2011-R-17 RESOLUTION NO. 2011-R-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF EDGEWATER, FLORIDA; APPROVING A
WASTEWATER SYSTEM FACILITY PLAN (2010)
RELATING TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) STATE
REVOLVING FUND LOAN PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF VARIOUS WASTEWATER
SYSTEM PROJECTS INCLUDING RENEWAL AND
REPLACEMENT AND WWTF EXPANSION AND
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS; REPEALING
RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREIN; AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edgewater, Florida, has made the following determinations:
WHEREAS, local government agencies are allowed under the general laws of Florida to
apply for public loans though the State of Florida in order to finance the construction of
wastewater facilities, and
WHEREAS, the administrative regulations of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection ( "FDEP "), the state agency that oversees the State Revolving Fund Loan Program,
requires the City Council, as the local governing body of the City of Edgewater, to formally
approve a Wastewater Facility Plan describing the necessary wastewater improvement projects
in order to comply with the funding requirements of the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, formal approval of a Wastewater Facility Plan is required in order for the
City of Edgewater to participate in the State Revolving Loan Fund Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to formally approve the Wastewater Facility Plan
(2010), a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A ", and desires to
make certain improvements to its wastewater system as more fully described in the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has been briefed on the Facility Plan and concurs with the
recommendations contained in the Plan; now therefore,
#2011 -R -17
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER,
FLORIDA, THAT:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Edgewater, Florida, is authorized to
approve, and does hereby approve, the Wastewater Facility Plan (2010), a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A ". The said Facility Plan is approved
pursuant to the State Revolving Fund Loan Program for the purpose of making various
improvements to the City's wastewater facilities, including various wastewater improvement
projects. A copy of the City's Facility Plan shall be maintained by the City Clerk.
SECTION 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to
execute the said Facility Plan, including any and all papers and documents necessary and
incidental thereto.
SECTION 4. The City Manager is further designated to be the City's representative who
is authorized to provide the assurance and commitments that will be required by the said Facility
Plan; and to represent the City in carrying out the City's responsibilities under the Plan,
including the authority to delegate responsibility to appropriate City staff members to carry out
the various technical, financial, and administrative activities associated with implanting the Plan.
SECTION 5. All Resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith be and the same
are hereby repealed.
2
#2011 -R -17
SECTION 6. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
SECTION 7. After a motion to approve by Lmkm� with second by
lmftil�Der,Nx,j the vote on this resolution was as follows:
AYE NAY
Mayor Mike Thomas
Councilman Justin A. Kennedy
Councilwoman Gigi Bennington
Councilman Mike Ignasiak
��30Lk�
Councilman Ted Cooper —14burv}
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of September, 2011.
ATTEST:
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
ITY F EDGEWAT 1 , FLO 'D'A
_ I
By: R
``chael L. ras
Mayor
�J
.L/ link J
Robin L. Matusick
Paralegal
For the use and reliance only by the City of Approved by the City Council of the City of
Edgewater, Florida. Approved as to form and Edgewater at a meeting held on this 26th day of
legality by: Aaron R. Wolfe, Esquire September, 2011 under Agenda Item No. 8 e
City Attorney
Baran, Sims, Wolfe, Ansay,
& Kundid
3
g2011-R-17
CITY OF
EDGEWATER
\„ it/ -
City of
I G Inc. 1951 TER
WASTEWATER
FACILITY P
Prepared by:
QUENTIN L. HAMPTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
- Consulting Engineers -
October 2010
EW82 WW Facility Plan
10/19/10
CITY OF EDGEWATER
WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary 1
1.1 Project Description and Location 1
1.2 Need or Justification for Projects 3
1.2.1 WWTF Expansion 3
1.2.1.1 Population Growth 3
1.2.1.2 Current and Historical Flows 6
1.2.1.3 Seasonal Flow Variations 7
1.2.1.4 Wastewater Flow Projections 7
1.2.1.5 Influent Characteristics and Permit Limits 10
1.2.2 Biosolids Treatment 11
1.2.3 Existing WWTF Upgrade and Improvements 15
1.2.3.1 Renewal and Replacement Recommendations 15
1.2.4 Lift Station Upgrade and Improvements 18
2. Cost Comparison 21
2.1 WWTF Expansion Alternatives 21
2.1.1 No Action 21
2.1.2 Expand Existing WWTF 22
2.1.3 Construct a 2 WWTF West of the City 23
2.1.4 Cost Benefit Analysis — Expansion vs. 2 WWTF 25
2.1.5 WWTF Treatment Alternatives 25
2.1.5.1 Treatment Alternative 1 — Extended Aeration 26
2.1.5.2 Treatment Alternative 2 — Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) 26
2.1.5.3 Treatment Alternative 3 — Membrane Bio- Reactor (MBR) 27
2.1.5.4 Treatment Alternative 4 — Bardenpho Process 28
2.1.5.5 Comparison of Treatment Alternatives 1 -4 28
2.2 Wastewater Force Main and Reclaimed Water Transmission 29
2.3 Biosolids Treatment and Disposal System Alternatives 29
2.3.1 Composting 30
2.3.2 Thermal Drying 31
2.3.3 Chemical Stabilization 32
2.3.4 Comparison of Biosolids Treatment Alternatives 36
3. Environmental Effects 38
3.1 Environmental Benefits 46
3.2 Potential Adverse Flora, Fauna, or Animal Effects 52
3.3 Endangered /Threatened Plant and Animal Species 52
3.4 Potential Adverse Human Health or Environmental Effects 52
3.5 Site Visits Determining Environmental Effects 64
4. Selected Alternatives and Proposed Projects 65
4.1 WWTF Expansion 65
4.1.1 Existing Facilities 65
4.2 Recommended Projects 70
Appendix 1 - Sanitary Lift Station Assessment and Repair Summary
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Wastewater Service Area Population Projections 5
1.2 Summary of Historical Wastewater Flow Data 6
1.3 Wastewater Flow Projections 9
1.4 WWTF Influent Concentrations 10
1.5 WWTF Permit Limits 11
1.6 Proposed Chapter 62 -640 Rule Changes 14
2.1 WWTF Expansion Alternatives Evaluation 24
2.2 Wastewater treatment Process Alternatives Evaluation 28
2.3 Biosolids Treatment Alternatives Evaluation 36
3.1 Table V -5 Estuarine Dependent Species Found in Edgewater 48
3.2 Table V -1 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife 50
3.3 Table VI -2 Listed Species Within the Edgewater Area 55
3.4 Table V -2 Special Protection Status of Species in Edgewater 57
3.5 Table V -3 Common Saltwater Species Found in Edgewater 61
3.6 Table V -4 Common Shellfish Species Found in Edgewater 64
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 WWTP Location 2
1.2 Utility Service Area 4
1.3 WWTF Historical Flow Data (2007 -2009) 7
1.4 Historical and Projected Wastewater Flows 9
1.5 Lift Station and Force Main Location Map 19
3.1 Natural Resources in the Coastal Planning Area 40
3.2 Primary Watershed Basins 41
3.3 Mosquito Lagoon OFW Designated Area 42
3.4 Indian River Water Quality Classification 43
3.5 Shellfish Harvesting Classification 44
3.6 Wetland Areas 47
3.7 Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas 49
3.8 Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas in the Coastal Planning Area 51
3.9 Aquifer Recharge Areas in Volusia County 54
3.10 Listed Species in the Coastal High Hazard Area 59
3.11 Listed Species 60
4.1 WWTP Site Layout 68
4.2 WWTP Process Flow Diagram 69
ii
1. Executive Summary
The City of Edgewater will require many improvements to its wastewater treatment and
disposal system for the planning period. The types of improvements are divided into
four separate areas:
➢ Existing WWTF Renewal and Replacement
➢ WWTF Expansion
➢ Biosolids Treatment
➢ Lift Station Upgrades and Improvements
The proposed WWTF Renewal and Replacement project is needed to maintain existing
plant operations to ensure WWTF compliance.
The WWTF expansion will provide wastewater treatment capacity for the City's utility
service area, including Restoration DRI. The need and timing for expansion is directly a
function of population growth and development within the service area.
Biosolids handling upgrades will be needed in order to meet new rule changes that
affect how wastewater residuals (biosolids) are process and disposed. The City may
elect to partner with nearby Cities or the County for addressing biosolids treatment and
disposal.
The lift station upgrades and improvements are needed to provide a more reliable
collection system.
1.1. Project Description and Location
The City of Edgewater Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) is located in the eastern
portion of Volusia County, south of New Smyrna Beach and north of Oak Hill. Figure
1.1 depicts the location of the WWTF and the surrounding areas within the City limits.
This facility is an Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) facility developed around the
1
.o 'O44 r YJP � PV V s
SR A , N
o ) o R SEEP
ti / z GP I GP , `
R 44 9 '' , 0 7,000 14,000 Feet
C
4 � Edgewater WWTP 73 s 13 �\ t -
.o �� � �_�_ _ 10t ` \ N r
D y ' u, � / , — \,� ' -' % ` \� p
i
1)7.1
c \
Iii z R6 ,ti 1
, / . \ ., Alai,
_. •. SR 442 EXT W ` \ ` \ 'i ,.., 7
-ti
I \Wu' ik'-
---- - - - - -1 -- - - - - -- i ' =`` '. '
1 ; 1 1 �-�.. , _,i•
I I
1 I \ 1\
fi g!
n 'V
m
73 pet � �� , \
vQL , p =�
c GI \
y S \
i \
J./ \ /! . r'. C. ■
l City f I s y
ED GEWATER 1 _
Legend
Edgewater Service Area MAYTOWN RD
Edgewater City Limits
Path: S: EW62 Wastewater Facility Plen1CacnDesign1EW82 ww lac plen_WWTP LOCATION trio
QUENTIN L. HAMPTON ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF EDGEWATER FIGURE 1.1
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 626 WASTEWATER WWTP LOCATION
FAX 761 ORANGE, FACILITY PLAN (Page 2)
P.O. DRAWER 290247 PORT ORANGE, FL 32129 -0247
PHONE. 386 761 6810
licensed Bardenpho treatment process. The permitted plant capacity is 2.75 million
gallons per day (MGD) annual average daily flow (AADF). This permitted capacity was
re -rated from the original permitted capacity of 2.25 in 1996. A permitted capacity of
2.75 MGD AADF categorizes the plant as a Type 1 Facility.
1.2. Need or Justification for Projects
1.2.1. WWTF Expansion
1.2.1.1. Population Growth
According to the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendments Pursuant to the Water
Supply Facilities Work Plan (Comprehensive Plan), the City of Edgewater population
was approximately 18,900 in 2000. The City's population has been increasing steadily
but has stabilized since 2006. The estimated population in 2005 was about 22,200
people per the City's Water Supply Plan which indicates that the population grew by
about 3,300 people in the 5 -year period. This is a growth of about 17 percent (17 %)
over the 5 year period or an average growth of 3.5% per year. In the period between
2005 and 2010, growth has been less than 1% per year.
The wastewater service planning area and population projections have been modified to
include a major development of regional impact (DRI) proposed in the northwest
quadrant of 1 -95 and State Road 442 known as Restoration DRI. The existing service
area including Restoration DRI is depicted in Figure 1.2. The proposed development
encompasses 5,181 acres and may ultimately contain up to 8,500 dwelling units and
approximately 3.2 million square feet of retail and commercial office space. Phase 1 is
expected to be completed in 2017 and is estimated to include 3,692 equivalent dwelling
units.
The City will also serve southeast Volusia County via interconnect. This service area
consists of mostly unincorporated portions of eastern Volusia County that follow the US
1 corridor adjacent to the Indian River between Edgewater and Oak Hill and including
Oak Hill. Wastewater service to this area is included in this document for planning
purposes.
3
A /oN p:1 N
` n FF41). U S E�P• 4 S SRA1
O � D 82.1 , P
ct \;
73 GO '.\
N.
O P
Q 44 0 N 0 7,000 14,000 Feet
O
2
m A � � A 10 tH \ t -�\ \ N zA
5 9 � f a TA. � \ ■ O y y L
/ O p N
3 � `�� 829.02 / ` \ \\ 82
v i \ 1c PNI NO Z \`
i
1 \ v\
- - -- J iiii L..
■ r
t8 3 \\
Z ER BL \ Itik
73 X \ SR 442E XTW � � \
\
1
---- - - - -- i 830.04 W ! i't" \ r \�;
I
432.04
I I I r
O 111 ∎c \yS
A A
v o L G O R � \\
r r'
G ` �\
c' I y p \\
M / ,
)EDGEWATER1 830.03 N
I ;
I
Legend
Edgewater Service Area
Census Tracts MAYTOWN RD
Edgewater City Limits
Pa. S IEWE W82 INAstroordet FARM, N.nIC.OAL earlsw2 ww fac {Jan_SERNCE AREA. m.E
QUENTIN L. HAMPTON ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF EDGEWATER FIGURE 1.2
CONSULTING ENGINEERS UTILITY SERVICE
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 626 WASTEWATER AREA
FAX 761 ORANGE FACILITY PLAN (Page 4)
P.O. DRAWER 290247 PORT ORANGE, FL 32129 -0247
PHONE. 386 761 6810
Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data and maps, as well as the City's updated wastewater
service area map were used to generate population projections for the planning period.
TAZ data is supplied by the University of Florida Bureau of Business and Economic
Research (BBER). It provides population data for specific zones within municipal and
county boundaries. TAZ population data for years 2010 and 2020 were used. Growth
estimates for the Restoration DRI are not reflected in the TAZ data and as such,
Restoration DRI growth projections are used in place of the TAZ data for this area.
Population growth within the City of Edgewater's service area is estimated to increase
over the next decade, primarily as a result of the expanded wastewater service area
and Restoration DRI. Build -out of Restoration DRI Phase 1 begins in 2012. Table 1.1
presents the projected population for the planning period to 2025 based on the City's
revised service area, TAZ data, the proposed Restoration DRI and a straight -line
projection to 2025.
The population projections in Table 1.1 reflect the existing wastewater service area and
the portion of this area which directs sewage flow to the County's S.E. Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant. As such, the wastewater population projects differ slightly
from the City's Water System Facility Plan.
Table 1.1
City of Edgewater Wastewater Service Area
Population Projections
Year Population
2010 17,250
2011 18,750
2012 20,250
2013 21,750
2014 23,250
2015 24,390
2016 24,941
2017 26,588
2018 28,353
5
Year Population
2019 29,765
2020 � 30,345
2021 [ 30,667
2022 r 31,889
2023 [ 33,111
2024 � 34,333
2025 { 35,556
1.2.1.2. Current and Historical Flows
Flow data was obtained from the VVWTF's Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) for the
last five years from 2004 through 2009 are compiled and compared to the permitted
capacity to review percent of the current capacity being utilized and to assist in
projecting flows. Annual average daily flow (AADF) and max month average daily flow
(MMADF) data are summarized in Table 1.2. As can be seen from this data,
wastewater flows have not changed significantly over the last five years.
Table 1.2
City of Edgewater
Summary of Historical Wastewater Flow Data
Year AADF (MGD) MMADF (MGD)
2004 1.12 1.59
2005 1.22 1.48
2006 1.11 1.34
2007 1.22 1.36
2008 1.14 1.46
2009 1.28 1.67
Figure 1.3 graphically presents the monthly average daily flows form January 2005
through January 2010. Average daily flow in 2009 was 1.15 MGD. Overall, the facility
flows remained steady for the last five years and remained below the permitted capacity
of 2.75 MGD.
6
Figure 1.3
City of Edgewater
WWTF Historical Flow Data
(2007 -2009)
3Su
uu
g
0
U-
0 n
0 3
0
Jan -07 Mar -07 May -07 Jul -07 Sep -07 Nov -07 Jan -08 Mar -08 May -08 Jul -08 Sep -08 Nov -O8 Jan -09 Mar -09 May -09 Jul -09 Sep -09 Nov -09
— Monthly ADF ' °"'°Perm ittedCapacity
1.2.1.3. Seasonal Flow Variations
According to the Comprehensive Plan, the average annual temperature in Edgewater is
71°F. Two seasons are experienced in Edgewater, subtropical and mild. Localized
thunderstorms producing as much as two to three inches of rainfall during the summer
are not uncommon. Seasonal flow variations can be observed in Figure 1.3. The data
demonstrates that seasonal low flows occur in late fall and winter seasons, while
seasonal high usage occurs in late spring through early fall.
1.2.1.4. Wastewater Flow Projections
The following assumptions are made for planning purposes in projecting wastewater
flows:
All new residents will be connected to the City's wastewater collection system.
7
Wastewater flow projections include future connection of remaining homes within
the service area on septic tanks to the wastewater collection system.
A 204 - gallon per day per equivalent residential unit (GPD /ERU) flow basis is
used. The City's Comprehensive Plan establishes that 204 GPD /ERU be used
for planning purposes.
A 2.27 - people per ERU population per residential household is used. Note that
the City's Water Supply Plan uses an estimate of 2.27 people per unit for the
Restoration DRI.
When comparing the observed WWTF flows and the estimated service area population
over the past five years, the per capita MMADF ranged from about 72 -82 gallons per
capita day (GPCD). This range of per capita flow appears on the low side and may not
represent a sufficient basis for projecting flow for planning purposes.
Wastewater flows for 2010 are based on population but adjusted down to exclude
portions of the service area that are not tied into the wastewater collection system. The
projected flow after year 2020 is based on the 204 -gpd /ERU and 2.27 - people per unit
criteria using a straight line growth rate. The results are presented in Figure 1.4.
Based on this approach, the MMADF would exceed plant capacity by 2014.
The projected flow increases are resultant from infill within existing sub - divisions, the
proposed `restoration' DRI and new development. The total anticipated flow increases
from 2010 -2015 is approximately 1.82 MGD of the total, which reserves approximately
0.82 MGD for the remaining portions of the service area.
The blue line represents AADF conditions and the yellow line represents MMADF
conditions. Maximum flows are projected to exceed the plant's rated capacity by 2015.
Therefore, planning should commence for plant expansion in 2012 in order to ensure
that capacity is available by 2015.
8
Figure 1.4
City of Edgewater
Historical and Projected Wastewater Flows
4.5 -
4
35
0 3
2
5 _—•
LL
2
m
31 5 --
1
05
0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Year
°-- Perm itted Capacity — Projected MMADF Projected AADF per Straight Line Growth
Table 1.3
City of Edgewater
Wastewater Flow Projections
YEAR AADF (MGD) MMADF (MGD)
2010 1.38 2.00
2011 1.50 2.18
2012 1.62 2.35
2013 1.74 2.52
2014 1.86 2.70
2015 2.00 2.90
2016 2.12 3.07
2017 2.26 3.28
2018 2.41 3.49
2019 2.53 3.67
2020 2.64 3.83
9
1.2.1.5. Influent Characteristics and Permit Limits
Influent CBOC and TSS concentrations for are summarized in Table 1.4. Influent
concentrations were obtained from the WWTF's DMRs for 2009. The influent
characteristics are typical for domestic wastewater.
Table 1.4
City of Edgewater
WWTF Influent Concentrations
January 2009 – December 2009
Month Average Average
CBOD (mg /L) TSS (mg /L)
January 2009 193 208
February 2009 ) 217 { 356
March 2009 195 250
April 2009 r 219 267
May 2009 164 -- 228
June 2009 r 142 145
July 2009 140 154
August 2009 180 1 221
September 2009 � — 150 [ 224
October 2009 22 4 459
November 2009 (- 154 [- 156
December 2009 195 253
Annual Average 181 � 243
Max. Month r 224 F 459
Min. Month 140 145
Under the existing DEP wastewater operating permit, the City's WWTF is authorized to
treat a maximum of 2.75 MGD AADF, with effluent flow and concentration limitations
presented in Table 1.5 for both the Indian River Lagoon Discharge (D -001) and the
Reuse Irrigation Discharge (D -002).
10
Table 1.5
City of Edgewater
WWTF Permit Limits
Parameter Minimum Maximum Basis
Indian River Outfall
Flow, MGD 0.83 AADF
CBOD5, mg /L 5 MADL
TSS, mg /L 5 MADL
pH 6.5 8.5 AADL
Chlorine Residual, mg /L 1.0 <0.01 PHF
Irrigation Reuse
Flow, MGD 2.75 AADF
CBOD5, mg /L 20 MADL
TSS, mg /L 5.0 MADL
pH 6.0 8.5 AADL
Chlorine Residual, mg /L 1.0 PHF
The limitations for pH are based on the annual average daily load (AADL). Limitations
for 5 -day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5) and total suspended
solids (TSS) are based on the maximum average daily load (MADL).
The City of Edgewater currently has a disposal capacity of 0.83 MGD to the Indian River
and of 2.75 MGD for reclaimed water.
1.2.2. Biosolids Treatment
The City of Edgewater currently uses aerobic digestion to provide Class B stabilization
of residuals. Stabilized residuals are land applied or disposed in a Class I or II solid
waste landfill. The City's current Agricultural Use Plan includes three sites for land
applying residuals:
Williams Ranch (Putnam County)
Haw Creek Ranch (Flagler County)
➢ Clay Whaley Ranch (Osceola County)
11
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) is proposing rule changes
to Chapter 62 -640 F.A.C., the rule governing the production, classification and disposal
of domestic wastewater residuals referenced by proposed rule as "biosolids" within the
State of Florida. DEP has found that unregulated use or disposal of biosolids poses a
threat to the environment and public health. Rule changes include changing from the
term 'residuals' to 'biosolids'. DEP found that 'biosolids' is the prevalent term used
nationally. Other rule changes include the DEP encouraging "the highest levels of
treatment, quality and use for biosolids "and "the beneficial use of biosolids in a manner
to increase public acceptance ".
The proposed rule change will affect application sites as well. Rule changes include an
increase in responsibility of the application site owners. All application sites will have to
be permitted and maintain a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP), under the current rule
all site permitting is covered within the RMF's permit. There will be an increase in site
monitoring of soil, ground water and surface water. The addition of site permitting and
increased monitoring will add to the complexity of applying non - fertilizer grade biosolids.
Additionally, setbacks from buildings occupied by the public and the sites property lines
were increased. Alkaline treated biosolids has a proposed 1,320- foot setback from the
property line, unless incorporated into the soil. All of the proposed rule changes are
valid for Class B, A, and AA biosolids; only Class AA fertilizer is exempt from application
site rules.
Any facility which treats biosolids per chapter 62 -640 F.A.C. will be subject to the
following changes. Upon permitting, the treatment facility is required to have provisions
to store biosolids for 14 days. Facilities will have to maintain a spill response plan for
spills during transportation of the product to application or disposal sites. Biological
process monitoring requirements will increase under the proposed rule, not only will the
amount of parameters monitored increase but the frequency in which they are
monitored will increase. Biosolids will have a "Cradle -to- Grave" approach to production,
storage, transportation and disposal; treatment facilities must maintain hauling records
12
and application site receipts for all biosolids processed. Due to the "Cradle -to- Grave"
management approach ultimate responsibility will be shared between the RMF and
application site owners. The majority of proposed rule changes do not discriminate
between Class B, A, and AA biosolids. Therefore, all treatment and disposal costs are
subject to increase significantly under the proposed rule.
Under the proposed rule class AA biosolids that are distributed and marketed as a
fertilizer in accordance with Chapter 576 F.S. and Chapter 5E -1. F.A.C. is classified as
Class AA fertilizer. Additional requirements to be distributed and marketed as a fertilizer
include being registered as a fertilizer and additional permitting requirements. Class AA
fertilizer will be the highest quality biosolids produced under the new rule. This class will
be the new 'unrestricted use' biosolids. Proposed rule changes specifically exempt
Class AA Fertilizers from the general land application requirements. Specifically, Class
AA Fertilizers are exempt from disposal at permitted application sites, maintaining a spill
response plan, soil fertility, ground and surface water monitoring, "Cradle -to- Grave"
record keeping, setbacks, site signage, and cumulative application limits.
Currently, the City of Edgewater disposes approximately 11,530 wet tons of sludge per
year. Assuming a solids concentration of 2.5 %, the total discharge is 320 dry tons per
year. In 2009, the City spent $145,000 in direct costs for sludge trucking and disposal.
This equates to a cost of $453 /dry ton. Much of this cost is attributable to trucking.
In 2009, Edgewater participated with Volusia County to evaluate the potential for
regionalization of sludge processing. A report entitled, "Volusia County Regional
Biosolids Handling Feasibility Study" (August 2009), was generated. The study
evaluated seven (7) treatment systems which were capable of producing a Class 'AA'
sludge product. A 20 year present value analysis was performed for each option. The
20 year present value costs ranged from $254 - $415 /dry ton.
Two of the lower cost options, Florida N -Viro and Shelley's Environmental have costs of
$254 and $288 /dry ton, respectively. Both systems are currently operating within the
13
County and Edgewater could contract with either at this time, if the City had the
capability to dewater its sludge. Doing so would result in an immediate cost savings of
$75,000 /year.
Sludge dewatering via belt filter presses, screw presses or centrifuges is a necessary
step in any subsequent stabilization process. The cost of adding dewatering equipment
is approximately $300,000 and has a payback in less than 4 years. As such,
subsequently project recommendations and cost estimates include the costs for sludge
dewatering.
Table 1.6 provides a summary of the proposed rule with respect to the biosolids class
that it affects.
Table 1.6
Residuals (Biosolids) Management
Proposed Chapter 62 -640 Rule Changes
Class B Class A Class AA AA Fertilizer
r Application Site Must Be Permitted • 1 • i •
Treatment Facility Permit I • r • r • r •
Storage at Treatment Facility Required 1 • r • r • •
Spill Response Plan Required r • r • I •
TCLP Analysis Submitted During Permit Renewal r • • I • •
i Nutrient Management Plan for Application Site • • •
PATHOGEN REDUCTION
r 40 CFR 503.32 (a) 3,4,5,7 and 8 • • ( •
40 CFR 503.32 (b) •
VECTOR ATTRACTION REDUCTION (VAR)
40 CFR 503.33 (b) 1 -10 - r • ( •
40 CFR 503.33 (b) 1 -8 1 `- • _+ • - --
, MONITORING
F Pathogen Reduction and VAR r • • • •
Soil Fertility at Application Site • • •
Ground Water' at Application Site • • •
Surface Water at Application Site • • • r
Treatment Facility Record Keeping ( • • • •
Application Site Record Keeping r • ( • • �)
14
Class B Class A Class AA AA Fertilizer
DMR Required Monthly r • • • [ •
Treatment Facility Annual Summary • • • •
Application Site Must Report Cumulative Heavy
Metals Applied •
LAND APPLICATION CRITERIA
Metals Single Sample Ceiling Concentrations J • ( • ( • •
Metals Monthly Average Parameter Concentrations r � • •
% Mile Setback from Property Line • • F •
Greater Than 7 Day Storage Restricted • • r •
Bilingual Signs Required •
Cumulative Application Limits (Ibs /acre) •
Setback Distances (- • . 1 1
1/4 Mile Storage Setback • • F • r
May Not Be Applied During Rain or Ponding • • ( •
May Not Be Applied on Frequently Flooded Land r . • •
Plant Nursery Use Prohibited
Food Crop Use Restricted •
Sod Can't Be Sold For 12 Months After Use • 1
Must Be Distributed And Marketed As A Fertilizer •
1.2.3. Existing WWTF Upgrade and Improvements
A site visit was performed by Quentin L. Hampton and Associates, Inc to assess the
condition of the existing WWTF. The plant was constructed in 1991 and has not been
refurbished since the original outfitting. The majority of the WWTF equipment is 20
years old and has exceeded its 'useful life'. The plant equipment needs re- building
and /or replacement at this time.
1.2.3.1. Renewal and Replacement Requirements
A list of renewal and replacement (R /R) requirements was prepared. The list was
developed in conjunction with Dennis Norman and Eric Bosse of the City of Edgewater.
It identifies various R/R needs and process modifications which will improve operational
efficiency and process reliability. The list is detailed below.
15
� _
Item Description |
Description Est. Cost ^
----------------------------
A Barscreen |
[
-- ' - [ ----�
|
1 . Replace endnagrit non�ovo|system | $ 250.000.00
F --' ------ -- -- [
----'-------
| Subtotal �� | ��x� $ 250,000.00 | ---' -------------------'---
| B Influent Pump Station n� |
-------- ------- - -----
| 1 Remove vvebweU dividerwaU/open. Line wetwell with ^Speut:mnhie|d^ or equal r $ 50.000.00
| |
[Install -- - - --- [--� -------
� vvatma*U nnixing system | * 50.000.00
F- [�� --- ----------- - -
| 3 |`..nteUnavvaotivahedoarbnnodoronntro|oyotem | [ $ 100.000.00
4 Replace (3) 25 HP pumps, add variable speed drives and new control panel | $ 60.000.00
[�� ,-� [ �� --�- ---
| 5 | Add isolation and bypaosvo�enw�h new magnetic meter | [ $ 40.000.00
| ---F- \ �-
| |
Subtotal B �Pmrt $ 300,000.00
--
[� �
| ^° |�"��na/�m��c/mPunvo���a��n \
F., ��� Rep|aoeexiobngpumnpewithnevvmeohonioa|sea|punnpsandvariab|espoed I $ 100O8� 0O
drives
'
[
[ [install - - pump ---- - � --
| 2 | x pre-engineered metal building ho/|�R� pupstoton | $ 25,000 .00
| --- --- ----------'-----
| ����&m� �� | ��mr� $ 175,000.00
| - --- ---------
| J0 f�TU��Aw#���#2
. � r
contacts _
| Replace (4) 3 HP h*nnantaUonmixers shafts, drives add
[--
� ' ' ' � 45. 000OO
contacts
- - - - -
Rep�ca(2)1OHPanon�mn�ens shafts add
2 mixers, blades, $ GOOOOOO
contacts . �
-� � [ --'
$ 240.000.00
3 Rep�co(2)75HPaarnb�ns.aho�s.dr�esandb|adaa |
-� -- ----------
4 | Replace (2)7.5HP 2nd anoxic mixers.aha� [ a.drivesandb|adeo | $ 40.000.00
� — -- ' -----' -
5 � Install flow F o�pmcingeyobamfor|R�&RAGpumps | $ 50.000.00
6 Patch and repair spalled concrete miscellaneous at miscellaneous areas | $ 25.000.00
.
[ [-
7 Add | $ 40.000.00
| |� �
| | Subtotal Pavt�� i $ 500,000.00
�-,u~ - ---- -
E [-Chlorine, |
�� ��� � �
Convert C|o and SOzoystenn from gas to|iquid feed with redundant C�|oana|yzers
F
' | $ 3OOOOOOO
turbidimeters. pH meters and residual pacing | '
' - ----- - | --
2 |nstoU(2) new alum feed pumps�N1ahohpunnpskids toC|a and SOa | $ 38.000.00
| - '---'
| | Smbto&elpart E | $ 338\00000
F - - r -- --------- -- -- ---' |
| F Clarifiers, RASamd WAS |
1 I |nstaU(3)VVAS pumps [- $ 50.000.00
16
�__�
Item Description Est. Cost
------------'----------------'-
2 Install (1)4''WAS K8AG meter [
$ 10.000.00
[ -- / - --'------- r --
| 3 | Install (3) 15 HP RAS pumps and VFDs | $ 100.000.00
[
—
' -- --'
| 4 | Install (1) 8'' RAS MAG meter | [ $ 15.000.00
[ -- Install ------ - --- [-
|
5 | (2)dar�ergeardr�em | $ 100.000.00
-- -- -------------------------------' ----- ---------
Re-build all submersible components, rake arms, pickets, stilling well, etc for (
6 ' ' ' ' | $ 1OOUUUU0
clarifiers ' �
7 [-- � -----
| Install (2) weir washer systems | [- $ 60.000.00
F - ' -------- - —
| |
Subtotal | Part | $ 435,000.00
�- -
G 3rd Clarifier |
[ -----' - - - - - - F -
1 ! Clarifier Tank | $ 300.000.00
[ --' ---------'---
| 2 | Collection Mechanism [ F
8 300.000.00
[ -- --- - �
|
3 Valves |
ea ond Piping $ 100,000.00
[ F - --- - -- - -------'
|
4 Troughs and Launders | $ 200.000.00
F � -'-| -- - - -
| ` Subtotal Part G | $ 800,000.00
H Filters |
--
[
�
1 ( 25 HP compressors for dynsand filters ero | $ --15.UOO.00
[ | - ---- ----
| 2 | Install redundant turbidity analyzers with shade cover on side of tank [ F $ 15.080.00
| | [
---- -
Subtotal Pmrt�� | $ 30,000'00
[ F
| I | 62 Contact - 1 - |
F�. ------ F -'-- -- --
| � | \ /) newC�m�er7.5 HP | $ 10.000.00
----- ---------------'- - - - [
2 | o/staU gravity drains in both Cb cnnto��baoins - | $ 20.000.00
------' ------ - - - -
3 Replace existing reuse transfer pumps, (3) 30 HP vertical turbine pumps & VFDn } � 90.000.00
.
�
_-___[
� | nep|aoe effluent pump control panel, panel to include automatic reuse bypass, $ 25,000.00
add electric valve actuators to reuse transfer valves
[ ------'--
6 Replace post mixer and motors on floating aerators | $ 100.000.00
[ 6 lnstall new effluent weir meter ------ F $ 20.000.00
Install sump pump to drain post aeration basin to adjacent gravity manhole, add
� � $ 2OU0O� OU
2-3^ drain from effluent chamber into post-aeration
'
| ---' ------
Subtotal Part IT
$ 285,000.00
-[' -- Reuse - --------'-----------
| J ��� Pump Station om �
Replace reuse pumps and check valves (5) 100 HP pumps, add VFDs to existing
1 ' $ 175O0O0O
. (3) 60 HP pumps ' �
---'-
Separate reuse distribution and in house reuse water system, install new
2 ' $ 5OOODOO
discharge piping and 16^ valve ' �
[- - --
| 3 | Construct pre-engineered building for reuse pump station [ on | $ 50.00U.UU
Item I Description ( Est. Cost
4 Install new 16" propeller for distribution system reuse meter (submersible) $ 25,000.00
5 Install new 6" water specialties propeller meter for in house reuse $ 10,000.00
6 Install add valve actuator to discharge of reuse flow meter to shut system down $ 20,000.00
Subtotal Part J l $ 330,000.00
K Sludge Handling, Emergency Power, Laboratory & Miscellaneous
1 Move existing 600 KW generator and add a 2nd 200KW generator r $ 250,000.00
2 Convert existing generator room to laboratory [ $ 200,000.00
(2) Sludge feed pumps sludge dewatering equipment $ 300,000.00
O 9 P P 9 9 ment q p
Subtotal Part K r $ 750,000.00
Total Parts A -K (Construction) [ $ 4,185,000.00
Contingencies @ 10% $ 418,500.00
Design, Permitting & C.A. @ 15% $ 690,525.00
GRAND TOTAL r $ 5,294,025.00
1.2.4. Lift Station Upgrade and Improvements
A map illustrating the lift station locations is included as Figure 1.5. A field inspection
was performed in 2009 for each sewage lift station maintained by the City. The
condition of the following parameters for 45 stations was evaluated:
➢ Wetwell
➢ Pumps
➢ Mechanical
➢ Electrical
A rating of `Good', `Fair', or 'Poor' was applied to each component and comments
included describing specific repairs necessary. A rehabilitation /repair recommendation
has been prepared for each. A tabular listing of the condition and repair
recommendations for each station is provided in Appendix 1. The list summarizes the
following parameters for each station:
➢ Station I.D.
➢ Pump Manufacturer
• Pump Model #
18
pV
/0 0114
7 C '4)
XI
It' G Pv f �P `' ) ' \c &.-:,
cr - 44 v N .,. \ 0 7,000 14,000 Feet
V
hh
Z '
a
-r Edgewater WWTP 0 73 s �\ ` � S
m le
• \ O N
O ?-
-.1
70 \ • \ �
K
I P , 17
mx-1 , 1 \
f
to .p • :
Z V
\ •., L \
, O 1 . 3 .114301 ■) \.,‘
SR 442 EXT W \`
111 i \
) /
, \ /� . ✓ - - -- ; \
City a f 73
EDGE j .,
/ _
° O/
Legend 0 t• ,
• Edgewater_ Lift_ Stations 'A ti
401 - R� ° / • \
Edgewater_Force_Mains I ° `� ° yam � \
Size is
2" i �� - - - - --
3 „
i
- G
4" j _; '
6"
8"
I I
12'I
=—T- 20"
- - - -- Edgewater Service Area MAYTOWN RD
Edgewater City Limits
Path 5: 1EWIEW82 Wastewater Facility PlarACadlDestgrAEW82 ww /ac plan_LS -FM MAP. m rd
QUENTIN L. HAMPTON ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF EDGEWATER FIGURE 1.5
CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIFT STATIONS AND
FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 626 WASTEWATER FORCE MAINS
FAX 386.761.3977 FACILITY PLAN (Page 19)
P.O. DRAWER 290247 PORT ORANGE, FL 32129 -0247
PHONE: 386 761 6810
➢ Station Type
➢ Motor HP
➢ Design Flow
➢ Design Head
➢ Wetwell Conditions
➢ Pump Condition
➢ Mechanical Condition
Electrical Condition
The summary also includes comments relative to the stations operating conditions or
other pertinent information and a rehabilitation assessment for each lift station.
A prioritization schedule is detailed below listing which stations are in need of repair
and /or replacement. A schedule is included identifying the recommended time frames
for construction.
PRIORITY LIFT STATIONS EST. COST
Immediate (< 2 years) #1, #5, #9 $400,000
Short Term (2 — 5 years) #4, #11, #16, #30, #38 $650,000
Mid -Term (5 — 10 years) #13, #15, #17, #18, #22 $650,000
20
2. Cost Comparison
2.1. WWTF Expansion Alternatives
Average flows will reach 80% of the plant's 2.75 MGD capacity by 2015 based on the
TAZ generated population /flow projections and the Restoration DRI project scheduling.
Given a three (3) year planning /engineering /permitting/ construction period, the City
should commence planning activities for additional capacity by 2010.
Based upon the wastewater flow projections, an additional 2.25 MGD capacity will be
required for a total treatment capacity of 5 MGD. Planning and design should
commence in 2012. Construction should commence in 2013 or 2014. The following
options are evaluated herein:
• No Action Alternative
• Expand capacity at existing WWTF site
• Construct a second WWTF West of the City
A comparison of alternatives is prepared based on cost, performance /reliability and
infrastructure capacity. Each of the alternatives are evaluated and ranked from lowest
to highest, 1 to 3. The points are totaled and the highest point total is the recommended
alternative.
Lowest cost projects have the highest ranking. Best performing and /or most reliable
options receive priority. Those requiring the least change to existing infrastructure, i.e.
sewers and force mains, are beneficially ranked. Additional staffing requirements are a
negative result.
2.1.1. No Action
The City can elect to delay further expansion plans at the WWTF until average daily
flows exceed 2.2 MGD (80% of 2.75 MGD), approximately 2013. At that time, the City
21
will be required to identify how it intends to meet the needs of future growth. The
primary drawback to this approach once growth picks up again, and Restoration DRI
begins generating wastewater flows, the City may not have sufficient capacity to meet
growth demands.
Based upon the projected flows, it appears that maximum month flows will not exceed
available capacity prior to 2015. As such, it is possible to delay construction of a new
facility beyond 2015. Advantages and disadvantages associated with this option are as
follows:
Advantages:
➢ Lowest cost
> No additional staffing
> Centralized facilities
Disadvantages:
> Preventive maintenance is difficult
➢ Performance and reliability is reduced
➢ Significant existing infrastructure upgrades required
> Future capacity increase potential is limited
➢ Development of Restoration DRI may be impacted
2.1.2. Expand Existing WWTF
It is feasible to expand the existing WWTF at the existing site. Adequate space exists at
the existing site. The Public Works complex is located next to the WWTF. The City will
likely construct a new Public Works Facility and even more land should become
available for WWTF expansion.
The majority of the City's service area lies east of 1 -95, and as such, most of the
wastewater will be generated on the east side of 1 -95. Approximately 70% of the
projected 2020 flow is estimated to be generated on the east side or relatively close to
22
the existing plant. This assumes that the remaining 30% of the total plant flows would
be generated from the proposed development west of 1 -95 including Restoration DRI, as
well as development adjacent to and east of 1 -95. Should the City elect to construct a
second plant west of town (west of 1 -95) and in the proposed Restoration DRI
development, the existing WWTF would eventually require expansion since it will not
have sufficient capacity to serve the surrounding areas; however, the existing plant
expansion would not be needed if wastewater flows were redirected to the west.
Advantages and disadvantages associated with this option are detailed below:
Advantages:
> Mid -range cost
> No additional staffing needed for a 2 -plant operation
> Centralized facilities
> No need to redirect wastewater flows to a new WWTF
Disadvantages:
> Existing plant upgrades are still required
2.1.3. Construct a 2nd WWTF West of the City
The City does not have available property west of 1 -95. The City may however
negotiate with the Restoration DRI developers for a potential site. Dedication of a joint
site for water storage /pumping and wastewater treatment, or two (2) separate sites, may
be advantageous for both parties.
Sewage transmission and reclaimed water distribution costs are significant for the
ultimate capacity of the Restoration D.R.I. On -site facilities would reduce the off -site
utility costs.
A variety of potential treatment processes exist. Alternative treatment techniques are
evaluated in greater detail within this section. Advantages and disadvantages
associated with a new 'Western' WWTP are detailed below:
23
Advantages:
• Flexibility for collection system and effluent disposal alternatives
• Increases reclaimed water recovery potential
Reliability and treatment efficiency is maximized
Disadvantages:
Highest cost alternative
➢ Increased staffing requirements
➢ Dual facilities
➢ Wastewater flows would need to be diverted west unless the existing plant
was expanded as well
➢ Potentially costly effluent transmission main or injection well may be needed
as backup to reclaimed water disposal if wetland disposal cannot be
accomplished
A tabular listing of evaluation criteria for each alternative to expand treatment capacity
to 5 MGD is presented in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1
Edgewater Facilities Plan
WWTF Expansion Alternatives Evaluation
Evaluation Criteria
Performance/ Infrastructure
Alternative Cost Reliability Capacity Total
No Action 3 1 1 5
Expand existing WVVTF capacity 2 3 3 8
Construct Additional Western WVVTF 1 2 2 5
Review of the evaluation criteria indicates that expansion of the existing WWTF is the
highest ranked alternative.
24
2.1.4. Cost Benefit Analysis — Expansion vs. 2 WWTF
Expansion of the existing WWTF offers advantages over having dual facilities, but it
also creates challenges. The existing facility will need to be upgraded as it is nearing its
useful life. In addition, the existing facility will need to maintain operation and
compliance during construction of the adjacent proposed treatment components.
The advantages of expanding the existing WWTF include less cost than constructing a
second plant, no additional staffing will be required to operate a second plant, the
facilities will be centralized, and the existing facility has surface water discharge permit
for discharging to the Indian River which can be used as a backup to the reclaimed
water system.
An important consideration in evaluating treatment processes and process components
relates to effluent disposal. The primary means of effluent disposal will be reclaimed
water distribution. During periods of extended wet weather, the City should continue to
utilize its outfall into the Indian River.
2.1.5. WWTF Treatment Alternatives
The WWTP options evaluated herein are:
➢ Extended aeration
➢ Sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
➢ Membrane bio- reactor (MBR)
➢ 5 -stage `Bardenpho' process
Each of the options has benefits and limitations. All require secondary clarification,
filtration and disinfection following biological treatment, except for the membrane
bioreactor (MBR) process. In this process, the membranes are submerged in the mixed
liquor and permeate is withdrawn via vacuum pumps. With respect to secondary
25
clarification, process recommendations are consistent with existing technology used at
the existing WWTF.
2.1.5.1. Treatment Alternative 1 — Extended Aeration
The extended aeration process is a slow rate activated sludge treatment process
wherein influent flow is introduced into a plug -flow reactor, blended with return activated
sludge (R.A.S.) and aerated for approximately 24 hours. It is a simple process which
efficiently oxidizes CBOD; however, it provides little nutrient removal capability. This
process is typically associated with small facilities ( <1 MGD).
Advantages:
> Simple operation /stable process
> Minimal capital cost and 0 & M
Disadvantages:
> Excessive space and volume requirements
> Low nutrient removal capability
> Incompatible effluent quality
> Little potential for expansion
> Requires secondary clarifiers and filters
2.1.5.2. Treatment Alternative 2 — Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
SBR processes utilize a single process basin to operate as a multi -use component. For
example, a single process basin would operate under anaerobic /anoxic and oxic
conditions and also serve as a clarifier at the end of the biological treatment phase. The
process allows for efficient utilization of space and may be expanded by assign
additional SBR reactors. Large scale ( >1 MGD) SBR projects are currently in operation;
however, most SBR's are used for smaller scale projects.
26
Advantages:
➢ Efficient use of space and equipment
➢ Low initial cost
➢ Simple operation
➢ Allows for incremental capacity increases
Disadvantages:
• Moderate nutrient removal capability
• Ultimate capacity limitation.
➢ Relatively high maintenance
2.1.5.3. Treatment Alternative 3 — Membrane Bio- reactor (MBR)
MBR processes represent the latest technology in wastewater treatment. Submersible,
low pressure R/O membranes are submerged within a treatment basin and filtrate
passes through the membranes. A single process basin acts as a clarifier and filter.
Effluent quality is excellent with lower TSS than any other process. The process allows
for extremely high MLSS concentrations and very efficient treatment. Initial capital cost
is relatively high and 0 & M expenses are also relatively high.
Advantages:
➢ Excellent effluent quality
• Compact basin design
➢ Existing tankage can be used
➢ High nutrient removal potential
➢ Eliminates clarifiers and filters
➢ Expansion can be staged in 1.0 MGD increments
Disadvantages:
➢ High capital costs and 0 & M expenses
➢ Undetermined membrane longevity
➢ Limited existing large scale WW installations
27
2.1.5.4. Treatment Alternative 4 — Bardenpho Process
The 5 -Stage Bardenpho process matches the existing plant process. It is a biological
nutrient removal process (BNR) which allows for reduction of soluble nitrogen levels
below 3 mg /I. The process is most effective when used as the sole method for nitrogen
reduction.
Advantages:
➢ Excellent nutrient reduction capability
➢ Stable and efficient process
➢ Compatible effluent quality
➢ Relatively low 0 & M costs
Disadvantages:
• Relatively high capital costs
➢ Requires significant space
• Requires secondary clarification and filters
2.1.5.5. Comparison of Treatment Alternatives 1 -4
A tabular listing of evaluation criteria for each alternative is presented in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2
Edgewater Facilities Plan
Wastewater Treatment Process Alternatives Evaluation
Evaluation Criteria
Process Space/ Nutrient Operation/
Description Cost Efficiency Removal Effluent Total
Capability Compatibility
Extended Aeration 4 1 1 2 8
SBR 3 3 3 3 12
MBR 1 5 5 4 15
5 -Stage Bardenpho 2 2 5 5 14
28
Based upon the foregoing, the MBR and Bardenpho processes had similar rankings.
Relative costs were compared for the two different methods for treatment and are
summarized as follows:
MBR process - $12 million
Bardenpho process - $9.0 million
The MBR process is recommended for the City of Edgewater's WWTF expansion. The
primary rationale supporting this position is the ability to 'stage' the expansion into (2)
1.0 MGD modules at approximately $6M each.
The estimated operation and maintenance cost for the 1.0 MGD RIO Plant is
approximately $400,000 per year, excluding energy and chemical costs. Estimated
energy costs are approximately $100,000 per year and chemical cost will be
approximately $75,000 per year. The initial construction cost is approximately $6
million; approximately 25% of the value is for structural improvements with a 50 year
design life. The remaining 75% is for mechanical and electrical equipment with a 20
year service life.
2.2. Wastewater Force Main and Reclaimed Water Transmission
New wastewater and reclaimed water service will be needed to serve the Restoration
DRI. The most direct and easily constructed route (along existing roadway right -of -way)
has been selected. The developer will be responsible for constructing these
improvements. As such, no alternatives analysis is provided.
2.3. Biosolids Treatment and Disposal System Alternatives
Three separate processes of biosolids handling are considered; composting, thermal
drying and chemical stabilization.
29
2.3.1. Composting
Composting involves controlled aerobic degradation or decomposition of organic waste
materials to produce a commercially valuable end product. The resulting product can
be beneficially used as soil amendment or mulch. Composting results in an additional
20 to 30% reduction in the volatile solids content of digested biosolids. Composting is
an approved technology for processing biosolids to produce material that meets Class
'A /AA' pathogen standards under the Chapter 62 -640 F.A.C. Rule if the following
conditions are met:
Using either in vessel composting or aerated static pile composting, the
temperature of the biosolids must be maintained at 55 °C (131 °F) or higher for 3
consecutive days.
Using the window composting method, the temperature of the biosolids must be
maintained at 55 °C or higher for at least 15 consecutive days. During the period
when the compost is maintained at 55 °C or higher, the windrow must be turned a
minimum of 5 times.
Composting steps include mixing biosolids with amendments, composting the mixture
for 20 to 22 days, screening the composted material to recover amendments, curing the
composted material for a period of about 1 to 6 months, finally, delivering the product to
the market.
SOLIA is a proprietary composting process designed by Veolia Water Solutions and
Technologies. This process has enhanced the efficiency of greenhouse solar biosolids
drying. Thickened biosolids are unloaded into a greenhouse; an automated Solia Mix
machine piles the biosolids in windrow formation. Regular turning of the windrows
promotes fermentation of organic waste materials; the energy released by the oxidation
of organic matter in the biosolids accelerates the evaporation process. The greenhouse
provides further water evaporation due to solar radiation; a powerful air draft removes
moist air from the greenhouse. SOLIA produces Class `A /AA' biosolids by generating
and maintaining a high temperature ( >55 °C).
30
Many problems associated with composting in Florida have been resolved by utilizing a
greenhouse to contain the windrows. Space required for adequate treatment has
decreased. Due to this process being covered, rainfall amounts are not a concern.
Staffing requirements and issues associated with material handling are minimized by
the use of a fully automated windrow machine, Solia Mix.
2.3.2. Thermal Drying
Thermal drying reduces the water content of dewatered biosolids through accelerated
evaporation caused by heating. The process produces granules or soil -like material
that normally contains less than 10% moisture. The product can be used as fertilizers
and amendments on agricultural land, golf courses, parks, and as potting material used
in horticulture. The material can also be used as fuel for generating heat and power.
Thermal drying is approved for producing Class 'A /AA' biosolids under the EPA Part
503 Rule, Appendix B, Processes to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRPs), Alternative 2,
and Heat Drying. Under Alternative 2, the Part 503 Rule requires that biosolids be dried
by direct or indirect contact with hot gases to reduce the moisture content of the
biosolids to 10 percent or lower. In addition, either the temperature of the biosolids
particles must exceed 80 °C or the wet bulb temperature of the gas in contact with the
biosolids as the biosolids leave the dryer must exceed 80 °C.
There are a number of different indirect dryer configurations. However, they all use
transfer of heat through metal surfaces for drying. Indirect dryers can use paddles,
disks, and screw conveyors to mix the material and deliver heat. Indirect dryers are
widely used in food, petrochemical, and pharmaceutical industries and have been
installed for municipal biosolids drying applications. Manufacturers of indirect drying
systems include Komline- Sanderson, US Filter /Dragon Dryer, Andritz and Fenton.
Wet biosolids are introduced into a horizontal stationary vessel (the stator), which is
equipped with a rotor (the paddles, disks, or screws). Rotors usually consist of
31
horizontally- mounted hollow shafts that are used to convey hot water, oil, or gas to the
paddles, disks, or screw flights. As the rotor turns against stationary scraper bars, the
wet cake comes into contact with hot metal surfaces that provide heat for evaporation.
Thermal efficiencies for indirect dryers range from 1,300 to 1,500 Btu per pound of
water evaporated.
Due to continuous breakup of the dried material by the rotor, indirect dryers produce dry
material containing smaller particles and significant dust compared to granules
produced in direct rotary drum dryers. Due to the designs used in indirect dryers, odors
and gases can escape through seals causing odor and volatile gas emission problems.
Indirect dryers need to run at higher temperatures (typically around 1,200 °F) to achieve
evaporation within a reasonable time and to keep the size of the machines from being
excessively large. Coupled with the difficulty in sealing the systems, burning can cause
significant problems. In addition, the solids recycle systems can have trouble handling
biosolids that are sticky.
2.3.3. Chemical Stabilization
There is a wide range of chemical stabilization options available that use alkali and
other chemical treatment processes. These processes can be grouped into the three
categories which reflect their key differences:
r Neat - alkali processes — these processes use a high - quality lime product such as
quick lime
y Fly ash and waste alkali processes — these processes use Tower- quality, but
potentially cheaper, alkaline waste products such as fly ash from cement kilns
Neutralization processes — these processes use oxidizing agents with acid to
produce a product with a neutral pH
Chemical stabilization process can produce Class 'A /AA' material complying with the
EPA Part 503 Rule under Alternative 1, Thermally Treated Solids, or Alternative 2,
32
Biosolids Treated in a High -pH, High- temperature Process. Such processes can also
meet VAR requirements under Option 6, which requires increasing the pH and
temperature of the biosolids to specified levels for a specified length of time. In typical
chemical stabilization systems, alkaline materials are added to biosolids to produce an
exothermic reaction and increase pH.
High -pH processes are known to be odorous, the lime is dusty and the product may
become biologically unstable if the pH drops during storage. The quantity of lime
required to attain the required pH, which is dependent on the characteristics and water
content of the biosolids, may be higher than estimated by process vendors.
The product is best suited for land application immediately following processing due to
the potential for re- growth of pathogens and odor generation. However, the high -pH
product may cause handling issues and the product may still be odorous at the time of
land application, particularly if it has not been thermally dried.
Odor control is a significant concern with chemical stabilization processes. The high pH
and temperature associated with the processes lead to volatilization of ammonia and
VOCs that should be controlled. Ammonia emissions from high -pH processing of
biosolids are generally higher than from composting facilities due to the pH difference
between the two processes. Some products that have solids content below 40 percent
are difficult to market and handle.
BCR (Neutralizer)
Neutralizer is a proprietary process designed by BCR Environmental. The Neutralizer
treatment system uses a powerful oxidizing agent, chlorine dioxide or C102 to inactivate
viruses and pathogens in the biosolids. This is a batch process which accepts waste
activated sludge (WAS) directly from the clarifier. A polymer and C102 are added in order
to thicken the WAS to 3 -4% solids. This thickened biosolids is stirred in a process tank,
an acid is then introduced to lower the mixtures pH and nitrite is added to form nitrous
acid. After the appropriate holding time, 4 to 8 hours depending on chemical
33
concentrations, the pH is restored back to the desired level. Chemical addition and
batch process controls are fully automated.
The Neutralizer system produces a class 'A /AA' product. BCR markets that their
product is "designer biosolids" because they are pH adjustable, nutrient rich and odor -
free. Final product is easily dewatered for transportation. This system is designed to
treat liquid sludge and therefore is typically installed at the wastewater treatment facility.
Although BCR has only been in business a short time, this process is an improvement
over the synox process developed by Tulane University in the early 1990's. Clay County
has the first full -scale Neutralizer process, commissioned in mid 2007, which has had
good results; they are currently under contract to construct a total of 7 facilities for Clay
County.
Florida N -Viro
The N -Viro process is one of the most widely known fly ash processes and was used as
the basis for the Part 503 Rule for producing Class 'A /AA' biosolids under Alternative 2.
The N -Viro process is also known as the Advanced Alkaline Stabilization with
Subsequent Accelerated Drying (AASSAD) process. The process uses what is termed
"alkaline admixtures ", which are typically composed of locally available alkaline waste
products such as fly ash from a cement kiln. Quick lime is typically used as a
supplement to achieve the desired temperature. Since the lime content of the
admixture is not as high as neat quick lime, the volume of alkali that must be added to
achieve a pH of 12 is generally greater than for neat - alkali processes. The N -Viro
process typically takes place in a soil blending pugmill mixer. The pH is maintained
above 12 for over 72 hours, during which time the temperature must be kept above
52 °C (126 °F) for at least 12 hours. Following lime treatment, the mixture is typically
dried in a direct rotary drum dryer to produce a final product with a pH around 11.5 and
a dryness of 60 percent or more. Material is stored in concrete bunkers within a steel
building.
34
N -Viro has developed a biomass fuel that has characteristics similar to coal which is
created from municipal biosolids and other organic wastes. The N -Viro Fuel technology
was recently tested as a coal substitute at the Michigan State University coal -fired plant,
at full scale. "The blended fuels performed well compared to coal alone, air emissions
were below regulatory limits, and the fluidized bed boiler performed normally."
The Florida N -Viro facility is setup to produce N -Viro Fuel once approved for use in the
State of Florida. They are anticipating the final draft of a letter, from DEP, stating the N-
Viro Fuel is an acceptable biofuel and will not require any additional
permitting /monitoring for use as a coal substitute. Once N -Viro Fuel is established,
disposal of N -Viro material will be greatly improved.
Shelley's Environmental
Shelley's Environmental Systems, Inc. is a contract biosolids treatment company that
hauls, treats and disposes of biosolids. Shelley's is a DEP licensed RMF #FLA 016177
which lime stabilizes biosolids to a Class B standard. One of their distinct advantages is
their ability to dispose of the final product. Under the proposed rule changes any lime
stabilized biosolids will realize a 1,320 ft setback from the property line when not
incorporated into the soil. To combat this requirement Shelley's will be restricted to
using only large tracts of land that are not affected by the Okeechobee special
consideration zone.
They are currently permitting a prototype indirect drum dryer to produce a class `A /AA'
90% solids product. The drum dryer will be similar to a dryer but fired using wood and
yard waste; this will combat rising natural gas prices. Most of the permitting that
remains is meeting air pollution regulations due to a lower quality fuel source. Once
established within Florida, Shelley's Environmental plans on selling their drum dryers to
municipalities as a proprietary system.
35
2.3.4. Comparison of Biosolids Treatment Alternatives
Treatment and disposal options which were evaluated have many cost and non -cost
factors, especially when proposed changes to F.A.C. 62 -640 are considered. Table 2.3
contains a listing of evaluation criteria for each alternative presented.
Table 2.3
Edgewater Facilities Plan
Biosolids Treatment Alternatives Evaluation
Non -Cost Factors
Affected by Beneficial Total
Description *Cost Rule Recovery Points
Changes
Composting (SOLIA) 2 2 3 1 9
Thermal Drying/ Synthetic Gas Conversion 3 5 4 _ r 15
Chemical Stabilization (BCR) 1 4 5 r 11
Chemical Stabilization (N -Viro) 5 3 2 15
Chemical Stabilization (Shelley's) 4 1 1 r 10
* Cost Factor is multiplied by 2.0 for Total Point calculation
Based upon the forgoing, N -Viro and the Thermal Drying /Synthetic Gas Conversion
Facility have the highest rankings. The primary issue affecting the ranking is cost. N-
Viro has a lower 20 year present value, based upon the analysis performed herein.
Energy costs are largely responsible for the high cost associated with the Fenton
system. Operation of a gasifier will increase the capital cost and decrease the
operational cost.
Given that both options are equal in the cost /non -cost evaluation, the City should focus
its efforts on a detailed investigation of the N -Viro and Fenton /MaxWest processes. If
the N -Viro process implements 'N -Viro Fuel' as its recovery system, and is able to
maintain similar pricing, it may continue to be the most cost - effective and beneficial
option.
36
The Thermal Drying /Gasification process is exciting new technology and may prove less
expensive than N -Viro; however, it lends itself to regionalization.
The City of Edgewater participated in Volusia County's Regional Study for Biosolids
Handling. The referenced study concluded that a thermal drying /gasification process is
the most viable method. It also concluded that a single, Regional Facility sited at the
Volusia County Landfill is the most cost effective and manageable solution.
As a Regional Facility, all contributors would transport dewatered sludge to the landfill
for drying and gasification. A 'tipping fee' would be charged per ton of sludge. Under
the proposed model, a design /build /operate (DBO) contractor would construct and
operate the facility and 'tipping fees' would cover the construction and operational costs.
In this manner, the contributors would not be faced with significant 'up front' costs and
the cost for compliance with EPA 503 regulations would be borne by existing and future
customers.
Therefore, it is the recommendation of this Facility Plan that the City continues
participating with Volusia County in pursuing a Regional Sludge Handling Facility.
37
3. Environmental Effects
The City of Edgewater's Comprehensive Plan contains two specific elements that
address local environmental issues. They include the Coastal Management Element
and the Conservation Element. This portion of the Facilities Plan summarizes relative
information from the City's Comprehensive Plan required to meet FDEP facilities
planning requirements.
Coastal Volusia County has an abundance of natural resources, waterways beaches
and natural habitats. The Coastal Planning Area consists of flora and fauna, dry
prairies, pine flatwoods, hardwood hammock, hardwood forests, scrub, freshwater
marsh, mangrove swamp, freshwater swamp, and estuarine marsh. These areas of
vegetative cover are presented in Figure 3.1.
There are six primary watershed basins identified in the Coastal Planning Area within
the City's Comprehensive Plan. These basins are shown in Figure 3.2. The City of
Edgewater is within the Mosquito Lagoon / Indian River North watershed. The barrier
islands within this watershed and the Halifax River watershed basin lie outside the City
limits.
The North Indian River is a semi - enclosed body of water with a free connection to the
ocean and is considered an estuary system. The part of the Indian River adjacent to
the City of Edgewater is called the Mosquito Lagoon. The Mosquito Lagoon is
designated an aquatic preserve and an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). The map of
the Mosquito Lagoon is presented Figure 3.3.
The Indian River North is Class III marine water for the majority of the City of
Edgewater's boundary. The Domestic Wastewater Facility permit allows the City to
discharge domestic wastewater effluent to the Indian River North which is Class III
Marine water. The Indian River North is also designated as Class II water towards the
southern City boundary Figure 3.4.
38
Class II waters are designated as Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting. According to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, the Class II portion of the Indian River plays an important
role in Edgewater's ecosystem as it serves as a spawning and nursery area for many
saltwater fish, immature fish and shellfish. A map of the shellfish harvesting
classification in the vicinity of Edgewater is presented in Figure 3.5.
39
2 0
Ct 1 r.frt.. 1
L F- 1 W7 ' 1
o -
,44 0 2 ,"
S
r-- i
a I g ii g
al
CD w
w w
0
>" 1 1 2 :1-
I -
.. 3A.
U
& ;et
I- iifit
2
LgJ
!
0 11
- 1
, .... t ,
e
,. ..0.,
, .
..,.
'q.
.t 1
-ft tc51'.'
, L 8
....,..„..,'"'''.\ Ls.I n
, 10
L) '
r ..:
::.sor'
7
.. o .
*
, ... . 47.7 - :•_,- §
II
Elk 6 ,
,
. . 4 0
1 .
. ,
4 .. 1 .
. „
„ @ -
0 g i 1.71 i z
,..).t1 ?.gii• .4 .,-- - T ----4 4 ''
2
1 I LIIIILMME 1 v,
4 1:
40
9- r , °
N 7,. ...., ..,
I ' ,
CX
Z
, o ,
w _
.
141
w 1 g ;
u
0 ...,
ct:
u.
F
w , 4
S.
CL
< -1-.0
0
0
1 1.•''
2 , -
>•.-
_.
!";
1•••••
,
.
a ' :,
3 t ,
i ' :
. . ; ,
0
...1 0
cc T
0 „
,.,.. ..., ti .
4.,..„..,
' 9 i
if
W
•
-- '
te
t.
2 m 4
. 411 , 41 , 1 : ..--::-I i i i i
. .,,J- rpo ll Wil ''
.-•--
tt
1
. 7- ■ t . , PO41 c.t i. ...-- . ...;_i
.. if — ; • , - - 07,4r- f , ... — :.7,10 0 70 0 70 0, 71 - 0 ,— ,r - 3
•
1.
A a , t .r.-- - ,,,..--,,,, -- • to 4.•••..., Ito to. 410
4,t11 fiLi"-;;;!-.liilfoitoov" tro'1:04i
--
• ,.. ' %, ..) Ihr,:; 0.0 de: ..-••'"-:- -;./.1 1....,,,,,d, ..,,o_
- • x ....044 --- tetlii• ,,or ,0 ..04.1,701. 000.._„,•■•••.-.00.."-...0,700.."-,,,,
M ...,
,..4 u, .10.00,,,,,,,;;;0' al• or .0* .0 wo ro 4.0 40 r.:1. 7.00'
1 Vik ...1: ' `0 =. , „.....::;,, -,. • 40 so 0 0 0 00 ... 0. 0. 00 -0,-,,--00.-■;., O-.'t
4\ it , _, ,,,.. 1,,- 1 .-.• -.,..' otol.,00 00-or 00 vo. 00 0 ..- 40 0 00 ...a
__..r: ..,1 -. ::, ---.....:-.1...„-,0,,,„,10%,...1..,,-;:•;,,e0,,,,,,SSorrolo,""0•01:),,, do,,.:0"..0"..,
,,..,..,,- . ...,..--- . 000 ,....1.
i ' I' 'Ac --- " - ‘-r' - I 1 te.:
ir
la.3 •D
it
5
...-., v ,; .. -.-- ' e. O. • 0 010 W. I/ , :// - ,,,,, - .0 - ...; ../...- "'
... ye 04 4•0 00 .., ' 0 *0 . I. 40.-40.--''
- 1 ---; ' :1‘1414C.:101.:■;:'%/0.
li ... 1, . — • , j ,t0 • .... Ile O. I. 0.10_,I01--- ..\,e..71,-.70-'111...7->--
'•'-' ,, .;"...'.'' ••--- • - i:f*liet.....PSieji,re----'- e004
...." _,,-, ...., - O 0.• V° 00 01 ---. , OP •-• ...,
• '-;-•'
All ' ..-.- . -.!'-.'!------'-' sp" ,..,.
'..<>
. _
\.. 00
=. ..'"
co ,
te
11:
,.., .
U .
....,...
m
"••0 "-• -
•
•
' •
F '
i
; . &
..
I _
i
i .
fs !
8 i
o _
.. .
,...
i i g " hi
5
g 53 w
§
I
41
6 t
ix
U.,1 '
1•- - -■Imega
0 <
q
i
tt
z 0 o
o w
4.
0
4.....1 6 8 ac
t- 0
u9 7:CILLI 1
; 4axt
0
' itliP
8 . '
, 2 t
ftk
1 w
. -,,•,,,,,, ....- 1 1
top PI
11!
, 1
- 8
-
•
------ 1
4 i
4 1
!.,, ' - •.":- ' ; -*r '; ` ;'s-V . -
. ...---- . •,
i 3
-4 i
4,7.
$ i
, : i k!
qf '
_
,.. ... ,
i !
i .
,---
.• 'C 1 °_!!: - A - 1 - ; - '
_..
,•
1 A
. . .'i
1 .r
; I
t
. . _ .
1 1,
42
h ;>„ 0
NI
.j torX ,ukintimar
1..
s 1 1 I A
z ;
1 g 4 +I
. .g; I W t i • r E I :
<0
't Vii$
x i7; g
1
;111 , al i o i .,--'
I , _ EE °
0
z <
1 . i
- •
0
0
u.
—
„ 1 .1' lliii
o '
....<:).... w 0
..-- .,KK,,,,,,. • z t
--
-- ; zg
„.,-- ..?
- t , ! , , , , ,, ,....0
ii
w
„-,..--„,,,,:•,,,.<„,/-- -. ,- , .1 r
„,;
-..,.--,,‘:. 1,,,./. /,•;.,/- - / i / -. , ,-
/-,,,,,,.::::„.":,-,//: „, ,,..„.,/,- • ,*.','
- ...!
....-.-.---,- ,44.,1,,-0 , •,...„ ",-
. ;SO; "..• ' ,P 405 '‘''' / ' a 8 0
/
)4,
.. _...,....
_. --
. • ":.:: r -,.; 44. ,`,..e1f,; • , im • ) N '-. - I
Ic .'j i. • 1 9-491 , . .. . . 14s - ' '''. ' j 1 — 4
4 , „ A:,.. „ .3 \ \\ ..., ..,.....„., _ _...../
- --
.....
.A ...t....:.... ,,,.. , ?1_,1
...: ...,_ _....!„..,_„....., ......_:
.."-"- 'waif . -.A.s.
;„. e '
40 _ --r ---- — --,--->-'' i
-- r■ .........---- I 6 ,
...... iii
- - \
- - \
----- ,
A _, ....••\...... ...., ......._
.,...
, -I --
r 6 .
...,
, 6
,
- 1
49
i 1 _
ti
— — -
— - —
43
1 Y e
0
2 ..
A 4111.1111 z
.--/..%; rs-MUNIBNC:
- pagans'
=
r.-- Ai rliellial
g •-■ A t...)
VI 2
31111721111 WINN
a w a - . 1.11 ....",
Arif C... z
' 5 L' o. 47.4an11111.31111 PP- ti .;. 1 ', -
ow .:0 it7 "
.1 - ...404. AIN? AIL
1.1 ,- 0-f 4 . re m
i
< 0 ANKIKAMIIIIII1F,er 1c1Pummim ligisarl i Li 8 •,.. F,
IA Z 11 1 / 11, ir
111111:401111 " 11 104 4111111113..111/1MW ....,, ( 75
../...40 -1:1*P.,VAIIr ..4.. %rat. ■...1.21111511WIP":nti) 01 iil ,*..'' t
=-:.5..
7 2r
If a cr, d E-•• oz or * :14r1Q0 26:111AliaminNIVIW41.1.1:; A ...„,
a 11 x ,.., . - .:::-.!'" ..--- ,IT-10' A•wrorvig.. imp. ...... 0 2 '''.
II IN 2° _,... ,..„- • , 0 ". ,rtiill.A.4"--* a4.-, m•
it.; It '\ , -* I t'';" 411 *I'' ' C V ' .. 1
40, Ail, ■16.1eit . ',0 •7 I )40 , o= ,
P " hill
81.61 ''''iltiliiritellk A.MIN • 4w,,,, a (1)
Lii 8 -
r •s" — - •-; rya( , --r, %,..0 , .,,::: N
1 - 1 x ..t ' '`A"O' u d I
0 I _V"':" ■ %al:6 "•':A -a pi• - ..,* •'" .-:-. - -- -- — 4 CC ---.. t, x
c
4
1 ri Z ---
--
_,--
ill
. .
• pt ,,b- ..,, , -u A-g- „,--rt, co . ogo . ,....-
• -,..... ;2 ,--- ---- . ,...„, • 11
—,._ .1 —
; L 1 ''1?1 1 1
' HI; i
' —
..- 1 b El 0,____, .
. „
„,,,
WD
9
R.
P. x
i - ›- >;:: >-.E
t■CN' -'.: ',;?",\T,, '•:7 . 1 14 +
4 ‘. i ,., . - 0 Ag . 0 1 --- • ‘:
..,
.N. ;s- ......
- . "\ NN‘ - • ., ..-‘-
II . z z -;-t
Pi c U • •• -- . ,,,•
, .
a v.: z. z
oo o IX 7'. a i ::::' `'
'' aw! '..0 \ 1 .*,,. -
, .
E.9 t* . .,- •-' / -1 E
lc.
!
!II
1E1111 ; g ck , 4
E -
lii
1 \ e'' - ■ ' '-'..!' ' Zit ,---- , ,
4....: 4' .--0 -.4.,- ...„_ - ,-...„ -
Awirr, --,.er'..!... - A -.. b U .
ni
ii 'a
2 i • -' i tii , - N - ---1 -e-,
ug ,' it
... 2t , , ■ ....d■ — —
4 , e ' i ;
i "1
. .-- ,..,.. 7 • 1 n , i,.,
PM E it i
.::•; ';';
it .....--•,em - --
14. li
1
c 1
..... 5
.....
-- -- - --- --- ,
a.
44
Wetlands are limited within the City. A map of the wetland areas is presented in Figure
3.6. Freshwater marshes are found in isolated pockets of the City. Mangrove swamp
and estuarine marsh areas exist within the City along the Indian River shoreline.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, there are only a small amount of wetlands
located along the Indian River but they are found at undeveloped single family home
parcels. There are many species that are dependent on estuaries in Edgewater. The
species that have been identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan are presented in
Table 3.1. Stricter setbacks from wetlands have been implemented on the limited
development along the Indian River shoreline.
No State designated areas of special concern are found with the Coastal Planning Area;
however, the City is endeavoring to preserve the Turnbull Hammock which is located
south of SR 442 and runs parallel to the Indian River. Most of the hammock is
undeveloped and in its natural state. A map of the City's strategic habitat conservation
areas is presented in Figure 3.7.
A listing of the typical wildlife and marine life found in the Coastal Planning Area is
presented in Table 3.2. The terrestrial and aquatic wildlife are listed by vegetative cover
type.
According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, there were 13 archaeological resources
and no historic structures recorded for the City as of July 2000. The City has a
database including general map locations of these sites for use in the development
review. According to the Comprehensive Plan "At the request of the State Division of
Historical Resources, the archaeological site locations are not mapped to conceal their
location and preserve their integrity." This information is not included in this document.
Figure 3.8 of the Edgewater Comprehensive Plan delineates the Strategic Habitat
Conservation Areas for the Edgewater vicinity. The Strategic Habitat Conservation
Areas were determined from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's
(FWC) 1994 report "Closing the Gaps in Florida's Wildlife Habitat Conservation System.
45
These are lands that the FWC recommends are "conserved and managed in order to
ensure the long term survival of key components of Florida's biological diversity."
3.1. Environmental Benefits
The primary environmental benefit of this project is to continue to conserve water by
reclaiming effluent for irrigation and minimizing discharges to the Indian River
North /Mosquito Lagoon. Reclaiming effluent results in a reduction in groundwater
withdrawals and alternative supplies for irrigation purposes. The City of Edgewater
currently provides an average flow of 1.2 MGD of reclaimed water for irrigation
purposes within the City. Edgewater has significantly reduced the demand on the
aquifer by reclaiming water.
46
0
r
Cc L NTS i
- g
al _--mmellft- el4
1 :1
Lct
o
S
9 1 '
U.1
I rx pig t
CI .....
I ,NAL
pi ,.,:' •
0
1 0 Wrzt'
' @ `../
6 1 Tit
g
4, 9
..-,
u .
,10:4
te
, .i.'
t 0 --•. -- 7
P'
...,._ , .W B
- .
'•••'-`(\--- - 4
• ..,,,;„,* M , A ot ..,
"- ip. o- le. • ..--- - .. . .
' 1 If '` i iti3O005_,?..:'■""?,1111,40.0*.t- .';.---...
a l ..',' , ,1Elj ,ii*'741.10.:010...000' '- . • ' d •
„.." •..) j. _ -;" 7-'. ■,..,
' . t. -' 1 IWit ' '' i 70 4 4 1 0.' 1 . • 4 ' ' '
.-.,*+...-
. 0%. -4 0_,..„ , z - ----,. - --„ _,,.......i. .:::-..,-'.. ,,,,
..,
i3 01
' . ** 1 ,7 ' -,-"''' to010"'.41.00010'r.411;e0.10101.4''' • .:: -, .._ .',.' -.- ::'-' 3';'
..
-- ,,,„....=-t 0 1 1 111 0° - "" 10-' 1:1:• ....1•10 .o. --.'
'''-' .o-* 0 ' -- - ' ° ' -- I: •4 i;:•` '
1 .
.-- " - '1 ' - - - i . - I • '0 00 .., '''.. • . 0 „... 014,•!..t . .
y-t ,
••• 40.---40..!..---
,-. -
....c... - \''''''
,-
- *
?.. 1
, - - - `,.'•, I, MI . - .0.$4,'_+.„,..-- ,, ,
e
..k
' • ,,,-..--....-i- d r
t.77.
ra
<4,
'
R !
44 00 1 ,,
c 7_
... -
--
,.. ,
•
.4t.. . L.0-.
,
.. . ,. . -
•
ri.RS5
, . 2 .1gigF,t2e1.:41!g,..%*t
l' ' SILVA 1
. .
47
Table 3.1
City of Edgewater Facilities Plan
Table V -5 Estuarine Dependent Species Found in Edgewater
CITY OF EDGEWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COASTAL ELEMENT
Table V-. 5: Estuarine Dependent Species Found in Edgewater
Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix
Bluerunner C.aranx elysos
Cobia Rat rntrorr ranadxs
Catfish (sea) Barr marinas
Croaker Micropotorr wnddatrrs
Black drum., Po onia. crornis
Red drum ,Sciaenopt wad,:
Eels (Amer :in; /Ingwilla nortrrar
Flounder Para lichtbl:_r
Hickory shad Akira medioe it
)ewfish, spotted jewtish PraWi,mp itaiary
Black jewfmsh Garr4a nitrstu
King whiting .titentirinlrars spp,
Black mullet Altai! cephalus
Silver Mullet Mu2il cep/hi/Ns
Permit, great pompano Tnrchinotur fah4•atws
Pigfish Ortbopnstis riirysopterur
Pompano Trachinohu earn/bias
Sandperch Gems cinerrra
Sea bass _ Cextropristes.,trratus
Sea trout Cynorriorr ntbutnsw
Stone crab Meneppe nnrrenaria
Ouster Crarsnstrra timinien
Scallop Pectenirrrrdians
Shrimp Amiens retiferas
Terrapin Malademw terrapin
Sea trout kite C pmf,inn arenarixs
American s ha,# )fora sepicbscima
Hickory shad _ Mira mediotris
Sheepshead !lrmharamus profiameephabts
Mangrove snapper Lxtianter.erirews
Mfuttcrn snapYei 'rt�awa anaii
White snapper C .r /amxs ep
Spot, butterfish ! ,riodrImrx, .�au�hurrr.,
Trippletail !Abate, su,irrrmensts ___ - --
Lklewifc . t;a. *:r Ts.•r,ekbarer rss
1\4enhaden t runnrrs
Ten (10)pounder Eiopa aa,ents
Clams, hard enet:aria men'enaria
Conchs Shumbus
Blue crab Gattineaat sapidxc
t hddn, to r No. 2u06 -0-10
48
o , e
— — R !o
a 1 NT5 , I m. 3
1 -- " I-
U.1 = o a
0 - Uh V I
H Litu
i? Mil
8
LL
w i
o
•
, . i d r ir.r. Li,
7 ,
X \ \a
If
_ • - .0 sj:
i v v ...., /o ff' I � j ► i- .,... ► � o
so 41104tAtt 1
Linr
W , ic ,.>
\i " 1.. .-'
X .
c • .
F
6'
J
I g'
n w
3 E
V NU
I 0 'J. P
49
Table 3.2
City of Edgewater Facilities Plan
Table V -1 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife
CITY OF EDGEWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COASTAL ELEMENT
Table V- 1: Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife
Each of the vegetative associations discussed in this element is a wildlife habitat. The information in
this table will address the wildlife or marine life associated with each of the habitats in the same
order as the vegetative communities listed in Section 2. Common saltwater, shellfish, and estuarine
dependent species are at the end of this Section -ht. wn Ott Tables 5, 6, and 7.
Pine Flatw cods: Typical animals of the flatwoods are:
Mammals: Armadillo, Fastern Cottontail Rabbit, Cotton Rat, Deer, Skunks, Cotton
Mouse, Raccoon, Opossum.
Birds: Backman's Sparrow, Bobwhite Quail, Ground Dove, Brownheaded Nutatch,
Meadowlark, Mourning Dove, Pileated Woodpecker, Pine 1(arhlers, Bluejay,
Red - Billed V'ooxipeckers, Rufous -Sided Towhee, Yellow- Throared Warblers,
Northern Mockingbird, Turkey Vulture.
Reptiles: Eastern Diamond Back Rattlesnake, Pygmy Rattlesnake, Black Racer, Yellow
Rattlesnake.
Amphibians: Oak Toad, Chorus Frog, Pinewoods Tree Frog. Introduced Feral Hogs are
common in much of this c4ananunity type.
Freshwater Marsh: Animals that commonly occur in this community are:
Matnxnal_�t: Otter, Mink, Raccoon, Marsh Rabbit, White-Tailed Deer, Florida Water Rat.
Birds: Ilerons, Egrets, Bitterns, Ibis, Sandhill Cranes. Rails, Limpkins, Gallinules,
Snipe, Kill Deer, Florida Duck, Red-Winged Blackbirds, Caracara, Marsh
Hawk, Red- Shouldered Hawk, Swallow- Tailed Kite.
Reptiles: Dwarf Salamander, Sirens, Frogs (Cricket, Leopard, & Bullfrog), Turtles
( Mud, Red - Bellied, & Chicken Turtles), Snakes (Horn, Water, Swamp,
Brown, Cottonmouth, Ribbon), and American Alligator.
Mangrove Swamp: Animals inhabiting mangrove communities include:
hlanunals: Raccoon, Marsh Rabbit, West Indian Manatee.
Birds: Boar -Tailed Grackle, Blue Heron, Belted Kingfisher, Gulls, Hawks, Great
White Heron, Brown Pelican, little Blue Heron, Vireos, Prairie 4X'arbler,
Mangrove Cuckoo, Rosate Spoonbill, It <x)dstork, Southern Bald Eagle,
White Ibis, Little Green Heron, Louisiana Heron.
Reptiles: ,American Alligator, Crocodile, Rat Snake.
Estuarine Marsh Ecotone: The Estuarine marshes support a variety- of wildlife including:
Mammals: Raccoon
Birds: Brown Pelicans, Coots, Egrets, Gulls, Terns, Many forms of waterfowl.
Reptiles: American Alligator Diamond Back Terrapin, Saltrnarsh Snake.
Mixed IIardwouds: Wildlife found in this community van according to stages of plant succession.
They Include:
Ntammals: Cottontail Rabbit, Gray Squirrel, Gran Fox, Cotton 'louse, White-"failed
Deer, Raccoon.
Birds: Barred Owl, Bobwhite Quail, Pileated Woodpecker, Red - Bellied
Woodpecker, Wild Turkey, Woodcock.
Hardwood Hammock: Common wildlife species found in hardwood hammocks include:
Mammals: Bobcat, Deer, Skunk, blink, Opossum, Otter, Raccoon, Wild Hog, Gray
Syuiarel
Birds: Mississippi Kite, Owls, Turkey, Red - Shouldered Hawk, Woodpeckers, and
Numerous song; birds-_-.
_Reptiles: Green _ \nu1e.
C Iniirkance No 2006 - -
50
. 0
(7)
z
w
t7 og 5
-1z 43- 1
_. .,.
LI oi-15 § '
Eti 4 ,L.,,,**
......, ,
UJ
p r..) i ,
cn z li. ,
0 8
3 I tal "AA 1
0 ---
''' .(
• 8' :7 'i
Z
. ,
- ,_....
,f, e
41 A• , on tri
1 . 1 1 .
,..'-''\* 1 Oj 1. 4 -
0 e
— ,
" - ?A r,=:: .,-1•111143.0e.va,
ivroos*AS.,‘ . : ;.-.i ,6-,..7
_ -_,---• I , . /
, . 1.,- ,ci .- .. ,.. c-,,,,,_., i Worro. %SS •"--- - on
• eitesott 0.1-400.$■•■••,.• -
- _ 0
p -
...
4_4
i !
; - ---
i *
!_....
il g I I§ I
. 1 1 I 1
1 J
1 '
; 1
51
According to the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Edgewater area has a low aquifer
recharge potential and a local recharge program would have a limited effect. The City
plans to work with the St. John's River Water Management District to protect areas of
greatest recharge potential. A map of the aquifer recharge areas in Volusia County is
provided in Figure 3.9.
3.2. Potential Adverse Flora, Fauna or Animal Effects
There are no potential adverse impacts to flora, fauna or animals in any of the works
recommended and proposed. The existing WWTF site will be used for plant expansion.
New force mains and reclaimed water mains will likely be constructed in public rights of
way along roadways. These areas have already been developed with the development
of the roadway. The remaining projects involve repair, replacement and upgrading of
existing facilities.
3.3. Endangered/Threatened Plant and Animal Species
The listed species that are classified as endangered (E), threatened (T), threatened due
to similarity of appearance T(S/A), and species of special concern (SSC) are presented
in Tables 3.3 and 3.4 and shown in Figures 3.10 and 3.11.
Common saltwater fish and shellfish species are presented in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. The
only fish identified as a threatened or endangered species is the Mountain mullet. None
of the common shellfish species are listed as endangered, threatened, or species of
special concern but many are listed as dependent on estuaries at some point in the life
cycle.
3.4. Potential Adverse Human Health or Environmental Effects
This project should not have any adverse human health or environmental impacts to the
residents of the City of Edgewater. The treatment facility, although located within the
52
urban area, is fenced to deter unauthorized access. Onsite chlorine gas cylinders are
contained within a chemical building. The City is proposing to convert to a liquid feed
system with the renewal and replacement project. The City will continue to treat the
effluent to meet DEP criteria for reclaimed water and water discharged to the North
Indian River.
53
g
Q
W I NTS �
W f ■
Wz Z
3 1
p a -
L. 1 LL Q
0 i �It
-� g
5 Z
a &`
0
LL
■ ' H
4 0
O
I u'
4111°1111
4 07 4.1001111)14 -
.....(>,.., iz 1
W
�
3
Ww �
U a -
ts
,0,1% t F.-.
....a i v..
40.11 ' -,.., i 4
... -' a te— tNI ,
r It j z
ii, 41,4IF Ili
4
� � � ._ �, —aa - H 'P..
O� x
l _cl.
x
"l frp
f ` _
rc
0
g
o
g
9)
54
I
Table 3.3
City of Edgewater Facilities Plan
Table VI-2 Listed Species within the Edgewater Area
CITY OF EDGEWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSERVATION ELEMENT
Table VI- 2: Listed Species Within the Edgewater Arca
SPECIES NAME GFC J FDA FWS
- -
Re • tiles
.ktlandc I._ - >erhead turtle
Athnric rccn turtle
LeAt herback tiirrIc 1
Ensic:11 1
American alligator SS( T(S/A)
Arn .hiblans
Gopher frog SS(
Mammals
Florida triou,e
Shennads to I rcl SSC
Everglades mink
c Indian Manatee 1.
Birds
\ luerican oystercatcher
Brown • lican ;St
Southeastern snowy lover
Florida scrub-'av 1
Least tern
Southeastern .:X.tneticart kestrel
Roseate spoonbill SSC
Wood stork
13ald _ e
\Mite-crowned pigeon
Red-cockaded word ker
Florida sandhill crane
little blue heron SSC
Snowy egret SSC
Reddish e t SSC
Roseate tern
Plants
Beach star
Burrowi four-o'clock
Sea lavender
Bird's nest s leenwort
Sih-er irn
Florida thatch
Brittle thatch palm
Tree cactus t L
Ink-wood
Re‘ ision 3
55
Table 3.3 (Continued)
City of Edgewater Facilities Plan
Table VI-2 Listed Species within the Edgewater Area
CITY OF EDGEWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSERVATION ELEMENT
SPECIES NAME GI FDA FWS
Red stopper F,
Buccaneer palm F.
I Iighlands scrub St. John's-wort E
Scrub palm I
Curtiss' milkweed I •
Florida ogolden aster
—
Large-leaved jointwced
Scrub milkwort
Bartram's ixia
Chapman's crownbread
Florida beargrass
Mock pennroval
St. lohn's
Wiregrass gentian
White squirrel
Fakah atch ce bortriannia
Pine pink orchid
Giani leather fern
Source: Official List of Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special
Concern, August 1997
56
Table 3.4
City of Edgewater Facilities Plan
Table V -2 Special Protection Status of Species in Edgewater
CITY OF EDGEWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COASTAL ELEMENT
Table V- 2: Special Protection Status of Species in Edgewater
I)e Status Ecological
Community
Common Name 1.1- \\ (_:(: USFWS Found In
Reptiles & Amphibians:
Atlantic kogwerhead turtle T _ T Eh1, E
Atlantic green turtle E E Er'L, E
Atlantic ridley turtle _ F _ E 1'.M, F;
Gopher Tortoise SSC -- HH, I'( ), PF
Leatherback turtle E• E EM, E
Gopher frog SSC -- PO
Short- tailed snake T -- PO
Eastern indigo snake T T FM, PF, CP, PO, HH
American alligator SSC T(S /A) MS, FM, E, EM
Mammals:
Doffs pocket gopher E -- HH, PO
Pallid beach mouse E -- HH, PC)
Florida mouse SSE -- PO
Sherman's fox squirrel SSC -- PF
Everglades mink T -- FM
\Vest Indian manatee E E E
Florida long- tailed weasel - -- FM
R.:.tnd- .:lice' n:u.krtt - -- FBI
Birds:
American ocst crcatcher ti;-(' -
S( HH, NIS
Brown pelican Hl-I, MS, EM
Southeastern snowy plover T -- HH
Florida scrub jay T _ T HI-I, PO
Least tem T - 1111, EM., PO, MS
Southeastern American kestrel T 1-111 PF, PO
Roseate spoonbill SSC: Fill, FM, MS
\ \ \or>d stork E 1 -. HI L EM, MS, FM
Southern bald eagle T I: HH, EM, MS, PO, PF
White- crowned pigeon T -- EM, MS
Red-cockaded woodpecker T F. PF
Florida sandhill crane T - _ PF, FM ,
Bachman s sparrow - - -- PO, CP
Louisiana heron SSC MS
Lade blue heron SSC — FM, MS, 1-111, EM
Snows- egret SSC: ___ -- FM, MS, HH. E1l
Reddish egret SSC -- MS, EM
Mangrove clapper rail - -
Roseate tern T I 'l NIS
Ordinance No. 2006 -0
57
Table 3.4 (Continued)
City of Edgewater Facilities Plan
Table V -2 Special Protection Status of Species in Edgewater
CITY OF EDGEVVATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COASTAL tMhN
Table V -2: Continued
Designated Status Ecological
Community
Common Name FGFWPC FDA 17SE'WS Found In
Plants: _— - - - -- - - -, - - - - - - -- - -
1'eilowheart - E 1 1 1 1
Beach star - T: - III1 _
Burrowing four - o'clock - L - III
Sea lavender E fIII
Bird's nest spleenwort - E HH
Silver palm h H H
Florida thatch palm (: HH
Brittle thatch palm - C HH _
Tree cactus - E L HH
Florida royal palm - E -- HII
Red stopper - E HH —
Inkwood - _ T HH _
Buccaneer palm - E - HH _
Highlands scrub St. johns - F. F PO
wort
Scrub palm - 1•. 1- PO
Gtitlfrev's blazing star - E _PO
Curtiss milkweed - T - PO. HH i
Florida golden aster - _ E E PO
Lame - leaved jointweed - T -- PO
Scrub milkwort - E -- PO
Bartratn's ixia T -- PF
Chapman's crownbeard T -- PF
Florida beargrass F -- P1•
Mock pennynnal E -- I'1- _
St. johns susan E -- PF _
White birds -in -a -nest - E -- PF
Wiregrass gentian — - E -- PF
White squirrel- banana - E L PF
Fakahatchee burmatuiia - E - PF
Pineland panic grass - PE
Pine pink T - PF
Many- flowered grass pink - "I - PF
Giant leather fern - - MS, EM
LEGEND:
E = Endangered 1
T = Threaten (10)ed
T(S /A)= Threaten (10)ed Due to Similarity- of Appearance
SSC = Species of Special Concern
FFWCC = Honda Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
USFWS = United Stag Fish and Wildlife Service
FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Service
C )rchnance No. 2006 -0-10
58
_ _ _ _
_ _
r 1 ! ,
: f
w '
L s -111111111112", x CC
„Q
111 (1 21Z - 1 a 1
S
2 g '
0
2 4,
co _,
0 <
i 0
t —
w
2 'ZiAl
tt
tt
,7 , 0 d ig Olt 1
.,>
... , ,
...-- Ei t■ I:,
. ----- - -71 - 1,114 WOOIIIIA t 4 ti
• wow
I t 1
"' '''',.■ J
• ' --' O. TIO 113 4.
1•W\ _. -
.:::•_,400 0 • N1'11 1 - idtViOaSittla° .6 4. - - -
3 ore-- 8
,......i -iii \ j 5_, 1 Alit". : _t■ re of 417 - - -- - " - c A 0 <
0 trt
Z‘ .... JOIrs ViS in ,./ .
5 i
4 '
US
' .
_ p 1
OE A
,...
=
,
0. 11
\,'
. :
6
',....
I -- I g '
rs
---... —
0 0 6 a
1 i ■
I 1 • • P
i
I -
i 1 s
I '
59
to
0
TS 1 - 1 - - —
i–• – - • • • .1 =MM. E '—'-4 a. '-; 8
tZ < ET) Lu 1 -
x 1 '
.1 : ui
./ - C. -)
„..., 41 -,,, w
w
u, •it ,) 'J i 0
0 I
LU il i la;
0
'
, 7
6 _ _ _..1 1 A --1.1•
u- ffv.i
8 AIAI
2 r 2 E
, -
-- - - . - - A - AI
Oil il!
.:',. 1
1 wig
-------- -- • . - I ' - ' ,-- •A
r ) _ .0 - - ' --..:-
_.*.,,. ii i ,,.., ,- .„,_. ,. 1.- • _. . , _ *0 1
ti
I- -I .: 'n ll ie. , - St:t
c::-.
1 i
1 e
Of 111 f•VX d etiv- n. tel
w--- -,-.- - 1 ..,- , s.... istt
:JO ,or %,10., ,,,, • 16. • ... es,
q
,--- . _.....
D .‘ All g. . •■•,
• 10 W...
`
\ in
......,,,..
S i
a -
.__,.
- „
-, D g ,
gi
—
g
. P.
l
I
1
60
Table 3.5
City of Edgewater Facilities Plan
Table V-3 Common Saltwater Species Found in Edgewater
CITY OF EDGEWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COASTAL ELEIVIEN'
Table V. 3: C4 prnmfin Saltwater Species Found in Edgewater
- -
Amax nat. k Scrwia Am:7th
Anchoi-ev to.1/4 Ati.A.
, -
(iMat barraCtidl tiphg.troNt borpi, :via
t1i i.ia tun barracuda rp/TIA!At.)17411P± it..1,4 iv,
BIticikh Poiwa.hirrivi. tiiiwri--..
"
_Nil:au:k tioniio carria wink!
_ .........,....__- ____
l-it tic z Luna ir:o alkorratoJ
Skill jai_ k 1 ;in 2. _,.... f.04:tterris ph „ro.i., --4
i• riga t c 0 Lao:kg:4a] Itrkit /kg °WM '
:Cobiall xenort li." It , 12,412 ...rsaa:v..c
:Sca rataall
:( ;a/cum:tail catiiih Baer .1 f f f arifittS
Atlantic croaker ' ".T,"-..mmtatim Rod/darns
' Dolphin/Dorado ,-. .; r; pkae.ea biptvrrre.,
:Black drum Pt. .1 TEJAVIJ
:-- Red r i romotx, rocellat i
drum/ kedfishlt liannel bass
:Flounder i'frrutribiltiu :pr.
&Amy )./rdertiltenoPtrrfas —
Ga troup - At's-tenPm-a
Yetkra. EiPerthrbes ,%rrofieirbotom
pecked hind __. 'EtAirrithr,Ott tirzowskrohati
:Warsaw/Black lewtish Goolefra oierita
,
6funt ilatiotaioN spb.
i ack crevalic 1 Camay hippos
:Spotted lecclish Priaticmpu ikrira
king macke tali .kingtis ti Saimbrearevriri .:, India
Sp:111N h rnackeral i Seamistramorns ohxwit, f
:Striped mullet ! A 1.trzil ;epkit'iti
:Silver mullet ; Abitrri.-terrtira
' .1'.1<4Jiitaln mullet ' _ Igeorranktea. Arrirtt-ttia
I'ermit/C ;real Pompano Traihrooms !arollottis _
Ptztli h OrlhoPrOtk.417....44iiter."
Pompano Tradoltroito u-orsikron ,
kirci. mobsra /14-and penth e;erorri awl-ow
Siilor's choice
Black sea bask t:ovirtron'..tr..
V.'llitt_ scatoyut (:) aregairar
cAtmut
1' i 0....d ,c.itruut c1 or nva.ssria ;At
Ordnance No 21106-1 1 10
61
Table 3.5 (Continued)
City of Edgewater Facilities Plan
Table V-3 Common Saltwater Species Found in Edgewater
CITY CF EDGE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN — COASTAL ELEPviENT
'Fable V. 3: Common Salm Ater Species Found in Edges...liter (Continued)
V.' 16nst49
a. 0
:Witting .1 tentlarribin
Blacktp shark ofirarAhm)
lamtnerhead 4/1 ir Syi mok,zrrax
Sand shark Ta.vrrt.,
NurAc r Coretems rgm
Tiger -h,uk n l a
.Lt: IiIttLl
41 00. 4+,4o,1 prt,riwto,
jted r t■nappc r Jotirnms
Idank.r,ro lapptr f,vilarrosArmegr
I_ane s.:napper t atm.; symdgfris
N'elluwtail snapper 9enarit.
Ignitor) snapper ./..ptiamos arra&
Rhmkopliter‘ am:rube:b.
tryn . .af'paorr lyx ,
1 I 1 I 11:-.11 - 0.1radir4WIS MAXVIMAri
,1).do regkreptravyr
Spa nvn sardirk S"fierb'gelt;; arhborio
Npotj.Butterfish I ..tioottmr xaosibirna
Triggerfish Bab:ries conwIr'
:Triptetail 1 "bole.' wtritkimensir
Yellowrin n r Tkovani aAlooireA
t to thArtn.vr kregodish-
l41114- mi n 1.1.4 aira irivveart,
; Tan r Alm" .41.44i.ar
SailtiNh Lteophttno Vaiv, rms.
Sv.-ordtish
.1niencan had
Ilickors shag - N414,1
Angcltiih lolaaortbrk
Ballvh, ileotrupbAu
Chiloaryarno -
4h Del't r rn,i rilkirl4kr. _ _
:Cira."115h /nn '/ti qfri?m
11 it A-ler/tom,
:ty
_
:Ntarsh kilhtsh 1-awdo4 w .Vrtalry Wit*
- lizardfish A proilia
I *Kitrailie 21W6 (119
62
Table 3.5 (Continued)
City of Edgewater Facilities Plan
Table V-3 Common Saltwater Species Found in Edgewater
CITY OF EDGEWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COASTAL ELEMENT
Tabk V- 3: Corrirnon ItwAicr Species Found in Edgrwater (Continucd)
Itn Portvotind
_Puffer
It'
Rti I IC 143
:SEICI:1)1
titiliurw
ka:c.
him.
So Trf.rdtiAtkl-pft An op ,
- r1(10 frodOp
sNif
-1 a civ tish Cshrirli r --
Trunk 60' LAtapher, folarl
:Needlefish Prittrbiou man go.
:tnwr.w Faro. /22,autddr
Fish dependent on estuaries at some point of life I.-le
+ Specks of special concern
• ieaten i10)ediEndangered Sped SOURt.X.S: Florida Marine P r1Vs4&i s County
63
Table 3.6
City of Edgewater Facilities Plan
Table V -4 Common Shellfish Species Found in Edgewater
CITY OF EDGEWATER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COASTAL ELEMEN
Table V- 4: Common Shellfish Species Found in Edgewater
:'Lard clams
:Conchs
: Blue crab
: Stone crab
Octopus _
: Bay scallops
: Calico scallop
: Oysters
: Brown shrimp
: Pink shrimp
: Rock shrimp
: Royal red shrimp
: White shrimp
Spinv Lobster /Crawfish
1A-nonmed squid
Shortfinned squid
: Fish dependent on estuaries at some point of life cycle.
+ Species of special concern.
Threaten (10)ed /Endangered Species
SOURCES: Florida Marine Patrol /Volusia County
3.5. Site Visits Determining Environmental Effects
The existing VVVVTF site has been developed and is within an urban area. Proposed
facility improvements at this site should have little to no environmental impact.
64
4. Selected Alternatives and Proposed Projects
4.1. WWTF Expansion
4.1.1. Existing Facilities
The Edgewater AWT Facility utilizes the Bardenpho process for biological nutrient
removal. Additional unit processes have been included to give the treatment facility the
capability and reliability necessary to meet the operating intent mandated by the
Department.
The wastewater enters the City's WWTF and flows through the pretreatment structure.
The pretreatment structure consists of a mechanically cleaned bar screen in the primary
channel and a manual bar rack in the secondary or bypass channel. The bypass
channel at this facility is equipped with a manually cleaned bar rack and is constructed
of aluminum with openings of one (1) inch between the bars.
The screened wastewater then flows through a grit removal unit. The grit removal unit
is an induced vortex type unit and is sized to treat peak hour flows and maintain a
removal efficiency of 95 percent of the grit 150 micron in size and larger. From the grit
removal unit the wastewater flows through a Parshall flume and then discharges into the
master lift station.
The screenings and grit that are removed from the wastewater are discharged into a
dumpster that is located directly adjacent to the pretreatment structure. The screenings
and grit are hauled off site and properly disposed.
The master influent lift station is presently a triplex submersible pump station that is
capable of pumping peak hour conditions (6.0 MGD) with one (1) pump out of service.
Each submersible pump is rated at 2,100 gallons per minute (GPM) at a total dynamic
head (TDH) of 30.3 feet. From the master influent lift station the pretreated wastewater
is pumped to the influent box of the biological nutrient removal units. The station has
space to add a fourth pump to increase capacity.
65
The biological nutrient removal units consists of a five -stage patented Bardenpho
process, single sludge activated sludge treatment process that utilizes a series of
anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic basins for the biological removal of both nitrogen and
phosphorus. The basins consist of an anaerobic or fermentation basin, a first anoxic
basin, an aeration basin, a second anoxic basin and a re- aeration basin.
The biological nutrient removal system for the City's WWTF is a split train structure, with
each train designed to treat an average daily flow of 1.38 MGD and a maximum day
flow of 2.82 MGD. From the biological treatment, the MLSS flows by gravity to a flow
splitter structure that splits the flow equally to two (2) secondary clarifiers. Each clarifier
has a diameter of 70 feet and a side -water depth of 12 feet. The clarifiers provide a
quiescent zone for the MLSS to settle from the treated wastewater. A portion of the
settled solids are recycled back to the head of the treatment process for mass balance
and the remaining excess portion of the solids generated by the biological growth in the
aeration basin are wasted to the sludge storage tank.
The clarified effluent then flows by gravity to the filtration system. The filtration system
consists of four (4) Dynasand filter compartments which are a deep -bed continuous
backwash system. Each filter compartment has a surface area of approximately 200
square feet. The turbidity is monitored continuously prior to gravity flow to the chlorine
contact chamber.
The chlorine contact tank consists of two equally -sized trains in parallel. Chlorine
solution is injected in a common mixing box at the head of the chlorine contact tank. A
turbine mixer is installed to ensure complete mixing of the chlorine solution and the
effluent. Chlorine residual is constantly monitored prior to discharge of the effluent.
After treatment through the chlorine contact tank, the treated effluent overflows to the
effluent transfer station. The quality effluent can be pumped to the reclaimed water
storage tank for reuse irrigation or to the post- aeration /dechlorination tank for River
discharge. Reject effluent is pumped to the reject storage tank for retreatment.
66
Effluent from the post- aeration tank gravity flows to the North Indian River Lagoon
system. Reclaimed water is pumped to customers though the High Service Pump
Station.
The layout of the treatment plant site is provided in Figure 4.1. A schematic flow
diagram of the treatment process is presented in Figure 4.2.
67
4L y g
,1 aJ A
:, ,.. „,
n
iii , ,--_,, W II
t
0
gg
i g � J
i ' / I L --'") -
n
1 a z
1 ti
if l q$ \, ,.._,-.• ,j ' I i /. I
4 r 1 i;-, -.1 n.
1 1 ' it -r--- 1 - 1 _ I ---- i.. - 1 1 : 4)' 1 1 - i 'S
! . c f �� 0UJ
i � O
-m.rr u W
r
4 (Th. . i t! [1 \\ n /
:I (al i'0 r ' q i 1 / <
, 12 a , frs- I I Li.
,_
1,0 i 1 1..A.. 5 .
I O Q
1i 4 9 d
x
: .....,._
i 1. 7:1 -- -
: , 1 gli I'M - j l'' i 1 -
If e al 6 ate- 4 N
li o tit t 1 el , I I h MI , 1 1 I • - „............_. , i ,
G ....5 te,
._Z.
68
11 IY 0 1—
0 213..ecM"b0..5 3 t
/1d MOO . ;
ii 4
LI O ,4, itl
pl
to 14 r --------------- ) t 1.1-.Ct
r r X
_100 t
•,..1. U.. LL CO
........ ii .11i/
401
....,-,.._., i 42. Y 4
• • r-- , 1 -- -
.-....5 '
1㤠-1
Cr - - • .....q , EH r
i 1 Ltth
.., um.
L., v t l m N . u
— r
' i
I i • i:t
_________ _i_t, ___ 1 i — ::. iftai.
' I L.L. 1 -----
1' Z1 .1.1 i .4 ; el
E. r ...,.... i .i t 1
g : i ti 4
z -1 i
§° .i /--7-7. i .'-•. i A N 1 g
1-6: , / li ;u • I ! 1\
i ! i
E ' !IC lc zi
17 --1-----,
TR 1 I
1 ' r. , _ta --- n-, ---
., 1 41 7 .,, 1 rig -----
a.
J
I 1
- - - --- - - 1
i
,J I\ . .. .r
t ..._., i
\ t . . z
, - it 1 1
.
. i .
: .! f t i
-- ..t i . ilit - \ •_..........1
1.— ,--
--1 5„ 71
2
1 , 1
j L19 X
: '"'"---1 0
' 11
LI- ....
If
os .......,:—;
.. .,
LA 1 ..
i
..i.,
1
,i ! , f ---- - --- 1 J
H 41 . .
1 '.
;-::.- i i
g l i
01 1
- - :r . = : . * - 47ji 1 I ili _ I
r-r-
1--
Q ,
s Ili ! •, i 4; i <ZjiZ
1 1
.4_ ..........1._r__.! ....-
4 1 1 27 ',.' ' tl
c,...e.
- 5 , 2-5 g
1 =zzl
El III
z g .
1 - I
=
M ..
0 -
69
The City has utilized greater than 90% of its available effluent for beneficial water
reclamation. During extended dry periods, influent flow is inadequate to satisfy reuse
demand. In an effort to meet peak demand, the City withdraws stormwater from an
existing borrow pit /stormwater pond for augmentation. Water withdrawn from the pond
discharges to the filter influent channel for subsequent filtration and disinfection. The
existing process allows augmentation from the borrow pit /stormwater pond. An
augmentation pump station and additional effluent storage tank were completed in
2003. Effluent can now be discharged to the borrow pit as well for subsequent
recovery.
The City has the ability to divert influent as necessary to the Volusia County Southeast
Regional Reclamation Facility, which adds reliability to the overall treatment system.
The reuse discharges currently account for approximately 80% of the total effluent
discharged.
4.2 Recommended Projects
1) Project Title: Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) Renewal and Replacement
Description: Upgrade existing facilities and replace all deteriorated mechanical and
electrical equipment. Add a third clarifier. Install sludge dewatering equipment.
Schedule: Planning /Design — FY 10/11, Construction — FY 11/12
Estimated Project Cost: $4.93 million
2) Project Title: Lift Station Renewal and Replacement
Description: Repair and replace deteriorated lift stations. Add remote telemetry to all
upgraded stations.
Schedule: Immediate, 2011; Short Term, 2013; Mid -Term, 2018
Estimated Project Cost: Immediate = $400,000
Short Term = $650,000
Mid -Term = $650,000
70
3) Project Title: Phase I Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion and Improvements
Description: 1.0 MGD modular expansion of existing WVVTF using a membrane
bioreactor (MBR) process.
Schedule: Planning /Design — FY 12/13, Construction — FY 15/16
Estimated Project Cost: $6.0 million
4) Proiect Title: Phase 11 Wastewater Treatment Facility Expansion and Improvements
Description: 1.0 MGD modular expansion of existing WVVTF using a membrane
bioreactor (MBR) process.
Schedule: Planning /Design — FY 16/17, Construction — FY 18/19
Estimated Project Cost: $6.0 million
71
C
c m 3 411 ' ' 3 2 m u m r m U
. on W a =� :° p1omc o , g `aO'om 3 >
a N �`o .N m i > � y m 5 2 N 81L7011: 3 1> n 5 2 v E a 6 a >@ a � m se vi
m r m 0 R m c _ E U O c e U __ T e 0 m $— p a ? 4 a m > u m
o J U O) 2 _ N> .- m > U y j 1 c V c 0 , > 0 (( m 0
m m m 16 C c 8 ' m 0 C m o. C1 U O)
cc U m N Q N z N 0. U m C C - N y O O c 3 g , a > 2 C 4 O C U e 'S UU —
( N Y« .� _ a m° Y at, N m a .m g ai d a a A m N a a a EL i0 N 6. a a a m co a i a? N =y .0 'a «4
u. rn� 3 if. T.) 35.3 tou3 2L > U3e£' > W 8 iq U "au3 U 'ad@ >o33N2
G
o c Ti; 2 o o m g Z 'o ' > m v E g"0 m m -, m >` t' >'
° . c .o .c o - � .N m o 3 c 8 ....
0" 3S' E. C ° >� o E • R WV ,0 3 ,.„,„0, 008
m Z °E > oo a N > 2 ; °N Y a.c3 - 0 c
P m ° - ° c a t 3 a 'pm v c ' a 2- c> 2
N Z p m - l9 C gy m„ V O _
m 8 0 3 A 3 $ >' - U a 0a1 a y ,6 mw o g.
o > c e5 c m 2 E o 2 g r g- g. 2 G
m am3 �3"E' d g's '�i ,VC 32 fa _aH
-gi
m • c m a 3° m ° c 0, m 0 2 q 0 v° _ 3 To n c �3! g 3 a
m Ul 0 y C ° X S N 0. d Y� m U y
E o c U v m o >ic= 2 E. 3 >c 3 H 3 m
m o. 9 8 a 5 0 •
0 0 i
o 0) U u c 16 p m m N m > X .� 0 3 a o � a m °
ac w 2.4 g 9 m ma1m 8o nod 0 1, 4 >E Rg c $ � °c _ _g
3 0 C m Gc 16 CD .o ` >fi 8,4 Q o m o w, >.- t $ `�'-
0 S xrn p 2- 3 m pp 4 m 'n a � a o p � 2cc = 8 p -8 as Yo =4En ill
z C m C U a N 6 N C a G o- C V 0 G S 3 Z m G m e G O Z
W 0 % >
i .> H of n N N X 07 g C 8 X C 2.2 L �. X O N 3 X O N 3 X •
J ` > V 7 Z J `° Ui m y 3 m ` m . 3 C C > G 2 rz 2 •;;; 2 'G y 2
CO E E R m m ui ` m m> o w e d 3? E� m m o> a > X rn 8.30
LU c m (I) CD Cn 20z 0 08> 0 �8 8� >aw 3. >G_ . c 7 - Ps a > oo3 u.y�
U) To M 3 c c
v
_ v _
Q g °' o 8 8 p
U Y 8V O O Y O m O G N N N
z IU c 7 W U ' U' J G 0 u- 0 J V_ u. a
U
4
co A c g 8 .§ a° 8 i ii 0 a - `v ° 0
J U >
>- d c
et 2 a° 3 r, c 3
�� ;� E g 8 c • $ a '§
Q N a j w ° j u_ c9 v w 0
Q' >
C
c c 6.
W a 3 m a 3 4 • .§ a 8 m
Q 3V w a u_ u.. > LL a u l
G
Z 0 Q 0 co
W • Q K 0) co
m m m CO 0 N ( c
LL uJ m
0 f-
Q
— 0 U, p O p O p O N o 0 N O M (0 0
V 00 N ' N N
M a
X 1 it
0 O O N ^ N 0) ^ V 4) N T es Z o ° ^ 0 v CO o ad
w m
a
CO
O- yy °
Q o Q G m Z m m m G r 2 2 2 2 d)
0. N F g m in co 00 CO CO t0
A 0 m J J 0 D 7 J J J J J 0
v> 3 (0 u' n 0 CO n N
0
w
0
v
m c c M C (p N N N N �'
O O p O O O < 7
CD CO
a G z LL C u. i a (n a a ° a N
E
0.
J 0 N < a a Q ¢ a a 3
0
m
E
m
N U
2- J J J m
S o ' o a8 N m W CO co co CO CO E am m G
EL C (0 U) m Q d y d < < y Q Q d g
IV CO 1
M
0. `
E $ o
0 U , (V N N N i 4 N N N .- N N N 3
a o�
0
n W
C Y _ y _
« m m 0 N C 8 U 3 m C O ` C m O C
p _c M O `° m °• m - m � 3 m o 0 CO t ' "5 �« m m e a m > - - F3 Lo - m > o v
F t e33I' $ .0,1cm 2-g 3 V. - amm m , � mm « A0, QFc
IS 3 W>J�aQe3omv Smim° 8 m « a - 8-° .N m m > 'm ° a _ 2 -,_e
_ � _ ° _ � - a - m 3 - x > _ 8 m R - � —
{ a 4:! a o�i >� m �ec am 3mw1° 3 312- a > `o_ 7 w e 3rn3
L ° m"Ern %&%"6:37,1t. Yo m 8 W m ° o •8 c 'R N o
m o m 8. 8 0 . n ° 2 c E ° m m. a ° d m. 8 8 0 _
m o y d 3 f ,
1° c a - e o vi'c 3 c ma8 _ m =" E 8 0 '_° 8 3 2- a A Q 3 , c vi =,,,, 3 2 - ' _ ° ° m 3 3
2- . 14 8 = z m 2. 2% > `� c F a— m a E- m— m m m m° -f i« 2 2 0- 2
m m m m d m 6. a m m m co m m a t c o e m e « c— 3 c m e o c a m a mac m m e m a—
�� X � d H 'S v u .� U 3 3 L �° ._ ° 8 U N �� "N J �° 3 � 8 3� ° =i 2 u 'a U 'a « .2-2 e K 3 5 E Q
HI 3 0 � -.2 r m 0, g o d - >. c m a .o o • 5 4 4 c 3 E t° m o a c �� c o hl. mg o c
- m2ui d_8E8 £ m N � 2< ,4, m °a" >L 2
3 YoN c8 o.. 0 o0 2-8 « a -%c a sE , d3 b ?r moa
�'aui 8 i m „ U 5- - 3X c —� ,6 73 > > : rna+ a > E
3 i�ir —0 °3 gymyom ?m 6> o.2 'w3ogm m °' c E y . � mg ° a
N > C X C. N L d C p � C y fn X ppG� el a 2 C>, 0 0 a > � .
C .:f—T 3 n O a> C :3OJ C U V 7 i m N N p C C N v
"' e N U y j G u i a °,R N m N S' V 2 02 m `- O)
c E a 2 0, rn ' m o 2 3 am ' >• Q ' ry °o lm §a. 30.2 a�gda
S N « c c 8 e c a ? - o — - D N y 3 E 0. 0 3 :_-_,f0,0 3mm a c° g 2- N5 e� a -cremE ..c-'55 a 3 AE 2- m 0 _
mp od, 8o° pp '2-, a n o m 2 m0 `0 3.-
3� .zi D ay ,,-6-„,..„„ C Cc �CtEeoBa a� a� X2 $�
N m- c ° c 2 c 2'2 22- o ° da ', NO c 8 m ym 3 —
. Olm C T m _ co C — N
e , m2o cEy.y c c c c a£883�cE� Bin 8�`3m > �° c;m
ilil ° -8 3i3w°g 3 Z1 3 i' m § >2 >rnu -c_8t m t o' y a c y m d m co x in8 °u �s > °cr°8z 3 > 3c 3 n- 8 >m n°z rn«o°c E .VR
A cs
L p U
'2 m 0 ' `p , � 0 0 ,� O
m g a 0 LL LL 0 u 0 0 a 0 0
W
{
' o c
0 V O lL 8 O ° ° m .0 8 O 0 8
c c 0- - a a a a u- LL a a o a
v
c
a ° .O
3 J U
_ c
m 2 B
d c
U. a "cii a
8 a a ° u- ° ; 0_ 0 um.
U
x
0
,-, ,7, m o w m P N
e
CD m
N =
_O n - N 0 0 0 0 p 00 N .0 0 0 0 0
a o N 04 04 CO M P N 0
0 0 P V P P
a
= N OD v CO P '0
• i O P 04 4 N � N 7 N O
o o' ° 0 N
1 2
o
B a m J34 ° CO CO 03
0 03
n 03
D CO
0 CO
ft) co
0
W
m N n) N 0 '- N ,T., O:
m o g ° 3 n o 0 <- v v o 0 CL V3 o
a a a g a °O o
cLEL
E e ¢ < d <¢ c' a 3
■ It
A
m 8
V y
E J N J N Nyye F g
E A m °a m <i m m E m m t N c
a c ¢ ( d d < a a d m , < o
CO S d U
2
12- > ' «
E N N N N N �- N N N f V N i
O.
i c
W
la
- ,- N 0 ,- CO 0 (0V N N H N
_ V) C ill h U d V a, N
C a) i d 3 m m nv nv ° i c c °- as (n m c. c u > C a rn -
• N w c a a � 1 a� § m c m .....30,0-5.8 c m m . w > - E m o a r m o
Is c o > k _, 0 E 2 t o m L n > w u v d n a u o, c vi n m v) m ° ' m = g m e 0 i .
— 22°m2io� c 2 O,4 a vi � _ i . E$ m €o =a -00,12,o, , g23 8 .3Eo �mm°
. 3y 'a.`- ad? D 2h 3E7 8 3 ` ° t>5 "i o3 n `Oo �c ; x a mm2 y 3 mo
13 = m - > 2 m3E >�cm m° Z338 � 61= (- 0((5 =mcac�'O0 a 3c 3
cii, O, C C D = O N r O, d N A .� O ; 4.88 a 0 a) D 3 a� i 4' a rJ `0 ,, ? °
`0 ,0 ? ,
d p ,n 4' 7 6 W E C
z. 10 0e2,..=,5 3 8 Y U E `gl , U.s Lv 8v2i 8-2-r3.2 E 7, y D m 3 a O rn 2 <a O ` 0 g c� a i >
O&>0.(, _=7.,2,5
47 6 1 t0 « O „, 3 q C o p .O n L 0° D C d 2 > n L - 2 §'� O 40 O
> 0 > n o rn v a LZ 5 N > �5 �. 1 d 2 3 o m � ``:2 ,01 0 -" y _
{} j t n Ar _ E n u v, m
E m C a C i >. � O E L G > t N : v; L� V 3 C �p m �0 O (0 d 3 L C .0 D m
o i' ° a ° y o, > g' w � E02 ev m � � �_ ° 8 - a 118: � u � �, L o � N � 3 m m A y n > . N N i �- y : ::, � :c a c ' a � i uZ > v .?. = 3 N D . E> g c a 0 LL c o _mac _° o ` � " 3 � :szi, C= a7 " O C D 2 D a1 N 2 C y o . - a °a v 3 ` E c a oa _ � 7 , ° ° 4 . c c c pp ° C C O ° a) N N v E r y t a ° c O . - c 2 'O a E X C > > C 0 `o 3 c°E2 y w o > 3 c c d a o 0 0 g V m, ° —_ C E a 2. oo a .a c c 8' a g mg «? ::' c m2� o$° � °a ° o °c' � ,nc��m a> yy �tO E T g d N Ns n u rn .F3 c > m v i >2 � .L ° w
o m om � � V i N . � _ � C C � m � h C
0 a o n -c u a c 9 .A = g z d° c > 8 2> a > 3 c y 3 L 0 - C a m c °' o E o . a y C > c .Y « ..- a L E - u a i° Q n c u
u t .. `o > E n a o o c o -8 . § a a o o e z E m . Y ' x ° o
° 3 > .0.> •E 6 E a
ri p 3 D (a 6 .3 C U v N is .�- $ t 138 C O � j C
> D 3 d C C N > N N a) N a V ° D C 6l O C c 5 . . 0.) ii a E. c, > a, ,E
d __ - ._ DL O .- ; o° 2 =L3, x 0) E' c a v es `o c> c z ' o v v m (ii ' -0 a, m d m rn Q 3
a 5 -g ° o , �- n . 3 .° m w n 8 y �'c o ° , 5 0 m .@ N 2 g N c m e m '"1",-0 3 m 5 n E C'
N 8 p� __ g 3 -2 E o `a E m ° , E 2 o O O > o n c" - '. 0 . - rn L O '^ c 3 a, w p x a a •
.
4' N C 3 U C7 C C'O N ' ui n / . 6 T ' O 7 Vf 3 3 T > N 3 03 ~ 4) 3 3 0 8 u7 N O y C D 0 a a N
g n .- L L w a .: .5 41 0) 2 m m v+ a o - 3 m ° Oi r (0 o. 3 o 0 3
o E =-6 2 Eo 0> L $ c m �E d3 oa c czo m V.. x m
D ° - LE ° 0 n Z2c U >32° des as � u_r 03V? �E> �'S nc ° o m o c o
z a_ - 1-„22 ,
E �i m n � Z 3 rn Z h_ 3
A
° - D D o o 8 N
0 W 0 W W
Ti G
(6 V a) ii N a) 6) O O N 'Ip a�
c G LL LL LL LL LL d d LL LL 0 x U
m U W W
G _ _
a •°-„ D D y D D D D "O N 0 IS To
0 0
d G (o (.9 0 (o (7 a 8 (7 0 0 x
U w I.
c
3 Y ro s
} Q ( y V
LL 0 U. U. t d 0 a. (1 11 V i V
U w it
x
0
'° h m 0, 0 n O W < N N 'Cr N N. a)
W a)
Q
o' o a M V $ (0
(0 ° o
t. U "
a
a
= 04 v
a m o ), v ° a
° Oi ? N a Oi n ' Oi th
O °,
2
{ E d a> 2 2 2 8 m U 2 f 2 2 2 2 d,
m m m m m m m m m m CO
Y 5•:. D > > 7 .7 > > D o
N co N co (o (/) v) (n CO CO (1) 0 N
0
-. W
tO
3t c, O O N 17
V 2 2 2 ° m (n 2 c 2 C (n n ° sr
( � tZ
0 �g 4h N N 6
Q 0 0 0 ° O C ° m 0 d d N
{ 0 ( a a
i (i a u ' . - Q u. u_ Q U 0 .4. 3
c. Q Q Q Q Q E
a,
g 11
E CO
CO
co
1-
o
in
CO
CL Q Q Q Q
co
Q
co
co 4 <
an
J -1 Q Q co
LL LL q
(0 u
m
a)
a
7 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N I
D
W
It
N Ca
ol
N
C m m C E
C C _ d Q a d N c c O
TO
A ' X O "O C 6 m a o e y m
3 a m m a a c c E o g o ;
m w 3 . n . .a d a a
$ 3> m c A t t
m — E m
m m m mN S m ote m
c> o m m e c a 3
Ooincc .��,Z Umrn a 3 � t °CC ZZZZ
a ,A m — ti 'E
E_ m " m i 2. J 0 o m e
° ' ° N t-S E J m o, c c n y w m m m
�, c w o > m a) c w N d m « E
A E 0 a ' m 2 o E 0 3 0 0 2 N . E2 1-3 o Y i o v c N a a rn o, =•G F- o a, o
'- C •C m Q « N p W C J D O V N O m
E o x " o ; g ° w o o w M
to ai m 2 Z iii
H a m m a F
y c °c 3 0 3 3 r a = n. . E 0 U d
c .y_ C m m ▪ 'O c p C > > N C m t N N 7 c
m O N m 0 V n y 7 C aw
£ `' 41a n 8 0 , E o'0 o D - m c n _ m 0 E d E -,�, 5 o v
C E� > 'g a d o f. o m� m c o 0 w t 3 g $ c a 0
E a s Z' 3 7, o ° m a 5 o 3 v, a c E Y n
12 2 - -- L-1 > a, m e � m m '5 ¢ 3 0 1 v a o 3 m
E, ca >a ° 0 N F- wn. w o d , a o 0
.> J Z 5> 0 o, m L m o y a c m i c a o m c S E o o � _ c t, .2 "-
N a m_. A a N C U E• 0 o $ m
> r -c R7 > d = 0 m — C J m = O O m O m m-0 N
c o o E — >— my — d all. L �m g-0N' m NN°g
o° f — mc 30mm7, 3 c m .a c w _o . c8 m m ,K °c- 7.
0 c q � > 3 a> .c > c ui > ' o a a m .. o u) Z u R o tri c A H v D a
1 C
ii E "� ._ D O d d .O .) N N
y C c9 C7 x x iii
0 V V
w V w w dS w iu
m c
u c c E c
c ■ d m mm
cl ' c 0 Q a X LL d x
Tv To t
x f°
my w w 1.14 111
c
o . � o o 4 o d dm N
_ C d 0 U LL U U V O
V w w wu5 Z
c
y O V c c "c
3 0 0 N m 9
v
x
O o p
A Qt Of N O, N 1
d
S
3 2 Lo co
0a ; N § $ M 8 8888
LL C>
S
O ,, N Z N N N Z O Z.
0 z � zz
0
o 0 2 2 2 2 2 u 2 u m 2 d,
a c0 co m m co co m m m m
IT > 0 D > 0 >> C o
cn
O
Ill
v 0 c0
4* _° v
La. to
o • M ap O C 2 G C [ X CO
+� n O N `2 O C Q N
fi a a a 7 Z
a.
j ] 0 o
. a
a LL
Q
C c
e
w
V h -.I (n h N J 0 J J(0 m
C Q 0 d co C N LL N N¢ L q
c v
R
m
a 0 �, N N N l'7 N N N N 04 04 N 3
j ` ; J} 1 E 0,
._._..., _... .._ ...._.._...... _ .. .. .. _.. ..., .._. _..._... -. I W
ik
v a a 44W' e