Loading...
Backup Documents 02/18/2003 WBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORKSHOP M TING RUARY t 8, 2003 Naples Daily News Naples, FL 34102 Affidavit of PubLication Naples Daily News BOARD OF COUNFY CONMISSIONERS CHERI LEFARA PO BOX 413016 NAPLES FL 34i01-3016 REFERENCE: 001230 200213 ~8606~2~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEE State of Florida County of Collier Before %he undersigned &uthority, personally appeared B. Lamb, who on oath says that she serves as Assistant Corporate Secre'~ary of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County~ Florida: that the attached copy of advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in smid Collier County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier Countyx Florida, for a period of I year next preceding thc first publication of the attached copy of sdvertisement; and affiant further says thaC ~he has neither paid nor promised an}' person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this :dvertisement for pubtiction in %he said newspaper. PUBLISHED ON: 02/16 AD SPACE: 68.000 INCH FILED ON' 02/17/03 g Personally know., b ~ '_%. Donna Chesney ..o,. ~% ' [ c.'l~ ~. My Commission D[~6336 ~'~o~e Expires September 11, 2005 PUBLIC MEETING .WORKSHOP BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9~0 a.m.. 12~0 noon Notice Is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Com- missioners will meet at the County Commission Board Room, on the 3rd Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building, 3301 Ta- miami Trail East,~ Naples, Florldo~ to con- duct a workshop to dis- cuss the 2002-2003 uP-I dates to the County Wa- ter - Sewer District Mas-/ tar Plans,* Impact Fees! and user Rate studies ot| the above stated date/ and time, Coples of the agendaJ made avollable ~o thel press and may be ob-I rained at the Office ofl the County Manager, Public Utilities Fiscal Op- erations DepartmeW and the Dep.a. rtment ol Public Infarmaflom Any per .s~ W.ho .cl.eclde: to appeal a aecislon o this ~tbard ~'~11 need a re- -~d of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to, ensure that a verbatimi recer.~l of the I~roceed- Ings IS' 'made, which re- cord Incla~ the testl-J mony and evldencel .upon which the appeal BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA TONi HENNING, CHAIR. MAN DWIGHT E,'BROCK, CLERK BY: /s/ Maureen Ken- yon, Deputy Clerk Feb. 16 'No. 86724 Collier County Government Board of County Commissioners Water and Wastewater Master Plan, Impact Fee and User Rate Study Workshop Agenda February 18, 2003 9 a.m. - 12 Noon III. IV. Opening Remarks - Jim DeLony Discussion A. Presentation and Discussion of Water and Wastewater Master Plan - Mike Pekkala, Greeley and Hansen B. Short Break C. Presentation and Discussion of Proposed Impact Fees - Rob Ori, - Public Resources Management Group Inc. (PRMG) D. Short Break E. Presentation and Discussion of User Rates - Rob Ori, - Public Resources Management Group Inc. (PRMG) F. Presentation of Miscellaneous Fees and Tapping Charges - County Staff Closing Comments/Suggestions Adjourn January 21, 2003 Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 34102 Re: NOTICE OF BCC/WATER-SEWER DISTRICT WORKSHOP TO BE HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 2003 Dear Georgia: Please advertise the above referenced notice on Sunday, February 16, 2003, and kindly send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Thank you. Sincerely, Trish Morgan, Deputy Clerk P.O. No. 200213 NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING WORKSHOP BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will meet at the County Commission Board Room, on the 3rd Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, to conduct a workshop to discuss the 2002-2003 updates to the County Water - Sewer District Master Plans, Impact Fees and User Rate studies at the above stated date and time. Copies of the agenda for said meeting will be made available to the press and may be obtained at the Office of the County Manager, Public Utilities Fiscal Operations Department and the Department of Public Information. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By:/s/Maureen Kenyon Deputy Clerk Patricia L. Mor~lan To: Subject: Georgia (E-mail) Advertising - Notice of BCC - Water-Sewer District Workshop on 2-18-03 Hi Georgia, Please advertise the attached notice on February 16, 2003. Thanks, Trish Morgan Minutes & Records BCC-Water-Sewer District Works... WATERWORKSHOP .doc NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING woRKsHoP BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will meet at the County Commission Board Room, on the 3rd Floor of the W. Harmon Turner Building, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, to conduct a workshop to discuss the 2002-2003 updates to the County Water - Sewer District Master Plans, Impact Fees and User Rate studies at the above stated date and time. Copies of the agenda for said meeting will be made available to the press and may be obtained at the Office of the County Manager, Public Utilities Fiscal Operations Department and the Department of Public Information. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By:/s/Maureen Kenyon Deputy Clerk Patricia L. Morgan From: Sent: To: Subject: postmaster@clerk.collier.fl .us Tuesday, January 21,2003 11:37 AM Patricia L. Morgan Delivery Status Notification (Relay) ATT50974.txt ~,dvertising - Notice of BCC - ... This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Your message has been successfully relayed to the following recipients, but the requested delivery status notifications may not be generated by the destination. legals@naplesnews.com Patricia L. Mor~lan From: Sent: To: Subject: System Administrator [postmaster@naplesnews.com] Tuesday, January 21,2003 11:29 AM Patricia L. Morgan Delivered: Advertising - Notice of BCC - Water-Sewer District Workshop on 2-18-03 ~,dvertising - Notice of BCC - ... 2-18-03>> Your message <<Advertising - Notice of BCC - Water-Sewer District Workshop on To: Georgia (E-mail) Subject: Advertising - Notice of BCC - Water-Sewer District Workshop on 2-18-03 Sent: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:36:26 -0500 was delivered to the following recipient (s) : legals on Tue, 21 Jan 2003 11:29:21 -0500 Advertising - Notice of BCC - Water-Sewer District Workshop on 2-18-03 Page 1 of 1 Patricia L. Morgan From: legals [legals@naplesnews.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 21,2003 4:21 PM To: Patricia L. Morgan Subject: RE: Advertising - Notice of BCC - Water-Sewer District Workshop on 2-18-03 ok georgia ..... Original Message ..... From: Patricia L. Morgan [mailto:Patricia. Morgan@clerk.collier.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:36 AM To: Georgia (E-mail) Subject: Advertising - Notice of BCC - Water-Sewer District Workshop on 2-18-03 Hi Georgia, Please advertise the attached notice on February 16, Thanks, Trish Morgan Minutes & Records <<BCC-Water-Sewer District Workshop.dot>> <<WATERWORKSHOP.doc>> 2003 . 1/22/2003 Teri Michaels From: Sent: To: Subject: Teri Michaels Monday, February 03, 2003 3:19 PM Saylor, Ann marie RE: 2/18/03 WORKSHOP NOTICE WATERWORKSHOP .doc hi ann marie- attached is a copy of the notice that will be in teri the newspaper 2/16/03 Teri Michaels From: Sent: To: Subject: System Administrator [postmaster@colliergov.net] Monday, February 03, 2003 3:15 PM Teri Michaels Delivered: RE: 2/18/03 WORKSHOP NOTICE RE: 2/18/03 NORKSHOP NOT[CE ~RE: 2/18/03 WORKSHOP NOTZCE>> Your message To: Saylor, Ann marie Subject: RE: 2/18/03 WORKSHOP NO'I'ZeE Sent: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:18:32 -0500 was delivered to the following recipient(s): saylor_o on Man, 3 Feb 2003 15:14:37 -0500 Collier County, Florida 2002 Wastewater I~laster Plan Update Final Draft GREELEY ANO HANISEN October 2002 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update Final Draft Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 2 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Wastewater Service Areas ............................................................................................... 2 1.3 Existing Facilities ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 General ..................................................................................................................... 2 1.3.2 North County Water Reclamation Facility .............................................................. 2 1.3.3 Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility ................................................................. 2 1.3.4 South County Water Reclamation Facility .............................................................. 3 1.3.5 Effluent Disposal Facilities ...................................................................................... 3 1.3.6 Biosolids Handling ................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Population and Flow Projections ..................................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Existing Service Area .............................................................................................. 4 1.4.2 Future Service Areas ................................................................................................ 4 1.4.3 Range of Total Potential Service Area Populations ................................................. 5 1 ·4.4 Wastewater Flow Projections ................................................................................... 5 1.5 System Reliability ............................................................................................................ 6 1.5.1 Measurement of Reliability ...................................................................................... 6 1.5.2 Utility Staff .............................................................................................................. 1.5.3 Water Reclamation Facilities ................................................................................... 1.5.4 Collection and Transmission Systems ..................................................................... 6 1 ·5.5 Effluent Management ............................................................................................... 7 1 ·5.6 Information Management ......................................................................................... 7 1.5.7 Financial Reliability ................................................................................................. 8 1.5.8 Planning ................................................................................................................... 88 1.6 Alternative Wastewater Service Plans ............................................................................. 1.6.1 Development of Alternative Projects ....................................................................... 8 1.6.2 Summary of Other Wastewater Issues ..................................................................... 9 · 11 1 5 Conclusmns ................................................................................................................... · ' 14 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.1 General ................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.2 201 Facilities Plan and Master Plan ....................................................................... 14 2.1.3 Post-2001 Wastewater Master Plan Actions .......................................................... 14 15 2.2 Scope of Study ............................................................................................................... 2·2.1 General ................................................................................................................... 115 2.2.2 Planning Area ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Scope of Services ................................................................................................... 16 2.3 Other Reports ................................................................................................................. 16 11/22/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc i 3 Wastewater Service Areas ..................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Existing Service Area .................................................................................................... 18 3.2 Proposed Land Use Changes ......................................................................................... 18 3.3 Proposed Future Service Area ....................................................................................... 18 4 Existing Facilities ................................................................................................................... 19 4.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 North County Water Reclamation Facility .................................................................... 19 4.3 Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility ....................................................................... 21 4.4 South County Water Reclamation Facility .................................................................... 22 4.5 Wastewater Collection and Transmission System ......................................................... 23 4.6 Effluent Disposal Facilities ............................... , ............................................................ 24 4.6.1 North Service Area ................................................................................................ 24 4.6.2 South Service Area ................................................................................................ 25 4.6.3 Reclaimed Water Irrigation System ....................................................................... 25 4.7 Biosolids Handling ......................................................................................................... 26 4.7.1 General Biosolids Considerations .......................................................................... 26 4.7.2 Regulations Affecting Biosolids Management ...................................................... 26 4.7.3 Current Biosolids Handling Practices .................................................................... 27 5 Population and Flow Projections ........................................................................................... 29 5.1 Earlier Population and Flow Projections ....................................................................... 29 5.2 2000 Census Information and Estimated 2001 Populations .......................................... 30 5.3 Population Projections ................................................................................................... 31 5.3.1 General ................................................................................................................... 31 5.3.2 Existing Service Areas ........................................................................................... 32 5.3.3 Future Service Areas .............................................................................................. 33 5.3.4 Total Potential Service Area Population Projections ............................................. 34 5.4 Per Capita Wastewater Flow .......................................................................................... 36 5.5 Wastewater Flow Projections ........................................................................................ 37 6 System Reliability .................................................................................................................. 38 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 38 6.2 Measurements of Reliability .......................................................................................... 38 6.3 Areas of System Reliability ........................................................................................... 40 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.2.1 6.3.2.2 6.3.2.3 6.3.2.4 6.3.2.5 6.3.3 6.3.3.1 6.3.3.2 6.3.3.3 6.3.3.4 6.3.3.5 6.3.3.6 6.3.3.7 General ................................................................................................................... 40 Utility Staff ............................................................................................................ 41 General ............................................................................................................... 41 Qualifications ..................................................................................................... 41 Compensation .................................................................................................... 41 Training .............................................................................................................. 41 Level of Staffing ................................................................................................ 42 Water Reclamation Facilities ................................................................................. 42 General ............................................................................................................... 42 Process, Mechanical and Electrical Systems ..................................................... 42 Flexibility ........................................................................................................... 44 Capacity Enhancement ....................................................................................... 44 Safety ................................................................................................................. 44 Operation and Maintenance Manuals ................................................................ 44 Standard Operating Procedures .......................................................................... 45 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc ii 11/22/2002 6.3.3.8 Emergency Response Plans ............................................................................... 45 6.3.3.9 Laboratory Data ................................................................................................. 45 6.3.3.10 Sampling Procedures ...................................................................................... 45 6.3.4 Collection and Transmission Systems ................................................................... 45 6.3.4.1 General ............................................................................................................... 45 6.3.4.2 Mechanical and Electrical Systems ................................................................... 46 6.3.4.3 CMOM ............................................................................................................... 46 6.3.4.4 Flexibility ........................................................................................................... 46 6.3.4.5 Pumping Station Odor Control .......................................................................... 46 6.3.4.6 Pipeline Coordination with Road Improvements ............................................... 46 6.3.4.7 System Mapping ................................................................................................ 46 6.3.5 Effluent Management ............................................................................................. 46 6.3.5.1 General ............................................................................................................... 46 6.3.5.2 Number of Customers ........................................................................................ 46 6.3.5.3 Reclaimed Water Rates ...................................................................................... 46 6.3.5.4 Irrigation Water Pressures .................................................................................. 46 6.3.5.5 Backup Effluent Disposal .................................................................................. 46 6.3.5.6 Interconnections ................................................................................................. 46 6.3.6 Information Management ....................................................................................... 46 6.3.8 Planning ................................................................................................................. 46 6.3.9 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................... 46 Reliability for Wastewater Systems ............................................................................................... 46 I General Design Requirements .................................................................................................... 46 7 Alternative Wastewater Service Plans ................................................................................... 46 7.1 Development of Alternative Projects ............................................................................. 46 7.1.1 General ................................................................................................................... 46 7.1.2 Five-Plant Alternative ............................................................................................ 46 7.2 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 46 7.3 Summary of Other Wastewater Issues ........................................................................... 46 7.3.1 Package Wastewater Treatment Plants ...................................................................... 46 7.3.2 Service to Existing Areas Served by Septic Tanks ................................................ 46 7.3.3 Effluent Disposal Issues ......................................................................................... 46 7.3.4 Reclaimed Water Plan ............................................................................................ 46 7.3.5 Deep Well Injection ............................................................................................... 46 7.3.6 Biosolids Management ........................................................................................... 46 7.3.6.1 Summary of Short-Term Biosolids Management Report .................................. 46 7.3.6.2 Long-Term Biosolids RFP ................................................................................. 46 7.3.6.3 Identification of Long-Term Biosolids Management Alternatives .................... 46 Estimated 2022 Biosolids Quantities ................................................................................. 46 7.3.6.4 Comparison of Long-Term Biosolids Management Alternatives ...................... 46 7.4 Force Mains and Pumping Stations ............................................................................... 46 7.5 Timing Issues ................................................................................................................. 46 8 Five-Year Capital Improvement Projects for Wastewater ..................................................... 46 9 Summary and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 46 11/22/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc iii COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction To face the challenges of growth, Collier County needs to have a vision for wastewater facilities to serve the citizens of the County in an environmentally and fiscally sound manner. This 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update is provided to establish the vision for wastewater and reclaimed water facilities. This master plan is an update to the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update prepared by Greeley and Hansen in November 2001 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on December 11, 2001. The Board has requested that the master plans be updated annually. The goal of this Wastewater Master Plan Update is to provide a guide for wastewater facility planning for the next 20 years. A number of facility improvements have been implemented since the previous master planning effort. In addition, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Consent Order requires several other improvements to the system to enhance capacity and reliability. The planning area is generally the western one-quarter of Collier County, excluding Marco Island and the City of Naples. The planning area includes the existing North and South County Service Areas and various fringe areas east of the existing service areas. In preparation of this 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update, the results of several other reports have been incorporated into this document. These reports address specific issues regarding the treatment facilities, biosolids, and reclaimed water. This study is an overview of these past and ongoing reports and serves as a framework for future planning. Since preparation of the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update, revised population projections have been prepared based on updated forecasts and are reflected in the 2002 Master Plan. In addition, the 2002 Master Plan is based on more of a reliability focus than the 2001 Master Plan Update. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 1 1.2 Wastewater Service Areas Collier County is responsible for wastewater service within the service area boundary, which has been established by State statute and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Wastewater in the North Service Area is treated at the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF). During the tourist season, some flows in the North Service Area are treated at the Pelican Bay WRF. Wastewater in the South Service Area is treated at the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF). For purposes of this 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update, it is assumed that four areas under consideration for development in the Rural Fringe Areas, to the east of the existing service area, could potentially become part of the wastewater service area for Collier County. ~.3 Existing Facilities 1.3.1 General Wastewater service in the North and South Service Areas are provided by a network of pumping stations, transmission pipelines, and water reclamation facilities. Several are master lift stations, receiving flows from several smaller, upstream stations. Many parts of the system are manifolded, in that several pumping stations feed into a common force main. There are a total of approximately 640 lift stations serving the North and South Service Areas. 1.3.2 North County Water Reclamation Facility Wastewater treatment in the North County Service Area is served by the NCWRF located on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road just south of Immokalee Road. Irrigation by reclaimed water is the primary means of effluent disposal. The present permitted capacity of the NCWRF is 13.5 mgd Annual Average Daily Flow (AADF), which is 17.55 mgd Maximum Month Daily Flow (MMDF). The most recent liquid stream expansion was completed in November 2001 and added 5 mgd of capacity. The solids stream expansion has recently been completed. The next expansion to add 5 mgd (AADF) to increase the capacity to 24.1 mgd MMDF will be in service by January 1, 2005. 1.3.3 Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility The Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility (PBWRF) serves only the Pelican Bay area of the North Service Area. The plant has a capacity of 1.0 mgd AADF. The County operates the PBWRF only on a seasonal basis during times of the year when tourists are 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 2 present. During other times flow is diverted from this plant to the NCWRF. The County has a permit to operate the PBWRF through 2005. It is recommended that as soon as the next expansion of the NCWRF is complete, the PBWRF be decommissioned and utilized as a storage facility for the reclaimed water system. 1.3.4 South County Water Reclamation Facility Wastewater treatment in the South County Service Area is served by the SCWRF. Irrigation by reclaimed water is the primary means of effluent disposal. The present permitted capacity of the SCWRF is 8.0 mgd AADF and 9.2 mgd MMDF. Construction is underway that will increase the capacity of the plant to 16.0 mgd MMDF. This expansion is scheduled to be in service by October 2004. 1.3.5 Effluent Disposal Facilities The primary method of effluent disposal from the treatment facilities is distribution for use as irrigation to residential and golf course customers. All plants in the North and South Service Areas feed into an interconnected network of pipelines serving the County's reclaimed water customers. If effluent from the NCWRF does not meet reclaimed water quality or there is no demand for the reclaimed water, means are available through an interconnection pipeline to use the existing deep injection wells at the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant. Two deep injection wells (DIW's) have been permitted for construction on the NCWRF site. The DIW's will be in service when the next plant expansion is complete by January 1, 2005. The SCWRF currently has one DIW, which serves as a method of disposing of excess reclaimed water during wet weather conditions. A second DIW is under design and permitting has been initiated. The total volume of available storage in the South County Service Area is approximately 113 MG. The existing reclaimed water irrigation systems serve a total of 29 users in the North and South Service Areas. The County currently has a waiting list of 89 potential users that have requested reclaimed water for irrigation. 1.3.6 Biosolids Handling Biosolids (or sludge) is the residual product remaining from the treatment of wastewater. The solids consist of various inert components and of biological solids created during the activated sludge process. Biosolids can be treated in a variety of ways that affect the manner in which the material can be used or disposed. State and Federal regulations affect the disposal options for biosolids. Currently all plants operated by Collier County 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 3 do not treat biosolids other than dewatering of the liquid biosolids to turn it into a solid form. The County currently hauls biosolids to the Okeechobee landfill for disposal. Proposals from private vendors for design/build/own/operate options are currently being reviewed and evaluated by the County. Population and Flow Projections 1.4.1 Existing Service Area The 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update had the advantage of the recent completion of the 2000 Census. Earlier studies in the 1990's had to rely on projections from the 1990 Census. The result of the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update was that that the estimates of population based on the projections in the 1990's were low. Thus, the populations tributary to and the resulting flow to each WRF has increased at a more rapid pace than earlier anticipated. The permanent population of Collier County increased 65 percent in the 1990's to its 2000 population of 251,377. This represents the April 1 estimate of County population. The April 1, 2001 estimate of County population, as reported by the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), is 264,475. This is an increase of 13,098 from the April 1, 2000 Census population. Based on this rate of increase, the October 1, 2001 population (which is used by County planning) is 271,024. This is consistent with growth projections presented in the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. It is estimated that the sewered population in the North and South Service Areas was about 125,000 in October 1, 2001. In addition, there are areas within the County's service area served by on-site septic tanks or by private wastewater treatment facilities. The BEBR is a source of population projections. It is concluded in this 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update that the "High" and "Average" projections by BEBR represent a reasonable range of future populations. However, it is also shown that carrying out the High growth rate for 30 years results in a population well above the County's estimate of the buildout population. Thus, population growth may be able to increase along the High growth pattern in the near term, but this cannot be sustained in the long term. 1.4.2 Future Service Areas Future service areas include all of the area within the planning area not included in the existing service areas. These areas include the Orange Tree Area, the Rural Fringe area, the Golden Gate City service area and potentially other partially developed areas in Golden Gate Estates adjacent to the Rural Fringe Area. The future ultimate population in total for these areas is estimated to be approximately 56,000. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 4 1.4.3 Range of Total Potential Service Area Populations Conservative Growth and Moderate Growth estimates of sewered population have been developed to establish a range.of expected service. The population estimates were coordinated and reviewed by the County's Planning Section. Ultimately, the populations cannot exceed the estimated build-out populations of the urban areas. The range of future service populations are estimated to be as follows: Estimated Total Sewered and Unsewered Populations Within the County Service Area (SA) Condition 12000 12005 12010 12015 12°20 12°25 12°3° Conservative Growth Within 164,000 207,000 246,000 277,000 308,000 339,000 370,000 Existing SA Future 4,000 5,000 15,000 25,000 34,000 43,000 52,000 Extension of SA Total 168,000 2 ! 2,000 26 !,000 302,000 342,000 382,000 422,000 Conservative Growth Moderate Growth Within 164,000 195,000 226,000 259,000 294,000 329,000 370,000 Existing SA Future 4,000 4,000 10,000 15,000 21,000 27,000 32,000 Extension of SA Total 168,000 199,000 236,000 274,000 315,000 356,000 402,000 Moderate Growth This represents the projected total populations within the service areas, without regard to sewer service. Several areas could remain on septic tank service or remain customers of private utility operators. By comparison, the County Planning Section buildout population estimate for the existing service area is 394,000. The estimate of 422,000 for 2030 is just slightly higher than the buildout estimate and indicates that under either growth scenario, the County would essentially be built out by 2030. It is recommended that the Conservative Growth estimates be used for planning of wastewater infrastructure. 1.4.4 Wastewater Flow Projections Wastewater flows are estimated based on estimates of per capita rates of flow. Wastewater treatment plants in Collier County are permitted and sized based on the maximum month rate of flow. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 5 1.5 System Reliability 1.5.1 Measurement of Reliability The following measures will contribute to continued reliable utility operation: · Application of a GIS system designed to measure reliability over time and to assist in developing strategies for improved reliability; · Documentation and review of customer complaints on a periodic basis; · Comparison of costs with other service providers periodically to assure that costs are in line with other service providers; · Continued compliance with permit limitations to assure environmental protection; and · Conservation of resources by providing a means of long-term storage of reclaimed water during wet periods to reduce the use of potable water for irrigation purposes. 1.5.2 Utility Staff It is recommended that the County conduct a benchmarking study, using the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) financial survey as a tool, to determine how the present level of staffing compares to other similar utilities. 1.5.3 Water Reclamation Facilities Treatment facilities constructed to serve reclaimed water systems must be designed to meet Class I Reliability for process, electrical, and electrical systems in accordance with FDEP regulations. All Collier County plants meet these standards. Being that these standards are regulated, the County has no option but to meet these reliability standards as a minimum when obtaining an operating permit. It is recommended that Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manuals be prepared in electronic format to provide plant personnel with a ready source of information and allow quicker reaction to problems. In addition, a laboratory information management system (LIMS) should be implemented at both plants to allow ready access to information for data review, monthly operating reports, quality control, and other laboratory functions. 1.5.4 Collection and Transmission Systems Planning for new pipelines should be coordinated with roadway improvements to minimize citizen inconvenience and to minimize the cost of restoration. This is the current practice and should be continued. The USEPA is proposing to impose Capacity, Maintenance, Operation and Management (CMOM) requirements nationwide. Operators of sanitary sewer systems will need to demonstrate that all aspects of their infrastructure have sufficient capacity and are 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 6 operated and maintained in such a way as to prevent overflows, the main goal of CMOM. It is recommended that the County prepare a CMOM self-evaluation to determine how the utility and its infrastructure compare to the CMOM requirements. The County is currently conducting an improvement program for odor control facilities at pumping stations to enhance reliability. It is recommended that this program be continued. A structure should be set that will lead to more accurate and available record drawing information. It is recommended that such a structure be put into place, which would include the following: o Summarize existing sources of information. o Determine key areas where information is lacking. · Conduct field investigations of key areas that could include physical location of pipelines by vacuum probing and manual system operation to determine flow routing. · Identify the location of key system features using GPS. · Identify dates of installation and improvements. · Prepare a mapping system similar to that currently utilized by the County that would be available to all personnel using GIS. 1.5.5 Effluent Management It is recommended that the County develop a reclaimed water user model to focus on delivery at Iow pressure. This would decrease the County's cost to deliver the product and increase overall reliability. The County is installing deep injection wells (DIW's) at the NCWRF and SCWRF. The well capacity will allow the plants to dispose of the maximum month treatment capacity at each plant. Two wells are to be provided at each plant to provide redundancy and increase reliability. It is recommended that the County use this model for the design of additional plants recommended as part of this 2002 Master Plan. Interconnections should only be pursued where they can be done at relatively low cost. Reliability will be increased by supplying the County a potential emergency source of reclaimed water and, at other times, a potential emergency means of effluent disposal. 1.5.6 Information Management It is recommended that the County conduct an information technology assessment to make sure that data regarding billing, customers, operations, and maintenance are available in the most useful way. Financial information should be shared among all County departments. Means of sharing goals and information should be developed and implemented. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Repo~__Final Draft.doc 7 1.5.7 Financial Reliability It is recommended that the County review rates and impact fees on an annual basis and to make adjustments as necessary. It is also recommended that the County develop an asset management program to lower financial costs of bonds and optimize O&M and capital expenditures, allowing the County to take advantages of recapitalization of assets to increase the overall value of assets. The program will also allow the County to meet CMOM requirements. 1.5.8 Planning It is important that the County's planning documents be kept current. It is recommended that the County update the water master plan on an annual basis until such time that growth levels to some extent. 1.6 Alternative Wastewater Service Plans 1.6.1 Development of Alternative Projects Wastewater service in Collier County will need to be provided in the future in the following areas: · New developments within the North and South Service Areas of sufficient density to require sewer service. (This will most likely be virtually all new development.) · New developments within the Potential Service Areas. · The Orange Tree area. (The County currently has an agreement to take over service of the Orange Tree area in 2012.) · Golden Gate City - this plant has a design capacity of 0.95 mgd and is owned and operated by the Florida Government Utilities Association (FGUA). Even without service extension beyond the existing service area boundaries, the capacity of the existing treatment facilities and the potential of the existing plant sites to provide additional capacity will not be sufficient in the future. Additional plant sites will be necessary. In the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update, alternatives were developed for four or five ultimate wastewater treatment plants to serve County customers. The Five-Plant Alternative was recommended based on the following: With reclaimed water irrigation being the primary means of effluent management in the future, it is beneficial to have the treatment facilities strategically located near potential customers. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 8 The Five-Plant Alternative makes better use of existing infrastructure that directs wastewater in the South Service Area to the SCWRF. The Five-Plant Alternative results in shorter runs of force mains, which is beneficial in terms of odor potential. The Five-Plant Alternative allows more flexibility in serving future customers. The Five-Plant alternative is shown on Figure 1-1. Since the 2001 master plan update, the areas within the Rural Fringe boundaries have been significantly reduced. This also significantly reduces the population projections and wastewater flows from these areas. Under the "High Growth" scenario for the Rural Fringe areas in the 2001 master plan, the build out population and wastewater flow from these areas were 96,430 and 11.57 mgd, respectively. The current population estimates and wastewater flows from these areas are 44,469 and 5.34 mgd, respectively, or about one-half of the estimates forecast in the 2001 master plan. The build out population in the Rural Fringe area was assumed to occur in 2050 in the 2001 master plan. For this master plan update, it is assumed that the Rural Fringe build out will occur in 2030. The net result is that the Rural Fringe population and projected flow forecasts within the 20- year planning period are essentially the same as forecasted in the 2001 Master Plan Update. The Five-Plant alternative is still recommended. 1.6.2 Summary of Other Wastewater Issues 1.6.2.1 Package Wastewater Treatment Plants It is recommended that the County continue to decommission the remaining package plants and treat the wastewater at the more reliable County facilities. 1.6.2.2 Service to Existing Areas Served by Septic Tanks It is recommended that the County conduct a study ofunsewered areas to determine priorities of service and to develop a master plan for these areas. The study should consider environmental issues, cost of service, types of collection systems, and citizen interest in sewer service. The study should also address whether a stronger government role could be used to enhance on-site treatment strategies. Such strategies may include public education, better management practices, and changes to regulations. 1.6.2.3 Effluent Disposal Issues It is recommended that the County continue to use irrigation with reclaimed water as the primary means of effluent management and to use deep well injection as the backup. Based on discussions and evaluations with the reclaimed water consultant, the County 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 9 I / NC~RF --POTENTIAL / NORTH£A~T / / SERVICE AREA--" POTENTIAL NEW PLANT SITE ~ PLANT SITE SERVICE AREA ~OUTH ~ERVICE AREA /v'-" EX~STING ~ITIAL NEW SITE POTENTIAL SOUTHEAST SERVICE AREA FIVE-PLANT ALTERNATIVE: ~ 1--1 has decided to pursue an alternative with an estimated cost of about $20.0 million (without deep well injection). This alternative enhances service to existing customers by providing supplemental supplies of irrigation water and storage. 1.6.2.4 Biosolids Management The County developed a request for proposals earlier in 2002 to solicit a private vendor to process and to market the biosolids product. The County is currently evaluating three proposals and it is expected that a vendor will be selected in early 2003 to design, build, own and operate a biosolids facility. It is recommended that the County purchase property in 2003 for a long-term biosolids program. 1.6.2.$ Force Mains and Pumping Stations The network of pumping stations and force mains were modeled for present and future conditions. Based on this analysis a number of additional force mains and pumping stations are recommended to better serve existing customers and to serve additional customers. Several existing pumping stations will also need to be improved to handle additional flow. 1.6.2.6 Timing Issues The County has been experiencing tremendous growth over the last several years. This 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update covers the period from 2002 through 2022. Within this report, years have been shown as projections of when certain populations or wastewater flows may be obtained. Regarding timing, it is not so much the dates that are important, but rather milestones. When certain events occur, the County will need to react with a facility consistent with the strategy presented in the 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update. For example, certain pipelines are proposed to interconnect systems. The' timing for such a pipeline may be triggered by a road construction project as much as by a need for the pipeline to meet an immediate collection or transmission system demand. Timing of treatment facilities to serve the rural fringe area will be triggered by development. Plants in the rural fringe area will need to be constructed only as required to serve new development. Based on a Conservative Growth scenario wastewater flows at existing and potential future regional water reclamation facilities are as follows: 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Drat~.doc 10 11/21/2002 Estimate of Maximum Month Wastewater Flows (mgd) Condition/Plant 2002 2012 2022 Conservative Growth Estimate North County WRF 13.3 20.3 26.9 South County WRF 9.2 12.7 16.0 Northeast WRF 0 2.3 4.2 East Central WRF 0 3.0 5.8 Southeast WRF 0 0 2.1 1.5 Conclusions The vision for management of wastewater in Collier County is established in this 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update. Elements of the recommended plan include the following, listed by 5-year planning periods: Wastewater Treatment FY 2003-2007: · Complete expansion of the NCWRF to 24.1 mgd MMDF and construction of two deep injection wells · Complete expansion of the SCWRF to 16.0 mgd MMDF and construction of one additional deep injection well · Prepare a decommissioning study for the Pelican Bay WRF and remove the plant from service after the NCRWF expansion to 24.1 mgd is complete · Acquire sites for new Northeast, East Central and Southeast WRF's · Construct new 2.0 mgd MMDF Northeast WRF and deep injection wells · Construct new 4.0 mgd MMDF East Central WRF and deep injection wells FY 2008-2012: · Expand NCWRF to 30.6 mgd MMDF · Expand Northeast WRF to 4.0 mgd MMDF FY 2013-2017: · Expand East Central WRF to 6.0 mgd MMDF · Construct new 2.0 mgd Southeast WRF FY 2018-2022: · Expand Northeast WRF to 6.0 mgd MMDF · Expand Southeast WRF to 4.0 mgd MMDF 2 Wastewater Collection and Transmission FY 2003-2007: · Complete the North - South transmission systems interconnections · Improve pumping station capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 11 11/21/2002 3 4 · Improve transmission force main capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 · Continue to rehabilitate pumping stations and collection systems · Complete inflow and infiltration studies for the wastewater collection systems in the North and South Service Areas and implement recommended repairs · Complete installation of telemetry to all existing pumping stations FY 2008-2012: · Construct regional interconnections to the Northeast and East Central Service Areas and new master pumping stations · Continue to rehabilitate pumping stations and collection systems · Provide wastewater service to Golden Gate City and Orange Tree · Improve pumping station capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 · Improve transmission force main capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 FY 2013-2017: · Construct regional interconnection to the Southeast Service Area and associated master pumping station · Continue to rehabilitate pumping stations and collection systems · Improve pumping station capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 · Improve transmission force main capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 FY 2018-2022: a. · Continue to rehabilitate pumping stations and collection systems · Improve pumping station capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 · Improve transmission force main capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 Biosolids FY 2003-2007: · Complete land acquisition for biosolids facility and contract with a vendor to design/build/own/operate a biosolids facility Reclaimed Water FY 2003-2007: · Add reclaimed water transmission pipelines to improve system capacity, pressure and reliability as described in Sections 7 and 8 · Develop supplemental irrigation water sources in the vicinity of Golden Gate Canal · Add additional customers as sufficient irrigation water is available · Develop other supplemental irrigation water sources and construct regional interconnections as described in the Regional Irrigation Distribution System (RIDS) program · Begin construction of ASR reclaimed water wells 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 12 11/21/2002 FY 2008-2012: · Continue transmission system improvements and construction of ASR reclaimed water wells · Continue development of supplemental irrigation water sources General FY 2003-2007: · Construct new Public Utilities Operations Center · Develop an on-site treatment plan to determine whether to extend service to areas served by septic tanks or if other on-site treatment enhancement programs should be implemented · Develop asset management system and conduct a CMOM self- evaluation in anticipation of upcoming regulations Ongoing · Update the wastewater master plan and impact fee and rate analyses annually · Continue to expand GIS system to focus on using GIS as a reliability measurement tool 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 13 11/21/2002 2 Introduction Background 2.1.1 General The Public Utilities Engineering Department approved the engineering services contract on March 12, 2002 to prepare the 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update. The main goal of the master plan is to develop a County-wide plan that will guide implementation of the wastewater utility system for the next 20 years with a focus on reliability. There are several required improvements that must be comply with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Consent Order dated April 10, 2001. The recommendations included in this master plan update are consistent with those requirements. 2.1.2 201 Facilities Plan and Master Plan The initial 201 Facilities Plan was completed for Collier County in 1978. Updates to the initial facilities plan were completed as master palns for wastewater facilities in 1986, 1996, 1997 and 2001. A 20-year County-wide implementation plan was recommended in the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. 2.1.3 Post-2001 Wastewater Master Plan Actions The implementation plan in the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update included recommendations for improvements required by 2006 and by 2021. Recommended improvements included wastewater treatment, wastewater transmission and effluent disposal facilities. All of the major 2006 improvements identified in the 2001 Master Plan Update are being implemented by the County. In addition, a consent order issued by FDEP, dated April 10, 2001, also required the County to complete construction of a number of specific projects. The status of consent order projects is as follows: Consent Order Requirement Status as of October 2002 NCWRF expansion to 13.5 mgd (AADF) by December 1,2001. The liquid stream expansion of the NCWRF to 13.5 mgd (AADF) was completed in November 2001. The solids stream expansion of the NCWRF was substantially complete in August 2002. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 14 11/21/2002 Consent Order Requirement Status as of October 2002 Design of the 5-mgd AADF expansion of An additional 10 mgd (AADF) expansion of the NCWRF by January 1, 2005. (This was later revised to a 5-mgd (AADF) expansion by January 1, 2005. A second 5-mgd (AADF) expansion to be completed by January 1, 2010 was recommended in the 2001 master plan and approved by FDEP.) Reclaimed water interconnection between the north and south service areas by December 1, 2001. Flow equalization tank at the NCWRF by March 2003. Amended compliance date is October 2003. Request submitted to FDEP to extend to 2004. the NCWRF is complete. The County has interconnected the north and south reclaimed water systems. The flow equalization tank at the NCWRF is under construction. Construction contract completion date is February 2004. The County has met the FDEP consent order deadlines to date and is on schedule to meet the remaining deadlines. 2.2 Scope of Study 2.2.1 General The 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update is an update of the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. The three major goals of this master plan update are to: Confirm the strategic county-wide 20-year plan to guide implementation of a cost-effective, reliable, integrated wastewater system that was developed in the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. Also, the 2002 Master Plan provides guidelines for reliability enhancement. Provide documentation to support State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan applications to fund construction of proposed wastewater projects. Provide an updated Capital Improvement Program (CIP) schedule to support the wastewater rate and impact fee studies. 2.2.2 Planning Area The planning area and service areas are shown on Figure 2-1. These areas are generally the western one-quarter of Collier County, excluding Marco Island and the City of Naples. The planning area is bounded on the north by Lee County, on the west and south by the Gulf of Mexico and on the east by the boundary line shown on Figure 2-1. The 11/21/2002 2002 ww Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 15 ORANGE 'IREE GOLDI~I GA3~ ESTAIES L ........ PACY. A~. 3REA1MENT E3QS11NG COUNTY ~RF ~JOR114 COUNTY SOU1H COUNTY PEUCAN BAY Pt. N4*I~ SE]~ICE AREA e(XJNOARY PLANNING AREA ma ma -,,..~ I-- ! I NORTH ' SERVI~ AREA tj I i "! ~,-"'- SOUTH '. SERVICE ! I AREA L " "" ' ~ ~ " ! I I % % I I COLUE~R COUNTY GO~I~RNMENT 2002 WAS1EWATER MAS1ER PLAN UPOA3E WASTEWATER PLANNING AREA aNgEl. BY AND HANIIN OCTOOER 2002 F'IGURE 2-1 planning area includes the existing North and South County Services Areas and fringe areas east of the existing service areas. This includes certain areas outside the Water- Sewer District Boundary. It is planned that the Water-Sewer District boundary will be expanded in 2002 to include the Rural Fringe areas. 2.2.3 Scope of Services Initial planning services comprise collection and review of existing data, development of population and flow forecasts within the planning area and development of base maps. The update of the wastewater master plan comprises development of regional wastewater treatment plant capacities, an analysis of the transmission system, development of effluent management strategies and schedules and budgets for implementation of the recommended plan through 2022. Regional treatment plant capacity forecasts are based on: Projected wastewater flows and growth patterns. Effluent disposal and reuse issues. Economic analysis of operation, maintenance and capital costs. Site specific issues at existing plants. Fate of existing non-regional treatment plants. The evaluation of the wastewater transmission system, comprising transmission force mains and master pumping stations, includes updating the existing hydraulic model to include recently constructed facilities and input of flow forecasts to determine the required facilities and capacities. Development of effluent management strategies comprises recommendations for reuse, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) and deep well injection. Evaluations of effluent disposal include reclaimed water needs, reclaimed water transmission system, supplemental water issues, storage requirements, and disposal needs. Five-year and 20-year implementation plans and costs are included in the scope of services. The scope of services includes planning, engineering and construction components. Plan implementation is shown in five-year increments. 2.3 Other Reports Other reports that relate to this master plan update include: 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update, dated November 2001, Greeley and Hansen LLC Regional Irrigation Distribution System (RIDS) draft Technical Memoranda, various dates in 2001 and 2002, Boyle Engineering 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 16 Wastewater Resource Planning Report, dated September 2001, Camp, Dresser and McKee. Wastewater Master Plan Revision, dated June 2001, Camp, Dresser and McKee. Short-Term Sludge Management Study, dated January 2002, Hartman and Associates. NCWRF and SCWRF Capacity Analysis Reports, dated June 2002, Greeley and Hansen LLC 2001 Impact Fee Study, Public Resource Management Group. 2001 Water, Wastewater and Reuse Rate Study, Public Resource Management Group. Extended Area of Study for NCWRF Effluent Disposal (ongoing), Water Resource Solutions. Design Report for the North County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 5- mgd Expansion, January 1997, Hazen and Sawyer and Hole, Montes & Associates. South Collier County Regional Water Reclamation Facility Expansion to 16 mgd - Design Report, June 2001, Hole Montes, Inc. 2002 Water Master Plan Update (ongoing), Greeley and Hansen LLC. Rural Fringe Area Assessment Strategies, June 2001, RWA, Inc. 2001 Demographic and Economic Profile, April 2001, Collier County. Results of these studies are incorporated with this master plan update. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 17 11/21/2002 3 Wastewater Service Areas 3.1 Existing Service Area The existing wastewater service area is shown on Figure 3-1 and is comprised of the North County Service Area and South County Service Area. Wastewater flows in the North Service Area have been treated at the NCWRF. During the tourist season, some flows in the North Service Area are treated at the Pelican Bay WRF. Wastewater flows in the South Service Area are treated at the SCWRF. The service area boundaries have not changed since the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. The North Service Area is approximately 78 square miles. This area is bounded on the north by Lee County, on the south by Golden Gate Parkway, on the on the west by the City of Naples Service Area and the Gulf of Mexico, and on the east by the Urban Planning Boundary. The boundary of the South Service Area has a practical limit in the southern area, which is bounded by conservation areas. The South Service Area within the practical limit shown on Figure 3-1 is approximately 58 square miles. This area is bounded on the north by Golden Gate Parkway, on the south by the Marco Island Service Area and conservation areas, on the west by the City of Naples Service Area, and on the east by the Urban Planning Boundary. 3.2 Proposed Land Use Changes The State of Florida imposed a Final Order to Collier County in 1999, which mandates revisions to the County's Growth Management Plan. The Final Order allows the County to conduct a Rural and Agricultural Assessment (Assessment). It is anticipated that the amendment to the Growth Management Plan will be completed for Board adoption in 2002. The Assessment consists of two geographic areas, comprising the Rural Fringe Area and Eastern Lands Area. Four areas within the Rural Fringe Area have been identified for potential future development. These areas are shown on Figure 3-1 as the Northeast (formerly Areas A and B), East-Central (formerly Area C), and Southeast (formerly Area D). Guidelines for future development in these areas are currently being prepared for inclusion in the amendment to the Growth Management Plan. 3.3 Proposed Future Service Area For purposes of this master plan report, it is assumed that the four areas under consideration for development in the Rural Fringe Areas could potentially become part of the wastewater service area for Collier County. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 18 I I I I NORTH S RV, AREA SER~C~ ~ BAY O~ ~T ~ND~Y ~T ~ ~*~F.~- - SOUTH i SERV CE I ~ , AREA i I i ' i /-PROPOSED RURAL i / FRINGE AREA ....... · ~ ' / BOUN, D,&RY (TYP) ~ '3: '" - , ~,, i ..... I ,,i ~2~ . SEWER SERVICE AREAS I I)MIIblY AND I,IANIIN ,.,.o 4 Existing Facilities 4.1 General Wastewater service in the North and South Service Areas is provided by a network of pumping stations, transmission pipelines, and water reclamation facilities. Figure 4-1 shows the North Service Area. The NCWRF receives most of the flow from the North Service Area. The PBWRF has been operated only during tourist season, when wastewater flows are at their highest. Many pumping stations are located throughout the service area. Several are master lift stations, receiving flows from smaller, upstream stations. Many parts of the system are manifolded, in that several pumping stations feed into a common force main. There are a total of 345 lift stations serving the North Service Area. Figure 4-2 shows the South Service Area. All wastewater in the South Service Area is treated at the SCWRF. All wastewater is pumped to the SCWRF from master lift stations. There are a total of 290 lift stations that serve the South Service Area. This section summarizes the County infrastructure and operations for wastewater transmission and treatment. 4.2 North County Water Reclamation Facility Wastewater treatment in the North County Service Area is provided by the NCWRF, located on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road just south of Immokalee Road. The plant, in general, is an advanced secondary facility that produces effluent consistent with requirements for reclaimed water. Irrigation by reclaimed water is the primary means of effluent disposal. The present capacity of the NCWRF is 13.5 mgd annual average daily flow (AADF). The annual average daily flow is the total annual wastewater flow divided by 365 days. The plant is subject to much higher flows on a seasonal basis. Maximum month daily flows historically have been about 30 percent higher than the annual average daily flow. The maximum month daily flow is the highest total monthly wastewater flow for a given year divided by the number of days in that month. The FDEP has advised that future permitted flows will be based on maximum month conditions. On this basis, the maximum month daily flow (MMDF) is 17.55 mgd (AADF x 1.3). The peak hourly design flow for the NCWRF is 27.0 mgd, based on a peaking factor of 2.0. The April 10, 2001 Consent Order required that the County provide a 10-mgd AADF expansion of the plant by January 1, 2005, making the total plant capacity 23.5 mgd AADF and 30.6 mgd MMDF. Subsequent to preparation of the 2001 Wastewater Master 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 19 11/21/2002 C:: Z O j~ ¢~/~' Jj~jJ I l'lJlJ l I JjJ'l J J JJ IJ J lJ JlJ J lJ'i~'' C~ Z -r~ Z 0 Z mi [] Z I' I" 1:1 I I I Plan Update, FDEP agreed to revise the plant expansion requirements to a 5-mgd AADF expansion of the plant by January 1, 2005 and a second 5-mgd AADF expansion to be completed by January 1, 2010. Thus, the plant will have MMDF capacities of 24.1 mgd MMDF by 2005 and 30.6 mgd MMDF by 2010. The design of the first 5-mgd AADF plant expansion is complete. It was recommended in the 2001 Master Plan Update that the expansion to 30.6-mgd MMDF be the final expansion of this plant. In addition to the plant expansion project, the County is pursuing an additional project at the NCWRF to increase plant reliability to handle higher peak hourly flows. Two 1.5 million-gallon equalization tanks are being constructed that will be sufficient for the expansion of the plant to 30.6 mgd. The design characteristics of the influent wastewater being used in the design of the expansion to 24.1 mgd MMDF are as follows: Influent Wastewater Quality Parameter Design Concentration, mg/L BOD5 u~ 280 Total Suspended Solids 350 Total Nitrogen 50 (1) BOD5 = Five-day Biological Oxygen Demand The permit at the NCWRF limits the effluent disposal from the plant to two options, irrigation and deep well injection at the North WTP. Limitations on effluent water quality from the NCWRF is as follows: Effluent Limitations mg/L Parameter Irrigation Deep Well Injection BOD5 20 20 Total Suspended Solids 5 20 Nitrate 12 No Limit Total Phosphorus No Limit No Limit Fecal Coliform None Detected 200/100 ml pH 6.0-8.5 6.0-8.5 The NCWRF has several ponds located on site to assist with effluent handling. The ponds, use, and capacities are as follows: Effluent Storage Ponds Pond No. Function Lined/Unlined Volume, MG 1 Reject Lined 2.5 lA Reject Unlined 5.6 2 Reclaimed Unlined 10.1 3 Reclaimed Lined 8.5 2002 ww Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 20 11/21/2002 Pond No. Function Lined/Unlined Volume, MG 4 Reject Unlined 5.4 5 Reclaimed Lined 5.5 Thus, the plant has 13.5 MG of reject water storage and 24.1 MG of reclaimed water storage. No additional ponds for storage or modifications to the existing ponds are recommended, since the County will be adding deep injection wells at the plant and since reclaimed water ASR storage will be available within the next five years. Biosolids are currently dewatered and trucked out of the County for disposal at a landfill. During 2001 and 2002, the County has also been transporting a portion of the biosolids to a private composting facility east of Immokalee. The composting program is experimental. In May 2002, the County issued a Request for Proposals to select a firm to design, permit, build, own, operate and finance a biosolids processing facility for all biosolids generated by the County. The County is currently reviewing and evaluating proposals from three vendors. It is anticipated that a vendor will be selected in 2003. Since the biosolids produced are not stablilized, it is recommended that the contract with the vendor include requirements that the vendor be able to receive biosolids any time that the County provides them or that a schedule with the vendor be established such that the biosolids production and the vendor operation schedules are synchronized and biosolids are not stored at the water reclamation facility. This also applies to the SCWRF. Biosolids at the NCWRF are dewatered using belt filter presses. The Sludge Dewatering Building has been expanded as part of the modifications to increase plant capacity to 17.55 mgd MMDF. The Sludge Dewatering Building is adequate for the ultimate plant capacity of 30.6 mgd MMDF. A sixth belt filter press will be required for the ultimate plant capacity. 4.3 Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility The Pelican Bay Water Reclamation Facility (PBWRF) has served only the Pelican Bay area of the North Service Area. The plant has a capacity of 1.0 mgd AADF. The process used is extended aeration and the reclaimed water produced has been used locally for irrigation. The County has operated the PBWRF only on a seasonal basis during times of the year when tourists are present. During other times flow has been diverted from this plant to the NCWRF. It is planned to remove this plant from service by 2005. The County has a permit to operate the PBWRF through 2005. It is recommended that as soon as the second expansion of the NCWRF is complete, the PBWRF be decommissioned and the permit allowed to expire. By not operating the plant, the County will free up resources that could be used elsewhere. A decommissioning study is also recommended in 2003 to determine the best use of the facilities at the PBWRF. The study would determine uses the County may make for existing equipment, permitting issues regarding future use of the site, determination of facilities to be demolished, whether there are facilities that could be sold or auctioned, and other similar matters. 2002 ww Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 21 11/21/2002 Additional reclaimed water storage may be one of the uses available for the tanks at the plant. 4.4 South County Water Reclamation Facility Wastewater treatment in the South County Service Area is served by the SCWRF. The plant in general is an advanced secondary facility that produces effluent consistent with requirements for reclaimed water. Irrigation by reclaimed water is the primary means of effluent disposal. The present permitted capacity of the SCWRF is 8.0 mgd AADF and 9.2 mgd MMDF. The FDEP has advised that future permitted flows will be based on maximum month conditions. A plant expansion is now underway that will increase the capacity of the plant to 16.0 mgd MMDF as the permitted capacity. The 16.0 mgd MMDF capacity will mean that it will be capable of handling 12.3 mgd of Collier County's annual average daily flows (16.0 / 1.3). The plant will need to be capable of producing effluent of reclaimed water quality during conditions associated with the maximum month. The design peak hourly design flow for the expanded plant will be 34.0 mgd, a peaking factor of 2.83. A second reclaimed water tank is planned for the expanded plant. A report prepared by Hole Montes, Inc. entitled "Expansion to 16 MGD - Design Report" (June 2001) states that the 16-mgd MMDF capacity is the build-out capacity of the plant site. Thus, the current expansion construction will take the plant to its design maximum. This same report concludes that there is significant infiltration and inflow (I/I) in areas of the South Service Area and recommends an I/I analysis be conducted. The County has an ongoing I/I program in the South Service Area. The South County I/I analysis will be undertaken in 2003. The design characteristics of the influent wastewater used in the design of the 16.0-mgd MMDF facility were as follows: Influent Wastewater Quality at MMDF Conditions Parameter Design Concentration, mg/L BOD5 350 Total Suspended Solids 360 Total Nitrogen 50 The permit at the SCWRF limits the effluent disposal from the plant to two options, irrigation and deep well injection at the plant site. Limitations on effluent water quality from the SCWRF is as follows: 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 22 11/21/2002 Effluent Limitations mg/L Parameter Irrigation Deep Well Injection BODs 30 20 Total Suspended Solids 5 20 Turbidity 2.5 NTU No Limit Nitrate No Limit No Limit Total Phosphorus No Limit No Limit PH 6.0 to 8.5 6.0 to 8.5 Fecal Coliform None Detected 200/100 ml The SCWRF has a deep injection well on site with a capacity of 18.1 mgd on a maximum daily rate. There is also an on-site reclaimed water storage tank with a volume of 6.6 million gallons. The plant also has an on-site reclaimed water storage and percolation pond with a volume of 4.4 million gallons. The County owns several ponds away from the plant site with a total volume of 101.4 million gallons. The SCWRF has a 330,000-gallon waste activated sludge holding tank and one additional tank of equal volume is under design. Until recently the dewatered biosolids were landfilled at the Naples Landfill within the County. As described for the NCWRF, the biosolids from the SCWRF are now trucked out of the County for disposal at a landfill site or to the experimental composting site east of Immokalee. The Requests for Proposals recently issued by the County, described in the NCWRF section above, includes biosolids from the SCWRF. Biosolids are dewatered using belt filter presses. Additional biosolids dewatering equipment is being included as part of the modifications to increase plant capacity to 16.0 mgd MMDF. 4.5 Wastewater Collection and Transmission System There are approximately 345 wastewater pumping stations in the North Service Area, of which 80 pump directly to the NCWRF. The master pump stations and major transmission lines in the North Service Area are shown on Figure 4-1. The South Service Area includes approximately 290 wastewater pumping stations, of which 6 pump directly to the SCWRF and are considered master lift stations. The master lift stations and major transmission lines in the South Service Area are shown on Figure 4-2. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 23 11/21/2002 4.6 Effluent Disposal Facilities 4.6.1 North Service Area The North Service Area is served by the NCWRF, which, as stated in section 4.2, has a design capacity of 13.5 mgd AADF. During the tourist season, the PBWRF, with a capacity of 1.0 mgd, is also utilized. Figure 4-3 shows the extent of the existing reclaimed water system in the North Service Area. The primary method of effluent disposal from the two plants is distribution for irrigation. Both plants feed into a network of pipelines serving the County's reclaimed water customers. The existing reclaimed water pump station includes five pumps each having a design capacity of 3100 gpm at 208 feet of total dynamic head. The County currently has agreements to provide reclaimed water to 18 sites in the North Service Area. These locations are listed in Table 4-1. Of the customers currently receiving reclaimed water, four users have their own inline pumps to enhance system pressure. Pelican Bay relies on the County to provide adequate system pressure and has eight private pump stations drawing from storage. Currently, the Pelican Bay area must be pressurized at all times to provide fire service. The Pelican Bay customers are also unique in that they primarily use groundwater for irrigation from the Pelican Bay wellfield and use reclaimed water to supplement demands. During wet weather conditions, the demand for reclaimed water declines considerably. Storage is required to ensure there is adequate reclaimed water during periods of high demand as well as a means of holding the reclaimed until it can be used. The total storage available in the North County Service Area is approximately 43.9 MG, of which 19.8 MG is provided by customers. The NCWRF has a total storage capacity of 24.1 MG. However, 10.1 MG of this storage is provided in unlined ponds, which do not furnish effective dry season storage due to percolation. The PBWRF currently has a reclaimed water storage capacity of 3.5 MG. Currently there is a total of 18.1 MG of reclaimed water storage available in lined ponds or tanks in the North County. The storage in the North Service Area is detailed in Table 4-2. As previously discussed, no additional on-site storage ponds or modifications to the existing ponds are recommended, since deep injection wells are being added on-site by 2005 and reclaimed water ASR storage will be available within the next five years. If effluent from the NCWRF does not meet reclaimed water quality, means are available to use on-site percolation ponds and the deep injection wells at the North Water Treatment Plant. A recent study (Extended Area of Study for Evaluation of Alternative Sites for Disposal of Reject Reclaimed Water by Deep Well Injection, Water Resource Solutions, July 2001) concluded that two deep injection wells (DIW's) should be constructed on the site of the NCWRF. Each injection well will have a capacity of up to 18.6 mgd on a peak flow basis. The design of the DIW's is complete and will be available for use by 2005. In addition, the NCWRF has existing reject water storage ponds that have a volume of 13.5 mgd. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 24 11/21/2002 FILE: FIGURE¢-5 1:1 11/18/02 15:33 GH-E 7 T 49 S T 4.8 S 30 ~T IWL~: (C.R. ~01) TAIIN~ mVL CUJ. 4~) ~MIMI 11MIL (cJL 30 TABLE 4-1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNEMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE NORTH SERVICE AREA IRRIGABLE ACREAGE / POTENTIAL DEMAND Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 Customer Acres Potential Annual Average Demand~ (gpd) Aston 15 58,200 Audubon 203 787,500 Autumn Woods 60 232,700 Bay Colony (Pelican marsh)* 130 504,300 Bermuda Green 15 58,200 Calusa Bay 20 77,600 Charleston Square 15 58,200 Colliers Reserve 70 271,500 Imperial 260 1,008,600 Palm River 75 290,900 Pelican Bay** 674 2,614,500 Pelican Marsh District 340 1,318,900 Pelican marsh Golf Course* 280 1,086,200 St. Croix 15 58,200 Tract 21'** 95 368,500 Veteran's park 10 38,800 Vineyards Golf Course 285 1,105,600 Vineyards Residential 393 1,524,500 TOTALS 2,955 11,463,000 ~ Based on 1.0 - inches/week acre irrigation rate *Customers currently using groundwater as primary source and reclaimed water only as back-up ** Includes Beachwalk *** Customer has agreement with the County but has not commenced receiving reclaimed water Source: Camp Dresser & McKee TABLE 4-2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE NORTH SERVICE AREA RECLAIMED WATER USERS DATA Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 Customer Type Storage Pumping System Type MG Aston Residential Not Online Audobon Golf/Residential Unlined Pond 2.1 Private Pump Station Autumn Woods Residential Lined Pond 0.5 Private Pump Station Bermuda Green Residential Private Pump Station Calusa Bay Residential Inline Booster Charleston Square Residential Inline Booster Colliers Reserve 'Golf Unlined Pond 7.8 Private Pump Station Imperial Golf Unlined Pond 1.5 Private Pump Station Palm River Golf Lined Pond 0.7 Private Pump Station =Pelican Bay Golf/Residential Unlined Pond 4.4 System Pressure Pelican Bay Park Park System Pressure Pelican Marsh Lined Pond 2.8 Private Pump Station Pelican Marsh District Residential Pelican Marsh Golf District Golf Bay Colony Golf St. Croix Residential Not Online Veteran's Park Park Private Inline Booster Vineyards Park Park Private Pump Station Vineyards Utility Vineyards Residential Residential Private Inline Booster ~ Course __Golf ~ 2 Private Pump Stations TOTAL STORAGE 19.8 MG Source: Camp Dresser & McKee Reclaimed Water Tables.xls 11/21/02 4.6.2 South Service Area The SCWRF has a design capacity of 8.0 mgd AADF and a total storage capacity of 105 MG available in one onsite and three offsite unlined storage ponds. However, this storage is not readily available to meet peak seasonal reclaimed water demands. Lining of these ponds is not recommended, since ASR storage will be provided and the North Service Area and South Service Area reclaimed water systems are now interconnected. The reclaimed water pumping station includes four pumps, each with a design capacity of 4500 gpm at 1140 feet total dynamic head. Figure 4-4 shows the reclaimed water system serving the South Service Area. The SCWRF currently serves 11 customers, which are listed in Table 4-3. Eight of the users have onsite storage providing 7.88 MG of additional storage. Including this storage the total volume of available storage in the South County Service are is approximately 120 MG. Table 4-4 shows the storage available at customer sites. The SCWRF has one DIW with a permitted capacity of 18 mgd, which serves as a method of disposing of excess reclaimed water during wet weather conditions. An additional DIW is being added with the plant expansion. A second DIW has been designed and permitted and will be on-line by October 2004. 4.6.3 Reclaimed Water Irrigation System The existing reclaimed water irrigation systems described above serve 29 sites (18 in the North Service Area and 11 in the South Service Area). The County currently has a waiting list of 89 potential users that have requested reclaimed water for irrigation. The 2001 Demographic and Economic Profile (Collier County, April 2001) shows that there are several golf courses planned for the County, totaling 342 golf holes. This is a 30 percent increase over existing golfing capacity. Golf courses could continue to be a significant user of future reclaimed water. Table 4-5 shows a list of existing and planned golf courses in Collier County. These golf courses are also identified on Figures 4-3 and 4-4, where they lie within the area shown. A study was recently prepared regarding the County's reclaimed water future. The Wastewater Resource Planning Report (Camp, Dresser & McKee, Final Draft, September 2001) compares alternatives for use of reclaimed water. The plan adopted as a result of this study is that the County will supplement the reclaimed water system with non-potable water sources to expand irrigation capabilities and the number of irrigation customers. This is consistent with the recommendations included in the ongoing Regional Irrigation Distribution System (RIDS) study. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 25 11/21/2002 TABLE 4-3 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNEMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE SOUTH SERVICE AREA IRRIGABLE ACREAGE/POTENTIAL DEMAND Greeley and Hansen LLc October 2002 Potential Annual Average Customer Acres Demand~ (gpd) Countryside/PCP Venture 70 271,500 Foxfire Community Association of Collier Co., Inc. 228 884,400 Glades Country Club Apartments Association, Inc. 198 768,100 Hibiscus Golf Club 144 558,600 Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. 195 756,400 Lakewood Country Club Of Naples, Inc. 45 174,600 Lely Development District (Golf Course) 289 1,121,100 Lely Community Development District 230 892,200 Riviera Golf Club of Naples, Ltd. 70 271,500 Royal Palm Country Club 83 322,000 Windstar 150 581,900 TOTALS 1,702 6,602,000 Based on 1.0 - inches/week acre irrigation rate Source: Camp Dresser & McKee TABLE 4-4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNEMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE SOUTH SERVICE AREA RECLAIMED WATER USERS DATA Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 Customer Type Storage Pumping System Type MG Countryside/PCP Venture Golf Covered Tank 0.92 Private Pump Station Foxfire Community Association of Collier Co., Inc. Golf/Residential Covered Tank 1.1 Private Pump Station 'Glades Country Club Apartments Association, Inc. Golf/Residential Covered Tank 2.0 System Pressure Hibiscus Golf Club Golf Unlined Pond 0.6 Private Pump Station Lakewood Community Services Association, Inc. Residential ** System Pressure Lakewood Country Club Of Naples, Inc. Golf ~** System Pressure Lely Development District (Golf Course) Golf Lined Pond 1.0 Private Pump Station Lei,/Community Development District Residential Private Pump Station Riviera Golf Club of Naples, Ltd. Golf Lined Pond 0.1 Private Pump Station Royal Palm Country Club Golf Covered Tank 1.36 System Pressure* Windstar Golf Lined Pond 0.8 Private Pump Station TOTAL STORAGE 7.88 ~IG * Designated storage tank and pump at plant for Royal Palm ** Using Glades covered tank Source: Camp Dresser & McKee Reclaimed Water Tables.xls 11/21/02 0 0 u Z o Z o u Z Z < u ~q <~. FILE: FIGURE4-4 1:1 11/14/02 llig~ I-q C U') m Figure 4-5 shows all of the existing reclaimed water system and also shows the approximate area of limited water resources due to the potential for saltwater intrusion. Irrigation in these areas may be limited by the difficulty in obtaining a consumptive use permit for groundwater withdrawals. These areas have a higher potential for high total dissolved solids, which results in poor quality irrigation water. These areas should be given higher priority for reclaimed water irrigation service where determined to be feasible, since them are fewer irrigation options available. Also, any customer who now uses potable water for irrigation, or other uses, where reclaimed water could now be substituted should be given higher priority than those that do not use potable water now. 4. 7 Biosolids Handling 4.7.1 General Biosolids Considerations Biosolids (or sludge) is the residual product remaining from the treatment of wastewater. The solids consist of various inert components and of biological solids created during the activated sludge process. Biosolids can be treated in a variety of ways that affect the manner in which the material can be used or disposed. Biosolids are removed from the wastewater in liquid form as waste activated sludge (WAS). Typically, the WAS is less than one percent solids and is handled as a liquid. The consistency of this material is similar to water. 4.7.2 Regulations Affecting Biosolids Management Biosolids are regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under a variety of regulations, including 40 CFR Part 503. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulations affecting biosolids management include F.A.C Chapter 62-640. The FDEP regulations, for the most part, follow the USEPA regulations. Treated biosolids are classified in Florida as Class A, AA, and B. Class A and AA biosolids meet the highest level of pathogen reduction and have metal concentrations less than those shown in Table 4-6. Class AA is the highest quality and is required to have lower metals concentrations than Class A biosolids. Class B biosolids must meet less restrictive pathogen reduction criteria and have metal concentrations less than those shown in Table 4-6. Table 4-6 also shows that Collier County biosolids could meet Class AA criteria, the highest standard, if a process were employed that could meet Class A/AA requirements for pathogens reduction and vector (insect and rodent) attraction. The limits on metals shown are applied to the product. Some products have the advantage that metal concentrations are diluted by additives such as lime or wood chips during processing. Where several plants are producing the biosolids, the concentration limits can apply to a blended product. A plan for effective blending would need to be established as part of the permitting requirements. 2002 WW Master Plan Repo~_Final Draft.doc 26 11/21/2002 :ILE; FIGURE4-5 1:1 09/05/02 14:3B GH-L 0 0 i..1-.i U") 0 CZ ::::O C) NORTH SERVICE AREA SOUTH SERVICE AREA Z 0 .11 Z [] Z TABLE 4-6 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Classification of Biosolids Based on Metal Concentrations Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 Metal Concentrations (mg/kg dry solids) Class/Upper Limit Parameter A AA B County Average~ Arsenic 75 41 75 1.6 Cadmium 85 39 85 2.4 Copper 4,300 1,500 4,300 238 Lead 840 300 840 11 Mercury 57 17 57 0.4 Molybdenum 75 75 75 12 Nickel 420 420 420 7.6 Selenium 100 100 100 2.8 Zinc 7,500 2,800 7,500 247 1. Based on analyses of biosolids from the NCWRF and SCWRF from 10/16/00 to 4/16/01. Table 4-7 summarizes the requirements and restrictions on biosolids application to agricultural lands in Florida. Class AA has the least site restrictions and lowest record keeping requirements. No treatment of biosolids is currently employed at any plant operated by Collier County. 4.7.3 Current Biosolids Handling Practices Biosolids from the NCWRF and SCWRF are handled similarly. For several years, biosolids from both plants were dewatered and hauled by truck to the Naples Landfill for disposal. Facilities are not available at either the NCWRF or SCWRF for the treatment of biosolids to minimum Class B standards for land application. Without attaining Class A or B quality, the only biosolids disposal methods available are landfilling or incineration. Incineration requires a large outlay of capital, is expensive to operate, and requires extensive permitting for air emissions and, thus, was not seriously considered for biosolids management. Biosolids disposal at the landfill appeared to have caused odor problems. The result was that the County found an alternative to local landfilling and currently hauls dewatered biosolids to the Okeechobee landfill for disposal. In 2001 and 2002, the County has also experimented with a pilot composting project at a site east of Immokalee. Composting of County biosolids and horticultural waste was conducted by a private company. Reports are that the resulting product was of good quality and acceptable to local farmers. In January 2002, Hartman and Associates completed the Short Term Residuals Management Plan, which is a study of short-term biosolids alternatives for the County. The goal of this study was to evaluate alternatives for biosolids disposal over the next five years. The recommendation of that study was to continue to pilot test the composting operation with the private partner and to pilot test a proprietary alkaline stabilization process called "Bioset". The County has continued the composting pilot testing east of Immokalee with a portion of the biosolids generated. A pilot test of the Bioset process has not been initiated. On May 10, 2002, the County issued a request for proposals (RFP) titled, "Commercial Source Separated Organic Waste and Biosolids Processing and Beneficial Use". In the RFP, prospective proposers were requested to submit proposals to handle the County's biosolids at least 25,000 tons per year (tpy) and at least 5,000 tpy of organic waste. Organic waste is defined under this RFP as largely food wastes from restaurants. Proposals were received on August 26, 2002, to select a firm that will design, build, own, operate, and finance a processing facility for the combined wastes. The selection process is ongoing. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 27 TABLE 4-7 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN Florida Restrictions on Agricultural Land Application of Biosolids Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 Class Technologies Site Restrictions Record Keeping A Alkaline Processes 1. Can be used on public access 1. Analyze for pathogen and vector Composting areas, attraction. Heat Drying 2. No restrictions on harvesting of food 2. Analyze for nutrients and metals. Thermophilic Digestion or other crops. 3. Agricultural Use Plan for 3. Apply at less than agrinomic rates, disposal site. 4. Application zones and rates. 5. Annual summary at application site. B Alkaline Processes 1. Can be used on public access 1. Analyze for pathogen and Composting areas, vector attraction. Heat Drying 2. No restrictions on harvesting of food 2. Analyze for nutrients and metals. Thermophilic Digestion or other crops. 3. Agricultural Use Plan for 3. Apply at less than agrinomic rotes, disposal site. Aerobic Digestion Anaerobic Digestion Lime Stabilization 1. Plant nurseries - no plants sold within 12 mos. of application. 2. Roads - restricted public access only. 3. Food crops that touch soil - harvest only after 14 mos. After application. 4. 'Food crops below surface - harvest only after 20 - 38 mos. After application, 5. Food crops (general) - Harvest only after 30 days after application. 6. Grazing - No animal grazing within 30 days of application. 7. Sod - harvest only after 12 mos. After application. 8, No use on public access areas. 9, Apply at less than agrinomic rotes. 1. Analyze for pathogen and vector attraction. 2. Analyze for nutrients and metals. 3. Agricultural Use Plan for disposal site. 4. Application zones and rates. 5. Annual summary at application site. Hartman and Associates reviewed the operating data for the two existing County plants (excluding the Pelican Bay WRF) and determined the average biosolids production in 2000 was as follows: 2000 Biosolids Production Plant Percent Solids of Unit Biosolids Dewatered Production Biosolids (wet tons/day/mgd) NCWRF 16% 3.71 SCWRF 16% 4.62 The above information is used in Section 7 to estimate the quantity of biosolids generated. 2002 ww Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 28 11/21/2002 5 Population and Flow Projections 5. l Earlier Population and Flow Projections Population projections in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update were based on the 1990 Census with projection data provided by the County's Comprehensive Planning Section. Projections were developed using data from Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's) and Planning Communities. The County is comprised of 12 Planning Communities and 289 TAZ's. Population per dwelling unit (ppdu) factors were developed for each TAZ within the North and South Service Areas, which were multiplied by the total number of dwelling units within each Planning Community. Projections were made using the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) data and build-out data developed by the County. The per capita wastewater flows (Level of Service Standards, or LOSS) established in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update were 145 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) AADF in the North Service Area and 120 gcpd AADF in the South Service Area. Data provided in the Wastewater Master Plan Revision, June 2001, supported the per capita flows in both service areas. Populations, total wastewater flows and per capita flows as reported in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update and the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Revision are summarized in the tables below: North Service Area Year Resident Annual Average Per Capita AADF Population in the Flow to the NCWRF (gpcd) Sewered Area (mgd) 1991 29,109 3.08 106 1992 31,926 3.48 109 1993 34,441 4.34 126 1994 36,995 4.93 133 1995 39,826 6.01 151 1996 43,043 6.40 149 1997 46,779 6.24 133 1998 51,369 7.10 138 1999 55,525 7.80 140 2000 61,964 8.43 136 2001 67,222 8.33 124 Average 131 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 29 11/21/2002 South Service Area Year Resident Annual Average Per Capita AADF Population in the Flow to the (gpcd) Sewered Area SCWRF (mgd) 1991 39,075 3.62 93 1992 40,392 3.27 81 1993 41,625 3.81 92 1994 42,659 3.38 79 1995 43,826 3.24 74 1996 45,645 3.59 79 1997 48,033 5.25 109 1998 50,312 5.32 106 1999 52,884 6.58 124 2000 64,829 6.43 99 2001 69,652 7.00 100 Average 94 Per capita flows are significantly higher in the North Service Area. This is likely attributable to the higher itinerant population in the North Service Area and greater numbers of hotels, condominiums and restaurants as compared to the South Service Area. South Service Area per capita wastewater flows are lower than in the North Service Area, but in the range of typical per capita flows for other counties and cities in southwest Florida. 5.2 2000 Census Information and Estimated 2001 Populations The 2000 Census Bureau county-wide data were released in May 2001. The reported county-wide permanent population for 2000 was 251,377, which includes areas outside the planning and service areas. It is important to note that US Census Bureau estimates are essentially as of April 1 for each census year. The 1990 Census county-wide permanent population was 152,099. There was an increase in population of about 65 percent from 1990 to 2000. The Census Bureau also released 2000 Collier County population data by Census Tract and Census Block. Census Blocks are the smallest unit areas of populations provided by the Census Bureau. Collier County also experiences relatively high seasonal increases in population. The County Comprehensive Planning Section has established a factor of 1.33 to account for the expected increase in County population during fall and winter seasons. County wastewater infrastructure must be sized in ways that will account for these seasonal conditions. TAZ boundaries, as recognized by the Census Bureau, were changed prior to the 2000 Census. The current TAZ boundaries are, therefore, different than those currently being used by the County's Comprehensive Planning Section. In addition, the Planning Section 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 11/21/2002 30 has not yet developed the 2000 Census-based ppdu data by TAZ as was used for the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update. To develop 2000 populations in the planning area, Census Block population data were disaggregated by TAZ, using the new TAZ boundaries. The TAZ boundary map and 2000 populations by TAZ for the North and South Service Areas are shown on Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1, respectively. Note that Table 5-1 is reporting the US Census populations by TAZ for April 1, 2000. Maps to show the areas in the North and South Service Areas that currently have sewer service were provided by the County. The areas that currently have County sewer service are shown on Figure 3-1. The 2000 sewered populations for the North and South Service Areas were 58,424 and 61,390, respectively, for April 1, 2000. The County Comprehensive Planning Section (CCPS) released updated population forecasts for the North and South Service Area sewered population in August 2002. These estimates have as their bases the population estimates prepared by Greeley and Hansen LLC as part of the development of the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. The (CCPS) started with the April 1, 2000 estimates for the North and South Service Area reported above and adjusted them to October 1, 2000 using Certificate of Occupancy information. Thus, the (CCPS) estimates of the 2000 (October 1) permanent sewered populations are 61,365 and 64,310, respectively for the North and South Service Areas. In 2002, the BEBR released a bulletin titled "Florida Estimates of Population 2001". In this bulletin, the April 1, 2001 population estimate for Collier County is reported as 264,475. This is an increase of 13,098 from the April 1, 2000 Census population. The increase in population of unincorporated Collier County (not including Everglades City, Marco Island and Naples) was also reported by BEBR to be 12,191. The BEBR estimation methodology is based on the changes in occupied housing units. The increase in population projected in the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan was 11,573 within the study area from 2000 to 2001. Since the BEBR also includes all areas of the County outside the study area, including Immokalee, the population projections in the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update appear to be valid. 5.3 Population Projections 5.3.'1 General Sources of information utilized to develop population projections comprised historical population growth, BEBR and CCPS forecasts, historical construction permit data and build-out population data prepared by CCPS. October 1 adjustments are made to the Census data and to all forecasts to have a consistent frame of reference with CCPS forecasts of sewer district populations. Since preparation of the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update, BEBR issued updated population forecasts for Collier County. The most recent BEBR high and average 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 31 11/21/2002 i 53 11 SERVICE 19:3 194 195 161 140 S SERVICE 13E' ! 197 WASTEWATER WITH TRAFFIC PLANNING ANALYSIS AREA ZONES TABLE 5-1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE NORTH WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) 2000 POPULATIONS Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 TAZ 2000 CENSUS No. DATA I 668 2 1,115 3 1,153 4 825 5 423 6 353 7 44 8 1,129 10 406 11 85 12 0 13 785 14 680 15 1,976 16 536 17 2,184 19 446 20 5 21 7 22 360 23 I17 24 815 25 336 26 527 27 223 28 3,127 29 647 30 1,534. 31 126 32 70 33 1,220 34 5,533 35 31 36 1,387 37 1,252 TAZ 2000 CENSUS No. DATA 38 865 39 101 41 297 42 168 43 604 44 1,661 45 392 46 1,705 47 562 48 4 50 938 51 0 52 238' 53 4,444 56 2913 57 940 58 1043 59 715 63 1242 65 2,101 66 2927 68 1595 77 745 78 12 87 988 88 367 95 476 106 219 105 180 0 181 37 CO's 2000 0 North Sewered Population 58,424 Total North Service Area Population 92,642 Note: All populations shown are based on April !, 2000. PopCharts WW Final_2OO2.xls 1 of 2 TABLE 5-1 (Cont.) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE SOUTH WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE (TAZ) 2000 POPULATIONS Greeley and Hansen LLC September 2002 TAZ 2000 CENSUS No. DATA 112 1,626 115 0 116 2,199 117 2,951 118 718 119 293 120 840 121 61 122 168 124 0 126 916 127 1,329 128 !,443 129 894 130 2,261 131 103 135 1,443 136 4,537 137 2,349 138 792 139 35 140 677 143 1904 144 4637 145 2,278 146 1,675 147 1,957 TAZ 2000 CENSUS No. DATA 148 276 150 782 151 3,520 152 5,186 153 818 154 364 155 581 157 474 158 901 159 ! ,671 160 290 161 0 162 1,312 163 1,596 164 120 166 23 167 162 187 1626 188 292 189 0 190 3,309 CO's 2000 0 South Sewered Population 61,390 Total South Servmce Area Population 64,129 Total North and South Sewered 119,814 Population Total North and South Service Area Population 156,771 PopCharts WW Final_2OO2.xls 2 of 2 population projections are significantly lower than those prepared by BEBR last year. This has the effect of reducing buildout population projections within the study area by about fifteen percent. County-wide population growth and the various BEBR forecast growth rates are shown on Figure 5-2. Four different growth scenario forecasts are developed by BEBR, consisting of the medium, high, average and 5-year floating. The BEBR medium · population forecast curve corresponds to the county-wide historical (1990-2000) growth extended. The BEBR average population growth curve is, by definition, the average of the BEBR high and medium curves. The BEBR 5-year floating curve follows the BEBR high curve for the first five years and follows the slope of the BEBR medium curve thereafter. The BEBR forecasts population growth to 2030. The resulting 2022 (the end of the 20-year planning period) and 2030 county-wide populations for the various BEBR curves are summarized below: 2000 BEBR County-Wide October 1 Permanent Population Forecasts Year BEBR Medium BEBR High BEBR Average BEBR 5-Year Floating 2022 476,000 584,000 530,000 492,000 2030 562,000 735,000 648,000 578,000 By comparison, the 1997 Collier County Urban Buildout Study, prepared by the County Comprehensive Planning Section, estimates a buildout permanent population of 465,645. All of the BEBR county-wide population projections exceed the County's estimated buildout population by 2022. This is discussed further below as specific sewer service populations are developed. 5.3.2 Existing Service Areas The county-wide BEBR population forecast curves were also applied to the North and South Service Areas. The North Service Area historical (1990-2000) and BEBR forecast population curves are shown on Figure 5-3 for the area now sewered. Populations for areas not currently sewered, such as Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates within the service area, are not included. The South Service Area historical and BEBR forecast population curves are shown on Figure 5-4 for the area now sewered in the South. The historical rate of population growth from 1990 to 2000 projected to 2030 in the South Service Area is slightly higher than the BEBR medium curve. The historical rate of population growth from 1990 to 2000 projected to 2030 in the North Service Area closely follows the BEBR average population growth curve. Population growth from 1990 to 2000 in the North Service Area was significantly higher than both the growth in the South Service Area and county-wide growth. Data from construction permits in Collier County since January 1998 was also evaluated as a secondary method of estimated population growth. A typical one-month summary of the permit data is shown in Table 5-2. These data are for May 2001 and show the 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 32 Z © MOI~V~dOd Z Z .< Z © Z Z NIOI,LVqfldOd number of construction permits for water and sewer customers by water meter size. A %- inch water meter is required for a single-family residence, which is equivalent to one equivalent residential connection (ERC). Each ERC is assumed to include an average of 2.3 people. The number of ERC's (and population) is assigned to each permit based on the water meter size. For example, a permit requiring a 4-inch water meter is assigned 25 ERC's (57.5 people). The number of new permitted ERC's is a representative measure of population growth. The number of permitted ERC's was converted to population for each month, since January 1998 and the resulting population increases for the last 3 ½ years were used to forecast future population growth under this method. Using the total number of ERC' s to forecast growth results in a high rate of population increase, since not all of the new ERC's reflect permanent population residences. The total new permitted ERC's are more reflective of the high seasonal population. The ERC's shown in Table 5-2 represent the maximum number of ERC's for the various meter sizes. Two population growth forecast projections were developed using the permit data as shown on Figure 5-5. The "high permit" population growth curve was developed using the total permitted ERC's and maximum number of ERC's per meter size. The "low permit" curve was developed based on a reduced number of ERC's (32 percent less) reflective of a permanent population number and using the minimum number of ERC' s per meter size. The low and high permit population projection curves were superimposed on the BEBR population projection curves for the total wastewater service area, as shown on Figure 5-6. This figure represents population forecasts within the areas currently sewered only. The "high permit" population projections are close to the BEBR high population projection curve and the "low permit" population projections are between the BEBR medium and BEBR average population projections. Based on this analysis, and the fact that populations in Collier County have increased faster than previous projections have predicted, a range of population projections using the BEBR average and BEBR high curves is recommended. Population projections for the North and South Service Areas in 5-year increments based on the BEBR average projections are shown in Table 5-3. Population projections for the North and South Service Areas in 5-year increments based on the BEBR high projections are shown in Table 5-4. Note that the BEBR high projections result in populations in later years that exceed the estimated County buildout populations. The approach suggested for dealing with the high range estimates is discussed in Section 5.3.4. 5.3.3 Future Service Areas Future service areas include all of the area within the planning area not included in the existing service areas. These areas include the Orange Tree Area, the rural fringe area, the Golden Gate City service area and potentially other partially developed areas in Golden Gate Estates. The exact boundaries of the rural fringe areas have not yet been finalized and accepted and could vary from those shown on Figure 3-1. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 33 -- 0 0 0 I MOl&Vq~dOd Z Z .< Golden Gate City is almost at its buildout condition. The future population of Golden Gate City is assumed to remain about the same; however, only about one quarter to one third of Golden Gate City currently has sewers. An estimate of buildout population for the rural fringe area has been provided by the County's Comprehensive Planning Section. This population was disaggregated into buildout populations for the Northeast Area (formerly Areas A and B), the East Central Area (formerly Area B), and the Southeast Area (formerly Area D). Buildout populations for the Orange Tree area are based on buildout dwelling unit counts provided in the 2001 Orange Tree Master Plan and applying the population per dwelling unit (ppdu) of 2.6 as recommended by County Planning. The Golden Gate Estates area, outside of the existing service areas, is assumed to have an ultimate development of one unit per 2.25 acres based on existing zoning for this area. The resulting potential future populations in the future service areas are shown in Table 5-5. The populations shown in Table 5-5 represent what may be considered the highest population that could reasonably be assumed for these areas. Actual populations may be less, once zoning issues are addressed. Issues regarding development of the rural fringe are currently being proposed for these areas. The populations in Table 5-5 will be used as a conservative target high for the area for planning purposes. Planning wastewater treatment and transmission facilities for these populations will allow the County to meet any reasonable outcome for the rural fringe. 5.3.4 Total Potential Service Area Population Projections It is recommended that a range of estimates of future population be considered on which to base estimates of wastewater flow. It is not possible to estimate future populations with any great degree of accuracy given the number of variables involved, including land use trends, economics, and environmental factors. Table 5-6 shows the development of the Conservative Growth and Moderate Growth estimates of future population. The Conservative Growth scenario in the early years is based on the high BEBR estimates of population growth and CCPS estimates of the sewered population. However, as discussed above, it is not possible for the high BEBR growth trend to continue indefinitely, as area buildout populations would be exceeded. Thus, the Conservative Growth estimate assumes that the BEBR high estimate continues for 10 years and then reduces to the BEBR average by 2030. Forecast populations in the 2002 Master Plan are lower than those used in the 2001 Master Plan Update due to lower 2002 BEBR forecasts compared to 2001 BEBR forecasts. The procedure used as the bases for total areas populations is as follows: Conservative Growth Total Population Estimate 1. Sewered and Unsewered Areas in the North and South SA. Use the BEBR High estimate through 2010. Use the BEBR Average estimate for 2030. Assume a straight-line growth from 2010 through 2030. This approach allows the 2030 population to be about at the estimated buildout population. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 34 TABLE 5-5 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILTIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Rural Fringe Areas: Population and Wastewater Flow Projections Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 PERCENTAGE OF BUILDOUT WW FLOW TOTAL RURAL FRINGE POPULATION 6 (MGD)(4) RURAL FRINGE AREA RECEIVING LANDS NORTHEAST ~ 54 24,013 2.88 EAST CENTRAL 2 22 9,783 1.17 SOUTHEAST 3 24 10,673 1.28 Subtotal 100 44,469 5.34 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA BETWEEN ORANGE TREE AND 11,528 1.38 AREAC5 Total 55,997 6.72 Notes: 1. Formerly Area A + B in 2001 WW Master Plan 2. Formerly Area C in 2001 WW Master Plan 3. Formerly Area D in 2001 WW Master Plan 4. Wastewater flows calculated using 120 GPCD 5. Based on 0.44 DU per acre (1 DU per each 2.25 acres) 6. Buildout Population of 44,469 for Rural Fringe Area from Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section PopCharts W-W Final_2002.xls 1 of 1 TABLE 5-6 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Range of Wastewater Permanent Population Projections for October 1 Each Year Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 YEAR AREA 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 TOTAL POPULATIONS BY AREA Conservative Growth Estimate Sewered North 61,365 84,289 102,418 115,474 128,529 141,584 154,640 Unsewered North: Other 5,268' 7,238 8,792 9,913 11,034 12,154 13,275 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 9,913 10,182 10,451 10,72G 10,990 11,259 11,528 Golden Gate City 20,951 20,95 ! 20,951 20,95 20,951 20,951 20,951 Orange Tree 3,618 4,919 6,221 7,522 7,522 7,522 7,522 Sewered South 64,310 80,814 98,196 114,162 130,128 146,094 162,061 Unsewered South 2,893 3,974 4,828 5,444 6,059, 6,674 7,290 Rural Fringe Area: Northeast 0 0 4,803 9,605 14,408 19,210 24,013 East Central G 0 1,957 3,913 5,870 7,826 9,783 Southeast G 0 2,135 4,269 6,404 8,538 10,673 Total Conservative Growth Estimate 168,318 212,367 260,75~] 301,974 341,894 381,813 421,736 Moderate Growth Estimate Sewered North 61,365 75,111 89,286 104,198 119,968 136,23~3 154,640 'Unsewered North: Other 5,268 6,448~ 7,665 8,945 10,29§ 11,695 13,275 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 9,913 10,182 10,451 10,720 10,990' 11,259 11,528 Golden Gate City 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 Orange Tree 3,618 4,269 4,919 5,570 6,221 6,871 7,522 Sewered South 64,310 78,715 93,571 109,198 125,726 142,768 162,061 Unsewered South 2,893 3,541 4,209 4,912 5,656 6,422 7,290 Rural Fringe Area: Northeast 0 0 2,668 5,336 8,004 10,672 13,341 East Central 0 0 1,087 2,174 3,261 4,348 5,435 Southeast 0 0 1,186 2,372 3,558 4,744 5,929 Total Moderate Growth Estimate 168,318 199,217 235,993 274,376 314,634 355,960 401,972 11/21/029:39 PM FlowChartsl 113022.xls 2. Golden Gate Estates. Assume the ultimate population occurs in 2030 and straight-line growth from 2000 through 2030. 3. Orange Tree. Assume that the buildout estimate from Table 5-5 occurs in 2015. Assume straight-line growth from 2000 through 2015. 4. Rural Fringe. Assume that the buildout estimate from Table 5-5 occurs in 2030. Assume straight-line growth from 2006 through 2030. It is unlikely that significant growth could occur in the rural fringe areas for the next five years due to the time it would take to provide infrastructure to those areas. 5. Golden Gate City. Use the same population throughout, since the area is essentially at its ultimate population. Moderate Growth Total Population Estimate 1. Sewered and Unsewered Areas in the North and South SA. Use the BEBR Average estimate throughout. 2. Golden Gate Estates. Assume the ultimate population occurs in 2030 and straight-line growth from 2000 through 2030. 3. Orange Tree. Assume that the buildout estimate from Table 5-5 occurs in 2030. Assume straight-line growth from 2000 through 2030. 4. Rural Fringe. Assume that the buildout estimate from Table 5-5 occurs in 2050. Assume straight-line growth from 2006 through 2050. 5. Golden Gate City. Use the same population throughout, since the area is essentially at its ultimate population. The range of service area populations from Table 5-6 based on the above criteria are as follows: Estimated Total Sewered and Unsewered Populations Within the County Service Area (SA) Condition I 2000 I 2005 I 2010 I 2015 I 2020 I 2025 I 2030 Conservative Growth Within 164,000 207,000 246,000 277,000 308,000 339,000 370,000 Existing SA Future 4,000 5,000 15,000 25,000 34,000 43,000 52,000 Extension of SA Total 168,000 212,000 26!,000 302,000 342,000 382,000 422,000 Conservative Growth Moderate Growth Within 164,000 195,000 226,000 259,000 294,000 329,000 370,000 Existing SA Future 4,000 4,000 10,000 15,000 21,000 27,000 32,000 Extension of SA Total 168,000 199,000 236,000 274,000 315,000 356,000 402,000 Moderate Growth 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 35 11/21/2002 This represents the projected total populations within the service areas, without regard to sewer service. Several areas could remain on septic tank service or remain customers of private utility operators. These estimates of population are used in Section 7 to develop wastewater flows for specific alternatives. The population of 370,000 shown for 2030 is slightly less than the buildout population estimate prepared by the CCPS for the existing service area of about 394,000. (This is the full buildout population estimate for the County of about 465,000 less the estimated buildout populations of the Cities of Naples and Marco Island.) It is recommended that the Conservative Growth approach be used for planning purposes to allow the County to be on the high side of possible growth scenarios. The County should also continue to periodically review service area populations to determine if the Conservative Growth approach is being maintained. 5.4 Per Capita Wastewater Flow As discussed in Section 5.1, per capita wastewater flows of 145 and 120 gpcd AADF have been used in previous studies for the North Service Area and South Service Area, respectively. The actual sewered populations and flows for 2000 are as follows: 2000 Per Capita Wastewater Flow Service 2000 Census (April 1) AADF Per Capita Area Permanent Population in (mgd) AADF the Sewered Areas (gpcd) North 58,424 8.54 146 South 61,390 6.19 101 It is recommended that 145 gpcd AADF continue to be used for the North Service Area as previously used in the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update and 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. It is also recommended to continue to use 100 gpcd AADF for the South Service Area as was used in the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Update. The average per capita flow in the South Service Area for the last ten years was 93 gpcd, based on the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update and the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan Revision. However, it is likely that these reports underestimated the sewered population in the South Service Area by using lower projections for each year than were actually tributary to the plant. For instance, the projected 1999 population projection was 52,884 (as shown in Section 5.1) and the 2000 Census (April 1) population for the area was 61,390. The 2000 data shown above are based on actual populations in the service area, whereas previous year's data is based on population projections from the 1990 Census. The Section 5.1 table showing per capita flows is reproduced as follows using 1991 projection and 2000 Census data and assuming a straight-line increase over the 1 O-year period: 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 36 11/21/2002 South Service Area Year Permanent April I Annual Average Per Capita AADF Population in the Flow to the WRF (gpcd) Sewered Area (mgd) 1991 39,075 3.62 93 1992 41,554 3.27 79 1993 44,034 3.81 87 1994 46,513 3.38 73 1995 48,993 3.24 66 1996 51,472 3.59 70 1997 53,952 5.25 97 1998 56,431 5.32 94 1999 58,911 6.58 112 2000 61,390 6.19 101 Average 87 Thus, the 100 gpcd AADF for the South Service Area appears adequately conservative and is used herein to estimate wastewater flows in the South Service Area. 5.5 Wastewater Flow Projections Wastewater flow projections for the Collier County existing and future service areas are shown in Section 7 for alternative wastewater plans. When considering flow projections as they relate to planning for wastewater facilities, peak rates of flow need to be considered. FDEP is requiring that the treatment plant expansions and new permits for Collier County plants be designed for MMDF. In the 1997 201 Facilities Plan Update, a factor of 1.3 times the AADF was used for the MMDF. Historical flow records at the NCWRF and SCWRF over the last seven years support the continued use of the 1.3 factor for MMDF. Figure 5-7 shows the historical maximum month factors for the NCWRF and SCWRF. The data show that the ratio averages a little over 1.2 for the period of 1994 - 2000. However, there were years at both plants where the ratio exceeded 1.3. Therefore, a ratio of 1.3 is recommended for planning purposes. Design of wastewater transmission facilities requires the use of peak hour flow rates. The accepted method for calculation of peak hour flow rates is by using the following formula: Peak hour factor = 18 + (p)m, where p = population in thousands 4 + (p)m Peak hour flow is determined by multiplying the above peak hour factor by AADF. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 37 11/21/2002 FIGURE 5-7 NCWRF: Ratio of Maximum Month to Annual Average Flow " North MM to AA Factor ~ --North MM to AA Average SCWRF: Ratio of Maximum Month to Annual Average Flow South MM to AA. Factor --South MM to AA Average GREELEY AND HANSEN LLC COLLIER COUNTY 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE OCTOBER 2002 6 System Reliability 6.1 Introduction In addition to meeting capacity requirements caused by population growth, the County has an obligation to operate a reliable utility business. "Reliability" can mean meeting a set of well-defined goals consistently. Reliability is different than "efficiency" and "effectiveness". After all, it would be possible to meet ineffective goals reliably. "Reliability", as used herein means seeking an optimum balance among consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness. Customers served by Collier County have little or no choice of service providers. However, as citizens of the County they expect a high level of service in exchange for the rates that are paid. For most citizens reliable service will mean invisible service. This is service without overflows, without odors, and without noise or disruption. For some citizens, reliable service may have some visible components. Reclaimed water customers need to have service and a supply of water that reliably meets their irrigation needs. Reclaimed water customers will want the most product at the time that the County has the least product available. Some reclaimed water customers have no recourse but to rely on County service for irrigation needs. These customers need to know that they can rely on the County to provide the service. The County's utility businesses need to be managed in such a way as to efficiently provide service to its customers. Part of reliability is to provide service at rates that most citizens will consider reasonable and shared equitably. Customer satisfaction is probably the key objective that a utility should have. Additional utility goals should be environmental protection, resource conservation, and reasonable rates for service. This section examines these objectives and provides a framework for the maintenance of a reliability-based utility. 6.2 Measurements of Reliability The effectiveness of the County's utility business has several measures, which can be used to assess effectiveness. Each measure is related to the major utility objectives of customer satisfaction, environmental protection, conservation of resources, and rate maintenance. One tool that can be used to help measure reliability is a system-wide GIS system to manage data. A GIS system is more than a mapping system. GIS can provide the County with total asset visibility and trending. For affective application, GIS needs to be 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 38 a tool to assist in establishing reliability trends over time. The following graphic illustrates how a GIS system can result in a reliability measurement tool: IGIS SYSTEM1 TO ~~ TO RELIABILITY TRENDS OVER TIME ~ TO TO .~, ~ they do most /' ~' ¢1'$ SYSTEM AS A TOOL FOIl ItEI..IABILITV Thus, the application of a GIS system should be designed to result in a tool to measure reliability over time and to assist in developing strategies for improved reliability. Customer satisfaction can be measured by largely by the level of invisibility offered by the utility. Immediate neighbors of the County's treatment and pumping facilities are the most difficult to please. Also, the cost to satisfy them will be higher than the cost to satisfy other customers. Customer complaints about overflows, odor, noise or other nuisances are negative indicators of customer satisfaction. Complaints should be documented and recorded. The number and type of customer complaints should be recorded and reviewed on a periodic basis. A reduction in the number of customer complaints about wastewater service is a positive indicator that the utility is moving toward the goal of invisibility. Customer satisfaction for reclaimed water customers is based on supply reliability. Customers will want their source of irrigation water to be available when they need it or when it is their turn to have it under a rationing program. A reliable irrigation utility will have the volume and pressures required available to meet the demands of each customer. The measure of satisfaction for reclaimed water customers can also be monitored the number of customer complaints. Customer satisfaction with rates and fees is difficult to measure. Most people will probably believe their rates to be high, but will not voice the complaint formally. Most people will also not have a real foundation on which to compare their rates. But, it is human nature to believe that rates for services are higher than they should be. The 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final DrafLdoc 39 County should measure itself against other service providers periodically to assure that costs are in line with other service providers. This does not mean that the County should strive for the lowest rates. Reliable service may also mean rates that are above the average. Those with the lowest rates may be those that compromise on reliability and customer. Environmental protection can be measured by a number of factors. First, the County operates wastewater and reclaimed water systems under a number of permits. Compliance with permit limitations is a measure of the reliability of the utility and the effectiveness of meeting the environmental protection objective. Permit violations are a negative indicator of the effectiveness that the utility is displaying in reliably protecting the environment. The measure as to how well the utility is conserving resources is the quantity of reclaimed water that is being reused for irrigation compared to the quantity disposed of through deep injection wells and percolation ponds. The use of reclaimed water potentially offsets the use of potable water or potable water sources. To reliably meet this objective, the utility must have a means of long-term storage of reclaimed water to meet customer demands in the dry season and to have places to store water during wet periods when demands are low. The measure of this objective is the percentage of reclaimed water used for irrigation on an annual basis compared to the amount of reclaimed water produced. The use of this measure needs to be tempered by the consideration of weather conditions. In particularly wet years, the percentage of reclaimed water used for irrigation may be low, regardless of the County's objective to reuse the product. 6.3 Areas of System Reliability 6.3.1 General Every area of the wastewater utility contributes in some way to system reliability. This section discusses how each area of the County's utility affect reliability. In general these areas consist of the human resources, physical systems, financial systems, and administration and planning. Human resources are the persons that individually provide the utility's reliable service. Interface with County customers will be through those under the employ of the County utility. It is important that these persons be well qualified for their positions, well trained, and dedicated to the objectives of the utility. It is important, as well, that these persons be satisfied in their jobs, but with a drive to move up in the organization. Part of having a reliable utility is having a staff of persons who each feel that they are an important part of the organization. Physical systems consist of the treatment plants, pumping stations, transmission systems, reclaimed water systems, and maintenance facilities. This is the County's wastewater 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 40 infrastructure. To provide reliable service, it is necessary to operate and maintain these systems in a way that retains their serviceability and their value to the County. Financial systems are one of the vehicles used to reach the objectives of the utility. It is important that the utility be in a position to incur debt and to demonstrate financial solvency. Utility administration and planning is necessary to maintain reliable service in the long term. Prudent planning assures that the utility maintains its capacity for new users and its ability to continue to reliably serve existing customers. This requires leadership and development of plans that are coordinated with other County agencies. Planning needs to be an on-going effort, particularly in a growing area such as Collier County. This section discusses how the various areas that fit under each of the above categories contribute to a reliable utility and discusses various ways to enhance reliability. 6.3.2 Utility Staff 6.3.2.1 General The utility staff consists of' every person under the employ of the Collier County Utilities Engineering and Wastewater Departments. These persons are the ones that will determine whether the County utility business successfully provides reliable service to customers or not. This section discusses several aspects of a staffing leading to an environment of reliable services. 6.3.2.2 Qualifications Each staff position should have a job description that includes the qualifications that the person having the position should hold. All staff should be qualified for the positions that they hold. 6.3.2.3 Compensation In order to recruit employees that are qualified and to maintain motivation of existing employees, salaries must be competitive. With the cost of living being relatively higher in Collier County than elsewhere, salaries may necessarily be higher for Collier County than they would be in other Florida utilities. Without competitive salaries, it will be impossible to recruit and retain well qualified employees and it will be impossible to provide reliable service to utility customers. 6.3.2.4 Training Training of employees provides them with the tools necessary to perform their jobs and also can make employees feel valued. A trained employee is more valuable to the utility 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 41 11/21/2002 and is more valuable in the marketplace. Training of utility workers should be planned to meet State guidelines for wastewater facility workers. In certain areas, cross-training may be helpful to minimize staffing requirements. For instance, plant operators can be cross-trained to perform routine maintenance of equipment. This has the double benefit to the utility of minimizing maintenance staff and keeping the operators more aware of the equipment under their care. It also has the benefit to the employee of making him or her more valuable. 6.3.2.6 Level of Staffing The level of staffing must be sufficient to meet the objectives of the utility discussed above, but also must be low enough to keep operating costs at a minimum. A benchmarking study can be used as a tool to determine if the current level of staffing and staff positions is adequate to meet County objectives. Such a study compares current staffing levels and staff positions with other well-mn utilities. The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) performs a triennial financial survey of US wastewater service providers. The last such survey was conducted and compiled in 1999 and the results are available from AMSA. Survey forms were distributed this year in March 2002 and AMSA is preparing an updated financial survey. The survey contains information on various aspects of operating costs including number of operation and maintenance personnel. It is recommended that the County conduct a benchmarking study, using the AMSA financial survey as a tool, to determine how the present level of staffing compares to other similar utilities. It is recommended that the study be conducted in 2003, after the 2002 AMSA Financial Survey becomes available. Output from the benchmarking study could lead to other studies, as well, on the organization makeup of the utility and an evaluation of whether the present organization best meets the needs of the County to provide required services. 6.3.3 Water Reclamation Facilities 6.3.3.1 General Currently, the County owns and operates two water reclamation facilities on a full-time basis. One other facility is operated on a seasonal basis, as is discussed in Section 4. This section discusses reliability issues regarding the water reclamation facilities processes and equipment. 6.3.3.2 Process, Mechanical and Electrical Systems Treatment facilities constructed to serve reclaimed water systems must be designed to meet Class I Reliability for process, electrical, and electrical systems in accordance with FDEP regulations. Class I Reliability is defined in the USEPA document Design Criteria 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 42 11/21/2002 for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability (1974). These requirements establish minimum standards of reliability of the physical facilities. The document defines reliability as "a measurement of the ability of a component or system to perform its designated function without failure." Standards are set for the various reliability classes for the design of the facilities and systems. General design requirements that are discussed in the document are summarized as follows: · Locate plants in locations such that they can be fully functional during a 25- year storm. · Make provisions for flushing of scum and sludge lines. · Make provisions for mechanical cleaning ofwastewater and sludge lines. · Provide drains at low points. · Provide space for maintenance of equipment. · Provide means to remove equipment, such as lifting systems. · Provide means for isolation of equipment and systems for maintenance. · The main drive mechanism of clarifier sludge collectors is to be repairable without draining the tank. · An alternate means of sludge disposal is to be provided. · Two separate and independent sources of electric power is to be provided. · Each source of power is to be transformed to useable voltage with a separate transformer. · Vital components of the same type and serving the same function are to be divided as equally as possible between at least two motor control centers. · Manual oven'ides are to be provided for all automatic control systems. Facilities with Class I reliability are to comply with the following: · Unit operations are to be designed to hydraulically handle the peak flow with the largest unit out of service. · Facilities are to have mechanically-cleaned bar screens with a backup. · Backup pumps are to be provided for each pumping system. · Final sedimentation tanks are to be designed such that with the largest unit out of service, the remaining units shall have at least 75 percent of the total design capacity. · At least two equal volume aeration basins are to be provided. · Blower capacity is to be such that the full aeration demand can be satisfied with the largest blower out of service. · The number and size of the disinfection basins are to such that with one unit out of service the remaining units have at least 50 percent of the total design capacity. · The alternate source of electric power is to be "sufficient to operate all vital components, during peak wastewater flow conditions, together with critical lighting and ventilation." 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Dra~doc 43 11/21/2002 All Collier County plants meet these standards. Being that these standards are regulated, the County has no option but to meet these reliability standards as a minimum when obtaining an operating permit. 6.3.3.3 Flexibility Operations staffs can respond to unusual circumstances if process flexibility is provided in the design. Often this will consist of an extra gate or valve to allow flow to be transferred in a different manner. When reviewing plans prepared by a consultant, it is recommended that the County look for ways to make the facilities more flexible. Adding flexibility will typically cost marginally more, but provides an additional degree of reliability above that required as a minimum. 6.3.3.4 Capacity Enhancement Collier County has seasonally higher wastewater flow rates and by permit must be designed for maximum month conditions. The County is working on systems to enhance capacity by trimming peak flows by construction of equalization tanks at both plants. The equalization tanks will improve plant performance and enhance reliability when peak flows are experienced. In addition, the NCWRF has experienced problems transferring sufficient oxygen at one of the existing oxidation ditches. The County is preparing a study of the oxidation ditches to improve process reliability. 6.3.3.5 Safety Safety in design and operation provides reliability by protecting the public and by protecting County personnel. Regular safety training and exercises should be scheduled to assure an excellent degree of preparedness by County personnel. 6.3.3.6 Operation and Maintenance Manuals Operation and maintenance (O&M) manuals should be up to date and available to plant personnel. It is recommended that O&M Manuals be prepared in electronic format for the greatest accessibility. In addition, electronic O&M Manuals provide a convenient means of keeping the information current. Electronic manuals can also be made available to those off site and can provide a means of access to real-time process information. Electronic O&M manuals provide significant flexibility in format and content. Accessible O&M Manuals provide plant personnel with a ready source of information and allow quicker reaction to problems. It also provides a means of providing information about the plant to new personnel. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 44 11/21/2002 6.3.3.7 Standard Operating Procedures Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) should be available for all equipment and processes at each plant. The SOP provides operators with "cook book" information about plant operational procedures and should be available at each facility. SOP's should be kept current as procedures change over time. 6.3.3.8 Emergency Response Plans Emergency response plans should be in place for the plants as required by State regulations. The plans should detail the response protocol for various emergencies, such as chemical spills, wastewater overflows, and hurricanes. 6.3.3.9 Laboratory Data Laboratory data should be available for review by selected staff on a regular basis. Certainly, process performance data should be reviewed on a daily basis. In addition, data should be stored electronically to allow trending of historical data. For the greatest access to data in an organized manner, a laboratory information management system (LIMS) should be available at both plants. Software systems are available that can be customized for specific plants. LIMS systems allow ready access to information for data review, monthly operating reports, quality control, and other laboratory functions. LIMS systems enhance reliability and increase efficiency. It is recommended that the County implement a LIMS system at each plant. 6.3.3.10 Sampling Procedures Laboratory data is only as good as the sampling procedures allow. It is important that samples be representative of the wastewater stream being sampled. It is recommended that periodic reviews be made by plant staff of sampling procedures and locations. Sample collection procedures should be coordinated among plant staff to assure that manually collected samples are taken in a consistent manner by all staff. Consideration should be given to sampling at well blended and mixed locations. 6.3.4 Collection and Transmission Systems 6.3.4.1 General It is important that the County have reliable and flexible facilities to transport wastewater to each of the water reclamation facilities. Pumping stations are out in the neighborhoods and are typically close to County customers. To maintain the invisibility of the facilities, it is important for the County to maintain systems to prevent overflows, mitigate odors, and inhibit noise from the facilities. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 45 11/21/2002 6.3.4.2 Mechanical and Electrical Systems Wastewater pumping stations must be designed for mechanical and electrical reliability. All pumping stations must be designed to provide capacity to handle peak flows with the largest pumping unit out of service. This is discussed further in Section 7.3.5. Pumping stations should also be designed with a source of backup power available. For smaller stations, this can be simply allowing a connection for a portable backup generator. Larger stations should have their own source of backup power. Permanent generators should be exercised on a periodic basis to ensure reliable starting when power outages occur. 6.3.4.3 CMOM The USEPA is proposing to impose Capacity, Maintenance, Operation and Management (CMOM) requirements nationwide. These regulations are in the formal approval process as of late 2002; however, some regions of USEPA are implementing portions of the program anyway. Operators of sanitary sewer systems will need to demonstrate that all aspects of their infrastructure have sufficient capacity and are operated and maintained in such a way as to prevent overflows, the main goal of CMOM. It is recommended that the County prepare a CMOM self-evaluation to determine how the utility and its infrastructure compare to the CMOM requirements. Part of CMOM will be demonstration that excessive I/I is not allowed to enter the collection and transmission system. The County has an ongoing program of I/I reduction that will need to continue to assure that plant and pipeline capacity is not consumed by excess water during wet weather conditions. 6.3.4.4 Flexibility An important part of reliability enhancement of collection and transmission systems is to have the flexibility to move wastewater to multiple locations. The County is already interconnected with the City of Naples to allow transfer of some wastewater to be transferred to the City on a temporary basis for treatment should some emergency occur. There is also an interconnection between the North and South Service Areas, on the west side, that allows wastewater to be interchanged between the two areas. In addition, a second and larger interconnection on the east side of the service areas is under design. It is recommended that the interconnections be completed and that interconnections of all future service areas be included as part of the design for infrastructure improvements. Such interconnections allow transfer ofwastewater to plants that may have excess capacity on a long-term or a short-term basis. 6.3.4.6 Pumping Station Odor Control As mentioned above, pumping stations are typically located near where people are located. For this reason, odor control is particularly important. Odor control and odor prevention should be a design consideration for all pumping stations. The County is 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 46 11/21/2002 currently conducting an improvement program for odor control facilities at pumping stations to enhance reliability. It is recommended that this program be continued. 6.3.4.6 Pipeline Coordination with Road Improvements A number of new force mains will be required for expansion of wastewater and reclaimed water facilities. Planning for new pipelines should be coordinated with roadway improvements to minimize citizen inconvenience and to minimize the cost of restoration. This is the current practice and should be continued. It is the basis of a number of pipeline projects recommended in this 2002 Master Plan. 6.3.4.7 System Mapping County operations and maintenance personnel need to have accurate mapping as a tool to provide reliable service. The County operates a relatively complex transmission system, with many manifolded force mains. It is important to know how this piping is interconnected, the size and location of all pipelines, and the location and type of all valves. One of the challenges to accurate mapping is that high quality record drawings are not available, particularly when systems were installed by those other than the County. Providing accurate system mapping is necessarily a long-term project. It is not feasible to know identify all unknowns on a system of pipelines that are below grade. However, a structure can be set that will lead to more accurate and available record drawing information. It is recommended that such a structure be put into place, which would include the following: · Summarize existing sources of information. · Determine key areas where information is lacking. · Conduct field investigations of key areas that could include physical location of pipelines by vacuum probing and manual system operation to determine flow routing. · Identify the location of key system features using GPS. · Prepare a mapping system that would be available to all personnel using GIS. 6.3.5 Effluent Management 6.3.5.1 General Effluent from the water reclamation facilities needs to be carefully managed to meet reliability goals. One goal that must be met is to dispose of or store reclaimed water produced on a daily basis. Another goal is to supply irrigation customers with reclaimed water or supplemental water when demand is the greatest. However, it is often a challenge to meet both goals. The supply of reclaimed water is always the lowest, during dry weather, at the same time that reclaimed water demand is the highest. The challenge 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 47 11/21/2002 is to reliably meet both goals. In addition, the County needs to have a means of disPosal for reclaimed water when the quality does not meet reclaimed water standards. The County uses membrane treatment to provide potable water to County customers. Customers with no other source of irrigation water must irrigate with this highly treated water. It is consistent with the County's resource conservation goals to develop alternative irrigation water sources other than potable. The County currently has reclaimed water customers, as discussed in Section 4, and a waiting list for additional reclaimed water customers. Reclaimed water irrigation customers are charged a special rate based on the quantity of water used. Some of the existing customers are also served by supplemental well water systems. The County is also pursuing a project to investigate taking surface water or groundwater in the vicinity of the Golden Gate Canal and storing it in aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells. 6.3.5.2 Number of Customers The number of irrigation customers that the County has at any time must be carefully matched with the quantity of reclaimed water and supplemental water available. The County must be careful not to over-commit to furnishing reclaimed water and other irrigation water sources. 6.3.5.3 Reclaimed Water Rates Reclaimed water needs to be increasingly viewed as a valuable resource. Over the last several years, the recognition of the value of reclaimed water has been on the increase. Several years ago, the primary goal in obtaining reclaimed water customers was to develop a means of effluent disposal. This was true in Collier County and throughout the State. Today, reclaimed water is widely accepted by the public for its value as a offset to potable water for irrigation. Some other communities are starting to raise the rates charged for reclaimed water to recognize its value. To maintain a reliable irrigation water provider, it will be necessary to generate revenues that more closely reflect the cost of reclaimed water production and delivery. It is recommended that reclaimed water rates be reviewed on a regular basis and to increase these rates, if necessary, at yearly increments that may be more initially than the incremental increases to wastewater and water rates. 6.3.5.4 Irrigation Water Pressures The County currently has a number of customers served at high pressure. The County is, therefore, providing the delivery pressure to the homeowner. Golf courses are typically supplied at low pressure where reclaimed water is distributed into ponds for later application by the golf course operators. Such combination high and iow pressure systems are difficult to manage reliably. It is difficult for the County to supply water to ponds and at same time provide water at higher pressures to residential customers. It is recommended that the County develop a reclaimed water user model to focus on delivery at low pressure. If the County were only to fill storage ponds of customers, water could 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 48 11/21/2002 be delivered at any time of day and at low pressure. This would decrease the County's cost to deliver the product and increase overall reliability. It is recommended that the County develop this model for delivery of reclaimed water where possible. 6.3.5.5 Backup Effluent Disposal A reliable backup for effluent disposal is necessary for reliable effluent management. Backup disposal is needed in wet weather when storage for reclaimed water may be full and demand is low or at times when the quality of reclaimed water may be low. The County is installing deep injection wells (DIW's) at the NCWRF and SCWRF. The well capacity will allow the plants to dispose of the maximum month treatment capacity at each plant. Two wells are to be provided at each plant to provide redundancy and increase reliability. It is recommended that the County use this model for the design of additional plants recommended as part of this 2002 Master Plan. 6.3.5.6 Interconnections Reclaimed water transmission systems can be interconnected with other systems in an effort to enhance reliability. This is recommended in the Regional Irrigation Distribution System (RIDS) draft report. The County could develop interconnections to reclaimed water systems in the City of Naples, the City of Bonita Springs, or Lee County, due to their proximity to the County. It is recommended that such interconnections be considered carefully. Typically, the entire area will be under the same weather conditions and experience the same supply and demand stresses simultaneously. When the County's demand for reclaimed water is the highest, other communities will be experiencing similar demands. Considering this, interconnections should be pursued where they can be done cost-effectively. Reliability will be increased by supplying the County with a potential emergency source of reclaimed water and, at other times, a potential emergency means of effluent disposal. 6.3.6 Information Management The County develops a considerable amount of information, much of it in electronic form. The usefulness of the data and the way in which it is presented and rePorted is important to reliability and efficiency. Real time information is available from telemetry systems associated with pumping stations. Real time and laboratory data is also available from the treatment facilities. The data need to be available is such a way to be used not only as an historical record, but also as a forecasting tool. It is also important that information flows reliably among County departments. Section 6.3.4.6 described the importance of coordinating pipeline projects with road projects. Other County departments are also influenced by activities of the utilities department. Often times, the solid waste department may have common goals as utilities when it comes to biosolids disposal, as described in Section 7. Financial information needs to be 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 49 11/21/2002 shared among all departments. Means of sharing goals and information needs to be developed and implemented. It is recommended that the County conduct an information technology assessment to make sure that data regarding billing, customers, operations, and maintenance are available in the most useful way. Financial Reliability Financial reliability is the backbone of system reliable and is the fuel for system improvements. The utility must be able to manage capital assets, incur and pay off debt, and have an equitable means of collecting revenue. It is recommended that the County review rates and impact fees on an annual basis and to make adjustments as necessary. It is also recommended that the County develop an asset management system. The asset management system will allow the County to meet CMOM and GASB34 requirements. An asset management program can lower financial costs of bonds and optimize O&M and capital expenditures. An asset management program can allow the County to take advantages of recapitalization of assets to increase the overall value of assets compared to a straight-line depreciation method. For instance, the pumping station improvements that the County is pursuing in 2002 could be used in an asset management program to increase the overall value of assets on a systematic basis. 6.3.8 Planning Master plans need to be living documents in areas that are experiencing rapid growth, such as Collier County. Otherwise, they soon lose their usefulness. Within one-year's time, growth estimates change, service areas change, service agreements change, and operating parameters change. It is important that the document be kept current. It is recommended that the County update the wastewater master plan on an annual basis until such time that growth levels to some extent. 6.3.9 Summary and Conclusions Reliability of service has been identified above as a key goal of the Collier County Utilities Engineering Department. The utility needs to reliably protect the environment, conserve resources, and satisfy customers. A number of measures have been discussed to determine the how well the County is meeting its reliability objectives, which are: · Number of customer complaints. · Supply of reclaimed water to irrigation customers. · Compliance with all permits. · Quantity of reclaimed water used for irrigation. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 50 11/21/2002 The County is already doing much of what is required to be a reliable utility. A number of additional actions are recommended in general and specific terms above. Specific recommended actions are summarized as follows: · Conduct a benchmark study of personnel to compare staffing to other utilities. · Develop an electronic O&M Manual that can be updated on a regular basis. · Implement a LIMS system to make laboratory data readily available. · Conduct a CMOM self-evaluation in anticipation of upcoming regulations focused on preventing sanitary sewer overflows. · Continue ongoing GIS system preparation, making sure that it focuses on its utility as a reliability measurement tool and provides total asset visibility. · Pursue means of long-term storage of reclaimed water and provide supplemental supply sources to improve irrigation water reliability. · Prepare of study of information management needs to better control historical information and to create a ready forecasting tool. · Develop an asset management system to allow the County to meet CMOM and GASB34 requirements and to allow the County to better determine the value of assets. · Review rates and impact fees on an annual basis. · Update the Master Plan on an annual basis. A draft version of the County's Reliability Guidelines for the wastewater system is included on the following pages. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 51 11/21/2002 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION RELIABILITY GUIDELINES July 2002 Prepared By The Public Utilities Engineering Department Collier County's utility systems are undergoing considerable expansion in response to the County's growth, which is expected to continue for the next several years. It is essential that the infrastructure systems be designed not only to meet the capacity demands but also continue to properly function during "down" times, i.e. normal maintenance procedures and during component failure events. This document is intended to provide guidance on minimum design requirements for wastewater and water systems of Collier County. What is reliability? It is a measurement of the ability of a component of a facility to perform its designated function without failure. References are made to vital components, whose operation or function is required to maintain permit conditions, or are required to protect other vital components from damage. Reliability for Wastewater Systems In the State of Florida, wastewater facilities are governed by the FDEP Domestic Wastewater Facilities Regulations, Chapter 62-400, adopted in 1996. These regulations refer to three classes of reliability - Class I, II, and III (highest to lowest). Collier County's systems which involve reclaimed water all require Class I reliability. The technical standard for reliability design cited in the regulations is a 1974 EPA Publication entitled "Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electrical and Fluid Systems, and Component Reliability", MCD - 05, the Ohio State University. Reference is also made to the "Ten State Standards", or the Great Lakes/Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health & Environmental Managers, "Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities", 1997. All new wastewater facilities, wastewater expansions and modifications must be on the basis of an engineering report prepared by a licensed Professional Engineer in the state of Florida. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 52 11/21/2002 The following reliability design requirements apply: I General Design Requirements Ao Facility Location - protect from physical damage up to the 100-year flood/wave action. Remain operational during and up to the 25-year flood/wave action levels. Bo Piping Requirements - for pipes subject to clogging, design for flushing capability without causing effluent contamination. Alternatively provide for sufficient connections utilize mechanical cleaning. Provide for draining of pipes. Provide for repair of in -plant piping without having to drain tanks. Component Repair - each vital component must be able to be serviced or replaced without violating effluent permit conditions. This can also be satisfied by providing flow equalization. D. Access Space - sufficient work space shall be provided around components to allow maintenance/removal without interfering with surrounding equipment. E. Equipment Removal - Removal equipment must be provided to allow removal of all components. F. Essential Service water, compressed air, and electricity shall be made available throughout the facility for maintenance and cleaning. II Class I Wastewater Treatment Ao Liquid Train 1. Bar Screens - provide mechanically cleaned screens with duplicate or manual screens as backup. Pumps - the pumping system must be designed such that with the largest pump out of service, the remaining pumps can handle the peak hourly flow. 3. Aeration Basin - a backup basin is not required, but at least two equal volume basins are required. ° Aeration Blowers - design such that the design oxygen transfer be maintained with the largest unit out of service. The backup unit may be uninstalled. 5. Air Diffusers - provide that the largest section of diffusers can be taken out of service without impairing the oxygen transfer. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 53 11/21/2002 Secondary Clarifiers, Filters - shall be a sufficient number of units such that with the largest capacity unit out of service, the remaining units shall have a design capacity of 75% of the design flow. Disinfection - shall be a sufficient number of units that, with the largest unit out of service, the remaining units have capacity to treat 50% of the total design flows. 8. Isolate Components - components shall have provision isolation by slide gates. 9. Protection from Overload - employ devices to protect the components from overloading due to cloggage or blockage. 10. Protect Against Buoyancy - provide ballast, anchoring and/or ground water relief to protect against uplift. B. Solids Train 1. Alternate Methods of Sludge Treatment and Disposal Alternate methods of disposal shall be provided if no backup units are used. Sludge Holding Tanks - Holding tanks may be used as an alternative to backup components. The tank must be sized based on the expected component repair time. Sludge Dewatering Units - There shall be a sufficient number of units to enable the design sludge flow to be dewatered with the largest capacity unit out of service - flexibility on this requirement is possible for units normally run less than 24 hours per day. C. Electrical Systems 1. Electrical Power Source - two independent sources of power are required, either from two utility substations or a backup generator. Incoming lines shall be in separate conduits - sufficient fuel storage must be provided based on the expected outage. 2. Service to Motor Control Centers (MCC) the internal power distribution shall be such that no single fault or loss of power source will result in disruption to more than one MCC. Division of Loads at MCCs - vital components of the same type and function shall be divided equally as possible between two MCCs. 2002 WW Master Plan Repo~_Final Draft.doc 54 11/21/2002 o Power Transfer - Automatic transfer switching equipment shall be required when a time delay in power to manually transfer power would result in permit violations or equipment damage. o Breaker Settings - Shall be set so that the breaker nearest the fault will clear prior to activation of other breakers to the extent possible Switchgear Location - Switchgear and MCCs shall be protected from sprays and moisture and from potential pipeline breaks. Ideally the equipment should be located in a separate room without process piping. Locate above the 100-year flood or wave height. o Motor Protection from Moisture - Waterproofed, totally enclosed or weather protected open motor enclosures shall be used for exposed outdoor motors. Motors for vital equipment shall be located above the 100-year flood or wave action or in a building protected to this level. Provision for Equipment Testing - Provision for periodic testing and resetting shall be included while maintaining power to all vital components. D. Instrumentation and Control Systems Automatic Control - Automatic control systems shall have a manual override if loss would create a permit violation or other equipment damage. Backup PLCs and PLC logic shall be provided. Alarms and communications shall be provided. 2. Instrumentation - instrumentation whose failure would result in a permit violation shall be provided with a backup sensor and readout. 3. Alarms and Annunciators - Signals monitoring the condition of vital equipment must be localized and sent to a continuously manned location. III Wastewater Collection Systems Wastewater pumping stations are considered to be Class 1 reliability given that failure would cause a permit violation. Therefore the liquid, electrical, and instrumentation requirements of Wastewater Treatment will generally apply. B. Smaller pump stations (6" force main or less) shall include provision for plug-in emergency power or portable pumping as backup (DEP 62.604) C. Pumping stations shall be protected from lightning and transient voltage surges (DEP 62.604) 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 55 11/21/2002 D. Branches of intersecting force mains shall be provided with isolation valves (DEP 62.604) E. Adhere to Ten States Standards and DEP Collection Systems and Transmission Facilities Regulations for wastewater collection system design. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Dra~doc 56 11/21/2002 7 Alternative Wastewater Service Plans 7.1 Development of Alternative Projects 7.1.1 General Wastewater service in Collier County will need to be provided in the future in the following areas: Existing sewered areas that develop further in the future. New developments within the North and South Service Areas of sufficient density to require sewer service. (This will most likely be virtually all new development.) New developments within the Additional Service Areas. The Orange Tree area. (The County currently has an agreement to take over service of the Orange Tree area in 2011 .) Golden Gate City - this plant has a design capacity of 0.95 mgd and is owned and operated by the Florida Government Utilities Association (FGUA). Service will need to be provided to each of the above areas. In addition, service at some point may need to be extended to serve the Golden Gate Estates area that is now served by septic tanks. Figure 7-1 shows the extent of potential future service areas. At this time, the future service area is shown enveloping only the existing areas and the Rural Fringe Areas. The Golden Gates Estates area outside of the existing service area is not included, as the density of dwelling units within this area is likely to make sewer service relatively expensive for these customers. It is recommended that service first be concentrated in areas of greater potential density, unless outside influences, such as changes to septic tank regulations, influence a change to service area boundaries. Wastewater treatment is currently provided to County customers only by the NCWRF and SCWRF. Plans are now underway to expand the NCWRF to 24.1 mgd (MMDF) and the SCWRF to 16.0 mgd (MMDF). Both expansions are to be in place by 2005. The expansion of the NCWRF to 30.6 mgd is part of the Consent Order requirement of a 10- mgd (AADF) expansion, which will be placed in service by 2010. The NCWRF expansion to 30.6 mgd is the recommended ultimate capacity of this plant. The Design Report for the SCWRF indicates that the existing planned expansion to 16.0 mgd (MMDF) is the maximum that this plant site can support. As will be shown below, additional plants and additional capacity will be needed in excess of the existing plants. The basis for flow estimation is developed in Section 5 for the sewered areas of the North and South Service Areas. Based on the existing service areas, the estimated future flows and plant capacities are compared as follows: 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 57 11/21/2002 FUTURE NORTHEAST SERVICE AREA % i /-SOUTH ~ SERVIC[ AREA CITY WASlE'WATE:R o~ i~ -~---'~,~ ~VW~R SERVICE AREAS /- FUTURE i i i i ! BIIIIILIY AND HANBIN ,.La ALIGUST ~GG~ fiGURE: 7-1 Comparison of Capacities to 2030 Estimated Wastewater Flows 2030 MMDF - Ultimate Capacity - Conservative Growth1 Service Area MMDF (mgd) (mgd) North 30.6 41.4 ~ South 16.0 25.5 l) Based on BEBR projections. 2) North Service Area including Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates based on October 1 population estimates. Based on the above comparison, it is apparent that additional capacity will be required for the North and South Service Areas. If service is also provided to additional areas, such as Golden Gate City or the Rural Fringe area, the need for additional capacity becomes even more apparent. 7.1.2 Five-Plant Alternative The Five-Plant Alternative recommended in the 200 ! Wastewater Master Plan is shown on Figure 7-2. The figure shows the location of the five potential regional wastewater treatment facilities and approximate service area boundaries. The boundaries are again based on the limit of capacity of the existing two facilities, NCWRF and SCWRF. It is recommended that interconnections be made such that flow could be transferred between facilities and, thus, the boundaries between the service areas would not be fixed. Under this alternative most of the existing North Service Area would continue to be served by the NCWRF. Flows in the Northeast Service Area would be treated at the future Northeast WRF. The wastewater from the potential future Southeast Service Area would be served by a new Southeast WRF. The SCWRF would continue to serve the South Service Area, except that some of the flow would need to be re-routed to a future East Central WRF to avoid exceeding the SCWRF capacity. 7.2 Summary Figure 7-2 shows the recommended Five-Plant Alternative that would ultimately serve the overall wastewater treatment needs of the County. The ultimate flows that could be treated at the plants proposed are as follows: Ultimate Maximum Month Daily Flows and Capacities, mgd 5-Plant Alternative Plant MMDF Capacity North 30.6 30.6 South 16.0 16.0 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 58 11/21/2002 POTENTIAL NORTHEAST / SERVICE AREA--/ ....... i~,~ENTIAL ...Z-NORTH SERVICE AREA PLANT SITE POTENTIAL EAST CENTRAL SERVICE AREA % % % % _j,.., /--SOUTH '" SERVICE AREA POTENTIAL NEW SITE SOUTHEAST AREA FIVE-PLANT ALTERNATIVE .ll.li. lY ,~RiI~ I. IARIIIRI ,.,.o 5-Plant Alternative Plant MMDF Capacity Northeast 5.2 6.0 East Central 5.8 6.0 Southeast 2.1 4.0 TOTALS 59.7 62.6 Note that the flows and capacities of the Northeast, East Central, and Southeast facilities are probably conservative and are based on the information presented in Section 5.3.3. These may be considered target values for planning. Property obtained for these facilities should be of sufficient size to allow treatment plants of at least these capacities. Considerations appear to favor the Five-Plant Alternative are as follows: With reclaimed water irrigation being the primary means of effluent management in the future, it is beneficial to have the treatment facilities strategically located near potential customers. The South and Southeast Service Areas would be better served with reclaimed water under the Five- Plant Alternative. The Five-Plant Alternative makes better use of existing infrastructure that directs wastewater in the South Service Area to the SCWRF. The Five-Plant Alternative results in shorter runs of force mains, which is beneficial in terms of odor potential. Wastewater traveling in long force mains will generate higher concentrations of hydrogen sulfide when discharged at the treatment facility. The Five-Plant Alternative allows more flexibility in serving future customers. At this time, it is unknown what area of the rural fringe may develop first. Having potential plants in each of the three major fringe areas allows the County to react to growth in each area independently. For the above reasons, the Five-Plant Alternative is recommended for the County's ultimate wastewater treatment needs. However, should the nature of any of the Rural Fringe areas change, the concept of ultimately having five treatment facilities may need to be re-explored. 7.3 Summary of Other Wastewater Issues 7.3.1 Package Wastewater Treatment Plants The County has been taking over package treatment facilities over the last several years. At this time, there are only four remaining package plants remaining. Each is near existing wastewater transmission facilities. Once capacity is available at the NCWRF 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 11/21/2002 59 and SCWRF, it is recommended that the County continue to decommission the remaining package plants and treat the wastewater at the more reliable County facilities. 7.3.2 Service to Existing Areas Served by Septic Tanks Collier County is generally low-lying with high groundwater levels and is in general not an ideal location for septic tanks. However, many septic tanks serve residents of Collier County where sewer service was not available at the time of construction of individual homes. Sometimes septic tanks are the only means available to serve the wastewater treatment needs for the individual. Areas with low housing densities, such as Golden Gate Estates, may be particularly costly to serve with sewers. Such areas would have fewer homes per length of sewer. The future population of the areas currently unsewered are estimated within this 2002 Master Plan Update. Unless adverse environmental impacts are demonstrated to exist, septic systems can be a viable wastewater disposal method over the long term. In areas where conditions are more adverse, septic systems may fail and sewer service may be needed. It is recommended that the County conduct a study of unsewered areas by 2004 to determine priorities of service and to develop a master plan for continuation of septic system service in some areas and extension of central sewer service in other areas. The study should address the feasibility of a stronger government role to enhance the continuity of septic systems through education, monitoring, management practices, and changes to regulations. 7.3.3 Effluent Disposal Issues It is recommended that the County continue to use irrigation with reclaimed water as the primary means of effluent management and to use deep well injection as the backup. The County already has much of the infrastructure in place for this option in the North and South Service Areas and there is great potential for irrigation within the County. Table 4- 5 shows that there are a total of 945 golf holes currently in the County, excluding the municipalities of Naples and Marco Island. The County is serving 378 golf holes with reclaimed water irrigation or about 40 percent. There are also an additional 315 golf holes planned in the County, but not yet built. There is great potential for the use of reclaimed water for irrigation of golf courses. 7.3.4 Reclaimed Water Plan The Wastewater Resource Planning Report (Camp, Dresser & McKee, September 200 l, Final Draft) was prepared to analyze alternatives for reclaimed water irrigation. The 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 60 consultant was tasked with determining how better service could be provided to reclaimed water customers and to consider if supplemental sources of irrigation were available other than the development of additional groundwater sources. Two basic alternatives are considered in the report. One alternative would provide reclaimed water only to existing customers, but with improved service by adding supplemental water, and the other alternative would add customers and a larger amount of supplemental water for irrigation. The range in initial cost is from about $4.3 million to $25.8 million, not including the cost of deep well injection. However, the project cost is not directly comparable, since the projects vary in level of service provided to County customers. Based on discussions and evaluations with the reclaimed water consultant, the County has decided to pursue an alternative with an estimated cost of between $15.7 million and $20.0 million (without deep well injection). This alternative has the following features: Construction of the Immokalee Road Wellfield and associated pipeline to provide supplemental water to the North Service Area. Modifications to the Highlands storage ponds to provide a pump station to allow the use of stored reclaimed water. Interconnection pipelines between the north and south service areas. One booster pumping station. Reclaimed water or surface water aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) to store 500 million gallons. Surface water withdrawal and treatment facilities for up to about 11.6 mgd. The recommended plan will provide an annual average irrigation demand of 1-inch/week, while also meeting peak seasonal demands. Although the plan would provide reclaimed water to existing customers, it is expandable in the future to serve additional customers and to provide additional sources of irrigation supply. In accordance with the Wastewater Resource Planning Report, it is recommended that the County provide reclaimed water only to large customers as a bulk provider, with the customer providing the operating pressure. It is recommended that the County adopt the following criteria for reclaimed water irrigation customers: Allotments to be based on the quantity of irrigable acres and a unit irrigation rate of one inch per week. Potential customers with reduced groundwater availability (see Figure 4-5) to be given priority over other customers. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 61 New users to be located adjacent to existing transmission mains or pay for extensions. New customers to provide a minimum of one days storage in an isolated, lined pond. In the potential additional service areas, new reclaimed water customers will need to be located as part of the development of new water reclamation facilities. The estimated demand for reclaimed water from existing County customers is 21.25 mgd on an annual average basis, according to the Wastewater Resource Planning Report. This demand is satisfied from reclaimed water, the Pelican Bay Wellfield, and private wells. Irrigation of other areas not served by the County is largely accomplished by private wells or by use of potable water. The future per capita water demand for the County is assumed to continue to be 205 gpcd. Section 5 shows that the County-wide average wastewater production is about 120 gpcd. A number of factors can account for the difference in the water and wastewater flows, but the bulk of the difference is likely to be irrigation demand. Based on the range of population projections (see Table B-2), the estimated irrigation demand for potable water will be as follows: Estimated Potable Water Irrigation Demands Item 2002 2012 2022 Population (Appendix B) 143,000 246,000 344,000 Irrigation Demand (mgd)l 12.2 20.9 29.2 1. Based on 85 gpcd. The above estimates are based on no changes in customer irrigation demand patterns and that billing structures do not affect demand. In addition, it is based on no other sources of water becoming available to offset potable demand. Another large irrigation customer is golf courses. Table 4-5 shows that there are currently 945 golf holes within the County service area and that only 378 are served with reclaimed water. This means that 567 golf holes are using groundwater as the source of irrigation supply. In addition, Table 4-5 shows that another 315 golf holes are planned at golf courses approved, but not yet built. This means that, in the short term, there will be 882 golf holes as potential additional users of irrigation water. Typically, an 18-hole golf course requires 0.3 to 0.5 mgd of irrigation water. For the 2000 service area and permanent (October 1) population of about 166,000 (see Appendix B), there are about 52.5 golf courses (945/18). This is a population per golf course of about 3,000 persons per course. Assuming that the population per golf course remains constant and an average demand per golf course of 0.4 mgd, the following golf course irrigation demand is estimated: 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 62 11/21/2002 Estimate Golf Course Irrigation Demand Item I 2002 I 2012 I 2022 Population In Service Area (Sewered and Unsewered; Appendix B) I 186,000 277,000 358,000 Number of Golf Courses I 62 92 119 Golf Course Irrigation Demand (m~d) I 25 37 48 The estimated irrigation demands based on potable water and golf courses do not represent all irrigation demand. There are existing County residents that irrigate from private wells and from the County's reclaimed water system. However, satisfying the irrigation demand of those who would irrigate with potable water and of golf courses, would have a huge impact on water resources. The total potential demand from these types of users is as follows: Estimated Potable Water and Golf Course Irrigation Demand (mgd) Item 2002 2012 2022 Irrigation Demand 37 58 77 The implications of the above irrigation demand and the capacity of the water supply sources will be addressed in the 2002 Water Master Plan Update, which is being prepared. 7.3.5 Deep Well Injection It is recommended that deep injection wells be the secondary means of effluent management. Deep injection wells would be used only when reclaimed water did not meet standards or, in wet weather, when storage is full and customer demand for reclaimed water is low. Presently, the NCWRF is permitted to send 6.3 mgd to the North County Water Treatment Plant deep injection wells for alternate wet weather disposal of public access quality reclaimed water. The NCWRF capacity is 17.55 mgd MMDF. Additional wet- weather disposal capacity is needed to keep pace with the proposed facility expansions to 30.6 mgd. Likewise, the need to continue reliance on the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant's injection wells for alternate reclaimed water disposal will be eliminated. The proposed deep injection wells at the NCWRF will also improve the ability to maintain regulatory compliance. Water quality standards for public-access reclaimed water are strictly enforced. Effluent quality is continuously monitored for compliance. Whenever effluent quality approaches, or goes outside acceptable parameters for reclaimed water, the effluent needs to be immediately diverted to designated on-site 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Repo~_Final Draft.doc 63 storage ponds, which can hold up to 12.5 million gallons. The proposed injection wells improve reliability by providing an alternate means of effluent disposal in the event that the designated storage ponds are full. The scope of work for the injection well facility at the NCWRF consists of two main project elements, which are the deep injection wells and the injection well pumping station. The design consists of two deep injection wells capable of handling 37.1 mgd and an injection well pumping station with an initial capacity of 18.6 mgd, expandable to 37.1 mgd. The deep injection wells will be on line when the plant expansion to 24.1 mgd (MMDF) is completed in 2005. The SCWRF has one existing 18-mgd injection well. An additional injection well of equal capacity is under design at the SCWRF to accommodate future flows and to provide an added level of reliability. It is recommended that all new plants to serve the potential service areas in the Rural Fringe also include DIW's as a backup to reclaimed water irrigation. 7.3.6 Biosolids Management 7.3.6.1 Summary of Short-Term Biosolids Management Report Hartman and Associates prepared the Short Term Residuals Management Plan (January 2002) for the County. The goal of the study was to evaluate strategies for biosolids management for the next five years. The conclusions of the study were that there are essentially two options available in the short-term as follows: Composting: Compost the dewatered biosolids from the NCWRF and the SCWRF at a private facility now composting horticultural waste near Immokalee. Biosolids would be composted along with the horticultural waste. Alkaline Stabilization: One of the most simple alkaline stabilization systems available is manufactured by Bioset, Inc. The system has the advantage of compact space and modular design that could allow the system to be set up on a temporary basis or as a trailer-mounted arrangement The report recommends conducting a pilot study for the Bioset option. The recommendation in the report is to pursue both of the above options to determine the best strategy for the County until a long-term solution can be developed. The County has provided some biosolids to the pilot composting facility on an experimental basis, but has not pursued the Bioset option. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 64 11/21/2002 7.3.6.2 Long-Term Biosolids RFP The County issued a request for proposals (RFP) on May 10, 2002 to solicit vendors willing to receive the County's biosolids under a design/build/own/operate/finance (DBOOF) approach. The quantity of biosolids identified in the RFP was an estimate of the total expected quantity of biosolids from both the North County and South County WRF. The RFP states that the County is providing a "put-or-pay" guarantee of 25,000 tons per year (tpy on a wet ton basis). In addition to processing the County's biosolids, proposers were asked to process a portion of the County's organic waste (from restaurants) that is currently deposited in the Naples Landfill. The initial purpose of the RFP was to dispose of this organic waste and the biosolids was added as an additional waste source. The guarantee for organic waste is 5,000 tpy. The RFP was open to allow proposers to choose the process and the location for the processing facility. The County received four proposals on August 26, 2002 and will evaluate the proposals during the latter third of 2002. As of the writing of this 2002 Master Plan no selection had been made. None of the proposals received followed the County's "base" request, that is to process 25,000 tpy of biosolids and 5,000 tpy of organic waste. The proposals are based on the County providing at least a portion of the site or sites required for the facilities. A summary of the four proposals is as follows: The Slane Company: Proposes to take 200,000 tpy of municipal solid waste (MSW), 75,000 tpy of yard waste, and 30,000 tpy of biosolids and process it into "enriched cellulose fluff". The cellulose is then converted into ethanol. · R&D Soil Builders: Proposes to take 75,000 tpy of yard waste, 5,000 tpy of organic waste, and 25,000 tpy of biosolids and develop a composting facility. Organic Waste Management: Proposes to take 40,000 tpy of yard waste, 5,000 tpy of organic waste, and 30,000 tpy of biosolids and construct an earthworm composting facility. · Synagro: Proposes to take 25,000 tpy ofbiosolids and construct a heat drying facility. The proposals all contained a technical and economic component. Proposed costs are from about $35 to $60 per wet ton. Each of the proposers offer to receive the County's biosolids for a period of about 10 years, with an option by the County to extend the period for two additional five-year periods. Each of the above proposers is also responsible to market or distribute the resultant product. It is anticipated that a decision on these proposals will be made in early 2003. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 65 11/21/2002 7.3.6.3 Identification of Long-Term Biosolids Management Alternatives Neither the NCWRF nor SCWRF has space available for stabilization facilities for biosolids, such as aerobic digestion. Dewatering at each site is currently available and is required for cost-effective transportation of the biosolids to a remote site for further processing or for disposal. The range in quantity ofbiosolids estimated by 2022 is as follows: :_stimated 2022 Biosolids Quantities Wastewater Flow - Annual Average Maximum Month mgd MMDF Biosolids Quantity - Biosolids Quantity Facility dry tons per Day - dry tons per day NCWRF 26.9 20.7 26.9 SCWRF 15.8 12.2 15.8 Proposed Regional 11.9 9.2 11.9 WRF's TOTALS 42.1 54.6 Note: Based on unit solids production provided by facility designers. The above is equivalent to about 263 to 341 wet tons per day (96,000 to 125,000 tpy) at 16 percent solids. This is well above the quantity of biosolids to be processed under the long-term biosolids RFP. The typical ultimate processes for the disposal of biosolids available to the County include incineration, landfilling, or land application in some form. Incineration has a number of disadvantages that make it unlikely as a disposal option in Collier County. Landfilling is a viable option, but costs of disposal by landfilling have recently increased significantly. These factors tend to push the decision on biosolids handling to those involving land application. Of the four proposals received by the County in 2002 for long-term biosolids processing, three involve ultimate land application of a biosolids product. There is an additional proposal that has been received that is for a unique process that would ultimately produce ethanol as a product, using biosolids and other waste products as the raw materials. Treatment systems for unstabilized, dewatered biosolids are limited. The lack of stabilization processes at the existing plants limits the opportunities available for further processing. Processes such as heat drying to produce a marketable Class A/AA product need to have stabilized biosolids to prevent odors when the final product is used as a fertilizer. The designer of the NCWRF expansion to 30.6 mgd (MMDF) has looked into including aerobic digestion at the plant. They have estimated that a 5.0-MG tank would be required. Most likely the location for tankage would need to be in place of Reject Pond 1 or lA. Once the plant is equipped with on-site deep injection wells, these pond locations could become available. 2002 ww Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 11/21/2002 66 Similar space does not appear to be available at the SCWRF. Since space is not available at the SCWRF, it is recommended that the County consider only options for biosolids handling that will accommodate biosolids that are not stabilized. The benefits of having only biosolids from the NCWRF stabilized would appear to be minimal. Therefore, the County should pursue only those biosolids options that can accommodate non-stabilized biosolids. Most alternative projects involve a process that would develop a fertilizer or some other type of product for marketing and distribution. It is the marketability of the product that is the most crucial aspect of selecting a biosolids project. There are many examples of projects that were constructed only to find that the market for the product was not available or that the project could not compete in the market economically. The process must be selected in such a way as to provide the greatest success in the marketplace. All projects under consideration under the 2002 RFP, involve production of some sort of product. 7.3.6.4 Comparison of Long-Term Biosolids Management Alternatives The County has had a short-term biosolids completed and have received proposals for a long-term biosolids project in 2002. The County needs to develop a biosolids strategy that is less expensive and more reliable than the current method of disposal by hauling long-distance to a landfill. The on-going selection process for the proposals received in 2002 is being conducted independent of the development of this 2002 Master Plan. Recommendations regarding a long-term biosolids strategy herein may be moot, depending on the final detailed consideration and recommendations of the proposal review committee. However, it is not certain that any of the proposals will be accepted. Therefore, there appears to be several outcomes that are available as of the third quarter of 2002 as follows: Select Vendor from 2002 RFP - Under this outcome, the selection committee would choose one vendor for a long-term biosolids project. The construction and permitting for the project would likely occur over a period as long as two years and the facility would be available by 2005. Since the proposed time frame for the project is an initial 10 years, the project would then be available to the County until about 2015. With the extension options available, the County would have the option to extend this contract through 2025. Make No Vendor Selection from 2002 RFP - One possible outcome of the review of proposals is that the selection committee could decide that none of the proposals submitted is in the best interest of the County or it may not be possible to negotiate a final contract with the selected vendor. Under this outcome the following strategies appear to be viable: o Implement Short-Term Recommendation - The County could implement the short-term strategies recommended in the Short Term 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 67 11/21/2002 Residuals Management Study, while developing an alternative long-term strategy. Some of the options recommended, however, may not continue to be viable, even for the short term. One of the proposers under the 2002 RFP is the one that is conducting the pilot composting facility. If not selected for the long term, they may not be willing accept a short-term project. Another option suggestion in the Short Term Residuals Management Study is to develop a pilot Bioset project. However, given that Bioset was not one of the vendors submitting on the 2002 RFP, they may not be interested in a short-term project. Thus, the viability of these options is in question. Continue to Landfill and Develop New RFP - Under this option the County would continue to landfill the biosolids in the short term, while developing a new RFP. Lessons learned under the 2002 RFP could be incorporated into the new RFP. Under this approach, the County would select a vendor to provide a full service project. The vendor would select the process and then, design, construct, and operate the facility. The vendor would charge a tipping fee to the County and to other users of the facility. This alternative takes some of the control for selection of the process away from the County, but has a major advantage in that the vendor takes responsibility for biosolids disposal. The vendor is allowed to select a process that takes advantage of other resources he may have for product distribution in Florida for that product. This alternative also has the advantage of broadening the competition among more vendors than alternatives where the process is pre-selected before bidding. Under this approach it would be important to develop contingency plans if the vendor were to renege on his responsibilities. Contract provisions could be included to set responsibilities and perhaps establish a bond to help pay for costs associated with the County taking over the facility or using alternate means of biosolids management. Continue to Landfill and Develop a County Owned and Operated Biosolids Processing Facility - Under this option thc County would continue to landfill the biosolids in the short term, while developing a County-mn biosolids project. Project steps would include preparation of a biosolids master plan, selection of a process, selection of a site, designing the facility, and permitting and constructing the facility. Under this approach, the County would hire a consultant to design the facilities and bid the construction project to contractors. The contractor would turn over the completed facility to the County for operation and product distribution. The advantage to this approach is that it provides the County with the greatest degree of control over the project. The disadvantage is that it places the County in the position of having to become a marketer of a product in competition with other industries and other government entities. Process selection by the County becomes crucial to the long-term success of the project. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 68 The recommended long-term biosolids management strategies are dependent on the outcome of the review of RFP's that is ongoing as of late 2002. Depending on the outcome of these reviews, one of two actions by the County are recommended as follows: If the County Selects a Vendor from the 2002 Biosolids RFP: It is recommended that the County conduct a site selection process for biosolids processing, if needed for the selected process. (One proposer has a site for biosolids processing and another wants to use the Naples Landfill site, where landfill gas is available.) It is also recommended that regional partners be solicited by the County and the selected vendor to expand the scope of the project. An expanded project could have the advantages of lower cost for the County for biosolids processing and provide a more reliable facility. A larger facility would be potentially more reliable by making the County's biosolids a smaller portion of the total biosolids processed at the facility. Lee County, the City of Naples, the City of Bonita Springs, the City of Marco Island, the City of Immokalee, and FGUA may be potential regional partners. If the County Does Not Select a Vendor from the 2002 Biosolids RFP: It is recommended that the County seek regional partners and solicit proposals for a biosolids project. The RFP would be structured based on lessons leamed during the 2002 Biosolids RFP process. The advantage of a design/build/own/operate approach over one in which the County would design and construct its own facility is that the selected vendor would be responsible for marketing the resulting product. Private vendors have a better understanding of the biosolids marketing issues and may have existing supply contracts for biosolids product. Until the County enters into a long-term biosolids contract, there appears to be few options in the short term to the current approach of landfilling of the dewatered biosolids. 7.4 Force Mains and Pumping Stations The County's existing hydraulic model of the force main system has been used to evaluate the effects of the changes proposed. The modeling software used was KYPIPE2000. The model was updated to reflect current (2002) conditions. Populations and commercial areas within the existing sewered areas were disaggregated to determine the flow to each existing major pumping station in the North and South Service Areas. This was done as an update to the 2001 Wastewater Master Plan. - Appendix A presents details of wastewater flow estimates for each pumping station. In general, wastewater flow to each pumping station was estimated as residential and non- residential components for each TAZ shown on Figure 5-1. The portion of each TAZ tributary to each pumping station was determined using maps and recent aerial photographs. The aerial photographs were also used to determine the percent buildout for each TAZ. The bases for determining the flows to each pumping station is as follows: 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 69 Annual average flow projections were determined based on population estimates described in Section 5. For the purposes of hydraulic modeling, a specific projection must be chosen; a range of flows cannot be used. Section 5 showed that the overall annual average unit flow rates are 145 gpcd for the North Service Area and 100 gpcd in the South. This is based a unit rate applied to the permanent population and includes the commercial and industrial flows. This represents the annual average plant flow divided by the Census-derived permanent population. An analysis was done of the amount of commercial and industrial area in the North and South Service Areas and it was determined that the residential-only wastewater flow is about 125 gpcd in the North and 80 gpcd in the South. This is used in Appendix A to determine residential populations in all Non-residential (commercial and industrial) flows were based on 500 gallons per acre per day. Non-residential flows were converted to an equivalent population at 125 gpcd for the North and 80 gpcd for the South for each TAZ. The purpose of this was to use population equivalence as a means of projecting the increase in commercial and industrial areas. The population equivalence defining the non-residential areas is assumed to grow at the same rate as the permanent population. A peaking factor was applied to the average flow to determine peak hourly flow used for modeling. The peaking factor was determined based on the equation shown in Section 5.5. The hydraulic model was employed for the 2007 and the 2022 conditions for the North and the South Service Areas. For the hydraulic analysis of the wastewater transmission system, design factors for the pump stations and transmission mains were selected. For pump stations, the following performance details for each qualifying (usually 10 hp and larger) station were input into the model: Pump capability information: Manufacturer, number of pumps, horsepower rating, impeller size and performance curves Pump discharge main size and elevations Pump station wet well size and invert elevation Smaller pump stations not included in the model were assigned as inflows into the system. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 70 Several factors used in determining adequate pump station capacity were assumed, based on discussions with County staff and previous model development: Pump "off" elevation 2-ft above wet well invert elevation Minor losses calculated using Cameron Hydraulic Data for typical wastewater pumping station piping configuration. Transmission main performance was analyzed in the model using the Hazen-Williams equation. This equation is commonly utilized to estimate head loss in pipes, taking into account pipe size, length, fluid velocity and piping material. Piping material was assigned a roughness coefficient, referred to as the "C" factor, as follows: Pipe Diameter(inches) "C" Factor 4 -16 115 20-48 125 These factors are commonly used values in the design ofwastewater transmission mains. This combination of design factors was used to assess the capability of the County wastewater collection system under several conditions. The transmission systems of the North and South Service Areas are organized differently. The system in the North Service Area includes numerous smaller pumping stations discharging into manifolded force mains. The system typically generates high transmission main velocities and requires high-head pumps for the smaller stations. For the North Service Area, a high-head hydraulic analysis was performed assuming all pumps (except standby pumps) operating with a low water level in the wet well. High head model runs were evaluated to determine if pump stations could pump 60 percent of the peak flows with all pumps running. Stations not meeting these criteria are recommended for improvement. The South Service Area is organized such that smaller pumps stations discharge into larger Master Lift Stations. These Master Lift Stations typically discharge into manifolds going to other Master Lift Stations, so transmission main velocities are generally less than in the North Service Area, resulting in lower-head pumps in the smaller stations. In addition to the high-head condition described for the North Service Area, a low-head hydraulic analysis was performed for the South Service Area. The Iow-head condition was analyzed assuming a single operating pump in the manifold. The low-head condition was evaluated to determine if pumps operating alone would exceed pump run-out conditions. A low-head model run was not necessary for the North Service Area due to the large number of pumps included in the manifold and the low probability that one pump would be operating alone. In addition to pump stations, transmission main velocities were analyzed. The general criteria established for evaluation was as follows: 2002 ww Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 71 11/21/2002 · Minimum velocity of 2.0 feet per second to prevent solids from accumulating in the pipes. · Maximum velocities of 7.0 feet per second to avoid scour and large head loss conditions which result in high operating costs. Transmission mains evaluated to be outside these parameters were recommended for improvement. The recommended improvements resulting from application of the hydraulic model are reported for the North Service Area in Tables 7-1 and 7-2. Improvements necessary prior to 2007 are shown in Table 7-1 and are included in the five-year CIP reported in Section 8. Improvements necessary after 2007 and before 2022, the end of the planning period, are shown in Table 7-2 for the North Service Area. Tables 7-3 and 7-4 are equivalent tables for the South Service Area. The pumping system configuration and force main interconnections modeled are shown on Figure 7-3 (in pocket). Also included on Figure 7-3 are the recommended system improvements that are necessary to improve system hydraulics and to assure sufficient capacity is available. A pipeline connecting the North and South Service Areas is also shown on Figure 7-3 together with the proposed transfer pumping stations. This recommended pipeline will increase system reliability by allowing flow to be transferred between the boundaries of the North and South Service Area. This will allow the County to transfer flow away from either plant to where capacity may be available. Construction costs have been estimated for the pumping station and pipeline projects. Table 7-5 shows the estimated costs for the North Service Area and Table 7-6 for the South Service area. 7.5 Timing Issues The point at which new facilities will be required is difficult to determine with certainty. The County has been experiencing tremendous growth over the last several years. This 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update covers the period from 2002 through 2022. Within this report, years have been shown as projections of when certain populations or wastewater flows may be obtained. Regarding timing, it is not so much the dates that are important, but rather milestones. When certain events occur, the County will need to react with a facility out of the 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update. For example, certain pipelines are proposed to interconnect systems. The timing for such a pipeline may be triggered by a road construction project as much as by a need for the pipeline to meet an immediate collection or transmission system demand. Timing of treatment facilities to serve the rural fringe area will be triggered by development. Plants in the rural fringe area will need to be constructed only as required to serve new development. 11/21/2002 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 72 TABLE 7-1 COLLIER cOUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Recommended Pump Station and Pipeline Improvements North Service Area by 200? Greeley and ttansen LLC October 2002 Current Capacity Pump Station I.D. Location Serves lip Improvement Number (GPM) Currently a duplex - improve 1.07.00 Quail Creek Master Station Quail Creek, NoRhbrooke Plaza area and Quail West 7.5 i000 to triplex with new 1,000 3PM 35 lip motors lO 387 Upgrade pumps to 47 lip 1.07.02 11698 Quail Village Way Quail Village Currently a triplex, upgrade 1.0g.00 Vineyards Boulevard Fbe Vineyards in TAZ 59 20 200 romps to 47 HP 1.09.00 Pelican Bay WRF (IdS # l) Pelican Bay WRF 77 954 Upgrade pumps to g8 HP 1.13.00 1390 Nottingham Drive Victoria Park in TAZ 46 7.5 292 Upgrade pumps to 47 HP 1.25.00 9gg Plymouth Rock Drive Landmark Estates l0 352 Upgrade pumps to 20 HP 1.30.00 lmmokaiee Road and Veterans Park Southwind Estates 5 Upgrade pumps to l0 HP 1.33.00 Euclid & Wickliffe Willoughby Acres 9.4 150 Upgrade pumps to 29 HP 1.34.00 Pan-Am & Venetian Way Gulf Harbor I0 176 Upgrade pumps to 20 HP 1.36.00 Yucca Court and Wiggins Pass Road Wiggins Lake 20 563 Upgrade pumps to 20 lip 1.38.00 Cori~!hian Way across from 3556 World Tennis Center 20 528 Upgrade Impeller to #452 1.40.00 15 I0 Rail fiend Blvd. (Off US 4 I) North Collier Industrial Center 10 247 Upgrade pumps to 20 HP 1.43.08 5385 Jaeger Drive Pine Ridge Industrial P~k 25 317 Upgl'ade pumps to 20 lip 1.46.00 Timberwood Timberwood Subdivision I0 264 Upgrade pumps to 14.8 HP 1.48.00 Zarillon Place East Entrance Pine Ridge and Airport 23 493 Upgrade Impeller to #452 Will get flow from: Gadaletta(202), Arbor Lakes 1.49.00 Sterling Oaks S. of Guard liouse Club(437);Meadow Brook Estates(616) and Sterling 10 211 Upgrade pumps to 47 HP Oaks(1700) Project Description Location Proposed Improvement Upgrade existing 4" diameter force main to a 6" diameter Approximately 1,656 LF from MPS force main from MPS 1.45.00 to Airport-Pulling Road Upgrade existing 4" 1.45.00 to Airport-Pulling Road (Approximately 1,656 LF) CR 951 between Immokaiee Road and Construct a new 16" diameter force main fi'ora Immokaiee CR 951 Vanderbilt Beach Road g. oad south to Vanderbilt Beach Road Install approximately 10,500 LF of 16' foreemain from MPS Jpgradc Vanderbilt From MPS l.gO.00 to MPS 1.90.00 1.$0.00 east down VandcrbiIt Road to MPS 1.90.00. ?,oad Pipeline Construct approximately 21,200 LF of 24' force main Upgrade Vanderbilt Prom Logan Boulevard to GoodleRe Frank parallel to force main on Vanderbilt Beach Road from Logan Road Pipeline Road Boulevard to Gnndlette Fnmk Road 2onslruct approximately 10,500 LF of 24" force main Ooodlette Frank Road :rom Vanderbilt Beach Road to NcWRF arallcl to force main on Gnndlette Frank Road from Force Main Vanderbilt Beach Road to NCWRF TABLE 7-2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Recommended Pump Station and Pipeline Improvements North Service Area by 2022 Grccley and Hansan LLC October 2002 Current Current Pum@ Proposed Pump or Capacity Improvement Pump Station I.D, Location Serves ltP (GPM) Number 5 140 Upgrade pump to 7.5 HP 1.01.21 Wiggins Pass Marina at Co. Park Wiggins Pass Matins 1.01,22 14623 Gglen Eden Boulevard Vandcrbuilt Road l0 238 Upgrade impeller to #481 1.03.00 Piper Boulevard Palm River 40 1760 Upgrade pumps to 77 HP I. 10.00 Wyndemere (behind maint, shop) Wyndemare 29 i 077 Upgrade impeller to #452 1.24.00 Off U.S. 41 and Old U.S. 41 Kerr Plaza i0 352 Upgrade impeller to #467 1.39.00 Ilex and Tannin Lane Walden Oaks 10 407 Upgrade pumps to 23 HP 1.41.00 teddy Bear Drive Pine Ridge and Airport 10 500 Upgrade pumps to 14.8 HP 1.56.00 9259 The Lane Quail Woods 10 220 Upgrade pumps to 47 HP 1.90.00 8424 Danbury Boulevard Vanderbuilt Country Club 88 1372 Upgrade impeller to #466 Project Description Location Proposed Improvement Upgrade 6" forcemain from MPS 1.56.00 to Immokalee Upgrade 6" forcemain From MPS 1.56.00 to Immokalee Road Road to ~n $" fomemain Upgrade 6" fosumnsin from 1.07.02 to Immokalee Road to a Upgrade 6' foreem~n -'rom 1,07.02 to lmmokalee Road 8" forcemain. TABLE ?-3 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Recommended Pump Station and Pipeline Improvements South Service Area by 2007 Greeley and Hanson LLC October 2002 Current Current Pump Proposed Pump Capacity Pump Station I,D. Location Serves Capacity (GPM) Number HP (GPM) 3.06.01 Thomasson Drive & Normandy Future high growth area from Collier DRI 5.0 298 Upgrade pumps to 30 HP 3.09.09 Progress & lnduslxial Naples Production Park - pumps to 3.09.00 20.0 352 Upgrade pumps to 29 HP 3.10.05 NE Cape Sable & Cape Kennedy Drive Naples Mobile Estates MHP 7.5 264 Upgrade pomps to l0 HP 3.10.12 Briarwood Boulevard Briarwood 3.0 250 Upgrade pumps to 10 HP 3.12.12 Kaings Way and Davis Bouylevard Kings Lake 10.0 563 Upgrade pumps to 20 HP 3.13.10 Devonshire & Appleby Berkshire Lakes 5.0 187 Upgrade pumps to 14.8 HP 3.12.22 Bedzel Circle 951 Commerce Center 5.0 352 Upgrade pumps to 20 HP Project Description Location Proposed Improvement t2" Forcemain Serving Palm Drive, Lakewood Blvd. Under Davis Palm Davis Force main improvements currently in design MPS 3.08.00, 3.09.00 Blvd. To MPS 3.09.00 ~hase and 3.05.00 TABLE 7-4 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Recommended Pomp Station and Pipeline Improvements Sooth Service Area by 2022 Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 Current Current Pump Proposed Pump Capacity Pump Station I.D. Location Serves Capacity Number HP (GPM) (GPM) 3.02.46 4459 CR 95 ! The Club Estates 10 200 Upgrade pumps to 20 HP 3.03.02 3 I64 Areca Enchanting Acres MHP 5.0VFD 140 Upgrade pumps to 7.5 HP 3.10.00 Briarwood Boulevard Briarwood 14.8 1206 Currently a Triplex station, upgrade pumps to 23 HP 3.12.21 Beck Boulevard Tollgate Commercial Center 20 3?0 Upgrade pumps to 14.8 HP New MPS to be Triplex with 3.14.00 7610 Davis Blvd. (County owned prope~y', New developments near Naples Heritage Golf & CC 47 HP motors Convert from an existing Pelican Lake (Possible high growth area north of Marco 3.16.00 Championship Drive off isle of Capri Shores) 35 2520 duplex station to a triplex with new 20 HP pumps 3.18.00 5670 Collier Bird (951 S. of U.S. 41) Rookery Bay Silver Lakes Creative Lane 35 2863 Convert from a duplex to a quad station Project Description Location Proposed Improvement !4' forccmain on Davis Davis Boulevard from 3.14.00 to 3.12.00 Extend existing 24" main on Davis Boulevard out to new Boulevard MPS 3.14.00 Recommendations are made in Section 5 to use the Conservative Growth and Moderate Growth population projections to provide the range of wastewater flow projections for the 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update. It is necessary to develop Conservative Growth and Moderate Growth wastewater flow projections in total and disaggregated to the five wastewater treatment plants proposed. Table 5-6 shows the recommended range of population estimates for the total of the potential County service areas. Appendix B shows the development of the Conservative Growth and Moderate Growth estimates of population and wastewater flow. The future sewered population is based on the above totals and some basic assumptions regarding future areas served. For the Conservative Growth Sewered Population Estimate the basic assumption is that the total population in all of the potential service areas is served by 2030. For the Moderate Growth Sewered Population Estimate the basic assumption is that service is not provided to areas now unsewered, including Golden Gate Estates. It is also assumed for the Moderate Growth estimate that Golden Gate City remains independent of the County. The remaining bases for the sewered populations in Appendix B are as follows: Conservative Growth Sewered Population Estimate 1. Sewered Areas - North and South. Use total population for these areas. 2. Unsewered Areas -North and South. Assume none of this population served until 2006. Assume areas fully served by 2030. 3. Golden Gate Estates. Assume none of this population served until 2006. Assume areas fully served by 2030. 4. Orange Tree. Assume population served by 2005 and fully served thereafter. 5. Rural Fringe Areas. Assume growth occurs and service provided by 2006. Once growth occurs in this area, service must be provided immediately. 6. Golden Gate City. Assume County takes over by 2010 and that the entire area is sewered by 2020. Moderate Growth Sewered Population Estimate 1. Sewered Areas - North and South. Use total population for these areas. 2. Unsewered Areas -North and South. Assume this population is never served. 3. Golden Gate Estates. Assume this population is never served. 4. Orange Tree. Assume this population is served in 2010. The County has an obligation to provide service by 2011. 5. Rural Fringe Areas. Assume growth occurs and service provided by 2006. Once growth occurs in this area, service must be provided immediately. 6. Golden Gate City. Assume no service provided to this area. CCPS developed updated estimates of water and sewer district populations in late August 2002. These estimates were incorporated into the population projections developed in 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 73 1 I/21/2002 Section 5 and in Appendix B (Table B-l), herein. CCPS used the population disaggregation developed by Greeley and Hansen LLC as the starting point for their estimates. Appendix B (Table B-2) compares the CCPS October estimates of sewered population range. [NOTE: Figures 7-4 and 7-5 have been deleted.] Figure 7-6 shows that the range of October population projections developed in this report for the sewered areas encompasses the CCPS estimates and indicates that the range of populations presented are consistent with other planning documents. For the purposes of this 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update, October populations are used to develop flow rates in given years. Flow is allocated to each treatment facility based on the service area map for the Five- Plant Alternative. Appendix B (Table B-3) shows the estimate by year of the Conservative and Moderate Growth Estimates of wastewater for the five plants. Figures 7-7 through 7-11 show the estimated wastewater flow range by year for each proposed plant using the Conservative Growth approach. The figures compare the expected wastewater flow with the recommended capacities. The capacities indicated need to be matched with the expected flows on a periodic basis to make sure that the population increases and the associated wastewater flows are matching targeted values. Figures 7-12 and 7-13 combine all facilities for the total County service area, assuming that the district boundaries are expanded into the Rural Fringe Area as shown on Figure 7-2. The plant capacities shown are to accommodate the recommended Conservative Growth Estimate. 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 74 11/21/2002 ~OI~VHfldOd Z < (ODIAI) SA~O~I~! H~LLVA~LLSVAX H,LMOI~ I~.ClIAIIXV~ Z < ((IDi~) SA~O~I~i ~I~LVA~LSVA~ H£NOI~ I~flI~IXVI~ UJ U.I I.IJ W 0 0 °~ ((IDIAI) S3AO'Id H~I.VA~I£SV3A HI.NOIAI IN~IINIXVIN Z < (O~)IA]) SA~O~i~I ~I~i£VA~i£SVA~ H,LN~OIAI ~f'IIAIIXVIAI ((IDIA[) S~AO~I~I H~LLVA~LLSV~A H~LNIOIAI IA[~II~IXVI~ ({IDIAI) SA~Oq~t lt~ILVAA~I£SVAA H£NIOIAI IAIflIAIIXVIAI Z I-- ._i ILl Z ttI (Cl~)lfll) f~O'l-I H.LNOIfll ~n~i~l~ 0 0 8 Five-Year Capital Improvement Projects forWastewater Capital Improvement Projects (CIP's) have been developed by the County and Greeley and Hansen necessary to implement the recommended wastewater and reclaimed water program. The projects allow the County to maintain the existing infrastructure and respond to future growth. Table 8-1 lists the wastewater and reclaimed water CIP projects and provides a description of each. Table 8-2 lists the projects, the estimated costs, and the fiscal year when the project costs will be incurred by the County. Table 8-2 also shows the functional category for each project, whether it is for wastewater treatment, wastewater transmission, wastewater collection, or reclaimed water. Table 8-2 also divides the projects into those that serve to maintain the existing infrastructure or improve customer service and those that are for growth. A few projects are listed without an associated cost. For these projects, costs are anticipated to occur after fiscal year 2007. Table 8-3 shows proposed 20-Year CIP projects consistent with the recommendations in Section 7 for the Five-Plant Alternative. 2002 WW Master Plan Repo~__Final Draft.doc 75 11/21/2002 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC ULTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTE'~NATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY 2003 - 2007 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS WASTEWATER AND RECLAIMED WATER Greeley and Hansan LLC October 2002 Fund/TypeProjectProject Name Description (A) No. WASTEWATER PROJEGTS Existing Wastewater 413 (Growth Related) ProJecte Co,,,p;~;;un of expansion oftbe ex~sting NCWRF fon~ 6.5 to 13.5 MGD. Add 2 new clariflers, tour new aeration basins, one new effluent fiiter, a new chlonne contact bldg. & 413/GO 73031 NCWRF 5 MGD Expansion tank, a new blower bldg. Disinfection taciilty, sludge bewatedng expansion, sludge thickener, odor control, RDP retirement & sludge pumpiog station. 413/GD 73066 Wastawater Master Plan Updates Annual Update et wastewaler master plan. 413/GD 73074 Livingston Road FM PRR to VBR FM from pine Ridge Road lo Vaaderbiit Road 413/GD 73076 North/South Sewer Intarconnections West Interconnect between no~th and south sewer systems. 413/GD 73077 NCWRF Flow Equalization Flow Equalization Tanks ( 2 I~ t.5 million galior,.s) at NCWRF. 413/GD 73079 Master Pumping Station-lmmokalee Road/CR 951 New Master Pumping Station at immokalee Road/g51 4131GD 73085 VBR 16" FM - C.R. 951 to Logan Blvd. Study. design and w.a[,uction of new lr force main Imm C.R. 951 to Logan BI.cl. $1udy, G~a~. and constroction of new 16" force main from tmmokaloe Rd. to VanderbiR 413/GD 73086 C.R. 951 16" FM - Immokalee Rd. to VBR Beech Road. prepare study of long-term biosollds alternatives, determine locetldn for biosollds 413/GD 73088 Land Acquistion for Biosolids Facility processing facility, purchase property, and Implement plan. 413/GD 73128 SCWRF Flow Equalization Design/Construction of flow equalization at SCWRF. Study. Design and construction of a 16-itch force main lrom p~uwaad master pumping 413/GD 73131 Immokalee Road East 16" Force Main station near Immokalee Road and CRgSt to proposed Orange Tree WRF. This force mair 413/GD 73132 Santa Barbara Force Main Station 313.00 to Vanderbiit Beach Road. 413/GD 73150 Santa Barbara Force Main Booster Station force main. 413K~D 73151 Master Pump Station-Vanderbilt Beach Rd. & Logan Blvd. the Intersection of Logan Boulevard and Vended)ia Beach Road. 41:3/GD 73152 Master Pump Station-Vanderbilt Beach Rd. & Livingston Rd.New Master Pumping Station 413/GD "3153 Master Pump Station - Immokalee Rd. East Area "B" MPa to Serve Nollheast Service Area. 413/GD r3155 New NEWRF - Acquire Site 413/GD 73156 New Northeast Water Reclamation Facility property to rapWco the existing Orange Tree plant and serve potential new customers in 413/GD 73157 New SEWRF - Land Acquisition Study Area. 413/GD 73158 Palm Drive/Davis Blvd. Force Main eldsting 12-inch force main in Oavis Boulevard 413/GD 73166 ,Pumping Station Upgrades growth. 413/GD 73167 Growth Management Plan Update Update Senitar/Sewer Subeioment to Growth Ma,~av=,,~t Plan 413/GD 73190 /BR 16" FM - Islandwalk Reimbursement 413/GD 73195 MPS 3.14 (Naples Heritage) New Master Pumping Station 413/GD 73945 Pumping Station Improvements 413/GD 73948 NCWRF Deep Injection Well Design end install two deep injection wells and new DIW pumping station. 413/GD 73949 SCWRF Expansion 2001 Expansion of BCWRF Io 16 mad MMDF. 413/GD 73950 NCWRF 30,6 MMADF Expansion (Phase 1 = 24.1 mgdMMDF) aloe be 5.0 mad AADF (e.5 mad MMDF). The first phase expansion will result in a New Waatewater 413 Projects 413/GD WW7 , Land Acquisition Study for East Central WRF Area. 413/GO WW10 Southeast WRF Land Acquisition purchase 50 ac site at in East Central ama for site of WRF. 413/GD WW19 Replace Ex. 4" Force Main with 6" 145.00 to Airport-pul[~ng Road (upgrading existing 4' fo-co main), 413~D VW~26 Septic Tanks Off-line - Golden Gate 413/GD 2002-1 Livingston Road FM Upsize- Regional Park to I.R. main from Regional Park to I.E. 413/GD 2002-2 VBR FM - Logan Blvd. To Goodlette Go~dlette-Frank Road. 413/GD 2002-3 Goodlette Rd FM -VBR to NCWRF to NCWRF 413/GD 2002--4East Central Force Main Existing Waatewater 414 {Renewal/Replacement) Projects 4141R,R&E70027 Clean Water Act Risk Mgt Study Clean Waist Act Risk Management Study for Wastewater. TABLE COU. IER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC ULTII.ITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTE'WATER MASTER pLAN UPDATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY 2003 - 2007 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS WASTEWATER AND RECLAIMED WATER Greeley and Hanson ~.LC October 2002 Fund/TypeProJect Project Name Description (A) No. 414/R,R&E70078 apl Assessment Software Soltwara Goedlede. Frank Road Four Laning Improvements (Jct. Pine Ridge Road to Jct. Vanderbi~t 414/R,R&E73028 Goodlette Rd FM Relocation Beech Road) Relocate 12,500 LF o~' 16' FM and 4,400 LF of 24" FM as part of road widening project 60134 Creating e set of system maps for the water and waslewater departments to be utilized ~'or location of all facilities, The maps will be utilized in emergency situations and as a 414/R,R&E73032 Sewer System Mapping reference for local englnser~ requesting infomlation on our wastewster system. Additidnally, the maps will be utilized by the PVVED Section in p~anning for future expansion ot our system to keep up with anficipst ad growth. 414/R,R&E73045 FDOT Joint Proiects Contingency ~und for the mlocatidn of sawer mains from various FDOT projects. Rsttlesnake Hammock Rd. to Ds'~is Bled., Reincale sewer mains for road widening 414/R,R&E73054 Cnty Barn Sewer Line Relocate project. Road project currently scheduled for FY 2006. Replace sus.staedani wastewater collection system sel~ing 4. streets off o~' Port-au-Prince 414/R,R&E73060 Port Au Pdnca Sewer Road pending idenlifiCalidn of a funding sou[ce. Relocolidn of utilities as may be needed gh~n accelerated County road canstructidn 414/R,R&E73065 CCDOT Utility Relocates schedules. Study a~d implement electrical upgrades to inlq~ove energy efficiency at the t(estment 414/R,R&E73071 Energy Efficiency Enhancements I~anls and larger pumping ststidns. 414/R,R&E73072 =ublic Utilities Operations Center growth. To Ixovfl:ie sewer service connec~idns to plopertles (M&E and B&I) South of Henderson 414AR.R&E73078 Henderson Creek Sawer Improvements CreekRd. 414/R,R&E73082 Pump/Lift Stations Rahab Design end bid pumping station repabititstion for wastewater collections department. 414/R,R&E73083 Sewer Line Rehat} Design and bid tmnchless sewer rehabilitation tor wastewster collections itepartment. 414/R,R&E73127 Sludge Stabilization Management Sludge Management Improvements 414/R,R&E73160 Rookery Bay FM and PS Improvements Impmvemnets to Rookery Bay wastewster transrmsSion system. This project will allow the County to take over ser-~ca lo wastewster customers in the 414/R,R&E73161 Take Package Plants Off-Line (4) County now served by package treafment piants. 414/R,R&E73162 City Permanent Inter-connect Forcamain inter, connect with City of Naples 414/R,R&E73163 BSU Inter-connect Fomemain inter.connect with Bonita Slxings Utilities 414/R,R&E73164 South County I&l Analysis provide sewer system I&l analysis, including r',eld investigatidns and preparation of I&l 414/R,R&E73165 Asset Management Assistance P~ovlde assistance in management of the County's utility assets. 414/R,R&E73168 Odor/Corrosion control throughout the westewater coitectidn system, 414/R,R&E73300 Immokalee Rd. - US 41 to 1-75 Force Main Relocate Relocate ex/sting Io~e main fo~ mad cunslna:tidn. 414/R,R&E73301 VBR - Airport Rd. to CR951 Force Main Relocate ReleCale existing fnma main fa' mad constmctidn. 414/R,R&E73302 CR951 - Golden Gate Blvd. to Immokalee Road Relocate Relocate existing force main fo*- mad constmc$ion. 414/R,R&E73306 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. - Polly to CR951 Relocate Relocate eidsUng force main for mad constmclion. 414/R,R&E73916 ! SouthCnty RegWWTP formotoroparatedvah,es. 414/R,R&E73922 i Telemetry Add telemetry to all wasfewater pumping stations over t~ve ysem starting FYO2. 414/R,R&E73943 30" Immokalee Road FM Clean existing 30' FM and install permansM I:,ggin~ station. 414/R,R&E73944 Billing System report wdting or generalion capabilities. Additinnsly, the soltware is outdated for the 414AR,R&E73949 SCWRF Expansion 2001 Expansion of SCWRF to la mgd.. 414/R,R&E73950 NCRWRF Expand to 30.6 mgd MMDF Expansion of NCWRF to 30.0 mgd MMDF ( Phase 1 = 24.1 mgd MMDF). 414/R,R&ETBD 2003 FDOT Joint Projects Contingency fund for the relocation Gl sewer mains ~ various FDOT Ixojects. 4141R,R&ETBD Sewer Line Rahab Design and bid tranchless sewer rehabilitation for wastewster collections department. 414AR,R&ETBD PumpA. ift Station Rahab prepare manhole and lilt station rehabilitation annual contract bid documents. 414/R,R&ETBD Odor/Corrosion Control throughout Ihs wastewster collection system. 414/R,R&ETBD CCDOT Utility Relocates schedules, New Waatewater 414 Projects 414/R,R&EWW14 Decommssioning of Pelican Bay WRF Study, design and decommlseioniog of Pelican Bay WRF. 414/R,R&E2002-5NCWRF Oxidation Ditch improvements Study, Design end Construction of Improvements to NCWRF Oxidation Ditch 414/R,R&E2002-6South Countyl&l implementation SCWRF. 414/R,R&E2002-7North County I&l Analysis Provide sewer system I&l analysis and lield investigations and peepers I&l reporl. 414/R,R&E2002-6North County I&l Implementation NCWRF. 414/R,R&E2002-9NCWRF Reliability Improvements Replace various components at the NCWRF fo improve plant mlisbility. 414AR,R&E2002-10 SCWRF Reliability Improvements Replace veddus components at the SCWRF to imlxOve plant mliabitJty. RECLAIMED WATER PROJECTS Existing Reclaimed Water 413 Projects 413/GD 74015 Misc. Effluent Improvements Miscellaneous E~fluent Improvements 413/GD 74020 Back Pressure Sustaining Valves ixessura on demand system. 413/GD 74021 Golden Gate Canal Supplemental Water System th~gstidn demands. Update effluent management portidn of countywide wastewster master lYan. Study, 413/GD 74029 Effluent Management Master Plan Update permiUing and property ~¢¢lUisitidn in FY 2003. Design end permitting in FY 2004. Construction of dry weather withdrawal faci~ies in FY 2005. TABLE 8-1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERhMENT PUBLIC ULTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER pLAN UPDATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FY 2003 o 2007 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS WASTEWATER AND RECLAIMED WATER Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 Fund/TypeProject Project Name Description (A) No. Oaslgn, permit and construct one ASR test welt initls~', then construct up to seven ASR wells for the p*JrT)ose of injecting surT)lus reclaimed water during off peaks and rethevi~g 413/GD 74030 ASR Reclaimed Water Wells same dudng peak demand times for sales to reuse customers. Also includes monitor wells piping p~mps and le[emetfy. Construct 20' reclaimnd water main along Vanderb~Jt Beach Road from Airport Road to 413/GD 74034 Vanderbilt Bch Reclaim WM 20" Village Walk Circle to in.ease flows to Ibe N/S interconnect, the injection welts and customers east ct' 1-75. Construct 16' re.aimed water main along Radio Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. From 413/GD 74035 Radio Rd/Santa Bar'oara Blvd. 16" Reclamed WM Foid~e to Countryside to ioc~'ease flows to N/S interconnec~ A poasibts aSemate mute is along the FPL easement betweerl Oavts BI~I. & Radio Rd. 413/GD 74076 Reclaimed Water Booster Pump Station - North New Bcoater Pumping Station. 413/GO 74077 NCWRF 20" Reclaimed Water Main-NCWRF to Vanderbilt Beach Rd. New Reclaimed Water Transrntssion Main. NCWRF 20" Reclaimed Water Main-Along Livingston Rd., VBR to Pine New Reclain~d Water Transmission Main along Livingston Rd. tram Pine Ridge Rd, to 413/GD 74078 Ridge Rd. Vandsd~#t Beach Road. 413/GD 74125 Supptamental Ii. get,on Water Study, design end construction of suppiementat watm' facllies for reclsin~nd water system, 413/GD TED 2002 Growth Management Plan Update Update growlh management plan subelement e~ry fi,~ years. New Reclaimed Water 413 Projects 413/GD RW1 Reclaimed Water Booster PS - North SA Report, August 2001. Existing Reclaimed Water 414 Projects 414/R,R&E74011 South Storage Ponds Improvements to storage ponds at SCWRF 414/R,R&E74015 Misc. Effluent Improvements Allowance for annual lmp¢ovements to the reclaimed water transmission system, 414/R.R&E74019 Cnty Barn Rd Eft Line Relocate widening Ixoject. Road Wojec~ currently scheduled f~r FY06. 414/R,R&E74021 Golden Gate Canal Supplemental Water System Initiation of plan to oblain supplementat inlgation water from the canal. 414/R,R&E74023 Pelican Bay Irrg Fire Conversion of Pelican Bay Fire protection system rrm11 rec~imed water to potable water. Goodintte-Frank Road Four Laning Iml;xovemenls (.k~. Pine Ridge Road to Jct. Vanderbiit 414AR,R&E74028 Goodlette Rd Reclaim WM - Relocate Beach Road) Relocate 4,400 LF Of 20' effluent main as pe~ of road widening project 80134. 414/R,R&E74030 RecJaimed Water ASR Study, daslge and coastmction of new reclaimed water ASR welts. 414/R,R&E74031 RehabSCWRFReclaimedWb'StgTank andexpanaion~inta. 414AR,R&E74033 Redamed Water Telemetry sites in North Service Area, 7 raw water wells, end 12 sites in the So.th Service area. 414/R,R&E74039 Pelican Bay Wells Add two new wells wilh vault, electrical instrumentation and controls. 414/R,R&E, 74047 Reclaimed Water Automatic Read Meters Add automatic read meters to ax/~sting syslam to m~anca ~ration. 414/R,R&E74048 Pelican Bay WWTP Conversion Conversion Ot Pelican Bay WVVTP to reclaimed water' PS 414/R,R&E74049 Pelican Bay Reclaimed Water PS Cranes Add cranes et Pelican Bay ractaimed water PS 4141R,R&E74075 Eagle Lakes Reclaimed Watar Pump Station UpgradastgracJalmedWaterPS 414/R,R&E74125 Supplemental Irrigation Water raclaimnd water used for b~getion. Includes Immokalee Rd Wellflek:l end Reclaimed Water Line. 414/T~,R&E 74300 Immok, Rd. - US41 to 175 eft relocate Rec~atmed water pipeline relocation for new road ce~atruc~(:~. 414/R,R&E74301 VBR * Airport Rd. to CR951 eft relocate Reclaimed water pipeline relocation for new road co~stmntk~. 414/R,R&E74302 CR951 - GGB to immok. Rd. relocate Reclaimed water pipeline reiocatico for new road c~x~struntlo~t. 4141R,R&E74303 GGP.AirporttoSBBeffrelocata Reclatmedwaterpipe§nereiocationfornewroadconstructk~l. ~< --t m m ~ .'- Z >~ .-t m 9 Summary and Recommendations Collier County faces the challenges of providing wastewater services for a rapidly increasing number of customers. Population growth within the County from 1990 to 2000 was about 65 percent. The increase percentage within the County's sewer service area was even greater. The County needs to develop a clear vision to meet the needs of future customers reliably. The County is responsible to provide wastewater service within the sewer and water service district, which is established by statute. However, additional areas of potential future growth have been identified outside of the present service area boundaries. These areas have been referred to as the "Rural Fringe". The County is seeking reasoned, orderly, and environmentally sound development of these areas. This 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update includes an exploration of how service could be provided to these areas in the future, if development were to occur. Population projections have been made using the 2000 Census as a base for all estimates. Analyses have shown that the County has grown more in the period between 1990 and 2000 than had been predicted in the mid-1990's. The vision developed in this 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update looked out as far as the buildout of the present and proposed urban area and suggests a five-plant alternative to serve the ultimate wastewater treatment needs of the area. The five plants would include the two existing wastewater treatment facilities that the County owns and operates and three additional plants located in the Rural Fringe. This concept is shown on Figure 7-2. By looking out to the ultimate configuration of the County infrastructure, intermediate goals can be developed consistent with the ultimate plan. The reach of this 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update is 20 years. Thus, plans have been developed that will allow the County to meet its service need until 2022 in five-year increments. A five-year and 20oyear Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) have been suggested consistent with the plan. Recommendations of this 2002 Wastewater Master Plan Update are summarized as follows: Wastewater Treatment FY 2003-2007: · Complete expansion of the NCWRF to 24.1 mgd MMDF and construction of two deep injection wells · Complete expansion of the SCWRF to 16.0 mgd MMDF and construction of one additional deep injection well 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Draft.doc 76 11/21/2002 · Prepare a decommissioning study for the Pelican Bay WRF and remove the plant from service after the NCRWF expansion to 24.1 mgd is complete · Acquire sites for new Northeast, East Central and Southeast WRF's · Construct new 2.0 mgd MMDF Northeast WRF and deep injection wells · Construct new 4.0 mgd MMDF East Central WRF and deep injection wells FY 2008-2012: · Expand NCWRF to 30.6 mgd MMDF · Expand Northeast WRF to 4.0 mgd MMDF FY 2013-2017: · Expand East Central WRF to 6.0 mgd MMDF · Construct new 2.0 mgd Southeast WRF FY 2018-2022: · Expand Northeast WRF to 6.0 mgd MMDF · Expand Southeast WRF to 4.0 mgd MMDF Wastewater Collection and Transmission FY 2003-2007: · Complete the North- South transmission systems interconnections · Improve pumping station capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 · Improve transmission force main capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 · Continue to rehabilitate pumping stations and collection systems · Complete inflow and infiltration studies for the wastewater collection systems in the North and South Service Areas and implement recommended repairs · Complete installation of telemetry to all existing pumping stations FY 2008-2012: · Construct regional interconnections to the Northeast and East Central Service Areas and new master pumping stations · Continue to rehabilitate pumping stations and collection systems · Provide wastewater service to Golden Gate City and Orange Tree · Improve pumping station capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 · Improve transmission force main capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 FY 2013-2017: · Construct regional interconnection to the Southeast Service Area and associated master pumping station · Continue to rehabilitate pumping stations and collection systems · Improve pumping station capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 · Improve transmission force main capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 FY 2018-2022: · Continue to rehabilitate pumping stations and collection systems · Improve pumping station capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 2002 WW Master Plan Report_Final Dra~doc 77 11/21/2002 · Improve transmission force main capacities as described in Sections 7 and 8 Biosolids FY 2003-2007: · Complete land acquisition for biosolids facility and contract with a vendor to design/build/own/operate a biosolids facility Reclaimed Water FY 2003-2007: · Add reclaimed water transmission pipelines to improve system capacity, pressure and reliability as described in Sections 7 and 8 · Develop supplemental irrigation water sources in the vicinity of Golden Gate Canal · Add additional customers as sufficient irrigation water is available · Develop other supplemental irrigation water sources and construct regional interconnections as described in the Regional Irrigation Distribution System (RIDS) program · Begin construction of ASR reclaimed water wells FY 2008-2012: · Continue transmission system improvements and construction of ASR reclaimed water wells · Continue development of supplemental irrigation water sources 5 General FY 2003-2007: · Construct new Public Utilities Operations Center · Develop an on-site treatment plan to determine whether to extend service to areas served by septic tanks or if other on-site treatment enhancement programs should be implemented · Develop asset management system and conduct a CMOM self- evaluation in anticipation of upcoming regulations Ongoing · Update the wastewater master plan and impact fee and rate analyses annually · Continue to expand GIS system to focus on using GIS as a reliability measurement tool 2002 WW Master Plan Repo~_Final Draft.doc 78 11/21/2002 Appendix A Estimated Wastewater Flow per Pumping Station 11/21/2002 Appendix B Population and Wastewater Flow Projections 11/21/2002 ' II m TABLE B-1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVEKNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Ranse orWastewater Flow Projeetions Based on October ! Permanent Populations for Each Year Greeley and Hanson LLC October 2002 YEAR AREA 2000 200S 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 TOTAL POPULATIONS BY AREA Conservative Growth Estimate (Fram Table Sewered North 61,365 84,288 102,418115,474 128,529141,584 154,640 Unsewered North: Other 5,268 7,238 8,792 9,913 I [,03412,154 13,275 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 9,913 10,182 10,451 10,720 10,990 11,259 11,528 Golden Gate City 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 20.951 20,951 20.95 I Orange Tree 3,618 4,91S 6,221 7,522 7,522 7,522 7,522 Sewered South 64,310 80,814 98,[96 114.162 130,128146,094 162,06[ Unsewered South 2,893 3,974 4,828 5,444 6,059 6,674 7,29~ Rural Fringe Area: Northeast 0 0 4,803 9,605 14,408 19,210 24,013 East Central 0 0 1,95'/ 3,913 5,870 7.826 9.783 Southemt 0 0 2,135 4,269 6,404 8,538 10.673 Total Conservative Growth Estimate 168,318212,367260,750301,974 341,894.~81,813421,736 Moderate Growth Estimate (From Table ~-6) Sewered North 61,365 75,111 89.28~ 104,198 i 19,968 136,230 154,640 Jnsewered North: Other 5,268 6,448 7,665 8,945 [ 0.299I 1,695 13.275 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 9,913 10,182 10.451 10,720 10,990 11,259 11,528 Golden Gate City 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,951 20,95 [ 20,95 I Orange Tree 3,618 4.269 4,91S 5,570 6,221 6,871 7,522 ;~wered South 64,310 78,715 93,571 109,198 125,726142,768 162,061 Unsewered South 2,893 3,541 4,209 4,912 5,656 6,422 7,290 Rural Fringe Area: Northe,~t 0 0 2,668 5,33~ 8,004 10,672 13,341 East Central {~ 0 1,087 2,174 3,261 4,348 5,435 Southeast {~ 0 1,186 2,372 3,558 4,744 5,929 Total M~derate Gr~vth Estimate 168,318199,217235,993274,375 314,6.$4 355,960 401,972 SEWERED POPULATIONS BY AREA Conservative Growth Estimate Sew~r~d North 61,365!84,289 102,418115,474 128,52S141,584 154,640 Unsewered Norlh: Other 0 0 2,655 5,310 7.965 10,620 13,275 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 0 (3 2,306 4,611 6,917 9,222 11,528 Golden Gate City 0 (~ 4,190 8,380 12,571 16,761 20,951 Orange Tree 0 4,919 6,221 7,522 7,522 7,522 7,522 Sewered South 64,310 80,814 98, I96[[4,162 130,128146,094 162,06[ Unsewered South 0 ~ 1,458 2,916 4,374 5,832 7,290 Rural Fringe Area: Northeast 0 4.803 9.605 14,408 19,2101 24,013 East Central 0 0[ 1,957 3,913 5,870 7,826 9,783 Southeast 0 0: 2,135 4,269 6,404 8,538 10,673 Total Conservative Growth Estimate 1Z5,675170,022226~337276,163 324,687373,210 421,736 Moderate Growth Estimate Sewered North 61,365 75,11 [89,286 104,198 119.968136,230 154,64C Unsewered North 0 0 {~ 0 0 0 Unsewered; Golden Gate Estates 0 0 {] 0 0 0 0 ' ~olden Gate City 0 0 {~ 0 0 0 0 Orange Tree 0 0 4,9[~ 5,570 6,22l 6,871 7,522 Sewered South 64,3[0 78,7[5 93,5711109,198 125,726142,768 [62,061 Jnsewered South 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rural Fringe Are~c Northeast 0 0 2.668 .5,336 8,004 10,672 13,34[ East Central 0 0 1,087 2,174 3,261 4,348 5.435 Southeast 0 0 1,186 2,372 3,558 4,744 5,929 Total Moderate Growth Estimate 125,67~153,826192,717228,848 266,738305,633 348,928 TABLE B-1 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBliC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Range of Wastewater Flow Projections Based on October I Permanent Populations for Each Year Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 YEAR AREA 2000 2008 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 SEWERED WASTEWATER FLOW BY AREA Unit Flow (gpcd) Conservative Growth Estimate Average Annual Flows - mgd Sewered North 145 8,9C 12.22 14.85 16.74 18.6~ 20.53 22.4: Unsewered North: Other 145 0.0C O,00 0.38 0.77 1.15i 154 1.92 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 145 O,0C 0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00l 134 1.67 Golden Gate City 120 0.0C 0.00 0.50 1.01 1.51 2.01 2.5 I Orange Tree 120 O.OC 0.59 0.75 0,90 0.9C 090 0.90 Sewered South 100 6.43 8.08 9.82 11.42 13.01 14.6i 16.2[ Unsewered South 100 O.0C 0.00 O. 15 0.29 0.44 0.58 0.73 Rural Fringe Area: Northeast 120 O.(X O00 0.58 I. 15 1.73 2.31 2.88 East Central 120 O.OC 0.00 0.23 0.47 0.7C 0,94 1.17 Southeast 120 O.0C 0.00 0.26 0.51 0.77 1.02 1.28 Total Conservative Growth Estimate lS,.~ 20.89 27.85 33.93 39.86 45.78 $1.7 Moderate Growth Estimate Average Annual Flows - mgd Sewered North 145 8.9( 10.89 12.95 15.11 17.4C 1975 22.42 Unsewered North 145 O0C 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. OC 0.00 0.00 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 145 O. OC 0.00 0.00 O00 O.OC 0.00 0.00 Golden Gate City 120 0.0C 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. OC 0.00 0.00 Orange Tree 120 0.OC 0.00 0.59 067 0.75 0.82 0.90 Sewered South I00 6.43 7.87 9.36 10,9~ 12.57 14.28 16.21 Unsewered South 100 0.OC 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.Og 0.00 0.00 Rural Fringe Area: Northeast 120 0.0~ 0.00 0.32 0.641 0.96 1.28 1.60 East Central 120 0.0~ O00 0,13 0,26i 0.38 0.52 0.65 Southeast i20 0,0~ 0.00 0.14 O.281 0.43 0.57 0.71 Total Moderate Growth Estimate 15.33 18.76 23,49 27.88 32.49 37.23 42.50 SEWERED WA~, I t. wATER FLOW BY AREA Unit Flow (gpcd) Conservative Growth Estimate Maximum Month Flows - mgd Sewered No~h 189 11.5~ 15.89 [9.31 21.77 24.23 26.69 29.15 Unsewered North: Other 189 O. Ot~ 0.00 0.50 1.0C 1.5(~ 2.00 2.50 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 189 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.87 1.3C 1.74 2.17 Golden Gate City 156 0.0~ 0.00 0.65 1.31 1.96 2.61 3.27 Orange Tree 156 0.0~ 0.77 0.97 1.17 1.1'/ 1.17 1.17 Sewered South 130 8.36 10.51 12.77 14.84 16.92 18.99 21.07 Unsewered South 130 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.38 0.5'/ 0.76 0.95 Rural Fringe Area: Northeast 156 0.00 O,00 0.75 1.5C 2.25 3.00 3.75 East Central 156i O.0O O.00 0,31 0.61 092 1.22 1.53 Southeast 1561 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.67 1.00 133 166 Total Conservative Growth Estimate 19.93 27.16 36.21 44.11 51.81 59.5! 67.22 Moderate Growth Estimate Mazimum Month Flows - mgd Sewered North 189 11.5'/ 14,16 16,83 19.64 22.61 25.68 29.15 Unsewered North 189 0.00 0,00 O00 0.0~ 0.0~ 0.00 0.00 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 189 0.00 O00 0.00 0.0~ 0,0(~ 0.00 0.00 Go[den Gate City 156 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. OE 0.0~ 0.00 0.00 Orange Tree 156 O.0E 0.00 0.77 O. 87 0.9'/ 1.07 I. 17 Sewered South 130 8.36 10.23 12.16 14.2C 16.34 18.56 21.07 Unseweved South 130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.0C 0.00 0.00 Rural Fringe Area: Northeast 156 O.0E 0.00 0.42 0.83 1.25 1.66 2.08 East Central 156 0.0~ 0.00 0,17 0.34[ 0.51 0.68 0.85 Southeast 156 O.0E 0.00 0.18 0.37i 0.55 0.74 0.92 Total Moderate Growth F.~timate 19.93 24.39 30.$3 36.25 42.24 48.39 55.24 TABLE B-I COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTM]~NT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Range of Wastewatar Flow Projections Based oll October 1 Permanent Populations for Each Yenr Greeley and Hanson LLC October 2002 YEAR AREA 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 SEWERED WASTEWATER FLOW BY WRF Co~-~ervntive Growth Estimate Maximum Month Flows- mgd NCWRF Sewered Nol~l 11.57 15,89 19.3i 21.77 24,23 26.69 28.10 Unsewered North: Other 0.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 T0tal NC~VRF 11.57 15.89 19.81 22.77 25.73 28.69 30.60 Northeast WRF Sowered Notlh 0.00! 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unsewered North: Other 0.0( 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C 0.00 O,00 Unsewered: Golden G~le Estalas 0.0( 0.00 0.15 0.31 0Aa 0.61 0.77 Oraflgo Tree 0.tX 0.77 0.97 I.i7 i.l'~ 1.17 1.17 Rural Fdnge Area - Northeast 0.0C 0,00 0.7:5 I.:50 2.2~ 3.00 3.75 Tolal Northeast WRF 0.0~ 0.77 1.87 2.98 3.88 4.78 6.74 East Central WRF Unsewered: Golden Gale Estatas 0.0~ 0.00 0,20 0.4i 0.61 0.82 1.07 Golden Gale City 0.0~ 0.00 0.6:5 1.31 1.96 2.61 3.27 Sowered and Unsewered South 0.0~ 0.00 1.34 1.5~ 1.81 2.04 2.28 Rund Fringe Area - East Central 0.0~ 0.00 O31 0.61 0.92 1.22 I..53 Total East Central WRF 0.00 0.00 2.50 3.9~ 5_30 6.70 8.09 Southeast WRF Sowered and Unsewered South 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0~ 0.43 1.71 3.74 Rural Fringe Area * Southeast 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0~ 1.00 1.33 1.66 Total Southeast WRF 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0~ 1.43 3.04 5.40 SCWRF Sewered and Unsewered South 8.36 10.51 I L61 14.32 16.00 16.00 16.00 Total SCWRF SEWEREDWASTEWATER FLOW BY WRF Moderate Growth ~stimale Maximum Month Flows o mgd NC'WRF Sewe~l North 11,57 14.16 16.83 19.64 22.61 25.68 29.1~ Unsewered North: Other 0.00 0.00 0.0~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0C Total NCWRF 11,57 14,16 16,83 19.64 22,61 25,68 29.1! Northeast WRF Severed Nmlh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.OC 0.0~ Unsewered North: Other 0.00 O. 00 O00 0.00 O00 Unsewered: Golden Gate Estgas 0.00 0.0( 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.OC 0.0~ Orange Tree 0.00 O.0C 0.97 1.17 1.17 1.1~ Rural Fringe Area - Northeast 0.00 0.0~ 0.42 0.83 1.25 1.6(~ 208 Total Northeast WRF 0.00 0.0~ 1.39 2.01 2.42 2.84 .1+25 East Central WRF Unsewered: Golden Gate Estates 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0~ 0.00 Golden Gate City 0.00 0.0(~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0~ 0.00 Sewered and Unsewered South 0.00 0.0(~ 1.26 1,47 1.69 1.92 2.18 Rum] Fringe Area - East Central 0.00 0.0~ O. 17 0,34 0.51 0.68 0.85 Total East Central WRF 0.00 0.0~ 1.43 1.81 2.20 2.60 3.03 Southeast WRF Severed and Unsewered South 0.00 0.0~ 0.00 O00 0.00 0.64 2.89 Rund Fringe Area- Southeast 0.00 0.0~ 0.00 0.00 0,00 074 0.92 Total Southeast WRF 0.00 O.0Q 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 3,81 SCWRF Severed and Unsewered South 8.36 10,23 11,09 13,10 15,20 16,00 16.00 Total SCWRF TABLE B-2 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PUBLIC UTILITIES ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 2002 WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Permanent Population Estimates for October I for Areas with Sewer Service Greeley and Hansen LLC October 2002 YEAR Source or Condition 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Conservative (October) 125,675 134,544 143,414 152,283 161,153 170,022 181,285 192,548 Moderate (October) 125,675 134,120 139,751 145,381 151,011 153,826 161,604 169,383 County Planning 125,675 134,623 142,768 150,039 157,672 165,103 171,350 176,887 Source or Condition 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Conservative (October) 203,811 215,074 226,337 236,302 246,268 256,233 266,198 276,163 Moderate (October) 177,161 184,939 192,717 199,943 207,170 214,396 221,622 228,848 County Planning (October) 182,604 188,507 194,232 199,766 205,459 211,315 217,338 Source or Condition 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Conservative (October) 285,868 295,573 305,277 314,982 324,687 334,392 344,096 353,801 Moderate (October) 236,426 244,004 251,582 259,160 266,738 274,517 282,296 290,075 County Planning (October) No estimate after 2014. SOurce or Condition 2024 [ 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Conservative (October) 361,565 373,210 382,916 392,621 402,326 412,031 421,736 Moderate (October) 296,298 305,633 314,292 322,951 331,610 340,269 348,928 County Planning (October) FlowChartsll13022.xls 11/22/028:41 AM ((IDI~) SfiAO~L4 H~I£V~A~LLSV~A HJ~NIOIAI IA¥1IA~IXVIAI (fiDIAI) ~AO~I~I H~LLV3A~LLSV3A H.I,NOIAT IATflIAIIXVIN Z Z .< ((IDIAI) A'~_O'].4 H~LLV~A~LLSV~A HJ, i~OIAI IAIIIIAIIXVIAI ((fiDIAL) A,~01~I H~i.I,V~A~iJ. SVA~ H.I.NOIA~ IA~EIIAIIXVIN Z < < ((19IAI) A~O~I~I H~LLVA~IJ~SV3A H£NOIAI IA~_ClIAIIXVIAI EXISTING WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION SYSTEM AND PROPOSEb IMPROVEMENTS MAP (OCTOBER 2002) AAAP IS ON FILE IN THE CLERK TO THE BOARD'S OFFICE 0 uJ uJ r~ · iiii, CZ> CZ> C> CZ> 0 CZ> C> CZ> 0 0 0 0 Z iii Z I r~ z >- ill c> C) Z LJJ o~ Z -i- n Z >- LLI LLI LLI Z L~ Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~-~ 00. 0 0 Z mml Z Z 0 0 Z uJ Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 0 ~ Z Ill Z Z Z ill Z -1- n Z >- 0 cZ) Z Z Z E c- ¢.-. Ill C) 0 Z LIJ Z Z 0 U 0 U t- ~o~~o ~= ~ 0 0 E ~ ~~ 04_~ Ill Z uJ Z Z 0 Il/ Q Z IJJ Z -l- Z >- 0 0 Z Z Z U ~ 0 X U X ~ Z ill o~ Z Z 0 0 Il/ 4-o (-' (1.) CD C:) ~ 0 0 4-.,, ID3u30 · ~ 4-, 0 n3 0 UJ Z LIJ Z Z O,--m 0 0 0 C~ 0 0 0 0 C~ 0 0 C~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o c{ o o c; o o' o LO 0 ~0 0 LO 0 LO 0 0 0 NOI.L~'-IlldOd ~ U 0 L Z uJ Z Z c> 0 0 o ~ ~o~~ Z LIJ Z -r Z ill w 0 0 Z Z Z (CIglN) AVCI ~:ld SNO'I'I~J NOI'I'IIIN Z LU Z Z c~J (QDi~i) ArQ ~:ld SNO'I-IV~) NOI-I-IIIAI oo o o r~ Z ill o~ Z -1- Z >- ill U~ U.I Z ~. Z ~ [aol~l) $M0'1-1A.L-IIYO H.I. NOIhl XVlBI o Z iii Z Z C) OI 81 (L)I Z LLI Z Z Z uJ Z 'T' r~ Z >- IJJ 0 0 0 U E 0 0 (3J ¢3. (- U 0-~.ro E ~ 0 ~ 0 Z ill o3 Z Z 0 r U Z uJ o3 Z ,< Z 0 0 · m 0 mm mm X mmm mm Z mm~ Z -I- Z >- LU 0 0 0 0 Z iii CO Z Z Z LIJ CF) Z I Z 0 0 0 0 0 o, Z LU CO Z Z 0 v Z uJ Z T Z >- IJJ UJ 0 0 Z u.J oo Z Z 0 0 Z ill Z -l- r~ Z Z X 0 · mm · · · I l ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ · a ~ I o ~=~ , ~ m · m 0 ., ..- I::: IJJ (D L~ E 0 0 0 0 LLI I-- r~ 0 E 0 0 E cfi c- O cfi E 0 0 E E 0 0 0 LLI o ~ - 0 cfi c- O E E 0 E 0 0 ii c- O 0 C) cio (~ ~ 0 (.0 C:) o o ~ · [] E o c: 0 0 · m mm 0 n,, n,,' 0 ).-z ($) !.- ~ 8 o o Collier County Bill Frequency Analysis 5/8" and 3/4" Residential Bills CRW1 - 5/8" Meter Usage 0 - 5,000 Gallons 6,000 - 10,000 Gallons Over 10,000 Gallons Number of Bills Percent Cumulative Percent 41,367 55.5% 55.5% 18,224 24.4% 79.9%1 15,009 20.1% 100.0% 74,60O 100.0% CRW2 - 3/4" Meter Usage 0 - 5,000 Gallons 6,000 - 10,000 Gallons Over 10,000 Gallons Number of Bills 152,007 63,419 75,768 291,194 Percent 52.2% 21.8% 26.0% 100.0% Cumulative Percent 52.2% 74.0% 100.0% Combined Usage 0 - 5,000 Gallons 6,000 - 10,000 Gallons Over 10,000 Gallons Number of Bills 193,374 81,643 90,777 365,794 Percent 52.9% 22.3% 24.8% 100.0% Cumulative Percent 52.9% 75.2% 100.0%