirty (30) days at one timet shall produce no con-
tinuous sound which exceeds 63 dBA at the property line
of the site on which it is located. Any other facili-
ties which generate noise shall be designed to reduce
noise production, as practical.
G. Odors
The SW 201 Project shall be so operated as to prevent
the emission of objectional or offensive odors in such
concentration as to be readily perceptible at any point
at or beyond the property line of the project.
III. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR RAPID INFILTRATION BASINS AMD
DISTRIBUTION CENTER
A. Plant Material
Canopy trees and shrubs for buffering shall equal the
standards for Florida No. 1 as given in "Grades and
Standards for Nursery Plants" Part 1, 1963, and Part ZZ,
State of Florida Department of Agriculture. The perime-
ters of all sites and areas where there is high visibi-
lity froa off-site areas shall have a combination of
trees and shrubs installed such that within 2 years
after installation it shall have reached a height of 3'
and obtained opacity. Thar* shall be a siinimum average
of three (3) trees planted per sixty (60) linear feet of
perimeter area no lass than 3 inches in caliper.
Nothing herein shall require the removal or "clear
2
-------
cutting" of existing trees and vegetation, where such
existing trees and vegetation are consistent with these
Design Standards.
8. Grading
No berm or ground plane shall have a slope greater than
4:1 except as noted below, unless naturally occurring or
necessary due to confining site constraints. Areas
adjacent to public rights-of-way or existing or proposed
residential areas shall have landscaped earthen berma
(with maximum slope of 6:1) no less than 5 feet higher
than the elevation at the adjoining property lines.
Berm centerlines shall form a gentle meander: repeating
or emphasizing naturally occurring landforms where
appropriate.
C. Fencing
Any security fencing shall occur behind the landscape
screens and buffer areas.
D. Landscape Cover
Areas not utilized for basins, parking, roads or built
structures shall have a coverage of plant material
including trees and grass as described in the Conserv
II BIB's Reforestation Plan. The Reforestation Plan
shall be designed and implemented to maximize the bene-
fits of a diversified ecologically balanced reforesta-
tion. In order to insure a successful reforestation,
the 201 project shall contract an ecological consultant
experienced in the flora and fauna of the Avalon area.
The selection of the consultant shall be subject to the
review of the Avalon Association.
E. Acceptable Plant Materials
Plant material used shall generally be indigenous to
Central Florida and in particular the Avalon area of
West Orange County.
P. Maintenance
All landscaped areas shall be on a regular maintenance
schedule to ensure a healthy vigorous project.
3
-------
G. Irrigation
All planted areas throughout the project shall be
provided with necessary irrigation systems, fully func-
tional at all times.
H. Timing
The Landscape Program and Reforesting Plan shall be
completed as an integral component of the SW 201 Project
construction program.
IV. REVIEW
All portions of the SW 201 Project covered by the above SW
201 Design Standards shall be submitted to the Liaison
Committee of the Avalon Home and Property Owners Association
and the Growers Executive Committee for review prior to
completion of final construction design. The Avalon
Committee will provide written comments to the County within
one week of receipt of the design drawings. The County
and/or City shall respond in writing to written comments
within one week of receipt of comments.
The same process shall occur at the completion of construc-
tion documentation and prior to submission for any permits.
The Liaison Committee or the Growers Executive Committee have
the right to request intermediate reviews as they deem
necessary to insure timely opportunities to provide community
input.
4
-------
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
IX
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2
RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE DESIGN AND OPERATION OF
RAPID INFILTRATION BASINS ("R.I.B.s") IN SOUTHWEST
ORANGE COUNTY; PROVIDING WATER QUALITY GUARANTEES AND
DESIGN STANDARDS PERTAINING TO THE WATER CONSERY II
PROJECT; PROVIDING LIMITS ON EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
CAPACITY; PROVIDING A MONITORING PLAN; PROVIDING
PROTECTION FROM ABNORMAL EVENTS; LISTING POSSIBLE
FUTURE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES; ADOPTING DESIGN
STANDARDS; PROVIDING GUARANTEES CONCERNING ON-SITE
STORAGE FACILITIES; PROVIDING LIABILITY AGAINST
IMPROPER DESIGN AND OPERATION; PROVIDING LIMITS ON
CONDEMNATION; PROVIDING FOR A SINGLE MANAGEMENT UNIT;
RECOGNIZING THE AVALON ASSOCIATION; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
PREMISES
1. On February 14, 1983, the City Council of the City of
Orlando adopted a Resolution (Documentary #14056) selecting a
preferred wastewater management alternative for "Southwest
Orange County" regarding the Water Conserv II Project, which
includes a combination of citrus irrigation and rapid
infiltration basis, and assures that productive citrus groves
or dwelling units located within "Southwest Orange County", as
defined in the City's Resolution dated April 11, 1983 (MB65,
Page 73, Item 16-M; Documentary #17700), will not be the
subject of condemnation proceedings except as set forth therein
2. The residents and other landholders of that community
have expressed, through the Lake Avalon Home and Property
COUNCIL DATE-./' / jfe—
mb -2c. ps
DOCUMENTARY >17.
-------
1
1
• '>
f.
•7
vn
?o
n
22
22
¦>A
25
?a
27
Owners Association I Hvalon Associatio.. ), con*, rns about the
implementation of the Water Conserv II Project and the need for
assurances concerning the safety, health and welfare of the
residents in the area, and the need to minimize potential
adverse environmental impacts which may be caused by the
Project.
3. The Growers' Executive Committee and the Avalon
Association have requested and received assurance that the
Rapid Infiltration Basins ("R.I.B.s") to be located within
Southwest Orange County will be designed and operated in an
environmentally and aesthetically acceptable manner.
A. The Avalon Association and property owners will rely
upon representations made by the City of Orlando and Orange
County as to the design and operation of the R.I.B.s for the
Water Conserv II Project.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Orlando, Florida, as follows:
SECTION 1. WATER QUALITY GUARANTEES. The quality
of effluent to be distributed to the R.I.B.s shall meet all
applicable standards established by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation ("FDER") contained in Fla. Admin. Code
Ch.17-6, and in no case shall be less stringent than the
effluent disposal characteristics set forth in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto. In no event shall the disposal of treated
effluent cause a health or environmental hazard to the
residents of Southwest Orange County, or damage to commercial
foliage establishments or residential properties.
- 2 -
16.1
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2C
2]
2:
2:
2<
2!
2<
2'
-2
SECTION 2.
FFF1 UFNT DISPOSAL CAPACITY. The Water
Conserv II Project shall deliver to Southwest Orange County, as
defined in the City's Resolution (Documentary #14056), no more
than 50 million gallons per day, average annual basis ("50
MGD") of treated effluent for both citrus irrigation and
R.I.B.s unless reasonable notice is first given to the Avalon
Association. Any increased flow above 50 MGD for application
in Southwest Orange County may be delivered only as requested
by a landowner for beneficial use and storage in accord with
delivery practices established by approved grower's agreements
referenced in above described Resolutions heretofore adopted by
the City of Orlando and Orange County.
SECTION 3. MONITORING PROGRAM. Regular testing as
required by the approved FDER Fla. Admin. Code Chs.17-6 and
17-19 monitoring plans shall be done under the auspices of the
FDER, and the method, frequency, and results of the testing
shall be available for public inspection at the local office of
FDER or another location agreed upon to ascertain that the
effluent does not violate the standards set forth in Section 1
hereof, or that the Project shall not cause health or
environmental hazard to groundwater located within the
described Southwest Orange County. If a violation of the above
is detected, it shall be communicated to the Liaison Committee
Chairman of the Avalon Association within 24 hours. In
addition, a copy of the written FDER Report of such violation
shall be mailed to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee of the
Avalon Association.
- 3 -
-------
1
2
3
i
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
i:
i<
1!
li
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
L-:
SECTION A. EFFLUENT DISPOSAL; ABNORMAL EVENTS. In the
vent (a) the effluent does not meet the standards defined in
lection 1 hereof, or (b) standing water or "bog effects" in
,reas 3cc demonstrated to be 3 result of the R«1*6.st the
iffluent shall be disposed of in accordance with FDER
jrovisions for abnormal events.
SECTION 5. LAKE LEVELS. If the Project causes an
averload of the surficial aquifer which results in an increase
Ln lake levels to a point eighteen inches (18") below the
100-year flood elevation, then the Southwest 201 Project shall
begin transferring flows to R.I.B.s located more remote from
those lakes being impacted or may take such other actions,
including those contemplated in Section 4 hereof, to prevent
effluent from contributing to an exceedance of the 100-year
flood elevation.
SECTION 6. ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF EFFLUENT DISPOSAL.
The design of the pipeline system from the plants to the
distribution center located in Southwest Orange County shall
include provisions for utilization of rapid infiltration basins
or other land application methods along the pipeline route.
The County and the City will pursue the utilization of treated
wastewater for the benefit of homeowners, agricultural
interests and other potential users of irrigation, such as
spray irrigation of highway rights-of-way.
SECTION 7. DESIGN STANDARDS. The size and location
restrictions contained in the City of Orlando Resolution dated
April 11, 1983 (MB65, Page 73, Item 16-M; Documentary #17700),
- 4 -
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
and the ci^.
•»qn and construction of that portion of the Water
Conserv I i ,, ,
• roject within Southwest Orange County shall be
substantia. % ,
in accordance with those provisions outlined in
the attaci
'¦"•l Exhibit "B", S.W. 201 Design Standards, which are
intended i
" preclude the Project from becoming a public health
enviror:.M=.,., . *
-i hazard, or creating a loss to neighborhood
property . ,
x * Vies.
——.'h. ON-SITE STORftGE FACILITIES. The City and
the Courtv
'.hall comply with all FDER requirements regardina
the sul i-¦ •
" *•11y of on-site storage facilities within groves
^ ^ f a r ni s c c
*v
-------
1
!
2!
i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IE
It
i:
II
"1!
2*1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
-2
commercial Improvements and substantial commercial activities
are regularly conducted* No condemnation proceedings for
R.I.B.s to be constructed in Southwest Orange County shall be
instituted after December 31, 1986, in connection with the
Water Consexv II Project.
SECTION 11. SINGLE MANAGEMENT UNIT. The City and the
County agree to form a single management unit for the operation
of the Vlater ConseTV II Project which shall receive and address
all grievances of the citizens of Southwest Orange County
relating to the operation and maintenance of said Project.
This single agency wil serve as interface to the Liaison
Committee of the Avalon Association arid all other involved
agencies of both Orange County and the City of Orlando in such
manner that various other agencies need not deal directly with
every concern and that the citizens need not first determine
and then contact the particular agency with jurisdiction of a
particular matter.
SECTION 12. RECOGNITION OF AVALON ASSOCIATION. The
County and the City recognize the Avalon Association and its
elected Liaison Committee as an appropriate entity of the
concerned citizens of Southwest Orange County. The Board of
Commissioners of Orange County and the Orlando City Council
shall make available to said Liaison Committee all data
pertaining to the Southwest 201 or Water Conserv II Projects,
including and especially the Water Quality Monitoring results
whenever called upon by that committee, in accordance with
Chapter 119, Fla. Stat. The Liaison Committee shall have the
_ 6 -
-------
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
I
2
right to periodically review the basin design and provide
comments to the County with regard to the incorporation of
warranted design improvements in the Southwest 201 Basin Design
Standards as set forth in Exhibit "B". Further, regular
meetings shall be established, as needed, to be held in the
Avalon Community, and shall Include the Project Manager,
representatives of the City of Orlando and Orange County, the
Liaison Committee of the Avalon Association, and interested
citizens, for the purposes of review of progress of
construction and, if the parties determine that it is
necessary, monitoring of performance after the Project is
operational.
SECTON 13. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall take
effect upon adoption.
ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Orlando, Florida, this day of , 1983.
AT^: />/>/!
Mayor rcM
APPROVED as to form and
legality, Ait/fOSf // . 1983.
///
/j/SST City Attorney
City "
:y of Orlando, Florida.
— 7 —
-------
EXHlf "_A
RAPID INFILTRATION EFFLUENT OISPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS
Haximus
Concentrations
Level,.,
Parameter (mg/l)v
Arsenic 0.05
Barium 1.0
Cadmium 0.01
Chromium 0.05
Lead 0.05
Mercury 0.002
Sclcniuo 0.01
Silver 0.05
Fluoride 1.4-2.4
Endrin 0.004
Lindane 0.004
Methoxychlor 0.01
Toxaphens 0.005
2,4-0 0.10
2,4,5-TP 0.01
Col i form I <20
Ra 226 5pC1/1
Ra 228 5pCi/l
Chlorides 250
Copper 1.0
pll 6.5-8.S
Manganese 0.05
Sodium 250
Sul fate 250
Total Dissolved Solids 500
Zinc "5
etiological Oxygen Demand 20
Total Suspended Solids . 20
Phosphorus 10
Total Nitrogen 30
Unless Noted Otherwise.
" "" #—/77/VO-C-
-------
S" 201 PROJECT DKS"H STAN'"\flOS
I. INTENT
To establish aesthetic and functional design guidelines tor
siting and construction of the Southwest 201 Water
Conservation Project
-------
Al" RIBs s^-^H be designed i-> a naturalistic manner.
Layouts shall follow existing land contours with the
intent of creating RIDs oE irregular shapes and edgp
patterns. The basin berms and landscaping shall be
designed to create amorphous basin edges.
F. Noise
Any and all permanent functions or installation appur-
tenant to the Project (excluding construction equipment
or other devices not normally in operation for more than
thirty (30) days at one time) shall produce no'con-
tinuous sound which exceeds 63 dBA at the property line
of the site on which it is located. Any other facili-
ties which generate noise shall be designed to reduce
noise production, as practical.
G. Odors
The SW 201 Project shall be so operated as to prevent
the emission of objectional or offensive odors in such ¦
concentration as to be readily perceptible at any point
at or beyond the property line of the project.
III. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR RAPID INFILTRATION BASINS AND
DISTRIBUTION CENTER
A. Plant Material
Canopy trees and shrubs for buffering shall equal the
standards for Florida No. 1 as given in "Grades and
Standards for Nursery Plants" Part 1, 1963, and Part IE,
State of Florida Department of Agriculture. The perime-
ters of all sites and areas where there is high visibi-
lity from off-site areas shall have a combination of
trees and shrubs installed such that within 2 years
after installation it shall have reached a height of 3*
and obtained opacity. There shall be a minimum average
of three (3) trees planted per-sixty (60) linear feat of
perimeter area no less than 3 inches in caliper.
Nothing herein shall require the removal or "clear
2
-------
uU'Cti-Lny tiv: nxi.sc.iny ¦ -.—
e. iting ees and vegetat: i are < isistent with these
Design Standards.
D. Grading
No berm ov ground plane shall have a slope greater than
4:1 except as noted below, unless naturally occurring "or
necessary due to confining site constraints. .Areas
adjacent to public rights-of-way or existing or proposed
residential areas shall have landscaped earthen bernts
(with maximum slope of 6:1> no less than 5 feet higher
than the elevation at the adjoining property lines.
Berm centi»rlines shall form a gentle meander; repeating
or emphasizing naturally occurring landforms where
appropriate.
C. Fencing
Any security fencing shall occur behind the landscape
screens and buffer areas.
1). Landscape Cover
Areas not utilized for basins# parking, roads or built
structures shall have a coverage of plant material
including trees and grass as described in the Conserv
II RIB's Heforestation Plan. The Reforestation Plan
¦ hall be designed and implemented to. maximize the bene-
fits of a diversified ecologically balanced reforesta-
tion. In order to insure a successful reforestation,
the 201 project shall contract an ecological consultant
experienced in the flora and fauna of the Avalon area.
The selection of the consultant shall be subject to tha
review of the Avalon Association.
E. Acceptable. Plant Materials
Plant material used shall generally be indigenous to
Central >*lorida and in particular the Avalon area of
West Orat-.ge County.
F. Maintenance
All landacaped areas shall be on a regular maintenance
schedule to ensure a healthy vigorous project.
3
-------
Attachment No. 1
-------
APPENDIX D
STANDARD CITRUS IRRIGATION AGREEMENT
-------
AGREEMENT FOR THE DELIVERY AND USE OF
RECLAIMED IRRIGATION WATER
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on
, between the CITY OF ORLANDO ("City) , a municipal
organization organized and existing under the laws of the State
of Florida, and ORANGE COUNTY ("County"), a political sub-
division of the State of Florida, hereafter collectively
referred to as the "Suppliers" and
whose address or principal place of business is
, hereafter
referred to as the "Owner."
BASIS FOR THE AGREEMENT.
The Suppliers operate and maintain two publicly owned
treatment works known as the Sand Lake Road and McLeod Road
Treatment Plants which will be capable of producing reclaimed
water which may be used for productive and beneficial purposes
to irrigate citrus groves, pasture land, as well as urban and
residential lawns. The governing council and commission of both
Suppliers have approved this Agreement by appropriate resolu-
tions and have authorized its execution by the undersigned rep-
resentatives .
The Owner now owns approximately _______ acres of land
which is described in Exhibit "A," attached and made a part
hereof by reference. The Owner warrants that it owns title.to
this land in fee simple without liens or encumbrances, or if the
land is encumbered that all holders of rights by lien or
encumbrance have joined in this agreement as evidenced by an
attached consent form with the intent to be bound to the extent
of their interest. It is further warranted, if the Owner is
corporate, that appropriate resolutions have authorized the
undersigned representative to execute it so as to bind the
Owner. The Owner shall not request more reclaimed water than
can be beneficially used for irrigation, frost protection and
surface storage purposes.
Both parties understand that the Suppliers will rely
upon this Agreement in the design, construction and operation of
the treatment, transmission and distribution systems for deliv-
ery of reclaimed water to the Owner. It is also understood that
state and federal Funds will be sought by the Suppliers for the
design and construction of the systems also in reliance upon the
EXJJI3IT2C1'
-------
commitment of the Owner to use reclaimed waller requested by the
Owner for the" term of this Agreement.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
In consideration of the commitment of the Suppliers to
deliver reclaimed water at no cost to the Owner and the commit-
ment of the Owner to receive and beneficially use this water for
the purposes set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree to
the following terms and conditions:
1. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT; RECORDING.
Ca) The Suppliers shall deliver and the Owner shall
accept and use reclaimed water produced by the Suppliers at the
McLeod Road and Sand Lake Road Treatment Plants, or other equiv-
alent facilities, and this Agreement shall be effective on the
date of execution and for a term of twenty (20) years from
, 19 . It is anticipated, but not warranted,
that delivery of water will commence in the calendar year of
1984. The term of this agreement shall be renewed automatically
from year to year beyond the initial twenty-year term unless
terminated by the Owner by written notice not less than 180 days
in advance or by the Suppliers by written notice not less than
150 days in advance of the anniversary of the commencement of
each annual renewal.
(b) Upon execution by both parties, this Agreement
shall be binding as a covenant or condition, which shall run
with the land described on Exhibit "A," upon any subsequent
Owner unless the commitments undertaken by the Owner are modi-
fied as provided herein. A short form of this Agreement incor-
porating its terms and conditions by reference shall be recorded
in the Official Records of each county in which the"land is
located.
2. USE OF RECLAIMED WATER; OWNER'S IRRIGATION
SYSTEM.
(a) The Owner shall use reclaimed water delivered by
the Suppliers for agricultural or urban irrigation, frost pro-
tection, surface storage or other purposes in any manner deter-
mined by the Owner except that use of the reclaimed water shall
be consistent with state and federal regulations and shall not
be applied directly to fruit or vegetables which are packed and
shipped for fresh, unprocessed consumption. Reclaimed water may
be applied in an under-tree method for fruit crops to be
delivered as fresh fruit in a manner which protects against
-2-
-------
direct irrigation upon the fruit. In no event will the Owner discharge
reclaimed water directly to surface waters of the State of Florida without
written authorization from the Florida Department of Environmental Regu-
lation ("FDER"). The Owner may apply reclaimed water in a manner authorized
bv the FDER on alternate application sites not planted in groves. No se-
parate permits from the'FDER will be required, hut any alternate application
? te mS" ie ide^ified and approval obtained by the Suppliers prior to
Utilization of reclaimed water at these sites. The Owner will also take all
reasonable precautions, including signs and abe ing o prevent confus,on
between reclaimed water sources and other water sources.
fhl ihp Owner aqrees to install or modify irrigation systems on
L , , b) -K ^ Lhihit to the extent necessary, sufficiently in
the-land described water will be received and used within thirty (30)
advance so that r®cla] ® notice from the Suppliers that deliveries will
days of rec^1 °^rshall modify or install an irrigation system which will
commence. The Owner *ha from the Owner's irrigation system into the
prevent a back flow o ; rom^the iowne ^ ^
ide, in a manner
Supplier's distribution sy • agencies, a back flow prevention device
approved by appropriate g ^ which is maintained so that re-
between his irrigation directly into groundwaters of the
claimed water will not be ^responsible for the ownership, operation,
State. The Owner sha " be yf th irrigation system located within the
and maintenance of all portions ot «."«= 3
boundaries of Owner's property.
3 WATER T" AGRICUlIUgAk
TODDCTiviff
(a) All reclaimed water delivered under this Agreement shall k
treated by advanced treatment methods to remove harmful levels of bact •
viruses and any other constituent which would constitute a danoer tn h^a*
wealth and in accord with all requirements of permits issued by state Umw°
federal regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over such activities Lit
reclaimed water shall be of a quality which is appropriate for irri"
gation of citrus or other approved food or fiber crops. Those constituent
or which appropriate concentration limits have been identified are spi- f«S+w
"Exhibit "8" together with weekly, monthly, quarterly or other limits
established by the Faculty of the JFAS Citrus Experiment Station, Lake AlfL*
londs, or such other independent horticultural scientists as may hereaftn
e mutually agreed to by the parties of this Agreement, (hereafter "hortie.ii
iurai scientists"). From time to time during the term of this agreement
other constituents may be identified and concentration limits established
modified for inclusion in Exhibit "6" in the same manner as those
- J -
-------
originally set forth. The Suppliers shall take all steps neces-
sary to limit the concentration of"c»nstituents set forth in
Exhibit "B" and to otherwise provide reclaimed water of appro-
priate quality including treatment, implementation of industrial
or commercial pretreatment requirements or other remedial
action. Finally, reclaimed water delivered under this Agreement
shall contain as much of the beneficial nutrients and minerals
found in the influent stream of each treatment plant as is eco-
nomically feasible, acceptable to regulatory agencies, and in
accord with sound engineering practice.
(b) The Suppliers agree to fund or obtain funds in the
amount of One hundred twenty eight thousand dollars ($128,000)
for an initial five (5) year study by qualified independent hor-
ticultural scientists of the effects of reclaimed water on
Central Florida citrus groves, and will use their best efforts
to obtain state, federal or private grants for the purpose of
funding a second study of the long term effects of reclaimed
water on Central Florida citrus groves.
(c) The Suppliers shall analyze the reclaimed water in
accord with a monitoring plan which is attached to this Agree-
ment as Exhibit "B." This plan shall set forth the constituents
for analysis, the frequency of analysis, averages for determin-
ing constituent concentrations and all other factors governing
monitoring for water quality. After completion, all analyses
performed by Suppliers shall be forwarded promptly to the horti-
cultural scientists charged with monitoring the effects of re-
claimed water on citrus groves.
(d) The Suppliers will also analyze reclaimed water
from the McLeod Road and Sand Lake Road Treatment Plants at
least monthly for all constituents identified in Exhibit "B."
during the six months prior to the date projected foe the first
delivery of reclaimed water to the Owner and shall furnish these
analyses to the horticultural scientists so that baseline data
may be established.
(e) If the horticultural scientists determine that
concentrations of constituents are present in the reclaimed
water which can be expected to reduce productivity of the
Owner's grove or approved crop or otherwise be detrimental to
the quality of said crop, then the Owner shall provide the
Suppliers written notice of this determination. This notice
shall contain the basis for the determination together with an
acceptable limit for the constituent identified.
(f) Within sixty (60) days of this notice, the
Suppliers may respond with information and analyses which demon-
strate to the satisfaction of the horticultural scientists who
made the determination of reduced productivity or crop quality
-4-
-------
as described above that the determination was erroneous or that
the concentration level of the constituent identified resulted
from temporary conditions not expected to reoccur. As an alter-
native, the Suppliers may respond in 120 days of the notice with
a plan for additional or modified treatment practices or other
remedial action by Suppliers or management practices available
to the Owner, including reduced irrigation, which will protect
agricultural productivity. The horticultural scientists shall
approve any plan submitted as soon as possible.If the Suppliers
provide a plan for implementation of new treatment practices or
other remedial action by the Suppliers, then this plan will
include a timetable for implementation requiring construction or
other necessary steps as soon as possible, which will not result
in additional expense to the Owner, consistent with sound engin-
eering practice, regulatory approvals and other factors govern-
ing the implementation plan.
(g) If, within 120 days of the notice from the Owner
provided for herein, the Suppliers are unable to demonstrate
that the determination of reduced productivity or crop quality
as described above is erroneous or provide a plan for treatment
practices or Owner management practices, or if the Suppliers are
unable to comply with the implementation plan provided, then the
Owner shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for cause
and the "buy out" provisions of subparagraph 6(c) herein shall
not apply.
(h> If any analysis conducted by Suppliers or other
Qualified persons or laboratories indicates that the maximum
average concentration of any constituent identified in Exhibit
¦g" exceeds the concentration limits establisned for that
constituent, then the Suppliers shall immediately cease delivery
of reclaimed water to the Owner until such time as the maximum
average concentration of the constituent is within a.cceptable
limits established in Exhibit "B".
4 f VOLUME OF WATER; DELIVERY SCHEDULE.
(a) The Supplier® will deliver and the Owner shall
accept and use a volume of t|<
referred to accordance with a
d%M"ery schedule ..t.bll.h* bj, thed
below. The Suppliers may, at ^ chat th.
volume of
priate -livered may be monitored. Unless supplying
reclaimed water delivered W ^ ide
-------
to provide necessary easements for the construction, operation
and maintenance of the Suppliers' distribution system within the
Owner's property. The Suppliers shall consult with all Owners
entering into like agreements in order to establish among them a
mutually beneficial delivery schedule for the quantity of water
to be delivered so that under normal conditions each Owner shall
receive a weekly allocation which shall be applied, ordinarily,
within a forty-eight (48) hour period. Reasonable efforts will
be made by the Suppliers to accommodate the irrigation systems
and practices of all-Owners.
(b) In the event the Owner demonstrates that the
volume of water described in Paragraph 4(a) can be expected to
reduce the existing productivity of the land described in
Exhibit "A", then this volume shall be revised to such lesser
volume as the Owner demonstrates Will be compatible with the
agricultural or other uses of the land existing on the date of
this Agreement.
5. DELIVERY OF RECLAIMED WATER UNDER ADVERSE
CONDITIONS.
(a) Both parties recognize that adverse weather con-
ditions or unforeseen circumstances may necessitate modification
of the normal delivery schedule established by the Suppliers.
The Owner shall have the right to restrict or refuse the use of
the reclaimed water to be delivered in the event of adverse
weather conditions or unforeseen circumstances, for a period of
up to four (4) weeks per calendar year, no more than two (2) of
which may be consecutive. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
Owner shall not restrict or refuse the use of reclaimed water
until all alternate application sites available to the Owner
have been utilized to their capacity. Notice to the Suppliers
of the exercise of this right shall be provided in writing, in
advance. If advance notice to Suppliers is not practical, then
the Owner shall give notice of the restriction or refusal upon
exercising this right.
(b) Both parties also recognize that adverse weather
conditions or unforeseen circumstances may result in a need for
reclaimed water greater than the volume set forth in Paragraph
4(a). Each Owner shall have the right to draw additional water,
subject to availability of reclaimed water supplies, during
these events in an amount equal to two times the weekly
allocation each week for four (4) weeks during a calendar year,
not more than two (2) of which may be consecutive. During any
period in which more than one Owner exercises the right to draw
additional reclaimed water, the Suppliers will furnish water
under such pressure as the transmission and delivery systems are
capable of producing. During these events, the Suppliers shall
not be obligated to provide the minimum pressure described in
Paragraph 4(a) above.
-6-
-------
(c) If the Suppliers' transmission or distribution
system fails for reasons or events beyond the Suppliers' con-
trol, then delivery of reclaimed water under the requirements of
this Agreement may be interrupted or limited in quantity.
6. TRANSFER OR MODIFICATION OF OWNER'S COMMITMENT.
(a) Sale of Land. The Owner's right to sell, transfer
or encumber the land described in Exhibit "A" shall not be
restricted by this Agreement, except that written notice of any
proposed sale or transfer must be given to the Suppliers at the
address noted in Section 11 herein, at least thirty (30) days
prior to the sale or transfer and any subsequent party in inter-
est shall be obligated to receive and use the weekly allocation
of reclaimed water described in Paragraph 4(a) and the buyer or
transferee must execute and deliver to Suppliers prior to the
sale or transfer an acknowledgment and acceptance of the prior
Owner's commitment under the same terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
(b) Transfer of Commitment to Other Land. The Owner
shall also have the right to transfer the commitment under this
Agreement to other land, within the service area of the
Suppliers' transmission and distribution system (hereafter
referred to as "substituted land"), so long as the weekly allo-
cation of reclaimed water is to be utilized for the same pur-
poses and under the same terms and conditions of this Agreement.
If transferred to another Owner# the transferee shali also exe-
cute an acknowledgment and acceptance of the terms and condi-
tions of this Agreement in the same manner described in Para-
graph 6(a) above. In the event the Owner transfers the commit-
ment of this Agreement to substituted land, the cost of capital
improvements and easement acquisitions required by the transfer
to the substituted land shall be borne by the Owner or trans-
feree. All capital improvements for delivery of reclaimed water
to substituted land must be designed, constructed, owned and
maintained by the Suppliers.
(c) Buy Out. The Owner shall have the right to termi-
nate the commitment to accept reclaimed water under this Agree-
ment by providing advance notice and payment of a termination
fee to the Suppliers as set forth in this paragraph. If the
Owner exercises this right during the initial year of the twenty
(20) year term of this Agreement, the fee shall be §3,600
dollars per acre for all land described in Exhibit "A." This
fee constitutes an allocated share per acre of the estimated
construction cost for the distribution system built at the
Suppliers' expense. If terminated during subsequent years, the
fee shall be reduced by five percent (5%) for each yefcr after
-7-
-------
the initial year of the twenty (20) year term. This Agreement may be termi-
nated 180 days after written notice to the Suppliers of the Owner's exercise
of this right and payment of the termination fee, unless the Suppliers are
able, within a shorter time, to identify and connect substitute lands or
accommodate the reclaimed water supplied under this Agreement with other
land then utilized for this purpose and at no additional cost to the Sup-
pliers in a manner which does not reduce the available capacity of the Sup-
pliers' system.
7. INDEMNITY FOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS.
(a) So long as the Owner shall use reclaimed water delivered for
the purposes set forth in Section 2 and under the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, the Suppliers shall indemnify the Owner and hold the Owner
harmless from any and all claims, actions, suits, proceedings, costs, ex-
penses, including but not limited to attorney's fees, damages and liabi-
lities arising out of the claims by third parties residing on or using the
land described in Exhibit "A" or land adjacent or in close proximity to the
land described in Exhibit "A" that the use of irrigation water has resulted
in adverse human health effects. The Owner shall also be indemnified and
held harmless in like manner against the claims by third parties who have
consumed products produced on the land described in Exhibit "A" that the
constituents in the reclaimed water delivered have resulted in adverse human
health effects from the consumption. The Owner shall be indemnified in like
manner for claims or demands that the use of reclaimed irrigation water in
the manner set forth in this Agreement constitutes a nuisance or is in vio-
lation of statutes or regulations for the protection of natural resources
and the environment.
(b) The Supplier's obligation to indemnify the Owner.^hall be
conditioned upon the following:
(i) The Owner's compliance with any operating practice re-
strictions for protecting human health and the environment attached
hereto as Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof and with any addi-
tional reasonable operating practice restrictions which the Sup-
pliers may establish from time to time and provide to the Owner;
and
(ii) Notice of any claim or information suggesting that a
claim may be made against the Owner which could result in damages
or liability for which the Supplier has agreed to indemnify the
Owner and hold the Owner harmless must be provided to Suppliers.
Oral notice of the claim or of the information that a claim may be
- 8 -
-------
made must be provided as soon as practical but not more than sev-
enty-two (72) hours from the time the claim is made or the infor-
mation obtained. In addition, written notice confirming the oral
notice shall be given by the Owner to the Supplier within a rea-
sonable time after the Owner has provided oral notice, and in all
events promptly .after srrvice of process on the Owner for any liti-
gation which may result in damage or liability, together with a
copy of the complaint and summons; and
(in) Suppliers shall have the option to defend all claims
against the Owner upon which damages may be awarded for which the
Suppliers have agreed to indemnify the Owner and hold the Owner
harmless.
(c) Likewise, the Suppliers shall be indemnified in the same man-
ner described above for similar claims or demands from persons residing on
or using land adjacent to or in close proximity to the land described in
Exhibit "A", in the event the Owner fails to comply with this Agreement and
any operating practice restrictions protecting human health $nd the environ-
ment as provided herein and the claim or demand arises out of the Owner's
failure to comply.
8. EXCUSE FROM PERFORMANCE BY GOVERNMENTAL ACTS.
(a) If for any reason during the term of this Agreement local,
regional, state or federal governments or agencies shall fail to issue nec-
essary permits, grant necessary approvals, or shall require any change in
the operation of the treatment, transmission and distribution systems or the
application and use of reclaimed water by the Owner, then to the extent that
such requirements shall affect the ability of any party to perform any of
the terms of this Agreement, the affected party shall be excused from the
performance thereof and a new agreement shall be negotiated, if possible, by
the parties hereto in conformity with such permits, approvals, or require-
ments. More specifically, without excluding other governmental actions
which excuse performance by each party, if the FDER fails to approve or
revokes approval of alternate application sites identified by the Owner as
provided under Paragraph 2(a) and no other site is available to Owner which
the FDER will approve, or if any agency prohibits the sale or processing of
fruit irrigated with reclaimed water provided under this Agreement, then the
Owner's performance shall be excused in the manner set forth above.
(b) The Suppliers will apply for grant funding from the
United States Environmental Protection Agency for the construction
of treatment, transmission and distribution facilities
-------
for delivery of. the reclaimed- *«rter. In the event grant funding
is not approved and supplied by these agencies, the Suppliers
shall have the right to renegotiate or terminate this Agreement.
The Suppliers' obligations under this Agreement nay also be
terminated if performance is prevented by third-party litiga-
tion, inability to issue or market bonds or any other event
beyond the Suppliers' control.
9. TERMINATION OR ASSIGNMENT.
(a) The Suppliers shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement at any time if the Owner refuses to receive*• and
use the weekly allocation of water or receives and uses substan-
tially more than the weekly allocation established by the deli-
very schedule, except as provided in Paragraph 5(b). Failure to
exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver by Suppliers
to terminate this agreement upon subsequent breaches.
(b) The Suppliers shall also have the right to trans-
fer all or any part of the treatment, transmission or distribu-
tion facilities to another Supplier and to assign all or any
part of their rights and obligations under this Agreement to an
alternate Supplier who shall be bound by and accept, and be
exclusively responsible for all applicable terms and conditions
of this Agreement.
(c) The Suppliers now intend to deliver, during the
term of this Agreement, a maximum daily flow, averaged .annually,
of fifty million gallons (50 mgd) for application in "Southwest
Orange County" (herein defined as those lands west of the center
of Range 27 East, in Townships 23 South and 24 South, Orange
County, Florida.) In the event the Suppliers propose to^
increase this flow, then all increased flow for application in
Southwest Orange County must be delivered^only as requested by a
landowner for beneficial use and storage in accord with estab-
lished delivery practices. Further, the Suppliers shall provide
the Owner with written notice of their intent to construct each
rapid infiltration basin ("basin") proposed for location in
Southwest Orange County. Such notice shall depict the proposed
site of said basin and shall state whether the Suppliers have
complied with the terms and conditions of Resolution No.
adopted by the City of Orlando on _____ an(* Reso-
lution No. adopted by Orange County on
in selecting the site for the proposed basin. At anytime
within 15 days after receipt of each such notice from Suppliers,
the Owner shall have the option to terminate this Agreement in
the event the Suppliers have failed to comply with these
resolutions. Unless written notice of termination is received
by Suppliers within 15 days after such notification of basin
-10-
-------
locations, then the option to terminate shall expire. Upon writ-
ten notice of termination given by the Owner and timely receipt
by Suppliers, this Agreement shall terminate 180 days after
receipt by Suppliers of such notice to terminate this Agree-
ment.
10. DISCLAIMER OF REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
The Suppliers do not represent or warrant that the
volume of reclaimed water delivered shall increase the produc-
tivity of the land described in Exhibit "A" nor result in
changes to the land, crops or vegetation of any kind. The Owner
shall secure independent advice and shall make an independent
judgment as to the use of the volume of water described in
Section 4 and of the quality described in Section 3.
11. NOTICES
All notices required or authorized under this Agree-
ment shall be given in writing and shall be served by mail on
the parties at the addresses listed below:
OWNER
SUPPLIERS
For the City:
For the County:
12. INSPECTION
The Suppliers shall have the right, upon written notice
to the Owner, and when reasonably necessary to enter upon the
Owner's property to review and inspect the Owner's operating
practices as they relate to this Agreement and any backflow
-11-
-------
prevention devices between the Owner's irrigation system and any
well which is maintained by the Owner.
13. DISCLAIMER OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES.
This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the formal
parties hereto and no right or cause of action shall accrue upon
or by reason hereof, to or for the benefit of any third party
not a formal party hereto.
14. SEVERABILITY.
If any part of this Agreement is found invalid or unen-
forceable by any court, such invalidity or unenforceability
shall not affect the other parts of this Agreement if the rights
and obligations of the parties contained therein are not materi-
ally prejudiced and if the intentions of the parties can con-
tinue to be effectuated. To that end, this Agreement is
-declared severable.
15. LAND USE APPROVALS.
This Agreement shall not be construed as granting or
assuring or indicating any future grant of any land use or
zoning approvals, permissions, variances, special exceptions, or
rights with respect to the real property described in Exhibit
"A" hereof.
16. APPLICABLE LAW.
This Agreement and the provisions contained herein
shall be construed, controlled, and interpreted according to the
laws of the State of Florida.
17. EXHIBITS AND ADDENDUMS
This Agreement incorporates the following exhibits and
addendums which are specifically made a part hereof:
Exhibit A - Property Description
Exhibit B - Monitoring Plan
Exhibit C - Operating Practices
Exhibit 0 - Storage Sites
-12-
-------
THIS WRITTEN AGREEMENT constitutes the entire agreement
between the parties and has been entered into voluntarily and
with independent advice and legal counsel and has been executed
by the authorized representative of each party on the date writ-
ten above. Modifications to and waivers of the provisions here-
in shall be made in writing by the parties hereto.
Witnesses: .
Owner:
STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of
, 19 , by . , Owner.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
-13-
-------
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Clerk to the Board of Chairman
County Commissioners
FOR THE USE AND RELIANCE OF
ORANGE COUNTY ONLY.
Witnesses: Approved as to form and
legality, , 19
County Attorney,
Orange County, Florida
ATTEST:
CITY OF ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Grace A. Chewning, City Clerk
Wi tnesses:
By:.
Mayor
Approved as to form .and
legality, , 19_
City Attorney,
City of Orlando, Florida
W; esses : OWNER:
-14-
-------
STATE OF FLORIDA)
)
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of
19 » by , the Chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, Florida
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires
STATE OF FLORIDA)
)
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of
, 19 , by the Mayor of
the City of Orlando, Florida.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF FLORIDA)
)
COUNTY OF ORANGE)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of
, 19 , by , , known to me to
be the Owner described in the foregoing instrument.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires
-15-
-------
EXHIBIT "C"
Operating Practice Restrictions
The intent of this exhibit is to identify and define practices for use of
reclaimed irrigation water which protect human health and the environment.
Other practices will be established after consultation with the Growers
Executive Committee.
1. Appropriate warning signs shall be posted around the sites utilizing
reclaimed water by the Owner to designate the nature of the water and
its non-potability.
2. The Owner will also take all reasonable precautions, including signs
and labeling, to clearly identify reclaimed water systems to prevent
inadvertent human consumption.
3. No cross-connections shall be made between the reclaimed water system
and other water systems.
4. A distance of 500 feet should be maintained between the periphery of
the reclaimed water irrigation system application site .and any
existing or approved (but not yet constructed) shallow drinking water
wells.
5. A distance of 1000 feet shall be maintained between drinking water
wells and holding ponds which are incorporated into the irrigation
system as an alternate application site.
6. The use of reclaimed water shall be consistent with applicable state
and federal regulations.
-------
I II UtM I I lt« I lUIMS
•Maximum Minimum Somple Frequency
Averoge
Constituents Concenlrolion Weekly Monthly Quorlerly
Limits
Arsenic
0.10 mg/l
X
Beryllium
0.10
X
Bicarbonale (Alkalinity)
200
X
Barium
i.O
V
Boron
1.0
X
Cadmium
0.01
X
Chromium
0.01
X
Calcium
200
X
Chloride
100
X
Chlorine
10.0
X
Cobalt
0.05
X
Copper
0.20
X
Iron
5.0
X
Leod
0.1
X
Lithium
0.01
X
Magnesium
25.0
X
Manganese
0.20
X
Mercury
0.01
X
Nickel
0.20
X
Nitrogen
30
X
Phosphorus
10
X
Polossium
30
X
Selenium
0.02
X
Silver
0.05
X
Sodium
7C
X
Sul fate
100
X
Zinc
1.0
X
BOD5 (Biologicol
Oxygen Demand)
30
X
Chemical Oxygen Demond
120
X
Totol Suspended Solids
5
X
ECW 1100 umhos X
pH 6.5-8.4 X
•Maximum Averoge Concentroliorv, s Averoge of the lost 3 Samples Tested.
Limits in mg/i "unless otherwise notedl
3/8/83
-------
EXHIBIT "C"
Operating Practice Restrictions
The intent of this exhibit is to identify and define practices for use of
reclaimed irrigation water which protect human health and the environment.
Other practices will be established after consultation with the Growers
Executive Committee.
1. Appropriate warning signs shall be posted around the sites utilizing
reclaimed water by the Owner to designate the nature of the water and
its non-potability.
2. The Owner will also take all reasonable precautions, including signs
and labeling, to clearly identify reclaimed water systems to prevent
inadvertent human consumption.
3. No cross-connections shall be made between the reclaimed water system
and other water systems.
A. A distance of 500 feet should be maintained between the periphery of
the reclaimed water irrigation system application site and any
existing or approved (but not yet constructed) shallow drinking water
wells.
5. A distance of 1000 feet shall be maintained between drinking water
wells and holding ponds which are incorporated into the irrigation
system as an alternate application site.
6. The use of reclaimed water shall be consistent with applicable state
and federal regulations.
-------
APPROVED BY THC BOAMO Or COUNTS
COMMISSIONERS AT THEIR MEETING
APR 11 1983
RESOLUTION NO. 8V5W-0O
A RESOLUTION LIMITING LANDS ON WHICH RAPID
INFILTRATION 3ASINS HAY BE LOCATED AS PART OF THE ORANGE
COUNTY/CITY OF ORLANDO SOUTHWEST 201 WATER CONSERV II
FROJECT; APPROVING A UNIFORM AGREEMENT AMD ArlENDUENT NUM-
BER ONE THERETO FOR DELIVERY AND USE OF RECLAIMED IRRIGA-
TION WATER WITH HI-ACRES, INC., AND OTHERS; AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF THE UNIFORM AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENT NUMBER
ONE THERETO.
PREMISES
1. On February 15, 1983, Orange County adopted Resolution No.
83-SW-04 selecting a preferred wastewater management alternative for
Southwest Orange County regarding the water Conserv II project which
includes a combination of citrus irrigation and rapid infiltration
basins, and adopted Resolution No. 83-SW-03, recognizing the organi-
zation of a Growers' Executive Committee and assuring that productive
citrus groves or dwelling units located within "Southwest Orange
County", will not be the subject of condemnation proceedings. For
the purpose of this Resolution "Southwest Orange County" is defined
as those lands west of the center of Range 27 East, in Townships 2 3
South and 24 South, Orange County, Florida.
2. The Grower's Executive Committee and other property owners
have requested assurance that the area in which Rapid Infiltration
Basins will be located within Southwest Orange County, be defined
and limited;
3. The Growers' Executive Committee and property owners will
rely upon representations made by the City of Orlando and Orange
County as to th location of rapid infiltration basins as the basis
for entering the uniform Agreement for the Delivery and Use of Re-
claimed Irrigation Water;
4. Based on available information, the City and County have de-
termined that the area described in this resolution will be sufficient
to accommodate all necessary rapid infiltration basins, in combination
with the anticipated volume of water to be contracted for and accepted
for citrus irrigation and storage purposes.
5. In addition to the above, the County and City have negotiated
an agreement and amendment Number One thereto with Hi-Acres, Inc.,
and others to accept and use large volumes of highly treated, re-
claimed water on their lands and to implement on
their property for the temporary storage of said water which way
alleviate additional rapid infiltration basins except as required for
system operational considerations.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ORANGE
COUNTY:
1. The Southwest 201 water Conserv II project, as a joint project
of the City cf Orlando and Orange County, is designed to dispose of
50 million gallons per day (mgd) of-reclaimed water through a combi-
nation of citrus irrigation and rapid infiltration basins.
2. The area to be utilized for rapid infiltration basins within
Southwest Orange County throughout the term of the Water Conserv IIf
project shall be defined and limited to that 1,640 .ere area depicted
on the diagram attached hereto as Exhibit A and more specifically de-
scribed by the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit B.
-------
3. In- the event that any of the acreage within the area desig-
nated in Exhibit A cannot be acquired, the County and City will have
the right to acquire sufficient land outside the area designated in
Exhibit A having a disposal or storage capacity equivalent to those
lands within the designated area which cannot be acquired; provided,
however, that land outside the designated area shall be acquired
without condemnation of dwelling units or producing groves as defined
in Resolution No. 83-SW-04 by Orange County on February 15, 1983, and
provided further that on any land outside the area depcited in Ex-
hibit A and within Southwest Orange County no rapid infiltration basins
shall be located within 1,000 feet of any dwelling unit and no rapid
infiltration basins shall be located within 125 feet of a producing
grove without the written approval of the grove owner or, in lieu
thereof, the written approval of the Growers' Executive Committee.
The City and County shall consult with the Growers' Executive Com-
mittee before selecting additional land outside the area designated
in Exhibit "A", if such additional land is needed.
4. The Soard of County Commissioners of Orange County hereby
approves the form of the Uniform Agreement for Delivery and Use of
Reclaimed Irrigation Water, as amended, attached hereto as Exhibit C
and authorizes the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to
execute said Agreements and Amendment with citrus growers, using the
form attached hereto, for delivery, disposal and use of reclaimed
water.
ADOPTED THIS fj_
DAY OF
, 1983.
Commissioners of Orange County
ATTEST:
Deputy ZyizWl ttf Board
of Counter Commissioners
-------
EXHIBIT A
Rapid Infiltration Basin Locations
»U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICERS'* -SH5 -065/
REGION NO. 4
------- |