2000 RECLAIMED WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
y . 30. 0 \
\I\J K s- -e.. 5
DRAFT
rreS. --1-
2000 RECLAIMED WATER
MASTER PLAN UPDATE
prepared for
-
U
February 2001
.
~MCKIM&CREED
r
fTI
c;;
fTI
Z 0
0;:0 -I"U -I"U -I"U -I"U "U 1""'1 >;:0 "U1""'1 ,,> aJ::EO 0
1""'11""'1 0;:0 0;:0 0;:0 0;:0 1""'1 X ;:01""'1 -X >0 o>~
rii~ aJ~ aJ~ aJ~ aJ~ Z Vi 1""'10 "U- Q)::
-Ul ~;;j
,<< r~ 0 :::l >!; Z:::l Cz
1""'101""'101""'101""'10 Z "Z 0;:00 ~
OZ OUl OUl OUl OUl Z aJ- =<!O >Ul" '5
1 ~Z " " O~ "
1""'11""'11""'11""'11""'11""'11""'11""'1 CI""'1 rTJ ;:OrTJO
0" riiO riiO riiO riiO ;:0 ;:0 ZO ;:0 0 -<;:or
1""'1 1""'1 1""'1
aJUl r;:O r;:O r;:O r;:O 0 0 O::E 0 "U :S;1""'1 ~ @ ~
1""'11""'1 01""'1 OrTJ 01""'1 OrTJ r !; >> r 0 0>
-<;:0 "U 0 "U 0 "U 0 "U 0 ~ ~;;j > r rTJ;:O ~
0:S; 8;;;8;;;8;;;8;;; ~ ~ ~ r ::E l! ~
zO ;:0 C >> l!
01""'1 ~ ~ ~ ~ rTJ rTJ rTJ :::l ;:O;;j ~ ~ ~
OrTJ OrTJ 01""'1 OrTJ 0 0 Ul 0 0 ~;:o
M~ cocococo ~ ::E rTJ ::E Z
;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0
>rTJ z~z~z~z~ > :S; > 0
;:0> ;;j ;;j 0 ;;j 0 ~
Ul ";;j ";;j ";;j ";;j ;:0 ;:0 rTJ ;:0 Z
"'-I ;ti
~o ~;:o~;:o~;:o ~;:o Ul Ul 0
rnUl aUl ~Ul SUl -< -< p
OaJ Ul Ul r ~
rTJ I ~ I ~ I ~ I ~ ;;j ;;j "
"':s; "':s; "':s; "':s; ~ ~
~o So So go
OrTJUlrTJOI""'1UlI""'1
> > > >
;:0 ;:0 ;:0 ;:0
rTJ 1""'1 1""'1 1""'1
> > > >
::c
1"'1
("')
~
3:
1"'1
o
::E
)>
-I
1"'1
::c
Ul
1"'1
::c
~
("')
1"'1
)>
::c
1"'1
)>
Ul
::E
::j
:J:
-0
::c
o
::c
~
::c
)>
z
^
Z
G>
~
'&uIf
~
(OJ
~
~,
~Ul~~ H~
o>;ti;:O
c"UrTJ~
-IOrTJ>
-< -Ir
r
.
I
I i
I i
I
I
-
jII:
y--
/ ~
-~/ r--0 i
: ~ ~
_.._.~-c::"". ' '\
.,C! :Je I ~<
B(' ~ · i
. .1 ."q I
iJ
I
'\
"
S!:l
~~~
~~~
Cl::~
.j,{~
I'
I'--{
91
I
"
, .
, 'i
0" Ii
~I (- ---1
It 5
> ;:0
Q~:i!
Col""'1
=<! ~
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DRAFT
2000 Reclaimed Water
Master Plan Update
Prepared for
City of Clearwater
February 2001
Prepared by
McKim & Creed, P.A.
601 Cleveland Street, Suite 205
Clearwater, FL 33755
I
i,1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction.... ................. ................................. ................... ................... .........................1
2.0 Reclaimed Water Background .... ......................... ................ ......... ............. ......... ............2
3.0 Scope of Work .......................... ..................................... ............ ......... ............. ................ 3
4.0 Status of Current Reclaimed Water Projects ................................................................. 5
5.0 Historical Reclaimed Water Use ........ ................... ........................... ..................... ..........8
5.1 Island Estates, Philip Jones Field, Jack Russell Stadium, Coachman Park,
Memorial Causeway, and Pier 60....... ........ ............ .................................. ................ 8
5.2 Clearwater Country Club .................................... .................. ....................................9
5.3 Countryside Golf Course, Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf Course, Countryside Sports
Complex, and Countryside Driving Range................................................................ 9
6.0 Projected Reclaimed Water Demands of Urban System............................................. 1 0
7.0 Treated Wastewater Flow Projections .........................................................................13
8.0 Seasonal Variations of Wastewater Flow and Reclaimed Water Demand .................16
8.1 Wastewater Flow Seasonal Variations ...................................................................16
8.2 Reclaimed Water Demand Seasonal Variations...............................;..................... 16
9.0 Storage Requirements ...................... ................ ................. .................. .............. ........... 18
9.1 Seasonal Storage Requirements.... ....;................................................................... 18
9.1.1 Storage Requirements for)Build Out of Urban Reclaimed Water System.. 18
9.1.2 Storage Requirements with 3MGD to Pinellas County and 5.4 MGD to
RIBs, Balance~o Urban Reclaimed Water System.................................... 20
9.1.3 Storage Requirements with 3 MGD to Pinellas and Balance to Urban
Reclaimed Water System.. '............... ........................................................20
9.2 Daily Reclaimed Water Storage ............................................................................. 20
9.3 Reject Storage. .............. ............. ..... ............................................... .....................25
10.0 Update of Project Priority for Urban System ............................................................... 26
10.1 Projection of Potable Water Offset......................................................................... 26
10.1.1 Potable Water Offset...... ........................ ........................ ...........................26
10.1.2 Groundwater Offset........... ..... .......... ................................. ..... ...................28
10.2 Project Prioritization .... .... ....... ................. .............. ........................................... ......30
10.3 Project Phasing.... ...... .................... ........... ......................... ........ ............................33
11.0 Zero Discharge Alternatives .........................................................................................39
11 .1 Land Application.................................................................................................... 39
11.1.1 Slow-Rate Land Application, Public Access Areas .................................... 39
11.1.2 Slow-Rate Land Application, Restricted Public Access (Spray Irrigation) ..40
11.1.3 Rapid-Rate Land Application (Rapid Infiltration Basins) ............................ 40
11.2 Bulk Sale or Purchase of Reclaimed Water............................................................ 42
11 .3 Storage Basins or Tanks...................................................................................... .. 44
11.4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery .................................................. ............................. 46
11.5 Wet Weather Discharge......................................................................................... 47
12.0 Scena rios ....................................................................................................................... 48
12.1 Scenario 1 - Urban Reclaimed Water System, Surface Water Discharge..............48
12.2 Scenario 2 - 5.4 MGD to RIBS, 3 MGD to Pinellas Co., Urban RCW System, Zero
Discharge........ ............ ...................................... .....................................................50
12.3 Scenario 3 - Urban Reclaimed Water System, Zero Discharge ............................. 51
13.0 Conclusions.............. ..................... ...................... ........ ....... ................ ...........................53
14.0 Recommendations... ....... .................................... .............................. ...... ...................... 54
15.0 Implementation Plan ......... .................................. ............................... ............... ............ 55
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF TABLES
4-1 Status of Reclaimed Water Projects................................................................................. 5
6-1 Projected Reclaimed Water Demand per Service Area................................................... 11
6-2 Projected Reclaimed Water Demand.............................................................................. 12
9-1 Existing / Proposed Reclaimed Water Storage ...............................................................23
10-1 Average Residential Irrigation and Domestic Usage....................................................... 27
10-2 Potable Water Offset...................................................................................................... 28
10-3 I rrigation Wells within Reclaimed Water Service Areas................................................... 29
10-4 Cost / Benefit Ratio................................................................,........................................ 31
10-5 Northeast APCF Reclaimed Water Users ...... ........................ ............... ..........................33
10-6 Project Phasing of Proposed RCW Projects through 2020.............................................. 36
10-7 Cumulative Reclaimed Water Demand........................................................................... 37
11-1 Land Application within Florida Power Corporation's ROWs and at Northeast APCF .....42
12-1 Scenario 2 Capital Costs ............................................................................................,...51
12-2 Scenario 2 (w/ASR) Capital Costs ....................................................................... ........ 51
12-3 Scenario 3 Capital Costs........................... '.' .............................................. .... ...:.............. 52
12-4 Scenario 3 (w/ASR) Capital Costs ....... ......................................................................... 52
LIST, OFiFIGURES
4-1 Service Area Boundaries w/Existing orUnder.Construction Reclaimed Water Systems ...6
7 -1 Marshall Street AP9F~rojected WClste.~Clter Flows....................................................... 13
7 -2 Northeast APCF Projecte;d Wastewater Flows................................................................ 14
7 -3 East APCF Projected Wastewater Flows........................................................................ 14
7 -4 CombinedWWTP Flows............................................................................................,.... 15
8-1 Seasonal Wastewater Flow and Reclaimed Water Demand........................................... 17
9-1 Wastewater Flow and Reclaimed Water Demand (Build Out of Urban System).............. 19
9-2 Wastewater Flow & Reclaimed Water Demand (3 mgd to Pinellas Co.l5.4 mgd to RIBs)21
9-3 Wastewater Flow & Reclaimed Water Demand (3 mgd to Pinellas Co.).......................... 22
9-4 Reclaimed Water Pumping and Storage Plan...................,............................................. 24
10-1 Reclaimed Water Service Areas with Priority Ranking.................................................... 32
10-2 East-West Reclaimed Water Interconnection................................................................. 35
10-3 Projected RCW Demand and WWTP Flows ...................................................................38
11-1 Proposed Land Application Areas....................................................................... ............41
11-2 Clearwater/Largo Reclaimed Water Interconnect........................ ....................................43
11-3 Reclaimed Water Storage Pod .................. ................... ..................................................45
12-1 Reclaimed Water Demand Year 2020............................................................................. 49
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Clearwater has an established program of reclaimed water system expansion.
Beginning in 1998, the City initiated its first residential/commercial reclaimed water system by
expanding from the Marshall Street Advanced Pollution Control Facility (APCF) to the Island
Estates community. Prior to this time, the City provided reclaimed water to a few golf course
areas and recreation spaces near two of the APCFs. The City is continuing the expansion of
the system on Clearwater Beach, with plans following to service areas targeted in the 1998
Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update.
In late 1999 and early 2000, Clearwater and the Tampa Bay region experienced severe drought
conditions. It is anticipated that early 2001 will again see lower than average. rainfall. In
response to the drought conditions, enactment of further watering restrictions was seen across
the region including Clearwater. With the increasing burden placed on our water resources, the
City desires to re-visit the Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update to evaluate the
appropriateness of the plan given the ever-~hanging conditions and the need to continually
maximize the effectiveness of the reiclaimeq water program. McKim & Creed, P.A. was
contracted by the City of Clearwater to review the Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
(McKim & Creed, P.A, 1998) and provide.a t.e-assessment of the reclaimed water service
areas.
~eview of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 RECLAIMED WATER BACKGROUND
The City began utilization of treated effluent in the 1980s with the completion of an effluent
pumping station and low pressure transmission main at the Northeast APCF. This system
serves the Countryside Golf Course and the Chi Chi Rodriquez Driving Range area. In 1990,
the City began to explore a City-wide expansion of the reclaimed water system. The City's first
Reclaimed Water Master Pan was prepared in 1990 by Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc. and
included a three-phase, $70 million expansion program. Support for this program was not
sufficient to make significant progress. It was not until 1998 that the system began to expand to
serve residential customers by constructing the system that now serves the Island Estates area
and other City parks and open spaces in the western portion of the City. The facilities to serve
these areas include a new pumping facility and a storage system at the Marshall Street
Advanced Pollution Control Facility. Due to the time that elapsed between completing the
original master plan and beginning the expansion, and due to changes in the fundamental
approach to developing the reclaimed water program that became evident with the expansion of
the system to serve Island Estates, th.E:l City recog[lized the need to update the reclaimed water
master plan to take into consideration th~ current conditions and the re-direction of the system
development. McKim &Creed,P.A, dev~loped the Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update in
1998. This document has providedJhegUida7?eifOr expansion of four subsequent projects to
extend reclaimed water service. These projects are in various stages of planning, design or
construction and are describedi.n ~.ection 4.0. This report will amend the 1998 Master Plan
based on a review of current conditions and specific issues the City has requested be
evaluated. The following section provides a more detailed scope of this report.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
Upon consultation with the City Public Works Administration and Public Utilities staff, McKim &
Creed has identified the following scope of work for this project:
A. Review the Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update (1998).
B. Identify areas that have large numbers of private, residential irrigation well users by
discussions with City staff and reviewing well construction records obtained from the
SWFWMD. We may also contact homeowners groups through the association of
homeowners.
C. Obtain and review lawn meter usage and potable water usage from the City billing
records for target areas.
D. Evaluate the impact to the expandi~g reclaimed water pumping,~torage and
transmission system at the Northeast Advanced Pollution Control Facility (APCF) with
proposed additional reclaimed water users in the Northeast Clearwater area.
E. Develop projectedirrigati9nrates and. refined demands for reclaimed water for the
identified areas.
F. Review the most recent funding criteria changes by the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD), primarily with respect to funding of distribution
systems. Evaluate the impact of these changes on the priorities and costs for extending
reclaimed water service to target areas identified and areas previously programmed in
the Master plan.
G. Define infrastructure requirements necessary to extend reclaimed water service to these
target areas. Utilize hydraulic model as needed.
H. Develop budgetary costs of expanding the reclaimed water system to these target areas.
Review and prepare revisions and/or updates as appropriate to project costs for those
areas in the Master Plan based on new information.
I. Determine potable water and ground water offsets for the target reclaimed water service
area(s). Prepare estimates of cost/benefit utilized by the SWFWMD to evaluate project
viability for funding.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J. Review and refine existing prioritized lists of projects to reflect addition of the northeast
Clearwater area and other areas that are identified for cost effective reclaimed water
service.
K. Refine maps of the City to illustrate and exhibit the proposed modification to the areas
and/or priorities previously proposed.
L. Assist the City in obtaining grant funding for newly defined reclaimed water project in
northeast Clearwater area that may result from this study.
M. Prepare brief draft report in the form of an amendment to the Master Plan Update for
submittal to the City. Incorporate comments into a final report that will amend the
previous Master Plan Update.
N. Attend meetings with the City to review progress on the project and to review results of
preliminary and final findings and recommendations. Assist in preparing presentations of
findings as needed.
Subsequent to the drafting of this SCOPE3, the City has determined a need to address other
related factors that may affect the long-term development of the reclaimed water system. These
issues include:
>- More stringent limitation on discharge of treated effluent included in new NPDES permit
and possible future permit limitations.
>- Possible coordination with adjoining communities to improve system reliability.
>- Consideration of elimination of effluent discharges to surface water.
>- Coordination of SWFWMD planning efforts.
We have incorporated these issues in the review and update of the Master Plan. The City will
face several decisions in deciding on the most cost effective and most environmentally
acceptable system configuration. This report intends to provide data, information and
evaluations to facilitate these decisions.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.0 STATUS OF CURRENT RECLAIMED WATER PROJECTS
The City of Clearwater is continuing expansion of its reclaimed water system. The expansion to
date has been in accordance with the priority established in the 1998 Reclaimed Water Master
Plan Update as modified to meet current specific goals. The following table outlines the current
status of projects and the expected completion dates assuming continued support for the
program.
Table 4-1
Status of Reclaimed Water Projects
Project Name Status Target Completion
Island Estates Complete 1999 ))",
N. Clearwater Beach Complete 2001 '),
S. Clearwater Beach Under construction 2002
Northeast Storage and Construction pending 2002
Pumping Facility ,
N. Greenwood "'" Design phase 2003
Drew Street / Union Street SWFWMD Funding approved 2004
HarborOaks "",'" SWFWMb Funding 2005
""""" application in review
The City of Clearwater has rece,ived cooperative funding from the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) for all of the reclaimed water projects listed above, excepting
Harbor Oaks. The SWFWMD funding application for Harbor Oaks was recently submitted and
is in review. The projects discussed above are shown on Figure 4-1.
For the purposes of this report, "existing" reclaimed water projects are those identified through
the North Greenwood project as shown in Table 4-1, which includes those areas of the City
currently utilizing reclaimed water and areas where reclaimed water projects are currently under
construction or are in design. It is projected that the total reclaimed water demand of the
"existing" reclaimed water areas is 2.5 MGD (million gallons per day).
The Drew Street / Union Street and Harbor Oaks projects are identified as "pending" reclaimed
water projects. It is projected that these service areas will have a combined average reclaimed
water demand of 1.6 MGD.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 5
FILE NO. 0992 GS CfT'fMAP2-2-01
r
I : fTl
, Gl
, fTl
g Z
OJ~Q 0
'" '1)>
" )>OU "'" X )>0 O)>~
OU'" =02$ if) 0< C~-<
'" "'0 -(f) E~ 5~~
z )>r Z~ ~
0 )> "'Z Z ~O )>(f)
Z rn~ '" '" -<", OU",O
'" 0", '" 0 -<"'r
'" Co '" '" " <'"
z '" -)>
'" 0:;: 0 0 0 0",
0 r r r "':;:
r )>)> )> )> r
)> "'~ ~ ~ C )>)>
~ -<'" '" ~ OU~
'" '" 0 ",f"'1
f"'1 0 0 )>'"
0 (f) Z
f"'1 :;: :;: 0
:;: '" )> )>
)> < ~ ~ 0
~ 0 f"'1 f"'1 Z
f"'1 '" '" '" ~
'" '"
(f) 0
(f) -< r
-< (f)
(f) ~
~ f"'1
f"'1 '"
'"
U)
",
::0
<
0
",
)>
::0
Q ",
)>
~
-< CD
0 0
C
'1 Z
n 0
r )>
fTl ~
:t> ",
Al U)
'" '"
:t>
--1 =<
", :r:
Al
I
I
-<
fTl
:t>
Al
N
o
o
o
Al
'1
n
r
~
s::
fTl
o
'"
:t>
--1
fTl
AJ
(J)
-<
(J)
--1
fTl
s::
Al
fTl
S
fTl
'"
'&uIf
'"
i
",
X
Vi
:::!
z
Gl
o
::0
c
z
o
",
::0
(")
o
z
U)
--1
::0
C
(")
:::!
o
Z
::0
",
(")
r
:t>
;:::
",
o
~
'"
o
'1-:' ;z:
! .-. ;
I.~_,!
::E
:t>
--1
",
::0
U)
-<
U)
--1
r'l
;:::
U)
~J
......~,.'r-=c;,jTfc'-'., ~
"""..- (Cll.~~~("'~). "~"
", "',;-\.@ Ii ~
." ,~~ '. ! .
,:L=j]~ 2;~~" Ii\~.
~ III . ," ",'-._ ,'0-" ~",_"
n ~ ~ ': '-..... '~i\
1"'1111> \. -"', .
=i()'" " .-
-C c,, 'I
~
:;j
~
'"
o
'"
,\
1;;:'0
~~~
CC~
~
- ~
g
" ~
~
~
~
@
~
~~~
"
"
~
~
{i)1
vll~
t:ll
~
t:ll
;;;:
.
-=--=J~
':
:1/.
l:li""',
l'_>I.,
I-'~i
i'l!
I'
'"~.d
U/p
/ ~~~
!2'11i1i
~().
-c II>
...
iI,il
/-; 0
/, t;
, ' .~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In addition to these projects, the City has signed a 12-year agreement with Pinellas County to
provide 3 MGD of reclaimed water to a new County storage facility proposed north of the City's
Northeast APCF. This facility should be on line by the end of 2002.
The City has proposed a site development project in the downtown Clearwater area that may
demand reclaimed water. This site development is part of the Town Pond Rehabilitation Project
which is currently under design. This project is located south of Cleveland Street between
Greenwood Avenue and Myrtle Street.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.0 HISTORICAL RECLAIMED WATER USE
The City utilizes reclaimed water from two of its advanced wastewater treatment facilities - the
Marshall Street APCF and the Northeast APCF. The Marshall Street APCF currently produces
a minimum of 6 MGD (million gallons per day) of reclaimed water and an average of 7 MGD of
reclaimed water. Reclaimed water from the facility is utilized at the following areas: Clearwater
Country Club, Philip Jones Field, Jack Russell Stadium, Coachman Park, Memorial Causeway
median, Pier 60, and Island Estates.
The Northeast APCF currently produces a minimum of 5 MGD of reclaimed water and an
average of 6 MGD of reclaimed water. Approximately 1 MGD of reclaimed water is utilized by
the following facilities: Countryside Golf Course, Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf Course, Countryside
Golf Driving Range, and Countryside Sports Complex.
The East APCF produces treated wastewater to reclaimed water standards, but due to the lack
of pumping and storage facilities at the plant, reclaimed water from the plant is currently not
utilized in the City's reclaimed wClterIsystem. Future reclaimed water plans for the East APCF
include the addition of a pumping station at the plant and potentially an offsite storage facility.
McKim & Creed reviewed the City's reclaimed water pumpage information to calculate
reclaimed water irrigation rates for the areas currently using reclaimed water. Review of these
areas is provided below and indicates that the reclaimed water irrigation rate is 1" per week on
average and 1.5" per week during peak demand times, which equals a peaking factor of 1.5.
5.1 Island Estates, Philip Jones Field, Jack Russell Stadium, Coachman
Park, Memorial Causeway, and Pier 60
Island Estates, Philip Jones Field, Jack Russell Stadium, Coachman Park, Memorial
Causeway median, and Pier 60 have approximately 173 acres open to irrigation. Based
on the City's records, these areas used an average of 474,100 gpd (gallons per day)
during 1999 once the entire Island Estates area was brought on line in March 1999. The
majority of this water was used to irrigate the Island Estates community. Using the
following equation and an 80% connection factor for the Island Estates community, a
reclaimed water irrigation rate of 0.9" per week is calculated:
>- In/week = (474,100 gpd/173 acres) * (7 days/wk) * (ft^3/7.48 gal)
*(acre/43560 ft^2) *(12"/ft) / .8
>- In/week = 0.9" per week
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
An 80% connection factor reflects the percentage of customers estimated to be
connected to the reclaimed water system. During 1999, a peak reclaimed water usage
of 705,600 gpd occurred in May, which equates to an irrigation rate of 1.3" per week.
During drought conditions in May and June 2000, these areas had a demand of 798,000
gpd of reclaimed water, equating to 1.5" per week.
5.2 Clearwater Country Club
Clearwater Country Club has approximately 65 irrigable acres. Based on the City's
records, Clearwater Country Club used an average of 218,000 gpd during 1999, which
calculates to an irrigation rate of 0.9" per week by using the following equation:
>- In/week = (218,000 gpd/ 65 acres) * (7 days/wk) * (ft^3/7.48 gal)
*(acre/43560 ft^2) *(12"/ft)
>- In/week = 0.9" per week
During 1999, a peak reclaimed water usage of 340,000 gpd occurred in April, which
equates to an irrigation rate..o.f 1.3" per week. During drought conditions in May and
June 2000, Clearwater Country Club used approximately 380,000 gpd of reclaimed
water, equating toan irrigation rate of 1.5" per week.
5.3 Countrysidei. Golf Course, Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf Course,
Countryside Sports, Complex, and Countryside Driving Range.
The Countryside Golf CoUrse, Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf Course, Countryside Sports
Complex, and Countryside Driving Range have approximately 196 irrigable acres. In
1999, an average of 774,247 gpd of reclaimed water was used by these four areas,
which calculates to an irrigation rate of 1.0" per week. The peak month during 1999 was
May and 1,238,000 gpd of reclaimed water was utilized during that month, equating to
an irrigation rate of 1.6" per week. During drought conditions in May and June 2000,
these areas demanded approximately 1,461,000 gpd, which equals an irrigation rate of
1.9" per week.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.0 PROJECTED RECLAIMED WATER DEMANDS OF URBAN
SYSTEM
The area within the City of Clearwater is delineated into 25 potential reclaimed water service
areas as shown on Figure 4-1. These areas were defined by land use, size, major roadway
boundaries and other related features. Reclaimed water demand for each service area was
determined by projecting the amount of land open to irrigation, or irrigable space. Irrigable
space acreage per service area was determined in the Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
(1998) and those acreage values were utilized in this report. As a comparison, irrigable acreage
information was obtained from Clearwater's and Pinellas County's GIS (Geographic Information
Systems) Departments. Their acreage information compared favorably to the irrigable acreage
determined in the 1998 Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update.
Based on the review of the existing reclaimed water demand as discussed in Section 5.0, an
average reclaimed water demand of 1" per week was utilized to estimate the reclaimed water
demand of the City's 25 reclaimed water service areas. These reclaimed water service areas
and the projected demand are shown in Table 6-1 below. Each area has a "% Connected"
factor which relates to the projected connection rate. For example, areas that have more
commercial or industrial properties have a lower "% Connected" factor as it is projected that
fewer of these customers will connect to the reclaimed water system. "Other RCW Demand"
accounts for properties within the reclaimed water service area such as parks, cemeteries,
landscaped medians, golf courses, and schools projected to utilize reclaimed water. The "Total
RCW Demand" is the sum of the "Irrigable Acreage RCW Demand" and the "Other RCW
Demand" .
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6-1
Projected Reclaimed Water Demand per Service Area
Irrigable Irrigable Other RCW Total RCW
Name Acreage % Connected Acreage RCW Demand Demand in
Demand Service Area
(acres) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd)
Seville 107 80 332,035 - 332,035
Del Oro Groves 195 80 605,731 195,000 800,731
Morningside 285 80 883,772 76,000 959,772
Skycrest 213 70 578,889 65,000 643,889
Coachman Ridge 162 80 502,707 54,000 556,707
Enterprise 223 80 692,619 133,000 825,619
E. Drew Street 84 70 228,080 98,990 327,070
Countryside South 243 90 848,276 94,300 942,576
Lake Park 171 70 ",' I>" 463,763 136,000 599,763
South Betty Lane 292 60 " 678,655 73,000 751,655
Countryside North 243 90 848,276 94,300 942,576
North Greenwood 212 .. 70 576,717 244,000 820,717
North Hercules 132 70 357,326 109,000 466,326
Country Club ...
Estates 127 80 393,477 282,000 675,477
Clearwater High "',.. .... ,.. 70 508,293 206,000 714,293
187 ....
Glen Oaks 194 70 527,843 98,000 625,843
North Belcher 191 80 592,077 30,000 622,077
Palmetto Street 186 70 505,035 136,000 641,035
Clearwater Harbor 151 80 469,193 62,000 531,193
Woodmont 134 70 362,756 43,000 405,756
Hercules Industrial 95 60 220,284 - 220,284
Sunset Point 164 70 444,213 16,000 460,213
YMCA 138 70 375,789 - 375,789
Sylvan Abbey 65 80 201,705 50,400 252,105
Old Coachman 59 80 183,090 44,100 227,190
Total = 4,253 - 12,380,601 2,340,090 14,720,691
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6-2 indicates that the City's 25 reclaimed water service areas are projected to utilize an
average of 14.7 MGD of reclaimed water.
The total projected reclaimed water demand for the City is the sum of the reclaimed water
demand for the existing and pending reclaimed water service areas (as discussed in Section
4.0), the reclaimed water allocation to Pinellas County, and the proposed 25 urban service
areas. This total reclaimed water demand is estimated to be 21.8 MGD, as shown in the table
below.
Project Average Reclaimed Water Demand
(MGD)
Existing Reclaimed Water Systems 2.5
Pending Reclaimed Water Systems 1.6
Pinellas County RCW Interconnect 3.0
25 Urban RCW Projects' 14.7
Total " 21.8
"
Table 6-2
Projected Reclaimed Water Demand
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
7.0 TREATED WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS
The City monitors influent wastewater flows to the three wastewater treatment facilities. It is
assumed that the influent wastewater flow to each treatment facility is equal to the treated
wastewater flow (i.e. reclaimed water). The historical influent wastewater flows to the Marshall
Street, Northeast, and East APCFs are shown in Figures 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3, respectively.
Additionally, these figures show the projected wastewater flows through the year 2020. These
figures indicate that wastewater flows will continue to increase. The combined flow and the
projected flow of the three facilities is shown in Figure 7-4. It is projected that in the year 2020,
the combined flow of the three facilities will average between 19 and 20 MGD.
Figure 7-1
Marshall Street APCF
Projected Wastewater Flows
12
10
8.
- - - -
- - - - -
- - - - -
-..---.---.-- -------
c
<!J 6.
:ii:
4
y = 0.004x + 6.3898
2
o
~~~romo~NM~~~~romo~NM~~~~romo~NM~~~~romo
rororororommmmmmmmmmooooooOOOO~~~~~~~~~~N
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmooooooooooooooooooooo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Year
Avera~ Monthly Flo~s - - - _.fl.redicted JlVastew~.~~! Flow (~~L
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 13
I
I
Figure 7-2
Northeast APCF
Projected Wastewater Flows
I
14
I
12
I
10
6
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. .. ..
.. .. ..
.. .. ..
-..--. ...-
I
c
(!)
::!:
8
4
I
2.
y = 0.0088x + 4.6654
I
O.
~~~~~O~NMv~~~oomO~NM~~~~oomO~NM~~~~romo
oooorooooommmmmmmmmmoooooooooo ~~ ~~ ~N
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmooooooooooooooooooooo
~~~ ~~~~~~~~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Year
I
~==-- Average Monthly Flows" .. .. Predicted Wastew~~r Flow (mgdJj
I
I
I
6
Figure 7-3
EastAPCF
Projected Wastewater Flows
5
I
- -
- -
4
-- ...--~
- - -
- -
I
o
(!) 3
::!:
- -
y = 0.0059x + 2.4952
- -
I
2
I
0
0; N (") "" In co r-- co m 0 0 N (") "" In co r-- co m 0 ~ N (") "" In co r-- co m 0
m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ N
m m m m m m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Year
I
Average I\IIonthly Row s - - - - A"ojected Average I\IIonthly Flow s
I
I
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
I
25-----
c
C)
::!E
20
10
5
o I
m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8
m m m m m m m m m 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
Figure 7-4
Combined WWTP Flows
- .. ... ... ... -
- . .. -
- - .. .. ..
o ~ t:l ~ :g 8
o 0 0 000
N N N N N N
Year
f'- <Xl m 0
o 0 0 ~
o 0 0 0
N N N N
.,.1
- - -
- - -
.. .. .. .. ...
- - -
i
I
I
I
-;---~-O"---'----'-----r"'---T-----;----"-'~
~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ f'- <Xl m 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 000
N N N N N .N N N N N
City of Clearwater
Page 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.0 SEASONAL VARIATIONS OF WASTEWATER FLOW AND
RECLAIMED WATER DEMAND
Influent flow records for the City's three wastewater treatment facilities and the reclaimed water
flow demand records were reviewed to estimate the difference in rates and volume between the
two. As discussed above, the influent flow to the wastewater facilities is assumed to be equal to
the amount of reclaimed water available for customers.
8.1 Wastewater Flow Seasonal Variations
The City's influent wastewater flow records for Marshall Street APCF, East APCF, and
Northeast APCF from 1989 to present (excluding the EI Nino impacted months in later
1997 and early 1998) were evaluated to estimate the seasonal wastewater flow
variations. Figure 8-1 illustrates the yearly variations in flow. The average of this flow
pattern was adjusted to the current average influent combined wastewater flow rate
(15.4 MGD).
8.2 Reclaimed Water Demand Seasonal Variations
McKim and Creed reviewed the City's existing reclaimed water demand for a year,
beginning. May 1999, to estimate the seasonal variation in reclaimed water demand.
The flows were gel"lerally in the 1 to 2 MGD range. This is the reclaimed water demand
as measured flowing from the Marshall Street and Northeast APCFs. The information
graphed on Figure 8-1 is the seasonal demand pattern adjusted so that the average
yearly reclaimed water demand matches the average volume of treated wastewater.
The seasonal peaking factor for the reclaimed water system, based on the curve shown
in Figure 8-1 is 1.5. As a comparison, potable water demand from mid 1994 to mid 1999
was reviewed to determine an average seasonal peaking factor. The average seasonal
peaking factor for the potable water system is calculated to be 1.1. The reclaimed water
seasonal peaking factor is expected to be greater than the potable water seasonal
peaking factor since the use of reclaimed water is more dramatically impacted by wet
weather and dry weather conditions.
Review bf Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 16
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i--
I
0> u
("")
~ Q)
l.O 0
~
"tJ II
C Q)
Q) >
CO ctl 0
.... z
E Q)
>
CI> <(
C -
u
S- O
CI> .... "0
Q)
...... 1ii Q)
E
CO := O(ij
Q) Cl.
3: (j) u Q)
~ Q)
c::: C/)
:>.
"tJ Q) -
0)=
CI> I1l C
.... e
E Q) ~ Q)
>
~ "0 ::J
-- .... Q) Q) <(
=c I1l t5 0)
CO Q) I1l
ell >;- Q) ....
- "'C 00' Q)
0 ::l .... .... >
~ u .... a.. ~
I CI> >< + + I ::J
0::: oj( w ....,
CO Oeo , .s::
,
Oen -- -
CI> oc!S 0 en c:
N .... 0
S- I ell :!:
~ == 0') r:: C
CIO ::l ::J
C) 0') 7 ....,
0 """ .....
-- en
LL - en
LL ....
~ >.
S- ::l ctl
CI> ::1 2
......
CO
== ....
Cl.
CI> <(
......
tn
CO ....
3: ctl
2
-
CO
C .0
0 Q)
tn LL
CO
CI>
en c
ctl
....,
0 l.O 0 l.O 0 l.O 0
("") N N ~ ~
(a~w)
MOl:! JuanlJJ.3 a6eJaA\f
-...-....---.-.-------..---- --.--.------.- -----_._--~-,---- -------'----_._---_.._---..".~._..-
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.0 STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
Storage of reclaimed water is necessary, at a minimum, to meet daily demands by the
reclaimed water customers. Additionally, if the City wishes to consider a zero surface water
discharge option for its wastewater treatment system, then reclaimed water will need to be
stored during the wet season in order to meet the demand during the dry season. These types
of storage requirements are discussed below.
9.1 Seasonal Storage Requirements
9.1.1 Storage Requirements for Build Out of Urban Reclaimed Water
System
Wastewater treatment plant flows for the City's three wastewater treatment plants
are projected to average 20 MGD in 2020. If the City wishes to bui1c:l out their
urban reclaimed water system to an average reclaimed water demand of 20
MGD, then seasonal storage of reclaimed water during the wet season is
necessary to meet demands during the dry season. To estimate the amount of
reclaimed water that would need to be stored in 2020, the average flow shown on
Figure 8-1 (15.4 JvlGD) for reclaimed water availability and demand is multiplied
by a factorto match to the projected average flow of 20 MGD as shown on
Figure 9-1.
The difference between the supply and demand volume was calculated to
estimate the reclaimed water deficit or reclaimed water excess. This estimate
was created assuming the City does not provide 3 MGD of reclaimed water to
Pinellas County in 2020 to illustrate a worst case reclaimed water storage
scenario in the event the 12-year City/County agreement is not extended. Figure
9-1 indicates that during a year, the City could see an approximate 1.1 billion
gallon (BG) deficit in dry season or excess in wet weather of reclaimed water,
therefore indicating that the City would need to store that much treated
wastewater during the balance of the year to meet the reclaimed water demand.
Building out the urban reclaimed water system and related storage will decrease
the amount of reclaimed water discharged to surface waters.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
Q)
~
co
~
"'C
Q)
E
.-
co
-
o
Q)
0::
oc!S
"t""" of(
m ~
Q) 0
~ -
~u.
C)~
.- Q)
u.~
CO
~
Q)
~
tn
CO
~
"'C
s:::::
CO
E
Q)
c
co
s:::::
o
tn
CO
Q)
en
o
N
II
(])
Ol
ctl
...
(])
>
<(
E
(1)
...
tn
~-
cn"g
"
~
o
><
W
CO
en
en
~
...
(1)
...
CO
3:
"C
(1)
E Q)
.- c:
CO ~
- ...,
(.) I
(1) .....
0:: ~
~
t:
CO
.c
...
=>>0
'1-0
o ~
I
... en
::s co
o ~
"C'"
-
.-
:::::I
m
L{')
C")
o
C")
L{')
N
L{')
..-
o
N
(a~w)
MOI::lluanlU3 a6eJa^'V
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
----- -'---..1
:;:"'C I
.2 ai
u.. E
Qj Q)
ro 0
:;: Qj
Q) ro
~ S
S "'C
Q) Q)
OJ .S;
~ ..!!l
Q) ()
> Q)
~ a:::
iCij ~ Q)
Q) .J:: OJ
1>- c ro
o 0 Qj
'N ~ >
"'C "'C ~
Q) Q) .....
,- -- co
I() () Q)
:.!!!.. .!!!.. >-
10 0 I
..... ..... 0
0.. 0.. N
+ + I
o
..-
L{')
()
(])
o
>
o
Z
....
()
o
c..
(])
en
O'l
:::l
<:(
City of Clearwater
Page 19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.1.2 Storage Requirements with 3 MGD to Pinellas County and 5.4 MGD
to RIBs, Balance to Urban Reclaimed Water System
If in 2020 the City provides 3 MGD of reclaimed water to Pinellas County by
extension of their 12-year reclaimed water agreement, discharges 5.4 MGD of
reclaimed water to rapid infiltration basins (RIBs), and utilizes the balance of the
reclaimed water (11.6 MGD) for the urban reclaimed water system, then it is
estimated that 600 million gallons (MG) would need to be stored to meet the
seasonal demand for reclaimed water. This storage requirement is not as large
as the 1.1 BG requirement discussed above because constanfdemand for
reclaimed water has a dampening effect on the seasonal reclaimed water
demand, whereas varying demand from urban reclaimed water customers (i.e.
more demand in the dry season, less demand in the wet season) amplifies the
seasonal demand for reclaimed water. Figure 9-2 shows the projected seasonal
reclaimed water supply and demand in 2020.
9.1.3 Storage Requir~mentswith 3 MGD to Pinellas and Balance to Urban
Reclaimed Water System
If in 2020, the City continues to provide 3 MGD of reclaimed water to Pinellas
County and uses 17 MGD fortt)e urban reclaimed water system in 2020, then it
is estimated that the City will need to store 900 MG of reclaimed water to meet
seasonal demand.. Figure 9-3 shows the projected seasonal reclaimed water
supply and demand in 2020 with 3 MGD of reclaimed water dedicated to Pinellas
County.
9.2 Daily Reclaimed Water Storage
Reclaimed water storage is necessary to meet daily fluctuations in reclaimed water
demand. It is recommended that the City have reclaimed water storage at least equal to
the rated wastewater treatment capacity of the three wastewater treatment facilities.
The Marshall Street, East, and Northeast APCFs are rated to treat average wastewater
flows of 10 MGD, 5 MGD, and 13.5 MGD, respectively, equaling 28.5 MGD. Currently,
the Marshall Street facility has a 5 MG reclaimed water storage tank. The Northeast
facility has a 5 MG reclaimed water storage tank planned to be on line in the next 2
years. The East facility has no reclaimed water storage.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....
(1)
.....
C'O
3:
"C
(1)
E
.-
C'O
-
(.)
(1)
0::
('\Ioc!S
I -I<
0) ~
I (1) 0
.... -
~u..
0)....
.- (1)
u.......
C'O
~
(1)
.....
t/)
C'O
3:
"C
c:
C'O
E
(1)
c
C'O
c:
o
t/)
C'O
(1)
U)
.t/)
m
-
0::::0
o CI)
.... "C
C :J
C) ~
:EW
00
~ ~
It)~
~~
.... :J
t: ..,
:::::l I
o S;
om
~
t/)~
..!!! :J
'Q):3.
t: 0
.- 0
a. 0
('II
o en
....00
c~
C) .jC
:E
M
Cl~
(!)
~
o
N
II
0)
0)
ca
.....
0)
>
<(
o
("')
L(')
N
o
N
L(')
~
o
~
(a~w)
MOI:lluanW3 a6eJaA'V
'-,-_.~---~_._~-~---
~f1
ro '
E 1
Q) !
o '
....
~ ~
u: S
Q) "0
ro Q)
;: E
. Q) "co
i en U
!~ &
>-
Q) -
I en =
roc
.... 0
~ ::!:
<( "0
.... Q)
ro t>
Q) Q)
>;- "0'
;: n: <t:
if + I
L(')
u
0)
Cl
>
o
Z
--
u
o
a.
0)
(j)
0)
:J
<(
:J
-,
..c:
-
t::
0
t:: :!:
:J
-,
>-
ca
~
.....
a.
<(
.....
ca
~
..c
0)
LL
c
ca
-,
0
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
(1)
......
co
~
"C
(1)
E
.-
co
-
(J
(1)
r:t:
M~
I -Ie
en ~
(1) 0
... -
::::JLL
0)...
.- (1)
LL......
CO
~
(1)
......
tJ)
CO
~
"C
s::
CO
E
(1)
c
-
CO
s::
o
tJ)
CO
(1)
rn
o
<9
::2:
o
N
II
Q.)
0)
ctl
....
Q.)
>
<(
"C
ell
"C
::l
~ U
- ><
C w
::I CD
o en
U ~
en
CO
-
(1)
c
a.
o
-
o
C)
:!:
M
LO
(V')
o
(V')
LO
N
o
N
LO
......
(a~lI\I)
MOI::lluanlU3 a6eJaA'V
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
"C
c:
(1]
E
Q)
o
~ Qj II
o iii
u:: ~ I
....
~ 1 I
~ ~ I
:I~ ~ I
" Q).c i
1 ~ 1: I
.... 0 I
~ ~
<( "C
'I Cs 2 ~I
Q) U (1]'
>- .~ Q; i
, I...!- L- > I
...... c.. <(
+ + I
'____---.J
, .
o
......
LO
u
Q.)
o
>
o
z
....
u
o
a.
Q.)
C/)
0)
::J
<(
-%
c
0
:!!:
c
::J
....,
>-
ctl
::2:
....
a.
<(
....
ctl
::2:
..c
Q.)
LL
c
ctl
....,
0
City of Clearwater
Page 22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City has three elevated storage tanks on the potable water system that could
potentially be utilized to store reclaimed water. Those tanks are Del Orc (1 MG), Otten
Street (1 MG), and South Greenwood (1 MG). The Del Oro tank is expected to be
converted to a reclaimed water storage tank. It is unknown at this time if the Otten
Street and South Greenwood elevated storage tanks will be converted to reclaimed
water storage tanks.
An additional 15.5 MG is needed to achieve the full 28.5 MG of daily reclaimed water
storage. The City should consider addition of a 7.5 MG storage tank atCI.earwater Air
Park (near Marshall Street APCF) due to its location to the propos~d East-West
Reclaimed Water Interconnect. Additionally, a 10 MG storage tank at the Northeast
APCF to provide an additional 15 MG storage of reclaimed water should be considered.
Table 9-1 is a listing of these storage facilities and related volume. These facilities are
shown on Figure 9-4.
Table 9-1
Existing/Proposed Reclaimed Water Storage
Facility
Storage Tank
(MG)
5
7.5
Comments
Northeast APCF
5
10
1
28.5 MG
Existing
proposed off site (Clearwater Air Park)
no storage
planned on site
proposed on site
Existing on potable system
Marshall Street APCF
East APCF
Del Oro Elevated Tank
Total =
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 23
,--_.' \ lit:
~~/F '~!
~\"'\,I ~F /
o // A~:lC /--l'-
/ ' f"...'ii /
</]1/
///}-ut.
.~3.jF")!\;
/:/- ~.
;...-
.;['.--/\.''\."
- "..........
I
~.
.,
~~ "
'~~ ~ ~ ~ \\\"
): . j~ \\\ll
~. 'ti:.....~.i..:....~....N.........~.....~..... ~~." .~ .....~','........\..~
!~li'- -,~}~ :~
;of. :00 . ',~
',:,' -~,-, ,!Q::'~ ,~ ,', \w
:/ :_G);,-" --"-,,_ . _, j~
-_/
-,
''-,
i
6
lil
...
..q-
I
ff m
Ii it Ii Ii "" I
1111 ~ ~
s:
w
5
w
a:::
:::;;
w
I-
Z (f)
:'5 >-
"- (f)
w a:::
w
(:> I-
0 <{ <(
~ et:: s:
0
I- 0
VI W
C :::;;
Z ::;:
<{ ..J
U
(:> W
z a:::
ii: a
:::E a
;:) a
"- N
et:: a:::
w <(
I- W
<{ >-
s:
c
w
:::E a:::
:3 ~
u <(
-r""H w s:
et:: ~
W
..J
U
L.-
a
~.f? >-
I-
0
~rr
10;
Itn'i:
~
~
~ ~ >- '"
:J I--
U :J z
~ m u <(
~ 0::<( <( I--
WW LL <(
~ " 1--0:: LL W
- " <(<( 0 0
~ ~ "w z 0 <(
8 ~~ a: '" z 0::
~ ::;; a: '" 0
W> ::> z ::;; Z I--
df.5~ <( (f)
S "- I-- ::> <(
~ "- I-- a
LLVl<( 0 0
00::0 Z Z W W I:!
~~~ F F 0:: 0:: <(
(f) (f) => i? >
x X I-- W
0 u,.g => => -'
W W LL LL W
Z
w
'-' i.. .::.:' ~
W ~,-..::
..J
lQ-Z-l:dVlU.UO l:660 'ON 3lt.:I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9.3 Reject Storage
If the City were to lose their surface water disposal option and not have other disposal
options, then a separate, off-line reject storage system would be necessary for reclaimed
water that does not meet established reclaimed water quality criteria. A Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requirement (Rule 62-610.464, F.A.C.)
stipulates that at a minimum, "this capacity shall be the volume equal to one day flow at
the average daily design flow of the treatment plant or the average daily permitted flow
of the reuse system, whichever is less." This requirement was implemented so that
reclaimed water could be stored then directed through the wastewater treatment facility
for re-treatment if it is of unacceptable quality prior to it being distributed in the reclaimed
water system.
Reject storage is not an immediate issue with the City because surface water discharge
points for treated effluent currently exist. However, due> to more stringent FDEP
regulations on surface water discharges, reject storage could become a pressing need
and require consideration in planning for the future.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.0 UPDATE OF PROJECT PRIORITY FOR URBAN SYSTEM
10.1 Projection of Potable Water Offset
The potable water offset is the amount of potable water projected to be reduced by
utilizing reclaimed water. A review of existing reclaimed water systems in the City
indicates that when reclaimed water becomes available, customers irrigate with a
volume of reclaimed water greater than the volume of potable water previously used.
Therefore, the potable water offset is less than the reclaimed water demand.
10.1.1 Potable Water Offset
The City's domestic and irrigation meter accounts were reviewed .to determine
potable water usage for several reclaimed water service areas from June 1997
through May 1998. A "domestic" meter records the amount of.potable water
used for bathing, drinking, washing dishes and clothes, and other in-home
activities. An "irrigation" meter records the amount of potable water utilized for
irrigation. The majority of the customers have a domestic meter, many
customers have an irrigation meter in addition to the domestic meter, and very
few customers only have an irrigation meter.
The potable water offset is the sum of the domestic meter offset and the irrigation
meter offset. The domestic meter offset is projected to be 25% of the domestic
usage. This 25% estimation was calculated in the Reclaimed Water Master Plan
Update (McKim & Creed, 1998) and is based on an analysis of 52 customer
accounts that indicated customers' domestic potable water use decreased
approximately 25% when they added an irrigation meter to their account. The
irrigation meter offset is 100% of the irrigation meter usage.
McKim & Creed reviewed domestic and irrigation meter usage in the Harbor
Oaks, Del Oro, and Coachman Ridge reclaimed water service areas. In the
Harbor Oaks reclaimed water service area, an average potable water usage of
712,000 gpd for all customers was recorded from June 1997 to May 1998.
Additionally, these meter records indicate that Harbor Oaks' residential
customers used 183 gpd / account for domestic uses (478 accounts) and 315
gpd / account for irrigation (94 accounts).
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City's meter records for the Del Oro reclaimed water service area from June
1997 to May 1998 indicate that the average potable water usage for all
customers was 270,000 gpd. Additionally, these meter records indicate that Del
Oro's residential customers used on average 196 gpd / account for domestic
uses (581 accounts) and 134 gpd / account for irrigation (135 accounts).
City meter records for the Coachman Ridge reclaimed water service area from
June 1997 to May 1998 indicate that the average potable water usage for all
customers was 241,000 gpd. Additionally, these meter records indicate that
Coachman Ridge's residential customers used on average 201 gpdlaccount for
domestic uses (648 accounts) and 238 gpd / account for irrigation (125
accounts). This information is tabulated in Table 10-1 on the following page.
Table 10-1
Harbor Oaks
Del Oro
Average Residential Irrigation and Domestic Usage
June 1997 to May 1998
Residential
Domestic Usage
d / account
183
196
201
Residential
Irrigation Usage
d I account
315
134
238
RCW Service Area
The potable water offsets for the Harbor Oaks, DelOra, and Coachman Ridge
reclaimed water service areas were compared to the projected reclaimed water
usage for these areas. The comparison indicates that the potable water offset is
approximately 20% of the total projected reclaimed water usage, excepting the
Harbor Oaks service area which has a factor closer to 30%. This information
was utilized to project the potable water offset for the other reclaimed water
service areas. Using the estimate of 20%, the reclaimed water service areas
have estimated potable water offsets as shown in Table 10-2.
It is estimated that for the proposed 25 reclaimed water service areas, the total
potable water offset will be approximately 3 MGD.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10-2
Potable Water Offset
Service Area Name Potable Water Offset (gpd)
1 Seville 66,407
2 Del Oro Groves 160,146
3 Morningside 191,954
4 Skycrest 128,778
5 Coachman Ridge 111 ,341
6 Enterprise 165,124
7 E. Drew Street 65,414
8 Countryside South 188,515
9 Lake Park 119,953
10 South Betty Lane 150,331 ,
11 Countryside North 188,515 .
......
12 North Greenwood 164,143 .
13 North Hercules 93,265
14 Country Clljb Estates 135,095
15 Clearwater High 142,859
16 Glen Oaks 125,169
17 North Belcher 124,415
18 Palmetto Street 128,207
19 ...., Clearwater Harbor 106,239
20 , ... Woodmont 81,151
21 Hercules Industrial 44,057
22 Sunset Point 92,043
23 YMCA 75,158
24 Sylvan Abbey 50,421
25 Old Coachman 45,438
Total = 2,944,138
10.1.2 Groundwater Offset
The groundwater offset is calculated to be the amount of groundwater currently
withdrawn by irrigation wells. Irrigation well records from the Southwest Florida
Water Management District (SWFWMD) were reviewed to estimate the number
of irrigation wells within the reclaimed water service areas. SWFWMD has well
records for wells drilled from 1970 to present. There are existing irrigation wells
drilled prior to 1970 that are not in SWFWMD's records, but it is unknown how
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
II
I
I
I
I
many of these wells exist. Irrigation wells are generally less than 6-inches in
diameter. Review of SWFWMD's records indicates that the number of irrigation
wells within the reclaimed water service areas are as shown in Table 10-3.
Irrigation wells that are part of a sand point groundwater withdrawal system
(normally 1.25 inches in diameter or less) were counted as one irrigation well.
Table 10-3
Irrigation Wells within Reclaimed Water Service Areas
Service Area Name Number of Irrigation Wells
1 Seville 37
2 Del Oro Groves 44
3 Morningside 56 ,
4 Skycrest .. .. 30 ,
5 Coachman Ridge 65 ..
6 Enterprise '." 50
.... '.
7 E. Drew Street 48
8 Countryside South .. 63
9 .... Lake Park 33
10 ..... South Betty Lane 38
11. ..', Countryside North 63
12 . 23
North Greenwood
13 North Hercules 30
14 Country Club Estates 21
15 Clearwater High 50
16 Glen Oaks 35
17 North Belcher 27
18 Palmetto Street 38
19 Clearwater Harbor 26
20 Woodmont 37
21 Hercules Industrial 45
22 Sunset Point 38
23 YMCA 14
24 Sylvan Abbey 33
25 Old Coachman 59
Total = 1,003
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 29
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The irrigation meter usages presented in Table 10-1 were averaged and a usage
rate of 230 gpd was calculated. If this usage is assumed to be similar to the
withdrawal rate from irrigation wells, then the total groundwater offset for the 26
reclaimed water service areas for the total of 1,003 wells is approximately
231,000 gpd.
These current groundwater offsets were not considered in the calculation of the
potable water offset. Many of these existing irrigation wells withdraw water from
the shallow, surficial aquifer which is typically a non-potable water source. It is
assumed that the groundwater from these existing wells is being utilized instead
of potable water for irrigation purposes, therefore no potable water reduction or
offset is projected if reclaimed water is used instead of the existing irrigation well.
Pinellas County is beginning a program to promote the use of shalloW wells in
lieu of using potable water for irrigation. The City of Clearwater is proceeding
with the evaluation of the imp~ctsthat such a program may have on all of the
water resources in the region. ..... This elevation and the results will be done in
conjunction with the master planning of reclaimed water.
10.2ProjectPrioritization
The reclaimed water service areas were prioritized based on a cost / benefit ratio. The
costl benefit ratio is the cost of constructing reclaimed water infrastructure for a service
area divided by the benefit (i.e. potable water offset) for the service area. A lower cost /
benefit ratio is preferred since it is advantageous to have a greater potable water offset
for less cost of designing and building a reclaimed water system. The cost / benefit ratio
is calculated by multiplying the capital cost of the reclaimed water area project by an
amortization factor (in this case, 30 years at 8% interest = 0.0888) and dividing by the
potable water offset (in thousands of gallons per year) projected by the project. For
example, the cost / benefit ratio for the Seville reclaimed water service area is calculated
by the following equation:
Cost / Benefit = ($1,219,516 * 0.0888 * 1000 gal) / (66,407 gpd * 365 days)
= $4.47 /1000 gallons of potable water
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The cost I benefit ratios for the 25 different reclaimed water service areas are shown in
Table 10-4 in increasing order. Projects are ranked based on this order and are shown
in Figure 10-1.
Table 10-4
Cost / Benefit Ratio
Irrigable Total RCW Potable
Acres Demand in Total Water Cost/Benefit
In City Service Area Cost/Service Offset Ratio
Rank Name (acres) (gpd) Area (gpd) ($/1000 gal)
1 Seville 107 332,035 $1,219,516 66,407 $4.4 7
2 Del Oro Groves 195 800,731 $3,351,211... 160,146 $5.09
3 Morningside 285 959,772 $4,187,121 191,954 .. $5.31
4 Skycrest 213 643,889 $2,828,143 128,778 ....... $5.34
.....
5 Coachman Ridge 162 556,707 $2,664,856 111,341 $5.82
6 Enterprise 223 825,619 $3,996,340 165,124 $5.89
7 E. Drew Street 84 327,070 $1,651,821 65,414 $6.14
8 Countryside South 243 .. 942,576 $4,792,774 188,515 $6.19
9 Lake Park '.. 171 .............. 599,763 $3,049,740 119,953 $6.19
10 South BettyL,~ne\. 292............ 7p1,655 $3,857,809 150,331 $6.24
11 Countryside Nortt'l ..c 243 .>.942,576 $4,974,139 188,515 $6.42
12 North Greenwood . ....... .....212 820,717 $4,465,728 164,143 $6.62
..
13 North Hercules .: 132 466,326 $2,549,043 93,265 $6.65
14 County Club Estates 127 675,477 $3,728,052 135,095 $6.71
15 Clearwater High 187 714,293 $4,487,832 142,859 $7.64
16 Glen Oaks 194 625,843 $4,180,746 125,169 $8.13
17 North Belcher 191 622,077 $4,315,117 124,415 $8.44
18 Palmetto Street 186 641,035 $4,634,214 128,207 $8.79
19 Clearwater Harbor 151 531 , 193 $3,923,465 106,239 $8.98
20 Woodmont 134 405,756 $3,023,302 81,151 $9.06
21 Hercules Industrial 95 220,284 $1,742,317 44,057 $9.62
22 Sunset Point 164 460,213 $3,661,954 92,043 $9.68
23 YMCA 138 375,789 $3,138,113 75,158 $10.16
24 Sylvan Abbey 65 252,105 $2,459,507 50,421 $11.87
25 Old Coachman 59 227,190 $2,494,324 45,438 $13.36
Totals= 4,253 14,720,691 $85,377,183 2,944,138
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 31
Q
---i
-<
0
" ;u
0 r1 '"
r 0 '"
rTl r ~
~ ~
;u ;::: ~
:;;: rTl
~ '"
---i
rTl ::;:;
;u ~
---i
r1
;u
-< (J)
rTl r1
~ ;u
;u ~
N 0
0 r1
0 ~
0 ;U
;U r1
~
rTl (J)
0
r ::;:;
~
os: =<
rTl :r: ~
0 -0
"
:;;: ;U 0
)> 0
---i ;U
rTl =<
;U -<
(f) ;U
-< ~
(f) Z
---i ^
rTl
os: Z
Cl
;u
rTl
,,;
rTl
:;;:
o
I
r
I cr,
(8) G)
fTl
Z
'" ..,,~ rn",,, 0 @
" >'" >'" X >0 O>-i ~
'" "'''' "'''' U; 0< C-i-<
",0 ",0 C~ 2'"
2 >r =! 0"'0
0 >r ~
> > 2 -iO > .." ~
Z "'''' ~ 0
rn", '" -<", ;o~O ~ ~
'" >", 0 g
0", 20 '" -<"'r -
Co <'" z
'" 2 ^ '" " -> z ~
1'1 0", Z~ 0 0 0", @ ~
0 >> r r "'",
r "'-i > r ~
> "'-i '" '" C >>
'" -<1'1 '" -i ",-i
'" '" (5 ",,,, ~
'" UJ 0 >'"
0 UJ 2
'" '" '"
'" '" '" > 0
> < < rei 0
-i n n 2 ~
1'1 '" '" '" -i
'" '"
UJ 0
UJ -< r
-< UJ
UJ -i
-i '"
'" s::
s::
~ul{
(01
.J.,{~
'"
~
'"
'"
sa
-'-.] i.,...."
,.
):-
'=''''-,i
~-,- II
II
i
-- :i'!
11.1
d:o~,
j
~ - "j"<'
~\
~
:I:
~
o
'"
I'
"@'l:-.:-,--_.j
ii,
=;".'\ ,'- ":"~:_':::~:'~T"__'''f----
\,:jr' ii,
II,.. (hi:r
(C'..!.~..'."'"
-~-~ -"'
/'/ z' ,,___i
----'II 0
~~==
2..,z
So!:
-c III
-I
i
" ;,,~
,......~
c.'" IfiiL._____
~
.-."
.,,- ..-,' '"
~ : c_,~__< 8
"II ~~~ \~ u:$>,
~~!: ,~ ::~~~
""'00 .' \, ',;,
:;n...." ......., ,.)
-c - . ',(
,-\
; ~
i'-
~
.=--:....~
~
~ ~e
~~~
cc1i:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10.3 Project Phasing
The reclaimed water service areas are ranked as shown in Table 10-4 without
consideration of the available sources of reclaimed water. The phasing of these
reclaimed water projects must be considered if reclaimed water is not yet available from
the related wastewater treatment facility. For example, the Northeast Advanced
Pollution Control Facility (APCF) currently produces an average of 6 MGD (million
gallons per day) of reclaimed water as shown in Figure 7-2. Minimum flows were
approximately 5 MGD during drought conditions in May and June 2000. An average of 1
MGD of reclaimed water is allocated to the following areas: Countryside Golf Course,
Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf Course, Countryside Golf Driving Range, and Countryside
Sports Complex. Another 3 MGD will be allocated to Pinellas County's reclaimed water
system for 12 years as part of an agreement developed in2000.
The next project slated for reclaimed water from the Northeast APCF is the Drew / Union
Streets project. It is projected to utilize an average of 0.55 MGD of reclaimed water.
The distribution of reclaimed Water from the Northeast APCF is shown below in Table
10-5. Table 10-5 illustrates thaf following the Drew Street / Union Street project, a
minimal amount of reclaimed water will be available to serve future reclaimed water
service areas in the proximityofthe Northeast facility.
Table 10-5
Northeast APCF
Reclaimed Water Users
Reclaimed Water User Reclaimed Water Usage
(MGD)
Countryside Golf Course, Chi Chi Rodriquez Golf
Course, Countryside Golf Driving Range, 1 (average), 1.5 (peak - dry season)
Countryside Sports Complex
Pinellas County Utilities 3 (constant rate)
Drew Street / Union Street Service Area 0.5 (average)
Total 4.5 (average)
Minimum Reclaimed Water Produced 5
Reclaimed Water Available 5 - 4.5 (average) = 0.5
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It is recommended that an East-West Reclaimed Water Interconnection be constructed
after the Drew-Union Street project and prior to bringing other east reclaimed water
service areas on line. This interconnection would afford the City the opportunity to share
reclaimed water between the Marshall Street, Northeast, and East APCFs, thus
balancing the availability of reclaimed water. More specifically, it is recommended that
the interconnection be constructed and in service prior to bringing the Seville service
area on line so that reclaimed water will be available for the Seville project. The location
of the interconnection is shown on Figure 10-2.
It is also recommended that a reclaimed water pumping station be installed at the East
APCF so that reclaimed water produced by the East facility may be used in the
reclaimed water system. It is expected that the availability of reclaimed water from the
Northeast APCF for use by the City's east reclaimed water service areas will become
limited, therefore, reclaimed water from the East APCF will be necessary.
The proposed phasing and associated costs of the reclaimed water projects, along with
the interconnection, and pumping and storage recommendations through the year 2020
is shown in Table 10":6.
Table 10-7 shows the cumulative average reclaimed water demand projected through
2020. This average demand will require seasonal storage to meet yearly peak
demands. A comparison Was made between this cumulative reclaimed water demand
and the projected average reclaimed water supply through 2020 if the proposed
schedulefor bringing reclaimed water service areas on line is followed. This comparison
is illustrated in Figure 10-3 and indicates that there will be a net excess of less than 1
MGD of reclaimed water in 2020.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 34
(")
~
o
...,
(")
~
'"
~
....
,.,
'"
'"
,.,
(")
\;
it
,.,
1:1
=e
)>
....
,.,
'"
~
III
....
,.,
~
it
"
'"
~
,.,
~
,.,
z
....
III
! I I
! I.
I I .
i ;!~
~ " ~
'" ~~
2 0 en
" ::I ~
Fll 0 z =<!g
en C>
'"
~ c '" "
'" ~ 0
'" E
~ e ;;:: ::I
i: IB ~
'"
~ c ~ n
r;l ~ ~ ~
'" ~ ;;j
;;:: ;;:: 0
~ > r-
;;:: Z
z >
Z
(')
~
'"
~
,.,
'"
~'\ ~ .,...;7.:;./
-^---~ p" :l!l
i,:,; tIl~ ((',\;, ^)1 __"'" ~';:
" . 'S\jljJ, n "'-. :l:J"
~'<:., -'1r:7/ f~J ';'''-, --",'-- if
./v. I '~(fY<eJl , ,~U'_'j, .JL, I, _. , -.
..-< }/, ""::0 }r---~t}[llu-ll1]1~~tr=LI -;.. - 1..c------
'" . " ]1 ~- '~)JJotll '". :"\"~~~riil~' i'oc " : ''t';. <:, c, ,}
:: -,S',I, I, (~[JO_"J'-~'a=r"i ,l~q --, ,. -"!~"~...:fJ~ '_' J'
"F=:"."~l'-nDnnJr~'ilrl I li,(' - -,~ '~"-~~1'<]rJ~''-''I-1J'''i.>Jl~l;
"..-. ',,"dc! if:: * ""'""" "."" ',"U C ".
'1'>",,:' '?~nii~,,\_.. -'[i'rlft] -I I ,. ~ " -1 F= -'c _ ,,,'
'" .. ~""jJr;"",'"bi;"',.., 'l' ,Oil' I,,"
~?~~~~~1~1~,~~I;:i~j';:,:~;.....~~~.,
II. = ,~.I:, C~f-"=;:=~,IOdn01*~~' G II. ,I "'~_I'-" '~'IIHi:IUPI 'ill:
T, " "-'I 'i "''''''''' ''''UII "",'" ",,' '~,"l~ >', '!"' l',,,
'ji' '-, ",cc",Lr';;-';ouuIJU 11 ~J~~11Jl!~SilJll[J "'rt';~llill 1"101 D' " 0 '~'[" __
' -- -~Si'rln , I i' =~, ~D' 'l 'Uv.2:'~ ,l "," o~_ :,.>r.:n[ I,
' : "''1 '""" II .. ,""" "'", ~~ ,,,~ c'e,,'1 IJ "'li .'ejL I, I" n
DW;J;:J.J ::?'c?~:'l~nnnnnnnl]--I~llrl'ulill'~~~~ c,)_; ~'i~0~lJ'~~ ~fill,~)L~,l:!co _' .
"J,,;:, ---=. - " ., uuuuUiW [rtMJrn U UOp=1-3i::Jr__111 d:JI~'i<' <=-'us+",~, ;'="=_'
j!ci,L, '!:''''ii IJIJUUUU~~~~.=,t'i~l; 'IC:!tJ "; "'Jl!Jk "'~ i:~I:I!~
l1WU"lurl~f- ~UJ1~@]omI8lJ~D~~~~~;~~~::'I~;'-'c-:;)~'!~':EtD'_~'C ii,-=; _'" _n ':jf 'Ill 1'1
iliL ~.ll~ "-<lr;:;, "'Ip:::'3~' U~='3f;;:J~?r::Ic:- ',_ "__ f"'; .~ I; ~~ _ _ "'.' 'f-';,'
''''''"~-u "'~....., . '''" ...... _ .. '"'' '. '~
~. ~P' ='~omO-'-{f- iDlfJgc) '- tl-:hV:iU CO cCir"'; i "-, _, _ 'I; ~ . _ --Irc;
~-':,j"li 'L~';(~~J.~~flJl.j~~~_~llii~ ~~ ~;~~I,:;'?". . .t..,.l ,~"ij'
' I ,. -- -= U=--""'I 'lr:n'l'= ---c~ -,'J1 ~____ I ~ ,
- - 1",~'=:sJ ('-~~~gs"Jr II,t,iJ~~ 11", n,:O,'_, ;-. _ I III ((\
...r:::-:' "- ~ -.=. _:::J --" ~ U 'I' LJ _~ _ . __"'. " "
~ "7'[1' '-" "'OIc=,',=,~ ~ "" "n"',..~ -, - =-'1" - , , 1'"
' c,,~., 'IC~"'"4Q",IGI'f"u" "~'" '" '" ~ 10,
'- '(--.,I,l'1 "I ;U"=;lG'fl "-'~I""'C'~;;' lIIL2 _','~. 0 " 1 __
,,- "', Ilr;'''I01J'' 'J-":::I"_,= , --!~'- --=N " ':"11'
,.,. ',I ':,I~ '.:II:'oi,", ~ f"." "'"'.'" """",,"" .
-: ", ~--"~i !ml~,gjil'II;)JJj1i ,-. '=~"I ,""~I! "'f1,.:',',11 _.' C"'i"
L (', '"~ n 1-';~~Uf!!lIJUUJCt!'i ~-.. H".'" \\... '~'I!.lltjj= '_. :'::" ',' .'
r- 'i '::~ 1..-;-1.MJ ~1iif'<=;;J" 'i'f~n'l _ ~,r c,,-4J, ,",. o. 1_., _
f'j'~!i)' il1-~'PI;;:~~ 0 :irwn: :e'" 'PI] ",-"" ";,if~11,,,j,,,, ,/F" V
" J [) il3_0 I),~ I ilJ" Il!ll] IiI. I, _. , " iJ1 :;?! \ . .
L .' . c,.,,_ "I - ',",..' ,,:,.. , "'J" /,r...c-~, ~I _;/ _
20-, -' '. "eI""""" B"'_ : ,:. I ". 'lEo '. , :
.~~C_I ,.-=,:!cr"I~~'-'i1I~: ~~,=-, =---1!' '. ''1: Ii, ,~'\". '~:!'":%~'ili,:1
.. " " I '--., 'uO~,,, ","Co, '" - ~ al! -.u "c.. \~: i
1: '~'!':lUli.:l. "f~",c,:;:;'O "'-;;R,c'':1 "1'., " ....
~(UiP "<~jtl!; .~ "~)y, '~I]n~:-!C\Ji ~~~~~::;~!!~fr~l{
p, .~:' - "+."
' 't?~J [,:,i11 , " ~["~ .' "..._..,.....,."...:........:...."........
"'0_," ~ . "'''~~'''"r~ .
f~;:i.,;;...~,;~""~ 1 ..
--:~;- :~ ~\~:
K
'" "',.
1;~-t:D
soli
-c -t;;;
3(rvrt--
ill
I
,'~~
~u I_~
..,: ,::~: ~ ::~" 1; :: ,:
I,
~~~.~
;~i::;
!i;;~: ; '".~.
:;",
...",.':':(,
:', ;";'~~~:;:~-f"
"
'N'r:;!> ' , ,[
,j~ "
<.:.::
,.,
i'n
....
I
:IE
1'1
~
It If',
:!,~~,:~'
7
1 l_
:'--.\.;,/:;;ii:
"C-:\~'I_
::0
,.,
(')
s;
it
1'1
C
".t~,,;
'i!:,
- ~ ~- -,~ .
~ ;J;
~
1'1
::0
1
.!
-:';..>.,"
.;;:-::'>:.__._.:<~.,;':.
'(',:,,
-',-
) l.:..~
Z
-I
1'1
::0
(')
o
z
Z
1'1
~
(5
z
->1
-~~=--'=';
~;.,...-
------~~
~~~
::>
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10-6
Project Phasing of Proposed RCW Projects
through 2020
RCW Demand Construction
Service Project in Service Area Begins
Area Name (gpd) Cost
East-West Interconnect 2003 $2,800,000
1 Seville 332,035 2004 $1,219,516
East APCF Pump Station 2004 $1,300,000
2 Del Oro Groves 800,731 2005 $3,351,211
3 Morningside 959,772 ....... 2006 $4,187,121
5 MGStorage @ Air Park .. 2007 $1,200,000
..
4 Skycrest 643,889 ......... 2007 .. $2,828,143
5 Coachman Ridge 556,707 2008 $2,664,856
6 Enterprise 825,619 2009 $3,996,340
.
7 East Drew Street 327,070 ... 2010 $1,651,821
8 Countryside South 942,576 2011 $4,792,774
9 Lake Park 599,763 2012 $3,049,740
7.5 MG Sto~age @ NE APCF 2012 $1,500,000
10 South Betty Lane 751,655 2013 $3,857,809
...
11 Countryside North 942,576 2014 $4,974,139
12 North Greenwood 820,717 I 2015 $4,465,728
13 .. North Hercules 466,326 2016 $2,549,043
14 County Club Estates 675,477 2017 $3,728,052
15 Clearwater High 714,293 2018 $4,487,832
16 Glen Oaks 625,843 2019 $4,180,746
17 North Belcher 622,077 I 2020 $4,315,117
Total 10,966,091 I $62,465,774
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 36
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10-7
Cumulative Reclaimed Water Demand
Total RCW Cumulative
Service Name Construction Demand in RCW Demand
Area Begins Service Area (MGD)
(gpd)
- Existing RCW Service Areas - 2,500,000 2,500,000
- Pinellas County RCW Demand - 3,000,000 5,500,000
- Drew - Union Street - 550,000 6,050,000
- Harbor Oaks - 1,088,863 7,138,863
1 Seville 2004 332,035 7,470,898
2 Del Oro Groves 2005 800,731 8,271,629
3 Morningside 2006 959,772 9,231,401
4 Skycrest 2007 643,889 9,875,290
5 Coachman Ridge 2008 556,707 10,431,997
6 Enterprise , 2009 825,619 11,257,616
',', , '",,' 327,070
7 East Drew Street 2010 11,584,686
8 Countryside South 2011 942,576 12,527,262
"
9 Lake Park 2012 599,763 13,127,025
.
10 South Betty Lane 2013 751,655 13,878,680
11 Countryside North 2014 942,576 14,821,256
12 North Greenwood 2015 820,717 15,641,973
13 North Hercules 2016 466,326 16,108,299
14 County Club Estates 2017 675,477 16,783,776
15 Clearwater High 2018 714,293 17,498,069
16 Glen Oaks 2019 625,843 18,123,912
17 North Belcher 2020 622,077 18,745,989
Total= 18,745,989
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 37
I
I
I
co
-~----;l T'"'"
0
N
~,
0
f/) LL
== -
0 c:
U. "0 Cll <0
c: a.. T'"'"
- Cll 0
c E - N
c:
~ <1> <1>
a. 0 E
..... -
- Cll
C <1> <1>
-
CD Cll ..... "<t
E S l- T'"'"
..... 0
- <1> N
C'G -
CD Cll
... ~
I- <1>
-
... (/)
CD Cll N
- S
C'G T'"'"
0
== N
CD
-
f/)
M C'G
I ;:
0 0 "-
or- "0 T'"'" ~
W c 0 CIJ
n:: C'G N >-
::> "0
C) C
U. C'G
E CO
CD 0
C 0
N
...
<1>
-
C'G
;:
"0 <0
0
CD 0
E N
C'G
(.)
CD
n:: "<t
"0 0
0
CD N
-
(.)
CD
.0
...
a. N
0
0
N
o
N
o
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l!)
N
o
N
l!)
o
l!)
o
o
o
ON
aE>W
I
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.0 ZERO DISCHARGE ALTERNATIVES
The City of Clearwater is investigating options that would eliminate discharge from its advanced
wastewater treatment facilities to surface waters. Currently, the Marshall Street APCF
discharges treated wastewater into Stevenson Creek, which flows to Clearwater Harbor, and the
Northeast and East APCFs discharge to Old Tampa Bay.
Several options for a zero discharge system were considered including land application for large
users (e.g. golf courses, parks), high rate land application (i.e. spray fields), rapid infiltration
basins (RIBS), bulk sale of reclaimed water to Pinellas County and / or other municipalities,
storage basins or tanks, and aquifer storage and recovery. It is recommended that the City
retain its two surface water discharge permits for emergency discharge of treated ~astewater in
the event severe wet weather occurs or operational difficulties with the zero discharge
alternatives are encountered.
Achieving zero discharge during the wet weather events will be challenging for several reasons
- wastewater flows to the treatmentfacilities generally increase during wet weather events due
to infiltration and inflow in the collection system, and the urban reclaimed water system users
will likely not demand reclaimed water during wet weather events. The City is currently
evaluating their sanitary sewer collection system in an effort to reduce infiltration and inflow.
Zero discharge can be achieved by storing the reclaimed water unused during wet weather.
This stored reclaimed water can.then be utilized during the dry season to supplement the
reclaimed water produced by the wastewater treatment facilities to meet demand.
11.1 land Application
Several sites in the City have been identified as areas to receive reclaimed water at set
irrigation rates. These areas are divided into slow-rate land application areas (public
access and restricted public access areas) and rapid-rate land application areas.
11.1.1 Slow-Rate Land Application, Public Access Areas
The slow-rate land application, public access areas are generally open space
areas utilized by the public for recreation or other uses (e.g. golf courses, parks,
sports fields) and are projected to utilize an average of 1" per week of reclaimed
water. Currently, the City provides reclaimed water to slow-rate land application,
public access areas including Memorial Causeway, Coachman Park, Jack
Russell Stadium, Philip Jones Field, Countryside Golf Course, Chi Chi Rodriquez
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Golf Course, Driving Range at Countryside, and Countryside Sports Complex.
The City has received cooperative funding from the Southwest Florida Water
Management District (SWFWMD) for projects that will provide reclaimed water to
the following slow-rate land application, public access areas:' Chesapeake Field,
Eddie C. Moore Complex, St. Petersburg Junior College, Carpenter Field, and
Sylvan Abbey Memorial Park Cemetery.
Other areas have been identified in the City that meet the criteria for slow-rate
land application, public access areas. The areas are shown on Figure 11-1 and
include the following: Clearwater Air Park Golf Course, Countryside Executive
Golf Course, Glen Oaks Golf Course, David Martin Soccer Field, Sid Lickton
Park, Crest Lake Park, Ed Wright Park, RossN6rtol1Complex, and. Clearwater
Municipal Cemetery. The total acreage for these slow-rate land application areas
is estimated to be 370 acres. Using the land application rate of 1" per week, it is
estimated that approximately 1.42 MGD can be utilized by these areas.
11.1.2 Slow-Rate Land Application, Restricted Public Access (Spray
Irrigation)
Two areas within the City of Clearwater that have been identified for slow-rate
land application, restricted public access are Florida Power Corporation's Power
Line Right of Ways (ROWs) and greenspace areas at the Northeast APCF.
These areas are identified on Figure 11-1. An option that has been evaluated is
a spray irrigation system with an application rate of 2" per week for the areas
discussed above. The 2" per week application rate is the conservative maximum
annual hydraulic loading rate recommended in F.A.C. 62-610, Reuse of
Reclaimed Water and Land Application. The Florida Power Corporation ROWs
and Northeast APCF areas total approximately 176 acres, which equates to an
application of approximately 1.37 MGD.
11.1.3 Rapid-Rate Land Application (Rapid Infiltration Basins)
McKim & Creed has identified Florida Power Corporation's Power Line ROWs
and greenspace areas at the Northeast APCF appropriate for rapid-rate land
application. Rapid infiltration basins (RIBS) are a rapid-rate land application
option and allow for an application rate greater than spray irrigation. For this
report, McKim & Creed utilized an average application rate of 3" per day as
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 40
I I r
@ :; n
Cl
n
z
>'" >'" "'tI) tI) W:oEO 0
"'''' "'''' >" r O>:::j
",0 1'10 ,,'" 0 ~;:;j-<
>r >r -> :oE ~
> > 1'-< I 0':::00 ;:;
w~ "'~ "'- '" >",'1
Om >", >'" > "''-''0
Co Zo -<~ -< -<:;or
z ^ '" ~ ~
0:;: z:;: "'G"l <1'1
>> G"l> r> r O~ ~ ~
"'-< -< >" > '-":;: -
-<'" '" zO z z
'" '" OZ 0 >> ~ @
:;0-<
tI) tI) >0 > ,-.,1'1
'" '" "", " >'"
'" '" " "
< < C r ~
0 0 0 0
1'1 1'1 > >
-<
=! 0
0 Z .~
Z
~uII
(01
.,(,{~
Q l?,
---i
-<
0
.,.,
[)
r t:ll
fTl ~
)>
;0
::;;:
)>
---i
fTl -U
;0 ;;0
0
-U
0
'"
-< ,-.,
fTl 0
)>
;0 r;
tv Z
0 0
0
0 )>
-U
;0 -U
fTl '=
[) ()
r )>
:;: :j
s:: 0
fTl Z ~
0
::;;: )>
;;0 0
)> fTl
---i >
fTl Vl
;0
(f)
-<
(f)
---i
fTl
s::
;0
fTl
~
fTl
::;;:
~!""'c".
_ "~'C_;_- __,'~ ,__ ',. _,."
~ '1" . 'c
'--1" "'-'-"'~"-"-:'::T:
J, ,~....,.,',B
\.. . 'tJ" ,'. ~---.
i 'J'I,,: '
)
i ~llIi
JI ~~~~
r i
J. " r~
I :::> . 121 \\
\ '6'>-,\ 0 '.' Ii
\'{......, ..'~~==~. Jt
'~'< '. ~ (-'~
\ "~ '.', ~'"
" \ / ''\,
! l( ~
''''.\. ~t (,\/l."
. ~ ' ,
'1\' \ ~ k;"
\)~ ~ '-e~
i 1\ 1i.
1\\
I
i
'"
,<//
,/
/:/
#
-;~ ,f'
~......v::
,"/F- -r (
/-
.J~/'
/~
/
~/
I ;:)
/
i
/'''
///">
/
,r'----i
.J
/--::(0
\,<,;::>.\8
'..".-~~
r .~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
discussed in F.A.C. 62-610. It is projected that the RIBS will cover an area of
approximately 45 acres within Florida Power Corporation's ROWs, which
equates to an application of approximately 3.67 MGD. The RIBS are proposed
to be located between the power line towers, sized approximately 700 feet by
140 feet with a four foot high berm. Within the Northeast APCF property, RIBS
are estimated to cover 21.7 acres, which equates to an application of 1.77 MGD.
The total reclaimed water volume handled by the RIBS system is estimated to be
5.4 MGD.
The table below is a comparison of the land application systems within Florida
Power Corporation's ROWs and at the Northeast APCF.
Table 11-1
Land Application within Florida Power Corporation's ROWs and at Northeast APCF
Application Application Volume Estimated Cost Capital
Method Rate Acreage Discharged (in millions) Cost per
(MGD) gallon
System = $2.3
Spray Irrigation 2" I week 176 1,37 Land = $4.5 $4.97
Total = $6.8
Rapid Infiltration System = $4.1
3" I day 66.7 5.4 Land = $4.5 $1.60
Basins (RIBS) Total = $8.6
11.2 Bulk Sale or Purchase of Reclaimed Water
The bulk sale of reclaimed water to other municipalities is an option for the City. The
City is currently contracted to deliver 3 MGD of reclaimed water from the Northeast
APCF to Pinellas County for a 12 year period.
The City of Clearwater may want to consider an emergency reclaimed water connection
with another municipality. This connection would allow the City to serve its reclaimed
water customers during severe dry weather conditions or in the event that the reclaimed
water produced by the City fails to meet FDEP's water quality regulations. A connection
with the City of Largo has been identified as a possible connection as shown in Figure
11-2. This connection is approximately 7 miles long and is proposed to be 24-inch pipe.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 42
FlU: O.
t I . I
.
I .
I .
0 C! '" >f;
!l 2 ~ ~~
~ ill 2 =<!{B ~
c;)
i ! ill '"ll
~ i ~
:if !::
-! a ::l
~ 2
8::e ~ 8
z ~
~ g Z
-! !:: !::' ~
;e > ,....
z :if
I
I
I
J
:Ui"
o
~
o
...
o
~
:tl
~
-!
'"
:tl
I
'"
o
o
o
:tl.
1"'1
o
>
i:
1"'1
o
:e
~
1"'1
:tl
III
~
;;:l
~
i:
"
~
,.,
~
1"'1
Z
....
III
o
::;;
)>
~
....
1"'1
~
>
:tl
C)
o
C'1 /'
= ;llr]rlr'~ ':!~f;,~~; j";" I /? i~il~
'=,I "i""i' ,I. I, ",/..'.' u~~ "r-'" " !lll, ~nlll
r:."'~c:~~~:I'" Y"'" , , ~t, ,,' "
~-~ '"I'" Ir, ~I-'i "',", '~' '" "" " ~
~ ~~r~li(> iL? "",' ':~;; I:,} :~. ;.. fA'"
c"""'c"IUI,",,~_ """ , , ". ....11.." ':;:;"1, ~I ~J
1~=~;~:J~:~I:ll';lrcl""'" I ,>s, :,-,~, ":,"e...." 'Ie: [,::;:r ,i,"'", ",~ "
I"""'"" ~rd " "10.,. 'I' ,I ' ,- ""', 'r. " ",r ,'I ," , '," "" " " ~, . ~
E', 1:.:,",,, ,,""'Ir':, ',,', "",,,~ , '"I ',r" "" ,? ,r. ' '" , ': "', "
I .., "'''~!I!I,lUr r il~~, 'C": ' , ',,,, :,,1 '",I' I ],~ :',' , , '"
~I',a ~;~;ill~I~~~*~~+~;':~~'~;':;i:~~, .,~:,f~:i' .. -~.l:.!~~" ' I~.J .,
~2J .i':'I'~I,;!~'rp'*~~i;(j: :E':::o~'ij!~g-~I:~Ulo!:,Ut~I:lu", ".Jf:='~~>, ':~~,~;,:~ ]'1 ,,~giJ 1:., '_~' < f I: ,J~, _ -:~II~ \j ii" _
'n ]i,: JUUl,!L, IU',,__ I ,C-:5I=:::J~~I\lll '''I '0""',"'" """, ''<'''1..'''. ""'r;. 1'1'1"'4<'", i' ". ,J' J
-11~llli':I: ili::I, I!~ :UljilllfL1\ :~~-=J~~(']~,~ gffi~j)~r),,'::m"~~p;'m~~ij~;li!:iiij :'~I:I~::r'l:~6 j~~~,~~ 1[1~UQ,;lli! ~ 'i,:ll:':.. (
I "II I,' , 'C_..:J''C ---n'["n" '2i~"III'--, ~l' ", ,_ --J"."_,, I T'NJJIi. 'j,,, Ii ' ., , "Ir~
JILFJ" ",JJ'"",c~ i: - '"",j""ll 1- F '~)I'1I~,]I ~t,,~ 1C"'~1r ;-' :i>l' , ", j~ '-'r ) ,d:~, '-I, ';', niil~'~':' '\ I
~,2C"'~""[ 'l:C"~s:II'I~~~irllllOlil=.1;,2;("__rT "I ,JIJ'f ;11 ~t,i, IL~I~IUI:uk.:~ ='~lnf'I[CIIIIJt.~,: "I.".. [
o_=c::J.."__.-,, 2~"I'Ii'C';/j_) J " J --U UU, (~1rD(J[~ ::J---....'L'I.:_Ir::J ~'I' "~J[)I
- ~~:EI~J~D~1~-j:II'lb~~~o~n-~ln~~IQo~filll~f.~__ i{~~ri;[lg~Brllrb ;"",,>":;':' ;;,1 '~'J,!", '",; , ",,'I
~'fuU:'&u;"~~1f;;j !~"'",I:!UIiii,:(jjJiJ!IU ';"~,ij~'f'::1"":;,,,,;c; _ ,:', ""JI:'=-:=~~:-o~!~"J, ~I..J: ' j,
j~nonnl 'lit JDITfITL.:::) 11'-:=-::'~5C:;:]11n~I[W"_-:; l I ~; / ~-=-="'"~I[I_ c C:':-3:),:" [,_L':)~ J..
UU :.ILw ~""-Ilr"lnl"'~b"" """ ',,=_" '", "'" ',~ 'I
Ii' 'I'i ';'1' I'" ,I' "":0051' ~dj"Ul"" '"u" '~ti'!!!!!'1\~!L:11: 1\(", ","")C'!" 'II' ,
1'111 I UJ" _L iI:~:~~---&~=~---lIr'1'li"'~f'<j~~,~ i'::'::;:-, , i,!,;,,~,~~;~ '~~,d~c~,,=! ,,' I ',I
' ,0' ,r,-'~"!F' ~ c, "I"," ",,'~ "', "." 'it!"" I
'''=c,,, c'" -~, '[n' '" ,c, d ," ,,",'. ice'- "'" , ~ '" _ _ ,
~ C' ',"-, ::;:,:..., "'" ",g E;c'fj;;:.~1 ~c;'K'"",""" " 'c",~ '.;; , "~ l' '
==----=: ~=: i' lFr=:',s ~~cf~~'iril:":';~r.;-U;~ll ,_ ':~oC'''jll; ''''':' l 'rill __~~ ',.~~
'C- .,' "" ,,"'p iI""",,, 'J" ",' , ,"'" =_" , , _", _ '~"'"".,., ,
"'L" ,.~~"" \WjiIDtrul "GOO!, i ':;'--': ~ :,'J J:" '" ': ,!; 11"" ~'~", ~
"I,' 1 J'. '" I, ' 'Mln UflflllITnl][11,11r' \l:I~~, _ J c--- ~ - . ~I.sil:ii ::1 ~,I:::(,(,'jf.'aE , [ file.
~~ji)~:~~"~~ ~1~i~~~~~;':~i:,.:l:~ili':~;;~l~~ '~lt )1' :':-'11:, l '~,:j,
11]-" """,! ''''''II':" I .",,, "c, ", "\('-"" '", ',,, 'T' ". '9"1"",
!l~~I~j !!,r~~:'.'~:']~::~~hl~f~'Ht~a~i'
"':J.="",,,J_',,'-,,2'.c:..c~~ '= fG',U,11 :0, '," It"",,'l ~ffr",.. ~ , i"J!,' .'
'''"''''''''''' I.""", "'i~ ,.., Ho Hi v, Y,0;jIC,,,,,.,,
.,>" ,', '-, .-- 1""='''"'71'''' ..,,' """ ,I,,;,. "'AI ",:"" ,{J.:l1
\1" "r"rC,:C:,;,:", Lj:e1'! '\ ,O'i,,"'{i",1' ,r" " ", 'iJ:j:, [~;i, ", 'I,~,'",('/,'",.,;' "~/,'.,:,,.;: '~:": _:'
II ,I!"", 'I""" I, "u' I ~"C",,,,];] ,'" '~"'" I ,,' ,L" ~"'~ .
!i~, .~,.~'hl ;!i~;~~t~i~ti '~'r{~~~;+".!i'1j[~-l~''';''''~
"", c" " , "
'~'~#~, . ~\L ~
' '''~~~\-'<..!~
h!l """<) "'\
-< ~
~~~
:tl
1"'1
C'1
~
i:
J'Tl
o
:e
~
1"'1
:tl
z
~
::u
(')
o
:z
z
1"'1
~
c
f~.."."-,.,
..; :'.,' -':.'::--..----.
-'/~~ -
,~_. I" Ii
-I;~'/ ! I
.l" I
~, ..,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The approximate cost for this pipeline is $4.62 million. The total cost will be
approximately $5 million with the addition of high service pumps at Largo's wastewater
treatment plant. As an example of cost per gallon, if the City receives 3 MGD through
this connection, then the capital cost is approximately $1.67 / gallon.
11.3 Storage Basins or Tanks
Section 8 provides a discussion of the seasonal variations in the availability of reclaimed
water and the reclaimed water demand by customers. Based on the current average
reclaimed water availability of 15.4 MGD and assuming a fully developed urban
reclaimed water system, it is estimated that 820 MG of reclaimed water would need to
be stored during the year to achieve zero discharge. Assuming a berm height of 40 feet
for a lined storage pond, the City would need a minimum of 117 acres to store 820 MG
of reclaimed water. The size of this pond is illustrated on Figure 11-3.
The total cost of the pond including the pond, pumping facilities, piping, engineering and
permitting is estimated to be $52 million. Thisinclu<jes $32 million for the pond
(including the pond, pumping facilities, and piping), $12 million for purchasing urban,
vacant property (approximately $100,000 per acre), and $8 million for engineering and
permitting costs.
Section 9 is a discussion of the storage requirements for three different scenarios in the
year 2020, including storage for a fully developed urban reclaimed water system (1.1
BG), storage for a fully developed urban reclaimed water system with 3 MGD sold to
Pinellas County and 5.4 MGD discharged to the RIBs system (600 MG), and storage for
a fully developed urban reclaimed water system with 3 MGD sold to Pinellas County
(900 MG).
The quantity of reclaimed water required to be stored is at a maximum when the
reclaimed water is used primarily for the urban reclaimed water system. This is due to
the seasonal variations in reclaimed water demand (more demand during the dry season
and less demand in the wet season). The quantity of reclaimed water storage is
reduced as more reclaimed water is discharged at a constant rate, such as to a land
application system or a buyer.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 44
FILE NO. 0992 GS C1TYlo1AP2 2 01
I ,-
rTl
(8) 'I GJ
f~ rTl
Z
fTl '1)> tIJ:EQ 0
)>00 )>00 X )>0 0)>-<
oom oom Vi 0< C+-<
mo fTlO c~ 2m
)>, )>, -< 0000
)> )> z :<!~ )> '1
W'" 00", '" :::u~o
Om )>m 0 -<00,
Co 20 00 <m
^ m "
2 z~ 0 -)>
0::;: , 0 000
)>)> , m::;:
"'-< )> ,
~~ m '" C )>)>
00 m -< 00-<
0 0 mm
[!) [!) 2 )>00
m m ::;:
00 00 :>- 0
< os: -< 0
(') 0 m 2
m m 00 -<
[!) 00
0
-< ,
[!)
-<
m
'"
~uIf
~~
Q~~
~,
Q
--I
-<
0
rTl
0 '"
,-
rTl ~
)>
::0
::;::
)>
--I
[Tl
::0 :;0
[Tl
0
,-
)>
-< ~
[Tl [Tl
)> 0
::0
N ::;::
)>
0 --I
0 [Tl
0 :;0
::0 (J)
[Tl --I
0 0
r :;0
)> )>
~ G">
"., [Tl
0 -U
::;:: 0
)> Z
r;:j 0
::0
U'I
-<
U'I
--I
".,
;;::
::0
".,
:0;
".,
::;::
llqlli
J i~,",
r
I
u..
8
1-
,'_n_:_-,__, [,j
~.'..'......"..'..',...........-j.'
!I ic .'
!l
::~,,~j~
rf~" .
;! ~&~ e
I' '-~ . . H .-c-.~
I \', 'I . J-r-'-.,. .ii,
. ',i~~","-;I'
/ ,Y ~LI e
f' '~
.,.,.. ~..' ,f ~
~ '--/il >~ :.~!
Ilh8.11
l\~'~~~~l ~
:~~ :\\~~':~~~J~\
~,,= \\~'..! "'", "\
=tn-t \'1 '\ /'
-< \ ,{
',\1
:11\
'i.\\ ~
f1D
'.
"\"'l;
','I
:, \ ~
~ """.".
~~~'
~~~
~~
~ $
~ ~
~ -~
((J/
r ~i
l~
~ . /,-=-,i
I' p'" I
II' ,,/
'A/
~\\
U ,;- ~~ I,
, '-1
--:::::::-:c-'-.J
z
~ ~
~
,;
~
dl~
n...,."
"
~
"~i .............. !"",,~~=)J
':':m::~! _:' ,-'-> , <: i/
,,~
i ........../': 'j
'~II'
:;-~~ -J,- IL-J'
~~-'-~-'._--_.-
~
i
'"
!U= "'
~%" I
~{~,~\ :
j' ~z I
, I
fl.__~. ~~
p/
~<//
/:::;>~
//
//
----{?
-r/'" ~
~~:!l
e"i1i
Sn~
-C CIO
.,oj
;
/
\-
:;ti
' ~
\ /',
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.4 Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is a technology for storing reclaimed water, surface
water, or potable water underground. Several ASR projects are ongoing in the Tampa
Bay area.
An ASR system for reclaimed water is proposed in Hillsborough County. The ASR
application for one ASR well has been approved by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP). Testing will be completed on the well prior to
approval of other ASR wells.
The City of St. Petersburg has an expansive reclaimed water system and is pursuing
ASR wells to store reclaimed water. They have received approval from theFDEP to drill
and test one ASR well, and may be allowed by the FDEP to install and test future ASR
wells based on the test results of this initial well. The well is expected to be drilled in
early 2001 and will be cycle tested for two years. The feasibility and application process
has taken three years to cOlTlplete. A total of five years will have transpired from the
start of this one ASR well approval process through the cycle testing.
SWFWMD is investigating the potential for reclaimed water ASR wells in the Pinellas
County area and their consultant is currently preparing a document discussing that
issue. SWFWMD has cooperative funding for ASR projects so it may be possible to
obtain co-funding from them for feasibility studies, design, permitting, construction and
well testing.
It is estimated that costs for reclaimed water ASR capacity are $700,000 for the first
MGD. Beyond the first MGD, it is expected that the ASR cost will be $500,000 per
MGD. Further investigation of an ASR system is necessary to evaluate the potential
ASR capacity of the aquifer system within the City.
In addition, the City may wish to consider storing excess water from Alligator Creek in an
ASR system for augmenting the reclaimed water supply or potable water supply. That
prospect would require further evaluation of the Alligator Creek watershed and seasonal
creek flows.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 46
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11.5 Wet Weather Discharge
In severe wet weather events, it is expected that high wastewater flows will enter the
City's three wastewater treatment facilities and that the City will not be able to discharge
all of the treated water (reclaimed water) to land application sites. McKim & Creed
recommends that the City maintain the existing surface water discharge points as
emergency discharge points.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 47
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12.0 SCENARIOS
Three scenarios have been developed for comparing approaches the City may wish to consider
when developing its reclaimed water system. The basic components of these scenarios are
described below and are a balance of the options discussed above.
12.1 Scenario 1 -Urban Reclaimed Water System, Surface Water
Discharge
Scenario 1 includes building out the reclaimed water system such that the seasonal
peak demand is equal to the projected reclaimed water availability of 20 MGD in 2020.
This scenario includes providing 3 MGD to Pinellas County as part of the 12 year
reclaimed water agreement and assumes that 3 MGD will be provided through 2020.
Figure 12-1 shows this scenario and indicates that the average reclaimed water demand
is approximately 13 MGD, with a peaking factor of about 1.5. About..10MGD of
reclaimed water will be available for the City's urban reclaimed water system and 3 MGD
will be allocated to Pinellas County. It is estimated that 2.6 BG per year of excess
reclaimed water will be discharged to surface waters llnderthis scenario.
Table 10-7 indicates thatre91aimed water can be delivered to the existing service areas
and to the proposed r~c1ail11~dwater service areas through the Lake Park project at the
average 13 MGD reclaimed water demand. An advantage of this scenario is that the
City will not need to construct additional storage facilities (e.g. storage tanks, ponds,
ASR system) to store reclaimed water to meet seasonal demand. A disadvantage is that
excess reclail11ed water will be discharged to surface waters and the resource will not be
utilized for future reclaimed water projects. Estimated costs for this scenario are
$33,100,000.
The issue of greatest concern related to operating a surface water discharge is meeting
surface water discharge standards. These standards will likely become more stringent
in the future as more constituents of concern are monitored. The City received their
renewed surface water discharge permits for Stevenson Creek and Old Tampa Bay
outfalls in 2000. These renewed permits include discharge standards for constituents
that have not been enforced in the past, namely copper and trihalomethanes (THMs).
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
()
Q)
0
- >
en ~-
I "'0 I 0
m c: I Z
- co
- E
CI) Q)
C 0 0
a. '-
(9 Q) ....
co ()
0 :2: :s: 0
...
C 0 "'C
N Q)
C) II E
::2: :>. .ro c...
U
:=: I Q) Q)
M .c 0:: (f)
CO >-
E :c
'"C CO I "E
c: CI) > 0
... <( ::2: 0)
en
CO >- ~ "'C :J
Q) <(
E CJ) t) 13
Q)
C e:::: .0'
(1) m Q) 0:
C .c
"t""" ... 0) +
CO :J
I ... 0 :J ..... ....,
N N Q) oJ::
(1) 0 > -
"t""" 0 ... <( r:::
.....
CO N c 0
(1) ~ C) c :!:
... ... ::2: :J
~ CO ....,
C)'"C (1) 0
-
.- (1) >- -
LL c >-
E CO
C) :2:
.- ::2:
CO
- M
(.) -
(1) II .....
c...
0:: "C <(
C
m
E
CI) .....
c CO
3: :2:
U
0:: .c
CI) Q)
en LL
m
...
CI)
>
< C
CO
....,
L() 0 L() 0 L() 0
N N ....... ......
(a~w)
MOI:l JaleM paW!el:>a~ a6eJaA't
-,-----~_._-- --..---.,.------------'
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 49
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City is investigating the corrosion potential of their potable water, and whether
improvements to potable water quality will improve the quality of the wastewater. The
City's and County's potable water is slightly aggressive and causes corrosion of the
potable water distribution system piping and to a limited extent, corrosion of the
wastewater collection system piping. Corrosion of the piping may result in constituents
of concern being dissolved into the water and wastewater, eventually leading to the
wastewater treatment plants. If it is determined that improvements to potable water
quality do not improve the quality of the wastewater, then reductions in the amount of
constituents in the wastewater may be required at the wastewater treatlTl~nt facilities.
Costs for improvements to either potable water treatment or wastewater treatment have
not been determined at this time.
12.2 Scenario 2 - 5.4 MGD to RIBS, 3 MGD toPinellas Co., Urbcln RCW
System, Zero Discharge
Scenario 2 includes discharging 5.4 MGD to a rapid infiltration basin (RIB) system,
selling 3 MGD to Pinellas County, developing the City's:prban reclaimed water system
(11.6 MGD), and having no discharge of reclaimed water to surface waters except
during extreme wet weather conditions. The advantage of discharging reclaimed water
to the f3JBsystem andProVi~ing'V)(ater to Pinellas County is that the water is utilized at a
cgnstant ratewhich,diminishes the magnitude of the reclaimed water demand variations
during the year (i.e.high,.demand during dry weather months and low demand during
wet weather months). In addition, a RIB system may enhance the surficial aquifer
system by providing a constant source of recharge.
Based on an 11.6 MGD availability for urban reclaimed water customers, the City would
be able to develop the reclaimed water system through the East Drew Street project as
shown in Table 10-7. At an average reclaimed water availability of 20 MGD in the year
2020, the City will need to store at least 600 MG of reclaimed water to accommodate the
seasonal urban demand during the year. The projected annual variation in reclaimed
water demand is shown in Figure 9-2. The costs associated with this scenario are
provided in Table 12-1.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 12-1
Scenario 2 Capital Costs
Action Cost
5.4 MGD to RIB System $8,600,000
3 MGD to Pinellas County -
Urban RCW System (11.6 MGD) $25,200,000
600 MG Aboveground Storage $40,000,000
Total (20 MGD in year 2020)= $73,800,000
It is estimated that a storage pond large enough to hold 600 MG would be constructed
on at least 90 acres. It is likely that this amount of contiguous, vacant property is not
available within the City. Therefore, the City may want toconsider an ASR system in
place of or in conjunction with above ground storage. The costs for an ASR system that
could accommodate 600 MG of storage a year is as follows:
Table 12-2
Scenario 2 (wI ASR) Capital Costs
Action Cost
.... .. 5.4 MGD to' RIBSystem $8,600,000
3 MGDto Piriellas County -
..,...... Urban RCW Syster)1 (11.6 MGD) $25,200,000
600MG ASR(max.storage = 6.62 MGD) $6,510,000
Total (20 MGD in year 2020)= $40,310,000
The capital cost savings of Scenario 2 with an ASR system are estimated to be $33
million. Due to this difference in cost, it is recommended that an evaluation of an ASR
system within the City of Clearwater be conducted to determine system feasibility.
12.3 Scenario 3 ~ Urban Reclaimed Water System, Zero Discharge
Scenario 3 includes fully developing the urban reclaimed water system (20 MGD) and
providing for storage of reclaimed water (1.1 BG per year). Full development of the
urban reclaimed water system is defined as providing a yearly average reclaimed water
volume equal to the yearly average volume of treated wastewater. Table 10-7 indicates
that reclaimed water can be delivered to the existing service areas and to the proposed
reclaimed water service areas at least through the North Belcher project.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 51
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Development of this system provides several challenges, including providing
uninterrupted reclaimed water service to customers during those dry weather months
when the demand for reclaimed water is greater than the yearly average reclaimed water
supply. Equally challenging is providing storage for reclaimed water during the wet
weather events when customers reduce their demand for reclaimed water.
As discussed in Section 9.1, the City needs to store 1.1 BG per year for a zero discharge
system. Approximately 160 acres would be necessary to construct a storage pond able
to hold 1.1 BG. A breakdown of the costs for this system are provided below:
Table 12-3
Scenario 3 Capital Costs
Action
Full Development of Urban RCW
System (year 2020)
1.1 BG Above Ground Storage
Total (20 MGDifl'Year2020) =
Cost
$62,500,000
$70,000,000
$132,500,000
Similar to Scenario 2, thE;!<City may want to consider an ASR system to replace or
supplement above ground storage, The costs for the reclaimed water system with ASR
are the following:
Table 12-4
Scenario 3 (wi ASR) Capital Costs
Action Cost
Full Development of Urban RCW $62,500,000
System (year 2020)
BG ASR Storage $10,670,000
(max. storage = 10.94 MGD)
Total (20 MGD in Year 2020) = $73,170,000
The estimated capital cost savings with an ASR system are about $59 million.
As discussed above in Scenario 2, the feasibility of an ASR system would need
to be investigated prior to implementation of a program.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 52
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13.0 CONCLUSIONS
The City's reclaimed water system was evaluated to rank the reclaimed water service areas
established in the Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update (McKim & Creed, 1998) based on a
cost I benefit ratio. The ranking indicates that several of the reclaimed water service areas in
the east portion of the City are priority projects. In order to bring these projects on line, the City
should consider constructing an East-West Interconnection within the next few years due to the
projected deficit of additional reclaimed water from the Northeast APCF as shown in Table 10-5.
This will allow for greater utilization of the reclaimed water from both the Northeastand Marshall
Street APCFs. Additionally, a pump station at the East APCF should be considered shortly after
construction of the East-Westlnterconnection to allow for utilization of reclaimed water from that
facility. Storage facilities at or near the Northeast and Marshall Street APCFs are proposed
within the next 20 years.
Three scenarios for managing the City's reclaimed water were evaluated in Section 12. Of the
three scenarios, Scenario 1 has the least expensive capital costs ($33.1 million). This option
includes building out the reclaimed water system such that the...seasonal peak demand is equal
to the projected reclaimE3d water availability of 20 MGDfn 2020 and providing 3 MGD of
reclaimed water to Pinellas County. Under this option, excess reclaimed water will be
discharged to surface waters.
The estimated capital costs for Scenarios 2 and 3 are greater than for Scenario 1. Scenarios 2
and 3 are zero discharge alternatives, which may become an important issue if surface water
discharge standards..become stringent to the point of requiring additional treatment of the
wastewater prior to discharge. If that is the case, then the costs for additional wastewater
treatment should be compared to the costs for a zero surface water discharge system.
It appears that utilizing an ASR system for storage of reclaimed water can provide cost savings.
Further evaluation of the feasibility of an ASR system is necessary prior to implementation.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 53
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the City continue to build out its reclaimed water system at its current
rate (one service area project per year) and continue to operate its surface water discharges.
This plan will allow the City to minimize the impact to its budget, evaluate the actual reclaimed
water usage of each service area, and be more likely to receive cooperative funding from
SWFWMD since they typically fund one project per municipality per year. It is recommended
that the City follow the reclaimed water service area ranking provided in this report since
SWFWMD ranks cooperative funded projects on a cost I benefit ratio.
While the City is proceeding with its reclaimed water program, it isrecomm~nded that the
feasibility of ASR be evaluated. It is understood that SWFWMDisencouraging municipalities to
evaluate the potential for ASR projects and is providing cooperative funding fOr feasibility
studies and related design, construction, and cycle testing of ASR wells. The lack.ofavailable
land for above ground storage and the potential for more stringent requirements on surface
water discharges supports the recommendation to further evaluate the potential of ASR. Based
on the reclaimed water proJ;c;ts:ndRhasing shown in T~blelO-7 and the availability of
reclaimed water as shown/on Eigure 7-4, it is estimated that the City's peak reclaimed water
demands can be satisfied Withoutsea~~nal storage when the average reclaimed water demand
is no more thah 12 MGD (9fY1GDto urban customers and 3 MGD to Pinellas County). This
would bring reclaimedwatertothe projects listed in Table 10-7 through the Morningside project,
which is projected to begin construction in 2006 and be on line in 2008. Due to the lengthy
evaluation, permitting and ASR well cycle testing process, it is recommended that the City begin
studying the feal?ibjlity of a reclaimed water ASR system. Additionally, the City may wish to
consider pursuing reclaimed water storage projects with other municipalities to help meet
seasonal demands.
For those reclaimed water service areas that are not likely to receive reclaimed water by the
year 2020, the City may wish to consider a shallow well irrigation program. However, a shallow
well program should be investigated carefully since shallow wells generally draw ground water
from the surficial aquifer, which provides some recharge to the Floridan Aquifer. The City and
other users withdraw ground water from the Floridan Aquifer for potable water supply, therefore
the quantity and quality of the ground water in this aquifer system should be preserved as much
as possible.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 54
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
15.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
It is recommended that the City follow the reclaimed water service area implementation program
as shown in Table 10-6. In addition, it is recommended that the City pursue an ASR feasibility
study, which is estimated to cost $150,000. The City should apply for cooperative funding from
SWFWMD for this ASR study.
Review of Reclaimed Water Master Plan Update
0992-0072 February 2001
City of Clearwater
Page 55
THE SOUTHEAST
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OFFICES THROUGHOUT
800 . 743 . 5557
HEADQUARTERS:
243 NORTH FRONT ST. I
WILMINGTON, NC 28401
I
I
I
~MCKIM&CREED I
TEL: 910 . 343 . 1048
FAX: 910 . 251 . 8282