HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 09 14 Consent Item B
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM B
CONSENT X
INFORMATIONAL
PUBLIC HEARING
REGULAR
September 14, 1998
Meeting
MGGPT fr
Authorization '
REQUEST: Utility Department Recommending the Acceptance of the Reuse Feasibility
and Implementation Plan for the East Water Reclamation Facility
PURPOSE: The purpose of this Board item is to recommend that the City Commission accept
the Reuse Feasibility and Implementation Plan for the East Water Reclamation
Facility which provides for the expansion of the reclaimed water system in the
Tuscawilla and Oak Forest areas.
CONSIDERA nONS:
The Reuse Feasibility and Implementation Plan is needed to provide for the
expansion of the reclaimed water system in the Tuscawilla/Oak Forest developments,
Subdivisions with existing reclaimed water systems waiting to be connected will be done
first. These include Grand Reserve, Creeks Run, Howell Creek Reserve, Eagles Watch,
Chestnut Estates, Tusca Oaks, and Arrowhead Unit 2.
Subdivisions which will be retrofitted include Oak Forest Units 4 and 5, Arbor
Glen, Carrington WoodslDavenport Glen, Glen Eagle, and Tuscawilla Unit 12. Also
included in the allocation are the rights of way for Winter Springs Boulevard, Tuskawilla
Road, and State Road 434,
A workshop was held on August 24, 1998 and the comments received have been
incorporated into the report. The length of time to complete all the improvements is from
5 to 7 years.
Consent Agenda B
September 14, 1998
Page 2
FUNDING:
The acceptance of this report requires no expenditure offunds. However, the cost
to complete the plan is estimated at two millions dollars, A rate study will be conducted
to incorporate these improvements into the capital needs ofthe utility.
RECOMMENDA TIONS:
It is recommended that the Reuse Feasibility and Implementation Plan be accepted
which contains the following recommendations in Section 1,7, page 1,5:
a) Continue a zero connection fee policy for customers who sign up during the design
phase and have a service connection made during construction of the reclaimed
water distribution system, The process shall include notification of resident/non-
resident owners and occupants.
b) Limit reclaimed distribution retrofit of existing subdivisions to those which have
road rights-of-way and easements that meet current city standards.
c) Conduct a rate study which addresses the following:
1) Consider the provision of a meter type connection for each and every
household along the distribution system. This will allow the installation of a meter
in the future if reuse demand exceeds the system capability, Meters may become
necessary in order to reduce demand by the use of a fee structure based on
consumption rather than a flat rate;
2) Establish a reclaimed water rate;
3) Consider a base facility charge based on meter size; which is charges every
month, regardless of usage;
4) Consider a consumption charge ($/1,000 gallons) which may be single rate
or a rate that increases with consumption (multiple tier);
5) Consider a flat fee;
6) Consider a minimum consumption in the base charge, i,e" 3,000 gallons;
7) Consider a disconnection fee,
Consent Agenda B
September 14, 1998
Page 3
d) Prepare a pamphlet for distribution to the customers prior to the design of the
system in their area and hold a public meeting to discuss the benefits of reclaimed
water for irrigation use.
e) Implement the phased distribution system of Chapter 3.
t) Adopt and implement City of Winter Springs construction standards for reclaimed
water distribution systems.
g) Consider acquisition of dedicated etlluent disposal sites which would be under the
direct control of the utility. Such sites would be used during times of either low
reuse demand or during extreme wet weather conditions.
h) Continue to investigate emerging alternative technologies for reclaimed/reuse
systems and evaluate for possible application by the City. Such systems include
storage options, wetland treatment and stormwaterlsurface water supplementation.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
The rate study RFP will be published within 30 days. The design for a portion of
Phase I is included in the FY 1998/1999 budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Reuse Feasibility and Implementation Plan for the East WRF - Executive Summary
COMMISSION ACTION:
, ,
REUSE FEASmILITY
AND
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FOR EAST WRF
FOR
THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
Prepared By
Conklin, Porter and Holmes - Engineers, Inc.
1117 East Robinson Street, Suite C
Orlando, Florida 32801
(407) 425-0452
CPH Project No. W0468
9/14/98
\
'j
, I
,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
.-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-I "
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose 1.1
1.2 History 1.2
1.3 Resource Conservation 1.2
1.4 Reclaimed Water Ordinance 1.4
1.5 Plan Revisions 1.4
1.6 Scope of Study and Limitations 1.5
1.7 Recommendations 1.5
CHAPTER 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Wastewater Treatment 2.1
2.2 Flow and Effluent Characteristics 2.1
2.3 Disposal Sites 2.1
2.4 Storage 2.2
2.5 Transfer Pump Station 2.2
2.6 Distribution Pumps 2.2
2.7 Golf Course Pumps' 2.3
2.8 Distribution System 2.3
2.9 Cross-Connection Control 2.3
2.10 Service Area 2.3
2.11 Supplemental Flow 2.4
CHAPTER 3 REUSE DISTRIBUTION EXPANSION
3.1 General Conditions 3.1
3.2 Alternatives Analysis 3.1
3.3 Irrigation Demand 3.1
3.4 Public Opinion Survey 3.3
3.5 Residential Reuse 3.5
3.6 Distribution System and Analysis 3.18
3.7 Effluent Supply 3.19
3.8 Treatment 3.19
3.9 Storage 3.20
3.10 Potable Water Distribution System Demand Reduction 3.20
II
'i
,
CHAPTER 4 REGULA TORY AGENCIES
4.1 St. Johns River Water Management District 4.1 J.
4.2 Florida Department of Envirorunental Protection 4.1 4
4.3 Winter Springs Compliance 4.2
CHAPTER 5 RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION DEMAND
I
5.1 General 5.1
5.2 Daily Variation _ 5.1
5.3 Annual Variation 5.2
5.4 Existing Irrigation Demand 5.2
5.5 Disposal Site Schedule 5.3
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
APPENDIXB
ENGINEERING REPORT - CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
EFFLUENT DISPOSALIREUSE SYSTEM
APPENDIX C
CAPACITY ANALYSIS REPORT
APPENDIX D
PROCESS COMPONENT EV ALUA TION USING
CLASS I RELIABILITY CRITERIA
APPENDIX E
KYPIPE DATA AND MODEL
APPENDIX F
EAST WRF SUPPLEMENTAL WELL
PERMIT AUTHORIZATION
11\
,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The existing effluent disposal system and sites for the Winter Springs East Water Reclamation Facility
(East WRF) cannot meet the future requirements of the service area. We recommend more disposal
flexibility to allow the system to adequately operate throughout all weather conditions. The purpose
of this Master Reuse Feasibility Plan (Master Plan) was to evaluate the use of residential irrigation
to meet the future demand and provide greater disposal flexibility.
i
4
The disposal capacities were originally pennitted by the former utility owner, Seminole Utilities. The
City of Winter Springs purchased the utility in 1990. Based on the operating experience of the last
seven years, the City has found the disposal capacities to be overrated. The historical disposal
capacities are shown in Chapter 3.
The golf course disposal capacity was based on an eftluent disposal study submitted to FDEP.
Although the site may function as a disposal site at 1.083 MGD, it probably would not function
properly as a golf course at that application rate. The City has no control over application on this
site. The grounds keeper must adjust his site application rate to maintain proper growth, but also
must maintain the course in playable condition. Wet conditions cannot be allowed since this will
damage the course.
The percolation ponds were also based on an effluent disposal study. However, experience has
indicated that the backyards of adjacent property owners become wet if the effluent is applied at the
pennitted rate. The report was based on a load test, i.e., actual flows to the site and monitoring of
the groundwater level. The load test was performed during a dry period and the system used to
determine flows to the ponds may have been inaccurate.
This plan proposes that all the available eftluent from the East WRF will be diverted to beneficial
reuse (replacement of potable water irrigation). The facility would be capable of serving the golf
course and approximately 1200 single family units at buildout within the Tuscawilla PUD.
Single Family Residential sites of approximately 1/4 acre or greater reuse approximately 1000 gallons
per day per site. These same sites produce approximately 250 gallons per day per site of wastewater
for treatment at the East WRF. Therefore, the facility is capable of serving only about 25 percent of
the wastewater service area with reclaimed water for irrigation purposes.
Since reclaimed water disposal systems are greatly influenced by rainfall, reclaimed demand will
fluctuate from year to year and season to season. It is important to have a flexible disposal system
that meets the plant effluent disposal requirements at all times. We recommend that the City further
investigate two items which will give the disposal system additional flexibility on the East side. The
first is the acquisition of dedicated disposal sites which are controlled by the Utility Department.
These sites need to be high/dry sites which can take effluent during wet weather periods. The second
is to evaluate other emerging alternate disposal methods such as Aquifer Storage and Recovery.
E-I
l
The use of reclaimed water from the Winter Springs Water ,Reclamation Facility for residential
irrigation is feasible and cost effective. portions of the system can be implemented very quickly as
the reclaimed infrastructure was constructed by the developer and are presently activated by the City
off the potable system. The following areas have existing systems.
,
4
Chestnut Estates (See Phase II Projects)
Eagles Watch
Tusca Oaks
Arrowhead Unit 2 (Connected)
Howell Creek Reserve
Creeks Run
Grand Reserve
I i
I '
The use of these areas for residential reclaimed irrigation will enable the disposal system to match the
flow produced by the existing development plus the committed development. With the exception of
Chestnut Estates, the cormection of the e~sting systems is known as Phase I. Also .included in Phase
I is the addition of Oak Forest Units 4 & 5 and Arbor Glen. Since these areas are located between
two existing distribution lines, only the subdivision infrastructure needs to be constructed. The
existing reuse line runs right down the middle of Arbor glen and minimal piping would be required
to provide service to this community. Our Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for Phase I is
approximately $541,400.00. :
I'
The projected build out capacity for the East service area is 1.6 MGD. In order to meet this demand,
the Phase II list of subdivisions would need to be added to the residential reclaimed irrigation system.
The Phase II project consists of the following:
Carrington W oodslDavenport Glen
Glen Eagle
Tuscawilla Unit 12
Chelsea Woods (Tuscawilla 14A and 14B)
Chestnut Estates
Our Opinion of Probable Construction Cost for Phase II is approximately $1.5 million. It should be
noted that Chelsea Woods is an area oflow water pressure complaints during the dry season. By
supplying an alternate source of water for irrigation, we can reduce the potable water demand and
thereby alleviate many of the low pressure problems and defer the need to upgrade water lines in this
area.
If additional areas are needed due to a higher wastewater flow rate or due to a low irrigation usage,
we have shown future areas in the report as Phase III. As Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
for Phase III has not been performed as it is uncertain whether or not these areas will be required.
Areas were selected for system expansion on the basis of potential irrigation demand, proximity to
E-2
I' 'i
the East WRF and existing distribution lines, removal of irrigation demand off the potable system, and
the cost to serve. All the areas in Phase I, except Oak Forest Units 4 & 5 and Arbor Glen, have an
existing reclaimed distribution system; therefore, subdivision piping infrastructure has already been
paid for by the developer. In some cases, only minimal costs are inyolved to connect them to the
existing reclaimed water distribution system. It is important to keep the distribution system in a tight
loop to provide the best pressure and volume without the need for oversizing pipelines. This also
provides the most cost effective solution. The majority of the subdivisions recommended for
connection are within a looped system east of the WRF around the existing percolation pond pipe
line. Subdivisions with existing reclaimed infrastructure form the outside ends of the system and we
propose additional subdivisions for the fill-in of this loop in the Phase II portion of the Master Plan.
In summary, the Master Plan provides for the disposal of the required effluent and provides the
system with adequate flexibility to meet changes in weather conditions. The Master Plan also
provides a phased program which will allow the City to construct the improvements as they are
needed to meet the demand.
I:
I
E-3
.'
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
I-
4
1.1 Purpose
Section 403.064 of the Florida Statutes require that after January I, 1992 all applicants for
permits to construct or operate a domestic wastewater treatment facility in a critical water
supply problem area shall evaluate the costs and benefits ofreclaimed water as part of their
application. The St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) Rule 40C-23 has
designated the entire District as a water conservation area. The City of Winter Springs is
under the jurisdiction of SJR WMD.
A Master Wastewater Plan was developed in 1987 and amended in 1989 and 1992 for the
City of Winter Springs. It evaluated various effluent disposal and treatment alternatives and
concluded that reuse via public access irrigation was the most cost effective solution. It does
not cover the Winter Springs East Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) in detail as this system
was privately owned until 1990. This reuse planning document provides the greater detail
necessary for the East WRF System. The Winter Springs East Facility is a "no discharge"
facility, and 100% of the effluent is reused llnder the definition contained in FDEP 62-
610.200(41). The Ma'ster Wastewater Plan is being implemented by the City and there is a
need for a more detailed implementation program for the East residential irrigation system.
Therefore, the City requested a preliminary engineering report on residential reuse feasibility
and implementation for this system.
This Master Reuse Plan meets the intent of Section 403.064 because it meets the following
criteria contained in "Guidelines for Preparation of Reuse Feasibility Studies" by FDEP
listed below:
The scope and level of effort incorporated into the Master Reuse Plan are consistent
with the guidelines contained in the FDEP Guidelines document.
The Master Reuse Plan's goal is implementation of a reuse program in which at least
75% of the annual average annual daily flow of domestic wastewater will be reused
in the design year. (The goal is I 00% reuse).
The Master Reuse Plan is being implemented and construction will be initiated no
later than two (2) years after the submittal date.
1.1
\
1.2 History
In the past decade Central Florida has experienced a considerable population growth which
is expected to continue due to the general de~irability of the area. As a result of this growth,
ever increasing demands on water supplies and wastewater treatment are experienced. This
generates a need to fmd a source for discharge of the treated wastewater and alternate water
sources. Because of the large amounts of treated wastewater, direct discharge to surface
waters is no longer an acceptable solution. Water conservation efforts and other solutions
more sensitive to the environment are being sought out and evaluated. In recent years, treated
wastewater effluent, or reclaimed water, has been recognized as an economical and beneficial
source of water for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural irrigation purposes.
East Winter Springs supplies three public access sites with reclaimed water, thereby reducing
the need for groundwater withdrawal. These sites are Tuscawilla Country Club, Trotwood
Park and the median along Winter Springs Boulevard.
I
4
A master planning document entitled, "Reuse Feasibility and Implementation Plan for the
City of Winter Springs," a.k.a. "Master Reuse Plan," was completed in May 1994 for the
W est Reclaimed service area. This document was prepared to provide an orderly phasing
of construction, for residential disposal sites and the proposed reclaimed distribution system
expansion. The intent was to provide reclaimed water service in the most economical and
practical way possible. Since there generally is more demand than supply, not all residential
areas can be provided with reclaimed water. In addition, it is generally not cost effective to
serve a residential area that is farther away from the plant and not directly adjacent to an
existing main line. The City has followed this plan and connected several residential areas.
An orderly plan was also necessary for the proposed residential distfoibution system in the
East service area. Similar methodology to the West Master Reuse Plan was used in the East
plan. The Reuse Ordinance requires new developments adjacent to planned reuse line
extensions to provide a reuse distribution system. Several developments have provided such
systems and the City now intends to connect these systems to the reclaimed water
distribution system. By connecting these systems, several subdivisions could be added along
the new line extensions.
This report evaluates the various subdivisions near the existing water reclamation facility and
the existing reclaimed water main for the potential use of reclaimed water and approximate
the cost to implement the system. It presents the most beneficial, cost effective and
implementable sites for consideration in the Winter Springs East Residential Reuse Service
Area as identified in Figure 1-1.
1.3 Resource Conservation
The reuse of reclaimed water within the City's service area provides an alternate source of
water which will relieve some of the demand on the potable water system. Reclaimed water
1.2
t~.. ~/ /
~../ /
\ I..
I "I
..-.. ---.1.-- __.,..!-
?
?
"
, 1
(,:'---
B,I~!
"land
2
Uttle Qatot',
......", .
, f.
'/.
III, Qatar. ,.
PoI...e .... .
I ~,::-.(
\ ,( \
1
c."
/(.~"
"
~
1
1.6 Scope of Study and Limitations
This study generally refers to and presents a long-range solution and is based on meeting the
disposal needs of the East WRF through potential build-out. It includes discussions on
phasing, cost estimates, and flexibility that will provide general information and guidance to
the City as the system is developed. The Opinions of Probable Construction Cost presented
in this report are only to planning level accuracy. Costs of all future reuse water lines are
projected at an average unit cost for given sizes without regard to specific details such as
differing site conditions, soils, valves, etc.
II
The phasing in this plan provides a starting point for examining a long-range system. It
provides a general concept of how the physical system may develop over the years. Actual
timing 0f the phases will depend on the needs at various times in the future and financing
techniques available at those times.
1.7 Recommendations
In order to increase the participation in the reuse system and decrease the cost of system
expansion, the following items are recommended for consideration:
a) : Continue a zero connection fee policy for customers who sign up during the design
phase and have a service connection made during construction of the reclaimed water
distribution system. The process shall include notification of resident/non-resident
owners and occupants.
b) Limit reclaimed distribution retrofit of existing subdivisions to those which have road
rights-of-way and easements that meet current city standards.
c) Conduct a rate study which addresses the following:
1) Consider the provision of a meter box type connection for each and every
household along the distribution system. This will allow the installation of a
meter in the future if reuse demand exceeds the system capability. Meters may
become necessary in order to reduce demand by the use of a fee structure
based on consumption rather than a flat rate;
2) Establish a reclaimed water rate;
3) Consider a base facility charge based on meter size; which is charged every
month, regardless of usage;
4) Consider a consumption charge ($/1,000 gallons) which may be a single rate
or a rate that increases with consumption (multiple tier);
1.5
l
5) Consider a flat fee;
6) Consider a minimum consumption in the base charge, i.e., 3000 gallons;
7)
Consider a disconnection fee.
d) Prepare a pamphlet for distribution to the customers prior to the design of the system
in their area and hold a public meeting to discuss the benefits of reclaimed water for
irrigation use.
e) Implement the phased distribution system of Chapter 3.
t) Adopt and implement City of Winter Springs construction standards for reclaimed
water distribution systems.
g) Consider acquisition of dedicated effiuent disposal sites which would be under the
direct control of the utility. Such sites would be used during times of either low reuse
demand or during extreme wet weather conditions.
h) Continue to investigate emerging alternative technologies for reclaimed/reuse systems
and evaluate for possible application by the City. Such systems include storage
options) wetlands treatment and stormwater/surface water ,supplementation.
1.6
/,
4
i
is highly treated and disinfected effluent from wasteyvater treatment plants, which meets
strict State and Federal standards. Removal of irrigation demand off of the potable water
supply and onto reclaimed water will provide a reduction of the potable water demand and
per capita consumption. We believe the removal of demand off the potable system will
provide another benefit in addition to demand reduction. As the irrigation water demand is .,
reduced by the use of the alternate reclaimed source, the remaining potable demand will be
served at a higher pressure because the lower flows will create less friction loss.
Alternatively, the existing system could serve a higher potable demand at the same pressures
and upgrades to the existing potable water distribution system to serve new demands will not
be required. The areas knows as Units 14A and 14B periodically exhibit low pressures and
complaints about low pressures. Switching demand off the portable water system should
alleviate these problems. Removal of demand in these specific areas would produce the most
positive. results.
Reclaimed water reuse is practiced in many areas throughout the state, and its use has been
widely accepted and is steadily increasing. Experience throughout the State of Florida has
shown that treatment of reclaimed water to the highest Florida Department of Environmental
Protection standards and use of this water for irrigation is cost-effective and beneficial.
One of the primary benefits of irrigating with reclaimed water is the reduction of the heavy
demand on groundwater sources from which the City presently draws all of its drinking and
irrigation water supply. Reclaimed water is normally supplied without quantity restrictions,
even in times of drought and when restrictions may be placed on normal potable supplies.
By providing reclaimed water as an alternate irrigation source, it will provide benefit to the
water distribution system.
1.4 Reclaimed Water Ordinance
A reclaimed water ordinance provides the legal basis for the establishment of the reclaimed
water program. The City has a reclaimed water ordinance which is attached in Appendix B
as Exhibit K.
1.5 Plan Revisions
Due to the difficulty of predicting the timing and exact nature of future development,
locations ofthe new lines and future growth areas may be altered somewhat. In addition, a
new development may replace one of the old subdivisions recommended on the list due to
developer participation and proximity to existing reclaimed water lines. Lines to serve
existing areas provide an approximate conveyance capacity based on the existing use. If
densities or redevelopment of some of the geographic areas change, then the water demand
will also likely change. When that occurs, the plan should be reviewed and modified if
necessary .
1.4
CHAPTER 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS '
~
2.1 Wastewater Treatment
The East Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) operates under Permit Number
FLAOll068. Improvements are underway to the Winter Springs East WRF and will be
completed prior to the end of 1998. These improvements enhance the treatment capabilities
and move the facility toward full compliance with Public Access and Class I Reliability
Criteria for a treatment capacity of approximately 2.012 MGD and are included as existing
in this r~port. The improvements also provide a higher level of assurance that water quality
parameters will be met for public access reuse. For details see the following sections in this
chapter. The facility is currently permitted for 2.012 MGD. A site plan is included in Map
Pocket A.
2.2 Flows and Effluent Characteristics
The annual average daily flow during the past year was 0.90 MGD. The current three (3)
month ADF is 0.921 MGD (thru December 1997). Flow an.~ effluent data is contained in
Appendices B and C.
2.3 Disposal Sites
The City currently uses many different disposal sites. The sites, permitted capacity and 1997
average capacity (in parenthesis) for each site are shown below:
A. Public Access Irrigation
1. Tuscawilla Golf Club - 1.083 MGD (0.372)
2. Trotwood Park and roadway irrigation - 0.118 MGD (0.202)
B. Percolation Ponds
1. East Percolation Pond - 0.610 MGD (0.266)
C. Non Public Access Spray Irrigation
1. Oak Forest - 0.201 MGD (0.087)
The total permitted capacity is 2.012 MGD. These sites and their associated capacities were
permitted by the former utility owner, Seminole Utilities. The City of Winter Springs
2.1
I-
4
,
purchased the utility in 1990. Based on the operating e~perience of the last seven years, the
City has found the capacity of these sites to be overrated. The disposal capacities need to be
adjusted as shown in Chapter.3. The golf course disposal rating was based on an effluent
disposal study submitted to FDEP. Although the site may function as a disposal site at 1.083
MOD, it probably would not function properly as a golf course- at that application rate. The 4
grounds keeper must adjust his site application rate to maintain proper growth, but also must
maintain the course in a playable condition. Wet conditions cannot be allowed since this will
damage the course.
The percolation ponds were also based on an effluent disposal study. However~ experience
has indicated that the backyards of adjacent property owners become wet if the effluent is
applied at the permitted rate. The report was based on a load test, i.e., actual flows to the site
and monitoring of the groundwater level. The load test was performed during a dry period
and the system used to determine flows to the ponds may have been inaccurate. In 1994, the
City discovered that there was a major leak in the feed line going to the percolation ponds.
Flow measurements were based on flows leaving the WRF, not the flows arriving at the site
and these flow measurements may have been incorrect due to this leak.
2.4 Storage
: A tluee million-gallon storage tank was recently added to the facility meeting the CWTent wet
weather storage requirements. There is a reject storage pond on site which can hold 5.61
million gallons exceeding the required reject storage volume of one day's flow of reclaimed
water (approximately two (2) million gallons). This pond can be used for both reject and wet
weather storage. However, any flow sent to this pond must be re-treated through the WRF
before it can be sent to the distribution system. The return system from the pond only allows
the flow to be returned to the head of the plant or the splitter box prior to filtration. The type
and nature of re-treatment will depend on the water quality in the pond. See the operating
protocol in Appendix B.
2.5 Transfer Pump Station
The flow capacity is set to match the pumping rate of the surge pumps, or three pumps at
1,000 gpm per pump. A space is available for a fourth pump which would provide,a capacity
of3,000 gpm (4.3 MOD). The CWTent rated capacity is 2,000 gpm (2.88 MGD) which meets
Class I reliability criteria of one pump as backup.
2.6 Distribution Pumps
The distribution pump station feeds directly from the reclaimed water ground storage tank.
The pumping system consists of four (4) pumps; one jockey pump at 500-gpm, two (2)
pumps at 1,200-gpm each, and one pump at 1,800-gpm. One of the 1,200-gpm pumps will
be used as a backup. The total pumping capacity is 2,400-gpm (3.456 MGD) with the largest
2.2
i
pump and the jockey pump out of service. Under the ,criteria of 62-610 the existing ADF
would be 2.304 MGD.
2.7
Golf Course Pumps
l-
II
The golf course has a pwnping sy~tem which is fed directly off the 16-inch reclaimed water
main. It consists of three (3) 40 HP pumps and one (1) 15 HP jockey pump. This pump
station works as a booster pump station to feed the necessary volwnes and pressures to the
golf course irrigation system.
2.8 Distribution System
A 16-in~h main runs from the Water Reclamation Facility to the Tuscawilla Golf Course.
The 16-inch decreases to a 10-inch main connecting the system to Trotwood Park, Winter
Springs Blvd. median irrigation. At the intersection of the two (2) power transmission
easements, the line splits and decreases to an 8-inch line to serve the Oak Forest Spray Site
and decreases to a 6-inch line to feed Trotwood Park. The ground storage tank (GST) will
be used as the primary storage system. Flow from the transfer pumps will be directed to the
GST and the distribution pwnp system will pump directly from the GST to the distribution
system. There is also an 8-inch main running from the Water Reclamation Facility to the East
Percolation Pond and is connected to a 16-inch line that runs from the distribution pump
station to the northeast comer of the plant site. This 1ine:will be converted to a reclaimed
water line and become part of the distribution system. Pressure is maintained in the
distribution system at aU times. The existing system is shown on Figure 2-1.
2.9 Cross-Connection Control
The City has implemented a Cross-Connection Control Ordinance and has an ongoing Cross-
Connection Control Program. The Ordinance and Plan were submitted to FDEP for review.
Comments were made by FDEP and the City revised the Cross-Connection Control Manual.
The Cross-Connection Program meets the requirements of the FDEP, and the approval letter
is in Appendix B.
2.10 Service Area
The major purpose ofthe City of Winter Springs' reuse system is to provide effluent disposal
for the water reclamation facility. A secondary purpose is to supplement the potable water
system. As such, the service area for the reuse system corresponds to the wastewater service
area of the WRF which is shown in Figure 1-1. The service area covers approximately 6- .
square miles. The service area is also shown on the exhibits in Appendix B and is the
approved service area for Permit Number FLAO 11 068.
2.3
2.11 Supplemental Flow
An irrigation well which was formerly used at the golf course can be used to supplement the
reclaimed water demand. A consumptive use permit has been issued by SJR WMD for this
well. The well is connected to the GST and feeds the tank'via an air gap connection to II
prevent backflow from occurring.
2.4
LAKE JESSUP
~~~
~ :I
lQJ~
.~
..
..
CD
"olg::lft..
~r,-~ Z
"~~f"I" III
8:p~ i:s
~~~~ma.
'" I s:: III 1ft
:'0_0 :c
0""02 ~
l>:~>IIl"'O
~~- -
g~-g
-~Z
()CD
.~
0, Ul
'- n
0 > >
ell "'" S
r:>
z
f? CO ~
I n
~ VI
0 I VI
~ CO a
'" ex> a
'" q
tv
VI
m
><
~ m()
z
C) ;~
:n
m :Do
c mil
(f) ~;;
m
0 m~
~ ~m
ffi ~~
~ :nil
0 -uz
z ~@
(f) z
-<
~
s::: LEGEND:
REUSE SITE EXISTING ----
EXISTING DISTRIBUTION ---
LAKE . JESSUP
~
T
,...:-.:.
CHAPTER 3
REUSE DISTRIBUTION EXPANSION
4
3.1 General Conditions
The City of Winter Springs experienced significant growth in the 1970's and early 1980's.
This growth has slowed down in recent years. Appendix D was calculated using the
residential and commercial data contained in the "City of Winter Springs Transportation
Study" dated August 1997, and the Capacity Analysis Report, Winter Springs East Water
Rec1amfltion Facility, January 1998, attached as Appendix C. It assumes an existing flow
rate with new addition flows based on single family homes and multi-family homes
generating 250 gpd per unit and commercial areas generating 2,000 gpd per acre. These
calculations yield a total future wastewater supply of 1.6 MGD going to the Winter Springs
East WRF. The existing plus committed flow accounts for approximately 1.1 MGD. This
is based on the build-out information contained in the data shown in Appendix C.
3.2 Alternatives Analysis
The Winter Springs "Facility is 100% reuse, and it is the City's intent that the facility remain
100% reuse. The City wanted an evaluation of residential reuse such that maximum demand
would be equivalent to 100% of the treatment plant ADF. This would allow the City to use
the percolation pond as a backup disposal site during wet weather (low irrigation demand)
and to rest the percolation pond during dry weather (high irrigation demand). In addition,
the Oak Forest spray site could be used or left unused the same as the percolation ponds.
i.
I
3.3
Irrigation Demand
: I
,Based on the Capacity Analysis Report, the build-out wastewater flow for the Winter Springs
East Service area is approximately 1.6 MGD. This volume is assumed to be the maximum
supply for reuse water in the east reuse system. The existing reuse sites are as follows:
Permitted Average Maximum Design Values
Tuscawilla Golf Course: 1.083 MGD 0.372 MGD 0.772 MGD 0.400 MGD
Trotwood & Roadways: 0.118 MOD 0.202 MOD 0.275 MOD 0.200 MOD
Oak Forest Spray Field: 0.201 MGD 0.087 MGD NIA 0.200 MGD
East Perc Ponds: 0.601 MGD 0.266 MGD N/A 0.200 MGD
The averages shown were taken over a 2-year period from the monthly operating reports and
reflect drastic differences from the permitted values. The design values account for the fact
that the Oak Forest and East Perc Ponds sites can be taken off-line during high demand
3.1
periods to serve the extra flow required at the Tuscaw~lIa Golf Course and Trotwood Park,
and/or residential sites. These design values are kept constant for all phasing analyses. The
design values also take a realistic view of the actual usage/demand. The use of realistic
design values requires the addition of residential reuse areas to meet future disposal
demands. .'
; \
I-
4
It is the intent of this report to utilize the perc ponds and the Oak Forest spray site as backup
sites. Residential systems will be required for a capacity of 1.1 MGD. Currently, the East
WRF treats approximately 1 MGD of wastewater and distributes it to the sites as shown
above. Table 3.1 includes the subdivisions in the Winter Springs East Service Area
considered for reclaimed water. Some of the subdivisions are equipped with a reclaimed
water infrastructure for future connection. These subdivisions will all be supplied with
reclaimed water. In order to meet the build out wastewater flow, other subdivisions were
considered for reclaimed water based on their proximity to the existing reclaimed water lines
and potential reclaimed water usage as described below. Table 3.1 lists these subdivisions
as well.
The average consumption inSanford in 1996 for the reuse customers is approximately 700
gpd. We estimate the usage on the Winter Springs system to be higher because the City plans
to charge a flat fee at this time for reuse water. A fee based on consumption tends to reduce
the demand, while a flat fee tends to increase the demand. Therefore, for planning purposes,
we used an average demand of 1,000 gpd per customer for single family subdivisions with
one-quarter acre lots.
Several items influence the amount of reclaimed water used and feasibility of construction.
They are:
I. Single family homes with larger lot sizes use more effluent than those with smaller
lot sizes.
2. Single family homes tend to use more than multi-family units.
3. Conventional lots use more than zero-lot line developments.
4. Higher value developments tend to use more than median property developments.
The higher value developments generally have more landscaping.
5. Areas with high potable water use will likely yield high reclaimed use. .
6. Older existing single family developments will tend to have more mature landscaping
and therefore use more irrigation/reclaimed water.
7 . Available right-of-way and easements for construction of reclaimed water lines will
be affected by the type of development. Zero-lot line development will generally not
have available side and rear easements for installation. Zero-lot line developments
in the 70's and 80's have narrower rights-of-way which do not meet current City
Code.
3.2
3.4 Public Opinion Survey
The City had a public opinion survey on reclaimed water performed by Powell Consulting.
A copy is contained in this report as Appendix A. I
4
Four conclusions were made based on the survey.
1. The 58% stating that they would be interested in signing up for service is within the
normal response range. During the reclaimed water planning stage connection,
interest is generally around 50% to 60% for all areas. Specific subdivisions may
have a much higher interest.
2. Our experience with actual rate of participation has been much greater than the 20%
to 36% range. When design is complete, people become very interested and when
construction starts, more people call in requesting service. For example, four (4)
projects have been constructed by the City onthe West System and two (2) projects
by developers. The following data reveals the actual connections:
Proiect Name
City
Highland Village
Boxwood Circle
Moss Rd., 3rd St.,
& Greenspointe
Total Connected
No. of Units Units %
138 89 65
42 23 54
62 36 58
Developer
Highland Lakes
Winding Hollow
33
218
33
218
100
100
The Winter Springs West System has a lower percentage of irrigation users than the
Winter Springs East System. Therefore, we believe that the base demand will be
higher in the East System for reclaimed water.
3. Cost savings is the greatest advantage and can provide a quick return on investment
to the homeowner.
4. The major hindrance to signing up for the program is the plumbing costs for hookup.
The City has covered all the costs up to and including the meter box. However, we
also believe that the costs savings produced by the use of reclaimed water versus
potable water will pay for the hookup costs within six (6) months based on an
average of $25 per month savings.
3.3
TABLE 3.1
,
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
EAST SYSTEM SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES
PHASE 1
.'
SUBDIVISIONS TOTAL FLOW/UNIT TOTAL FLOW CONNECTED FLOW
DWELLINGS (GPO) (GPO) FUTURE (GPO)
Tuscawilla Golf Club 400,000
Trotwood Park & Roadways" 250,000
TuscaOaks" 138 500 69,000 69,000
Arrowhead" 27 1000 27,000 27,000
Howell Creek Reserve" 156 1000 156,000 156,000
Eagles Watch" 110 500 55,000 55,000
Oak Forest .
Unit4 75 700 52,500 36,750
Unit 5 94 700 65,800 46,060 '
Arbor Glen 37 1000 37,000 25,900
Creeks Run" 82 500 41,000 41,000
Grand Reserve" 16 1000 16,000 16,000
ITOT ALS I I I I 1,122,710 I
4
PHASE 2
SUBDIVISIONS TOTAL CONNECTED FLOW 'I
DWELLINGS FUTURE GPO
Carrington WoodslDG 146 1000 146,000 102,200
Glen Eagle 257 1000 257,000 179,900
Tuscawilla
Unit 12 90 1000 90,000 63,000
Chelsea Woods 321 700 224,700 157,290 I'
Chesnut Estates" 51 700 35,700 35,700 I
ITOT ALS 753,400 I 538,090 I
FUTURE PHASES
SUBDIVISIONS TOTAL CONNECTED FLOW
DWELLINGS FUTURE GPO
Chesnut Ridge. 52 1000 52,000 52,000
Tuscawilla
Unit 11 39 1000 39,000 27,300
Unit 11 A+B 61 1000 61,000 42,700
Bear Creek 67 1000 67,000 46,900
ITOT ALS 219,000 I 168,900 I
. denotes subdivisions with the reclaimed infrastructure in place.
Subdivisions without the infrastructure in place have a calculated connected flow of 70% of the total flow.
.. Includes future Tuscawilla Road and SR 434 irrigation as well as existing systems.
3.4
The subdivisions listed below already have reclaimed water distribution systems and
have 100% of the new homes connected:
Chestnut Estates
Eagles Watch
Tusca Oaks
Arrowhead Unit 2
Howell Creek Reserve
Creeks Run
Grand Reserve
~
These systems are temporarily connected to the potable water system and people are
using them for irrigation only. They will be disconnected and reconnected to the
reclaimed water system when a reclaimed water main from the WRF is installed. No
transfer or reconnection at the lot level will be required. There will only be minimal
costs to the City to connect these existing systems to the proposed reclaimed water
distribution system. Another subdivision, Chestnut Ridge, has a reclaimed system
installed. However, the system has not been activated and we are unsure of its
serviceability. We have included this subdivision for service but have included some
costs to cover activation/repair.
A realistic potential market is equivalent to the number of people irrigating with City
water. According to the survey, this was 68%. We rounded this to 70% for planning
purposes and used this figure to estimate participation for future areas.
3.5 Residential Reuse
The estimated capacity needed by each subdivision is shown in Table 3.1. We have selected
the following groups based on their proximity to the existing reuse lines, whether or not an
existing reuse infrastructure was built into the subdivision and the above described use
criteria. Table 3.1 lists the recommended areas of connection assuming 70% participation for
future areas and 100% for those areas with existing systems. An opinion of probable
construction cost breakdown is shown in Table 3.2.
The following groups are recommended:
Phase I
Phase I construction will be used to meet the disposal demand created by the existing flow
plus committed flow of approximately 1.1 MGD.
3.5
A)
Tusca Oaks - The irrigation distribution system was installed as part of the
subdivision infrastructure. Connection will be made to the 1 O-inch reclaimed water
line which runs through the center of the project. Estimated demand is 138,000
gallons per day based on 100% participation of the 138 units and 1,000 gallons per
day per connection.
;,
B) Arrowhead Unit 2 - The irrigation distribution system was installed as part of the
subdivision infrastructure and is already connected to the reclaimed distribution
system. Estimated demand is 28,000 gallons per day based on 100% participation
of the 28 units and 1,000 gallons per day per connection.
C) Grand Reserve - The irrigation distribution system was installed as part of the
subdivision infrastructure. Connection will be made to the 8" reclaimed line that
exists in the power easement. This line currently feeds the Oak Forest spray site.
Estimated demand is 16,000 gallons per day based on 100% participation of the 16
units and 1000 gallons per day per connection.
D) The connection of the following three (3) subdivisions will be made with a 8-inch
line which serves the percolation ponds at Seneca and extended up to Vistawilla.
The new line will be e~tended approximately 3600 lineal feet. Eagle's Watch would
be fed off a 6-inch extension of 1200 lineal feet.
1) Eagles Watch - The irrigation distribution system was installed as part of the
subdivision infrastructure. Estimated demand is 55,000 gallons per day based
on 100% participation of the 110 units and 500 gallons per day per
connection.
2) Howell Creek Reserve - The irrigation distribution system was installed as
part of the subdivision infrastructure. Estimated demand is 156,000 gallons
per day based on 100% participation of the 156 units and 1,000 gallons per
day per connection.
3) Creek's Run - The irrigation distribution system was installed as part of the
subdivision infrastructure. Estimated demand is 41,000 gallons per day based
on 100% participation of the 82 units and 500 gallons per day per connection.
E) Oak Forest Units 4 & 5 - The system would be connected to the existing 8-inch line
that runs through the power easement and the 6-inch line along Winter Springs Blvd.
The interior infrastructure and all connections are required. Thes~ will be
constructed by the City as part of this program. The estimated demand is 82,810
gallons per day based on 70% participation of the 170 units and 700 gallons per day
per connection.
3.6
F)
Arbor Glen - The system would be connected ,to the existing 8-inch line that runs
through the power easement that runs through the middle of this subdivision. The
interior infrastructure and all service connections are required. These will be
constructed by the City as part of this program. The,estimated demand is 25,900
gallons per day based on 70% participation of the 37 units, and 1,000 gallons per day
per connection.
4
Phase II
Phase II construction will be used to meet the disposal demand created by future development
within the service area.
A) Glen Eagle - The system would be connected thru the back of the WRF with a
proposed 12-inch line. The estimated demand is 179,900 gallons per day based on
70% participation of257 units and 1000 gallons per day per connection.
B) Carrington WoodslDavenport Glen - The system would be connected to the existing
8-inch line that runs to the East Percolation Ponds. It would be connected by the
WRF site at Winter Springs Blvd. and by the Power Easement/Northern Way
intersection. The estimated demand is 102,200 gallons per day based on 70%
participation of the 146 units and 1000 gallons per day per connection.
C) Chestnut Estates - The irrigation distribution system was installed as part of the
subdivision infrastructure. Estimated demand is 49,000 gallons per day based on
100% participation of the 49 units and 700 gallons per day per connection.
D) Chelsea Woods (Tuscawilla Unit 14B) - The system would be connected to the
proposed 8-inch line at the south end of Seneca Boulevard to the existing 8-inch line
going to the percolation ponds. The estimated demand is 88,690 gallons per day
based on 70% participation of the 181 units and 700 gallons per day per connection.
E) Chelsea Woods (Tuscawilla Unit 14A) - The system would be connected to the
existing 8-inch line (phase I) that runs from the percolation ponds along Seneca
Boulevard to the proposed 8-inch line on Vistawilla Drive (Phase I). Portions would
also be served off the existing 8-inch percolation pond line. The estimated demand
is 68,600 gallons per day based on 70% participation of the 140 units and 700 gallons
per day per connection.
F) Tuscawi11a Unit 12 - The system would be connected to the existing 8-inch line that
runs to the East Percolation Ponds and to the proposed 12-inch line which runs
through Glen Eagle. The estimated demand is 63,000 gallons per day based on 70%
participation of the 90 units and 1000 gallons per day per connection.
3.7
6~n
- 0
e :I
czg~
~
..
..
G
"";;1g:: III..
~r-r~Z
..~~'" C III
8"~"'i:l
"'~.,,1!llllo.
~UH-Z
'T', Sltlllll:c
o~B~ ~
~~>tII"O
ljil- _
Ol"'_~
9~ Z 03
(')G
. 0)'
c.. 0, ~
o > >
CD r.1 F.i
:z
o
t..J
00
<D .
I II
VI
I VI
<D a
Ol 8.
""tl
I mO
> )>===1
~ ~-<
...... :DO
:Il mil
m Coo;:
C (J):s,
C/) m~
~ ~m
m ~:Il
:Il mC/)
S .....""tl
o .....;;12
m ""tlZ
5; ~~
m
>
LAKE
JESSUP
LAKE . JESSUP
~
T
LEGEND:
REUSE sm: EXISTING
REUSE sm: PHASE 1
~/
III'
~ 7/
P/
~'
Ii
6(0)(")
- 0
S ::::I
1Q)~
~
..
..
CD
"'M~:: II..
~rr-~ Z
"~~"'~m
e"'~"'i::::l
~~;:J~IlIa.
o>"'oz III
!;h~ ~:I:
~~>"'CltO
~;a- _
Q:l~-!!I
S!.... z:ll
(')CD
"ell
-0
I
:>
en
m
~ rHO
:n c"ll
m en:e;
C m-
ffi ~~
en ~:n
m men
~ :njl
() "'U Z
~ ~g
m
:>
LAK[
JESSUP
. JESSUP
LAKE
~
T
TUSCAWlLLA
UNIT 12
=~..
I~ff"\. ,.,',..,:.,"..;';";'.:;1
~.U" r.."'...,.,.,,,...,,.
EXIS1lNG /.';;';':'.;'::."";,;..".."",
REUSESfTE I
SfTE PHASE 1 I
REUSE PHASE 2 \?$~
REUSE SITE
.
~A~
~~bI:I
1Q)~
~
..
..
CD
""MSl::: n..
~rr~ Z
~~~'" e lD
"""'p~ Z:l
~&;:'l~ II Q.
!c~~~ ~ _
0.#<-02......
l;:~> III CID Cl
~~- -
Q:I~-!!!!!I
~-; Z"
(')CD
'CD
w
-
o
5
OJ
Z
o
"'tl
I mO
~ ~~
(.) ::DO
::D ~"11
~ ffi~
~ ~~
~ fn:D
~ rrl~
:D:D
~ "UZ
)> ~g
:n z
m
)>
LAKE
JESSUP
. JESSUP
LAKE
~
T
UNITS I1A AND B
1
..-.J
me)
~~
:Do
en mil
m ~:E
o m-
- ~~
~ fB:D
OJ men
3 :D~
o -UZ
Z ro
en ~en
-< z
~
~
LAK[
J[SSUP
. JESSUP
LAKE
~
T
o
o ~
=~.-
LEGEND: ______
UTlON -
EXISllNO DlSll'llB
unON
PHASE 1 DlSTAl8
~A~
~~b'::s
1Q)~
~
..
..
CD
""OljiJ= m..
~,...c:~ z
~~~'" C lD
e....p" i::s
"'~""~ m a.
"UlrZ
""OVlm
'0010 -
O~OZ ~...
g~>""O'O
~~- -
02,.,,_~
g""Z:::I
nCD
.'"
tIl
(')
>
F.i
.-.J
10 .
I 0
~ 'r'
.... 10
g; Ol
-
-..)
Il
I
:l>
(JJ
m me)
~ ~~
m ::Do
55 ~"
m (JJ~
o m~
~ ~gj
- ~C/)
(l) mil
3 ::D;;g
o ."z
Z ~g
(JJ z
~
~
LAKE
JESSUP
'--"
~
-N-
~
. JESSUP
LAK[
o
o <::::,
LEGEND:
""""'G DISTRIBUTION
EXI<:>,"~
PHASE 1 DISTRIBUTION
PHASE 2 D1STRIBUTlON
,j
,;J
//
1A~
~~bI~
~~
:5fi
..
..
CD
"";;10::11I..
~r-~~z
"t;~,., C) m
e...,.g~ i ~
~~;!l~II1a.
OIY'oB; III
.'.0210... ::c
O.....OZJM
~J:i>UlO'lO
~~- -
Clrrl_~
9-<z;;a
nCD
. ell
UJ
...-
UJ
....
o
CD
:z
f?
a
>-
'"
'"
-u
I
:x:-
C/)
m
(.)
:IJ
m :IJo
C mTl
~ ffi~
o m~
- ~rTl
~ :>>:IJ
- ~C/)
OJ m-u
3 :IJ~
o -02
2 rC)
C/) )>cn
-< 2
~
5:
LAK[
J[SSUP
~
T
LAU . J[SSUP
~--==----=
LEGEND:
IBUllON
EXISTING DIS'I'R
1 DISTRIBUTION
PHASE
UTION
PHASE 2 DISTfllB
TRlBUllON
PHASE 3 DIS
..............
.....
r -="))
TABLE 3.2
,
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
RECLAIMED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
ESTIMATES OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
.'
SUBDIVISION ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
PHASE 1
TuscaOaks Connections ' EA 4 $500.00 $2,000
4" Gate Valves EA 4 $600.00 $2,400
Restoration LS $500
Subtotal $4,900
Cost per Gallon $0.07
Grand Reserve Mobilization LS 1 $500
4"PVC LF 100 $10.00 $1,000
4" Gate valve EA 1 $600.00 $600
Connection EA 1 $500.00 $500
Contingency LS 10.00% $210
Subtotal $2,810
Cost per Gallon $0.18
Howell Creek Reserve Mobilization LS 1 $10,000
& Creeks Run 8"PVC LF 3600 $20.00 $72,000
8" Gate Valve EA 4 $1,000.00 $4,000
Connection EA 1 $500.00 $500
Pipe 10 Tape LF 7200 $0.20 $1 ,440
Bore & Jack LF 30 $400.00 $12,000
Restoration LF 3600 $2.00 $7,200
Service Connections. EA 43 $300.00 $12,810
Driveway Repair EA 30 $500.00 $15,000
Contingency LS 10.00% $13,495
Surveying LF 3600 $2.00 $7,200
Engineering/Const. Admin. LS 10.00% $15,565
Permitting
Subtotal $171,200
Cost per Gallon $0.75
Eagles Watch Mobilization LS 1 $5,000
6"PVC LF 1200 $15.00 $18,000
6" Gate Valve EA 1 $800.00 $800
Connection EA 1 $500.00 $500
Pipe 10 Tape LF 2400 $0.20 $480
Restoration LF 12200 $2.00 $24,400
Contingency LS 10.00% $4,918
Surveying LF 1200 $2.00 $2,400
Engineering/Const. Admin. LS 10.00% $5,650
Permitting
Subtotal $62,100
Cost per Gallon $1.13
3.14
__ ..'l';Y'''-_'\:''\''.~'.''''''''....... 'l'""....~___
h
Table 3.2 (cont'd)
Oak Forest Mobilization LS 1 . $7,000
Unit 4 4"PVC LF 3250 $10.00 $32,500
4" Gate Valve EA 4 $600.00 $2,400
Service Connections EA 53 $300.00 $15,960
Pipe 10 Tape LF 6500 .' $0.20 $1,300
Driveway Repair EA 38 $500.00 $19,000
Connection EA 2 $500.00 $1,000
Restoration LF 3250 $2.00 $6,500
Contingency LS 1 10.00% $8,566
Surveying LF 3250 $2.00 $6,500
Engineering/Const. Admin. LS 1 10.00% $10,073
Permitting
Subtotal $110,800
Cost per Gallon $3.01
Oak Forest Mobilization LS 1 $7,000
Unit 5 4"PVC LF 3200 $10.00 $32,000
4" Gate Valve EA 4 $600.00 $2,400
Service Connections EA 66 $300.00 $19,740
Pipe 10 Tape LF 6400 $0.20 $1 ,280
Driveway Repair EA 47 $500.00 $23,500
Restoration LF 3200 . $.2.00 $6,400
Connection EA 1 $500.00 $500
Contingency LS 1 10.00% $9,282
Surveying LF 3200 $2.00 $6,400
Engineering/Const. Admin. LS 1 10.00% $10,850
Permitting
Subtotal $119,400
Cost per Gallon $2.59
Arbor Glen Mobilization LS 1 $5,000
4"PVC LF 2200 $10.00 $22,000
4" Gate Valve EA 4 $600.00 $2,400
Service Connections EA 26 $300.00 $7,800
Pipe 10 Tape LF 4400 $0.20 $880
Driveway Repair EA 19 $500.00 $9,500
Restoration LF 2200 $2.00 $4,400
Connection EA 4 $500.00 $2,000
Contingency LS 1 10.00% $5,398
Surveying LF 2200 $2.00 $4,400
Engineering/Const. Admin. LS 1 10.00% $6,378
Permitting
Subtotal $70,200
Cost per Gallon $2.71
TOTAL PHASE 1 COST $541,400
.. These service connections are part of the Chelsea Woods subdivision along Seneca Blvd.
Note: 1. Service connections are assumed to be 70% of the total number of units.
2. Arrowhead Unit 2 is already connected.
3. Cost per gallon is the total estimated cost divided by the number of gallons per day
of effluent disposal capability of the area. This figure is used as a comparison of
the cost effectiveness of each system.
3.15
j~
TABLE 3.2 (Cont'd)
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
RECLAIMED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
ESTIMATES OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
J
"
SUBDIVISION I ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
PHASE 2
Carrington Woods/ Mobilization LS 1 $10,000
Davenport Glen 6"PVC LF 3000 $15.00 $45,000
4"PVC LF 3800 $10.00 $38,000
2"PVC LF 1600 $7.00 $11,200
6" Gate Valve EA 2 $800.00 $1,600
4" Gate Valve EA 5 $600.00 $3,000
Service Connections EA 102 $300.00 $30,660
. Pipe 10 Tape LF 16800 $0.20 $3,360
Driveway Repair EA 73 $500.00 $36,500
Restoration LF 8400 $2.00 $16,800
Contingency LS 1 10.00% $19,612
Surveying LF 8400 $2.00 $16,800
Engineering/Const. Admin. LS 1 10.00% $23,253
Permitting
Subtotal $255,800
Cost per Gallon $2.50
Glen Eagle Mobilization LS 1 $10,000
12" PVC LF 4400 $30.00 $132,000
4" PVC LF 7500 $10.00 $75,000
2" PVC LF 3800 $7.00 $26,600
12" Gate Valve EA 5 $2,000.00 $10,000
4" Gate Valve EA 9 $600.00 $5,400
Service Connections EA 180 $300.00 $53,970
Pipe 10 Tape LF 31400 $0.20 $6,280
Driveway Repair EA 129 $500.00 $64,500
Restoration LF 15700 $2.00 $31 ,400
Contingency LS 1 10.00% $41,515
Surveying LF 15700 $2.00 $31 ,400
Engineering/Const. Admin. LS 1 10.00% $48,807
Permitting
Subtotal $536,900
Cost per Gallon $2.98
Chestnut Estates Mobilization LS 1 $5,000
8"PVC LF 3000 $20.00 $60,000
8" Gate Valve EA 3 $1,000.00 $3,000
Pipe II;) Tape LF 6000 $0.20 $1 ,200
Restoration LF 3000 $2.00 $6,000
Connection EA 2 $500.00 $1,000
Contingency LS 1 10.00% $7,120
Surveying LF 3000 $2.00 $6,000
Engineering/Const. Admin. LS 1 10.00% $8,932
Permitting
Subtotal $98,000
Cost per Gallon $2.75
3.16
Table 3.2 (cont'd)
Tuscawilla Mobilization LS .1 $5,000
Unit 12 8"PVC LF 3200 $20.00 $64,000
2" PVC LF 1600 $7.00 $11,200
8" Gate Valve EA 4 $1,000.00 $4,000
2" Gate Valve EA 4 .. $300.00 $1,200
Service Connections EA 63 $300.00 $18,900
Pipe 10 Tape LF 9600 $0.20 $1,920
Driveway Repair EA 45 $500.00 $22,500
Restoration LF 4800 $2.00 $9,600
Contingency LS 1 10.00% $13,832
Surveying LF 4800 $2.00 $9,600
Engineering/Canst. Admin. LS 1 10.00% $16,175
Permitting
Subtotal $177,900
. Cost oer Gallon $2.82
Chelsea Woods Mobilization LS 1 $20,000
8" PVC LF 4500 $20.00 $90,000
4"PVC LF 3000 $10.00 $30,000
2"PVC LF 4500 $7.00 $31,500
8" Gate Valve EA 5 $1,000.00 $5,000
4" Gate Valve EA 4 $600.00 $2,400
2" Gate Valve EA 8 $300.00 $2,400
Service Connections EA 183 $300.00 $55,020
Pipe 10 Tape LF 24000 $0.20 $4,800
Driveway Repair EA 131 $500.00 $65,500
Restoration LF 12000 $2.00 $24,000
Contingency LS 1 10.00% $33,062
Surveying LF 12000 $2.00 $24,000
Engineering/Canst. Admin. LS 1 10.00% $38,768
Permitting
Subtotal $426,500
Cost per Gallon $3.35
TOTAL PHASE 2 COST $1,495,100
PLUS TOTAL PHASE 1 COST $541,400
TOTAL SYSTEM COST $2,036,500
3.17
A
Phase III
Phase III construction will be used to meet the disposal demand created by other
developments, higher density redevelopment or annexation o(adjacent properties.
"
A) Chestnut Ridge - The irrigation distribution system was installed as part of the
subdivision infrastructure. Connection would be by a 6-inch line fed from the 16-inch
golf course line. Estimated demand is 52,000 gallons per day based on 100%
participation of the 52 units and 1000 gallons per day per connection.
B) Tuscawilla Unit 11A & B - The system would be connected to a proposed 8-inch line
that would connect to Eagle's Watch, et ai, at the Vistawilla end of the extended 8-
inch percolation pond line. We propose an 8-inch line from the Carrington
WoodslDavenport GlenINorthern Way Entrance up to Vistawilla and then up to
Seneca. Numerous small lines would be fed off the main line to serve the houses on
each cul-de-sac. Houses directly on the main line will be fed by a service off the main
line. The estimated demand is 63,000 gallons per day based on 70% participation of
the 61 units and 1000 gallons per day per connection.
C) Bear Creek Estates - The system would be connected to the proposed 8-inch line at
the intersection of Northern Way and Vistawilla Drive. The estimated demand is
46,900 gallons per day based on 70% participation of the 67 units and 1000 gallons
per day per connection.
3.6 Distribution System and Analysis
Table 3-1 identifies the subdivisions and areas for potential reclaimed water reuse. Based on
the capacities of the areas and the disposal needs of the WRF and normal peaking factors, we
identified a preliminary reclaimed water distribution system and sized the pipe accordingly.
With the largest pump and jockey pump out of service there is an existing capacity of 2,400-
gpm (3.456 MGD). FDEP regulations require that the distribution system have a minimum
hydraulic capability of 1.5 times the maximum daily flow (at which adequate treatment can
be provided) of the treatment facility. Based on planning demands, the future design capability
of the Water Reclamation Facility is 1.6 MGD. We analyzed the distribution system at 2.656
MGD which provides for a peaking factor of 1.66 which exceeds the 1.5 FDEP factor
requirements.
The KYPIPE model for the West System was modified to include the interconnect and the
complete East distribution system. By shutting off the interconnect line, the systems can be
analyzed independently. This provides a complete tool for future analysis of the system and
will allow the City to look at the impact of switching flows between systems.
The East KYPIPE model was prepared and several runs were made to determine the future
reclaimed water piping configuration. We ran the model assuming an 8-hour demand period
3.18
:~...~~~~
;0
for all of the users including the golf course and Trotwood Park medians. Residential
demands were computed assuming the above criteria. The model was analyzed to verify that
all users were supplied with a minimum of 40 psi ( the minimum operating pressure of most
in-ground irrigation systems). The minimum system press~re in this future scenario is
approximately 60 psi. Runs with only Phase I piping were also made to determine future
piping. Results indicated minimum pressures around 85 psi.
"
A synopsis of the model is contained in Appendix E and a corresponding Map is included in
Map Pocket B. This model includes piping for the entire City of Winter Springs and can be
easily modified if growth greater than anticipated occurs and the supply of reclaimed water
mcreases.
This effluent distribution pumping system has two 1200 gpm pumps, one 1800 gpm pump,
and a 500 gpm jockey pump. The following capabilities exist:
Operational Parameter
Flow Rate (gpm)
Flow Rate (MGD)
Largest Pump Out
All Pumps
2900
4700
4.18
6.77
3.7 Effluent Supply
It is the City's intent to use the percolation pond and the Oak Forest spray site as buffer
disposal sites for periods when irrigation demand is lower than the average daily flow of the
Water Reclamation Facility or when the covered storage capability is close to reaching
capacity. This will provide an added buffer capability in addition to the storage capability.
During low residential irrigation demand, or when the covered storage system is full, the sites
will be activated. During high residential demand, the sites will be rested by being taken off-
line. Therefore, these two disposal sites were not included in the demand estimates of Table
3.1.
3.8 Treatment
Based on the information in Appendix D - Process Component Evaluation Using Class I
Reliability Criteria, we recommend that additional filtration capacity be added before the ADF
reaches 1.1 MGD or approximately Year 2002. This can be accomplished by adding a new
filter(s) adjacent to the existing filters. Consideration should also be given to proposed
changes to FDEP Rule 62-610 and removalltreatm'ent of viruses. Changes to the filtration
section of the Rule have been proposed, but to date have not been adopted.
3.19
3.9 Storage
To provide a greater flexibility between demand and supply, we recommend that the ground
storage tank capacity be increased in three phases. Each phas~ will involve the construction i ~
ofa three (3) million gallon storage tank. When the flows reach 1.0 MGD (Year 2000), 1.25
MGD (Year 2005), and 1.5 MGD (Year 2010), a tank should be constructed.
3.10 Potable Water Distribution System Demand Reductions
By providing reclaimed water as an alternate irrigation water source, benefits will be provided
to the water distribution system because potable water demand will be reduced. The
irrigation demand will be shifted off of the water distribution system and onto the new
reclaimed system. This will free up capacity on the water distribution system and allow the
water system to more effectively meet the potable water demands of the area. The system
will be able to supply either more potable water to the c.onsumer or will be able to provide
the demand at a higher pressure. This is especially import~nt for the area known as Chelsea
Woods. The Utility Department receives low water pressure complaints from this area during
the dry season (i.e., when irrigation demand is high). The addition of a reclaimed supply in
this area will defer the need for potable water line upgrades. Although reduction .of demand
. by the use of reclaimed water will benefit the water distribution system regardless of location,
the elimination of potable irrigation demand . directly from the Chelsea Woods water
distribution system will provide the greatest benefit to the Chelsea Woods area.
3.20
.
CHAPTER 4
REGULATORY AGENCIES
j,
4.1 St. Johns River Water Management District
As stated in the Regulatory Program Guideline provided by the St. Johns River Water
Management District (SJRWMD), one of their main goals is to ensure and maintain a safe,
reliable water resource for present and future use by the citizens of 19 County District Area.
SJRWMD attempts to accomplish this goal by an administrative process which monitors and
regulates water and water-related systems throughout the District. The District has
established within its staff a Department of Resource Management, and has charged them
with the regulation of water cesource activities, including permit issuance and enforcement.
The SJRWMD requires a Consumptive Use Permit for the construction and use ofa well(s).
SJRWMD has recently enacted Rule 40C-23, which designates the entire area of the District
as a water conservation area, pursuant to the mandates of Florida Statute 403.064. In
accordance with Florida Statute 403.064, Pat1 7, the District takes into consideration a local
reuse program in issuing Consumptive Use Permits. Within recent history all parts of the
District have been subject to the declaration of a water shortage on more than one occasion.
It is SJRWMD's policy to implement reuse and provide for the greater availability of
reclaimed water District-wide to conserve available water resources.
Reuse of reclaimed water provides a potential for a significant reduction in the demand on
our groundwater resources. Without conservation and reduction of groundwater demand the
area of increasing salinity could conceivably move further sOllth and west if groundwater
withdrawals exceed replenishment. Currently the interface is to the west and south of the St.
Johns and Little Econ Rivers.
4.2 Florida Department of Environmental Protection
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) is the primary regulatory
agency for water and wastewater treatment facilities within the State of Florida. FDEP Rule
62-610 governs the allowable use of reclaimed water which is a by-product of wastewater
treatment facilities. Effluent from wastewater treatment facilities must meet strict regulatory
guidelines for treatment and disinfection in order to become satisfactory for public access
reuse. The FDEP has implemented a comprehensive reuse program designed to meet the
State objective which encourages and promotes water conservation through reuse of
reclaimed water. The following are included in the reuse program: a mandatory reuse
program; an anti-degradation policy; requirements for evaluation of reuse feasibility; and
comprehensive rules governing reuse of reclaimed water, Chapter 62-610 F AC.
4.1
'"'I. '1;/
The mandatory reuse program was established by Rule 62-40.40 1(5) F AC. This rule required
that the Water Management Districts designate areas that have water supply problems which
have become critical or are anticipated to become critical within the next twenty years.
Critical water supply problem areas were to be designated by November I, 1991. Reuse of J.
reclaimed water from domestic wastewater treatment facilities was to be required within /,
these designated critical water supply problem areas unless such reuse is not economically,
environmentally or technically feasible.
4.3 Winter Springs Compliance
The City of Winter Springs is providing reuse capability through the existing Water
Reclamation Facility. The City believes this solution is technically and financially feasible
and meets the goals of both agencies.
4.2
4i ~'J 'j~
CHAPTER 5
RESIDENTIAL IRRIGATION DEMAND
~
5.1 General
Residential irrigation demand changes throughout the year. Demand and evapotranspiration
is significantly greater in the summer months versus the winter months. The Florida Lawn
Handbook describes a low demand for turf grass irrigation of 0.35 inches per week and a
peak demand of2.1 inches per week. During the peak demand period heavier rainfall occurs.
Therefore, the entire demand is not met by supplemental irrigation. This variation in demand
is the subject of this Chapter.
5.2 Daily Variation
Typically residential systems are designed with four zones with several heads using a total
of 18-20 gpm.at a pressure of 45 psi. As the available pressure drops, the total supply drops
and the total gpm will be reduced. Each of the four zones would run for approximately 30
minutes. Irrigation use per lot based on every other day usage is approximately 1,000 gpd per
residential customer. This is also equivalent to an application rate of 1.1 inches per week.
Some controls may need to be exercised by the City to limit the peak demand during the day
and the week. We recommend consideration of the following items to control daily variations
if and when demand for reclaimed water exceeds supply.
1) Require even - odd irrigation when and if it becomes a problem to meet the peak
demand. Even house numbers can irrigate on even days odd house numbers can
irrigate on odd days. This will help to limit daily demand on anyone day to 50% of
the total possible demand.
2) Require irrigation system installation permits to allow for future and present
compliance with City Standards.
3) Within the. permits, restrict the hours of operation of each individual irrigation
system. The irrigation time frame of the user will be set by the permit with system
testing the only exception. (Verification and control will be difficult.)
4) Limit the maximum gpm demand per zone to 10 gpm rather than 18-20 gpm under
typical design criteria and only one zone operational at anyone time. This will extend
the irrigation period to approximately four hours per customer.
5) Install meters for all customers to prevent overuse of the reclaimed water.
5.1
4 _t,~ ';;
5.3 Annual Variation
The East WRF disposal system has only two (2) nonessential ~isposal sites. It is likely that I
the City would need larger storage volumes for effluent during abnormally wet periods or II
during low demand periods such as January and February for the East System. In addition, ,
it is less likely that the City would have to provide supplemental irrigation supply during the
high demand period of May, June, and July. The City should consider the following items
to level off reuse demand if and when demand for reclaimed water exceeds supply:
1) Install meters for each customer and institute a user charge system rather than a flat
fee.
2) Establish rates that increase at certain levels of use, i.e., charge more per thousand
gallons over 20,000 gallons used per month. This is commonly known as a
conservation rate schedule.
The City should consider the following items if demand is low and does not meet
expectations for making the system cost effective to operate. Include a base flow (10,000
gallons) in the monthly minimum charge to help promote a minimum usage every month.
1) The City should consider the following item if demand is low in the winter and
high in the summer. Encourage the use of automatic irrigation systems. This will
provide a more even demand throughout the year.
2) Obtain alternate dedicated disposal sites over which the utility department has direct
control to use when needed during low seasonal reclaimed demand wet weather.
The East effluent distribution system will be interconnected with the West system which
allows interchange of effluent to disposal sites of the other system. This provides some
additional flexibility and takes advantage of the disposal diversity on the West system.
5.4 Existing Irrigation Demand
We believe that the demand for reuse will be higher than the demand for potable water
because the rate will be less. There are also envirorunental and psychological benefits that
will help to promote effluent reuse. The average will range from 450 gallons per day to 1500
gallons per day. For planning purposes, we recommend using 1,000 gpd per customer since
the City charges a low flat fee of$5~00, which encourages high usage.
5.2
(~ 1 ~ ,;:;
5.5 Disposal Site Schedule
We assumed that aU sites would operate during an 8-hour period from lOP .M. to 6 A.M.
Residential irrigation is best during the morning hours before ~unrise. Morning irrigation is i
preferred for agricultural reasons which include the removal ofthe morning dew, evaporation
of water from the grass and plants within 2-4 hours to prevent fungus growth, and
penetration of the irrigation water into the soil without the effects of evaporation during
irrigation. Irrigation during the late morning hours and the afternoon is greatly affected by
evaporation and the amount of water has to be increased to provide the plants with the
needed water. The model we analyzed assumed aU of the demands would be met in the 8-
hour overnight period except for the Oak Forest spray site and the East Percolation Ponds.
Residential irrigation wiUlikely be less regular than modeled and continue through the late
morning. hours. This spreading out of the residential demand serves to make the results of the
model more conservative.
5.3